Roman Public Life

Appendix II — A Limitation of the Tribunate in the Reign of Nero

Tacitus in the Annals (xiii. 28, 2), in describing certain limitations on the powers of tribunes and aediles which were introduced in the year 56 A.D., mentions one respecting the tribunate, the nature of which has never yet been explained. He expresses it in the words “prohibiti tribuni jus praetorum et consulum praeripere, aut vocare ex Italia cum quibus lege agi posset”—“the tribunes were forbidden to usurp the authority of praetors and consuls, or to summon out of Italy persons liable to legal proceedings.” It seems generally to be agreed that the aut here is conjunctive, not disjunctive, i.e. that there is the closest connexion between “jus praetorum et consulum praeripere” and “vocare ex Italia,” and it seems that this must be the case; for Tacitus, vague as his references are in this chapter, could never have referred to anything so indeterminate as a “usurpation of the authority of praetors and consuls,” without some specification of the sphere or extent of this usurpation. I shall, therefore, assume that the second clause is explanatory of the first, and that the “summons from Italy” in some way defines the “usurpation”—although, as will be seen, this assumption is by no means necessary to my main argument, which will centre round the expression “vocare ex Italia.”

The remarks of commentators on this passage have been for the most part confined to expressions of bewilderment at the constitutional anomalies it displays. They make the inevitable comment that the tribune had properly no right of vocatio, although he sometimes exercised it (Varro ap. Gell. xiii. 12), and that, if even he possessed this right, it ought not to have been exercised outside the city walls. The only positive fact to be elicited from such statements is that the vocatio here referred to is some kind of personal summons; who is summoned or for what purpose are questions which they seem to regard as incapable of an answer. The opinion of an eminent writer on Roman Law, who attempts to push his analysis deeper than this, exhibits only the desperate nature of the means which have to be applied to elicit a meaning from the passage. Karlowa (Röm. Rechtsgesch. i. p. 530) suggests that the tribunes had allowed accused persons to escape summonses in criminal trials which were to take place before the Senate—the initiation of such trials belonging properly only to the consuls and praetors. He does not seem to feel the obstacles that beset the path to this conclusion. He has to take lege agere in the unusual sense of the legal fulfilment of a penal law; he does not show why Tacitus should have written “vocare ex Italia” in place of the more natural “vocare a senatu”; he fails to remember that the tribunician intercession in a criminal trial before the Senate was, even in the reign of Tiberius, becoming a power of pardon vested in the Princeps, and that its use by an ordinary tribune might bring death to the rash interceder (Tac. Ann. vi. 47; cf. xvi 26).

To discover the true sense of the passage we must seek for some sphere in which the tribunician veto continued unimpaired during the Principate; but, before doing this, we must ask whether the words used by Tacitus offer any suggestions of such a sphere. It is possible to translate the words “vocare ex Italia” as meaning “to summon from any part of Italy,” “to summon, i.e., from Rome and Italy”; but I venture to think that ex Italia excludes the idea of Rome, and that the meaning of the words is “to summon from a municipal town of Italy to Rome.” On what grounds such a summons might be made is shown by the words “cum quibus lege agi posset.” The sphere of the summons is civil jurisdiction in the municipia as divided between the Roman and the local authorities by statute on the settlement which gradually followed the close of the social war—a settlement known to us chiefly through the lex Rubria. The whole sentence, if literally though somewhat clumsily translated, would state that “the tribunes were prohibited from summoning litigants from an Italian town in cases where a civil action at law would have been possible in that town.”

On this hypothesis, the sphere of the tribune’s power referred to is the very familiar one of the veto on appeal in civil jurisdiction. How frequent the appellatio to the tribunes in matters of civil jurisdiction was during the later Republic is shown by the fact that, out of the four private orations of Cicero, two—those for Quinctius and for Tullius—record the use of this appeal (Cic. pro Quinct. 7, 29; pro Tullio 16, 38, 39); and that this appellate cognisance continued during the Principate is shown by the obvious interpretation of the well-known lines of Juvenal (vii. 228)—

Rara tamen merces quae cognitione tribuni
Non egeat—

words which almost certainly mean “it is seldom that such merces does not lead to a court of appeal.”

It may seem strange that the veto of these purely city magistrates should be thought of in connexion with municipal jurisdiction, until we remember the anomalous nature of the settlement made after the social war. By that settlement jurisdiction in Italy is a mere annexe to jurisdiction in Rome; technically it is jurisdiction in Rome, as is shown by Gaius (iv. 103-105), who recognises no interval between the jurisdiction of law intra primum miliarium and the jurisdiction of the imperium in the provinces. The praetor’s formula and the praetor’s writ run through the whole of Italy, although the praetor himself cannot quit Rome for more than ten days during his year of office (Cic. Phil. ii. 13, 31); and, if the appellate power of the tribune was to be preserved, it had to be regarded as coextensive with the imperium, of the magistrate whom he vetoed. The intercession of the tribune in municipal jurisdiction required no creation by law; it was still the veto of one city magistrate by another within the walls of Rome. If even the tribune’s ordinances and his coercitio were valid without the walls, it could be explained in accordance with the prevailing fiction; but the supposition of such an extension is not absolutely necessary, as the following pictures of what probably took place in a conflict between the central and the local courts will show.

Suppose Aulus Agerius brings an action against Numerius Negidius in the town of Arpinum. The local magistrate decides to take the case. Numerius Negidius denies the competence of the court and appeals; to whom? In the first instance, probably to the colleague of the local magistrate, for the lex Rubria (c. xx.) forbids the intercession only in the case where the local court is admittedly competent. This colleague pronounces the veto, the judicium is quashed; all that the local magistrate can now do is to compel the parties to enter into a vadimonium to appear before the praetor, and the case moves to Rome. But supposing, when it has got there, that the praetor decides that it was really within the competence of the municipal magistrate and issues an order that it shall go back? Now Numerius appeals to the tribune. The veto is issued and, if the case is to be tried at all, the praetor is bound to take it.

We can also imagine a case with the same preliminaries in which Numerius appeals to the colleague of the local magistrate against the competence of the local court, but in which this colleague declines to interfere. Is Numerius left stranded? Unquestionably there must have been in such a case a further appeal to Rome, whether to the praetor or perhaps, in this case, to his higher colleague the consul. But the praetor or consul now decides against Numerius. The appeal is made to the tribune, and the decree of the consul or praetor may be quashed. The case, if it is to be tried at all, must be tried at Rome.

In both these instances the tribune pronounces his veto within the city, and yet in both, if his decision is improper, his position is one of “vocare ex Italia cum quibus lege agi posset.” In both cases it is not a true use of magisterial vocatio, and thus one of the difficulties discovered by commentators in this passage is removed; it is simply an illustration of the positive effects of a negative power. Just as the tribune can by a persistent veto force the praetor to alter his formula (Cic. Acad. Prior. ii. 30, 97; pro Tullio 16, 38), so by a persistent denial of the praetor’s orders to the local magistrate he can force the praetor to judge. We do not know the method by which the positive effect of the veto was in this case secured, but it is clear that some means must have been provided for having a municipal action tried at Rome when the municipal court had been declared incompetent.

But, apart from the procedure springing from these rigid rules of competence, there is some evidence of a discretionary power of what is called Romam revocatio, which was exercised and abused by magistrates towards the close of the Republic. The Fragmentum Atestinum (perhaps a part of the lex Rubria) enacts (l. 16 sq.) with reference to municipal jurisdiction—“ejus rei pequn[iaeve] quo magis privato Romae revocatio sit... ex hac lege nihilum rogatur,” i.e. this law does not permit (or imply) a revocatio to Rome in the specified cases. We do not know what magistrate effected this revocatio. With respect to criminal jurisdiction in the provinces, it was the duty of the consuls (Cic. in Verr. i. 33, 84); and, if they exercised this power in civil jurisdiction as well, the jus consulum praeripere of our passage may refer to tribunician interference with this consular prerogative. It may be worth noting that Plutarch (Caes. 4) associates the power with the tribunes; his narrative of this trial of P. Antonius is almost unquestionably wrong, but it may be taken to show that in his belief (i.e. in a belief current during the Principate) the tribunes had something to do with summoning cases to Rome.

Hitherto we have been dealing with the praetor and the judicia ordinaria. Is it possible that the tribune also interfered with the extraordinary jurisdiction created daring the Principate, and thus with the judicial powers of the consuls? The consular jurisdiction in fideicommissa had been given to praetors by Claudius (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 32), but not the whole of it. Quintilian shows that in greater matters it still belonged to the former (Inst. Or. iii. 6, 70 “non debes apud praetorem petere fideicommissum sed apud consules, major enim praetoria cognitione summa est”). If the consuls tried the case when the fideicommissum was very large and the praetors when it was smaller, it is not altogether impossible that the municipal magistrates might have tried local cases when the sum, which was the subject of the trust, was insignificant It is thus possible that questions of the competence of local and Roman magistrates may have cropped up in reference to this question; although I should prefer to explain the jus consulum praeripere of Tacitus on the already mentioned hypotheses of some consular right of vocatio or revocatio in matters of ordinary jurisdiction.

Much must remain obscure; we cannot get at the details of the procedure. All that we can do is to show that there is evidence for the tribune’s interference with the rights of magistrates in matters of municipal jurisdiction, and to suggest methods of interference. Nor can we determine the precise limitations of his authority introduced by the change of A.D. 56. But it clearly took from the tribune the final decision as to when a civil case should be summoned from a municipal town to Rome. Either his intercessio in this matter of municipal jurisdiction was abolished, or his veto was made purely suspensory. In this very chapter of Tacitus we find that the enforcement of the tribunician multa is subjected to the decision of the consul. Similarly, with reference to the power which we have discussed, the urban praetor or the consul may have been declared absolutely competent to decide, after cognisance, when a case should be tried in the local courts and when it should be reserved for the tribunals at Rome.

Footnotes

1 Pagus (connected etymologically with πήγνυμι, pago, pango) implies the idea of “foundation” or “settlement.”

2 Cf. Liv. ii. 62 “Incendiis deinde non villarum modo, sed etiam vicorum, quibus frequenter habitabatur, Sabini exciti.”

3 So Servius Tullius is said, according to one account, to have divided the territory of Rome into twenty-six pagi. Pagus is δῆμος in Greek (Festus p. 72), but this proves little as to its origin; it is the pagus as part of a state that is thus translated. The δῆμος or δᾶμος in Greece had often been (as in Elis) a self-existent community.

4 Liv. ii. 16. Yet even here the Claudia gens is represented as expelled from a civitas.

5 The ancients derived Palatine from the balare or palare of cattle (Festus p. 220) or from the shepherd’s god Pales (Solinus i. 15). It is perhaps derived from the root pa (pasco). See O. Gilbert Geschichte u. Topographie der Stadt Rom in Altertum i. p. 17.

6 Tac. Ann. xii. 24.

7 This tendency is best exhibited in Richter’s map showing the extension of Rome (Baumeister Denkmäler art. “Rom” Karte v.).

8 Festus pp. 340, 341. See Gilbert Topographie i. pp. 38, 162.

9 Varro L.L. v. 45 ff.

10 i.e. in the four city tribes—Palatina (Palatine, Cermalus, Velia), Esquilina (Oppius, Cispius, Fagutal), Suburana or Sucusana (Coelius, Subura), Collina (Quirinalis, Viminalis—a region outside the old Septimontium). See Belot Histoire des Chevaliers Romains i. p. 401.

11 The Sabine origin of the Tities rested perhaps on the Sabine sacra of the sodales Titii (Tac. Ann. i. 54). Cf. the Thracian origin ascribed to the Eumolpidae at Athens on account of the character of their cult.

12 Cic. de Rep. ii. 8, 14 “populumque et suo et Tatii nomine et Lucumonis, qui Romuli socius in Sabino proelio occiderat, in tribus tris... discripserat.”

13 e.g. the manner in which the Ionic tribe-names were imposed at Athens after their primitive signification had been lost.

14 Cf. Niese Grundriss der röm. Gesch. pp. 20 sq.

15 Cincius ap. Festum p. 241 “Patricios Cincius ait in libro de comitiis eos appellari solitos, qui nunc ingenui vocentur.” Cf. Liv. x. 8 (300 B.C.; from the speech of Decius Mus) § 9 “Semper ista audita sunt eadem, penes vos auspicia esse, vos solos gentem habere, vos solos justum imperium et auspicium domi militiaeque”; § 10 “en unquam fando audistis, patricios primo esse factos non de coelo demissos sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est nihil ultra quam ingenuos?”

16 Mr. Strachan-Davidson remarks (Smith Dict. of Antiq. ii. p. 354) that, on the evolution of the rights of the plebeians, these too should have been patricii, but that the word patricius survived as a “token of an arrested development.”

17 Plebs is connected with the root which appears in compleo, impleo, πλῆυος.

18 Liv. i. 28 “populum omnem Albanum Romam traducere in animo est, civitatem dare plebi, primores in patres legere.” Dionysius (ii. 35) represents the people of Caenina and Antemnae as being, after their subjection, enrolled εἰς φυλὰς καὶ φράτρας.

19 Cf. Dionysius’ account of Romulus’ institution of clientship (ii. 9 παρακαταθήκας δὲ ἔδωκε τοῖς πατρικίοις τοὺς δημοτικούς, ἐπίτρεψας ἑκάστῳ... ὃν αὐτὸς ἐβούλετο νέμειν προστάτην... πατρωνείαν ὀνομάσας τὴν προστασίαν).

20 The jus commercii has been read into the relations of Rome with Carthage as depicted in Polybius’ second treaty [Polyb. iii. 24, 12 ἐν Σικελίᾳ, ἧς Καρχηδόνιοι ἐπάρχουσι, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι πάντα καὶ ποιείτω καὶ πωλείτω (the Roman) ὅσα καὶ τῷ πολίτῃ (the Carthaginian) ἔξεστιν]. But jurisdiction here may have been the work of some international court, and the jus commercii, without the jus exulandi, would hardly have made a foreign immigrant a citizen of Rome.

21 Cicero shows that there was a controversy whether applicatio was consistent with exilium (de Orat. i. 39, 177), “Quid? quod item in centumvirali judicio certatum esse accepimus, qui Romam in exilium venisset, cui Romae exulare jus esset, si se ad aliquem quasi patronum applicavisset intestatoque esset mortuus, nonne in ea causa jus applicationis, obscurum sane et ignotum, patefactum in judicio atque illustratum est a patrono?”

22 Zonaras vii. 15. P. Clodius first tried this method; when it was opposed he resorted to the artifice of adoption. Courtly writers imagined a transitio for the plebeian Octavii, Suet. Aug. 2 “Ea gens a Tarquinio Prisco rege inter minores gentes adlecta... mox a Servio Tullio in patricias transducta, procedente tempore ad plebem se contulit.”

23 Liv. ii. 16 (504 B.C.) “Attus Clausus (driven out from Regillum) magna clientium comitatus manu Romam transfugit. His civitas data agerque trans Anienem... Appius inter patres (i.e. the Senate) lectus haud ita multo post in principum dignationem pervenit.” Cf. Suet. Tib. 1.

24 Savigny Recht des Besitzes (7th ed.) p. 202. On the general condition of the client see Ihering Geist des röm. Rechts i. p. 237.

25 Dionys. ii. 9, 10.

26 ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ δίκαια... δίκας λαγχάνειν... τοῖς ἐγκαλοῦσιν ὑπέχειν (Dionys. ii. 10). If representation in the civil courts is meant, it must have resembled that of the paterfamilias, who sues in his own right, for procuratory was unknown in early Roman procedure (Just. Inst. iv. 10 “cum olim in usu fuisset alterius nomine agere non posse”).

27 Verg. Aen. vi. 609 “fraus innexa clienti.” Cf. Servius ad loc.

28 Gell. v. 13 “Conveniebat... ex moribus populi Romani primum juxta parentes locum tenere pupillos debere, fidei tutelaeque nostrae creditos; secundum eos proximum locum clientes habere, qui sese itidem in fidem patrociniumque nostrum dediderunt.” The third place was filled by hospites, the fourth by cognati and adfines.

29 Liv. ii. 56.

30 Suet. Claud. 24 “(Claudius) Appium Caecum censorem (312 B.C.)... libertinorum filios in senatum allegisse docuit; ignarus temporibus Appii (312-280 B.C.) et deinceps aliquamdiu ‘libertinos’ dictos, non ipsos qui manu emitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreates.”

31 Plut. Mar. 5.

32 Festus p. 94 “gentilis dicitur ex eodem genere ortus et (?) is qui simili nomine appellatur.”

33 p. 5.

34 Cic. Top. 6, 29 “Gentiles sunt inter se, qui eodem nomine sunt; qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt; quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit; qui capite non sunt deminuti.”

35 The test is illustrated by a controversy between the patrician Claudii and the plebeian Claudii Marcelli, Cic. de Orat. i. 39, 176 “Quid? qua de re inter Marcellos et Claudios patricios centumviri judicarunt, cum Marcelli ab liberti filio stirpe, Claudii patricii ejusdem hominis hereditatem gente ad se rediisse dicerent, nonne in ea causa fuit oratoribus de toto stirpis et gentilitatis jure dicendum.” Suetonius (Tib. 1) says of the clan of the Claudii Marcelli, as compared with their patrician namesakes, “nec potentia minor nec dignitate.”

36 Liv. x. 8, quoted p. 5.

37 p. 5.

38 Cic. in Verr. i. 45, 115 “Minucius quidam mortuus est ante istum (Verrem) praetorem; ejus testamentum erat nullum. Lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat”; de Leg. ii. 22, 55 “Jam tanta religio est sepulchrorum, ut extra sacra et gentem inferri fas negent esse; idque apud majores nostros A. Torquatus in gente Popilia judicavit.”

39 The theory of the artificial origin of the gens is based on the symmetrical figures given by tradition. The full numbers of the early gentes are given as 300; these are symmetrically divided, ten into each of the thirty curiae, as the curiae are divided into the three original tribes. Hence Niebuhr (Hist. Rome i. p. 319) says, “The numerical scale of the gentes is an irrefragable proof that they were not more ancient than the constitution, but corporations formed by a legislator in harmony with the rest of his scheme.”

40 Niebuhr op. cit. p. 333; from Laelius Felix (ap. Gell. xv. 27) “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, curiata comitia esse” (genus because the assembly came to include Plebeians, some of whom had no gentes).

41 Cic. ad Fam. ix. 21, 2.

42 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 31.

43 Cic. de Rep. ii. 20, 35 “(L. Tarquinius) duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum; et antiquos patres majorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se ascitos minorum”; Liv. i. 35 “(Tarquinius) centum in patres legit; qui deinde minorum gentium sunt appellati.”

44 p. 3.

45 The gentes minores are sometimes identified with the gentes of the last admitted of these tribes, the Luceres (Ortolan Hist. of Roman Law i. § 33).

46 Momms. Hist. of Rome bk. i. ch. v.

47 Liv. i. 30; Dionys. iii. 29.

48 Dionys. ii. 46.

49 Liv. iv. 4 “nobilitatem vestram per cooptationem in patres habetis”; Suet. Tib. 1 “gens Claudia in patricios cooptata.” So Servius and Numa are said to have been transferred by the Populus from the ranks of the δῆμος to those of the πατρίκιοι.

50 As is implied in Suet. Aug. 2 (quoted p. 7).

51 Dionys. v. 13.

52 Liv. ii. 2 “Brutus ad populum tulit ut omnes Tarquiniae gentis exsules essent”; Varro ap. Non. p. 222 “omnes Tarquinios ejicerent, ne quam reditionis per gentilitatem spem haberent.”

53 Suet Tib. 1 “Patricia gens Claudia... orta est ex Regillis, oppido Sabinorum... post reges exactos sexto fere anno, in patricias cooptata. Agrum insuper trans Anienem clientibus, locumque sibi ad sepulturam sub Capitolio, publice accepit.” Cf. Liv. ii. 16 (cited p. 7).

54 Dionys. v. 40.

55 ib. ii. 7.

56 Cic. de Rep. ii. 14, 26.

57 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 23.

58 Varro R.R. i. 10, 2; cf. Plin. H.N. xix. 4.

59 Festus p. 53 “Centuriatus ager in ducena jugera definitus, quia Romulus centenis civibus ducena jugera tribuit.”

60 It is possible, however, that manus in such expressions is merely the symbol of power.

61 “Si adgnatus nec escit gentiles familiam habento.”

62 Suet. Caes. 1, of Caesar’s refusal to divorce Cornelia; as a consequence he was “uxoris dote, et gentiliciis haereditatibus multatus.”

63 p. 10.

64 “Si furiosus escit, ast ei custos nec escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque ejus potestas esto.”

65 Cic. pro Domo 13, 35.

66 Suet. Tib. 1.

67 Cic. Phil. i. 13, 32.

68 Maine Ancient Law pp. 6, 27.

69 Cic. pro Domo 13, 35 “Quas adoptiones (i.e. legal ones)... hereditates nominis, pecuniae, sacrorum secutae sunt. Tu... neque amissis sacris paternis in haec adoptiva venisti. Ita perturbatis sacris, contaminatis gentibus, et quam deseruisti et quam polluisti, etc.”; de Leg. ii. 19, 48 “haec jura pontificum auctoritate consecuta sunt, ut ne morte patris familias sacrorum memoria occideret, iis essent ea adjuncta, ad quos ejusdem morte pecunia venerit.” The transmission was thus a part of jus pontificium, not of jus civile. Cf. Serv. in Aen. ii. 156.

70 Cf. the story of Verginia in Liv. x. 23 (296 B.C.) “Verginiam Auli filiam patriciam plebeio nuptam L. Volumnio consuli matronae, quod e patribus enupsisset, sacris arcuerant.” She then founds an altar to “Pudicitia plebeia,” in imitation of that to “Pudicitia patricia.”

71 ἀνδρὶ κοινωνὸν ἁπάντων χρημάτων τε καὶ ἱερῶν (Dionys. ii. 25).

72 Plut. Qu. Rom. 30 Διὰ τί τὴν νὺμφην εἰσάγοντες λέγειν κελεύουσιν· Ὃπου σὺ Γαΐος ἐγὼ Γαΐα;

73 e.g. a testamentary adoption by a public act in the comitia calata.

74 Familia is etymologically a “household.” Cf. Sanskr. dhâ “to settle,” dhâman “settlement.”

75 The original term was, perhaps, manus signifying “power” (see p. 32), but this word came in course of time to be restricted to the control over the wife who had become a member of the familia.

76 Plutarch (Rom. 22) quotes a law of Romulus allowing the divorce of the wife ἐπὶ φαρμακείᾳ τέκνων ἢ κλειδῶν ὑποβίλῃ καὶ μοιχευθεῖσαν.

77 Dionys. ii. 15.

78 This jus noxae dationis first disappears finally in the law of Justinian (Inst. iv. 8, 7; Dig. 43, 29, 3, 4). Before its abolition a modification had been introduced by the rule that, when the child had acquired an equivalent for the damage he had caused (quantum damni dedit), the owner should be forced to manumit him.

79 Even by Constantine the sale of new-born children (sanguinolenti) was permitted, but only propter nimiam paupertatem (Cod. 4, 43, 2).

80 “Pater si filium ter venum duuit, filius a patre liber esto.” It has been thought, however, that by the time of the Twelve Tables the sale had become merely fictitious.

81 This vindicatio filii was in later Roman law replaced by a writ issued by the praetor (interdictum de liberis exhibendis), the effects of which were like that of Habeas Corpus.

82 Dionys. ii. 26, 27.

83 Gell. v. 19, 9.

84 Hadrian punished the killing of a son with deportation (Dig. 48, 8, 5); Constantine declared it parricidium.

85 Instances are given in Voigt (Zwölf Tafeln ii 94). M. Fabius Buteo (223-218 B.C.) put his son to death as a punishment for theft (Oros. iv. 13), and a certain Pontius Aufidianus his daughter for immorality (Val. Max. vi. 1, 3); there are also instances of banishment inflicted by the father, presumably under the threat of inflicting the death penalty if the children returned.

86 We may cite two instances lying at the very extremes of Republican history, the semi-mythical one of L. Junius Brutus in 509 (Plut. Popl. 6, 7), and the historical one of A. Fulvius Nobilior, who in 63 B.C. put his son to death for partnership in the Catilinarian conspiracy (Sall. Cat. 39).

87 Modern writers are inclined to reject the appeal made to the sexus fragilitas by the Roman jurists, and to believe that the original motive lay in the desire to keep the property of the family together (cf. Czyhlarz Inst. p. 275); but, as this motive did not operate in the case of sons, it is difficult to see why it should have done so in the case of the wife or daughters, apart from a belief in the incapability of women to defend their own claims. For the motive underlying the tutela mulierum see p. 31.

88 p. 16.

89 Ulp. Reg. 12, 2 “Lex xii. Tab. prodigum, cui bonis interdictum est, in curatione jubet esse agnatorum”; cf. Ulp. in Dig. 27, 10, 1 “Lege xii. Tab. prodigo interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio.” There can be no doubt of the antiquity of this interdiction of the “prodigus,” proceeding as it does from the theory that the property belongs to the family rather than to its head; but from what authority it proceeded in the earliest period of Roman history is uncertain.

90 See the account in Val. Max. v. 8, 2 (p. 23) “adhibito propinquoram et amicoram consilio.”

91 Val. Max. ii. 9, 2 “M. Val. Maximus et C. Junius Brutus Bubulcus censores... L. Annium senatu moverunt, quod, quam virginem in matrimonium duxerat, repudiasset, nullo amicorum in consilio adhibito.” See Greenidge Infamia in Roman Law p. 65.

92 Dionys. ii. 26, 27.

93 For the alleged lateness of divorce at Rome, even after the Twelve Tables had freely permitted it, see Gell. iv. 3 (Infamia in Roman Law p. 65).

94 Dig. i. 6, 9 (Pomponius) “filius familias in publicis causis loco patris familias habetur, veluti ut magistratum gerat, ut tutor detur.” Compare the story in Liv. xxiv. 44 (213 B.C.) “Pater filio legatus ad Suessulam in castra venit”—the consul went to meet him; and the old man on horseback passed eleven lictors—“ut consul animadvertere proximum lictorem jussit et is, ut descenderet ex equo, inclamavit, tum demum desiliens, ‘Experiri,’ inquit, ’volui, fili, satin’ scires consulem te esse.” Cf. Gell. ii. 2.

95 Festus s.v. Duicensus (p. 66) “dicebatur cum altero, id est cum filio census.”

96 Probably by a mancipatio fiduciae causa, one, i.e., by which he had formally transferred (mancipavit) his body on the condition that it was not to be seized for a certain time, and that the transfer should be dissolved (solutio nexi) if the debt were paid within this time.

97 Ulpian Reg. 19, 1; Gaius ii. 15. Res mancipi at a later period included lands in Italy (with their servitudes), slaves and quadrupedes quae dorso collove domantur. In the expression familia pecuniaque, “familia” probably denotes the slaves. Pierron (Du sens des mots familia pecuniaque) has shown the theory of Ihering and Cuq, that the former denotes res mancipi, the latter res nec mancipi, to be untenable.

98 Plut. Cato maj. 3.

99 Plut. Cor. 24.

100 See the section on the censor.

101 Paulus in Dig. 28, 2, 11 “in suis heredibus evidentius apparet continuationem dominii eo rem perducere, ut nulla videatur hereditas fuisse, quasi olim hi domini essent, qui etiam vivo patre quodammodo domini existimantur.” What the filius familias acquires by the death of his father is merely libera bonorum administratio.

102 Gell. i. 9 “Tamquam illud fuit anticum consortium, quod jure atque verbo Romano appellabatur ‘ercto non cito’”; Serv. in Aen. viii. 642 “‘citae’ divisae, ut est in jure ‘ercto non cito,’ id est patrimonis vel hereditate non divisa.”

103 Gell. xv. 27 “Isdem comitiis, quae ‘calata’ appellari diximus, et sacrorum detestatio et testamenta fieri solebant. Tria enim genera testamentorum fuisse accepimus; unum, quod calatis comitiis in populi contione fieret, alterum in procinctu, cum viri ad proelium faciendum in aciem vocabantur, tertium per familiae emancipationem, cui aes et libra adhiberetur”; Gaius ii. 101 “aut calatis comitiis faciebant, quae comitia bis in anno testamentis faciendis destinata erant; aut in procinctu, id est, cum belli causa arma sumebant.” Cf. Ulpian (Reg. 20, 2) on the testamentorum genera tria.

104 This testament is never associated with adrogation, although this took place before the same assembly.

105 In Gell. (cited n. 1) it is associated with the sacrorum detestatio (see p. 16), and perhaps this was its main object. The pontiffs and people had to be satisfied that the sacra would be continued and the family not become extinct.

106 See the passages of Gellius, Gaius, and Ulpian, cited n. 1, and compare Festus p. 225 “procincta classis dicebatur, cum exercitus cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus.” In the second century B.C. we find some kind of military testament, called by this name, made by Roman soldiers in Spain (Velleius ii. 5 “facientibus... omnibus in procinctu testamenta, velut ad certam mortem eundum foret”).

107 Gaius ii. 102 “Qui neque calatis comitiis, neque in procinctu testamentum fecerat, is, si subita morte urguebatur, amico familiam suam, id est, patrimonium suum mancipio dabat, eumque rogabat, quod cuique post mortem suam dari vellet.”

108 Gaius ii. 104 “Familiam pecuniamque tuam endo mandatela tutela custodelaque mea, quo tu jure testamentum facere possis secundum legem publicam, hoc aere esto mihi empta.” For familia pecuniaque see p. 24.

109 The stipulation that it was a trust would still have taken the patrimony wholly from the testator during the remainder of his life. We hear nothing about the formal reservation of a life interest.

110 “Cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit ita jus esto.”

111 Gaius ii. 104 “Haec ita, ut in his tabulis cerisque scripta sunt, ita do, ita lego, ita testor, itaque vos, quirites, testimonium mihi perhibetote.”

112 Plut. Comp. Lyc. c. Num. 4 λέγεται γούν ποτε γυναικὸς εἰπούσης δίκην ἰδίαν ἐν ἀγορᾷ πέμψαι τὴν σύγκλητον εἰς θεοῦ, πυνθανομένην, τίνος ἅρα τῇ πόλει σημεῖον εἴη τὸ γεγενημένον.

113 Such as the lex Claudia, which abolished the legitima tutela agnatorum (Gaius i. 171).

114 A trace of the old disability survives in the prohibition of advocacy to women; the praetors declined to grant them a formula on behalf of others. A certain Carfania (Gaia Afrania) “inverecunde postulans et magistratum inquietans” is said to have been the occasion of this rule (Ulp. in Dig. 3, 11, 5).

115 This usage was preserved in the praetor’s edict; he spoke of “qui quaeve... capite deminuti deminutaeve esse dicentur” (Dig. 4, 5, 2, 1), meaning what the later jurists call cap. dem. minima, i.e. loss of familia.

116 See Eisele “Zur Natur u. Geschichte der capitis deminutio” in Beiträge zur Römischen Rechtsgeschichte p. 160. He combats the counter view that capitis dem. meant an annihilation of personality. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. 8) takes this latter view—a natural result of juristic refinement, but a conception that would have been quite unintelligible to a primitive community.

117 Gaius i. 162 “Minima capitis deminutio est, cum et civitas et libertas retinetur, sed status hominis commutator; quod accidit in his qui adoptantur, item in his quae coemptionem faciunt, et in his qui mancipio dantur, quique ex mancipatione manumittuntur.”

118 Liv. i. 32.

119 Gell. i. 12, 14; x. 24, 3.

120 Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. 3, n. 2) connects the word with populari. The magister populi (i.e. the dictator) is master of the infantry host.

121 Varro ap. Dionys. ii 48. Other views derived it from the Sabine town Cures (Varro L.L. v. 51; Strabo v. 3, 1) or connected it with Curia (Lange Röm. Alt. i. p. 89; Belot Hist. d. Chev. Rom. i. p. 312).

122 Suet. Jul. 70.

123 Capito ap. Gell. i. 20 “Plebes... in qua gentes civium patriciae non insunt: plebiscitum... est... lex, quam plebes, non populus, accipit.” Cf. Festus p. 233.

124 According to the primitive conception private are dependent on public rights; see p. 31. But the growth of the Plebs, and alliances with other states, had effected many modifications in this conception.

125 Nonius, s.v. plebitas, p. 101 “Hemina in annalibus, ‘Quicumque propter plebitatem agro publico ejecti sunt.’” Cf. Liv. iv. 48.

126 p. 17.

127 Cic. de Leg. ii. 13, 32 (on the question whether auspices were merely directed to the utilitas of the state, or formed a true method of divination) “si enim deos esse concedimus... et eosdem hominum consulere generi, et posse nobis signa rerum futurarum ostendere; non video cur esse divinationem negem.”

128 Cic. de Div. ii. 33, 70 (the difficulty of answering for results may appeal to a Marsus augur but not to a Roman) “non enim sumus ii nos augures, qui avium reliquorumve signorum observatione futura dicamus.” Cf. i. 58, 132 “Non habeo... nauci Marsum augurem, non vicanos haruspices, non de circo astrologos, non Isiacos conjectores, non interpretes somniorum. Non enim sunt ii aut scientia aut arte divini.”

129 See the treatment of the auspices in the section on the magistracy (p. 163).

130 Strangely enough the Greek belief in oracular or prophetic power did not lead to the conception of a priesthood set apart from the people. But the Greek science of divination, though associated with oracles and prophecy, did not aim much higher than the Roman. Its object was generally to win approval for a contemplated course of action.

131 Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 21 “Quaeque augur injusta, nefasta, vitiosa, dira defixerit, inrita infectaque sunto; quique non paruerit, capital esto.”

132 Serv. ad Aen. vi. 190 “auguria aut oblativa sunt, quae non poscuntur, aut impetrativa, quae optata veniunt.” For the categories of these two kinds of auspices see the discussion of the auspices in the section on the magistracy (p. 162).

133 Liv. vi. 41 “Auspiciis hanc urbem conditam esse, auspiciis bello ac pace, domi militiaeque omnia geri, quis est qui ignoret?”

134 This view is most fully expressed in the formalities of the interregnum. See the section which treats of this institution (p. 147).

135 Cic. de Div. i. 16, 28 “Nihil fere quondam majoris rei, nisi auspicato, ne privatim quidem, gerebatur: quod etiam nunc nuptiarum auspices declarant, qui, re omissa, nomen tantum tenent.” In i. 17, 31 we have the story of Attus Navius taking auspices by aves in a private matter. Cf. Liv. vi. 41.

136 Cic. de Div. i. 16, 28 (see last note); Suet. Claud. 26; Tac. Ann. xi. 27.

137 Liv. iv. 2 “Quas quantasque res C. Canuleium adgressum? Conluvionem gentium, perturbationem auspiciorum publicorum privatorumque adferre.” Yet this passage has only an indirect reference to the matrimonial auspicia. The argument is that intermarriage would cause the pure Patriciate to disappear, and with it the general right of taking auspicia impetrativa.

138 Cic. de Div. ii. 36, 76 “a populo auspicia accepta habemus.” The relation of auspicia habere to the spectio is that the former denotes the abstract right of questioning the gods, the latter its exercise in a particular case (Momms. Staatsr. i. 89 n. 3). The specification by the magistrate of the signs which he wished to see was known as legum dictio (Serv. ad Aen. iii. 89; cf. p. 43 n. 2).

139 A similar confusion was at an earlier period introduced with reference to the givers of the auspices. They are said to be given by the people (Cic. de Div. ii. 36, 76; p. 39), but the great bulk of the people (i.e. the Plebs) did not possess them.

140 p. 3.

141 Dionys. iv. 14 (Servius Tullius) τὰς καταγραφὰς τῶν στρατιωτῶν καὶ τὰς εἰσπράξεις τῶν χρημάτων... οὐκέτι κατὰ τὰς τρεῖς φυλὰς τὰς γενικάς, ὡς πρότερον, κ.τ.λ. Varro L.L. v. 181 “Tributum dictum a tribubus, quod ea pecunia, quae populo imperata erat, tributim a singulis pro portione census exigebatur.”

142 From legere, Varro L.L. v. 87.

143 Varro L.L. v. 89 “milites quod trium milium primo legio fiebat, ac singulae tribus Titiensium, Ramnium, Lucerum milia singula militum mittebant.”

144 ib. 81 “tribuni militum quod terni tribus tribubus Ramnium, Lucerum, Titium olim ad exercitum mittebantur.” On the other hand, Servius (in Aen. v. 560) says that the tribuni were so called because they presided over one-third of the whole force.

145 p. 12.

146 Liv. i. 36.

147 e.g. Calabra, Foriensis, Veliensis. Other names (such as Titia) may be eponymous.

148 Festus p. 62 “curionia sacra, quae in curiis fiebant”; p. 64 “curiales flamines curiarum sacerdotes.”

149 ib. p. 49 (s.v. curia) “locus est, ubi publicas curas gerebant.”

150 See note 1.

151 Festus p. 126; Liv. xxvii. 8.

152 Festus p. 55 “Celeres antiqui dixerunt, quos nunc equites dicimus... qui primitus electi fuerunt ex singulis curiis deni, ideoque omnino trecenti fuere.”

153 Liv. i. 26; Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54.

154 Dionys. ii. 14.

155 “Generale jussum” (Capito ap. Gell. x. 20).

156 Lex is probably connected etymologically with the German legen (Gothic lagjan) as θεσμός with τίθημι.

157 In business we have leges locationis, venditionis, in the structure of corporations a lex collegii. On the other hand, in the legum dictio of augury, which is the statement of the mode of the answer of the gods to a request, in the lex data given to individuals by a magistrate (e.g. the leges censoriae) or granted by Rome as a charter to a subject state, there seems to be the idea of a purely one-sided ordinance.

158 Dionys. iii. 62; Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31.

159 Tac. Ann. xi. 22; Ulp. in Dig. i. 13.

160 Varro L.L. v. 80 “Praetor dictus, qui praeiret jure et exercitu.” But the title is, perhaps, a purely military one (prae-itor, “the man who goes before the army”).

161 Festus p. 198 “in magistro populi faciendo, qui vulgo Dictator appellatur.”

162 Cic. de Rep. i. 26, 42. Regnum denotes the position of the king as head of the state (ib. ii. 27), but not the regal power.

163 Lictor is probably derived from licere. For other attempts at derivation see Gell. xii. 8. They summon, not only to the assembly, but also to the courts, and are thus the chief mark of jurisdiction and coercive power (coercitio). The individual curiae were probably summoned by the thirty lictores curiatii, who survive into the later Republic. See Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 392. For the number of lictors that accompanied the king see Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31; Liv. i. 8; Dionys. ii. 29; iii. 61, 62.

164 Serv. in Aen. vii. 188, 612; xi. 334; Ov. Fast. ii. 503.

165 Cic. de Fin. ii. 21, 69; Dionys. iii. 61.

166 Festus p. 49 “currules magistrates appellati sunt, quia curru vehebantur.”

167 Dionys. iv. 74.

168 Festus p. 209 “Picta quae nunc toga dicitur purpurea ante vocitata est eaque erat sine pictura.” It was already picta (διάχρυσος) in Polybius’ time (Polyb. vi. 53).

169 Liv. i. 56.

170 “Arvi et arbusta et pascui lati atque uberes” (Cic. de Rep. v. 2, 3). Cf. Liv. ii. 5.

171 p. 8.

172 Cic. de Rep. ii. 12, 24 “Nostri illi etiam turn agrestes viderunt virtutem et sapientiam regalem, non progeniem quaeri oportere.” Cf. App. B.C. i. 98.

173 Liv. i. 7 and 18.

174 Liv. i. 17; Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31.

175 The interregnum, though only an occasional office in the Republic, is represented as an invariable part of the procedure in the transmission of the kingly power (Liv. i. 47).

176 Dionys. v. 1; Liv. xl. 42.

177 Tac. Ann. i. 14 and 81; Dio Cass. liii. 21, 7; lviii. 20, 3.

178 Cic. de Rep. ii. 12, 23; Liv. i. 17; Dionys. ii. 57.

179 [Cic.] ad Brut. i. 5, 4.

180 Cf. Serv. in Aen. vi. 808 “Romulo mortuo cum... Senatus... regnasset per decurias.”

181 Dionys. ii. 57 διακληρωσάμενοι.

182 Dionys. ii. 57 τοῖς λαχοῦσι δέκα πρώτοις ἀπέδωκαν ἄρχειν τῆς πόλεως τὴν αὐτόκρατορ’ ἀρχήν: Liv. i. 17 “decem imperitabant, unus cum insignibus imperii et lictoribus erat.”

183 In the accounts of this procedure an important element is probably omitted, i.e. that each individual interrex nominated his successor. The first could not nominate the king, as he had not received the auspices in due form.

184 Mommsen (Staatsr. i. pp. 213, 214) takes a different view, arguing that the king was in every case nominated, not by the rex, but by the interrex, on the legal ground that the appointment of a successor would have been one of those “actus legitimi qui non recipiunt diem vel condicionem” (such as hereditatis aditio, tutoris datio), and which “in totum vitiantur per temporis vel condicionis adjectionem” (Papin. in Dig. 50, 17, 77). But, even in the regal period, there may have been one condition which did not vitiate such acts, i.e. death (see p. 29).

185 Liv. i. 17, 22, 32, 41, 47.

186 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 10, 26; ii. 11, 28; ad Fam. i. 9, 25.

187 Cic. de Rep. ii. 13, 25 “Numam... qui... quamquam populus curiatis eum comitiis regem esse jusserat, tamen ipse de suo imperio curiatam legem tulit.”

188 Liv. i. 41 “Servius, praesidio firmo munitus, primus injussu populi, voluntate patrum regnavit.”

189 Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31 “Tullum Hostilium populus regem, interrege rogante, comitiis curiatis creavit, isque de imperio suo... populum consuluit curiatim.”

190 The last injustus dominus of Rome ruled “neque populi jussu neque auctoribus patribus” (Cic. de Rep. ii. 24, 45; Liv. i. 49).

191 Thus Romulus takes his own auspices on the Palatine (Liv. i. 6).

192 p. 39.

193 Liv. i. 18 “de se... deos consuli jussit.”

194 Labeo ap. Gell. xv. 27, 1; Liv. xl. 42, 8.

195 Dionys. ii. 14; iv. 74; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 15.

196 Festus p. 185; Labeo ap. Gell. xv. 27; Ov. Fasti ii. 21.

197 This is shown by his sacrifices on the Kalends and on the Nones (sacra nonalia) and his offering of a ram to Janus in the regia on the Agonalia (Jan. 9) (Festus p. 10; Varro L.L. vi. 12; Ov. Fasti i. 317).

198 Festus p. 113; Macrob. i. 15, 19.

199 Liv. i. 20 “Numa Pontificem... Numam Marcium M. f. ex patribus legit, eique sacra omnia exscripta exsignataque attribuit, quibus hostiis, quibus diebus, ad quae templa sacra fierent, atque unde in eos suraptus pecunia erogaretur. Cetera quoque omnia publica privataque sacra Pontificis scitis subjecit, ut esset, quo consultum plebes veniret: ne quid divini juris, negligendo patrios ritus, peregrinos que adsciscendo, turbaretur, etc.” But afterwards (in 449 B.C.) Livy (iii. 54) implies the existence of a college, without mentioning its institution. Cf. iv. 44.

200 Cic. de Rep. ii. 14, 26.

201 Liv. x. 6.

202 Bouché-Leclercq Les Pontifes de l’ancienne Rome p. 9. That the king was pontiff is stated by Plutarch (Numa 9), Servius (ad Aen. iii. 81), and Zosimus (iv. 36), but the evidence may be vitiated by the position of the Princeps as pontifex maximus.

203 Liv. i. 20 (p. 51 n. 5); cf. Ambrosch Studien p. 22.

204 Cic. de Rep. ii. 9, 16; de Div. i. 2, 3.

205 Liv. i. 20 “Tum sacerdotibus creandis animum adjecit, quamquam ipse plurima sacra obibat, ea maxime quae nunc ad Dialem flaminem pertinent.”

206 As, e.g., the nomination of Flamines belonged to the Latin dictator (Ascon. in Milon. p. 32).

207 Gaius i. 130. The same was the case with the Vestal (Gell. i. 12).

208 For the Flamen see Liv. xxxi. 50; Festus p. 104. For the Vestal, Gell. x. 15.

209 Plut. Numa 10.

210 Liv. i. 20 (cited p. 51).

211 Supplicium, from sub-placo, death as a sin-offering (Festus p. 308 “supplicia... sacrificia a supplicando”); castigatio (“castum agere”) purification through atonement. On the other hand poena, multa, talio bear witness to a theory of compensation and private vengeance. See Rein Criminalrecht p. 39.

212 Liv. i. 26; Dionys. iii. 22; Festus pp. 297 and 307.

213 Festus p. 222; Gell. iv. 3.

214 Macrob. i. 16, 10 “prudentem expiare non posse.”

215 Cic. de Leg. ii. 9, 22.

216 Dionys. ii. 10; Serv. ad Aen. vi. 609.

217 Festus p. 230.

218 Dionys. ii. 74; Festus p. 368.

219 Plin. H.N. xviii. 3, 12.

220 Bouché-Leclercq Les Pontifes p. 196. In the lex sacrata which protected the tribunes we meet with this distinction (Liv. iii. 55).

221 Festus p. 318 “At homo sacer is est, quem populus judicavit ob maleficium; neque fas est eum immolari, sed qui occidit, parricidi non damnatur.” This is the meaning of sacer as employed in the leges sacratae of the early Republic (Liv. ii. 8; iii. 55).

222 The sacramentum (literally “oath”) in the actio sacramento is best explained as an atonement (piaculum) in the form of a money payment for the expiable, because involuntary, perjury of the litigant who has maintained a false claim. When the process was secularised, the sacramentum came to be considered a simple wager. See Danz Der sacrale Schutz pp. 151 ff.

223 Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31 “constituitque jus, quo bella indicerentur; quod per se justissime inventum sanxit fetiali religione, ut omne bellum, quod denuntiatum indictumque non esset, id injustum esse atque impium judicaretur.”

