² Mommsen, , R. Staatsrecht 2³, 636 and n. 3Google Scholar; 3, 622 and n. 2; Kornemann in P-W s.v. ‘Coloniae’, colls. 571–2; Carcopino, , Histoire romaine, 2, 141Google Scholar; Salmon, , JRS 26, 1936, 63 f.Google Scholar; White, Sherwin, The Roman Citizenship, 92 (he omits, both in the quotation and in the translation, the critical relative clause ‘qui … dedissent’)Google Scholar; Scullard, , Roman Politics, 220–150 B.C., 169Google Scholar and n. 2; Göhler, , Rom und Italien, 62–3Google Scholar.

³ Dr. A. H. McDonald informs me that the ‘et’ should, on the authority of the Codex Bambergensis, be retained.

⁴ ‘Nouum’ in Latin not infrequently carries a flavour of pained surprise, as at something untraditional; but I have preferred to translate it by ‘new’ rather than by ‘novel’, lest I should seem to be prejudging the point at issue.

⁵ See below, n. 16.

⁶ I have translated both ‘ciues Romani essent’ and ‘esse ciues Romanos’ by the indicative, because I believe that the colonists were asserting a claim which the Senate disallowed. It would not make any difference to the thesis of this article if they were both translated by the subjunctive, though I think it would be a wrong translation.

⁷ Except De Sanctis; see below, n. 17.

⁸ Livy 32, 29, 3–4.

⁹ Livy 34, 45, 1–2.

¹⁰ The second sentence of the Latin could mean either (a) that of those ‘qui nomina dederant’ those who had been enrolled in a colony made the claim, i.e. that there were more names handed in than places, or (b) that of those enrolled in the colonies only those who had handed in their names made the claim, i.e. that some went under compulsion, (b) is impossible, since no one could be enrolled who had not handed in his name (Cicero, De Domo sua, 78). The first alternative is possible; but I believe that Livy has merely added the relative clause to emphasize the key expression, ‘nomen dare,’ which was the basis of the claim.

¹¹ See above, n. 10; Daube, , JRS 36, 1946, 69Google Scholar.

¹² For the whole of this argument see Daube, o.c., 68 flf.; and for the idea that the appearance of a name on the census-roll was the title to the citizenship, see also Last, JRS 35, 1945, 36 ffGoogle Scholar. I have nothing to add to Daube's argument on the important point here involved, except to say that this passage of Livy confirms what he there says.

¹³ Apart from the deliberate abuse of the precedent, there would be some bona fide persons who were unable through sickness or death to proceed to the colony; yet they or their family would under this ruling none the less be citizens.

¹⁴ The Latin cities first asked for the return of their citizens in 187 B.C., Livy 39, 3, 4–6; a second request was answered by a second senatorial decree in 177 B.C., Livy 41, 8, 6–12; 42, 10, 3.

¹⁵ I suppose that the process of ‘ascriptio’ consisted, in this case, of dividing the names handed in among the different colonies; very probably these lists would be publicly exhibited, and we need not doubt the sincerity of those who had been thus ‘assigned’. Professor Daube has written to me on this point as follows: ‘One small matter of interest is that apparently’ ‘ascribi’ has several senses. It signifies primarily ‘to be enrolled’. But since in the vast majority of cases one who is enrolled for a colony subsequently becomes a member—namely, by his inclusion in the first census—the verb is often used as denoting “to become a member”. However, there are cases, of which Livy 34, 42, 6, is one, where we must be careful to take it in the stricter, primary, sense. In this passage those enrolled have not yet become members. They have given in their names, they have been enrolled, but they have not yet gone out, and still less have they been admitted by a census. Support for this view is furnished by Festus, De Verb. Sig. p. 13. Here “adscripti” is defined as “qui nomina dedissent ut coloni essent”. This definition leans almost too far in the other direction; at first sight it makes “ascribi” synonymous with “nomen dare”. It would have been more exact to say that the term means “to give in one's name and have it accepted”. But the latter is, of course, implicitly assumed by Festus. In any case his testimony proves that one may be an “ascriptus” before being a member: the “ascripti”, he explains, have handed in their names “ut essent coloni”.’

¹⁶ ‘A Ferentinatibus’ should possibly be translated by ‘the community of Ferentinum’; but in a formal notice of this kind we need not necessarily expect ‘quibusdam’. Livy may have mentioned the place of origin to show that the claimants were Latins; but if the phrase means ‘the community of Ferentinum’, then it would suggest that the local authorities took up the case on behalf of their individual citizens, who were anxious to test the claim. This in its turn would suggest that the local authorities did not object to their citizens joining Roman colonies, and that the crisis caused by the loss of citizens (see above, n. 14) had not yet arisen; it was perhaps slow in developing. In 193 B.C. the levy was made according to the proportion of ‘iuniores’ in each Latin city (Livy 34, 56, 5–6), and this may have been a first attempt to readjust relations; the claim to citizenship by the Ferentinates in this passage may have been another. But the crisis developed too quickly, and the attempts at readjustment were abandoned.

¹⁷ De Sanctis alone, Storia dei Romani, 4, 1, 562, has seen this very important point, and in his interpretation of the passage of Livy he has made clear this general problem; but he failed to see wherein lay the novelty of the claim, and hence he has missed the point of the passage and wrongly interpreted its historical significance.

¹⁸ l.c.

¹⁹ Cicero, Brutus, 20, 79.

²⁰ CAH IX, 169. He has also appreciated the fact that Latins (and Italians) would become Roman citizens if admitted to a Roman colony; see p. 81, where he is discussing C. Gracchus' colony of Junonia. Eporedia, a colony founded in 100 B.C. was Roman (see U. Ewins BSRP, n.s. VII, 1952, 70) but, as the author points out, it cannot have been founded under the Lex Appuleia, and quite possibly represented an attempt of the Senate to provide a counter-attraction to the proposals of Saturninus.

²¹ If an Italian were admitted to a Roman colony, he would automatically become a Roman citizen by the operation of the census. The permission therefore consisted essentially in allowing an Italian to join such a colony; see next note.

²² Roman citizens also, since they became Latins in a Latin colony. The action of Q. Fulvius in connexion with Ennius consisted really in allowing him to join a Roman colony; for, once admitted, he would automatically become a Roman citizen at the first census. He quite likely gave him citizenship first.

²³ It is surprising that scholars should have supposed that a Roman colony could be partly composed of non-Romans; for the main purpose of such colonies was military, and colonists were excused from service in the legions (Livy 27, 38, 3; 36, 3, 4–6; Mommsen, o.c., 3³, 243, 775). But what would have been the position of Latins in such colonies ? Had they remained Latins, they would have been liable to service according to the requirements of their city, and hence might have been absent from the colony at a time of crisis.

²⁴ Livy 39, 55, 5.

²⁵ See Salmon, o.c.

²⁶ o.c., 65 ff.

²⁷ See n. 14.

²⁸ Perhaps giving a chance to those Latins who had lost their citizenship of regaining it.

²⁹ For a general and more favourable appraisal of senatorial policy during these years, see McDonald, , Camb. Hist. Jour., 6, 1939, 124 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; JRS 34, 1944, 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ There are several further implications to be drawn from this passage for Roman-Latin relations and colonial policy, which it is beyond the scope of this brief article to deal with.