previous next


TRIBUS (φυλή), a political division of a people.


The word φυλὴ does not occur in Homer, and the political idea which it embodies is undoubtedly post-Homeric. The φῦλον of Homer is a race or breed, e. g. of gods, men, animals, even insects (Il. 19.30); more rarely, it is a “tribe” in the sense of nation or people, and this tribe may be an aggregate of septs or clans (κατὰ φῦλα, κατὰ φρήτρας, Il. 2.362). In this passage, and in the phrase Δωριέες τριχάϊκες (Od. 19.177), we see the germs of later institutions.

In the early historic period we find the πόλις or state divided into φυλαί with more or less reference to a favourite or sacred number which varied in different races. Thus the Ionian number was four, the Dorian three; the four old-Ionic “tribes” occur, with the same names, in other Ionian states besides Athens; and traces of the three Dorian tribes are found in all the countries which they colonised. These tribes were in the first instance genealogical (γενικαί), afterwards local (τοπικαί): on this distinction cf. DEMUS p. 615 a. The three Dorian tribes were called Ὑλλεῖς, Δυμανᾶται or Δυμᾶνες, and Πάμφυλοι (Pind. P. 1.120 ff.; Hdt. 5.68; Steph. s. vv.). As usual, the names were said to have been derived from eponymous heroes; the first from Hyllus, son of Hercules, the others from Dymas and Pamphylus, leaders who fell in the invasion of the Peloponnesus. In reality the name Pamphyli points to the aggregation of a number of scattered family elements under a single tribe. Traces of a τρίπολις in Doris are found in Thuc. 1.107, Diod. 6.79, but there is no evidence to show that each φυλὴ occupied a separate πόλις: elsewhere the Dorian τετράπολις is mentioned, as by Strabo (ix. p.427). The Hyllean tribe ranked first in precedence; the Pamphylians, as a mixed multitude, came last; but at Sparta there does not appear to have been much distinction, for all the freemen there were by the constitution of Lycurgus on a footing of equality. When Herodotus speaks of the Aegeidae as φυλὴ μεγάλη ἐν Σπάρτῃ (4.149), he is not to be understood as speaking of a fourth tribe of equal or similar dignity and rank to the other three. Hie uses the term φυλὴ in the general sense of γένος or φρατρία (Stein in loc. See also Pindar, Pind. P. 5.101). To these three tribes others were added in different places, either when the Dorians were joined by other foreign allies, or when some of the old inhabitants were admitted to the rank of citizenship or equal privileges. Eight tribes are mentioned in Corinth (Suidas, s. v. Πάντα ὀκτώ), four in Tegea (Paus. 8.53.6). In Elis there were twelve tribes, afterwards reduced to eight by a war with the Arcadians (Paus. 5.9.6), from which they appear to have been geographical divisions (Wachsmuth, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 17). Sometimes we find mention of only one of the Doric tribes, as of the Hylleans in Cydonia (Hesych. sub voce Ὑλλεῖς), the Dymanes in Halicarnassus; which probably arose from colonies having been founded by the members of one tribe only (Wachsmuth, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 15).

Traces of the three old Dorian tribes occur with more or less distinctness at Megara, where they continued up to Roman times (C. I. G. 1073; Lebas. 2.48), though other tribes were added (C. I. G. 1072); at Argos (C. I. G. 1123, 1128, 1132; Müller, Frag. Hist. Gr. 4.497), where there also existed a (φυλὴ τῶν Ὑρναθίων (C. I. G. 1130, 1131), probably consisting of citizens of non-Dorian origin, since it occurred also at the neighbouring Aegina and Epidaurus (Müller, Aegin. p. 140); at Sicyon, where Cleisthenes changed the names of the three Dorian tribes to Ὑᾶται, Ὀνεᾶται, and Χοιρεᾶται, to insult their members, and added a fourth tribe, the Ἀρχέλαοι, his own ruling family [sixty years after his death the Doric names were restored, and a fourth tribe added, called Αἲγιαλέες after the son of the hero Adrastus (Hdt. 5.68)]; at Troezen (Steph. s. v. Ὑλλεῖς). Similar evidence in the case of Dorian colonies is found at Cos, where the (φυλαὶ were subdivided into φρατρίαι, and also into τριακάδες and πεντηκοστύες (Bull. de Corr. Hell. v. No. 7, p. 217; Cauer,2 p. 159); at Thera (Mitth. deutsch. arch. Inst. Ath. 2.73); at Heraclea on the Pontus (οὐσῶν αὐταῖς τριῶν φυλῶν, Aen. Poliorcet. 11.10); at Epidamnus, where the φύλαρχοι had at one time the control of the government (Aristot. Pol. viii. (v.) 1 = p. 1301). In Sicily, the three Dorian tribes occur at Syracuse (tria genera, Cic. Ver. 2.51, 127; Plut. Nic. xiv.; Holm, Gesch. Sicil. 1.418), and at Acragas (προεδρευούσας τᾶς φυλᾶς τῶν Ὑλλέων, C. I. G. 5494).

Traces of these tribal subdivisions are also found in Thessaly (see Harpocrat. s. v. τετραρχία: τεττάρων μερῶν ὄντων τῆς Θετταλίας ἕκαστον μέρος τετρὰς ἐκαλεῖτο, καθά φησιν Ἑλλάνικος ἐν τοῖς Θετταλικοῖς: ὄνομα δέ φησιν εἶναι ταῖς τετράσι Θετταλιῶτιν, Φθιῶτιν, Πελασγιῶτιν, Ἑστιαιῶτιν. καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἐν τῇ κοινῇ Θετταλῶν πολιτείᾳ ἐπὶ Ἀλεύα οῦ Πύρρου διῃρῆσθαί φησιν εἰς τέτταρας μοίρας τὴν Θετταλίαν): among the Malians (Thuc. 3.92, Μηλιῆς οἱ ξύμπαντες εἰσὶ μὲν τρία μέρη, Παράλιοι, Ἱερῆς, Τραχίνιοι), and the Aetolians (Thuc. 3.94, ἐπιχειρεῖν δ᾽ἐκέλευον πρῶτον μὲν Ἀποδώτοις, ἔπειτα δ᾽Ὀφιονεῦσι, καὶ μετὰ τούτους Εὐρυτᾶσιν, ὅπερ μέγιστον μέρος ἐστὶ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν). It is possible that some of these names may denote geographical rather than purely tribal subdivisions. It is a possible conjecture that the four βουλαὶ of Boeotia, mentioned in Thuc. 5.38 as αἵπερ ἅπαν τὸ κῦρος ἔχουσι, point to a survival of some old quadruple division of Boeotia into tribes.

Of all the Dorian people the Spartans kept themselves the longest unmixed with foreign [p. 2.876]blood. So jealous were they to maintain their exclusive privileges, that they had only admitted two men into their body before the time of Herodotus (Hdt. 9.33, 35). Aristotle, however, remarks (Pol. 2.9) that there was a tradition that the privilege of citizenship was conferred ἐπὶ τῶν προτέρων βασιλέων. Afterwards their numbers were occasionally recruited by the admission of Laconians, Helots, and foreigners; but this was done very sparingly, until the time of Agis and Cleomenes, who created large numbers of citizens. But we cannot further pursue this subject (Schömann, op. cit. p. 114).

The subdivision of tribes into (φρατρίαι or πάτραι, γένη, τριττύες, &c., appears to have prevailed in various places (see Gilbert, Index, s. vv.). On the ὠβαὶ at Sparta, of which very little is known, see GEROUSIA Vol. I. p. 914a. After the time of Cleomenes the old system of tribes was changed; new ones were created corresponding to the different quarters of the town, and seem to have been five in number (Schömann, Ant. Jur. Pub. p. 115; Müller, Dor. 3.5).

Of the colonies in Aeolis, at Ilium we hear of φυλαί, φυλάρχαι, and φρατρίαι: names of tribes occur, e. g. Ἀλεξανδρίς (C. I. G. 3615), Ἀτταλίς (ib. 3616), Ρανθωίς (ib. 3617); at Lampsacus we hear of φυλαὶ and ἑκατοστύες (Gilbert, Staatsalt. 2.160); at Methymna the citizens were divided into φυλαὶ and χελληστύες (Id. ib. p. 166).

The four Ionian tribes--Geleontes, Hopletes, Aegicoreis, Argadeis--which are spoken of below in reference to Attica, were found also in Cyzicus, together with two others, Βωρεῖς and Οἴνωπες (C. I. G. 3663-4-5). In Samos a φυλὴ Αἰσχριωνίη is mentioned by Herodotus (3.26), which was probably a Carian race that mingled with the Ionians. In Ephesus five tribes are mentioned, of different races. At Miletus, in the period of its dependence on Athens, the ten Cleisthenean tribes (see below), under the same names as at Athens, formed part of the constitution (Lebas, Asie Min. 238 f.). At Smyrna we do not seem to have any trace of tribes until Roman times (Ἀμμωνίς, C. I. G. 3264; Ἀρτεμισιάς, ib. 3266).

Coming next to the Islands of the Aegean, we find that at Syros the citizens were divided into φυλαὶ and φρατρίαι (C. I. G. 2347 g); a similar arrangement prevailed at Delos (Gilbert, ut sup. p. 206). At Tenos we have the names of ten local φυλαί, known by a collective name (as Ἡρακλεῖδαι), or heroic (as Ὑακινθίς: see C. I. G. 2338); each of these was subdivided into πρατρίαι (C. I. G. 2330, 2333). Similar subdivisions prevailed at Andros (Mitth. deutsch. Arch. Inst. Ath. i. p. 237) and at Calymna (Anc. Greek Inscr. in Brit. Mus. 2.232 f.).

In Cyrene, according to Aristotle (Pol. vii. (vi.) 4), an increase in the number of φυλαὶ and φρατρίαι is the result of a more democratical constitution.

In Magna Graecia the only surviving trace of tribal divisions occurs in the case of Thurii, founded B.C. 443 ([Plut.] Vit. Dec. Or. 835 D). Here there were ten tribes: Ἀρκάς, Ἀχαΐς, Ἠλεία, Βοιωτία, Ἀμφικτυονίς, Δωρίς, Ἰάς, Ἀθηναΐς, Εὐβοιάς, and Νησιῶτις (Diod. 12.11).

Mythic names of Attic tribes, ascribed to the reign of Cecrops, are Cecropis (Κεκροπίς), Autochthon (Αὐτόχθων), Actaea (Ἀκταία), and Paralia (Παραλία); and in that of Cranaus, Cranais (Κραναΐς), Atthis (Ἀτθίς), Mesoqaea (Μεσόγαια), and Diacris (Διακρίς). Afterwards we find a new set of names: Dias (Διάς), Athenais (Ἀθηναΐς), Posidonias (Ποσειδωνιάς), and Hephaestias (Ἡφαιστιάς); evidently derived from the deities who were worshipped in the country. (Compare Pollux, 8.109.) Some of those secondly mentioned, if not all of them, seem to have been geographical divisions; and it is not improbable that, if not independent communities, they were at least connected by a very weak bond of union. But all these tribes were superseded by four others, whose appearance corresponded in time with the Ionic settlement in Attica, and which seem (as before observed) to have been adopted by other Ionic colonies out of Greece. The names Geleontes (Γελέοντες), Hopletes (Ὅπλητες), Argadeis (Ἀργάδεις), Aegicoreis (῾αἰγικορεῖς), are said by Herodotus (5.66) to have been derived from the sons of Ion, son of Xuthus (see Eur. Ion 1596, &c.; Pollux, l.c.), after the common Greek custom of inventing a genealogy to account for a term. The question of the true significance of these names has been much debated. The etymology of the last three would seem to suggest that the tribes were so called from the occupations which their respective members followed; the Hopletes being the armed men, or warriors; the Argadeis, labourers or husbandmen; the Aegicoreis, goatherds or shepherds. For the form and etymological meaning of the first name, see article GELEONTES Curtius regards the tribes as “a fixed number of noble clans, or groups of families, who were recognised as of full blood.” Grote repudiates the caste-theory (in common with most modern writers), and gives up any attempt at either explaining the names by etymology or ascertaining their connexion with the original population of Attica. Schümann thinks “that each Phyle was named according to the mode of life and the employment pursued by the majority or the most important part of its members.” Thus, “if there was a part of Attica whose inhabitants were principally devoted to the rearing of cattle, especially of goats, the Phyle living there was called the Phyle of the Aegicores.” He explains Geleontes as “the illustrious,” i. e. the nobles, who lived in the capital and its neighbourhood. Whatever be the truth with respect to the origin of these tribes, one thing is more certain, that before the time of Theseus, whom historians agree in representing as the great founder of the Attic common wealth, the various peoples who inhabited the country continued to be disunited and split into factions.

In the division of the inhabitants of Attica, traditionally ascribed to Theseus, the people were divided into Εὐπατρίδαι, Γεωμόροι (Ἄγροικοι), and Δημιουργοί, of whom the first were nobles, the second agriculturists or yeomen, the third labourers and mechanics. At the same tire, id order to consolidate the national unity, he enlarged the city of Athens, with which he incorporated several smaller towns, made it the seat of government, encouraged the nobles to reside there, and surrendered a part of the royal prerogative in their favour. The Tribes or Phylae [p. 2.877]were divided, each into three θρατρίαι (a term equivalent to fraternities, and analogous in its political relation to the Roman Curiae), and each φρατρία into thirty γένη (equivalent to the Roman Gentes), the members of a γένος being called γεννῆται or ὁμογάλακτες. Each γένος was distinguished by a particular name of a patronymic form, which was derived from some hero or mythic ancestor. We learn from Pollux (8.111) that these divisions, though the names seem to import family connexion, were in fact artificial; which shows that some advance had now been made towards the establishment of a closer political union. The members of the θρατρίαι and γένη had their respective religious rites and festivals, which were preserved long after these communities had lost their political importance, and perhaps prevented them from being altogether dissolved. (Compare Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 311, &c.)

The exact relation between the four Ionic tribes and the three Theseian classes is still a matter of dispute. It would appear from the statements of ancient writers on the subject that each of the four tribes was divided into Eupatridae, Geomori, and Demiurgi; some modern scholars, e. g. Philippi and Curtius, hold on the contrary that the tribes and phratries were divisions of the Eupatrids alone, and that the Geomori and Demiurgi were outside of the tribal organisation. The reasons for rejecting this view are given under EUPATRIDAE in Vol. I.

After the age of Theseus, the monarchy having been first limited and afterwards abolished, the whole power of the state fell into the hands of the EUPATRIDAE or nobles, who held all civil offices, and had besides the management of religious affairs and the interpretation of the laws. Attica became agitated by feuds, and we find the people, shortly before the legislation of Solon, divided into three parties,--Πεδιαῖοι or lowlanders, Διάκριοι or highlanders, and Πάραλοι or people of the sea-coast. The first two remind us of the ancient names of tribes, Mesogaea and Diacris; and the three parties appear in some measure to represent the classes established by Theseus: the first being the nobles, whose property lay in the champaign and most fertile part of the country; the second, the smaller landowners and shepherds; the third, the trading and mining class, who had by this time risen in wealth and importance. To appease their discords, Solon was applied to; and thereupon framed his celebrated constitution and code of laws. Here we have only to notice, that he retained the four tribes as he found them, but abolished the existing distinctions of rank, or at all events greatly diminished their importance, by introducing his property qualification, or division of the people into Πεντακοσιομέδιμνοι, Ἱππεῖς, Ζευγι-ται, and Θῆτες. The enactments of Solon continued to be the law at Athens, though in great measure suspended by the tyranny, until the democratic reform effected by Cleisthenes. He abolished the old tribes, and created ten new ones, according to a geographical division of Attica, and named them after ten of the ancient heroes: Erechtheis, Aegeis, Pandionis, Leontis, Acamantis, Oeneis, Secropis, Hippothoontis, Aeantis, Antiochis. These tribes were divided each into ten δῆμοι, the number of which was afterwards increased by subdivision: but the arrangement was so made, that the several δῆμοι not contiguous or near to one another were joined to make up a tribe. [DEMUS] The object of this arrangement was that by the breaking of old associations a perfect and lasting revolution might be effected, in the habits and feelings, as well as the political organisation of the people. He allowed the ancient φρατρίαι to exist, but they were deprived of all political importance. All foreigners admitted to the citizenship were registered in a Phyle and Demus, but not in a Phratria or Genos; whence Aristophanes (Ranae, 418; Aves, 765) says, as a taunting mode of designating new citizens, that they have no phrators, or only barbarous ones (quoted by Niebuhr, vol. i. p. 312). But if made citizens by a complimentary vote, they were allowed to choose their Phratria as well [CIVITAS pp. 443 b, 444a]. The functions which had been discharged by the old tribes were now mostly transferred to the δῆμοι. Among others, we may notice that of the forty-eight ναυκραρίαι into which the old tribes had been divided for the purpose of taxation, but which now became useless, the taxes being collected on a different system. The reforms of Cleisthenes were destined to be permanent. They continued to be in force (with some few interruptions) until the downfall of Athenian independence. The ten tribes were blended with the whole machinery of the constitution. Of the Senate of five hundred, fifty were chosen from each tribe. The allotment of δικασταὶ was according to tribes; and the same system of election may be observed in most of the principal offices of state, judicial and magisterial, civil and military; as that of the διαιτηταί, λογισταί, πωληταί, ταμίαι, τειχοποιοί, φύλαρχοι, στρατηγοί, &c. In B.C. 307, out of compliment to Demetrius Poliorcetes, the Athenians increased the number of tribes to twelve by creating two new ones, named Antigonis and Demetrias, which were afterwards styled Ptolemais and Attalis; and a thirteenth was subsequently added under Hadrian, bearing his own name (Plut. Demetr. 10; Paus. 1.5.5; Pollux, 8.110).

The preceding account is only intended as a brief sketch of the subject, since it is treated of under several other articles, which should be read in connexion with this. [CIVITAS (Greek); DEMUS; PHYLARCHI; PHYLOBASILEIS, &c.]

[See Wachsmuth, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 224-240; K. F. Hermann, Griech. Staatsalt., ed. 5 (1875), p. 348 f.; Busolt, Griech. Geschichte, i. p. 390 f., with many references in notes; Thirlwall, Hist. Greece, ch. xi.; Grote, Hist. Greece, part ii. chs. 10, 31; Curtius, Hist. Greece, tr. by Ward, Book ii. ch. 2; Gilbert, Griech. Staatsalt. 1.109 f., ii. passim; Duncker, Gesch. Griech. 5.84 f.; Boeckh, Staatshaushalt. Athen., ed. 3 (1886), 1.578 f.; Schömann, Antiq. of Greece (tr. by Hardy and Mann), Part II. ch. 4, Part III. ch. 3; Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité antique, ed. 10 (1883), p. 131 f.; Freeman, Comparative Politics, Lect. 3; E. Abbott, Hist. Greece, 1.9.] [A.H.C] [W.W]

(Appendix). The four old-Ionic tribes were of immemorial antiquity, and were retained unaltered by Solon, being still divided into τριττύες and ναυκραρίαι (Ἀθ. πολ. 100.8). The constitution of Cleisthenes is described at length in 100.21. and the writer brings out forcibly the desire of the legislator to break up the old organisations and party ties: cf. DEMUS Vol. 1.615 a. He did not adopt the number of twelve tribes, as that would have coincided with the old division of the four tribes into twelve τριττύες: he divided each of his ten tribes into τριττύες on a new principle, assigning one τριττὺς to the ἄστυ, one to the παραλία, and one to the μεσόγαια, ὅπως ἑκάστη (φυλὴ) μετέχῃ πάντων τῷ τόπων. The theory, already advanced as probable, that the city and ports now formed ten demes, one belonging to each tribe, thus becomes almost a certainty [DEMUS l.c.].

