100 On the UTILITY of defining 
“ fecerunt *.””—“ Prifco inftituto rebus divinis opera datur:: 
* Cum aliquid commendandum eft, prece; cum folvendum, 
“* pratulatione ; cum expo/cendum, voto}.”” The vow then a- 
mong the Romans was a bribe, the acceptance of which was 
deemed obligatory upon the party who took it: As means lead- 
ing to an end, it neceffarily preceded the claim, and was the 
foundation on which it was built. 
Tue fame notions refpecting vows prevailed among the 
Greeks, as well as the Romans. In the prayer of the prieft 
who had been affronted by AGAMEMNON, the Grecian bard 
makes him ftate his claim to be heard in the moft exprefs. 
terms. 
ek more TO yaelere” ext vyov everpa, 
Hoes On wore ror wate riove penes exna 
Taveay 70° aye, Tobe feos wonnvov serdwe cic 
FLAGITARE differs from pofulare, and agrees with pofcere,, 
in fuppofing the juftnefs of the privilege affumed by the peti- 
tioner, of judging as to his own claim. Its power, however,. 
is more extenfive than that of po/cere, becaufe to the idea of be- 
ing the judge of the validity of his right, ic fuperadds that of 
effeAting his purpofe by fuch means as he reckons fit for doing — 
fo. In thofe means, at the fame time, there may be a confi- 
derable variety. The petitioner may either diftrefs the perfon 
requefted with inceffant importunity, or he may threaten ven- 
geance, if the claim which he feels himfelf entitled to enforce: 
is not fulfilled. That flagitare has more power than ragare and 
pofulare, appears from the two following fentences: “ Metuo 
“ne te forte flagitent, ego autem mandavi ut rogarent.” —“ Ta- 
“ metfi caufa pofulat, tamen quia poflulat, non flagitat, ego pre- 
“ teribo §.” 
In 
* Petron. Arbit. 98. 8. : f IAIAA, a. 39. 
+. Val. Max. 1.1.1. § Cic, Ep. Fam.o8. et pro Quint: :3. 
