tribunus

tribuni plebis nunc fraudem, nunc neglegentiam consulum accusabant
the tribunes of the people were reproaching now the deceit, now the negligence of the consuls tribunus militum, ‑ militaris
a tribune of the soldiers,

trĭbūnus, i, m. [tribus, prop. the chief of a tribe; hence, in gen.], a chieftain, commander, tribune.

• I Tribuni aerarii, paymasters, who assisted the quaestors, Cato ap. Gell. 7, 10, 2; cf. Varr. L. L. 5, § 181 Müll.; Fest. p. 2 ib.; called also tribuni aeris, Plin. 33, 2, 7, § 31. By the Lex Aurelia these tribuni aerarii were made judges on the part of the people: (Milonem) tribuni aerarii condemnarunt, Cic. Q. Fr. 2, 6, 6; id. Cat. 4, 7, 15: a tribunis aerariis absolutus, id. ib. 2, 16, 3; cf. in a pun with aerati (rich), id. Att. 1, 16, 8. This judicial office was taken from them by Julius Caesar, Suet. Caes. 41.—
• II Tribuni Celerum, captains or commanders of the Celeres, Liv. 1, 59, 7; cf. Dig. 1, 2, 2, § 15; Weissenb. ad Liv. 1, 15, 8. —
• III Tribuni militares or militum, tribunes of the soldiers, military tribunes; these were officers of the army, six to each legion, who commanded in turn, each two months at a time: qui M. Aemilio legati et praefecti et tribuni militares fuerunt, Cic. Clu. 36, 99; so, militares, Plin. 34, 3, 6, § 11; cf. in sing.: cum tribunus militaris depugnavi apud Thermopylas, Cic. Sen. 10, 32: a tribunis militum, praefectis reliquisque, qui, etc., Caes. B. G. 1, 39; so, militum, id. ib. 3, 7; cf. in sing.: tribunus militum, id. ib. 3, 5; Cic. Fam. 15, 4, 2: tribuni cohortium, Caes. B. C. 2, 20.—Sing.: Stilonius Priscus qui tribunus cohortis, sub Classico fuerat, Plin. Ep. 3, 9, 18; cf.: tribunus minor, Veg. Mil. 2, 7; and tribunus legionis, Val. Max. 3, 2, 20.—
• IV Tribuni militum consulari potestate, military tribunes with consular power; these were the highest officers of the State from A.U.C. 310 to A.U.C. 388. They were chosen from the patrician and plebeian orders, and were at first three, then six, and, after the year 352, eight in number, Liv. 4, 6, 8; 4, 7, 1; 5, 1, 2; called tribuni consulares, id. 8, 33; Becker, Antiq. 2, 2, p. 136 sq.—
• V Tribuni plebis, and more freq. simply tribuni, tribunes of the people, whose office it was to defend the rights and interests of the Roman plebeians against the encroachments of the patricians, Liv. 2, 33, 2; 2, 56, 3 sq.; Cic. Rep. 2, 33, 58 sq.; id. Leg. 3, 7, 16; cf. Becker, Antiq. 2, 2, p. 247 sq.; Lange, Antiq. 1, 1, p. 592 sq., and the authorities cited by both.

tribūnus, ī, m. (tribus), I) tribuni, die Vorsteher der drei Stammtribus, Vertreter der Tribules (s. 1. tribūlis) in politischer, religiöser und militärischer Hinsicht (s. tribusa.A.), Liv. 6, 20, 10, von denen einer unter dem Namen tribunus Celerum an der Spitze steht, weil er zugleich Führer der Celeres (s.d.) ist, Liv. 1, 59, 7. Pompon. dig. 1, 2, 2. § 15.

II) übtr.: A) tribuni aerarii, die dem Quästor beigesetzten Zahlmeister aus dem Plebejerstande, die das aus dem Ärarium erhobene Geld nach der vorgeschriebenen Bestimmung, namentlich beim Heere den Sold unter die Soldaten, austeilten, s. Cato b. Gell. 7, 10, 2 (wo Sing. tribunus aerarius). Ps. Ascon. ad Cic. II. Verr. 1, 34. p. 167 B.: dies. tribuni aeris, Plin. 33, 31. Als nach der lex Aurelia die Handhabung der Gerichte unter die drei Stände des Staates (Senatoren-, Ritter- u. Plebejerstand) verteilt wurde, wurden von seiten der Plebejer die tribuni aerarii Richter, s. Cic. Cat. 4, 15. – ähnlich zur spät. Kaiserzeit tribunus fisci, Ven. Fort. vit. S. Radeg. 38.

B) als milit. t.t.: a) tribuni militum od. militares, Kriegstribunen, Oberste, von denen bei jeder Legion sechs waren, die abwechselnd je zwei Monate die Legion befehligten, tribuni militum b. Caes. u.a.: Sing. tribunus militum, Cic. – tribuni militares b. Cic. u. Plin.: Sing. tribunus militaris, Cic. – tribuni cohortium, die bei den dortigen Kohorten anwesenden Kriegstribunen, Caes. b.c. 2, 20, 2 (vgl. no. b). – tribuni militum od. militares rufuli, die im Heere vom Feldherrn od. von den Soldaten gewählten, Ggstz. comitiati, die zu Rom in den Komitien gewählten (u. zwar die Kriegstribunen der legiones quattuor primae, die für den regelmäßigen aktiven Dienst bestimmt waren), Liv. 7, 5, 9. Ps. Ascon. ad Cic. I. Verr. 10, 30. p. 142, 7 B. – b) (nur nachweislich zur Kaiserzeit) tribunus cohortis, der Befehlshaber der ersten (und stärksten) Kohorte der Legion, Plin. ep. 3, 9, 18. Vulg. act. apost. 21, 31: viell. ders. tribunus minor, Veget. mil. 2, 7 in.

C) tribuni militum consulari potestate, die zwischen 444 und 366 v. Chr. sehr häufig anstatt der Konsuln aus Patriziern u. Plebejern gewählte, anfangs aus 3, später aus 6 Mitgliedern bestehende oberste Staatsbehörde der Römer, Liv. 4, 6, 8; 4, 7, 1; 8, 1, 2 u.a.: auch tribuni consulares gen., Liv. 8, 33, 16.

D) tribuni plebis od. plebei od. plebi u. häufiger bl. tribuni, die Volkstribunen, die bekannten Schutzbeamten des röm. Plebejerstandes, Liv. 2, 32 sq.; 2, 56, 1. Cic. de rep. 2, 58 sqq. u. de legg. 3, 16. Vgl. Mommsen Staatsrecht. Bd. 2. S. 272 ff; Bd. 3. S. 147 ff. S. 821 ff.

tribunus [CL], (Roman) tribune, high-ranking Roman (orig. mil.) official (also dist. as ~us militum or plebis); b (transf., in non-Roman contexts). c (in gl., understood as) sultan. chiliarco, id est ~o [gl.: ealdre] militum Aldh. VirgP 29; haec tanta prodigia cernens Claudius ~us obstipuit Ib. 35; apud gentiles seculares erant hee persone: monarcha, scilicet imperator Romanus, patricii, qui et senatores dicebantur, ‥ prefecti, ~i plebis, ~i militum, pretores, centuriones, decuriones, quaterniones, triumviri, questores, ediles, aule janitores Beleth RDO 12. 26; chilarchus latine dicitur ~us qui preest tribui Bacon Gram. Gk. 140.  b nemo in ~is [AS: ealdorman], nemo in regibus plures eorum terras ‥ tributarias genti Anglorum ‥ fecit Bede HE I 34; David ‥ omnes principes Israel convocavit, ~os etiam et centuriones Holy Rood-Tree 48; ~os cum omnibus turmis atque centuriones V. Neot. A 15; Eduardus Siwardi filius qui sub Eduardo rege ~us Merciorum fuit, princeps militie et consobrinus David regis exercitum aggregavit Ord. Vit. VIII 22 p. 404; Henricus [II] ‥ nactus autem regnum Anglorum, servos, spurios, caligatos, cubili, mense, regno, prefecit et ex iis questores, pretores, proconsules, ~os, municipes, forestarios super provincias constituit R. Niger Chr. II 167; Turgesius ‥ expeditionis hujus ~us Gir. TH III 38; Offa ‥ omnibus consulibus, ~is, ducibus, et optimatibus populi sui ad se evocatis Ciren. I 289; quod ~orum officium esset, milites in castris continere et ad exercitationem producere Mem. Hen. V 28; a cunstabylle, constabularius, ~us CathA.  c hic ~us, a sawdyn WW.

trĭbūnus, (6) ī, m. (tribus), primitivement chef dʼune des trois tribus de Rome, ¶ 1 tribuni plebis ou tribuni seul, tribuns de la plèbe [magistrats chargés des intérêts de la plèbe] : Cic. Rep. 2, 58 ; Leg. 3, 16 ; Liv. 2, 33, 2 ; 2, 56, 3, etc. ¶ 2 tribuni militares ou militum, tribuns des soldats [officiers au nombre de 6 par légion, qui la commandaient alternativement pendant deux mois] || tribuni militum consulari potestate, tribuns militaires investis de la puissance consulaire : Liv. 4, 6, 8 ; 4, 7, 1 ; 5, 1, 2, etc.; ou encore tribuni consulares Liv. 8, 33, 16 ¶ 3 tribuni ærarii, tribuns du trésor [adjoints aux questeurs] : Cat. d. Gell. 7, 10, 2 ; Varro L. 5, 181 || [depuis la loi Aurelia, faisant partie des jurys des quæstiones perpetuæ ] : Cic. Cat. 4, 15 ; Q. 2, 6, 6, etc. ¶ 4 tribunus Celerum Liv. 1, 59, 7, commandant des Célères.

tribunus , i. m.
支派長。族長。— militum 都司。— Celerum 護衡將軍。— plebis 保民官。Tribuni aerarii 布政使。

Suggest a Translation
See an image

tribūnus ī, m

• tribus, the head of a tribe(see tribus); hence, a president, commander, representative, tribune: tribunus celerum, in quo tum magistratu forte Brutus erat, L.—Esp., tribuni aerarii, paymasters, quaestors' assistants(by the Lex Aurelia made judges on the part of the plebs): (Milonem) tribuni aerarii condemnarunt.—Tribuni militares or militum, tribunes of the soldiers, military tribunes, colonels(a legion had six, each of whom commanded it for two months of the year): tribunus militaris cum Servilio profectus: tribuni cohortium, i. e. then present with the cohorts, Cs.— From B.C.444 to B.C.366 the highest officers of the State, at first three in number, then six, and after B.C.402 eight, chosen both from the patricians and the plebeians, were military tribunes with consular power: tribunos militum consulari potestate creari sinere, L.: tribuni consulares, L.—With plebis or plebei(expressed or understood), a tribune of the common people, representative of the plebeians(a magistrate charged with the protection of the commons against the patricians): ita tribuni plebei creati duo, L.: spem habere a tribuno plebis.

TRIBUNUS

TRIBU´NUSThis word seems originally to have indicated an officer connected with a tribe (tribus), or who represented a tribe for certain purposes; and this is indeed the character of the officers who were designated by it in the earliest times of Rome, and may be traced also in the later officers of this name. We subjoin an account of all the Roman officers known under this name.

1. TRIBUNES OF THE THREE ANCIENT TRIBES.At the time when all the Roman citizens were contained in the three tribes of the Ramnnes, Tities, and Luceres, the three divisions of infantry, which together made up the legion, were commanded by three tribuni militum (φύλαρχος, Dionys. 2.7; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 20; Serv. ad Aen. 5.560). Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, 1. p. 301) supposes that the tribunus celerum was the tribune of the Ramnes, the oldest and noblest among the three tribes, and in this opinion he is followed by Göttling (Gesch. d. Röm. Staatsverf. p. 166), though it is in direct contradiction to Dionysius (Dionys. 2.13) and Pomponius (de Orig. Jur.Dig. 1, 2, 2, 15), according to whom the tribunus celerum was the commander of the celeres, the king's body-guard.

But Mommsen (Hist. 1.78, note) has shown that the term tribuni celerum is used in the plural of the three commanders of the horsemen (Dionys. 2.64), as contrasted with the three tribuni militum, and that the view of Pomponius, which identifies the tribunus celerum with the Celer mentioned by Valerius Antias (in Dionys. 2.13), the magister equitum under the Republic, and the praefectus praetorio of the Empire, is due simply to a misconception of the position held by Brutus in the legend (cf. Dionys. 4.71; Liv. 1.59). The tribunes of the tribes naturally ceased to exist, when the tribes were done away with in the changes ascribed to Servius Tullius. There is no ground whatever for believing that a law was ever passed under the presidency of one of the tribunes (Mommsen, Röm. St. 1.189, note 4); but from the account of Dionysius they appear to have exercised certain priestly functions on behalf of their respective tribes. (Cf. Praen. Fast. for March 19, p. 315, [ad stantibus pon]tificibus et trib[unis] celer[um].)

2. TRIBUNES OF THE SERVIAN TRIBES.Under the Servian constitution, each of the four citytribes, and possibly each of the country pagi, which afterwards developed, in a manner as to which we have no definite information, into the original 16 country-tribes, had its curator, or φύλαρχος, whose duty it was to keep the register of the tribe, and of the estates belonging to its members, and to collect when necessary the war-tax (tributum), as well as the capitation money (aes), levied upon non-citizens (aerarii). These curatores tribuum were also called tribuni aerarii; but whether the body known in the time of Cicero as tribuni aerarii were their successors and representatives is a question much disputed of recent years. Madvig (Opusc. Acad. ii. pp. 242-263: cf. Verfassung u. Verwaltung, 1.182-185) strongly maintains that they were quite distinct, and that there is no trustworthy worthy reference to the tribuni aerarii before the law of Cotta in B.C. 70, except as an obsolete office, the name of which was then revived. Mommsen, on the other hand (Die Römischen Tribus, pp. 52 sqq.: cf. Röm. St. 3.189 ff.), maintains that they were identical. Madvig's view is that the original tribuni aerarii were not officials of any kind, much less magistrates, but private persons of substance, who were made responsible for the pay of individual soldiers, especially the equites. The chief ancient authorities are an extract from Cato, ap. Gell. 6.10, pignoris capio ob aes militare, quod aes a tribuno aerario miles accipere debebat, vocabulum seorsum fit; and Varro, L. L. 5.181, ab eo quoque, quibus attributa erat pecunia ut militi reddant, tribuni aerarii dicti; where the past tense debebat shows that the practice had become obsolete in Cato's time, and the expression attributa erat may be taken to indicate that the quaestors assigned to the several contributories the sums which they had respectively to pay. Another argument for Madvig's view is that the tribuni aerarii must have been a numerous class to furnish a select body of at least 300 judices, and that they are represented as fairly numerous, even in unimportant country-places like Atina (Cic. pro Planc. 8, 21), and as an ordo by the side of the equites (cf. Calp. Ecl. 7.29). In Cic. pro C. Rab. ad Quir. 9, 27, we have in a reference to B.C. 100, quid de tribunis aerariis ceterorumque ordinum omnium hominibus qui turn arma pro communi libertate ceperunt? Madvig interprets this to mean young men who afterwards became tribuni aerarii when the ordo was revived in B.C. 70, but this interpretation is very forced. Although we nowhere have express authority for identifying the curatores tribuum with the tribuni aerarii of the earlier time, it seems impossible to explain the use of the term tribunus except by such an identification; and the word curator occurs only later on, so that at may well be a descriptive title. B.C. 220 the tribes were divided into centuries, the curatores centuriarum may have popularly retained the name of tribuni aerarii, their number now being 350. They seem to have been elected annually, and were often re-elected.

3. TRIBUNI AERARII.When L. Cotta, the praetor in B.C. 70, carried a law depriving the senators of the exclusive right of serving on juries, which had been restored to them by Sulla, after the reforms of C. Gracchus, he instituted stituted three decuriae, --one of senators, one of knights, and one of tribuni aerarii. Of this last body we know that they were recognised as an ordo; that they were a fairly numerous body, not restricted to Rome, but living also in the municipia; and that they were closely connected with the equites, and indeed appear to have been sometimes loosely included under this name (cp. Cic. Clu. 43, 121; 47, 130). Julius Caesar took away their judicial function (Suet. Jul. 41); but Augustus (Id. Aug. 32) added to the three decuriae a fourth, consisting of ducenarii, i.e. men who had half the equestrian census. From this last fact it seems highly probable that the tribuni aerarii were also required to possess a definite census, though the amount of this is nowhere specified. Mommsen supposes that they had the equestrian census, but not the equus publicus (Röm. St. 3.533); but this is somewhat doubtful: and Mommsen admits that where they are included among the equites by Cicero, the courtesy of the advocate (ib. 193, note 2: cf. pro Font. 16, 36; pro Flacc. 38, 96) is partly at least responsible. Still in pro Flacc. 2, 4, he clearly speaks of two-thirds of the jury as belonging to the equites (50 out of 75): and Livy (Ep. xcvii.) even speaks of the reform of Cotta as giving back the judicia to the equites: judicia per M. (sic) Aurelium Cottam praetorem ad equites Romanos translata sunt. From Liv. 24.11, 8, it might appear that they had a census of 300,000 asses. Herzog (1.533) thinks that they were ex-officials, but this assumption is needless, if we identify them with the curatores of the centuries. (Cf. Madvig, Verf. und Verw. 1.182-185; Mommsen, Röm. St. l. c.; Heitland on Cic. pro C. Rabirio ad Quir., App. G; Herzog, Gesch. d. Röm. Verfassung, 1.533, 1023-5.)

4. TRIBUNI MILITUM CONSULARI POTESTATE.From the earliest times the Roman infantry had been commanded by tribuni, or tribe-leaders. These were nominated by the king, as commander-in-chief, for the duration of the campaign, and were originally three in number. But when the old tribes were divided, each into a prior and a posterior, the number of the tribunes came to be six. At this time legio was the term applied to the whole army. When, at some time in the course of the fourth century, a varying number of legions was raised each year, the practice was still retained of having six tribuni militum for each legion. For their duties and the manner of their appointment, see EXERCITUSBut the term tribuni militum came also to be used with a somewhat different application. If the needs of the state required that more than two armies should be sent out, instead of two consuls a larger number of commanders was appointed under the title of tribuni militum consulari potestate. The first recorded instance of When in such an appointment is in B.C. 445, when the plebeians were pressing their claim to be held eligible for the consulship, and the senate in order to avoid a decision upon the point resolved that consular tribunes should be elected. (Liv. 4.6, 8: per haec consilia eo deducta est res, ut tribunos militum consulari potestate promiscue ex patribus ac plebe creari sinerent, de consulibus creandis nihil mutaretur.) But there is no definite evidence that this was the date of the first institution of such an office; and the reference to a law permitting it (Liv. 4.31, 11) may refer to that by which the consulate was substituted for the kingship, as well as to a special law now passed. Another and perhaps an earlier account (Liv. 4.7, 2) represents military necessity as the sole reason for the change. Certainly the highest number of consular tribunes was elected in a year (B.C. 405) when the strain of a continuous siege first came upon the state. The fasti show that the number varied between three, four, and six, but there were never five. Where eight are mentioned, two seem to have acted as censors, not as consuls, and probably were not strictly speaking tribunes at all. The number five was evidently avoided, as not admitting of an even division of the fasces for the twelve months of the year.

It is pretty plain that the tribuni militum consulari potestate were simply the ordinary six tribunes, holding office with special powers conferred upon them. If the number sometimes fell below six, this was only because, if an insufficient number were elected with the consular authority, there was no constitutional means of filling up the places with others similarly privileged, and those subsequently elected ranked only as ordinary tribunes.

When in B.C. 367 the Licinian law abolished the office of consular tribune and threw open the consulate to the plebeians, the immediate result was to deprive the people of the right of electing the tribuni militum, so that the right had to be restored to them by a special law five years afterwards (Liv. 7.5: cf. O. Lorenz, Das Consulartribunat, Vienna, 1855).

There is no reason to doubt (as has been done by Becker, 2.2, 137; Schwegler, 3.112, and others) that the consular tribunes possessed, as their title indicates, the full consular powers, including judicial as well as military functions, and the right of appointing a dictator (Liv. 4.31). They were elected auspicato in the Comitia Centuriata (Liv. 5.52, 16), and enjoyed all the insignia of the consuls; but they had no right to triumph, nor did they become consulares, so that they did not by virtue of their office enter the higher ranks of the senate. This was the main practical difference between the consular tribunate and the consulship. The office was definitely abolished by the Licinian law ne tribunorum militum comitia fierent consulumque utique alter ex plebe crearetur (Liv. 6.35); and we never hear of it after this date, except in an abortive suggestion of the tribunes of the commons in B.C. 53 (Dio Cass.). Cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. 2.173-184: the account given by Becker, Röm. Alt. 2.2, 136 if., is in some respects antiquated.

5. TRIBUNI PLEBIS.There can be little doubt that the name of these officers of the commons was derived from that of the tribunes of the soldiers. By the side of the privileged citizens, the patricii, there was a body, recognised as belonging to the community, but at first destitute of all political rights, the plebs. This body, by the constitution ascribed to Servius Tullius, acquired the right of serving in the army and holding positions of command (tribunatus), and at the same time of voting in the assembly of the centuries. Their next step was to constitute themselves into an assembly of their own, the concilium plebis, presided over by magistrates of their own, the tribuni and aediles plebis. According to the generally received tradition, this step was the result of a secession of the plebs to the mons sacer in the district of Crustumeria in the year B.C. 494. Whatever may be the historical value of the details, there is no reasonable doubt that about this time the plebs acquired the right of collective action under leaders of their own choice. At first the, election was made comitiis curiatis (Dionys. 6.89, 9.41-Z2: cf. Cic. pro Corn. ap. Ascon. p. 76): this has been generally taken to mean that the election was made by a purely patrician body; and an attempt has been made to defend this view by assuming that the plebeians, after settling among themselves who their candidates should be, nominated these and no others for the patricians formally to elect, so that they might secure their approval (cf. Bouché--Leclercq, Institutions Romaines, p. 69, note). But it is much simpler to suppose that the plebeians alone assembled by curies for the election (so Mommsen and Willems). The tradition further asserts that the tribunes were in B.C. 494 recognised as inviolable by a lex sacrata (Liv. 2.33). Here, again, disputes have arisen. Lange, representing the school of Niebuhr, holds that this was a formal compact, ratified by the fetiales, between the patricians and the plebeians (cf. Dionys. 6.84, 89; 7.40-Z2). Mommsen, on the other hand, contends that the lex sacrata was only a solemn oath, sworn to by the plebs, that they would regard any wrong done to their tribunes as an inexpiable offence, and would avenge it accordingly. This view is supported by the fact that the plebiscittum of Icilius in B.C. 492 (Dionys. 7.22), which assured to the tribunes freedom of speech and the jus auxilii, would have been superfluous if the preceding lex sacrata had been a compact between the orders. This view is also in harmony with the definition of sacrosanctus given by Festus, s. v. There is a further discussion as to the number of the original tribunes. The tradition is that they were at first two in number, afterwards raised to five, and then again to ten. But while the oldest authorities speak of B.C. 471 as the date at which the number was raised to five, others represent the two first elected as at once co-opting three others. The increase from five to ten (two from each class) is placed by Livy and Dionysius in B.C. 457 (Liv. 3.30; Dionys. 10.30), though the former carelessly speaks of ten tribunes in B.C. 480 (2.44, 6), and Die Cassius (cf. Zonaras (Zonar. 7.15) gives a different account. These statements are open to much doubt, especially that as to the classes from which the tribunes were taken: such a provision would be quite unexampled, and there seems to, have been no reason for it. Probably it was only an illegitimate inference from the number of the tribunes. It seems most probable that there were originally two tribunes and two aediles of the plebs, answering to the two consuls and two quaestors of the community. It is certain that after the decemvirate there were always ten tribunes (Liv. 3.54, 11, &c.)

The tribuni plebis were naturally always plebeians; the only case of a patrician holding the office is when two were co-opted in B.C. 448 (Liv. 3.65); and this seems doubtful (cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. 2.265, 4). They were elected, perhaps when chosen by the curies, and certainly when chosen by the tribes, under the, presidency of the outgoing tribunes. At first, if the number of tribunes elected was not equal to the vacancies, the one or more elected had the power of co-optation; but in B.C. 448 this was done away with by the law of Trebonius (Liv. 3.65), which enacted that the election should be continued until the full number had been chosen. There was no interregnum allowed, as in the case of the consuls: the plebs was never to be left without its tribunes (Liv. 3.55; cf. 64, 9). The office was held only for a year; and just as in the case of the consulship, all the tribunes were colleagues, in the sense that each separately could exercise the full power of the office, but could be prevented from acting by the interposition of any of the others.

The functions of the tribunes varied with the legal position of the plebs, of which they were the representatives. Originally the plebs was only a voluntary combination of unenfranchised citizens, and so had no political rights. During this period, of which we have no trustworthy accounts, the tribunes were non populi sed plebis magistratus: any powers conceded to them were possessed simply as attaching to the organs of popular force. Next the plebs was recognised as an organised body within the community, and the magistrates of the community were bound by certain restrictions in their action towards the representatives of the commons: that is to say, the tribunes acquired the right of veto, and all that followed from it. Finally, the plebs was so far identified with the community, that its action was regarded legally as the action of the community. This is the stage reached in the Hortensian law of B.C. 287. The tribunes now become magistrates of the community, with positive as well as negative powers, and especially with the right to transact business directly with the senate.

As the tribunes did not originate as magistrates of the community, they had none of the insignia of magistracy, no lictors, fasces, or purple border to their togas; nor had they the curule chair. They had, however, the right of sitting on the subsellium, which became a kind of token of their office. As not being magistrates they further had no right of consulting the gods (auspicia impetrativa) on behalf of the Roman people, though there may have been a kind of quasi-private plebeian auspices, so that the place where the plebs met was called a templum (Liv. 2.56, 10; 3.17-Z2, 1;--Cic. pro Sest. 29, 62; 35, 75). But the plebeian magistrates were all created inauspicato (Liv. 6.41, 5), at least after they were elected by the tribes, and a plebiscitum was a lex inauspicata. On the other hand, they were not at liberty to neglect omens sent by the gods (auspicia oblativa), and a storm broke up a concilium plebis as much as the Comitia: hence, too, the obnuntiatio held good in the case of plebeian assemblies. But perhaps the latter doctrine was put forward only for the political convenience of the nobles, and never really admitted by the commons (cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. 2.275).

The tribune's duties, again, never included what was understood by the imperium: he never had either military command or civil jurisdiction; and his powers did not extend beyond the first milestone from the city. If we distinguish the time before the Hortensian law from that which followed it, we find that for the former the tribunician power consisted essentially in three functions. 1. They had the right to summon meetings of the plebs, and to take votes on resolutions proposed to them. Mommsen finds the basis of their power to lie in the plebiscitum passed by Icilius in 472, which was a general oath that they would tolerate no interference with this; right on the part of the magistrates. Private-persons also interrupting a tribune while speaking were liable to punishment (Val. Max., 2; Plin. Ep. 1.23, 2).2. The right of intercessio, or veto, as it is called (by a term which has little or no ancient authority), was a right within due limits assigned to every magistrate in relation to a colleague or an inferior magistrate. But it acquired an importance in practice with the tribunes, which transcended anything to be found elsewhere. It is very doubtful whether it can have been acquired in its full extent all at once, and the common opinion that it was at first limited to the jus auxilii is not based on any good authority. It seems more probable that it was only the outcome of a series of struggles, which our materials do not allow us to trace in detail. But it. acquired special importance in the case of the tribunes, partly because they were so destitute of more active functions, and partly because circumstances tended to call forth the exercise of the veto by the tribunes, rather than by any other magistrates. Undoubtedly it was mainly employed for auxilium, i. e. for the protection of any citizen (patrician as well as plebeian: Liv. 3.13, 9; 56, 5; 8.33-Z2, 7; 9.26-Z2, 16) against a magistrate's sentence. To secure that this should be always accessible, the tribunes were forbidden to sleep out of the city during their time of office (the Latin feast alone being an exception), and required to leave their house-doors open night and day. But we find one or two instances where tribunes were exempted from this law by the senate, and sent on special business of importance to generals in the field (Liv. 9.36, 14; 29.20-Z2). Their official duties were always discharged in public, and at a later time the regular place for them was the Porcia Basilica.

But the right of veto extended also to proposals brought before the people in the Comitia, as well as to those brought before the plebs. In the latter case this was merely an application of the right to stop a colleague's action: the former seems more surprising, but it probably arose from the need of hindering resolutions which would have interfered with the rights of the commons. We find it employed in a consular election as early as B.C. 483 (Dionys. 8.90), and in a prosecution by the quaestors in B.C. 459 (Liv. 3.24, 7). The right of vetoing a resolution of the senate, or rather the action of the magistrate needful for its passing, is mentioned first in B.C. 445 (Liv. 4.6, 6), but not as any new thing. At this time the tribunes. had no right to enter the senate, but sat on their subsellia before the doorways, and did not; interfere in the debate, but only during or after the voting. The veto can hardly have been exercised so long as the resolution of the senate was in theory simply advice to the magistrates as to their action. It is probable therefore that it was not employed until the senatus auctoritas became constitutionally necessary, in order that a resolution of the commons should be binding on the whole community. If a tribune vetoed the act of any magistrate beforehand, and it was still done, it was not therefore invalidated, but the magistrate was liable to punishment; but if the act was vetoed afterwards, it became legally of no effect. One tribune could impose the veto, and all the others could not remove it; but any one of the tribunes by his veto could stop a colleague from carrying out any threatened punishment for disregard of the veto.

The threat of punishment could naturally only be directed against private persons when discharging some public function (Cic. Clu. 27, 74; cf. Sail. Jug. 34). We find, however, numerous instances in which the tribunes summoned persons to appear before a contio, and there answer questions (Cic. in Phil. vi.; ad Att. 1.14, 1; 14.20, 5; in Vet. 10, 24: cf. Gell. 13.12, 6).

3. The right of intercessio would have been meaningless without the support given to it by the right of coercitio, or enforcing obedience, and the latter was a necessary result of the claim of the commons to self-defence. Every action, which was regarded as threatening to the commons or their representatives the tribunes, was exposed to punishment by fine, by seizure of goods, or even by death. The only limits set to this power of the tribunes were those resulting from the interposition of another colleague or from an appeal to the people (provocatio). At first the appeal lay solely to the commons; but as it was manifestly unfair that a patrician should have to appeal to a body of which he was not a member (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 1.209), the Twelve Tables provided that in capital cases the tribunes should prosecute a citizen before the centuries; and that it should be only in cases of fine that the tribes should hear the appeal. If we are right in regarding, with Mommsen, the sacrosancta potestas of the tribunes as based upon a revolutionary movement of self-defence, it ought properly to have ceased when the tribuneship, after the fall of the decemvirs, was recognised as a permanent part of the constitution by the Valerio-Horatian law. As a matter of fact both law and oath were employed (Liv. 3.55) in the re-establishment of the tribuneship; and the two conceptions of legitimate and sacrosanct power continued to exist side by side, so that both Julius and Augustus were able to make use of the latter for their own purposes.

The cessation of all strife between the orders, to which the Hortensian law bore witness, marked the stage at which the tribunes became magistrates of the community. From this time down to the end of the Republic their power was practically always on the increase, except for a very short period. In B.C. 81 Sulla greatly reduced it by depriving them of all power of proposing laws, and by enacting that any one who had held the tribuneship should thereby be disqualified from standing for any other office, so excluding all men of energy and ambition (Liv. Ep. lxxxix.; Veil. 2.30; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1.100, 2.29). But in B.C. 70 Pompeius restored to the tribunes all their old powers and. rights (Liv. Ep. 97, &c.). Their right of addressing the centuries remained limited to the cases where they appeared as prosecutors, but their freedom of action in relation to the tribes was unrestricted. Their right of veto was restricted only in a few cases, as by the law of Gaius Gracchus in B.C. 123 in relation to the consular provinces, and in trials by the quaestiones perpetuae (cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. 1.262); practically it became a mere implement of political warfare, as often used against as in the interests of the popular party. It was a result of their magisterial position that they now frequently presided at the election of magistrates, especially in the case of extraordinary appointments. Whether the consul or the tribune presided was doubtless generally determined by the law under which the appointment was made. With regard to their legislative powers, after the Hortensian law there was nothing to prevent legislation upon any matter being brought forward before the tribes by the tribunes, though usage left some questions, especially that of declaring war, to the centuries. Now, too, the plebiscitum was described as lex sive id plebi scitum est, whence it came naturally to be often called simply a lex, as we see from the fragments of the lex de repetundis and de agris dividundis. As for their power of coercitio, this developed into a general right to prosecute for offences against the community, especially in the case of offending magistrates upon the expiry of their term of office (cf. Liv. 9.26, 12; 41.7-Z2, 10). Most of the numerous instances of their action which are recorded, have to do with consuls, prosecuted for neglect of their duties in the field, or for gross instances of misuse of their powers. But there are cases of the prosecution of private citizens for offences against the state. When the law imposed upon the magistrates the duty of punishing by fine a definite offence, it is generally the aediles, not the tribunes, who take action. Sulla took away from the tribunes their power of prosecuting, and conferred it upon the quaestio majestatis: and this continued to exist after the tribunes had had their powers restored to them, so that after this date their action occurs rarely and exceptionally. Finally, as magistrates, the tribunes acquired the right not only of sitting and speaking in the senate, but also of convening and consulting it. But when and how this came to be the practice, we cannot definitely determine. The authorities are inconsistent and self-contra-dictory. Dionysius (Dionys. 10.31) represents Icilius as attempting to summon the senate in B.C. 456, but he nowhere indicates that the tribunes really had this power. Livy represents a tribune as present in the senate in B.C. 462 (3.9, 11), and as speaking there in B.C. 420 (4.44, 7). But the first trustworthy instance is in B.C. 216 (Liv. 22.61); and it is most reasonable to suppose that the power of independent legislation given by the Hortensian law was accompanied by the right to consult the senate beforehand as to proposed measures. It never, however, became usual for a tribune to convene the senate instead of the consuls or the praetor urbanus. Under the Empire the right was retained (Tac. Ann. 6.18), but rarely exercised. Besides these definite powers, the tribunes often appear as joining in the common action of the magistrates in times of national danger, or meeting special emergencies by their independent authority (cf. Cic. in Verr. 2.4. 1, 100; de Off. 3.20, 80; Tac. Hist. 2.91; Plin. Ep. 9.13, 19).

Under the Empire the tribuneship became a mere shadow of its former self, the emperor exercising all its functions by virtue of his tribunicia potestas. Pliny (Plin. Ep. 1.23) gives a very interesting account of the manner in which it was regarded in his own day. It appears on the roll of magistracies in the early part of the third century; but disappears after Alexander Severus allowed candidates to proceed from the quaestorship to the praetorship. The name is only retained in the superscription of formal addresses to the senate as late as A.D. 423. Perhaps the title was still formally conferred on a certain number of the senators. (Cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, 2.261-318.)

[A.S.W]

Tribūnus

a tribune; a word that seems originally to have indicated an officer connected with a tribe (tribus), or who represented a tribe for certain purposes; and this is indeed the character of the officers who were designated by it in the earliest times of Rome, and may be traced also in the later officers of this name.

(1) Tribunes of the three ancient Tribes.— At the time when all the Roman citizens were contained in the three tribes of the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, each of these was headed by a tribune, and these three tribunes represented their respective tribes in all civil, religious, and military affairs; that is to say, they were in the city the magistrates of the tribes, and performed the sacra on their behalf, and in times of war they were their commanders. The tribunus celerum was the commander of the Celeres, the king's body-guard, and not the tribune of the tribe of the Ramnes, as is supposed by some modern writers. In what manner the Tribunus Celerum was appointed is uncertain, but it is probable that he was elected by the tribes; for we find that when the imperium was to be conferred upon the king, the Comitia were held under the presidency of the Tribunus Celerum; and in the absence of the king, to whom this officer was next in rank, he convoked the Comitia: it was in an assembly of this kind that Brutus proposed to deprive Tarquinius of the imperium. A law passed under the presidency of the Tribunus Celerum was called a lex tribunicia, to distinguish it from one passed under the presidency of the king. The tribunes of the three ancient tribes ceased to be appointed when these tribes themselves ceased to exist as political bodies, and when the patricians became incorporated in the local tribes of Servius Tullius. See tribus.

(2) Tribunes of the Servian Tribes.—When Servius Tullius divided the commonalty into thirty local tribes, we again find a tribune at the head of these tribes. The duties of these tribunes, who were without doubt the most distinguished persons in their respective districts, appear to have consisted at first in keeping a register of the inhabitants in each district, and of their property, for purposes of taxation, and for levying the troops for the armies. When subsequently the Roman people became exempted from taxes, the main part of their business was taken from them, but they still continued to exist. The tribuni aerarii, who occur down to the end of the Republic, were perhaps only the successors of the tribunes of the tribes. When (B.C. 406) the custom of giving pay (stipendium) to the soldiers was introduced, each of the Tribuni Aerarii had to collect the tributum (q. v.) in his own tribe, and with it to pay the soldiers; and in case they did not fulfil this duty, the soldiers had the right of pignoris capio against them. In later times their duties appear to have been confined to collecting the tributum, which they made over to the military quaestors who paid the soldiers. (See quaestor.) The Lex Aurelia, B.C. 70, called the Tribuni Aerarii to the exercise of judicial functions along with the senators and equites, as these tribunes represented the body of the most respectable citizens. But of this distinction they were subsequently deprived by Iulius Caesar.

(3) Tribūni Plebis (δήμαρχοι).—The ancient tribunes of the plebeian tribes had undoubtedly the right of convoking the meetings of their tribes, and of maintaining the privileges granted to them by King Servius, and subsequently by the Valerian laws. But this protection was very inadequate against the insatiable ambition and usurpations of the patricians. When the plebeians, impoverished by long wars, and cruelly oppressed by the patricians, at last seceded in B.C. 494 to the Mons Sacer, the patricians were obliged to grant to the plebeians the right of appointing tribunes (tribuni plebis) with more efficient powers to protect their own order than those which were possessed by the heads of the tribes. The purpose for which they were appointed was only to afford protection against any abuse on the part of the patrician magistrates; and that they might be able to afford such protection their persons were declared sacred and inviolable, and it was agreed that whoever invaded this inviolability should be an outlaw, and that his property should be forfeited to the Temple of Ceres. A subsequent law enacted that no one should oppose or interrupt a tribune while addressing the people, and that whoever should act contrary to this ordinance should give bail to the tribunes for the payment of whatever fine they should affix to his offence in arraigning him before the commonalty; if he refused to give bail, his life and property were forfeited. The tribunes were thus enabled to afford protection to any one who appealed to the assembly of the commonalty or required any other assistance. They were essentially the representatives and the organs of the plebeian order, and their sphere of action was the Comitia Tributa. With the patricians and their Comitia they had nothing to do. The tribunes themselves, however, were not judges, and could inflict no punishments, but could only propose the imposition of a fine to the commonalty (multam irrogare). The tribunes were thus in their origin only a protecting magistracy of the plebs, but in the course of time their power increased to such a degree that it surpassed that of all other magistrates, and the tribunes then became a magistracy for the whole Roman people, in opposition to the Senate and the oligarchical party in general, although they had nothing to do with the administration or the government. During the latter period of the Republic they became true tyrants, and may be compared to the National Convention of France during the first Revolution. At first the number of the tribunes was only two, but soon afterwards they were increased to five, one being taken from each of the five classes, and subsequently to ten, two being taken from each of the five classes. This last number appears to have remained unaltered down to the end of the Empire. The tribunes entered upon their office on the 10th of December, but were elected, at least in the time of Cicero, on the 17th of July. It is almost superfluous to state that none but plebeians were eligible to the office of tribune; hence when, towards the end of the Republic, patricians wished to obtain the office, they were obliged first to renounce their own order and to become plebeians; hence also, under the Empire, it was thought that the princeps (q. v.) should not be tribune because he was a patrician. But the influence which belonged to this office was too great for the emperors not to covet it. Hence Augustus was made tribune for life. During the Republic, however, the old regulation remained in force, even after the tribunes had ceased to be the protectors of the plebs alone. There is only one instance recorded in which patricians were elected to the tribuneship, and this was probably the consequence of an attempt to divide the tribuneship between the two orders. Although nothing appears to be more natural than that the tribunes should originally have been elected by that body of Roman citizens which they represented, yet the subject is involved in considerable obscurity. Some writers state that they were elected by the Comitia Curiata; others suppose that they were elected in the Comitia Centuriata; but whether they were elected in the latter or in the Comitia of the Tribes, it is certain that at first the sanction of the curies to the election was at all events necessary. But after the time of the Lex Publilia (B.C. 472) the sanction of the curies is not heard of, and the election of the tribunes was left entirely to the Comitia Tributa, which were convoked and held for this purpose by the old tribunes previous to the expiration of their office. One of the old tribunes was appointed by lot to preside at the election. As the meeting could not be prolonged after sunset, and the business was to be completed in one day, it sometimes happened that it was obliged to break up before the election was completed, and then those who were elected filled up the legitimate number of the college by coöptatio. But in order to prevent this irregularity, the tribune L. Trebonius, in B.C. 448, got an ordinance passed, according to which the college of the tribunes should never be completed by coöptatio, but the elections should be continued on the second day, if they were not completed on the first, till the number ten was made up. The place where the election of the tribunes was held was originally and lawfully the Forum, afterwards also the Campus Martius, and sometimes the area of the Capitol.

We now proceed to trace the gradual growth of the tribunitian power. Although its original character was merely protection (auxilium or βοήθεια) against patrician magistrates, the plebeians appear early to have regarded their tribunes also as mediators or arbitrators in matters among themselves. The whole power possessed by the college of tribunes was designated by the name tribunicia potestas, and extended at no time farther than one mile beyond the gates of the city; at a greater distance than this they came under the imperium of the magistrates, like every other citizen. As they were the public guardians, it was necessary that every one should have access to them at any time; hence the doors of their houses were open day and night for all who were in need of help and protection, which they were empowered to afford against any one, even against the highest magistrates. For the same reason a tribune was not allowed to be absent from the city for a whole day, except during the Feriae Latinae, when the whole people were assembled on the Alban Mount. In B.C. 456 the tribunes, in opposition to the consuls, assumed the right of convoking the Senate, in order to lay before it a rogation, and discuss the same; for until that time the consuls alone had had the right of laying plebiscita before the Senate for approbation. Some years after, B.C. 452, the tribunes demanded of the consuls to request the Senate to make a senatusconsultum for the appointment of persons to frame a new legislation; and during the discussions on this subject the tribunes themselves were present in the Senate. The written legislation which the tribunes then wished can only have related to their own order; but as such a legislation would only have widened the breach between the two orders, they afterwards gave way to the remonstrances of the patricians, and the new legislation was to embrace both orders. From the second decemvirate the tribuneship was suspended, but was restored after the legislation was completed, and now assumed a different character from the change that had taken place in the tribes. (See tribus.) The tribunes now had the right to be present at the deliberations of the Senate; but they did not sit among the senators themselves, but upon benches before the opened doors of the senate-house. The inviolability of the tribunes, which had before only rested upon a contract between the two estates, was now sanctioned and confirmed by a law of M. Horatius. As the tribes now also included the patricians and their clients, the tribunes might naturally be asked to interpose on behalf of any citizen, whether patrician or plebeian. Hence the patrician ex-decemvir Appius Claudius implored the protection of the tribunes. About this time the tribunes also acquired the right of taking the auspices in the assemblies of the tribes. They also assumed again the right, which they had exercised before the time of the decemvirate, of bringing patricians who had violated the rights of the plebeians before the Comitia of the Tribes. By the Lex Valeria, passed in the Comitia Centuriata (B.C. 449), it was enacted that a plebiscitum, which had been voted by the tribes, should bind the patricians as well. While the college thus gained outwardly new strength every day, a change took place in its internal organization which to some extent paralyzed its powers. Before B.C. 394, everything had been decided in the college by a majority; but about this time, we do not know how, a change was introduced, which made the opposition (intercessio) of one tribune sufficient to render a resolution of his colleagues void. This new regulation does not appear in operation till 394 and 393 b.c.; the old one was still applied in B.C. 421 and 415. From their right of appearing in the Senate, and of taking part in its discussions, and from their being the representatives of the whole people, they gradually obtained the right of intercession against any action which a magistrate might undertake during the time of his office, and this even without giving any reason for it. Thus we find a tribune preventing a consul from convoking the Senate, and preventing the proposal of new laws or elections in the Comitia; they interceded against the official functions of the censors; and even against a command issued by the praetor. In the same manner a tribune might place his veto upon an ordinance of the Senate; and he could thus either compel the Senate to submit the subject to a fresh consideration, or could raise the session. In order to propose a measure to the Senate they might themselves convene a meeting, or when it had been convened by a consul they might make their proposal even in opposition to the consul, a right which no other magistrates had in the presence of the consuls. The Senate, on the other hand, had itself, in certain cases, recourse to the tribunes. Thus, in B.C. 431 it requested the tribunes to compel the consuls to appoint a dictator, in compliance with a decree of the Senate, and the tribunes compelled the consuls, by threatening them with imprisonment, to appoint A. Postumius Tubertus dictator. From this time forward we meet with several instances in which the tribunes compelled the consuls to comply with the decrees of the Senate, si non essent in auctoritate senatus, and to execute its commands. In their relation to the Senate a change was introduced by the plebiscitum Atinium, which ordained that a tribune, by virtue of his office, should be a senator. When this plebiscitum was made is uncertain; but we know that in B.C. 170 it was not yet in operation. It probably originated with C. Atinius, who was tribune in B.C. 132. But as the quaestorship, at least in later times, was the office which persons held previously to the tribuneship, and as the quaestorship itself conferred upon a person the right of a senator, the law of Atinius was in most cases superfluous.

In their relation to other magistrates we may observe, that the right of intercessio was not confined to stopping a magistrate in his proceedings, but they might even command their viatores to seize a consul or a censor, to imprison him, or to throw him from the Tarpeian Rock. When the tribunes brought an accusation against any one before the people, they had the right of prehensio, but not the right of vocatio; that is, they might command a person to be dragged by their viatores before the Comitia, but they could not summon him. They might, as in earlier times, propose a fine to be inflicted upon the person accused before the Comitia, but in some cases they dropped this proposal and treated the case as a capital one. The college of tribunes had also the power of making edicts. In cases in which one member of the college opposed a resolution of his colleagues nothing could be done, and the measure was dropped; but this useful check was removed by the example of Tiberius Gracchus, in which a precedent was given for proposing to the people that a tribune obstinately persisting in his veto should be deprived of his office. From the time of the Hortensian law the power of the tribunes had been gradually rising to such a height that at length it was superior to every other in the State. They had acquired the right of proposing to the Comitia Tributa or the Senate measures on nearly all the important affairs of the State, and it would be endless to enumerate the cases in which their power was manifested. Their proposals were indeed usually made ex auctoritate senatus, or had been communicated to and approved by it; but in cases in which the people itself had a direct interest, such as a general legal regulation, granting of the franchise, a change in the duties and powers of a magistrate, and others, might be brought before the people, without their having been previously communicated to the Senate, though there are also instances of the contrary. Subjects belonging to the administration could not be brought before the tribes without the tribunes having previously received through the consuls the auctoritas of the Senate. This, however, was done very frequently, and hence we have mention of a number of plebiscita on matters of administration. It sometimes even occurs that the tribunes brought the question concerning the conclusion of peace before the tribes, and then compelled the Senate to ratify the resolution, as expressing the wish of the whole people. Sulla , in his reform of the constitution on the early aristocratic principles, left to the tribunes only the ius auxiliandi, and deprived them of the right of making legislative or other proposals, either to the Senate or the Comitia, without having previously obtained the sanction of the Senate. But this arrangement did not last, for Pompey restored to them their former rights. During the latter period of the Republic, when the office of quaestor was in most cases held immediately before that of tribune, the tribunes were generally elected from among the senators, and this continued to be the case under the Empire. Sometimes, however, equites also obtained the office, and thereby became members of the Senate, where they were considered of equal rank with the quaestors. The tribunes of the people continued to exist down to the fifth century of our era, though their powers became naturally much limited, especially in the reign of Nero. They continued, however, to have the right of intercession against decrees of the Senate, and on behalf of injured individuals. See R. Müller, Gesetz der zehn Tribunen (Berlin, 1877); and the account in Bouché-Leclercq, Institutions Romaines (Paris, 1886); Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 1876); and for a simpler treatment, see Marlot, Précis des Institutions Politiques de Rome (Paris, 1886).

(4) Tribūni milĭtum cum consulāri potestate.—When in B.C. 445 the tribune C. Canuleius brought forward the rogation that the consulship should not be confined to either order, the patricians evaded the attempt by a change in the constitution; the powers which had hitherto been united in the consulship were now divided between two magistrates—viz., the tribuni militum cum consulari potestate and the censors. Consequently, in B.C. 444, three military tribunes, with consular power, were appointed, and to this office the plebeians were to be equally eligible with the patricians. For the years following, however, the people were to be at liberty, on the proposal of the Senate, to decide whether consuls were to be elected according to the old customs, or consular tribunes. Henceforth, for many years, sometimes consuls and sometimes consular tribunes were appointed, and the number of the latter varied from three to four, until in B.C. 405 it was increased to six, and, as the censors were regarded as their colleagues, we have sometimes mention of eight tribunes. At last, however, in B.C. 367, the office of these tribunes was abolished by the Licinian law, and the consulship was restored. These consular tribunes were elected in the Comitia Centuriata, and undoubtedly with less solemn auspices than the consuls.

(5) Tribūni Militāres. See tribuni militum, p. 1601.