the Roman legions, whereas the earlier ones had formed cohorts of their own; the latter had been in the relation of isopolity, and by virtue of the _jus municipii_ they might take the Roman franchise whenever they pleased; but the new Latins in Gallia Transpadana could do this only when they had held a municipal office in any of their own towns. They, moreover, had no _connubium_: when a Roman married such a Latin woman, his children were not Roman citizens. Sigonius is intolerable on this subject, and so also most of the moderns. It is sad that our jurists are not better philologers; I think that in questions of this kind an intimate acquaintance with the ancient authors is indispensable. But on the other hand, philologers ought to possess a very accurate knowledge of Roman law. This creation of Pompeius Strabo naturally produced two off-shoots. In the first place, some people _extra Italiam positi_ now likewise obtained the _jus Latii_, especially certain Spanish tribes and the inhabitants of Provence, and all of them on the same footing as the Galli Transpadani. You ought to know these rights of the Transpadani, because they belong to the age of Cicero and Caesar, and are of interest in the history of that period. Secondly, in the reign of Tiberius there was passed the _Lex Junia Norbani_[2], which limited the manumission of slaves, and provided regulations to effect a state of security for freedmen without their obtaining the franchise. This is the later _Latinitas_, mentioned in the law-books. The _lex Aelia Sentia_ had already established similar limitations, to prevent slaves from becoming Roman citizens by manumission; but these restrictions consisted in the formalities of the law, which had grown obsolete, and were, in many instances, troublesome and even injurious. The law had thus become unsettled. Formerly the earlier Latins were not distinguished from the later ones; but the ancient Latins had the _connubium_; all the Italians, in fact, had it, and most certainly the Latins.