Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:46:08.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cicero's Argument in Pro Balbo, VIII. 19–22

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

E. G. Hardy
E. G. Hardy
Affiliation:
Jesus College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Original Contributions
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 31 , Issue 5-6 , August 1917 , pp. 132 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 132 note 1 This is no doubt what Professor Reid means when he represents the argument as being, ‘just as the Gaditani could not be made Roman citizens collectively, unless Gades adopted the enfranchising law, so neither could Balbus, unless the lex Gellia-Cornelia was adopted.’ I am not aware that the former proposition can be established, unless it isby the statement in sect. 21 about the lex Iulia.

page 133 note 1 The civitas is not specified, but what else could fall under the vague commodo aliquo aut beneficio?

page 133 note 2 Professor Reid has a great objection to the view that enfranchised towns were ‘compelled’ adopt Roman law. He forgets that, if they became fundi to it, they were not compelled, since the essence of the process was its voluntary character.