|
Articles on Roman Government - III - Comitia
This text is provided here with cultural and educational purposes
only. The text is copyright of its owner.
This text is based on the following book(s):
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Smith, LLD.
William Wayte. G. E. Marindin. Albemarle Street, London. John Murray.
1890.
http://www.perseus.org/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999%2e04%
2e0063&query=id%3dcomitia#id,comitia
COMIT´IA
COMIT´IA assemblies of the people at Rome, for the purpose of
transacting business. They were thus distinguished, on the one hand,
from the contio (=conventio), which was a meeting summoned to listen
to an address from a magistrate, but incapable of passing any
resolution, and from the concilium, the general term for a gathering;
hence applied to meetings of sections of the people, especially the
concilium plebis, or to meetings in foreign nations, either of the
whole people or of delegates. According to the primitive conception
in the time of the kings, all power ultimately rested with the
assembly of the citizens; it was only so far as it delegated power to
the king and vowed obedience to him that this supreme authority of
the people was limited; and according to the spirit of the
constitution, every innovation in practice or change in the existing
law required the assent of the citizens. Every proposal (rogatio) had
to be laid before the people by the king himself: no one was allowed
to discuss it, but those to whom he gave permission; and the people
then gave or refused their assent. The assembly was summoned (comitia
calata) regularly twice in the year, on March 24th and May 24th, and
as often besides as seemed good to the king. They met in the curies
[CURIAE, and apparently the answer to be given to the king was
decided by the vote of the majority of the curies.
The first step towards the reform of this primitive constitution was
that which is associated with the name of Servius Tullius. The
historical circumstances of this change are veiled in the darkness
which covers the whole legendary history of the kings. But it is
clear from the facts implied that it was brought about only when the
community had outgrown its earlier limits, and when its territory
included at least that which had belonged to the neigh-bouring state
of Alba. The primary purpose of this change was to incorporate all
owners of land in the Roman territory in the ranks of the army, so
that military service should not fall, as heretofore, solely upon the
citizens. Hence all members of the state were classed according to
the property which they possessed, and this classification was made
the basis of the military organisation of the state. But by degrees
the assembly of the citizens so classified, representing, as it did,
the fighting force of the state, acquired important powers, and in
fact came to be regarded for many purposes as the representative
assembly of the citizens. It has been conjectured with much
probability, but it can hardly be said to be demonstrated (Mommsen,
Hist. i. 264), that this important change was brought about at the
time of the expulsion of the kings.
The plebeians were now admitted to a share in the popular assembly,
but with such restrictions that the power lay entirely in the hands
of the wealthier citizens (see below). The financial distress of the
poorer classes necessitated further reforms: and in B.C. 495 tribunes
of the commons were first created.
It was probably at this time that the division of the Roman territory
into four tribes (introduced by the Servian constitution) was
replaced by the creation of twenty tribes-four belonging to the city,
sixteen to the country districts; but the assembly over which the
tribunes presided still met in curies, in which the voting was by
heads--a circumstance which gave great power to the wealthier
families, inasmuch as all their clients had a right of voting. By the
Publilian law of B.C. 471 a most important change was introduced. One
more tribe, the Crustuminian--deriving its name from the place where
first the plebs by secession won the right to an independent
organisation--was added, in order to preclude the possibility of an
equality of votes; and henceforward the assemblies of the commons
were held, not by curies, but by tribes. But the basis of the tribes
was the possession of land, whether in small or large amount; none
voted but freeholders, and thus the clients were excluded, and the
assembly of the tribes became an assembly of the independent middle
classes, where there was a property qualification, but where the
large landholder had no more weight in voting than his poorer
neighbour. (Cf. Mommsen, Hist. i. 282 = Röm. Gesch.6 i. 278.)
We thus find in existence within the first half century of the Roman
republic three distinct assemblies of the people, which now call for
separate consideration in greater detail.
I. COMITIA CURIATA (ekklêsia phratrikê or phratriakê). Under the
kings, as we have seen, this was the only assembly of the people. It
was always presided over by the king in person: the statement in
Dionysius (iv. 71), apparently confirmed by Livy (i. 59), that the
tribunus celerum had this right in the absence of the king, rests
upon a complete misapprehension of the nature of this office. Under
the republic the presiding magistrate was always a consul, praetor,
or dictator (Liv. ix. 38; Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2, 11, 27). The citizens
were summoned by a lictor (Gell. xv. 27; Dionys. ii. 7). The votes
were given by curies, each citizen having one vote, and the majority
of individual votes determining the vote of the curia (Gell. 1. c.;
Liv. i. 43; Dionys. ii. 14, iv. 20, 84, v. 6). We have no means of
knowing what was done in the case of an equality of votes, a result
not impossible with an even number of curies. The votes of the curies
were all taken at the same time; but it was decided by lot in what
order the votes should be announced: that first reported was [p. 504]
called the principium (Liv. ix. 38). The meetings of the curies were
always held in the comitium.
The functions of the comitia were limited, as has been already
noticed, to giving or refusing assent to any proposal laid before
them by the presiding magistrate. In theory the power of the king was
as unlimited over all citizens as that of the father over all members
of his family. But in practice he was bound to keep within the limits
prescribed by custom, and every change in the law had to receive the
previous sanction of the assembled citizens. The most important duty
of the citizens was to vow allegiance to the head of the state.
Normally it was the privilege of a king to nominate the successor,
who was to make the solemn contract in his turn with the people. But
in the case of a king dying without having done so, the supreme power
(imperium) and right of invoking the divine protection (auspicia) of
the state reverted to the general body of the citizens. They
assembled unsummoned and named an interrex, a temporary holder of
these rights, who could lawfully convene them, for the election of a
second interrex. It was the duty of the latter then to nominate a
king, who might challenge the allegiance of the citizens. Doubtless
he would take means, by consulting the senate or even the assembled
curies, to ascertain who would be generally acceptable; but legally
nothing was necessary but a nomination by the actual holder of the
supreme power. When the citizens had assented on their part to the
formal compact (lex curiata de imperio) which bound them to
allegiance to the king thus nominated, he was formally installed as
the absolute head of the state. Livy's account (i. 17) of the
election of Numa is misleading, as suggesting that as a main feature
which was but a subordinate and unessential portion of the election,
viz. the nomination by the senate. When once the reins of government
had been transferred to the new king, the assembly of the people had
nothing further to do with the administration. An appeal to this body
from the judgment of the king was allowed as a matter of grace, but
not of right. It was the custom to consult the assembly in the case
of aggressive war, and in the extension of the franchise to those who
were not citizens ; for both of these involved a change in the
circumstances of the original contract. (Liv. i. 32; Gell. xvi. 4;
Dionys. viii. 91, ix. 69.) Hence a lex curiata was necessary for all
acts of adoption (Gell. v. 19; Tac. Hist. i. 15), and for admission
into the curies, whether of foreigners or of plebeians. Similarly the
sanction of the people was required for all transfers of property,
which were to take place after the death of the owner; that is, for
all wills.
After the recognition of the comitia centuriata as the representative
assembly of the people, whether this took place immediately upon
their institution, as is commonly supposed, or in connexion with the
expulsion of the kings, as seems more probable, the power of passing
laws, of electing magistrates, and of declaring war was transferred
to them. But the comitia of the curies continued to meet for various
purposes, mainly formal.
In the first place, the compact by which the citizens bound
themselves to obey the commands of an elected magistrate was still
made under the form of a lex curiata de imperio. Until this was
passed, no-magistrate could enter upon his office, or be regarded as
in possession of all its privileges (magistratus optima lege or
optimo jure). In the latter days of the republic this became a mere
form. The curies were represented by thirty lictors (Cic. de Leg.
Agr. ii. 12, 31), who met in the presence of three augurs (Cic. ad
Att. iv. 1. 8; ad Fam. xiii. 1) to give the necessary vote; and their
meetings attracted so little attention, that plans might be formed
for prevailing upon three augurs to declare that they had been
present at the passing of a lex curiata, though no meeting of the
curies had been held (Cic. ad Fam. i. 9; ad Quint. Fratr. iii. 2).
Secondly, the comitia of the curies continued to meet for business in
which their functions were passive rather than active. In such cases
they were known as comitia calata. They met when summoned (calata) in
the presence (not, as is often asserted, under the presidency) of the
three pontiffs (pro collegio pontificum: Gell. xv. 27) on the Capitol
in front of the curia Calabra, an official building assigned to the
pontiffs (Varro, de Ling. Lat. vi. 27; Paul. Diac. p. 49, M.). They
met (1) to witness the making of wills, for which purpose in the
earlier times meetings were held regularly twice in the year (Gaius,
ii. § 101), though this custom after fell into disuse (Gains, ii. §
103); (2) to witness the detestatio sacrorum, a solemn renunciation
of the sacra of the original gens, which was made in cases of
adrogatio or adoption; (3) to inaugurate the flamens and the rex
sacrorum; and (4) to hear from the pontiffs on the calends of each
month on what days the nones and ides would fall, and the nature of
the other days, whether fasti or nefasti, comitiales, feriae, &c.
(Liv. ix. 46 ; Macrob. Sat. i. 15, 10; Serv. ad Aen. viii. 654;
Varro, de Ling. Lat. vi. 27). It is possible, however, from the
language of Gellius (xv. 27), that in the last case the comitia
calata consisted of the centuries, rather than the curies.
II. COMITIA CENTURIATA (hê lochitis ekklêsia). In the legislation
ascribed to Servius Tullius, the whole body of Roman citizens was
divided into six property classes and 193 centuriae (lochoi) or
votes, from which the assemblies in which the people gave their votes
were called comitia centuriata [CENSUS]. By this means the poor
citizens were compelled to bear their share in military service, but
were unable to exercise any great influence upon public affairs, for
the wealthier classes voted first; and if they agreed among
themselves, they formed a majority before the poorer classes would be
called upon to vote at all. The whole people was conceived as an army
(exercitus, or, according to the more ancient term, classis: Dionys.
iv. 18; Fabius Pictor in Gell. x. 15), and was therefore divided into
two parts: the cavalry (equites) and infantry (pedites), though it is
not by any means necessary to suppose that the people assembled in
arms. The infantry was divided into five classes, or, as Dionysius
has it, into six classes, for he regards the whole body of people,
whose property did not come up to the census of the fifth class, as a
sixth. The class to which a citizen belonged, determined [p. 505] the
tributum, or war tax, he had to pay,> as well as the kind of service
he had to perform in the army and the armour in which he had to
serve. But for the purpose of voting in the comitia, each class was
subdivided into a number of centuries (centuriae: probably because
each was conceived to contain 100 men, though the centuries may have
greatly differed in the number of the seniores, and the other of the
juniores. Each century, further, was counted as one vote, so that a
class had as many votes as it contained centuries. In like manner,
the equites were divided into a number of centuries or votes. The two
principal authorities on these subdivisions are Livy (i. 43) and
Dionysius (iv. 16-21, vii. 59), and the annexed table will show the
census as well as the number of centuries or votes assigned to each
class, and the order in which they voted. According to Livy.
I. CLASSIS. Census: 100,000 asses.
40 centuriae seniorum.
40 centuriae juniorum.
2 centuriae fabrum.
II. CLASSIS. Census: 75,000 asses.
10 centuriae seniorum.
10 centuriae juniorum.
III. CLASSIS. Census: 50,000 asses.
10 centuriae seniorum.
10 centuriae juniorum.
IV. CLASSIS. Census: 25,000 asses.
10 centuriae seniorum.
10 centuriae juniorum.
V. CLASSIS. Census: 11,000 asses.
15 centuriae seniorum.
15 centuriae juniorum.
3 centuriae accensorum, cornicinum, tubicinum.
1 centuria capite censorum.
According to Dionysius.
I. CLASSIS. Census: 100 minae (= 100,000 asses).
40 centuriae seniorum.
40 centuriae juniorum.
II. CLASSIS. Census: 75 minae.
10 centuriae seniorum.
10 centuriae juniorum.
2 centuriae fabrum (one voting with the seniores and the other with
the juniores).
III. CLASSIS. Census: 50 minae.
10 centuriae seniorum.
10 centuriae juniorum.
IV. CLASSIS. Census: 25 minae.
10 centuriae seniorum.
10 centuriae juniorum.
2 centuriae cornicinum and tubicinum (one voting with the seniores,
and the other with the juniores).
V. CLASSIS. Census: 12 1/2 minae.
15 centuriae seniorum.
15 centuriae juniorum.
VI. CLASSIS. Census: below 12 1/2 minae.
1 centuria capite censorum.
According to both Dionysius and Livy, the equites voted in eighteen
centuries before the seniores of the first class; and hence there
were, according to Livy, altogether 194, and, according to Dionysius,
193 centuries or votes. Livy's even number of 194 centuries would
have rendered it impossible to obtain an absolute majority in the
comitia; and it has been assumed, that he made a mistake in the three
centuriae accensorum, cornicinum, tubicinum, which he adds to the
fifth class. The account given by Cicero (de Rep. ii. 22, 39) agrees
with that of Dionysius, except that he assigns seventy centuries to
the first class. According to him, the centuries of the knights (18)
and of the first class (70), with one of fabri tignarii, ff eight of
the other centuries voted with them, made up a clear majority (97) of
the whole. Cf. Madvig, Verf. i. p. 114 (note). The other
discrepancies between Livy and Dionysius are not of great importance.
They consist in the places assigned to the two centuriae fabrum, the
two of the cornicines and tubicines, and in the census of the fifth
class. With regard to the last point, Dionysius is at any rate more
consistent in his gradation, and in so far deserves to be preferred
to Livy.
In this manner all Roman citizens, whether patricians or plebeians,
who had property to a certain amount, were privileged to take part
and vote in the centuriata comitia, and none were excluded except
slaves, peregrini, women and the aerarii. The juniores were all men
from the age of seventeen to that of forty-six; and the seniores, all
men from the age of forty-six upwards. The order of voting was
arranged is such a manner, that if the eighteen centuries of the
equites and the eighty centuries of the first class were agreed upon
a measure, the question was decided at once, there being no need for
calling upon the other classes to vote. Hence, although all Roman
citizens appeared in these comitia on a footing of equality, yet by
far the greater power was thrown into the hands of the wealthy.
All the business which had before belonged to the comitia curiata, in
the early days of the republic had been transferred to the comitia
centuriata; that is, they had the right of electing the higher
magistrates, of making laws and of deciding upon war, and afterwards
also of concluding peace with foreign nations. (Cic. de Leg. iii. 3,
10; de Div. ii. 35, 74).
(a.) The election of magistrates. After the presiding magistrate had
consulted with the senate about the candidates who had offered
themselves, he put them to the vote. The magistrates that were
elected by the centuries are the consuls (whence the assembly is
called comitia consularia, Liv. i. 60, x. 11), the praetors (hence
comitia praetoria, Liv. vii. 1, x. 22), the military tribunes with
consular power (Liv. v. 52), the censors (Liv. vii. 22, xl. 45), and
the decemvirs (Liv. iii. 33, 35). There are also instances of
proconsuls being elected by the centuries, but this happened only in
extraordinary cases (Liv. xxxiii. 30; xxxiv. 13). [p. 506]
(b.) Legislation. The legislative power of the centuries at first
consisted in their passing or rejecting a measure which was brought
before them by the presiding magistrate in the form of a senatus
consultum, so that the assembly had no right of originating any
legislative measure, but voted only upon such as were brought before
them as resolutions of the senate. (Dionys. v. 27; viii. 22, 43; x.
26. This is not explicitly stated by any Latin writer.) When a
proposal was passed by the centuries, it became law (lex). The first
law passed by the centuries of which we have any record was the Lex
Valeria de provocatione (Cic. de Rep. ii. 3. 1, 53), and the laws of
the Twelve Tables were sanctioned by the centuries (Liv. iii. 34).
(c.) The decision upon war, on ground of a senatus consultum,
likewise belonged to the centuries, and is often mentioned. This was
from the constitutional point of view an act of legislation (Liv. iv.
30). Peace, however, was concluded by a mere senatus consultum, and
without any co-operation of the people, in the early part of the
republic, and perhaps down to the peace of Caudium. (Cf. Rubino,
Ueber Röm. Staatsverf. pp. 259-289.)
(d.) The highest judicial power. The comitia centuriata were in the
first place the highest court of appeal (Dio Cass. xxxix. 27, &c.;
comp. APPELLATIO), and, in the second, they had to try all offences
committed against the state: hence all cases of perduellio and
majestas, and no case involving the life of a Roman citizen, could be
decided by any other court. (Cic. pro Sest. 30, 65; 34, 73: de Rep.
ii. 36, 61: de Leg. iii. 4, 11: Polyb. vi. 4, 14.) This last right
was revived or introduced by the Valerian law (Plut. Publ. 11), and
Spurius Cassius was condemned by the comitia of the centuries. There
is no reason for believing that the laws of the Twelve Tables
increased the power of the centuries in this respect.
All the powers which we have here mentioned as possessed by the
centuries had to receive the patrum auctoritas before they became
valid and binding. But, in the course of time, the assembly shook off
this control, which became merely a formality, and, in the end, the
patres were obliged to give their sanction beforehand to whatever the
centuries might determine. This was effected by the Publilian law, in
B.C. 337 (Liv. viii. 12). As thus the centuries gradually became
powerful enough to dispense with the sanction of the patres, so they
also acquired the right of discussing and deciding upon matters which
were not brought before them in the form of a senatus consultum; that
is, they acquired the power of originating measures. In reference to
the election of magistrates, the comitia originally were not allowed
to elect any other except those who were proposed by the president,
who himself was entirely guided by the resolution of the senate; but
in the course of time, the people asserted their right so far as to
oblige the president to propose any candidate that might offer
himself, without the previous sanction of the senate. This change,
according to Zonaras (vii. 344), took place in B.C. 482. In
legislative measures a senatus consultum was indispensable, and this
senatus consultum was brought before the people by the consul or the
senator who had originated the measure, after it had previously been
exhibited in public for seventeen days, to give the people an
opportunity of becoming acquainted with the nature of the proposed
law. (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 59; Cic. pro Sest. 51, 109; in Pison. 15,
34.) Whether the comitia required a senatus consultum in cases where
they acted as the supreme court of justice, is uncertain ; at least
we have no example of a senatus consultum in such a case on record.
The comitia centuriata could be held only on dies comitiales or
fasti, on which it was lawful to transact business with people, and
the number of such days in every year was about 190 (Varro, de L. L.
vi. 29; Fest. s. v. Comitiales dies; Macrob. Sat. i. 16); but on dies
nefasti (that is, dies festi, feriati; comp. DIES), and at first also
on the nundinae, no comitia could be held (Plin. H. N. xviii. § 13;
Paul. Diac. p. 171), until in B.C. 287 the Hortensian law ordained
that the nundinae should be regarded as dies fasti (Macrob. Sat. i.
16), so that henceforth comitia might be held on the nundinae, though
it was done rarely. Comitia for the purpose of passing laws could not
even be held on all dies fasti (Cic. de prov. Cons. 19, 45). The
comitia for elections took place every year at a certain period (Liv.
xxv. 2), though it depended upon the senate and the consuls as to
whether they wished the elections to take place earlier or later than
usual (Cic. pro Mil. 9, 24; ad Fam. viii. 4; pro Muren. 25, 51).
The place where the centuries met was necessarily outside the
pomoerium; the place selected was sometimes in luco Petelino (Liv.
vi. 20), or in aesculeto (Plin. H. N. xvi. § 37), but usually in the
Campus Martius (Cic. ad Q. Frat. ii. 2; Dionys. iv. 84, vii. 59),
which contained the saepta for the voters, a tribunal for the
president, and the villa publica for the augurs. (Cic. pro Rab. Perd.
4, 11; Gellius, xiv. 7; Varro, de Ling. Lat. vi. 87.) The president
at the comitia was the same magistrate who convoked them, and this
right was a privilege of the consuls, and, under some circumstances,
of the praetors. (Cic. ad Fam. x. 1. 2) An interrex and dictator
also, or his representative, the magister equitum, might likewise
convene and preside at the comitia. (Liv. viii. 23, xxv. 2; Cic. de
Leg. iii. 4, 10.) At the beginning of the republic, the praefectus
urbi held the comitia for the election of the first consuls (Liv. i.
60); and the censors assembled the people only on account of the
census and the lustrum (Varro, de L. L. vi. 86). In cases when the
assembly was constituted as a court of justice, the tribunes of the
plebs, after having obtained the permission of the consuls, sometimes
appear as prosecuting (Liv. xxvi. 3). One of the main duties
devolving upon the president, and which he had to perform before
holding the comitia, was to consult the auspices (auspicari). For
this purpose, the magistrate accompanied by an augur went out of the
city early in the morning, and chose a tabernaculum or templum. There
the augur began his observations, and gave his opinion either that
the comitia might be held, or that they must be deferred till another
day. This declaration was given to the magistrate; and when the
auspices were favourable, the people were called together, which was
done by three successive and distinct acts: the first was quite a
general invitation to come to the assembly (inlicium, Varro, de L. L.
vi. 94; comp. 86, [p. 507] 88). At the same time when this invitation
was proclaimed circum muros or de muris, a horn was blown, which
being the more audible signal, is mentioned by some writers alone,
and without the inlicium (Gellius, xv. 27; Varro, de L. L. v. 91).
When upon this signal the people assembled--in the earlier days
armed, as for a march--there followed the second call by the
accensus, or the call ad contionem or conventionem; that is, to a
regular assembly, and the crowd then separated, grouping themselves
according to their classes and ages (Varro, de L. L. vi. 88).
Hereupon the consul appeared, ordering the people to come ad comitia
centuriata; and led the whole exercitus--for in these comitia the
Roman people are always conceived as an exercitus--out of the city,
to the Campus Martius (Varro, l. c.; Liv. xxxix. 15). It was
customary from the earliest times for an armed force to occupy the
Janiculum, when the people were assembled in the Campus Martius, for
the purpose of protecting the city against any sudden attack of the
neighbouring people; and on the Janiculum a red flag (vexillum) was
hoisted, during the whole time that the assembly lasted. This custom
continued to be observed even at the time when Rome had no longer
anything to fear from the neighbouring tribes (Liv. l. c.; Gell. xv.
27; Macrob. Sat. i. 16, 15; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27, &c.; Serv. ad Aen.
viii. 1). When the people were regularly assembled, the business was
commenced with a solemn sacrifice, and a prayer of the president, who
then took his seat on his tribunal (Dionys. vii. 59, x. 32; Liv.
xxxi. 7, xxxix. 15; Cic. pro Muren. 1; Liv. xxvi. 2). The president
then opened the business by laying before the people the subject for
the decision upon which they had been convened, beginning with the
formula quod bonum, felix, faustum fortunatumque sit (Cic. de Div. i.
4. 5, 102), and concluding his exposition with the words velitis,
jubeatis Quirites, e.g. bellum indici, or ut M. Tullio aqua igni
interdictum sit, or whatever the subject might be. This formula was
the standing one in all comitia, and the whole exposition of the
president was called rogatio (Liv. iv. 5, vi. 40, xxi. 17, xxii. 10,
xxx. 43; Cic. de Fin. ii. 16, 54; in Pison. 29, 72; pro Dom. 17, 45;
Gell. v. 19). When the comitia were assembled for the purpose of an
election, the presiding magistrate had to read out the names of the
candidates, of which a list had been published at least a trinundinum
previously, and might exercise his influence by recommending the one
whom he thought most fit for the office in question (Liv. x. 22,
xxii. 35). He was, however, not obliged to announce the names of all
the candidates that offered themselves; as, for example, if a
candidate had not attained the legitimate age, or when he sued for
one office without having been invested with those through which he
had to pass previously, or if there was any other legal obstacle;
nay, the president might declare, that if a person, to whom he had
any such objection, should yet be elected, he would not recognise his
election as valid (Liv. iii. 21, xxiv. 7; Val. Max. iii. 8, § 3;
Velleius, ii. 92). If the assembly had been convened for the purpose
of passing a legislative measure, the president usually recommended
the proposal, or he might grant to others, if they desired it,
permission to speak about the measure, either in its favour or
against it (contionem dare, Liv. iii. 71, xxxi. 6, &c., xlii. 34;
Appian, B.C. i. 11; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 4; Quintil. ii. 4, § 3). In
this case, however, it was customary for private persons to speak
before any magistrate. When the comitia acted as a court of justice,
the president stated the crime, proposed the punishment to be
inflicted upon the offender, and then allowed others to speak either
in defence of the accused or against him. Sometimes, however,
although the consul presided, the tribunes acted as prosecutors (cf.
Bouché Leclercq, Institutions Romaines, p. 121).
When the subject brought before the assembly was sufficiently
discussed, the president called upon the people to prepare for voting
by the words ite in suffragium, bene juvantibus dis (Liv. xxxi. 7).
If the number of citizens present at the assembly was thought too
small, the decision might be deferred till another day, but this was
rarely done, and a question was usually put to the vote, if each
century was but represented by a few citizens (Liv. vii. 18; Cic. pro
Sest. 51, 109; de Leg. Agr. ii. 9; Pint. Tib. Gracch. 16; Dio Cass.
xxxix. 30). The leges tabellariae ordained that the votes should be
given in writing [LEGES TABELLARIAE]. But previous to the leges
tabellariae, the rogatores, who subsequently collected the written
votes, stood at the entrance of the saepta, and asked every citizen
for his vote, which was taken down, and used to determine the vote of
each century (Dionys. vii. 64). In legislative assemblies, the voter,
probably from the earliest times, signified his disapproval by the
word antiquo, and his approval by uti rogas (Liv. vi. 38, x. 8, xxx.
43, xxxi. 8, xxxiii. 25; Cic. de Leg. ii. 1. 0, 24). The two tablets
which were given to each person for the purpose of voting on
legislative measures were marked the one with VR, and the other with
A (uti rogas and antiquo: Cic. ad Att. i. 1. 4). At elections, the
name of the successful candidate was mentioned to the rogator, who
had to mark the favourable votes by dots which he made by the side of
the name: hence puncta ferre, to be successful (Liv. x. 13, 22; xxix.
22; Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 99). The custom of voting at elections by tablets
with the name of the candidates written on them, was introduced in
B.C. 139, by the Lex Gabinia tabellaria (Cic. de Leg. iii. 1. 6, 35);
two years later L. Cassius introduced the same custom, in cases of
the comitia acting as a court of justice (Cic. Brut. 27, 106), and
afterwards it was established also in legislative assemblies, and in
cases where the comitia tried persons for perduellio [LEGES
TABELLARIAE]. At elections, the citizens obtained blank tablets, that
they might write upon them the name of the candidate for whom they
voted (Cic. Phil. xi. 8, 19; Plut. C. Gracch. 5, Cat. Min. 46; Plin.
Epist. iv. 25). In judicial assemblies, every citizen received two
tablets marked A (absolvo) and C (condemno), and, according to Pseudo-
Ascon. p. 108, a third tablet containing the letters N. L. (non
liquet); but this last statement is probably transferred by mistake
from the practice in the law-courts. There were in the Campus Martins
saepta or enclosures, originally marked off only by ropes, but
afterwards formed by palisades, tabulata (Cic. pro Mil. 15, 41; Ovid,
Fast. i. 53; Serv. on Verg. Ecl. i. 34; Liv. xxvi. 22), and later on
[p. 508] by marble walls (Cic. ad Att. iv. 1. 6), into which one
class of citizens was admitted after another for the purpose of
voting. The first that entered were the eighteen centuries of the
equites; then followed the first class, and so on. It very rarely
happened that the lowest class was called upon to vote, as there was
no necessity for it, unless the first class did not agree with the
equites (Dionys. iv. 20, vii. 59, viii. 82, x. 17; Liv. i. 43). In
this case, however, the contio was kept quite distinct from the
comitia (Cic. pro Flacc. 7, 15), and was held not in the ovile, but
in some neighbouring place, e. g. the circus Flaminius, before the
final summons of the consul (exercitum educere, Liv. xxxix. 15). On
entering the saepta, the citizens received their tablets (Cic. ad
Att. i. 1. 4; de Leg. iii. 17; in Pis. 15, 36; pro Planc. 6, 14); and
when they had consulted within the enclosures, they passed out of
them again by a pons or ponticulus, at which they threw their vote
into a chest (cista) which was watched by rogatores. Hereupon the
diribitores classified and counted the votes, and reported the result
to the presiding magistrate. That there was a separate body of
custodes, who again checked them off by points marked on a tablet, is
a very doubtful inference from Cic. in Pis. 15, 36--vos rogatores,
vos diribitores, vos custodes tabellarum. The order in which the
centuries voted was determined in the Servian constitution, in the
manner described above; but after the union of the centuries and
tribes, the order was determined by lot; and this was a matter of no
slight importance, since it frequently happened that the vote of the
first determined the manner in which subsequent ones voted. The
voting, of course, was continued, until the majority was ascertained.
In the case of elections, the successful candidate was proclaimed
twice,--first, by the praeco, and then by the president, with a
prayer that the choice might have the blessing of the gods (Cic. pro
Mur. 1, 1), and without this renuntiatio the election was not valid.
After all the business was done, the president dismissed the assembly
with the word discedite.
Cases are frequently mentioned in which the proceedings of the
assembly were disturbed, so that it was necessary to defer the
business till another day. This occurred--(1) when it was discovered
that the auspices had been unfavourable, or when the> gods manifested
their displeasure by rain, thunder, or lightning; (2) when a tribune
interceded (Liv. xlv. 21; Dionys. vi. 89; Cic. in Vat. 2, 5); (3)
when the sun set before the business was over, for it was a principle
that the auspices were valid only for one day from sunrise to sunset
(Varro, de L. L. vii. 51; Dio Cass. xxxix. 65; Liv. x. 22, xli. 17;
Dionys. ix. 41); (4) when a morbus comitialis occurred, i. e. when
one of the assembled citizens was seized with an epileptic fit (Dio
Cass. xlvi. 33; Gellins, xix. 2; Macrob. Sat. ii. 8); (5) when the
vexillum was taken away from the Janiculum, this being a signal which
all citizens had to obey (Liv. xxxix. 15; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27;
Macrob. Sat. i. 16); (6) when any tumult or insurrection broke out in
the city, as happened now and then during the latter period of the
republic (Cic. pro Sest. 36, 78). In all these cases, the assembly
had to continue its business on some other day, sometimes on the
next. The only exception seems to have been in the case of the
election of the censors, for if both could not be elected on the same
day, it was necessary to begin the election afresh; and if one had
been elected, his election was not valid (Liv. ix. 34).
The organisation of the comitia centuriata, as constituted by the
Servian legislation, under-went during the time of the republic a
very material change, as to the date, purpose, and nature of which we
are unfortunately reduced to conjecture. The only positive statements
upon the subject are contained in two passages, one in Livy and one
in Dionysius, which have been made the subject of the most various
inter-pretations. Livy (i. 43) says: Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem,
qui nunc est post expletus quinque et triginta tribus duplicate earum
numero centuriis juniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Servio Tullio
summam non convenire. Dionys. iv. 21, after describing the Servian
constitution, goes on to say: en de tois kath' hêmas kekinêtai
chronois, kai metabeblêken eis to dêmotikôteron, anankais tisi
Biastheis ischurais, ou tôn lochôn kataluthentôn, alla tês klêseôs
autôn auketi tên archaian akribeian phulattousês, hôs egnôn tais
archairesiais autôn pollakis parôn. The fact of such a change is also
implied in the phrase of Cicero turn quidem, in his description of
the Servian centuries (de Rep. ii. 22, 40), and in the use of the
term tribus in connexion with assemblies of the centuries (Cic. pro
Plane. 20, 49, &c.). The date of the change may be assigned with some
probability to the year B.C. 241. Two passages in Livy seem at first
to point to an earlier date; but in v. 18 (B.C. 396) there is little
doubt that for jure vocatis tribubus we should read with Mommsen iis
revocatis, and in vi. 21 (B.C. 383) the phrase omnes tribus bellum
jusserunt is unquestionably an inaccurate expression, corrected by
his own language in x. 22. The chief reason for the Servian
classification had indeed been removed by the introduction of the
custom of paying soldiers in B.C. 408, but it by no means follows
that the institution was remodelled as soon as it ceased to be
theoretically equitable. Livy assumes the existence of the change in
his third decade (xxiv. 7-9, xxvi. 22), where we find the democratic
party able to carry their candidates in the comitia centuriata. It is
not likely that it was one of the measures carried by C. Flaminius in
his censorship (B.C. 220), or it would have been mentioned among his
other popular acts (Liv. Ep. xx.; Polyb. ii. 21); hence it is most
natural to assume that it accompanied the creation of the last 35th)
tribe Quirina in the censorship of C. Aurelius Cotta and M. Fabius
Buteo in B.C. 241. As to the nature of the change, it is clear, in
the first place, that the division into centuries was not abandoned.
