[1915] Boissevain’s reading.

[1916] The chief source is a mutilated fragment of Dio Cassius viii. 37. 2-4, which is paraphrased in the text above. The account given by Zonaras viii. 2 is a brief epitome of the fragment, adding the circumstance of the foreign war. The restoration of the fragment is due chiefly to Niebuhr, Rhein. Mus. ii (1828). 588 ff. See also the edition of Dio Cassius by Boissevain, i. 110 f. and by Melber, i. 108 f. The secession to the Janiculum is mentioned by Livy, ep. xi, and by Pliny, N. H. xvi. 10. 37.

[1917] Pliny, N. H. xvi. 10. 37: “Q. Hortensius dictator, cum plebes secessisset in Ianiculum, legem in aesculeto tulit, ut quod ea iussisset omnes quirites teneret”; Gaius i. 3: “Unde olim patricii dicebant plebiscitis se non teneri, quia sine auctoritate eorum facta essent; sed postea lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est ut plebiscita universum populum tenerent; itaque eo modo legibus exaequata sunt”; Laelius, in Gell. xv. 27. 4: “Ita ne leges quidem proprie, sed plebisscita appellantur, quae tribunis plebis ferentibus accepta sunt, quibus rogationibus ante patricii non tenebantur, donec Q. Hortensius dictator legem tulit, ut eo iure, quod plebs statuisset, omnes quirites tenerentur”; Pomponius, in Dig. i. 2. 2. 8: “Quia multae discordiae nascebantur de his plebis scitis, pro legibus placuit et ea observari lege Hortensia: et ita factum est, ut inter plebis scita et legem species constituendi interesset, potestas eadem esset.”

[1918] P. 235, 372.

[1919] This fact is clearly expressed by Gaius; see p. 313, n. 2 above.

[1920] Before acquiring this right they had been accustomed to sit on their bench at the door of the curia, in order to watch the proceedings within. Though as yet without an unrestricted legal right of intercession, they had attempted to force their veto upon the senate; Val. Max. ii. 2. 7; Zon. vii. 15. 8; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 316 f. The wording of the law of 304 regarding the dedication of a temple or altar indicates that the tribunes had not yet acquired the right to convoke the senate and bring measures formally before it; Mommsen, ibid. p. x, n. 2.

[1921] P. 270.

[1922] Granius Licinianus, in Macrob. Sat. i. 16. 30: “Lege Hortensia effectum, ut fastae essent (nundinae), uti rustici, qui nundiniandi causa in urbem veniebant, lites componerent. Nefasto enim die praetori fari non licebat”; § 29: “Iulius Caesar sexto decimo auspiciorum libro negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi: ideoque nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse”; cf. p. 471 below.

[1923] P. 139.

[1924] P. 471 below; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 644; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 287 f.; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii. 372 f.

[1925] P. 243, 287 f.

[1926] P. 247, 289.

[1927] P. 309.

[1928] P. 290.

[1929] p. 248 ff.

[1930] P. 330 ff.

[1931] P. 248.

[1932] (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 50. 1.

[1933] Livy xxii. 35. 3; 40. 3; 49. 11; xxvii. 34. 3 f.; xxix. 37. 13 f.

[1934] P. 62.

[1935] Livy xxiv. 18. 3, 6.

[1936] Livy xxii. 53. 4 f.

[1937] Livy xxiv. 43. 1-3; cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2093.

[1938] A similar attempt in 204 by Cn. Baebius, tribune of the plebs, to prosecute the censors C. Claudius and M. Livius while in office was quashed by the senate; Livy xxix. 37; Val. Max. vii. 2. 6; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 322, n. 4.

[1939] P. 249. The state agreed to insure from the enemy and from storms cargoes shipped for the use of the army; Livy xxiii. 49. 1-3; xxv. 3. 10. Postumius took advantage of this insurance to send out old, unseaworthy ships with cargoes of little value, and after wrecking them, to report many times the real amount of the loss; ibid. § 10 f. The senate, fearing to give offence to the powerful order of publicans, failed to act when informed by the praetor; § 12. Thereupon the tribunes brought the accusation. For the trial, see ibid. § 13-9 and ch. 4; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 177, 588. The weight of the as in which the fine was estimated is not given by Livy xxv. 3. 13.

For a similar transfer of the case against Cn. Fulvius, retired praetor, from the tribes to the centuries, 211, see p. 249.

[1940] Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 5. Here, too, should be mentioned the condemnation of a member of the same board in a similar action for neglect to inspect the watchmen; Val. Max. ibid. § 6.

[1941] Cato, Orat. i: “Dierum dictarum de consulatu suo.”

[1942] Livy xxvii. 46. 1 f.

[1943] Cato, Orat. xiii; Livy xxxviii. 57. 10; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 459 ff.

[1944] For the cognomen, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1475.

[1945] Polyb. xxiii. 14; Gell. iv. 3-5, 7-12; Diod. xxix. 24 (from Polyb.); Livy xxxviii. 54; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1 d; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 49. 16-9.

[1946] Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 464 f.

[1947] In the story of the trial given by Antias the two Petilii were the prosecutors of Publius (Livy xxxviii. 50 f.). In ch. 54 f. Livy, again following Antias, represents these tribunes as authors of a plebiscite for the appointment of a special court to inquire concerning the money received from King Antiochus, and states that L. Scipio was condemned by this court. The story may not be without foundation; but if such a plebiscite was adopted, it could not have had the desired result.

[1948] This incident is considered doubtful by Bloch, in Rev. d. étud. anc. viii. (1906). 109.

[1949] According to Diod. xxix. 21, Scipio was threatened with the death penalty; but the trial actually took the form described above in the text.

[1950] Gell. vi. 19. 2. It was probably in connection with this trial that Cato delivered his speech “Concerning the money of King Antiochus”; Livy xxxviii. 54. 11; Plut. Cat. Mai. 15; Cato, Orat. xv.

[1951] The edicts of these conflicting tribunes are given by Gell. vi. 19. 5, 7; cf. Livy xxxviii. 56. 10; Cic. Prov. Cons. 8. 18. The dissenting edict states that the fine was imposed nullo exemplo, yet it was within the competence of the tribune; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 322, n. 2.

[1952] The account here given closely follows Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 417-510. For other authorities on the trial, see p. 329.

[1953] Plut. Cat. Mai. 19; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 590; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 322, n. 4.

In 142 P. Scipio Aemilianus when censor had deprived Ti. Claudius Asellus of his public horse. Afterward this man as tribune of the plebs brought against him an accusation for malversation in his censorship; Gell. iii. 4. 1; cf. ii. 20. 6. It was a finable case (ibid. vi. 11. 9), in which was charged against him a lustrum malum infelixque; Lucilius, in Gell. iv. 17. 1; cf. Cic. Orat. ii. 64. 258; 66. 268. The prosecution probably failed; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 591; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 322, n. 4.

[1954] Cf. Plautus, Capt. 476.

[1955] Pliny, N. H. vii. 27. 100; Plut. Cat. Mai. 15. Cato’s Oration liv was delivered on one of these occasions. For his general character and activity, see Livy xxxix. 40.

[1956] Livy xliii. 7 f. With this trial was concerned the senatus consultum of 170; cf. Bruns, Font. iur. p. 162. See further Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 287, 591; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 322, n. 3; cf. i. 699 f.

[1957] P. 358.

[1958] P. 231 f.

[1959] Fest. 193. 21; 314. 33; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 591.

[1960] Livy, ep. xlvii; cf. Lange, ibid. ii. 313, 591.

[1961] P. 359.

[1962] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14; cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 131 f.; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 2270.

[1963] Fest. 314. 30; cf. Livy, ep. lviii.

[1964] P. 256 f.

[1965] Vell. ii. 12. 3 assigns the tribunate of Domitius to 103, Ascon. 80 f. to 104. Probably the latter refers to his entrance upon the office, December 10, 104; but see Bardt, Priester der vier grossen Collegien, 7 f.

[1966] P. 391.

[1967] Ascon. 80; Cic. Caecil. 20. 67; Verr. ii. 47. 118 (in both Ciceronian passages the motive of the accusation is said to have been personal); cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 592; iii. 70; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 320, n. 3.

[1968] Ascon. 1; Cic. Deiot. 11. 31; Val. Max. vi. 5. 5; Dio Cass. Frag. 92. A personal motive is suggested for this trial also by the sources.

[1969] Cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. v. 1324-7.

[1970] Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 3; App. B. C. i. 33. 148; Schol. Bob. 230; Cic. Rab. Perd. 9. 24; Flacc. 32. 77; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 2; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 592; iii. 86; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 323, n. 1; Mühl, App. Sat. 94 ff., 105 f.; Rohden, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 259.

[1971] P. 257, n. 5 (4). Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 352, holds the unusual opinion that he was condemned by a quaestio.

To the time shortly preceding the dictatorship of Sulla belong certain threats of tribunician prosecution which may be mentioned here. In 87 a day was set for the trial of L. Cornelius Sulla himself by the tribune M. Vergilius. The accused, taking no notice of the prosecution, departed for the East; Cic. Brut. 48. 179; Plut. Sull. 10; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1537. In the same year Appius Claudius Pulcher, summoned to trial by a tribune of the plebs, retired into exile, whereupon his propretorian imperium was abrogated; Cic. Dom. 31. 83; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iii. 2489; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 352. In 84 Cn. Papirius Carbo, consul, was threatened with a prosecution, or more strictly with an abrogation of his office, if he should fail to return to Rome to hold the election of a colleague; App. B. C. i. 78. 358 f.

[1972] P. 414.

[1973] Plut. Lucull. 37; Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 221; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 353.

[1974] Suet. Caes. 23; cf. p. 377 below.

[1975] Dio Cass. xliv. 10.

[1976] Whether the case against Rabirius in 63, begun as perduellio, was transformed into a finable action is uncertain; p. 258. The attack of Clodius on Cicero in 58 took the form, not of a judicial case, but of an interdict through a plebiscite; p. 446.

[1977] P. 291.

[1978] Fest. 238. 28; Varro, L. L. v. 158; Ovid, Fast. v. 283 ff.; Tac. Ann. ii. 49.

[1979] Livy xxxiii. 42. 10.

[1980] Livy xxxv. 10. 11.

[1981] Livy xxxv. 41. 9.

[1982] Livy xxxviii. 35. 5 f.

[1983] Piso, in Pliny, N. H. xviii. 6. 41; Serv. in Ecl. viii. 99; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 493, n. 2.

[1984] Val. Max. vi. 17; Plut. Marcell. 2; Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 823; ii. 585.

[1985] Livy xxv. 2. 9; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 585. The statement of Gellius v. 19. 10, that women had nothing to do with comitia (“Feminis nulla comitiorum communio est”), does not refer to their lack of suffrage, as Lange assumes, for Gellius is explaining why women could not be arrogated. Originally they had no right to be present in contiones or comitia; but in time the principle was modified to a limited extent; p. 147. It was not necessary, however, that the accused should be present in person during the trial; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 496.

[1986] Plut. Q. R. 6; Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 126; ii. 585.

[1987] Ateius Capito, in Gell. iv. 14.

[1988] P. 248, 317.

[1989] Ateius Capito, in Gell. x. 6; Livy, ep. xix; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 4; Suet. Tib. 2; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 492, n. 4. This, says Mommsen, is the only aedilician prosecution for a crime committed directly against the state in the period after the decemviral legislation. With this case compare Cicero’s threat mentioned in the text below.

[1990] Suet. Tib. 2.

[1991] Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 586; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 496.

[1992] Cic. Rosc. Am. 12. 33; Val. Max. ix. 11. 2; Lange, ibid. iii. 134; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 352.

Valerius Maximus, vi. 1. 8, refers to a prosecution (probably aedilician) of Cn. Sergius by Metellus Celer for stuprum, which seems to have occurred about this time; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 493, n. 4.

[1993] Verr. i. 12. 36; v. 58. 151; 67. 173; 69. 178; 71. 183.

[1994] Cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 586.

[1995] Cic. Q. Fr. ii. 3; Sest. 44. 95; Vat. 17. 40; Ascon. 49; Dio Cass. xxxix. 18 ff.; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 586; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 493, n. 1; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 341, 353.

On the aedilician jurisdiction in general, see especially Girard, Org. jud. d. Rom. 243 ff.

[1996] P. 269, 287.

[1997] Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer, 439 f.; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 195 f.; ii. 36.

[1998] Livy xxxvii. 51. 4 f.

[1999] Livy xl. 42. 9 f.

[2000] Cic. Phil. xi. 8. 18.

