Download the Full Ebook and Access More Features - ebookmass.

com

Cost and Management Accounting-I Mohammed Hanif

https://ebookmass.com/product/cost-and-management-
accounting-i-mohammed-hanif/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookmass.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Financial Accounting - I, Revised Fourth Edition Mohammed

Hanif

https://ebookmass.com/product/financial-accounting-i-revised-fourth-
edition-mohammed-hanif/

ebookmass.com

Financial Accounting - II [Paperback] HANIF & MUKHERJEE

Mohammed Hanif

https://ebookmass.com/product/financial-accounting-ii-paperback-hanif-
mukherjee-mohammed-hanif/

ebookmass.com

Management and Cost Accounting 11th Edition Mike Tayles

https://ebookmass.com/product/management-and-cost-accounting-11th-
edition-mike-tayles/

ebookmass.com

Bad Trust Michael A Kahn

https://ebookmass.com/product/bad-trust-michael-a-kahn-4/

ebookmass.com
Coronavirus Disease 2019: Coronaviruses and Blood Safety
Le Chang

https://ebookmass.com/product/coronavirus-disease-2019-coronaviruses-
and-blood-safety-le-chang/

ebookmass.com

Guide to Psychoanalytic Developmental Theories – Ebook PDF

Version

https://ebookmass.com/product/guide-to-psychoanalytic-developmental-
theories-ebook-pdf-version/

ebookmass.com

The Red Army And The Second World War Alexander Hill

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-red-army-and-the-second-world-war-
alexander-hill/

ebookmass.com

Bear in the Rough: Bear Shifter Romance (Broken Hill Bears

Book 1) Ariana Hawkes [Hawkes

https://ebookmass.com/product/bear-in-the-rough-bear-shifter-romance-
broken-hill-bears-book-1-ariana-hawkes-hawkes/

ebookmass.com

The Enchanted Music Box: A charming tale with enthralling

twists of time (GraceTown Book 4) Cindy Kirk

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-enchanted-music-box-a-charming-tale-
with-enthralling-twists-of-time-gracetown-book-4-cindy-kirk/

ebookmass.com
Economies of Literature and Knowledge in Early Modern
Europe: Change and Exchange Subha Mukherji

https://ebookmass.com/product/economies-of-literature-and-knowledge-
in-early-modern-europe-change-and-exchange-subha-mukherji/

ebookmass.com
Cost and Management Accounting-I
Cost and Management Accounting-I

Mohammed Hanif
Sr. Professor, Accounting & Finance
St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Kolkata

McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited

CHENNAI
McGraw Hill Education Offices
Chennai New York St Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogotá Caracas
Kuala Lumpur Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal
San Juan Santiago Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto
 McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited
Published by McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited
444/1, Sri Ekambara Naicker Industrial Estate, Alapakkam, Porur, Chennai 600 116

Cost and Management Accounting-I

Copyright © 2018 by McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of the publishers. The program
listings (if any) may be entered, stored and executed in a computer system, but they may not be reproduced for publication.

This edition can be exported from India only by the publishers,

McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D103074 22 21 20 19 18
Printed and bound in India.
ISBN (13): 978-93-87572-42-3
ISBN (10): 93-87572-42-0
Director—Science & Engineering Portfolio: Vibha Mahajan
Senior Portfolio Manager: Suman Sen
Associate Portfolio Manager: Laxmi Singh
Senior Manager—Content Development: Shalini Jha
Content Developer: Amit Chatterjee
Production Head: Satinder S Baveja
Senior Manager—Production: Piyaray Pandita
General Manager—Production: Rajender P Ghansela
Manager—Production: Reji Kumar

Information contained in this work has been obtained by McGraw Hill Education (India), from sources believed to be reliable. However,
neither McGraw Hill Education (India) nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein, and
neither McGraw Hill Education (India) nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this
information. This work is published with the understanding that McGraw Hill Education (India) and its authors are supplying information
but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate
professional should be sought.

Typeset at APS Compugraphics, 4G, PKT 2, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi 96, and printed at

Cover Printer:
Visit us at: www.mheducation.co.in
Write to us at: [email protected]
CIN: U22200TN1970PTC111531
Toll Free Number: 1800 103 5875
 Preface

In the last few years, there have been many changes in the field of Cost and Management Accounting. In
the past, the role of the cost and management accountants was very narrow. Nowadays, their job is not
only limited to report the past events to the management, but also they act as internal consultants. They
are actively involved in the decision-making process of the organisation. Hence, there is a dire need to
equip students with the skills required according to the dynamic requirements of the corporate world so
that they can pursue this profession with efficacy.
This book has been a modest approach in this direction. Cost and Management Accounting-I has
been structured as per the CBCS syllabus prescribed by the University of Calcutta w.e.f. 2017-18, for
the students of B. Com Semester II.
Thorough knowledge of the subject is of vital importance for the students, and hence, a sincere
effort has been made throughout this book to give students a clear view of the subject. Considering the
changing students’ need, a considerable restructuring of the book has been done, especially in terms of
pedagogical respect.
Previous years’ CU question papers with solutions have been provided in every chapter. The question
papers are further segregated into two categories: ‘for general course students’ and ‘for honours course
students’. The questions provided in the book will enable the students to assess the kind of questions
asked in the university examination and will also help them in evaluating their conceptual understanding.
An exclusive section named ‘special problems’ has been dedicated for advance learners. It includes
questions that are more challenging and are of higher order of difficulty.
A number of colleagues, friends and students helped in the preparation of this book. The author
thanks each and every one of them. Special thanks to Mr. S. Rangarajan for typesetting and formatting
the book.
Utmost care has been taken to make this book error-free, but still if any error comes up, it can be
addressed at [email protected]. All suggestions will be most welcomed.
M Hanif
 Brief Contents

1. Introduction to Cost Accounting 1.1–1.10

2. Cost Terms, Concepts and Classifications 2.1–2.18
3. Accounting for Materials 3.1–3.126
4. Employee Cost and Incentive Systems 4.1–4.86
5. Accounting for Overheads 5.1–5.128
6. Cost Book-Keeping 6.1–6.80
7. Job Costing and Batch Costing 7.1–7.66
8. Contract Costing 8.1–8.68
9. Operating/Service Costing 9.1–9.36
10. Process Costing 10.1–10.108
 Contents

Preface v
Brief Contents vii
Syllabus xxi

1. Introduction to Cost Accounting ........................................................................... 1.1–1.10

Definition of Cost Accounting 1.1
Role of Cost Accounting 1.2
Future Role of Cost Accounting 1.6
Installing a Cost Accounting System 1.6
Advantage of Cost Accounting System 1.7
Distinction between Financial Accounting and Cost Accounting 1.7
Meaning of Management Accounting 1.8
Distinction between Cost Accounting and Management Accounting 1.9
Theoretical Questions 1.10

2. Cost Terms, Concepts and Classifications ............................................................... 2.1–2.18

Introduction 2.1
Definition of Cost 2.1
Definition of Cost Object 2.1
Definition of Cost Unit 2.1
Composite Cost Units 2.2
Definition of Cost Centre 2.3
Distinction between Cost Centre and Cost Unit 2.3
Types of Cost 2.4
Classification of Costs 2.6
Basis of Classification 2.6
Classification on the Basis of Nature of Cost / Expense 2.6
Classification on the Basis of Relation to Cost Centre / Cost Object — Traceability 2.7
Summary of Analysis of Cost 2.8
 Contents
x

