When the Roman people has enacted anything, if it be a matter of that sort, that it appears it may be granted also to some other nations, whether joined to us by a treaty, or free to decide themselves which law they prefer using, not about our affairs, but about their own; then it seems necessary to inquire whether they have adopted and ratified our law, or not; but the senate never intended that those peoples should have the power of ratifying or declining to ratify measures which concern our republic, our empire our wars, our victory, and our safety.1
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO AGAINST PUBLIUS VATINIUS; CALLED ALSO, THE EXAMINATION OF PUBLIUS VATINIUS.
THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO IN DEFENCE OF LUCIUS CORNELIUS BALBUS.
1 In the seventh century of Rome, the terms foederatae civitates, foederati socii expressed those Italian states which were connected with Rome by a treaty. These names did not include Roman colonies or Latin colonies, or any place which had obtained the Roman civitas, or right of citizenship. They were independent states, yet under a general liability to furnish a contingent to the Roman army. It was the discontent among the foederati and their claim to be admitted to the privileges of Roman citizen, that led to the Social war.The Julia Lex mentioned in the text, gave the civitas to the Socii and Latini. It was passed B.C. 90. The expression fundus fio occurs frequently in the text here, for this lex Julia, and another law passed the next year contained a condition that the federate states should consent to accept what the lex offered or, as it was technically expressed, populus fundus fieret. Those who did not become fundi populi did not obtain the civitas. There were a few foederatae civitates out of Italy, of which, as we see, Gades was one. Massilia (Marseilles) and Saguntum (Murviedro) were so too. Vide Smith, Dict. Ant. p. 427, v. foederatae civitates. In which article Professor Long says, with reference to this cause, “It was objected to Balbus that he could not have the civitas, unless the state to which he belonged fundes factus esset, which was a complete misapprehension; for the term fundus in this sense applied to the whole state or community, whether federate or other free state, which accepted what was offered, and not to an individual of such state or community, who might accept the Roman civitas without asking the consent of his fellow-citizens at home, or without all of them receiving the same privilege that was offered to himself.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.