15. That this statement of Appian is not exaggerated, is shown by the bullets found at Asculum which name among others the fifteenth legion.

16. The Julian law must have been passed in the last months of 664, for during the good season of the year Caesar was in the field; the Plautian was probably passed, as was ordinarily the rule with tribunician proposals, immediately after the tribunes entered on office, consequently in Dec. 664 or Jan. 665.

17. Leaden bullets with the name of the legion which threw them, and sometimes with curses against the "runaway slaves" - and accordingly Roman - or with the inscription "hit the Picentes" or "hit Pompeius" - the former Roman, the latter Italian - are even now sometimes found, belonging to that period, in the region of Ascoli.

18. The rare denarii with Safinim and G. Mutil in Oscan characters must belong to this period; for, as long as the designation Italia was retained by the insurgents, no single canton could, as a sovereign power, coin money with its own name.

19. I. VII. Servian Wall.

20. Licinianus (p. 15) under the year 667 says: dediticiis omnibus [ci]vita[s] data; qui polliciti mult[a] milia militum vix XV... cohortes miserunt; a statement in which Livy's account (Epit. 80): Italicis populis a senatu civitas data est reappears in a somewhat more precise shape. The dediticii were according to Roman state-law those peregrini liberi (Gaius i. 13-15, 25, Ulp. xx. 14, xxii. 2) who had become subject to the Romans and had not been admitted to alliance. They not merely retain life, liberty, and property, but may be formed into communities with a constitution of their own. Apolides, nullius certae civitatis cives (Ulp. xx. 14; comp. Dig. xlviii. 19, 17, i), were only the freedmen placed by legal fiction on the same footing with the dediticii qui dediticiorum numero sunt, only by erroneous usage and rarely by the better authors called directly dediticii; (Gai. i. 12, Ulp. i. 14, Paul. iv. 12, 6) as well as the kindred liberti Latini Iuniani. But the dediticii nevertheless were destitute of rights as respected the Roman state, in so far as by Roman state-law every deditio was necessarily unconditional (Polyb, xxi. 1; comp. xx. 9, 10, xxxvi. 2) and all the privileges expressly or tacitly conceded to them were conceded only precario and therefore revocable at pleasure (Appian, Hisp. 44); so that the Roman state, what ever it might immediately or afterwards decree regarding its dediticii, could never perpetrate as respected them a violation of rights. This destitution of rights only ceased on the conclusion of a treaty of alliance (Liv. xxxiv. 57). Accordingly deditio and foedus appear in constitutional law as contrasted terms excluding each other (Liv. iv. 30, xxviii. 34; Cod. Theod. vii. 13, 16 and Gothofr. thereon), and of precisely the same nature is the distinction current among the jurists between the quasi-dediticii and the quasi Latini, for the Latins are just the foederati in an eminent sense (Cic. pro Balb. 24, 54). According to the older constitutional law there were, with the exception of the not numerous communities that were declared to have forfeited their treaties in consequence of the Hannibalic war (p. 24), no Italian dediticii; in the Plautian law of 664-5 the description: qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti fuerunt (Cic. pro Arch. 4, 7) still included in substance all Italians. But as the dediticii who received the franchise supplementary in 667 cannot reasonably be understood as embracing merely the Bruttii and Picentes, we may assume that all the insurgents, so far as they had laid down their arms and had not acquired the franchise under the Plautio-Papirian law were treated as dediticii, or - which is the same thing - that their treaties cancelled as a matter of course by the insurrection (hence -qui foederati fuerunt- in the passage of Cicero cited) were not legally renewed to them on their surrender.

21. II. III. Laws Imposing Taxes.

22. IV. VI. The Equestrian Party.

23. II. XI. Squandering of the Spoil.

24. It is not clear, what the lex unciaria of the consuls Sulla and Rufus in the year 666 prescribed in this respect; but the simplest hypothesis is that which regards it as a renewal of the law of 397 (i. 364), so that the highest allowable rate of interest was again 1 1/12th of the capital for the year of ten months or 10 per cent for the year of twelve months.

25. III. XI. Reform of the Centuries.

26. II. III. Powers of the Senate.

27. IV. II. Death of Gracchus, IV. III. Attack on The Transmarine Colonization. Downfall of Gracchus, IV. VI. Saturninus Assailed.

28. II. III. The Tribunate of the People As an Instrument of Government.

1. IV. VIII. Occupation of Cilicia.

2. III. IX. Armenia.

3. IV. I. Western Asia.

4. The words quoted as Phrygian Bagaios = Zeus and the old royal name Manis have been beyond doubt correctly referred to the Zend bagha = God and the Germanic Mannus, Indian Manus (Lassen, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenland. Gesellschaft, vol. x. p. 329 f.)

5. They are here grouped together, because, though they were in part doubtless not executed till between the first and the second war with Rome, they to some extent preceded even the first (Memn. 30; Justin, xxxviii. 7 ap. fin.; App. Mithr. 13; Eutrop. v. 5) and a narrative in chronological order is in this case absolutely impracticable. Even the recently found decree of Chersonesus (p. 17) has given no information in this respect According to it Diophantus was twice sent against the Taurian Scythians; but that the second insurrection of these is connected with the decree of the Roman senate in favour of the Scythian princes (p. 21) is not clear from the document, and is not even probable.

6. It is very probable that the extraordinary drought, which is the chief obstacle now to agriculture in the Crimea and in these regions generally, has been greatly increased by the disappearance of the forests of central and southern Russia, which formerly to some extent protected the coast-provinces from the parching northeast wind.

7. The recently discovered decree of the town of Chersonesus in honour of this Diophantus (Dittenberger, Syll. n. 252) thoroughly confirms the traditional account. It shows us the city in the immediate vicinity - the port of Balaclava must at that time have been in the power of the Tauri and Simferopol in that of the Scythians - hard pressed partly by the Tauri on the south coast of the Crimea, partly and especially by the Scythians who held in their power the whole interior of the peninsula and the mainland adjoining; it shows us further how the general of king Mithradates relieves on all sides the Greek city, defeats the Tauri, and erects in their territory a stronghold (probably Eupatorion), restores the connection between the western and the eastern Hellenes of the peninsula, overpowers in the west the dynasty of Scilurus, and in the east Saumacus prince of the Scythians, pursues the Scythians even to the mainland, and at length conquers them with the Reuxinales - such is the name given to the later Roxolani here, where they first appear - in the great pitched battle, which is mentioned also in the traditional account. There does not seem to have been any formal subordination of the Greek city under the king; Mithradates appears only as protecting ally, who fights the battles against the Scythians that passed as invincible (tous anupostatous dokountas eimen), on behalf of the Greek city, which probably stood to him nearly in the relation of Massilia and Athens to Rome. The Scythians on the other band in the Crimea become subjects (upakooi) of Mithradates.