The Making of Plebeian Secessions in Roman Historiography

Thus, the secession of 449 represents an early version of the establishment of the collegium of ten tribunes, later replaced by another version, according to which two tribunes were established in 493. Their number was increased to five in 471, and to ten in 457 On the suggestion that the plebeian tribunate was established in 449 (or 471) rather than in 493, see: Mazzarino S. Sul tribunato... P. 110-111; Lanfranchi Th. Les tribuns... P. 52-59.. The decision of twenty military tribunes, who represented twenty tribes, required legitimation. It seems to be for this reason that the army and the people went to the Sacred Mount. On the Alban Mount the new tribunate was to receive the approval of Jupiter, which was followed by the approval by the Roman Senate. Visiting the Sacred Mount (if this is not the ritual of the consular investiture) indicates that the creation of the collegium of ten tribunes somehow affected the Latin communities, otherwise the plebeian tribunate would have been an internal affair of the Romans. In historical time the tribunes of the plebs had no right to leave Rome even for one night, except for the Feriae Latinae Gell. 3.2.11; 13.12.9; Dion. Hal. 8.87.6.. Apparently, this reform was carried out at a time when the Roman community included 20 tribes represented by 20 military tribunes Although Livy and Dionysius nominate 20 military tribunes in 449, only three men actually acted as leaders in the plebeian army, L. Verginius, L. Numitorius and L. Icilius..

Under 342-340, Livy refers to events that included a secessio, the lex sacrata and the attempt of some Latin communities to receive the Roman citizenship Livy 7.41.2: “ne fraudi secessio essef.. In 342, discontent with the strategy of the Roman Senate in the army under the command of a plebeian consul C. Marcius Rutilus escalated into a mutiny Livy 7.38.5-41.8; Poma G. Considerazioni sul processo di formazione della tradizione annalistica: il caso della sedizione militare del 342 a.C. // Staat und Staatlichkeit. S. 139-157; Oakley S. P A Commen-tary. Vol. 2. P. 361-389.. A mass of soldiers marched from Campania to Rome and camped at the foot of the Alban Mount Livy 7.39.8: “in agrum Albanum perueniunt et sub iugo Albae Longae castra uallo cingunt”.. Here the warriors proclaimed a certain T. Quinctius as their imperator. Like his famous ancestor L. Quinctius Cincinnatus in 458, this Quinctius was chosen for a dictatorship at a time when he cultivated the land in his Tusculan farm `forgetting Rome and honorary offices'. Having a link to Tusculum, Quinctius resembles a dictator of the Latin League, whose warriors perceived by plebeians by Livy A. Piganiol clearly showed that the theatre of wars with Aequi and Volsci was in the Latin, not Roman, territory and that the Quinctii commanded the federal armies (including Latins and Hernici). See: Piganiol A. Romains et Latins // Mélanges d'archeologie et d'histoire l'École française de Rome. 1920. Vol. 38. P. 285-316.. According to one version, the revolt was pacified by the dictator M. Valerius Corvus, although the words of Livy that Quinctius submitted the soldiers to the authority of the dictator (7.41.1: in potestate dictatoris milites fore) are ambiguous about the circumstances. After the negotiations with the Senate a lex sacrata militaris was issued, which satisfied the requirements of the soldier-plebeians by enacting a series of laws in their favour (7.41.4-8). Immunity was given to all who had taken part in the secession In the same manner Livy (3.54.14) refers to the rogation of L. Icilus that no oneshould suffer for the secession in 449., no soldier's name was to be struck off the muster-roll without his consent, anyone who had once been military tribune could not be made subsequently to serve as a centurion, and the pay of the cavalry was reduced. The measures are anachronistic and disclose the mentality of the late-republican writer (probably Valerius Antias, who emphasized the role of his tribesman M. Valerius Corvus as a peacemaker), who modelled the story on Sulla's march from Nola to Rome in 88 Forsythe G. A Critical History... P. 373-376.. Livy's `sacred military law' has nothing to do with the real lex sacrata of 342.

Livy also mentions another version of the tale, which referred to an agreement between the rebellious soldiers and C. Marcius Rutilus and Q. Servilius (coss. 342) instead of the dictator Valerius (7.42.1-6). The name of the soldiers' leader C. Manlius associates him with M. Manlius Capitolinus (cos. 392), the famous defender of the plebeians who was executed in 384. In this version the conflict was resolved by some laws issued by the tribune L. Genucius, who (1) declared usury illegal, (2) forbade anyone to accept re-election to the same office within ten years of holding it or (3) occupy two offices in the same year; and (4) allowed both consuls to be legally elected from the plebs. The first three Genucian measures are anachronistic, while the admission of the plebeians to the other high office looks like a further development of the trend started in the Licinian-Sextian law of 367 For a more detailed discussion, see: Stewart R. Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procedure and Political Practice. Ann Arbor, 1998. P. 95-136..

Some chronological inconsistences in Livy's account can explain why he ascribed the law electing the plebeians to both consular offices to Genucius. The fasti consulares has four so-called `dictator' years, which were additions to an earlier consular list Drummond A. The Dictator Years // Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, 1978. Bd. 27. S. 550-572; Cornell T. J. The Beginnings. P. 399-401; Forsythe G. A Critical History. P. 369-370.. Then, earlier historians dated the Genucian law to 338, and Q. Publilius Philo (cos. 339) became the first plebeian praetor in 337. Before that, under 340, Livy refers to a demand to give one consular place to the Latins, who were represented by ten elders (8.3.8-9). The Latins claimed to be a single nation with the Romans, to have common citizenship, and to share the consulship and membership in the Senate (8.4.1-5.6). Although the Roman Senate had initially refused to accept the Latin demands, after several years of fighting the Romans had to satisfy them, despite Rome's victory in the Latin war (Livy 8.11-14).

The Latin claims in 340 resemble the plebeians' demands in 449 and 367 to grant them the right to elect one of two consuls. According to Diodorus (12.25.2), the demand was satisfied, and the people received the right to elect both consuls from the plebeians after the overthrow of the second decemvirate in 443 (449). Furthermore, the requirement of the plebeians in 449 -- to restore the collegium of ten tribunes -- is similar to the claims of the ten Latin elders, who, most probably, represented ten communities, to participate as equals in the Roman government. It is significant that in 449 two forces, each headed by ten tribunes, were located on the Aventine at the temple of Diana Dion. Hal. 11.43.6.6. Poma associates the secessions of 449 and 342: Poma G. Lex quoque sacrata militaris lata est // Rivista Storica dell'Antichita. 1987-1988. N 17/18. P. 99-100,.

The temple was built with the intention of binding the Latins to Rome, as the former had previously belonged to the Aricia federation around the temple of Diana at the Nemea Lake (Livy 1.45.2-3). Most likely, it was then decided to choose the people's tribunes from the citizen body as a whole, and not from individual tribes. This prevented the collegium of tribunes from overgrowing and simultaneously banned the representatives of the new tribes from occupying a place equal to the representatives of the old tribes. At the same time, new citizens (who were not patricians) increased the size of the plebeian population of Roman citizens so much that the tribunes soon began to be elected only from plebeians.

The new plebeians had their own Latin nobility whose claims to equality with the patricians were partly satisfied by the laws of L. Genucius in 342 and Q. Publilius Philo in 339 (Livy 7.42.1-2; 8.12.14-15; Zon. 7.25.9). According to Livy (7.42.1-2 and 42.10.7-9), one of the Genucian laws permitted the election of both consuls from the plebeians, which can hardly be taken literally because a plebeian pair of consuls was elected for the first time only in 172. An anonymous author cited by Livy, probably, wanted to create a historical precedent for the second-century election of two plebeians as consular colleagues. He may have cited the fourth-century information about the assignment of the plebeians to two high magistracies from the three or more existing ones.

Thus, the original events of 342 concerned the admission of a large group of the plebeians (from the Latins who had received Roman citizenship) to participate in the election of the high magistracy. Two armies took part in the event: the plebeian consul C. Marcius Rutilus acted on the Alban Mount, concluding a lex sacrata with Jupiter Latiaris, and his patrician colleague Q. Servilius was in Rome. The admission of the plebeians to the consulship was dated by 449 (443), 367 or 342/338 in various historiographical accounts.

Finally, the late-republican historians chose the version of Fabius Pictor with the year 367. The struggle of the plebeians for the consulship under the other dates was revised by them as a secession of the plebs from the patrician City to a Sacred Mount. The version under the year 342 allows us to directly identify the mons sacer with the Alban Mount This follows from Valerius' words of the identity between the rebellion of 342 and the secessions of the ancestors in 494 and 449. Livy 7.40.11: “Inducite in animum quod non induxeruntpatres auique uestri, non illi qui in sacrum montem secesserunt, non hi qui postea Auentinum insederunt”..

The secessio plebis of 287. Recently G. Forsythe has revived an old theory of Ed. Meyer that the secession of 287, which occurred within a generation of the first Roman annalistic writers, was the only authentic, historical secession Forsythe G. A Critical History... P. 170-177, 230-233, 344-349; Mignone L. M. Remembering a Geography... P. 142-143.. The evidence for the secession of 287 is scanty and, especially because Livy's second decade has not survived, our knowledge of this event is very imperfect and rests only upon several brief statements. According to Dio Cassius (8.37.2-4), widespread indebtedness led to protracted political strife between debtors and creditors in 287. The plebeian tribunes at first proposed that only the principal of loans be paid back, or that debts be repaid in three payments. Although the debtors favoured these measures, they were opposed at first by the creditors; when the creditors finally began to compromise, the debtors held out in hope of further concessions. Livy (Per. 11) says that due to indebtedness there was serious and protracted sedition until the plebs seceded to the Janiculum, a hill on the other side of the Tiber, whence they were brought back by the dictator Q. Hortensius, who did not live out the full term of his office. Zonaras (8.1) says this dissension was not resolved until the enemy approached the city. According to other sources, the dictator Hortensius secured the passage of a law which ordained that whatever the plebs ordered was to be binding on the entire people Plin. NH 16.37; Gai. Inst. 1.3; Gell. 15.27.4; Dig. 1.2.2.8. For the Hortensian law, see: Hölkes- kamp K.-J. Senatus Populusque Romanus: Die politische Kultur der Republik -- Dimensionen und Deutungen. Wiesbaden, 2004. S. 49-84..

Forsythe stresses that some features of this secession, especially the nature of the strife and the proposed legislation, bear a striking resemblance to earlier supposed events in the struggle of the orders and partly to the unhistorical but well-established tradition of the first secession.

These similarities can be explained in either historical or historiographical terms. On the one hand, similar solutions could have been devised for similar problems at different times, and the Romans could have been aware of previous statutes which had handled earlier parallel situations of debt crisis. On the other hand, given the unsophisticated working methods of later Roman historians, things were often fabricated from misinterpretation or willful invention, or one historical incident was used to form the basis for other unhistorical occurrences of similar nature. Forsythe believes that the law of discharge from debts attributed to 287 might be historical, although historiographical duplication of the law of 367 cannot be entirely ruled out. Rather, some of its actual elements may have been the basis for the later annalistic interpretation of the other two secessions and of the struggle of the orders in general. Since this secession is said to have involved a withdrawal not to the Aventine or Mons Sacer but to the Janiculum, which was otherwise not associated with the plebeian cause or the struggle of the orders, this element is regarded by Forsythe as authentic Forsythe G. A Critical History... P. 346-347..

Macrobius makes reference to a lex Hortensia concerning markets, a law indicating which market days (nundinae) were to be considered fasti, that is, days on which justice could be administered (Sat. 1.16.30). The provision was a measure to support rural plebeians, who when visiting the city on market days would have the opportunity to present their legal requests to the praetor. Given the extraordinary growth in the size of Roman territory in the decades preceding 287, there may have been a substantial number of Roman citizens who did not live within easy traveling distance of a Roman court The legislation of 287 may continue the reform of Q. Fabius Rullianus, who distributed the urban plebs for the four urban tribes in 304.. Bad harvests during the early 280s could have produced a sharp rise in indebtedness, and debtors could have been condemned in absentia in many lawsuits simply due to their inability to show up in court on the day appointed for legal judgment.

Taking a scenario in which cases of this sort were sufficiently numerous, Forsythe suggests that political pressure could have been brought to bear upon the plebeian tribunes to intercede on behalf of judgment debtors. However, the intercessio was possible only in Rome and in case of an abuse by officers on behalf of the debtor. Nevertheless, the Hortensian law partly responded to a need for Rome's legal system to adjust to new conditions produced by rapid expansion of Roman territory during the preceding fifty years.

The Hortensii are not attested in Roman public affairs until the second century, and they were never very prominent. Only two members of the family reached the consulship in republican times (108 and 69). Thus, the appointment of Q. Hortensius as dictator would have been unusual for 287. Forsythe suggests that it was not at all uncommon for a well-to-do family to hold lower public offices for several generations before reaching the consulship, and Q. Hortensius could have been one of the ten plebeian tribunes of 288 or 287. They were attempting to work out a settlement between debtors and creditors, and on the basis of his demonstrated moderation and good faith he could have been appointed dictator to resolve the crisis Forsythe G. A Critical History... P. 347-348.. However, there is no evidence of a former tribune of the plebs being appointed as a dictator.

It is more likely that (the name of) the dictator Q. Hortensius was an invention by an annalistic writer who may have had some relationship with the Hortensia family in the late second and first century. L. Hortensius (cos. 108) was married to the daughter of the historian C. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129), who wrote a treatise on Roman constitutional law (libri magistratuum) to give political support to the optimates. The libri magistratuum dealt with the intercalation, the appointment of the plebeian tribunes, and the market and feast days of the old Roman calendar (nundinae).

Tuditanus's grandson, the son of L. Hortensius and Sempronia, was the prominent orator Q. Hortensius Hortalus (cos. 69), possibly the prototype for the fictitious dictator of 287 (Cic. Att. 13.6.4; Brut. 229, 324). A large number of heterogeneous arrangements in favour of plebs were ascribed to the figure of the dictator, however, this doesn't explain why a secession provoked by a debt problem ended with the Hortensian law, which gave the status of law to decisions of the tribal assembly regardless of whether the patricians voted in it or not (plebiscites). Neither is there any explanation as to why the plebeians seceded to the Janiculan Hill instead the traditional Sacred Mount or Aventine.

It is noteworthy that each secession occurred after a considerable Roman victory over its neighbours. The secession of 494 took place after the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496. The victory would have brought the Romans some land acquisitions by the treaty with the Latins concluded by Sp. Cassius in 493 The foedus Cassianum of 493 was added with another treaty of distribution of land in 486.. The secession of 449 took place after the law of the land distribution in the Aventine in 456. Ancient writers report the distribution of plots of land on the Aventine to the plebeians, but this is perhaps a misunderstanding of the original law, which was issued or promulgated on the Aventine but was devoted to the redistribution of land to the plebeians in a colony.

The plebs' attempted withdrawal from Rome, which resembles a secession, took place after the victory over the Etruscan city of Veii in 395 (387). It was apparently about the distribution of land on the territory of the newly formed four tribes in 387. Livy reported that the case almost resulted in a new secession of the plebs under the leadership of M. Manlius in 386 (6.19.1).

It was then that the Senate ordered the settlement of two thousand citizens in Satricum, assigning two and a half iugera of land to each of them (Livy 6.15.6). The secession of 342 began immediately after the Roman conquests in Campania, probably because of the disagreements between Rome and the Latins concerning the distribution of the conquered lands: the tribes Mae- cia and Scapta were organized on the territory of southwestern Latium in 332.

The surviving fragmentary information about the secession on the Janiculum in 287 may suggest a connection with the Roman colonization in Umbria and Etruria. According to the Summary of Livy's eleventh book, the consul Man. Curius Dentatus celebrated two triumphs in 290 after he had defeated the Samnites and subdued the rebellious Sabines. To protect the conquered lands colonies were planned at Castrum, Sena, and

Hadria on the Adriatic coast to serve as outposts against the Gauls. The place for the departing colonists was most likely the Janiculan Hill and perhaps many of plebeians wished to receive land in the new colonies. But between 290 and 287 the Romans received news of the danger of a new Gallic war and the number of the colonists was strongly reduced.

However, many plebeians sought to get to Janiculum `after long and heavy unrest because of their debts' (Livy Per. 11). Although the reference to indebtedness appears to be Livy's standard method of explaining plebeian unrest, the scale of the plebeian movement may have been sufficiently great to imprint it in the memory of contemporaries. A dictator may have been appointed to resolve the discord, but died during his tenure of office, and simultaneously many of the plebeians returned home. Thus, as in the case of the resettlement in Veii in 387, behind the secession of 287 is an account of the foundation of new colonies or tribes. It is possible that the question of new tribe(s) stood on the agenda but was removed in 287.

Conclusion

Thus, the ritual pilgrimage of the Romans to the Alban Mount to celebrate the Feriae Latinae became the model for an early version of the establishment of the consulship. Later the emphasis of Roman annalistic writing changed from the synoikismos of Latium around Rome to the struggle of the orders. The establishment of the consulship was moved to the beginning of the Republic and the act on the mons sacer was attributed to the tribunate.

The temporary removal of the Roman plebs for the annual participation in the Latin festivals on the Alban Mount received a new treatment as their secession from the patrician Rome.

Two consuls in 509 were given counterparts of two tribunes in 493, and the Capitoline triad Jupiter, Juno and Minerva were interpreted as counterparts to Ceres, Liber and Libera on the Aventine Because the Capitoline cult was not especially patrician, just as the cult of Ceres was not plebeian (see: Sordi M. Il santuario... P. 127, 135; Cazanove O. de. Le sanctuaire... P. 380-381, 399; Pellam G. Ceres, the Plebs. P. 76), the idea belongs to historiography, not history..

The search for instructive examples of the struggle between the patricians and the plebeians drew the attention of Roman historians to the migrations of ancient colonists (probably recorded in the chronicles of the pontiffs), which could be represented as a form of social conflict.

The unsuccessful exodus to Veii in 388 and the Januculum in 287 was about migration of the plebeians to a new tribe, and on both occasions the resettlement was stopped by a dictator, M. Furius Camillus and Q. Hortensius respectively. It is noteworthy that the appointment of a dictator appears in Livy's accounts also in the secessions of494, 385, and 342, while dictatorship was replaced by the decemvirate sine provocatione in 449.

In the account under the year 331, Livy mentions that the Romans had a custom to appoint a dictator who performed the ritual of hammering a nail into the wall of the temple to complete the secession (Livy 8.18.12). This shows that the secessions, or more precisely what was meant by them, were either regular actions fixed by hammering a nail, or this rite was performed to magically neutralize the negative action associated with secession.

The regular migration of a part of the population from the community, which seems to have been the reality behind the secession model, was a means to avoid overpopulation in archaic time. The migrants established a colony which became an independent settlement and a member of the Latin League in the earliest times or a nucleus of a new Roman tribe under the early Republic.

The deportation act seems to be modelled according to the archaic custom of ver sacrum, common in pre-Roman Italy On the ver sacrum see: Aigner Foresti L. La tradizione antica sul ver sacrum // Coercizione e mobi- lità nel mondo antico / a cura di M. Sordi. Milano, 1995. P. 141-147; Caro Roldân J. M. Una aproximacion a la naturaleza del uer sacrum // Gerion. 2000. N 18. P 159-190.. According to Festus (p. 519-520 L): “There was a custom of voting for a sacred spring among the Italics. In fact, in the moments of great danger, they made a vow to immolate all the living beings that would be born with them the following spring.

However, because it seemed cruel to sacrifice innocent boys and girls, once they reached adulthood, they blindfolded them and chased them away, in these conditions, outside their borders”. The custom survived until the Second Punic War Heurgon J. Trois etudes sur le “ver sacrum”. Bruxelles, 1957. P 36-51; Radke G. Anmerkungen zu den kultischen Maßnahmen in Rom während des Zweiten Punischen Krieges // Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft. 1980. Bd. 6. S. 110-116; Scheid J. Les incertitudes de la voti sponsio. Observa-tions en marge du ver sacrum de 217 av. J. C. // Mélanges de droit romain et d'histoire ancienne. Hommage à la mémoire de André Magdelain / éd. par M. Humbert, Y. Thomas. Paris, 1999. P 417-425; Bartol F. El ver sacrum del 217 a.C. // Revista General de Derecho Romano. 2008. N 11. P. 1-12.. According to Livy, after C. Flaminius Nepos (cos. 223, 217) perished at Lake Trasimene, priests announced that the vows to Mars had not been well accomplished (22.9.7-11).

To neutralize the negative consequences of the defeat, it was necessary to hold the Great Games to Jupiter, to build temples to Venus and Mens and to organize the lectisternium. In addition, a promise was made to perform the ver sacrum. Under the direction of the Pontifex Maximus L. Cornelius Lentulus the people decided that, if the wars with the Carthaginians and Gauls were successful in the next five years, the Roman people would give to Jupiter everything that be born in the herds of pigs, sheep, goats, and bulls (22.10.2-6). Unlike the sacrifice of animals, which was performed during the next year, the emigration of youth who were born in a certain year was made after they had reached the age of maturity. This latter custom was most likely why the ver sacrum was held only in 195 (Livy 33.44.1-3).

Furthermore, because of the violations in the ritual, the Senate decided to hold it anew in the next year (Livy 34.44.1-3) The rite was corrupted in 195, perhaps because the consuls represented the recruiting of young soldiers for the war against the Spaniards and Gauls as dedicated to the deity according to the ver sacrum.. An integral part of the ver sacrum was a new settlement, which would be founded by the young men leaving their native community (Strabo 5.4.12). J. Heurgon notes that the new correct ver sacrum of the year 194 coincided with Livy's account (34.45.1-5) of the founding of colonies in Puteolae, Volturnum, Liternum, Salernnum, Buxentum, Sipontum, Tempsa, and Croton Heurgon J. Trois etudes... P 39..

The common time of birth and destiny of the men who were the object of the ver sacrum made them sodales, similar to an age class or a Männerbund. The first Roman historians, who were contemporaries of the ver sacrum of 217/194, represented the foundation of Rome as the migration of the young coevals headed by Romulus and Remus from Alba Longa.

The legendary colonists of archaic times founded the settlement on free land, whereas at the time of the Republic colonies were founded on conquered territory. By the beginning of the third century, the Romans had step by step conquered Latium and south Etruria and established tribes of Roman citizens there.

The local population were integrated into the Roman citizenship as plebeians, whose number enormously increased in comparison with the patricians. The attempt at a migration of plebeians to the conquered city of Veii can be interpreted as the modified institution of ver sacrum.

The establishment of a new tribe in Latium was preceded by the visit to the Sacred Mount, where the new status of the Latin population was approved by Jupiter Latiaris. The establishment of tribes (colonies) outside Latium did not need such an approval. The two first secessions to the mons sacer were well associated with the custom of establishing a tribe, which enables us to use the pontifical records of colonisation as examples for the secessions in 395/387, 385, 342, and 287.

References

1. Aigner Foresti L. La tradizione antica sut ver sacrum. Coercizione e mobilità nel mondo antico. A cura di M. Sordi. Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica, vol. 21. Milano, Vita e pensiero Publ., 1995, pp. 141147.

2. Altheim F. Lex sacrata. Die Anfänge derplebeischen Organisation. Amsterdam, Pantheon Publ., 1940, 44 S. Bartol F. El ver sacrum del 217 a. C. Revista General de Derecho Romano, 2008, no. 11, pp. 1-12.

3. Becker M. “Suntoque aediles curatores urbis”: Die Entwicklung der stadtrömischen Aedilität in republikanischer Zeit. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Publ., 2017, 342 S.

4. Beloch K. J. Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege. Berlin; Leipzig, Walter de Gruyter & Co. Publ., 1926, 664 S.

5. Caro Roldan J. M. Una aproximacion a la naturaleza del uer sacrum. Gerion, 2000, no. 18, pp. 159-190. Cazanove O. de. Le sanctuaire de Cérès jusqu'à la deuxième sécession de la plebe. Crise et transformation des sociétés archaïques de l'Italie antique au Ve siècle av. J. C.: actes de la table ronde organisée par l'École française de Rome et l'Unité de recherches étrusco-italiques associée au CNRS (UA 1132), Rome 1921 novembre 1987. Rome, École française de Rome Publ., 1990, pp. 373-399.

6. Cels Saint-Hilaire J. Lenjeu des “secessions de la plebe” et le jeu des familles. Mélanges darcheologie et d'histoire l'École francflise de Rome, Antiquité, 1990, t. 102, pp. 723-765.

7. Cornell T. The Failure of the Plebs. Tria corda: scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano. A cura di E. Gabba. Como, Edizioni New Press, 1983, pp. 101-120.

8. Cornell T. J. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC). London, Routledge, 1995, XX, 507 p.

9. Drummond A. The Dictator Years. Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, 1978, Bd. 27, S. 550-572. Dumézil G. Mitra-Varuna. An Essay on Two Indo-European Representations of Sovereignty. Tranl. by D. Colt- man. New York, Zone books Publ., 1988, 189 p.

10. Eder W Zwischen Monarchie und Republik: das Volkstribunat in der Frühen Römischen Republik. Bilancio critico su Roma arcaica fra monarchia e repubblica. In memoria di F. Castagnoli. Roma, Accademia nazionale dei Lincei Publ., 1993, S. 97-127.

11. Ellul J. Réflexions sur la révolution, la plèbe et le tribunat de la plebe. Index: International Survey of Roman Low, 1972, vol. 3, pp. 155-167.

12. Fiori R. Homo sacer. Dinamica politico-costituzionale di una sanzione giuridico-religiosa. Napoli, Jovene ed- itore Publ., 1996, 593 p.

13. Forsythe G. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley; Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2005, 400 p.

14. Guarino A. La rivoluzione della plebe. Napoli, Liguori Publ., 1975, 336 p.

15. Heurgon J. Trois etudes sur le “ver sacrum”. Collection Latomus, vol. 26. Bruxelles, Latomus, revue d'études latines Publ,, 1957, 51 p.

16. Hölkeskamp K.-J. Senatus Populusque Romanus: Die politische Kultur der republik -- Dimensionen und Deutungen. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Publ., 2004, 334 S.

17. Lanfranchi Th. Les tribuns de la plèbe et la formation de la République romaine: 494-287 avant J.-C. Rome, École française de Rome Publ., 2015, X, 822 p.

18. Liou-Gille B. Les “leges sacratae”: esquisse historique. Euphrosyne, 1997, no. 25, pp. 61-84.

19. Mari Z. Anio Vetus. Lexicon Topographicum Vrbis Romae. Ed by E. M. Steinby. Vol. I. Roma, Edizioni Quasar Publ., 1993, pp. 44-45.

20. Mazzarino S. Sul tribunato della plebe nella storiografia romana. Helikon, 1971-1972, vol. 11-12, pp. 99-119. Meunier N. Tribuni plebis ou tribuni militum? Le tribunat originel dans la Haute République de Rome. Les Études classiques, 2011, vol. 79, pp. 347-360.

21. Meunier N. L. J. Le lac Régille, les Dioscures et Cérès: de la crise romano-latine à la crise patricio-plébéi- enne. De la crise naquirent les cultes. Approches croisées de la religion, de la philosophie et des représenta- tions antiques. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-Neuve, 12-13 juin 2014. Éd. par M. Cavalieri, R. Lebrun et N. Meunier. Turnhout, Brepols, 2015, pp. 147-166.

22. Mignone L. M. Remembering a Geography of Resistance: Plebeian Secessions, Then and Now, Memoria Ro- mana: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory. Ed. by K. Galinsky. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2014, pp. 137-150.

23. Mitchell R. E. Patricians and Plebeans. The Origin of the Roman State. Ithaca; New York, Cornell University Press, 1990, XVI, 276 p.

24. Mommsen Th. Römisches Staatsrecht. Dritte Abt. Bd. I. Leipzig, Hirzel, 1887, XV, 742 S.

25. Mommsen Th. Römisches Staatsrecht. Dritte Abt. Bd. II. Leipzig, Hirzel, 1887, XXVI, 708 S.

26. Mommsen Th. Römisches Staatsrecht. Dritte Abt. Bd. III. Leipzig, Hirzel, 1888, XIV, 1336 S.

27. Oakley S. P. A Commentary on Livy: books VI to X. Vol. 2. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1998, XII, 865 p.

28. Oakley S. P. A Commentary on Livy: books VI to X. Vol. 4. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2005, XII, 658 p.

29. Ogilvie R. M. A Commentary on Livy. Books 1-5, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1965, 744 p.

30. Palmer L. R. The Concept of Social Obligation in Indo-European. Hommages à Max Niedermann. Collection Latomus, vol. 23. Bruxelles, Latomus, revue detudes latines Publ., 1956, pp. 258-269.

31. Pellam G. Ceres, the Plebs, and Libertas in the Roman Republic. Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, 2014, Bd. 63, S. 74-95.

32. Pellam G. Sacer, sacrosanctus and leges sacratae. Classical Antiquity, 2015, vol. 34, pp. 322-334.

33. Peppe L. Studi sull'esecuzionepersonale. Debiti e debitori nei dueprimi secoli della repubblica romana. Milano, A. Giuffrè Publ., 1981, 292 p.

34. Piganiol A. Romains et Latins. I. La légende des Quinctii. Mélanges darcheologie et d'histoire l'École francjaise de Rome, 1920, vol. 38, pp. 285-316.

35. Poma G. Lex quoque sacrata militaris lata est... (Livio, VII,41,4). Rivista Storica dell'Antichità, 1987/88, no. 17/18, pp. 97-114.

36. Poma G. Considerazioni sul processo di formazione della tradizione annalistica: il caso della sedizione mili- tare del 342 a.C., Staat und Staatlichkeit in der frühen römischen Republik. Hrsg. von W Eder. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Publ., 1990, S. 139-157.

37. Raaflaub K. A. From Protection and Defense to Offense and Participation: Stages in the Conflict of the Orders. Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: new perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders. Ed. by K. A. Raaflaub. Expanded and updated edition. Malden (MA), Blackwell Publishing, 2005, pp. 185-222.

38. Radke G. Anmerkungen zu den kultischen Maßnahmen in Rom während des Zweiten Punischen Krieges. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, 1980, Bd. 6, S. 105-121.

39. Richard J.- C. Les origines de la plèbe romaine. Essai sur la formation du dualisme patricio-plébéien. Rome, École française de Rome Publ., 1978, XIX, 653 p.

40. Ridley R. T. Notes on the Establishment of the Tribunate of the Plebs. Latomus, 1968, vol. 27, pp. 535-554.

41. Ridley R. Patavinitas Among the Patricians? Livy and the Conflict of the Orders. Staat und Staatlichkeit in der frühen römischen Republik. Hrsg. von W Eder. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Publ., 1990, S. 103138.

42. Rieger M. Tribus und Stadt: die Entstehung der römischen Wahlbezirke im urbanen und mediterranen Kontext (ca. 750-450 v. Chr.). Göttingen, Edition Ruprecht, 2007, XIII, 738 S.

43. Scheid J. Les incertitudes de la voti sponsio. Observations en marge du ver sacrum de 217 av. J. C. Mélanges de droit romain et d'histoire ancienne. Hommage à la mémoire de André Magdelain. Éd. par M. Humbert, Y. Thomas. Paris, Editions Panthéon-Assas, 1999, pp. 417-425.

44. Smith C. J. The Origins of the Tribunate of the Plebs. Antichthon, 2012, vol. 46, pp. 101-125.

45. Sordi M. Il santuario di Cerere, Libero, e Libera e il tribunato della plebe, Santuari e politica nel mondo an- tico. A cura di M. Sordi. Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1983, pp. 127-139.

46. Stewart R. Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procedure and Political Practice. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1998, 255 p.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru