A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890)
William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin, Ed.

---

COMIT´IA

COMIT´IA assemblies of the people at Rome, for the purpose of transacting business. They were thus distinguished, on the one hand, from the contio (=conventio), which was a meeting summoned to listen to an address from a magistrate, but incapable of passing any resolution, and from the concilium, the general term for a gathering; hence applied to meetings of sections of the people, especially the concilium plebis, or to meetings in foreign nations, either of the whole people or of delegates. According to the primitive conception in the time of the kings, all power ultimately rested with the assembly of the citizens; it was only so far as it delegated power to the king and vowed obedience to him that this supreme authority of the people was limited; and according to the spirit of the constitution, every innovation in practice or change in the existing law required the assent of the citizens. Every proposal (rogatio) had to be laid before the people by the king himself: no one was allowed to discuss it, but those to whom he gave permission; and the people then gave or refused their assent. The assembly was summoned (comitia calata) regularly twice in the year, on March 24th and May 24th, and as often besides as seemed good to the king. They met in the curies [CURIAE, and apparently the answer to be given to the king was decided by the vote of the majority of the curies.

The first step towards the reform of this primitive constitution was that which is associated with the name of Servius Tullius. The historical circumstances of this change are veiled in the darkness which covers the whole legendary history of the kings. But it is clear from the facts implied that it was brought about only when the community had outgrown its earlier limits, and when its territory included at least that which had belonged to the neigh-bouring state of Alba. The primary purpose of this change was to incorporate all owners of land in the Roman territory in the ranks of the army, so that military service should not fall, as heretofore, solely upon the citizens. Hence all members of the state were classed according to the property which they possessed, and this classification was made the basis of the military organisation of the state. But by degrees the assembly of the citizens so classified, representing, as it did, the fighting force of the state, acquired important powers, and in fact came to be regarded for many purposes as the representative assembly of the citizens. It has been conjectured with much probability, but it can hardly be said to be demonstrated (Mommsen, Hist. 1.264), that this important change was brought about at the time of the expulsion of the kings.

The plebeians were now admitted to a share in the popular assembly, but with such restrictions that the power lay entirely in the hands of the wealthier citizens (see below). The financial distress of the poorer classes necessitated further reforms: and in B.C. 495 tribunes of the commons were first created.

It was probably at this time that the division of the Roman territory into four tribes (introduced by the Servian constitution) was replaced by the creation of twenty tribes-four belonging to the city, sixteen to the country districts; but the assembly over which the tribunes presided still met in curies, in which the voting was by heads--a circumstance which gave great power to the wealthier families, inasmuch as all their clients had a right of voting. By the Publilian law of B.C. 471 a most important change was introduced. One more tribe, the Crustuminian--deriving its name from the place where first the plebs by secession won the right to an independent organisation--was added, in order to preclude the possibility of an equality of votes; and henceforward the assemblies of the commons were held, not by curies, but by tribes. But the basis of the tribes was the possession of land, whether in small or large amount; none voted but freeholders, and thus the clients were excluded, and the assembly of the tribes became an assembly of the independent middle classes, where there was a property qualification, but where the large landholder had no more weight in voting than his poorer neighbour. (Cf. Mommsen, Hist. 1.282 = Röm. Gesch.6 1.278.)

We thus find in existence within the first half century of the Roman republic three distinct assemblies of the people, which now call for separate consideration in greater detail.

I. COMITIA CURIATA (ἐκκλησία φρατρική or φρατριακή). Under the kings, as we have seen, this was the only assembly of the people. It was always presided over by the king in person: the statement in Dionysius (4.71), apparently confirmed by Livy (1.59), that the tribunus celerum had this right in the absence of the king, rests upon a complete misapprehension of the nature of this office. Under the republic the presiding magistrate was always a consul, praetor, or dictator (Liv. 9.38; Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2, 11, 27). The citizens were summoned by a lictor (Gel. 15.27; Dionys. A. R. 2.7). The votes were given by curies, each citizen having one vote, and the majority of individual votes determining the vote of the curia (Gell. 1. c.; Liv. 1.43; Dionys. A. R. 2.14, 4.20, 84, 5.6). We have no means of knowing what was done in the case of an equality of votes, a result not impossible with an even number of curies. The votes of the curies were all taken at the same time; but it was decided by lot in what order the votes should be announced: that first reported was [p. 1.504]called the principium (Liv. 9.38). The meetings of the curies were always held in the comitium.

The functions of the comitia were limited, as has been already noticed, to giving or refusing assent to any proposal laid before them by the presiding magistrate. In theory the power of the king was as unlimited over all citizens as that of the father over all members of his family. But in practice he was bound to keep within the limits prescribed by custom, and every change in the law had to receive the previous sanction of the assembled citizens. The most important duty of the citizens was to vow allegiance to the head of the state. Normally it was the privilege of a king to nominate the successor, who was to make the solemn contract in his turn with the people. But in the case of a king dying without having done so, the supreme power (imperium) and right of invoking the divine protection (auspicia) of the state reverted to the general body of the citizens. They assembled unsummoned and named an interrex, a temporary holder of these rights, who could lawfully convene them, for the election of a second interrex. It was the duty of the latter then to nominate a king, who might challenge the allegiance of the citizens. Doubtless he would take means, by consulting the senate or even the assembled curies, to ascertain who would be generally acceptable; but legally nothing was necessary but a nomination by the actual holder of the supreme power. When the citizens had assented on their part to the formal compact (lex curiata de imperio) which bound them to allegiance to the king thus nominated, he was formally installed as the absolute head of the state. Livy's account (1.17) of the election of Numa is misleading, as suggesting that as a main feature which was but a subordinate and unessential portion of the election, viz. the nomination by the senate. When once the reins of government had been transferred to the new king, the assembly of the people had nothing further to do with the administration. An appeal to this body from the judgment of the king was allowed as a matter of grace, but not of right. It was the custom to consult the assembly in the case of aggressive war, and in the extension of the franchise to those who were not citizens ; for both of these involved a change in the circumstances of the original contract. (Liv. 1.32; Gel. 16.4; Dionys. A. R. 8.91, 9.69.) Hence a lex curiata was necessary for all acts of adoption (Gel. 5.19; Tac. Hist. 1.15), and for admission into the curies, whether of foreigners or of plebeians. Similarly the sanction of the people was required for all transfers of property, which were to take place after the death of the owner; that is, for all wills.

After the recognition of the comitia centuriata as the representative assembly of the people, whether this took place immediately upon their institution, as is commonly supposed, or in connexion with the expulsion of the kings, as seems more probable, the power of passing laws, of electing magistrates, and of declaring war was transferred to them. But the comitia of the curies continued to meet for various purposes, mainly formal.

In the first place, the compact by which the citizens bound themselves to obey the commands of an elected magistrate was still made under the form of a lex curiata de imperio. Until this was passed, no-magistrate could enter upon his office, or be regarded as in possession of all its privileges (magistratus optima lege or optimo jure). In the latter days of the republic this became a mere form. The curies were represented by thirty lictors (Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 12, 31), who met in the presence of three augurs (Cic. Att. 4.1. 8; ad Fam. 13.1) to give the necessary vote; and their meetings attracted so little attention, that plans might be formed for prevailing upon three augurs to declare that they had been present at the passing of a lex curiata, though no meeting of the curies had been held (Cic. Fam. 1.9; ad Quint. Fratr. 3.2).

Secondly, the comitia of the curies continued to meet for business in which their functions were passive rather than active. In such cases they were known as comitia calata. They met when summoned (calata) in the presence (not, as is often asserted, under the presidency) of the three pontiffs (pro collegio pontificum: Gel. 15.27) on the Capitol in front of the curia Calabra, an official building assigned to the pontiffs (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6.27; Paul. Diac. p. 49, M.). They met (1) to witness the making of wills, for which purpose in the earlier times meetings were held regularly twice in the year (Gaius, 2.101), though this custom after fell into disuse (Gaius, 2.103); (2) to witness the detestatio sacrorum, a solemn renunciation of the sacra of the original gens, which was made in cases of adrogatio or adoption; (3) to inaugurate the flamens and the rex sacrorum; and (4) to hear from the pontiffs on the calends of each month on what days the nones and ides would fall, and the nature of the other days, whether fasti or nefasti, comitiales, feriae, &c. (Liv. 9.46 ; Macr. 1.15, 10; Serv. ad Aen. 8.654; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6.27). It is possible, however, from the language of Gellius (15.27), that in the last case the comitia calata consisted of the centuries, rather than the curies.

II. COMITIA CENTURIATA (ἡ λοχῖτις ἐκκλησία). In the legislation ascribed to Servius Tullius, the whole body of Roman citizens was divided into six property classes and 193 centuriae (λόχοι) or votes, from which the assemblies in which the people gave their votes were called comitia centuriata [CENSUS]. By this means the poor citizens were compelled to bear their share in military service, but were unable to exercise any great influence upon public affairs, for the wealthier classes voted first; and if they agreed among themselves, they formed a majority before the poorer classes would be called upon to vote at all. The whole people was conceived as an army (exercitus, or, according to the more ancient term, classis: Dionys. A. R. 4.18; Fabius Pictor in Gel. 10.15), and was therefore divided into two parts: the cavalry (equites) and infantry (pedites), though it is not by any means necessary to suppose that the people assembled in arms. The infantry was divided into five classes, or, as Dionysius has it, into six classes, for he regards the whole body of people, whose property did not come up to the census of the fifth class, as a sixth. The class to which a citizen belonged, determined [p. 1.505]the tributum, or war tax, he had to pay,> as well as the kind of service he had to perform in the army and the armour in which he had to serve. But for the purpose of voting in the comitia, each class was subdivided into a number of centuries (centuriae: probably because each was conceived to contain 100 men, though the centuries may have greatly differed in the number of the seniores, and the other of the juniores. Each century, further, was counted as one vote, so that a class had as many votes as it contained centuries. In like manner, the equites were divided into a number of centuries or votes. The two principal authorities on these subdivisions are Livy (1.43) and Dionysius (4.16-21, 7.59), and the annexed table will show the census as well as the number of centuries or votes assigned to each class, and the order in which they voted.

According to Livy.
I. CLASSIS. Census: 100,000 asses.
	40	centuriae seniorum.
	40	centuriae juniorum.
	2	centuriae fabrum.
II. CLASSIS. Census: 75,000 asses.
	10	centuriae seniorum.
	10	centuriae juniorum.
III. CLASSIS. Census: 50,000 asses.
	10	centuriae seniorum.
	10	centuriae juniorum.
IV. CLASSIS. Census: 25,000 asses.
	10	centuriae seniorum.
	10	centuriae juniorum.
V. CLASSIS. Census: 11,000 asses.
	15	centuriae seniorum.
	15	centuriae juniorum.
	3	centuriae accensorum, cornicinum, tubicinum.
	1	centuria capite censorum.
According to Dionysius.
I. CLASSIS. Census: 100 minae (= 100,000 asses).
	40	centuriae seniorum.
	40	centuriae juniorum.
II. CLASSIS. Census: 75 minae.
	10	centuriae seniorum.
	10	centuriae juniorum.
	2	centuriae fabrum (one voting with the seniores and the other with the juniores).
III. CLASSIS. Census: 50 minae.
	10	centuriae seniorum.
	10	centuriae juniorum.
IV. CLASSIS. Census: 25 minae.
	10	centuriae seniorum.
	10	centuriae juniorum.
	2	centuriae cornicinum and tubicinum (one voting with the seniores, and the other with the juniores).
V. CLASSIS. Census: 12 1/2 minae.
	15	centuriae seniorum.
	15	centuriae juniorum.
VI. CLASSIS. Census: below 12 1/2 minae.
	1	centuria capite censorum.

According to both Dionysius and Livy, the equites voted in eighteen centuries before the seniores of the first class; and hence there were, according to Livy, altogether 194, and, according to Dionysius, 193 centuries or votes. Livy's even number of 194 centuries would have rendered it impossible to obtain an absolute majority in the comitia; and it has been assumed, that he made a mistake in the three centuriae accensorum, cornicinum, tubicinum, which he adds to the fifth class. The account given by Cicero (de Rep. 2.22, 39) agrees with that of Dionysius, except that he assigns seventy centuries to the first class. According to him, the centuries of the knights (18) and of the first class (70), with one of fabri tignarii, ff eight of the other centuries voted with them, made up a clear majority (97) of the whole. Cf. Madvig, Verf. i. p. 114 (note). The other discrepancies between Livy and Dionysius are not of great importance. They consist in the places assigned to the two centuriae fabrum, the two of the cornicines and tubicines, and in the census of the fifth class. With regard to the last point, Dionysius is at any rate more consistent in his gradation, and in so far deserves to be preferred to Livy.

In this manner all Roman citizens, whether patricians or plebeians, who had property to a certain amount, were privileged to take part and vote in the centuriata comitia, and none were excluded except slaves, peregrini, women and the aerarii. The juniores were all men from the age of seventeen to that of forty-six; and the seniores, all men from the age of forty-six upwards. The order of voting was arranged is such a manner, that if the eighteen centuries of the equites and the eighty centuries of the first class were agreed upon a measure, the question was decided at once, there being no need for calling upon the other classes to vote. Hence, although all Roman citizens appeared in these comitia on a footing of equality, yet by far the greater power was thrown into the hands of the wealthy.

All the business which had before belonged to the comitia curiata, in the early days of the republic had been transferred to the comitia centuriata; that is, they had the right of electing the higher magistrates, of making laws and of deciding upon war, and afterwards also of concluding peace with foreign nations. (Cic. de Leg. 3.3, 10; de Div. 2.35, 74).

(a.) The election of magistrates. After the presiding magistrate had consulted with the senate about the candidates who had offered themselves, he put them to the vote. The magistrates that were elected by the centuries are the consuls (whence the assembly is called comitia consularia, Liv. 1.60, 10.11), the praetors (hence comitia praetoria, Liv. 7.1, 10.22), the military tribunes with consular power (Liv. 5.52), the censors (Liv. 7.22, 40.45), and the decemvirs (Liv. 3.33, 35). There are also instances of proconsuls being elected by the centuries, but this happened only in extraordinary cases (Liv. 33.30; 34.13). [p. 1.506]

(b.) Legislation. The legislative power of the centuries at first consisted in their passing or rejecting a measure which was brought before them by the presiding magistrate in the form of a senatus consultum, so that the assembly had no right of originating any legislative measure, but voted only upon such as were brought before them as resolutions of the senate. (Dionys. A. R. 5.27; 8.22, 43; 10.26. This is not explicitly stated by any Latin writer.) When a proposal was passed by the centuries, it became law (lex). The first law passed by the centuries of which we have any record was the Lex Valeria de provocatione (Cic. de Rep. 2.31, 53), and the laws of the Twelve Tables were sanctioned by the centuries (Liv. 3.34).

(c.) The decision upon war, on ground of a senatus consultum, likewise belonged to the centuries, and is often mentioned. This was from the constitutional point of view an act of legislation (Liv. 4.30). Peace, however, was concluded by a mere senatus consultum, and without any co-operation of the people, in the early part of the republic, and perhaps down to the peace of Caudium. (Cf. Rubino, Ueber Röm. Staatsverf. pp. 259-289.)

(d.) The highest judicial power. The comitia centuriata were in the first place the highest court of appeal (D. C. 39.27, &c.; comp. APPELLATIO), and, in the second, they had to try all offences committed against the state: hence all cases of perduellio and majestas, and no case involving the life of a Roman citizen, could be decided by any other court. (Cic. pro Sest. 30, 65; 34, 73: de Rep. 2.36, 61: de Leg. 3.4, 11: Plb. 6.4, 14.) This last right was revived or introduced by the Valerian law (Plut. Publ. 11), and Spurius Cassius was condemned by the comitia of the centuries. There is no reason for believing that the laws of the Twelve Tables increased the power of the centuries in this respect.

All the powers which we have here mentioned as possessed by the centuries had to receive the patrum auctoritas before they became valid and binding. But, in the course of time, the assembly shook off this control, which became merely a formality, and, in the end, the patres were obliged to give their sanction beforehand to whatever the centuries might determine. This was effected by the Publilian law, in B.C. 337 (Liv. 8.12). As thus the centuries gradually became powerful enough to dispense with the sanction of the patres, so they also acquired the right of discussing and deciding upon matters which were not brought before them in the form of a senatus consultum; that is, they acquired the power of originating measures. In reference to the election of magistrates, the comitia originally were not allowed to elect any other except those who were proposed by the president, who himself was entirely guided by the resolution of the senate; but in the course of time, the people asserted their right so far as to oblige the president to propose any candidate that might offer himself, without the previous sanction of the senate. This change, according to Zonaras (7.344), took place in B.C. 482. In legislative measures a senatus consultum was indispensable, and this senatus consultum was brought before the people by the consul or the senator who had originated the measure, after it had previously been exhibited in public for seventeen days, to give the people an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the nature of the proposed law. (Appian, App. BC 1.59; Cic. pro Sest. 51, 109; in Pison. 15, 34.) Whether the comitia required a senatus consultum in cases where they acted as the supreme court of justice, is uncertain ; at least we have no example of a senatus consultum in such a case on record.

The comitia centuriata could be held only on dies comitiales or fasti, on which it was lawful to transact business with people, and the number of such days in every year was about 190 (Varro, de L. L. 6.29; Fest. s. v. Comitiales dies; Macr. 1.16); but on dies nefasti (that is, dies festi, feriati; comp. DIES), and at first also on the nundinae, no comitia could be held (Plin. Nat. 18.13; Paul. Diac. p. 171), until in B.C. 287 the Hortensian law ordained that the nundinae should be regarded as dies fasti (Macr. 1.16), so that henceforth comitia might be held on the nundinae, though it was done rarely. Comitia for the purpose of passing laws could not even be held on all dies fasti (Cic. de prov. Cons. 19, 45). The comitia for elections took place every year at a certain period (Liv. 25.2), though it depended upon the senate and the consuls as to whether they wished the elections to take place earlier or later than usual (Cic. pro Mil. 9, 24; ad Fam. 8.4; pro Muren. 25, 51).

