FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES[1]Pagus(connected etymologically with πήγνυμι,pago,pango) implies the idea of “foundation” or “settlement.”[2]Cf. Liv. ii. 62 “Incendiis deinde non villarum modo, sed etiam vicorum, quibus frequenter habitabatur, Sabini exciti.”[3]So Servius Tullius is said, according to one account, to have divided the territory of Rome into twenty-sixpagi.Pagusis δῆμος in Greek (Festus p. 72), but this proves little as to its origin; it is thepagusas part of a state that is thus translated. The δῆμος or δᾶμος in Greece had often been (as in Elis) a self-existent community.[4]Liv. ii. 16. Yet even here theClaudia gensis represented as expelled from acivitas.[5]The ancients derived Palatine from thebalareorpalareof cattle (Festus p. 220) or from the shepherd’s god Pales (Solinus i. 15). It is perhaps derived from the rootpa(pasco). See O. GilbertGeschichte u. Topographie der Stadt Rom in Altertumi. p. 17.[6]Tac.Ann.xii. 24.[7]This tendency is best exhibited in Richter’s map showing the extension of Rome (BaumeisterDenkmälerart. “Rom” Karte v.).[8]Festus pp. 340, 341. See GilbertTopographiei. pp. 38, 162.[9]VarroL.L.v. 45 ff.[10]i.e. in the four city tribes—Palatina(Palatine, Cermalus, Velia),Esquilina(Oppius, Cispius, Fagutal),SuburanaorSucusana(Coelius, Subura),Collina(Quirinalis, Viminalis—a region outside the old Septimontium). See BelotHistoire des Chevaliers Romainsi. p. 401.[11]The Sabine origin of the Tities rested perhaps on the Sabinesacraof thesodales Titii(Tac.Ann.i. 54). Cf. the Thracian origin ascribed to the Eumolpidae at Athens on account of the character of their cult.[12]Cic.de Rep.ii. 8, 14 “populumque et suo et Tatii nomine et Lucumonis, qui Romuli socius in Sabino proelio occiderat, in tribus tris ... discripserat.”[13]e.g. the manner in which the Ionic tribe-names were imposed at Athens after their primitive signification had been lost.[14]Cf. NieseGrundriss der röm. Gesch.pp. 20 sq.[15]Cincius ap. Festum p. 241 “Patricios Cincius ait in libro de comitiis eos appellari solitos, qui nunc ingenui vocentur.” Cf. Liv. x. 8 (300B.C.; from the speech of Decius Mus) § 9 “Semper ista audita sunt eadem, penes vos auspicia esse, vos solos gentem habere, vos solos justum imperium et auspicium domi militiaeque”; § 10 “en unquam fando audistis, patricios primo esse factos non de coelo demissos sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est nihil ultra quam ingenuos?”[16]Mr. Strachan-Davidson remarks (SmithDict. of Antiq.ii. p. 354) that, on the evolution of the rights of the plebeians, these too should have beenpatricii, but that the wordpatriciussurvived as a “token of an arrested development.”[17]Plebsis connected with the root which appears incompleo,impleo, πλῆυος.[18]Liv. i. 28 “populum omnem Albanum Romam traducere in animo est, civitatem dare plebi, primores in patres legere.” Dionysius (ii. 35) represents the people of Caenina and Antemnae as being, after their subjection, enrolled εἰς φυλὰς καὶ φράτρας.[19]Cf. Dionysius’ account of Romulus’ institution of clientship (ii. 9 παρακαταθήκας δὲ ἔδωκε τοῖς πατρικίοις τοὺς δημοτικούς, ἐπίτρεψας ἑκάστῳ ... ὃν αὐτὸς ἐβούλετο νέμειν προστάτην ... πατρωνείαν ὀνομάσας τὴν προστασίαν).[20]Thejus commerciihas been read into the relations of Rome with Carthage as depicted in Polybius’ second treaty [Polyb. iii. 24, 12 ἐν Σικελίᾳ, ἧς Καρχηδόνιοι ἐπάρχουσι, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι πάντα καὶ ποιείτω καὶ πωλείτω (the Roman) ὅσα καὶ τῷ πολίτῃ (the Carthaginian) ἔξεστιν]. But jurisdiction here may have been the work of some international court, and thejus commercii, without thejus exulandi, would hardly have made a foreign immigrant a citizen of Rome.[21]Cicero shows that there was a controversy whetherapplicatiowas consistent withexilium(de Orat.i. 39, 177), “Quid? quod item in centumvirali judicio certatum esse accepimus, qui Romam in exilium venisset, cui Romae exulare jus esset, si se ad aliquem quasi patronum applicavisset intestatoque esset mortuus, nonne in ea causa jus applicationis, obscurum sane et ignotum, patefactum in judicio atque illustratum est a patrono?”[22]Zonaras vii. 15. P. Clodius first tried this method; when it was opposed he resorted to the artifice of adoption. Courtly writers imagined atransitiofor the plebeian Octavii, Suet.Aug.2 “Ea gens a Tarquinio Prisco rege inter minores gentes adlecta ... mox a Servio Tullio in patricias transducta, procedente tempore ad plebem se contulit.”[23]Liv. ii. 16 (504B.C.) “Attus Clausus (driven out from Regillum) magna clientium comitatus manu Romam transfugit. His civitas data agerque trans Anienem ... Appius inter patres (i.e. the Senate) lectus haud ita multo post in principum dignationem pervenit.” Cf. Suet.Tib.1.[24]SavignyRecht des Besitzes(7th ed.) p. 202. On the general condition of the client see IheringGeist des röm. Rechtsi. p. 237.[25]Dionys. ii. 9, 10.[26]ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ δίκαια ... δίκας λαγχάνειν ... τοῖς ἐγκαλοῦσιν ὑπέχειν (Dionys. ii. 10). If representation in the civil courts is meant, it must have resembled that of thepaterfamilias, who sues in his own right, for procuratory was unknown in early Roman procedure (Just.Inst.iv. 10 “cum olim in usu fuisset alterius nomine agere non posse”).[27]Verg.Aen.vi. 609 “fraus innexa clienti.” Cf. Servius ad loc.[28]Gell. v. 13 “Conveniebat ... ex moribus populi Romani primum juxta parentes locum tenere pupillos debere, fidei tutelaeque nostrae creditos; secundum eos proximum locum clientes habere, qui sese itidem in fidem patrociniumque nostrum dediderunt.” The third place was filled byhospites, the fourth bycognatiandadfines.[29]Liv. ii. 56.[30]Suet.Claud.24 “(Claudius) Appium Caecum censorem (312B.C.) ... libertinorum filios in senatum allegisse docuit; ignarus temporibus Appii (312-280B.C.) et deinceps aliquamdiu ‘libertinos’ dictos, non ipsos qui manu emitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreates.”[31]Plut.Mar.5.[32]Festus p. 94 “gentilis dicitur ex eodem genere ortus et (?) is qui simili nomine appellatur.”[33]p. 5.[34]Cic.Top.6, 29 “Gentiles sunt inter se, qui eodem nomine sunt; qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt; quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit; qui capite non sunt deminuti.”[35]The test is illustrated by a controversy between the patrician Claudii and the plebeian Claudii Marcelli, Cic.de Orat.i. 39, 176 “Quid? qua de re inter Marcellos et Claudios patricios centumviri judicarunt, cum Marcelli ab liberti filio stirpe, Claudii patricii ejusdem hominis hereditatem gente ad se rediisse dicerent, nonne in ea causa fuit oratoribus de toto stirpis et gentilitatis jure dicendum.” Suetonius (Tib.1) says of the clan of the Claudii Marcelli, as compared with their patrician namesakes, “nec potentia minor nec dignitate.”[36]Liv. x. 8, quoted p. 5.[37]p. 5.[38]Cic.in Verr.i. 45, 115 “Minucius quidam mortuus est ante istum (Verrem) praetorem; ejus testamentum erat nullum. Lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat”;de Leg.ii. 22, 55 “Jam tanta religio est sepulchrorum, ut extra sacra et gentem inferri fas negent esse; idque apud majores nostros A. Torquatus in gente Popilia judicavit.”[39]The theory of the artificial origin of thegensis based on the symmetrical figures given by tradition. The full numbers of the earlygentesare given as 300; these are symmetrically divided, ten into each of the thirtycuriae, as thecuriaeare divided into the three original tribes. Hence Niebuhr (Hist. Romei. p. 319) says, “The numerical scale of thegentesis an irrefragable proof that they were not more ancient than the constitution, but corporations formed by a legislator in harmony with the rest of his scheme.”[40]Niebuhr op. cit. p. 333; from Laelius Felix (ap. Gell. xv. 27) “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, curiata comitia esse” (genusbecause the assembly came to include Plebeians, some of whom had nogentes).[41]Cic.ad Fam.ix. 21, 2.[42]Momms.Staatsr.iii. p. 31.[43]Cic.de Rep.ii. 20, 35 “(L. Tarquinius) duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum; et antiquos patres majorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se ascitos minorum”; Liv. i. 35 “(Tarquinius) centum in patres legit; qui deinde minorum gentium sunt appellati.”[44]p. 3.[45]Thegentes minoresare sometimes identified with thegentesof the last admitted of these tribes, theLuceres(OrtolanHist. of Roman Lawi. § 33).[46]Momms.Hist. of Romebk. i. ch. v.[47]Liv. i. 30; Dionys. iii. 29.[48]Dionys. ii. 46.[49]Liv. iv. 4 “nobilitatem vestram per cooptationem in patres habetis”; Suet.Tib.1 “gens Claudia in patricios cooptata.” So Servius and Numa are said to have been transferred by the Populus from the ranks of the δῆμος to those of the πατρίκιοι.[50]As is implied in Suet.Aug.2 (quoted p. 7).[51]Dionys. v. 13.[52]Liv. ii. 2 “Brutus ad populum tulit ut omnes Tarquiniae gentis exsules essent”; Varro ap. Non. p. 222 “omnes Tarquinios ejicerent, ne quam reditionis per gentilitatem spem haberent.”[53]SuetTib.1 “Patricia gens Claudia ... orta est ex Regillis, oppido Sabinorum ... post reges exactos sexto fere anno, in patricias cooptata. Agrum insuper trans Anienem clientibus, locumque sibi ad sepulturam sub Capitolio, publice accepit.” Cf. Liv. ii. 16 (cited p. 7).[54]Dionys. v. 40.[55]ib. ii. 7.[56]Cic.de Rep.ii. 14, 26.[57]Momms.Staatsr.iii. p. 23.[58]VarroR.R.i. 10, 2; cf. Plin.H.N.xix. 4.[59]Festus p. 53 “Centuriatus ager in ducena jugera definitus, quia Romulus centenis civibus ducena jugera tribuit.”[60]It is possible, however, thatmanusin such expressions is merely the symbol of power.[61]“Si adgnatus nec escit gentiles familiam habento.”[62]Suet.Caes.1, of Caesar’s refusal to divorce Cornelia; as a consequence he was “uxoris dote, et gentiliciis haereditatibus multatus.”[63]p. 10.[64]“Si furiosus escit, ast ei custos nec escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque ejus potestas esto.”[65]Cic.pro Domo13, 35.[66]Suet.Tib.1.[67]Cic.Phil.i. 13, 32.[68]MaineAncient Lawpp. 6, 27.[69]Cic.pro Domo13, 35 “Quas adoptiones (i.e. legal ones) ... hereditates nominis, pecuniae, sacrorum secutae sunt. Tu ... neque amissis sacris paternis in haec adoptiva venisti. Ita perturbatis sacris, contaminatis gentibus, et quam deseruisti et quam polluisti, etc.”;de Leg.ii. 19, 48 “haec jura pontificum auctoritate consecuta sunt, ut ne morte patris familias sacrorum memoria occideret, iis essent ea adjuncta, ad quos ejusdem morte pecunia venerit.” The transmission was thus a part ofjus pontificium, not ofjus civile. Cf. Serv. inAen.ii. 156.[70]Cf. the story of Verginia in Liv. x. 23 (296B.C.) “Verginiam Auli filiam patriciam plebeio nuptam L. Volumnio consuli matronae, quod e patribus enupsisset, sacris arcuerant.” She then founds an altar to “Pudicitia plebeia,” in imitation of that to “Pudicitia patricia.”[71]ἀνδρὶ κοινωνὸν ἁπάντων χρημάτων τε καὶ ἱερῶν (Dionys. ii. 25).[72]Plut.Qu. Rom.30 Διὰ τί τὴν νὺμφην εἰσάγοντες λέγειν κελεύουσιν· Ὃπου σὺ Γαΐος ἐγὼ Γαΐα;[73]e.g. a testamentary adoption by a public act in thecomitia calata.[74]Familiais etymologically a “household.” Cf. Sanskr.dhâ“to settle,”dhâman“settlement.”[75]The original term was, perhaps,manussignifying “power” (see p. 32), but this word came in course of time to be restricted to the control over the wife who had become a member of thefamilia.[76]Plutarch (Rom.22) quotes a law of Romulus allowing the divorce of the wife ἐπὶ φαρμακείᾳ τέκνων ἢ κλειδῶν ὑποβίλῃ καὶ μοιχευθεῖσαν.[77]Dionys. ii. 15.[78]Thisjus noxae dationisfirst disappears finally in the law of Justinian (Inst.iv. 8, 7;Dig.43, 29, 3, 4). Before its abolition a modification had been introduced by the rule that, when the child had acquired an equivalent for the damage he had caused (quantum damni dedit), the owner should be forced to manumit him.[79]Even by Constantine the sale of new-born children (sanguinolenti) was permitted, but onlypropter nimiam paupertatem(Cod.4, 43, 2).[80]“Pater si filium ter venum duuit, filius a patre liber esto.” It has been thought, however, that by the time of the Twelve Tables the sale had become merely fictitious.[81]Thisvindicatio filiiwas in later Roman law replaced by a writ issued by the praetor (interdictum de liberis exhibendis), the effects of which were like that of Habeas Corpus.[82]Dionys. ii. 26, 27.[83]Gell. v. 19, 9.[84]Hadrian punished the killing of a son with deportation (Dig.48, 8, 5); Constantine declared itparricidium.[85]Instances are given in Voigt (Zwölf Tafelnii 94). M. Fabius Buteo (223-218B.C.) put his son to death as a punishment for theft (Oros. iv. 13), and a certain Pontius Aufidianus his daughter for immorality (Val. Max. vi. 1, 3); there are also instances of banishment inflicted by the father, presumably under the threat of inflicting the death penalty if the children returned.[86]We may cite two instances lying at the very extremes of Republican history, the semi-mythical one of L. Junius Brutus in 509 (Plut.Popl.6, 7), and the historical one of A. Fulvius Nobilior, who in 63B.C.put his son to death for partnership in the Catilinarian conspiracy (Sall.Cat.39).[87]Modern writers are inclined to reject the appeal made to thesexus fragilitasby the Roman jurists, and to believe that the original motive lay in the desire to keep the property of the family together (cf. CzyhlarzInst.p. 275); but, as this motive did not operate in the case of sons, it is difficult to see why it should have done so in the case of the wife or daughters, apart from a belief in the incapability of women to defend their own claims. For the motive underlying thetutela mulierumsee p. 31.[88]p. 16.[89]Ulp.Reg.12, 2 “Lex xii. Tab. prodigum, cui bonis interdictum est, in curatione jubet esse agnatorum”; cf. Ulp. inDig.27, 10, 1 “Lege xii. Tab. prodigo interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio.” There can be no doubt of the antiquity of this interdiction of the “prodigus,” proceeding as it does from the theory that the property belongs to the family rather than to its head; but from what authority it proceeded in the earliest period of Roman history is uncertain.[90]See the account in Val. Max. v. 8, 2 (p. 23) “adhibito propinquoram et amicoram consilio.”[91]Val. Max. ii. 9, 2 “M. Val. Maximus et C. Junius Brutus Bubulcus censores ... L. Annium senatu moverunt, quod, quam virginem in matrimonium duxerat, repudiasset, nullo amicorum in consilio adhibito.” See GreenidgeInfamia in Roman Lawp. 65.[92]Dionys. ii. 26, 27.[93]For the alleged lateness of divorce at Rome, even after the Twelve Tables had freely permitted it, see Gell. iv. 3 (Infamia in Roman Lawp. 65).[94]Dig.i. 6, 9 (Pomponius) “filius familias in publicis causis loco patris familias habetur, veluti ut magistratum gerat, ut tutor detur.” Compare the story in Liv. xxiv. 44 (213B.C.) “Pater filio legatus ad Suessulam in castra venit”—the consul went to meet him; and the old man on horseback passed eleven lictors—“ut consul animadvertere proximum lictorem jussit et is, ut descenderet ex equo, inclamavit, tum demum desiliens, ‘Experiri,’ inquit, ‘volui, fili, satin’ scires consulem te esse.” Cf. Gell. ii. 2.[95]Festus s.v.Duicensus(p. 66) “dicebatur cum altero, id est cum filio census.”[96]Probably by amancipatio fiduciae causa, one, i.e., by which he had formally transferred (mancipavit) his body on the condition that it was not to be seized for a certain time, and that the transfer should be dissolved (solutio nexi) if the debt were paid within this time.[97]Ulpian Reg. 19, 1; Gaius ii. 15.Res mancipiat a later period included lands in Italy (with their servitudes), slaves andquadrupedes quae dorso collove domantur. In the expressionfamilia pecuniaque, “familia” probably denotes the slaves. Pierron (Du sens des mots familia pecuniaque) has shown the theory of Ihering and Cuq, that the former denotesres mancipi, the latterres nec mancipi, to be untenable.[98]Plut.Cato maj.3.[99]Plut.Cor.24.[100]See the section on the censor.[101]Paulus inDig.28, 2, 11 “in suis heredibus evidentius apparet continuationem dominii eo rem perducere, ut nulla videatur hereditas fuisse, quasi olim hi domini essent, qui etiam vivo patre quodammodo domini existimantur.” What thefilius familiasacquires by the death of his father is merelylibera bonorum administratio.[102]Gell. i. 9 “Tamquam illud fuit anticum consortium, quod jure atque verbo Romano appellabatur ‘ercto non cito’”; Serv. inAen.viii. 642 “‘citae’ divisae, ut est in jure ‘ercto non cito,’ id est patrimonis vel hereditate non divisa.”[103]Gell. xv. 27 “Isdem comitiis, quae ‘calata’ appellari diximus, et sacrorum detestatio et testamenta fieri solebant. Tria enim genera testamentorum fuisse accepimus; unum, quod calatis comitiis in populi contione fieret, alterum in procinctu, cum viri ad proelium faciendum in aciem vocabantur, tertium per familiae emancipationem, cui aes et libra adhiberetur”; Gaius ii. 101 “aut calatis comitiis faciebant, quae comitia bis in anno testamentis faciendis destinata erant; aut in procinctu, id est, cum belli causa arma sumebant.” Cf. Ulpian (Reg.20, 2) on thetestamentorum genera tria.[104]This testament is never associated with adrogation, although this took place before the same assembly.[105]In Gell. (cited n. 1) it is associated with thesacrorum detestatio(see p. 16), and perhaps this was its main object. The pontiffs and people had to be satisfied that thesacrawould be continued and the family not become extinct.[106]See the passages of Gellius, Gaius, and Ulpian, cited n. 1, and compare Festus p. 225 “procincta classis dicebatur, cum exercitus cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus.” In the second centuryB.C.we find some kind of military testament, called by this name, made by Roman soldiers in Spain (Velleius ii. 5 “facientibus ... omnibus in procinctu testamenta, velut ad certam mortem eundum foret”).[107]Gaius ii. 102 “Qui neque calatis comitiis, neque in procinctu testamentum fecerat, is, si subita morte urguebatur, amico familiam suam, id est, patrimonium suum mancipio dabat, eumque rogabat, quod cuique post mortem suam dari vellet.”[108]Gaius ii. 104 “Familiam pecuniamque tuam endo mandatela tutela custodelaque mea, quo tu jure testamentum facere possis secundum legem publicam, hoc aere esto mihi empta.” Forfamilia pecuniaquesee p. 24.[109]The stipulation that it was a trust would still have taken the patrimony wholly from the testator during the remainder of his life. We hear nothing about the formal reservation of a life interest.[110]“Cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit ita jus esto.”[111]Gaius ii. 104 “Haec ita, ut in his tabulis cerisque scripta sunt, ita do, ita lego, ita testor, itaque vos, quirites, testimonium mihi perhibetote.”[112]Plut.Comp. Lyc. c. Num.4 λέγεται γούν ποτε γυναικὸς εἰπούσης δίκην ἰδίαν ἐν ἀγορᾷ πέμψαι τὴν σύγκλητον εἰς θεοῦ, πυνθανομένην, τίνος ἅρα τῇ πόλει σημεῖον εἴη τὸ γεγενημένον.[113]Such as thelex Claudia, which abolished thelegitima tutela agnatorum(Gaius i. 171).[114]A trace of the old disability survives in the prohibition of advocacy to women; the praetors declined to grant them a formula on behalf of others. A certain Carfania (Gaia Afrania) “inverecunde postulans et magistratum inquietans” is said to have been the occasion of this rule (Ulp. inDig.3, 11, 5).[115]This usage was preserved in the praetor’s edict; he spoke of “qui quaeve ... capite deminuti deminutaeve esse dicentur” (Dig.4, 5, 2, 1), meaning what the later jurists callcap. dem. minima, i.e. loss offamilia.[116]See Eisele “Zur Natur u. Geschichte der capitis deminutio” inBeiträge zur Römischen Rechtsgeschichtep. 160. He combats the counter view thatcapitis dem.meant an annihilation of personality. Mommsen (Staatsr.iii. 8) takes this latter view—a natural result of juristic refinement, but a conception that would have been quite unintelligible to a primitive community.[117]Gaius i. 162 “Minima capitis deminutio est, cum et civitas et libertas retinetur, sed status hominis commutator; quod accidit in his qui adoptantur, item in his quae coemptionem faciunt, et in his qui mancipio dantur, quique ex mancipatione manumittuntur.”[118]Liv. i. 32.[119]Gell. i. 12, 14; x. 24, 3.[120]Mommsen (Staatsr.iii. 3, n. 2) connects the word withpopulari. Themagister populi(i.e. the dictator) is master of the infantry host.[121]Varro ap. Dionys. ii 48. Other views derived it from the Sabine town Cures (VarroL.L.v. 51; Strabo v. 3, 1) or connected it withCuria(LangeRöm. Alt.i. p. 89; BelotHist. d. Chev. Rom.i. p. 312).[122]Suet.Jul.70.[123]Capito ap. Gell. i. 20 “Plebes ... in qua gentes civium patriciae non insunt: plebiscitum ... est ... lex, quam plebes, non populus, accipit.” Cf. Festus p. 233.[124]According to the primitive conception private are dependent on public rights; see p. 31. But the growth of the Plebs, and alliances with other states, had effected many modifications in this conception.[125]Nonius, s.v.plebitas, p. 101 “Hemina in annalibus, ‘Quicumque propter plebitatem agro publico ejecti sunt.’” Cf. Liv. iv. 48.[126]p. 17.[127]Cic.de Leg.ii. 13, 32 (on the question whether auspices were merely directed to theutilitasof the state, or formed a true method of divination) “si enim deos esse concedimus ... et eosdem hominum consulere generi, et posse nobis signa rerum futurarum ostendere; non video cur esse divinationem negem.”

FOOTNOTES

[1]Pagus(connected etymologically with πήγνυμι,pago,pango) implies the idea of “foundation” or “settlement.”

[2]Cf. Liv. ii. 62 “Incendiis deinde non villarum modo, sed etiam vicorum, quibus frequenter habitabatur, Sabini exciti.”

[3]So Servius Tullius is said, according to one account, to have divided the territory of Rome into twenty-sixpagi.Pagusis δῆμος in Greek (Festus p. 72), but this proves little as to its origin; it is thepagusas part of a state that is thus translated. The δῆμος or δᾶμος in Greece had often been (as in Elis) a self-existent community.

[4]Liv. ii. 16. Yet even here theClaudia gensis represented as expelled from acivitas.

[5]The ancients derived Palatine from thebalareorpalareof cattle (Festus p. 220) or from the shepherd’s god Pales (Solinus i. 15). It is perhaps derived from the rootpa(pasco). See O. GilbertGeschichte u. Topographie der Stadt Rom in Altertumi. p. 17.

[6]Tac.Ann.xii. 24.

[7]This tendency is best exhibited in Richter’s map showing the extension of Rome (BaumeisterDenkmälerart. “Rom” Karte v.).

[8]Festus pp. 340, 341. See GilbertTopographiei. pp. 38, 162.

[9]VarroL.L.v. 45 ff.

[10]i.e. in the four city tribes—Palatina(Palatine, Cermalus, Velia),Esquilina(Oppius, Cispius, Fagutal),SuburanaorSucusana(Coelius, Subura),Collina(Quirinalis, Viminalis—a region outside the old Septimontium). See BelotHistoire des Chevaliers Romainsi. p. 401.

[11]The Sabine origin of the Tities rested perhaps on the Sabinesacraof thesodales Titii(Tac.Ann.i. 54). Cf. the Thracian origin ascribed to the Eumolpidae at Athens on account of the character of their cult.

[12]Cic.de Rep.ii. 8, 14 “populumque et suo et Tatii nomine et Lucumonis, qui Romuli socius in Sabino proelio occiderat, in tribus tris ... discripserat.”

[13]e.g. the manner in which the Ionic tribe-names were imposed at Athens after their primitive signification had been lost.

[14]Cf. NieseGrundriss der röm. Gesch.pp. 20 sq.

[15]Cincius ap. Festum p. 241 “Patricios Cincius ait in libro de comitiis eos appellari solitos, qui nunc ingenui vocentur.” Cf. Liv. x. 8 (300B.C.; from the speech of Decius Mus) § 9 “Semper ista audita sunt eadem, penes vos auspicia esse, vos solos gentem habere, vos solos justum imperium et auspicium domi militiaeque”; § 10 “en unquam fando audistis, patricios primo esse factos non de coelo demissos sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est nihil ultra quam ingenuos?”

[16]Mr. Strachan-Davidson remarks (SmithDict. of Antiq.ii. p. 354) that, on the evolution of the rights of the plebeians, these too should have beenpatricii, but that the wordpatriciussurvived as a “token of an arrested development.”

[17]Plebsis connected with the root which appears incompleo,impleo, πλῆυος.

[18]Liv. i. 28 “populum omnem Albanum Romam traducere in animo est, civitatem dare plebi, primores in patres legere.” Dionysius (ii. 35) represents the people of Caenina and Antemnae as being, after their subjection, enrolled εἰς φυλὰς καὶ φράτρας.

[19]Cf. Dionysius’ account of Romulus’ institution of clientship (ii. 9 παρακαταθήκας δὲ ἔδωκε τοῖς πατρικίοις τοὺς δημοτικούς, ἐπίτρεψας ἑκάστῳ ... ὃν αὐτὸς ἐβούλετο νέμειν προστάτην ... πατρωνείαν ὀνομάσας τὴν προστασίαν).

[20]Thejus commerciihas been read into the relations of Rome with Carthage as depicted in Polybius’ second treaty [Polyb. iii. 24, 12 ἐν Σικελίᾳ, ἧς Καρχηδόνιοι ἐπάρχουσι, καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι πάντα καὶ ποιείτω καὶ πωλείτω (the Roman) ὅσα καὶ τῷ πολίτῃ (the Carthaginian) ἔξεστιν]. But jurisdiction here may have been the work of some international court, and thejus commercii, without thejus exulandi, would hardly have made a foreign immigrant a citizen of Rome.

[21]Cicero shows that there was a controversy whetherapplicatiowas consistent withexilium(de Orat.i. 39, 177), “Quid? quod item in centumvirali judicio certatum esse accepimus, qui Romam in exilium venisset, cui Romae exulare jus esset, si se ad aliquem quasi patronum applicavisset intestatoque esset mortuus, nonne in ea causa jus applicationis, obscurum sane et ignotum, patefactum in judicio atque illustratum est a patrono?”

[22]Zonaras vii. 15. P. Clodius first tried this method; when it was opposed he resorted to the artifice of adoption. Courtly writers imagined atransitiofor the plebeian Octavii, Suet.Aug.2 “Ea gens a Tarquinio Prisco rege inter minores gentes adlecta ... mox a Servio Tullio in patricias transducta, procedente tempore ad plebem se contulit.”

[23]Liv. ii. 16 (504B.C.) “Attus Clausus (driven out from Regillum) magna clientium comitatus manu Romam transfugit. His civitas data agerque trans Anienem ... Appius inter patres (i.e. the Senate) lectus haud ita multo post in principum dignationem pervenit.” Cf. Suet.Tib.1.

[24]SavignyRecht des Besitzes(7th ed.) p. 202. On the general condition of the client see IheringGeist des röm. Rechtsi. p. 237.

[25]Dionys. ii. 9, 10.

[26]ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ δίκαια ... δίκας λαγχάνειν ... τοῖς ἐγκαλοῦσιν ὑπέχειν (Dionys. ii. 10). If representation in the civil courts is meant, it must have resembled that of thepaterfamilias, who sues in his own right, for procuratory was unknown in early Roman procedure (Just.Inst.iv. 10 “cum olim in usu fuisset alterius nomine agere non posse”).

[27]Verg.Aen.vi. 609 “fraus innexa clienti.” Cf. Servius ad loc.

[28]Gell. v. 13 “Conveniebat ... ex moribus populi Romani primum juxta parentes locum tenere pupillos debere, fidei tutelaeque nostrae creditos; secundum eos proximum locum clientes habere, qui sese itidem in fidem patrociniumque nostrum dediderunt.” The third place was filled byhospites, the fourth bycognatiandadfines.

[29]Liv. ii. 56.

[30]Suet.Claud.24 “(Claudius) Appium Caecum censorem (312B.C.) ... libertinorum filios in senatum allegisse docuit; ignarus temporibus Appii (312-280B.C.) et deinceps aliquamdiu ‘libertinos’ dictos, non ipsos qui manu emitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreates.”

[31]Plut.Mar.5.

[32]Festus p. 94 “gentilis dicitur ex eodem genere ortus et (?) is qui simili nomine appellatur.”

[33]p. 5.

[34]Cic.Top.6, 29 “Gentiles sunt inter se, qui eodem nomine sunt; qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt; quorum majorum nemo servitutem servivit; qui capite non sunt deminuti.”

[35]The test is illustrated by a controversy between the patrician Claudii and the plebeian Claudii Marcelli, Cic.de Orat.i. 39, 176 “Quid? qua de re inter Marcellos et Claudios patricios centumviri judicarunt, cum Marcelli ab liberti filio stirpe, Claudii patricii ejusdem hominis hereditatem gente ad se rediisse dicerent, nonne in ea causa fuit oratoribus de toto stirpis et gentilitatis jure dicendum.” Suetonius (Tib.1) says of the clan of the Claudii Marcelli, as compared with their patrician namesakes, “nec potentia minor nec dignitate.”

[36]Liv. x. 8, quoted p. 5.

[37]p. 5.

[38]Cic.in Verr.i. 45, 115 “Minucius quidam mortuus est ante istum (Verrem) praetorem; ejus testamentum erat nullum. Lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat”;de Leg.ii. 22, 55 “Jam tanta religio est sepulchrorum, ut extra sacra et gentem inferri fas negent esse; idque apud majores nostros A. Torquatus in gente Popilia judicavit.”

[39]The theory of the artificial origin of thegensis based on the symmetrical figures given by tradition. The full numbers of the earlygentesare given as 300; these are symmetrically divided, ten into each of the thirtycuriae, as thecuriaeare divided into the three original tribes. Hence Niebuhr (Hist. Romei. p. 319) says, “The numerical scale of thegentesis an irrefragable proof that they were not more ancient than the constitution, but corporations formed by a legislator in harmony with the rest of his scheme.”

[40]Niebuhr op. cit. p. 333; from Laelius Felix (ap. Gell. xv. 27) “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, curiata comitia esse” (genusbecause the assembly came to include Plebeians, some of whom had nogentes).

[41]Cic.ad Fam.ix. 21, 2.

[42]Momms.Staatsr.iii. p. 31.

[43]Cic.de Rep.ii. 20, 35 “(L. Tarquinius) duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum; et antiquos patres majorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat; a se ascitos minorum”; Liv. i. 35 “(Tarquinius) centum in patres legit; qui deinde minorum gentium sunt appellati.”

[44]p. 3.

[45]Thegentes minoresare sometimes identified with thegentesof the last admitted of these tribes, theLuceres(OrtolanHist. of Roman Lawi. § 33).

[46]Momms.Hist. of Romebk. i. ch. v.

[47]Liv. i. 30; Dionys. iii. 29.

[48]Dionys. ii. 46.

[49]Liv. iv. 4 “nobilitatem vestram per cooptationem in patres habetis”; Suet.Tib.1 “gens Claudia in patricios cooptata.” So Servius and Numa are said to have been transferred by the Populus from the ranks of the δῆμος to those of the πατρίκιοι.

[50]As is implied in Suet.Aug.2 (quoted p. 7).

[51]Dionys. v. 13.

[52]Liv. ii. 2 “Brutus ad populum tulit ut omnes Tarquiniae gentis exsules essent”; Varro ap. Non. p. 222 “omnes Tarquinios ejicerent, ne quam reditionis per gentilitatem spem haberent.”

[53]SuetTib.1 “Patricia gens Claudia ... orta est ex Regillis, oppido Sabinorum ... post reges exactos sexto fere anno, in patricias cooptata. Agrum insuper trans Anienem clientibus, locumque sibi ad sepulturam sub Capitolio, publice accepit.” Cf. Liv. ii. 16 (cited p. 7).

[54]Dionys. v. 40.

[55]ib. ii. 7.

[56]Cic.de Rep.ii. 14, 26.

[57]Momms.Staatsr.iii. p. 23.

[58]VarroR.R.i. 10, 2; cf. Plin.H.N.xix. 4.

[59]Festus p. 53 “Centuriatus ager in ducena jugera definitus, quia Romulus centenis civibus ducena jugera tribuit.”

[60]It is possible, however, thatmanusin such expressions is merely the symbol of power.

[61]“Si adgnatus nec escit gentiles familiam habento.”

[62]Suet.Caes.1, of Caesar’s refusal to divorce Cornelia; as a consequence he was “uxoris dote, et gentiliciis haereditatibus multatus.”

[63]p. 10.

[64]“Si furiosus escit, ast ei custos nec escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque ejus potestas esto.”

[65]Cic.pro Domo13, 35.

[66]Suet.Tib.1.

[67]Cic.Phil.i. 13, 32.

[68]MaineAncient Lawpp. 6, 27.

[69]Cic.pro Domo13, 35 “Quas adoptiones (i.e. legal ones) ... hereditates nominis, pecuniae, sacrorum secutae sunt. Tu ... neque amissis sacris paternis in haec adoptiva venisti. Ita perturbatis sacris, contaminatis gentibus, et quam deseruisti et quam polluisti, etc.”;de Leg.ii. 19, 48 “haec jura pontificum auctoritate consecuta sunt, ut ne morte patris familias sacrorum memoria occideret, iis essent ea adjuncta, ad quos ejusdem morte pecunia venerit.” The transmission was thus a part ofjus pontificium, not ofjus civile. Cf. Serv. inAen.ii. 156.

[70]Cf. the story of Verginia in Liv. x. 23 (296B.C.) “Verginiam Auli filiam patriciam plebeio nuptam L. Volumnio consuli matronae, quod e patribus enupsisset, sacris arcuerant.” She then founds an altar to “Pudicitia plebeia,” in imitation of that to “Pudicitia patricia.”

[71]ἀνδρὶ κοινωνὸν ἁπάντων χρημάτων τε καὶ ἱερῶν (Dionys. ii. 25).

[72]Plut.Qu. Rom.30 Διὰ τί τὴν νὺμφην εἰσάγοντες λέγειν κελεύουσιν· Ὃπου σὺ Γαΐος ἐγὼ Γαΐα;

[73]e.g. a testamentary adoption by a public act in thecomitia calata.

[74]Familiais etymologically a “household.” Cf. Sanskr.dhâ“to settle,”dhâman“settlement.”

[75]The original term was, perhaps,manussignifying “power” (see p. 32), but this word came in course of time to be restricted to the control over the wife who had become a member of thefamilia.

[76]Plutarch (Rom.22) quotes a law of Romulus allowing the divorce of the wife ἐπὶ φαρμακείᾳ τέκνων ἢ κλειδῶν ὑποβίλῃ καὶ μοιχευθεῖσαν.

[77]Dionys. ii. 15.

[78]Thisjus noxae dationisfirst disappears finally in the law of Justinian (Inst.iv. 8, 7;Dig.43, 29, 3, 4). Before its abolition a modification had been introduced by the rule that, when the child had acquired an equivalent for the damage he had caused (quantum damni dedit), the owner should be forced to manumit him.

[79]Even by Constantine the sale of new-born children (sanguinolenti) was permitted, but onlypropter nimiam paupertatem(Cod.4, 43, 2).

[80]“Pater si filium ter venum duuit, filius a patre liber esto.” It has been thought, however, that by the time of the Twelve Tables the sale had become merely fictitious.

[81]Thisvindicatio filiiwas in later Roman law replaced by a writ issued by the praetor (interdictum de liberis exhibendis), the effects of which were like that of Habeas Corpus.

[82]Dionys. ii. 26, 27.

[83]Gell. v. 19, 9.

[84]Hadrian punished the killing of a son with deportation (Dig.48, 8, 5); Constantine declared itparricidium.

[85]Instances are given in Voigt (Zwölf Tafelnii 94). M. Fabius Buteo (223-218B.C.) put his son to death as a punishment for theft (Oros. iv. 13), and a certain Pontius Aufidianus his daughter for immorality (Val. Max. vi. 1, 3); there are also instances of banishment inflicted by the father, presumably under the threat of inflicting the death penalty if the children returned.

[86]We may cite two instances lying at the very extremes of Republican history, the semi-mythical one of L. Junius Brutus in 509 (Plut.Popl.6, 7), and the historical one of A. Fulvius Nobilior, who in 63B.C.put his son to death for partnership in the Catilinarian conspiracy (Sall.Cat.39).

[87]Modern writers are inclined to reject the appeal made to thesexus fragilitasby the Roman jurists, and to believe that the original motive lay in the desire to keep the property of the family together (cf. CzyhlarzInst.p. 275); but, as this motive did not operate in the case of sons, it is difficult to see why it should have done so in the case of the wife or daughters, apart from a belief in the incapability of women to defend their own claims. For the motive underlying thetutela mulierumsee p. 31.

[88]p. 16.

[89]Ulp.Reg.12, 2 “Lex xii. Tab. prodigum, cui bonis interdictum est, in curatione jubet esse agnatorum”; cf. Ulp. inDig.27, 10, 1 “Lege xii. Tab. prodigo interdicitur bonorum suorum administratio.” There can be no doubt of the antiquity of this interdiction of the “prodigus,” proceeding as it does from the theory that the property belongs to the family rather than to its head; but from what authority it proceeded in the earliest period of Roman history is uncertain.

[90]See the account in Val. Max. v. 8, 2 (p. 23) “adhibito propinquoram et amicoram consilio.”

[91]Val. Max. ii. 9, 2 “M. Val. Maximus et C. Junius Brutus Bubulcus censores ... L. Annium senatu moverunt, quod, quam virginem in matrimonium duxerat, repudiasset, nullo amicorum in consilio adhibito.” See GreenidgeInfamia in Roman Lawp. 65.

[92]Dionys. ii. 26, 27.

[93]For the alleged lateness of divorce at Rome, even after the Twelve Tables had freely permitted it, see Gell. iv. 3 (Infamia in Roman Lawp. 65).

[94]Dig.i. 6, 9 (Pomponius) “filius familias in publicis causis loco patris familias habetur, veluti ut magistratum gerat, ut tutor detur.” Compare the story in Liv. xxiv. 44 (213B.C.) “Pater filio legatus ad Suessulam in castra venit”—the consul went to meet him; and the old man on horseback passed eleven lictors—“ut consul animadvertere proximum lictorem jussit et is, ut descenderet ex equo, inclamavit, tum demum desiliens, ‘Experiri,’ inquit, ‘volui, fili, satin’ scires consulem te esse.” Cf. Gell. ii. 2.

[95]Festus s.v.Duicensus(p. 66) “dicebatur cum altero, id est cum filio census.”

[96]Probably by amancipatio fiduciae causa, one, i.e., by which he had formally transferred (mancipavit) his body on the condition that it was not to be seized for a certain time, and that the transfer should be dissolved (solutio nexi) if the debt were paid within this time.

[97]Ulpian Reg. 19, 1; Gaius ii. 15.Res mancipiat a later period included lands in Italy (with their servitudes), slaves andquadrupedes quae dorso collove domantur. In the expressionfamilia pecuniaque, “familia” probably denotes the slaves. Pierron (Du sens des mots familia pecuniaque) has shown the theory of Ihering and Cuq, that the former denotesres mancipi, the latterres nec mancipi, to be untenable.

[98]Plut.Cato maj.3.

[99]Plut.Cor.24.

[100]See the section on the censor.

[101]Paulus inDig.28, 2, 11 “in suis heredibus evidentius apparet continuationem dominii eo rem perducere, ut nulla videatur hereditas fuisse, quasi olim hi domini essent, qui etiam vivo patre quodammodo domini existimantur.” What thefilius familiasacquires by the death of his father is merelylibera bonorum administratio.

[102]Gell. i. 9 “Tamquam illud fuit anticum consortium, quod jure atque verbo Romano appellabatur ‘ercto non cito’”; Serv. inAen.viii. 642 “‘citae’ divisae, ut est in jure ‘ercto non cito,’ id est patrimonis vel hereditate non divisa.”

[103]Gell. xv. 27 “Isdem comitiis, quae ‘calata’ appellari diximus, et sacrorum detestatio et testamenta fieri solebant. Tria enim genera testamentorum fuisse accepimus; unum, quod calatis comitiis in populi contione fieret, alterum in procinctu, cum viri ad proelium faciendum in aciem vocabantur, tertium per familiae emancipationem, cui aes et libra adhiberetur”; Gaius ii. 101 “aut calatis comitiis faciebant, quae comitia bis in anno testamentis faciendis destinata erant; aut in procinctu, id est, cum belli causa arma sumebant.” Cf. Ulpian (Reg.20, 2) on thetestamentorum genera tria.

[104]This testament is never associated with adrogation, although this took place before the same assembly.

[105]In Gell. (cited n. 1) it is associated with thesacrorum detestatio(see p. 16), and perhaps this was its main object. The pontiffs and people had to be satisfied that thesacrawould be continued and the family not become extinct.

[106]See the passages of Gellius, Gaius, and Ulpian, cited n. 1, and compare Festus p. 225 “procincta classis dicebatur, cum exercitus cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus.” In the second centuryB.C.we find some kind of military testament, called by this name, made by Roman soldiers in Spain (Velleius ii. 5 “facientibus ... omnibus in procinctu testamenta, velut ad certam mortem eundum foret”).

[107]Gaius ii. 102 “Qui neque calatis comitiis, neque in procinctu testamentum fecerat, is, si subita morte urguebatur, amico familiam suam, id est, patrimonium suum mancipio dabat, eumque rogabat, quod cuique post mortem suam dari vellet.”

[108]Gaius ii. 104 “Familiam pecuniamque tuam endo mandatela tutela custodelaque mea, quo tu jure testamentum facere possis secundum legem publicam, hoc aere esto mihi empta.” Forfamilia pecuniaquesee p. 24.

[109]The stipulation that it was a trust would still have taken the patrimony wholly from the testator during the remainder of his life. We hear nothing about the formal reservation of a life interest.

[110]“Cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit ita jus esto.”

[111]Gaius ii. 104 “Haec ita, ut in his tabulis cerisque scripta sunt, ita do, ita lego, ita testor, itaque vos, quirites, testimonium mihi perhibetote.”

[112]Plut.Comp. Lyc. c. Num.4 λέγεται γούν ποτε γυναικὸς εἰπούσης δίκην ἰδίαν ἐν ἀγορᾷ πέμψαι τὴν σύγκλητον εἰς θεοῦ, πυνθανομένην, τίνος ἅρα τῇ πόλει σημεῖον εἴη τὸ γεγενημένον.

[113]Such as thelex Claudia, which abolished thelegitima tutela agnatorum(Gaius i. 171).

[114]A trace of the old disability survives in the prohibition of advocacy to women; the praetors declined to grant them a formula on behalf of others. A certain Carfania (Gaia Afrania) “inverecunde postulans et magistratum inquietans” is said to have been the occasion of this rule (Ulp. inDig.3, 11, 5).

[115]This usage was preserved in the praetor’s edict; he spoke of “qui quaeve ... capite deminuti deminutaeve esse dicentur” (Dig.4, 5, 2, 1), meaning what the later jurists callcap. dem. minima, i.e. loss offamilia.

[116]See Eisele “Zur Natur u. Geschichte der capitis deminutio” inBeiträge zur Römischen Rechtsgeschichtep. 160. He combats the counter view thatcapitis dem.meant an annihilation of personality. Mommsen (Staatsr.iii. 8) takes this latter view—a natural result of juristic refinement, but a conception that would have been quite unintelligible to a primitive community.

[117]Gaius i. 162 “Minima capitis deminutio est, cum et civitas et libertas retinetur, sed status hominis commutator; quod accidit in his qui adoptantur, item in his quae coemptionem faciunt, et in his qui mancipio dantur, quique ex mancipatione manumittuntur.”

[118]Liv. i. 32.

[119]Gell. i. 12, 14; x. 24, 3.

[120]Mommsen (Staatsr.iii. 3, n. 2) connects the word withpopulari. Themagister populi(i.e. the dictator) is master of the infantry host.

[121]Varro ap. Dionys. ii 48. Other views derived it from the Sabine town Cures (VarroL.L.v. 51; Strabo v. 3, 1) or connected it withCuria(LangeRöm. Alt.i. p. 89; BelotHist. d. Chev. Rom.i. p. 312).

[122]Suet.Jul.70.

[123]Capito ap. Gell. i. 20 “Plebes ... in qua gentes civium patriciae non insunt: plebiscitum ... est ... lex, quam plebes, non populus, accipit.” Cf. Festus p. 233.

[124]According to the primitive conception private are dependent on public rights; see p. 31. But the growth of the Plebs, and alliances with other states, had effected many modifications in this conception.

[125]Nonius, s.v.plebitas, p. 101 “Hemina in annalibus, ‘Quicumque propter plebitatem agro publico ejecti sunt.’” Cf. Liv. iv. 48.

[126]p. 17.

[127]Cic.de Leg.ii. 13, 32 (on the question whether auspices were merely directed to theutilitasof the state, or formed a true method of divination) “si enim deos esse concedimus ... et eosdem hominum consulere generi, et posse nobis signa rerum futurarum ostendere; non video cur esse divinationem negem.”

Back to Index Next