² Unless otherwise stated all dates given in this paper are dates B.C.

³ For the name ‘Copia’ see Strabo, p. 236 C. It was situated at Castrum Frentinum in the territory of Thurii (Livy loc. cit.).

⁴ The name Valentia was added when the place was colonised, and occurs on its coins (cf. too, Vell. Pat.i, 14, 8; Cic. Verr. v, 40). But the older name Vibo was still used (Cic. Verr. 11, 99; Caes. b.c. iii, 101).

⁵ Livy (xxxii, 7, 3) mentions the despatch of 300 coloni in 199 to Castrum (or possibly the name is Castrum Portorium). If we are not here to see another example of chronological confusion (so common in Livy on this period) and to regard this notice as referring to the colonisation of Salernum (which Livy elsewhere (xxxii, 29, 3) calls Castrum Salerni), then Livy is here recording an otherwise unknown colony. Possibly he is speaking inexactly: he uses similarly inexact language about Velitrae in an earlier book (viii, 14, 7). Further discussion of this deductio is not attempted in this paper in view of the paucity of our information: even the site of Castrum (if it was not Salernum) is a matter of great dispute (see P-W s.v.‘Castra, Castrum,’ 4). The colony at Auximum is usually assigned to 157 on the Btrength of Vell. Pat. 1, 15, 3. But that it really belongs to 128 can scarcely be doubted after the researches of Kasten, H., published in Phil. Wochenschrift liv, 1934, 669Google Scholar. Accordingly it will not be discussed in this paper.

⁶ In several instances the names given by Livy are corroborated by epigraphic evidence, e.g. Gravisca (CIL i² elog. xxxii, p. 200), Aquileia (CIL V, 873), Sipontum (CIL i¹, 200 l. 43—unless the M. Baebius tr. pl. iiivir coloniae deducendae of this inscription is not the Baebius whom Livy names as commissioner for Sipontum: cf. Pais, E., I fasti dei tribuni, p. 42Google Scholar; Niccolini, G., I fasti dei tribuni della plebe ², p. 418 f.Google Scholar; Carcopino, J., Autour des Gracques, pp. 248 ffGoogle Scholar). Cicero, Brut. 79, supports Livy in the case of the iiiviri for Pisaurum and Potentia.

⁷ The colonies dated from the year when the iiiviri vacated their office on completion of their task (Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht ii³, p. 638Google Scholar).

⁸ Velleius' source(s) for these chapters cannot be determined. Burmeister (De font. Vell. Pat., p. 19) suggested that it was Nepos who, like Velleius, occasionally synchronised Roman events with happenings in Greece. But Nepos apparently used the Polybian chronological system (Leuze, O., Die römische Jahrzählung, p. 173, 216, 243Google Scholar), whereas Velleius, in the early part of his history, apparently did not (Hirschfeld, O., Kleine Schriften, p. 778Google Scholar). Veil. Pat. 1, 8, 4 founds Rome in the 437th year after the fall of Troy, while Cato made it the 432nd year (Dion. Hal. 1, 74). Despite this, the suggestion of Kaiser (De font. Vell. Pat., p. 14 f.) that Cato was the source for these chapters may be correct (Kasten, H. in Phil. Wochenschrift liv, 1934 671Google Scholar).

⁹ Both these writers merely say ‘Romani colonias deduxerunt,’ but they must mean these colonies.

¹⁰ E.g. see Nissen, H., Krit. Unters. über die Quellen der iv. und v. Dek. des Livius, p. 143Google Scholar. Indeed Pais (in Mem. dei Linc. xvii, 1924, p. 340Google Scholar; Storia di Roma iv³, p. 179) argues that, when Livy says that iiiviri coloniae deducendae were appointed in 197 (xxxii, 29, 3) and colonies planted in 194 (xxxiv, 45, 1), he is reproducing such chronological confusion. But this is to create unnecessary difficulties: for colonial commissioners to be appointed for three years or even longer was not at all unusual.

¹¹ In Gesammelte Schriften iv, p. 53.

¹² Röm. Münzwesen, p. 315, n. 81.

¹³ Röm. Geschichte bis zum Beginn der pun. Kriege, p. 471.

¹⁴ The writer, however, suggests the following alternative explanation of Velleius' figure 217. According to Livy (xxxvii, 57, 7) the Bononian colonists were led out from Rome two days before the end of the year 190. This means that the installation of the colonists was completed in January-February of 189, which year would hence forth be regarded as the foundation-date. Now Manlius and Fulvius were indeed eponymous officers for 189, but were not in office for the first two or three months of the year. (Prior to 153 consuls entered on their office in March or later: Leuze, op. cit., p. 263 and refs. there). Velleius, of course, knew this; presumably he also knew that Bononia's colonisation dated from Jan.–Feb. of the year of Manlius and Fulvius, But he might not know whether it was Jan.-Feb. of the year to which they gave their name (i.e. Jan.–Feb. of 189), or Jan.–Feb. of the year in which they were actually in office (i.e. Jan.–Feb. of 188). He wrongly chose the latter and thus was enabled to say that Bononia's colonisation occurred 217 years before A.D. 30.

The suggestion of Kasten, H. (in Phil. Woch. liv, 1934, 668Google Scholar), that Velleius' 217 is due to a confusion arising out of the fact that Greek Olympiad years and Roman consular years cut across one another (instead of coinciding exactly), can only be valid if Livy (in xxxvii, 57, 7) means December 30, 189. Livy surely means December 30, 190.

¹⁵ Pais, E. (in Mem. dei Linc. xvii, 1924, p. 345Google Scholar) has noticed it; but he offers an inadequate explanation, viz. that Velleius includes in his quadriennium the same year 189 in which the colony of Bononia was founded. If Velleius had done this, not only would he have been departing from his usual practice of reckoning only the terminus ad quem and not the terminus a quo as well (cf. Soltau, W., Röm. Chron. p. 254Google Scholar; Niese, B. in Hermes xxxi, 1896, p. 490Google Scholar; Leuze, op. cit., p. 149), but also thereby he would have been giving 186 (not 184) as the date for Bononia.

¹⁶ Velleius' dates for Gravisca and Aquileia are now brought into harmony with Livy's; for Velleius (i, 15, 2) makes them depend on the date which he assigns to Pisaurum and Potentia.

¹⁷ This has also been seen by others See P-W s.v. ‘Accius.’

¹⁸ See CQ xxvii, 1933, 30–35Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Reid, J. S., Municipalities of the Roman Empire p. 75Google Scholar.

²⁰ Plutarch, Cato min. 33.

²¹ Actually adsignationes viritanae in Samnium and Apulia at the immediate close of the war formed the principal method of absorbing the veterans (Livy xxxi, 4, 2).

²² Stephenson, A., Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic, p. 20Google Scholar.

²³ Cf. Karlowa, O., Röm. Rechtsgeschichte 1, p. 305Google Scholar; De Ruggiero in Diz. Epig. s.v. ‘colonia’; Abbott, F. F. in Class. Phil. x, 1915, 366Google Scholar.

²⁴ Mommsen, , Hist. of Rome, ii, 201Google Scholar.

²⁵ Frank, Tenney in CAH vii, 659Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Reid, J. S. in JRS iii, 1913, 175 ff.Google Scholar, and v, 1915, 87 ff.

²⁷ When Zonaras, viii, 7, says that Brundisium was colonised in 267, he is confusing its capture with its colonisation.

²⁸ She did feel some qualms about the northern frontier where Hannibal would find Gauls to support him. Therefore Cremona and Placentia were colonised, and an attempt was made—too late as it happened—to colonise Mutina (Polyb. iii) 40; 3; Livy xxi), 25; 2; Tac Hist. iii) 34Google Scholar; Asconius p. 3 Cl.).

²⁹ Cato, apud Serv. ad Aen. x. 184Google Scholar, actually derives the name Gravisca from gravis and aer.

³⁰ Hence the difficulty in getting colonists to stop there.

³¹ Cf. Livy xxiii, 30, 6; xxiv, 2, 2; xxiv, 23.

³² Reid, J. S. in JRS v, 1915, 102Google Scholar.

³³ Fell, R. A. L.Etruria and Rome p. 151Google Scholar.

³⁴ The date is uncertain. See Nissen, op. cit., p. 143.

³⁵ The report of Ligurian hostility to Rome in 238 (Zonar. viii, 18, 2) is to be rejected (Weiss in P-W s.v.' Ligures'; cf. Polyb. ii, 21, 5).

³⁶ See the figures collected by Jullian, C., Histoire de la Gaule, i, p. 508Google Scholar.

³⁷ Cicero Brut. 255.

³⁸ Cf. Cartellieri, W. in Philologus, Suppt. Bd. xvii, 1926, p. 1fGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Mommsen, , Hist, of Rome, ii, 207Google Scholar, argues that the Histri were stirred into activity because of the founding of Aquileia (cf. Livy xl, 26, 2). But Livy, xxxix, 55, 4 (adduced above), proves that the Histri were restless before 181.

For the Noricum gold-rush as a factor in the colonisation of Aquileia, see Mattingly, H. and Robinson, E. S. G., The Date of the Roman Denarius, p. 22Google Scholar f.

⁴⁰ In this and the following section the author is very grateful to Professor Buckland and Mr. Hugh Last for their kindness in sending him information and help on a number of points.

⁴¹ For the data see Mommsen, , Röm. Münzwesen p. 310 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Römische Geschichte, p. 489.

⁴³ The relevant inscriptions for this period are: CIL v, 971; ix, 438–440, 800, 1635, 2240, 2662, 2664, 5351; x. 123, 480, 1347, 1633, 2240, 4651, 5203, 5969, 6466; xi, 385, 400, 406, 3257, 4125, 4822; xiv, 4269. Rome's policy was not to inter fere with internal municipal autonomy. After the Social War uniformity became the rule, and much later Aulus Gellius (xvi, 13) could say of colonies that in relation to Rome ‘quasi effigies parvae simulacraque esse quaedam videntur.’

⁴⁴ Cf. Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht iii, 598Google Scholar, n. 4.

⁴⁵ See Horn, H., Foederati (Diss. Frankfurt, 1930), pp. 8, 9, 87Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ The evidence is assembled by Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht iii, 673Google Scholar and by Marquardt, J., Röm. Staatsverwaltung ii ², 389 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Cf. the action of Rome in 194 when she attempted to alleviate the burden of allied cities that had been depleted by emigration. She tools from them not the usual army quotas (ex formula) but a proportion of iuniores fit for service (Livy xxxiv, 56, 6).

⁴⁸ Their names are: Ardea, Nepete, Sutrium, Alba, Carseoli, Sora, Suessa, Circeii, Setia, Cales, Narnia, Interamna (Livy xxvii, 9).

⁴⁹ See Livy xxxi, 49, 6; xxxii, 2, 6; xxxiii, 24, 8; xxxvii, 46, 9; CIL i² p. 200 elog. xxxii.

⁵⁰ Appian makes it clear that it was visiting Latins, and not resident Latins, who possessed this privilege (contra Karlowa, O., Römische Rechtsgeschichte i, p. 308Google Scholar). At Malaca, in Flavian Spain, it is true, only Latin incolae voted in one of the curiae chosen by lot (CIL ii, 1964Google Scholar U53). But an analogy between Malaca and Rome can scarcely be pressed.

⁵¹ In Hermes lv, 1920, 351Google Scholar.

⁵² Ibid., p. 348: Brans, Fontes ⁷, 10, 76 ff.

⁵³ E.g. Madvig, J. N., Opuscula academica, i, 282Google Scholar denied that they had it.

⁵⁴ Willems, P., Le droit publique romain ⁵, p. 129Google Scholar; O. Karlowa, op. cit. i, 306Google Scholar; Marquardt, J., Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i ², 55Google Scholar; Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsr. iii, 623 fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ Vermischte Schriften i (1850), 24 fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ Beloch, J., Ital Bund, p. 155Google Scholar; De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, iii, 2, 462Google Scholar, n.33.

⁵⁷ Zumpt, A. W., Commentations Epigraphicae i (1850), 235Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ H. Last in CAH ix, 72Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ The view of G. Long, note on Cicero ad loc.

⁶⁰ Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsr. iii, 623 f.Google Scholar; Marquardt, J., Röm. Staatsverw. i², 54Google Scholar; De Ruggiero in Diz. Epig. s.v. ‘colonia.’ Rosenberg, A. in Hermes lv, 1920, 357 f.Google Scholar; Abbott, F. F. and Johnson, A. C., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, p. 6Google Scholar; Pais, E., Storia di Roma iv³, 177Google Scholar; Tenney Frank in CAH vii, 657Google Scholar. This view should be untenable to some of these scholars (e.g. Tenney Frank) in that they believe that a Latin colony was sent to Luca in 180—which implies that they count thirteen and not twelve Latin colonies in this period. (The writer has argued elsewhere, CQ xxvii, 1933, 30 f.Google Scholar, that there was no colony at Luca.)

⁶¹ Not all those scholars who accept Mommsen's identification of the xii coloniae agree with him on all these points: e.g. Rosenberg, loc. cit., thinks that Mommsen's twelve only differed from those founded earlier in that their internal constitutions were different.

⁶² For the date, see H. Mattingly in JRS xix, 1929, 27Google Scholar.

⁶³ See Tenney Frank in CAH vii, 663Google Scholar. The silver coin introduced by Rome c. 269 was not, as Frank supposes, the denarius; it was a silver didrachm (the so-called Romano-Campanian silver) (Mattingly, H. and Robinson, E. S., The Date of the Roman Denarius p. 45Google Scholar). But Frank's argument that it would compete with colonial issues and force them out remains valid. The goddess on the didrachm is Diana of Nemi, the goddess of the Latins, which suggests that the coin was to serve for the Latins as well as the Romans (Mattingly Robinson, op. cit. pp. 30, 31, 35, 45).

⁶⁴ As we shall see there is some slight evidence that Beneventum (one of Mommsen's twelve) did possess ius conubii.

⁶⁵ For their names see above, p. 57, note 48.

⁶⁶ O. Karlowa, op. cit. i, 307Google Scholar, argues that the Latin colonies never had ius conubii. As evidence he adduces the emended passage from Gaius i, 79: ‘adeo hoc ita est ut ex [ciue Romano et Latina qui nascitur matris condicioni accedat; nam in lege Minicia quidem peregrinorum nomine comprehenduntur non] solum exterae nationes et gentes sed etiam qui Latini nominantur; sed ad alios Latinos pertinet qui proprios populos propriasque civitates habebant et erant peregrinorum numero.’ Karlowa thinks that the alii Latini of the last sentence are the inhabitants of the Latin colonies, which accordingly never possessed ius conubii. But the alii Latini could be Latin communities in the provinces. It is difficult to see how the Lex Minicia could refer to pre-Gracchan colonies planted in Italy proper, all of which had acquired Roman citizenship before it was passed.

⁶⁷ Aquileia (Livy xxxix, 55). Citizen-colonies were administered from Rome, Latin colonies administered themselves. Aquileia was doubtless made a Latin colony because a citizen-colony there would have been so far distant from Rome as to present grave difficulties of administration.

⁶⁸ In Klio xi, 1911, 369Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Antium (338) can be regarded as the first citizen-colony, since archaeology has proved false the tradition that Ostia was founded as a colony in the reign of Ancus Martius.

⁷⁰ Some of them later did become flourishing towns e.g. Minturnae. But at the time of its colonisation Minturnae could not have been a place of much consequence: the Aurunci had been almost exterminated, and excavation has revealed that the neighbouring Greeks failed to regard Minturnae as a place with prospects (see Gnomon iii, 1927, 497Google Scholar).

⁷¹ See Cic. pro Balbo 28; Gaius i, 131; Festus p. 13 L.

⁷² But even now, when a coastal point showed some possibility of developing into a civic common wealth, a Latin, and not a citizen-, colony was sent to it. Thus Vibo and Copia became Latin colonies. The former was still quite an important town. Thurii had undoubtedly lost much of its former greatness: it had not been issuing coins since c. 300. But that the Romans had hopes of the adjacent Latin colony reviving the departed glories of Thurii is shown by the fact that they optimistically called it Copia.

⁷³ It is just possible that when Livy calls the Ferentinates ‘Latini’ he merely means ‘inhabitants of Latium’; for we nowhere are told that they enjoyed Ius Latii. Ferentinum was one of three Hernican communities to retain the status that it possessed in 486 under the treaty assigned to the third consulship of Sp. Cassius (Livy ix, 43, 24).

⁷⁴ For their names see above, p. 57, note 48.

⁷⁵ See above, p. 56.

⁷⁶ For the northern citizen-colonies perhaps Samnites were enrolled. See Robson, D. O. in CJ xxix, 1934, 599–608Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ C. Gracchus' enemies were thereby probably able to assert that he was secretly carrying out that enfranchisement of the Italians which he had been unable to effect by legislation. See H. Last in CAH ix, 81Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ The Municipalities of the Roman Empire, p. 100.

⁷⁹ See H. Last in CAH ix, 169Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ See above, p. 56.

⁸¹ Of course, after 167 yet another reason for not sending out colonies was that Rome, having abolished the tributum, was anxious to acquire revenue by renting out the ager publicus, which accordingly she did not give away to colonists (Tenney Frank in CAH viii, 356Google Scholar).

⁸² This is stressed by Beloch, J., Der ital. Bund, p. 114Google Scholar.

⁸³ Livy (xli, 13, 4) gives 51½ iugera as the size of the allotments at Luna; but in his text an original VIS must have become corrupted into LIS.

⁸⁴ CAH viii, 332, 353, 374; cf. Abbott, F. F. in Class. Phil. x, 1915, 366Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, p. 191 f.

⁸⁶ Nobilität der römischen Republik, p. 102 f.

⁸⁷ CAH viii, 356.

⁸⁸ The census figures are here assumed to include all male citizens over seventeen (including proletariate, freedmen, cives sine suffragio): cf. Beloch, J., Bevölkerung der griech.-römischen Welt, p. 314 fGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ This figure is trustworthy (see Frank, Tenney in Class. Phil. xix, 1924, 329 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar).