Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (2)

[23] Mantua, till late an Etruscan city, had three tribes; Serv. _in Aen._ x. 202. In this connection it is significant that Volnius, an Etruscan poet, declared the primitive tribal names to be Etruscan; Varro, _L. L._ v. 55. The information suggests the possibility that some Etruscan cities had these same tribes; cf. Fest. 285. 25; _CIL._ ix. 4204 (locality unknown). In fact these names can be ultimately traced to Etruscan gentilicia; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218, 581. The triplet champions of Alba point to a division of this community into three tribes; Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 386; Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 502. The story that T. Tatius was killed at Lavinium indicates the existence of a tomb of the hero in that place—a clear sign of a tribe of Tities there; Livy i. 14. 2; Dion. Hal. ii. 52; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 152. A trace of Ramnes is found at Ardea; Serv. _in Aen._ ix. 358. There were Ramnennii in Ostia (_CIL._ xiv. 1542) and Ramnii in Capua; ibid. x. 3772; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218. The existence of a tribe of Luceres in Ardea is vouched for by Lucerus, its eponymous hero, king of that city; Fest. ep. 119; Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 279. The word in various forms occurs in certain Etruscan towns; Schulze, ibid. 182. These facts make it probable that some at least of the Latin as well as Etruscan cities had the same three tribes.

[24] The Etruscans had twelve cities in each of their three districts; Strabo v. 4. 3; Livy v. 33. Each city had three consecrated gates and three temples to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva; Serv. _in Aen._ i. 422. The Umbrians had three hundred cities in the Po valley, destroyed by the Etruscans; Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 14. 113. The Bruttians were organized in a confederation of twelve cities; Livy xxv. 1. 2. The Iapygians were divided into three branches (Polyb. iii. 88. 4), each of which comprised twelve smaller groups; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 9 f.; Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 245 ff., 252 f. The tripartite division also existed in many pagi which continued to historical time; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 83.

[25] These facts are too well known to need illustration; cf. Nissen, _Templum_, 144; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 1 ff.

[26] Varro, _L. L._ v. 55. Tribus = tri-bu-s: bu- is related to φυ- “to grow,” Skt. bhū-; tribus, corresponding to φυ-λή, would then signify “three-branch;” Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 163; Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ i. 111, 217; ii. 441; Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 69; _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 636; Bloch, ibid. 9. Schlossman, in _Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40, connecting tribus with tres, interprets it not as a third but as an indefinite part, cf. entzweien with the meaning to divide in several parts. Schrader, _Reallex._ 801, is doubtful as to the etymology; cf. Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 636. The connection of the word with tres is denied by Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 96; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 8, n. 5. Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1906. 204, prefers to connect it with Celt *trebo- (Old Irish treb), “house,” Goth. thaúrp, “village.” Oscan trebo- also means “house.”

[27] The existence of four Ionic tribes in all Ionic cities cannot be maintained; cf. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, in _Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad._ 1906. 71.

[28] The tribus Sapinia was the territory of the Sapinian community (Livy xxxi. 2. 6; xxxiii. 37. 1), just as the trifu Tarinate was the territory of the community (tuta, tota, Osc. touto; _Tab. Bant._ 2) Tadinum; _Tab. Iguv._ vi. b. 54; cf. iii. 24; Buck, _Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian_, 278 f., 298; Bücheler, _Umbrica_, see index, s. Tref, Trefiper; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 87.

[29] Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1906. 207.

[30] Livy i. 55. 3 f.; _CIL._ ix. 1618, 5565; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 8 ff.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 80.

[31] Dion. Hal. iv. 15; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 9-15. Doubtless oppidum applied primarily to the enclosing wall, thence to the space enclosed; Caes. _B. G._ v. 21; Varro, _L. L._ v. 153. From the beginning it must have been the chief or central settlement of the pagus, though the organization was not urban but territorial-tribal; cf. Pöhlmann, _Anfänge Roms_, 40 ff.

[32] Livy ix. 41. 6; x. 18. 8; _CIL._ i. 199; Isid. _Etym._ xv. 2. 11: “Vici et castella et pagi sunt quae nulla dignitate civitatis ornantur, sed vulgari hominum conventu incoluntur et propter parvitatem sui maioribus civitatibus attribuuntur;” Fest. ep. 72; Nissen, ibid. 11.

[33] Thus the three tribes of Cyrene were made up each of a nationality or group of nationalities (Hdt. iv. 161), and the ten tribes of Thurii were named after the nationalities of which they were respectively composed; Diod. xii. 11. 3.

[34] The Romans founded their colonies according to Etruscan rites, and they believed their city to have been established in the same way; Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Cato, in Serv. _in Aen._ v. 755; Fest. 237. 18; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 88. The word Roma is now declared to be Etruscan; Schultze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 579 ff.; Schmidt, Karl Fr. W., in _Berl. Philol. Woch._ 1906. 1656.

[35] Richter, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 30 ff., still believes that the earliest settlement was on the Palatine. His view is controverted by Degering, H., in _Berl. Philol. Woch._ xxiii (1903). 1645 f., who prefers the Quirinal; cf. also Carter, J. B., in _Am. Journ. of Archaeol._ xii (1908). 172-83.

[36] Cf. Richter, ibid. 38; Meyer, E., in _Hermes_, xxx. 13.

[37] Cf. Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 504.

[38] Cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 55; Verrius Flaccus, in Gell. xviii. 7. 5. The idea of Isidorus, _Etym._ ix. 6. 7, is of course absurd.

[39] This subject will be considered in connection with the Servian tribes; p. 48 f.

[40] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2.

[41] P. 74.

[42] Like the Attic phylobasileis they continued through historical time to perform sacerdotal functions; Dion. Hal. ii. 64. 3; _Fast. Praen. Mar. 19_, in _CIL._ i². p. 234: “(Sali) faciunt in comitio saltu (adstantibus po)ntificibus et trib. celer;” Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 242.

[43] Verg. _Aen._ v. 553 ff.; Serv. _in Aen._ v. 560; Holzapfel, ibid. 243.

[44] P. 2, n. 6.

[45] Fest. 285. 25; cf. Serv. _in Aen._ x. 202.

[46] There were curiae in Lanuvium, an old Latin town; _CIL._ xiv. 2120. Juno Curis, Cur(r)itis, Quiritis, goddess of the curiae, was worshipped in Tibur (Serv. _in Aen._ i. 17), and in Falerii (Tertul. _Apol._ 24; _CIL._ xi. 3100, 3125, 3126; cf. Holzapfel, _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 247; Roscher, _Lex. d. griech. u. röm. Myth._ II. i. 596 f.). A connection between Cūris and cūria is not clear; Deecke, _Falisker_, 86.

[47] Aristotle, _Politics_, 1329, b 8, considers Italus, king of the Oenotrians, to have been author of the mess-associations (συσσίτια), adding that the institution was derived from the country of the Opici and the Chaonians. With the Opici he includes Latins as well as Ausonians; Dion. Hal. i. 72. 3. On the relation of these peoples to one another, see especially Pais, _Anc. Italy_, ch. i. Greek writers identify the curia with the phratry (Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 3 f.; Dio Cass. Frag. 4. 8), the ἑταιρεία, and the syssition (Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 3; Dio Cass. ibid.). Although the institutions designated by these four names show considerable variety of form and function, they are similar in general character and may have a common origin; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 514.

The myth which names the curiae after the Sabine women suggests that some of the curial names, and perhaps the curiae themselves, might be found among the Sabines. On Rapta and Titia however see p. 11, n. 7.

[48] Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Plut. _Rom._ 20; Fest. 174. 8; ep. 49; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ ii. 12; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 638; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2.

Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 47 f., entertains the peculiar idea that the curiae, invented to counteract the independent tendencies of the tribes, were not divisions of the tribes, the members of each curia being drawn from all three tribes. His view is contradicted by the sources and he admits that he cannot prove it.

St. Augustine, _Enarr. in Psalm._ 121. 7 (iv. 2. 1624 ed. Migne), and still later Paulus, the epitomator of Festus, 54, suppose that there were thirty-five curiae. Notwithstanding Hoffmann, _Patr. u. pleb. Cur._ 44 ff., the opinion of these late writers doubtless arose from an identification of the curiae with the tribes; cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1818.

[49] P. 11 f.

[50] The word is derived from *co-viria, “a dwelling together,” “an assembly,” by Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ ii. 373 f. (cf. Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 160; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 161), who is followed by Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 496, n. 8, 610, n. 4; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 96. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 5, 90 and notes, gives the word the meaning “an association of citizens,” deriving it from quiris (cf. _Abriss_, 11), which he connects with κῦρος, κῦριος, as did Lange in 1853 (_Kleine Schriften_, i. 147). Afterward—_Röm. Alt._ i. (1876) 91—Lange expressed some doubt as to this connection. But the fact that curia applies to the house not only of the curiales, but also of the senate and of the Salii, as well as to various other buildings, seems to indicate that the meaning “house” is primary for the Latin language if not ultimately original. Corssen, who accepts this meaning, derives cu- from sku-, “to cover,” “to protect” (_Ausspr._ i. 353 f.; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 1116), cf. Old High Germ. hū-t, hū-s, Eng. “house.” Although Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 90, n. 2, protests against this explanation, it is accepted by Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 511, Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 52, and others. Far less probable is a connection with cura, curare, assumed by most ancient writers; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 155; vi. 46; _Vit. pop. rom._ in Non. Marc. 57; Fest. ep. 49; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Isid. _Etym._ xv. 2. 28. These sources have misled Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 32, into fruitless speculation on the functions of the curia.

[51] Tac. _Ann._ xii. 24.

[52] Fest. 174. 6; Jordan, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, I. i. 165 f.; iii. 43 f.; Gilbert, _Gesch. u. Top. d. Stadt Rom_, i. 102 f.; 195 ff.; Richter, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 33, 340; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_, map opp. 58; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 99.

[53] P. 8, n. 5; Dion. Hal. ii. 50. 3; Fest. 254. 25; ep. 64; cf. Roscher, _Lex._ II. i. 596.

[54] Worshipped in the Fordicidia; Ovid, _Fast._ iv. 634; Lyd. _De Mens._ iv. 49; Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 159.

[55] On the curial worship, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 13; Fest. 254. 25; 317. 12; Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 1-3; 50. 3; 65. 4; Ovid, _Fast._ ii. 527 ff.; iv. 629 ff.; Plut. _Q. R._ 89; cf. Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 71-2, 302-6. On the stultorum feriae, see Wissowa, ibid. 142; Fowler, ibid. 304 ff.

[56] Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 1; Fest. 245. 28.

[57] Varro, _L. L._ v. 83; vi. 46; Dion. Hal. 64. 1; 65. 4; Fest. ep. 49, 62; Lyd. _De Mag._ i. 9.

[58] Dion. Hal. ii. 22. 1.

[59] _CIL._ vi. 1892; xiv. 296; Gell. xv. 27. 2; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31.

[60] Fest. ep. 64: “Curiales flamines curiarum sacerdotes.” For the flamen of the Curia Iovis of Simitthus, see _CIL._ viii. 14683; cf. 2596 and 11008. The statement of Festus, 154. 26, that there were but fifteen flamines must be modified. But there may have been fewer than thirty curial flamines; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 390. Of the two curial officials mentioned by Dionysius, ii. 21. 2, therefore, one was the curio and the other a lictor (Mommsen, ibid. 309, n. 5; Genz, _Patr. Rom._, 47) or a flamen (Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 242).

[61] Cf. Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 338, n. 3, 413, n. 2.

[62] Livy iii. 7. 7; xxvii. 8. 1; Fest. ep. 126. This official was probably instituted after the curiones had become mere priests; Genz, ibid. 48.

[63] P. 157. The comitium was a place of assembly adjoining the Forum.

[64] II. 7. 2 f.; 23. 3.

[65] Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 52, 65, following J. J. Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1874), 96-136, refuses to credit a military character to the curiae because it is mentioned by no other writer and because we can find no trace of it in historical time. His reasoning is not cogent. The curia may have lost its earlier military function, as did the phratry (_Il._ ii. 362 f.).

[66] That the antiquarians had some evidence as to the military character of the curiae is suggested by Fest. ep. 54: “Centuriata comitia item curiata dicebantur, quia populus Romanus per cetenas turmas divisus erat.”

[67] _Il._ ii. 362 f.

[68] Tac. _Germ._ 7. 3.

[69] Schrader, _Reallex._ 349 f.

[70] All adult male citizens had a right to attend this assembly, all who were physically qualified and of military age were liable to service when called to it; but probably on no occasion were those present in the assembly identical with the military levy of the year; cf. p. 203.

[71] P. 7.

[72] II. 7. 4. The curiales must have been neighbors in order to use a common drying oven; n. 8 below.

[73] Fest. 174. 12. The first is evidently named after the Forum, the second after the Velia; cf. Plut. _Rom._ 20, who states that many were named after places. Of the other five Velitia (Fest. ibid.), Titia (ibid. ep. 366), Faucia (Livy ix. 38. 15), and Acculeia (Varro, _L. L._ vi. 23) have gentile endings. We should not imagine these four to be named after gentes, which were of later origin; Botsford, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi. (1907). 685 ff. It would be safer to assume that they, like gentilicia, are derived from the names of persons real or imaginary. Rapta (Fest. 174. 12) and Titia possibly suggested to the ancients the derivation of the curial names from those of the captive Sabine women; cf. p. 8, n. 6.

[74] Dion. Hal. iv. 12. 2. This statement is confirmed by the nature of the Fornacalia, the chief festival of the curiae; it was celebrated in connection with the drying of the far in ovens; Pliny _N. H._ xviii. 2. 8; Fest. ep. 83, 93. Evidently the members of a curia were those who had a common drying oven; Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 142.

[75] Διῄρηνται δὲ καὶ εἰς δεκάδας αἰ φράτραι, πρὸς αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμὼν ἐκὰστην ἐκόσμει δεκάδα, δεκουρίων κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον, γλῶτταν προσαγομευόμενος.

[76] Polyb. vi. 25. 1; cf. 20. 9.

[77] _L. L._ v. 91.

[78] There is no need of assuming, with Bloch, _Origines du sénat Romain_, 102-5, that the decuriae mentioned by Dionysius are “purely imaginary.”

[79] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 334 f.; Eng. 163; cf. also Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 612 f. The antiquated view is still held by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 96, and by Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1504. Though Ihne, _History of Rome_, i. 113, n. 3, believes that the curiae were composed of gentes, he is doubtful as to the number.

[80] “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, curiata comitia esse; cum ex censu et aetate, centuriata; cum ex regionibus et locis, tributa.”

[81] Mommsen, too, supposes that genera here means gentes but is used so as to include also the plebeian stirpes; nevertheless he knows that the voting in the curiate assembly was by heads rather than by gentes; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 9, n. 2; 90, n. 5.

[82] Livy i. 43. 10: “Viritim suffragium ... omnibus datum est” (i.e. in the curiate assembly). This statement of the lack of relation between the gens and the curia is repeated from _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi. 511 f.

[83] It is in the main a reproduction of my article on the subject in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi (1906). 498-526.

[84] P. 25 ff.

[85] _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; 12. 23: “Senatus, qui constabat ex optimatibus, quibus ipse rex tantum tribuisset, ut eos patres vellet nominari patriciosque eorum liberos.”

[86] In the expression “omnibus patriciis, omnibus antiquissimis civibus,” Cicero (_Caec._ 35. 101) intends no more than to include the patricians among the oldest citizens, whom he is contrasting with the newly-admitted municipes. Only the most superficial examination of the passage (cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 7) could make “omnibus patriciis” equivalent to “omnibus antiquissimis civibus.”

[87] I. 8. 7.

[88] Ibid.: “Consilium deinde viribus parat: centum creat senatores.”

[89] Livy iv. 4. 7: “Nobilitatem istam vestram quam plerique oriundi ex Albanis et Sabinis non genere nec sanguine sed per coöptationem in patres habetis, aut ab regibus lecti aut post reges exactos iussu populi.”

[90] Livy i. 34. 6: “In novo populo, ubi omnis repentina atque ex virtute nobilitas sit.”

[91] II. 8. 1-3. In 12. 1, he shifts his point of view: Romulus chose the hundred original senators from the patricians.

[92] _Rom._ 13; cf. _Q. R._ 58.

[93] Cf. further Ovid, _Fast._ iii. 127; Vell. i. 8. 6; Fest. 246. 23; 339. 11.

[94] There is no inconsistency, however, in the fact that some noble gentes claimed descent from Aeneas or from deities (cf. Seeley, _Livy_, 57) or from Alban or Sabine ancestors (cf. Livy i. 30. 2; iv. 4. 7; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3; iii. 29. 7); they were nobles in their original homes before the founding of Rome, but became patricians by an act only of the Roman government.

Although after the creation of the first hundred patres, the ancients do not distinctly state that each newly-made senator was the founder of a new patrician family, they do represent the enlargement of the senate and of the patriciate as going hand in hand; in this way they continue to make the patriciate depend upon membership in the senate; cf. Livy i. 30. 2; 35. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 47. 1; iii. 67. 1; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 75.

[95] _Rep._, ii. 8. 14; cf. (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ ii. 11.

[96] _Cat._ 6. 6; cf. Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 10: “Nam sicut patres suos, ita illi rem publicam habebant” (or “alebant”).

[97] I. 8. 7.

[98] 339. 11.

[99] 247.

[100] ii. 8. 1.

[101] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 227.

[102] From the root pa, to protect, preserve, conservare; Pott, _Wurzel-Wörterb. d. Indog. Spr._ (2d ed.), 221; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 424; Schrader, _Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch._ 538; Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1507.

[103] _Dig._ 1. 16. 195. 2: “Pater familias appellatur qui in domo dominium habet.” In like manner patronus is protector of clients, pater patriae protector of his country; Pott, ibid. 227.

[104] Ulpian, in _Dig._, ibid.: “Pater autem familias recte hoc nomine appellatur, quamvis filium non habeat; non enim solam personam eius, sed et ius demonstramus: denique et pupillum patrem familias appellamus.”

[105] Livy i. 32. 10 (from a fetial formula).

[106] Rubino, _Röm. Verfassung und Geschichte_, 186; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 228, n. 16.

[107] In the same way reges is made to include the whole family of the rex; Livy i. 39. 2. For other illustrations of the same principle, see Rubino, ibid. 188, n. 1.

[108] The Twelve Tables seem to apply it to all patricians, not to senators alone: Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 37. 63: “Conubia ... ut ne plebei cum patribus essent;” Livy iv. 4. 5: “Ne conubium patribus cum plebe esset.” These passages, however, do not afford absolute proof; for Gaius, bk. vi _ad legem Duodecim Tabularum_ (_Dig._ 1. 16. 238: “Plebs est ceteri cives sine senatoribus”), probably commenting on the very law quoted by Cicero and Livy, seems to understand patres as senators; cf. the prohibition of intermarriage between senators and their agnatic descendants on the one hand and freed persons on the other; _Dig._ xxii. 2. 44; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 130; Vassis, in _Athena_, xii. 57 f. In some instances, however, as in the expression “a patribus transire ad plebem” (Vell. ii. 45. 1) patres is certainly equivalent to patricii.

[109] Cf. gentilicius from gentilis; tribunicius from tribunus, Pott, ibid. 227. Patricius is an adjective signifying paternal, ancestral, belonging to parents or progenitors; Corssen, ibid. i. 53.

[110] In his work on the Comitia, quoted by Fest. 241. 21: “Patricios eos appellari solitos qui nunc ingenui vocentur.”

[111] X. 8. 10: “En umquam fando audistis patricios primo esse factos non de caelo demissos, sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est nihil ultra quam ingenuos...?”

[112] VI. 40. 6. The speaker contrasts ingenui with patricii.

[113] Plut. _Q. R._ 58: Those who were first constituted senators by Romulus were called patres and patricii as being men of good birth, who could show their pedigree. In its adjectival and adverbial uses ingenuus connotes not the quality of free birth, but respectability, nobility. The original meaning is “born within,” hence indigenous, native; cf. Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_, s. v. In this sense it could not apply to the patricians, who generally claimed a foreign origin. But native is superior to alien; doubtless in this secondary meaning of excellence it attached to the nobility, the close relation of the word to gens (family, lineage) attracting it in that direction. Afterward it was so democratized as to include all the freeborn. With this meaning we find it as early as Plautus, _Mil._ 784, 961. According to Dionysius, ii. 8. 3, the identification of patricii with ingenui in its sense of freeborn was accepted not by the most trustworthy historians, but by certain malicious slanderers: “Some say they were called patricians because they alone could cite their fathers, the rest being fugitives and unable to cite free fathers.”

[114] P. 30.

[115] The word is probably derived from the same root as populus; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 368; cf. p. 1, n. 3 above.

[116] _Rep._ ii. 9. 16.

[117] ii. 9. 2.

[118] Notably among the Sabines, Livy ii. 16. 4; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3.

[119] Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; Dion. Hal. ii. 9. 2.

[120] Cf. the citations in Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 71, n. 1. Dionysius, ii. 63. 3, distinguished the two classes as early as the interregnum which followed Romulus.

[121] Dion. Hal. v. 40. 3; vi. 47. 1; vii. 19. 2; x. 43. As late as 134 Scipio called his clients to follow him to the Numantine war; Appian, _Iber._ 84.

[122] Livy iii. 58. 1.

[123] Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3.

[124] Livy ii. 56. 3; 64. 2; Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3; iv. 23. 6; ix. 41. 5.

[125] Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3 (it was not lawful for either patron or client to vote against the other). Marius, a client of Herennius, was elected to the praetorship; Plut. _Mar._ 5. A law declared that election to a curule office (according to Plutarch, or as Marius asserted to any office) freed a man and his family from clientage. Evidently this law was passed in or after 367 B.C. Mucius, a client of Ti. Gracchus, was elected to the plebeian tribunate; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 13. Cn. Flavius, who was the son of a freedman and probably therefore a client, was elected curule aedile for 304; Livy ix. 46. 1; Val. Max. ii. 5. 2.

[126] Gaius 1. 3: “Plebs autem a populo eo distat, quod populi appellatione universi cives significantur connumeratis etiam patriciis; plebis autem appellatione sine patriciis ceteri cives significantur.” Evidently Pomponius held the same view; _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 1-6; cf. Capito, in Gell. x. 20. 5; Fest. 233. 29; 330. 19; Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 5 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 4, n. 2.

[127] Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 12. 23; Livy i. 8. 7; Zon. vii. 9; Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 6.

[128] Illustrations of this common use are Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; 12. 23; Livy ii. 54. 3; iv. 51. 3; x. 13. 9; xxv. 2. 9; 3. 13; 3. 16; xxx. 27. 3; xxxiv. 54. 4; xxxvii. 58. 1; xliii. 8. 9. The Greeks always regard populus as the equivalent of δῆμος; cf. Plut. _Rom._ 13. Not only does the tribune in addressing the plebs call them populus Romanus (Sall. _Iug._ 31), but the consuls also apply the term to the same class (Livy xxv. 4. 4); and a statement of Cicero (_Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 17), which has the appearance of a legal definition, makes the people of the thirty-five tribes under a tribune the universus populus Romanus.

[129] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 172.

[130] Cic. _Fam._ x. 35; _Verr._ v. 14. 36; _Mur._ 1. 1; Livy xxix. 27. 2: Tac. _Ann._ 1. 8; Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 17. 28; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 169, n. 4.

[131] E.g. senatui populo plebique Romanae; Cicero, _Fam._ x. 35 (address).

[132] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 6, n. 4; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 84.

[133] For the division of the populus into tribes and curiae, see Cic. _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; Livy i. 13. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; App. _B. C._ iii. 94. The author of _Vir. Ill._ 2. 12, in supposing that the plebs alone were assigned to the tribes is certainly wrong; but his mistake is pardonable in view of the general agreement among our sources that the populus, πλῆθος, contained in the curiae were mainly plebeian.

[134] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 7. 13; 8. 14; 18. 33; Livy i. 13. 4; 13. 6; 28. 7; 30. 1; 33. 1-5; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 2 f.; 47. 1; 50. 4 f.; 55. 6; iii. 29. 7; 30. 3; 31. 3; 37. 4; 48. 2; iv. 22. 3.

[135] Cf. Dion. Hal. ii. 8. 4.

[136] Livy i. 17. 11; 35. 2; 43. 10; 46. 1; Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3; 14. 3; 60. 3; 62. 3; iv. 12. 3; 20. 2.

[137] Cf. _Lectures on the History of Rome_, i. 80, 83: “I beg you to mark this well ... that even ingenious and learned men like Livy and Dionysius did not comprehend the ancient institutions and yet have preserved a number of expressions from their predecessors from which we, with much labor and difficulty, may elicit the truth.”

[138] The school of Mommsen, which still clings to Niebuhr’s theory of an exclusively patrician populus, has abandoned the attempt to support it by a reconstruction of lost sources.

[139] The late regal period may have left a few documents which, if used by the annalists, might have thrown light on the condition of that time. It has not yet been determined whether the inscription recently found in the Roman Forum belongs to the late regal or to the early republican period.

[140] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 69, grants to the ancients far more knowledge of their own history, but claims a “wider horizon.”

[141] Niebuhr treats Dionysius with great respect; cf. _Lectures_, i. liv: “The longer and more carefully the work is examined, the more must true criticism acknowledge that it is deserving of all respect, and the more it will be found a storehouse of most solid information.” Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 621 f., and 626 f., assumes that Dionysius is alone responsible for the view that the plebeians were in the primitive tribes and the curiae. A glance at the citations given above, p. 24 f., will show, however, that Cicero and Livy shared this view.

[142] Cf. Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. 1. 82. The usual opinion (cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 8 f.) is that the sources of Dionysius are later and less trustworthy than those of Livy, but Pais asserts that on the whole the two authors drew from the same sources.

[143] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 339, Eng. 165.

[144] _Lectures on Roman History_, i. 81, 100 f.

[145] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 332, Eng. 158.

[146] In ibid. i. 330, Eng. 162, he excludes the “freed clients” from the gens; in 339, Eng. 165, he states that the nobles alone _had_ the gens, the clients belonged to it in a dependent capacity.

[147] Cf. the edition of Sandys, 252; Rose, _Aristotelis Frag._ 385.

[148] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 326, Eng. 160. Genz, _Patricisches Rom_, 6, has the same idea.

[149] _Il._ ii. 362 f.; ix. 63 f.

[150] _CIA._ i. 61; cf. Dem. xliii. 57.

[151] This is illustrated, for instance, by a law quoted by Philochorus, in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ i. 399. 94: Τοὺς δὲ φράτορας ἐπάναγκες δέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς ὁμογάλακτας, οὺς γεννῆτας καλοῦμεν (“The members of the phratry must receive the orgeones as well as the homogalaktes, whom we call gennetae”). This fact is now too well known to need further proof; cf. Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens_, 148 f.; Thumser, _Griechische Staatsaltertümer_, 324 f.

[152] P. 11.

[153] _Top._ 6. 29: “Gentiles sunt inter se, qui eodem nomine sunt. Non est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum maiorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non sunt deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam pontificem ad hanc definitionem addidisse;” cf. Cincius, in Fest. ep. 94.

As the word itself indicates, gentiles are members of a gens, and no other members are known to the sources. If it were true, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 66, supposes, that there were dependent members not termed gentiles, a name would have been given this dependent relation, or the jurists would have defined it, or some ancient writer would at least have mentioned it. The attempt of Kübler, _Wochenschr. f. kl. Philol._ xxv (1908). 541 f., to prove, on the authority of Cicero, _Tim._ 11. 41, that clients were termed quasi gentiles is simply absurd. The passage does not even hint at clientage; and the quasi gentiles of the immortal gods, according to this passage, were related to the gods by birth, as the word gignatis proves. From this point of view men might be called the children of the gods; but because the divine element in both men and gods comes alike from the Creator, it is possible to place them more nearly on a level with one another—in a relation like that of gentiles. Kübler’s other remarks on the gens, 539-43, are equally unconvincing.

[154] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 32; Livy iv. 16. 3; Suet. _Aug._ 2. Whether these two gentes had ever been patrician does not affect the question at issue.

[155] Val. Max. ix. 2. 1.

[156] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 15. 32, mentions sacrificia gentilicia of the Calpurnia.

[157] Suet. _Ner._ 1.

[158] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 35.

[159] Fest. ep. 23.

[160] Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 10.

[161] Unless Sp. Cassius, consul 502, 493, 486 B.C. and author of the first agrarian rogation, is a myth; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 94.

[162] Cf. Cic. _Orat._ i. 39. 176. The patrician and plebeian branches are sometimes spoken of as distinct gentes; Suet. _Tib._ 1.

[163] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 113 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, ibid. 359.

[164] Cic. _Phil._ i. 13. 32; Gell. ix. 2. 11; Fest. ep. 125.

[165] Mommsen, ibid. 116.

[166] L. Poplilius Volscus, patrician; Livy v. 12. 10. Q. Publilius Philo, plebeian; Livy viii. 15. 9.

[167] This patrician gens included an Aebutius who was tribune of the plebs (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 8. 21) and several other plebeians; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 442 f.

[168] Mommsen, ibid. 117 ff.

[169] V. 14. 4: “Comitiis auspicato quae fierent indignum dis visum honores volgari discriminaque gentium confundi.”

[170] _Dom._ 13. 35: “Ita perturbatis sacris, contaminatis gentibus, et quam deseruisti et quam poluisti.”

[171] Sall. _Iug._ 95. 3; Livy iii. 27. 1; 33. 9; vi. 11. 2; Gell. x. 20. 5; cf. ix. 2. 11.

[172] _L. L._ viii. 4: “Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt agnationes ac gentilitates, sic in verbis.”

[173] In _Lib. Praen._ 3.

[174] It will suffice to quote Gaius iii. 17: “Si nullus agnatus sit, eadem lex XII Tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem vocat”; cf. Cic. _Verr._ i. 45. 115: “Lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat.” The Minucian gens was plebeian. Its right to the inheritance in question rested on this law of the Twelve Tables. For the gentile right of tutelage, see the so-called Laudatio Turiae, 15, 22 (_CIL._ vi. 1527; Girard, _Textes_, 778).

[175] Cf. p. 20; see also Auct. Inc. _De Diff._ 527 (Keil): “Gens seriem maiorum explicat.”

[176] E.g. “Family will take a person everywhere”; C. D. Warner, quoted by the _Standard Dictionary_, s. v.

[177] Mommsen’s theory of the gens—a development from Niebuhr’s—is criticized in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 668 f. The distinction between patrician gentes and plebeian stirpes, on which he especially relies, is there shown to be groundless.

[178] Gell. xv. 27. 2.

[179] II. 8. 4.

[180] _Sén. Rom._ ii. 34 f.

[181] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 233 f.; 247 f.; cf. Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 70. On the patrum auctoritas, see p. 235 below.

[182] E.g. _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 359; iii. 168; Eng. ii. 147; iii. 73: “the common council of the patres—the curies.”

[183] _Cic._ Frag. A. vii. 48; Livy ii. 56, especially § 3; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; ix. 41.

[184] Livy xxvii. 8. 3.

[185] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 148.

[186] _Cic. Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31.

[187] _Cic. Dom._ 14. 38; Livy vi. 41. 10.

[188] P. 185 below; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 147 f.

[189] In the face of all evidence to the contrary two or three scholars persist in maintaining essentially the opinion of Niebuhr that through the republic the curiae continued patrician. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 98 f., 108, 1014, n. 2, imagines that from the beginning the clients belonged to the curia in its administrative capacity, shared in its sacra, attended its meetings, but did not vote. The plebs, however, were not even passive members. His reasons do not deserve mention. Vassis, Ῥωμαών Πολιτεία ἡ βασιλευομένη κα ἡ ἐλευθέρα (Athens, 1903), also excludes the commons from the curiate assembly throughout its history. The fancies of Hoffmann, _Patr. und pleb. Curien_, need not detain us.

[190] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 623 f.

[191] Cf. p. 152, 172.

[192] Cf. p. 170, 172.

[193] P. 173 ff., 345.

[194] P. 75, 96, 209.

[195] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 625, n. 3.

[196] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 140 f.

[197] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 269; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 92. Clason, _Krit. Erört. über den röm. Staat_, 12, supposes they were admitted by the Ogulnian law, in 300. Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 41, 62, places their admission not earlier than the institution of the Servian tribes and not later than the decemvirate, greatly preferring the latter date.

[198] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 13; _Abriss_, 5.

[199] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 54 f.

[200] Ibid. iii. 91.

[201] Ibid. iii. 63.

[202] Ibid. iii. 67 f.

[203] Ibid. i. 91, n. 1; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 261 f. Reference here is only to the auspicia publica of the magistrates. It is established below (p. 101 ff.) that from the beginning the plebeians had a right to private auspices.

[204] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 77.

[205] Cf. Töpffer, _Attische Genealogie_, 177.

[206] _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 93.

[207] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 109.

[208] P. 69.

[209] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 106 f. and n. 80.

[210] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 13.

[211] _Rep._ ii. 20. 35: “Duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum et antiquos patres maiorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat, a se adscitos minorum.” The connection shows that Cicero is speaking of two classes of senators distinguished by the rank of the gentes from which they respectively came.

[212] P. 28 f.

[213] P. 11 f.

[214] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 14.

[215] P. 17 f. and notes.

[216] P. 20 f.

[217] For the sources, see Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 459 f.; Stengel, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1885.

[218] _Andeutungen über den urspr. Religionsunterschied der röm. Patr. und Pleb._ 1 f.

[219] Cf. Livy xxxv. 51. 2; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 761. Schwegler, ibid. 464-8, who insists on this fact, shows clearly that no historical value attaches to the myth; see also Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 218, n. 1.

[220] Pais, ibid. 217 ff. Dionysius, i. 4. 2 f., expressly states that this story is a Greek falsification.

[221] See the examples collected by Pais, ibid.

[222] Cf. Livy i. 8. 5.

[223] Cf. ibid. ii. 1. 4.

[224] Dionysius, i. 85. 3, states that the colonists from Alba were mostly plebeians, but that a considerable number of the highest nobility accompanied them. It is a significant fact, however, that no patrician family is known to have derived its origin from this earliest colony. Those who claimed Alban and Trojan descent preferred to connect their admission to citizenship with the Roman annexation of Alba Longa, e.g. the Tullii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and Cloelii; Livy i. 30. 2. On the Alban and Sabine origin of most of the nobility, Livy iv. 4. 7. In so far as the local cognomina are indicative of origin (cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 11 ff.), they point to a diversity of foreign connections. The Tarquinian gens, which in later time was thought of as patrician, came from Etruria, ultimately from Greece. The Aemilii were Greek (Plut. _Aem._ 1; Fest. ep. 23) or Sabine (Plut. _Num._ 8) or Oscan (Fest. 130. 1).

[225] Cf. p. 31 above. For details, see _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii. 679 ff.

[226] That Caere was the first community to receive the civitas sine suffragio may justly be inferred from the expression “Caerite franchise,” which designates this kind of limited citizenship (cf. p. 62). The general fact stated in (6) is further confirmed by the law which granted the right of extending the pomerium to those magistrates only who had acquired new territory for Rome; Gell. xiii. 14. 3; Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 23.

[227] Since the publication of the _Staatsrecht_, writers have made slight modifications or extensions of the conventional theory. Greenidge, in Poste, _Gaii Institutiones_, xix, suggests that the dual forms in Roman law may have as their basis a racial distinction between the patricians and the plebeians. A serious objection to this kind of reasoning is that if we are on the lookout for dualities, trinities, and the like, we shall find them in abundance everywhere. All sorts of theories as to the racial connections of the two social classes have been proposed. Zöller, _Latium und Rom_, 23 ff., supposes that the patricians were Sabine and the plebeians Latin. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, i. 257, holds that the plebeians were Ligurians, whereas Conway, in _Riv. di Stor. ant._ vii (1903). 422-4, prefers to consider them Volscians. These notions are equally worthless. Undoubtedly race is a potent factor in history; but Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_ (1883), has killed the theory by overwork.

Among the writers who have rejected the conventional view are Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ (1880); Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ (1882); Pelham, _Outlines of Roman History_ (1893; reprint of his article on “Roman History,” in the _Encycl. Brit._); Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii (1893); Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i (1902). 254.

[228] Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 80; Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, ii. 408; Hellwald, _Culturgeschichte_, i. 175; Barth, _Philosophie der Geschichte_, i. 382. It would be practicable by the citation of authorities to prove the existence of such distinctions in nearly every community, present or past, whose social condition is sufficiently known.