2. Roman

The Patrician Tribes.--The derivation of the word tribus is uncertain. In view of the three earliest Roman tribes, there is a temptation to connect it with tres, and this has [p. 2.878]usually been done both by ancient and modern writers. Thus Dionysius (2.7) gives as its Greek equivalents τριττὺς or φυλή, while Varro (L. L. 5.55) says, “ager Romanus primum divisus in partes tres, a quo tribus appellatur;” cf. also Plut. Rom. 20. So,too, Pott (Etym. Forsch. 1.217 and 2.441) and after him Corssen (1.163) give the derivation as tri + bu (== bhu == fu: φυ). On the other hand, there is no trace of any connexion with tres in any of the extant meanings of tribuo, while on the historical side it seems very uncertain whether the division into three tribes was essential to the primitive Roman state. According to the traditional account, the three ancient tribes--the Titienses (or Tities), the Ramnes (or Ramnenses), and the Luceres--were created by Romulus after the death of Tatius: “populumque et suo et Tatii nomine et Lucumonis qui Romuli socius in Sabino proelio occiderat, in tribus tres . . . descripserat” (Cic. de Rep. 2.8, 14. See also Dionys. A. R. 2.7, Varr. l.c.; and cf. Liv. 1.13). But apart from the worthlessness of such definite statements with regard to the legendary period, it is much more probable that the Roman state grew up by a gradual synoikismos of originally independent communities, the number three being accidental and not essential. In this connexion the generally accepted origin of the name Titienses from Tatius the Sabine king cannot be regarded as of slight importance; and if the institution of the “sodales Titii” was, as Tacitus says (Ann. 1.54), intended “retinendis Sabinorum sacris,” this would certainly seem to show that the Titienses, a Sabine tribe, entered into an already existing Latin community; while the fact that they are usually put in the first place and the Ramnes in the second (Varr. 5.55, 89, 91; Cic. de Rep. 2.20, 36; Festus, p. 344) makes it probable that they entered it as conquerors (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. p. 97). That the Ramnes were of Latin race is practically certain, whether the name is connected with Roma or Romulus. The origin of the Luceres is uncertain (Liv. 1.13), nor is it necessary here to discuss the question of their Latin or Etruscan origin, especially as the latter, though very generally assumed, rests on no historical evidence (Varr. 5.55; Plut. Rom. 20; Cic. de Rep. 2.8, 14; Fest. p. 119; Niebuhr, Röm. Gesch. i. p. 329 ff.; Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. p. 505, &c.; Madvig, Verfass. und Verwalt. des röm. Staates, i. p. 95, &c.). What seems certain is that the synoikismos took place in pre-historic times, and all theories on the subject rest on a very doubtful foundation. Possibly the three tribes coincided locally with the original city which took part in the festival of the Septimontium; and in this case we may perhaps suppose the Titienses to have occupied the fortress in the Subura, the Ramnes the Palatine, and the Luceres the three summits of the Esquiline (but see Liv. 1.33 for another hypothesis). This is, however, at best a plausible conjecture (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 99), though we have Varro's statement (quoted above) that the three tribes were a division of the land as well as of the inhabitants. At some later period, but before the circumvallation ascribed to Servius Tullius, the neighbouring city on the Quirinal seems to have been amalgamated with that of the Septimontium; while, to avoid increasing the number or changing the names of the three ancient tribes, these were now extended by a division into maiores and minores gentes, the Hillmen (Collini as opposed to Montani) being limited to the latter, so that there were now primi and secundi (or priores and posterioresTitienses, Ramnes, and Luceres (Festus, p. 344). For the traditional account of this change under Tarquinius Priscus, see Liv. 1.36; Cic. de Rep. 2.20, 36; Dionys. A. R. 3.71; where the direct reference, however, is only to the patrician centuriae equitum, to whom alone, in historical times, the names of the three ancient tribes were given. (See also Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 31, and Rom. Hist. ch. 4; and for the best statement of the contrary view, Volquardsen in Rhein. Mus. xxxiii. p. 538 if.) If this view of a pre-historic synoikismos is correct, then the term tribus had no more connexion in its original application with any threefold division, than it had when used of the Servian tribes. It was, no doubt, connected with the same root as tribuo, and may possibly have affinity, as Curtius supposes, with the Celtic treb (== vicus) (Grundz. d. gr. Etym. p. 227). Its original meaning was probably the territorium of a community, as e. g. the tribus Sappinia (Liv. 31.2 and 33.37) is clearly a locality in Umbria. So in the Tabulae Iguvinae we find “trifu Tadinate” and “trefiper Ijuvina,” clearly co-ordinate with “tuta Tadinate” and “tutape Ijuvina,” the former being the territoritum, the latter the civic community of Tadinum and Iguvium (Buecheler, Umbrica, pp. 3, 8, and 95; Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 95). In Latin, however, owing to the pre-historic synoikismos, tribus appears to have the notion of part rather than whole,--an idea which the Servian arrangement still further strengthened. As survivals of the time when the tribes were independent communities, may perhaps be regarded (1) such words as tribunal and contribuere and attribuere == “to join a district to a neighbouring community” (Caes. Gal. 60, and Plin. Nat. 3. § § 4, 37); (2) the fact that ten curiae belonged to each tribe, since this finds its analogy in other municipal constitutions, where ten curiae seem to be a usual number (C. I. L. 8.1827, &c.); (3) the original number of the senate was almost certainly 100 (Liv. 1.8; Dionys. A. R. 2.12; Plut. Rom. 13; Fest. s. v. patrse),--a fact which also finds its analogy in the decuriones of Italian towns, and the later number of 300 was probably made up by 100 from each of the three tribes when they united; (4) the original number of Vestal Virgins (Fest. p. 344), of augurs (Liv. 10.16; Cic. de Rep. 2.19, 16), and of pontifices was three, or one from each tribe, while on the addition of the gentes minores they were raised to six. Festus, p. 344: “sex Vestae sacerdotes constitutae sunt . . . quia civitas Romana in sex est distributa partes, in primos secundosque Titienses, Ramnes, Luceres.”

That in the pre-Servian period the patrician tribes were used as the basis for taxation and the military levy, we know from Dionysius: τὰς καταγραφὰς τῶν στρατιωτῶν καὶ τὰς εἰσπράξεις τῶν χρημάτων . . . οὐκέτι κατὰ τὰς τρεῖς φυλὰς τὰς γενικάς, ὡς πρότερον, ἀλλά, κ.τ.λ. (4.14, and Varr. 5.181), although for the former we have no details. For the army, each tribe furnished 1000 foot-soldiers, commanded [p. 2.879]by a tribunus. (Varr. 5.89: “milites quod trium milium primo legio fiebat, ac singulae tribus Titiensium, Ramnium, Lucerum, milia militum mittebant;” and 5.81, “tribuni militum quod terni ex tribus tribubus Ramnium, Lucerum, Titium olim ad exercitum mittebantur:” cf. Dionys. A. R. 2.7.) The cavalry were originally represented by three centuries, one from each of the three tribes (Liv. 1.13), or ten men from each of the thirty curies (Fest. p. 55). When the city was enlarged by the addition of the gentes minores, these three centuries were increased to six, each apparently containing 300 men (Liv. 1.36), but retaining the old names, “posteriores modo sub isdem nominibus qui additi erant appellati sunt, quas nunc quia geminatae sunt, sex vocant centurias.” (See also Cic. de Rep. 2.20, 36.) In later times, in fact, as has been already mentioned, it is only in connexion with these sex suffragia (equitum) that the names Titienses, Ramnes, and Luceres are retained, since for all other purposes they were superseded by the Servian tribes.

The Servian Tribes.--As an integral part of the so-called Servian reformation,--by which the census was established, the Comitia Centuriata organised upon it, and in consequence the land-holding plebeians made to share the military and financial burdens of citizenship,--there was a new division into tribes. The tribes so created were four in number, and embraced the city as enclosed by the Servian walls (Liv. 1.43; Dionys. A. R. 4.14). The well-known passage in Dionysius (4.15) has led many authorities to suppose that Servius, in addition to the four urban tribes, created also twenty--six rustic tribes. He says: διεῖλε δὲ καὶ τῆν χώραν ἅπασαν ὡς μὲν Φάβιός φησιν εἰς μοίρας ἓξ καὶ εἵκοσιν, ἃς καὶ αὐτὰς καλεῖ φυλάς, καὶ τὰς ἀστικὰς προστιθεὶς αὐταῖς τέτταρας, τριάκοντα φυλὰς τὰς πάσας ἐπὶ ῾τυλλίου γενέσθαι λέγει: ὡς δὲ Οὐεννώνιος ἱστόρηκεν εἰς μίαν τε καὶ τριάκοντα, ὥστε σὺν ταῖς κατὰ πόλιν οὔσαις ἐκπεπληρῶσθαι τὰς ἔτι καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ὑπαρχούσας τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε φυλάς: ἀμφοτέρων μέντοι Κάτων τούτων ἀξιοπιστότερος οὐχ ὁρίζει τῶν μοιρῶν τὸν ἄριθμον. But though Fabius Pictor, writing in Greek, may have called the rustic divisions φυλαί, this by no means proves that they were technically tribes; and Dionysius himself, no doubt following Varro, prefers the neutral term μοῖραι, which probably represents regiones or pagi. We know for certain that there were only twenty-one tribes as late as 367 A.U.C. (Liv. 6.5), while at this early period it is extremely improbable that the territory outside the city was as yet distributed among individual owners: it was probably still held in common by the gentes, and, if so, was not applicable for division into tribes. For it is well established that only that land fell under the tribes which was held ex iure Quiritium by an individual owner; and therefore, while all ager publicus, on the one hand, was excluded from them, on the other no less the common gentile property, prior to its distribution among the individual gentiles, could not have been included in the tribes. It seems better therefore to suppose that only four tribes were made, and that the division into rustic districts was on some other principle. The names of the four tribes were Sucusana (the later form was Suburana, but the original form is attested both by SVC in inscriptions and by Varro, 5.48), Palatina, Esquilina, and Collina. That this is the fixed order of the tribes appears from Varro (5.56) and Festus (p. 368); while Cicero also (de Leg. Agr. 2.29, 79) gives Suburana as the first (see also Plin. Nat. 18.3). Where a different order is given, it is usually from some definite reason, as e. g. in Varro, 5.46, in connexion with the order of the procession to the Argean chapels; in Liv. Epit. xx., with reference to the libertini; and in C. I. L. 6.10211, in reference to the frumentationes. That these tribes, like the patrician, were primarily a division of the land, appears at once from the names, and Dionysius (4.14) expressly calls them τοπικαί (see also Laelius Felix ap. Gel. 15.27). They may possibly have been engrafted on to the old patrician divisions, Sucusana corresponding with that of the Titienses, Palatina with that of the Ramnes, Esquilina with that of the Luceres, while Collina would embrace the Quirinal city. In this way at least the order of the tribes would be satisfactorily accounted for. The opinion once generally held, that the four tribes embraced the territory outside Rome as well as the city, was to a large extent founded on the assumption that Ostia, the earliest citizencolony, belonged to Palatina (Grotefend, Imp. Rom. trib. descript. p. 67, and Fest. p. 213). This is now, however, given up by Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 163) and Kubitschek (Imp. Rom. trib. discript. p. 26), since inscriptions show that though a number of the inhabitants at Ostia, possibly the Greek traders or their sons, belonged to Palatina (see below), the colony itself was assigned to Voturia (Wilm. 1720 and 1729, &c.). Neither the Capitol nor the Aventine was included in the Servian tribes, because they were still public and not private property (Liv. 6.20; Dionys. A. R. 10.31 and 32); and both Livy (1.43) and Pliny (Plin. Nat. 18.3) limit the four tribes to the inhabited parts of the city.

Extension of the Tribes.--At what date the first rustic tribes were added to the four Servian tribes, it is impossible to say with certainty, nor how many were first created, since tradition is practically silent upon both points. That there were twenty-one tribes in 367 A.U.C. we know (Liv. 6.5), but that the increase from four to twenty-one was made at one time is on the whole improbable. All the best MSS. of Liv. 2.21 contain under the year 259 A.U.C. the words “Romae tribus una et triginta factae.” To correct this from the Epitome to “una et viginti” is certainly unsafe, since the epitomator may easily have corrected the text from Liv. 6.5; and there is much to be said for Mommsen's hypothesis that the original reading, till tampered with by an ignorant scribe, was the mere annalistic statement, “Romae tribus factae.” The passage again of Dionysius (7.64) with regard to the trial of Coriolanus in 263 A.U.C. is clearly corrupt. He says, μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ εἴκοσι τότε φυλῶν οὐσῶν, αἷς ψῆφος ἀνεδόθη, τὰς ἀπολυούσας ἔσχεν Μάρκιος ἐννέα: ὥστ᾽ εἰ δύο προσῆλθον αὐτῷ φυλαί, διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφίαν ἀπελύετο ἄν, ὥσπερ νόνος ἠξίον. As the number twenty-one is inconsistent with the ἰσοψηφία, one part of the statement must be rejected. The latter, however, is almost too [p. 2.880]definite to admit of mistake, and it seems better therefore to assume that Dionysius (or a scribe) carelessly substituted the more familiar number twenty-one, certainly existing for a considerable time previous to 367 A.U.C., for the earlier number twenty; while some similar, but inexplicable, confusion lurks under the numbers ἐννέα and δύο. But, apart from this confessedly uncertain inference, the list of the earliest seventeen rustic tribes also leads to the conclusion that there was a period when the tribes were twenty in number. The names in alphabetical order, as we know them from texts or inscriptions, are as follows:--Aemilia (Liv. 38.36), Camilia (C. L. L. 6.2890), Claudia (Liv. 2.16), Clustumina or Crustumina (Cic. pro Balb. 25), Cornelia (Liv. 38.36), Fabia (Suet. Aug. 40), Galeria (Liv. 27.6), Horatia (Wilm. 681), Lemonia (Cic. pro Planc. 16), Menenia (Cic. Fam. 13.9), Papiria (Liv. 8.37), Pollia (Liv. 8.37), Pupinia (Cic. Fam. 8.8), Romulia (Cic. de Ley. Agr. 2.2. 9), Sergia (Cic. in Vat. 15), Voltinia (Cic. pro Planc. 16), Voturia or Veturia (Liv. 26.22). Of these seventeen names, sixteen were clearly formed in the same way from the names of patrician gentes, some of them known in historical times, others probably extinct at an early period. On the other hand, one only, Clustumina (CLV. not CRV. generally in inscriptions: see also Festus, p. 55, where Crustumina is found in the MSS., but placed between Cluras and Clucidatum), is a place-name similar to those of all the tribes (except Poblilia) created after 367 A.U.C. The inference from this seems irresistible that it was a later creation than the other sixteen. That the earliest rustic tribes bore some sort of relation to the Servian division into PAGI, would seem probable in itself, and receives some slight confirmation from Festus (p. 115), who says, “Lemonia tribus a pago Lemonio, qui est a porta Capena via Latina.” But details are wanting, and it is at best an hypothesis, though a probable one, that the sixteen tribes were made when the common gentile property in land was transformed into individual ownership, the former gentile ownership leaving traces in the names of the tribes, which were taken from the more prominent families. With relation to Claudia, the tradition is still extant of the way in which land was assigned to the newly-admitted Claudian gens, and of the subsequent development of the tribe: χώραν τ᾽ αὐτῷ προσέθηκεν ἐκ τῆς δημοσίας τὴν μέταξυ Φιδήνης καὶ Πικεντίας, ὡς ἔχοι διανεῖμαι κλήρους ἅπασι τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν (this seems to imply that it was gentile property) ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ φυλή τις ἐγένετο σὺν χρόνῳ Κλαυδία καλουμένη (Dionys. A. R. 5.40. See also Liv. 2.16). Though named after patrician gentes, these sixteen tribes were as much local divisions as the earlier and later ones. The position of Claudia is given above by Dionysius, while Livy (l.c.) describes the “vetus Claudia tribus” as “ager trans Anienem.” Of the Papiria tribus, Festus says, “a Papirio appellata est vel a nomine agri qui circa Tusculum est;” while of Pupinia, which adjoined it, he says (p. 233), “Pupinia tribus ab agri nomine dicta qui Pupinus appellatur, inter Tusculum urbemque situs.” Livy also (26.9) shows that the eighth milestone on the Via Praenestina lay in this tribe (cf. also Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.3. 5, 96). Romulia again is “ex eo agro quem Romulus ceperat ex Veientibus” (Fest. p. 271). For the attempt to localise Pollia, Fabia, Horatia, and Galeria, see Beloch, Der ital. Bund, pp. 29, 30. That all these earliest tribes were in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, we should suppose from the nature of the case, and it is also expressly stated by Festus (p. 371, s. v. viatores). The 21st tribe, Clustumina, was named after the extinct town Crustumerium (Liv. 1.38; Fest. p. 55), in the territory of which was the mons sacer to which the plebs seceded in 260 A.U.C. (cf. the expression of Varro, 5.81, “in secessione Crustumerina” ). As the result of the secession the plebs were allowed to elect tribunes, at first assembled according to their curies, but, after the Lex Publilia of 283 A.U.C. (Liv. 2.56; Dionys. A. R. 9.41), according to their tribes. Mommsen with great probability supposes that it was on this occasion, in order to make for voting purposes an unequal number of tribes, that the 21st was added, and that it was called, in memory of the secession, Clustnmina (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 153).

As more and more land became the private property of Roman citizens, either by distribution or by the foundation of colonies or by the reception of peregrini into the citizen-body, the number of tribes gradually increased, but till the year 367 A.U.C. it still remained at twenty-one. In 366, however, the civitas was given to a number of people from Veii, Capena, and Falerii, and land was distributed among the new citizens (Liv. 6.4). Accordingly, next year four new tribes were created (Liv. 6.5): Stellatina (so called from a district near the city of Capena, Fest. p. 343); Tromentina ( “a campo Tromento,” Fest. p. 367), probably near Veii, since we find citizens of the restored Veii belonging to this tribe (Wilm. 2079; Orelli, 3448); Sabatina ( “a lacu Sabate,” Fest. p. 342); and Arnensis, perhaps from a river Aro in Etruria. In 372 A.U.C. quinqueviri were appointed to divide the ager Pomptinus in the Volscian land (Liv. 6.21), and after an interval of some years in 396 two new tribes were made, Pomptina and Poblilia (Liv. 7.15). That Poblilia (the name of which was apparently not local: see Fest. p. 233) was near the territory of the Hernici, is probable from the fact that later Anagnia, Ferentinum, and Aletrium were assigned to this tribe (Kubitsch., Imp. Rom. trib. discrip. p. 22). In 417 A.U.C. the inhabitants of Lanuvium, Aricia, and Nomentum received the civitas (Liv. 8.14), and in 422 were arranged in the census; two new tribes, Maecia and Scaptia (both named after extinct towns, Fest. pp. 136 and 342), being created (Liv. 8.17). In 431 A.U.C the number was raised to thirty-one by the addition of Oufentina and Falerna (Liv. 9.20), a step no doubt rendered necessary by the distribution of the ager Falernus and Privernas in 415 (Liv. 8.11), the granting of the civitas to the Privernates in 426, and the colony led to Terracina (Liv. 8.21), since according to Festus (p. 194) the name Oufentina is derived from a river “in agro Privernati.” In 454 A.U.C., perhaps in connexion with the triumph over and punishment of the Aequi and Hernici (Liv. 9.43 and 45), were created (Liv. 10.9) Aniensis and Teretina ( “a flumine Terede,” [p. 2.881]Fest. p. 363); while in 513 the Sabine territories, of which the inhabitants had been admitted into the citizenship in 486 (Vell. Paterc. 1.14, 7) and some other land, perhaps that of the Praetuttiani, were made into two fresh tribes, Quirina and Velina (Liv. Epit. xix.). This number thirty-five was never exceeded (Liv. 1.43; Dionys. A. R. 4.15; Cic. Phil. 6.5, 12; Wilm. 679, 888, &c.); but whether the limit was fixed when the last two tribes were made, or in 534, the date of the reform of the Comitia Centuriata (see below), is uncertain. It is possible, though hardly likely, that the name Quirina was intended to mark the completion of the “populus Romanus Quiritium.” The derivation, however, of Festus (p. 254), “a Curensibus Sabinis,” seems more probable.

Italia tributim descripta.--Up to 513 A..T.C. the tribes were more or less definitely bounded districts, of which the positions are known, imperfectly in the case of the oldest rustic tribes, with greater certainty in the case of those created since 367. While the former class were all in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, the latter were situated in S. Etruria, Latium, the territory of the Volsci and Hernici, part of Campania, and the Sabine land. But even during this period, probably the original tribe (cf. the expression “vetus Claudia tribus,” Liv. 2.16) in few cases remained absolutely unenlarged, for every assignation of land to Roman citizens, however small, and the establishment of every colony, increased the amount of land to be distributed among the tribes. Only where the amount of land distributed was large, was there any necessity for new tribes: in other cases the land in question was no doubt assigned to the nearest existing tribe. Of the small distributions no annalistic record remains. Of colonies, Tusculum, probably during this period but after 431 A.U.C. (Liv. 8.37), was assigned to Papiria, Minturnae in 458 to Teretina, Aricia to Horatia in 417 (Liv. 8.14), Sinuessa to Falerna (Liv. 10.21), Antium in 416 to Voturia. But after the number of the tribes was closed, geographical compactness was lost. All freshly assigned or colonised territory, and all civitates sine suffragio admitted to the full franchise, had now to be distributed among the existing tribes; and the further from Rome this process extended, the more disjointed and broken up did the tribes become. To a certain extent, no doubt, the principle was observed of assigning new territory to the nearest tribes; and this, as Kubitschek rightly observes, tended by increasing the number of members to depreciate the importance for voting purposes of the later or outlying tribes. Thus we find Capua, Atella, Acerrae, Suessula, belonging to Falerna; Casinum, Atina, Venafrum, Allifae, to Teretina; Velitrae, Circeii, and Signia, to Pomptina; Anagnia, Ferentinum, Aletrium, to Poblilia; while the Picenian territory distributed by a Lex Flaminia in 522 (Plb. 2.21) seems all to have been assigned to Velina. On the other hand, Formiae and Fundi, when taken into the citizenship, were assigned to Aemilia; Arpinum in Apulia and Fulginium in Umbria to Cornelia (Liv. 38.36); Cliterna in the Sabine land to Claudia (Grotef. p. 46); Falerii to Horatia (Orelli, 1364), &c. This breaking up and mutilation of the tribes was not completely effected till after the Social war, when the civitas was given to all the peregrinae civitates south of the Po; and in consequence all the land with very few exceptions, such as at first the ager Campanus, falling into full Quiritary ownership, had to be distributed among the tribes. The manner in which the new territory was distributed is stated differently by our two authorities, Appian and Velleius Paterculus. The former (B.C. 1.49) says that they did not enrol the new citizens into the thirty-five tribes, ἵνα μὴ τῶν ἀρχαίων πλέονες ὄντες ἐν ταῖς χειροτονίαις ἐπικρατοῖεν, ἀλλὰ δεκατεύοντες ἀπέφηναν ἑτέρας ἐν δἷς ἐχειροτόνουν ἐλσχατοι. This probably refers to the Lex Julia of 664, by which the civitas was given to the Latini and the faithful allies (Cic. pro Balb. 8, 21), and, if the reading δεκατεύοντες is correct, it must mean that ten new tribes were created. On the other hand, Velleius says (2.20), “cum ita civitas Italiae data esset, ut in octo tribus contribuerentur novi cives;” i. e. the new citizens were confined to eight of the existing tribes. This may, as Kubitschek supposes, refer to the Plautio-Papirian plebiscitum of 665, by which the revolted allies gained the franchise (Cic. pro Arch. 4, 7). Kubitschek, reading δέκα πέντε for δεκατεύοντες, thinks that he can show by inscriptions that the faithful allies in accordance with the Lex Julia were enrolled in fifteen, i. e. in a minority, of the thirty-one rustic tribes, while the revolted allies by the Plautio-Papirian law were enrolled in half of the remaining sixteen, viz. Aniensis, Clustumina, Fabia, Falerna, Galeria, Pomptina, Sergia, and Voltinia. The theory is undoubtedly ingenious, and both Kubitschek and Beloch (Der italische Bund) make out a very specious case. But the objections are twofold. (1) The evidence of inscriptions, besides being by the nature of the case incomplete, breaks down, as Mommsen shows (Hermes, xxii. p. 101 ff.), in several points, since not only are revolted states found in Horatia, Cornelia, and Oufentina, but the faithful allies are found practically spread over all the rustic tribes. (2) Whatever may have been the original distribution into tribes, the restriction was certainly only temporary. Complete equality for the new citizens became part of the democratic programme; and apart from the abortive attempt of Sulpicius, Cinna, apparently twice (Liv. Epit. lxxx. and lxxxiv.), gave them the equal franchise, while Sulla almost certainly acquiesced in the arrangement (Liv. Epit. lxxxvi). Though, however, the inscriptions, on which Kubitschek and Beloch rely, do not prove all that they suppose, they do nevertheless show that an attempt at grouping neighbouring territories together was still kept up after the Social war; and so we find Aniensis prevalent among the Frentani, Clustumina and Lemonia in Umbria, Fabia and Pomptina in Lucania, Sergia among the Marsi and Paeligni, Voltinia among the Samnites, Papiria in Latium, Menenia in Campania, Aemilia among the Aurunci, Galeria among the Hirpini, and above all Pollia in the Cis-Padane portion of Gallia Cisalpina, which now received the franchise with the rest (cf. in Grotefend Parma, Mutina, Forum Cornelii, Forum Fulvii, Faventia, Pollentia, and many other towns). But, notwithstanding those local groupings, the [p. 2.882]general result of the distribution of Italy into the tribes was such that the parts of any one tribe could only be given by an enumeration of the different civitates contained in it. Cf. Cic. de pet. Consul. 8, 30: “Postea totam Italiam fac ut in animo ac memoria tributim descriptam habeas.”

