^{page 82 note 1} Flacc. 34. 84ndash;36. 8g. Cf. Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1952), ii, 177. Sextilius Andro was not present at the trial, and Cicero had to deal with the hostile witness M. Lurco in this matter (Flacc. 4. 10; 36.88).Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 2} For the scholiast's commentary see Stangl, Th. (ed.), Ciceronis Oratioman Scholiastae (Leipzig, 1912), ii, 106 f.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 3} Flacc. 34. 84; 36. 89 (‘lege’). For the tutela, see 35. 86. For plurality of tutors cf. Cie. Verr. 2. I. 37. 92; Sest. 52. III; Fam. 13. 61.

^{page 82 note 4} See Gaius, Inst. 2. 90, with Corbett, P. E., The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1930), 108Google Scholar ff.; Schulz, F., Classical Roman Law (Oxford, 1951, hereafter cited as CRL), 118Google Scholar, 180; idem, , Principles of Roman Law (Oxford, 1956), 195 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 5} Cf. Watson, A., The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1967), 20Google Scholar ff.; Costa, E., Cicerone Giureconsulto (Bologna, 1927), i ² 53 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 1} For usus, coemptio, and the tutor's control see Kunkel, W., R.E. xiv ² (1930), cols 2260Google Scholar s.v. ‘Matrimonium’; Wilms, J. G. A., De Vrouw sui iuris, Cicero, pro Flaca 34, 84, en de rnanusvestiging door uses (Ghent 1938)Google Scholar; Corbett, Roman Law of Marriage 78; Schulz, Principles, 192 ff., and CRL 116 ff.; Mayer-Maly, Th., ‘Studien nu Frühgeschichte der usucapio II’ Z.S.S (Roman. Abt.) lxxviii (1961), 221–76Google Scholar, al 259 ff.; Buckland, W. W., A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian² (rev Stein, P., Cambridge, 1966), 119 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 2} For the Roman woman sui iuris see Jolowicz, H. F., Historical Introduction to tie Study of Roman Law² (Cambridge, 1952) 120Google Scholar ff.; Crook, J. A., Law and Life of Ronu (London, 1967), 113; Schulz, CRL, 157 ff., 166 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 3} Flaw. 35.86. For the husband's retention of dos adventicia furnished by a woman sui Wris see Leonhard, R., R.E. v²(1905), cols. 1587Google Scholar ff s.v. ‘Dos’; Corbett, Roman Law of Marriage, 183 ff.; Kunkel, , R.E. xiv ², col. 2286Google Scholar; Buckland, Text-Book, 107 ff; Schulz, CRL, 126; Watson, Law of Persons, 57 ff. For the procedure of dictio dotis, see Corbett, op. cit. 163 ff; Leonhard, R., R.E. v ¹ (1903), cols. 390 ff., s.v. ‘Dictio Dotis’.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 4} See Kunkel, , R.E. xiv ², col. 2285Google Scholar; Corbett, op. cit. 117; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction, 261; Voci, P., Diritto ereditario roman i (Milan, 1960), 171Google Scholar ff., ii (Milan, 1963), 10 ff. Magic, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 379, flatly states that Flaccus wrongfully diverted the estate from Sextilius.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 5} Flan. 36.8g. For the connection between tutela legitima and hereditas legitima see Costa, Cicerone Giureconsulto, i. 65 ff.; Buckland, Text-Book, 144 ff.; Schulz, CRL, 166, 186; Voci, Diritto ereditario, i. 63 ff.; a, Law and Life of Rome, 113 ff.

^{page 84 note 1} Flacc. 34. 84. See Lend, O., ‘Die Rechtsstellung des proximus adgnatus and der gentiles im altromischen Erbrecht’, Z.S.S. (Roman. Abt.) xxxvii (1916), 129–35Google Scholar; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction, 123 ff.; Buckland, Text-Book, 367 ff.; Schulz, CRL, 220 ff.; Voci, Diritto ereditario, ii3 ff.; Watson, A., The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1971), 175 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} Law of Succession (above, n. I), 175ndash;81. But he seems hesitant about his conclusions (p. 181), and at one point (p. 180 n. 1) inclines to the view that Flaccus took as agnatus rather than gentilis. Costa, Cicerone Giureconsulto1, 54, simply assumes that Flaccus was agnatus to Valeria.

^{page 84 note 3} Flacc. 36.89. For collective succession by the gentiles in cases of intestacy, without regard to degrees of proximity, see Costa, op. cit. i. 11; Kübler, , R.E. vii ¹ (1910), col. 1189, S.V. ‘Gems’.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 4} For Sextilii and their freedmen as businessmen in the Greek East see Hatzfeld, J., ‘Les Italiens residant a Delos’, B.C.H. xxxvi (1912), 5ndash;218, at p. 78Google Scholar; idem, , Les Trafiquants italiens dans l'Orient helldnique (Paris, 1919), 403Google Scholar; Wilson, A. J. N., Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome (Manchester, 1966), 110, 152.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 5} Flacc. 34. 84. Cf. Hatzfeld, B.C.H. loc. cit. 138 ff.; Treggiari, S., Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford, 1969), 250Google Scholar ff. For the name see Pape, W. and Benseler, G., WOrterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, i ² (Braunschweig, 1911), 89Google Scholar; Preisigke, F., Nwnenbuch (Heidelberg, 1922), cols. 30, 379Google Scholar; Foraboschi, D., Onomasticon Alterwn Papyrologicum, i (Milan, 1967), 33. Costa, Cicerone Giureconsulto, i. 54, infers somewhat superfluously from the lack of reference to confarreatio as a possible marriage form that Sextilius was a plebeian!Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} Stangl, , Scholiastae (above, p. 82 n. 2), ii. 106Google Scholar. For definition of ingenuitas see Gaius, Inst. 1. 11, with Buckland, W. W., The Roman Law of Slavery (Cambridge, 1908), 438Google Scholar; a, Law and Life of Rome, 48Google Scholar ff. For the strong social barrier to intermarriage between senatorial families and families of servile origin see Corbett, , Roman Law of Marriage, 31Google Scholar; Treggiari, , Roman Freedmen, 82Google Scholar ff. For the Valerii in the East see Hatzfeld, , Les Trafiquants, 405 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} The definition of Q. Mucius Scaevola (Cic. Top. 6. 29) would exclude descendants of slaves from full membership in a gens. But Mommsen, Th., Rernisches Staatsrecht iii (Leipzig, 1887), 427Google Scholar, contends that a libertus did belong to his patron's gens, which acquired rights of inheritance over him. Kübler, , R.E. viii (1910), cols. 1176 ff., s.v. ‘Gene’, holds that freedmen's descendants were legally attached to the patron's gens as gentilicii; Treggiari, op. cit. 82, also holds that they belonged to it in a looser sense.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} See Cic. De Orat. 39. 176; Ulpian, Digest 50. 16. 195. 1, with Riccobono, S., Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani (Florence, 1941), i ². 41Google Scholar, no. 8; Kūbler, , R.E. (1910), cols. 1188Google Scholar ff.; Launspach, C. W. L., State and Family in Early Rome (London, 1908), 272Google Scholar; Buckland, , Law of Slavery, 426 ff. Most recently, a, Diritto ereaario, 37 ff, ii. 26 ff., has cogently argued that manumission created a hereditary relationship of clientela between the stirps libertine and the patron's gars, also a closer bond of ‘quasi-agnazione’ between patron's family and libertus. See Voci, op. cit. i. 308 ff., for the hereditary nature of patronage over liberti. None of these discussions notices the case of Valeria.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 4} See Flan1. 34. 85 ‘Relinquitur illud quod vociferari non destitit, non debuisse, cum praetor esset, suum negotium agere aut mentionem facere hereditatis’; 34. 86 ‘Atque eodem etiam M. Lurco, vir optimus, meus familiaris, convertit aculeum testimoni sui: negavit a privato pecuniam in provincia praetorem petere oportere.’

^{page 86 note 1} Watson, A., The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford, 1968), 37, is confused in stating that Flaccus himself is here being accused of obtaining Valeria's estate by usucapio. Cicero mentions usucapio only in a hypothetical question addressed to the prospective governor T. Vettius (34. 85 ‘Tu, T. Vetti, si quae tibi in Africa venerit hereditas, usu amittes …’), as an option by which he could let a legacy go by default to a rival claimant.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 2} Cf. Webster, T. B. L., M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro L. Flacco Oratio (Oxford, 1931), p. xviii, who cites Ad Herennium 2. 4. 7 and classifies Cicero's use of the dating of the initial claim to 63 B.C., prior to the governorship of Flaccus, as ‘argumentatio coniecturalis a tempore’.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 3} Cf. Buckland, , Text-Book, 368Google Scholar; Schulz, , CRL, 223.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 4} See Cic. Att. 6. 1. 15; Part. Orat. 28. 98; Vers. 2. 1. 44. 114ndash;45. 117; 2. 1.46. 118; 2. 1. 47. 124; Pro Cluent. 60. 165; Val. Max. 7. 7. 5. Cf. Lenel, O., Das Edictum Perpetuums (Leipzig, 1927), 360;Google Scholar Costa, , Cicerone Giureconsulto, i. 213Google Scholar ff.; Jolowicz, , Historical Introduction, 261Google Scholar; Voci, , Diritto ereditario, 123 ff., 180.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 5} Flacc. 36. 8g ‘Decisions arbiter C. Caecilius fuit … obsignator C. Sextilius.’ Cf. Stangl, , Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae, ii. 106.Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 6} For the Twelve Tables see Riccobono, , Fontes luris Romani Antejustiniani, i 41Google Scholar; cf. Cic. Pro Caec. 7. 19. For resort to arbitration to resolve disputes over intestate succession see Digest 10. 2. 2. See further Ruggiero, E. de, Dizionario Epigrafico, i (1895), 613–16Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Arbiter’; Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (Oxford, 1901), 39 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} Flacc. 34. 87 ‘… petere non oportere numquam ostendes, nisi docueris non licere.’ Cf. Costa, Cicerone Giureconstdto, i. 30 ff., 244 if., ii. 110 if., an inconclusive discussion which does not explain how entrance into a legacy which can hardly have constituted deliberate bribery and did not involve fraud or violence can have fallen under such a general moral ban.

^{page 87 note 2} For Lurco's watchful concern for the fortunes of his own liberti in Asia in 62 B.C. see Flacc. 4. 10; 35. 87ndash;8.