[2001] Fest. 343. 6; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer, 439, n. 8. For the pontifical cases above mentioned, see also Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 593-5.

[2002] Cf. ch. v and p. 322.

[2003] P. 313 f.

[2004] P. 307.

[2005] P. 107, 113.

[2006] On the lack of a popular opposition to the nobility during this period, see Ihne, Hist. of Rome, iv. 26. On the antiquated character of the assemblies, ibid. 39 f.

[2007] For this era we have to depend upon the epitome of Livy and occasional notices of other authors. The complete Livian narrative which treats of the age, should it ever be discovered, would doubtless reveal a considerable number of other comitial measures; but we could hardly expect to find any of more importance than those which are actually known.

[2008] P. 235, 300.

[2009] Cic. Brut. 14. 55. Cicero informs us that the law under consideration was passed after the tribunate of M’. Curius, which must have preceded his consulship (290). The enactment should preferably be placed after that of Hortensius, when the patres were no longer in a position to oppose it; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 409; ii. 216, 654; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 281 f. Willems, Sén. Rom. ii. 69 ff., attempts to assign it to 338.

[2010] Livy x. 15. 7 ff.; Cic. ibid.

[2011] Dion Hal. xix, 16. 5 (xviii. 19); xx. 13 (3). 3.

[2012] In this year C. Marcius Rutilus, elected censor a second time (Fast. cos. capit., in CIL. i². p. 22), persuaded the people to adopt this law; Val. Max iv. i. 3; Plut. Cor. 1; Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 797; ii. 122, 654; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 317-20; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. i. 520.

[2013] Livy, ep. xv; Tac. Ann. xi. 22. Lydus, Mag. i. 27, supposes the newly created quaestors to have been naval officers, and wrongly states their number at twelve. Whether the lex Titia de provinciis quaestoriis (Cic. Mur. 8. 18; Schol. Bob. 316) belongs to this date or to some later time cannot be determined; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 532, n. 3; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 654. See further on the act of 267, Mommsen, ibid. ii. 527, 570 ff.; Lange, ibid. i. 891; ii. 124.

[2014] Livy, ep. xix; Lyd. Mag. i. 38, 45.

[2015] Val. Max ii. 8. 2; Zon. viii. 17. 1; 18. 10; Polyb. ii. 23. 5.

[2016] P. 307, n. 1, 312.

[2017] Fest. 347. 3; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 884, 910; ii. 654; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 594 f.; Girard, Organ. jud. d. Röm. i. 263 ff.

[2018] Pliny, N. H. vii. 43. 141; cf. Polyb. vi. 16. 3.

[2019] We are informed by Theophilus, iv. 3. 15, that this statute was a plebiscite adopted at a secession of the plebs, meaning most probably that of 287. But his view may be merely an inference from Ulpian, in Dig. ix. 2. 1 and Pomponius, ibid. i. 2. 2. 8; cf. Roby, Röm. Priv. Law, ii. 186. The law is the subject of Dig. ix. 2 f.; Justinian, Inst. iv. 3; Theoph. Inst. iv. 3. Voigt, Röm. Rechtsgesch. i. 69, assigns it to 287. On p. 71 f. he adds other chapters which he has gathered from various sources. See also Karlowa, Röm. Rechtsgesch. ii. 793 ff. Injury committed by dogs was made actionable by the lex Pesolania of unknown though early date; Paul. Sent. i. 15. 1; cf. Dig. ix. 1. 1. 15. Voigt, Röm. Rechtsgesch. i. 39, n. 18, assigns it to the time closely following the decemviral legislation; cf. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. iii. 1158.

The lex Mamilia concerning arbitri, but not more definitely known (Cic. Leg. i. 21. 55), may belong to the consul C. Mamilius, 239.

[2020] Gaius iii. 210, Poste’s rendering; cf. also the following §§; Justin. Inst. iv. 3. 15.

[2021] Gaius iii. 215, 217; cf. Ulpian, in Dig. vii. 1. 13. 2; Cic. Brut. 34. 131.

[2022] As here used, “Flaminian” is not confined to the lifetime of Flaminius, but designates the period during which lasted the impetus given by him to the activity of the assemblies—approximately to the end of the war with Hannibal.

[2023] P. 213, 215.

