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, inwhich the author hopes to make some contributions to the history of thetowns of the early Latin League, from the topographical and epigraphicalpoints of view. 

The author takes this opportunity to thank Dr. Kirby Flower Smith, Headof the Department of Latin, at whose suggestion this study was begun, and under whose supervision and with whose hearty assistance itsrevision was completed. 

He owes his warmest thanks also to Dr. Harry Langford Wilson, Professorof Roman Archaeology and Epigraphy, with whom he made many trips toPraeneste, and whose help and suggestions were most valuable. 

Especially does he wish to testify to the inspiration to thoroughnesswhich came from the teaching and the example of his dearly reveredteacher, Professor Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Head of the GreekDepartment, and he acknowledges also with pleasure the benefit from thescholarly methods of Dr. David M. Robinson, and the manifoldsuggestiveness 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 inRome and Praeneste and since his return to America, has been invaluable, and the privilege afforded him by Professor Dr. Christian Hülsen, of theGerman Archaeological Institute, of consulting the as yet unpublishedindices of the sixth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, isacknowledged with deep gratitude. 

The author is deeply grateful for the facilities afforded him in theprosecution 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 atPalestrina, his brother, Cav. Emilio Cicerchia, Government Inspector ofAntiquities, Professor Pompeo Bernardini, Mayor of the City, and Cav. Francesco Coltellacci, Municipal Secretary. 

Finally, he desires to express his cordial appreciation of the kindadvice and generous assistance given by Professor John Martin Vincent inconnection 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 clearfrom them, and directly in front of the sinuous little valley which thenorthernmost headstream of the Trerus made for itself, rises aconspicuous and commanding mountain, two thousand three hundred andeighteen feet above the level of the sea, and something more than halfthat height above the plain below. This limestone mountain, the modernMonte Glicestro, presents on the north a precipitous and unapproachableside to the Sabines, but turns a fairer face to the southern and westernplain. From its conical summit the mountain stretches steeply downtoward the southwest, dividing almost at once into two rounded slopes, one of which, the Colle di S. Martino, faces nearly west, the other in adirection a little west of south. On this latter slope is situated themodern Palestrina, which is built on the site of the ancient Praeneste. 

From the summit of the mountain, where the arx or citadel was, itbecomes clear at once why Praeneste occupied a proud and commandingposition among the towns of Latium. The city, clambering up the slope onits terraces, occupied a notably strong position[1], and the citadel waswholly impregnable to assault. Below and south of the city stretchedfertile land easy of access to the Praenestines, and sufficientlydistant from other strong Latin towns to be safe for regularcultivation. Further, there is to be added to the fortunate situationof Praeneste with regard to her own territory and that of her contiguousdependencies, her position at a spot which almost forced upon her a wideterritorial influence, for Monte Glicestro faces exactly the wide anddeep depression between the Volscian mountains and the Alban Hills, andis at the same time at the head of the Trerus-Liris valley. ThusPraeneste at once commanded not only one of the passes back into thehighland country of the Aequians, but also the inland routes betweenUpper and Lower Italy, the roads which made relations possible betweenthe Hernicans, Volscians, Samnites, and Latins. From Praeneste themovements of Volscians and Latins, even beyond the Alban Hills and ondown in the Pontine district, could be seen, and any hostiledemonstrations 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 byvolcanic forces, but the long ridges which run off to the northwest areof lava, while the shorter and wider ones extending toward the southwestare of tufa. These ridges are from three to seven miles in length. It isshown either by remains of roads and foundations or (in three cases) bythe actual presence of modern towns that in antiquity the tip of almostevery one of these ridges was occupied by a city. The whole of the tufaand lava plain that stretches out from Praeneste toward the RomanCampagna is flat to the eye, and the towns on the tips of the ridgesseem so low that their strong military position is overlooked. The topsof these ridges, however, are everywhere more than an hundred feet abovethe valley and, in addition, their sides are very steep. Thus the townswere practically impregnable except by an attack along the top of theridge, and as all these ridges run back to the base of the mountain onwhich Praeneste was situated, both these ridges and their townsnecessarily were always closely connected with Praeneste and dependentupon her. 

There is a simple expedient by which a conception of the topography ofthe country about Praeneste can be obtained. Place the left hand, palmdown, flat on a table spreading the fingers slightly, then the palm ofthe right hand on the back of the left with the fingers pointing atright angles to those of the left hand. Imagine that the mountain, onwhich 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 thealternate ridges and valleys which the fingers and the spaces betweenthem represent. 

EXTENT OF THE DOMAIN OF PRAENESTE. 

Just as the modern roads and streets in both country and city of ancientterritory are taken as the first and best proof of the presence ofancient boundary lines and thoroughfares, just so the territorialjurisdiction of a city in modern Italy, where tradition has been soconstant and so strong, is the best proof for the extent of ancientdomain. [2] Before trying, therefore, to settle the limits of the domainof Praeneste from the provenience of ancient inscriptions, and bydeductions from ancient literary sources, and present topographical andarchaeological arguments, it will be well worth while to trace rapidlythe diocesan boundaries which the Roman church gave to Praeneste. 

The Christian faith had one of its longest and hardest fights atPraeneste to overcome the old Roman cult of Fortuna Primigenia. Christianity triumphed completely, and Praeneste was so important aplace, that it was made one of the six suburban bishoprics, [3] and fromthat time on there is more or less mention in the Papal records of thediocese 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 bySixtus III, Pope from 432 to 440, of a certain possession in Praenestineterritory called Marmorata, [4] which seems best located near the town ofGenazzano. 

About the year 970 the territory of Praeneste was increased in extent byPope John XIII, who ceded to his sister Stefania a territory thatextended back into the mountains to Aqua alta near Subiaco, and as faras the Rivo lato near Genazzano, and to the west and north from the headof the Anio river to the Via Labicana. [5]

A few years later, in 998, because of some troubles, the domain ofPraeneste was very much diminished. This is of the greatest importancehere, because the territory of the diocese in 998 corresponds almostexactly not only to the natural boundaries, but also, as will be shownlater, to the ancient boundaries of her domain. The extent of thisrestricted 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 theancient boundary. The towns of Valmontone, Cave, and Poli, however, although in a great degree dependent upon Praeneste, were, I think, justoutside her proper territorial domain. 

In 1043, when Emilia, a descendant of the Stefania mentioned above, married Stefano di Colonna, Count of Tusculum, Praeneste's territoryseems to have been enlarged again to its former extent, because in 1080at Emilia's death, Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Colonna becausethey insisted upon retaining the Praenestine territory which had beengiven as a fief to Stefania, and which upon Emilia's death should havereverted to the Church. [7]

We get a glance again at the probable size of the Praenestine diocesein 1190, from the fact that the fortieth bishop of Praeneste wasGiovanni Anagnino de' Conti di Segni (1190-1196), [8] and this seems toimply a further extension of the diocese to the southeast down theTrerus (Sacco) valley. 

Again, in 1300 after the papal destruction of Palestrina, the governmentof the city was turned over to Cardinal Ranieri, who was to hold thecity and its castle (mons), the mountain and its territory. At this timethe diocese comprised the land as far as Artena (Monte Fortino) and andRocca Priora, one of the towns in the Alban Hills, and to Castrum NovumTiburtinum, 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 southernslope of the mountain which was walled in, but also a level piece offertile ground below the city, across the present Via degli Arconi. Thispiece of flat land has an area about six hundred yards square, thenatural boundaries of which are: on the west, the deep bed of thewatercourse spanned by the Ponte dei Sardoni; on the east, the cut overwhich is built the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, and on the south, thedepression running parallel to the Via degli Arconi, and containing themodern road from S. Rocco to Cave. 

From the natural limits of the town itself we now pass to what wouldseem to have been the extent of territory dependent upon her. Thestrongest argument of this discussion is based upon the naturalconfiguration of the land. To the west, the domain of Praenestecertainly followed those long fertile ridges accessible only fromPraeneste. First, and most important, it extended along the very wideridge known as Le Tende and Le Colonnelle which stretches down towardGallicano. Some distance above that town it splits, one half, under thename of Colle S. Rocco, running out to the point on which Gallicano issituated, and the other, as the Colle Caipoli, reaching farther out intothe Campagna. Along and across this ridge ran several ancient roads. [10]With the combination of fertile ground well situated, in a positionfarthest away from all hostile attack, and a location not only in plainsight from the citadel of Praeneste, but also between Praeneste and herclosest friend and ally, Tibur, it is certain that in this ridge we haveone of the most favored and valuable of Praeneste's possessions, andquite as certain that Gallicano, probably the ancient Pedum, [11] was oneof the towns which were dependent allies of Praeneste. It was along thisridge too that probably the earlier, and certainly the more intimatecommunication between Praeneste and Tibur passed, for of the threepossible 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 ViaPraenestina, undoubtedly belonged to the domain of Praeneste. [13] But itwas 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 wasprobably always a road out this ridge, as is shown by the presence ofthe later Via Praenestina, but that there was no town at the end of theridge is well proved by the fact that Ashby finds no remains there whichgive evidence of one. Then, too, we have plain enough proof of generalunfitness for a town. In the first place the ridge runs oil into thejunction of two roadless valleys, there is not much fertile land back ofwhere the town site would have been, but above all, however, it iscertain that the Via Praenestina was an officially made Roman road, anddid not occupy anything more than a previous track of littleconsequence. This is shown by the absence of tombs of the earlynecropolis style along this road. 

The next ridge must always have been one of the most important, for fromabove Cavamonte as far as Passerano, at the bottom of the ridge on theside toward Rome, connecting with the highway which was the later ViaLatina, ran the main road through Zagarolo, Passerano, Corcolle, on toTibur and the north. [14] As this was the other of the two great roadswhich ran to the north without getting out on the Roman Campagna, it iscertain that Praeneste considered it in her territory, and probably keptthe travel well in hand. With dependent towns at Zagarolo and Passerano, which are several miles distant from each other, there must have been atleast one more town between them, to guard the road against attack fromTusculum or Gabii. The fact that the Via Praenestina later cut the Colledel Pero-Colle Seloa just below a point where an ancient road ascendsthe ridge to a place well adapted for a town, and where there are someremains, [15] seems to prove the supposition, and to locate another ofthe dependent cities of Praeneste. 

That the next ridge, the one on which Zagarolo is situated, was alsopart of Praeneste's territory, aside from the fact that it has alwaysbeen part of the diocese of Praeneste, is clearly shown by thetopography of the district. The only easy access to Zagarolo is fromPalestrina, and although the town itself cannot be seen from themountain of Praeneste, nevertheless the approach to it along the ridgeis clearly visible. 

The country south and in front of Praeneste spreads out more like asolid plain for a mile or so before splitting off into the ridges whichare so characteristic of the neighborhood. East of the ridge on whichZagarolo stands, and running nearly at right angles to it, is a piece ofterritory along which runs the present road (the Omata di Palestrina) tothe Palestrina railroad station, and which as far as the cross valley atColle dell'Aquila, is incontestably Praenestine domain. 

But the territory which most certainly belonged to Praeneste, and whichwas at once the most valuable and the oldest of her possessions is thewide ridge now known as the Vigne di Loreto, along which runs the roadto Marcigliano. [16] Not only does this ridge lie most closely bound toPraeneste by nature, but it leads directly toward Velitrae, her mostadvantageous ally. Tibur was perhaps always Praeneste's closest and mostloyal ally, but the alliance with her had not the same opportunity formutual advantage as one with Velitrae, because each of these townscommanded the territory the other wished to know most about, and bothtogether could draw across the upper Trerus valley a tight line whichwas of the utmost importance from a strategic point of view. These twofacts would in themselves be a satisfactory proof that this ridge wasPraeneste's first expansion and most important acquisition, but thereis proof other than topographical and argumentative. 

At the head of this ridge in la Colombella, along the road leading toMarcigliano from the little church of S. Rocco, have been found threestrata of tombs. The line of graves in the lowest stratum, the date ofwhich is not later than the fifth or sixth century B. C. , points exactlyalong the ancient road, now the Via della Marcigliana or di Loreto. [17]

The natural limit of Praenestine domain to the south has now beenreached, and that it is actually the natural limit is shown by theaccompanying 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 Trerusriver. One sees at a glance that the whole slope of the mountain fromarx to base is continued by a natural depression which would make anideal boundary for Praenestine territory. Nor is the topographical proofall. No inscriptions of consequence, and no architectural remains of thepre-imperial period have been found across this valley. The road alongthe top of the ridge beyond it is an ancient one, and ran to Valmontoneas it does today, and was undoubtedly often used between Praeneste andthe towns on the Volscians. The ridge, however, was exposed to suddenattack 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 aninscription which mentions the adlectio of a citizen there into thesenate (decuriones) of Praeneste. [18]

There are still two other places which as we have seen were included atdifferent times in the papal diocese of Praeneste, [19] namely, Capranicaand Cave. [20] Inscriptional evidence is not forthcoming in either placesufficient to warrant any certainty in the matter of correspondence oflocal names to those in Praeneste. Of the two, Capranica had much moreneed of dependence on Praeneste than Cave. It was down through thelittle valley back of Praeneste, at the head of which Capranica lay, that her later aqueducts came. The outlet from Capranica back over themountains was very difficult, and the only tillable soil within reach ofthat town lay to the north of Praeneste on the ridge running towardGallicano, and on a smaller ridge which curved around toward Tibur andlay still closer to the mountains. In short, Capranica, which neverattained importance enough to be of any consequence, appears to havebeen 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) andbeyond, through the splendid passes via either of the modern towns, Genazzano or Olevano. 

[Illustration: PLATE II. Praeneste, Monte Glicestro with citadel, asseen from Valle di Pepe. ]

It is quite evident that Cave was never a large town, and it seems mostprobable that she realized that an amicable understanding with Praenestewas discreet. This is rendered almost certain by the proof of acontinuance of business relations between the two places. The greaternumber of the big tombs of the sixth and fifth centuries B. C. Are of apeperino from Cave, [21] and a good deal of the tufa used in wallconstruction in Praeneste is from the quarries near Cave, as Ferniquesaw. [22]

Rocca di Cave, on a hill top behind Cave, is too insignificant alocation to have been the cause of the lower town, which at the bestdoes not itself occupy a very advantageous position in any way, exceptthat it is in the line of a trade route from lower Italy. It might bemaintained with some reason that Cave was a settlement of dissatisfiedmerchants from Praeneste, who had gone out and established themselves onthe main road for the purpose of anticipating the trade, but there ismuch against such an argument. 

It has been shown that there were peaceable relations between Praenesteand Cave in the fifth and sixth centuries B. C. , but that the two townswere on terms of equality is impossible, and that Cave was a dependencyof Praeneste, and in her domain, is most unlikely both topographicallyand epigraphically. And more than this, just as an ancient feud can beproved between Praeneste and Rome from the slurs on Praeneste which onefinds in literature from Plautus down, [23] if no other proofs were to behad, [24] just so there is a very ancient grudge between Praeneste andCave, which has been perpetuated and is very noticeable even at thepresent day. [25]

The topography of Praeneste as to the site of the city proper, and as toits territorial domain is then, about as follows. 

In very early times, probably as early as the ninth or tenth centuryB. 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 thelevel ground directly below, and out along the ridge west of the Valledi Pepe toward Marcigliano, because it was territory not only fertileand easily defended, being directly under the very eyes of the citizens, but also because it stretched out toward Velitrae, an old and trustedally. [27]

Her next expansion was in the direction of Tibur, along the trade routewhich followed the Sabine side of the Liris-Trerus valley, and thisexpansion gave her a most fertile piece of territory. To insure thisagainst incursions from the pass which led back into the mountains, itseems certain that Praeneste secured or perhaps colonized Capranica. 

The last Praenestine expansion in territory had a motive beyond theacquisition of land, for it was also important from a strategical pointof view. It will be remembered that the second great trade route whichcame into the Roman plain ran past Zagarolo, Passerano, andCorcolle. [28] This road runs along a valley just below ridges whichradiate from the mountain on which Praeneste is situated, and thusbordered the land which was by nature territory dependent uponPraeneste. [29] So this final extension of her domain was to command thisimportant road. With the carrying out of this project all the ridgesmentioned above came gradually into the possession of Praneste, asnatural, expedient, and unquestioned domain, and on the ends of thoseridges which were defensible, dependent towns grew up. There was also atown at Cavamonte above the Maremmana road, probably a village out onthe Colle dell'Oro, and undoubtedly one at Marcigliano, or in thatvicinity. 

We have already seen that across a valley and a stream of someconsequence there is a ridge not at all connected with the mountain onwhich Praeneste was situated, but belonging rather to Valmontone, whichwas better suited for neutral ground or to act as a buffer to thesoutheast. We turn to mention this ridge again as territorytopographically outside Praeneste's domain, in order to say moreforcibly that one must cross still another valley and stream beforereaching the territory of Cave, and so Cave, although dependent uponPraeneste, by reason of its size and interests, was not a dependent cityof Praeneste, nor was it a part of her domain. [30]

In short, to describe Praeneste, that famous town of Latium, and herdomain in a true if homely way, she was an ancient and proud city whoseterritory was a commanding mountain and a number of ridges running outfrom it, which spread out like a fan all the way from the Fossodell'Ospedalato (the depression shown in plate II) to the Sabinemountains on the north. 

THE CITY, ITS WALLS AND GATES. 

The general supposition has been that the earliest inhabitants ofPraeneste lived only in the citadel on top of the hill. This theory issupported by the fact that there is room enough, and, as will be shownbelow, there was in early times plenty of water there; nevertheless itis certain that this was not the whole of the site of the early city. 

The earliest inhabitants of Praeneste needed first of all, safety, thena place for pasturage, and withal, to be as close to the fertile land atthe foot of the mountain as possible. The first thing the inhabitants ofthe new city did was to build a wall. There is still a little of thisoldest wall in the circuit about the citadel, and it was built atexactly the same time as the lower part of the double walls that extenddown the southern slope of the mountain on each side of the upper partof the modern town. It happens that by following the edges of the slopeof this southern face of the mountain down to a certain point, onerealizes that even without a wall the place would be practicallyimpregnable. Add to this the fact that all the stones necessary for awall were obtained during the scarping of the arx on the side toward theSabines, [31] and needed only to be rolled down, not up, to their placesin the wall, which made the task a very easy one comparatively. Now if aplace can be found which is naturally a suitable place for a lower crosswall, we shall have what an ancient site demanded; first, safety, because the site now proposed is just as impregnable as the citadelitself, and still very high above the plain below; second, pasturage, for on the slope between the lower town and the arx is the necessaryspace which the arx itself hardly supplies; and third, a more reasonablenearness to the fertile land below. All the conditions necessary arefulfilled by a cross wall in Praeneste, which up to this time hasremained mostly unknown, often neglected or wrongly described, andwholly misunderstood. As we shall see, however, this very wall was thelower boundary of the earliest Praeneste. The establishment of thisimportant fact will remove one of the many stumbling blocks over whichearlier writers on Praeneste have fallen. 

It has been said above that the lowest part of the wall of the arx, andthe two walls from it down the mountain were built at the same time. Theaccompanying plate (III) shows very plainly the course of the westernwall as it comes down the hill lining the edge of the slope where itbreaks off most sharply. Porta San Francesco, the modern gate, is abovethe second tree from the right in the illustration, just where the wallseems to turn suddenly. There is no trace of ancient wall after the gateis passed. The white wall, as one proceeds from the gate to the right, is the modern wall of the Franciscan monastery. All the writers onPraeneste say that the ancient wall came on around the town where thelower wall of the monastery now is, and followed the western limit ofthe present town as far as the Porta San Martino. 

Returning now to plate II we observe a thin white line of wall whichjoins a black line running off at an angle to our left. This is also apiece of the earliest cyclopean wall, and it is built just at theeastern edge of the hill where it falls off very sharply. 

Now if one follows the Via di San Francesco in from the gate of thatname (see plate III again) and then continues down a narrow street eastof the monastery as far as the open space in front of the church ofSanta Maria del Carmine, he will see that on his left above him theslope of the mountain was not only precipitous by nature but that alsoit has been rendered entirely unassailable by scarping. [32] From thelower end of this steep escarpment there is a cyclopean wall, of thesame 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 onthe east, and to a point just below a portella, where the uppercyclopean wall makes a slight change in direction. The presence of thegate and the change of direction in the wall mean a corner in the wall. 

[Illustration: PLATE III. The western cyclopean wall of Praeneste, andthe depression which divides Monte Glicestro. ]

It is strange indeed that this wall has not been recognized for what itreally is. A bit of it shows above the steps where the Via delloSpregato leaves the Via del Borgo. Fernique shows this much in his map, but by a curious oversight names it opus incertum. [33] More than twoirregular courses are to be seen here, and fifteen feet in from thestreet, forming the back wall of cellars and pig pens, the cyclopeanwall, in places to a height of fifteen feet or more, can be followed towithin a few yards of the open space in front of Santa Maria delCarmine. And on the other side toward the east the same wall beginsagain, after being broken by the Via dello Spregato, and forms thefoundations and side walls of the houses on the south side of thatstreet, and at the extreme east end is easily found as the back wall ofa blacksmith's shop at the top of the Via della Fontana, and can beidentified as cyclopean by a little cleaning of the wall. 

The circuit of the earliest cyclopean wall and natural ramparts ofthe contemporaneous citadel and town of Praeneste was as follows: An arcof cyclopean wall below the cap of the hill which swung round from theprecipitous cliff on the west to that on the east, the whole of the sideof the arx toward the mountains being so steep that no wall wasnecessary; then a second loop of cyclopean wall from the arx down thesteep western edge of the southern slope of the mountain as far as thepresent Porta San Francesco. From this point natural cliffs reinforcedat the upper end by a short connecting wall bring us to the beginning ofthe wall which runs across the town back of the Via del Borgo from SantaMaria del Carmine to within a short distance of the east wall of thecity, separated from it in fact only by the Via della Fontana, whichruns up just inside the wall. There it joins the cyclopean wall whichcomes 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 thefollowing: first, all this stretch of wall is the oldest and was builtat the same time; second, topography has marked out most clearly thatthe territory inclosed by these walls, here and only here, fulfills thetwo indispensable requisites of the ancient town, namely space anddefensibility; third, below the gate San Francesco all the way round thecity 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 wallstones;[34] fourth, at the point where the cross wall and the long wallmust have met at the east, the wall makes a change in direction, andthere is an ancient postern gate just above the jog in the wall; andlast, the cyclopean wall from this junction on down to near the Portadel Sole is later than that of the circuit just described. [35]

The city was extended within a century perhaps, and the new line of thecity wall was continued on the east in cyclopean style as far as thepresent Porta del Sole, where it turned to the west and continued untilthe hill itself offered enough height so that escarpment of the naturalcliff would serve in place of the wall. Then it turned up the hillbetween the present Via San Biagio and Via del Carmine back of SantaMaria del Carmine. The proof for this expansion is clear. Thecontinuation of the cyclopean wall can be seen now as far as the Portadel Sole, [36] and the line of the wall which turns to the west ispositively known from the cippi of the ancient pomerium, which werefound in 1824 along the present Via degli Arconi. [37] The ancient gate, now closed, in the opus quadratum wall under the Cardinal's garden, isin direct line with the ancient pavement of the road which comes up tothe city from the south, [38] and the continuation of that road, whichseems to have been everywhere too steep for wagons, is the Via delCarmine. There had always been another road outside the wall which wentup a less steep grade, and came round the angle of the wall at what isnow the Porta S. Martino, where it entered a gate that opened out of thepresent Corso toward the west. When at a later time, probably in themiddle 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 SanMartino. [39]

It will be necessary to speak further of the cyclopean wall on the eastside of the city from the Porta del Sole to the Portella, for it hasalways been supposed that this part of the wall was exactly like therest, and dated from the same period. But a careful examination showsthat the stones in this lower portion are laid more regularly than thosein the wall above the Portella, that they are more flatly faced on theoutside, 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, andDessau all think was there when the stone was put in the wall, andincline to allow no very remote date for the building of the wall atthat point. To me, after a comparative study of this wall and the one atNorba, the two seem to date from very nearly the same time, and no onenow dares attribute great antiquity to the walls of Norba. But the restof the cyclopean wall of Praeneste is very ancient, certainly a century, perhaps two or three centuries, older than the part from the Portelladown. 

There remains still to be discussed the lower wall of the city on thesouth, and a restraining terrace wall along part of the present CorsoPierluigi. The stretch of city wall from the Porta del Sole clear acrossthe south front to the Porta di S. Martino is of opus quadratum, withthe exception of a stretch of opus incertum[41] below and east of theBarberini gardens, and a small space where the city sewage has destroyedall vestige of a wall. The restraining wall just mentioned is also ofopus quadratum and is to be found along the south side of the Corso, butcan 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, buttheir entire meaning has not been understood. [42]

The upper wall, the one along the Corso, can not be traced farther thanthe Piazza Garibaldi, in front of the Cathedral. It has been a mistaketo consider this a high wall. It was built simply to level up with theCorso terrace, partly to give more space on the terrace, partly to makeroom for a road which ran across the city here between two gates nolonger in existence. But more especially was it built to be the lowersupport for a gigantic water reservoir which extends under nearly thewhole width of this terrace from about Corso Pierluigi No. 88 almost tothe Cathedral. [43] The four sides of this great reservoir are also ofopus quadratum laid header and stretcher. 

The lower wall, the real town wall, is a wall only in appearance, for ithas but one thickness of blocks, set header and stretcher in a mass ofsolid concrete. [44] This wall makes very clear the impregnability ofeven the lower part of Praeneste, for the wall not only occupies a goodposition, but is really a double line of defense. There are here twowalls, one above the other, the upper one nineteen feet back of thelower, thus leaving a terrace of that width. [45] At the east, instead ofthe lower solid wall of opus quadratum, there is a series of fine tufaarches built to serve as a substructure for something. It is to beremembered again that between the arches on the east and the solid wallon the west is a stretch of 200 feet of opus incertum, and a space wherethere is no wall at all. This lower wall of Praeneste occupies the sameline as the ancient wall and escarpment, but the most of what surviveswas restored in Sulla's time. The opus quadratum is exactly the samestyle 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 togive room for a road. [46] The difficulty has been, however, that theline of arches at the east, not being in alignment with the lower wallon the west, has not been connected with it hitherto, and so a correctunderstanding of their relation has been impossible. 

Before adducing evidence to show the location of the main and triumphalentrance to Praeneste, we shall turn to the town above for a moment tosee whether it is, a priori, reasonable to suppose that there was anentrance to the city here in the center of its front wall. If roads cameup a grade from the east and west, they would join at a point where nowthere 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 levelspot immediately below the town. Most worthy of note, however, is thatthis opening is straight below the main buildings of the ancient town, the basilica, which is now the cathedral, and the temple of Fortuna. Butfurther, a fact which has never been noticed nor accounted for, thisopening is also in front of the modern square, the piazza Garibaldi, which is in front of the buildings just mentioned but below them on thenext terrace, yet there is no entrance to this terrace shown. [47] It iswell known that the open space south of the temple, beside the basilica, has an ancient pavement some ten feet below the present level of themodern piazza Savoia. [48] Proof given below in connection with the largetufa base which is on the level of the lower terrace will show that thepiazza Garibaldi was an open space in ancient times and a part of theancient forum. Again, the solarium, which is on the south face of thebasilica, [49] was put up there that it might be seen, and as it facesthe south, the piazza Garibaldi, and this open space in the wall underdiscussion, what is more likely than that there was not only an opensquare below the basilica, but also the main approach to the city?

But now for the proof. In 1756 ancient paving stones were still insitu[50] above the row of arches on the Via degli Arconi, and even yetthe ascent is plain enough to the eye. The ground slopes up rathermoderately along the Via degli Arconi toward the east, and nearly belowthe southeast corner of the ancient wall turned up to the west on thesearches, approaching the entrance in the middle of the south wall of thecity. [51] But these arches and the road on them do not align exactlywith the terrace on the west. Nor should they do so. The arches areolder than the present opus quadratum wall, and the road swung round andup to align with the road below and the old wall or escarpment of thecity above. Then when the whole town, its gates, its walls, and itstemple, were enlarged and repaired by Sulla, the upper wall wasperfectly aligned, a lower wall built on the west leaving a terrace fora 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 havebeen so, for the terrace here was wider and ran back to the upperwall. [52] The evidence is also positive enough that there was an ascentto the terrace on the west, the one below the Barberini gardens, whichcorresponds to the ascent on the arches. This terrace now is level, andat its west end is some twenty feet above the garden below. But the wallshows very plainly that it had sloped off toward the west, and the slopeis most clearly to be seen, where a very obtuse angle of newer anddifferent tufa has been laid to build up the wall to a level. [53] It isto be noticed too that this terrace is the same height as the top of theascent above the arches. We have then actual proofs for roads leading upfrom east and west toward the center of the wall on the south side ofthe city, and every reason that an entrance here was practicable, credible, and necessary. 

But there is one thing more necessary to make probabilities tallywholly with the facts. If there was a grand entrance to the city, belowthe basilica, the temple, and the main open square, which faced out overthe great forum below, there must have been a monumental gate in thewall. As a matter of fact there was such a gate, and I believe it wascalled the PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. An inscription of the age of the Antoninesmentions "seminaria a Porta Triumphale, " and this passing reference to agate with a name which in itself implies a gate of consequence, so wellknown that a building placed near it at once had its location fixed, gives the rest of the proof necessary to establish a central entrance tothe city in front, through a PORTA TRIUMPHALIS. [54]

Before the time of Sulla there had been a gate in the south wall of thecity, approached by one road, which ascended from the east on the archesfacing the present Via degli Arconi. After entering the city one wentstraight up a grade not very steep to the basilica, and to the opensquare or ancient forum which was the space now occupied by the twomodern piazzas, the Garibaldi and the Savoia, and on still farther tothe temple. When Sulla rebuilt the city, and laid out a forum on thelevel space directly south of and below the town, he made another roadfrom the west to correspond to the old ascent from the east, and broughtthem together at the old central gate, which he enlarged to the PORTATRIUMPHALIS. In the open square in front of the basilica had stood thestatue of some famous man[55] on a platform of squared stone 16 x 17-1/2feet in measurement. Around this base the Sullan improvements put arestraining wall of opus quadratum. [56] The open square was in front ofthe basilica and to its left below the temple. There was but one way tothe terrace above the temple from the ancient forum. This was a steeproad to the right, up the present Via delle Scalette. Another road ranto the left back of the basilica, but ended either in front of thewestern cave connected with the temple, or at the entrance into theprecinct of the temple. 

THE GATES. 

Strabo, in a well known passage, [57] speaks of Tibur and Praeneste astwo of the most famous and best fortified of the towns of Latium, andtells why Praeneste is the more impregnable, but we have no mention ofits gates in literature, except incidentally in Plutarch, [58] who saysthat when Marius was flying before Sulla's forces and had reachedPraeneste, he found the gates closed, and had to be drawn up the wall bya rope. The most ancient reference we have to a definite gate is to thePorta Triumphalis, in the inscription just mentioned, and this is theonly gate of Praeneste mentioned by name in classic times. 

In 1353 A. D. We have two gates mentioned. The Roman tribune Cola diRienzo (Niccola di Lorenzo) brought his forces out to attack StefanielloColonna in Praeneste. It was not until Rienzo moved his camp across fromthe west to the east side of the plain below the town that he saw howthe citizens were obtaining supplies. The two gates S. Cesareo and S. Francesco[59] were both being utilized to bring in supplies from themountains back of the city, and the stock was driven to and from pasturethrough these gates. These gates were both ancient, as will be shownbelow. Again in 1448 when Stefano Colonna rebuilt some walls after theawful destruction of the city by Cardinal Vitelleschi, he opened threegates, S. Cesareo, del Murozzo, and del Truglio. [60] In 1642[61] twomore gates were opened by Prince Taddeo Barberini, the Porta del Sole, and the Porta delle Monache, the former at the southeast corner of thetown, the latter in the east wall at the point where the new wall roundthe monastery della Madonna degl'Angeli struck the old city wall, justabove the present street where it turns from the Via di Porta del Soleinto the Corso Pierluigi. This Porta del Sole[62] was the principal gateof the town at this time, or perhaps the one most easily defended, forin 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, thePorta del Sole; two, near the southwest corner, where the wall turns uptoward S. Martino, a gate now closed;[64] three, Porta S. Martino, atthe southwest corner of the town; on the west side of the city, none atall; four, Porta S. Francesco at the northwest corner of the cityproper; five, a gate in the arx wall, now closed, [65] beside themediaeval gate, which is just at the head of the depression shown inplate III, the lowest point in the wall of the citadel; on the east, Porta S. Cesareo, some distance above the town, six; seven, Porta deiCappuccini, which is on the same terrace as Porta S. Francesco; eight, Portella, the eastern outlet of the Via della Portella; nine, a posternjust below the Portella, and not now in use;[66] ten, Porta delleMonache or Santa Maria, in front of the church of that name. The mostancient of these, and the ones which were in the earliest circle of thecyclopean wall, are five in number: Porta S. Francesco, [67] the gateinto the arx, Porta S. Cesareo, [68] Porta dei Cappuccini, and thepostern at the corner where the early cyclopean cross wall struck themain wall. 

The second wall of the city, which was rather an enlargement of thefirst, 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 bythe fact that this is the main street of the city, and on the terracelevel of the basilica, but also because the mediaeval wall round themonastery of the Madonna degl'Angeli, the grounds of the present churchof Santa Maria, did not run straight to the cyclopean wall, but turneddown to join it near the gate which it helps to prove. Next, there was agate, but in all probability only a postern, near the Porta del Solewhere the cyclopean wall stops, where now there is a narrow street whichruns up to the piazza Garibaldi. On the south there was the gate whichat some time was given the name Porta Triumphalis. It was at the placewhere now there is no wall at all. [71] At the southwest we find the nextgate, the one which is now closed. [72] The last one of the ancient gatesin this second circle of the city wall was one just inside the modernPorta S. Martino, which opened west at the end of the Corso. All therest of the gates are mediaeval. 

A few words about the roads leading to the several gates of Praenestewill help further to settle the antiquity of these gates. [73] The oldestroad was certainly the trade route which came up the north side of theLiris valley below the hill on which Praeneste was situated, and whichfollowed about the line of the Via Praenestina as shown by Ashby in hismap. [74] Two branch roads from this main track ran up to the town, oneat the west, the other at the east, both in the same line as the modernroads. These roads were bound for the city gates as a matter of courseand the land slopes least sharply where these roads were and still are. Another important road was outside the city wall, from one gate to theother, and took the slope on the south side of the city where the Viadegli Arconi now runs. [75]

As far as excavations have proved up to this time, the oldest road outof Praeneste is that which is now the Via della Marcigliana, along whichwere found the very early tombs. It is to be noted that these tombsbegin beyond the church of S. Rocco, which is a long distance below thetown. This distance however makes it certain that between S. Rocco andthe city, excavation will bring to light other and yet older tombs alongthe road which leads up toward "l'antica porta S. Martino chiusa, " andalso in all probability rows of graves will be found along the presentroad to Cave. But the tombs give us the direction at least of the oldroad. [76]

There is yet another old road which was lately discovered. It is aboutthree hundred yards below the city and near the road that cuts throughfrom Porta del Sole to the church of Madonna dell'Aquila. [77] This roadis made of polygonal stones of the limestone of the mountain, and henceis older than any of the lava roads. It runs nearly parallel with theVia degli Arconi, and takes a direction which would strike the ViaPraenestina where it crosses the Via Praenestina Nuova which runs pastZagarolo. That is, the most ancient piece of road we have leads up tothe southeast corner of the town, but the oldest tombs point to a roadthe direction of which was toward the southwest corner. However, all theroads lead toward the southeast corner, where the old grade began thatwent 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 oldroad that led from it. This road is identified by a deposit of ex vototerracottas which were found at the edge of the road in a hole hollowedout in the rocks. [78]

The two roads which were traveled the most were the ones that led towardRome. This is shown by the tombs on both sides of them, [79] and by thediscovery of a deposit of a great quantity of ex voto terracottas inthe 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 thedepression or cut in the hill, which from its shape and depth is clearlynot altogether natural and attributable to the effects of rain, but iscertainly the effect of a spring, the further and positive proof of theexistence of which is shown by the unnecessarily low dip made by thewall of the citadel purposely to inclose the head of this depression. There are besides no water reservoirs inside the wall of the arx. Thissupply of water, however, failed, and it must have failed rather earlyin the city's history, perhaps at about the time the lower part of thecity was walled in, for the great reservoir on the Corso terrace seemsto be contemporary with this second wall. 

But at all times Praeneste was dependent upon reservoirs for a sure andlasting supply of water. The mountain and the town were famous becauseof the number of water reservoirs there. [81] A great many of thesereservoirs were dependent upon catchings from the rain, [82] but beforea war, or when the rainfall was scant, they were filled undoubtedly fromsprings outside the city. In later times they were connected with theaqueducts which came to the city from beyond Capranica. 

It is easy to account now for the number of gates on the east side ofthe city. True, this side of the wall lay away from the Campagna, andegress from gates on this side could not be seen by an enemy unless hemoved clear across the front of the city. [83] But the real reason forthe presence of so many gates is that the best and most copious springswere on this side of the city, as well as the course of the littleheadstream of the Trerus. The best concealed egress was from the PortaCesareo, from which a road led round back of the mountain to a finespring, which was high enough above the valley to be quite safe. 

There are no references in literature to aqueducts which brought waterto Praeneste. Were we left to this evidence alone, we should concludethat Praeneste had depended upon reservoirs for water. But ininscriptions we have mention of baths, [84] the existence of whichimplies aqueducts, and there is the specus of an aqueduct to be seenoutside the Porta S. Francesco. [85] This ran across to the Colle S. Martino to supply a large brick reservoir of imperial date. [86] Therewere aqueducts still in 1437, for Cardinal Vitelleschi capturedPalestrina by cutting off its water supply. [87] This shows that thewater came from outside the city, and through aqueducts which probablydated back to Roman times, [88] and also that the reservoirs were at thistime no longer used. In 1581 the city undertook to restore the oldaqueduct which brought water from back of Capranica, but no descriptionwas left of its exact course or ancient construction. [89] While theserepairs were in progress, Francesco Cecconi leased to the city hisproperty called Terreni, where there were thirty fine springs of clearwater not far from the city walls. Again in 1776 the springs calleddelle cannuccete sent in dirty water to the city, so citizens wereappointed to remedy matters. They added a new spring to those already inuse and this water came to the city through an aqueduct. [90]

The remains of four great reservoirs, all of brick construction, areplainly enough to be seen at Palestrina, and as far as situation andsize are concerned, are well enough described in other places. [91] Butin the case of these reservoirs, as in that of all the other remains ofancient construction at Praeneste, the writers on the history of thetown have made great mistakes, because all of them have been predisposedto the pleasant task of making all the ruins fit some restoration orother of the temple of Fortuna, although, as a matter of fact, none ofthe reservoirs have any connection whatever with the temple. [92] Thefine brick reservoir of the time of Tiberius, [93] which is at thejunction 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 wassimply a great supply reservoir for the citizens who lived in particularabout the lower forum, and the water from this reservoir was carriedaway by hand, as is shown by the two openings like well heads in the topof each compartment of the reservoir, and by the steps which gaveentrance to it on the east. The reservoir above this in the Barberinigardens is of a date a half century later. [94] It is of the same brickwork as the great fountain which stands, now debased to a grist mill, across the Via degli Arconi about half way between S. Lucia and Portadel Sole. The upper reservoir undoubtedly supplied this fountain, andother public buildings in the forum below. There is another large brickreservoir below the present ground level in the angle between the Viadegli Arconi and the Cave road below the Porta del Sole, but it is toolow ever to have served for public use. It was in connection with someprivate 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 mentionedanywhere. It dates from the time when the Corso terrace was made, and isof opus quadratum like the best of the wall below the city, and the wallon the lower side of the terrace. [95] This reservoir, like the one inthe Barberini garden, served the double purpose of a storage for water, and of a foundation for the terrace, which, being thus widened, offeredmore space for street and buildings above. It lies west of the basilica, but has no connection with the temple. From its position it seems ratherto 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 onthe mountain to the east and northeast, but too far away to be includedwithin the walls. Because of their height above the valley, they were toa certain extent available even in times of warfare and siege. As theupper spring dried up early, and the others were a little precarious, anelaborate system of reservoirs was developed, a plan which the naturalterraces of the mountain slope invited, and a plan which gave more spaceto the town itself with the work of leveling necessary for thereservoirs. These reservoirs were all public property. They were atfirst dependent upon collection from rains or from spring water carriedin from outside the city walls. Later, however, aqueducts were made andconnected with the reservoirs. 

With the expansion of the town to the plain below, this system gavegreat opportunity for the development of baths, fountains, andwaterworks, [97] for Praeneste wished to vie with Tibur and Rome, wherethe Anio river and the many aqueducts had made possible great things forpublic use and municipal adornment. 

THE TEMPLE OF FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA. 

Nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam. [98] In thisway Cicero reports a popular saying which makes clear the fame of thegoddess Fortuna Primigenia and her temple at Praeneste. [99]

The excavations at Praeneste in the eighteenth century brought the cityagain into prominence, and from that time to the present, Praeneste hasoffered much material for archaeologists and historians. 

But the temple of Fortuna has constituted the principal interest andengaged the particular attention of everyone who has worked upon thehistory of the town, because the early enthusiastic view was that thetemple occupied the whole slope of the mountain, [100] and that thepresent city was built on the terraces and in the ruins of the temple. Every successive study, however, of the city from a topographical pointof view has lessened more and more the estimated size of the temple, until now all that can be maintained successfully is that there are twoseparate temples built at different times, the later and larger oneoccupying a position two terraces higher than the older and moreimportant temple below. 

The lower temple with its precinct, along the north side of whichextends a wall and the ruins of a so-called cryptoporticus whichconnected two caves hollowed out in the rock, is not so very large asanctuary, but it occupies a very good position above and behind theancient forum and basilica on a terrace cut back into the solid rock ofthe mountain. The temple precinct is a courtyard which extends along theterrace and occupies its whole width from the older cave on the west tothe newer one at the east. In front of the latter cave is built thetemple itself, which faces west along the terrace, but extends itssouthern 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 anearlier temple. 

Two terraces higher, on the Cortina terrace, stretch out the ruins of ahuge construction in opus incertum. This building had at least twostories of colonnade facing the south, and at the north side of theterrace a series of arches above which in the center rose a round templewhich was approached by a semicircular flight of steps. [101] Thisbuilding, belonging to the time of Sulla, presented a very imposingappearance from the forum below the town. It has no connection with thelower temple unless perhaps by underground passages. 

Although this new temple and complex of buildings was much larger andcostlier than the temple below, it was so little able to compete withthe fame of the ancient shrine, that until mediaeval times there is nota mention of it anywhere by name or by suggestion, unless perhaps in oneinscription mentioned below. The splendid publication of Delbrueck[102]with maps and plans and bibliography of the lower temple and the workwhich has been done on it, makes unnecessary any remarks except on somefew points which have escaped him. 

The tradition was that a certain Numerius Suffustius of Praeneste waswarned in dreams to cut into the rocks at a certain place, and this hedid before his mocking fellow citizens, when to the bewilderment of themall pieces of wood inscribed with letters of the earliest style leapedfrom the rock. The place where this phenomenon occurred was thus proveddivine, the cult of Fortuna Primigenia was established beyondperadventure, and her oracular replies to those who sought her shrinewere transmitted by means of these lettered blocks. [103] This storyaccounts 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 beenshown, nor does Delbrueck have proof enough to settle which is the oldercave. [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 hedoes on the authority of his understanding of the passage from Cicerowhich gives nearly all the written information we have on the subject ofthe temple. [105] Delbrueck bases his entire argument on this passage andtwo other references to a building called aedes. [106] Now it was Fortunawho was worshipped at Praeneste, and not Jupiter. Although there is anintimate connection between Jupiter and Fortuna at Praeneste, becauseshe was thought of at different times as now the mother and now thedaughter of Jupiter, still the weight of evidence will not allow anysuch importance to be attached to Iuppiter puer as Delbrueckwishes. [107]

The two caves were not made at the same time. This is proved by thefact that the basilica[108] is below and between them. Had there beentwo caves at the earliest time, with a common precinct as a connectionbetween them, as there was later, there would have been power enough inthe priesthood to keep the basilica from occupying the front of theplace which would have been the natural spot for a temple or for theimposing facade of a portico. The western cave is the earlier, but it isthe earlier not because it was a shrine of Iuppiter puer, but becausethe ancient road which came through the forum turned up to it, becauseit is the least symmetrical of the two caves, and because the templefaced it, and did not face the forum. 

The various plans of the temple[109] have usually assumed like buildingsin front of each cave, and a building, corresponding to the basilica, between them and forming an integral part of the plan. But the basilicadoes not quite align with the temple, and the road back of the basilicaprecludes any such idea, not to mention the fact that no building thesize of a temple was in front of the west cave. It is the mania formaking the temple cover too large a space, and the desire to show thatall its parts were exactly balanced on either side, and that thistriangular shaped sanctuary culminated in a round temple, this it isthat has caused so much trouble with the topography of the city. Thetemple, 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 thecaves 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 thesecond story of the cryptoporticus, as Marucchi saw. [110] So there wasan unseen means of getting from one cave to the other. This probablyproves that suppliants at one shrine went to the other and were thereconvinced of the power of the goddess by seeing the same priest orsomething which they themselves had offered at the first shrine. Itcertainly proves that both caves were connected with the rites having todo with the proper obtaining of lots from Fortuna, and that thiscommunication between the caves was unknown to any but the templeservants. 

There are some other inscriptions not noticed by Delbrueck which mentionthe aedes, [111] and bear on the question in hand. One inscription foundin the Via delle Monache[112] shows that in connection with the sedesFortunae were a manceps and three cellarii. This is an inscription ofthe last of the second or the first of the third century A. D. , [113] whenboth lower and upper temples were in very great favor. It shows furtherthat only the lower temple is meant, for the number is too small to beapplicable to the great upper temple, and it also shows that aedes, means the temple building itself and not the whole precinct. There isalso an inscription, now in the floor of the cathedral, that mentionsaedes. Its provenience is noteworthy. [114] There were other buildings, however, belonging to the precinct of the lower temple, as is shown bythe remains today. [115] That there was more than one sacred building isalso shown by inscriptions which mention aedes sacrae, [116] thoughthese may refer of course to the upper temple as well. 

There are yet two inscriptions of importance, one of which mentions aporticus, the other an aedes et porticus. [117] The second of theseinscriptions belongs to a time not much later than the founding of thecolony. It tells that certain work was done by decree of the decuriones, and it can hardly refer to the ancient lower temple, but must meaneither the upper one, or still another out on the new forum, for thereis where the stone is reported to have been found. The first inscriptionrecords a work of some consequence done by a woman in remembrance of herhusband. [118] There are no remains to show that the forum below the townhad any temple of such consequence, so it seems best to refer both theseinscriptions to the upper temple, which, as we know, was rich inmarble. [119]

Now after having brought together all the usages of the word aedes inits application to the temple of Praeneste, it seems that Delbrueck hasvery small foundation for his argument which assumes as settled theexact meaning and location of the aedes Fortunae. 

From the temple itself we turn now to a brief discussion of a space onthe tufa wall which helps to face the cave on the west. This is asmoothed surface which shows a narrow cornice ledge above it, and anarrow base below. In it are a number of irregularly driven holes. Delbrueck calls it a votive niche, [120] and says that the "vieleregellos verstreute Nagelloecher" are due to nails upon which votiveofferings were suspended. 

This seems quite impossible. The holes are much too irregular to haveserved such a purpose. The holes show positively that they were made bynails which held up a slab of some kind, perhaps of marble, on whichwere displayed the replies from the goddess[121] which were too long tobe 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 ofwhich is now in the Barberini palace, the other, which is in a sadlymutilated condition, still on the floor of the west cave. The date ofthese mosaics has been a much discussed question. Marucchi puts it atthe end of the second century A. D. , while Delbrueck makes it the earlypart of the first century B. C. , and thinks the mosaics were the gift ofSulla. Delbrueck does not make his point at all, and Marucchi is carriedtoo far by a desire to establish a connection at Praeneste betweenFortuna and Isis. [123] Not to go into a discussion of the date of theGreek lettering which gives the names of the animals portrayed in thefiner mosaic, nor the subject of the mosaic itself, [124] the inscriptiongiven above[118] should help to settle the date of the mosaic. UnderClaudius, between the years 51 and 54 A. D. , a portico was decorated withmarble and a coating of marble facing. That this was a very splendidornamentation is shown by the fact that it is mentioned so particularlyin the inscription. And if in 54 A. D. Marble and marble facing werethings so worthy of note, then certainly one hundred and thirty yearsearlier there was no marble mosaic floor in Praeneste like the one underdiscussion, which is considered the finest large piece of Roman mosaicin existence. And it was fifty years later than the date Delbrueckwishes to assign to this mosaic, before marble began to be used in anygreat profusion in Rome, and at this time Praeneste was not in advanceof Rome. The mosaic, therefore, undoubtedly dates from about the time ofHadrian, and was probably a gift to the city when he built himself avilla below the town. [125]

Finally, a word with regard to the aerarium. This is under the temple ofFortuna, but is not built with any regard to the facade of the templeabove. The inscription on the back wall of the chamber is earlier thanthe time of Sulla, [126] and the position of this little vault[127]shows that it was a treasury connected with the basilica, indeed itsclose proximity about makes it part of that building and proves that itwas the storehouse for public funds and records. It occupied a veryprominent place, for it was at the upper end of the old forum, directlyin front of the Sacra Via that came up past the basilica from the PortaTriumphalis. The conclusion of the whole matter is that the earliestcity forum grew up on the terrace in front of the place where themysterious lots had leaped out of the living rock. A basilica was builtin a prominent place in the northwest corner of the forum. Later, another wonderful cave was discovered or made, and at such a distancefrom the first one that a temple in front of it would have a facing onthe forum beyond the basilica, and this also gave a space of groundwhich was leveled off into a terrace above the basilica and the forum, and made into a sacred precinct. Because the basilica occupied themiddle front of the temple property, the temple was made to face westalong the terrace, toward the more ancient cave. The sacred precinct infront of the temple and between the caves was enclosed, and had noentrance except at the west end where the Sacra Via ended, which was infront of the west cave. Before the temple, facing the sacred inclosurewas the pronaos mentioned in the inscription above, [128] and along eachside of this inclosure ran a row of columns, and probably one also onthe west side. Both caves and the temple were consecrated to the serviceof Fortuna Primigenia, the tutelary goddess of Praeneste. Both caves andan 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 oldtemple, but its fame and sanctity were never comparable to its beautyand its pretensions. [129]

THE EPIGRAPHICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF PRAENESTE. 

AEDICULA, C. I. L. , XIV, 2908. 

From the provenience of the inscription this building, not necessarily asacred one (Dessau), was one of the many structures on the site of thenew Forum below the town. 

PUBLICA AEDIFICIA, C. I. L. , XIV, 2919, 3032. 

Barbarus Pompeianus about 227 A. D. Restored a number of public buildingswhich 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 andlatest, Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, I, p. 58. 

The points worth noting are: that this aerarium is not built withreference to the temple above, and that it faces out on the publicsquare. These points have been discussed more at length above, and willreceive 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 nearlyenough with the provenience of the inscription to settle an amphitheatrehere of late imperial date. The tradition of the death of the martyr S. Agapito in an amphitheatre, and the discovery of a Christian church onthe Valmontone road, have helped to make pretty sure the identificationof these ruins. [131]

We know also from an inscription that there was a gladiatorial school atPraeneste. [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 wasturned into a mill by the Bonanni brothers. The reservoir mentionedabove on page 41 must have belonged also to a bath, and so do the ruinswhich are out beyond the villa under which the modern cemetery now is. From their orientation they seem to belong to the villa. There were alsobaths 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 lawbooks. [135] They were in the Forum, as the provenience of theinscription shows. 

CIRCUS, Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 75, n. 32. 

Cecconi thought there was a circus at the bottom of the depressionbetween Colle S. Martino and the hill of Praeneste. The depression doeshave a suspiciously rounded appearance below the Franciscan grounds, buta careful examination made by me shows no trace of cutting in the rockto make a half circle for seats, no traces of any use of the slope forseats, and no ruins of any kind. 

CULINA, C. I. L. , XIV, 3002. 

This was a building of some consequence. Two quaestors of the citybought a space of ground 148-1/2 by 16 feet along the wall, andsuperintended the building of a culina there. The ground was madepublic, and the whole transaction was done by decree of the senate, thatis, 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 inporticibus for(i) would seem to imply that the curia was in the lowerForum. The inscription shows that these two places were undoubtedly themost desirable places that a statue could have. There is a possibilitythat the curia may be the basilica on the Corso terrace of the city. Ithas been shown that an open space existed in front of the basilica, andthat in it there is at least one basis for a statue. Excavations[136] atthe ruins which were once thought to be the curia of ancient Praenesteshowed instead of a hemicycle, a straight wall built on remains of amore ancient construction of rectangular blocks of tufa with threelayers of pavement 4-1/2 feet below the level of the ground, under whichwas a tomb of brick construction, and lower still a wall of opusquadratum of tufa, certainly none of the remains belonging to a curia. 

[Illustration: PLATE IV. The Sacra Via, and its turn round the upper endof the Basilica. ]

FORUM, C. I. L. , XIV, 3015. 

The most ancient forum of Praeneste was inside the city walls. It was inthis forum that the statue of M. Anicius, the famous praetor, was setup. [137] The writers hitherto, however, have been entirely mistaken, inmy opinion, as to the extent of the ancient forum. For the old forum wasnot an open space which is now represented by the Piazza Savoia of themodern town, as is generally accepted, but the ancient forum ofPraeneste was that piazza and the piazza Garibaldi and the space betweenthem, now built over with houses, all combined. At the present time onegoes down some steps in front of the cathedral, which was the basilica, to the Piazza Garibaldi, and it has been supposed that this open spacebelonged to a terrace below the Corso. But there was no lower terracethere. The upper part of the forum simply has been more deeply buried indebris than the lower part. 

One needs only to see the new excavations at the upper end of the PiazzaSavoia to realize that the present ground level of the piazza is nearlynine feet higher than the pavement of the old forum. The accompanyingillustration (plate IV) shows the pavement, which is limestone, notlava, 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 thedouble duty of defining the limits of the basilica, and to keep thewheels of wagons from running up on the steps. It can be seen clearlythat the lowest step is one stone short of the cippus, that the nextstep is on a level with the pavement at the cippus, and the next steplevel again with the pavement four feet beyond it. The same grade wouldgive 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 presentlevel of that piazza. From this piazza on down through the garden of thePetrini family to the point where the existence of a Porta Triumphalishas been proved, the grade would not be even as steep as it was in theforum itself. Further, to show that the lower piazza is even yetaccessible from the upper, despite its nine feet more of fill, if onegoes to the east end of the Piazza Savoia he finds there instead ofsteps, as before the basilica, a street which leads down to the level ofthe Piazza Garibaldi, and although it begins at the present level of theupper piazza, it is not even now too steep for wagons. Again, one mustremember that the opus quadratum wall which extends along the south sideof the Corso does not go past the basilica, and also that there is abasis for a statue of some kind in front of the basilica on the level ofthe Piazza Garibaldi. 

It is a question whether the ancient forum was entirely paved. Thepaving can be seen along the basilica, and it has been seen back ofit, [139] but this pavement belongs to another hitherto unknown part ofPraenestine topography, namely, a SACRA VIA. An inscription to anaurufex de sacra via[140] makes certain that there was a road inPraeneste to which this name was given. The inscription was found in thecourtyard of the Seminary, which was the precinct of the temple ofFortuna. From the fact that this pavement is laid with blocks such asare always used in roads, from the cippus at the corner of the basilicato keep off wagon wheels, from the fact that this piece of pavement isin direct line from the central gate of the town, and last from theinscription and its provenience, I conclude that we have in thispavement a road leading directly from the Porta Triumphalis through theforum, alongside the basilica, then turning back of it and continuinground 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, anexcavation was made in April 1907, [142] which is of great interest andimportance in connection with the forum. In Plate V we see that thereare three steps of tufa, [143] and observe that the space in front ofthem is not paved; also that the ascent to the right, which is the onlyway out of the forum at this corner, is too steep to have been ever morethan 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, unlesshe went across to the west side of the city. 

The steps just mentioned are not the beginning of an ascent to thetemple, for there were but three, and besides there was no entrance tothe temple on the south. [145] Nor was the earlier temple much lower thanthe later one, for in either case the foundation was the rock surface ofthe terrace and has not changed much. Although these steps are of anolder construction than the steps of the basilica, yet they were notcovered up in late imperial times as is shown by the brick constructionin the plate. One is tempted to believe that there was a Doric porticobelow the engaged Corinthian columns of the south façade of thetemple. [146] But all the pieces of Doric columns found belong to theportico of the basilica. Otherwise one might try to set up furtherargument for a portico, and even claim that here was the place that thestatue was set up, ante curiam vel in por ticibus fori. [147] Again, these steps run far past the temple to the east, otherwise we mightconclude that they were to mark the extent of temple property. The fact, however, that a road, the Sacra Via, goes round back of the basilicaonly to the left, forces us to conclude that these steps belong to thecity, not to the temple in any way, and that they mark the north side ofthe ancient forum. 

The new forum below the city is well enough attested by inscriptionsfound there mentioning statues and buildings in the forum. The traditionhas continued that here on the level space below the town was the greatforum. Inscriptions which have been found in different places on thistract of ground mention five buildings, [148] ten statues of publicmen, [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] Thediscovery 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 ancientForum of Praeneste. ]

The forum inside the city walls was the forum of Praeneste, the ally ofRome, the more pretentious one below the city was the forum ofPraeneste, the Roman colony of Sulla. 

IUNONARIUM, C. I. L. , XIV, 2867. 

Delbrueck follows Preller[154] in making the Iunonarium a part of thetemple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have a statue of Trivia dedicatedin a Iunonarium, but it is stranger that there are no inscriptions amongthose from Praeneste which mention Juno, except that the name aloneappears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes, [155] and as theprovenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions mean nothing. It seems that the Iunonarium must have been somewhere in the west end ofthe 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 ofPraeneste in a region, which in 385 A. D. , was called regioCampania, [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 anotherthat 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 thefact that in 243 A. D. (C. I. L. XIV, 2972) there was a region (regio) bythat name, I should conclude that the lower part of the town below thewall was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was dividedinto 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 ruinsof which are of brick and called a temple, near the Ponte dell'Ospedalato, but this is impossible. The date of the brick work is allmuch later than the date assigned to it by him, and much later than thename itself implies. 

SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C. I. L. , XIV, 2850. 

This building was just inside the gate which was in the center of thesouth 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 territorynow known as Bocce di Rodi, and was situated on the little road whichmade a short cut between the two great roads, the Praenestina and theLabicana. 

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 thinkit is proved that the Sacra Via of Praeneste was the ancient road whichextended from the Porta Triumphalis up through the Forum, past theBasilica and round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct andtemple 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 theprovenience of the stone we get a proof that the old road which led outthrough the Porta S. Francesco was so well known that it was calledsimply "via. "

CHAPTER II. 

THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRAENESTE. 

Praeneste was already a rich and prosperous community, when Rome wasstill fighting for a precarious existence. The rapid development, however, of the Latin towns, and the necessity of mutual protection andadvancement soon brought Rome and Praeneste into a league with the othertowns of Latium. Praeneste because of her position and wealth was thehaughtiest member of the newly made confederation, and with the morerapid growth of Rome became her most hated rival. Later, when Romepassed from a position of first among equals to that of mistress of herformer 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 touchingPraeneste and Tibur crossed the river Tiber miles above Rome, thatenergetic little settlement looked with longing on the city thatcommanded the splendid valley between the Sabine and Volscian mountains. Rome turned her conquests in the direction of her longings, but couldget no further than Gabii. Praeneste and Tibur were too stronglysituated, and too closely connected with the fierce mountaineers of theinterior, [158] and Rome was glad to make treaties with them on equalterms. 

Rome, however, made the most of her opportunities. Her trade up anddown the river increased, and at the same time brought her in touch withother nations more and more. Her political importance grew rapidly, andit was not long before she began to assume the primacy among the townsof the Latin league. This assumption of a leadership practically hersalready was disputed by only one city. This was Praeneste, and there canbe no doubt but that if Praeneste had possessed anything approaching thesame commercial facilities in way of communication by water she wouldhave been Rome's greatest rival. As late as 374 B. C. Praeneste was alonean opponent worthy of Rome. [159]

As head of a league of nine cities, [160] and allied with Tibur, whichalso headed a small confederacy, [161] Praeneste felt herself strongenough to defy the other cities of the league, [162] and in fact even toplay fast and loose with Rome, as Rome kept or transgressed thestipulations of their agreements. Rome, however, took advantage ofPraeneste at every opportunity. She assumed control of some of her landin 338 B. C. , on the ground that Praeneste helped the Gauls in 390;[163]she showed her jealousy of Praeneste by refusing to allow QuintusLutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punicwar. [164] This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader ofa contingent from Praeneste was treated by a Roman dictator[165] in 319B. C. But while these isolated outbursts of jealousy showed the illfeeling of Rome toward Praeneste, there is yet a stronger evidence ofthe fact that Praeneste had been in early times more than Rome's equal, for through the entire subsequent history of the aggrandizement of Romeat the expense of every other town in the Latin League, there runs abitterness which finds expression in the slurs cast upon Praeneste, anever-recurring reminder of the centuries of ancient grudge. Often inRoman literature Praeneste is mentioned as the typical country town. Herinhabitants are laughed at because of their bad pronunciation, despisedand pitied because of their characteristic combination of pride andrusticity. Yet despite the dwindling fortunes of the town she was ableto keep a treaty with Rome on nearly equal terms until 90 B. C. , the yearin which the Julian law was passed. [166] Praeneste scornfully refusedRoman citizenship in 216 B. C. , when it was offered. [167] This refusalRome never forgot nor forgave. No Praenestine families seem to have beentaken into the Roman patriciate, as were some from Alba Longa, [168] nordid Praeneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honoredas was Cato from Tusculum, [169] although one branch of the gensAnicia[170] did gain some reputation in imperial times. Rome andPraeneste seemed destined to be ever at cross purposes, and theirancient rivalry grew to be a traditional dislike which remained mutualand lasting. 

The continuance of the commercial and military rivalry because ofPraeneste's strategic position as key of Rome, and the religious rivalrydue to the great fame of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, are continuousand striking historical facts even down into the middle ages. Once in1297 and again in 1437 the forces of the Pope destroyed the town tocrush the great Colonna family which had made Praeneste a strongholdagainst the power of Rome. 

There are a great many reasons why Praeneste offers the bestopportunity for a study of the municipal officers of a town of the Latinleague. She kept a practical autonomy longer than any other of theleague towns with the exception of Tibur, but she has a much more variedhistory than Tibur. The inscriptions of Praeneste offer especialadvantages, because they are numerous and cover a wide range. The greatnumber of the old pigne inscriptions gives a better list of names of thecitizens of the second century B. C. And earlier than can be found in anyother Latin town. [171] Praeneste also has more municipal fasti preservedthan any other city, and this fact alone is sufficient reason for astudy of municipal officers. In fact, the position which Praeneste heldduring the rise and fall of the Latin League has distinct differencesfrom that of any other town in the confederation, and these differencesare to be seen in every stage of her history, whether as an ally, amunicipium, or a colonia. 

As an ally of Rome, Praeneste did not have a curtailed treaty as didAlba Longa, [172] but one on equal terms (foedus aequum), such as wasaccorded to a sovereign state. This is proved by the right of exilewhich both Praeneste and Tibur still retained until as late as 90B. C. [173]

As a municipium, the rights of Praeneste were shared by only one othercity in the league. She was not a municipium which, like Lanuvium andTusculum, [174] kept a separate state, but whose citizens, althoughcalled Roman citizens, were without right to vote, nor, on the otherhand, was she in the class of municipia of which Aricia is a type, townswhich had no vote in Rome, but were governed from there like a cityward. [175] Praeneste, on the contrary, belonged to yet a third class. This was the most favored class of all; in fact, equality was implicitin the agreement with Rome, which was to the effect that when thesecities joined the Roman state, the inhabitants were to be, first of all, citizens of their own states. [176] Praeneste shared this extraordinaryagreement with Rome with but one other Latin city, Tibur. The questionwhether or not Praeneste was ever a municipium in the technical andconstitutional 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 ofthe colonies founded by Sulla. Because of her stubborn defence, and herpartisanship for Marius, her walls were razed and her citizens murderedin numbers almost beyond belief. Yet at a later time, Sulla with arevulsion of kindness quite characteristic of him, rebuilt the town, enlarged it, and was most generous in every way. The sentiment whichattached to the famous antiquity and renown of Praeneste was too strongto allow it to lie in ruins. Further, in colonies the mostcharacteristic officers were the quattuorviri. Praeneste, againdifferent, shows no trace of such officers. 

Indeed, at all times during the history of Latium, Praeneste clearly hada city government different from that of any other in the old LatinLeague. For example, before the Social War[178] both Praeneste and Tiburhad aediles and quaestors, but Tibur also had censors, [179] Praenestedid not. Lavinium[180] and Praeneste were alike in that they both hadpraetors. There were dictators in Aricia, [181] Lanuvium, [182]Nomentum, [183] and Tusculum, [184] but no trace of a dictator inPraeneste. 

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 praetorwas 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 fromallied towns[187] implies that another praetor was at the head ofaffairs at home. Another and stronger proof of the government by twopraetors is afforded by the later duoviral magistracy, and the lack offriction under such an arrangement. 

There is no reason to believe that the Latin towns took as models fortheir early municipal officers, the consuls at Rome, rather than tobelieve that the reverse was the case. In fact, the change in Rome tothe name consuls from praetors, [188] with the continuance of the namepraetor in the towns of the Latin League, would rather go to provethat the Romans had given their two chief magistrates a distinctive namedifferent from that in use in the neighboring towns, because the morerapid growth in Rome of magisterial functions demanded officialterminology, as the Romans began their "Progressive Subdivision of theMagistracy. "[189] Livy says that in 341 B. C. Latium had twopraetors, [190] and this shows two things: first, that two praetors werebetter adapted to circumstances than one dictator; second, that themajority of the towns had praetors, and had had them, as chiefmagistrates, and not dictators, [191] and that such an arrangement wasmore satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator[192] at its headat some time, [193] and the fact that these two praetors are found atthe head of the league in 341 B. C. Shows the deference to the moreprogressive and influential cities of the league, where praetors werethe regular and well known municipal chief magistrates. Before Praenestewas made a colony by Sulla, the governing body was a senate, [194] andthe municipal officers were praetors, [195] aediles, [196] andquaestors, [197] as we know certainly from inscriptions. In theliterature, 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 themagistrates of an allied city. [200] In fact nothing in the inscriptionsor in the literature gives a hint at any change in the politicalrelations between Praeneste and Rome down to 90 B. C. , the year in whichthe lex Iulia was passed. If a dictator was ever at the head of the citygovernment in Praeneste, there are none of the proofs remaining, such asare found in the towns of the Alban Hills, in Etruria, and in the medixtuticus of the Sabellians. The fact that no trace of the dictatorremains either in Tibur or Praeneste seems to imply that these two townshad better opportunities for a more rapid development, and that both hadpraetors at a very early period. [201]

However strongly the weight of probabilities make for proof in theendeavor 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 twopraetors, [202] who had the regular aediles and quaestors as assistants. These officers were elected by the citizens of the place. There wasalso a senate, but the qualifications and duties of its members areuncertain. Some information, however, is to be derived from the factthat both city officers and senate were composed in the main of thelocal nobility. [203]

An important epoch in the history of Praeneste begins with the year 91B. C. In this year the dispute over the extension of the franchise toItaly began again, and the failure of the measure proposed by thetribune M. Livius Drusus led to an Italian revolt, which soon assumed aserious aspect. To mitigate or to cripple this revolt (the so-calledSocial or Marsic war), a bill was offered and passed in 90 B. C. This wasthe famous law (lex Iulia) which applied to all Italian states that hadnot revolted, or had stopped their revolt, and it offered Romancitizenship (civitas) to all such states, with, however, the remarkableprovision, IF THEY DESIRED IT. [204] At all events, this law either didnot meet the needs of the occasion, or some of the allied states showedno eagerness to accept Rome's offer. Within a few months after the lexIulia had gone into effect, which was late in the year 90, the lexPlautia Papiria was passed, which offered Roman citizenship to thecitizens (cives et incolae) of the federated cities, provided theyhanded in their names within sixty days to the city praetor inRome. [205]

There is no unanimity of opinion as to the status of Praeneste in 90B. C. The reason is twofold. It has never been shown whether Praeneste atthis time belonged technically to the Latins (Latini) or to the allies(foederati), and it is not known under which of the two laws justmentioned she took Roman citizenship. In 338 B. C. , after the close ofthe 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 wasreaffirmed. In 268 B. C. Praeneste lost one right of federated cities, that of coinage, [207] but continued to hold the right of a sovereigncity, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B. C. , [208] in common with Tiburand Naples, [209] and on down to the year 90 at any rate (see note 9). Itis to be remembered too that in the year 216 B. C. , after the heroicdeeds of the Praenestine cohort at Casilinum, the inhabitants ofPraeneste 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 sociisdanda), then they were still called allies (socii) at that time. [211]But that the provision in the law, namely, citizenship, if the alliesdesired it, did not accomplish its purpose, is clear from the immediatepassage in 89 of the lex Plautia-Papiria. [212] Probably there was somechange of phraseology which was obnoxious in the Iulia. The traditionaltouchiness and pride of the Praenestines makes it sure that theyresisted Roman citizenship as long as they could, and it seems morelikely that it was under the provision of the Plautia-Papiria than underthose of the Iulia that separate citizenship in Praeneste became athing of the past. Two years later, in 87 B. C. , when, because of thetroubles between the two consuls Cinna and Octavius, Cinna had beendriven from Rome, he went out directly to Praeneste and Tibur, which hadlately been received into citizenship, [213] tried to get them to revoltagain from Rome, and collected money for the prosecution of the war. This not only shows that Praeneste had lately received Romancitizenship, but implies also that Rome thus far had not dared to assumeany control of the city, or the consul would not have felt so sure ofhis reception. 

WAS PRAENESTE A MUNICIPIUM?

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

During the development which followed the gradual extension of Romancitizenship to the inhabitants of Italy, because of the increase of therights of autonomy in the colonies, and the limitation of the rightsformerly enjoyed by the cities which had belonged to the oldconfederation or league (foederati), there came to be small differencebetween a colonia and a municipium. While the nominal difference seemsto have still held in legal parlance, in the literature the two namesare often interchanged. [214] Mommsen-Marquardt say[215] that in 90 B. C. Under the conditions of the lex Iulia Praeneste became a municipium ofthe type which kept its own citizenship (ut municipes essent suaecuiusque civitatis). [216] But if this were true, then Praeneste wouldhave 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 theearliest to the latest times, and which are wider in range than those ofany other town in Latium outside Rome. But no inscription mentions apraefect and here under the circumstances the argumentum ex silentio isof real constructive value, and constitutes circumstantial evidence ofgreat weight. [217] Praeneste had lost her ancient rights one after theother, but it is sure that she clung the longest to the separateproperty right. Now the property in a municipium is not considered asRoman, a result of the old sovereign state idea, as given by the iusQuiritium and ius Gabinorum, although Mommsen says this had no realpractical value. [218] So whether Praeneste received Roman citizenship in90 or in 89 B. C. The spirit of her past history makes it certain thatshe demanded a clause which gave specific rights to the old federatedstates, such as had always been in her treaty with Rome. [219] Thereseems to have been no such clause in the lex Iulia of 90 B. C. , and thisfact gives still another reason, in addition to the ones mentioned, toconclude that Praeneste probably took citizenship in 89 under the lexPlautia-Papiria. The extreme cruelty which Sulla used towardPraeneste, [220] and the great amount of its land[221] that he took forhis soldiers when he colonized the place, show that Sulla not onlypunished the city because it had sided with Marius, but that the feelingof a Roman magistrate was uppermost, and that he was now avengingtraditional grievances, as well as punishing recent obstreperousness. 

There seems to be, however, very good reasons for saying that Praenestenever became a municipium in the strict legal sense of the word. First, the particular officials who belong to a municipium, praefects andquattuorvirs, are not found at all;[222] second, the use of the wordmunicipium in literature in connection with Praeneste is general, andmeans simply "town";[223] third, the fact that Praeneste, along withTibur, had clung so jealously to the title of federated state (civitasfoederata) 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 unlikelythat so great a downfall of a city's pride would be passed over insilence; fourth and last, the fact that the Praenestines asked theemperor Tiberius to give them the status of a municipium, [224] which hedid, [225] but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regularcity officials of a colony, [226] shows clearly that the Praenestinessimply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered froma severe illness at Praeneste[227] to ask him for what was merely anempty honor. It only salved the pride of the Praenestines, for it gavethem a name which showed a former sovereign federated state, and not thename of a colony planted by the Romans. [228] The cogency of this fourthreason will bear elaboration. Praeneste would never have asked for areturn to the name municipium if it had not meant something. At the verybest she could not have been a real municipium with Roman citizenshiplonger than seven years, 89 to 82 B. C. , and that at a very unsettledtime, nor would an enforced taking of the status of a municipium, not tomention the ridiculously short period which it would have lasted, havebeen anything to look back to with such pride that the inhabitants wouldask the emperor Tiberius for it again. What they did ask for was thename municipium as they used and understood it, for it meant to themeverything 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 earliesttimes, like Rome, Tusculum, and Aricia, was one of the chief cities inthe territory known as Ancient Latium. Like these other cities, Praeneste made herself head of a small league, [229] but unlike theothers, offers nothing but comparative probability that she was everruled by kings or dictators. So of prime importance not only in thestudy of the municipal officers of Praeneste, but also in the questionof Praeneste's relationship to Rome, is the fact that the evidence fromfirst to last is for praetors as the chief executive officers of thePraenestine state (respublica), with their regular attendant officers, aediles and quaestors; all of whom probably stood for office in theregular succession (cursus honorum). Above these officers was a senate, an administrative or advisory body. But although Praeneste took Romancitizenship either in 90 or 89 B. C. , [56] it seems most likely that shewas not legally termed a municipium, but that she came in under somespecial clause, or with some particular understanding, whereby she kepther autonomy, at least in name. Praeneste certainly considered herself afederate city, on the old terms of equality with Rome, she demanded andpartially retained control of her own land, and preserved her freedomfrom Rome in the matter of city elections and magistrates. 

PRAENESTE AS A COLONY. 

From the time of Sulla to the establishment of the monarchy, theexpropriation of territory for discharged soldiers found itsexpression in great part in the change from Italian cities tocolonies, [230] and of the colonies newly made by Sulla, Praeneste wasone. The misfortunes that befell Praeneste, because she seemed doomed tobe on the losing side in quarrels, were never more disastrouslyexemplified than in the punishment inflicted upon her by Sulla, becauseshe had taken the side of Marius. Thousands of her citizens were killed(see note 63), her fortifications were thrown down, a great part of herterritory was taken and given to Sulla's soldiers, who were the settlersof his new-made colony. At once the city government of Praenestechanged. 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. Thecity offices were filled partly by the new colonists, and the newgovernment which was forced upon her was so thoroughly established, thatPraeneste remained a colony as long as her history can be traced in theinscriptions. As has been said, in the time of Tiberius she got back anempty title, that of municipium, but it had been nearly forgotten againby Hadrian's time. 

There are several unanswered questions which arise at this point. Whatwas the distribution of offices in the colony after its foundation; whatregulation, if any, was there as to the proportion of officials to thenew make up of the population; and what and who were the quinquennialduovirs? From the proportionately large fragments of municipal fastileft from Praeneste it will be possible to reach some conclusions thatmay 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 theoffices, and had a status of citizenship better than that of the oldinhabitants of the city. Such a state of affairs might also seem naturalin a colony which had just been deprived of one third of its land, andhad had forced upon it as citizens a troop of soldiers who naturallywould desire to keep the city offices as far as possible in their owncontrol. [232] Dessau thinks that because this unequal state ofcitizenship was found in Pompeii, which was a colony of Sulla's, itmust 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 inhis contention. The first, an argumentum ex silentio, is that if therewas trouble in Pompeii between the old inhabitants and the new coloniststhen the same would have been true in Praeneste! As it was so close toRome, however, the trouble would have been much better known, andcertainly Cicero would not have lost a chance to bring the state ofaffairs at Praeneste also into a comparison. Second, the great painsSulla took to rebuild the walls of Praeneste, to lay out a new forum, and especially to make such an extensive enlargement and so many repairsof the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, show that his efforts were notentirely to please his new colonists, but just as much to try to deferto the wishes and civic pride of the old settlers. Third, the fact thata great many of the old inhabitants were left, despite the greatslaughter at the capture of the city, is shown by the frequentrecurrence in later inscriptions of the ancient names of the city, andby the fact that within twenty years the property of the soldiercolonists had been bought up, [234] and the soldiers had died, or hadmoved to town, or reenlisted for foreign service. Had there been muchtrouble between the colonists and the old inhabitants, or had thecolonists taken all the offices, in either case they would not have beenso ready to part with their land, which was a sort of patent tocitizenship. 

It is possible now to push the inquiry a point further. Dessau hasalready seen[235] that in the time of Augustus members of the oldfamilies were again in possession of many municipal offices, but hethinks the Praenestines did not have as good municipal rights as thecolonists in the years following the establishment of the colony. Thereare six inscriptions[236] which contain lists more or less fragmentaryof the magistrates of Praeneste, the duovirs, the aediles, and thequaestors. Two of these inscriptions can be dated within a few years, for they show the election of Germanicus and Drusus Caesar, and of Neroand Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, to the quinquennial duovirate. [237]Two others[81] are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of severalpeculiarities, [239] and one other, a fragment, belongs to still anothercalendar. [240] It will first be necessary to show that theselast-mentioned inscriptions can be referred to some time not much laterthan the founding of the colony at Praeneste by Sulla, before any usecan be made of the names in the list to prove anything about the earlydistribution of officers in the colony. Two of these inscriptions[238]should be placed, I think, very early in the annals of the colony. Theyshow a list of municipal officers whose names, with a single exception, which will be accounted for later, have only praenomen and nomen, away of writing names which was common to the earlier inhabitants ofPraeneste, and which seems to have made itself felt here in the names ofthe colonists. [241] Again, from the fact that in the only place in theinscriptions where the quinquennialship is mentioned, it is the simpleterm, without the prefixed duoviri. In the later inscriptions fromimperial times, [80] both forms are found, while in the year 31 A. D. Inthe 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 thatthe officers of the year in which the census was taken were given bothtitles. Marquardt makes this a proof that the quinquennial title showsnothing more than a function of the regular duovir. [244] It is certaintoo that after the passage of the lex Iulia in 45 B. C. , that the censuswas taken in the Italian towns at the same time as in Rome, and thereports sent to the censor in Rome. [245] This duty was performed by theduovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power. [246]The inscriptions under consideration, then, would seem to date certainlybefore 49 B. C. 

Another reason for placing these inscriptions in the very early days ofthe colony is derived from the use of names. In this list ofofficials[247] there is a duovir by the name of P. Cornelius, andanother whose name is lost except for the cognomen, Dolabella, but hecan be no other than a Cornelius, for this cognomen belongs to thatfamily. [248] Early in the life of the colony, immediately after itssettlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city'smonuments, [249] while the soldiers from Sulla's army were the newcitizens of the town, would be the time to look for men in the cityoffices whose election would have been due to Sulla, or would at leastappear to have been a compliment to him. Sulla was one of the mostfamous of the family of the Cornelii, and men of the gens Cornelia mightwell have expected preferment during the early years of the colony. Thatsuch was the case is shown here by the recurrence of the name Corneliusin the list of municipal officers in two succeeding years. Now if thename "Cornelia" grew to be a name in great disfavor in Praeneste, thereason would be plain enough. The destruction of the town, the loss ofits ancient liberties, and the change in its government, are more thanenough to assure hatred of the man who had been the cause of thedisasters. And there is proof too that the Praenestines did keep alasting dislike to the name "Cornelia. " There are many inscriptions ofPraeneste 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), thereare practically no people of that name found in Praeneste, [251] and thename is frequent enough in other towns of the old Latin league. Fromthese reasons, namely, the way in which only praenomina and nomina areused, the simple, earlier use of quinquennalis, and especially theappearance of the name Cornelius here, and never again until in the lateempire, it follows that the names of the municipal officers of Praenestegiven 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 rightslegally than the old citizens, and whether they had the majority ofvotes and elected city officers from their own number. The inscriptionswith 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, thecorresponding column for two years and part of a third. A Dolabella, who belongs to the gens Cornelia, as we have seen, heads the list asduovir. The aedile for the same year is a certain Rotanius. [253] Thisname is not found in the sepulchral inscriptions of the city of Rome, nor in the inscriptions of Praeneste except in this one instance. Thisman is certainly one of the new colonists, and probably a soldier fromNorth Italy. [254] Both the quaestors of the same year are given. Theyare M. Samiarius and Q. Flavius. Samiarius is one of the famous oldnames of Praeneste. [255] In the same way, the duovirs of the next year, C. Messienus and P. Cornelius, belong, the one to Praeneste, the otherto the colonists, [256] and just such an arrangement is also found inthe aediles, Sex. Caesius being a Praenestine[257], L. Nassius acolonist. Q. Caleius and C. Sertorius, the quaestors of the same year, do not appear in the inscriptions of Praeneste except here, and it isimpossible to say more than that Sertorius is a good Roman name, andCaleius a good north Italian one. [258] C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in anotherinscription, [259] L. Curtius and C. Vibius, the aediles, --Statiolenusand C. Cassius, the quaestors, show the same phenomenon, for it seemsquite possible from other inscriptional evidence to claim Salvius, Vibius, [260] and Statiolenus[261] as men from the old families ofPraeneste. The quinquennalis for the next year, M. Petronius, has a nametoo widely prevalent to allow any certainty as to his native place, butthe nomen Petronia and Ptronia is an old name in Praeneste. [262] In thesecond column of the inscription, although the majority of the namesthere seem to belong to the new colonists, as those in the first columndo to the old settlers, there are two names, Q. Arrasidius and T. Apponius, which do not make for the argument either way. [263] In thesmaller 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 iswell attested in Praeneste before the time of Sulla. [264] In fact thesame name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions. [265] Pacciahas been found this past year in Praenestine territory, and may well bean old Praenestine name, for the inscriptions of a family of the namePaccia have come to light at Gallicano. [266] Capivas is at least not aRoman name, [267] but from its scarcity in other places can as well beone of the names that are so frequent in Praeneste, which show Etruscanor Sabine formation, and which prove that before Sulla's time the cityhad a great many inhabitants who had come from Etruria and from back inthe Sabine mountains. Ninnius[268] is a name not found elsewhere in theLatian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua, [269] andis found also in Pompeii[270] and Puteoli. [271] It seems a fairsupposition to make at the outset, as we have seen that various writerson Praeneste have done, that the new colonists would try to keep thehighest office to themselves, at any rate, particularly the duovirate. But a study of the names, as has been the case with the less importantofficers, fails even to bear this out. [272] These lists of municipalofficers show a number of names that belong with certainty to the olderfamilies of Praeneste, and thus warrant the statement that the colonistsdid not have better rights than the old settlers, and that not even inthe duovirate, which held an effective check (maior potestas)[273] onthe aediles and quaestors, can the names of the new colonists be shownto outnumber or take the place of the old settlers. 

THE QUINQUENNALES. 

There remains yet the question in regard to the men who filled thequinquennial office. We know that whether the officials of the municipalgovernments were praetors, aediles, duovirs, or quattuorvirs, atintervals of five years their titles either were quinquennales, [274] orhad that added to them, and that this title implied censorialduties. [275] It has also been shown that after 46 B. C. The lex Iuliacompelled the census in the various Roman towns to be taken by theproper officers in the same year that it was done in Rome. This impliesthat the taking of the census had been so well established a custom thatit was a long time before Rome itself had cared to enact a law whichchanged the year of census taking in those towns which had not of theirown volition made their census contemporaneous with that in Rome. 

That the duration of the quinquennial office was one year iscertain, [276] that it was eponymous is also sure, [277] but whether theofficers who performed these duties every five years did so inaddition to holding the highest office of the year, or in place of thathonor, is a question not at all satisfactorily answered. That is, werethe men who held the quinquennial office the men who would in allprobability have stood for the duovirate in the regular succession ofadvance in the round of offices (cursus honorum), or did the governmentat Rome in some way, either directly or indirectly, name the men for thehighest office in that particular year when the census was to be taken?That is, again, were quinquennales elected as the other city officialswere, or were they appointed by Rome, or were they merely designated byRome, and then elected in the proper and regular way by the citizens ofthe towns?

At first glance it seems most natural to suppose that Rome would wantexact returns from the census, and might for that reason try to dictatethe men who were to take it, for on the census had been based always themilitary taxes, contingents, etc. [278] The first necessary inquiry iswhether the quinquennales were men who previously had held office asquaestors or aediles, and the best place to begin such a search is inthe municipal calendars (fasti magistratuum municipalium), which givethe city officials with their rank. 

There are fragments left of several municipal fasti; the one which givesthe longest unbroken list is that from Venusia, [279] which gives thefull list of the city officials of the years 34-29 B. C. , and the aedilesof 35, and both the duovirs and praetors of the first half of 28 B. C. In29 B. C. , L. Oppius and L. Livius were duoviri quinquennales. These areboth good old Roman names, and stand out the more in contrast withNarius, Mestrius, Plestinus, and Fadius, the aediles and quaestors. Neither of these quinquennales had held any office in the five precedingyears at all events. One of the two quaestors of the year 33 B. C. Is aL. Cornelius. The next year a L. Cornelius, with the greatestprobability the same man, is praefect, and again in the year 30 he isduovir. Also in the year 32 L. Scutarius is quaestor, and in the lasthalf of 31 is duovir. C. Geminius Niger is aedile in 30, and duovir in28. So what we learn is that a L. Cornelius held the quaestorship oneyear, 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 abreak 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 duoviratewithin the years given. Nor do we get any help from the fasti ofInteramna Lirenatis[281] or Ostia, [282] so the only other calendar wehave to deal with is the one from Praeneste, the fragments of which havebeen partially discussed above. 

The text of that piece[283] which dates from the first years ofTiberius' reign is so uncertain that one gets little information fromit. But certainly the M. Petronius Rufus who is praefect for DrususCaesar is the same as the Petronius Rufus who in another place isduovir. The name of C. Dindius appears twice also, once with the officeof aedile, but two years later seemingly as aedile again, which must bea mistake. M. Cominius Bassus is made quinquennalis by order of thesenate, and also made praefect for Germanicus and Drusus Caesar in theirquinquennial year. He is not found in any other inscription, and isotherwise unknown. [284] The only other men who attained the quinquennialrank in Praeneste were M. Petronius, [285] and some man with the cognomenMinus, [286] neither of whom appears anywhere else. A man with thecognomen Sedatus is quaestor in one year, and without holding otheroffice is made praefect to the sons of Germanicus, Nero and Drusus, whowere nominated quinquennales two years later. [287] There is no positiveproof in any of the fasti that any quinquennalis was elected from one ofthe lower magistrates. There is proof that duovirs were elected, who hadbeen aediles or quaestors. Also it has been shown that in two cases menwho had been quaestors were made praefects, that is, appointees ofpeople who had been nominated quinquennales as an honor, and who had atonce 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 theyhad been nominated, as has been shown in the cases of Drusus andGermanicus Caesar, and Nero and Drusus the sons of Germanicus, nominatedor elected quinquennales at Praeneste, and represented in both cases bypraefects 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 townsome ten miles from Ostia, and also quattuorvir quinquennalis ofFaesulae, a town above Florence, which seems to show that he was sent toFaesulae as a quinquennalis, for the honor which he had held previouslywas that of praetor in Laurentum. 

At Tibur, in Hadrian's time, a L. Minicius L. F. Gal. Natalis QuadromiusVerus, who had held offices previously in Africa, in Moesia, and inBritain, was made quinquennalis maximi exempli. It seems certain that hewas not a resident of Tibur, and since he was not appointed as praefectby Hadrian, it seems quite reasonable to think that either the emperorhad a right to name a quinquennalis, or that he was asked to nameone, [290] when one remembers the proximity of Hadrian's great villa, andthe deference the people of Tibur showed the emperor. There is also inTibur an inscription to a certain Q. Pompeius Senecio, etc. --(the manhad no less than thirty-eight names), who was an officer in Asia in 169A. D. , a praefect of the Latin games (praefectus feriarum Latinarum), then later a quinquennalis of Tibur, after which he was made patron ofthe city (patronus municipii). [291] A Roman knight, C. AemiliusAntoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii atTibur. [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 aquinquennalis need not have been an official previously in the town inwhich he held the quinquennial office. 

C. Maenius C. F. Bassus[294] was aedile and quattuorvir at Herculaneumand then after holding the tribuneship of a legion is found next atPraeneste as a quinquennalis. 

M. Vettius M. F. Valens[295] is called in an inscription duovirquinquennalis of the emperor Trajan, which shows not an appointment fromthe emperor in his place, for that would have been as a praefect, butrather that the emperor had nominated him, as an imperial right. Thisman held a number of priestly offices, was patron of the colony ofAriminum, and is called optimus civis. 

Another inscription shows plainly that a man who had been quinquennalisin his own home town was later made quinquennalis in a colony founded byAugustus, Hispellum. [296] This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominatedquinquennalis by the emperor. 

C. Pompilius Cerialis, [297] who seems to have held only one otheroffice, that of praefect to Drusus Caesar in an army legion, wasduovir iure dicundo quinquennalis in Volaterrae. 

M. Oppius Capito was not only quinquennalis twice at Auximum, patron ofthat 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, andheld no other offices. [299]

Again, particularly worthy of notice is the fact that when L. SeptimiusL. F. Calvus, who had been aedile and quattuorvir at Teate Marrucinorum, was given the quinquennial rights, it was of such importance that itneeded especial mention, and that such mention was made by a decree ofthe city senate, [300] shows clearly that such a method of getting aquinquennalis was out of the ordinary. 

M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum[301] has the title Augustalis duovirquinquennalis, 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 theemperor, and seems to preclude an election by the citizens after aregular 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 aninhabitant 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, whichimplies appointment. 

M. Holconius Celer was a priest of Augustus, and with no previous cityoffices is mentioned as quinquennalis-elect, which can perhaps as wellmean nominated by the emperor, as designated by the popular vote. [306]

P. Sextilius Rufus, [307] aedile twice in Nola, is quinquennalis inPompeii. As he was chosen by the old inhabitants of Nola to theirsenate, this would show that he belonged probably to the new settlers inthe colony introduced by Augustus, and for some reason was called overalso to Pompeii to take the quinquennial office. 

L. Aufellius Rufus at Cales was advanced from the position of primipilusof a legion to that of quinquennalis, without having held any other cityoffices, but he was flamen of the deified emperor (Divus Augustus), andpatron of the city. [308]

M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being aedile orquaestor, in Aquinum. [309]

Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but a quinquennalis atAquinum. [310]

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

In 166 A. D. In Ostia a dedication was of importance enough to have thenames of both the consuls of the year and the duoviri quinquennales atthe head of the inscription. [311]

The year that C. Cuperius and C. Arrius were quinquennales withcensorial power (II vir c. P. Q. ) in Ostia, there was a dedication of someimportance in connection with a tree that had been struck bylightning. [312]

In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta was passedin the year when there were quinquennales. [313]

In addition to the fact that the emperors were sometimes chosenquinquennales, the consuls were too. M'. Acilius Glabrio, consulordinarius of 152 A. D. , was made patron of Tibur and quinquennalisdesignatus. [314]

On the other hand, against this array of facts, are others just ascertain, if not so cogent or so numerous. From the inscriptions paintedon the walls in Pompeii, we know that in the first century A. D. Men wererecommended as quinquennales to the voters. But although there seems tobe a large list of such inscriptions, they narrow down a great deal, andin comparison with the number of duovirs, they are considerably underthe proportion one would expect, for instead of being as 1 to 4, theyare really only as 1 to 19. [315] What makes the candidacy forquinquennialship seem a new and unaccustomed thing is the fact that theappeals for votes which are painted here and there on the walls arealmost all recommendations for just two men. [316]

There are quinquennales who were made patrons of the towns in which theyheld the office, but who held no other offices there (1); some who wereboth quaestors and aediles or praetors (2); quinquennales of bothclasses again who were not made patrons (3, 4); praefects withquinquennial power (5); quinquennales who go in regular order throughthe quattuorviral offices (6); those who go direct to the quinquennialrank from the tribunate of the soldiers (7); and (8) a VERY FEW who havewhat 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 areproved to have been elective officers in Pompeii. The date, however, isthe third quarter of the first century A. D. , and the office may havebeen but recently thrown open to election, as has been shown. Quinquennales who have held other city offices are very, very few, andthey appear in inscriptions of fairly late date. 

On the other hand, many quinquennales are found who hold that office andno other in the city, men who certainly belong to other towns, many whofrom their nomination as patrons of the colony or municipium, areclearly seen to have held the quinquennial power also as an honor givento an outsider. In what municipal fasti we have, we find noquinquennalis whose name appears at all previously in the list of cityofficials. 

The fact that the lex Iulia in 45 B. C. Compelled the census to be takeneverywhere else in the same year as in Rome shows at all events that thecensus had been taken in certain places at other times, whether with animplied supervision from Rome or not, and the later positive evidencethat the emperors and members of the imperial family, and consuls, whowere nominated quinquennales, always appointed praefects in theirplaces, who with but an exception or two were not city officialspreviously, certainly tends to show that at some time the quinquennialoffice had been influenced in some way from Rome. The appointment ofoutside men as an honor would then be a survival of the custom of havingoutsiders for quinquennales, in many places doubtless a revival of acustom which had been in abeyance, to honor the imperial family. 

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

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

The evidence seems to warrant the following conclusions in regard to thequinquennales: From the first they were the most important cityofficials; they were elected by the people from the first, but were menwho had been recommended in some way, or had been indorsed beforehand bythe central government in Rome; they were not necessarily men who hadheld office previously in the city to which they were electedquinquennales; with the spread of the feeling of real Roman citizenshipthe necessity for indorsement from Rome fell into abeyance; magistrateswere elected who had every expectation of going through the series ofmunicipal offices in the regular way to the quinquennialship; and thelater election of emperors and others to the quinquennial office was asurvival of the habitual realization that this most honorable of cityoffices had some connection with the central authority, whatever thathappened to be, and was not an integral part of municipal selfgovernment. 

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

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE. 

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

Drusus Caesar } Quinq. 2964Germanicus Caesar }Nero et Drusus Germanici filii Quinq. 2965Nero Caesar, between 51-54 A. D. IIvir Quinq. 2995-- Accius . .. Us Q 2964P. Acilius P. F. Paullus, 243 A. D. Q. Aed. IIvir. 2972L. Aiacius Q 2964C. Albinius Aed (?) 2968M. Albinius M. F. Aed, IIvir, 2974 IIvir quinq. M. Anicius (Livy VIII, 11, 4) Pr. M. Anicius L. F. Baaso Aed. 2975P. Annius Septimus IIvir. 4091, 1(M). Antonius Subarus[318] IIvir. 4091, 18Aper, see Voesius. T. Aponius Q 2966P. Aquilius Gallus IIvir. 4091, 2Q. Arrasidius Aed. 2966C. Arrius Q 2964M. Atellius Q 2964Attalus, see Claudius. 

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

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

T. Flavius T. F. Germanus 181 A. D. Aed. IIvir. 2922 IIvir. QQ-- (Fl)avius Musca Q 2965Gallus, see Aquilius. Sex. Geganius Finbria IIvir. 4091, 1Germanus, see Flavius. -- [I]nstacilius Aed. 2964C. Iuc . .. Rufus[319] Q 2964Laelianus, see Lutatius. M'. Later . .. [320] Q 4091, 12 (See Add. 4091, 12)T. Livius Aed. 2964T. Long . .. Priscus IIvir. 4091, 4T. Lucretius IIvir. 2966Sex. Lutatius Q. F. Laelianus Pr. 2930 Oppianicus Petronianus-- Macrin(ius) Nerian(us) Aed. 4091, 10Sex. Maesius Sex. F. Celsus Q. Aed. IIvir. 2989L. Mag(ulnius) M. F. Q 4091, 13C. Magulnius C. F. Scato Q 2990C. Magulnius C. F. Scato Pr. 2906 Maxs(umus)M. Magulnius Sp. F. M. N. Scato. Pr. (?) 3008Mamilianus, see Claudius. -- Manilei Post A(e)d. 2964-- Mecanius IIvir. 4091, 5M. Mersieius C. F. Aed. 2975C. Messienus IIvir. 2966Q. Mestrius IIvir. 4091, 6-- -- Minus Quinq. 2964Musca, see Flavius. L. Nassius Aed. 2966M. Naut(ius) Q 4091, 14Nerianus, see Macrinius. C. Ninn(ius) IIvir. (?) 2968Oppianicus, see Lutatius. L. Orcevius Pr. 2902C. Orcivi(us) Pr. IIvir. 2994C. Paccius IIvir. (?) 2968Paullus, see Acilius. L. Petisius Potens IIvir. 2964Petronianus, see Lutatius. M. Petronius Quinq. 2966(M). Petronius Rufus IIvir. 2964M. Petronius Rufus Quinq. Praef. 2964Planta, see Treb . .. TiC. Pom pei us IIvir. 2964Sex. Pomp(eius) IIvir. Praef. 2995Pontanus, see Saufeius. Potens, see Petisius. Praenestinus praetor (Chap. II, n. 28. ) Livy IX, 16, 17. Priscus, see Long . .. Pulcher, see Vettius. -- Punicus Lig . .. IIvir. 2964C. Raecius IIvir. 2964M. Raecius Q 2964-- Rotanius Aed 2966Rufus, see Cornelius, Iuc . .. , Petronius, Tertius. Rutilus, see Saufeius. T. Sabidius Sabinus IIvir. Not. D. Scavi. 1894, p. 96. -- -- Sabinus Q 2967C. Salvius IIvir. 2966C. Salvius IIvir. 2964M. Samiarius Q 2966C. Sa(mi)us Pr. 2999-- Saufei(us) Pr. IIvir. 2994M. Saufe(ius) . .. Canies Aid. Not. D. Scavi. 1907, p. 137. C. Saufeius C. F. Flaccus Pr. 2906C. Saufeius C. F. Flacus Q 3002L. Saufeius C. F. Flaccus Q 3001C. Saufeius C. F. Pontanus Aed. 3000M. Saufeius L. F. Pontanus Aed. 3000M. Saufeius M. F. Rutilus Q 3002Scato, see Magulnius. P. Scrib(onius) IIvir. 4091, 3-- -- Sedatus Q. Pr(aef). 2965Septimus, see Annius. C. Sertorius Q 2966Q. Spid Q (?) 2969-- Statiolenus Q 2966L. Statius Sal. F. IIvir. 3013Subarus, see Antonius. C. Tampius C. F. Tarenteinus Pr. 2890C. Tappurius IIvir. 4091, 6Tarenteinus, see Tampius. -- Tedusius T. (f. ) IIvir. 3012aM. Tere . .. Cl . .. IIvir. 4091, 7-- Tert(ius) Rufus IIvir. 2998C. Thorenas Q 2964L. Tondeius L. F. M. N. Pr. (?) 3008C. Treb . .. Pianta IIvir. 4091, 4(Se)x. Truttidius IIvir. 2964Vaarus, see Fabricius. -- (?)cius Valer(ianus) Q 2967M. Valerius Q 2964Varus, see Voluntilius. -- Vassius V. Aed. (?) 2964L. Vatron(ius) Pr. 2902C. Velius Aed. 2964Q. Vettius T. (f) Pulcher IIvir. 3012C. Vibius Aed. 2966Q. Vibuleius L. F. IIvir. 3013Cn. Voesius Cn. F. Aper. Q. Aed. IIvir. 3014C. 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; othermention 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 underher jurisdiction, and that they must have been relatively near by. LivyVI, 29, 6: octo praeterea oppida erant sub dicione Praenestinorum. Festus, p. 550 (de Ponor): T. Quintius Dictator cum per novem diestotidem urbes et decimam Praeneste cepisset, and the story of the goldencrown offered to Jupiter as the result of this rapid campaign, and thestatue which was carried away from Praeneste (Livy VI, 29, 8), all showthat 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, GuidaArcheologica, p. 14; Nibby, Analisi, p. 483; Volpi, Latium vetus dePraen. , 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 ItalicarumScriptores, 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, ubifuerunt olim Civitas Praenestina, eiusque Castrum, quod dicebatur Mons, et Rocca; ac etiam Civitas Papalis postmodum destructa, cum Territorioet Turri de Marmoribus, et Valle Gloriae; nec non Castrum NovumTiburtinum 2 Id. April. An. VI; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 136;Civitas praedicta cum Rocca, et Monte, cum Territorio ipsius posita estin 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, PraenestinusVeliternusque populus, etc. Livy VII, 12, 8: quod Gallos mox Praenestevenisse 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 BritishSchool at Rome, I, p. 205, thinks Pedum can not be located withcertainty, but rather inclines to Zagarolo. ]

[Footnote 12: There are some good ancient tufa quarries too on thesouthern slope of Colle S. Rocco, to which a branch road from Praenesteran. 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. Ofthe 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 ofimperial times, but considers it the probable site of an early village. ]

[Footnote 16: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, wishes to connectMarcigliano and Ceciliano with the gentes Marcia and Caecilia, but it isimpossible to do more than guess, and the rather few names of thesegentes at Praeneste make the guess improbable. It is also impossible tolocate regio Caesariana mentioned as a possession of Praeneste bySymmachus, Rel. , XXVIII, 4, in the year 384 A. D. Eutropius II, 12 getssome confirmation of his argument from the modern name Campo di Pirrowhich still clings to the ridge west of Praeneste. ]

[Footnote 17: The author himself saw all the excavations here along theroad 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 in1738, and have been carried on spasmodically ever since. There wereexcavations again in 1825 (Marucchi, Guida Archeologica, p. 21), but itwas in 1855 that the more extensive excavations were made which causedso 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 VignaVelluti, to the right of the road to Marcigliano. It was thought thatthe exact boundaries of the necropolis on the north and south had beenfound because of the little columns of peperino 41 inches high by 8-8/10inches square, which were in situ, and seemed to serve no other purposethan that of sepulchral cippi or boundary stones. Garucci, DissertazioniArch. , I, p. 148; Archaeologia, 41 (1867), p. 190. ]

[Footnote 18: C. I. L. , XIV, 2987. ]

[Footnote 19: The papal documents read sometimes in Latin, territoriumPraenestinum or Civitas Praenestina, but often the town itself ismentioned 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 anyway to ancient Praeneste. ]

[Footnote 21: Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my ownobservations. See Not. D. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259. ]

[Footnote 22: The temple in Cave is of the same tufa (Fernique, Étudesur Préneste, p. 104). The quarries down toward Gallicano supplied tufaof the same texture, but the quarries are too small to have suppliedmuch. But this tufa from the ridge back of the town seems not to havebeen used in Gallicano to any great extent, for the tufa there is of adifferent kind and comes from the different cuts in the ridges on eitherside of the town, and from a quarry just west of the town across thevalley. ]

[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), andunder "nefrendes, " p. 161 (de Ponor). ]

[Footnote 24: Cave has been attached rather more to Genazzano duringPapal rule than to Praeneste, and it belongs to the electoral college ofSubiaco, Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 182. ]

[Footnote 25: I heard everywhere bitter and slighting remarks inPraeneste about Cave, and much fun made of the Cave dialect. When thereare church festivals at Cave the women usually go, but the men notoften, for the facts bear out the tradition that there is usually afight. Tomassetti, Della Campagna Romana, p. 183, remarks upon thedifferences in dialect. ]

[Footnote 26: Mommsen, Bull. Dell'Instituto, 1862, p. 38, thinks thatthe civilization in Praeneste was far ahead of that of the other Latincities. ]

[Footnote 27: It is to be noted that this Marcigliana road was not totap 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, andQuerquetula is not a question here at all. ]

[Footnote 29: Gatti, in Not. D. Scavi, 1903, p. 576, in connection withthe Arlenius inscription, found on the site of the new Forum belowPraeneste in 1903, which mentions Ad Duas Casas as confinium territorioPraenestinae, thought that it was possible to identify this place with afundus and possessio Duas Casas below Tibur under Monte Gennaro, andthus to extend the domain of Praeneste that far, but as Huelsen saw(Mitth. Des k. D. Arch, Inst. , 19 (1904), p. 150), that is manifestlyimpossible, 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 1092A. D. Assaulted and took Cave as his first step in his revolt againstClement III (Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 240), that Cave was atthat time a dependency of Praeneste. But it has been shown thatPraeneste's diocesan territory expanded and shrunk very much atdifferent times, and that in general the extent of a diocese, whenlarger, depends on principles which ancient topography will not allow. And too it can as well be said that Pietro Colonna was paying up ancientgrudge against Cave, and certainly also he realized that of all thetowns near Praeneste, Cave was strategically the best from which toattack, and this most certainly shows that in ancient times such naturalbarriers between the two must have been practically impassable. ]

[Footnote 31: To be more exact, on the least precipitous side, thatwhich 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 saythat the modern part of it is insignificant, and can be most plainlydistinguished, and further, that the two pieces of opus incertum whichare 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 bookis on the whole the best one on Praeneste but leaves much to be desiredwhen the question is one of topography or epigraphy (see Dessau'scomment 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 ofa wall of opus quadratum could be traced along the Via dello Spregato, and so fell into error. Blondel, Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire del'école française de Rome, 1882, plate 5, shows a little of thispolygonal cyclopean construction. ]

[Footnote 34: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 511, wrote his note on the wallbeyond San Francesco from memory. He says that one follows the monasterywall down, and then comes to a big reservoir. The monastery wall hasonly a few stones from the cyclopean wall in it, and they are set inamong rubble, and are plainly a few pieces from the upper wall above thegate. The reservoir which he reaches is half a mile away across adepression several hundred feet deep, and there is no possibleconnection, for the reservoir is over on Colle San Martino, not on thehill of Praeneste at all. ]

[Footnote 35: The postern or portella is just what one would expect neara corner of the wall, as a less important and smaller entrance to aterrace less wide than the main one above it, which had its big gates atwest and east, the Porta San Francesco and the Porta del Cappuccini. ThePorta San Francesco is proved old and famous by C. I. L. , XIV, 3343, wheresupra viam is all that is necessary to designate the road from thisgate. Again an antica via in Via dello Spregato (Not. D. Scavi, I(1885), p. 139, shows that inside this oldest cross wall there was aroad part way along it, at least. )]

[Footnote 36: The Cyclopean wall inside the Porta del Sole was laid barein 1890, Not. D. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38. ]

[Footnote 37: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 501: "A destra della contrada degliArconi due cippi simili a quelli del pomerio di Roma furono scoperti nelrisarcire la strada Tanno 1824. "]

[Footnote 38: Some of the paving stones are still to be seen in situunder the modern wall which runs up from the brick reservoir of imperialdate. This wall was to sustain the refuse which was thrown over the citywall. The place between the walls is now a garden. ]

[Footnote 39: I have examined with care every foot of the presentwestern wall on which the houses are built, from the outside, and fromthe cellars inside, and find no traces of antiquity, except the fewstones here and there set in late rubble in such a way that it is surethey have been simply picked up somewhere and brought there for use asextra 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, andsays it is in letters of the most ancient form. This is not true. Theletters are not so very ancient. I was led by his note to examine everystone in the cyclopean wall around the whole city, but no furtherinscription was forthcoming. ]

[Footnote 41: This stretch of opus incertum is Sullan reconstructionwhen he made a western approach to the Porta Triumphalis to correspondto the one at the east on the arches. This piece of wall is stronglymade, and is exactly like a piece of opus incertum wall near the Stabiangate at Pompeii, which Professor Man told me was undoubtedly Sullan. ]

[Footnote 42: Marucchi, Guida Arch. , p. 19, who is usually a goodauthority on Praeneste, thinks that all the opus quadratum walls werebuilt as surrounding walls for the great sanctuary of Fortuna. But thefacts 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, forthe water was about knee deep, and I was unable to persuade my guides toventure far from the entrance, but I carried a candle to the walls onboth sides and one end. ]

[Footnote 44: At some places the concrete was poured in behind the wallbetween it and the shelving cliff, at other places it is built up likethe wall. The marks of the stones in the concrete can be seen mostplainly near Porta S. Martino (Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104, also mentions it). The same thing is true at various places all alongthe wall. ]

[Footnote 45: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 107, has exactmeasurements of the walls. ]

[Footnote 46: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 108, from Cecconi, Storiadi Palestrina, p. 43, considers as a possibility a road from each side, but he is trying only to make an approach to the temple withcorresponding parts, and besides he advances no proofs. ]

[Footnote 47: There seems to have been only a postern in the ancientwall inside the present Porta del Sole. ]

[Footnote 48: Many feet of this ancient pavement were laid bare duringthe excavations in April, 1907, which I myself saw, and illustrations ofwhich 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 solariovidi. ]

[Footnote 50: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 43. ]

[Footnote 51: The continuation of the slope is the same, and the methodof making roads in the serpentine style to reach a gate leading to theimportant part of town, is not only the common method employed for hilltowns, but the natural and necessary one, not only in ancient times, butstill today. ]

[Footnote 52: Through the courtesy of the Mayor and the MunicipalSecretary of Palestrina, I had the only exact map in existence of modernPalestrina to work with. This map was getting in bad condition, so Itraced it, and had photographic copies made of it, and presented amounted copy to the city. This map shows these wall alignments and thechanges 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 placewhere 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, whocame 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 anapproach 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 bedrawn 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 gotits name when M. Anicius returned with his proud cohort to Praeneste. ]

[Footnote 56: Not. D. Scavi, 7-8 (1890), p. 38. This platform is alittle over three feet above the level of the modern piazza, but is nowhidden under the steps to the Corso. But the piece of restraining wallis still to be seen in the piazza, and it is of the same style of opusquadratum construction as the walls below the Barberini gardens. ]

[Footnote 57: Strabo V, 3, II (238, 10): [Greek: erymnae men ounekatera, poly derumnotera Prainestos]. ]

[Footnote 58: Plutarch, Sulla, XXVIII: [Greek: Marios de pheygon eisPraineston 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 werebuilt in muro merlato. It is not certain where the Murozzo and Trugliowere. 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 veryplainly to be seen. The gate is filled with mediaeval stone work. ]

[Footnote 66: There is a wooden gate here, which can be opened, but itonly leads out upon a garden and a dumping ground above a cliff. ]

[Footnote 67: This was the only means of getting out to the littlestream that ran down the depression shown in plate III, and over to thehill of S. Martino, which with the slope east of the city could properlybe called Monte Glicestro outside the walls. ]

[Footnote 68: This gate is now a mediaeval tower gate, but the stones ofthe cyclopean wall are still in situ, and show three stones, withstraight 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 couldnot be seen except from down on the Cave road, and it gave an outlet tosome springs under the citadel, and to the valley back towardCapranica. ]

[Footnote 69: This last stretch of the wall did not follow the presentwall, but ran up directly back of S. Maria del'Carmine, and was on theeast side of the rough and steep track which borders the eastern side ofthe present Franciscan monastery. ]

[Footnote 70: The several courses of opus quadratum which were found afew years ago, and are at the east entrance to the Corso built into thewall of a lumber store, are continued also inside that wall, and seem tobe the remains of a gate tower. ]

[Footnote 71: See page 28. This gap in the wall is still another prooffor the gate, for it was down the road, which was paved, that the waterran after rainstorms, if at no other time. ]

[Footnote 72: This gate is very prettily named by Cecconi, Spiegazionede Numeri, Map facing page 1: l'antica Porta di San Martino chiusa. ]

[Footnote 73: Since the excavations of the past two years, nothing hasbeen written to show what relations a few newly discovered pieces ofancient paved roads have to the city and to its gates, and for thatreason it becomes necessary to say something about a matter onlytolerably treated by the writers on Praeneste up to their dates ofpublication. ]

[Footnote 74: Ashby, Classical Topog. Of the Roman Campagna, in Papersof 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, adiverticolo, in front of the church of S. Lucia, which is a directcontinuation of the Via degli Arconi. This diverticolo ran out the Colledell'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 thePraenestina 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 theexvotos. Bull. Dell'Inst. , 1883, p. 28. ]

[Footnote 79: Bull. Dell'Inst. , 1871, p. 72 for tombs found on bothsides the modern road to Rome, the exact provenience being the vocaboloS. Rocco, on the Frattini place; Stevenson, Bull. Dell'Inst. , 1883, pp. 12 ff. , for tombs in the vigna Soleti along the diverticolo from the ViaPraenestina. Also at Bocce Rodi, one mile west of the city, tombs of theimperial 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 towardGallicano, and the Via Praenestina Nuova which crosses the Casilina tojoin the Labicana. This great deposit of terra cottas was found in 1877at 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 bestconclusions 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 theroads. Other stores of deposits of the same kinds of objects have beenfound (see Fernique, l. C. ) at Falterona, Gabii, Capua, Vicarello; alsoat the temple of Diana Nemorensis (Bull. Dell'Inst. , 1871, p. 71), andoutside Porta S. Lorenzo at Rome (Bull. Com. , 1876, p. 225), and nearCivita Castellana (Bull. Dell'Inst. , 1880, p. 108). ]

[Footnote 81: Strabo V, 3, 11 (C. 239); [Greek: . .. Dioruxikryptais--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 thedepression by the road which winds round to the citadel, he finds bothabove and below the road several reservoirs hollowed out in the rock ofthe mountain, which were filled by the rain water which fell above themand ran into them. ]

[Footnote 83: Cola di Rienzo did this (see note 59), and so discoveredthe method by which the Praenestines communicated with the outsideworld. Sulla fixed his camp on le Tende, west of the city, that he mighthave 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 notso very clearly. ]

[Footnote 86: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 79, thinks thisreservoir was for storing water for a circus in the valley below. Thisis most improbable. It was a reservoir to supply a villa which coveredthe lower part of the slope, as the different remains certainly show. ]

[Footnote 87: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 301, n. 30, 31, fromAnnali 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 theRoman aqueducts, and we have from the middle ages practically nothingbut repairs on aqueducts, hardly any aqueducts themselves. ]

[Footnote 89: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 338, speaks of thisaqueduct as "quel mirabile antico cuniculo. "]

[Footnote 90: The springs Acqua Maggiore, Acqua della Nocchia, Acqua delSambuco, Acqua Ritrovata, Acqua della Formetta (Petrini, MemoriePrenestine, 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 writerson Praeneste, even made some ruins which he found under the Fiumarahouse on the east side of town, into the remains of a reservoir tocorrespond to the one in the Barberini gardens. The structures accordingto material differ in date about two hundred years. ]

[Footnote 93: C. I. L. , XIV, 2911, was found near this reservoir, andNibby from this, and a likeness to the construction of the CastraPraetoria at Rome, dates it so (Analisi, p. 503). ]

[Footnote 94: This is the opinion of Dr. Esther B. Van Deman of theAmerican School in Rome. ]

[Footnote 95: See above, page 29. ]

[Footnote 96: There is still another small reservoir on the next terracehigher, the so-called Borgo terrace, but I was not able to examine itsatisfactorily enough to come to any conclusion. Palestrina is alabyrinth of underground passages. I have explored dozens of them, butthe most of them are pockets, and were store rooms or hiding placesbelonging to the houses under which they were. ]

[Footnote 97: This is shown by the network of drains all through theplain 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 diPalestrina, p. 275, n. 29, p. 278, n. 37. ]

[Footnote 100: "La città attuale è intieramente fondata sulle rovine delmagnifico tempio della Fortuna, " Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 494. "E niunoignora che il colossale edificio era addossato al declivio del monteprenestino e occupava quasi tutta l'area ove oggi si estende la modernacittà, " Marucchi, Bull. Com. , 32 (1904), p. 233. ]

[Footnote 101: This upper temple is the one mentioned in a manifesto of1299 A. D. Made by the Colonna against the Caetani (Cecconi, Storia diPalestrina, p. 275, n. 29). It is an order of Pope Boniface VIII, exCodic. Archiv. Castri S. Angeli signat, n. 47, pag. 49: Item, dicuntcivitatem Prenestinam cum palatiis nobilissimis et cum templo magno etsollempni . .. Et cum muris antiquis opere sarracenico factis delapidibus quadris et magnis totaliter suppositam fuisse exterminio etruine 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 antiquissimiscalae de nobilissimo marmore per quas etiam equitando ascendi poteratin Palacium . .. Quaequidem scalae erant ultra centum numero. Palaciumautem Caesaris aedificatum ad modum unius C propter primam litteramnominis sui, et templum palatio inhaerens, opere sumptuosissimo etnobilissimo aedificatum ad modum s. Mariae rotundae de urbe. ]

[Footnote 102: Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, under DasHeiligtum 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 thereal cave of the sortes. However, he does not know the two bestarguments 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 allwith the cave on the west, Marucchi is wrong, although he makes a verygood case (Bull. Com. , 32 (1904), p. 239). ]

[Footnote 105: Cicero, de Div. , II, 41, 85: is est hodie locus saeptusreligiose propter Iovis pueri, qui lactens cum lunone Fortunae in gremiosedens, . .. Eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunae nunc est aedes, etc. ]

[Footnote 106: C. I. L. , XIV, 2867: . .. Ut Triviam in Iunonario, ut inpronao aedis statuam, etc. , and Livy, XXIII, 19, 18 of 216 B. C. : Idemtitulus (a laudatory inscription to M. Anicius) tribus signis in aedeFortunae positis fuit subiectus. ]

[Footnote 107: This question is not topographical and can not bediscussed at any length here. But the best solution seems to be thatFortuna as child of Jupiter (Diovo filea primocenia, C. I. L. , XIV. , 2863, Iovis puer primigenia, C. I. L. , XIV, 2862, 2863) was confounded with hername Iovis puer, and another cult tradition which made Fortuna mother oftwo children. As the Roman deity Jupiter grew in importance, thetendency was for the Romans to misunderstand Iovis puer as the boy godJupiter, as they really did (Wissowa, Relig. U. Kult. D. Roemer, p. 209), and the pride of the Praenestines then made Fortuna the mother ofJupiter and Juno, and considered Primigenia to mean "first born, " not"first born of Jupiter. "]

[Footnote 108: The establishment of the present Cathedral of S. Agapitoas 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 fullbibliography of them is in Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, pp. 51-52. ]

[Footnote 110: Marucchi. Bull. Com. , XXXII (1904), p. 240. I also saw itvery plainly by the light of a torch on a pole, when studying the templein 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 exFesto under manceps. This claims that probably the manceps was in chargeof the maintenance (manutenzione) of the temple, and the cellarii of thecella proper, because aeditui, of whom we have no mention, are theproper 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. DuovirQuinq. Aedem et portic d. D. Fac. Coer. Eidemq. Prob. ]

[Footnote 118: C. I. L. , XIV, 2995; . .. Summa porticummar[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 JuvenalXIV, 88; Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte Roms, II, 107, 10. ]

[Footnote 120: Delbrueck, l. C. , p. 62, with illustration. ]

[Footnote 121: Although Suaresius (Thesaurus Antiq. Italiae, VIII, PartIV, plate, p. 38) uses some worthless inscriptions in making such apoint, his idea is good. Perhaps the lettered blocks drawn for theinquirer from the arca were arranged here on this slab. Anotherpossibility is that it was a place of record of noted cures or answersof the Goddess. Such inscriptions are well known from the temple ofAesculapius 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 noreason why [Greek: lithostroton] can not mean a mosaic floor of coloredmarble, but he forgets comparisons with the date of other Roman mosaics, and that Pliny would not have missed the opportunity of describing suchwonderful 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 theauspices of the Associazione Archeologica di Palestrina betweenProfessors Marucchi and Vaglieri, which is published thus far only inthe daily papers, the Corriere D'Italia of Oct. 2, 1907, and taken up inan article by Attilio Rossi in La Tribuna of October 11, 1907. Vaglieri, in the newspaper article quoted, holds that the mosaic is the work ofClaudius Aelianus, who lived in the latter half of the second centuryA. D. Marucchi, in the same place, says that in the porticoes of theupper temple are traces of mosaic which he attributes to the gift ofSulla mentioned by Pliny XXXVI, 189, but in urging this he must shiftdelubrum Fortunae to the Cortina terrace and that is entirelyimpossible. 

I may say that a careful study and a long paper on the Barberini mosaichas just been written by Cav. Francesco Coltellacci, Segretario Comunaledi 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 becausethe Braschi Antinoüs was found here, and because we find bricks in thewalls with stamps which date from Hadrian's time. But the best proofthat this building, which is under the modern cemetery, is Hadrian's, isthat the measurements of the walls are the same as those in his villabelow Tibur. Dr. Van Deman, of the American School in Rome, spent twodays with me in going over this building and comparing measurements withthe villa at Tibur. I shall publish a plan of the villa in the nearfuture. See Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, for a meagredescription 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 cutback into the solid rock of the cliff just across the road at one cornerof the basilica. An aerarium at Rome under the temple of Saturn isalways mentioned in this connection. There is also a chamber of the samesort at the upper end of the shops in front of the basilica Aemilia inthe Roman Forum, to which Boni has given the name "carcere, " but Huelsenthinks rightly that it is a treasury of some sort. There is a liketreasury in Pompeii back of the market, so Mau thinks, Vaglieri inCorriere 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 praenestinamubi 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 thereduring the excavations. Not. D. Scavi, 1877, p. 328; Fernique, RevueArch. , XXXV (1878), p. 233; Fronto, p. 157 (Naber). ]

[Footnote 134: On Le Colonelle toward S. Pastore. Cecconi, Storia diPalestrina, p. 60. ]

[Footnote 135: I think this better than the supposition that theselibraries were put up by a man skilled in public and private law. SeeC. 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) indiciofuit, 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 pavementwas found in a street back of the cathedral, and many pieces of Doriccolumns which must have been from the peristile of the basilica. SeePlate IV for new pieces just found of these Doric columns. ]

[Footnote 140: Not. D. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49. Also in sameplace: "l'area sacra adiacente al celebre santuario della FortunaPrimigenia" is the description of the cortile of the Seminary. ]

[Footnote 141: More discussion of this point above in connection withthe 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, whichshows 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 referbetter to the Sullan forum below the town, especially as the two basesset 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 alsoHenzen, Bull. Dell'Inst. , 1864, p. 70), were both wrong in putting thenew forum out at le quadrelle, because a number of fragments of thecalendar of Verrius Flaccus were found there. Marucchi proves this inhis 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), isalways to be cited as proof of the forum, and that it had a well-markedupper and lower portion; Statuam habet (M. Verrius Flaccus) Praeneste insuperiore fori parte circa hemicyclium, in quo fastos a se ordinatos etmarmoreo 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 ofinhabitants from the Umbro-Sabellians of the Appennines. Thesestatistics are from A. Schulten, Italische Namen und Staemme, Beitraegezur alten Geschichte, II, 2, p. 171. The same proof comes from thelikeness between the tombs here and in the Faliscan country: "Le tombe acasse soprapposte possono considerarsi come repositori per famiglieintere, e corrispondono alle grande tombe a loculo del territoriofalisco". 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 desertedthe 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 Stellungeingenommen haben" Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alt. , II, p. 523. Praenesteis mentioned first of the league cities in the list given by [AureliusVictor], Origo-gentis Rom. , XVII, 6, and second in the list in DiodorusSiculus, 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 themunicipia 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 onthe small grave stones of Caere, C. I. L. , X, 3635-3692, are neither sonumerous. ]

[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 semperrempublicam separatim a populo Romano haberent, and supplemented, l. C. , Pauli excerpta, p. 159 (de Ponor): participes--fuerunt omniumrerum--praeterquam de suffragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo. ]

[Footnote 175: Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa incivitatem Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l. C. , p. 159. ]

[Footnote 176: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam itavenerunt, ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, utTiburtes, Praenestini, etc. ]

[Footnote 177: I do not think so. The argument is taken up later on page73. It is enough to say here that Tusculum was estranged from the LatinLeague because she was made a municipium (Livy VI, 25-26), and how muchless 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 lateragain, 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, inMilonianam, 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 notshow, I think, what Dessau (C. I. L. , XIV, p. 288) says it does: "quantafuerit potestas imperatoris Romani in magistratus sociorum, " but showsrather that the Roman dictator took advantage of his power to pay offsome of the ancient grudge against the Latins, especially Praeneste. Thestory of M. Marius at Teanum Sidicinum, and the provisions made at Calesand Ferentinum on that account, as told in Gellius X, 3, 2-3, also showplainly that not constitutional powers but arbitrary ones, are inquestion. 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 havebeen held as an arbitrary political precedent. Livy XLII, 1: Ante huncconsulem NEMO umquam sociis in ULLA re oneri aut sumptui fuit. ]

[Footnote 186: Praenestinus praetor . .. Ex subsidiis suos duxerat, LivyIX, 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 gainedsuch a reputation at Casilinum, Livy XXIII, 17-19. Strabo V, 249; cohorsPaeligna, cuius praefectus, etc. , proves nothing for a Latincontingent. ]

[Footnote 188: For the evidence that the consuls were first calledpraetors, 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 evidencethere quoted, and especially from Varro, de l. L. , V, 80: praetor dictusqui praeiret iure et exercitu, thinks that the consuls were notnecessarily called praetors at first, but that probably even in the timeof the kings the leader of the army was called the prae-itor. This is amodification 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 Lawat 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 (Religionund Kultus der Roemer, p. 199), at least a dictator was the head of somesort 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 dictatorshipas 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 onetime 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). Thissurvival is an exact parallel of the rex sacrorum in Rome (forreferences and discussion, see Marquardt, Staatsverw. , III, p. 321), andthe 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 (possibly3008). ]

[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, adedication to Hercules, is later than other mention of two praetors, andis 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, andquaestors 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 suntlatae: quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia legecivitas ita est sociis et Latinis data ut, qui fundi populi facti nonessent civitatem non haberent. Velleius Pater. II, 16: Recipiendo incivitatem, qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius, viresrefectae sunt. Gellius IV, 4, 3; Civitas universo Latio lege Iulia dataest. Appian, Bell. Civ. , I, 49: [Greek: Italioton de tous eti en taesymmachia paramenontas epsaephisato (ae boulae) einai politas, ou daemalista monon ou pantes epethymoun ktl. ]

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

[Footnote 205: Cicero, pro Archia, IV, 7: Data est civitas Silvani legeet Carbonis: si qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti fuissent, si tumcum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent, et si sexagintadiebus 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 PublicLife, p. 311 thinks this law did not apply to any but the incolae offederate 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 conciliainter se ademerunt. Marquardt, Staatsverw. , I, p. 46, n. 3, thinks notan aequum foedus, but from the words: ut is populus alterius populimaiestatem comiter conservaret, a clause in the treaty found inProculus, Dig. , 49, 15, 7 (Corpus Iuris Civ. , I, p. 833) (compare LivyIX, 20, 8: sed ut in dicione populi Romani essent) thinks that the newtreaty was an agreement based on dependence or clientage "einAbhaengigkeits--oder Clientelverhaeltniss. "]

[Footnote 207: Mommsen, Geschichte des roem. Muenzwesens, p. 179 (Frenchtrans, de Blacas, I, p. 186), thinks two series of aes grave are to beassigned to Praeneste and Tibur. ]

[Footnote 208: Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Praeneste, Matienus Tiburexulatum abierunt. ]

[Footnote 209: Polybius VI, 14, 8: [Greek: eoti d asphaleia toispheygousin ente tae, Neapolito kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinonpolei]. Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. 215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw. , I, p. 45. ]

[Footnote 210: Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Praenestini) civitate cum donarenturob virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT. ]

[Footnote 211: The celebration of the feriae Latinae on Mons Albanus in91 B. C. , was to have been the scene of the spectacular beginning of therevolt against Rome, for the plan was to kill the two Roman consulsIulius Caesar and Marcius Philippus at that time. The presence of theRoman consuls and the attendance of the members of the old Latin leagueis 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 mentionedby Cicero, pro Archia, IV, 7, under the names of Silvanus and Carbo. Thetribunes who proposed the law were C. Papirius Carbo and M. PlautiusSilvanus. See Mommsen, Hermes 16 (1881), p. 30, n. 2. Also a good notein Long, Ciceronis Orationes, III, p. 215. ]

[Footnote 213: Appian, Bell. Civ. , I, 65: [Greek: exedramen es tasagchou poleis, tas ou pro pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburtonte kai Praineston, kai osai mechri Nolaes. Erethizon apantas esapostasin, 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 aboutPraaneste and Tibur, except to call them cities ([Greek: poleis]). Hadthey 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: eosItalia pasa prosechomaesei es taen Romaion politeian, choris ge Leukanonkai 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 hominumdefinitur, qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essentsuae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc. ]

[Footnote 217: It is not strange perhaps, that there are no inscriptionswhich can be proved to date between 89 and 82 B. C. , but inscriptions arenumerous from the time of the empire, and although Tiberius grantedPraeneste the favor she asked, that of being a municipium, still nopraefectus is found, not even a survival of the title. 

The PRA . .. In C. I. L. , XIV, 2897, is praeco, not praefectus, as I shallshow 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, asdo curia, municipium and IIIIviri i. D. And aed. Pot. ]

[Footnote 223: Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21): municipia Italiaesplendidissima sub hasta venierunt, Spoletium, Interamnium, Praeneste, Florentia. See C. I. L. , IX, 5074, 5075 for lack of distinction betweencolonia and municipium even in inscriptions. Florentia remained a colony(Mommsen, Hermes, 18 (1883), p. 176). Especially for difference inmeaning of municipium from Roman and municipal point of view, seeMarquardt, Staatsverw. , I, p. 28, n. 2. For difference in earlier andlater meaning of municipes, Marquardt, l. C. , p. 34, n. 8. ValeriusMaximus IX, 2, 1, speaking of Praeneste in connection with Sulla says:quinque milia Praenestinorum extra moenia municipii evocata, wheremunicipium means "town, " and Dessau, C. I. L. , XIV, p. 289, n. 1, speakingof the use of the word says: "ei rei non multum tribuerim. "]

[Footnote 224: Gellius XVI, 13, 5, ex colonia in municipii statumredegit. 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 certainlylater than Tiberius' time. ]

[Footnote 226: Regular colony officials appear all along in theincriptions 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 werethe patricians of the place, and were the only citizens who had fullrights (civitas cum suffragio et iure honorum). Peter, Zeitschrift fuerAlterth. , 1844, p. 198 takes the same view as Niebuhr. Against them areKuhn, Zeitschrift fuer Alterth. , 1854, Sec. 67-68, and Zumpt, StudiaRom. , p. 367. Marquardt, Staatsverw. , I, p. 36, n. 7, says that neitherthesis is proved. ]

[Footnote 233: Dessau, C. I. L. , XIV, p. 289. ]

[Footnote 234: Cicero, de leg. Agr. , II, 28, 78, complains that theproperty once owned by the colonists was now in the hands of a few. Thismeans certainly, mostly bought up by old inhabitants, and a few does notmean a score, but few in comparison to the number of soldiers who hadtaken 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 whichDrusus lived before he was poisoned by Sejanus in 23 A. D. , he would havebeen termed divi Augusti nep. In the Acta Arvalium, C. I. L. , VI, 2023a of14 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 alternatelines spaced in, while the second column has the praenominalabbreviations exactly lined. More certain yet is the likeness whichshows 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 pigneinscriptions, in the C. I. L. , XIV, in the Notizie degli Scavi of 1905 and1907, in the unpublished pigne belonging both to the American School inRome, and to the Johns Hopkins University, all but 15 are simplepraenomina 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 ofthe city of Praeneste seems to have been M. Terentius Varro Lucullus. This is argued by Vaglieri, who reports in Not. D. Scavi, 1907, p. 293ff. The fragment of an architrave of some splendid building on which arethe letters . .. RO. LVCVL . .. These letters Vaglieri thinks are cut inthe style of the age of Sulla. They are fine deep letters, very well cutindeed, although they might perhaps be put a little later in date. Anargument 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 unpopularin Praeneste. It occurs but seven times and every inscription is welldown 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 himto be a Cornelius rather than an Aelius, because of the cognomen. ]

[Footnote 251: One Cornelius, a freedman (C. I. L. , XIV, 3382), and threeCorneliae, freed women or slaves (C. I. L. , XIV, 2992, 3032, 3361), butall at so late a date that the hatred or meaning of the name had beenforgotten. ]

[Footnote 252: A full treatment of the use of the nomen Cornelia inPraeneste will be published soon by the author in connection with hisProsographia Praenestina, and also something on the nomen Terentia (seenote 92). The cutting of one of the two inscriptions underconsideration, 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 Ruteniaand Rotania, there is even a faint chance to believe that this Rotaniusmight 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 inscriptionnow in Warwick Castle, Warwick, England, supposedly from Rome, is theonly instance of the name in the sepulcrales of the C. I. L. , VI. InPraeneste, C. I. L. , XIV, 2966, I, 5, 3360; compare Schulze, GeschichteLat. 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; alsofound in two pigna inscriptions in the Johns Hopkins Universitycollection, as yet unpublished. ]

[Footnote 263: There is a L. Aponius Mitheres on a basis in theBarberini garden in Praeneste, but it may have come from Rome. The nameis found Abonius in Etruria, but Aponia is found well scattered. SeeSchulze, 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 commonname 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)inneiusSappaeus (C. I. L. , VI, 33610) is a freedman, and the inscription islate. ]

[Footnote 269: In the year 216 B. C. The Ninnii Celeres were hostages ofHannibal'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. Ninniusare officials, one would guess duovirs, of the same year in Pompeii, andthus parallel the men here in Praeneste: C. I. L. , X, 885-886: N. PacciusChilo and M. Ninnius Pollio, who in 14 B. C. Are duoviri v. A. S. P. P. (viisannonae sacris publicis procurandis), Henzen; (votis Augustalibus sacrispublicis procurandis), Mommsen; (viis aedibus, etc. ), Cagnat; SeeLiebenam 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 inPauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. , V, 1825. Sometimes the officers weredesignated simply quinquennales, and this seems to have been the earlymethod. 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, ItalischeLandeskunde, 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 aninscription of the time of Augustus and thinks the man here mentioned isone 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 == Dessau6527. ]

[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 Celerid. 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 seenin the fragment C. I. L. , XIV, 4247. ]

[Footnote 315: Zangemeister, C. I. L. , IV. , Index, shows 75 duoviri andbut 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, theother 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 andduovir with T. Diadumenius, as is shown by the connective et. Compare4091, 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 ishowever a Lucilius with this same cognomen Dessau, l. C. ]

[Footnote 320: Probably not the M. Iuventius Laterensis, the Romanquaestor, for the brick stamps of Praeneste in other cases seem to showthe quaestors of the city. ]