Classification on the Basis of Functions / Activities 2.9

Classification on the Basis of Behaviour 2.10
Classification on the Basis of Management Decision-Making 2.14
Classification on the Basis of Product Costs and Period Costs 2.14
Theoretical Questions 2.17
Practical Questions 2.17
Guide to Answers 2.18

3. Accounting for Materials ..................................................................................3.1–3.126

Section I : Purchasing, Receiving and Storing
Introduction 3.1
Materials Purchasing Procedures 3.1
Functions of the Purchasing Department 3.1
The Materials ‘Cycle’ 3.2
Qualifications of a Purchase Manager 3.3
The Purchase Requisition 3.3
The Purchase Order 3.4
Centralised vs. Decentralised Purchasing 3.5
Just-in-time Purchasing 3.6
Advantages of JIT Purchasing System 3.7
Materials Purchasing System and Changing Technology 3.7
Receiving of Materials 3.7
Functions of the Receiving Department 3.7
The Goods Received Note (or The Receiving Report) 3.8
Material Cost 3.9
Summary of Treatment of Different Items in the Determination of Purchase Cost 3.10
Treatment of Containers for Materials Purchased 3.10
Storing of Materials 3.14
Duties of Store-keeper 3.14
Organisation of Stores Department 3.15
Bin Card 3.16
Stores Ledger 3.17
Distinction between Bin Card and Stores Ledger 3.18
Justification of Maintaining Bin Cards 3.18
Section II : Control of Materials
Control of Material – Main Considerations 3.19
Tools and Techniques Used for Control of Materials 3.20
ABC Analysis 3.20
Advantages of ABC Analysis 3.22
Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) 3.22
 Contents
xi

Computation of EOQ 3.23

Tabular Approach 3.23
Formula Approach 3.24
Graphical Approach 3.26
Assumption of EOQ Model 3.26
Limitations of EOQ Model 3.27
Discount on Bulk Purchase 3.31
Production Lot Size / Economic Batch Quantity 3.40
Formula for Determining Economic Lot Size 3.41
Re-order Level and Safety Stock 3.43
Computation of Re-order Level 3.43
Maximum Stock Level 3.43
Factors on which Maximum Stock Level are Dependent 3.44
Minimum Stock level 3.44
Factors on which Minimum Stock Level are Dependent 3.44
Average Stock Level 3.45
Perpetual Inventory System 3.51
Advantages of Perpetual Inventory System 3.51
Physical Inventory 3.51
Periodical Stock-Taking 3.52
Stock-Taking Procedure 3.52
Continuous Stock-Taking 3.53
Advantages of Continuous Stock-Taking 3.53
Reasons for Material Shortages and Overages 3.53
Treatment of Material Losses 3.54
Scrap 3.54
Spoilage 3.54
Defective 3.55
Waste 3.55
Previous Years’ C.U. Question Paper (with Solution) 3.56
For General Candidates 3.56
For Honours Candidates 3.60
Section III : Issuing Materials
Materials Requisition 3.71
Bill of Materials 3.72
Advantages of using Bill of Materials 3.72
Limitations of using Bill of Materials 3.72
Pricing the Issues of Materials 3.73
Factors for Selecting a Particular Method 3.73
FIFO (First in, First Out) Method 3.74
LIFO (Last in, First Out) Method 3.77
 Contents
xii

Simple Average Method 3.83

Weighted Average Method 3.85
Specific Identification Method 3.87
Base Stock Method 3.87
Periodic Simple Average Method 3.90
Periodic Weighted Average Method 3.91
Standard Cost Method 3.92
Replacement Cost Method 3.94
Which Method of Pricing Issues to be Adopted? 3.94
Requirement of Cost Accounting Standard (CAS-6) 3.94
Return of Materials from Factory to Stores 3.95
Materials Return to Vendors (Suppliers) 3.95
Previous Years’ C.U. Question Paper (with Solution) 3.99
For General Candidates 3.99
For Honours Candidates 3.109
Theoretical Questions 3.115
Practical Questions 3.116
Guide to Answers 3.125

4. Employee Cost and Incentive Systems .................................................................... 4.1–4.86

Section A: Personnel and Payroll
Introduction 4.1
The Personnel / Human Resource Department 4.1
Recording Labour Costs 4.3
The Time Keeping Department 4.3
Methods of Recording Hours Worked 4.3
Time Booking 4.5
The Payroll Department 4.6
Payroll Documents and Records 4.6
Computerised Payroll 4.7
The Cost Department 4.12
Section B: Remuneration and Incentives
Essential Features of a Successful Wages / Remuneration Payment Plan 4.13
Methods of Remuneration 4.13
Time–based Remuneration / Time Rates System 4.13
Advantages of Time-based Remuneration 4.15
Disadvantages of Time-based Remuneration 4.15
Treatment of Idle Time in Cost Accounting 4.15
 Contents
xiii

Normal Idle Time 4.15

Abnormal Idle Time 4.15
Cost Accounting Treatment 4.15
Treatment of Overtime Premium 4.16
Control of Overtime 4.16
Piecework Remuneration / Piece Rates System 4.16
Straight Piece Rates 4.16
Piece Rates with Guaranteed Day Rate 4.17
Differential Piece Rates 4.19
Taylor Differential Piece Rate System 4.20
Merrick Differential Piece Rate System 4.21
Gantt Task and Bonus System 4.22
Premium Bonus Systems / Incentive Schemes 4.22
Main Principles / Desirable Characteristics of a Good Incentive System 4.23
The Halsey Premium Scheme (50 : 50) 4.23
The Halsey–Weir Premium Scheme (30 : 70) 4.24
The Rowan Premium Scheme 4.24
Emerson Efficiency System 4.25
Group Bonus Scheme 4.61
Situations to adopt Group Bonus Scheme 4.61
Advantage of Group Bonus Scheme 4.61
Labour Turnover 4.64
Causes of Labour Turnover 4.64
Effects of Labour Turnover on Cost of Production 4.65
Treatment of Labour Turnover Cost in Cost Accounting 4.65
Remedial Steps to Minimise Labour Turnover 4.65
Measurement of Labour Turnover 4.66
Previous Years’ C.U. Question Paper (with Solution) 4.67
For General Candidates 4.67
For Honours Candidates 4.69
Job Evaluation 4.73
Objective of Job Evaluation 4.74
Methods of Job Evaluation 4.74
Merit Rating 4.74
Objectives of Merit Rating 4.75
Advantages of Merit Rating 4.75
Limitations of Merit Rating 4.75
Distinction between Job Evaluation and Merit Rating 4.75
Time Study 4.75
Time Study Procedures 4.76
Motion Study 4.76
 Contents
xiv

Theoretical Questions 4.76

Practical Questions 4.77
Guide to Answers 4.84

5. Accounting for Overheads .................................................................................5.1–5.128

Section 1: Definition and Classification of Overheads
Definition 5.1
Indirect Materials Cost 5.1
Indirect Labours Cost / Employees Costs 5.1
Indirect Expenses 5.2
Classification of Overheads 5.2
(a) Classification on the Basis of Functions 5.2
(b) Classification on the Basis of Behaviour 5.4
Section 2: Accounting for Production/Operation/Manufacturing Overheads
Introduction 5.6
Collection of Production / Operation / Manufacturing Overheads 5.7
Standing Order Number and Cost Accounting Number 5.7
Distribution of Production / Operation / Manufacturing Overheads 5.7
Primary and Secondary Distribution 5.9
Manufacturing / Production Departments 5.9
Service Departments 5.9
Allocation of Production / Operation / Manufacturing Overheads 5.9
Apportionment of Production / Operation / Manufacturing Overheads 5.9
Distinction between Allocation and Apportionment of Expenses 5.10
Steps for Allocation and Apportionment of All Production / Operation / Manufacturing
Overheads to Production and Service Departments 5.11
Re-apportionment of Service Department Overheads to Production
Department 5.15
(i) When there is only One Service Department 5.15
(ii) When there are Two or More Service Departments with Non-reciprocal Service 5.17
(iii) When there are Two or More Service Departments with Reciprocal Service 5.22
Methods for Solving the Problem of Reciprocal Basis Service 5.22
1. Repeated / Continuous Distribution Method 5.22
2. Simultaneous Equation Method / Algebraic Method 5.23
3. Direct Method 5.28
4. Trial and Error Method 5.29
5. Specified Order of Closing Method 5.30
Secondary Distribution – Which Method? 5.33
Absorption of Production or Operation Overheads 5.34
 Contents
xv

Selection of the Base 5.35

Choice Between Plantwide or a Departmental Rate 5.35
Different Bases Used for Overhead Absorption Rate Calculation 5.36
1. Direct Labour Cost 5.36
2. Direct Labour Hours 5.36
3. Machine Hours 5.37
4. Units of Production 5.38
5. Direct Materials Cost 5.38
6. Prime Cost 5.39
Previous Years’ C.U. Question Paper (with Solution) 5.53
For General Candidates 5.53
For Honours Candidates 5.59
Pre–determined Versus Actual Absorption Rate 5.63
Over and Under Absorption Overhead 5.63
Disposal of Over / Under Absorption of Overheads 5.74
1. Transfer to Costing Profit and Loss Account 5.74
2. Use of Supplementary Rate 5.74
3. Carry Forward to Next Period 5.75
Absorption of Production Overheads and Production Capacity 5.78
Cost Center Machine Hour Rates 5.85
Standing Charges 5.85
Running Expenses 5.86
Computation of Machine Hour Rate 5.86
Pure Machine Hour Rate 5.86
Comprehensive Machine Hour Rate 5.86
Group Machine Hour Rate 5.87
Previous Years’ C.U. Question Paper (with Solution) 5.95
For General Candidates 5.95
For Honours Candidates 5.97
Section 3: Administrative, Selling and Distribution Overheads
Administrative Overheads 5.101
Treatment of Administrative Overheads in Cost Accounts 5.101
Control of Administrative Overheads 5.101
Selling Overheads 5.102
Distribution Overheads 5.102
Assignment of Cost 5.102
Control of Selling and Distribution Overheads 5.103
Section 4: Treatment of Different Items in Cost Accounts
Theoretical Questions 5.107
Practical Questions 5.108
Guide to Answers 5.125
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
derived patrician as well as plebeian families from foreign sources.
[224] We are warranted in concluding that in adopting the Greek myth
of the asylum they looked upon it as a cause of increase in the
plebeian population without finding in it the origin of the plebeian
class.
To the theory of an exclusively patrician populus the following
objections may be summarily urged: (1) It is opposed by the
unanimous testimony of the ancient authorities. (2) It rests upon a
wrong explanation of the words patres, patricii, as designations of
the nobles. (3) It is further propped up by reasons so feeble as to
testify at once to its weakness, the more substantial basis having
been overthrown partly by Mommsen himself. (4) The number of
patricians is too small for the theory.[225] (5) It ignores the meaning
of the word plebs, which evidently signifies “the masses,” in contrast
with the few nobles, and hence could not apply to a class gradually
formed by the liberation of clients, or by the admission of foreigners.
No one who holds the theory has attempted to show what these
liberated clients were called when they were but few compared with
the patricians—before they became “the multitude.” (6) It is
contradicted by everything we know of Rome’s attitude towards
aliens. So far back as our knowledge reaches, she was extremely
liberal in bestowing the citizenship, even forcing it upon some
communities. Only when she acquired the rule over a considerable
part of Italy did she begin to show illiberality in this respect. Down to
353 the citizenship thus freely extended included the right to vote.
[226] (7) It assumes the existence of a community politically far
advanced yet showing no inequalities of rank among the freemen—a
condition outside the range of human experience. It aims to explain
the origin of the social classes on purely Roman ground, ignoring the
fact that distinctions of rank are far older than the city, and exist, at
least in germ, in the most primitive communities of which we have
knowledge.[227]

III. The Comparative-Sociological View

 As social classes belong to all society,[228] they cannot be
explained by the peculiar conditions of any one community. The only
scientific approach to this subject is through comparative study; the
inferences of the ancient historians relative to primitive Rome are not
to be displaced by purely subjective theories, but are to be tested by
comparison with conditions in other communities of equal or less
cultural advancement.
Distinctions of rank depend ultimately upon physical, mental, and
moral inequalities,[229] which differentiate the population of a
community into leaders and followers.[230] The exhibition of physical
strength and skill on the part of young men and of knowledge and
wisdom on the part of the elders are often “the foundation of
leadership and of that useful subordination in mutual aid which
depends on voluntary deference.”[231] In an age in which men were
largely under the control of religion the possession of an oracle or
skill in divination or prophecy might contribute as much to the
elevation of an individual above his fellows.[232] Leadership, once
obtained, could display and strengthen itself in various ways. In
primitive society the strong, brave, intelligent man was especially
qualified to take command in war. Success brought the chief not only
renown but a large share of the booty and in later time acquired land.
The same result might be obtained by other means than by war;[233]
but in any case wealth and influence inherited through several
generations made nobility.[234] Primarily grounded on ability, wealth,
and renown, this preëminence was often heightened by a claim to
divine lineage or other close connection with the gods.[235]
There was evidently a stage of development—before the
association of the nobles into a class—in which chieftains alone held
preëminence. This condition is common in primitive society, as
among the American Indians.[236] Also among the Germans, who
had advanced somewhat beyond this stage, each chief or lord
appears to have been noble “less with reference to other noblemen
than with reference to the other free tribesmen comprised in the
same group with himself.”[237] From Brehon law we infer that the
Irish lords were individually heads of their several groups of kinsmen
or of vassals;[238] and in Wales the nobles were a hierarchy of
chieftains.[239] As soon as leadership became hereditary there arose
noble families, in which the younger members were often sub-
chieftains;[240] and finally through intermarriage among these
families, as well as through the discovery of common interests, the
nobles associated themselves into a class.
Among the ancient Germans,[241] the Greeks of the Homeric age,
[242] and in some early Italian states[243] certain families had become
noble, and others were on the way to nobility. For ancient Ireland the
entire process can be followed. A common freeman enters the
service of some chief, from whom he receives permission to use
large portions of the tribe land.[244] By pasturing cattle, he grows
wealthy, becomes a bo-aire (cow-nobleman) and secures a band of
dependents. Supported by these followers, he preys upon his
neighbors and, if successful, becomes in time a powerful noble.[245]
After “a certain number of generations” he can no longer be
distinguished from the blooded nobility.[246] Here is an instance of a
common freeman’s becoming noble through service to a chief. In like
manner among the Saxons who had conquered England the ceorl
who “thrived so that he had fully five hides of land,” or the merchant
who had “fared twice over the wide sea by his own means,” became
a thane; “and if the thane thrived, so that he became an eorl, then
was he henceforth worthy of eorl-right.”[247] “The thanes were the
immediate companions of the king—his comitatus—and from their
first appearance in English history they took rank above the earlier
nobility of Saxon eorls, who were descended from ancient tribal
chiefs. Thus the thanes as a nobility of newly rich corresponded to
the cow-noblemen of an earlier time.”[248] In the way just described
many rose from the lower ranks to nobility. In fact, eminent
authorities assert that the inferior nobles, especially of the middle
age, were more often of servile than of free origin, as the common
freemen were inclined to think it degrading to be seen among the
comites of a chief.[249]
 It has now been sufficiently established that even in the tribal
condition people were differentiated into social ranks. We have
traced the beginning of nobility to leadership and have found, in both
ancient and mediaeval society, new noble families forming by the
side of the old. Social distinctions were well developed long before
the founding of cities. When a community, whether a tribe or a city, is
far enough advanced to begin the conquest of neighbors, “it has
already differentiated into royal, noble, free, and servile families.”[250]
This was true of Sparta. In her “the conquerors nevertheless,
notwithstanding great differences among themselves, remain sharply
separated in social function from the conquered.... The conquerors
became a religious, military, and political class, and the conquered
an industrial class.”[251] Even in the case of Sparta, however, which
is perhaps our best example of the exclusiveness of a ruling city,
there is evidence of mingling between the conquering Spartans and
the conquered Laconians before the former became exclusive.[252]
In like manner there was much mixing of the invading “Aryans” with
the natives of India—the more intelligent of the natives rising to the
higher classes and the less gifted of the invaders sinking to the lower
—before the crystallization of the castes.[253] We find the same
mingling of conquerors and conquered in varying degrees in ancient
Ireland,[254] in England under the Normans,[255] and throughout the
Roman empire in the period of Germanic settlements.[256] It
becomes doubtful, therefore, whether a nobility was ever formed
purely by the superposition of one community upon another. The
effect of conquest was rather to accentuate existing class
distinctions, and by a partial substitution of strangers in place of
native nobles to stir up antagonism between the classes. Even
where the differences between the social ranks seem to be racial, it
would be hazardous to resort to the race theory in explanation; for
such a condition could be produced in the course of generations by
different modes of life, education, nurture, and marriage regulations
of the nobles and commons respectively.[257]
The study pursued thus far will enable us to understand how there
came to be social classes at Rome before the beginning of
conquest. But for a long time after the Romans began to annex
territory we may seek in vain for a distinction between conquerors
and conquered, like that which we find in Laconia. We are forbidden
to identify the plebs with the conquered and the patricians with the
conquerors by many considerations mentioned above—for instance,
by tradition,[258] by the derivation of several patrician gentes from
various foreign states,[259] by the fewness of the patricians,[260] and
by the fact that the latter show no differentiations of rank, such as we
find among the conquering Spartans; they were not a folk but a
nobility pure and simple. We are to regard Rome’s early annexations
of territory and of populations not as subjugations, but as
incorporations on terms of equality. The people incorporated were of
the same great folk, the Latins, or of a closely related folk, the
Sabines. Accordingly they were not reduced to subjection, but were
admitted to citizenship, to the tribes and the curiae, and their nobles
were granted the patriciate.[261] Only communities of alien speech,
like the Etruscan, or distant Italian communities like the Campanian,
were ordinarily given the inferior civitas sine suffragio; and this
restricted citizenship does not appear in history before the middle of
the fourth century b.c.
The analogies offered in this chapter, by proving that the
conditions they illustrate are possible for early Rome, tend to confirm
the authority of the sources. By similar comparative study it would be
practicable to illustrate in detail and to corroborate the statements of
ancient writers as to the organization of the plebs, as well as of the
patricians, in tribes and curiae, the participation of the clients and
plebeians in war and politics, and the deterioration of the free
commons through the strengthening of the nobility—all of which are
rejected by eminent modern historians, who merely imagine them
incompatible with primitive conditions or with a rational theory of
constitutional development. The inquiry has been pursued far
enough, however, to indicate that from a comparative-sociological
point of view the conception of early Rome handed down to us by
the ancients is sound and consistent, and that the method of
subjective reconstruction of history introduced by Niebuhr and still
extensively employed by scholars is unscientific.
 I. Roman Society: Niebuhr, B. G., Römische Geschichte, i. 321 ff.; English, 158
ff.; Schwegler, A., Römische Geschichte, I. bk. xiv; Wigger, J., Verteidigung der
nieburschen Ansicht über den Ursprung der röm. Plebs; Peter, C., Geschichte
Roms, i. 31-3; Verfassungsgeschichte der röm. Republik; Studien zur röm.
Geschichte mit besonderer Beziehung auf Th. Mommsen; Ihne, W., History of
Rome, i. 109 ff.; Early Rome, ch. ix; Asylum of Romulus, in Classical Museum, iii
(1846). 190-3; Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der röm. Verfassungsgeschichte
(also translated into English by Heywood); Lange, L., Röm. Alt. i. 414 ff., and see
indices s. Patres, Plebs, etc.; Mommsen, Th., History of Rome, bk. 1. chs. v, vi;
Röm. Forschungen, i. 131-284; Röm. Staatsrecht, iii. 127 ff., and see indices s.
Patres, Plebs, etc.; Abriss d. röm. Staatsrechts, 3 ff.; Herzog, E., Geschichte und
System der röm. Staatsverfassung, i. 32 ff.; Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums,
ii. 515-7, 521 f.; v. 141-3; Plebs, in Handiwörterb. d. Staatswiss. vi. 98-106; Niese,
B., Grundriss der röm. Geschichte, 36 f.; Ampère, J. J., Histoire Romaine à Rome,
i. 440 ff.; ii. 15 ff.; Zöller, M., Latium und Rom, 163; Ridgeway, W., Early Age of
Greece, i. 254 ff.; Oberziner, G., Origine della plebe Romana; Conway, R. S., I due
strati di populazione Indo-Europea del Lazio e dell’Italia antica, in Rivista di storia
antica, vii (1903). 422-4; Hüllmann, K. D., Ursprünge der röm. Verfassung durch
Vergleichungen erläutert; Mispoulet, J. B., Institutions politiques des Romains, i. 14
ff.; Greenidge, A. H. J., Roman Public Life, 4 ff.; Abbott, F. F., Roman Political
Institutions, 6 ff.; Naudet, M., De la noblesse et des récompenses d’honneur chez
les Romains; Hoffmann, Patricische und plebeiische Curien; Pelham, H., Roman
Curiae, in (English) Journal of Philology, ix (1880). 266-79; Soltau, W., Altröm.
Volksversamml. 58 ff., 625 ff.; Bernhöft, F., Staat und Recht der röm. Königsz. 145
f.; Genz, H., Das patricische Rom; Clason, D. O., Kritische Erörterungen über den
röm. Staat; Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, bk. iv; Pellegrino, D., Andeutungen
über den ursprünglichen Religionsunterschied der röm. Patricier und Plebeier;
Hennebert, A., Histoire de la lutte entre les patriciens et les plébeiens à Rome;
Bloch, L., Die ständischen und sozialen Kämpfe in der röm. Republik; Wallinder,
De statu plebeiorum romanorum ante primam in montem sacrum secessionem
quaestiones; Neumann, K. J., Grundherrschaft der röm. Republik,
Bauernbefreiung und Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung; Holzapfel, L., Die
drei ältesten römischen Tribus, in Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, i (1902). 228-55;
Heydenreich, E., Livius und die röm. Plebs, in Samml. gemeinverständlicher
wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, xvii (1882). 581-628; Christensen, H., Die
ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Patres, in Hermes, ix (1875). 196-216; Staaf, E., De
origine gentium patriciarum commentatio academica; Terpstra, D., Quaestiones
literariae de populo, etc., ch. i; Köhm, J., Altlateinische Forschungen, ch. i;
Bröcker, L. O., Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altröm.
Verfassungsgeschichte, 3 ff.; Botsford, G. W., Social Composition of the Primitive
Roman Populus, in Political Science Quarterly, xxi (1906). 498-526 (the present
chapter is in the main a reproduction of this article); Some Problems connected
with the Roman Gens, ibid, xxii (1907). 663-92.
 II. Comparative View: Achelis, Th., Moderne Völkerkunde, deren Entwickelung
und Aufgaben, (Stuttgart, 1896) 406 ff.; Ammon, O., Die Gesellschaftsordnung und
ihre natürlichen Grundlagen, (Jena, 1895) Teil i; D’Arbois de Jubainville, La
civilisation des Celtes et celle de l’épopée Homerique, (Paris, 1899) ch. ii; Arnd,
K., Die materiellen Grundlagen und sittlichen Forderungen der europäischen
Kultur, (Stuttgart, 1835) 444 f.; Barth, P., Die Philosophie der Geschichte als
Sociologie, i. (Leipzig, 1897) 382; Bastion, A., Der Mensch in der Geschichte, iii.
(Leipzig, 1860) 323-38; Allerlei aus Volks- und Menschenkunde, ii. (Berlin, 1888)
138-54; Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde, (Berlin, 1872) 8
ff.; Bluntschli, J. K., Theory of the State, (2d ed. from the 6th German: Oxford
1892) bk. II. chs. vi-xiii; Bordeau, L., Le problème de la vie: Essai de sociologie
générale, (Paris, 1901) 95; Brunner, H., Grundzüge der deutschen
Rechtsgeschichte, i (Leipzig, 1901); Bücher, C., Industrial Evolution, ch. ix;
Buchholz, E., Homerische Realien, II. bk. i (Leipzig, 1881); Caspari, O., Die
Urgeschichte der Menschheit, I. bk. ii. ch. 3 (Leipzig, 1877); Cherbuliez, A. E.,
Simples notions de l’ordre social à l’usage de tout le monde, (Paris, 1881) ch. vi;
Combes de Lestrade, Éléments de sociologie, (Paris, 1896) bk. vi; Cooley, C. H.,
Human Nature and the Social Order, (New York, 1902) ch. ix (analysis of
leadership); Craig, J., Elements of Political Science, i. (Edinburgh, 1814) 183-95;
Duchesne, L., La conception du droit et les idées nouvelles, (Paris, 1902) 36;
Demolins, E., Comment la route crée le type social, i (Paris); Farrand, L. F., Basis
of American History, (New York, 1904) see index s. Social organization;
Featherman, A., Social History of the Races of Mankind, ii. (London, 1888) see
indices s. Classes; Thoughts and Reflections on Modern Society, (London, 1894)
291-6; Frazer, J. G., Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship (New York,
1905); Freeman, E. A., History of the Norman Conquest of England, iv (New York,
1873); Frohschammer, J., Ueber die Organisation und Cultur der Menschlichen
Gesellschaft, (Munich, 1885) 84 f.; Funck-Brentano, Th., Civilisation et ses lois,
morale sociale, (Paris, 1876) chs. v-viii; Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City, bk. iv;
De l’inégalité du wergeld dans les lois Franques, in Revue historique, ii. (1876)
460-89; Giddings, F. H., Principles of Sociology, (New York, 1896) bk. III. chs. iii,
iv; Ginnell, L., Brehon Laws, a Legal Handbook, (London, 1894) chs. iv, v; Grave,
J., L’individu et la société, (3d ed. Paris, 1897) ch. ii; Gumplowicz, L.,
Rassenkampf (Innsbruck, 1883); Harris, G., Civilization considered as a Science,
(new ed. New York, 1873) ch. vii; Hellwald, Fr. von, Culturgeschichte in ihrer
natürlichen Entwickelung bis zur Gegenwart, 2 vols. (Augsburg, 1876); Hirt, H.,
Indogermanen, 2 vols. (1905, 1907); Hittell, J. S., History of the Mental Growth of
Mankind in Ancient Times, (New York, 1893) i. 228 f.; ii. 37, 72; Hodgkin, Italy and
her Invaders, (2d ed. Oxford, 1892, 1896) ii, iii; Jenks, E., History of Politics
(London, 1900); Kaufmann, G., Die Germanen der Urzeit (Leipzig, 1880); Krauss,
F. S., Sitte und Brauch der Südslaven (Vienna, 1885); Lepelletier de la Sarthe, Du
système social, ses applications pratiques à l’individu, à la famille, à la société,
(Paris, 1855) i. 329 ff.; Letourneau, Ch., Sociology based on Ethnography, (new
ed. London, 1893) chs. vi-viii; Maine, H. S., Lectures on the Early History of
Institutions, (London, 1875) ch. v; Mismer, Ch., Principes sociologiques, (2d ed.
Paris, 1898) 63 ff.; Müller-Deecke, Die Etrusker, 2. vols. (Stuttgart, 1877); Rhys, J.
and Brynmor-Jones, The Welsh People (New York, 1900); Ridgeway, W., Early
Age of Greece, i (Cambridge, 1901); Ross, E. A., Social Control (New York, 1901);
Rossbach, J. J., Geschichte der Gesellschaft, 3 vols. (1868); Schrader, O.,
Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, (Strassburg, 1901) 802-19;
Schröder, R., Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (4th ed. Leipzig, 1902);
Schurtz, H., Urgeschichte der Kultur, (Leipzig, 1900) ch. ii; Seebohm, F., Tribal
System in Wales (New York, 1895); Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law (New York,
1902); Seeck, O., Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, I. (2d ed. Berlin,
1897) bk. II. chs. i, iv; Seymour, Life in the Homeric Age, (New York, 1907) 106 f;
Skeat and Blagden, Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula, i (New York, 1906) 494-
520; Spencer, H., Principles of Sociology, II. (New York, 1883) chs. iv-viii; Tarde,
G., Laws of Imitation, trans. from the French, (New York, 1903) 233 ff.; Traill, H. D.,
Social England, i (New York, 1901); Tribhovandas, Hindu Castes, in Journal of the
Anthropological Society of Bombay, v (1899-1901). 74-91; Vinogradoff, P., Growth
of the Manor (New York, 1905); Waitz, Th., Anthropologie der Naturvölker, ii.
(Leipzig, 1860) 126-67; iii. (1862) 119-28; v. (1870) 112 ff.
 CHAPTER III
THE THIRTY-FIVE TRIBES

