[1275] Guiraud, in Rev. hist. xvii (1881). 7.
[1276] I. 43. 12: “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicato earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Serv. Tullio summam non convenire” (Nor need we be surprised that the arrangement as it now exists after the tribes have been increased to thirty-five, their number being doubled in the centuries of juniors and seniors, does not agree with the total number instituted by Servius Tullius).
[1277] IV. 21. 3: Οὑτος ὁ κόσμος τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐπὶ πολλὰς διέμεινε γενεὰς φυλαττόμενος ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς κεκίνηται χρόνοις καὶ μεταβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ δημοτικώτερον, ἀνάγκαις τισὶ βιασθεὶς ἰσχυραῖς, οὐ τῶν λόχον καταλυθέντων, ἀλλὰ τῆς κρίσεως (or κλήσεως) αὐτῶν οὐκέτι τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀκρίβειαν φυλαττούσης, ὡς ἐγνων ταῖς ἀρχαιρεσίαις αὐτῶν πολλάκις παρών. (After this arrangement had continued many generations, carefully preserved by the Romans, it has assumed in our time a more democratic character, driven into this new course by certain powerful forces. The centuries were not abolished, but the decision of their votes has lost its former carefulness—or we may read, the calling of the centuries no longer retains its precise order. This fact, he tells us, he himself often noticed when present at elections.)
If κρίσεως, supported by most MSS., is retained, it should refer to the equalization of power among the classes; κλῆσεως would probably mean that the prerogative century was now drawn by lot.
[1278] P. 77 f.
[1279] Röm. Gesch. iii. 374 ff.
It is not improbable that the first step was the reduction of the first class to seventy centuries, the ten centuries deducted being at the same time added to the lower classes. This view will explain Cic. Rep. ii. 22. 39, which otherwise must be considered a mistake; p. 67, 205, n. 5.
[1280] P. 213, n. 5.
[1281] Ihne, Hist. of Rome, iv. 12, concludes that the change was gradual. The line of development suggested by Plüss, Centurienverf., however, is ill supported by the evidence. Guiraud, Rev. hist. xvii (1881). 1 ff., also accepts the view of a gradual reform but minimizes its importance.
[1282] The citations below refer to a plurality of classes for the period following the reform, without mentioning a definite number; Sall. Iug. 86; Cic. Rep. iv. 2. 2; Flacc. 7. 15; Red. ad Quir. 7. 17; Symmachus, Pro Patre, 7 (Seeck); Auson. Grat. Act. iii. 13; ix. 44 (Peiper); p. 287, 293 (Bip.). In his speech for the Voconian law, 169, the elder Cato, in Gell. vi. 13. 3, referred to the distinction between the classici and those who were infra classem, from which we may conclude that the distinction existed in his time. The agrarian law of 111 (CIL. i. 200. 37) mentions the first class; also Livy xliii. 16. 14. The first and second are spoken of by Cic. Phil. ii. 33. 82. Ullrich’s view (Centuriatcom.), resting on these passages, is that there were but two classes, one of seniors another of juniors. Besides involving many impossibilities, it is refuted by the frequent references to the continuance of the census as an element in the system (see note below) and by the occasional mention of the five classes. The latter number for the time of C. Gracchus is given by Pseud. Sall. Rep. Ord. 2. 8. This work, though late, is generally considered good authority; cf. Greenidge, Hist. of Rome, i. 237 f. Five are mentioned also by Gell. vi (vii). 13. 1; Serv. in Aen. vii. 716; Arnob. Adv. Nat. ii. 67, with no definite reference to a particular period. Cicero’s allusion (Acad. Pr. ii. 23. 73) to the fifth class implies at least that the five classes were then fresh in the memory. The mention of an amplissimus census for the time of Cicero by Ascon. in Pis. 16, proves the existence of more than two classes at the time. These citations, together with the fact that no other definite number but five is ever spoken of by the ancient writers, must lead to the conclusion that there was no change.