The place where the centuries met was necessarily outside the pomoerium; the place selected was sometimes in luco Petelino (Liv. 6.20), or in aesculeto (Plin. Nat. 16.37), but usually in the Campus Martius (Cic. ad Q. Frat. 2.2; Dionys. A. R. 4.84, 7.59), which contained the saepta for the voters, a tribunal for the president, and the villa publica for the augurs. (Cic. pro Rab. Perd. 4, 11; Gellius, 14.7; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6.87.) The president at the comitia was the same magistrate who convoked them, and this right was a privilege of the consuls, and, under some circumstances, of the praetors. (Cic. Fam. 10.1. 2) An interrex and dictator also, or his representative, the magister equitum, might likewise convene and preside at the comitia. (Liv. 8.23, 25.2; Cic. de Leg. 3.4, 10.) At the beginning of the republic, the praefectus urbi held the comitia for the election of the first consuls (Liv. 1.60); and the censors assembled the people only on account of the census and the lustrum (Varro, de L. L. 6.86). In cases when the assembly was constituted as a court of justice, the tribunes of the plebs, after having obtained the permission of the consuls, sometimes appear as prosecuting (Liv. 26.3). One of the main duties devolving upon the president, and which he had to perform before holding the comitia, was to consult the auspices (auspicari). For this purpose, the magistrate accompanied by an augur went out of the city early in the morning, and chose a tabernaculum or templum. There the augur began his observations, and gave his opinion either that the comitia might be held, or that they must be deferred till another day. This declaration was given to the magistrate; and when the auspices were favourable, the people were called together, which was done by three successive and distinct acts: the first was quite a general invitation to come to the assembly (inlicium, Varro, de L. L. 6.94; comp. 86, [p. 1.507]88). At the same time when this invitation was proclaimed circum muros or de muris, a horn was blown, which being the more audible signal, is mentioned by some writers alone, and without the inlicium (Gellius, 15.27; Varro, de L. L. 5.91). When upon this signal the people assembled--in the earlier days armed, as for a march--there followed the second call by the accensus, or the call ad contionem or conventionem; that is, to a regular assembly, and the crowd then separated, grouping themselves according to their classes and ages (Varro, de L. L. 6.88). Hereupon the consul appeared, ordering the people to come ad comitia centuriata; and led the whole exercitus--for in these comitia the Roman people are always conceived as an exercitus--out of the city, to the Campus Martius (Varro, l.c.; Liv. 39.15). It was customary from the earliest times for an armed force to occupy the Janiculum, when the people were assembled in the Campus Martius, for the purpose of protecting the city against any sudden attack of the neighbouring people; and on the Janiculum a red flag (vexillum) was hoisted, during the whole time that the assembly lasted. This custom continued to be observed even at the time when Rome had no longer anything to fear from the neighbouring tribes (Liv. l.c.; Gel. 15.27; Macr. 1.16, 15; D. C. 37.27, &c.; Serv. ad Aen. 8.1). When the people were regularly assembled, the business was commenced with a solemn sacrifice, and a prayer of the president, who then took his seat on his tribunal (Dionys. A. R. 7.59, 10.32; Liv. 31.7, 39.15; Cic. pro Muren. 1; Liv. 26.2). The president then opened the business by laying before the people the subject for the decision upon which they had been convened, beginning with the formula quod bonum, felix, faustum fortunatumque sit (Cic. de Div. 1.4. 5, 102), and concluding his exposition with the words velitis, jubeatis Quirites, e.g. bellum indici, or ut M. Tullio aqua igni interdictum sit, or whatever the subject might be. This formula was the standing one in all comitia, and the whole exposition of the president was called rogatio (Liv. 4.5, 6.40, 21.17, 22.10, 30.43; Cic. de Fin. 2.16, 54; in Pison. 29, 72; pro Dom. 17, 45; Gel. 5.19). When the comitia were assembled for the purpose of an election, the presiding magistrate had to read out the names of the candidates, of which a list had been published at least a trinundinum previously, and might exercise his influence by recommending the one whom he thought most fit for the office in question (Liv. 10.22, 22.35). He was, however, not obliged to announce the names of all the candidates that offered themselves; as, for example, if a candidate had not attained the legitimate age, or when he sued for one office without having been invested with those through which he had to pass previously, or if there was any other legal obstacle; nay, the president might declare, that if a person, to whom he had any such objection, should yet be elected, he would not recognise his election as valid (Liv. 3.21, 24.7; V. Max. 3.8.3; Velleius, 2.92). If the assembly had been convened for the purpose of passing a legislative measure, the president usually recommended the proposal, or he might grant to others, if they desired it, permission to speak about the measure, either in its favour or against it (contionem dare, Liv. 3.71, 31.6, &c., 42.34; Appian, App. BC 1.11; D. C. 38.4; Quint. Inst. 2.4.3). In this case, however, it was customary for private persons to speak before any magistrate. When the comitia acted as a court of justice, the president stated the crime, proposed the punishment to be inflicted upon the offender, and then allowed others to speak either in defence of the accused or against him. Sometimes, however, although the consul presided, the tribunes acted as prosecutors (cf. Bouché Leclercq, Institutions Romaines, p. 121).

When the subject brought before the assembly was sufficiently discussed, the president called upon the people to prepare for voting by the words ite in suffragium, bene juvantibus dis (Liv. 31.7). If the number of citizens present at the assembly was thought too small, the decision might be deferred till another day, but this was rarely done, and a question was usually put to the vote, if each century was but represented by a few citizens (Liv. 7.18; Cic. pro Sest. 51, 109; de Leg. Agr. 2.9; Plut. TG 16; D. C. 39.30). The leges tabellariae ordained that the votes should be given in writing [LEGES TABELLARIAE]. But previous to the leges tabellariae, the rogatores, who subsequently collected the written votes, stood at the entrance of the saepta, and asked every citizen for his vote, which was taken down, and used to determine the vote of each century (Dionys. A. R. 7.64). In legislative assemblies, the voter, probably from the earliest times, signified his disapproval by the word antiquo, and his approval by uti rogas (Liv. 6.38, 10.8, 30.43, 31.8, 33.25; Cic. de Leg. 2.1. 0, 24). The two tablets which were given to each person for the purpose of voting on legislative measures were marked the one with VR, and the other with A (uti rogas and antiquo: Cic. Att. 1.1. 4). At elections, the name of the successful candidate was mentioned to the rogator, who had to mark the favourable votes by dots which he made by the side of the name: hence puncta ferre, to be successful (Liv. 10.13, 22; 29.22; Hor. Ep. 2.2, 99). The custom of voting at elections by tablets with the name of the candidates written on them, was introduced in B.C. 139, by the Lex Gabinia tabellaria (Cic. de Leg. 3.1. 6, 35); two years later L. Cassius introduced the same custom, in cases of the comitia acting as a court of justice (Cic. Brut. 27, 106), and afterwards it was established also in legislative assemblies, and in cases where the comitia tried persons for perduellio [LEGES TABELLARIAE]. At elections, the citizens obtained blank tablets, that they might write upon them the name of the candidate for whom they voted (Cic. Phil. 11.8, 19; Plut. C. Gracch. 5, Cat. Min. 46; Plin. Ep. 4.25). In judicial assemblies, every citizen received two tablets marked A (absolvo) and C (condemno), and, according to Pseudo-Ascon. p. 108athird tablet containing the letters N. L. (non liquet); but this last statement is probably transferred by mistake from the practice in the law-courts. There were in the Campus Martins saepta or enclosures, originally marked off only by ropes, but afterwards formed by palisades, tabulata (Cic. pro Mil. 15, 41; Ovid, Ov. Fast. 1.53; Serv. on Verg. Ecl. 1.34; Liv. 26.22), and later on [p. 1.508]by marble walls (Cic. Att. 4.1. 6), into which one class of citizens was admitted after another for the purpose of voting. The first that entered were the eighteen centuries of the equites; then followed the first class, and so on. It very rarely happened that the lowest class was called upon to vote, as there was no necessity for it, unless the first class did not agree with the equites (Dionys. A. R. 4.20, 7.59, 8.82, 10.17; Liv. 1.43). In this case, however, the contio was kept quite distinct from the comitia (Cic. pro Flacc. 7, 15), and was held not in the ovile, but in some neighbouring place, e. g. the circus Flaminius, before the final summons of the consul (exercitum educere, Liv. 39.15). On entering the saepta, the citizens received their tablets (Cic. Att. 1.1. 4; de Leg. 3.17; in Pis. 15, 36; pro Planc. 6, 14); and when they had consulted within the enclosures, they passed out of them again by a pons or ponticulus, at which they threw their vote into a chest (cista) which was watched by rogatores. Hereupon the diribitores classified and counted the votes, and reported the result to the presiding magistrate. That there was a separate body of custodes, who again checked them off by points marked on a tablet, is a very doubtful inference from Cic. in Pis. 15, 36--“vos rogatores, vos diribitores, vos custodes tabellarum.” The order in which the centuries voted was determined in the Servian constitution, in the manner described above; but after the union of the centuries and tribes, the order was determined by lot; and this was a matter of no slight importance, since it frequently happened that the vote of the first determined the manner in which subsequent ones voted. The voting, of course, was continued, until the majority was ascertained. In the case of elections, the successful candidate was proclaimed twice,--first, by the praeco, and then by the president, with a prayer that the choice might have the blessing of the gods (Cic. pro Mur. 1, 1), and without this renuntiatio the election was not valid. After all the business was done, the president dismissed the assembly with the word discedite.

Cases are frequently mentioned in which the proceedings of the assembly were disturbed, so that it was necessary to defer the business till another day. This occurred--(1) when it was discovered that the auspices had been unfavourable, or when the> gods manifested their displeasure by rain, thunder, or lightning; (2) when a tribune interceded (Liv. 45.21; Dionys. A. R. 6.89; Cic. in Vat. 2, 5); (3) when the sun set before the business was over, for it was a principle that the auspices were valid only for one day from sunrise to sunset (Varro, de L. L. 7.51; D. C. 39.65; Liv. 10.22, 41.17; Dionys. A. R. 9.41); (4) when a morbus comitialis occurred, i. e. when one of the assembled citizens was seized with an epileptic fit (D. C. 46.33; Gellins, 19.2; Macr. 2.8); (5) when the vexillum was taken away from the Janiculum, this being a signal which all citizens had to obey (Liv. 39.15; D. C. 37.27; Macr. 1.16); (6) when any tumult or insurrection broke out in the city, as happened now and then during the latter period of the republic (Cic. pro Sest. 36, 78). In all these cases, the assembly had to continue its business on some other day, sometimes on the next. The only exception seems to have been in the case of the election of the censors, for if both could not be elected on the same day, it was necessary to begin the election afresh; and if one had been elected, his election was not valid (Liv. 9.34).

The organisation of the comitia centuriata, as constituted by the Servian legislation, under-went during the time of the republic a very material change, as to the date, purpose, and nature of which we are unfortunately reduced to conjecture. The only positive statements upon the subject are contained in two passages, one in Livy and one in Dionysius, which have been made the subject of the most various inter-pretations. Livy (1.43) says: “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletus quinque et triginta tribus duplicate earum numero centuriis juniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Servio Tullio summam non convenire.” Dionys. A. R. 4.21, after describing the Servian constitution, goes on to say: ἐν δὲ τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς κεκίνηται χρόνοις, καὶ μεταβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ δημοτικώτερον, ἀνάγκαις τισὶ Βιασθεὶς ἰσχυραῖς, οὐ τῶν λόχων καταλυθέντων, ἀλλὰ τῆς κλήσεως αὐτῶν αὐκέτι τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀκρίβειαν φυλαττούσης, ὡς ἔγνων ταῖς ἀρχαιρεσίαις αὐτῶν πολλάκις παρών. The fact of such a change is also implied in the phrase of Cicero turn quidem, in his description of the Servian centuries (de Rep. 2.22, 40), and in the use of the term tribus in connexion with assemblies of the centuries (Cic. pro Plane. 20, 49, &c.). The date of the change may be assigned with some probability to the year B.C. 241. Two passages in Livy seem at first to point to an earlier date; but in 5.18 (B.C. 396) there is little doubt that for jure vocatis tribubus we should read with Mommsen iis revocatis, and in 6.21 (B.C. 383) the phrase omnes tribus bellum jusserunt is unquestionably an inaccurate expression, corrected by his own language in 10.22. The chief reason for the Servian classification had indeed been removed by the introduction of the custom of paying soldiers in B.C. 408, but it by no means follows that the institution was remodelled as soon as it ceased to be theoretically equitable. Livy assumes the existence of the change in his third decade (24.7-9, 26.22), where we find the democratic party able to carry their candidates in the comitia centuriata. It is not likely that it was one of the measures carried by C. Flaminius in his censorship (B.C. 220), or it would have been mentioned among his other popular acts (Liv. Ep. xx.; Plb. 2.21); hence it is most natural to assume that it accompanied the creation of the last 35th) tribe Quirina in the censorship of C. Aurelius Cotta and M. Fabius Buteo in B.C. 241. As to the nature of the change, it is clear, in the first place, that the division into centuries was not abandoned. This is proved beyond doubt by all our authorities. Nor was the principle of division into seniores and juniores abandoned. The five classes also continued to exist, but probably with an alteration in the amount of property required of the several classes, corresponding to the altered value of money [AS]. The first satisfactory explanation of the relation of the tribes to the centuries was given by Octavius Pantagathus (died 1567; quoted by Ursinus on Liv. 1.43). His view has been much attacked, but with some modifications it has been accepted [p. 1.509]by the best modern authorities (e.g. Marquardt, Lange, and Mommsen), and has been confirmed by epigraphic evidence. According to this theory, each of the 35 tribes contained 5 centuries of seniores and 5 of juniores, so that the total number was 350. Whether the equites were included in the centuries of the first class, or formed 35 distinct centuries of their own, or continued to be divided into 18 centuries, which, along with the 4 centuries fabrum, &c., and the century capite censorum, would make the total 350 + 18 + 4 + 1 (the view defended by Lange, 2.477 ff.), it is perhaps impossible to determine. It appears from many inscriptions (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Tribus, p. 76 f.) that the half-tribes consisting of the centuriae seniorum and the centuriae juniorum respectively were usually considered as distinct bodies, so that we find tribus Esquilina seniorum or tribus Palatina corporis junioris, and the like. This appears to be what Livy means in the ambiguous words duplicato earum numero in the passage quoted above. Madvig, however (Röm. Verf. 1.119), still holds to the view of Niebuhr, that this must mean that the number of centuries was twice that of the tribes, and therefore assumes that the seniores and juniores of each tribe formed one century, so that the total number was 70. He confesses that it is not possible to explain how this hypothesis can be reconciled with the continued existence of the classes, which is an unquestioned fact (Cic. Phil. 2.33, 82; pro Flacc. 7, 15; de Leg. 3.3, 7, &c.: cf. Sal. Jug. 86; Gel. 16.10; Lex Agr. C. I. L. 1.200, 5.37), and it is quite needless to interpret the words of Livy in such a way as to create this difficulty. It is true that the term centuria praerogativa (Cic. pro Plane. 20, 49; Liv. 26.22) is used always in the singular, except where there is a reference to several elections (Fest. p. 249), of the reformed comitia, as against the centuriae praerogativae of the equites under the earlier constitution, and that this now bears the name of the half-tribe to which it belonged: e.g. Aniensis juniorum (Liv. 24.7), Veturia juniorum (Liv. 26.22), Galeria juniorum (Liv. 27.6). But it is natural to suppose that it was only the centuries of the first class in the several tribes, which drew lots for the right of voting first, and that hence the addition of the tribe-name was quite enough to distinguish them. There is no reason to suppose from the accidental circumstance that the three prerogative centuries, whose names happen to have been preserved, were all juniores, that these enjoyed any right of previous voting: the very fact of the addition of the term juniorum points in the opposite direction.

III. COMITIA TRIBUTA. The researches of Mommsen have established satisfactorily, against the views previously current and supported by Niebuhr and his followers, that the Servian tribes were a division of the land and not of the people of Rome. Hence the fact, for which there is abundant evidence (Liv. 4.24, 29.37, cf. 5.30, 32; Cic. Phil. 9.7, 15), that the patricians were included in the tribes, and that several of the tribes bore the names of patrician families. But as citizens possessed of no freeholds were not included in a division based upon landed property, there could be no comitia of the tribes in the earliest times, for it was essential to the character of comitia that all citizens should have a right of taking part in them. It was only after the action of the censors Appius Claudius (B.C. 312) and Q. Fabius (B.C. 304) had admitted the landless citizens into the four city-tribes, that comitia tributa could be held in accordance with the principles of Roman public law. The earliest extant instances of resolutions passed in the patricio-plebeian assembly of the tribes dates from the year B.C. 443; but these are at first limited to the election of quaestors under the presidency of a consul. In B.C. 367 the same procedure was adopted in the case of the curule aediles, and it was extended subsequently to the election of minor ordinary or extraordinary officials, the earliest instance of which is the election of a part of the military tribunes in B.C. 362 (cf. Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.7, 17). There is no clear case of a law passed in the comitia tributa before B.C. 332 (Liv. 8.17), when the praetor L. Papirius brought before the tribes a proposal to confer the franchise on the people of Acerra. But it is probable that this procedure had been adopted immediately after the introduction of the praetorship; for the praetor had no power to summon the centuries except for criminal proceedings. The comitia tributa were known as comitia leviora (Cic. pro Plane. 3, 7); the auspices taken before they were held were auspicia minora; the magistrates elected by them were magistratus minores. They were presided over by patrician magistrates who had the jus cum populo in comitiis tributis agendi, i.e. the consuls, the praetors, and (for judicial business only) the curule aediles (Liv. 10.23, 35.41: cf. Cic. in Verr. 1.12, 36; Gel. 13.15). This view appears to be inconsistent with the statements of Livy (3.55, 67) and Dionysius (11.45), that in B.C. 449 the Lex Valeria Horatia ordained ut quod tributim plebs jussisset, populum teneret, and of Livy that in B.C. 339 the dictator Q. Publilius proposed a law ut plebiscita omnes Quirites tenerent. But it is highly probable that our authorities have here simply transferred to resolutions of the plebs what really applied only to resolutions passed by the tribes under the presidency of the patrician magistrates (cf. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. 1.164-5). The correct legal phrase would have been quod tributim populus jussit. If we accept this view, the two laws are brought into a natural connexion, the former with the election of quaestors, the latter with the extended powers given to the praetor by another Publilian law. The same theory accounts for a statement in Zonaras (7.19) that in B.C. 449 the right of taking the auspices was granted to the tribunes. This is evidently incorrect as it stands; but it may well be a perversion of the fact that from that date forwards laws could be passed auspicato in the assembly of the tribes, under the presidency of a magistrate who had the right of the auspices.

