[Footnote 14: Schwegler, i, 616. The origin of _tribus_ from _three_ is not an accident special to the Romans. Among the Spartans and Dorians likewise there were three stocks (cp. K.O. Müller, _The Dorians_, Eng. tr. 1830, i, 35-37; Fustel de Coulanges, _La Cité antique_, 8e édit. p. 135, note 2); and the great number of Greek epithets in which "three" or "thrice" enters is a proof of the special importance anciently attached to the number. Cp. K.D. Hüllmann, _Ursprung der römischen Verfassung durch Vergleichungen erläutert_, 1835, p. 24.] [Footnote 15: Greenidge, _Roman Public Life_, 1901, p. 1.] [Footnote 16: Pelham, p. 20; Fustel de Coulanges, p. 132, _sq._; Schwegler, i, 610, 615; Ihne, _Early Rome_, 1897, p. 108; Ortolan, _Hist. de la Législation romaine_, ed. Labbé, 1880, pp. 35, 36.] [Footnote 17: Schwegler, i, 611, following Dionysius. Cp. Meyer, ii, 514.] [Footnote 18: Cp. Fustel de Coulanges, pp. 13, 24, 132, 179; Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 1889, pp. 245, 247, 251, etc.; Jevons, _Introd. to the History of Religion_, ch. xii.] [Footnote 19: Cp. Schwegler, i, 628; Ihne, _Early Rome_, p. 107; Dupond, _Magistratures romaines sous la République_, 1877, p. 19. The source of the plebs is one of the vexed points of Roman origins; and the view that they were primarily a conquered population is not yet generally accepted. See Shuckburgh, _History of Rome_, 1894, p. 44. The true solution seems to be that the plebs were always being added to in various ways--by aliens, by "broken men," by discarded clients, and by fugitives. Cp. Fustel de Coulanges, p. 279.] [Footnote 20: Schwegler, i, 621-28, 636-38; Fustel de Coulanges, p. 277. Note the expression _populo plebique_ in Livy, xxix, 27; Cicero, _Pro Murena_, i; Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, i, 17. Ortolan (endorsed by Labbé) argues (work cited, p. 31) that _populus plebsque_ no more implies separation than _senatus populusque_. But this argument destroys itself. The Senate as such _was_ distinct from the populus, as having _auctoritas_, while the populus had only _potestas_. The phrase then was not a pleonasm. By this very analogy _populus plebsque_ implies a vital legal distinction. Niebuhr, who first made the facts clear (cp. his _Lectures_, Eng. trans. ed. 1870, p. 107), followed Vico, who was led to the true view by knowledge of the separateness of the _popolo_ from the _commune_ in the Italian republics.]