[84] Gell. ii. 24; Macrob. Sat. iii. 17; Plin. H.N. x. 139; Tertull. Apol. vi. The ten asses of this law are the Fanni centussis misellus of Lucilius.
[85] It seems that we must assume formal acceptance on the part of the allies in accordance with the principle that Rome could not legislate for her confederacy, a principle analogous to that which forbade her to force her franchise on its members (Cic. pro Balbo 8, 20 and 21).
[86] We may compare the enactment of 193 B.C., which was produced by the discovery that Roman creditors escaped the usury laws by using Italians as their agents (Liv. xxxv. 7 M. Sempronius tribunus plebis … plebem rogavit plebesque scivit ut cum sociis ac nomine Latino creditae pecuniae jus idem quod cum civibus Romanis esset).
[87] The Lex Licinia, which is attributed by Macrobius (l.c.) to P. Licinius Crassus Dives, perhaps belongs either to his praetorship (104 B.C.) or to his consulship (97 B.C.).
[88] Gellius (ii. 24), in speaking of Sulla's experiments, says of the older laws Legibus istis situ atque senio obliteratis.
[89] Exaequatio (Liv. xxxiv. 4).
[90] Cic. de Rep. iii. g. 16; see p. 80.
[91] Compare Tac. Ann. iii. 53. The Emperor Tiberius here speaks of Illa feminarum propria, quis lapidum causa pecuniae nostrae ad externas aut hostilis gentes transferuntur.
[92] The prohibition belongs to the year 229 B.C. (Zonar. viii. 19). For other prohibitions of the same kind dating from, a period later than that which we are considering see Voigt in Iwan-Müller's Handbuch iv. 2, p. 376 n. 95.
[93] Earlier enactments had been directed against canvassing, but not against bribery. The simplicity of the fifth century B.C. was illustrated by the law that a candidate should not whiten his toga with chalk (Liv. iv. 25; 433 B.C.). The Lex Poetelia of 358 B.C. (Liv. vii. 16) was directed against personal solicitation by novi homines. Some law of ambitus is known to Plautus (Amph. prol. 73; cf. Trinumm. iv. 3. 26), See Rein Criminalrecht p. 706