The comitia tributa, presided over by a consul or an extraordinary magistrate replacing him (Liv. 10.21; 22.33; 34.35), or by a praetor, elected the quaestors (Tac. Ann. 11.22), the curule aediles (Liv. 6.42, 9.46; Gel. 6.9), the regular and extraordinary lesser magistrates (Gel. 13.15; Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.7, 17), and of the tribunes of the soldiers after B.C. 362 [p. 1.510]six, after B.C. 311 sixteen (Liv. 7.5; 9.30), and at a later date twenty-four (Liv. 27.36). These elections, like those of the comitia centuriata, required to receive the patrum auctoritas, which however, after the Lex Maenia, passed some time in the third century B.C. (Cic. Brut. 14, 55), was given beforehand in incertum comitiorum eventum (Liv. 1.17).

At the election of the pontifex maximus, according to Livy (25.5), a pontifex presided; but if the evidence of Cicero's letters to Brutus (1.5) may be trusted, a consul presided in his time. The college of pontiffs was first completed by co-optation, and then seventeen tribes chosen by lot (a minority of the whole number) voted for the election of one of these as the pontifex maximus (Cic. de Leg. Agr. 2.7, 18; Liv. l.c. 39.46, 40.42; Suet. Jul. 13). After the Lex Domitia de Sacerdotiis (B.C. 104) the members of the three great and politically important colleges of pontifices, augures, and x. (xv.) viri sacris faciundis were elected in the following manner. The candidates, usually three in number, were nominated, each by not more than two of the college (Cic. Phil. 2.2, 4; Brut. 1, 1); the election was made by the people in seventeen tribes (comitia sacerdotum) chosen by lot, and the elected candidate co-opted into the college, as previously.

The Lex Domitia was repealed by Sulla in B.C. 83, but its provisions were re-enacted by the Lex Atia of B.C. 63. The purpose of this curious method of election was to take the real selection out of the hands of the college, without formally resorting to election by the whole people.

For the legislative and judicial functions of the comitia tributa, see below.

We must keep entirely distinct from the comitia tributa the assemblies of the tribes under the presidency of the plebeian magistrates, i. e. the tribunes and the plebeian aediles, who had the jus cum plebe agendi (Fest. p. 293; Cic. de Leg. 2.1. 2, 31). The technical name for these was concilium plebis; and the term comitia tributa, so commonly applied to them by modern writers, is quite destitute of authority. But it will be convenient to treat of them under the present head, inasmuch as they constituted one, and in course of time one of the most important, of the assemblies of the people at Rome.

The distinguishing feature of the concilium plebis was that, as it was summoned and presided over by magistrates who had no right of summoning patricians (Gel. 15.27), it could not be regarded as an assembly of the whole people, and any resolutions which it passed were not strictly speaking leges, but only plebi scita, although we find the term lex plebive scitum sometimes employed, and ultimately even lex. (Cp. Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. 1.195.) The two requisites which were necessary for leges--(1) that they should be proposed under favourable auspices, and (2) that they should receive the auctoritas patrum--were both absent in the case of the concilia plebis. From the legal point of view the assemblies of the plebs were nothing more than the meetings of any other recognised corporation under the presidency of its elected head, passing resolutions which were binding upon all its members. But doubtless there was from the first a desire to shape these concilia as much as possible upon the model of the comitia, as is shown by the adoption of the patrician calendar as regards the lawful days of meeting. The first separate meeting of the plebs, that held on the Mons Sacer in B.C. 494, may perhaps have been held under the military forms of the centuriate comitia; but the earliest regular meetings after the institution of the tribunate were doubtless organised by curies. This explains the statement, which according to the theories of Niebuhr and his school is so utterly inexplicable, that the tribunes of the commons were elected in the comitia curiata (Cic. pro Cornel. in Ascon. p. 76; Dionys. A. R. 6.86, 9.41: cf. Liv. 2.56). In B.C. 471 the plebs resolved, on the proposal of Volero Publilius, to hold the elections of tribunes, and doubtless to pass their other resolutions also, according to tribes (Liv. 2.56, 60; Dionys. A. R. 9.41, 43). The importance of this lay in the fact that thus the landless clients of the patricians were excluded from all share in the elections, which henceforward lay in the hands of the plebeian freeholders. The Publilian law thus created the independent organisation of the middle-class plebeians (excluding the turba forensis), which was destined within the next hundred years to win them equal civic rights with the patricians.

The regulations of the concilium plebis closely resembled those of the comitia curiata, and were contrasted with those of the comitia centuriata. The vote of each tribe was determined by the majority of the votes of the citizens belonging to it; and although the votes were taken simultaneously, they were reported in an order determined by lot, the same name (principium) being given to the curia and to the tribe whose vote was first announced. As no meeting of the centuries could be legally held within the pomoerium, so no meeting of the curies or of the tribes was, as a rule, held without it, and the Comitium was the regular place of assembly for both, the Capitol being also allowable in both cases. But while we have no instance of a meeting of the curies outside the pomoerium, there are some cases of meetings of the tribes, not merely on the Aventine, but also in the Prata Flaminia (Liv. 3.54), and the elections presided over by the tribunes were in the later days of the republic usually held in the Campus Martius (Cic. Att. 1.1, 1; pro Planc. 6, 16, &c.). It is a common but erroneous view that the Comitium was regarded as especially proper for the curies, the Forum generally for the tribes, though doubtless the Comitium itself must have been too small for the meetings of the tribes. The concilia plebis were never held auspicato: this is shown by the positive statements of Livy (6.41, 5) and Dionysius (9.41, 10.4), which we have no reason to consider as referring simply to the earliest times. At the same time, although it was not necessary to seek for the approval of the gods, any indication of their disapproval could not be overlooked (Cic. in Vat. 7, 17); a storm would break up a meeting of the commons as much as a meeting of the people. We must explain in this way cases of plebeian magistrates who resigned as vitio creati (Liv. 10.47; 30.39), and of plebiscita annulled as invalid (Cic. pro Cornel. in Ascon. p. 68). Anyone, but especially a magistrate, who noticed a lightning-flash, was bound to report it to the [p. 1.511]president of the assembly, who, acting on his own judgment or on that of the augurs, might declare the meeting at an end; and after the laws of Aelius and Fufius (about B.C. 150) he was required to do so. Hence after this date we find obnuntiatio commonly employed as a means of obstruction (Cic. Or. cum sen. gr. eg. 5, 11; in Vat. 8, 20; Phil. 5.3, 7). The days specially reserved for the concilia plebis were the nundinae [NUNDINAE], which the Lex Hortensia seems to have made non-comitial for this purpose (Macrob. 1.16, 29-34). The commons were summoned by praecones; after the usual prayers, the presiding magistrate read the rogatio (preceded, if he thought fit, by a contio), and then the tribes were summoned to vote (Liv. 3.71; 6.37; 10.9, &c.). The functions of the concilia plebis may be arranged under three heads.

1. Elections.--After the Lex Publilia of Volero (B.C. 471) the tribunes of the commons and the plebeian aediles were elected (as noticed above) by the commons organised as tribes (Liv. 2.56; Dionys. A. R. 9.49).
2. Legislation.--Resolutions adopted by the concilia plebis were in theory binding only upon the commons (Liv. 3.55; Gel. 15.27; Gaius, 1.3). But if they received the sanction of the senate, they were valid for all citizens. We have no definite information as to when this principle was formally recognised, but Mommsen's view seems the most probable, that a lex centuriata, earlier than the plebiscitum Terentilium (B.C. 462), first formally sanctioned it. It is certain that the necessity for the sanction of the senate was removed by the Lex Hortensia in B.C. 287, and that from this time forward the concilia plebis formed the principal legislative organ of the Roman people (Plin. Nat. 16.15, 10; Gel. 15.27; Gaius, 1.3). Here the tribunes proposed rogationes, to which, when passed, the term lex was commonly, though not strictly applied. These leges must be carefully distinguished from the leges praetoriae which were passed by the comitia tributa under the presidency of the praetors (see above), and from the leges consulares, which, especially in the later times of the republic, were frequently carried in the same body under the presidency of a consul.
3. Judicial.--The concilium plebis attempted to assert its right to pronounce a capital sentence in the case of Coriolanus (B.C. 491) (Dionys. A. R. 7.69), on the ground of a violation of the leges sacratae; and in the next half-century there are several similar instances (Liv. 2.52, 54, 61; 3.12, 31); but the decemviral legislation expressly enacted de capite civis nisi per maximum comitiatum ne ferunto (Cic. de Leg. 3.4, 11, 19, 44; de Rep. 2.36), a provision which was not obsolete in the time of Cicero (pro Sest. 34, 73). Henceforward the assemblies of the plebeians could inflict no punishment more severe than a fine (inrogare multam); the amount imposed at the discretion of the magistrate was strictly limited by the Lex Aternia Tarpeia of B.C. 454: hence, in all graver cases, it was necessary to obtain the sanction of the tribes assembled either in the comitia tributa or in the concilium plebis. In political cases the tribunes generally presided; in questions of police, the aediles.

Sulla, according to some, abolished the comitia tributa altogether, or, according to others, deprived them of the right of electing the sacerdotes, and of all their legislative and judicial powers. (Cic. in Verr. 1.13, 15; de Legg. 3.9; Liv. Epit. 89; Appian, de Bell. Civ. 1.59, 98; comp. TRIBUNUS) But the constitution, such as it had existed before Sulla, was restored soon after his death by Pompeius and others, with the exception of the jurisdiction, which was for ever taken from the people by the legislation of Sulla. The people suffered another loss in the dictatorship of Caesar, who decided upon peace and war himself in connexion with the senate. (D. C. 42.20.) He had also the whole of the legislation in his hands, through his influence with the magistrates and the tribunes. The people thus retained nothing but the election of magistrates; but even this power was much limited, as Caesar had the right to appoint half of the magistrates himself, with the exception of the consuls (Suet. Jul. 41; Cic. Phil. 7.6; D. C. 43.51), and, in addition to this, he recommended to the people those candidates whom he wished to be elected: and who would have opposed his wish? (D. C. 43.47; Appian, App. BC 2.18.) After the death of Caesar the comitia continued to be held, but were always more or less the obedient instruments in the hands of the rulers, whose unlimited powers were even recognised and sanctioned by them. (Appian, App. BC 4.7; D. C. 46.55, 47.2.) Under Augustus the comitia still sanctioned new laws and elected magistrates, but their whole proceedings were a mere farce, for they could not venture to elect any other persons than those recommended by the emperor. (Suet. Aug. 40, &c.; D. C. 53.2, 21, 55.34, 56.40.) Tiberius deprived the people even of this shadow of their former power, and conferred the power of election upon the senate. (Tac. Ann. 1.15, 81, 2.36, 51; Vell. 2.126.) When the elections were made by the senate, the result was announced to the people assembled as comitia centuriata or tributa. (D. C. 58.20.) Legislation was taken away from the comitia entirely, and was completely in the hands of the senate and the emperor. Caligula placed the comitia again upon the same footing on which they had been in the time of Augustus (D. C. 59.9; Suet. Cal. 16); but this regulation was soon abandoned, and everything was left as it had been arranged by Tiberius. (D. C. 59.20.) From this time the comitia may be said to have ceased to exist, as all the sovereign power formerly possessed by the people was conferred upon the emperor by the Lex Regia. [LEX REGIA] The people only assembled in the Campus Martius for the purpose of receiving information as to who had been elected or appointed as its magistrates, until at last even this announcement (renuntiatio) appears to have ceased.

In addition to the works on Roman history in general, the reader may consult Unterholzner, De Mutata Centuriatorum Comit. a Servio Tullio Rege Institutorum Ratione, Breslau, 1835; G. C. Th. Francke, De Tribuum, de Curiarum atque Centuriarum Ratione, Schleswig, 1824; Huschke, Die Verfassung des Servius Tullius, 1838; Hüllmann, Römische Grundverfassung; Rubino, Untersuchungen über die röm. Verfassung, 1839: [p. 1.512]Zumpt, Ueber die Abstimmung des röm. Volkes in Centuriatcomitien.

[The views previously held as to the comitia curiata and comitia tributa have been largely modified by the researches of Mommsen, Römische Forschungen, vol. i. The most complete statement of the theories commonly accepted previous to these researches will be found with full references to ancient and modern authorities in Becker and Marquardt's Römische Alterthümer, vol. ii. part 1, pp. 353-394, and part 3, pp. 1-196. Cf. Lange, Röm. Alterthümer,2 [1.341-355, 391-491; 2.418-682.]

[L.S] [A.S.W]