[229] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 124; Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 233 f.; Fairbanks, _Introduction to Sociology_, 158; Grave, _L’individu et la société_, 23; Funck-Brentano, _Civilisation et ses lois_, 71 f.; Caspari, _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, i. 125 f.; Hellwald, ibid. i. 175, 177; Ross, _Social Control_, 80.

[230] Giddings, ibid. 262; Ammon, _Gesellschaftsordnung_, 133 f.; Cherbuliez, _Simples notions de l’ordre social à l’usage de tout le monde_, 38 f.; Dechesne, _Conception du droit_, 36; Grave, ibid. 23 f.; Caspari, ibid. i. 133 f.; Harris, _Civilization considered as a Science_, 211; Lepelletier de la Sarthe, _Système sociale_, i. 329; Mismer, _Principes sociologiques_, 63 f.; Rossbach, _Geschichte der Gesellschaft_, i. 13 f.; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 385; Hittell, _Mankind in Ancient Times_, i. 228 f.; Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, 130; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 139; Post, A. H., _Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtslebens_, 150 f.

[231] Giddings, ibid. 262; cf. Arnd, _Die materiellen Grundlagen ... der europäischen Kultur_, 444 f.; Frohschammer, _Organisation und Kultur der mensch. Gesellschaft_, 84 f.; Bastian, _Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde_, 20 f.; Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, ii. 333, 335.

[232] Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_; Spencer, ibid. ii. 338 f.; cf. for the Malays, Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, 499.

[233] Cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 183; Spencer, ibid. ii. 334 f.; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 72.

[234] Aristotle, _Politics_, 1294, a 21; Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 293 f.; Jenks, _History of Politics_, 30 f.; Grave, _L’individu et la société_, 25; Combes de Lestrade, _Éléments de sociologie_, 185; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 148, 385; Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, see index, s. Classes; Hittell, _Mankind in Ancient Times_, i. 228; Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, 134; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 60 f.; Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 114, 201; Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 149.

[235] Grave, ibid. 30 f.; Combes de Lestrade, ibid. 184 f.; Funck-Brentano, _Civilisation et ses lois_, 68 f.; Spencer, ibid. ii. 348 f.; Schurtz, ibid. 150 f.; Featherman, ibid. ii. 128, 197 f., 311; Letourneau, _Sociology_, 480 f.; Bastian, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, 8 f.

[236] Cf. Schurtz, ibid. 148; Farrand, ibid. 114, 129, 141. For the Malays, see Skeat and Blagden, ibid. 494 ff.

[237] Maine, ibid. 132.

[238] Maine, ibid.; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 63 f., 93 f.

[239] Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 134 f.

[240] As in Wales; Seebohm, ibid. 139; cf. the Inca grandees, who all claimed descent from the founder of the monarchy; Letourneau, _Sociology_, 479.

[241] Tac. _Germ._ 13. 3: “Insignis nobilitas aut magna patrum merita principis dignationem etiam adulescentulis adsignant.” It is clear that the family of a youth who receives an office or dignity because of the merits of his ancestors is coming near to nobility.

[242] A certain man of illegitimate birth, hence of inferior social standing, through martial skill and daring becomes a leader of warriors, acquires wealth, marries the daughter of a notable, “waxes dread and honorable” among his countrymen, who elect him to a high military command by the side of their hereditary chief; the taint of his birth is forgotten; Od., xiv. 199; cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 123.

[243] Livy viii. 39. 12; x. 38. 7: “Nobilissimum quemque genere factisque,” with reference to the Samnites; some were nobles by birth, others by prowess; cf. 46. 4: “Nobiles aliquot captivi clari suis patrumque factis ducti;” some of these captives were noble through their own prowess, others through that of their ancestors. The Samnite nobility was in the formative stage like that of the German nobility in the time of Tacitus. The Yakonan of California are in this condition; Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 129.

[244] Maine, _Early Hist. of Inst._ 135 f.; Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 294 f.

[245] Cf. Giddings, ibid.

[246] Maine, ibid. 136.

[247] Laws of Athelstan.

[248] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 296; cf. Maine, _Early Hist. of Inst._ 141. Thus in the time of Tacitus the German youth of common blood who entered the comitatus of a chief had a fair opportunity to become noble; _Germ._ 13. 3-5; 14. 1 f. Among the Danes, too, some noble families were once peasant; Maine, ibid. 135.

[249] Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 235 f., 252; Maine, ibid. 138; Ammon, _Gesellschaftsordnung_, 135; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 148 f.; Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 131, 155; Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 237.

[250] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 315; cf. Combes de Lestrade, _Éléments de sociologie_, 185; Rossbach, _Gesch. der Gesellsch._ i. 14. A nobility formed purely by conquest, if such indeed exists, must be rare, and can hardly be lasting; Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kul._ 149.

[251] Giddings, ibid. 315; cf. Grave, _L’individu et la société_, 32.

[252] Strabo viii. 4. 4, p. 364; Aristotle, _Politics_, 1270, a 34.

[253] Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kult._ 165.

[254] Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 145.

[255] Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 142; Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, iv. 11. There were nobles both in England and in Normandy before the conquest. After the battle of Senlac most of the English nobles submitted to William, and were allowed to redeem their lands; Freeman, ibid. iv. 13 f., 36 f. It was only in punishment for later rebellion that they lost their holdings, and some English thanes were never displaced; cf. Powell, in Traill, _Social England_, i. 240.

[256] The most violent and oppressive Germanic invaders are supposed to have been the Vandals, and yet they doubtless retained for the administration of the government the trained Roman officials; Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, ii. 263. The Ostrogoths were more liberal in their treatment of the Romans (ibid. iv. 250, 271, 282), and the Franks still more liberal; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch._ ii. 202.

[257] Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, ii. 354; Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 238, n. 1, 239; Hellwald, _Kulturgesch._ i. 175 f.; Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kult._ 149; cf. Demolins, _Comment la route crée le type social_.

[258] P. 16.

[259] P. 37, n. 4.

[260] P. 31; _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 679 ff.

[261] The idea that the primitive community is essentially illiberal with its membership is erroneous. For the mingling of conquerors and conquered, see p. 42 f. and notes. On the ethnic heterogeneity of states in general, see Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_, 181. The laws of Solon granted citizenship to alien residents who were in perpetual exile from their own country, or who had settled with their families in Attica with a view to plying their trade; Plut. _Sol._ 24. Under his laws, too, a valid marriage could be contracted between an Athenian and an alien; Hdt. vi. 130. The Athenians, like the Romans, believed that many of their noble families were of foreign origin. In Ireland “strangers settling in the district, conducting themselves well, and intermarrying with the clan, were after a few generations indistinguishable from it;” Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 103. Nearly the same rule holds for South Wales; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 131. To the Germans before their settlement within the empire the idea of an exclusive community must have been foreign; for as yet the individual was but loosely attached to his tribe. Persons of many tribes were united in the comitatus of a chief; the two halves of a tribe often fought on opposite sides in war; a tribe often chose its chief from another tribe. Intermarriage among the tribes was common, even between Germans and Sarmatians. A single tribe often split into several independent tribes, and conversely new tribes were formed of the most diverse elements; Seeck, _Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt_, i. 209 with notes; Kaufmann, _Die Germanen der Urzeit_, 136 f. Under these circumstances the primitive German community cannot be described as exclusive. In like manner our sources unanimously testify to the liberality of early Rome in granting the citizenship to strangers. It is no longer possible to oppose to this authority the objection that such generosity does not accord with primitive conditions.

[262] Gaius i. 120 f.

[263] Mommsen’s theory of gentile ownership, adopted by Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 790, depends upon his view that the gens was as old as the state; in his opinion it was originally stronger but gradually weakened, whereas the state went through the opposite process; _Röm Staatsr._ iii. 25. But if, as I have elsewhere pointed out (_Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii. 685 ff.), the gens developed from the family during the decline of the kingship and the rise of aristocracy, the theory of a primitive gentile ownership falls to the ground.

[264] We are not to think of the state as granting a certain district to the tribe, which then parcelled it among the component curiae, etc., for this reason that the tribes and the curiae did not themselves possess common lands. Rather the state divided a given district among the families which were already included, or which it wished to include, in a given curia or tribe. In this way the later tribes were formed in historical time, and in this way the Claudian tribe was originally constituted; Livy ii. 16. 4 f.; cf. Plut. _Popl._ 21. When therefore Dionysius, ii. 7. 4, states that Romulus divided the land into thirty lots and assigned a lot to each of the thirty curiae, he means, if he correctly understands the matter, that land was assigned not to the curia as a whole but to the families which composed the curia, unless indeed the curiae once had a right of landholding not possessed in historical time.

[265] Christ, W., in _Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906. 207.

[266] In the Twelve Tables heredium has the meaning of hortus, “garden;” Pliny, _N. H._ xix. 4. 50. It was a praedium parvulum consisting of two iugera; Fest. ep. 99.

[267] In the earliest colonies this was the amount assigned to each man; cf. Livy iv. 47. 6 (Labici); vi. 16. 6 (Satricum); viii. 21. 11 (Tarracina, founded 329). The first two are not so distinctly historical as the third; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 24, n. 1. Supposing Rome to have been a colony, the historians infer that Romulus made a similar distribution among its earliest settlers; cf. Varro, _R. R._ i. 10. 2; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 2. 7; Fest. ep. 53; Juvenal xiv. 163 f.; Siculus Flaccus 153; Livy vi. 36. 11; Plut. _Popl._ 21; Columella v. 1. 9; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 507.

[268] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 23 f.

[269] Dion. Hal. iv. 13. 1; Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43; Livy i. 46. 1.

[270] Dion. Hal. v. 57. 3; Plut. _Popl._ 21. Moreover the division into the five classes was based on unequal holdings.

[271] Cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 518, n.

[272] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168.

[273] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2 might refer to a condition in which land was still inalienable and the right of changing residence restricted.

[274] The text followed is that of Jacoby. The reading represented by Jordan, _Cato_, p. 8, is not satisfactory. We have no ground for impugning the statement of Dionysius that Fabius actually called the country districts phylae, tribes. He may have termed them at once μοῖραι, “regions,” and phylae with perfect consistency; cf. Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 7, n. 34.

[275] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 434-7; English, 205 f.

[276] _Verf. d. Serv._ 95 f.

[277] Cf. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 72 ff., who supposed that the twenty-six rural regiones were in most respects like tribes, but contained only plebeians, who were politically inferior to the city people; see also Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 736 f.

[278] _Röm. Tribus_, followed by Grotefend, _Imp. rom. trib. descr._

[279] The supposition that there were originally but four rests upon those passages which mention only that number in connection with Servius, as Livy 1. 43. 13; Fest. ep. 368; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 7. 7; the discussion of the four city tribes as though they were the only Servian tribes by Dionysius (iv. 14. 1), whereas in the next chapter he describes those also of the country; and the designation of the rural districts as regiones rather than tribes by Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43: “Et extra urbem in regiones xxvi agros viritim liberis attribuit.” In _L. L._ v. 56, however, he calls the country districts tribes.

[280] Grotefend, ibid. 27.

[281] Inferred from an obscure passage in Fest. 213. 13, and from inscriptions cited by Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 215; Grotefend, ibid. 67.

[282] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 504; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 39 and n. 2; Pelham, _Rom. Hist._ 39; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 457 ff.; Greenidge, _Rom. Pub. Life_, 67.

[283] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 163 ff. Mommsen calls attention to epigraphic evidence, cited more fully by Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 26 f., which assigns Ostia unmistakably to the Voturia tribus. He notices further that the same sort of evidence which places Ostia in the Palatina would give Puteoli, Sutrium, Canusium, and Fundi to the same city tribe, which is impossible. The error of including Alba and Ostia in the Palatina is due to neglect of the fact that men excluded from the country tribes were assigned to those of the city irrespective of domicile; cf. _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 442 f., with notes.

[284] _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 320, n. 1, relying on Livy ix. 46. 14.

[285] Fest. 246. 30: “‘Pro censu classis iuniorum’ Ser. Tullius cum dixerit in descriptione centuriarum;” cf. 249. 1; Livy 1. 60. 4; iv. 4. 2. Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 22. 39, writes discriptio, which Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 464, following Bücheler, in _Rhein. Mus._ xiii (1858). 598, accepts as the correct form.

[286] P. 67.