Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

924 PLEBES, PLEBES.
story mentioned by the writers just referred to. A compare Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, ii. p. 120 Beckier,
recent writer, Dr. W. Ihne (Forsc2hueqen eq' den Handbuzcl de? Riim. A lterth. ii. 1. p. 133, &c.), which
Gebietedes RRhn. Veifctssuznqsgesclsic~lte,Frankf. 1847) showvs that both were synonymous. That the plehas undertaken with very plausible arguments to beians did not belong to the patrician gentes, is,
prove that originally plebeians and clients were the expressly stated by Livy (x. 8). The only point,
same people, and that originally all the plebeians of contact between the two estates was the army,
were clients of the patricians, from which dependent for after the conquest of Alba, Tullus Ilostilius.
relation they gradually emancipated themselves. doubled the number of legions of the Roman army.
Whatever may be thought of the existence of (Liv. i. 30.) Livy also states that Tullus Hostilius
plebeians at Rome in the earliest times, their num- formed ten new- turmae of equites, but whether
ber at all events cannot have been very great. The these new turmae consisted of Albans, as Livy
time when they first appear as a distinct class of says, or whether they were taken from the three
Roman citizens in contradistinction to the patri- old tribes, as Ghittling (Gesch. d. R;o?. S'ltaatsl.
cians, is in the reign of Tullus Hostilius. Alba, p. 225) thinks, is only matter of speculation. The
the head of the Latin confederacy, was in his reign plebeians were thus obliged to fight and shed their
taken by the Romans and razed to the ground. blood in the defence'and support of their new felThe most distinguished of its inhabitants were low-citizens without being allowed to share any of
transplanted to Rome and received among the patri- their rights or privileges, and without even the
cians; but the great bulk of Alban citizens, some right of intermarriage (connzbiumz). In all judiof whom were likewise transferred to Rome, and cial matters they were entirely at the mercy of the
received settlements on the Caelian hill, were kept patricians, and had no right of appeal against any
in a state of submission to the populus Romanus or unjust sentence, though they were not, like the
the patricians. This new population in and about clients, bound to have a patronus. They continued
Rome, combined,perhaps, with the subdued original to have their own sacra which they had had before
inhabitants of the place, which in number is said to the conquest, but they were regulated by the pahave been equal to the old inhabitants of the city trician pontiffs. (Fest. s. i.. lzuniczigalia sacsa.)
or the patricians, were the plebeians. They were Lastly, they were free land-owners, and had their
Latins, and consequently of the same blood as the own gentes. That a plebeian, when married to a
Itamnes, the noblest of the three patrician tribes. plebeian woman, had the patria potestas over his
(Liv. i. 30; DionSs. iii. 29, 31; Val..Max. iii. 4. children, and that if he belonged to a plebeian
~ 1.) After the conquest of Alba, Rome, in the gens, he shared in the jura and sacra gentilicia of
reign of Ancus Marcius, acquired possession of a that gens, are points which appear to be self-eviconsiderable extent of country containing a number dent.
of dependent Latin towns, as Medullia, Fidenae, The population of the Roman state thus conPolitorium, Tellenae, and Ficana. Numbers of sisted of two opposite elements; a ruling class or
the inhabitants of these towns were again trans- an aristocracy, and the commonalty, which, though
planted to Rome, and incorporated with the ple- of the same stock as the noblest among the rulers,
beians already settled there, and the Aventine was and exceeding them in numbers, yet enjoyed none
assigned to them as their habitation. (Liv. i. 33; of the rights which might enable them to take a
Dionys. iii. 31, 37.) Many, however, remained in part ill the management of public affairs, religious
their original homes, and their lands were given or civil. Their citizenship resembled the relation
back to them by the Romans, so that they re- of aliens to a state, in which they are merely tolemnained free landel-owners as much as the conquerors rated on condition of performing certain services,
themselves, and thus were distinct from the clients. and they are, in fact, sometimes called peregrini.
The order of plebeians or the commonalty, which WVhile the order of the patricians was perfectly
had thus gradually been formed by the side of the organized by its division into curiae, decuriae,
patricians, and which far exceeded the populus in and gentes, the commonalty had no such organizanumber, lived partly in Rome itself in the districts tion, except its division into gentes; its relations
above mentioned, and partly on their former estates to the patricians also were in no way defined,
in the country subject to Rome, in towns, villages, and it consequently had no means of protecting
or scattered farms. The plebeians were citizens, itself against any arbitrary proceedings of the
but not optimo jure; they were perfectly distinct rulers. That such a state of things could not last,
from the patricians, and were neither contained in is a truth which must have been felt by every one
the three tribes, nor in the curiae nor in the patri- who was not blinded by his own selfishness and
cian gentes. They were consequently excluded love of don-inion. Tarqninius Priscus was the first
from the comitia, the senate, and all civil and who conceived the idea of placing the plebeians oem
priestly offices of the state. Dionysiss is greatly a footing of equality with the old burghers, by dimistaken in stating that all the new citizens were viding them into three tribes, which he intended
distributed among the patrician curies, and under to call after his owvn name and those of his friends.
this error he labours throughout his history, for he (Verrius Flaccus, adp. Fest. s. v. Ncvias; Liv. i. 36,
conceives the patricians and plebeians as having &c.; Dionys. iii. 71; Cic. de Re Publ. ii. 20.) But
been united in the comitia crniata (iv. 12, ix. 41). this noble plan was frustrated by the opposition of
That the plebeians were not contained in the curies, the augur Attus Navits, who probably acted the
is evident from the following facts: - Dionysius part of a representative of the patricians. All that
himself (iv. 76, 78) calls the curies a patrician as- Tarquinius could do was to effect the admission of
sembly; Livy (v. 46) speaks of a- lex curiata, which the noblest plebeian famnilies into the three old
was made without any co-operation on the part of tribes, who, however, were distinguished from the
the plebeians; and those, who confirm the election old patrician families by the names of Ramnes,
of kings or magistrates and confer the imperium, Tities, and Luceres secundi, and their gentes are
are il some passages called patricians, and in others sometimes distinguished by the epithet minores,
curiae (Dionys. ii, 60, vi. 90, x. 4; Liv. vi. 42; as they entered into the same relation in which tile