diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-0.txt | 4168 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-h/12770-h.htm | 7223 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-h/images/imag001.jpg | bin | 0 -> 26926 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-h/images/imag002.jpg | bin | 0 -> 27169 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-h/images/imag003.jpg | bin | 0 -> 38176 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-h/images/imag004.jpg | bin | 0 -> 39194 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 12770-h/images/imag005.jpg | bin | 0 -> 89030 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-8.txt | 4559 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 86198 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 317994 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h/12770-h.htm | 7638 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg | bin | 0 -> 26926 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg | bin | 0 -> 27169 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg | bin | 0 -> 38176 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg | bin | 0 -> 39194 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg | bin | 0 -> 89030 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770.txt | 4559 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770.zip | bin | 0 -> 86143 bytes |
21 files changed, 28163 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/12770-0.txt b/12770-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a42780 --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4168 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12770 *** + +SERIES XXVI NOS. 9-10 + +JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE + +Under the Direction of the Departments of History, Political Economy, +and Political Science + +STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF PRAENESTE + +BY RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, A.B. Fellow in Latin. + + +September, October, 1908 + +COPYRIGHT 1908 + + + + +CONTENTS. + +CHAPTER I. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE + EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE + THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES + THE PORTA TRIUMPHALIS + THE GATES + THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRAENESTE + THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA + THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE + THE FORA + THE SACRA VIA + +CHAPTER II. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRAENESTE + WAS PRAENESTE A MUNICIPIUM? + PRAENESTE AS A COLONY + THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES + THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS + THE QUINQUENNALES + +AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE + +A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE + 1. BEFORE PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY + 2. AFTER PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY + + + + +PREFACE. + +This study is the first of a series of studies already in progress, in +which the author hopes to make some contributions to the history of the +towns of the early Latin League, from the topographical and epigraphical +points of view. + +The author takes this opportunity to thank Dr. Kirby Flower Smith, Head +of the Department of Latin, at whose suggestion this study was begun, +and under whose supervision and with whose hearty assistance its +revision was completed. + +He owes his warmest thanks also to Dr. Harry Langford Wilson, Professor +of Roman Archaeology and Epigraphy, with whom he made many trips to +Praeneste, and whose help and suggestions were most valuable. + +Especially does he wish to testify to the inspiration to thoroughness +which came from the teaching and the example of his dearly revered +teacher, Professor Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Head of the Greek +Department, and he acknowledges also with pleasure the benefit from the +scholarly methods of Dr. David M. Robinson, and the manifold +suggestiveness of the teaching of Dr. Maurice Bloomfield. + +The cordial assistance of the author's aunt, Dr. Esther B. Van Deman, +Carnegie Fellow in the American School at Rome, both during his stay in +Rome and Praeneste and since his return to America, has been invaluable, +and the privilege afforded him by Professor Dr. Christian Hülsen, of the +German Archaeological Institute, of consulting the as yet unpublished +indices of the sixth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, is +acknowledged with deep gratitude. + +The author is deeply grateful for the facilities afforded him in the +prosecution of his investigations while he was a resident in Palestrina, +and he takes great pleasure in thanking for their courtesies, Cav. +Capitano Felice Cicerchia, President of the Archaeological Society at +Palestrina, his brother, Cav. Emilio Cicerchia, Government Inspector of +Antiquities, Professor Pompeo Bernardini, Mayor of the City, and Cav. +Francesco Coltellacci, Municipal Secretary. + +Finally, he desires to express his cordial appreciation of the kind +advice and generous assistance given by Professor John Martin Vincent in +connection with the publication of this monograph. + + + + +A STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF PRAENESTE. + + + + +CHAPTER I. + + +THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. + +Nearly a half mile out from the rugged Sabine mountains, standing clear +from them, and directly in front of the sinuous little valley which the +northernmost headstream of the Trerus made for itself, rises a +conspicuous and commanding mountain, two thousand three hundred and +eighteen feet above the level of the sea, and something more than half +that height above the plain below. This limestone mountain, the modern +Monte Glicestro, presents on the north a precipitous and unapproachable +side to the Sabines, but turns a fairer face to the southern and western +plain. From its conical summit the mountain stretches steeply down +toward the southwest, dividing almost at once into two rounded slopes, +one of which, the Colle di S. Martino, faces nearly west, the other in a +direction a little west of south. On this latter slope is situated the +modern Palestrina, which is built on the site of the ancient Praeneste. + +From the summit of the mountain, where the arx or citadel was, it +becomes clear at once why Praeneste occupied a proud and commanding +position among the towns of Latium. The city, clambering up the slope on +its terraces, occupied a notably strong position[1], and the citadel was +wholly impregnable to assault. Below and south of the city stretched +fertile land easy of access to the Praenestines, and sufficiently +distant from other strong Latin towns to be safe for regular +cultivation. Further, there is to be added to the fortunate situation +of Praeneste with regard to her own territory and that of her contiguous +dependencies, her position at a spot which almost forced upon her a wide +territorial influence, for Monte Glicestro faces exactly the wide and +deep depression between the Volscian mountains and the Alban Hills, and +is at the same time at the head of the Trerus-Liris valley. Thus +Praeneste at once commanded not only one of the passes back into the +highland country of the Aequians, but also the inland routes between +Upper and Lower Italy, the roads which made relations possible between +the Hernicans, Volscians, Samnites, and Latins. From Praeneste the +movements of Volscians and Latins, even beyond the Alban Hills and on +down in the Pontine district, could be seen, and any hostile +demonstrations could be prepared against or forestalled. In short, +Praeneste held the key to Rome from the south. + +Monte Glicestro is of limestone pushed up through the tertiary crust by +volcanic forces, but the long ridges which run off to the northwest are +of lava, while the shorter and wider ones extending toward the southwest +are of tufa. These ridges are from three to seven miles in length. It is +shown either by remains of roads and foundations or (in three cases) by +the actual presence of modern towns that in antiquity the tip of almost +every one of these ridges was occupied by a city. The whole of the tufa +and lava plain that stretches out from Praeneste toward the Roman +Campagna is flat to the eye, and the towns on the tips of the ridges +seem so low that their strong military position is overlooked. The tops +of these ridges, however, are everywhere more than an hundred feet above +the valley and, in addition, their sides are very steep. Thus the towns +were practically impregnable except by an attack along the top of the +ridge, and as all these ridges run back to the base of the mountain on +which Praeneste was situated, both these ridges and their towns +necessarily were always closely connected with Praeneste and dependent +upon her. + +There is a simple expedient by which a conception of the topography of +the country about Praeneste can be obtained. Place the left hand, palm +down, flat on a table spreading the fingers slightly, then the palm of +the right hand on the back of the left with the fingers pointing at +right angles to those of the left hand. Imagine that the mountain, on +which Praeneste lay, rises in the middle of the back of the upper hand, +sinks off to the knuckles of both hands, and extends itself in the +alternate ridges and valleys which the fingers and the spaces between +them represent. + + +EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE. + +Just as the modern roads and streets in both country and city of ancient +territory are taken as the first and best proof of the presence of +ancient boundary lines and thoroughfares, just so the territorial +jurisdiction of a city in modern Italy, where tradition has been so +constant and so strong, is the best proof for the extent of ancient +domain.[2] Before trying, therefore, to settle the limits of the domain +of Praeneste from the provenience of ancient inscriptions, and by +deductions from ancient literary sources, and present topographical and +archaeological arguments, it will be well worth while to trace rapidly +the diocesan boundaries which the Roman church gave to Praeneste. + +The Christian faith had one of its longest and hardest fights at +Praeneste to overcome the old Roman cult of Fortuna Primigenia. +Christianity triumphed completely, and Praeneste was so important a +place, that it was made one of the six suburban bishoprics,[3] and from +that time on there is more or less mention in the Papal records of the +diocese of Praeneste, or Penestrino as it began to be called. + +In the fifth century A.D. there is mention of a gift to a church by +Sixtus III, Pope from 432 to 440, of a certain possession in Praenestine +territory called Marmorata,[4] which seems best located near the town of +Genazzano. + +About the year 970 the territory of Praeneste was increased in extent by +Pope John XIII, who ceded to his sister Stefania a territory that +extended back into the mountains to Aqua alta near Subiaco, and as far +as the Rivo lato near Genazzano, and to the west and north from the head +of the Anio river to the Via Labicana.[5] + +A few years later, in 998, because of some troubles, the domain of +Praeneste was very much diminished. This is of the greatest importance +here, because the territory of the diocese in 998 corresponds almost +exactly not only to the natural boundaries, but also, as will be shown +later, to the ancient boundaries of her domain. The extent of this +restricted territory was about five by six miles, and took in Zagarolo, +Valmontone, Cave, Rocca di Cave, Capranica, Poli, and Gallicano.[6] +These towns form a circle around Praeneste and mark very nearly the +ancient boundary. The towns of Valmontone, Cave, and Poli, however, +although in a great degree dependent upon Praeneste, were, I think, just +outside her proper territorial domain. + +In 1043, when Emilia, a descendant of the Stefania mentioned above, +married Stefano di Colonna, Count of Tusculum, Praeneste's territory +seems to have been enlarged again to its former extent, because in 1080 +at Emilia's death, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Colonna because +they insisted upon retaining the Praenestine territory which had been +given as a fief to Stefania, and which upon Emilia's death should have +reverted to the Church.[7] + +We get a glance again at the probable size of the Praenestine diocese +in 1190, from the fact that the fortieth bishop of Praeneste was +Giovanni Anagnino de' Conti di Segni (1190-1196),[8] and this seems to +imply a further extension of the diocese to the southeast down the +Trerus (Sacco) valley. + +Again, in 1300 after the papal destruction of Palestrina, the government +of the city was turned over to Cardinal Ranieri, who was to hold the +city and its castle (mons), the mountain and its territory. At this time +the diocese comprised the land as far as Artena (Monte Fortino) and and +Rocca Priora, one of the towns in the Alban Hills, and to Castrum Novum +Tiburtinum, which may well be Corcolle.[9] + +The natural limits of the ancient city proper can hardly be mistaken. +The city included not only the arx and that portion of the southern +slope of the mountain which was walled in, but also a level piece of +fertile ground below the city, across the present Via degli Arconi. This +piece of flat land has an area about six hundred yards square, the +natural boundaries of which are: on the west, the deep bed of the +watercourse spanned by the Ponte dei Sardoni; on the east, the cut over +which is built the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, and on the south, the +depression running parallel to the Via degli Arconi, and containing the +modern road from S. Rocco to Cave. + +From the natural limits of the town itself we now pass to what would +seem to have been the extent of territory dependent upon her. The +strongest argument of this discussion is based upon the natural +configuration of the land. To the west, the domain of Praeneste +certainly followed those long fertile ridges accessible only from +Praeneste. First, and most important, it extended along the very wide +ridge known as Le Tende and Le Colonnelle which stretches down toward +Gallicano. Some distance above that town it splits, one half, under the +name of Colle S. Rocco, running out to the point on which Gallicano is +situated, and the other, as the Colle Caipoli, reaching farther out into +the Campagna. Along and across this ridge ran several ancient roads.[10] +With the combination of fertile ground well situated, in a position +farthest away from all hostile attack, and a location not only in plain +sight from the citadel of Praeneste, but also between Praeneste and her +closest friend and ally, Tibur, it is certain that in this ridge we have +one of the most favored and valuable of Praeneste's possessions, and +quite as certain that Gallicano, probably the ancient Pedum,[11] was one +of the towns which were dependent allies of Praeneste. It was along this +ridge too that probably the earlier, and certainly the more intimate +communication between Praeneste and Tibur passed, for of the three +possible routes, this was both the nearest and safest.[12] + +[Illustration: PLATE I. Praeneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, +on top of ridge, in foreground.] + +The second ridge, called Colle di Pastore as far as the Gallicano cut, +and Colle Collafri beyond it, along which for four miles runs the Via +Praenestina, undoubtedly belonged to the domain of Praeneste.[13] But it +was not so important a piece of property as the ridges on either side, +for it is much narrower, and it had no town at its end. There was +probably always a road out this ridge, as is shown by the presence of +the later Via Praenestina, but that there was no town at the end of the +ridge is well proved by the fact that Ashby finds no remains there which +give evidence of one. Then, too, we have plain enough proof of general +unfitness for a town. In the first place the ridge runs oil into the +junction of two roadless valleys, there is not much fertile land back of +where the town site would have been, but above all, however, it is +certain that the Via Praenestina was an officially made Roman road, and +did not occupy anything more than a previous track of little +consequence. This is shown by the absence of tombs of the early +necropolis style along this road. + +The next ridge must always have been one of the most important, for from +above Cavamonte as far as Passerano, at the bottom of the ridge on the +side toward Rome, connecting with the highway which was the later Via +Latina, ran the main road through Zagarolo, Passerano, Corcolle, on to +Tibur and the north.[14] As this was the other of the two great roads +which ran to the north without getting out on the Roman Campagna, it is +certain that Praeneste considered it in her territory, and probably kept +the travel well in hand. With dependent towns at Zagarolo and Passerano, +which are several miles distant from each other, there must have been at +least one more town between them, to guard the road against attack from +Tusculum or Gabii. The fact that the Via Praenestina later cut the Colle +del Pero-Colle Seloa just below a point where an ancient road ascends +the ridge to a place well adapted for a town, and where there are some +remains,[15] seems to prove the supposition, and to locate another of +the dependent cities of Praeneste. + +That the next ridge, the one on which Zagarolo is situated, was also +part of Praeneste's territory, aside from the fact that it has always +been part of the diocese of Praeneste, is clearly shown by the +topography of the district. The only easy access to Zagarolo is from +Palestrina, and although the town itself cannot be seen from the +mountain of Praeneste, nevertheless the approach to it along the ridge +is clearly visible. + +The country south and in front of Praeneste spreads out more like a +solid plain for a mile or so before splitting off into the ridges which +are so characteristic of the neighborhood. East of the ridge on which +Zagarolo stands, and running nearly at right angles to it, is a piece of +territory along which runs the present road (the Omata di Palestrina) to +the Palestrina railroad station, and which as far as the cross valley at +Colle dell'Aquila, is incontestably Praenestine domain. + +But the territory which most certainly belonged to Praeneste, and which +was at once the most valuable and the oldest of her possessions is the +wide ridge now known as the Vigne di Loreto, along which runs the road +to Marcigliano.[16] Not only does this ridge lie most closely bound to +Praeneste by nature, but it leads directly toward Velitrae, her most +advantageous ally. Tibur was perhaps always Praeneste's closest and most +loyal ally, but the alliance with her had not the same opportunity for +mutual advantage as one with Velitrae, because each of these towns +commanded the territory the other wished to know most about, and both +together could draw across the upper Trerus valley a tight line which +was of the utmost importance from a strategic point of view. These two +facts would in themselves be a satisfactory proof that this ridge was +Praeneste's first expansion and most important acquisition, but there +is proof other than topographical and argumentative. + +At the head of this ridge in la Colombella, along the road leading to +Marcigliano from the little church of S. Rocco, have been found three +strata of tombs. The line of graves in the lowest stratum, the date of +which is not later than the fifth or sixth century B.C., points exactly +along the ancient road, now the Via della Marcigliana or di Loreto.[17] + +The natural limit of Praenestine domain to the south has now been +reached, and that it is actually the natural limit is shown by the +accompanying illustration. + +Through the Valle di Pepe or Fosso dell' Ospedalato (see Plate II), +which is wide as well as deep, runs the uppermost feeder of the Trerus +river. One sees at a glance that the whole slope of the mountain from +arx to base is continued by a natural depression which would make an +ideal boundary for Praenestine territory. Nor is the topographical proof +all. No inscriptions of consequence, and no architectural remains of the +pre-imperial period have been found across this valley. The road along +the top of the ridge beyond it is an ancient one, and ran to Valmontone +as it does today, and was undoubtedly often used between Praeneste and +the towns on the Volscians. The ridge, however, was exposed to sudden +attack from too many directions to be of practical value to Praeneste. +Valmontone, which lay out beyond the end of this ridge, commanded it, +and Valmontone was not a dependency of Praeneste, as is shown by an +inscription which mentions the adlectio of a citizen there into the +senate (decuriones) of Praeneste.[18] + +There are still two other places which as we have seen were included at +different times in the papal diocese of Praeneste,[19] namely, Capranica +and Cave.[20] Inscriptional evidence is not forthcoming in either place +sufficient to warrant any certainty in the matter of correspondence of +local names to those in Praeneste. Of the two, Capranica had much more +need of dependence on Praeneste than Cave. It was down through the +little valley back of Praeneste, at the head of which Capranica lay, +that her later aqueducts came. The outlet from Capranica back over the +mountains was very difficult, and the only tillable soil within reach of +that town lay to the north of Praeneste on the ridge running toward +Gallicano, and on a smaller ridge which curved around toward Tibur and +lay still closer to the mountains. In short, Capranica, which never +attained importance enough to be of any consequence, appears to have +been always dependent upon Praeneste. + +But as for Cave, that is another question. Her friends were to the east, +and there was easy access into the mountains to Sublaqueum (Subiaco) and +beyond, through the splendid passes via either of the modern towns, +Genazzano or Olevano. + +[Illustration: PLATE II. Praeneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as +seen from Valle di Pepe.] + +It is quite evident that Cave was never a large town, and it seems most +probable that she realized that an amicable understanding with Praeneste +was discreet. This is rendered almost certain by the proof of a +continuance of business relations between the two places. The greater +number of the big tombs of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. are of a +peperino from Cave,[21] and a good deal of the tufa used in wall +construction in Praeneste is from the quarries near Cave, as Fernique +saw.[22] + +Rocca di Cave, on a hill top behind Cave, is too insignificant a +location to have been the cause of the lower town, which at the best +does not itself occupy a very advantageous position in any way, except +that it is in the line of a trade route from lower Italy. It might be +maintained with some reason that Cave was a settlement of dissatisfied +merchants from Praeneste, who had gone out and established themselves on +the main road for the purpose of anticipating the trade, but there is +much against such an argument. + +It has been shown that there were peaceable relations between Praeneste +and Cave in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., but that the two towns +were on terms of equality is impossible, and that Cave was a dependency +of Praeneste, and in her domain, is most unlikely both topographically +and epigraphically. And more than this, just as an ancient feud can be +proved between Praeneste and Rome from the slurs on Praeneste which one +finds in literature from Plautus down,[23] if no other proofs were to be +had,[24] just so there is a very ancient grudge between Praeneste and +Cave, which has been perpetuated and is very noticeable even at the +present day.[25] + +The topography of Praeneste as to the site of the city proper, and as to +its territorial domain is then, about as follows. + +In very early times, probably as early as the ninth or tenth century +B.C., Praeneste was a town on the southern slope of Monte Glicestro,[26] +with an arx on the summit. As the town grew, it spread first to the +level ground directly below, and out along the ridge west of the Valle +di Pepe toward Marcigliano, because it was territory not only fertile +and easily defended, being directly under the very eyes of the citizens, +but also because it stretched out toward Velitrae, an old and trusted +ally.[27] + +Her next expansion was in the direction of Tibur, along the trade route +which followed the Sabine side of the Liris-Trerus valley, and this +expansion gave her a most fertile piece of territory. To insure this +against incursions from the pass which led back into the mountains, it +seems certain that Praeneste secured or perhaps colonized Capranica. + +The last Praenestine expansion in territory had a motive beyond the +acquisition of land, for it was also important from a strategical point +of view. It will be remembered that the second great trade route which +came into the Roman plain ran past Zagarolo, Passerano, and +Corcolle.[28] This road runs along a valley just below ridges which +radiate from the mountain on which Praeneste is situated, and thus +bordered the land which was by nature territory dependent upon +Praeneste.[29] So this final extension of her domain was to command this +important road. With the carrying out of this project all the ridges +mentioned above came gradually into the possession of Praneste, as +natural, expedient, and unquestioned domain, and on the ends of those +ridges which were defensible, dependent towns grew up. There was also a +town at Cavamonte above the Maremmana road, probably a village out on +the Colle dell'Oro, and undoubtedly one at Marcigliano, or in that +vicinity. + +We have already seen that across a valley and a stream of some +consequence there is a ridge not at all connected with the mountain on +which Praeneste was situated, but belonging rather to Valmontone, which +was better suited for neutral ground or to act as a buffer to the +southeast. We turn to mention this ridge again as territory +topographically outside Praeneste's domain, in order to say more +forcibly that one must cross still another valley and stream before +reaching the territory of Cave, and so Cave, although dependent upon +Praeneste, by reason of its size and interests, was not a dependent city +of Praeneste, nor was it a part of her domain.[30] + +In short, to describe Praeneste, that famous town of Latium, and her +domain in a true if homely way, she was an ancient and proud city whose +territory was a commanding mountain and a number of ridges running out +from it, which spread out like a fan all the way from the Fosso +dell'Ospedalato (the depression shown in plate II) to the Sabine +mountains on the north. + + +THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES. + +The general supposition has been that the earliest inhabitants of +Praeneste lived only in the citadel on top of the hill. This theory is +supported by the fact that there is room enough, and, as will be shown +below, there was in early times plenty of water there; nevertheless it +is certain that this was not the whole of the site of the early city. + +The earliest inhabitants of Praeneste needed first of all, safety, then +a place for pasturage, and withal, to be as close to the fertile land at +the foot of the mountain as possible. The first thing the inhabitants of +the new city did was to build a wall. There is still a little of this +oldest wall in the circuit about the citadel, and it was built at +exactly the same time as the lower part of the double walls that extend +down the southern slope of the mountain on each side of the upper part +of the modern town. It happens that by following the edges of the slope +of this southern face of the mountain down to a certain point, one +realizes that even without a wall the place would be practically +impregnable. Add to this the fact that all the stones necessary for a +wall were obtained during the scarping of the arx on the side toward the +Sabines,[31] and needed only to be rolled down, not up, to their places +in the wall, which made the task a very easy one comparatively. Now if a +place can be found which is naturally a suitable place for a lower cross +wall, we shall have what an ancient site demanded; first, safety, +because the site now proposed is just as impregnable as the citadel +itself, and still very high above the plain below; second, pasturage, +for on the slope between the lower town and the arx is the necessary +space which the arx itself hardly supplies; and third, a more reasonable +nearness to the fertile land below. All the conditions necessary are +fulfilled by a cross wall in Praeneste, which up to this time has +remained mostly unknown, often neglected or wrongly described, and +wholly misunderstood. As we shall see, however, this very wall was the +lower boundary of the earliest Praeneste. The establishment of this +important fact will remove one of the many stumbling blocks over which +earlier writers on Praeneste have fallen. + +It has been said above that the lowest part of the wall of the arx, and +the two walls from it down the mountain were built at the same time. The +accompanying plate (III) shows very plainly the course of the western +wall as it comes down the hill lining the edge of the slope where it +breaks off most sharply. Porta San Francesco, the modern gate, is above +the second tree from the right in the illustration, just where the wall +seems to turn suddenly. There is no trace of ancient wall after the gate +is passed. The white wall, as one proceeds from the gate to the right, +is the modern wall of the Franciscan monastery. All the writers on +Praeneste say that the ancient wall came on around the town where the +lower wall of the monastery now is, and followed the western limit of +the present town as far as the Porta San Martino. + +Returning now to plate II we observe a thin white line of wall which +joins a black line running off at an angle to our left. This is also a +piece of the earliest cyclopean wall, and it is built just at the +eastern edge of the hill where it falls off very sharply. + +Now if one follows the Via di San Francesco in from the gate of that +name (see plate III again) and then continues down a narrow street east +of the monastery as far as the open space in front of the church of +Santa Maria del Carmine, he will see that on his left above him the +slope of the mountain was not only precipitous by nature but that also +it has been rendered entirely unassailable by scarping.[32] From the +lower end of this steep escarpment there is a cyclopean wall, of the +same date as the upper side walls of the town, and the wall of the arx, +which runs entirely across the city to within a few yards of the wall on +the east, and to a point just below a portella, where the upper +cyclopean wall makes a slight change in direction. The presence of the +gate and the change of direction in the wall mean a corner in the wall. + +[Illustration: PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Praeneste, and +the depression which divides Monte Glicestro.] + +It is strange indeed that this wall has not been recognized for what it +really is. A bit of it shows above the steps where the Via dello +Spregato leaves the Via del Borgo. Fernique shows this much in his map, +but by a curious oversight names it opus incertum.[33] More than two +irregular courses are to be seen here, and fifteen feet in from the +street, forming the back wall of cellars and pig pens, the cyclopean +wall, in places to a height of fifteen feet or more, can be followed to +within a few yards of the open space in front of Santa Maria del +Carmine. And on the other side toward the east the same wall begins +again, after being broken by the Via dello Spregato, and forms the +foundations and side walls of the houses on the south side of that +street, and at the extreme east end is easily found as the back wall of +a blacksmith's shop at the top of the Via della Fontana, and can be +identified as cyclopean by a little cleaning of the wall. + +The circuit of the earliest cyclopean wall and natural ramparts of +the contemporaneous citadel and town of Praeneste was as follows: An arc +of cyclopean wall below the cap of the hill which swung round from the +precipitous cliff on the west to that on the east, the whole of the side +of the arx toward the mountains being so steep that no wall was +necessary; then a second loop of cyclopean wall from the arx down the +steep western edge of the southern slope of the mountain as far as the +present Porta San Francesco. From this point natural cliffs reinforced +at the upper end by a short connecting wall bring us to the beginning of +the wall which runs across the town back of the Via del Borgo from Santa +Maria del Carmine to within a short distance of the east wall of the +city, separated from it in fact only by the Via della Fontana, which +runs up just inside the wall. There it joins the cyclopean wall which +comes down from the citadel on the east side of the town. + +The reasons why this is the oldest circuit of the city's walls are the +following: first, all this stretch of wall is the oldest and was built +at the same time; second, topography has marked out most clearly that +the territory inclosed by these walls, here and only here, fulfills the +two indispensable requisites of the ancient town, namely space and +defensibility; third, below the gate San Francesco all the way round the +city as far as Porta del Sole, neither in the wall nor in the buildings, +nor in the valley below, is there any trace of cyclopean wall +stones;[34] fourth, at the point where the cross wall and the long wall +must have met at the east, the wall makes a change in direction, and +there is an ancient postern gate just above the jog in the wall; and +last, the cyclopean wall from this junction on down to near the Porta +del Sole is later than that of the circuit just described.[35] + +The city was extended within a century perhaps, and the new line of the +city wall was continued on the east in cyclopean style as far as the +present Porta del Sole, where it turned to the west and continued until +the hill itself offered enough height so that escarpment of the natural +cliff would serve in place of the wall. Then it turned up the hill +between the present Via San Biagio and Via del Carmine back of Santa +Maria del Carmine. The proof for this expansion is clear. The +continuation of the cyclopean wall can be seen now as far as the Porta +del Sole,[36] and the line of the wall which turns to the west is +positively known from the cippi of the ancient pomerium, which were +found in 1824 along the present Via degli Arconi.[37] The ancient gate, +now closed, in the opus quadratum wall under the Cardinal's garden, is +in direct line with the ancient pavement of the road which comes up to +the city from the south,[38] and the continuation of that road, which +seems to have been everywhere too steep for wagons, is the Via del +Carmine. There had always been another road outside the wall which went +up a less steep grade, and came round the angle of the wall at what is +now the Porta S. Martino, where it entered a gate that opened out of the +present Corso toward the west. When at a later time, probably in the +middle ages, the city was built out to its present boundary on the west, +the wagon road was simply arched over, and this arch is now the gate San +Martino.[39] + +It will be necessary to speak further of the cyclopean wall on the east +side of the city from the Porta del Sole to the Portella, for it has +always been supposed that this part of the wall was exactly like the +rest, and dated from the same period. But a careful examination shows +that the stones in this lower portion are laid more regularly than those +in the wall above the Portella, that they are more flatly faced on the +outside, and that here and there a little mortar is used. Above all, +however, there is in the wall on one of the stones under the house no. +24, Via della Fontana an inscription,[40] which Richter, Dressel, and +Dessau all think was there when the stone was put in the wall, and +incline to allow no very remote date for the building of the wall at +that point. To me, after a comparative study of this wall and the one at +Norba, the two seem to date from very nearly the same time, and no one +now dares attribute great antiquity to the walls of Norba. But the rest +of the cyclopean wall of Praeneste is very ancient, certainly a century, +perhaps two or three centuries, older than the part from the Portella +down. + +There remains still to be discussed the lower wall of the city on the +south, and a restraining terrace wall along part of the present Corso +Pierluigi. The stretch of city wall from the Porta del Sole clear across +the south front to the Porta di S. Martino is of opus quadratum, with +the exception of a stretch of opus incertum[41] below and east of the +Barberini gardens, and a small space where the city sewage has destroyed +all vestige of a wall. The restraining wall just mentioned is also of +opus quadratum and is to be found along the south side of the Corso, but +can be seen only from the winecellars on the terrace below that street. +These walls of opus quadratum were built with a purpose, to be sure, but +their entire meaning has not been understood.[42] + +The upper wall, the one along the Corso, can not be traced farther than +the Piazza Garibaldi, in front of the Cathedral. It has been a mistake +to consider this a high wall. It was built simply to level up with the +Corso terrace, partly to give more space on the terrace, partly to make +room for a road which ran across the city here between two gates no +longer in existence. But more especially was it built to be the lower +support for a gigantic water reservoir which extends under nearly the +whole width of this terrace from about Corso Pierluigi No. 88 almost to +the Cathedral.[43] The four sides of this great reservoir are also of +opus quadratum laid header and stretcher. + +The lower wall, the real town wall, is a wall only in appearance, for it +has but one thickness of blocks, set header and stretcher in a mass of +solid concrete.[44] This wall makes very clear the impregnability of +even the lower part of Praeneste, for the wall not only occupies a good +position, but is really a double line of defense. There are here two +walls, one above the other, the upper one nineteen feet back of the +lower, thus leaving a terrace of that width.[45] At the east, instead of +the lower solid wall of opus quadratum, there is a series of fine tufa +arches built to serve as a substructure for something. It is to be +remembered again that between the arches on the east and the solid wall +on the west is a stretch of 200 feet of opus incertum, and a space where +there is no wall at all. This lower wall of Praeneste occupies the same +line as the ancient wall and escarpment, but the most of what survives +was restored in Sulla's time. The opus quadratum is exactly the same +style as that in the Tabularium in Rome. + +Now, no one could see the width of the terrace above the lower wall, +without thinking that so great a width was unnecessary unless it was to +give room for a road.[46] The difficulty has been, however, that the +line of arches at the east, not being in alignment with the lower wall +on the west, has not been connected with it hitherto, and so a correct +understanding of their relation has been impossible. + +Before adducing evidence to show the location of the main and triumphal +entrance to Praeneste, we shall turn to the town above for a moment to +see whether it is, a priori, reasonable to suppose that there was an +entrance to the city here in the center of its front wall. If roads came +up a grade from the east and west, they would join at a point where now +there is no wall at all. This break is in the center of the south wall, +just above the forum which was laid out in Sulla's time on the level +spot immediately below the town. Most worthy of note, however, is that +this opening is straight below the main buildings of the ancient town, +the basilica, which is now the cathedral, and the temple of Fortuna. But +further, a fact which has never been noticed nor accounted for, this +opening is also in front of the modern square, the piazza Garibaldi, +which is in front of the buildings just mentioned but below them on the +next terrace, yet there is no entrance to this terrace shown.[47] It is +well known that the open space south of the temple, beside the basilica, +has an ancient pavement some ten feet below the present level of the +modern piazza Savoia.[48] Proof given below in connection with the large +tufa base which is on the level of the lower terrace will show that the +piazza Garibaldi was an open space in ancient times and a part of the +ancient forum. Again, the solarium, which is on the south face of the +basilica,[49] was put up there that it might be seen, and as it faces +the south, the piazza Garibaldi, and this open space in the wall under +discussion, what is more likely than that there was not only an open +square below the basilica, but also the main approach to the city? + +But now for the proof. In 1756 ancient paving stones were still in +situ[50] above the row of arches on the Via degli Arconi, and even yet +the ascent is plain enough to the eye. The ground slopes up rather +moderately along the Via degli Arconi toward the east, and nearly below +the southeast corner of the ancient wall turned up to the west on these +arches, approaching the entrance in the middle of the south wall of the +city.[51] But these arches and the road on them do not align exactly +with the terrace on the west. Nor should they do so. The arches are +older than the present opus quadratum wall, and the road swung round and +up to align with the road below and the old wall or escarpment of the +city above. Then when the whole town, its gates, its walls, and its +temple, were enlarged and repaired by Sulla, the upper wall was +perfectly aligned, a lower wall built on the west leaving a terrace for +a road, and the arches were left to uphold the road on the east. +Although the arches were not exactly in line, the road could well have +been so, for the terrace here was wider and ran back to the upper +wall.[52] The evidence is also positive enough that there was an ascent +to the terrace on the west, the one below the Barberini gardens, which +corresponds to the ascent on the arches. This terrace now is level, and +at its west end is some twenty feet above the garden below. But the wall +shows very plainly that it had sloped off toward the west, and the slope +is most clearly to be seen, where a very obtuse angle of newer and +different tufa has been laid to build up the wall to a level.[53] It is +to be noticed too that this terrace is the same height as the top of the +ascent above the arches. We have then actual proofs for roads leading up +from east and west toward the center of the wall on the south side of +the city, and every reason that an entrance here was practicable, +credible, and necessary. + +But there is one thing more necessary to make probabilities tally +wholly with the facts. If there was a grand entrance to the city, below +the basilica, the temple, and the main open square, which faced out over +the great forum below, there must have been a monumental gate in the +wall. As a matter of fact there was such a gate, and I believe it was +called the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. An inscription of the age of the Antonines +mentions "seminaria a Porta Triumphale," and this passing reference to a +gate with a name which in itself implies a gate of consequence, so well +known that a building placed near it at once had its location fixed, +gives the rest of the proof necessary to establish a central entrance to +the city in front, through a PORTA TRIUMPHALIS.[54] + +Before the time of Sulla there had been a gate in the south wall of the +city, approached by one road, which ascended from the east on the arches +facing the present Via degli Arconi. After entering the city one went +straight up a grade not very steep to the basilica, and to the open +square or ancient forum which was the space now occupied by the two +modern piazzas, the Garibaldi and the Savoia, and on still farther to +the temple. When Sulla rebuilt the city, and laid out a forum on the +level space directly south of and below the town, he made another road +from the west to correspond to the old ascent from the east, and brought +them together at the old central gate, which he enlarged to the PORTA +TRIUMPHALIS. In the open square in front of the basilica had stood the +statue of some famous man[55] on a platform of squared stone 16 x 17-1/2 +feet in measurement. Around this base the Sullan improvements put a +restraining wall of opus quadratum.[56] The open square was in front of +the basilica and to its left below the temple. There was but one way to +the terrace above the temple from the ancient forum. This was a steep +road to the right, up the present Via delle Scalette. Another road ran +to the left back of the basilica, but ended either in front of the +western cave connected with the temple, or at the entrance into the +precinct of the temple. + + +THE GATES. + +Strabo, in a well known passage,[57] speaks of Tibur and Praeneste as +two of the most famous and best fortified of the towns of Latium, and +tells why Praeneste is the more impregnable, but we have no mention of +its gates in literature, except incidentally in Plutarch,[58] who says +that when Marius was flying before Sulla's forces and had reached +Praeneste, he found the gates closed, and had to be drawn up the wall by +a rope. The most ancient reference we have to a definite gate is to the +Porta Triumphalis, in the inscription just mentioned, and this is the +only gate of Praeneste mentioned by name in classic times. + +In 1353 A.D. we have two gates mentioned. The Roman tribune Cola di +Rienzo (Niccola di Lorenzo) brought his forces out to attack Stefaniello +Colonna in Praeneste. It was not until Rienzo moved his camp across from +the west to the east side of the plain below the town that he saw how +the citizens were obtaining supplies. The two gates S. Cesareo and S. +Francesco[59] were both being utilized to bring in supplies from the +mountains back of the city, and the stock was driven to and from pasture +through these gates. These gates were both ancient, as will be shown +below. Again in 1448 when Stefano Colonna rebuilt some walls after the +awful destruction of the city by Cardinal Vitelleschi, he opened three +gates, S. Cesareo, del Murozzo, and del Truglio.[60] In 1642[61] two +more gates were opened by Prince Taddeo Barberini, the Porta del Sole, +and the Porta delle Monache, the former at the southeast corner of the +town, the latter in the east wall at the point where the new wall round +the monastery della Madonna degl'Angeli struck the old city wall, just +above the present street where it turns from the Via di Porta del Sole +into the Corso Pierluigi. This Porta del Sole[62] was the principal gate +of the town at this time, or perhaps the one most easily defended, for +in 1656, during the plague in Rome, all the other gates were walled up, +and this one alone left open.[63] + +The present gates of the city are: one, at the southeast corner, the +Porta del Sole; two, near the southwest corner, where the wall turns up +toward S. Martino, a gate now closed;[64] three, Porta S. Martino, at +the southwest corner of the town; on the west side of the city, none at +all; four, Porta S. Francesco at the northwest corner of the city +proper; five, a gate in the arx wall, now closed,[65] beside the +mediaeval gate, which is just at the head of the depression shown in +plate III, the lowest point in the wall of the citadel; on the east, +Porta S. Cesareo, some distance above the town, six; seven, Porta dei +Cappuccini, which is on the same terrace as Porta S. Francesco; eight, +Portella, the eastern outlet of the Via della Portella; nine, a postern +just below the Portella, and not now in use;[66] ten, Porta delle +Monache or Santa Maria, in front of the church of that name. The most +ancient of these, and the ones which were in the earliest circle of the +cyclopean wall, are five in number: Porta S. Francesco,[67] the gate +into the arx, Porta S. Cesareo,[68] Porta dei Cappuccini, and the +postern at the corner where the early cyclopean cross wall struck the +main wall. + +The second wall of the city, which was rather an enlargement of the +first, was cyclopean on the east as far as the present Porta del Sole, +and either scarped cliff or opus quadratum round to Porta S. Martino, +and up to Porta S. Francesco.[69] At the east end of the modern Corso, +there was a gate, made of opus quadratum,[70] as is shown not only by +the fact that this is the main street of the city, and on the terrace +level of the basilica, but also because the mediaeval wall round the +monastery of the Madonna degl'Angeli, the grounds of the present church +of Santa Maria, did not run straight to the cyclopean wall, but turned +down to join it near the gate which it helps to prove. Next, there was a +gate, but in all probability only a postern, near the Porta del Sole +where the cyclopean wall stops, where now there is a narrow street which +runs up to the piazza Garibaldi. On the south there was the gate which +at some time was given the name Porta Triumphalis. It was at the place +where now there is no wall at all.[71] At the southwest we find the next +gate, the one which is now closed.[72] The last one of the ancient gates +in this second circle of the city wall was one just inside the modern +Porta S. Martino, which opened west at the end of the Corso. All the +rest of the gates are mediaeval. + +A few words about the roads leading to the several gates of Praeneste +will help further to settle the antiquity of these gates.[73] The oldest +road was certainly the trade route which came up the north side of the +Liris valley below the hill on which Praeneste was situated, and which +followed about the line of the Via Praenestina as shown by Ashby in his +map.[74] Two branch roads from this main track ran up to the town, one +at the west, the other at the east, both in the same line as the modern +roads. These roads were bound for the city gates as a matter of course +and the land slopes least sharply where these roads were and still are. +Another important road was outside the city wall, from one gate to the +other, and took the slope on the south side of the city where the Via +degli Arconi now runs.[75] + +As far as excavations have proved up to this time, the oldest road out +of Praeneste is that which is now the Via della Marcigliana, along which +were found the very early tombs. It is to be noted that these tombs +begin beyond the church of S. Rocco, which is a long distance below the +town. This distance however makes it certain that between S. Rocco and +the city, excavation will bring to light other and yet older tombs along +the road which leads up toward "l'antica porta S. Martino chiusa," and +also in all probability rows of graves will be found along the present +road to Cave. But the tombs give us the direction at least of the old +road.[76] + +There is yet another old road which was lately discovered. It is about +three hundred yards below the city and near the road that cuts through +from Porta del Sole to the church of Madonna dell'Aquila.[77] This road +is made of polygonal stones of the limestone of the mountain, and hence +is older than any of the lava roads. It runs nearly parallel with the +Via degli Arconi, and takes a direction which would strike the Via +Praenestina where it crosses the Via Praenestina Nuova which runs past +Zagarolo. That is, the most ancient piece of road we have leads up to +the southeast corner of the town, but the oldest tombs point to a road +the direction of which was toward the southwest corner. However, all the +roads lead toward the southeast corner, where the old grade began that +went up above the arches, mentioned above, to a middle gate of the city. + +The gate S. Francesco also is proved to be ancient because of the old +road that led from it. This road is identified by a deposit of ex voto +terracottas which were found at the edge of the road in a hole hollowed +out in the rocks.[78] + +The two roads which were traveled the most were the ones that led toward +Rome. This is shown by the tombs on both sides of them,[79] and by the +discovery of a deposit of a great quantity of ex voto terracottas in +the angle between the two.[80] + + +THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRAENESTE. + +In very early times there was a spring near the top of Monte Glicestro. +This is shown by a glance back at plate III, which indicates the +depression or cut in the hill, which from its shape and depth is clearly +not altogether natural and attributable to the effects of rain, but is +certainly the effect of a spring, the further and positive proof of the +existence of which is shown by the unnecessarily low dip made by the +wall of the citadel purposely to inclose the head of this depression. +There are besides no water reservoirs inside the wall of the arx. This +supply of water, however, failed, and it must have failed rather early +in the city's history, perhaps at about the time the lower part of the +city was walled in, for the great reservoir on the Corso terrace seems +to be contemporary with this second wall. + +But at all times Praeneste was dependent upon reservoirs for a sure and +lasting supply of water. The mountain and the town were famous because +of the number of water reservoirs there.[81] A great many of these +reservoirs were dependent upon catchings from the rain,[82] but before +a war, or when the rainfall was scant, they were filled undoubtedly from +springs outside the city. In later times they were connected with the +aqueducts which came to the city from beyond Capranica. + +It is easy to account now for the number of gates on the east side of +the city. True, this side of the wall lay away from the Campagna, and +egress from gates on this side could not be seen by an enemy unless he +moved clear across the front of the city.[83] But the real reason for +the presence of so many gates is that the best and most copious springs +were on this side of the city, as well as the course of the little +headstream of the Trerus. The best concealed egress was from the Porta +Cesareo, from which a road led round back of the mountain to a fine +spring, which was high enough above the valley to be quite safe. + +There are no references in literature to aqueducts which brought water +to Praeneste. Were we left to this evidence alone, we should conclude +that Praeneste had depended upon reservoirs for water. But in +inscriptions we have mention of baths,[84] the existence of which +implies aqueducts, and there is the specus of an aqueduct to be seen +outside the Porta S. Francesco.[85] This ran across to the Colle S. +Martino to supply a large brick reservoir of imperial date.[86] There +were aqueducts still in 1437, for Cardinal Vitelleschi captured +Palestrina by cutting off its water supply.[87] This shows that the +water came from outside the city, and through aqueducts which probably +dated back to Roman times,[88] and also that the reservoirs were at this +time no longer used. In 1581 the city undertook to restore the old +aqueduct which brought water from back of Capranica, but no description +was left of its exact course or ancient construction.[89] While these +repairs were in progress, Francesco Cecconi leased to the city his +property called Terreni, where there were thirty fine springs of clear +water not far from the city walls. Again in 1776 the springs called +delle cannuccete sent in dirty water to the city, so citizens were +appointed to remedy matters. They added a new spring to those already in +use and this water came to the city through an aqueduct.[90] + +The remains of four great reservoirs, all of brick construction, are +plainly enough to be seen at Palestrina, and as far as situation and +size are concerned, are well enough described in other places.[91] But +in the case of these reservoirs, as in that of all the other remains of +ancient construction at Praeneste, the writers on the history of the +town have made great mistakes, because all of them have been predisposed +to the pleasant task of making all the ruins fit some restoration or +other of the temple of Fortuna, although, as a matter of fact, none of +the reservoirs have any connection whatever with the temple.[92] The +fine brick reservoir of the time of Tiberius,[93] which is at the +junction of the Via degli Arconi and the road from the Porta S. Martino, +was not built to supply fountains or baths in the forum below, but was +simply a great supply reservoir for the citizens who lived in particular +about the lower forum, and the water from this reservoir was carried +away by hand, as is shown by the two openings like well heads in the top +of each compartment of the reservoir, and by the steps which gave +entrance to it on the east. The reservoir above this in the Barberini +gardens is of a date a half century later.[94] It is of the same brick +work as the great fountain which stands, now debased to a grist mill, +across the Via degli Arconi about half way between S. Lucia and Porta +del Sole. The upper reservoir undoubtedly supplied this fountain, and +other public buildings in the forum below. There is another large brick +reservoir below the present ground level in the angle between the Via +degli Arconi and the Cave road below the Porta del Sole, but it is too +low ever to have served for public use. It was in connection with some +private bath. The fourth huge reservoir, the one on Colle S. Martino, +has already been mentioned. + +But the most ancient of all the reservoirs is one which is not mentioned +anywhere. It dates from the time when the Corso terrace was made, and is +of opus quadratum like the best of the wall below the city, and the wall +on the lower side of the terrace.[95] This reservoir, like the one in +the Barberini garden, served the double purpose of a storage for water, +and of a foundation for the terrace, which, being thus widened, offered +more space for street and buildings above. It lies west of the basilica, +but has no connection with the temple. From its position it seems rather +to have been one of the secret public water supplies.[96] + +Praeneste had in early times only one spring within the city walls, +just inside the gate leading into the arx. There were other springs on +the mountain to the east and northeast, but too far away to be included +within the walls. Because of their height above the valley, they were to +a certain extent available even in times of warfare and siege. As the +upper spring dried up early, and the others were a little precarious, an +elaborate system of reservoirs was developed, a plan which the natural +terraces of the mountain slope invited, and a plan which gave more space +to the town itself with the work of leveling necessary for the +reservoirs. These reservoirs were all public property. They were at +first dependent upon collection from rains or from spring water carried +in from outside the city walls. Later, however, aqueducts were made and +connected with the reservoirs. + +With the expansion of the town to the plain below, this system gave +great opportunity for the development of baths, fountains, and +waterworks,[97] for Praeneste wished to vie with Tibur and Rome, where +the Anio river and the many aqueducts had made possible great things for +public use and municipal adornment. + + +THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA. + +Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam.[98] In this +way Cicero reports a popular saying which makes clear the fame of the +goddess Fortuna Primigenia and her temple at Praeneste.[99] + +The excavations at Praeneste in the eighteenth century brought the city +again into prominence, and from that time to the present, Praeneste has +offered much material for archaeologists and historians. + +But the temple of Fortuna has constituted the principal interest and +engaged the particular attention of everyone who has worked upon the +history of the town, because the early enthusiastic view was that the +temple occupied the whole slope of the mountain,[100] and that the +present city was built on the terraces and in the ruins of the temple. +Every successive study, however, of the city from a topographical point +of view has lessened more and more the estimated size of the temple, +until now all that can be maintained successfully is that there are two +separate temples built at different times, the later and larger one +occupying a position two terraces higher than the older and more +important temple below. + +The lower temple with its precinct, along the north side of which +extends a wall and the ruins of a so-called cryptoporticus which +connected two caves hollowed out in the rock, is not so very large a +sanctuary, but it occupies a very good position above and behind the +ancient forum and basilica on a terrace cut back into the solid rock of +the mountain. The temple precinct is a courtyard which extends along the +terrace and occupies its whole width from the older cave on the west to +the newer one at the east. In front of the latter cave is built the +temple itself, which faces west along the terrace, but extends its +southern facade to the edge of the ancient forum which it overlooks. +This temple is older than the time of Sulla, and occupies the site of an +earlier temple. + +Two terraces higher, on the Cortina terrace, stretch out the ruins of a +huge construction in opus incertum. This building had at least two +stories of colonnade facing the south, and at the north side of the +terrace a series of arches above which in the center rose a round temple +which was approached by a semicircular flight of steps.[101] This +building, belonging to the time of Sulla, presented a very imposing +appearance from the forum below the town. It has no connection with the +lower temple unless perhaps by underground passages. + +Although this new temple and complex of buildings was much larger and +costlier than the temple below, it was so little able to compete with +the fame of the ancient shrine, that until mediaeval times there is not +a mention of it anywhere by name or by suggestion, unless perhaps in one +inscription mentioned below. The splendid publication of Delbrueck[102] +with maps and plans and bibliography of the lower temple and the work +which has been done on it, makes unnecessary any remarks except on some +few points which have escaped him. + +The tradition was that a certain Numerius Suffustius of Praeneste was +warned in dreams to cut into the rocks at a certain place, and this he +did before his mocking fellow citizens, when to the bewilderment of them +all pieces of wood inscribed with letters of the earliest style leaped +from the rock. The place where this phenomenon occurred was thus proved +divine, the cult of Fortuna Primigenia was established beyond +peradventure, and her oracular replies to those who sought her shrine +were transmitted by means of these lettered blocks.[103] This story +accounts for a cave in which the lots (sortes) were to be consulted. + +But there are two caves. The reason why there are two has never been +shown, nor does Delbrueck have proof enough to settle which is the older +cave.[104] + +The cave to the west is made by Delbrueck the shrine of Iuppiter puer, +and the temple with its cave at the east, the aedes Fortunae. This he +does on the authority of his understanding of the passage from Cicero +which gives nearly all the written information we have on the subject of +the temple.[105] Delbrueck bases his entire argument on this passage and +two other references to a building called aedes.[106] Now it was Fortuna +who was worshipped at Praeneste, and not Jupiter. Although there is an +intimate connection between Jupiter and Fortuna at Praeneste, because +she was thought of at different times as now the mother and now the +daughter of Jupiter, still the weight of evidence will not allow any +such importance to be attached to Iuppiter puer as Delbrueck +wishes.[107] + +The two caves were not made at the same time. This is proved by the +fact that the basilica[108] is below and between them. Had there been +two caves at the earliest time, with a common precinct as a connection +between them, as there was later, there would have been power enough in +the priesthood to keep the basilica from occupying the front of the +place which would have been the natural spot for a temple or for the +imposing facade of a portico. The western cave is the earlier, but it is +the earlier not because it was a shrine of Iuppiter puer, but because +the ancient road which came through the forum turned up to it, because +it is the least symmetrical of the two caves, and because the temple +faced it, and did not face the forum. + +The various plans of the temple[109] have usually assumed like buildings +in front of each cave, and a building, corresponding to the basilica, +between them and forming an integral part of the plan. But the basilica +does not quite align with the temple, and the road back of the basilica +precludes any such idea, not to mention the fact that no building the +size of a temple was in front of the west cave. It is the mania for +making the temple cover too large a space, and the desire to show that +all its parts were exactly balanced on either side, and that this +triangular shaped sanctuary culminated in a round temple, this it is +that has caused so much trouble with the topography of the city. The +temple, as it really is, was larger perhaps than any other in Latium, +and certainly as imposing. + +Delbrueck did not see that there was a real communication between the +caves along the so-called cryptoporticus. There is a window-like hole, +now walled up, in the east cave at the top, and it opened out upon the +second story of the cryptoporticus, as Marucchi saw.[110] So there was +an unseen means of getting from one cave to the other. This probably +proves that suppliants at one shrine went to the other and were there +convinced of the power of the goddess by seeing the same priest or +something which they themselves had offered at the first shrine. It +certainly proves that both caves were connected with the rites having to +do with the proper obtaining of lots from Fortuna, and that this +communication between the caves was unknown to any but the temple +servants. + +There are some other inscriptions not noticed by Delbrueck which mention +the aedes,[111] and bear on the question in hand. One inscription found +in the Via delle Monache[112] shows that in connection with the sedes +Fortunae were a manceps and three cellarii. This is an inscription of +the last of the second or the first of the third century A.D.,[113] when +both lower and upper temples were in very great favor. It shows further +that only the lower temple is meant, for the number is too small to be +applicable to the great upper temple, and it also shows that aedes, +means the temple building itself and not the whole precinct. There is +also an inscription, now in the floor of the cathedral, that mentions +aedes. Its provenience is noteworthy.[114] There were other buildings, +however, belonging to the precinct of the lower temple, as is shown by +the remains today.[115] That there was more than one sacred building is +also shown by inscriptions which mention aedes sacrae,[116] though +these may refer of course to the upper temple as well. + +There are yet two inscriptions of importance, one of which mentions a +porticus, the other an aedes et porticus.[117] The second of these +inscriptions belongs to a time not much later than the founding of the +colony. It tells that certain work was done by decree of the decuriones, +and it can hardly refer to the ancient lower temple, but must mean +either the upper one, or still another out on the new forum, for there +is where the stone is reported to have been found. The first inscription +records a work of some consequence done by a woman in remembrance of her +husband.[118] There are no remains to show that the forum below the town +had any temple of such consequence, so it seems best to refer both these +inscriptions to the upper temple, which, as we know, was rich in +marble.[119] + +Now after having brought together all the usages of the word aedes in +its application to the temple of Praeneste, it seems that Delbrueck has +very small foundation for his argument which assumes as settled the +exact meaning and location of the aedes Fortunae. + +From the temple itself we turn now to a brief discussion of a space on +the tufa wall which helps to face the cave on the west. This is a +smoothed surface which shows a narrow cornice ledge above it, and a +narrow base below. In it are a number of irregularly driven holes. +Delbrueck calls it a votive niche,[120] and says that the "viele +regellos verstreute Nagelloecher" are due to nails upon which votive +offerings were suspended. + +This seems quite impossible. The holes are much too irregular to have +served such a purpose. The holes show positively that they were made by +nails which held up a slab of some kind, perhaps of marble, on which +were displayed the replies from the goddess[121] which were too long to +be given by means of the lettered blocks (sortes). Most likely, however, +it was a marble slab or bronze tablet which contained the lex templi, +and was something like the tabula Veliterna.[122] + +On the floor of the two caves were two very beautiful mosaics, one of +which is now in the Barberini palace, the other, which is in a sadly +mutilated condition, still on the floor of the west cave. The date of +these mosaics has been a much discussed question. Marucchi puts it at +the end of the second century A.D., while Delbrueck makes it the early +part of the first century B.C., and thinks the mosaics were the gift of +Sulla. Delbrueck does not make his point at all, and Marucchi is carried +too far by a desire to establish a connection at Praeneste between +Fortuna and Isis.[123] Not to go into a discussion of the date of the +Greek lettering which gives the names of the animals portrayed in the +finer mosaic, nor the subject of the mosaic itself,[124] the inscription +given above[118] should help to settle the date of the mosaic. Under +Claudius, between the years 51 and 54 A.D., a portico was decorated with +marble and a coating of marble facing. That this was a very splendid +ornamentation is shown by the fact that it is mentioned so particularly +in the inscription. And if in 54 A.D. marble and marble facing were +things so worthy of note, then certainly one hundred and thirty years +earlier there was no marble mosaic floor in Praeneste like the one under +discussion, which is considered the finest large piece of Roman mosaic +in existence. And it was fifty years later than the date Delbrueck +wishes to assign to this mosaic, before marble began to be used in any +great profusion in Rome, and at this time Praeneste was not in advance +of Rome. The mosaic, therefore, undoubtedly dates from about the time of +Hadrian, and was probably a gift to the city when he built himself a +villa below the town.[125] + +Finally, a word with regard to the aerarium. This is under the temple of +Fortuna, but is not built with any regard to the facade of the temple +above. The inscription on the back wall of the chamber is earlier than +the time of Sulla,[126] and the position of this little vault[127] +shows that it was a treasury connected with the basilica, indeed its +close proximity about makes it part of that building and proves that it +was the storehouse for public funds and records. It occupied a very +prominent place, for it was at the upper end of the old forum, directly +in front of the Sacra Via that came up past the basilica from the Porta +Triumphalis. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the earliest +city forum grew up on the terrace in front of the place where the +mysterious lots had leaped out of the living rock. A basilica was built +in a prominent place in the northwest corner of the forum. Later, +another wonderful cave was discovered or made, and at such a distance +from the first one that a temple in front of it would have a facing on +the forum beyond the basilica, and this also gave a space of ground +which was leveled off into a terrace above the basilica and the forum, +and made into a sacred precinct. Because the basilica occupied the +middle front of the temple property, the temple was made to face west +along the terrace, toward the more ancient cave. The sacred precinct in +front of the temple and between the caves was enclosed, and had no +entrance except at the west end where the Sacra Via ended, which was in +front of the west cave. Before the temple, facing the sacred inclosure +was the pronaos mentioned in the inscription above,[128] and along each +side of this inclosure ran a row of columns, and probably one also on +the west side. Both caves and the temple were consecrated to the service +of Fortuna Primigenia, the tutelary goddess of Praeneste. Both caves and +an earlier temple, which occupied part of the site of the present one, +belong to the early life of Praeneste. + +Sulla built a huge temple on the second terrace higher than the old +temple, but its fame and sanctity were never comparable to its beauty +and its pretensions.[129] + + +THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. + + +AEDICULA, C.I.L., XIV, 2908. + +From the provenience of the inscription this building, not necessarily a +sacred one (Dessau), was one of the many structures on the site of the +new Forum below the town. + + +PUBLICA AEDIFICIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2919, 3032. + +Barbarus Pompeianus about 227 A.D. restored a number of public buildings +which had begun to fall to pieces. A mensor aed(ificiorum) (see Dict. +under sarcio) is mentioned in C.I.L., XIV, 3032. + + +AEDES ET PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2980. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AEDES, C.I.L., XIV, 2864, 2867, 3007. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AEDES SACRAE, C.I.L., XIV, 2922, 4091, 9== Annali dell'Inst., 1855, p. +86. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AERARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2975; Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 207; Marucchi, +Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 252; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 504; best and +latest, Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, I, p. 58. + +The points worth noting are: that this aerarium is not built with +reference to the temple above, and that it faces out on the public +square. These points have been discussed more at length above, and will +receive still more attention below under the caption "FORUM." + + +AMPHITHEATRUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3010, 3014; Juvenal, III, 173; Ovid, A.A., +I, 103 ff. + +The remains found out along the Valmontone road[130] coincide nearly +enough with the provenience of the inscription to settle an amphitheatre +here of late imperial date. The tradition of the death of the martyr S. +Agapito in an amphitheatre, and the discovery of a Christian church on +the Valmontone road, have helped to make pretty sure the identification +of these ruins.[131] + +We know also from an inscription that there was a gladiatorial school at +Praeneste.[132] + + +BALNEAE, C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add. + +The so-called nymphaeum, the brick building below the Via degli Arconi, +mentioned page 41, seems to have been a bath as well as a fountain, +because of the architectural fragments found there[133] when it was +turned into a mill by the Bonanni brothers. The reservoir mentioned +above on page 41 must have belonged also to a bath, and so do the ruins +which are out beyond the villa under which the modern cemetery now is. +From their orientation they seem to belong to the villa. There were also +baths on the hill toward Gallicano, as the ruins show.[134] + + +BYBLIOTHECAE, C.I.L., XIV, 2916. + +These seem to have been two small libraries of public and private law +books.[135] They were in the Forum, as the provenience of the +inscription shows. + + +CIRCUS, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 75, n. 32. + +Cecconi thought there was a circus at the bottom of the depression +between Colle S. Martino and the hill of Praeneste. The depression does +have a suspiciously rounded appearance below the Franciscan grounds, but +a careful examination made by me shows no trace of cutting in the rock +to make a half circle for seats, no traces of any use of the slope for +seats, and no ruins of any kind. + + +CULINA, C.I.L., XIV, 3002. + +This was a building of some consequence. Two quaestors of the city +bought a space of ground 148-1/2 by 16 feet along the wall, and +superintended the building of a culina there. The ground was made +public, and the whole transaction was done by decree of the senate, that +is, it was done before the time of Sulla. + + +CURIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2924. + +The fact that a statue was to be set up (ve)l ante curiam vel in +porticibus for(i) would seem to imply that the curia was in the lower +Forum. The inscription shows that these two places were undoubtedly the +most desirable places that a statue could have. There is a possibility +that the curia may be the basilica on the Corso terrace of the city. It +has been shown that an open space existed in front of the basilica, and +that in it there is at least one basis for a statue. Excavations[136] at +the ruins which were once thought to be the curia of ancient Praeneste +showed instead of a hemicycle, a straight wall built on remains of a +more ancient construction of rectangular blocks of tufa with three +layers of pavement 4-1/2 feet below the level of the ground, under which +was a tomb of brick construction, and lower still a wall of opus +quadratum of tufa, certainly none of the remains belonging to a curia. + +[Illustration: PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end +of the Basilica.] + +FORUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3015. + +The most ancient forum of Praeneste was inside the city walls. It was in +this forum that the statue of M. Anicius, the famous praetor, was set +up.[137] The writers hitherto, however, have been entirely mistaken, in +my opinion, as to the extent of the ancient forum. For the old forum was +not an open space which is now represented by the Piazza Savoia of the +modern town, as is generally accepted, but the ancient forum of +Praeneste was that piazza and the piazza Garibaldi and the space between +them, now built over with houses, all combined. At the present time one +goes down some steps in front of the cathedral, which was the basilica, +to the Piazza Garibaldi, and it has been supposed that this open space +belonged to a terrace below the Corso. But there was no lower terrace +there. The upper part of the forum simply has been more deeply buried in +debris than the lower part. + +One needs only to see the new excavations at the upper end of the Piazza +Savoia to realize that the present ground level of the piazza is nearly +nine feet higher than the pavement of the old forum. The accompanying +illustration (plate IV) shows the pavement, which is limestone, not +lava, that comes up the slope along the east side of the basilica,[138] +and turns round it to the west. A cippus stands at the corner to do the +double duty of defining the limits of the basilica, and to keep the +wheels of wagons from running up on the steps. It can be seen clearly +that the lowest step is one stone short of the cippus, that the next +step is on a level with the pavement at the cippus, and the next step +level again with the pavement four feet beyond it. The same grade would +give us about twelve or fifteen steps at the south end of the basilica, +and if continued to the Piazza Garibaldi, would put us below the present +level of that piazza. From this piazza on down through the garden of the +Petrini family to the point where the existence of a Porta Triumphalis +has been proved, the grade would not be even as steep as it was in the +forum itself. Further, to show that the lower piazza is even yet +accessible from the upper, despite its nine feet more of fill, if one +goes to the east end of the Piazza Savoia he finds there instead of +steps, as before the basilica, a street which leads down to the level of +the Piazza Garibaldi, and although it begins at the present level of the +upper piazza, it is not even now too steep for wagons. Again, one must +remember that the opus quadratum wall which extends along the south side +of the Corso does not go past the basilica, and also that there is a +basis for a statue of some kind in front of the basilica on the level of +the Piazza Garibaldi. + +It is a question whether the ancient forum was entirely paved. The +paving can be seen along the basilica, and it has been seen back of +it,[139] but this pavement belongs to another hitherto unknown part of +Praenestine topography, namely, a SACRA VIA. An inscription to an +aurufex de sacra via[140] makes certain that there was a road in +Praeneste to which this name was given. The inscription was found in the +courtyard of the Seminary, which was the precinct of the temple of +Fortuna. From the fact that this pavement is laid with blocks such as +are always used in roads, from the cippus at the corner of the basilica +to keep off wagon wheels, from the fact that this piece of pavement is +in direct line from the central gate of the town, and last from the +inscription and its provenience, I conclude that we have in this +pavement a road leading directly from the Porta Triumphalis through the +forum, alongside the basilica, then turning back of it and continuing +round to the delubra and precinct of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, +and that this road is the SACRA VIA of Praeneste.[141] + +At the upper end of the forum under the south façade of the temple, an +excavation was made in April 1907,[142] which is of great interest and +importance in connection with the forum. In Plate V we see that there +are three steps of tufa,[143] and observe that the space in front of +them is not paved; also that the ascent to the right, which is the only +way out of the forum at this corner, is too steep to have been ever more +than for ascent on foot. But it is up this steep and narrow way[144] +that every one had to go to reach the terrace above the temple, unless +he went across to the west side of the city. + +The steps just mentioned are not the beginning of an ascent to the +temple, for there were but three, and besides there was no entrance to +the temple on the south.[145] Nor was the earlier temple much lower than +the later one, for in either case the foundation was the rock surface of +the terrace and has not changed much. Although these steps are of an +older construction than the steps of the basilica, yet they were not +covered up in late imperial times as is shown by the brick construction +in the plate. One is tempted to believe that there was a Doric portico +below the engaged Corinthian columns of the south façade of the +temple.[146] But all the pieces of Doric columns found belong to the +portico of the basilica. Otherwise one might try to set up further +argument for a portico, and even claim that here was the place that the +statue was set up, ante curiam vel in por ticibus fori.[147] Again, +these steps run far past the temple to the east, otherwise we might +conclude that they were to mark the extent of temple property. The fact, +however, that a road, the Sacra Via, goes round back of the basilica +only to the left, forces us to conclude that these steps belong to the +city, not to the temple in any way, and that they mark the north side of +the ancient forum. + +The new forum below the city is well enough attested by inscriptions +found there mentioning statues and buildings in the forum. The tradition +has continued that here on the level space below the town was the great +forum. Inscriptions which have been found in different places on this +tract of ground mention five buildings,[148] ten statues of public +men,[149] the statue set up to the emperor Trajan on his birthday, +September 18, 101 A.D.,[150] and one to the emperor Julian.[151] The +discovery of two pieces of the Praenestine fasti in 1897 and 1903[152] +also helps to locate the lower forum.[153] + +[Illustration: PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient +Forum of Praeneste.] + +The forum inside the city walls was the forum of Praeneste, the ally of +Rome, the more pretentious one below the city was the forum of +Praeneste, the Roman colony of Sulla. + + +IUNONARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2867. + +Delbrueck follows Preller[154] in making the Iunonarium a part of the +temple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have a statue of Trivia dedicated +in a Iunonarium, but it is stranger that there are no inscriptions among +those from Praeneste which mention Juno, except that the name alone +appears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes,[155] and as the +provenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions mean nothing. +It seems that the Iunonarium must have been somewhere in the west end of +the temple precinct of Fortuna. + + +KASA CUI VOCABULUM EST FULGERITA, C.I.L., XIV, 2934. + +This is an inscription which mentions a property inside the domain of +Praeneste in a region, which in 385 A.D., was called regio +Campania,[156] but it can not be located. + + +LACUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2998; Not. d. Scavi, 1902, p. 12. LAVATIO, C.I.L., +XIV, 2978, 2979, 3015. + +These three inscriptions were found in places so far from one another +that they may well refer to three lavationes. + + +LUDUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3014. + +See amphitheatrum. + + +MACELLUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2937, 2946. + +These inscriptions were found along the Via degli Arconi, and from the +fact that in 243 A.D. (C.I.L. XIV, 2972) there was a region (regio) by +that name, I should conclude that the lower part of the town below the +wall was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was divided +into four quarters,[157] which may well represent ancient tradition. + + +MACERIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3314, 3340. + +Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 87. + + +MASSA PRAE(NESTINA), C.I.L., XIV, 2934. + + +MURUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3002. + +See above, pages 22 ff. + + +PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2850. + +See above, page 32. + + +PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2995. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +QUADRIGA, C.I.L., XIV, 2986. + + +SACRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2900. + + +SCHOLA FAUSTINIANA, C.I.L., XIV, 2901; C.I.G., 5998. + +Fernique (Étude sur Préneste, p. 119) thinks this the building the ruins +of which are of brick and called a temple, near the Ponte dell' +Ospedalato, but this is impossible. The date of the brick work is all +much later than the date assigned to it by him, and much later than the +name itself implies. + + +SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C.I.L., XIV, 2850. + + +This building was just inside the gate which was in the center of the +south wall of Praeneste, directly below the ancient forum and basilica. + + +SOLARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3323. + + +SPOLIARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3014. + +See Amphitheatrum. + + +TEMPLUM SARAPIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2901. + + +TEMPLUM HERCULIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2891, 2892; Not. d. Scavi, 11 +(1882-1883), p. 48. + +This temple was a mile or more distant from the city, in the territory +now known as Bocce di Rodi, and was situated on the little road which +made a short cut between the two great roads, the Praenestina and the +Labicana. + + +SACRA VIA, Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49. + +In the discussions on the temple and the forum, pages 42 and 54, I think +it is proved that the Sacra Via of Praeneste was the ancient road which +extended from the Porta Triumphalis up through the Forum, past the +Basilica and round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct and +temple of Fortuna Primigenia. + + +VIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3001, 3343. Viam sternenda(m). + +In inscription No. 3343 we have supra viam parte dex(tra), and from the +provenience of the stone we get a proof that the old road which led out +through the Porta S. Francesco was so well known that it was called +simply "via." + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +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,[158] 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.[159] + +As head of a league of nine cities,[160] and allied with Tibur, which +also headed a small confederacy,[161] Praeneste felt herself strong +enough to defy the other cities of the league,[162] 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;[163] +she showed her jealousy of Praeneste by refusing to allow Quintus +Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punic +war.[164] This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader of +a contingent from Praeneste was treated by a Roman dictator[165] 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.[166] Praeneste scornfully refused +Roman citizenship in 216 B.C., when it was offered.[167] 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,[168] nor +did Praeneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honored +as was Cato from Tusculum,[169] although one branch of the gens +Anicia[170] 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.[171] 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,[172] 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.[173] + +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,[174] 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.[175] 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.[176] 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.[177] + +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[178] both Praeneste and Tibur +had aediles and quaestors, but Tibur also had censors,[179] Praeneste +did not. Lavinium[180] and Praeneste were alike in that they both had +praetors. There were dictators in Aricia,[181] Lanuvium,[182] +Nomentum,[183] and Tusculum,[184] 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.[185] The praetor +was in camp as leader of the contingent of allies from Praeneste,[186] +and the fact that a praetor was in command of the troops sent from +allied towns[187] 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,[188] 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."[189] Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two +praetors,[190] 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,[191] and that such an arrangement was +more satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator[192] at its head +at some time,[193] 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,[194] and +the municipal officers were praetors,[195] aediles,[196] and +quaestors,[197] as we know certainly from inscriptions. In the +literature, a praetor is mentioned in 319 B.C.,[198] in 216 B.C.,[199] +and again in 173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the +magistrates of an allied city.[200] 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.[201] + +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,[202] 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.[203] + +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.[204] 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.[205] + +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[206] +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,[207] but continued to hold the right of a sovereign +city, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,[208] in common with Tibur +and Naples,[209] 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.[210] +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.[211] +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.[212] 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,[213] 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.[214] Mommsen-Marquardt say[215] 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).[216] 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.[217] 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.[218] 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.[219] 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,[220] and the great amount of its land[221] 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;[222] second, the use of the word +municipium in literature in connection with Praeneste is general, and +means simply "town";[223] 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,[224] which he +did,[225] but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular +city officials of a colony,[226] shows clearly that the Praenestines +simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered from +a severe illness at Praeneste[227] 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.[228] 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,[229] 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.,[56] 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,[230] 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,[231] +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.[232] 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.[233] +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,[234] 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[235] 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[236] 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.[237] +Two others[81] are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of several +peculiarities,[239] and one other, a fragment, belongs to still another +calendar.[240] 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[238] +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.[241] 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,[80] both forms are found, while in the year 31 A.D. in +the municipal fasti of Nola[242] are found II vir(i) iter(um) +q(uinquennales), and in 29 B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,[243] +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.[244] 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.[245] This duty was performed by the +duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power.[246] +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[247] 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.[248] Early in the life of the colony, immediately after its +settlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's +monuments,[249] 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[250] mentioned in the fragment above (see note 83), there +are practically no people of that name found in Praeneste,[251] 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.[252] + + +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.[253] 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.[254] 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.[255] 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,[256] and just such an arrangement is also found in +the aediles, Sex. Caesius being a Praenestine[257], 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.[258] C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, +duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in another +inscription,[259] 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,[260] and Statiolenus[261] 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.[262] 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.[263] 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.[264] In fact the +same name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions.[265] 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.[266] Capivas is at least not a +Roman name,[267] 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[268] is a name not found elsewhere in the +Latian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,[269] and +is found also in Pompeii[270] and Puteoli.[271] 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.[272] 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)[273] 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,[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 +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,[279] 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[280] 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[281] or Ostia,[282] 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[283] 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.[284] The only other men who attained the quinquennial +rank in Praeneste 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 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.[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 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.[288] + +From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers' +union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,[289] 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,[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 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).[291] A Roman knight, C. Aemilius +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. Maenius C.f. Bassus[294] 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[295] 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.[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 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.[298] + +Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superaequum, and +held no other offices.[299] + +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,[300] shows clearly that such a method of getting a +quinquennalis was out of the ordinary. + +M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum[301] 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.[302] + +Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate, +which again shows the irregularity of the choice.[303] + +M. Traesius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an +inhabitant of Atinae in Lucania.[304] + +M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was aedile and duovir in Pompeii,[305] +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.[306] + +P. Sextilius Rufus,[307] 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.[308] + +M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being aedile or +quaestor, 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 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.[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 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[318] 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. +-- [I]nstacilius Aed. 2964 +C. Iuc ... Rufus[319] Q 2964 +Laelianus, see Lutatius. +M'. Later ...[320] 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: + +[Footnote 1: Strabo V, 3, II.] + +[Footnote 2: We know that in 380 B.C. Praeneste had eight towns under +her jurisdiction, and that they must have been relatively near by. Livy +VI, 29, 6: octo praeterea oppida erant sub dicione Praenestinorum. +Festus, p. 550 (de Ponor): T. Quintius Dictator cum per novem dies +totidem urbes et decimam Praeneste 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 Praeneste (Livy VI, 29, 8), all show +that the domain of Praeneste was both of extent and of consequence.] + +[Footnote 3: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.] + +[Footnote 4: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.] + +[Footnote 5: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 227 ff.; Marucchi, Guida +Archeologica, p. 14; Nibby, Analisi, p. 483; Volpi, Latium vetus de +Praen., chap 2; Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 167.] + +[Footnote 6: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.] + +[Footnote 7: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum +Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.] + +[Footnote 8: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.] + +[Footnote 9: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 277, n. 36, from Epist., +474: Bonifacius VIII concedit Episcopo Civitatis Papalis Locum, ubi +fuerunt olim Civitas Praenestina, eiusque Castrum, quod dicebatur Mons, +et Rocca; ac etiam Civitas Papalis postmodum destructa, cum Territorio +et Turri de Marmoribus, et Valle Gloriae; nec non Castrum Novum +Tiburtinum 2 Id. April. an. VI; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 136; +Civitas praedicta cum Rocca, et Monte, cum Territorio ipsius posita est +in districtu Urbis in contrata, quae dicitur Romangia.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 11: Livy VIII, 12, 7: Pedanos tuebatur Tiburs, Praenestinus +Veliternusque populus, etc. Livy VII, 12, 8: quod Gallos mox Praeneste +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.] + +[Footnote 12: There are some good ancient tufa quarries too on the +southern slope of Colle S. Rocco, to which a branch road from Praeneste +ran. Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104.] + +[Footnote 13: C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.] + +[Footnote 14: Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of +the Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 16: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, wishes to connect +Marcigliano and Ceciliano with the gentes Marcia and Caecilia, but it is +impossible to do more than guess, and the rather few names of these +gentes at Praeneste make the guess improbable. It is also impossible to +locate regio Caesariana mentioned as a possession of Praeneste 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 Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 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 archaeologists (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; Archaeologia, 41 (1867), p. 190.] + +[Footnote 18: C.I.L., XIV, 2987.] + +[Footnote 19: The papal documents read sometimes in Latin, territorium +Praenestinum or Civitas Praenestina, 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).] + +[Footnote 20: There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any +way to ancient Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 21: Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own +observations. See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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).] + +[Footnote 24: Cave has been attached rather more to Genazzano during +Papal rule than to Praeneste, and it belongs to the electoral college of +Subiaco, Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 182.] + +[Footnote 25: I heard everywhere bitter and slighting remarks in +Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 26: Mommsen, Bull. dell'Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that +the civilization in Praeneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin +cities.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 28: Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and +Querquetula is not a question here at all.] + +[Footnote 29: Gatti, in Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576, in connection with +the Arlenius inscription, found on the site of the new Forum below +Praeneste in 1903, which mentions Ad Duas Casas as confinium territorio +Praenestinae, 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 Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste. But it has been shown that +Praeneste'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 Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 31: To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that +which looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 33: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, map facing p. 222. His book +is on the whole the best one on Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste at all.] + +[Footnote 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.)] + +[Footnote 36: The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid bare +in 1890, Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38.] + +[Footnote 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."] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 42: Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 19, who is usually a good +authority on Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 45: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 107, has exact +measurements of the walls.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 47: There seems to have been only a postern in the ancient +wall inside the present Porta del Sole.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 49: Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 57 ff. for argument and proof, +beginning with Varro, de I. 1. VI, 4: ut Praeneste incisum in solario +vidi.] + +[Footnote 50: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 57: Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): [Greek: erymnae men oun +ekatera, poly derumnotera Prainestos].] + +[Footnote 58: Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: [Greek: Marios de pheygon eis +Praineston aedae tas pylas eyre kekleimenas].] + +[Footnote 59: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 282; Nibby, Analisi, II, +p. 491.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 61: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 248.] + +[Footnote 62: Also called Porta S. Giacomo, or dell'Ospedale.] + +[Footnote 63: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 252.] + +[Footnote 64: Closed seemingly in Sullan times.] + +[Footnote 65: The rude corbeling of one side of the gate is still very +plainly to be seen. The gate is filled with mediaeval stone work.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 68: This gate is now a mediaeval 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 72: This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazione +de Numeri, Map facing page 1: l'antica Porta di San Martino chiusa.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste up to their dates of +publication.] + +[Footnote 74: Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, in Papers +of the British School at Rome, Vol. 1, Map VI.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 76: This road to Marcigliano had nothing to do with either the +Praenestina 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.] + +[Footnote 77: Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1903), pp. 23-25.] + +[Footnote 78: Probably the store room of some little shop which sold the +exvotos. Bull. dell'Inst., 1883, p. 28.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praenestina. 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.] + +[Footnote 80: The roads are the present Via Praenestina toward +Gallicano, and the Via Praenestina 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).] + +[Footnote 81: Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); [Greek: ... dioruxi +kryptais--pantachothen mechri tou pedion tais men hydreias charin ktl.]; +Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 83: Cola di Rienzo did this (see note 59), and so discovered +the method by which the Praenestines 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 Praeneste from the rear, +from over Colle S. Martino, as well as by an attack in front.] + +[Footnote 84: C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add., 2978, 2979, 3015.] + +[Footnote 85: Nibby, Analisi, p. 510. It could be seen in 1907, but not +so very clearly.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 88: The mediaeval 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.] + +[Footnote 89: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of this +aqueduct as "quel mirabile antico cuniculo."] + +[Footnote 90: The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua del +Sambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, Memorie +Prenestine, p. 286).] + +[Footnote 91: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 96 ff., p. 122 ff.; +Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 501 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 45.] + +[Footnote 92: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 503, the sanest of all the writers +on Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 93: C.I.L., XIV, 2911, was found near this reservoir, and +Nibby from this, and a likeness to the construction of the Castra +Praetoria at Rome, dates it so (Analisi, p. 503).] + +[Footnote 94: This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of the +American School in Rome.] + +[Footnote 95: See above, page 29.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 98: Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85.] + +[Footnote 99: There are many references to the temple. Suetonius, Dom., +15, Tib., 63; Aelius 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 +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.] + +[Footnote 102: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under Das +Heiligtum der Fortuna in Praeneste, p. 47 ff.] + +[Footnote 103: Cicero, De Div., II, 41, 85.] + +[Footnote 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 Praenestinae 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).] + +[Footnote 105: Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85: is est hodie locus saeptus +religiose propter Iovis pueri, qui lactens cum lunone Fortunae in gremio +sedens, ... eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunae nunc est aedes, +etc.] + +[Footnote 106: C.I.L., XIV, 2867: ...ut Triviam in Iunonario, ut in +pronao aedis statuam, etc., and Livy, XXIII, 19, 18 of 216 B.C.: Idem +titulus (a laudatory inscription to M. Anicius) tribus signis in aede +Fortunae positis fuit subiectus.] + +[Footnote 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 Praenestines then made Fortuna the mother of +Jupiter and Juno, and considered Primigenia to mean "first born," not +"first born of Jupiter."] + +[Footnote 108: The establishment of the present Cathedral of S. Agapito +as the basilica of ancient Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 111: See also Revue Arch., XXXIX (1901), p. 469, n. 188.] + +[Footnote 112: C.I.L, XIV, 2864.] + +[Footnote 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 aeditui, of whom we have no mention, are the +proper custodians of the entire temple, precinct and all.] + +[Footnote 114: C.I.L., XIV, 3007. See Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, 2, +p. 365, n. 73.] + +[Footnote 115: See Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62.] + +[Footnote 116: C.I.L., XIV, 2922; also on bricks, Ann. dell'Inst., 1855, +p. 86--C.I.L., XIV, 4091, 9.] + +[Footnote 117: C.I.L., XIV, 2980; C. Caesius M.f.C. Flavius L.f. Duovir +Quinq. aedem et portic d.d. fac. coer. eidemq. prob.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 119: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 430. See also Juvenal +XIV, 88; Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10.] + +[Footnote 120: Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62, with illustration.] + +[Footnote 121: Although Suaresius (Thesaurus Antiq. Italiae, 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 +Aesculapius at Epidaurus, Cavvadias, [Greek: 'Ephaem. 'Arch.], 1883, p. +1975; Michel, Recueil d'insc. grec., 1069 ff.] + +[Footnote 122: Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, pp. 320, 324; Marquardt, +Staatsverwaltung, 3, p. 271, n. 8. See Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), +p. 10.] + +[Footnote 123: Delbrueck, l.c., pp. 50, 59, does prove that there is no +reason why [Greek: lithostroton] 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 Praeneste. 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 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.] + +[Footnote 124: For the many opinions as to the subject of the mosaic, +see Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 75.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 126: Delbrueck, l.c., p. 58, n. 1.] + +[Footnote 127: The aerarium 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 aerarium 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 Aemilia 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.] + +[Footnote 128: See note 106.] + +[Footnote 129: C.I.L., XIV, 2875. This dedication of "coques atriensis" +probably belongs to the upper temple.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 131: The martyr suffered death contra civitatem praenestinam +ubi sunt duae viae, Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 144, n. 3, from Martirol. +Adonis, 18 Aug. Cod. Vat. Regin., n. 511 (11th cent. A.D.).] + +[Footnote 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.); Friedlaender, +Sittengeschichte Roms, II, p. 377; Cicero, pro Plancio, XXVI, 63; Epist. +ad Att., XII, 2, 2; Cassiodorus, Variae, VI, 15.] + +[Footnote 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).] + +[Footnote 134: On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia di +Palestrina, p. 60.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 136: Not d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 330.] + +[Footnote 137: Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18: statua cius (M. Anicii) indicio +fuit, Praeneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, +etc.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 141: More discussion of this point above in connection with +the temple, page 51.] + +[Footnote 142: I was in Praeneste during all the excavations of 1907, +and made these photographs while I was there.] + +[Footnote 143: The drawing of the Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 290, which +shows a probable portico is not exact.] + +[Footnote 144: It is now called the Via delle Scalette.] + +[Footnote 145: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 58.] + +[Footnote 146: See full-page illustration in Delbrueck, l.c., p. 79.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 148: C.I.L., XIV, 2908, 2919, 2916, 2937, 2946, 3314, 3340.] + +[Footnote 149: C.I.L., XIV, 2917, 2919, 2922, 2924, 2929, 2934, 2955, +2997, 3014, Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576.] + +[Footnote 150: F. Barnabei, Not. d. Scavi, 1894, p. 96.] + +[Footnote 151: C.I.L., XIV, 2914.] + +[Footnote 152: Not. d. Scavi, 1897, p. 421; 1904, p. 393.] + +[Footnote 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) Praeneste in +superiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos et +marmoreo parieti incisos publicarat.] + +[Footnote 154: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 50, n. 1, +from Preller, Roemische Mythologie, II, p. 191, n. 1.] + +[Footnote 155: C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.] + +[Footnote 156: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 320, n. 19.] + +[Footnote 157: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 35.] + +[Footnote 158: Tibur shows 1 to 32 and Praeneste 1 to 49 names of +inhabitants from the Umbro-Sabellians of the Appennines. These +statistics are from A. Schulten, Italische Namen und Staemme, Beitraege +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.] + +[Footnote 159: Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, V, p. 159.] + +[Footnote 160: Livy VI, 29; C.I.L., XIV, 2987.] + +[Footnote 161: Livy VII, 11; VII, 19; VIII, 12.] + +[Footnote 162: Praeneste 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 Praeneste deserted +the Latins for Rome.] + +[Footnote 163: Livy VIII, 14.] + +[Footnote 164: Val. Max., De Superstitionibus, I, 3, 2; C.I.L., XIV, +2929, with Dessau's note.] + +[Footnote 165: See note 28.] + +[Footnote 166: "Praeneste wird immer eine selbstaendige Stellung +eingenommen haben" Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alt., II, p. 523. Praeneste +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). +Praeneste is called by Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21, 27) one of the +municipia Italiae splendidissima along with Spoletium, Interamnium, +Florentia.] + +[Footnote 167: Livy XXIII, 20, 2.] + +[Footnote 168: Livy I, 30, 1.] + +[Footnote 169: Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.] + +[Footnote 170: Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under "Anicia."] + +[Footnote 171: The old Oscan names in Pompeii, and the Etruscan names on +the small grave stones of Caere, C.I.L., X, 3635-3692, are neither so +numerous.] + +[Footnote 172: Dionysius III, 2.] + +[Footnote 173: Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.] + +[Footnote 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--praeterquam de suffragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo.] + +[Footnote 175: Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in +civitatem Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.] + +[Footnote 176: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita +venerunt, ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut +Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste would ever have taken such a status.] + +[Footnote 178: C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 180: C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.] + +[Footnote 181: C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195] + +[Footnote 182: Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in +Milonianam, p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, +2121.] + +[Footnote 183: C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.] + +[Footnote 184: Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste. 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 Praeneste, +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.] + +[Footnote 186: Praenestinus praetor ... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy +IX, 16, 17.] + +[Footnote 187: A praetor led the contingent from Lavinium, Livy VIII, +11, 4; the praetor M. Anicius led from Praeneste the cohort which gained +such a reputation at Casilinum, Livy XXIII, 17-19. Strabo V, 249; cohors +Paeligna, cuius praefectus, etc., proves nothing for a Latin +contingent.] + +[Footnote 188: For the evidence that the consuls were first called +praetors, see Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under the word "consul" (Vol. IV, +p. 1114) and the old Pauly under "praetor." + +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.] + +[Footnote 189: This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law +at the University of Michigan.] + +[Footnote 190: Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, +61.] + +[Footnote 191: Pauly-Wissowa under "dictator," and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, +II, 171, 2.] + +[Footnote 192: Whether Egerius Laevius 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).] + +[Footnote 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), Velitrae (C.I.L., X, 8417), Bovillae +(C.I.L., XIV, 2431 == VI, 2125). Compare also rex nemorensis, Suetonius, +Caligula, 35 (Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Roemer, p. 199).] + +[Footnote 194: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.] + +[Footnote 195: C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly +3008).] + +[Footnote 196: C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.] + +[Footnote 197: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.] + +[Footnote 198: See note 28 above.] + +[Footnote 199: Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.] + +[Footnote 200: Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.] + +[Footnote 201: For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, +notes 1 and 2.] + +[Footnote 202: The mention of one praetor in C.I.L., XIV, 2890, a +dedication to Hercules, is later than other mention of two praetors, and +is not irregular at any rate.] + +[Footnote 203: C.I.L., XIV, 3000, two aediles 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 praetors, aediles, and +quaestors mentioned, fifteen belong to the old families of Praeneste, +two to families that belong to the people living back in the Sabines, +and one to a man from Fidenae.] + +[Footnote 204: Cicero, pro Balbo, VIII, 21: Leges de civili iure sunt +latae: 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 +refectae sunt. Gellius IV, 4, 3; Civitas universo Latio lege Iulia data +est. Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 49: [Greek: Italioton de tous eti en tae +symmachia paramenontas epsaephisato (ae boulae) einai politas, ou dae +malista monon ou pantes epethymoun ktl.] + +Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311; +Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman +Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.] + +[Footnote 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 praetorem 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 incolae of +federate communities; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102.] + +[Footnote 206: Livy VIII, 14, 9: Tiburtes Praenestinique 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 aequum 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 +Abhaengigkeits--oder Clientelverhaeltniss."] + +[Footnote 207: Mommsen, Geschichte des roem. Muenzwesens, p. 179 (French +trans, de Blacas, I, p. 186), thinks two series of aes grave are to be +assigned to Praeneste and Tibur.] + +[Footnote 208: Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Praeneste, Matienus Tibur +exulatum abierunt.] + +[Footnote 209: Polybius VI, 14, 8: [Greek: eoti d asphaleia tois +pheygousin ente tae, Neapolito kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinon +polei]. Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. 215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., +I, p. 45.] + +[Footnote 210: Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Praenestini) civitate cum donarentur +ob virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.] + +[Footnote 211: The celebration of the feriae Latinae 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 Caesar 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)).] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 213: Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: [Greek: exedramen es tas +agchou poleis, tas ou pro pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburton +te kai Praineston, kai osai mechri Nolaes. erethizon apantas es +apostasin, kai chraemata es ton polemon sullegon.] 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 ([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.]] + +[Footnote 214: Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), pp. +109 ff.] + +[Footnote 215: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.] + +[Footnote 216: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): tertio, quum id genus hominum +definitur, qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent +suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praeneste the favor she asked, that of being a municipium, still no +praefectus is found, not even a survival of the title. + +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.] + +[Footnote 218: Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.] + +[Footnote 219: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.] + +[Footnote 220: Val. Max. IX, 2, 1; Plutarch, Sulla, 32; Appian, Bell. +Civ., I, 94; Lucan II, 194; Plutarch, praec. ger. reip., ch. 19 (p. +816); Augustinus, de civ. Dei, III, 28; Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289, n. +2.] + +[Footnote 221: One third of the land was the usual amount taken.] + +[Footnote 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 aed. pot.] + +[Footnote 223: Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21): municipia Italiae +splendidissima sub hasta venierunt, Spoletium, Interamnium, Praeneste, +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 Praeneste in connection with Sulla says: +quinque milia Praenestinorum 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."] + +[Footnote 224: Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statum +redegit. See Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 226: Regular colony officials appear all along in the +incriptions down into the third century A.D.] + +[Footnote 227: Gellius XVI, 13, 5.] + +[Footnote 228: More in detail by Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110.] + +[Footnote 229: Livy VII, 12, 8; VIII, 12, 8.] + +[Footnote 230: Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 161.] + +[Footnote 231: Cicero, pro P. Sulla, XXI, 61.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 233: Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 235: C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.] + +[Footnote 236: C.I.L., XIV, 2964-2969.] + +[Footnote 237: 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.] + +[Footnote 238: C.I.L., XIV, 2966, 2968.] + +[Footnote 239: The first column of both inscriptions shows alternate +lines spaced in, while the second column has the praenominal +abbreviations exactly lined. More certain yet is the likeness which +shows in a list of 27 names, and all but one without cognomina.] + +[Footnote 240: C.I.L., XIV, 2967.] + +[Footnote 241: Out of 201 examples of names from Praeneste 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 +praenomina and nomina.] + +[Footnote 242: C.I.L., X, 1233.] + +[Footnote 243: C.I.L., IX, 422.] + +[Footnote 244: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 5.] + +[Footnote 245: Lex Iulia Municipalis, C.I.L., I, 206, l. 142 ff. == +Dessau, Inscrip. Lat. Sel., 6085.] + +[Footnote 246: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 160.] + +[Footnote 247: C.I.L., XIV, 2966.] + +[Footnote 248: Pauly-Wissowa under "Dolabella," and "Cornelius," nos. +127-148.] + +[Footnote 249: The real founder of Sulla's colony and the rebuilder of +the city of Praeneste 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 Praeneste. 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.] + +[Footnote 250: C.I.L., XIV, 2967: ... elius Rufus Aed(ilis). I take him +to be a Cornelius rather than an Aelius, because of the cognomen.] + +[Footnote 251: One Cornelius, a freedman (C.I.L., XIV, 3382), and three +Corneliae, 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.] + +[Footnote 252: A full treatment of the use of the nomen Cornelia in +Praeneste will be published soon by the author in connection with his +Prosographia Praenestina, 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 Praeneste in 1907, +bears out the early date. The larger fragment could not be seen.] + +[Footnote 253: Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, p. 222, +under "Rutenius." He finds the same form Rotanius only in Turin, +Rutenius only in North Italy.] + +[Footnote 254: From the appearance of the name Rudia at Praeneste +(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 Praeneste before the colonization.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praeneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2966, I, 5, 3360; compare Schulze, Geschichte +Lat. Eigennamen, p. 193, n. 6.] + +[Footnote 257: Caesia at Praeneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2852, 2966 I, 6, 2980, +3311, 3359, and the old form Ceisia, 4104.] + +[Footnote 258: See Schulze, l.c., index under Caleius.] + +[Footnote 259: C.I.L., XIV, 2964 II, 15.] + +[Footnote 260: Vibia especially in the old inscription C.I.L., XIV, +4098. Also in 2903, 2966 II, 9; Not. d. Scavi, 1900, p. 94.] + +[Footnote 261: Statioleia: C.I.L., XIV, 2966 I, 10, 3381.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 263: There is a L. Aponius Mitheres on a basis in the +Barberini garden in Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 264: C.I.L., XIV, 2855, 2626, 3336.] + +[Footnote 265: C.I.L., XIV, 3116. It may not be on a pigna.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 267: C.I.L., IX, 5016: C. Capive Vitali (Hadria).] + +[Footnote 268: A better restoration than Ninn(eius). The (N)inneius +Sappaeus (C.I.L., VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription is +late.] + +[Footnote 269: In the year 216 B.C. the Ninnii Celeres were hostages of +Hannibal's at Capua (Livy XXIII, 8).] + +[Footnote 270: C.I.L., X, 2776-2779, but all late.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste: 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 +annonae sacris publicis procurandis), Henzen; (votis Augustalibus sacris +publicis procurandis), Mommsen; (viis aedibus, etc.), Cagnat; See +Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1842, 9.] + +[Footnote 273: Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1806.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 275: All at least except the regimen morum, so Marquardt, +l.c., p. 162 and n. 2.] + +[Footnote 276: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 6.] + +[Footnote 277: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 7.] + +[Footnote 278: Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 78 ff.; Nissen, Italische +Landeskunde, II, p. 99 ff.] + +[Footnote 279: C.I.L., IX, 422 = Dessau, Insc. Lat. Sel., 6123.] + +[Footnote 280: C.I.L., X, 1233 = Dessau 6124.] + +[Footnote 281: Near Aquinum. C.I.L., X, 5405 = Dessau 6125.] + +[Footnote 282: C.I.L., XIV, 245 = Dessau 6126.] + +[Footnote 283: C.I.L., XIV, 2964.] + +[Footnote 284: He is not even mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa or Ruggiero.] + +[Footnote 285: C.I.L., XIV, 2966.] + +[Footnote 286: C.I.L., XIV, 2964.] + +[Footnote 287: C.I.L., XIV, 2965.] + +[Footnote 288: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 169 for full discussion, +with references to other cases.] + +[Footnote 289: C.I.L., XIV, 172: praet(or) Laur(entium) Lavin(atium) +IIIIvir q(uin) q(uennalis) Faesulis.] + +[Footnote 290: C.I.L., XIV, 3599.] + +[Footnote 291: C.I.L., XIV, 3609.] + +[Footnote 292: C.I.L., XIV, 3650.] + +[Footnote 293: C.I.L., I, 1236 == X, 1573 == Dessau 6345.] + +[Footnote 294: C.I.L., XIV, 3665.] + +[Footnote 295: C.I.L., XI, 421 == Dessau 6662.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 297: Not. d. Scav, 1884, p. 418 == Dessau 6598.] + +[Footnote 298: C.I.L., IX, 5831 == Dessau 6572.] + +[Footnote 299: C.I.L., IX, 3311 == Dessau 6532.] + +[Footnote 300: L. Septimio L.f. Arn. Calvo. aed., IIIIvir. i.d., praef. +ex s.c. [q]uinquennalicia potestate, etc., Eph. Ep. 8, 120 == Dessau +6527.] + +[Footnote 301: C.I.L., IX, 1618 == Dessau 6507.] + +[Footnote 302: C.I.L., IX, 652 == Dessau 6481.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 304: C.I.L., X, 344 == Dessau 6450.] + +[Footnote 305: C.I.L., X, 1036 == Dessau 6365.] + +[Footnote 306: C.I.L., X, 840 == Dessau 6362: M. Holconio Celeri +d.v.i.d. quinq. designato. Augusti sacerdoti.] + +[Footnote 307: C.I.L., X, 1273 == Dessau 6344.] + +[Footnote 308: C.I.L., X, 4641 == Dessau 6301.] + +[Footnote 309: C.I.L., X, 5401 == Dessau 6291.] + +[Footnote 310: C.I.L., X, 5393 == Dessau 6286.] + +[Footnote 311: C.I.L., XIV, 4148.] + +[Footnote 312: C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.] + +[Footnote 313: C.I.L., XIV, 2795.] + +[Footnote 314: C.I.L., XIV, 4237. Another case of the same kind is seen +in the fragment C.I.L., XIV, 4247.] + +[Footnote 315: Zangemeister, C.I.L., IV., Index, shows 75 duoviri and +but 4 quinquennales.] + +[Footnote 316: L. Veranius Hypsaeus 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.] + +[Footnote 317: (1) Verulae, C.I.L., X, 5796; Acerrae, C.I.L., X, 3759; +(2) Anagnia, C.I.L., X, 5919; Allifae, C.I.L., IX, 2354; Aeclanum, +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) Formiae, 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; Allifae, +C.I.L., IX, 2353; Hispellum, C.I.L., XI, 5283.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 320: Probably not the M. Iuventius Laterensis, the Roman +quaestor, for the brick stamps of Praeneste in other cases seem to show +the quaestors of the city.] + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And +Municipal History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12770 *** diff --git a/12770-h/12770-h.htm b/12770-h/12770-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc2f589 --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-h/12770-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7223 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" + content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> + <title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin.</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + + A { text-decoration: none; + } + P { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + } + HR { width: 33%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .note {margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;} /* footnote */ + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right;} /* page numbers */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; font-size: smaller; float: right; clear: right;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span {display: block; margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em;} + .poem .caesura {vertical-align: -200%;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12770 ***</div> + +<h3>SERIES XXVI NOS. 9-10</h3> +<h3>JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES</h3> +<h3>IN +HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE</h3> +<h3>Under the Direction of the +Departments of</h3> +<h3>History, Political Economy,</h3> +<h3>and +Political Science</h3> +<h1>STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY</h1> +<h1>AND +MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF</h1> +<h1>PRÆNESTE</h1> +<h3>BY</h3> +<h2>RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, A.B.</h2> +<h2>Fellow in Latin.</h2> +<br /> +<h3>September, October, 1908</h3> +<h3>COPYRIGHT 1908</h3> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<br /> +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> +<div style="margin-left: 160px;"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a>. +THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRÆNESTE<br /> +<a href="#EXTENT"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN +OF PRÆNESTE</span></a><br /> +<a href="#CITY"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND +GATES</span></a><br /> +<a href="#PORTA_TRIUMPHALIS"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE PORTA +TRIUMPHALIS</span></a><br /> +<a href="#GATES"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE GATES</span></a><br /> +<a href="#WATER"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE WATER SUPPLY OF +PRÆNESTE</span></a><br /> +<a href="#TEMPLE"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA +PRIMIGENIA</span></a><br /> +<a href="#EPIGRAPHICAL_TOPOGRAPHY"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE +EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF +PRÆNESTE</span></a><br /> +<a href="#FORUM"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE FORA</span></a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE SACRA VIA</span><br /> +<br /> +<a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a>. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF +PRÆNESTE<br /> +<a href="#MUNICIPIUM"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">WAS +PRÆNESTE A MUNICIPIUM?</span></a><br /> +<a href="#COLONY"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">PRÆNESTE AS A +COLONY</span></a><br /> +<a href="#OFFICES"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE DISTRIBUTION OF +OFFICES</span></a><br /> +<a href="#OFFICIALS"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE REGULATIONS +ABOUT OFFICIALS</span></a><br /> +<a href="#QUINQUENNALES"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE +QUINQUENNALES</span></a><br /> +<br /> +<a href="#ALPHABETICAL_LIST">AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL +OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE</a><br /> +<br /> +A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1. <a href="#BEFORE">BEFORE +PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2. <a href="#AFTER">AFTER +PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY</a></span><br /> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<br /> +<h2>PREFACE.</h2> +<p>This study is the first of a series of studies already in +progress, in which the author hopes to make some contributions +to the history of the towns of the early Latin League, +from the topographical and epigraphical points of view.</p> +<p>The author takes this opportunity to thank Dr. Kirby +Flower Smith, Head of the Department of Latin, at whose +suggestion this study was begun, and under whose supervision +and with whose hearty assistance its revision was +completed.</p> +<p>He owes his warmest thanks also to Dr. Harry Langford +Wilson, Professor of Roman Archæology and Epigraphy, +with whom he made many trips to Præneste, and whose +help and suggestions were most valuable.</p> +<p>Especially does he wish to testify to the inspiration to +thoroughness which came from the teaching and the example +of his dearly revered teacher, Professor Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, +Head of the Greek Department, and he acknowledges +also with pleasure the benefit from the scholarly +methods of Dr. David M. Robinson, and the manifold suggestiveness +of the teaching of Dr. Maurice Bloomfield.</p> +<p>The cordial assistance of the author's aunt, Dr. Esther B. +Van Deman, Carnegie Fellow in the American School at +Rome, both during his stay in Rome and Præneste and since +his return to America, has been invaluable, and the privilege +afforded him by Professor Dr. Christian Hülsen, of the German +Archæological Institute, of consulting the as yet unpublished +indices of the sixth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum +Latinarum, is acknowledged with deep gratitude.</p> +<p>The author is deeply grateful for the facilities afforded +him in the prosecution of his investigations while he was +a resident in Palestrina, and he takes great pleasure in +thanking for their courtesies, Cav. Capitano Felice Cicerchia, +President of the Archæological Society at Palestrina, his +brother, Cav. Emilio Cicerchia, Government Inspector of +Antiquities, Professor Pompeo Bernardini, Mayor of the +City, and Cav. Francesco Coltellacci, Municipal Secretary.</p> +<p>Finally, he desires to express his cordial appreciation of +the kind advice and generous assistance given by Professor +John Martin Vincent in connection with the publication of +this monograph.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<br /> +<h1>A STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY</h1> +<h1>AND MUNICIPAL</h1> +<h1>HISTORY OF PRÆNESTE.</h1> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<a name="CHAPTER_I"></a> +<h2>CHAPTER I. +</h2> +<h2>THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRÆNESTE.</h2> +<p>Nearly a half mile out from the rugged Sabine mountains, +standing clear from them, and directly in front of +the sinuous little valley which the northernmost headstream +of the Trerus made for itself, rises a conspicuous and commanding +mountain, two thousand three hundred and eighteen +feet above the level of the sea, and something more +than half that height above the plain below. This limestone +mountain, the modern Monte Glicestro, presents on the north +a precipitous and unapproachable side to the Sabines, but +turns a fairer face to the southern and western plain. +From its conical summit the mountain stretches steeply +down toward the southwest, dividing almost at once into +two rounded slopes, one of which, the Colle di S. Martino, +faces nearly west, the other in a direction a little west of +south. On this latter slope is situated the modern Palestrina, +which is built on the site of the ancient Præneste.</p> +<p>From the summit of the mountain, where the arx or +citadel was, it becomes clear at once why Præneste occupied +a proud and commanding position among the towns of +Latium. The city, clambering up the slope on its terraces, +occupied a notably strong position<a name="FNanchor_1"></a><a + href="#Footnote_1"><sup>[1]</sup></a>, and the citadel +was wholly impregnable to assault. Below and south +of the city stretched fertile land easy of access to the +Prænestines, and sufficiently distant from other strong +Latin towns to be safe for regular cultivation. Further, +there is to be added to the fortunate situation +of Præneste with regard to her own territory and that of +her contiguous dependencies, her position at a spot which +almost forced upon her a wide territorial influence, for +Monte Glicestro faces exactly the wide and deep depression +between the Volscian mountains and the Alban Hills, and +is at the same time at the head of the Trerus-Liris valley. +Thus Præneste at once commanded not only one of the +passes back into the highland country of the Æquians, but +also the inland routes between Upper and Lower Italy, the +roads which made relations possible between the Hernicans, +Volscians, Samnites, and Latins. From Præneste the +movements of Volscians and Latins, even beyond the Alban +Hills and on down in the Pontine district, could be seen, +and any hostile demonstrations could be prepared against +or forestalled. In short, Præneste held the key to Rome +from the south.</p> +<p>Monte Glicestro is of limestone pushed up through the +tertiary crust by volcanic forces, but the long ridges +which run off to the northwest are of lava, while the shorter +and wider ones extending toward the southwest are of +tufa. These ridges are from three to seven miles in length. +It is shown either by remains of roads and foundations or +(in three cases) by the actual presence of modern towns +that in antiquity the tip of almost every one of these ridges +was occupied by a city. The whole of the tufa and lava +plain that stretches out from Præneste toward the Roman +Campagna is flat to the eye, and the towns on the tips of +the ridges seem so low that their strong military position +is overlooked. The tops of these ridges, however, are +everywhere more than an hundred feet above the valley +and, in addition, their sides are very steep. Thus the +towns were practically impregnable except by an attack +along the top of the ridge, and as all these ridges run back +to the base of the mountain on which Præneste was situated, +both these ridges and their towns necessarily were always +closely connected with Præneste and dependent upon her.</p> +<p>There is a simple expedient by which a conception of the +topography of the country about Præneste can be obtained. +Place the left hand, palm down, flat on a table spreading +the fingers slightly, then the palm of the right hand on the +back of the left with the fingers pointing at right angles to +those of the left hand. Imagine that the mountain, on +which Præneste lay, rises in the middle of the back of the +upper hand, sinks off to the knuckles of both hands, and +extends itself in the alternate ridges and valleys which the +fingers and the spaces between them represent.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="EXTENT"></a>EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRÆNESTE.</p> +<p>Just as the modern roads and streets in both country and +city of ancient territory are taken as the first and best proof +of the presence of ancient boundary lines and thoroughfares, +just so the territorial jurisdiction of a city in modern +Italy, where tradition has been so constant and so strong, +is the best proof for the extent of ancient domain.<a name="FNanchor_2"></a><a + href="#Footnote_2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Before +trying, therefore, to settle the limits of the domain of Præneste +from the provenience of ancient inscriptions, and by +deductions from ancient literary sources, and present topographical +and archæological arguments, it will be well worth +while to trace rapidly the diocesan boundaries which the +Roman church gave to Præneste.</p> +<p>The Christian faith had one of its longest and hardest +fights at Præneste to overcome the old Roman cult of +Fortuna Primigenia. Christianity triumphed completely, +and Præneste was so important a place, that it was made +one of the six suburban bishoprics,<a name="FNanchor_3"></a><a + href="#Footnote_3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> and from that time on +there is more or less mention in the Papal records of the +diocese of Præneste, or Penestrino as it began to be called.</p> +<p>In the fifth century A.D. there is mention of a gift to +a church by Sixtus III, Pope from 432 to 440, of a certain +possession in Prænestine territory called Marmorata,<a + name="FNanchor_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> which +seems best located near the town of Genazzano.</p> +<p>About the year 970 the territory of Præneste was increased +in extent by Pope John XIII, who ceded to his +sister Stefania a territory that extended back into the mountains +to Aqua alta near Subiaco, and as far as the Rivo lato +near Genazzano, and to the west and north from the head +of the Anio river to the Via Labicana.<a name="FNanchor_5"></a><a + href="#Footnote_5"><sup>[5]</sup></a></p> +<p>A few years later, in 998, because of some troubles, the +domain of Præneste was very much diminished. This is +of the greatest importance here, because the territory of +the diocese in 998 corresponds almost exactly not only to +the natural boundaries, but also, as will be shown later, to +the ancient boundaries of her domain. The extent of this +restricted territory was about five by six miles, and took in +Zagarolo, Valmontone, Cave, Rocca di Cave, Capranica, +Poli, and Gallicano.<a name="FNanchor_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> +These towns form a circle around +Præneste and mark very nearly the ancient boundary. The +towns of Valmontone, Cave, and Poli, however, although +in a great degree dependent upon Præneste, were, I think, +just outside her proper territorial domain.</p> +<p>In 1043, when Emilia, a descendant of the Stefania mentioned +above, married Stefano di Colonna, Count of Tusculum, +Præneste's territory seems to have been enlarged again +to its former extent, because in 1080 at Emilia's death, Pope +Gregory VII excommunicated the Colonna because they +insisted upon retaining the Prænestine territory which had +been given as a fief to Stefania, and which upon Emilia's +death should have reverted to the Church.<a name="FNanchor_7"></a><a + href="#Footnote_7"><sup>[7]</sup></a></p> +<p>We get a glance again at the probable size of the Prænestine +diocese in 1190, from the fact that the fortieth bishop +of Præneste was Giovanni Anagnino de' Conti di Segni +(1190-1196),<a name="FNanchor_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8"><sup>[8]</sup></a> +and this seems to imply a further extension +of the diocese to the southeast down the Trerus (Sacco) +valley.</p> +<p>Again, in 1300 after the papal destruction of Palestrina, +the government of the city was turned over to Cardinal +Ranieri, who was to hold the city and its castle (mons), +the mountain and its territory. At this time the diocese comprised +the land as far as Artena (Monte Fortino) and +and Rocca Priora, one of the towns in the Alban Hills, and +to Castrum Novum Tiburtinum, which may well be +Corcolle.<a name="FNanchor_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9"><sup>[9]</sup></a></p> +<p>The natural limits of the ancient city proper can hardly be +mistaken. The city included not only the arx and that portion +of the southern slope of the mountain which was +walled in, but also a level piece of fertile ground below the +city, across the present Via degli Arconi. This piece of flat +land has an area about six hundred yards square, the natural +boundaries of which are: on the west, the deep bed of the +watercourse spanned by the Ponte dei Sardoni; on the east, +the cut over which is built the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, and +on the south, the depression running parallel to the Via +degli Arconi, and containing the modern road from S. +Rocco to Cave.</p> +<p>From the natural limits of the town itself we now pass to +what would seem to have been the extent of territory dependent +upon her. The strongest argument of this discussion +is based upon the natural configuration of the land. +To the west, the domain of Præneste certainly followed +those long fertile ridges accessible only from Præneste. +First, and most important, it extended along the very wide +ridge known as Le Tende and Le Colonnelle which stretches +down toward Gallicano. Some distance above that town +it splits, one half, under the name of Colle S. Rocco, running +out to the point on which Gallicano is situated, and +the other, as the Colle Caipoli, reaching farther out into +the Campagna. Along and across this ridge ran several +ancient roads.<a name="FNanchor_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> +With the combination of fertile ground +well situated, in a position farthest away from all hostile +attack, and a location not only in plain sight from +the citadel of Præneste, but also between Præneste and +her closest friend and ally, Tibur, it is certain that in +this ridge we have one of the most favored and valuable +of Præneste's possessions, and quite as certain that Gallicano, +probably the ancient Pedum,<a name="FNanchor_11"></a><a + href="#Footnote_11"><sup>[11]</sup></a> was one of the towns +which were dependent allies of Præneste. It was along +this ridge too that probably the earlier, and certainly the +more intimate communication between Præneste and Tibur +passed, for of the three possible routes, this was both the +nearest and safest.<a name="FNanchor_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12"><sup>[12]</sup></a></p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 512px; height: 415px;" + alt="PLATE I. Præneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, on top of ridge, in foreground" + title="PLATE I. Præneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, on top of ridge, in foreground" + src="images/imag001.jpg" /></p> +<p>The second ridge, called Colle di Pastore as far as the +Gallicano cut, and Colle Collafri beyond it, along which for +four miles runs the Via Prænestina, undoubtedly belonged +to the domain of Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_13"></a><a + href="#Footnote_13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> But it was not so important a +piece of property as the ridges on either side, for it is much +narrower, and it had no town at its end. There was probably +always a road out this ridge, as is shown by the presence +of the later Via Prænestina, but that there was no +town at the end of the ridge is well proved by the fact that +Ashby finds no remains there which give evidence of one. +Then, too, we have plain enough proof of general unfitness +for a town. In the first place the ridge runs oil into the +junction of two roadless valleys, there is not much fertile +land back of where the town site would have been, but +above all, however, it is certain that the Via Prænestina was +an officially made Roman road, and did not occupy anything +more than a previous track of little consequence. This is +shown by the absence of tombs of the early necropolis style +along this road.</p> +<p>The next ridge must always have been one of the most +important, for from above Cavamonte as far as Passerano, +at the bottom of the ridge on the side toward Rome, connecting +with the highway which was the later Via Latina, +ran the main road through Zagarolo, Passerano, Corcolle, on +to Tibur and the north.<a name="FNanchor_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> +As this was the other of the two +great roads which ran to the north without getting out on +the Roman Campagna, it is certain that Præneste considered +it in her territory, and probably kept the travel well in +hand. With dependent towns at Zagarolo and Passerano, +which are several miles distant from each other, there must +have been at least one more town between them, to guard +the road against attack from Tusculum or Gabii. The fact +that the Via Prænestina later cut the Colle del Pero-Colle +Seloa just below a point where an ancient road ascends the +ridge to a place well adapted for a town, and where there +are some remains,<a name="FNanchor_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15"><sup>[15]</sup></a> +seems to prove the supposition, and to +locate another of the dependent cities of Præneste.</p> +<p>That the next ridge, the one on which Zagarolo is situated, +was also part of Præneste's territory, aside from the fact +that it has always been part of the diocese of Præneste, is +clearly shown by the topography of the district. The only +easy access to Zagarolo is from Palestrina, and although the +town itself cannot be seen from the mountain of Præneste, +nevertheless the approach to it along the ridge is clearly +visible.</p> +<p>The country south and in front of Præneste spreads out +more like a solid plain for a mile or so before splitting off +into the ridges which are so characteristic of the neighborhood. +East of the ridge on which Zagarolo stands, and +running nearly at right angles to it, is a piece of territory +along which runs the present road (the Omata di Palestrina) +to the Palestrina railroad station, and which as far +as the cross valley at Colle dell'Aquila, is incontestably +Prænestine domain.</p> +<p>But the territory which most certainly belonged to Præneste, +and which was at once the most valuable and the +oldest of her possessions is the wide ridge now known +as the Vigne di Loreto, along which runs the road to +Marcigliano.<a name="FNanchor_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> +Not only does this ridge lie most closely +bound to Præneste by nature, but it leads directly toward +Velitræ, her most advantageous ally. Tibur was perhaps +always Præneste's closest and most loyal ally, but the alliance +with her had not the same opportunity for mutual +advantage as one with Velitræ, because each of these towns +commanded the territory the other wished to know most +about, and both together could draw across the upper Trerus +valley a tight line which was of the utmost importance from +a strategic point of view. These two facts would in themselves +be a satisfactory proof that this ridge was Præneste's +first expansion and most important acquisition, but there is +proof other than topographical and argumentative.</p> +<p>At the head of this ridge in la Colombella, along the road +leading to Marcigliano from the little church of S. Rocco, +have been found three strata of tombs. The line of graves +in the lowest stratum, the date of which is not later than +the fifth or sixth century B.C., points exactly along the +ancient road, now the Via della Marcigliana or di Loreto.<a + name="FNanchor_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17"><sup>[17]</sup></a></p> +<p>The natural limit of Prænestine domain to the south has +now been reached, and that it is actually the natural limit is +shown by the accompanying illustration.</p> +<p>Through the Valle di Pepe or Fosso dell' Ospedalato +(see <a href="#plate_ii">Plate II</a>), which is wide as well as deep, +runs the +uppermost feeder of the Trerus river. One sees at a glance +that the whole slope of the mountain from arx to base is +continued by a natural depression which would make an +ideal boundary for Prænestine territory. Nor is the topographical +proof all. No inscriptions of consequence, and +no architectural remains of the pre-imperial period have +been found across this valley. The road along the top of +the ridge beyond it is an ancient one, and ran to Valmontone +as it does today, and was undoubtedly often used +between Præneste and the towns on the Volscians. The +ridge, however, was exposed to sudden attack from too +many directions to be of practical value to Præneste. +Valmontone, which lay out beyond the end of this ridge, +commanded it, and Valmontone was not a dependency of +Præneste, as is shown by an inscription which mentions the +adlectio of a citizen there into the senate (decuriones) of +Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18"><sup>[18]</sup></a></p> +<p>There are still two other places which as we have seen +were included at different times in the papal diocese of +Præneste,<a name="FNanchor_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> +namely, Capranica and Cave.<a name="FNanchor_20"></a><a + href="#Footnote_20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> Inscriptional +evidence is not forthcoming in either place sufficient to warrant +any certainty in the matter of correspondence of local +names to those in Præneste. Of the two, Capranica had +much more need of dependence on Præneste than Cave. It +was down through the little valley back of Præneste, at +the head of which Capranica lay, that her later aqueducts +came. The outlet from Capranica back over the mountains +was very difficult, and the only tillable soil within reach of +that town lay to the north of Præneste on the ridge running +toward Gallicano, and on a smaller ridge which curved +around toward Tibur and lay still closer to the mountains. +In short, Capranica, which never attained importance +enough to be of any consequence, appears to have been +always dependent upon Præneste.</p> +<p>But as for Cave, that is another question. Her friends +were to the east, and there was easy access into the mountains +to Sublaqueum (Subiaco) and beyond, through the +splendid passes via either of the modern towns, Genazzano +or Olevano.</p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="plate_ii"></a><img + style="width: 512px; height: 404px;" + alt="PLATE II. Præneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as seen from Valle di Pepe." + title="PLATE II. Præneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as seen from Valle di Pepe." + src="images/imag002.jpg" /></p> +<p>It is quite evident that Cave was never a large town, and +it seems most probable that she realized that an amicable +understanding with Præneste was discreet. This is rendered +almost certain by the proof of a continuance of business +relations between the two places. The greater number of +the big tombs of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. are of +a peperino from Cave,<a name="FNanchor_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21"><sup>[21]</sup></a> +and a good deal of the tufa used +in wall construction in Præneste is from the quarries near +Cave, as Fernique saw.<a name="FNanchor_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22"><sup>[22]</sup></a></p> +<p>Rocca di Cave, on a hill top behind Cave, is too insignificant +a location to have been the cause of the lower town, +which at the best does not itself occupy a very advantageous +position in any way, except that it is in the line of a trade +route from lower Italy. It might be maintained with some +reason that Cave was a settlement of dissatisfied merchants +from Præneste, who had gone out and established themselves +on the main road for the purpose of anticipating the +trade, but there is much against such an argument.</p> +<p>It has been shown that there were peaceable relations +between Præneste and Cave in the fifth and sixth centuries +B.C., but that the two towns were on terms of equality is +impossible, and that Cave was a dependency of Præneste, +and in her domain, is most unlikely both topographically +and epigraphically. And more than this, just as an ancient +feud can be proved between Præneste and Rome from the +slurs on Præneste which one finds in literature from Plautus +down,<a name="FNanchor_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> +if no other proofs were to be had,<a name="FNanchor_24"></a><a + href="#Footnote_24"><sup>[24]</sup></a> just so there +is a very ancient grudge between Præneste and Cave, which +has been perpetuated and is very noticeable even at the +present day.<a name="FNanchor_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25"><sup>[25]</sup></a></p> +<p>The topography of Præneste as to the site of the city +proper, and as to its territorial domain is then, about as +follows.</p> +<p>In very early times, probably as early as the ninth or +tenth century B.C., Præneste was a town on the southern +slope of Monte Glicestro,<a name="FNanchor_26"></a><a + href="#Footnote_26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> with an arx on the summit. +As the town grew, it spread first to the level ground +directly below, and out along the ridge west of the Valle di +Pepe toward Marcigliano, because it was territory not only +fertile and easily defended, being directly under the very +eyes of the citizens, but also because it stretched out toward +Velitræ, an old and trusted ally.<a name="FNanchor_27"></a><a + href="#Footnote_27"><sup>[27]</sup></a></p> +<p>Her next expansion was in the direction of Tibur, along +the trade route which followed the Sabine side of the Liris-Trerus +valley, and this expansion gave her a most fertile +piece of territory. To insure this against incursions from +the pass which led back into the mountains, it seems certain +that Præneste secured or perhaps colonized Capranica.</p> +<p>The last Prænestine expansion in territory had a motive +beyond the acquisition of land, for it was also important +from a strategical point of view. It will be remembered +that the second great trade route which came into the +Roman plain ran past Zagarolo, Passerano, and Corcolle.<a + name="FNanchor_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> +This road runs along a valley just below ridges which radiate +from the mountain on which Præneste is situated, and +thus bordered the land which was by nature territory +dependent upon Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_29"></a><a + href="#Footnote_29"><sup>[29]</sup></a> So this final extension of her +domain was to command this important road. With the +carrying out of this project all the ridges mentioned above +came gradually into the possession of Praneste, as natural, +expedient, and unquestioned domain, and on the ends of +those ridges which were defensible, dependent towns grew +up. There was also a town at Cavamonte above the +Maremmana road, probably a village out on the Colle +dell'Oro, and undoubtedly one at Marcigliano, or in that +vicinity.</p> +<p>We have already seen that across a valley and a stream of +some consequence there is a ridge not at all connected +with the mountain on which Præneste was situated, but +belonging rather to Valmontone, which was better suited +for neutral ground or to act as a buffer to the southeast. +We turn to mention this ridge again as territory topographically +outside Præneste's domain, in order to say more forcibly +that one must cross still another valley and stream +before reaching the territory of Cave, and so Cave, although +dependent upon Præneste, by reason of its size and interests, +was not a dependent city of Præneste, nor was it a +part of her domain.<a name="FNanchor_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30"><sup>[30]</sup></a></p> +<p>In short, to describe Præneste, that famous town of +Latium, and her domain in a true if homely way, she was +an ancient and proud city whose territory was a commanding +mountain and a number of ridges running out from it, +which spread out like a fan all the way from the Fosso +dell'Ospedalato (the depression shown in <a href="#plate_ii">plate II</a>) +to the +Sabine mountains on the north.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="CITY"></a>THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES.</p> +<p>The general supposition has been that the earliest inhabitants +of Præneste lived only in the citadel on top of the +hill. This theory is supported by the fact that there is +room enough, and, as will be shown below, there was in +early times plenty of water there; nevertheless it is certain +that this was not the whole of the site of the early city.</p> +<p>The earliest inhabitants of Præneste needed first of all, +safety, then a place for pasturage, and withal, to be as close +to the fertile land at the foot of the mountain as possible. +The first thing the inhabitants of the new city did was to +build a wall. There is still a little of this oldest wall in the +circuit about the citadel, and it was built at exactly the same +time as the lower part of the double walls that extend down +the southern slope of the mountain on each side of the +upper part of the modern town. It happens that by following +the edges of the slope of this southern face of the +mountain down to a certain point, one realizes that even +without a wall the place would be practically impregnable. +Add to this the fact that all the stones necessary for a wall +were obtained during the scarping of the arx on the side +toward the Sabines,<a name="FNanchor_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31"><sup>[31]</sup></a> +and needed only to be rolled down, +not up, to their places in the wall, which made the task a +very easy one comparatively. Now if a place can be found +which is naturally a suitable place for a lower cross wall, +we shall have what an ancient site demanded; first, safety, +because the site now proposed is just as impregnable as the +citadel itself, and still very high above the plain below; +second, pasturage, for on the slope between the lower town +and the arx is the necessary space which the arx itself +hardly supplies; and third, a more reasonable nearness to +the fertile land below. All the conditions necessary are fulfilled +by a cross wall in Præneste, which up to this time has +remained mostly unknown, often neglected or wrongly +described, and wholly misunderstood. As we shall see, +however, this very wall was the lower boundary of the +earliest Præneste. The establishment of this important fact +will remove one of the many stumbling blocks over which +earlier writers on Præneste have fallen.</p> +<p>It has been said above that the lowest part of the wall +of the arx, and the two walls from it down the mountain +were built at the same time. The accompanying plate +(<a href="#plate_iii">III</a>) shows very plainly the course of the +western wall +as it comes down the hill lining the edge of the slope +where it breaks off most sharply. Porta San Francesco, +the modern gate, is above the second tree from the +right in the illustration, just where the wall seems to +turn suddenly. There is no trace of ancient wall after the +gate is passed. The white wall, as one proceeds from the +gate to the right, is the modern wall of the Franciscan monastery. +All the writers on Præneste say that the ancient +wall came on around the town where the lower wall of the +monastery now is, and followed the western limit of the +present town as far as the Porta San Martino.</p> +<p>Returning now to plate II we observe a thin white line +of wall which joins a black line running off at an angle to +our left. This is also a piece of the earliest cyclopean wall, +and it is built just at the eastern edge of the hill where it +falls off very sharply.</p> +<p>Now if one follows the Via di San Francesco in from the +gate of that name (see <a href="#plate_iii">plate III</a> again) and +then continues +down a narrow street east of the monastery as far as the +open space in front of the church of Santa Maria del Carmine, +he will see that on his left above him the slope of the +mountain was not only precipitous by nature but that also +it has been rendered entirely unassailable by scarping.<a + name="FNanchor_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32"><sup>[32]</sup></a> +From the lower end of this steep escarpment there is a +cyclopean wall, of the same date as the upper side walls +of the town, and the wall of the arx, which runs entirely +across the city to within a few yards of the wall on the east, +and to a point just below a portella, where the upper cyclopean +wall makes a slight change in direction. The presence +of the gate and the change of direction in the wall mean +a corner in the wall.</p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="plate_iii"></a><img + style="width: 512px; height: 412px;" + alt="PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Præneste, and the depression which divides Monte Glicestro." + title="PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Præneste, and the depression which divides Monte Glicestro." + src="images/imag003.jpg" /><br /> +</p> +<h5>PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Præneste, and the +depression which divides +Monte Glicestro.</h5> +<p>It is strange indeed that this wall has not been recognized +for what it really is. A bit of it shows above the steps +where the Via dello Spregato leaves the Via del Borgo. +Fernique shows this much in his map, but by a curious +oversight names it opus incertum.<a name="FNanchor_33"></a><a + href="#Footnote_33"><sup>[33]</sup></a> More than +two irregular courses are to be seen here, and fifteen +feet in from the street, forming the back wall of cellars +and pig pens, the cyclopean wall, in places to a height +of fifteen feet or more, can be followed to within a few +yards of the open space in front of Santa Maria del Carmine. +And on the other side toward the east the same wall +begins again, after being broken by the Via dello Spregato, +and forms the foundations and side walls of the houses on +the south side of that street, and at the extreme east end +is easily found as the back wall of a blacksmith's shop at +the top of the Via della Fontana, and can be identified as +cyclopean by a little cleaning of the wall.</p> +<p>The circuit of the earliest cyclopean wall and natural +ramparts of the contemporaneous citadel and town of Præneste +was as follows: An arc of cyclopean wall below the +cap of the hill which swung round from the precipitous +cliff on the west to that on the east, the whole of the side +of the arx toward the mountains being so steep that no +wall was necessary; then a second loop of cyclopean wall +from the arx down the steep western edge of the southern +slope of the mountain as far as the present Porta San +Francesco. From this point natural cliffs reinforced at the +upper end by a short connecting wall bring us to the beginning +of the wall which runs across the town back of the +Via del Borgo from Santa Maria del Carmine to within a +short distance of the east wall of the city, separated from +it in fact only by the Via della Fontana, which runs up just +inside the wall. There it joins the cyclopean wall which +comes down from the citadel on the east side of the town.</p> +<p>The reasons why this is the oldest circuit of the city's +walls are the following: first, all this stretch of wall is the +oldest and was built at the same time; second, topography +has marked out most clearly that the territory inclosed by +these walls, here and only here, fulfills the two indispensable +requisites of the ancient town, namely space and defensibility; +third, below the gate San Francesco all the way +round the city as far as Porta del Sole, neither in the wall +nor in the buildings, nor in the valley below, is there any +trace of cyclopean wall stones;<a name="FNanchor_34"></a><a + href="#Footnote_34"><sup>[34]</sup></a> fourth, at the point where +the cross wall and the long wall must have met at the east, +the wall makes a change in direction, and there is an ancient +postern gate just above the jog in the wall; and last, the +cyclopean wall from this junction on down to near the +Porta del Sole is later than that of the circuit just +described.<a name="FNanchor_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35"><sup>[35]</sup></a></p> +<p>The city was extended within a century perhaps, and the +new line of the city wall was continued on the east in +cyclopean style as far as the present Porta del Sole, where it +turned to the west and continued until the hill itself offered +enough height so that escarpment of the natural cliff would +serve in place of the wall. Then it turned up the hill between +the present Via San Biagio and Via del Carmine back of +Santa Maria del Carmine. The proof for this expansion +is clear. The continuation of the cyclopean +wall can be seen now as far as the Porta del Sole,<a name="FNanchor_36"></a><a + href="#Footnote_36"><sup>[36]</sup></a> +and the line of the wall which turns to the west +is positively known from the cippi of the ancient pomerium, +which were found in 1824 along the present Via +degli Arconi.<a name="FNanchor_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37"><sup>[37]</sup></a> +The ancient gate, now closed, in the opus +quadratum wall under the Cardinal's garden, is in direct +line with the ancient pavement of the road which comes up +to the city from the south,<a name="FNanchor_38"></a><a + href="#Footnote_38"><sup>[38]</sup></a> and the continuation of that +road, which seems to have been everywhere too steep for +wagons, is the Via del Carmine. There had always been +another road outside the wall which went up a less steep +grade, and came round the angle of the wall at what is now +the Porta S. Martino, where it entered a gate that opened +out of the present Corso toward the west. When at a later +time, probably in the middle ages, the city was built out to +its present boundary on the west, the wagon road was simply +arched over, and this arch is now the gate San Martino.<a + name="FNanchor_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39"><sup>[39]</sup></a></p> +<p>It will be necessary to speak further of the cyclopean wall +on the east side of the city from the Porta del Sole to the +Portella, for it has always been supposed that this part of +the wall was exactly like the rest, and dated from the same +period. But a careful examination shows that the stones +in this lower portion are laid more regularly than those in +the wall above the Portella, that they are more flatly faced +on the outside, and that here and there a little mortar is +used. Above all, however, there is in the wall on one of the +stones under the house no. 24, Via della Fontana an inscription,<a + name="FNanchor_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40"><sup>[40]</sup></a> +which Richter, Dressel, and Dessau all think was +there when the stone was put in the wall, and incline to +allow no very remote date for the building of the wall at +that point. To me, after a comparative study of this wall +and the one at Norba, the two seem to date from very nearly +the same time, and no one now dares attribute great antiquity +to the walls of Norba. But the rest of the cyclopean +wall of Præneste is very ancient, certainly a century, perhaps +two or three centuries, older than the part from the Portella +down.</p> +<p>There remains still to be discussed the lower wall of the +city on the south, and a restraining terrace wall along part +of the present Corso Pierluigi. The stretch of city wall +from the Porta del Sole clear across the south front to the +Porta di S. Martino is of opus quadratum, with the exception +of a stretch of opus incertum<a name="FNanchor_41"></a><a + href="#Footnote_41"><sup>[41]</sup></a> below and east of the +Barberini gardens, and a small space where the city sewage +has destroyed all vestige of a wall. The restraining wall +just mentioned is also of opus quadratum and is to be found +along the south side of the Corso, but can be seen only from +the winecellars on the terrace below that street. These +walls of opus quadratum were built with a purpose, to be +sure, but their entire meaning has not been understood.<a + name="FNanchor_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42"><sup>[42]</sup></a></p> +<p>The upper wall, the one along the Corso, can not be traced +farther than the Piazza Garibaldi, in front of the Cathedral. +It has been a mistake to consider this a high wall. It was +built simply to level up with the Corso terrace, partly to give +more space on the terrace, partly to make room for a road +which ran across the city here between two gates no longer +in existence. But more especially was it built to be the +lower support for a gigantic water reservoir which extends +under nearly the whole width of this terrace from about +Corso Pierluigi No. 88 almost to the Cathedral.<a name="FNanchor_43"></a><a + href="#Footnote_43"><sup>[43]</sup></a> The four +sides of this great reservoir are also of opus quadratum laid +header and stretcher.</p> +<p>The lower wall, the real town wall, is a wall only in appearance, +for it has but one thickness of blocks, set header +and stretcher in a mass of solid concrete.<a name="FNanchor_44"></a><a + href="#Footnote_44"><sup>[44]</sup></a> This wall +makes very clear the impregnability of even the lower +part of Præneste, for the wall not only occupies a good +position, but is really a double line of defense. There are +here two walls, one above the other, the upper one nineteen +feet back of the lower, thus leaving a terrace of that width.<a + name="FNanchor_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45"><sup>[45]</sup></a> +At the east, instead of the lower solid wall of opus quadratum, +there is a series of fine tufa arches built to serve as a +substructure for something. It is to be remembered again +that between the arches on the east and the solid wall on the +west is a stretch of 200 feet of opus incertum, and a space +where there is no wall at all. This lower wall of Præneste +occupies the same line as the ancient wall and escarpment, +but the most of what survives was restored in Sulla's time. +The opus quadratum is exactly the same style as that in +the Tabularium in Rome.</p> +<p>Now, no one could see the width of the terrace above the +lower wall, without thinking that so great a width was unnecessary +unless it was to give room for a road.<a name="FNanchor_46"></a><a + href="#Footnote_46"><sup>[46]</sup></a> The +difficulty has been, however, that the line of arches at the +east, not being in alignment with the lower wall on the west, +has not been connected with it hitherto, and so a correct +understanding of their relation has been impossible.</p> +<p>Before adducing evidence to show the location of the +main and triumphal entrance to Præneste, we shall turn +to the town above for a moment to see whether it is, +a priori, reasonable to suppose that there was an entrance +to the city here in the center of its front wall. If roads +came up a grade from the east and west, they would +join at a point where now there is no wall at all. This +break is in the center of the south wall, just above the +forum which was laid out in Sulla's time on the level spot +immediately below the town. Most worthy of note, however, +is that this opening is straight below the main buildings +<a name="page_30"></a>of the ancient town, the basilica, which is now +the cathedral, +and the temple of Fortuna. But further, a fact which +has never been noticed nor accounted for, this opening +is also in front of the modern square, the piazza +Garibaldi, which is in front of the buildings just +mentioned but below them on the next terrace, yet +there is no entrance to this terrace shown.<a name="FNanchor_47"></a><a + href="#Footnote_47"><sup>[47]</sup></a> It is +well known that the open space south of the temple, +beside the basilica, has an ancient pavement some ten feet +below the present level of the modern piazza Savoia.<a + name="FNanchor_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48"><sup>[48]</sup></a> +Proof given below in connection with the large tufa base +which is on the level of the lower terrace will show that the +piazza Garibaldi was an open space in ancient times and a +part of the ancient forum. Again, the solarium, which is +on the south face of the basilica,<a name="FNanchor_49"></a><a + href="#Footnote_49"><sup>[49]</sup></a> was put up there that +it might be seen, and as it faces the south, the piazza Garibaldi, +and this open space in the wall under discussion, +what is more likely than that there was not only an open +square below the basilica, but also the main approach to +the city?</p> +<p>But now for the proof. In 1756 ancient paving stones +were still in situ<a name="FNanchor_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50"><sup>[50]</sup></a> +above the row of arches on the Via degli +Arconi, and even yet the ascent is plain enough to the eye. +The ground slopes up rather moderately along the Via +degli Arconi toward the east, and nearly below the southeast +corner of the ancient wall turned up to the west on +these arches, approaching the entrance in the middle of the +south wall of the city.<a name="FNanchor_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51"><sup>[51]</sup></a> +But these arches and the road on +them do not align exactly with the terrace on the west. Nor +should they do so. The arches are older than the present +opus quadratum wall, and the road swung round and up to +align with the road below and the old wall or escarpment of +the city above. Then when the whole town, its gates, its +walls, and its temple, were enlarged and repaired by Sulla, +the upper wall was perfectly aligned, a lower wall built on +the west leaving a terrace for a road, and the arches were +left to uphold the road on the east. Although the arches +were not exactly in line, the road could well have been so, for +the terrace here was wider and ran back to the upper wall.<a + name="FNanchor_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52"><sup>[52]</sup></a> +The evidence is also positive enough that there was an +ascent to the terrace on the west, the one below the Barberini +gardens, which corresponds to the ascent on the arches. +This terrace now is level, and at its west end is some twenty +feet above the garden below. But the wall shows very +plainly that it had sloped off toward the west, and the slope +is most clearly to be seen, where a very obtuse angle of +newer and different tufa has been laid to build up the wall +to a level.<a name="FNanchor_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53"><sup>[53]</sup></a> +It is to be noticed too that this terrace is the +same height as the top of the ascent above the arches. +We have then actual proofs for roads leading up from +east and west toward the center of the wall on the south side +of the city, and every reason that an entrance here was practicable, +credible, and necessary.</p> +<p>But there is one thing more necessary to make probabilities +tally wholly with the facts. If there was a grand +entrance to the city, below the basilica, the temple, and the +main open square, which faced out over the great forum +below, there must have been a monumental gate in the wall. +As a matter of fact there was such a gate, and I believe it +was called the <a name="PORTA_TRIUMPHALIS"></a>PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. An +inscription of the +age of the Antonines mentions "seminaria a Porta Triumphale," +and this passing reference to a gate with a name +which in itself implies a gate of consequence, so well known +that a building placed near it at once had its location fixed, +gives the rest of the proof necessary to establish a central +entrance to the city in front, through a PORTA TRIUMPHALIS.<a + name="FNanchor_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54"><sup>[54]</sup></a></p> +<p>Before the time of Sulla there had been a gate in the +south wall of the city, approached by one road, which +ascended from the east on the arches facing the present +Via degli Arconi. After entering the city one went straight +up a grade not very steep to the basilica, and to the open +square or ancient forum which was the space now occupied +by the two modern piazzas, the Garibaldi and the Savoia, +and on still farther to the temple. When Sulla rebuilt +the city, and laid out a forum on the level +space directly south of and below the town, he made +another road from the west to correspond to the old ascent +from the east, and brought them together at the old central +gate, which he enlarged to the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. In +the open square in front of the basilica had stood the +statue of some famous man<a name="FNanchor_55"></a><a + href="#Footnote_55"><sup>[55]</sup></a> on a platform of squared stone +16 x 17-1/2 feet in measurement. Around this base the Sullan +improvements put a restraining wall of opus quadratum.<a + name="FNanchor_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56"><sup>[56]</sup></a> +The open square was in front of the basilica and to its left +below the temple. There was but one way to the terrace +above the temple from the ancient forum. This was a steep +road to the right, up the present Via delle Scalette. Another +road ran to the left back of the basilica, but ended +either in front of the western cave connected with the temple, +or at the entrance into the precinct of the temple.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="GATES"></a>THE GATES.</p> +<p>Strabo, in a well known passage,<a name="FNanchor_57"></a><a + href="#Footnote_57"><sup>[57]</sup></a> speaks of Tibur and +Præneste as two of the most famous and best fortified of +the towns of Latium, and tells why Præneste is the more +impregnable, but we have no mention of its gates in literature, +except incidentally in Plutarch,<a name="FNanchor_58"></a><a + href="#Footnote_58"><sup>[58]</sup></a> who says that when +Marius was flying before Sulla's forces and had reached +Præneste, he found the gates closed, and had to be drawn +up the wall by a rope. The most ancient reference we +have to a definite gate is to the Porta Triumphalis, in the +inscription just mentioned, and this is the only gate of +Præneste mentioned by name in classic times.</p> +<p>In 1353 A.D. we have two gates mentioned. The +Roman tribune Cola di Rienzo (Niccola di Lorenzo) +brought his forces out to attack Stefaniello Colonna in +Præneste. It was not until Rienzo moved his camp across +from the west to the east side of the plain below the town +that he saw how the citizens were obtaining supplies. The +two gates S. Cesareo and S. Francesco<a name="FNanchor_59"></a><a + href="#Footnote_59"><sup>[59]</sup></a> were both being +utilized to bring in supplies from the mountains back of the +city, and the stock was driven to and from pasture through +these gates. These gates were both ancient, as will be +shown below. Again in 1448 when Stefano Colonna +rebuilt some walls after the awful destruction of the +city by Cardinal Vitelleschi, he opened three gates, S. +Cesareo, del Murozzo, and del Truglio.<a name="FNanchor_60"></a><a + href="#Footnote_60"><sup>[60]</sup></a> In 1642<a name="FNanchor_61"></a><a + href="#Footnote_61"><sup>[61]</sup></a> +two more gates were opened by Prince Taddeo Barberini, +the Porta del Sole, and the Porta delle Monache, +the former at the southeast corner of the town, the latter +in the east wall at the point where the new wall round the +monastery della Madonna degl'Angeli struck the old city +wall, just above the present street where it turns from the +Via di Porta del Sole into the Corso Pierluigi. This +Porta del Sole<a name="FNanchor_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62"><sup>[62]</sup></a> +was the principal gate of the town at +this time, or perhaps the one most easily defended, for +in 1656, during the plague in Rome, all the other gates were +walled up, and this one alone left open.<a name="FNanchor_63"></a><a + href="#Footnote_63"><sup>[63]</sup></a></p> +<p>The present gates of the city are: one, at the southeast +corner, the Porta del Sole; two, near the southwest corner, +where the wall turns up toward S. Martino, a gate now +closed;<a name="FNanchor_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64"><sup>[64]</sup></a> +three, Porta S. Martino, at the southwest corner +of the town; on the west side of the city, none at all; four, +Porta S. Francesco at the northwest corner of the city +proper; five, a gate in the arx wall, now closed,<a name="FNanchor_65"></a><a + href="#Footnote_65"><sup>[65]</sup></a> beside +the mediæval gate, which is just at the head of the depression +shown in plate III, the lowest point in the wall of the +citadel; on the east, Porta S. Cesareo, some distance above +the town, six; seven, Porta dei Cappuccini, which is on the +same terrace as Porta S. Francesco; eight, Portella, the +eastern outlet of the Via della Portella; nine, a postern +just below the Portella, and not now in use;<a name="FNanchor_66"></a><a + href="#Footnote_66"><sup>[66]</sup></a> ten, Porta +delle Monache or Santa Maria, in front of the church of that +name. The most ancient of these, and the ones which were +in the earliest circle of the cyclopean wall, are five in number: +Porta S. Francesco,<a name="FNanchor_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67"><sup>[67]</sup></a> +the gate into the arx, Porta S. +Cesareo,<a name="FNanchor_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68"><sup>[68]</sup></a> +Porta dei Cappuccini, and the postern at the corner +where the early cyclopean cross wall struck the main +wall.</p> +<p>The second wall of the city, which was rather an +enlargement of the first, was cyclopean on the east +as far as the present Porta del Sole, and either scarped +cliff or opus quadratum round to Porta S. Martino, +and up to Porta S. Francesco.<a name="FNanchor_69"></a><a + href="#Footnote_69"><sup>[69]</sup></a> At the east end +of the modern Corso, there was a gate, made of +opus quadratum,<a name="FNanchor_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70"><sup>[70]</sup></a> +as is shown not only by the fact +that this is the main street of the city, and on the terrace +level of the basilica, but also because the mediæval wall +round the monastery of the Madonna degl'Angeli, the +grounds of the present church of Santa Maria, did not run +straight to the cyclopean wall, but turned down to join it +near the gate which it helps to prove. Next, there was +a gate, but in all probability only a postern, near the Porta +del Sole where the cyclopean wall stops, where now there +is a narrow street which runs up to the piazza Garibaldi. +On the south there was the gate which at some time was +given the name Porta Triumphalis. It was at the place +where now there is no wall at all.<a name="FNanchor_71"></a><a + href="#Footnote_71"><sup>[71]</sup></a> At the southwest +we find the next gate, the one which is now closed.<a name="FNanchor_72"></a><a + href="#Footnote_72"><sup>[72]</sup></a> +The last one of the ancient gates in this second circle of +the city wall was one just inside the modern Porta S. Martino, +which opened west at the end of the Corso. All the +rest of the gates are mediæval.</p> +<p>A few words about the roads leading to the several gates +of Præneste will help further to settle the antiquity of these +gates.<a name="FNanchor_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73"><sup>[73]</sup></a> +The oldest road was certainly the trade route which +came up the north side of the Liris valley below the hill on +which Præneste was situated, and which followed about the +line of the Via Prænestina as shown by Ashby in his map.<a + name="FNanchor_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74"><sup>[74]</sup></a> +Two branch roads from this main track ran up to the +town, one at the west, the other at the east, both in the +same line as the modern roads. These roads were bound +for the city gates as a matter of course and the land slopes +least sharply where these roads were and still are. Another +important road was outside the city wall, from one +gate to the other, and took the slope on the south side of +the city where the Via degli Arconi now runs.<a name="FNanchor_75"></a><a + href="#Footnote_75"><sup>[75]</sup></a></p> +<p>As far as excavations have proved up to this time, the +oldest road out of Præneste is that which is now the Via +della Marcigliana, along which were found the very early +tombs. It is to be noted that these tombs begin beyond the +church of S. Rocco, which is a long distance below the +town. This distance however makes it certain that between +S. Rocco and the city, excavation will bring to light other +and yet older tombs along the road which leads up toward +"l'antica porta S. Martino chiusa," and also in all probability +rows of graves will be found along the present road +to Cave. But the tombs give us the direction at least of +the old road.<a name="FNanchor_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76"><sup>[76]</sup></a></p> +<p>There is yet another old road which was lately discovered. +It is about three hundred yards below the city and near the +road that cuts through from Porta del Sole to the church +of Madonna dell'Aquila.<a name="FNanchor_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77"><sup>[77]</sup></a> +This road is made of polygonal +stones of the limestone of the mountain, and hence is older +than any of the lava roads. It runs nearly parallel with +the Via degli Arconi, and takes a direction which would +strike the Via Prænestina where it crosses the Via +Prænestina +Nuova which runs past Zagarolo. That is, the most +ancient piece of road we have leads up to the southeast +corner of the town, but the oldest tombs point to a road +the direction of which was toward the southwest corner. +However, all the roads lead toward the southeast corner, +where the old grade began that went up above the arches, +mentioned above, to a middle gate of the city.</p> +<p>The gate S. Francesco also is proved to be ancient because +of the old road that led from it. This road is identified +by a deposit of ex voto terracottas which were found +at the edge of the road in a hole hollowed out in the rocks.<a + name="FNanchor_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78"><sup>[78]</sup></a></p> +<p>The two roads which were traveled the most were the +ones that led toward Rome. This is shown by the tombs on +both sides of them,<a name="FNanchor_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79"><sup>[79]</sup></a> +and by the discovery of a deposit +of a great quantity of ex voto terracottas in the angle between +the two.<a name="FNanchor_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80"><sup>[80]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p><a name="WATER"></a>THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRÆNESTE.</p> +<p>In very early times there was a spring near the top of +Monte Glicestro. This is shown by a glance back at plate +III, which indicates the depression or cut in the hill, which +from its shape and depth is clearly not altogether natural +and attributable to the effects of rain, but is certainly the +effect of a spring, the further and positive proof of the +existence of which is shown by the unnecessarily low dip +made by the wall of the citadel purposely to inclose the +head of this depression. There are besides no water reservoirs +inside the wall of the arx. This supply of water, +however, failed, and it must have failed rather early in the +city's history, perhaps at about the time the lower part of +the city was walled in, for the great reservoir on the Corso +terrace seems to be contemporary with this second wall.</p> +<p>But at all times Præneste was dependent upon reservoirs +for a sure and lasting supply of water. The mountain and +the town were famous because of the number of water +reservoirs there.<a name="FNanchor_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81"><sup>[81]</sup></a>A +great many of these reservoirs were +dependent upon catchings from the rain,<a name="FNanchor_82"></a><a + href="#Footnote_82"><sup>[82]</sup></a> but +before a war, +or when the rainfall was scant, they were filled undoubtedly +from springs outside the city. In later times they were +connected with the aqueducts which came to the city from +beyond Capranica.</p> +<p>It is easy to account now for the number of gates on the +east side of the city. True, this side of the wall lay away +from the Campagna, and egress from gates on this side +could not be seen by an enemy unless he moved clear across +the front of the city.<a name="FNanchor_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83"><sup>[83]</sup></a> +But the real reason for the presence +of so many gates is that the best and most copious +springs were on this side of the city, as well as the course +of the little headstream of the Trerus. The best concealed +egress was from the Porta Cesareo, from which a road led +round back of the mountain to a fine spring, which was +high enough above the valley to be quite safe.</p> +<p>There are no references in literature to aqueducts which +brought water to Præneste. Were we left to this evidence +alone, we should conclude that Præneste had depended upon +reservoirs for water. But in inscriptions we have mention +of baths,<a name="FNanchor_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84"><sup>[84]</sup></a> +the existence of which implies aqueducts, and +there is the specus of an aqueduct to be seen outside the +Porta S. Francesco.<a name="FNanchor_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85"><sup>[85]</sup></a> +This ran across to the Colle S. Martino +to supply a large brick reservoir of imperial date.<a name="FNanchor_86"></a><a + href="#Footnote_86"><sup>[86]</sup></a> +There were aqueducts still in 1437, for Cardinal Vitelleschi +captured Palestrina by cutting off its water supply.<a + name="FNanchor_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87"><sup>[87]</sup></a> This +shows that the water came from outside the city, and +through aqueducts which probably dated back to Roman +times,<a name="FNanchor_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88"><sup>[88]</sup></a> +and also that the reservoirs were at this time no +longer used. In 1581 the city undertook to restore the old +aqueduct which brought water from back of Capranica, but +no description was left of its exact course or ancient construction.<a + name="FNanchor_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89"><sup>[89]</sup></a> +While these repairs were in progress, Francesco +Cecconi leased to the city his property called Terreni, +where there were thirty fine springs of clear water not far +from the city walls. Again in 1776 the springs called delle +cannuccete sent in dirty water to the city, so citizens were +appointed to remedy matters. They added a new spring to +those already in use and this water came to the city through +an aqueduct.<a name="FNanchor_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90"><sup>[90]</sup></a></p> +<p>The remains of four great reservoirs, all of brick construction, +are plainly enough to be seen at Palestrina, and +as far as situation and size are concerned, are well enough +described in other places.<a name="FNanchor_91"></a><a + href="#Footnote_91"><sup>[91]</sup></a> But in the case of these +reservoirs, +as in that of all the other remains of ancient construction +at Præneste, the writers on the history of the +town have made great mistakes, because all of them +have been predisposed to the pleasant task of making all +the ruins fit some restoration or other of the temple of +Fortuna, although, as a matter of fact, none of the reservoirs +have any connection whatever with the temple.<a name="FNanchor_92"></a><a + href="#Footnote_92"><sup>[92]</sup></a> <a name="page_41"></a>The +fine brick reservoir of the time of Tiberius,<a name="FNanchor_93"></a><a + href="#Footnote_93"><sup>[93]</sup></a> which is at +the junction of the Via degli Arconi and the road from the +Porta S. Martino, was not built to supply fountains or +baths in the forum below, but was simply a great supply +reservoir for the citizens who lived in particular about the +lower forum, and the water from this reservoir was carried +away by hand, as is shown by the two openings like well +heads in the top of each compartment of the reservoir, and +by the steps which gave entrance to it on the east. The +reservoir above this in the Barberini gardens is of a date +a half century later.<a name="FNanchor_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94"><sup>[94]</sup></a> +It is of the same brick work as +the great fountain which stands, now debased to a grist +mill, across the Via degli Arconi about half way between +S. Lucia and Porta del Sole. The upper reservoir undoubtedly +supplied this fountain, and other public buildings in +the forum below. There is another large brick reservoir +below the present ground level in the angle between the +Via degli Arconi and the Cave road below the Porta del +Sole, but it is too low ever to have served for public use. +It was in connection with some private bath. The fourth +huge reservoir, the one on Colle S. Martino, has already +been mentioned.</p> +<p>But the most ancient of all the reservoirs is one which +is not mentioned anywhere. It dates from the time when +the Corso terrace was made, and is of opus quadratum like +the best of the wall below the city, and the wall on the +lower side of the terrace.<a name="FNanchor_95"></a><a + href="#Footnote_95"><sup>[95]</sup></a> This reservoir, like the one +in +the Barberini garden, served the double purpose of a storage +for water, and of a foundation for the terrace, which, being +thus widened, offered more space for street and buildings +above. It lies west of the basilica, but has no connection +with the temple. From its position it seems rather to have +been one of the secret public water supplies.<a name="FNanchor_96"></a><a + href="#Footnote_96"><sup>[96]</sup></a></p> +<p>Præneste had in early times only one spring within the +city walls, just inside the gate leading into the arx. There +were other springs on the mountain to the east and northeast, +but too far away to be included within the walls. Because +of their height above the valley, they were to a certain +extent available even in times of warfare and siege. +As the upper spring dried up early, and the others were +a little precarious, an elaborate system of reservoirs was developed, +a plan which the natural terraces of the mountain +slope invited, and a plan which gave more space to the town +itself with the work of leveling necessary for the reservoirs. +These reservoirs were all public property. They were at +first dependent upon collection from rains or from spring +water carried in from outside the city walls. Later, however, +aqueducts were made and connected with the reservoirs.</p> +<p>With the expansion of the town to the plain below, this +system gave great opportunity for the development of baths, +fountains, and waterworks,<a name="FNanchor_97"></a><a + href="#Footnote_97"><sup>[97]</sup></a> for Præneste wished to +vie +with Tibur and Rome, where the Anio river and the many +aqueducts had made possible great things for public use +and municipal adornment.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="TEMPLE"></a>THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.</p> +<p>Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Præneste vidisse Fortunam.<a + name="FNanchor_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98"><sup>[98]</sup></a> +In this way Cicero reports a popular saying +which makes clear the fame of the goddess Fortuna Primigenia +and her temple at Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_99"></a><a + href="#Footnote_99"><sup>[99]</sup></a></p> +<p>The excavations at Præneste in the eighteenth century +brought the city again into prominence, and from that time +to the present, Præneste has offered much material for +archæologists and historians.</p> +<p>But the temple of Fortuna has constituted the principal +interest and engaged the particular attention of everyone +who has worked upon the history of the town, because the +early enthusiastic view was that the temple occupied the +whole slope of the mountain,<a name="FNanchor_100"></a><a + href="#Footnote_100"><sup>[100]</sup></a> and that the present city +was built on the terraces and in the ruins of the temple. +Every successive study, however, of the city from a topographical +point of view has lessened more and more the +estimated size of the temple, until now all that can be maintained +successfully is that there are two separate temples +built at different times, the later and larger one occupying +a position two terraces higher than the older and more important +temple below.</p> +<p>The lower temple with its precinct, along the north side +of which extends a wall and the ruins of a so-called cryptoporticus +which connected two caves hollowed out in the +rock, is not so very large a sanctuary, but it occupies a very +good position above and behind the ancient forum and basilica +on a terrace cut back into the solid rock of the mountain. +The temple precinct is a courtyard which extends +along the terrace and occupies its whole width from the +older cave on the west to the newer one at the east. In +front of the latter cave is built the temple itself, which faces +west along the terrace, but extends its southern facade to the +edge of the ancient forum which it overlooks. This temple +is older than the time of Sulla, and occupies the site of an +earlier temple.</p> +<p>Two terraces higher, on the Cortina terrace, stretch out +the ruins of a huge construction in opus incertum. This +building had at least two stories of colonnade facing the +south, and at the north side of the terrace a series of arches +above which in the center rose a round temple which was +approached by a semicircular flight of steps.<a name="FNanchor_101"></a><a + href="#Footnote_101"><sup>[101]</sup></a> This building, +belonging to the time of Sulla, presented a very imposing +appearance from the forum below the town. It has no +connection with the lower temple unless perhaps by underground +passages.</p> +<p>Although this new temple and complex of buildings was +much larger and costlier than the temple below, it was so +little able to compete with the fame of the ancient shrine, +that until mediæval times there is not a mention of it anywhere +by name or by suggestion, unless perhaps in one +inscription mentioned below. The splendid publication of +Delbrueck<a name="FNanchor_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102"><sup>[102]</sup></a> +with maps and plans and bibliography of the +lower temple and the work which has been done on it, makes +unnecessary any remarks except on some few points which +have escaped him.</p> +<p>The tradition was that a certain Numerius Suffustius of +Præneste was warned in dreams to cut into the rocks at a +certain place, and this he did before his mocking fellow citizens, +when to the bewilderment of them all pieces of wood +inscribed with letters of the earliest style leaped from the +rock. The place where this phenomenon occurred was thus +proved divine, the cult of Fortuna Primigenia was established +beyond peradventure, and her oracular replies to those +who sought her shrine were transmitted by means of these +lettered blocks.<a name="FNanchor_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103"><sup>[103]</sup></a> +This story accounts for a cave in which +the lots (sortes) were to be consulted.</p> +<p>But there are two caves. The reason why there are two +has never been shown, nor does Delbrueck have proof +enough to settle which is the older cave.<a name="FNanchor_104"></a><a + href="#Footnote_104"><sup>[104]</sup></a></p> +<p>The cave to the west is made by Delbrueck the shrine of +Iuppiter puer, and the temple with its cave at the east, +the ædes Fortunæ. This he does on the authority of his +understanding of the passage from Cicero which gives +nearly all the written information we have on the subject of +the temple.<a name="FNanchor_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105"><sup>[105]</sup></a> +Delbrueck bases his entire argument on this +passage and two other references to a building called ædes.<a + name="FNanchor_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106"><sup>[106]</sup></a> +Now it was Fortuna who was worshipped at Præneste, +and not Jupiter. Although there is an intimate connection +between Jupiter and Fortuna at Præneste, because she was +thought of at different times as now the mother and now +the daughter of Jupiter, still the weight of evidence will not +allow any such importance to be attached to Iuppiter puer +as Delbrueck wishes.<a name="FNanchor_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107"><sup>[107]</sup></a></p> +<p>The two caves were not made at the same time. This +is proved by the fact that the basilica<a name="FNanchor_108"></a><a + href="#Footnote_108"><sup>[108]</sup></a> is below and between +them. Had there been two caves at the earliest time, with +a common precinct as a connection between them, as there +was later, there would have been power enough in the priesthood +to keep the basilica from occupying the front of the +place which would have been the natural spot for a temple +or for the imposing facade of a portico. The western cave +is the earlier, but it is the earlier not because it was a shrine +of Iuppiter puer, but because the ancient road which came +through the forum turned up to it, because it is the least +symmetrical of the two caves, and because the temple faced +it, and did not face the forum.</p> +<p>The various plans of the temple<a name="FNanchor_109"></a><a + href="#Footnote_109"><sup>[109]</sup></a> have usually assumed +like buildings in front of each cave, and a building, corresponding +to the basilica, between them and forming an +integral part of the plan. But the basilica does not quite +align with the temple, and the road back of the basilica precludes +any such idea, not to mention the fact that no building +the size of a temple was in front of the west cave. It +is the mania for making the temple cover too large a space, +and the desire to show that all its parts were exactly balanced +on either side, and that this triangular shaped sanctuary +culminated in a round temple, this it is that has caused so +much trouble with the topography of the city. The temple, +as it really is, was larger perhaps than any other in Latium, +and certainly as imposing.</p> +<p>Delbrueck did not see that there was a real communication +between the caves along the so-called cryptoporticus. There +is a window-like hole, now walled up, in the east cave at +the top, and it opened out upon the second story of the +cryptoporticus, as Marucchi saw.<a name="FNanchor_110"></a><a + href="#Footnote_110"><sup>[110]</sup></a> So there was an unseen +means of getting from one cave to the other. This +probably proves that suppliants at one shrine went to the +other and were there convinced of the power of the goddess +by seeing the same priest or something which they +themselves had offered at the first shrine. It certainly +proves that both caves were connected with the rites having +to do with the proper obtaining of lots from Fortuna, +and that this communication between the caves was +unknown to any but the temple servants.</p> +<p>There are some other inscriptions not noticed by Delbrueck +which mention the ædes,<a name="FNanchor_111"></a><a + href="#Footnote_111"><sup>[111]</sup></a> and bear on the question in +hand. +One inscription found in the Via delle Monache<a name="FNanchor_112"></a><a + href="#Footnote_112"><sup>[112]</sup></a> shows +that in connection with the sedes Fortunæ were a manceps +and three cellarii. This is an inscription of the last of the +second or the first of the third century A.D.,<a name="FNanchor_113"></a><a + href="#Footnote_113"><sup>[113]</sup></a> when both +lower and upper temples were in very great favor. It shows +further that only the lower temple is meant, for the number +is too small to be applicable to the great upper temple, and +it also shows that ædes, means the temple building itself +and not the whole precinct. There is also an inscription, +now in the floor of the cathedral, that mentions ædes. Its +provenience is noteworthy.<a name="FNanchor_114"></a><a + href="#Footnote_114"><sup>[114]</sup></a> There were other buildings, +however, belonging to the precinct of the lower temple, as +is shown by the remains today.<a name="FNanchor_115"></a><a + href="#Footnote_115"><sup>[115]</sup></a> That there was more +than one sacred building is also shown by inscriptions which +mention ædes sacræ,<a name="FNanchor_116"></a><a + href="#Footnote_116"><sup>[116]</sup></a> though these may refer of +course +to the upper temple as well.</p> +<p>There are yet two inscriptions of importance, one of +which mentions a porticus, the other an ædes et porticus.<a + name="FNanchor_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117"><sup>[117]</sup></a> +The second of these inscriptions belongs to a time not much +later than the founding of the colony. It tells that certain +work was done by decree of the decuriones, and it can +hardly refer to the ancient lower temple, but must mean +either the upper one, or still another out on the new forum, +for there is where the stone is reported to have been found. +The first inscription records a work of some consequence +done by a woman in remembrance of her husband.<a name="FNanchor_118"></a><a + href="#Footnote_118"><sup>[118]</sup></a> +There are no remains to show that the forum below the +town had any temple of such consequence, so it seems best +to refer both these inscriptions to the upper temple, which, +as we know, was rich in marble.<a name="FNanchor_119"></a><a + href="#Footnote_119"><sup>[119]</sup></a></p> +<p>Now after having brought together all the usages of the +word ædes in its application to the temple of Præneste, it +seems that Delbrueck has very small foundation for his +argument which assumes as settled the exact meaning and +location of the ædes Fortunæ.</p> +<p>From the temple itself we turn now to a brief discussion +of a space on the tufa wall which helps to face the cave +on the west. This is a smoothed surface which shows a +narrow cornice ledge above it, and a narrow base below. +In it are a number of irregularly driven holes. Delbrueck +calls it a votive niche,<a name="FNanchor_120"></a><a + href="#Footnote_120"><sup>[120]</sup></a> and says that the "viele +regellos +verstreute Nagelloecher" are due to nails upon which votive +offerings were suspended.</p> +<p>This seems quite impossible. The holes are much too +irregular to have served such a purpose. The holes show +positively that they were made by nails which held up a +slab of some kind, perhaps of marble, on which were displayed +the replies from the goddess<a name="FNanchor_121"></a><a + href="#Footnote_121"><sup>[121]</sup></a> which were too long +to be given by means of the lettered blocks (sortes). Most +likely, however, it was a marble slab or bronze tablet which +contained the lex templi, and was something like the tabula +Veliterna.<a name="FNanchor_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122"><sup>[122]</sup></a></p> +<p>On the floor of the two caves were two very beautiful +mosaics, one of which is now in the Barberini palace, the +other, which is in a sadly mutilated condition, still on the +floor of the west cave. The date of these mosaics has been +a much discussed question. Marucchi puts it at the end of +the second century A.D., while Delbrueck makes it the +early part of the first century B.C., and thinks the mosaics +were the gift of Sulla. Delbrueck does not make his point +at all, and Marucchi is carried too far by a desire to establish +a connection at Præneste between Fortuna and Isis.<a + name="FNanchor_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123"><sup>[123]</sup></a> +Not to go into a discussion of the date of the Greek lettering +which gives the names of the animals portrayed in +the finer mosaic, nor the subject of the mosaic itself,<a + name="FNanchor_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124"><sup>[124]</sup></a> +the +inscription given above<a href="#Footnote_118"><sup>[118]</sup></a> +should help to settle the +date of +the mosaic. Under Claudius, between the years 51 and 54 +A.D., a portico was decorated with marble and a coating +of marble facing. That this was a very splendid ornamentation +is shown by the fact that it is mentioned so particularly +in the inscription. And if in 54 A.D. marble and +marble facing were things so worthy of note, then certainly +one hundred and thirty years earlier there was no marble +mosaic floor in Præneste like the one under discussion, +which is considered the finest large piece of Roman mosaic +in existence. And it was fifty years later than the date +Delbrueck wishes to assign to this mosaic, before marble +began to be used in any great profusion in Rome, and at +this time Præneste was not in advance of Rome. The mosaic, +therefore, undoubtedly dates from about the time of +Hadrian, and was probably a gift to the city when he built +himself a villa below the town.<a name="FNanchor_125"></a><a + href="#Footnote_125"><sup>[125]</sup></a></p> +<p>Finally, a word with regard to the ærarium. This is under +the temple of Fortuna, but is not built with any regard +to the facade of the temple above. The inscription on the +back wall of the chamber is earlier than the time of Sulla,<a + name="FNanchor_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126"><sup>[126]</sup></a> +and <a name="page_51"></a>the position of this little vault<a + name="FNanchor_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127"><sup>[127]</sup></a> +shows that it was a +treasury connected with the basilica, indeed its close proximity +about makes it part of that building and proves that +it was the storehouse for public funds and records. It +occupied a very prominent place, for it was at the upper +end of the old forum, directly in front of the Sacra Via +that came up past the basilica from the Porta Triumphalis. +The conclusion of the whole matter is that the earliest +city forum grew up on the terrace in front of the place +where the mysterious lots had leaped out of the living rock. +A basilica was built in a prominent place in the northwest +corner of the forum. Later, another wonderful cave was +discovered or made, and at such a distance from the first +one that a temple in front of it would have a facing on the +forum beyond the basilica, and this also gave a space of +ground which was leveled off into a terrace above the basilica +and the forum, and made into a sacred precinct. +Because the basilica occupied the middle front of the +temple property, the temple was made to face west along +the terrace, toward the more ancient cave. The sacred precinct +in front of the temple and between the caves was enclosed, +and had no entrance except at the west end where +the Sacra Via ended, which was in front of the west cave. +Before the temple, facing the sacred inclosure was the +pronaos mentioned in the inscription above,<a name="FNanchor_128"></a><a + href="#Footnote_128"><sup>[128]</sup></a> and along +each side of this inclosure ran a row of columns, and probably +one also on the west side. Both caves and the temple +were consecrated to the service of Fortuna Primigenia, the +tutelary goddess of Præneste. Both caves and an earlier +temple, which occupied part of the site of the present one, +belong to the early life of Præneste.</p> +<p>Sulla built a huge temple on the second terrace higher +than the old temple, but its fame and sanctity were never +comparable to its beauty and its pretensions.<a name="FNanchor_129"></a><a + href="#Footnote_129"><sup>[129]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p><a name="EPIGRAPHICAL_TOPOGRAPHY"></a>THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF +PRÆNESTE.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDICULA, C.I.L., XIV, 2908.</p> +<p>From the provenience of the inscription this building, +not necessarily a sacred one (Dessau), was one of the +many structures on the site of the new Forum below the +town.</p> +<br /> +<p>PUBLICA ÆDIFICIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2919, 3032.</p> +<p>Barbarus Pompeianus about 227 A.D. restored a number +of public buildings which had begun to fall to pieces. +A mensor æd(ificiorum) (see Dict. under sarcio) is mentioned +in C.I.L., XIV, 3032.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDES ET PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2980.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDES, C.I.L., XIV, 2864, 2867, 3007.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDES SACRÆ, C.I.L., XIV, 2922, 4091, 9== +Annali dell'Inst., 1855, p. 86.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2975; Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. +207; Marucchi, Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 252; Nibby, Analisi, +II, p. 504; best and latest, Delbrueck, Hellenistische +Bauten in Latium, I, p. 58.</p> +<p>The points worth noting are: that this ærarium is not +built with reference to the temple above, and that it faces +out on the public square. These points have been discussed +more at length above, and will receive still more +attention below under the caption "<a href="#FORUM">FORUM</a>."</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="AMPHITHEATRUM"></a>AMPHITHEATRUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3010, 3014; +Juvenal, III, +173; Ovid, A.A., I, 103 ff.</p> +<p>The remains found out along the Valmontone road<a name="FNanchor_130"></a><a + href="#Footnote_130"><sup>[130]</sup></a> +coincide nearly enough with the provenience of the inscription +to settle an amphitheatre here of late imperial +date. The tradition of the death of the martyr S. Agapito +in an amphitheatre, and the discovery of a Christian +church on the Valmontone road, have helped to make +pretty sure the identification of these ruins.<a name="FNanchor_131"></a><a + href="#Footnote_131"><sup>[131]</sup></a></p> +<p>We know also from an inscription that there was a +gladiatorial school at Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_132"></a><a + href="#Footnote_132"><sup>[132]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p>BALNEÆ, C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add.</p> +<p>The so-called nymphæum, the brick building below the +Via degli Arconi, mentioned <a href="#page_41">page 41</a>, seems to +have been +a bath as well as a fountain, because of the architectural +fragments found there<a name="FNanchor_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133"><sup>[133]</sup></a> +when it was turned into a mill +by the Bonanni brothers. The reservoir mentioned above +on page 41 must have belonged also to a bath, and so do +the ruins which are out beyond the villa under which the +modern cemetery now is. From their orientation they +seem to belong to the villa. There were also baths on +the hill toward Gallicano, as the ruins show.<a name="FNanchor_134"></a><a + href="#Footnote_134"><sup>[134]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p>BYBLIOTHECÆ, C.I.L., XIV, 2916.</p> +<p>These seem to have been two small libraries of public +and private law books.<a name="FNanchor_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135"><sup>[135]</sup></a> +They were in the Forum, as +the provenience of the inscription shows.</p> +<br /> +<p>CIRCUS, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 75, n. 32.</p> +<p>Cecconi thought there was a circus at the bottom of +the depression between Colle S. Martino and the hill of +Præneste. The depression does have a suspiciously +rounded appearance below the Franciscan grounds, but a +careful examination made by me shows no trace of cutting +in the rock to make a half circle for seats, no traces +of any use of the slope for seats, and no ruins of any +kind.</p> +<br /> +<p>CULINA, C.I.L., XIV, 3002.</p> +<p>This was a building of some consequence. Two +quæstors of the city bought a space of ground 148-1/2 by +16 feet along the wall, and superintended the building of +a culina there. The ground was made public, and the +whole transaction was done by decree of the senate, that +is, it was done before the time of Sulla.</p> +<br /> +<p>CURIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2924.</p> +<p>The fact that a statue was to be set up (ve)l ante +curiam vel in porticibus for(i) would seem to imply that +the curia was in the lower Forum. The inscription shows +that these two places were undoubtedly the most desirable +places that a statue could have. There is a possibility +that the curia may be the basilica on the Corso terrace +of the city. It has been shown that an open space existed +in front of the basilica, and that in it there is at +least one basis for a statue. Excavations<a name="FNanchor_136"></a><a + href="#Footnote_136"><sup>[136]</sup></a> at the ruins +which were once thought to be the curia of ancient Præneste +showed instead of a hemicycle, a straight wall built +on remains of a more ancient construction of rectangular +blocks of tufa with three layers of pavement 4-1/2 feet +below the level of the ground, under which was a tomb +of brick construction, and lower still a wall of opus quadratum +of tufa, certainly none of the remains belonging +to a curia.</p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="plate_iv"></a><img + style="width: 512px; height: 389px;" + alt="PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end of the Basilica." + title="PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end of the Basilica." + src="images/imag004.jpg" /></p> +<p><a name="FORUM"></a>FORUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3015.</p> +<p>The most ancient forum of Præneste was inside the +city walls. It was in this forum that the statue of M. +Anicius, the famous prætor, was set up.<a name="FNanchor_137"></a><a + href="#Footnote_137"><sup>[137]</sup></a> The writers +hitherto, however, have been entirely mistaken, in +my opinion, as to the extent of the ancient forum. +For the old forum was not an open space which is now +represented by the Piazza Savoia of the modern town, as +is generally accepted, but the ancient forum of Præneste +was that piazza and the piazza Garibaldi and the space +between them, now built over with houses, all combined. +At the present time one goes down some steps in front +of the cathedral, which was the basilica, to the Piazza +Garibaldi, and it has been supposed that this open space +belonged to a terrace below the Corso. But there was no +lower terrace there. The upper part of the forum simply +has been more deeply buried in debris than the lower part.</p> +<p>One needs only to see the new excavations at the upper +end of the Piazza Savoia to realize that the present ground +level of the piazza is nearly nine feet higher than the +pavement of the old forum. The accompanying illustration +(<a href="#plate_iv">plate IV</a>) shows the pavement, which is +limestone, +not lava, that comes up the slope along the east +side of the basilica,<a name="FNanchor_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138"><sup>[138]</sup></a> +and turns round it to the west. +A cippus stands at the corner to do the double duty +of defining the limits of the basilica, and to keep +the wheels of wagons from running up on the steps. +It can be seen clearly that the lowest step is one stone +short of the cippus, that the next step is on a level with +the pavement at the cippus, and the next step level again +with the pavement four feet beyond it. The same +grade would give us about twelve or fifteen steps +at the south end of the basilica, and if continued to the +Piazza Garibaldi, would put us below the present level +of that piazza. From this piazza on down through the +garden of the Petrini family to the point where the existence +of a Porta Triumphalis has been proved, the grade +would not be even as steep as it was in the forum itself. +Further, to show that the lower piazza is even yet accessible +from the upper, despite its nine feet more of +fill, if one goes to the east end of the Piazza Savoia he +finds there instead of steps, as before the basilica, a street +which leads down to the level of the Piazza Garibaldi, +and although it begins at the present level of the upper +piazza, it is not even now too steep for wagons. +Again, one must remember that the opus quadratum wall +which extends along the south side of the Corso does +not go past the basilica, and also that there is a basis for +a statue of some kind in front of the basilica on the level +of the Piazza Garibaldi.</p> +<p>It is a question whether the ancient forum was entirely +paved. The paving can be seen along the basilica, and +it has been seen back of it,<a name="FNanchor_139"></a><a + href="#Footnote_139"><sup>[139]</sup></a> but this pavement belongs +to another hitherto unknown part of Prænestine topography, +namely, a SACRA VIA. An inscription to an aurufex +de sacra via<a name="FNanchor_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140"><sup>[140]</sup></a> +makes certain that there was a +road in Præneste to which this name was given. The +inscription was found in the courtyard of the Seminary, +which was the precinct of the temple of Fortuna. +From the fact that this pavement is laid with blocks +such as are always used in roads, from the cippus at the +corner of the basilica to keep off wagon wheels, from the +fact that this piece of pavement is in direct line from +the central gate of the town, and last from the inscription +and its provenience, I conclude that we have in this pavement +a road leading directly from the Porta Triumphalis +through the forum, alongside the basilica, then turning +back of it and continuing round to the delubra and +precinct of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, and that +this road is the SACRA VIA of Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_141"></a><a + href="#Footnote_141"><sup>[141]</sup></a></p> +<p>At the upper end of the forum under the south façade +of the temple, an excavation was made in April 1907,<a + name="FNanchor_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142"><sup>[142]</sup></a> +which is of great interest and importance in connection +with the forum. In Plate V we see that there are three +steps of tufa,<a name="FNanchor_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143"><sup>[143]</sup></a> +and observe that the space in front +of them is not paved; also that the ascent to the +right, which is the only way out of the forum at +this corner, is too steep to have been ever more than for +ascent on foot. But it is up this steep and narrow way<a + name="FNanchor_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144"><sup>[144]</sup></a> +that every one had to go to reach the terrace above the +temple, unless he went across to the west side of the city.</p> +<p>The steps just mentioned are not the beginning of an +ascent to the temple, for there were but three, and besides +there was no entrance to the temple on the south.<a name="FNanchor_145"></a><a + href="#Footnote_145"><sup>[145]</sup></a> +Nor was the earlier temple much lower than the later +one, for in either case the foundation was the rock +surface of the terrace and has not changed much. +Although these steps are of an older construction than +the steps of the basilica, yet they were not covered up in +late imperial times as is shown by the brick construction in +the plate. One is tempted to believe that there was a +Doric portico below the engaged Corinthian columns of +the south façade of the temple.<a name="FNanchor_146"></a><a + href="#Footnote_146"><sup>[146]</sup></a> But all the pieces +of Doric columns found belong to the portico of the +basilica. Otherwise one might try to set up further +argument for a portico, and even claim that here was the +place that the statue was set up, ante curiam vel in por +ticibus fori.<a name="FNanchor_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147"><sup>[147]</sup></a> +Again, these steps run far past the temple +to the east, otherwise we might conclude that they +were to mark the extent of temple property. The fact, +however, that a road, the Sacra Via, goes round back +of the basilica only to the left, forces us to conclude that +these steps belong to the city, not to the temple in any +way, and that they mark the north side of the ancient +forum.</p> +<p>The new forum below the city is well enough attested +by inscriptions found there mentioning statues and buildings +in the forum. The tradition has continued that here +on the level space below the town was the great forum. +Inscriptions which have been found in different places +on this tract of ground mention five buildings,<a name="FNanchor_148"></a><a + href="#Footnote_148"><sup>[148]</sup></a> ten +statues of public men,<a name="FNanchor_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149"><sup>[149]</sup></a> +the statue set up to the emperor +Trajan on his birthday, September 18, 101 A.D.,<a name="FNanchor_150"></a><a + href="#Footnote_150"><sup>[150]</sup></a> and +one to the emperor Julian.<a name="FNanchor_151"></a><a + href="#Footnote_151"><sup>[151]</sup></a> The discovery of two +pieces of the Prænestine fasti in 1897 and 1903<a + name="FNanchor_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152"><sup>[152]</sup></a> +also +helps to locate the lower forum.<a name="FNanchor_153"></a><a + href="#Footnote_153"><sup>[153]</sup></a></p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 512px; height: 790px;" + alt="PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient Forum of Præneste." + title="PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient Forum of Præneste." + src="images/imag005.jpg" /></p> +<p>The forum inside the city walls was the forum of Præneste, +the ally of Rome, the more pretentious one below +the city was the forum of Præneste, the Roman colony of +Sulla.</p> +<br /> +<p>IUNONARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2867.</p> +<p>Delbrueck follows Preller<a name="FNanchor_154"></a><a + href="#Footnote_154"><sup>[154]</sup></a> in making the Iunonarium +a part of the temple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have +a statue of Trivia dedicated in a Iunonarium, but it is +stranger that there are no inscriptions among those from +Præneste which mention Juno, except that the name alone +appears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes,<a name="FNanchor_155"></a><a + href="#Footnote_155"><sup>[155]</sup></a> and +as the provenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions +mean nothing. It seems that the Iunonarium +must have been somewhere in the west end of the temple +precinct of Fortuna.</p> +<br /> +<p>KASA CUI VOCABULUM EST FULGERITA, C.I.L., XIV, 2934.</p> +<p>This is an inscription which mentions a property inside +the domain of Præneste in a region, which in 385 A.D., +was called regio Campania,<a name="FNanchor_156"></a><a + href="#Footnote_156"><sup>[156]</sup></a> but it can not be located.</p> +<br /> +<p>LACUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2998; Not. d. Scavi, 1902, p. 12. +LAVATIO, C.I.L., XIV, 2978, 2979, 3015.</p> +<p>These three inscriptions were found in places so far +from one another that they may well refer to three lavationes.</p> +<br /> +<p>LUDUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3014.</p> +<p>See <a href="#AMPHITHEATRUM">amphitheatrum</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>MACELLUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2937, 2946.</p> +<p>These inscriptions were found along the Via degli +Arconi, and from the fact that in 243 A.D. (C.I.L. XIV, +2972) there was a region (regio) by that name, I should +conclude that the lower part of the town below the wall +was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was +divided into four quarters,<a name="FNanchor_157"></a><a + href="#Footnote_157"><sup>[157]</sup></a> which may well represent +ancient tradition.</p> +<br /> +<p>MACERIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3314, 3340.</p> +<p>Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 87.</p> +<br /> +<p>MASSA PRÆ(NESTINA), C.I.L., XIV, 2934.</p> +<br /> +<p>MURUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3002.</p> +<p>See above, <a href="#CITY">pages 22</a> ff.</p> +<br /> +<p>PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2850.</p> +<p>See above, <a href="#PORTA_TRIUMPHALIS">page 32</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2995.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>QUADRIGA, C.I.L., XIV, 2986.</p> +<br /> +<p>SACRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2900.</p> +<br /> +<p>SCHOLA FAUSTINIANA, C.I.L., XIV, 2901; C.I.G., 5998.</p> +<p>Fernique (Étude sur Préneste, p. 119) thinks this the +building the ruins of which are of brick and called a temple, +near the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, but this is impossible. +The date of the brick work is all much later than the date +assigned to it by him, and much later than the name itself +implies.</p> +<br /> +<p>SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C.I.L., XIV, 2850.</p> +<p>This building was just inside the gate which was in the +center of the south wall of Præneste, directly below the +ancient forum and basilica.</p> +<br /> +<p>SOLARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3323.</p> +<br /> +<p>SPOLIARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3014.</p> +<p>See <a href="#AMPHITHEATRUM">Amphitheatrum</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>TEMPLUM SARAPIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2901.</p> +<br /> +<p>TEMPLUM HERCULIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2891, 2892; Not. d. +Scavi, 11 (1882-1883), p. 48.</p> +<p>This temple was a mile or more distant from the city, +in the territory now known as Bocce di Rodi, and was +situated on the little road which made a short cut between +the two great roads, the Prænestina and the Labicana.</p> +<br /> +<p>SACRA VIA, Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49.</p> +<p>In the discussions on the temple and the forum, <a href="#TEMPLE">pages +42</a> and <a href="#FORUM">54</a>, I think it is proved that the +Sacra Via of Præneste +was the ancient road which extended from the Porta +Triumphalis up through the Forum, past the Basilica and +round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct and temple +of Fortuna Primigenia.</p> +<br /> +<p>VIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3001, 3343. Viam sternenda(m).</p> +<p>In inscription No. 3343 we have supra viam parte +dex(tra), and from the provenience of the stone we get a +proof that the old road which led out through the Porta +S. Francesco was so well known that it was called simply +"via."</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<a name="CHAPTER_II"></a> +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> +<h2>THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRÆNESTE.</h2> +<br /> +<p>Præneste 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 Præneste into a league with the other +towns of Latium. Præneste 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, Præneste was her proudest and most turbulent +subject.</p> +<p>From the earliest times, when the overland trade between +Upper Etruria, Magna Græcia, and Lower Etruria came up +the Liris valley, and touching Præneste 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. Præneste +and Tibur were too strongly situated, and too closely connected +with the fierce mountaineers of the interior,<a name="FNanchor_158"></a><a + href="#Footnote_158"><sup>[158]</sup></a> and +Rome was glad to make treaties with them on equal terms.</p> +<p>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 Præneste, and there can be no doubt but that if +Præneste +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. Præneste was alone an opponent worthy of Rome.<a + name="FNanchor_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159"><sup>[159]</sup></a></p> +<p>As head of a league of nine cities,<a name="FNanchor_160"></a><a + href="#Footnote_160"><sup>[160]</sup></a> and allied with Tibur, +which also headed a small confederacy,<a name="FNanchor_161"></a><a + href="#Footnote_161"><sup>[161]</sup></a> Præneste felt herself +strong enough to defy the other cities of the league,<a + name="FNanchor_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162"><sup>[162]</sup></a> +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 Præneste at every opportunity. +She assumed control of some of her land in +338 B.C., on the ground that Præneste helped the Gauls in +390;<a name="FNanchor_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163"><sup>[163]</sup></a> +she showed her jealousy of Præneste by refusing to +allow Quintus Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during +the first Punic war.<a name="FNanchor_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164"><sup>[164]</sup></a> +This jealousy manifested itself +again in the way the leader of a contingent from Præneste +was treated by a Roman dictator<a name="FNanchor_165"></a><a + href="#Footnote_165"><sup>[165]</sup></a> in 319 B.C. But +while these isolated outbursts of jealousy showed the ill +feeling of Rome toward Præneste, there is yet a stronger +evidence of the fact that Præneste 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 Præneste, +an ever-recurring reminder of the centuries of ancient +grudge. Often in Roman literature Præneste 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.<a + name="FNanchor_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166"><sup>[166]</sup></a> +Præneste scornfully refused Roman citizenship in 216 +B.C., when it was offered.<a name="FNanchor_167"></a><a + href="#Footnote_167"><sup>[167]</sup></a> This refusal Rome never +forgot +nor forgave. No Prænestine families seem to have +been taken into the Roman patriciate, as were some from +Alba Longa,<a name="FNanchor_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168"><sup>[168]</sup></a> +nor did Præneste ever send any citizens of +note to Rome, who were honored as was Cato from Tusculum,<a + name="FNanchor_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169"><sup>[169]</sup></a> +although one branch of the gens Anicia<a name="FNanchor_170"></a><a + href="#Footnote_170"><sup>[170]</sup></a> did gain +some reputation in imperial times. Rome and Præneste +seemed destined to be ever at cross purposes, and their +ancient rivalry grew to be a traditional dislike which remained +mutual and lasting.</p> +<p>The continuance of the commercial and military rivalry +because of Præneste's strategic position as key of Rome, +and the religious rivalry due to the great fame of Fortuna +Primigenia at Præneste, 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 +Præneste a stronghold against the power of Rome.</p> +<p>There are a great many reasons why Præneste 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 Præneste 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.<a + name="FNanchor_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171"><sup>[171]</sup></a> +Præneste 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 +Præneste 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.</p> +<p>As an ally of Rome, Præneste did not have a curtailed +treaty as did Alba Longa,<a name="FNanchor_172"></a><a + href="#Footnote_172"><sup>[172]</sup></a> but one on equal terms +(foedus +æquum), such as was accorded to a sovereign state. This +is proved by the right of exile which both Præneste and +Tibur still retained until as late as 90 B.C.<a name="FNanchor_173"></a><a + href="#Footnote_173"><sup>[173]</sup></a></p> +<p>As a municipium, the rights of Præneste were shared by +only one other city in the league. She was not a municipium +which, like Lanuvium and Tusculum,<a name="FNanchor_174"></a><a + href="#Footnote_174"><sup>[174]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175"><sup>[175]</sup></a> +Præneste, 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.<a name="FNanchor_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176"><sup>[176]</sup></a> +Præneste shared this extraordinary agreement +with Rome with but one other Latin city, Tibur. +The question whether or not Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177"><sup>[177]</sup></a></p> +<p>As a colony, Præneste 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 Præneste was too strong to allow +it to lie in ruins. Further, in colonies the most characteristic +officers were the quattuorviri. Præneste, again different, +shows no trace of such officers.</p> +<p>Indeed, at all times during the history of Latium, Præneste +clearly had a city government different from that of +any other in the old Latin League. For example, before +the Social War<a name="FNanchor_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178"><sup>[178]</sup></a> +both Præneste and Tibur had ædiles and +quæstors, but Tibur also had censors,<a name="FNanchor_179"></a><a + href="#Footnote_179"><sup>[179]</sup></a> Præneste did not. +Lavinium<a name="FNanchor_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180"><sup>[180]</sup></a> +and Præneste were alike in that they both had +prætors. There were dictators in Aricia,<a name="FNanchor_181"></a><a + href="#Footnote_181"><sup>[181]</sup></a> Lanuvium,<a + name="FNanchor_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182"><sup>[182]</sup></a> +Nomentum,<a name="FNanchor_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183"><sup>[183]</sup></a> +and Tusculum,<a name="FNanchor_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184"><sup>[184]</sup></a> +but no trace of a dictator +in Præneste.</p> +<p>The first mention of a magistrate from Præneste, a +prætor, +in 319 B.C, is due to a joke of the Roman dictator +Papirius Cursor.<a name="FNanchor_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185"><sup>[185]</sup></a> +The prætor was in camp as leader of +the contingent of allies from Præneste,<a name="FNanchor_186"></a><a + href="#Footnote_186"><sup>[186]</sup></a> and the fact that +a prætor was in command of the troops sent from allied +towns<a name="FNanchor_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187"><sup>[187]</sup></a> +implies that another prætor was at the head of +affairs at home. Another and stronger proof of the government +by two prætors is afforded by the later duoviral +magistracy, and the lack of friction under such an arrangement.</p> +<p>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 prætors,<a + name="FNanchor_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188"><sup>[188]</sup></a> +with the continuance of the name prætor 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."<a name="FNanchor_189"></a><a + href="#Footnote_189"><sup>[189]</sup></a> +Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two prætors,<a + name="FNanchor_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190"><sup>[190]</sup></a> +and this shows two things: first, that two prætors were +better adapted to circumstances than one dictator; second, +that the majority of the towns had prætors, and had had +them, as chief magistrates, and not dictators,<a name="FNanchor_191"></a><a + href="#Footnote_191"><sup>[191]</sup></a> and that +such an arrangement was more satisfactory. The Latin +League had had a dictator<a name="FNanchor_192"></a><a + href="#Footnote_192"><sup>[192]</sup></a> at its head at some time,<a + name="FNanchor_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193"><sup>[193]</sup></a> +and the fact that these two prætors 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 +prætors were the regular and well known municipal chief +magistrates. Before Præneste was made a colony by Sulla, +the governing body was a senate,<a name="FNanchor_194"></a><a + href="#Footnote_194"><sup>[194]</sup></a> and the municipal officers +were prætors,<a name="FNanchor_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195"><sup>[195]</sup></a> +ædiles,<a name="FNanchor_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196"><sup>[196]</sup></a> +and quæstors,<a name="FNanchor_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197"><sup>[197]</sup></a> +as we know certainly +from inscriptions. In the literature, a prætor is +mentioned in 319 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198"><sup>[198]</sup></a> +in 216 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199"><sup>[199]</sup></a> +and again in +173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the magistrates +of an allied city.<a name="FNanchor_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200"><sup>[200]</sup></a> +In fact nothing in the inscriptions +or in the literature gives a hint at any change +in the political relations between Præneste 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 Præneste, 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 Præneste +seems to imply that these two towns had better opportunities +for a more rapid development, and that both had prætors +at a very early period.<a name="FNanchor_201"></a><a + href="#Footnote_201"><sup>[201]</sup></a></p> +<p>However strongly the weight of probabilities make for +proof in the endeavor to find out what the municipal government +of Præneste was, there are a certain number of +facts that can now be stated positively. Before 90 B.C. +the administrative officers of Præneste were two prætors,<a + name="FNanchor_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202"><sup>[202]</sup></a> +who had the regular ædiles and quæstors 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.<a + name="FNanchor_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203"><sup>[203]</sup></a></p> +<p>An important epoch in the history of Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204"><sup>[204]</sup></a> +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 +incolæ) of the federated cities, provided they handed in +their names within sixty days to the city prætor in Rome.<a + name="FNanchor_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205"><sup>[205]</sup></a></p> +<p>There is no unanimity of opinion as to the status of +Præneste in 90 B.C. The reason is twofold. It has never +been shown whether Præneste 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, Præneste and Tibur made either +a special treaty<a name="FNanchor_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206"><sup>[206]</sup></a> +with Rome, as seems most likely, or one +in which the old status quo was reaffirmed. In 268 B.C. +Præneste lost one right of federated cities, that of coinage,<a + name="FNanchor_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207"><sup>[207]</sup></a> +but continued to hold the right of a sovereign city, +that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_208"></a><a + href="#Footnote_208"><sup>[208]</sup></a> in common with +Tibur and Naples,<a name="FNanchor_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209"><sup>[209]</sup></a> +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 Prænestine cohort +at Casilinum, the inhabitants of Præneste were offered +Roman citizenship, and that they refused it.<a name="FNanchor_210"></a><a + href="#Footnote_210"><sup>[210]</sup></a> Now if the +citizens of Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211"><sup>[211]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212"><sup>[212]</sup></a> +Probably there was some change +of phraseology which was obnoxious in the Iulia. The +traditional touchiness and pride of the Prænestines 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 Præneste 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 Præneste +and Tibur, which had lately been received into citizenship,<a + name="FNanchor_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213"><sup>[213]</sup></a> +tried to get them to revolt again from Rome, and collected +money for the prosecution of the war. This not only shows +that Præneste 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.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="MUNICIPIUM"></a>WAS PRÆNESTE A MUNICIPIUM?</p> +<p>Just what relation Præneste 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 Præneste made a municipium by Rome, did Præneste +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?</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_214"></a><a + href="#Footnote_214"><sup>[214]</sup></a> Mommsen-Marquardt +say<a name="FNanchor_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215"><sup>[215]</sup></a> +that in 90 B.C. under the conditions of the lex +Iulia Præneste became a municipium of the type which kept +its own citizenship (ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis).<a + name="FNanchor_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216"><sup>[216]</sup></a> +But if this were true, then Præneste would have +come under the jurisdiction of the city prætor (prætor +urbanus) +in Rome, and there would be præfects to look after +cases for him. Præneste 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 præfect +and here under the circumstances the argumentum ex +silentio is of real constructive value, and constitutes circumstantial +evidence of great weight.<a name="FNanchor_217"></a><a + href="#Footnote_217"><sup>[217]</sup></a> Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_218"></a><a + href="#Footnote_218"><sup>[218]</sup></a> So whether Præneste +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.<a + name="FNanchor_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219"><sup>[219]</sup></a> +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 Præneste probably +took citizenship in 89 under the lex Plautia-Papiria. +The extreme cruelty which Sulla used toward Præneste,<a + name="FNanchor_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220"><sup>[220]</sup></a> +and the great amount of its land<a name="FNanchor_221"></a><a + href="#Footnote_221"><sup>[221]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>There seems to be, however, very good reasons for saying +that Præneste never became a municipium in the strict +legal sense of the word. First, the particular officials who +belong to a municipium, præfects and quattuorvirs, are not +found at all;<a name="FNanchor_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222"><sup>[222]</sup></a> +second, the use of the word municipium in +literature in connection with Præneste is general, and means +simply "town";<a name="FNanchor_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223"><sup>[223]</sup></a> +third, the fact that Præneste, 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 Prænestines asked the emperor Tiberius +to give them the status of a municipium,<a name="FNanchor_224"></a><a + href="#Footnote_224"><sup>[224]</sup></a> which he did,<a + name="FNanchor_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225"><sup>[225]</sup></a> +but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular +city officials of a colony,<a name="FNanchor_226"></a><a + href="#Footnote_226"><sup>[226]</sup></a> shows clearly that the +Prænestines +simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just +recovered from a severe illness at Præneste<a name="FNanchor_227"></a><a + href="#Footnote_227"><sup>[227]</sup></a> to ask him for +what was merely an empty honor. It only salved the +pride of the Prænestines, for it gave them a name +which showed a former sovereign federated state, and +not the name of a colony planted by the Romans.<a name="FNanchor_228"></a><a + href="#Footnote_228"><sup>[228]</sup></a> The +cogency of this fourth reason will bear elaboration. Præneste +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.</p> +<p>Let us now sum up the municipal history of Præneste +down to 82 B.C. when she was made a Roman colony +by Sulla. Præneste, 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, Præneste made herself head of a small league,<a + name="FNanchor_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229"><sup>[229]</sup></a> +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 Præneste, but also in the question of +Præneste's +relationship to Rome, is the fact that the evidence from +first to last is for prætors as the chief executive officers of +the Prænestine state (respublica), with their regular attendant +officers, ædiles and quæstors; 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 Præneste took Roman citizenship +either in 90 or 89 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_213bis"></a><a + href="#Footnote_213"><sup>[213]</sup></a> 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. +Præneste 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.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="COLONY"></a>PRÆNESTE AS A COLONY.</p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230"><sup>[230]</sup></a> +and of the colonies newly made by +Sulla, Præneste was one. The misfortunes that befell +Præneste, +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 <a href="#Footnote_220">note 220</a>), 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 Præneste changed. +Instead of a senate, there was now a decuria (decuriones, +ordo); instead of prætors, 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 +Præneste 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.</p> +<p>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 Præneste it will be possible to +reach some conclusions that may be of future value.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="OFFICES"></a>THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES.</p> +<p>The beginning of this question comes from a passage in +Cicero,<a name="FNanchor_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231"><sup>[231]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232"><sup>[232]</sup></a> +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 Præneste, another of his colonies.<a name="FNanchor_233"></a><a + href="#Footnote_233"><sup>[233]</sup></a> 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 Præneste! 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 Præneste also +into a comparison. Second, the great pains Sulla took to +rebuild the walls of Præneste, 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,<a + name="FNanchor_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234"><sup>[234]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>It is possible now to push the inquiry a point further. +Dessau has already seen<a name="FNanchor_235"></a><a + href="#Footnote_235"><sup>[235]</sup></a> that in the time of Augustus +members of the old families were again in possession of +many municipal offices, but he thinks the Prænestines did +not have as good municipal rights as the colonists in the +years following the establishment of the colony. There +are six inscriptions<a name="FNanchor_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236"><sup>[236]</sup></a> +which contain lists more or less fragmentary +of the magistrates of Præneste, the duovirs, the +ædiles, and the quæstors. Two of these inscriptions can +be dated within a few years, for they show the election of +Germanicus and Drusus Cæsar, and of Nero and Drusus, +the sons of Germanicus, to the quinquennial duovirate.<a + name="FNanchor_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237"><sup>[237]</sup></a> +Two others<a name="FNanchor_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238"><sup>[238]</sup></a> +are certainly pieces of the same fasti because +of several peculiarities,<a name="FNanchor_239"></a><a + href="#Footnote_239"><sup>[239]</sup></a> and one other, a fragment, +belongs to still another calendar.<a name="FNanchor_240"></a><a + href="#Footnote_240"><sup>[240]</sup></a> 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 Præneste 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<a href="#Footnote_238"><sup>[238]</sup></a> +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 prænomen and +nomen, a way of writing names which was common to +the earlier inhabitants of Præneste, and which seems to +have made itself felt here in the names of the colonists.<a + name="FNanchor_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241"><sup>[241]</sup></a> +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,<a name="FNanchor_237bis"></a><a + href="#Footnote_237"><sup>[237]</sup></a> both forms are found, +while in the year 31 A.D. in the municipal fasti of Nola<a + name="FNanchor_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242"><sup>[242]</sup></a> +are found II vir(i) iter(um) q(uinquennales), and in 29 +B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,<a name="FNanchor_243"></a><a + href="#Footnote_243"><sup>[243]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244"><sup>[244]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245"><sup>[245]</sup></a> +This duty was performed by the +duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial +power.<a name="FNanchor_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246"><sup>[246]</sup></a> +The inscriptions under consideration, then, would +seem to date certainly before 49 B.C.</p> +<p>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<a name="FNanchor_247"></a><a + href="#Footnote_247"><sup>[247]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_248"></a><a + href="#Footnote_248"><sup>[248]</sup></a> Early +in the life of the colony, immediately after its settlement, +during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's +monuments,<a name="FNanchor_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249"><sup>[249]</sup></a> +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 Præneste, 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 Prænestines did keep a lasting dislike to +the name "Cornelia." There are many inscriptions of Præneste +which show the names (nomina) Ælia, Antonia, Aurelia, +Claudia, Flavia, Iulia, Iunia, Marcia, Petronia, Valeria, +among others, but besides the two Cornelii in this inscription +under consideration, and one other<a name="FNanchor_250"></a><a + href="#Footnote_250"><sup>[250]</sup></a> mentioned in +the fragment above (see note 83), there are practically no +people of that name found in Præneste,<a name="FNanchor_251"></a><a + href="#Footnote_251"><sup>[251]</sup></a> and the name is +frequent enough in other towns of the old Latin league. +From these reasons, namely, the way in which only prænomina +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 Præneste +given in these inscriptions certainly date between 81 and +50 B.C.<a name="FNanchor_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252"><sup>[252]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p><a name="OFFICIALS"></a>THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS.</p> +<p>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 ædile for the same year +is a certain Rotanius.<a name="FNanchor_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253"><sup>[253]</sup></a> +This name is not found in the +sepulchral inscriptions of the city of Rome, nor in the inscriptions +of Præneste except in this one instance. This +man is certainly one of the new colonists, and probably a +soldier from North Italy.<a name="FNanchor_254"></a><a + href="#Footnote_254"><sup>[254]</sup></a> Both the quæstors of +the same +year are given. They are M. Samiarius and Q. Flavius. +Samiarius is one of the famous old names of Præneste.<a + name="FNanchor_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255"><sup>[255]</sup></a> +In +the same way, the duovirs of the next year, C. Messienus and +P. Cornelius, belong, the one to Præneste, the other to the +colonists,<a name="FNanchor_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256"><sup>[256]</sup></a> +and just such an arrangement is also found in the +ædiles, Sex. Cæsius being a Prænestine<a + name="FNanchor_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257"><sup>[257]</sup></a>, +L. Nassius a colonist. +Q. Caleius and C. Sertorius, the quæstors of the same +year, do not appear in the inscriptions of Præneste except +here, and it is impossible to say more than that Sertorius is +a good Roman name, and Caleius a good north Italian one.<a + name="FNanchor_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258"><sup>[258]</sup></a> +C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, duovirs for the next year, +the recurrence of Salvius in another inscription,<a name="FNanchor_259"></a><a + href="#Footnote_259"><sup>[259]</sup></a> L. +Curtius and C. Vibius, the ædiles,—Statiolenus and C. +Cassius, the quæstors, show the same phenomenon, for it +seems quite possible from other inscriptional evidence to +claim Salvius, Vibius,<a name="FNanchor_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260"><sup>[260]</sup></a> +and Statiolenus<a name="FNanchor_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261"><sup>[261]</sup></a> +as men from the +old families of Præneste. 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 Præneste.<a + name="FNanchor_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262"><sup>[262]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_263"></a><a + href="#Footnote_263"><sup>[263]</sup></a> 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 Præneste before +the time of Sulla.<a name="FNanchor_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264"><sup>[264]</sup></a> +In fact the same name, M. Decumius, +is among the old pigne inscriptions.<a name="FNanchor_265"></a><a + href="#Footnote_265"><sup>[265]</sup></a> Paccia has been +found this past year in Prænestine territory, and may well +be an old Prænestine name, for the inscriptions of a family +of the name Paccia have come to light at Gallicano.<a + name="FNanchor_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266"><sup>[266]</sup></a> +Capivas is at least not a Roman name,<a name="FNanchor_267"></a><a + href="#Footnote_267"><sup>[267]</sup></a> but from its scarcity +in other places can as well be one of the names that are +so frequent in Præneste, 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<a + name="FNanchor_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268"><sup>[268]</sup></a> +is a name not found elsewhere in the Latian +towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,<a + name="FNanchor_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269"><sup>[269]</sup></a> +and is found also in Pompeii<a name="FNanchor_270"></a><a + href="#Footnote_270"><sup>[270]</sup></a> and Puteoli.<a + name="FNanchor_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271"><sup>[271]</sup></a> +It seems +a fair supposition to make at the outset, as we have +seen that various writers on Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_272"></a><a + href="#Footnote_272"><sup>[272]</sup></a> These +lists of municipal officers show a number of names +that belong with certainty to the older families of Præneste, +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)<a name="FNanchor_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273"><sup>[273]</sup></a> +on the ædiles and quæstors, can the names of the +new colonists be shown to outnumber or take the place of +the old settlers.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="QUINQUENNALES"></a>THE QUINQUENNALES.</p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_274"></a><a + href="#Footnote_274"><sup>[274]</sup></a> or had that added +to them, and that this title implied censorial duties.<a + name="FNanchor_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275"><sup>[275]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>That the duration of the quinquennial office was one year +is certain,<a name="FNanchor_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276"><sup>[276]</sup></a> +that it was eponymous is also sure,<a name="FNanchor_277"></a><a + href="#Footnote_277"><sup>[277]</sup></a> 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?</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278"><sup>[278]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>There are fragments left of several municipal fasti; the +one which gives the longest unbroken list is that from +Venusia,<a name="FNanchor_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279"><sup>[279]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>The fasti of Nola<a name="FNanchor_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280"><sup>[280]</sup></a> +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 Lirenatis<a name="FNanchor_281"></a><a + href="#Footnote_281"><sup>[281]</sup></a> or Ostia,<a + name="FNanchor_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282"><sup>[282]</sup></a> +so the only other calendar we have to deal with is the one +from Præneste, the fragments of which have been partially +discussed above.</p> +<p>The text of that piece<a name="FNanchor_283"></a><a + href="#Footnote_283"><sup>[283]</sup></a> 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.<a + name="FNanchor_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284"><sup>[284]</sup></a> +The only other men who attained the quinquennial +rank in Præneste were M. Petronius,<a name="FNanchor_285"></a><a + href="#Footnote_285"><sup>[285]</sup></a> and some man +with the cognomen Minus,<a name="FNanchor_286"></a><a + href="#Footnote_286"><sup>[286]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_287"></a><a + href="#Footnote_287"><sup>[287]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_288"></a><a + href="#Footnote_288"><sup>[288]</sup></a></p> +<p>From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the +grain measurers' union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,<a + name="FNanchor_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289"><sup>[289]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_290"></a><a + href="#Footnote_290"><sup>[290]</sup></a> 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).<a name="FNanchor_291"></a><a + href="#Footnote_291"><sup>[291]</sup></a> A Roman knight, C. +Æmilius +Antoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii +at Tibur.<a name="FNanchor_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292"><sup>[292]</sup></a></p> +<p>N. Cluvius M'. f.<a name="FNanchor_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293"><sup>[293]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>C. Mænius C.f. Bassus<a name="FNanchor_294"></a><a + href="#Footnote_294"><sup>[294]</sup></a> was ædile and +quattuorvir at +Herculaneum and then after holding the tribuneship of a +legion is found next at Præneste as a quinquennalis.</p> +<p>M. Vettius M.f. Valens<a name="FNanchor_295"></a><a + href="#Footnote_295"><sup>[295]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>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.<a + name="FNanchor_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296"><sup>[296]</sup></a> +This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominated quinquennalis +by the emperor.</p> +<p>C. Pompilius Cerialis,<a name="FNanchor_297"></a><a + href="#Footnote_297"><sup>[297]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>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.<a + name="FNanchor_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298"><sup>[298]</sup></a></p> +<p>Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at +Superæquum, and held no other offices.<a name="FNanchor_299"></a><a + href="#Footnote_299"><sup>[299]</sup></a></p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300"><sup>[300]</sup></a> +shows clearly that such a method of getting +a quinquennalis was out of the ordinary.</p> +<p>M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum<a name="FNanchor_301"></a><a + href="#Footnote_301"><sup>[301]</sup></a> has the title +Augustalis duovir quinquennalis, and no other title but that +of præfect of a cohort.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302"><sup>[302]</sup></a></p> +<p>Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by +order of the senate, which again shows the irregularity of +the choice.<a name="FNanchor_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303"><sup>[303]</sup></a></p> +<p>M. Træsius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but +died an inhabitant of Atinæ in Lucania.<a name="FNanchor_304"></a><a + href="#Footnote_304"><sup>[304]</sup></a></p> +<p>M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was ædile and duovir in +Pompeii,<a name="FNanchor_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305"><sup>[305]</sup></a> +was not elected quinquennalis, but made præfectus +quinquennalis, which implies appointment.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_306"></a><a + href="#Footnote_306"><sup>[306]</sup></a></p> +<p>P. Sextilius Rufus,<a name="FNanchor_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307"><sup>[307]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308"><sup>[308]</sup></a></p> +<p>M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without +being ædile or quæstor, in Aquinum.<a name="FNanchor_309"></a><a + href="#Footnote_309"><sup>[309]</sup></a></p> +<p>Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but +a quinquennalis at Aquinum.<a name="FNanchor_310"></a><a + href="#Footnote_310"><sup>[310]</sup></a></p> +<p>The quinquennial year seems to have been the year in +which matters of consequence were more likely to be done +than at other times.</p> +<p>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.<a + name="FNanchor_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311"><sup>[311]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_312"></a><a + href="#Footnote_312"><sup>[312]</sup></a></p> +<p>In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta +was passed in the year when there were quinquennales.<a + name="FNanchor_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313"><sup>[313]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_314"></a><a + href="#Footnote_314"><sup>[314]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315"><sup>[315]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316"><sup>[316]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_317"></a><a + href="#Footnote_317"><sup>[317]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<h4><a name="ALPHABETICAL_LIST"></a>ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL +OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE.</h4> +<br /> +<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%; height: 3083px;" border="0" + cellspacing="0" + summary="ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL +OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE." + cellpadding="0"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">NAME. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">OFFICE. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">C.I.L. (XIV.)</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Drusus Cæsar<br /> +Germanicus Cæsar<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Nero et Drusus Germanici filii <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2965</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Nero Cæsar, between 51-54 +A.D. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir Quinq. + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2995</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Accius ... us </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Acilius P.f. Paullus, 243 +A.D. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. Æd. +IIvir. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2972 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Aiacius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Albinius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd +(?) </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Albinius M.f. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd, +IIvir, IIvir Quinq. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2974 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Anicius (Livy VIII, 11, 4) </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Anicius L.f. Baaso </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2975 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Annius Septimus </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 1 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(M). Antonius Subarus<a + name="FNanchor_318"></a><a + href="#Footnote_318"><sup>[318]</sup></a> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 18 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Aper, see Voesius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Aponius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Aquilius Gallus </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 2</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Arrasidius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Arrius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Atellius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Attalus, see Claudius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Baaso, see Anicius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Bassus, see Cominius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cæcilius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cæsius M.f. IIvir <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2980</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Cæsius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Caleius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Canies, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Capivas <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cassius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Celsus, see Mæsius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus +IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi.<br /> +1894, p. 96.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M (?), Cominius Bassus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. +Præf. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Cordus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Cornelius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Cornelius) Dolabella <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Corn)elius Rufus </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2967<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Curtius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Cur(tius) Sura</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> IIvir. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Decumius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Diadumenius (see Antonius +Subarus)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 18</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Dindius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> 2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Dolabella, see Cornelius.<br /> + <span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Also Chap. II, <a + href="#Footnote_250">n. 250</a>.)</span></td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Egnatius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091,3</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Cn. Egnatius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Fabricius C.f. Vaarus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi.<br /> +1907, p. 137.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Feidenatius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2999</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Ferlidius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Fimbria, see Geganius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Flaccus, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Flavius L.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir quinq. + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2980</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Flavius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Flavius T.f. Germanus 181 +A.D. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. +IIvir. IIvir. QQ</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2922</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Fl)avius Musca <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2965</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Gallus, see Aquilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Geganius Finbria <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 1</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Germanus, see Flavius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— [I]nstacilius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Iuc ... Rufus<a + name="FNanchor_319"></a><a + href="#Footnote_319"><sup>[319]</sup></a> + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Lælianus, see Lutatius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M'. Later ...<a + name="FNanchor_320"></a><a + href="#Footnote_320"><sup>[320]</sup></a> + <span style="margin-left: 1em;">(See Add. 4091, 12)</span></td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 12</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Livius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Long ... Priscus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 4</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Lucretius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Lutatius Q.f. +Lælianus Oppianicus +Petronianu</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2930</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Macrin(ius) Nerian(us) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 10</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Mæsius Sex. f. Celsus + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. Æd. +IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2989</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Mag(ulnius) M.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 13</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Magulnius C.f. Scato <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2990</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Magulnius C.f. Scato +Maxs(umus)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2906</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr.(?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3008</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Mamilianus, see Claudius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Manilei Post <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">A(e)d. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Mecanius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 5</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Mersieius C.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2975</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Messienus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Mestrius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 6</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — Minus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Musca, see Flavius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Nassius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Naut(ius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 14</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Nerianus, see Macrinius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Ninn(ius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir.(?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Oppianicus, see Lutatius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Orcevius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2902</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Orcivi(us) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. IIvir. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2994</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Paccius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Paullus, see Acilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Petisius Potens <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Petronianus, see Lutatius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Petronius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(M). Petronius Rufus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Petronius Rufus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. +Præf. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Planta, see Treb ...<br /> + <span style="margin-left: 4.5em;">ti</span><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Pom pei us <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Pomp(eius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. +Præf. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2995</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Pontanus, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Potens, see Petisius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Prænestinus prætor +(Chap. II, <a href="#Footnote_185">n.<br /> + </a><span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#Footnote_185">185</a>.) +Livy IX, 16, 17.</span></td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Priscus, see Long ...</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Pulcher, see Vettius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Punicus Lig ... <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Ræcius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Ræcius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Rotanius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Rufus, see Cornelius, Iuc ..., +Petronius, Tertius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Rutilus, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Sabidius Sabinus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi.<br /> +1894, p. 96.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — Sabinus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2967</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Salvius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Salvius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Samiarius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Sa(mi)us <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2999</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Saufei(us) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2994</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Saufe(ius) ... Canies<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Aid. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi. 1907, p. 137.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2906</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Saufeius C.f. Flacus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3002</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3001</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Saufeius C.f. Pontanus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3000</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Saufeius L.f. Pontanus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3000</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3002</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Scato, see Magulnius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Scrib(onius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 3</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — Sedatus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. +Pr(æf). <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2965</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Septimus, see Annius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Sertorius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Spid <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2969</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Statiolenus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Statius Sal. f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3013</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Subarus, see Antonius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2890</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Tappurius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> 4091, 6</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Tarenteinus, see Tampius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Tedusius T. (f.) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3012a</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Tere ... Cl ... <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 7</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Tert(ius) Rufus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2998</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Thorenas <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3008</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Treb ... Pianta <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 4</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(Se)x. Truttidius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Vaarus, see Fabricius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (?)cius Valer(ianus)</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2967</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Valerius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Varus, see Voluntilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. +(?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Vassius V. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Vatron(ius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2902</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Velius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> 2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Vettius T. (f) Pulcher <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3012</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Vibius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Vibuleius L.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3013</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Cn. Voesius Cn. f. Aper. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. Æd. +IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3014</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3020</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — — <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. +IIvir. Quinqu.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 8</td> + </tr> + </tbody> +</table> +<br /> +<br /> +<h4>CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF +PRÆNESTE.</h4> +<h4><a name="BEFORE"></a>BEFORE PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY.</h4> +<br /> +<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="BEFORE PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY." + cellpadding="0"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">DATE</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIVIRI<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">AEDILES<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><span + style="margin-left: 1em;">QUÆSTORES.</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">B.C.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">9</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Prænestinus prætor.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">5</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> M. Anicius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{ M. Anicius L.f. Baaso <br /> +{M. +Mersieius C.f.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + {<br /> + {<br /> + {<br /> + {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Samius<br /> +{C. Feidenatius<br /> +{C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus<br /> +{C. Vatronius<br /> +{L. Orcevius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2{<br /> +8{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. +Saufeius C.f. Pontanus<br /> +{M. Saufeius L.f.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Magulnius C.f. Scato<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">e{<br /> +r{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Tondeius L.f.M.n.<br /> +{M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">o{<br /> +f{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Fabricius C.f. Varrus<br /> +{M. Saufe(ius) Canies<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">e{<br /> +B{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus<br /> +{C. Saufeius C.f. Flacus<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Maxsumus<br /> +{C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3<br /> +or<br /> +2 (?)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Orcivius} +Praestores<br /> +{ +} isdem<br /> +{—Saufeius} Duumviri.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + </tbody> +</table> +<br /> +<p>A Senate is mentioned in the inscriptions C.I.L., XIV, 2990, +3000, 3001, 3002.</p> +<h4><a name="AFTER"></a>AFTER PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY.</h4> +<br /> +<table style="width: 100%; text-align: left;" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="AFTER PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY." + cellpadding="0"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">DATE<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIVIRI<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">AEDILES<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><span + style="margin-left: 1em;">QUÆSTORES.</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">B.C.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">80-75 (?)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">... Sabinus<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{... nus.<br /> +{<br /> +[... ter.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— (Corn)elius Rufus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (?)cius Valer(ianus)<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">80-50<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">1st year</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Cornelius) Dolabella</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Rotanius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Samiarius<br /> +{Q. (Fl)avius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Messienus.<br /> +{P. Cornelius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Sex. Cæsius.<br /> +{L. Nassius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Q. Caleius<br /> +{C. Sertorius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Salvius<br /> +{T. Lucretius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Curtius<br /> +{C. Vibius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— Statiolenus.<br /> +{C. Cassius<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4th year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Petronius, Quinqu.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Arrasidius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Aponius<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">75-50<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">1st year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Decumius.<br /> +{L. Ferlidius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Paccius.<br /> +{C. Ninn(ius).</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Albinius.<br /> +{Sex. Po..</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Sex. Capivas.<br /> +{C. M...<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Cæsius +M.f.} Duoviri<br /> +{C. Flavius L.f. } Quinqu.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Q. Vettius T. (f.) Pulcher.<br /> +{— Tedusius T. (f.)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Q. Vibuleius L.f.<br /> +{L. Statius Sal. f.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">A.D.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">12<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Atellius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">13<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Raecius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— (—) lius.<br /> +{C. Velius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— Accius ...us.<br /> +{M. Valerius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">14<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Germanicus +Cæsar +Quinqu.<br /> +{Drusus Cæsar<br /> +{M. Cominius Bassus Pr.<br /> +{M. Petronius Rufus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Dindius.<br /> +{Cn. Egnatius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Iuc... Rufus<br /> +{C. Thorenas<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">15<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Cn. Pom(pei)us.<br /> +{— Curtius?) Sura.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Ræcius.<br /> +{— Cordus.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">16<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Petisius Potens<br /> +{C. Salvius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Dindius.<br /> +{T. Livius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Aiacius.<br /> +{C. Arrius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Vassius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Punicus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Manilei.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">... Minus Quinq.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (?) rius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(Se)x Truttidi(us).<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cæcilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(M.) Petronius Rufus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (I)nstacilius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">1st year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Sedatus.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">... lus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Fl)avius Musca.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Nero et +Drusus +} +Duoviri<br /> +{Germanici f. +} +Quinq.<br /> +{.... +} +Præf.<br /> +{... Sedatus. }<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">101<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus.<br /> +{T. Sabidius Sabinus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">100-256<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{P. Annius Septimus.<br /> +{Sex. Geganius Fimbria.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Aquilius Gallus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">250<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— Egnatius.<br /> +{P. Scrib(onius).<br /> +{T. Long... Prisc(us).<br /> +{C. Treb... Planta.<br /> +—Mecanius.<br /> +{Q. Mestrius.<br /> +{C. Tappurius.<br /> +M. Tere ... Cl...<br /> +C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Macrin(ius)<br /> +Nerian(us).<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M'. Later...<br /> +L. Mag(ulnius) M.f.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{(M). Antonius Subarus.<br /> +{T. Diadumenius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Naut(ius).<br /> + </td> + </tr> + </tbody> +</table> +<br /> +<br /> + +<p>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.</p> +<br /> +<p style="font-weight: bold;">NOTES:</p> +<a name="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1">[1]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Strabo V, 3, II.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2">[2]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3">[3]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4">[4]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5">[5]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6">[6]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7">[7]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum +Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8">[8]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9">[9]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10">[10]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11">[11]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12">[12]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13">[13]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14">[14]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of the +Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15">[15]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16">[16]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17">[17]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18">[18]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2987.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19">[19]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20">[20]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any way +to ancient Præneste.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21">[21]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own +observations. +See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22">[22]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23">[23]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24">[24]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25">[25]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26">[26]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Bull. dell'Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that the +civilization in Præneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin +cities.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27">[27]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28">[28]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and +Querquetula +is not a question here at all.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29">[29]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30">[30]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31">[31]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that which +looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32">[32]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33">[33]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34">[34]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35">[35]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.)</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36">[36]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid bare +in 1890, Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37">[37]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38">[38]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39">[39]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40">[40]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41">[41]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42">[42]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43">[43]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44">[44]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45">[45]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 107, has exact +measurements +of the walls.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46">[46]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47">[47]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> There seems to have been only a postern in the ancient wall +inside the present Porta del Sole.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48">[48]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49">[49]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 57 ff. for argument and proof, +beginning +with Varro, de I. 1. VI, 4: ut Præneste incisum in solario +vidi.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50">[50]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51">[51]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52">[52]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53">[53]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54">[54]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55">[55]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This may have been the base for the statue of M. Anicius, so +famous after his defense at Casilinum. Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56">[56]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57">[57]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): <span lang="el" + title="erumnæ men oun ekatera, poly derumnotera + +Prainestos."> ερυμνη +μεν ουν εκατερα, πολυ δ'ερυμνοτεραερυμνοτε Πραινεστος +</span>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58">[58]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: <span lang="el" + title="Marios de pheugon eis + +Praineston ædæ tas pylas eure kekleimenas">Μαριος +δε φευγων εις Πραινεστον ηδη τας πυλας ευρε κεκλειμενας +.</span></p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59">[59]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 282; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. +491.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60">[60]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61">[61]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 248.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62">[62]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Also called Porta S. Giacomo, or dell'Ospedale.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63">[63]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 252.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64">[64]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Closed seemingly in Sullan times.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65">[65]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The rude corbeling of one side of the gate is still very +plainly +to be seen. The gate is filled with mediæval stone work.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66">[66]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67">[67]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68">[68]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69">[69]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70">[70]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71">[71]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72">[72]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazione de +Numeri, Map facing page 1: l'antica Porta di San Martino chiusa.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73">[73]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74">[74]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, in Papers +of the British School at Rome, Vol. 1, Map VI.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75">[75]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76">[76]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77">[77]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1903), pp. 23-25.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78">[78]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Probably the store room of some little shop which sold the +exvotos. Bull. dell'Inst., 1883, p. 28.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79">[79]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80">[80]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81">[81]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); <span lang="el" + title="dioruxi + kryptais—pantachothen mechri ton pedion tais + men hydreias charin= ktl.">... +διωρυξι κρυπταις--πανταχοτεν +μεχρι των πεδιων ταις μεν υδρειας χαριν κτλ. +</span>; Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82">[82]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83">[83]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84">[84]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add., 2978, 2979, 3015.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85">[85]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Nibby, Analisi, p. 510. It could be seen in 1907, but not so +very +clearly.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86">[86]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87">[87]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88">[88]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89">[89]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of this +aqueduct +as "quel mirabile antico cuniculo."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90">[90]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua del +Sambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, Memorie +Prenestine, p. 286).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91">[91]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 96 ff., p. 122 ff.; +Nibby, +Analisi, +II, p. 501 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 45.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92">[92]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93">[93]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94">[94]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of the +American +School in Rome.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95">[95]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See above, page 29.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96">[96]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97">[97]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98">[98]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99">[99]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100">[100]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> "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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101">[101]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102">[102]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under Das +Heiligtum der Fortuna in Præneste, p. 47 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103">[103]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, De Div., II, 41, 85.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104">[104]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105">[105]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106">[106]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107">[107]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108">[108]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109">[109]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> There are 16 descriptions and plans of the temple. A full +bibliography of them is in Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in +Latium, pp. 51-52.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110">[110]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111">[111]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See also Revue Arch., XXXIX (1901), p. 469, n. 188.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112">[112]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L, XIV, 2864.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113">[113]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114">[114]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3007. See Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, 2, +p. 365, n. 73.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115">[115]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116">[116]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2922; also on bricks, Ann. dell'Inst., 1855, p. +86—C.I.L., XIV, 4091, 9.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117">[117]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2980; C. Cæsius M.f.C. Flavius L.f. Duovir +Quinq. ædem et portic d.d. fac. coer. eidemq. prob.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118">[118]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119">[119]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 430. See also Juvenal XIV, +88; Friedlænder, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120">[120]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62, with illustration.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121">[121]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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, <span lang="el" + title="Ephæm. Arch.">Εφημ Αρχ. +</span>, +1883, +p. 1975; Michel, Recueil d'insc. grec., 1069 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122">[122]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, pp. 320, 324; Marquardt, +Staatsverwaltung, +3, p. 271, n. 8. See Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), +p. 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123">[123]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, l.c., pp. 50, 59, does prove that there is no +reason +why <span lang="el" title="lithostroton">λιθοστρωτον +</span> 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. +</p> +<p>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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124">[124]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> For the many opinions as to the subject of the mosaic, see +Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 75.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125">[125]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126">[126]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, l.c., p. 58, n. 1.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127">[127]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128">[128]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#Footnote_106">note 106</a>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129">[129]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2875. This dedication of "coques atriensis" +probably belongs to the upper temple.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130">[130]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131">[131]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132">[132]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133">[133]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134">[134]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia di +Palestrina, +p. 60.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135">[135]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136">[136]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 330.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137">[137]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18: statua cius (M. Anicii) indicio fuit, +Præneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, +etc.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138">[138]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139">[139]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140">[140]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141">[141]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> More discussion of this point above in connection with the +temple, <a href="#page_51">page 51</a>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142">[142]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> I was in Præneste during all the excavations of 1907, and +made these photographs while I was there.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143">[143]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The drawing of the Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 290, which shows +a probable portico is not exact.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144">[144]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> It is now called the Via delle Scalette.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145">[145]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 58.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146">[146]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See full-page illustration in Delbrueck, l.c., p. 79.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147">[147]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#page_30">page 30</a>. 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148">[148]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2908, 2919, 2916, 2937, 2946, 3314, 3340.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149">[149]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2917, 2919, 2922, 2924, 2929, 2934, 2955, 2997, +3014, Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150">[150]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> F. Barnabei, Not. d. Scavi, 1894, p. 96.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151">[151]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2914.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152">[152]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not. d. Scavi, 1897, p. 421; 1904, p. 393.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153">[153]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154">[154]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 50, n. 1, +from +Preller, Roemische Mythologie, II, p. 191, n. 1.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155">[155]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156">[156]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 320, n. 19.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157">[157]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 35.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158">[158]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159">[159]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, V, p. 159.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160">[160]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VI, 29; C.I.L., XIV, 2987.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161">[161]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VII, 11; VII, 19; VIII, 12.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162">[162]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163">[163]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VIII, 14.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164">[164]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Val. Max., De Superstitionibus, I, 3, 2; C.I.L., XIV, 2929, +with +Dessau's note.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165">[165]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#Footnote_185">note 185</a>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166">[166]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> "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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167">[167]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 20, 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168">[168]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy I, 30, 1.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169">[169]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170">[170]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under "Anicia."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171">[171]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172">[172]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Dionysius III, 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173">[173]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174">[174]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175">[175]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in civitatem +Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176">[176]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita +venerunt, ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis et +coloniæ, ut +Tiburtes, Prænestini, etc.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177">[177]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> I do not think so. The argument is taken up later on <a + href="#MUNICIPIUM">page 73</a>. +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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178">[178]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179">[179]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180">[180]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181">[181]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182">[182]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in Milonianam, +p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, 2121.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183">[183]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184">[184]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185">[185]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186">[186]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Prænestinus prætor ... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy +IX, +16, 17.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187">[187]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188">[188]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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." +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189">[189]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law at +the University of Michigan.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190">[190]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, 61.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191">[191]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Pauly-Wissowa under "dictator," and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, +II, 171, 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192">[192]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193">[193]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194">[194]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195">[195]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly 3008).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196">[196]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197">[197]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198">[198]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#Footnote_185">note 185</a> above.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199">[199]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200">[200]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201">[201]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, +notes 1 +and 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202">[202]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203">[203]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204">[204]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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: <span lang="el" + title="Italioton de tous eti en tae +symmachia +paramenontas epsæphisato (æ boulæ) einai politas, ou dæ malista monon +ou pantes +epethymoun ktl.">Ιταλιωτων +δε τους ετι εν τη συμμαχια παραμενοντας εψηφισατο (η βουλη) ειναι +πολιτας, ου δη μαλιστα μονον ου παντες επεθυμουν κτλ.</span> +</p> +<p>Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, +p. 311; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman +Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205">[205]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206">[206]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207">[207]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208">[208]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Præneste, Matienus Tibur exulatum +abierunt.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209">[209]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Polybius VI, 14, 8: <span lang="el" + title="esti d'asphaleia tois pheygousin + +en te tæ, Neapolito + +kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinon polei">εστι +δ'ασφαλεια τοις φευγουσιν εν τε τη, Νεαπολιτω και Πραινεςτινων ετι δε +Τιβουρινων πολει +.</span> Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. +215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 45.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210">[210]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Prænestini) civitate cum donarentur ob +virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211">[211]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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)).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212">[212]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213">[213]</a>-<a + href="#FNanchor_213bis">[213bis]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: <span lang="el" + title="exedramen es tas anchou + +poleis, tas ou pro + +pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburton te kai Praineston, kai osai + +mechri Nolæs. erethizon apantas es apostasin, kai chræmata es ton polemon + +sullegon.">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.</span> See Dessau, +C.I.L., XIV, p. 289. +</p> +<p>It is worth noting that there is no thought of saying anything +about Praaneste and Tibur, except to call them cities (<span lang="el" + title="poleis">πολεις</span>). +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. +</p> +<p>Note also that for 88 B.C. Appian (Bell. Civ., I, 53) says: <span + lang="el" + title="eos + +Italia pasa prosechomæsei es tæn Romaion politeian, choris ge Leukanon + +kai + +Sauniton tote.">εως +Ιταια πασα προσεχωρησει ες την Ρωμαιων πολιτειαν, χωρις γε Λευκανων +καιΣαυνιτων τοτε.</span></p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214">[214]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), +pp. 109 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215">[215]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216">[216]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217">[217]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218">[218]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219">[219]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220">[220]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221">[221]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> One third of the land was the usual amount taken.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222">[222]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223">[223]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224">[224]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statum redegit. +See +Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225">[225]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226">[226]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Regular colony officials appear all along in the incriptions +down +into the third century A.D.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227">[227]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Gellius XVI, 13, 5.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228">[228]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> More in detail by Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229">[229]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VII, 12, 8; VIII, 12, 8.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230">[230]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 161.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231">[231]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, pro P. Sulla, XXI, 61.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232">[232]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233">[233]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234">[234]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235">[235]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236">[236]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964-2969.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237">[237]</a>-<a + href="#FNanchor_237bis">[237bis]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238">[238]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2966, 2968.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239">[239]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240">[240]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2967.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241">[241]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242">[242]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1233.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243">[243]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 422.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244">[244]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 5.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245">[245]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Lex Iulia Municipalis, C.I.L., I, 206, l. 142 ff. == Dessau, +Inscrip. +Lat. Sel., 6085.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246">[246]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 160.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247">[247]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2966.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248">[248]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Pauly-Wissowa under "Dolabella," and "Cornelius," nos. +127-148.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249">[249]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250">[250]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2967: ... elius Rufus Æd(ilis). I take him to +be a Cornelius rather than an Ælius, because of the cognomen.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251">[251]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252">[252]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253">[253]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, p. 222, +under +"Rutenius." He finds the same form Rotanius only in Turin, +Rutenius only in North Italy.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254">[254]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255">[255]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256">[256]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257">[257]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cæsia at Præneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2852, 2966 I, 6, 2980, +3311, +3359, and the old form Ceisia, 4104.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258">[258]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See Schulze, l.c., index under Caleius.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259">[259]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964 II, 15.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260">[260]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Vibia especially in the old inscription C.I.L., XIV, 4098. +Also in 2903, 2966 II, 9; Not. d. Scavi, 1900, p. 94.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261">[261]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Statioleia: C.I.L., XIV, 2966 I, 10, 3381.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262">[262]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263">[263]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264">[264]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2855, 2626, 3336.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265">[265]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3116. It may not be on a pigna.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266">[266]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267">[267]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 5016: C. Capive Vitali (Hadria).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268">[268]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> A better restoration than Ninn(eius). The (N)inneius +Sappæus +(C.I.L., VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription is late.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269">[269]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> In the year 216 B.C. the Ninnii Celeres were hostages of +Hannibal's at Capua (Livy XXIII, 8).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270">[270]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 2776-2779, but all late.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271">[271]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272">[272]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273">[273]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1806.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274">[274]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275">[275]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> All at least except the regimen morum, so Marquardt, l.c., +p. +162 and n. 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276">[276]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 6.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277">[277]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 7.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278">[278]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 78 ff.; Nissen, Italische +Landeskunde, +II, p. 99 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279">[279]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 422 = Dessau, Insc. Lat. Sel., 6123.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280">[280]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1233 = Dessau 6124.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281">[281]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Near Aquinum. C.I.L., X, 5405 = Dessau 6125.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282">[282]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 245 = Dessau 6126.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283">[283]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284">[284]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> He is not even mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa or Ruggiero.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285">[285]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2966.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286">[286]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287">[287]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2965.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288">[288]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 169 for full discussion, with +references +to other cases.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289">[289]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 172: præt(or) Laur(entium) Lavin(atium) +IIIIvir q(uin) q(uennalis) Fæsulis.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290">[290]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3599.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291">[291]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3609.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292">[292]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3650.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293">[293]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., I, 1236 == X, 1573 == Dessau 6345.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294">[294]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3665.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295">[295]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XI, 421 == Dessau 6662.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296">[296]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297">[297]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not. d. Scav, 1884, p. 418 == Dessau 6598.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298">[298]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 5831 == Dessau 6572.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299">[299]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 3311 == Dessau 6532.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300">[300]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> L. Septimio L.f. Arn. Calvo. æd., IIIIvir. i.d., præf. +ex +s.c. +[q]uinquennalicia potestate, etc., Eph. Ep. 8, 120 == Dessau 6527.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301">[301]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 1618 == Dessau 6507.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302">[302]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 652 == Dessau 6481.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303">[303]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The full title is worth notice: IIIIvir i(ure) d(icundo) +q(uinquennalis) c(ensoria) p(otestate), C.I.L., X, 49 == Dessau +6463.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304">[304]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 344 == Dessau 6450.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305">[305]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1036 == Dessau 6365.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306">[306]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 840 == Dessau 6362: M. Holconio Celeri d.v.i.d. +quinq. designato. Augusti sacerdoti.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307">[307]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1273 == Dessau 6344.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308">[308]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 4641 == Dessau 6301.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309">[309]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 5401 == Dessau 6291.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310">[310]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 5393 == Dessau 6286.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311">[311]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4148.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312">[312]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313">[313]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2795.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314">[314]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4237. Another case of the same kind is seen +in the fragment C.I.L., XIV, 4247.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315">[315]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Zangemeister, C.I.L., IV., Index, shows 75 duoviri and but +4 quinquennales.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316">[316]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317">[317]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> (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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318">[318]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319">[319]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320">[320]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12770 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + + + + + + + diff --git a/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg b/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..258be38 --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg diff --git a/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg b/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ce5f78 --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg diff --git a/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg b/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9189203 --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg diff --git a/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg b/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b87d495 --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg diff --git a/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg b/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3f6cccc --- /dev/null +++ b/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..13a5b00 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #12770 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12770) diff --git a/old/12770-8.txt b/old/12770-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f0eb11e --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4559 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And Municipal +History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: A Study Of The Topography And Municipal History Of Praeneste + +Author: Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +Release Date: June 29, 2004 [EBook #12770] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF PRAENESTE *** + + + + +Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Mallière and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team. + + + + + + + +SERIES XXVI NOS. 9-10 + +JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE + +Under the Direction of the Departments of History, Political Economy, +and Political Science + +STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF PRAENESTE + +BY RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, A.B. Fellow in Latin. + + +September, October, 1908 + +COPYRIGHT 1908 + + + + +CONTENTS. + +CHAPTER I. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE + EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE + THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES + THE PORTA TRIUMPHALIS + THE GATES + THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRAENESTE + THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA + THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE + THE FORA + THE SACRA VIA + +CHAPTER II. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRAENESTE + WAS PRAENESTE A MUNICIPIUM? + PRAENESTE AS A COLONY + THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES + THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS + THE QUINQUENNALES + +AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE + +A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE + 1. BEFORE PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY + 2. AFTER PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY + + + + +PREFACE. + +This study is the first of a series of studies already in progress, in +which the author hopes to make some contributions to the history of the +towns of the early Latin League, from the topographical and epigraphical +points of view. + +The author takes this opportunity to thank Dr. Kirby Flower Smith, Head +of the Department of Latin, at whose suggestion this study was begun, +and under whose supervision and with whose hearty assistance its +revision was completed. + +He owes his warmest thanks also to Dr. Harry Langford Wilson, Professor +of Roman Archaeology and Epigraphy, with whom he made many trips to +Praeneste, and whose help and suggestions were most valuable. + +Especially does he wish to testify to the inspiration to thoroughness +which came from the teaching and the example of his dearly revered +teacher, Professor Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Head of the Greek +Department, and he acknowledges also with pleasure the benefit from the +scholarly methods of Dr. David M. Robinson, and the manifold +suggestiveness of the teaching of Dr. Maurice Bloomfield. + +The cordial assistance of the author's aunt, Dr. Esther B. Van Deman, +Carnegie Fellow in the American School at Rome, both during his stay in +Rome and Praeneste and since his return to America, has been invaluable, +and the privilege afforded him by Professor Dr. Christian Hülsen, of the +German Archaeological Institute, of consulting the as yet unpublished +indices of the sixth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, is +acknowledged with deep gratitude. + +The author is deeply grateful for the facilities afforded him in the +prosecution of his investigations while he was a resident in Palestrina, +and he takes great pleasure in thanking for their courtesies, Cav. +Capitano Felice Cicerchia, President of the Archaeological Society at +Palestrina, his brother, Cav. Emilio Cicerchia, Government Inspector of +Antiquities, Professor Pompeo Bernardini, Mayor of the City, and Cav. +Francesco Coltellacci, Municipal Secretary. + +Finally, he desires to express his cordial appreciation of the kind +advice and generous assistance given by Professor John Martin Vincent in +connection with the publication of this monograph. + + + + +A STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF PRAENESTE. + + + + +CHAPTER I. + + +THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. + +Nearly a half mile out from the rugged Sabine mountains, standing clear +from them, and directly in front of the sinuous little valley which the +northernmost headstream of the Trerus made for itself, rises a +conspicuous and commanding mountain, two thousand three hundred and +eighteen feet above the level of the sea, and something more than half +that height above the plain below. This limestone mountain, the modern +Monte Glicestro, presents on the north a precipitous and unapproachable +side to the Sabines, but turns a fairer face to the southern and western +plain. From its conical summit the mountain stretches steeply down +toward the southwest, dividing almost at once into two rounded slopes, +one of which, the Colle di S. Martino, faces nearly west, the other in a +direction a little west of south. On this latter slope is situated the +modern Palestrina, which is built on the site of the ancient Praeneste. + +From the summit of the mountain, where the arx or citadel was, it +becomes clear at once why Praeneste occupied a proud and commanding +position among the towns of Latium. The city, clambering up the slope on +its terraces, occupied a notably strong position[1], and the citadel was +wholly impregnable to assault. Below and south of the city stretched +fertile land easy of access to the Praenestines, and sufficiently +distant from other strong Latin towns to be safe for regular +cultivation. Further, there is to be added to the fortunate situation +of Praeneste with regard to her own territory and that of her contiguous +dependencies, her position at a spot which almost forced upon her a wide +territorial influence, for Monte Glicestro faces exactly the wide and +deep depression between the Volscian mountains and the Alban Hills, and +is at the same time at the head of the Trerus-Liris valley. Thus +Praeneste at once commanded not only one of the passes back into the +highland country of the Aequians, but also the inland routes between +Upper and Lower Italy, the roads which made relations possible between +the Hernicans, Volscians, Samnites, and Latins. From Praeneste the +movements of Volscians and Latins, even beyond the Alban Hills and on +down in the Pontine district, could be seen, and any hostile +demonstrations could be prepared against or forestalled. In short, +Praeneste held the key to Rome from the south. + +Monte Glicestro is of limestone pushed up through the tertiary crust by +volcanic forces, but the long ridges which run off to the northwest are +of lava, while the shorter and wider ones extending toward the southwest +are of tufa. These ridges are from three to seven miles in length. It is +shown either by remains of roads and foundations or (in three cases) by +the actual presence of modern towns that in antiquity the tip of almost +every one of these ridges was occupied by a city. The whole of the tufa +and lava plain that stretches out from Praeneste toward the Roman +Campagna is flat to the eye, and the towns on the tips of the ridges +seem so low that their strong military position is overlooked. The tops +of these ridges, however, are everywhere more than an hundred feet above +the valley and, in addition, their sides are very steep. Thus the towns +were practically impregnable except by an attack along the top of the +ridge, and as all these ridges run back to the base of the mountain on +which Praeneste was situated, both these ridges and their towns +necessarily were always closely connected with Praeneste and dependent +upon her. + +There is a simple expedient by which a conception of the topography of +the country about Praeneste can be obtained. Place the left hand, palm +down, flat on a table spreading the fingers slightly, then the palm of +the right hand on the back of the left with the fingers pointing at +right angles to those of the left hand. Imagine that the mountain, on +which Praeneste lay, rises in the middle of the back of the upper hand, +sinks off to the knuckles of both hands, and extends itself in the +alternate ridges and valleys which the fingers and the spaces between +them represent. + + +EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE. + +Just as the modern roads and streets in both country and city of ancient +territory are taken as the first and best proof of the presence of +ancient boundary lines and thoroughfares, just so the territorial +jurisdiction of a city in modern Italy, where tradition has been so +constant and so strong, is the best proof for the extent of ancient +domain.[2] Before trying, therefore, to settle the limits of the domain +of Praeneste from the provenience of ancient inscriptions, and by +deductions from ancient literary sources, and present topographical and +archaeological arguments, it will be well worth while to trace rapidly +the diocesan boundaries which the Roman church gave to Praeneste. + +The Christian faith had one of its longest and hardest fights at +Praeneste to overcome the old Roman cult of Fortuna Primigenia. +Christianity triumphed completely, and Praeneste was so important a +place, that it was made one of the six suburban bishoprics,[3] and from +that time on there is more or less mention in the Papal records of the +diocese of Praeneste, or Penestrino as it began to be called. + +In the fifth century A.D. there is mention of a gift to a church by +Sixtus III, Pope from 432 to 440, of a certain possession in Praenestine +territory called Marmorata,[4] which seems best located near the town of +Genazzano. + +About the year 970 the territory of Praeneste was increased in extent by +Pope John XIII, who ceded to his sister Stefania a territory that +extended back into the mountains to Aqua alta near Subiaco, and as far +as the Rivo lato near Genazzano, and to the west and north from the head +of the Anio river to the Via Labicana.[5] + +A few years later, in 998, because of some troubles, the domain of +Praeneste was very much diminished. This is of the greatest importance +here, because the territory of the diocese in 998 corresponds almost +exactly not only to the natural boundaries, but also, as will be shown +later, to the ancient boundaries of her domain. The extent of this +restricted territory was about five by six miles, and took in Zagarolo, +Valmontone, Cave, Rocca di Cave, Capranica, Poli, and Gallicano.[6] +These towns form a circle around Praeneste and mark very nearly the +ancient boundary. The towns of Valmontone, Cave, and Poli, however, +although in a great degree dependent upon Praeneste, were, I think, just +outside her proper territorial domain. + +In 1043, when Emilia, a descendant of the Stefania mentioned above, +married Stefano di Colonna, Count of Tusculum, Praeneste's territory +seems to have been enlarged again to its former extent, because in 1080 +at Emilia's death, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Colonna because +they insisted upon retaining the Praenestine territory which had been +given as a fief to Stefania, and which upon Emilia's death should have +reverted to the Church.[7] + +We get a glance again at the probable size of the Praenestine diocese +in 1190, from the fact that the fortieth bishop of Praeneste was +Giovanni Anagnino de' Conti di Segni (1190-1196),[8] and this seems to +imply a further extension of the diocese to the southeast down the +Trerus (Sacco) valley. + +Again, in 1300 after the papal destruction of Palestrina, the government +of the city was turned over to Cardinal Ranieri, who was to hold the +city and its castle (mons), the mountain and its territory. At this time +the diocese comprised the land as far as Artena (Monte Fortino) and and +Rocca Priora, one of the towns in the Alban Hills, and to Castrum Novum +Tiburtinum, which may well be Corcolle.[9] + +The natural limits of the ancient city proper can hardly be mistaken. +The city included not only the arx and that portion of the southern +slope of the mountain which was walled in, but also a level piece of +fertile ground below the city, across the present Via degli Arconi. This +piece of flat land has an area about six hundred yards square, the +natural boundaries of which are: on the west, the deep bed of the +watercourse spanned by the Ponte dei Sardoni; on the east, the cut over +which is built the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, and on the south, the +depression running parallel to the Via degli Arconi, and containing the +modern road from S. Rocco to Cave. + +From the natural limits of the town itself we now pass to what would +seem to have been the extent of territory dependent upon her. The +strongest argument of this discussion is based upon the natural +configuration of the land. To the west, the domain of Praeneste +certainly followed those long fertile ridges accessible only from +Praeneste. First, and most important, it extended along the very wide +ridge known as Le Tende and Le Colonnelle which stretches down toward +Gallicano. Some distance above that town it splits, one half, under the +name of Colle S. Rocco, running out to the point on which Gallicano is +situated, and the other, as the Colle Caipoli, reaching farther out into +the Campagna. Along and across this ridge ran several ancient roads.[10] +With the combination of fertile ground well situated, in a position +farthest away from all hostile attack, and a location not only in plain +sight from the citadel of Praeneste, but also between Praeneste and her +closest friend and ally, Tibur, it is certain that in this ridge we have +one of the most favored and valuable of Praeneste's possessions, and +quite as certain that Gallicano, probably the ancient Pedum,[11] was one +of the towns which were dependent allies of Praeneste. It was along this +ridge too that probably the earlier, and certainly the more intimate +communication between Praeneste and Tibur passed, for of the three +possible routes, this was both the nearest and safest.[12] + +[Illustration: PLATE I. Praeneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, +on top of ridge, in foreground.] + +The second ridge, called Colle di Pastore as far as the Gallicano cut, +and Colle Collafri beyond it, along which for four miles runs the Via +Praenestina, undoubtedly belonged to the domain of Praeneste.[13] But it +was not so important a piece of property as the ridges on either side, +for it is much narrower, and it had no town at its end. There was +probably always a road out this ridge, as is shown by the presence of +the later Via Praenestina, but that there was no town at the end of the +ridge is well proved by the fact that Ashby finds no remains there which +give evidence of one. Then, too, we have plain enough proof of general +unfitness for a town. In the first place the ridge runs oil into the +junction of two roadless valleys, there is not much fertile land back of +where the town site would have been, but above all, however, it is +certain that the Via Praenestina was an officially made Roman road, and +did not occupy anything more than a previous track of little +consequence. This is shown by the absence of tombs of the early +necropolis style along this road. + +The next ridge must always have been one of the most important, for from +above Cavamonte as far as Passerano, at the bottom of the ridge on the +side toward Rome, connecting with the highway which was the later Via +Latina, ran the main road through Zagarolo, Passerano, Corcolle, on to +Tibur and the north.[14] As this was the other of the two great roads +which ran to the north without getting out on the Roman Campagna, it is +certain that Praeneste considered it in her territory, and probably kept +the travel well in hand. With dependent towns at Zagarolo and Passerano, +which are several miles distant from each other, there must have been at +least one more town between them, to guard the road against attack from +Tusculum or Gabii. The fact that the Via Praenestina later cut the Colle +del Pero-Colle Seloa just below a point where an ancient road ascends +the ridge to a place well adapted for a town, and where there are some +remains,[15] seems to prove the supposition, and to locate another of +the dependent cities of Praeneste. + +That the next ridge, the one on which Zagarolo is situated, was also +part of Praeneste's territory, aside from the fact that it has always +been part of the diocese of Praeneste, is clearly shown by the +topography of the district. The only easy access to Zagarolo is from +Palestrina, and although the town itself cannot be seen from the +mountain of Praeneste, nevertheless the approach to it along the ridge +is clearly visible. + +The country south and in front of Praeneste spreads out more like a +solid plain for a mile or so before splitting off into the ridges which +are so characteristic of the neighborhood. East of the ridge on which +Zagarolo stands, and running nearly at right angles to it, is a piece of +territory along which runs the present road (the Omata di Palestrina) to +the Palestrina railroad station, and which as far as the cross valley at +Colle dell'Aquila, is incontestably Praenestine domain. + +But the territory which most certainly belonged to Praeneste, and which +was at once the most valuable and the oldest of her possessions is the +wide ridge now known as the Vigne di Loreto, along which runs the road +to Marcigliano.[16] Not only does this ridge lie most closely bound to +Praeneste by nature, but it leads directly toward Velitrae, her most +advantageous ally. Tibur was perhaps always Praeneste's closest and most +loyal ally, but the alliance with her had not the same opportunity for +mutual advantage as one with Velitrae, because each of these towns +commanded the territory the other wished to know most about, and both +together could draw across the upper Trerus valley a tight line which +was of the utmost importance from a strategic point of view. These two +facts would in themselves be a satisfactory proof that this ridge was +Praeneste's first expansion and most important acquisition, but there +is proof other than topographical and argumentative. + +At the head of this ridge in la Colombella, along the road leading to +Marcigliano from the little church of S. Rocco, have been found three +strata of tombs. The line of graves in the lowest stratum, the date of +which is not later than the fifth or sixth century B.C., points exactly +along the ancient road, now the Via della Marcigliana or di Loreto.[17] + +The natural limit of Praenestine domain to the south has now been +reached, and that it is actually the natural limit is shown by the +accompanying illustration. + +Through the Valle di Pepe or Fosso dell' Ospedalato (see Plate II), +which is wide as well as deep, runs the uppermost feeder of the Trerus +river. One sees at a glance that the whole slope of the mountain from +arx to base is continued by a natural depression which would make an +ideal boundary for Praenestine territory. Nor is the topographical proof +all. No inscriptions of consequence, and no architectural remains of the +pre-imperial period have been found across this valley. The road along +the top of the ridge beyond it is an ancient one, and ran to Valmontone +as it does today, and was undoubtedly often used between Praeneste and +the towns on the Volscians. The ridge, however, was exposed to sudden +attack from too many directions to be of practical value to Praeneste. +Valmontone, which lay out beyond the end of this ridge, commanded it, +and Valmontone was not a dependency of Praeneste, as is shown by an +inscription which mentions the adlectio of a citizen there into the +senate (decuriones) of Praeneste.[18] + +There are still two other places which as we have seen were included at +different times in the papal diocese of Praeneste,[19] namely, Capranica +and Cave.[20] Inscriptional evidence is not forthcoming in either place +sufficient to warrant any certainty in the matter of correspondence of +local names to those in Praeneste. Of the two, Capranica had much more +need of dependence on Praeneste than Cave. It was down through the +little valley back of Praeneste, at the head of which Capranica lay, +that her later aqueducts came. The outlet from Capranica back over the +mountains was very difficult, and the only tillable soil within reach of +that town lay to the north of Praeneste on the ridge running toward +Gallicano, and on a smaller ridge which curved around toward Tibur and +lay still closer to the mountains. In short, Capranica, which never +attained importance enough to be of any consequence, appears to have +been always dependent upon Praeneste. + +But as for Cave, that is another question. Her friends were to the east, +and there was easy access into the mountains to Sublaqueum (Subiaco) and +beyond, through the splendid passes via either of the modern towns, +Genazzano or Olevano. + +[Illustration: PLATE II. Praeneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as +seen from Valle di Pepe.] + +It is quite evident that Cave was never a large town, and it seems most +probable that she realized that an amicable understanding with Praeneste +was discreet. This is rendered almost certain by the proof of a +continuance of business relations between the two places. The greater +number of the big tombs of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. are of a +peperino from Cave,[21] and a good deal of the tufa used in wall +construction in Praeneste is from the quarries near Cave, as Fernique +saw.[22] + +Rocca di Cave, on a hill top behind Cave, is too insignificant a +location to have been the cause of the lower town, which at the best +does not itself occupy a very advantageous position in any way, except +that it is in the line of a trade route from lower Italy. It might be +maintained with some reason that Cave was a settlement of dissatisfied +merchants from Praeneste, who had gone out and established themselves on +the main road for the purpose of anticipating the trade, but there is +much against such an argument. + +It has been shown that there were peaceable relations between Praeneste +and Cave in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., but that the two towns +were on terms of equality is impossible, and that Cave was a dependency +of Praeneste, and in her domain, is most unlikely both topographically +and epigraphically. And more than this, just as an ancient feud can be +proved between Praeneste and Rome from the slurs on Praeneste which one +finds in literature from Plautus down,[23] if no other proofs were to be +had,[24] just so there is a very ancient grudge between Praeneste and +Cave, which has been perpetuated and is very noticeable even at the +present day.[25] + +The topography of Praeneste as to the site of the city proper, and as to +its territorial domain is then, about as follows. + +In very early times, probably as early as the ninth or tenth century +B.C., Praeneste was a town on the southern slope of Monte Glicestro,[26] +with an arx on the summit. As the town grew, it spread first to the +level ground directly below, and out along the ridge west of the Valle +di Pepe toward Marcigliano, because it was territory not only fertile +and easily defended, being directly under the very eyes of the citizens, +but also because it stretched out toward Velitrae, an old and trusted +ally.[27] + +Her next expansion was in the direction of Tibur, along the trade route +which followed the Sabine side of the Liris-Trerus valley, and this +expansion gave her a most fertile piece of territory. To insure this +against incursions from the pass which led back into the mountains, it +seems certain that Praeneste secured or perhaps colonized Capranica. + +The last Praenestine expansion in territory had a motive beyond the +acquisition of land, for it was also important from a strategical point +of view. It will be remembered that the second great trade route which +came into the Roman plain ran past Zagarolo, Passerano, and +Corcolle.[28] This road runs along a valley just below ridges which +radiate from the mountain on which Praeneste is situated, and thus +bordered the land which was by nature territory dependent upon +Praeneste.[29] So this final extension of her domain was to command this +important road. With the carrying out of this project all the ridges +mentioned above came gradually into the possession of Praneste, as +natural, expedient, and unquestioned domain, and on the ends of those +ridges which were defensible, dependent towns grew up. There was also a +town at Cavamonte above the Maremmana road, probably a village out on +the Colle dell'Oro, and undoubtedly one at Marcigliano, or in that +vicinity. + +We have already seen that across a valley and a stream of some +consequence there is a ridge not at all connected with the mountain on +which Praeneste was situated, but belonging rather to Valmontone, which +was better suited for neutral ground or to act as a buffer to the +southeast. We turn to mention this ridge again as territory +topographically outside Praeneste's domain, in order to say more +forcibly that one must cross still another valley and stream before +reaching the territory of Cave, and so Cave, although dependent upon +Praeneste, by reason of its size and interests, was not a dependent city +of Praeneste, nor was it a part of her domain.[30] + +In short, to describe Praeneste, that famous town of Latium, and her +domain in a true if homely way, she was an ancient and proud city whose +territory was a commanding mountain and a number of ridges running out +from it, which spread out like a fan all the way from the Fosso +dell'Ospedalato (the depression shown in plate II) to the Sabine +mountains on the north. + + +THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES. + +The general supposition has been that the earliest inhabitants of +Praeneste lived only in the citadel on top of the hill. This theory is +supported by the fact that there is room enough, and, as will be shown +below, there was in early times plenty of water there; nevertheless it +is certain that this was not the whole of the site of the early city. + +The earliest inhabitants of Praeneste needed first of all, safety, then +a place for pasturage, and withal, to be as close to the fertile land at +the foot of the mountain as possible. The first thing the inhabitants of +the new city did was to build a wall. There is still a little of this +oldest wall in the circuit about the citadel, and it was built at +exactly the same time as the lower part of the double walls that extend +down the southern slope of the mountain on each side of the upper part +of the modern town. It happens that by following the edges of the slope +of this southern face of the mountain down to a certain point, one +realizes that even without a wall the place would be practically +impregnable. Add to this the fact that all the stones necessary for a +wall were obtained during the scarping of the arx on the side toward the +Sabines,[31] and needed only to be rolled down, not up, to their places +in the wall, which made the task a very easy one comparatively. Now if a +place can be found which is naturally a suitable place for a lower cross +wall, we shall have what an ancient site demanded; first, safety, +because the site now proposed is just as impregnable as the citadel +itself, and still very high above the plain below; second, pasturage, +for on the slope between the lower town and the arx is the necessary +space which the arx itself hardly supplies; and third, a more reasonable +nearness to the fertile land below. All the conditions necessary are +fulfilled by a cross wall in Praeneste, which up to this time has +remained mostly unknown, often neglected or wrongly described, and +wholly misunderstood. As we shall see, however, this very wall was the +lower boundary of the earliest Praeneste. The establishment of this +important fact will remove one of the many stumbling blocks over which +earlier writers on Praeneste have fallen. + +It has been said above that the lowest part of the wall of the arx, and +the two walls from it down the mountain were built at the same time. The +accompanying plate (III) shows very plainly the course of the western +wall as it comes down the hill lining the edge of the slope where it +breaks off most sharply. Porta San Francesco, the modern gate, is above +the second tree from the right in the illustration, just where the wall +seems to turn suddenly. There is no trace of ancient wall after the gate +is passed. The white wall, as one proceeds from the gate to the right, +is the modern wall of the Franciscan monastery. All the writers on +Praeneste say that the ancient wall came on around the town where the +lower wall of the monastery now is, and followed the western limit of +the present town as far as the Porta San Martino. + +Returning now to plate II we observe a thin white line of wall which +joins a black line running off at an angle to our left. This is also a +piece of the earliest cyclopean wall, and it is built just at the +eastern edge of the hill where it falls off very sharply. + +Now if one follows the Via di San Francesco in from the gate of that +name (see plate III again) and then continues down a narrow street east +of the monastery as far as the open space in front of the church of +Santa Maria del Carmine, he will see that on his left above him the +slope of the mountain was not only precipitous by nature but that also +it has been rendered entirely unassailable by scarping.[32] From the +lower end of this steep escarpment there is a cyclopean wall, of the +same date as the upper side walls of the town, and the wall of the arx, +which runs entirely across the city to within a few yards of the wall on +the east, and to a point just below a portella, where the upper +cyclopean wall makes a slight change in direction. The presence of the +gate and the change of direction in the wall mean a corner in the wall. + +[Illustration: PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Praeneste, and +the depression which divides Monte Glicestro.] + +It is strange indeed that this wall has not been recognized for what it +really is. A bit of it shows above the steps where the Via dello +Spregato leaves the Via del Borgo. Fernique shows this much in his map, +but by a curious oversight names it opus incertum.[33] More than two +irregular courses are to be seen here, and fifteen feet in from the +street, forming the back wall of cellars and pig pens, the cyclopean +wall, in places to a height of fifteen feet or more, can be followed to +within a few yards of the open space in front of Santa Maria del +Carmine. And on the other side toward the east the same wall begins +again, after being broken by the Via dello Spregato, and forms the +foundations and side walls of the houses on the south side of that +street, and at the extreme east end is easily found as the back wall of +a blacksmith's shop at the top of the Via della Fontana, and can be +identified as cyclopean by a little cleaning of the wall. + +The circuit of the earliest cyclopean wall and natural ramparts of +the contemporaneous citadel and town of Praeneste was as follows: An arc +of cyclopean wall below the cap of the hill which swung round from the +precipitous cliff on the west to that on the east, the whole of the side +of the arx toward the mountains being so steep that no wall was +necessary; then a second loop of cyclopean wall from the arx down the +steep western edge of the southern slope of the mountain as far as the +present Porta San Francesco. From this point natural cliffs reinforced +at the upper end by a short connecting wall bring us to the beginning of +the wall which runs across the town back of the Via del Borgo from Santa +Maria del Carmine to within a short distance of the east wall of the +city, separated from it in fact only by the Via della Fontana, which +runs up just inside the wall. There it joins the cyclopean wall which +comes down from the citadel on the east side of the town. + +The reasons why this is the oldest circuit of the city's walls are the +following: first, all this stretch of wall is the oldest and was built +at the same time; second, topography has marked out most clearly that +the territory inclosed by these walls, here and only here, fulfills the +two indispensable requisites of the ancient town, namely space and +defensibility; third, below the gate San Francesco all the way round the +city as far as Porta del Sole, neither in the wall nor in the buildings, +nor in the valley below, is there any trace of cyclopean wall +stones;[34] fourth, at the point where the cross wall and the long wall +must have met at the east, the wall makes a change in direction, and +there is an ancient postern gate just above the jog in the wall; and +last, the cyclopean wall from this junction on down to near the Porta +del Sole is later than that of the circuit just described.[35] + +The city was extended within a century perhaps, and the new line of the +city wall was continued on the east in cyclopean style as far as the +present Porta del Sole, where it turned to the west and continued until +the hill itself offered enough height so that escarpment of the natural +cliff would serve in place of the wall. Then it turned up the hill +between the present Via San Biagio and Via del Carmine back of Santa +Maria del Carmine. The proof for this expansion is clear. The +continuation of the cyclopean wall can be seen now as far as the Porta +del Sole,[36] and the line of the wall which turns to the west is +positively known from the cippi of the ancient pomerium, which were +found in 1824 along the present Via degli Arconi.[37] The ancient gate, +now closed, in the opus quadratum wall under the Cardinal's garden, is +in direct line with the ancient pavement of the road which comes up to +the city from the south,[38] and the continuation of that road, which +seems to have been everywhere too steep for wagons, is the Via del +Carmine. There had always been another road outside the wall which went +up a less steep grade, and came round the angle of the wall at what is +now the Porta S. Martino, where it entered a gate that opened out of the +present Corso toward the west. When at a later time, probably in the +middle ages, the city was built out to its present boundary on the west, +the wagon road was simply arched over, and this arch is now the gate San +Martino.[39] + +It will be necessary to speak further of the cyclopean wall on the east +side of the city from the Porta del Sole to the Portella, for it has +always been supposed that this part of the wall was exactly like the +rest, and dated from the same period. But a careful examination shows +that the stones in this lower portion are laid more regularly than those +in the wall above the Portella, that they are more flatly faced on the +outside, and that here and there a little mortar is used. Above all, +however, there is in the wall on one of the stones under the house no. +24, Via della Fontana an inscription,[40] which Richter, Dressel, and +Dessau all think was there when the stone was put in the wall, and +incline to allow no very remote date for the building of the wall at +that point. To me, after a comparative study of this wall and the one at +Norba, the two seem to date from very nearly the same time, and no one +now dares attribute great antiquity to the walls of Norba. But the rest +of the cyclopean wall of Praeneste is very ancient, certainly a century, +perhaps two or three centuries, older than the part from the Portella +down. + +There remains still to be discussed the lower wall of the city on the +south, and a restraining terrace wall along part of the present Corso +Pierluigi. The stretch of city wall from the Porta del Sole clear across +the south front to the Porta di S. Martino is of opus quadratum, with +the exception of a stretch of opus incertum[41] below and east of the +Barberini gardens, and a small space where the city sewage has destroyed +all vestige of a wall. The restraining wall just mentioned is also of +opus quadratum and is to be found along the south side of the Corso, but +can be seen only from the winecellars on the terrace below that street. +These walls of opus quadratum were built with a purpose, to be sure, but +their entire meaning has not been understood.[42] + +The upper wall, the one along the Corso, can not be traced farther than +the Piazza Garibaldi, in front of the Cathedral. It has been a mistake +to consider this a high wall. It was built simply to level up with the +Corso terrace, partly to give more space on the terrace, partly to make +room for a road which ran across the city here between two gates no +longer in existence. But more especially was it built to be the lower +support for a gigantic water reservoir which extends under nearly the +whole width of this terrace from about Corso Pierluigi No. 88 almost to +the Cathedral.[43] The four sides of this great reservoir are also of +opus quadratum laid header and stretcher. + +The lower wall, the real town wall, is a wall only in appearance, for it +has but one thickness of blocks, set header and stretcher in a mass of +solid concrete.[44] This wall makes very clear the impregnability of +even the lower part of Praeneste, for the wall not only occupies a good +position, but is really a double line of defense. There are here two +walls, one above the other, the upper one nineteen feet back of the +lower, thus leaving a terrace of that width.[45] At the east, instead of +the lower solid wall of opus quadratum, there is a series of fine tufa +arches built to serve as a substructure for something. It is to be +remembered again that between the arches on the east and the solid wall +on the west is a stretch of 200 feet of opus incertum, and a space where +there is no wall at all. This lower wall of Praeneste occupies the same +line as the ancient wall and escarpment, but the most of what survives +was restored in Sulla's time. The opus quadratum is exactly the same +style as that in the Tabularium in Rome. + +Now, no one could see the width of the terrace above the lower wall, +without thinking that so great a width was unnecessary unless it was to +give room for a road.[46] The difficulty has been, however, that the +line of arches at the east, not being in alignment with the lower wall +on the west, has not been connected with it hitherto, and so a correct +understanding of their relation has been impossible. + +Before adducing evidence to show the location of the main and triumphal +entrance to Praeneste, we shall turn to the town above for a moment to +see whether it is, a priori, reasonable to suppose that there was an +entrance to the city here in the center of its front wall. If roads came +up a grade from the east and west, they would join at a point where now +there is no wall at all. This break is in the center of the south wall, +just above the forum which was laid out in Sulla's time on the level +spot immediately below the town. Most worthy of note, however, is that +this opening is straight below the main buildings of the ancient town, +the basilica, which is now the cathedral, and the temple of Fortuna. But +further, a fact which has never been noticed nor accounted for, this +opening is also in front of the modern square, the piazza Garibaldi, +which is in front of the buildings just mentioned but below them on the +next terrace, yet there is no entrance to this terrace shown.[47] It is +well known that the open space south of the temple, beside the basilica, +has an ancient pavement some ten feet below the present level of the +modern piazza Savoia.[48] Proof given below in connection with the large +tufa base which is on the level of the lower terrace will show that the +piazza Garibaldi was an open space in ancient times and a part of the +ancient forum. Again, the solarium, which is on the south face of the +basilica,[49] was put up there that it might be seen, and as it faces +the south, the piazza Garibaldi, and this open space in the wall under +discussion, what is more likely than that there was not only an open +square below the basilica, but also the main approach to the city? + +But now for the proof. In 1756 ancient paving stones were still in +situ[50] above the row of arches on the Via degli Arconi, and even yet +the ascent is plain enough to the eye. The ground slopes up rather +moderately along the Via degli Arconi toward the east, and nearly below +the southeast corner of the ancient wall turned up to the west on these +arches, approaching the entrance in the middle of the south wall of the +city.[51] But these arches and the road on them do not align exactly +with the terrace on the west. Nor should they do so. The arches are +older than the present opus quadratum wall, and the road swung round and +up to align with the road below and the old wall or escarpment of the +city above. Then when the whole town, its gates, its walls, and its +temple, were enlarged and repaired by Sulla, the upper wall was +perfectly aligned, a lower wall built on the west leaving a terrace for +a road, and the arches were left to uphold the road on the east. +Although the arches were not exactly in line, the road could well have +been so, for the terrace here was wider and ran back to the upper +wall.[52] The evidence is also positive enough that there was an ascent +to the terrace on the west, the one below the Barberini gardens, which +corresponds to the ascent on the arches. This terrace now is level, and +at its west end is some twenty feet above the garden below. But the wall +shows very plainly that it had sloped off toward the west, and the slope +is most clearly to be seen, where a very obtuse angle of newer and +different tufa has been laid to build up the wall to a level.[53] It is +to be noticed too that this terrace is the same height as the top of the +ascent above the arches. We have then actual proofs for roads leading up +from east and west toward the center of the wall on the south side of +the city, and every reason that an entrance here was practicable, +credible, and necessary. + +But there is one thing more necessary to make probabilities tally +wholly with the facts. If there was a grand entrance to the city, below +the basilica, the temple, and the main open square, which faced out over +the great forum below, there must have been a monumental gate in the +wall. As a matter of fact there was such a gate, and I believe it was +called the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. An inscription of the age of the Antonines +mentions "seminaria a Porta Triumphale," and this passing reference to a +gate with a name which in itself implies a gate of consequence, so well +known that a building placed near it at once had its location fixed, +gives the rest of the proof necessary to establish a central entrance to +the city in front, through a PORTA TRIUMPHALIS.[54] + +Before the time of Sulla there had been a gate in the south wall of the +city, approached by one road, which ascended from the east on the arches +facing the present Via degli Arconi. After entering the city one went +straight up a grade not very steep to the basilica, and to the open +square or ancient forum which was the space now occupied by the two +modern piazzas, the Garibaldi and the Savoia, and on still farther to +the temple. When Sulla rebuilt the city, and laid out a forum on the +level space directly south of and below the town, he made another road +from the west to correspond to the old ascent from the east, and brought +them together at the old central gate, which he enlarged to the PORTA +TRIUMPHALIS. In the open square in front of the basilica had stood the +statue of some famous man[55] on a platform of squared stone 16 x 17-1/2 +feet in measurement. Around this base the Sullan improvements put a +restraining wall of opus quadratum.[56] The open square was in front of +the basilica and to its left below the temple. There was but one way to +the terrace above the temple from the ancient forum. This was a steep +road to the right, up the present Via delle Scalette. Another road ran +to the left back of the basilica, but ended either in front of the +western cave connected with the temple, or at the entrance into the +precinct of the temple. + + +THE GATES. + +Strabo, in a well known passage,[57] speaks of Tibur and Praeneste as +two of the most famous and best fortified of the towns of Latium, and +tells why Praeneste is the more impregnable, but we have no mention of +its gates in literature, except incidentally in Plutarch,[58] who says +that when Marius was flying before Sulla's forces and had reached +Praeneste, he found the gates closed, and had to be drawn up the wall by +a rope. The most ancient reference we have to a definite gate is to the +Porta Triumphalis, in the inscription just mentioned, and this is the +only gate of Praeneste mentioned by name in classic times. + +In 1353 A.D. we have two gates mentioned. The Roman tribune Cola di +Rienzo (Niccola di Lorenzo) brought his forces out to attack Stefaniello +Colonna in Praeneste. It was not until Rienzo moved his camp across from +the west to the east side of the plain below the town that he saw how +the citizens were obtaining supplies. The two gates S. Cesareo and S. +Francesco[59] were both being utilized to bring in supplies from the +mountains back of the city, and the stock was driven to and from pasture +through these gates. These gates were both ancient, as will be shown +below. Again in 1448 when Stefano Colonna rebuilt some walls after the +awful destruction of the city by Cardinal Vitelleschi, he opened three +gates, S. Cesareo, del Murozzo, and del Truglio.[60] In 1642[61] two +more gates were opened by Prince Taddeo Barberini, the Porta del Sole, +and the Porta delle Monache, the former at the southeast corner of the +town, the latter in the east wall at the point where the new wall round +the monastery della Madonna degl'Angeli struck the old city wall, just +above the present street where it turns from the Via di Porta del Sole +into the Corso Pierluigi. This Porta del Sole[62] was the principal gate +of the town at this time, or perhaps the one most easily defended, for +in 1656, during the plague in Rome, all the other gates were walled up, +and this one alone left open.[63] + +The present gates of the city are: one, at the southeast corner, the +Porta del Sole; two, near the southwest corner, where the wall turns up +toward S. Martino, a gate now closed;[64] three, Porta S. Martino, at +the southwest corner of the town; on the west side of the city, none at +all; four, Porta S. Francesco at the northwest corner of the city +proper; five, a gate in the arx wall, now closed,[65] beside the +mediaeval gate, which is just at the head of the depression shown in +plate III, the lowest point in the wall of the citadel; on the east, +Porta S. Cesareo, some distance above the town, six; seven, Porta dei +Cappuccini, which is on the same terrace as Porta S. Francesco; eight, +Portella, the eastern outlet of the Via della Portella; nine, a postern +just below the Portella, and not now in use;[66] ten, Porta delle +Monache or Santa Maria, in front of the church of that name. The most +ancient of these, and the ones which were in the earliest circle of the +cyclopean wall, are five in number: Porta S. Francesco,[67] the gate +into the arx, Porta S. Cesareo,[68] Porta dei Cappuccini, and the +postern at the corner where the early cyclopean cross wall struck the +main wall. + +The second wall of the city, which was rather an enlargement of the +first, was cyclopean on the east as far as the present Porta del Sole, +and either scarped cliff or opus quadratum round to Porta S. Martino, +and up to Porta S. Francesco.[69] At the east end of the modern Corso, +there was a gate, made of opus quadratum,[70] as is shown not only by +the fact that this is the main street of the city, and on the terrace +level of the basilica, but also because the mediaeval wall round the +monastery of the Madonna degl'Angeli, the grounds of the present church +of Santa Maria, did not run straight to the cyclopean wall, but turned +down to join it near the gate which it helps to prove. Next, there was a +gate, but in all probability only a postern, near the Porta del Sole +where the cyclopean wall stops, where now there is a narrow street which +runs up to the piazza Garibaldi. On the south there was the gate which +at some time was given the name Porta Triumphalis. It was at the place +where now there is no wall at all.[71] At the southwest we find the next +gate, the one which is now closed.[72] The last one of the ancient gates +in this second circle of the city wall was one just inside the modern +Porta S. Martino, which opened west at the end of the Corso. All the +rest of the gates are mediaeval. + +A few words about the roads leading to the several gates of Praeneste +will help further to settle the antiquity of these gates.[73] The oldest +road was certainly the trade route which came up the north side of the +Liris valley below the hill on which Praeneste was situated, and which +followed about the line of the Via Praenestina as shown by Ashby in his +map.[74] Two branch roads from this main track ran up to the town, one +at the west, the other at the east, both in the same line as the modern +roads. These roads were bound for the city gates as a matter of course +and the land slopes least sharply where these roads were and still are. +Another important road was outside the city wall, from one gate to the +other, and took the slope on the south side of the city where the Via +degli Arconi now runs.[75] + +As far as excavations have proved up to this time, the oldest road out +of Praeneste is that which is now the Via della Marcigliana, along which +were found the very early tombs. It is to be noted that these tombs +begin beyond the church of S. Rocco, which is a long distance below the +town. This distance however makes it certain that between S. Rocco and +the city, excavation will bring to light other and yet older tombs along +the road which leads up toward "l'antica porta S. Martino chiusa," and +also in all probability rows of graves will be found along the present +road to Cave. But the tombs give us the direction at least of the old +road.[76] + +There is yet another old road which was lately discovered. It is about +three hundred yards below the city and near the road that cuts through +from Porta del Sole to the church of Madonna dell'Aquila.[77] This road +is made of polygonal stones of the limestone of the mountain, and hence +is older than any of the lava roads. It runs nearly parallel with the +Via degli Arconi, and takes a direction which would strike the Via +Praenestina where it crosses the Via Praenestina Nuova which runs past +Zagarolo. That is, the most ancient piece of road we have leads up to +the southeast corner of the town, but the oldest tombs point to a road +the direction of which was toward the southwest corner. However, all the +roads lead toward the southeast corner, where the old grade began that +went up above the arches, mentioned above, to a middle gate of the city. + +The gate S. Francesco also is proved to be ancient because of the old +road that led from it. This road is identified by a deposit of ex voto +terracottas which were found at the edge of the road in a hole hollowed +out in the rocks.[78] + +The two roads which were traveled the most were the ones that led toward +Rome. This is shown by the tombs on both sides of them,[79] and by the +discovery of a deposit of a great quantity of ex voto terracottas in +the angle between the two.[80] + + +THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRAENESTE. + +In very early times there was a spring near the top of Monte Glicestro. +This is shown by a glance back at plate III, which indicates the +depression or cut in the hill, which from its shape and depth is clearly +not altogether natural and attributable to the effects of rain, but is +certainly the effect of a spring, the further and positive proof of the +existence of which is shown by the unnecessarily low dip made by the +wall of the citadel purposely to inclose the head of this depression. +There are besides no water reservoirs inside the wall of the arx. This +supply of water, however, failed, and it must have failed rather early +in the city's history, perhaps at about the time the lower part of the +city was walled in, for the great reservoir on the Corso terrace seems +to be contemporary with this second wall. + +But at all times Praeneste was dependent upon reservoirs for a sure and +lasting supply of water. The mountain and the town were famous because +of the number of water reservoirs there.[81] A great many of these +reservoirs were dependent upon catchings from the rain,[82] but before +a war, or when the rainfall was scant, they were filled undoubtedly from +springs outside the city. In later times they were connected with the +aqueducts which came to the city from beyond Capranica. + +It is easy to account now for the number of gates on the east side of +the city. True, this side of the wall lay away from the Campagna, and +egress from gates on this side could not be seen by an enemy unless he +moved clear across the front of the city.[83] But the real reason for +the presence of so many gates is that the best and most copious springs +were on this side of the city, as well as the course of the little +headstream of the Trerus. The best concealed egress was from the Porta +Cesareo, from which a road led round back of the mountain to a fine +spring, which was high enough above the valley to be quite safe. + +There are no references in literature to aqueducts which brought water +to Praeneste. Were we left to this evidence alone, we should conclude +that Praeneste had depended upon reservoirs for water. But in +inscriptions we have mention of baths,[84] the existence of which +implies aqueducts, and there is the specus of an aqueduct to be seen +outside the Porta S. Francesco.[85] This ran across to the Colle S. +Martino to supply a large brick reservoir of imperial date.[86] There +were aqueducts still in 1437, for Cardinal Vitelleschi captured +Palestrina by cutting off its water supply.[87] This shows that the +water came from outside the city, and through aqueducts which probably +dated back to Roman times,[88] and also that the reservoirs were at this +time no longer used. In 1581 the city undertook to restore the old +aqueduct which brought water from back of Capranica, but no description +was left of its exact course or ancient construction.[89] While these +repairs were in progress, Francesco Cecconi leased to the city his +property called Terreni, where there were thirty fine springs of clear +water not far from the city walls. Again in 1776 the springs called +delle cannuccete sent in dirty water to the city, so citizens were +appointed to remedy matters. They added a new spring to those already in +use and this water came to the city through an aqueduct.[90] + +The remains of four great reservoirs, all of brick construction, are +plainly enough to be seen at Palestrina, and as far as situation and +size are concerned, are well enough described in other places.[91] But +in the case of these reservoirs, as in that of all the other remains of +ancient construction at Praeneste, the writers on the history of the +town have made great mistakes, because all of them have been predisposed +to the pleasant task of making all the ruins fit some restoration or +other of the temple of Fortuna, although, as a matter of fact, none of +the reservoirs have any connection whatever with the temple.[92] The +fine brick reservoir of the time of Tiberius,[93] which is at the +junction of the Via degli Arconi and the road from the Porta S. Martino, +was not built to supply fountains or baths in the forum below, but was +simply a great supply reservoir for the citizens who lived in particular +about the lower forum, and the water from this reservoir was carried +away by hand, as is shown by the two openings like well heads in the top +of each compartment of the reservoir, and by the steps which gave +entrance to it on the east. The reservoir above this in the Barberini +gardens is of a date a half century later.[94] It is of the same brick +work as the great fountain which stands, now debased to a grist mill, +across the Via degli Arconi about half way between S. Lucia and Porta +del Sole. The upper reservoir undoubtedly supplied this fountain, and +other public buildings in the forum below. There is another large brick +reservoir below the present ground level in the angle between the Via +degli Arconi and the Cave road below the Porta del Sole, but it is too +low ever to have served for public use. It was in connection with some +private bath. The fourth huge reservoir, the one on Colle S. Martino, +has already been mentioned. + +But the most ancient of all the reservoirs is one which is not mentioned +anywhere. It dates from the time when the Corso terrace was made, and is +of opus quadratum like the best of the wall below the city, and the wall +on the lower side of the terrace.[95] This reservoir, like the one in +the Barberini garden, served the double purpose of a storage for water, +and of a foundation for the terrace, which, being thus widened, offered +more space for street and buildings above. It lies west of the basilica, +but has no connection with the temple. From its position it seems rather +to have been one of the secret public water supplies.[96] + +Praeneste had in early times only one spring within the city walls, +just inside the gate leading into the arx. There were other springs on +the mountain to the east and northeast, but too far away to be included +within the walls. Because of their height above the valley, they were to +a certain extent available even in times of warfare and siege. As the +upper spring dried up early, and the others were a little precarious, an +elaborate system of reservoirs was developed, a plan which the natural +terraces of the mountain slope invited, and a plan which gave more space +to the town itself with the work of leveling necessary for the +reservoirs. These reservoirs were all public property. They were at +first dependent upon collection from rains or from spring water carried +in from outside the city walls. Later, however, aqueducts were made and +connected with the reservoirs. + +With the expansion of the town to the plain below, this system gave +great opportunity for the development of baths, fountains, and +waterworks,[97] for Praeneste wished to vie with Tibur and Rome, where +the Anio river and the many aqueducts had made possible great things for +public use and municipal adornment. + + +THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA. + +Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam.[98] In this +way Cicero reports a popular saying which makes clear the fame of the +goddess Fortuna Primigenia and her temple at Praeneste.[99] + +The excavations at Praeneste in the eighteenth century brought the city +again into prominence, and from that time to the present, Praeneste has +offered much material for archaeologists and historians. + +But the temple of Fortuna has constituted the principal interest and +engaged the particular attention of everyone who has worked upon the +history of the town, because the early enthusiastic view was that the +temple occupied the whole slope of the mountain,[100] and that the +present city was built on the terraces and in the ruins of the temple. +Every successive study, however, of the city from a topographical point +of view has lessened more and more the estimated size of the temple, +until now all that can be maintained successfully is that there are two +separate temples built at different times, the later and larger one +occupying a position two terraces higher than the older and more +important temple below. + +The lower temple with its precinct, along the north side of which +extends a wall and the ruins of a so-called cryptoporticus which +connected two caves hollowed out in the rock, is not so very large a +sanctuary, but it occupies a very good position above and behind the +ancient forum and basilica on a terrace cut back into the solid rock of +the mountain. The temple precinct is a courtyard which extends along the +terrace and occupies its whole width from the older cave on the west to +the newer one at the east. In front of the latter cave is built the +temple itself, which faces west along the terrace, but extends its +southern facade to the edge of the ancient forum which it overlooks. +This temple is older than the time of Sulla, and occupies the site of an +earlier temple. + +Two terraces higher, on the Cortina terrace, stretch out the ruins of a +huge construction in opus incertum. This building had at least two +stories of colonnade facing the south, and at the north side of the +terrace a series of arches above which in the center rose a round temple +which was approached by a semicircular flight of steps.[101] This +building, belonging to the time of Sulla, presented a very imposing +appearance from the forum below the town. It has no connection with the +lower temple unless perhaps by underground passages. + +Although this new temple and complex of buildings was much larger and +costlier than the temple below, it was so little able to compete with +the fame of the ancient shrine, that until mediaeval times there is not +a mention of it anywhere by name or by suggestion, unless perhaps in one +inscription mentioned below. The splendid publication of Delbrueck[102] +with maps and plans and bibliography of the lower temple and the work +which has been done on it, makes unnecessary any remarks except on some +few points which have escaped him. + +The tradition was that a certain Numerius Suffustius of Praeneste was +warned in dreams to cut into the rocks at a certain place, and this he +did before his mocking fellow citizens, when to the bewilderment of them +all pieces of wood inscribed with letters of the earliest style leaped +from the rock. The place where this phenomenon occurred was thus proved +divine, the cult of Fortuna Primigenia was established beyond +peradventure, and her oracular replies to those who sought her shrine +were transmitted by means of these lettered blocks.[103] This story +accounts for a cave in which the lots (sortes) were to be consulted. + +But there are two caves. The reason why there are two has never been +shown, nor does Delbrueck have proof enough to settle which is the older +cave.[104] + +The cave to the west is made by Delbrueck the shrine of Iuppiter puer, +and the temple with its cave at the east, the aedes Fortunae. This he +does on the authority of his understanding of the passage from Cicero +which gives nearly all the written information we have on the subject of +the temple.[105] Delbrueck bases his entire argument on this passage and +two other references to a building called aedes.[106] Now it was Fortuna +who was worshipped at Praeneste, and not Jupiter. Although there is an +intimate connection between Jupiter and Fortuna at Praeneste, because +she was thought of at different times as now the mother and now the +daughter of Jupiter, still the weight of evidence will not allow any +such importance to be attached to Iuppiter puer as Delbrueck +wishes.[107] + +The two caves were not made at the same time. This is proved by the +fact that the basilica[108] is below and between them. Had there been +two caves at the earliest time, with a common precinct as a connection +between them, as there was later, there would have been power enough in +the priesthood to keep the basilica from occupying the front of the +place which would have been the natural spot for a temple or for the +imposing facade of a portico. The western cave is the earlier, but it is +the earlier not because it was a shrine of Iuppiter puer, but because +the ancient road which came through the forum turned up to it, because +it is the least symmetrical of the two caves, and because the temple +faced it, and did not face the forum. + +The various plans of the temple[109] have usually assumed like buildings +in front of each cave, and a building, corresponding to the basilica, +between them and forming an integral part of the plan. But the basilica +does not quite align with the temple, and the road back of the basilica +precludes any such idea, not to mention the fact that no building the +size of a temple was in front of the west cave. It is the mania for +making the temple cover too large a space, and the desire to show that +all its parts were exactly balanced on either side, and that this +triangular shaped sanctuary culminated in a round temple, this it is +that has caused so much trouble with the topography of the city. The +temple, as it really is, was larger perhaps than any other in Latium, +and certainly as imposing. + +Delbrueck did not see that there was a real communication between the +caves along the so-called cryptoporticus. There is a window-like hole, +now walled up, in the east cave at the top, and it opened out upon the +second story of the cryptoporticus, as Marucchi saw.[110] So there was +an unseen means of getting from one cave to the other. This probably +proves that suppliants at one shrine went to the other and were there +convinced of the power of the goddess by seeing the same priest or +something which they themselves had offered at the first shrine. It +certainly proves that both caves were connected with the rites having to +do with the proper obtaining of lots from Fortuna, and that this +communication between the caves was unknown to any but the temple +servants. + +There are some other inscriptions not noticed by Delbrueck which mention +the aedes,[111] and bear on the question in hand. One inscription found +in the Via delle Monache[112] shows that in connection with the sedes +Fortunae were a manceps and three cellarii. This is an inscription of +the last of the second or the first of the third century A.D.,[113] when +both lower and upper temples were in very great favor. It shows further +that only the lower temple is meant, for the number is too small to be +applicable to the great upper temple, and it also shows that aedes, +means the temple building itself and not the whole precinct. There is +also an inscription, now in the floor of the cathedral, that mentions +aedes. Its provenience is noteworthy.[114] There were other buildings, +however, belonging to the precinct of the lower temple, as is shown by +the remains today.[115] That there was more than one sacred building is +also shown by inscriptions which mention aedes sacrae,[116] though +these may refer of course to the upper temple as well. + +There are yet two inscriptions of importance, one of which mentions a +porticus, the other an aedes et porticus.[117] The second of these +inscriptions belongs to a time not much later than the founding of the +colony. It tells that certain work was done by decree of the decuriones, +and it can hardly refer to the ancient lower temple, but must mean +either the upper one, or still another out on the new forum, for there +is where the stone is reported to have been found. The first inscription +records a work of some consequence done by a woman in remembrance of her +husband.[118] There are no remains to show that the forum below the town +had any temple of such consequence, so it seems best to refer both these +inscriptions to the upper temple, which, as we know, was rich in +marble.[119] + +Now after having brought together all the usages of the word aedes in +its application to the temple of Praeneste, it seems that Delbrueck has +very small foundation for his argument which assumes as settled the +exact meaning and location of the aedes Fortunae. + +From the temple itself we turn now to a brief discussion of a space on +the tufa wall which helps to face the cave on the west. This is a +smoothed surface which shows a narrow cornice ledge above it, and a +narrow base below. In it are a number of irregularly driven holes. +Delbrueck calls it a votive niche,[120] and says that the "viele +regellos verstreute Nagelloecher" are due to nails upon which votive +offerings were suspended. + +This seems quite impossible. The holes are much too irregular to have +served such a purpose. The holes show positively that they were made by +nails which held up a slab of some kind, perhaps of marble, on which +were displayed the replies from the goddess[121] which were too long to +be given by means of the lettered blocks (sortes). Most likely, however, +it was a marble slab or bronze tablet which contained the lex templi, +and was something like the tabula Veliterna.[122] + +On the floor of the two caves were two very beautiful mosaics, one of +which is now in the Barberini palace, the other, which is in a sadly +mutilated condition, still on the floor of the west cave. The date of +these mosaics has been a much discussed question. Marucchi puts it at +the end of the second century A.D., while Delbrueck makes it the early +part of the first century B.C., and thinks the mosaics were the gift of +Sulla. Delbrueck does not make his point at all, and Marucchi is carried +too far by a desire to establish a connection at Praeneste between +Fortuna and Isis.[123] Not to go into a discussion of the date of the +Greek lettering which gives the names of the animals portrayed in the +finer mosaic, nor the subject of the mosaic itself,[124] the inscription +given above[118] should help to settle the date of the mosaic. Under +Claudius, between the years 51 and 54 A.D., a portico was decorated with +marble and a coating of marble facing. That this was a very splendid +ornamentation is shown by the fact that it is mentioned so particularly +in the inscription. And if in 54 A.D. marble and marble facing were +things so worthy of note, then certainly one hundred and thirty years +earlier there was no marble mosaic floor in Praeneste like the one under +discussion, which is considered the finest large piece of Roman mosaic +in existence. And it was fifty years later than the date Delbrueck +wishes to assign to this mosaic, before marble began to be used in any +great profusion in Rome, and at this time Praeneste was not in advance +of Rome. The mosaic, therefore, undoubtedly dates from about the time of +Hadrian, and was probably a gift to the city when he built himself a +villa below the town.[125] + +Finally, a word with regard to the aerarium. This is under the temple of +Fortuna, but is not built with any regard to the facade of the temple +above. The inscription on the back wall of the chamber is earlier than +the time of Sulla,[126] and the position of this little vault[127] +shows that it was a treasury connected with the basilica, indeed its +close proximity about makes it part of that building and proves that it +was the storehouse for public funds and records. It occupied a very +prominent place, for it was at the upper end of the old forum, directly +in front of the Sacra Via that came up past the basilica from the Porta +Triumphalis. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the earliest +city forum grew up on the terrace in front of the place where the +mysterious lots had leaped out of the living rock. A basilica was built +in a prominent place in the northwest corner of the forum. Later, +another wonderful cave was discovered or made, and at such a distance +from the first one that a temple in front of it would have a facing on +the forum beyond the basilica, and this also gave a space of ground +which was leveled off into a terrace above the basilica and the forum, +and made into a sacred precinct. Because the basilica occupied the +middle front of the temple property, the temple was made to face west +along the terrace, toward the more ancient cave. The sacred precinct in +front of the temple and between the caves was enclosed, and had no +entrance except at the west end where the Sacra Via ended, which was in +front of the west cave. Before the temple, facing the sacred inclosure +was the pronaos mentioned in the inscription above,[128] and along each +side of this inclosure ran a row of columns, and probably one also on +the west side. Both caves and the temple were consecrated to the service +of Fortuna Primigenia, the tutelary goddess of Praeneste. Both caves and +an earlier temple, which occupied part of the site of the present one, +belong to the early life of Praeneste. + +Sulla built a huge temple on the second terrace higher than the old +temple, but its fame and sanctity were never comparable to its beauty +and its pretensions.[129] + + +THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. + + +AEDICULA, C.I.L., XIV, 2908. + +From the provenience of the inscription this building, not necessarily a +sacred one (Dessau), was one of the many structures on the site of the +new Forum below the town. + + +PUBLICA AEDIFICIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2919, 3032. + +Barbarus Pompeianus about 227 A.D. restored a number of public buildings +which had begun to fall to pieces. A mensor aed(ificiorum) (see Dict. +under sarcio) is mentioned in C.I.L., XIV, 3032. + + +AEDES ET PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2980. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AEDES, C.I.L., XIV, 2864, 2867, 3007. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AEDES SACRAE, C.I.L., XIV, 2922, 4091, 9== Annali dell'Inst., 1855, p. +86. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AERARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2975; Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 207; Marucchi, +Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 252; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 504; best and +latest, Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, I, p. 58. + +The points worth noting are: that this aerarium is not built with +reference to the temple above, and that it faces out on the public +square. These points have been discussed more at length above, and will +receive still more attention below under the caption "FORUM." + + +AMPHITHEATRUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3010, 3014; Juvenal, III, 173; Ovid, A.A., +I, 103 ff. + +The remains found out along the Valmontone road[130] coincide nearly +enough with the provenience of the inscription to settle an amphitheatre +here of late imperial date. The tradition of the death of the martyr S. +Agapito in an amphitheatre, and the discovery of a Christian church on +the Valmontone road, have helped to make pretty sure the identification +of these ruins.[131] + +We know also from an inscription that there was a gladiatorial school at +Praeneste.[132] + + +BALNEAE, C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add. + +The so-called nymphaeum, the brick building below the Via degli Arconi, +mentioned page 41, seems to have been a bath as well as a fountain, +because of the architectural fragments found there[133] when it was +turned into a mill by the Bonanni brothers. The reservoir mentioned +above on page 41 must have belonged also to a bath, and so do the ruins +which are out beyond the villa under which the modern cemetery now is. +From their orientation they seem to belong to the villa. There were also +baths on the hill toward Gallicano, as the ruins show.[134] + + +BYBLIOTHECAE, C.I.L., XIV, 2916. + +These seem to have been two small libraries of public and private law +books.[135] They were in the Forum, as the provenience of the +inscription shows. + + +CIRCUS, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 75, n. 32. + +Cecconi thought there was a circus at the bottom of the depression +between Colle S. Martino and the hill of Praeneste. The depression does +have a suspiciously rounded appearance below the Franciscan grounds, but +a careful examination made by me shows no trace of cutting in the rock +to make a half circle for seats, no traces of any use of the slope for +seats, and no ruins of any kind. + + +CULINA, C.I.L., XIV, 3002. + +This was a building of some consequence. Two quaestors of the city +bought a space of ground 148-1/2 by 16 feet along the wall, and +superintended the building of a culina there. The ground was made +public, and the whole transaction was done by decree of the senate, that +is, it was done before the time of Sulla. + + +CURIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2924. + +The fact that a statue was to be set up (ve)l ante curiam vel in +porticibus for(i) would seem to imply that the curia was in the lower +Forum. The inscription shows that these two places were undoubtedly the +most desirable places that a statue could have. There is a possibility +that the curia may be the basilica on the Corso terrace of the city. It +has been shown that an open space existed in front of the basilica, and +that in it there is at least one basis for a statue. Excavations[136] at +the ruins which were once thought to be the curia of ancient Praeneste +showed instead of a hemicycle, a straight wall built on remains of a +more ancient construction of rectangular blocks of tufa with three +layers of pavement 4-1/2 feet below the level of the ground, under which +was a tomb of brick construction, and lower still a wall of opus +quadratum of tufa, certainly none of the remains belonging to a curia. + +[Illustration: PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end +of the Basilica.] + +FORUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3015. + +The most ancient forum of Praeneste was inside the city walls. It was in +this forum that the statue of M. Anicius, the famous praetor, was set +up.[137] The writers hitherto, however, have been entirely mistaken, in +my opinion, as to the extent of the ancient forum. For the old forum was +not an open space which is now represented by the Piazza Savoia of the +modern town, as is generally accepted, but the ancient forum of +Praeneste was that piazza and the piazza Garibaldi and the space between +them, now built over with houses, all combined. At the present time one +goes down some steps in front of the cathedral, which was the basilica, +to the Piazza Garibaldi, and it has been supposed that this open space +belonged to a terrace below the Corso. But there was no lower terrace +there. The upper part of the forum simply has been more deeply buried in +debris than the lower part. + +One needs only to see the new excavations at the upper end of the Piazza +Savoia to realize that the present ground level of the piazza is nearly +nine feet higher than the pavement of the old forum. The accompanying +illustration (plate IV) shows the pavement, which is limestone, not +lava, that comes up the slope along the east side of the basilica,[138] +and turns round it to the west. A cippus stands at the corner to do the +double duty of defining the limits of the basilica, and to keep the +wheels of wagons from running up on the steps. It can be seen clearly +that the lowest step is one stone short of the cippus, that the next +step is on a level with the pavement at the cippus, and the next step +level again with the pavement four feet beyond it. The same grade would +give us about twelve or fifteen steps at the south end of the basilica, +and if continued to the Piazza Garibaldi, would put us below the present +level of that piazza. From this piazza on down through the garden of the +Petrini family to the point where the existence of a Porta Triumphalis +has been proved, the grade would not be even as steep as it was in the +forum itself. Further, to show that the lower piazza is even yet +accessible from the upper, despite its nine feet more of fill, if one +goes to the east end of the Piazza Savoia he finds there instead of +steps, as before the basilica, a street which leads down to the level of +the Piazza Garibaldi, and although it begins at the present level of the +upper piazza, it is not even now too steep for wagons. Again, one must +remember that the opus quadratum wall which extends along the south side +of the Corso does not go past the basilica, and also that there is a +basis for a statue of some kind in front of the basilica on the level of +the Piazza Garibaldi. + +It is a question whether the ancient forum was entirely paved. The +paving can be seen along the basilica, and it has been seen back of +it,[139] but this pavement belongs to another hitherto unknown part of +Praenestine topography, namely, a SACRA VIA. An inscription to an +aurufex de sacra via[140] makes certain that there was a road in +Praeneste to which this name was given. The inscription was found in the +courtyard of the Seminary, which was the precinct of the temple of +Fortuna. From the fact that this pavement is laid with blocks such as +are always used in roads, from the cippus at the corner of the basilica +to keep off wagon wheels, from the fact that this piece of pavement is +in direct line from the central gate of the town, and last from the +inscription and its provenience, I conclude that we have in this +pavement a road leading directly from the Porta Triumphalis through the +forum, alongside the basilica, then turning back of it and continuing +round to the delubra and precinct of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, +and that this road is the SACRA VIA of Praeneste.[141] + +At the upper end of the forum under the south façade of the temple, an +excavation was made in April 1907,[142] which is of great interest and +importance in connection with the forum. In Plate V we see that there +are three steps of tufa,[143] and observe that the space in front of +them is not paved; also that the ascent to the right, which is the only +way out of the forum at this corner, is too steep to have been ever more +than for ascent on foot. But it is up this steep and narrow way[144] +that every one had to go to reach the terrace above the temple, unless +he went across to the west side of the city. + +The steps just mentioned are not the beginning of an ascent to the +temple, for there were but three, and besides there was no entrance to +the temple on the south.[145] Nor was the earlier temple much lower than +the later one, for in either case the foundation was the rock surface of +the terrace and has not changed much. Although these steps are of an +older construction than the steps of the basilica, yet they were not +covered up in late imperial times as is shown by the brick construction +in the plate. One is tempted to believe that there was a Doric portico +below the engaged Corinthian columns of the south façade of the +temple.[146] But all the pieces of Doric columns found belong to the +portico of the basilica. Otherwise one might try to set up further +argument for a portico, and even claim that here was the place that the +statue was set up, ante curiam vel in por ticibus fori.[147] Again, +these steps run far past the temple to the east, otherwise we might +conclude that they were to mark the extent of temple property. The fact, +however, that a road, the Sacra Via, goes round back of the basilica +only to the left, forces us to conclude that these steps belong to the +city, not to the temple in any way, and that they mark the north side of +the ancient forum. + +The new forum below the city is well enough attested by inscriptions +found there mentioning statues and buildings in the forum. The tradition +has continued that here on the level space below the town was the great +forum. Inscriptions which have been found in different places on this +tract of ground mention five buildings,[148] ten statues of public +men,[149] the statue set up to the emperor Trajan on his birthday, +September 18, 101 A.D.,[150] and one to the emperor Julian.[151] The +discovery of two pieces of the Praenestine fasti in 1897 and 1903[152] +also helps to locate the lower forum.[153] + +[Illustration: PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient +Forum of Praeneste.] + +The forum inside the city walls was the forum of Praeneste, the ally of +Rome, the more pretentious one below the city was the forum of +Praeneste, the Roman colony of Sulla. + + +IUNONARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2867. + +Delbrueck follows Preller[154] in making the Iunonarium a part of the +temple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have a statue of Trivia dedicated +in a Iunonarium, but it is stranger that there are no inscriptions among +those from Praeneste which mention Juno, except that the name alone +appears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes,[155] and as the +provenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions mean nothing. +It seems that the Iunonarium must have been somewhere in the west end of +the temple precinct of Fortuna. + + +KASA CUI VOCABULUM EST FULGERITA, C.I.L., XIV, 2934. + +This is an inscription which mentions a property inside the domain of +Praeneste in a region, which in 385 A.D., was called regio +Campania,[156] but it can not be located. + + +LACUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2998; Not. d. Scavi, 1902, p. 12. LAVATIO, C.I.L., +XIV, 2978, 2979, 3015. + +These three inscriptions were found in places so far from one another +that they may well refer to three lavationes. + + +LUDUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3014. + +See amphitheatrum. + + +MACELLUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2937, 2946. + +These inscriptions were found along the Via degli Arconi, and from the +fact that in 243 A.D. (C.I.L. XIV, 2972) there was a region (regio) by +that name, I should conclude that the lower part of the town below the +wall was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was divided +into four quarters,[157] which may well represent ancient tradition. + + +MACERIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3314, 3340. + +Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 87. + + +MASSA PRAE(NESTINA), C.I.L., XIV, 2934. + + +MURUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3002. + +See above, pages 22 ff. + + +PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2850. + +See above, page 32. + + +PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2995. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +QUADRIGA, C.I.L., XIV, 2986. + + +SACRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2900. + + +SCHOLA FAUSTINIANA, C.I.L., XIV, 2901; C.I.G., 5998. + +Fernique (Étude sur Préneste, p. 119) thinks this the building the ruins +of which are of brick and called a temple, near the Ponte dell' +Ospedalato, but this is impossible. The date of the brick work is all +much later than the date assigned to it by him, and much later than the +name itself implies. + + +SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C.I.L., XIV, 2850. + + +This building was just inside the gate which was in the center of the +south wall of Praeneste, directly below the ancient forum and basilica. + + +SOLARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3323. + + +SPOLIARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3014. + +See Amphitheatrum. + + +TEMPLUM SARAPIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2901. + + +TEMPLUM HERCULIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2891, 2892; Not. d. Scavi, 11 +(1882-1883), p. 48. + +This temple was a mile or more distant from the city, in the territory +now known as Bocce di Rodi, and was situated on the little road which +made a short cut between the two great roads, the Praenestina and the +Labicana. + + +SACRA VIA, Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49. + +In the discussions on the temple and the forum, pages 42 and 54, I think +it is proved that the Sacra Via of Praeneste was the ancient road which +extended from the Porta Triumphalis up through the Forum, past the +Basilica and round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct and +temple of Fortuna Primigenia. + + +VIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3001, 3343. Viam sternenda(m). + +In inscription No. 3343 we have supra viam parte dex(tra), and from the +provenience of the stone we get a proof that the old road which led out +through the Porta S. Francesco was so well known that it was called +simply "via." + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +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,[158] 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.[159] + +As head of a league of nine cities,[160] and allied with Tibur, which +also headed a small confederacy,[161] Praeneste felt herself strong +enough to defy the other cities of the league,[162] 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;[163] +she showed her jealousy of Praeneste by refusing to allow Quintus +Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punic +war.[164] This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader of +a contingent from Praeneste was treated by a Roman dictator[165] 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.[166] Praeneste scornfully refused +Roman citizenship in 216 B.C., when it was offered.[167] 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,[168] nor +did Praeneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honored +as was Cato from Tusculum,[169] although one branch of the gens +Anicia[170] 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.[171] 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,[172] 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.[173] + +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,[174] 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.[175] 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.[176] 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.[177] + +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[178] both Praeneste and Tibur +had aediles and quaestors, but Tibur also had censors,[179] Praeneste +did not. Lavinium[180] and Praeneste were alike in that they both had +praetors. There were dictators in Aricia,[181] Lanuvium,[182] +Nomentum,[183] and Tusculum,[184] 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.[185] The praetor +was in camp as leader of the contingent of allies from Praeneste,[186] +and the fact that a praetor was in command of the troops sent from +allied towns[187] 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,[188] 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."[189] Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two +praetors,[190] 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,[191] and that such an arrangement was +more satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator[192] at its head +at some time,[193] 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,[194] and +the municipal officers were praetors,[195] aediles,[196] and +quaestors,[197] as we know certainly from inscriptions. In the +literature, a praetor is mentioned in 319 B.C.,[198] in 216 B.C.,[199] +and again in 173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the +magistrates of an allied city.[200] 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.[201] + +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,[202] 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.[203] + +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.[204] 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.[205] + +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[206] +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,[207] but continued to hold the right of a sovereign +city, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,[208] in common with Tibur +and Naples,[209] 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.[210] +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.[211] +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.[212] 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,[213] 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.[214] Mommsen-Marquardt say[215] 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).[216] 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.[217] 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.[218] 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.[219] 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,[220] and the great amount of its land[221] 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;[222] second, the use of the word +municipium in literature in connection with Praeneste is general, and +means simply "town";[223] 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,[224] which he +did,[225] but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular +city officials of a colony,[226] shows clearly that the Praenestines +simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered from +a severe illness at Praeneste[227] 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.[228] 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,[229] 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.,[56] 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,[230] 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,[231] +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.[232] 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.[233] +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,[234] 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[235] 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[236] 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.[237] +Two others[81] are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of several +peculiarities,[239] and one other, a fragment, belongs to still another +calendar.[240] 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[238] +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.[241] 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,[80] both forms are found, while in the year 31 A.D. in +the municipal fasti of Nola[242] are found II vir(i) iter(um) +q(uinquennales), and in 29 B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,[243] +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.[244] 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.[245] This duty was performed by the +duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power.[246] +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[247] 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.[248] Early in the life of the colony, immediately after its +settlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's +monuments,[249] 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[250] mentioned in the fragment above (see note 83), there +are practically no people of that name found in Praeneste,[251] 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.[252] + + +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.[253] 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.[254] 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.[255] 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,[256] and just such an arrangement is also found in +the aediles, Sex. Caesius being a Praenestine[257], 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.[258] C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, +duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in another +inscription,[259] 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,[260] and Statiolenus[261] 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.[262] 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.[263] 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.[264] In fact the +same name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions.[265] 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.[266] Capivas is at least not a +Roman name,[267] 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[268] is a name not found elsewhere in the +Latian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,[269] and +is found also in Pompeii[270] and Puteoli.[271] 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.[272] 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)[273] 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,[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 +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,[279] 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[280] 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[281] or Ostia,[282] 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[283] 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.[284] The only other men who attained the quinquennial +rank in Praeneste 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 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.[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 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.[288] + +From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers' +union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,[289] 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,[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 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).[291] A Roman knight, C. Aemilius +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. Maenius C.f. Bassus[294] 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[295] 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.[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 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.[298] + +Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superaequum, and +held no other offices.[299] + +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,[300] shows clearly that such a method of getting a +quinquennalis was out of the ordinary. + +M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum[301] 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.[302] + +Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate, +which again shows the irregularity of the choice.[303] + +M. Traesius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an +inhabitant of Atinae in Lucania.[304] + +M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was aedile and duovir in Pompeii,[305] +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.[306] + +P. Sextilius Rufus,[307] 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.[308] + +M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being aedile or +quaestor, 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 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.[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 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[318] 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. +-- [I]nstacilius Aed. 2964 +C. Iuc ... Rufus[319] Q 2964 +Laelianus, see Lutatius. +M'. Later ...[320] 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: + +[Footnote 1: Strabo V, 3, II.] + +[Footnote 2: We know that in 380 B.C. Praeneste had eight towns under +her jurisdiction, and that they must have been relatively near by. Livy +VI, 29, 6: octo praeterea oppida erant sub dicione Praenestinorum. +Festus, p. 550 (de Ponor): T. Quintius Dictator cum per novem dies +totidem urbes et decimam Praeneste 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 Praeneste (Livy VI, 29, 8), all show +that the domain of Praeneste was both of extent and of consequence.] + +[Footnote 3: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.] + +[Footnote 4: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.] + +[Footnote 5: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 227 ff.; Marucchi, Guida +Archeologica, p. 14; Nibby, Analisi, p. 483; Volpi, Latium vetus de +Praen., chap 2; Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 167.] + +[Footnote 6: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.] + +[Footnote 7: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum +Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.] + +[Footnote 8: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.] + +[Footnote 9: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 277, n. 36, from Epist., +474: Bonifacius VIII concedit Episcopo Civitatis Papalis Locum, ubi +fuerunt olim Civitas Praenestina, eiusque Castrum, quod dicebatur Mons, +et Rocca; ac etiam Civitas Papalis postmodum destructa, cum Territorio +et Turri de Marmoribus, et Valle Gloriae; nec non Castrum Novum +Tiburtinum 2 Id. April. an. VI; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 136; +Civitas praedicta cum Rocca, et Monte, cum Territorio ipsius posita est +in districtu Urbis in contrata, quae dicitur Romangia.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 11: Livy VIII, 12, 7: Pedanos tuebatur Tiburs, Praenestinus +Veliternusque populus, etc. Livy VII, 12, 8: quod Gallos mox Praeneste +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.] + +[Footnote 12: There are some good ancient tufa quarries too on the +southern slope of Colle S. Rocco, to which a branch road from Praeneste +ran. Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104.] + +[Footnote 13: C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.] + +[Footnote 14: Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of +the Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 16: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, wishes to connect +Marcigliano and Ceciliano with the gentes Marcia and Caecilia, but it is +impossible to do more than guess, and the rather few names of these +gentes at Praeneste make the guess improbable. It is also impossible to +locate regio Caesariana mentioned as a possession of Praeneste 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 Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 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 archaeologists (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; Archaeologia, 41 (1867), p. 190.] + +[Footnote 18: C.I.L., XIV, 2987.] + +[Footnote 19: The papal documents read sometimes in Latin, territorium +Praenestinum or Civitas Praenestina, 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).] + +[Footnote 20: There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any +way to ancient Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 21: Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own +observations. See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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).] + +[Footnote 24: Cave has been attached rather more to Genazzano during +Papal rule than to Praeneste, and it belongs to the electoral college of +Subiaco, Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 182.] + +[Footnote 25: I heard everywhere bitter and slighting remarks in +Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 26: Mommsen, Bull. dell'Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that +the civilization in Praeneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin +cities.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 28: Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and +Querquetula is not a question here at all.] + +[Footnote 29: Gatti, in Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576, in connection with +the Arlenius inscription, found on the site of the new Forum below +Praeneste in 1903, which mentions Ad Duas Casas as confinium territorio +Praenestinae, 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 Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste. But it has been shown that +Praeneste'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 Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 31: To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that +which looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 33: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, map facing p. 222. His book +is on the whole the best one on Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste at all.] + +[Footnote 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.)] + +[Footnote 36: The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid bare +in 1890, Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38.] + +[Footnote 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."] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 42: Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 19, who is usually a good +authority on Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 45: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 107, has exact +measurements of the walls.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 47: There seems to have been only a postern in the ancient +wall inside the present Porta del Sole.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 49: Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 57 ff. for argument and proof, +beginning with Varro, de I. 1. VI, 4: ut Praeneste incisum in solario +vidi.] + +[Footnote 50: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 57: Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): [Greek: erymnae men oun +ekatera, poly derumnotera Prainestos].] + +[Footnote 58: Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: [Greek: Marios de pheygon eis +Praineston aedae tas pylas eyre kekleimenas].] + +[Footnote 59: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 282; Nibby, Analisi, II, +p. 491.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 61: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 248.] + +[Footnote 62: Also called Porta S. Giacomo, or dell'Ospedale.] + +[Footnote 63: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 252.] + +[Footnote 64: Closed seemingly in Sullan times.] + +[Footnote 65: The rude corbeling of one side of the gate is still very +plainly to be seen. The gate is filled with mediaeval stone work.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 68: This gate is now a mediaeval 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 72: This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazione +de Numeri, Map facing page 1: l'antica Porta di San Martino chiusa.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste up to their dates of +publication.] + +[Footnote 74: Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, in Papers +of the British School at Rome, Vol. 1, Map VI.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 76: This road to Marcigliano had nothing to do with either the +Praenestina 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.] + +[Footnote 77: Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1903), pp. 23-25.] + +[Footnote 78: Probably the store room of some little shop which sold the +exvotos. Bull. dell'Inst., 1883, p. 28.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praenestina. 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.] + +[Footnote 80: The roads are the present Via Praenestina toward +Gallicano, and the Via Praenestina 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).] + +[Footnote 81: Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); [Greek: ... dioruxi +kryptais--pantachothen mechri tou pedion tais men hydreias charin ktl.]; +Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 83: Cola di Rienzo did this (see note 59), and so discovered +the method by which the Praenestines 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 Praeneste from the rear, +from over Colle S. Martino, as well as by an attack in front.] + +[Footnote 84: C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add., 2978, 2979, 3015.] + +[Footnote 85: Nibby, Analisi, p. 510. It could be seen in 1907, but not +so very clearly.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 88: The mediaeval 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.] + +[Footnote 89: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of this +aqueduct as "quel mirabile antico cuniculo."] + +[Footnote 90: The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua del +Sambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, Memorie +Prenestine, p. 286).] + +[Footnote 91: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 96 ff., p. 122 ff.; +Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 501 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 45.] + +[Footnote 92: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 503, the sanest of all the writers +on Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 93: C.I.L., XIV, 2911, was found near this reservoir, and +Nibby from this, and a likeness to the construction of the Castra +Praetoria at Rome, dates it so (Analisi, p. 503).] + +[Footnote 94: This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of the +American School in Rome.] + +[Footnote 95: See above, page 29.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 98: Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85.] + +[Footnote 99: There are many references to the temple. Suetonius, Dom., +15, Tib., 63; Aelius 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 +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.] + +[Footnote 102: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under Das +Heiligtum der Fortuna in Praeneste, p. 47 ff.] + +[Footnote 103: Cicero, De Div., II, 41, 85.] + +[Footnote 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 Praenestinae 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).] + +[Footnote 105: Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85: is est hodie locus saeptus +religiose propter Iovis pueri, qui lactens cum lunone Fortunae in gremio +sedens, ... eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunae nunc est aedes, +etc.] + +[Footnote 106: C.I.L., XIV, 2867: ...ut Triviam in Iunonario, ut in +pronao aedis statuam, etc., and Livy, XXIII, 19, 18 of 216 B.C.: Idem +titulus (a laudatory inscription to M. Anicius) tribus signis in aede +Fortunae positis fuit subiectus.] + +[Footnote 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 Praenestines then made Fortuna the mother of +Jupiter and Juno, and considered Primigenia to mean "first born," not +"first born of Jupiter."] + +[Footnote 108: The establishment of the present Cathedral of S. Agapito +as the basilica of ancient Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 111: See also Revue Arch., XXXIX (1901), p. 469, n. 188.] + +[Footnote 112: C.I.L, XIV, 2864.] + +[Footnote 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 aeditui, of whom we have no mention, are the +proper custodians of the entire temple, precinct and all.] + +[Footnote 114: C.I.L., XIV, 3007. See Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, 2, +p. 365, n. 73.] + +[Footnote 115: See Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62.] + +[Footnote 116: C.I.L., XIV, 2922; also on bricks, Ann. dell'Inst., 1855, +p. 86--C.I.L., XIV, 4091, 9.] + +[Footnote 117: C.I.L., XIV, 2980; C. Caesius M.f.C. Flavius L.f. Duovir +Quinq. aedem et portic d.d. fac. coer. eidemq. prob.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 119: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 430. See also Juvenal +XIV, 88; Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10.] + +[Footnote 120: Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62, with illustration.] + +[Footnote 121: Although Suaresius (Thesaurus Antiq. Italiae, 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 +Aesculapius at Epidaurus, Cavvadias, [Greek: 'Ephaem. 'Arch.], 1883, p. +1975; Michel, Recueil d'insc. grec., 1069 ff.] + +[Footnote 122: Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, pp. 320, 324; Marquardt, +Staatsverwaltung, 3, p. 271, n. 8. See Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), +p. 10.] + +[Footnote 123: Delbrueck, l.c., pp. 50, 59, does prove that there is no +reason why [Greek: lithostroton] 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 Praeneste. 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 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.] + +[Footnote 124: For the many opinions as to the subject of the mosaic, +see Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 75.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 126: Delbrueck, l.c., p. 58, n. 1.] + +[Footnote 127: The aerarium 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 aerarium 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 Aemilia 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.] + +[Footnote 128: See note 106.] + +[Footnote 129: C.I.L., XIV, 2875. This dedication of "coques atriensis" +probably belongs to the upper temple.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 131: The martyr suffered death contra civitatem praenestinam +ubi sunt duae viae, Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 144, n. 3, from Martirol. +Adonis, 18 Aug. Cod. Vat. Regin., n. 511 (11th cent. A.D.).] + +[Footnote 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.); Friedlaender, +Sittengeschichte Roms, II, p. 377; Cicero, pro Plancio, XXVI, 63; Epist. +ad Att., XII, 2, 2; Cassiodorus, Variae, VI, 15.] + +[Footnote 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).] + +[Footnote 134: On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia di +Palestrina, p. 60.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 136: Not d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 330.] + +[Footnote 137: Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18: statua cius (M. Anicii) indicio +fuit, Praeneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, +etc.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 141: More discussion of this point above in connection with +the temple, page 51.] + +[Footnote 142: I was in Praeneste during all the excavations of 1907, +and made these photographs while I was there.] + +[Footnote 143: The drawing of the Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 290, which +shows a probable portico is not exact.] + +[Footnote 144: It is now called the Via delle Scalette.] + +[Footnote 145: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 58.] + +[Footnote 146: See full-page illustration in Delbrueck, l.c., p. 79.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 148: C.I.L., XIV, 2908, 2919, 2916, 2937, 2946, 3314, 3340.] + +[Footnote 149: C.I.L., XIV, 2917, 2919, 2922, 2924, 2929, 2934, 2955, +2997, 3014, Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576.] + +[Footnote 150: F. Barnabei, Not. d. Scavi, 1894, p. 96.] + +[Footnote 151: C.I.L., XIV, 2914.] + +[Footnote 152: Not. d. Scavi, 1897, p. 421; 1904, p. 393.] + +[Footnote 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) Praeneste in +superiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos et +marmoreo parieti incisos publicarat.] + +[Footnote 154: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 50, n. 1, +from Preller, Roemische Mythologie, II, p. 191, n. 1.] + +[Footnote 155: C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.] + +[Footnote 156: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 320, n. 19.] + +[Footnote 157: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 35.] + +[Footnote 158: Tibur shows 1 to 32 and Praeneste 1 to 49 names of +inhabitants from the Umbro-Sabellians of the Appennines. These +statistics are from A. Schulten, Italische Namen und Staemme, Beitraege +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.] + +[Footnote 159: Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, V, p. 159.] + +[Footnote 160: Livy VI, 29; C.I.L., XIV, 2987.] + +[Footnote 161: Livy VII, 11; VII, 19; VIII, 12.] + +[Footnote 162: Praeneste 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 Praeneste deserted +the Latins for Rome.] + +[Footnote 163: Livy VIII, 14.] + +[Footnote 164: Val. Max., De Superstitionibus, I, 3, 2; C.I.L., XIV, +2929, with Dessau's note.] + +[Footnote 165: See note 28.] + +[Footnote 166: "Praeneste wird immer eine selbstaendige Stellung +eingenommen haben" Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alt., II, p. 523. Praeneste +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). +Praeneste is called by Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21, 27) one of the +municipia Italiae splendidissima along with Spoletium, Interamnium, +Florentia.] + +[Footnote 167: Livy XXIII, 20, 2.] + +[Footnote 168: Livy I, 30, 1.] + +[Footnote 169: Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.] + +[Footnote 170: Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under "Anicia."] + +[Footnote 171: The old Oscan names in Pompeii, and the Etruscan names on +the small grave stones of Caere, C.I.L., X, 3635-3692, are neither so +numerous.] + +[Footnote 172: Dionysius III, 2.] + +[Footnote 173: Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.] + +[Footnote 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--praeterquam de suffragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo.] + +[Footnote 175: Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in +civitatem Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.] + +[Footnote 176: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita +venerunt, ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut +Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste would ever have taken such a status.] + +[Footnote 178: C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 180: C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.] + +[Footnote 181: C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195] + +[Footnote 182: Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in +Milonianam, p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, +2121.] + +[Footnote 183: C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.] + +[Footnote 184: Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste. 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 Praeneste, +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.] + +[Footnote 186: Praenestinus praetor ... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy +IX, 16, 17.] + +[Footnote 187: A praetor led the contingent from Lavinium, Livy VIII, +11, 4; the praetor M. Anicius led from Praeneste the cohort which gained +such a reputation at Casilinum, Livy XXIII, 17-19. Strabo V, 249; cohors +Paeligna, cuius praefectus, etc., proves nothing for a Latin +contingent.] + +[Footnote 188: For the evidence that the consuls were first called +praetors, see Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under the word "consul" (Vol. IV, +p. 1114) and the old Pauly under "praetor." + +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.] + +[Footnote 189: This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law +at the University of Michigan.] + +[Footnote 190: Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, +61.] + +[Footnote 191: Pauly-Wissowa under "dictator," and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, +II, 171, 2.] + +[Footnote 192: Whether Egerius Laevius 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).] + +[Footnote 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), Velitrae (C.I.L., X, 8417), Bovillae +(C.I.L., XIV, 2431 == VI, 2125). Compare also rex nemorensis, Suetonius, +Caligula, 35 (Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Roemer, p. 199).] + +[Footnote 194: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.] + +[Footnote 195: C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly +3008).] + +[Footnote 196: C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.] + +[Footnote 197: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.] + +[Footnote 198: See note 28 above.] + +[Footnote 199: Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.] + +[Footnote 200: Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.] + +[Footnote 201: For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, +notes 1 and 2.] + +[Footnote 202: The mention of one praetor in C.I.L., XIV, 2890, a +dedication to Hercules, is later than other mention of two praetors, and +is not irregular at any rate.] + +[Footnote 203: C.I.L., XIV, 3000, two aediles 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 praetors, aediles, and +quaestors mentioned, fifteen belong to the old families of Praeneste, +two to families that belong to the people living back in the Sabines, +and one to a man from Fidenae.] + +[Footnote 204: Cicero, pro Balbo, VIII, 21: Leges de civili iure sunt +latae: 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 +refectae sunt. Gellius IV, 4, 3; Civitas universo Latio lege Iulia data +est. Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 49: [Greek: Italioton de tous eti en tae +symmachia paramenontas epsaephisato (ae boulae) einai politas, ou dae +malista monon ou pantes epethymoun ktl.] + +Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311; +Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman +Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.] + +[Footnote 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 praetorem 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 incolae of +federate communities; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102.] + +[Footnote 206: Livy VIII, 14, 9: Tiburtes Praenestinique 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 aequum 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 +Abhaengigkeits--oder Clientelverhaeltniss."] + +[Footnote 207: Mommsen, Geschichte des roem. Muenzwesens, p. 179 (French +trans, de Blacas, I, p. 186), thinks two series of aes grave are to be +assigned to Praeneste and Tibur.] + +[Footnote 208: Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Praeneste, Matienus Tibur +exulatum abierunt.] + +[Footnote 209: Polybius VI, 14, 8: [Greek: eoti d asphaleia tois +pheygousin ente tae, Neapolito kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinon +polei]. Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. 215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., +I, p. 45.] + +[Footnote 210: Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Praenestini) civitate cum donarentur +ob virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.] + +[Footnote 211: The celebration of the feriae Latinae 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 Caesar 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)).] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 213: Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: [Greek: exedramen es tas +agchou poleis, tas ou pro pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburton +te kai Praineston, kai osai mechri Nolaes. erethizon apantas es +apostasin, kai chraemata es ton polemon sullegon.] 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 ([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.]] + +[Footnote 214: Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), pp. +109 ff.] + +[Footnote 215: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.] + +[Footnote 216: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): tertio, quum id genus hominum +definitur, qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent +suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praeneste the favor she asked, that of being a municipium, still no +praefectus is found, not even a survival of the title. + +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.] + +[Footnote 218: Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.] + +[Footnote 219: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.] + +[Footnote 220: Val. Max. IX, 2, 1; Plutarch, Sulla, 32; Appian, Bell. +Civ., I, 94; Lucan II, 194; Plutarch, praec. ger. reip., ch. 19 (p. +816); Augustinus, de civ. Dei, III, 28; Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289, n. +2.] + +[Footnote 221: One third of the land was the usual amount taken.] + +[Footnote 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 aed. pot.] + +[Footnote 223: Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21): municipia Italiae +splendidissima sub hasta venierunt, Spoletium, Interamnium, Praeneste, +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 Praeneste in connection with Sulla says: +quinque milia Praenestinorum 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."] + +[Footnote 224: Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statum +redegit. See Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 226: Regular colony officials appear all along in the +incriptions down into the third century A.D.] + +[Footnote 227: Gellius XVI, 13, 5.] + +[Footnote 228: More in detail by Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110.] + +[Footnote 229: Livy VII, 12, 8; VIII, 12, 8.] + +[Footnote 230: Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 161.] + +[Footnote 231: Cicero, pro P. Sulla, XXI, 61.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 233: Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 235: C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.] + +[Footnote 236: C.I.L., XIV, 2964-2969.] + +[Footnote 237: 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.] + +[Footnote 238: C.I.L., XIV, 2966, 2968.] + +[Footnote 239: The first column of both inscriptions shows alternate +lines spaced in, while the second column has the praenominal +abbreviations exactly lined. More certain yet is the likeness which +shows in a list of 27 names, and all but one without cognomina.] + +[Footnote 240: C.I.L., XIV, 2967.] + +[Footnote 241: Out of 201 examples of names from Praeneste 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 +praenomina and nomina.] + +[Footnote 242: C.I.L., X, 1233.] + +[Footnote 243: C.I.L., IX, 422.] + +[Footnote 244: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 5.] + +[Footnote 245: Lex Iulia Municipalis, C.I.L., I, 206, l. 142 ff. == +Dessau, Inscrip. Lat. Sel., 6085.] + +[Footnote 246: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 160.] + +[Footnote 247: C.I.L., XIV, 2966.] + +[Footnote 248: Pauly-Wissowa under "Dolabella," and "Cornelius," nos. +127-148.] + +[Footnote 249: The real founder of Sulla's colony and the rebuilder of +the city of Praeneste 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 Praeneste. 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.] + +[Footnote 250: C.I.L., XIV, 2967: ... elius Rufus Aed(ilis). I take him +to be a Cornelius rather than an Aelius, because of the cognomen.] + +[Footnote 251: One Cornelius, a freedman (C.I.L., XIV, 3382), and three +Corneliae, 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.] + +[Footnote 252: A full treatment of the use of the nomen Cornelia in +Praeneste will be published soon by the author in connection with his +Prosographia Praenestina, 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 Praeneste in 1907, +bears out the early date. The larger fragment could not be seen.] + +[Footnote 253: Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, p. 222, +under "Rutenius." He finds the same form Rotanius only in Turin, +Rutenius only in North Italy.] + +[Footnote 254: From the appearance of the name Rudia at Praeneste +(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 Praeneste before the colonization.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praeneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2966, I, 5, 3360; compare Schulze, Geschichte +Lat. Eigennamen, p. 193, n. 6.] + +[Footnote 257: Caesia at Praeneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2852, 2966 I, 6, 2980, +3311, 3359, and the old form Ceisia, 4104.] + +[Footnote 258: See Schulze, l.c., index under Caleius.] + +[Footnote 259: C.I.L., XIV, 2964 II, 15.] + +[Footnote 260: Vibia especially in the old inscription C.I.L., XIV, +4098. Also in 2903, 2966 II, 9; Not. d. Scavi, 1900, p. 94.] + +[Footnote 261: Statioleia: C.I.L., XIV, 2966 I, 10, 3381.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 263: There is a L. Aponius Mitheres on a basis in the +Barberini garden in Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 264: C.I.L., XIV, 2855, 2626, 3336.] + +[Footnote 265: C.I.L., XIV, 3116. It may not be on a pigna.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 267: C.I.L., IX, 5016: C. Capive Vitali (Hadria).] + +[Footnote 268: A better restoration than Ninn(eius). The (N)inneius +Sappaeus (C.I.L., VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription is +late.] + +[Footnote 269: In the year 216 B.C. the Ninnii Celeres were hostages of +Hannibal's at Capua (Livy XXIII, 8).] + +[Footnote 270: C.I.L., X, 2776-2779, but all late.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste: 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 +annonae sacris publicis procurandis), Henzen; (votis Augustalibus sacris +publicis procurandis), Mommsen; (viis aedibus, etc.), Cagnat; See +Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1842, 9.] + +[Footnote 273: Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1806.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 275: All at least except the regimen morum, so Marquardt, +l.c., p. 162 and n. 2.] + +[Footnote 276: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 6.] + +[Footnote 277: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 7.] + +[Footnote 278: Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 78 ff.; Nissen, Italische +Landeskunde, II, p. 99 ff.] + +[Footnote 279: C.I.L., IX, 422 = Dessau, Insc. Lat. Sel., 6123.] + +[Footnote 280: C.I.L., X, 1233 = Dessau 6124.] + +[Footnote 281: Near Aquinum. C.I.L., X, 5405 = Dessau 6125.] + +[Footnote 282: C.I.L., XIV, 245 = Dessau 6126.] + +[Footnote 283: C.I.L., XIV, 2964.] + +[Footnote 284: He is not even mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa or Ruggiero.] + +[Footnote 285: C.I.L., XIV, 2966.] + +[Footnote 286: C.I.L., XIV, 2964.] + +[Footnote 287: C.I.L., XIV, 2965.] + +[Footnote 288: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 169 for full discussion, +with references to other cases.] + +[Footnote 289: C.I.L., XIV, 172: praet(or) Laur(entium) Lavin(atium) +IIIIvir q(uin) q(uennalis) Faesulis.] + +[Footnote 290: C.I.L., XIV, 3599.] + +[Footnote 291: C.I.L., XIV, 3609.] + +[Footnote 292: C.I.L., XIV, 3650.] + +[Footnote 293: C.I.L., I, 1236 == X, 1573 == Dessau 6345.] + +[Footnote 294: C.I.L., XIV, 3665.] + +[Footnote 295: C.I.L., XI, 421 == Dessau 6662.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 297: Not. d. Scav, 1884, p. 418 == Dessau 6598.] + +[Footnote 298: C.I.L., IX, 5831 == Dessau 6572.] + +[Footnote 299: C.I.L., IX, 3311 == Dessau 6532.] + +[Footnote 300: L. Septimio L.f. Arn. Calvo. aed., IIIIvir. i.d., praef. +ex s.c. [q]uinquennalicia potestate, etc., Eph. Ep. 8, 120 == Dessau +6527.] + +[Footnote 301: C.I.L., IX, 1618 == Dessau 6507.] + +[Footnote 302: C.I.L., IX, 652 == Dessau 6481.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 304: C.I.L., X, 344 == Dessau 6450.] + +[Footnote 305: C.I.L., X, 1036 == Dessau 6365.] + +[Footnote 306: C.I.L., X, 840 == Dessau 6362: M. Holconio Celeri +d.v.i.d. quinq. designato. Augusti sacerdoti.] + +[Footnote 307: C.I.L., X, 1273 == Dessau 6344.] + +[Footnote 308: C.I.L., X, 4641 == Dessau 6301.] + +[Footnote 309: C.I.L., X, 5401 == Dessau 6291.] + +[Footnote 310: C.I.L., X, 5393 == Dessau 6286.] + +[Footnote 311: C.I.L., XIV, 4148.] + +[Footnote 312: C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.] + +[Footnote 313: C.I.L., XIV, 2795.] + +[Footnote 314: C.I.L., XIV, 4237. Another case of the same kind is seen +in the fragment C.I.L., XIV, 4247.] + +[Footnote 315: Zangemeister, C.I.L., IV., Index, shows 75 duoviri and +but 4 quinquennales.] + +[Footnote 316: L. Veranius Hypsaeus 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.] + +[Footnote 317: (1) Verulae, C.I.L., X, 5796; Acerrae, C.I.L., X, 3759; +(2) Anagnia, C.I.L., X, 5919; Allifae, C.I.L., IX, 2354; Aeclanum, +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) Formiae, 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; Allifae, +C.I.L., IX, 2353; Hispellum, C.I.L., XI, 5283.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 320: Probably not the M. Iuventius Laterensis, the Roman +quaestor, for the brick stamps of Praeneste in other cases seem to show +the quaestors of the city.] + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And +Municipal History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF PRAENESTE *** + +***** This file should be named 12770-8.txt or 12770-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/2/7/7/12770/ + +Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Mallière and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team. + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/12770-8.zip b/old/12770-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d67ce71 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-8.zip diff --git a/old/12770-h.zip b/old/12770-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4767c60 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h.zip diff --git a/old/12770-h/12770-h.htm b/old/12770-h/12770-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7500809 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h/12770-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7638 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" + content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin.</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + + A { text-decoration: none; + } + P { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + } + HR { width: 33%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .note {margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;} /* footnote */ + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right;} /* page numbers */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; font-size: smaller; float: right; clear: right;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span {display: block; margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em;} + .poem .caesura {vertical-align: -200%;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And Municipal +History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: A Study Of The Topography And Municipal History Of Praeneste + +Author: Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +Release Date: June 29, 2004 [EBook #12770] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF PRAENESTE *** + + + + +Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Mallière and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team. + + + + + + +</pre> + +<h3>SERIES XXVI NOS. 9-10</h3> +<h3>JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES</h3> +<h3>IN +HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE</h3> +<h3>Under the Direction of the +Departments of</h3> +<h3>History, Political Economy,</h3> +<h3>and +Political Science</h3> +<h1>STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY</h1> +<h1>AND +MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF</h1> +<h1>PRÆNESTE</h1> +<h3>BY</h3> +<h2>RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, A.B.</h2> +<h2>Fellow in Latin.</h2> +<br /> +<h3>September, October, 1908</h3> +<h3>COPYRIGHT 1908</h3> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<br /> +<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> +<div style="margin-left: 160px;"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a>. +THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRÆNESTE<br /> +<a href="#EXTENT"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN +OF PRÆNESTE</span></a><br /> +<a href="#CITY"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND +GATES</span></a><br /> +<a href="#PORTA_TRIUMPHALIS"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE PORTA +TRIUMPHALIS</span></a><br /> +<a href="#GATES"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE GATES</span></a><br /> +<a href="#WATER"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE WATER SUPPLY OF +PRÆNESTE</span></a><br /> +<a href="#TEMPLE"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA +PRIMIGENIA</span></a><br /> +<a href="#EPIGRAPHICAL_TOPOGRAPHY"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE +EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF +PRÆNESTE</span></a><br /> +<a href="#FORUM"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE FORA</span></a><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE SACRA VIA</span><br /> +<br /> +<a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a>. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF +PRÆNESTE<br /> +<a href="#MUNICIPIUM"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">WAS +PRÆNESTE A MUNICIPIUM?</span></a><br /> +<a href="#COLONY"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">PRÆNESTE AS A +COLONY</span></a><br /> +<a href="#OFFICES"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE DISTRIBUTION OF +OFFICES</span></a><br /> +<a href="#OFFICIALS"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE REGULATIONS +ABOUT OFFICIALS</span></a><br /> +<a href="#QUINQUENNALES"><span style="margin-left: 1em;">THE +QUINQUENNALES</span></a><br /> +<br /> +<a href="#ALPHABETICAL_LIST">AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL +OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE</a><br /> +<br /> +A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">1. <a href="#BEFORE">BEFORE +PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY</a></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;">2. <a href="#AFTER">AFTER +PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY</a></span><br /> +</div> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<br /> +<h2>PREFACE.</h2> +<p>This study is the first of a series of studies already in +progress, in which the author hopes to make some contributions +to the history of the towns of the early Latin League, +from the topographical and epigraphical points of view.</p> +<p>The author takes this opportunity to thank Dr. Kirby +Flower Smith, Head of the Department of Latin, at whose +suggestion this study was begun, and under whose supervision +and with whose hearty assistance its revision was +completed.</p> +<p>He owes his warmest thanks also to Dr. Harry Langford +Wilson, Professor of Roman Archæology and Epigraphy, +with whom he made many trips to Præneste, and whose +help and suggestions were most valuable.</p> +<p>Especially does he wish to testify to the inspiration to +thoroughness which came from the teaching and the example +of his dearly revered teacher, Professor Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, +Head of the Greek Department, and he acknowledges +also with pleasure the benefit from the scholarly +methods of Dr. David M. Robinson, and the manifold suggestiveness +of the teaching of Dr. Maurice Bloomfield.</p> +<p>The cordial assistance of the author's aunt, Dr. Esther B. +Van Deman, Carnegie Fellow in the American School at +Rome, both during his stay in Rome and Præneste and since +his return to America, has been invaluable, and the privilege +afforded him by Professor Dr. Christian Hülsen, of the German +Archæological Institute, of consulting the as yet unpublished +indices of the sixth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum +Latinarum, is acknowledged with deep gratitude.</p> +<p>The author is deeply grateful for the facilities afforded +him in the prosecution of his investigations while he was +a resident in Palestrina, and he takes great pleasure in +thanking for their courtesies, Cav. Capitano Felice Cicerchia, +President of the Archæological Society at Palestrina, his +brother, Cav. Emilio Cicerchia, Government Inspector of +Antiquities, Professor Pompeo Bernardini, Mayor of the +City, and Cav. Francesco Coltellacci, Municipal Secretary.</p> +<p>Finally, he desires to express his cordial appreciation of +the kind advice and generous assistance given by Professor +John Martin Vincent in connection with the publication of +this monograph.</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<br /> +<h1>A STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY</h1> +<h1>AND MUNICIPAL</h1> +<h1>HISTORY OF PRÆNESTE.</h1> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<a name="CHAPTER_I"></a> +<h2>CHAPTER I. +</h2> +<h2>THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRÆNESTE.</h2> +<p>Nearly a half mile out from the rugged Sabine mountains, +standing clear from them, and directly in front of +the sinuous little valley which the northernmost headstream +of the Trerus made for itself, rises a conspicuous and commanding +mountain, two thousand three hundred and eighteen +feet above the level of the sea, and something more +than half that height above the plain below. This limestone +mountain, the modern Monte Glicestro, presents on the north +a precipitous and unapproachable side to the Sabines, but +turns a fairer face to the southern and western plain. +From its conical summit the mountain stretches steeply +down toward the southwest, dividing almost at once into +two rounded slopes, one of which, the Colle di S. Martino, +faces nearly west, the other in a direction a little west of +south. On this latter slope is situated the modern Palestrina, +which is built on the site of the ancient Præneste.</p> +<p>From the summit of the mountain, where the arx or +citadel was, it becomes clear at once why Præneste occupied +a proud and commanding position among the towns of +Latium. The city, clambering up the slope on its terraces, +occupied a notably strong position<a name="FNanchor_1"></a><a + href="#Footnote_1"><sup>[1]</sup></a>, and the citadel +was wholly impregnable to assault. Below and south +of the city stretched fertile land easy of access to the +Prænestines, and sufficiently distant from other strong +Latin towns to be safe for regular cultivation. Further, +there is to be added to the fortunate situation +of Præneste with regard to her own territory and that of +her contiguous dependencies, her position at a spot which +almost forced upon her a wide territorial influence, for +Monte Glicestro faces exactly the wide and deep depression +between the Volscian mountains and the Alban Hills, and +is at the same time at the head of the Trerus-Liris valley. +Thus Præneste at once commanded not only one of the +passes back into the highland country of the Æquians, but +also the inland routes between Upper and Lower Italy, the +roads which made relations possible between the Hernicans, +Volscians, Samnites, and Latins. From Præneste the +movements of Volscians and Latins, even beyond the Alban +Hills and on down in the Pontine district, could be seen, +and any hostile demonstrations could be prepared against +or forestalled. In short, Præneste held the key to Rome +from the south.</p> +<p>Monte Glicestro is of limestone pushed up through the +tertiary crust by volcanic forces, but the long ridges +which run off to the northwest are of lava, while the shorter +and wider ones extending toward the southwest are of +tufa. These ridges are from three to seven miles in length. +It is shown either by remains of roads and foundations or +(in three cases) by the actual presence of modern towns +that in antiquity the tip of almost every one of these ridges +was occupied by a city. The whole of the tufa and lava +plain that stretches out from Præneste toward the Roman +Campagna is flat to the eye, and the towns on the tips of +the ridges seem so low that their strong military position +is overlooked. The tops of these ridges, however, are +everywhere more than an hundred feet above the valley +and, in addition, their sides are very steep. Thus the +towns were practically impregnable except by an attack +along the top of the ridge, and as all these ridges run back +to the base of the mountain on which Præneste was situated, +both these ridges and their towns necessarily were always +closely connected with Præneste and dependent upon her.</p> +<p>There is a simple expedient by which a conception of the +topography of the country about Præneste can be obtained. +Place the left hand, palm down, flat on a table spreading +the fingers slightly, then the palm of the right hand on the +back of the left with the fingers pointing at right angles to +those of the left hand. Imagine that the mountain, on +which Præneste lay, rises in the middle of the back of the +upper hand, sinks off to the knuckles of both hands, and +extends itself in the alternate ridges and valleys which the +fingers and the spaces between them represent.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="EXTENT"></a>EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRÆNESTE.</p> +<p>Just as the modern roads and streets in both country and +city of ancient territory are taken as the first and best proof +of the presence of ancient boundary lines and thoroughfares, +just so the territorial jurisdiction of a city in modern +Italy, where tradition has been so constant and so strong, +is the best proof for the extent of ancient domain.<a name="FNanchor_2"></a><a + href="#Footnote_2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Before +trying, therefore, to settle the limits of the domain of Præneste +from the provenience of ancient inscriptions, and by +deductions from ancient literary sources, and present topographical +and archæological arguments, it will be well worth +while to trace rapidly the diocesan boundaries which the +Roman church gave to Præneste.</p> +<p>The Christian faith had one of its longest and hardest +fights at Præneste to overcome the old Roman cult of +Fortuna Primigenia. Christianity triumphed completely, +and Præneste was so important a place, that it was made +one of the six suburban bishoprics,<a name="FNanchor_3"></a><a + href="#Footnote_3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> and from that time on +there is more or less mention in the Papal records of the +diocese of Præneste, or Penestrino as it began to be called.</p> +<p>In the fifth century A.D. there is mention of a gift to +a church by Sixtus III, Pope from 432 to 440, of a certain +possession in Prænestine territory called Marmorata,<a + name="FNanchor_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> which +seems best located near the town of Genazzano.</p> +<p>About the year 970 the territory of Præneste was increased +in extent by Pope John XIII, who ceded to his +sister Stefania a territory that extended back into the mountains +to Aqua alta near Subiaco, and as far as the Rivo lato +near Genazzano, and to the west and north from the head +of the Anio river to the Via Labicana.<a name="FNanchor_5"></a><a + href="#Footnote_5"><sup>[5]</sup></a></p> +<p>A few years later, in 998, because of some troubles, the +domain of Præneste was very much diminished. This is +of the greatest importance here, because the territory of +the diocese in 998 corresponds almost exactly not only to +the natural boundaries, but also, as will be shown later, to +the ancient boundaries of her domain. The extent of this +restricted territory was about five by six miles, and took in +Zagarolo, Valmontone, Cave, Rocca di Cave, Capranica, +Poli, and Gallicano.<a name="FNanchor_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6"><sup>[6]</sup></a> +These towns form a circle around +Præneste and mark very nearly the ancient boundary. The +towns of Valmontone, Cave, and Poli, however, although +in a great degree dependent upon Præneste, were, I think, +just outside her proper territorial domain.</p> +<p>In 1043, when Emilia, a descendant of the Stefania mentioned +above, married Stefano di Colonna, Count of Tusculum, +Præneste's territory seems to have been enlarged again +to its former extent, because in 1080 at Emilia's death, Pope +Gregory VII excommunicated the Colonna because they +insisted upon retaining the Prænestine territory which had +been given as a fief to Stefania, and which upon Emilia's +death should have reverted to the Church.<a name="FNanchor_7"></a><a + href="#Footnote_7"><sup>[7]</sup></a></p> +<p>We get a glance again at the probable size of the Prænestine +diocese in 1190, from the fact that the fortieth bishop +of Præneste was Giovanni Anagnino de' Conti di Segni +(1190-1196),<a name="FNanchor_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8"><sup>[8]</sup></a> +and this seems to imply a further extension +of the diocese to the southeast down the Trerus (Sacco) +valley.</p> +<p>Again, in 1300 after the papal destruction of Palestrina, +the government of the city was turned over to Cardinal +Ranieri, who was to hold the city and its castle (mons), +the mountain and its territory. At this time the diocese comprised +the land as far as Artena (Monte Fortino) and +and Rocca Priora, one of the towns in the Alban Hills, and +to Castrum Novum Tiburtinum, which may well be +Corcolle.<a name="FNanchor_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9"><sup>[9]</sup></a></p> +<p>The natural limits of the ancient city proper can hardly be +mistaken. The city included not only the arx and that portion +of the southern slope of the mountain which was +walled in, but also a level piece of fertile ground below the +city, across the present Via degli Arconi. This piece of flat +land has an area about six hundred yards square, the natural +boundaries of which are: on the west, the deep bed of the +watercourse spanned by the Ponte dei Sardoni; on the east, +the cut over which is built the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, and +on the south, the depression running parallel to the Via +degli Arconi, and containing the modern road from S. +Rocco to Cave.</p> +<p>From the natural limits of the town itself we now pass to +what would seem to have been the extent of territory dependent +upon her. The strongest argument of this discussion +is based upon the natural configuration of the land. +To the west, the domain of Præneste certainly followed +those long fertile ridges accessible only from Præneste. +First, and most important, it extended along the very wide +ridge known as Le Tende and Le Colonnelle which stretches +down toward Gallicano. Some distance above that town +it splits, one half, under the name of Colle S. Rocco, running +out to the point on which Gallicano is situated, and +the other, as the Colle Caipoli, reaching farther out into +the Campagna. Along and across this ridge ran several +ancient roads.<a name="FNanchor_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10"><sup>[10]</sup></a> +With the combination of fertile ground +well situated, in a position farthest away from all hostile +attack, and a location not only in plain sight from +the citadel of Præneste, but also between Præneste and +her closest friend and ally, Tibur, it is certain that in +this ridge we have one of the most favored and valuable +of Præneste's possessions, and quite as certain that Gallicano, +probably the ancient Pedum,<a name="FNanchor_11"></a><a + href="#Footnote_11"><sup>[11]</sup></a> was one of the towns +which were dependent allies of Præneste. It was along +this ridge too that probably the earlier, and certainly the +more intimate communication between Præneste and Tibur +passed, for of the three possible routes, this was both the +nearest and safest.<a name="FNanchor_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12"><sup>[12]</sup></a></p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 512px; height: 415px;" + alt="PLATE I. Præneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, on top of ridge, in foreground" + title="PLATE I. Præneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, on top of ridge, in foreground" + src="images/imag001.jpg" /></p> +<p>The second ridge, called Colle di Pastore as far as the +Gallicano cut, and Colle Collafri beyond it, along which for +four miles runs the Via Prænestina, undoubtedly belonged +to the domain of Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_13"></a><a + href="#Footnote_13"><sup>[13]</sup></a> But it was not so important a +piece of property as the ridges on either side, for it is much +narrower, and it had no town at its end. There was probably +always a road out this ridge, as is shown by the presence +of the later Via Prænestina, but that there was no +town at the end of the ridge is well proved by the fact that +Ashby finds no remains there which give evidence of one. +Then, too, we have plain enough proof of general unfitness +for a town. In the first place the ridge runs oil into the +junction of two roadless valleys, there is not much fertile +land back of where the town site would have been, but +above all, however, it is certain that the Via Prænestina was +an officially made Roman road, and did not occupy anything +more than a previous track of little consequence. This is +shown by the absence of tombs of the early necropolis style +along this road.</p> +<p>The next ridge must always have been one of the most +important, for from above Cavamonte as far as Passerano, +at the bottom of the ridge on the side toward Rome, connecting +with the highway which was the later Via Latina, +ran the main road through Zagarolo, Passerano, Corcolle, on +to Tibur and the north.<a name="FNanchor_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14"><sup>[14]</sup></a> +As this was the other of the two +great roads which ran to the north without getting out on +the Roman Campagna, it is certain that Præneste considered +it in her territory, and probably kept the travel well in +hand. With dependent towns at Zagarolo and Passerano, +which are several miles distant from each other, there must +have been at least one more town between them, to guard +the road against attack from Tusculum or Gabii. The fact +that the Via Prænestina later cut the Colle del Pero-Colle +Seloa just below a point where an ancient road ascends the +ridge to a place well adapted for a town, and where there +are some remains,<a name="FNanchor_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15"><sup>[15]</sup></a> +seems to prove the supposition, and to +locate another of the dependent cities of Præneste.</p> +<p>That the next ridge, the one on which Zagarolo is situated, +was also part of Præneste's territory, aside from the fact +that it has always been part of the diocese of Præneste, is +clearly shown by the topography of the district. The only +easy access to Zagarolo is from Palestrina, and although the +town itself cannot be seen from the mountain of Præneste, +nevertheless the approach to it along the ridge is clearly +visible.</p> +<p>The country south and in front of Præneste spreads out +more like a solid plain for a mile or so before splitting off +into the ridges which are so characteristic of the neighborhood. +East of the ridge on which Zagarolo stands, and +running nearly at right angles to it, is a piece of territory +along which runs the present road (the Omata di Palestrina) +to the Palestrina railroad station, and which as far +as the cross valley at Colle dell'Aquila, is incontestably +Prænestine domain.</p> +<p>But the territory which most certainly belonged to Præneste, +and which was at once the most valuable and the +oldest of her possessions is the wide ridge now known +as the Vigne di Loreto, along which runs the road to +Marcigliano.<a name="FNanchor_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16"><sup>[16]</sup></a> +Not only does this ridge lie most closely +bound to Præneste by nature, but it leads directly toward +Velitræ, her most advantageous ally. Tibur was perhaps +always Præneste's closest and most loyal ally, but the alliance +with her had not the same opportunity for mutual +advantage as one with Velitræ, because each of these towns +commanded the territory the other wished to know most +about, and both together could draw across the upper Trerus +valley a tight line which was of the utmost importance from +a strategic point of view. These two facts would in themselves +be a satisfactory proof that this ridge was Præneste's +first expansion and most important acquisition, but there is +proof other than topographical and argumentative.</p> +<p>At the head of this ridge in la Colombella, along the road +leading to Marcigliano from the little church of S. Rocco, +have been found three strata of tombs. The line of graves +in the lowest stratum, the date of which is not later than +the fifth or sixth century B.C., points exactly along the +ancient road, now the Via della Marcigliana or di Loreto.<a + name="FNanchor_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17"><sup>[17]</sup></a></p> +<p>The natural limit of Prænestine domain to the south has +now been reached, and that it is actually the natural limit is +shown by the accompanying illustration.</p> +<p>Through the Valle di Pepe or Fosso dell' Ospedalato +(see <a href="#plate_ii">Plate II</a>), which is wide as well as deep, +runs the +uppermost feeder of the Trerus river. One sees at a glance +that the whole slope of the mountain from arx to base is +continued by a natural depression which would make an +ideal boundary for Prænestine territory. Nor is the topographical +proof all. No inscriptions of consequence, and +no architectural remains of the pre-imperial period have +been found across this valley. The road along the top of +the ridge beyond it is an ancient one, and ran to Valmontone +as it does today, and was undoubtedly often used +between Præneste and the towns on the Volscians. The +ridge, however, was exposed to sudden attack from too +many directions to be of practical value to Præneste. +Valmontone, which lay out beyond the end of this ridge, +commanded it, and Valmontone was not a dependency of +Præneste, as is shown by an inscription which mentions the +adlectio of a citizen there into the senate (decuriones) of +Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18"><sup>[18]</sup></a></p> +<p>There are still two other places which as we have seen +were included at different times in the papal diocese of +Præneste,<a name="FNanchor_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19"><sup>[19]</sup></a> +namely, Capranica and Cave.<a name="FNanchor_20"></a><a + href="#Footnote_20"><sup>[20]</sup></a> Inscriptional +evidence is not forthcoming in either place sufficient to warrant +any certainty in the matter of correspondence of local +names to those in Præneste. Of the two, Capranica had +much more need of dependence on Præneste than Cave. It +was down through the little valley back of Præneste, at +the head of which Capranica lay, that her later aqueducts +came. The outlet from Capranica back over the mountains +was very difficult, and the only tillable soil within reach of +that town lay to the north of Præneste on the ridge running +toward Gallicano, and on a smaller ridge which curved +around toward Tibur and lay still closer to the mountains. +In short, Capranica, which never attained importance +enough to be of any consequence, appears to have been +always dependent upon Præneste.</p> +<p>But as for Cave, that is another question. Her friends +were to the east, and there was easy access into the mountains +to Sublaqueum (Subiaco) and beyond, through the +splendid passes via either of the modern towns, Genazzano +or Olevano.</p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="plate_ii"></a><img + style="width: 512px; height: 404px;" + alt="PLATE II. Præneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as seen from Valle di Pepe." + title="PLATE II. Præneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as seen from Valle di Pepe." + src="images/imag002.jpg" /></p> +<p>It is quite evident that Cave was never a large town, and +it seems most probable that she realized that an amicable +understanding with Præneste was discreet. This is rendered +almost certain by the proof of a continuance of business +relations between the two places. The greater number of +the big tombs of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. are of +a peperino from Cave,<a name="FNanchor_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21"><sup>[21]</sup></a> +and a good deal of the tufa used +in wall construction in Præneste is from the quarries near +Cave, as Fernique saw.<a name="FNanchor_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22"><sup>[22]</sup></a></p> +<p>Rocca di Cave, on a hill top behind Cave, is too insignificant +a location to have been the cause of the lower town, +which at the best does not itself occupy a very advantageous +position in any way, except that it is in the line of a trade +route from lower Italy. It might be maintained with some +reason that Cave was a settlement of dissatisfied merchants +from Præneste, who had gone out and established themselves +on the main road for the purpose of anticipating the +trade, but there is much against such an argument.</p> +<p>It has been shown that there were peaceable relations +between Præneste and Cave in the fifth and sixth centuries +B.C., but that the two towns were on terms of equality is +impossible, and that Cave was a dependency of Præneste, +and in her domain, is most unlikely both topographically +and epigraphically. And more than this, just as an ancient +feud can be proved between Præneste and Rome from the +slurs on Præneste which one finds in literature from Plautus +down,<a name="FNanchor_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23"><sup>[23]</sup></a> +if no other proofs were to be had,<a name="FNanchor_24"></a><a + href="#Footnote_24"><sup>[24]</sup></a> just so there +is a very ancient grudge between Præneste and Cave, which +has been perpetuated and is very noticeable even at the +present day.<a name="FNanchor_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25"><sup>[25]</sup></a></p> +<p>The topography of Præneste as to the site of the city +proper, and as to its territorial domain is then, about as +follows.</p> +<p>In very early times, probably as early as the ninth or +tenth century B.C., Præneste was a town on the southern +slope of Monte Glicestro,<a name="FNanchor_26"></a><a + href="#Footnote_26"><sup>[26]</sup></a> with an arx on the summit. +As the town grew, it spread first to the level ground +directly below, and out along the ridge west of the Valle di +Pepe toward Marcigliano, because it was territory not only +fertile and easily defended, being directly under the very +eyes of the citizens, but also because it stretched out toward +Velitræ, an old and trusted ally.<a name="FNanchor_27"></a><a + href="#Footnote_27"><sup>[27]</sup></a></p> +<p>Her next expansion was in the direction of Tibur, along +the trade route which followed the Sabine side of the Liris-Trerus +valley, and this expansion gave her a most fertile +piece of territory. To insure this against incursions from +the pass which led back into the mountains, it seems certain +that Præneste secured or perhaps colonized Capranica.</p> +<p>The last Prænestine expansion in territory had a motive +beyond the acquisition of land, for it was also important +from a strategical point of view. It will be remembered +that the second great trade route which came into the +Roman plain ran past Zagarolo, Passerano, and Corcolle.<a + name="FNanchor_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28"><sup>[28]</sup></a> +This road runs along a valley just below ridges which radiate +from the mountain on which Præneste is situated, and +thus bordered the land which was by nature territory +dependent upon Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_29"></a><a + href="#Footnote_29"><sup>[29]</sup></a> So this final extension of her +domain was to command this important road. With the +carrying out of this project all the ridges mentioned above +came gradually into the possession of Praneste, as natural, +expedient, and unquestioned domain, and on the ends of +those ridges which were defensible, dependent towns grew +up. There was also a town at Cavamonte above the +Maremmana road, probably a village out on the Colle +dell'Oro, and undoubtedly one at Marcigliano, or in that +vicinity.</p> +<p>We have already seen that across a valley and a stream of +some consequence there is a ridge not at all connected +with the mountain on which Præneste was situated, but +belonging rather to Valmontone, which was better suited +for neutral ground or to act as a buffer to the southeast. +We turn to mention this ridge again as territory topographically +outside Præneste's domain, in order to say more forcibly +that one must cross still another valley and stream +before reaching the territory of Cave, and so Cave, although +dependent upon Præneste, by reason of its size and interests, +was not a dependent city of Præneste, nor was it a +part of her domain.<a name="FNanchor_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30"><sup>[30]</sup></a></p> +<p>In short, to describe Præneste, that famous town of +Latium, and her domain in a true if homely way, she was +an ancient and proud city whose territory was a commanding +mountain and a number of ridges running out from it, +which spread out like a fan all the way from the Fosso +dell'Ospedalato (the depression shown in <a href="#plate_ii">plate II</a>) +to the +Sabine mountains on the north.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="CITY"></a>THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES.</p> +<p>The general supposition has been that the earliest inhabitants +of Præneste lived only in the citadel on top of the +hill. This theory is supported by the fact that there is +room enough, and, as will be shown below, there was in +early times plenty of water there; nevertheless it is certain +that this was not the whole of the site of the early city.</p> +<p>The earliest inhabitants of Præneste needed first of all, +safety, then a place for pasturage, and withal, to be as close +to the fertile land at the foot of the mountain as possible. +The first thing the inhabitants of the new city did was to +build a wall. There is still a little of this oldest wall in the +circuit about the citadel, and it was built at exactly the same +time as the lower part of the double walls that extend down +the southern slope of the mountain on each side of the +upper part of the modern town. It happens that by following +the edges of the slope of this southern face of the +mountain down to a certain point, one realizes that even +without a wall the place would be practically impregnable. +Add to this the fact that all the stones necessary for a wall +were obtained during the scarping of the arx on the side +toward the Sabines,<a name="FNanchor_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31"><sup>[31]</sup></a> +and needed only to be rolled down, +not up, to their places in the wall, which made the task a +very easy one comparatively. Now if a place can be found +which is naturally a suitable place for a lower cross wall, +we shall have what an ancient site demanded; first, safety, +because the site now proposed is just as impregnable as the +citadel itself, and still very high above the plain below; +second, pasturage, for on the slope between the lower town +and the arx is the necessary space which the arx itself +hardly supplies; and third, a more reasonable nearness to +the fertile land below. All the conditions necessary are fulfilled +by a cross wall in Præneste, which up to this time has +remained mostly unknown, often neglected or wrongly +described, and wholly misunderstood. As we shall see, +however, this very wall was the lower boundary of the +earliest Præneste. The establishment of this important fact +will remove one of the many stumbling blocks over which +earlier writers on Præneste have fallen.</p> +<p>It has been said above that the lowest part of the wall +of the arx, and the two walls from it down the mountain +were built at the same time. The accompanying plate +(<a href="#plate_iii">III</a>) shows very plainly the course of the +western wall +as it comes down the hill lining the edge of the slope +where it breaks off most sharply. Porta San Francesco, +the modern gate, is above the second tree from the +right in the illustration, just where the wall seems to +turn suddenly. There is no trace of ancient wall after the +gate is passed. The white wall, as one proceeds from the +gate to the right, is the modern wall of the Franciscan monastery. +All the writers on Præneste say that the ancient +wall came on around the town where the lower wall of the +monastery now is, and followed the western limit of the +present town as far as the Porta San Martino.</p> +<p>Returning now to plate II we observe a thin white line +of wall which joins a black line running off at an angle to +our left. This is also a piece of the earliest cyclopean wall, +and it is built just at the eastern edge of the hill where it +falls off very sharply.</p> +<p>Now if one follows the Via di San Francesco in from the +gate of that name (see <a href="#plate_iii">plate III</a> again) and +then continues +down a narrow street east of the monastery as far as the +open space in front of the church of Santa Maria del Carmine, +he will see that on his left above him the slope of the +mountain was not only precipitous by nature but that also +it has been rendered entirely unassailable by scarping.<a + name="FNanchor_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32"><sup>[32]</sup></a> +From the lower end of this steep escarpment there is a +cyclopean wall, of the same date as the upper side walls +of the town, and the wall of the arx, which runs entirely +across the city to within a few yards of the wall on the east, +and to a point just below a portella, where the upper cyclopean +wall makes a slight change in direction. The presence +of the gate and the change of direction in the wall mean +a corner in the wall.</p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="plate_iii"></a><img + style="width: 512px; height: 412px;" + alt="PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Præneste, and the depression which divides Monte Glicestro." + title="PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Præneste, and the depression which divides Monte Glicestro." + src="images/imag003.jpg" /><br /> +</p> +<h5>PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Præneste, and the +depression which divides +Monte Glicestro.</h5> +<p>It is strange indeed that this wall has not been recognized +for what it really is. A bit of it shows above the steps +where the Via dello Spregato leaves the Via del Borgo. +Fernique shows this much in his map, but by a curious +oversight names it opus incertum.<a name="FNanchor_33"></a><a + href="#Footnote_33"><sup>[33]</sup></a> More than +two irregular courses are to be seen here, and fifteen +feet in from the street, forming the back wall of cellars +and pig pens, the cyclopean wall, in places to a height +of fifteen feet or more, can be followed to within a few +yards of the open space in front of Santa Maria del Carmine. +And on the other side toward the east the same wall +begins again, after being broken by the Via dello Spregato, +and forms the foundations and side walls of the houses on +the south side of that street, and at the extreme east end +is easily found as the back wall of a blacksmith's shop at +the top of the Via della Fontana, and can be identified as +cyclopean by a little cleaning of the wall.</p> +<p>The circuit of the earliest cyclopean wall and natural +ramparts of the contemporaneous citadel and town of Præneste +was as follows: An arc of cyclopean wall below the +cap of the hill which swung round from the precipitous +cliff on the west to that on the east, the whole of the side +of the arx toward the mountains being so steep that no +wall was necessary; then a second loop of cyclopean wall +from the arx down the steep western edge of the southern +slope of the mountain as far as the present Porta San +Francesco. From this point natural cliffs reinforced at the +upper end by a short connecting wall bring us to the beginning +of the wall which runs across the town back of the +Via del Borgo from Santa Maria del Carmine to within a +short distance of the east wall of the city, separated from +it in fact only by the Via della Fontana, which runs up just +inside the wall. There it joins the cyclopean wall which +comes down from the citadel on the east side of the town.</p> +<p>The reasons why this is the oldest circuit of the city's +walls are the following: first, all this stretch of wall is the +oldest and was built at the same time; second, topography +has marked out most clearly that the territory inclosed by +these walls, here and only here, fulfills the two indispensable +requisites of the ancient town, namely space and defensibility; +third, below the gate San Francesco all the way +round the city as far as Porta del Sole, neither in the wall +nor in the buildings, nor in the valley below, is there any +trace of cyclopean wall stones;<a name="FNanchor_34"></a><a + href="#Footnote_34"><sup>[34]</sup></a> fourth, at the point where +the cross wall and the long wall must have met at the east, +the wall makes a change in direction, and there is an ancient +postern gate just above the jog in the wall; and last, the +cyclopean wall from this junction on down to near the +Porta del Sole is later than that of the circuit just +described.<a name="FNanchor_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35"><sup>[35]</sup></a></p> +<p>The city was extended within a century perhaps, and the +new line of the city wall was continued on the east in +cyclopean style as far as the present Porta del Sole, where it +turned to the west and continued until the hill itself offered +enough height so that escarpment of the natural cliff would +serve in place of the wall. Then it turned up the hill between +the present Via San Biagio and Via del Carmine back of +Santa Maria del Carmine. The proof for this expansion +is clear. The continuation of the cyclopean +wall can be seen now as far as the Porta del Sole,<a name="FNanchor_36"></a><a + href="#Footnote_36"><sup>[36]</sup></a> +and the line of the wall which turns to the west +is positively known from the cippi of the ancient pomerium, +which were found in 1824 along the present Via +degli Arconi.<a name="FNanchor_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37"><sup>[37]</sup></a> +The ancient gate, now closed, in the opus +quadratum wall under the Cardinal's garden, is in direct +line with the ancient pavement of the road which comes up +to the city from the south,<a name="FNanchor_38"></a><a + href="#Footnote_38"><sup>[38]</sup></a> and the continuation of that +road, which seems to have been everywhere too steep for +wagons, is the Via del Carmine. There had always been +another road outside the wall which went up a less steep +grade, and came round the angle of the wall at what is now +the Porta S. Martino, where it entered a gate that opened +out of the present Corso toward the west. When at a later +time, probably in the middle ages, the city was built out to +its present boundary on the west, the wagon road was simply +arched over, and this arch is now the gate San Martino.<a + name="FNanchor_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39"><sup>[39]</sup></a></p> +<p>It will be necessary to speak further of the cyclopean wall +on the east side of the city from the Porta del Sole to the +Portella, for it has always been supposed that this part of +the wall was exactly like the rest, and dated from the same +period. But a careful examination shows that the stones +in this lower portion are laid more regularly than those in +the wall above the Portella, that they are more flatly faced +on the outside, and that here and there a little mortar is +used. Above all, however, there is in the wall on one of the +stones under the house no. 24, Via della Fontana an inscription,<a + name="FNanchor_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40"><sup>[40]</sup></a> +which Richter, Dressel, and Dessau all think was +there when the stone was put in the wall, and incline to +allow no very remote date for the building of the wall at +that point. To me, after a comparative study of this wall +and the one at Norba, the two seem to date from very nearly +the same time, and no one now dares attribute great antiquity +to the walls of Norba. But the rest of the cyclopean +wall of Præneste is very ancient, certainly a century, perhaps +two or three centuries, older than the part from the Portella +down.</p> +<p>There remains still to be discussed the lower wall of the +city on the south, and a restraining terrace wall along part +of the present Corso Pierluigi. The stretch of city wall +from the Porta del Sole clear across the south front to the +Porta di S. Martino is of opus quadratum, with the exception +of a stretch of opus incertum<a name="FNanchor_41"></a><a + href="#Footnote_41"><sup>[41]</sup></a> below and east of the +Barberini gardens, and a small space where the city sewage +has destroyed all vestige of a wall. The restraining wall +just mentioned is also of opus quadratum and is to be found +along the south side of the Corso, but can be seen only from +the winecellars on the terrace below that street. These +walls of opus quadratum were built with a purpose, to be +sure, but their entire meaning has not been understood.<a + name="FNanchor_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42"><sup>[42]</sup></a></p> +<p>The upper wall, the one along the Corso, can not be traced +farther than the Piazza Garibaldi, in front of the Cathedral. +It has been a mistake to consider this a high wall. It was +built simply to level up with the Corso terrace, partly to give +more space on the terrace, partly to make room for a road +which ran across the city here between two gates no longer +in existence. But more especially was it built to be the +lower support for a gigantic water reservoir which extends +under nearly the whole width of this terrace from about +Corso Pierluigi No. 88 almost to the Cathedral.<a name="FNanchor_43"></a><a + href="#Footnote_43"><sup>[43]</sup></a> The four +sides of this great reservoir are also of opus quadratum laid +header and stretcher.</p> +<p>The lower wall, the real town wall, is a wall only in appearance, +for it has but one thickness of blocks, set header +and stretcher in a mass of solid concrete.<a name="FNanchor_44"></a><a + href="#Footnote_44"><sup>[44]</sup></a> This wall +makes very clear the impregnability of even the lower +part of Præneste, for the wall not only occupies a good +position, but is really a double line of defense. There are +here two walls, one above the other, the upper one nineteen +feet back of the lower, thus leaving a terrace of that width.<a + name="FNanchor_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45"><sup>[45]</sup></a> +At the east, instead of the lower solid wall of opus quadratum, +there is a series of fine tufa arches built to serve as a +substructure for something. It is to be remembered again +that between the arches on the east and the solid wall on the +west is a stretch of 200 feet of opus incertum, and a space +where there is no wall at all. This lower wall of Præneste +occupies the same line as the ancient wall and escarpment, +but the most of what survives was restored in Sulla's time. +The opus quadratum is exactly the same style as that in +the Tabularium in Rome.</p> +<p>Now, no one could see the width of the terrace above the +lower wall, without thinking that so great a width was unnecessary +unless it was to give room for a road.<a name="FNanchor_46"></a><a + href="#Footnote_46"><sup>[46]</sup></a> The +difficulty has been, however, that the line of arches at the +east, not being in alignment with the lower wall on the west, +has not been connected with it hitherto, and so a correct +understanding of their relation has been impossible.</p> +<p>Before adducing evidence to show the location of the +main and triumphal entrance to Præneste, we shall turn +to the town above for a moment to see whether it is, +a priori, reasonable to suppose that there was an entrance +to the city here in the center of its front wall. If roads +came up a grade from the east and west, they would +join at a point where now there is no wall at all. This +break is in the center of the south wall, just above the +forum which was laid out in Sulla's time on the level spot +immediately below the town. Most worthy of note, however, +is that this opening is straight below the main buildings +<a name="page_30"></a>of the ancient town, the basilica, which is now +the cathedral, +and the temple of Fortuna. But further, a fact which +has never been noticed nor accounted for, this opening +is also in front of the modern square, the piazza +Garibaldi, which is in front of the buildings just +mentioned but below them on the next terrace, yet +there is no entrance to this terrace shown.<a name="FNanchor_47"></a><a + href="#Footnote_47"><sup>[47]</sup></a> It is +well known that the open space south of the temple, +beside the basilica, has an ancient pavement some ten feet +below the present level of the modern piazza Savoia.<a + name="FNanchor_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48"><sup>[48]</sup></a> +Proof given below in connection with the large tufa base +which is on the level of the lower terrace will show that the +piazza Garibaldi was an open space in ancient times and a +part of the ancient forum. Again, the solarium, which is +on the south face of the basilica,<a name="FNanchor_49"></a><a + href="#Footnote_49"><sup>[49]</sup></a> was put up there that +it might be seen, and as it faces the south, the piazza Garibaldi, +and this open space in the wall under discussion, +what is more likely than that there was not only an open +square below the basilica, but also the main approach to +the city?</p> +<p>But now for the proof. In 1756 ancient paving stones +were still in situ<a name="FNanchor_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50"><sup>[50]</sup></a> +above the row of arches on the Via degli +Arconi, and even yet the ascent is plain enough to the eye. +The ground slopes up rather moderately along the Via +degli Arconi toward the east, and nearly below the southeast +corner of the ancient wall turned up to the west on +these arches, approaching the entrance in the middle of the +south wall of the city.<a name="FNanchor_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51"><sup>[51]</sup></a> +But these arches and the road on +them do not align exactly with the terrace on the west. Nor +should they do so. The arches are older than the present +opus quadratum wall, and the road swung round and up to +align with the road below and the old wall or escarpment of +the city above. Then when the whole town, its gates, its +walls, and its temple, were enlarged and repaired by Sulla, +the upper wall was perfectly aligned, a lower wall built on +the west leaving a terrace for a road, and the arches were +left to uphold the road on the east. Although the arches +were not exactly in line, the road could well have been so, for +the terrace here was wider and ran back to the upper wall.<a + name="FNanchor_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52"><sup>[52]</sup></a> +The evidence is also positive enough that there was an +ascent to the terrace on the west, the one below the Barberini +gardens, which corresponds to the ascent on the arches. +This terrace now is level, and at its west end is some twenty +feet above the garden below. But the wall shows very +plainly that it had sloped off toward the west, and the slope +is most clearly to be seen, where a very obtuse angle of +newer and different tufa has been laid to build up the wall +to a level.<a name="FNanchor_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53"><sup>[53]</sup></a> +It is to be noticed too that this terrace is the +same height as the top of the ascent above the arches. +We have then actual proofs for roads leading up from +east and west toward the center of the wall on the south side +of the city, and every reason that an entrance here was practicable, +credible, and necessary.</p> +<p>But there is one thing more necessary to make probabilities +tally wholly with the facts. If there was a grand +entrance to the city, below the basilica, the temple, and the +main open square, which faced out over the great forum +below, there must have been a monumental gate in the wall. +As a matter of fact there was such a gate, and I believe it +was called the <a name="PORTA_TRIUMPHALIS"></a>PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. An +inscription of the +age of the Antonines mentions "seminaria a Porta Triumphale," +and this passing reference to a gate with a name +which in itself implies a gate of consequence, so well known +that a building placed near it at once had its location fixed, +gives the rest of the proof necessary to establish a central +entrance to the city in front, through a PORTA TRIUMPHALIS.<a + name="FNanchor_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54"><sup>[54]</sup></a></p> +<p>Before the time of Sulla there had been a gate in the +south wall of the city, approached by one road, which +ascended from the east on the arches facing the present +Via degli Arconi. After entering the city one went straight +up a grade not very steep to the basilica, and to the open +square or ancient forum which was the space now occupied +by the two modern piazzas, the Garibaldi and the Savoia, +and on still farther to the temple. When Sulla rebuilt +the city, and laid out a forum on the level +space directly south of and below the town, he made +another road from the west to correspond to the old ascent +from the east, and brought them together at the old central +gate, which he enlarged to the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. In +the open square in front of the basilica had stood the +statue of some famous man<a name="FNanchor_55"></a><a + href="#Footnote_55"><sup>[55]</sup></a> on a platform of squared stone +16 x 17-1/2 feet in measurement. Around this base the Sullan +improvements put a restraining wall of opus quadratum.<a + name="FNanchor_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56"><sup>[56]</sup></a> +The open square was in front of the basilica and to its left +below the temple. There was but one way to the terrace +above the temple from the ancient forum. This was a steep +road to the right, up the present Via delle Scalette. Another +road ran to the left back of the basilica, but ended +either in front of the western cave connected with the temple, +or at the entrance into the precinct of the temple.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="GATES"></a>THE GATES.</p> +<p>Strabo, in a well known passage,<a name="FNanchor_57"></a><a + href="#Footnote_57"><sup>[57]</sup></a> speaks of Tibur and +Præneste as two of the most famous and best fortified of +the towns of Latium, and tells why Præneste is the more +impregnable, but we have no mention of its gates in literature, +except incidentally in Plutarch,<a name="FNanchor_58"></a><a + href="#Footnote_58"><sup>[58]</sup></a> who says that when +Marius was flying before Sulla's forces and had reached +Præneste, he found the gates closed, and had to be drawn +up the wall by a rope. The most ancient reference we +have to a definite gate is to the Porta Triumphalis, in the +inscription just mentioned, and this is the only gate of +Præneste mentioned by name in classic times.</p> +<p>In 1353 A.D. we have two gates mentioned. The +Roman tribune Cola di Rienzo (Niccola di Lorenzo) +brought his forces out to attack Stefaniello Colonna in +Præneste. It was not until Rienzo moved his camp across +from the west to the east side of the plain below the town +that he saw how the citizens were obtaining supplies. The +two gates S. Cesareo and S. Francesco<a name="FNanchor_59"></a><a + href="#Footnote_59"><sup>[59]</sup></a> were both being +utilized to bring in supplies from the mountains back of the +city, and the stock was driven to and from pasture through +these gates. These gates were both ancient, as will be +shown below. Again in 1448 when Stefano Colonna +rebuilt some walls after the awful destruction of the +city by Cardinal Vitelleschi, he opened three gates, S. +Cesareo, del Murozzo, and del Truglio.<a name="FNanchor_60"></a><a + href="#Footnote_60"><sup>[60]</sup></a> In 1642<a name="FNanchor_61"></a><a + href="#Footnote_61"><sup>[61]</sup></a> +two more gates were opened by Prince Taddeo Barberini, +the Porta del Sole, and the Porta delle Monache, +the former at the southeast corner of the town, the latter +in the east wall at the point where the new wall round the +monastery della Madonna degl'Angeli struck the old city +wall, just above the present street where it turns from the +Via di Porta del Sole into the Corso Pierluigi. This +Porta del Sole<a name="FNanchor_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62"><sup>[62]</sup></a> +was the principal gate of the town at +this time, or perhaps the one most easily defended, for +in 1656, during the plague in Rome, all the other gates were +walled up, and this one alone left open.<a name="FNanchor_63"></a><a + href="#Footnote_63"><sup>[63]</sup></a></p> +<p>The present gates of the city are: one, at the southeast +corner, the Porta del Sole; two, near the southwest corner, +where the wall turns up toward S. Martino, a gate now +closed;<a name="FNanchor_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64"><sup>[64]</sup></a> +three, Porta S. Martino, at the southwest corner +of the town; on the west side of the city, none at all; four, +Porta S. Francesco at the northwest corner of the city +proper; five, a gate in the arx wall, now closed,<a name="FNanchor_65"></a><a + href="#Footnote_65"><sup>[65]</sup></a> beside +the mediæval gate, which is just at the head of the depression +shown in plate III, the lowest point in the wall of the +citadel; on the east, Porta S. Cesareo, some distance above +the town, six; seven, Porta dei Cappuccini, which is on the +same terrace as Porta S. Francesco; eight, Portella, the +eastern outlet of the Via della Portella; nine, a postern +just below the Portella, and not now in use;<a name="FNanchor_66"></a><a + href="#Footnote_66"><sup>[66]</sup></a> ten, Porta +delle Monache or Santa Maria, in front of the church of that +name. The most ancient of these, and the ones which were +in the earliest circle of the cyclopean wall, are five in number: +Porta S. Francesco,<a name="FNanchor_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67"><sup>[67]</sup></a> +the gate into the arx, Porta S. +Cesareo,<a name="FNanchor_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68"><sup>[68]</sup></a> +Porta dei Cappuccini, and the postern at the corner +where the early cyclopean cross wall struck the main +wall.</p> +<p>The second wall of the city, which was rather an +enlargement of the first, was cyclopean on the east +as far as the present Porta del Sole, and either scarped +cliff or opus quadratum round to Porta S. Martino, +and up to Porta S. Francesco.<a name="FNanchor_69"></a><a + href="#Footnote_69"><sup>[69]</sup></a> At the east end +of the modern Corso, there was a gate, made of +opus quadratum,<a name="FNanchor_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70"><sup>[70]</sup></a> +as is shown not only by the fact +that this is the main street of the city, and on the terrace +level of the basilica, but also because the mediæval wall +round the monastery of the Madonna degl'Angeli, the +grounds of the present church of Santa Maria, did not run +straight to the cyclopean wall, but turned down to join it +near the gate which it helps to prove. Next, there was +a gate, but in all probability only a postern, near the Porta +del Sole where the cyclopean wall stops, where now there +is a narrow street which runs up to the piazza Garibaldi. +On the south there was the gate which at some time was +given the name Porta Triumphalis. It was at the place +where now there is no wall at all.<a name="FNanchor_71"></a><a + href="#Footnote_71"><sup>[71]</sup></a> At the southwest +we find the next gate, the one which is now closed.<a name="FNanchor_72"></a><a + href="#Footnote_72"><sup>[72]</sup></a> +The last one of the ancient gates in this second circle of +the city wall was one just inside the modern Porta S. Martino, +which opened west at the end of the Corso. All the +rest of the gates are mediæval.</p> +<p>A few words about the roads leading to the several gates +of Præneste will help further to settle the antiquity of these +gates.<a name="FNanchor_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73"><sup>[73]</sup></a> +The oldest road was certainly the trade route which +came up the north side of the Liris valley below the hill on +which Præneste was situated, and which followed about the +line of the Via Prænestina as shown by Ashby in his map.<a + name="FNanchor_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74"><sup>[74]</sup></a> +Two branch roads from this main track ran up to the +town, one at the west, the other at the east, both in the +same line as the modern roads. These roads were bound +for the city gates as a matter of course and the land slopes +least sharply where these roads were and still are. Another +important road was outside the city wall, from one +gate to the other, and took the slope on the south side of +the city where the Via degli Arconi now runs.<a name="FNanchor_75"></a><a + href="#Footnote_75"><sup>[75]</sup></a></p> +<p>As far as excavations have proved up to this time, the +oldest road out of Præneste is that which is now the Via +della Marcigliana, along which were found the very early +tombs. It is to be noted that these tombs begin beyond the +church of S. Rocco, which is a long distance below the +town. This distance however makes it certain that between +S. Rocco and the city, excavation will bring to light other +and yet older tombs along the road which leads up toward +"l'antica porta S. Martino chiusa," and also in all probability +rows of graves will be found along the present road +to Cave. But the tombs give us the direction at least of +the old road.<a name="FNanchor_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76"><sup>[76]</sup></a></p> +<p>There is yet another old road which was lately discovered. +It is about three hundred yards below the city and near the +road that cuts through from Porta del Sole to the church +of Madonna dell'Aquila.<a name="FNanchor_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77"><sup>[77]</sup></a> +This road is made of polygonal +stones of the limestone of the mountain, and hence is older +than any of the lava roads. It runs nearly parallel with +the Via degli Arconi, and takes a direction which would +strike the Via Prænestina where it crosses the Via +Prænestina +Nuova which runs past Zagarolo. That is, the most +ancient piece of road we have leads up to the southeast +corner of the town, but the oldest tombs point to a road +the direction of which was toward the southwest corner. +However, all the roads lead toward the southeast corner, +where the old grade began that went up above the arches, +mentioned above, to a middle gate of the city.</p> +<p>The gate S. Francesco also is proved to be ancient because +of the old road that led from it. This road is identified +by a deposit of ex voto terracottas which were found +at the edge of the road in a hole hollowed out in the rocks.<a + name="FNanchor_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78"><sup>[78]</sup></a></p> +<p>The two roads which were traveled the most were the +ones that led toward Rome. This is shown by the tombs on +both sides of them,<a name="FNanchor_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79"><sup>[79]</sup></a> +and by the discovery of a deposit +of a great quantity of ex voto terracottas in the angle between +the two.<a name="FNanchor_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80"><sup>[80]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p><a name="WATER"></a>THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRÆNESTE.</p> +<p>In very early times there was a spring near the top of +Monte Glicestro. This is shown by a glance back at plate +III, which indicates the depression or cut in the hill, which +from its shape and depth is clearly not altogether natural +and attributable to the effects of rain, but is certainly the +effect of a spring, the further and positive proof of the +existence of which is shown by the unnecessarily low dip +made by the wall of the citadel purposely to inclose the +head of this depression. There are besides no water reservoirs +inside the wall of the arx. This supply of water, +however, failed, and it must have failed rather early in the +city's history, perhaps at about the time the lower part of +the city was walled in, for the great reservoir on the Corso +terrace seems to be contemporary with this second wall.</p> +<p>But at all times Præneste was dependent upon reservoirs +for a sure and lasting supply of water. The mountain and +the town were famous because of the number of water +reservoirs there.<a name="FNanchor_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81"><sup>[81]</sup></a>A +great many of these reservoirs were +dependent upon catchings from the rain,<a name="FNanchor_82"></a><a + href="#Footnote_82"><sup>[82]</sup></a> but +before a war, +or when the rainfall was scant, they were filled undoubtedly +from springs outside the city. In later times they were +connected with the aqueducts which came to the city from +beyond Capranica.</p> +<p>It is easy to account now for the number of gates on the +east side of the city. True, this side of the wall lay away +from the Campagna, and egress from gates on this side +could not be seen by an enemy unless he moved clear across +the front of the city.<a name="FNanchor_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83"><sup>[83]</sup></a> +But the real reason for the presence +of so many gates is that the best and most copious +springs were on this side of the city, as well as the course +of the little headstream of the Trerus. The best concealed +egress was from the Porta Cesareo, from which a road led +round back of the mountain to a fine spring, which was +high enough above the valley to be quite safe.</p> +<p>There are no references in literature to aqueducts which +brought water to Præneste. Were we left to this evidence +alone, we should conclude that Præneste had depended upon +reservoirs for water. But in inscriptions we have mention +of baths,<a name="FNanchor_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84"><sup>[84]</sup></a> +the existence of which implies aqueducts, and +there is the specus of an aqueduct to be seen outside the +Porta S. Francesco.<a name="FNanchor_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85"><sup>[85]</sup></a> +This ran across to the Colle S. Martino +to supply a large brick reservoir of imperial date.<a name="FNanchor_86"></a><a + href="#Footnote_86"><sup>[86]</sup></a> +There were aqueducts still in 1437, for Cardinal Vitelleschi +captured Palestrina by cutting off its water supply.<a + name="FNanchor_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87"><sup>[87]</sup></a> This +shows that the water came from outside the city, and +through aqueducts which probably dated back to Roman +times,<a name="FNanchor_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88"><sup>[88]</sup></a> +and also that the reservoirs were at this time no +longer used. In 1581 the city undertook to restore the old +aqueduct which brought water from back of Capranica, but +no description was left of its exact course or ancient construction.<a + name="FNanchor_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89"><sup>[89]</sup></a> +While these repairs were in progress, Francesco +Cecconi leased to the city his property called Terreni, +where there were thirty fine springs of clear water not far +from the city walls. Again in 1776 the springs called delle +cannuccete sent in dirty water to the city, so citizens were +appointed to remedy matters. They added a new spring to +those already in use and this water came to the city through +an aqueduct.<a name="FNanchor_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90"><sup>[90]</sup></a></p> +<p>The remains of four great reservoirs, all of brick construction, +are plainly enough to be seen at Palestrina, and +as far as situation and size are concerned, are well enough +described in other places.<a name="FNanchor_91"></a><a + href="#Footnote_91"><sup>[91]</sup></a> But in the case of these +reservoirs, +as in that of all the other remains of ancient construction +at Præneste, the writers on the history of the +town have made great mistakes, because all of them +have been predisposed to the pleasant task of making all +the ruins fit some restoration or other of the temple of +Fortuna, although, as a matter of fact, none of the reservoirs +have any connection whatever with the temple.<a name="FNanchor_92"></a><a + href="#Footnote_92"><sup>[92]</sup></a> <a name="page_41"></a>The +fine brick reservoir of the time of Tiberius,<a name="FNanchor_93"></a><a + href="#Footnote_93"><sup>[93]</sup></a> which is at +the junction of the Via degli Arconi and the road from the +Porta S. Martino, was not built to supply fountains or +baths in the forum below, but was simply a great supply +reservoir for the citizens who lived in particular about the +lower forum, and the water from this reservoir was carried +away by hand, as is shown by the two openings like well +heads in the top of each compartment of the reservoir, and +by the steps which gave entrance to it on the east. The +reservoir above this in the Barberini gardens is of a date +a half century later.<a name="FNanchor_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94"><sup>[94]</sup></a> +It is of the same brick work as +the great fountain which stands, now debased to a grist +mill, across the Via degli Arconi about half way between +S. Lucia and Porta del Sole. The upper reservoir undoubtedly +supplied this fountain, and other public buildings in +the forum below. There is another large brick reservoir +below the present ground level in the angle between the +Via degli Arconi and the Cave road below the Porta del +Sole, but it is too low ever to have served for public use. +It was in connection with some private bath. The fourth +huge reservoir, the one on Colle S. Martino, has already +been mentioned.</p> +<p>But the most ancient of all the reservoirs is one which +is not mentioned anywhere. It dates from the time when +the Corso terrace was made, and is of opus quadratum like +the best of the wall below the city, and the wall on the +lower side of the terrace.<a name="FNanchor_95"></a><a + href="#Footnote_95"><sup>[95]</sup></a> This reservoir, like the one +in +the Barberini garden, served the double purpose of a storage +for water, and of a foundation for the terrace, which, being +thus widened, offered more space for street and buildings +above. It lies west of the basilica, but has no connection +with the temple. From its position it seems rather to have +been one of the secret public water supplies.<a name="FNanchor_96"></a><a + href="#Footnote_96"><sup>[96]</sup></a></p> +<p>Præneste had in early times only one spring within the +city walls, just inside the gate leading into the arx. There +were other springs on the mountain to the east and northeast, +but too far away to be included within the walls. Because +of their height above the valley, they were to a certain +extent available even in times of warfare and siege. +As the upper spring dried up early, and the others were +a little precarious, an elaborate system of reservoirs was developed, +a plan which the natural terraces of the mountain +slope invited, and a plan which gave more space to the town +itself with the work of leveling necessary for the reservoirs. +These reservoirs were all public property. They were at +first dependent upon collection from rains or from spring +water carried in from outside the city walls. Later, however, +aqueducts were made and connected with the reservoirs.</p> +<p>With the expansion of the town to the plain below, this +system gave great opportunity for the development of baths, +fountains, and waterworks,<a name="FNanchor_97"></a><a + href="#Footnote_97"><sup>[97]</sup></a> for Præneste wished to +vie +with Tibur and Rome, where the Anio river and the many +aqueducts had made possible great things for public use +and municipal adornment.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="TEMPLE"></a>THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.</p> +<p>Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Præneste vidisse Fortunam.<a + name="FNanchor_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98"><sup>[98]</sup></a> +In this way Cicero reports a popular saying +which makes clear the fame of the goddess Fortuna Primigenia +and her temple at Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_99"></a><a + href="#Footnote_99"><sup>[99]</sup></a></p> +<p>The excavations at Præneste in the eighteenth century +brought the city again into prominence, and from that time +to the present, Præneste has offered much material for +archæologists and historians.</p> +<p>But the temple of Fortuna has constituted the principal +interest and engaged the particular attention of everyone +who has worked upon the history of the town, because the +early enthusiastic view was that the temple occupied the +whole slope of the mountain,<a name="FNanchor_100"></a><a + href="#Footnote_100"><sup>[100]</sup></a> and that the present city +was built on the terraces and in the ruins of the temple. +Every successive study, however, of the city from a topographical +point of view has lessened more and more the +estimated size of the temple, until now all that can be maintained +successfully is that there are two separate temples +built at different times, the later and larger one occupying +a position two terraces higher than the older and more important +temple below.</p> +<p>The lower temple with its precinct, along the north side +of which extends a wall and the ruins of a so-called cryptoporticus +which connected two caves hollowed out in the +rock, is not so very large a sanctuary, but it occupies a very +good position above and behind the ancient forum and basilica +on a terrace cut back into the solid rock of the mountain. +The temple precinct is a courtyard which extends +along the terrace and occupies its whole width from the +older cave on the west to the newer one at the east. In +front of the latter cave is built the temple itself, which faces +west along the terrace, but extends its southern facade to the +edge of the ancient forum which it overlooks. This temple +is older than the time of Sulla, and occupies the site of an +earlier temple.</p> +<p>Two terraces higher, on the Cortina terrace, stretch out +the ruins of a huge construction in opus incertum. This +building had at least two stories of colonnade facing the +south, and at the north side of the terrace a series of arches +above which in the center rose a round temple which was +approached by a semicircular flight of steps.<a name="FNanchor_101"></a><a + href="#Footnote_101"><sup>[101]</sup></a> This building, +belonging to the time of Sulla, presented a very imposing +appearance from the forum below the town. It has no +connection with the lower temple unless perhaps by underground +passages.</p> +<p>Although this new temple and complex of buildings was +much larger and costlier than the temple below, it was so +little able to compete with the fame of the ancient shrine, +that until mediæval times there is not a mention of it anywhere +by name or by suggestion, unless perhaps in one +inscription mentioned below. The splendid publication of +Delbrueck<a name="FNanchor_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102"><sup>[102]</sup></a> +with maps and plans and bibliography of the +lower temple and the work which has been done on it, makes +unnecessary any remarks except on some few points which +have escaped him.</p> +<p>The tradition was that a certain Numerius Suffustius of +Præneste was warned in dreams to cut into the rocks at a +certain place, and this he did before his mocking fellow citizens, +when to the bewilderment of them all pieces of wood +inscribed with letters of the earliest style leaped from the +rock. The place where this phenomenon occurred was thus +proved divine, the cult of Fortuna Primigenia was established +beyond peradventure, and her oracular replies to those +who sought her shrine were transmitted by means of these +lettered blocks.<a name="FNanchor_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103"><sup>[103]</sup></a> +This story accounts for a cave in which +the lots (sortes) were to be consulted.</p> +<p>But there are two caves. The reason why there are two +has never been shown, nor does Delbrueck have proof +enough to settle which is the older cave.<a name="FNanchor_104"></a><a + href="#Footnote_104"><sup>[104]</sup></a></p> +<p>The cave to the west is made by Delbrueck the shrine of +Iuppiter puer, and the temple with its cave at the east, +the ædes Fortunæ. This he does on the authority of his +understanding of the passage from Cicero which gives +nearly all the written information we have on the subject of +the temple.<a name="FNanchor_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105"><sup>[105]</sup></a> +Delbrueck bases his entire argument on this +passage and two other references to a building called ædes.<a + name="FNanchor_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106"><sup>[106]</sup></a> +Now it was Fortuna who was worshipped at Præneste, +and not Jupiter. Although there is an intimate connection +between Jupiter and Fortuna at Præneste, because she was +thought of at different times as now the mother and now +the daughter of Jupiter, still the weight of evidence will not +allow any such importance to be attached to Iuppiter puer +as Delbrueck wishes.<a name="FNanchor_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107"><sup>[107]</sup></a></p> +<p>The two caves were not made at the same time. This +is proved by the fact that the basilica<a name="FNanchor_108"></a><a + href="#Footnote_108"><sup>[108]</sup></a> is below and between +them. Had there been two caves at the earliest time, with +a common precinct as a connection between them, as there +was later, there would have been power enough in the priesthood +to keep the basilica from occupying the front of the +place which would have been the natural spot for a temple +or for the imposing facade of a portico. The western cave +is the earlier, but it is the earlier not because it was a shrine +of Iuppiter puer, but because the ancient road which came +through the forum turned up to it, because it is the least +symmetrical of the two caves, and because the temple faced +it, and did not face the forum.</p> +<p>The various plans of the temple<a name="FNanchor_109"></a><a + href="#Footnote_109"><sup>[109]</sup></a> have usually assumed +like buildings in front of each cave, and a building, corresponding +to the basilica, between them and forming an +integral part of the plan. But the basilica does not quite +align with the temple, and the road back of the basilica precludes +any such idea, not to mention the fact that no building +the size of a temple was in front of the west cave. It +is the mania for making the temple cover too large a space, +and the desire to show that all its parts were exactly balanced +on either side, and that this triangular shaped sanctuary +culminated in a round temple, this it is that has caused so +much trouble with the topography of the city. The temple, +as it really is, was larger perhaps than any other in Latium, +and certainly as imposing.</p> +<p>Delbrueck did not see that there was a real communication +between the caves along the so-called cryptoporticus. There +is a window-like hole, now walled up, in the east cave at +the top, and it opened out upon the second story of the +cryptoporticus, as Marucchi saw.<a name="FNanchor_110"></a><a + href="#Footnote_110"><sup>[110]</sup></a> So there was an unseen +means of getting from one cave to the other. This +probably proves that suppliants at one shrine went to the +other and were there convinced of the power of the goddess +by seeing the same priest or something which they +themselves had offered at the first shrine. It certainly +proves that both caves were connected with the rites having +to do with the proper obtaining of lots from Fortuna, +and that this communication between the caves was +unknown to any but the temple servants.</p> +<p>There are some other inscriptions not noticed by Delbrueck +which mention the ædes,<a name="FNanchor_111"></a><a + href="#Footnote_111"><sup>[111]</sup></a> and bear on the question in +hand. +One inscription found in the Via delle Monache<a name="FNanchor_112"></a><a + href="#Footnote_112"><sup>[112]</sup></a> shows +that in connection with the sedes Fortunæ were a manceps +and three cellarii. This is an inscription of the last of the +second or the first of the third century A.D.,<a name="FNanchor_113"></a><a + href="#Footnote_113"><sup>[113]</sup></a> when both +lower and upper temples were in very great favor. It shows +further that only the lower temple is meant, for the number +is too small to be applicable to the great upper temple, and +it also shows that ædes, means the temple building itself +and not the whole precinct. There is also an inscription, +now in the floor of the cathedral, that mentions ædes. Its +provenience is noteworthy.<a name="FNanchor_114"></a><a + href="#Footnote_114"><sup>[114]</sup></a> There were other buildings, +however, belonging to the precinct of the lower temple, as +is shown by the remains today.<a name="FNanchor_115"></a><a + href="#Footnote_115"><sup>[115]</sup></a> That there was more +than one sacred building is also shown by inscriptions which +mention ædes sacræ,<a name="FNanchor_116"></a><a + href="#Footnote_116"><sup>[116]</sup></a> though these may refer of +course +to the upper temple as well.</p> +<p>There are yet two inscriptions of importance, one of +which mentions a porticus, the other an ædes et porticus.<a + name="FNanchor_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117"><sup>[117]</sup></a> +The second of these inscriptions belongs to a time not much +later than the founding of the colony. It tells that certain +work was done by decree of the decuriones, and it can +hardly refer to the ancient lower temple, but must mean +either the upper one, or still another out on the new forum, +for there is where the stone is reported to have been found. +The first inscription records a work of some consequence +done by a woman in remembrance of her husband.<a name="FNanchor_118"></a><a + href="#Footnote_118"><sup>[118]</sup></a> +There are no remains to show that the forum below the +town had any temple of such consequence, so it seems best +to refer both these inscriptions to the upper temple, which, +as we know, was rich in marble.<a name="FNanchor_119"></a><a + href="#Footnote_119"><sup>[119]</sup></a></p> +<p>Now after having brought together all the usages of the +word ædes in its application to the temple of Præneste, it +seems that Delbrueck has very small foundation for his +argument which assumes as settled the exact meaning and +location of the ædes Fortunæ.</p> +<p>From the temple itself we turn now to a brief discussion +of a space on the tufa wall which helps to face the cave +on the west. This is a smoothed surface which shows a +narrow cornice ledge above it, and a narrow base below. +In it are a number of irregularly driven holes. Delbrueck +calls it a votive niche,<a name="FNanchor_120"></a><a + href="#Footnote_120"><sup>[120]</sup></a> and says that the "viele +regellos +verstreute Nagelloecher" are due to nails upon which votive +offerings were suspended.</p> +<p>This seems quite impossible. The holes are much too +irregular to have served such a purpose. The holes show +positively that they were made by nails which held up a +slab of some kind, perhaps of marble, on which were displayed +the replies from the goddess<a name="FNanchor_121"></a><a + href="#Footnote_121"><sup>[121]</sup></a> which were too long +to be given by means of the lettered blocks (sortes). Most +likely, however, it was a marble slab or bronze tablet which +contained the lex templi, and was something like the tabula +Veliterna.<a name="FNanchor_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122"><sup>[122]</sup></a></p> +<p>On the floor of the two caves were two very beautiful +mosaics, one of which is now in the Barberini palace, the +other, which is in a sadly mutilated condition, still on the +floor of the west cave. The date of these mosaics has been +a much discussed question. Marucchi puts it at the end of +the second century A.D., while Delbrueck makes it the +early part of the first century B.C., and thinks the mosaics +were the gift of Sulla. Delbrueck does not make his point +at all, and Marucchi is carried too far by a desire to establish +a connection at Præneste between Fortuna and Isis.<a + name="FNanchor_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123"><sup>[123]</sup></a> +Not to go into a discussion of the date of the Greek lettering +which gives the names of the animals portrayed in +the finer mosaic, nor the subject of the mosaic itself,<a + name="FNanchor_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124"><sup>[124]</sup></a> +the +inscription given above<a href="#Footnote_118"><sup>[118]</sup></a> +should help to settle the +date of +the mosaic. Under Claudius, between the years 51 and 54 +A.D., a portico was decorated with marble and a coating +of marble facing. That this was a very splendid ornamentation +is shown by the fact that it is mentioned so particularly +in the inscription. And if in 54 A.D. marble and +marble facing were things so worthy of note, then certainly +one hundred and thirty years earlier there was no marble +mosaic floor in Præneste like the one under discussion, +which is considered the finest large piece of Roman mosaic +in existence. And it was fifty years later than the date +Delbrueck wishes to assign to this mosaic, before marble +began to be used in any great profusion in Rome, and at +this time Præneste was not in advance of Rome. The mosaic, +therefore, undoubtedly dates from about the time of +Hadrian, and was probably a gift to the city when he built +himself a villa below the town.<a name="FNanchor_125"></a><a + href="#Footnote_125"><sup>[125]</sup></a></p> +<p>Finally, a word with regard to the ærarium. This is under +the temple of Fortuna, but is not built with any regard +to the facade of the temple above. The inscription on the +back wall of the chamber is earlier than the time of Sulla,<a + name="FNanchor_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126"><sup>[126]</sup></a> +and <a name="page_51"></a>the position of this little vault<a + name="FNanchor_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127"><sup>[127]</sup></a> +shows that it was a +treasury connected with the basilica, indeed its close proximity +about makes it part of that building and proves that +it was the storehouse for public funds and records. It +occupied a very prominent place, for it was at the upper +end of the old forum, directly in front of the Sacra Via +that came up past the basilica from the Porta Triumphalis. +The conclusion of the whole matter is that the earliest +city forum grew up on the terrace in front of the place +where the mysterious lots had leaped out of the living rock. +A basilica was built in a prominent place in the northwest +corner of the forum. Later, another wonderful cave was +discovered or made, and at such a distance from the first +one that a temple in front of it would have a facing on the +forum beyond the basilica, and this also gave a space of +ground which was leveled off into a terrace above the basilica +and the forum, and made into a sacred precinct. +Because the basilica occupied the middle front of the +temple property, the temple was made to face west along +the terrace, toward the more ancient cave. The sacred precinct +in front of the temple and between the caves was enclosed, +and had no entrance except at the west end where +the Sacra Via ended, which was in front of the west cave. +Before the temple, facing the sacred inclosure was the +pronaos mentioned in the inscription above,<a name="FNanchor_128"></a><a + href="#Footnote_128"><sup>[128]</sup></a> and along +each side of this inclosure ran a row of columns, and probably +one also on the west side. Both caves and the temple +were consecrated to the service of Fortuna Primigenia, the +tutelary goddess of Præneste. Both caves and an earlier +temple, which occupied part of the site of the present one, +belong to the early life of Præneste.</p> +<p>Sulla built a huge temple on the second terrace higher +than the old temple, but its fame and sanctity were never +comparable to its beauty and its pretensions.<a name="FNanchor_129"></a><a + href="#Footnote_129"><sup>[129]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p><a name="EPIGRAPHICAL_TOPOGRAPHY"></a>THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF +PRÆNESTE.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDICULA, C.I.L., XIV, 2908.</p> +<p>From the provenience of the inscription this building, +not necessarily a sacred one (Dessau), was one of the +many structures on the site of the new Forum below the +town.</p> +<br /> +<p>PUBLICA ÆDIFICIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2919, 3032.</p> +<p>Barbarus Pompeianus about 227 A.D. restored a number +of public buildings which had begun to fall to pieces. +A mensor æd(ificiorum) (see Dict. under sarcio) is mentioned +in C.I.L., XIV, 3032.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDES ET PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2980.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDES, C.I.L., XIV, 2864, 2867, 3007.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆDES SACRÆ, C.I.L., XIV, 2922, 4091, 9== +Annali dell'Inst., 1855, p. 86.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>ÆRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2975; Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. +207; Marucchi, Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 252; Nibby, Analisi, +II, p. 504; best and latest, Delbrueck, Hellenistische +Bauten in Latium, I, p. 58.</p> +<p>The points worth noting are: that this ærarium is not +built with reference to the temple above, and that it faces +out on the public square. These points have been discussed +more at length above, and will receive still more +attention below under the caption "<a href="#FORUM">FORUM</a>."</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="AMPHITHEATRUM"></a>AMPHITHEATRUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3010, 3014; +Juvenal, III, +173; Ovid, A.A., I, 103 ff.</p> +<p>The remains found out along the Valmontone road<a name="FNanchor_130"></a><a + href="#Footnote_130"><sup>[130]</sup></a> +coincide nearly enough with the provenience of the inscription +to settle an amphitheatre here of late imperial +date. The tradition of the death of the martyr S. Agapito +in an amphitheatre, and the discovery of a Christian +church on the Valmontone road, have helped to make +pretty sure the identification of these ruins.<a name="FNanchor_131"></a><a + href="#Footnote_131"><sup>[131]</sup></a></p> +<p>We know also from an inscription that there was a +gladiatorial school at Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_132"></a><a + href="#Footnote_132"><sup>[132]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p>BALNEÆ, C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add.</p> +<p>The so-called nymphæum, the brick building below the +Via degli Arconi, mentioned <a href="#page_41">page 41</a>, seems to +have been +a bath as well as a fountain, because of the architectural +fragments found there<a name="FNanchor_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133"><sup>[133]</sup></a> +when it was turned into a mill +by the Bonanni brothers. The reservoir mentioned above +on page 41 must have belonged also to a bath, and so do +the ruins which are out beyond the villa under which the +modern cemetery now is. From their orientation they +seem to belong to the villa. There were also baths on +the hill toward Gallicano, as the ruins show.<a name="FNanchor_134"></a><a + href="#Footnote_134"><sup>[134]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p>BYBLIOTHECÆ, C.I.L., XIV, 2916.</p> +<p>These seem to have been two small libraries of public +and private law books.<a name="FNanchor_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135"><sup>[135]</sup></a> +They were in the Forum, as +the provenience of the inscription shows.</p> +<br /> +<p>CIRCUS, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 75, n. 32.</p> +<p>Cecconi thought there was a circus at the bottom of +the depression between Colle S. Martino and the hill of +Præneste. The depression does have a suspiciously +rounded appearance below the Franciscan grounds, but a +careful examination made by me shows no trace of cutting +in the rock to make a half circle for seats, no traces +of any use of the slope for seats, and no ruins of any +kind.</p> +<br /> +<p>CULINA, C.I.L., XIV, 3002.</p> +<p>This was a building of some consequence. Two +quæstors of the city bought a space of ground 148-1/2 by +16 feet along the wall, and superintended the building of +a culina there. The ground was made public, and the +whole transaction was done by decree of the senate, that +is, it was done before the time of Sulla.</p> +<br /> +<p>CURIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2924.</p> +<p>The fact that a statue was to be set up (ve)l ante +curiam vel in porticibus for(i) would seem to imply that +the curia was in the lower Forum. The inscription shows +that these two places were undoubtedly the most desirable +places that a statue could have. There is a possibility +that the curia may be the basilica on the Corso terrace +of the city. It has been shown that an open space existed +in front of the basilica, and that in it there is at +least one basis for a statue. Excavations<a name="FNanchor_136"></a><a + href="#Footnote_136"><sup>[136]</sup></a> at the ruins +which were once thought to be the curia of ancient Præneste +showed instead of a hemicycle, a straight wall built +on remains of a more ancient construction of rectangular +blocks of tufa with three layers of pavement 4-1/2 feet +below the level of the ground, under which was a tomb +of brick construction, and lower still a wall of opus quadratum +of tufa, certainly none of the remains belonging +to a curia.</p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><a name="plate_iv"></a><img + style="width: 512px; height: 389px;" + alt="PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end of the Basilica." + title="PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end of the Basilica." + src="images/imag004.jpg" /></p> +<p><a name="FORUM"></a>FORUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3015.</p> +<p>The most ancient forum of Præneste was inside the +city walls. It was in this forum that the statue of M. +Anicius, the famous prætor, was set up.<a name="FNanchor_137"></a><a + href="#Footnote_137"><sup>[137]</sup></a> The writers +hitherto, however, have been entirely mistaken, in +my opinion, as to the extent of the ancient forum. +For the old forum was not an open space which is now +represented by the Piazza Savoia of the modern town, as +is generally accepted, but the ancient forum of Præneste +was that piazza and the piazza Garibaldi and the space +between them, now built over with houses, all combined. +At the present time one goes down some steps in front +of the cathedral, which was the basilica, to the Piazza +Garibaldi, and it has been supposed that this open space +belonged to a terrace below the Corso. But there was no +lower terrace there. The upper part of the forum simply +has been more deeply buried in debris than the lower part.</p> +<p>One needs only to see the new excavations at the upper +end of the Piazza Savoia to realize that the present ground +level of the piazza is nearly nine feet higher than the +pavement of the old forum. The accompanying illustration +(<a href="#plate_iv">plate IV</a>) shows the pavement, which is +limestone, +not lava, that comes up the slope along the east +side of the basilica,<a name="FNanchor_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138"><sup>[138]</sup></a> +and turns round it to the west. +A cippus stands at the corner to do the double duty +of defining the limits of the basilica, and to keep +the wheels of wagons from running up on the steps. +It can be seen clearly that the lowest step is one stone +short of the cippus, that the next step is on a level with +the pavement at the cippus, and the next step level again +with the pavement four feet beyond it. The same +grade would give us about twelve or fifteen steps +at the south end of the basilica, and if continued to the +Piazza Garibaldi, would put us below the present level +of that piazza. From this piazza on down through the +garden of the Petrini family to the point where the existence +of a Porta Triumphalis has been proved, the grade +would not be even as steep as it was in the forum itself. +Further, to show that the lower piazza is even yet accessible +from the upper, despite its nine feet more of +fill, if one goes to the east end of the Piazza Savoia he +finds there instead of steps, as before the basilica, a street +which leads down to the level of the Piazza Garibaldi, +and although it begins at the present level of the upper +piazza, it is not even now too steep for wagons. +Again, one must remember that the opus quadratum wall +which extends along the south side of the Corso does +not go past the basilica, and also that there is a basis for +a statue of some kind in front of the basilica on the level +of the Piazza Garibaldi.</p> +<p>It is a question whether the ancient forum was entirely +paved. The paving can be seen along the basilica, and +it has been seen back of it,<a name="FNanchor_139"></a><a + href="#Footnote_139"><sup>[139]</sup></a> but this pavement belongs +to another hitherto unknown part of Prænestine topography, +namely, a SACRA VIA. An inscription to an aurufex +de sacra via<a name="FNanchor_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140"><sup>[140]</sup></a> +makes certain that there was a +road in Præneste to which this name was given. The +inscription was found in the courtyard of the Seminary, +which was the precinct of the temple of Fortuna. +From the fact that this pavement is laid with blocks +such as are always used in roads, from the cippus at the +corner of the basilica to keep off wagon wheels, from the +fact that this piece of pavement is in direct line from +the central gate of the town, and last from the inscription +and its provenience, I conclude that we have in this pavement +a road leading directly from the Porta Triumphalis +through the forum, alongside the basilica, then turning +back of it and continuing round to the delubra and +precinct of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, and that +this road is the SACRA VIA of Præneste.<a name="FNanchor_141"></a><a + href="#Footnote_141"><sup>[141]</sup></a></p> +<p>At the upper end of the forum under the south façade +of the temple, an excavation was made in April 1907,<a + name="FNanchor_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142"><sup>[142]</sup></a> +which is of great interest and importance in connection +with the forum. In Plate V we see that there are three +steps of tufa,<a name="FNanchor_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143"><sup>[143]</sup></a> +and observe that the space in front +of them is not paved; also that the ascent to the +right, which is the only way out of the forum at +this corner, is too steep to have been ever more than for +ascent on foot. But it is up this steep and narrow way<a + name="FNanchor_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144"><sup>[144]</sup></a> +that every one had to go to reach the terrace above the +temple, unless he went across to the west side of the city.</p> +<p>The steps just mentioned are not the beginning of an +ascent to the temple, for there were but three, and besides +there was no entrance to the temple on the south.<a name="FNanchor_145"></a><a + href="#Footnote_145"><sup>[145]</sup></a> +Nor was the earlier temple much lower than the later +one, for in either case the foundation was the rock +surface of the terrace and has not changed much. +Although these steps are of an older construction than +the steps of the basilica, yet they were not covered up in +late imperial times as is shown by the brick construction in +the plate. One is tempted to believe that there was a +Doric portico below the engaged Corinthian columns of +the south façade of the temple.<a name="FNanchor_146"></a><a + href="#Footnote_146"><sup>[146]</sup></a> But all the pieces +of Doric columns found belong to the portico of the +basilica. Otherwise one might try to set up further +argument for a portico, and even claim that here was the +place that the statue was set up, ante curiam vel in por +ticibus fori.<a name="FNanchor_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147"><sup>[147]</sup></a> +Again, these steps run far past the temple +to the east, otherwise we might conclude that they +were to mark the extent of temple property. The fact, +however, that a road, the Sacra Via, goes round back +of the basilica only to the left, forces us to conclude that +these steps belong to the city, not to the temple in any +way, and that they mark the north side of the ancient +forum.</p> +<p>The new forum below the city is well enough attested +by inscriptions found there mentioning statues and buildings +in the forum. The tradition has continued that here +on the level space below the town was the great forum. +Inscriptions which have been found in different places +on this tract of ground mention five buildings,<a name="FNanchor_148"></a><a + href="#Footnote_148"><sup>[148]</sup></a> ten +statues of public men,<a name="FNanchor_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149"><sup>[149]</sup></a> +the statue set up to the emperor +Trajan on his birthday, September 18, 101 A.D.,<a name="FNanchor_150"></a><a + href="#Footnote_150"><sup>[150]</sup></a> and +one to the emperor Julian.<a name="FNanchor_151"></a><a + href="#Footnote_151"><sup>[151]</sup></a> The discovery of two +pieces of the Prænestine fasti in 1897 and 1903<a + name="FNanchor_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152"><sup>[152]</sup></a> +also +helps to locate the lower forum.<a name="FNanchor_153"></a><a + href="#Footnote_153"><sup>[153]</sup></a></p> +<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="width: 512px; height: 790px;" + alt="PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient Forum of Præneste." + title="PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient Forum of Præneste." + src="images/imag005.jpg" /></p> +<p>The forum inside the city walls was the forum of Præneste, +the ally of Rome, the more pretentious one below +the city was the forum of Præneste, the Roman colony of +Sulla.</p> +<br /> +<p>IUNONARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2867.</p> +<p>Delbrueck follows Preller<a name="FNanchor_154"></a><a + href="#Footnote_154"><sup>[154]</sup></a> in making the Iunonarium +a part of the temple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have +a statue of Trivia dedicated in a Iunonarium, but it is +stranger that there are no inscriptions among those from +Præneste which mention Juno, except that the name alone +appears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes,<a name="FNanchor_155"></a><a + href="#Footnote_155"><sup>[155]</sup></a> and +as the provenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions +mean nothing. It seems that the Iunonarium +must have been somewhere in the west end of the temple +precinct of Fortuna.</p> +<br /> +<p>KASA CUI VOCABULUM EST FULGERITA, C.I.L., XIV, 2934.</p> +<p>This is an inscription which mentions a property inside +the domain of Præneste in a region, which in 385 A.D., +was called regio Campania,<a name="FNanchor_156"></a><a + href="#Footnote_156"><sup>[156]</sup></a> but it can not be located.</p> +<br /> +<p>LACUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2998; Not. d. Scavi, 1902, p. 12. +LAVATIO, C.I.L., XIV, 2978, 2979, 3015.</p> +<p>These three inscriptions were found in places so far +from one another that they may well refer to three lavationes.</p> +<br /> +<p>LUDUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3014.</p> +<p>See <a href="#AMPHITHEATRUM">amphitheatrum</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>MACELLUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2937, 2946.</p> +<p>These inscriptions were found along the Via degli +Arconi, and from the fact that in 243 A.D. (C.I.L. XIV, +2972) there was a region (regio) by that name, I should +conclude that the lower part of the town below the wall +was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was +divided into four quarters,<a name="FNanchor_157"></a><a + href="#Footnote_157"><sup>[157]</sup></a> which may well represent +ancient tradition.</p> +<br /> +<p>MACERIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3314, 3340.</p> +<p>Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 87.</p> +<br /> +<p>MASSA PRÆ(NESTINA), C.I.L., XIV, 2934.</p> +<br /> +<p>MURUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3002.</p> +<p>See above, <a href="#CITY">pages 22</a> ff.</p> +<br /> +<p>PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2850.</p> +<p>See above, <a href="#PORTA_TRIUMPHALIS">page 32</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2995.</p> +<p>See discussion of temple, <a href="#TEMPLE">page 42</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>QUADRIGA, C.I.L., XIV, 2986.</p> +<br /> +<p>SACRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2900.</p> +<br /> +<p>SCHOLA FAUSTINIANA, C.I.L., XIV, 2901; C.I.G., 5998.</p> +<p>Fernique (Étude sur Préneste, p. 119) thinks this the +building the ruins of which are of brick and called a temple, +near the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, but this is impossible. +The date of the brick work is all much later than the date +assigned to it by him, and much later than the name itself +implies.</p> +<br /> +<p>SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C.I.L., XIV, 2850.</p> +<p>This building was just inside the gate which was in the +center of the south wall of Præneste, directly below the +ancient forum and basilica.</p> +<br /> +<p>SOLARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3323.</p> +<br /> +<p>SPOLIARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3014.</p> +<p>See <a href="#AMPHITHEATRUM">Amphitheatrum</a>.</p> +<br /> +<p>TEMPLUM SARAPIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2901.</p> +<br /> +<p>TEMPLUM HERCULIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2891, 2892; Not. d. +Scavi, 11 (1882-1883), p. 48.</p> +<p>This temple was a mile or more distant from the city, +in the territory now known as Bocce di Rodi, and was +situated on the little road which made a short cut between +the two great roads, the Prænestina and the Labicana.</p> +<br /> +<p>SACRA VIA, Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49.</p> +<p>In the discussions on the temple and the forum, <a href="#TEMPLE">pages +42</a> and <a href="#FORUM">54</a>, I think it is proved that the +Sacra Via of Præneste +was the ancient road which extended from the Porta +Triumphalis up through the Forum, past the Basilica and +round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct and temple +of Fortuna Primigenia.</p> +<br /> +<p>VIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3001, 3343. Viam sternenda(m).</p> +<p>In inscription No. 3343 we have supra viam parte +dex(tra), and from the provenience of the stone we get a +proof that the old road which led out through the Porta +S. Francesco was so well known that it was called simply +"via."</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<a name="CHAPTER_II"></a> +<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> +<h2>THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRÆNESTE.</h2> +<br /> +<p>Præneste 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 Præneste into a league with the other +towns of Latium. Præneste 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, Præneste was her proudest and most turbulent +subject.</p> +<p>From the earliest times, when the overland trade between +Upper Etruria, Magna Græcia, and Lower Etruria came up +the Liris valley, and touching Præneste 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. Præneste +and Tibur were too strongly situated, and too closely connected +with the fierce mountaineers of the interior,<a name="FNanchor_158"></a><a + href="#Footnote_158"><sup>[158]</sup></a> and +Rome was glad to make treaties with them on equal terms.</p> +<p>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 Præneste, and there can be no doubt but that if +Præneste +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. Præneste was alone an opponent worthy of Rome.<a + name="FNanchor_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159"><sup>[159]</sup></a></p> +<p>As head of a league of nine cities,<a name="FNanchor_160"></a><a + href="#Footnote_160"><sup>[160]</sup></a> and allied with Tibur, +which also headed a small confederacy,<a name="FNanchor_161"></a><a + href="#Footnote_161"><sup>[161]</sup></a> Præneste felt herself +strong enough to defy the other cities of the league,<a + name="FNanchor_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162"><sup>[162]</sup></a> +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 Præneste at every opportunity. +She assumed control of some of her land in +338 B.C., on the ground that Præneste helped the Gauls in +390;<a name="FNanchor_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163"><sup>[163]</sup></a> +she showed her jealousy of Præneste by refusing to +allow Quintus Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during +the first Punic war.<a name="FNanchor_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164"><sup>[164]</sup></a> +This jealousy manifested itself +again in the way the leader of a contingent from Præneste +was treated by a Roman dictator<a name="FNanchor_165"></a><a + href="#Footnote_165"><sup>[165]</sup></a> in 319 B.C. But +while these isolated outbursts of jealousy showed the ill +feeling of Rome toward Præneste, there is yet a stronger +evidence of the fact that Præneste 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 Præneste, +an ever-recurring reminder of the centuries of ancient +grudge. Often in Roman literature Præneste 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.<a + name="FNanchor_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166"><sup>[166]</sup></a> +Præneste scornfully refused Roman citizenship in 216 +B.C., when it was offered.<a name="FNanchor_167"></a><a + href="#Footnote_167"><sup>[167]</sup></a> This refusal Rome never +forgot +nor forgave. No Prænestine families seem to have +been taken into the Roman patriciate, as were some from +Alba Longa,<a name="FNanchor_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168"><sup>[168]</sup></a> +nor did Præneste ever send any citizens of +note to Rome, who were honored as was Cato from Tusculum,<a + name="FNanchor_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169"><sup>[169]</sup></a> +although one branch of the gens Anicia<a name="FNanchor_170"></a><a + href="#Footnote_170"><sup>[170]</sup></a> did gain +some reputation in imperial times. Rome and Præneste +seemed destined to be ever at cross purposes, and their +ancient rivalry grew to be a traditional dislike which remained +mutual and lasting.</p> +<p>The continuance of the commercial and military rivalry +because of Præneste's strategic position as key of Rome, +and the religious rivalry due to the great fame of Fortuna +Primigenia at Præneste, 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 +Præneste a stronghold against the power of Rome.</p> +<p>There are a great many reasons why Præneste 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 Præneste 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.<a + name="FNanchor_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171"><sup>[171]</sup></a> +Præneste 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 +Præneste 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.</p> +<p>As an ally of Rome, Præneste did not have a curtailed +treaty as did Alba Longa,<a name="FNanchor_172"></a><a + href="#Footnote_172"><sup>[172]</sup></a> but one on equal terms +(foedus +æquum), such as was accorded to a sovereign state. This +is proved by the right of exile which both Præneste and +Tibur still retained until as late as 90 B.C.<a name="FNanchor_173"></a><a + href="#Footnote_173"><sup>[173]</sup></a></p> +<p>As a municipium, the rights of Præneste were shared by +only one other city in the league. She was not a municipium +which, like Lanuvium and Tusculum,<a name="FNanchor_174"></a><a + href="#Footnote_174"><sup>[174]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175"><sup>[175]</sup></a> +Præneste, 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.<a name="FNanchor_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176"><sup>[176]</sup></a> +Præneste shared this extraordinary agreement +with Rome with but one other Latin city, Tibur. +The question whether or not Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177"><sup>[177]</sup></a></p> +<p>As a colony, Præneste 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 Præneste was too strong to allow +it to lie in ruins. Further, in colonies the most characteristic +officers were the quattuorviri. Præneste, again different, +shows no trace of such officers.</p> +<p>Indeed, at all times during the history of Latium, Præneste +clearly had a city government different from that of +any other in the old Latin League. For example, before +the Social War<a name="FNanchor_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178"><sup>[178]</sup></a> +both Præneste and Tibur had ædiles and +quæstors, but Tibur also had censors,<a name="FNanchor_179"></a><a + href="#Footnote_179"><sup>[179]</sup></a> Præneste did not. +Lavinium<a name="FNanchor_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180"><sup>[180]</sup></a> +and Præneste were alike in that they both had +prætors. There were dictators in Aricia,<a name="FNanchor_181"></a><a + href="#Footnote_181"><sup>[181]</sup></a> Lanuvium,<a + name="FNanchor_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182"><sup>[182]</sup></a> +Nomentum,<a name="FNanchor_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183"><sup>[183]</sup></a> +and Tusculum,<a name="FNanchor_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184"><sup>[184]</sup></a> +but no trace of a dictator +in Præneste.</p> +<p>The first mention of a magistrate from Præneste, a +prætor, +in 319 B.C, is due to a joke of the Roman dictator +Papirius Cursor.<a name="FNanchor_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185"><sup>[185]</sup></a> +The prætor was in camp as leader of +the contingent of allies from Præneste,<a name="FNanchor_186"></a><a + href="#Footnote_186"><sup>[186]</sup></a> and the fact that +a prætor was in command of the troops sent from allied +towns<a name="FNanchor_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187"><sup>[187]</sup></a> +implies that another prætor was at the head of +affairs at home. Another and stronger proof of the government +by two prætors is afforded by the later duoviral +magistracy, and the lack of friction under such an arrangement.</p> +<p>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 prætors,<a + name="FNanchor_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188"><sup>[188]</sup></a> +with the continuance of the name prætor 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."<a name="FNanchor_189"></a><a + href="#Footnote_189"><sup>[189]</sup></a> +Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two prætors,<a + name="FNanchor_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190"><sup>[190]</sup></a> +and this shows two things: first, that two prætors were +better adapted to circumstances than one dictator; second, +that the majority of the towns had prætors, and had had +them, as chief magistrates, and not dictators,<a name="FNanchor_191"></a><a + href="#Footnote_191"><sup>[191]</sup></a> and that +such an arrangement was more satisfactory. The Latin +League had had a dictator<a name="FNanchor_192"></a><a + href="#Footnote_192"><sup>[192]</sup></a> at its head at some time,<a + name="FNanchor_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193"><sup>[193]</sup></a> +and the fact that these two prætors 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 +prætors were the regular and well known municipal chief +magistrates. Before Præneste was made a colony by Sulla, +the governing body was a senate,<a name="FNanchor_194"></a><a + href="#Footnote_194"><sup>[194]</sup></a> and the municipal officers +were prætors,<a name="FNanchor_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195"><sup>[195]</sup></a> +ædiles,<a name="FNanchor_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196"><sup>[196]</sup></a> +and quæstors,<a name="FNanchor_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197"><sup>[197]</sup></a> +as we know certainly +from inscriptions. In the literature, a prætor is +mentioned in 319 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198"><sup>[198]</sup></a> +in 216 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199"><sup>[199]</sup></a> +and again in +173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the magistrates +of an allied city.<a name="FNanchor_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200"><sup>[200]</sup></a> +In fact nothing in the inscriptions +or in the literature gives a hint at any change +in the political relations between Præneste 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 Præneste, 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 Præneste +seems to imply that these two towns had better opportunities +for a more rapid development, and that both had prætors +at a very early period.<a name="FNanchor_201"></a><a + href="#Footnote_201"><sup>[201]</sup></a></p> +<p>However strongly the weight of probabilities make for +proof in the endeavor to find out what the municipal government +of Præneste was, there are a certain number of +facts that can now be stated positively. Before 90 B.C. +the administrative officers of Præneste were two prætors,<a + name="FNanchor_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202"><sup>[202]</sup></a> +who had the regular ædiles and quæstors 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.<a + name="FNanchor_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203"><sup>[203]</sup></a></p> +<p>An important epoch in the history of Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204"><sup>[204]</sup></a> +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 +incolæ) of the federated cities, provided they handed in +their names within sixty days to the city prætor in Rome.<a + name="FNanchor_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205"><sup>[205]</sup></a></p> +<p>There is no unanimity of opinion as to the status of +Præneste in 90 B.C. The reason is twofold. It has never +been shown whether Præneste 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, Præneste and Tibur made either +a special treaty<a name="FNanchor_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206"><sup>[206]</sup></a> +with Rome, as seems most likely, or one +in which the old status quo was reaffirmed. In 268 B.C. +Præneste lost one right of federated cities, that of coinage,<a + name="FNanchor_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207"><sup>[207]</sup></a> +but continued to hold the right of a sovereign city, +that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_208"></a><a + href="#Footnote_208"><sup>[208]</sup></a> in common with +Tibur and Naples,<a name="FNanchor_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209"><sup>[209]</sup></a> +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 Prænestine cohort +at Casilinum, the inhabitants of Præneste were offered +Roman citizenship, and that they refused it.<a name="FNanchor_210"></a><a + href="#Footnote_210"><sup>[210]</sup></a> Now if the +citizens of Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211"><sup>[211]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212"><sup>[212]</sup></a> +Probably there was some change +of phraseology which was obnoxious in the Iulia. The +traditional touchiness and pride of the Prænestines 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 Præneste 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 Præneste +and Tibur, which had lately been received into citizenship,<a + name="FNanchor_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213"><sup>[213]</sup></a> +tried to get them to revolt again from Rome, and collected +money for the prosecution of the war. This not only shows +that Præneste 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.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="MUNICIPIUM"></a>WAS PRÆNESTE A MUNICIPIUM?</p> +<p>Just what relation Præneste 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 Præneste made a municipium by Rome, did Præneste +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?</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_214"></a><a + href="#Footnote_214"><sup>[214]</sup></a> Mommsen-Marquardt +say<a name="FNanchor_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215"><sup>[215]</sup></a> +that in 90 B.C. under the conditions of the lex +Iulia Præneste became a municipium of the type which kept +its own citizenship (ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis).<a + name="FNanchor_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216"><sup>[216]</sup></a> +But if this were true, then Præneste would have +come under the jurisdiction of the city prætor (prætor +urbanus) +in Rome, and there would be præfects to look after +cases for him. Præneste 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 præfect +and here under the circumstances the argumentum ex +silentio is of real constructive value, and constitutes circumstantial +evidence of great weight.<a name="FNanchor_217"></a><a + href="#Footnote_217"><sup>[217]</sup></a> Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_218"></a><a + href="#Footnote_218"><sup>[218]</sup></a> So whether Præneste +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.<a + name="FNanchor_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219"><sup>[219]</sup></a> +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 Præneste probably +took citizenship in 89 under the lex Plautia-Papiria. +The extreme cruelty which Sulla used toward Præneste,<a + name="FNanchor_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220"><sup>[220]</sup></a> +and the great amount of its land<a name="FNanchor_221"></a><a + href="#Footnote_221"><sup>[221]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>There seems to be, however, very good reasons for saying +that Præneste never became a municipium in the strict +legal sense of the word. First, the particular officials who +belong to a municipium, præfects and quattuorvirs, are not +found at all;<a name="FNanchor_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222"><sup>[222]</sup></a> +second, the use of the word municipium in +literature in connection with Præneste is general, and means +simply "town";<a name="FNanchor_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223"><sup>[223]</sup></a> +third, the fact that Præneste, 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 Prænestines asked the emperor Tiberius +to give them the status of a municipium,<a name="FNanchor_224"></a><a + href="#Footnote_224"><sup>[224]</sup></a> which he did,<a + name="FNanchor_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225"><sup>[225]</sup></a> +but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular +city officials of a colony,<a name="FNanchor_226"></a><a + href="#Footnote_226"><sup>[226]</sup></a> shows clearly that the +Prænestines +simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just +recovered from a severe illness at Præneste<a name="FNanchor_227"></a><a + href="#Footnote_227"><sup>[227]</sup></a> to ask him for +what was merely an empty honor. It only salved the +pride of the Prænestines, for it gave them a name +which showed a former sovereign federated state, and +not the name of a colony planted by the Romans.<a name="FNanchor_228"></a><a + href="#Footnote_228"><sup>[228]</sup></a> The +cogency of this fourth reason will bear elaboration. Præneste +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.</p> +<p>Let us now sum up the municipal history of Præneste +down to 82 B.C. when she was made a Roman colony +by Sulla. Præneste, 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, Præneste made herself head of a small league,<a + name="FNanchor_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229"><sup>[229]</sup></a> +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 Præneste, but also in the question of +Præneste's +relationship to Rome, is the fact that the evidence from +first to last is for prætors as the chief executive officers of +the Prænestine state (respublica), with their regular attendant +officers, ædiles and quæstors; 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 Præneste took Roman citizenship +either in 90 or 89 B.C.,<a name="FNanchor_213bis"></a><a + href="#Footnote_213"><sup>[213]</sup></a> 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. +Præneste 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.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="COLONY"></a>PRÆNESTE AS A COLONY.</p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230"><sup>[230]</sup></a> +and of the colonies newly made by +Sulla, Præneste was one. The misfortunes that befell +Præneste, +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 <a href="#Footnote_220">note 220</a>), 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 Præneste changed. +Instead of a senate, there was now a decuria (decuriones, +ordo); instead of prætors, 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 +Præneste 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.</p> +<p>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 Præneste it will be possible to +reach some conclusions that may be of future value.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="OFFICES"></a>THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES.</p> +<p>The beginning of this question comes from a passage in +Cicero,<a name="FNanchor_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231"><sup>[231]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232"><sup>[232]</sup></a> +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 Præneste, another of his colonies.<a name="FNanchor_233"></a><a + href="#Footnote_233"><sup>[233]</sup></a> 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 Præneste! 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 Præneste also +into a comparison. Second, the great pains Sulla took to +rebuild the walls of Præneste, 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,<a + name="FNanchor_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234"><sup>[234]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>It is possible now to push the inquiry a point further. +Dessau has already seen<a name="FNanchor_235"></a><a + href="#Footnote_235"><sup>[235]</sup></a> that in the time of Augustus +members of the old families were again in possession of +many municipal offices, but he thinks the Prænestines did +not have as good municipal rights as the colonists in the +years following the establishment of the colony. There +are six inscriptions<a name="FNanchor_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236"><sup>[236]</sup></a> +which contain lists more or less fragmentary +of the magistrates of Præneste, the duovirs, the +ædiles, and the quæstors. Two of these inscriptions can +be dated within a few years, for they show the election of +Germanicus and Drusus Cæsar, and of Nero and Drusus, +the sons of Germanicus, to the quinquennial duovirate.<a + name="FNanchor_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237"><sup>[237]</sup></a> +Two others<a name="FNanchor_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238"><sup>[238]</sup></a> +are certainly pieces of the same fasti because +of several peculiarities,<a name="FNanchor_239"></a><a + href="#Footnote_239"><sup>[239]</sup></a> and one other, a fragment, +belongs to still another calendar.<a name="FNanchor_240"></a><a + href="#Footnote_240"><sup>[240]</sup></a> 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 Præneste 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<a href="#Footnote_238"><sup>[238]</sup></a> +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 prænomen and +nomen, a way of writing names which was common to +the earlier inhabitants of Præneste, and which seems to +have made itself felt here in the names of the colonists.<a + name="FNanchor_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241"><sup>[241]</sup></a> +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,<a name="FNanchor_237bis"></a><a + href="#Footnote_237"><sup>[237]</sup></a> both forms are found, +while in the year 31 A.D. in the municipal fasti of Nola<a + name="FNanchor_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242"><sup>[242]</sup></a> +are found II vir(i) iter(um) q(uinquennales), and in 29 +B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,<a name="FNanchor_243"></a><a + href="#Footnote_243"><sup>[243]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244"><sup>[244]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245"><sup>[245]</sup></a> +This duty was performed by the +duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial +power.<a name="FNanchor_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246"><sup>[246]</sup></a> +The inscriptions under consideration, then, would +seem to date certainly before 49 B.C.</p> +<p>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<a name="FNanchor_247"></a><a + href="#Footnote_247"><sup>[247]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_248"></a><a + href="#Footnote_248"><sup>[248]</sup></a> Early +in the life of the colony, immediately after its settlement, +during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's +monuments,<a name="FNanchor_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249"><sup>[249]</sup></a> +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 Præneste, 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 Prænestines did keep a lasting dislike to +the name "Cornelia." There are many inscriptions of Præneste +which show the names (nomina) Ælia, Antonia, Aurelia, +Claudia, Flavia, Iulia, Iunia, Marcia, Petronia, Valeria, +among others, but besides the two Cornelii in this inscription +under consideration, and one other<a name="FNanchor_250"></a><a + href="#Footnote_250"><sup>[250]</sup></a> mentioned in +the fragment above (see note 83), there are practically no +people of that name found in Præneste,<a name="FNanchor_251"></a><a + href="#Footnote_251"><sup>[251]</sup></a> and the name is +frequent enough in other towns of the old Latin league. +From these reasons, namely, the way in which only prænomina +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 Præneste +given in these inscriptions certainly date between 81 and +50 B.C.<a name="FNanchor_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252"><sup>[252]</sup></a></p> +<br /> +<p><a name="OFFICIALS"></a>THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS.</p> +<p>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 ædile for the same year +is a certain Rotanius.<a name="FNanchor_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253"><sup>[253]</sup></a> +This name is not found in the +sepulchral inscriptions of the city of Rome, nor in the inscriptions +of Præneste except in this one instance. This +man is certainly one of the new colonists, and probably a +soldier from North Italy.<a name="FNanchor_254"></a><a + href="#Footnote_254"><sup>[254]</sup></a> Both the quæstors of +the same +year are given. They are M. Samiarius and Q. Flavius. +Samiarius is one of the famous old names of Præneste.<a + name="FNanchor_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255"><sup>[255]</sup></a> +In +the same way, the duovirs of the next year, C. Messienus and +P. Cornelius, belong, the one to Præneste, the other to the +colonists,<a name="FNanchor_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256"><sup>[256]</sup></a> +and just such an arrangement is also found in the +ædiles, Sex. Cæsius being a Prænestine<a + name="FNanchor_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257"><sup>[257]</sup></a>, +L. Nassius a colonist. +Q. Caleius and C. Sertorius, the quæstors of the same +year, do not appear in the inscriptions of Præneste except +here, and it is impossible to say more than that Sertorius is +a good Roman name, and Caleius a good north Italian one.<a + name="FNanchor_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258"><sup>[258]</sup></a> +C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, duovirs for the next year, +the recurrence of Salvius in another inscription,<a name="FNanchor_259"></a><a + href="#Footnote_259"><sup>[259]</sup></a> L. +Curtius and C. Vibius, the ædiles,—Statiolenus and C. +Cassius, the quæstors, show the same phenomenon, for it +seems quite possible from other inscriptional evidence to +claim Salvius, Vibius,<a name="FNanchor_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260"><sup>[260]</sup></a> +and Statiolenus<a name="FNanchor_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261"><sup>[261]</sup></a> +as men from the +old families of Præneste. 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 Præneste.<a + name="FNanchor_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262"><sup>[262]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_263"></a><a + href="#Footnote_263"><sup>[263]</sup></a> 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 Præneste before +the time of Sulla.<a name="FNanchor_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264"><sup>[264]</sup></a> +In fact the same name, M. Decumius, +is among the old pigne inscriptions.<a name="FNanchor_265"></a><a + href="#Footnote_265"><sup>[265]</sup></a> Paccia has been +found this past year in Prænestine territory, and may well +be an old Prænestine name, for the inscriptions of a family +of the name Paccia have come to light at Gallicano.<a + name="FNanchor_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266"><sup>[266]</sup></a> +Capivas is at least not a Roman name,<a name="FNanchor_267"></a><a + href="#Footnote_267"><sup>[267]</sup></a> but from its scarcity +in other places can as well be one of the names that are +so frequent in Præneste, 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<a + name="FNanchor_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268"><sup>[268]</sup></a> +is a name not found elsewhere in the Latian +towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,<a + name="FNanchor_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269"><sup>[269]</sup></a> +and is found also in Pompeii<a name="FNanchor_270"></a><a + href="#Footnote_270"><sup>[270]</sup></a> and Puteoli.<a + name="FNanchor_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271"><sup>[271]</sup></a> +It seems +a fair supposition to make at the outset, as we have +seen that various writers on Præneste 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.<a name="FNanchor_272"></a><a + href="#Footnote_272"><sup>[272]</sup></a> These +lists of municipal officers show a number of names +that belong with certainty to the older families of Præneste, +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)<a name="FNanchor_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273"><sup>[273]</sup></a> +on the ædiles and quæstors, can the names of the +new colonists be shown to outnumber or take the place of +the old settlers.</p> +<br /> +<p><a name="QUINQUENNALES"></a>THE QUINQUENNALES.</p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_274"></a><a + href="#Footnote_274"><sup>[274]</sup></a> or had that added +to them, and that this title implied censorial duties.<a + name="FNanchor_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275"><sup>[275]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>That the duration of the quinquennial office was one year +is certain,<a name="FNanchor_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276"><sup>[276]</sup></a> +that it was eponymous is also sure,<a name="FNanchor_277"></a><a + href="#Footnote_277"><sup>[277]</sup></a> 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?</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278"><sup>[278]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>There are fragments left of several municipal fasti; the +one which gives the longest unbroken list is that from +Venusia,<a name="FNanchor_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279"><sup>[279]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>The fasti of Nola<a name="FNanchor_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280"><sup>[280]</sup></a> +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 Lirenatis<a name="FNanchor_281"></a><a + href="#Footnote_281"><sup>[281]</sup></a> or Ostia,<a + name="FNanchor_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282"><sup>[282]</sup></a> +so the only other calendar we have to deal with is the one +from Præneste, the fragments of which have been partially +discussed above.</p> +<p>The text of that piece<a name="FNanchor_283"></a><a + href="#Footnote_283"><sup>[283]</sup></a> 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.<a + name="FNanchor_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284"><sup>[284]</sup></a> +The only other men who attained the quinquennial +rank in Præneste were M. Petronius,<a name="FNanchor_285"></a><a + href="#Footnote_285"><sup>[285]</sup></a> and some man +with the cognomen Minus,<a name="FNanchor_286"></a><a + href="#Footnote_286"><sup>[286]</sup></a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_287"></a><a + href="#Footnote_287"><sup>[287]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_288"></a><a + href="#Footnote_288"><sup>[288]</sup></a></p> +<p>From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the +grain measurers' union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,<a + name="FNanchor_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289"><sup>[289]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_290"></a><a + href="#Footnote_290"><sup>[290]</sup></a> 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).<a name="FNanchor_291"></a><a + href="#Footnote_291"><sup>[291]</sup></a> A Roman knight, C. +Æmilius +Antoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii +at Tibur.<a name="FNanchor_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292"><sup>[292]</sup></a></p> +<p>N. Cluvius M'. f.<a name="FNanchor_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293"><sup>[293]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>C. Mænius C.f. Bassus<a name="FNanchor_294"></a><a + href="#Footnote_294"><sup>[294]</sup></a> was ædile and +quattuorvir at +Herculaneum and then after holding the tribuneship of a +legion is found next at Præneste as a quinquennalis.</p> +<p>M. Vettius M.f. Valens<a name="FNanchor_295"></a><a + href="#Footnote_295"><sup>[295]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>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.<a + name="FNanchor_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296"><sup>[296]</sup></a> +This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominated quinquennalis +by the emperor.</p> +<p>C. Pompilius Cerialis,<a name="FNanchor_297"></a><a + href="#Footnote_297"><sup>[297]</sup></a> 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.</p> +<p>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.<a + name="FNanchor_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298"><sup>[298]</sup></a></p> +<p>Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at +Superæquum, and held no other offices.<a name="FNanchor_299"></a><a + href="#Footnote_299"><sup>[299]</sup></a></p> +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300"><sup>[300]</sup></a> +shows clearly that such a method of getting +a quinquennalis was out of the ordinary.</p> +<p>M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum<a name="FNanchor_301"></a><a + href="#Footnote_301"><sup>[301]</sup></a> has the title +Augustalis duovir quinquennalis, and no other title but that +of præfect of a cohort.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302"><sup>[302]</sup></a></p> +<p>Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by +order of the senate, which again shows the irregularity of +the choice.<a name="FNanchor_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303"><sup>[303]</sup></a></p> +<p>M. Træsius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but +died an inhabitant of Atinæ in Lucania.<a name="FNanchor_304"></a><a + href="#Footnote_304"><sup>[304]</sup></a></p> +<p>M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was ædile and duovir in +Pompeii,<a name="FNanchor_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305"><sup>[305]</sup></a> +was not elected quinquennalis, but made præfectus +quinquennalis, which implies appointment.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_306"></a><a + href="#Footnote_306"><sup>[306]</sup></a></p> +<p>P. Sextilius Rufus,<a name="FNanchor_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307"><sup>[307]</sup></a> +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.</p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308"><sup>[308]</sup></a></p> +<p>M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without +being ædile or quæstor, in Aquinum.<a name="FNanchor_309"></a><a + href="#Footnote_309"><sup>[309]</sup></a></p> +<p>Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but +a quinquennalis at Aquinum.<a name="FNanchor_310"></a><a + href="#Footnote_310"><sup>[310]</sup></a></p> +<p>The quinquennial year seems to have been the year in +which matters of consequence were more likely to be done +than at other times.</p> +<p>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.<a + name="FNanchor_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311"><sup>[311]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_312"></a><a + href="#Footnote_312"><sup>[312]</sup></a></p> +<p>In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta +was passed in the year when there were quinquennales.<a + name="FNanchor_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313"><sup>[313]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_314"></a><a + href="#Footnote_314"><sup>[314]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315"><sup>[315]</sup></a> +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.<a name="FNanchor_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316"><sup>[316]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_317"></a><a + href="#Footnote_317"><sup>[317]</sup></a></p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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?</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<p>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.</p> +<h4><a name="ALPHABETICAL_LIST"></a>ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL +OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE.</h4> +<br /> +<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%; height: 3083px;" border="0" + cellspacing="0" + summary="ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL +OFFICERS OF PRÆNESTE." + cellpadding="0"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">NAME. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">OFFICE. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">C.I.L. (XIV.)</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Drusus Cæsar<br /> +Germanicus Cæsar<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Nero et Drusus Germanici filii <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2965</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Nero Cæsar, between 51-54 +A.D. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir Quinq. + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2995</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Accius ... us </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Acilius P.f. Paullus, 243 +A.D. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. Æd. +IIvir. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2972 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Aiacius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Albinius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd +(?) </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Albinius M.f. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd, +IIvir, IIvir Quinq. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2974 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Anicius (Livy VIII, 11, 4) </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Anicius L.f. Baaso </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2975 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Annius Septimus </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 1 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(M). Antonius Subarus<a + name="FNanchor_318"></a><a + href="#Footnote_318"><sup>[318]</sup></a> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 18 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Aper, see Voesius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Aponius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Aquilius Gallus </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 2</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Arrasidius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Arrius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964 </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Atellius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Attalus, see Claudius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Baaso, see Anicius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Bassus, see Cominius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cæcilius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cæsius M.f. IIvir <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2980</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Cæsius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Caleius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Canies, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Capivas <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cassius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Celsus, see Mæsius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus +IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi.<br /> +1894, p. 96.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M (?), Cominius Bassus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. +Præf. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Cordus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Cornelius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Cornelius) Dolabella <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Corn)elius Rufus </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2967<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Curtius </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Cur(tius) Sura</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> IIvir. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Decumius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Diadumenius (see Antonius +Subarus)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 18</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Dindius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> 2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Dolabella, see Cornelius.<br /> + <span style="margin-left: 1em;">(Also Chap. II, <a + href="#Footnote_250">n. 250</a>.)</span></td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Egnatius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091,3</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Cn. Egnatius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Fabricius C.f. Vaarus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi.<br /> +1907, p. 137.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Feidenatius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2999</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Ferlidius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Fimbria, see Geganius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Flaccus, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Flavius L.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir quinq. + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2980</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Flavius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Flavius T.f. Germanus 181 +A.D. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. +IIvir. IIvir. QQ</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2922</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Fl)avius Musca <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2965</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Gallus, see Aquilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Geganius Finbria <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 1</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Germanus, see Flavius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— [I]nstacilius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Iuc ... Rufus<a + name="FNanchor_319"></a><a + href="#Footnote_319"><sup>[319]</sup></a> + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Lælianus, see Lutatius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M'. Later ...<a + name="FNanchor_320"></a><a + href="#Footnote_320"><sup>[320]</sup></a> + <span style="margin-left: 1em;">(See Add. 4091, 12)</span></td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 12</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Livius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Long ... Priscus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 4</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Lucretius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Lutatius Q.f. +Lælianus Oppianicus +Petronianu</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2930</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Macrin(ius) Nerian(us) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 10</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Mæsius Sex. f. Celsus + <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. Æd. +IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2989</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Mag(ulnius) M.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 13</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Magulnius C.f. Scato <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2990</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Magulnius C.f. Scato +Maxs(umus)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2906</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr.(?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3008</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Mamilianus, see Claudius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Manilei Post <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">A(e)d. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Mecanius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 5</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Mersieius C.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2975</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Messienus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Mestrius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 6</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — Minus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Musca, see Flavius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Nassius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Naut(ius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 14</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Nerianus, see Macrinius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Ninn(ius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir.(?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Oppianicus, see Lutatius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Orcevius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2902</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Orcivi(us) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. IIvir. </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2994</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Paccius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2968</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Paullus, see Acilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Petisius Potens <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Petronianus, see Lutatius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Petronius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(M). Petronius Rufus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Petronius Rufus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Quinq. +Præf. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Planta, see Treb ...<br /> + <span style="margin-left: 4.5em;">ti</span><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Pom pei us <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Sex. Pomp(eius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. +Præf. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2995</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Pontanus, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Potens, see Petisius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Prænestinus prætor +(Chap. II, <a href="#Footnote_185">n.<br /> + </a><span style="margin-left: 1em;"><a href="#Footnote_185">185</a>.) +Livy IX, 16, 17.</span></td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Priscus, see Long ...</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Pulcher, see Vettius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Punicus Lig ... <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Ræcius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Ræcius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Rotanius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Rufus, see Cornelius, Iuc ..., +Petronius, Tertius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Rutilus, see Saufeius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Sabidius Sabinus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi.<br /> +1894, p. 96.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — Sabinus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2967</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Salvius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Salvius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Samiarius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Sa(mi)us <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2999</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Saufei(us) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2994</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Saufe(ius) ... Canies<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Aid. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Not. d. Scavi. 1907, p. 137.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2906</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Saufeius C.f. Flacus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3002</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3001</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Saufeius C.f. Pontanus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3000</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Saufeius L.f. Pontanus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3000</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3002</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Scato, see Magulnius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Scrib(onius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 3</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — Sedatus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. +Pr(æf). <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2965</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Septimus, see Annius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Sertorius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Spid <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2969</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Statiolenus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Statius Sal. f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3013</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Subarus, see Antonius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2890</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Tappurius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> 4091, 6</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Tarenteinus, see Tampius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Tedusius T. (f.) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3012a</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Tere ... Cl ... <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 7</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Tert(ius) Rufus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2998</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Thorenas <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. (?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3008</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Treb ... Pianta <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 4</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(Se)x. Truttidius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Vaarus, see Fabricius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (?)cius Valer(ianus)</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"> Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2967</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Valerius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Varus, see Voluntilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. +(?) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Vassius V. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">L. Vatron(ius) <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Pr. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2902</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Velius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> 2964</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Vettius T. (f) Pulcher <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3012</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Vibius <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Æd. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2966</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Vibuleius L.f. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3013</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Cn. Voesius Cn. f. Aper. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">Q. Æd. +IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3014</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3020</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— — — <br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIvir. +IIvir. Quinqu.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4091, 8</td> + </tr> + </tbody> +</table> +<br /> +<br /> +<h4>CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF +PRÆNESTE.</h4> +<h4><a name="BEFORE"></a>BEFORE PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY.</h4> +<br /> +<table style="text-align: left; width: 100%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="BEFORE PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY." + cellpadding="0"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">DATE</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIVIRI<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">AEDILES<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><span + style="margin-left: 1em;">QUÆSTORES.</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">B.C.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">9</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Prænestinus prætor.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">5</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> M. Anicius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{ M. Anicius L.f. Baaso <br /> +{M. +Mersieius C.f.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + {<br /> + {<br /> + {<br /> + {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Samius<br /> +{C. Feidenatius<br /> +{C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus<br /> +{C. Vatronius<br /> +{L. Orcevius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2{<br /> +8{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. +Saufeius C.f. Pontanus<br /> +{M. Saufeius L.f.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Magulnius C.f. Scato<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">e{<br /> +r{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Tondeius L.f.M.n.<br /> +{M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">o{<br /> +f{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Fabricius C.f. Varrus<br /> +{M. Saufe(ius) Canies<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">e{<br /> +B{<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus<br /> +{C. Saufeius C.f. Flacus<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Maxsumus<br /> +{C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"> {<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3<br /> +or<br /> +2 (?)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Orcivius} +Praestores<br /> +{ +} isdem<br /> +{—Saufeius} Duumviri.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + </tbody> +</table> +<br /> +<p>A Senate is mentioned in the inscriptions C.I.L., XIV, 2990, +3000, 3001, 3002.</p> +<h4><a name="AFTER"></a>AFTER PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY.</h4> +<br /> +<table style="width: 100%; text-align: left;" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="AFTER PRÆNESTE WAS A COLONY." + cellpadding="0"> + <tbody> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">DATE<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">IIVIRI<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;">AEDILES<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top; text-align: center;"><span + style="margin-left: 1em;">QUÆSTORES.</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">B.C.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">80-75 (?)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">... Sabinus<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{... nus.<br /> +{<br /> +[... ter.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— (Corn)elius Rufus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (?)cius Valer(ianus)<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">80-50<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">1st year</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Cornelius) Dolabella</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Rotanius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Samiarius<br /> +{Q. (Fl)avius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Messienus.<br /> +{P. Cornelius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Sex. Cæsius.<br /> +{L. Nassius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Q. Caleius<br /> +{C. Sertorius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Salvius<br /> +{T. Lucretius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Curtius<br /> +{C. Vibius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— Statiolenus.<br /> +{C. Cassius<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">4th year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Petronius, Quinqu.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">Q. Arrasidius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">T. Aponius<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">75-50<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">1st year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Decumius.<br /> +{L. Ferlidius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Paccius.<br /> +{C. Ninn(ius).</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Albinius.<br /> +{Sex. Po..</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Sex. Capivas.<br /> +{C. M...<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Cæsius +M.f.} Duoviri<br /> +{C. Flavius L.f. } Quinqu.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Q. Vettius T. (f.) Pulcher.<br /> +{— Tedusius T. (f.)<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Q. Vibuleius L.f.<br /> +{L. Statius Sal. f.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">A.D.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">12<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Atellius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">13<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Raecius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— (—) lius.<br /> +{C. Velius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— Accius ...us.<br /> +{M. Valerius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">14<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Germanicus +Cæsar +Quinqu.<br /> +{Drusus Cæsar<br /> +{M. Cominius Bassus Pr.<br /> +{M. Petronius Rufus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Dindius.<br /> +{Cn. Egnatius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Iuc... Rufus<br /> +{C. Thorenas<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">15<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Cn. Pom(pei)us.<br /> +{— Curtius?) Sura.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{M. Ræcius.<br /> +{— Cordus.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">16<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Petisius Potens<br /> +{C. Salvius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{C. Dindius.<br /> +{T. Livius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{L. Aiacius.<br /> +{C. Arrius.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Vassius<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Punicus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Manilei.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">... Minus Quinq.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (?) rius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(Se)x Truttidi(us).<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">C. Cæcilius.</td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">?<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">(M.) Petronius Rufus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (I)nstacilius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">1st year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Sedatus.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">2d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">... lus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— (Fl)avius Musca.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">3d year<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Nero et +Drusus +} +Duoviri<br /> +{Germanici f. +} +Quinq.<br /> +{.... +} +Præf.<br /> +{... Sedatus. }<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">101<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus.<br /> +{T. Sabidius Sabinus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">100-256<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{P. Annius Septimus.<br /> +{Sex. Geganius Fimbria.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">P. Aquilius Gallus.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">250<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{— Egnatius.<br /> +{P. Scrib(onius).<br /> +{T. Long... Prisc(us).<br /> +{C. Treb... Planta.<br /> +—Mecanius.<br /> +{Q. Mestrius.<br /> +{C. Tappurius.<br /> +M. Tere ... Cl...<br /> +C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">— Macrin(ius)<br /> +Nerian(us).<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M'. Later...<br /> +L. Mag(ulnius) M.f.<br /> + </td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">{(M). Antonius Subarus.<br /> +{T. Diadumenius.<br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;"><br /> + </td> + <td style="vertical-align: top;">M. Naut(ius).<br /> + </td> + </tr> + </tbody> +</table> +<br /> +<br /> + +<p>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.</p> +<br /> +<p style="font-weight: bold;">NOTES:</p> +<a name="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1">[1]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Strabo V, 3, II.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2">[2]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3">[3]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4">[4]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5">[5]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6">[6]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7">[7]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum +Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8">[8]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9">[9]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10">[10]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11">[11]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12">[12]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13">[13]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14">[14]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of the +Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15">[15]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16">[16]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17">[17]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18">[18]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2987.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19">[19]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20">[20]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any way +to ancient Præneste.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21">[21]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own +observations. +See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22">[22]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23">[23]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24">[24]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25">[25]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26">[26]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Bull. dell'Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that the +civilization in Præneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin +cities.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27">[27]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28">[28]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and +Querquetula +is not a question here at all.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29">[29]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30">[30]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31">[31]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that which +looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32">[32]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33">[33]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34">[34]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35">[35]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.)</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36">[36]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid bare +in 1890, Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37">[37]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38">[38]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39">[39]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40">[40]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41">[41]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42">[42]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43">[43]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44">[44]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45">[45]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 107, has exact +measurements +of the walls.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46">[46]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47">[47]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> There seems to have been only a postern in the ancient wall +inside the present Porta del Sole.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48">[48]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49">[49]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 57 ff. for argument and proof, +beginning +with Varro, de I. 1. VI, 4: ut Præneste incisum in solario +vidi.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50">[50]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51">[51]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52">[52]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53">[53]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54">[54]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55">[55]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This may have been the base for the statue of M. Anicius, so +famous after his defense at Casilinum. Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56">[56]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57">[57]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): <span lang="el" + title="erumnæ men oun ekatera, poly derumnotera + +Prainestos."> ερυμνη +μεν ουν εκατερα, πολυ δ'ερυμνοτεραερυμνοτε Πραινεστος +</span>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58">[58]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: <span lang="el" + title="Marios de pheugon eis + +Praineston ædæ tas pylas eure kekleimenas">Μαριος +δε φευγων εις Πραινεστον ηδη τας πυλας ευρε κεκλειμενας +.</span></p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59">[59]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 282; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. +491.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60">[60]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61">[61]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 248.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62">[62]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Also called Porta S. Giacomo, or dell'Ospedale.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63">[63]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 252.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64">[64]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Closed seemingly in Sullan times.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65">[65]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The rude corbeling of one side of the gate is still very +plainly +to be seen. The gate is filled with mediæval stone work.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66">[66]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67">[67]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68">[68]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69">[69]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70">[70]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71">[71]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72">[72]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazione de +Numeri, Map facing page 1: l'antica Porta di San Martino chiusa.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73">[73]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74">[74]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, in Papers +of the British School at Rome, Vol. 1, Map VI.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75">[75]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76">[76]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77">[77]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1903), pp. 23-25.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78">[78]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Probably the store room of some little shop which sold the +exvotos. Bull. dell'Inst., 1883, p. 28.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79">[79]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80">[80]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81">[81]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); <span lang="el" + title="dioruxi + kryptais—pantachothen mechri ton pedion tais + men hydreias charin= ktl.">... +διωρυξι κρυπταις--πανταχοτεν +μεχρι των πεδιων ταις μεν υδρειας χαριν κτλ. +</span>; Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82">[82]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83">[83]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84">[84]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add., 2978, 2979, 3015.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85">[85]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Nibby, Analisi, p. 510. It could be seen in 1907, but not so +very +clearly.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86">[86]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87">[87]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88">[88]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89">[89]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of this +aqueduct +as "quel mirabile antico cuniculo."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90">[90]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua del +Sambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, Memorie +Prenestine, p. 286).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91">[91]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 96 ff., p. 122 ff.; +Nibby, +Analisi, +II, p. 501 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 45.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92">[92]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93">[93]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94">[94]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of the +American +School in Rome.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95">[95]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See above, page 29.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96">[96]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97">[97]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98">[98]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99">[99]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100">[100]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> "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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101">[101]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102">[102]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under Das +Heiligtum der Fortuna in Præneste, p. 47 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103">[103]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, De Div., II, 41, 85.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104">[104]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105">[105]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106">[106]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107">[107]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108">[108]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109">[109]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> There are 16 descriptions and plans of the temple. A full +bibliography of them is in Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in +Latium, pp. 51-52.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110">[110]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111">[111]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See also Revue Arch., XXXIX (1901), p. 469, n. 188.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112">[112]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L, XIV, 2864.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113">[113]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114">[114]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3007. See Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, 2, +p. 365, n. 73.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115">[115]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116">[116]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2922; also on bricks, Ann. dell'Inst., 1855, p. +86—C.I.L., XIV, 4091, 9.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117">[117]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2980; C. Cæsius M.f.C. Flavius L.f. Duovir +Quinq. ædem et portic d.d. fac. coer. eidemq. prob.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118">[118]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119">[119]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 430. See also Juvenal XIV, +88; Friedlænder, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120">[120]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62, with illustration.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121">[121]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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, <span lang="el" + title="Ephæm. Arch.">Εφημ Αρχ. +</span>, +1883, +p. 1975; Michel, Recueil d'insc. grec., 1069 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122">[122]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, pp. 320, 324; Marquardt, +Staatsverwaltung, +3, p. 271, n. 8. See Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), +p. 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123">[123]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, l.c., pp. 50, 59, does prove that there is no +reason +why <span lang="el" title="lithostroton">λιθοστρωτον +</span> 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. +</p> +<p>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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124">[124]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> For the many opinions as to the subject of the mosaic, see +Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 75.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125">[125]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126">[126]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, l.c., p. 58, n. 1.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127">[127]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128">[128]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#Footnote_106">note 106</a>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129">[129]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2875. This dedication of "coques atriensis" +probably belongs to the upper temple.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130">[130]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131">[131]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132">[132]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133">[133]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134">[134]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia di +Palestrina, +p. 60.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135">[135]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136">[136]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 330.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137">[137]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18: statua cius (M. Anicii) indicio fuit, +Præneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, +etc.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138">[138]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139">[139]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140">[140]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141">[141]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> More discussion of this point above in connection with the +temple, <a href="#page_51">page 51</a>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142">[142]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> I was in Præneste during all the excavations of 1907, and +made these photographs while I was there.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143">[143]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The drawing of the Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 290, which shows +a probable portico is not exact.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144">[144]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> It is now called the Via delle Scalette.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145">[145]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 58.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146">[146]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See full-page illustration in Delbrueck, l.c., p. 79.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147">[147]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#page_30">page 30</a>. 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148">[148]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2908, 2919, 2916, 2937, 2946, 3314, 3340.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149">[149]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2917, 2919, 2922, 2924, 2929, 2934, 2955, 2997, +3014, Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150">[150]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> F. Barnabei, Not. d. Scavi, 1894, p. 96.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151">[151]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2914.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152">[152]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not. d. Scavi, 1897, p. 421; 1904, p. 393.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153">[153]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154">[154]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 50, n. 1, +from +Preller, Roemische Mythologie, II, p. 191, n. 1.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155">[155]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156">[156]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 320, n. 19.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157">[157]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 35.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158">[158]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159">[159]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, V, p. 159.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160">[160]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VI, 29; C.I.L., XIV, 2987.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161">[161]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VII, 11; VII, 19; VIII, 12.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162">[162]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163">[163]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VIII, 14.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164">[164]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Val. Max., De Superstitionibus, I, 3, 2; C.I.L., XIV, 2929, +with +Dessau's note.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165">[165]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#Footnote_185">note 185</a>.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166">[166]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> "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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167">[167]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 20, 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168">[168]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy I, 30, 1.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169">[169]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170">[170]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under "Anicia."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171">[171]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172">[172]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Dionysius III, 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173">[173]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174">[174]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175">[175]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in civitatem +Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176">[176]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita +venerunt, ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis et +coloniæ, ut +Tiburtes, Prænestini, etc.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177">[177]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> I do not think so. The argument is taken up later on <a + href="#MUNICIPIUM">page 73</a>. +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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178">[178]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179">[179]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180">[180]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181">[181]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182">[182]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in Milonianam, +p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, 2121.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183">[183]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184">[184]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185">[185]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186">[186]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Prænestinus prætor ... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy +IX, +16, 17.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187">[187]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188">[188]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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." +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189">[189]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law at +the University of Michigan.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190">[190]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, 61.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191">[191]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Pauly-Wissowa under "dictator," and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, +II, 171, 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192">[192]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193">[193]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194">[194]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195">[195]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly 3008).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196">[196]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197">[197]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198">[198]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See <a href="#Footnote_185">note 185</a> above.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199">[199]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200">[200]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201">[201]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, +notes 1 +and 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202">[202]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203">[203]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204">[204]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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: <span lang="el" + title="Italioton de tous eti en tae +symmachia +paramenontas epsæphisato (æ boulæ) einai politas, ou dæ malista monon +ou pantes +epethymoun ktl.">Ιταλιωτων +δε τους ετι εν τη συμμαχια παραμενοντας εψηφισατο (η βουλη) ειναι +πολιτας, ου δη μαλιστα μονον ου παντες επεθυμουν κτλ.</span> +</p> +<p>Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, +p. 311; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman +Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205">[205]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206">[206]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207">[207]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208">[208]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Præneste, Matienus Tibur exulatum +abierunt.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209">[209]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Polybius VI, 14, 8: <span lang="el" + title="esti d'asphaleia tois pheygousin + +en te tæ, Neapolito + +kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinon polei">εστι +δ'ασφαλεια τοις φευγουσιν εν τε τη, Νεαπολιτω και Πραινεςτινων ετι δε +Τιβουρινων πολει +.</span> Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. +215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 45.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210">[210]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Prænestini) civitate cum donarentur ob +virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211">[211]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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)).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212">[212]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213">[213]</a>-<a + href="#FNanchor_213bis">[213bis]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: <span lang="el" + title="exedramen es tas anchou + +poleis, tas ou pro + +pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburton te kai Praineston, kai osai + +mechri Nolæs. erethizon apantas es apostasin, kai chræmata es ton polemon + +sullegon.">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.</span> See Dessau, +C.I.L., XIV, p. 289. +</p> +<p>It is worth noting that there is no thought of saying anything +about Praaneste and Tibur, except to call them cities (<span lang="el" + title="poleis">πολεις</span>). +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. +</p> +<p>Note also that for 88 B.C. Appian (Bell. Civ., I, 53) says: <span + lang="el" + title="eos + +Italia pasa prosechomæsei es tæn Romaion politeian, choris ge Leukanon + +kai + +Sauniton tote.">εως +Ιταια πασα προσεχωρησει ες την Ρωμαιων πολιτειαν, χωρις γε Λευκανων +καιΣαυνιτων τοτε.</span></p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214">[214]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), +pp. 109 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215">[215]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216">[216]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217">[217]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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. +</p> +<p>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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218">[218]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219">[219]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220">[220]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221">[221]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> One third of the land was the usual amount taken.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222">[222]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223">[223]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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."</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224">[224]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statum redegit. +See +Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225">[225]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226">[226]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Regular colony officials appear all along in the incriptions +down +into the third century A.D.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227">[227]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Gellius XVI, 13, 5.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228">[228]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> More in detail by Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229">[229]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Livy VII, 12, 8; VIII, 12, 8.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230">[230]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 161.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231">[231]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cicero, pro P. Sulla, XXI, 61.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232">[232]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233">[233]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234">[234]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235">[235]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236">[236]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964-2969.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237">[237]</a>-<a + href="#FNanchor_237bis">[237bis]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238">[238]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2966, 2968.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239">[239]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240">[240]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2967.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241">[241]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242">[242]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1233.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243">[243]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 422.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244">[244]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 5.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245">[245]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Lex Iulia Municipalis, C.I.L., I, 206, l. 142 ff. == Dessau, +Inscrip. +Lat. Sel., 6085.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246">[246]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 160.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247">[247]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2966.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248">[248]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Pauly-Wissowa under "Dolabella," and "Cornelius," nos. +127-148.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249">[249]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250">[250]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2967: ... elius Rufus Æd(ilis). I take him to +be a Cornelius rather than an Ælius, because of the cognomen.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251">[251]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252">[252]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253">[253]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, p. 222, +under +"Rutenius." He finds the same form Rotanius only in Turin, +Rutenius only in North Italy.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254">[254]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255">[255]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256">[256]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257">[257]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Cæsia at Præneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2852, 2966 I, 6, 2980, +3311, +3359, and the old form Ceisia, 4104.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258">[258]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> See Schulze, l.c., index under Caleius.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259">[259]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964 II, 15.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260">[260]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Vibia especially in the old inscription C.I.L., XIV, 4098. +Also in 2903, 2966 II, 9; Not. d. Scavi, 1900, p. 94.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261">[261]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Statioleia: C.I.L., XIV, 2966 I, 10, 3381.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262">[262]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263">[263]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264">[264]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2855, 2626, 3336.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265">[265]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3116. It may not be on a pigna.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266">[266]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267">[267]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 5016: C. Capive Vitali (Hadria).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268">[268]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> A better restoration than Ninn(eius). The (N)inneius +Sappæus +(C.I.L., VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription is late.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269">[269]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> In the year 216 B.C. the Ninnii Celeres were hostages of +Hannibal's at Capua (Livy XXIII, 8).</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270">[270]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 2776-2779, but all late.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271">[271]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272">[272]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273">[273]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1806.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274">[274]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275">[275]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> All at least except the regimen morum, so Marquardt, l.c., +p. +162 and n. 2.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276">[276]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 6.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277">[277]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 7.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278">[278]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 78 ff.; Nissen, Italische +Landeskunde, +II, p. 99 ff.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279">[279]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 422 = Dessau, Insc. Lat. Sel., 6123.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280">[280]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1233 = Dessau 6124.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281">[281]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Near Aquinum. C.I.L., X, 5405 = Dessau 6125.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282">[282]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 245 = Dessau 6126.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283">[283]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284">[284]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> He is not even mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa or Ruggiero.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285">[285]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2966.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286">[286]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2964.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287">[287]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2965.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288">[288]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 169 for full discussion, with +references +to other cases.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289">[289]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 172: præt(or) Laur(entium) Lavin(atium) +IIIIvir q(uin) q(uennalis) Fæsulis.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290">[290]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3599.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291">[291]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3609.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292">[292]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3650.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293">[293]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., I, 1236 == X, 1573 == Dessau 6345.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294">[294]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 3665.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295">[295]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XI, 421 == Dessau 6662.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296">[296]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297">[297]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Not. d. Scav, 1884, p. 418 == Dessau 6598.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298">[298]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 5831 == Dessau 6572.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299">[299]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 3311 == Dessau 6532.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300">[300]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> L. Septimio L.f. Arn. Calvo. æd., IIIIvir. i.d., præf. +ex +s.c. +[q]uinquennalicia potestate, etc., Eph. Ep. 8, 120 == Dessau 6527.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301">[301]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 1618 == Dessau 6507.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302">[302]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., IX, 652 == Dessau 6481.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303">[303]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> The full title is worth notice: IIIIvir i(ure) d(icundo) +q(uinquennalis) c(ensoria) p(otestate), C.I.L., X, 49 == Dessau +6463.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304">[304]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 344 == Dessau 6450.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305">[305]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1036 == Dessau 6365.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306">[306]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 840 == Dessau 6362: M. Holconio Celeri d.v.i.d. +quinq. designato. Augusti sacerdoti.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307">[307]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 1273 == Dessau 6344.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308">[308]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 4641 == Dessau 6301.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309">[309]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 5401 == Dessau 6291.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310">[310]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., X, 5393 == Dessau 6286.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311">[311]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4148.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312">[312]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313">[313]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 2795.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314">[314]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> C.I.L., XIV, 4237. Another case of the same kind is seen +in the fragment C.I.L., XIV, 4247.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315">[315]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> Zangemeister, C.I.L., IV., Index, shows 75 duoviri and but +4 quinquennales.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316">[316]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317">[317]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> (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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318">[318]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319">[319]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> +<a name="Footnote_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320">[320]</a> +<div class="note"> +<p> 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.</p> +</div> + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And +Municipal History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF PRAENESTE *** + +***** This file should be named 12770-h.htm or 12770-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/2/7/7/12770/ + +Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Mallière and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team. + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> + + + + + + + diff --git a/old/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg b/old/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..258be38 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h/images/imag001.jpg diff --git a/old/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg b/old/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ce5f78 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h/images/imag002.jpg diff --git a/old/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg b/old/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9189203 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h/images/imag003.jpg diff --git a/old/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg b/old/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b87d495 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h/images/imag004.jpg diff --git a/old/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg b/old/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3f6cccc --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770-h/images/imag005.jpg diff --git a/old/12770.txt b/old/12770.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d897cab --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4559 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And Municipal +History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: A Study Of The Topography And Municipal History Of Praeneste + +Author: Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +Release Date: June 29, 2004 [EBook #12770] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF PRAENESTE *** + + + + +Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Malliere and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team. + + + + + + + +SERIES XXVI NOS. 9-10 + +JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE + +Under the Direction of the Departments of History, Political Economy, +and Political Science + +STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF PRAENESTE + +BY RALPH VAN DEMAN MAGOFFIN, A.B. Fellow in Latin. + + +September, October, 1908 + +COPYRIGHT 1908 + + + + +CONTENTS. + +CHAPTER I. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE + EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE + THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES + THE PORTA TRIUMPHALIS + THE GATES + THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRAENESTE + THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA + THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE + THE FORA + THE SACRA VIA + +CHAPTER II. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRAENESTE + WAS PRAENESTE A MUNICIPIUM? + PRAENESTE AS A COLONY + THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES + THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS + THE QUINQUENNALES + +AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE + +A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE + 1. BEFORE PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY + 2. AFTER PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY + + + + +PREFACE. + +This study is the first of a series of studies already in progress, in +which the author hopes to make some contributions to the history of the +towns of the early Latin League, from the topographical and epigraphical +points of view. + +The author takes this opportunity to thank Dr. Kirby Flower Smith, Head +of the Department of Latin, at whose suggestion this study was begun, +and under whose supervision and with whose hearty assistance its +revision was completed. + +He owes his warmest thanks also to Dr. Harry Langford Wilson, Professor +of Roman Archaeology and Epigraphy, with whom he made many trips to +Praeneste, and whose help and suggestions were most valuable. + +Especially does he wish to testify to the inspiration to thoroughness +which came from the teaching and the example of his dearly revered +teacher, Professor Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Head of the Greek +Department, and he acknowledges also with pleasure the benefit from the +scholarly methods of Dr. David M. Robinson, and the manifold +suggestiveness of the teaching of Dr. Maurice Bloomfield. + +The cordial assistance of the author's aunt, Dr. Esther B. Van Deman, +Carnegie Fellow in the American School at Rome, both during his stay in +Rome and Praeneste and since his return to America, has been invaluable, +and the privilege afforded him by Professor Dr. Christian Huelsen, of the +German Archaeological Institute, of consulting the as yet unpublished +indices of the sixth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, is +acknowledged with deep gratitude. + +The author is deeply grateful for the facilities afforded him in the +prosecution of his investigations while he was a resident in Palestrina, +and he takes great pleasure in thanking for their courtesies, Cav. +Capitano Felice Cicerchia, President of the Archaeological Society at +Palestrina, his brother, Cav. Emilio Cicerchia, Government Inspector of +Antiquities, Professor Pompeo Bernardini, Mayor of the City, and Cav. +Francesco Coltellacci, Municipal Secretary. + +Finally, he desires to express his cordial appreciation of the kind +advice and generous assistance given by Professor John Martin Vincent in +connection with the publication of this monograph. + + + + +A STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND MUNICIPAL HISTORY OF PRAENESTE. + + + + +CHAPTER I. + + +THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. + +Nearly a half mile out from the rugged Sabine mountains, standing clear +from them, and directly in front of the sinuous little valley which the +northernmost headstream of the Trerus made for itself, rises a +conspicuous and commanding mountain, two thousand three hundred and +eighteen feet above the level of the sea, and something more than half +that height above the plain below. This limestone mountain, the modern +Monte Glicestro, presents on the north a precipitous and unapproachable +side to the Sabines, but turns a fairer face to the southern and western +plain. From its conical summit the mountain stretches steeply down +toward the southwest, dividing almost at once into two rounded slopes, +one of which, the Colle di S. Martino, faces nearly west, the other in a +direction a little west of south. On this latter slope is situated the +modern Palestrina, which is built on the site of the ancient Praeneste. + +From the summit of the mountain, where the arx or citadel was, it +becomes clear at once why Praeneste occupied a proud and commanding +position among the towns of Latium. The city, clambering up the slope on +its terraces, occupied a notably strong position[1], and the citadel was +wholly impregnable to assault. Below and south of the city stretched +fertile land easy of access to the Praenestines, and sufficiently +distant from other strong Latin towns to be safe for regular +cultivation. Further, there is to be added to the fortunate situation +of Praeneste with regard to her own territory and that of her contiguous +dependencies, her position at a spot which almost forced upon her a wide +territorial influence, for Monte Glicestro faces exactly the wide and +deep depression between the Volscian mountains and the Alban Hills, and +is at the same time at the head of the Trerus-Liris valley. Thus +Praeneste at once commanded not only one of the passes back into the +highland country of the Aequians, but also the inland routes between +Upper and Lower Italy, the roads which made relations possible between +the Hernicans, Volscians, Samnites, and Latins. From Praeneste the +movements of Volscians and Latins, even beyond the Alban Hills and on +down in the Pontine district, could be seen, and any hostile +demonstrations could be prepared against or forestalled. In short, +Praeneste held the key to Rome from the south. + +Monte Glicestro is of limestone pushed up through the tertiary crust by +volcanic forces, but the long ridges which run off to the northwest are +of lava, while the shorter and wider ones extending toward the southwest +are of tufa. These ridges are from three to seven miles in length. It is +shown either by remains of roads and foundations or (in three cases) by +the actual presence of modern towns that in antiquity the tip of almost +every one of these ridges was occupied by a city. The whole of the tufa +and lava plain that stretches out from Praeneste toward the Roman +Campagna is flat to the eye, and the towns on the tips of the ridges +seem so low that their strong military position is overlooked. The tops +of these ridges, however, are everywhere more than an hundred feet above +the valley and, in addition, their sides are very steep. Thus the towns +were practically impregnable except by an attack along the top of the +ridge, and as all these ridges run back to the base of the mountain on +which Praeneste was situated, both these ridges and their towns +necessarily were always closely connected with Praeneste and dependent +upon her. + +There is a simple expedient by which a conception of the topography of +the country about Praeneste can be obtained. Place the left hand, palm +down, flat on a table spreading the fingers slightly, then the palm of +the right hand on the back of the left with the fingers pointing at +right angles to those of the left hand. Imagine that the mountain, on +which Praeneste lay, rises in the middle of the back of the upper hand, +sinks off to the knuckles of both hands, and extends itself in the +alternate ridges and valleys which the fingers and the spaces between +them represent. + + +EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE. + +Just as the modern roads and streets in both country and city of ancient +territory are taken as the first and best proof of the presence of +ancient boundary lines and thoroughfares, just so the territorial +jurisdiction of a city in modern Italy, where tradition has been so +constant and so strong, is the best proof for the extent of ancient +domain.[2] Before trying, therefore, to settle the limits of the domain +of Praeneste from the provenience of ancient inscriptions, and by +deductions from ancient literary sources, and present topographical and +archaeological arguments, it will be well worth while to trace rapidly +the diocesan boundaries which the Roman church gave to Praeneste. + +The Christian faith had one of its longest and hardest fights at +Praeneste to overcome the old Roman cult of Fortuna Primigenia. +Christianity triumphed completely, and Praeneste was so important a +place, that it was made one of the six suburban bishoprics,[3] and from +that time on there is more or less mention in the Papal records of the +diocese of Praeneste, or Penestrino as it began to be called. + +In the fifth century A.D. there is mention of a gift to a church by +Sixtus III, Pope from 432 to 440, of a certain possession in Praenestine +territory called Marmorata,[4] which seems best located near the town of +Genazzano. + +About the year 970 the territory of Praeneste was increased in extent by +Pope John XIII, who ceded to his sister Stefania a territory that +extended back into the mountains to Aqua alta near Subiaco, and as far +as the Rivo lato near Genazzano, and to the west and north from the head +of the Anio river to the Via Labicana.[5] + +A few years later, in 998, because of some troubles, the domain of +Praeneste was very much diminished. This is of the greatest importance +here, because the territory of the diocese in 998 corresponds almost +exactly not only to the natural boundaries, but also, as will be shown +later, to the ancient boundaries of her domain. The extent of this +restricted territory was about five by six miles, and took in Zagarolo, +Valmontone, Cave, Rocca di Cave, Capranica, Poli, and Gallicano.[6] +These towns form a circle around Praeneste and mark very nearly the +ancient boundary. The towns of Valmontone, Cave, and Poli, however, +although in a great degree dependent upon Praeneste, were, I think, just +outside her proper territorial domain. + +In 1043, when Emilia, a descendant of the Stefania mentioned above, +married Stefano di Colonna, Count of Tusculum, Praeneste's territory +seems to have been enlarged again to its former extent, because in 1080 +at Emilia's death, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Colonna because +they insisted upon retaining the Praenestine territory which had been +given as a fief to Stefania, and which upon Emilia's death should have +reverted to the Church.[7] + +We get a glance again at the probable size of the Praenestine diocese +in 1190, from the fact that the fortieth bishop of Praeneste was +Giovanni Anagnino de' Conti di Segni (1190-1196),[8] and this seems to +imply a further extension of the diocese to the southeast down the +Trerus (Sacco) valley. + +Again, in 1300 after the papal destruction of Palestrina, the government +of the city was turned over to Cardinal Ranieri, who was to hold the +city and its castle (mons), the mountain and its territory. At this time +the diocese comprised the land as far as Artena (Monte Fortino) and and +Rocca Priora, one of the towns in the Alban Hills, and to Castrum Novum +Tiburtinum, which may well be Corcolle.[9] + +The natural limits of the ancient city proper can hardly be mistaken. +The city included not only the arx and that portion of the southern +slope of the mountain which was walled in, but also a level piece of +fertile ground below the city, across the present Via degli Arconi. This +piece of flat land has an area about six hundred yards square, the +natural boundaries of which are: on the west, the deep bed of the +watercourse spanned by the Ponte dei Sardoni; on the east, the cut over +which is built the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, and on the south, the +depression running parallel to the Via degli Arconi, and containing the +modern road from S. Rocco to Cave. + +From the natural limits of the town itself we now pass to what would +seem to have been the extent of territory dependent upon her. The +strongest argument of this discussion is based upon the natural +configuration of the land. To the west, the domain of Praeneste +certainly followed those long fertile ridges accessible only from +Praeneste. First, and most important, it extended along the very wide +ridge known as Le Tende and Le Colonnelle which stretches down toward +Gallicano. Some distance above that town it splits, one half, under the +name of Colle S. Rocco, running out to the point on which Gallicano is +situated, and the other, as the Colle Caipoli, reaching farther out into +the Campagna. Along and across this ridge ran several ancient roads.[10] +With the combination of fertile ground well situated, in a position +farthest away from all hostile attack, and a location not only in plain +sight from the citadel of Praeneste, but also between Praeneste and her +closest friend and ally, Tibur, it is certain that in this ridge we have +one of the most favored and valuable of Praeneste's possessions, and +quite as certain that Gallicano, probably the ancient Pedum,[11] was one +of the towns which were dependent allies of Praeneste. It was along this +ridge too that probably the earlier, and certainly the more intimate +communication between Praeneste and Tibur passed, for of the three +possible routes, this was both the nearest and safest.[12] + +[Illustration: PLATE I. Praeneste, on mountain in background; Gallicano, +on top of ridge, in foreground.] + +The second ridge, called Colle di Pastore as far as the Gallicano cut, +and Colle Collafri beyond it, along which for four miles runs the Via +Praenestina, undoubtedly belonged to the domain of Praeneste.[13] But it +was not so important a piece of property as the ridges on either side, +for it is much narrower, and it had no town at its end. There was +probably always a road out this ridge, as is shown by the presence of +the later Via Praenestina, but that there was no town at the end of the +ridge is well proved by the fact that Ashby finds no remains there which +give evidence of one. Then, too, we have plain enough proof of general +unfitness for a town. In the first place the ridge runs oil into the +junction of two roadless valleys, there is not much fertile land back of +where the town site would have been, but above all, however, it is +certain that the Via Praenestina was an officially made Roman road, and +did not occupy anything more than a previous track of little +consequence. This is shown by the absence of tombs of the early +necropolis style along this road. + +The next ridge must always have been one of the most important, for from +above Cavamonte as far as Passerano, at the bottom of the ridge on the +side toward Rome, connecting with the highway which was the later Via +Latina, ran the main road through Zagarolo, Passerano, Corcolle, on to +Tibur and the north.[14] As this was the other of the two great roads +which ran to the north without getting out on the Roman Campagna, it is +certain that Praeneste considered it in her territory, and probably kept +the travel well in hand. With dependent towns at Zagarolo and Passerano, +which are several miles distant from each other, there must have been at +least one more town between them, to guard the road against attack from +Tusculum or Gabii. The fact that the Via Praenestina later cut the Colle +del Pero-Colle Seloa just below a point where an ancient road ascends +the ridge to a place well adapted for a town, and where there are some +remains,[15] seems to prove the supposition, and to locate another of +the dependent cities of Praeneste. + +That the next ridge, the one on which Zagarolo is situated, was also +part of Praeneste's territory, aside from the fact that it has always +been part of the diocese of Praeneste, is clearly shown by the +topography of the district. The only easy access to Zagarolo is from +Palestrina, and although the town itself cannot be seen from the +mountain of Praeneste, nevertheless the approach to it along the ridge +is clearly visible. + +The country south and in front of Praeneste spreads out more like a +solid plain for a mile or so before splitting off into the ridges which +are so characteristic of the neighborhood. East of the ridge on which +Zagarolo stands, and running nearly at right angles to it, is a piece of +territory along which runs the present road (the Omata di Palestrina) to +the Palestrina railroad station, and which as far as the cross valley at +Colle dell'Aquila, is incontestably Praenestine domain. + +But the territory which most certainly belonged to Praeneste, and which +was at once the most valuable and the oldest of her possessions is the +wide ridge now known as the Vigne di Loreto, along which runs the road +to Marcigliano.[16] Not only does this ridge lie most closely bound to +Praeneste by nature, but it leads directly toward Velitrae, her most +advantageous ally. Tibur was perhaps always Praeneste's closest and most +loyal ally, but the alliance with her had not the same opportunity for +mutual advantage as one with Velitrae, because each of these towns +commanded the territory the other wished to know most about, and both +together could draw across the upper Trerus valley a tight line which +was of the utmost importance from a strategic point of view. These two +facts would in themselves be a satisfactory proof that this ridge was +Praeneste's first expansion and most important acquisition, but there +is proof other than topographical and argumentative. + +At the head of this ridge in la Colombella, along the road leading to +Marcigliano from the little church of S. Rocco, have been found three +strata of tombs. The line of graves in the lowest stratum, the date of +which is not later than the fifth or sixth century B.C., points exactly +along the ancient road, now the Via della Marcigliana or di Loreto.[17] + +The natural limit of Praenestine domain to the south has now been +reached, and that it is actually the natural limit is shown by the +accompanying illustration. + +Through the Valle di Pepe or Fosso dell' Ospedalato (see Plate II), +which is wide as well as deep, runs the uppermost feeder of the Trerus +river. One sees at a glance that the whole slope of the mountain from +arx to base is continued by a natural depression which would make an +ideal boundary for Praenestine territory. Nor is the topographical proof +all. No inscriptions of consequence, and no architectural remains of the +pre-imperial period have been found across this valley. The road along +the top of the ridge beyond it is an ancient one, and ran to Valmontone +as it does today, and was undoubtedly often used between Praeneste and +the towns on the Volscians. The ridge, however, was exposed to sudden +attack from too many directions to be of practical value to Praeneste. +Valmontone, which lay out beyond the end of this ridge, commanded it, +and Valmontone was not a dependency of Praeneste, as is shown by an +inscription which mentions the adlectio of a citizen there into the +senate (decuriones) of Praeneste.[18] + +There are still two other places which as we have seen were included at +different times in the papal diocese of Praeneste,[19] namely, Capranica +and Cave.[20] Inscriptional evidence is not forthcoming in either place +sufficient to warrant any certainty in the matter of correspondence of +local names to those in Praeneste. Of the two, Capranica had much more +need of dependence on Praeneste than Cave. It was down through the +little valley back of Praeneste, at the head of which Capranica lay, +that her later aqueducts came. The outlet from Capranica back over the +mountains was very difficult, and the only tillable soil within reach of +that town lay to the north of Praeneste on the ridge running toward +Gallicano, and on a smaller ridge which curved around toward Tibur and +lay still closer to the mountains. In short, Capranica, which never +attained importance enough to be of any consequence, appears to have +been always dependent upon Praeneste. + +But as for Cave, that is another question. Her friends were to the east, +and there was easy access into the mountains to Sublaqueum (Subiaco) and +beyond, through the splendid passes via either of the modern towns, +Genazzano or Olevano. + +[Illustration: PLATE II. Praeneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, as +seen from Valle di Pepe.] + +It is quite evident that Cave was never a large town, and it seems most +probable that she realized that an amicable understanding with Praeneste +was discreet. This is rendered almost certain by the proof of a +continuance of business relations between the two places. The greater +number of the big tombs of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. are of a +peperino from Cave,[21] and a good deal of the tufa used in wall +construction in Praeneste is from the quarries near Cave, as Fernique +saw.[22] + +Rocca di Cave, on a hill top behind Cave, is too insignificant a +location to have been the cause of the lower town, which at the best +does not itself occupy a very advantageous position in any way, except +that it is in the line of a trade route from lower Italy. It might be +maintained with some reason that Cave was a settlement of dissatisfied +merchants from Praeneste, who had gone out and established themselves on +the main road for the purpose of anticipating the trade, but there is +much against such an argument. + +It has been shown that there were peaceable relations between Praeneste +and Cave in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., but that the two towns +were on terms of equality is impossible, and that Cave was a dependency +of Praeneste, and in her domain, is most unlikely both topographically +and epigraphically. And more than this, just as an ancient feud can be +proved between Praeneste and Rome from the slurs on Praeneste which one +finds in literature from Plautus down,[23] if no other proofs were to be +had,[24] just so there is a very ancient grudge between Praeneste and +Cave, which has been perpetuated and is very noticeable even at the +present day.[25] + +The topography of Praeneste as to the site of the city proper, and as to +its territorial domain is then, about as follows. + +In very early times, probably as early as the ninth or tenth century +B.C., Praeneste was a town on the southern slope of Monte Glicestro,[26] +with an arx on the summit. As the town grew, it spread first to the +level ground directly below, and out along the ridge west of the Valle +di Pepe toward Marcigliano, because it was territory not only fertile +and easily defended, being directly under the very eyes of the citizens, +but also because it stretched out toward Velitrae, an old and trusted +ally.[27] + +Her next expansion was in the direction of Tibur, along the trade route +which followed the Sabine side of the Liris-Trerus valley, and this +expansion gave her a most fertile piece of territory. To insure this +against incursions from the pass which led back into the mountains, it +seems certain that Praeneste secured or perhaps colonized Capranica. + +The last Praenestine expansion in territory had a motive beyond the +acquisition of land, for it was also important from a strategical point +of view. It will be remembered that the second great trade route which +came into the Roman plain ran past Zagarolo, Passerano, and +Corcolle.[28] This road runs along a valley just below ridges which +radiate from the mountain on which Praeneste is situated, and thus +bordered the land which was by nature territory dependent upon +Praeneste.[29] So this final extension of her domain was to command this +important road. With the carrying out of this project all the ridges +mentioned above came gradually into the possession of Praneste, as +natural, expedient, and unquestioned domain, and on the ends of those +ridges which were defensible, dependent towns grew up. There was also a +town at Cavamonte above the Maremmana road, probably a village out on +the Colle dell'Oro, and undoubtedly one at Marcigliano, or in that +vicinity. + +We have already seen that across a valley and a stream of some +consequence there is a ridge not at all connected with the mountain on +which Praeneste was situated, but belonging rather to Valmontone, which +was better suited for neutral ground or to act as a buffer to the +southeast. We turn to mention this ridge again as territory +topographically outside Praeneste's domain, in order to say more +forcibly that one must cross still another valley and stream before +reaching the territory of Cave, and so Cave, although dependent upon +Praeneste, by reason of its size and interests, was not a dependent city +of Praeneste, nor was it a part of her domain.[30] + +In short, to describe Praeneste, that famous town of Latium, and her +domain in a true if homely way, she was an ancient and proud city whose +territory was a commanding mountain and a number of ridges running out +from it, which spread out like a fan all the way from the Fosso +dell'Ospedalato (the depression shown in plate II) to the Sabine +mountains on the north. + + +THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES. + +The general supposition has been that the earliest inhabitants of +Praeneste lived only in the citadel on top of the hill. This theory is +supported by the fact that there is room enough, and, as will be shown +below, there was in early times plenty of water there; nevertheless it +is certain that this was not the whole of the site of the early city. + +The earliest inhabitants of Praeneste needed first of all, safety, then +a place for pasturage, and withal, to be as close to the fertile land at +the foot of the mountain as possible. The first thing the inhabitants of +the new city did was to build a wall. There is still a little of this +oldest wall in the circuit about the citadel, and it was built at +exactly the same time as the lower part of the double walls that extend +down the southern slope of the mountain on each side of the upper part +of the modern town. It happens that by following the edges of the slope +of this southern face of the mountain down to a certain point, one +realizes that even without a wall the place would be practically +impregnable. Add to this the fact that all the stones necessary for a +wall were obtained during the scarping of the arx on the side toward the +Sabines,[31] and needed only to be rolled down, not up, to their places +in the wall, which made the task a very easy one comparatively. Now if a +place can be found which is naturally a suitable place for a lower cross +wall, we shall have what an ancient site demanded; first, safety, +because the site now proposed is just as impregnable as the citadel +itself, and still very high above the plain below; second, pasturage, +for on the slope between the lower town and the arx is the necessary +space which the arx itself hardly supplies; and third, a more reasonable +nearness to the fertile land below. All the conditions necessary are +fulfilled by a cross wall in Praeneste, which up to this time has +remained mostly unknown, often neglected or wrongly described, and +wholly misunderstood. As we shall see, however, this very wall was the +lower boundary of the earliest Praeneste. The establishment of this +important fact will remove one of the many stumbling blocks over which +earlier writers on Praeneste have fallen. + +It has been said above that the lowest part of the wall of the arx, and +the two walls from it down the mountain were built at the same time. The +accompanying plate (III) shows very plainly the course of the western +wall as it comes down the hill lining the edge of the slope where it +breaks off most sharply. Porta San Francesco, the modern gate, is above +the second tree from the right in the illustration, just where the wall +seems to turn suddenly. There is no trace of ancient wall after the gate +is passed. The white wall, as one proceeds from the gate to the right, +is the modern wall of the Franciscan monastery. All the writers on +Praeneste say that the ancient wall came on around the town where the +lower wall of the monastery now is, and followed the western limit of +the present town as far as the Porta San Martino. + +Returning now to plate II we observe a thin white line of wall which +joins a black line running off at an angle to our left. This is also a +piece of the earliest cyclopean wall, and it is built just at the +eastern edge of the hill where it falls off very sharply. + +Now if one follows the Via di San Francesco in from the gate of that +name (see plate III again) and then continues down a narrow street east +of the monastery as far as the open space in front of the church of +Santa Maria del Carmine, he will see that on his left above him the +slope of the mountain was not only precipitous by nature but that also +it has been rendered entirely unassailable by scarping.[32] From the +lower end of this steep escarpment there is a cyclopean wall, of the +same date as the upper side walls of the town, and the wall of the arx, +which runs entirely across the city to within a few yards of the wall on +the east, and to a point just below a portella, where the upper +cyclopean wall makes a slight change in direction. The presence of the +gate and the change of direction in the wall mean a corner in the wall. + +[Illustration: PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Praeneste, and +the depression which divides Monte Glicestro.] + +It is strange indeed that this wall has not been recognized for what it +really is. A bit of it shows above the steps where the Via dello +Spregato leaves the Via del Borgo. Fernique shows this much in his map, +but by a curious oversight names it opus incertum.[33] More than two +irregular courses are to be seen here, and fifteen feet in from the +street, forming the back wall of cellars and pig pens, the cyclopean +wall, in places to a height of fifteen feet or more, can be followed to +within a few yards of the open space in front of Santa Maria del +Carmine. And on the other side toward the east the same wall begins +again, after being broken by the Via dello Spregato, and forms the +foundations and side walls of the houses on the south side of that +street, and at the extreme east end is easily found as the back wall of +a blacksmith's shop at the top of the Via della Fontana, and can be +identified as cyclopean by a little cleaning of the wall. + +The circuit of the earliest cyclopean wall and natural ramparts of +the contemporaneous citadel and town of Praeneste was as follows: An arc +of cyclopean wall below the cap of the hill which swung round from the +precipitous cliff on the west to that on the east, the whole of the side +of the arx toward the mountains being so steep that no wall was +necessary; then a second loop of cyclopean wall from the arx down the +steep western edge of the southern slope of the mountain as far as the +present Porta San Francesco. From this point natural cliffs reinforced +at the upper end by a short connecting wall bring us to the beginning of +the wall which runs across the town back of the Via del Borgo from Santa +Maria del Carmine to within a short distance of the east wall of the +city, separated from it in fact only by the Via della Fontana, which +runs up just inside the wall. There it joins the cyclopean wall which +comes down from the citadel on the east side of the town. + +The reasons why this is the oldest circuit of the city's walls are the +following: first, all this stretch of wall is the oldest and was built +at the same time; second, topography has marked out most clearly that +the territory inclosed by these walls, here and only here, fulfills the +two indispensable requisites of the ancient town, namely space and +defensibility; third, below the gate San Francesco all the way round the +city as far as Porta del Sole, neither in the wall nor in the buildings, +nor in the valley below, is there any trace of cyclopean wall +stones;[34] fourth, at the point where the cross wall and the long wall +must have met at the east, the wall makes a change in direction, and +there is an ancient postern gate just above the jog in the wall; and +last, the cyclopean wall from this junction on down to near the Porta +del Sole is later than that of the circuit just described.[35] + +The city was extended within a century perhaps, and the new line of the +city wall was continued on the east in cyclopean style as far as the +present Porta del Sole, where it turned to the west and continued until +the hill itself offered enough height so that escarpment of the natural +cliff would serve in place of the wall. Then it turned up the hill +between the present Via San Biagio and Via del Carmine back of Santa +Maria del Carmine. The proof for this expansion is clear. The +continuation of the cyclopean wall can be seen now as far as the Porta +del Sole,[36] and the line of the wall which turns to the west is +positively known from the cippi of the ancient pomerium, which were +found in 1824 along the present Via degli Arconi.[37] The ancient gate, +now closed, in the opus quadratum wall under the Cardinal's garden, is +in direct line with the ancient pavement of the road which comes up to +the city from the south,[38] and the continuation of that road, which +seems to have been everywhere too steep for wagons, is the Via del +Carmine. There had always been another road outside the wall which went +up a less steep grade, and came round the angle of the wall at what is +now the Porta S. Martino, where it entered a gate that opened out of the +present Corso toward the west. When at a later time, probably in the +middle ages, the city was built out to its present boundary on the west, +the wagon road was simply arched over, and this arch is now the gate San +Martino.[39] + +It will be necessary to speak further of the cyclopean wall on the east +side of the city from the Porta del Sole to the Portella, for it has +always been supposed that this part of the wall was exactly like the +rest, and dated from the same period. But a careful examination shows +that the stones in this lower portion are laid more regularly than those +in the wall above the Portella, that they are more flatly faced on the +outside, and that here and there a little mortar is used. Above all, +however, there is in the wall on one of the stones under the house no. +24, Via della Fontana an inscription,[40] which Richter, Dressel, and +Dessau all think was there when the stone was put in the wall, and +incline to allow no very remote date for the building of the wall at +that point. To me, after a comparative study of this wall and the one at +Norba, the two seem to date from very nearly the same time, and no one +now dares attribute great antiquity to the walls of Norba. But the rest +of the cyclopean wall of Praeneste is very ancient, certainly a century, +perhaps two or three centuries, older than the part from the Portella +down. + +There remains still to be discussed the lower wall of the city on the +south, and a restraining terrace wall along part of the present Corso +Pierluigi. The stretch of city wall from the Porta del Sole clear across +the south front to the Porta di S. Martino is of opus quadratum, with +the exception of a stretch of opus incertum[41] below and east of the +Barberini gardens, and a small space where the city sewage has destroyed +all vestige of a wall. The restraining wall just mentioned is also of +opus quadratum and is to be found along the south side of the Corso, but +can be seen only from the winecellars on the terrace below that street. +These walls of opus quadratum were built with a purpose, to be sure, but +their entire meaning has not been understood.[42] + +The upper wall, the one along the Corso, can not be traced farther than +the Piazza Garibaldi, in front of the Cathedral. It has been a mistake +to consider this a high wall. It was built simply to level up with the +Corso terrace, partly to give more space on the terrace, partly to make +room for a road which ran across the city here between two gates no +longer in existence. But more especially was it built to be the lower +support for a gigantic water reservoir which extends under nearly the +whole width of this terrace from about Corso Pierluigi No. 88 almost to +the Cathedral.[43] The four sides of this great reservoir are also of +opus quadratum laid header and stretcher. + +The lower wall, the real town wall, is a wall only in appearance, for it +has but one thickness of blocks, set header and stretcher in a mass of +solid concrete.[44] This wall makes very clear the impregnability of +even the lower part of Praeneste, for the wall not only occupies a good +position, but is really a double line of defense. There are here two +walls, one above the other, the upper one nineteen feet back of the +lower, thus leaving a terrace of that width.[45] At the east, instead of +the lower solid wall of opus quadratum, there is a series of fine tufa +arches built to serve as a substructure for something. It is to be +remembered again that between the arches on the east and the solid wall +on the west is a stretch of 200 feet of opus incertum, and a space where +there is no wall at all. This lower wall of Praeneste occupies the same +line as the ancient wall and escarpment, but the most of what survives +was restored in Sulla's time. The opus quadratum is exactly the same +style as that in the Tabularium in Rome. + +Now, no one could see the width of the terrace above the lower wall, +without thinking that so great a width was unnecessary unless it was to +give room for a road.[46] The difficulty has been, however, that the +line of arches at the east, not being in alignment with the lower wall +on the west, has not been connected with it hitherto, and so a correct +understanding of their relation has been impossible. + +Before adducing evidence to show the location of the main and triumphal +entrance to Praeneste, we shall turn to the town above for a moment to +see whether it is, a priori, reasonable to suppose that there was an +entrance to the city here in the center of its front wall. If roads came +up a grade from the east and west, they would join at a point where now +there is no wall at all. This break is in the center of the south wall, +just above the forum which was laid out in Sulla's time on the level +spot immediately below the town. Most worthy of note, however, is that +this opening is straight below the main buildings of the ancient town, +the basilica, which is now the cathedral, and the temple of Fortuna. But +further, a fact which has never been noticed nor accounted for, this +opening is also in front of the modern square, the piazza Garibaldi, +which is in front of the buildings just mentioned but below them on the +next terrace, yet there is no entrance to this terrace shown.[47] It is +well known that the open space south of the temple, beside the basilica, +has an ancient pavement some ten feet below the present level of the +modern piazza Savoia.[48] Proof given below in connection with the large +tufa base which is on the level of the lower terrace will show that the +piazza Garibaldi was an open space in ancient times and a part of the +ancient forum. Again, the solarium, which is on the south face of the +basilica,[49] was put up there that it might be seen, and as it faces +the south, the piazza Garibaldi, and this open space in the wall under +discussion, what is more likely than that there was not only an open +square below the basilica, but also the main approach to the city? + +But now for the proof. In 1756 ancient paving stones were still in +situ[50] above the row of arches on the Via degli Arconi, and even yet +the ascent is plain enough to the eye. The ground slopes up rather +moderately along the Via degli Arconi toward the east, and nearly below +the southeast corner of the ancient wall turned up to the west on these +arches, approaching the entrance in the middle of the south wall of the +city.[51] But these arches and the road on them do not align exactly +with the terrace on the west. Nor should they do so. The arches are +older than the present opus quadratum wall, and the road swung round and +up to align with the road below and the old wall or escarpment of the +city above. Then when the whole town, its gates, its walls, and its +temple, were enlarged and repaired by Sulla, the upper wall was +perfectly aligned, a lower wall built on the west leaving a terrace for +a road, and the arches were left to uphold the road on the east. +Although the arches were not exactly in line, the road could well have +been so, for the terrace here was wider and ran back to the upper +wall.[52] The evidence is also positive enough that there was an ascent +to the terrace on the west, the one below the Barberini gardens, which +corresponds to the ascent on the arches. This terrace now is level, and +at its west end is some twenty feet above the garden below. But the wall +shows very plainly that it had sloped off toward the west, and the slope +is most clearly to be seen, where a very obtuse angle of newer and +different tufa has been laid to build up the wall to a level.[53] It is +to be noticed too that this terrace is the same height as the top of the +ascent above the arches. We have then actual proofs for roads leading up +from east and west toward the center of the wall on the south side of +the city, and every reason that an entrance here was practicable, +credible, and necessary. + +But there is one thing more necessary to make probabilities tally +wholly with the facts. If there was a grand entrance to the city, below +the basilica, the temple, and the main open square, which faced out over +the great forum below, there must have been a monumental gate in the +wall. As a matter of fact there was such a gate, and I believe it was +called the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. An inscription of the age of the Antonines +mentions "seminaria a Porta Triumphale," and this passing reference to a +gate with a name which in itself implies a gate of consequence, so well +known that a building placed near it at once had its location fixed, +gives the rest of the proof necessary to establish a central entrance to +the city in front, through a PORTA TRIUMPHALIS.[54] + +Before the time of Sulla there had been a gate in the south wall of the +city, approached by one road, which ascended from the east on the arches +facing the present Via degli Arconi. After entering the city one went +straight up a grade not very steep to the basilica, and to the open +square or ancient forum which was the space now occupied by the two +modern piazzas, the Garibaldi and the Savoia, and on still farther to +the temple. When Sulla rebuilt the city, and laid out a forum on the +level space directly south of and below the town, he made another road +from the west to correspond to the old ascent from the east, and brought +them together at the old central gate, which he enlarged to the PORTA +TRIUMPHALIS. In the open square in front of the basilica had stood the +statue of some famous man[55] on a platform of squared stone 16 x 17-1/2 +feet in measurement. Around this base the Sullan improvements put a +restraining wall of opus quadratum.[56] The open square was in front of +the basilica and to its left below the temple. There was but one way to +the terrace above the temple from the ancient forum. This was a steep +road to the right, up the present Via delle Scalette. Another road ran +to the left back of the basilica, but ended either in front of the +western cave connected with the temple, or at the entrance into the +precinct of the temple. + + +THE GATES. + +Strabo, in a well known passage,[57] speaks of Tibur and Praeneste as +two of the most famous and best fortified of the towns of Latium, and +tells why Praeneste is the more impregnable, but we have no mention of +its gates in literature, except incidentally in Plutarch,[58] who says +that when Marius was flying before Sulla's forces and had reached +Praeneste, he found the gates closed, and had to be drawn up the wall by +a rope. The most ancient reference we have to a definite gate is to the +Porta Triumphalis, in the inscription just mentioned, and this is the +only gate of Praeneste mentioned by name in classic times. + +In 1353 A.D. we have two gates mentioned. The Roman tribune Cola di +Rienzo (Niccola di Lorenzo) brought his forces out to attack Stefaniello +Colonna in Praeneste. It was not until Rienzo moved his camp across from +the west to the east side of the plain below the town that he saw how +the citizens were obtaining supplies. The two gates S. Cesareo and S. +Francesco[59] were both being utilized to bring in supplies from the +mountains back of the city, and the stock was driven to and from pasture +through these gates. These gates were both ancient, as will be shown +below. Again in 1448 when Stefano Colonna rebuilt some walls after the +awful destruction of the city by Cardinal Vitelleschi, he opened three +gates, S. Cesareo, del Murozzo, and del Truglio.[60] In 1642[61] two +more gates were opened by Prince Taddeo Barberini, the Porta del Sole, +and the Porta delle Monache, the former at the southeast corner of the +town, the latter in the east wall at the point where the new wall round +the monastery della Madonna degl'Angeli struck the old city wall, just +above the present street where it turns from the Via di Porta del Sole +into the Corso Pierluigi. This Porta del Sole[62] was the principal gate +of the town at this time, or perhaps the one most easily defended, for +in 1656, during the plague in Rome, all the other gates were walled up, +and this one alone left open.[63] + +The present gates of the city are: one, at the southeast corner, the +Porta del Sole; two, near the southwest corner, where the wall turns up +toward S. Martino, a gate now closed;[64] three, Porta S. Martino, at +the southwest corner of the town; on the west side of the city, none at +all; four, Porta S. Francesco at the northwest corner of the city +proper; five, a gate in the arx wall, now closed,[65] beside the +mediaeval gate, which is just at the head of the depression shown in +plate III, the lowest point in the wall of the citadel; on the east, +Porta S. Cesareo, some distance above the town, six; seven, Porta dei +Cappuccini, which is on the same terrace as Porta S. Francesco; eight, +Portella, the eastern outlet of the Via della Portella; nine, a postern +just below the Portella, and not now in use;[66] ten, Porta delle +Monache or Santa Maria, in front of the church of that name. The most +ancient of these, and the ones which were in the earliest circle of the +cyclopean wall, are five in number: Porta S. Francesco,[67] the gate +into the arx, Porta S. Cesareo,[68] Porta dei Cappuccini, and the +postern at the corner where the early cyclopean cross wall struck the +main wall. + +The second wall of the city, which was rather an enlargement of the +first, was cyclopean on the east as far as the present Porta del Sole, +and either scarped cliff or opus quadratum round to Porta S. Martino, +and up to Porta S. Francesco.[69] At the east end of the modern Corso, +there was a gate, made of opus quadratum,[70] as is shown not only by +the fact that this is the main street of the city, and on the terrace +level of the basilica, but also because the mediaeval wall round the +monastery of the Madonna degl'Angeli, the grounds of the present church +of Santa Maria, did not run straight to the cyclopean wall, but turned +down to join it near the gate which it helps to prove. Next, there was a +gate, but in all probability only a postern, near the Porta del Sole +where the cyclopean wall stops, where now there is a narrow street which +runs up to the piazza Garibaldi. On the south there was the gate which +at some time was given the name Porta Triumphalis. It was at the place +where now there is no wall at all.[71] At the southwest we find the next +gate, the one which is now closed.[72] The last one of the ancient gates +in this second circle of the city wall was one just inside the modern +Porta S. Martino, which opened west at the end of the Corso. All the +rest of the gates are mediaeval. + +A few words about the roads leading to the several gates of Praeneste +will help further to settle the antiquity of these gates.[73] The oldest +road was certainly the trade route which came up the north side of the +Liris valley below the hill on which Praeneste was situated, and which +followed about the line of the Via Praenestina as shown by Ashby in his +map.[74] Two branch roads from this main track ran up to the town, one +at the west, the other at the east, both in the same line as the modern +roads. These roads were bound for the city gates as a matter of course +and the land slopes least sharply where these roads were and still are. +Another important road was outside the city wall, from one gate to the +other, and took the slope on the south side of the city where the Via +degli Arconi now runs.[75] + +As far as excavations have proved up to this time, the oldest road out +of Praeneste is that which is now the Via della Marcigliana, along which +were found the very early tombs. It is to be noted that these tombs +begin beyond the church of S. Rocco, which is a long distance below the +town. This distance however makes it certain that between S. Rocco and +the city, excavation will bring to light other and yet older tombs along +the road which leads up toward "l'antica porta S. Martino chiusa," and +also in all probability rows of graves will be found along the present +road to Cave. But the tombs give us the direction at least of the old +road.[76] + +There is yet another old road which was lately discovered. It is about +three hundred yards below the city and near the road that cuts through +from Porta del Sole to the church of Madonna dell'Aquila.[77] This road +is made of polygonal stones of the limestone of the mountain, and hence +is older than any of the lava roads. It runs nearly parallel with the +Via degli Arconi, and takes a direction which would strike the Via +Praenestina where it crosses the Via Praenestina Nuova which runs past +Zagarolo. That is, the most ancient piece of road we have leads up to +the southeast corner of the town, but the oldest tombs point to a road +the direction of which was toward the southwest corner. However, all the +roads lead toward the southeast corner, where the old grade began that +went up above the arches, mentioned above, to a middle gate of the city. + +The gate S. Francesco also is proved to be ancient because of the old +road that led from it. This road is identified by a deposit of ex voto +terracottas which were found at the edge of the road in a hole hollowed +out in the rocks.[78] + +The two roads which were traveled the most were the ones that led toward +Rome. This is shown by the tombs on both sides of them,[79] and by the +discovery of a deposit of a great quantity of ex voto terracottas in +the angle between the two.[80] + + +THE WATER SUPPLY OF PRAENESTE. + +In very early times there was a spring near the top of Monte Glicestro. +This is shown by a glance back at plate III, which indicates the +depression or cut in the hill, which from its shape and depth is clearly +not altogether natural and attributable to the effects of rain, but is +certainly the effect of a spring, the further and positive proof of the +existence of which is shown by the unnecessarily low dip made by the +wall of the citadel purposely to inclose the head of this depression. +There are besides no water reservoirs inside the wall of the arx. This +supply of water, however, failed, and it must have failed rather early +in the city's history, perhaps at about the time the lower part of the +city was walled in, for the great reservoir on the Corso terrace seems +to be contemporary with this second wall. + +But at all times Praeneste was dependent upon reservoirs for a sure and +lasting supply of water. The mountain and the town were famous because +of the number of water reservoirs there.[81] A great many of these +reservoirs were dependent upon catchings from the rain,[82] but before +a war, or when the rainfall was scant, they were filled undoubtedly from +springs outside the city. In later times they were connected with the +aqueducts which came to the city from beyond Capranica. + +It is easy to account now for the number of gates on the east side of +the city. True, this side of the wall lay away from the Campagna, and +egress from gates on this side could not be seen by an enemy unless he +moved clear across the front of the city.[83] But the real reason for +the presence of so many gates is that the best and most copious springs +were on this side of the city, as well as the course of the little +headstream of the Trerus. The best concealed egress was from the Porta +Cesareo, from which a road led round back of the mountain to a fine +spring, which was high enough above the valley to be quite safe. + +There are no references in literature to aqueducts which brought water +to Praeneste. Were we left to this evidence alone, we should conclude +that Praeneste had depended upon reservoirs for water. But in +inscriptions we have mention of baths,[84] the existence of which +implies aqueducts, and there is the specus of an aqueduct to be seen +outside the Porta S. Francesco.[85] This ran across to the Colle S. +Martino to supply a large brick reservoir of imperial date.[86] There +were aqueducts still in 1437, for Cardinal Vitelleschi captured +Palestrina by cutting off its water supply.[87] This shows that the +water came from outside the city, and through aqueducts which probably +dated back to Roman times,[88] and also that the reservoirs were at this +time no longer used. In 1581 the city undertook to restore the old +aqueduct which brought water from back of Capranica, but no description +was left of its exact course or ancient construction.[89] While these +repairs were in progress, Francesco Cecconi leased to the city his +property called Terreni, where there were thirty fine springs of clear +water not far from the city walls. Again in 1776 the springs called +delle cannuccete sent in dirty water to the city, so citizens were +appointed to remedy matters. They added a new spring to those already in +use and this water came to the city through an aqueduct.[90] + +The remains of four great reservoirs, all of brick construction, are +plainly enough to be seen at Palestrina, and as far as situation and +size are concerned, are well enough described in other places.[91] But +in the case of these reservoirs, as in that of all the other remains of +ancient construction at Praeneste, the writers on the history of the +town have made great mistakes, because all of them have been predisposed +to the pleasant task of making all the ruins fit some restoration or +other of the temple of Fortuna, although, as a matter of fact, none of +the reservoirs have any connection whatever with the temple.[92] The +fine brick reservoir of the time of Tiberius,[93] which is at the +junction of the Via degli Arconi and the road from the Porta S. Martino, +was not built to supply fountains or baths in the forum below, but was +simply a great supply reservoir for the citizens who lived in particular +about the lower forum, and the water from this reservoir was carried +away by hand, as is shown by the two openings like well heads in the top +of each compartment of the reservoir, and by the steps which gave +entrance to it on the east. The reservoir above this in the Barberini +gardens is of a date a half century later.[94] It is of the same brick +work as the great fountain which stands, now debased to a grist mill, +across the Via degli Arconi about half way between S. Lucia and Porta +del Sole. The upper reservoir undoubtedly supplied this fountain, and +other public buildings in the forum below. There is another large brick +reservoir below the present ground level in the angle between the Via +degli Arconi and the Cave road below the Porta del Sole, but it is too +low ever to have served for public use. It was in connection with some +private bath. The fourth huge reservoir, the one on Colle S. Martino, +has already been mentioned. + +But the most ancient of all the reservoirs is one which is not mentioned +anywhere. It dates from the time when the Corso terrace was made, and is +of opus quadratum like the best of the wall below the city, and the wall +on the lower side of the terrace.[95] This reservoir, like the one in +the Barberini garden, served the double purpose of a storage for water, +and of a foundation for the terrace, which, being thus widened, offered +more space for street and buildings above. It lies west of the basilica, +but has no connection with the temple. From its position it seems rather +to have been one of the secret public water supplies.[96] + +Praeneste had in early times only one spring within the city walls, +just inside the gate leading into the arx. There were other springs on +the mountain to the east and northeast, but too far away to be included +within the walls. Because of their height above the valley, they were to +a certain extent available even in times of warfare and siege. As the +upper spring dried up early, and the others were a little precarious, an +elaborate system of reservoirs was developed, a plan which the natural +terraces of the mountain slope invited, and a plan which gave more space +to the town itself with the work of leveling necessary for the +reservoirs. These reservoirs were all public property. They were at +first dependent upon collection from rains or from spring water carried +in from outside the city walls. Later, however, aqueducts were made and +connected with the reservoirs. + +With the expansion of the town to the plain below, this system gave +great opportunity for the development of baths, fountains, and +waterworks,[97] for Praeneste wished to vie with Tibur and Rome, where +the Anio river and the many aqueducts had made possible great things for +public use and municipal adornment. + + +THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA. + +Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam.[98] In this +way Cicero reports a popular saying which makes clear the fame of the +goddess Fortuna Primigenia and her temple at Praeneste.[99] + +The excavations at Praeneste in the eighteenth century brought the city +again into prominence, and from that time to the present, Praeneste has +offered much material for archaeologists and historians. + +But the temple of Fortuna has constituted the principal interest and +engaged the particular attention of everyone who has worked upon the +history of the town, because the early enthusiastic view was that the +temple occupied the whole slope of the mountain,[100] and that the +present city was built on the terraces and in the ruins of the temple. +Every successive study, however, of the city from a topographical point +of view has lessened more and more the estimated size of the temple, +until now all that can be maintained successfully is that there are two +separate temples built at different times, the later and larger one +occupying a position two terraces higher than the older and more +important temple below. + +The lower temple with its precinct, along the north side of which +extends a wall and the ruins of a so-called cryptoporticus which +connected two caves hollowed out in the rock, is not so very large a +sanctuary, but it occupies a very good position above and behind the +ancient forum and basilica on a terrace cut back into the solid rock of +the mountain. The temple precinct is a courtyard which extends along the +terrace and occupies its whole width from the older cave on the west to +the newer one at the east. In front of the latter cave is built the +temple itself, which faces west along the terrace, but extends its +southern facade to the edge of the ancient forum which it overlooks. +This temple is older than the time of Sulla, and occupies the site of an +earlier temple. + +Two terraces higher, on the Cortina terrace, stretch out the ruins of a +huge construction in opus incertum. This building had at least two +stories of colonnade facing the south, and at the north side of the +terrace a series of arches above which in the center rose a round temple +which was approached by a semicircular flight of steps.[101] This +building, belonging to the time of Sulla, presented a very imposing +appearance from the forum below the town. It has no connection with the +lower temple unless perhaps by underground passages. + +Although this new temple and complex of buildings was much larger and +costlier than the temple below, it was so little able to compete with +the fame of the ancient shrine, that until mediaeval times there is not +a mention of it anywhere by name or by suggestion, unless perhaps in one +inscription mentioned below. The splendid publication of Delbrueck[102] +with maps and plans and bibliography of the lower temple and the work +which has been done on it, makes unnecessary any remarks except on some +few points which have escaped him. + +The tradition was that a certain Numerius Suffustius of Praeneste was +warned in dreams to cut into the rocks at a certain place, and this he +did before his mocking fellow citizens, when to the bewilderment of them +all pieces of wood inscribed with letters of the earliest style leaped +from the rock. The place where this phenomenon occurred was thus proved +divine, the cult of Fortuna Primigenia was established beyond +peradventure, and her oracular replies to those who sought her shrine +were transmitted by means of these lettered blocks.[103] This story +accounts for a cave in which the lots (sortes) were to be consulted. + +But there are two caves. The reason why there are two has never been +shown, nor does Delbrueck have proof enough to settle which is the older +cave.[104] + +The cave to the west is made by Delbrueck the shrine of Iuppiter puer, +and the temple with its cave at the east, the aedes Fortunae. This he +does on the authority of his understanding of the passage from Cicero +which gives nearly all the written information we have on the subject of +the temple.[105] Delbrueck bases his entire argument on this passage and +two other references to a building called aedes.[106] Now it was Fortuna +who was worshipped at Praeneste, and not Jupiter. Although there is an +intimate connection between Jupiter and Fortuna at Praeneste, because +she was thought of at different times as now the mother and now the +daughter of Jupiter, still the weight of evidence will not allow any +such importance to be attached to Iuppiter puer as Delbrueck +wishes.[107] + +The two caves were not made at the same time. This is proved by the +fact that the basilica[108] is below and between them. Had there been +two caves at the earliest time, with a common precinct as a connection +between them, as there was later, there would have been power enough in +the priesthood to keep the basilica from occupying the front of the +place which would have been the natural spot for a temple or for the +imposing facade of a portico. The western cave is the earlier, but it is +the earlier not because it was a shrine of Iuppiter puer, but because +the ancient road which came through the forum turned up to it, because +it is the least symmetrical of the two caves, and because the temple +faced it, and did not face the forum. + +The various plans of the temple[109] have usually assumed like buildings +in front of each cave, and a building, corresponding to the basilica, +between them and forming an integral part of the plan. But the basilica +does not quite align with the temple, and the road back of the basilica +precludes any such idea, not to mention the fact that no building the +size of a temple was in front of the west cave. It is the mania for +making the temple cover too large a space, and the desire to show that +all its parts were exactly balanced on either side, and that this +triangular shaped sanctuary culminated in a round temple, this it is +that has caused so much trouble with the topography of the city. The +temple, as it really is, was larger perhaps than any other in Latium, +and certainly as imposing. + +Delbrueck did not see that there was a real communication between the +caves along the so-called cryptoporticus. There is a window-like hole, +now walled up, in the east cave at the top, and it opened out upon the +second story of the cryptoporticus, as Marucchi saw.[110] So there was +an unseen means of getting from one cave to the other. This probably +proves that suppliants at one shrine went to the other and were there +convinced of the power of the goddess by seeing the same priest or +something which they themselves had offered at the first shrine. It +certainly proves that both caves were connected with the rites having to +do with the proper obtaining of lots from Fortuna, and that this +communication between the caves was unknown to any but the temple +servants. + +There are some other inscriptions not noticed by Delbrueck which mention +the aedes,[111] and bear on the question in hand. One inscription found +in the Via delle Monache[112] shows that in connection with the sedes +Fortunae were a manceps and three cellarii. This is an inscription of +the last of the second or the first of the third century A.D.,[113] when +both lower and upper temples were in very great favor. It shows further +that only the lower temple is meant, for the number is too small to be +applicable to the great upper temple, and it also shows that aedes, +means the temple building itself and not the whole precinct. There is +also an inscription, now in the floor of the cathedral, that mentions +aedes. Its provenience is noteworthy.[114] There were other buildings, +however, belonging to the precinct of the lower temple, as is shown by +the remains today.[115] That there was more than one sacred building is +also shown by inscriptions which mention aedes sacrae,[116] though +these may refer of course to the upper temple as well. + +There are yet two inscriptions of importance, one of which mentions a +porticus, the other an aedes et porticus.[117] The second of these +inscriptions belongs to a time not much later than the founding of the +colony. It tells that certain work was done by decree of the decuriones, +and it can hardly refer to the ancient lower temple, but must mean +either the upper one, or still another out on the new forum, for there +is where the stone is reported to have been found. The first inscription +records a work of some consequence done by a woman in remembrance of her +husband.[118] There are no remains to show that the forum below the town +had any temple of such consequence, so it seems best to refer both these +inscriptions to the upper temple, which, as we know, was rich in +marble.[119] + +Now after having brought together all the usages of the word aedes in +its application to the temple of Praeneste, it seems that Delbrueck has +very small foundation for his argument which assumes as settled the +exact meaning and location of the aedes Fortunae. + +From the temple itself we turn now to a brief discussion of a space on +the tufa wall which helps to face the cave on the west. This is a +smoothed surface which shows a narrow cornice ledge above it, and a +narrow base below. In it are a number of irregularly driven holes. +Delbrueck calls it a votive niche,[120] and says that the "viele +regellos verstreute Nagelloecher" are due to nails upon which votive +offerings were suspended. + +This seems quite impossible. The holes are much too irregular to have +served such a purpose. The holes show positively that they were made by +nails which held up a slab of some kind, perhaps of marble, on which +were displayed the replies from the goddess[121] which were too long to +be given by means of the lettered blocks (sortes). Most likely, however, +it was a marble slab or bronze tablet which contained the lex templi, +and was something like the tabula Veliterna.[122] + +On the floor of the two caves were two very beautiful mosaics, one of +which is now in the Barberini palace, the other, which is in a sadly +mutilated condition, still on the floor of the west cave. The date of +these mosaics has been a much discussed question. Marucchi puts it at +the end of the second century A.D., while Delbrueck makes it the early +part of the first century B.C., and thinks the mosaics were the gift of +Sulla. Delbrueck does not make his point at all, and Marucchi is carried +too far by a desire to establish a connection at Praeneste between +Fortuna and Isis.[123] Not to go into a discussion of the date of the +Greek lettering which gives the names of the animals portrayed in the +finer mosaic, nor the subject of the mosaic itself,[124] the inscription +given above[118] should help to settle the date of the mosaic. Under +Claudius, between the years 51 and 54 A.D., a portico was decorated with +marble and a coating of marble facing. That this was a very splendid +ornamentation is shown by the fact that it is mentioned so particularly +in the inscription. And if in 54 A.D. marble and marble facing were +things so worthy of note, then certainly one hundred and thirty years +earlier there was no marble mosaic floor in Praeneste like the one under +discussion, which is considered the finest large piece of Roman mosaic +in existence. And it was fifty years later than the date Delbrueck +wishes to assign to this mosaic, before marble began to be used in any +great profusion in Rome, and at this time Praeneste was not in advance +of Rome. The mosaic, therefore, undoubtedly dates from about the time of +Hadrian, and was probably a gift to the city when he built himself a +villa below the town.[125] + +Finally, a word with regard to the aerarium. This is under the temple of +Fortuna, but is not built with any regard to the facade of the temple +above. The inscription on the back wall of the chamber is earlier than +the time of Sulla,[126] and the position of this little vault[127] +shows that it was a treasury connected with the basilica, indeed its +close proximity about makes it part of that building and proves that it +was the storehouse for public funds and records. It occupied a very +prominent place, for it was at the upper end of the old forum, directly +in front of the Sacra Via that came up past the basilica from the Porta +Triumphalis. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the earliest +city forum grew up on the terrace in front of the place where the +mysterious lots had leaped out of the living rock. A basilica was built +in a prominent place in the northwest corner of the forum. Later, +another wonderful cave was discovered or made, and at such a distance +from the first one that a temple in front of it would have a facing on +the forum beyond the basilica, and this also gave a space of ground +which was leveled off into a terrace above the basilica and the forum, +and made into a sacred precinct. Because the basilica occupied the +middle front of the temple property, the temple was made to face west +along the terrace, toward the more ancient cave. The sacred precinct in +front of the temple and between the caves was enclosed, and had no +entrance except at the west end where the Sacra Via ended, which was in +front of the west cave. Before the temple, facing the sacred inclosure +was the pronaos mentioned in the inscription above,[128] and along each +side of this inclosure ran a row of columns, and probably one also on +the west side. Both caves and the temple were consecrated to the service +of Fortuna Primigenia, the tutelary goddess of Praeneste. Both caves and +an earlier temple, which occupied part of the site of the present one, +belong to the early life of Praeneste. + +Sulla built a huge temple on the second terrace higher than the old +temple, but its fame and sanctity were never comparable to its beauty +and its pretensions.[129] + + +THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. + + +AEDICULA, C.I.L., XIV, 2908. + +From the provenience of the inscription this building, not necessarily a +sacred one (Dessau), was one of the many structures on the site of the +new Forum below the town. + + +PUBLICA AEDIFICIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2919, 3032. + +Barbarus Pompeianus about 227 A.D. restored a number of public buildings +which had begun to fall to pieces. A mensor aed(ificiorum) (see Dict. +under sarcio) is mentioned in C.I.L., XIV, 3032. + + +AEDES ET PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2980. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AEDES, C.I.L., XIV, 2864, 2867, 3007. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AEDES SACRAE, C.I.L., XIV, 2922, 4091, 9== Annali dell'Inst., 1855, p. +86. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +AERARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2975; Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 207; Marucchi, +Bull. dell'Inst., 1881, p. 252; Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 504; best and +latest, Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, I, p. 58. + +The points worth noting are: that this aerarium is not built with +reference to the temple above, and that it faces out on the public +square. These points have been discussed more at length above, and will +receive still more attention below under the caption "FORUM." + + +AMPHITHEATRUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3010, 3014; Juvenal, III, 173; Ovid, A.A., +I, 103 ff. + +The remains found out along the Valmontone road[130] coincide nearly +enough with the provenience of the inscription to settle an amphitheatre +here of late imperial date. The tradition of the death of the martyr S. +Agapito in an amphitheatre, and the discovery of a Christian church on +the Valmontone road, have helped to make pretty sure the identification +of these ruins.[131] + +We know also from an inscription that there was a gladiatorial school at +Praeneste.[132] + + +BALNEAE, C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add. + +The so-called nymphaeum, the brick building below the Via degli Arconi, +mentioned page 41, seems to have been a bath as well as a fountain, +because of the architectural fragments found there[133] when it was +turned into a mill by the Bonanni brothers. The reservoir mentioned +above on page 41 must have belonged also to a bath, and so do the ruins +which are out beyond the villa under which the modern cemetery now is. +From their orientation they seem to belong to the villa. There were also +baths on the hill toward Gallicano, as the ruins show.[134] + + +BYBLIOTHECAE, C.I.L., XIV, 2916. + +These seem to have been two small libraries of public and private law +books.[135] They were in the Forum, as the provenience of the +inscription shows. + + +CIRCUS, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 75, n. 32. + +Cecconi thought there was a circus at the bottom of the depression +between Colle S. Martino and the hill of Praeneste. The depression does +have a suspiciously rounded appearance below the Franciscan grounds, but +a careful examination made by me shows no trace of cutting in the rock +to make a half circle for seats, no traces of any use of the slope for +seats, and no ruins of any kind. + + +CULINA, C.I.L., XIV, 3002. + +This was a building of some consequence. Two quaestors of the city +bought a space of ground 148-1/2 by 16 feet along the wall, and +superintended the building of a culina there. The ground was made +public, and the whole transaction was done by decree of the senate, that +is, it was done before the time of Sulla. + + +CURIA, C.I.L., XIV, 2924. + +The fact that a statue was to be set up (ve)l ante curiam vel in +porticibus for(i) would seem to imply that the curia was in the lower +Forum. The inscription shows that these two places were undoubtedly the +most desirable places that a statue could have. There is a possibility +that the curia may be the basilica on the Corso terrace of the city. It +has been shown that an open space existed in front of the basilica, and +that in it there is at least one basis for a statue. Excavations[136] at +the ruins which were once thought to be the curia of ancient Praeneste +showed instead of a hemicycle, a straight wall built on remains of a +more ancient construction of rectangular blocks of tufa with three +layers of pavement 4-1/2 feet below the level of the ground, under which +was a tomb of brick construction, and lower still a wall of opus +quadratum of tufa, certainly none of the remains belonging to a curia. + +[Illustration: PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper end +of the Basilica.] + +FORUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3015. + +The most ancient forum of Praeneste was inside the city walls. It was in +this forum that the statue of M. Anicius, the famous praetor, was set +up.[137] The writers hitherto, however, have been entirely mistaken, in +my opinion, as to the extent of the ancient forum. For the old forum was +not an open space which is now represented by the Piazza Savoia of the +modern town, as is generally accepted, but the ancient forum of +Praeneste was that piazza and the piazza Garibaldi and the space between +them, now built over with houses, all combined. At the present time one +goes down some steps in front of the cathedral, which was the basilica, +to the Piazza Garibaldi, and it has been supposed that this open space +belonged to a terrace below the Corso. But there was no lower terrace +there. The upper part of the forum simply has been more deeply buried in +debris than the lower part. + +One needs only to see the new excavations at the upper end of the Piazza +Savoia to realize that the present ground level of the piazza is nearly +nine feet higher than the pavement of the old forum. The accompanying +illustration (plate IV) shows the pavement, which is limestone, not +lava, that comes up the slope along the east side of the basilica,[138] +and turns round it to the west. A cippus stands at the corner to do the +double duty of defining the limits of the basilica, and to keep the +wheels of wagons from running up on the steps. It can be seen clearly +that the lowest step is one stone short of the cippus, that the next +step is on a level with the pavement at the cippus, and the next step +level again with the pavement four feet beyond it. The same grade would +give us about twelve or fifteen steps at the south end of the basilica, +and if continued to the Piazza Garibaldi, would put us below the present +level of that piazza. From this piazza on down through the garden of the +Petrini family to the point where the existence of a Porta Triumphalis +has been proved, the grade would not be even as steep as it was in the +forum itself. Further, to show that the lower piazza is even yet +accessible from the upper, despite its nine feet more of fill, if one +goes to the east end of the Piazza Savoia he finds there instead of +steps, as before the basilica, a street which leads down to the level of +the Piazza Garibaldi, and although it begins at the present level of the +upper piazza, it is not even now too steep for wagons. Again, one must +remember that the opus quadratum wall which extends along the south side +of the Corso does not go past the basilica, and also that there is a +basis for a statue of some kind in front of the basilica on the level of +the Piazza Garibaldi. + +It is a question whether the ancient forum was entirely paved. The +paving can be seen along the basilica, and it has been seen back of +it,[139] but this pavement belongs to another hitherto unknown part of +Praenestine topography, namely, a SACRA VIA. An inscription to an +aurufex de sacra via[140] makes certain that there was a road in +Praeneste to which this name was given. The inscription was found in the +courtyard of the Seminary, which was the precinct of the temple of +Fortuna. From the fact that this pavement is laid with blocks such as +are always used in roads, from the cippus at the corner of the basilica +to keep off wagon wheels, from the fact that this piece of pavement is +in direct line from the central gate of the town, and last from the +inscription and its provenience, I conclude that we have in this +pavement a road leading directly from the Porta Triumphalis through the +forum, alongside the basilica, then turning back of it and continuing +round to the delubra and precinct of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, +and that this road is the SACRA VIA of Praeneste.[141] + +At the upper end of the forum under the south facade of the temple, an +excavation was made in April 1907,[142] which is of great interest and +importance in connection with the forum. In Plate V we see that there +are three steps of tufa,[143] and observe that the space in front of +them is not paved; also that the ascent to the right, which is the only +way out of the forum at this corner, is too steep to have been ever more +than for ascent on foot. But it is up this steep and narrow way[144] +that every one had to go to reach the terrace above the temple, unless +he went across to the west side of the city. + +The steps just mentioned are not the beginning of an ascent to the +temple, for there were but three, and besides there was no entrance to +the temple on the south.[145] Nor was the earlier temple much lower than +the later one, for in either case the foundation was the rock surface of +the terrace and has not changed much. Although these steps are of an +older construction than the steps of the basilica, yet they were not +covered up in late imperial times as is shown by the brick construction +in the plate. One is tempted to believe that there was a Doric portico +below the engaged Corinthian columns of the south facade of the +temple.[146] But all the pieces of Doric columns found belong to the +portico of the basilica. Otherwise one might try to set up further +argument for a portico, and even claim that here was the place that the +statue was set up, ante curiam vel in por ticibus fori.[147] Again, +these steps run far past the temple to the east, otherwise we might +conclude that they were to mark the extent of temple property. The fact, +however, that a road, the Sacra Via, goes round back of the basilica +only to the left, forces us to conclude that these steps belong to the +city, not to the temple in any way, and that they mark the north side of +the ancient forum. + +The new forum below the city is well enough attested by inscriptions +found there mentioning statues and buildings in the forum. The tradition +has continued that here on the level space below the town was the great +forum. Inscriptions which have been found in different places on this +tract of ground mention five buildings,[148] ten statues of public +men,[149] the statue set up to the emperor Trajan on his birthday, +September 18, 101 A.D.,[150] and one to the emperor Julian.[151] The +discovery of two pieces of the Praenestine fasti in 1897 and 1903[152] +also helps to locate the lower forum.[153] + +[Illustration: PLATE V. The tufa steps at the upper end of the ancient +Forum of Praeneste.] + +The forum inside the city walls was the forum of Praeneste, the ally of +Rome, the more pretentious one below the city was the forum of +Praeneste, the Roman colony of Sulla. + + +IUNONARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2867. + +Delbrueck follows Preller[154] in making the Iunonarium a part of the +temple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have a statue of Trivia dedicated +in a Iunonarium, but it is stranger that there are no inscriptions among +those from Praeneste which mention Juno, except that the name alone +appears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes,[155] and as the +provenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions mean nothing. +It seems that the Iunonarium must have been somewhere in the west end of +the temple precinct of Fortuna. + + +KASA CUI VOCABULUM EST FULGERITA, C.I.L., XIV, 2934. + +This is an inscription which mentions a property inside the domain of +Praeneste in a region, which in 385 A.D., was called regio +Campania,[156] but it can not be located. + + +LACUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2998; Not. d. Scavi, 1902, p. 12. LAVATIO, C.I.L., +XIV, 2978, 2979, 3015. + +These three inscriptions were found in places so far from one another +that they may well refer to three lavationes. + + +LUDUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3014. + +See amphitheatrum. + + +MACELLUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2937, 2946. + +These inscriptions were found along the Via degli Arconi, and from the +fact that in 243 A.D. (C.I.L. XIV, 2972) there was a region (regio) by +that name, I should conclude that the lower part of the town below the +wall was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was divided +into four quarters,[157] which may well represent ancient tradition. + + +MACERIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3314, 3340. + +Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 87. + + +MASSA PRAE(NESTINA), C.I.L., XIV, 2934. + + +MURUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3002. + +See above, pages 22 ff. + + +PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2850. + +See above, page 32. + + +PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2995. + +See discussion of temple, page 42. + + +QUADRIGA, C.I.L., XIV, 2986. + + +SACRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2900. + + +SCHOLA FAUSTINIANA, C.I.L., XIV, 2901; C.I.G., 5998. + +Fernique (Etude sur Preneste, p. 119) thinks this the building the ruins +of which are of brick and called a temple, near the Ponte dell' +Ospedalato, but this is impossible. The date of the brick work is all +much later than the date assigned to it by him, and much later than the +name itself implies. + + +SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C.I.L., XIV, 2850. + + +This building was just inside the gate which was in the center of the +south wall of Praeneste, directly below the ancient forum and basilica. + + +SOLARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3323. + + +SPOLIARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3014. + +See Amphitheatrum. + + +TEMPLUM SARAPIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2901. + + +TEMPLUM HERCULIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2891, 2892; Not. d. Scavi, 11 +(1882-1883), p. 48. + +This temple was a mile or more distant from the city, in the territory +now known as Bocce di Rodi, and was situated on the little road which +made a short cut between the two great roads, the Praenestina and the +Labicana. + + +SACRA VIA, Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49. + +In the discussions on the temple and the forum, pages 42 and 54, I think +it is proved that the Sacra Via of Praeneste was the ancient road which +extended from the Porta Triumphalis up through the Forum, past the +Basilica and round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct and +temple of Fortuna Primigenia. + + +VIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3001, 3343. Viam sternenda(m). + +In inscription No. 3343 we have supra viam parte dex(tra), and from the +provenience of the stone we get a proof that the old road which led out +through the Porta S. Francesco was so well known that it was called +simply "via." + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +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,[158] 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.[159] + +As head of a league of nine cities,[160] and allied with Tibur, which +also headed a small confederacy,[161] Praeneste felt herself strong +enough to defy the other cities of the league,[162] 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;[163] +she showed her jealousy of Praeneste by refusing to allow Quintus +Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punic +war.[164] This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader of +a contingent from Praeneste was treated by a Roman dictator[165] 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.[166] Praeneste scornfully refused +Roman citizenship in 216 B.C., when it was offered.[167] 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,[168] nor +did Praeneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honored +as was Cato from Tusculum,[169] although one branch of the gens +Anicia[170] 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.[171] 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,[172] 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.[173] + +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,[174] 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.[175] 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.[176] 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.[177] + +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[178] both Praeneste and Tibur +had aediles and quaestors, but Tibur also had censors,[179] Praeneste +did not. Lavinium[180] and Praeneste were alike in that they both had +praetors. There were dictators in Aricia,[181] Lanuvium,[182] +Nomentum,[183] and Tusculum,[184] 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.[185] The praetor +was in camp as leader of the contingent of allies from Praeneste,[186] +and the fact that a praetor was in command of the troops sent from +allied towns[187] 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,[188] 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."[189] Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two +praetors,[190] 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,[191] and that such an arrangement was +more satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator[192] at its head +at some time,[193] 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,[194] and +the municipal officers were praetors,[195] aediles,[196] and +quaestors,[197] as we know certainly from inscriptions. In the +literature, a praetor is mentioned in 319 B.C.,[198] in 216 B.C.,[199] +and again in 173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the +magistrates of an allied city.[200] 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.[201] + +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,[202] 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.[203] + +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.[204] 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.[205] + +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[206] +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,[207] but continued to hold the right of a sovereign +city, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,[208] in common with Tibur +and Naples,[209] 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.[210] +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.[211] +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.[212] 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,[213] 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.[214] Mommsen-Marquardt say[215] 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).[216] 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.[217] 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.[218] 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.[219] 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,[220] and the great amount of its land[221] 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;[222] second, the use of the word +municipium in literature in connection with Praeneste is general, and +means simply "town";[223] 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,[224] which he +did,[225] but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular +city officials of a colony,[226] shows clearly that the Praenestines +simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered from +a severe illness at Praeneste[227] 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.[228] 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,[229] 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.,[56] 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,[230] 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,[231] +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.[232] 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.[233] +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,[234] 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[235] 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[236] 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.[237] +Two others[81] are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of several +peculiarities,[239] and one other, a fragment, belongs to still another +calendar.[240] 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[238] +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.[241] 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,[80] both forms are found, while in the year 31 A.D. in +the municipal fasti of Nola[242] are found II vir(i) iter(um) +q(uinquennales), and in 29 B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,[243] +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.[244] 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.[245] This duty was performed by the +duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power.[246] +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[247] 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.[248] Early in the life of the colony, immediately after its +settlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's +monuments,[249] 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[250] mentioned in the fragment above (see note 83), there +are practically no people of that name found in Praeneste,[251] 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.[252] + + +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.[253] 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.[254] 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.[255] 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,[256] and just such an arrangement is also found in +the aediles, Sex. Caesius being a Praenestine[257], 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.[258] C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, +duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in another +inscription,[259] 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,[260] and Statiolenus[261] 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.[262] 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.[263] 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.[264] In fact the +same name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions.[265] 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.[266] Capivas is at least not a +Roman name,[267] 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[268] is a name not found elsewhere in the +Latian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,[269] and +is found also in Pompeii[270] and Puteoli.[271] 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.[272] 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)[273] 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,[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 +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,[279] 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[280] 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[281] or Ostia,[282] 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[283] 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.[284] The only other men who attained the quinquennial +rank in Praeneste 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 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.[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 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.[288] + +From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers' +union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,[289] 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,[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 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).[291] A Roman knight, C. Aemilius +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. Maenius C.f. Bassus[294] 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[295] 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.[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 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.[298] + +Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superaequum, and +held no other offices.[299] + +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,[300] shows clearly that such a method of getting a +quinquennalis was out of the ordinary. + +M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum[301] 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.[302] + +Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate, +which again shows the irregularity of the choice.[303] + +M. Traesius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an +inhabitant of Atinae in Lucania.[304] + +M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was aedile and duovir in Pompeii,[305] +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.[306] + +P. Sextilius Rufus,[307] 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.[308] + +M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being aedile or +quaestor, 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 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.[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 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[318] 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. +-- [I]nstacilius Aed. 2964 +C. Iuc ... Rufus[319] Q 2964 +Laelianus, see Lutatius. +M'. Later ...[320] 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: + +[Footnote 1: Strabo V, 3, II.] + +[Footnote 2: We know that in 380 B.C. Praeneste had eight towns under +her jurisdiction, and that they must have been relatively near by. Livy +VI, 29, 6: octo praeterea oppida erant sub dicione Praenestinorum. +Festus, p. 550 (de Ponor): T. Quintius Dictator cum per novem dies +totidem urbes et decimam Praeneste 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 Praeneste (Livy VI, 29, 8), all show +that the domain of Praeneste was both of extent and of consequence.] + +[Footnote 3: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.] + +[Footnote 4: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.] + +[Footnote 5: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 227 ff.; Marucchi, Guida +Archeologica, p. 14; Nibby, Analisi, p. 483; Volpi, Latium vetus de +Praen., chap 2; Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 167.] + +[Footnote 6: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.] + +[Footnote 7: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum +Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.] + +[Footnote 8: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.] + +[Footnote 9: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 277, n. 36, from Epist., +474: Bonifacius VIII concedit Episcopo Civitatis Papalis Locum, ubi +fuerunt olim Civitas Praenestina, eiusque Castrum, quod dicebatur Mons, +et Rocca; ac etiam Civitas Papalis postmodum destructa, cum Territorio +et Turri de Marmoribus, et Valle Gloriae; nec non Castrum Novum +Tiburtinum 2 Id. April. an. VI; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 136; +Civitas praedicta cum Rocca, et Monte, cum Territorio ipsius posita est +in districtu Urbis in contrata, quae dicitur Romangia.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 11: Livy VIII, 12, 7: Pedanos tuebatur Tiburs, Praenestinus +Veliternusque populus, etc. Livy VII, 12, 8: quod Gallos mox Praeneste +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.] + +[Footnote 12: There are some good ancient tufa quarries too on the +southern slope of Colle S. Rocco, to which a branch road from Praeneste +ran. Fernique, Etude sur Preneste, p. 104.] + +[Footnote 13: C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.] + +[Footnote 14: Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of +the Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 16: Fernique, Etude sur Preneste, p. 120, wishes to connect +Marcigliano and Ceciliano with the gentes Marcia and Caecilia, but it is +impossible to do more than guess, and the rather few names of these +gentes at Praeneste make the guess improbable. It is also impossible to +locate regio Caesariana mentioned as a possession of Praeneste 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 Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 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 archaeologists (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; Archaeologia, 41 (1867), p. 190.] + +[Footnote 18: C.I.L., XIV, 2987.] + +[Footnote 19: The papal documents read sometimes in Latin, territorium +Praenestinum or Civitas Praenestina, 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).] + +[Footnote 20: There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any +way to ancient Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 21: Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own +observations. See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.] + +[Footnote 22: The temple in Cave is of the same tufa (Fernique, Etude +sur Preneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 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).] + +[Footnote 24: Cave has been attached rather more to Genazzano during +Papal rule than to Praeneste, and it belongs to the electoral college of +Subiaco, Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 182.] + +[Footnote 25: I heard everywhere bitter and slighting remarks in +Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 26: Mommsen, Bull. dell'Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks that +the civilization in Praeneste was far ahead of that of the other Latin +cities.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 28: Whether these towns are Pedum or Bola, Scaptia, and +Querquetula is not a question here at all.] + +[Footnote 29: Gatti, in Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576, in connection with +the Arlenius inscription, found on the site of the new Forum below +Praeneste in 1903, which mentions Ad Duas Casas as confinium territorio +Praenestinae, 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 Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste. But it has been shown that +Praeneste'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 Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 31: To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, that +which looks directly toward Rocca di Cave.] + +[Footnote 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, Etude sur Preneste, opp. p. +222, are Sullan in date.] + +[Footnote 33: Fernique, Etude sur Preneste, map facing p. 222. His book +is on the whole the best one on Praeneste 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, Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire de +l'ecole francaise de Rome, 1882, plate 5, shows a little of this +polygonal cyclopean construction.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste at all.] + +[Footnote 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.)] + +[Footnote 36: The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid bare +in 1890, Not. d. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38.] + +[Footnote 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."] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 42: Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 19, who is usually a good +authority on Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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, Etude sur Preneste, p. 104, +also mentions it). The same thing is true at various places all along +the wall.] + +[Footnote 45: Fernique, Etude sur Preneste, p. 107, has exact +measurements of the walls.] + +[Footnote 46: Fernique, Etude sur Preneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 47: There seems to have been only a postern in the ancient +wall inside the present Porta del Sole.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 49: Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 57 ff. for argument and proof, +beginning with Varro, de I. 1. VI, 4: ut Praeneste incisum in solario +vidi.] + +[Footnote 50: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 57: Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): [Greek: erymnae men oun +ekatera, poly derumnotera Prainestos].] + +[Footnote 58: Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: [Greek: Marios de pheygon eis +Praineston aedae tas pylas eyre kekleimenas].] + +[Footnote 59: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 282; Nibby, Analisi, II, +p. 491.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 61: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 248.] + +[Footnote 62: Also called Porta S. Giacomo, or dell'Ospedale.] + +[Footnote 63: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 252.] + +[Footnote 64: Closed seemingly in Sullan times.] + +[Footnote 65: The rude corbeling of one side of the gate is still very +plainly to be seen. The gate is filled with mediaeval stone work.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 68: This gate is now a mediaeval 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 72: This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazione +de Numeri, Map facing page 1: l'antica Porta di San Martino chiusa.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste up to their dates of +publication.] + +[Footnote 74: Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, in Papers +of the British School at Rome, Vol. 1, Map VI.] + +[Footnote 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, +Etude sur Preneste, p. 122; Marucchi, Guida Archeologica, p. 122.] + +[Footnote 76: This road to Marcigliano had nothing to do with either the +Praenestina 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.] + +[Footnote 77: Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1903), pp. 23-25.] + +[Footnote 78: Probably the store room of some little shop which sold the +exvotos. Bull. dell'Inst., 1883, p. 28.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praenestina. 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.] + +[Footnote 80: The roads are the present Via Praenestina toward +Gallicano, and the Via Praenestina 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).] + +[Footnote 81: Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); [Greek: ... dioruxi +kryptais--pantachothen mechri tou pedion tais men hydreias charin ktl.]; +Vell. Paterc. II, 27, 4.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 83: Cola di Rienzo did this (see note 59), and so discovered +the method by which the Praenestines 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 Praeneste from the rear, +from over Colle S. Martino, as well as by an attack in front.] + +[Footnote 84: C.I.L., XIV, 3013, 3014 add., 2978, 2979, 3015.] + +[Footnote 85: Nibby, Analisi, p. 510. It could be seen in 1907, but not +so very clearly.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 88: The mediaeval 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.] + +[Footnote 89: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of this +aqueduct as "quel mirabile antico cuniculo."] + +[Footnote 90: The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua del +Sambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, Memorie +Prenestine, p. 286).] + +[Footnote 91: Fernique, Etude sur Preneste, p. 96 ff., p. 122 ff.; +Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 501 ff.; Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 45.] + +[Footnote 92: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 503, the sanest of all the writers +on Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 93: C.I.L., XIV, 2911, was found near this reservoir, and +Nibby from this, and a likeness to the construction of the Castra +Praetoria at Rome, dates it so (Analisi, p. 503).] + +[Footnote 94: This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of the +American School in Rome.] + +[Footnote 95: See above, page 29.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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, +Etude sur Preneste, p. 123.] + +[Footnote 98: Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85.] + +[Footnote 99: There are many references to the temple. Suetonius, Dom., +15, Tib., 63; Aelius 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.] + +[Footnote 100: "La citta attuale e 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 +citta," Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), p. 233.] + +[Footnote 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 +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.] + +[Footnote 102: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under Das +Heiligtum der Fortuna in Praeneste, p. 47 ff.] + +[Footnote 103: Cicero, De Div., II, 41, 85.] + +[Footnote 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 Praenestinae 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).] + +[Footnote 105: Cicero, de Div., II, 41, 85: is est hodie locus saeptus +religiose propter Iovis pueri, qui lactens cum lunone Fortunae in gremio +sedens, ... eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunae nunc est aedes, +etc.] + +[Footnote 106: C.I.L., XIV, 2867: ...ut Triviam in Iunonario, ut in +pronao aedis statuam, etc., and Livy, XXIII, 19, 18 of 216 B.C.: Idem +titulus (a laudatory inscription to M. Anicius) tribus signis in aede +Fortunae positis fuit subiectus.] + +[Footnote 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 Praenestines then made Fortuna the mother of +Jupiter and Juno, and considered Primigenia to mean "first born," not +"first born of Jupiter."] + +[Footnote 108: The establishment of the present Cathedral of S. Agapito +as the basilica of ancient Praeneste 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 111: See also Revue Arch., XXXIX (1901), p. 469, n. 188.] + +[Footnote 112: C.I.L, XIV, 2864.] + +[Footnote 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 aeditui, of whom we have no mention, are the +proper custodians of the entire temple, precinct and all.] + +[Footnote 114: C.I.L., XIV, 3007. See Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom, I, 2, +p. 365, n. 73.] + +[Footnote 115: See Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62.] + +[Footnote 116: C.I.L., XIV, 2922; also on bricks, Ann. dell'Inst., 1855, +p. 86--C.I.L., XIV, 4091, 9.] + +[Footnote 117: C.I.L., XIV, 2980; C. Caesius M.f.C. Flavius L.f. Duovir +Quinq. aedem et portic d.d. fac. coer. eidemq. prob.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 119: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 430. See also Juvenal +XIV, 88; Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10.] + +[Footnote 120: Delbrueck, l.c., p. 62, with illustration.] + +[Footnote 121: Although Suaresius (Thesaurus Antiq. Italiae, 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 +Aesculapius at Epidaurus, Cavvadias, [Greek: 'Ephaem. 'Arch.], 1883, p. +1975; Michel, Recueil d'insc. grec., 1069 ff.] + +[Footnote 122: Mommsen, Unterital. Dialekte, pp. 320, 324; Marquardt, +Staatsverwaltung, 3, p. 271, n. 8. See Marucchi, Bull. Com., 32 (1904), +p. 10.] + +[Footnote 123: Delbrueck, l.c., pp. 50, 59, does prove that there is no +reason why [Greek: lithostroton] 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 Praeneste. 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 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.] + +[Footnote 124: For the many opinions as to the subject of the mosaic, +see Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 75.] + +[Footnote 125: This has been supposed to be a villa of Hadrian's because +the Braschi Antinoues 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, Etude sur Preneste, p. 120, for a meagre +description of the villa.] + +[Footnote 126: Delbrueck, l.c., p. 58, n. 1.] + +[Footnote 127: The aerarium 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 aerarium 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 Aemilia 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.] + +[Footnote 128: See note 106.] + +[Footnote 129: C.I.L., XIV, 2875. This dedication of "coques atriensis" +probably belongs to the upper temple.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 131: The martyr suffered death contra civitatem praenestinam +ubi sunt duae viae, Marucchi, Guida Arch., p. 144, n. 3, from Martirol. +Adonis, 18 Aug. Cod. Vat. Regin., n. 511 (11th cent. A.D.).] + +[Footnote 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.); Friedlaender, +Sittengeschichte Roms, II, p. 377; Cicero, pro Plancio, XXVI, 63; Epist. +ad Att., XII, 2, 2; Cassiodorus, Variae, VI, 15.] + +[Footnote 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).] + +[Footnote 134: On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia di +Palestrina, p. 60.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 136: Not d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 330.] + +[Footnote 137: Livy XXIII, 19, 17-18: statua cius (M. Anicii) indicio +fuit, Praeneste in foro statuta, loricata, amicta toga, velato capite, +etc.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 141: More discussion of this point above in connection with +the temple, page 51.] + +[Footnote 142: I was in Praeneste during all the excavations of 1907, +and made these photographs while I was there.] + +[Footnote 143: The drawing of the Not. d. Scavi, 1907, p. 290, which +shows a probable portico is not exact.] + +[Footnote 144: It is now called the Via delle Scalette.] + +[Footnote 145: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 58.] + +[Footnote 146: See full-page illustration in Delbrueck, l.c., p. 79.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 148: C.I.L., XIV, 2908, 2919, 2916, 2937, 2946, 3314, 3340.] + +[Footnote 149: C.I.L., XIV, 2917, 2919, 2922, 2924, 2929, 2934, 2955, +2997, 3014, Not. d. Scavi, 1903, p. 576.] + +[Footnote 150: F. Barnabei, Not. d. Scavi, 1894, p. 96.] + +[Footnote 151: C.I.L., XIV, 2914.] + +[Footnote 152: Not. d. Scavi, 1897, p. 421; 1904, p. 393.] + +[Footnote 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) Praeneste in +superiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos et +marmoreo parieti incisos publicarat.] + +[Footnote 154: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, p. 50, n. 1, +from Preller, Roemische Mythologie, II, p. 191, n. 1.] + +[Footnote 155: C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.] + +[Footnote 156: Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 320, n. 19.] + +[Footnote 157: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 35.] + +[Footnote 158: Tibur shows 1 to 32 and Praeneste 1 to 49 names of +inhabitants from the Umbro-Sabellians of the Appennines. These +statistics are from A. Schulten, Italische Namen und Staemme, Beitraege +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.] + +[Footnote 159: Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, V, p. 159.] + +[Footnote 160: Livy VI, 29; C.I.L., XIV, 2987.] + +[Footnote 161: Livy VII, 11; VII, 19; VIII, 12.] + +[Footnote 162: Praeneste 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 Praeneste deserted +the Latins for Rome.] + +[Footnote 163: Livy VIII, 14.] + +[Footnote 164: Val. Max., De Superstitionibus, I, 3, 2; C.I.L., XIV, +2929, with Dessau's note.] + +[Footnote 165: See note 28.] + +[Footnote 166: "Praeneste wird immer eine selbstaendige Stellung +eingenommen haben" Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alt., II, p. 523. Praeneste +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). +Praeneste is called by Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21, 27) one of the +municipia Italiae splendidissima along with Spoletium, Interamnium, +Florentia.] + +[Footnote 167: Livy XXIII, 20, 2.] + +[Footnote 168: Livy I, 30, 1.] + +[Footnote 169: Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.] + +[Footnote 170: Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under "Anicia."] + +[Footnote 171: The old Oscan names in Pompeii, and the Etruscan names on +the small grave stones of Caere, C.I.L., X, 3635-3692, are neither so +numerous.] + +[Footnote 172: Dionysius III, 2.] + +[Footnote 173: Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.] + +[Footnote 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--praeterquam de suffragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo.] + +[Footnote 175: Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in +civitatem Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.] + +[Footnote 176: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita +venerunt, ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut +Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste would ever have taken such a status.] + +[Footnote 178: C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 180: C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.] + +[Footnote 181: C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195] + +[Footnote 182: Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in +Milonianam, p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, +2121.] + +[Footnote 183: C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.] + +[Footnote 184: Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste. 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 Praeneste, +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.] + +[Footnote 186: Praenestinus praetor ... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy +IX, 16, 17.] + +[Footnote 187: A praetor led the contingent from Lavinium, Livy VIII, +11, 4; the praetor M. Anicius led from Praeneste the cohort which gained +such a reputation at Casilinum, Livy XXIII, 17-19. Strabo V, 249; cohors +Paeligna, cuius praefectus, etc., proves nothing for a Latin +contingent.] + +[Footnote 188: For the evidence that the consuls were first called +praetors, see Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under the word "consul" (Vol. IV, +p. 1114) and the old Pauly under "praetor." + +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.] + +[Footnote 189: This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law +at the University of Michigan.] + +[Footnote 190: Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, +61.] + +[Footnote 191: Pauly-Wissowa under "dictator," and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, +II, 171, 2.] + +[Footnote 192: Whether Egerius Laevius 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).] + +[Footnote 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), Velitrae (C.I.L., X, 8417), Bovillae +(C.I.L., XIV, 2431 == VI, 2125). Compare also rex nemorensis, Suetonius, +Caligula, 35 (Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Roemer, p. 199).] + +[Footnote 194: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.] + +[Footnote 195: C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly +3008).] + +[Footnote 196: C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.] + +[Footnote 197: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.] + +[Footnote 198: See note 28 above.] + +[Footnote 199: Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.] + +[Footnote 200: Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.] + +[Footnote 201: For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, +notes 1 and 2.] + +[Footnote 202: The mention of one praetor in C.I.L., XIV, 2890, a +dedication to Hercules, is later than other mention of two praetors, and +is not irregular at any rate.] + +[Footnote 203: C.I.L., XIV, 3000, two aediles 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 praetors, aediles, and +quaestors mentioned, fifteen belong to the old families of Praeneste, +two to families that belong to the people living back in the Sabines, +and one to a man from Fidenae.] + +[Footnote 204: Cicero, pro Balbo, VIII, 21: Leges de civili iure sunt +latae: 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 +refectae sunt. Gellius IV, 4, 3; Civitas universo Latio lege Iulia data +est. Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 49: [Greek: Italioton de tous eti en tae +symmachia paramenontas epsaephisato (ae boulae) einai politas, ou dae +malista monon ou pantes epethymoun ktl.] + +Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311; +Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman +Constitutional History, pp. 190-191.] + +[Footnote 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 praetorem 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 incolae of +federate communities; Abbott, Roman Political Institutions, p. 102.] + +[Footnote 206: Livy VIII, 14, 9: Tiburtes Praenestinique 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 aequum 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 +Abhaengigkeits--oder Clientelverhaeltniss."] + +[Footnote 207: Mommsen, Geschichte des roem. Muenzwesens, p. 179 (French +trans, de Blacas, I, p. 186), thinks two series of aes grave are to be +assigned to Praeneste and Tibur.] + +[Footnote 208: Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Praeneste, Matienus Tibur +exulatum abierunt.] + +[Footnote 209: Polybius VI, 14, 8: [Greek: eoti d asphaleia tois +pheygousin ente tae, Neapolito kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinon +polei]. Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. 215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., +I, p. 45.] + +[Footnote 210: Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Praenestini) civitate cum donarentur +ob virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.] + +[Footnote 211: The celebration of the feriae Latinae 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 Caesar 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)).] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 213: Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: [Greek: exedramen es tas +agchou poleis, tas ou pro pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburton +te kai Praineston, kai osai mechri Nolaes. erethizon apantas es +apostasin, kai chraemata es ton polemon sullegon.] 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 ([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.]] + +[Footnote 214: Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), pp. +109 ff.] + +[Footnote 215: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.] + +[Footnote 216: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): tertio, quum id genus hominum +definitur, qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent +suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praeneste the favor she asked, that of being a municipium, still no +praefectus is found, not even a survival of the title. + +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.] + +[Footnote 218: Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.] + +[Footnote 219: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.] + +[Footnote 220: Val. Max. IX, 2, 1; Plutarch, Sulla, 32; Appian, Bell. +Civ., I, 94; Lucan II, 194; Plutarch, praec. ger. reip., ch. 19 (p. +816); Augustinus, de civ. Dei, III, 28; Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289, n. +2.] + +[Footnote 221: One third of the land was the usual amount taken.] + +[Footnote 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 aed. pot.] + +[Footnote 223: Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21): municipia Italiae +splendidissima sub hasta venierunt, Spoletium, Interamnium, Praeneste, +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 Praeneste in connection with Sulla says: +quinque milia Praenestinorum 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."] + +[Footnote 224: Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statum +redegit. See Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 167.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 226: Regular colony officials appear all along in the +incriptions down into the third century A.D.] + +[Footnote 227: Gellius XVI, 13, 5.] + +[Footnote 228: More in detail by Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 110.] + +[Footnote 229: Livy VII, 12, 8; VIII, 12, 8.] + +[Footnote 230: Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 161.] + +[Footnote 231: Cicero, pro P. Sulla, XXI, 61.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 233: Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 235: C.I.L., XIV, p. 289.] + +[Footnote 236: C.I.L., XIV, 2964-2969.] + +[Footnote 237: 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.] + +[Footnote 238: C.I.L., XIV, 2966, 2968.] + +[Footnote 239: The first column of both inscriptions shows alternate +lines spaced in, while the second column has the praenominal +abbreviations exactly lined. More certain yet is the likeness which +shows in a list of 27 names, and all but one without cognomina.] + +[Footnote 240: C.I.L., XIV, 2967.] + +[Footnote 241: Out of 201 examples of names from Praeneste 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 +praenomina and nomina.] + +[Footnote 242: C.I.L., X, 1233.] + +[Footnote 243: C.I.L., IX, 422.] + +[Footnote 244: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 5.] + +[Footnote 245: Lex Iulia Municipalis, C.I.L., I, 206, l. 142 ff. == +Dessau, Inscrip. Lat. Sel., 6085.] + +[Footnote 246: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 160.] + +[Footnote 247: C.I.L., XIV, 2966.] + +[Footnote 248: Pauly-Wissowa under "Dolabella," and "Cornelius," nos. +127-148.] + +[Footnote 249: The real founder of Sulla's colony and the rebuilder of +the city of Praeneste 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 Praeneste. 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.] + +[Footnote 250: C.I.L., XIV, 2967: ... elius Rufus Aed(ilis). I take him +to be a Cornelius rather than an Aelius, because of the cognomen.] + +[Footnote 251: One Cornelius, a freedman (C.I.L., XIV, 3382), and three +Corneliae, 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.] + +[Footnote 252: A full treatment of the use of the nomen Cornelia in +Praeneste will be published soon by the author in connection with his +Prosographia Praenestina, 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 Praeneste in 1907, +bears out the early date. The larger fragment could not be seen.] + +[Footnote 253: Schulze, Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen, p. 222, +under "Rutenius." He finds the same form Rotanius only in Turin, +Rutenius only in North Italy.] + +[Footnote 254: From the appearance of the name Rudia at Praeneste +(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 Praeneste before the colonization.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 +Praeneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2966, I, 5, 3360; compare Schulze, Geschichte +Lat. Eigennamen, p. 193, n. 6.] + +[Footnote 257: Caesia at Praeneste, C.I.L., XIV, 2852, 2966 I, 6, 2980, +3311, 3359, and the old form Ceisia, 4104.] + +[Footnote 258: See Schulze, l.c., index under Caleius.] + +[Footnote 259: C.I.L., XIV, 2964 II, 15.] + +[Footnote 260: Vibia especially in the old inscription C.I.L., XIV, +4098. Also in 2903, 2966 II, 9; Not. d. Scavi, 1900, p. 94.] + +[Footnote 261: Statioleia: C.I.L., XIV, 2966 I, 10, 3381.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 263: There is a L. Aponius Mitheres on a basis in the +Barberini garden in Praeneste, 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.] + +[Footnote 264: C.I.L., XIV, 2855, 2626, 3336.] + +[Footnote 265: C.I.L., XIV, 3116. It may not be on a pigna.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 267: C.I.L., IX, 5016: C. Capive Vitali (Hadria).] + +[Footnote 268: A better restoration than Ninn(eius). The (N)inneius +Sappaeus (C.I.L., VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription is +late.] + +[Footnote 269: In the year 216 B.C. the Ninnii Celeres were hostages of +Hannibal's at Capua (Livy XXIII, 8).] + +[Footnote 270: C.I.L., X, 2776-2779, but all late.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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 Praeneste: 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 +annonae sacris publicis procurandis), Henzen; (votis Augustalibus sacris +publicis procurandis), Mommsen; (viis aedibus, etc.), Cagnat; See +Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1842, 9.] + +[Footnote 273: Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyc., V, 1806.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 275: All at least except the regimen morum, so Marquardt, +l.c., p. 162 and n. 2.] + +[Footnote 276: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 6.] + +[Footnote 277: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 161, n. 7.] + +[Footnote 278: Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 78 ff.; Nissen, Italische +Landeskunde, II, p. 99 ff.] + +[Footnote 279: C.I.L., IX, 422 = Dessau, Insc. Lat. Sel., 6123.] + +[Footnote 280: C.I.L., X, 1233 = Dessau 6124.] + +[Footnote 281: Near Aquinum. C.I.L., X, 5405 = Dessau 6125.] + +[Footnote 282: C.I.L., XIV, 245 = Dessau 6126.] + +[Footnote 283: C.I.L., XIV, 2964.] + +[Footnote 284: He is not even mentioned in Pauly-Wissowa or Ruggiero.] + +[Footnote 285: C.I.L., XIV, 2966.] + +[Footnote 286: C.I.L., XIV, 2964.] + +[Footnote 287: C.I.L., XIV, 2965.] + +[Footnote 288: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 169 for full discussion, +with references to other cases.] + +[Footnote 289: C.I.L., XIV, 172: praet(or) Laur(entium) Lavin(atium) +IIIIvir q(uin) q(uennalis) Faesulis.] + +[Footnote 290: C.I.L., XIV, 3599.] + +[Footnote 291: C.I.L., XIV, 3609.] + +[Footnote 292: C.I.L., XIV, 3650.] + +[Footnote 293: C.I.L., I, 1236 == X, 1573 == Dessau 6345.] + +[Footnote 294: C.I.L., XIV, 3665.] + +[Footnote 295: C.I.L., XI, 421 == Dessau 6662.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 297: Not. d. Scav, 1884, p. 418 == Dessau 6598.] + +[Footnote 298: C.I.L., IX, 5831 == Dessau 6572.] + +[Footnote 299: C.I.L., IX, 3311 == Dessau 6532.] + +[Footnote 300: L. Septimio L.f. Arn. Calvo. aed., IIIIvir. i.d., praef. +ex s.c. [q]uinquennalicia potestate, etc., Eph. Ep. 8, 120 == Dessau +6527.] + +[Footnote 301: C.I.L., IX, 1618 == Dessau 6507.] + +[Footnote 302: C.I.L., IX, 652 == Dessau 6481.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 304: C.I.L., X, 344 == Dessau 6450.] + +[Footnote 305: C.I.L., X, 1036 == Dessau 6365.] + +[Footnote 306: C.I.L., X, 840 == Dessau 6362: M. Holconio Celeri +d.v.i.d. quinq. designato. Augusti sacerdoti.] + +[Footnote 307: C.I.L., X, 1273 == Dessau 6344.] + +[Footnote 308: C.I.L., X, 4641 == Dessau 6301.] + +[Footnote 309: C.I.L., X, 5401 == Dessau 6291.] + +[Footnote 310: C.I.L., X, 5393 == Dessau 6286.] + +[Footnote 311: C.I.L., XIV, 4148.] + +[Footnote 312: C.I.L., XIV, 4097, 4105a, 4106f.] + +[Footnote 313: C.I.L., XIV, 2795.] + +[Footnote 314: C.I.L., XIV, 4237. Another case of the same kind is seen +in the fragment C.I.L., XIV, 4247.] + +[Footnote 315: Zangemeister, C.I.L., IV., Index, shows 75 duoviri and +but 4 quinquennales.] + +[Footnote 316: L. Veranius Hypsaeus 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.] + +[Footnote 317: (1) Verulae, C.I.L., X, 5796; Acerrae, C.I.L., X, 3759; +(2) Anagnia, C.I.L., X, 5919; Allifae, C.I.L., IX, 2354; Aeclanum, +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) Formiae, 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; Allifae, +C.I.L., IX, 2353; Hispellum, C.I.L., XI, 5283.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 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.] + +[Footnote 320: Probably not the M. Iuventius Laterensis, the Roman +quaestor, for the brick stamps of Praeneste in other cases seem to show +the quaestors of the city.] + + + + + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Study Of The Topography And +Municipal History Of Praeneste, by Ralph Van Deman Magoffin + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF PRAENESTE *** + +***** This file should be named 12770.txt or 12770.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/2/7/7/12770/ + +Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Wilelmina Malliere and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team. + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/12770.zip b/old/12770.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ce05467 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/12770.zip |