[2024] Cato, Orig. ii. 10 (in Varro, R. R. i. 2. 7): “Ager Gallicus Romanus vocatur, qui viritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra agrum Picentium”; Cic. Brut. 14. 57; Acad. Pr. ii. 5. 13. There is reason for believing that about this time the Licinian-Sextian agrarian enactments were revived and extended by a comitial statute; p. 296, 363.

[2025] Cf. Cic. Inv. ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. v. 4. 5.

[2026] Cic. Acad. Pr. ii. 5. 13; Val. Max. ibid.

[2027] Senec. 4. 11.

[2028] Cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 149.

[2029] Kubitschek, Röm. trib. or. 26 f.; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii. 176.

[2030] II. 21. 8. On this law in general, see further Ihne, Hist. of Rome, ii. 125-7; iv. 26 f.; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 344 ff.; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 157 f.; Ferrero, Rome, i. 15.

[2031] Zon. viii. 20. 7; Plut. Marcell. 4; cf. Livy xxi. 63. 2.

[2032] Livy xlv. 35. 4.

[2033] Livy xxvi. 21.5. Next is mentioned the plebiscite of Ti. Sempronius, 167, for granting the imperium to three promagistrates; Livy xlv. 35-40; cf. xxxii. 7. 4; xxxviii. 47. 1; Plut. Aemil. 30 ff. The triumphs of Pompey, 80 and 71, must have been made possible by leges de eius imperio, though none are mentioned; Plut. Pomp. 14, 21; Cic. Imp. Pomp. 21. 61 f. The lex Cornelia, 80, which permitted Pompey to bring his army home from Africa, was essential to the triumph but was not the law which granted the imperium; Sall. Hist. ii. 21; Gell. x. 20. 10; Plut. Pomp. 13; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 678. The law for the triumph over Juba was passed for Caesar in 48 in advance of his victory; Dio Cass. xliii. 14. 3. There must have been many other such plebiscites not mentioned by the sources. Magistrates had no more right than promagistrates without especial authorization to command troops within the city limits, though the triumph on the Alban Mount continued to be permissible without an act either of the senate or of the comitia; p. 293.

[2034] P. 307.

[2035] Polyb. vi. 16. 3.

[2036] Livy xxi. 63. 3; cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 353, 898; Nitzsch, Röm. Rep. i. 156 f.

[2037] Ascon. 94; Dio Cass. lv. 10. 5; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 162, 657; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 898.

[2038] App. B. C. 1. 7. 29; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8.

[2039] Fest. 347. 14; Pliny, N. H. xxxiii. 3. 45; cf. Hill, Greek and Rom. Coins, 48. According to Festus, Flaminius was author, whereas Pliny states that the change was made under the dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus. One seems to refer to the enactment of the law, the other to its administration.

[2040] P. 90.

[2041] Zon. viii. 26. 14.

[2042] Pliny, N. H. xxxiii. 3. 47.

[2043] Böckh, Metrologische Utersuchungen, p. 472; Mommsen-Blacas, Hist. d. monn. Rom. ii. 67, n. 1; Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 496; ii. 167, 674; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 365; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 1511; Samwer-Bahrfeldt, Röm. Münzw. 190 f.

[2044] Livy xxiii. 21. 6; cf. Ihne, Hist. of Rome, ii. 289.

[2045] Livy xxiv. 18. 12; xxvi. 36. 8.

[2046] Livy xxxvii. 51. 10; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 173 f.; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 365.

[2047] Cf. Livy xli. 27; Polyb. vi. 17.

[2048] Livy xxv. 7. 5 f.

[2049] Livy xxvii. 11. 8.

[2050] Tab. x, in Schöll, Duod. Tab. Rel. 153 ff.; Marquardt, Privatl. d. Röm. 345.

[2051] Mil. 164; Hor. Od. iii. 24. 58; Ovid, Trist. ii. 471 ff.; cf. Cic. Phil. ii. 23. 56; Pseud. Ascon, 110; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 1359. It remained in force to the end of the republic. Other laws on gambling, which cannot be assigned to dates, were the lex Cornelia (Dig. xi. 5. 3), the lex Publicia (ibid.), and the lex Titia (ibid.).

[2052] Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 663, 670.

[2053] Fest. 246. 32; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 662.

[2054] Pliny, N. H. xxxv. 17. 197. A M. Metilius was tribune in 217.