^{page 95 note 1} Dessau, Inscrr. sel. 8888; C.I.L. i, (ed. 2), 709.

^{page 95 note 2} I owe much to the discussion in Pais', Ricerche sulla Storia e sul Diritto Romano, vol. i (Roma 1918)Google Scholar, though I cannot accept all his conclusions. I have also to thank Prof. H. Stuart Jones and Prof. J. S. Reid for some valuable criticism.

^{page 95 note 3} Plut. Pomp. 38.

^{page 95 note 4} App, i, 47.

^{page 96 note 1} Rosenberg in Pauly-Wissowa, ix, p. 1142, s.v. imperator.

^{page 96 note 2} Dessau, 15, 20, 21, 8884.

^{page 96 note 3} cf. Dessau, 4041, Ap. Claudius Ap. f. Pulcher propylum … cos. vovit, imperator coepit. It does not, however, seem to me to have established that any consul or praetor before tne date of our inscription assumed the title of Imperator during his year of office.

^{page 96 note 4} Staatsrecht, i, p. 125.

^{page 96 note 5} Cic. Pro Balbo, 22, 50-51.

^{page 96 note 6} Cic. Phil, xiii, 27Google Scholar. The reference is more particularly to the brother of Pompeius, a member of his consilium, who came as a commissioner, no doubt because of his fame as a lawyer. (cf. Cic. Brutus, 47, 175.)

^{page 97 note 1} Vell, ii, 29. Ager Picenus qui totus paternis eius clientelis refertus erat.

^{page 97 note 2} Heitland, , Roman Republic, vol. ii, p. 451Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 3} Cic. pro Cornelia ap. Ascon, p. 70. The trial probably occurred early in 88 after the expiration of his consulship; he was doubtless acquitted, as he retained his imperium. Prof. Reid suggests that the prosecution of Pompeius Strabo may have been due rather to the severity of his treatment of the allies, which had goaded them into revolt, and that it may have occurred before 88 and have been concerned with earlier events than his doings as consul. I prefer, however, the view stated above.

^{page 97 note 4} Asconius, p. 19.

^{page 97 note 5} J.R.S. VI, i, p. 65 f.

^{page 97 note 6} Plut. Pomp. 37.

^{page 98 note 1} ii, 21.

^{page 98 note 2} ch. 35. cf. Liv Epit. 77, 79.

^{page 98 note 3} Val. Max. ix, 14.

^{page 98 note 4} Val. Max. ix, 5. cf. Lex Acilia Rep. 78.

^{page 98 note 5} Cic. Pro Balbo, viii, 21Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 6} De Leg. ii, 2, 5.

^{page 98 note 7} v. Polybius, vi, 14.

^{page 99 note 1} Liv. xxvii, 5.

^{page 99 note 2} Staatsrecht, iii, p. 134.

^{page 99 note 3} e.g. Liv. xxvi, 21.

^{page 99 note 4} Liv. xxxviii, 36. The citizenship granted by the populus Romanus to Minatius Magius, the ancestor of the historian Velleius (ii, 16), was probably an example of this procedure.

^{page 99 note 5} Pro Balbo, 8, 19. Prof. J. S. Reid tells me that he thinks that there must have been some recognised custom about the granting of the franchise by commanders, which did not require statutory confirmation: he suggests that the franchise was conferred by Verres, e.g. on the Graeci sacrilegi iam pridem improbi, repente Cornelii of In Verr. ii, 3, 69. Personally I had rather attribute their citizenship to Sulla.

^{page 99 note 6} Plut. Mar. 28.

^{page 99 note 7} Pro Balbo, 22, 50; Pro Archia, 10, 24 f. An early example is the enfranchisement of C. Valerius Caburus by C.Valerius Flaccus, propraetor in Gaul about 83 B.C. (Caesar, B.G. i, 47).

^{page 99 note 8} e.g. Dio 41, 24.

^{page 99 note 9} S. C. de Asclepiade, Bruns (ed. 7), p. 176.

^{page 99 note 10} Pro Balbo, 9, 24; 18, 41.

^{page 100 note 1} Pais, however, seems to me to make too much of the statement of Granius Licinianus (ch. 37) Dediticiis omnibus civitas data. The reference is probably to Italians who were not yet enfranchised, rather than to non-Italian auxiliaries.

^{page 100 note 2} Liv. 43, 3. v. Pauly-Wissowa. s.v. Colonia, vol. iv, p. 516.

^{page 100 note 3} This is generally assumed to be the case, but it is strange that the form is not Saldubensis or something similar. Possibly the name Salluitana is derived from some tribe not otherwise known.

^{page 100 note 4} Plin. N. H. iii, 24Google Scholar.

^{page 100 note 5} cf. Dittenberger, Syll. ² 268, 1, 88. Μάαρκος Οαλέριος Ομοττόνης is the Muttines of Liv. 27, 5 who took the name of M. Valerius Laevinus, consul in the year of his enfranchisement, cf. also Diodorus, Q. Lutatius (In Verr, ii, 4, 37Google Scholar) qui Q. Catuli beneficio ab L. Sulla civis Romanus factus est. In the new edition of vol. i of the C.I.L. it is actually asserted Unde in hoc quoque indice Ilerdenses omnes sunt cives Romani.

^{page 101 note 1} Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, p. 138 f; Pelham, Essays on Roman History, p. 152 f.

^{page 101 note 2} Sull. Cat. 19, 4. Pompey possessed veteres fidosque clientes among the Spanish equites.