¹ Contra Salmon, E. T., Phoenix 1955, 71Google Scholar, Rome did not abolish the ius in 177 but only forbade certain evasions of the legal conditions under which it could be exercised.

² Cic. Brut, 109; de off. 11, 47; Festus 388 L. See FC 177.

³ Per. Livy LX; Vell, 11, 6; Obseq. 90; Val. Max. 11, 8, 4. Ascon. 17 C says that by taking Fregellae Opimius ‘ceteros quoque nominis Latini socios male animatos repressisse’ and Plut., C. Gr, 3 mentions charges that Gracchus had tried to cause the revolt of allies and had taken part in the conspiracy of Fregellae. De Vir. Ill. 65, 2 is doubtless wrong in alleging revolt of Asculum. We do not know the occasion of the speech in the senate by L. Papirius of Fregellae ‘pro Fregellanis colonisque Latinis’ (Brut. 170).

⁴ This right had belonged to Latin colonies before 89 (Ascon. 3 C). It is usually held that it antedates the Gracchan repetundae law (FIRA I,² no. 7), as vv. 78 ff. grant provocatio and vacatio militiae to successful prosecutors who have not held certain magistracies in their home towns; the titles of the magistracies justify the restriction of this privilege in Mommsen's supplements to Latin towns. Strictly this only implies that such ex-magistrates already had either the Roman citizenship or the privileges concerned. But, as argued by Tibiletti, G. (Rend. Istit. Lomb. 1953, 43 ff.Google Scholar), the revolt of Fregellae is the one convenient occasion to date the introduction of the privilege recorded by Asconius. Tibiletti also suggests that these ex-magistrates, though they could not be citizens both of Rome and of their own city under the rule enunciated by Cicero (Balb. 28), retained the right of being elected to magistracies in their place of origin. This view does not fit the supplement in v. 78 ‘in sua quisque civitate’. I should prefer to think that Cicero's rule did not apply to Latin cities then or in his own day. If it had, they would have been impoverished by losing the services of their leading men, and Rome's presumed aim would also have been frustrated.

⁵ App., BC I, 23, 100; Plut., C. Gr. 12. Badian (FC 190) argues that Latins were not expelled; his view presses too much out of Appian and the assumption that the Latins were so thoroughly content as to vote for Gracchus' opponents is not one I find plausible.

⁶ FC 299 ff.

⁷ Cic, Caec. 98; Dom. 78; Festus 13 L; Livy XXXVII, 46; Gaius III, 56 etc. Only Rome is ever likely to have had a large surplus of population to settle in new colonies, and though other Latins could participate, Romans surely preponderated.

⁸ Gell. X, 3, 2 ff. Cato had earlier castigated the unjust treatment of Bruttians (ib. 17 ff). Gracchus cites cases from Latin cities (Cales, Ferentinum, Venusia) and from Teanum Sidicinum.

⁹ Plut. C. Gr. 9 says it applied to Latins even on military service. Diod. XXXVII, 12, 3 and Cic., Att. V, 11, 2 proved that it never passed; Marcellus flogged the Comensian to show that on his view he was still Latin, not a citizen. Sall., BJ 69, 4 is irrelevant, see n. 113 below.

¹⁰ Cf. Taylor, L. R., JRS LII, 19 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Tibiletti, , Athen. XXXI, 38 ff.Google Scholar for heavily supplemented text; he thinks it Caepio's law; but the imposition of an oath makes it look like a popular measure. Balb. 53 ff. mentions the right of Latins to secure citizenship for successful prosecution for repetundae under an ‘acerbissima lex Servilia’.

¹² See note 4. Again I do not know if Cicero's rule applied in these cases. In 216 some Praenestine equites had declined the Roman citizenship, not wishing to change citizenship (Livy XXXII, 20, 2).

¹³ Cic., Off. III, 47, where the legalistic defence of the law does not cancel his earlier condemnation of it in political terms (ap. Ascon. 67 C); Balb. 48. Mommsen, , StR III 639Google Scholar, n. 2 thought that Balb. 54 (‘neque ius est hoc reprehensum Licinia et Mucia lege’) implied that some previously legitimate avenue to the citizenship, other than that of the successful repetundae prosecutor, was now barred and supposed that this referred to the ius migrationis: not so, as the stress is on ‘ius’; what the law barred was usurpation of citizenship. Perhaps the ius migrationis was never abolished, but its value was nil to Italians who wished to be Romans without changing domicile or losing a share in their local government by ‘mutatio civitatis’.

¹⁴ Sall., BJ 17, 4 and other references in R. Syme, Rom. Revolution 82 ff., to which add Livy XXIX, 36, 11 and XXX, 26, 12 (Etruscans); Cic., Rosc. Amer. 15; Sull. 25.

¹⁵ e.g. relations of Poppaedius Silo with Drusus (Plut., Cato Min. 2) and Marius (Diod. XXXVII, 15, 3), of Vettius Scato with Pompeius Strabo (Cic., Phil. XII, 27). Cf. Rosc. Amer. 15; Cluent. 165; 176–7; 198.

¹⁶ Not that the principes need always have represented the views or interests of the peasants; in 129, for instance, they may not have done so (contra Badian FC 175).

¹⁷ In Ad Herenn. IV, 13 (cf. 16) we have an extract of a speech real or fictitious which clearly purports to be related to charges of treason under the lex Varia and to be at an early stage of the revolt. The author stresses that most of the allies are still loyal (the revolt doubtless spread gradually) and that the rebels lack sufficient men and money and good generals. They might have been expected to have learned the folly of their enterprise from Fregellae. He evidently wishes to infer that it can only be explained by treasonable incitements from Romans, cf. Ascon. 22; 73 C.

¹⁸ 1, 38, 169–70. Appian (as often) is indifferent to chronology and misplaces this after the quaestio Variana. The revolt is clearly dated to (late) 91 by Obsequens 54 and Orosius V, 18, 1 (i.e. Livy); cf. Diod. XXXVII, 2, 2; Ascon. 67 C; though regular campaigns began only in 90; Livy evidently covered the scattered operations of winter 91–90 in book LXXII. Ascon. 22; 73 C proves that the lex Varia was a sequel of the outbreak of the war. This is also implied by Val. Max. VIII, 6, 4 (‘quae iubebat quaeri quorum dolo malo socii ad arma ire coacti essent’), though he then stupidly adds that the law brought the war about. Trials doubtless began early in 90; C. Cotta was rejected in his candidature for the tribunate a few days after Crassus' death in Sept. and banished a few months later (de orat. III, II).

¹⁹ Cf. Diod. XXXVII, 13 for Poppaedius Silo saying when he marched on Rome that he proposed, if he could not persuade the senate to grant citizenship, to ruin Rome with fire and sword. Haug, however, thinks the incident fiction (o.c., n. 28). It is hard to see where it should be fitted in, or who were Poppaedius' 10,000 followers—ἐκ τῶν τὰς εὐθύνας φοβουμένων. Does this mean that trials under the lex Licinia Mucia were still impending?

²⁰ Cf. Diod. XXXVII, 2, 1; 13; 15; Cic., Phil. XII, 27; Strabo V, 4, 2; Vell. 11, 15; Florus III, 17, 6; 18, 3; Plut., Cato Min. 2; App. 1, 35, 155; 38, 169; 39, 176; 49, 212–3; 53. 231. Oros. V, 18, 2 refers to ‘spe libertatis’; here libertas must be taken as equivalent to civitas.

²¹ If (as I hold) the term municipium at first meant a community of cives sine suffragio, it had come to mean any community of cives (other than a colony) at latest in Sulla's time (Rosc. Amer. 15); at an earlier stage a community of full citizens may have been termed ‘pro municipio’ by analogy (likewise enjoying its own local self-government), cf. lex agraria (FIRA I ², no. 8, 31, where I take the ‘pro coloniei’ to be towns that had grown up in lands of viritane assignations), and that might seem to show that in III there were still true municipia in being. But the enumeration of types of town may be tralatician, and not adapted to the current situation. The drafting is careless; there were no Latin municipia, as implied (cf. Kornemann, RE XVI, 583 f.).

²² Liv. XL, 42, 13: ‘Cumanis petentibus permissum, ut publice Latine loquerentur et praeconibus Latine vendendi ius esset’. The inference sometimes drawn that Rome had hitherto forbidden Cumae the official use of Latin seems absurd. Presumably the Cumaeans, to ingratiate themselves, intimated their wishes and Rome gave a sanction that was not required legally.

²³ ILLR 705 ff.; these inscriptions are collected and discussed by M. W. Frederiksen in PBSR XXVII, 80 ff.

²⁴ Balb. 31, ignoring the long temporal gap.

²⁵ In App. 1, 49, 212 no exceptions are allowed; μόνον should not be changed into μόνον οὐ, cf. Gabba ad loc.

²⁶ See Appendix I and pp. 95–6 below.

²⁷ Balb. 21, cf. Arch. 5 ff.; Fam. XIII, 30.

²⁸ Haug, I., Würzb. Jahrb. f. d. Alt. 1947, 201 ff.Google Scholar shows that Livy followed a fairly strict chronological order.

²⁹ Contra Piotrowicz, L., Klio XXIII 334 ff.Google Scholar; Carcopino, J., Hist. Rom. II, 368Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., JRS XLIX, 43.Google Scholar

³⁰ Historia XI, 225 ff.

³¹ Stud. in Greek and Roman Hist. 75 ff. (esp. n. 34), cf. Historia XI, 228.

³² JRS XLV, 169.

³³ RC 127.

³⁴ For local Italian inimicitiae cf. Tab. Osc. Bant. (Latin tr. in FIRA I², no. 16), cap. I; Cic., Rosc. Amer. 17; Cluent. 21 ff. For stasis in the war, Sisenna IV, 78: ‘denique cum variis voluntatibus incerta civitas trepidaret.’

³⁵ Cic., Sull. 58. Nuceria may not have revolted, but cities federated with her did, cf. Gabba on App. 1, 42, 186.

³⁶ Venafrum, though Roman (Festus 262 L), was betrayed, presumably by local Italian residents, App. 1, 41, 183; likewise Nola (ib. 42, 185), which was to hold out till 88 (Vell. 11, 17). Some Apulian cities were reduced by force, App. 1, 42, 190. Dio fr. 98, 3 attests division in the Picentes.

³⁷ Diod. XXXVII, 19–20 (cf. ad Her. II, 45) with Val. Max. V, 4, ext. 7.

³⁸ App. 1, 48, 207 ff. (chronologically misplaced, cf. Gabba's note).

³⁹ Sisenna IV, 119: ‘Tamen Tudertibus senati consulto et populi iusso dat civitatem.’

⁴⁰ Livy XXIV 47, 10; XXVI, 15; XXIX, 8, 1–2; 36, 10–12.

⁴¹ Poppaedius, Diod. XXXVIL, 2, 9; Per. Livy LXXVI; Papius, Licin. 32 F; Per. Livy LXXXIX. It may be significant that so few of the recorded Italian generals can be connected with any Italians who later rose to eminence at Rome; it is not even certain whether Asinius Pollio, Papius Mutilus cos. A.D. 9 and an officer named Poppaedius Silo (Syme, Rom. Rev. 91) were descendants or collaterals of rebel generals. But App., BC IV, 25 says of the rich Samnite senator Statius who perished aged eighty in 43 B.C. that he had rendered great services to the Samnites in the Social war. Perhaps he joined Sulla in good time; the statement in Diod. XXXVII, 2, 14 that some part of the Samnites and Lucanians went over to Sulla must not be neglected, cf. Salmon, E. T., Athen. XLII (1964), 67 f.Google Scholar

⁴² Sydenham, Roman Rep. Coinage ², nos. 627, 630, 628, 639.

⁴³ Ib., no. 639.

⁴⁴ Posidonius (Jacoby, no. 87) F. 41; Diod. XXXVII, 2, 11. Date: E. Gabba, Le Origini della Guerra Sociale 47–8. Some Italians eventually fled to Mithradates, Front., Strat. II, 3, 17. Gabba (110 ff.) ascribes to the influence of former Italian rebels the negotiations between Sertorius and Mithradates (Plut., Sert. 23; App., Bell. Mithr. 68). Two coins (Sydenham 632, 643) have been conjecturally connected with the Italian embassy to him; one shows Italia crowned by Victory.

⁴⁵ So Voirol, A., Schweizer Münzblätter, 1953/1954, 64 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Salmon, E. T., Athen. XLII (1964), 60 ff.Google Scholar demonstrates that they had not been continuously in arms since 87 (as suggested by Per. Livy, LXXXVIII), and did not resist Sulla's march in 83. But I cannot follow him in thinking that they repelled Sulla's advances (he could not have afforded in 83–2 to reject any support that was offered); more probably, they mostly (like many other Italians) felt that they could not trust him, and that they were committed by their action in 87 to the Marians: for Samnites with Sulla, cf. n. 41.

⁴⁷ Haug (o.c. in n. 28) argues that Velleius drew indirectly on these memoirs. They certainly lie behind Plutarch's Sulla where the Samnites and Lucanians are described as peoples most hostile to Rome (29, 4). For Sulla's treatment of Samnites see App. 1, 87, 400; 93, 432; Str. V, 4, 11; Salmon o.c., n. 46.

⁴⁸ Gabba (o.c., n. 44, 72) concedes too much in holding that an appeal was made to the desire for independence among the masses.

⁴⁹ Licin. 20 F; Dio fr. 102, 7; App. 1, 68, 309–10.

⁵⁰ Strabo V, 4, 2; more details in Diod. XXXVII, 2, 3 ff.; cf. CIL I², 848: ‘Itali. T. Laf(renius) pr(aetor)’. For name Italia or Viteliu see the coins.

⁵¹ Meyer, H. D., Historia 1958, 74 ff.Google ScholarSalmon, E. T., TAPA LXXXIX, 89 ff.Google Scholar, argues that Appian 1, 39, 175 gives an official Italian list of 12 rebel peoples, each represented by a praetor; this presupposes that the number of praetors was not completed until the relatively late adherence to the rebels of Pompeii, Venusia and some Apulian cities; one may object that the peoples named were not all of equal strength and should not have had equal representation, and that further revolts would have entailed augmenting the number. Salmon's assignation of different generals to specific peoples is often highly conjectural, especially in view of the difficulty of distinguishing (cf. 1, 40, 181) between generals of Italia and generals of the individual cities.

⁵² See Sydenham's notes on the coinage and Voirol (o.c., n. 45). This invalidates Carcopino's hypothesis (Hist. Rom. II, 378), founded on the coins, of a league between central and southern Italian rebels.

⁵³ For booty, Badian, FC 150 f.; for trade ib. 152 f. (cf. also Frank, T., AJP LVI, 61 ff.Google Scholar; Sall., BJ 26, 1, etc.). The work of J. Hatzfeld, Les trafiquants italiens dans l'Orient hellénique, cf. BCH XXXVI, 10–218, is fundamental.

⁵⁴ F. Klingner, Rom. Geisteswelt ² 13 ff. On the Romanization of Italy see especially Devoto, G., Scr. Min. I, 287 ff.Google Scholar, (who rightly remarks on p. 300 that the view of the Social war as a final protest against Roman rule contradicts the story of Romanization, Samnium perhaps excepted); and some parts of his Gli antichi Italici and St. della lingua romana; J. Whatmough, Foundations of Roman Italy, discusses it regionally.

⁵⁵ Lex agraria (FIRA I², no. 8) 21; 50. Cf. lex de rep. (ib., no. 7) 1: ‘[Quoi socium no]minisve Latini exterarumve nationum’; Delphic law on piracy (ib. no. 9) 6, which perhaps mistranslates ‘cives Romani socii nominisve Latini ex terra Italia’.

⁵⁶ Strabo VI, 1, 2 on disappearance of distinctive dress in Samnium, Lucania and Bruttium. Sallust uses togati and Italici as equivalents (BJ 21, 2; 26).

⁵⁷ Val. Max. 11, 2, 2.

⁵⁸ StR ³ III, 674. Livy XLIV, 40, 5–6 records how Marrucinian and Paelignian cohorts were marshalled with Samnite turmae, and a Vestinian cohort with Latin cohorts and turmae.

⁵⁹ It is right to speak of Romans and Latins together, cf. Ennius 466 Vahlen: ‘qui rem Romanam Latiumque augescere vultis’.

⁶⁰ R. S. Conway, Italian Dialects I or Vetter under each people named.

⁶¹ For enclaves of Roman land in allied territory cf. Tibiletti, G., Rel. del X Congresso di scienze storiche II, 262 ff.Google Scholar, e.g. Gracchan cippi in territory of Volcei, Lucanian Atina and Aeclanum (ILLR 469–71; 473). See also K. J. Beloch, Röm. Gesch. 494 ff. on Grumentum and Telesia.

⁶² Cf. n. 36 above on Venafrum.

⁶³ Beloch, Ital. Bund 153.

⁶⁴ See Conway (o.c. n. 60) or Vetter under each people or city named. Devoto, Ant. Ital. 160 remarks that adaptation of the Latin alphabet in Paelignian and Volscian inscriptions shows it was not imposed.

⁶⁵ ILLR 7 (where it is dated to late 4th century; Devoto, Storia 195 puts it in the third). Cf. 285; CIL IX 3827. The Volscians seem to have adopted Latin in the late third century, Conway pp. 266 f. See also Conway on the earliest Latin inscriptions of other peoples. Devoto, Storia 201, notes Latin influence on the construction of the Oscan cippus Abellanus (Conway no. 95, mid-second century).

⁶⁶ CRF (Ribbeck) 104.

⁶⁷ FIRA I², no. 6; CIL I² 597; I do not cite here the SC de Bacchanalibus (FIRA I², no. 30) since the ager Teuranus where it was set up was probably Roman (Gelzer, Kl. Schr. III, 259, n. 15). The repetundae law found at Tarentum (above, n. 11) provides for publication in all allied cities.

⁶⁸ FIRA III, no. 163; ILLR 476–7.

⁶⁹ Thus among the Paeligni (Conway p. 234), and at Pompeii not long before its destruction (ib. nos. 60–67). A Vestinian inscription in Latin of 58 B.C. seems to preserve Oscan words (ILLR 508).

⁷⁰ Whatmough (o.c. n. 54) 302–3 (cf. 279–80). He also dates some Messapian inscriptions to the late Republic (232).

⁷¹ FC 145 on Polyb. III, 90 fin.

⁷² Italici: ILLR 320, cf. 343 (and many post-90 inscriptions), cf. Hatzfeld, Trafiquants italiens 238 ff.

⁷³ ILS 23 = ILLR 454.

⁷⁴ See above, n. 55.

⁷⁵ Dionys., Ant. I, 11, 1; cf. Nepos. Cato 3; Serv. ad Aen IX, 600: ‘Italiae disciplina et vita (a Vergilio) laudatur, quam et Cato in originibus et Varro in gente populi Romani commemorat’. See Peter, HRF, Cato fr. 42; 45; 47–51; 53; 56; 58; 59; 61–2; 69; 70 for instances.

⁷⁶ Three books were devoted to the origins of Rome and other Italian peoples, and the fourth began with the first Punic war.

⁷⁷ Strabo v, 3, 6 says that they were performed in Oscan (in his time, or that of his source). See Whatmough, o.c. (above, n. 54), 390.

⁷⁸ See Camporeale, G., Terminologia Magistratuale nelle lingue Osco-Umbre (1956)Google Scholar. I do not accept all his views.

⁷⁹ The triple aedileship of the Volscian towns of Arpinum, Fundi and Formiae (ILRR 546–7; 595–6; 601–4, etc.), the praetorship of Cumae (ib. 576), the college at Caere consisting of a dictator and an aedile iure dicundo (ILS 5918a) and probably the Sabine octoviri indicate in my view the Latinization of magisterial titles native to these municipia. Cf. n. 97, below.

⁸⁰ Falerii, Vetter 264; 317; 320 (= ILRR 238); 322i (=ILRR 582). Bantia, Vetter 2 (Latin tr. also in FIRA I², no. 16). Pompeii, Vetter, 8–9; 11–2; 16–8; 20. Abella, ib. I. Potentia, ib. 180; 181a. Vicus Supinus, ib. 228d (=ILRR 286). Alfedena, ib. 143. Teanum, ILS 6298. Nuceria(?), ib. 6445a = ILRR 1143. Iguvium, Tab. Iguv. Va 23 b 2. There seems to be no warrant for the view that the kvestur was here the chief magistrate, replacing the uhtur (from the same root as auctor) cf. III, 7–8, who may also be a religious official (cf. Vetter ad loc.).

⁸¹ F. Sartori, Problemi di St. cost, italiota ch. I, gives a lucid summary of evidence and theories on the meddiss.

⁸² Mommsen, StR ³ 1, 153; 11, 367 based on Zon. VII, 19. Cf. also Cic. Caec. 99; Dion. Hal. IV, 15. 6; V, 75, 4; Gaius 1, 160.

⁸³ ILS 4912 = ILRR 504. In the Iguvine Tables the words ařputrati (Va ii) and stiplo (VI a 2), cf. steplatu (1 b 13), are held to be of Latin origin by e.g. Vetter, but cf. Devoto Ant. Italici 273, on the first. The second borrowing does not imply adoption of Roman Law; there is no analogy between the use of the last words and Roman stipulatio (U. Coli, Il diritto pubblico degli Umbri …, 1958, 25–6).

⁸⁴ Gell. IV 4, cf. M. Kaser, Rom. Privatrecht 67 f.; 274 f.

⁸⁵ Livy IX, 20, 10: ‘nec arma modo sed iura etiam Romana late pollebant’ has typical value; on the circumstances cf. RC 41; 76 ff. Gaius III, 122 need not be relevant to this time.

⁸⁶ Sydenham 640–1.

⁸⁷ Goehler, J., Röm u. Italien 1939, 53 ff.Google Scholar; McDonald, A. H., JRS XXXIV II ff.Google Scholar; Badian FC ch. VI.

⁸⁸ ILS 212, 17 ff.; perhaps N. d. S. 1948, p. 264.

⁸⁹ Badian, FC 149 f.

⁹⁰ The question whether new citizens came under Roman law is now controversial, cf. H. M. Jolowicz, Hist. Intro. to St. of Roman Law ² 542 ff.; Kaser, o.c. n. 84, but must be answered affirmatively for the Italians at least, cf. n. 84.

⁹¹ Chs. 2–3 in Oscan law; the magistrates also had jurisdiction.

⁹² Festus, s.v. praefecturae, 262 L. See RC 41 ff.; F. de Martino, St. d. costit. rom. III, 315 ff., reviewing rival theories.

⁹³ RC 136 ff.; de Martino III, ch. XI (rejecting the rival view of H. Rudolph, Stadt u. Staat im röm. Italien.)

⁹⁴ RC 37 ff.; J. Heurgon, Recherches sur l'histoire, la religion et la civilisation de Capoue préromaine 158 ff.

⁹⁵ Livy IX, 43, 24: ‘magistratibus praeter quam sacrorum curatione interdictum’. Exceptional, as Livy nowhere else indicates that new municipia lost self-government; and probably temporary, like the loss of conubium (only for a time,‘aliquamdiu’); the later praetors at Anagnia are probably a survival of the original chief magistracy, cf. n. 97. For the general preservation of municipalia sacra, cf. Festus 146 L, s.v.

⁹⁶ Livy XXVI, 16, 9–10; Cic., de leg. agr. II, 88–90.

⁹⁷ For summary of evidence and views cf. de Martino o.c. (above n. 92) 11, ch. IV (cf. RC 55 ff.). I do not see why the fact that the octovirate is not confined to Sabine communities shows that it is of Roman and not local origin; regional influences are as likely to have been as strong as ethnical; Umbrian Plestia and Praetuttian Interamna might have borrowed a Sabine institution, just as Fulginiae (Vetter 233) and Assisium (ib. 236; ILRR 550) borrowed Etruscan marones.

⁹⁸ RC 72 ff.

⁹⁹ Cic., Leg. III, 36.

¹⁰⁰ Quattuorviri in general for pre-Caesarian municipia (other than those created before 90), but duoviri in some; Sartori, o.c. (n. 81), and A. Degrassi, Quattuorviri in colonie romane e in municipi retti da duoviri, suggest that the anomaly can be explained by the previous institutions of the towns concerned.

¹⁰¹ Sartori, o.c. (n. 81), 31 ff. See e.g. IGRR I 429 ff.

¹⁰² 1, 55, 242–4; 64, 287–9. He cannot be right in thinking that all the old citizens were against Sulpicius, for who were those who resisted Sulla from their houses in Rome (58, 258 and 262)? Probably freedmen, whom Sulpicius also proposed to redistribute (Per. Livy LXXVII; Plut., Sulla 8); we should distinguish between them and τὸ καθαρώτερον πλῆθος (289), as does Tacitus (Hist. I, 4) between ‘plebs sordida’ and ‘pars populi integra et magnis domibus adnexa’, cf. Vell. 11, 20, 3.

¹⁰³ The Marians relied on the new citizens, App. 1, 76, 348, and initially had most support in Italy, 1, 86, 388 and 393. Sulla's promises, 1, 77, 352 (too early perhaps, cf. Per. Livy LXXXVI). Italian supporters attested in 79, 364 (Brundisium), 85, 385 (Suessa); Plut., Crass. 6 (Marsi); more generally, App. 1, 393.

¹⁰⁴ Taylor, L. R., Party Politics in Age of Caesar 57 ff.Google Scholar For towns close to Rome, ib.; cf. her Voting Districts 292.

¹⁰⁵ Cic., Mur. 37–8 ascribed auctoritas to them; cf. Plut., Crass. 14; Pomp. 51; Cic., Att. IV, 16, 6; armed pressure may be suspected.

¹⁰⁶ An exaggeration, unless there had been a recent change, cf. FC 149 f.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Diod. XXXVII, 22; App. 1, 39, 176. Livy VIII, 4 also probably reflects Italian propaganda of 91; also ad Herenn. IV, 13.

¹⁰⁸ o.c., n. 44. See reviews by Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Gnomon 1954, 343 f.Google Scholar, and Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 1955, 168 f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ My paper in Second International Conference of Economic History 1962 (Mouton, 1965) 1, 117 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Hist. Rom. II, 372 ff.

¹¹¹ Italian commoners might also hope to be surer of fair rewards for military service, and to have a chance of getting land allotments. For such a class cf. Brunt, JRS LII, 72 f.

¹¹² e.g. Cornelia, Lemonia and Pupinia, cf. L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts 271 ff.

¹¹³ Sallust, BJ 69, 4; cf. App., Numid. fr. 3. Different treatment of officers, Livy XXIX, 9, 8; 21, 12; also of a soldier who clearly had political influence, Dio fr. 100.

¹¹⁴ On provocatio I am in general agreement with Kunkel, W., Untersuch. zur Entwicklung des röm. Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischen Zeit, see my summary and criticisms in Tijdschr. v. Rechtsgeschiedenis 1964, 440 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Cluent. 197; Planc. 21.

¹¹⁶ Licin. 14 F. But Plut., Marius 25 estimates the Roman forces at Vercellae at only 52,000 men.

¹¹⁷ Taylor, o.c. (n. 112), 274 knows of only one other town in this tribe, Ateste (which was not enfranchised till 49).

¹¹⁸ o.c. (n. 44), ch. VII. Note esp. Cic., Sull. 24; ‘quam tibi (Torquatus) illos competitores tuos peregrinos videri necesse erit qui iam ex tota Italia delecti tecum de honore ac de omni dignitate contendent’ (whom Cicero contrasts with men from older municipia like himself). For the post-Caesarian senate, Phil. III, 15: ‘Videte quam despiciamur omnes qui sumus e municipiis, id est, omnes plane: quotus enim quisque nostrum non est?’. The Roman nobility also married into such families; the mother of L. Piso cos. 58 came from Placentia (Cic., Pis. fr. ix ff.), of young Torquatus from Asculum (Sull. 25).

¹¹⁹ Professor Salmon tells me that he too thinks that Tibur and Praeneste as civitates foederatae were not part of the nomen Latinum. In my view the nomen Latinum consisted (i) of those cities which had composed it before 340 and were not after the Latin war incorporated in the Roman state; (ii) of other cities of like privileges, e.g. Ferentinum (Liv. XXXIV, 42; Mommsen StR ³ III, 622); (iii) of the Latin colonies founded since 338. Cic., Balb. 53–5, excludes a distinction between Latini and foederati. Some Latins enjoyed their status by a foedus (classes i and ii), most under the lex by which a Latin colony was founded.