15.  That this statement of Appian is not exaggerated, is shown by the bullets found at Asculum which name among others the fifteenth legion.

16.  The Julian law must have been passed in the last months of 664, for during the good season of the year Caesar was in the field; the Plautian was probably passed, as was ordinarily the rule with tribunician proposals, immediately after the tribunes entered on office, consequently in Dec. 664 or Jan. 665.

17.  Leaden bullets with the name of the legion which threw them, and sometimes with curses against the “runaway slaves”—­and accordingly Roman—­or with the inscription “hit the Picentes” or “hit Pompeius”—­ the former Roman, the latter Italian—­are even now sometimes found, belonging to that period, in the region of Ascoli.

18.  The rare -denarii- with -Safinim- and -G.  Mutil- in Oscan characters must belong to this period; for, as long as the designation -Italia- was retained by the insurgents, no single canton could, as a sovereign power, coin money with its own name.

19.  I. VII.  Servian Wall

20.  Licinianus (p. 15) under the year 667 says:  -dediticiis omnibus [ci]vita[s] data; qui polliciti mult[a] milia militum vix XV... cohortes miserunt-; a statement in which Livy’s account (Epit. 80):  -Italicis populis a senatu civitas data est- reappears in a somewhat more precise shape.  The -dediticii- were according to Roman state-law those -peregrini liberi- (Gaius i. 13-15, 25, Ulp. xx. 14, xxii. 2) who had become subject to the Romans and had not been admitted to alliance.  They not merely retain life, liberty, and property, but may be formed into communities with a constitution of their own. —­Apolides—­, -nullius certae civitatis cives- (Ulp. xx. 14; comp.  Dig. xlviii. 19, 17, i), were only the freedmen placed by legal fiction on the same footing with the -dediticii qui dediticiorum numero sunt-, only by erroneous usage and rarely by the better authors called directly -dediticii-; (Gai. i. 12, Ulp. i. 14, Paul. iv. 12, 6) as well as the kindred -liberti Latini Iuniani-.  But the -dediticii-nevertheless were destitute of rights as respected the Roman state, in so far as by Roman state-law every -deditio- was necessarily unconditional (Polyb, xxi. 1; comp. xx. 9, 10, xxxvi. 2) and all the privileges expressly or tacitly conceded to them were conceded only -precario- and therefore revocable at pleasure (Appian, Hisp. 44); so that the Roman state, what ever it might immediately or afterwards decree regarding its -dediticii-, could never perpetrate as respected them a violation of rights.  This destitution of rights only ceased on the conclusion of a treaty of alliance (Liv. xxxiv. 57).  Accordingly -deditio- and -foedus- appear in constitutional law as contrasted terms excluding each other (Liv. iv. 30, xxviii. 34; Cod.  Theod. vii. 13, 16 and Gothofr. thereon), and of precisely the same nature is the distinction current among the jurists between the -quasi-dediticii- and the -quasi Latini-, for the Latins are just the -foederati- in an eminent sense (Cic. pro Balb. 24, 54).