[2332] The principle was expressed in an article of the lex Memmia de incestu of 111 (Val. Max. iii. 7. 9), and probably in every law for the establishment of a court. It was used throughout the history of the republic; cf. Livy x. 37. 7; 46. 16 (year 293); p. 289 above; Suet. Caes. 23 (59); Dio Cass. xxxix. 7. 3 (57).

In this connection mention may be made of the lex Hostilia, which allowed actions for theft to be brought in behalf of persons absent in the service of the state or in captivity or in wardship; Just. Inst. iv. 10. The date is unknown, though Voigt, Röm. Rechtsgesch. i. 282, n. 14, inclines to assign it to 209 or 207.

[2333] Lex Rep. 19-26; Mommsen, Röm. Strafr. 216 f. Ruggiero, ibid. 43, is obviously wrong.

[2334] Lex Rep. 76-8; cf. 83-5.

[2335] § 28 states that money within a specified limit might legally be received—perhaps by the patron of the accuser—from which we may infer that the law defined precisely what was permitted and what forbidden all persons participating in the trial; cf. Brassloff, in Wiener Studien, xxvi. 109 f.

[2336] Cic. Cluent. 56. 154: “Illi (senatus) non hoc recusabant, ne ea lege accusarentur, qua nunc Habitus accusatur, quae tum erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia” (“They did not object to being accused under that law under which Habitus is now being tried, which was then the Sempronian but is now the Cornelian statute”). The trial was before the quaestio veneficis under the Cornelian law which constituted this court and which is described as essentially identical with a Sempronian law. CIL. i. p. 200. xxxiii: (“C. Claud. Ap. F. C. N. Pulcher) ... Iudex. Q. Veneficis,” aedile 99, praetor 95, consul 92, corroborates the existence of such a court before Sulla. For other proofs, see Lengle, Sull. Verf. 36 ff.; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 664.

[2337] P. 255, n. 1 (4), 358.

[2338] Cic. Cluent. 55. 151.

[2339] Ibid. 52. 144.

[2340] In 66 Cluentius Habitus was brought to trial before the quaestio inter sicarios et veneficos on the charge (1) of having corrupted the jurors in an earlier trial of the kind, (2) of poisoning; Cic. Cluent.; cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 12.

[2341] The whole tenor of Cicero’s Pro Cluentio is to the effect that the knights were not bound by the provision against bribery. He had a strong motive, however, for bringing into prominence the article which provided for the punishment of magistrates and senators, and for suppressing the one, if there was one, concerning the punishment of equites; and this suppression was rendered easy by the fact that the Cornelian law then in force mentioned senatorial jurors only. Appian, B. C. i. 22. 97 (cf. 35. 158, 161), assumes that under the Sempronian law there were trials for the bribery of jurors, rendered useless, however, and finally done away with by the conspiracy and violence of the knights; cf. Lengle, Sull. Verf. 18 f. This interpretation of the known facts seems preferable to the view of Cicero, which, however, is accepted by most scholars; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Strafr. 635; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 421; Hist. of Rome, i. 216 f.

[2342] CIL. i. 197; Ritschl. Prisc. lat. mon. epigr. tab. xix.

[2343] Bruns, Font. Iur. p. 48-53; Girard, Textes, p. 26-9.

[2344] As indicated by the “Ioudex, quei ex hace lege plebeive scito factus erit”; § 2.

[2345] Karlowa, Röm. Rechtsgesch. i. 431. Kirchhoff, Stadtrecht von Bantia, 90-7, regards it as a part of a judiciary law. Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 46 f., connects it with a treaty between Rome and Bantia. See also Krüger-Brissaud, Hist. d. source d. droit Rom. 94.

[2346] Cic. Verr. iii. 6. 12; Att. i. 17. 9; Schol. Bob. 259; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Gell. xi. 10; App. B. C. v. 4. 17 f.; Fronto, Ad Verum, p. 125; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 674 f.; iii. 34; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 468 f.; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 217-21. Hitherto the senate had exercised unrestricted power in granting such remissions; Polyb. vi. 17. 5.

[2347] App. B. C. v. 4. 19; Diod. xxxv. 25.

[2348] App. B. C. i. 22. 94-7.

[2349] Varro, in Non. Marc. 454; Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17).

[2350] Diod. xxxvii. 9; cf. Cic. Leg. iii. 9. 20. As a substitute for his law concerning the taxation of Asia his opponents vainly offered the rogatio Aufeia, probably pretorian, on the same subject; Gell. xi. 10; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 675; iii. 35.

[2351] Cic. Prov. Cons. 2. 3; Balb. 27. 61; Dom. 9. 24; Fam. i. 7. 10; Sall. Iug. 27; Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 41; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 470. Before the enactment of this law it was possible for the people to grant a province to whomsoever it pleased, whether magistrate or private person. A lex of 131, probably tribunician, had given the province of Asia to P. Licinius Crassus, consul; Livy, ep. lix; Cic. Phil. xi. 8. 18. The Sempronian law did not affect their right. In 107 a plebiscite of C. Manlius granted Numidia, with the conduct of the Jugurthine war, to C. Marius, consul; Sall. Iug. 73; Gell. vii. 11. 2; CIL. i. p. 290 f. On the Sulpician law for granting the conduct of the Mithridatic war to Marius, then a private citizen, see p. 404.

[2352] Cic. Prov. Cons. 7. 17.

[2353] Cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 222 f.

[2354] Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 672.

[2355] P. 368.

[2356] Plut. C. Gracch. 5; cf. Livy xxv. 5. 5-8. In speaking on the rogation of Cn. Marcius Censorinus, a proposal not otherwise known, Gaius is said to have remarked: “Si vobis probati essent homines adulescentes, tamen necessario vobis tribuni militares veteres faciundi essent”; Charis. 208. The new epitome of Livy proves that the military question was more prominently before the public at this time than has hitherto been supposed.

[2357] XXXV. 25. For the Gracchi in general Diodorus draws from Posidonius, an exceedingly hostile source.

[2358] Livy lx; App. B. C. i. 23 f.; Plut. C. Gracch. 6, 8 f.; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 65. 3. The date is established by Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; cf. Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 95, n. 4; Mommsen, in CIL. p. 87, 96.

[2359] Plut. C. Gracch. 9; cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 224 f.

[2360] Vell. i. 15. 4; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 65. 3; cf. Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 522; Ferrero, Rome, i. 55. His plan to colonize Capua (Plut. C. Gracch. 8) was not carried out.

[2361] The lex Sempronia or Graccana, mentioned in the Liber Coloniarum, in Gromatici (Lachmann), p. 229, 233, 237, 238; cf. p. 216, 219, 228, 255; cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 224, n. 2.

[2362] This fact is deduced from the literary references to the subject and from the terms of the agrarian law of 111; CIL. i. 200. 5, 13; cf. Mommsen’s comment, p. 90. The same principle holds for any other colonies founded in Italy between 133 and 111.

[2363] Lex Acil., in CIL. i. 198. 22; Lex Agr., CIL. i. 200. 59; Vell. i. 15. 4; ii. 7. 8; Plut. C. Gracch. 10 f.; App. B. C. i. 24; Pun. 136; Livy, ep. lx; Fronto, Ad Verum, ii. p. 125; Sol. 28. For the date, see Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; Eutrop. iv. 21.

[2364] Vell. ii. 6. 2; Plut. C. Gracch. 5, 8 f.; App. B. C. i. 23. 99; 34. 153; cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 474 f.; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, 233-7. About the end of 123 or the beginning of 122 Gaius had proposed to give the Latins equal suffrage with the Romans; Plut. ibid. 8 f.: Kornemann, Gesch. d. Gracch. 45. The promulgation of this earlier rogation must have preceded that of the Livian bills.

The bill (or possibly bills) which included the Italians among the recipients of the citizenship could have been offered only between his return from Carthage and the elections of midsummer, 122; Kornemann, ibid. 51; Fowler, in Eng. Hist. Rev. xx. 425.

[2365] Cf. Fannius, in Jul. Victor vi. 6. p. 224 Or.; Charisius, p. 143 Keil.

[2366] Appian, B. C. i. 23. 101; Plut. C. Gracch. 9. Plutarch, who alone speaks of the exemption from rent, seems to consider the measure to have applied retroactively to the Sempronian settlements as well as to those proposed by Livius. Although this could hardly have been the intention of the Livian act, the exemption of the colonists under it would naturally lead to the extension of equal privileges to the beneficiaries of the Sempronian agrarian laws.

[2367] Appian, B. C. i. 35. 156 (cf. p. 397 below) assumes that the colonial bill of Livius became a law. If that is true, there is no reason for supposing that the other was dropped before being brought to vote. Gaius might have prevented both by his veto (Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 45); but even if he felt the intention to be mischievous, he could not have afforded to oppose so popular measures. Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 87, is of the opinion that Minervia may have been a Livian colony; but he cannot understand why the others provided for were not founded. The reason doubtless is that the senate, which had used Livius as a tool, never seriously intended to execute the law.

[2368] A rogation of Gaius, proposed about the same time as the lex de civitate danda, concerning the order of voting in the comitia centuriata is mentioned by (Sall.) Rep. Ord. ii. 8: “Mihi ... placet lex quam C. Gracchus in tribunatu promulgaverit, ut ex confusis quinque classibus sorte centuriae vocarentur: ita coaequatur dignitate pecunia.” His object, to eliminate the influence of wealth, could be achieved by determining by lot the order of voting of the five classes; or a new grouping of the centuries could be substituted for the classes; but he could not have proposed that the centuries should vote one by one.

[2369] We know that in 91 they vehemently opposed the admission of the allies; p. 399, 400 below; cf. Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 106, n. 1.

[2370] Opimius, consul in 121, ordered the equites to come each with two armed slaves to the support of the government; Plut. C. Gracch. 14. Sallust, Iug. 42, states that the senate, by holding out to the equites the hope of an alliance with the aristocracy, detached them from the plebs; cf. Meyer, ibid. 106.

The lex Acilia Rubria, passed most probably in 122, seems to have had to do with the participation of aliens in the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus; S. C. de Astypalaeensibus, in CIG. ii. 2485. 11 (cf. Böckh’s comment); Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 42. It is to be connected with the rogation for granting the citizenship to the allies, and probably aimed to liberalize the worship in the Sempronian spirit.

[2371] Cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 231.

[2372] Dio Cassius, Frag. 85. 3, in a mutilated passage seems to refer to the great possibilities of a longer career. It would be unreasonable to suppose that so creative a mind could rest content at any given point.

[2373] Fest. 201. 19; Flor. ii. 3. 4 (iii. 15); Diod. xxxiv. 28 a (from Posidonius); (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 65. 5; Oros. v. 12. 5; Plut. C. Gracch. 13; App. B. C. i. 24. 105; Pun. 136; Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 47; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 248; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 96.

[2374] App. B. C. i. 27. 121; cf. Long, Rom. Rep. i. 352; Greenidge, ibid. i. 285; Ihne, Hist. of Rome, v. 4 f.

[2375] Ibid. § 122.

[2376] It seems to be a mistake for Spurius Thorius (Cic. Brut. 36. 136: “Sp. Thorius .... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit”). By interpreting this sentence “Sp. Thorius ... who relieved the public land of a defective and useless law by the imposition of a vectigal,” Mommsen (in Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. 92 f.) attempts to bring Cicero into agreement with Appian. But the interpretation is violent and is not generally accepted. The statement of Cicero applies to the law of 111 far better than to that which Appian mentions under the name of Borius.

[2377] App. ibid.; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 688; iii. 51; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 353 f.; Ihne, Hist. of Rome, v. 9; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 285-8. If, as Greenidge supposes, the Livian colonial rogation became a law, it did not affect the vectigal imposed by the Sempronian statutes (p. 383 above).

It may have been as a compensation for the repeal of this Sempronian statute and of that of Rubrius that a lex of an unknown author provided in this year for the establishment of the colony of Narbo Martius in Narbonensis; Vell. i. 15. 5; ii. 7. 8; Eutrop. iv. 23; Cic. Brut. 43. 160; Cluent. 51. 140; Font. 5. 13; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 522.

