Lost Fortunes, Found Love: A Regency

Romance Boxset Pearson

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/lost-fortunes-found-love-a-regency-romance-boxset-p
earson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

I Married a Billionaire Lost and Found Contemporary

Romance Marchande Melanie

https://ebookmeta.com/product/i-married-a-billionaire-lost-and-
found-contemporary-romance-marchande-melanie/

Lost in the Moment and Found Seanan Mcguire

https://ebookmeta.com/product/lost-in-the-moment-and-found-
seanan-mcguire/

Faeted Mates A Paranormal Romance Boxset Cassidy K

Oconnor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/faeted-mates-a-paranormal-romance-
boxset-cassidy-k-oconnor/

Healing his Shattered Heart A Historical Regency

Romance Novel Carol Colyer

https://ebookmeta.com/product/healing-his-shattered-heart-a-
historical-regency-romance-novel-carol-colyer/
A Courtship to Remember A Historical Regency Romance
Book 1st Edition Bridget Barton

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-courtship-to-remember-a-
historical-regency-romance-book-1st-edition-bridget-barton/

Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst

https://ebookmeta.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-hoerst/

Our Lost Song For Love and Rock Book 3 A sweet single
dad rock star romance Emily Childs

https://ebookmeta.com/product/our-lost-song-for-love-and-rock-
book-3-a-sweet-single-dad-rock-star-romance-emily-childs/

Chosen By An Alien A SCI FI Alien Romance Boxset

Cassidy K O'Connor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/chosen-by-an-alien-a-sci-fi-alien-
romance-boxset-cassidy-k-oconnor/

Her Heartless Duke A Steamy Second Chance Historical

Regency Romance Novel 1st Edition Claire Devon

https://ebookmeta.com/product/her-heartless-duke-a-steamy-second-
chance-historical-regency-romance-novel-1st-edition-claire-devon/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
slavery than could be true of the year 367, and the second would
belong more naturally to a repetition than to the original
enactment; p. 296, n. 4, 334, n. 1.
[2244] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9.
[2245] App. B. C. i. 9. 37 and 11. 46 states that an additional
two hundred and fifty iugera were allowed for each son, and Livy,
ep. lviii, sets the maximum at a thousand iugera. Combining the
two sources, we reach the probable result given in the text; cf.
also (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 64. 3; Siculus Flacc. p. 136. 10 (CC is a
corruption of ↀ). See Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 450, n. 3;
Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 114; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 87.
[2246] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9; cf. Greenidge, ibid.
[2247] App. B. C. i. 11. 46. It is not stated that these lots should
become private property. Appian mentions this article as the only
compensation for improvements on the lands surrendered. The
fact that article 2 was withdrawn from the bill before it became a
law may account for its omission from this source.
[2248] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9; App. B. C. i. 11.
[2249] CIL. i. 200. 14: “Sei quis ... agri iugra non amplius xxx
possidebit habebitve.” In all probability this specification came
originally from the Sempronian law.
[2250] Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 88; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9; App. B. C.
i. 27. 121; Weber, Röm. Agrargesch. 151.
[2251] This is a necessary deduction from a speech of Tiberius
quoted by App. B. C. i. 9. 35; cf. 11. 43; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9. The
Lex Agr. of 111 (CIL. i. 200. 21) refers to assignments made by C.
Gracchus to Latins and allies as compensation for public lands
surrendered by them to the government for colonial purposes; cf.
§ 31. Doubtless a similar provision was included in the statute of
Tiberius. Although viritim assignments had hitherto benefited
citizens only, Latins and Italians had been admitted to Latin
colonies founded by Rome; Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 91.
[2252] Cf. Lex Agr. in CIL. i. 200. 6: “Extra eum agrum, qui ager
ex lege plebive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebei)
rog(avit), exceptum cavitumque est nei divideretur.” The
exceptions numbered from a to g in the text above are taken from
the agrarian law of 111. As these exceptions were made in the
agrarian law of C. Gracchus, it is here assumed that they were
made previously by Tiberius.
 [2253] Lex Agr. in CIL. i. 200. 31 f.; cf. Cic. Leg. Agr. i. 4. 10; ii.
22. 58 (land held similarly in Africa).
[2254] Cf. Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 90.
[2255] In the earliest arrangement of the kind the part was one
third, as the name indicates; Livy xxxi. 13. 9; CIL. i. 200. 31 f.; cf.
Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 113; Weber, Röm. Agrargesch. 149-
51. The word is derived from trientare, as stabulum from stare;
Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 90.
[2256] CIL. i. 200. 14; cf. 25 f. See Mommsen’s comment, p.
91; Frontin. Contr. p. 15; Hygin. Cond. Agr. p. 116. 23; Lim. Const.
p. 201. 12; Siculus Flacc. p. 157; Weber, Röm. Agrargesch. 120 f.
[2257] Voigt, in Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. x (1888). 229;
Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 113.
[2258] CIL. ibid. 28.
[2259] CIL. 200. 1, 4, 6, 13, 22; cf. Cic. Leg. Agr. i. 7. 21; ii. 29.
81; Att. i. 19. 4; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 91; Greenidge, ibid. 112 f.
[2260] CIL. ibid. 24-6; Voigt, ibid. 227. The classification of
public land reserved from distribution by the agrarian law of 111 is
that of Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 90 f.
[2261] Cic. Leg. Agr. ii. 12. 31; App. B. C. i. 9. 37; Livy, ep. lviii.
[2262] They are so called in Lex Lat. Bant. 15, in CIL. i. 197;
Lex Rep. 13, 16, 22, ibid. 198; Lex Agr. 16, ibid. 200.
[2263] Lex Agr. in CIL. i. 200. 13 f., 17, 21-3; Cic. Att. i. 19. 4;
Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 87. Illegal occupations alone are thereafter
mentioned; Cic. Orat. ii. 70. 284; App. B. C. i. 36. 162.
[2264] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10; cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 121;
Strachan-Davidson’s explanation (Appian, p. 13) seems to be
incorrect.
[2265] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10-3; App. B. C. i. 12 f.;
Cic. N. D. i. 38. 106.
[2266] Livy, ep. lviii; App. B. C. i. 13. 55; Vell. ii. 2. 3; Flor. ii. 2.
6.
[2267] P. 347 f.
[2268] Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 13.
[2269] Livy, ep. lviii: “Promulgavit et aliam legem agrariam, qua
sibi latius agrum patefaceret, ut iidem triumviri iudicarent, qua
publicus ager, qua privatus esset.”
[2270] CIL. i. 552-5, 583; ix. 1024 f.
[2271] B. C. i. 19. 78 f. The context indicates that in Appian’s
opinion the people had nothing to do with the measure.
[2272] Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 688 (cf. iii. 22) and Greenidge, Hist.
of Rome, i. 158, suppose without evidence that Scipio effected his
object by means of a law.
[2273] P. 373 below. On the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus, see
further Long, Rom. Rep. i. 159-91; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i.
445-52; Ihne, Hist. of Rome, iv. 382-400; Greenidge, Hist. of
Rome, i. 110-28; Neumann, Gesch. Roms, i. 156-84.
[2274] Livy, ep. lviii; Vell. ii. 2. 3: “Octavio collegae pro bono
publico stanti imperium abrogavit”; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 12; App. B. C.
i. 12; Cic. Leg. iii. 10. 24; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 4.
[2275] P. 360.
[2276] Cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 12; Ihne, Hist. of Rome, iv. 80,
395; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 185 ff. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 125-
7, and Pöhlmann, in Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. 1907. 465 ff., contend
for its legality.
[2277] P. 233 f.
[2278] P. 255.
[2279] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 16; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 7. These
sources are obscure and somewhat inconsistent. The proposals
of Tiberius can, better than in any other way though not with
absolute certainty, be inferred from the laws of his brother.
[2280] P. 360.
[2281] P. 307 f.
[2282] Livy, ep. lix; Cic. Amic. 25. 96.
[2283] B. C. i. 21. 90: Καὶ γάρ τις ἤδη νόμος κεκύρωτο εἰ
δήμαρχος ἐνδέοι ταῖς παραγγλείαις, τὸν δῆμον ἐκ πάντων
ἐπιλέγεσθαι. White translates, “For in cases where there was not
a sufficient number of candidates, the law authorizes the people
to choose from the whole number then in office”; and scholars
usually suppose that in the first clause reference is to candidates.
But if tribunus, the equivalent of δήμαρχος, stood in the law, it
must have signified tribune, not candidate; and in that case
παραγγελίαις, however Appian may have understood it, must be
the equivalent of renuntiationibus, “announcements of votes.”
[2284] Cf. Strachan-Davidson, Appian, p. 23. It was under the
second contingency that C. Gracchus was reëlected tribune
without being a candidate; Plut. C. Gracch. 8. The third time,
though as some averred he had a majority of votes, the presiding
tribune dared reject them; ibid. 12; Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 94,
n. 3. Fowler’s suggestion (Eng. Hist. Rev. xx. 217) that the law
permitted but one reëlection of an individual is on the whole
unlikely.
[2285] Cic. Leg. iii. 16. 35; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 461;
Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 163 f.
[2286] The measure was being agitated at the time to which
Cicero referred the dialogue On the Republic, iv. 2; cf. Q. Cic.
Petit. Cons. 8. 33; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 657; iii. 25. On the
Claudian law, see p. 335 above.
[2287] P. 358.
[2288] Lex Acil. Rep. 23, 74, in CIL. i. 198; Zumpt, in Abhdl. d.
Akad. zu Berlin, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 664; iii.
26; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 420; Hist. of Rome, i. 135, 211. The
Latin Lex Bantina (CIL. i. 197), identified by some with the Lex
Iunia, seems rather to belong to the tribunate of C. Gracchus; p.
379.
[2289] Cic. Off. iii. 11. 47; Brut. 28. 109; Fest. 286. 10; Long,
Rom. Rep. i. 237 f.; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 166 f.
[2290] App. B. C., i. 21, 34. 152; Val. Max. ix. 5. 1; Ihne, Hist. of
Rome, iv. 418-21; Long, ibid. 241; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i.
462; Greenidge, ibid. 167 ff.; Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 93;
Fowler, in Eng. Hist. Rev. xx. 422.
[2291] In March, April, and May, according to Kornemann,
Gesch. d. Gracch. 44.
[2292] On the order of his enactments, see Lange, Röm. Alt. iii.
38; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 210; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i.
466; Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 95, n. 4; Kornemann, Gesch. d.
Gracch. 42 ff.; Fowler, in Eng. Hist. Rev. xx. (1905). 216 ff. Meyer
calls attention to the fact that while Appian, B. C. i. 21 f., states
the enactments in substantially correct order, he wrongly identifies
the date of reëlection—midsummer 123—with the date of
entrance upon his second term—December 10, 123—in this way
pushing forward into the second year a large group of enactments
which belong to the latter part of his first term.
[2293] P. 367.
[2294] Plut. C. Gracch. 4; Diod. xxxv. 25, 2; Fest. ep. 23
(abacti); Lange, Röm. Alt. i. 655; iii. 30 f.; Greenidge, Hist. of
Rome, i. 202.
[2295] P. 368.
[2296] P. 255 f. For the comitial interdict against Popillius, see
p. 256.
[2297] Cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 204 f.; Fowler, Eng. Hist.
Rev. xx. 224.
[2298] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. ii. 1346. For
examples, see Marquardt, Röm. Staatsv. ii. 114, and especially,
Oliver, Roman Economic Conditions, 61 ff.
[2299] Livy, ep. lx; App. B. C. i. 21. 89; Schol. Bob. 303; Vell. ii.
6. 3; Plut. C. Gracch. 5.
[2300] App. ibid. § 90; Diod. xxxv. 25; Cic. Sest. 48. 103.
[2301] Cic. Off. ii. 21. 72; Tusc. iii. 20. 48; Diod. ibid; Oros. v.
12. 4; cf. Long, Rom. Rep. i. 261-3; Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i.
203-7.
[2302] The view here offered was suggested in Botsford,
History of Rome (1901), 156. It is presented in greater detail by
Fowler, in Eng. Hist. Rev. xx (1905). 221 ff.
[2303] Begun by his lex de provocatione; p. 371.
[2304] Placed before the frumentarian law by Lange, Röm. Alt.
iii. 31. Meyer, Gesch. d. Gracch. 95, n. 4, and Kornemann,
Gesch. d. Gracch. 43, hold the view represented above in the
text.
[2305] Plut. C. Gracch. 9.
[2306] CIL. i. 200. 6, 22; cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. iii. 32.
[2307] P. 364 f., 386.
[2308] App. B. C. i. 23. 98; Plut. C. Gracch. 6 f.; cf. Voigt, in
Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. xxiv (1872). 68 ff.
[2309] Livy, ep. lx; Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 88.
 [2310] Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 209; cf. CIL. i. 200, 1, 3, 4,
6, 22. Dio Cassius, Frag. 84. 2, intimates that after the death of
Scipio the distribution of the public land was renewed with energy.
Reference must accordingly be to the operation of the law of
Gaius.
[2311] Cf. App. B. C. i. 21 f.
[2312] App. B. C. i. 14. 58.
[2313] P. 358.
[2314] P. 345.
[2315] P. 368. The measure is referred to as a lex iudiciaria by
Macrob. Sat. iii. 14. 6.
[2316] The epitomator of Livy, lx, supposes that Gaius offered
and actually carried a measure for adding six hundred knights to
the senate with the understanding that the jurors were to be
drawn from that body thus enlarged; cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr.
iii. 530, n. 1. Such an act, however, could not have been termed a
lex iudiciaria, as it would have been concerned simply with the
composition of the senate. Everything is opposed to the
assumption that the bill in this form passed or at least that it was
put into effect. Plutarch, C. Gracch. 5 f., seems to signify that his
law provided for an album of six hundred jurors, one half to be
drawn from the senate, the rest from the knights. It is by no
means necessary, with Fowler, in Eng. Hist. Rev. xx (1905). 426,
n. 16, to interpret the expression ὁ δὲ τριακοσίους τῶν ἱππέων
προσκατέλεξεν αὐτοῖς οὖσι τριακοσίοις, καὶ τὰς κρίσεις κοινὰς τῶν
ἑξακοσίωον ἐποίησε (cf. Ag. et Cleom. et Gracch. Comp. 2) as
“adding three hundred equites to the senate to form the body of
iudices.” These sources have confused the projects with the law
as actually passed; cf. Strachan-Davidson, Appian, p. 23.
[2317] App. B. C. i. 22. 92; Vell. ii. 6. 3; 32. 3; Varro, in Non.
Marc. 454; Tac. Ann. xii. 60; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145; Flor. ii. 1. 6;
5. 3 (iii. 13. 17); Diod. xxxv. 25; Plut. C. Gracch. 5; Livy, ep. lx; cf.
Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 668; iii. 38-40; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i.
466 f.; Long, Rom. Rep. i. 263-9; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 434;
Hist. of Rome, i. 212-7; Ihne, Hist. of Rome, iv. 457-64; Madvig,
Röm. Staat. ii. 219-21.
[2318] This is true at least of the extraordinary quaestio
established by the Mamilian law of 110; Cic. Brut. 34. 128; cf. 33.
127; Schol. Bob. 311; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 381 f., 435.
 [2319] CIL. i. 198.
[2320] CIL. i. 198. 16. There was under the republic a census
qualification for the knights who acted as iudices (Cic. Phil. i. 8.
20), though we have no authority that the limit of four hundred
thousand sesterces existed before the principate. Originally
Mommsen supplied the lacuna with a statement of the money
qualification as here given; but afterward, changing his mind, he
filled the gap with “equum publicum habebit habuerit.”
[2321] An article of the lex Acilia provides that within ten days
after the enactment of this statute the said praetor shall choose
the four hundred and fifty persons from whom the jurors of that
court are to be drawn; thereafter the revision is to be annual; CIL.
i. 198. 12, 14.
 [2322] Strachan-Davidson, Appian, p. 23, followed by Fowler, in
Eng. Hist. Rev. xx. 429, identifies the two—on untenable ground,
for the reliable sources speak distinctly of a Sempronian law and
an Acilian law.
[2323] Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii. 531, n. 1, preferably
regards the Sempronian as the later; but in that case the transfer
would have been achieved in substance by the Acilian statute—a
view which is contradicted by the sources.
[2324] This idea would explain the fact that the extant
fragments of the lex Acilia contain no reference to a Sempronian
lex iudiciaria.
[2325] Cic. Verr. i. 17. 51 f.; II. i. 9. 26; Brut. 68. 239; Pseud.
Ascon. 149, 165.
[2326] P. 370.
[2327] CIL. i. 198. Reference to the IIIviri of the Sempronian
agrarian law (§ 13, 16, 22) proves it to belong to 133-119, while
the fact that it does not admit senators among the jurors requires
it to follow the judiciary law of C. Gracchus; and more particularly,
the implication that at the time of its enactment the lex Rubria (p.
383 below) was in force places it between 123 and 121;
Mommsen, in CIL. i. p. 55; Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. i. 41. In general on
the law, see Rudorff, Ad legem Aciliam; Zumpt, in Abhdl. d. Akad.
zu Berlin, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; Röm. Criminalr. i. 99 ff.; Huschke,
in Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch. v (1866). 46-84; Hesky, in Wiener
Studien, xxv (1903). 272-87; Brassloff, ibid. xxvi. 106-17; Lange,
Röm. Alt. ii. 664; iii. 40; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. iii. 642; Röm.
Strafr. 708 f.; Greenidge, Leg. Proced. 420; Hist. of Rome, i. 214,
n. 2; Ruggiero, ibid. 41-4; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl.
i. 256.
[2328] Lex Rep. 2 f.; cf. 8 f.
[2329] Lex Rep. 1.
[2330] Vell. ii. 8. 1; cf. Cic. Verr. iii. 80. 184; Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. i.
42.
[2331] Lex Rep. 8 f.
[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.
 [2452] Cic. Leg. ii. 6. 14. According to Oros. v. 12. 10, P. Furius,
tribune in 99, secured the enactment of a law for confiscating the
property of those who conspired against the state.
[2453] Pliny, N. H. iii. 12. 80: “Marianam a C. Mario deductam”;
Seneca, Ad. Helv. vii. 9; Solin. iii. 3; Mela ii. 7. 122; Mommsen, in
CIL. x. p. 838, 997; Kornemann, in Pauly Wissowa, Real-Encycl.
iv. 522.
[2454] Obseq. 46 (106); Val. Max viii. 1. damn. 3; cf. Cic. Orat.
ii. 11. 48.
[2455] Cic. Leg. ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; Obseq. ibid. A criminal lex
Titia, the contents of which also are unknown—Auson. Epigr. 92
(89). 4—may belong to this tribune; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 661, 668.
[2456] Cic. Dom. 20. 53; Leg. iii. 4. 11; 19. 43. The enactment
was merely the confirmation of an old custom or law introduced
between the Licinian-Sextian legislation and 122; cf. Lex Acil. 72,
in CIL. i. 198.
[2457] Cic. Dom. 16. 41; Sest. 64. 135; Schol. Bob. 310. This,
too, was a confirmation of an earlier usage; Dion. Hal. vii. 58. 3; x.
3. 5; Livy iii. 35. 1; p. 189, 260, n. 1 above; cf. Mommsen, Röm.
Staatsr. iii. 336, 376 f.
[2458] Cic. Off. iii. 11. 47; cf. p. 354, 370.
[2459] Cic. Balb. 21. 48.
[2460] Cic. Brut. 16. 63; Schol. Bob. 296.
[2461] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 20.
[2462] Ascon. 67. On the law in general, see Lange, Röm. Alt.
iii. 90; Long, Rom. Rep. ii. 128; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 490.
On Caecilius and Didius, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. iii. 1216. 95; v. 407-10.
[2463] Vell. ii. 13. 1; Dio Cass. Frag. 96. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 10.
[2464] The citations of the preceding note, and Ascon. 68; Livy,
ep. lxx; less clearly Flor. ii. 5. 1, 4 (iii. 17).
[2465] (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. Ill. 66. 4 f.; CIL. vi. 1312 (i. p. 279 vii).
Livy, ep. lxxi, merely mentions them.
[2466] B. C. i. 35. 156.
[2467] P. 383 above.