400 CALLIA RULMU b) Decrees Affecting Voluntary Associations Even at the earliest stages of the Roman Republic, voluntary associations were given a legal status and autonomy, as Table VIII of the Duodecim Tabulae reads : his (sodalibus) potestatem facit lex pactionem quam uelint sibi ferre, dum ne quid ex publica lege corrumpant (“ Guild members shall have the power...to make for themselves any rule they wish provided that they impair no part of the public law”) 34. The Bacchanalian crisis forced legislators to take action, and later on, when other associations became involved in subversive political attempts, the Senate had to pass a law in 64 BCE to suppress them 35. The policy was then reinforced by a decree in 56 BCE: according to Cicero (Quint. Fratr. 2.3.5), in that year the senate ordered the dissolution of all political clubs 36. In 48 BCE, Julius Caesar legalized only those associations with an old tradition behind them, which suggests that the high spheres’ desire for tight and thorough control over the masses collided with the s t r o n g socio-economical necessity of being organized in associations arising from below. Augustus also attempted to regulate the proliferation of collegia by passing a law whereby the Emperor and the Senate were the only entities able to grant lawful status to organized voluntary associations that would undertake a public service (Suetonius, Aug. 32.1) 37. However, the promulgation of laws on this matter COTTER, “The Collegia”, 75, quoting A.C. JOHNSON, Ancient Roman 34 Statutes. A Translation, with introduction, Commentary, Glossary, and Index (The Corpus of Roman Law 2; Austin 1961) 12. Senatus consulto collegia sublata sunt, quae adversus rem publicam 35 videbantur esse. COTTER, “The Collegia”, 76 comments: “The shadow that had fallen on collegia was never really to lift”. H.W. BERNARIO, “A Roman Anti-Subversive Activities Law”, CW 45 (1952), referring to the decree of 64 BCE affirms that “the abolition of the guilds was a purely preventive measure . . . ” (136), realizing the strong suspicion of the Roman authorities toward or- ganized groups. Another law was passed in 57 BCE by Crassus against the suspect activ- 36 ities of a number of political groups deemed responsible for “organized bribery ” : in Cotter words, “it was obvious to all that it was possible to mask a politically seditious party under the guise of a professional or religious club” (COTTER, “The Collegia”, 76). See also P.W. DUFF, Personality in Roman Pri- vate Law (New York 1971) 107-108. Information about Augustus disbanding all guilds save the most ancient 37