CHAPTER II.. The Municipal Government of Praeneste.

THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRAENESTE.

Praeneste was already a rich and prosperous community, when Rome was still fighting for a precarious existence. The rapid development, however, of the Latin towns, and the necessity of mutual protection and advancement soon brought Rome and Praeneste into a league with the other towns of Latium. Praeneste because of her position and wealth was the haughtiest member of the newly made confederation, and with the more rapid growth of Rome became her most hated rival. Later, when Rome passed from a position of first among equals to that of mistress of her former allies, Praeneste was her proudest and most turbulent subject.

From the earliest times, when the overland trade between Upper Etruria, Magna Graecia, and Lower Etruria came up the Liris valley, and touching Praeneste and Tibur crossed the river Tiber miles above Rome, that energetic little settlement looked with longing on the city that commanded the splendid valley between the Sabine and Volscian mountains. Rome turned her conquests in the direction of her longings, but could get no further than Gabii. Praeneste and Tibur were too strongly situated, and too closely connected with the fierce mountaineers of the interior, and Rome was glad to make treaties with them on equal terms.

Rome, however, made the most of her opportunities. Her trade up and down the river increased, and at the same time brought her in touch with other nations more and more. Her political importance grew rapidly, and it was not long before she began to assume the primacy among the towns of the Latin league. This assumption of a leadership practically hers already was disputed by only one city. This was Praeneste, and there can be no doubt but that if Praeneste had possessed anything approaching the same commercial facilities in way of communication by water she would have been Rome's greatest rival. As late as 374 B.C. Praeneste was alone an opponent worthy of Rome.

As head of a league of nine cities, and allied with Tibur, which also headed a small confederacy, Praeneste felt herself strong enough to defy the other cities of the league, and in fact even to play fast and loose with Rome, as Rome kept or transgressed the stipulations of their agreements. Rome, however, took advantage of Praeneste at every opportunity. She assumed control of some of her land in 338 B.C., on the ground that Praeneste helped the Gauls in 390; she showed her jealousy of Praeneste by refusing to allow Quintus Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punic war. This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader of a contingent from Praeneste was treated by a Roman dictator in 319 B.C. But while these isolated outbursts of jealousy showed the ill feeling of Rome toward Praeneste, there is yet a stronger evidence of the fact that Praeneste had been in early times more than Rome's equal, for through the entire subsequent history of the aggrandizement of Rome at the expense of every other town in the Latin League, there runs a bitterness which finds expression in the slurs cast upon Praeneste, an ever-recurring reminder of the centuries of ancient grudge. Often in Roman literature Praeneste is mentioned as the typical country town. Her inhabitants are laughed at because of their bad pronunciation, despised and pitied because of their characteristic combination of pride and rusticity. Yet despite the dwindling fortunes of the town she was able to keep a treaty with Rome on nearly equal terms until 90 B.C., the year in which the Julian law was passed. Praeneste scornfully refused Roman citizenship in 216 B.C., when it was offered. This refusal Rome never forgot nor forgave. No Praenestine families seem to have been taken into the Roman patriciate, as were some from Alba Longa, nor did Praeneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honored as was Cato from Tusculum, although one branch of the gens Anicia did gain some reputation in imperial times. Rome and Praeneste seemed destined to be ever at cross purposes, and their ancient rivalry grew to be a traditional dislike which remained mutual and lasting.

The continuance of the commercial and military rivalry because of Praeneste's strategic position as key of Rome, and the religious rivalry due to the great fame of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, are continuous and striking historical facts even down into the middle ages. Once in 1297 and again in 1437 the forces of the Pope destroyed the town to crush the great Colonna family which had made Praeneste a stronghold against the power of Rome.

There are a great many reasons why Praeneste offers the best opportunity for a study of the municipal officers of a town of the Latin league. She kept a practical autonomy longer than any other of the league towns with the exception of Tibur, but she has a much more varied history than Tibur. The inscriptions of Praeneste offer especial advantages, because they are numerous and cover a wide range. The great number of the old pigne inscriptions gives a better list of names of the citizens of the second century B.C. and earlier than can be found in any other Latin town. Praeneste also has more municipal fasti preserved than any other city, and this fact alone is sufficient reason for a study of municipal officers. In fact, the position which Praeneste held during the rise and fall of the Latin League has distinct differences from that of any other town in the confederation, and these differences are to be seen in every stage of her history, whether as an ally, a municipium, or a colonia.

As an ally of Rome, Praeneste did not have a curtailed treaty as did Alba Longa, but one on equal terms (foedus aequum), such as was accorded to a sovereign state. This is proved by the right of exile which both Praeneste and Tibur still retained until as late as 90 B.C.

As a municipium, the rights of Praeneste were shared by only one other city in the league. She was not a municipium which, like Lanuvium and Tusculum, kept a separate state, but whose citizens, although called Roman citizens, were without right to vote, nor, on the other hand, was she in the class of municipia of which Aricia is a type, towns which had no vote in Rome, but were governed from there like a city ward. Praeneste, on the contrary, belonged to yet a third class. This was the most favored class of all; in fact, equality was implicit in the agreement with Rome, which was to the effect that when these cities joined the Roman state, the inhabitants were to be, first of all, citizens of their own states. Praeneste shared this extraordinary agreement with Rome with but one other Latin city, Tibur. The question whether or not Praeneste was ever a municipium in the technical and constitutional sense of the word is apart from the present discussion, and will be taken up later.

As a colony, Praeneste has a different history from that of any other of the colonies founded by Sulla. Because of her stubborn defence, and her partisanship for Marius, her walls were razed and her citizens murdered in numbers almost beyond belief. Yet at a later time, Sulla with a revulsion of kindness quite characteristic of him, rebuilt the town, enlarged it, and was most generous in every way. The sentiment which attached to the famous antiquity and renown of Praeneste was too strong to allow it to lie in ruins. Further, in colonies the most characteristic officers were the quattuorviri. Praeneste, again different, shows no trace of such officers.

Indeed, at all times during the history of Latium, Praeneste clearly had a city government different from that of any other in the old Latin League. For example, before the Social War both Praeneste and Tibur had aediles and quaestors, but Tibur also had censors, Praeneste did not. Lavinium and Praeneste were alike in that they both had praetors. There were dictators in Aricia, Lanuvium, Nomentum, and Tusculum, but no trace of a dictator in Praeneste.

The first mention of a magistrate from Praeneste, a praetor, in 319 B.C, is due to a joke of the Roman dictator Papirius Cursor. The praetor was in camp as leader of the contingent of allies from Praeneste, and the fact that a praetor was in command of the troops sent from allied towns implies that another praetor was at the head of affairs at home. Another and stronger proof of the government by two praetors is afforded by the later duoviral magistracy, and the lack of friction under such an arrangement.

There is no reason to believe that the Latin towns took as models for their early municipal officers, the consuls at Rome, rather than to believe that the reverse was the case. In fact, the change in Rome to the name consuls from praetors, with the continuance of the name praetor in the towns of the Latin League, would rather go to prove that the Romans had given their two chief magistrates a distinctive name different from that in use in the neighboring towns, because the more rapid growth in Rome of magisterial functions demanded official terminology, as the Romans began their "Progressive Subdivision of the Magistracy." Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two praetors, and this shows two things: first, that two praetors were better adapted to circumstances than one dictator; second, that the majority of the towns had praetors, and had had them, as chief magistrates, and not dictators, and that such an arrangement was more satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator at its head at some time, and the fact that these two praetors are found at the head of the league in 341 B.C. shows the deference to the more progressive and influential cities of the league, where praetors were the regular and well known municipal chief magistrates. Before Praeneste was made a colony by Sulla, the governing body was a senate, and the municipal officers were praetors, aediles, and quaestors, as we know certainly from inscriptions. In the literature, a praetor is mentioned in 319 B.C., in 216 B.C., and again in 173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the magistrates of an allied city. In fact nothing in the inscriptions or in the literature gives a hint at any change in the political relations between Praeneste and Rome down to 90 B.C., the year in which the lex Iulia was passed. If a dictator was ever at the head of the city government in Praeneste, there are none of the proofs remaining, such as are found in the towns of the Alban Hills, in Etruria, and in the medix tuticus of the Sabellians. The fact that no trace of the dictator remains either in Tibur or Praeneste seems to imply that these two towns had better opportunities for a more rapid development, and that both had praetors at a very early period.

However strongly the weight of probabilities make for proof in the endeavor to find out what the municipal government of Praeneste was, there are a certain number of facts that can now be stated positively. Before 90 B.C. the administrative officers of Praeneste were two praetors, who had the regular aediles and quaestors as assistants. These officers were elected by the citizens of the place. There was also a senate, but the qualifications and duties of its members are uncertain. Some information, however, is to be derived from the fact that both city officers and senate were composed in the main of the local nobility.

An important epoch in the history of Praeneste begins with the year 91 B.C. In this year the dispute over the extension of the franchise to Italy began again, and the failure of the measure proposed by the tribune M. Livius Drusus led to an Italian revolt, which soon assumed a serious aspect. To mitigate or to cripple this revolt (the so-called Social or Marsic war), a bill was offered and passed in 90 B.C. This was the famous law (lex Iulia) which applied to all Italian states that had not revolted, or had stopped their revolt, and it offered Roman citizenship (civitas) to all such states, with, however, the remarkable provision, IF THEY DESIRED IT. At all events, this law either did not meet the needs of the occasion, or some of the allied states showed no eagerness to accept Rome's offer. Within a few months after the lex Iulia had gone into effect, which was late in the year 90, the lex Plautia Papiria was passed, which offered Roman citizenship to the citizens (cives et incolae) of the federated cities, provided they handed in their names within sixty days to the city praetor in Rome.

There is no unanimity of opinion as to the status of Praeneste in 90 B.C. The reason is twofold. It has never been shown whether Praeneste at this time belonged technically to the Latins (Latini) or to the allies (foederati), and it is not known under which of the two laws just mentioned she took Roman citizenship. In 338 B.C., after the close of the Latin war, Praeneste and Tibur made either a special treaty with Rome, as seems most likely, or one in which the old status quo was reaffirmed. In 268 B.C. Praeneste lost one right of federated cities, that of coinage, but continued to hold the right of a sovereign city, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C., in common with Tibur and Naples, and on down to the year 90 at any rate (see note 9). It is to be remembered too that in the year 216 B.C., after the heroic deeds of the Praenestine cohort at Casilinum, the inhabitants of Praeneste were offered Roman citizenship, and that they refused it. Now if the citizens of Praeneste accepted Roman citizenship in 90 B.C., under the conditions of the Julian law (lex Iulia de civitate sociis danda), then they were still called allies (socii) at that time. But that the provision in the law, namely, citizenship, if the allies desired it, did not accomplish its purpose, is clear from the immediate passage in 89 of the lex Plautia-Papiria. Probably there was some change of phraseology which was obnoxious in the Iulia. The traditional touchiness and pride of the Praenestines makes it sure that they resisted Roman citizenship as long as they could, and it seems more likely that it was under the provision of the Plautia-Papiria than under those of the Iulia that separate citizenship in Praeneste became a thing of the past. Two years later, in 87 B.C., when, because of the troubles between the two consuls Cinna and Octavius, Cinna had been driven from Rome, he went out directly to Praeneste and Tibur, which had lately been received into citizenship, tried to get them to revolt again from Rome, and collected money for the prosecution of the war. This not only shows that Praeneste had lately received Roman citizenship, but implies also that Rome thus far had not dared to assume any control of the city, or the consul would not have felt so sure of his reception.

WAS PRAENESTE A MUNICIPIUM?

Just what relation Praeneste bore to Rome between 90 or 89 B.C., when she accepted Roman citizenship, and 82 B.C. when Sulla made her a colony, is still an unsettled question. Was Praeneste made a municipium by Rome, did Praeneste call herself a municipium, or, because the rights which she enjoyed and guarded as an ally (civitas foederata) had been so restricted and curtailed, was she called and considered a municipium by Rome, but allowed to keep the empty substance of the name of an allied state?

During the development which followed the gradual extension of Roman citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy, because of the increase of the rights of autonomy in the colonies, and the limitation of the rights formerly enjoyed by the cities which had belonged to the old confederation or league (foederati), there came to be small difference between a colonia and a municipium. While the nominal difference seems to have still held in legal parlance, in the literature the two names are often interchanged. Mommsen-Marquardt say that in 90 B.C. under the conditions of the lex Iulia Praeneste became a municipium of the type which kept its own citizenship (ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis). But if this were true, then Praeneste would have come under the jurisdiction of the city praetor (praetor urbanus) in Rome, and there would be praefects to look after cases for him. Praeneste has a very large body of inscriptions which extend from the earliest to the latest times, and which are wider in range than those of any other town in Latium outside Rome. But no inscription mentions a praefect and here under the circumstances the argumentum ex silentio is of real constructive value, and constitutes circumstantial evidence of great weight. Praeneste had lost her ancient rights one after the other, but it is sure that she clung the longest to the separate property right. Now the property in a municipium is not considered as Roman, a result of the old sovereign state idea, as given by the ius Quiritium and ius Gabinorum, although Mommsen says this had no real practical value. So whether Praeneste received Roman citizenship in 90 or in 89 B.C. the spirit of her past history makes it certain that she demanded a clause which gave specific rights to the old federated states, such as had always been in her treaty with Rome. There seems to have been no such clause in the lex Iulia of 90 B.C., and this fact gives still another reason, in addition to the ones mentioned, to conclude that Praeneste probably took citizenship in 89 under the lex Plautia-Papiria. The extreme cruelty which Sulla used toward Praeneste, and the great amount of its land that he took for his soldiers when he colonized the place, show that Sulla not only punished the city because it had sided with Marius, but that the feeling of a Roman magistrate was uppermost, and that he was now avenging traditional grievances, as well as punishing recent obstreperousness.

There seems to be, however, very good reasons for saying that Praeneste never became a municipium in the strict legal sense of the word. First, the particular officials who belong to a municipium, praefects and quattuorvirs, are not found at all; second, the use of the word municipium in literature in connection with Praeneste is general, and means simply "town"; third, the fact that Praeneste, along with Tibur, had clung so jealously to the title of federated state (civitas foederata) from some uncertain date to the time of the Latin rebellion, and more proudly than ever from 338 to 90 B.C., makes it very unlikely that so great a downfall of a city's pride would be passed over in silence; fourth and last, the fact that the Praenestines asked the emperor Tiberius to give them the status of a municipium, which he did, but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular city officials of a colony, shows clearly that the Praenestines simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered from a severe illness at Praeneste to ask him for what was merely an empty honor. It only salved the pride of the Praenestines, for it gave them a name which showed a former sovereign federated state, and not the name of a colony planted by the Romans. The cogency of this fourth reason will bear elaboration. Praeneste would never have asked for a return to the name municipium if it had not meant something. At the very best she could not have been a real municipium with Roman citizenship longer than seven years, 89 to 82 B.C., and that at a very unsettled time, nor would an enforced taking of the status of a municipium, not to mention the ridiculously short period which it would have lasted, have been anything to look back to with such pride that the inhabitants would ask the emperor Tiberius for it again. What they did ask for was the name municipium as they used and understood it, for it meant to them everything or anything but colonia.

Let us now sum up the municipal history of Praeneste down to 82 B.C. when she was made a Roman colony by Sulla. Praeneste, from the earliest times, like Rome, Tusculum, and Aricia, was one of the chief cities in the territory known as Ancient Latium. Like these other cities, Praeneste made herself head of a small league, but unlike the others, offers nothing but comparative probability that she was ever ruled by kings or dictators. So of prime importance not only in the study of the municipal officers of Praeneste, but also in the question of Praeneste's relationship to Rome, is the fact that the evidence from first to last is for praetors as the chief executive officers of the Praenestine state (respublica), with their regular attendant officers, aediles and quaestors; all of whom probably stood for office in the regular succession (cursus honorum). Above these officers was a senate, an administrative or advisory body. But although Praeneste took Roman citizenship either in 90 or 89 B.C., it seems most likely that she was not legally termed a municipium, but that she came in under some special clause, or with some particular understanding, whereby she kept her autonomy, at least in name. Praeneste certainly considered herself a federate city, on the old terms of equality with Rome, she demanded and partially retained control of her own land, and preserved her freedom from Rome in the matter of city elections and magistrates.

PRAENESTE AS A COLONY.

From the time of Sulla to the establishment of the monarchy, the expropriation of territory for discharged soldiers found its expression in great part in the change from Italian cities to colonies, and of the colonies newly made by Sulla, Praeneste was one. The misfortunes that befell Praeneste, because she seemed doomed to be on the losing side in quarrels, were never more disastrously exemplified than in the punishment inflicted upon her by Sulla, because she had taken the side of Marius. Thousands of her citizens were killed (see note 63), her fortifications were thrown down, a great part of her territory was taken and given to Sulla's soldiers, who were the settlers of his new-made colony. At once the city government of Praeneste changed. Instead of a senate, there was now a decuria (decuriones, ordo); instead of praetors, duovirs with judicial powers (iure dicundo), in short, the regular governmental officialdom for a Roman colony. The city offices were filled partly by the new colonists, and the new government which was forced upon her was so thoroughly established, that Praeneste remained a colony as long as her history can be traced in the inscriptions. As has been said, in the time of Tiberius she got back an empty title, that of municipium, but it had been nearly forgotten again by Hadrian's time.

There are several unanswered questions which arise at this point. What was the distribution of offices in the colony after its foundation; what regulation, if any, was there as to the proportion of officials to the new make up of the population; and what and who were the quinquennial duovirs? From the proportionately large fragments of municipal fasti left from Praeneste it will be possible to reach some conclusions that may be of future value.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES.

The beginning of this question comes from a passage in Cicero, which says that the Sullan colonists in Pompeii were preferred in the offices, and had a status of citizenship better than that of the old inhabitants of the city. Such a state of affairs might also seem natural in a colony which had just been deprived of one third of its land, and had had forced upon it as citizens a troop of soldiers who naturally would desire to keep the city offices as far as possible in their own control. Dessau thinks that because this unequal state of citizenship was found in Pompeii, which was a colony of Sulla's, it must have been found also in Praeneste, another of his colonies. Before entering into the question of whether or not this can be proved, it will be well to mention three probable reasons why Dessau is wrong in his contention. The first, an argumentum ex silentio, is that if there was trouble in Pompeii between the old inhabitants and the new colonists then the same would have been true in Praeneste! As it was so close to Rome, however, the trouble would have been much better known, and certainly Cicero would not have lost a chance to bring the state of affairs at Praeneste also into a comparison. Second, the great pains Sulla took to rebuild the walls of Praeneste, to lay out a new forum, and especially to make such an extensive enlargement and so many repairs of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, show that his efforts were not entirely to please his new colonists, but just as much to try to defer to the wishes and civic pride of the old settlers. Third, the fact that a great many of the old inhabitants were left, despite the great slaughter at the capture of the city, is shown by the frequent recurrence in later inscriptions of the ancient names of the city, and by the fact that within twenty years the property of the soldier colonists had been bought up, and the soldiers had died, or had moved to town, or reenlisted for foreign service. Had there been much trouble between the colonists and the old inhabitants, or had the colonists taken all the offices, in either case they would not have been so ready to part with their land, which was a sort of patent to citizenship.

It is possible now to push the inquiry a point further. Dessau has already seen that in the time of Augustus members of the old families were again in possession of many municipal offices, but he thinks the Praenestines did not have as good municipal rights as the colonists in the years following the establishment of the colony. There are six inscriptions which contain lists more or less fragmentary of the magistrates of Praeneste, the duovirs, the aediles, and the quaestors. Two of these inscriptions can be dated within a few years, for they show the election of Germanicus and Drusus Caesar, and of Nero and Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, to the quinquennial duovirate. Two others are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of several peculiarities, and one other, a fragment, belongs to still another calendar. It will first be necessary to show that these last-mentioned inscriptions can be referred to some time not much later than the founding of the colony at Praeneste by Sulla, before any use can be made of the names in the list to prove anything about the early distribution of officers in the colony. Two of these inscriptions should be placed, I think, very early in the annals of the colony. They show a list of municipal officers whose names, with a single exception, which will be accounted for later, have only praenomen and nomen, a way of writing names which was common to the earlier inhabitants of Praeneste, and which seems to have made itself felt here in the names of the colonists. Again, from the fact that in the only place in the inscriptions where the quinquennialship is mentioned, it is the simple term, without the prefixed duoviri. In the later inscriptions from imperial times, both forms are found, while in the year 31 A.D. in the municipal fasti of Nola are found II vir(i) iter(um) q(uinquennales), and in 29 B.C. in the fasti from Venusia, officials with the same title, duoviri quinquennales, which show that the officers of the year in which the census was taken were given both titles. Marquardt makes this a proof that the quinquennial title shows nothing more than a function of the regular duovir. It is certain too that after the passage of the lex Iulia in 45 B.C., that the census was taken in the Italian towns at the same time as in Rome, and the reports sent to the censor in Rome. This duty was performed by the duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power. The inscriptions under consideration, then, would seem to date certainly before 49 B.C.

Another reason for placing these inscriptions in the very early days of the colony is derived from the use of names. In this list of officials there is a duovir by the name of P. Cornelius, and another whose name is lost except for the cognomen, Dolabella, but he can be no other than a Cornelius, for this cognomen belongs to that family. Early in the life of the colony, immediately after its settlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's monuments, while the soldiers from Sulla's army were the new citizens of the town, would be the time to look for men in the city offices whose election would have been due to Sulla, or would at least appear to have been a compliment to him. Sulla was one of the most famous of the family of the Cornelii, and men of the gens Cornelia might well have expected preferment during the early years of the colony. That such was the case is shown here by the recurrence of the name Cornelius in the list of municipal officers in two succeeding years. Now if the name "Cornelia" grew to be a name in great disfavor in Praeneste, the reason would be plain enough. The destruction of the town, the loss of its ancient liberties, and the change in its government, are more than enough to assure hatred of the man who had been the cause of the disasters. And there is proof too that the Praenestines did keep a lasting dislike to the name "Cornelia." There are many inscriptions of Praeneste which show the names (nomina) Aelia, Antonia, Aurelia, Claudia, Flavia, Iulia, Iunia, Marcia, Petronia, Valeria, among others, but besides the two Cornelii in this inscription under consideration, and one other mentioned in the fragment above (see note 83), there are practically no people of that name found in Praeneste, and the name is frequent enough in other towns of the old Latin league. From these reasons, namely, the way in which only praenomina and nomina are used, the simple, earlier use of quinquennalis, and especially the appearance of the name Cornelius here, and never again until in the late empire, it follows that the names of the municipal officers of Praeneste given in these inscriptions certainly date between 81 and 50 B.C.

THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS.

The question now arises whether the new colonists had better rights legally than the old citizens, and whether they had the majority of votes and elected city officers from their own number. The inscriptions with which we have to deal are both fragments of lists of city officers, and in the longer of the two, one gives the officers for four years, the corresponding column for two years and part of a third. A Dolabella, who belongs to the gens Cornelia, as we have seen, heads the list as duovir. The aedile for the same year is a certain Rotanius. This name is not found in the sepulchral inscriptions of the city of Rome, nor in the inscriptions of Praeneste except in this one instance. This man is certainly one of the new colonists, and probably a soldier from North Italy. Both the quaestors of the same year are given. They are M. Samiarius and Q. Flavius. Samiarius is one of the famous old names of Praeneste. In the same way, the duovirs of the next year, C. Messienus and P. Cornelius, belong, the one to Praeneste, the other to the colonists, and just such an arrangement is also found in the aediles, Sex. Caesius being a Praenestine, L. Nassius a colonist. Q. Caleius and C. Sertorius, the quaestors of the same year, do not appear in the inscriptions of Praeneste except here, and it is impossible to say more than that Sertorius is a good Roman name, and Caleius a good north Italian one. C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in another inscription, L. Curtius and C. Vibius, the aediles,--Statiolenus and C. Cassius, the quaestors, show the same phenomenon, for it seems quite possible from other inscriptional evidence to claim Salvius, Vibius, and Statiolenus as men from the old families of Praeneste. The quinquennalis for the next year, M. Petronius, has a name too widely prevalent to allow any certainty as to his native place, but the nomen Petronia and Ptronia is an old name in Praeneste. In the second column of the inscription, although the majority of the names there seem to belong to the new colonists, as those in the first column do to the old settlers, there are two names, Q. Arrasidius and T. Apponius, which do not make for the argument either way. In the smaller fragment there are but six names: M. Decumius and L. Ferlidius, C. Paccius and C. Ninn(ius), C. Albinius and Sex. Capivas, but from these one gets only good probabilities. The nomen Decumia is well attested in Praeneste before the time of Sulla. In fact the same name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions. Paccia has been found this past year in Praenestine territory, and may well be an old Praenestine name, for the inscriptions of a family of the name Paccia have come to light at Gallicano. Capivas is at least not a Roman name, but from its scarcity in other places can as well be one of the names that are so frequent in Praeneste, which show Etruscan or Sabine formation, and which prove that before Sulla's time the city had a great many inhabitants who had come from Etruria and from back in the Sabine mountains. Ninnius is a name not found elsewhere in the Latian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua, and is found also in Pompeii and Puteoli. It seems a fair supposition to make at the outset, as we have seen that various writers on Praeneste have done, that the new colonists would try to keep the highest office to themselves, at any rate, particularly the duovirate. But a study of the names, as has been the case with the less important officers, fails even to bear this out. These lists of municipal officers show a number of names that belong with certainty to the older families of Praeneste, and thus warrant the statement that the colonists did not have better rights than the old settlers, and that not even in the duovirate, which held an effective check (maior potestas) on the aediles and quaestors, can the names of the new colonists be shown to outnumber or take the place of the old settlers.

THE QUINQUENNALES.

There remains yet the question in regard to the men who filled the quinquennial office. We know that whether the officials of the municipal governments were praetors, aediles, duovirs, or quattuorvirs, at intervals of five years their titles either were quinquennales, or had that added to them, and that this title implied censorial duties. It has also been shown that after 46 B.C. the lex Iulia compelled the census in the various Roman towns to be taken by the proper officers in the same year that it was done in Rome. This implies that the taking of the census had been so well established a custom that it was a long time before Rome itself had cared to enact a law which changed the year of census taking in those towns which had not of their own volition made their census contemporaneous with that in Rome.

That the duration of the quinquennial office was one year is certain, that it was eponymous is also sure, but whether the officers who performed these duties every five years did so in addition to holding the highest office of the year, or in place of that honor, is a question not at all satisfactorily answered. That is, were the men who held the quinquennial office the men who would in all probability have stood for the duovirate in the regular succession of advance in the round of offices (cursus honorum), or did the government at Rome in some way, either directly or indirectly, name the men for the highest office in that particular year when the census was to be taken? That is, again, were quinquennales elected as the other city officials were, or were they appointed by Rome, or were they merely designated by Rome, and then elected in the proper and regular way by the citizens of the towns?

At first glance it seems most natural to suppose that Rome would want exact returns from the census, and might for that reason try to dictate the men who were to take it, for on the census had been based always the military taxes, contingents, etc. The first necessary inquiry is whether the quinquennales were men who previously had held office as quaestors or aediles, and the best place to begin such a search is in the municipal calendars (fasti magistratuum municipalium), which give the city officials with their rank.

There are fragments left of several municipal fasti; the one which gives the longest unbroken list is that from Venusia, which gives the full list of the city officials of the years 34-29 B.C., and the aediles of 35, and both the duovirs and praetors of the first half of 28 B.C. In 29 B.C., L. Oppius and L. Livius were duoviri quinquennales. These are both good old Roman names, and stand out the more in contrast with Narius, Mestrius, Plestinus, and Fadius, the aediles and quaestors. Neither of these quinquennales had held any office in the five preceding years at all events. One of the two quaestors of the year 33 B.C. is a L. Cornelius. The next year a L. Cornelius, with the greatest probability the same man, is praefect, and again in the year 30 he is duovir. Also in the year 32 L. Scutarius is quaestor, and in the last half of 31 is duovir. C. Geminius Niger is aedile in 30, and duovir in 28. So what we learn is that a L. Cornelius held the quaestorship one year, was a praefect the next, and later a regularly elected duovir; that L. Scutarius went from quaestor one year to duovir the next, without an intervening office, and but a half year of intervening time; and that C. Geminius Niger was successively aedile and duovir with a break of one year between.

The fasti of Nola give the duovirs and aediles for four years, 29-32 A.D., but none of the aediles mentioned rose to the duovirate within the years given. Nor do we get any help from the fasti of Interamna Lirenatis or Ostia, so the only other calendar we have to deal with is the one from Praeneste, the fragments of which have been partially discussed above.

The text of that piece which dates from the first years of Tiberius' reign is so uncertain that one gets little information from it. But certainly the M. Petronius Rufus who is praefect for Drusus Caesar is the same as the Petronius Rufus who in another place is duovir. The name of C. Dindius appears twice also, once with the office of aedile, but two years later seemingly as aedile again, which must be a mistake. M. Cominius Bassus is made quinquennalis by order of the senate, and also made praefect for Germanicus and Drusus Caesar in their quinquennial year. He is not found in any other inscription, and is otherwise unknown. The only other men who attained the quinquennial rank in Praeneste were M. Petronius, and some man with the cognomen Minus, neither of whom appears anywhere else. A man with the cognomen Sedatus is quaestor in one year, and without holding other office is made praefect to the sons of Germanicus, Nero and Drusus, who were nominated quinquennales two years later. There is no positive proof in any of the fasti that any quinquennalis was elected from one of the lower magistrates. There is proof that duovirs were elected, who had been aediles or quaestors. Also it has been shown that in two cases men who had been quaestors were made praefects, that is, appointees of people who had been nominated quinquennales as an honor, and who had at once appointed praefects to carry out their duties.

Another question of importance rises here. Who were the quinquennales? They were not always inhabitants of the city to the office of which they had been nominated, as has been shown in the cases of Drusus and Germanicus Caesar, and Nero and Drusus the sons of Germanicus, nominated or elected quinquennales at Praeneste, and represented in both cases by praefects appointed by them.

From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers' union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc., praetor of a small town some ten miles from Ostia, and also quattuorvir quinquennalis of Faesulae, a town above Florence, which seems to show that he was sent to Faesulae as a quinquennalis, for the honor which he had held previously was that of praetor in Laurentum.

At Tibur, in Hadrian's time, a L. Minicius L.f. Gal. Natalis Quadromius Verus, who had held offices previously in Africa, in Moesia, and in Britain, was made quinquennalis maximi exempli. It seems certain that he was not a resident of Tibur, and since he was not appointed as praefect by Hadrian, it seems quite reasonable to think that either the emperor had a right to name a quinquennalis, or that he was asked to name one, when one remembers the proximity of Hadrian's great villa, and the deference the people of Tibur showed the emperor. There is also in Tibur an inscription to a certain Q. Pompeius Senecio, etc.--(the man had no less than thirty-eight names), who was an officer in Asia in 169 A.D., a praefect of the Latin games (praefectus feriarum Latinarum), then later a quinquennalis of Tibur, after which he was made patron of the city (patronus municipii). A Roman knight, C. Aemilius Antoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii at Tibur.

N. Cluvius M'. f. was a quattuorvir at Caudium, a duovir at Nola, and a quattuorvir quinquennalis at Capua, which again shows that a quinquennalis need not have been an official previously in the town in which he held the quinquennial office.

C. Maenius C.f. Bassus was aedile and quattuorvir at Herculaneum and then after holding the tribuneship of a legion is found next at Praeneste as a quinquennalis.

M. Vettius M.f. Valens is called in an inscription duovir quinquennalis of the emperor Trajan, which shows not an appointment from the emperor in his place, for that would have been as a praefect, but rather that the emperor had nominated him, as an imperial right. This man held a number of priestly offices, was patron of the colony of Ariminum, and is called optimus civis.

Another inscription shows plainly that a man who had been quinquennalis in his own home town was later made quinquennalis in a colony founded by Augustus, Hispellum. This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominated quinquennalis by the emperor.

C. Pompilius Cerialis, who seems to have held only one other office, that of praefect to Drusus Caesar in an army legion, was duovir iure dicundo quinquennalis in Volaterrae.

M. Oppius Capito was not only quinquennalis twice at Auximum, patron of that and another colony, but he was patron of the municipium of Numana, and also quinquennalis.

Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superaequum, and held no other offices.

Again, particularly worthy of notice is the fact that when L. Septimius L.f. Calvus, who had been aedile and quattuorvir at Teate Marrucinorum, was given the quinquennial rights, it was of such importance that it needed especial mention, and that such mention was made by a decree of the city senate, shows clearly that such a method of getting a quinquennalis was out of the ordinary.

M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum has the title Augustalis duovir quinquennalis, and no other title but that of praefect of a cohort.

C. Egnatius Marus of Venusia was flamen of the emperor Tiberius, pontifex, and praefectus fabrum, and three times duovir quinquennalis, which seems to show a deference to a man who was the priest of the emperor, and seems to preclude an election by the citizens after a regular term of other offices.

Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate, which again shows the irregularity of the choice.

M. Traesius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an inhabitant of Atinae in Lucania.

M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was aedile and duovir in Pompeii, was not elected quinquennalis, but made praefectus quinquennalis, which implies appointment.

M. Holconius Celer was a priest of Augustus, and with no previous city offices is mentioned as quinquennalis-elect, which can perhaps as well mean nominated by the emperor, as designated by the popular vote.

P. Sextilius Rufus, aedile twice in Nola, is quinquennalis in Pompeii. As he was chosen by the old inhabitants of Nola to their senate, this would show that he belonged probably to the new settlers in the colony introduced by Augustus, and for some reason was called over also to Pompeii to take the quinquennial office.

L. Aufellius Rufus at Cales was advanced from the position of primipilus of a legion to that of quinquennalis, without having held any other city offices, but he was flamen of the deified emperor (Divus Augustus), and patron of the city.

M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being aedile or quaestor, in Aquinum.

Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but a quinquennalis at Aquinum.

The quinquennial year seems to have been the year in which matters of consequence were more likely to be done than at other times.

In 166 A.D. in Ostia a dedication was of importance enough to have the names of both the consuls of the year and the duoviri quinquennales at the head of the inscription.

The year that C. Cuperius and C. Arrius were quinquennales with censorial power (II vir c.p.q.) in Ostia, there was a dedication of some importance in connection with a tree that had been struck by lightning.

In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta was passed in the year when there were quinquennales.

In addition to the fact that the emperors were sometimes chosen quinquennales, the consuls were too. M'. Acilius Glabrio, consul ordinarius of 152 A.D., was made patron of Tibur and quinquennalis designatus.

On the other hand, against this array of facts, are others just as certain, if not so cogent or so numerous. From the inscriptions painted on the walls in Pompeii, we know that in the first century A.D. men were recommended as quinquennales to the voters. But although there seems to be a large list of such inscriptions, they narrow down a great deal, and in comparison with the number of duovirs, they are considerably under the proportion one would expect, for instead of being as 1 to 4, they are really only as 1 to 19. What makes the candidacy for quinquennialship seem a new and unaccustomed thing is the fact that the appeals for votes which are painted here and there on the walls are almost all recommendations for just two men.

There are quinquennales who were made patrons of the towns in which they held the office, but who held no other offices there (1); some who were both quaestors and aediles or praetors (2); quinquennales of both classes again who were not made patrons (3, 4); praefects with quinquennial power (5); quinquennales who go in regular order through the quattuorviral offices (6); those who go direct to the quinquennial rank from the tribunate of the soldiers (7); and (8) a VERY FEW who have what seems to be the regular order of lower offices first, quaestor, aedile or praetor, duovir, and then quinquennalis.

The sum of the facts collected is as follows: the quinquennales are proved to have been elective officers in Pompeii. The date, however, is the third quarter of the first century A.D., and the office may have been but recently thrown open to election, as has been shown. Quinquennales who have held other city offices are very, very few, and they appear in inscriptions of fairly late date.

On the other hand, many quinquennales are found who hold that office and no other in the city, men who certainly belong to other towns, many who from their nomination as patrons of the colony or municipium, are clearly seen to have held the quinquennial power also as an honor given to an outsider. In what municipal fasti we have, we find no quinquennalis whose name appears at all previously in the list of city officials.

The fact that the lex Iulia in 45 B.C. compelled the census to be taken everywhere else in the same year as in Rome shows at all events that the census had been taken in certain places at other times, whether with an implied supervision from Rome or not, and the later positive evidence that the emperors and members of the imperial family, and consuls, who were nominated quinquennales, always appointed praefects in their places, who with but an exception or two were not city officials previously, certainly tends to show that at some time the quinquennial office had been influenced in some way from Rome. The appointment of outside men as an honor would then be a survival of the custom of having outsiders for quinquennales, in many places doubtless a revival of a custom which had been in abeyance, to honor the imperial family.

In Praeneste, as in other colonies, it seems reasonable that Rome would want to keep her hand on affairs to some extent. Rome imposed on the colonies their new kind of officials, and in the fixing of duties and rights, what is more likely than that Rome would reserve a voice in the choice of those officials who were to turn in the lists on which Rome had to depend for the census?

Rome always made different treaties and understandings with her allies; according to circumstances, she made different arrangements with different colonies; even Sulla's own colonies show a vast difference in the treatment accorded them, for the plan was to conciliate the old inhabitants if they were still numerous enough to make it worth while, and the gradual change is most clearly shown by its crystallization in the lex Iulia of 45 B.C.

The evidence seems to warrant the following conclusions in regard to the quinquennales: From the first they were the most important city officials; they were elected by the people from the first, but were men who had been recommended in some way, or had been indorsed beforehand by the central government in Rome; they were not necessarily men who had held office previously in the city to which they were elected quinquennales; with the spread of the feeling of real Roman citizenship the necessity for indorsement from Rome fell into abeyance; magistrates were elected who had every expectation of going through the series of municipal offices in the regular way to the quinquennialship; and the later election of emperors and others to the quinquennial office was a survival of the habitual realization that this most honorable of city offices had some connection with the central authority, whatever that happened to be, and was not an integral part of municipal self government.

Such are some of the questions which a study of the municipal officers of Praeneste has raised. It would be both tedious and unnecessary to enumerate again the offices which were held in Praeneste during her history, but an attempt to place such a list in a tabular way is made in the following pages.

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE.

NAME. OFFICE. C.I.L. (XIV.)

Drusus Caesar } Quinq. 2964 Germanicus Caesar } Nero et Drusus Germanici filii Quinq. 2965 Nero Caesar, between 51-54 A.D. IIvir Quinq. 2995 -- Accius ... us Q 2964 P. Acilius P.f. Paullus, 243 A.D.Q. Aed. IIvir. 2972 L. Aiacius Q 2964 C. Albinius Aed (?) 2968 M. Albinius M.f. Aed, IIvir, 2974 IIvir quinq. M. Anicius (Livy VIII, 11, 4) Pr. M. Anicius L.f. Baaso Aed. 2975 P. Annius Septimus IIvir. 4091, 1 (M). Antonius Subarus IIvir. 4091, 18 Aper, see Voesius. T. Aponius Q 2966 P. Aquilius Gallus IIvir. 4091, 2 Q. Arrasidius Aed. 2966 C. Arrius Q 2964 M. Atellius Q 2964 Attalus, see Claudius.

Baaso, see Anicius. Bassus, see Cominius. C. Caecilius Aed. 2964 C. Caesius M.f. IIvir quinq. 2980 Sex. Caesius Aed. 2966 Q. Caleius Q 2966 Canies, see Saufeius. Sex. Capivas Q (?) 2968 C. Cassius Q 2966 Celsus, see Maesius. Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus IIvir. Not. d. Scavi. 1894, p. 96. M (?), Cominius Bassus Quinq. Praef. 2964 -- Cordus Q 2964 P. Cornelius IIvir. 2966 -- (Cornelius) Dolabella IIvir. 2966 -- (Corn)elius Rufus Aed. 2967 L. Curtius Aed. 2966 -- Cur(tius) Sura IIvir. 2964 M. Decumius Q (?) 2968

T. Diadumenius (see Antonius IIvir. 4091, 18 Subarus) C. Dindius Aed. 2964 Dolabella, see Cornelius. (Also Chap. II, n. 93.) -- Egnatius IIvir. 4091,3 Cn. Egnatius Aed. 2964 L. Fabricius C.f. Vaarus Aed. Not. d. Scavi. 1907, p. 137. C. Feidenatius Pr. 2999 L. Ferlidius Q (?) 2968 Fimbria, see Geganius. Flaccus, see Saufeius. C. Flavius L.f. IIvir quinq. 2980 Q. Flavius Q 2966

T. Flavius T.f. Germanus 181 A.D. Aed. IIvir. 2922 IIvir. QQ -- (Fl)avius Musca Q 2965 Gallus, see Aquilius. Sex. Geganius Finbria IIvir. 4091, 1 Germanus, see Flavius. -- nstacilius Aed. 2964 C. Iuc ... Rufus Q 2964 Laelianus, see Lutatius. M'. Later ... Q 4091, 12 (See Add. 4091, 12) T. Livius Aed. 2964 T. Long ... Priscus IIvir. 4091, 4 T. Lucretius IIvir. 2966 Sex. Lutatius Q.f. Laelianus Pr. 2930 Oppianicus Petronianus -- Macrin(ius) Nerian(us) Aed. 4091, 10 Sex. Maesius Sex. f. Celsus Q. Aed. IIvir. 2989 L. Mag(ulnius) M.f. Q 4091, 13 C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Q 2990 C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Pr. 2906 Maxs(umus) M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato. Pr.(?) 3008 Mamilianus, see Claudius. -- Manilei Post A(e)d. 2964 -- Mecanius IIvir. 4091, 5 M. Mersieius C.f. Aed. 2975 C. Messienus IIvir. 2966 Q. Mestrius IIvir. 4091, 6 -- -- Minus Quinq. 2964 Musca, see Flavius. L. Nassius Aed. 2966 M. Naut(ius) Q 4091, 14 Nerianus, see Macrinius. C. Ninn(ius) IIvir.(?) 2968 Oppianicus, see Lutatius. L. Orcevius Pr. 2902 C. Orcivi(us) Pr. IIvir. 2994 C. Paccius IIvir. (?) 2968 Paullus, see Acilius. L. Petisius Potens IIvir. 2964 Petronianus, see Lutatius. M. Petronius Quinq. 2966 (M). Petronius Rufus IIvir. 2964 M. Petronius Rufus Quinq. Praef. 2964 Planta, see Treb ... ti C. Pom pei us IIvir. 2964 Sex. Pomp(eius) IIvir. Praef. 2995 Pontanus, see Saufeius. Potens, see Petisius. Praenestinus praetor (Chap. II, n. 28.) Livy IX, 16, 17. Priscus, see Long ... Pulcher, see Vettius. -- Punicus Lig ... IIvir. 2964 C. Raecius IIvir. 2964 M. Raecius Q 2964 -- Rotanius Aed 2966 Rufus, see Cornelius, Iuc ..., Petronius, Tertius. Rutilus, see Saufeius. T. Sabidius Sabinus IIvir. Not. d. Scavi. 1894, p. 96. -- -- Sabinus Q 2967 C. Salvius IIvir. 2966 C. Salvius IIvir. 2964 M. Samiarius Q 2966 C. Sa(mi)us Pr. 2999 -- Saufei(us) Pr. IIvir. 2994 M. Saufe(ius) ... Canies Aid. Not. d. Scavi. 1907, p. 137. C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus Pr. 2906 C. Saufeius C.f. Flacus Q 3002 L. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus Q 3001 C. Saufeius C.f. Pontanus Aed. 3000 M. Saufeius L.f. Pontanus Aed. 3000 M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus Q 3002 Scato, see Magulnius. P. Scrib(onius) IIvir. 4091, 3 -- -- Sedatus Q. Pr(aef). 2965 Septimus, see Annius. C. Sertorius Q 2966 Q. Spid Q (?) 2969 -- Statiolenus Q 2966 L. Statius Sal. f. IIvir. 3013 Subarus, see Antonius. C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus Pr. 2890 C. Tappurius IIvir. 4091, 6 Tarenteinus, see Tampius. -- Tedusius T. (f.) IIvir. 3012a M. Tere ... Cl ... IIvir. 4091, 7 -- Tert(ius) Rufus IIvir. 2998 C. Thorenas Q 2964 L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. Pr. (?) 3008 C. Treb ... Pianta IIvir. 4091, 4 (Se)x. Truttidius IIvir. 2964 Vaarus, see Fabricius. -- (?)cius Valer(ianus) Q 2967 M. Valerius Q 2964 Varus, see Voluntilius. -- Vassius V. Aed. (?) 2964 L. Vatron(ius) Pr. 2902 C. Velius Aed. 2964 Q. Vettius T. (f) Pulcher IIvir. 3012 C. Vibius Aed. 2966 Q. Vibuleius L.f. IIvir. 3013 Cn. Voesius Cn. f. Aper. Q. Aed. IIvir. 3014 C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus IIvir. 3020 -- -- -- IIvir. 4091, 8 IIvir. Quinq.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE.

BEFORE PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY.

======================================================================================= DATE | IIVIRI. | AEDILES. | QUAESTORES. --------+-----------------------------------+-------------------+---------------------- B.C. | | | 9 | Praenestinus praetor. | | 5 | M. Anicius. | | { | | {M. Anicius L.f. | { | | { Baaso. | { | | {M. Mersieius C.f.| { | | | { | {C. Samius. | | { | {C. Feidenatius. | | { | C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus. | | { | {C. Vatronius. | | { | {L. Orcevius. | | { | | {C. Saufeius C.f. | { | | { Pontanus. | { | | {M. Saufeius L.f. | 2{ | | { Pontanus. | 8{ | | | C. Magulnius C.f. { | | | Scato. e{ | {L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. | | r{ | {M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato. | | o{ | | {L. Fabricius C.f.| f{ | | { Vaarus. | e{ | | {M. Saufe(ius) | B{ | | { Canies. | { | | | {M. Saufeius M.f. { | | | { Rutilus. { | | | {C. Saufeius C.f. { | | | { Flacus. { | {C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Maxsumus.| | { | {C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus. | | { | | | L. Saufeius C.f. { | | | Flaccus. 3 or | {C. Orcivius} Praestores | | | { } isdem | | 2(?) | {--Saufeius } Duumviri. | | --------+-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------------

A Senate is mentioned in the inscriptions C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.

AFTER PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY.

========================================================================================== DATE | IIVIRI. | AEDILES. | QUAESTORES. -----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+---------------------- | | | B.C. | | | 80-75(?) | | | ... Sabinus. | | | 2d year | {... nus. | {-- (Corn)elius | -- (?) cius Valer | { | { Rufus. | (ianus). | {... ter. | | | | | 80-50 | | | | | | {M. Samiarius. 1st year | -- (Cornelius) Dolabella. | -- Rotanius. | {Q. (Fl)avius. | | | 2d year | {C. Messienus. | {Sex. Caesius. | {Q. Caleius. | {P. Cornelius. | {L. Nassius. | {C. Sertorius. | | | 3d year | {C. Salvius. | {L. Curtius. | {-- Statiolenus. | {T. Lucretius. | {C. Vibius. | {C. Cassius. | | | 4th year | M. Petronius, Quinq. | Q. Arrasidius. | T. Aponius. | | | 75-50 | | | | | | {M. Decumius. 1st year | | | {L. Ferlidius. | | | 2d year | {C. Paccius. | {C. Albinius. | {Sex. Capivas. | {C. Ninn(ius). | {Sex Po ... | {C. M ... | | | ? | {C. Caesius M.f. } Duoviri | | | {C. Flavius L.f. } Quinq. | | | | | ? | {Q. Vettius T. (f.) Pulcher. | | | {-- Tedusius T. (f.). | | | | | ? | {Q. Vibuleius L.f. | | | {L. Statius Sal. f. | | | | | A.D. | | | 12 | | | M. Atellius. | | | 13 | C. Raecius. | {-- (--) lius. | {-- Accius ... us | | {C. Velius. | {M. Valerius. | | | | {Germanicus Caesar. | | | { Quinq. | | 14 | {Drusus Caesar. | | | {M. Cominius Bassus. | | | { Pr. | {C. Dindius. | {C. Iuc .. Rufus. | {M. Petronius Rufus | {Cn. Egnatius. | {C. Thorenas. | | | 15 | {Cn. Pom(pei)us. | | {M. Raecius. | {-- Cur (tius?) Sura. | | {-- Cordus. | | | 16 | {L. Petisius Potens | {C. Dindius. | {L. Aiacius. | {C. Salvius. | {T. Livius. | {C. Arrius. | | | ? | | -- Vassius. | | | | ? | -- Punicus. | -- Manilei. | | | | ? | ... Minus Quinq. | -- (?) rius. | | | | ? | (Se)x Truttidi(us). | C. Caecilius. | | | | ? | (M.) Petronius Rufus | -- (I)nstacilius.| | | | 1st year | | | -- Sedatus. | | | 2d year | ... lus | | -- (Fl)avius Musca. | | | | {Nero et Drusus } Duoviri | | 3d year | {Germanici f. } Quinq. | | | {....... } Praef. | | | {... Sedatus. } | | | | | 101 | {Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus. | | | {T. Sabidius Sabinus. | | | | | 100-256 | {P. Annius Septimus. | | | {Sex. Geganius Fimbria. | | | | | | P. Aquilius Gallus. | | -----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+----------------------

========================================================================================== DATE | IIVIRI. | AEDILES. | QUAESTORES. -----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+---------------------- O. | | | | | | 250 | {--Egnat(ius). | | | {P. Scrib(onius). | | | {T. Long ... Prisc(us) | | | {C. Treb ... Planta. | | | --Mecanius. | | | {Q. Mestrius. | | | {C. Tappurius. | | | M. Tere ... Cl ... | | | C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus. | | | | --Macrin(ius) | | | Nerian(us). | | | | M'. Later ... | | | L. Mag(ulnius) M.f. | {(M). Antonius Subarus. | | M. Naut(ius). | {T. Diadumenius. | | -----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+----------------------

Decuriones populusque colonia Praenestin., C.I.L., XIV, 2898, 2899; decuriones populusque 2970, 2971, Not. d. Scavi 1894, P. 96; other mention of decuriones 2980, 2987, 2992, 3013; ordo populusque 2914; decretum ordinis 2991; curiales, in the late empire, Symmachus, Rel., 28, 4.

FOOTNOTES:

I shall publish the map in completeness within a few years, in a place where the epochs of the growth of the city can be shown in colors.]

It might not be a bad guess to say that the Porta Triumphalis first got its name when M. Anicius returned with his proud cohort to Praeneste.]

Also as to the shape of the upper temple and the number of steps to it, we have certain facts from a document from the archives of the Vatican, published in Petrini, l.c., p. 429; palacii nobilissimi et antiquissimi scalae de nobilissimo marmore per quas etiam equitando ascendi poterat in Palacium ... quaequidem scalae erant ultra centum numero. Palacium autem Caesaris aedificatum ad modum unius C propter primam litteram nominis sui, et templum palatio inhaerens, opere sumptuosissimo et nobilissimo aedificatum ad modum s. Mariae rotundae de urbe.]

The latest discussion of the subject was a joint debate held under the auspices of the Associazione Archeologica di Palestrina between Professors Marucchi and Vaglieri, which is published thus far only in the daily papers, the Corriere D'Italia of Oct. 2, 1907, and taken up in an article by Attilio Rossi in La Tribuna of October 11, 1907. Vaglieri, in the newspaper article quoted, holds that the mosaic is the work of Claudius Aelianus, who lived in the latter half of the second century A.D. Marucchi, in the same place, says that in the porticoes of the upper temple are traces of mosaic which he attributes to the gift of Sulla mentioned by Pliny XXXVI, 189, but in urging this he must shift delubrum Fortunae to the Cortina terrace and that is entirely impossible.

I may say that a careful study and a long paper on the Barberini mosaic has just been written by Cav. Francesco Coltellacci, Segretario Comunale di Palestrina, which I had the privilege of reading in manuscript.]

The passage from Suetonius, De Gram., 17 (vita M. Verri Flacci), is always to be cited as proof of the forum, and that it had a well-marked upper and lower portion; Statuam habet (M. Verrius Flaccus) Praeneste in superiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos et marmoreo parieti incisos publicarat.]

Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 1, p. 74, notes 1 and 2, from other evidence there quoted, and especially from Varro, de l.l., V, 80: praetor dictus qui praeiret iure et exercitu, thinks that the consuls were not necessarily called praetors at first, but that probably even in the time of the kings the leader of the army was called the prae-itor. This is a modification of the statement six years earlier in Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 149, n. 4.]

Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.]

It is worth noting that there is no thought of saying anything about Praaneste and Tibur, except to call them cities ([Greek: poleis]). Had they been made municipia, after so many years of alliance as foederati, it seems likely that such a noteworthy change would have been specified.

Note also that for 88 B.C. Appian (Bell. Civ., I, 53) says: [Greek: eos Italia pasa prosechomaesei es taen Romaion politeian, choris ge Leukanon kai Sauniton tote.]]

The PRA ... in C.I.L., XIV, 2897, is praeco, not praefectus, as I shall show soon in the publication of corrections of Praeneste inscriptions, along with some new ones. For the government of a municipium, see Bull. dell'Inst., 1896, p. 7 ff.; Revue Arch., XXIX (1896), p. 398.]