This is proved beyond doubt by all our authorities. Nor was the
principle of division into seniores and juniores abandoned. The five
classes also continued to exist, but probably with an alteration in
the amount of property required of the several classes, corresponding
to the altered value of money [AS]. The first satisfactory
explanation of the relation of the tribes to the centuries was given
by Octavius Pantagathus (died 1567; quoted by Ursinus on Liv. i. 43).
His view has been much attacked, but with some modifications it has
been accepted [p. 509] by the best modern authorities (e.g.
Marquardt, Lange, and Mommsen), and has been confirmed by epigraphic
evidence. According to this theory, each of the 35 tribes contained 5
centuries of seniores and 5 of juniores, so that the total number was
350. Whether the equites were included in the centuries of the first
class, or formed 35 distinct centuries of their own, or continued to
be divided into 18 centuries, which, along with the 4 centuries
fabrum, &c., and the century capite censorum, would make the total
350 + 18 + 4 + 1 (the view defended by Lange, ii. 477 ff.), it is
perhaps impossible to determine. It appears from many inscriptions
(cf. Mommsen, Röm. Tribus, p. 76 f.) that the half-tribes consisting
of the centuriae seniorum and the centuriae juniorum respectively
were usually considered as distinct bodies, so that we find tribus
Esquilina seniorum or tribus Palatina corporis junioris, and the
like. This appears to be what Livy means in the ambiguous words
duplicato earum numero in the passage quoted above. Madvig, however
(Röm. Verf. i. 119), still holds to the view of Niebuhr, that this
must mean that the number of centuries was twice that of the tribes,
and therefore assumes that the seniores and juniores of each tribe
formed one century, so that the total number was 70. He confesses
that it is not possible to explain how this hypothesis can be
reconciled with the continued existence of the classes, which is an
unquestioned fact (Cic. Phil. ii. 3. 3, 82; pro Flacc. 7, 15; de Leg.
iii. 3, 7, &c.: cf. Sall. Jug. 86; Gell. xvi. 10; Lex Agr. C. I. L.
i. 200, v. 37), and it is quite needless to interpret the words of
Livy in such a way as to create this difficulty. It is true that the
term centuria praerogativa (Cic. pro Plane. 20, 49; Liv. xxvi. 22) is
used always in the singular, except where there is a reference to
several elections (Fest. p. 249), of the reformed comitia, as against
the centuriae praerogativae of the equites under the earlier
constitution, and that this now bears the name of the half-tribe to
which it belonged: e.g. Aniensis juniorum (Liv. xxiv. 7), Veturia
juniorum (Liv. xxvi. 22), Galeria juniorum (Liv. xxvii. 6). But it is
natural to suppose that it was only the centuries of the first class
in the several tribes, which drew lots for the right of voting first,
and that hence the addition of the tribe-name was quite enough to
distinguish them. There is no reason to suppose from the accidental
circumstance that the three prerogative centuries, whose names happen
to have been preserved, were all juniores, that these enjoyed any
right of previous voting: the very fact of the addition of the term
juniorum points in the opposite direction.
III. COMITIA TRIBUTA. The researches of Mommsen have established
satisfactorily, against the views previously current and supported by
Niebuhr and his followers, that the Servian tribes were a division of
the land and not of the people of Rome. Hence the fact, for which
there is abundant evidence (Liv. iv. 24, xxix. 37, cf. v. 30, 32;
Cic. Phil. ix. 7, 15), that the patricians were included in the
tribes, and that several of the tribes bore the names of patrician
families. But as citizens possessed of no freeholds were not included
in a division based upon landed property, there could be no comitia
of the tribes in the earliest times, for it was essential to the
character of comitia that all citizens should have a right of taking
part in them. It was only after the action of the censors Appius
Claudius (B.C. 312) and Q. Fabius (B.C. 304) had admitted the
landless citizens into the four city-tribes, that comitia tributa
could be held in accordance with the principles of Roman public law.
The earliest extant instances of resolutions passed in the patricio-
plebeian assembly of the tribes dates from the year B.C. 443; but
these are at first limited to the election of quaestors under the
presidency of a consul. In B.C. 367 the same procedure was adopted in
the case of the curule aediles, and it was extended subsequently to
the election of minor ordinary or extraordinary officials, the
earliest instance of which is the election of a part of the military
tribunes in B.C. 362 (cf. Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 17). There is no
clear case of a law passed in the comitia tributa before B.C. 332
(Liv. viii. 17), when the praetor L. Papirius brought before the
tribes a proposal to confer the franchise on the people of Acerra.
But it is probable that this procedure had been adopted immediately
after the introduction of the praetorship; for the praetor had no
power to summon the centuries except for criminal proceedings. The
comitia tributa were known as comitia leviora (Cic. pro Plane. 3, 7);
the auspices taken before they were held were auspicia minora; the
magistrates elected by them were magistratus minores. They were
presided over by patrician magistrates who had the jus cum populo in
comitiis tributis agendi, i.e. the consuls, the praetors, and (for
judicial business only) the curule aediles (Liv. x. 23, xxxv. 41: cf.
Cic. in Verr. i. 12, 36; Gell. xiii. 15). This view appears to be
inconsistent with the statements of Livy (iii. 55, 67) and Dionysius
(xi. 45), that in B.C. 449 the Lex Valeria Horatia ordained ut quod
tributim plebs jussisset, populum teneret, and of Livy that in B.C.
339 the dictator Q. Publilius proposed a law ut plebiscita omnes
Quirites tenerent. But it is highly probable that our authorities
have here simply transferred to resolutions of the plebs what really
applied only to resolutions passed by the tribes under the presidency
of the patrician magistrates (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. i. 164-5).
The correct legal phrase would have been quod tributim populus
jussit. If we accept this view, the two laws are brought into a
natural connexion, the former with the election of quaestors, the
latter with the extended powers given to the praetor by another
Publilian law. The same theory accounts for a statement in Zonaras
(vii. 19) that in B.C. 449 the right of taking the auspices was
granted to the tribunes. This is evidently incorrect as it stands;
but it may well be a perversion of the fact that from that date
forwards laws could be passed auspicato in the assembly of the
tribes, under the presidency of a magistrate who had the right of the
auspices.
The comitia tributa, presided over by a consul or an extraordinary
magistrate replacing him (Liv. x. 21; xxii. 33; xxxiv. 35), or by a
praetor, elected the quaestors (Tac. Ann. xi. 22), the curule aediles
(Liv. vi. 42, ix. 46; Gell. vi. 9), the regular and extraordinary
lesser magistrates (Gell. xiii. 15; Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 17), and
of the tribunes of the soldiers after B.C. 362 [p. 510] six, after
B.C. 311 sixteen (Liv. vii. 5; ix. 30), and at a later date twenty-
four (Liv. xxvii. 36). These elections, like those of the comitia
centuriata, required to receive the patrum auctoritas, which however,
after the Lex Maenia, passed some time in the third century B.C.
(Cic. Brut. 14, 55), was given beforehand in incertum comitiorum
eventum (Liv. i. 17).
At the election of the pontifex maximus, according to Livy (xxv. 5),
a pontifex presided; but if the evidence of Cicero's letters to
Brutus (i. 5) may be trusted, a consul presided in his time. The
college of pontiffs was first completed by co-optation, and then
seventeen tribes chosen by lot (a minority of the whole number) voted
for the election of one of these as the pontifex maximus (Cic. de
Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 18; Liv. l. c. xxxix. 46, xl. 42; Suet. Jul. 13).
After the Lex Domitia de Sacerdotiis (B.C. 104) the members of the
three great and politically important colleges of pontifices,
augures, and x. (xv.) viri sacris faciundis were elected in the
following manner. The candidates, usually three in number, were
nominated, each by not more than two of the college (Cic. Phil. ii.
2, 4; Brut. 1, 1); the election was made by the people in seventeen
tribes (comitia sacerdotum) chosen by lot, and the elected candidate
co-opted into the college, as previously.
The Lex Domitia was repealed by Sulla in B.C. 83, but its provisions
were re-enacted by the Lex Atia of B.C. 63. The purpose of this
curious method of election was to take the real selection out of the
hands of the college, without formally resorting to election by the
whole people.
For the legislative and judicial functions of the comitia tributa,
see below.
We must keep entirely distinct from the comitia tributa the
assemblies of the tribes under the presidency of the plebeian
magistrates, i. e. the tribunes and the plebeian aediles, who had the
jus cum plebe agendi (Fest. p. 293; Cic. de Leg. ii. 1. 2, 31). The
technical name for these was concilium plebis; and the term comitia
tributa, so commonly applied to them by modern writers, is quite
destitute of authority. But it will be convenient to treat of them
under the present head, inasmuch as they constituted one, and in
course of time one of the most important, of the assemblies of the
people at Rome.
The distinguishing feature of the concilium plebis was that, as it
was summoned and presided over by magistrates who had no right of
summoning patricians (Gell. xv. 27), it could not be regarded as an
assembly of the whole people, and any resolutions which it passed
were not strictly speaking leges, but only plebi scita, although we
find the term lex plebive scitum sometimes employed, and ultimately
even lex. (Cp. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. i. 195.) The two requisites
which were necessary for leges--(1) that they should be proposed
under favourable auspices, and (2) that they should receive the
auctoritas patrum--were both absent in the case of the concilia
plebis. From the legal point of view the assemblies of the plebs were
nothing more than the meetings of any other recognised corporation
under the presidency of its elected head, passing resolutions which
were binding upon all its members. But doubtless there was from the
first a desire to shape these concilia as much as possible upon the
model of the comitia, as is shown by the adoption of the patrician
calendar as regards the lawful days of meeting. The first separate
meeting of the plebs, that held on the Mons Sacer in B.C. 494, may
perhaps have been held under the military forms of the centuriate
comitia; but the earliest regular meetings after the institution of
the tribunate were doubtless organised by curies. This explains the
statement, which according to the theories of Niebuhr and his school
is so utterly inexplicable, that the tribunes of the commons were
elected in the comitia curiata (Cic. pro Cornel. in Ascon. p. 76;
Dionys. vi. 86, ix. 41: cf. Liv. ii. 56). In B.C. 471 the plebs
resolved, on the proposal of Volero Publilius, to hold the elections
of tribunes, and doubtless to pass their other resolutions also,
according to tribes (Liv. ii. 56, 60; Dionys. ix. 41, 43). The
importance of this lay in the fact that thus the landless clients of
the patricians were excluded from all share in the elections, which
henceforward lay in the hands of the plebeian freeholders. The
Publilian law thus created the independent organisation of the middle-
class plebeians (excluding the turba forensis), which was destined
within the next hundred years to win them equal civic rights with the
patricians.
The regulations of the concilium plebis closely resembled those of
the comitia curiata, and were contrasted with those of the comitia
centuriata. The vote of each tribe was determined by the majority of
the votes of the citizens belonging to it; and although the votes
were taken simultaneously, they were reported in an order determined
by lot, the same name (principium) being given to the curia and to
the tribe whose vote was first announced. As no meeting of the
centuries could be legally held within the pomoerium, so no meeting
of the curies or of the tribes was, as a rule, held without it, and
the Comitium was the regular place of assembly for both, the Capitol
being also allowable in both cases. But while we have no instance of
a meeting of the curies outside the pomoerium, there are some cases
of meetings of the tribes, not merely on the Aventine, but also in
the Prata Flaminia (Liv. iii. 54), and the elections presided over by
the tribunes were in the later days of the republic usually held in
the Campus Martius (Cic. ad Att. i. 1, 1; pro Planc. 6, 16, &c.). It
is a common but erroneous view that the Comitium was regarded as
especially proper for the curies, the Forum generally for the tribes,
though doubtless the Comitium itself must have been too small for the
meetings of the tribes. The concilia plebis were never held
auspicato: this is shown by the positive statements of Livy (vi. 41,
5) and Dionysius (ix. 41, x. 4), which we have no reason to consider
as referring simply to the earliest times. At the same time, although
it was not necessary to seek for the approval of the gods, any
indication of their disapproval could not be overlooked (Cic. in Vat.
7, 17); a storm would break up a meeting of the commons as much as a
meeting of the people. We must explain in this way cases of plebeian
magistrates who resigned as vitio creati (Liv. x. 47; xxx. 39), and
of plebiscita annulled as invalid (Cic. pro Cornel. in Ascon. p. 68).
Anyone, but especially a magistrate, who noticed a lightning-flash,
was bound to report it to the [p. 511] president of the assembly,
who, acting on his own judgment or on that of the augurs, might
declare the meeting at an end; and after the laws of Aelius and
Fufius (about B.C. 150) he was required to do so. Hence after this
date we find obnuntiatio commonly employed as a means of obstruction
(Cic. Or. cum sen. gr. eg. 5, 11; in Vat. 8, 20; Phil. v. 3, 7). The
days specially reserved for the concilia plebis were the nundinae
[NUNDINAE], which the Lex Hortensia seems to have made non-comitial
for this purpose (Macrob. i. 16, 29-34). The commons were summoned by
praecones; after the usual prayers, the presiding magistrate read the
rogatio (preceded, if he thought fit, by a contio), and then the
tribes were summoned to vote (Liv. iii. 71; vi. 37; x. 9, &c.). The
functions of the concilia plebis may be arranged under three heads.
1. Elections.--After the Lex Publilia of Volero (B.C. 471) the
tribunes of the commons and the plebeian aediles were elected (as
noticed above) by the commons organised as tribes (Liv. ii. 56;
Dionys. ix. 49).
2. Legislation.--Resolutions adopted by the concilia plebis were in
theory binding only upon the commons (Liv. iii. 55; Gell. xv. 27;
Gains, i. 3). But if they received the sanction of the senate, they
were valid for all citizens. We have no definite information as to
when this principle was formally recognised, but Mommsen's view seems
the most probable, that a lex centuriata, earlier than the
plebiscitum Terentilium (B.C. 462), first formally sanctioned it. It
is certain that the necessity for the sanction of the senate was
removed by the Lex Hortensia in B.C. 287, and that from this time
forward the concilia plebis formed the principal legislative organ of
the Roman people (Plin. xvi. 15, 10; Gell. xv. 27; Gains, i. 3). Here
the tribunes proposed rogationes, to which, when passed, the term lex
was commonly, though not strictly applied. These leges must be
carefully distinguished from the leges praetoriae which were passed
by the comitia tributa under the presidency of the praetors (see
above), and from the leges consulares, which, especially in the later
times of the republic, were frequently carried in the same body under
the presidency of a consul.
3. Judicial.--The concilium plebis attempted to assert its right to
pronounce a capital sentence in the case of Coriolanus (B.C. 491)
(Dionys. vii. 69), on the ground of a violation of the leges
sacratae; and in the next half-century there are several similar
instances (Liv. ii. 52, 54, 61; iii. 12, 31); but the decemviral
legislation expressly enacted de capite civis nisi per maximum
comitiatum ne ferunto (Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 11, 19, 44; de Rep. ii.
36), a provision which was not obsolete in the time of Cicero (pro
Sest. 34, 73). Henceforward the assemblies of the plebeians could
inflict no punishment more severe than a fine (inrogare multam); the
amount imposed at the discretion of the magistrate was strictly
limited by the Lex Aternia Tarpeia of B.C. 454: hence, in all graver
cases, it was necessary to obtain the sanction of the tribes
assembled either in the comitia tributa or in the concilium plebis.
In political cases the tribunes generally presided; in questions of
police, the aediles.
Sulla, according to some, abolished the comitia tributa altogether,
or, according to others, deprived them of the right of electing the
sacerdotes, and of all their legislative and judicial powers. (Cic.
in Verr. i. 1. 3, 15; de Legg. iii. 9; Liv. Epit. 89; Appian, de
Bell. Civ. i. 59, 98; comp. TRIBUNUS) But the constitution, such as
it had existed before Sulla, was restored soon after his death by
Pompeius and others, with the exception of the jurisdiction, which
was for ever taken from the people by the legislation of Sulla. The
people suffered another loss in the dictatorship of Caesar, who
decided upon peace and war himself in connexion with the senate. (Dio
Cass. xlii. 20.) He had also the whole of the legislation in his
hands, through his influence with the magistrates and the tribunes.
The people thus retained nothing but the election of magistrates; but
even this power was much limited, as Caesar had the right to appoint
half of the magistrates himself, with the exception of the consuls
(Suet. Caes. 41; Cic. Phil. vii. 6; Dio Cass. xliii. 51), and, in
addition to this, he recommended to the people those candidates whom
he wished to be elected: and who would have opposed his wish? (Dio
Cass. xliii. 47; Appian, Bell. Civ. ii. 18.) After the death of
Caesar the comitia continued to be held, but were always more or less
the obedient instruments in the hands of the rulers, whose unlimited
powers were even recognised and sanctioned by them. (Appian, Bell.
Civ. iv. 7; Dio Cass. xlvi. 55, xlvii. 2.) Under Augustus the comitia
still sanctioned new laws and elected magistrates, but their whole
proceedings were a mere farce, for they could not venture to elect
any other persons than those recommended by the emperor. (Suet. Aug.
40, &c.; Dio Cass. liii. 2, 21, lv. 34, lvi. 40.) Tiberius deprived
the people even of this shadow of their former power, and conferred
the power of election upon the senate. (Tac. Ann. i. 15, 81, ii. 36,
51; Vell. Pat. ii. 126.) When the elections were made by the senate,
the result was announced to the people assembled as comitia
centuriata or tributa. (Dio Cass. lviii. 20.) Legislation was taken
away from the comitia entirely, and was completely in the hands of
the senate and the emperor. Caligula placed the comitia again upon
the same footing on which they had been in the time of Augustus (Dio
Cass. lix. 9; Suet. Cal. 16); but this regulation was soon abandoned,
and everything was left as it had been arranged by Tiberius. (Dio
Cass. lix. 20.) From this time the comitia may be said to have ceased
to exist, as all the sovereign power formerly possessed by the people
was conferred upon the emperor by the Lex Regia. [LEX REGIA] The
people only assembled in the Campus Martius for the purpose of
receiving information as to who had been elected or appointed as its
magistrates, until at last even this announcement (renuntiatio)
appears to have ceased.
In addition to the works on Roman history in general, the reader may
consult Unterholzner, De Mutata Centuriatorum Comit. a Servio Tullio
Rege Institutorum Ratione, Breslau, 1835; G. C. Th. Francke, De
Tribuum, de Curiarum atque Centuriarum Ratione, Schleswig, 1824;
Huschke, Die Verfassung des Servius Tullius, 1838; Hüllmann, Römische
Grundverfassung; Rubino, Untersuchungen über die röm. Verfassung,
1839: [p. 512] Zumpt, Ueber die Abstimmung des röm. Volkes in
Centuriatcomitien.
[The views previously held as to the comitia curiata and comitia
tributa have been largely modified by the researches of Mommsen,
Römische Forschungen, vol. i. The most complete statement of the
theories commonly accepted previous to these researches will be found
with full references to ancient and modern authorities in Becker and
Marquardt's Römische Alterthümer, vol. ii. part 1, pp. 353-394, and
part 3, pp. 1-196. Cf. Lange, Röm. Alterthümer,2 [i. 341-355, 391-
491; ii. 418-682.] [L. S.] [A. S. W.]
|