<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-eng3:10.9.1-10.9.14</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-eng3:10.9.1-10.9.14</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-eng3" type="edition" xml:lang="eng"><div n="10" subtype="book" type="textpart"><div n="9" subtype="chapter" type="textpart"><div n="1" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p>The Assembly was on the point of ordering the voting to proceed, and it
							was evident that the measure would be adopted, when, on the intervention
							of some of the tribunes, all further business was adjourned for the day.
						</p></div><div n="2" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> On the morrow, the dissentient tribunes having given way, the law was
							passed amid great enthusiasm. The co-opted pontiffs were P. Decius Mus,
							the supporter of the measure, P. Sempronius Sophus, C. Marcius Rutilus,
							and M. Livius Denter. The five augurs who were also taken from the plebs
							were C. Genucius, P. Aelius Paetus, M. Minucius Faesus, C. Marcius, and
							T. Publilius. </p></div><div n="3" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> So the number of the pontiffs was raised to eight and that of the augurs
							to nine. In<note anchored="true" type="sum" resp="ed" place="unspecified">The Valerian Law.</note> this year the consul, M. Valerius, carried
							a proposal to strengthen the provisions of the law touching the right of
							appeal. </p></div><div n="4" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> This was the third time since the expulsion of the kings that this law
							was re-enacted, and always by the same family. I think that the reason
							for renewing it so often was solely the fact that the excessive power
							exercised by a few men was dangerous to the liberties of the plebs. </p></div><div n="5" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> The Porcian law, however, seems to have been passed solely for the
							protection of the citizens in life and limb, for it imposed the severest
							penalties on any one who killed or scourged a Roman citizen. </p></div><div n="6" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> The Valerian law, it is true, forbade any one who had exercised his
							right of appeal to be scourged or beheaded, but if any one transgressed
							its provisions it added no penalty, but simply declared such
							transgression to be a “wicked act.” </p></div><div n="7" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Such was the self-respect and sense of shame amongst the men of those
							days, that I believe that declaration to have been a sufficiently strong
							barrier against violations of the law. </p></div><div n="8" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> Nowadays there is hardly a slave who would not use stronger language
							against his master. Valerius<note anchored="true" type="sum" resp="ed" place="unspecified">Wars with the Aequi and Umbrians.</note> also
							conducted a war against the Aequi, who had recommenced hostilities, but
							who retained nothing of their earlier character except their restless
							temper. The other consul, Apuleius, invested the town of Nequinum in
							Umbria. </p></div><div n="9" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> It was situated where Narnia now stands, on high ground which on one
							side was steep and precipitous, and it was impossible to take it either
							by assault or by regular siege works. </p></div><div n="10" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> It was left to the new consuls, M. Fulvius Paetus and T. Manlius
							Torquatus, to carry the siege to a successful issue. </p></div><div n="11" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p>According to Licinius Macer and Tubero, all the centuries intended to
							elect Q. Fabius consul for this year, but he urged them to postpone his
							consulship until some more important war broke out, for he considered
							that he would be more useful to the State as a City magistrate. So
							without dissembling his real wishes or ostensibly seeking the post, he
							was elected curule aedile along with L. Papirius Cursor. </p></div><div n="12" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> I cannot, however, be certain on this point, for the earlier annalist,
							Piso, states that the curule aediles for this year were Cn. Domitius,
							Cn. F. Calvinus, Sp. Carvilius, and Q. F. Maximus I think that the
							cognomen of the last-mentioned aedile —Maximus </p></div><div n="13" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p> —was the cause of the error, and that a story in which the lists of both
							elections were combined was constructed to fit in with the mistake. </p></div><div n="14" subtype="section" type="textpart"><p>The lustrum was closed this year by the censors, P. Sempronius Sophus and
							P. Sulpicius Saverrio, and two new tribes were added, the Aniensis and
							the Teretina. These were the principal events of the year in <placeName key="tgn,7013962">Rome</placeName>. </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>