The Tribe and its members:--The tribe, as has been stated, was primarily a division of the land held in Quiritarian ownership, but it was also applied in a personal sense to the owners of the land, and involved certain rights and privileges, duties and responsibilities. Originally only land--owning citizens (adsidui) were members of the tribes, but within this limit both patricians and plebeians belonged to them. For later times the presence of patricians in the tribes is abundantly attested; but for the earliest times also the patrician gentile names of the sixteen earliest rustic tribes are conclusive evidence of the same thing, as well as the traditional origin of the Claudian tribe. Membership of a tribe then at first belonged to those citizens who owned land in it, as well as to their agnate descendants; and accordingly, while the tribe, as a division of the land, was immutable, the tribe as a category of persons might be changed, since in theory transfer or loss of landed property implied transfer or loss of tribe. But this strict connexion between landed property and membership of the same tribe must soon have been modified, (1) by those cases in which a citizen owned property in more than one tribe; (2) where civitates sine suffragio were admitted to the full franchise, and their territory assigned to some one tribe. In the first case, as personal membership of more than one was impossible, probably the censor de iure, but the citizen himself de facto, decided to which he should belong. In the second case the citizens of the newly-enfranchised civitas would as a rule take the tribe of the territory, even if their landed property lay elsewhere (Liv. 38.36). As time went on, too, the tendency became greater for membership of a tribe to become hereditary, and so practically unchanging; in so far, that is, as no alteration was caused by the censor's interference. Such interference would at once take place whenever the qualification of landed property was lost, a loss which was at first followed by loss of tribe and transfer to the aerarii (Liv. 4.24, &c.); while, as the disciplinary power of the censorship was developed, the censors acquired the power, by way of punishment for various moral delinquencies, of treating land-owning citizens as though they were not adsidui, and placing them also among the aerarii (cf. Liv. 24.18, &c.). Conversely, of course, if the disqualification of either kind was removed, citizens would pass from the aerarii into a tribe (ex aerariis eximere, Cic. de Orat. 2.66, 268). Till 442 A.U.C. only adsidui had been members of the tribes, nor was there any distinct difference of rank de iure between the urban and rustic tribes, though probably de facto from an early period the former were considered as less honourable. But when the tributum, which, as will be seen below, was in close connexion with the tribes, was made into a tax assessed on movable as well as immovable property, the connexion between landed property and tribe--membership was weakened, a tendency which was perhaps reflected in the revolutionary measure of Appius Claudius, the censor in 442, by which all citizens, proletarii as well as adsidui, were enrolled indiscriminately in the tribes (Liv. 9.46). Whatever may have been the motive of this measure, it was of no long duration, as in 449 Q. Fabius Rullianus, while admitting landless citizens to the tribes, limited them to the four urban tribes, while the landed proprietors still retained exclusive possession of the rustic tribes (Liv. 9.46; cf. Plin. Nat. 18.14, “rusticae tribus laudatissimae eorum qui rura haberent; urbanae vero in qua transferri ignominiae esset, desidiae probro;” Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.2. 9, 79; Dionys. A. R. 19.18, τὰς ἀτίμους τῶν φυλῶν). As a consequence of this measure, all Roman citizens were from this time ipso facto members of a tribe, and, accordingly, as it was inadmissible for the censors to deprive any one of his citizenship (Liv. 45.15), their disciplinary power was limited to degrading from the rustic to the urban tribes, and this is all that is meant henceforth by the phrases “tribu movere,” “aerarium facere.” (For a possible instance of the converse process, see Cic. pro Balb. 25, 27.) From this time, too, the tribe was regularly added to the full citizen's name, being placed between the father's name and the cognomen, e. g. Ser. Sulpicius Q. F. Lemonia Rufus (Cic. Phil. 9.7, 17; ad Fam. 8.8). A consequence of this distinction in rank between the urban and rustic tribes was of course the surrender of any attempt hitherto made at maintaining equality of number among the members of the tribes. While the urban tribes must have contained far more than the rest, we have already seen a similar tendency among the rustic tribes themselves; and the tribes in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, such as Horatia, Lemonia, Menenia, Romulia, &c., seem to have received few new members, and to have remained the strongholds of the nobility. Whether, as Mommsen thinks is implied by Liv. 40.51, the censors had the power of enrolling certain categories of nonland-owning citizens in the rustic tribes, must be left uncertain; but there was certainly one class of men, the libertini, whose position in the tribes differed from that of the other citizens. At first, we may assume, they were admitted on the same conditions as the rest, but probably in the censorship of C. Flaminius (534 A.U.C.) they were all, whether land-owners or not, limited to the urban tribes (Liv. Ep. xx.). Before 586 we find that this was relaxed in the case of those who had a son five years old, or landed property to the value of 30,000 sesterces (Liv. 45.15), though it was apparently open to the censors to disregard this rule; and we even find Ti. Gracchus, censor in 586, limiting all freedmen to one tribe to be settled by lot (Liv. l.c.; Cic. de Or. 1.9, 38). After the Social war, equality in the tribes for the libertini was part of the popular programme; but though it was carried by Sulpicius (Liv. Ep. lxxvii.), and again by Cinna (Liv. ib. lxxxiv.), Sulla restored the former state of things; and neither Manilius in 687 (Cic. pro Corn. in Ascon. p. 64), nor Clodius in 695 (Cic. pro Mil. 33, 89), were able to effect a change, and the disability of libertini seems to have continued under the Empire, since though they were members of the urban tribes, so far [p. 2.883]as the corn distribution was concerned, the fact that the tribe does not, with few exceptions, appear in the names of libertini, probably, as Mommsen argues, proves some inferiority of position. But, with the exception of the libertini, we find that, after the Social war, all citizens alike were admitted into the rustic tribes. We have seen that even in earlier times the personal tribe of the newly-enfranchised cives sine suffragio followed that to which the territory of their native city was assigned (Liv. 38.36); and when after the war Italy was practically made into a complexus of fully--enfranchised municipia, each with its own territory, and that territory assigned to a tribe (cf. Cic. pro Mur. 20, 42), the inevitable result followed that personal membership in a tribe, irrespective of all other considerations, was decided in the case of each individual, provided that he was ingenuus, by his domus or origo in one of these municipalities. In fact, from this time the Roman civitas had essentially changed its character: Rome was no longer one civitas among others, nor even the head of a confederation of civitates; it was rather the “communis patria” of all Roman citizens, who were also with few exceptions (Cic. Phil. 3.6, 15) municipes of some local community, and it was this local connexion which was marked by the tribe. So closely indeed were membership in a tribe and incorporation in a municipium connected, that where, as in the most ancient rustic tribes within the original ager Romanus, Quiritary ownership of land was unconnected with membership in a municipality, some regrouping of land was necessary, the land belonging formerly to these tribes being assigned to the territory of neighbouring towns, and forming part of the tribe to which those towns belonged; while again in parts, where, as in Picenum, the municipal system had not been developed, probably the praefecturae, as a substitute, assumed municipal rank (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 783). How entirely the tribe was made dependent on the domus or origo is shown by the fact that a Roman citizen, if transferred to a colony--e. g. a legionary veteran settled in a military colony--took the tribe of his new domus (cf. a number of cases collected by Grotefend, p. 15 ff., in which two tribes are given in inscriptions, i. e. of the new and the original domus). From the time when the old distinction between the urban and rustic tribes was thus abolished, another of a less definite character gradually grew up, and was certainly observed during the Empire. While the connexion. between a tribe and a municipal territory only applied to the rustic tribes, the urban tribes now contained citizens who, though free-born, were on account of some personal grounds excluded from the former: e. g. (1) sons of libertini are often found in Palatina or Collina; (2) individuals of Greek birth, personally admitted to the franchise, frequently appear in Collina; (3) illegitimate children are found in Collina, Suburana, and Esquilina; (4) actors and sons of actresses appear in Esquilina; while (5) at the great trading ports, such as Ostia and Puteoli, so many individuals are proved by inscriptions to have belonged to Palatina, that it was formerly supposed that these towns were assigned to that tribe. This, however, was not the case, since Ostia belonged to Voturia, and Puteoli probably to Falerna, and it is a not improbable conjecture of Mommsen that these members of Palatina were Greek traders or their sons who had been admitted to the franchise. The fact that these urban tribules were never admitted to the legions or praetorian cohorts, but only to the cohortes urbanae, seems to place them half-way between the rustic tribules and the libertini (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 443; C. I. L. 6.2389-3884).

Tribes in the Provinces.--With regard to the provinces, it has to be remembered that all provincial land, except in cases where the ius Italicum was specially conferred, was ager publicus, and therefore necessarily stood outside the tribes. But as soon as the practice began of conferring the Roman franchise upon provincial towns, since, with the exceptions already alluded to, there was no territorium on which to attach the tribe, which nevertheless was indispensable to Roman citizens, it was used, as applied to provincials, in a purely personal sense, though in strict analogy with the territorial tribe in Italy. In other words, at the time when a civitas was admitted to the full franchise, the tribe to which its citizens were to belong Was specified; while probably, though perhaps not quite so early, even in non-Roman towns, such as Latin colonies, &c., the rule grew up that all individuals within them, who acquired the franchise, should be enrolled in some specified tribe. Prior to the time of Augustus it is hardly possible to find any fixed rules, or any definite grouping, and we find e. g. the colonies of Julius Caesar in Gallia Narbonensis assigned to Papiria (Narbo), Teretina (Arelate), Pupinia (Baeterrae), and Aniensis (Forum Julii); but Augustus appears to have aimed at somewhat greater uniformity, and to have generally assigned Galeria for the Spanish provinces, Voltinia for Gallia Narbonensis (see Kubitschek, de Orig., &c., p. 204), Sergia for Dalmatia, Arnensis for Africa, and Collina for the Oriental provinces. Later emperors, though observing a certain method in the matter, took a somewhat different course, and, instead of assigning certain tribes to certain provinces, seem to have made use of their own tribe in grants made by them of the franchise to provincials. Thus Claudius, whose family by a re-grouping of the Claudia tribus seems to have been transferred to Quirina, assigned his Mauritanian colonies Caesarea, Oppidum Novum, Rusuccurium, and Tipasa to that tribe (Grotef. p. 161 ff.); while later in his reign he gave the preference to the original tribe of his house, and so Colonia Agrippinensis, Savaria, Virunum, Celeia, and Juvavum, all belong to Claudia. The Flavian house again belonged, as springing from Reate, to Quirina, and accordingly we find all Flavian colonies, in all parts of the Empire, assigned to that tribe, while the prevalence of Quirina in the Spanish provinces is due to the fact that Vespasian gave the ius Latii to all Spanish civitates (Plin. Nat. 3.30). Though Trajan, as sprung from Italica, would naturally have belonged to Sergia, he assumed his adoptive father's tribe--Papiria (Nerva came from Narnia: see Kubitschek, p. 73), and we find all his colonies in Germany, Moesia, Dacia, and Africa assigned to that tribe (see Mommsen, Ephem. Epigraph. iii. p. 230 ff.). [p. 2.884]

The Tribes as organised for administrative and political ends.--The political activity of the tribes was probably not anterior to the Publilian law of 283 A.U.C. Their original aim was purely administrative, and had reference (1) to the census, (2) to the levy, (3) to the tributum and military pay. As to (1), there is no doubt that the tribes were primarily instituted by Servius as a basis for the census, which formed the essential part of his constitution. So Dionysius (5.75) describes τιμήσεις κατὰ φυλὰς τῶν βίων ἐνεγκεῖν as τὸ κράτιστον τῶν ὑῶν ὑπὸ Σερουΐου Τυλλίου κατασταθέντων νομίμων, while Cicero (de Legg. 3.3, 7) says of the censors, “populi partes in tribus discribunto; exin pecunias, aequitates, ordines partiunto” (see also the account of the census of 548 A.U.C. in Liv. 29.37, and Cic. pro Flacc. 32, 80). (2) The locus classicus for the relation of the tribes to the military levy is Plb. 6.20, from which it appears that the tribes were summoned one by one in an order appointed by lot (see also V. Max. 6.3, 4), four men being taken at every summons from each tribe, one for each legion, until the full number of four legions was made up, so that in theory there were to be an equal number of men in every legion from each tribe. See also Dionys. A. R. 4.14, 2; Liv. 4.46, where the levy was to be taken not from the whole people, but only from ten tribes. One consequence of all the tribes being represented equally in the army was that the Comitia tributa could on emergencies be held in camp (Liv. 7.16). That in later times the equal proportion of troops from every tribe was given up, need hardly be said, but probably during the whole of the Republic the levy was in some way based on the tribes, and even under the Empire, though the recruiting now took place through all the provinces, the fact that none but Roman citizens were admitted to the legion still kept up a certain connexion between the levy and the tribes. (See Tac. Hist. 3.58, and Suet. Nero 44.) Only in cases of emergency were legions enrolled from the urban population (Tac. Ann. 1.31; and for the relation generally of the tribes to the army, see Mommsen, Tribus, pp. 132-143, who, however, has now given up the attempt made there at arithmetical symmetry). (3) The derivation of Varro (5.81), “tributum dictum a tribubus quod ex pecunia quae populo imperata erat, tributim a singulis exigebatur,” is confessedly not correct (for the converse derivation, see Liv. 1.43), and tributum most probably comes from tribuere, and means that which is partitioned among the citizens. Since, however, the tributum was originally levied only upon land, and all adsidui were in the tribes, the collection of the tax was naturally and most conveniently made tributim (Dionys. A. R. 4.14). Apparently, however, from such passages as Liv. 1.41 and Dionys. A. R. 4.19, the tributum was first levied on the property of the classes as shown by the census (usually “1 pro mille,” Liv. 29.15); but since the classes and their centuries only came together in the Campus Martins and had no local connexion, it was collected from the various tribes by the tribuni aerarii, who had the tribal register showing to what class each tribesman belonged. The primary object of the tributum was to provide pay for the soldiers in war. Up to the year 848 A.U.C. (Liv. 4.59; Dionys. A. R. 4.19) the stipendium was not paid by the state, but apparently by the tribes themselves, the tribuni aerarii being the means both of collecting the money from their tribules and paying it to the soldiers whom the tribe provided (Fest. p. 234). After 348 the stipendium was paid by the aerarium, usually at the end of the campaign, after the soldiers had returned home, and it was paid tributim by means of the tribuni aerarii (Varr. 5.184; Fest. p. 2; Plin. Nat. 34.1). When, however, campaigns were prolonged beyond a single year, payment was made in camp by the quaestor and connexion with the tribes and tribuni aerarii ceased. To carry out these objects a certain organisation was necessary. The tribes were presided over by officials, called at first tribuni aerarii from the most important of their functions. Perhaps originally there was one for each tribe. In course of time, as the duty of paying the soldiers was taken from them, and when the reform of the Comitia Centuriata in 534 A.U.C. essentially altered the constitution of the tribes, the name probably disappeared from official language, and that of “curatores tribuum” took its place, while in all probability the number of these was ten for each tribe, five (one for each class) among the seniores, and five for the juniores. To this later period are probably to be referred the words of Dionysius (4.14), ἡγεμόνας ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστης συμμορίας. It is true that we find eight curatores for the tribus Sucusana iuniorum (C. I. L. 6.199, 200; Orelli, 1740, &c.); but these inscriptions date from Vespasian's> time, and no doubt the connexion of the tribes with the corn-distribution (see below) and the addition of certain corpora of freedmen (cf. corpus Julianum, Wilm. 1703) altered in many respects the republican organisation. These curatores tribuum were annually elected (C. I. L. 6.144); and if, as is probable, they were the body of men who under the old and nearly obsolete name of tribuni aerarii were added as a third decuria of judices by the Lex Aurelia of 684 A.U.C., there must have been a certain property qualification for the office, a survival possibly of the time when they may have had to provide security for the money which passed through their hands (see Mommsen, Tribus, pp. 44 ff. and 77 ff.; Staatsr. iii. p. 189 ff.). As far as political activity is concerned, the tribes have no importance prior to 283 A.U.C. Up to that time, the tribuni plebis were elected by the plebs assembled according to curies. Dionys. A. R. 6.89, and Cic. pro Cornel. in Ascon. p. 76, say in the Comitia Curiata, i. e. by patricians as well as plebeians; but Mommsen is probably right in discrediting this statement (Staatsr. iii. p. 151). But the local associations which were so much stronger in the tribes made a change desirable to the plebeians; and accordingly the Lex Publilia (Liv. 2.56) enacted “ut plebeii magistratus tributis comitiis fierent” (cf. also Dionys. A. R. 9.41). That the Comitia tributa, however, in their later sense existed at this date, is extremely improbable; and again we must follow Mommsen in interpreting these statements to mean that the tribunes were now elected by the landowning plebeians assembled in their tribes (see Zonaras after Dio Cassius, 7.17, ἐξεῖναι τῷ πλήθει καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ συνιέναι καὶ ἄνευ ἐκείνων [p. 2.885](the patricians) βουλεύεσθαι καὶ χρημαρίζειν); and we have already seen reason to believe that it was on this occasion that the 21st tribe, Clustumina, was created. How the concilium plebis gradually assumed wider political activity by the Valerio-Horatian law of 306 (Liv. 3.55) and the Horatian law of 465, and how eventually the Comitia tributa, i. e. the whole populus, patricians and plebeians together, assembled by tribes, became established as one of the recognised organs of legislation, is described in the article on COMITIA TRIBUTA (see also Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. i. p. 150 ff., and Staatsr. iii. p. 321 ff.); and it is only necessary to lay stress here on the particular features of the assemblies by tribes which made them fitter organs of government than the more cumbrous Comitia Centuriata, viz. the local associations among the members, which made previous informal deliberation possible, and rendered the members more accessible to the influence of leading men. It was mainly perhaps the desire to transfer this local influence into the Comitia Centuriata which caused the reform of that assembly in 534 A.U.C. (See COMITIA CENTURIATA, and Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 271 ff.) The tribes, as we have seen, had always been the bases of the census, but hitherto the members of each tribe had been equally distributed among all the centuriae, so that each century was in theory composed of an equal number from each tribe; and so, the tributes being scattered, local associations had no means of finding expression. What the reform did was briefly to combine the tribal with the centurial arrangement (Liv. 1.13). Each tribe was divided into seniores and iuniores, and each of these divisions again into five centuries, corresponding with the five property classes. Each century therefore consisted entirely of members of the same tribe, and was in fact, as Cicero says (pro Planc. 20, 49), “unius tribus pars:” and as the 70 centuries of the first class, or possibly the 35 centuriae iuniorum, drew lots for the privilege of voting first, we get such descriptions as “praerogativa Aniensis iuniorum” (Liv. 24.7), “praerogativa Veturia iuniorum” (Liv. 27.6, &c., and cf. Liv. 1.43; App. BC 1.59; Dionys. A. R. 4.21, who describes the change as of democratic tendency).

Relation of Tributes to one another.--The tribes being originally local districts, the majority of their members were neighbours (Cic. pro Sext. Rosc. 16, 47), and were moreover constantly brought together for the various purposes for which the tribes were employed, and from this cause the connexion between them was naturally a somewhat close one. So in Ter. Adelph. 3.3, 85, a tribulis is “homo amicus nobis, iam inde a puero.” Cicero (Cic. Fam. 13, 23) speaks of Caninius as “amicus et tribulis tuus.” Sometimes this esprit de corps showed itself in a traditional jealousy of some other tribe, as in the case of Papiria and Pollia (Liv. 6.37), but more usually in the active support which contributes afforded one another (1) in ordinary life, (2) in elections. As to (1) we find a victim of Sejanus appealing for help to his contribules, “si semper apparui vobis bonus et utilis tribulis,” &c. (Wilm. 1699). On the relation between tribules with regard to elections and canvassing, Cicero throws much light in the pro Plancio (16-18), while the fact that Vatinius failed to secure the vote of his own tribe Sergia is mentioned as an exceptional disgrace to him (in Vat. 15, 37; cf. also pro Mur. 33, 69), So again candidates give banquets tributim (Cic. de pet. Consul. 11, 44) and spectacula (pro Mur. 34, 72); while Suetonius says of Augustus, “Fabianis et Scaptiensibus tribulibus suis die comitiorum, ne quid a quoquam candidato desiderarent, singulis milia nummum a se dividebat” (Aug. 40). These passages show that, even after the Social war, a certain bond between the members of a tribe remained, and of course in earlier times it was still stronger. When we remember that the tribes were constantly coming together to elect their own officers (Orelli, 3094), or judices for the extraordinary courts according to the Lex Plautia (Ascon. in Cornel. p. 79), or the centumviri (Fest. p. 54), or to celebrate supplicationes, &c., decreed by the senate (Liv. 7.28), it is easy to understand how well adapted the Comitia tributa might easily be made, by virtue of all these local associations and sympathies in the hands of skilful leaders, for carrying out a democratic or anti-senatorial policy.

Ordo Tribuum.--That there was a certain definite order of tribes, we know from several passages; although what the order was, we are very imperfectly informed, and are unable to say on what it depended. It was properly applied to decide the order of voting in the Comitia tributa. In this order the four urban tribes came first, arranged as follows: Suburana, Palatina, Esquilina, Collina (Varr. 5.56; Fest. p. 368). This, as we have seen, was originally an order of rank; and that it was retained till the time of Cicero, we may infer from de Leg. Agr. 2.29, 79, “a Suburana usque ad Arniensem nomina vestra proponat.” Under the Empire, this was to a certain extent changed, and Palatina and Collina appear to rank above the rest, while the order in connexion with the corn-distribution is Palatina, Suburana, Esquilina, Collina (C. I. L. 6.10211). Of the rustic tribes we only know for certain that Romulia came first (Cic. l.c.; Varr. l.c.; C. I. L. 6.10211), while Voltinia was probably second (it is so in the inscription referred to), and Arniensis was the last (Cic. l.c.).

The Tribes under the Empire.--Under the Empire, or at least since 15 A.D., the administrative and political importance of the tribes disappears (Tac. Ann. 1.15). From this time in the provinces and in Italy, membership in the tribe was merely the formal mark of Roman citizenship. In the city itself the tribes still had a purpose, but it was neither political nor administrative. Even in republican times the tribes had usually been made the vehicle by which presents of money or corn were given to the citizens either by the state or by individuals (Ascon. in Mil. p. 36; Appian, App. BC 2.143; Cic. Att. 1.1. 6, 13, &c.). This now became their chief and indeed their only function. How frequent and how extravagant the largesses and congiaria given under the Empire were, is sufficiently well known (see Marquardt, Staatsv. ii. pp. 114 ff.); but what is important to remember here is that these presents were limited to the citizens resident in the capital. This is expressly stated in some cases (cf. App. BC 2.147), and is implied in a great many [p. 2.886]more (Suet. Jul. 83, Tib. 20; Caig. 17; Tac. Ann. 2.42, &c.), while the phrase plebs urbana used in this connexion is another proof, if proof were needed (cf. Mon. Ancyr. 3, 16, “trecentis et viginti milibus plebis urbanae sexagenos denarios viritim dedi” ). These money presents, as we know, were given tributim. So Appian (3.23) says that the legacy of Julius Caesar was given by Augustus to the curatores tribuum, while a comparison between Tac. Ann. 1.8 and Suet. Aug. 101, and Tac. Ann. 12.31, shows that money given viritim was given to the tribes (cf. also Mart. 8.15, 4). But while the congiaria, however frequent, were of irregular occurrence, there was another means of relieving the wants of the urban population, which was regular, and indeed of monthly occurrence, viz. frumentationes or grants of corn, either gratis or at rates lower than the market price, and it was in connexion with these regular liberalitates that the tribes gained a new meaning and a new organisation [see FRUMENTATIO]. That, like the money-gifts, they were limited to the city, is abundantly attested. Thus, in the Mon. Ancyr. “plebs urbana” is synonymous with “plebs quae frumentum publicum accipiebat;” an inscription (C. I. L. 6.943) speaks of “plebs urbana quae frumentum publicum accipit.” (See also App. 2.120, &c.) Probably in theory they could be claimed by every citizen resident at Rome (Sen. de Benef. 4, 28); and the libertini, limited almost entirely, as we have seen, to the urban tribes, were certainly not excluded (Dionys. A. R. 4.24). Probably, however, de facto, if not de iure (Mommsen thinks from Dig. 32, 35, that it was also de iure), members of the senatorial and equestrian orders were not included in the list of recipients. This seems to follow as well from the phrase “plebs urbana,” as from the passages where the tribes are distinguished from the more illustrious classes (cf. Stat. Silv. 4.1, 25; D. C. 61.7, &c.). There seems also to have been a maximum number fixed from time to time (Trajan, e.g., raised it: Plin. Panegyr. 51, and cf. C. I. L. 6.955), as a check upon the claims of those who were not really entitled to receive the corn (cf. Suet. Jul. 41; Dio Cass. Iviii. 10; Suet. Aug. 40), and each recipient was furnished with a ticket (tessera frumentaria). The recipients of corn then being the members of the thirty-five tribes resident in Rome, and the monthly distribution being in accordance with old custom arranged tributim, the tribules not unnaturally formed themselves into corporations analogous to the collegia of which so much is heard under the Empire (cf. Wilm. 679 and 888, “plebs urbana xxxv tribuum,” and 1700, “plebs urbana quae frumentum publicum accipit et tribus [xxxv];” also Dig. 32, 35). While the corn seems to have been given out at the Porticus Minucia (Apul. de Mund. 35), there were probably granaries for each tribe (cf. Orelli, 3214, “horrearius plebis et tribus Palatinae,” and Tac. Ann. 15.18); and it is possible that the corn for a whole tribe was received from the curator annonae at the Porticus Minucia, and then taken to the tribal granary for distribution among the tribules. The tribes in this narrower sense differed from the other collegia apparently only in their origin and in the greater number of their members. That there was no common chest is due to the fact that the common store of corn took its place, but we find the seniores and iuniores, into which the tribes were still divided, entitled “corpora” (Wilm. 1703-1736 C. L. L. 6.198, &c.), while they have the officials usual in a collegium, scribae and viatores (C. I. L. 6.10215), apparitores (Wilm. 1705), accensi (Orelli, 3062), honorati and immunes (Orelli, 3062, 3096): they had common burial-places (C. I. L. 6.10214), and were occasionally remembered in the testament of a rich tribulis (Wilm. 1705). As this organisation was confined to the plebs urbana, the four urban tribes were naturally by far the most numerously represented, and extant inscriptions relate principally to them, and especially to Palatina and Suburana. But all the tribes shared in the organisation, as is shown generally by the phrase “plebs urbana xxxv tribuum,” while in particular Romulia and Voltinia (C. I. L. 6.10211), Claudia (Orelli, 3062), Oufentina (Wilm. 1709), and Velina (Pers. 5.73) are specially mentioned in this connexion. An inscription unfortunately incomplete gives us some idea of the proportion of members in the urban and rustic tribes (C. I. L. 6.10211). In Palatina. the number of tribules (whether of permanent members, or, as is more probable, of members, newly admitted within a certain period) is 4191, in Suburana 4068, in Esquilina 1777, in, Collina 457, in Romulia 68, and in Voltinia 85. In the course of time, though it was probably not originally contemplated, it became possible even for non--citizens to buy the tessera frumentaria, and so a place in the tribe (cf. Juv. 7.171), and in this way “tesseram emere” (Dig. 5, 1, 52) and “tribum emere” (Dig. 32, 1, 35) came to be convertible terms; and the custom of thus buying a place in a tribe became widely spread, and was frequently resorted to by the rich as a convenient way of providing for old servants and retainers (cf. Dig. 32, 35). So, far indeed was this carried that we find a boy of 18 years old having a place in the Esquilina seniorum (Orelli, 3093). Whether membership in a tribe was in these cases bought from individual members, or, as is more probable, from the tribe itself as a corporation, cannot be decided with certainty. A theory put forward by Mommsen in his early monograph on the Roman tribes, though he has since given it up, deserves to be mentioned as not improbable, though perhaps not capable of proof. The corn was at first given, he supposes, not gratis, but at a moderate price, and practically all bonafide citizens resident in the city participated in the privilege. Gradually, however, within this larger body, a certain number of the poorer citizens received their corn free by means perhaps of tesserae nummariae (Suet. Aug. 41), and it was this smaller number of persons who became organised in close corporations which in the course of time appropriated the names of the tribes. On this theory the numbers mentioned in the inscription above referred to would be those of the free recipients, not of the tribesmen generally. Hirschfeld, on the other hand (Philologus, xxix.), denies that either the congiaria or the frumentationes were given by means of the tribes at all.

Literature.--Mommsen, Die römischen Tribus, [p. 2.887]&c., Altona, 1844; Staatsrecht, iii. pp. 95 ff., 161 ff., 434 ff., and 779 ff.;--Huschke, Die Verfassung des Königs Servius Tullius; Grotefend, Imperium Romanum tributim descriptum, 1863; Kubitschek, de origine et propagatione Tribuum; Id. Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum, 1889;--Beloch, Der italische Bund; Hermes, xxii. p. 100 ff.


hide References (119 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (119):
    • Cicero, Letters to his Friends, 13
    • Cicero, Letters to his Friends, 13.9
    • Cicero, Letters to his Friends, 8.8
    • null, 11
    • null, 8
    • Diodorus, Historical Library, 12.11
    • Euripides, Ion, 1596
    • Herodotus, Histories, 5.68
    • Herodotus, Histories, 9.35
    • Herodotus, Histories, 3.26
    • Herodotus, Histories, 5.66
    • Herodotus, Histories, 9.33
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.30
    • Homer, Odyssey, 19.177
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.5.5
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 5.9.6
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.53.6
    • Thucydides, Histories, 1.107
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.92
    • Thucydides, Histories, 3.94
    • Thucydides, Histories, 5.38
    • Homer, Iliad, 2.362
    • Appian, Civil Wars, 1.7.59
    • Appian, Civil Wars, 2.20.143
    • Appian, Civil Wars, 2.20.147
    • Polybius, Histories, 2.21
    • Polybius, Histories, 6.20
    • Cicero, For Lucius Murena, 20
    • Cicero, For Sextus Roscius of Ameria, 16
    • Cicero, For Milo, 33
    • Cicero, Philippics, 6.12
    • Cicero, Against Verres, 2.2.127
    • Cicero, For Flaccus, 32
    • Cicero, For Cornelius Balbus, 25
    • Cicero, For Cornelius Balbus, 8
    • Cicero, On the Agrarian Law, 2.2.9
    • Cicero, On the Agrarian Law, 2.3.5
    • Cicero, For Archias, 4
    • Cicero, For Plancius, 16
    • Cicero, Against Vatinius, 15
    • Cicero, Philippics, 3.15
    • Cicero, Philippics, 3.6
    • Cicero, Philippics, 6.5
    • Cicero, Philippics, 9.17
    • Cicero, Philippics, 9.7
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 9, 20
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 9, 43
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 9, 46
    • Suetonius, Divus Augustus, 101
    • Suetonius, Nero, 44
    • Tacitus, Annales, 12.31
    • Tacitus, Annales, 15.18
    • Tacitus, Annales, 1.8
    • Tacitus, Annales, 1.15
    • Tacitus, Annales, 1.31
    • Tacitus, Annales, 2.42
    • Tacitus, Historiae, 3.58
    • Cicero, On Oratory, 1.9
    • Cicero, On Oratory, 2.66
    • Suetonius, Divus Augustus, 40
    • Suetonius, Divus Augustus, 41
    • Suetonius, Divus Julius, 41
    • Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 18.14
    • Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 3
    • Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 3.30
    • Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 18.3
    • Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, 34.1
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 45, 15
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 6, 5
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 7, 15
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 7, 16
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 8, 14
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 8, 21
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 8, 37
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 38, 36
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 40, 51
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 4, 24
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 6, 20
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 6, 21
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 6, 37
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 6, 4
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 10, 21
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 24, 18
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 24, 7
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 43
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 29, 15
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 29, 37
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 7, 28
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 8, 11
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 8, 17
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 10, 16
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 10, 9
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 31, 2
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 13
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 33
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 36
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 38
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 41
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 1, 8
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 2, 16
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 2, 21
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 2, 56
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 3, 55
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 4, 46
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 4, 59
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 26, 22
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 27, 6
    • Cicero, De Republica, 2.19
    • Cicero, De Republica, 2.20
    • Cicero, De Republica, 2.8
    • Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 15.27
    • Plutarch, Demetrius, 10
    • Plutarch, Romulus, 13
    • Plutarch, Romulus, 20
    • Statius, Silvae, 4.1
    • Martial, Epigrammata, 8.15
    • Martial, Epigrammata, 8.4
    • Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, 6.3
    • Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, 6.4
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: