diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/12770-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/12770-8.txt | 4559 |
1 files changed, 4559 insertions, 0 deletions
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. |