224 Varro L.L. v. 86 “Fetiales... fidei publicae inter populos praeerant; nam per hos fiebat ut justum conciperetur bellum et inde desitum, ut foedere fides pacis constitueretur. Ex his mittebantur, antequam conciperetur, qui res repeterent, etc.”

225 Cic. de Leg. ii. 9, 21 “Foederum, pacis, belli, indutiarum ratorum fetiales judices nuntii sunto; bella disceptanto.” The word fetialis is probably connected with fateri (and Oscan fatium). Thus the “Fetiales” are speakers (oratores), cf. Festus p. 182. Dionysius (ii. 72) ascribes the creation of the Fetiales to Numa; Livy (i. 32) speaks as if they were due to Ancus Martius, but in another passage (i. 24) implies their earlier existence. Cicero attributes them to Tullus Hostilius (Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31). The ceremonies of the college are described in Dionys. ii. 72 and Liv. i. 32.

226 Sometimes, the better to secure divine assistance, the enemy, his cities, and his lands were all devoted to the gods. For the incantation see Macrob. iii. 9, 10 “Dis pater Vejovis Manes, sive quo alio nomine fas est nominare... uti vos eas urbes agrosque capita aetatesque eorum devotas consecratasque habeatis ollis legibus, quibus quandoque sunt maxime hostes devoti; eosque ego... do devoveo.” The site of such cities was cursed, as in Republican times that of Fregellae, Carthage, and Corinth.

227 Macrob. iii. 9, 7 “Si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque... est in tutela, teque maxime, ille qui urbis hujus populique tutelam recepisti... a vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque... deseratis... proditique Romam ad me meosque veniatis, nostraque vobis loca templa sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit.”

228 Cincius ap. Arnob. iii. 38 “solere Romanos religiones urbium superatarum partim privatim per familias spargere, partim publice consecrare.”

229 e.g. the evocatio at the siege of Veii, the devotio on the fall of Carthage.

230 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 15; Tac. Ann. iii. 26. See next citation.

231 Tac. Ann. iii. 26 “nobis Romulus, ut libitum, imperitaverat: dein Numa religionibus et divino jure populum devinxit, repertaque quaedam a Tullo et Anco. Sed praecipuus Servius Tullius sanctor legum fuit, quis etiam reges obtemperarent.”

232 Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2 “et ita leges quasdam et ipse (Romulus) curiatas ad populum tulit; tulerunt et sequentes reges. Quae omnes conscriptæ extant in libro Sexti Papirii, qui fuit illis temporibus, quibus Superbus Demarati Corinthii filius, ex principalibus viris. Is liber, ut diximus, appellatur jus civile Papirianum, non quia Papirius de suo quicquam ibi adjecit, sed quod leges sine ordine latas in unum composuit.” This code was commented on by Granius Flaccus (Paul. in Dig. 50, 16, 144), a contemporary of Julius Caesar. C. Papirius is said to have been pontifex maximus (Dionys. iii. 36), and Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 41) thinks that the leges regiae were simply pontifical ordinances, specifying amongst other things such offences as we have mentioned as coming under fas (p. 54).

233 Sall. Cat. 6 “imperium legitimum, nomen imperii regium habebant.”

234 “Regium consilium” (Cic. de Rep. ii. 8, 14). The function of the Senate was περὶ παντὸς ὃτου ἂν εἰσηγῆται βασιλεὺς διαγινὼσκειν (Dionys. ii. 14).

235 Festus p. 246 “Praeteriti senatores quondam in opprobrio non erant, quod, ut reges sibi legebant sublegebantque, quos in consilio publico haberent, ita post exactos eos consules quoque et tribuni militum consulari potestate conjunctissimos sibi quosque patriciorum et deinde plebeiorum legebant.”

236 p. 13.

237 Liv. i. 8.

238 ib. 17 and 35; ii. 1. On the nature of this increase see Willems Le Sénat p. 21.

239 p. 13.

240 p. 12.

241 Liv. i. 32.

242 Dionys. ii. 14. One of the privileges of the people was περὶ πολέμου διαγινώσκειν ὃταν ὁ βασιλεύς ἐφῇ.

243 Cic. de Rep. ii. 9, 15 “Cum ipse (Romulus) nihil ex praeda domum suam reportaret, locupletare cives non destitit”; ii. 14, 26 “ac primum agros, quos bello Romulus ceperat, divisit viritim civibus.” Cf. Dionys. ii. 28 and 62.

244 Liv. i. 49 “cognitiones capitalium rerum sine consiliis per se solus exercebat.”

245 ib. 59; see p. 41.

246 Tac. Ann. vi. 11 “namque antea, profectis domo regibus ac mox magistratibus, ne urbs sine imperio foret, in tempus deligebatur qui jus redderet ac subitis mederetur... duratque simulacrum, quotiens ob ferias Latinas praeficitur qui consulare munus usurpet.” Cf. Liv. i. 59; Dionys. ii. 12.

247 Yet Livy and Dionysius represent the tribunus celerum as summoning the assembly (Liv. i. 59; Dionys. iv. 71).

248 Dionys. ii. 14 (amongst the powers of the king were) τῶν τε ἀδικημάτων τὰ μέγιστα μὲν αὐτὸν δικάζειν, τὰ δ’ ἐλάττονα τοῖς βουλευταῖς ἐπιτρέπειν. It is difficult, however, to determine whether the reference is to civil wrongs or to crimes.

249 ib. iv. 25 ἐκεῖνος (Servius Tullius) διελὼν ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδιωτικῶν (ἐγκλημάτων) τὰ δημόσια, τῶν μὲν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν φερόντων ἀδικημάτων αὐτὸς ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διαγνώσεις, τῶν δὲ ἰδιωτικῶν ἰδιώτας ἔταξεν εἶναι δικαστάς, ὅρους καὶ κανόνας αὐτοῖς τάξας, οὓς αὐτὸς ἔγραψε νόμους. The principle here described perhaps refers to delegation rather than to the distinction between jus and judicium in civil process.

250 For derivations of jus see Clark Pract. Jurisprudence pp. 16-20; Bréal “Sur l’origine des mots designant le droit en Latin” in Nouvelle Revue Historique de droit vol. vii. (1883) pp. 607 sq.

251 Dionys. l.c.

252 Liv. i 26.

253 Zonaras vii. 13 (who attributes their institution to Publicola) identifies the quaestores with the quaestores parricidii, οἷ πρῶτον μὲν τὰς θανασίμους δίκας ἐδίκαζον, ὄθεν καὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν ταύτην διὰ τὰς ἀνακρίσεις ἐσχήκασι καὶ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκ τῶν ἀνακρίσεων ζήτησιν. Cf. Varro L.L. v. 81. Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. pp. 523 sq.) thinks the financial quaestors as standing officials originated with the Republic; but he believes (p. 539) that they had their origin in the criminal quaestores (a word which bears the same relation to quaesitores as sartor to sarcitor or quaero to quaesivi, p. 537). Cf. Tac. Ann. xi. 22 (p. 81); Ulpian in Dig. i. 13.

254 Liv. l.c.

255 Cic. pro Mil. 3, 7; de Rep. ii. 31, 54; Festus p. 297.

256 Liv. i 26 “Si a duumviris provocarit provocatione certato... auctore Tullo,... ’provoco’ inquit.”

257 ib. viii. 33.

258 Cf. Ihering Geist des röm. Rechts i. pp. 257 ff.

259 Provocatio seems to mean a challenge, i.e. a challenge by an accused to a magistrate to appear before another tribunal, on the ground that he is not acting within his own right; cf. Gaius iv. 93 (of the actio per sponsionem) “Provocamus adversarium tali sponsione.”

260 “In this conflict of competence the position of the king was far more favourable than that of the people, since the people could only be summoned by the king. Hence the share of the people in criminal jurisdiction was reduced to a minimum” (Ihering Geist des röm. Rechts i. p. 258).

261 “Judiciis regiis” (Cic. de Rep. v. 2, 3).

262 p. 56.

263 Savigny System, vi. p. 287; Bernhöft Staat und Recht der Königszeit p. 230. The idea of its being an innovation has sometimes been associated with Dionysius’s description (iv. 25, see p. 62) of a change in jurisdiction introduced by Servius Tullius.

264 Cic. pro Cluent. 43, 120 “Neminem voluerunt majores nostri non modo de existimatione cujusquam, sed ne pecuniaria quidem de re minima esse judicem, nisi qui inter adversarios convenisset.”

265 Ihering Geist des röm. Rechts i. p. 169.

266 Dionys. iv. 22 ὁ δὲ Τύλλιος καὶ τοῖς ἐλευθερουμένοις τῶν θεραπόντων... μετέχειν τῆς ἰσοπολιτείας ἐπέτρεψε... καὶ πάντων ἀπέδωκε τῶν κοινῶν αὐτοῖς μετέχειν, ὧν τοῖς ἄλλοις δημοτικοῖς.

267 The change, however, was not supposed (except perhaps by Tacitus Ann. iii. 26, see p. 58) to rest on a rogatio. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 161) explains this tradition by noting that the alteration was a mere administrative act, which would fall within the competence of the king.

268 It is possible that these three tribes would have been to some extent local; but locality was an accident. Membership of them was transmitted by birth.

269 Dionysius (iv. 22) makes them at a later time members of the curiae.

270 Dionys. iv. 14; Gell. xv. 27.

271 Cic. pro Flacco 32, 80 “sintne ista praedia censui censendo, habeant jus civile, sint necne sint mancipi?... in qua tribu denique ista praedia censuisti?” The ager publicus was not included in the tribes, nor were the Capitol and Aventine, because they were not private, but public property (Liv. vi. 20; Dionys. x. 31 and 32).

272 Liv. i. 43 “Quadrifariam urbe divisa, regionibusque et collibus, qui habitabantur, partes eas tribus appellavit”; Dionys. iv. 14 ὁ Τύλλιος, ἐπείδη τούς ἑπτὰλόφους ἐνὶ τείχει περιέλαβεν, εἰς τέτταρας μοίρας διελὼν τὴν πόλιν... τετράφυλον ἐποίησε τὴν πόλιν εἶναι, τρίφυλον οὖσαν τέως.. So Festus p. 368 “urbanas tribus appellabant, in quas urbs erat dispertita a Ser. Tullio rege.” Cf. Varro L.L. v. 56. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 163) now holds that the tribes were “parts of the state-town limited by the pomerium.” Ostia, once thought to belong to Palatina, has been shown to belong to Voturia. But the reason for this may be the subsequent loss of the territorium of the city. See p. 68.

273 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 168. Rome was at this time a great commercial state (cf. treaty with Carthage, 509 B.C.). That such a primitive institution as gentile tenure could have existed at this time is inconceivable.

274 Dionys. iv. 15 διεῖλε δὲ καὶ τὴν χώραν ἅπασαν, ὡς μὲν Φάβιός φησιν, εἰς μοίρας ἕξ τε καὶ εἴκοσιν, ἃς καὶ αὐτὰς καλεῖ φυλάς. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 169) seems to lean to the view that those country districts, comprising land not in quiritarian ownership, were pagi.

275 Sucusana (or Suburana), Palatina, Esquilina, and Collina. See p. 3.

276 Cf. Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 125 “The four tribes are probably nothing more than the three Romulian increased through the territorium of the town on the Quirinal”; p. 164 “Servian Rome, probably a double town composed of the old city, Palatine and Esquiline, and the new town of the Colline.”

277 Districts like Ostia, which must have belonged to the Servian tribes, now formed parts of the new creations (see p. 67).

278 Servius is said for this reason to have prohibited transference of domicile or allotment. Dionys. iv. 14 (Servius) τοὺς ἀνθρῶπους ἔταξε τοὺς ἐν ἑκάστῃ μοίρᾳ τῶν τεττάρων οἰκοῦντας, ὥσπερ κωμήτας, μήτε μεταλαμβάνειν ἑτέραν οἴκησιν μήτ’ ἄλλοθι που συντελεῖν.

279 Momms. Staatsr. iii. pp. 182, 184.

280 Laelius Felix ap. Gell. xv. 27 “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, ‘curiata’ comitia esse, cum ex censu et aetate ‘centuriata,’ cum ex regionibus et locis, ‘tributa.’”

281 Servius himself is credited with the introduction of aes signatum—carefully adjusted copper weights stamped by authority. Plin. H.N. xviii. 3 “Servius rex ovum boumque effigie primus aes signavit.” Mommsen (Römisches Münzwesen) thinks that the stamp was a guarantee not of the weight but of the purity of the metal. In this case the metal must have been used as a medium of exchange; as a medium of barter the weight would be sufficient. Mommsen’s opinion is (op. cit. p. 175) that a regular copper coinage was not introduced at Rome until about the period of the decemviri (450-430 B.C.), and more recent numismatists pronounce even this date to be too early.

282 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 247.

283 The existence of the guilds in regal times (Plut. Num. 17) rather proves than disproves the competing manufacture by slaves.

284 Cic. pro Flacco 32, 80. See p. 66.

285 For this difference of armour see Liv. i. 43; Dionys. iv. 16, 17. It survived into Polybius’ time (Polyb. vi. 23 ὁι δὲ ὑπὲρ τὰς μυρίας τιμώμενοι δραχμὰς ἀντὶ τοῦ καρδιοφύλακος σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἁλυσιδωτοὺς περιτίθενται θώρακας).

286 Gellius vi. (vii.) 13 “‘Classici’ dicebantur non omnes, qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, qui centum et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. ‘Infra classem’ autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui minore summa aeris, quod supra dixi, censebantur”; Festus p. 113 “infra classem significantur qui minore summa quam centum et viginti milium aeris censi sunt.”
Belot (Hist. d. Chev. Rom. i. 204, 205) thinks that the 125,000 asses mentioned here was the figure of the lowest census—the fifth class—at the time of the lex Voconia (169 B.C.), mentioned in this connexion by Festus. The designation in asses was still kept, but the as must now be multiplied by 10 (12,500 × 10 = 125,000 asses). Belot starts from his hypothesis that the as of the census is the old libral as. See the tables on the next page. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 249 n. 4), on the other hand, supposes that the law referred to the census of the first class, and that it was through an interpretation meant to limit its operation, when the value of money had altered, expressed in terms of the centum milia aeris of libral asses. That it was so interpreted is shown by the fact that the centum milia aeris of the Voconian law (Gaius ii. 274) became centum milia sestertium (Schol. to Cic. Verr. ii. 1, 41, 104, p. 188 Orell.), i.e. 25,000 denarii (Dio Cass. lvi. 10).

287 Plut. (Num. 17) mentions τέκτονες and χαλκεῖς amongst the collegia (Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 287 n. 1).

288 So too Polybius (vi. 23, cited p. 70).

289 Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 3 “Maximus census CXX assium fuit illo (Servio) rege, et ideo haec prima classis.” Festus p. 113 (cited p. 70).

290 Staatsrecht iii pp. 249, 250. Böckh (Metrologische Untersuchungen p. 444) also takes the view of the asses being sextantarii. He makes the qualifications in terms of the libral as and the as of two ounces respectively: 20,000 = 100,000, 15,000 = 75,000, 10,000 = 50,000, 5000 = 25,000, 2000 = 10,000.

291 Histoire des Chevaliers Romains (Table at commencement of vol. i).

292 Festus p. 18 “accensi dicebantur qui in locum mortuorum militum subito subrogabantur, dicti ita, quia ad censum adiciebantur”; p. 369 “velati appellabantur vestiti et inermes qui exercitum sequebantur, quique in mortuorum militum loco substituebantur.” Cf. p. 14 “adscripticii veluti quidam scripti dicebantur, qui supplendis legionibus adscribebantur. Hos et accensos dicebant, quod ad legionum censum essent adscripti. Quidam velatos, quia vestiti inermes sequerentur exercitum.”

293 Liv. i. 43 “hoc minor census reliquam multitudinem habuit; inde una centuria facta est immunis militia”; Dionys. iv. 18 (the remaining citizens with a qualification under 12½ minae Servius placed in one λόχος) στρατείας τε ἀπέλυσε καὶ πάσης εἰσφορᾶς ἐποίησεν ἀτελεῖς. Cf. vii. 59 οὖτοι στρατειῶν τε ἧσαν ἐλεύθεροι τῶν ἐκ καταλόγου καὶ εἰσφορῶν τῶν κατὰ τιμήματα γενομένων ἀτελεῖς καὶ δι’ ἄμφω ταῦτ’ ἐν ταῖς ψηφοφορίαις ἀτιμότατοι. Cf. Cic. de Rep. ii. 22, 40 “in quo etiam verbis ac nominibus ipsis fuit diligens; qui, cum locupletes assiduos appellasset ab asse dando, eos, qui aut non plus mille quingentos aeris aut omnino nihil in suum censum praeter caput attulissent, proletarios nominavit; ut ex iis quasi proles, id est quasi progenies civitatis, exspectari videretur. Illarum autem sex et nonaginta centuriarum in una centuria tum quidem plures censebantur, quam paene in prima classe tota.”

294 Ulpian in Fragm. Vat. 138 “ii qui in centuria accensorum velatorum sunt, habent immunitatem a tutelis et curis.”

295 The word is not technical enough to be used as an argument that the classes included only landholders. The favourite ancient derivation was from ab asse dando (Cic. de Rep. ii. 22, 40, see p. 72), whether for the payment of taxation or for the furnishing of military equipment.

296 Capite censi, if we trust Cicero (de Rep. ii. 22, 40, see p. 72), came to mean those below 1500 asses (the subsequent limit to the incidence of taxation). The limit of census for military service was also reduced to 4000 asses (Polyb. vi. 19), and finally to 375 (Gell. xvi. 10, 10), and those below this census continued to be called capite censi (Gell. l.c.; Sall. Jug. 86). Aerarius, on the other hand, seems to have preserved its old meaning of those excluded from the centuries—Ps. Asc. in Divin. p. 103 “(Censores) prorsus cives sic notabant... ut, qui plebeius (esset)... aerarius fieret, ac per hoc non esset in albo centuriae suae, sed ad hoc [non] esset civis, tantummodo ut pro capite suo tributi nomine aera praeberet.”

297 p. 41.

298 It is not known when they ceased to be patrician; Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 254) thinks on the reform of the Servian constitution, circa 220 B.C.

299 Liv. i. 36.

300 Cic. de Rep. ii. 22, 39.

301 Festus p. 221 “paribus equis, id est duobus, Romani utebantur in proelio, ut sudante altero transirent in siccum. Pararium aes appellabatur id, quod equitibus duplex pro binis equis dabatur.”

302 Liv. i. 43 “ita pedestri exercitu ornato distributoque equitum ex primoribus civitatis duodecim scripsit centurias. Sex item alias centurias... sub isdem, quibus inauguratae erant, nominibus fecit: ad equos emendos dena millia aeris ex publico data [i.e., as Livy understands it, 10,000 asses sextantarii = 1000 denarii], et, quibus equos alerent, viduae adtributae, quae bina milia aeris in annos singulos penderent” [2000 asses = 200 denarii]. Cf. Gaius iv. 27.

303 The number of the century was here fixed, and not, as in the case of the classici, expansive.

304 Cf. Liv. i. 43 “neque eae tribus ad centuriarum distributionem numerumque quicquam pertinuere.” There is no evidence, e.g., that each tribe furnished a certain number of centuries.

305 Tributum, however, cannot be derived from tribus (as by Varro quoted p. 40). The parallel words attribuere, contribuere, ultro tributa, etc., seem to show that it means something added to, conferred on, or collected for another.

306 p. 48.

307 As such it was in the Republic given for the censors. Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 11, 26 “majores de singulis magistratibus bis vos sententiam ferre voluerunt; nam cum centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur, cum curiata ceteris patriciis magistratibus, tum iterum de eisdem judicabatur.”

308 p. 43.

309 p. 63.

310 p. 60.

311 Liv. i. 48 “id ipsum tam mite ac tam moderatum imperium tamen, quia unius esset, deponere eum in animo habuisse quidam auctores sunt, ni scelus intestinum liberandae patriae consilia agitanti intervenisset.”

312 ib. 49.

313 Cic. de Rep. ii. 22, 44.

314 Cic. de Rep. ii. 30, 52; Liv. ii. 1; App. B.C. ii. 119. It is sometimes represented as a law which made any one who aimed at royalty sacer (Liv. ii. 8). For the dual sanction of the oath and the law compare the means by which the sacrosanctitas of the tribunes was secured (p. 100).

315 It is strange that the interregnum, which would have secured a continuity, is not mentioned in this case. The election of the first consuls was supposed to have been conducted by the praefectus urbi, who almost certainly had not the jus rogandi (p. 61). Liv. i. 60 “duo consules inde comitiis centuriatis a praefecto urbis ex commentariis Servii Tullii creati sunt, L. Junius Brutus et L. Tarquinius Collatinus.”

316 For the title praetores see Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 8 “regio imperio duo sunto iique a praeeundo judicando consulendo praetores judices consules appellamino”; for that of judices, Varro L.L. vi. 88, who quotes from the commentarii consulares the formula used in summoning the comitia centuriata, “qui exercitum imperaturus erit, accenso dicito: ‘C. Calpurni, voca in licium omnes Quirites huc ad me.’ Accensus dicito sic ‘Omnes Quirites in licium visite huc ad judices.’ ‘C. Calpurni,’ consul dicito, ‘voca ad conventionem omnes Quirites huc ad me.’ Accensus dicito sic ‘Omnes Quirites ite ad conventionem huc ad judices.’”

317 See the section on the magistracy (p. 187).

318 This ratification indeed remained. Even though elections were conducted before the centuries, a lex was still passed by the curiae ratifying this election (p. 49); and the patrum auctoritas was still required to sanction each fresh appointment.

319 If it existed before it could have been only in the priestly colleges, but these seem rather advising bodies to the king.

320 From con-salio, i.e. people who leap or dance together, “partners” (in a dance). Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 77 n. 3; he compares praesul and exul.

321 Liv. ii. 8 (509 B.C.) “Latae deinde leges... ante omnes de provocatione adversus magistratus ad populum”; Cic. de Rep. i. 40, 62 “Vides... Tarquinio exacto, mira quadam exsultare populum insolentia libertatis; tum annui consules, tum demissi populo fasces, tum provocationes omnium rerum” (i.e. the provocatio became universal instead of being confined to certain spheres).

322 By this time the direct capital jurisdiction of the pontiffs had probably become extinct.

323 Liv. iii. 20 “neque provocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum, et tribunos si eo (lake Regillus) veniant, in alia turba Quiritium subjectos fore consulari imperio.” But the question between the pomerium and the first milestone was in later times still a disputed one (Liv. xxiv. 9).

324 Cic. l.c.

325 p. 63.

326 The quaestores parricidii and aerarii are identified by Zonaras (vii. 13), following Dio. See p. 63. They were called quaestores, οἵ πρῶτον μὲν τὰς θανασίμους δίκας ἔδίκαζον (whence their title), ὕστερον δὲ καὶ τὴν κοινῶν χρημάτων διοίκησιν ἔλαχον. So Varro (L.L. v. 81), “quaestores a quaerendo, qui conquirerent publicas pecunias et maleficia.” The identity of the two offices is denied by Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 22 and 23.

327 Quaestores parricidii were mentioned in the Twelve Tables (Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 23).

328 Liv. i. 26.

329 They are mentioned in the trial of M. Volscius (459 B.C.) for an ordinary criminal offence (Liv. iii. 24), but also in the public trials of Sp. Cassius in 485 B.C. (Liv. ii. 41; Cic. de Rep. ii. 35, 60), and of Camillus in 396 B.C. (Plin. H.N. xxxiv. 3, 13); but various accounts are given of the procedure in these two trials.

330 Plut. Public. 12 ταμιεῖον μὲν ἀπέδειξε τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου ναόν... ταμίας δὲ τῳ δήμῳ δύο τῶν νέων ἔδωκεν ἀποδεῖξαι. The first quaestors appointed were Publius Veturius and Marcus Minucius. Pomponius (p. 80) puts the creation of the financial quaestors after the first secession of the Plebs; Lydus (de Mag. i. 38) attributes them to the Licinian law of 367.

331 Tac. Ann. xi. 22 “Sed quaestores regibus etiam tum imperantibus instituti sunt, quod lex curiata ostendit ab L. Bruto repetita. Mansitque consulibus potestas deligendi, donec eum quoque honorem populus mandaret. Creatique primum Valerius Potitus et Aemilius Mamercus sexagesimo tertio anno post Tarquinios exactos, ut rem militarem comitarentur” (i.e. 447 B.C.; hence Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. p. 529, thinks the change was due to the Valerio-Horatian laws of 449 B.C.). Plutarch (see note 1) thinks they were elected from the first. The meaning of the passage of Tacitus seems to be that the king nominated his quaestors after his own election, and their appointment was then ratified by the lex curiata. Another explanation is that the lex recited that the kings had appointed quaestors and empowered the consuls to do so. Cf. Ulpian in Dig. 1, 13.

332 Festus p. 246, cited p. 59.

333 Zonaras (vii. 9) makes Servius Tullius introduce Plebeians into the Senate.

334 Liv. ii. 1 “Deinde, quo plus virium in senatu frequentia etiam ordinis faceret, caedibus regis diminutum patrum numerum primoribus equestris gradus lectis ad trecentorum summam explevit: traditumque inde fertur, ut in senatum vocarentur qui patres quique conscripti essent: conscriptos videlicet in novum senatum appellabant lectos”; Festus p. 254 “‘Qui patres, qui conscripti’: vocati sunt in curiam, quo tempore regibus urbe expulsis P. Valerius consul propter inopiam patriciorum ex plebe adlegit in numerum senatorum C. et LX. et IIII. ut expleret numerum senatorum trecentorum” (for these numbers cf. Plut. Public. 11 τοὺς δ’ ἐγγραφέντας ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ λέγουσιν ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα τέσσαρας γενέσθαι). So adlecti, Festus p. 7 “adlecti dicebantur apud Romanos, qui propter inopiam ex equestri ordine in senatorum sunt numero adsumpti: nam patres dicuntur qui sunt patricii generis, conscripti qui in senatu sunt scriptis adnotati.” Plutarch (Qu. Rom. 58, Rom. 13) makes the added members Plebeians. Tacitus (Ann. xi. 25) wrongly identifies these added members with the minores gentes. (Claudius creates Patricians A.D. 48—“paucis jam reliquis familiis, quas Romulus majorum et L. Brutus minorum gentium appellaverant.”)

335 Willems (Le Sénat ii. 39 ff.) makes patres conscripti simply equivalent to “assembled fathers.”

336 The first clear instance of a plebeian senator dates from the year 401. Liv. v. 12. P. Licinius Calvus, created military tribune with consular power, was “vir nullis ante honoribus usus, vetus tantum senator et aetate jam gravis.” Cf. Liv. iv. 15. Of Sp. Maelius (439 B.C.) it is asked “quem senatorem concoquere civitas vix posset, regem ferret.”

337 p. 60.

338 Liv. ii. 18; Festus p. 198; Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 18.

339 The title was, perhaps, originally praetor. This would naturally have been the case if Mommsen’s theory is right that they were regarded as superior colleagues of the consuls (Staatsr. ii. p. 153). The earliest official title known to us is magister populi, and it was the technical title in the augural books. Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 9 “isque ave sinistra dictus populi magister esto.” Cf. de Rep. i. 40, 63 “Gravioribus vero bellis etiam sine collega omne imperium nostri penes singulos esse voluerunt, quorum ipsum nomen vim suae potestatis indicat. Nam dictator quidem ab eo appellatur quia dicitur; sed in nostris libris vides eum, Laeli, magistrum populi appellari.” The later title, dictator, was perhaps adopted in deference to Republican sentiment; Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 145) conjectures, in imitation of the Latin dictator, a constitutional survival of the monarchy. The meaning of the word is wholly uncertain. Ancient guesses say (i.) from dicitur (Cic. de Rep. l.c.); (ii) from dicto audiens (Varro L.L. v. 81 “quoi dicto audientes omnes essent”); (iii.) from dictare (Priscian viii. 14, 78), or (iv.) because they issued edicts (Dionys. v. 73).

340 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 19 “Et his dictatoribus magistri equitum injungebantur sic, quo modo regibus tribuni celerum: quod officium fere tale erat, quale hodie praefectorum praetorio, magistratus tamen habebantur legitimi.”

341 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 9 “Ast quando duellum gravius, discordiae civium escunt, oenus, ne amplius sex menses, si senatus creverit, idem juris, quod duo consules, teneto”; Imp. Claudius Oratio i. 28 “Quid nunc commemorem dictaturae hoc ipso consulari imperium valentius repertum apud majores nostros quo in asperioribus bellis aut in civili motu difficiliore uterentur?”

342 Cicero (de Rep. ii. 31, 53) gives as the tenor of the first Valerian law “ne quis magistratus civem Romanum adversus provocationem necaret neve verberaret.” Dionysius (v. 19) adds ζημιοῦν εἰς χρήματα to ἀποκτείνειν ἢ μαστιγοῦν, and Plutarch (Publ. 11) seems to give it the same wide scope. He also thinks that Valerius fixed the multa suprema (l.c.), i.e. the largest fine the magistrate could impose without appeal. These statements may, however, be deductions from the later provocatio.

343 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2 (§ 3) “exactis deinde regibus... omnes leges hae exoleverunt iterumque coepit populus Romanus incerto magis jure et consuetudine aliqua uti quam per latam legem, idque prope quinquaginta (MSS. “viginti”) annis passus est.” After the Twelve Tables (§ 6) “ex his legibus... actiones compositae sunt, quibus inter se homines disceptarent: quas actiones ne populus prout vellet institueret, certas sollemnesque esse voluerunt... Omnium tamen harum et interpretandi scientia et actiones apud collegium pontificum erant, ex quibus constituebatur, quis quoquo anno praeesset privatis.”

344 p. 64.

345 The later praetorian interdicts (de locis sacris, de mortuo inferendo) are really within the domain of fas and must at one time have been enforced by the pontiffs.

346 p. 78.

347 Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 93.

348 p. 35.

349 The privilege could not have been based on quiritarian ownership, since this tenure was precarious.

350 The contract of nexum was in fact a conditioned mancipation, like a testament, the nuncupatio being made by the vendor, who perhaps purchased with a single coin (nummo uno), as in the later mancipationes fiduciae causa (Bruns Fontes).

351 Except as a penal measure ordained by the state. The furem manifestum according to Gellius (xx. 1), “in servitutem tradit” (lex); he is more correctly described as addictus by Gaius (iii. 189). The incensus might be sold as a slave (Cic. pro. Caecin. 34, 99). Later a free man who collusively allowed himself to be sold as a slave, in order to share the purchase money with the vendor, was adjudged a slave as a punishment for his fraud (Dig. 40, 13, 3; Inst. 1, 3, 4; Cod. 7, 18, 1).

352 p. 24.

353 Gell. xx. 1 “Aeris confessi rebusque jure judicatis triginta dies justi sunto. Post deinde manus injectio esto, in jus ducito. Ni judicatum facit aut quis endo eo in jure vindicit, secum ducito, vincito aut nervo aut compedibus.... Si volet suo vivito. Ni suo vivit, qui eum vinctum habebit, libras farris endo dies dato. Si volet plus dato.” The addictus like the nexus did not become a slave, but still retained his position in his census and in his tribe (Quinctil. Decl. 311).

354 In the case of a nexal contract there could not be more creditors than one. A man could not, by the nature of the case, mancipate himself to several people at once.

355 Liv. ii. 23 “Fremebant se, foris pro libertate et imperio dimicantes, domi a civibus captos et oppressos esse; tutioremque in bello quam in pace, et inter hostes quam inter cives, libertatem plebis esse.”

356 ib. 27.

357 Dionys. vi. 45.

358 Liv. ii. 28. The senators complain “nunc in mille curias contionesque (cum alia in Esquiliis, alia in Aventino fiant concilia) dispersam et dissipatam esse rem publicam.”

359 Varro L.L. v. 81 “tribuni plebei, quod ex tribunis militum primum tribuni plebei facti, qui plebem defenderent, in secessione Crustumerina.”

360 The principle of cooptation was said to have been recognised in the carmen rogationis of the tribunate, and in this case it was held that Patricians were eligible. Liv. iii. 65 (449 B.C.) “Novi tribuni plebis in cooptandis collegis patrum voluntatem foverunt. Duos etiam patricios consularesque, Sp. Tarpeium et A. Aternium, cooptavere.” But, with the disuse of this principle, the plebeian qualification was observed.

361 Cic. ap. Ascon. in Cornel. p. 76 “Tanta igitur in illis virtus fuit, ut anno xvi. post reges exactos propter nimiam dominationem potentium secederent,... duos tribunos crearent.... Itaque auspicato postero anno tr. pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt,” (For the number two Ascon. in loc. quotes Tuditanus and Atticus.) Cicero apparently understands by this the mixed assembly of the curiae; and so does Livy (ii. 56, on the lex Publilia transferring the elections of the tribunes to the tribes), “quae patriciis omnem potestatem per clientium suffragia creandi, quos vellent, tribunos auferret.”

362 It must have been so restricted at first. Later (as we shall see in dealing with the intercession) the auxilium was extended to the whole people.

363 Cic. de Rep. ii. 33, 58 “contra consulare imperium tribuni plebis... constituti.”

364 Gell. xiii. 12 “(tribunis) jus abnoctandi ademptum, quoniam, ut vim fieri vetarent, adsiduitate eorum et praesentium oculis opus erat.” Cf. iii. 2. Plut. Qu. Rom. 81 ὅθεν οὐδ’ οἰκίας αὐτοῦ κλείεσθαι νενόμισται θύραν, ἀλλὰ καὶ νύκτωρ ἀνέῳγε καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν, ὤσπερ λιμὴν καὶ καταφυγὴ τοῖς δεομένοις.

365 For the increase to four see Diodor. xi. 68 (471 B.C. in connexion with the lex Publilia); other accounts represent the original number as five (Ascon. l.c. p. 93, and Livy ii. 33; two elected, three coopted; cf. note on p. 93). The increase to ten is assigned by Livy and Dionysius to 457 B.C. (Livy iii. 30; the tribunes allowed the levy “non sine pactione tamen ut... decem deinde tribuni plebis crearentur. Expressit hoc necessitas patribus”; cf. Dionys. x. 30).

366 Liv. ii. 35 “contemptim primo Marcius audiebat minas tribunicias; auxilii, non poenae, jus datum illi potestati; plebisque, non patrum, tribunos esse.” Coriolanus was probably impeached before the Plebs as a hostis tribuniciae potestatis in consequence of his advice that the tribunate should be abrogated (Liv. ii. 34). See Rein Criminalrecht p. 484. Cf. Liv. ii. 56 (471 B.C.; the tribune seizes some nobiles who would not yield to his viator) “Consul Appius negare jus esse tribuno in quemquam, nisi in plebeium; non enim populi, sed plebis, eum magistratum esse.”

367 Dionys. vii. 17 δημάρχου γνώμην ἀγορεύοντος ἐν δήμῳ μηδεὶς λεγέτω μηδὲν ἐναντίον μηδὲ μεσολαβείτω τὸν λόγον. ἐὰν δὲ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιὴσῃ, διδότω τοῖς δημάρχοις ἐγγυητὰς αἰτηθεὶς εἰς ἔκτισιν ἧς ἂν ἐποθῶσιν αὐτῷ ζημίας. Any one who does not give securities (ἐγγυηταί) is to be punished with death καὶ τὰ χρήματ’ αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ ἔστω. τῶν δ’ ἀμφισβητούντων πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ζημίας αἱ κρίσεις ἔστωσαν ἐπὶ τοῦ δήμου. Cf. vi. 16, and Cic. pro Sest. 37, 79 “Fretus sanctitate tribunatus, cum se non modo contra vim et ferrum, sed etiam contra verba atque interfationem legibus sacratis esse armatum putaret.”

368 p. 66 note 5.

369 Dionys. x. 31, 32; see Mr. Strachan-Davidson in Smith Dict. of Antiq. s.v. plebiscitum.

370 p. 39.

371 Dionys. vi. 90 ἄνδρας ἐκ τῶν δημοτικῶν δύο καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἀποδεικνύναι τοὺς ὑπηρετήσοντας τοῖς δημάρχοις ὅσων ἂν δέωνται καὶ δίκας, ἅς ἂν ἐπιτρέψωνται ἐκεῖνοι, κρινοῦντας ἱερῶν τε καὶ δημοσίων τόπων καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐυετηρίας ἐπιμελησομένους: Gell. xvii. 21 “tribunos et aediles tum primum per seditionem sibi plebes creavit”; Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 21 “Itemque ut essent qui aedibus praeessent, in quibus omnia scita sua plebs deferebat, duos ex plebe constituerunt, qui etiam aediles appellati sunt.”

372 Dionysius (l.c.) suggests that they originally bore another title. Pomponius (l.c.) derives the name from their office in the temple of Ceres; Varro from their care of the repair of aedes both sacred and private (Varro L.L. v. 81 “aedilis, qui aedes sacras et privatas procuraret”), a derivation which Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 480) favours. Their relation to the aediles of the Latin towns is wholly uncertain. Mommsen (ib. p. 474) holds strongly to the view that the Latin aedileship was borrowed from the Roman. For a different view cf. Ohnesseit Ztschr. der Savigny-stiftung 1883, pp. 200 sq.

373 Plut. Coriol. 18 (the tribune Sicinnius) προσέταξε τοῖς ἀγορανόμοις ἀναγαγόντας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄκραν εὐθὺς ὦσαι κατὰ τῆς ὑποκειμένης φάραγγος. So later in the trial of P. Scipio. Liv. xxix. 20; xxxviii. 52.

374 Liv. iii. 31 (456 B.C.; the consuls sell booty taken from the Aequi) “itaque ergo, ut magistratu abiere... dies dicta est, Romilio ab C. Calvio Cicerone, tribuno plebis, Veturio ab L. Alieno, aedile plebis.”

375 Yet Livy attributes both to the fifth century; they perform police-duties in the year 463 (Liv. iii. 6), and are entrusted with the care of the state religion in 428 (Liv. iv. 30).

376 Livy, however (iii. 55, cited note 2), represents the sacrosanctitas of the aediles as being based only on law.

377 Dionys. vi. 89. The sacrosanctitas of the tribune is guaranteed νόμῳ τε καὶ ὅρκῳ. Cf. App. B.C. ii. 108 ἡ τῶν δημάρχων ἀρχὴ ἱερὰ καὶ ἄσυλος ἦν ἐκ νόμου καὶ ὅρκου παλαιοῦ. For these two grounds of inviolability see Liv. iii. 55 (restoration of tribunate in 449) “et cum religione inviolatos eos, tum lege etiam fecerunt, sanciendo ‘ut qui tribunis plebis, aedilibus, judicibus, decemviris nocuisset, ejus caput Jovi sacrum esset, familia ad aedem Cereris, Liberi Liberaeque venum iret.’ Hac lege juris interpretes negant quemquam sacrosanctum esse; sed eum, qui eorum cuiquam nocuerit, sacrum sanciri. Itaque aedilem prendi ducique a majoribus magistratibus: quod etsi non jure fiat (noceri enim ei, cui hac lege non liceat) tamen argumentum esse, non haberi pro sacro sanctoque aedilem: tribunos vetere jurejurando plebis, cum primum eam potestatem creavit, sacrosanctos esse” (cf. Liv. ii. 33 “sacratam legem latam” on the Mons Sacer).

378 Resistance to the will of a magistratus populi is not perduellio in later Roman law, but rather vis. But resistance to the tribune is always majestas.

379 Dionys. vii. 17. See p. 96.

380 Liv. ii 56 (Publilius Volero) “rogationem tulit ad populum, ut plebei magistratus tributis comitiis fierent” (followed by the words cited on p. 94).

381 This is Livy’s view (l.c.), “nec, quae una vis ad resistendum erat, ut intercederet aliquis ex collegio... adduci posset.”

382 The ground of objection given by Livy (ii. 56, cited p. 94) rests on the belief that the tribunes had been formerly elected by the comitia curiata.

383 Aemilia, [Camilia], Claudia, Cornelia, Fabia, [Galeria], Horatia, [Lemonia], Menenia, Papiria, [Pollia], [Pupinia], Romulia or Romilia, Sergia, [Voltinia], Voturia or Veturia (from Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 168; the names he encloses in brackets are those to which there are no extant patrician gentes to correspond).

384 Dionys. vii. 64.

385 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 153.

386 See Appendix.

387 Livy (iii. 9) says, “ut vviri creentur legibus de imperio consulari scribendis.” Even if this expression is due to a misunderstanding of the title of the decemvirs, “consulari imperio legibus scribendis” (Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 702), it no doubt expresses a fact. For the nature and object of the decemvirate see Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 4 (of the appointment of the decemvirs) “datumque est eis jus eo anno in civitate summum, uti leges et corrigerent, si opus esset, et interpretarentur neque provocatio ab eis sicut a reliquis magistratibus fieret”; ib. (of the publication of the laws) “quas in tabulas eboreas perscriptas pro rostris composuerunt, ut possint leges apertius percipi.” Cf. Dionys. x. 1, 60.

388 Livy (iii. 11, 26, and 29) seems to speak of the law not being allowed to pass the Plebs; but then he does not recognise the two stages of legislation. See p. 97.

389 Liv. iii. 31.

390 ib. 33; cf. Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 714.

391 Liv. iii. 32 “postremo concessum patribus, modo ne lex Icilia de Aventino, aliaeque sacratae leges abrogarentur.” As to the sacratae leges, the aedileship would have gone with the tribunate; and there was nothing more to be protected by the leges sacratae.

392 Their title was Decemviri consulari imperio legibus scribendis (Capitoline Fasti). Cf. Liv. iii. 32 (“placet creari xviros sine provocatione, et ne quis eo anno alius magistratus esset”) and Pompon. in Dig. (cited p. 102).

393 Liv. iii. 34 “se... omnibus, summis infimisque jura aequasse.”

394 Dionys. x. 58; Liv. iii. 35.

395 Liv. iii. 57. The accounts of the material of the “Tables” vary. Livy (l.c.) says “in aes incisas in publico proposuerunt”; Pomponius (in Dig., cited p. 102) says “in tabulas eboreas perscriptas” (perhaps roboreas or aereas, Kipp, Quellenkunde des R.R. p. 8). It is possible that they were of wood.

396 Liv. iii. 34 “fons omnis publici privatique est juris”; Tac. Ann. iii. 27 “creatique decemviri et accitis quae usquam egregia compositae duodecim tabulae, finis aequi juris.”

397 Cic. de Leg. ii. 23, 59 “Discebamus enim pueri XII, ut carmen necessarium; quas jam nemo discit.”

398 Liv. iii. 34.

399 p. 19.

400 Ulpian Reg. ii. 4.

401 p. 10.

402 p. 91.

403 Cato R.R. praef.

404 Plin. H.N. xviii. 3, 12.

405 Cic. de Rep. iv. 12.

406 Gell. xx. 1.

407 Marcian in Dig. 48, 4, 3 “Lex duodecim tabularum jubet eum, qui hostem concitaverit quive civem hosti tradiderit, capite puniri.”

408 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 23. See p. 80.

409 Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54 “ab omni judicio poenaque provocari licere indicant XII Tabulae compluribus legibus.”

410 Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 11.

411 Decl. in Catil. 19.

412 This rule is said to have been taken from a law of Solon’s (Gaius in Dig. 47, 22, 4). Other traces of Greek influence are perhaps to be found in the sumptuary regulations, especially those about funerals, and perhaps in the prohibition of interment within the city. Gaius finds also a Solonian parallel to the actio finium regundorum ordained by the law (Dig. 10, 1, 13).

413 Liv. vii. 17 “in duodecim tabulis legem esse, ut quodcumque postremum populus jussisset, id jus ratumque esset.”

414 Liv. iii. 53.

415 ib. 54 “ibi extemplo, pontifice maximo comitia habente, tribunos plebis creaverunt.”

416 ib. “Confestim de consulibus creandis cum provocatione M. Duilius rogationem pertulit.” Such a resolution would not need confirmation by the people, as, after the fall of the decemvirs, an interregnum would naturally ensue; and this was a matter for the Senate. But Livy also represents the tribune as (in accordance with a senatus consultum) passing the act of amnesty, iii. 54 “Tribunatu inito, L. Icilius extemplo plebem rogavit, et plebs scivit, ne cui fraudi esset secessio ab decemviris facta.” In later Roman law amnesty resides with the Senate.

417 Liv. iii. 55 “ne quis ullum magistratum sine provocatione crearet, qui creasset, eum jus fasque esset occidi: neve ea caedes capitalis noxae haberetur.”

418 p. 79.

419 p. 79.

420 p. 99.

421 Liv. iii. 55 “omnium primum, cum velut in controverso jure esset, tenerenturne patres plebiscitis, legem centuriatis comitiis tulere ‘ut quod,’” etc. Cf. Dionys. xi. 45.

422 Mr. Strachan-Davidson in Smith Dict. of Antiq. s.v. plebiscitum, and English Historical Review Nos. 2 and 19.

423 p. 97.

424 p. 107.

425 Types of such laws between 449 and 287 B.C. are the lex Terentilia (462), Canuleia (445), Licinia (367), Ogulnia (300).

426 Liv. iii. 55 “M. Duilius deinde tribunus plebis plebem rogavit, plebesque scivit: ‘qui plebem sine tribunis reliquisset, quique magistratum sine provocatione creasset, tergo ac capita puniretur.’”

427 Liv. iv. 1 “de conubio patrum et plebis C. Canuleius tribunus plebis rogationem promulgavit.”

428 See p. 39 and cf. Liv. iv. 6; the consuls (in a contio) gave as the official reason “quod nemo plebeius auspicia haberet; ideoque decemviros conubium diremisse, ne incerta prole auspicia turbarentur.”

429 Liv. iv. 1 “et mentio, primo sensim inlata a tribunis, ut alterum ex plebe consulem liceret fieri, eo processit deinde, ut rogationem novem tribuni promulgarent, ‘ut populo potestas esset, seu de plebe, seu de patribus vellet, consules faciendi.’”

430 The situation at the beginning of the year thus is described by Livy (iv. 2), “eodem tempore et consules senatum in tribunum, et tribunus populum in consules incitabat.” At last (Liv. iv. 6) “victi tandem patres, ut de conubio ferretur, consensere.”

431 Liv. iv. 6.

432 ib. 35.

433 Claudius in Tab. Lugd. “quid (commemorem) in pluris distributum consulare imperium tribunosque militum consulari imperio appellatos, qui seni et saepe octoni crearentur.”

434 Livy sometimes speaks of eight (v. 1, vi. 27); cf. Tab. Lugd. cited note 3. It is probable that this number includes the six tribunes and the two censors (Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 184); e.g. Livy gives eight for the year 403, the Fasti Capitol. for the same year (351 A.U.C. C.I.L. i. p. 428) six and two censors.

435 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 25 “cum... plebs contenderet cum patribus et vellet ex suo quoque corpora consules creare, et patres recusarent, factum est ut tribuni militum crearentur partim ex plebe, partim ex patribus consulari potestate.”

436 Liv. v. 12. This is maintained to be an error by Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. i. 66; Staatsr. ii. p. 188. He holds that in 445 B.C. one L. Atilius Longus was a Plebeian, and that in 400, 399, 396 the Plebeians had a majority. Livy’s view is upheld by Willems Le Sénat i. 58-60.

437 If it be taken to prove that the preponderance of voting power in the comitia centuriata was still on the side of the Patricians, it would throw a valuable side-light on the relative economic position of the two orders.

438 Imperium (Tab. Lugd. quoted p. 112); potestas (Liv. iv. 6); jus (Tac. Ann. i. 1).

439 Liv. iv. 7 “et imperio et insignibus consularibus usos.”

440 ib. v. 13, 52.

441 “Proconsularis imago” (Liv. v. 2).

442 Zonar. vii. 19.

443 Liv. iv. 55 “pervincunt, ut senatus consultum fiat de tribunis militum creandis”; iv. 12 “cum... obtinuisset, ut consulerentur patres, consulum an tribunorum placeret comitia haberi.” Dionysius (xi. 60) represents the people as being consulted too.

444 i.e. in accordance with the law, if there was one, establishing the office.

445 Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 191.

446 Liv. iv. 8 “ortum autem initium est rei, quod in populo, per multos annos incenso, neque differri census poterat, neque consulibus, cum tot populorum bella imminerent, operae erat id negotium agere.” Cf. Dionys. xi. 63.

447 Liv. l.c. “Idem hic annus censurae initium fuit, rei a parva origine ortae.”

448 Liv. iv. 24. Mommsen indeed thinks (Staatsr. ii. p. 349) that this lex Aemilia first made the censorship an independent magistracy with a fixed tenure. It was probably an independent magistracy before, but with no fixed tenure. Hence the belief that the censors originally held office for five years, the period of the lustrum (Liv. l.c., cf. ix. 34).

449 pp. 81, 102.

450 Liv. iv. 43 (discord between the Patres and the Plebs) “exorta est, coepta ab duplicando quaestorum numero... praeter duos urbanos quaestores duo ut consulibus ad ministeria belli praesto essent.” The tribunes demanded “ut pars quaestorum... ex plebe fieret.” The compromise arrived at was that “quattuor quaestores promiscue de plebe ac patribus libero suffragio populi fierent.”

451 ib. 54. The Plebs, indignant at the election of consuls in place of military tribunes, “eum dolorem quaestoriis comitiis simul ostendit, et ulta est, tunc primum plebeiis quaestoribus creatis: ita ut, in quattuor creandis, uni patricio K. Fabio Ambusto relinqueretur locus.” For the election at the comitia tributa see p. 102.

452 p. 83 note 2.

453 Liv. iv. 25. The principes plebis, in despair at the choice of the military tribunate always falling on Patricians, came to the conclusion that it was “ambitione artibusque” of the Patricians. Hence a tribunician measure “ne cui album in vestimentum addere petitionis liceret causa.” After great resistance “vicere tribuni ut legem perferrent.”

454 “Principes plebis” (Liv. l.c.).

455 ib. vi. 31 “conditiones impositae patribus, ne quis, quoad bellatum esset, tributum daret, aut jus de pecunia credita diceret.”

456 ib. 35 “omnium igitur simul rerum, quarum immodica cupido inter mortales est, agri, pecuniae, honorum, discrimine proposito, conterriti patres, etc.”

457 Liv. vi. 37 “Novam rogationem promulgant, ut pro duumviris sacris faciundis decemviri creentur; ita ut pars ex plebe, pars ex patribus fiat.”

458 ib. 38. His statements are inconsistent. He speaks of the college as being unanimous, and yet of intercessio being used at the meeting.

459 Liv. vi. 42 “concessum... a plebe nobilitati de praetore uno, qui jus in urbe diceret, ex patribus creando,” probably by a clause introduced into the Licinian rogations when they were submitted by the consul to the Populus (see p. 97). The true motive is given by Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 27, “Cum consules avocarentur bellis finitimis neque esset, qui in urbe jus reddere posset, factum est ut praetor quoque crearetur, qui urbanus appellatus est, quod in urbe jus redderet.”

460 Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 204) doubts it, chiefly on the ground that no law is mentioned as opening the office to Plebeians thirty years later. Probably the same doubt hung over the praetorship as over the second place in the consulship, i.e. whether the Licinian law, by reserving one consulship to the Plebs, had left the other posts open to both orders or not.

461 Liv. vii. 1 “collegam consulibus atque iisdem auspiciis creatum.” Cf. Gell. xiii. 15.

462 An instance of the exercise of a consular veto over a judicial decision of a praetor in 77 B.C. is preserved by Valerius Maximus (vii. 7, 6).

463 Liv. viii. 15 “eodem anno Q. Publilius Philo praetor primus de plebe, adversante Sulpicio consule, qui negabat rationem ejus se habiturum, est factus; senatu, cum in summis imperiis id non obtinuisset, minus in praetura intendente.”

464 p. 98.

465 Liv. vi. 42 “Factum senatus consultum, ut duo viros aediles ex patribus dictator populum rogaret.”

466 ib. vii. 1 (366 B.C.) “verecundia inde imposita est senatui ex patribus jubendi aediles curules creari. primo, ut alternis annis ex plebe fierent, convenerat; [this was the rule in 213 (Polyb. x. 4)]. postea promiscuum fuit” [Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 482) thinks as late as the last century of the Republic].

467 ib. 17 “dictator C. Marcius Rutilus primus de plebe dictus”; he appointed a plebeian master of the horse.

468 ib. 22. The same C. Marcius Rutilus “professus censuram se petere” was elected.

469 ib. viii. 12 “ut alter utique ex plebe... censor crearetur.”

470 ib. Ep. 59 “Q. Pompeius et Q. Metellus, tunc primum utrique ex plebe facti, censores lustrum condiderunt.”

471 Liv. vii. 42. The law was proposed by the tribune L. Genucius. It was not, however, until the year 172 B.C. that both consuls were plebeian (Liv. xlii. 9; Fast. Cap. C.I.L. i. 1 p. 25).

472 p. 52.

473 Livy (x. 6) marvels at the fact; he thinks that it must have been accidental (“morte duorum”), since the augural college should have consisted of three or of a multiple of three. Cicero (de Rep. ii. 9, 16) says that Romulus coopted (cooptavit) one from each of the three tribes; they were therefore four; that Numa added two (ib. ii. 14, 26). This makes six, which Livy (l.c.) thinks the normal number at the time of the passing of the Ogulnian law.

474 Liv. x. 6. These numbers remained unaltered until the time of Sulla (81 B.C.), who raised the colleges of pontiffs and augurs to fifteen (Liv. Ep. 89). A sixteenth was added to both colleges by Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xlii. 51).

475 Liv. xxxiii. 42. The number was afterwards increased to seven, from which time the college was known as that of the VIIviri epulones.

476 Marquardt Staatsverw. iii. p. 333.

477 Liv. iii. 32 “augur (mortuus est) C. Horatius Pulvillus; in cujus locum C. Veturium eo cupidius, quia damnatus a plebe erat, augures legere.” The pontifex maximus was early an exception to this rule; see the comitia sacerdotum in the section dealing with the people.

478 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 18; Vell. ii. 12.

479 Liv. viii. 12.

480 p. 109.

481 Mr. Strachan-Davidson conjectures that the law of Publilius Philo “may have struck out the intervening consultation of the Senate, and may have required the consul to bring the petition of the Plebs at once before the Populus” (Smith Dict. of Antiq. s.v. plebiscitum, ii. p. 439).

482 p. 83.

483 The only evidence that they were is furnished by Livy’s account of a lex Manlia of 357 B.C. (Willems Droit Public p. 183). See Liv. vii. 16 (Manlius the consul) “legem, novo exemplo ad Sutrium in castris tributim de vicesima eorum, qui manumitterentur, tulit. Patres, quia ea lege haud parvum vectigal inopi aerario additum esset, auctores fuerunt.”

484 ib. viii. 12 “ut legum, quae comitiis centuriatis ferrentur, ante initum suffragium patres auctores fierent.”

485 Cic. Brut. 14, 55. Cf. Liv. i. 17 “hodie... in legibus magistratibusque rogandis usurpatur idem jus (the patrum auctoritas), vi adempta.”

486 Laelius Felix ap. Gell. 15, 27 “(plebi scitis) ante patricii non tenebantur, donec Q. Hortensius dictator legem tulit, ut eo jure quod plebs statuisset, omnes quirites tenerentur”; Plin. H.N. xvi. 10, 37 “ut quod ea (plebs) jussisset, omnes quirites teneret.”

487 Gaius i. 3 “olim patricii dicebant plebi scitis se non teneri, quia sine auctoritate eorum facta essent; sed postea lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est, ut plebi scita universum populum tenerent, itaque eo modo legibus exaequata sunt”; Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 8 “pro legibus placuit et ea (plebiscita) observari lege Hortensia: et ita factum est, ut inter plebis scita et legem species constituendi interesset, potestas autem eadem esset.”

488 Pompon. l.c.

489 The lex Agraria of 111 B.C. (Bruns Fontes) thus refers to a lex Sempronia of 123 B.C., “[ex] lege plebeive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr. pl. rogavit.” Cf. lex Rubria (ib.) “ex lege Rubria seive id pl. sc. est.”

490 Thus Cicero, exiled by a plebiscitum, was restored by a lex centuriata. See the section on the people.

491 Of the many instances one of the most remarkable is to be found in Sall. Jug. 84, “Marius... cupientissima plebe consul factus, postquam ei provinciam Numidiam populus jussit.” Here plebs should be populus and populus, plebs.

492 “Legislative” is here used in the modern sense. At Rome a judicial and elective act of the people was equally a lex.

493 At least in 304 B.C. they had no right of relatio with the Senate (Liv. ix. 46).

494 Gaius iv. 23.

495 Varro L.L. viii. 105 “Hoc (the condition of nexum) C. Poetilio Libone Visolo dictatore (313 B.C.) sublatum ne fieret; et omnes, qui bonam copiam jurarunt, ne essent nexi dissoluti.” Livy (viii. 28), who attributes the measure to 326 B.C., makes it a universal release of nexi: “jussique consoles ferre ad populum, ne quis, nisi qui noxam meruisset, donec poenam lueret, in compedibus aut in nervo teneretur: pecuniae creditae bona debitoris, non corpus obnoxium esset.”

496 Liv. ix. 46 “Cn. Flavius... patre libertino... civile jus, repositum in penetralibus pontificum, evulgavit, fastosque circa forum in albo proposuit, ut quando lege agi posset, sciretur”; Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 7 “postea cum Appius Claudius composuisset (for “proposuisset”) et ad formam redegisset has actiones, Cn. Flavius scriba ejus libertini filius subreptum librum populo tradidit... hic liber, qui actiones continet, appellator jus civile Flavianum.”

497 Pompon. l.c. §§ 37, 38. Gaius Scipio Nasica was given a house for consultations. The first professor, Ti. Coruncanius (“qui primus profiteri coepit,” circ. 280 B.C.), was also the first plebeian pontifex maximus.

498 Polyb. vi. 53.

499 Cic. in Verr. v. 14, 36 “togam praetextam, sellam curulem, jus imaginis ad memoriam posteritatemque prodendae.”

500 In other words, images of other than curule ancestors might be set up in the atrium.

501 p. 22.

502 Sallust. Jug. 95 (of Sulla) “gentis patriciae nobilis fuit, familia prope jam exstincta majorum ignavia.”

503 Cic. pro Mur. 7. 16; Ascon. in Scaurian. p. 22.

504 Dionys. vii. 71.

505 Cf. Cic. de Off. ii. 17, 58 “Vitanda tamen suspicio est avaritiae. Mamerco, homini divitissimo, praetermissio aedilitatis consulatus repulsam attulit.”

506 Liv. xxii. 34 (of the election of Varro, 217 B.C.) “Patres summa ope obstabant, ne se insectando sibi aequari adsuescerent homines.”

507 Sallust. Jug. 63 “consulatum nobilitas inter se per manus tradebat; novus nemo tam clarus neque tam egregiis factis erat, quin indignus illo honore, et is quasi pollutus, haberetur.”

508 Cic. pro Domo 14, 38 “Ita populus Romanus brevi tempore, neque regem sacrorum, neque flamines, neque salios habebit, nec ex parte dimidia reliquos sacerdotes, neque auctores centuriatorum et curiatorum comitiorum: auspiciaque populi Romani, si magistratus patricii creati non sint, intereant necesse est, cum interrex nullus sit, quod et ipsum patricium esse et a patriciis prodi necesse est.” The passage is closely followed by Livy vi. 41, in the speech against the Licinio-Sextian laws, with which he credits Appius Claudius. We meet with other archaic survivals in connexion with the Senate—the distinction, e.g., between the “greater and lesser gentes” (p. 12) was never lost, and the chief of the Senate, the first member on the list, was always chosen from the gentes majores (see p. 12).

509 Ulpian Reg. v. 8 “conubio interveniente liberi semper patrem sequuntur; non interveniente conubio matris conditioni accedunt, excepto eo qui ex peregrino et cive Romana peregrinus nascitur, quoniam lex Mensia [“Minicia” has been read in the Veronese palimpsest of the parallel passage of Gaius i. 78, ed. Krueger and Studemund] ex alterutro peregrino natum deterioris parentis conditionem sequi jubet.”

510 Or, in the Principate, an administrative act. See the section on the powers of the Princeps.

511 p. 6.

512 Beloch Der Italische Bund pp. 101, 102.

513 Tac. Ann. xi. 25; Beloch op. cit. p. 78. According to Beloch (l.c.) a comparison between the ante-imperial and post-imperial census is vitiated by the fact that the aerarii were excluded from the former, included in the latter. See the section on the censor.

514 Lex Acilia Repetundarum 1. 76.

515 Cic. pro Balbo 10, 25 “quod iis... liceat, si populus Romanus permiserit, ut ab senatu, ab imperatoribus nostris, civitate donentur.”

516 Cic. Brut. 20, 79; pro Balbo 21, 48.

517 See the section dealing with the comitia.

518 Suet. Aug. 40; Senec. de Vit. Beat. 24.

519 It implied the imperium. At Rome these magistrates would be consul, praetor, dictator, or interrex; in the provinces the governors.

520 Gaius iv. 16.

521 “Praetor addicit libertatem.” See Cic. ad Att. vii. 2, 8.

522 For the censor as such had no power to confer freedom (Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 374). Cicero (de Orat. i. 40, 183) mentions the juristic controversy whether the slave was free from the moment of the announcement or from the lustrum, which gave validity to the censorian ordinances. Servi publici were manumitted by the magistrates, but whether by the consul only or by any magistrate is unknown (Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 321). The greatest instance of state emancipation is that of the Volones in 214 B.C. (Liv. xxiv. 16).

523 In the first case it is called directa libertas (Dig. 40, 4, 35), in the second libertas fidei commissa (Dig. 40, 4, 11).

524 Theophilus (i. 5, 4) calls them φυσικοὶ τρόποι ἐλευθερίας.

525 Suet. Claud. 24 (Claudius said that App. Caecus, censor in 312 B.C., had chosen the sons of libertini for the Senate) “ignarus, temporibus Appii et deinceps aliquamdiu, ‘libertinos’ dictos, non ipsos, qui manu mitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreatos.”

526 Justin. Inst. i. 4 “qui statim ut natus est liber est”; Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 18, 45 “in jure civili, qui est matre libera, liber est.” This is the sense in which Cincius (ap. Fest. p. 241) and Livy (x. 8) declare patricius to have been originally equivalent to ingenuus. See p. 5.

527 The s(ine) p(atre) filii of Gaius (i. 64) and Plutarch (Qu. Rom. 103) was a conjecture of the jurists based on the abbreviated form of sp(urii) filii (Momms. Staatsr. iii p. 72 n. 4). Spurii filii was the official designation, while liberi naturales denoted the natural relationship to the father (Meyer Der römische Concubinat).

528 p. 35.

529 p. 131.

530 p. 45.

531 p. 98.

532 Lex Coloniae Genetivae (a foundation of Caesar’s in 44 B.C. at Osuna in Spain) c. 98 “Quamcumque munitionem decuriones hujusce coloniae decreverint... eam munitionem fieri liceto, dum ne amplius in annos singulos... operas quinas... decernant.”

533 The other chief personal burdens are guardianship (tutela) and serving on juries; but the consideration of both belongs rather to civil and criminal than to public law.

534 p. 69.

535 p. 74.

536 p. 73.

537 Liv. xxxiii. 42 (196 B.C.) “Pecunia opus erat, quod ultimam pensionem pecuniae in bellum conlatae persolvi placuerat privatis.” Cf. v. 20 and Plin. H.N. xxxiv. 6.

538 Cic. de Off. ii. 22, 76 “Paulus tantum in aerarium pecuniae invexit, ut unius imperatoris praeda finem attulerit tributorum”; Plutarch, Paul. 38.

539 Lex Acilia Repetundarum c. 79; amongst the rewards granted to a Latin who prosecuted successfully under this law are “militiae munerisque poplici in sua quojusque ceivitate vocatio immunitasque.”

540 Cic. pro Caec. 34.

541 Cic. l.c.; de Orat. i. 40.

542 Cic. pro Caec. 34; Dionys. iv. 15

543 p. 32.

544 Eisele Beiträge zur römischen Rechtsgeschichte p. 205.

545 Gaius i. 159-162; Ulp. xi. 10-13.

546 p. 31.

547 For the form of deditio see Liv. ix. 10; App. de Reb. Hisp. 83. The references are to the two great historic instances at the Caudine Forks (321) and Numantia (137).

548 Liv. xxxviii. 42 (188 B.C.) “eo anno L. Minucius Myrtilus et L. Manlius, quod legatos Carthaginienses pulsasse dicebantur, jussu M. Claudii praetoris urbani per fetiales traditi sunt legatis, et Carthaginem avecti.”

549 ib. v. 36; Suet. Caes. 24.

550 p. 138.

551 p. 91.

552 Gaius i. 159.

553 Cic. pro Balbo 11, 28; pro Caec. 34, 100.

554 p. 55.

555 Ulp. Reg. xi. 13 “per quam, et civitate et libertate salva, status dumtaxat hominis mutatur.” Cf. Gaius i. 162.

556 p. 32.

557 i.e. by adrogatio, see p. 32.

558 Justin. Inst. i. 12, 5 “postliminium fingit eum qui captus est semper in civitate fuisse”; Gaius i. 129 “hi qui ab hostibus capti sunt, si reversi fuerint, omnia pristina jura recipiunt.”

559 p. 18.

560 Cic. pro Mur. 12, 27 “mulieres omnes propter infirmitatem consilii majores in tutorum potestate esse voluerunt; hi invenerunt genera tutorum, quae potestate mulierum continerentur.”

561 By the jus postliminii; see p. 140.

562 Plaut. Capt. Prol. 34.

563 Liv. x. 42, 46.

564 Caesar B.G. iii. 16.

565 Polyb. xxx. 15 (Paulus) πέντε δὲ καὶ δέκα μυριάδας ἀνθρώπων ἐξανδραποδίσασθαι.

566 Strabo xiv. p. 668.

567 Marquardt Privatleben pp. 135 sq.

568 Appian B.C. i. 8.

569 Gaius in Dig. 50, 17, 133 “melior condicio nostra per servos fieri potest, deterior fieri non potest.”

570 Gaius iv. 69-74; Justin. Inst. iv. 7.

571 Cic. Part. Orat. 34, 118; pro Cluent. 63, etc. As, however, the master’s consent had to be obtained, the evidence and torture of slaves in the public courts were rare. In domestic jurisdiction the inquisition on slaves was held before a family consilium.

572 Gaius iii. 210, 217, 222, 223.

573 Cato R.R. 5; Dionys. vii. 69.

574 Cic. ad Fam. iv. 12; Tac. Ann. xiv. 42.

575 Liv. xliii. 16; Gell. xiii. 13. For servi publici in the municipal towns see Lex Coloniae Genetivae c. 62.

576 Actor publicus, in Rome (Tac. Ann. ii 30); in the municipal towns (Plin. Ep. vii, 18, 2).

577 Libertinus describes the freedman’s political position, libertus his relation to his master.

578 Ulp. in Dig. 1, 16, 9, 3.

579 Macer in Dig. 48. 2, 8; Paul. Sent. v. 15, 3.

580 Ulp. in Dig. 2, 4, 4, 1 “Praetor ait ‘parentem, patronum, patronam, liberos parentes patroni patronae in jus sine permissu meo ne quis vocet.’”

581 Gaius iii. 40-44.

582 Ulp. in Dig. 38, 2, 1, 1. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 433) thinks that the author of the change was the famous P. Rutilius Rufus, consul 105 B.C.

583 Suet. Caes. 48; Val. Max. 6, 1, 4. Willems (Droit Public i. p. 125 n. 8) remarks that there is nothing to show that this power was exercised over justi liberti. The freedmen so punished may have been informally manumitted. For the relegation of a freedman by his patronus see Tac. Ann. xiii 26.

584 Cf. Plut. Poplic. 7. Plutarch, in this story of the imaginary freedman Vindicius, represents his class as having no voting rights at the beginning of the Republic. Appius Claudius (312 B.C.), he says, first gave them ἐξουσίαν ψήφου: but he does not state the assemblies in which this right was exercised.

585 See the section on the censor (p. 223).

586 Liv. ix. 46.

587 ib.; Val. Max. ii. 2, 9. Nothing is said about their division into classes; according to the arrangement of the reformed comitia centuriata (see the section on the comitia), this restriction to four tribes would have given them the command of only forty centuries.

588 Liv. xlv. 15.

589 Auct. de Vir. Ill. 72 (M. Aemilius Scaurus) “consul legem de sumptibus et libertinorum suffragiis tulit”; Willems Droit Public Rom. p. 123.

590 Dio Cass. xxxvi. 25.

591 Liv. Ep. 84.

592 Exceptions due to the stress of times are mentioned for the years 296 (Liv. x. 21) and 217 (Liv. xxii. 11). Even in the social war they formed cohorts separate from the legions.

593 First mentioned in 217 B.C. (Liv. xxii. 11).

594 See the section on the magistracy (p. 184).

595 e.g. the institution of the censor, praetor, curule aediles, and (although they are not a part of the developed constitution), the consular tribunes.

596 p. 121.

597 Cic. ad Att. ix. 9, 3 “in libris (i.e. the augural books) habemus non modo consules a praetore, sed ne praetores quidem creari jus esse.”

598 p. 47.

599 p. 47.

600 See the section on the magistracy (p. 165).

601 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 9 “ast quando consoles magisterve populi (i.e. dictator) nec escunt, auspicia patrum sunto, ollique ex se produnto qui comitiatu creare consules rite possint”; ad Brut. i. 5, 4 “dum unus erit patricius magistratus, auspicia ad patres redire non possunt.”

602 In 43 B.C., on the deaths of Hirtius and Pansa, this communication could not be made in time. Hence the extraordinary measure of appointing two privati with consularis potestas to hold the election for the consulship (Dio Cass, xlvi. 45).

603 The senatus consultum containing this suggestion might be vetoed by one of the tribunes. Ascon, in Milon. p. 32 “dum... Pompeius... et T. Munatius tr. pl. referri ad senatum de patriciis convocandis qui interregem proderent non essent passi.”

604 p. 47.

605 Liv. v. 31, 8 “interrex creatur M. Furius Camillus.”

606 The technical expression prodere interregem refers in Republican times, not only to the appointment of the first interrex by election, but to the nomination of each of the other interreges by his predecessor (Liv. vi. 41; v. 31).

607 Liv. vi. 1; viii. 23.

608 Cic. pro Dom. 14, 38, quoted p. 131.

609 Willems le Sénat ii. pp. 14, 16.

610 p. 126.

611 See Appendix on the comitia tributa.

612 p. 89.

613 The power of this body was much increased by the long wars waged in West and East; but its ascendency was assured before these wars began. See the section on the Senate.

614 For an instance of its cumulative use see Cic. in Verr. act. i. 13, 37 “erit tunc consul Hortensius cum summo imperio et potestate”; for one of its disjunctive uses see Dig. 4, 6, 26, 2 “consulem praetorem ceterosque qui imperium potestatemve quam habent.”

615 p. 79.

616 Mommsen (Staatsr. i. p. 203) denies the right of the quaestor to issue edicts; but the absence of distinct mention of quaestorian edicts is no ground for denying him what appears to have been a common magisterial right.

617 For the pro-magistrates see the sections on the consuls and the provinces.

618 In the course of the Republic imperium came to denote par excellence command abroad, as was natural, since here alone the power was unshackled. Hence the phrase cum imperio esse descriptive of a magistrate who can assert this latent power (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8, 8 “qui praetores fuerunt neque in provincia cum imperio fuerunt”) and the opposition between magistratus and imperium. Lex Tab. Bant. 1. 16 “quibus quisque eorum mag(istratum) imperiumve inierit”; Lex Acilia Rep. 1. 8 “dum magi(stratum) aut imperium habebunt.”

619 Liv. iii. 42; xxviii. 45.

620 Polyb. vi. 19, 21. The tenor of the oath was (c. 21) ἧ μὴν πειθαρχήσειν καὶ ποιήσειν τὸ προσταττόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχόντων κατὰ δύναμιν.

621 The soldier is said “jurare in verba consilium” (Liv. ii. 52).

622 Liv. iii. 20.

623 ib. viii. 34 “latrocinii modo caeca et fortuita pro sollemni et sacrata militia sit.”

624 Dionys. xi. 43.

625 p. 79.

626 See the section on the intercessio.

627 Liv. vii. 5.

628 ib. xxvii. 36.

629 Lex Acilia 1. 2.

630 They were called Rufuli (Liv. vii. 5; Festus p. 260).

631 Liv. xlii. 31 (171 B.C., commencement of war with Perseus) “consoles ex senatus consulto ad populum tulerunt, ne tribuni militum eo anno suffragiis crearentur, sed consulum praetorumque in iis faciendis judicium arbitriumque esset.” Cf. xliii. 12.

632 Polyb. vi. 13.

633 p. 117.

634 See Greenidge, “The provocatio militiae and provincial jurisdiction” in Classical Review x. p. 225.

635 The fact that the delegates and sometimes the crimes were distinct in the two cases does not make the military jurisdiction of the imperator differ from his ordinary criminal jurisdiction, as Mommsen seems to think (Staatsr. i. p. 123). For the proofs of unity in the conception of jurisdiction militiae see the article cited in the last note.

636 At the close of the Republic, however, custom dictated that the governor should send capital cases in which Romans were involved to Rome. See the section on the provinces.

637 Tac. Ann. iii. 74 “Tiberius... Blaeso tribuit, ut imperator a legionibus salutaretur, prisco ergo duces honore, qui bene gesta republica gaudio et impetu victoris exercitus conclamabantur.” The earliest instance recorded is that of the elder Scipio Africanus (Liv. xxvii. 19). At the close of the Republic the title might be conferred by the Senate. Cic. Phil. xiv. 4, 11 (to emphasise the fact that Antonius was a public enemy Servilius had proposed supplicationes) “Sed hoc primum faciam, ut imperatores appellem eos, quorum virtute... periculis... liberati sumus.” For who, he asks, has not been called imperator within the last twenty years “aut minimis rebus gestis, aut plerumque nullis”? (cf. Cic. ad Att. v. 20, 3).

638 Dio Cass. xxxvii. 40.

639 For the consular tribune see p. 114.

640 An important exception is recorded in Liv. vii. 11 (360 B.C.). Here the consul triumphs after the abdication of the dictator, and the honour is clearly a concession of the latter.

641 Liv. xxviii. 9 (207 B.C.).

642 In this case the lesser honour of an “ovation” was sometimes granted (Liv. xxvi. 21; xxviii. 9).

643 Liv. xxxix. 29 (185 B.C.).

644 Gell. v. 6; Val. Max. ii. 8, 7. In this case, too, the ovation was sometimes granted, e.g. in the slave-wars of 99 and 71 B.C. (Cic. de Orat. ii. 47, 195; Gell. v. 6). For this reason Caesar’s triumph in 46 was over Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and Africa; that of Augustus in 29 over Dalmatia and Egypt. In neither case was it held over the citizens whom they had crushed.

645 Val. Max. ii. 8, 1.

646 Liv. xxxiii. 23; xlii. 21.

647 Mommsen thinks the use of it as well (Staatsr. i p. 132), e.g. that it was in consequence of the absence of the provocatio that the cives Romani Campani were executed in 271 (Val. Max. ii. 7, 15).

648 e.g. L. Postumius Megellus in 294 B.C. (Liv. x. 37), App. Claudius in 143 B.C. (Suet. Tib. 2).

649 “Senatus consulto jussuque populi” (Liv. iv. 20).

650 Polyb. vi. 15 τοὺς... θριάμβους... οὐ δύνανται χειρίζειν ὡς πρέπει, ποτὲ δὲ τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲ συντελεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ συνέδριον συγκατάθηται καὶ δῷ τὴν εἰς ταῦτα δαπάνην.

651 Liv. xxvi. 21. Cf. Liv. xlv. 35, where the Senate’s request to the tribune is made through a praetor. One cannot say in this case that the imperium is conferred for the day, since the Plebs had no power to confer the imperium.

652 ib. xxviii. 38; cf. xxxi. 20.

653 e.g. the two triumphs of Pompeius in 80 and 71 B.C. See Cic. pro Lege Man. 21, 62 “quid tam incredibile, quam ut iterum eques Romanus ex senatus consulto triumpharet?”

654 A shortened form of conventio. Cf. S. C. de Bacchanalibus (Bruns Fontes) l. 23 “haice uti in conventionid exdeicatis.”

655 Gell. xiii. 16 “cum populo agere est rogare quid populum, quod suffragiis suis aut jubeat aut vetet, contionem autem habere est verba facere ad populum sine ulla rogatione.”

656 It was, e.g., the mode in which the people were summoned to witness public executions outside the Pomerium (Cic. pro Rab. 4, 11; Tac. Ann. ii. 23).

657 S. C. de Bacch. quoted p. 158.

658 Liv. xxxix. 15 “contione advocata cum sollemne carmen precationis, quod praefari priusquam populum adloquantur magistratus solent, peregisset, consul ita coepit.”

659 Messala ap. Gell. xiii. 16 includes the magistratus minores. Mommsen, guided by the (in this case probably false) analogy of the jus cum populo agendi, would exclude the aediles and quaestors (Staatsr. i. p. 200).

660 Gell. l.c.

661 Cic. ad Att. iv. 1, 6 “habui contionem, omnes magistratus praeter unum praetorem et duos tribunos pl. dederunt”; i. 14, 1 “Pisonis consulis impulsu levissimus tribunus pl. Fufius in contionem producit Pompeium”; ii. 24, 3 “Caesar is qui olim, praetor cum esset, Q. Catulum ex inferiore loco jusserat dicere, Vettium in rostra produxit.”

662 Sall. Jug. 34 “ubi Memmius (a tribune) dicendi finem fecit et Jugurtha respondere jussus est, C. Baebius tribunus plebis... regem tacere jubet.”

663 See note 1.

664 Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 10 “cum populo patribusque agendi jus esto consuli praetori magistro populi equitumque eique quem patres produnt consulum rogandorum ergo.” For the question whether the praefect of the city had this right see p. 61; an argument for his possession of it in the Republic is his right of consulting the Senate.

665 For the curule aediles see Cic. in Verr. i. 12, 36; Val. Max. viii. 1, 7.

666 Liv. iii. 24; Dionys. viii. 77.

667 Liv. xliii. 16 (169 B.C., P. Rutilius tr. pl.) “C. Claudio diem dixit... et utrique censori perduellionem se judicare pronunciavit, diemque comitiis a C. Sulpicio praetore urbano petiit... absoluto Claudio, tribunus plebis negavit se Gracchum morari.” Antias ap. Gell. vi. 9 “Licinius tribunus plebi perduellionem ei diem dixit et comitiis diem a M. Marcio praetore peposcit.”

668 Whether the tribune presided over this assembly is uncertain. When the tribune in Livy (l.c.) breaks up such an assembly the act may simply refer to his retirement as a prosecutor (see last note).

669 Liv. x. 23; xxv. 2; xxxiii. 42; Gell. x. 6.

670 De Leg. iii. 4, 10, cited p. 160.

671 Gell. xiv. 7 “(Varro ponit) per quos more majorum senatus haberi soleret eosque nominat ‘dictatorem, consules, praetores, tribunos plebi, interregem, praefectum urbi’... ‘deinde extraordinario jure tribunos quoque militares qui pro consulibus fuissent... jus consulendi senatum habuisse.’”

672 This right of the tribunes originated later than 304 B.C.; see p. 127.

673 Liv. xxii. 30; xl. 52. Cf. Wilmanns n. 27 “L. Mummi. L. F. Cos. duct(u) auspicio imperioque ejus Achaia capt(a) Corinto deleto Romam redieit triumphans.”

674 p. 39.

675 Festus p. 261 “quinque genera signorum observant augures publici, ex coelo, ex avibus, ex tripudis, ex quadripedibus, ex diris.”

676 Silentium is defined negatively; see Cic. de Div. ii. 34, 71 “id enim silentium dicimus in auspiciis, quod omni vitio caret.” Cf. Festus p. 351.

677 e.g. the fall of the cap from the head of the sacrificing priest (Val. Max. i. 1, 5). Cf. Festus p. 64.

678 Val. Max. i. 1, 5 “occentusque soricis auditus Fabio Maximo dictaturam... deponendi causam praebuit.”

679 ib. 4, 2 (the omens that T. Gracchus encountered when seeking the tribunate).

680 ib. 4, 7.

681 Plut. C. Gracch. 11.

682 Cic. de Div. ii. 34, 72 “Illi autem, qui in auspicium adhibetur, cum ita imperavit is, qui auspicatur ‘Dicito, si silentium esse videbitur’; nec suspicit nec circumspicit: statim respondet, ‘silentium esse videri.’”

683 Plin. H.N. xxviii. 2, 11.

684 Cic. de Div. ii. 35, 77.

685 Liv. i. 36; Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 9.

686 Cic. de Div. ii. 33, 71 “haec certe quibus utimur, sive tripudio sive de coelo, simulacra sunt auspiciorum, auspicia nullo modo.”

687 Liv. xxiii. 31 (215 B.C., Marcellus) “cui ineunti consulatum cum tonuisset, vocati augures vitio creatum videri pronunciaverunt.”

688 Cic. de Div. ii. 35, 74 “Fulmen sinistrum auspicium optimum habemus ad omnes res, praeterquam ad comitia.”

689 ib. i. 15, 27 “nam nostri quidem magistratus auspiciis utuntur coactis. Necesse est enim, offa objecta, cadere frustum ex pulli ore, cum pascitur. (28) Quod autem scriptum habetis, tripudium fieri, si ex ea quid in solidum ceciderit: hoc quoque, quod dixi, coactum, tripudium solistimum dicitis.” Cf. ii. 34, 72; 35, 73. For their use in camp see Cic. de Div. i. 35, 77; Val. Max. i. 4, 3. In the last passage the incident connected with P. Claudius Pulcher (249 B.C.) is described.

690 Messala ap. Gell. xiii. 15 “Patriciorum auspicia in duas sunt divisa potestates. Maxima sunt consulum, praetorum censorum.... Reliquorum magistratuum minora sunt auspicia.”

691 Gell. iii. 2.

692 “Oriens de nocte silentio” (Liv. viii. 23).

693 That in the camp, by means of the sacred chickens, had naturally to be exempted from these formalities.

694 Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 4, 11; these tents were called minora templa (Festus p. 157).

695 The manipulation of auspices at the end of the Republic had caused the skilled assistant to be neglected (Cic. de Div. ii. 34, 71 “apud majores nostros adhibebatur peritus, nunc quilibet”).

696 Liv. ix. 39, etc.

697 See the section dealing with the powers of the people. The vitium effected the elections even of tribunes of the Plebs—but purely as a result of auspicia oblativa. See Liv. x. 47 (293 B.C.) “exacto jam anno novi tribuni plebis magistratum inierant: hisque ipsis, quia vitio creati erant, quinque post dies alii subfecti.”

698 ib. v. 31, etc.

699 Mommsen thinks that the auspices of the consuls might have alternated, like their fasces, from month to month (Staatsr. i. p. 95).

700 Thus before Cannae Varro takes the field in spite of the ill-omens which the observation of his colleague Paulus had revealed (Liv. xxii. 42).

701 Val. Max. ii. 8, 2.

702 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 6 “magistratus nec oboedientem et noxium civem multa, vinculis, verberibus coerceto, ni par majorve potestas populusve prohibessit, ad quos provocatio esto.” A lex Porcia prohibited the scourging of a Roman citizen by a gravis poena (Liv. x. 9); but that technically it merely submitted the threat of such coercitio to appeal is shown by the fact that the law is classed amongst those regulating the provocatio (Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54).

703 pp. 79, 109.

704 Liv. x. 9 “cum eum qui provocasset virgis caedi securique necari vetuisset, si quis adversus ea fecisset, nihil ultra quam improbe factum adjecit.” The meaning of this sanction has been much disputed: it may mean “incapable of making a will,” on the analogy of “improbus (i.e. qui probare non potest) intestabilisque esto.” Mommsen (Strafrecht p. 632) takes the expression to mean that the act of the magistrate would be regarded as “unjustified,” i.e. as an ordinary criminal offence.

705 Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54.

706 p. 95.

707 Dio Cass. liii. 17.

708 Plin. H.N. vii 44; Liv. Ep. 59.

709 Liv. ii 55; vii. 4.

710 The virgis caedi in the third lex Valeria (note 2) probably refers to scourging as well as to death by the rod.

711 Capito ap. Gell. iv. 10 “Caesar consul viatorem vocavit eumque (Catonem), cum finem non faceret (of speaking in the Senate) prendi loquentem et in carcerem duci jussit.” Cf. Suet. Caes. 17.

712 The earliest recorded case is in Liv. Ep. xlviii. (Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 154). A typical instance belonging to the year 60 B.C. is described in Cic. ad Att. ii. 1, 8; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 50.

713 It was thus that the imprisonment of M. Bibulus, consul in 59 (Cic. in Vat. 9, 21), and of M. Crassus, consul in 55 (Dio Cass. xxxix. 39), was prevented.

714 The annals introduce bail as early as the trial of Kaeso Quinctius in 461 B.C. (Liv. iii. 13).

715 Liv. xxv. 4 (212 B.C.).

716 Mommsen (Staatsr. i. p. 143 n. 1) takes the view that the quaestor had no power of coercitio through multa and pignus. For an opposite opinion see Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 171 and Huschke Multa p. 36.

717 Dionys. x. 50 ἐπὶ τῆς λοχίτιδος ἐκκλησίας νόμον ἐκύρωσαν (the consuls Sp. Tarpeius and A. Aternius) ἵνα ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐξῇ πάσαις τοὺς ἀκοσμοῦντας ἤ παρανομοῦντας εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐξουσίαν ζημιοῦν· τέως γὰρ οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐξῆν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὑπάτοις μόνοις. Cf. Cic. de Rep. ii. 35, 60.

718 Dionys. l.c.; Gell. xi. 1. Dionysius (probably by an error of the copyist) represents the fine as being two oxen or thirty sheep.

719 Cic. de Rep. ii. 35, 60 “levis aestimatio pecudum in multa lege C. Julii, P. Papirii consulum constituta est”; Liv. iv. 30 “legem de multarum aestimatione pergratam populo... ipsi (the consuls Julius and Papirius) praeoccupaverunt ferre”; Gell. xi. 1 “in oves singulas aeris deni, in boves aeris centeni... Suprema multa est ejus numeri,... ultra quem multam dicere in dies singulos jus non est.” Gellius, however, attributes the pecuniary estimate to the lex Aternia.

720 The view has been sometimes held that the multa suprema was one beyond which the magistrate could not under any circumstances go. In this case there is no known limit at which the appeal became possible. That there was one, however, is shown by the provocatio ab omni judicio allowed by the Twelve Tables (Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54. See p. 106).

721 p. 246.

722 Lex Tab. Bant. 1. 12 “Sei quis mag(istratus) multam inrogare volet [quei volet, dum minoris] partus familias taxsat, liceto.”

723 e.g. in case of continued resistance to the veto. See Liv. xliii. 16 (169 B.C., P. Rutilius) “Ti Gracchi primum bona consecravit, quod in multa pignoribusque ejus, qui tribunum adpellasset, intercessioni non parendo, se in ordinem coegisset”; or for a supposed stigma inflicted by a censor on a tribune (Plin. H.N. vii. 44). Cicero, pro Domo 47, 123, mentions the consecration of the goods of L. Metellus by C. Atinius (131 B.C., Plin. l.c.) as an instance of “furor tribuni plebis, ductus ex nonnullis perveterum temporum exemplis.” P. Clodius (58 B.C.) consecrated the goods of Cicero and of Gabinius the consul (ib. § 124).

724 Lex Quinctia de aquaeductibus (Bruns Fontes) l. 20 “tum is praetor... multa pignoribus cogito coerceto.”

725 Cic. de Orat. iii. 1, 4, “pignora caedere” or “concidere”; the destruction was performed as an example “in conspectu populi Romani.”

726 Auct. de Vir. Illustr. 72, 6. Cf. the procedure of the consul Servilius against the revolutionary praetor Caelius Rufus in 48 B.C. Dio Cass. xlii. 23 τόν τε δίφρον αὑτοῦ συνέτριψεν.

727 Varro ap. Gell. xiii. 12 “vocationem (habent), ut consoles et caeteri, qui habent imperium; prensionem, ut tribuni plebis et alii, qui habent viatorem; neque vocationem neque prensionem, ut quaestores et ceteri, qui neque lictorem habent neque viatorem. Qui vocationem habent, idem prendere, tenere, abducere possunt.”

728 p. 94.

729 See Varro ap. Gell. l.c.

730 Aediles were used in the trial of Coriolanus (Dionys. vii. 26, see p. 98); Gracchus sent one of his viatores to drag his colleague Octavius from the Rostra (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 12). Cf. Liv. xxv. 4 (case of Postumius 212 B.C.) “tribuni... ni vades daret... prehendi a viatore... jusserunt.”

731 Varro, as an antiquarian, refused to obey such a summons on the ground of its illegality (Gell. xiii. 12.)

732 Donatus ad Ter. Ad. iv. 2, 9 “qui malam rem nuntiat, obnuntiat, qui bonam adnuntiat; nam proprie obnuntiare dicuntur augures, qui aliquid mali ominis scaevumque viderint.” Cf. Cicero Phil. ii. 33, 83; de Div. i. 16, 29 (dirarum obnuntiatio).

733 The plebeian magistrates sometimes watched for such signs, for purposes of obstruction, and were then improperly said servare de coelo (Cic. ad Att. iv. 3, 3). The words are properly used only of the spectio. See Greenidge, “The Repeal of the Lex Aelia Fufia” in Class. Rev. vii. p. 158.

734 p. 163.

735 Cic. pro Sest. 36, 78; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. To discuss, as has been done, whether the patrician magistrates’ obnuntiatio was valid against the tribunes is to raise rather an idle question. The lex Aelia Fufia could not have artificially regulated religious belief, and the Plebs was as susceptible to auspicia as the Populus (see p. 39).

736 Gell. xiii. 15; minor here simply means “inferior to the consul.”

737 They regulated the precedence of the comitia for elections and for laws (Cic. ad Att. i. 16, 13).

738 Cic. in Pis. 4, 9; de Prov. Con. 19, 46; in Vat. 7, 18.

739 Cic. Phil. ii. 32, 80 and 38, 99; ad Att. iv. 9, 1; 16, 7, etc. See Class. Rev. vii. p. 160.

740 The exercise of the coercitio might of course be vetoed, and in this case the prohibition was of no avail. See Liv. ix. 34 (n. 7).

741 p. 159.

742 Liv. xliii. 16 (169 B.C., P. Rutilius tr. pl.) “C. Claudio diem dixit, quod contionem ab se avocasset.”

743 ib. xxvii. 5 (210 B.C.). The consul declined to question the people on the nomination of a dictator, “quod suae potestatis esset,” and forbade the praetor to do so.

744 p. 172.

745 Cf. the story in Suet. Tib. 2, “Etiam virgo vestalis fratrem (App. Claudius, consul 143 B.C.) injussu populi triumphantem, adscenso simul curru, usque in Capitolium prosecuta est, ne vetare aut intercedere fas cuiquam tribunorum esset.”

746 Liv. ix. 33-34. P. Sempronius, tribune, attempted to compel App. Claudius, who was trying to prolong his censorship beyond eighteen months, to abdicate. He tried to imprison the censor but was resisted by the veto of three colleagues.

747 Auct. de vir. illustr. 72, 6 (for the occasion see p. 171); the consul “ne quis ad eum (praetorem) in jus ire edixit.” Dio Cass. xlii. 23; amongst the other penalties imposed by Servilius Isauricus on Caelius Rufus (see p. 171) was the transference of his functions to another praetor, τά τε προσήκοντα τῇ ἀρχῇ αὐτοῦ ἄλλῳ τῳ τῶν στρατηγῶν προσέταξε.

748 Cic. in Verr. iii. 58, 134 “quaestores, legates, praefectos, tribunos suos, multi missos fecerunt et de provincia decedere jusserunt, quod illorum culpa se minus commode audire arbitrarentur, aut quod peccare ipsos aliqua in re judicarent.”

749 Liv. iii. 27; vii. 9.

750 C.I.L. vi. n. 895.

751 Liv. iii. 3; Cic. Phil. v. 12, 31.

752 Liv. iii. 5; vi. 7; Cic. l.c.

753 Mommsen conjectures that, on the occasion of every public funeral in the forum, a short justitium was declared (Staatsr. i. p. 251 n. 4).

754 Liv. x. 21.

755 Cic. de Har. Resp. 26, 55 “justitium edici oportere, jurisdictionem intermitti, claudi aerarium, judicia tolli.” Cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10; Cic. pro Plancio 14, 33.

756 Liv. vi 7.

757 Cic. Brut. 89, 304 “exercebatur una lege judicium Varia, ceteris propter bellum intermissis.”

758 p. 119.

759 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10.

760 “(Feriae) imperativae sunt, quas consules vel praetores pro arbitrio potestatis indicunt” (Macrob. Saturn. i. 16, 6).

761 e.g. by Livy (x. 37).

762 No instance of such a veto being exercised at Rome is known; but it is recognised in the municipal law of Salpensa (Bruns Fontes) c. 27.

763 Or decretum. The formal difference is slight; by the end of the Republic edictum is a general, decretum a more special (and generally judicial) command.

764 Liv. iv. 55.

765 Caes. Bell. Civ. iii. 20 (Caelius Rufus) “tribunal suum juxta C. Treboni praetoris urbani sellam collocavit, et si quis appellavisset... fore auxilio pollicebatur.” For the consequent necessity of the presence of the tribunes in Rome see p. 94.

766 Thus Verres, who was praetor urbanus, had his decisions vetoed by Piso, who was probably praetor peregrinus, in cases where Verres had decided contrary to his own edict. Cic. in Verr. i. 46, 119; cf. Caes. l.c.

767 Of the four private-law speeches of Cicero, two, those for Quinctius and Tullius, show the request for tribunician interference with the praetor’s jurisdiction. Cf. Cic. Acad. Prior. ii. 30, 97 “postulant ut excipiantur haec inexplicabilia. Tribunum aliquem censeo adeant (al. videant); a me istam exceptionem nunquam impetrabunt.”

768 Liv. xxxiii. 42.

769 The tribunes promise “cognituros se de quo appellati essent” (Liv. xlii. 32).

770 Liv. xlii. 33.

771 Ascon. in Milon. p. 47.

772 p. 174.

773 Liv. iv. 50; xxv. 2.

774 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 12, 30.

775 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10.

776 Cic. ad Att. iv. 16, 6; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 58.

777 Liv. xlv. 21 “cum ita traditum esset, ne quis prius intercedat legi, quam privatis suadendi dissuadendique legem potestas facta esset.”

778 Momms. Staatsr. i p. 285.

779 Liv. xxvii. 6.

780 Cic. pro Sest. 31, 68.

781 ib. 34, 74.

782 Cic. ad Fam. x. 12, 3 and 4.

783 Liv. xxx. 43. Consular intercession against the praetor was unnecessary, since the praetor did not usually summon the Senate while the consul was at Rome.

784 Val. Max. ii. 2, 7 “Illud quoque memoria repetendum est, quod tribunis plebis intrare curiam non licebat, ante valvas autem positis subselliis decreta patrum attentissima cura examinabant, ut, si qua ex eis improbassent, rata esse non sinerent. Itaque veteribus senatus consultis C. litera subscribi solebat, eaque nota significabatur illa tribunos quoque censuisse.” In S.C.C. translated into Greek it appears as ἔδοξεν (S.C.C. de Thisbaeis, Bruns Fontes). In those given in Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8, 6, the letters “i. n.” (sometimes interpreted “intercessit nemo”) are probably a corruption for censuere.

785 Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 282 n. 7; combated by Willems Le Sénat p. 200 n. 2.

786 Liv. xxvi. 26; xxx. 40; cf. xlii. 10 “Popillius... prae se ferens si quid decernerent, intercessurum, collegam deterruit.”

787 Val. Max. ii. 2, 7.

788 Cic. ad Fam. x. 12, 3.

789 Liv. xxxvi. 40.

790 Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8, 6 “qui impedierit prohibuerit, eum senatum existimare contra rem publicam fecisse.”

791 Cic. de Prov. Con. 8, 17; pro Domo 9, 24. Intercession in jurisdiction and administration is sometimes forbidden in municipal laws: Lex Rubria i. 50; Lex Ursonensis c. 72 (Bruns Fontes).

792 Varro ap. Gell. xiii. 13 “Qui potestatem neque vocationis populi viritim habent neque prensionis, eos magistratus a privato in jus quoque vocari est potestas.” The context shows that they were practically as exempt as the higher magistrates.

793 Nothing is known of the early history of peculatus. The word itself, “the misappropriation of cattle,” which had been collected as fines, shows the antiquity of the offence described by Varro (L.L. v. 95) as peculatus publicus. For the early procedure see Mommsen Strafrecht p. 768.

794 In Polybius’ time bribery was a capital offence at Rome (Polyb. vi 56).

795 Polyb. vi. 14. The people are often judges of money penalties, when the offence can be valued in money, καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς τὰς ἐπιφανεῖς ἐσχηκότας ἀρχάς, θανάτου δὲ κρίνει μόνος. Cf. c. 15. The greatest source of the power of the people is that ἀποτιθεμένους τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐν τούτῳ δεῖ τὰς εὐθύνας ὑπέχειν τῶν πεπραγμένων.

796 Liv. xxiv. 43 (214 B.C., the tribune Metellus prosecutes the censors Furius and Atilius) “Sed novem tribunorum auxilio vetiti causam in magistratu dicere dimissique fuerant”; Suet. Caes. 23 (Caesar on leaving for Gaul) “a L. Antistio, tr. pl., postulatus, appellato demum collegio, obtinuit, cum reipublicae causa abesset, reus ne fieret.” In the case of the trial of the censors of 169 B.C. (Liv. xliii 16) the accused agree to be put on their trial during their tenure of office.

797 Liv. xxix. 22 (204 B.C.). Pleminius and his colleagues were “producti ad populum ab tribunis.”

798 ib. vi. 1 “Q. Fabio... ab Cn. Marcio tribuno plebis dicta dies est, quod legatus in Gallos, ad quos missus erat orator, contra jus gentium pugnasset.”

799 ib. Ep. 69 “L. Appuleius Saturninus... Metello Numidico, eo quod in eam (the agrarian law) non juraverat, diem dixit.”

800 ib. xxv. 3 (Postumius a publicanus, for shipwrecking and false reports of shipwreck).

801 e.g. waging war without authorisation (Ascon. in Cornelian. p. 80, 104 B.C.), disgraceful flight imperilling the safety of others (Liv. xxvi. 2, 211 B.C.).

802 Exceeding the legal duration of a magistracy, in this case the dictatorship (Cic. de Off. iii. 31, 112). The instance, though typical, is not historic.

803 Liv. xliii. 7, 8 (170 B.C.).

804 Tac. Ann. xi. 22 “apud majores... cunctis civium, si bonis artibus fiderent, licitum petere magistratus.”

805 Festus p. 231 “plebeium magistratum neminem capere licet, nisi qui ex plebe est.” Cf. Suet. Aug. 10.

806 This seems shown by Suet. Claud. 24 (see p. 135).

807 Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 488. Exceptional elections of the sons of freedmen are found in 304 B.C. (Liv. ix. 46, Cn. Flavius (see p. 185) as aedile) and in the year 100 B.C. (App. B.C. i. 33).

808 Lex Julia Municipalis (Bruns Fontes) l. 92 “in castreis inve provincia.”

809 Plut. C. Gracch. 2.

810 There is also evidence for this as the minimum age at a period earlier than Cicero’s political career; see Cic. in Verr. ii. 49, 122.

811 In Caesar’s municipal law (45 B.C.) the qualification for a municipal magistracy is either thirty years of age or a certain length of service—six years on foot or three on horseback (L.J.M. l. 89).

812 Liv. ix. 46 (of the election of Cn. Flavius to the curule aedileship) “Invenio in quibusdam annalibus, cum adpareret aedilibus... neque accipi nomen, quia scriptum faceret, tabulam posuisse et jurasse, se scriptum non facturum.”

813 Cic. de Off. i. 42, 150; in later Roman law spoken of as vilitas; see Greenidge Infamia in Roman Law pp. 12, 193.

814 Cic. pro Cluent. 42, 119; Schol. Bob. in Cic. pro Sulla 5, 17, p. 361 Orell.; Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 6, 16; Tertull. de Spect. 22; Ascon. in orat. in Tog. Cand. p. 115; Lex Julia Munic. l. 104; Dig. 48, 7, 1. All these passages are discussed in Greenidge Infamia in Roman Law pp. 18-40 and 187.

815 Liv. iii. 35 “Ars haec erat, ne semet ipse creare posset; quod praeter tribunos plebi (et id ipsum pessimo exemplo) nemo unquam fecisset.” The revolutionary period shows Cinna and Carbo nominating themselves consuls for two successive years (Liv. Ep. 83) and Caesar as dictator presiding over his own election to the consulship (Caes. B.C. iii. 1, 1).

816 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 8, 21 “Licinia est lex atque altera Aebutia, quae non modo eum, qui tulerit de aliqua curatione ac potestate, sed etiam collegas ejus, cognatos, affines excipit, ne eis ea potestas curatiove mandetur.”

817 Liv. vii. 42 “aliis plebiscitis cautum ne quis eundem magistratum intra decem annos caperet; neu duos magistratus uno anno gereret.” Cf. x. 13.

818 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 9, 24 “ne in iis quidem magistratibus quorum certus ordo est.”

819 Liv. xl. 44 “eo anno rogatio primum lata est ab L. Villio tr. pl., quot annos nati quemque magistratum peterent caperentque.” It probably accepted the age of twenty-eight for the quaestorship; the minimum age for the consulship in the time of Cicero was forty-three (Phil. v. 17, 48); that for the praetorship is quite unknown; thirty-five and forty have been conjectured.

820 Cic. ad Fam. x. 25, 2 “non est annus hic tibi destinatus, ut, si aedilis fuisses, post biennium tuus annus esset” (i.e. for election to the praetorship). To be elected in the earliest year, when one is qualified by the interval, is to attain a magistracy “anno sibi destinato” (l.c.) or “suo anno” (Cic. pro Mil. 9, 24). Momms. Staatsr. i. pp. 527, 529. The principle of at least one year’s interval seems to have applied to the transition from plebeian to patrician magistracies in the form that candidature during the holding of any office was forbidden (Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 533).

821 App. B.C. i. 100 καὶ στρατηγεῖν ἀπεῖπε πρὶν ταμιεῦσαι καὶ ὑπατεύειν πρὶν στρατηγῆσαι, καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν αὐτὴν αὖθις ἄρχειν ἐκώλυσε πρὶν ἒτη δέκα διαγενέσθαι.

822 Cic. ad Fam. xvi. 12, 3 “se praesentem trinum nundinum petiturum”; Sallust, Cat. 18 “post paulo Catilina pecuniarum repetundarum reus prohibitus erat consulatum petere, quod intra legitimos dies profiteri nequiverit.” The interval was probably twenty-four days. See the section on the comitia.

823 Plut. Aem. Paul. 3; Sull. 5.

824 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 9, 24 (63 B.C.) “praesentem profiteri jubet, quod nulla alia in lege unquam fuit, ne in iis quidem magistratibus quorum certus ordo est”; Suet. Caes. 18 (60 B.C.) “cum edictis jam comitiis ratio ejus haberi non posset... et ambienti ut legibus solveretur multi contradicerent, coactus est triumphum, ne consulatu excluderetur, dimittere.” Cf. Plut. Caes. 13.

825 Dio Cass. xl. 56 (Pompeius) τὸν περὶ τῶν ἀρχαιρεσιῶν νόμον τὸν κελεύοντα τοὺς ἀρχήν τινα ἐπαγγέλλοντας ἐς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν πάντως ἁπαντᾷν, ὥστε μηδένα ἀπόντα αἱρεῖσθαι, παρημελημένον πῶς ἀνενεώσατο.

826 Hence their association with sequestres—the agents in whose hands the candidate deposited money. Cic. pro Planc. 18, 19; Q. Cic. de Pet. Cons. 14, 57.

827 Lex Jul. Munic. l. 132 “neve quis ejus rationem comitieis conciliove [habeto, neive quis quem, sei adversus ea comitieis conciliove] creatum est, renuntiato.” In 67 B.C. the consul Piso, questioned “Palicanum num suffragiis populi consulem creatum renuntiaturus esset,” answered “non renuntiabo” (Val. Max. iii. 8, 3).

828 p. 47.

829 Mommsen (Staatsr. i. p. 599) places this change in 222 B.C. Liv. xxxi. 5, etc.

830 Fasti Praenestini (C.I.L. i. p. 364) “[ann]us nov[us incipit], quia eo die mag[istratus] ineunt: quod coepit [p. R.] c. a. DCI.”

831 Quaestors (Cic. in Verr. Act. i. 10, 30; Lex de XX. quaest. in Bruns Fontes l. 15); tribunes (Dionys. vi 89).

832 Dio Cass. xl. 66; Cic. in Verr. i. 41, 105; Liv. xxi. 63.

833 The execratio is given by Pliny (Paneg. 64), “explanavit verba quibus caput suum, domum suam, si sciens fefellisset, deorum (Jupiter and the Dii Penates) irae consecraret.”

834 Cic. ad Att. ii. 18, 2 “habet... Campana Lex (of the consul Caesar in 59 B.C.) execrationem in contione candidatorum.”

835 Liv. xxxi. 50; if we may argue from municipal law (Lex Salpens. c. 26), omission to take it due to mere neglect was visited in the first instance by a fine.

836 Liv. l.c.

837 Cic. ad Fam. v. 2, 7; pro Sulla 11, 34; in Pison. 3, 6; pro Domo 35, 94. Cicero, at the close of 63, varied the oath by swearing that he had saved the state.

838 p. 45.

839 Liv. v. 41.

840 The dagger is mentioned more frequently than the sword (gladius) as the distinctive sign of military power. Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 434 n. 1.

841 Hence such phrases as decedere via, descendere equo, adsurgere sella, caput aperire. The senators were in the habit of rising from their seats when the consul entered the Curia (Cic. in Pis. 12, 26).

842 A decree of the augurs in 426 B.C. declared the consular tribunes capable of this nomination (Liv. iv. 31).

843 p. 165.

844 Liv. viii. 12 “Aemilius, cujus tum fasces erant, collegam dictatorem dixit”; iv. 26 “Sors, ut dictatorem diceret (nam ne id quidem inter collegas convenerat) T. Quinctio evenit”; iv. 21 “Verginius, dum collegam consuleret, moratus, permittente eo, nocte dictatorem dixit.”

845 Liv. iv. 17 “senatus... dictatorem dici Mam. Aemilium jussit”; vii. 12 “dictatorem dici C. Sulpicium placuit. Consul ad id adcitus C. Plautius dixit.”

846 ib. xxii. 57 (216 B.C.) “dictator ex auctoritate patrum dictus M. Junius.”

847 ib. Ep. 19; Suet. Tib. 2 (the enforced abdication of Claudius Glicia, nominated by Claudius Pulcher). In Liv. iv. 26 the coercitio of the tribune is represented as employed against the consuls who disobey.

848 Mommsen in C.I.L. i. p. 557.

849 Liv. xxvii 5 (210 B.C., on the proposal of the consul to nominate a dictator in Sicily) “patres extra Romanum agrum (eum autem in Italia terminari) negabant dictatorem dici posse.”

850 ib. ix. 38-39.

851 Polyb. iii. 87; but, as a rule, he was preceded by only twelve within the walls (Liv. Ep. 89 “Sulla, dictator factus, quod nemo umquam fecerat, cum fascibus viginti quatuor processit”).

852 Liv. ii. 18 “Creato dictatore primum Romae, postquam praeferri secures viderunt, magnus plebem metus incessit.”

853 p. 85.

854 e.g. the dictator named by Livy (ix. 26) as “quaestionibus exercendis” (314) is mentioned in the Fast. Capitol. as “rei gerundae causa” (Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 157 n. 2); a dictator “seditionis sedandae et rei gerundae causa” is found in the Fasti for 368.

855 Liv. vii. 24 “qui aegris consulibus comitia haberet.” Cf. c. 26 (absence of consuls in the field) and ix. 7.

856 ib. xxiii. 22. In 216 B.C. M. Fabius Buteo was appointed dictator “qui senatum legeret.”

857 ib. viii. 40.

858 ib. vii. 28 (for establishment of feriae on the occasion of a prodigium); “dictator Latinarum feriarum causa” in Fast. Cap. (C.I.L. i. p. 434) for the year 257 B.C.

859 The first instance was on the occasion of the great pestilence in 363 B.C. (Liv. vii. 3 “Lex vetusta est... ut, qui praetor maximus sit, Idibus Septembribus clavum pangat”). Cf. Fest. p. 56.

860 Cic. de Off. iii. 31, 112 (see p. 183); cf. Liv. vii. 3. L. Manlius, appointed “clavi figendi causa,” acted “perinde ac reipublicae gerendae... gratia creatus esset,” and was forced to abdicate.

861 p. 84.

862 This is Mommsen’s interpretation (Staatsr. ii. p. 160 n. 4) of Liv. xxx. 39. C. Servilius Geminus had been appointed dictator comitiorum causa—“Saepe comitia indicta perfici tempestates prohibuerunt. Itaque, cum prid. Id. Mart. veteres magistratus abissent, novi subfecti non essent, respublica sine curulibus magistratibus erat.”

863 Liv. iv. 41. The consul is here said “auspicio dictatoris res gerere.”

864 ib. ii. 32 “quamquam per dictatorem dilectus habitus esset, tamen, quoniam in consulum verba jurassent, sacramento teneri militem rati.”

865 This view has led to the exaggerated statement of Polybius (iii. 87) that, on the establishment of a dictator, παραχρῆμα διαλύεσθαι συμβαίνει πάσας τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ πλὴν τῶν δημάρχων: which has been copied by later Greek writers.

866 This is clearly shown by the attitude of the dictator L. Papirius Cursor when pursuing his disobedient master of the horse (Liv. viii. 34). The dictator hopes that the veto will not be employed (“optare ne potestas tribunicia, inviolata ipsa, violet intercessione sua Romanum imperium”). Zonaras expresses the fact and not the law (vii. 13 οὔτ’ ἐγκαλέσαι τις αὐτῷ οὔτ’ ἐναντίον τι διαπράξασθαι ἴσχυεν οὐδὲ οἱ δήμαρχοι).

867 Zonar. vii. 13 οὔτε ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων χρημάτων ἀναλῶσαι τι ἐξῆν αὐτῷ, εἰ μὴ ἐψηφίσθη.

868 Liv. Ep. 19 (249 B.C.) “Atilius Calatinus primus dictator extra Italiam exercitum duxit”; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 17 (the dictatorship was limited to Italy) καὶ οὐκ ἂν εὑρεθείη δικτάτωρ οὐδεὶς ἄλλοσε, πλὴν ἑνὸς ἐς Σικελίαν, καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲν πράξαντος, αἱρεθείς.

869 Festus p. 198 “optima lex in magistro populi faciendo, qui vulgo Dictator appellator, quam plenissimum posset jus ejus esse significabatur... postquam vero provocatio ab eo magistratu ad populum data est, quae ante non erat, desitum est adici ‘ut optima lege,’ ut pote imminuto jure priorum magistrorum.”

870 p. 168. It could not have been a consequence of the Valerio-Horatian laws of 449 B.C. (see p. 109).

871 Liv. xxii. 8.

872 Livy (xxii. 25) describes it as a rogatio “de aequando magistri equitum et dictatoris jure.” Cf. c. 26 “de aequato imperio.”

873 Liv. xxii. 57, M. Junius Pera.

874 Fast. Capitol.

875 Sulla was nominated by an interrex (though his powers were conferred by law), Caesar by a praetor. Plutarch (Marc. 24) says that the praetor could nominate the dictator, a proceeding which is declared by Cicero to be wholly unconstitutional, ad Att. ix. 15, 2 (49 B.C.) “volet (Caesar)... vel ut consules roget praetor vel dictatorem dicat, quorum neutrum jus est. Etsi si Sulla potuit efficere, ab interrege ut dictator diceretur, cur hic non possit?” The nomination of Caesar was regular in so far as a special lex was passed which empowered the praetor to nominate (Caes. B.C. ii. 21; Dio Cass. xli. 36).

876 An exception is found in 216 B.C. M. Fab. Buteo was appointed “dictator sine mag. eq. senatus legendi causa” (see p. 193).

877 In the single case of the election of a dictator, the magister equitum was also elected (Liv. xxii. 8).

878 Dio Cass. xlii. 27; Antonius, as Caesar’s magister equitum, had six lictors.

879 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 9 “equitatumque qui regat, habeto pari jure cum eo, quicumque erit juris disceptator.”

880 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 19 “et his dictatoribus magistri equitum injungebantur sic, quo modo regibus tribuni celerum:... magistratus tamen habebantur legitimi.”

881 Liv. iv. 34 “jussoque magistro equitum abdicare se magistratu, ipse deinde abdicat.”

882 Liv. ix. 38 “Papirius C. Junium Bubulcum magistrum equitum dixit: atque ei, legem curiatam de imperio ferenti, triste omen diem diffidit.”

883 Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 10; see p. 160.

884 Liv. viii. 32 sq.; cf. xxii. 27 “in... civitate, in qua magistri equitum virgas ac secures dictatoris tremere atque horrere soliti sint.”

885 ib. iv. 27 “relictoque (at Rome) L. Julio magistro equitum ad subita belli ministeria.”

886 ib. ii. 18; Dio Cass. xlii. 21 (Caesar τὸν Ἀντώνιον, μηδ’ ἐστρατηγηκότα, ἵππαρχον προσελόμενος).

887 Dionys. ii. 6 τῶν δὲ παρόντων τινὲς ὀρνιθοσκόπων μισθὸν ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου φερόμενοι.

888 Cic. post Red. ad Quir. 5, 11. The first meeting of the Senate was in early times held by the elder of the two consuls (ὁ πρεσβύτερος τῶν ὑπάτων Dionys. vi. 57).

889 Cic. pro Planc. 25, 60 “honorum populi finis est consulatus.”

890 App. B.C. ii. 19. In formal dating the names of the two chief praetors were added. See the Senatus Consultum de Asclepiade (Bruns Fontes).

891 Suet. Tib. 31; see p. 191.

892 Liv. xliv. 17 (169 B.C.) “designatos extemplo sortiri placuit provincias.”

893 ib. ii. 33 “consul alter Romae mansit, alter ad Volscum bellum missus”; cf. Dionys. vi. 91; Liv. ix. 42.

894 Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 55.

895 Festus p. 161 “majorem consulem L. Caesar putat dici, vel eum penes quem fasces sint, vel eum, qui prior factus sit.” The first explanation is doubtless the correct one.

896 Suet. Caes. 20.

897 Polyb. vi. 12 πασῶν εἰσι κύριοι τῶν δημοσίων πράξεων.

898 Cicero furnishes an instance for the year 54 B.C., ad Att. iv. 15, 5 “Reatini me ad sua Τέμπη duxerunt, ut agerem causam contra Interamnates apud consulem et decem legatos, quod lacus Velinus... in Nar defluit.”

899 p. 167.

900 Selection of a consul, Cic. de Fin. ii. 16, 54, in 141 B.C., “decreta a senatu est consuli quaestio”; of a praetor, Liv. xlii. 21, in 172 B.C., “C. Licinius praetor consuluit senatum quem quaerere ea rogatione vellet. Patres ipsum eum quaerere jusserunt.”

901 Cic. de Rep. iii. 18, 28 (of the year 136 B.C.) “Consul ego quaesivi, cum vos mihi essetis in consilio, de Numantino foedere.” Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 112 n. 3) thinks that the consilium was formed by the Fetiales (cf. Cic. de Leg. ii. 9, 21).

902 For the question whether the pomerium or the first milestone was the limit of the full imperium see p. 79.

903 For the rotation of the imperium before Cannae (216 B.C.) see Polyb. iii. 110, Liv. xxii. 41.

904 Liv. xxii. 27 “Ita (Fabius, after the appointment of Minucius as his colleague in 217 B.C.) obtinuit uti legiones, sicut consulibus mos esset, inter se dividerent.”

905 ib. xxx. 1 (203 B.C.) “censuerunt patres, ut consules inter se compararent sortirenturve, uter Bruttios adversus Hannibalem, uter Etruriam ac Ligures provinciam haberet.”

906 Italy and Macedonia (ib. xxxii. 8, xlii. 31, xliii. 12), Italy and Greece (xxxvii. 1).

907 Italia and some foreign country are still consular provinciae in 112 and 111 B.C. (Sall. Jug. 27, 43). When a consul was appointed to one of the old praetorian provinces, he did not supplant the praetor but commanded with and over him.

908 Liv. xxx. 1 “ut consules inter se compararent sortirenturve.” Cf. ib. xxxii. 8, xxxvii. 1, and the other passages cited in note 3.

909 ib. viii. 16; cf. Cic. pro Domo 9, 24. In 205 B.C. Scipio was given Sicilia extra sortem because his colleague was pontifex maximus (Liv. xxviii. 38).

910 Liv. xxi. 17 (218 B.C.) “nominatae jam antea consulibus provinciae erant; tum sortiri jussi.” Cf. ib. xxviii. 38.

911 Sall. Jug. 27; Cic. pro Domo 9, 24.

912 Cic. ad Att. viii. 15, 3 “consules quibus more majorum concessum est vel omnes adire provincias.” Lucullus went as consul to Asia in 74 B.C.

913 p. 153.

914 That staunch conservative Q. Catulus was wont to reflect with pleasure “non saepe unum consulem improbum, duos vero nunquam, excepto illo Cinnano tempore, fuisse” (Cic. post Red. in Sen. 4, 9). By improbi Catulus meant “radicals.”

915 The consul was the “legitimus tutor” of the state (Cic. post Red. ad Quir. 5, 11) and “quasi parens bonus aut tutor fidelis” (de Or. iii. 1, 3).

916 p. 120.

917 Two praetors for Sicily and Sardinia (Liv. Ep. xx.), two more for the Spanish provinces (Liv. xxxii. 27). For the lex Baebia see Liv. xl. 44. For the restoration of the number six see Vell. ii. 16. Pomponius says that four were added by Sulla (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 32), but eight are found in 47 B.C. (Dio Cass. xlii. 51).

918 The praetor had a right to six lictors (στρατηγὸς ἑξαπέλεκυς, App. Syr. 15; cf. Polyb. iii. 40) and appears with the full number in the province (Cic. in Verr. v. 54, 142 “sex lictores circumsistunt”); but, in the exercise of his jurisdiction within the city, he employed, or was allowed, only two (Censorinus de Die Nat. 24, 3; cf. Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 34, 93).

919 Praetor urbanus (S. C. de Bacch. ll. 5, 8, 17, 21), praetor qui inter cives jus dicet (lex Agraria of 111 B.C.), provincia or sors urbana (Liv. xxiv. 9, xxv. 3, xxvii. 7, xxviii. 10, xxix. 13), jurisdictio urbana (ib. xxxii. 28, xlii. 31)—praetor qui inter peregrinos jus dicet (lex Acil. ll. 12 and 89; lex Jul. Munic. ll. 8 and 12), jurisdictio inter peregrinos (Liv. xl. 1), provincia peregrina (ib. xxvii. 7, xxviii. 10). Both these praetors, as distinct from those in foreign command, are said to have urbanae provinciae (ib. xliii. 11), provincia urbana (xxxii. 1), jurisdictio urbana (xxv. 41, xxx. 1).

920 p. 197.

921 App. B. C. ii. 112.

922 Cic. Phil. ii. 13, 31.

923 p. 174.

924 Liv. xlii. 21.

925 ib. xxvii. 5.

926 ib. xliii. 14.

927 ib. xlii. 21; see p. 199.

928 e.g. in the dilectus (ib. xxv. 22, xxxix. 20, xlii. 35).

929 After Cannae the two urban praetors summoned the Senate (ib. xxii. 55). In 197 B.C., on the news of troubles in Spain, “decreverunt patres ut, comitiis praetorum perfectis, cui praetori provincia Hispania obvenisset, is primo quoque tempore de bello Hispaniae ad senatum referret” (ib. xxxiii. 21).

930 The provinciae assigned to the four praetors are urbana, peregrina, Sicilia, Sardinia (ib. xxviii. 10), to the six praetors the same with the addition of the two Spains (ib. xxxii. 28, xl. 1).

931 ib. xxv. 3 (212 B.C.) “Et praetores provincias sortiti sunt; P. Cornelius Sulla urbanam et peregrinam, quae duorum ante sors fuerat.” Cf. ib. xxxvii. 50 (189 B.C.).

932 ib. xxix. 13 (204 B.C.) “M. Marcio urbana, L. Scribonio Liboni peregrina et eidem Gallia.”

933 ib. xxiv. 9 (215 B.C.) “comitiis praetorum perfectis, senatus consultum factum ut Q. Fulvio extra ordinem urbana provincia esset.”

934 Gaius Inst. iv. 30 “per legem Aebutiam et duas Julias sublatae sunt istae legis actiones; effectumque est ut per concepta verba, id est, per formulas, litigaremus”; Gell. xvi. 10, 8 “cum... omnis... illa duodecim tabularum antiquitas nisi in legis actionibus centumviralium causarum lege Aebutia lata consopita sit.”

935 Marcian in Dig. 1, 1, 8 “nam et ipsum jus honorarium viva vox est juris civilis.”

936 Cic. de Leg. i. 5, 17 “Non ergo a praetoris edicto, ut plerique nunc, neque a XII Tabulis, ut superiores... hauriendam juris disciplinam putas.” Cf. de Leg. ii. 23, 59 “discebamus enim pueri XII, ut carmen necessarium: quas jam nemo discit.”

937 Papinian in Dig. 1, 1, 7, 1 “jus praetorium est, quod praetores introduxerunt adjuvandi vel supplendi vel corrigendi juris civilis gratia propter utilitatem publicam.”

938 For the edict as the expression of customary law see Cic. de Invent. ii. 22, 67 “Consuetudine autem jus esse putatur id, quod voluntate omnium sine lege vetustas comprobarit.... Quo in genere et alia sunt multa et eorum multo maxima pars, quae praetores edicere consuerunt.”

939 Cic. in Verr. i. 42, 109 “qui plurimum tribuunt edicto, praetoris edictum legem annuam dicunt esse.”

940 Ascon. in Cornel. p. 58; Cic. in Verr. i. 44, 114. Perpetuum means “continuous,” tralaticium “transmitted.”

941 Cic. in Verr. i. 46, 119. Cf. p. 178.

942 Ascon. in Cornel. p. 58 “Aliam deinde legem Cornelius,... tulit, ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis jus dicerent, quae res... gratiam ambitiosis praetoribus, qui varie jus dicere assueverant, sustulit.” Cf. Dio Cass. xxxvi. 23.

943 p. 202.

944 Cic. in Verr. Act. i. 8, 21; pro Mur. 20, 42. The fullest account that we possess of the distribution of such functions amongst the members of the college refers to the year 66 B.C. (ib. pro Cluent. 53, 147; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 59).

945 e.g. the lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis took cognisance of murder, poisoning, and arson, that de falsis of the forgery of documents and of wills as well as of coining.

946 After the sortitio for 62 B.C. the praetor Q. Metellus Celer was given the province of Cisalpine Gaul (Cic. ad Fam. v. 2, 3, and 4). During his praetorship (63 B.C.) he had been summoned to a command in northern Italy.

947 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7 “Suntoque aediles, curatores urbis, annonae ludorumque sollemnium: ollisque ad honoris amplioris gradum is primus ascensus esto.” Cf. lex Jul. Munic. l. 24.

948 p. 122.

949 Cic. in Verr. v. 14, 36.

950 Livy (iii. 55), in stating the ineffectiveness of the sacrosanctitas granted by law and not by oath, says “itaque aedilem prendi ducique a majoribus magistratibus, etc.” Cf. Gell. xiii. 13.

951 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7, cited p. 208.

952 p. 98.

953 Dio Cass. liv. 36.

954 Lex Jul. Munic. ll. 20, 32-45, 29, 46.

955 Suet. Vesp. 5; lex Jul. Munic. l. 68.

956 Cic. ad Fam. viii. 6, 4 (Caelius Rufus, curule aedile in 50 B.C., says) “nisi ego cum tabernariis et aquariis pugnarem, veternus civitatem occupasset.”

957 ib. in Verr. v. 14, 36 “mihi sacrarum aedium procurationem, mihi totam urbem tuendam esse commissam.”

958 Liv. xxv. 1 (on the spread of foreign superstitions in Rome in 213 B.C.) “incusati graviter ab senatu aediles triumvirique capitales, quod non prohiberent.” Cf. Cic. de Har. Resp. 13, 27.

959 Macrob. Sat. ii. 6 “lapidatus a populo Vatinius cum gladiatorium munus ederet, obtinuerat ut aediles edicerent ne quis in arenam nisi pomum misisse vellet.”

960 Seneca Ep. 86, 10 “hoc quoque nobilissimi aediles fungebantur officio intrandi ea loca quae populum receptabant exigendique munditias et utilem ac salubrem temperaturam.” Cf. Suet. Claud. 38; Tac. Ann. ii. 85.

961 Tac. Ann. xiii. 28 (56 A.D.) “cohibita artius et aedilium potestas statutumque quantum curules, quantum plebei pignoris caperent vel poenae inrogarent.”

962 Dig. 21, 1, 40-42 (from the edict of the curule aediles) “ne quis canem, verrem vel minorem aprum, lupum, ursum, pantheram, leonem... qua vulgo iter fiet, ita habuisse velit, ut cuiquam nocere damnumve dare possit.”

963 p. 208 n. 4.

964 Liv. xxiii. 41; xxxi. 50; xxxiii. 42. Cic. de Off. ii. 17, 58 “ne M. quidem Sejo vitio datum est, quod in caritate asse modium populo dedit: magna enim se et inveterata invidia, nec turpi jactura, quando erat aedilis, nec maxima liberavit.”

965 Cic. ad Fam. viii. 6, 5 (from Caelius Rufus in 50 B.C.) “alimentariam (legem), qua jubet aediles metiri, jactavit (Curio).”

966 Liv. xxvi. 10 (211 B.C., when Hannibal was at the gates of Rome) “Fulvius Flaccus... inter Esquilinam Collinamque portam posuit castra. Aediles plebis commeatum eo comportarunt.”

967 For this there is no direct evidence, but the aediles complain about the transgression of sumptuary laws in Tac. Ann. iii. 52-55.

968 Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 499. He takes “cum tabernariis pugnarem” (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 6, 4, cited p. 209) in this sense.

969 Dig. 21, 1, 1; Gell. iv. 2.

970 Cic. in Verr. v. 14, 36.

971 Liv. x. 47; xxvii. 6. They were shared by both colleagues (Suet. Caes. 10).

972 Liv. xxiii. 30.

973 Dio Cass. xliii. 48 (44 B.C.). Here by a decree of the Senate the Megalesia are celebrated by the plebeian aediles.

974 When during the first Punic war Clodia uttered her ill-omened wish about the Roman people, “C. Fundanius et Ti. Sempronius, aediles plebei, multam dixerunt ei aeris gravis viginti quinque milia” (Gell. x. 6). Cf. Suet. Tib. 2.

975 Cicero promises, as aedile, to prosecute those “qui aut deponere aut accipere aut recipere aut pollicere aut sequestres aut interpretes corrumpendi judicii solent esse” (in Verr. Act. i. 12, 36).

976 An instance is furnished by Clodius’ prosecution of Milo in 56 B.C. (Cic. pro Sest. 44, 95; ad Q. fr. 2, 3). A prosecution by the aedile in defence of his own dignity or person is an outcome of his coercitio. An instance is furnished by Gell. iv. 14.

977 Liv. viii. 22; xxv. 2.

978 ib. xxxv. 41.

979 ib. xxxviii. 35. Here the offence was annona compressa by the corn-dealers.

980 Condemnation “quia plus, quam quod lege finitum erat, agri possiderent” (ib. x. 13). Condemnation of pecuarii (x. 47). Cf. xxxiii. 42.

981 ib. xxxviii. 35; x. 23.

982 p. 63.

983 p. 80.

984 p. 81.

985 p. 117.

986 Tac. Ann. xi. 22 “post lege Sullae viginti creati supplendo senatui.”

987 C. Gracchus served as quaestor for three years; one was spent in Rome and two in Sardinia (Plut. C. Gracch. 2).

988 Cic. in Verr. Act. i. 4, 11 “quaestura primus gradus honoris.”

989 ib. i. 13, 34 “quaestor ex senatus consulto provinciam sortitus es.”

990 Liv. xxx. 33 “Laelium, cujus... eo anno quaestoris extra sortem ex senatusconsulto opera utebatur” (Scipio in 202 B.C.); Cic. ad Att. vi. 6, 4 “Pompeius... Q. Cassium sine sorte delegit, Caesar Antonium; ego sorte datum offenderem?”

991 The first trace of a quaestio de sicariis is in 142 B.C. (Cic. de Fin. ii. 16, 54).

992 Polyb. xxiv. 9a, 1.

993 Liv. iii. 69 “signa... a quaestoribus ex aerario prompta delataque in campum.”

994 Cic. de Leg. iii. 20, 46.

995 Liv. xxxix. 4. It was the duty of the quaestors to see that they were genuine. Cato the younger required the oath of the consuls that a certain decree had been passed (Plut. Cat. Min. 17).

996 Cic. Phil. v. 5, 15.

997 ib. in Verr. iii. 79, 183 “eorum hominum (the scribae of the quaestors) fidei tabulae publicae periculaque magistratuum committuntur.”

998 The security was given to the aerarium (“subsignare apud aerarium” Cic. pro Flacco 32, 80); hence the money was probably paid into that treasury.

999 Liv. xxxviii. 58 “Hostilius et Furius damnati (for peculatus in 187 B.C.) praedes eodem die quaestoribus urbanis dederunt.” In the lex Acil. Rep. (l. 57) it is said of the man convicted “q(uaestori) praedes facito det.”

1000 Plaut. Capt. i. 2, 111; ii. 3, 453.

1001 Hygin. de Cond. Agr. p. 115.

1002 Auct. ad Herenn. i. 12, 21 “Cum L. Saturninus legem frumentariam de semissibus et trientibus laturus esset, Q. Caepio, qui per id temporis quaestor urbanus erat, docuit senatum aerarium pati non posse tantam largitionem.”

1003 p. 117.

1004 p. 213. If the quaestor was lacking through death or any other cause, the governor appointed one of his legati as pro quaestore (Cic. in Verr. i. 36, 90).

1005 Cic. pro Planc. 11, 28 “morem ilium majorum qui praescribit in parentum loco quaestoribus suis praetores esse oportere.”

1006 ib. in Verr. i. 15, 40 “Tu, cum quaestor ad exercitum missus sis, custos non solum pecuniae sed etiam consulis, particeps omnium rerum consiliorumque fueris.”

1007 Lydus de Mag. i. 27 κρινάντων Ῥωμαίων πολεμεῖν τοῖς συμμαχήσασι Πύρρῳ τῷ Ἠπειρὼτῃ κατεσκευάσθη στόλος καὶ προεβλήθησαν οἱ καλοὺμενοι κλασσικοὶ (οἱονεὶ ναυάρχαι) τῷ ἀριθμῷ δυοκαίδεκα κυαίστωρες. Lydus may be right about the original number, although it has been sometimes thought a confused reminiscence of the raising of the number from four to eight.

1008 Vell. ii. 94; cf. Cic. pro Mur. 8, 18 “tu illam (provinciam habuisti), cui, cum quaestores sortiuntur, etiam acclamari solet, Ostiensem non tam gratiosam et illustrem quam negotiosam et molestam.”

1009 Tac. Ann. iv. 27. In 24 A.D. a rising near Brundisium was repressed by “Curtius Lupus quaestor, cui provincia vetere ex more calles evenerant.” Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 571), following Lipsius, would read Cales, the oldest Latin colony in Campania, and therefore supposes that this quaestor’s functions extended over the whole of South Italy. The woods and forests was the provincia which the Senate destined for Caesar as proconsul (Suet. Caes. 19 “opera optimatibus data est ut provinciae futuris consulibus minimi negotii, id est, silvae callesque, decernerentur”).

1010 Plut. Sert. 4.

1011 The last to remain were the Gallic and Ostian, which, as Italian provinciae, were abolished by the Emperor Claudius in 44 A.D. (Suet. Claud. 24).

1012 So Sertorius, as Gallic quaestor in the Marsic war, was instructed στρατιώτας... καταλέγειν καὶ ὅπλα ποιεῖσθται (Plut. Sert. 4).

1013 Cicero speaks of Vatinius, when holding this post, being sent to Puteoli on some other business (in Vat. 5, 12), but this does not show that he was holding an Italian quaestorship. See Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 573 n. 3.

1014 Liv. iv. 8; see p. 115.

1015 ib. vii. 22 (C. Marcius Rutilus); cf. x. 8.

1016 ib. viii. 12 “ut alter utique ex plebe, cum eo [ventum sit] ut utrumque plebeium fieri liceret, censor crearetur.” Madvig and Mommsen would omit “ventum sit,” and so make the Publilian law open both places in the college to Plebeians.

1017 ib. Ep. lix. “Q. Pompeius Q. Metellus tunc primum utrique ex plebe facti censores lustrum condiderunt.”

1018 Messala ap. Gell. xiii. 15, 4.

1019 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii 11, 26 “majores de singulis magistratibus bis vos sententiam ferre voluerunt: nam cum centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur, cum curiata ceteris patriciis magistratibus, tum iterum de eisdem judicabatur.”

1020 Messala ap. Gell. xiii. 15.

1021 Polybius (vi. 53) says that the imago of the censor at a funeral was clad in purple. As all the insignia of the other magistrates that he mentions are those of their lifetime, this should be true of the censors. Perhaps the complete purple was worn for certain ceremonial purposes. Mommsen (Staatsr. i. pp. 411 and 446) thinks they were only buried in it.

1022 ἁρχὴ ἀνυπεύθυνος (Dionys. xix. 16).

1023 Liv. xxix. 37; Val. Max. vii. 2, 6.

1024 Ascon. in Pison. p. 9.

1025 Hence the helplessness of the tribune against censorial animadversion. Cf. Liv. xliv. 16 “multis equi adempti, inter quos P. Rutilio, qui tr. pl. eos violenter accusarat: tribu quoque is motus et aerarius factus.”

1026 Cic. ad Att. iv. 9, 1.

1027 For the later mode of regarding this limitation see Liv. iv. 24 “grave esse iisdem per tot annos magna parte vitae obnoxios vivere.” But, if the tenure was fixed by the lex Aemilia (of the dictator Mamercus Aemilius, 434 B.C., Liv. l.c.), it originated before the censorship had become a dangerous power.

1028 Liv. xxiii. 23 “nec censoriam vim uni permissam et eidem iterum.” The prohibition is attributed to a law of Marcius Rutilus Censorinus, censor 294 and 265 B.C. (Plut. Cor. 1; cf. Val. Max. iv. 1, 3); but it could not have been his work, at least as censor, for this official had not the jus rogandi. See Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 520.

1029 It is Cicero’s business in the pro Cluentio (43, 122) to represent this divergence of view as a weakness in the censorship; cf. Liv. xlii. 10 (173 B.C.) “concors et e re publica censura fuit... neque ab altero notatum alter probavit.” But it was a necessary condition of the continuance of the office in a free state.

1030 Liv. ix. 34 “cum ita comparatum a majoribus sit ut comitiis censoriis nisi duo confecerint legitima suffragia, non renuntiato altero comitia differantur.”

1031 Tradition attributed the origin of this role to a religions scruple, “quia eo lustro (in which a suffectus was appointed) Roma est capta: nec deinde unquam in demortui locum censor sufficitur” (Liv. v. 31).

1032 Cicero mixes up the earlier and later functions in his pseudo-law, which expresses all the activities of the censors (de Leg. iii. 3, 7), “Censores populi aevitates, suboles, familias pecuniasque censento: urbis, tecta, templa, vias, aquas, aerarium, vectigalia tuento: populique partes in tribus discribunto: exin pecunias, aevitates, ordines partiunto: equitum peditumque prolem discribunto: caelibes esse prohibento: mores populi regunto: probrum in senatu ne relinquunto.”

1033 Liv. ix. 30.

1034 ib. xxiii. 22; see p. 193.

1035 In the great sublectio after Cannae (216 B.C.) the ex-curule magistrates not already on the list were chosen in the order of their tenure of power; then the ex-aediles, ex-tribunes of the plebs and the quaestorii, lastly men of distinction who had held no magistracy (Liv. xxiii. 23).

1036 Festus p. 246 “Ovinia tribunicia intervenit, qua sanctum est ut censores ex omni ordine optimum quemque jurati (Cod. curiati, Mommsen curiatim) in senatum legerent.” If “ex omni ordine” means “from every grade of the magistracy,” the second interpretation is necessary.

1037 The oratio of Cato as censor against L. Quinctius Flaminius was delivered post notam (Liv. xxxix. 42); but it suggests that the censors felt themselves bound at times to give reasons for their actions.

1038 The phrases for rejection and omission are movere, ejicere, praeterire. The last applies both to existing and to expectant senators, and has reference to the public reading of the list (recitatio) (Cic. pro Domo 32, 84 “praeteriit in recitando senatu”).

1039 Liv. xli. 57 “retinuit quosdam Lepidus a collega praeteritos”; cf. Cic. pro Cluent. 43, 122.

1040 For a type of subscriptio see Ascon. in or. in Tog. Cand. p. 84 “Antonium Gellius et Lentulus censores... senatu moverunt causasque subscripserunt, quod socios diripuerit, quod judicium recusarit, quod propter aeris alieni magnitudinem praedia manciparit bonaque sua in potestate non habeat.”

1041 Usually the praetorship or quaestorship. Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 521 n. 3.

1042 See the formula of summons in Varro (L.L. vi. 86), “omnes Quirites pedites armatos, privatosque curatores omnium tribuum, si quis pro se sive pro altero rationem dari volet, vocato in licium huc ad me.”

1043 Mommsen believes in a special summons to the capite censi (Staatsr. ii. p. 366).

1044 Liv. xliii. 14.

1045 Cato in 184 assessed articles of luxury at ten times their value (Liv. xxxix. 44; Plut. Cat. Maj. 18).

1046 Liv. iv. 24 “Mamercum... tribu moverunt octuplicatoque censu aerarium fecerunt”; Val. Max. ii. 9, 1 “Camillas et Postumius censores aera poenae nomine eos, qui ad senectutem caelibes pervenerant, in aerarium deferre jusserunt.”

1047 See p. 69.

1048 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7 “familias pecuniasque censento”; lex Jul. Munic. l. 147 “rationem pecuniae... accipito.” Pecunia here applies to both res mancipi and nec mancipi.

1049 Cic. l.c. “aevitates suboles... censento”; lex Jul. Munic. l. 145 “eorum... nomina, praenomina, patres... et quot annos quisque eorum habet... accipito.”

1050 p. 68.

1051 Liv. ix. 46 “forensis factio App. Claudi censura vires nacta, qui... humilibus per omnes tribus divisis forum et campum corrupit.” Cf. Diod. xx. 46 (App. Claudius) ἔδωκε τοῖς πολίταις ὅποι προαιροῖντο τιμήσασθαι. Mommsen imagines that it was in this year that the landless citizens first found a place in the tribes (Staatsr. ii. 392 sq., 402 sq.).

1052 Liv. l.c. “aliud integer populus... aliud forensis factio tendebat.... Fabius simul concordiae causa, simul ne humilimorum in manu comitia essent, omnem forensem turbam excretam in quattuor tribus conjecit urbanasque eas appellavit.”

1053 Sexagenarius de ponte. Cf. Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. 35, 100 “Habeo etiam dicere, quem contra morem majorum, minorem annis LX de ponte in Tiberim dejecerit”; Festus p. 334 “quo tempore primum per pontem coeperunt comitiis suffragium ferre, juniores conclamaverunt ut de ponte dejicerentur sexagenari, qui jam nullo publico munere fungerentur, ut ipsi potius sibi quam illi deligerent imperatorem.” If pons could be taken literally, a curious parallel is furnished by early Slavonic procedure. “The vechés passed whole days in debating the same subjects, the only interruptions being free fights in the streets. At Novgorod these fights took place on the bridge across the Volchov, and the stronger party sometimes threw their adversaries into the river beneath” (Kovalevsky Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia, p. 138).

1054 p. 221.

1055 “Eorum qui arma ferre possent” (Liv. i. 44), τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν στρατεύσιμον ἡλικίαν (Dionys. xi. 63), τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἡλικίαις (Polyb. ii 24).

1056 Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 411.

1057 p. 72.

1058 Beloch der Italische Bund p. 78.

1059 p. 73.

1060 The change is put by tradition at the time of the siege of Veii (403 B.C., Liv. v. 7 “quibus census equester erat, equi publici non erant adsignati... senatum adeunt factaque dicendi potestate equis se suis stipendia facturos promittunt”). Livy here assumes a census as existing for the equites equo publico, but it is questionable whether it was not transferred from these new equites (equo privato as they are called by modern historians) to the old equestrian centuries.

1061 Polyb. vi. πλουτίνδην αὐτῶν γεγενημένης ὑπὸ τοῦ τιμητοῦ τῆς ἐκλογῆς.

1062 There is no direct authority for this particular census earlier than the Principate. The fact that a census, approximating to or identical with the equestrian, was required for judices under the Gracchan law, and the specification that these should not be senators or members of senatorial families, led to these judges being called “knights.” They were selected from a class practically identical with that of the equites equo privato.

1063 Cic. pro Cluent. 48, 134.

1064 Suet. Claud. 16.

1065 Val. Max. ii. 9, 7.

1066 Cic. de Rep. iv. 2, 2. So Pompeius, a consul who had never been a senator (70 B.C.), claims and obtains his discharge before he enters on his office (Plut. Pomp. 22).

1067 Plut. C. Gracch. 2. See p. 184.

1068 Liv. xxvii. 11 (209 B.C.) “(Censores) addiderunt acerbitati (the deprivation of the public horse) etiam tempus, ne praeterita stipendia procederent eis, quae equo publico meruerant, sed dena stipendia equis privatis facerent.”

1069 Gell. iv. 12; Festus p. 108.

1070 Cic. pro Cluent. 48, 134; Liv. xxix. 37. Removal from the ranks is described as a deprivation of the horse (adimere equum, Liv. xxiv. 18, xli. 2, 7).

1071 A fragment of a censorian edict of 92 B.C. directed against the “Latini rhetores” has been preserved. It contains the words “Haec nova, quae praeter consuetudinem ac morem majorum fiunt, neque placent neque recta videntur” (Suet. de Clar. Rhet. 1; Gell. xv. 11, 2).

1072 “Judex domesticus,” “domesticus magistratus” (Sen. Controv. ii. 3; de Benef. iii. 11).

1073 Cic. de Rep. iv. 6, 16 “Nec vero mulieribus praefectus praeponatur, qui apud Graecos creari solet; sed sit censor qui viros doceat moderari uxoribus.”

1074 Dionys. xx. 13.

1075 p. 55.

1076 Dionys. l.c.

1077 Festus p. 344.

1078 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7 “coelibes esse prohibento.”

1079 Val. Max. ii. 9, 1 “Camillus et Postumius censores aera poenae nomine eos, qui ad senectutem coelibes pervenerant, in aerarium deferre jusserunt.”

1080 Liv. xxxix. 19.

1081 Cic. Phil. ii. 28, 69.

1082 Val. Max. ii. 9, 2 “M. Val. Maximus et C. Junius Brutus Bubulcus censores... L. Annium senatu moverunt, quod, quam virginem in matrimonium duxerat, repudiasset, nullo amicorum in consilio adhibito.”

1083 Plin. H. N. xviii. 3, 11.

1084 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14; Val. Max. ii. 9, 4. For excessive taxation imposed on articles of luxury see Liv. xxxix. 44; Plut. Cat. Maj. 18; and p. 221.

1085 Cf. Gell. v. 13 “M. Cato in oratione, quam dixit apud censores in Lentulum, ita scripsit: ‘quod majores sanctius habuere defendi pupillos quam clientem non fallere.’”

1086 Greenidge Infamia in Roman Law p. 67.

1087 Even amateur performances might call down the nota. See Suet. Dom. 8 (Domitian) “suscepta correctione morum... quaestorium virum, quod gesticulandi saltandique studio teneretur, movit senatu.”

1088 The lex Julia Municipalis excludes them, like actors, from the municipal senate; the lex Acilia repetundarum from the bench of judices.

1089 Suet. Aug. 39 “notavitque aliquos quod, pecunias levioribus usuris mutuati, graviori foenore collocassent.”

1090 Plut. Cat. Maj. 17; C. Gracch. 2.

1091 Gell. xiv. 7 “opus etiam censorium fecisse existimatos, per quos eo tempore (i.e. at an unlawful time) senatus consultum factum esset.”

1092 Cic. de Div. i. 16, 29 “Appius... censor C. Ateium (tribune 55 B.C.) notavit, quod ementitum auspicia subscriberet.”

1093 Val. Max. ii. 9, 5 “M. autem Antonius et L. Flaccus censores (97 B.C.) Duronium senatu moverunt, quod legem de coercendis conviviorum sumptibus latam tribunus plebi abrogaverat.”

1094 Cic. pro Cluent. 42, 119; 43, 121; Suet. Dom. 8.

1095 Liv. xxiv. 18; xxvii. 11 and 25.

1096 In 204 B.C. the censor M. Livius disfranchised for the purposes of the comitia centuriata (aerarios reliquit) thirty-four out of the thirty-five tribes “quod et innocentem se condemnassent et condemnatum consulem et censorem fecissent” (Liv. xxix. 37).

1097 Lex Jul Munic. l. 120.

1098 Cic. de Off. iii. 31, 111 “indicant (the sanctity of the oath in former times) notiones animadversionesque censorum, qui nulla de re diligentius quam de jure jurando judicabant.”

1099 To this form of disqualification the name “mediate infamia” has been given by modern jurists.

1100 Cic. pro Cluent. 42, 120 “quos autem ipsi L. Gellius et Cn. Lentulus duo censores... furti et captarum pecuniarum nomine notaverunt, ii non modo in senatum redierunt. sed etiam illarum ipsarum rerum judiciis absoluti sunt.”

1101 Liv. xxix. 37 (in 204 B.C., Claudius Nero) “M. Livium (his colleague), quia populi judicio esset damnatus, equum vendere jussit.”

1102 It enacted “ut quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset in senatu ne esset” (Ascon. in Cornelian. p. 78).

1103 Dio Cass. xxxvi. 21.

1104 Liv. xlv. 15 “omnes iidem ab utroque et tribu remoti et aerarii facti”; xliv. 16 “tribu quoque is motus et aerarius factus”; xxvii. 11; xxix. 37 “aerarios reliquit.”

1105 See Greenidge Infamia in Roman Law pp. 106-110. Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. pp. 402 ff.) makes the expressions tribu movere and in aerarios referre identical after 312 B.C. and interprets both as signifying the removal from a higher to a lower tribe.

1106 Liv. i. 44; Dionys. iv. 22.

1107 At each lustrum vota were offered “quae in proximum lustrum suscipi mos est” (Suet. Aug. 97). Before the censorship of Scipio Aemilianus it had been the custom to pray “ut populi Romani res meliores amplioresque facerent”; after it, on his initiative, “ut eas perpetuo incolumes servent” (Val. Max. iv. 1, 10).

1108 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 19, 50 and 51; 29, 81. The leases were sometimes of considerable duration (Hyginus p. 116 Lachm. “Ex hoste capti agri postquam divisi sunt per centurias... qui superfuerunt agri vectigalibus subjecti sunt, alii per annos [quinos], alii per annos centenos pluresve: finito illo tempore iterum veneunt locanturque ita ut vectigalibus est consuetudo”).

1109 e.g. a lex censoria enjoined that not more than five thousand workmen should be employed in the gold mines of Vercellae by the contractor who worked them (Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 78).

1110 The jurists inform us that this is the true sense of publicanus; the conductores are only publicanorum loco (Dig. 39, 4, 12, 13). In common parlance, however, both are publicani, and this usage is etymologically justifiable, since they are both concerned with a publicum, a word which denotes state revenue and state service (Dig. 39, 4, 1; Tac. Ann. xiii. 51; Liv. xxiii. 49, 1).

1111 Vectigal (ἀποφορά Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8; cf. App. B.C. i. 7). In the case of pasture land it was called scriptura (Festus p. 833).

1112 Lex agraria l. 85 “ex lege dicta, quam... censores... deixerunt, publicano dare oportuit.”

1113 Cic. in Verr. ii. 26, 63; 60, 147; iii. 7, 18.

1114 ib. iii. 6, 12 and 14.

1115 Polyb. vi. 17. The Senate can συμπτώματος γενομένου κουφίσαι καὶ τὸ παράπαν ἀδυνάτου τινὸς συμβάντος ἀπολῦσαι τῆς ἐργωνίας. Cf. the section on the Senate’s control of property. In 169 and 59 B.C. we find the people releasing from an oppressive contract (Liv. xliii. 16; App. B.C. ii. 13).

1116 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7 “templa, vias, aquas... tuento”; ad Fam. xiii. 11, 1 “sarta tecta (i.e. the repairs of walls and roofs) aedium sacrarum locorumque communium tueri.”

1117 Cf. Liv. xxxix. 44 “ultro tributa infimis (pretiis) locaverunt.”

1118 ib. xliv. 16 “ad opera publica facienda cum eis (censoribus) dimidium ex vectigalibus ejus anni attributum ex senatus consulto a quaestoribus esset”; xl. 46 “censoribus deinde postulantibus ut pecuniae summa sibi, qua in opera publica uterentur, attribueretur, vectigal annuum decretum est.”

1119 Lex Jul. Munic. l. 73; Liv. xxxix. 44 (quoted n. 2).

1120 Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 446) takes the phrase to mean something “voluntarily granted” by the Senate to the magistrate.

1121 Liv. xxxix. 44. The later tendency, however, was for such public rights to be protected by the praetor’s interdicts.

1122 ib. xl. 51 “complura sacella publica quae fuerant occupata a privatis publica sacraque ut essent paterentque populo curarunt.”

1123 ib. xliii. 16 “censores ad pignora capienda miserunt multamque pro contione privato dixerunt.”

1124 Lex agraria ll. 35, 36.

1125 ib.

1126 p. 208.

1127 p. 93.

1128 p. 94.

1129 pp. 95 ff.

1130 p. 190.

1131 p. 162.

1132 p. 126.

1133 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 17 “toties legibus agrariis curatores constituti sunt triumviri quinqueviri decemviri.” Cf. ib. ii. 12, 31 “eodem jure... quo habuerunt (pullarios) tresviri lege Sempronia.”

1134 ib. ii. 7, 16 “jubet enim (the agrarian law of Rullus) tribunum plebis, qui eam legem tulerit, creare decemviros per tribus septemdecim, ut, quem novem tribus fecerint, is decemvir sit.”

1135 pp. 174, 177.

1136 The nature of the Sullan limitations is unknown. Caesar says “Sullam nudata omnibus rebus tribunicia potestate tamen intercessionem liberam reliquisse” (B.C. i. 7), and Cicero “Sullam probo, qui tribunis plebis sua lege injuriae faciendae potestatem ademerit, auxilii ferendi reliquerit” (de Leg. iii. 9, 22). He probably formulated cases in which it could not be employed. There are instances of the tribunician veto between 81 B.C. and 70 B.C., the date of the restoration of the tribune’s power. See Momms. Staatsr. ii p. 308 nn. 1 and 2.

1137 p. 162.

1138 p. 182.

1139 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 6.

1140 Festus p. 233; Dio Cass. liv. 26.

1141 Liv. Ep. xi.

1142 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 6; Sall. Cat. 55.

1143 Val. Max. vi. 1, 10; Cic. pro Cluent. 13, 38.

1144 Ascon. in Milon. p. 38.

1145 Plaut. Amph. l. 1, 3.

1146 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 30. The full official title which first appears in 44 B.C. is a(uro) a(rgento) a(ere) f(lando) f(eriundo). For this title and its variants see Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 602 n. 3.

1147 Momms. Staatsr. ii p. 601.

1148 Verbally the second title might, and perhaps should, refer to the viae of Italy. But the office is probably an urban magistracy. See ib. p. 604.

1149 Liv. iii. 55.

1150 Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 6. For their jurisdiction in cases of freedom in the Ciceronian period see Cic. pro Caec. 39, 97; pro Domo 29, 78.

1151 Festus p. 233.

1152 p. 207.

1153 This was the case with C. Claudius Pulcher (C.I.L. i. p. 279), C. Junius (Cic. pro Cluent. 29, 79), and C. Julius Caesar (Suet. Caes. 11).

1154 p. 189.

1155 Cic. pro Cluent. 33, 91.

1156 Mommsen inclines to think that the office followed as a matter of course on the aedileship (Staatsr. ii. p. 590).

1157 p. 155.

1158 Liv. ix. 30.

1159 p. 234.

1160 p. 43.

1161 p. 102.

1162 p. 126.

1163 Cic. pro Caec. 33, 95; cf. pro Domo 40, 106 “Quae tua fuit consecratio? Tuleram, inquit, ut mihi liceret. Quid? Non exceperas ut, si quid jus non esset rogari, ne esset rogatum?”

1164 Valerius Probus gives the formula which emphasises this religious aspect of the saving clause. It was si quid sacri sancti est quod non jure sit rogatum, ejus hac lege nihil rogatur.

1165 See p. 107.

1166 Cic. pro Domo 20, 53 “quae (est) sententia Caeciliae legis et Didiae nisi haec, ne populo necesse sit in conjunctis rebus compluribus aut id quod nolit accipere aut id quod velit repudiare?” The principle had existed as early as the lex Acilia Repetundarum of 122 (l. 72). See Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 336.

1167 Liv. viii. 23.

1168 ib. ix. 42. Compare, however, x. 22 (296 B.C.), where the plebiscitum and the senatus consultum are both mentioned in connexion with the prorogation of the command of L. Volumnius. For the recognition of the imperium of the consul for a single day to enable him to triumph, see p. 158.

1169 Liv. xxxviii. 54-60.

1170 ib. xlii. 21 and 22.

1171 Cic. de Fin. ii. 16, 54.

1172 The quaestio Mamilia of 110 B.C. (Sall. Jug. 40).

1173 p. 14.

1174 The lex Plautia Papiria (Cic. pro Arch. 4, 7; see p. 311) was the work of two tribunes.

1175 Cic. pro Balbo 21, 48 “lege Appuleia... qua lege Saturninus C. Mario tulerat, ut in singulas colonias ternos cives Romanos facere posset.”

1176 ib. 8, 19 “lege quam L. Gellius Cn. Cornelius (coss. 72 B.C.) ex senatus sententia tulerunt... videmus satis esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii, quos Cn. Pompeius de consilii sententia singillatim civitate donaverit.”

1177 Val. Max. v. 2, 8 “(C. Marius) duas... Camertium cohortes mira virtute vim Cimbrorum sustinentis in ipsa acie adversus condicionem foederis civitate donavit.”

1178 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 135 n. 5.

1179 Cic. pro Caec. 35, 101.

1180 Liv. xxvi. 33 (speech of M. Atilius Regulus) “‘Per senatum agi de Campanis, qui cives Romani sunt, injussu populo non video posse. Idque et apud majores nostros in Satricanis factum est (319 B.C.) cum defecissent, ut M. Antistius tribunus plebis prius rogationem ferret scisceretque plebs uti senatui de Satricanis sententiae dicendae jus esset. Itaque censeo cum tribunis plebis agendum esse ut eorum unus pluresve rogationem ferant ad plebem qua nobis statuendi de Campanis jus fiat.’ L. Atilius tribunus plebis ex auctoritate senatus plebem in haec verba rogavit... Plebes sic jussit, ‘Quod senatus juratus, maxima pars, censeat, qui adsidetis, id volumus jubemusque.’”

1181 ib. xxxviii. 36 “edocti populi esse, non senatus, jus suffragii quibus velit impertiri, destiterunt incepto.”

1182 p. 229.

1183 Liv. xlv. 15 (169 B.C.; on the proposal of the censor Sempronius to disfranchise the freedmen, his colleague Claudius) “negabat... suffragii lationem injussu populi censorem cuiquam homini, nedum ordini universo adimere posse: neque enim, si tribu movere posset, quod sit nihil aliud quam mutare jubere tribum, ideo omnibus quinque et triginta tribubus emovere posse, id est civitatem libertatemque eripere.”

1184 In Liv. vii. 16 (357 B.C.) we find the account of the creation of the vicesima manumissionis by the comitia tributa populi.

1185 This change was effected by a lex Aebutia (Gell. xvi. 10, 8; Gaius iv. 30).

1186 p. 205.

1187 The fullest praescriptio which has been preserved is that of the lex Quinctia de aquaeductibus, a consular law of 9 B.C. (Frontinus de aquaeductibus 129). It runs: “T. Quinctius Crispinus consul populum jure rogavit populusque jure scivit in foro pro rostris aedis divi Juli pr(idie) [k] Julias. Tribus Sergia principium fuit, pro tribu Sex.... L. f. Virro [primus scivit].”

1188 Ulpian Reg. praef. 2 “Minus quam perfecta lex est, quae vetat aliquid fieri et, si factum sit, non rescindit, sed poenam injungit ei qui contra legem fecit.” The Licinio-Sextian agrarian law of 367 was apparently of this kind.

1189 Macrob. Comm. in Somn. Scip. ii. 17, 13 “inter leges quoque illa imperfecta dicitur, in qua nulla deviantibus poena sancitur.”

1190 Cic. ad Att. iii. 23, 2 “alteram caput est tralaticium de impunitate si quid contra alias leges ejus legis ergo factum sit.”

1191 Ulpian op. cit. 3 “Lex aut rogatur, id est, fertur; aut abrogatur, id est, prior lex tollitur; aut derogatur, id est, pars primae (legis) tollitur; aut subrogatur, id est, adjicitur aliquid primae legi; aut obrogatur, id est, mutatur aliquid ex prima lege.” Cf. the clause in a law cited by Cicero (ad Att. iii. 23, 3) “si quid in hac rogatione scriptum est, quod per leges plebisve scita promulgare, abrogare, derogare, obrogare sine fraude sua non liceat.”

1192 Cic. l.c. 23, 2 “neque enim ulla (lex) est, quae non ipsa se saepiat difficultate abrogationis. Sed, cum lex abrogatur, illud ipsum abrogatur, quo modo eam abrogari [non] oporteat.”

1193 p. 239.

1194 See the section on the Senate.

1195 Livy describes a controversy whether from this point of view an armistice (indutiae) rested on a level with a pax: (iv. 30) “cum Veientibus... indutiae,... non pax facta... ante diem rebellaverant... controversia inde fuit utrum populi jussu indiceretur bellum an satis esset senatus consultum. Pervicere tribuni... ut Quinctius consul de bello ad populum ferret: omnes centuriae jussere.”

1196 Polyb. vi. 14 ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης οὖτος (ὁ δῆμος) βουλεύεται καὶ πολέμου.

1197 Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 343.

1198 See the section on the Senate.

1199 Polyb. i. 62 (agreement between Lutatius Catulus and the Carthaginians in 241 B.C.) ἐπὶ τοῖσδε φιλίαν εἶναι Καρχηδονίοις καὶ Ῥωμαίοις, ἐὰν καὶ τῷ δήμῳ τῶν Ῥωμαίων συνδοκῇ. The people rejected the treaty, but it was subsequently maintained that, but for this saving clause, it would have been binding (ib. iii. 29).

1200 ib. vi. 14 καὶ μὴν περὶ συμμαχίας καὶ διαλύσεως καὶ συνθηκῶν οὖτος (ὁ δῆμος) ἐστιν ὁ βεβαιῶν ἒκαστα τούτων καὶ κύρια ποιῶν ἢ τοὐναντίον.

1201 Liv. xxix. 12 (205 B.C., peace with Philip of Macedon) “jusserunt... omnes tribus”; xxx. 43 (201 B.C., peace with Carthage) “De pace... omnes tribus jusserunt”; xxxiii. 25 (196 B.C., peace with Philip of Macedon) “ea rogatio in Capitolio ad plebem lata est. Omnes quinque et triginta tribus, uti rogas jusserunt.”

1202 So on the conclusion of the second Punic war (Liv. xxx. 43 “M’. Acilius et Q. Minucius tribuni plebis ad populum tulerunt ‘Vellent juberentne senatum decernere ut cum Carthaginiensibus pax fieret, et quem eam pacem dare quemque ex Africa exercitum deportare juberent’”).

1203 See lex Antonia de Termessibus (Bruns Fontes).

1204 p. 47.

1205 p. 187.

1206 p. 63.

1207 See below on the competence of the concilium plebis.

1208 See Momms. Staatsr. i. p. 195; ii. p. 618.

1209 See p. 161.

1210 p. 169.

1211 p. 211.

1212 p. 161.

1213 Anquisitio (a variant of the quaestio of the magistrate when he investigates on his own authority) perhaps means an “inquiry on both sides,” i.e. through accusation and defence (Lange Röm. Alt. ii. p. 470; cf. Festus p. 22 “anquirere est circum quaerere”).

1214 Liv. ii. 52 (the tribunes) “cum capitis anquisissent, duo milia aeris damnato multam edixerunt”; xxvi. 3 (a pecuniary penalty having been proposed during the first two days) “tertio... tanta ira accensa est ut capite anquirendum contio subclamaret.”

1215 Cic. pro Dom. 17, 45 “cum tam moderata judicia populi sint a majoribus constituta... ne inprodicta die quis accusetur, ut ter ante magistratus accuset intermissa die quam multam irroget aut judicet, quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die judicium sit futurum.” Cf. App. B.C. i. 74.

1216 Cic. l.c. “si qua res illum diem aut auspiciis aut excusatione sustulit, tota causa judiciumque sublatum sit.”

1217 Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27.

1218 Cic. pro Domo 82, 86 “at vero... Kaeso ille Quinctius (cf. Liv. iii. 13) et M. Furius Camillus et M. Servilius Ahala (cf. Liv. iv. 16, 21)... populi incitati vim iracundiamque subierunt; damnatique comitiis centuriatis cum in exilium profugissent, rursus ab eodem populo placato sunt in suam pristinam dignitatem restituti.”

1219 Cic. Brut. 34, 128; post Red. in Sen. 15, 38.

1220 App. B.C. i 31.

1221 Cic. pro Planc. 28, 69; post Red. in Sen. 15, 38.

1222 Cic. ad Att. iv. 1, 4.

1223 Auct. ad Herenn. ii. 28, 45.

1224 Caes. B.C. iii. 1 “praetoribus tribunisque plebis rogationes ad populum ferentibus... in integrum restituit.” Cf. Suet. Caes. 41; Dio Cass, xliii. 27.

1225 “de alea condemnatum” (Cic. Phil. ii. 23, 56), that is, probably, under the lex Cornelia de falsis (Rein Criminalrecht p. 833).

1226 See p. 248.

1227 Plut. Mar. 43; cf. Vell. ii. 21; App. B.C. i. 70.

1228 App. B.C. iii. 95.

1229 Vell. ii. 58; cf. Cic. Phil. i. 1, 1.

1230 Dio Cass. xlix. 43.

1231 pp. 166, 179.

1232 p. 239.

1233 When Varro says (L.L. vi. 30) “magistratus vitio creatus nihilo secius magistratus” he is reflecting the practical procedure—hardly the constitutional theory, unless the dictum implies that repeal is impossible because unnecessary, and that there is no authority for determining the nullity of the election.

1234 Cicero says, with respect to the law exiling him, that there was some point in its being held invalid as a privilegium, “sed multo est melius abrogari” (ad Att. iii. 15, 5).

1235 Laelius Felix ap. Gell. xv. 27, 5 “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, ‘curiata’ comitia esse, cum ex censu et aetate ‘centuriata,’ cum ex regionibus et locis, ‘tributa.’”

1236 How easily one comitia could melt into another is shown by the words of Cicero [ad Fam. vii. 30 (44 B.C.)] “Ille autem (Caesar), qui comitiis tributis esset auspicatus, centuriata habuit.”

1237 See Appendix on the comitia tributa.

1238 p. 49.

1239 Messala ap. Gell. xiii. 15, 4 “Minoribus creatis magistratibus tributis comitiis magistratus, sed justus curiata datur lege.”

1240 Dio Cass. xxxix. 19.

1241 ib. xli. 43.

1242 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 12, 30 “consuli, si legem curiatam non habet, attingere rem militarem non licet.”

1243 Sulla’s law had said that the magistrate should retain imperium until he re-entered the city, apparently without mentioning the lex curiata. App. Claudius, consul for 54 B.C., who had been prevented by the tribunician veto from getting his lex curiata passed, presumed on this silence and said “legem curiatam consuli ferri opus esse, necesse non esse; se, quoniam ex senatus consulto provinciam haberet, lege Cornelia imperium habiturum quoad in urbem introisset” (Cic. ad Fam. i. 9, 25).

1244 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 12, 31.

1245 p. 26.

1246 Gell. xv. 27, 1 “‘calata’ comitia esse, quae pro conlegio pontificum habentur aut regis aut flaminum inaugurandorum causa. Eorum autem alia esse ‘curiata,’ alia ‘centuriata’... Isdem comitiis, quae ‘calata’ appellari diximus, et sacrorum detestatio et testamenta fieri solebant.” It is not known what particular acts were reserved for the “comitia calata” assembled centuriatim; Mommsen thinks the inauguration of the Flamen Martialis outside the city (Staatsr. iii. p. 307).

1247 p. 107.

1248 pp. 107, 246.

1249 p. 244.

1250 Liv. i. 43 “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicate earum numero centuriis juniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Servio Tullio summam non convenire.” Cf. Dionys. iv. 21. The description of Cicero (de Rep. ii. 22, 39 and 40) probably refers to the Servian arrangement, although Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 275) holds that it refers to the reformed comitia. The description given in the text is in essentials that of Pantagathus (died 1567) ap. Ursinum in Liv. i. 43. For the different systems that have been adopted see Willems Le Droit Public p. 97. Mommsen (l.c.) admits the 70 votes for the 70 centuries of the first class, but thinks that the 280 centuries of the other classes were so combined as to form but 100 votes; the total votes being 70 + 100 + 5 + 18 = 193, as before.

1251 p. 73.

1252 Cic. Phil. ii. 33, 82 “Ecce Dolabellae comitiorum dies: sortitio praerogativae: quiescit. Renuntiatur, tacet. Prima classis vocatur: renuntiatur. Deinde, ita ut assolet, suffragia; tum secunda classis.”

1253 Liv. xliii. 16 “cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent, multaeque aliae primae classis.” It would seem as though the sex suffragia (p. 73) voted with or after the first class. Drakenborch would read octodecim for duodecim, but this would seem to give too small a number of condemnatory votes amongst the equites.

1254 Cic. pro Planc. 20, 49.

1255 Hence such expressions as Aniensis juniorum, Veturia juniorum, Galeria juniorum (Liv. xxiv. 7; xxvi. 22; xxvii. 6).

1256 App. B.C. i. 59.

1257 See Appendix on the comitia tributa.

1258 p. 107.

1259 Liv. xxv. 4 (212 B.C.) “Tribuni plebem rogaverunt plebesque ita scivit, ‘Si M. Postumius ante K. Maias non prodisset citatusque eo die non respondisset neque excusatus esset, videri eum in exilio esse, bonaque ejus venire, ipsi aqua et igni placere interdici”; ib. xxvi. 3 (211 B.C.) “Cn. Fulvius exulatum Tarquinios abiit. Id ei justum exilium esse scivit plebs.”

1260 When Plutarch says (C. Gracch. 4) that C. Gracchus gave the right of trying such cases τῷ δήμῳ, this word may include the Plebs. Gracchus at least seems to have banished the ex-consul Popilius by means of a plebiscitum (Cic. pro Domo 31, 82 “ubi enim tuleras ut mihi aqua et igni interdiceretur? quod Gracchus de P. Popilio... tulit”).

1261 App. B.C. i. 59.

1262 This conclusion has been drawn from the words of Cicero (in Verr. Act i. 13, 38) “judiciis ad senatorium ordinem translatis sublataque populi Romani in unum quemque vestrum potestate.”

1263 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 18 “Quod populus per religionem sacerdotia mandare non poterat, ut minor pars populi vocaretur.”

1264 For this presidency by the youngest pontifex (the one, i.e., who stood the least chance of election) see Liv. xxv. 5 (212 B.C.). From Cic. ad Brut. i. 5, 4 it follows that the consuls had something to do with arranging the elections, but not that they were ever the presidents.

1265 Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 18; Vell. ii. 12, 3.

1266 Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37.

1267 Macrob. Sat. i. 16, 29 “Julius Caesar XVI auspiciorum libro negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi ideoque nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse.”

1268 Varro L.L. v. 155 “comitium ab eo quod coibant eo comitiis curiatis et litium causa.”

1269 Liv. vi. 20; Plin. H.N. xvi. 10, 37.

1270 Liv. vii. 16.

1271 The change to the Forum is perhaps post-Gracchan; see Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 385. Cf. the prescription of the lex Quinctia de aquaeductibus (p. 242).

1272 Gell. xiii. 15, 1 “In edicto consulum, quo edicunt quis dies comitiis centuriatis futurus sit.” “Comitia edicere” (Liv. xxiii. 31) and “comitia indicere” (Liv. iv. 6) are employed as descriptive of this act.

1273 Festus p. 224 “promulgari leges dicuntur cum primum in vulgus eduntur, quasi provulgari.”

1274 Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 370.

1275 Schol. Bob. to Cic. pro Sest. 64, 135 (p. 310) “(lex) Licinia et Junia... illud cavebat ne clam aerario legem ferri liceret.” For registration in the aerarium at the time of promulgation cf. Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 11. Clodius’ law exiling Cicero in 58 B.C. was amended (Cic. ad Att. iii. 2 “praesertim nondum rogatione correcta”), but whether before or after promulgation is not clear.

1276 Dionysius, Plutarch, and Priscian explain trinum nundinum as the third market-day, an interval of trinarum nundinarum, i.e. seventeen days; but Mommsen has made out a good case for its being three nundina, i.e. intervals of eight days (Staatsr. iii. p. 375).

1277 p. 164.

1278 p. 38.

1279 Varro L.L. vi. 91 “comitiatum praeco populum vocet ad te, et eum de muris vocet praeco.”

1280 The herald is not mentioned in connexion with the concilium plebis. The comitia curiata were summoned by a lictor curiatius. See Momms. Staatsr. iii. p. 386.

1281 Gell. xv. 27; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27.

1282 Varro L.L. vi. 92; Plut. C. Gracch. 3.

1283 “Sollemne carmen precationis” (Liv. xxxix. 15).

1284 Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 11 “qui agent... rem populum docento”; Quintil. Inst. Or. ii. 4, 33 “Romanis pro contione suadere ac dissuadere moris fuit.”

1285 Except perhaps at the comitia centuriata (Momms. iii. p. 395), but this body had almost ceased to be a legislative assembly.

1286 p. 247.

1287 Originally licium, later saepta or ovile.

1288 Liv. ii. 56; cf. Asc. in Cornel. p. 70 “discedere, quod verbum... significat... [ut] in suam quisque tribum discedat, in qua est suffragium laturus.”

1289 Hence the expression ferre punctum (Cic. pro Planc. 22, 53).

1290 Liv. v. 13; iii. 21.

1291 Cic. de Leg. iii. cc. 15, 16.

1292 Hence the discovery of a fraud at an election through tablets being μιᾷ χειρὶ γεγραμμέναις (Plut. Cat. Min. 46).

1293 Cic. cum Sen. Gr. eg. 11, 28; in Pis. 15, 36.

1294 Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 2, 31; Cic. cum Sen. Gr. eg. 7, 17.

1295 p. 253.

1296 The first curia or tribe is the principium. See the prescription of the lex Quinctia (p. 242). Even after the ballot was introduced the name of the first voter in a division was specified (primus scivit, l.c.).

1297 Tribus or centurias non explere is said of such candidates (Liv. iii. 64; xxxvii. 47). Cf. Liv. xxii. 35.

1298 Cic. in Pis. 15, 36 “hoc certe video quod indicant tabulae publicae vos rogatores, vos diribitores, vos custodes fuisse tabularum.” It is the list of votes as certified by the guardians and tellers rather than the separate voting tablets that Cicero here speaks of. But the tablets themselves were kept for a time in loculi (Varro R.R. iii. 5, 18).

1299 Cic. de Leg. iii. 20, 46 “Legum custodiam nullam habemus. Itaque eae leges sunt quas apparisores nostri volunt; a librariis petimus.”

1300 See the evidences collected by Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. pp. 418-419). It is from this practice that figere and refigere are used of the publication and annulling of laws.

1301 p. 219.

1302 Cic. pro Sest. 65, 137 “senatum reipublicae custodem, praesidem, propugnatorem collocaverunt (majores); hujus ordinis auctoritate uti magistratus et quasi ministros gravissimi consilii esse voluerunt.”

1303 Festus p. 142 “mulleos genus calceorum aiunt esse, quibus reges Albanorum primi, deinde patricii sunt usi.”

1304 Hence the distinction between the patrician and plebeian form of shoe (Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 891). In the time of Cato the elder this footgear was only worn by the plebeian senator “qui magistratum curulem cepisset” (Festus l.c.).

1305 For an investiture of boys with the latus clavus earlier than the rule of Augustus, see Suet. Aug. 94.

1306 Tac. Ann. xi. 22 “post lege Sullae viginti (quaestores) creati supplendo senatui.”

1307 Gell. iv. 10, 8 “Erat... jus senatori ut sententiam rogatus diceret ante quicquid vellet aliae rei et quoad vellet.” For this practice of egredi relationem see Tac. Ann. ii. 33.

1308 “Delenda est Carthago” (Florus ii. 15); cf. App. Lib. 69.

1309 An attempt to violate this order was made in 56 B.C., “cum Lupus tribunus pl.... intendere coepit ante se oportere discessionem facere quam consules. Ejus orationi vehementer ab omnibus reclamatum est; erat enim et iniqua et nova” (Cic. ad Fam. i. 2, 2).

1310 The consul Marcellus thus dismissed the Senate in 50 B.C. on its favouring the proposal that both Pompeius and Caesar should lay down their commands (App. B.C. ii. 30).

1311 Gell. iv. 10, 8.

1312 ib. l.c.; Suet. Caes. 20.

1313 Gell. xiv. 7, 9 (from the Commentarius of Varro) “singulos autem debere consuli gradatim incipique a consulari gradu. Ex quo gradu semper quidem antea primum rogari solitum qui princeps in senatum lectus esset; tum autem, cum haec scriberet, novum morem institutum refert per ambitionem gratiamque ut is primus rogaretur quem rogare vellet qui haberet senatum, dum is tamen ex gradu consulari esset.” For this novus mos cf. Cic. ad Att. i. 13, 2 (61 B.C.) “Primum igitur scito primum me non esse rogatum sententiam praepositumque esse nobis pacificatorem Allobrogum” (C. Calpurnius Piso, a relative of the presiding consul).

1314 Sall. Cat. 50 (in the debate on the Catilinarian conspirators) “D. Junius Silanus primus sententiam rogatus quod eo tempore consul designatus erat.”

1315 Festus p. 210 “(Pedarius senator) ita appellator quia tacitus transeundo ad eum, cujus sententiam probat, quid sentiat indicat.” Cf. Gell. iii. 18. The explanation cited by Festus is true only so far as it expresses a usual circumstance of debate. The name pedarius is probably derived from the absence of the curule chair (Gavius Bassus ap. Gell. l.c.).

1316 Vell. ii. 35 “Hic tribunus plebis designatus... paene inter ultimos interrogatus sententiam”; Cic. ad Att. xii. 21, 1 “Cur ergo in sententiam Catonis? Quia verbis luculentioribus et pluribus rem eandem (i.e. the opinion already expressed by consulares) comprehenderat.”

1317 See p. 270 n. 2.

1318 In a rough estimate of the house (61 B.C.) Cicero mentions 15 on one side of a question, “quite 400” on the other (ad Att. i. 14, 5). On Curio’s proposal in 50 B.C. that both Pompeius and Caesar should lay down their commands, 22 dissented, 370 approved (App. B.C. ii. 30). In the latter case there seems to have been no formal division (see p. 268 n. 2); and in both the small numbers may be the result of exact computation, the large either of a guess or of a deduction drawn from an already counted quorum.

1319 “Verbo adsentiri” (Sall. Cat. 52); cf. Cic. ad Fam. v. 2, 9 “sedens iis adsensi.”

1320 “In alienam sententiam pedibus ire” (Gell. iii. 18, 1).

1321 The invitation to divide on the sententia was couched in the form “Qui hoc censetis, illuc transite: qui alia omnia, in hanc partem” (Festus p. 261). Hence the colloquial phrase “ire in alia omnia” for negativing a proposal at the Senate (Cic. ad Fam. i. 2, 1).

1322 Cic. ad Att. i. 14, 3 “totum hunc locum, quem ego... soleo pingere, de flamma, de ferro—nosti illas ληκύθους.”

1323 p. 179.

1324 Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8, 5 ff. In § 6 we find the formula “Si quis huic s. c. intercesserit, senatui placere auctoritatem perscribi.”

1325 ib. l.c. § 6 “Pr. Kal. Octobres in aede Apollinis scrib. adfuerunt L. Domitius Cn. f. Fab. Ahenobarbus,” etc.

1326 p. 148.

1327 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10; App. B.C. i. 12.

1328 Polyb. xxx. 4. For the motive of the veto see Liv. xlv. 21 “M. Juventius Thalna... praetor novo maloque exemplo rem ingressus erat, quod, ante non consulto senatu, non consulibus certioribus factis, de sua unius sententia rogationem ferret vellent juberentne Rhodiis bellum indici, cum antea semper prius senatus de bello consultus esset, deinde ex auctoritate patrum ad populum latum.”

1329 Suet. Caes. 16 (Caesar supported Metellus in carrying) “turbulentissimas leges adversus collegarum intercessionem... donec ambo administratione reipublicae decreto patrum submoverentur.”

1330 In this case the prohibition was effected through the coercive power of the consul springing from his majus imperium (Dio Cass. xlii. 23).

1331 Tac. Ann. ii. 30 “vetere senatus consulto quaestio in caput domini prohibebatur.”

1332 Cic. ad Att. v. 21, 13 (50 B.C.) “cum senatus consultum modo factum sit... in creditorum causa, ut centesimae perpetuo faenore ducerentur.”

1333 Ascon. in Cornel. p. 58.

1334 M. Brutus had gained from the Senate the validation of a bond (syngrapha), by which an exorbitant rate of interest was demanded from the government of Salamis in Cyprus. Bonds of this kind, through which obligations were incurred by provincials at Rome, had been rendered illegal by a lex Gabinia of 67 B.C. (Cic. ad Att. v. 21, 12).

1335 Cic. pro Domo 16, 41 “judicavit senatus M. Drusi legibus, quae contra legem Caeciliam et Didiam latae essent, populum non teneri.” The account that the Livian laws were shelved as contra auspicia (Ascon. in Cornel. p. 68 “Philippus cos.... obtinuit a senatu, ut leges ejus omnes uno s. c. tollerentur. Decretum est enim contra auspicia esse latas neque eis teneri populum”) may contain one of the grounds of their abrogation.

1336 Cic. ad Att. iii. 15, 5 “Quod te cum Culleone scribis de privilegio locutum, est aliquid, sed multo est melius abrogari.”

1337 p. 204.

1338 Liv. xxv. 4; Sall. Cat. 50; Ascon. in Milon. p. 44. The Senate in this way sometimes interprets a criminal law and extends its incidence. See Cic. de Har. Resp. 8, 15 “decrevit senatus eos qui id fecissent (i.e. who had disturbed the rebuilding of Cicero’s house) lege de vi, quae est in eos qui universam rem publicam oppugnassent (i.e. vi publica) teneri.”

1339 Cic. ad Att. i. 13, 3 “Credo enim te audisse, cum apud Caesarem pro populo fieret, venisse eo muliebri vestitu virum... mentionem a Q. Cornificio in senatu factam... postea rem ex senatus consulto ad pontifices relatam, idque ab iis nefas esse decretum; deinde ex senatus consulto consules rogationem promulgasse.”

1340 Liv. viii. 18.

1341 ib. xl. 43 (180 B.C.) “A. C. Maenio praetore (cui, provincia Sardinia cum evenisset, additum erat ut quaereret de veneficiis longius ab urbe decem millibus passuum) literae adlatae se jam tria millia hominum damnasse.”

1342 Liv. xxxix. 41 (184 B.C.); cf. ix. 26 (314 B.C.) and the instance cited in the next note. In such instances of quaestiones extended to Italy, it is not clear whether socii as well as cives were executed summarily by Roman magistrates.

1343 ib. xxxix. 18. On this point see Zumpt Criminalrecht der Römer i. 2 p. 212.

1344 C.I.L. i. n. 196 (a letter from the consuls to some unknown magistrates of the ager Teuranus in Brutii) l. 24 “eorum (i.e. the Senate) sententia ita fuit ‘sei ques esent, quei avorsum ead fecisent, quam suprad scriptum est, eeis rem caputalem faciendam censuere.’”

1345 The consul was armed against C. Gracchus, the consuls in 63; the consuls, praetors, and tribunes in 100 B.C.; the interrex, proconsul, and all other magistrates with imperium in 77 B.C.

1346 The decree proposed to meet the threatened revolution of M. Lepidus in 77 B.C. ran as follows: “quoniam M. Lepidus exercitum privato consilio paratum cum pessimis et hostibus rei publicae contra hujus ordinis auctoritatem ad urbem ducit, uti Appius Claudius interrex cum Q. Catulo pro consule et ceteris, quibus imperium est, urbi praesidio sint operamque dent ne quid res publica detrimenti capiat” (from speech of Philippus in Sall. Hist. lib. i. frgt. 77, § 22). The historical instances of the employment of this power are against C. Gracchus and his adherents in 121 B.C., in the tumult of Saturninus (100), the first Sullan restoration (88), by the anti-Sullans (82), at the threatened revolution of M. Lepidus (77), in the Catilinarian conspiracy (63), during the disturbances raised by Q. Metellus (62), and those preceding the sole consulship of Pompeius (52), against Caesar (49), against Dolabella and M. Antonius (43).

1347 Cf. Sall. Cat. 50 “consul... convocato senatu refert quid de eis fieri placeat, qui in custodiam traditi erant. Sed eos paulo ante frequens senatus judivcaerat contra rem publicam fecisse.”

1348 Although the ultimum senatus consultum had not been passed against Ti. Gracchus, the condemnation of his adherents without appeal (Vell. ii. 7; Val. Max. iv. 7, 1) was the exercise of the jurisdiction of martial law. It was this jurisdiction which elicited the plebiscitum of C. Gracchus.

1349 Cic. pro Rab. 4, 12 “C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum injussu vestro judicaretur.”

1350 Schol. Ambros. p. 370 “Quia sententiam (wrongly for “legem”; see Zumpt Criminalrecht i. 2 p. 73) tulerat Gracchus ne quis in civem Romanum capitalem sententiam diceret.” Cf. Cic. pro Sest. 28, 61 “Consule me, (Cato), cum esset designatus tribunus plebis, obtulit in discrimen vitam suam: dixit eam sententiam, cujus invidiam capitis periculo sibi praestandam videbat.” So Dio Cassius (xxxviii 14), in speaking of the first bill of Clodius against Cicero, says ἔφερε μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν βουλήν, ὅτι τοῖς τε ὑπάτοις τὴν φυλακὴν τῆς πόλεως... προσετετάχει.

1351 Plut. C. Gracch. 4 τὸν δὲ (νόμον εἰσέφερε) εἴ τις ἄρχων ἄκριτον ἐκκεκηρύχοι πολίτην, κατ’ αὐτοῦ διδόντα κρίσιν τῷ δήμῳ. δῆμος here may mean either populus or plebs; but Gracchus, as tribune, put his own law into force against Popilius (Cic. pro Domo 31, 82).

1352 Cic. in Cat. iv. 5, 10 “At vero C. Caesar intelligit legem Semproniam esse de civibus Romanis constitutam; qui autem rei publicae sit hostis eum civem esse nullo modo posse.”

1353 Cic. in Pis. 4, 9; pro Sest. 25, 55; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13.

1354 Cic. ad Q. fr. ii. 3, 5 (56 B.C.) “senatus consultum factum est ut sodalitates decuriatique discederent lexque de iis ferretur ut, qui non discessissent, ea poena quae est de vi tenerentur.” The sodalitates were clubs of the type of the Greek ἑταιρεῖαι, the decuriati probably electioneering associations.

1355 Cic. ad Att. i. 16, 12 (61 B.C.) “senatus consulta duo jam facta sunt odiosa... unum, ut apud magistratus inquiri liceret, alterum, cujus domi divisores habitarent, adversus rem publicam.”

1356 Liv. ix. 8-12; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 7; Cic. de Off. iii. 30, 109; Sall. Jug. 39.

1357 Sall. Jug. 39 “senatus ita, uti par fuerat, decernit suo atque populi injussu nullum potuisse foedus fieri.”

1358 Polyb. vi. 14 ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης οὗτος (ὁ δῆμος) βουλεύεται καὶ πολέμου. καὶ μὴν περὶ συμμαχίας καὶ διαλύσεως καὶ συνθηκῶν οὑτός ἐστιν ὁ βεβαιῶν ἕκαστα τούτων καὶ κύρια ποιῶν ἢ τοὐναντίον.

1359 The Gaditani approach the Senate for the renovation of a treaty made with a pro-magistrate in 78 B.C. Cicero questions its validity (pro Balbo 15, 34) on the ground that the people was not consulted. The passage illustrates both the Senate’s exercise of this power and the continuance of a controversy as to its right.

1360 Hence the institution of the Graecostasis. Varro (L.L. v. 165) describes it as “sub dextra hujus (the Rostra) a comitio locus substructus ubi nationum subsisterent legati, qui ad senatum essent missi; is Graecostasis appellatus a parte ut multa.”

1361 So the Numantian envoys in 36 B.C. are received ἔξω τοῦ τείχους (Dio fr. 79). As a rule the appeal was made to the nearest imperator, and his representations might accord such legati a reception within the city. See Momms. Staatsr. iii. 2 p. 1150.

1362 Liv. Ep. xlvi. “in commune lex lata est ne cui regi Romam venire liceret.” Cf. Polyb. xxx. 17.

1363 Cic. ad Q. fr. ii. 13, 3 “Appius interpretatur... quod Gabinia sanctum sit, etiam cogi ex Kal. Febr. usque ad Kal. Mart. legatis senatum quotidie dare.”

1364 Polyb. xxii. 24; Liv. xlv. 17.

1365 For the attempt made by the lex Sempronia to obviate this power see p. 201.

1366 Cic. ad Fam. v. 2, 3 (to Metellus Celer, proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul, 62 B.C.) “Nihil dico de sortitione vestra: tantum te suspicari volo nihil in ea re per collegam meum me insciente esse factum.” Cf. ad Att. i. 16, 8.

1367 Liv. xlv. 13; Dittenberger n. 240. The Senate sometimes referred questions respecting the internal affairs of these states to Roman patroni, with whom they had entered into relations of clientship (Liv. ix. 20; Cic. pro Sulla 21, 60).

1368 lex de Termessibus ii. 6 “Nei quis magistratus... meilites... introducito... nisei senatus nominatim... decreverit.”

1369 Sall. Jug. 62 “Metellus propere cunctos senatorii ordinis ex hibernis accersi jubet: eorum et aliorum, quos idoneos ducebat, consilium habet.” Cf. c. 104 “Marius... Sullam (the quaestor) ab Utica venire jubet, item L. Bellienum praetorem, praeterea omnes undique senatorii ordinis, quibuscum mandata Bocchi cognoscit.”

1370 Cic. ad Att. ii. 16, 4 “Illud tamen, quod scribit (Q. Cicero, governor of Asia) animadvertas velim, de portorio circumvectionis; ait se de consilii sententia rem ad senatum rejecisse.”

1371 Cic. de Off. ii. 22, 76 “tantum in aerarium pecuniae invexit (Paulus) ut unius imperatoris praeda finem attulerit tributorum.” Cf. Plut. Paul. 38.

1372 Momms. Staatsr. iii. 2 pp. 1112-20.

1373 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14 οὐδὲν ἔφη τῇ συγκλήτῳ βουλεύεσθαι προσήκειν, ἀλλὰ τῳ δήμῳ γνώμην αὐτὸς προθήσειν.

1374 p. 229.

1375 The Senate invalidated the locationes of the censors of 184 B.C. (Liv. xxxix. 44 “locationes cum senatus precibus et lacrimis publicanorum victus induci et de integro locari jussisset”). A vain appeal was made by the publicani of Asia to remit their contracts in 60 B.C. (Cic. ad Att. i. 17, 9; cf. ii. 1, 8).

1376 The business of draining the Pomptine marshes is entrusted to a consul (Liv. Ep. xlvi.), the building of an aqueduct to a praetor (Frontin. de Aquaed. 7).

1377 Cic. ad Att. iii. 24.

1378 This was necessary when the supplies were destined for the army. See Sall. Jug. 104 “(Rufus) qui quaestor stipendium in Africam portaverat.” Compare the section on provincial government.

1379 The phrase for opening this credit is attribuere. See Liv. xliv. 16 “ad opera publica facienda cum eis (censoribus) dimidium ex vectigalibus ejus anni (169 B.C.) attributum ex senatus consulto a quaestoribus esset.”

1380 p. 194.

1381 Cic. ad Fam. i. 1 sq.

1382 Cic. ad Q. fr. ii. 6, 4 and 5 (56 B.C.) “consul est egregius Lentulus... Dies comitiales exemit omnes. Nam etiam Latinae instaurantur: nec tamen deerant supplicationes. Sic legibus perniciosissimis obsistitur.”

1383 In the later Republic these periods of thanksgiving had reached the inordinate length of fifteen, twenty, and even fifty days (Caes. Bell. Gall. ii. 35; iv. 38; Cic. Phil. xiv. 11, 29). At this period the supplicatio was considered the usual preliminary of a triumph; but Cato explains to Cicero that this was not always the case (ad Fam. xv. 5, 2 “Quodsi triumphi praerogativam putas supplicationem et idcirco casum potius quam te laudari mavis, neque supplicationem sequitur semper triumphus,” etc.).

1384 Cic. pro Domo 49, 127 “video... esse legem veterem tribuniciam quae vetat injussu plebis aedes, terram, aram consecrari.” The jussus plebis probably implies that of the populus as well. See Momms. Staatsr. iii. 2 p. 1050.

1385 The Senate alone is mentioned as decreeing the reception of the Magna Mater in 205 B.C., and as ordaining the erection of her temple (Liv. xxix. 10 and 11; xxxvi. 36).

1386 See p. 56.

1387 Dionys. ii. 72; Liv. i. 32; cf. Plin. H.N. xxii. 2.

1388 Polyb. iii. 25; Liv. i. 24. Yet the ceremonies they describe are different. In that related by Polybius the stone has a passive signification; the priest hurls it from him and prays, “May I only be cast out, if I break my oath, as this stone is now.” In that described by Livy, “the pig represents the perjurer, the flint-knife the instrument of divine vengeance” (Strachan-Davidson’s Polybius, Proleg. viii.), and Jupiter is here to strike the people that fails in the compact. Possibly the two forms of ritual were used in different kinds of treaties; the first, perhaps, in commercial compacts, the second in agreements that closed a war.

1389 Liv. iv. 17; Middleton Ancient Rome i. p. 245.

1390 Liv. v. 36.

1391 See p. 283.

1392 Liv. xxii. 61.

1393 Varro L.L. v. 3 “multa verba aliud nunc ostendunt, aliud ante significabant, ut hostis: nam tum eo verbo dicebant peregrinum qui suis legibus uteretur, nunc dicunt eum quem tum dicebant perduellem.” Cf. Cic. de Off. i. 12, 37.

1394 p. 284.

1395 Polyb. iii. 22.

1396 “Aeduos, fratres consanguineosque saepe numero a senatu appellatos” (Caes. B.G. i. 33).

1397 Cf. p. 284 for this rule and for the exception to it made in 166 B.C.

1398 In the first treaty with Carthage two kinds of legal satisfaction are given to Roman traders. In Libya and Sardinia the state guarantees the debt; in the Sicilian cities under the Carthaginian protectorate Romans and Carthaginians are on an equal footing (Polyb. iii. 22).

1399 Hartmann (O. E.) Der ordo judiciorum und die judicia extraordinaria der Römer Thl. i. pp. 229 ff.

1400 Festus p. 274 “Reciperatio est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, cum inter populum et reges nationesque et civitates peregrinas lex convenit quomodo per reciperatores reddantur res reciperenturque resque privatas inter se persequantur.” See Keller Civilprocess p. 36; Rudorff Rechtsgeschichte ii. p. 34.

1401 p. 207.

1402 In the treaty supposed to be the work of Spurius Cassius and to date from 493 B.C. the following clause was found: τῶν τ’ ἰδιωτικῶν συμβολαίων αἱ κρίσεις ἐν ἡμέραις γιγνέσθωσαν δέκα, παρ’ οἷς ἂν γένηται τὸ συμβόλαιον (Dionys. vi. 95).

1403 Dionys. iii. 34, 51.

1404 ib. vi. 95; Festus p. 241.

1405 Dionys. viii. 70, 74.

1406 p. 295.

1407 App. B.C. i. 23. Dionysius (viii. 72) speaks of the Latins and Hernicans exercising voting privileges (ψηφοφορία) in Rome in the year 486 B.C. But it is impossible that they could have been enrolled in the centuries, which was a Roman army list, and no assembly of the tribes had yet received state recognition.

1408 Dionys. viii. 69, 72, 74.

1409 Livy, by attributing civitas to Tusculum (vi. 26) and calling the Tusculans cives (vi. 36), seems to imply that they were full citizens. In this case the city could not have been from the first a municipium, the name it bears later (“municipium antiquissimum” Cic. pro Planc. 8, 19). Festus, however (p. 127), includes Tusculum amongst the states with civitas sine suffragio, i.e. amongst the true municipia, and we know that Livy (x. 1) uses civitas for civitas sine suffragio. The Satricani are cives Romani in 319 B.C. (Liv. ix. 16). Satricum had formerly belonged to the thirty Latin cities (Dionys. v. 61).

1410 Liv. viii. 14 “Ceteris Latinis populis (i.e. other than those with whom special arrangements were made) conubia commerciaque et concilia inter se ademerunt.”

1411 Liv. ix. 43 “Hernicorum tribus populis, Aletrinati, Verulano, Ferentinati, quia maluerunt quam civitatem, suae leges redditae; conubiumque inter ipsos, quod aliquamdiu soli Hernicorum habuerunt, permissum. Anagninis, quique arma Romanis intulerant, civitas sine suffragii latione data: concilia conubiaque adempta, et magistratibus, praeterquam sacrorum curatione, interdictum.”

1412 p. 299.

1413 Dionys. vii. 13; Plut. Cor. 13.

1414 Hyginus p. 176 “cum signis et aquila et primis ordinibus ac tribunis deducebantur”; Tac. Ann. xiv. 27 “non enim, ut olim, universae legiones deducebantur cum tribunis et centurionibus et sui cujusque ordinis militibus.”

1415 Varro L.L. v. 143; Serv. ad Aen. v. 755.

1416 Liv. xxvii. 38 (207 B.C.) “colonos etiam maritimos, qui sacrosanctam vacationem dicebantur habere, dare milites cogebant”; xxxvi. 3 (191 B.C.) “contentio orta cum colonis maritimis... nam, cum cogerentur in classem, tribunos plebei appellarunt.”

1417 Cic. pro Balbo 11, 28; pro Caec. 34, 100.

1418 p. 203.

1419 Festus p. 233 “Praefecturae eae appellabantur in Italia, in quibus et jus dicebatur et nundinae agebantur; et erat quaedam earum res publica, neque tamen magistratus suos habebant; in quas legibus praefecti mittebantur quodannis, qui jus dicerent. Quarum genera fuerunt duo: alterum, in quas solebant ire praefecti quattuor, [qui] viginti sex virum numero populi suffragio creati erant... alterum, in quas ibant quos praetor urbanus quodannis in quaeque loca miserat legibus.” Amongst the praefecturae which he enumerates are the Roman colonies of Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, and Saturnia.

1420 Liv. viii. 14 “Campanis... Fundanisque et Formianis... civitas sine suffragio data. Cumanos Suessulanosque ejusdem juris conditionisque, cujus Capuam, esse placuit.” For Atella and Calatia see Festus pp. 131, 233.

1421 Liv. x. 1.

1422 ib. ix. 43, quoted p. 299.

1423 Festus p. 131 “municipes erant qui ex aliis civitatibus Romam venissent, quibus non licebat magistratum capere sed tantum muneris partem, ut fuerunt Cumani, Acerrani, Atellani, qui et cives Romani erant et in legione merebant, sed dignitates non capiebant”; cf. p. 127 “participes... fuerunt omnium rerum ad munus fungendum una cum Romanis civibus praeterquam de suffragio ferendo aut magistratu capiendo.” The words “qui ex aliis civitatibus Romam venissent” in the first definition do not describe the municipes of historical times; they suggest a possible origin for the institution. These rights were first conditioned by domicile in Rome, but the condition was subsequently removed.

1424 p. 235.

1425 Festus p. 233, quoted p. 302.

1426 Liv. viii. 14.

1427 ib. xxiv. 19; xxvi. 6.

1428 The language of Livy makes it doubtful whether he conceives the foedus to have continued after the civitas had been conferred. They are different stages of rights, but he may mean them to be cumulative. In xxxi. 31 we read “cum... ipsos (Campanos) foedere primum, deinde conubio atque cognationibus, postremo civitate nobis conjunxissemus” (cf. xxiii. 5). The civitas here is probably the full citizenship conferred on individual Capuans. They are spoken of as socii in 216 B.C. (xxiii. 5), and though the word is sometimes loosely used, it harmonises in its literal sense with the great constitutional privileges of the town.

1429 As at Arpinum (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 11, 3).

1430 Festus p. 127 “quorum civitas universa in civitatem Romanam venit.”

1431 It did not possess any magistracy for secular purposes (Liv. ix. 43 “magistratibus, praeterquam sacrorum curatione, interdictum”).

1432 “in ditionem” (Liv. xxxvii. 45), “in potestatem” (xxxix. 54).

1433 “in fidem” (ib. viii. 2).

1434 Polyb. xx. 9, 12 παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἰσοδυναμεῖ τό τε εἰς τὴν πίστιν αὑτὸν ἐγχειρίσαι καὶ τὸ τὴν ἐπιτροπὴν δοῦναι περὶ αὑτοῦ τῷ κρατοῦντι.

1435 Gell. x. 3, 19.

1436 Dig. 49, 15, 7, 1 “liber populus est is qui nullius alterius populi potestati est subjectus.”

1437 Lex Antonia de Termessibus i. 8.

1438 Plin. Ep. ad Traj. 92 (93).

1439 Cic. in Verr. iii. 6, 13; cf. App. B.C. i. 102 (ἐπὶ συνθήκαις ἔνορκοι).

1440 Dig. 49, 15, 7, 1 “hoc adjicitur, ut intellegatur alterum populum superiorem esse, non ut intellegatur alterum non esse liberum.” Cf. Cic. pro Balbo 16, 35 “Id habet hanc vim, ut sit ille in foedere inferior.”

1441 Dig. l.c. “is foederatus est item sive aequo foedere in amicitiam venit sive foedere comprehensum est ut is populus alterius populi majestatem comiter conservaret.”

1442 Lex Agraria 1. 21 “socii nominisve Latini, quibus ex formula togatorum [milites in terra Italia inperare solent].”

1443 Liv. xxii. 57; xxvii. 10 “milites ex formula paratos esse.”

1444 The number of troops required was decreed every year by the Senate (Liv. xli. 5 etc.), the consuls fixing the amount which each state was to send in proportion to its fighting strength.

1445 Cic. pro Balbo 9, 24.

1446 Cic. pro Balbo 8, 21 “innumerabiles aliae leges de civili jure sunt latae; quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt.”

1447 Liv. xxxv. 7 (193 B.C.) “M. Sempronius tribunus plebis... plebem rogavit plebesque scivit ut cum sociis ac nomine Latino creditae pecuniae jus idem quod cum civibus Romanis esset.” The enactment was produced by the discovery that Roman creditors escaped the usury laws by using Italians as their agents.

1448 Macrob. Sat. iii. 17, 6.

1449 Cic. pro Balbo 8, 20 “foederatos populos fieri fundos oportere... non magis est proprium foederatorum quam omnium liberorum.” For the formula of acceptance (“fundi—i.e. auctores—facti sunt”) cf. Festus p. 89.

1450 Cic. pro Balbo 24, 54 “Latinis, id est foederatis.”

1451 The distinction is expressed in the familiar socii ac nominis Latini (Liv. xli. 8), socii et Latium (Sall. Hist. i. 17), and perhaps in socii Latini nominis, if this last expression is to be regarded as an asyndeton.

1452 These twelve colonies, with the dates of their foundations, are—Ariminum (268 B.C.), Beneventum (268), Firmum (264), Aesernia (263), Brundisium (244), Spoletium (241), Cremona and Placentia (218), Copia (193), Valentia (192), Bononia (189), Aquileia (181).

1453 The later Latin colonists have of right no conubium with Rome (Ulp. Reg. v. 4 “Conubium habent cives Romani cum civibus Romanis; cum Latinis autem et peregrinis ita si concessum sit”). The change may have come with this last outburst of Latin colonisation in Italy; but it may be as late as the extension of latinitas to the provinces. For the right of commercium possessed by these colonies see Cic. pro Caec. 35, 102 “jubet enim (Sulla Volaterranos) eodem jure esse quo fuerint Ariminenses, quos quis ignorat duodecim coloniarum fuisse et a civibus Romanis hereditates capere potuisse?”

1454 Appian (B.C. i. 23), speaking of C. Gracchus’ proposal to extend the citizenship, suggests a Latin right ψῆφον ἐν ταῖς Ῥωμαίων χειροτονίαις φέρειν. Livy, with reference to the year 212 B.C., speaks of the sortitio as to the tribe or tribes in which the Latins should vote (xxv. 3, in the trial of Postumius “sitella... lata est ut sortirentur ubi Latini suffragium ferrent”).

1455 Liv. xli. 8 “Lex sociis ac nominis Latini, qui stirpem ex sese domi relinquerent, dabat ut cives Romani fierent.”

1456 This was the latinitas given to Cisalpine Gaul in 89 B.C. by a law of the consul Cn. Pompeius Strabo. Ascon. in Pison. p. 3 “Pompeius enim non novis colonis eas (Transpadanas colonias) constituit, sed veteribus incolis manentibus jus dedit Latii, ut possent habere jus quod ceterae Latinae coloniae, id est ut gerendo magistratus civitatem Romanam adipiscerentur.” Consequently when Caesar refounded Comum in this district, in accordance with the lex Vatinia (59 B.C.), the new civitas possessed this right (App. B.C. ii. 26).

1457 Lex Acilia l. 77; Cic. pro Balbo 24, 54. The probable dates of these laws are 122 and 111 B.C. respectively.

1458 The allies before the social war reckon as their chief grievance “per omnes annos atque omnia bella duplici numero se militum equitumque fungi” (Vell. ii. 15).

1459 Liv. xlii. 1 “(L. Postumius Albinus)... literas Praeneste misit, ut sibi magistratus obviam exiret, locum publice pararet, ubi deverteretur, jumentaque, cum exiret inde, praesto essent. Ante hunc consulem nemo unquam sociis in ulla re oneri aut sumptui fuit... Injuria consulis... et silentium... Praenestinorum jus, velut probato exemplo, magistratibus fecit graviorum in dies talis generis imperiorum.”

1460 C. Gracchus ap. Gell. x. 3, 3.

1461 App. B.C. i. 21 and 34. According to Valerius Maximus (ix. 5, 1) Flaccus proposed to give the provocatio to those “qui civitatem mutare noluissent.”

1462 App. B.C. i. 23. Plutarch makes it a simple proposal of citizenship for the allies (C. Gracch. 5). The geographical limits of these proposed extensions are unknown. Velleius (ii. 6) remarks vaguely, with respect to the Gracchan law, “dabat civitatem omnibus Italicis, extendebat eam paene usque Alpis.”

1463 App. B.C. i. 35; he promised to reintroduce the law περὶ τῆς πολιτείας. Liv. Ep. lxxi. “socios et Italicos populos spe civitatis Romanae sollicitavit”; Vell. ii. 14 “Tum conversus Drusi animus... ad dandam civitatem Italiae.”

1464 Diod. xxxvii. 2.

1465 Cf. the words of Pontius Telesinus, the Samnite leader in the later struggle at the Colline gate (Vell. ii. 27), “eruendam delendamque urbem... nunquam de futuros raptores Italicae libertatis lupos, nisi silva, in quam refugere solerent, esset excisa.” This, however, is an expression of Samnite rather than of Italian feeling.

1466 App. B.C. i. 49; Cic. pro Balbo 8, 21.

1467 Only one clause of this law is known—that by which the civitas was granted to incolae enrolled on the registers of federate communities; they were to have the citizenship, if they made profession to the praetor within sixty days (Cic. pro Arch. 4, 7). It is difficult to believe that this cumbrous rule applied to the citizens of the towns.

1468 The gradual nature of the incorporation is attested by the expression of Velleius (ii. 16), “paulatim deinde recipiendo in civitatem, qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius, vires refectae sunt.”

1469 Vell. ii. 20 “Itaque cum ita civitas Italiae data esset, ut in octo tribus contribuerentur novi cives, ne potentia eorum et multitudo veterum civium dignitatem frangeret plusque possent recepti in beneficium quam auctores beneficii, Cinna in omnibus tribubus eos se distributurum pollicitus est.” Appian (B.C. i. 49) seems to speak of the creation of ten new tribes (δεκατεύοντες ἀπέφηναν ἑτέρας ἐν αἷς ἐχειροτόνουν ἔσχατοι). The attempt to reconcile these accounts by supposing that they refer to different classes of allies or are the respective products of the two acts of legislation (Kubitschek Imp. Rom. trib. descr.; Beloch der Italische Bund) receives some epigraphic support, but rests either on a correction of Appian’s text or on the assumption that his account refers to ten of the old tribes.

1470 Liv. Ep. 84 “Novis civibus senatus consulto suffragium datum est,” a careless phrase of the epitomiser or copyist for the distribution through the tribes (Drakenborch). Sulla, in spite of his rescission of the rights of certain rebel towns, did not disturb this arrangement.

1471 Augustus formed the plan of giving to the senates (decuriones) of the twenty-eight colonies which he founded in Italy the right of voting for the magistrates at Rome. They were to send their votes under seal (Suet. Aug. 46).

1472 Liv. xxxviii. 36.

1473 Cicero says that his grandfather, in or just before the consulship of Scaurus (115 B.C.), “restitit M. Gratidio... ferenti legem tabellariam” (de Leg. iii. 16, 36).

1474 C.I.L. i. p. 163.

1475 A fragment of a constitution of Tarentum, dating apparently from a time not long subsequent to the lex Julia of 90 B.C., has been preserved (Fragmentum Tarentinum in L’Année Épigraphique, 1896, pp. 30, 31). Arpinum was undergoing reorganisation in 46 B.C. (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 11, 3).

1476 Cic. in Verr. v. 13, 34 “unum illud, quod ita fuit illustre notumque omnibus, ut nemo tam rusticanus homo L. Lucullo et M. Cotta consulibus (74 B.C.) Romam ex ullo municipio vadimonii causa venerit quin sciret jura omnia praetoris urbani nutu... Chelidonis... gubernari.”

1477 Ascon. in Pison. p. 8.

1478 This is proved both by the attempt of Crassus, as censor in 65 B.C., to place the Transpadanes on the register of citizens (Dio Cass. xxxvii. 9), and by Cicero’s comment on Marcellus’ action in scourging a citizen of Novum Comum in 51 B.C. (Cic. ad Att. v. 11, 2 “Marcellus foede in Comensi: etsi ille magistratum non gesserit, erat tamen Transpadanus”).

1479 Dio Cass. xli. 36.

1480 Cic. ad Att. v. 2, 3 “eratque rumor de Transpadanis, eos jussos IIIIviros creare. Quod si ita est, magnos motus timeo.”

1481 App. B.C. v. 3 τήν τε γὰρ Κελτικὴν τὴν ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων ἐδόκει Καίσαρος ἀξιοῦντος (i.e. Octavianus after Philippi) αὐτόνομον ἀφιέναι, γνώμῃ τοῦ προτέρου Καίσαρος. Cf. iii. 30 and Dio Cass. xlviii. 12.

1482 The name given to the district in the law Gallia Cisalpeina, Gallia cis Alpeis (cc. 22 and 23) suits both epochs equally well, for Caesar had not made it a part of Italy. The fact that the praetor urbanus is the central authority in jurisdiction (cc. 21 and 22) suits the Augustan epoch better.

1483 Lex Rubria cc. 21 and 22. For the vadimonium cf. Cic. in Verr. v. 13, 34 (quoted p. 313).

1484 Generally quattuorviri, this board being usually divided into two magistrates with higher jurisdiction (duumviri juri dicundo) and two police officials (duumviri aediles). Sometimes we find IIIIviri dicundo, perhaps a designation for the joint board, or, where the magistrates with aedilician power alone are referred to, IIIIviri aediles or aedilicia potestate. See Wilmanns Index pp. 620-622.

1485 Lex Julia mun. l. 84. Cf. Cic. in Pis. 22, 51 “neque enim regio ulla fuit, nec municipium neque praefectura aut colonia, ex qua non ad me publice venerint gratulatum.”

1486 Wilmanns Index p. 618.

1487 Sicily, Sardinia, Hither and Further Spain, Illyricum, Macedonia and Achaea (separated by Caesar), Africa, Asia, Gallia Narbonensis, Gallia Cisalpina, Bithynia, Cyrene with Crete, Cilicia and Syria.

1488 The number is given by Pliny (H.N. iii. 88). In Cicero’s time there was about this number. He speaks of the appointment of 130 censors (in Verr. ii. 55, 137), two for each state (ib. 53, 133).

1489 Cassiodorus Chron. ad A.U.C. 670 “Asiam in XLIIII. regiones Sulla distribuit.”

1490 Tac. Ann. iii. 44. This division may be the work of Augustus.

1491 pp. 244, 283.

1492 p. 245.

1493 Except that ownership of the soil is not always, as in Italy, the ground of exemption from taxation. On the free city of Termessus in Pisidia “free possession” is alone conferred.

1494 See the lex Antonia de Termessibus (71 B.C.), especially the clause which confers autonomy “so far as is consistent with this charter” (i. l. 7 “eique legibus sueis ita utunto... quod advorsus hanc legem non fiat”).

1495 Cic. de Prov. Cons. 3, 6. For the weakening of this respect for αὐτονομία in the Ciceronian period and Caesar’s attempt to strengthen it by law (probably the lex Julia repetundarum of 59 B.C.) see Cic. in Verr. iii 89, 207; in Pis. 16, 37 (“lege Caesaris justissima atque optima populi liberi plane et vere erant liberi”).

1496 Festus p. 218.

1497 Cic. in Verr. ii. 13, 32; 15, 37; 16, 39; 24, 59.

1498 Liv. xlv. 17 and 32.

1499 Plin. ad Traj. 79 (83), 1.

1500 As Cicero did in his government of Cilicia. See ad Att. vi. 2, 4 “omnes (civitates), suis legibus et judiciis usae, αὐτονομίαν adeptae, revixerunt”; vi. 1, 15 “multaque sum secutus Scaevolae (governor of Asia circa 98 B.C.); in iis illud, in quo sibi libertatem censent Graeci datam, ut Graeci inter se disceptent suis legibus... Graeci vero exsultant quod peregrinis judicibus utuntur.”

1501 This we may gather from Cicero’s account of the proceedings of the native magistrates in Cilicia (ad Att. vi. 2, 5 “Mira erant in civitatibus ipsorum furta Graecorum, quae magistratus sui fecerant: quaesivi ipse de iis, qui annis decem proximis magistratum gesserant; aperte fatebantur”).

1502 On the conquest of Epirus in 167 B.C., although all the Illyrians were declared liberi, only some were pronounced “non solum liberi sed etiam immunes” (Liv. xlv. 26).

1503 Cf. Tac. Hist. iv. 74 “nam neque quies gentium sine armis neque arma sine stipendiis neque stipendia sine tributis haberi queunt.”

1504 Liv. xlv. 29.

1505 Cic. pro Leg. Man. 6, 14 “ceterarum provinciarum vectigalia, Quirites, tanta sunt ut iis ad ipsas provincias tutandas vix contenti esse possimus, Asia vero tam opima est et fertile ut... facile omnibus terris antecellat.”

1506 Gaius ii. 7 “in eo (provinciali) solo dominium populi Romani est vel Caesaris, nos autem possessionem tantum vel usumfructum habere videmur.” The theory is perhaps as old as the Gracchan period. C. Gracchus’ association of the Asiatic taxes with the censor (cf. p. 231) must have done a good deal to develop it. It is no wonder that this theory led to the view that the provinces were “quasi quaedam praedia populi Romani” (Cic. in Verr. ii. 3, 7).

1507 These expressions are known only from the literature of the Empire; it may be a mere accident that in Republican literature tributum seems never to be used of imperial taxation. The form stipendium is preferred. In Liv. xxiii. 32 we have the tributum of Sardinia mentioned with reference to Republican times. The venditio tributorum and the ὠναί of Cilicia (Cic. ad Fam. iii. 8, 5; ad Att. v. 16, 2) probably refer to local taxes improperly sold to publicani.

1508 Liv. xliii. 2 “(Hispani) impetraverunt ne frumenti aestimationem magistratus Romanus haberet.”

1509 p. 319.

1510 Cic. in Verr. iii. 33, 77.

1511 ib. ii. 13, 32; 26, 63, etc.

1512 ib. iii. 6, 12 “inter Siciliam ceterasque provincias... in agrorum vectigalium ratione hoc interest, quod ceteris aut impositum vectigal est certum... aut censoria locatio constituta est, ut Asiae lege Sempronia.”

1513 Cf. Cic. ad Q. fr. i. 1, 11, 33 “nomen autem publicani aspernari non possunt, qui pendere ipsi vectigal sine publicano non potuerint, quod iis aequaliter Sulla discripserat.” The reference is to Sulla’s temporary abolition of the Gracchan principle of collection.

1514 App. B.C. v. 4; Dio Cass. xlii. 6.

1515 Nothing seems to be known about the conditions of sale of the provincial portoria, e.g. whether those of Asia were put up at Rome like the decumae.

1516 Cic. in Verr. iii. cc. 81-96, 188-222.

1517 Cic. in Verr. iii. 70, 163. Cf. Liv. xxxvi. 2 “idem L. Oppio de alteris decumis exigendis in Sardinia imperatum.” Sometimes this enforced sale of corn (frumentum imperatum) was required from free cities such as Halaesa, Centuripae, and Messana in Sicily (Cic. in Verr. iii 73, 170; iv. 9, 20).

1518 pp. 201, 202.

1519 p. 201.

1520 Sall. Jug. 27; Cic. de Prov. Cons. 2, 3; pro Domo 9, 24.

1521 Cic. ad Fam. i. 9, 25.

1522 Cf. Cic. de Prov. Cons. 15, 87 (if the consul of 55 B.C. succeeds Caesar on March 1, 54 B.C.) “Fuerit toto in consulatu sine provincia, cui fuerit, antequam designatus est, decreta provincia? Sortietur, an non? Nam et non sortiri absurdum est, et quod sortitus sis non habere. Proficiscetur paludatus? Quo? Quo pervenire ante certam diem non licebit. Januario, Februario provinciam non habebit. Kalendis ei denique Martiis nascetur repente provincia.”

1523 Cic. ad Fam. i. 9, 25; xii. 4, 2.

1524 Cic. in Verr. i. 13, 34 “pecunia attributa, numerata est. Profectus est quaestor in provinciam (Verres). Venit exspectatus in Galliam ad exercitum consularem cum pecunia.”

1525 Rationes referre (Cic. in Verr. i. 13, 36). In accordance with a lex Julia (perhaps repetundarum) of Caesar’s, the accounts had to be deposited at the aerarium, and two copies in two cities of the province (Cic. ad Fam. v. 20, 2; Plut. Cato Min. 38).

1526 p. 215.

1527 Cic. in Verr. iii. 58, 134 “Quaestores, legatos... multi missos fecerunt et de provincia decedere jusserunt, quod illorum culpa se minus commode audire arbitrarentur aut quod peccare ipsos aliqua in re judicarent.”

1528 The transition is marked in 169 B.C. (Liv. xliv. 18 “Senatus Cn. Servilio consuli negotium dedit, ut is in Macedoniam, quos L. Aemilio videretur, legaret”).

1529 Cicero delegates even jurisdiction to one of his comites, Volusius (ad Att. v. 21, 6). Other members of his retinue were his son Marcus and his brother Quintus. These intimates of the governor were spoken of as contubernales, cohors amicorum, even as cohors praetoria (Cic. ad Q. fr. i. 1, 4, 12), although this title was properly applied to the governor’s military guard.

1530 p. 319, note 2.

1531 Cic. in Verr. ii. 13, 32 “Siculi hoc jure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet suis legibus.”

1532 ib. “quod Siculus cum Siculo non ejusdem civitatis (agat), ut de eo praetor judices ex P. Rupilii decreto... sortiatur.”

1533 It is possible, however, that the principle here adopted was that the judex should be of the nationality of the defendant.

1534 Cic. l.c. “quod privatus a populo petit aut populus a privato, senatus ex aliqua civitate, qui judicet, datur, cum alternae civitates rejectae sunt.”

1535 ib. “quod civis Romanus a Siculo petit, Siculus judex datur, quod Siculus a civi Romano, civis Romanus datur.”

1536 ib. “ceterarum rerum selecti judices ex conventu civium Romanorum proponi solent.”

1537 Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 15 “multaque sum secutus Scaevolae; in iis illud, in quo sibi libertatem censent Graeci datam, ut Graeci inter se disceptent suis legibus... Graeci vero exsultant quod peregrinis judicibus utuntur”; ad Att. vi. 2, 4 “omnes (civitates), suis legibus et judiciis usae, αὐτονομίαν adeptae, revixerunt.”

1538 “Edictum Siciliense” (Cic. in Verr. i. 45, 117).

1539 Extreme changes might be made a ground of complaint by the departing governor. Thus Cicero writes from Cilicia (50 B.C.) “Appius enim ad me ex itinere bis terve... literas miserat, quod quaedam a se constituta rescinderem” (ad Att. vi. 1, 2).

1540 Cic. ad Fam. iii. 8, 4.

1541 Thus Cicero, governor of Cilicia, followed in some respects the edict of Mucius Scaevola, the former governor of Asia (Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 15).

1542 Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 15 “unum (genus) est provinciale, in quo est de rationibus civitatum, de aere alieno, de usura, de syngraphis; in eodem omnia de publicanis. Alterum, quod sine edicto satis commode transigi non potest, de hereditatum possessionibus, de bonis possidendis vendendis, magistris faciendis: quae ex edicto et postulari et fieri solent. Tertium, de reliquo jure dicundo ἄγραφον reliqui. Dixi me de eo genere mea decreta ad edicta urbana accommodaturum.”

1543 Cic. ad Fam. iii. 8, 6.

1544 Cic. ad Att. v. 21, 9.

1545 Cic. ad Att. v. 20, 1; ad Fam. iii. 8, 4 and 5.

1546 Suet. Caes. 7 “Quaestori (Caesari) ulterior Hispania obvenit; ubi cum, mandatu praetoris, jure dicundo conventus circumiret, etc.” Quaestorian jurisdiction was more frequent in Sicily than in other provinces, on account of the presence of the second quaestor at Lilybaeum.

1547 Cic. ad Fam. xii. 30, 7 “Illud non nimium probo quod scribis... te tuis etiam legatis lictores ademisse.”

1548 Thus Verres quashes either a decision, or the execution of a decision, given by his quaestor (Cic. Div. in Caec. 17, 56 “Lilybaeum Verres venit postea: rem cognoscit: factum improbat: cogit quaestorem suum pecuniam... adnumerare et reddere”).

1549 Possibly certain kinds of criminal jurisdiction were guaranteed to cities by the lex provinciae. The Senate of Catina in Sicily tried a slave (Cic. in Verr. iv. 45, 100).

1550 Cic. in Verr. i. 33, 84 (of an émeute at Lampsacus) “Non te ad senatum causam deferre... non eos homines, qui populum concitarant, consulum literis evocandos curare oportuit?”

1551 The council was not, however, legally necessary. Cf. Cic. in Verr. ii. 30, 75 “Reus plorare... ut cum consilio cognosceret.”

1552 ib. ii. 29, 70; 30, 75.

1553 ib. ii. 30, 75 “hominem innocentem de sententia scribae, medici haruspicisque condemnat.”

1554 For the threat of capital punishment on a Roman citizen see Cic. ad Q. fr. i. 2, 5; for its apparent execution, Diod. xxxvii. 5, 2.

1555 Cic. in Verr. v. 66, 170 “Facinus est vincire civem Romanum; scelus, verberare: prope parricidium, necare: quid dicam in crucem tollere?” Cf. pro Rab. 5, 17.

1556 See p. 285.

1557 Cic. de Rep. v. 6, 8 (ad Att. viii. 11, 1); v. 7, 9.

1558 p. 224.

1559 p. 314.

1560 Caesar reduced the number of the recipients of the corn-dole from 320,000 to 150,000 (Suet. Caes. 41). In the Principate it stood at about 200,000. See Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. p. 118.

1561 p. 312.

1562 p. 311.

1563 It is true, however, that the Princeps was often made by an army, not by the army.

1564 Dio Cass. xlii. 20. The dictatorship of 49 B.C. had been held only for eleven days and was probably conferred merely comitiorum habendorum causa. See p. 193.

1565 Dio Cass. xliii. 14 and 33. It has been interpreted as a dictatorship rei publicae constituendae causa.

1566 C.I.L. i. p. 452.

1567 Plut. Caes. 61; Ant. 12; Cic. Phil. ii. 34, 85.

1568 Cf. Cic. ad Fam. xi. 27, 8 “si Caesar rex fuerit... quod mihi quidem videtur.”

1569 Dio Cass. xliii. 44. Caesar probably used it after his name and not as a praenomen, as stated by Suetonius (Caes. 76). It became with him a kind of cognomen, and Augustus, who inherited it, changed its position in the order of his names.

1570 Dio Cass. xliii. 14.

1571 Cic. ad Fam. xii. 1, 1 “nam, ut adhuc quidem actum est, non regno, sed rege liberati videmur.”

1572 Monumentum Ancyranum i. 8-9 “Populus... me... trium virum rei publicae constituendae creavit.”

1573 App. B.C. v. 95.

1574 Mon. Anc. vi. 13-15 “In consulatu sexto et septimo, bella ubi civilia exstinxeram, per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli.”

1575 Dio Cass. xlix. 15.

1576 Tac. Ann. iii. 28 “sexto... consulatu... quae triumviratu jusserat abolevit.”

1577 Cf. Tac. Ann. i. 2 “posito triumviri nomine.”

1578 Mon. Anc. l.c.

1579 ib. vi. 16 (after the words on p. 338 note 4) “Quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Aug. appellatus sum.”

1580 Dio Cass. liii. 12. Augustus uses the expression consulare imperium for his position at this time (Mon. Anc. ii. 5, 8). It resembled a proconsular command, but was held within the city. Compare the position of Pompeius in 52 B.C.

1581 Strabo p. 840 ἡ πατρὶς ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτῷ τὴν προστασίαν τῆς ἡγεμονίας καὶ πολέμου καὶ εἰρήνης κατέστη κύριος διὰ βίου.

1582 In the Calendar we find for January 13 (the day of the settlement) “quod rem publicam P. R. restituit” (C.I.L. i. p. 312). Cf. Ovid Fasti i. l. 589 “redditaque est omnis populo provincia nostro”; Vell. ii. 89 “prisca illa et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata.”

1583 Dio Cass. lii. 1 ἐκ δὲ τούτου μοναρχεῖσθαι αὖθις ἀρκιβῶς ἤρξαντο. In the Cenotaphia Pisana (A.D. 2) ii. l. 12 Augustus is called “custos imperi Romani totiusque orbis terrarum praeses” (Wilmanns n. 883).

1584 Dio Cass. liii. 32.

1585 Dio Cass. liii. 32.

1586 Dio Cass. liv. 10.

1587 ib. liii 32.

1588 C.I.L. vi. n. 930. It describes itself as a law and is generally known as the lex de imperio Vespasiani. But its wording bears more analogy to that of a senatus consultum. See Mommsen Staatsrecht ii. p. 878.

1589 Vitae Macrini 7; Alexandri 8; Probi 12; Maximi et Balbini 8.

1590 “Dato imperio” (Vita Veri 4), “accepit imperium” (Vita Alexandri 1). It is possible, however, that these are references merely to the reception of the title imperator; cf. Vita Juliani 3 “imperator est appellatus”; Vita Probi 12 “nomen imperatorium.” For the view that there was always a lex de imperio see Karlowa Römische Rechtsgeschichte i. pp. 493 ff.

1591 Gaius Inst. i. 5 (on the imperial constitutio) “nec unquam dubitatum est quin id legis vicem obtineat, cum ipse imperator per legem imperium accipiat”; Ulpian in Dig. 1, 4, 1 “Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege regia, quae de imperio ejus lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat.” The view that these passages are interpolations is possible but hazardous. A genuine expression of belief in the lex regia appears in Justinian (Cod. i. 17, l. 7).

1592 For the monopoly of the sacramentum possessed by the Princeps compare the charge brought against Agrippina after her death (59 A.D.), “Adiciebat crimina... quod consortium imperii juraturasque in feminae verba praetorias cohortes... speravisset” (Tac. Ann. xiv. 11).

1593 “Romae ruere in servitium consules, patres, eques” (Tac. Ann. i. 7).

1594 Tac. Hist. i. 55 “Inferioris tamen Germaniae legiones sollemni Kalendarum Januariarum sacramento pro Galba adactae.” For the renewal of the oath on the anniversary of accession see Plin. ad Traj. 52.

1595 Cf. Tac. Hist. iii. 58 (Vitellius) “vocari tribus jubet, dantes nomina sacramento adigit.”

1596 Lex de imp. Vesp. 1 “foedusve cum quibus volet facere liceat.” These powers are summed up by Dio Cassius liii. 17 (as imperators the Emperors have the right) καταλόγους τε ποιεῖσθαι... πολέμους τε ἀναιρεῖσθαι καὶ εἰρήνην σπένδεσθαι.

1597 p. 283.

1598 Dio Cass. lx. 23 (after Claudius’ conquest of Britain) ἐψηφίσθη τὰς συμβάσεις ἁπάσας, ὅσας ἂν ὁ Κλαύδιος ἢ καὶ οἱ ἀντιστράτηγοι αὐτοῦ πρός τινας ποιήσωνται, κυρίας, ὡς καὶ πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν τόν τε δῆμον εἶναι.

1599 Lex de imp. Vesp. 15 “utique ei fines pomerii proferre promovere cum ex republica censebit esse, liceat ita, uti licuit Ti. Claudio Caesari Aug(usto) Germanico.” Cf. Tac. Ann. xii. 23.

1600 p. 240.

1601 Gaius Inst. i. 96.

1602 Gell. xvi. 13, 5.

1603 Gaius Inst. iii. 72 and 73.

1604 This was effected, either indirectly by the gift of the gold ring (jus aureorum anulorum), or directly by the fiction of a natalibus restitutio. See Dig. 2, 4, 10, 3; 40, 11, 2; Plin. ad Traj. 72 and 73.

1605 Dio Cass. xlix. 15; li. 19; liii. 32. See pp. 338, 340.

1606 Tac. Ann. iii. 56 “id summi fastigii vocabulum Augustas repperit, ne regis aut dictatoris nomen adsumeret ac tamen appellatione aliqua cetera imperia praemineret.”

1607 Dio Cass. xlix. 15 καὶ τὸ μήτε ἔργῳ μήτε λόγῳ τι ὑβρίζεσθαι· εἰ δὲ μή, τοῖς αὐτοῖς τὸν τοιοῦτό τι δράσαντα ἐνέχεσθαι οἶσπερ ἐπὶ τῷ δημάρχῳ ἐτέτακτο.

1608 The additional rights granted to the Emperor in connexion with the Senate (see p. 348) assume a right of intercourse with it.

1609 Dio Cass. liii. 17 (the tribunician power) δίδωσί σφισι τά τε γιγνόμενα ὑφ’ ἑτέρου τινός, ἂν μὴ συνεπαινῶσι, παύειν.

1610 Tac. Ann. iii. 70 “recipi Caesar (Tiberius) inter reos vetuit... perstititque intercedere”; xiv. 48 “credebaturque haud perinde exitium Antistio quam imperatori gloriam quaeri ut condemnatum a senatu intercessione tribunicia morti eximeret” (Nero).

1611 ἀμύνειν (Dio Cass. li. 19); cf. Tac. Ann. i. 2 (of Augustus) “ad tuendam plebem tribunicio jure contentum.”

1612 p. 340.

1613 The statement of Suetonius (Aug. 27 “Recepit et morum legumque regimen aeque perpetuum”) is not borne out by the Monumentum Ancyranum or by Augustus’ titular designations.

1614 Suet. Aug. 35; Mon. Anc. ii. 5 “consulari cum imperio lustrum solus feci.”

1615 Dio Cass. lxvii. 4 τιμητὴς δὲ διὰ βίου πρῶτος δὴ καὶ μόνος καὶ ἰδιωτῶν καὶ αὐτοκρατόρων ἐχειροτονήθη.

1616 ib. liii. 17 καὶ τοὺς μὲν καταλέγουσι καὶ ἐς τὴν ἱππάδα καὶ ἐς τὸ βουλευτικόν, τοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπαλείφουσιν, ὅπῶς ἂν αὐτοῖς δόξῃ.

1617 Tac. Ann. xi. 25 “Isdem diebus in numerum patriciorum adscivit Caesar (Claudius as censor) vetustissimum quemque e senatu aut quibus clari parentes fuerant... exhaustis etiam quas (familias) dictator Caesar lege Cassia et princeps Augustus lege Saenia sublegere.” Cf. Suet. Otho 1; and for Vespasian’s censorship Vita Marci 1 “Annius Verus... adscitus in patricios... a Vespasiano et Tito censoribus.”

1618 p. 14.

1619 Vita Juliani 3 “in patricias familias relatus”; Macrini 7 “senatus... Macrinum... in patricios allegit novum hominem.” Cf. Dio Cass. lxxviii 17.

1620 Lex de imp. Vesp. l. 3 “utique ei senatum habere, relationem facere, remittere, senatus consulta per relationem discessionemque facere liceat.” In l. 7 we find the right of the Princeps to summon the Senate ex mandatu.

1621 Jus tertiae relationis (Vita Probi 12), quartae (Vita Pertinacis 5), quintae (Vita Marci 6, Alexandri 1).

1622 Tac. Ann. i. 14 “candidatos praeturae duodecim nominavit (Tiberius), numerum ab Augusto traditum, et hortante senatu ut augeret jure jurando obstrinxit se non excessurum.”

1623 This practical effect seems sometimes to have been obviated by the Emperor’s selecting his candidates for nomination by lot (Dio Cass. lviii. 20). See Mr. Strachan-Davidson in Smith Dict. of Antiq. ii. p. 237.

1624 Lex de imp. Vesp. l. 10 “utique quos magistratum potestatem imperium curationemve cujus rei petentes senatui populoque Romano commendaverit, quibusque suffragationem suam dederit promiserit, eorum comitis quibusque extra ordinem ratio habeatur.” Cf. Tac. Ann. i. 15 “sine repulsa et ambitu designandos.” For the precedent set by Caesar’s use of it see Suet. Caes. 41.

1625 Tac. Ann. i. 15 “moderante Tiberio ne plures quam quattuor candidatos commendaret, sine repulsa et ambitu designandos.”

1626 e.g. praetor, tribunus, quaestor candidatus (Wilmanns Index pp. 551 ff.).

1627 Tac. Ann. i. 81 “plerumque eos tantum apud se professos disseruit, quorum nomina consulibus edidisset: posse et alios profiteri, si gratiae aut meritis confiderent.” It may have been a person so appointed who inaccurately describes himself as “per commendation(em) Ti. Caesaris Augusti ab senatu co(n)s(ul) dest(inatus)” (Inscr. Reg. Neap. n. 4762; C.I.L., ix. n. 2342).

1628 C.I.L. xiv. n. 3608 “hunc... Caesar Aug. Vespasianus iterum cos. fecit”; Plin. Paneg. 77 (of Trajan) “praestare consulibus ipsum qui consules facit.” Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 925) thinks that the change came with Nero.

1629 Lex de imp. Vesp. l. 22 “utique quibus legibus plebeive scitis scriptum fuit, ne divus Aug(ustus), Tiberiusve Julius Caesar Aug(ustus), Tiberiusque Claudius Caesar Aug(ustus) Germanicus tenerentur, iis legibus plebisque scitis imp(erator) Caesar Vespasianus solutus sit.”

1630 Tac. Hist. i. 15 (Galba to Piso on the latter’s adoption) “si te privatus lege curiata apud pontifices, ut moris est, adoptarem.”

1631 Paulus in Dig. 40, 1, 14, 1.

1632 Ulpian in Dig. 1, 3, 31.

1633 Dio Cass. liii. 17 ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἱερωσύναις ἱερῶσθαι.

1634 Lex de imp. Vesp. l. 17 “utique quaecunque ex usu rei publicae majestateque divinarum... rerum esse censebit, ei agere fecere jus potestasque sit.”

1635 p. 254.

1636 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 31.

1637 Dio Cass, liii. 17. In the decrees to Maximus and Balbinus the pontificatus maximus is mentioned (Vita 8), and it is possible that it was held by both these emperors conjointly.

1638 Zosimus iv. 36.

1639 Suet. Dom. 8 “Incesta Vestalium virginum... varie ac severe coercuit: priora capitali supplicio; posteriora, more veteri.”

1640 Ulpian in Dig. 11, 7, 8.

1641 Dio Cass. liii. 17; Tac. Hist. i. 77 “Otho pontificatus auguratusque honoratis jam senibus cumulum dignitatis addidit”; Plin. ad Traj. 13 (8) “rogo dignitati, ad quam me provexit indulgentia tua, vel auguratum vel septemviratum, quia vacent, adicere digneris.”

1642 Cic. ad Att. viii. 9, 4 “nihil malle Caesarem quam principe Pompeio sine metu vivere”; ad Fam. vi. 6, 5 “esset hic quidem (Caesar) clarus in toga et princeps.” Cf. Vell. ii. 124 “una tamen veluti luctatio civitatis fuit, pugnantis cum (Tiberio) Caesare senatus populique Romani, ut stationi paternae succederet, illius, ut potius aequalem civem quam eminentem liceret agere principem.”

1643 Tac. Ann. iii. 53 (Tiberius says) “non aedilis aut praetoris aut consulis partes sustineo, majus aliquid et excelsius a principe postulatur.”

1644 Dio Cass. lvii. 8 (see note 5); Ovid Fasti ii. 142 “Tu (Romule) domini nomen, principis ille (Augustus) tenet.”

1645 Suet. Aug. 53.

1646 Dio Cass. lvii. 8 δεσπότης μὲν τῶν δούλων, αὐτοκράτωρ δὲ τῶν στρατιωτῶν, τῶν δὲ δὴ λοιπῶν πρόκριτός εἰμι. Cf. Tac. Ann. ii. 87.

1647 See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 760.

1648 Caesar had been imperator since his first salutation in Gaul; but the right to use the title as a nomen seems first to have been granted him in 45 B.C. after the victory of Munda (Dio Cass. xliii. 44 ἐκείνῳ τότε πρώτῳ τε καὶ πρῶτον, ὥσπερ τι κύριον, προσέθεσαν). It does not seem, however, that he employed it as a praenomen, as is stated by Suetonius (Caes. 76). Cf. p. 337.

1649 Dio Cass. l.c.

1650 p. 156.

1651 Dio Cass. liii. 16 Αὔγουστος ὡς καὶ πλεῖόν τι ἤ κατὰ ἀνθρώπους ὤν ἐπεκλήθη.

1652 Karlowa Rechtsgeschichte i. p. 508.

1653 Vita L. Veri, 2.

1654 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1140.

1655 App. B.C. ii. 7 οὐδὲ γὰρ τοίσδε καίπερ οὖσι βασιλεῦσιν εὐθὺς ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἅμα ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπωνυμίαις, ἀλλὰ σὺν χρόνῳ μόλις ἤδε ὡς ἐντελὴς ἐπὶ μεγίστοις δὴ μαρτυρία ψηφίζεται: Vita Hadriani 6 “patris patriae nomen delatum sibi statim, et iterum postea, distulit quod hoc nomen Augustus sero meruisset.” It was declined altogether by Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 26 and 67) and was not borne by the transitory emperors Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 780.

1656 See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. pp. 782-786. As typical instances we may cite an inscription of Vespasian giving the praenomen imperatoris: “Imp. Caesar. Vespasianus Aug. pontif. max. tribunic. potest, vi. imp. xiiii. p.p., cos. vi. desig. vii. censor” (Wilmanns n. 855), and one of Caracalla showing the title proconsul: “M. Aurellius Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus... pontif. max., trib. pot. xviii. imp. iiii. cos. iiii. p.p. procos.” (ib. n. 2868). Pater patriae appears sometimes before, sometimes after consul.

1657 Dio Cass. xlix. 15.

1658 On Gordian’s revolt in Africa the laurelled fasces were immediately assumed (Herodian vii. 6; Vita Maximini 14).

1659 Originally twelve, later twenty-four (Dio Cass. lxvii. 4).

1660 Dio Cass. li. 19.

1661 ib.

1662 For the reverence to the statue of the deified Emperor see Suet. Tib. 58 “genus calumniae (sc. majestatis) eo processit ut haec quoque capitalia essent: circa Augusti simulacrum servum cecidisse, vestimenta mutasse, nummo vel annulo effigiem impressam latrinae aut lupanari intulisse.” For the right of asylum attaching to the living Emperor’s image see Tac. Ann. iii. 36; Gaius Inst. i. 53.

1663 Tertull. Apol. 28 “citius... apud vos per omnes deos quam per unum genium Caesaris pejeratur.” In the official oath taken by the magistrates of Salpensa and Malaca the deified Caesars and the genius of the living Caesar come between Jupiter and the di Penates. (Bruns Fontes.)

1664 On Seneca’s question with reference to Agrippina (59 A.D.) “an militi imperanda caedes esset,” the answer is “praetorianos toti Caesarum domui obstrictos... nihil... atrox ausuros.” Caligula specifically included the names of his sisters in the sacramentum (Dio Cass. lix. 9)

1665 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 831.

1666 Mon. Ancyr. iii. 5; Dio Cass. lix. 8.

1667 The name Augusta as assumed by Victorina in Gaul (A.D. 268) certainly meant that she claimed to be Empress.

1668 Plin. Paneg. 84.

1669 Tac. Ann. iii. 49-51.

1670 Gibbon ch. iii.

1671 Seneca de Ben. vi. 34, 2 “Apud nos primi omnium Gracchus et mox Livius Drusus instituerunt segregare turbam suam et alios in secretum recipere, alios cum pluribus, alios universos. Habuerunt itaque isti amicos primos, habuerunt secundos, numquam veros.”

1672 Seneca de Clem. i. 10 “cohortem primae admissionis”; Vita Alex. 20 “moderationis tantae fuit... ut amicos non solum primi aut secundi loci sed etiam inferioris aegrotantes viseret.”

1673 Hence such titles as “comes divi Hadriani in oriente,” “comes Imp. Antonini Aug. et divi Veri bello Germanico” (Wilmanns nn. 1184, 637).

1674 p. 147.

1675 Interregnum might be used metaphorically of the interval between the death of one Princeps and the accession of another. See Vita Taciti 1.

1676 Tac. Ann. i. 12 “dixit forte Tiberius se ut non toti rei publicae parem, ita quaecumque pars sibi mandaretur, ejus tutelam suscepturum.”

1677 p. 343.

1678 Henzen Act. Fr. Arv. p. 64. Hadrian, after his salutation by the soldiers, wrote to the Senate that he had been praepropere addressed as imperator (Vita Hadriani 6). Pertinax, after his appointment had been accepted by the praetorian guards, laid down his power in the Senate and was elected again (Dio Cass. lxxiii. 1).

1679 Suet. Vesp. 6.

1680 Vita Taciti 2 (after the murder of Aurelian) “exercitus, qui creare imperatorem raptim solebat, ad senatum literas misit... petens ut ex ordine suo principem legerent. Verum senatus, sciens lectos a se principes militibus non placere, rem ad milites rettulit, dumque id saepius fit, sextus peractus est mensis.”

1681 In 13 B.C. Agrippa received tribunicia potestas for five years (Dio Cass. liv. 12). For Tiberius’ claims see Tac. Ann. i 3 “filius, collega imperii, consors tribuniciae potestatis adsumitur.”

1682 Tac. Ann. i 14 (Tiberius on his accession, A.D. 14) “Germanico Caesari proconsulare imperium petivit”; iii 56 (A.D. 22) “Tiberius mittit literas ad senatum quis potestatem tribuniciam Druso petebat.” For Trajan see Plin. Paneg. 8 “ante pulvinar Jovis optimi maximi adoptio peracta est... simul filius, simul Caesar, mox imperator et consors tribuniciae potestatis”; Vita Pii 4 “adoptatus est (Pius)... factusque est patri et in imperio proconsulari et in tribunicia potestate collega”; Vita Marci 6 (Marcus before he came to the throne) “tribunicia potestate donatus est atque imperio extra urbem proconsulari.”

1683 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1158.

1684 Vell. ii. 121 “cum... senatus populusque Romanus postulante patre ejus, ut aequum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset quam erat ipsi, decreto complexus esset.”

1685 Agrippa twice declined a triumph offered him by Augustus (Dio Cass. liv. 11 and 24), and the Senate conferred the title of Imperator only on the proposal of the Princeps (Tac. Ann. i. 58, Germanicus in A.D. 15, “exercitum reduxit nomenque imperatoris auctore Tiberio accepit”).

1686 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1154.

1687 Suet. Gaius 24 “(Gaius Drusillam) heredem quoque bonorum atque imperii aeger instituit.”

1688 ib. 14. Compare Domitian’s contention after the death of Vespasian “relictum se participem imperii sed fraudem testamento adhibitam” (Suet. Dom. 2).

1689 Tac. Hist. i. 15 (see p. 350); i. 17 (of the adoption of Piso by Galba) “consultatum inde pro rostris an in senatu an in castris adoptio nuncuparetur”; Suet. Galba 17 “(Galba Pisonem) perduxit in castra ac pro contione adoptavit.” Nerva proclaims on the Capitol his adoption of Trajan (Dio Cass. lxviii. 8).

1690 See p. 360, n. 2.

1691 p. 354.

1692 Plut. Galba 7 (a messenger announces that) ὁ δῆμος καὶ ἠ σύγκλητος αὐτοκράτορα τὸν Γάλβαν ἀναγορεύσειεν: Herodian ii. 12 (the Senate) ψηφίζεται τὸν μὲν (Ἰουλιανὸν) ἀναιρεθῆναι, ἀποδειχθῆναι δὲ μόνον αὐτοκράτορα τὸν Σεουῆρον: Vita Maximini 15 “Ubi haec gesta sunt (i.e. after the recognition of the Gordians) senatus magis timens Maximinum aperte ac libere hostes appellat Maximinum et ejus filium.”

1693 This was the case with Caligula, although the damnatio was incomplete. See Suet. Claud. 11 “Gaii quoque etsi acta omnia rescidit, diem tamen necis, quamvis exordium principatus sui, vetuit inter festos referri.”

1694 The deposed Nero was thus treated as a traitor (Suet. Ner. 49 “codicillos praeripuit legitque se hostem a senatu judicatum et quaeri ut puniatur more majorum”).

1695 The acta of Tiberius were not sworn to (Dio Cass. lix. 9), although his memory was not condemned. His reign appears amongst the legitimate precedents for the authority of Vespasian in the lex de imperio, those of Gaius, Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius being omitted.

1696 Dio Cass. lvii. 8 (Tiberius) ἐπὶ ταῖς τοῦ Αὐγούστου πράξεσι τούς τε ἄλλους πάντας ὥρκου καὶ αὐτὸς ὤμνυε.

1697 Tiberius characteristically enough would not have his acta sworn to during his lifetime (Tac. Ann. i. 72; Suet. Tib. 67), and some thought the motive was “ne mox majore dedecore impar tantis honoribus inveniretur” (Suet. l.c.). His objection to his own deification was interpreted by some as a sign “degeneris animi” (Tac. Ann. iv. 38).

1698 Dio Cass. iii. 20. Here it is made the age for entrance into the Senate; but the completion of the twenty-fifth year is meant. Cf. Quintil. Inst. Or. xii. 6, 1 “quaestoria aetas.”

1699 Dio Cass. l.c. Dispensations from these rules might be given by the Senate, in accordance with the jus liberorum (“ut singuli anni per singulos liberos remittantur” Dig. 4, 4, 2), or to members of the imperial house (Tac. Ann. iii. 29 “Per idem tempus (A.D. 20) Neronem e liberis Germanici jam ingressum juventam (Tiberius) commendavit patribus, utque munere capessendi vigintiviratus solveretur et quinquennio maturius quam per leges quaesturam peteret... postulavit”).

1700 Dio Cass. liv. 26; cf. Tac. Ann. iii. 29, quoted in the last note.

1701 In inscriptions of the early Principate the vigintivirate is sometimes not found in the list of honores. But it is more probable that it is omitted than that it was an alternative to the military tribunate. See Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 544 n. 4.

1702 Dio Cass. lii. 20.

1703 Its use by Macrinus in the third century excited opposition (Dio Cass. lxxviii. 13). See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 942.

1704 Dio Cass. liv. 19 (of Tiberius in 16 B.C.) ἐστρατήγησε γάρ, καίπερ τὰς στρατηγικὰς τιμὰς ἔχων (Tiberius had received the ornamenta praetoria in 19 B.C., see c. 10); c. 32 Drusus ἀγορανόμος... καίπερ τὰς στρατηγικὰς τιμὰς ἔχων ἀπεδείχθη: cf. c. 22.

1705 Suet. Aug. 35; Dio Cass. lviii. 12.

1706 Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 458.

1707 The consular insignia were granted to Nymphidius and to Crispinus under Nero (Tac. Ann. xv. 72; xvi. 17); the praetorian insignia to Sejanus and to Macro under Tiberius (Dio Cass. lvii. 19; lviii. 12).

1708 Quaestorian insignia were granted to Laco under Tiberius (Dio Cass. lviii. 12).

1709 Tac. Ann. xii. 21 “consularia insignia Ciloni (procurator of Pontus)... decernuntur”; Suet. Claud. 24 “ornamenta consularia etiam procuratoribus ducenariis indulsit.”

1710 As the praetorian insignia to Pallas, the quaestorian to Narcissus (Tac. Ann. xii. 53; xi. 38). Cf. Suet. Claud. 28.

1711 Suet. Aug. 35 (Augustus) “quosdam ad excusandi se verecundiam compulit: servavitque etiam excusatis insigne vestis et spectandi in orchestra epulandique publice jus.”

1712 p. 156.

1713 In an exceptional case, such as Junius Blaesus’ command in Africa, the proconsul might be saluted imperator on the permission of the Princeps (Tac. Ann. iii. 74), and the first condition of a triumph be fulfilled. But this incident, dating from A.D. 22, was the last of its kind on record.

1714 Suet. Aug. 38 “super triginta ducibus justos triumphos et aliquanto pluribus triumphalia ornamenta decernenda curavit”; Wilmanns n. 1145 l. 19 “senatus... triumphalibus ornamentis honoravit auctore imp. Caesare Augusto Vespasiano”; Index p. 609.

1715 Dio Cass. lix. 9. The obligation to swear in acta Caesaris had, with reference to the acts of the first Caesar, begun in 45 B.C. (App. B.C. ii. 106), and had been renewed during the triumvirate (Dio Cass. xlvii. 18), the formula running se nihil contra acta Caesaris facturum. For the obligation as continued in the Principate cf. p. 363.

1716 Herodian (ii. 12), with reference to the downfall of Didius Julianus, speaks of the consuls οἷ τὰ τῆς Ῥώμης διοικεῖν εἰώθασιν ὁπηνίκα ἂν τὰ τῆς βασιλείας μετέωρα ᾗ.

1717 Plut. Galba 8.

1718 Tac. Hist. iii. 68.

1719 Plin. Paneg. 77 “comitia consulum obibat ipse (Trajanus); tantum ex renuntiatione eorum voluptatis quantum prius ex destinatione capiebat.... Adibat aliquis ut principem; respondebat se consulem esse.”

1720 On the consuls was laid the burden of certain newly-established festivals such as those celebrating the Natalia of Augustus and the victory of Actium (Dio Cass. lvi 46; lix. 20).

1721 See Mommsen Staatsr. ii pp. 84-87. The climax was reached with twenty-five consulships in a single year (189 A.D.) under Commodus (Dio Cass. lxxii. 12; Vita Commodi 6).

1722 Vita Alexandri 43.

1723 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 32.

1724 Marini Atti Arvali p. 784.

1725 Dio Cassius, lii. cc. 20, 21 (speech of Maecenas), may mean to imply their existence in his own time. Geib (Criminalprocess pp. 392-397) assigns their disappearance to the end of the first century.

1726 Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 32 “divus Claudius duos praetores adjecit qui de fidei commisso jus dicerent, ex quibus unum divus Titus detraxit: et adjecit divus Nerva qui inter fiscum et privatos jus diceret.”

1727 See last note.

1728 Vita Marci 10 “praetorem tutelarem primus fecit, cum ante tutores a consulibus poscerentur, ut diligentius de tutoribus tractaretur.”

1729 See § 5.

1730 On the condemnation of the history of Cremutius Cordus in A.D. 25 “libros per aediles cremandos censuere patres” (Tac. Ann. iv. 35).

1731 Tac. Ann. iii 52-55 (A.D. 22).

1732 We hear of Vespasian during the reign of Caligula ἀγορανομοῦντός τε... καὶ τῆς τῶν στενωπῶν καθαρειότητος ἐπιμελουμένου (Dio Cass. lix. 12). Cf. Suet. Vesp. 5.

1733 Tac. Ann. ii. 85 (A.D. 19) “Vistilia praetoria familia genita licentiam stupri apud aediles vulgaverat.”

1734 ib. xiii. 28 (A.D. 56) “cohibita artius et aedilium potestas statutumque quantum curules, quantum plebei pignoris caperent vel poenae inrogarent.”

1735 Gaius Inst. i. 6 (of the jus edicendi) “amplissimum jus est in edictis duorum praetorum... item in edictis aedilium curulium.” Their edict was codified under Hadrian, and appears in Dig. 21, 1.

1736 Karlowa (Rechtsgesch. i. p. 532) thus distributes them—two urban, four of the consuls, twelve for the public provinces, and two attached to the Emperor.

1737 See § 5.

1738 See chap. xi.

1739 The practice first began in 38 B.C. (Dio Cass. xlviii. 43). Cf. Tac. Ann. xvi. 34 “Tum ad Thraseam in hortis agentem quaestor consulis missus.” They were selected by the consuls themselves (Plin. Ep. iv. 15, 8).

1740 Dig. 1, 13, 1, 2 and 4 “sane non omnes quaestores provincias sortiebantur, verum excepti erant candidati principis... qui... epistulas ejus in senatu legunt.”

1741 Tac. Ann. xi. 22 (A.D. 47) “quaestura... velut venundaretur.”

1742 The obligation imposed in 47 was modified in 54 A.D. (Tac. Ann. xi. 22; xiii. 5), but was renewed under Domitian (Suet. Dom. 4).

1743 Vita Alexandri 43 “quaestores candidatos ex sua pecunia jussit munera populo dare... arcarios vero instituit, qui de arca fisci ederent munera eademque parciora.”

1744 The tribunate is to the younger Pliny “inanis umbra et sine honore nomen” (Ep. i 23).

1745 Tac. Ann. i. 77 (A.D. 15, on the proposal of jus virgarum in histriones) “intercessit Haterius Agrippa tribunus plebei increpitusque est Asinii Galli oratione, silente Tiberio, qui ea simulacra libertatis senatui praebebat.”

1746 Tac. Hist. iv. 9 (A.D. 69, on the praetors of the aerarium announcing a deficit) “cum perrogarent sententias consules, Volcatius Tertullinus tribunus plebis intercessit, ne quid super tanta re principe absente statueretur.” This is the last recorded instance of the intercessio (Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 309 n. 1).

1747 Tac. Ann. vi. 47 [53] (in A.D. 37 a woman was accused of majestas) “qua damnata cum praemium accusatori decerneretur, Junius Otho tribunus plebei intercessit, unde... mox Othoni exitium.” Rusticus Arulenus, a flagrans juvenis, offered to veto the decree of the Senate which condemned Thrasea Paetus in A.D. 66 (xvi. 26).

1748 ib. xiii. 28 “inter Vibullium praetorem et plebei tribunum Antistium ortum certamen, quod immodestos fautores histrionum et a praetore in vincla ductos tribunos omitti jussisset.”

1749 Tac. Hist. ii. 91 (Vitellius, when Emperor, attacked by Helvidius Priscus in the Senate) “commotus... non tamen ultra quam tribunos plebis in auxilium spretae potestatis advocavit.”

1750 In A.D. 56 they were forbidden “vocare ex Italia cum quibus lege agi posset” (Tac. Ann. xiii. 28). See Appendix.

1751 Tac. l.c.

1752 Juvenal vii. 228 “Rara tamen merces, quae cognitione tribuni Non egeat.” The words doubtless mean “which does not lead to the appellatio.” In such a case even the Republican tribunes took “cognisance” of the merits of the appeal. The explanation that the tribunes were now given some extraordinary jurisdiction in civil cases is unnecessary.

1753 p. 365.

1754 Dio Cass. liv. 26.

1755 ib. lx. 11.

1756 e.g. Cod. 6, 60, 1 (A.D. 319) “Imp. Constantinus A. consulibus, praetoribus tribunis plebis senatui salutem.”

1757 Suet. Aug. 40 “Comitiorum quoque pristinum jus reduxit.”

1758 p. 344.

1759 Dio Cass. lvi. 40 (Augustus) ἐκ... τοῦ δήμου τὸ δύσκριτον ἐν ταῖς διαγνώσεσιν ἐς τὴν τῶν δικαστηρίων ἀκρίβειαν μεταστήσας.

1760 e.g. the Julian laws passed by Augustus in the concilium plebis, the lex Junia Norbana of the reign of Tiberius, plebiscita of Claudius. The last known lex is an agrarian law of Nerva (Dig. 47, 21, 3, 1).

1761 Dio Cass. liii. 21 (when the election was entrusted to the people, Augustus) ἐπεμελεῖτο ὅπως μήτ’ ἀνεπιτήδειοι μήτ’ ἐκ παρακελεύσεως ἤ καὶ δεκασμοῦ ἀποδεικνύωνται. Cf. Tac. Ann. i. 15 “potissima arbitrio principis, quaedam tamen studiis tribuum fiebant.”

1762 Tac. Ann. i. 15. The change was, we are told by Velleius (ii. 124), in accordance with the instructions of Augustus.

1763 p. 188.

1764 Dio Cass. lviii. 20.

1765 p. 349. In C.I.L. vi. 10213 we find a notice of “improbae comitiae in Aventino, ubi (Sej)anus cos. factus est.” We find Vitellius canvassing for his candidates in the circus (Tac. Hist. ii. 91 “comitia consulum cum candidatis civiliter celebrans omnem infimae plebis rumorem in theatro ut spectator, in circo ut fautor adfectavit”). On the other hand, we have ab senatu destinatus in the inscription quoted on p. 349 n. 6. Dio Cassius (lix. 20), in speaking of the temporary restoration of popular elections by Caligula, mentions them in connexion with the consulship.

1766 Dio Cass. xxxvii. 28.

1767 p. 369.

1768 p. 364.

1769 p. 365.

1770 p. 364. Hence the expression “nondum senatoria aetate” (Tac. Ann. xv. 28; Hist. iv. 42).

1771 Dio Cass. liv. 17, 30; Tac. Ann. i. 75, ii. 37.

1772 He declared “non lecturum se senatorem nisi civis Romani abnepotem” (Suet. Claud. 24).

1773 Vita Commodi 6 “ad cujus (Cleandri) nutum etiam libertini in senatum atque in patricios lecti sunt”; Vita Elagabali 11 “Fecit libertos praesides, legatos, consules, duces.”

1774 Tac. Ann. iii. 4 “simul novi homines e municipiis et coloniis atque etiam provinciis in senatum crebro adsumpti”; Suet. Vesp. 9 “Amplissimos ordines... purgavit supplevitque, recenso senatu et equite... honestissimo quoque Italicorum ac provincialium adlecto.”

1775 Tac. Ann. xi 25; Prof. Pelham in Classical Review ix. p. 441.

1776 Plin. Ep. vi. 19.

1777 Vita Marci 11.

1778 For the infliction of such a nota by Domitian see Suet. Dom. 8, “quaestorium virum, quod gesticulandi saltandique studio teneretur, movit senatu.”

1779 p. 347.

1780 Tac. Ann. iv. 42 (Tiberius) “Apidium... Merulam, quod in acta divi Augusti non juraverat, albo senatorio erasit.”

1781 ib. iii. 17; vi. 48.

1782 ib. iv. 31; xii. 59.

1783 Dio Cass. lv. 3; Tac. Ann. iv. 42.

1784 Dio Cass. liii. 1 (Augustus in 28 B.C. during the censorship of himself and Agrippa) ἐν αὐταῖς (ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς) πρόκριτος τῆς γερουσίας ἐπεκλήθη: cf. lxxii. 5, where Pertinax πρόκριτος... τῆς γερουσίας κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐπωνομάσθη: an expression which seems to show that it was not a constant designation of the Princeps at this period.

1785 ib. liv. 13, 14.

1786 ib. lv. 3; Suet. Aug. 35; Merkel ad Ovid. Fast. p. vi

1787 Lex de imp. Vesp. l. 9 “ac si e lege senatus edictus esset habereturque.”

1788 Vita Gordianorum, 11; Vita Hadriani, 7; Dio Cass. liv. 3.

1789 For the summons by a praetor see Tac. Hist. iv. 39; by tribunes, Dio Cass. lvi. 47, lx. 16, lxxviii. 37; by tribunes and praetors, ib. lix. 24.

1790 The doubt is raised by Piso’s address to Tiberius during a trial for majestas, “quo... loco censebis, Caesar? Si primus, habebo quod sequar: si post omnes, vereor ne imprudens dissentiam” (Tac. Ann. i 74). Dio Cassius also says of Tiberius (lvii. 7) καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ψῆφον πολλάκις ἐδίδου. But neither writer may be using strictly technical language; and it is not certain that the Princeps could be asked his opinion. On the other hand, when Caesar put the question, the other magistrates gave sententiae (Tac. Ann. iii. 17). The question is not of much importance for the Principate as a whole, as in its later period the Emperor usually consulted the Senate by letter. See p. 369.

1791 See Tac. Ann. i. 74, quoted in the last note.

1792 p. 348.

1793 p. 359.

1794 p. 350.

1795 The formula for the formation of a collegium legitimum runs “quibus senatus c(oire) c(onvocari) c(ogi) permisit e lege Julia ex auctoritate Augusti” (C.I.L. vi n. 4416).

1796 p. 372.

1797 Dio Cass. lxviii. 29.

1798 Tac. Ann. iii. 60; xii. 62.

1799 ib. xiii 48.

1800 “de legendo vel exauctorando milite, ac legionum et auxiliorum descriptione” (Suet. Tib. 30).

1801 Tac. Hist. iv. 61; Dio Cass. lxviii. 9, 10. In 49 A.D. during the reign of Claudius we also read of a reception of Parthian envoys in the Senate (Tac. Ann. xii. 10).

1802 p. 358.

1803 p. 358.

1804 p. 372.

1805 p. 275.

1806 Thus the S. C. Velleianum, which limited the obligations which women might incur, begins, “Quod Marcus Silanus et Velleus Tutor consules verba fecerunt... quid de ea re fieri oportet, de ea re ita censuere” (Dig. 16, 1, 2, 1); cf. Dig. 36, 1, 1, 2 (S. C. Trebellianum), 14, 6, 1 (S. C. Macedonianum), and see Kipp Quellenkunde des röm. Rechts p. 27.

1807 The jurists refer to them by the names of their proposers; hence such designations as Velleianum, Trebellianum (see last note). But such designations are not official. The S. C. Macedonianum is called after the offender who had been the occasion of the decree.

1808 Gaius i. 4 “Senatus consultum est, quod senatus jubet atque constituit: idque legis vicem obtinet, quamvis fuerit quaesitum.”

1809 Dig. 1, 1, 7; 1, 3, 9.

1810 Lex de imp. Vesp. 1. 17 “utique quaecunque ex usu rei publicae majestateque divinarum humanarum publicarum privatarumque rerum esse censebit, ei agere facere jus potestasque sit, ita uti divo Augusto... fuit.”

1811 Tac. Ann. i. 77 “divus Augustus immunes verberum histriones quondam responderat, neque fas Tiberio infringere dicta ejus.”

1812 p. 363.

1813 Paulus in Dig. 28. 2, 26 “Filius familias, si militet... aut heres scribi aut exheredari debet, jam sublato edicto divi Augusti, quo cautum fuerat ne pater filium militem exheredet.”

1814 It was sometimes used in a more general sense for constitutio principis, as when Papinian says “Jus... civile est quod ex legibus, plebis scitis, senatus consultis, decretis principum, auctoritate prudentium venit” (Dig. 1, 1, 7).

1815 Dig. 4, 2, 13 “Exstat enim decretum divi Marci in haec verba, etc.... Caesar dixit, etc.”

1816 “Rescript” is properly an answer to a letter, but it soon came to be used as exquivalent to epistola. See Kipp op. cit. p. 37.

1817 Cf. Dig. 1, 16, 4, 5 “imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ad desideria Asianorum rescripsit” (on the mode in which the proconsul should arrive at the province of Asia).

1818 Gaius i. 5 “Constitutio principis est, quod imperator decreto vel edicto vel epistola constituit; nec unquam dubitatum est quin id legis vicem obtineat.” Cf. Ulpian in Dig. 1, 4, 1, 1 “Quodcumque... imperator per epistulam et subscriptionem statuit vel cognoscens decrevit... vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat. Haec sunt quas vulgo constitutiones appellamus.”

1819 Thus the soldier’s testament was created by a series of mandates: “divus Julius Caesar concessit... divus Titus dedit: post hoc Domitianus: postea divus Nerva plenissimam indulgentiam in milites contulit: eamque et Trajanus secutus est et exinde mandatis inseri coepit caput tale. Caput ex mandatis, etc.” (Ulpian in Dig. 29, 1, 1).

1820 Gell. xii. 13, 1 “Cum Romae a consulibus judex extra ordinem datus pronuntiare... jussus essem.”

1821 Dio Cass. li. 19 (in 30 B.C. it was decreed) τὸν Καίσαρα τήν τε ἐξουσίαν τὴν τῶν δημάρχων διὰ βίου ἔχειν... ἔκκλητόν τε δικάζειν. It is probable that the last words only describe the establishment of the Princeps as a high court of voluntary jurisdiction. See Greenidge in Classical Review viii. p. 144.

1822 p. 368.

1823 Paulus in Dig. 5, 1, 58 “Judicium solvitur vetante eo qui judicare jusserat vel etiam eo qui majus imperium in eadem jurisdictione habet.” The veto in virtue of par potestas is here omitted on account of its disappearance in the time of Paulus (circa 200 A.D.). See Merkel Gesch. der klassischen Appellation ii. p. 19.

1824 Tac. Ann. i. 75 “judiciis adsidebat in cornu tribunalis, ne praetorem curuli depelleret; multaque eo coram adversus ambitum et potentium preces constituta”; Dio Cass. lvii. 7 ἐπεφοίτα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων δικαστήρια, καὶ παρακαλούμενος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀπαράκλητος, καὶ... ἔλεγεν ὅσα ἐδόκει αὐτῷ, ὡς πάρεδρος. The civil courts are here meant, or at least included; but it is possible that Tiberius may often have appeared in them as a self-constituted adviser, not as an authority to be appealed to; cf. Suet. Tib. 33 “magistratibus pro tribunali cognoscentibus plerumque se offerebat consiliarium; adsidebatque juxtim vel exadversum in parte primori.” According to Suetonius (l.c.) he exercised a similar influence over the jurisdiction of the quaestiones.

1825 p. 178.

1826 p. 382.

1827 Cic. pro Tullio 16, 38 “quid attinuit te tam multis verbis a praetore postulare ut adderet in judicium ‘injuria,’ et, quia non impetrasses, tribunos plebis appellare et hic in judicio queri praetoris iniquitatem quod de injuria non addiderit?” So the tribunician veto might be employed to elicit an exception. Cic. Acad. Prior. ii. 30, 97 “Tribunum aliquem censeo adeant [al. videant]: a me istam exceptionem nunquam impetrabunt.”

1828 Tac. Ann. xiii. 28 (A.D. 56). See Appendix.

1829 Dio Cass. lix. 8 ὁ μὲν γὰρ Τιβέριος οὕτως αὐτὸν (Silanus) ἐτίμησεν, ὥστε μήτ’ ἔκκλητόν ποτε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ δικάσαι ἐθελῆσαι, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνῳ πάντα αὖθις τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐγχειρίσαι. We do not know what position Silanus held. If, as is generally supposed, he was consul, the reference may be to appeals from jurisdiction in fidei commissa delegated by the Princeps to the consul.

1830 Suet. Aug. 33 “Appellationes quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum praetori delegabat urbano: at provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque provinciae negotiis praeposuisset.” That the conjecture praefecto delegabat urbis is untenable has been pointed out by Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 985 note 1).

1831 For the delegation to praetors see p. 368; for that to consuls cf. Quint. Inst. Or. iii. 6, 70 “Non debes apud praetorem petere fidei commissum sed apud consules, major enim praetoria cognitione summa est.”

1832 Tac. Ann. xiii. 4 “teneret antiqua munia senatus, consulum tribunalibus Italia et publicae provinciae adsisterent.”

1833 Cic. in Verr. iii. 60, 138; ad Fam. xiii. 26, 3; Fragmentum Atestinum (Bruns Fontes) l. 10.

1834 When the Senate granted the proconsulare imperium to Augustus in 23 B.C. ἐν τῷ ὑπηκόῳ τὸ πλεῖον τῶν ἑκασταχόθι ἀρχόντων ἰσχύειν ἐπέτρεψεν (Dio Cass. liii. 32). Cf. Ulpian in Dig. 1, 16, 8 [“(proconsul) majus imperium in ea provincia habet omnibus post principem”] and in 1, 18, 4. It is a passive rather than an active majus imperium that is here contemplated. The whole scheme of the provincial dyarchy rested on the assumption that there should be no relations between the proconsul and the Princeps.

1835 p. 368.

1836 Ulpian in Dig. 49, 2, 1, 2 “sciendum est appellari a senatu non posse principem, idque oratione divi Hadriani effectum.” It was doubtless the original principle, confirmed and not created by Hadrian.

1837 Tac. Ann. iii. 14, xvi. 8; Suet. Aug. 5.

1838 There was no legal principle of the kind. According to Dio Cassius (liii. 17) the monarchical power extended so far ὥστε καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ πωμηρίου καὶ τοὺς ἰππέας καὶ τοὺς βουλευτὰς θανατοῦ δύνασθαι, and a senator, like Calpurnius Piso in 20 A.D., might be brought before the Emperor (Tac. Ann. iii. 10). But Septimius Severus permitted a senatus consultum to be passed that the Emperor should not be allowed to put a senator to death without the will of the Senate (Dio Cass. lxxiv. 2; Vita Severi 7). The principle had been stated earlier by Hadrian (Vita Hadriani 7 “juravit se nunquam senatorem nisi ex senatus sententia puniturum”).

1839 Augustus in 29 B.C. brought Antiochus of Commagene, Tiberius in A.D. 17 Archelaus of Cappadocia before the Senate (Dio Cass. lii. 43, lvii. 17; Tac. Ann. ii. 42). In A.D. 19 Rhescuporis of Thrace was accused there (Tac. Ann. ii. 67).

1840 Cases of extortion are to be found in Tac. Ann. iii. 66, xii. 59; Hist. iv. 45. In A.D. 23 we find the imperial procurator (patrimonii) of Asia brought before the Senate for exceeding his powers (Tac. Ann. iv. 15).

1841 Tac. Ann. iv. 13 (A.D. 23) “Carsidius Sacerdos, reus tamquam frumento hostem Tacfarinatem juvisset, absolvitur, ejusdemque criminis C. Gracchus.”

1842 Amongst the prosecutions for treason against the Princeps which disfigure the reign of Tiberius we may mention those against Libo Drusus (Tac. Ann. ii. 27 ff.), against Cremutius Cordus (ib. iv. 34, 35), and against Sejanus (Dio Cass. lviii. 9, 10).

1843 In A.D. 37 we find that a mother, who had caused her son to commit suicide, “accusata in senatu... urbe... in decem annos prohibita est” (Tac. Ann. vi. 49). In A.D. 61 we find interdiction from Italy pronounced against a man for a kind of praevaricatio, “quod reos, ne apud praefectum urbis arguerentur, ad praetorem detulisset” (ib. xiv. 41).

1844 Quintil. Inst. Or. iii. 10, 1; vii. 2, 20. For instances see Tac. Ann. ii. 50, iv. 21; Plin. Ep. ii. 11, 3 ff. In the last passage we find the question of the legality of this procedure raised (“Respondit Fronto Catius deprecatusque est ne quid ultra repetundarum legem quaereretur.... Magna contentio, magni utrimque clamores, aliis cognitionem senatus lege conclusam, aliis liberam solutamque dicentibus”).

1845 It is possible, however, that the Senate was held to continue the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of the comitia. Tacitus certainly regards the cognitio as belonging to the Senate (Ann. ii. 28 “Statim corripit reum, adit consules, cognitionem senatus poscit”).

1846 Plin. Ep. vi. 31, 8 (in a case of a forgery of a will) “Heredes, cum Caesar (Trajanus) esset in Dacia, communiter epistula scripta, petierant ut susciperet cognitionem.”

1847 Tac. Ann. ii. 79 “Marsus... Vibius nuntiavit Pisoni Romam ad dicendam causam veniret. Ille eludens respondit adfuturum, ubi praetor, qui de veneficiis quaereret, reo atque accusatoribus diem prodixisset”; ib. iii 10 “petitum... est a principe cognitionem exciperet; quod ne reus quidem abnuebat, studia populi et patrum metuens... haud fallebat Tiberium moles cognitionis quaque ipse fama distraheretur. Igitur paucis familiarium adhibitis minas accusantium et hinc preces audit integramque causam ad senatum remittit.” “Remittit” does not imply that the Senate was bound to take the case. For the technically voluntary nature of its jurisdiction cf. ib. iv. 21, xiii. 10, where we find the expressions “receptus est reus,” “recepti sunt inter reos.”

1848 Dio Cass. lii. 22, 33. A case of adultery of a centurion with a tribune’s wife comes before the Emperor. Trajan stated the ground on which he tried this case (Plin. Ep. vi. 31, 6 “Caesar et nomen centurionis et commemorationem disciplinae militaris sententiae adjecit, ne omnes ejusmodi causas revocare ad se videretur”).

1849 An instance is mentioned by Pliny (Ep. vii. 6, 8 “mater, amisso filio... libertos ejus eosdemque coheredes suos falsi et veneficii reos detulerat ad principem judicemque impetraverat Julium Servianum”).

1850 See the section on the functionaries of the Princeps (p. 406 sq.).

1851 Plin. ad Traj. 96, 4 “quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.”

1852 It is not properly an appeal but a denial of jurisdiction. But on what ground the jurisdiction of the procurator was denied is not clear. The Roman citizenship, in virtue of which St. Paul claimed exemption from scourging at Philippi and Jerusalem, is not mentioned here. See Class. Rev. x. p. 231.

1853 Plin. Ep. ii. 11; Suet. Galba 9.

1854 For its attachment to procurators and to persons with extraordinary commands see the instances given by Mommsen (Staatsr. ii p. 270). So the praefectures of the guard, the vigiles and the fleet, are honores juris gladii (Vita Alex. 49). In the case of ordinary provincial governors it is, perhaps, safer to say that the jus gladii is possessed by them, or permitted to them, rather than that it was attached to them by the Princeps (Ulp. in Dig. 1, 18, 6, 8 “qui universas provincias regunt, jus gladii habent et in metallum dandi potestas iis permissa est”).

1855 Dio Cass. lii. 22, 33; Dig. 48, 19, 27, 1 and 2.

1856 Even by Tiberius’ reign this procedure had become so formal that a rule was framed for its exercise. A definite interval was prescribed within which the Princeps might consider the request for the intercession (Tac. Ann. iii. 51 [A.D. 21] “factum senatus consultum, ne decreta patrum ante diem decimum ad aerarium deferrentur idque vitae spatium damnatis prorogaretur”; cf. Dio Cass. lvii. 20; Suet. Tib. 75).

1857 p. 385.

1858 “Ob laetitiam aliquam vel honorem domus divinae vel ex aliqua causa, ex qua senatus censuit abolitionem reorum fieri” (Ulp. in Dig. 48, 16, 12; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1). Domitian by an edict declared that such abolitiones did not extend to slaves who were in custody awaiting trial (Dig. 48, 16, 16; cf. 48, 3, 2, 1).

1859 p. 249.

1860 Ulp. in Dig. 3, 1, 1, 10 “De qua autem restitutione praetor loquitur? Utrum de ea quae a principe vel a senatu? Pomponius quaerit: et putat de ea restitutione sensum, quam princeps vel senatus indulsit.”

1861 It is said of Claudius (Suet. Claud. 12) “neminem exulum nisi ex senatus auctoritate restituit”; and of Antoninus Pius (Vita 6) “His quos Hadrianus damnaverat in senatu indulgentias petit, dicens etiam ipsum Hadrianum hoc fuisse facturum.”

1862 Such acts are mentioned under Claudius (Dio Cass. lx. 4), Otho (Tac. Hist. i. 90; Plut. Otho 1), Vitellius (Tac. Hist. ii. 92), Vespasian (Dio Cass. lxvi. 9), Nerva (Plin. Ep. iv. 9, 2), Antoninus Caracalla (Vita 3), and Gordian (Herodian vii. 6, 4).

1863 Tac. Ann. ii. 50 “(Tiberius) liberavit... Appuleiam lege majestatis, adulterii graviorem poenam deprecatus.”

1864 p. 390.

1865 Gordian is spoken of as παλινδικίαν διδοὺς τοῦς ἀδίκως κατακριθεῖσι (Herodian vii. 6, 4).

1866 Ulp. in Dig. 3, 1, 1, 10.

1867 Suet. Claud. 14 “(Claudius) iis, qui apud privatos judices pius petendo formula excidissent, restituit actiones”; Dom. 8 “(Domitianus) ambitiosas centumvirorum sententias rescidit.”

1868 This power was employed by Augustus (Suet. Aug. 32 “Diuturnorum reorum... nomina abolevit”), Gaius (Suet. Calig. 15 “criminum... si quae residua ex priore tempore manebant, omnium gratiam fecit”; cf. Dio Cass. lix. 6), Vespasian (Dio Cass. lxvi. 9), and Domitian (Suet. Dom. 9).

1869 p. 388.

1870 Cic. in Vat. 14, 33.

1871 p. 390.

1872 Dig. 48, 19, 9, 11 “referre ad principem debet, ut ex auctoritate ejus poena aut permutetur aut liberaretur.”

1873 The capital punishment of decurions was prohibited by Hadrian (Dig. 48, 19, 15), and the earliest mandata, directing the procedure of governors in such cases, proceed from the divi fratres (ib. 48, 19, 27, 1 and 2). The punishment of deportation had been confined to the Princeps and the praefects of the praetorian guard and the city by the time of Septimius Severus (ib. 48, 19, 2, 1 and 48, 22, 6, 1; cf. § 7).

1874 Pliny often raises this question in his correspondence with Trajan (31 [40], 4; 56 [64], 3; 57 [65], 1). The passages seem to show (i.) that there was at the time no fixed rule defining the governor’s power of restitutio, at least in public provinces; (ii.) that restitutio by a governor was felt to be permissible in certain cases.

1875 A passage in Justinian’s Code (9, 51, 1) shows us Antoninus (Caracalla) saying to a man, who had been deported to an island, “Restituo te in integrum provinciae tuae.”

1876 Greenidge in Classical Review viii. p. 437.

1877 Cf. Tac. Ann. iii. 53 (quoted p. 352).

1878 Dio Cass. xliii. 48; Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 557.

1879 Tac. Ann. xiii. 29; Dio Cass. liii. 2; Suet. Aug. 36.

1880 Tac. l.c.; Dio Cass. liii. 32.

1881 Tac. l.c.; Dio Cass. lx. 24; Suet. Claud. 24. For the election by the Princeps see the inscription to Ti. Domitius Decidius “electo (Mommsen, “adlecto” Wilmanns) a T. Claudio Caesare... qui primus quaestor per triennium citra ordinem praeesset aerario Saturni” (Wilmanns n. 1135).

1882 Momms. Staatsr. ii. p. 559.

1883 Tac. l.c.; Mommsen l.c.

1884 Dio Cass. lxxi. 33 καὶ χρήματα ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου ᾔτησε τὴν βουλήν.

1885 For the meaning of the word—the great basket in which money was kept in the state treasuries—see Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 998 n. 1. At the beginning of the Principate there were, perhaps, fisci rather than a fiscus (cf. Suet. Aug. 101), although there must always have been a central controlling department.

1886 Tiberius in 23 B.C. says of Lucilius Capito, procurator of Asia, “non se jus nisi in servitia et pecunias familiares dedisse” (Tac. Ann. iv. 15). He was doubtless a “procurator patrimonii.” Cf. Tac. Ann. xii. 60 (“cum Claudius libertos, quos rei familiari praefecerat, sibique et legibus adaequaverit”); xiii. 1 “P. Celer eques Romanus et Helius libertus, rei familiari principis in Asia inpositi.”

1887 Marquardt Staatsverwaltung ii. p. 256.

1888 Vita Severi 12 “interfectis innumeris Abani partium viris... omnium bona publicata sunt.... Tuncque primum privatarum rerum procuratio constituta est.” The ordinarily accepted view of the relations of these two departments to one another is that of Hirschfeld and Marquardt, viz. that the patrimonium was the inalienable crown property, the res privata the strictly personal property of the Princeps. Karlowa (Rechtsgeschichte i. p. 505) takes an exactly oppositive view of their relations, based partly on the fact that extant inscriptions show the procurator rationis privatae to have had a higher rank than the procurator patrimonii.

1889 Mon. Anc. iii. 39 “HS milliens et septingentiens (170 million sesterces) ex patrimonio meo detuli.”

1890 Dio Cass. lv. 25; Tac. Ann. i. 78.

1891 Dio Cass. l.c.; cf. Tac. Ann. v. 8 (vi. 3).

1892 p. 351.

1893 Tac. Ann. ii 85.

1894 ib. iii. 61.

1895 ib. xi. 15.

1896 Vita Aurel. 31.

1897 Mommsen Römisches Münzwesen pp. 742 ff. He shows that the transitory usurpation of the copper coinage by Nero was due to the same desire of making a profit as his reduction of the value of silver.

1898 Dig. 2, 15, 8 “divus Marcus oratione in senatu recitata effecit ne, etc.” Cf. 24, 1, 23; 27, 9, 1.

1899 Tacitus (Ann. vi. 2 [8]) remarks, with reference to proposals carried in the Senate in 32 A.D., “et bona Sejani ablata aerario ut in fiscum cogerentur, tanquam referret.”

1900 Suet. Aug. 38 “Liberis senatorum, quo celerius rei publicae assuescerent, protinus... latum clavum induere et curiae interesse permisit.”

1901 Wilmanns Index p. 602; cf. Suet. Dom. 10.

1902 Augustus had given the post of praefectus alae as well as that of tribunus militum to senators’ sons (Suet. Aug. 38). Mommsen (Staatsr. i. p. 548) thinks that after Tiberius these laticlavii, as a rule, filled the office of tribune alone. They could scarcely have been given a real command when they first joined the standards.

1903 The poet Ovid, who assumed the latus clavus by right of birth, took the first steps towards a senatorial career by filling two posts in the vigintivirate, but he went no further and subsided into equestrian rank (Ovid Trist. iv. 10, 29; Fasti iv. 383).

1904 Suet. Claud. 24 “Senatoriam dignitatem recusantibus equestrem quoque ademit.”

1905 Suet. Claud. 24 “Latum clavum (quamvis initio affirmasset non lecturum se senatorem nisi civis Romani abnepotem) etiam libertini filio tribuit, sed sub conditione si prius ab equite Romano adoptatus esset.” Claudius then appealed to the famous precedent set by his ancestor Appius Caecus.

1906 Dig. 23, 2, 44.

1907 ib. 1, 9, 8; 50, 1, 22, 5.

1908 ib. 1, 9, §§ 5, 6, 7, 10.

1909 Asc. in or. in Tog. Cand. p. 94.

1910 Dio Cass. lxix. 16 ἐνομοθέτησε δὲ... ἵνα μηδεὶς βουλευτὴς μητ’ αὐτὸς μήτε δι’ ἑτέρου τέλος τι μισθῶται.

1911 Severus Alexander at first forbade the taking of interest, but subsequently allowed 6 per cent (Vita 26). For investment by a senator at an earlier period cf. Plin. Ep. iii. 19, 8 “sum quidem prope totus in praediis, aliquid tamen fenero.”

1912 Dig. 50, 1, 23 “municeps esse desinit senatoriam adeptus dignitatem, quantum ad munera; quantum vero ad honorem, retinere creditur originem.” Cf. ib. 1, 9, 11; 50, 1, 22, 5; Cod. 10, 40 [39], 8.

1913 p. 387.

1914 Friedländer Sittengesch. i. 3.

1915 Dio Cass. lii. cc. 7, 15, 31; lxvii. 2.

1916 See p. 413.

1917 p. 364.

1918 p. 374.

1919 Suet. Claud. 25 “stipendiaque instituit (Claudius) et imaginariae militiae genus, quod vocatur ‘supra numerum,’ quo absentes et titulo tenus fungerentur.”

1920 In A.D. 16 a proposal was made in the Senate “ut... legionum legati, qui ante praeturam ea militia fungebantur, jam tum praetores destinarentur” (Tac. Ann. ii. 36).

1921 Galba’s is a good instance of a distinguished senatorial career. He obtained office ante legitimum tempus; after the praetorship he governed Aquitania, after the consulship Upper Germany; he was then proconsul of Africa, and finally for eight years legate of Tarraconensis. See Suet. Galba 6, 7, 8.

1922 Tac. Ann. iv. 6 “(the state contracts) societatibus equitum Romanorum agitabantur.”

1923 Dio Cass. liii. 30. On Antonius Musa, who had saved Augustus’ life, was conferred τὸ χρυσοῖς δακτυλίοις (ἀπελεύθερος γὰρ ἦν) χρῆσθαι: ib. xlviii. 45 (Augustus, on the reception of Menas the former freedman of Sex. Pompeius) δακτυλίοις τε χρυσοῖς ἐκόσμησε καὶ ἐς τὸ τῶν ἱππέων τέλος ἐσέγραψε. These words may mean that Menas was made an eques equo publico as well.

1924 A rescript of Hadrian is quoted with reference to the ingenuitas conferred by the gold ring (Ulp. in Dig. 40, 10, 6). For other references to this right see Dig. 38, 2, 3; Justin. Nov. 78.

1925 The usurpation of the gold ring by freedmen, which was repressed by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) and Domitian, and the inspection in the theatre instituted by the latter (Martial v. 8) seem to refer to a civil class; at least there is no evidence that such people claimed to be equites equo publico. When Dio Cassius (lvi. 42) speaks of οἵ τε ἱππεῖς, οἵ τε ἐκ τοῦ τέλους καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι, it is not clear who “the others” are, but the passage shows that persons other than those in the corps were called “equites.”

1926 Dionys. vi. 13.

1927 The seviri would seem to show that there were six turmae. See Hirschfeld Verwaltungsgesch. p. 243 n. 1.

1928 Hence such expressions as a divo Hadriano equo publico honoratus (Wilmanns 1825), equo publico exornatus ab Impp. Severo et Antonino Augg. (ib. 1595).

1929 p. 347.

1930 p. 225. It is probable that the revision of the knights described in Suet. Claud. 16, Vesp. 9 refers to the censorship of these emperors.

1931 a censibus equitum Romanorum (Wilmanns 1275), a censibus a libellis Aug. (ib. 1249 b), a libellis et censibus (ib. 1257).

1932 p. 225.

1933 Suet. Aug. 38 “equitum turmas frequenter recognovit, post longam intercapedinem reducto more transvectionis.”

1934 ib. 38 “mox reddendi equi gratiam fecit eis, qui majores annorum quinque et triginta retinere eum nollent.”

1935 ib. 39 “Unum quemque equitum rationem vitae reddere coegit.”

1936 Suet. Calig. 16 “palam adempto equo, quibus aut probri aliquid aut ignominiae inesset.”

1937 Suet. Aug. 37, 39.

1938 In those of Caligula (Suet. Calig. 16) and Nero (Dio Cass. lxiii. 13), and perhaps in those of Vitellius (Tac. Hist. ii. 62) and Severus Alexander (Vita 15).

1939 Zosimus ii. 29.

1940 By the side of such titles as equo publico judex selectus ex V decuriis (Wilmanns 2110) and equum publicum habens adlectus in V decurias (ib. 2203) we find the title quin. decur. judi(cum) (inter) quatringenarios (Henzen 6469), in which a purely monetary qualification is expressed.

1941 Wilmanns nn. 1639, 2841, Index p. 564; Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 565.

1942 Wilmanns n. 2858; Mommsen ib. n. 3.

1943 These might have been included in the equites illustres whom Augustus forbade to set foot in Egypt (Tac. Ann. ii. 59 “vetitis nisi permissu ingredi senatoribus aut equitibus Romanis illustribus”), but the knights chiefly referred to here are doubtless distinguished permanent members of the order.

1944 The variants used by Tacitus would apply to both of these classes. He uses insignis (Ann. xi. 5) and speaks of primores equitum (Hist. i. 4). Two ex-praefects of the praetorian guard are described as equites Romani dignitate senatoria (Ann. xvi. 17). Cf. note 3.

1945 For the promotions from one praefecture to another, see Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1042 n. 1.

1946 p. 61.

1947 p. 120.

1948 Tac. Ann. vi. 11 [17] “duratque simulacrum, quotiens ob ferias Latinas praeficitur qui consulare munus usurpet.”

1949 Suet. Caes. 76 “praefectos... pro praetoribus constituit, qui absente se res urbanas administrarent”; Dio Cass. xliii. 28 πολιανόμοις τισίν ὀκτώ, ὤς τισι δοκεῖ, ἢ ἔξ, ὡς μᾶλλον πεπίστευται, ἐπιτρέψας.

1950 Tac. Ann. vi. 11 [17].

1951 Tac. l.c.; cf. Dio Cass. liv. 19.

1952 In Tac. Ann. vi. 10 [16] it is said of L. Piso (died 32 A.D.) “praefectus urbi recens continuam potestatem et insolentia parendi graviorem mire temperavit.”

1953 We find Maximus as praefect during Caligula’s presence in Rome in 39 A.D. (Dio Cass. lix. 13).

1954 Tac. Ann. vi. 11 [17] “(Augustus) sumpsit e consularibus.”

1955 Vita Commodi 14 “praefectos urbi eadem facilitate mutavit”; Vita Pii 8 “successorem viventi bono judici nulli dedit nisi Orfito praefecto urbi, sed petenti.” For the frequent life-long tenure of the office see Dio Cass. lii. 24.

1956 Paulus in Dig. 5, 1, 12, 1 “(Judicem dare possunt) hi quibus id more concessum est propter vim imperii, sicut praefectus urbi ceterique Romae magistratus”; contrast Pompon. in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 33 “nam praefectus annonae et vigilum non sunt magistratus, sed extra ordinem utilitatis causa constituti sunt.”

1957 Messala Corvinus, praefect circa 25 B.C. (Jerome in Euseb. Chron. a. 1991).

1958 Seneca Ep. 83, 14 “L. Piso urbis custos... officium... suum, quo tutela urbis continebatur, diligentissime administravit.”

1959 Suet. Aug. 49.

1960 Tac. Ann. iv. 5.

1961 Dig. 1, 12.

1962 Tac. Ann. xiv. 41 (A.D. 61) “pari ignominia (interdiction from Italy) Valerius Ponticus adficitur, quod reos, ne apud praefectum urbis arguerentur, ad praetorem detulisset, interim specie legum, mox praevaricando ultionem elusurus.”

1963 Dio Cass. lii. 21 καὶ τὰς δίκας, τάς τε παρὰ πάντων ὧν εἶπον ἀρχόντων ἐφεσίμους τε καὶ ἀναπομπίμους καὶ τὰς τοῦ θανάτου, τοῖς τε ἐν τῇ πόλει, πλὴν ὦν ἂν εἴπω, καὶ τοῖς ἔξω αὐτῆς μέχρι πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑπτακοσίων σταδίων οἰκοῦσι κρίνῃ: Ulp. in Dig. 1, 12, 1 “Omnia omnino crimina praefectura urbis sibi vindicavit [a praefectura urbis sibi vindicari, Momms.], nec tantum ea, quae intra urbem admittuntur, verum ea quoque, quae extra urbem intra Italiam [intra c̅ lapidem, Momms., cf. 1, 12, 1, 4] epistula divi Severi ad Fabium Cilonem praefectum urbi missa declaratur.”

1964 Dig. 1, 12, 3; 48, 19, 8, 5.

1965 Collatio 14, 3, 2; Dig. 1, 12, 1, 4. Cf. note 5.

1966 Ulp. in Dig. 1, 12, 3 “Praefectus urbi, cum terminos urbis exierit, potestatem non habet: extra urbem potest jubere judicare.”

1967 Dig. 1, 12, 1, 6 “Sed et ex interdictis quod vi aut clam aut interdicto unde vi audire [aut unde vi adiri, Momms.] potest.”

1968 Dio Cass. lii. 21 (quoted n. 5); Cod. 7, 62, 17 (Constantine, A.D. 322) “si apud utrumque praetorem, dum quaestio ventilatur, ab aliqua parte auxilium provocationis fuerit objectum, praefecturae urbis judicium sacrum appellator observet.”

1969 Dio Cass. liii. 11.

1970 Tac. Ann. iv. 5. Otho speaks of the corps as “Italiae alumni et Romana vere juventus” (Tac. Hist. i 84).

1971 Suet. Tit. 6.

1972 Vita Severi 14.

1973 Two are regarded as the normal number by Dio Cassius (lii. 24). Three are found under Commodus, Didius Julianus, and Severus Alexander. See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 867.

1974 Collatio 14, 3, 2. The right was given by constitutions (“jam eo perventum est constitutionibus”). The citation is from Ulpian, and this jurisdiction had doubtless been attained before the time of Caracalla. Cf. Vita Alex. 21.

1975 Cod. 9, 2, 6, 1 (Gordian, A.D. 243, with reference to appeal against a praeses provinciae on the ground of condemnation in absence) “praefectos praetorio adire cura.”

1976 ib. 4, 65, 4, 1 (Alexander, A.D. 222) “si majorem animadversionem exigere rem deprehenderit (praeses provinciae), ad Domitium Ulpianum praefectum praetorio et parentem meum reos remittere curabit”; cf. 8, 40 [41], 13.

1977 Dig. 12, 1, 40 “Lecta est in auditorio Aemilii Papiniani praefecti praetorio juris consulti cautio hujusmodi”; cf. 22, 1, 3, 3.

1978 p. 386.

1979 Dig. 1, 11, 1, 1 (Arcadius in early part of fourth century A.D.) “praefectorum auctoritas... in tantum meruit augeri ut appellari a praefectis praetorio non possit. Nam cum antea quaesitum fuisset an liceret... et extarent exempla eorum qui provocaverint, postea publice sententia principali lecta appellandi facultas interdicta est;” Cod. 7, 62, 19 (Constantine, A.D. 331) “a praefectis autem praetorio provocare non sinimus.”

1980 Cf. Vita Marci 11 “habuit secum praefectos, quorum et auctoritate et periculo semper jura dictavit.”

1981 See below on the consilium.

1982 Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 549. A knight of the third century is appointed in consilium praef. praet. item urb(i) ex sacra jussione (Henzen 6519). Cf. Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1122 n. 1.

1983 Cod. 1, 26, 2 (Alexander, A.D. 235) “Formam a praefecto praetorio datam, etsi generalis sit, minime legibus vel constitutionibus contrariam, si nihil postea ex auctoritate mea innovatum est, servari aequum est.”

1984 Vita Alex. 21.

1985 ib. “Alexander autem idcirco senatores esse voluit praef. praet., ne quis non senator de Romano senatore judicaret.”

1986 ib. “si quis imperatorum successorem praef. praet. dare vellet, laticlaviam eidem... summitteret”; cf. Vita Commodi 4; Vita Hadriani 8 “cum Attianum ex praefecto praetorii ornamentis consularibus praeditum faceret senatorem.”

1987 Cic. ad Att. iv. 1, 7; Dio Cass. xxxix. 9.

1988 Dio Cass. xlvi. 39.

1989 Dig. 1, 2, 2, 32.

1990 Dio Cass. liv. 1; Mon. Anc. Gr. iii. 6.

1991 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1038 n. 1; Hirschfeld Verwaltungsgesch. p. 130 n. 1; Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 553.

1992 Dio Cass. liv. 17; lv. 26.

1993 Praefecti frumenti dandi are found, apparently for the purpose of distribution, as late as the second century. They were generally ex-praetors and appointed ex senatus consulto, probably because the aerarium bore or contributed to the cost. See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 673; Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 553.

1994 Dio Cass. lii. 24; Seneca de Brev. Vitae 19, 1.

1995 Hirschfeld in Philologus 1870, pp. 79 ff.

1996 Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i p. 556.

1997 Dig. 48, 2, 13; cf. 48, 12, 1.

1998 ib. 14, 5, 8; 14, 1, 1, 18.

1999 ib. 14, 5, 8 “sententiam (praefecti annonae) conservavit imperator”; cf. Dio Cass. lii. 33.

2000 p. 235.

2001 Dio Cass. liv. 2.

2002 Paulus in Dig. 1, 15, 1 and 3.

2003 Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 558.

2004 Dig. 1, 15; cf. 12, 4, 15; 47, 2, 57 [56], 1.

2005 ib. 1, 15, 3 and 4; Cod. 1, 43, 1.

2006 Dig. 19, 2, 56; 20, 2, 9. Praefecti vigilum (one of whom is the jurist Herennius Modestinus) take part in a controversy which has come down to us known as the lis fullonum (Bruns Fontes; C.I.L. vi. n. 266). The case has been discussed by Bethmann-Hollweg Civilprozess ii. p. 767 n. 60 and Mommsen in C.I.L. l.c.; Staatsr. ii. p. 1058 n. 3.

2007 Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 539.

2008 Coins of 16 B.C. exist (Eckhel vi. 105) with the inscription “s. p. q. R. imp. Cae(sari), quod v(iae) m(unitae) s(unt) ex ea p(ecunia) q(uam) is ad a(erarium) de(tulit)”; cf. Vita Pert. 9 “aerarium in suum statum restituit. Ad opera publica certum sumptum constituit. Reformandis viis pecuniam contulit.”

2009 Frontinus de Aquaed. 100 and 104.

2010 Dio Cass. lvii. 14.

2011 Tac. Hist. i. 58.

2012 Cic. pro Caec. 20, 57.

2013 Tac. Ann. iv. 6 “intra paucos libertos domus.”

2014 Tac. Hist. i. 58 “Vitellius ministeria principatus per libertos agi solita in equites Romanos disponit.” In Otho’s reign we find a mention of Secundus the rhetor ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν γενόμενος (Plut. Otho 9).

2015 The evidence for Hadrian’s change is mainly epigraphic. See Hirschfeld Verwaltungsgesch. i. p. 32. Two instances of it are found in Vita Hadr. 22 “ab epistulis et a libellis primus equites Romanos habuit.”

2016 Dio Cass. lii. 25.

2017 Tac. Agric. 4 “Cn. Julius Agricola... utrumque avum procuratorem Caesarum habuit, quae equestris nobilitas est.”

2018 p. 405.

2019 i.e. the posts of praefectus cohortis, tribunus militum, praefectus alae. See Suet. Claud. 25.

2020 Hirschfeld op. cit. p. 248.

2021 Tac. Ann. iv. 15. See p. 395.

2022 Ulp. in Dig. 1, 19, 1, 1 “si venditionis vel donationis vel transactionis causa quid agat, nihil agit: non enim alienare ei rem Caesaris, sed diligenter gerere commissum est.”

2023 Dig. 1, 19, 1.

2024 Suet. Claud. 12 “ut... rata essent, quae procuratores sui in judicando statuerent, precario exegit” (from the Senate). Tacitus exaggerates the nature of the change when he says that “Claudius libertos, quos rei familiari praefecerat, sibique et legibus adaequaverit” (Ann. xii. 60).

2025 Cf. Ulp. in Dig. 1, 16, 9 (with reference to the duties of a proconsul) “sane si fiscalis pecuniaria causa sit, quae ad procuratorem principis respicit, melius fecerit, si abstineat.”

2026 Henzen 6525.

2027 Wilmanns 1259, 1262.

2028 Cod. 3, 26, 7.

2029 Suet. Vesp. 12; Henzen 6396.

2030 C.I.L. v. n. 737.

2031 Hirschfeld Verwaltungsgesch. i. p. 32.

2032 ib. p. 35.

2033 Cf. the title of Dig. 1, 19 “De officio procuratoris Caesaris vel rationalis.”

2034 Hirschfeld, op. cit. p. 37; Liebenam Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgesch. p. 32.

2035 Strabo iii. p. 167. The title a copiis militaribus is found in inscriptions (Orelli 2922, 3505).

2036 Tac. Ann. ii. 47. Here it is said of cities of Asia, “quantum aerario aut fisco pendebant, in quinquennium remisit (Caesar).” The procurator Asiae of Ann. iv. 15 is probably a procurator patrimonii. See p. 395.

2037 p. 395. For procurators ad bona damnatorum see Wilmanns 1278, 1291. For a procurator a caducis, C.I.L. iii. n. 1622.

2038 Wilmanns 1257, 1272, 1273, 1275, 1285.

2039 p. 396.

2040 Timesitheus, the father-in-law of Gordian, was proc. tam patrimoni quam rat. privatar. in one district, proc. ration. privat. in another (Wilmanns 1293).

2041 Herodian vii. 1 (Maximin) τήν τε θεραπείαν πᾶσαν, ἣ συγγεγόνει τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τοσούτων ἐτῶν, τῆς βασιλείου αὐλῆς ἀπέπεμψε: cf. Vita Pert. 12 “Sane nullum ex eis, quos Commodus rebus gerendis imposuerat, mutavit, exspectans urbis natalem, quod eum diem rerum principium volebat esse.”

2042 Liebenam op. cit. p. 55.

2043 Vita Nigri 7 “cum unus ad memoriam, alter ad libellos paruisset, statim praefecti facti sunt (Paulus et Ulpianus).”

2044 This may be illustrated by the careers of Burrus (proc. Augustae, proc. Ti. Caesaris, proc. divi Claudii, praefecto praetori, C.I.L. xii. 5842), of Vibianus Tertullus (ab epistulis Graecis, proc. a rationibus, praefectus vigilum, C.I.L. iii. 6574) and of Sex. Var. Marcellus (proc. aquarum, proc. Brittaniae, proc. rationis privatae, vice-praefectus praetorio, Orelli 946).

2045 Tac. Ann. xv. 35 (under Nero, in A.D. 64, Torquatus Silanus was forced to death on various grounds) “quin eum inter libertos habere, quos ab epistulis et libellis et rationibus appellet, nomina summae curae et meditamenta”; cf. ib. xvi. 8 (A.D. 65) “Ipsum dehinc Silanum increpuit isdem quibus patruum ejus Torquatum, tanquam disponeret jam imperii curas praeficeretque rationibus et libellis et epistulis libertos.”

2046 Dio Cass. lii. 33; Stat. Silv. v. 1, esp. 83-107; Justinus xliii. 5, 12; Suid. s.v. Διονύσιος.

2047 Seneca Cons. ad Polyb. vi. 4 and 5.

2048 Vita Carini 16 “fastidium subscribendi tantum habuit ut inpurum quendam... ad subscribendum poneret.” The Princeps himself may not have written more than his signature. See Vita Commodi 13 “ipse Commodus in subscribendo tardus et neglegens, ita ut libellis una forma multis subscriberet.”

2049 Karlowa Rechtsgesch. i. p. 545.

2050 Dio Cass. Ep. lxxviii. 13.

2051 Karlowa l.c.

2052 Vita Carini 8 “Julius Calpurnius, qui ad memoriam dictabat.” He attended the Princeps with the other secretaries; see Vita Alex. 31 “Postmeridianas horas subscriptioni et lectioni epistularum semper dedit, ita ut ab epistulis, a libellis et a memoria semper adsisterent.”

2053 This consilium must not be confused with the committee of the Senate which had been employed by Augustus and Tiberius, but was subsequently discontinued. This board, composed of some of the magistrates and a number of senators chosen by lot, had given a preliminary consideration to the business to be submitted to the Senate (Suet. Aug. 35; Tib. 55; Dio Cass. liii. 21). Something like it was devised by Mamaea in the reign of Severus Alexander (Dio Cass. lxxx. 1; Herodian vi. 1).

2054 Dio Cass. lv. 27; lvii. 7.

2055 Tac. Ann. iii. 10 “paucis familiarium adhibitis” (in the trial of Piso, A.D. 20). In Nero’s trial of Octavia in A.D. 62 his body of advisers (“amicos quos velut consilio adhibuerat princeps” Tac. Ann. xiv. 62) may have been regarded as a consilium domesticum.

2056 Vita Hadr. 18 “cum judicaret, in consilio habuit non amicos suos aut comites solum, sed juris consultos... quos tamen senatus omnes probasset.”

2057 Hirschfeld Verwaltungsgesch. i. p. 215. Probably only the equestrian members of this board received salaries (Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 990).

2058 Cf. Vita Hadr. 8 “erat... tunc mos, ut, cum princeps causas agnosceret, et senatores et equites Romanos in consilium vocaret et sententiam ex omnium deliberatione proferret.”

2059 e.g. “centenario consiliario Aug(usti)... juris perito” (Wilmanns 1286).

2060 p. 380.

2061 Vita Alex. 16 “neque ullam constitutionem sacravit sine viginti jurisperitis et doctissimis ac sapientibus viris isdemque disertissimis non minus quinquaginta.”

2062 In Maecenas’ supposed advice to Augustus, which in this, as in other respects, probably reflects the practice of the time of Dio Cassius, it is said of the consilium ἄλλοι ἄλλοτε διαγινωσκέτωσαν (Dio Cass. lii. 33).

2063 Suet. Aug. 33.

2064 Suet. Nero 15.

2065 Vita Alex. 16 “ut iretur per sententias singulorum ac scriberetur quid quisque dixisset.”

2066 p. 410.

2067 p. 314.

2068 Plin. H.N. iii. 46 “nunc ambitum ejus (Italiae) urbesque enumerabimus, qua in re praefari necessarium est auctorem nos divum Augustum secuturos, descriptionemque ab eo factam Italiae totius in regiones XI.”

2069 See the references in Marquardt Staatsverw. i. p. 220.

2070 Lex Malacitana c. lii. ff.

2071 Kuhn Verfassung des römischen Reiches i. pp. 236, 237. In an inscription of Hadrian’s time we find in Ostia II. vir... in comitiis factus (C.I.L. xiv. 375). For this and other instances see Liebenam Städteverwaltung p. 479.

2072 p. 438.

2073 Vita Hadr. 22 “quattuor consulares per omnem Italiam judices constituit.” Of Antoninus Pius, who was one of these, it is said “cum Italiam regeret” (Vita Anton. 3). Cf. App. B.C. i. 38.

2074 Vita M. Anton. 11 “datis juridicis Italiae consuluit ad id exemplum, quo Hadrianus consulares viros reddere jura praeceperat.”

2075 Ulpian in Fragmenta Vaticana 205, 232, 241.

2076 Ulp. l.c.; Dig. 40, 5, 41, 5.

2077 Fronto ad Amicos ii. 7.

2078 Marquardt (Staatsverw. i. p. 227) remarks that such a question as the qualification of a decurion belongs under Caesar’s legislation (lex Ursonensis c. 105) to the municipal courts.

2079 pp. 408, 410.

2080 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1082, Liebenam Städteverw. p. 480, and in Philologus lvi. 290 ff. How far this curatorship became a standing office is uncertain.

2081 p. 428.

2082 The first official ad corrigendum statum Italiae belongs to the year 214 A.D., while the provincial corrector goes back to the time of Trajan (Marquardt Staatsverw. i. pp. 228, 229).

2083 See the inscription of Atina of the time of Augustus (Wilmanns 1120), “T. Helvio... legato Caesaris Augusti, qui Atinatibus HS... legavit, ut liberis eorum ex reditu, dum in aetatem pervenirent, frumentum et postea sestertia singula millia darentur.”

2084 Victor Epit. 12; Dio Cass. lxviii. 5.

2085 Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. pp. 143, 144. Pius, in honour of his wife Faustina, created a fund for puellae Faustinianae (Vita 8); Alexander, in honour of his mother, one for pueri puellaeque Mammaeani (Vita 57).

2086 Our knowledge of this institution is derived chiefly from two metal tables, the Tabula Veleias (of Veleia in Cisalpine Gaul) and the Tabula Baebianorum (of the Ligures Baebiani near Beneventum). See E. Desjardins De tabulis alimentariis, Mommsen in I.R.N. 1354, Wilmanns 2844, 2845. On the institution see Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. pp. 141-147, Liebenam Städteverw. pp. 105, 360.

2087 p. 413.

2088 e.g. curator viae Appiae, praefectus alimentorum: curator viarum et praefectus alimentorum Clodiae et coherentium: curator viae Aemiliae et alimentorum (Wilmanns 1189, 1215, 1211). See Marquardt, Liebenam ll.cc., and Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 1079. In districts not pierced by the great roads, procurators (alimentorum, ad alimenta) were employed.

2089 Marquardt l.c. p. 147.

2090 Tac. Ann. i. 2 “Neque provinciae ilium rerum statum abnuebant, suspecto senatus populique imperio ob certamina potentium et avaritiam magistratuum, invalido legum auxilio, quae vi, ambitu, postremo pecunia turbabantur.”

2091 δῆμος καὶ γερουσία (Dio Cass. liii. 12). These provinces are “propriae populi Romani” as opposed to those “propriae Caesaris” (Gaius ii. 21).

2092 Tac. Ann. i. 76; Dio Cass. lx. 24; Suet. Claud. 25.

2093 Vita Marci 22 “Provincias ex proconsularibus consulares (i.e. governed by consular legati) aut ex consularibus proconsulares aut praetorias pro belli necessitate fecit.”

2094 Asia, Africa, Baetica, Narbonensis, Sardinia and Corsica, Sicilia, Macedonia, Achaea, Creta and Cyrene, Cyprus, Bithynia.

2095 Tarraconensis, Germania superior, Germania inferior, Brittania, Pannonia sup., Pannonia inf., Moesia sup., Moesia inf., Dacia, Dalmatia, Cappadocia, Syria, Lusitania, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica, Galatia, Pamphylia and Lycia, Cilicia, Arabia, Numidia. See Marquardt Staatsv. i. p. 494.

2096 Alpes Maritimae, Alpes Cottiae, Alpes Poeninae, Raetia, Noricum, Thracia, Epirus, Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Caesariensis. See Marquardt l.c.

2097 Suet. Aug. 47, Claud. 25, Vesp. 8.

2098 Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 858; Marquardt Staatsverw. i. p. 358. The earliest known commissioner dates from the time of Trajan. He was “missus in provinciam Achaiam... ad ordinandum statum liberarum civitatum” (Plin. Ep. viii. 24).

2099 Tac. Ann. ii. 47.

2100 Strabo xiii. p. 621; Cic. pro Flacco 29, 71.

2101 Tac. Ann. xii. 63.

2102 Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 684.

2103 Mommsen points out (ib. p. 685) that, if it did, Spain after the time of Vespasian would have paid no taxes.

2104 C.I.L. iii. n. 781.

2105 Dig. 27, 1, 17; cf. Suet. Claud. 25.

2106 Dig. 50, 15, 8, 5 “Divus Antoninus Antiochenses colonos fecit salvis tributis.”

2107 ib. 7 “Divus Vespasianus Caesarienses colonos fecit non adjecto ut et juris Italici essent, sed tributum his remisit capitis; sed divus Titus etiam solum immune factum interpretatus est.”

2108 Dig. l.c.

2109 “Rationes imperii” (Suet. Cal. 16), λογισμοὺς τῶν δημοσίων χρημάτων (Dio Cass. lix. 9). Cf. Tac. Ann. i. 11.

2110 Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. pp. 207-211.

2111 Dio Cass. liii. 17.

2112 Liv. Ep. 134; cf. Dio Cass, liii. 22.

2113 Tac. Ann. i 31 and 33; ii. 6; xiv. 46.

2114 Dio Cassius (liii. 22), after saying that Augustus made ἀπογραφαί in the Gallic provinces, adds κᾀντεῦθεν ἔς τε τὴν Ἰβηρίαν ἀφίκετο, καὶ κατεστήσατο καὶ ἐκείνην.

2115 St. Luke ii. 2; Joseph. Antiq. xvii. 355.

2116 See the inscriptions collected by Kubitschek in Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie, s.v. census.

2117 The tres Galliae honour a procurator as “primus umquam eq(ues) R(omanus) a censibus accipiendis” (Wilmanns 1269). The inscription is attributed to the joint rule of Severus and Caracalla.

2118 Kubitschek l.c.

2119 The chief evidence that there was comes from the province of Dacia. In a document of sale from Alburnum Majus, dated May 6, 159 A.D. the purchaser of a house binds himself “[uti]... pro ea domo tributa usque ad recensum dep[e]n[dat]” (Bruns Fontes).

2120 Dig. 50, 15,3 “in Syriis a quattuordecim annis masculi, a duodecim feminae usaue ad sexagensimum quintum annum tributo capitis obligantur.”

2121 Grenfell and Hunt Oxyrhynchus Papyri ii. pp. 207 ff.

2122 Dig. 50, 15, 4 “Forma censuali cavetur, ut agri sic in censum referantur. Nomen fundi cujusque: et in qua civitate et in quo pago sit: et quos duos vicinos proximos habeat. Et arvum... vinea... olivae... pratum... pascua... silvae caeduae.”

2123 Plin. H.N. xix. 40; xxi. 77; Tac. Ann. iv. 72.

2124 Josephus Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4; cf. Grenfell and Hunt l.c.

2125 Josephus Bell. Jud. vii. 6, 6. The Jews seem, however, to have paid other personal taxes as well. See App. Syr. 50; Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. p. 202.

2126 Boadicea is made to say that, besides the land-tax, τῶν σωμάτων αὐτῶν δασμὸν ἐτήσιον φέρομεν (Dio Cass. lxii. 3).

2127 C. I. Gr. 2336.

2128 p. 321.

2129 Gaius ii. 21 “(provincialia praedia) quorum alia stipendiaria, alia tributaria vocamus. Stipendiaria sunt ea, quae in iis provinciis sunt quae propriae populi Romani esse intelliguntur. Tributaria sunt ea, quae in his provinciis sunt quae propriae Caesaris esse creduntur.”

2130 Tac. Ann. iv. 6 “frumento et pecuniae vectigales, cetera publicorum fructuum, societatibus equitum Romanorum agitabantur.” Cf. “societates vectigalium” (xiii. 50).

2131 ib. xiii. 50, 51.

2132 Dig. 39, 4.

2133 Plin. Paneg. 37.

2134 Procuratores and publicani are found concerned with the same taxes in the same province, e.g. procurator IIII. publicorum Africae (C.I.L. iii. 3925; Wilmanns 1242), conductor IIII. p. Afr. (C.I.L. vi. 8588).

2135 p. 417.

2136 Tabularium censuale (C.I.L. ii. 4248). For the officials connected with it, called tabularii, see Wilmanns Index p. 572.

2137 p. 323.

2138 Dio Cass. xlii. 20.

2139 ib. liii. 14.

2140 Tac. Ann. iii. 32. In A.D. 22 it was determined afresh that the Flamen Dialis might not leave Italy, “ita sors Asiae in eum qui consularium... proximus erat conlata” (ib. iii. 71).

2141 Dio Cass. liii. 13.

2142 ib.

2143 “Salarium proconsulare” (Tac. Agric. 42).

2144 Dio Cass. l.c.

2145 Tac. Hist. iv. 48.

2146 Tac. Ann. iii. 35 (on the outbreak of the war with Tacfarinas in A.D. 21) “Tiberius... M’. Lepidum et Junium Blaesum nominavit, ex quis pro consule Africae legeretur.”

2147 πάρεδροι (Dio Cass. liii. 14).

2148 Wilmanns Index p. 553.

2149 Gaius i. 6. On the changed position of these assistants of the proconsuls, see Bethmann-Hollweg Civilprozess ii. p. 102; Greenidge in Class. Rev. ix. p. 258.

2150 pp. 417, 385.

2151 Except when a colleague was occasionally appointed. See p. 360.

2152 Dig. 1, 21, 5.

2153 Dio Cassius (lii. 22) attributes this power ἐς μόνον τὸν ὑπατευκότα ἄρχοντα, i.e. to a legatus consularis.

2154 Dio Cass. liii. 13.

2155 Wilmanns Index p. 559.

2156 Tac. Ann. i. 80; vi. 39; iv. 18.

2157 Plut. Galba 4.

2158 Dio Cass. liii. 13; Tac. Ann. i. 80.

2159 Dio Cass. liii. 23

2160 Wilmanns 1267; procurator vices agens legati (ib. 1622 a). The title procurator et praeses was also applied to them. The procurator vice praesidis was an ordinary procurator holding an interim command for the regular governor of a province (Wilmanns Index p. 568).

2161 See p. 428; and cf. Tac. Hist. i. 11.

2162 Josephus Antiq. Jud. xviii. 4, 2.

2163 Leg. pro pr. exercitus Germanici superioris, legato pro pr. Germaniae super(ioris) et exercitus in ea tendentis (Wilmanns 867, 1186). Cf. Tac. Ann. vi. 30 “Gaetulicus ea tempestate superioris Germaniae legiones curabat.”

2164 Tac. Ann. i. 31.

2165 Tac. Hist. i. 11 “Aegyptum copiasque, quibus coerceretur, jam inde a divo Augusto equites Romani obtinent loco regum: ita visum expedire provinciam aditu difficilem, annonae fecundam... domi retinere.”

2166 Tac. Ann. ii. 59 “Augustus... vetitis nisi permissu ingredi senatoribus aut equitibus Romanis illustribus, seposuit Aegyptum, ne fame urgueret Italiam, quisquis eam provinciam claustraque terrae ac maris... insedisset.”

2167 Ulpian (in Dig. 1, 17, 1) speaks of his having an “imperium... ad similitudinem proconsulis.”

2168 Tac. Ann. xii. 60 “divus Augustus apud equestres, qui Aegypto praesiderent, lege agi decretaque eorum proinde haberi jusserat, ac si magistratus Romani constituissent.”

2169 Cic. ad Att. xiv. 12, 1; Tac. Ann. xiii. 32; Plin. H.N. iii. 30.

2170 See Mitteis Reichsrecht und Volksrecht.

2171 Cf. Plin. Epp. ad Traj. 17 (28), 37 (46), 39 (48), 47 (56), 54 (62), 111 (112).

2172 The lex Malacitana (the charter of a Latin colony in Spain founded between 81 and 84 A.D.) contains (c. li.) elaborate provisions for forcing candidates to come forward for office (Bruns Fontes). Trajan in a letter to Pliny speaks of those “qui inviti fiunt decuriones” (Plin. Ep. ad Traj. 113 [114]).

2173 See Marquardt Staatsverw. i. p. 190; Kuhn Verfassung des römischen Reichs i. p. 238. Cf. Plin. ad Traj. 112 (113) “ii quos indulgentia tua quibusdam civitatibus super legitimum numerum adicere permisit.” Contrast with this the principle of admission to local senates recognised by the lex Julia Munic. l. 85 “nei quis eorum quem... legito neve sublegito... nisi in demortuei damnateive locum.”

2174 Lex Julia Munic. l. 135 “II vir(atum) IIII vir(atum) aliamve quam potestatem, ex quo honore in eum ordinem perveniat.”

2175 Paulus in Dig. 50, 2, 7, 2 “Is, qui non sit decurio, duumviratu vel aliis honoribus fungi non potest, quia decurionum honoribus plebeii fungi prohibentur.”

2176 Dig. 50, 2, 1.

2177 ib. 50, 4, 1, 3 “Illud tenendum est generaliter personale quidem munus esse, quod corporibus labore cum sollicitudine animi ac vigilantia sollemniter extitit, patrimonii vero, in quo sumptus maxime postulatur.” But the two ideas were often inseparable. Hence the recognition of mixta munera by Arcadius (50, 4, 18). For a complete enumeration of munera see Kuhn Verfassung i. pp. 35 ff.

2178 Dig. 50, 4, 1, 2; 50, 4, 18, 8, 16 and 26.

2179 ib. 50, 4, 1, 1.

2180 That coercion was sometimes employed is shown by Tacitus Ann. iv. 36 “objecta publice Cyzicenis incuria caerimoniarum divi Augusti, additis violentiae criminibus adversum cives Romanos. Et amisere libertatem.”

2181 Cf. Plin. Paneg. 80 “velocissimi sideris more omnia invisere, omnia audire, et undecumque invocatum statim, velut numen, adesse et adsistere. Talia esse crediderim quae ipse mundi parens temperat nutu... tantum caelo vacat, postquam te dedit, qui erga omne hominum genus vice sua fungereris.” Boissier (La Religion Romaine i. pp. 206, 207) quotes a very similar passage from Bossuet, which concludes “qu’il faut obéir aux princes comme à la justice même; ils sont des dieux et participent en quelque façon à l’indépendance divine.”

2182 Dio Cass. li. 22.

2183 ib. liv. 25.

2184 Joseph. Antiq. xv. 10, 3.

2185 Suet. Aug. 52 “templa, quamvis sciret etiam proconsulibus decerni solere, in nulla tamen provincia nisi communi suo Romaeque nomine recepit.”

2186 Eckhel Doctrina Numorum ii. 466.

2187 Dio Cass. liv. 32; Rhys Hibbert Lectures pp. 409, 421, 424.

2188 Tac. Ann. i. 57.

2189 Egger Examen critique des historiens du règne d’Auguste App. ii. pp. 360-375.

2190 Mourlot Histoire de l’Augustalité dans l’Empire Romain pp. 29-33.

2191 Tac. Ann. i. 73.

2192 Thus in 15 A.D. a temple was erected at Tarraco (Tac. Ann. i. 78).

2193 p. 363.

2194 Suet. Vesp. 23 “Prima quoque morbi accessione, ‘Vae,’ inquit, ‘puto, Deus fio.’”

2195 Vita Marci 18.

2196 Tac. Ann. i. 54.

2197 See the inscription of Narbonne in Rushforth Latin Historical Inscriptions n. 35. In this case the Flaminica was the wife of the Flamen, as at Rome; but this was usually not the case in the municipal towns. See Marquardt Staatsverw. i. p. 174.

2198 Mommsen Staatsr. iii p. 455.

2199 This was the usual type, but there were local variations, and the relation of sevir to Augustalis was not always the same. In Cisalpine Gaul we have seviri et Augustales, where the ex-sevir retains his title. In southern Italy Augustalis is used for sevir. See Mourlot op. cit. pp. 69-72; Rushforth op. cit. p. 64.

2200 For a “templum et monumentum” in honour of the governor see Cic. ad Q. fr. 1, 1, 9, 26. A temple to Roma was erected by Smyrna as early as 195 B.C. (Tac. Ann. iv. 56).

2201 Tac. Ann. xiv. 31 “templum divo Claudio constitutum quasi arx aeternae dominationis aspiciebatur.”

2202 Imperial rescripts to concilia or κοινά are frequent See Dig. 47, 14, 1; 49, 1, 1; 48, 6, 5, 1. Cf. 1, 16, 4, 5.

2203 Plin. Ep. iii. 4, 2. Where, as in this passage, the legati of a province are represented as making a complaint, they doubtless represent the concilium. In A.D. 62 a senatus consultum was passed “ne quis ad concilium sociorum referret agendas apud senatum pro praetoribus prove consulibus grates” (Tac. Ann. xv. 22).

2204 Cod. 5, 27, 1 (A.D. 336).