That among the Romans the conception of property first attached

to movable objects is attested by the words “pecunia” and
“mancipatio.”[262] There was probably a period during which the
citizens cultivated the lots of arable land assigned them by the state
without regarding these holdings as property either public or private.
In view of the well-established fact that the gens was a relatively late
institution, we should for this remote period exclude the idea of
gentile tenure.[263] The land was distributed among the families
according to tribes and curiae; and when the idea of ownership
extended to the soil, it took the form of family ownership of the ager
privatus and state ownership of the public domain.[264]
The condition of tenure anterior to the conception of property in
land left little trace of itself in the language and institutions and
absolutely none in tradition. The sources declare that family
ownership existed in Rome from her foundation as well as in her
earliest colonies—a view confirmed by the comparative study of
language.[265] Each family, they assume, held two iugera—the
heredium[266]—or we may more correctly say, at least two iugera.
[267] This small lot has generally been explained[268] as the private
landed property of the individual, in contrast with the public land and
with the common land of the gens, and thus it is taken as evidence
of a condition prior to the extension of private ownership to the
arable fields. Should we grant this to be the true explanation, we
might still assume that public and gentile tenure had developed into
private ownership of arable land long before Servius, or that Servius
himself converted the fields into private holdings. For the second
alternative we could find apparent support in the sources, which
have much to say of the distribution of land among the citizens by
Servius.[269] For the continued absence of private ownership after
the Servian reforms not even the shadow of an authority can be
found.
But the explanation of heredium given above is by no means
necessary; in fact the sources regard it not as the only private land,
but rather as the smallest share allotted to any citizen, the rich and
noble possessing more.[270] While accordingly the wealthy man
owned many iugera, the poor man, limited to his heredium, was
obliged to earn part of his living by labor as a tenant or as a wage-
earner in the field of his rich neighbor;[271] and in the early colonies
the bina iugera were granted on the same aristocratic principle. If
this is the true explanation of heredium, the strongest argument in
support of the theory of public ownership at Rome in the late regal
period is taken away; we must either abandon the theory or relegate
it to a time far anterior to the Servian reforms. Mommsen’s
assumption[272] that the sixteen oldest rural tribes were instituted
some time after the city tribes by the division of gentile lands is
untenable on other grounds. The gens which gave its name to the
tribe could not have owned all the land in the tribe; for in that case all
but the sixteen gentes would have been landless. Again, assuming,
as he does, that all the land belonged to the gentes, which he
supposes to have been exclusively patrician, we should be forced to
conclude that the division left the plebeians landless. And further, if
we bear in mind that the gens developed from the family, we must
also believe that the undivided gentile land was once a family estate,
which according to Roman usage had to be registered in some tribe,
even if the land of the gens was not so registered. Mommsen’s
theory proves therefore not only to be unsupported by the sources
but actually unthinkable. In conclusion we may safely say that
though some land remained public, and though the gens after it had
come into existence owned some common land, individual, or at
most family,[273] ownership was in full force in the earliest times of
which we have knowledge.
The clearest and most detailed account of the origin of the Servian
tribes is given by Dionysius iv. 14. 1 f.: “When Tullius had surrounded
the seven hills with one wall, he divided the city into four parts, and
giving to the parts the names of the hills—to one Palatina, to another
Suburana, to the third Collina, and to the fourth Esquilina—he made
the city to consist of four tribes, whereas up to that time it had
comprised but three.... And he ordained that the men who lived in
each of the four parts should not change their abode or give in their
census elsewhere. The enlistment of soldiers also and the collection
of taxes, which they were to pay individually to the treasury for
military and other purposes, were distributed no longer among the
three gentile tribes but among the four local tribes instituted by
him.... [15. 1:] And the whole country he divided, as Fabius says,[274]
into twenty-six parts, also called tribes, adding to them the four city
tribes; but Venonius is authority for thirty-one rural tribes, which with
those of the city would complete the thirty-five of our own time. Cato,
however, who is more trustworthy than either of these two, says that
all the tribes in the time of Tullius amounted to thirty, though he does
not separate the number of parts” (into urban and rural).
A great variety of opinion has arisen regarding the original number
of the Servian tribes. Niebuhr[275] believed that Servius created in all
thirty, afterward reduced by unfortunate war with the Etruscans to
twenty. This view found supporters but was refuted by Huschke.[276]
Those who rejected it generally agreed that Servius divided the city
into four tribes and the country into districts, regiones, pagi.[277]
Mommsen[278] gave a new phase to the theory of the subject by
assuming that the four so-called city tribes, which all the sources
agree in ascribing to Servius,[279] included the country as well as the
city. According to this hypothesis Alba[280] and Ostia,[281] for
instance, belonged to the Palatine tribe. His opinion has found wide
acceptance.[282] Afterward changing his mind, he asserted that the
four urban tribes were confined within the pomerium—a view which
now seems to be established beyond doubt.[283] With this final
position of Mommsen the creation of theories as to the number and
limitations of the Servian tribes has not been exhausted; for against
the view that Servius instituted only the four urban tribes may be
placed that of Pais,[284] who assigns their origin to the censors of the
year 304. The theory of Pais implies that the sixteen rural tribes
which bore gentile names were far older than the four urban tribes.
 Light will be thrown on this obscure subject by an inquiry into the
relation of the sources to one another. It seems certain that Fabius
derived his information concerning the tribes and the entire
centuriate organization from the “discriptio centuriarum”—a
document in the censors’ office. Though ascribed to Servius Tullius
as author,[285] it set forth the centuriate system as it existed in reality
before the reform—that is in the time of the first war with Carthage.
[286] It was this late form of the centuriate organization which Fabius
had in mind. He must have been prevented, however, from ascribing
to Servius the institution of all the thirty-three tribes then existing, by
the recollection that two tribes were added as recently as 299 from
territory too far from Rome to have formed a part of her domain
under Servius; and perhaps the curiate organization led him to favor
the number thirty. He made Servius the author of thirty tribes,
accordingly, in spite of the fact that this number was not reached till
318. His error is not more absurd than the ascription to Servius of
the whole centuriate organization as it stood at the opening of the
First Punic War, or the assumption that in the first Servian census
were enrolled eighty thousand men fit for military service.[287] Cato,
who also states the original number as thirty, without separating
them into rural and urban,[288] may have been influenced by Fabius,
though it is likely that he drew from the same source. Vennonius in
making Servius the author of all thirty-five tribes but slightly exceeds
the absurdity of earlier writers.[289] Evidently Fabius and Cato were
the sources for all future annalists. While depending on them, Varro
seems to have noticed the error of ascribing twenty-six rural tribes to
Servius, as there were but seventeen of this class before 387. To
avoid the difficulty and at the same time to retain the Fabian number,
he supposed that the country districts of Servius were not yet tribes
but the regiones from which the tribes were afterward formed[290]—a
superficial explanation in the true Varronian style.[291] Following
Varro, however, later authorities generally speak of the four urban
tribes of Servius without mentioning those of the country.[292] So
Dionysius, after referring to the four city tribes, proceeds to describe
their character and functions, as though these were all the tribes
then existing.[293] Thus far he depends upon Varro. Fortunately,
however, he gained from Fabius the information that there were also
twenty-six rural tribes, his description of which[294] is slightly troubled
by the Varronian notion that these country districts were not so much
tribes as regiones, πάγοι, but which served all the purposes of tribes
including the taking of the census.[295]
The various contradictory statements of the ancients regarding the
original number of Servian tribes can now be appreciated at their
respective values. In the course of the discussion it has become
evident, too, that Fabius and Cato, the sources of later annalists, had
no tenable ground for their assumption of thirty original tribes. Had
they examined the records, perhaps the succeeding parts of their
own chronicles, they would have found that before 387 there could
have been only twenty-one tribes in all.[296] A less certain indication
of the admission of one or possibly two tribes still earlier in the
republic may have existed;[297] but here we reach the extreme limit
of their knowledge. Any investigation of the number in the regal
period, whether by the ancients or by the moderns, must rest not
upon contemporary records but upon inference pure and simple. We
may inquire, accordingly, whether the view of Mommsen[298] and
Meyer[299] that the four city tribes were created first and existed for a
time before the institution of the rural tribes, having no trustworthy
foundation in the sources, can be deduced from our knowledge of
the general conditions of the time. We must by all means avoid the
supposition of Mommsen[300] that in the time of Servius there was no
private property in land outside of the city.[301] If then we bear in
mind two points which Mommsen has himself established, (1) that
the local tribe was an aggregate of private estates,[302] (2) that the
four urban tribes of Servius were limited to the city,[303] we must
conclude that in the time of Servius the country estates were
registered in rural tribes—in other words that Servius instituted rural
as well as urban tribes.[304] The view of Meyer that all the citizens
lived in the city and the dependents in the country[305]—which would
afford a ground for assuming the urban tribes to have been earlier
than the rural—has no basis either in institutions or in tradition. If
originally the country was all-important,[306] and if at the dawn of
history we find the country and city politically equal, as is actually the
case, we have no motive for the insertion of an intermediate stage in
which the city was all-important. There was indeed a tendency
toward the concentration of political power within the city, but it did
not advance beyond the equalization of city and country.[307] To
maintain Meyer’s view we should be obliged to complicate the early
history of Rome with two revolutions—one by which the city gained
supremacy over the country, and the other in which the supremacy
was lost. It is mainly to defend the early history of the comitia, and of
the constitution in general, against this complication that the present
discussion of the early land tenure and of the origin of the Servian
tribes is offered.
The original number of tribes, as has been stated, is unknown. It
was increased by the acquisition of territory. Possibly the annalists
found an obscure trace of the admission of the sixteenth rural tribe—
the Claudia—in 504. To that year Livy assigns the coming of Attius
Clausus with his host of clients, who were formed into the Claudian
tribe.[308] Wissowa[309] suggests that the immigration of the
Claudian gens, the date of which did not appear in the original
tradition,[310] was arbitrarily assigned to the year in which was
recorded the admission of the tribe. This conjecture is supported by
the situation of the Claudia, which would place it among the latest of
the twenty.
With more confidence we may assign the admission of the
seventeenth rural tribe—the twenty-first in the entire list—to 495.[311]
It must have been the Clustumina.[312] We are certain that there
were only twenty-one till 387, when four new tribes were formed,
bringing the number up to twenty-five.[313] The twenty-sixth and
twenty-seventh were admitted in 358,[314] the twenty-eighth and
twenty-ninth in 332,[315] the thirtieth and thirty-first in 318,[316] the
thirty-second and thirty-third in 300[317], the thirty-fourth and thirty-
fifth in 241.[318] To the year 90 that number is known to have
remained unchanged, and the evidence of a temporary increase
during the Social War is obscure. On this point Appian[319] states
that “the Romans did not enroll the newly admitted citizens in the
existing thirty-five tribes for fear that, being more numerous, they
might outvote the old citizens in the comitia; but by dividing them into
ten parts (?) they made new tribes, in which the new citizens voted
last.” This view of an increase in number is confirmed by a statement
of Sisenna[320] as to the creation of two new tribes at about that
time. Velleius[321] however informs us that the new citizens were
enrolled in eight tribes. In the object of the arrangement he agrees
with Appian. Next he mentions the promise of Cinna to enroll the
Italians in all the tribes. From the connection we should naturally
infer that in the opinion of Velleius the new citizens were enrolled
before Cinna in eight old tribes; and yet it is difficult to understand
how the assembly could be persuaded to visit any group of rural
tribes with this disgrace and political disability.[322] As the authority of
Sisenna, if not that of Appian, compels us to accept the fact of new
tribes, it is better to interpret Velleius in that light.[323] We may
suppose then that the eight tribes which he mentions were provided
for by the Julian law of 90; and we must accept the statement of
Sisenna that in 89 the Calpurnian law “ex senati consulto” created
two other new tribes, in which were to be enrolled the citizens
admitted under this law. Thus we could account for the ten (?) new
tribes mentioned by Appian. As regards the Lucanians and the
Samnites, who held out obstinately against Rome, the same
historian[324] states that they were respectively enrolled in tribes, as
in the former instances. He does not inform us, however, that for this
purpose other new tribes were instituted. At all events there seems
to be no essential disagreement among our sources; and we have
no reasonable ground for doubting an increase, though we may
remain uncertain as to the number added.[325]
The arrangement was only temporary. In 88 Sulpicius, tribune of
the plebs, carried a law containing a provision for the distribution of
the new citizens and the libertini among all the thirty-five tribes.[326]
His plebiscite was annulled by the senate on the ground that it had
been passed by violence;[327] but the provisions contained in it were
afterward legalized by a senatus consultum, and it was finally carried
into effect by Cinna as consul in 84.[328] This settlement of the
question was approved by Sulla[329] for all the Italians excepting the
Marsians and the Paelignians, who were enrolled in one tribe—the
Sergia.[330]
The nature of the tribes may be inferred from their object. The
intention of the organizer was to introduce the Greek military system,
comprising heavy and light infantry, in which the kind of service to be
performed depended upon financial ability to provide equipments.
[331] Seeing that a classification of citizens with respect to property
was necessary for this purpose, Servius instituted the tribes as a
basis for the census. That they contained the ager privatus only is
indicated by the exclusion from them of the Capitoline and Aventine
hills.[332] Their local character is established by the concurrent
testimony of ancient writers.[333] Yet even in the beginning they
could but roughly be described as districts, for they excluded all
public land and all waters and waste places claimed neither by
individuals nor by the government. They retained the approximate
character of districts so long only as the territory of annexed
communities continued to be formed into new tribes. The process
came to an end in 241; and it was as early at least as this date that
the Roman colonies, not originally in the tribes, were incorporated in
them.[334] Thereafter the annexation of new territory tended more
and more to render the tribes geographically indeterminate.[335] The
process was far advanced by the admission (90-84) of the Latins
and Italians with their lands to the existing tribes,[336] which were
further enlarged in the imperial period by the incorporation of
provincial communities.[337] As consisting of lands, though no longer
necessarily adjacent, they were still considered local.[338]
The tribe was also a group of persons; in fact the word applies far
more frequently to persons than to territory.[339] During the early
republic a considerable degree of harmony was maintained between
the two aspects of the institution (1) possibly by a restriction on the
transfer of residence,[340] (2) by the change in membership from
tribe to tribe, through the censors, on the basis of a transfer of
domicile, (3) by the assignment of new citizens to the tribe in or near
which they had their homes, (4) by the creation of new tribes for new
citizens who did not live in or near the existing tribes. This harmony
experienced its first serious disturbance through the enrolment of the
landless, irrespective of domicile, in the urban tribes in 304,[341] but
continued to such a degree that a hundred years later the rural
voters generally still resided in their own tribes.[342] In the last
century of the republic the personal tribe, emancipated from the
local, depended solely on inheritance and the will of the censors.[343]
The original composition of the personal tribe is determined by its
purely military object. It comprised accordingly those only who were
liable to service in war. From the early Roman point of view those
citizens were qualified who found their livelihood in agriculture.[344]
Not all landowners were enrolled in the tribes; for Latin residents,
[345] freedmen,[346] widows and orphans,[347] all of whom might
possess land, lacked membership. Those proprietors, too, were
excluded whom the censors assigned to the aerarii as a punishment.
Tribesmen were all the other landowners—adsidui[348] et
locupletes[349]—together with the male descendants of military age
under their potestas.[350]
Another object of the tribes, referred to Servius by our sources,
was the collection of taxes.[351] We know that they afterward served
this purpose; and the ancient writers, who could have had no direct
knowledge of the intentions of Servius but who assigned to him
without hesitation all the later developments of his organization, were
in this case especially misled by their false derivation of tributum
from tribus or vice versa.[352] A brief study of the facts in the case
will prove their inference to be wrong. The most obvious
consideration is that had Servius intended the tribes for the levy of
taxes as well as for military purposes, he would have included all
who were subject to taxation as well as all who were liable to service
in the army, whereas in fact he admitted those only who were to
serve. It is to be noted that primitive Rome imposed no regular direct
taxes on the citizens in general. Every man equipped himself for war
even after the introduction of the phalanx;[353] doubtless at first the
knights provided their own horses;[354] and in short campaigns the
soldiers carried their provisions from their own farms.[355]
Fortifications and public buildings were erected by forced task-work.
The king supported himself partly by gifts from his subjects and
partly from the public property, including land.[356] Other early
sources of revenue were tolls levied for the use of harbors,
boundaries, temples, bridges, roads, sewers, and salt works.[357] In
time the idea arose, too, that the person who did not perform military
service should help with his property in the defence of the country.
The estates of widows and orphans were accordingly taxed to
support the horses of the knights.[358] Those men, also, who were
exempt from service because they possessed no land[359] and yet
had other property were required to pay on it a regular tax. From this
connection with the public treasury (aerarium) they were termed
aerarii. This class comprised shopkeepers and merchants.
Sometimes the censors assigned to it as a punishment men who
owned land. The fact that such persons were at the same time
removed from their tribes is sufficient proof that the aerarii were
originally outside these associations.[360] The cives sine suffragio, or
Caerites, after this class had come into existence in 353, were like
the aerarii in (1) that they did not belong to the tribes, (2) that they
paid a regular tax, (3) that men were placed on their list as a
punishment. They may accordingly be regarded as a special class of
aerarii, enrolled as they were in a distinct list.[361] Whereas the cives
sine suffragio either wholly lacked the franchise, as the phrase
implies, or at most had but the right of the Latins,[362] the other
aerarii must have voted in the proletarian century.[363]
The ordinary taxes sufficed for the usual light expenses; but in
case of especial need an extraordinary tax was imposed upon the
citizens. It was called tributum from tribuere, “to apportion,” because
it was distributed among the citizens in proportion to their ratable
property.[364] We hear of such a tax levied for ransoming the city
from the Gauls[365] and another for the building of a wall;[366] but the
most common use was for the payment of soldiers, hence the
tributum was thought of primarily as a war tax.[367] For this reason
tributum came to be correlative with stipendium.[368] It was not often
imposed before the introduction of pay in 406.[369] Even then it was
not levied every year; it was sometimes refunded when the condition
of the treasury permitted; and it fell into disuse after 167.[370] As it
was imposed on those only who were liable to military duty,[371] the
tribe lists were followed in its collection, and in this sense we may
say that it was collected tributim.[372] The work was done by state
functionaries, as the tribe, so far as we know, had neither fiscal
officers[373] nor a treasury; and possessing no property, it could not
be held financially responsible.
An epoch in the history of the tribes was made in 312 by Appius
Claudius Caecus the censor, who enrolled the landless citizens,
proletarians as well as aerarii, in the existing thirty-three tribes
without discrimination.[374] Cives sine suffragio were alone excepted.
[375] By giving the landless the upper hand in the assemblies this
measure roused the animosity of the proprietors, and thus
endangered the peace of the state. In order to soothe the excited
feelings of the better class, Q. Fabius Rullianus, censor in 304,
supported by his colleague Decius, removed the landless from the
rural tribes; but not to deprive them wholly of tribal privileges, he
registered them in the four urban tribes. Hence his measure is
spoken of as a compromise. Thereafter the landholding and hence
more respectable citizens were preferably enrolled in the rural tribes,
[376] whereas the landless were confined to those of the city.[377] It
was a permanent gain that henceforth tribal membership was a test
of perfect citizenship. The censors still had the power to transfer a
man from one tribe to another, for instance, from a rural to an urban
tribe; but they could not exclude him wholly from the tribes, for that
would be tantamount to depriving him of the citizenship.[378] There
were still aerarii; individuals and sometimes large groups of citizens
were still assigned as a punishment to this class, which, however,
was henceforth included in the tribes of the city.[379] Although the
ordinary urban tribesmen were usually exempt from military duty, the
aerarii were required to serve, at times under especially hard
conditions,[380] and were not disqualified for office.[381] In registering
them in the tribes Claudius made them, like the landowners, liable to
military service and to the tributum according to their means. To
effect this object he necessarily assessed their personal property on
a money valuation; and in order to treat all tribesmen alike, he must
have changed the terms of valuation of the landholders’ estates from
iugera to money.[382]

Niebuhr, B. G., Römische Geschichte, i. 422-50, Eng. 200-12; Schwegler,

Römische Geschichte, I. bk. xvii; Huschke, Ph. E., Verfassung des Königs Servius
Tullius, ch. iii; Ihne, W., History of Rome, i. 62, 114; Nissen, H., Templum, 144 ff.;
Italische Landeskunde, ii. 503 f.; Beloch, J., Italischer Bund unter Roms
Hegemonie, ch. ii; Soltau, W., Altröm. Volksversammlungen, 375-548; Meyer, E.,
Ursprung des Tribunats und die Gemeinde der vier Tribus, in Hermes, xxx (1895).
1-24; controverted by Sp. Vassis, in Athena, ix (1897). 470-2; Neumann, K. J.,
Grundherrschaft der röm. Republik; Siebert, W., Ueber Appius Claudius Caecus;
Mommsen, Th., History of Rome, bk. I. ch. vi; Röm. Tribus; Röm. Staatsrecht, iii.
161-98; Abriss des röm. Staatsrechts, 28-36; Marquardt, J., Röm. Staatsv. ii. 149-
80; Willems, P., Droit public Romain, 40 ff., 98 ff.; Mispoulet, J. B., Institutions
politiques des Romains, i. 37-42; Études d’institutions Romaines, 3-48; Lange, L.,
Röm. Altertümer, i. 501-22, and see index s. Tribus; Madvig, J. N., Verfassung und
Verwaltung des röm. Staates, i. 100-8; Herzog, E., Geschichte und System der
röm. Staatsverfassung, i. 39, 101 ff., 1016-31; Grotefend, C. L., Imperium
romanum tributim descriptum; Kubitschek, J. W., De romanorum tribuum origine ac
propogatione; Imperium romanum tributim discriptum; Pauly-Wissowa, Real-
Encycl. i. 674-6: Aerarius (Kubitschek); 682-4: Aes equestre (idem); 780-93: Ager
(idem); iii. 1281-3: Caere (Hülsen); 2650 f.: Claudia (Wissowa); iv. 117 f.:
Clustumina (Kubitschek); Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 125: Aes equestre and
hordearium (Humbert).
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookmass.com