Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (7)

[1414] The view maintained by Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 33 ff., that the patres auctores were all the senators, not merely the patrician members, is disproved by Cic. _Dom._ 14. 38 (Should the patriciate become extinct, there would no longer be “auctores centuriatorum et curiatorum comitiorum”). In spite of some looseness of statement in the passage cited, there seems to be no good ground for considering either the whole oration spurious or the particular reference to the auctoritas inaccurate. The question, too complex for detailed treatment in this volume, is of practical importance for the period only from about 400 to 339.

[1415] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 605 f.

[1416] P. 412.

[1417] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 553; ii. 606.

[1418] _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 5; cf. _Leg._ i. 15. 42; _Rosc. Am._ 43. 125; Schol. Gron. 435; Appian, _B. C._ i. 98. 458 ff.; Plut. _Sull._ 33.

[1419] Cic. _Dom._ 30. 79; _Caecin._ 33. 95; 35. 102.

[1420] P. 416, n. 1.

[1421] Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 19 obscurely suggests that these two laws were centuriate, though Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 606, doubts it; cf. p. 455.

[1422] Cf. Appian, _B. C._ iii. 30. 117.

[1423] Cic. _Phil._ x. 8. 17; xiii. 15. 31; cf. v. 19. 53.

[1424] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 26: “Centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur.”

[1425] P. 185. Before the institution of the censorship the original motive of the sanctioning act—to leave the curiae a share in the elective function—must have given way to the purpose stated by Cicero and represented here in the text.

[1426] Livy iv. 24. 3 ff.; cf. ix. 33 f.

[1427] Livy viii. 12. 16; cf. p. 300. Livy’s words referring to the censorship are corrupt, but the passage seems to have the meaning here given; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 340, n. 2. It was not till 131 that advantage was taken of the provision; Livy, ep. lix. Herzog, _Röm. Staatswerf._ i. 257, refuses to believe that both censors might now be plebeian.

[1428] Livy vi. 35. 5. The provision that “at least” one should be plebeian is doubtless an anticipation of the Genucian law.

[1429] Livy vii. 42. 2; cf. p. 299.

[1430] The alleged centuriate resolution granting a place for a dwelling to P. Valerius Publicola, passed under his own presidency (Ascon. 13), is still earlier and less trustworthy.

[1431] Livy ii. 41; Dion Hal. viii. 71, 73 ff.

[1432] Livy iii. 31. 1. In 32. 7 he calls it the Icilian law with the idea that it was tribunician; but Dion. Hal. x. 32. 4, referring to the document kept in the temple of Diana, states that it was passed by the centuriate assembly; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 169, n. 1. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 619; ii. 607 f., wrongly asserts that it was a plebiscite; cf. p. 272 below.

[1433] P. 234 f., 298.

[1434] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 13. 21.

[1435] Livy vii. 3. 5.

[1436] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 608 f.

[1437] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 541, and note on earlier literature; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 148 f., 160 f.; iii. 353.

[1438] Livy i. 26. 5-14; viii. 33. 8. For the theory that the popular assembly was sometimes a court of the first instance, see p. 260.

[1439] Lange’s idea (ibid. i. 457 f.; ii. 542) that Servius Tullius transferred appellate jurisdiction to the comitia centuriata rests upon his view that Servius was the author of the political centuriate organization.

[1440] Cf. Fest. 297. 11-24; Cic. _Mil._ 3. 7; _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy i. 26.

[1441] Dion. Hal. iv. 25. 2; Livy i. 26. 5; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 11; _Röm. Strafr._ 474.

[1442] For the earlier literature on the ius provocationis, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 542, n.

[1443] Cic. _Rep._ i. 40. 62; ii. 31. 53: “Legem ad populum tulit eam, quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est, ne quis magistratus civem Romanum adversus provocationem necaret neve verberaret”; 36. 61; Livy ii. 8. 2; 30. 5 f.; iii. 33. 9 f.; Val. Max. iv. 1. 1; Plut. _Popl._ 11; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 16; Dion. Hal. v. 19. 4; cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 168.

[1444] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy iii. 55. 4; x. 9. 3-6; cf. Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 489.

[1445] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54: “Ab omni iudicio poenaque provocari indicant XII Tabulae compluribus legibus; et quod proditum memoriae est, X viros, qui leges scripserint, sine provocatione creatos, satis ostenderit reliquos sine provocatione magistratus non fuisse.”

[1446] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 311. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 68: “Quiritare dicitur is qui quiritium fidem clamans implorat”; cf. Cic. _Fam._ 32. 3; Livy ii. 55. 5 f.; iv. 14 f.

[1447] Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1886). 165 ff. Two cases of appeal, which indeed may be mythical, are mentioned by the annalists for the time before the decemviral legislation—that of Sp. Cassius, which is only one of several views as to his condemnation and death (Livy ii. 41; iv. 15. 4; Dion. Hal. viii. 77 f.; ix. 1. 1; 3. 2; 51. 2; x. 38. 3; Diod. xi. 37. 7; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Flor. i. 26. 7), and that of the plebeian M. Volscius Fictor for false testimony; Livy iii. 25. 2 f.

[1448] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54, quoted p. 240, n. 6. The statement of Cicero is too general; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 312.

[1449] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 11: “De capite civis Romani nisi per maximum comitiatum ollosque, quos censores in partibus populi locassint, ne ferunto”; 19. 44; _Sest._ 30. 65; 34. 73: “De capite non modo ferri, sed ne iudicari quidem posse nisi comitiis centuriatis”; cf. _Rep._ ii. 36. 61; Plaut. _Pseud._ 1232; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 578; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 317; p. 268.

[1450] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy iii. 55. 4; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 352, n. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 638; ii. 551; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 318.

[1451] Livy iii. 55. 14; cf. 54. 15.

[1452] Livy iv. 13. 11 f.; vi. 16. 3 (385); vii. 4. 2 (362); viii. 33-35 (325; see p. 242, n. 5); Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 164 f. with notes; _Röm. Strafr._ 476; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 318; cf. p. 242.

[1453] Livy x. 9. 4.

[1454] Livy iii. 20. 7; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 66 f.; iii. 352.

[1455] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 543; Mommsen, ibid.

[1456] Livy x. 9. 5: “Improbe factum.” This denunciation might involve penal consequences according to Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 319 f. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 167, 632 f., supposes the expression to signify that the offending magistrate was to be treated as a private person and punished for murder. Some are of the opinion that it involved loss of citizenship, whereas others suppose its effect was simply moral; cf. Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 429.

[1457] Livy ii. 18. 8; 30. 5; iii. 20. 8; viii. 33 (dictator permits appeal); Dion. Hal. v. 75. 2 f.; vi. 58. 2; Zon. vii. 13. 13; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 18; Lydus, _Mag._ i. 37; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 163, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 756 f.

[1458] Livy ii. 55. 5; iii. 45. 8; 55. 6, 14; 56. 5; 67. 9; viii. 33. 7: “Tribunos plebis appello et provoco ad populum”; xxxvii. 51. 4; Dion. Hal. ix. 39. 1 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 277.

[1459] Livy iii. 24. 7; 25. 2; 29. 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 840; ii. 544.

[1460] The appeal of Fabius from the jurisdiction of the dictator in 325 was granted not under compulsion but in grace; Livy viii. 35. 5. On the freedom of the dictatorship from this restriction in the period between 449 and 325, see p. 241, n. 5. The court mentioned by Livy ix. 26. 6 ff. (314) seems to have been an extraordinary quaestio under the presidency of a dictator; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 165, n. 6. On the subjection of his authority to appeal, see Fest. 198. 32: “Optima lex ... in magistro populi faciendo, qui vulgo dictator appellatur, quam plenissimum posset ius eius esse significabat, ut fuit M’. Valerio M. f. Volusi nepotis, qui primus magister populi creatus est. Postquam vero provocatio ab eo magistratu ad populum data est, quae ante non erat, desitum est adici, ‘ut optima lege,’ utpote imminuto iure priorum magistrorum.”

[1461] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 165; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 319.

[1462] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 6; Livy ii. 29. 4: “Ab lictore nihil aliud quam prendere prohibito”; ii. 55. 5; Dion. Hal. vi. 24. 2.

[1463] Livy i. 26. 5: “Duumviros ... qui ... perduellionem iudicent secundum legem facio”; § 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati”; vi. 20. 12: “Sunt qui per duumviros, qui de perduellione anquirerent creatos auctores sint damnatum.” Creare applies to appointments though less commonly than to elections; cf. Livy ii. 18. 4 f.; 30. 5; iv. 26. 6; Fest. 198. 4 (of the dictator); Livy iv. 46. 11; 57. 6 (of the magister equitum). In vi. 20. 12, quoted above, Livy may possibly be thinking of election, which seems to have become the rule before the disuse of the office; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 304, 309.

[1464] Livy i. 26; Fest. 297. 11.

[1465] _Dig._ xlviii. 4. 11: “Qui perduellionis reus est, hostili animo aduersus rem publicam uel principem animatus”; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 303.

[1466] Livy vi. 20. 12; see n. 1 above.

[1467] Ibid. vi. 19. 6 ff.

[1468] Cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 177.

[1469] P. 258.

[1470] This comitial resolution may be anticipated in the account of the process against Horatius given by Livy i. 26. 5: “Duumviros ... secundum legem facio”; cf. § 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati.” The king, whose judgments were absolute, could not have thus been forced; hence more probably lex in these phrases is not a comitial act but the formula of appointment; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 356 and n. 1. The procedure in the trial of C. Rabirius was in this respect similar; a law compelling the praetor to appoint duumviri is suggested by Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12.

[1471] Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 27. 2, finds fault with the procedure against Rabirius on the ground that the duumviri for judging him were appointed by the praetor, not elected as they should have been “according to ancestral usage.”

[1472] Livy i. 26. 5; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 16; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 12. 27; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 544; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 617 f.

[1473] P. 104.

[1474] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 303-5.

[1475] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Livy ii. 41. 11; Dion. Hal. viii. 77. 1; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 309.

[1476] _Röm. Alt._ i. 610; ii. 545.

[1477] Cf. the trial of Horatius for murder by the duumviri perduellioni iudicandae; p. 243.

[1478] Livy ii. 41. 10.

[1479] Livy iii. 24. 3; 25. 2.

[1480] Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 23: “Quia ... de capite civis Romani iniussu populi non erat lege permissum consulibus ius dicere, propterea quaestores constituebantur a populo, qui capitalibus rebus praeessent: his appellabantur quaestores parricidii, quorum etiam meminit lex Duodecim Tabularum”; cf. Fest. 258. 29; ep. 221.

[1481] Pliny _N. H._ xxxiv. 4. 13: “Camillo inter crimina obiecerit Sp. Carvilius quaestor, quod aerata ostia haberet in domo.” According to Livy v. 23. 11; 32. 8 f., it was misappropriation of the Veientan spoil. Diodorus, xiv. 117. 6, states that according to one report the accusation was that he had driven white horses in his triumph. The appeal was to the comitia centuriata; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86. This case indicates either inconsistency in legal usage, quite possible in early time, or more probably the union of inconsistent traditions. The facts that Pliny mentions a quaestor apparently as prosecutor, not simply as witness (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 582), and that Cicero represents the trial as belonging to the centuries suffice to indicate a questorian prosecution before that assembly. Should we venture to bring consistency to so uncertain a story, we could suppose that in his absence, the tribunes, taking up the case, lightened the penalty to a fine.

[1482] Varro, _L. L._ 90-92 (mutilated excerpts from the record of this trial, preserved in the _Commentaria Quaestorum_ and containing part of the edict for summoning the assembly and the accused).

[1483] That is, after the increase in the number of praetors; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 884; ii. 551; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 543, n. 2.

[1484] P. 243, 248.

[1485] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 543 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 389, 884, 910; ii. 555.

[1486] P. 241.

[1487] Cf. Livy xxvi. 3. 9; xliii. 16. 11; Gell. vi. 9. 9; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409.

[1488] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 196.

[1489] Livy iii. 59. 4; Dion. Hal. xi. 49. 3.

[1490] Livy iii. 56-8; Dion. Hal. xi. 46, 49.

[1491] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 49; Zon. vii. 18. 11.

[1492] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 46. 5; Gell. xx. 1. 53. False testimony in a case of this kind, which was vindicia not murder, was not capital; hence it did not ordinarily come before the tribunes; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 324, n. 6. The political importance of the case, however, was a sufficient motive to their undertaking it.

[1493] Livy iv. 16. 5 f.; 21. 3 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86; _Rep._ i. 3. 6; Val. Max. v. 3. 2 g; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 668; ii. 553. Roman law regarded false testimony in capital cases as murder; hence the prosecution of Minucius might legally have come before the quaestors; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 324, n. 6.

[1494] Livy vi. 1. 6.

[1495] Livy viii. 28; Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suid. s. Γάιος Λαιτώριος. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 325, n. 1, denies that a case of the kind could come before the tribunes.

[1496] Dion. Hal. xvi. 4 (8); Val. Max. vi. 1. 11; Suid. ibid. This prosecution could be brought on the ground of misconduct of office; Mommsen, ibid.

[1497] Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 45. 180; Val. Max. viii. 1. 8.

[1498] Livy ix. 33. 4 f.

[1499] Ibid. 34. 26.

[1500] Val. Max. viii. 1. abs. 9.

[1501] Livy ix. 23. 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 5.

[1502] The same thing is true of the finable actions of this period; p. 290.

[1503] This view has no other warrant than the uncertainty of our sources for the fifth and early fourth centuries B.C. That the tribunes should make early gains in jurisdiction, to be afterward partially lost, is thoroughly consistent with the law of plebeian progress, which consisted, not in a steady forward movement, but in successive advances and retreats.

[1504] Livy, ep. xix.; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71; _N. D._ ii. 3. 7; Polyb. i. 52. 1-3; Schol. Bob. 337; Val. Max. viii. 1. abs. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 556; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 321, n. 1; iii. 357, n. 1; p. 317 below.

[1505] Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71; _N. D._ ii. 3. 7; Val. Max. i. 4. 3.

[1506] P. 318.

[1507] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 328 f., wrongly assumes that in this case the charge of perduellio came before the tribes; the interdiction of the man by the tribes after his departure was not a iudicium but a lex.

[1508] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm Staatsr._ ii. 299.

[1509] P. 241.

[1510] P. 267, 446.

[1511] Livy xxv. 3 f.

[1512] Livy xxv. 20. 6 ff.; p. 318, n. 8 below. Livy gives us to understand that defeat resulting from ignorance or temerity could not be made a ground of prosecution.

[1513] Livy xxvi. 2. 7 through ch. 3; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 2, 321, n. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 556; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 329 f. On the right to change the form of action, see p. 287.

[1514] The two plebeian tribunes and the aedile who accompanied this commission were sent to recall Scipio, should he be found responsible for the conduct of his legate; Livy xxix. 20. 11. They do not seem to have been members of the commission.

[1515] Livy xxix. 8. 6 ff.; chs. 16-22.

[1516] Livy xxix. 19. 5; 22. 7. The form of comitia is inferred from the circumstances.

[1517] Livy xxxiv. 44. 7 f.

[1518] Livy xxix. 22. 8 f. (cf. xxxi. 12. 2); Diod. xxvii. 4; cf. Vai. Max. i. 2. 21; Appian, _Hann._ 55.

[1519] XXIX. 22. 8.

[1520] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 557. The date of the execution of C. Veturius in pursuance of a vote of the people (Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3) is unknown.

[1521] Sall. _Cat._ 51. 21 f.: “Quamobrem in sententiam non addidisti, ut prius verberibus in eos animadvorteretur? An quia lex Porcia vetat? At aliae leges item condemnatis civibus non animam eripi sed exilium permitti iubent”; 51. 40: “Postquam res publica adolevit et multitudine civium factiones valuere, circumvenire innocentes, alia huiusce modi fieri coepere, tum lex Porcia aliaeque paratae sunt, quibus legibus exilium damnatis permissum est”; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 3. 8: “De civibus Romanis contra legem Porciam verberatis aut necatis”; Pseud. Sall. _in Cic._ i. 5: charges against Cicero that in putting Roman citizens to death he has abolished the lex Porcia. Livy x. 9. 4: “Porcia tamen lex ... gravi poena, si quis verberasset necassetve civem Romanum, sanxit”; cf. Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12 f.; _Verr._ v. 63. 163; Gell. x. 3. 13. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 320, doubts whether it allowed exile to one condemned by a vote of the people. Against him is Polyb. vi. 14. 7, quoted p. 217, n. 5.

[1522] Livy xxxii. 7. 8; Fest. 234. 10; The opinion here given is that of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 205, 558. A different view is represented by Orelli-Baiter, Cic. _Op._ viii. 3. 252 f.

[1523] The decisive evidence is a coin, described by Mommsen, _Röm. Münzwesen_, 552, representing an armed man evidently in the act of condemning a civilian, whose appeal is indicated by the word PROVOCO beneath. The inscription on the obverse P. LAECA reveals the author of the law.

[1524] _Röm. Alt._ i. 249; ii. 559.

[1525] VI. 37 f.

[1526] Livy, ep. lvii; cf. Cic. _Rep._ i. 40. 63: “Noster populus in bello sic paret ut regi.”

[1527] _Leg._ iii. 3. 6: “Militiae ab eo qui imperabit provocatio nec esto,” which however, Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 117, n. 2 (cf. _Röm. Strafr._ 31, n. 3) sets down as merely a pious wish of the author.

[1528] Livy, ep. lv: (In the consulship of P. Cornelius Nasica and D. Junius Brutus) “C. Matienus accusatus est apud tribunos plebis, quod exercitum in Hispania deseruisset, damnatusque sub furca diu virgis caesus est, et sestertio nummo veniit.” The new epitome, l. 207-9, speaks of desertores who on this occasion were thus flogged and sold. It is not known that the tribunes tried cases of desertion or that they inflicted the kind of punishment here described. C. Titius, sent for trial to the tribunes on the charge of having stirred up a mutiny (Dio. Cass. Frag. 100; year 89), may have been a civilian.

[1529] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9.

[1530] _Iug._ 69.

[1531] Modestinus, in _Dig._ xlix. 16. 3. 15; Menander, ibid. 16. 6. 1 f.

[1532] An example of a military consilium is given by Livy xxix. 20 f.

[1533] _Rep._ ii. 31. 54: “Neque vero leges Porciae, quae tres sunt trium Porciorum, ut scitis, quicquam praeter sanctionem attulerunt novi.”

[1534] Cic. _Verr._ v. 62. 162.

[1535] Livy xliii. 16. 8 ff.

[1536] Polyb. vi. 14. 6; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 560.

[1537] Cic. _Brut._ 25. 97; 27. 106; _Leg._ iii. 16. 37; _Sest._ 48. 103; Schol. Bob. 303; Cic. Frag. A. vii. 50; Ascon. 78; Pseud. Ascon. 141 f.; Orelli-Baiter, Cic. _Op._ viii. 3. 278 f.

[1538] Cic. _Planc._ 6. 16.

[1539] IV. 50. 6 ff.

[1540] Livy viii. 18; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3.

[1541] IX. 26.

[1542] (1) In 186 for the trial of the Bacchanalians (Livy xxxix. 8-19); (2) in 180 two courts for the detection and trial of poisoners in Rome and Italy (Livy xl. 37). The two courts established in 186 for the trial of poisoners and for putting down the last of the Bacchanalians are mentioned by Livy xxxix. 41 without a hint as to the manner of their appointment; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 135, n. 4.

[1543] Polyb. vi. 16. 2; Cic. _Dom._ 13. 33.

[1544] Dion. Hal. xx. 7. Though no mention is here made of a quaestio extraordinaria, we may assume one for every such instance. In actual iudicia populi the senate had no part.

[1545] Livy xxvi. 33 f.

[1546] The following pre-Gracchan quaestiones extraordinariae, according to our authorities, owed their existence to a popular vote. (1) The lex de pecunia regis Antiochi of the two Q. Petilii, tribunes in 185, for the establishment of a special court to try L. Scipio Asiagenus and some others for the misappropriation of public money; Livy xxxviii. 54, p. 399 below.—(2) The plebiscite of M. Marcius Sermo and Q. Marcius Scylla, tribunes in 172, directed the senate to establish a special court for the trial of M. Popillius on the charge of having unjustly subjugated and enslaved the Ligurians; Livy xlii. 21. 5.—(3) By the lex Caecilia, 154, a special quaestio repetundarum was established for the trial of L. Lentulus, retired consul of 156; Val. Max. vi. 9. 10.—(4) Another special court for the trial of L. Hostilius Tubulus on the charge of having accepted bribes while president of a murder court (quaestio inter sicarios) was ordered by a plebiscite of P. Mucius Scaevola in 141, whereupon the accused went into exile; Cic. _Fin._ ii. 16. 54; iv. 28. 77; v. 22. 62; _N. D._ i. 23. 63; iii. 30. 74; _Att._ xii. 5 b; Ascon. 22; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 197.

[1547] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 728. The formula varied with the occasion, and other magistrates were often associated with the consuls in this supreme power.

[1548] Cic. _Cat._ i. 11. 28: “Numquam in hac urbe, qui a re publica defecerunt, civium iura tenuerunt”; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 359; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 560.

[1549] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 16; p. 368 below. The idea of Tiberius is to be inferred from the law which his brother afterward passed.

[1550] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; Cic. _Lael._ 11. 37; _CIL._ i². p. 148.

[1551] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 172.

[1552] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12: “C. Gracchus legem tulit, ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur”; _Cat._ iv. 5. 10; _Verr._ v. 63. 163; _Sest._ 28. 61; Schol. Gronov. 412: “Lex Sempronia iniussu populi non licebat quaeri de capite civis Romani”; Schol. Ambros. 370; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; p. 371 below.

[1553] For examples of special courts afterward instituted, see p. 390.

[1554] Sall. _Cat._ 51. 40; Cic. _Cat._ i. 11. 28; iv. 5. 10.

[1555] Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82 f.; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 561. It is not probable, as Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 330; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 201, has assumed, that the Sempronian law transferred jurisdiction in such cases from the centuries to the tribes. The comitia tributa had long exercised the right to condemn those who had fled into exile to avoid trial; p. 249, 267, 257, n. 5 (3).

[1556] Cic. _Sest._ 28. 61; cf. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14. 5; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 200 f.

[1557] Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Leg._ iii. 11. 26; cf. _Cluent._ 35. 95; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 465.

[1558] Vell. ii. 7. 4.

[1559] Livy, ep. lxi: “Quod indemnatos cives in carcerem coniecisset” (Mommsen reads “in carcere necasset” or “in carcerem coniectos necasset”; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 111, n. 1); Cic. _Part. Or._ 30. 104, 106; _Orat._ ii. 25. 106; 30. 132; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 562; iii. 50; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 278-80.

[1560] _History of Rome_, v. 5-7. His view is an inference from the circumstances.

[1561] The prosecutor was L. Crassus; Cic. _Brut._ 43. 159; cf. _Orat._ i. 10. 40; ii. 40. 170; _Verr._ II. iii. 1. 3; Val. Max. vi. 5. 6.

[1562] Valerius Maximus, iii. 7. 6, assumes that the accused went into exile; Cicero, _Fam._ ix. 21. 3, informs us of a rumor that he committed suicide. Both reports may be true; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 282; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 51.

[1563] P. 358.

[1564] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 223 ff.

[1565] (1) After the case against Carbo may be mentioned the accusation of perduellio against C. Popillius Laenas, 107, on the ground of a disgraceful surrender to the Tigurini. It was on this occasion that the ballot was first used in a trial for perduellio. The accused seems to have been condemned to exile; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 36; _Herenn._ i. 15. 25; iv. 24. 34; Oros. v. 15. 24. This case, which resembles those of far earlier time, has nothing to do with violation of the right of appeal; (Cic.) _Herenn._ ibid.—(2) Similar in this respect was the prosecution of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus for the murder of his son. The accused went into exile before judgment was pronounced; Oros. v. 16. 8; Val. Max. vi. 1. 5.—(3) More famous is the prosecution of Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, 100, by L. Appuleius Saturninus because the former refused to swear to maintain the agrarian law of the latter. Technically the charge was that Metellus refused to do his duty as a senator. The accused withdrew into exile before the trial, whereupon, by vote of the assembly, he was interdicted from fire and water; Livy, ep. lxix.; Appian, _B. C._ i. 31. 137-40; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Sest._ 16. 37; 47. 101.—(4) Decianus, tribune of the plebs, 97, in accusing P. Furius, tribune of the preceding year, let fall some complaint regarding the murder of Saturninus, and on that ground was accused, probably by a tribune of the plebs, and condemned to exile; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 24; Schol. Bob. 230.—(5) The prosecution of M. Aemilius Scaurus for maiestas by Q. Varius, tribune, Dec. 91, was withdrawn in the second anquisitio; Ascon. 19, 21 f.; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 72. 11; Quintil. v. 12. 10; Cic. _Scaur._ 1, 3; _Sest._ 47. 101.—(6) L. Cornelius Merula and Q. Lutatius Catulus, 87, avoided trial, probably for perduellio, by suicide; Diod. xxxviii. 4; Appian, _B. C._ i. 74. 341 f.—(7) On the first day of the following year, 86, P. Popillius Laenas, tribune of the plebs, hurled from the Tarpeian Rock Sextus Lucilius (or Licinius?), tribune of the preceding year, and set a day of trial for the colleagues of the latter. The accused fled to Sulla and in their absence were interdicted from fire and water. They were charged with perduellio; their offence was the veto of the popular measures of Cornelius Cinna. This is the only certain case of calling retired tribunes to account for their official conduct, and may be regarded as a symptom of the revolution then in progress; Vell. ii. 24; Livy, ep. lxxx; Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 12; Plut. _Mar._ 45.

[1566] P. 255, n. 1 (4).

[1567] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 38; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 326.

[1568] Dio Cass. lvi. 40. 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 326; iii. 359 f.

[1569] P. 243.

[1570] P. 203, n. 2.

[1571] Cic. _Rab. Perd._; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 26 ff.; Suet. _Caes._ 12; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 563 f.; iii. 240; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 150-5; Wirz, in _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xxv. (1879). 177-201. In the opinion of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 298, n. 3; 615, n. 2, following Niebuhr, a tribunician accusation involving a fine was then introduced, and the oration of Cicero was delivered in this second trial. Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 357 f.; Schneider, _Process des Rabirius_ (Zürich, 1899), and others maintain that Cicero spoke in the trial conducted by the duumviri and that after it was dropped no further accusation was brought. Wirz, ibid., supposes that the senate quashed the process of the duumviri on the ground of illegality, that the accuser (Labienus) then brought a tribunician accusation for perduellio, but intimated a possible finable action in addition, and that the trial was ended, without resumption, by the hauling down of the flag.

[1572] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 13. 33: “Orbis terrarum gentiumque omnium datur cognitio sine consilio, poena sine provocatione, animadversio sine auxilio”; p. 435.

[1573] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 4. 7.

[1574] Anquisitio seems to mean an examination on both sides—including testimony for and against the accused; Fest. ep. 22; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 345, n. 3.

[1575] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91 f.

[1576] Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45: “Cum tam moderata iudicia populi sint a maioribus constituta ... ne inprodicta die quis accusetur, ut ter ante magistratus accuset intermissa die, quam multam inroget aut iudicet, quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die iudicium sit futurum, tum multa etiam ad placandum atque ad misericordiam reis concessa sint, deinde exorabilis populus, facilis suffragatio pro salute, denique etiam, si qua res ilium diem aut auspiciis aut excusatione sustulit, tota causa iudiciumque sublatum sit.”

[1577] The trinum nundinum, which included three market days (Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 34), could not have contained less than seventeen days or more than twenty-four.

[1578] Livy, xliii. 16. 11.

[1579] E.g. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 306, 344. The theory has little in its favor and is not generally accepted; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 167 f.

[1580] On the quarta accusatio, see Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45, quoted p. 259, n. 6. An example of the mitigation of a capital to a finable action is the case against T. Menenius for the mismanagement of a campaign which he had conducted as consul; Livy ii. 52. 3-5 (476). Two examples of change in the form of action in the opposite direction are given on p. 249 f.

[1581] Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45, quoted p. 259, n. 6.

[1582] Cf. the case of Appius Claudius Pulcher, p. 248.

[1583] Livy ii. 33. 1; Calpurnius Piso, in ibid. § 3; 58. 1; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 33. 58; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 274 f. with notes. Meyer, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 616 f., suggests a doubt as to whether they were instituted at that time. Niese, _De annalibus Romanis observationes_ (1886), and Meyer, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895), 1-24, have tried to prove that they were not instituted till 471 and that their original number was four. Niese’s view is controverted by Joh. Schmidt, in _Hermes_, xxi (1886). 464-6. Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 260, 275, assumes that they came into existence as a result of the abolition of the decemvirate.

[1584] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48: “Tanta igitur in illis virtus fuit, ut anno XVI post reges exactos propter nimiam dominationem potentium secederent ... duos tribunos crearent, ... Itaque auspicato postero anno tr. pl. comitiis curiatis sunt”; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; cf. ix. 41. 4 f. (included clients and patricians); Livy ii. 56, especially § 3, 10. These authors represent the tribunes as trying vainly to force the patricians from the assembly while the voting was under way. The question of excluding the patricians, however, is connected with the statute of Publilius Philo (339) rather than with the so-called plebiscite of Publilius Volero (471); p. 300 f.

Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 2, places the first tribal meeting in 491, twenty years before the date to which its institution is otherwise assigned. If his account is not an anticipation of later usage, it is exceptional.

[1585] (1) Because there were no other magistrates at the time, (2) because the meeting was auspicated; p. 262, n. 2.

[1586] Inferred from the circumstance that this dignitary presided over the assembly which elected the first college of tribunes after the fall of the decemvirs; Livy iii. 54. 5, 9, 11; p. 285 below.

[1587] Livy iii. 13. 6; 56. 5; viii. 33. 7; ix. 26. 16; xxxviii. 52. 8; Suet. _Caes._ 23. Naturally the plebeians were in most need of protection; cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 169.

[1588] Livy ii. 33. 3: “Auxilii non poenae ius datum illi potestati”; cf. Ihne, ibid. 170.

[1589] Gell. iii. 2. 11; xiii. 12. 9; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 3. 8; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 6; Serv. _in Aen._ v. 738; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 291, n. 2.

[1590] Plut. _Q. R._ 81.

[1591] In this respect the plebeian body was analogous to a corporation; Gaius, in _Dig._ xlvii. 22. 4 (quoting a law of the Twelve Tables). But it was not a private association. It could neither limit its membership nor change its organization. Proof of these two facts is that the change of organization from curiate to tribal and the consequent exclusion of the landless resulted from a centuriate law; p. 271. Notwithstanding the fact that its resolutions lacked the force of law, the close relation existing between it and the state gave it from the beginning a prominent place in the constitution.

[1592] Livy ii. 56. 11-13 (The consul asserted that according to ancestral usage he himself had no right to remove any one from the place of assembly); cf. 35. 3: “Plebis non patrum tribunos esse.”

[1593] Livy ii. 35. 3: “Auxilii non poenae ius datum illi potestati”; 56. 11-13.

[1594] Cf. Livy ii. 35. 2; 52. 3 ff.; 54. 3 ff.; 61.

[1595] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 2; Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 175 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157.

[1596] Hence they had no viatores; so that for a time after they assumed criminal jurisdiction the aediles acted as their bailiffs; p. 290.

[1597] Livy iii. 55. 10: (In the opinion of some iuris interpretates) “Tribunos vetere iure iurando plebis, cum primum eam potestatem creavit, sacrosanctos esse.”

[1598] Fest. 318; Livy iii. 55. 6-10; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 3. The wording of the oath as given above is derived from the law which, according to Livy, was carried by the consuls Valerius and Horatius in 449; but there can be no doubt that this statute confirmed the oath taken long before by the plebs. As to the connection of Ceres with the plebeian organization, Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 272 ff., believes that her temple was not built before the middle of the fifth century, whereas Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 45, holds to the traditional date (493); cf. De Sanctis, _Storia d. Romani_, ii. 30. The building of the temple did not necessarily precede the institution of the tribunate. On the sacrosanctitas of the aediles, see Cato, in Fest. 318. 8; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 472 f.

[1599] As late as 131 a tribune of the plebs, C. Atinius Labeo, regarding the censor Q. Caecilius Metellus as a homo sacer for alleged violation of the tribunician sanctity, attempted without legal trial to hurl him from the Tarpeian Rock; Livy, ep. lix; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 44. 142 f., 146; Cic. _Dom._ 47. 123. See also Vell. ii. 24. 2; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 8.

[1600] Cic. _Balb._ 14. 33; Fest. 318. 9; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 147; also in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xxii (1876). 139-50; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 286. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 176, expresses the belief that the lex sacrata had nothing more than a religious influence, that the offender suffered in his conscience and in public opinion only. The known leges sacratae, collected by Herzog, were (1) the first Valerian law of appeal; Livy ii. 8. 2 (cf. ii. 1. 9); (2) the act which rendered the persons of the tribunes sacred, and which, as intimated above, was not strictly a statute; Livy ii. 33. 1, 3; Fest. 318. 30; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 2; Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48; (3) the lex de Aventino; Livy iii. 31. 1; 32. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 32. 4; (4) the Valerian-Horatian law of appeal; Livy iii. 55. 4; (5) the military lex sacrata of 342; Livy vii. 41. 3; (6) the law of M. Antonius for the abolition of the dictatorship, 44; Appian, _B. C._ iii. 25. 94; Dio Cass. xliv. 51. 2.

[1601] Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 263.

[1602] Dion. Hal. vi. 84, 89. 1; cf. vii. 40; xi. 55. 3; Fest. 318; Livy iv. 6. 7. The idea that there was such a treaty is represented among moderns by Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 249 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 591; ii. 566, and opposed by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 146 f.; De Sanctis, _Storia d. Romani_, ii. 29.

[1603] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 15; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 287, n. 1. The fictitious character of the legal basis on which the plebeians are represented as acting in this early period of their history may be illustrated, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 299, n. 3, has pointed out, by their assumption of the agrarian proposal of Sp. Cassius as one of their fundamental principles, the application of which neither magistrates nor private individuals were at liberty to impede; cf. Livy ii. 54, 61; Dion. Hal. ix. 37, 54; Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 480, 531, 567. The fault is not all with the annalists.

[1604] P. 274.

[1605] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10.

[1606] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3.

[1607] Dion. Hal. vii. 17. 5: Δημάρχου γνώμην ἀγορεύοντος ἐν δήμῳ μηδεὶς λεγέτω μηδὲν ἐναντίον μηδὲ μεσολαβείτω τὸν λόγον. Ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσῃ, διδότω τοῖς δημάρχοις ἐγγυητὰς αἰτηθεὶς εἰς ἔκτισιν ἧς ἂν ἐπιθῶσιν αὐτῶ ζημίας. Ὁ δὲ μὴ διδοὺς ἐγγυητὴν θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω, καὶ τὰ χρήματ’ αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ ἔστω. Τῶν δ’ ἀμφισβητούντων πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ζημίας αἱ κρίσεις ἔστωσαν ἐπὶ τοῦ δήμου; cf. x. 32. 1; 42. 4. Although we may feel uncertain as to the author and the date of this plebiscite, we need not doubt its existence, especially as the principle it contains is derived from leges sacratae by Cicero (_Sest._ 37. 79; cf. Pliny, _Ep._ i. 23), and was often put into practice; Livy iii. 11. 8; xxv. 3 f.; Dion. Hal. x. 41 f.; Cic. _Inv._ ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. ix. 5. 2; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 260 n. 2; ii. 289, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 602 f.; ii. 567. For the state, however, it had no more validity than had the original lex sacrata, of which the so-called Icilian plebiscite was an expansion.

[1608] Gell. xiii. 12. 9: “Tribuni, qui haberent summam coercendi potestatem.”

[1609] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 179; Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 174.

[1610] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 299, n. 1, expresses the opinion that the original form of the story represented Coriolanus as consul proposing a law for the abolition of the tribunate.

[1611] Dion. Hal. vii. 20-67, especially 59. 9 f.; 65; Livy ii. 34 ff.; Plut. _Cor._ 16-20; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 605; ii. 565.

[1612] P. 56, n. 4, 270 f.

[1613] Livy iii. 11. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. x. 5 ff.

[1614] Livy iii. 13. 8; Dion. Hal. x. 8. 3.

[1615] Livy’s idea that this assembly met in the Forum (iii. 13. 8) is sufficient evidence of his point of view. Cicero’s opinion (_Dom._ 32. 86; cf. _Sest._ 30. 65) may be biassed by his personal feelings; p. 268, n. 6.

[1616] Dion. Hal. x. 41 f. Various attempts of tribunes in this period to punish retired magistrates for abuse of office are also alleged by the ancient writers; cf. p. 264.

[1617] P. 265 f.

[1618] Livy ii. 35. 3; cf. 56. 11 f.

[1619] Livy iii. 55. 6.

[1620] Livy ii. 54.

[1621] Frag. 22. 1.

[1622] P. 241; cf. also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157. A far different view as to the form of assembly which received appeals in tribunician capital cases is represented by Cicero, in whose opinion the comitia centuriata were established as the sole power to judge concerning the caput of a citizen even in pre-decemviral time by the leges sacratae (_Sest._ 30. 65); and accordingly he believes that the sentence of exile was passed on Kaeso Quinctius by that body (_Dom._ 32. 86). But in this opinion Cicero’s personal bias already referred to (p. 267, n. 6) cannot be neglected: in discrediting the decree of exile passed against himself by the tribal comitia, it was agreeable to his purpose to deny that this assembly ever had enjoyed such competence. The view given in the text, represented by the annalists and confirmed by a law of the Twelve Tables, is obviously preferable.

[1623] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Gell. xi. 1. 2 f.; Fest. 202. 11; 237. 13; ep. 144; cf. p. 233 above. Dionysius, x. 50. 1 f., wrongly gives two cattle and thirty sheep as the maximum.

[1624] X. 50. 1 f.

[1625] With less probability Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 620; ii. 576 f., regards it as a concession to the plebs to satisfy their craving for the limitation of the consular power by written law.

[1626] Livy ii. 43. 3; 44. 6; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 4; ix. 5. 1; 18. 1; x. 26. 4; Dio Cass. Frag. 22. 3; Zon. vii. 17. 7.

[1627] Livy iii. 11. 1.

[1628] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 297.

[1629] The veto of governmental acts, assigned them for the pre-decemviral period by the historians (cf. Livy ii. 44), is therefore an anachronism. The very fact mentioned by Livy, in the chapter here cited, of the patrician attempt to win as many tribunes as possible points to obstruction rather than to the veto as their weapon. The increase in the number of tribunes from two to ten indicates the same condition.

[1630] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157.

[1631] Cf. Livy ii. 42. 6; 43. 3; 44. 1; 48. 2 f.; 52. 2 f.; 54. 2; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 4 f.; ix. 5. 1; 37. 1 f.

[1632] Livy ii. 56. 2: “Rogationem tulit ad populum, ut plebei magistratus tributis comitiis fierent.”

[1633] The senate gave its consent; Livy ii. 57; Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 3 f.

[1634] Livy ii. 56. 3: “Haud parva res sub titulo prima specie minime atroci ferebatur, sed quae patriciis omnem potestatem per clientium suffragia creandi quos vellent tribunos auferret”; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 5.

[1635] That the ancients had this conception of the curiate assembly which elected tribunes cannot be doubted; p. 24, 32; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 283, n. 1.

[1636] P. 54, 60 f.

[1637] IX. 49. 5; cf. 41. 3. Patrician magistrates auspicated their comitia, plebeian magistrates did not; p. 104.

[1638] VII. 17. 6: Καί τινες τῶν δημάρχων ἄλλα τε κατὰ τῶν εὐπατριδῶν συνέγραψαν, καὶ τὸ ἐξεῖναι τῷ πλήθει καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ συνιέναι καὶ ἄνευ ἐκείνων βουλεύεσθαι καὶ χρηματίσαι πάνθ’ ὅσα ἂν ἐθελήσῃ; cf. Livy ii. 60. 4 f.

[1639] Livy ii. 56. 11 f.

[1640] Livy iii. 11. 4; vi. 35. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 3. 5; ch. 4; 40. 3 f.; 41.

[1641] P. 300 f.

[1642] IX. 43. 4.

[1643] Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 5; Livy ii. 56. 2; Dio Cass. xxxix. 32. 3; Suet. _Caes._ 76; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 799, n. 2.

[1644] Diod. xi. 68. 8: Ἐν τῇ Ῥῶμῃ τότε πρώτως κατεστάθησαν δήμαρχοι τέτταρες, Γάιος Σικίνιος καὶ Λεύκιος Νεμετώριος, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Μάρκος Δουίλλιος καὶ Σπόριος Ἀκίλιος. Livy, ii. 58. 1, following Piso, supposes that the number was now increased from two to five. Dio Cassius probably placed the increase from five to ten at this date; Zon. vii. 15. 1; 17. 6; Dio Cass. Frag. 22. 1. In the opinion of Meyer, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 1-24; _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 141 f., the plebeian tribunate was instituted at this time and the original number was four; cf. p. 55, n. 1 above. But Diodorus does not say so; indeed his grouping of the four tribunes in pairs suggests a doubling—a fact which he has perhaps condensed from his source.

[1645] It has been shown above (119 ff., 126 ff.) that the assembly of tribes under tribunician presidency is rightly so designated.

[1646] Livy ii. 61. 1; 63. 2; iii. 1. 2 f.; Dion. Hal. ix. 51 f.

[1647] Livy iii. 31. 5 f. (454); Dion. Hal. x. 34 f., 42, 48; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 28. 101.

[1648] Livy iii. 10; 25. 9; 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 15. 3; 20. 4; 26. 4; Dio Cass. Frag. 21.

[1649] Livy iii. 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 30. 6 (457). The object, as stated by Livy, was increased protection for the commons. Any enlargement of the number after they had acquired the veto would have been a positive disadvantage; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 161; cf. above p. 270, n. 2. The change was made with the consent of the senate, doubtless through a centuriate law.

[1650] P. 233, 265, n. 1 (3).

[1651] P. 265, n. 1 (3).

[1652] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 170.

[1653] Livy. ii. 9. 6. Even if these acts are not historical, there can be no doubt that the senate had the power which they imply.

[1654] Cf. Livy ii. 15. 1 f.

[1655] Livy ii. 3. 5; 5. 1.

[1656] Cf. Livy iii. 70. 14.

[1657] Livy ii. 36. 1; 37. 1.

[1658] Livy ii. 37. 8.

[1659] Cf. Livy iii. 21. 1 f.

[1660] Livy iii. 4. 9 (464). As long as the dictatorship was in use (till near the end of the third century B.C.) there was no need of resorting to this measure, although it cannot be doubted that the senate had the right.

[1661] Cf. Livy iii. 11. 1.

[1662] Livy iii. 11. 4; 14. 5; 16. 6; 17. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 3. 3 f.; 4. 2.

[1663] Livy iii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 55. 3; p. 233 above.

[1664] Cf. Livy ii. 58. 1; iii. 24. 9; 30. 6.

[1665] Cf. p. 264 ff.

[1666] P. 234.

[1667] Livy. iii. 55. 7; cf. p. 264.

[1668] Ibid. § 6 f.

[1669] Livy iii. 55. 8 ff.; cf. Cic. _Balb._ 14. 33; _Tull._ 20. 47; Appian, _B. C._ ii. 108. 453; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 303 with notes.

[1670] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 15.

[1671] Livy iii. 55. 3: “Cum velut in controverso iure esset, tenerenturne patres plebi scitis, legem centuriatis comitiis tulere, ut quod tributim plebis iussisset, populum teneret, qua lege tribuniciis rogationibus telum acerrimum datum est”; cf. 67. 9; Dion. Hal. xi. 45. 1.

[1672] On the tribunician legislation of the period 449-339, see p. 292 ff.

[1673] P. 271.

[1674] XI. 45. 3: Εἴρηται δὲ καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι ἐν μὲν ταῖς φυλετικαῖς ἐκκλησίαις οἱ δημοτικοὶ καὶ πένητες ἐκράτουν τῶν πατρικίων.

[1675] VI. 35. 7: “Qui (patres) ubi tribus ad suffragium ineundum citari a Licinio Sextioque viderunt, stipati patrum praesidiis nec recitari rogationes nec sollemne quidquam aliud ad sciscendum plebi fieri passi sunt.” When the tribes were again called for voting, the dictator, accompanied by a crowd of patricians, took a seat in the assembly and supported the tribunician protest; Livy vi. 38. 5 ff. On another occasion some years earlier the patres old and young came into the Forum, and taking their places in the several tribes, appealed to their tribesmen to vote against the proposal of the tribunes; Livy v. 30. 4 f. Still earlier C. Claudius and other senior patricians spoke in a tribunician assembly against the measure then before the plebs. Soltau’s objection (_Berl. Stud._ ii. 47) to the interpretation here represented has little weight, as it rests upon the theory that from the beginning everything was carefully defined and regulated by law.

[1676] P. 153, 156 f.

[1677] P. 157, 211.

[1678] P. 211.

[1679] P. 271, n. 3.

[1680] P. 300 f.

[1681] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 157, regarding the alleged pre-decemviral plebiscites as genuine acts of the plebs, believes that this conditioned validity of such acts was established at some unknown time prior to the decemvirate. The view of Herzog that certain statutes termed plebiscites in the sources were in reality centuriate laws is accepted in this chapter.

[1682] P. 235.

[1683] Livy iii. 55. 15; iv. 6. 3 (Canuleian plebiscite); 12. 8 (for the election of a prefect of the market, 440); 49. 6 (“Temptatum ab L. Sextio tribuno plebis, ut rogationem ferret, qua Bolas quoque sicut Labicos coloni mitterentur, per intercessionem collegarum, qui nullum plebi scitum nisi ex auctoritate senatus passuros se perferri ostenderunt, discussum est,” 415); 51. 2 f. (413); vi. 42. 9 (Licinian-Sextian plebiscite); vii. 15. 12 f. (law against bribery, 356); 27. 3 (347); viii. 23. 11 f. (the plebiscite for prolonging the consular imperium, 327); x. 6. 9 (Ogulnian plebiscite, 300); 21. 9 (plebiscite ordering the praetor to appoint triumviri for conducting colonies, 296). Cf. also Dion. Hal. x. 26. 4 f. (457); 30. 1; 48. 1 (454); 50. 3; xi. 54. 4 (444); Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 208 ff. All the citations from Dionysius, excepting the last, refer to pre-decemviral time, and hence are anticipations of a later condition.

The first triumph by order of the people, without the consent of the senate, according to Livy iii. 63. 11 (cf. Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1), took place in 449. It is to be noticed, however, that a magistrate always had a right to triumph without permission either of the senate or of the people (Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 214 f.), provided he paid his own expenses; Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Livy xxxiii. 23. 8. The resolution of the people on this occasion, if historical, may have been a mere pledge of sympathy and confidence; cf. p. 293. But Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 194, doubts its reality.

The “ancient law long ago abolished,” which required the consent of the senate to proposals brought before the people, and which Sulla is said to have renewed (Appian, _B. C._ i. 59. 266; cf. p. 406), is ordinarily referred, as by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 193, to the condition on the validity of the plebiscite under discussion. Appian may have had this restriction in mind, for we know at least that under the constitution as reformed by Sulla the tribunes did propose laws de senatus sententia; _CIL._ i. 204 (year 71); Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 94; Girard, _Textes_, 66; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 154; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.

[1684] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 157.

[1685] Lange’s idea (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 619; cf. i. 611, 614, 642) that there was no statute which made the consent of the senate essential to the validity of the plebiscite does not appear to be well considered. Had the tribunes not been bound by written enactment, they would have felt themselves free to legislate without the senate’s coöperation, and even the law they tried in vain to disregard.

[1686] Livy iii. 55. 13.

[1687] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158.

[1688] Diod. xii. 25. 3: Ἐὰν δὲ οἱ δήμαρχοι μὴ συμφωνῶσι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, κύριοι εἶναι τὸν ἀνὰ μέσον κείμενον μὴ κωλύεσθαι; Livy iv. 48. 10-16 (416); 53. 6; v. 25. 1 (395); vi. 36. 8; 37. 3; 38. 5. The same passages show the dependence of the government upon the tribunes for checking innovations.

[1689] Livy iii. 69. 5 f.; iv. i. 6; 30. 15; 53. 2, 6 (407); 55. 1-5 (406); 60. 5 (403); v. 12. 3, 7 (397); vi. 27. 9 f. (376); 31. 4 (cf. 31. 1 f., year 374); vi. 36. 3 f.; Dion. Hal. xi. 54. 3 (444).

[1690] It is true that Livy (iv. 50. 6, 8; 56. 10-13, year 408; v. 9. 4 ff., year 402; vi. 35. 9) assigns the tribune this right; but on one occasion (vii. 17. 12, year 356) he informs us that such a protest was disregarded by the magistrate. We may suppose that in this period they often attempted the power, but usually without success. They possessed a growing influence in the right to address the people, which must often have added an overwhelming force to their protests; cf. Livy iv. 25. 1 (434); 58. 14 (406); v. 2. 2 ff. (403); ch. 6 (403). This kind of obstruction may be meant by Livy iv. 36. 3 (424); 43. 3 (421); v. 17. 5 (397); vii. 21. 1 ff. (353). The government, on the other hand, continued to use the levy for the obstruction of tribunician bills; Livy iv. 55. 1 (409); v. 11. 9 (401).

[1691] The principal recorded seditions are (1) the revolt against the decemvirate in 449 (Livy iii. 50 ff.); (2) a plebeian secession to the Janiculum in the struggle for the Canuleian law (Florus i. 25); (3) a state of anarchy in 376 (Diod. xv. 61. 1), which, according to Matzat (_Röm. Chron._ ii. 110), lasted about four months; (4) a state of anarchy in the struggle for the Licinian-Sextian laws (Diod. xv. 75. 1; Livy vi. 35. 10), which, according to Matzat (ibid. ii. 112), continued three years, 376-373; (5) a secession of the plebs to the Janiculum in the struggle which resulted in the Hortensian legislation, 287 (Livy, ep. xi; Dio Cass. Frag. 37; Zon. viii. 2. 1).

[1692] P. 104, 110, 116 f.

[1693] X. 47. 1.

[1694] P. 116 f.

[1695] P. 230.

[1696] Cf. Livy vi. 3. 2 (389); 33. 7 f. (377); vii. 19. 7 (353).

[1697] Livy vi. 14. 1: “Dictator ... minime dubius bellum cum his populis patres iussuros” (385). In 381 the senate decreed that the Tusculans should be punished with war (Livy vi. 25. 5), no mention being made of the people; and the declaration of war against the Latins in 340 appears to have been merely acclaimed by the people who chanced at the time to be in front of the senate-house; Livy viii. 6. 4-8.

[1698] Livy v. 49. 2 (390).