Sp. Cassius was the first who brought in an agrarian law, first in the senate, then in the curies, and lastly in the centuries; or else perhaps, first in the centuries, and then in the curies. It was his proposition, to restore the Servian law; to re-establish the tithes and fifths; to sell part of the conquered country, and to mete out the remainder and assign it to the _Plebes_. This is all that we know of the _lex Cassia_. All the rest of Dionysius’ statement, as I positively assert after mature consideration, bears evident traces of having been taken from a writer of the second half of the seventh century, and is invented with great ignorance of the old state of things. The _senatus-consultum_ of which he speaks has not the slightest authenticity. The law for the division of the land is so closely connected with the whole fate of the plebeians, that there is every likelihood that it was already mooted in the peace on the _Mons Sacer_; under Cassius it is fully brought out. According to all appearance, it was carried; as the _Lex agraria_, down to the time of the decemvirs, is spoken of as a right of which the _Plebes_ were in possession, but which was not kept as they were promised. Thus Cassius stands out as a remarkable man; in Cicero he is mentioned as being well known, and yet there is very little said about him. It is historical that Sp. Cassius was executed in the following year for high treason, and that from his estate (_ex Cassiana familia_) a votive-gift was offered in the temple of Tellus on the Carinæ. It was probably in order to remove from this deed the appearance of crying injustice, that the tale of his having been judged by his father was invented. Dionysius already is justly startled at the fact that Cassius, who at that time had no less than thrice been invested with the consulship, should have been put to death by his father. The _leges annales_ were indeed not yet then in force; but nevertheless it is incredible that one who had been thrice consul, and had triumphed, should have still remained under his father’s rule. Another tradition gives a milder version, which is followed by Dionysius and Cicero _de Republica_. The father of Sp. Cassius is said to have declared before the court that he considered his son as guilty, and on this the latter was executed. The truth is that the public accusers (Rüge Herrn), the _quæstores parricidii_ impeach Cassius before the curies; and the curies, as the community to which he belongs, cause him to be executed. This is intelligible: he had most grievously offended his order, and therefore they are only too glad to wreak their vengeance upon him. Dionysius is perplexed with the account; Livy gets over the difficulty. According to him, it is the _Plebes_, which condemns Cassius, as the tribunes are envious of him:--as if these had at that time already been able to bring forward any proposition of the kind! A question which has before now been mooted by the ancients, is whether he was