ciation calumnieuse qui avait été flétrie par le peuple, dans la personne de Tisis d'Agrylète. Il ne paraît pas pourtant que ce dernier ait été condamné à une amende de mille drachmes, il semble plutôt avoir été noté d'infâmie, d'où il faut conclure qu'avant qu'on s'arrêtât à l'amende, il y eut quelques essais de châtiments plus ou moins sévères.' I incline to think that the latter opinion is the correct one, although the reason with which Caffiaux supports his conclusion is not satisfactory. The case of Tisis is no eisangelia; it is an apographe and can be of no use in deciding the question, Hyp. pro Eux. c. 43: каì πрŵтоν μὲν Τίσιδος τοῦ ̓Αργυλῆθεν ἀπογράψαντος τὴν Εὐθυκράτους οὐσίαν ὡς δημοσίαν οὖσαν. My opinion is formed from the fol lowing passages: Dem. XVIII, 250: οὐκοῦν ἐν μὲν οἷς εἰσηγγελό μην, ὅτ' ἀπεψηφίζεσθέ μου καὶ τὸ μέρος τῶν ψήφων τοῖς διώκουσιν οὐ μετεδίδοτε, τότ ̓ ἐψηφίζεσθε τὰ ἄριστά με πράττειν, Lyc. c. Leocr. 3: vûv dè tepiéotηkev eis toûto, wote tòv idíą kɩvδυνεύοντα καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἀπεχθανόμενον οὐ φιλόπολιν ἀλλὰ φιλοπράγμονα δοκεῖν εἶναι (this speech was delivered Ol. 112, 2 3310). Now the prominent mention by Demosthenes of the fact of his accusers having not received to μέρος τῶν ψήφων (i. e. тò Téμπтоv μépos) appears to me to leave no doubt that at the time he spoke, it was of importance to obtain the fifth part of the votes, that otherwise the accusers subjected themselves to a penalty and this penalty was most likely the one mentioned by Pollux and Harpocration, viz., 1000 drachmae. This statement of Demosthenes can have little significance unless we look upon it in this light. Demosthenes means by those words the numerous accusations made by his enemies after the peace of Demades ([Dem.] xxv, 36; Plut. Dem. 21). At the date of the case of Lycophron, the informer was subjected to no penalty; therefore we are left to conclude that during the period viz. from Ol. 107, at which time A. Schaefer (Jahn's n. Jahrb. 1853 p. 28) supposes that speech was delivered, to O1. 110, 3 the impunity of the informer in the event of his not obtaining the fifth part of votes was discontinued. Therefore I do not find it strange as Schneidewin 1. c. p. 59 and Comparetti 1. c. p. 35 do, that Hyperides does not reproach Polyeuctus in his speech on behalf of Euxenippus with having accused

under eisangelia, because the accuser under eisangelia was ȧkívSuvos, as he does in the speech written for Lycophron, because that speech was delivered at a time (about 330) when the impunity had been abolished.

I cannot flatter myself that I have in the above essay quite satisfactorily or definitively settled the interesting question of the εἰσαγγελία, for to use the words of Galen : χαλεπὸν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα μὴ διαμαρτάνειν ἐν πολλοῖς· τὰ μὲν ὅλως ἀγνοήσαντα, τὰ δὲ κακῶς κρίνοντα, τὰ δὲ ἀμελέστερον γράψαντα. Still I trust that some of the ideas, which may be found in my essay, may perhaps suggest to my fellow-labourers in the same subject, whose judgement in these matters is more entitled to consideration than my own, some facts having an important bearing on the question at issue. If such should be the happy result of my work, I shall feel that I have not laboured in vain.

MANCHESTER,

August, 1871.

HERMAN HAGER.

ON THE PEDARII IN THE ROMAN SENATE.

THE debates of the Roman Senate differed from those of all modern deliberative assemblies in the stringency of the rules by which the succession of speakers was determined. No senator could ask for a hearing until he had been called upon (rogatus sententiam); and the order in which this was done was fixed by law or custom in such a manner as to permit little or no choice to the presiding magistrate. The principles by which this order was determined are approximately known.

(1) Senators were ranked according to the magistracies which they had held as censorii, consulares, praetorii, aedilicii, tribunicii, quaestorii, and lastly those who had held no magistracy. The princeps senatus was as a rule the eldest person who had held the censorship.

