Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (11)

[2713] Ascon. 58. The restriction, however, was only partial; Erman, in _Mélanges_ Ch. Appleton (1903), 201-304. The author of the law seems to have been a man not only of excellent heart but of remarkably statesmanlike views, though the optimates naturally classed him as seditious. On Cornelius in general, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1252-5; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 526-9.

[2714] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 23 ff.; Plut. _Pomp._ 25; Vell. ii. 31; App. _Mithr._ 94.

[2715] Vell. ii. 31; Cic. _Verr._ ii. 3. 8; iii. 91. 213; Pseud. Ascon. 122, 176, 206; Schol. Bob. 234; Sall. _Hist._ iii. 4 f.

[2716] P. 428 f.

[2717] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 30. 2; cf. the deposition of Octavius, p. 367.

[2718] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 15. 44; Livy, ep. xcix; Eutrop. vi. 12.

[2719] Plut. _Pomp._ 26; Dio Cass, xxxvi. 37. 1; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 19. 57 f.

[2720] Sall. _Hist._ v. 13; cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256.

[2721] Cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 76. Another comitial act on foreign affairs was the plebiscite of unknown authorship providing for a commission of ten to aid Lucullus in settling the affairs of Asia; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 43. 2.

[2722] Ascon, p. 64 ff.; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 42. 1-3.

[2723] Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 3.

[2724] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47.

[2725] Ascon. 65 f. The Cn. Manlius mentioned by Ascon. 45 f. is probably to be identified with this Manilius; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 19, n. 9.

[2726] XXXVI. 42. 3.

[2727] Ascon. 66, or more simply the “lex de imperio Cn. Pompeii”; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ Inscr.

[2728] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 42.4; Plut. _Pomp._ 30; _Lucull._ 35; App. _Mithr._ 97; Livy, ep. c; Vell. ii. 33. 1; Eutrop. vi. 12.

[2729] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 219; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 586 f.

[2730] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 17. 51 ff.; 20. 59 ff.; Plut. _Pomp._ 30.

[2731] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 43. 2, and especially Cicero’s oration _De imperio Pompeii ad quirites_. Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 131 f., severely criticises Dio Cassius for his treatment of Cicero’s motives.

[2732] P. 354.

[2733] P. 370.

[2734] P. 397; Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; _Brut._ 16. 63; _Balb._ 21. 48; 23. 52; 24. 54; _Arch._ 5. 10; _Leg. Agr._ i. 4. 13; Ascon. 67; Schol. Bob. 296, 354; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 9. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 229; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 140.

[2735] Gell. i. 12. 11 f.; Suet. _Aug._ 31; Lange, ibid. ii. 675 f.; iii. 229; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 439.

[2736] P. 391.

[2737] P. 416. On the lex Atia, see Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 243. This act had no effect on the supreme pontificate, which had remained elective (p. 416 above) and which was conferred on Caesar soon after (Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 155 f.) the enactment of the Atian law; Dio Cass. ibid.; Suet. _Caes._ 13; Vell. ii. 43. 3. The same Atius, together with T. Ampius Balbus, a colleague, proposed and carried a plebiscite for granting to Pompey the privilege of wearing the triumphal ornaments in the Circensian games and the toga praetexta and laurel (or golden?) crown at the theatres; Vell. ii. 40. 4; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 21. 3 f.

[2738] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 4.

[2739] Ibid. i. 2. 4; ii. 5. 13.

[2740] Ibid. ii. 7. 16-8; 8. 21.

[2741] Ibid. ii. 13. 34; 24. 64.

[2742] Ibid. ii. 9. 24.

[2743] Ibid. i. 5. 15; ii. 13. 33; 27. 72.

[2744] From (1) an extensive sale of houses, lands, and other property belonging to the state (ibid. i. 1. 3; 3. 10; ii. 14. 35; 15. 38). (2) vectigalia (i. 4. 10; ii. 21. 56), and (3) other public moneys (i. 4. 12 f.; ii. 22. 59).

[2745] Ibid. ii. 25. 66.

[2746] Ibid. i. 5. 16 f.; ii. 13. 34; 20. 55; 24. 63; 25. 66; 26. 68; 27. 74 f.

[2747] These are the second and third _Orations on the Agrarian Law_, the first having been delivered in the senate. On the purpose of the rogation, see Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 223 ff.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 143; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 231-3.

[2748] P. 431.

[2749] Cic. _Mur._ 32. 67.

[2750] Cic. _Vat._ 15. 37; p. 359 above.

[2751] _CIL._ i². p. 156.

[2752] Cic. _Mur._ 2. 3; 3. 5; 23. 47; 32. 67; Schol. Bob. 269, 309, 324, 362.

[2753] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47.

[2754] Cic. _Vat._ 15. 37; _Sest._ 64. 133 (cf. _Har. Resp._ 26. 56); Schol. Bob. 309.

[2755] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47; 41. 89; _Planc._ 34. 83; Schol. Bob. 269, 362; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 29. 1.

[2756] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47. On the law in general, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 245; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801.

[2757] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 24, proves that no such law existed at the beginning of 63, and in 62 its existence is assumed by the Caecilian rogation for dispensing Pompey from its provisions; Schol. Bob. 302.

In 61 M. Aufidius Lurco, tribune of the plebs, attempted a curious modification of the statute concerning corruption at elections, proposing that promises of money to the tribes should not be binding, but that a candidate who actually paid should be liable for life to a payment—apparently annual—of three thousand sesterces to the tribe. His measure failed to become a law; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 12 f.; 18. 3; Hartmann, ibid. i. 1802.

[2758] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 1. 2; _Att._ ii. 18. 3.

[2759] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 8. 18.

[2760] Cic. _Fam._ xii. 21.

[2761] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 3. 8; 17. 45; _Flacc._ 34. 86.

[2762] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 8. 18.

[2763] Cic. _Flacc._ 34. 86; _Fam._ xii. 21; _Att._ ii. 18. 3; xv. ii. 4; Suet. _Tib._ 31; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 244.

Several unpassed bills of the year 63 are mentioned. (1) The rogation of L. Caecilius, tribune of the plebs, for lightening the penalty upon P. Autronius Paetus and P. Cornelius Sulla, who had been condemned for ambitus; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 25. 3; Cic. _Sull._ 22 f.; cf. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 3. 8; 4. 10.—(2) A proposal to restore to the children of those whom Sulla had proscribed the right to become candidates for offices; Dio Cass. ibid.; Plut. _Cic._ 12; Cic. _Att._ ii. 1. 3.—(3) A proposal for the cancellation of debts and (4) another for the allotment of lands in Italy. All these measures were quashed by Cicero; Dio Cass. ibid. § 3 f.

[2764] Suet. _Caes._ 28. 3; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 17.

[2765] Schol. Bob. 310. These same magistrates established a penalty for violations of the lex Caecilia Didia (Cic. _Phil._ v. 3. 8), whether by the law above mentioned or a separate enactment cannot be determined.

[2766] Val. Max ii. 8. 1. In 62 falls the unpassed bill of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, tribune of the plebs (cf. p. 437, n. 1), directing Pompey to come to the defence of Italy against Catiline; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 43; Schol. Bob. 302. In the following year (61) the consuls, M. Pupius Piso and M. Valerius Messala, proposed a resolution for the appointment of a special commission to try Clodius on charge of having intruded in a religious festival exclusively for women; Cic. _Att._ i. 13. 3; _Mil._ 5. 13; 22. 59; 27. 73; Ascon. 53; Suet. _Caes._ 6; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 46. The bill provided that the jurors should not be drawn by lot in the usual way but appointed by the praetor; Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1. It was withdrawn in favor of the plebiscite de religione for the same purpose but more favorable to the accused, presented by Q. Fufius Calenus, and accepted by the tribes; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 2; _Parad._ iv. 2. 31; Plut. _Caes._ 10; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 198 f.

[2767] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 3; Cic. _Att._ ii. 16. I; _Q. Fr._ i. 1. 11. 33; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 274. These taxes were made unnecessary by Pompey’s acquisitions in the East.

[2768] Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 6; 19. 4; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 50; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 31.

[2769] P. 162.

[2770] P. 386.

[2771] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 4. On the later inclusion of this territory, see p. 440 below.

[2772] Suet. _Caes._ 20.

[2773] Cic. _Fam._ xiii. 4. 2.

[2774] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 4 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 9. 23.

[2775] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 3; App. _B. C._ ii. 10. 35; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 31; _Pomp._ 47; _Cic._ 26.

[2776] App. _B. C._ iii. 2. 5; 7. 24.

[2777] Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 10; Cic. _Att._ ii. 6. 2; 7. 3; ix. 2 a. 1; Vell. ii. 45. 2; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 6 f.; Suet. _Aug._ 4.

[2778] Dio Cass. ibid.

[2779] _CIL._ vi. 3826 (Elogium of M. Valerius Messala, consul in 61); Cic. _Att._ ii. 7. 4; _Prov. Cons._ 17. 41.

[2780] _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 628, n. 4.

[2781] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 2.

[2782] Ibid. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10.

[2783] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 6. 1.

[2784] P. 116.

[2785] The assembly met in the Forum, and was therefore tribal; Suet. _Caes._ 20; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 6. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 32.

[2786] Cic. _Att._ ii. 18. 2: “Ut ex legibus Iuliis” seems to be official language. The explanation of Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 114 f., which identifies one of the Julian laws with the lex Mamilia, Roscia, etc., is not satisfactory, though accepted by Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 182. A plurality is also mentioned by Livy, ep. ciii; Schol. Bob. 302; Plut. _Pomp._ 47 f.; _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10-2.

[2787] _Att._ ii. 18. 2.

[2788] _Att._ ii. 3. 3 (Dec. 60); 6. 2; 7. 3.

[2789] _Att._ ii. 16. 1.

[2790] XXXVIII. 1. 4; 7. 3.

[2791] _Cat. Min._ 31, 33.

[2792] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 279-88, maintains that there were two agrarian laws; cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 287-91. The opposite view is held by Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 114 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 182.

[2793] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 7. 3; _Cat. Min._ 33; Suet. _Caes._ 20; Vell. ii. 44. 4. Whereas Cicero was of the opinion that this district could provide not more than five thousand with lots of ten iugera, Suetonius and Velleius state that twenty thousand were settled in it. Some Campanian land remained undivided in 51; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 10. 4. Many settlements under the Julian law are mentioned in the _liber coloniarum_, in Gromat. 210, 220, 231, 235, 239, 259, 260.

It was in accord with Caesar’s policy of colonization and of the extension of the franchise that P. Vatinius, tribune of the plebs in this year, carried a law for sending five thousand new settlers to Comum, a Latin colony in northern Italy. Some of the new residents he honored with the citizenship; Strabo v. 16; Suet. _Caes._ 28; App. _B. C._ ii. 26. 98; Plut. _Caes._ 29; Cic. _Att._ v. 11. 2; _Fam._ xiii. 35. 1. The franchise was afterward withdrawn by a decree of the senate; Suet. and Plut. ibid.

[2794] Dio Cassius, xxxviii. 7. 1 f. (cf. Schol. Bob. 302; App. _B. C._ ii. 12. 42), is probably wrong in saying that death was the penalty for refusal to swear. Cicero (_Sest._ 28. 61) and Plutarch (_Cat. Min._ 32) speak simply of heavy penalties.

[2795] Cic. _Att._ ii. 18. 2. The provision regarding the oath was not introduced till it was found that the senate opposed.

Supplementary to these Julian laws is the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, three articles of which are contained in Gromat. 263-6; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 96-8; Girard, _Textes_, 69 f. Other references to a lex Mamilia are Gromat. 11. 5; 12. 12; 37. 24; 144. 19; 169. 7; Cic. _Leg._ i. 21. 55. The last proves it to have been passed before 51. The seeming citation of the third article as an agrarian law of Gaius Caesar by _Dig._ xlvii. 21. 3, may indicate merely a borrowing of this article from the earlier law of Caesar, just as article 2 is substantially repeated in _Lex Col. Genet._ 104. Mommsen, in _Röm. Feldmess._ ii. 221-6; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 628, n. 4, considers it the work of a second sub-committee (Vviri) of the vigintiviri provided for by the agrarian law, enacted to furnish rules for the administration of the latter. Lange (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 690; iii. 288) and more decidedly Willems (_Sén. Rom._ i. 498, n. 5) prefer to regard it as a tribunician law and to assign it to 55.

[2796] Cf. Polyb. vi. 17. 5; p. 345 above.

[2797] Suet. _Caes._ 20; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 7. 4; App. _B. C._ ii. 13. 48; Cic. _Att._ ii. 16. 2; Schol. Bob. 259, 261.

[2798] Cic. _Fam._ viii. 8. 3.

[2799] Pompey in his second consulship, 55, attempted in vain to displace it by a still severer measure; p. 448.

[2800] Cic. _Att._ v. 10. 2; 16. 3.

[2801] Cic. _Pis._ 16. 37; 21. 49 f.; 37. 90; _Dom._ 9. 23; _Prov. Cons._ 4. 7.

[2802] Cic. _Pis._ 37. 90.

[2803] Cic. _Att._ vi. 7. 2; _Fam._ ii. 17. 2, 4; v. 20. 2, 7; _Pis._ 25. 61; cf. Plut. _Cat. Min._ 38; Dio Cass. xxxix. 23. 3.

[2804] _Dig._ xlviii. 11.

[2805] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 8 f.; 11. 30.

[2806] Suet. _Caes._ 43; _Otho_, 2; Tac. _Hist._ i. 77; Paul. _Sent._ v. 28.

[2807] _Vat._ 12. 29. See further on the law, _Sest._ 64. 135; Schol. Bob. 310, 321; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 195-7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 292; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 709; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 427, 483, 485.

[2808] Ci. _Vat._ ii. 27; _Planc._ 15. 36; Schol. Bob. 235, 321, 323. “It is indifferently described as a method of challenging alternate benches (consilia) and alternate iudices”; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 451. It seems to have permitted the rejection not simply of individual jurors as heretofore, but of an entire panel; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 197.

[2809] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 8. 1; Schol. Bob. 235.

[2810] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 10. 136; Joseph. _Ant. Iud._ xiv. 34 f.

[2811] Cic. _Att._ ii. 16. 2.

[2812] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 107. 6; Suet. _Caes._ 54; Dio Cass, xxxix. 12. 1; Cic. _Rab. Post._ 3. 6.

[2813] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 7. 5; App. _B. C._ ii. 13. 46; Plut. _Lucull._ 42; _Pomp._ 48; Vell. ii. 44. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 289; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 194. Several other laws on foreign affairs, having especial reference to treaties, were proposed and carried by P. Vatinius, tribune of the plebs in this year, acting probably as Caesar’s instrument; Cic. _Vat._ 12. 29; _Fam._ i. 9. 7; _Att._ ii. 9. 1.

[2814] P. 163.

[2815] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 8. 5; Suet. _Caes._ 22; Cic. _Sest._ 64. 135; _Vat._ 15. 35 f.; _Prov. Cons._ 15. 36; Caes. _B. G._ ii. 35. 2; iii. 7. 1; v. 1. 5.

[2816] Caes. _B. G._ i. 10.

[2817] Caes. _B. G._ i. 21.

[2818] Suet. _Caes._ 22; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 8. 5; Plut. _Caes._ 14; _Pomp._ 48; _Crass._ 14; _Cat. Min._ 33. The resolutions of people and senate are combined by App. _B. C._ ii. 13. 49; Vell. ii. 44. 5; Zon. x. 6; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 198 f.

[2819] Cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 290.

[2820] Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.

[2821] On the consulship of Caesar see further Long, _Rom. Rep._ III. ch. xix; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 278-96; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 550-3; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 177 ff.; the histories of Mommsen, Peter, Ferrero, etc., and the various biographies of Caesar.

[2822] Cic. _Sest._ 25. 55; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 1; Ascon. 9; Schol. Bob. 300 ff.

[2823] Six and a third asses to the modius; p. 372. The frumentarian law of Appuleius Saturninus for lowering the price to five-sixths of an _as_ had been annulled (p. 395 f.), and the law in force in 82, whether the Sempronian or the Octavian, was repealed by Sulla (p. 422). Lepidus, consul in 78, carried a law for the distribution of five modii of grain to the citizen, at what price and at what interval is not stated (p. 423, n. 8). There was also a lex frumentaria of the consuls of 73, C. Cassius Varus and M. Terentius Varro (Cic. _Verr._ iii. 70. 163; v. 21. 52; cf. Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 19). It must have restored, or maintained, the Sempronian price, which according to the sources was displaced by the Clodian provision for free grain. Probably by an article of this law, rather than by a new enactment, Sex. Clodius, a dependent of the tribune, was given charge of the distribution; Cic. _Dom._ 10. 25. See further Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1346 f.

[2824] Cic. _Sest._ 25. 55.

[2825] Cic. ibid.; _Red. in Sen._ 13. 33; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 1 f.; Plut. _Cic._ 30.

[2826] Cic. _Pis._ 4. 9; _Sest._ 25. 55; Ascon. 9, 67; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 2; Liebenam, _Röm. Vereinswes._ 21; Waltzing, _Corp. prof._ i. 92.

[2827] Cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 300.

[2828] P. 117.

[2829] Cic. _Sest._ 15. 33; p. 471.

[2830] Ascon. 9: Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 2; Schol. Bob. 300; cf. Cic. _Pis._ 4. 9; _Sest._ 25. 55.

[2831] Suet. _Dom._ 9. 3: Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 308.

[2832] Vell. ii. 45. 1; Livy, ep. ciii; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14. 4; Plut. _Cic._ 30; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 208 f.

[2833] P. 371.

[2834] We hear many echoes of this theory in the speeches of Cicero which refer to the Catilinarian conspiracy; cf. _Cat._ ii. 2. 3; 8. 17; iv. 5. 10 (admitted by C. Caesar); 7. 15; 10. 22.

[2835] This act accorded with earlier usage; p. 249, 267, 395. On the original rogation of Clodius concerning the exile of Cicero and its amendment, see Gurlitt, in _Philol._ N. F. xiii (1900). 578-83; Sternkopf, ibid. 272-304; xv (1902). 42-70. See also Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 970, n. 2, 978, n. 1.

The remaining Clodian laws may pass with briefer mention: (1) A plebiscite which converted the kingdom of Cyprus into a province, confiscated the property of the reigning king, and commissioned Cato to bring the treasury of the latter to Rome; Livy, ep. civ; Cic. _Dom._ 8. 20; _Sest._ 26. 57; 27. 59; Schol. Bob. 301 f.; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 30. 5; App. _B. C._ ii. 85 f.—(2) The plebiscite de inuriis publicis, the terms of which are not known; Cic. _Dom._ 30. 81.—(3) The plebiscite which transferred the title of king and the priesthood of the Great Mother at Pessinus from Deiotarus to his son-in-law Brogitarus; Cic. _Sest._ 26. 56; _Har. Resp._ 13. 28 f.; 27. 59; _Dom._ 50. 129; _Q. Fr._ ii. 7. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 308; Niese, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 2401-4.—(4) The plebiscite de provinciis and (5) de permutatione provinciarum, which assigned to the outgoing consuls of the year provinces according to their desires; Cic. _Sest._ 25. 55; _Dom._ 9. 23 f.; 26. 70; _Prov. Cons._ 2. 3; Plut. _Cic._ 30; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 81. 4. There were, too, several unpassed rogations. In general on Clodius and his legislation, see Lange, ibid. 296 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ III. ch. xxi; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 202 ff.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 82-8; White, _Cicero, Clodius, and Milo_, 16 ff.

[2836] Cic. _Dom._ 33. 90; _Pis._ 15. 35 f.; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 27; p. 127 above. Among the tribunician rogations for the purpose, preceding the enactment of the centuriate law, were the Ninnia (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 30. 4; Cic. _Sest._ 31. 68), the Messia (Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 8. 21), that of eight tribunes (Cic. _Sest._ 33. 72; Pis. 15. 35; _Fam._ i. 9. 16), and the Fabricia (Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 8. 22; _Mil._ 14. 38). The last was proposed early in 57; the others near the end of 58.

[2837] Cic. _Att._ iv. 1. 7; Livy, ep. civ; Dio Cass. xxxix. 9. 2 f.; Plut. _Pomp._ 49; App. _B. C._ ii. 18. 67.

In 56 a rogation of C. Porcius Cato, tribune of the plebs, for abrogating the proconsular imperium of P. Cornelius Lentulus failed to become a law (Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3. 1; _Fam._ 1. 5 a. 2); also the rogation of his colleague L. Caninius for commissioning Pompey with pretorian power for the purpose of restoring Ptolemy, the exiled king of Egypt, to his throne; Dio Cass. xxxix. 12 ff.; Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 2. 3; Plut. _Pomp._ 49.

[2838] An interregnum was forced in order to secure a more favorable chairman for the elections than were the consuls of 56.

[2839] Plut. _Caes._ 21; _Pomp._ 51; _Crass._ 14; _Cat. Min._ 41; App. _B. C._ ii. 17. 62 f. The postponement of the comitia was effected by C. Porcius Cato (Dio Cass. xxxix. 27. 3; Livy, ep. cv; Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 4. 6) and a colleague in the tribunate (Cic. _Att._ iv. 15. 4).

[2840] Cic. _Att._ iv. 9. 1; Dio Cass. xxxix. 33. 1 f.; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 43; _Crass._ 15; _Pomp._ 52; App. _B. C._ ii. 18. 65; Livy, ep. cv; Vell. ii. 46. 1 f.; p. 442 above.

[2841] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34 f.; Plut. and Livy, ibid.

[2842] Dio Cass. xxxix. 33. 3 f.

[2843] Dio Cass. xxxix. 37. 1.

[2844] Cic. _Planc._ 15. 36; 16. 40; 17. 41.

[2845] Ibid. 15. 36 ff.; Schol. Bob. 253 f., 261.

[2846] Cic. _Planc._ 16. 40; Schol. Bob. 262; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 340 f.

[2847] Cic. _Att._ x. 4. 8; xiii. 49. 1; App. _B. C._ ii. 23. 87; Dio Cass. xl. 52. 3; 55. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 48; _Pomp._ 55.

[2848] Paul. _Sent._ v. 24; _Dig._ xlviii. 9; cf. i. 2. 2. 2. 32, which is inexact; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 667.

[2849] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 6. 13. As the equites did not participate in the government of Italy and the provinces, they had not been rendered liable to the earlier leges repetundarum, although it was possible to bring action against them for corrupt jury service; cf. p. 378, n. 3.

[2850] Dio Cass. xxxix. 37.

[2851] Cic. _Pis._ 39. 94; _Phil._ i. 8. 20; Ascon. 16; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ ii. 3. 2 f.; cf. 7. 11 f.; 12. 1; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 448.

[2852] Cic. _Mil._ 5. 13; 6. 15; 26. 70; 29. 79; Ascon. 31 ff., 37, 40, 53; Schol. Bob. 276; Schol. Gronov. 443; Gell. x. 20.

[2853] Cic. _Att._ vii. 1. 4; 3. 4; viii. 3. 3; _Fam._ vi. 6. 5; xvi. 12. 3; _Phil._ ii. 10. 24; Suet. _Caes._ 26; Caes. _B. C._ i. 32; Dio Cass. xl. 51. 2.

[2854] Dio Cass. xl. 56. 1; Suet. _Caes._ 28. 3.

[2855] Dio Cass. xl. 46. 2.

[2856] Ibid, and 56. 1; cf. 30. 1.

[2857] P. 381.

[2858] Hirschfeld, in _Klio_, iv (1904). 76-87; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 720 ff.

[2859] It suffices to mention (1) the unpassed bill of C. Lucilius Hirrus and M. Coelius Vinicianus, 53 (in rivalry with a tribunician rogation for the establishment of tribuni militum consulari potestate), to name Pompey dictator; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 4. 3; _Q. Fr._ iii. 8. 4; Plut. _Pomp._ 54.—(2) The repeal of the Clodian plebiscite of 58 concerning the censorial stigma (p. 445) by a law of Q. Caecilius Metellus, colleague of Pompey in 52; Dio Cass. xl. 57. 1.—(3) The unpassed bill of the famous P. Clodius, praetor in 52, concerning the suffrage of the libertini—somewhat similar to the Manilian law of 67 (p. 433); Ascon. 52; Schol. Bob. 346.—(4) Possibly a lex Scribonia de usucapione servitutum was the work of C. Scribonius Curio, tribune in 50, though more probably it belongs to an earlier date; p. 424, n. 4.—(5) An unpassed alimentary rogation of the same Scribonius for ordering the aediles to control the weights and measures of the markets in a way to give justice to the poor; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 6. 5; App. _B. C._ ii. 27. 102.—(6) Another unpassed Scribonian bill for limiting the travelling expenses of senators; Cic. _Att._ vi. 1. 25.—(7) An unpassed Scribonian bill concerning the Campanian land; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 10. 4.—(8) An unpassed Scribonian rogatio viaria, like the agrarian rogation of Servilius Rullus (p. 435); Cic. _Fam._ viii. 6. 5.—(9) An unpassed Scribonian bill for confiscating the realm of King Juba; Caes. _B. C._ ii. 25; Dio Cass. xli. 41. 3. One or two other unpassed bills of the same tribune are still less important.

[2860] Dio Cass. xli. 36. 1 f.; Caes. _B. C._ ii. 21; App. _B. C._ ii. 48. 196; Plut. _Caes._ 37.

[2861] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 2; App. _B. C._ ii. 48. 196 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 37.

[2862] Here seems to belong the plebiscite of A. Hirtius concerning the partisans of Pompey (Cic. _Phil._ xiii. 16. 32; _CIL._ i. p. 627 f.; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 592), though Mommsen (_CIL._ l. c.) assigns it to 46.

[2863] Dio. Cass. xlii. 20.

[2864] Ibid. 21. That his appointment was for an indefinite time, not for a year as Dio Cassius, ibid. 20, states, is proved by _CIL._ i.² p. 28, 41. He held the office till news of the victory at Thapsus reached Rome.

[2865] Dio Cass. xlii. 20.

[2866] Dio Cass. xliii. 14; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 48 f.

[2867] Dio Cassius, xliii. 42-6, describes them at great length, whereas Suetonius, _Caes._ 76, is content with a brief enumeration.

[2868] Dio Cass. xliii. 44; _CIL._ ix. 2563; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 767, n. 1.

[2869] The right to the consulship was granted according to Dio Cassius, xliii. 45. 1 (προεχειρίσαντο), by a vote of the people. In general it is impossible to determine which senatus consulta for conferring these and future honors were ratified by the comitia. The perpetual dictatorship was assumed February, 44; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 739.

[2870] Dio Cass. xliv. 5. 3.

[2871] Ibid. 7. 3; Suet. _Caes._ 52. 3. Two laws of the consul M. Antonius were also enacted in his honor, the first changing the name of the month Quinctilis to Julius (Macrob. _Sat._ i. 12. 34), the second dedicating to Caesar the fifth day of the Roman games (Cic. _Phil._ ii. 43. 110).

[2872] Cf. Bondurant, _Dec. Jun. Brut._ 40.

[2873] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 1; Cic. _Att._ vii. 11. 1.

[2874] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 1; Suet. _Caes._ 42; Dio Cass. xli. 37 f.; App. _B. C._ ii. 48. 198; Plut. _Caes._ 37. Possibly the lex Iulia de bonorum cessione (Gaius iii. 78; Theod. Cod. iv. 20; Justin. Cod. vii. 71. 4) may be identical with this law.

[2875] Dio Cass. xli. 38. 1 f.; Cic. _Att._ ix. 9. 4.

[2876] Agitation leading to this measure found expression in a rogation of M. Caelius Rufus, praetor in 48, for the payment of debts in six years without interest (Caes. _B. C._ iii. 20) and somewhat later in a rogation for an extensive, perhaps complete, abolition of debts (Caes. _B. C._ iii. 21; Livy, ep. cxi; Vell. ii. 68. 1 f.; Dio Cass. xlii. 22-5); in a rogation of P. Cornelius Dolabella, tribune of the plebs in 47, for the complete abolition of debts (Livy, ep. cxiii; Plut. _Ant._ 9; Dio Cass. xlii. 29. 32); and in rogations by these two officials respectively for the remission of rents (treated by the sources in connection with their bills on insolvency).

[2877] Suet. _Caes._ 38; Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 1.

[2878] On the similar measure of Octavianus, see p. 459. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 694; iii. 435.

[2879] This measure seems to have been brought about by no law but merely through his censorial power; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 448; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 557.

[2880] A Julian colonial law is mentioned by _Lex Col. Genet._ 97. The veterans were settled in Italy probably under the agrarian law of 59; Suet. _Caes._ 81. 1. The known colonies founded under the dictatorial law are included in Kornemann’s list, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 524 ff.; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 604-6. His most famous colonies were Carthage (App. _Lib._ 136; Dio Cass. xliii. 50. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 57; Strabo xvii. 3. 5) and Corinth (Dio Cass. ibid. § 4; Plut. ibid.; Strabo viii. 6. 3; xvii. 3. 15; Paus. ii. 1. 2; 3. 1). The colonia Genetiva Iulia Urbanorum in Spain was founded in 44 after the death of Caesar, but iussu C. Caesaris dict. imp. et lege Antonia senat(us)que c(onsulto) pl(ebi)que (scito)—by a consular law of Antonius for the founding of the colony, supplemented by a plebiscite of unknown authorship.

The inscription known as the lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae (_CIL._ ii. supplb. 5439; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 123-40; Girard, _Textes_, 87-103) is a part of the lex data (§ 67), or charter, granted the colony by its founder. It was called Urbanorum because it was made up of proletarians from Rome; cf. Kornemann, ibid. 527.

[2881] Suet. _Caes._ 42. At the same time measures were taken to prevent those residents of Italy who were liable to military service from absenting themselves unduly from the country. To give employment to the poor, the owners of herds were ordered to make up one-third of their shepherds from freemen; ibid.

[2882] Dio Cass. xli. 18. 2; xliv. 47. 4; Plut. _Caes._ 37; Suet. _Caes._ 41; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 416.

[2883] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 1; cf. Suet. _Caes._ 41.

[2884] Cic. _Phil._ xii. 4. 10; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 24; Dio Cass. xli. 36. 3; cf. xxxvii. 9. 3-5. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134; 159, n. 1; Krüger-Brissaud, _Sourc. d. droit Rom._ 97, for the authorship of the law.

The so-called lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina (_CIL._ i. 205 = xi. 1146; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 98-102; Girard, _Textes_, 70-76) seems to be a lex data, probably of 49 [Mommsen, in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 238 f.; _Ephem. Ep._ ix. 1903. p. 4]. As the lex Rubria cited in § 20 is not this document but an earlier plebiscite, the name of the author has not been determined. It regulated the administration of justice in Cisalpina, which remained a province till 42. The fragment of a law found at Ateste (Bruns, ibid. 102 f.; Girard, _Textes_, (76-8) is of the same nature and belongs to the same period, though probably not to the Rubrian law itself, as Mommsen (_Hermes_, xvi. 24-41) once assumed.

[2885] Dio Cass. xli. 24. 1; cf. Livy, ep. cx. The monarchical quality of his rule shows itself in his bestowal of the citizenship on individuals at his own pleasure; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134.

In 44 the lex Iulia de Siculis, published by Antonius after the death of Caesar, gave the full citizenship to the Sicilians, who had received the Latinitas from Caesar. This law, Antonius asserted, had been carried through the comitia by the dictator, whereas Cicero, _Att._ xiv. 12. 1, states positively that no mention was even made of such a proposition in the dictator’s lifetime.

[2886] Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 4; Suet. _Caes._ 41; wrongly Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2. 32. The two additional aediles (cereales) were not instituted till 44; Dio Cass. xliii. 51. 3.

[2887] Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 3; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 437; p. 416 above. The addition of one to the fifteen members of the great sacerdotal colleges (Dio Cass. ibid.; cf. Cic. _Fam._ xiii. 68. 2) refers to his right to commend candidates for supernumerary membership (Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2317), and hence does not imply a comitial act.

[2888] Cic. _Phil._ vii. 6. 16.

[2889] Suet. _Caes._ 41; cf. Dio Cass. xliii. 51. 3. The pretext was the impending Parthian war. In 46 he had been given the right to name all the magistrates but had rejected it; Dio Cass. xliii. 14. 5; 45. 1; 47. 1; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 612, n. 3.

[2890] Livy, ep. cxvi; Dio Cass. xliv. 10. 1-3; xlvi. 49. 2. In the following year a tribune was similarly deposed by a plebiscite of P. Titius, a colleague (Dio Cass. xlvi. 49. 1); and in 43, before the establishment of the triumvirate, the city praetor was deprived of his office by his colleagues, probably through a comitial act; App. _B. C._ iii. 95. 394 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 630, n. 4.

[2891] P. 427.

[2892] Suet. _Caes._ 41; Dio Cass. xliii. 25. 1. Cicero, _Phil._ i. 8. 19, intimates, without positively stating, that this was a centuriate law; p. 236 above.

[2893] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 455; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 558.

[2894] We are informed that he increased the penalties for crimes, and enacted that a person condemned to exile should forfeit half his estate, and the murderer of a relative the whole; Suet. _Caes._ 42; cf. Dio Cass. xliv. 49. 3.

[2895] Cic. _Phil._ i. 9. 23.

[2896] The Julian laws on these subjects in the _Digesta_, xlviii. 4 (de maiestate), 6 f. (de vi) prove by their contents to belong to Augustus; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 560. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 455. The leges Iuliae which abolished what remained of the legis actiones (Gaius iv. 30) are also supposed to belong to Augustus; Poste, _Gaius_, 474.

[2897] Cic. _Att._ xiii. 7.

[2898] Cic. _Fam._ ix. 15. 5; 26. 3; Suet. _Caes._ 43.

[2899] Cic. _Att._ xii. 35; 36. 1.

[2900] Cic. _Att._ xiii. 7; Suet. _Caes._ 43; Dio Cass. xliii. 25. 2; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 559; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 450. The officials failed to enforce it effectively; Suet. ibid.

[2901] P. 164.

[2902] Dio Cass. xliii. 25; Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 9; iii. 15. 38; v. 3. 7; viii. 9. 28. The lex Iulia et Titia, which gave provincial governors the right to name tutors (Gaius i. 185, 195; Ulp. xi. 18; frag. d. Sin. 20; _Inst._ i. 20) may be a part of the lex de provinciis (Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 840 f.), or a supplement to it. The expression may refer either to one law or to two related laws. The Julian lex de liberis legationibus, limiting their duration (Cic. _Att._ xv. 11. 4), also belongs to 46.

[2903] _CIL._ i. 206; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 104-13; Dessau, ii. 6085; Girard, _Textes_, 78-87. The extant fragment, originally known as the Table of Heraclea (Lucania) from the place where it was found, is inscribed on a bronze tablet now in the National Museum at Naples. As it disqualified for office any who had taken part in the proscriptions (§ 121), it must have followed the downfall of the Cornelian régime in 70, and the mention of the month Quinctilis (§ 98) proves that it preceded the renaming of that month in 43. A reference to one of its provisions (§§ 94, 104) by Cicero, _Fam._ vi. 18. 1 (Jan., 45) as of a law freshly passed, proves it to be no later than January, 45; cf. Savigny, _Verm. Schr._ iii (1850). 279-412; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 438; Girard, _Textes_, 78. It must have been passed, therefore, before Caesar set out for Spain, about November, 46; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 569.

[2904] For the various hypotheses, see Hackel, in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 552-62.

[2905] Kalb, in _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ 1906. 37. The identification of this law with the lex Iulia municipalis cited in an inscription found at Padua (_CIL._ v. 2864) and with the lex municipalis of the _Digesta_ (1. 9. 3; _Cod._ vii. 9. 1), proposed by Savigny, ibid., is not certain; Girard, _Textes_, 78.

[2906] _Lex Iul. Mun._ 1-19.

[2907] _Lex Iul. Mun._ 20-82.

[2908] Ibid. 83-142.

[2909] Ibid. 143-59.

[2910] Ibid. 160-4.

[2911] Savigny, _Verm. Schr._ iii. 329, was of the opinion that the inclusion of articles 1 and 2 with articles 3-5 formed a lex satura (p. 396) having no other motive than convenience. Hackel, _Wien. Stud._ xxiv. 560, supposes that Caesar had intended to bring the provisions of this measure before the comitia as two separate laws, but in his haste to be off for Spain, combined them in one. At all events the interpretation given above is true of the result if not of the intention.

[2912] Many of his regulations were effected through edicts. Such were probably the imposition of duties on goods imported into Italy—an abolition of the law of 60 (Suet. _Caes._ 43; cf. p. 438), the leasing of the emery mines in Crete (_Dig._ xxxix. 4. 15), and the suppression of the collegia which had been organized under the Clodian law of 58; Suet. _Caes._ 42; Joseph. _Ant. Iud._ xiv. 10. 8. 213 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 435; Liebenam, _Röm. Vereinswes._ 27.

[2913] Cic. _Phil._ v. 4. 10; App. _B. C._ iii. 5. 16; 22. 81; Dio Cass. xliv. 53. 2; xlv. 23. After the Antonian laws had been annulled by the senate, February, 43, on the ground that they had been passed with violence and contrary to the auspices (Cic. _Phil._ vi. 2. 3; Dio Cass. xlv. 27), the acts of Caesar are confirmed anew by a centuriate law of C. Vibius Pansa, consul in that year; Cic. _Phil._ x. 8. 17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 526. The policy of using the departed Caesar as a means of self-aggrandizement readily lent itself to Octavianus, at whose instigation Q. Pedius, his colleague in the consulship in 43, caused a comitial act to be passed for the establishment of a special court to try the murderers of the dictator. The act specified the punishment to be inflicted on the guilty and offered rewards to informers; Vell. ii. 69. 5; Suet. _Ner._ 3; _Galb._ 3; Dio Cass. xlvi. 48 f.; App. _B. C._ iii. 95; Aug. _Mon. Ancyr._ i. 10; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 199.

The lex Rufrena in honor of Caesar (_CIL._ i. 626) probably belongs to 42; Lange, ibid. 556; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 89, n. 3. In te same year falls the lex of the triumvirs which changed the birthday of Caesar from July 12 to 5 (Fowler, _Rom. Fest._ 174) and compelled all to celebrate it; Dio Cass. xlvii. 18. 5.

[2914] Cic. _Phil._ v. 4. 10; _Lex Col. Genet._ 104.

[2915] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 499. After this law had been annulled by a senatus consultum (p. 457, n. 7), the settlements made by Antonius were confirmed by a centuriate law of C. Vibius Pansa, consul in 43; Cic. _Phil._ xiii. 15. 31.

[2916] Dio Cass. xlv. 9. 1.

[2917] Cicero, _Phil._ v. 3. 7, says all Italy; 7. 20; vi. 5. 13.

[2918] Ibid. v. 7. 21; vi. 5. 14; viii. 9. 26; xii. 9. 23.

[2919] Ibid. v. 7. 21; vii. 6. 17.

[2920] Ibid. ii. 38. 99; v. 12. 33; _Alt._ xv. 19. 2.

[2921] Cic. _Phil._ v. 3; vi. 5. 14; xi. 6. 13.

[2922] Dio Cass. xliv. 53. 7; cf. Livy, ep. cxvii; Vell. ii. 63. 1; cf. p. 341, 391. No comitial act is suggested, and it may have been one of the false laws of Caesar. Ferrero’s theory (_Rome_, iii. 38) has nothing in its favor.

[2923] P. 455.

[2924] Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 19; v. 5 f.; viii. 9. 27; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 449 f. This law with his others was annulled in the following year by the senate; Cic. xiii. 3. 5; p. 457, n. 7.

[2925] Cic. _Phil._ i. 9. 21 f.

[2926] Ibid.

[2927] Cic. _Phil._ v. 4. 10; p. 457, n. 7. The lex Antonia on the dictatorship was doubtless renewed by a lex Vibia; Cic. l. c.

[2928] Dio Cass. xlvi. 55. 3.

[2929] Aug. _Mon. Ancyr._ i. 8; App. _B. C._ iv. 7. 27; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 84, 89.

[2930] Dio Cass, xlvii. 15. 4 (ἐψηφίσαντο ordinarily implies a comitial vote); cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 680. The grant of lictors to the Vestals in 42 may also have been effected by a comitial act; Dio Cass. xlvii. 19. 4. In the same year a consular lex of L. Munatius Plancus ordered the erasure of the names of L. Julius Caesar and Sergius from the list of the proscribed; App. _B. C._ iv. 37. 158; 45. 193.

[2931] Dio Cass. xlviii. 9. 5. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 565, assumes a vote of the comitia.

[2932] Dio Cass. xlviii. 33. 5; Gaius ii. 227; _Dig._ 35. 2. Closely related is the lex Glitia of unknown date, mentioned by Gaius only (_Dig._ v. 2. 4), which aimed to prevent a parent from ill-humoredly wronging a child in his testament. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 662, regards the word Glitia as a copyist’s error for Falcidia.

[2933] Dio Cass. xlvii. 13. 3.

[2934] Dio Cass. xlix. 38. 1.

[2935] Aug. _Mon. Ancyr._ ii. 1; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25; Dio Cass. lii. 42. 5; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 130.

[2936] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 649; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 427.

[2937] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 5. 13; Dion. Hal. x. 57. 5; Livy iii. 34. 1; Dio Cass. xlii. 32. 2 f. A bronze tablet was sometimes used for a mere rogation; Cic. _Mil._ 32. 87; Suet. _Caes._ 28. For leges promulgatae, see Livy iii. 9. 5; iv. 1. 1; 48. 1, 9; vi. 35. 4; 39. 1; x. 6. 6; xliii. 16. 6. On the requirement of the trinum nundinum, see p. 397. The proposer was called rogator or lator (Livy iv. 48. 10); his supporters adscriptores; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 22. The names of the latter, provided they were magistrates, were often published with the bill for the sake of influence; Cic. _Pis._ 15. 35; _Red. in Sen._ 2. 4; 9. 22; _Sest._ 33. 72; _Fam._ i. 9. 16.

[2938] Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 4; _Inv._ ii. 45. 130 f.; Ascon. 57; Livy iii. 34. 4 ff.

[2939] Cic. _Sull._ 22. 62.

[2940] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 22.

[2941] Frontinus, _De aquis urbis Romae_, ch. 129; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 115; Girard, _Textes_, 103-5; _Lex Agr._ 1 (_CIL._ i. 200).

[2942] The Italics supply lacunae. See also Cic. _Phil._ i. 10. 26; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 272 (Keil).

[2943] Or the several names of a group of rogatores (cf. Livy iv. 1. 2; Cic. _Sest._ 33. 7. 2), as in the _Lex de Termessibus_ (p. 425) and the lex Mamilia Roscia, etc. (p. 441, n. 1); see also Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 315, n. 2.

[2944] Cf. Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 272.

[2945] He was either taken by lot or appointed by the presiding magistrate; Cic. _Planc._ 14. 35.

[2946] As in the _Lex de Termess._ 1.

[2947] Ex h(ace) l(ege) plebive scito; _Lex Lat. Bant._ (3). 15; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 55; Girard, _Textes_, 31; _Lex Agr._ 2 (_CIL._ i. 200).

[2948] Sometimes K. (kaput) or K. L. (kaput legis) followed by a number is used, or the title may be preceded by R. (rubrica); Egbert, _Lat. Inscr._ 349; Cagnat, _Épigr. Lat._ 266.

[2949] _Dig._ xlviii. 19. 41; Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 2 f. The substance of the sanctio comprising the extant fragment of the _Lex Lat. Bant._ is given on p. 379. On the lex sacrata, see p. 264 f.

[2950] Macrob. _Somn. Scip._ ii. 17. 13. A lex minusquam perfecta prescribes a penalty but allows the violating act to stand. The lex Furia testamentaria (p. 352), for instance, declares that the beneficiary of a legacy above the legal limit must pay fourfold, but does not rescind the legacy itself; Ulp. _Reg._ 1. A lex perfecta not only prescribes a penalty but nullifies a contravening act. These distinctions apply only to the civil law. Cf. Ulp. l. c.; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 428; Poste, _Gaius_, 566. Other terms connected with the enactment, repeal, and alteration of laws are explained by Ulp. _Reg._ 3: “Lex est rogatur, id est fertur, aut abrogatur, id est prior lex tollitur, aut derogatur, id est pars primae legis tollitur, aut subrogatur, id est adiicitur aliquid primae legi, aut obrogatur, id est mutatur aliquid ex prima lege.” The classification of laws as curiate, centuriate, and tribal according to the form of the comitia, and as consular, tribunician, etc. according to the office of the lator does not need explanation.

[2951] _Dig._ xiii. 2. 1; Gromat. 265.

[2952] Cf. _Frag. Atest._ in Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 101; Girard, _Textes_, 78; _Lex Acil. rep._ 78 (_CIL._ i. 198).

[2953] “Si quid ius non est rogarier, eius ea lege nihilum rogatur”; Cic. _Caec._ 33. 95; _Dom._ 40. 106; _Lex Tudert._ (_CIL._ i. 1409) 10 f. A far more detailed formula is given by Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 3.

[2954] “Si quid sacri sancti est, quod non iure sit rogatum, eius hac lege nihil rogatur”; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 273.

[2955] P. 233 f.

[2956] _Lex de imp. Vesp._ in _CIL._ vi. 930; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 193 f.; Girard, _Textes_, 106: “Si quis huiusce legis ergo adversus leges rogationes plebisve scita senatusve consulta fecit fecerit, sive, quod eum ex lege rogatione plebisve scito senatusve consulto facere oportebit, non fecerit huius legis ergo, id ei ne fraudi esto, neve quit ob eam rem populo dare debeto, neve cui de ea re actio neve iudicatio esto, neve quis de ea re apud se agi sinito.” Although this document may have been a senatus consultum, it has the form of a law and is so called by itself; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 876-9. All such formulae were indicated by the series of initial letters of the component words; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 272 f.

[2957] Fest. 314. 29: “Neve per saturam abrogato aut derogato”; _Lex Tudert._ 9; Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 3.

[2958] This is true of the Lex Lat. Bant. (p. 380), the Appuleian laws (p. 395), and the Julian agrarian law of 59 (p. 440).

[2959] As by forbidding tribunician intercession; _Lex Mal._ 58; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30.

[2960] Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 2.

[2961] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 652.

[2962] Livy iii. 57. 10; Cic. _Phil._ i. 10. 26; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 40; Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 622. In earlier time wooden tables were used for laws as well as for rogations; Dion. Hal. iii. 36. 4; iv. 43. 1.

[2963] P. 438. Plebis cita and the senatus consulta pertaining thereto were originally kept by the aediles of the plebs in the temple of Ceres; p. 278 f.

[2964] “Unde de piano recte legi possit”; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 273, for example, the Forum; Dion. Hal. x. 57. 7. Plebiscites and senatus consulta of international importance could be found in the temple of Faith on the Capitoline hill; Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Obseq. 68. For other places, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 652 f.

[2965] Under the aedile for judicial business only; p. 325.

[2966] P. 276.

[2967] Cf. p. 304.

[2968] For judicial business only; p. 292.

[2969] P. 327.

[2970] P. 141. For instance, the dictator; p. 416, n. 1.

[2971] Livy xxv. 3. 14; xxxiii. 25. 7; xxxiv. 1. 4; 53. 2; xliii. 16. 9; xlv. 36. 1; App. _B. C._ i. 15. 64; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 17; _C. Gracch._ 13; _Aemil._ 31; Ascon. 77.

[2972] Dion. Hal. vii. 17. 2; ix. 41. 4; x. 9. 3; Livy viii. 14. 12; Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 9. For legislation in the Forum, see _Lex Quinct. de Aq._ praescriptio.

[2973] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 2. 5; Cic. _Planc._ 9. 16; _Att._ i. 1. 1; iv. 3. 4; _Fam._ vii. 30. 1.

[2974] Livy iii. 54. 15; xxvii. 21. 1; cf. Richter, _Top. v. Rom_, 48, 212; Platner, _Top. and Mon. of Anc. Rome_, 343.

[2975] Livy iii. 20. 7.

[2976] P. 297. Meetings distant from the city were soon afterward forbidden by law.

[2977] Vocare tribus in (or ad) suffragium (Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; Livy iii. 71. 3; iv. 5. 2; vi. 38. 3; x. 9. 1; xxv. 3. 15), citare tribus ad suffragium ineundum (Livy vi. 35. 7), or mittere tribus in suffragium (Livy iii. 64. 5).

[2978] Livy xxv. 3. 16; _Lex Mal._ 53; Fest. 127. 1. These sources prove, against Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 483, that the right to vote in a tribe drawn thus by lot was not restricted to those who were virtually citizens awaiting enrolment. It is probable that, at least in early time, not even residence was a requirement; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 232, n. 2, 396 f., 643 f.

[2979] In the opinion of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 397, n. 4, 411, n. 7; _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ ii (1857). 426, n. 107, the principium had nothing to do with the order of voting. His argument is based chiefly on the fact that according to the _Lex Mal._ 55—a constitution evidently based in large part on that of Rome—the curiae voted simultaneously. Reference to the preliminary vote of a single Roman tribe, however, is made by Plut. _Aemil._ 31; App. _B. C._ i. 12. 52. Furthermore it is difficult to understand why so great importance should attach to the principium on Mommsen’s supposition that it had merely to do with the order of announcement after the simultaneous vote of all the tribes. His view is accepted by Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 684, but rejected by Lange, _Kl. Schr._ ii. 477 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ 1184, and ignored by most other writers, including Liebenam, inconsistently; ibid. 706.

[2980] “Sitellam deferre.” It was filled with water, the lots were thrown in, and the drawing was effected by pouring out the water, which caused the pieces to fall one by one. The process was supervised by the custodes; cf. Ascon. 70; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 22.

[2981] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. i; App. _B. C._ iii. 30. 117.

[2982] Serv. _in Bucol._ i. 33; Ovid, _Fast._ i. 53; Cic. _Mil._ 15. 41.

[2983] The marble building, known as the Saepta Julia, begun in 54 by Julius Caesar (Cic. _Att._ iv. 16. 14), was finished by Agrippa in 27 B.C. A plan is given by Platner, _Top. and Mon. of Anc. Rome_, 365, who describes it at length; cf. Richter, _Top. v. Rom_, 230 ff.

[2984] Cic. _Sest._ 51. 109; p. 129 above.

[2985] The act could take place during the deliberation, the placing of the urn, the sortition, and the separation of the people in their voting groups; Ascon. 70; (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Cic. _N. D._ i. 38. 106. It was most convenient, however, for the tribune to interpose his veto by forbidding the reading of the bill; Ascon. 57 f. (p. 430 above); App. _B. C._ i. 12.

[2986] P. 115.

[2987] Livy ix. 46. 2; Gell. vii (vi). 9. 2.

[2988] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 9; 64. 6.

[2989] This is true of the comitia centuriata (Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 75; _N. D._ ii. 4. 10), and doubtless applies as well to other forms of assembly; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 403, n. 4. The rogator must have kept a tally of the votes in rogations in some such way as in elections, in which for each vote he placed a mark (punctum) after the name of the candidate in whose favor it was given; Mommsen, ibid. 404.

[2990] P. 359, 390.

[2991] U. R. and presumably A.; Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 5; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 402, n. 2. There were corresponding abbreviations for trials; Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 692; cf. p. 178 f. above.

[2992] Plut. _Cat. Min._ 46; Suet. _Caes._ 80. These names might also be abbreviated; Cic. _Dom._ 43. 112.

[2993] Sisenna, Frag. 118 (Peter, _Reliq._ i. 293); (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 11. The voting within the curiae was also by heads; Livy i. 43. 10; Dion. Hal. iv. 20. 2.

[2994] Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 11. 28; _Pis._ 15. 36; _Lex Mal._ 55 (Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 149; Girard, _Textes_, 112). As they also counted the votes, they were termed diribitores. In the last century of the republic they were drawn from the album iudicum (Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 31), and hence included some of the most influential men in the state; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; 15. 33 f.

[2995] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; _Pis._ 5. 11; 15. 36; Varro, _R. R._ iii. 5. 18.

[2996] Cic. _Planc._ 14. 35. The order of announcement of the curial votes was likewise determined by lot; _Lex Mal._ 57. Livy, ix. 38. 15, refers to the sortition for the principium.

[2997] Varro, in Gell. x. 1. 6; Cic. _Pis._ 1. 2; _Mur._ 17. 35; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3; _Caes._ 5; Suet. _Vesp._ 2. In the case of censors alone no declaration was made unless two were elected; Livy ix. 34. 25.

[2998] _Lex Mal._ 57; Cic. _Mur._ 1. 1; Gell. xii. 8. 6. In like manner in the comitia curiata a majority of the curiae decided; Dion. Hal. ii. 14. 3.

[2999] As in the vote to depose Trebellius from the tribunate in 67 (p. 432); cf. the deposition of Octavius in 133; p. 367. The voting as well as the announcement might be interrupted by an evil omen (p. 109, 111, 248), in which case the assembly had to be adjourned. Sometimes the president arbitrarily adjourned the meeting; Livy xlv. 36. 1-6, 10; Plut. _Aemil._ 31.

[3000] _Twelve Tables_ i. 9: “Solis occasus suprema tempestas esto”; Documents in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 87, 92; _Declam. in Cat._ 19; cf. Livy x. 22. 7 f.

[3001] For the presidency of the tribunus celerum, see Livy i. 59. 7; cf. Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 1377. It is denied by Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 682.

[3002] Livy ix. 38. 15; p. 112 above.

[3003] P. 195 f.

[3004] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31.

[3005] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28.

[3006] P. 155.

[3007] P. 154.