¹ The basis of study is now Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship pt. i, ch. 3–5.

² Frank, , Cambridge Ancient History viii, 356Google Scholar; Salmon, , JRS xxvi (1936), 56 f.Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 99 f.; against Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani iv, 1, 560 f.Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , Histoire romaine (Histoire ancienne iii) ii, 135 fGoogle Scholar.

³ On the confederation, see Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht iii, 1194fGoogle Scholar.; Willems, , Le Sénat de la République romaine ii, 687 f.Google Scholar; Beloch, Der Italische Bund 194 f.; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 91 f. On the ‘Bacchanalian conspiracy’, see Livy xxxix, 8–19; CIL 1², 581: s. c. de Bacchanalibus, and below, n. 116.

⁴ See now Salmon, op. cit. 55; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 91 f. On the replacement of the ius migrandi by the right to gain Roman citizenship per magistratum in the period immediately before the Social War, see Sherwin-White, ibid. 105 f.

⁵ Mattingly, , JRS xix (1929), 27 f.Google Scholar; Mattingly and Robinson, Date of the Roman Denarius 30; Salmon, op. cit. 59.

⁶ Salmon, ibid. 56 f. The twelve Latin colonies defaulting in 209 (Livy xxvii, 9, 7) may have done so not in disloyalty but through lack of man-power. The need to reinforce Venusia, Narnia, Cosa and Cales (Livy xxxi, 49, 6; xxxii, 2, 6; xxxiii, 24, 8; CIL 1², p. 200, elog. xxxii) may also have been due to migration. The right of Latins visiting Rome to vote in an allotted tribe may have been in compensation for the restricted ius migrandi. There would not have been great migration to Rome until after 204, but sufficient to justify this argument from circumstantial evidence. Salmon's statement, however, that the Latins expelled from Rome in 187 belonged to the two generations before the censorship of 204 (ibid. 57; followed by Sherwin-White, op. cit. 98) misinterprets Livy xxxix, 3, 5: ‘praetori negotium datum est ut eos (sc. Latinos) conquireret et quem C. Claudio M. Livio censoribus (204 B.C.) postve eos censores ipsum parentemve eius apud se censum esse probassent socii, ut redire eo cogeret ubi censi essent.’ Latins who themselves or whose fathers had been registered in a Latin city in or after 204 were to return there. The measure aims at restoring the position in 204, when the levies closing the Punic War were made. See below, nn. 81, 88, 92.

⁷ Livy xxvii, 9; xxix, 15. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 568–9Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 99.

⁸ Cicero, pro Caec. 102; ‘iubet enim (sc. Sulla Volaterranos) eodem hire esse quo fuerint Ariminenses, quos quis ignorat duodecim coloniarum fuisse et acivibus Romanis hereditates capere potuisse ?’ See Salmon, op. cit. 58 f.

⁹ (1) The Twelve Colonies: Signia, Norba, Fregellae, Luceria, Pontiae, Saticula, Venusia, Hadria, Cosa, Paestum, Beneventum, Arimnum.

(2) The twelve defaulting colonies of 209: Ardoa, Nepete, Sutrium, Alba, Carseoli, Sora, Suessa, Circeii, Setia, Cales, Namia, Interamna.

(3) The colonies founded after 265. Firmum, Aesernia, Brundisium, Spoletium, Placentia, Cremona.

¹⁰ Beloch, op. cit. 201 f., 220 f.; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 113 f., 117 f.

¹¹ Beloch, op. cit. 198–9; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 120. Polyb. vi, 13, 4–5: ὅσα τῶν ἀδικημἀτων τῶν κατʹ ʹΙταλίαν προσδείται δημοσίας έπισκέψέως, λέγω δʹ οίον προδοσίας, συνωμοσίας, φαρμακείας, δολοφονίας, τῆ σνγκλήτῳ μέλει περί τούτων. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, εί τις Ἰδιώτης ἢ πόλις τών κατὰ τὴν ʹΙταλίαν διαλύσεως, ἢ έπιτιμήσεως ἢ βοηθείας ἢ φνλακῆς προοδείται, τούτων πάντων έπτιμελές έστι τῆ συγκλήτῳ. Polybius gives two classes of measures: (1) criminal jurisdiction, e.g. treason (i.e. revolt), conspiracy to revolt, mass poisoning and assassination (i.e. brigandage); (2) administrative intervention, e.g. arbitration between States and within States, censure for failure in confederate duties, help in disaster, protection by garrison. Mommsen and Willems (cited above, n. 3) provide systematic criticism of the passage, which may be referred to conditions in the middle of the second century B.C. Despite its connection with the account of Cannae, Book vi of Polybius reflects the constitutional and political situation when Polybius was in Rome and contains many strictly contemporary elements (Sanctis, De, op. cit. iii, 1, 201 f.Google Scholar; iv, 1, 515: McDonald, , Camb. Hist. Journal vi, 2 (1939), 136Google Scholar). Following Mommsen we may use the evidence as a basis for reconstructing the stages by which the Senate reached the position denned by Polybius.

¹² Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1204Google Scholar; Willems, , op. cit. ii, 695 fGoogle Scholar.; Beloch, op. cit. 215–6; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 130.

¹⁸ Polyb. loc. cit.; e.g. in the Second Punic War (cf. Livy xxx, 24, 4), Campania (Livy xxvi, 16; 27; 33–4; xxvii, 3; xxviii, 46, 6; cf. xxxi, 29, 11; 31, 10–5; xxxviii, 28, 4; 36, 5–6; De Sanctis, op. cit. iii, 2, 342 f.); Etruria (Livy xxvii, 24; xxviii, 10, 4–5; xxix, 36, 10–2, xxx, 26, 12); Tarentum (Livy xxvii, 15–6; 21, 8; 25, 2; 35, 4; cf. xxxv, 16, 3; De Sanctis, ibid. 471–2); Locri (Livy xxix, 8, 1–3; 21, 7); Bruttium (Appian, Hann. 61; Gellius, , NA X, 3, 19Google Scholar).

¹⁴ Polyb. loc. cit.; e.g. in the Second Punic War, Tarentum and Thurii (Livy xxv, 7, 10–3; cf. xxvii, 25, 2); Arretium (Livy xxvii, 21, 6–7; 24, 1; cf. xxix, 36, 10–2). Cf. Livy on Capua in 314 (ix, 26, 5–7) and Frusino (x, 1, 3). Beloch, op. cit. 209–10. See below, p. 14, n. 24.

¹⁵ Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1204–5Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Mommsen, ibid. 1204 f.; Willems, , op. cit. ii, 695 f.Google Scholar; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 523, 565Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Polyb. loc. cit.; cf. Livy xxvii, 38, 3–5; xxix, 15, 11–5; xxxvi, 3, 4–6; Cicero, , Brut. 46, 170Google Scholar. Note in particular CIL 1², 586: ‘quod Teiburtes v(erba) f(ecistis) quibusque de rebus vos purgavistis ea senatus animum advortit ita utei aequom fuit … et postquam vostra verba senatus audivit, tanto magis animum nostrum indoucimus, ita utei ante arbitrabamur, de eieis rebus af vobeis peccatum non esse.’ Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1204Google Scholar, n. 2; Willems, , op. cit. ii, 692Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Livy xl, 19, 5: ‘et senatus censuit et consules edixerunt ut per totam Italiam triduum supplicatio et feriae essent’ (cf. vii, 28, 8).

¹⁹ Livy ix, 42, 10: ‘per Latinos populos custodiendi’; xxxii, 26, 18: ‘circa nomen Latinum.’ E.g. Livy xxvi, 14, 9; xxx, 45, 4; xxxii, 2, 4; 26, 5; xlv, 42, 4–5. The praetor might approach them by letter (Livy xxxii, 26, 18), and the cities could state a case for exemption (Livy xlv, 43, 9: ‘recusantibus custodiam Spoletinis’); but note their strict responsibility to the Senate (Livy xxxix, 19, 2: ‘magistratibus Ardeatium praedicendum’).

