C THE PONTIFFS AND THE D1VULGENCE OF THE LAW

§ 56 Livius, Ab urbe condita 1.20.5-6

Then he ( Numa J chosefrom among the patricians Numa Marcius, son ofMarcus, as pontiff and turned over to him all the sacred registers and sealed documents, (showing} with what victims, on what days, in what temples the sacrifices (sacra} should be offered, and out of what monies the cost of them should be defrayed.

Pomponius, Libro singular! enehiridii (D. 1.2.2.6)

Accordingly, these three brandies of law appeared at about the some time: the law of the Twelve Tables, from these came the ius civile, and from the same the legis actiones were devised. Yet of all these, both the science of interpretation and the (conduct of} actions were vested in the college of pontiffs, from among whom one was appointed each year to preside over private cases. Andfor nearly a hundred years the people conformed to this custom.

2. Lend, SZ 26 (1905) 517-23; accord, De Frandsd, Storta I 215-17.

3. Müller, Die Gesetze ffanvnurabis und ihr Verhältnis ãèã mosaischen Gesetzgebung sowie zu den ÕÏ Tafeln {1903}.

4. Mitteis, $225 (1904) 284-86.

5. Zocco-Rosa, ‘Di alcuni raffronti tra le leggi di Hammurabi e le leges XII tabularum’, Atti IT³ arng. naz studi rom. 3 (1931) 98-103.

6. ReviUout, Les origine* egyptiemes du droil civil remain (1912).

7. Balogh, Studien aus dm Gebiete der llechtsvergleichung I ( 1928) 478, 500 f.; San Nicolò, Beiträge 78; Volterra, Diritto romano e diritti orientali 173 ff.

Varro, De lingua latina V. 15.83

The pontiffs, as Quintus Scaevola pontifex maximus said, were named from ‘posse (to beable)and facere' (to do).

Dionymus Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae 11.73.1-2

And there was the final portion of Numa's constitution regarding sacral matters which came into the possession of those who held the highest priesthood and power among the Romans. They are called 'pontifices' in their own language be­cause of one of thefiinctions which they perform, since they repair wooden bridges (pontes). Moreover, they have authority over the most important matters. For they give Judgment in all law suits pertaining to sacral matters involving private persons, magistrates and priests; they also make the law on sacral matters which were not written down and which were not handed down by custom, deciding whatever appears to them necessary and customary. They examine closely all the magistracies to which sacrifices and cults of the gods are assigned, and all the priests. They also see to it that the attendants and servants whom they employ in sacral matters do not in any way violate the sacral laws; they are the expoun­ders and interpretersfor private individuals who do not know the cults ofthe gods.

Festus, De verborum significant ‘maximus pontifex’

One pontiff is designated 'greatest' (maximus). since he is the chief judge (iudex) of matters which pertain to sacrifices and to religion, and suretor (vindex) for the contumacy of private persons and magistrates.

Festus, De verborum significant ‘ordo’

Ordo sacerdotum means < in the rank > of the gods, any chief < deity >... Fifth, the pontifex maximus (chiefpontiff). The pontifex maximus since he is the judge and arbiter of things divine and human.

C1CERO, Deoratore 111.33.133-34

Often, indeed, I have heardfrom my father and father-in-law that our men who wished to excel in the renown of knowledge were wont to embrace all the things which, indeed, our state then had learned.

The earliest development of the Roman law was carried out by members of the college of pontiffs, one of the groups of priestly officials of the early Roman state. Schulz' has called attention to the fact that the pontiffs, like most members of the priestly groups, were public spirited men of high re­nown called to act as servants of the state without remuneration. The college of pontiffs was the body which exercised control over private sacra, that is, the administrative charge of the rites concerned with family affairs. In ori­gin, the pontiffs may well have been the ‘bridge-makers' the ancients have described. Von Ltlbtow, following von Jhering, suggests that their priestly office may heve been the placation of the river god, Tiber, with offerings, and their connection with law resulting from the claim of this god to bridge tolls?

In historical times the pontiffs possessed the knowledge and retained the control over the rites and forms and of the words and formulae which were required for the proper performance of the religious acts so vital a part of Roman life. In their archives were the secret formulae, available only to members of the pontifical body, and to be disclosed only at their will.

1. Schulz, History 6.

2. Von Lublow, Volk 539 n.413.

3. See particularly, Bieicken, ‘Oberponüfex und Pontifikalkollegiunf, Hermes 35 (1957) 345-66, for the powers of the pontifex maximus.

4. Kaser, Altrom. ius 345-59.

and hence knew the days which were, as well as the days which were not, favorable for legal transactions? In any event, all agree that the pontiffs con­stituted the body of persons upon whom rested the early development of the Roman law.

The forms and rituals which had been evolved through the centuries, for­malities necessary for consummating transactions with the gods as welt as those between men, were in the hands of the pontiffs? Pomponius tells us, in a somewhat obscure phrase, that one among the pontiffs was chosen an­nually to be in charge of private affairs? Most take this to be the precursor of the activities which were later to be termed agere, cavere, respondere: to advise respecting contemplated transactions, to assist in the prosecution of litigation, to render opinions in answer to questions of law? Reference may here be made to the discussion by Jors, who has dealt in some detail with these activities of the pontiffs? According to Schulz the giving of responses or opinions either for acts contemplated (cautelary opinions) or with respect to actions already completed (judicial opinions) was the most important element in the pontifical contribution to the development of the private law?⁰ From their archives the pontiffs could give to a petitioner the proper form to embrace the desired transaction: the way to designate a particular person as heres, the executing agent in a will, the forms to follow in consum­mating a legal marriage, the acts to perform in arranging a transfer of prop­erty, the words to utter in prosecuting claims before a court.

The pontiffs had a virtual monopoly of the law in that they were the only ones who knew, and could disseminate this knowledge to those whom they wished. ’¹ The enactment of the Twelve Tables was a first breach in the pon­tifical monopoly of the law. The formulae employed in some institutions restated in the provisions of the Twelve Tables may have become somewhat familiar to all during the following years, but the exact form could only be guaranteed by the pontiff. In addition the pontiffs worked out further forms, whether these were contemplated by the Twleve Tables or not, tried them out in practice, and, if accepted by the people and by the courts, they came to

5. E.g., Weiss, Grundziigr 48.

6. Generally, Noailles, Du droit sacre 24 If.

7. Wenger, Quellen 476.

8. These activities will be dealt with fully in connection with the study of the jurists, infra, chap. VH1.

9. Jots, RechtswissensKfiaJi chaps. Ill, IX and X. Cf. also, Berger, j.v. Jurisprudcntia,RE 10(1919) 1159 f.

10. Schulz, History 19-22.

11. Schoillo-Dell'Oro. Manuale 240-44, maintain that the pontifical secrecy has been exaggerated; the spread of knowledge of the forms came with the contact with new situations. be included in the pontifical archives and were subsequently offered in res­ponse to request?²

The creation of new forms was part and parcel of the creation of new legal institutions. The technique by which thelaw was evolved came to be known as interpretatio, a topic which will be discussed at length later in the book?³ At the point it need only be noted that the interpretatio-activity of the pon­tiffs has been stressed as a vital factor in the development ofthe private law?⁴ The institution of eman cipat ion is referred to as a typical example of pontifical interpretatio, but there are other legal concepts attributable to the same device?³

Some writers have argued that the pontiffs acted as judges in both sacral and civil cases, in addition to their position as experts and advisors on the law?⁶ Gradually this view has been rejected.

1. lusFlavianum

§ 57 Pomponius, Libro singulari enchiridii (D. 1.2.2.7)

Afterwards, when Appius Claudius had propounded and fixed the form of these actions, Gnaeus Flavius, his secretary, the son of a freedman, stole the book and delivered it over to the people, and this service was so gratifying to the people

12. The development of pontifical activity is presented, among others, by Wenger, Quelle» 475-79; Gioffredi, SDH!13/14 (1947/48) 1, 12 ff.; De Francisct, Arcana Hl.l 144-50; Kaser, Aitrdm. ius 345-59; Frezza, Storla 364-69.

13. Infra, chap. VIII, j 133.

14. Jdrs, Reduswissensehaft 91-99; De Francisct, Arcana III. I 148 ff.

15. Jolowicz-Nicholas Introduction 89 f. Cf. Schulz, History 29 f.

16. Citation of authorities pro and con, by Kaser, AltrSm. Ius 349 n. 13.

17. De Martino, Giurisdliione, chap. 1 passim.

18. De Francisct, Arcana 111.1 145 n.4; Kaser, Altrom. Ius 352-57.

19. Paoli, ‘“Verba praeire" dans la "leps actio"’, RIDA 5 (1950) 281-324. This is what is meant, Paoli holds, by the words of the Pomponius passage, which correctly should read that one of the pontiffs is annually chosen to ‘recite’ for private persons (praeisset privatis, in place of: praeesset privatis).

20. Bonifacio, lura 2 (1951) 335-40; cf Jolowicz-Nicholas, Introduction 88 f.

that he was made tribune of the plebs, as well as senator andcurule aedile. This book, which contains the (forms of factions, is called the ius civile Flavianum, just as that other was called the ius civile Papirianum;for Gnaeus Flavius added noth­ing of his own in the book....

Cicero, Pro Murena XI.25

A scribe, Gnaeus Flavius, was found who caught some one napping and published the calendar disclosing court days to the people and so stole the knowledge of them from the astute jurisconsults. These men, irate, lest legis actiones could be had without their aid, once the proper days were published and made known, invented certain formulae so that they themselves might take part in every transaction.

Lmus, Ab urbe condita IX.46.5

He (Gnaeus Flavius) made public the ius civile which reposited in the archives of the pontiffs, and published the calendar on white tablets, around the forum, that all might know when legal business could be carried on.

See further, Cicero, De orat. 1.41.186; Vai. Max. 2.5.2.

For one hundred and fifty years after the enactment of the Twelve Tables, tradition holds, the pontiffs retained the control of the private law in their hands. Then occurred the event that marked a distinct break in the pontifical monopoly. About 300 B.C. a certain Gnaeus Flavius, a freedman, stole the forms of action from Appius Claudius and made them known to the whole people.^[372] Perhaps this was doneeven with the consent of Appius Claudius.¹ It may also be that the forms made known were not only those employed in litigation, but all forms for legal transactions? It is possible that the calendar was published at the same time; Zocco-Rosa, however, held thät the publica­tion of the calendar followed after a few years? Of even more significance, at about the same time, was the fact that by a lex Ogulnia, circa 300 B.C.,an end was put to the opposition to the membership of plebeians in the col­lege of pontiffs?

Several scholars have placed little credibility in the Appian-Flavian story. Schulz maintained that claimants had been getting the forms for centuries and hence they could hardly be secrets, revealed now for the first time? If the story be true, says Kaser, then the position of the court magistrate would have been an absurdity? the judicial official would have been at the mercy of the pontiff. The pontiff, indeed, worked with the magistrate, for he offered the forms which were usually approved; but he did not control the magis­trate’s action. At most, say those who doubt the story, there may have been a publication of the forms and calendar, but these had not heretofore been secret. The ius Flavianum - the designation ius civile Flavianum, by Pom­pon ius, is unwarranted* - was of little significance in later times; it appears not to have been extant in the age of Cicero.’ However, Mommsen thought it might have been the source of the list of legal abbreviations in Probus, De notis antiquis.¹⁰

2. Tiberius Coruncanius; Ius Aelianum

| 58 Pomponius, Libro singulari enchiridii (D. 1.2.2.35, 38)

...And indeed, of all of those who acquired the knowledge, it is said that no one publicly professed it before Tiberius Coruncanius. A ll those before him had either thought to keep the ius civile secret and only found time for their consultants rather than putting themselves at the disposal of those wishing (to learn)....(38) After these there was Tiberius Coruncanius, who, as I have said, first began to profess (the law). However, no writing of his is extant but his responsa were many and memorable. Next, Sextus Aelius and his brother Publius Aelius and Publius Atilius had great learning in professing (the law), so much so that the two Aelii became consuls, Atilius, however, was the first called Sapiens (the Wise) by the people. Ennius, indeed, praised Sextus A elius, and a book of his is extant that is entitled Tripertita, containing a sort of cradle of the law. It is called Tripertita because the interpretation is joined to the prefixed law of the Twelve Tables, and the legis actio is added..

6. Schulz, History 8 f. In accord, Dulckdt-Schwara, Rechtsgeschichle 156 f.; but Frezza, Sloria 369 n. 15, attempted to answer Schulz’s doubts.

7. Kaser, AhrSm. Ius 336.

8. See Berger, Festschrift Kisch 125 ff.

9. Kruger, Geschichte 33.

10. Mommsen, Schriften VII 212-13; contra, Girard, Melanges I 179.

Pomponius, Libro singular! enchiridii (D. 1.2.2.7)

... As the state grew larger, because certain kinds of action were not available, after no long time Sextus Aelius composed other (forms of) actions and gave the book to the people, which is called ius Aelianum.

The next step in the weakening of the pontifical monopoly of the law, as tradition has it, occurred when the first plebeian pontifex maxim us, Tiberius Coruncanius, became the first to publicly profess the technique of rendering opinions (responsa), about 250 B.C. This seems to mean that from this time on the interpretation of legal norms and formulae and the fashioning of the law and the forms to meet new situations, which heretofore had been secret skills among the members of the pontifical college, now became directly accessible to any citizen.’ This may be said to mark the beginning of legal education among the Romans, a topic which will be dealt with later.²There is no sharp change, however, in the type of person responsible for the devel­opment of the law. Many of the jurists-as those who carried on the fashion­ing of the law were called - were pontiffs, and others held various priestly offices. For some time the most significant factor was that legal knowledge became a qualification for holding pontifical office.^[373] Gradually, however, lay jurists replaced the pontiffs, and we reach the epoch of classical juris­prudence.*

Schulz maintained that the whole Tiberius Coruncanius story is fabrica­ted.⁵ His name was the first of a number of jurists who responded publicly, and hence the origin of the practice was attributed to him by a late tradition. There must have been pontiffs who gave responsa in public before his time. If there were any truth to the story, it is strange that Coruncanius had no pupils. Frezza answered the views of Schulz by pointing out that there is good reason to credit the story on political grounds; certainly no reason to invent it at a later date.⁶ He said: ‘The laicization of jurisprudence is a reflec­tion - the last reflection - of the attainment of full equality by the plebeians in civic life.*¹ To many scholars, then, the final step in the breaking of the pontifical monopoly on the development of the law was the public ‘profes­sion’ of the law by Tiberius Coruncanius.

There is one further event, though, which may be of significance. Accord­ing to Pomponius further forms which had been developed were published by the jurist Sextus Aelius Paetus, circa 200 B.C.* Modern authorities generally consider these forms to have been those of newer actions, even an attempt on the part of Aelius to bring order out of a chaotic condition in which the pontiffs had placed the formulae of these actions.’ To Schulz the ius Aelianum was merely a more comprehensive collection than the earlier, doubtful undertaking known as the ius Flavianum.’⁰ Also ascribed to the same jurist was the so-called Tripertita, the three-fold work, consisting, so it would seem, of the individual provisions of the law of the Twelve Tables, each accompanied by the interpretatio to the text, and such procedural for­mulae as were considered pertinent. At an early time the compilation of the forms of action, the ius Aelianum, was identified with the Tripertita.“ Then it was pointed out that undoubtedly the Tripertita was much broader in scope than the ius Aelianum.¹¹ Next the view was put forward that the ius Aelianum was nothing more than the third part of the Tripertita.” But Wenger still concluded that the two works are not identical.^{[374] [375] The Triper­tita, however, may well be the concluding step in the pontifical development of the law. Schulz believed that this repository of the ‘elements of the law’ (cunabula iegis) was the last work of the early (pontifical) effort in Roman jurispruden[376] [377] [378] [379] [380] ce;[381] Frezza, however, declared that Sextus Aelius Paetus opened the last phaseof Republican jurisprudence.[382] [383] To Weiss it was readily understood that the difficult language of the text of the Twelve Tables needed explanation, which, coupled with a discussion (interpretatio) of the texts and the words of the formulae to be employed, marked the concluding exposition of the secret, pontifical learning.”}

3. Lus pontificium

§ 59 Fv.'Svm.Deverborumsignificatu'^ccr

Gallus Aelius says that whatever has been consecrated' by the custom and rule of the state is sacred, whether house or shrine or statue or place or property or anything that has been dedicated or consecrated to the gods; however, any of their things that private persons dedicate to a god for the purpose of their own moral well-being (religio), that the Roman pontiffs cannot consider sacred. But if any private sacra, which by a rule of the pontiffs are to be made on a stated day or at a certain place, have been undertaken, these sacra can be designated as a sacrifice. That place, where such private sacra are to bemade. scarcely seems to besacer.

See also Liv. 27.25.8; Cic. de domo 53.136.

Cicero, De legibus 11.23.58

... But just as the law forbids burial within the city, so it has been decreed by the college ofpontiffs that it is unlawfulfora sepulchre to be made in a public place.

The law mentioned is XII Tab. 10.1.

Livius, Ab urbe condita XXXI.9.6-9

The state... ordered the consul to whom the province of Macedonia had been assigned, to vow games and a gift to Jupiter. (7) Lidnius. thepontifex maximus, brought about a delay in the matter ofthis public vow. for he denied that a vow for an indefinite sum was permitted.... (8) Although the consul was moved both by the statement and its author, he was nevertheless directed to appeal to the college of pontiffs, to see whether a vow for an uncertain sum could properly be under­taken. The pontiffs decreed that it could be. and was even more correct so. (9) The consul, at the dictation of the pontifex maximus, recited the vow....

Dio Cassius, Historia Romana XLVIII.44

... She (Livia)was in the sixth month with child of him. Caesar, therefore, hesi­tating and inquiring of the pontiffs whether he could marry her while pregnant, they (the pontiffs} decided that if the paternity of the foetus was doubtful, the marriage should be delayed, but ifadmitted, nothing prevented itfrom being con­summated at once. Perhaps this was found among theforefathers, certainly they would say so whether they found it or not....

Gellius, Nodes Atticae V. 19.5-6

But adrogations are not permitted heedlessly or uninvestigated. (6) Forcomitia (assemblies) which are called curtate are approved at the decision of the pontiffs, and the age of him who wishes to adrogate, whether it is any longer possible (for him) to procreate children, and the amount of property of him who is to be adro- gated lest it be seized insidiously, these are considered and an oath, originated by Q. Mucius, pontifex maximus, is sworn as to the adrogation.

Cicero, Dedomo sua XIII.34 and X1V.38

... What. pontiffs, is the law of adoption? Certainly, that a man may adopt who cannot now procreate children and when he could, failed. Therefore, what cause there is for adoption, what consideration of family and dignity, what reason of sacra, are questions which are wont to be put to the college of pontiffs.... (14.38) I said bgfore the pontiffs that that adoption was not approved by any decree of their college, that it had been made contrary to the whole ius pontifi­dum, that it had no validity at all. If this is admitted, you see that your whole tribuneship comes to an end.

Cicero, De legibus 11.21.52

I ask at this place and oft, of you, Scaevolae. chiefpontiffs and men. indeed, most perceptive in my opinion, how is it that you assail the ius pontifidum by the (ius) civile; for in a way you developed the (ius) pontifidum by means of the science of the ius dvile. For the sacra (sacred matters) have been joined to the petunia (private affairs) by the authority of the pontiffs, and not by any statute. Accord­ingly, if you were only pontiffs, the pontifical authority would remain, but since you are also most teamed in the ius dvile, you evade that by this science. It was held by Publius Scaevola and Tiberius Coruncanius, chief pontiffs, and also others, that those who take as much as heirs for the whole, were bound for the sacra. I have the ius pontifidum (supporting me). (53 ) What does he add to it from the ius civile?...

The previous discussion has concerned the role of the pontiffs in the devel* opment of the private law. The pontiffs, also, with the other bodies of priests, were even more concerned with what is known as the ius pontificium, the pontifical law, a portion of the ius sacrum, the sacral law. ‘ Under their supervision were the sacra publica as well as the sacra privata (public and private sacral matters). This meant that the pontiffs had control over the consecration and dedication of property to the gods, the pronouncement of vows and the singing of hymns, the mortuary law and the law of sepulchres, the declaration of war and the conclusion of treaties.¹ Sacral acts played a prominent role in the daily life of the Romans in the early times, and the ^{[384] [385] pontiffs may be said to have been the custodians of the religious tradition of the state? Within the group the pontifex maxim us acted as the judge in disciplinary matters;4 he had criminal jurisdiction in cases involving the Vestal Virgins?}

The development of the pontifical law was largely due to the opinions rendered by the pontiffs, either advisory opinions on the possibility and means of performance of a contemplated sacral act, or pronouncements on the legality of acts performed? These opinions were rendered upon the request of the magistrate or of the Senate and cover the whole range of sacral law. Several examples of the responsa given by the college of pontiffs illus­trate the scope of their juristic activity in sacral law during the centuries, for they were active in this field well into the classical period.

That there was a close tie between sacral law and private law stems from the fact that the same personalities were responsible for the development of both systems in the early days; yet sacral law and private law seem to have been distinct segments of the law in the historic epoch? The extent to which sacral law might affect the life of the private citizen is strikingly displayed in the story of the controversy between Cicero and Clodius Pulcher concerning the consecration of the former’s house. In 58 B.C. Clodius, as tribune of the plebs, promulgated a statute whereby anyone who had killed a Roman citizen without judgment against him having been ren­dered was subject to banishment. Cicero, realizing that this law would affect him because of the killing of the Catalinian conspirators, fled. Clodius then had another law passed aimed directly at Cicero, which con­fiscated his property and ordered the destruction of his house. Clodius acquired the property, and, to prevent recovery of it by Cicero, built a temple to the goddess Liberty thereon, the required consecration cere­monies being performed by a youthful pontiff, a relative of Clodius. By a law of August 57 B.C., Cicero was restored to citizenship, and in the words of his own plea,

Cicero, De haruspicum responsis VI. 11-12

The Roman people, whose power is supreme in all matters, in the centuriate assembly by the vote ofevery ageandrankofmen ordered that house to remain in

3. Stella Maranca, Ann. Sent. Bari I (1927) 6-36, and Jolowicz-Nicholaa, fntroduaion 89.

4. Mommsen. Staatsndit II 54 ft; Zmigryder-Konopka, Eos 34 (1932/33) 361 fT. But see Blacken, Hemes 35 (1957) 345-66.

5. K ar Iowa, Reditsgeschkhte I 273.

6. Jors, Jiechtswissenschaft 2^-50; Schulz, History 17 f.

7. See infra, chap. XIII, $ 181.

the same condition in which it had always been. (12) Afterwards, you, senators, decided that the matter of the religious consecration of my house should be referred to the college of pontiffs.

Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum IV.2.2-4

After that letter had been sent, the greatest controversy on my house took place. We spoke before the pontiffs on the 29th of September. Great care was taken by us in the matter and if ever we have amounted to anything in orating, or even if never before, then truly, the iryury suffered and the importance (of the matter) gave a certain strength to our speaking. Accordingly, the speech should not be kept from our young (friends) so, even though you have not requested it, I will send it to you shorty. (3) Since the pontiffs had decreed as follows: ’If he, who alleges he has dedicated, was not specially appointed for this matter by order of the people or plebiscite, nor ordered to do so by order ofthe people or plebiscite, it can be held that, without sacrilege, that part of the site might be restored to me’, congratulations were immediately tendered me - for no one doubted but that the house had been adjudicated to us - when all of a sudden a man ascended the rostrum, as Appius permitted him. Then he announces to the people that the pontiffs had decreed it to him; moreover, that I had endeavored to come into possession of it by force. He urges that they support him and Appius. and defend his Liberty by force. When, even among that lowest (rabble), some were astound­ed, some jeered the folly of the man, I decided not to deal with this until the consuls by reason of a senatus consultum should have arrangedfor the restoration of the portico of Catullus. (4) On October 1st there was a meeting of the Senate; all the pontiffs who were senators were present, among them Marcellinus, most devoted to me, who, called upon first to speak, inquired what they had meant in so decreeing. Then M. Lucullus answered in accord with the opinion of all the colleagues, that the pontiffs were the judges of religious matters, the Senate of the law; and that his colleagues had decided regarding the religious question, in the Senate they would decide respecting the legal question. Each of them, called upon in his turn, delivered a speech in our favor. When it came to Clodius, he wanted to take up the whole day, nor was an end made by him until, when he had spoken nearly three hours, he was finally forced to cease by reason of the outcry and the clattering of the Senate. When a senatus consultum was framed in accord with the opinion of Marcellinus. all but one assenting. Serranos inter­ceded. Both consuls immediately began to refer back (to the Senate) regarding the intercession. When their most resolute opinions were uttered, that the Senate had approved the restoration of the house to me, for the portico of Catullus to be leased, and that the authority of the order was to be observed by all magis­trates; that if violence occurred the Senate would hold him responsible who had interceded the senatus consultum, Serranus became exceedingly timid and

Cornidnus returned to his old fam. Having thrown off his toga, he threw himself down at the feet of his son-in-law (Serranos). He asked for the night to consider. It was not granted for the 1st of January was remembered; yet at length it was yielded to him at my request.

For further incidents of the case see the speeches of Cicero, De dome sua oratio, made before the pontiffs, and De harispicum responsis oratio, one made in answer to Clodius* oration that the restoration of the house to Cicero had been the cause of the recent displeasure of the gods as indicated by the occurrence of portentous prodigies?

The organization of the pontifical body and its activities in general is treat­ed by Mommsen and Marquardt, and, with particular reference to juristic activities, Berger and Frezza.^{[386] [387]}

D.