[2378] Brut. 36. 136 (quoted p. 385, n. 5 above); cf. Orat. ii. 70. 284; App. B. C. i. 27. 123; CIL. i. 200; Rudorff, in Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswiss. x (1842). 1-194; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 75 ff.; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 478; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 351-86; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 288.

[2379] The classification here given is a close reproduction of Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 87-106; cf. Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. i. 89-101.

[2380] Lex Agr. 27 (cf. 4), in CIL. i. 200.

[2381] Ibid. 20-23.

[2382] Ibid. 2; cf. 13 f.

[2383] Ibid. 3, 15 f. The word sortito in these passages, e.g. “IIIvir sortito ceivi Romano dedit adsignavit,” proves a reference to the founding of colonies, as viritim assignations were not by lot; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 87.

[2384] Ibid. 5.

[2385] Ibid. 13 f. Although occupation was forbidden by the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus (p. 366 above), they did take place, and are legalized by this article of the law of 111, in so far as they do not exceed the specified limit.

[2386] Lex Agr. 12: “Eum agrum quem ex h(ace) l(ege) venire dari reddive oportebit”; cf. 32. We do not know what land is meant. Perhaps Sipontia is included in this category; cf. 43; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 89.

[2387] Lex Agr. 19 f.; App. B. C. i. 27. 123; Cic. Brut. 36. 136: “Sp. Thorius ... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit” (“Sp. Thorius ... who by a mischievous and useless law freed the public land of vectigal”).

[2388] P. 365.

[2389] Lex Agr. 11-3; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 90.

[2390] Lex Agr. 45, 55, 59-61, 66-9, 79, 89.

[2391] Ibid. 75 f., 79 f., 85.

[2392] Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 98 ff.

[2393] Lex Agr. 96. This part of the inscription is hopelessly mutilated.

[2394] Ibid. 29.

[2395] P. 385.

[2396] P. 255.

[2397] P. 256 f.

[2398] Cic. Brut. 34. 128; cf. Red. in Sen. 15. 38; Red. ad Quir. 4. 9; 5. 11; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 279 f.; Ihne, Hist. of Rome, v. 6 f.

[2399] P. 255.

[2400] Tac. Ann. xii. 60, confirmed by a statement of Cicero, in Ascon. 79, that senators and knights first sat together as jurors under the Plautian law of 89 (p. 402 below).

[2401] Cassiod. Chron. 384 C: “Per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia equitatibus et senatoribus communicata”; Obseq. 41 (101).

[2402] Cf. further Cic. Inv. i. 49. 92; Brut. 43. 161; 44. 164; Cluent. 51. 140; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 668; iii. 67 f.; Long, Rom. Rep. ii. 2 f.; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 477-82. But that the knights continued in uninterrupted possession of the courts is proved by Cicero, Verr. i. 13. 38; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145.

[2403] P. 355.

[2404] (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 72. 5; Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 53; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 478. His lex sumptuaria of the same year, perhaps combined in one law with the provision concerning the libertini, limited not only the expense of meals but also the kind of food and the mode of preparing it; Pliny, N. H. viii. 57. 223; cf. Gell. ii. 24. 12; (Aurel. Vict.) ibid.—Two other sumptuary laws, both of which were enacted before 97, may be mentioned here. The statute of P. Licinius Crassus, pretorian or tribunician, ex senatus consulto, perhaps 104, made some changes in the lex Fannia and the lex Didia; Gell. ii. 24. 7; xv. 8; Macrob. Sat. iii. 17. 7; Fest. ep. 54; p. 356 above.—It was repealed by the plebiscite of M. Duronius before 97; Val. Max ii. 9. 5; Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 71, 88.

[2405] Ascon. 67 f.; cf. p. 382, 392.

[2406] The reading of the MS. of Velleius, ii. 11. 1 (“natus equestri loco”) should not be corrected to “agresti loco” to conform with Plut. Mar. 3. Velleius has mentioned his equestrian birth to explain his connections with the publicans referred to in the following sentence.

[2407] The opposition of Marius to the populace is proved by his intercession against a frumentarian rogation of the same year, the purport of which is not definitely stated; Plut. Mar. 4.

[2408] Cic. Pis. 15. 36; Red. in Sen. 11. 28. On the pontes, see p. 469.

[2409] Varro, R. R. iii. 5. 18. On the custodes, see also p. 467 below.

[2410] Cic. Pis. 5. 11; Red. in Sen. 7. 17; cf. p. 466.

[2411] Cic. Leg. iii. 17. 38.

[2412] Plut. Mar. 4; Cic. ibid.; Lange, Rom. Alt. ii. 490; iii. 51; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 322 f.; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 304-6. The opposition of the consuls to this measure, and the consequent threat of Marius to imprison them, Ihne, Hist. of Rome, v. 8, regards as a farce. This interpretation of the circumstances, however, is unnecessary for explaining the policy of Marius; as a champion of the peasants, rather than of the plebs as a whole, be consistently passed his election law and opposed the frumentarian bill.

[2413] Plut. Cat. Min. 42.

[2414] Cic. Leg. iii. 16. 36; Oros. v. 15. 24; cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 195 f.; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 527; iii. 66. On the leges tabellariae in general, see Ihne, Hist. of Rome, iv. 94, 340; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 105-10; Lange, ibid. see indices, s. v.

[2415] P. 388.

[2416] Cic. N. D. iii. 30. 74; Ascon. 46; Livy, ep. lxiii; Dio Cass. Frag. 87; Macrob. Sat. i. 10. 5 f. A plebiscite of C. Memmius, 111, de incestu (p. 377, n. 5) refers to the same subject.

[2417] Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 697 f.

[2418] Sall. Iug. 40. 65; Cic. Brut. 33. 127 f.; Schol. Bob. 311. In 111 a plebiscite of the C. Memmius mentioned in n. 4 had commissioned L. Cassius, praetor, to bring Jugurtha to Rome as a witness against those accused of having bribed him; Sall. Iug. 32.

[2419] Livy, ep. lxvii; Ascon. 78; cf. (Cic.) Herenn. i. 14. 24, which refers to a defence against the tribunes. For the earliest case of the kind, see p. 360; cf. p. 342.

[2420] The court was established by a plebiscite of C. Norbanus, 104; Dio Cass. Frag. 90; Gell. iii. 9. 7; Strabo iv. 1. 13; Cic. N. D. iii. 30. 74; Balb. 11. 28; Val. Max. iv. 7. 3; vi. 9. 13.

[2421] Ascon. 78: “Ut, quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset, in senatu non esset.” The disgraceful defeat of Caepio in Gaul and his embezzlement of the treasury found at Tolosa excited the people to this line of action; cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 484. On the author, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iii. 1738. 63.

[2422] The lex Acilia repetundarum (CIL. i. 198. 13, 16), adopted in 122, implies that they did not have the right; but they must have acquired it before 102; App. B. C. i. 28. 126.

[2423] Ateius Capito, in Gell. xiv. 8. 2; Willems, Sén. Rom. i. 228.

[2424] P. 341.

[2425] Cic. Amic. 25. 96.

[2426] Cic. ibid.; Brut. 21. 83; N. D. iii. 2. 5; 17. 43.

[2427] P. 347.

[2428] Cic. Leg. Agr. ii. 7. 18; Fam. viii. 4. 1; Ad Brut. i. 5. 3; Phil. ii. 2. 4; xiii. 5. 12; Suet, Ner. 2; Vell. ii. 12. 3; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 537, 675; iii. 71; Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm, 418; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 49 f.; ii. 40-2; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 484 f.

[2429] Priscian, Inst. Gram. p. 90: “Cato nepos de actionibus ad populum, ne lex sua abrogetur: facite vobis in mentem veniat, quirites, ex aere alieno in hac civitate et in aliis omnibus propter diem atque fenus saepissimam discordiam fuisse.” This is the only source for the measure.

[2430] P. 388 f.

[2431] Ascon. 67 f.

[2432] The only source is Cic. Off. ii. 21. 73.

[2433] Pliny, N. H. xxxiii. 3. 46; Mommsen-Blacas, Hist. d. mon. Rom, ii. 101 (for date and character).

[2434] P. 389.

[2435] Ascon. 21; Cic. Rab. Post. 4. 9; Balb. 23. 53; 24. 54. Cicero here informs us that by a provision of this law citizenship was offered to Latins as a reward for evidence in cases arising under it. This article was borrowed from the lex Acilia; p. 378. See also Val. Max viii. 1. 8; Cic. Brut. 62. 224; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 309-11. Proof of the repeal of the Acilian law no later than that year is the circumstance that on the reverse of the stone which contains it is inscribed the agrarian law of 111; Mommsen, CIL. i. p. 55 f.

[2436] Cic. Verr. i. 9. 26.

[2437] Cic. Rab. Post. 4. 8 f. The quotation is from Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 310.

[2438] Cic. Rab. Post. 4. 9; cf. Mommsen. Röm. Strafr. 709; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 423.

[2439] Cic. Brut. 62. 224.

[2440] (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 73. 1: “Ut gratiam Marianorum militum pararet, legem tulit, ut veteranis centena agri iugera in Africa dividerentur, intercedentem Baebium collegam facta per populum lapidatione submovit”; Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 76; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 485; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 262. In the opinion of Mühl, App. Sat. 77 f., the colonia Mariana (p. 396 below) was founded under this law.

[2441] P. 86, 89.

[2442] Cic. Orat. ii. 25. 107; 49. 201; N. D. iii. 30. 74.

[2443] As indicated by the fact that the trial of C. Norbanus in 95 took place under the law; Cic. Orat. 21. 89; 25. 107; 50. 203; Off. ii. 14. 49; Val. Max. viii. 5. 2.

[2444] The theory that the court established by the Appuleian law was special is held by Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, iii (1898). 440, n. 1; Röm. Staatsr. ii. 664, n. 1; Röm. Strafr. 198. Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 76, 82, supposes that in his first tribunate he established a special court and in his second by his lex maiestatis a quaestio perpetua. Mühl, App. Sat. 74, also strongly favors the second. The statement of Gran. Licin. xxxiii (?). 4—“Cn. Manilius (for Manlius or Mallius; cf. CIL. i². p. 152 f.) ob eandem causam quam et Cepio L. Saturnini rogatione e civitate est cito (for plebiscito?) eiectus”—Lange applies to the rogation for a special court. The circumstance that the trial of Norbanus took place no less than five years after the enactment of the law and the general tenor of Cicero’s account of that trial (see n. 4 above) point clearly to the existence of a standing court; cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 485; Madvig, Röm. Staat. ii. 275; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 262 f.; Lengle, Sull. Verf. 23-32.

To the same tribune, either in 103 or in 100, may belong the lex Appuleia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 122; p. 298, n. 1 above). In that case the lex Furia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 121; iv. 22; cf. same page above) must belong to the first century B.C.

[2445] (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 73. 5: “Tribunus plebis refectus (Saturninus) Siciliam, Achaiam, Macedoniam novis colonis destinavit et aurum (Tolosanum), dolo an scelere Caepionis partum, ad emptionem agrorum convertit.” For Corsica, see p. 396.

[2446] Cic. Balb. 21. 48. The MS. reads “ternos,” which may be a mistake for a larger number (trecenos?).

[2447] App. B. C. i. 29. 130, 132; Long, Rom. Rep. ii. 111 f.; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 486.

[2448] (Cic.) Herenn. i. 12. 21; Long, Rom. Rep. ii. 114 f.; Herzog, ibid. i. 486 f.

[2449] B. C. i. 29. 131; cf. Plut. Mar. 29.

[2450] Cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 265.

[2451] App. B. C. i. 30 f.; Plut. Mar. 29; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 73; 8; Vell. ii. 15. 4; Val. Max iii. 8. 4; Cic. Dom. 31. 82; Har. Resp. 19. 41; Sest. 47. 101; Leg. iii. 11. 26. After the downfall of Appuleius, Metellus was recalled by a plebiscite of Q. Calidius, 98; Cic. Planc. 28. 69; Dom. 32. 87; Red. ad Quir. 4. 9; 5. 11; Val. Max. v. 2. 7; App. B. C. i. 33. 147-9; Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 1; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 62. 3. On this Calidius, see further Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iii. 1354. 5. A fruitless attempt to recall Metellus had been made in 99 through the tribunician rogatio Porcia Pompeia; Oros. v. 17. 11; App. B. C. i. 33.