[269] Dion. Hal. iv. 13. 1; Varro, De vit. pop. rom. i, in Non. Marc. 43; Livy i. 46. 1.
[270] Dion. Hal. v. 57. 3; Plut. Popl. 21. Moreover the division into the five classes was based on unequal holdings.
[271] Cf. Meyer, Gesch. d. Alt. ii. 518, n.
[272] Röm. Staatsr. iii. 168.
[273] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2 might refer to a condition in which land was still inalienable and the right of changing residence restricted.
[274] The text followed is that of Jacoby. The reading represented by Jordan, Cato, p. 8, is not satisfactory. We have no ground for impugning the statement of Dionysius that Fabius actually called the country districts phylae, tribes. He may have termed them at once μοῖραι, “regions,” and phylae with perfect consistency; cf. Kubitschek, Rom. trib. or. 7, n. 34.
[275] Röm. Gesch. i. 434-7; English, 205 f.
[276] Verf. d. Serv. 95 f.
[277] Cf. Huschke, Verf. d. Serv. 72 ff., who supposed that the twenty-six rural regiones were in most respects like tribes, but contained only plebeians, who were politically inferior to the city people; see also Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. 736 f.
[278] Röm. Tribus, followed by Grotefend, Imp. rom. trib. descr.