The Lex Valeria Cornelia

Author(s): P. A. Brunt
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 51, Parts 1 and 2 (1961), pp. 71-83
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/298838 .
Accessed: 21/01/2013 12:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA
By P. A. BRUNT

I
The Lex Valeria Cornelia of A.D. 5, known to us only from the Tabula Hebana of I9,
provided that the senators and those Equites who were enrolled in the judicial decuries
should henceforth vote in ten centuries, named after the dead princes, C. and L. Caesar, for
the ' destinatio ' of consuls and praetors. In I9 these same voters were redistributed into
fifteen centuries, and in 23 into twenty centuries ; the new units were named after
Germanicus and Drusus respectively.
Professor Tibiletti has virtually established that these ' destining ' centuries were an
integral part of the comitia centuriata. Candidates who received the majority of their votes
were credited with all of them, before the remaining centuries voted. Furthermore, the
' destining ' centuries must have taken over the role of the old centuriapraerogativa; before
A.D. 5 the vote of that century, composed of iuniores of the first class, was declared before
the proceedings were carried further and the Comitia had been apt to follow its lead.2
If the evidence of the Tabula Hebana and Tabula Ilicitana stood alone, we should
naturally suppose that the Comitia still elected consuls and praetors as late as A.D. 23, guided
but not predetermined by the ' destining' centuries. We know, indeed, that in the time of
Pliny or Dio the comitial proceedings had been reduced to a formality and that in so far as
magistrates were not simply nominees of the emperor, they were elected in fact by the
Senate itself; the assembly was presented with a single list of candidates.3 It is indeed
attested by Dio 4 and epigraphically confirmed 5 that this practice went back to Tiberius'
reign. It might, however, have been supposed that its origin was later than A.D. 23, but for
Tacitus' statements that in the praetorian elections of A.D. I4 'tum primum e campo
comitia ad patres translata sunt' and that in I7 the Senate chose a suffect praetor.6 ' His
express testimony,' says Sir Ronald Syme, ' ought never to have been doubted or infringed.'
Some may think this goes too far. Granted that in general Tacitus is accurate and well-
informed, granted that as a consular he would have taken special interest in elections and
that he had access to the acta senatus, does not the authority of contemporary documents
stand higher than his ? It is, however, not the documents that contradict him, but only
modern inferences from them ; and these inferences his testimony ought to exclude. A law
of A.D. I9 tells us nothing directly about procedure in 14 or I7; as Syme has suggested, the
procedure revealed in the Tabula Hebana could have been suspended or revived in different
years, till at last it lapsed into oblivion. Again, nothing in the law assures us that the
' destining ' centuries still retained an effective function; it is plausible to hold with
Professor A. H4. M. Jones that as ' destinatio ' was itself a preliminary part of ' creatio '
and as the comitial elections had been reduced on Tacitus' evidence to a formality in A.D. 14,
' destinatio ' too had become an unreal form and that the redistribution of the senators and
Equites in I9 or 23 was effected, merely as one of many honours then decreed to
Germanicus or Drusus, an honour too trivial and transient for Tacitus to record.7
Thus the Lex Valeria Cornelia was not a measure of lasting importance. It does not

1 On the Tabula Hebana and Tabula Ilicitana
(Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents illustrating the
Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius,2 nos 94a-b) see
especially G. Tibiletti, Principe e Magistrati Repubbli-
cani, Roma, I953 (with bibliography); A. H. M.
Jones, JRS XLV, 1955, 9 ff. = St. in Rom. Govern-
ment and Law, Oxford, I960, 27 if. (a valuable essay,
to most of which I assent) ; R. Syme, Tacitus,
Oxford, I958, 756 ff.
2 Cic. Planc. 49; Phil. II, 8z; cf. Appendix II, 3.
3 e.g. Plin. Ep. II, 9, 2; III, 20; IV, 25; Paneg.
95 ; for comitial formalities Paneg. 63-4; Dio
LVIII, 20.
4 Dio LVIII, 20.
5 ILS 944. I agree with Jones (p. I2) that com-
mendatio was at this time exercised informally and not
in virtue of a legal right such as was conferred on
Vespasian.
G Ann. I, I5 ; II, 51
7 Of the honours voted to Germanicus Tacitus says
(Ann. ii, 83): 'pleraque manent; quaedam statim
omissa sunt aut vetustas obliteravit.' The procedure
of destinatio continued at least till 23 (as shown by the
Tabula Ilicitana), but if it had already become a mere
formality, few senators or Equites will have attended ;
acclamation probably soon replaced voting, and
Tacitus can reasonably ignore as unimportant this
part of the law honouring Germanicus.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 P. A. BRUNT

follow that it had little political significance at the time when it was passed. Such significance
Jones has attributed to it. He has proved that the new centuries must have been mainly
composed of Equites. He supposes that Equites were likely to favour candidates of
equestrian origin and that Augustus, who in his view was more reluctant than is sometimes
believed openly to gerrymander the elections, created the new centuries with the very
purpose of increasing the proportion of ' novi homines ' who rose to the consulate. He finds
confirmation for this conjecture in the alleged fact that after A.D. 5 the proportion of such
men does rise in the consular Fasti. Admittedly, they are no less prominent in the Fasti in
Tiberius' reign, when elections had been transferred to the Senate. But this does not
surprise him, since the Senate too was preponderantly composed of men of a modest origin.
The purpose of this paper is to contest Jones' explanation of the law and to substitute
another.
II
Jones appealed to the prosopographical authority of F. B. Marsh 8 and of Syme.9 Both
had noted the influx of new names into the later Fasti of Augustus' reign. This phenomenon
they explained, however, in different ways.
Marsh held that new men were advanced especially between A.D. 3 and io; he thought
that they owed their elevation to Augustus, and that Tiberius, who favoured the old nobility,
put a stop to the process when he returned to Rome in IO; Germanicus indeed headed a
party of new men and, for a short time (A.D. i6-i8), Tiberius sought to conciliate him by
promoting them. This theory has no support in the literary evidence. Tacitus says (Ann. iv,
6) that Tiberius impartially rewarded with the consulate both merit and high birth.10
According to Marsh the new men were the heirs of the Populares, who had aimed at breaking
down aristocratic exclusiveness. It may be doubted if the Populares had ever been a party
with a programme of any kind, but they are most commonly associated not with ideas such
as Marsh imputes to them but with measures designed to enhance the power of the people
or to benefit the poor.11 In the Republic rival factions had embraced nobles and new men
alike. Factions persisted in the Principate, but in this respect their composition is unlikely
to have been different. Sejanus numbered among his adherents and enemies men of the
most varied antecedents.12 In social origin Germanicus' 'party' was probably no less
composite.
Like Marsh, Syme supposed that men owed the consulate to the overt favour of the
Emperor. But he considered that in Augustus' later years the influence of Tiberius was
dominant and that from A.D. 4 the consuls must have been Tiberius' partisans. Again, there
is no direct testimony. Only a few of the consuls elected after A.D. 4, or indeed after A.D. I4,
can be shown to have enjoyed the special trust and consideration of Tiberius and neither
the nobles nor the new men returned in these years have, as a class, any common
characteristics which mark them off from other nobles or other new men elected earlier.
All emperors had their trusted counsellors or favourites, but all had to allow consular status
to many nobles, whose lineage was their only claim; imperial suspicion or contempt might
bar such men from subsequent employment. Probably new men always found it hard to
rise without imperial patronage, but we cannot decide whether in Augustus' last decade
they owed their promotion to the old emperor or his heir.
Jones is, of course, not tied to either of these theories; on the contrary, he holds that
Augustus was less prone to intervene in the elections than they assume. On his view it was
the natural propensity of the reformed Comitia to support new men which explains the
facts adduced by Marsh and Syme. Augustus, he thinks, gave the electors a free choice,
with a shrewd notion of the manner in which they would exercise it.
But an analysis of the Fasti does not bear out the contention that there was any

8Reign of Tiberius, Oxford, 1931,43; 62 ff.; 86-7. 12 For his aristocratic

9 Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1939, 372-3 ; 434 ff.
" Tibiletti o.c. (n. I) 247 n. 2 refutes another
view, that Tiberius favoured new men at the expense
of nobles.
11 Ch. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at
Rome, Cambridge, 1950, 39 ff. gives a sound account.
friends and kin see Syme,
Tacitus 384; his uncle, Junius Blaesus (cos. suff.
A.D. io), and other partisans (Ann. v, 8; VI, 3, 7, 14;
XIII, 45) were new men. Opponents and victims came
from both categories (Syme, l.c.; Ann. iv, I8-I9,
68; VI, 2, 48, etc.). The article by Z. Stewart,
AYP LXXIV, 1953, 70 ff. is highly speculative.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA 73
significant change after the Lex Valeria Cornelia was passed. Certainly there were more
new men who rose to the consulate in Augustus' later years, but the change begins, not in
A.D. 5, but in 5 B.C., with the practice of appointing suffecti almost every year and it is the
suffect, not the ordinary consulship to which such men usually attain. The reason for the
change is not hard to conjecture.
The Fasti from I7 B.C. onwards show that as a new generation of nobles grew up after
the civil wars and proscriptions, Augustus sought to conciliate it and lend effulgence to the
restored Republic' by allowing it almost to monopolize the consulship. Few of these men
'quibus omnia populi Romani beneficia dormientibus deferuntur' (Cic. Verr. II, 5, i8o)
were necessarily competent to discharge the increasing number of tasks that naturally
devolved on men of consular rank and experience; and some whose talents were beyond
question may have been uncertain in loyalty. 13 For the time this mattered little ; Augustus
could call on Agrippa and then on his stepsons, and on trusted new men of an earlier
generation. But by 5 B.C. Agrippa and Drusus were dead and Tiberius was in retirement;
there was a need for younger generals and administrators, to take their places and those of
Augustus' older partisans. Yet Augustus did not wish to alienate the older aristocracy by
denying them the honours which were thought due to their birth. Competition for the
consulate was now all the more intense, since the sons of his earlier marshals and advisers
were reaching consular age. The appointment of more suffect consuls solved the problem.
With few exceptions the greater honour of the ordinary consulate is reserved for men of
consular lineage, a practice Tiberius continued,14 but places for humbler, reliable men of
solid merit are found among the suffect consuls.
The effect of this new policy and the irrelevance of the Lex Valeria Cornelia can be
seen by classifying the consuls for three periods. For the first the starting point may be
Augustus' demission of the consulate in 23 B.C. ; it includes the suffect consuls of that year.
The last year of this period is 6 B.C. Within these years there were few suffect consuls,
mostly new men. All but two of the new men, who secured the ordinary consulate, did so
in 23-I7 B.C., when in all probability few nobles had reached the requisite age and there was
less competition for the office. The second period begins in 5 B.C. and ends in the middle of
A.D. 5, selected for the purpose of testing Jones' theory; the suffect consuls of that year
were presumably elected under the Lex Valeria Cornelia and with them the third period
begins. It ends with the ordinary consuls of A.D. I 5, who had been chosen before Tiberius'
accession and therefore were still elected by the Comitia.
Classification requires some explanatory words. Gelzer showed 15 that in the Republic
'nobilis', strictly construed, designates a man descended in the direct male line from one
who had held the consulate (or equivalent office) and ' novus homo ' anyone else, even a
man of praetorian descent. However, the latter term is sometimes restricted to denoting
a man who numbered among his forbears none who had held any curule offiCce; 16 it is
implied in this usage that a man of praetorian family would not be so described. In every
generation and almost every decade of the Republic men of praetorian origin rose to the

'3ButJones,JfRSXLI, 1951, II2 (= Studies, p.
is wrong in saying that Augustus did not employ men
of Republican nobility as legates. Note (i) M.
Aemilius Lepidus in Pannonia, A.D. 8-9, Tarra-
conensis, c. 14; (2) Q. Caecilius Metellus, Syria,
C. A.D. 12-17; (3) Cn. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 7 B.C.),
Tarraconensis, ann. inc.; (4) L. Calpurnius Piso,
who commanded in Homonadensian and Thracian
wars, c. 15-10 B.C., and was perhaps later legate of
Syria (Syme, YRS L, 17, n. 68); (5) P. Cornelius
Dolabella in Dalmatia at Augustus' death; (6) Cn.
Cornelius Lentulus (the consul of either I8 or 14 B.C.)
who commanded in a Dacian war of unknown date;
(7) L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, on Danube and Rhine,
c. 6 B.C.-A.D. I; (8) Paullus Fabius Maximus in
Tarraconensis, 3-2 B.C.; (9) M. Licinius Crassus
Frugi, probably in Tarraconensis, c. IO B.C. (Syme,
YRS L, 13-14); (io) P. Quinctilius Varus, Syria,
6-4 B.C., Rhine, A.D. 7-9 ; (i i) M. Valerius Messalla
Messalinus, Illyricum, A.D. 6. It is no doubt true
3) that such nobles enjoyed a far lower proportion of
military commands than of consulships; thus of
eight known legates of Syria, 13 B.C.-A.D. 14 they
provide only three. Syme, Roman Rev. 329-30
documents neglect of this class in 27-3 B.C., cf. also
396-40I. But there are large gaps in provincial Fasti
under Augustus, and some places for other such
nobles could thus be conjecturally found.
14
Tibiletti, o.c. (n. I), 239 f.
15 Die Nobilitdt der r. Rep., Berlin, I9I2, 2 i f.;
cf. Syme, Roman Rev. ch. II; H. Strasburger in
P-W s.v. Nobilis and Novus homo.
16 Cicero, ' equestri ortus loco ' (de leg. agr. I, 27),
claims that he was the first new man, almost in living
memory, to reach the consulate (ibid. II, 3), i.e.,
probably the first of non-senatorial origin since
C. Coelius Caldus (cos. 94) ; cf. Comm. Pet. Iii. Men
of praetorian family could be styled ' novi ' (Phil. ix,
4; Veil. I, I3, 2), but there had been many such in
the few years before Cicero made his boast, cf. n. 17.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 P. A. BRUNT

consulate 17 and were sometimes admitted to the most intimate circles of the aristocracy; 18
it is plain that their elevation did not evoke the same snobbish repugnance as that of a mere
parvenu like Cicero. Since the Fasti of offices lower than the consulate are very incompletely
known, it is often uncertain whether a person of non-consular descent belongs to this class
or not. It is fairly certain that some of the triumviral and Augustan new men, perhaps many
more than we can document, had such respectable antecedents. It seems indeed that this
may be less true of those new men who reached the consulate in his later years, but in this
respect no distinction can be drawn between the second and third periods in the following
tables.
In these tables I have not tried to separate the new men of these two classes (though
some indications will be found in Appendix I). But I doubt whether the elevation of all of
them would have been shocking to the old aristocracy. Some (such as C. Sentius Saturninus
in I9 B.C. or M. Plautius Silvanus in 2 B.C.) would probably have made their way even under
the old regime. Indeed in all periods since the fifth century old families had been dying out
and new ones inevitably took their place. Civil wars and proscriptions only accelerated this
process. To some extent the rise of new men (of all kinds) was not so much due to the
deliberate policy of Caesar, the triumvirs or the emperors as to necessity ; they were needed
to fill the ranks. The inscription on gravestones, ' last of his line ' (Marcus Aurelius VIII,
3I), will not have been unfamiliar in this period (cf. n. 2I).
Gelzer also maintained that the consulship ceased to bestow nobility after the fall of the
Republic, though descendants of Republican consuls could now claim nobility, even if it
were transmitted only through the female line.19 But when did the Republic fall? Cicero
sometimes complained in the 5os that it was no more.20 In 28-27 it was officially
restored. In fact, if not in form, the free choice of the electorate was limited by the will of
dynasts from 49 B.C. Yet it is certain that men still claimed nobility, whose title to it was
derived from consuls of a later date. E. Stein argued that the consulate ennobled men till
A.D. I4, when popular elections were abolished, and Syme, approving this view, holds that
it was precisely then that 'the Principate was recognized as a permanent form of govern-
ment' and that 'the Republic ended, openly and legally'. Perhaps the dispute is barren.
Even if it were not attested that families were ennobled after 49 B.C., and indeed up to
A.D. 9 at least, we should have to posit a sharp distinction between scions of families which
had risen to riches and dignity under Caesar, the Triumvirate or in Augustus' own reign
and men who were the first of their line to gain the consulate. An Asinius or Statilius of the
the second generation or later might possess or lack capacity, as might a Calpurnius or

17 e.g. from 94 to 49 :-P. Rutilius Lupus (go),
Cn. Pompeius Strabo (89), since he was not
descended from the consul of 141, C. Norbanus (83),
C. Scribonius Curio (76), L. Volcacius Tullus (66),
L. Licinius Murena (62), M. Calpurnius Bibulus (59)
who is not known to have been descended from
Calpurnii with different cognomina, A. Gabinius (58),
and perhaps M. Herennius (93) and M. Tullius
Decula (8i), since their descent from earlier bearers
of the same nomen is unattested and improbable.
L. Afranius (6o) and perhaps Norbanus may have
been upstarts to the same extent as Cicero. Of the
rest some were certainly and all probably of praetorian
families.
18 e.g. Curio, whose son ranked as ' princeps
iuventutis ' (Cic. Vatin. 24, cf. Fam. II, 7, 4, ' nobilis-
simo adulescente et gratiosissimo '), and Bibulus.
19 Hermes L, 1915, 399 ff.; cf. W. Otto, ibid. LI,
I9I6, 73 f. (dissenting); E. Stein, ibid. LII, I9I7,
564 ff.; Syme, Tacitus 654 (cf. 369), who accepts
Stein's modification of Gelzer's thesis. Consulates
down to A.D. 9 certainly conferred nobility, since
nobility is ascribed to descendants of L. Munatius
Plancus cOs. 42 B.C. (Ann. II, 43, 3), L. Scribonius
Libo cOs. 34 (Suet. Tib. 25), M. Lollius cos. 2zI
(Ann. xii, i), P. Silius Nerva, COS. 20 B.C. (Ann. xi,
28), L. Volusius Saturninus, cos. suff. 12 (ibid. XIV,
46) and Poppaeus Sabinus, cos. A.D. 9 (ibid. XIII, 46),
all of whom were in some sense new men. Cf. Sen.
Controv. II, 4, I2: ' erat M. Agrippa inter eos qui non
nati sunt nobiles sed facti.' (Gelzer explained away
the nobility of Q. Volusius, attested in Ann. XIV,46,
by supposing that he inherited it from his mother, a
Cornelia, Pliny NH vii, 62.) Even Stein's moderate
theory cannot be regarded as definitive. Pliny,
Paneg. 69, 5-70, 2 seems to support Otto's contention
that the consulate always conferred nobility, though
gradations of nobility were recognized (Otto, pp. 82-
3). It may be difficult for both Gelzer and Stein that
Sextius Africanus (COS.A.D. 59) was nobilis (Ann. xiii,
19; XIV, 46); he was presumably descended from
T. Sextius, a Caesarian governor of Africa, never
consul and not known to have been of consular
family; a perhaps fictitious descent of the Sextii
Laterani (COSS.A.D. 94, 154, 197) from L. Sextius
Lateranus cOs. 366 B.C. might be surmised, but no
connection between them and the consul of 59 is
established ; and nobility on the mother's side is mere
conjecture. This case may fit the view of E. Groag,
Strena Buliciana 1924, 253 ff. that in the Principate
all descendants of families which had been senatorial
in the Republic ranked as noble. (If that were granted,
the tables in the text would require much amend-
ment.) But Sextius Africanus' nobility could be
explained, if T. Sextius were among the men to
whom Caesar gave consular ornamenta (Dio XLIII,
47; Suet. Caes. 76).
20 e.g. Att. II, 2I, I
(59 B.C.) ; Qu.fr. III, 5, 4 (54).

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA 75
Cornelius; he must have shared in some degree their pride of birth and their hereditary
claim to the highest honours.21 There is no evidence that such men were not recognizedas
nobles, as the sons of Republicanconsularshad been. Like the older nobility, they too tend
to secure ordinaryconsulships.
None the less, in the tables below I have distinguished them from the Republican
nobility. Column A represents the latter, B the new nobility, C the ' novi homines'.
Figures in bracketsrefer to consulates held by Augustus or members of his family.
TABLE I .-ORDINARY CONSULS

A B C Total
22-6 B.C. 23 (3) 2-3 8-9 34
5B.C.-A.D.5 13 (3) 4 3 20
A.D. 6-15 I2 (2) 7 I 20

TABLE 2.-SUFFECT CONSULSHIPS

A B C Total
23-6 B.C. . . I I 5 7
5 B.C.-A.D. 4 . 4 6 7 I7
A.D. 5-A.D. I4 . 2 I 9 12

Detailed justifications for these figures are given in Appendix I. In the last period
two suffect consuls in A.D. I3 are omitted, as their identity has not been fixed with certainty.
Of the nine new men who held the ordinaryconsulate in the first period all but two
were consuls in 23-I7, a period in which there was probablyless competition from nobles.
Once a new generation of nobles had attained the requisite age, it was evidently hard for
new men to secure this honour and even rarerafter A.D.5 than before. On the other hand,
such men had at all times a disproportionateshare of suffect consulates. This share does
grow after A.D. 5, but it is even in the last decade no greaterthan in 5-I B.C., in which years
fall six of the seven suffect consulatesthey held during the second period. It is then likely
that the increasedproportionof suffect consulatesthat went to new men after A.D. 5 is to be
ascribedto the accidents of birth and availability,and perhaps to the fact that after A.D. 5
there were fewer suffectiin all, rather than to the operation of the Lex Valeria Cornelia.
The most markedchangein the Fasti afterA.D. 5 is patentlythe increasednumberof consuls
from the new nobility. But their names multiply on the list, as they came of age. The first
is C. CaniniusRebilus (cos.suff. I 2), son of a suffectconsul of 45 ; next comes Asinius Gallus
in 8 B.C., at the age of thirty-two or thirty-three; he could not have held the officeearlier.22
Even if the newer nobility are regarded(without warrant)as resembling ' novi homines',
their increased representationis gradual, begins before A.D. 5 and is to be correlatedwith
their ages, and not with any legislation or shift in policy.
Thus the Fasti do not support Jones' theory, nor is there any other evidence in its
favour. Indeed subsidiary objections may be raised. ' Omnes boni semper nobilitati
favemus ' (Cic. Sest. 2I) ; was this really less true of the senatorsand Equites whose voting
guided the Comitia after A.D. 5 than of the old centuriapraerogativaand the upper class
centuries that had followed it ? (In Appendix II I shall argue that the organization of
the comitiacenturiatahad not previously been altered by Augustus.) Jones has to suppose
that a political measure of some moment was inserted into legislation probably concerned
with honours to the dead princes.23 Yet this notable change is ignored by Dio, whose
accountof events in A.D. 5 is extant; in our othersourcestoo no whisperof it. Surelyanother
explanationis required of the institution of the ten centuries, one which may offend those

21 Observe the pride of birth in ILS 935: ' [Sex.] 23

Appuleio Sex. f. Gal. Sex. n. Sex. pron. Fabia
Numantina nato, ultimo gentis suae' ; presumably
son of the consul of A.D. 14, grandson of the novus
homo, consul in 29 B.C., and great-grandson of
Augustus' elder sister (PIR 1,2 I86-7), he is ' nobilis
utrimque ', his mother being a Fabia (PIR 111,2 112).
Cf. Ann. XIV,40, 2 (Asinius Marcellus).
22 Mommsen, StR I,3 574; for a higher average
age see Syme, Tacitus 652-6. On Gallus' age see
PIR 1,2 247.
Little is known of the posthumous honours paid
to C. and L. Caesar (cf. V. Gardthausen, Augustus u.
seine Zeit, Leipzig, 1904, I 127, 1146-7), but I assume,
in view of Tiberius' well-known habit of following
Augustan precedents (n. 53), that they provided the
model for those voted to Germanicus and Drusus, and
that the institution of the ten centuries was part of a
context similar to that of the Tabula Hebana.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 P. A. BRUNT

who have with much learning made out of a chance discovery of the spade a new keystone
for the understanding of the Augustan constitution or of Augustan politics but which, by
virtue of its apparent triviality, will also account for the total silence of the literary tradition.

III
Under the Principate senators and Equites are contrasted with the Populus or Plebs.24
Mommsen spoke of a formal distinction between the two ruling orders and the masses.25
This distinction was already symbolized in the Republic in various outward forms, a
development carried further by the emperors. In their dress senators and Equites were
marked off from humbler citizens by the right to wear the latus 26i or angustus 27 clavus, the
golden bulla 28 and the golden ring,29 and senators by the calceus mullus or solea.30 When
the populace received a congiarium in money, the higher orders dined in state at public
banquets.31 In the theatre at Rome senators had enjoyed special seats since I94 B.C.32 and
in 67 the Lex Roscia,33 apparently re-enacted by an Augustan law,34 restored to free-born
citizens with the equestrian property qualification of 400,000 HSS the exclusive right of
occupying fourteen reserved rows. Similar rights belonged to senators or their sons when
they visited municipal theatres; the rule was strengthened or re-affirmed under Augustus.35
Dio tells us 31 that in the circuses separate seats were allotted for senators and Equites in
A.D. 5, the very year of the Lex Valeria Cornelia. It was a privilege not (I suggest) different
in motive from that which this law conceded to them, but one which merited Dio's attention,
because, unlike the ten centuries, it had survived to his own time.
All such privileges gratified the taste of the higher orders for comfort and display;
they also made manifest to a hierarchically organized society their superiority of status.
Special seats in the theatre separated them from the common herd.37 Yet at elections most
of them, if they were to vote, had to rub elbows with men far below their degree. Only those
Equites who were enrolled in the eighteen centuries of holders of the public horse voted
apart, and in the late Republic they seem to have numbered only i,8oo men.38 Even these
centuries had lost their ancient primacy in the Comitia (Appendix ii, sections 2-4). Before
Augustus the great majority of Equites in a broad sense of the term, men of the requisite
birth and census, and all the senators, who had apparently lost the right to the public horse
in the Gracchan age,39 had to vote in the first class, ' promiscuously.'

24 StR iii,2 46I, n. 3, citing Hor. ep. I, I, 58 ; Ovid, the third decury; Cic. Phil. I, 19-20, shows only that
Fasti II, I98 ; RG 35, I, etc. Antony proposed to admit ex-centurions to the panels
25 StR 111,2 894. of iudices, even if they lacked the census qualification
26 ibid. 887-8. the law still required.)
27 ibid. 513-4. 30 StR III,3 887-92.
28 ibid. 525. 31 ibid. 894-5.
29 ibid. 514-9 ; 892, cf. A. Stein, Der r6m. Ritter- 32 ibid. 893, n. 3.
stand,Miunchen,2927, 31-41, who shows (a) that the 33 Stein o.c. (n. 29), 23, n. I 'restored ', Cic.
gold ring was originally a senatorial privilege, but Mur. 40.
that (b) in the late Republic it was extended to men 3 Pliny NH XXXIII, 32. Augustus let men of
of equestrian census (Cic. Verr. II, 3, I87 ; Fam. x, equestrian birth retain their right, even if they had
32, 3 ; Hor. Sat. II, 7, 53, etc.), provided that they lost their property, Suet. Aug. 40, I; for a parallel,
were of free birth (Dio XLVIII 45, 8, which also proves cf. 35, 2 ; Dio LIV, 14, 4.
that it was still worn by senators). It is characteristic 3 Lex Ursonensis 127; Suet. Aug. 44.
of the social views of the imperial government that 36 See next note, cf. Dio LX, 7, 3-4; Suet. Claud.
by a SC of A.D. 22, it confined the right to men of 21, 3.
free birth for three generations (Pliny NH XXXIII 32); 37 Dio LV, 22, 4: Kml Ta iT-rr-ro8poi'as xcopls PEv ol
cf. also the Lex Visellia of 23 (CY IX, 2I, I ; 3I, I). POV;E1JTalXcopls8U ol r1Tijs &Tr6T oITroU
TroO ITeOVS ETOVo,8
Contra E. Staveley, Rh. Mus. I953, 20I ff., it seems to i<ai VOV
yiyvETat; Pliny NH XXXIII, 29: 'anuli distinxere
me clear that Pliny (NH XXXIII, 29-30) is denying alterum ordinem a plebe ... sicut tunica ab anulis
that in Augustus' time all Equites were entitled to senatum ' ; Ann. XIII, 54, 3: 'discrimina ordinum';
the gold ring, if by Equites we mean citizens of free Livy XXXIV, 54, 5 : ' discrimina talia quibus ordines
birth and equestrian census ; in Pliny's view even the discernerentur'; 44, 5: ' (censores) aedilibus curulibus
name of Equites was reserved for holders of the public imperarunt ut loca senatoria secernerent a populo;
horse, and even iudices of equestrian census were only nam antea in promiscuo (cf. Val. Max. IV, 5, I ; Suet.
entitled to iron rings. But Pliny is refuted by Claud. 2I, 3) spectabant.' Roscius' law restored to
contemporary evidence ; the use of the term' equites ' the Equites 'dignitatem' (cf. Val. Max. l.c.) and
and the right to the gold ring were not so restricted. 'voluptatem ' (Mur. 40).
(I also cannot accept Staveley's contention that Cato, ORF,2 fr. 85 ; Comm. Pet. 33.
38
tribuni aerarii lacked equestrian census, see contra "' Stein,
o.c. (n. 29), I-3 ; for the change, cf. Cic.
J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Problems of Rom. Crim. Rep. IV, 2, with Plut. Pomp. 22, 4-5.
Law, Oxford, I9I2, II, 90 ff., or that Caesar abolished

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA 77
One changethat is relevantAugustushad indeed made before 7 B.C., when Dionysius of
Halicarnassuspublished his history.40 That authortells us that in his day 5,ooo equitesequo
publico might appearin martialarrayat the annualreview each July.41 Thus Augustus had
enlarged the numbers enrolled in the eighteen centuries. But many otherwise qualified
persons were unfitted by age or infirmityfor a militaryparade. Suetonius says that at one
time Augustus allowed such men to appear on foot, but that later he permitted men over
thirty-five to give up their public horses, if they did not wish to retain them.42 The
significanceof this age limit is probablyto be inferredfrom an indication in Dio 43 that in
Augustus' view citizens had a special liability to army service till they were thirty-five.
In principle, though of course not in practice, the equitesequopublico were part of the
' exercitus '. But a man who had surrenderedhis public horse was surely eo ipso no longer
entitled to vote in the eighteen centuries. However this may be, Jones should have put it
beyond doubt that in the Principate, as in the Republic, not all those who could be
designated Equites were holders of the public horse,44even though Pliny pedanticallyyet
wrongly thought that the name belonged only to this class till A.D. 22.45 It thus remained
true that many, or most, Equites, and all senators,were not separatedfrom the Plebs in the
assembly at the time when the Lex Valeria Corneliawas passed.
Even that law, it is true, conceded a privileged position in the Comitia only to Equites
enrolledin the judicial decuries.46But of the younger men domiciled near enough to Rome
to be interestedin voting rights (for which residentsin Gades or Pataviumwould care little)
most, if not all, were probably registered in the eighteen centuries. The new law then
provided a privilege (even more distinguished) chiefly for the older men. This separation
of younger and older Equites in the Comitiacorrespondedto a distinctionthat was probably
observed in the theatre.47
Jones states that for membership of the decuries ' the minimum age limit was
thirty-five, later reduced to thirty'. That agrees well with the practice of allowing Equites
to give up the public horse at thirty-five. It might be said that until they reachedthat age
they were (in principle) availablefor militaryservice and thereafterfor civil. Unfortunately
there is a difficulty. It has been held with strong reasons that Suetonius, on whom Jones
relies, either wrote or should have writtenthat the minimumage for judicial duty, previously

40 Ant. Rom. I, 3, 2; 7, 2.
41 ibid. vi, 13.
42 Aug. 38: 'mox reddendi equi gratiam fecit eis
qui maiores annorum quinque et triginta retinere eum
nollent.' Mommsen, StR III,3 492, n. x, amended
' nollent' to ' mallent ', holding that ' gratiam fecit '
must mean ' exempted ' ; but the sense ' permitted '
is well authenticated, cf. Thes. LL, s.v. gratia.
cf. Dio LIV, 26, as interpreted by Jones, 9-IO.
43 Dio LVI, 23, 2.
44"Jones, 15-I6. The conclusion does not depend
on a doubtful supplement in the Tabula Hebana, nor
even on ILS 6747 (where the words may be garbled).
It is obvious that the 500 Equites of Gades and
Patavium (Str. iII, 5, 3 ; V, I, 7) did not turn out at
annual reviews at Rome. Gaius sent for men of good
birth and wealth from the provinces and enrolled them
in the -rAos of Equites, Dio LIX, 9, 5. In a broad
sense, these men were clearly Equites before they
came to Rome (like those mentioned by Strabo);
the -rAoS must denote the 'turmae equorum
publicorum ', to whom Pliny with archaic correctness
reserved the name of Equites. The distinction thus
persisted between equites equo publico and Equites in
a broader sense, men who did not actually possess the
public horse, though qualified by birth and wealth.
Stein, o.c. (n. 29), 57, taking the view that all Equites
were now equo publico, remarks that from Augustus
there is no trace of equites equoprivato. But when do
we hear of this class, as such, even in the time of
Cicero ? The fact that in countless inscriptions some
describe themselves simply as Equites and others as
equo publico (ILS Index III, pp. 361-3) is best
explained by assuming that the old distinction
continued (cf. especially ILS 6630: 'eq. Rom., patri
duorum eq. pub.'). The public horse was an honour
that only some Equites enjoyed (ILS Index III, p. 362,
for such phrases as ' equo publico ornatus ') ; later,
indeed, it did not imply presence at the review, since
it could be bestowed on children (e.g. ILS 6305).
45 cf. n. 29. Stein should never have cited Pliny's
statement that under Augustus 'equitum nomen
subsistebat in turmis equorum publicorum' to
sustain the view that throughout the Principate all
Equites were equo publico, since on Pliny's own view
(mistaken about the time of Augustus) in A.D. 22 'in
unitatem venit equester ordo', and the term then
came to embrace men who had previously been
correctly described not as Equites (since they lacked
the public horse), but as tribuni aerarii, selecti, iudices
or nongenti (NH XXXIII, 31-2). In reality, both before
and after A.D. 22, Equites included all citizens of the
requisite birth and wealth, and not just the members
of all these classes.
46 ' Equites omnium decuriarum ' shows that they
could be enrolled even in that decury for which the
minimum property qualification of 200,000 HSS
(Suet. Aug. 32, 3) was less than equestrian.
47 Ann. II, 83: ' equester ordo cuneum Germanici
appellavit, qui iuniorum dicebatur.' Stein o.c. (n. 29),
24, n. 2, supposes that this was one of the cunei
equestresin the theatre, Stat. Silv. III, 3, I43, cf. Suet.
Domit. 4, 5.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 P. A. BRUNT

the thirtieth year, was reduced by five years by Augustus.48 Perhaps this does not matter
much. It was the emperor or his agents who drew up the lists both of centuries of equites
equopublico and of decuries of equestrian iudices,49 and they could take care that a man did
not appear on both lists. That indeed must be assumed on any view of the Lex; obviously
no one can have been entitled to vote both in the ten centuries and later in other centuries.
It is probable that on the whole the older Equites were registered in the ten new centuries
and the younger in the eighteen.
It is of course clear that enrolment in the ten centuries might have done more than
enhance the dignity of the senators and Equites concerned. Their votes were bound to count
for more in free elections, because the new voting units were presumably exceptionally
small and still more because the preferences they expressed were likely to influence the
centuries that voted later. Although it has been shown that the change had no effect at all
on the type of men henceforth returned to the consulate, that does not mean that the electors
in the ten centuries had not a more potent voice than formerly in determining whether this
or that individual should be returned. But even the belief that the voting strength of the
higher orders was substantially increased in this way depends on the assumption that the
Comitia had real freedom to choose. I doubt if this was often true. It might be that in a
particular year the emperor cared little which of the qualified candidates was successful;
thus in A.D. 7 Augustus presumably observed neutrality until the disorder compelled him
to intervene and 'appoint' all the magistrates.50 But, whenever he made his wishes known,
the men he favoured were surely elected. Dio explicitly states that from A.D. 8 he posted up
the names of such candidates; 51 the Comitia then had no choice. It should not be assumed
that he normally refrained from influencing the consular elections. It is true that Tiberius
early in his reign preferred indirect methods for securing the election to the consulate of the
men he favoured, in contrast to the open commendation of some candidates for the
praetorship; these methods were none the less effective in Tacitus' opinion.52 But it is
unlikely that Tiberius would have ventured on interventions, however discreet, in consular
elections if he had not been able to call on the precept and example of Augustus, on which
he was ever disposed to lean.53 It might even be suggested that Tiberius carried deference
for constitutional forms farther than his predecessor and that Augustus might have more
plainly intimated his wishes. Later in Tiberius' reign consulships went by the patronage of
Sejanus,54 and after his fall Tiberius openly appointed the consuls.55 (References to
' appointment 'naturally do not imply that the due formalities were not observed.) Of course
the choice of an emperor or his minister was limited by the men available'; policy dictated
the elevation of many nobles, irrespective of their ability or subservience and thus not all the
consuls were loyal adherents of the regime. New men, by contrast, can hardly have reached
the highest honour without overt marks of imperial support. Jones' supposition that the
Comitia were normally left free to choose in Augustus' reign seems decidedly optimistic.
If that be so, it follows that the institution of the ten centuries enhanced the dignity of the
upper classes rather than their political power.
This new dignity was linked by the Lex Valeria Cornelia with the glory of the imperial
house. The upper classes exercised their new privileges under the names of Augustus'
grandsons. The connection was symbolic. The revolution Augustus had consummated,
though it had originated in social discontents, was political and not social in its fulfilment.
Augustus could almost be classed as one of those ' boni ' who served 'the wishes, interests
48 Suet. Aug. 3z, 49 Centuries: Suet. Aug. 38, 3 ; 37; Ovid, Tr. ii,
3. A minimum age of thirty was
prescribed for iudices by the Gracchan repetundae law 89 f.; 541 f.; ILS 9483, etc. Decuries, Suet. Aug.
(FIRA I, no. 7, 13) and for local magistracies under 29, 3; 3Z, 3; Ann. III, 30, etc.
the Republic (ibid. no. 13, 89; Cic. Verr. ii, 2, 122-3), 50 Dio LV, 34, 2.
5 1l.C., cf. Suet. Aug. 56, I. See n. 5.
but one of twenty-five for iudices in Cyrene by
Augustus (FIRA i, no. 68, i6) and also for local 5 Ann. I, 8i (contrast 15).
magistracies (ibid. no. 24, LIV; but in Pliny Ep. x, 53 ibid. I, 7z, 3 ; 77, 3 ; III, 68; IV, 37, 3 ; Agric.
79-80 xxv is a rash correction); cf. the similar reduc- I3, 2. For Augustus' control of consular elections,
tion under Augustus in the legal age for the quaestor- cf. Ann. III, 75 ; Antistius Labeo's alleged refusal of
ship (StR I,3 569-74). See J. Stroux-L. Wenger, Die the consulship in Dig. I. 2. 2. 47, does not ring true.
Augustus Inschrift ... Abh. Bay. Akad. xxxiv, i928, 54 Ann. iv, 68, 2.
98 ff.; J. Stroux, SB Bay. Akad. i929, I9 ff. (where "Dio LVIII, 20, not contradicting Ann. I, 8i, which
his interpretation of BGU 6ii, 1-7, must be con- refers to an earlier time.
sidered uncertain). Hence we should posit an error
by Suetonius, or (better) amend xxx to xxv.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA 79
and opinions ' of men of property and rank; 56 by conserving the social structure, he
maintained the ' fundamenta otiosae dignitatis '-except in one point. He destroyed political
liberty. In politics he had become, and intended to remain, the arbiter; and to Romans the
most essential ingredient of politics was preferment to high office. Neither Augustus, when
he adorned the Comitia in A.D. 5 with decorative accretions, nor Tiberius, when in A.D. I4
he transferred elections to a compliant Senate, can have meant to surrender any real control,
' neque alia re Romana quam si unus imperitet.' 57
56 Cic. Sest. 97-8. here (Phoenix xv, I96I, 97 ff.) has anticipated some of
57 I am grateful to Mr. A. N. Sherwin-White for my arguments and conclusions ; I could not accept
discussion of an earlier draft of this paper. R. Sealey his main thesis on Sejanus' party.
in an article which appeared too late for consideration

APPENDIX I
I give below the names of all the consuls I have placed in classes B and C in the tables on p. 75,
but not the names of men in class A (Republican nobiles) except where any doubt may be felt about
their classification; thus all consuls not named below belong unquestionably to this class. Evidence
will be found in the relevant articles of PIR and P-W; Republican antecedents can be simply verified
in the Index of Broughton, MRR. See also A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae XIII, I, I37 ff., and the
index to Syme's Roman Revolution.
The Fasti are complete for all years except A.D. I3 (Degrassi, Epigraphica VIII, I946, 34-5
F. W. Adams, AJA LV, I95I, 239).

Period I (23-6 B.C.).

Ordinarii.-The twenty-three consuls in class A include (i) P. Quinctilius Varus (I3 B.C.), despite
Velleius II, I I7 (' inlustri magis quam nobili ortus familia '), since (a) he was of an old patrician family;
(b) he may have been descended from a Quinctilius, cos. 453 B.C.; and (2) Q. Aelius Tubero (cos.
I I B.C.), though his family is only known to have been praetorian; he seems to be a brother of Sex.
Aelius Q. f. L. n. Catus, cos. A.D. 4, the father or grandfather of Aelia Paetina; the cognomina Catus
and Paetina suggest a connection with Sex. Aelius Paetus Catus, cos. I98 B.C., and conceivably the
Tuberones were an offshoot of the noble Aelii Paeti; Q. Aelius Tubero, sister's son of Scipio
Aemilianus, is described as 'nobilissima in familia ... natus ' (Cic. Rep. I, 31). (The statement in
Dig. I. 2. 2. 40 that he attained the consulship is unreliable.) The Tuberones were at least a family of
old distinction, with a praetor as early as 20I B.C.
The 2-3 consuls in class B are C. Asinius Gallus (8 B.C.), son of C. Asinius Pollio (cos. 40 B.C.),
C. Antistius Vetus (6 B.C.), son of C. Antistius Vetus (cos. suff. 30 B.C.), grandson of a praetor of
70 B.C. (Vell. II, 43, 4) and C. Furnius (I7 B.C.) (see next paragraph).
The 8-9 novi homines in class C are:
i. L. Arruntius(22);
z. M. Lollius (zi);
3. M. Appuleius (zo);
4. P. Silius Nerva (20);
5. C. Sentius Saturninus(i9);
6. Q. Lucretius Vespillo (i9);
7. (?) C. Furnius (I7);
8. P. Sulpicius Quirinius (I2);
9. D. Laelius Balbus (6).
Of these men only Sulpicius Quirinius is attested as a mere parvenu (Ann. III, 48). But all, except
Sulpicius, may have had some senatorial antecedents. Lollius was conceivably son of M. Lollius Q. f.
qu. 64 and was somehow related to the noble M. Aurelius Cotta Messalinus (Ann. xii, zz); Groag
conjectures that he was actually a Cotta by birth, adopted into the Lollii, but I reject this, on the
ground that he would then have borne a cognomenAurelianus or Cotta (cf. Cn. Aufidius Orestes, cos.
7I B.C., who was an Aurelius Orestes by birth, or M. Pupius Piso Frugi Calpurnianus, cos. 6I B.C.).
Arruntius had been an Optimate, proscribed in 43. Appuleius, apparently brother of Sex. Appuleius
cos. 29 and nephew of Augustus, may have been related to Republican Appuleii. Silius was (probably)
son of a praetor of the 50s. C. Sentius was perhaps descended from a praetor of that name in 94 ;
his father was proscribed in 43 and Sentia, the mother of Augustus' wife, Scribonia, was probably his
aunt. Q. Lucretius Vespillo, a Pompeian and presumably a senator in 49, was probably descended
from his namesake, aedile in I33. C. Furnius was son of a tribune of 5I B.C., who had governed Asia
under Antony, and had been adlected among the consulars by Augustus in 2z (Dio LII, 42, 4); the

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8o P. A. BRUNT
younger Furnius might on that ground perhapsratherbe enrolled in class B. Laelius was doubtless
grandsonof a legate of Pompey in c. 76 and son of one of his commandersin the civil war (tr. pl. 54).
Suffecti.-Class B is representedby C. Caninius Rebilus (I2), son of a suffect consul of 45; his
family had been praetoriansince the early second century.
The new men are:-
i. L. Sestius (23), son of P. Sestiuspr. c. 54 B.C.and probablygrandsonof L. Sestius tr.pl. by 9I;
2. M. Vinicius P. f. (i9), of equestrianfamily (Ann.VI, I5) ;
3. L. Tarius Rufus (i6) ' infima nataliumhumilitate' (Pliny NH XVIII,37);
4. C. Valgius Rufus (I2), perhaps of senatorialfamily (cf. Bell. Hisp.I3);
5. L. Volusius Saturninus(I2), of old praetorianfamily, accordingto Ann.III, 30 ; the fact that
no praetorsof the gens are known illustratesthe incompletenessof our records.
Period 2 (5 B.C.-middle of A.D. 5).
Ordinarii.-The thirteen consuls of Republican nobility include Sex. Aelius Paetus (cf. supra).
In class B we have C. CalvisiusSabinus(4 B.C.), son of a consul of 39, P. Vinicius M. f., son of the
suffect consul of I9 and P. Alfenus Varus, son of a suffect consul in 39, both in A.D. 2, and C. Sentius
Saturninus,son of the consul of I9 B.C. (A.D. 4). So far as we know, the first Calvisius and Alfenus,
as well as Vinicius' father, were parvenus.
As novi hominesI reckon L. Passienus Rufus (4 B.C.),son of a declamator,M. Plautius Silvanus
(2 B.C.) and L. Aelius Lamia(A.D. 3), son of a legate of Spain in 24 B.C.and grandsonof a distinguished
eques(Ann. VI, 27). Syme, RomanRevolution399, regardsPlautius as nobilis,but his cautionelsewhere
(422 n. 3) is preferable. Plautius was perhaps descended from A. Plautius pr. 5i and M. Plautius
Silvanus tr. pl. 89, but no connection can be establishedwith the noble Plautii of the Republic, who
bear differentcognomina.He was, however, no parvenu.
Suffecti.-The consuls from the new nobility are L. Vinicius (5 B.C.), son of a consul of 33 (who
was presumablya kinsmanof M. Vinicius, cos.suff.I9 B.C.), L. CaniniusGallus (2 B.C.), and grandson
of a plebeiantribune of 56 B.C., son of a consul of 37, M. HerenniusPicens (A.D. i), presumablyson of
M. Herennius cOs. 34 B.C., but hardly (in view of his cognomen) descended from the consul of 93 (in
which case he would belong to class A), P. Silius (A.D. 3), son of the consul of 2o and L. Volusius
Saturninus(A.D. 3), son of the suffectconsul of Iz, and Cn. Sentius Saturninus,son of the consul of I9.
The new men were:-
i. Q. Haterius(5 B.C.), of senatorialfamily (Ann.IV, 6i), though the firstknownis one proscribed
in 43 ;
2. C. FufiusGeminus(2 B.C.), son of a legate of Octavianin 35 (I assume no connection with
Q. Fufius Calenus cos. 47);
3. Q. Fabricius (2 B.C.), perhaps descended from a tr. pl. 57 B.C. (hardly from the censor of
275 B.C.);
4. C. Caelius (4 B.C.), perhaps connected with RepublicanCaelii;
5. A. Plautius(I B.C.), probablya cousin of M. Plautius Silvanus (cf. supra);
6. A. Caecina Severus (I B.C.);
7. C. Clodius Licinus(A.D. 4).
Period3 (middle of A.D. 5-A.D. I5).
Ordinarii.-Among the RepublicannobilesI reckon (i) Sex. Nonius Quinctilianus (A.D. 8), by
reasonof his birth (cf. supraon QuinctiliusVarus),though by adoptionhe belongs to B (see below on
L. Nonius Asprenas), (2) Q. Sulpicius Camerinus(A.D. 9), froma family last attested in the fourth
century (cf. Syme, RomanRev. 377 for parallels) and (3) C. NorbanusFlaccus(A.D. I5), on the
assumptionthat he was descendednot only from the consul of 38 B.C. (which would merely place him
in class B), but also from the consul of 83.
The new nobility produced:
i. L. Arruntius (A.D. 6), son of the consul of 22 B.C.;
2. A. Licinius Nerva Silianus (A.D. 7), presumed son of the consul of 20 B.C., adopted into a
family that had been praetorian since the second century;
3. T. Statilius Taurus (A.D. ii), probably grandson of the marshal who had been consul in 37
and 26 B.C.;
4. C. Fonteius Capito (A.D. I2), son or grandson of the suffect consul of 33 B.C., descended from
praetors of the early second century;
5. C. Silius (A.D. I3), son of the consul of 20 B.C.;
6. L. Munatius Plancus (A.D. I3), probably grandson of the consul of 42 B.C.;
7. Sex. Appuleius (A.D. I4), son of the consul of 29 B.C.
The only new man is C. Poppaeus Sabinus (A.D. 9); ' modicus originis ' (Ann. VI, 59) might
suggest that his father had sat in the Senate.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA 8I
Suffecti.-The new nobility are representedonly by L. Nonius Asprenas (A.D. 6), presumably
descendedfrom a suffect consul of 36 B.C., who was apparentlyhimself son of a Caesarianproconsul
of praetorianrank.
New men were
I. C. Vibius Postumus (A.D. 5);
2. C. Ateius Capito (A.D. 5)' avo centurioneSullano, patre praetorio'(Ann. III, 75);
3. LuciliusLongus(A.D. 7);
4. L. Apronius(A.D. 8);
5. A. VibiusHabitus(A.D. 8), brotherof no. I;
6. M. Papius Mutilus (A.D. 9), a Samnite aristocrat;
7. Q. Poppaeus Secundus (A.D. 9), brotherof C. Poppaeus Sabinus;
8. Q. Junius Blaesus (A.D. IO);
9. C. Visellius Varro (A.D. I2), presumably descended from an aedile of this name of c. 59 B.C.,
a cousin of Cicero.
Some Republican Vibii and Lucilii are known, but only Visellius of these men has any clear
Republican affiliation. It is worth noting that two pairs of brothers appear among the new men.
Birth (in the sense of nobility among their own communities) and riches probably counted as much as
personal merit in bringing them to the fore.
I have not included in my tables suffect consuls in A.D. I3, whose identity is conjectural. One had
a name ending in ' gus ' or ' cus '. A. E. and J. S. Gordon (AJP LXXII, I95I, 283 ff.) rejected the
received view that the ordinary consul of that year bore the anomalous name of C. Silius A. Caecina
Largus, and argued that the man was [A. Caecina Lar]gus, to be differentiated from C. Silius. This
proposal has found little favour. A. Degrassi (Epigraphica VIII, I946, 34-6), supposing that there
were not more than two suffecti, tentatively identified them with M. Lollius, son of the consul of
2I B.C., who certainly held the office (Ann. xii, I) and can hardly have done so under Tiberius, who
was hostile to his father (ibid. III, 48), and with Favonius, apparently a legate of consular rank in
A.D. I4 (ILS 9483). Lollius is probably to be accepted (and thus adds another name to my class B),
Favonius, as Degrassi admitted, might be known to us under another name. Favonius would otherwise
come in class C. He might have been descended from the praetor so named of 49 B.C.

APPENDIX II
I. I have assumed on p. 75 that before the Lex Valeria Cornelia was passed the centuries were
still called to vote in the order of their classes. This has been questioned (among others) by Tibiletti,
o.c. (in n. I), 6o ff.; he supposes that at some earlier date Augustus had made the comitia centuriata
more democratic. This view should surely be rejected.
2. It is notorious that there is no agreement among scholars about the organization of the
comitia centuriata. Fortunately there is no need to re-open the whole question here. It is accepted
that in its original Servian form the eighteen centuries of Equites and the eighty centuries, seniors
and juniors, of the first class, if unanimous, commanded an absolute majority of the total number of
centuries, whether that number be I93 (Dion. Hal. iv, I8, 3 ; I9, I ; 20, 5 ; VII, 59, 7; X, 7, and
perhaps Cic. de rep. II, 39) or I94 (as implied by Livy I, 43, cf. P. Fraccaro, Opuscula II, 3I5 ff.) or I95
(as implied by Cicero l.c., if rightly interpreted by G. V. Sumner, AYP LXXXI, I960, I36 ff.), and that
the remaining classes were called in order, only if and up to the point that a majority had not been
reached (Livy I, 43, II ; Dion. Hal. IV, 2o, etc.). It is clearly stated by Livy I, 43, II, that originally
the Equites voted first, and they may be identified with the prerogative centuries of Festus 290 L
(cf. perhaps Livy v, i8, I ; X, 22, I); Dionysius merely says that they voted 'in ' the first class
(IV, 20, 3-4; VII, 59, 3), but as he mentions them before the centuries of Pedites, it is likely that he
knew of the same tradition. At this time there was no connection between the centuries and the tribes.
3. A number of changes were, however, made in the third century. The old division by classes
was certainly retained (Cic. de leg. III, 7; 44; Gell. XV, 27, 5; Sall. (?) ad Caes. ii, 8, etc.) and
likewise that by ages into juniors and seniors (Cic. and Gell. ll.cc., etc.); in this sense the Servian
order remained intact (Livy I, 43, I2 as interpreted by J. J. Nicholls, AYP LXXVII, I956, 24I ff.). But
the prerogative vote was exercised, as early as the Hannibalic war, by a tribal century of juniors of the
first class, chosen by lot (Livy XXIV,7, I2; XXVI, 22, 4 and II ; xxvii, 6, 3); the last text refers also
to a tribal century of seniors. It therefore follows that the centuries of Equites had lost their old
primacy; it would seem from a combination of Livy XLIII, i6, 4 and Cic. Phil. ii, 8i that twelve of
them voted with the first class and six thereafter. It also appears from Phil. ii, 8i that even in an
uncontested election, voting had to proceed as far as the second class (but no further) before an
absolute majority could be obtained. Other allusions to tribal centuries (e.g. Polybius VI, I4, 7, cf.
Cic. de leg. III, 44 and LivyXXIX,37, I3; Cic. de leg. agr. II, 4; Planc. 49; Livy, I, 43, I2) prove that

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 P. A. BRUNT

the tribal and class structureswere somehow integrated in the centuriate assembly. Despite some
dissent, it must be taken as certain that in the first class at least each of the thirty-five tribes was
representedby one century of juniors and one of seniors. There was thus a reduction in the voting
strength of the first class from eighty to seventy centuries. If it be assumedthat the total number of
centuries was unchanged,it is then easy to comprehendwhy a majoritycould no longer be reached
until the second class had been called. This assumptionindeed rests on an interpretationof Cic. de
rep. II, 39, which Sumner has made very dubious, if not disproved. Whateverthe true total, the facts
remain that votes of the second class were necessaryand sufficientto establish a majority,and that
as late as 44 the classes were still called in order.
4. The new system could be considered more democraticthan the ' Servian' in at least two
respects, (i) that the Equites were no longer called first and that the richest and noblest citizens had
thus lost the advantageof the prerogativevote; and (ii) that the voting power of the first class was
so far weakenedthat a majoritycould no longer be secured without the concurrenceof at least some
centuries of the second class. It may be added that the minimum qualificationfor the fifth class had
been lowered (cf. Fraccaro,Opuscula II, 318) from I2,500 asses(Dionys. Hal. IV, I7, 2) or II,ooo
(Livy I, 43) to 4,000 (Polybius vi, I9, 2) and then to I,500 (Cic. de rep. II, 40; Gell. xvi, I0, io);
whether this entailed reductionsin the qualificationsfor classes II-iv is not known; that of the first
class was either unchangedor increased (see evidence given by G. W. Botsford, RomanAssemblies,
I909, 89 ff.); and the qualificationfor Equites must surely have been raisedto 400,000 HSS attested
in the first century B.C.
5. It would seem that the first two changes might account (as generally supposed) for Dionysius'
view (IV, 2I, 3) that the Comitia had become more democratic. His words, however, form the basis
for Tibiletti's theory and must be quoted:-
OUTOSO KOKiOS TOS TrOO7 TE14iaTOES?TiT
T'OET2\C(T iS 0IE' EIVEyEvEaS vJ?\aTTO'PEVOS IJ1TO Pcouaicv- E?VO?ETOIS Kae'
Kal PETE(a?PE'PKEV
Ti,uS KEKiVrTal XPOVOIS EISTO5T1pOTlKCOATEPOV, avayKali Tlri PiaaesE iaXupalS, oU, T@$v ?\ Xcov
KaT-racvervTcov,d&XaT1-5KraECOS
a) (JTCAV Ov'KE'Ti
TrTV
pvapXaiv aKpip3EaV qpvXaTTO'a1T1S, CO5EYVCOV Tals &PXaIPECTiais
ac'TcOv roX2\aKlS TnapcOv.

Tibiletti refers with approval to Fraccaro's treatment of this text (now in Opuscula II, I74 ff.).
Fraccaro remarked that Dionysius could not have spoken of a change resulting from a third century
reform as one that had come about in his own day. Now it is clear that Dionysius is writing of elections
which he saw himself, after 30 B.C., when he came to Rome (I, 7, 2). But his use of the perfect tense
implies only that in his day the system was different, as a result of a reform, from the Servian which
he has just described (so Mommsen, StR3 III, 270, n. i ; Nicholls o.c. 234). This answer may indeed
not be thought sufficient by any one who supposes that Dionysius wrote with knowledge of the third
century reform. But there is no warrant for thinking that he did. At best he was vaguely conscious
of a change occurring many generations after Servius. The reform cannot have been earlier than 24I,
when the final number of thirty-five tribes was reached; but Dionysius took his history only down
to 264 (I, 8, 2); it may well be, therefore, that he knew only (a) from his sources the character of the
Servian organization; (b) from personal observation the fact that the contemporary system was
different. Fraccaro further held that Dionysius says in this text that in his time the centuries were not
called to vote ' con l'antico rigore ', and that this is an unnatural way of describing the reformed
system ' applicato certo alla sua volta con rigore ', but refers to the ' applicazione non rigorosa ' of
a system remaining in force. But &KplPia means only 'exactitude' (cf. Thuc. I, 22), not ' rigore ';
and Dionysius is merely saying that the system was not exactly the same as of old, i.e. as instituted by
Servius. The difference that struck him concerned the K2XaECAS of the centuries. (I find the variant
KpiaECOSpreferred by Nicholls 252-3 intolerably hard.) This word might mean either ' calling' or
'class ' (Nicholls is wrong in saying that K2i<ais never denotes classis in Dionysius, cf. IV, 20, 5
(twice); VII, 59, 8 and 9 (three times)). If we adopt the former sense, he must have had in mind the
fact that the Equites were no longer called first; if the latter, the change in the number of centuries in
the first class and perhaps in other classes.
6. Tibiletti suggests that in Dionysius' day the centuries were no longer called in order by classes,
that Augustus had put into effect the proposal ascribed to C. Gracchus ' ut ex confusis quinque
classibus sorte centuriae vocarentur' (Sall. (?) ad Caes. ii, 8) and later revived by the tribune of
66 B.C., Manilius, and by Ser. Sulpicius in 63 (Cic. Mur. 47). Cicero describes this plan as amounting
to ' aequationem gratiae, dignitatis, suffragiorum ' and adds-' graviter homines honesti atque in suis
vicinitatibus et municipiis gratiosi tulerunt a tali viro esse pugnatum ut omnes et dignitatis et gratiae
gradus tollerentur '. Such municipal gentry were surely the very people on whose support (together
with the army's) the new regime was most solidly based; and it is hard to believe that Augustus would
have adopted any scheme that diminished their voting influence; it is scarcely consonant with his plan
of giving postal votes to the curiales in his colonies (Suet. Aug. 46), or indeed with the Lex Valeria
Cornelia. And even though Tibiletti is clearly right (pp. 78 ff.) in holding that Suetonius' statement
' comitiorum quoque pristinum ius reduxit ' means simply that he restored electoral rights to the

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE LEX VALERIA CORNELIA 83
Comitia (cf. Dio LIII, 2I, 6), and has no implicationsabout its organization,it might be urged that if
he had made that body more democratic,some qualification(besides the reference to the increased
number of praetors)might have been expected in Velleius' generalization-' priscailla et antiquarei
publicae forma revocata' (II, 89).
7. If Nicholls has rightlyinterpretedLivy I, 43, iz (as I believe), then that authorunambiguously
records the survival in essentials, i.e. in the class structureat least, of the Servian system at a time,
presumably,after 27 B.C. Nor is it significantthat there is no later allusion to the classes, as Tibiletti
suggests. For the time of Augustus our evidence is so meagrethat an argumentfrom silence has no
force; and after A.D. I4 the centuriateassembly became a nullity, and its organizationwould have
attracted no attention. Tibiletti points to the fact that imperial inscriptions mention as many as
eight centuriesof juniors in the tribus Sucusana. Now there is (as he himself says) no possible theory
of the Republicancomitiacenturiatawhich would accommodateso many centuries of juniors in any
one tribe. The conclusion must then be drawn that these centuries have nothing whatever to do
with the Comitia, and that we cannot infer from their number 'important changes in the popular
assembly of the Principate'. And if they were in some way linked with the corn-dole (StR III3,
444 ff.), it is not surprisingthat they are not related to the distributionof citizens into classes.
8. Tibiletti adopts Beloch's view (with which I too agree)that Augustus changedthe basis of the
census for demographicreasons,so as to include women and children. It does not, however, follow
from this that he did not also wish to classify citizens by propertyin classes. In recentyears tributum,
or other levies on property,had been imposed (Cic. ad Br. I, i8, 5; Plut. Aem. Paull. 38; Dio XLIX,
I5, 3, etc.); it could not be predicted that such imposts would never again be required, and in
A.D. I3 a direct propertytax was in fact proposed; the investigationsinto the propertyof individuals
and communitiesthen set on foot might be connectedwith the census of A.D. I4 (Dio LVI, 28). It was
the very object of Claudius' census 'ut publice notae sint facultates nostrae' (ILS 2z2). It is then
surely certainthat the Augustancensusesinvolvedpropertyreturns ; hence, it waspossibleto distribute
the citizens into classes, as in the past, and Augustus could have had no motive for not in fact doing
this.
9. Fraccaroheld that in Dionysius' time the Comitiahad irreparablydecayed and that probably
few appearedto vote; hence unqualifiedpersons might have voted in the first class or the centuries
voted in no order, since the procedure no longer mattered. (He even finds evidence for earlier
degenerationin pro Sestio, IO9 ; it seems to me clear that Ciceromeans that in legislative assemblies,
of which he is speaking,few persons might vote-on laws which raisedno widespreadinterest.) It is
enough to referto Jones, o.c. (n. I), I3 ; the Comitiawere not obviouslymoribundin Augustus'reign.
io. Thus no explanationcan be found for a democraticchange in the centuriateassemblyunder
Augustus,nor any evidencefor it outside a single statementby Dionysius, which, so interpreted,seems
to conflictwith Livy and with generalprobability. It is then best to revertto the view that Dionysius
was noticing the effect of the reformmade in the third century.

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:09:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions