Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (5)

[826] The Rhodian ambassadors were introduced by the tribune Antony to the senate (Polyb. xxx. 4. 6), as the context (cf. § 8) indicates, not as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 313, n. 1, supposes, to the people. There is no question, however, as to the right of a magistrate to bring such persons before the popular assembly.

[827] Val. Max. iii. 8. 6: “Quid feminae cum contione? Si patrius mos sevetur, nihil.” The lex Horatia, which is alleged to have granted the Vestal Gaia Taracia among many honors the right to give testimony [Gell. vii (vi). 7. 1-3], and which is assigned by Cuq (_Inst. jurid. d. Rom._ i. 255; and in Daremb. et Saglio, _Dict._ iv. 1145) to the consul Horatius, 509, is a myth (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 608), though doubtless in the course of the republic laws of the kind were occasionally passed, the language of which might be quoted by the annalists (Gell. l. c.). The rule that women were intestabiles is proved by such exceptions.

[828] XXXIV. 2. 11.

[829] Frag. 83. 8.

[830] III. 8. 6.

[831] Appian, _B. C._ iv. 32-4; see also p. 326.

[832] Livy xlv. 21. 6; 36. 1.

[833] Livy xlv. 36; cf. the statement of Dion. Hal. x. 41. 1, that on a certain occasion the crier invited all who wished to speak. These two passages are credible, notwithstanding the doubt expressed by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 395, n. 2, if we regard the general invitation as a concession on the part of the presiding magistrate rather than as a right of the people.

[834] P. 136.

[835] Plut. _Q. R._ 63.

[836] Quint. _Inst._ iii. 11. 13: “Qui bona paterna consumpserit, ne contionetur.”

[837] (Cic.) _Herenn_. i. 11. 20; cf. _Lex Bant._ (133-118 B.C.) in _CIL._ i. 197. 2 f.

[838] Such a grant in Alexandria Troas, mentioned by _CIL._ iii. 392, Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 201, n. 3) believes to have been in imitation of Roman usage.

[839] Varro, _Rer. hum._ xxi, in Gell. xiii. 12. 6.

[840] Ibid.; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7. 3: “C. Curiatius tr. pl. productos in contionem consules compellebat ut de frumento emendo referrent.” Mommsen’s interpretation (_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 313, n. 2), that the tribunes could not summon the consuls but could compel them to speak when present, is not altogether satisfactory. The comment of Gellius (§ 7 f.: “Huius ego iuris, quod M. Varro tradit, Labeonem arbitror vana tunc fiducia, cum privatus esset, vocatum a tribunis non isse. Quae, malum, autem ratio fuit vocantibus nolle obsequi, quos confiteare ius habere prendendi? Nam qui iure prendi potest, et in vincula duci potest”) supports the view given above in the text. A magistracy might afford some degree of protection, but on the principle enunciated by Gellius the tribune, who had the power to arrest a consul, was in a position practically to compel him to appear at a public meeting. As further examples of the president’s power to force speaking, Cato, a tribune of the plebs, compelled the keepers of the Sibylline books to come before the people in contio and declare the prophecy; Dio Cass. xxxix. 15. 4; cf. also Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24; _Att._ ii. 24; Plut. _Cic._ 9; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 44. 1.

[841] P. 146.

[842] P. 145, n. 3.

[843] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 2-5.

[844] Cic. _Att._ ii. 24. 3: “Caesar, is qui olim praetor cum esset, Q. Catulum ex inferiore loco iusserat dicere, Vettium in rostra produxit;” _Vatin._ 10. 24: “Cum L. Vettium ... in contionem produxeris, indicem in rostris, in illo, inquam, augurato templo ac loco collocaris, quo auctoritatis exquirendae causa ceteri tribuni pl. principes civitatis producere consuerunt.”

[845] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 43.

[846] Or as Foster translates, “about the distressing condition of the times.”

[847] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34; Plut. ibid.

[848] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 24. 69.

[849] Livy x. 8. 12.

[850] Ibid. xxxiv. 4. 20.

[851] Dio Cass. xxxix. 35. 1.

[852] Ibid.

[853] Livy ii. 56. 9: “Quirites, ... crastino die adeste.”

[854] _Commentaria Consularia_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88: “Impero qua convenit ad comitia centuriata.”

[855] Livy ii. 56. 12: “Si vobis videtur, discedite, quirites.”

[856] Preparatory to voting, the plebeian tribune Laetorius ordered the removal of all, including patricians, who were not to vote; Livy ii. 56. 10: “Submoveri Laetorius iubet praeterquam qui suffragium ineant.”

[857] In the case referred to in the note above, some of the young patricians stood their ground and refused to give way before the viator; § 11; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 48. Again on other occasions the patricians when ordered refused to withdraw before the voting (cf. Livy iii. 11. 4), from which we may infer that the right to attend the comitia presided over by tribunes was claimed by the patricians but denied them by the tribunes. The word used in these passages to designate the removal of the unqualified is “submovere.” In Livy xxv. 3. 16 (cf. Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 15) “tribuni populum summoverunt” has reference to the adjournment of the people to their voting divisions, and probably also to the exclusion of those who had no right to vote; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 390, n. 1.

[858] Acclamation was retained as a regular form of voting by the army; p. 202; cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 153.

[859] Philochorus, 79 b, in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ i. 396. The condemnation of the generals who fought at Arginusae was voted in the same way; Xen. _Hell._ i. 7. 9.

[860] Cf. Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 16.

[861] It is interesting in this connection that in the Homeric assembly the heralds (κήρυκες), who were a sacerdotal class, kept order; cf. _Il._ ii. 97 f. In the German assembly the priests with coercive power maintained quiet; Tac. _Germ._ ii. 3; Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 22 f. The Irish assemblies were of religious origin, and maintained some religious features till after the introduction of Christianity; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 42, 44.

[862] They excluded on the one hand comitia for religious purposes presided over by a political magistrate—for instance, the comitia centuriata under the censor for the lustrum (p. 141)—and on the other the meetings of the people under pontifical presidency for secular business, such as an appeal to the comitia from the pontifical imposition of fines (cf. Livy, xl. 42. 9), the meeting of the plebs under the supreme pontiff for the election of plebeian tribunes after the fall of the decemvirate (Cic. _Cornel._ in Ascon. 77; Livy, iii. 54. 5, 11), and the meeting of seventeen tribes for the election of sacerdotes. In the three exceptional instances last mentioned the comitia are tributa, which are never calata.

[863] Kindred words are calendae, Calabra, calator. As late as Plautus (_Pseud._ 1009; _Merc._ 852; _Rud._ 335) a common use of calatores was to designate slave messengers; cf. Fest. ep. 38; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 95. 42: δοῦλοι δημόσιοι. This use became obsolete, but the word continued to apply to certain assistants of the sacerdotes; Serv. _in Georg._ i. 268; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 96. 3; iv. 214. 1; v. 275. 1; 595. 34, 63; 563. 66; _CIL._ vi. 712, 2053. 5; 2184-90, 3878; x. 1726; also the _inscr._ recently discovered in the Forum; cf. Holzapfel, in _Jahresb. f. Altwiss._ 1905. 263, 265 ff.; Warren, in _Am. Journ. of Philol._ xxviii (1907). 249-72. In all the known instances they were freemen, often freedmen; Saglio, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 814. For other citations, see Samter, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1335 f. They correspond to the lictors of the magistrates.

[864] Varro, _L. L._ v. 13: “Nec curia Calabra sine calatione potest aperiri.”

[865] Saglio, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 814; Humbert, ibid. i. 1375. But the comitia curiata were convoked by lictors according to Gell. xv. 27. 2: “Curiata (comitia) per lictorem curiatum calari, id est convocari”; Theophilus, _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1. Possibly the lictor curiatius (or curiatus; _CIL._ iii. 6078) should in this case be identified with the calator.

[866] Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 1 f.: “Calata comitia esse, quae pro collegio pontificum habentur aut regis aut flaminum inaugurandorum causa; eorum autem alia esse curiata, alia centuriata.” From this statement we learn that the calate assemblies for inaugural purposes were organized either in curiae or in centuries. As “comitia” connotes organization (p. 135), we may be sure that in all calata comitia the people stood in their voting groups. On the centuriate comitia calata, see p. 156.

[867] Varro, _L. L._ v. 13; vi. 27; Fest. ep. 49; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9 f.; _Fast. Praenest. Kal. Ian._, in _CIL._ i.² p. 231; Jordan, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, I. ii. 51; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 245, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398 f.; Hülsen, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1821.

[868] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 1376.

[869] He may have appointed a priestly substitute for such functions.

[870] Livy xxii. 57. 3: “Scriba pontificis, quos nunc minores pontifices adpellant.” That he acted in behalf of the college is proved by Varro, _L. L._ vi. 27 (note below).

[871] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 27: “Primi dies mensium nominati Kalendae, quod his diebus calantur eius mensis nonae a pontificibus, quintanae an septimanae sint futurae in Capitolio in curia Calabra”; _Hemerol. Praenest._ Ian. 1, in _CIL._ i.² p. 231: “Hae et (aliae pri) mae calendae appellantur, quia (eorum pri) mus is dies est quos pont(i)fex minor quo(vis anni) mense ad nonas sin(gulas currere edicit in capi)tolio in curia cala(bra)”; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9 f.: “Pontifici minori haec provincia delegabatur, ut novae lunae primum observaret aspectum visamque regi sacrificulo nuntiaret. Itaque sacrificio a rege et minore pontifice celebrato idem pontifex calata, id est vocata in Capitolium plebe iuxta curiam Calabram ... quot numero dies a Kalendis ad Nonas superessent pronuntiabat.” Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 654 and Plut. _Q. R._ 24 are inexact, and still more confused is Lyd. _Mens._ iii. 7; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 39, n. 1. In the opinion of Mommsen the announcement on the calends was not to an assembly, but was merely preparatory to the assembly on the nones; but the words of Macrobius (vocata ... plebe) clearly indicate a gathering of the people on that day.

[872] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 13, 28; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 12; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 109 and n. 1. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 40, n. 2, warns us against confusing “this unorganized contio” with the comitia calata, which are always organized in curiae or in centuries. Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 1, states, however, that calata comitia were held for the inauguration of the king and priests. If for this occasion the purely passive assembly was organized in voting divisions, there can be no reason for doubting that it was organized also on the occasion in question, when it met in the assembly-place of the calata comitia—a place which could not be opened sine calatione—and its convocation was designated by “calare” not “vocare.” It is significant that the phrase “calata contio” is never used. Mommsen gives no authority or reason for his assumption; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 283, 323; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 440, for the view here maintained that the assembly for hearing the calendar was calata.

[873] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9.

[874] For the inauguration of the flamen Dialis, see Gaius i. 130; iii. 114; Ulpian, Frag. 10. 5; Livy xxvii. 8. 4; xli. 28. 7; the flamen Martialis, Livy xxix. 38. 6; xlv. 15. 10; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 13. 11; the flamen Quirinalis, Livy xxxvii. 47. 8; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 420, n. 3. The inauguration of augurs probably took place in their own college.

[875] For the inauguration of the rex sacrorum, see Livy xxvii. 36. 5; xl. 42. 8. Livy’s description of the inauguration of Numa (i. 18. 6-9) probably follows the historical usage in the case of the rex sacrorum.

[876] Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 859.

[877] Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 130.

[878] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 307, n. 1. This is the only function discovered for the calata comitia centuriata, mentioned by Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 2. The origin of the inauguration must have preceded that of the centuriate assembly; it must therefore have taken place for a time in some other form of meeting. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1331, objects to this interpretation but finds nothing better.

[879] Cic. _Brut._ 1 (of an augur); _Phil._ ii. 43. 110 (of a flamen); _Leg._ ii. 8. 21 (of sacerdotes); Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 13. 11 (of the flamen Martialis); Livy. i. 18. 6 (of the king).

[880] Fest. 343. 8; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 420, n. 5, 421, n. 1.

[881] Gell. i. 12. 11, citing the lex Papia. Gellius calls this assembly a contio, which includes the calata comitia; cf. xv. 27. 3: “Calatiis comitiis in populi contione.”

[882] P. 161, 163, 165.

[883] P. 157 f.

[884] P. 170.

[885] Quint. _Inst._ viii. 3. 3: fragor here signifies “thunders of applause.”

[886] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 13. 3; Livy xxviii. 26. 12; xl. 36. 4; xlii. 53. 1.

[887] P. 135.

[888] P. 74 f., 96.

[889] P. 211.

[890] On the meaning of suffragium, see the excellent article by Rothstein, in _Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds 60stem Geburtstage_, 30-3.

[891] Gell. xv. 27. 3: “Isdem comitiis, quae calata appellari diximus, ... testamenta fieri solebant”; Gaius ii. 101: “Calatis comitiis testamentum faciebant, quae comitia bis in anno testamentis faciendis destinata erant”; Theophilus, _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1.

[892] _Röm. Verf._ 242-5, with notes, following J. H. Dernburg, _Beitr. zur Gesch. der röm. Testamente_, i. 53-78.

[893] _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1, p. 154 ed. Ferrini: Ὁ βουλόμενος ὑπὸ πάρτυρι διετίθετο τῷ δήμῳ.

[894] XV. 27. 3. This view is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398 f.; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 628; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 39; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 126, 239, 270; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 221; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1333; Mispoulet, _Inst. polit. Rom._ i. 202 f.

[895] P. 161.

[896] II. 101.

[897] P. 143.

[898] P. 139.

[899] Schrader, _Reallex._ 221, 864; Leist, _Alt-arisch. Jus Gent._ 419; _Alt-arisch. Jus Civ._ ii. 171; Fustel de Coulanges, _Ancient City_, 104.

[900] Tac. _Germ._ 20. 5. The oldest Frankish laws make no mention of testaments; Schrader, ibid. 865.

[901] Demosth. xx. 102; Plut. _Sol._ 21; Telfy, in _CJA._ 1399-1412, with comment, p. 613 ff.

[902] Plut. _Agis_, 5; cf. Thumser, _Griech. Staatsalt._ 259.

[903] Bücheler und Zitelmann, _Recht von Gortyn_, 134.

[904] Aristot. _Polit._ 1309, a 24; cf. Thalheim, _Griech. Rechtsalt._ 61.

[905] Fustel de Coulanges, _Anc. City_, 105; Leist, _Alt-arisch. Jus Civ._ ii. 171.

[906] Schrader, _Sprachv. und Urgesch._ ii.³ (1907). 374 f.

[907] This view is held by Schrader, ibid. 865; Ihering, _Geist des röm. Rechts_, i. 145 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 37 f.; iii. 318 ff.; Kappeyne van de Coppello, _Comitien_, 67; Poste, _Gai Inst._ 178; Hallays, _Comices_, 18; and with some hesitation by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 110, 118, 1063.

[908] _Röm. Chronol._ 241 ff.; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 38, n. 2; iii. 319; _CIL._ i.² p. 289; accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 399; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1331; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 323.

[909] Q(uando) R(ex) C(omitiavit); _CIL._ i. p. 291 f. after the two days mentioned; cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 31: “Dies, qui vocatur sic, ‘Quando Rex Comitiavit, Fas’ is dictus ab eo quod eo die rex sacrifiolus litat (or perhaps venit, MS. dicat) ad comitium, ad quod tempus est nefas, ab eo fas; itaque post id tempus lege actum saepe”; Fest. ep. 259: “Quando Rex Comitiavit Fas, in fastis notari solet, et hoc videtur significare, quando rex sacrificulus divinis rebus perfectis in comitium venit”; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 727; Plut. _Q. R._ 63; _Fast. Praenest._ Mart. 24; for other citations, see _CIL._ i². p. 289.

[910] _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 38, n. 2.

[911] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 110, n. 2.

[912] See note 8 above; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 440, n. 6.

[913] See p. 159, n. 8 above.

[914] Gaius ii. 101, 103.

[915] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 34; cf. Leonhard, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 398 ff.

[916] Gell. v. 19. 4, 6 f.; Gaius i. 99; Cic. _Att._ ii. 12. 2; _Dom._ 15. 39.

[917] Gell. v. 19. 5.

[918] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 34.

[919] Gell. v. 19. 6.

[920] Gaius i. 99.

[921] Gell. v. 19. 6; cf. the leaden tessera showing on the face a man taking another by the hand and the word ADOPTIO beneath; on the back are three officials seated, doubtless pontiffs, with the word COLLEGIUM beneath; Helbig, in _Compt. rend. d. l’acad. d. inscr. et bell.-let._ xxi (1893). 350-3. It evidently illustrates the preliminary stage of an adrogatio; see also Tac. _Hist._ i. 15.

[922] Gell. v. 19. 5 f.: “Adrogationes non temere neque inexplorata committuntur; nam comitia arbitris pontificibus praebentur, quae curiata appellantur”; Tac. _Hist._ i. 15: “Si te privatus lege curiata apud pontifices, ut moris est, adoptarem.” Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 253, supposes that these comitia were under a civil magistrate; but the expressions “arbitris pontificibus” and “apud pontifices” prove pontifical management. Caesar, who passed the curiate law for the arrogation of Clodius, was supreme pontiff as well as consul.

[923] Gell. v. 19. 9.

[924] Gell. v. 19. 8; Tac. _Hist._ i. 15; Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39; _Att._ ii. 12. 2; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1 f. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 126, 270, supposed that the curiae simply witnessed the transaction, without giving their vote; but afterward (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 38) he changed his mind.

[925] Gell. xv. 27. 3.

[926] This seems to be the meaning of Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 156: “Consuetudo apud antiquos fuit, ut qui in familiam vel gentem transiret, prius se abdicaret ab ea in qua fuerat et sic ab alia acciperetur.”

[927] Gell. v. 19. 8, 10.

[928] Appian, _B. C._ iii. 14. 49.

[929] Ibid. iii. 94. 389; Dio Cass. xlv. 5. 3.

[930] On the testamentary adoption, see further Leonhard, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 420 f.

[931] Zon. vii. 15. 9.

[932] Cic. _Dom._ 14. 37; _Scaur._ 33; Ascon. 25.

[933] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 123 ff., has collected the cases.

[934] Suet. _Aug._ 2.

[935] Livy iv. 16. 3.

[936] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 62.

[937] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1: Τήν τε εὐγένειαν ἐξωμόσατο. The similarity of this oath to the detestatio sacrorum warrants the conclusion that it, too, was taken in the calata comitia. The abjuration of one’s rank, however, was not a detestatio sacrorum, for the reason given in n. 8 below.

[938] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1: Καὶ πρὸς τὰ τοῦ πλήθους δικαιώματα, ἐς αὐτόν σφων τὸν σύλλογον ἐσελθὼν, μετέστη; Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 4: “C. Herennius ... tribunus pl. ... ad plebem P. Clodium traducit.” Cicero’s following statement (“Idemque fert, ut universus populus in campo Martio suffragium de re Clodi ferat”) signifies that Herennius was proposing to bring the question not before the centuries, as Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 188, n. 3, imagines, for a tribune had no means of doing so, but before the thirty-five tribes, who were the universus populus (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16 f.) in contrast with the curiate comitia represented by thirty lictors; cf. p. 129 f.

[939] The falsification of pedigrees by plebeian families to prove descent from patrician ancestors of the same name is sufficient evidence that the name was retained through the transition; cf. Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 7 f. Were not the sacra retained, the transition of an entire gens would mean the destruction of its old religion and the creation of a new one—which is impossible. For this reason it appears that the detestatio sacrorum did not apply to such cases of transition.

[940] Lange, ibid. ii. 19.

[941] The fact that he promulgated a bill of the same tenor as that of Herennius, even if it was merely for the sake of appearance, as Cicero, _Att._ i. 18. 5, alleges, favors the latter view.

[942] Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 5.

[943] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 2; xxxviii. 12. 1 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 13. 35; 29. 77.

[944] Cic. _Dom._ 14. 37: “Nam adoptatum emancipari statim, ne sit eius filius qui adoptarit”; 13. 35: “Tu (Clodi) neque Fonteius es, qui esse debebas, neque patris heres neque amissis sacris paternis in haec adoptiva venisti.” In _Har. Resp._ 27. 57 (“Iste parentum nomen, sacra, memoriam, gentem Fonteiano nomine obruit”) Cicero does not say that Clodius assumed the gentile name of Fonteius, but rather that he used this name as a means of destroying the name, sacra, etc. of his parents; and in fact he continued to be called Clodius; cf. Dio Cass. xxxix. 23. 2 (official use). He claimed still to belong to the Clodian gens rather than to the Fonteian (Cic. _Dom._ 44. 116), whereas Cicero, looking upon the emancipation as a sham, insists that he was a Fonteian.

[945] That he retained the Claudian imagines is implied in Cic. _Mil._ 13. 33; 32. 86. He must therefore have kept the rest of the sacra.

[946] Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 23 ff. Cicero aims to bring the greatest possible confusion into the case by representing Clodius as having given up his native religion without receiving that of Fonteius, as being a gentilis of the Claudii though he had left the Claudian gens, etc.; _Dom._ 13. 35; 49. 127.

[947] This double act is most clearly stated by Livy iv. 4. 7: “Nobilitatem istam vestram ... non genere nec sanguine sed per coöptationem in patres habetis ... post reges exactos iussu populi”; p. 17, n. 5; cf. Dion. Hal. v. 40. 5: Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος εἴς τε τοὺς πατρικίους αὐτὸν (Appius Claudius) ἐνέγραψε. This passage shows that Dionysius regards the process as an act of the people and of the senate, though he does not speak of the latter as coöptation. In the case of Appius Claudius Livy, ii. 16. 5, says simply that he was enrolled among the patres (“inter patres lectus”), and in like manner Suetonius, _Tib._ i, states that the patrician gens Claudia was coöpted into the class of patrician gentes.

[948] V. 13. 2.

[949] Fest. 246. 23.

[950] This measure is called the lex Cassia; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25; p. 456 below. There can be no doubt that the author was L. Cassius Longinus, a faithful friend of the dictator, who entered upon his tribunate Dec. 10, 45; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 128 f.; iii. 602.

[951] Dio Cass. xliii. 47. 3; xlv. 2. 7; Suet. _Caes._ 41.

[952] The lex Saenia; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25.

[953] Augustus, _Mon. Ancyr._ 8; Dio Cass. lii. 42. 5.

[954] Neither the pontifical examination nor the curiate law is noticed by the authorities, who refer briefly to the two acts. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 472, and Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 1101, suppose that Caesar as supreme pontiff made the adlectio, although, as Mommsen notices, Octavianus had not yet attained to that office when he attended to the same function. Both writers (cf. Lange, ibid. i. 412) understand the curiate assembly to have been a factor in the process. On these late adlectiones, see also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 38 f., 130; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 602; Büdinger, in _Denkschr. d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Cl._ xxxi (1881). 211-73; xxxvi (1888). 81-125.

[955] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 32.

[956] Ch. ii above; also p. 166, n. 3 below.

[957] Botsford, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 689-92.

[958] IV. 3. 4.

[959] P. 17.

[960] IV. 4. 7; p. 24, n. 5, 200, n. 1; cf. Suet. _Tib._ 1: “Patricia gens Claudia ... in patricias cooptata.”

[961] Mommsen’s theory (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 29 and n. 2) that the patriciate was conferred through the coöperation of the king and the comitia appears accordingly to rest on a weak foundation. He gives no evidence, but bases his contention on the argument (1) that the community was sovereign, (2) that—the patriciate being in his opinion equivalent to the citizenship and the comitia curiata being a group of gentes—the downfall of the comitia made the reception of gentes impossible. Ground is taken against the theory of popular sovereignty in the following chapter. Against his second point it can be urged that the original comitia were neither patrician nor “gentile”; hence there is no occasion for speaking of the downfall of such comitia or of its sweeping consequences.

[962] Livy iv. 4. 7; p. 17, n. 5, 164, n. 6.

[963] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 74 ff.

[964] Gell. v. 19. 1-3.

[965] Such an examination was the only means by which the patricians could protect their order from being flooded by plebeians; cf. Mommsen, ibid. i. 77, who notices that no known instance of this kind of adoption took place before the admission of plebeians to the pontifical college through the Ogulnian law, 300; p. 309 below.

[966] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 924; Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, ii. 407.

[967] _Il._ i. 54; ii. 50; xix. 40 ff.; _Od._ ii. 6 f.

[968] Kovalevsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_, 122, 124.

[969] We must except the purely sacerdotal meetings of the curiae described in the preceding chapter.

[970] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 2; cf. Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 22 f.

[971] _Rhetra_ of Lycurgus, in Plut. _Lyc._ 6; cf. Gilbert, _Altspart. Gesch._ 131 f.

[972] Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 43. 4; cf. Gilbert, _Const. Antiq. of Sparta and Athens_, 285.

[973] This is true of the religious-judicial assemblies of the continental Celts (Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 13), which may also have exercised political functions, and of the Irish assemblies; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 44, 51, 54; cf. Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 924.

[974] The Celtic magistrates disclosed to the people those matters only which they determined to be expedient; and it was unlawful to speak on public affairs outside the assembly; Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 20. The German chiefs in council preconsidered every subject to be presented to the assembly; Tac. _Germ._ 11. 1; Schröder, ibid. 23. The prominence of the nobles in the Slavic assembly (Kovalevsky, ibid. 123 ff.) would lead to the same conclusion regarding them. For the Homeric age of Greece the meeting of the council previous to the assembly as described by _Il._ ii. 50 ff. is typical, although we could not expect the poet in every case to repeat the procedure with uniform minuteness. The preconsidering power of the Roman senate was of the same nature.

[975] _Il._ ii. 278 ff.

[976] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 4. As a rule the North American Indians enjoy the same freedom of speech in their councils; Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 160, 211.

[977] _Il._ ii. 211 ff.; xii. 212 f. Calchas the seer, a man of the people, gained the protection of Achilles before daring to speak against Agamemnon; _Il._ i. 76 ff.

[978] On the control of the Etruscan assembly by the nobles, see Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 337; Hirt, _Indogermanen_, i. 55.

[979] _Od._ ii. 28 ff.

[980] P. 154 f.

[981] _Od._ ii. 35 ff.; cf. the public complaint made by a Slavic chief of an injury he had received; Kovalevsky, ibid. 121.

[982] Such as the reception of the youth into the warrior class among the Germans; Tac. _Germ._ 13. 2; for the witnessing assembly at Rome, see p. 155 f.

[983] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 659, 662, 688. For the Celts; Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 13; cf. i. 4 (trial of Orgetorix). For the Germans; Tac. _Germ._ 12. 1 f. For the Slavs; Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 126. The famous trial scene in the Homeric assembly; _Il._ xviii. 497 ff. For the Macedonians; Curt. vi. 8. 25. It is probably true of Vedic India; Schrader, ibid. 688.

[984] For the Germans; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. i. 129. For the Slavs; Kovalevsky, ibid. 128, 130, 141 f. For the Celts; Polyb. iii. 44. 5 f.; Caes. _B. G._ v. 27, 36; Livy xxi. 20. 3; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 67. The Helvetian assembly probably decided the question of migration; Caesar, _B. G._ i. 2. As to the Greeks, Agamemnon proposed to the assembly to quit the war and return home, the people gladly accepted; _Il._ ii. 86 ff. A proposal of peace came from the Trojans to the Achaean assembly; the people rejected it on the advice of Diomede, and Agamemnon concurred in their opinion; _Il._ vii. 382 ff.

[985] The German mode of electing a king or war-leader is well known; cf. Brunner, ibid. i. 129. The assembly also elected the chiefs of the pagi (Gaue) and of the villages; Tac. _Germ._ 12. 3. The Celts who were not ruled by hereditary kings elected their chiefs annually (Caesar, _B. G._ i. 16) or for a migration; ibid. 3. The Irish kings were generally elected from particular families; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 66. The Slavs elected their king and other officials; Kovalevsky, ibid. 124 f., 127, 129, 138 f. In Homeric Greece the kingship was generally hereditary, but the people might elect a war-leader to take command by the side of the king; _Od._ xiv. 237; cf. xiii. 266. There are traces of elective kingship, lasting at least a few generations, in the great majority of early European states; Jenks, _History of Politics_, 87; cf. 35 f.

[986] _Il._ i. 22 ff. For the Lacedaemonians, see Thuc. i. 87.

[987] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 5; _Hist._ v. 17. Sometimes the Germans mingled clamor with the clash of weapons; Amm. Marc. xvi. 12. 13.

[988] Caesar, _B. G._ vii. 21.

[989] Majority rule was unknown to primitive times. The members of the council talked together till they came to a unanimous agreement. If the Homeric Greeks in assembly failed to agree, each party went its own way; _Od._ iii. 150 ff. Among the Slavs the majority forced a unanimous vote by coercing the minority; Kovalevsky, ibid. 122 ff. For the Germans; Seeck, _Gesch. d. Unterg. d. antik. Welt_, i. 213.

[990] For the Homeric Greek assembly, see Hermann-Thumser, _Griech Staatsalt._ 67 f.

[991] _Il._ i. 11 ff.

[992] Ibid. i. 135 ff., 320 ff.

[993] Ibid. vii. 345 ff.

[994] In Italy, Livy i. 45. 2; 49. 8.

[995] This right is proved by the fact that the death of a king freed the neighboring states from their treaty obligations to his community, _e.g._, the Fidenates after the death of Romulus; Dion. Hal. iii. 23. 1; the Latins after the death of Tullus; Dion. Hal. iii. 37. 3; various neighbors after the expulsion of the last Tarquin; Dion. Hal. viii. 64. 2; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 175, n. 2. At the time of the Caudine disaster (321 B.C.) the Samnite leader assumed that the Roman consuls were competent in their own right to conclude a definitive peace; Livy ix. 2 ff.

[996] Among the Quadi the right to declare war belonged to the council, not to the assembly; Amm. Marc. xxx. 6. 2. With the Saxons the will of the nobles was equivalent to the will of the people; Beowulf, cited by Seeck, ibid. i. 217. 7, see also his notes on p. 531. The Sabine senators (senes) are represented as responsible for the continual wars of their people with the Romans; Livy ii. 18. 11. In general the leading men and the senate were able by their own oath to bind the community; Caes. _B. G._ iv. 11; cf. 13. A chief might work his will by packing an assembly with men on whom he could rely; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 14. The Grand Duke of Russia, relying on his comitatus, sometimes went to war without consulting the people; Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 142.

[997] Leist, _Graeco-ital. Rechtsgesch._ 130, 136 f. Under favorable conditions the assembly acquired sovereignty, as at Athens and for a time in Russia; Kovalevsky, _Russian Political Institutions_, 17. Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 923 f., following Mommsen (cf. also Post, _Grundlagen des Rechts_, 130; Cramer, _Verfassungsgesch. d. Germ. u. Kelt._ 61 et pass.), is altogether wrong in supposing the assembly to have been originally sovereign.

[998] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 64. Charlemagne suppressed the assemblies of the Saxons except for receiving communications from his missi and for the administration of justice; _Cap. de Part. Sax._ i. 70. 34 (Boretius 26. p. 68).

[999] Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 42.

[1000] _Od._ iii. 214 f.; xiv. 239; xvi. 75, 95 f., 114; xix. 527.

[1001] In Homeric Greece; _Il._ i. 231 f.; iii. 57. The Herulians killed their king merely because they were weary of royal government; Procopius, _Bel. Goth._ ii. 14, p. 422 A. Sometimes the Celtic commons massacred both magistrates and council, and took affairs into their own hands; Polyb. ii. 21; Caesar, _B. G._ iii. 17.

[1002] Hdt. vi. 56.

[1003] _Rhetra_ of Polydorus and Theopompus, in Plut. _Lyc._ 6. This power is essentially the same as the auctoritas of the Roman patres.

[1004] Fustel de Coulanges, _Monarchie Franque_, 598 ff.

[1005] Ibid. 638 ff.

[1006] Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, iii. 239 ff.

[1007] Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 148.

[1008] The rest of this chapter is largely a reproduction of Botsford, _Lex Curiata_, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxiii (1908). 498-517.

[1009] P. 2, 176.

[1010] Cic. _Rep._ 28. 50; cf. 23. 43.

[1011] Livy i. 46. 3; 60. 3; ii. 1. 6 f.; 15. 3.

[1012] Cic. _Planc._ 4. 9: “Non est consilium in vulgo.”

[1013] Cf. Livy i. 34. 12.

[1014] P. 145.

[1015] P. 235.

[1016] II. 14. 3: Τῷ δὲ δημοτικῷ πλήθει τρία ταῦτα ἐπέτρεψεν· ἀρχαιρεσιάζειν τε καὶ νόμους ἐπικυροῦν καὶ περὶ πολέμου διαγιγνώσκειν, ὅταν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔφη.

[1017] I. 49. 7.

[1018] This interpretation, offered by Rubino, is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 599.

[1019] _Röm. Verf._ 257 ff.

[1020] The treaty with the Sabines rested on the oaths of the two kings alone; Livy i. 13. 4; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3; Plut. _Rom._ 19. Romulus of his own authority made a hundred years’ truce with Veii; Dion. Hal. ii. 55. 5 f. With the advice of the senate he solicited alliances with the neighboring states; Livy i. 9. 2. Numa personally contracted alliances with the surrounding states; Livy i. 19. 4. Tullus Hostilius made a treaty with the Sabines, the indemnity being fixed by a senatus consultum; Dion. Hal. iii. 32. 6. For other citations, see Rubino, ibid. 264, n. 3.

[1021] Livy i. 24. 4 ff.

[1022] P. 171, n. 5 above.

[1023] Livy i. 30. 7.

[1024] Cf. Livy ii. 22. 5. In 495 the consul, in pursuance of a senatus consultum, made peace with the Volscians at their request; Livy ii. 25. 6. In the same form Cassius the consul in 493 made peace with the Latins (Livy ii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. vi. 18-21, especially 21. 2) and in 486 with the Hernicans; Dion. Hal. viii. 68. 4; 69. 2; Livy ii. 41; cf. Rubino, ibid. 266 f.

[1025] Cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 17. 2; 59. 4.

[1026] Livy iii. 1. 8.

[1027] Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 2 f.; x. 21. 8.

[1028] Livy ii. 39. 9 f.

[1029] Cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 17. 2, 4.

[1030] P. 351; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 269 ff.

[1031] On the epoch-making rejection of the Caudine treaty of 321, see p. 171, n. 5. 376.

[1032] Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Rubino, ibid. 261.

[1033] Cf. Rubino, ibid. 260.

[1034] Ibid. 263.

[1035] Cf. i. 14. 6; 36. 1. Too much stress should not be laid on this distinction, however, as the Romans always regarded their enemy as the aggressor, and assumed that every war was undertaken for the redress of grievances.

[1036] Livy i. 32.

[1037] Ibid. i. 32.

[1038] P. 1 f., 173. The formula is extremely ancient in origin, but it must have undergone modifications in time, as is indicated by the word prisci applied to the Latins. Possibly the reference to the populus should be similarly explained.

[1039] P. 174.

[1040] Cf. Livy i. 22; 30. 3; 35. 7; 38. 4.

[1041] P. 230.

[1042] P. 171.

[1043] For the Indo-Europeans, see Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 655 ff.; Maine, _Ancient Law_, xv f., 2 ff.; Hirt, _Indogermanen_, ii. 522 ff. There may have been occasional legislation by the assembly in its earliest history; cf. the prohibition of the importation of wine by the Suevi (Caesar, _B. G._ iv. 2), which may have been an act of the kind.

[1044] _Il._ i. 238; ix. 98; _Od._ vi. 12.

[1045] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3; Livy i. 19. 1.

[1046] Livy i. 19. 5; cf. 42. 4; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 26.

[1047] Livy i. 8. 1; Verg. _Aen._ i. 292 f.

[1048] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 10. 17; Livy i. 16.

[1049] On the legislation of the kings, see Voigt, in _Abhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 555 ff.

[1050] Livy ii. 1. 1.

[1051] Cf. Cic. _Rep._ i. 2. 2. To the end of the republic resort was had in national crises to the numen deorum as the ultimate source of law; Cic. _Phil._ xi. 12. 28.

[1052] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 11.

[1053] Mommsen, ibid. iii. 313; cf. Jenks, _History of Politics_, 89 f.

[1054] In the preceding chapter (p. 153, 157) an attempt is made to determine under what influence the curiate organization and the systematic vote were introduced into the assembly.

[1055] Cf. Gell. v. 19. 9: “Velitis, iubeatis, uti.... Haec ita, uti dixi, ita vos, quirites, rogo.” This reference to an arrogation is quoted here merely for the sake of the formula. For further citations, see Mommsen, ibid. iii. 312, n. 2.

[1056] For ut rogas, see Livy vi. 38. 5; x. 8. 12. Antiquo for “no” may be inferred from the use of antiquare to designate the rejection of a proposal; e.g. Livy iv. 58. 14; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 1108, n. 4; p. 467 below.

[1057] Lex may be related to lēgare, ligare, “to bind”; Brugmann, _Grundriss_, I. i. 134; Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 444; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 112, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 315 (“bindende Vorschrift”). Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 308, n. 4, quotes J. Schmidt for the fundamental meaning of the root leg, “to place in order,” connecting it with English “law” (cf. θεσμός, Gesetz); cf. Kretschmer, _Einleitung in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache_, 165; Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657; Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906. 215.

[1058] Cf. Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 684.

[1059] Cf. Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb._ 227; Herzog, ibid. i. 116, n. 3 (Rechtsetzen). Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657, connecting ius with Avest. yaoš, “pure,” develops its meaning through (1) oath of purification in legal procedure, (2) legal procedure, finally (3) human law, right, as distinguished from fas; cf. Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906. 212 (ius = Skt. yōs). On the meaning, see further Nettleship, _Contributions to Latin Lexicography_, 497; Clark, _Practical Jurisprudence_, 16-20.

[1060] For the leges censoriae, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 430.

[1061] Livy i. 26. 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati.”

[1062] On the legum dictio, see Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89.

[1063] Examples of leges datae are the ordinances of the kings or of extraordinary constitutive magistracies, as the triumviri rei publicae constituendae, municipal laws and provincial regulations established by Rome; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 311 and notes.

[1064] Law of the XII Tables, cited by Gaius, in _Dig._ xlvii. 22. 4: “Dum ne quid ex publica lege corrumpant”; Cato, _Orig._ iv. 13: “Duo exules lege publica (condemnati) et execrati”; Gaius ii. 104; _CIL._ vi. 9404, 10235; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 310, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 598 f.

[1065] Ateius Capito’s definition in Gell. x. 20. 2 (“Lex est generale iussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu”) fails to cover all cases, as Gellius immediately shows.

[1066] E.g. the granting of the imperium to Pompey or the recall of Cicero from exile; Gell. x. 20. 3.

[1067] Livy iv. 60. 9; cf. 58. 14.

[1068] Cato, _Orig._ iv. 13; n. 2 above.

[1069] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 598 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111 ff. The election of a king was a iussus populi, which was equivalent to a lex; Livy i. 22. 1. For an election by the centuriate assembly, see Livy vii. 17. 12. The lex curiata de imperio was regarded strictly as an election; p. 184 ff. On judicial decisions see Lange, ibid. i. 629 f.; ii. 571.

[1070] Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 74: “Ut comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel in iure legum vel in creandis magistratibus”; _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; 15. 33. Iudicia populi practically disappeared, leaving comitia legum and comitia magistratuum; idem, _Sest._ 51. 109; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 326, n. 1.

[1071] The usual expression for the validity of a law is lege populus tenetur; cf. Cic. _Dom._ 16. 41; _Phil._ v. 4. 10; Gell. xv. 27. 4; Gaius i. 3. For further citations, see Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 356, n. 1; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 159, n. 1, 309, n. 3.

[1072] Cf. Livy. ix. 34. 8-10.

[1073] _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2.

[1074] Ascribed to Ancus Marcius by Livy (i. 32. 2) and Dionysius (iii. 36. 2 ff.), to Romulus and his successors by Pomponius (ibid.), but destroyed in the Gallic conflagration (Livy vi. 1. 1).

[1075] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 314 f.; Voigt, in _Abhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 559; Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657 f.

[1076] The sources uniformly represent the kings as acting alone in the admission of individuals and of entire communities to citizenship. The view of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 29, that the assembly coöperated rests upon his theory of an original popular sovereignty and of an original patrician state, neither of which has any basis in fact.

[1077] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3; Livy 1. 38. 7; 44. 3; 56. 1 f.

[1078] Ibid. i. 43.

[1079] Ibid. i. 44. 1; cf. especially the summary condemnation and execution of Mettius; ibid. i. 28. Livy’s complaint (i. 49. 4) against Tarquin the Proud is that he decided capital cases without assessors, not that he allowed no appeal.

[1080] Lange’s view (_Röm. Alt._ i. 314) that under the kings there was no legislation, except the passing of the lex de imperio, cannot be proved and seems unlikely. Mommsen’s hypothesis (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 327) that under the kings the comitia were exclusively legislative, elective and judicial functions being a republican innovation, is disproved by the facts presented in this chapter. There is no reason for supposing that the republic brought to the comitia any absolutely new functions.

[1081] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 662.

[1082] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 298 f.

[1083] Cf. Livy i. 26. 8 ff.; Cic. _Mil._ 3. 7; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 8, 305 ff.

[1084] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 2. 4; 7. 13; Livy i. 13. 4.

[1085] I. 17. 11. Cicero (_Rep._ ii. 13. 25), however, supposes he was elected by the people.

[1086] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 21. 37; Livy i. 41-6; Dion. Hal. iv. 8.

[1087] Livy i. 49. 3.

[1088] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 6 f.

[1089] Cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31; 18. 33; 20. 35; Livy i. 17. 10; 32. 1; 35. 1, 6; 46. 1; Jordan, _Könige im alt. Ital._ 25 ff.

[1090] Cf. Livy xxii. 35. 4.

[1091] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25 (Numa); 17. 31 (Tullus Hostilius); 18. 33 (Ancus Marcius); 20. 35 (Tarquinius Priscus).

[1092] The formula for the curiate law is unknown. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 307 ff. 407 f., 459, 461 f., supposes that it not only pledged the people to obedience, but also defined the imperium and bound the king not to exceed the limitations imposed; that every constitutional modification of the imperium required a corresponding modification of the curiate act. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111 f., further assumes that the law contained the formula of treaty on which in his opinion the state rested, and that before the age of written documents this treaty was handed down orally through the repetition of the law. Lange’s theory, which runs throughout his great work, seems to rest on the single statement of Tacitus, _Ann._ xi. 22: “Quaestores regibus etiam tum imperantibus instituti sunt, quod lex curiata ostendit a L. Bruto repetita.” But this statement proves only that the quaestors were mentioned in the curiate law, and this circumstance is otherwise explained below, p. 189. That the law defined and limited the imperium is unlikely (1) because in early time, when the act had a real meaning, precise definitions were unknown; (2) because there is no evidence for it.

P. Servilius Rullus stated, evidently in his rogation, that the object of the curiate act to be passed for the decemviri provided for in his bill was “ut ii decemviratum habeant, quos plebs designaverit” (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 10. 26)—a formula probably copied from earlier laws. From this statement and from evidence furnished below (p. 185 f.) it is practically certain that the formula for the curiate act ran somewhat like that for an election.

[1093] It is true that Cicero (p. 183, n. 2) supposes the king to have been elected by the curiate assembly, and the imperium to have been afterward sanctioned by the same assembly. This double vote of the curiae seems as improbable as it was unnecessary. We may reasonably consider the alleged first vote a mistaken inference from the later election of higher magistrates by the centuries. The assumption of an acclamation as the first stage in the process accords far better with primitive conditions.

[1094] The people claimed that the right to elect magistrates had come down to them from Servius Tullius; Appian, _Lib._ 112 (probably from Polyb.); Livy i. 60. 4; p. 360.

[1095] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 26: “Maiores de singulis magistratibus bis vos sententiam ferre voluerunt. Nam cum centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur, cum curiata ceteris patriciis magistratibus, tum iterum de eisdem iudicabatur, ut esset reprehendendi potestas, si populum beneficii sui paeniteret”; cf. 10. 26; _Rep._ ii. 13. 25.

[1096] _Röm. Verf._ 361 f., 379 f. For a summary of the various modern views, see Nissen, _Beitr. zum röm. Staatsr._ 42-6.

[1097] P. 435.

[1098] It is not probable that an official could pass the law for a colleague, the intention being that each higher magistrate should personally propose and carry it for himself; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 610, n. 2.

[1099] _Leg. Agr._ ii. 10. 26: “Hoc inauditum et plane novum, ut ei curiata lege magistratus detur, cui nullis comitiis ante sit datus.”

[1100] In Gell. xiii. 15. 4: “Magistratus ... iustus curiata datur lege.”

[1101] In Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29: “Tum ii decemviri, inquit, eodem iure sint, quo qui optuma lege.” In keeping with this statement is the object of the curiate act as given by the Servilian rogation (p. 183, n. 5).

[1102] Plaut. _Most._ 713; Cic. _Off._ i. 31. 111; 42. 151; _Fin._ iv. 12. 31; _Rep._ iii. 17. 27; _Cat._ i. 9. 21; _Sest._ 43. 94; _Planc._ 36. 88; _Marc._ 1. 4; _Fam._ iii. 8. 6; _Att._ xv. 3. 2.

[1103] Gaius ii. 197: “Proinde utile sit legatum atque si optimo iure relictum esset; optimum ius est per damnationem legati.” It is clear that this statement refers merely to the form.

[1104] Fabius Pictor, in Gell. i. 12. 14: “Uti quae optima lege fuit, ita te, Amata, capio.”

[1105] Cic. _Phil._ xi. 12. 30: “Senatui placere C. Cassium pro consule provinciam optinere, ut qui optimo iure eam provinciam optinuerit” (with all the formality usual in cases of appointment to that province); v. 16. 44: “Sit (Caesar) pro praetore eo iure quo qui optimo.”

[1106] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 7. 14 (reference is to the complete and perfect title with which Cicero holds his dwelling); _Phil._ ix. 7. 17 (a burial place granted by the state to a family with a perfect title); _Lex Agr._ (_CIL._ 200) 27: “_Is ager locus do_mneis privatus ita, utei quoi optuma lege privatus est, esto.”

[1107] _Lex Col. Gen._ (_CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439) 67: “Quicumque pontif(ices) quique augures c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) post h(anc) l(egem) datam in conlegium pontific(um) augurumq(ue) in demortui damnative loco h(ac) lege lectus cooptatusve erit, is pontif(ex) augurq(ue) in c(olonia) Iul(ia) in conlegium pontifex augurq(ue) esto, ita uti qui optuma lege in quaque colon(ia) pontif(ices) auguresq(ue) sunt erunt”; ch. 66: “Ei pontifices c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) sunto, ... ita uti qui optima lege optumo iure in quaque colon(ia) pontif(ices) augures sunt erunt.” Optima lege refers to the perfection of their right to the sacerdotal places (cf. 67 above), whereas optumo iure seems to apply to the privileges and honors attaching to these positions.

[1108] Papinian, in _Dig._ iv. 4. 31 (slaves manumitted in the way here described were exempt from payment to maintain their freedom, on the ground that they were emancipated in a perfectly legal way—optimo iure); _Lex Salp._ (_CIL._ ii. 1963) 28: “Ut qui optumo iure Latini libertini liberi sunt erunt” (Just as are, or shall be, Latin freedmen or freemen of best standing); Cic. _Verr._ II. v. 22. 58: “Quae colonia est in Italia tam bono iure, quod tam immune municipium, quod ... sit usum.”

[1109] _Lex Col. Gen._ 67, quoted in n. above.

[1110] Fest. 198. 32; cf. 189. 21. Applied to the censor, dictator, and interrex in Livy ix. 34. 10-12, it has reference not to amount of power but length of office.

[1111] See p. 186, n. 5.

[1112] As the _Lex Col. Gen._ 66 f.; p. 186, n. 1 above.

[1113] P. 186.

[1114] Magistratus optuma lege is the same as magistratus iustus; cf. Messala, p. 185, n. 6. In this connection iustus does not signify legal as opposed to illegal, but legally or technically perfect, correct; cf. for the meaning “proper,” “perfect,” Cic. _Fam._ ii. 10. 3 (iusta victoria); Caes. _B. G._ i. 23 (iustum iter); Livy i. 4. 4 (iusti cursum amnis); xxxix. 2. 8 (iusto proelio). When Cicero (_Red. in Sen._ 11. 27), accordingly, speaks of the comitia centuriata as the iusta comitia, he does not imply that the other comitia and their acts lack legality, but rather that they carry less weight; and when as late as 300 the patricians claimed that they alone had iustum imperium et auspicium (Livy x. 8. 9), they could only mean that their right to these powers was better established than that of the plebeians. C. Flaminius, consul in 217, possessed imperium, which he was actually exercising over his troops, but which was not iustum, for he had neglected the auspical formalities appropriate to the entrance upon the consulship (Livy xxii. 1. 5). It would be wrong, however, to suppose with Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 51, that he commanded on the sufferance only of his soldiers.

[1115] Including the auspices; see n. above.

[1116] The usual expression is “de suo imperio curiatam legem tulit,” or “populum consuluit;” Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31; 18. 33; 20. 35; 21. 38; Livy ix. 38. 15. According to Cicero, _Phil._ v. 16. 45, the senate grants the imperium to Octavianus, a private citizen. The interrex, who could not have had a curiate law, nevertheless possessed imperium (Livy i. 17. 5 f.), and the absolute imperium was granted by a decree of the senate (Livy iii. 4. 9; Sall. _Cat._ 29; _Hist._ i. 77. 22). See also Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9: “Imperia, potestates, legationes, quom senatus creverit populusve iusserit, ex urbe exeunto;” _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 17: “Omnes potestates, imperia, curationes ab universo populo proficisci convenit” (reference cannot here be to the curiate assembly, which in this connection Cicero does not recognize as the people). For the centuriate assembly, see Livy xxvi. 18. 9: “Omnes non centuriae modo sed etiam homines P. Scipioni imperium esse in Hispania iusserunt;” 22. 15: “Centuriam vero iuniorum seniores consulere voluisse, quibus imperium suffragio mandarunt.” For the tribal assembly, see T. Annius Luscus, _Orat. adv. Ti. Gracch._ in Fest. 314. 30: “Imperium quod plebes ... dederat.” It is a fact, too, that the tribal assembly had power to abrogate the imperium; Livy xxvii. 20. 11; 21. 1, 4; xxix. 19. 6; cf. p. 342, 360, 367. Also from Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28 (“Vidit ... sine curiata lege decemviros potestatem habere non posse, quoniam per novem tribus essent constituti”) we must infer that had these decemvirs been elected in the regular way, by the thirty-five tribes, they would have had the potestas without a curiate law. The phrase nullis comitiis in 11. 29 (“Si hoc fieri potest, ut ... quisquam nullis comitiis imperium aut potestatem adsequi posset, etc.,”) implies that the imperium or potestas may be obtained in more than one form of comitia—either the centuriata or the tributa. In the same paragraph he asserts that on the principle followed by Servilius, whom he is assailing, any one could obtain the imperium or potestas without the vote of any comitia, for he does not consider the comitia curiata real comitia, seeing that they have degenerated into a mere form. From these passages it is clear that Cicero believed the imperium or potestas to be conferred by the centuries or tribes and merely confirmed by the curiae.

[1117] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27: “Curiatis eam (potestatem) comitiis ... confirmavit.”

[1118] Livy ix. 38 f.; Dion. Hal. v. 70. 4: Ὃν ἃν ἥ τε βουλὴ προέληται καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐπιψηφίσῃ. To avoid unnecessary delay the sanctioning act was probably always kept free from the obligation of the promulgatio per trinum nundinum; Livy iii. 27. 1; iv. 14. 1; p. 396 f. below.