^{page 207 note 1} J.R.S. iv (1914), pp. 65–110Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 2} My disagreements with Dr. Hardy concern especially the third and concluding section of the Tabula. In my comments on the first section I put forward views that do not touch those of my predecessors.

^{page 207 note 3} J.R.S. v (1915), pp. 125–137Google Scholar.

^{page 207 note 4} See the lex Antonia de Termessibus, i, § 35, and ii, § 5; lex Agraria, § 36; lex Acilia, § 29; Edicta Praetorum, xv, 2a (in Bruns' Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, ed. 7, p. 218).

^{page 207 note 5} p. 126.

^{page 208 note 1} The word procurator is not used. He described as ‘qui eius negotia curabit.’

^{page 208 note 2} Only indicated by in iisdem diebus in § 5.

^{page 208 note 3} ‘ea quae professus erit’ ( § 14).

^{page 208 note 4} Marezoll's idea that the Tabula excluded from the benefit of public distribution of corn ‘rich Italians domiciled at Rome’ (Legras, p. 38) involves a valuation of property, but shuts out from it indigenous Romans.

^{page 209 note 1} It is hardly worth while to quote examples; but cf. especially pro Arch. 9, and the references in the Verrine orationes to the agricultural ‘professiones’ in Sicily. In the words of the ‘Fragmentum Dositheanum: ‘In Roma urbe tantum censum agi notum est; in provinciis autem magis professionibus utuntur’ there seems to be a contrast between personal appearance and written returns.

^{page 209 note 2} Cic. ad Att. i, 18, 8; and Edictum Octaviani Caesaris in Bruns' Fontes, ed. 7, p. 239.

^{page 209 note 3} The words ita enim oportere dicebant fit in most awkwardly with the idea of a general registration, the conditions of which would be of necessity well advertised.

^{page 210 note 1} ad Att. xii, 35, 2.

^{page 210 note 2} Plut. Sull. c. 35. He also broke the same law by indulging in gluttonous feasts, in order to drown his grief.

^{page 210 note 3} ad Att. xii, 36.

^{page 210 note 4} ad Att. xiii, 7.

^{page 210 note 5} Dio C. xliii, 25, and Suet. Iul. 43.

^{page 210 note 6} Cic. ad. Fam. ix, 15, 5.

^{page 210 note 7} Plin. N.H. x, 139, supplies a curious illustration.

^{page 210 note 8} ii, 59 sq.

^{page 210 note 9} See Aug, s.v. lex in the dictionary of Daremberg and Saglio.

^{page 210 note 10} ad Att. xiii, 33.

^{page 210 note 11} See also ad Att. xii, 51, 2, and xiii, 26, 1.

^{page 211 note 1} ad Att. xii, 36.

^{page 211 note 2} Of course a purely private ‘consecratio’ was on a far different level from ‘consecratio’ properly so-called. See Wissowa, s.v. in the new edition of Pauly's Encyclopaedie.

^{page 211 note 3} ad Att. xv, 15, 3; in spite of a determination expressed in xii, 41, 4, to get it finished during the summer of 45.

^{page 211 note 4} xii, 40, 4; xii, 51, 3; xiii, 27, 2; xiii, 28, 1; xiii, 29, 2 and 3; xiii, 30, 2; xiii, 31, 1; xiii, 32, 1.

^{page 211 note 5} This took place on Caesar's return from Ilerda (Caesar, B.C. iii, 1); not on Caesar's first entry into Rome, as stated by Appian, B.C. ii, 48.

^{page 211 note 6} Suet. Iul. 42 (note especially per aestimationem); compare Dio C. xli, 37 and 38.

^{page 211 note 7} Caes. B.C. iii, 1.

^{page 212 note 1} Suet. Iul. 42.

^{page 212 note 2} Cic. de Off. iii, 84.

^{page 212 note 3} The agitation carried on by Caelius shows this.

^{page 212 note 4} ad Fam. ix, 18, 4.

^{page 212 note 5} ad Att. xiii, 23, 3: ista retentione omnes ait uti Trebatius. The mandata mentioned in the preceding sentence were connected with the calling in of debts, as the letters dated about the same time show. Compare xii, 28, 3: ut nunc solvimus. Also xiii, 25, 1.

^{page 212 note 6} ad Att. xiii, 33, 1.

^{page 212 note 7} xli, 38.

^{page 212 note 8} Suet. Tib. 49; cf. Tacitus, Ann. vi, 16, 17Google Scholar.

^{page 212 note 9} It may be noted that the lex of ad Att. xiii, 33, 4, is one for builiing over the Campus Martius, and allotting the Campus Vaticanus as a new Campus Martius. This measure, if carried through, would have affected a property (horti Scapulani) which Cicero was trying to buy as a site for the ‘fanum.’

^{page 213 note 1} Suet. Iul. 41. For Cicero's ‘insulae’ see ad Att. xii, 52, 2; xv, 17, 1; xvi, 1, 5.

^{page 213 note 2} See Dr. Hardy, p. 69.

^{page 213 note 3} The case of enfranchisements by the lex Plautia Papiria, which required announcements to be made to a praetor in Rome, is of course far different from that of the beneficiaries under the lex Iulia.

^{page 214 note 1} I do not touch on the other schemes which Legras describes, several of which are examined by Dr. Hardy.

^{page 214 note 2} Livy, epit. c. 115. The phrase recensum egit shows either that Livy was the authority of Suetonius in Iul. 41, or that both writers drew from a common source.

^{page 214 note 3} Caes. 55. Note γενομένων τιμησέων.

^{page 215 note 1} B.C. ii, 102.

^{page 215 note 2} xliii, 25, 2: ὤσπερ τις τιμητής, a singularly vague phrase.

^{page 215 note 3} Dio, xxxviii, 7.

^{page 215 note 4} Res gestae d. Aug. c. 8, 3.

^{page 215 note 5} As to the lists of citizens see Cic. Mil. 73, and cf. ad Att. 1, 18,8. Contra, Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii³, p. 333.

^{page 215 note 6} Appian uses ἀναγραψάμενος of Caesar. It is important to note that Dio, xliii, 25, and Appian, ii, 102, are in a way parallel, both referring to the scarcity of soldiers, while Suet. Iul. 41, and Dio, xliii, 21, go together (both mentioning distributions of corn). To identify recensus with ἀπογραϕαί, as Prof. Elmore does (p. 128), is clearly wrong. The words of Suetonius, ‘nec more nec loco solito,’ show that he was struck by the wide departure of the ‘recensus’ in its methods from those of the ordinary ‘census.’ These considerations seem to me to disprove Prof. Elmore's contention that recensus could not be applied to a list made for a ‘special purpose.’ Even his conception of the term implies a great change from Roman custom in enumeration of citizens.

^{page 216 note 1} As Prof. Elmore points out, the comparison between κατ' οἰκίαν ἀπογραϕή and the ‘recensus’ of Suetonius was made by Wilcken, and by E. Cuq in Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionary, s.v. professio.

^{page 216 note 2} Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i³, 328, and ii, 1035, writes at though the ‘vici’ of Rome might have been the creation of Augustus in 7 B.C. He only reorganised them then and gave them a new place in the civic organisation.

^{page 216 note 3} p. 138. The returns in Rome embraced citizens only; those in Egypt were of all residents, Romans, Greeks and Egyptians alike.

^{page 217 note 1} Dio, xliii, 17. The story of the exactions is told in xlii, 49 and 50 (of the year 47). The opening words of Dio, xliii, 15, clearly show the speech to have been made in July, not, as Prof. Elmore supposes, in November, 46, after the passing of the ‘Lex Iulia Municipalis.’

^{page 217 note 2} Plut. Caes. 55. Note the words ὡς ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς Ῥώμην ἀπὸ Λιβύης.

^{page 217 note 3} Cic. ad Fam. ix, 26, 3 (of the year 46); also ad Att. xiii, 6, 1 (June, 45): ‘columnarium vide ne nullum debeamus. Quamquam videor audisse a Camillo commutatam esse legem.’ Cicero is alluding either (a) to a change in the draft of Caesar's law before passage, or (b) to a second and more severe law bearing on the matter, or (c) to Caesar's having taken over a provision from an earlier sumptuary enactment and made it more stringent. The word commutatam cannot imply abolition, as is assumed by the writer on ‘columnarium’ in the Pauly-Wissowa Encyclopaedia. It is within the limits of possibility, but hardly of probability, that Cicero's ‘professio’ might refer to this ‘columnarium.’

^{page 218 note 1} The ‘domini insularum’ would be unsuitable agents if the returns were meant to include all Roman citizens resident in Rome. The old idea that every citizen's name was submitted to the ‘sortitio’ is still held by Rostowzew, s.v. frumentum in the Pauly-Wissowa Encyclopaedie.

^{page 219 note 1} So, among many, Dr. Hardy. The idea of Legras (p. 39), that those whose names were submitted to the ‘subsortitio’ could be described as ‘recensi,’ is met by the consideration that the lan uage of Suetonius excludes them.

^{page 219 note 2} Plut. Crass. 2. But it must be noted that the disqualification of owners would not of itself have shut out the mere tenants of ‘domus.’ Prof. Elmore (p. 135) arrives by a different process at the exclusion of the propertied class.

^{page 219 note 3} Such divisions are not unknown in modern cities; see Richter, in Hermes, vol. xx, pp. 90 sqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 219 note 4} For Egypt, see Wenger in the volume entitled Aus römischem und bürgerlichem Recht, presented to E. I. Becker (1907).

^{page 220 note 1} The figures in the appended Breviarium are slightly different.

^{page 220 note 2} An interesting discovery of ‘insulae’ has been made recently at Ostia.

^{page 220 note 3} This is indicated by iisdem diebus (bis) in the Tabula.

^{page 221 note 1} There is to be exact correspondence between the ‘tabulae publicae’ and the ‘album,’ in so far as ‘ea quae professus est’ is concerned. The full list of ‘recensi’ would be mainly of temporary interest, and would be for reference on the ‘tabulae,’ like the register of actual ‘recipientes.’

^{page 221 note 2} Still more if property as well as names was stated, as Prof. Elmore supposes.

^{page 222 note 1} The change in Suetonius from recensus to recensio can have no significance, though recensio was used by Cicero and Livy as the equivalent of census.

^{page 222 note 2} I do not discuss the hypothesis of Hirschfeld that the ‘professi’ of the Tabula were applicants for permission to absent themselves from Italy. It has been riddled by criticism.

^{page 223 note 1} pp. 34–36.

^{page 223 note 2} See Cic. Tusc. iii, 48.

^{page 223 note 3} de Off. ii, 72; Brut. 222.

^{page 223 note 4} The rhetoric of Sallust, Hist. iii, 48, 19 (oratio Macri) and i, 77, 6 (ed. Maurenbrecher) cannot prove that the lex Terentia Cassia abolished payment, as Rostowzew contends, s.v. frumentum in the Pauly-Wissowa Encyclopaedie.

^{page 224 note 1} There is a parallel in the reign of Augustus; see Suet. Aug. 42.

^{page 224 note 2} Dio C. xxxix, 34. Two wrong deductions have often been made from this passage: (1) that Pompey did frame a list, though Dio only says ‘ἠθέλησε ποιήσασθαι,’ and, even so, intimates that the list was to include the manumitted slaves only; (2) that the slaves were Pompey's own. Both these errors are to be found in the masterly article of Rostowzew mentioned above.

^{page 224 note 3} See a striking illustration in Cic. pro Flacco, § 67.

^{page 224 note 4} See my Municipalities of the Roman Empire, pp. 166–167, and cf. Liv. xxxii, 2.

^{page 224 note 5} cf. the words of Dio, xliii, 21: οὐ καγὰ δίκην, ἀλλ' ὣς που ἐν ταῖς στάσεσιν εἴωθε γίγνεσθαι.

^{page 224 note 6} Plut. Cat. min. 36: ἔπεισε τὴν βουλὴν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄπορον καὶ ἀνέμητον ὄχλον εἰς τὸ σιτηρέσιον. The language is too loose for any safe deduction. So, too, Dio C. xxxviii, 13: τὸ μετρεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀπόροις εἰσηγήσατο.

^{page 224 note 7} cf. Cic. Tusc. iii, 48.

^{page 225 note 1} Suet. Aug. 40; Dio C. lv, 10; Res Gestae divi Aug. c. 16, § 22 (of the year 2 B.C.).

^{page 225 note 2} Suet. Aug. 42.

^{page 225 note 3} Suet. Aug. 40. Probably also Caesar's plan for filling up vacancies was followed.

^{page 225 note 4} ‘aere incisi.’

^{page 225 note 5} Published by Kolbe in the Mittheilungen des deutschen archaeol. Instituts (1902), with a commentary. Legras gives text and translation.

^{page 225 note 6} See Cardinali, Il regno di Pergamo, p. 277.

^{page 225 note 7} See my Municipalities of the Roman Empire, pp. 75 sq.

^{page 225 note 8} cf. Chapot, La Province romaine proconsulare d'Asie, p. 121.

^{page 226 note 1} The only two quaestors who acted in concert were the quaestores aerarii.

^{page 226 note 2} p. 70. There is no reason whatever to think that even when the four quarters of the city were assigned to different aediles, each was free from the possibility of being checked by his colleagues.

^{page 226 note 3} See some remarks by Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, p. 3, on the tendency of some scholars to exaggerate the borrowings of Rome from the Greek East.

^{page 227 note 1} There is nothing in the Tabula corresponding to ‘oppida municipia, etc. quae sient eruntve’ in the lex Rubria.

^{page 227 note 2} The remnant of the old view which Dr. Hardy has endeavoured to save will be ducussed below.

^{page 227 note 3} So, e.g. by Karlowa in his Röm. Rechtsgeschichte; he even holds the same view of 'terra Italia’ in the lex agraria of 111 B.C.

^{page 227 note 3} ‘Italia’ sometimes included the whole of the peninsula in popular language from the time of Polybius, but not in technical phraseology. Cicero (phil. iii,137)calls the ‘provincia Galliaφ the ‘flos Italiae.’

^{page 228 note 1} Thus in the time of Trajan there was a ‘legatus pro praetore regionis Transpadanae.’ (C.I.L. x, 6658).

^{page 228 note 2} The idea of Legras that Italy was not mentioned because there were no Roman municipalities outside it would point to a date earlier than the foundation of Narbo in 118 B.C. One difficulty in Gallia Cisalpina was caused by the backward populations in the ‘regiones attributae,’ which are not regarded in the ‘lex Rubria.’

^{page 228 note 3} Pauly-Wissowa, Encyclopaedie, s.v. concilium.

^{page 228 note 4} The conclusion is not certain. The towns are Venusia, Teanum, Pisae; see C.I.L. ix, 438; x, 4797; xi, 1431.

^{page 229 note 1} In Verr. ii, 2, 76, Cicero uses sententiam dicere and ferre as convertible. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii³, 977, n. 2, calls this an oversight; but he does not refer to Lael. § 56, where s. ferre indicates an open expression of opinion. Compare also Vell. ii, 47, 2: ‘Pompeius palam lata absolvit sententia’; also Tac. Ann. i, 74, 82Google Scholar: ‘laturum sententiam palam et iuratum.’ This latter passage applies to voting in the senate, and the word palam is in opposition not to secret but to silent voting. Mommsen's Statement that it implies the possibility of a secret vote in the Roman senate is surely wrong.

^{page 229 note 2} There the expression per tabellam is used (§ 97), as in two inscriptions quoted by Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii³, 993, n.

^{page 229 note 3} So Trajan ruled; see Plin. et Trai. ep. 79.

^{page 229 note 4} Pompey's fundamental statute for Bithynia Pontus prescribed a fixed number of senators for each town, which could not be exceeded without the emperor's permission (Plin. et Trai. ep. 112). In the time of Ulpian it was held that an election to a senate could only be made on the occurrence of a vacancy (Dig. 50, 2, 2). The expression ‘decurionatus gratuitus’ in some inscriptions shows that a ‘summa honoraria’ was usually required of a man appointed to the senate, as of the elected magistrate (Liebenam, Städteverwaltung, p. 56). The number of senators in newlycreated Roman communities, at least in the West, tended to be the old Latin hundred. But there were exceptions. At Castrimoenium, a small Pl ace in Latium, probably made a mumcipium by Augustus, thirty were considered enough; cf. too the imperial letter about Tymandus in Pisidia (Bruns, Fontes, p. 160).

^{page 230 note 1} So by Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i³, I, p. 509, n.

^{page 230 note 2} Boys of tender age were made members of senates by ‘adlectio’; see Liebenam, Städteverwaltung, p. 235, n.

^{page 230 note 3} It occurs e.g. in the lex agraria of III B.C.

^{page 230 note 4} See my Municipalities of the Roman Empire, pp. 150, 151. This bears on the question of the municipal codes of Naples and Heraclea, to be considered below.

^{page 231 note 1} Lex Malac. c. 54.

^{page 231 note 2} s.v. conciliabulum in the Pauly-Wissowa Encyclopaedie.

^{page 231 note 3} Roman Laws, p. 155, n. It is easy to find ‘municipia’ and even ‘coloniae’ where there were no magistrates bearing these titles.

^{page 231 note 4} Festus, p. 233; cf. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht, iii ³, p. 581Google Scholar, n. 4: ‘die Bürgercolonien Puteoli, Volturnum, Liternum, Saturnia waren nachweislich “praefecturae”.’ On the peculiar use of ‘praefectura’ to designate a colonial ‘pertica’ see Mommsen, , Feldmesser, ii, p. 155Google Scholar, corrected in one point by Lenormant, s.v. colonia, in Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire, p. 1313. There is one ‘forum’ which described itself as ‘praefectura,’ viz. Forum Clodi in S. Etruria. The inscription is dated 43 B.C. See Pauly-Wissowa, s.v.

^{page 231 note 5} This seems the right solution of a problem which M. Toutain, s.v. praefectura in Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire, treats as insoluble.

^{page 232 note 1} The ‘lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia.’ I will discuss the justice of the identification later.

^{page 232 note 2} That is, the extra-urban ‘vicus.’ Even the ‘castellum’ seems to have had magistrates and a council in some cases.

^{page 232 note 3} Some laws there were of course which were binding, e.g. the lex Villia Annalis. Compare Cic. pro Cluentio, § 120; Mommsen, , Staatsrecht, I, 491 folGoogle Scholar.

^{page 232 note 4} A perusal of Dig. iii, 2, will show this clearly.

^{page 233 note 1} c. 54.

^{page 233 note 2} As to Cic. Fam. vi, 18, see below. As regards causes for exclusion from the local senate and local offices we may note the absence from the Tabula of the details for the trial of such matters which are given in the law of Urso (cc. 105, 123, 124); also that no such form of trial is proposed for Rome. The legislation of Clodius about the ‘nota censoria’ was on a different plane (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii, 387).

^{page 233 note 3} c. 105. This is an indication that the Tabula is not of general application.

^{page 233 note 4} c. 54.

^{page 233 note 5} Mommsen, , Staatsrecht, iii ³, p. 424Google Scholar, n.

^{page 233 note 6} The contrary view is maintained, among others, by Dr. Hardy, whose strong assertion appears to me out of place.

^{page 233 note 7} Cic. pro Sest. 46; in Cat. ii, 20; in Sen. 33; pro Dom. 55; pro Plancio, 87.

^{page 233 note 8} ad. Att. vii, 7, 7; ix. 10, 6; ix. 12; xi. 6, 2.

^{page 234 note 1} In the lex Ursonensis, c. 78: sunt erunt fueruntve, the fuerunt has slipped in similarly. (So Mommsen saw.) In the ‘lex agraria’ of III B.C. §64: ‘fecit feceritve,’ the expression feceritve is quite otiose: see also below, p. 243, n. 4.

^{page 234 note 2} Cic. de Off. iii, 61Google Scholar: iste dolus malus et legibus erat vindicatus, ut in tutela duodecim tabulis, circumscriptio adulescentium lege Plaetoria, et sine lege iudiciis, in quibus additur ‘ex fide bona.’

^{page 234 note 3} Cic. pro Cluent. § 147.

^{page 234 note 4} de Nat. D. iii, 74: q uem dolum idem Aquillius tum teneri putat cum aliud sit simulatum, aliud actum. In de Off. iii, 60, speaking of the same matter, Cicero says ‘dolus malus’ was punished by laws before the time of the ‘Aquilliana definitio.’

^{page 234 note 5} Cic. Top. § 65, asserts this very emphatically of the ‘bonae fidei iudicia.’

^{page 234 note 6} So Paul. Sent, i, 8, 1. In Top. 40, Cicero quotes the definition without its author's name, and in Dig. ii, 14, 7, 9, it is attributed to another lawyer. In Top. 32, Aquillius is presented as great in legal definitions.

^{page 236 note 1} There is no certain case of a praeco being ‘ingenuus.’ By some Seleucus is supposed to have been a libertus of Lepta. As to the Greeks enfranchised on the establishment of Caesar's colony at Novum Comum, see J.R.S. i, pp. 70, 71Google Scholar. The phrase et tut et mei familiares in Cicero's letter refers to the fact that praecones, as licensed jesters, often consorted with the highest society in Rome, The classic example is that of Granius on the age of the Gracchi and Lucilius.

^{page 236 note 2} Dr. Hardy, p. 86.

^{page 237 note 1} Cic. Verr. Act. pr. § 54: ‘haec frequentia totius Italiae quae convenit uno tempore undique comitiorum, ludorum, censendique causa.’ The ‘tabulae censoriae’ of Larinum mentioned by Cic. pro Cluentio, § 41, in 66 B.C. must have been purely local.

^{page 237 note 2} Cic. pro Arch. § 11, seems to indicate this.

^{page 237 note 3} As in Legras' essay, in many places.

^{page 237 note 4} The phrase ‘censor aliusve quis magistratus’ in § 73 of the Tabula is quite correct, as the reference is to public contracts, which had to be looked after by consuls or praetors when no censors were actually in office (compare the lex agraria of III B.C. § 35). The same words appear in § 144 by mere mechanical and inaccurate imitation, Considering the looseness in drafting shown at many points of the text it is rash to deduce from the latter passage a consciousness on the part of the framer that the censorship was about to pass away. Nor do the words ‘quaestor urbanus queive aerario praerit’ in § 47 point necessarily to any impending change (Dr. Hardy, p. 77). We have merely alternative descriptions of the urban quaestor.

^{page 237 note 5} The case of the Anauni is familiar: cf. too Cic. pro Arch. § 10. Cicero says that even registration at Rome is not conclusive proof (ibid. § 11).

^{page 238 note 1} Dr. Hardy (p. 86) seems to think that such a scheme would have been too complicated even for Caesar's genius. Surely it would have been far less complex than the republican practice.

^{page 238 note 2} pro Balbo, §§ 2,, 22.

^{page 238 note 3} See notes in my edition of the speech (Cambridge University Press) on the absurd derivation of fundus adopted by Cicero, and on other matters. The dictionaries, following Cicero, make the word fundus a substantive, whereas it is an adjective: cf. Plaut. Trin. 5, 1, 6: ‘ut pater sit fundus potior,’ where fundus means fundus factus; also Paul, ex F. p. 89; Gell. xv, 13, 6.

^{page 238 note 4} Heraclea was ‘municipium’ in 62, as also was Naples; see Cic. pro Arch. § 10.

^{page 238 note 5} This is indicated by the name given to them by Appian: νεοπολίτιδες πόλεις. The statement in Sail. Or. Lepidi: ‘Sulla multos sociorum et Lati a civitate prohibuit,’ is a mere rhetorical exaggeration of Sulla's treatment of Arretium and Volaterrae.

^{page 239 note 1} I cannot agree with Dr. Hardy, who thinks that Cinna settled this question.

^{page 239 note 2} So Dr. Hardy, p. 87. We may compare the famous step taken by the state of Louisiana, when it received the English Common Law in place of the French law by which it had been governed.

^{page 239 note 3} Legras, pp. 156–8 takes a more correct view.

^{page 239 note 4} The words quoted by Dr. Hardy: ‘postremo haec vis est istius et iuris verbi ut fundi populi beneficio nostro non suo iure fiant,’ have no bearing on this matter. The essential points in the case of Balbus are as follows. Pompey had conferred he civitas on him by virtue of the lex Gellia Cornelia. Balbus was a citizen of Gades, and it was argued that, just as the whole of the Gaditani could not become Romans unless a Roman law offering them the franchise had been definitely accepted by them, so an express acceptance of the lex Gellia Cornelia by the community was necessary to validate the gift of the civitas to Balbus. In other words, it was alleged that the municipality to which a non-Roman belonged had a right of veto on his acceptance of the Roman citizenship. This was of course untenable.

^{page 239 note 5} See my Municipalities of the Roman Empire p. 127.

^{page 240 note 1} p. 90.

^{page 240 note 2} It is interesting to note that Ulpian discussed the question whether a rescript of Hadrian forbidding intramural interments would override local law (Dig. 47, 12, 3, 5). There is evidence to show that in some cases it did not. It was an important question for Tarentum, where there was a large cemetery within the walls, which facilitated the capture of the city by Hannibal.

^{page 240 note 3} The laws of Syracuse, established by Diocles in 339 B.C, had a similar attractive influence in Sicily (Diod. xiii, 35). The imitation of Athenian institutions, especially in the Graecised regions of Asia, is notorious.

^{page 240 note 4} p. 100.

^{page 241 note 1} Much of the evidence is set forth in the work of Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht. So it was from early days. A fragment of Cato tells that a certain rule of law at Arpinum differed from Roman practice. If Arpinum had not been fully enfranchised when Cato wrote, there would have been no point in his observation. On the eastern side of the empire, even the official use of Latin often ceased to be regarded.

^{page 241 note 2} Of course the intervention of the government to suppress disorder is another affair.

^{page 241 note 3} Caes. B.C. i, 15: ‘Cingulo, quod oppidum Labienus constituerat, suaque pecunia exaedificaverat.’ The date 63 B.C., when Labienus was tribunus plebis, is far more probable than the one which Dr. Hardy accepts, 59 B.C.

^{page 242 note 1} The change is described as ‘mutatio oppidi’ in C.I.L. ii, 1041.

^{page 242 note 2} Some little light is thrown on imperial procedure by emperors' letters (a) de Tymandenis, (b) de Orcistenis, but their date is late, and does not help us here. See Bruns, Fontes, ed. 7, pp. 159 sq.

^{page 242 note 3} So the family of the Salvii ‘constituted’ the town which accepted their name as part of its title: i.e. Urbs Salvia in Picenum.

^{page 242 note 4} Plutarch, Sulla, c. 37.

^{page 242 note 5} One matter involved was a sum payable by Puteoli towards the restoration of the Capitoline temple but not paid (Val. Max. viii, 3, 8).

^{page 242 note 6} This was the only question submitted to C. Claudius Pulcher, the commissioner (Cic. Verr. ii, 2, 122Google Scholar). It is interesting to note that the praeco was disqualified for sitting in the senate. Halaesa was one of four Sicilian towns described by Cicero as ‘sine foedere liberae et immunes.’

^{page 242 note 7} Cic. ad Att. xv, 14Google Scholar, 3, where it is implied that by his action Dolabella had benefited the city.

^{page 243 note 1} See my Municipalities of the Roman Empire, pp. 116 sq.

^{page 243 note 2} See below. There is looseness in the draftsmanship, the words post h. l. rogatam being otiose, as they are followed by in eo anno proximo quo hanc legem populus iuserit. But it is impossible to accept the view of Legras (p. 165) that the two occurrences of the words hanc legem point to two different statutes.

^{page 243 note 3} Legras has a different and equally wrong Cominterpretation (p. 163)

^{page 243 note 4} So in the Tabula §113: ‘auctoratus est erit fuit fuerit,’ where it cannot be supposed that fuit fuerit adds anything to the meaning. In the lex agraria of III, §77, we have ‘quei …ex lege Livia facti creative furerunt.’ Can it be thought that two sets of persons are alluded to in the former passage and only one in the latter? In the law of, Urso, § 78; ‘sunt erunt fueruntve,’ the words fueruntve are senseless, as Mommsen saw. In § 79 of the Tabula: ‘cepit ceperit,’ the word ceperit is similarly wrong. Comare the. ‘lex Latina’ of Bantia, ‘oportuerit oportebitve,’ and the lex agraria, §§ 44, 92.

^{page 244 note 1} p. 103, 4.

^{page 244 note 2} At Larinum; Cic. pro Cluent. § 25.

^{page 244 note 3} C.I.L. i, 577.

^{page 244 note 4} ad Att. v, 2; cf. x, 13.

^{page 244 note 5} de Leg. Agr. ii, 93. The words ‘hi se praetores appellari volebant’ cannot be understood to mean that the magistrates broke any statute. If that had been the case, Cicero would have taken good care to mention it. The title was not unknown in Italian burgess colonies. See a catalogue of irregularities (not quite complete) in Liebenam's Städteverwaltung, pp. 253 sq. Dr. Hardy asks (p. 104) whether any town in Narbonensian Gaul excepting Carcaso had praetors. Liebenam gives the answer: five others, one the Roman colony of Narbo.

^{page 244 note 6} Dessau, 6468, 9.

^{page 245 note 1} C.I.L. vi, 3732 (Dessau, 4019). Probably as early as 100 B.C.

^{page 245 note 2} Bruns, Fontes, ed. 7, p. 158. This has been supposed to be a Roman statute removing certain legal matters from the jurisdiction of the local authorities. But the affairs in question, so far some can be judged from the fragmentary inscription, were not such as would be taken for decision to Rome.

^{page 245 note 3} ad Fam. xiii, 11, 3: ‘constituendi municipi causa.’ In de Leg. iii, 36, Cicero speaks of a great agitation in Arpinum on the question of the ballot (earlier than 102 B.C.).

^{page 245 note 4} C.I.L. xi, 1421 (Dessau, 140). Evidently the lex Petronia had not been passed at the time. The occurrence of praefecti in the Fasti Venusini for the year 32 B.C. does not justify the assumption sometimes made of an earlier date for the statute, Possibly the turmoil at Pisa gave occasion for its passing, and it merely crystallised custom into law.

^{page 245 note 5} C.I.L. v, 2864. Its date is long after 44 B.C. (assumed by Dr. Hardy: p. 109).

^{page 246 note 1} Even in the case of a town which had no ‘attributa regio,’ a law might affect only the ‘intramurani’ or ‘urbani’ mentioned in many inscriptions, whose position was different from that of those who dwelt outside. So it might be called ‘lex municipalis’ in contrast e.g. to ‘lex pagana’ (C.I.L. x, 3772, and Plin. N.H. xxviii, § 28)Google Scholar.

^{page 246 note 2} pro Balb. 21.

^{page 246 note 3} The case of Naples shows that even the public use of Latin was not insisted on. The ‘lex Tarenti’ is in Latin, but that is no cogent reason for supposing it to be ‘lex data.’

^{page 246 note 4} so the Roman ‘coloniae maritimae’ during the Hannibalic war protested against enrolment in the legions, declaring that they had a ‘sacrosancta vacatio’; their only duty, they said, was to watch the coast. See Liv. xxvii, 38.

^{page 246 note 5} App. B.C. i 89.

^{page 246 note 6} ibid, i, 79.

^{page 247 note 1} See Drumann, ed. by Groebe, vol. iii, pp. 182 sq. It is clearly shown there that Caesar passed only one agrarian law. Several scholars have suggested that there was another. Cicero, , ad Att. ii, 18, 2Google Scholar, definitely calls it ‘Campana lex.’ I may note that I see no need to assume that c. 104 of the law of Urso was borrowed directly from the supposed fragment of the lex Iulia of 59. Rules about boundaries must have been developed from very early times and have become almost traditional by 59 B.C.

^{page 247 note 2} Cic. ad Fam. xiii, 4, 2Google Scholar; cf. ad Att. i, 19, 4.

^{page 247 note 3} p. 106.

^{page 248 note 1} That Rome would impose her aedilician rules on the local ‘respublicae’ is assumed by Legras (p. 345). It is by no means proved by the fact that Papinian wrote a book on ἀστυνόμοι, from which an extract is given in Dig. 43, 10.