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 prætors, ædiles, duovirs, or quattuorvirs, at intervals of five years their titles either were quinquennales,274 or had that added to them, and that this title implied censorial duties.275 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,276 that it was eponymous is also sure,277 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.278 The first necessary inquiry is whether the quinquennales were men who previously had held office as quæstors or ædiles, 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,279 which gives the full list of the city officials of the years 34-29 B.C., and the ædiles of 35, and both the duovirs and prætors 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 ædiles and quæstors. Neither of these quinquennales had held any office in the five preceding years at all events. One of the two quæstors of the year 33 B.C. is a L. Cornelius. The next year a L. Cornelius, with the greatest probability the same man, is præfect, and again in the year 30 he is duovir. Also in the year 32 L. Scutarius is quæstor, and in the last half of 31 is duovir. C. Geminius Niger is ædile in 30, and duovir in 28. So what we learn is that a L. Cornelius held the quæstorship one year, was a præfect the next, and later a regularly elected duovir; that L. Scutarius went from quæstor 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 ædile and duovir with a break of one year between.
The fasti of Nola280 give the duovirs and ædiles for four years, 29-32 A.D., but none of the ædiles mentioned rose to the duovirate within the years given. Nor do we get any help from the fasti of Interamna Lirenatis281 or Ostia,282 so the only other calendar we have to deal with is the one from Præneste, the fragments of which have been partially discussed above.
The text of that piece283 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 præfect for Drusus Cæsar 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 ædile, but two years later seemingly as ædile again, which must be a mistake. M. Cominius Bassus is made quinquennalis by order of the senate, and also made præfect for Germanicus and Drusus Cæsar in their quinquennial year. He is not found in any other inscription, and is otherwise unknown.284 The only other men who attained the quinquennial rank in Præneste were M. Petronius,285 and some man with the cognomen Minus,286 neither of whom appears anywhere else. A man with the cognomen Sedatus is quæstor in one year, and without holding other office is made præfect to the sons of Germanicus, Nero and Drusus, who were nominated quinquennales two years later.287 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 ædiles or quæstors. Also it has been shown that in two cases men who had been quæstors were made præfects, that is, appointees of people who had been nominated quinquennales as an honor, and who had at once appointed præfects 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 Cæsar, and Nero and Drusus the sons of Germanicus, nominated or elected quinquennales at Præneste, and represented in both cases by præfects appointed by them.288
From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers’ union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,289 prætor of a small town some ten miles from Ostia, and also quattuorvir quinquennalis of Fæsulæ, a town above Florence, which seems to show that he was sent to Fæsulæ as a quinquennalis, for the honor which he had held previously was that of prætor 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 præfect 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,290 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 præfect of the Latin games (præfectus feriarum Latinarum), then later a quinquennalis of Tibur, after which he was made patron of the city (patronus municipii).291 A Roman knight, C. Æmilius Antoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii at Tibur.292
N. Cluvius M’. f.293 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. Mænius C.f. Bassus294 was ædile and quattuorvir at Herculaneum and then after holding the tribuneship of a legion is found next at Præneste as a quinquennalis.
M. Vettius M.f. Valens295 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 præfect, 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.296 This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominated quinquennalis by the emperor.
C. Pompilius Cerialis,297 who seems to have held only one other office, that of præfect to Drusus Cæsar in an army legion, was duovir iure dicundo quinquennalis in Volaterræ.
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.298
Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superæquum, and held no other offices.299
Again, particularly worthy of notice is the fact that when L. Septimius L.f. Calvus, who had been ædile 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,300 shows clearly that such a method of getting a quinquennalis was out of the ordinary.
M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum301 has the title Augustalis duovir quinquennalis, and no other title but that of præfect of a cohort.
C. Egnatius Marus of Venusia was flamen of the emperor Tiberius, pontifex, and præfectus 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.302
Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate, which again shows the irregularity of the choice.303
M. Træsius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an inhabitant of Atinæ in Lucania.304
M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was ædile and duovir in Pompeii,305 was not elected quinquennalis, but made præfectus 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.306
P. Sextilius Rufus,307 ædile 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.308
M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being ædile or quæstor, in Aquinum.309
Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but a quinquennalis at Aquinum.310
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.311
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.312
In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta was passed in the year when there were quinquennales.313
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.314
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 19.315 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.316
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 quæstors and ædiles or prætors (2); quinquennales of both classes again who were not made patrons (3, 4); præfects 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, quæstor, ædile or prætor, duovir, and then quinquennalis.317
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 præfects 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 Præneste, 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 Præneste has raised. It would be both tedious and unnecessary to enumerate again the offices which were held in Præneste 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 Præneste
| NAME. | OFFICE. | C.I.L. (XIV.) |
| Drusus Cæsar Germanicus Cæsar | Quinq. | 2964 |
| Nero et Drusus Germanici filii | Quinq. | 2965 |
| Nero Cæsar, between 51-54 A.D. | IIvir Quinq. | 2995 |
| — Accius... us | Q | 2964 |
| P. Acilius P.f. Paullus, 243 A.D. | Q. Æd. IIvir. | 2972 |
| L. Aiacius | Q | 2964 |
| C. Albinius | Æd (?) | 2968 |
| M. Albinius M.f. | Æd, IIvir, IIvir Quinq. | 2974 |
| M. Anicius (Livy VIII, 11, 4) | Pr. | |
| M. Anicius L.f. Baaso | Æd. | 2975 |
| P. Annius Septimus | IIvir. | 4091, 1 |
| (M). Antonius Subarus318 | IIvir. | 4091, 18 |
| Aper, see Voesius. | ||
| T. Aponius | Q | 2966 |
| P. Aquilius Gallus | IIvir. | 4091, 2 |
| Q. Arrasidius | Æd. | 2966 |
| C. Arrius | Q | 2964 |
| M. Atellius | Q | 2964 |
| Attalus, see Claudius. | ||
| Baaso, see Anicius. | ||
| Bassus, see Cominius. | ||
| C. Cæcilius | Æd. | 2964 |
| C. Cæsius M.f. IIvir | quinq. | 2980 |
| Sex. Cæsius | Æd. | 2966 |
| Q. Caleius | Q | 2966 |
| Canies, see Saufeius. | ||
| Sex. Capivas | Q (?) | 2968 |
| C. Cassius | Q | 2966 |
| Celsus, see Mæsius. | ||
| Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus IIvir. | Not. d. Scavi. 1894, p. 96. | |
| M (?), Cominius Bassus | Quinq. Præf. | 2964 |
| — Cordus | Q | 2964 |
| P. Cornelius | IIvir. | 2966 |
| — (Cornelius) Dolabella | IIvir. | 2966 |
| — (Corn)elius Rufus | Æd. | 2967 |
| L. Curtius | Æd. | 2966 |
| — Cur(tius) Sura | IIvir. | 2964 |
| M. Decumius | Q (?) | 2968 |
| T. Diadumenius (see Antonius Subarus) | IIvir. | 4091, 18 |
| C. Dindius | Æd. | 2964 |
| Dolabella, see Cornelius. (Also Chap. II, n. 250.) | ||
| — Egnatius | IIvir. | 4091,3 |
| Cn. Egnatius | Æd. | 2964 |
| L. Fabricius C.f. Vaarus | Æd. | 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. | Æd. IIvir. IIvir. QQ | 2922 |
| — (Fl)avius Musca | Q | 2965 |
| Gallus, see Aquilius. | ||
| Sex. Geganius Finbria | IIvir. | 4091, 1 |
| Germanus, see Flavius. | ||
| — [I]nstacilius | Æd. | 2964 |
| C. Iuc... Rufus319 | Q | 2964 |
| Lælianus, see Lutatius. | ||
| M’. Later...320 (See Add. 4091, 12) | Q | 4091, 12 |
| T. Livius | Æd. | 2964 |
| T. Long... Priscus | IIvir. | 4091, 4 |
| T. Lucretius | IIvir. | 2966 |
| Sex. Lutatius Q.f. Lælianus Oppianicus Petronianu | Pr. | 2930 |
| — Macrin(ius) Nerian(us) | Æd. | 4091, 10 |
| Sex. Mæsius Sex. f. Celsus | Q. Æd. IIvir. | 2989 |
| L. Mag(ulnius) M.f. | Q | 4091, 13 |
| C. Magulnius C.f. Scato | Q | 2990 |
| C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Maxs(umus) | Pr. | 2906 |
| 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. | Æd. | 2975 |
| C. Messienus | IIvir. | 2966 |
| Q. Mestrius | IIvir. | 4091, 6 |
| — — Minus | Quinq. | 2964 |
| Musca, see Flavius. | ||
| L. Nassius | Æd. | 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. Præf. | 2964 |
| Planta, see Treb... ti | ||
| C. Pom pei us | IIvir. | 2964 |
| Sex. Pomp(eius) | IIvir. Præf. | 2995 |
| Pontanus, see Saufeius. | ||
| Potens, see Petisius. | ||
| Prænestinus prætor (Chap. II, n. 185.) Livy IX, 16, 17. | ||
| Priscus, see Long... | ||
| Pulcher, see Vettius. | ||
| — Punicus Lig... | IIvir. | 2964 |
| C. Ræcius | IIvir. | 2964 |
| M. Ræcius | Q | 2964 |
| — Rotanius | Æd | 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 | Æd. | 3000 |
| M. Saufeius L.f. Pontanus | Æd. | 3000 |
| M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus | Q | 3002 |
| Scato, see Magulnius. | ||
| P. Scrib(onius) | IIvir. | 4091, 3 |
| — — Sedatus | Q. Pr(æf). | 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. | Æd. (?) | 2964 |
| — Vassius V. | ||
| L. Vatron(ius) | Pr. | 2902 |
| C. Velius | Æd. | 2964 |
| Q. Vettius T. (f) Pulcher | IIvir. | 3012 |
| C. Vibius | Æd. | 2966 |
| Q. Vibuleius L.f. | IIvir. | 3013 |
| Cn. Voesius Cn. f. Aper. | Q. Æd. IIvir. | 3014 |
| C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus | IIvir. | 3020 |
| — — — | IIvir. IIvir. Quinqu. | 4091, 8 |
Chronological List of the Municipal Officers of Præneste
Before Præneste Was a Colony
| DATE | IIVIRI | AEDILES | QUÆSTORES. |
| B.C. | |||
| 9 | Prænestinus prætor. | ||
| 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 | ||
| 2{ 8{ | {C. Saufeius C.f. Pontanus {M. Saufeius L.f. | ||
| C. Magulnius C.f. Scato | |||
| e{ r{ | {L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. {M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato | ||
| o{ f{ | {L. Fabricius C.f. Varrus {M. Saufe(ius) Canies | ||
| e{ B{ | {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 2 (?) | {C. Orcivius} Praestores { } isdem {—Saufeius} Duumviri. |
A Senate is mentioned in the inscriptions C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.
After Præneste Was a Colony
| DATE | IIVIRI | AEDILES | QUÆSTORES. |
| B.C. | |||
| 80-75 (?) | ... Sabinus | ||
| 2d year | {... nus. { [... ter. | {— (Corn)elius Rufus | — (?)cius Valer(ianus) |
| 80-50 | |||
| 1st year | — (Cornelius) Dolabella | — Rotanius. | {M. Samiarius {Q. (Fl)avius. |
| 2d year | {C. Messienus. {P. Cornelius | {Sex. Cæsius. {L. Nassius. | {Q. Caleius {C. Sertorius. |
| 3d year | {C. Salvius {T. Lucretius | {L. Curtius {C. Vibius | {— Statiolenus. {C. Cassius |
| 4th year | M. Petronius, Quinqu. | Q. Arrasidius. | T. Aponius |
| 75-50 | |||
| 1st year | . | {M. Decumius. {L. Ferlidius. | |
| 2d year | {C. Paccius. {C. Ninn(ius). | {C. Albinius. {Sex. Po.. | {Sex. Capivas. {C. M... |
| ? | {C. Cæsius M.f.} Duoviri {C. Flavius L.f. } Quinqu. | ||
| ? | {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. {C. Velius. | {— Accius...us. {M. Valerius. |
| 14 | {Germanicus Cæsar Quinqu. {Drusus Cæsar {M. Cominius Bassus Pr. {M. Petronius Rufus | {C. Dindius. {Cn. Egnatius. | {C. Iuc... Rufus {C. Thorenas |
| 15 | {Cn. Pom(pei)us. {— Curtius?) Sura. | {M. Ræcius. {— Cordus. | |
| 16 | {L. Petisius Potens {C. Salvius. | {C. Dindius. {T. Livius. | {L. Aiacius. {C. Arrius. |
| ? | — Vassius | ||
| ? | — Punicus. | — Manilei. | |
| ? | ... Minus Quinq. | — (?) rius. | |
| ? | (Se)x Truttidi(us). | C. Cæcilius. | |
| ? | (M.) Petronius Rufus. | — (I)nstacilius. | |
| 1st year | — Sedatus. | ||
| 2d year | ... lus | — (Fl)avius Musca. | |
| 3d year | {Nero et Drusus } Duoviri {Germanici f. } Quinq. {.... } Præf. {... Sedatus. } | ||
| 101 | {Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus. {T. Sabidius Sabinus. | ||
| 100-256 | {P. Annius Septimus. {Sex. Geganius Fimbria. | ||
| P. Aquilius Gallus. | |||
| 250 | {— Egnatius. {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. {T. Diadumenius. | M. Naut(ius). |
Decuriones populusque colonia Prænestin., 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.
Notes
1 Strabo V, 3, II.
2 We know that in 380 B.C. Præneste had eight towns under her jurisdiction, and that they must have been relatively near by. Livy VI, 29, 6: octo præterea oppida erant sub dicione Prænestinorum. Festus, p. 550 (de Ponor): T. Quintius Dictator cum per novem dies totidem urbes et decimam Præneste cepisset, and the story of the golden crown offered to Jupiter as the result of this rapid campaign, and the statue which was carried away from Præneste (Livy VI, 29, 8), all show that the domain of Præneste was both of extent and of consequence.
3 Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.
4 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.
5 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 227 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Archeologica, p. 14; Nibby, Analisi, p. 483; Volpi, Latium vetus de Præn., chap 2; Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 167.
6 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.
7 Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.
8 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.
9 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 277, n. 36, from Epist., 474: Bonifacius VIII concedit Episcopo Civitatis Papalis Locum, ubi fuerunt olim Civitas Prænestina, eiusque Castrum, quod dicebatur Mons, et Rocca; ac etiam Civitas Papalis postmodum destructa, cum Territorio et Turri de Marmoribus, et Valle Gloriæ; nec non Castrum Novum Tiburtinum 2 Id. April. an. VI; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 136; Civitas prædicta cum Rocca, et Monte, cum Territorio ipsius posita est in districtu Urbis in contrata, quæ dicitur Romangia.
10 Ashby, Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. I, p. 213, and Maps IV and VI. Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 19, n. 34.
11 Livy VIII, 12, 7: Pedanos tuebatur Tiburs, Prænestinus Veliternusque populus, etc. Livy VII, 12, 8: quod Gallos mox Præneste venisse atque inde circa Pedum consedisse auditum est. Livy II, 39, 4; Dion. Hal. VIII, 19, 3; Horace, Epist, I, 4, 2. Cluverius, p. 966, thinks Pedum is Gallicano, as does Nibby with very good reason, Analisi, II, p. 552, and Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 176. Ashby, Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna in Papers of the British School at Rome, I, p. 205, thinks Pedum can not be located with certainty, but rather inclines to Zagarolo.
12 There are some good ancient tufa quarries too on the southern slope of Colle S. Rocco, to which a branch road from Præneste ran. Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104.
13 C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.
14 Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.
15 Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, I, p. 206, finds on the Colle del Pero an ampitheatre and a great many remains of imperial times, but considers it the probable site of an early village.
16 Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, wishes to connect Marcigliano and Ceciliano with the gentes Marcia and Cæcilia, but it is impossible to do more than guess, and the rather few names of these gentes at Præneste make the guess improbable. It is also impossible to locate regio Cæsariana mentioned as a possession of Præneste by Symmachus, Rel., XXVIII, 4, in the year 384 A.D. Eutropius II, 12 gets some confirmation of his argument from the modern name Campo di Pirro which still clings to the ridge west of Præneste.
17 The author himself saw all the excavations here along the road during the year 1907, of which there is a full account in the Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1907), p. 19. Excavations began on these tombs in 1738, and have been carried on spasmodically ever since. There were excavations again in 1825 (Marucchi, Guida Archeologica, p. 21), but it was in 1855 that the more extensive excavations were made which caused so much stir among archæologists (Marucchi, l.c., p. 21, notes 1-7). For the excavations see Bull, dell’Instituto. 1858, p. 93 ff., 1866, p. 133, 1869, p. 164, 1870, p. 97, 1883, p. 12; Not. d. Scavi, 2 (1877-78), pp. 101, 157, 390, 10 (1882-83), p. 584; Revue Arch., XXXV (1878), p. 234; Plan of necropolis in Garucci, Dissertazioni Arch., plate XII. Again in 1862 there were excavations of importance made in the Vigna Velluti, to the right of the road to Marcigliano. It was thought that the exact boundaries of the necropolis on the north and south had been found because of the little columns of peperino 41 inches high by 8-8/10 inches square, which were in situ, and seemed to serve no other purpose than that of sepulchral cippi or boundary stones. Garucci, Dissertazioni Arch., I, p. 148; Archæologia, 41 (1867), p. 190.
18 C.I.L., XIV, 2987.
19 The papal documents read sometimes in Latin, territorium Prænestinum or Civitas Prænestina, but often the town itself is mentioned in its changing nomenclature, Pellestrina, Pinestrino, Penestre (Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. II; Nibby, Analisi, II, pp. 475, 483).
20 There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any way to ancient Præneste.
21 Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own observations. See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.
22 The temple in Cave is of the same tufa (Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104). The quarries down toward Gallicano supplied tufa of the same texture, but the quarries are too small to have supplied much. But this tufa from the ridge back of the town seems not to have been used in Gallicano to any great extent, for the tufa there is of a different kind and comes from the different cuts in the ridges on either side of the town, and from a quarry just west of the town across the valley.
23 Plautus, Truc., 691 (see [Probus] de ultimis syllabis, p. 263, 8 (Keil); C.I.L., XIV, p. 288, n. 9); Plautus, Trin., 609 (Festus, p. 544 (de Ponor), Mommsen, Abhand. d. berl. Akad., 1864, p. 70); Quintilian I, 5, 56; Festus under “tongere,” p. 539 (de Ponor), and under “nefrendes,” p. 161 (de Ponor).
24 Cave has been attached rather more to Genazzano during Papal rule than to Præneste, and it belongs to the electoral college of Subiaco, Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 182.
25 I heard everywhere bitter and slighting remarks in Præneste about Cave, and much fun made of the Cave dialect. When there are church festivals at Cave the women usually go, but the men not often, for the facts bear out the tradition that there is usually a fight. Tomassetti, Della Campagna Romana, p. 183, remarks upon the differences in dialect.
26 Mommsen, Bull. dell’Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that the civilization in Præneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin cities.
27 It is to be noted that this Marcigliana road was not to tap the trade route along the Volscian side of the Liris-Trerus valley, which ran under Artena and through Valmontone. It did not reach so far. It was meant rather as a threat to that route.
28 Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and Querquetula is not a question here at all.
29 Gatti, in Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576, in connection with the Arlenius inscription, found on the site of the new Forum below Præneste in 1903, which mentions Ad Duas Casas as confinium territorio Prænestinæ, thought that it was possible to identify this place with a fundus and possessio Duas Casas below Tibur under Monte Gennaro, and thus to extend the domain of Præneste that far, but as Huelsen saw (Mitth. des k.d. Arch, Inst., 19 (1904), p. 150), that is manifestly impossible, doubly so from the modern analogies which he quotes (l.c., note 2) from the Dizionario dei Comuni d’Italia.
30 It might be objected that because Pietro Colonna in 1092 A.D. assaulted and took Cave as his first step in his revolt against Clement III (Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 240), that Cave was at that time a dependency of Præneste. But it has been shown that Præneste’s diocesan territory expanded and shrunk very much at different times, and that in general the extent of a diocese, when larger, depends on principles which ancient topography will not allow. And too it can as well be said that Pietro Colonna was paying up ancient grudge against Cave, and certainly also he realized that of all the towns near Præneste, Cave was strategically the best from which to attack, and this most certainly shows that in ancient times such natural barriers between the two must have been practically impassable.
31 To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that which looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.
32 To anticipate any one saying that this scarping is modern, and was done to make the approach to the Via del Colonnaro, I will say that the modern part of it is insignificant, and can be most plainly distinguished, and further, that the two pieces of opus incertum which are there, as shown also in Fernique’s map, Étude sur Préneste, opp. p. 222, are Sullan in date.
33 Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, map facing p. 222. His book is on the whole the best one on Præneste but leaves much to be desired when the question is one of topography or epigraphy (see Dessau’s comment C.I.L., XIV, p. 294, n. 4). Even Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 68, n. 1, took the word of a citizen of the town who wrote him that parts of a wall of opus quadratum could be traced along the Via dello Spregato, and so fell into error. Blondel, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’école française de Rome, 1882, plate 5, shows a little of this polygonal cyclopean construction.
34 Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 511, wrote his note on the wall beyond San Francesco from memory. He says that one follows the monastery wall down, and then comes to a big reservoir. The monastery wall has only a few stones from the cyclopean wall in it, and they are set in among rubble, and are plainly a few pieces from the upper wall above the gate. The reservoir which he reaches is half a mile away across a depression several hundred feet deep, and there is no possible connection, for the reservoir is over on Colle San Martino, not on the hill of Præneste at all.
35 The postern or portella is just what one would expect near a corner of the wall, as a less important and smaller entrance to a terrace less wide than the main one above it, which had its big gates at west and east, the Porta San Francesco and the Porta del Cappuccini. The Porta San Francesco is proved old and famous by C.I.L., XIV, 3343, where supra viam is all that is necessary to designate the road from this gate. Again an antica via in Via dello Spregato (Not. d. Scavi, I (1885), p. 139, shows that inside this oldest cross wall there was a road part way along it, at least.)
36 The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid bare in 1890, Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38.
37 Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 501: “A destra della contrada degli Arconi due cippi simili a quelli del pomerio di Roma furono scoperti nel risarcire la strada Tanno 1824.”
38 Some of the paving stones are still to be seen in situ under the modern wall which runs up from the brick reservoir of imperial date. This wall was to sustain the refuse which was thrown over the city wall. The place between the walls is now a garden.
39 I have examined with care every foot of the present western wall on which the houses are built, from the outside, and from the cellars inside, and find no traces of antiquity, except the few stones here and there set in late rubble in such a way that it is sure they have been simply picked up somewhere and brought there for use as extra material.
40 C.I.L., XIV., 3029; PED XXC. Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 497, mentions an inscription, certainly this one, but reads it PED XXX, and says it is in letters of the most ancient form. This is not true. The letters are not so very ancient. I was led by his note to examine every stone in the cyclopean wall around the whole city, but no further inscription was forthcoming.
41 This stretch of opus incertum is Sullan reconstruction when he made a western approach to the Porta Triumphalis to correspond to the one at the east on the arches. This piece of wall is strongly made, and is exactly like a piece of opus incertum wall near the Stabian gate at Pompeii, which Professor Man told me was undoubtedly Sullan.
42 Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 19, who is usually a good authority on Præneste, thinks that all the opus quadratum walls were built as surrounding walls for the great sanctuary of Fortuna. But the facts will not bear out his theory. Ovid, Fasti VI, 61-62, III, 92; Preller, Roem. Myth., 2, 191, are interesting in this connection.
43 I could get no exact measurements of the reservoir, for the water was about knee deep, and I was unable to persuade my guides to venture far from the entrance, but I carried a candle to the walls on both sides and one end.
44 At some places the concrete was poured in behind the wall between it and the shelving cliff, at other places it is built up like the wall. The marks of the stones in the concrete can be seen most plainly near Porta S. Martino (Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104, also mentions it). The same thing is true at various places all along the wall.
45 Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 107, has exact measurements of the walls.
46 Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 108, from Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43, considers as a possibility a road from each side, but he is trying only to make an approach to the temple with corresponding parts, and besides he advances no proofs.
47 There seems to have been only a postern in the ancient wall inside the present Porta del Sole.
48 Many feet of this ancient pavement were laid bare during the excavations in April, 1907, which I myself saw, and illustrations of which are published in the Notizie d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1907), pp. 136, 292.
49 Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 57 ff. for argument and proof, beginning with Varro, de I. 1. VI, 4: ut Præneste incisum in solario vidi.
50 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43.
51 The continuation of the slope is the same, and the method of making roads in the serpentine style to reach a gate leading to the important part of town, is not only the common method employed for hill towns, but the natural and necessary one, not only in ancient times, but still today.
52 Through the courtesy of the Mayor and the Municipal Secretary of Palestrina, I had the only exact map in existence of modern Palestrina to work with. This map was getting in bad condition, so I traced it, and had photographic copies made of it, and presented a mounted copy to the city. This map shows these wall alignments and the changes in direction of the cyclopean wall on the east of the city. Fernique seems to have drawn off-hand from this map, so his plan (l.c., facing p. 222) is rather carelessly done.
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.
53 I called the attention of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman, Carnegie Fellow in the American School of Classical Studies in Rome, who came out to Palestrina, and kindly went over many of my results with me, to this piece of wall, and she agreed with me that it had been an approach to the terrace in ancient times.
54 C.I.L., XIV, 2850. The inscription was on a small cippus, and was seen in a great many different places, so no argument can be drawn from its provenience.
55 This may have been the base for the statue of M. Anicius, so famous after his defense at Casilinum. Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18.
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 Præneste.
56 Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38. This platform is a little over three feet above the level of the modern piazza, but is now hidden under the steps to the Corso. But the piece of restraining wall is still to be seen in the piazza, and it is of the same style of opus quadratum construction as the walls below the Barberini gardens.
57 Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): ερυμνη μεν ουν εκατερα, πολυ δ’ερυμνοτεραερυμνοτε Πραινεστος.
58 Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: Μαριος δε φευγων εις Πραινεστον ηδη τας πυλας ευρε κεκλειμενας.
59 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 282; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 491.
60 Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, pp. 180-181. The walls were built in muro merlato. It is not certain where the Murozzo and Truglio were. Petrini guesses at their site on grounds of derivation.
61 Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 248.
62 Also called Porta S. Giacomo, or dell’Ospedale.
63 Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 252.
64 Closed seemingly in Sullan times.
65 The rude corbeling of one side of the gate is still very plainly to be seen. The gate is filled with mediæval stone work.
66 There is a wooden gate here, which can be opened, but it only leads out upon a garden and a dumping ground above a cliff.
67 This was the only means of getting out to the little stream that ran down the depression shown in plate III, and over to the hill of S. Martino, which with the slope east of the city could properly be called Monte Glicestro outside the walls.
68 This gate is now a mediæval tower gate, but the stones of the cyclopean wall are still in situ, and show three stones, with straight edge, one above the other, on each side of the present gate, and the wall here has a jog of twenty feet. The road out this gate could not be seen except from down on the Cave road, and it gave an outlet to some springs under the citadel, and to the valley back toward Capranica.
69 This last stretch of the wall did not follow the present wall, but ran up directly back of S. Maria del’Carmine, and was on the east side of the rough and steep track which borders the eastern side of the present Franciscan monastery.
70 The several courses of opus quadratum which were found a few years ago, and are at the east entrance to the Corso built into the wall of a lumber store, are continued also inside that wall, and seem to be the remains of a gate tower.
71 See page 28. This gap in the wall is still another proof for the gate, for it was down the road, which was paved, that the water ran after rainstorms, if at no other time.
72 This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazione de Numeri, Map facing page 1: l’antica Porta di San Martino chiusa.
73 Since the excavations of the past two years, nothing has been written to show what relations a few newly discovered pieces of ancient paved roads have to the city and to its gates, and for that reason it becomes necessary to say something about a matter only tolerably treated by the writers on Præneste up to their dates of publication.
74 Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, in Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 1, Map VI.
75 This road is proved as ancient by the discovery in 1906 (Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 3 (1906), p. 317) of a small paved road, a diverticolo, in front of the church of S. Lucia, which is a direct continuation of the Via degli Arconi. This diverticolo ran out the Colle dell’Oro. See Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 20, n. 37; Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 122; Marucchi, Guida Archeologica, p. 122.
76 This road to Marcigliano had nothing to do with either the Prænestina or the Labicana. Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 255; 2 (1877-78), p. 157; Bull. dell’Inst., 1876, pp. 117 ff. make the via S. Maria the eastern boundary of the necropolis.
77 Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1903), pp. 23-25.
78 Probably the store room of some little shop which sold the exvotos. Bull. dell’Inst., 1883, p. 28.
79 Bull. dell’Inst., 1871, p. 72 for tombs found on both sides the modern road to Rome, the exact provenience being the vocabolo S. Rocco, on the Frattini place; Stevenson, Bull. dell’Inst., 1883, pp. 12 ff., for tombs in the vigna Soleti along the diverticolo from the Via Prænestina. Also at Bocce Rodi, one mile west of the city, tombs of the imperial age were found (Not. d. Scavi, 10 (1882-83), p. 600); C.I.L., XIV, 2952, 2991, 4091, 65; Bull. dell’Inst., 1870, p. 98.
80 The roads are the present Via Prænestina toward Gallicano, and the Via Prænestina Nuova which crosses the Casilina to join the Labicana. This great deposit of terra cottas was found in 1877 at a depth of twelve feet below the present ground level. Fernique, Revue Arch., XXXV (1878), p. 240, notes 1, 2, and 3, comes to the best conclusions on this find. It was a factory or kiln for the terra cottas, and there was a store in connection at or near the junction of the roads. Other stores of deposits of the same kinds of objects have been found (see Fernique, l.c.) at Falterona, Gabii, Capua, Vicarello; also at the temple of Diana Nemorensis (Bull. dell’Inst., 1871, p. 71), and outside Porta S. Lorenzo at Rome (Bull. Com., 1876, p. 225), and near Civita Castellana (Bull. dell’Inst., 1880, p. 108).
81 Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239);... διωρυξι κρυπταις—πανταχοτεν μεχρι των πεδιων ταις μεν υδρειας χαριν κτλ.; Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4.
82 As one goes out the Porta S. Francesco and across the depression by the road which winds round to the citadel, he finds both above and below the road several reservoirs hollowed out in the rock of the mountain, which were filled by the rain water which fell above them and ran into them.
83 Cola di Rienzo did this (see note 59), and so discovered the method by which the Prænestines communicated with the outside world. Sulla fixed his camp on le Tende, west of the city, that he might have a safe position himself, and yet threaten Præneste from the rear, from over Colle S. Martino, as well as by an attack in front.
84 C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add., 2978, 2979, 3015.
85 Nibby, Analisi, p. 510. It could be seen in 1907, but not so very clearly.
86 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 79, thinks this reservoir was for storing water for a circus in the valley below. This is most improbable. It was a reservoir to supply a villa which covered the lower part of the slope, as the different remains certainly show.
87 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 301, n. 30, 31, from Annali int. rerum Italic, scriptorum, Vol. 24, p. 1115; Vol. 21, p. 146, and from Ciacconi, in Eugen. IV, Platina et Blondus.
88 The mediæval Italian towns everywhere made use of the Roman aqueducts, and we have from the middle ages practically nothing but repairs on aqueducts, hardly any aqueducts themselves.
89 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of this aqueduct as “quel mirabile antico cuniculo.”
90 The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua del Sambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 286).
91 Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 96 ff., p. 122 ff.; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 501 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 45.
92 Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 503, the sanest of all the writers on Præneste, even made some ruins which he found under the Fiumara house on the east side of town, into the remains of a reservoir to correspond to the one in the Barberini gardens. The structures according to material differ in date about two hundred years.
93 C.I.L., XIV, 2911, was found near this reservoir, and Nibby from this, and a likeness to the construction of the Castra Prætoria at Rome, dates it so (Analisi, p. 503).
94 This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of the American School in Rome.
95 See above, page 29.
96 There is still another small reservoir on the next terrace higher, the so-called Borgo terrace, but I was not able to examine it satisfactorily enough to come to any conclusion. Palestrina is a labyrinth of underground passages. I have explored dozens of them, but the most of them are pockets, and were store rooms or hiding places belonging to the houses under which they were.
97 This is shown by the network of drains all through the plain below the city. Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4; Valer. Max. VI, 8, 2; Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 77; Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 123.
98 Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85.
99 There are many references to the temple. Suetonius, Dom., 15, Tib., 63; Ælius Lampridius, Life of Alex. Severus, XVIII, 4, 6 (Peter); Strabo V, 3, 11 (238, 10); Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 86-87; Plutarch, de fort. Rom. (Moralia, p. 396, 37); C.I.L., I, p. 267; Preller, Roem. Myth. II, 192, 3 (pp. 561-563); Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 275, n. 29, p. 278, n. 37.
100 “La città attuale è intieramente fondata sulle rovine del magnifico tempio della Fortuna,” Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 494. “E niuno ignora che il colossale edificio era addossato al declivio del monte prenestino e occupava quasi tutta l’area ove oggi si estende la moderna città,” Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), p. 233.
101 This upper temple is the one mentioned in a manifesto of 1299 A.D. made by the Colonna against the Caetani (Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 275, n. 29). It is an order of Pope Boniface VIII, ex Codic. Archiv. Castri S. Angeli signat, n. 47, pag. 49: Item, dicunt civitatem Prenestinam cum palatiis nobilissimis et cum templo magno et sollempni... et cum muris antiquis opere sarracenico factis de lapidibus quadris et magnis totaliter suppositam fuisse exterminio et ruine per ipsum Dominum Bonifacium, etc. Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 419 ff.
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 scalæ de nobilissimo marmore per quas etiam equitando ascendi poterat in Palacium... quæquidem scalæ erant ultra centum numero. Palacium autem Cæsaris ædificatum ad modum unius C propter primam litteram nominis sui, et templum palatio inhærens, opere sumptuosissimo et nobilissimo ædificatum ad modum s. Mariæ rotundæ de urbe.
102 Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under Das Heiligtum der Fortuna in Præneste, p. 47 ff.
103 Cicero, De Div., II, 41, 85.
104 Marucchi wishes to make the east cave the older and the real cave of the sortes. However, he does not know the two best arguments for his case; Lampridius, Alex. Severus, XVIII, 4, 6 (Peter); Huic sors in templo Prænestinæ talis extitit, and Suetonius Tib., 63: non repperisset in arca nisi relata rursus ad templum. Topography is all with the cave on the west, Marucchi is wrong, although he makes a very good case (Bull. Com., 32 (1904), p. 239).
105 Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85: is est hodie locus sæptus religiose propter Iovis pueri, qui lactens cum lunone Fortunæ in gremio sedens,... eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunæ nunc est ædes, etc.
106 C.I.L., XIV, 2867:...ut Triviam in Iunonario, ut in pronao ædis statuam, etc., and Livy, XXIII, 19, 18 of 216 B.C.: Idem titulus (a laudatory inscription to M. Anicius) tribus signis in æde Fortunæ positis fuit subiectus.
107 This question is not topographical and can not be discussed at any length here. But the best solution seems to be that Fortuna as child of Jupiter (Diovo filea primocenia, C.I.L., XIV., 2863, Iovis puer primigenia, C.I.L., XIV, 2862, 2863) was confounded with her name Iovis puer, and another cult tradition which made Fortuna mother of two children. As the Roman deity Jupiter grew in importance, the tendency was for the Romans to misunderstand Iovis puer as the boy god Jupiter, as they really did (Wissowa, Relig. u. Kult. d. Roemer, p. 209), and the pride of the Prænestines then made Fortuna the mother of Jupiter and Juno, and considered Primigenia to mean “first born,” not “first born of Jupiter.”
108 The establishment of the present Cathedral of S. Agapito as the basilica of ancient Præneste is due to the acumen of Marucchi, who has made it certain in his writings on the subject. Bull. dell’ Inst., 1881, p. 248 ff., 1882, p. 244 ff.; Guida Archeologica, 1885, p. 47 ff.; Bull. Com., 1895, p. 26 ff., 1904, p. 233 ff.
109 There are 16 descriptions and plans of the temple. A full bibliography of them is in Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, pp. 51-52.
110 Marucchi. Bull. Com., XXXII (1904), p. 240. I also saw it very plainly by the light of a torch on a pole, when studying the temple in April, 1907.
111 See also Revue Arch., XXXIX (1901), p. 469, n. 188.
112 C.I.L, XIV, 2864.
113 See Henzen, Bull. dell’Inst., 1859, p. 23, from Paulus ex Festo under manceps. This claims that probably the manceps was in charge of the maintenance (manutenzione) of the temple, and the cellarii of the cella proper, because æditui, of whom we have no mention, are the proper custodians of the entire temple, precinct and all.
114 C.I.L., XIV, 3007. See Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, 2, p. 365, n. 73.
115 See Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62.
116 C.I.L., XIV, 2922; also on bricks, Ann. dell’Inst., 1855, p. 86—C.I.L., XIV, 4091, 9.
117 C.I.L., XIV, 2980; C. Cæsius M.f.C. Flavius L.f. Duovir Quinq. ædem et portic d.d. fac. coer. eidemq. prob.
118 C.I.L., XIV, 2995;...summa porticum mar[moribus]—albario adiecta. Dessau says on “some public building,” which is too easy. See Vitruvius, De Architectura, 7, 2; Pliny, XXXVI, 177.
119 Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 430. See also Juvenal XIV, 88; Friedlænder, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10.
120 Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62, with illustration.
121 Although Suaresius (Thesaurus Antiq. Italiæ, VIII, Part IV, plate, p. 38) uses some worthless inscriptions in making such a point, his idea is good. Perhaps the lettered blocks drawn for the inquirer from the arca were arranged here on this slab. Another possibility is that it was a place of record of noted cures or answers of the Goddess. Such inscriptions are well known from the temple of Æsculapius at Epidaurus, Cavvadias, Εφημ Αρχ., 1883, p. 1975; Michel, Recueil d’insc. grec., 1069 ff.
122 Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, pp. 320, 324; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 3, p. 271, n. 8. See Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), p. 10.
123 Delbrueck, l.c., pp. 50, 59, does prove that there is no reason why λιθοστρωτον can not mean a mosaic floor of colored marble, but he forgets comparisons with the date of other Roman mosaics, and that Pliny would not have missed the opportunity of describing such wonderful mosaics as the two in Præneste. Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), p. 251 goes far afield in his Isityches (Isis-Fortuna) quest, and gets no results.
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 Ælianus, 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 Fortunæ 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.
124 For the many opinions as to the subject of the mosaic, see Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 75.
125 This has been supposed to be a villa of Hadrian’s because the Braschi Antinoüs was found here, and because we find bricks in the walls with stamps which date from Hadrian’s time. But the best proof that this building, which is under the modern cemetery, is Hadrian’s, is that the measurements of the walls are the same as those in his villa below Tibur. Dr. Van Deman, of the American School in Rome, spent two days with me in going over this building and comparing measurements with the villa at Tibur. I shall publish a plan of the villa in the near future. See Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, for a meagre description of the villa.
126 Delbrueck, l.c., p. 58, n. 1.
127 The ærarium is under the temple and at the same time cut back into the solid rock of the cliff just across the road at one corner of the basilica. An ærarium at Rome under the temple of Saturn is always mentioned in this connection. There is also a chamber of the same sort at the upper end of the shops in front of the basilica Æmilia in the Roman Forum, to which Boni has given the name “carcere,” but Huelsen thinks rightly that it is a treasury of some sort. There is a like treasury in Pompeii back of the market, so Mau thinks, Vaglieri in Corriere D’Italia, Oct 2, 1907.
129 C.I.L., XIV, 2875. This dedication of “coques atriensis” probably belongs to the upper temple.
130 Alle Quadrelle casale verso Cave e Valmontone, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 70; Chaupy, Maison d’Horace, II, p. 317; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 326, n. 9.
131 The martyr suffered death contra civitatem prænestinam ubi sunt duæ viæ, Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 144, n. 3, from Martirol. Adonis, 18 Aug. Cod. Vat. Regin., n. 511 (11th cent. A.D.).
132 C.I.L., XIV, 3014; Bull. munic., 2 (1874), p. 86; C.I.L., VI, p. 885, n. 1744a; Tac. Ann., XV, 46 (65 A.D.); Friedlænder, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, p. 377; Cicero, pro Plancio, XXVI, 63; Epist. ad Att., XII, 2, 2; Cassiodorus, Variæ, VI, 15.
133 A black and white mosaic of late pattern was found there during the excavations. Not. d. Scavi, 1877, p. 328; Fernique, Revue Arch., XXXV (1878), p. 233; Fronto, p. 157 (Naber).
134 On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 60.
135 I think this better than the supposition that these libraries were put up by a man skilled in public and private law. See C.I.L, XIV, 2916.
136 Not d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 330.
137 Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18: statua cius (M. Anicii) indicio fuit, Præneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, etc.
138 See also the drawing and illustrations, one of which, no. 2, is from a photograph of mine, in Not. d. Scavi, 1907, pp. 290-292. The basilica is built in old opus quadratum of tufa, Not. d. Scavi, I (1885), p. 256.
139 In April, 1882 (Not. d. Scavi, 10 (1882-83), p. 418), during a reconstruction of the cathedral of S. Agapito, ancient pavement was found in a street back of the cathedral, and many pieces of Doric columns which must have been from the peristile of the basilica. See Plate IV for new pieces just found of these Doric columns.
140 Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49. Also in same place: “l’area sacra adiacente al celebre santuario della Fortuna Primigenia” is the description of the cortile of the Seminary.
141 More discussion of this point above in connection with the temple, page 51.
142 I was in Præneste during all the excavations of 1907, and made these photographs while I was there.
143 The drawing of the Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 290, which shows a probable portico is not exact.
144 It is now called the Via delle Scalette.
145 Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 58.
146 See full-page illustration in Delbrueck, l.c., p. 79.
147 See page 30. But ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) would refer better to the Sullan forum below the town, especially as the two bases set up to Pax Augusti and Securitas Augusti (C.I.L., XIV, 2898, 2899) were found down on the site of the lower forum.
148 C.I.L., XIV, 2908, 2919, 2916, 2937, 2946, 3314, 3340.
149 C.I.L., XIV, 2917, 2919, 2922, 2924, 2929, 2934, 2955, 2997, 3014, Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576.
150 F. Barnabei, Not. d. Scavi, 1894, p. 96.
151 C.I.L., XIV, 2914.
152 Not. d. Scavi, 1897, p. 421; 1904, p. 393.
153 Foggini, Fast. anni romani, 1774, preface, and Mommsen, C.I.L., I, p. 311 (from Acta acad. Berol., 1864, p. 235; See also Henzen, Bull. dell’Inst., 1864, p. 70), were both wrong in putting the new forum out at le quadrelle, because a number of fragments of the calendar of Verrius Flaccus were found there. Marucchi proves this in his Guida Arch., p. 100, Nuovo Bull. d’Arch. crist., 1899, pp. 229-230; Bull. Com., XXXII (1904), p. 276.
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) Præneste in superiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos et marmoreo parieti incisos publicarat.
154 Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 50, n. 1, from Preller, Roemische Mythologie, II, p. 191, n. 1.
155 C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.
156 Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 320, n. 19.
157 Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 35.
158 Tibur shows 1 to 32 and Præneste 1 to 49 names of inhabitants from the Umbro-Sabellians of the Appennines. These statistics are from A. Schulten, Italische Namen und Stæmme, Beitræge zur alten Geschichte, II, 2, p. 171. The same proof comes from the likeness between the tombs here and in the Faliscan country: “Le tombe a casse soprapposte possono considerarsi come repositori per famiglie intere, e corrispondono alle grande tombe a loculo del territorio falisco”. Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 257, from Mon. ant. pubb. dall’Acc. dei Lincei, Ant. falische, IV, p. 162.
159 Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, V, p. 159.
160 Livy VI, 29; C.I.L., XIV, 2987.
161 Livy VII, 11; VII, 19; VIII, 12.
162 Præneste is not in the dedication list of Diana at Nemi, which dates about 500 B.C., Priscian, Cato IV, 4, 21 (Keil II, p. 129), and VII, 12, 60 (Keil II, p. 337). Livy II, 19, says Præneste deserted the Latins for Rome.
163 Livy VIII, 14.
164 Val. Max., De Superstitionibus, I, 3, 2; C.I.L., XIV, 2929, with Dessau’s note.
166 “Præneste wird immer eine selbstændige Stellung eingenommen haben” Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alt., II, p. 523. Præneste is mentioned first of the league cities in the list given by [Aurelius Victor], Origo-gentis Rom., XVII, 6, and second in the list in Diodorus Siculus, VII, 5, 9 Vogel and also in Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor). Præneste is called by Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21, 27) one of the municipia Italiæ splendidissima along with Spoletium, Interamnium, Florentia.
167 Livy XXIII, 20, 2.
168 Livy I, 30, 1.
169 Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.
170 Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under “Anicia.”
171 The old Oscan names in Pompeii, and the Etruscan names on the small grave stones of Cære, C.I.L., X, 3635-3692, are neither so numerous.
172 Dionysius III, 2.
173 Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.
174 Festus, p. 122 (de Ponor): Cives fuissent ut semper rempublicam separatim a populo Romano haberent, and supplemented, l.c., Pauli excerpta, p. 159 (de Ponor): participes—fuerunt omnium rerum—præterquam de suffragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo.
175 Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in civitatem Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.
176 Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis et coloniæ, ut Tiburtes, Prænestini, etc.
177 I do not think so. The argument is taken up later on page 73. It is enough to say here that Tusculum was estranged from the Latin League because she was made a municipium (Livy VI, 25-26), and how much less likely that Præneste would ever have taken such a status.
178 C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.
179 Tibur had censors in 204 B.C. (Livy XXIX, 15), and later again, C.I.L, I, 1113, 1120 = XIV, 3541, 3685. See also Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 159.
180 C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.
181 C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195
182 Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in Milonianam, p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, 2121.
183 C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.
184 Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.
185 Livy IX, 16, 17; Dio, frag. 36, 24; Pliny XVII, 81. Ammianus Marcellinus XXX, 8, 5; compare Gellius X, 3, 2-4. This does not show, I think, what Dessau (C.I.L., XIV, p. 288) says it does: “quanta fuerit potestas imperatoris Romani in magistratus sociorum,” but shows rather that the Roman dictator took advantage of his power to pay off some of the ancient grudge against the Latins, especially Præneste. The story of M. Marius at Teanum Sidicinum, and the provisions made at Cales and Ferentinum on that account, as told in Gellius X, 3, 2-3, also show plainly that not constitutional powers but arbitrary ones, are in question. In fact, it was in the year 173 B.C., that the consul L. Postumius Albinus, enraged at a previous cool reception at Præneste, imposed a burden on the magistrates of the town, which seems to have been held as an arbitrary political precedent. Livy XLII, 1: Ante hunc consulem NEMO umquam sociis in ULLA re oneri aut sumptui fuit.
186 Prænestinus prætor... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy IX, 16, 17.
187 A prætor led the contingent from Lavinium, Livy VIII, 11, 4; the prætor M. Anicius led from Præneste the cohort which gained such a reputation at Casilinum, Livy XXIII, 17-19. Strabo V, 249; cohors Pæligna, cuius præfectus, etc., proves nothing for a Latin contingent.
188 For the evidence that the consuls were first called prætors, see Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under the word “consul” (Vol. IV, p. 1114) and the old Pauly under “prætor.”
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 1, p. 74, notes 1 and 2, from other evidence there quoted, and especially from Varro, de l.l., V, 80: prætor dictus qui præiret iure et exercitu, thinks that the consuls were not necessarily called prætors at first, but that probably even in the time of the kings the leader of the army was called the præ-itor. This is a modification of the statement six years earlier in Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 149, n. 4.
189 This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law at the University of Michigan.
190 Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, 61.
191 Pauly-Wissowa under “dictator,” and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 171, 2.
192 Whether Egerius Lævius Tusculanus (Priscian, Inst., IV, p. 129 Keil) was dictator of the whole of the Latin league, as Beloch (Italischer Bund, p. 180) thinks, or not, according to Wissowa (Religion und Kultus der Roemer, p. 199), at least a dictator was the head of some sort of a Latin league, and gives us the name of the office (Pais, Storia di Roma, I, p. 335).
193 If it be objected that the survival of the dictatorship as a priestly office (Dictator Albanus, Orelli 2293, Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 149, n. 2) means only a dictator for Alba Longa, rather than for the league of which Alba Longa seems to have been at one time the head, there can be no question about the Dictator Latina(rum) fer(iarum) caussa of the year 497 (C.I.L., I.p. 434 Fasti Cos. Capitolini), the same as in the year 208 B.C. (Livy XXVII, 33, 6). This survival is an exact parallel of the rex sacrorum in Rome (for references and discussion, see Marquardt, Staatsverw., III, p. 321), and the rex sacrificolus of Varro, de l.l. VI, 31. Compare Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, p. 508, n. 32, and Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult d. Roemer, p. 432. Note also that there were reges sacrorum in Lanuvium (C.I.L, XIV, 2089), Tusculum (C.I.L, XIV, 2634), Velitræ (C.I.L., X, 8417), Bovillæ (C.I.L., XIV, 2431 == VI, 2125). Compare also rex nemorensis, Suetonius, Caligula, 35 (Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Roemer, p. 199).
194 C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.
195 C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly 3008).
196 C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.
197 C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.
199 Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.
200 Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.
201 For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, notes 1 and 2.
202 The mention of one prætor in C.I.L., XIV, 2890, a dedication to Hercules, is later than other mention of two prætors, and is not irregular at any rate.
203 C.I.L., XIV, 3000, two ædiles of the gens Saufeia, probably cousins. In C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2975, 2990, 2994, 2999, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3008, out of eighteen prætors, ædiles, and quæstors mentioned, fifteen belong to the old families of Præneste, two to families that belong to the people living back in the Sabines, and one to a man from Fidenæ.
204 Cicero, pro Balbo, VIII, 21: Leges de civili iure sunt latæ: quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia lege civitas ita est sociis et Latinis data ut, qui fundi populi facti non essent civitatem non haberent. Velleius Pater. II, 16: Recipiendo in civitatem, qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius, vires refectæ sunt. Gellius IV, 4, 3; Civitas universo Latio lege Iulia data est. Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 49: Ιταλιωτων δε τους ετι εν τη συμμαχια παραμενοντας εψηφισατο (η βουλη) ειναι πολιτας, ου δη μαλιστα μονον ου παντες επεθυμουν κτλ.
Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.
205 Cicero, pro Archia, IV, 7: Data est civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: si qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti fuissent, si tum cum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent, et si sexaginta diebus apud prætorem essent professi. See also Schol. Bobiensia, p. 353 (Orelli corrects the mistake Silanus for Silvanus); Cicero, ad Fam., XIII, 30; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 60. Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311 thinks this law did not apply to any but the incolæ of federate communities; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102.
206 Livy VIII, 14, 9: Tiburtes Prænestinique agro multati, neque ob recens tantum rebellionis commune cum aliis Latinis crimen, etc.,... ceterisque Latinis populis conubia commerciaque et concilia inter se ademerunt. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 46, n. 3, thinks not an æquum foedus, but from the words: ut is populus alterius populi maiestatem comiter conservaret, a clause in the treaty found in Proculus, Dig., 49, 15, 7 (Corpus Iuris Civ., I, p. 833) (compare Livy IX, 20, 8: sed ut in dicione populi Romani essent) thinks that the new treaty was an agreement based on dependence or clientage “ein Abhængigkeits—oder Clientelverhæltniss.”
207 Mommsen, Geschichte des roem. Muenzwesens, p. 179 (French trans, de Blacas, I, p. 186), thinks two series of æs grave are to be assigned to Præneste and Tibur.
208 Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Præneste, Matienus Tibur exulatum abierunt.
209 Polybius VI, 14, 8: εστι δ’ασφαλεια τοις φευγουσιν εν τε τη, Νεαπολιτω και Πραινεςτινων ετι δε Τιβουρινων πολει. Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. 215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 45.
210 Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Prænestini) civitate cum donarentur ob virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.
211 The celebration of the feriæ Latinæ on Mons Albanus in 91 B.C., was to have been the scene of the spectacular beginning of the revolt against Rome, for the plan was to kill the two Roman consuls Iulius Cæsar and Marcius Philippus at that time. The presence of the Roman consuls and the attendance of the members of the old Latin league is proof of the outward continuance of the old foedus (Florus, II, 6 (III, 18)).
212 The lex Plautia-Papiria is the same as the law mentioned by Cicero, pro Archia, IV, 7, under the names of Silvanus and Carbo. The tribunes who proposed the law were C. Papirius Carbo and M. Plautius Silvanus. See Mommsen, Hermes 16 (1881), p. 30, n. 2. Also a good note in Long, Ciceronis Orationes, III, p. 215.
Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: εξεδραμεν ες τας αγχου πολεις, τας ου προ πολλου πολιτιδας Ρωμαιων μενομενας, Τιβυρτον τε και Πραινεστον, και οσαι μεχρι Νωλης. ερεθιζων απαντας ες αποστασιν, καιχρηματα ες τον πολεμον συλλεγων. See Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.
It is worth noting that there is no thought of saying anything about Praaneste and Tibur, except to call them cities (πολεις). 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: εως Ιταια πασα προσεχωρησει ες την Ρωμαιων πολιτειαν, χωρις γε Λευκανων καιΣαυνιτων τοτε.
214 Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), pp. 109 ff.
215 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.
216 Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): tertio, quum id genus hominum definitur, qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis et coloniæ, ut Tiburtes, Prænestini, etc.
217 It is not strange perhaps, that there are no inscriptions which can be proved to date between 89 and 82 B.C., but inscriptions are numerous from the time of the empire, and although Tiberius granted Præneste the favor she asked, that of being a municipium, still no præfectus is found, not even a survival of the title.
The PRA... in C.I.L., XIV, 2897, is præco, not præfectus, as I shall show soon in the publication of corrections of Præneste 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.
218 Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.
219 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.
220 Val. Max. IX, 2, 1; Plutarch, Sulla, 32; Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 94; Lucan II, 194; Plutarch, præc. ger. reip., ch. 19 (p. 816); Augustinus, de civ. Dei, III, 28; Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289, n. 2.
221 One third of the land was the usual amount taken.
222 Note Mommsen’s guess, as yet unproved (Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109), that tribus, colonia, and duoviri iure dicundo go together, as do curia, municipium and IIIIviri i.d. and æd. pot.
223 Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21): municipia Italiæ splendidissima sub hasta venierunt, Spoletium, Interamnium, Præneste, Florentia. See C.I.L., IX, 5074, 5075 for lack of distinction between colonia and municipium even in inscriptions. Florentia remained a colony (Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 176). Especially for difference in meaning of municipium from Roman and municipal point of view, see Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 28, n. 2. For difference in earlier and later meaning of municipes, Marquardt, l.c., p. 34, n. 8. Valerius Maximus IX, 2, 1, speaking of Præneste in connection with Sulla says: quinque milia Prænestinorum extra moenia municipii evocata, where municipium means “town,” and Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289, n. 1, speaking of the use of the word says: “ei rei non multum tribuerim.”
224 Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statum redegit. See Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167.
225 Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110; C.I.L., XIV, 2889: genio municipii; 2941, 3004: patrono municipii, which Dessau (Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167, n. 1) recognizes from the cutting as dating certainly later than Tiberius’ time.
226 Regular colony officials appear all along in the incriptions down into the third century A.D.
227 Gellius XVI, 13, 5.
228 More in detail by Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110.
229 Livy VII, 12, 8; VIII, 12, 8.
230 Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 161.
231 Cicero, pro P. Sulla, XXI, 61.
232 Niebuhr, R.G., II, 55, says the colonists from Rome were the patricians of the place, and were the only citizens who had full rights (civitas cum suffragio et iure honorum). Peter, Zeitschrift fuer Alterth., 1844, p. 198 takes the same view as Niebuhr. Against them are Kuhn, Zeitschrift fuer Alterth., 1854, Sec. 67-68, and Zumpt, Studia Rom., p. 367. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 36, n. 7, says that neither thesis is proved.
233 Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.
234 Cicero, de leg. agr., II, 28, 78, complains that the property once owned by the colonists was now in the hands of a few. This means certainly, mostly bought up by old inhabitants, and a few does not mean a score, but few in comparison to the number of soldiers who had taken their small allotments of land.
235 C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.
236 C.I.L., XIV, 2964-2969.
C.I.L., XIV, 2964, 2965. No. 2964 dates before 14 A.D. when Augustus died, for had it been within the few years more which Drusus lived before he was poisoned by Sejanus in 23 A.D., he would have been termed divi Augusti nep. In the Acta Arvalium, C.I.L., VI, 2023a of 14 A.D. his name is followed by T i.f. and probably divi Augusti n.
238 C.I.L., XIV, 2966, 2968.
239 The first column of both inscriptions shows alternate lines spaced in, while the second column has the prænominal abbreviations exactly lined. More certain yet is the likeness which shows in a list of 27 names, and all but one without cognomina.
240 C.I.L., XIV, 2967.
241 Out of 201 examples of names from Præneste pigne inscriptions, in the C.I.L., XIV, in the Notizie degli Scavi of 1905 and 1907, in the unpublished pigne belonging both to the American School in Rome, and to the Johns Hopkins University, all but 15 are simple prænomina and nomina.
242 C.I.L., X, 1233.
243 C.I.L., IX, 422.
244 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 5.
245 Lex Iulia Municipalis, C.I.L., I, 206, l. 142 ff. == Dessau, Inscrip. Lat. Sel., 6085.
246 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 160.
247 C.I.L., XIV, 2966.
248 Pauly-Wissowa under “Dolabella,” and “Cornelius,” nos. 127-148.
249 The real founder of Sulla’s colony and the rebuilder of the city of Præneste seems to have been M. Terentius Varro Lucullus. This is argued by Vaglieri, who reports in Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 293 ff. the fragment of an architrave of some splendid building on which are the letters... RO.LVCVL... These letters Vaglieri thinks are cut in the style of the age of Sulla. They are fine deep letters, very well cut indeed, although they might perhaps be put a little later in date. An argument from the use of the name Terentia, as in the case of Cornelia, will be of some service here. The nomen Terentia was also very unpopular in Præneste. It occurs but seven times and every inscription is well down in the late imperial period. C.I.L., XIV, 3376, 3384, 2850, 4091, 75, 3273; Not. d. Scavi, 1896, p. 48.
250 C.I.L., XIV, 2967:... elius Rufus Æd(ilis). I take him to be a Cornelius rather than an Ælius, because of the cognomen.
251 One Cornelius, a freedman (C.I.L., XIV, 3382), and three Corneliæ, freed women or slaves (C.I.L., XIV, 2992, 3032, 3361), but all at so late a date that the hatred or meaning of the name had been forgotten.
252 A full treatment of the use of the nomen Cornelia in Præneste will be published soon by the author in connection with his Prosographia Prænestina, and also something on the nomen Terentia (see note 92). The cutting of one of the two inscriptions under consideration, no. 2968, which fragment I saw in Præneste in 1907, bears out the early date. The larger fragment could not be seen.
253 Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, p. 222, under “Rutenius.” He finds the same form Rotanius only in Turin, Rutenius only in North Italy.
254 From the appearance of the name Rudia at Præneste (C.I.L., XIV, 3295) which Schulze (l.c., note 95) connects with Rutenia and Rotania, there is even a faint chance to believe that this Rotanius might have been a resident of Præneste before the colonization.
255 C.I.L., XIV, 3230-3237, 3315; Not. d. Scavi, 1905, p. 123; the one in question is C.I.L., XIV, 2966, I, 4.
256 C.I.L., VI, 22436: (Mess)iena Messieni, an inscription now in Warwick Castle, Warwick, England, supposedly from Rome, is the only instance of the name in the sepulcrales of the C.I.L., VI. In Præneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2966, I, 5, 3360; compare Schulze, Geschichte Lat. Eigennamen, p. 193, n. 6.
257 Cæsia at Præneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2852, 2966 I, 6, 2980, 3311, 3359, and the old form Ceisia, 4104.
258 See Schulze, l.c., index under Caleius.
259 C.I.L., XIV, 2964 II, 15.
260 Vibia especially in the old inscription C.I.L., XIV, 4098. Also in 2903, 2966 II, 9; Not. d. Scavi, 1900, p. 94.
261 Statioleia: C.I.L., XIV, 2966 I, 10, 3381.
262 C.I.L., XIV, 3210; Not. d. Scavi, 1905, p. 123; also found in two pigna inscriptions in the Johns Hopkins University collection, as yet unpublished.
263 There is a L. Aponius Mitheres on a basis in the Barberini garden in Præneste, but it may have come from Rome. The name is found Abonius in Etruria, but Aponia is found well scattered. See Schulze, Geschichte Lat. Eigennamen, p. 66.
264 C.I.L., XIV, 2855, 2626, 3336.
265 C.I.L., XIV, 3116. It may not be on a pigna.
266 Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 131. The nomen Paccia is a common name in the sepulchral inscriptions of Rome. C.I.L., VI, 23653-23675, but all are of a late date.
267 C.I.L., IX, 5016: C. Capive Vitali (Hadria).
268 A better restoration than Ninn(eius). The (N)inneius Sappæus (C.I.L., VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription is late.
269 In the year 216 B.C. the Ninnii Celeres were hostages of Hannibal’s at Capua (Livy XXIII, 8).
270 C.I.L., X, 2776-2779, but all late.
271 C.I.L., X, 885-886. A Ninnius was procurator to Domitian, according to a fistula plumbea found at Rome (Bull. Com., 1882, p. 171, n. 597). A.Q. Ninnius Hasta was consul ordinarius in 114 A.D. (C.I.L., XI, 3614, compare Paulus, Dig. 48, 8, 5 [Corpus Iuris Civ., I, p. 802]). See also a Ninnius Crassus, Dessau, Prosographia Imp. Romani, II, p. 407, n. 79.
272 It is interesting to note that C. Paccius and C. Ninnius are officials, one would guess duovirs, of the same year in Pompeii, and thus parallel the men here in Præneste: C.I.L., X, 885-886: N. Paccius Chilo and M. Ninnius Pollio, who in 14 B.C. are duoviri v.a.s.p.p. (viis annonæ sacris publicis procurandis), Henzen; (votis Augustalibus sacris publicis procurandis), Mommsen; (viis ædibus, etc.), Cagnat; See Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1842, 9.
273 Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1806.
274 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 157 ff.; Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc., V, 1825. Sometimes the officers were designated simply quinquennales, and this seems to have been the early method. For all the various differences in the title, see Marquardt, l.c., p. 160, n. 13.
275 All at least except the regimen morum, so Marquardt, l.c., p. 162 and n. 2.
276 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 6.
277 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 7.
278 Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 78 ff.; Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, II, p. 99 ff.
279 C.I.L., IX, 422 = Dessau, Insc. Lat. Sel., 6123.
280 C.I.L., X, 1233 = Dessau 6124.
281 Near Aquinum. C.I.L., X, 5405 = Dessau 6125.
282 C.I.L., XIV, 245 = Dessau 6126.
283 C.I.L., XIV, 2964.
284 He is not even mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa or Ruggiero.
285 C.I.L., XIV, 2966.
286 C.I.L., XIV, 2964.
287 C.I.L., XIV, 2965.
288 Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 169 for full discussion, with references to other cases.
289 C.I.L., XIV, 172: præt(or) Laur(entium) Lavin(atium) IIIIvir q(uin) q(uennalis) Fæsulis.
290 C.I.L., XIV, 3599.
291 C.I.L., XIV, 3609.
292 C.I.L., XIV, 3650.
293 C.I.L., I, 1236 == X, 1573 == Dessau 6345.
294 C.I.L., XIV, 3665.
295 C.I.L., XI, 421 == Dessau 6662.
296 C. Alfius C.f. Lem. Ruf(us) IIvir quin(q). col. Iul. Hispelli et IIvir quinq. in municipio suo Casini, C.I.L., XI, 5278 == Dessau 6624. Bormann, C.I.L., XI, p. 766, considers this to be an inscription of the time of Augustus and thinks the man here mentioned is one of his colonists.
297 Not. d. Scav, 1884, p. 418 == Dessau 6598.
298 C.I.L., IX, 5831 == Dessau 6572.
299 C.I.L., IX, 3311 == Dessau 6532.
300 L. Septimio L.f. Arn. Calvo. æd., IIIIvir. i.d., præf. ex s.c. [q]uinquennalicia potestate, etc., Eph. Ep. 8, 120 == Dessau 6527.
301 C.I.L., IX, 1618 == Dessau 6507.
302 C.I.L., IX, 652 == Dessau 6481.
303 The full title is worth notice: IIIIvir i(ure) d(icundo) q(uinquennalis) c(ensoria) p(otestate), C.I.L., X, 49 == Dessau 6463.
304 C.I.L., X, 344 == Dessau 6450.
305 C.I.L., X, 1036 == Dessau 6365.
306 C.I.L., X, 840 == Dessau 6362: M. Holconio Celeri d.v.i.d. quinq. designato. Augusti sacerdoti.
307 C.I.L., X, 1273 == Dessau 6344.
308 C.I.L., X, 4641 == Dessau 6301.
309 C.I.L., X, 5401 == Dessau 6291.
310 C.I.L., X, 5393 == Dessau 6286.
311 C.I.L., XIV, 4148.
312 C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.
313 C.I.L., XIV, 2795.
314 C.I.L., XIV, 4237. Another case of the same kind is seen in the fragment C.I.L., XIV, 4247.
315 Zangemeister, C.I.L., IV., Index, shows 75 duoviri and but 4 quinquennales.
316 L. Veranius Hypsæus 6 times: C.I.L., IV, 170, 187, 193, 200, 270, 394(?). Q. Postumius Modestus 7 times: 195, 279, 736, 756, 786, 1156. Only two other men appear, one 3 times; 214, 596, 824, the other once: 504.
317 (1) Verulæ, C.I.L., X, 5796; Acerræ, C.I.L., X, 3759; (2) Anagnia, C.I.L., X, 5919; Allifæ, C.I.L., IX, 2354; Æclanum, C.I.L., IX, 1160; (3) Sutrium, C.I.L., XI, 3261; Tergeste, C.I.L., V, 545; (4) Tibur, C.I.L., XIV, 3665; Ausculum Apulorum, C.I.L., IX, 668; Sora, C.I.L, X, 5714; (5) Formiæ, C.I.L., X, 6101; Pompeii, C.I.L., X, 1036; (6) Ferentinum, C.I.L., X, 5844, 5853; Falerii, C.I.L., XI, 3123; (7) Pompeii, Not. d. Scavi, 1898, p. 171, and C.I.L., X, 788, 789, 851; Bovianum, C.I.L., IX, 2568; (8) Telesia, C.I.L., IX, 2234; Allifæ, C.I.L., IX, 2353; Hispellum, C.I.L., XI, 5283.
318 The same certainly as M. Antonius Sobarus of 4091,17 and duovir with T. Diadumenius, as is shown by the connective et. Compare 4091, 4, 6, 7.
319 C.I.L., I, p. 311 reads Lucius, which is certainly wrong. There is but one Lucius in Dessau, Prosographia Imp. Rom.; there is however a Lucilius with this same cognomen Dessau, l.c.
320 Probably not the M. Iuventius Laterensis, the Roman quæstor, for the brick stamps of Præneste in other cases seem to show the quæstors of the city.