^{page 65 note 2} See Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951–1952) ii. 633–4(= MRR).Google Scholar Broughton lists sixteen Veturii; the extra one is due to the confused identity of the Decemvir. Cf. Beloch, K. J., Rōmische Geschichte (Berlin, 1926), 238–9 ( = RG); MRR i. 46 n. 3. For the latest full treatment of the Veturii see R. Gundel, RE 8A (1958), 1880–98. All details without references in this article can be checked easily in Broughton.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 3} Mommsen, Th., Rōmische Forschungen (Berlin, 1864–1879) i. 120; 150 (= RF). For the monetalis see Rōmische Münzwesen(Berlin, 1860), 555.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 4} Münzer, F., Rōmische Adelsparteien and Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), 123–32 (= RA).Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 5} See Geer, R. M., A.J.P. lx (1939), 466–7;Google Scholar MRR i 284 n. 2; 407 n. 5; Gundel, RE 8A, 1880–2. Fraccaro tried to show that the Veturii were a patrician gens and of Sabine origin: Opuscula (Pavia, 1957) ii. 1–3; cf. Taylor, L. R., The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Roma, 1960), 42, 282–3. The view of M. Torelli, based on the inscription Vetusia of the silver cup from the Bernardini Tomb, that the Veturii were of Etruscan origin and came to Rome from Praeneste seems more valid. See Dialoghi di Archeologia i (1967), 38–45.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 6} Palmer, R. E., The Archaic Community of the Romans (Cambridge, 1970), 290 ff. (hereafter cited as ‘Palmer’).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} However, in contrast to Palmer, I see no cogent reason for the outright rejection of Cicero's testimony on the patrician status of M. Tullius, cos. 500 (Brut. 62); surely it is wrong to argue that ‘Tullii cannot be reckoned patrician’. See Palmer, 132 n. 2, 290 f.; cf. Heurgon, J., Rome et la mediterranie occidentale (Paris, 1969), 273 (= Rome). For my reasons see infra, p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} See e.g. Mommsen, RF i 94. Beloch objected to this view and held that it was only after 321 B.C. that the rule was observed (RG 344–5). True, there are seven years with two patrician consuls after 367 (355,354, 353, 351, 349, 345, 343), despite the tribunician law of that year that consulum utique alter ex plebe crearetur (Liv. 6. 35. 5). Yet, if this law be antedated in our sources, there is nothing to commend 321 as the year in which it was passed. It is best to consider the Genucian legislation of 342 as responsible for the completion, or enforcement, of the law of 367 (Beloch is surely wrong on the years 328and 323; see MRR s.aa.). See K. Von Fritz, ‘The Reorganization of the Roman Government in 366 B.C. and the so-called LicinioSextian Laws’, Historia i (1950), 3–44 (esp. 8, 25 with n. 49, 27–8, 32–3). It is curious to note that J. Heurgon holds both these contradictory opinions (Rome, 274 and 306).

^{page 66 note 3} Mommsen, RF i 97 ff.

^{page 66 note 4} Palmer, 293.

^{page 66 note 5} Cic. Brut. 62; Liv. 4. 16. 1–4. See Mommsen, RF i. 124.

^{page 66 note 6} It is inconceivable that a patrician would transfer himself to the Plebs, and thus become disqualified for the consulship.

^{page 66 note 7} Palmer, 290.

^{page 66 note 8} Unless one follows Beloch (RG 345) and sees in the very case of Veturius Calvinus proof that it was only after 321 that one consul must have been plebeian. But see n. 2, and cf. Gundel, RE 8A, 1886–7.

^{page 66 note 9} Cf. Val. Max. 6. 1. 9.

^{page 66 note 10} Münzer, RA 123.

^{page 67 note 1} See Degrassi, A., Inscriptions Italiae (Rome, 1947) xiii. I, pp. 118, 442; cf. Münzer, RE 13, 2071; 16, 429 f.; MRR i. 235; H. Volkmann, RE 8A, 45–6; Gundel, RE 8A, 1894–5.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} Palmer tries to avoid this conclusion by saying that ‘two consular colleges are recorded for 220 and no reliable historical account survives’ (p. 294), but this will not do.

^{page 67 note 3} Liv. Per. 59: Q. Pompeius Q. Metellus, tune primum uterque ex plebe facti censores. Cf. Degrassi, Ins. It. xiii. I, 52 f., 470 f. Palmer refuses to admit the evidence of the Fasti Capitolini that the consuls of 172 were the first plebeian college, but accepts the Livian evidence that the first departure from the law of 339 occurred in 131 (p. 293 and n. 4).

^{page 67 note 4} It is lacking in the passages where his praetorship is recorded (Liv. 27. 6. 12; 7. 8; 10. 12; 22. 5), but it is given by the Fasti Capitolini (Degrassi, Ins. It. xiii. I, 46 f., 450 f.; Gundel, RE 8A, 1895).

^{page 67 note 5} Palmer, 294–5.

^{page 67 note 6} Willems, P., Le Sénat de la république romaine (Louvain, 1878), i. 376–7 (= Sénai).Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 7} Münzer, RA 127.

^{page 67 note 8} Palmer, 294.

^{page 68 note 1} Liv. 24. 43. 5–6. Scullard considers the Sempronii as linked with the Claudian group, which undermined Fabius' predominance after Cannae (Roman Politics [Oxford, 1952], 37–8, 60 ff.), but he does not mention P. Sempronius Tuditanus in this context. His reconstruction of family-grouping in this respect is not generally accepted. See Lippold, A., Consules: Untersuchungen zur rOmischen Konsulates (Bonn, 1963), 173Google Scholar ff.; Cassola, F., I gruppi politici romani nel III secolo a.c. (Trieste, 1962), 405 f.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} For the advancement of aediles in this period see Willems, Sénai i. 372–80.

^{page 68 note 3} Mommsen, RF i. 99, 120. Seidel offered a combined solution: the praetor might have held the office in 211, and yet there was another, plebeian, Veturius in the office in 210. See Fasti Aedilicii (Breslau, Diss. 1908), 26 n. 1. Although this view is judged to be the best by Broughton (MRR i. 284 n. 2), it really involves an altogether different question. We can always say that, if a certain man were praetor in a given year and there were a vacancy in the list of the aediles of the previous years, he might have been aedile. However, this is not our problem here. We have to decide whether the Veturius reported by Livy was plebeian curule aedile in 210 or, though curule aedile of 211, was mistakenly mentioned in this passage.

^{page 68 note 4} Liv. 27. 6. 12; 7. 8, and 22.5 as against 27. 10. 12.

^{page 68 note 5} See the apparatus criticus ad loc. in O.C.T.

^{page 69 note 1} Münzer, RA 127–8, followed by Gundel, RE 8A, 1896. For the elections see Liv. 25. 41. 10–12.

^{page 69 note 2} See Broughton, T. R. S., Supplement to the Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1960), 69.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} MRR I, 275–6.

^{page 69 note 4} Palmer, 295. Mommsen's suggestion that he is identical with Veturius the plebeian curule aedile is pure guesswork (StR i. 525 n. 3).

^{page 69 note 5} MünZer, RA 129.

^{page 69 note 6} On patricians as incumbents of these priesthoods see Cic. Dom. 38; Liv. 6. 41. 9; Tac. Ann. 4. 16; Festus 137L. Cf. Marquardt, J., Rōmische Staatsverwaltung (Leipzig, 1885), iii. 327;Google Scholar Mommsen, RF i 78; Wissowa, G., Religion and Kultus der Römer² (Munchen, 1912), 491–2.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 7} See MRR s.aa. 204, 169, 168, 154, 100, 69, 56.

^{page 69 note 8} Read de. See Malcovati, ORF³ p. 36 ad loc.

^{page 69 note 9} Palmer, 295.

^{page 70 note 1} ORF³ p. 36 fr. 82. See also Scullard, Roman Politics, 261; Kienast, D., Cato der tensor (Heidelberg, 1954), 169.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} Of course, if one commits oneself to the view that all the Veturii were patrician, as did Münzer, one must consider Veturius patrician. Even Mommsen, who admitted the existence of plebeian Veturii, assumed that positive evidence was needed for showing the plebeian status of any of the known Veturii; otherwise, he considered him patrician (RF i 120). However, this is not my method here. That this Veturius was the son of the consul of 206 cannot be proven either (thus P. Fraccaro, St. Stor. per l'Ant. Class. 4 [1911], 41 f.).

^{page 70 note 3} On his name, see MRR 406 n. 4.

^{page 70 note 4} Vell. Pat. 2. 43. I. But see Münzer, RA 130.

^{page 70 note 5} Geer, R. M., A.J.P. lx (1939), 466–7; cf MRR i 394.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 6} See Mommsen. Römische Münzwesen.555–6 no. 169. The date of the moneyer is disputed, and varies from 554 to 92 (MRR ii. 455). Accepting Gruber's view that it dates from 93–2, Münzer identifies him with Ti. Veturius T. f., a member of the consilium of Cn. Pompeius Strabo at Tusculum (Degrassi, ILLRP 515). But the identification is excluded in view of the place of Veturius in the inscription, as has been shown by Cichorius, C., Römische Studien (Berlin, 1922), 177; also, it is improbable that the moneyer stemmed from the Flamen Martialis, who has a different cognomen (contra Cichorius).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 70 note 7} Contra Mommsen, Römische Münzwesen, 555 f.; RF i. 120. See Gundel, RE 8A, 1884 5 nos. 6–7.

^{page 70 note 8} Münzer (RA 132) and Cichorius (op. cit. 177) accept the allusion to T. Veturius Calvinus, and yet assert that the moneyer was patrician. See also Taylor, Voting Districts, 265.

^{page 71 note 1} Degrassi, ILLRP 515; Taylor, loc. cit.; Gundel, RE 8A, 1885 no. 7. The fact that C. Veturius did not make way for a tribune may suggest that he was patrician (Plut. C.G. 3. 3). See Münzer, RA 124; Gundel, RE 8A, 1882. For L. Veturius P. f., active in Delos, see Dittenberger, SIG³ 585, 16–17. Their relations with the senatorial families are unknown (Miinzer, RA 131; Gundel, RE 8A, 1882 nos. 2–3). Freedmen of D. Veturius of Rome are also known (ILLRP 809), as well as a freedwoman of C. Veturius in Minturnae (ILLRP 724).

^{page 71 note 2} See Mommsen, Römische Geschichte ⁷ i. 35; RF i 106; Taylor, Voting Districts, 282–3; Meyer, E., Römischer Staat and Staatgedanke ³ (Zürich, 1964), 57–8;Google ScholarAlföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor, 1965), 307Google Scholar ff., esp. 315–16. The seventeenth old rural tribe, Clustumina, derived its name from the ager Crustuminus. I do not discuss the date of these tribes, which Beloch fixed in the second half of the fifth century (RG 270–3; cf. De Sanctis, Storia dei romani ² 18–9; E. Meyer, Röm. Staat, 57–8). However, others accept the evidence of Livy (2. 21. 7) that by 495 the seventeen rural tribes had already been established. See Bernardi, A., Athenaeum XXX (1952)Google Scholar, 20 n. 2; Taylor, Voting Districts, 6,36; Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), 284, 292.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Mommsen, RF i 106 and n. 80; Taylor, Voting Districts, 6 f. and n. 13.

^{page 71 note 4} Meyer, op. cit., 57; Gnomon xxxiii (1960), 603; Alföldi, Early Rome, 307 ff.

^{page 71 note 5} Sall. Cat. 31. 7; Ascon. 66; 82; cf. Liv. 8.18.8. The doubts of Palmer are unjustified.

^{page 72 note 1} Livy says that Menenius Agrippa, cos. 503, was sent to conciliate the Plebs in 494, ‘quod inde oriundus erat plebi carum’ (2. 32. 8). But it is evident that Menenius is considered patrician; he might have descended from the Plebs on the maternal side, if, as is not impossible, intermarriage was not banned before the Decemvirate. Alternatively, his family might have beenraised to the patriciate at some time.

^{page 72 note 2} Palmer, 290.

^{page 72 note 3} The consul of 318 may qualify as patrician according to Palmer's definition (p. 248), but did the ancients know of such a definition?

^{page 72 note 4} Liv. 5. 12. 9–b11; cf. 6. 37. 8.

^{page 72 note 5} See Mommsen, RF 95; StR 188 n.2; Münzer, RA 10; cf., however, Ogilvie, Livy 652 f.

^{page 73 note 1} This is probably a corrupt form of either Minucius or Genucius.

^{page 74 note 1} Note also that Dionysius expressly says that the two suffect consuls of 444 were patricians: C. Papirius Mugillanus and L. Sempronius Atratinus (11. 62. 2–3). See also Mommsen, RF i 109.

