THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PRAENESTE.
Praeneste was already a rich and prosperous community, when Rome was
still fighting for a precarious existence. The rapid development,
however, of the Latin towns, and the necessity of mutual protection and
advancement soon brought Rome and Praeneste into a league with the other
towns of Latium. Praeneste because of her position and wealth was the
haughtiest member of the newly made confederation, and with the more
rapid growth of Rome became her most hated rival. Later, when Rome
passed from a position of first among equals to that of mistress of her
former allies, Praeneste was her proudest and most turbulent subject.
From the earliest times, when the overland trade between Upper Etruria,
Magna Graecia, and Lower Etruria came up the Liris valley, and touching
Praeneste and Tibur crossed the river Tiber miles above Rome, that
energetic little settlement looked with longing on the city that
commanded the splendid valley between the Sabine and Volscian mountains.
Rome turned her conquests in the direction of her longings, but could
get no further than Gabii. Praeneste and Tibur were too strongly
situated, and too closely connected with the fierce mountaineers of the
interior,[158] and Rome was glad to make treaties with them on equal
terms.
Rome, however, made the most of her opportunities. Her trade up and
down the river increased, and at the same time brought her in touch with
other nations more and more. Her political importance grew rapidly, and
it was not long before she began to assume the primacy among the towns
of the Latin league. This assumption of a leadership practically hers
already was disputed by only one city. This was Praeneste, and there can
be no doubt but that if Praeneste had possessed anything approaching the
same commercial facilities in way of communication by water she would
have been Rome's greatest rival. As late as 374 B.C. Praeneste was alone
an opponent worthy of Rome.[159]
As head of a league of nine cities,[160] and allied with Tibur, which
also headed a small confederacy,[161] Praeneste felt herself strong
enough to defy the other cities of the league,[162] and in fact even to
play fast and loose with Rome, as Rome kept or transgressed the
stipulations of their agreements. Rome, however, took advantage of
Praeneste at every opportunity. She assumed control of some of her land
in 338 B.C., on the ground that Praeneste helped the Gauls in 390;[163]
she showed her jealousy of Praeneste by refusing to allow Quintus
Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punic
war.[164] This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader of
a contingent from Praeneste was treated by a Roman dictator[165] in 319
B.C. But while these isolated outbursts of jealousy showed the ill
feeling of Rome toward Praeneste, there is yet a stronger evidence of
the fact that Praeneste had been in early times more than Rome's equal,
for through the entire subsequent history of the aggrandizement of Rome
at the expense of every other town in the Latin League, there runs a
bitterness which finds expression in the slurs cast upon Praeneste, an
ever-recurring reminder of the centuries of ancient grudge. Often in
Roman literature Praeneste is mentioned as the typical country town. Her
inhabitants are laughed at because of their bad pronunciation, despised
and pitied because of their characteristic combination of pride and
rusticity. Yet despite the dwindling fortunes of the town she was able
to keep a treaty with Rome on nearly equal terms until 90 B.C., the year
in which the Julian law was passed.[166] Praeneste scornfully refused
Roman citizenship in 216 B.C., when it was offered.[167] This refusal
Rome never forgot nor forgave. No Praenestine families seem to have been
taken into the Roman patriciate, as were some from Alba Longa,[168] nor
did Praeneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honored
as was Cato from Tusculum,[169] although one branch of the gens
Anicia[170] did gain some reputation in imperial times. Rome and
Praeneste seemed destined to be ever at cross purposes, and their
ancient rivalry grew to be a traditional dislike which remained mutual
and lasting.
The continuance of the commercial and military rivalry because of
Praeneste's strategic position as key of Rome, and the religious rivalry
due to the great fame of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, are continuous
and striking historical facts even down into the middle ages. Once in
1297 and again in 1437 the forces of the Pope destroyed the town to
crush the great Colonna family which had made Praeneste a stronghold
against the power of Rome.
There are a great many reasons why Praeneste offers the best
opportunity for a study of the municipal officers of a town of the Latin
league. She kept a practical autonomy longer than any other of the
league towns with the exception of Tibur, but she has a much more varied
history than Tibur. The inscriptions of Praeneste offer especial
advantages, because they are numerous and cover a wide range. The great
number of the old pigne inscriptions gives a better list of names of the
citizens of the second century B.C. and earlier than can be found in any
other Latin town.[171] Praeneste also has more municipal fasti preserved
than any other city, and this fact alone is sufficient reason for a
study of municipal officers. In fact, the position which Praeneste held
during the rise and fall of the Latin League has distinct differences
from that of any other town in the confederation, and these differences
are to be seen in every stage of her history, whether as an ally, a
municipium, or a colonia.
As an ally of Rome, Praeneste did not have a curtailed treaty as did
Alba Longa,[172] but one on equal terms (foedus aequum), such as was
accorded to a sovereign state. This is proved by the right of exile
which both Praeneste and Tibur still retained until as late as 90
B.C.[173]
As a municipium, the rights of Praeneste were shared by only one other
city in the league. She was not a municipium which, like Lanuvium and
Tusculum,[174] kept a separate state, but whose citizens, although
called Roman citizens, were without right to vote, nor, on the other
hand, was she in the class of municipia of which Aricia is a type, towns
which had no vote in Rome, but were governed from there like a city
ward.[175] Praeneste, on the contrary, belonged to yet a third class.
This was the most favored class of all; in fact, equality was implicit
in the agreement with Rome, which was to the effect that when these
cities joined the Roman state, the inhabitants were to be, first of all,
citizens of their own states.[176] Praeneste shared this extraordinary
agreement with Rome with but one other Latin city, Tibur. The question
whether or not Praeneste was ever a municipium in the technical and
constitutional sense of the word is apart from the present discussion,
and will be taken up later.[177]
As a colony, Praeneste has a different history from that of any other of
the colonies founded by Sulla. Because of her stubborn defence, and her
partisanship for Marius, her walls were razed and her citizens murdered
in numbers almost beyond belief. Yet at a later time, Sulla with a
revulsion of kindness quite characteristic of him, rebuilt the town,
enlarged it, and was most generous in every way. The sentiment which
attached to the famous antiquity and renown of Praeneste was too strong
to allow it to lie in ruins. Further, in colonies the most
characteristic officers were the quattuorviri. Praeneste, again
different, shows no trace of such officers.
Indeed, at all times during the history of Latium, Praeneste clearly had
a city government different from that of any other in the old Latin
League. For example, before the Social War[178] both Praeneste and Tibur
had aediles and quaestors, but Tibur also had censors,[179] Praeneste
did not. Lavinium[180] and Praeneste were alike in that they both had
praetors. There were dictators in Aricia,[181] Lanuvium,[182]
Nomentum,[183] and Tusculum,[184] but no trace of a dictator in
Praeneste.
The first mention of a magistrate from Praeneste, a praetor, in 319 B.C,
is due to a joke of the Roman dictator Papirius Cursor.[185] The praetor
was in camp as leader of the contingent of allies from Praeneste,[186]
and the fact that a praetor was in command of the troops sent from
allied towns[187] implies that another praetor was at the head of
affairs at home. Another and stronger proof of the government by two
praetors is afforded by the later duoviral magistracy, and the lack of
friction under such an arrangement.
There is no reason to believe that the Latin towns took as models for
their early municipal officers, the consuls at Rome, rather than to
believe that the reverse was the case. In fact, the change in Rome to
the name consuls from praetors,[188] with the continuance of the name
praetor in the towns of the Latin League, would rather go to prove
that the Romans had given their two chief magistrates a distinctive name
different from that in use in the neighboring towns, because the more
rapid growth in Rome of magisterial functions demanded official
terminology, as the Romans began their "Progressive Subdivision of the
Magistracy."[189] Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two
praetors,[190] and this shows two things: first, that two praetors were
better adapted to circumstances than one dictator; second, that the
majority of the towns had praetors, and had had them, as chief
magistrates, and not dictators,[191] and that such an arrangement was
more satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator[192] at its head
at some time,[193] and the fact that these two praetors are found at
the head of the league in 341 B.C. shows the deference to the more
progressive and influential cities of the league, where praetors were
the regular and well known municipal chief magistrates. Before Praeneste
was made a colony by Sulla, the governing body was a senate,[194] and
the municipal officers were praetors,[195] aediles,[196] and
quaestors,[197] as we know certainly from inscriptions. In the
literature, a praetor is mentioned in 319 B.C.,[198] in 216 B.C.,[199]
and again in 173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the
magistrates of an allied city.[200] In fact nothing in the inscriptions
or in the literature gives a hint at any change in the political
relations between Praeneste and Rome down to 90 B.C., the year in which
the lex Iulia was passed. If a dictator was ever at the head of the city
government in Praeneste, there are none of the proofs remaining, such as
are found in the towns of the Alban Hills, in Etruria, and in the medix
tuticus of the Sabellians. The fact that no trace of the dictator
remains either in Tibur or Praeneste seems to imply that these two towns
had better opportunities for a more rapid development, and that both had
praetors at a very early period.[201]
However strongly the weight of probabilities make for proof in the
endeavor to find out what the municipal government of Praeneste was,
there are a certain number of facts that can now be stated positively.
Before 90 B.C. the administrative officers of Praeneste were two
praetors,[202] who had the regular aediles and quaestors as assistants.
These officers were elected by the citizens of the place. There was
also a senate, but the qualifications and duties of its members are
uncertain. Some information, however, is to be derived from the fact
that both city officers and senate were composed in the main of the
local nobility.[203]
An important epoch in the history of Praeneste begins with the year 91
B.C. In this year the dispute over the extension of the franchise to
Italy began again, and the failure of the measure proposed by the
tribune M. Livius Drusus led to an Italian revolt, which soon assumed a
serious aspect. To mitigate or to cripple this revolt (the so-called
Social or Marsic war), a bill was offered and passed in 90 B.C. This was
the famous law (lex Iulia) which applied to all Italian states that had
not revolted, or had stopped their revolt, and it offered Roman
citizenship (civitas) to all such states, with, however, the remarkable
provision, IF THEY DESIRED IT.[204] At all events, this law either did
not meet the needs of the occasion, or some of the allied states showed
no eagerness to accept Rome's offer. Within a few months after the lex
Iulia had gone into effect, which was late in the year 90, the lex
Plautia Papiria was passed, which offered Roman citizenship to the
citizens (cives et incolae) of the federated cities, provided they
handed in their names within sixty days to the city praetor in
Rome.[205]
There is no unanimity of opinion as to the status of Praeneste in 90
B.C. The reason is twofold. It has never been shown whether Praeneste at
this time belonged technically to the Latins (Latini) or to the allies
(foederati), and it is not known under which of the two laws just
mentioned she took Roman citizenship. In 338 B.C., after the close of
the Latin war, Praeneste and Tibur made either a special treaty[206]
with Rome, as seems most likely, or one in which the old status quo was
reaffirmed. In 268 B.C. Praeneste lost one right of federated cities,
that of coinage,[207] but continued to hold the right of a sovereign
city, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,[208] in common with Tibur
and Naples,[209] and on down to the year 90 at any rate (see note 9). It
is to be remembered too that in the year 216 B.C., after the heroic
deeds of the Praenestine cohort at Casilinum, the inhabitants of
Praeneste were offered Roman citizenship, and that they refused it.[210]
Now if the citizens of Praeneste accepted Roman citizenship in 90 B.C.,
under the conditions of the Julian law (lex Iulia de civitate sociis
danda), then they were still called allies (socii) at that time.[211]
But that the provision in the law, namely, citizenship, if the allies
desired it, did not accomplish its purpose, is clear from the immediate
passage in 89 of the lex Plautia-Papiria.[212] Probably there was some
change of phraseology which was obnoxious in the Iulia. The traditional
touchiness and pride of the Praenestines makes it sure that they
resisted Roman citizenship as long as they could, and it seems more
likely that it was under the provision of the Plautia-Papiria than under
those of the Iulia that separate citizenship in Praeneste became a
thing of the past. Two years later, in 87 B.C., when, because of the
troubles between the two consuls Cinna and Octavius, Cinna had been
driven from Rome, he went out directly to Praeneste and Tibur, which had
lately been received into citizenship,[213] tried to get them to revolt
again from Rome, and collected money for the prosecution of the war.
This not only shows that Praeneste had lately received Roman
citizenship, but implies also that Rome thus far had not dared to assume
any control of the city, or the consul would not have felt so sure of
his reception.
WAS PRAENESTE A MUNICIPIUM?
Just what relation Praeneste bore to Rome between 90 or 89 B.C., when
she accepted Roman citizenship, and 82 B.C. when Sulla made her a
colony, is still an unsettled question. Was Praeneste made a municipium
by Rome, did Praeneste call herself a municipium, or, because the rights
which she enjoyed and guarded as an ally (civitas foederata) had been
so restricted and curtailed, was she called and considered a municipium
by Rome, but allowed to keep the empty substance of the name of an
allied state?
During the development which followed the gradual extension of Roman
citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy, because of the increase of the
rights of autonomy in the colonies, and the limitation of the rights
formerly enjoyed by the cities which had belonged to the old
confederation or league (foederati), there came to be small difference
between a colonia and a municipium. While the nominal difference seems
to have still held in legal parlance, in the literature the two names
are often interchanged.[214] Mommsen-Marquardt say[215] that in 90 B.C.
under the conditions of the lex Iulia Praeneste became a municipium of
the type which kept its own citizenship (ut municipes essent suae
cuiusque civitatis).[216] But if this were true, then Praeneste would
have come under the jurisdiction of the city praetor (praetor urbanus)
in Rome, and there would be praefects to look after cases for him.
Praeneste has a very large body of inscriptions which extend from the
earliest to the latest times, and which are wider in range than those of
any other town in Latium outside Rome. But no inscription mentions a
praefect and here under the circumstances the argumentum ex silentio is
of real constructive value, and constitutes circumstantial evidence of
great weight.[217] Praeneste had lost her ancient rights one after the
other, but it is sure that she clung the longest to the separate
property right. Now the property in a municipium is not considered as
Roman, a result of the old sovereign state idea, as given by the ius
Quiritium and ius Gabinorum, although Mommsen says this had no real
practical value.[218] So whether Praeneste received Roman citizenship in
90 or in 89 B.C. the spirit of her past history makes it certain that
she demanded a clause which gave specific rights to the old federated
states, such as had always been in her treaty with Rome.[219] There
seems to have been no such clause in the lex Iulia of 90 B.C., and this
fact gives still another reason, in addition to the ones mentioned, to
conclude that Praeneste probably took citizenship in 89 under the lex
Plautia-Papiria. The extreme cruelty which Sulla used toward
Praeneste,[220] and the great amount of its land[221] that he took for
his soldiers when he colonized the place, show that Sulla not only
punished the city because it had sided with Marius, but that the feeling
of a Roman magistrate was uppermost, and that he was now avenging
traditional grievances, as well as punishing recent obstreperousness.
There seems to be, however, very good reasons for saying that Praeneste
never became a municipium in the strict legal sense of the word. First,
the particular officials who belong to a municipium, praefects and
quattuorvirs, are not found at all;[222] second, the use of the word
municipium in literature in connection with Praeneste is general, and
means simply "town";[223] third, the fact that Praeneste, along with
Tibur, had clung so jealously to the title of federated state (civitas
foederata) from some uncertain date to the time of the Latin rebellion,
and more proudly than ever from 338 to 90 B.C., makes it very unlikely
that so great a downfall of a city's pride would be passed over in
silence; fourth and last, the fact that the Praenestines asked the
emperor Tiberius to give them the status of a municipium,[224] which he
did,[225] but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular
city officials of a colony,[226] shows clearly that the Praenestines
simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered from
a severe illness at Praeneste[227] to ask him for what was merely an
empty honor. It only salved the pride of the Praenestines, for it gave
them a name which showed a former sovereign federated state, and not the
name of a colony planted by the Romans.[228] The cogency of this fourth
reason will bear elaboration. Praeneste would never have asked for a
return to the name municipium if it had not meant something. At the very
best she could not have been a real municipium with Roman citizenship
longer than seven years, 89 to 82 B.C., and that at a very unsettled
time, nor would an enforced taking of the status of a municipium, not to
mention the ridiculously short period which it would have lasted, have
been anything to look back to with such pride that the inhabitants would
ask the emperor Tiberius for it again. What they did ask for was the
name municipium as they used and understood it, for it meant to them
everything or anything but colonia.
Let us now sum up the municipal history of Praeneste down to 82 B.C.
when she was made a Roman colony by Sulla. Praeneste, from the earliest
times, like Rome, Tusculum, and Aricia, was one of the chief cities in
the territory known as Ancient Latium. Like these other cities,
Praeneste made herself head of a small league,[229] but unlike the
others, offers nothing but comparative probability that she was ever
ruled by kings or dictators. So of prime importance not only in the
study of the municipal officers of Praeneste, but also in the question
of Praeneste's relationship to Rome, is the fact that the evidence from
first to last is for praetors as the chief executive officers of the
Praenestine state (respublica), with their regular attendant officers,
aediles and quaestors; all of whom probably stood for office in the
regular succession (cursus honorum). Above these officers was a senate,
an administrative or advisory body. But although Praeneste took Roman
citizenship either in 90 or 89 B.C.,[56] it seems most likely that she
was not legally termed a municipium, but that she came in under some
special clause, or with some particular understanding, whereby she kept
her autonomy, at least in name. Praeneste certainly considered herself a
federate city, on the old terms of equality with Rome, she demanded and
partially retained control of her own land, and preserved her freedom
from Rome in the matter of city elections and magistrates.
PRAENESTE AS A COLONY.
From the time of Sulla to the establishment of the monarchy, the
expropriation of territory for discharged soldiers found its
expression in great part in the change from Italian cities to
colonies,[230] and of the colonies newly made by Sulla, Praeneste was
one. The misfortunes that befell Praeneste, because she seemed doomed to
be on the losing side in quarrels, were never more disastrously
exemplified than in the punishment inflicted upon her by Sulla, because
she had taken the side of Marius. Thousands of her citizens were killed
(see note 63), her fortifications were thrown down, a great part of her
territory was taken and given to Sulla's soldiers, who were the settlers
of his new-made colony. At once the city government of Praeneste
changed. Instead of a senate, there was now a decuria (decuriones,
ordo); instead of praetors, duovirs with judicial powers (iure dicundo),
in short, the regular governmental officialdom for a Roman colony. The
city offices were filled partly by the new colonists, and the new
government which was forced upon her was so thoroughly established, that
Praeneste remained a colony as long as her history can be traced in the
inscriptions. As has been said, in the time of Tiberius she got back an
empty title, that of municipium, but it had been nearly forgotten again
by Hadrian's time.
There are several unanswered questions which arise at this point. What
was the distribution of offices in the colony after its foundation; what
regulation, if any, was there as to the proportion of officials to the
new make up of the population; and what and who were the quinquennial
duovirs? From the proportionately large fragments of municipal fasti
left from Praeneste it will be possible to reach some conclusions that
may be of future value.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES.
The beginning of this question comes from a passage in Cicero,[231]
which says that the Sullan colonists in Pompeii were preferred in the
offices, and had a status of citizenship better than that of the old
inhabitants of the city. Such a state of affairs might also seem natural
in a colony which had just been deprived of one third of its land, and
had had forced upon it as citizens a troop of soldiers who naturally
would desire to keep the city offices as far as possible in their own
control.[232] Dessau thinks that because this unequal state of
citizenship was found in Pompeii, which was a colony of Sulla's, it
must have been found also in Praeneste, another of his colonies.[233]
Before entering into the question of whether or not this can be proved,
it will be well to mention three probable reasons why Dessau is wrong in
his contention. The first, an argumentum ex silentio, is that if there
was trouble in Pompeii between the old inhabitants and the new colonists
then the same would have been true in Praeneste! As it was so close to
Rome, however, the trouble would have been much better known, and
certainly Cicero would not have lost a chance to bring the state of
affairs at Praeneste also into a comparison. Second, the great pains
Sulla took to rebuild the walls of Praeneste, to lay out a new forum,
and especially to make such an extensive enlargement and so many repairs
of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, show that his efforts were not
entirely to please his new colonists, but just as much to try to defer
to the wishes and civic pride of the old settlers. Third, the fact that
a great many of the old inhabitants were left, despite the great
slaughter at the capture of the city, is shown by the frequent
recurrence in later inscriptions of the ancient names of the city, and
by the fact that within twenty years the property of the soldier
colonists had been bought up,[234] and the soldiers had died, or had
moved to town, or reenlisted for foreign service. Had there been much
trouble between the colonists and the old inhabitants, or had the
colonists taken all the offices, in either case they would not have been
so ready to part with their land, which was a sort of patent to
citizenship.
It is possible now to push the inquiry a point further. Dessau has
already seen[235] that in the time of Augustus members of the old
families were again in possession of many municipal offices, but he
thinks the Praenestines did not have as good municipal rights as the
colonists in the years following the establishment of the colony. There
are six inscriptions[236] which contain lists more or less fragmentary
of the magistrates of Praeneste, the duovirs, the aediles, and the
quaestors. Two of these inscriptions can be dated within a few years,
for they show the election of Germanicus and Drusus Caesar, and of Nero
and Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, to the quinquennial duovirate.[237]
Two others[81] are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of several
peculiarities,[239] and one other, a fragment, belongs to still another
calendar.[240] It will first be necessary to show that these
last-mentioned inscriptions can be referred to some time not much later
than the founding of the colony at Praeneste by Sulla, before any use
can be made of the names in the list to prove anything about the early
distribution of officers in the colony. Two of these inscriptions[238]
should be placed, I think, very early in the annals of the colony. They
show a list of municipal officers whose names, with a single exception,
which will be accounted for later, have only praenomen and nomen, a
way of writing names which was common to the earlier inhabitants of
Praeneste, and which seems to have made itself felt here in the names of
the colonists.[241] Again, from the fact that in the only place in the
inscriptions where the quinquennialship is mentioned, it is the simple
term, without the prefixed duoviri. In the later inscriptions from
imperial times,[80] both forms are found, while in the year 31 A.D. in
the municipal fasti of Nola[242] are found II vir(i) iter(um)
q(uinquennales), and in 29 B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,[243]
officials with the same title, duoviri quinquennales, which show that
the officers of the year in which the census was taken were given both
titles. Marquardt makes this a proof that the quinquennial title shows
nothing more than a function of the regular duovir.[244] It is certain
too that after the passage of the lex Iulia in 45 B.C., that the census
was taken in the Italian towns at the same time as in Rome, and the
reports sent to the censor in Rome.[245] This duty was performed by the
duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power.[246]
The inscriptions under consideration, then, would seem to date certainly
before 49 B.C.
Another reason for placing these inscriptions in the very early days of
the colony is derived from the use of names. In this list of
officials[247] there is a duovir by the name of P. Cornelius, and
another whose name is lost except for the cognomen, Dolabella, but he
can be no other than a Cornelius, for this cognomen belongs to that
family.[248] Early in the life of the colony, immediately after its
settlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's
monuments,[249] while the soldiers from Sulla's army were the new
citizens of the town, would be the time to look for men in the city
offices whose election would have been due to Sulla, or would at least
appear to have been a compliment to him. Sulla was one of the most
famous of the family of the Cornelii, and men of the gens Cornelia might
well have expected preferment during the early years of the colony. That
such was the case is shown here by the recurrence of the name Cornelius
in the list of municipal officers in two succeeding years. Now if the
name "Cornelia" grew to be a name in great disfavor in Praeneste, the
reason would be plain enough. The destruction of the town, the loss of
its ancient liberties, and the change in its government, are more than
enough to assure hatred of the man who had been the cause of the
disasters. And there is proof too that the Praenestines did keep a
lasting dislike to the name "Cornelia." There are many inscriptions of
Praeneste which show the names (nomina) Aelia, Antonia, Aurelia,
Claudia, Flavia, Iulia, Iunia, Marcia, Petronia, Valeria, among others,
but besides the two Cornelii in this inscription under consideration,
and one other[250] mentioned in the fragment above (see note 83), there
are practically no people of that name found in Praeneste,[251] and the
name is frequent enough in other towns of the old Latin league. From
these reasons, namely, the way in which only praenomina and nomina are
used, the simple, earlier use of quinquennalis, and especially the
appearance of the name Cornelius here, and never again until in the late
empire, it follows that the names of the municipal officers of Praeneste
given in these inscriptions certainly date between 81 and 50 B.C.[252]
THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS.
The question now arises whether the new colonists had better rights
legally than the old citizens, and whether they had the majority of
votes and elected city officers from their own number. The inscriptions
with which we have to deal are both fragments of lists of city officers,
and in the longer of the two, one gives the officers for four years, the
corresponding column for two years and part of a third. A Dolabella,
who belongs to the gens Cornelia, as we have seen, heads the list as
duovir. The aedile for the same year is a certain Rotanius.[253] This
name is not found in the sepulchral inscriptions of the city of Rome,
nor in the inscriptions of Praeneste except in this one instance. This
man is certainly one of the new colonists, and probably a soldier from
North Italy.[254] Both the quaestors of the same year are given. They
are M. Samiarius and Q. Flavius. Samiarius is one of the famous old
names of Praeneste.[255] In the same way, the duovirs of the next year,
C. Messienus and P. Cornelius, belong, the one to Praeneste, the other
to the colonists,[256] and just such an arrangement is also found in
the aediles, Sex. Caesius being a Praenestine[257], L. Nassius a
colonist. Q. Caleius and C. Sertorius, the quaestors of the same year,
do not appear in the inscriptions of Praeneste except here, and it is
impossible to say more than that Sertorius is a good Roman name, and
Caleius a good north Italian one.[258] C. Salvius and T. Lucretius,
duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in another
inscription,[259] L. Curtius and C. Vibius, the aediles,--Statiolenus
and C. Cassius, the quaestors, show the same phenomenon, for it seems
quite possible from other inscriptional evidence to claim Salvius,
Vibius,[260] and Statiolenus[261] as men from the old families of
Praeneste. The quinquennalis for the next year, M. Petronius, has a name
too widely prevalent to allow any certainty as to his native place, but
the nomen Petronia and Ptronia is an old name in Praeneste.[262] In the
second column of the inscription, although the majority of the names
there seem to belong to the new colonists, as those in the first column
do to the old settlers, there are two names, Q. Arrasidius and T.
Apponius, which do not make for the argument either way.[263] In the
smaller fragment there are but six names: M. Decumius and L.
Ferlidius, C. Paccius and C. Ninn(ius), C. Albinius and Sex. Capivas,
but from these one gets only good probabilities. The nomen Decumia is
well attested in Praeneste before the time of Sulla.[264] In fact the
same name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions.[265] Paccia
has been found this past year in Praenestine territory, and may well be
an old Praenestine name, for the inscriptions of a family of the name
Paccia have come to light at Gallicano.[266] Capivas is at least not a
Roman name,[267] but from its scarcity in other places can as well be
one of the names that are so frequent in Praeneste, which show Etruscan
or Sabine formation, and which prove that before Sulla's time the city
had a great many inhabitants who had come from Etruria and from back in
the Sabine mountains. Ninnius[268] is a name not found elsewhere in the
Latian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,[269] and
is found also in Pompeii[270] and Puteoli.[271] It seems a fair
supposition to make at the outset, as we have seen that various writers
on Praeneste have done, that the new colonists would try to keep the
highest office to themselves, at any rate, particularly the duovirate.
But a study of the names, as has been the case with the less important
officers, fails even to bear this out.[272] These lists of municipal
officers show a number of names that belong with certainty to the older
families of Praeneste, and thus warrant the statement that the colonists
did not have better rights than the old settlers, and that not even in
the duovirate, which held an effective check (maior potestas)[273] on
the aediles and quaestors, can the names of the new colonists be shown
to outnumber or take the place of the old settlers.
THE QUINQUENNALES.
There remains yet the question in regard to the men who filled the
quinquennial office. We know that whether the officials of the municipal
governments were praetors, aediles, duovirs, or quattuorvirs, at
intervals of five years their titles either were quinquennales,[274] or
had that added to them, and that this title implied censorial
duties.[275] It has also been shown that after 46 B.C. the lex Iulia
compelled the census in the various Roman towns to be taken by the
proper officers in the same year that it was done in Rome. This implies
that the taking of the census had been so well established a custom that
it was a long time before Rome itself had cared to enact a law which
changed the year of census taking in those towns which had not of their
own volition made their census contemporaneous with that in Rome.
That the duration of the quinquennial office was one year is
certain,[276] that it was eponymous is also sure,[277] but whether the
officers who performed these duties every five years did so in
addition to holding the highest office of the year, or in place of that
honor, is a question not at all satisfactorily answered. That is, were
the men who held the quinquennial office the men who would in all
probability have stood for the duovirate in the regular succession of
advance in the round of offices (cursus honorum), or did the government
at Rome in some way, either directly or indirectly, name the men for the
highest office in that particular year when the census was to be taken?
That is, again, were quinquennales elected as the other city officials
were, or were they appointed by Rome, or were they merely designated by
Rome, and then elected in the proper and regular way by the citizens of
the towns?
At first glance it seems most natural to suppose that Rome would want
exact returns from the census, and might for that reason try to dictate
the men who were to take it, for on the census had been based always the
military taxes, contingents, etc.[278] The first necessary inquiry is
whether the quinquennales were men who previously had held office as
quaestors or aediles, and the best place to begin such a search is in
the municipal calendars (fasti magistratuum municipalium), which give
the city officials with their rank.
There are fragments left of several municipal fasti; the one which gives
the longest unbroken list is that from Venusia,[279] which gives the
full list of the city officials of the years 34-29 B.C., and the aediles
of 35, and both the duovirs and praetors of the first half of 28 B.C. In
29 B.C., L. Oppius and L. Livius were duoviri quinquennales. These are
both good old Roman names, and stand out the more in contrast with
Narius, Mestrius, Plestinus, and Fadius, the aediles and quaestors.
Neither of these quinquennales had held any office in the five preceding
years at all events. One of the two quaestors of the year 33 B.C. is a
L. Cornelius. The next year a L. Cornelius, with the greatest
probability the same man, is praefect, and again in the year 30 he is
duovir. Also in the year 32 L. Scutarius is quaestor, and in the last
half of 31 is duovir. C. Geminius Niger is aedile in 30, and duovir in
28. So what we learn is that a L. Cornelius held the quaestorship one
year, was a praefect the next, and later a regularly elected duovir;
that L. Scutarius went from quaestor one year to duovir the next,
without an intervening office, and but a half year of intervening time;
and that C. Geminius Niger was successively aedile and duovir with a
break of one year between.
The fasti of Nola[280] give the duovirs and aediles for four years,
29-32 A.D., but none of the aediles mentioned rose to the duovirate
within the years given. Nor do we get any help from the fasti of
Interamna Lirenatis[281] or Ostia,[282] so the only other calendar we
have to deal with is the one from Praeneste, the fragments of which have
been partially discussed above.
The text of that piece[283] which dates from the first years of
Tiberius' reign is so uncertain that one gets little information from
it. But certainly the M. Petronius Rufus who is praefect for Drusus
Caesar is the same as the Petronius Rufus who in another place is
duovir. The name of C. Dindius appears twice also, once with the office
of aedile, but two years later seemingly as aedile again, which must be
a mistake. M. Cominius Bassus is made quinquennalis by order of the
senate, and also made praefect for Germanicus and Drusus Caesar in their
quinquennial year. He is not found in any other inscription, and is
otherwise unknown.[284] The only other men who attained the quinquennial
rank in Praeneste were M. Petronius,[285] and some man with the cognomen
Minus,[286] neither of whom appears anywhere else. A man with the
cognomen Sedatus is quaestor in one year, and without holding other
office is made praefect to the sons of Germanicus, Nero and Drusus, who
were nominated quinquennales two years later.[287] There is no positive
proof in any of the fasti that any quinquennalis was elected from one of
the lower magistrates. There is proof that duovirs were elected, who had
been aediles or quaestors. Also it has been shown that in two cases men
who had been quaestors were made praefects, that is, appointees of
people who had been nominated quinquennales as an honor, and who had at
once appointed praefects to carry out their duties.
Another question of importance rises here. Who were the quinquennales?
They were not always inhabitants of the city to the office of which they
had been nominated, as has been shown in the cases of Drusus and
Germanicus Caesar, and Nero and Drusus the sons of Germanicus, nominated
or elected quinquennales at Praeneste, and represented in both cases by
praefects appointed by them.[288]
From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers'
union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,[289] praetor of a small town
some ten miles from Ostia, and also quattuorvir quinquennalis of
Faesulae, a town above Florence, which seems to show that he was sent to
Faesulae as a quinquennalis, for the honor which he had held previously
was that of praetor in Laurentum.
At Tibur, in Hadrian's time, a L. Minicius L.f. Gal. Natalis Quadromius
Verus, who had held offices previously in Africa, in Moesia, and in
Britain, was made quinquennalis maximi exempli. It seems certain that he
was not a resident of Tibur, and since he was not appointed as praefect
by Hadrian, it seems quite reasonable to think that either the emperor
had a right to name a quinquennalis, or that he was asked to name
one,[290] when one remembers the proximity of Hadrian's great villa, and
the deference the people of Tibur showed the emperor. There is also in
Tibur an inscription to a certain Q. Pompeius Senecio, etc.--(the man
had no less than thirty-eight names), who was an officer in Asia in 169
A.D., a praefect of the Latin games (praefectus feriarum Latinarum),
then later a quinquennalis of Tibur, after which he was made patron of
the city (patronus municipii).[291] A Roman knight, C. Aemilius
Antoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii at
Tibur.[292]
N. Cluvius M'. f.[293] was a quattuorvir at Caudium, a duovir at Nola,
and a quattuorvir quinquennalis at Capua, which again shows that a
quinquennalis need not have been an official previously in the town in
which he held the quinquennial office.
C. Maenius C.f. Bassus[294] was aedile and quattuorvir at Herculaneum
and then after holding the tribuneship of a legion is found next at
Praeneste as a quinquennalis.
M. Vettius M.f. Valens[295] is called in an inscription duovir
quinquennalis of the emperor Trajan, which shows not an appointment from
the emperor in his place, for that would have been as a praefect, but
rather that the emperor had nominated him, as an imperial right. This
man held a number of priestly offices, was patron of the colony of
Ariminum, and is called optimus civis.
Another inscription shows plainly that a man who had been quinquennalis
in his own home town was later made quinquennalis in a colony founded by
Augustus, Hispellum.[296] This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominated
quinquennalis by the emperor.
C. Pompilius Cerialis,[297] who seems to have held only one other
office, that of praefect to Drusus Caesar in an army legion, was
duovir iure dicundo quinquennalis in Volaterrae.
M. Oppius Capito was not only quinquennalis twice at Auximum, patron of
that and another colony, but he was patron of the municipium of Numana,
and also quinquennalis.[298]
Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superaequum, and
held no other offices.[299]
Again, particularly worthy of notice is the fact that when L. Septimius
L.f. Calvus, who had been aedile and quattuorvir at Teate Marrucinorum,
was given the quinquennial rights, it was of such importance that it
needed especial mention, and that such mention was made by a decree of
the city senate,[300] shows clearly that such a method of getting a
quinquennalis was out of the ordinary.
M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum[301] has the title Augustalis duovir
quinquennalis, and no other title but that of praefect of a cohort.
C. Egnatius Marus of Venusia was flamen of the emperor Tiberius,
pontifex, and praefectus fabrum, and three times duovir quinquennalis,
which seems to show a deference to a man who was the priest of the
emperor, and seems to preclude an election by the citizens after a
regular term of other offices.[302]
Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate,
which again shows the irregularity of the choice.[303]
M. Traesius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an
inhabitant of Atinae in Lucania.[304]
M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was aedile and duovir in Pompeii,[305]
was not elected quinquennalis, but made praefectus quinquennalis, which
implies appointment.
M. Holconius Celer was a priest of Augustus, and with no previous city
offices is mentioned as quinquennalis-elect, which can perhaps as well
mean nominated by the emperor, as designated by the popular vote.[306]
P. Sextilius Rufus,[307] aedile twice in Nola, is quinquennalis in
Pompeii. As he was chosen by the old inhabitants of Nola to their
senate, this would show that he belonged probably to the new settlers in
the colony introduced by Augustus, and for some reason was called over
also to Pompeii to take the quinquennial office.
L. Aufellius Rufus at Cales was advanced from the position of primipilus
of a legion to that of quinquennalis, without having held any other city
offices, but he was flamen of the deified emperor (Divus Augustus), and
patron of the city.[308]
M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being aedile or
quaestor, in Aquinum.[309]
Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but a quinquennalis at
Aquinum.[310]
The quinquennial year seems to have been the year in which matters of
consequence were more likely to be done than at other times.
In 166 A.D. in Ostia a dedication was of importance enough to have the
names of both the consuls of the year and the duoviri quinquennales at
the head of the inscription.[311]
The year that C. Cuperius and C. Arrius were quinquennales with
censorial power (II vir c.p.q.) in Ostia, there was a dedication of some
importance in connection with a tree that had been struck by
lightning.[312]
In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta was passed
in the year when there were quinquennales.[313]
In addition to the fact that the emperors were sometimes chosen
quinquennales, the consuls were too. M'. Acilius Glabrio, consul
ordinarius of 152 A.D., was made patron of Tibur and quinquennalis
designatus.[314]
On the other hand, against this array of facts, are others just as
certain, if not so cogent or so numerous. From the inscriptions painted
on the walls in Pompeii, we know that in the first century A.D. men were
recommended as quinquennales to the voters. But although there seems to
be a large list of such inscriptions, they narrow down a great deal, and
in comparison with the number of duovirs, they are considerably under
the proportion one would expect, for instead of being as 1 to 4, they
are really only as 1 to 19.[315] What makes the candidacy for
quinquennialship seem a new and unaccustomed thing is the fact that the
appeals for votes which are painted here and there on the walls are
almost all recommendations for just two men.[316]
There are quinquennales who were made patrons of the towns in which they
held the office, but who held no other offices there (1); some who were
both quaestors and aediles or praetors (2); quinquennales of both
classes again who were not made patrons (3, 4); praefects with
quinquennial power (5); quinquennales who go in regular order through
the quattuorviral offices (6); those who go direct to the quinquennial
rank from the tribunate of the soldiers (7); and (8) a VERY FEW who have
what seems to be the regular order of lower offices first, quaestor,
aedile or praetor, duovir, and then quinquennalis.[317]
The sum of the facts collected is as follows: the quinquennales are
proved to have been elective officers in Pompeii. The date, however, is
the third quarter of the first century A.D., and the office may have
been but recently thrown open to election, as has been shown.
Quinquennales who have held other city offices are very, very few, and
they appear in inscriptions of fairly late date.
On the other hand, many quinquennales are found who hold that office and
no other in the city, men who certainly belong to other towns, many who
from their nomination as patrons of the colony or municipium, are
clearly seen to have held the quinquennial power also as an honor given
to an outsider. In what municipal fasti we have, we find no
quinquennalis whose name appears at all previously in the list of city
officials.
The fact that the lex Iulia in 45 B.C. compelled the census to be taken
everywhere else in the same year as in Rome shows at all events that the
census had been taken in certain places at other times, whether with an
implied supervision from Rome or not, and the later positive evidence
that the emperors and members of the imperial family, and consuls, who
were nominated quinquennales, always appointed praefects in their
places, who with but an exception or two were not city officials
previously, certainly tends to show that at some time the quinquennial
office had been influenced in some way from Rome. The appointment of
outside men as an honor would then be a survival of the custom of having
outsiders for quinquennales, in many places doubtless a revival of a
custom which had been in abeyance, to honor the imperial family.
In Praeneste, as in other colonies, it seems reasonable that Rome would
want to keep her hand on affairs to some extent. Rome imposed on the
colonies their new kind of officials, and in the fixing of duties and
rights, what is more likely than that Rome would reserve a voice in the
choice of those officials who were to turn in the lists on which Rome
had to depend for the census?
Rome always made different treaties and understandings with her allies;
according to circumstances, she made different arrangements with
different colonies; even Sulla's own colonies show a vast difference in
the treatment accorded them, for the plan was to conciliate the old
inhabitants if they were still numerous enough to make it worth while,
and the gradual change is most clearly shown by its crystallization in
the lex Iulia of 45 B.C.
The evidence seems to warrant the following conclusions in regard to the
quinquennales: From the first they were the most important city
officials; they were elected by the people from the first, but were men
who had been recommended in some way, or had been indorsed beforehand by
the central government in Rome; they were not necessarily men who had
held office previously in the city to which they were elected
quinquennales; with the spread of the feeling of real Roman citizenship
the necessity for indorsement from Rome fell into abeyance; magistrates
were elected who had every expectation of going through the series of
municipal offices in the regular way to the quinquennialship; and the
later election of emperors and others to the quinquennial office was a
survival of the habitual realization that this most honorable of city
offices had some connection with the central authority, whatever that
happened to be, and was not an integral part of municipal self
government.
Such are some of the questions which a study of the municipal officers
of Praeneste has raised. It would be both tedious and unnecessary to
enumerate again the offices which were held in Praeneste during her
history, but an attempt to place such a list in a tabular way is made in
the following pages.
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE.
NAME. OFFICE. C.I.L. (XIV.)
Drusus Caesar } Quinq. 2964
Germanicus Caesar }
Nero et Drusus Germanici filii Quinq. 2965
Nero Caesar, between 51-54 A.D. IIvir Quinq. 2995
-- Accius ... us Q 2964
P. Acilius P.f. Paullus, 243 A.D.Q. Aed. IIvir. 2972
L. Aiacius Q 2964
C. Albinius Aed (?) 2968
M. Albinius M.f. Aed, IIvir, 2974
IIvir quinq.
M. Anicius (Livy VIII, 11, 4) Pr.
M. Anicius L.f. Baaso Aed. 2975
P. Annius Septimus IIvir. 4091, 1
(M). Antonius Subarus[318] IIvir. 4091, 18
Aper, see Voesius.
T. Aponius Q 2966
P. Aquilius Gallus IIvir. 4091, 2
Q. Arrasidius Aed. 2966
C. Arrius Q 2964
M. Atellius Q 2964
Attalus, see Claudius.
Baaso, see Anicius.
Bassus, see Cominius.
C. Caecilius Aed. 2964
C. Caesius M.f. IIvir quinq. 2980
Sex. Caesius Aed. 2966
Q. Caleius Q 2966
Canies, see Saufeius.
Sex. Capivas Q (?) 2968
C. Cassius Q 2966
Celsus, see Maesius.
Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus IIvir. Not. d. Scavi.
1894, p. 96.
M (?), Cominius Bassus Quinq. Praef. 2964
-- Cordus Q 2964
P. Cornelius IIvir. 2966
-- (Cornelius) Dolabella IIvir. 2966
-- (Corn)elius Rufus Aed. 2967
L. Curtius Aed. 2966
-- Cur(tius) Sura IIvir. 2964
M. Decumius Q (?) 2968
T. Diadumenius (see Antonius IIvir. 4091, 18
Subarus)
C. Dindius Aed. 2964
Dolabella, see Cornelius.
(Also Chap. II, n. 93.)
-- Egnatius IIvir. 4091,3
Cn. Egnatius Aed. 2964
L. Fabricius C.f. Vaarus Aed. Not. d. Scavi.
1907, p. 137.
C. Feidenatius Pr. 2999
L. Ferlidius Q (?) 2968
Fimbria, see Geganius.
Flaccus, see Saufeius.
C. Flavius L.f. IIvir quinq. 2980
Q. Flavius Q 2966
T. Flavius T.f. Germanus 181 A.D. Aed. IIvir. 2922
IIvir. QQ
-- (Fl)avius Musca Q 2965
Gallus, see Aquilius.
Sex. Geganius Finbria IIvir. 4091, 1
Germanus, see Flavius.
-- [I]nstacilius Aed. 2964
C. Iuc ... Rufus[319] Q 2964
Laelianus, see Lutatius.
M'. Later ...[320] Q 4091, 12
(See Add. 4091, 12)
T. Livius Aed. 2964
T. Long ... Priscus IIvir. 4091, 4
T. Lucretius IIvir. 2966
Sex. Lutatius Q.f. Laelianus Pr. 2930
Oppianicus Petronianus
-- Macrin(ius) Nerian(us) Aed. 4091, 10
Sex. Maesius Sex. f. Celsus Q. Aed. IIvir. 2989
L. Mag(ulnius) M.f. Q 4091, 13
C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Q 2990
C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Pr. 2906
Maxs(umus)
M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato. Pr.(?) 3008
Mamilianus, see Claudius.
-- Manilei Post A(e)d. 2964
-- Mecanius IIvir. 4091, 5
M. Mersieius C.f. Aed. 2975
C. Messienus IIvir. 2966
Q. Mestrius IIvir. 4091, 6
-- -- Minus Quinq. 2964
Musca, see Flavius.
L. Nassius Aed. 2966
M. Naut(ius) Q 4091, 14
Nerianus, see Macrinius.
C. Ninn(ius) IIvir.(?) 2968
Oppianicus, see Lutatius.
L. Orcevius Pr. 2902
C. Orcivi(us) Pr. IIvir. 2994
C. Paccius IIvir. (?) 2968
Paullus, see Acilius.
L. Petisius Potens IIvir. 2964
Petronianus, see Lutatius.
M. Petronius Quinq. 2966
(M). Petronius Rufus IIvir. 2964
M. Petronius Rufus Quinq. Praef. 2964
Planta, see Treb ...
ti
C. Pom pei us IIvir. 2964
Sex. Pomp(eius) IIvir. Praef. 2995
Pontanus, see Saufeius.
Potens, see Petisius.
Praenestinus praetor (Chap. II, n.
28.) Livy IX, 16, 17.
Priscus, see Long ...
Pulcher, see Vettius.
-- Punicus Lig ... IIvir. 2964
C. Raecius IIvir. 2964
M. Raecius Q 2964
-- Rotanius Aed 2966
Rufus, see Cornelius, Iuc ...,
Petronius, Tertius.
Rutilus, see Saufeius.
T. Sabidius Sabinus IIvir. Not. d. Scavi.
1894, p. 96.
-- -- Sabinus Q 2967
C. Salvius IIvir. 2966
C. Salvius IIvir. 2964
M. Samiarius Q 2966
C. Sa(mi)us Pr. 2999
-- Saufei(us) Pr. IIvir. 2994
M. Saufe(ius) ... Canies Aid. Not. d. Scavi.
1907, p. 137.
C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus Pr. 2906
C. Saufeius C.f. Flacus Q 3002
L. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus Q 3001
C. Saufeius C.f. Pontanus Aed. 3000
M. Saufeius L.f. Pontanus Aed. 3000
M. Saufeius M.f. Rutilus Q 3002
Scato, see Magulnius.
P. Scrib(onius) IIvir. 4091, 3
-- -- Sedatus Q. Pr(aef). 2965
Septimus, see Annius.
C. Sertorius Q 2966
Q. Spid Q (?) 2969
-- Statiolenus Q 2966
L. Statius Sal. f. IIvir. 3013
Subarus, see Antonius.
C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus Pr. 2890
C. Tappurius IIvir. 4091, 6
Tarenteinus, see Tampius.
-- Tedusius T. (f.) IIvir. 3012a
M. Tere ... Cl ... IIvir. 4091, 7
-- Tert(ius) Rufus IIvir. 2998
C. Thorenas Q 2964
L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. Pr. (?) 3008
C. Treb ... Pianta IIvir. 4091, 4
(Se)x. Truttidius IIvir. 2964
Vaarus, see Fabricius.
-- (?)cius Valer(ianus) Q 2967
M. Valerius Q 2964
Varus, see Voluntilius.
-- Vassius V. Aed. (?) 2964
L. Vatron(ius) Pr. 2902
C. Velius Aed. 2964
Q. Vettius T. (f) Pulcher IIvir. 3012
C. Vibius Aed. 2966
Q. Vibuleius L.f. IIvir. 3013
Cn. Voesius Cn. f. Aper. Q. Aed. IIvir. 3014
C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus IIvir. 3020
-- -- -- IIvir. 4091, 8
IIvir. Quinq.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF PRAENESTE.
BEFORE PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY.
=======================================================================================
DATE | IIVIRI. | AEDILES. | QUAESTORES.
--------+-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------------
B.C. | | |
9 | Praenestinus praetor. | |
5 | M. Anicius. | |
{ | | {M. Anicius L.f. |
{ | | { Baaso. |
{ | | {M. Mersieius C.f.|
{ | | |
{ | {C. Samius. | |
{ | {C. Feidenatius. | |
{ | C. Tampius C.f. Tarenteinus. | |
{ | {C. Vatronius. | |
{ | {L. Orcevius. | |
{ | | {C. Saufeius C.f. |
{ | | { Pontanus. |
{ | | {M. Saufeius L.f. |
2{ | | { Pontanus. |
8{ | | | C. Magulnius C.f.
{ | | | Scato.
e{ | {L. Tondeius L.f.M.n. | |
r{ | {M. Magulnius Sp. f.M.n. Scato. | |
o{ | | {L. Fabricius C.f.|
f{ | | { Vaarus. |
e{ | | {M. Saufe(ius) |
B{ | | { Canies. |
{ | | | {M. Saufeius M.f.
{ | | | { Rutilus.
{ | | | {C. Saufeius C.f.
{ | | | { Flacus.
{ | {C. Magulnius C.f. Scato Maxsumus.| |
{ | {C. Saufeius C.f. Flaccus. | |
{ | | | L. Saufeius C.f.
{ | | | Flaccus.
3 or | {C. Orcivius} Praestores | |
| { } isdem | |
2(?) | {--Saufeius } Duumviri. | |
--------+-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------------
A Senate is mentioned in the inscriptions C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001,
3002.
AFTER PRAENESTE WAS A COLONY.
==========================================================================================
DATE | IIVIRI. | AEDILES. | QUAESTORES.
-----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+----------------------
| | |
B.C. | | |
80-75(?) | | | ... Sabinus.
| | |
2d year | {... nus. | {-- (Corn)elius | -- (?) cius Valer
| { | { Rufus. | (ianus).
| {... ter. | |
| | |
80-50 | | |
| | | {M. Samiarius.
1st year | -- (Cornelius) Dolabella. | -- Rotanius. | {Q. (Fl)avius.
| | |
2d year | {C. Messienus. | {Sex. Caesius. | {Q. Caleius.
| {P. Cornelius. | {L. Nassius. | {C. Sertorius.
| | |
3d year | {C. Salvius. | {L. Curtius. | {-- Statiolenus.
| {T. Lucretius. | {C. Vibius. | {C. Cassius.
| | |
4th year | M. Petronius, Quinq. | Q. Arrasidius. | T. Aponius.
| | |
75-50 | | |
| | | {M. Decumius.
1st year | | | {L. Ferlidius.
| | |
2d year | {C. Paccius. | {C. Albinius. | {Sex. Capivas.
| {C. Ninn(ius). | {Sex Po ... | {C. M ...
| | |
? | {C. Caesius M.f. } Duoviri | |
| {C. Flavius L.f. } Quinq. | |
| | |
? | {Q. Vettius T. (f.) Pulcher. | |
| {-- Tedusius T. (f.). | |
| | |
? | {Q. Vibuleius L.f. | |
| {L. Statius Sal. f. | |
| | |
A.D. | | |
12 | | | M. Atellius.
| | |
13 | C. Raecius. | {-- (--) lius. | {-- Accius ... us
| | {C. Velius. | {M. Valerius.
| | |
| {Germanicus Caesar. | |
| { Quinq. | |
14 | {Drusus Caesar. | |
| {M. Cominius Bassus. | |
| { Pr. | {C. Dindius. | {C. Iuc .. Rufus.
| {M. Petronius Rufus | {Cn. Egnatius. | {C. Thorenas.
| | |
15 | {Cn. Pom(pei)us. | | {M. Raecius.
| {-- Cur (tius?) Sura. | | {-- Cordus.
| | |
16 | {L. Petisius Potens | {C. Dindius. | {L. Aiacius.
| {C. Salvius. | {T. Livius. | {C. Arrius.
| | |
? | | -- Vassius. |
| | |
? | -- Punicus. | -- Manilei. |
| | |
? | ... Minus Quinq. | -- (?) rius. |
| | |
? | (Se)x Truttidi(us). | C. Caecilius. |
| | |
? | (M.) Petronius Rufus | -- (I)nstacilius.|
| | |
1st year | | | -- Sedatus.
| | |
2d year | ... lus | | -- (Fl)avius Musca.
| | |
| {Nero et Drusus } Duoviri | |
3d year | {Germanici f. } Quinq. | |
| {....... } Praef. | |
| {... Sedatus. } | |
| | |
101 | {Ti. Claudius Attalus Mamilianus. | |
| {T. Sabidius Sabinus. | |
| | |
100-256 | {P. Annius Septimus. | |
| {Sex. Geganius Fimbria. | |
| | |
| P. Aquilius Gallus. | |
-----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+----------------------
==========================================================================================
DATE | IIVIRI. | AEDILES. | QUAESTORES.
-----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+----------------------
O. | | |
| | |
250 | {--Egnat(ius). | |
| {P. Scrib(onius). | |
| {T. Long ... Prisc(us) | |
| {C. Treb ... Planta. | |
| --Mecanius. | |
| {Q. Mestrius. | |
| {C. Tappurius. | |
| M. Tere ... Cl ... | |
| C. Voluntilius Q.f. Varus. | |
| | --Macrin(ius) |
| | Nerian(us). |
| | | M'. Later ...
| | | L. Mag(ulnius) M.f.
| {(M). Antonius Subarus. | | M. Naut(ius).
| {T. Diadumenius. | |
-----------+-----------------------------------+------------------+----------------------
Decuriones populusque colonia Praenestin., C.I.L., XIV, 2898, 2899;
decuriones populusque 2970, 2971, Not. d. Scavi 1894, P. 96; other
mention of decuriones 2980, 2987, 2992, 3013; ordo populusque 2914;
decretum ordinis 2991; curiales, in the late empire, Symmachus, Rel.,
28, 4.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: Strabo V, 3, II.]
[Footnote 2: We know that in 380 B.C. Praeneste had eight towns under
her jurisdiction, and that they must have been relatively near by. Livy
VI, 29, 6: octo praeterea oppida erant sub dicione Praenestinorum.
Festus, p. 550 (de Ponor): T. Quintius Dictator cum per novem dies
totidem urbes et decimam Praeneste cepisset, and the story of the golden
crown offered to Jupiter as the result of this rapid campaign, and the
statue which was carried away from Praeneste (Livy VI, 29, 8), all show
that the domain of Praeneste was both of extent and of consequence.]
[Footnote 3: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 475.]
[Footnote 4: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11, n. 74.]
[Footnote 5: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 227 ff.; Marucchi, Guida
Archeologica, p. 14; Nibby, Analisi, p. 483; Volpi, Latium vetus de
Praen., chap 2; Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 167.]
[Footnote 6: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 11.]
[Footnote 7: Nibby, Analisi, II, p. 484 from Muratori, Rerum Italicarum
Scriptores, III, i, p. 301.]
[Footnote 8: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 402.]
[Footnote 9: Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 277, n. 36, from Epist.,
474: Bonifacius VIII concedit Episcopo Civitatis Papalis Locum, ubi
fuerunt olim Civitas Praenestina, eiusque Castrum, quod dicebatur Mons,
et Rocca; ac etiam Civitas Papalis postmodum destructa, cum Territorio
et Turri de Marmoribus, et Valle Gloriae; nec non Castrum Novum
Tiburtinum 2 Id. April. an. VI; Petrini, Memorie Prenestine, p. 136;
Civitas praedicta cum Rocca, et Monte, cum Territorio ipsius posita est
in districtu Urbis in contrata, quae dicitur Romangia.]
[Footnote 10: Ashby, Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. I, p.
213, and Maps IV and VI. Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 19, n. 34.]
[Footnote 11: Livy VIII, 12, 7: Pedanos tuebatur Tiburs, Praenestinus
Veliternusque populus, etc. Livy VII, 12, 8: quod Gallos mox Praeneste
venisse atque inde circa Pedum consedisse auditum est. Livy II, 39, 4;
Dion. Hal. VIII, 19, 3; Horace, Epist, I, 4, 2. Cluverius, p. 966,
thinks Pedum is Gallicano, as does Nibby with very good reason, Analisi,
II, p. 552, and Tomassetti, Delia Campagna Romana, p. 176. Ashby,
Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna in Papers of the British
School at Rome, I, p. 205, thinks Pedum can not be located with
certainty, but rather inclines to Zagarolo.]
[Footnote 12: There are some good ancient tufa quarries too on the
southern slope of Colle S. Rocco, to which a branch road from Praeneste
ran. Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 104.]
[Footnote 13: C.I.L., XIV, 2940 found at S. Pastore.]
[Footnote 14: Now the Maremmana inferiore, Ashby, Classical Topog. of
the Roman Campagna, I, pp. 205, 267.]
[Footnote 15: Ashby, Classical Topog. of the Roman Campagna, I, p. 206,
finds on the Colle del Pero an ampitheatre and a great many remains of
imperial times, but considers it the probable site of an early village.]
[Footnote 16: Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, p. 120, wishes to connect
Marcigliano and Ceciliano with the gentes Marcia and Caecilia, but it is
impossible to do more than guess, and the rather few names of these
gentes at Praeneste make the guess improbable. It is also impossible to
locate regio Caesariana mentioned as a possession of Praeneste by
Symmachus, Rel., XXVIII, 4, in the year 384 A.D. Eutropius II, 12 gets
some confirmation of his argument from the modern name Campo di Pirro
which still clings to the ridge west of Praeneste.]
[Footnote 17: The author himself saw all the excavations here along the
road during the year 1907, of which there is a full account in the Not.
d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1907), p. 19. Excavations began on these tombs in
1738, and have been carried on spasmodically ever since. There were
excavations again in 1825 (Marucchi, Guida Archeologica, p. 21), but it
was in 1855 that the more extensive excavations were made which caused
so much stir among archaeologists (Marucchi, l.c., p. 21, notes 1-7).
For the excavations see Bull, dell'Instituto. 1858, p. 93 ff., 1866, p.
133, 1869, p. 164, 1870, p. 97, 1883, p. 12; Not. d. Scavi, 2 (1877-78),
pp. 101, 157, 390, 10 (1882-83), p. 584; Revue Arch., XXXV (1878), p.
234; Plan of necropolis in Garucci, Dissertazioni Arch., plate XII.
Again in 1862 there were excavations of importance made in the Vigna
Velluti, to the right of the road to Marcigliano. It was thought that
the exact boundaries of the necropolis on the north and south had been
found because of the little columns of peperino 41 inches high by 8-8/10
inches square, which were in situ, and seemed to serve no other purpose
than that of sepulchral cippi or boundary stones. Garucci, Dissertazioni
Arch., I, p. 148; Archaeologia, 41 (1867), p. 190.]
[Footnote 18: C.I.L., XIV, 2987.]
[Footnote 19: The papal documents read sometimes in Latin, territorium
Praenestinum or Civitas Praenestina, but often the town itself is
mentioned in its changing nomenclature, Pellestrina, Pinestrino,
Penestre (Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. II; Nibby, Analisi, II, pp.
475, 483).]
[Footnote 20: There is nothing to show that Poli ever belonged in any
way to ancient Praeneste.]
[Footnote 21: Rather a variety of cappellaccio, according to my own
observations. See Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 5 (1897), p. 259.]