[1775] Livy iii. 54. 14.
[1776] Ibid. § 15.
[1777] Livy iii. 55. 14.
[1778] Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 279, n. 1, 302.
[1779] We have no means of testing the historical truth of these three alleged plebiscites. The first Icilian was of transient character, and the first Duillian was unnecessary, though not especially suspicious on that account. The second Duillian represents constitutional principles known to have been early established. They are doubted by Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 149 f.
[1780] XII. 25. 2. He does not state that this arrangement was embodied in a law, although otherwise it could not have been effective.
[1781] Pais, Stor. di Rom. I. i. 558 f. The fact that Fabius Pictor (in Gell. v. 4. 3) places the election of the first plebeian consul in the twenty-second year after the Gallic conflagration indicates (1) that Diodorus did not depend upon Fabius, (2) that Livy’s view of this constitutional change is essentially that of Fabius; cf. Pais, ibid. I. ii. 136, n. 2.
[1782] Livy iii. 63. 8-11; Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1; Act. Triumph. Capit., in CIL. i². p. 44; cf. Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 194.
[1783] Livy vii. 17. 9; Act. Triumph. Capit., in CIL. i². p. 44. In this case it is possible that the senate for a time resisted, to yield finally under pressure.
[1784] Cf. Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 74. 2; Lange, Röm. Alt. ii. 623.