(2) Again, patrician and plebeian senators were distinguished as patres and conscripti. The form of summons to the senate contained the words qui patres quique conscripti sunt (Liv. 2, 1. Fest. p. 254), and the distinction was kept up by a difference in the shoes worn by the two orders. (Zonar. 7. 9. Fest. p. 142, 'mulleus'.) The fact of a distinction is of course quite independent of the tradition of the 164 senators added from the plebeians by Brutus (or by Servius Tullius, as others said).

Further, within the patricians themselves it seems that there was a distinction between majores and minores gentes. Cicero (Rep. 2. 20) says that Tarquin consulted the patres majorum gentium first; from which it may be gathered that this order was customary in later times. The Papirii are the only known example of the minores gentes: and no princeps Journal of Philology. VOL. IV.

8

senatus of this name is mentioned. Mommsen makes the same observation of the 'Alban families'-the Geganii, Cluilii, Curiatii, Quinctilii, &c. These latter distinctions are, however, secondary; i. e. all consulares, patrician and plebeian, came before all praetorii, &c.; but within each class (ordo or gradus) there was a sub-division into patres majorum gentium, patres minorum gentium, and conscripti.

(3) Some further indications connect the distribution of the Senate with the ancient Tribes and Curies.

Fest. p. 246, 'praeteriti', says that by the Lex Ovinia (date unknown) the censors were to choose the Senate ex optimo quoque ordine curiatim.

According to Dionysius the election of the original Senate of Romulus was based on equal representation of the three Tribes and thirty Curies.

Modern writers have connected the number 300 (the Senate of the early Republic) with the 3 Tribes and 30 Curies, and treated as an error the statement of all the ancients, that the Tribes and Curies were instituted by Romulus. The Luceres, for instance, are conjectured to have been either Albans or Etruscans. On this point, however, the ancient writers are good evidence to the contrary. If the Luceres had been connected either with the Alban families or with the minores gentes, that fact must have been familiar to Roman antiquaries and would have appeared in their theories.

The word in Festus is curiati, corrected by Müller curiatim, but others have read jurati, understanding the Lex Ovinia to have provided that the censors should act on oath. (Meyer in Bekker-Marquardt, Röm. Alterth. ][. 2. 390). Considering how unimportant the Curies were in the (probable) time of the Lex Ovinia, and how common it was to require magistrates, &c. to act on oath, the latter reading seems preferable.

It is evident that there was some connexion between this scale of precedence and the class of senators often spoken of as pedarii. They were so called, we are told, from the way in which they expressed their opinions, pedibus in sententiam eundo. Was this class separated by any legal boundary from

the senators who spoke as well as voted or was the distinc'tion one of custom only? If the former, were the pedarii identical with any of the sub-divisions already described?

Mommsen finds the pedarii in the conscripti, or rather in the conscripti of the orders who had held no curule magistracy, a class which may have been considerable in the earlier period of the Republic. In support of this view he quotes a curious passage of Varro, preserved by Gellius, 3. 18. § 5. M. autem Varro in Satira Menippеa quaе 'Iππокúшv inscripta est equites quosdam dicit pedarios appellatos. These pedarii, Gellius proceeds to say, were the conscripti, who according to the traditional account were enrolled from the equestrian order into the Senate. The passage of Varro, however, does not say that the pedarii were equites, but that certain equites were called pedarii. In this saying the embers of an extinct jest may still be traced, although Gellius has not perceived it. The satire seems (from the name 'ITTоKÚwv) to have attacked the equestrian order; and the meaning of giving the name pedarii to Equites must have been that Equites who did not ride might be called pedarii with at least as much point as senators who did not speak. At the time when the census equester came to be a sufficient qualification for admission to the order the number of equites pedarii (in this sense) must have been very large, and the whole institution to an antiquarian like Varro doubtless appeared to be a proof of the great degeneracy of the national cha

racter.

On the other hand there is not only a complete absence of direct reference to any class of senators being incapable of speaking, but there are passages in which pedariï are represented as taking part in debate.

Tacitus, Ann. 3. 65, multique etiam pedarii senatores certatim exsurgerent foedaque et nimia censerent (where pedarii are expressly distinguished from the consulares, &c. who spoke first).

Lucilius as quoted by Fest. p. 210, Agipes vocem mittere coepit, where agipes is explained as =pedarius.

Gellius 1.c. gives as one explanation of pedari the distinc