²⁰ Polyb. loc. cit.; e.g. Pisa and Luna (Livy xlv, 13, 10–1); cf. Nola and Naples (Cicero, de off. 1, 10, 33; Val. Max. vii, 3, 4); Ateste and Patavium, Ateste and Vicetia (CIL 1², 633, 634, 636). Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1202–3Google Scholar; Beloch, op. cit. 211; O'Brien Moore, P-W Suppl. vi, s.v. ‘Senatus’, 752–3. On the appointment of patrons to commissions of arbitration, see Dion. Hal. ii, 11, 1: καὶ πολλάκις ἣ βονλὴ τὰ έκ τούτων ἀμφισβητήματά τών πόλεων καί έθνών έπὶ τοὺς προἵσταμένονς αύτών άποστέλλονσα, τὰ ύπʹ έκείνων δικασθέντα κύρια ήγείτο.Appian, , Bell. civ. 2, 4, 14Google Scholar: άπάσαις πόλεσιν ἒοτι τις έν ʹΡώμῃ προστάτης. Cf. Livy ix, 20, 10: ‘Antiatibus … dati ab senatu ad iura statuenda ipsius coloniae patroni’; Cicero, , in Verr. ii, 49, 122Google Scholar. See von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats 15 f.

²¹ Polyb. loc. cit.; e.g. the rebuilding of Genua (Livy xxx, 1, 10) and Placentia and Cremona (Livy xxxiv, 22, 3); measures against a locust plague in Apulia (Livy xlii, 10, 8: ‘ad quam pestem frugum tollendam Cn. Sicinius, praetor designatus, cum imperio <in> Apuliam missus’).

²² Polyb. loc. cit.; cf. Nola (Livy xxiii, 14, 10); Neapolis (Livy xxiii, 15, 2: ‘ab ipsis Neapolitanis accitus’); Placentia and Cremona (Livy xxviii, 11, 10–1); Aquileia (Livy xliii, 1, 5–6; 17, 1), where the question ‘vellentne eam rem C. Cassio consuli mandari’ shows regard for the local administration of Aquileia. That consent was necessary appears also from Livy xxxii, 2, 5 (Gades).

²³ This follows from the connection of ἰδιώτης with διάλυσις in Polybius (loc. cit.). On arbitration, note the boundary dispute between Genua and its attributi, the Langenses Viturii, in 117 B.C. (CIL, 1², 584). On intervention by force, see the consul's action in Venetia (Livy xli, 27, 3: ‘M. Aemilio senatus negotium dedit ut Patavinorum in Venetia seditionem conprimeret, quos certamine factionum ad intestinum bellum exarsisse et ipsorum legati attulerant.’ Cf. Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1262–3Google Scholar). On personal connections, see above, n. 20.

We may note the similar procedure in the praetor's inquiry into the case of sacrilege in Locri in 200 (Livy xxxi, 12; xxxii, 1, 7–8); this followed the precedent of the case of Pleminius (Livy xxix, 8; 16–21) and may be taken as part of the settlement of his region (cf. De Sanctis, op. cit. iv, 1, 560 f.), for which the praetor held the ‘province’ of Bruttium (Livy xxxi, 8, 7; xxxii, 1, 7: ‘de coniurationibus quaestiones’).

²⁴ Livy xxxii, 26, 4–18: (4) ‘servilis prope tumultus … (7) coniurationem … (13) principibus coniurationis’; xxxiii, 36, 1–3: ‘coniuratio servorum’; cf. Diod. xxxvi, 11: τὸ πλῆθος τών οΙκετών τὸ πρὸς τὴν άπόστασιν ώρμημένον …καθόλον δʹ ἥν κἀτἀ πόλεις φνρμὸς καἰ σύγχνσις τών κατἀ νόμονς δικαίων. οί γάρ άποσάται κτλ. Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1203Google Scholar n. 2; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 121.

²⁵ Willems, , op. cit. ii, 694–6Google Scholar; Beloch, op. cit. 212; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 523Google Scholar; Frank, , op. cit. viii, 352–3Google Scholar. Note the phraseology quoted above, n. 24.

²⁶ Cf. Homo, Primitive Italy and the Beginnings of Roman Imperialism 231.

²⁷ Livy xxxix, 2, 6, 10. Beloch, op. cit. 214; Sherwin-White, , op. cit. 100, 121Google Scholar.

²⁸ Polyb. loc. cit.; note the quaestiones veneficii (Livy xxxix, 38, 3; 41, 5; xl, 37, 4–7; 43, 2; 44, 6; xlv, 16, 4; per. xlviii; cf. viii, 18). Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1208–9Google Scholar; Willems, , op. cit. ii, 698–9Google Scholar.

²⁹ The instances occur in Apulia (see Pelham, Essays on Roman History 301–2). Livy xxxix, 29, 9: ‘de pastorum coniuratione, qui vias latrociniis pascuaque publica infesta habuerant’; 41, 6: ‘magnas pastorum coniurationes’; Cicero, , Brut. 22, 85Google Scholar: ‘in silva Sila facta caedes.’ Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1208–9Google Scholar.

³⁰ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 523, 565–6Google Scholar; O'Brien Moore, op. cit. 751; Frank, , op. cit. viii, 352–3Google Scholar. Note the phraseology quoted above, n. 29.

³¹ Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1209Google Scholar n. 1 (cf. O'Brien Moore, op. cit. 751) argues that the Roman magistrates actually intervened in the allied jurisdiction: he cites Locri (Livy xxxi, 12), the Bacchic inquiry (Livy xxxix, 33, 3; 41, 6) and silva Sila (Cicero, , Brut. 22, 85Google Scholar). But Sanctis, De (op. cit. iv, 1, 565Google Scholar; cf. Gelzer, , Hermes lxxi (1936), 282–3Google Scholar) points out that, on the evidence, the consuls' inquiry into the Bacchic cult appears to have been limited to the ager Romanus (cf. Livy xxxix, 14, 7: ‘fora et conciliabula’; 18, 2), the inquiry by the praietor Naevius into poisoning charges was ‘per municipia conciliabulaque’ (Livy xxxix, 41, 5), and the inquiry by the praetor L. Postumius into coniurationes pastorum in the ‘province’ of Tarentum seems to have been on land held by Rome after the Second Punic War (Livy xxxix, 41, 6). The silva Sila could have been in the same position (cf. Willems, , op. cit. ii, 700Google Scholar). Gelzer (loc. cit.) adds that when Postumius completed the suppression of the Bacchic cult in Apulia, his measures were against citizens who had fled trial in Rome (Livy xxxix, 41, 6–7: ‘qui aut citati non adfuerant aut vades deseruerant, in ea regione Italiae latentes’; cf. xl, 19, 9–10). This covers the reference to quaestiones in Livy xxxix, 23, 3 (cf. xlv, 16, 4). The Locri case seems to have been a special one (see above, n. 23). The Bacchic inquiry is treated below, n. 116.

³² Mommsen, Röm.Strafrecht 56 f., 135 f.; Strachan-Davidson, , Problems of the Roman Criminal Law i, 102 f.Google Scholar; Jones, Stuart, CAH vii, 445 fGoogle Scholar.

³³ Cicero, , pro Caec. 34, 99Google Scholar: ‘populus … non adimit ei libertatem, sed iudicat non esse eum liberum … ipsum sibi libertatem abiudicavisse.’ Mommsen, op. cit. 256 f., 590 (but note ibid. 945, n. 1). Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 111–2Google Scholar; Last, , CAH ix, 87–8Google Scholar.

³⁴ Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht i, 687 f.Google Scholar; ii, 141 f.; iii, 1240 f. On the limitation of the dictator's powers, see Festus (p. 216 L: optima lex): ‘provocatio ab eo magistratu (sc. dictatore) ad populum data est, quae ante non erat.’ It may be connected with the lex Valeria of 300 B.C. (Mommsen, , op. cit. ii, 164–5Google Scholar; Liebenam, P-W v, s.v. ‘dictator’, 388); cf. Plaumann, , Klio xiii (1913), 358Google Scholar.

³⁵ E.g. violation of tribunician sacrosanctity, of international right or of a Vestal's honour; military desertion; evasion of military service. See Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht 43 f.; Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 13 f.Google Scholar, 19–21, 30, 110–2.

³⁸ Mommsen, op. cit. 152 f., 193 f.; Röm. Staatsrecht ii, 109 f.; iii, 1066; Willems, op. cit. 278 f.; in particular Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 225 f.Google Scholar; O'Brien Moore, op. cit. 749.

³⁷ Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 235–7Google Scholar (quoting Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht (1st ed.) i, 124Google Scholar). The cases include the corruption of the praetor Tubulus (Cicero, , de fin. ii, 16, 54Google Scholar), the rogatio Peducaea de incestu against Vestals (Asconius, in Mil. 40), and the sacrilege of Servilius Caepio at Tolosa (Strabo iv, 188; Val. Max. iv, 7, 3; Cicero, , de or. ii, 47, 197Google Scholar). Cf. Cicero, , de nat. deorum iii, 30, 74Google Scholar; Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht 197 f.

³⁸ Polybius vi, 16, 2: τάς δʹ ὁλοσχερεστάτας καἱ μεγίστας ӡητήσεις άκολουθεί τό πρόστιμον, ού δύναται συντελεῖν, ἃν μἠ συνεπικυρώση τὁ προβεβουλενμένον ὂ δἤμος Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. 1, 239–240Google Scholar; O'Brien Moore, op. cit. 749.

³⁹ On the quaestiones veneficii see above p. 15, nn. 28, 31; Mommsen, op. cit. 143 n. 2. On the silva Sila see above, nn. 29, 31. On the Bacchic inquiry see above p. 11, n. 3, and below p. 26, n. 116. Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 226 f.Google Scholar, 239.

⁴⁰ Herzog (Geschichte und System der röm. Staatsverfassung i, 963) speaks of ‘Fälle von komplottartig auftretenden, gemeinen Verbrechen, welche durch ihre weite Verzweigung einen politischen Charakter annahmen’, and sums up the process as ‘ein doppeltes ausserordentliches Verfahren, die Anwendung der Oberhoheit über die Bundesgenossen und die Aufhebung der Volksgerichtsbarkeit in Rom’. Compare Mommsen on the existence in both cases of ‘ausserordentliche Gefährdung der öffentlichen Sicherheit, namentlich bei weit sich verzweigenden Verbrechen’ (Röm. Staatsrecht iii, 1066 f., 1208 f.).

⁴¹ Mommsen, , op. cit. ii, 148 f.Google Scholar; iii, 1218–9, 1240; Sanctis, De, op. cit. i, 424–5Google Scholar; O'Brien Moore, op. cit. 755.

⁴² Cf. Livy iv, 26, 7–11; 56, 8–57, 6; vii, 17, 6–71; viii, 12, 12–3; ix, 38, 9–14; per. xix; Suetonius, Tib. 2. Mommsen, , op. cit. ii, 150Google Scholar; iii, 1218 n. 1, rejects Willems' view (op. cit. ii, 240–1) that the Senate had constitutional rights by the lex de dictatore creando (Livy ii, 18, 5) in the procedure of nominating the dictator. Cicero's 'oenus ne amplius sex menses, si senatus creverit, idem iuris quod duo consules teneto’ (de leg. iii, 3, 9) in its context does not affect the question.

⁴³ Mommsen, , op. cit. ii, 169 f.Google Scholar; iii, 1240; Liebenam, op. cit. 387–8; Plaumann, op. cit. 353–5.

⁴⁴ Cf. Plaumann, ibid. 349 f., on the connection between the dictatorship and the s.c. ultimum: on the intermediate place of our special commissions, see Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 339 f.Google Scholar, and Moore, O'Brien, op. cit. 749, 755–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ See above, n, 34.

⁴⁶ Frank, , op. cit. viii, 359Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ S.c. de re publica defendenda. On this further development, which lies outside the scope of this paper, see Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 1241 f.Google Scholar; Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 239Google Scholar f.; Plaumann, op. cit. 359 f.; Moore, O'Brien, op. cit. 749, 755 f.Google Scholar (with references and bibliography); Frank, , CAH viii, 359Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Livy xxxi, 5–8. Sanctis, De, Atene e Roma (NS), 1 (1920), 3 f.Google Scholar, 73 f.; Storia dei Romani iv, 1, 407 f., 441 f.; Schulten, , CAH viii, 307 f.Google Scholar; Frank, ibid. 326 f., 334 f., and Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 1, 98 f.; McDonald, , CHJ vi, 2 (1939), 125Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 21 f.Google Scholar; Holleaux, Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques 306 f.; CAH viii, 149 f.; Carcopino, L'impérialisme romain 43 f.; Griffith, , CHJ v, 1 (1935), 1 f.Google Scholar; McDonald, and Walbank, , JRS xxvii (1937), 180 f.Google Scholar; McDonald, ibid. xxviii (1938), 153 f.; Magie, ibid. xxix (1939), 32 f.; Walbank, Philip V of Macedon 112 f., 127 f.; cf. Petzold, Die Eröffnung des zweiten röm.-maked. Krieges.

⁵⁰ Liyy xxxi, 2, 5–11; 10, 1–11, 3. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 412Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Livy xxxi, 6, 3–8, I. McDonald and Walbank, op. cit. 192 f., 197.

⁵² Mattingly and Robinson, op. cit. 13 f.

⁵³ Livy xxxi, 4, 1–3, 6; 8, 11; 13, 2–9; 49, 5; 50, 1; xxxii, 1, 6–8.

⁵⁴ Cf. Appian, , Bell.civ. 1, 7, 28 f.Google Scholar: τἡν δἐ άργὁν έκ τοῦ πολέμον τότε οὖσαν, ἥ δἡ καῚ μάλιστα έπλήθυεν, ούκ ἂγοντές πω σχολἡν διαλαχεῖν, έπεκήρνττον έν τοοὦδε τοἴς έθέλουσιν έκπονείν έπὶ τέλει τών ʹΙταλικού γέυους. Frank, , CAH viii, 335–6Google Scholar; Econ. Survey I, III f. The agitation of the allies against the agrarian legislation of Tiberius Gracchus presupposes some land held by individuals of the allied communities (Last, CAH ix, 17–8, 40–1).

⁵⁵ Cf. Frank, , CAH viii, 341–2Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Cf. Livy xxviii, 45, 14 f. Frank, , Econ. Survey I, 104–5Google Scholar, 175 f., 179 f.

⁵⁷ Frank, ibid. 175; cf. in general Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire 15 f.

⁵⁸ Livy xxxi, 4, 1–3; 49, 4–5; xxxii, 1, 6; 7, 1–3; xxxiii, 47, 4; xxxiv, 43–5; 48, 1. McDonald, op. cit. 153 f., against Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 27 f.Google Scholar, 576–8 (cf. Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 196–200Google Scholar), and Carcopino, op. cit. 58 f.

⁵⁹ McDonald, op. cit. 162 f. Cf. Livy xxxvii, 57; xxxix, 40–1; Gelzer, Die Nobilität der röm. Republik 104 f.; Münzer, Röm. Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien 193–4; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, I, 586 f.Google Scholar; Schur, Scipio Africanus 89–90.

⁶⁰ Holleaux, Rome la Grèce 306 f.; CAH viii, 158 f.; McDonald and Walbank, op. cit. 202 f., 207; McDonald, op. cit. 154; cf. Täubler, , Imperium Romanum I, 228 f.Google Scholar, 432 f.; Heuss, Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der röm. Aussenpolitik (Klio, Beiheft xxxi (1933)), 83 f.; Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus (Klio, Beiheft xxxix (1937)) 216 f.; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 150.

⁶¹ Livy xxxi, 29, 6–11; 31, 5–15 (based on Polybius: Nissen, Krit. Untersuchungen über die Quellen der 4 und 5 Dekade des Livius 126–7). On the Macedonian interest in the Italian policy of Rome, see Philip V's letter to Larissa (SIG ³ 543); on the Senate's justification of Roman policy, see Gelzer on the first senatorial histories (Hermes lxviii (1933), 129 f.Google Scholar), and below pp. 26, 29, nn. 118, 143.

⁶² Herzog, , op. cit. i, 1081 f.Google Scholar; Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht 31 n. 3, 47 n. 3; Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. I, 109 f.Google Scholar, 125–6; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 530–1Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 145–6Google Scholar.

⁶³ Livy x, 9, 4–5: ‘Porcia tamen lex sola protergo civium lata videtur, quod gravi poena, si quis verberasset necassetve civem Romanum, sanxit; Valeria lex cum eum qui provocasset virgis caedi securique necari vetuisset, si quis adversus ea fecisset, nihil ultra quam “improbe factum” adiecit.’ See Mommsen, op. cit. 632–3; Strachan-Dayidson, op. cit. 144; Jones, Stuart, CAH vii, 447–8Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Cicero, , de re pub. ii, 31, 54Google Scholar: ‘neque vero leges Porciae, quae tres sunt trium Porciorum, ut scitis, quicquam praeter sanctionem attulerunt novi.’

⁶⁵ Malcovati, Or. Rom. frag. i, ‘Cato,’ xxvi, fr. 127 reading profui for MS profuit; cf. Festas, p. 266, 29 L: ‘pro scapulis cum dlcit Cato, significat pro iniuria verberum; nam complures leges erant in cives rogatae, quibus sanciebatur poena verberum.’ Mommsen, op. cit. 47 n. 3. This is scourging (virgis caedi) as a punishment in itself, as distinct from the scourging which preceded execution (virgis caedi securique necari; cf. Mommsen, ibid. 42 n. 1).

⁶⁶ Livy xxxii, 27, 4; Plutarch, Cato maior 6. Drumann-Groebe, , Geschichte Roms v, 100Google Scholar, 107 n. 6; Janzer, Hist. Untersuchungen zu den Redenfragmenten des M. Porcius Cato 49. Note in general Cicero, , pro Rab. perd. reo 3, 8Google Scholar; Sallust, , Cat. 51, 21–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Mattingly, Roman Coins pl. xvii, 18; Livy xxxii, 7, 4; xxxiii, 42, 7. Mommsen, op. cit. 31 n. 3; against the views of Greenidge, CR ix (1897), 437 f.Google Scholar, and Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 118Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Cf. Cicero, , pro Rab. perd. reo 4, 12Google Scholar; in Verr. v, 63, 163; Gellius, , NA x, 3, 1Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ See Strachan-Davidson, , op. cit. i, 125–6Google Scholar; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 530–1Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 145Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See below p. 24, n. 98.

⁷¹ The right of appeal against scourging has been attributed to Cato's law (Mommsen, op. cit. 31 n. 3, 47 n. 3; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 530, 564Google Scholar; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 146Google Scholar): the assumption is that Cato's measure pro scapulis covered soldiers; but Cato's claim need only refer to private citizens. The right of appeal in capital cases has been associated with the name of L. Porcius Licinus, consul in 184 (Livy xxxix, 32, 13), on the grounds that no other suitable Porcius appears in the century; but this argument has little weight in a period so badly documented after 167 B.C. (cf. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 531Google Scholar n. 107; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 146Google Scholar). Note Herzog, , op. cit. i, 1087Google Scholar.

⁷² Appeal against scourging is recorded in 134 (Livy, per. lvii; Pliny, , NH 14, 19Google Scholar; Plutarch, C. Gracchus 9) and against capital punishment in 168 (Sallust, Bell. Iug. 69). As far as direct evidence goes, then, the third lex Porcia can be dated between 198 and 134. Cicero's ‘militiae ab eo qui imperabit provocatio nee esto’ (de leg. iii, 3, 6) in its context does not affect the question.

On the conditions of the Spanish War see Schulten, , Numantia i, 272Google Scholar; McDonald, , CHJ vi, 2 (1939), 142Google Scholar.

⁷³ Polyb. vi, 37. ξυλοκοπία (fustuarium) would not have continued after the third lex Porcia. On the contemporary character of Book vi of Polybius in many of its constitutional and political elements, see above, n. 11, and on the military aspects note Kromayer and Veith, Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer 332 f.

⁷⁴ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 111 f.Google Scholar, 414, 445 f.; Holleaux, , CAH viii, 193 f.Google Scholar; Frank, ibid. 327; Schulten, ibid. 312–3.

⁷⁵ On Gaul and Spain see Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, I, 414–5, 454 fGoogle Scholar. On the diplomatic struggle between Rome and Antiochus, see De Sanctis, ibid. 122 f.; Holleaux, , CAH viii, 199 f.Google Scholar; Bickermann, , Hermes lxvii (1932), 47 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Livy xxxiii, 42, 2–4: ‘pecunia opus erat, quod ultimam pensionem pecuniae in bellum collatae persolvi placuerat privatis.’

⁷⁷ Livy xxxiii, 42, 8; xxxiv, 1, 5: ‘florente republica, crescente in dies privata omnium fortuna’; 52, 4–12. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 112Google Scholar; Frank, , Econ. Survey 1, 131Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Livy xxxi, 13, 6: ‘agros volgo venales esse’ (see above, n. 53); Livy xxxiii, 42, 10; xxxv, 10, 11–2.

⁷⁹ Livy xxxv, 7, 1–5: ‘civitas faenore laborabat … via fraudis inita erat ut in socios, qui non tenerentur iis (sc. faenebribus) legibus, nomina transcriberent; … M. Sempronius tribunus plebis ex auctoritate patrum plebem rogavit plebesque scivit ut cum sociis ac nomine Latino creditae pecuniae ius idem quod cum civibus Romanis esset’; 41, 9.

⁸⁰ Livy xxxiv, 56, 5–6: ‘pro numero cuiusque iuniorum.’

⁸¹ Cf. Livy xxxix, 3, 4–5; xli, 8, 9–12; see above, nn. 6, 7. Frank (CAH viii, 355, 374: ‘illegally registered Latins in 187’) argues that all Latin migration had already become subject to the provision that a son should be left behind and that fraudulent evasion of this law justified the expulsion of Latins from Rome in 187, as later in 177 (cf. Salmon, op. cit. 57: the Latins who in 187 had no right to be in Rome'). But, in the absence of any reference to this we have rather to conclude that the Senate in 187 used emergency powers (see Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht iii, 1066–7Google Scholar, 1201; Willems, , op. cit. ii, 693Google Scholar; and above, n. 12) to meet the shortage of man-power in the Latin cities, for the sake of the mobilisation arrangements, and for the same reason soon after 187 imposed the universal restriction of leaving a son behind (Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, i, 569–70Google Scholar: ‘un atto d'impero che non si poteva ripetere ogni giorno’; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 139–40Google Scholar). See further below, p. 23, n. 92.

⁸² See above, n. 57.

⁸³ Cf. Momigliano, , JRS xxxi (1941), 161Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Cf. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 569Google Scholar: ‘il naturale richiamo della grande città fu accresciuto dal desiderio di acquistare i vantaggi inerenti alla cittadinanza.’

⁸⁵ Note the similar movement into the cities in South Latium and Campania, illustrated in the complaints of the Samnites and Paeligni at their loss of men to Fregellae (Livy xli, 8, 8): the reason was doubtless the leading place of Fregellae in the development of this region. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 570Google Scholar; McDonald, op. cit. 132; see below p. 23, n. 94.

⁸⁶ Livy xxxv, 7, 4–5; see above, n. 79. Note Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 564Google Scholar; Frank, , op. cit. viii, 353Google Scholar; the implications, however, are not to be exaggerated (Sherwin-White, op. cit. 102).

⁸⁷ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 141 f.Google Scholar, 211 f., 217 f., 415, 418–9, 456–8; Holleaux, , CAH viii, 199 f.Google Scholar; Frank, ibid. 327 f.

⁸⁸ Livy xxxix, 3, 4–6. Note the discussion above, nn. 6, 81, and below, nn. 90, 92.

⁸⁹ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, i, 569Google Scholar: ‘grave violazione dei patti antichissimi conclusi coi Latini e più grave offesa al diritto e agli interessi di quanti fidando in quei patti s'erano stabiliti in Roma.’ Against Frank, , op. cit. viii, 355Google Scholar, see above, n. 81.

⁹⁰ Note the wording of Livy xxxix, 3, 4, which indicates the initiative of the Latins: ‘legatis deinde sociorum Latini nominis, qui toto undique ex Latio frequentes convenefant, senatus datus est. his querentibus magnam multitudinem civium suorum Romam commigrasse et ibi censos esse'; also Livy xli, 8, 6–7, where both the initiative of the Latins and the military aspect of the case are indicated: ‘moverunt senatum et legationes socium nominis Latini … summa querellarum erat cives suos Roma e censos plerosque Romam commigrasse; quod si permittatur, perpaucis lustris futurum ut deserta oppida, deserti agri nullum militem dare possint.’ On this point note Frank, ibid. 355–6; Salmon, op. cit. 56.

⁹¹ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 560 f.Google Scholar, 569; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 139Google Scholar; but see Frank, , op. cit. viii, 353 fGoogle Scholar.

⁹² See above, nn. 6, 81, 88. In 177 the Latin authorities complained that migration was going on in a fraudulent manner (Livy xli, 8, 9–12): ‘lex sociis [ac] nominis Latini qui stirpem ex sese domi relinquerent dabat ut cives Romani fierent. ea lege male utendo alii sociis, alii populo Romano iniuriam faciebant.’ This was done at first by men with sons, selling them to Roman citizens as slaves in return for a promise of manumission, so that, having been formally left behind, their sons might then acquire Roman citizenship as freedmen. Men who had no sons adopted boys in their own community, to leave behind, thus fulfilling the law but reducing the level of population when they departed themselves. Later there was open evasion of the law, presumably under lax administration. (Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 570Google Scholar; cf. Mommsen, , op. cit. iii, 630Google Scholar n. 1).

To judge from the account of Livy, these charges of fraudulent evasion of the law to leave a son behind covered the Latin migration to Rome as a whole: migration can scarcely have come only from the colonies founded after 265, particularly as the attraction of Rome would mainly affect the older colonies of Latium. We have held (see above, n. 81) that there is no reason to assume the universal restriction in the situation of 187. We may therefore conclude that between 187 and 177, probably shortly after 187, there was a general restriction of the ius migrandi, making migration from all Latin colonies now dependent upon leaving a son behind to maintain the level of population in the community for purposes of mobilisation (cf. Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 140Google Scholar, who suggest 184 as the date, in the censorship of Cato; but the evidence scarcely allows this precision). With the increasing growth of Rome, however, there was every reason to administer the law laxly, until military needs again called for drastic measures (Livy xli, 9, 9–12; xlii, 10, 3; De Sanctis, loc. cit.; McDonald, op. cit. 132).

⁹³ Livy xxxviii, 28, 4; 36, 5–6. On the position of the Campanians, see Sanctis, De, op. cit. iii, 2, 342 f.Google Scholar; iv, 1, 588.

⁹⁴ Livy xxxviii, 36, 7–9. Frank, , op. cit. viii, 346–8Google Scholar. Compare the request of Cumae in 180 for permission to use Latin as the official speech (Livy xl, 42, 13), as part of the same development. See above, n. 85.

⁹⁵ Livy xxxix, 7, 5: ‘senatus consultum factum est ut ex pecunia quae in triumpho translata esset stipendium collatum a populo in publicum, quod eius solutum antea non esset, solveretur, vicenos quinos et semisses in milia aeris quaestores urbani cum fide et cura solverunt.’ Mattingly and Robinson, op. cit. 18 f.; McDonald, op. cit. 129–30.

⁹⁶ Mattingly, , JRS xix (1929), 19 fGoogle Scholar.; Mattingly and Robinson, op. cit. 4f., 19 f.; CR xlvii (1933), 52 f.Google Scholar; AJP lvi (1935), 225 fGoogle Scholar. (against Frank, ibid. liv (1933), 368–72; Beare, , CR xlviii (1934), 123–4Google Scholar); Num. Chron. xviii (1938), 30 fGoogle Scholar. Against Milne, , JRS xxiv (1934), 61–3Google Scholar; xxviii (1938), 70 f.; and Giesecke, Antikes Geldwesen 156 f. No one not a numismatist would venture to judge between the elaborate numismatic argumentation of Mattingly and Robinson and that of Giesecke; but Milne's use of Livy needs to be more critical. Livy gives annalistic figures and phraseology which, even where they are substantially correct, may be taken to represent only the redaction of the records in the annales maximi (Gelzer, , Hermes lxix (1934), 50–1Google Scholar; Altheim, , Epochen der röm. Geschichte ii, 311–3Google Scholar), passing also through a stage of elaboration at the hands of Sullan historians (cf. Gelzer, , Hermes lxx (1935), 269 fGoogle Scholar.; lxxi (1936), 275 f.; Mattingly, , JRS xxvii (1937), 106Google Scholar). Milne himself has handled Livy critically on the ‘Philippus’ coin (JRS xxx (1940), 10 f.Google Scholar): there is equal need for his in the Livian lists of spoil from Cisalpine Gaul and Spain in 200–190 B.C.

⁹⁷ Cf. Pliny, , NH xxxiii, 10, 138Google Scholar: ‘populus Romanus stipem spargere coepit Sp. Postumio Q. Marcio cos. (186 B.C.), tanta abundantia pecuniae erat ut eam conferret L. Scipioni, ex qua is ludos fecit’ (cf. Livy xxxix, 22, 8). Mattingly and Robinson, op. cit. 21; see Frank, , CAH viii, 345–6Google Scholar; Econ. Survey I, 125 f. (cf. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iii, 2, 623 f.Google Scholar).

⁹⁸ Livy xxxi, 6, 3–8, 1; xxxiii, 3, 2–7; xxxiv, 56, 9; Malcovati, op. cit. I, ‘Cato’ I, fr. 20–1.

⁹⁹ Livy xxxvii, 32, 11–4; xxxviii, 23, 4; 44, 9–50, 3; xxxix, 6, 3–7, 5 (cf. Nissen, op. cit. 211–2). McDonald, , JRS xxviii (1938), 162Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Study of Scipio now begins with Sanctis, De, op. cit. iii, 2, 452 f.Google Scholar; iv, 1, 25 f., 576 f. The statement of Scipio's policy here is based on McDonald, op. cit. 159–60 (with references). Following Holleaux in his analysis of Roman policy in Greece (see above, nn. 49, 59) we may reject De Sanctis' view of Scipio's decisive influence on the Roman policy in 200, but this does not affect his picture of Scipio's own ideas, which he was prevented from carrying out: see McDonald, ibid. 153 f. Frank (Roman Imperialism 149 f.; CAH viii, 368 f.) and Haywood (Scipio Africanus 59 f.) exaggerate the effect of philhellenism in foreign policy amongst a nobility accepting Greek culture but preserving their old political principles (Sanctis, De, Riv. fil. (NS) xiv (1936), 196 f.Google Scholar; McDonald, op. cit. 162 n. 81; cf. Schur, Scipio Africanus 69 f.).

¹⁰¹ Holleaux, , CAH viii, 157 fGoogle Scholar., 168–9, 193 f.; McDonald, op. cit. 154–5.

¹⁰² Frank, Roman Imperialism 171–2; Holleaux, op. cit. 200; McDonald, op. cit. 157–8; cf. Bickermann, op. cit. 71 f.

¹⁰³ Livy xxxiv, 42, 3; 43, 4–5; 43, 9. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 578Google Scholar; McDonald, op. cit. 156.

¹⁰⁴ Livy xxxv, 14, 5–12; Appian, Syr. 10–1; Plutarch, Titus 20–1; Zonaras ix, 18. For a full discussion see Holleaux, , Hermes xlviii (1913), 75 f.Google Scholar, and for the present view, McDonald, op. cit. 158 n. 52.

¹⁰⁵ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 582 f.Google Scholar; Schur, op. cit. 83 f; McDonald, op. cit. 158–9.

¹⁰⁶ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 217 fGoogle Scholar., 583; Schur, op. cit. 88–9; McDonald, op. cit. 161; cf. Holleaux, op. cit. 233–4.

¹⁰⁷ On the populi liberi and foederati and the effect of the clientela idea, see now Sherwin-White, op. cit. 149 f. (discussing Henze, De civitatibus liberis; Täubler, Imperium Romanum; Horn, Foederati) with references. Sherwin-White writes (ibid. 162): ‘the doctrine … had been worked out in the unification of Italy … it is the existence of this conception of clientship that made it possible for Rome to combine increasing interference in the affairs of her liberi and foederati, with the continual recognition of their position outside the Roman state.’ Cf. Heuss, , Klio, Beiheft xxxi (1933), 53 f.Google Scholar, and above pp. 14, 18, nn. 20, 60.

¹⁰⁸ See Mommsen, , Röm. Forschungen ii, 417 f.Google Scholar; Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 591 f.Google Scholar; Haywood, op. cit. 86 f.; McDonald, op. cit. 163 (with references); cf. Frank, , AJP liii (1932), 152 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 566 f.Google Scholar, 573 f.; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 144 f.Google Scholar; McDonald, , CHJ vi, 2 (1939), 133 fGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Malcovati, op. cit. i, ‘Cato,’ iii, fr. 23–57; vi–vii, fr. 61–6; xi, fr. 84; Livy xxxvii, 57, 13–5. Janzer, op. cit. 6 f., 18 f., 27 f.; McDonald, , JRS xxviii (1938), 162Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Livy xxxix, 3, 1–3; Diod. xxix, 14. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 417Google Scholar.

¹¹² Livy xxxviii, 43, 1–44, 6; 44, 9–46, 15; xxxix, 4, 1–5, 6; Appian, Syr. 43. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, I, 547Google Scholar; Janzer, op. cit. 58 f.; McDonald, op. cit. 162, nn. 84, 85.

¹¹³ See above, n. 108.

¹¹⁴ On the general position of the Senate see Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, I, 518 f.Google Scholar; Hallward, , CAH viii, 109 fGoogle Scholar. On the senatorial groups see Münzer, op. cit. ch. 4; Schur, op. cit. 131 f.; McDonald, op. cit. 162 f.

¹¹⁵ Note above pp. 15, 16, nn. 30, 31, 40. Sherwin-White, op. cit. 99 f.

¹¹⁶ Livy xxxix, 8–19; CIL 1², 581. See in general Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, I, 565–6Google Scholar; Frank, , CQ xxi (1927), 128 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; CAH viii, 351–2; Bloch, and Carcopino, , op. cit. ii, 51–2Google Scholar; Altheim, History of Roman Religion 293–4, 314 f.; in particular Fraenkel, , Hermes lxvii (1932), 369 fGoogle Scholar. (cf. Sanctis, De, Riv. fil. (NS) xi (1933), 124 f.Google Scholar); Keil, , Hermes lxviii (1933), 306 f.Google Scholar; Krause, ibid. lxxi (1936), 214 f.; Gelzer, ibid. lxxi (1936), 275 f.; Accame, , Riv. fil. (NS) xvi (1938), 225 fGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Livy xxxix, 8–9. Altheim, op. cit. 293–4.

¹¹⁸ Livy xxxix, 9–14. Altheim, ibid. 523 n. 34; cf. Fraenkel, op. cit. 388. In his discussion of the Bacchanalia, Gelzer (op. cit. 275 f.), who has argued for the discursive Hellenistic character of the first senatorial histories (Hermes lxviii (1933), 129Google Scholar; lxix (1934), 46 f.) ignores this in attributing all literary elaboration to the Sullan annalists (cf. ibid. lxx (1935), 270–2). Altheim, (Epochen der röm. Geschichte ii, 305 f.Google Scholar), comparing the letters of Scipio Africanus to Philip V (Polyb. x, 6–9) and of Scipio Nasica (Plutarch, Aem. Paul. 15–6), recognises that the senatorial historians could have written with authentic detail in vivid descriptive fashion. Cicero criticises the first Roman historiography (de or. ii, 51–4; de leg. i, 5–6) for its failure to follow the Isocratean methods of elaboration (Gelzer, , Hermes lxix (1934), 46 f.Google Scholar); but, if they did not write as exornatores rerum, they could still give vivid detail as narratores. Thus, while the Sullan annalists may have elaborated the tradition on legalistic and rhetorical lines (cf. Gelzer above) and Livy have added his own literary polish (Burck, Die Erzählungskunst des T. Livius 234 f.; see below p. 28, n. 130), it could still have come to them in some detail from the historical tradition of the senatorial writers. See below p. 29, n. 143.

We know of a speech by Cato de coniuratione, which may be connected with the ‘Bacchanalian conspiracy’ (Malcovati, op. cit. I, 35; ‘Cato,’ xiii, fr. 86; Janzer, op. cit. 35); but the Livian account appears closer to the Hellenistic style of the senatorial historians than to the speeches of Cato (against Frank, , CAH viii, 351Google Scholar).

¹¹⁹ Carcopino, La Basilique pythagoricienne, 179–80, 185; Frank, , CQ xxi (1927), 128–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 293.

¹²⁰ See the full discussion by Altheim, op. cit. 286–308.

¹²¹ Livy xxvii, 16, 7: ‘milia triginta servilium capitum dicuntur capta’ (Sanctis, De, op. cit. iii, 2, 638Google Scholar); Frank, op. cit. 129–30.

¹²² Cf. Livy xxv, 1, 6–8 (213 B.C.): ‘tanta religio, et ea magna ex parte externa, civitatem incessit ut aut homines aut dei repente alii viderentur facti … sacrificuli ac vates ceperant hominum mentes; quorum numerum auxit rustica plebs, ex incultis diutino bello infestisque agris egestate et metu in urbem conpulsa.’ The same conditions could have appeared also in the social unsettlement and movement to the cities after the Second Punic War. Frank, ibid. 131; Altheim, op. cit. 313.

¹²³ Frank, op. cit. 131.

¹²⁴ Livy xxxix, 8, 7–8; 13, 5–6; 18, 4. Reitzenstein, Hellenist. Mysterienreligionen (3rd ed.), 101 f., 116 f., 102; Angus, Mystery-Religions and Christianity 78 f.; Altheim, op. cit. 316.

¹²⁵ Livy xxxix, 16, 8: ‘vaticinos libros conquirerent comburerentque’; 18, 3: ‘ex carmine sacro, praeeunte verba sacerdote, precationes fecerant’ (cf. xxv, 1, 12). Reitzenstein, op. cit. 103 n. 2; Rostovtzeff, Mystic Italy 47, 137–8, 165; Altheim, op. cit. 316. Compare the account in Livy (xl, 29) of the finding of the ‘books of Numa’ (see Carcopino, op. cit. 185; Frank, op. cit. 132), and the reference to the ἱερὸς λόγος in. the edict of Ptolemy IV Philopator for the regulation of the cult of Dionysus in Egypt (Cichorius, Röm. Studien 21–2; Nock, , CR xxxviii (1924), 105–6Google Scholar).

¹²⁶ See the discussion in Frank, op. cit. 128–9; Altheim, op. cit. 309 f. Commenting on the edict of Ptolemy IV (see above, n. 125), Reitzenstein points out the parallelism with the s.c. de Bacchanalibus (Archiv für Religionswissenshaft xix (1918), 192 f.Google Scholar), and Cichorius (op. cit. 22–4), accepting the late tradition about M. Aemilius Lepidus' stay in Egypt as tutor of Philopator's children (Tacitus, Ann. ii, 67; Justin xxx, 3, 4; cf. Mattingly, Roman Coins 76), argues that Lepidus' knowledge of the Ptolemaic regulations influenced the form of the Roman decree, But, while Lepidus was in Egypt in 200B.C, he was there as a member of the Roman embassy which went out to deliver the ultimatum and declaration of war to Philip V of Macedon and to mediate between Antiochus the Great and Ptolemy Epiphanes (Polyb. xvi, 27, 5): he may have begun friendly relations with the Ptolemaic dynasty, but will scarcely have stayed as tutor of the children (McDonald, and Walbank, , JRS xxvii (1937), 205Google Scholar). The tradition, therefore, cannot be accepted in this form (cf. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers 27–9): Lepidus may have known Egyptian conditions, but scarcely to the extent that Cichorius suggests. The parallelism may be attributed to the similar measures required by the conditions of the same cult (cf. Frank, op. cit. 128 n. 3; Fraenkel, op. cit. 386 n. 1).

¹²⁷ See above, nn. 30, 31, 39, 40, and especially n. 124 (with references). Note Livy xxxix, 8, 3: ‘quaestio de clandestinis coniurationibus’; 13, 13; 14, 4; 14, 6; ‘de Bacchanalibus sacrisque nocturnis’; 14, 8; 15, 10; 16, 5; 17, 6: ‘capita coniurationis.’ Mpmmsen, Röm. Strafrecht 579, 875–6; cf. Kornemann, P-W iv, s.v. ‘collegium’, 405.

¹²⁸ Altheim, op. cit. 300 f., 314.

¹²⁹ Altheim, ibid. 447–8.

¹³⁰ Livy xxxix, 15–6 (cf. Ullmann, La technique des discours dans Salluste, Tite Live et Tacite 164–5). See above, nn. 118, 124 (especially Reitzenstein and Altheim), and below p. 29, n. 143.

¹³¹ Cf. the arguments of Scipio Nasica (Gelzer, , Philol. lxxxvi (1931), 285 f.Google Scholar) when he prevented the building of a theatre in Rome in 151 (Livy, per. xlviii: ‘tamquam inutile et nociturum publicis moribus’) and opposed the destruction of Carthage (Diod. xxxiv, 33, 5: σωομένης μἑν τῆς Καρχηδόνος ό άπὁ ταύτης φόβος ἡνάγκαεν όμονοεῑν τοὑς Ῥωμαίους καἱ τών ὑποτεταγμένων έπιεικώς καὶ ένδόξως άρχειν, ὦν ούδέν κάλλιόν έστι πρὁς ἡγεμονίας διαμονήν τε καἱ αὕξησιν. Altheim, op. cit. 290–1, 316–7.

¹³² Livy xxxix, 14, 3–8. Accame, op. cit. 226–7.

¹³³ Livy xxxix, 17, 1–18, 6.

¹³⁴ Gelzer (op. cit. 280 f.) rejects Livy's description of the successive measures as a piece of legalistic elaboration by the Sullan annalists; but this is to forget the emergency character of the first measures before the complete and definitive settlement, which is represented, in its form concerning the allies, in the s.c. de Bacchanalibus (Accame, op. cit. 226). See the analysis of Livy's narrative by Fraenkel (op. cit. 379–88), Krause (op. cit. 215–6), and Accame (loc. cit.).

¹³⁵ Livy xxxix, 18, 7. This is to be taken as a decree of the Senate (Fraenkel, op. cit. 381; Accame, op. cit. 233).

¹³⁶ Livy xxxix, 18, 8–9 (cf. Val. Max. i, 3, 1; vi, 3, 7; Cicero, , de leg. ii, 15, 37Google Scholar). The consular commission to destroy Bacchic shrines and this decree for the regulation of the cult are associated in the definitive settlement of the problem (see Fraenkel, op. cit. 381–3, 385–6; cf. Gelzer, op. cit. 280; Accame, op. cit. 227 I against Krause, op. cit. 216).

¹³⁷ The opening of the inscription is regular enough: see Keil, op. cit. 307; Gelzer, op. cit. 278–80; against Fraenkel, op. cit. 389–91; cf. CIL 1², 581 (note); Accame, op. cit. 225. On the distinction between main proclamation and postscript, see CIL loc. cit., ILS 18 (note); Fraenkel, op. cit. 373 f.; Keil, op. cit. 307 f.; Krause, op. cit. 216 f.; Accame, , op. cit. 225, 234Google Scholar. For comparison with the edict of Ptolemy IV, see Reitzenstein and Cichorius, quoted above p. 27, n. 126.

¹³⁸ The inscription emits ‘neve in urbid’ (or ‘neve Romai’), but the context demands this sense (cf. Livy xxxviii, 18, 8). The omission is presumably due to the fact that die inscription is addressed to the Italian allies, who were not concerned with the state of affairs in Rome (Fraenkel, , op. cit. 380, 394Google Scholar n. 1; Accame, op. cit. 226).

¹³⁹ ll. 3–22. For full analysis see Fraenkel, op. cit. 369–372. The closing phrase ‘utei suprad scriptum est’ may be harsh (Fraenkel, ibid. 372–3), but it is perfectly intelligible after the previous careful directions about application for special permission (Accame, op. cit. 231).

¹⁴⁰ Fraenkel, op. cit. 372 (cf. Meillet, Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue latine 120: ‘on observe ici un usage linguistique fixé, mené à maturité grâce à un emploi prolongé dans la langue officielle’).

¹⁴¹ See above, nn. 138, 139.

¹⁴² 8–9. Fraenkel, ibid. 372–3, 396 n. 1; Keil, op. cit. 307 n. 4; Accame, op. cit. 231.

¹⁴³ Cf. Livy xxxix, 14, 8–9 (Fraenkel, op. cit. 381 f.; Krause, op. cit. 317–8). Accame (op. cit. 227–8, 233) has an appreciation of the political rather than religious emphasis of Livy's source at this point. After our examination of Livy's narrative, then, we may accept the main lines of the account. We have to maintain a critical attitude (cf. Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 599Google Scholar n. 280, comparing the anointers' of Milan; Accame, op. cit. 232), but after Gelzer's work we may believe that the senatorial historians of the time gave circumstantial descriptions (see above, n. 118). Note that Aebutius and Fecenia are referred to as witnesses (14, 6) and details of rewards to them are recorded (19, 3–7) in the formal part of the narrative, the accuracy of which where it coincides with the s.c. de Bacchanalibus has been proved; this supports the evidence of our analysis for genuine elements in the description of the Bacchic cult. The basis for systematic criticism of the senatorial tradition is given by Gelzer, , Hermes lxviii (1933), 129 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ For parallels see Fraenkel, op. cit. 389–91, without accepting his view that it must necessarily have opened the consuls' letter (see above, n. 137); also Gelzer, , Hermes lxxi (1936), 270–80Google Scholar. It is part of the official jargon in which the postscript is expressed (cf. below, n. 146). The phrase, as my colleague Mr. G. P. Shipp has pointed out to me, has arisen from the special use of ‘sciens’ meaning knowledge of the implications of any act: cf. CIL 1², 366: ‘seiquis violasit, love bovid piaclum datod; seiquis scies violasit dolo malo, Iovei bovid piaclum datod et a. CCC moltai suntod.’

¹⁴⁵ See Fraenkel, op. cit. 378; Accame, op. cit. 231

¹⁴⁶ On the relation of ‘sententia ita fuit’ to the introductory clause, see Fraenkel, op. cit. 373. The words ‘senatuosque sententiam’, ‘eorum sententia’ and ‘censuere’ all refer to this decree defining the penalty for violation of the regulations (Keil, op. cit. 310 against Fraenkel, , op. cit. 374, 394 f.Google Scholar). Fraenkel argues (ibid. 375–6, 394 f.; cf. Keil, op. cit. 218–9) that ‘sei ques esent quei arvorsum ead fecisent quam suprad scriptum est’ can only refer to past offenders now to be punished retrospectively, i.e. ‘if there should be any who had violated the above decrees’. This is difficult to accept. If the penalty is mentioned, we should expect a general statement of future penalty, certainly not an isolated reference to retrospective penalty. In any event Livy (xxxix, 18, 3–4) indicates that the first emergency measures inflicted capital punishment only upon those found guilty of crime in addition to cult celebration. But the phraseology and syntax need not be pressed to this conclusion. For the future perfect relationship in indirect speech a simple ‘sei ques … fecisent’ would have been sufficient; but the periphrasis of ‘sei ques esent quei’ represents a regular legal mode of expression for any class of persons affected by a law (cf. ll. 3–4: ‘sei ques esent quei sibei deicerent’), used here as part of the official jargon in transmitting the decree. The periphrasis ‘sei ques esent quei … fecisent’ does, in fact, give the same temporal relationship of the future perfect to ‘eeis rem caputalem faciendam censuere’ as the simpler ‘sei ques … fecisent’ (cf. Keil, op. cit. 311). This is confirmed by the syntax, also, of ‘sei ques esent quei sibei deicerent’ (ll. 3–4): with the similar form of expression if ‘deicerent’ represents the simple future relationship, ‘fecisent’ will represent the future perfect relationship which is required in the regular statement of penalty for violation of the decrees. The phrase in itself could be retrospective, but since it can equally represent the penalty attaching to the regulations for the future, and since the context requires this, it is to be accepted in this sense.

The claim that the penalty was unduly severe (Fraenkel, op. cit. 375) will not stand: the Senate laid down the regulations strictly, and the severe penalty was to prevent any recrudescence of Bacchic practices (cf. Accame, op. cit. 230).

The looseness of expression, in the postscript is seen in ‘eorum sententia’ after ‘senatuos’ (cf. Fraenkel, op. cit. 395 n. 1) and in ‘rem caputalem’, which is simply due to the abbreviation of the decree.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Accame, op. cit. 232. As Mr. Shipp has pointed out to me, syntactical argument from the sequence of tenses is not always to be pressed by itself: cf. CIL 1², 591: ‘eisque curarent … neive ustrinae … nive foci … fierent; nive stercus terra[m]ve intra ea loca fecisse coniecisseve veli[t].’

¹⁴⁸ See above, nn. 30, 31, 39, 40, 115; Accame, op. cit. 230, 232.

¹⁴⁹ On this clause, see Fraenkel, op. cit. 376–7; Accame, op. cit. 233.

¹⁵⁰ See above, n. 148. Cf. Fraenkel, op. cit. 377 n. 1.

¹⁵¹ From the point of view of formal style the instructions for publication should have been kept together along with the decree about engraving the inscription on bronze; the statement of penalty could then have followed (cf. Fraenkel, op. cit. 389; Accame, op. cit. 230, 232–3). The order is determined by the immediate associations of thought, regardless of formal style. There is an attempt, however, to link the parts together by using ‘hoce’ in the clause about the bronze tablet, where the whole inscription (represented at the beginning of the postscript by ‘haice’) is meant, and by ‘earn’ in the last clause indicating that the bronze tablet should be set up in a public place.

In connection with the parenthetical nature of the sentence, the punctuation for modern texts has received discussion (Fraenkel, op. cit. 373–4). CIL 1², 581, points it as a continuous passage. Dessau (ILS 18) prints ‘eorum sententia … faciendam censuere’ as a parenthesis. The real parenthesis, however, is rather ‘senatuosque sententiam … aiquom censuit’ (ll. 23–6), and this should be indicated in the punctuation (cf. Krause, op. cit. 219; Accame, op. cit. 232–3).

¹⁵² In the syntax of this passage we might expect in the subordinate clauses, strictly speaking, not indicatives but subjunctives, in dependence upon ‘faciatis’ (Fraenkel, op. cit. 378). But ‘faciatis utei dismota sient’, as it appears at the close of the sentence, reads practically as a single expression (equivalent to ‘dismoveatis’), and gives no feeling of subordinate dependence to the preceding clauses.

¹⁵³ Livy xxxix, 18, 7: ‘datum deinde consulibus negotium est ut omnia Bacchanalia Romae primum, deinde per totam Italiam diruerent, extra quam si qua ibi vetusta ara aut signum consecratum esset.’ Fraenkel, ibid. 392–3; Krause, op. cit. 216; Accame, op. cit. 227, 233. The clause is associated with the opening decree in the main part (l. 3: ‘neiquis eorum Bacanal habuise velet’), but this is only indirect and does not justify explaining ‘ita utei suprad scriptum est’ by reference to it (as Keil, op. cit. 308 n. 1, Accame, op. cit. 233). The phrase covers the reference to application for exemption which is necessary here (Fraenkel, op. cit. 377–8, 393 n. 1; Krause, op. cit. 219). The full sense would be: ‘except those with a consecrated object, in which case exemption will be granted, as indicated above, on permission given by the Senate in a meeting of at least a hundred senators, after application to the praetor urbanus in Rome’. It is due to the extreme compression of the postscript, foreshadowed by the elliptical usage at the close of the main section: see above pp. 29 f., nn. 139, 142, 146.

¹⁵⁴ See above p. 30, nn. 147–50.

¹⁵⁵ We may note the later measures completing the suppression of the Bacchic cult: the commissions in Apulia of L. Postumius in 184 (Livy xxxix, 41, 6–7; cf. 29, 8–9), L. Pupius in 182, and L. Duronius in 181 (Livy xl, 19, 9–10), probably in the ager Romanus; note also the quaestiones veneficii of Q. Naevius in 184 ‘per municipia conciliabulaque’ (Livy xxxix, 41, 5). See Gelzer, op. cit. 282–3, Accame, op. cit. 230, and above p. 15, n. 31.

¹⁵⁶ Keil, op. cit. 312; Gelzer, op. cit. 278 f.; Accame, op. cit. 231, 233–4; against Fraenkel, op. cit. 391 f.; Krause, op. cit. 217 f.

¹⁵⁷ See above, nn. 30, 31, 39, 40, 44, 46, 127, 130; cf. Accame, op. cit. 226–7.

¹⁵⁸ See above, nn. 36, 40, 44, 46, 132–4.

¹⁵⁹ See above, nn. 30, 31, 39, 40, 46, 114, 115, 135, 136, 139, 148, 150, 151, 155. This is to state somewhat more precisely the position as indicated by Accame, ibid. 229–30.

¹⁶⁰ See above pp. 13, 14, nn. 17–26.

¹⁶¹ See above p. 15, nn. 28–31.

¹⁶² For references, see above p. 27, nn. 124, 127.

¹⁶³ See above pp. 16 f., nn. 41–6.

¹⁶⁴ Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, 598 f.Google Scholar; Frank, , CQ xxi (1927), 131–2Google Scholar; CAH viii, 352; cf. Accame, op. cit. 229 n. 2, 231–2.

¹⁶⁵ Malcovati, , op. cit. 1, 35Google Scholar; ‘Cato,’ xiii, fr. 86 See above p. 26, n. 118.

¹⁶⁶ McDonald, , JRS xxviii (1938), 162 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶⁷ On the relation of Greek culture to senatorial politics, see McDonald, ibid. 162 n. 81; see above pp. 18, 24, nn. 59, 100.

¹⁶⁸ See above pp. 21 f., nn. 84, 85, 88–92, 98, 99; Accame, op. cit. 231–2.

¹⁶⁹ See above p. 23, nn. 93–7.

¹⁷⁰ See above p. 22, nn. 88–92.

¹⁷¹ See above p. 14, n. 26.

¹⁷² For a preliminary treatment, see McDonald, , CHJ vi, 2 (1939), 131 fGoogle Scholar.