Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:03:51.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is it the Lex Gabinia?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

M. Cary
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
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 38 , Issue 3-4 , May 1924 , pp. 60
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1924

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

1 Klio, Vol. XVII., pp. 172–3.

2 Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions, 1923, pp. 129–150.

3 Livy sometimes uses the expression ‘socii nominis Latini’ to denote both the Latins and the socii Italici (e.g. 21. 55. 4, 38. 35. 9). But as a rule he uses the more correct formula ‘socii ac nominis Latini.’ Inscriptions of course always make separate mention of Latins and socii Italici—e.g. SC. de Bacanalibus, 11. 7–8: ‘Bacas vir nequis adiese velet ceivis Romanus neve nominus Latini neve socium quisquam’; Lex Acilia, § 1: socium no minisve Latini.

4 See Hatzfeld, B.C.H., 1912, pp. 130–4, where is shown that most of the negotiatores of the later Republic came from the south of Italy, and therefore mostly belonged to the third estate.

5 Syriaca, chs. 49 and 70.

6 In Verrem II. IV. § 61.