^{page 74 note 2} Palmer questions the patrician status of the Pinarii (298–9) and refers to his article in Historia xiv (1965), 307, where, however, I do not find any cogent evidence or argument for this. On the Pinarii see Münzer, RA 155; RE s.v.; E. Gabba in Les origins de la ripubligue romaine (Fondation Hardt, Vandceuvres-Genàve, 1966), 159 f. Beloch, on the other hand, thought plebeians did not attain the office of consular tribune because, in his opinion, there was no difference between this office and the consulship. Hence he argued that the plebeian consular tribunes were interpolated on the basis of a list of plebeian tribunes (RG 247–53). Yet he failed to refute the explicit evidence of plebeian consular tribunes. For defence of the traditional view see K. Von Fritz, Historia i (1950), 36–7; Staveley, E. S., I.R.S. xliii (1953), 30–6.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} Palmer, 246–7. Livy expressly testifies to the patrician status of the Verginii in his account of how the patrician Verginia established the shrine of Pudicitia Plebeia after her marriage to the plebeian Volumnius (10. 22. 9–23; Festus 270L). Palmer rejects this evidence on the grounds that Verginia's ancestors were plebeian tribunes (p. 296). How can we know that she was a descendant of the tribunes rather than of the augur? See also Bickerman, E. J., R.F.I.C. xcvii (1969), 401–2, and next note.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} It should he noted that all the consular Verginii are given cognomina (Esquilinus, Tricostus, Caelimontanus), while the three Verginii who served as plebeian tribunes have no cognomen. Further, a Verginius is recorded to have been consul in 435 (and, by some sources, also in 434; see MRR s.a.), that is, at a time when plebeians were surely excluded from the consulate.

^{page 75 note 2} Liv. 5. 13. 3; 6. 32. 2.

^{page 75 note 3} See e.g. Niese, B., Grundriss der römischen Geschichtes (München, 1923), 13;Google Scholar Beloch, RG passim, esp. 1–62, 232 ff.; H. Stuart Jones, CAH vii. 327 ff.; E. Kornemann, H.Z. cxlv (1932), 284 ff.; Piganiol, A., Histoire de Rome ³ (Paris, 1949), 44 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 4} See e.g. De Sanctis, Storia dei romani, 1–13; Rosenberg, A., Einleitung and Quellenkunde zur römischen Geschichte (Berlin, 1921), 113 ff., 120; Meyer, Röm. Staat, 70; Alföldi, Early Rome, 80 f.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 5} See e.g. Bernardi, A., R.I.L. lxxix (1945/1946), 3–26;Google Scholar A. Momigliano in Les origines de la republique romaine, 199–221; Bickerman, E. J., R.F.I.C. xcvii (1969), 400–8. Palmer's view is akin to that of this line of scholars, though his definition of patricians is obviously new.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 6} Mommsen admitted some falsifications in our sources but accepted the fasti consulares and counted 55 patrician genies (RF i. 71–126, esp. 107 ff.). See also Willems, Sénat i. 49–88; Bloch, G., Les origines du sénat romain (Paris, 1888), 113–89.Google Scholar cf. L. R. Taylor, C.P. xli (1946), 1–11; xlv (1950), 84–95; Taylor and Broughton, T. R. S., M.A.A.R. xix (1949), 3–14.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} Beloch, RG io ff.; Bernardi, R.I.L. lxxix (1945/6), 8 ff.; Heurgon, Rome, 273

^{page 76 note 2} The table can be checked easily with the index of MRR. A consulship before 366 B.C. has not been taken by itself as proof of patrician status, and only those cases in which both the magistracy and the social status of the magistrate are certain have been counted. Thus the gens Fabia is excluded because we do not know with certainty that plebeian Fabii ever attained magistracies (for possibilities see Mommsen, RF 114; MRR 164 n. 4, and also Rotondi, G., Leges Publicae Populi Romani [Milano, 1922], 259, 379). Similarly, I do not see in the consulate of Cinna in 86 proof of his plebeian status (contra Mommsen, RF i 114).Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 3} Willems, sénat, 16. But see the correction of Bloch, Les origines du sinat romain, 255–65. Cf. H. Stuart Jones, CAH vii. 418.

^{page 76 note 4} See Gundel, RE 24, 1006 (no. 16).

^{page 76 note 5} Palmer, 297.

^{page 76 note 6} Contra Beloch, RG 1 o f.; Bernardi, R.I.L. lxxix (1945/6), 9 n. 1; Heurgon. Rome, 273.

^{page 77 note 1} See p. 76 n. 6 and add Palmer, 290. Contra Mommsen, RF I, 110; Bloch, op. cit. 114; Müner, RE 7A, 1314.

^{page 77 note 2} On Cicero's ancestors see Drumann, W., Geschichte Roms ² (Leipzig, 1919) 5, 218–19. and, on the enfranchisement of Arpinum, Liv. 38. 36. 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} Münzer, RE 7A, 1312.