© 2014Palombi & Partner srlVia Gregorio VII, 22400165 Romawww.palombieditori.it

layout, graphicsand editorial assistancecare of the publishing house

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the editors of this book.

Cover: Inscription from Aquileia mentioning the triumvir lucius Manlius, 2nd c. B.C. (courtesy of the Museo Archeologico Nazionaledi Aquileia, inv. no. 1).

Page 8-9: B. Rhenanus, P. Vellei Paterculi Historiae Romanae, 1520 (Basel), 9.

Page 42-43: the ager Cosanus from the air (after Castagnoli, f. 1956. “la centuriazione di Cosa”, MAAR 24, tav. 24).

Page 122-123: A view of the landscape across the liri Valley (G. R. Bellini, A. launaro and M. Millett).

Page 276-277: Black glazed pottery with Herculean stamps (M. Vitale, SAA).

Page 332-333: Relief commemorating the founding ceremony of the Augustan colony of Aquileia with the representation of thesulcus primigenius (courtesy of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Aquileia, inv. n. 49100).

ISBN 978-88-6060-662-4

Roman Republican Colonization New Perspectives from Archaeology and Ancient History

edited by

tesse D. Stek and Jeremia Pelgrom

PAPeRS Of tHe ROyAl NetHeRlANDS INStItute IN ROMe - VOluMe 62 - 2014

Contents

PRefACe 7

INtRODuCtION

Roman Colonization under the Republic: historiographical contextualisation of a paradigm 10Jeremia Pelgrom and Tesse D. Stek

PARt ICONtextuAlIzING ROMAN RePuBlICAN COlONIzAtION. BACKGROuNDS,DefINItIONS AND COMPARANDA

Private Vis, Public Virtus. family agendas during the early Roman expansion 45Nicola Terrenato

the nature of Roman strategy in Mid-Republican colonization and road building 60Guy Bradley

Roman colonization and the city-state model 73Jeremia Pelgrom

the city-state model and Roman Republican colonization: sacred landscapes as a proxy for colonial socio-political organization 87Tesse D. Stek

livy 27.38 and the vacatio militiae of the maritime colonies 106Luuk de Ligt

PARt IICOlONIAl lANDSCAPeS. COlONIStS AND NAtIVeS SHAPING tHe uRBAN, NAtuRAlAND SOCIAl eNVIRONMeNt

Gellius, Philip II and a proposed end to the ‘model-replica’ debate 125Jamie Sewell

Republican colonization and early urbanization in Central Adriatic Italy: the valley of the River Flosis 141Frank Vermeulen

Strangers in Paradise.latins (and some other non-Romans) in colonial context: a short story of territorial complexity 160Michel Tarpin

Colonisation romaine et ‘espaces ripariens’ dans les Civitates Campaniae de Sylla aux triumvirs 193Ella Hermon

early colonization in the Pontine region (Central Italy) 211Peter Attema, Tymon de Haas and Marleen Termeer

le colonie di luceria e Venusia. Dinamiche insediative, urbanizzazione e assetti agrari 233Maria Luisa Marchi

Roman colonial landscapes: Interamna lirenas and its territory through antiquity 255Giovanna R. Bellini, Alessandro Launaro and Martin Millett

PARt IIItHe RelIGIOuS DIMeNSION Of ROMAN COlONIzAtION

tutelary deities in Roman citizen colonies 279Marion Bolder-Boos

Il culto di Apollo nella colonizzazione romana 295Andrea Carini

Il santuario di ercole ad Alba fucens: nuovi dati per lo studio delle fasi più antiche della colonialatina 309Daniela Liberatore

PARt IVtHe CReAtION Of ROMAN CeNtRAlIty

Effigies parvae simulacraque Romae.la fortuna di un modello teorico repubblicano: leptis Magna colonia romana 335Mario Torelli

Qua aratrum ductum est. la colonizzazione romana come chiave interpretativa della Roma delle origini 357Simone Sisani

Publications of the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome 405

FIG. 1. A pertica (highly) schematized. Vatican, Palatinus 1564. Fig. 136a Th, 197a L (drawing by M. Tarpin).

1 Chouquer 2008, 204. See also http://www.archeogeo-

graphie.org/index.php?rub=arpentage/romain/or-

ange/interphisto.2 On this see Roselaar 2010, 298. More recently, Lorenzo

Gagliardi (Gagliardi 2011; 2014) has focused on the jux-

taposition of statuses that can be found in the same

colonial territory. 3 Plin., HN 3.5.46.

4 Contra Chastagnol 1995, passim and Gascou 1999, 294,

note 4 (with complementary bibliography), who see Latins

as normal peregrines. Of course, as Latium was not a city,

there was no unique ‘Latin citizenship’. Nevertheless, legal

texts that distinguish between ‘normal’ peregrines and

Latins do exist. After the lex Iunia was passed, a new dis-

tinction was added between Junian Latins (i.e., freedmen

e lege Iunia) and Latini coloniarii, who were freeborn. Cf.

Strangers in Paradise. Latins (and other non-Romans)

in colonial context: a short story of territorial complexity

Michel Tarpin

IntroductionThe treatises composed by the Roman land surveyors present the reader with a detailed view of the

territorial and legal organization of Roman colonies. Regrettably, these texts are so difficult to understandthat, rather than clarifying matters, they often complicate and confuse our understanding of Romancolonial territorial organization. Some scholars even doubt whether they reflect any administrative realityat all. To some extent, one can blame the medieval copyists for the inaccuracies and errors in themanuscripts as they did not always understand what they were copying. Recently, Gérard Chouquerargued convincingly that the confusion is primarily the result of Roman land surveyors trying to combinelegal concepts, historical facts and local metrology.1 The famous picture of a colonial pertica in thePalatinus 1564 manuscript (fig. 1) is a good example of this complex process. What is depicted is anattempt to capture, in one single image, the long history of a colonial territory. The unfeasibility of suchan attempt becomes clear if one understands the turbulent and dynamic history of such colonizedlandscapes.2 To give one example, according to Pliny, the Ligures Ingauni, a small community in NorthernItaly, was granted land thirty times, a situation impossible to record on a single map.3 Once oneunderstands the long, complex legal and social history of the colonial lands, one understands the difficulttasks the Roman land surveyors had and starts to appreciate the attempts they made.

This article gives a few examples showing how migration and the political integration of diverse groupsor individuals might have contributed to the wide variety of situations the land surveyors tried to describeand that, in essence, these situations reflect pragmatic choices made by the Senate when confronted withdifferent circumstances. The focus will mainly be on Latin migration in colonial contexts, as well as onindividual naturalization. Afterwards, returning to the Palatinus map, it can be seen that the map is asimplification of what the real situation must have been.

The Latins’ ‘privileged relationship’ with RomeLatin colonists of either Roman or Latin origin were formally peregrines, citizens of communities linked

to Rome probably by a foedus. Their legal relation to Rome was probably stipulated in the colonialfoundation laws.4 Such laws may also have simplified political integration into the Roman citizen body. In

Gai., Inst. 1.29, 2.56: “cives Romani ingenui qui ex urbe

Roma in Latinas colonias deducti Latini coloniarii esse

coeperunt”. Gaius (Gai., Inst. 1.79) also contrasts “qui La-

tini nominantur” (Junian Latins) and “alios Latinos […]

qui proprios populos propriasque civitates habebant et

erant peregrinorum numero” (“colonial Latins”). Cf. Cod.

Iust., 7.6.1: “Cum enim Latini liberti ad similitudinem

antiquae Latinitatis, quae in coloniis missa est, videntur

esse introducti”. And: Gai., Inst. 3.56: “Postea uero per

legem Iuniam eos omnes, quos praetor in libertate

tuebatur, liberos esse coepisse et appellatos esse Latinos

Iunianos: Latinos ideo, quia lex eos liberos proinde esse

uoluit, atque si essent ciues Romani ingenui, qui ex urbe

Roma in Latinas colonias deducti Latini coloniarii esse

coeperunt; Iunianos ideo, quia per legem Iuniam liberi

facti sunt, etiamsi non essent ciues Romani.”5 See Broadhead, especially 2001 and 2004.6 Cf. Gai., Inst. 1.56: “si ciues Romanas uxores duxerint

uel etiam Latinas peregrinasue, cum quibus conubium

habeant: cum enim conubium id efficiat, ut liberi patris

condicionem sequantur, euenit, ut non solum ciues

Romani fiant, sed et in potestate patris sint”. (“Roman

citizens who have contracted marriage according to the

Civil Law and who have produced children are under-

stood to have those children in their power if they

marry Roman citizens, or even Latins or foreigners

whom they have the right to marry; for the result of

legal marriage is that the children follow the condition

of the father and not only are Roman citizens by birth,

but also become subject to paternal authority [patria

potestas].”) (transl. De Zulueta 1946). Gai., Inst. 1.76-77.

Even under the Empire, the edict of Claudius in favour

of Volubilis shows that conubium with peregrines was

a feature of the Roman municipium. ILM 116: “M.

Val(erio) Bostaris | f(ilio), Gal(eria), Seuero […]. Huic

ordo municipii Volub(ilitani) ob merita | erga rem

pub(licam) et legationem |bene gestam, qua ab divo |Claudio civitatem Romanam | et conubium cum

peregrinis | mulieribus, immunitatem | annor(um) X,

incolas, bona civium bello interfectorum, | quorum

heredes | non extabant, suis impetrauit. […]”.7 Coşkun 2009, 35-39. Initially, conubium might have

been limited to the XII coloniae. After the lex Minicia,

sons inherited the lesser right (Paulus, Sent. 5.8). See

discussion in Gai., Inst. 1.78-79.8 Broadhead 2001, 81. Liv. 8.14.10: “ceteris Latinis

populis conubia commerciaque et concilia inter se

ademerunt”. However, the Hernici, namely Aletrium,

Verulanum, and Ferentinum, later obtained the right

to maintain its old laws and conubium inter ipsos (Liv.

9.43.23-24) as a privilege.9 Liv. 45.29.10: “pronuntiavit deinde neque conubium neque

commercium agrorum aedificiorumque inter se placere

cuiquam extra fines regionis suae esse”. Hartmut Galsterer

(Galsterer 1995, 90) sensibly notes that conubium was a

prerequisite for the Roman citizenship granted to a local

Latin government (ius civitatis adipiscendae per

magistratum). Otherwise a number of marriages in the

Latin cities would have been null and void.10 Coşkun (2009, 39-58) thinks that the ius commercii is a

modern concept, defined by the verbs ‘to give’ or ‘to re-

move’ attached to commercium. As usual, because of the

lack of Republican sources, reference has to be made to

Imperial-era lawyers. Nonetheless, the rules governing

commercium emphasize the co-existence of communities

of different status, a situation better suited to the Italian Re-

modern literature usually three privileges are supposed to have facilitated, if not full political integration, atleast their legal relationship with Rome: commercium, conubium and the so-called ius migrandi. These areall hotly debated topics for which very little reliable historical information exists.5

According to Gaius, in the Republican period, conubium allowed a male Roman citizen to ensure thathis children would receive full citizenship if their mother was a Latin or peregrine from a community witha lex or a clause in a foedus that stipulated conubium. The children also fell under the potestas of the fatherand could therefore be legal heirs.6 According to the sources, this traditional right of intermarriage withLatins can be traced back to the Regal period; an indication that it was considered a legitimate and ancientright. Perhaps it was even one of the clauses in the treaties of the Latin League or in the foedus Cassianum.7

Certainly conubium had once existed between the Latin cities and was abolished by Rome in 338 B.C. (onlyconubium with Rome remained).8 In the same way Aemilius Paullus deprived the four new Macedonianregions of conubium et commercium inter se in 167 B.C.9

Commercium is a much-debated privilege.10 It certainly included the right to transfer full ownership by

public. The simplest definition given by the Tit. Ulp., 19.5:

“Commercium est emendi vendundique invicem ius”

(“commercium is the right to buy and sell reciprocally”).

Commercium is directly related to mancipatio, the defini-

tion of which is less obvious (cf. http://remacle.org/blood-

wolf/Gracques/mancipium.htm); Tit. Ulp., 19.3: “Omnes res

aut mancipi sunt aut nec mancipi. Mancipi res sunt

praedia in Italico solo, tam rustica, qualis est fundus, quam

urbana, qualis domus; item iura praediorum rusticorum,

velut via, iter, actus, aquaeductus; item servi et

quadrupedes, quae dorso collove domantur, velut boves,

muli, equi, asini; ceterae res nec mancipi sunt. Elefanti et

cameli, quamvis collo dorsove domentur, nec mancipi sunt,

quoniam bestiarum numero sunt”. There is endless debate

about the question of the “rights of the 12 colonies” re-

garding commercium. At the moment, it adds nothing to

the discussion of the nature of commercial relations be-

tween Latins and Romans.11 Tit. Ulp., 20.13. Insofar as a person with no right of man-

cipatio might have had the opportunity to perform in iure

cessio, it must be inferred that some sales had full legal

validity only if they were made by mancipatio. Had this

not been so, the restriction placed on the prodigus would

have been meaningless. See what happened to the son

of Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (Val. Max. 3.5.2).12 Contra Coşkun 2009, 62.13 Infra, pp. 169-70; Laffi 1995, 54.14 Cf. Coşkun 2009, 40. He argues that the absence of ref-

erences to either commercium or mancipatio in the

Carthaginian treaties suggests that this right did not exist

at that time. However, these treaties regulated very spe-

cific circumstances: the Carthaginians were not Italians

and had no hierarchical relationship with Rome or conu-

bium. Above all, the treaties with Carthage were intended

to prevent interaction between the two cities; in fact their

purpose is precisely the opposite of commercial treaties.15 Broadhead 2001, 81.16 Liv. 43.5.9: “illa petentibus data, ut denorum equorum

iis commercium esset educendique ex Italia potestas

fieret”. The combination of commercium and the right

to export the horses is notable.17 Cic., Caecin. 35.102.18 Coşkun 2009, 42-43; Festus, Gloss. Lat. 426-28, 474, 74,

91. On nexus in the Law of the XII Tabulae 1.5, see

Crawford 1996, 555, no. 40.19 See http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/Gracques/mancipium.

htm#texte. Cic., Top. 5.28: “Abalienatio est eius rei quae

mancipi est aut traditio alteri nexu aut in iure cessio

mancipatio (originally per aes et libram). Commercium still appears in Imperial legal texts after formalmancipatio seems to have disappeared. For example, a prodigus (spendthrift) was deprived of commerciumand therefore could not sell his slaves by mancipatio, which is definitely a restriction on his freedom as acitizen.11 Mancipatio apparently remained important as far as wills were concerned. It is possible that Romegranted the Latins and some allies not only the freedom to practice a trade protected by law in Rome, but alsothe right to inherit from a Roman or appoint a Roman as heir.12 Umberto Laffi draws attention to the fact thatcommercium was an essential precondition for the fraudulent naturalization mentioned by Livy in 177 B.C.13

It is usually assumed that the Latins formally lost commercium inter se in 338 B.C. which would implythey lived for over two centuries without being able to make legal sales contracts that awarded fullownership.14 Will Broadhead convincingly explains this harsh measure as a Roman strategy to monopolizecommerce. Rome had a financial interest in forbidding commercium between Latin cities, while maintainingunilaterally its own commercium with each city.15 The right of commercium might also occasionally begranted to allow peregrines to make legal purchases in Rome. For example, in the early 2nd c. B.C., inaddition to the usual diplomatic gifts, the Senate granted some Gallic ambassadors temporary commerciumfor specific products they wanted to buy in Rome.16

Cicero states that Sulla allowed the cities he had deprived of Roman citizenship to retain the legalcategories of nexum and hereditates,17 which were probably the most essential elements of commercium.No doubt it would have been impossible to abolish these rights without creating widespread confusionthroughout Italy. Admittedly nexus (or nexum) is a rather shadowy term that is difficult to define, but itcertainly was not the archaic right to enslave a debtor, which was probably only one aspect of nexus. AltayCoşkun rightly supposes that its meaning may have extended to a form of personal guarantee on contracts.18

Mancipatio might have been a special category of nexus.19

inter quos ea iure civili fieri possunt.” (“Alienation is

the surrender of anything which is a man’s private

property, or a legal cession of it to men who are able

by law to avail themselves of such cession”) (transl.

Yonge, 1856). Cic., Har. Resp. 7. One simple definition

of nexus, attributed to Manilius by Varro (Varro, Ling.

7.105) is: “Nexum Manilius scribit omne quod per

libram et aes geritur, in quo sint mancipia”. See Agen.

Urb., De contr. 62 L., 23 Th: “qui agri (provinciales)

nexum non habent”. Cf. Saumagne 1965, 80-85.20 Polyb. 6.14.8.21 Bispham 2009, 133; see also the detailed analysis of

Coşkun 2009, 74-82.22 Broadhead 2001; id. 2004; Coşkun 2009, passim, does

not reach a clear conclusion.23 E.g., Martin 2001, 74, who quotes the precedents of

Kings Tarquinius and Servius.24 Galsterer 1995, 82.25 Laffi 1995, 51-52, 77; Ferrary 2003. Laffi proposes to

limit the right of integration into Rome to Latins of

Roman origin (Laffi 1995, 52), but there is no evidence

of such a criterion. In contrast to the general hypoth-

esis of Kremer 2006, I am not sure that the Senate

made a legal distinction between Latins of Roman ori-

gin and Latins of Latin (or peregrine) origin. See the

critical analysis of Broadhead 2001.26 Cf. Salmon 1936, 56-57. Contra: Laffi 1995, 51. These

twelve colonies are mentioned by Cicero (Caecin. 102),

but he does not say what the ius duodecim coloniarum

was. Another problem is that one of the colonies is

Ariminum: more than eleven colonies preceded Arim-

inum and there should have been twelve after it, if Luca

was a Latin colony, which is not always accepted. See

Broadhead 2001, 76-77; Coşkun 2009, 64-69.27 App., B Civ. 1.23. This practice was imitated later

when incolae were allowed to establish themselves in

a colony to vote in a curia. E.g., the lex municipii

Malacitani, § 53.28 Liv., 26.34.6-7: “Campanos omnes Atellanos Calatinos

Sabatinos, extra quam qui eorum aut ipsi aut parentes

eorum apud hostes essent, liberos esse iusserunt, ita ut

nemo eorum civis Romanus aut Latini nominis esset,

neve quis eorum qui Capuae fuisset dum portae

clausae essent in urbe agrove Campano intra certam

Roman foedera seem to have included a status called exilium, the right to give refuge to a Roman criminalwithout fear of prosecution. Polybius refers to two major Latin cities, Praeneste and Tibur (see fig. 3. in thecontribution of Terrenato in this volume) and to a Greek one, Naples, and writes that all allied cities could offerrefuge to an exile.20 One can only agree with Edward Bispham that exilium represented a significant gesture oftrust toward a city that had the right to host a Roman criminal.21

On the supposed collective change from Latin to Roman citizenshipRelying primarily on indirect references in Livy, most ancient historians accept that it was possible for

Latins to acquire civitas Romana by residing in Rome. In modern scholarship, this ‘right’ is called the iusmigrandi or ius migrationis. Some historians doubt that a genuine right – which indeed has never beenverified22 – existed, while others argue that it was a very ancient custom23 that was, in later times, occasionallyabused.24 Still others believe that Latins may have benefited from temporary flexibility in the Roman census.25

The ius migrandi would have given a Latin the right to acquire civitas Romana by settling and registeringin Rome. The ius migrandi has sometimes been associated with the so-called right ‘of Ariminum’, aboutwhich little is known.26 The ius migrandi must have differed in some way from the ius suffragii.27 Even ifever fewer scholars believe that there actually was a ius migrandi, they cannot deny that there weresignificant waves of migration of Latins to Rome in the first quarter of the 2nd c. B.C. Therefore, the bestway to confirm or refute the hypothesis that such a specific right existed would be to examine inchronological order episodes of population movement between the capture of Capua – and thecondemnation and exile of the Campani – and the last book of Livy.

In 210 B.C., after a plebiscite, the Roman Senate decreed the restoration of the freedom of the CampaniAtellanes, Calatini, and Sabatini with the exception of those who had been condemned and with the stipulationthat they could not become Roman or Latin citizens.28 Since these Campanians were not sent to colonies but

diem maneret; locus ubi habitarent trans Tiberim qui

non contingeret Tiberim daretur” (“[The senate] or-

dered that all Campani, Atellani, Calatini, Sabatini, ex-

cept those who had sided with the enemy, either

themselves or their fathers, were to be free men, with

the reservation that no one of them should be a

Roman citizen or reckoned a Latin, and that no one

of them who had been at Capua while the gates were

closed should remain in the city or in the territory of

Capua beyond a certain date; that a region across the

Tiber, but not touching the Tiber, be given them as a

dwelling-place”) (transl. Moore 1934, with modifica-

tions). This clause is probably very different to that for

the Insubres, Cenomani, and Helvetii, because it does

not offer foreign communities protection and gives no

access to civitas Romana (Ferrary 2003, 110; Sanchez

2007).29 Liv. 28.11.11. The citizens had to return to their

colonies before a certain day, exactly the same rule

applying to soldiers at the beginning of a campaign.30 As quoted by Coşkun, the colonists fled not only to

Rome but undique, and nobody says they became Ro-

mans. The Placentini and Cremonenses therefore are

not an example of people subject to the ius migrandi

(Coşkun 2009, 159).

31 Admittedly, such reconstruction of events is based on

Imperial law (Cf. Pompon., Dig. 49.15.5), but seems

to be supported by the provisions laid down in the

second Romano-Carthaginian treaty which indicate

that the soil played an important role in the loss or re-

covery of citizenship (cf. Polyb. 3.24.6). 32 Liv. 31.21.18: “Placentini captivi ad duo milia

liberorum capitum redditi colonis”.33 Liv. 32.26.3: “[Sex. Aelius] totum prope annum

Cremonensibus Placentinisque cogendis redire in

colonias, unde belli casibus dissipati erant, consumpsit.”34 Liv. 33.23.6: “ceterum magis in se convertit oculos

Cremonensium Placentinorumque colonorum turba,

pilleatorum currum sequentium.” Livy does not mention

the release of captives after Cethegus’ victory in 198 B.C.

(Liv. 32, 30).35 Cornelius Cethegus did not free Placentia and

Cremona, which would had been liberated previously

by Purpureo, Their populations would have been re-

stored in 199-98 B.C. Moreover, Hamilcar, who died

facing Purpureo, was alive the next year when he

walked before Cethegus’ chariot. Livy indicates that

the sources for the first years of the 2nd c. B.C. in Gaul

are not unanimous (cf. Liv. 33.36.15).

were required to reside under compulsory residence orders in different places on the ager Romanus, the mostobvious conclusion that can be drawn from this passage is that being ‘Latin’ implied specific individual rights,regardless whether one belonged to a specific city. We may also presume that the Roman magistrates sent acopy of the decree to all the Latin communities and subsequently compiled lists of people convicted in Rome,so that the convicted would have been prevented from enrolling in a colony. Since before 204 B.C., the Latincensus was archived in each city according to their local rules, the Senate had no direct control over whetherthe allies and Latins incorporated individual Campanians in their cities before this time.

The next relevant thing in this context regards the problems the colonies of Placentia and Cremonaexperienced in maintaining stable population levels. Founded on the Gallic frontier in 218 B.C., these Latincolonies were immediate targets of the Gauls. In 206 B.C., ambassadors from these cities complained thattheir citizens had been leaving and hence the cities were becoming deserted. The Senate accordingly orderedthe colonists to return to their colonies, now protected by a Roman army.29 This measure applied only toPlacentini and Cremonenses who had remained free and fled to safer places.30 Others captured by the Gauls,once they were brought to the enemy’s praesidia, were no longer citizens of their former colonies.31 It tookRome many years to finish the task of freeing the captives and to round up the fugitive colonists. In 200 B.C.,the praetor M. Furius Purpureo crushed the Gauls who had taken Placentia and returned the captive coloniststo their colonies.32 Still, two years later, Sextius Aelius spent most of the year bringing back dispersedcolonists.33 In my opinion they must have been free colonists because he had to force them to return.

It is furthermore recorded that in 197 B.C., the citizens of the two colonies showed their support forCornelius Cethegus during his triumph, following his chariot pilleati as freedmen.34 Although there is someconfusion about whether Cethegus had been their liberator (the alternative candidate is Purpureo),35 these ex-

36 Pompon., Dig. 49.15.5.2: “In bello, cum hi, qui nobis

hostes sunt, aliquem ex nostris ceperunt et intra praesidia

sua perduxerunt: nam si eodem bello is reversus fuerit,

postliminium habet, id est perinde omnia restituuntur ei

iura, ac si captus ab hostibus non esset. Antequam in

praesidia perducatur hostium, manet civis. Tunc autem

reversus intellegitur, si aut ad amicos nostros perveniat

aut intra praesidia nostra esse coepit.” (“In war, when

those who are our enemies seize one of us, and take

him within their fortifications, for if he returns during the

same war, he will have the right of postliminium; that is

to say, all his rights will be restored to him, just as if he

had not been captured. Before he is taken into the forti-

fications of the enemy, he remains a citizen, and he is

understood to have returned if he comes to our friends,

or within our defences”) (transl. Scott 1932). Repeated

by Paulus, Dig. 49.15.19.pr. Postliminium was a legal an-

swer to a very old question: what should a city do with

people and things returning from an alien country? But

note the precision of the clause si eodem bello is reversus

fuerit. The Placentini and Cremonenses were not freed

“in the same war” in which they had been captured.37 The procedure of postliminium under the Republic is

not described by the jurists, but a parallel can be drawn

with the fictitious sale of emancipation (Inst. Iust. 1.12.6).

Pertinent in this instance are the thousands of Roman

captives sold in Greece by Hannibal and bought back to

be freed by the Greeks allies, mostly the Achaeans, on

the orders of Titus Flamininus (Liv. 34.52.12). Their heads

shaven, they paraded behind the triumphal chariot. The

Placentini and Cremonenses, too, followed the chariot

like soldiers, an indication that they were freed during

the war and recruited (as allies?). The terms of the second

Romano-Carthaginian treaty state that, if an Italian cap-

tured by the Carthaginians entered a Roman harbour and

if a Roman took him under his protection, he could re-

turn home (Polyb. 3.24.6). ἐπιλαμβάνω in Polybius is com-

monly interpreted as a kind of manumissio (contra

Coşkun 2009, 85). See the Romano-Lycian treaty (R. Pin-

taudi, ed., Papyri Graecae Schoyen I. Papyrologica

Florentina XXXV, Firenze, 2005, 161-258): “ἐάν Λὺκιος ἐκπολεμίων ἀνασωθεὶς εἰς Ῥώμην παραγένεται ἐλεύθερος ἔστω,ὡς ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ῥωμαίοι τὸ αὐτὸ δίκαιον ἐν Λυκίαι ἔστωι”.

38 Cf. Coşkun 2009, 100.39 Paulus, Dig. 49.15.19.2: “a piratis aut latronibus capti

liberi permanent”. Cf. also Ulp., Dig. 49.15.24. On

postliminium, see Ando 2008, 503-4.40 Liv. 37.46.9-10.41 Liv. 33.24.8-9: “Cosanis eodem anno postulantibus, ut

sibi colonorum numerus augeretur, mille adscribi iussi,

dum ne quis in eo numero esset, qui post P. Cornelium

et Ti. Sempronium consules (204 B.C.) hostis fuisset.”

captives were exhibited in Rome in honor of the general who rescued them, wearing freedmen’s caps. Theseformer citizens of Cremona and Placentia probably returned to their colonies after the parade, under the termsof the above discussed senatorial decree. I believe that their wearing a pilleus during the triumphal processionwas more than just a symbolic gesture: it was a demonstration pregnant with meaning. The exact terms ofpostliminium under the Republic are unknown but it is plausible that some of the Imperial definitions givenby Paulus and Pomponius could date to the Republic.36 No text gives the procedure for reinstatement of areleased captive in a city, but there are reasonable grounds for conjecturing that the former colonists, whomay have spent some time as slaves of the Gauls, were brought to the free Latin colonists of Placentia andwere immediately freed.37 The author’s view is that, except in the situation of a reditus in eodem bello, a mancaptured and enslaved needed to be freed to regain his citizenship.38 As Paulus says, only those who werecaptured by pirates or bandits – who were not considered real hostes and had no real praesidia – retainedtheir free status (the young Caesar in Cilicia, for instance). In other words, they were not considered to havebeen taken captive.39 It is clear, however, that only a limited number of captured colonists were freed because,in 190 B.C., the two cities asked for the dispatch of a new contingent of colonists. The consul C. Laeliusenrolled six thousand families to settle there.40 It can be reconstructed from these events that in the periodbetween 206 and 190 B.C., Cremona and Placentia were repopulated by people with different backgroundsincluding old colonists who had remained free during the war, by colonists who had been reintegrated aftertheir captivity and, finally, by new colonists.

In 199 B.C., at the beginning of the censorship of Scipio Africanus and P. Aelius Paetus, two cities askedthat their populations be increased. The request of Cosa was refused, the city having to wait until 197 B.C.,41

(“The same year, the people of Cosa requested that the

number of their colonists be increased; one thousand

were ordered to be enrolled, with the provisio that no

one should be included in the number who had been

an enemy since the consulship of Publius Cornelius and

Tiberius Sempronius.”) (transl. Sage 1935, modified).42 Liv. 32.2.6-7: “Et Narnienses legatis querentibus ad nu-

merum sibi colonos non esse et immixtos quosdam non

sui generis pro colonis se gerere, earum rerum causa

tresviros creare L. Cornelius consul iussus. […] Quod

Narniensibus datum, ut colonorum numerus augere-

tur, id Cosanis petentes non impetraverunt”. (“Deputies

from Narnia, complaining that they had not their due

number of colonists, and that several who were not of

their community were conducting themselves as

colonists, Lucius Cornelius, the consul, was ordered to

appoint three commissioners to adjust those matters.

[…] The favor granted to the Narnians, of filling up

their number of colonists, was refused to the people

of Cosa, who asked for it.”) (transl. Sage 1935). It is not

said that the foreigners had no right to act like the

colonists. The problem may be that those foreigners

did not provide soldiers with the Narnienses.

43 Piper 1987, 50.44 Liv. 29.15.45 Cic., Arch. 11.46 Se pro colonis gerere doubtless means that they were

landowners or possessores; that they were participating

in cults and activities of the colony. Perhaps they even

paid taxes and made wills.47 Liv. 34.42.5: “Novum ius eo anno a Ferentinatibus

temptatum, ut Latini qui in coloniam Romanam nom-

ina dedissent [Weissenborn Müller; E. T. Sage; deder-

ant: Oxford, followed by Piper] cives Romani essent:

Puteolos Salernumque et Buxentum adscripti coloni

qui nomina dederant, et, cum ob id se pro civibus Ro-

manis ferrent, senatus iudicavit non esse eos cives Ro-

manos.” (“This same year, the “Ferentinates”, claim to

a new privilege; that Latins who have given their

names for a Roman colony, should be (immediately?)

Roman citizens. As some colonists, who had given in

their names for Puteoli, Salernum, and Buxentum, as-

sumed, on that ground, the character of Roman citi-

zens, the senate determined that they were not.”)

(transl. D. Spillan and C. Edmonds 1868, modified).

Cf. Piper, 1987.

but the request of Narnia was granted.42 Deryck J. Piper argues that the reluctance of the Roman Senate togrant both cities their request is probably the result of the war and of extensive colonial movement whichmade it too difficult to recruit enough new colonists for both cities.43 Another explanation, however, mightbe more convincing. Narnia was one of the rebel colonies during the war and had been punished. As aresult, in 204 B.C., its census was taken over by the Roman censors44 who would immediately see if thenumber of colonists in the city was really dwindling. Conversely, in Cosa, a ‘loyal’ colony, the census wasconducted by local censors and conveyed to Rome after the conclusion of the Roman census which happenedprecisely in 197 B.C. Furthermore, there were apparently no triumvirs for Cosa and a condition was imposedon the registration of new settlers: those who had been traitors during the Hannibalic War were explicitlyexcluded. These two points suggest that the recruitment of new colonists was conducted by the local censors.Since the Campanian traitors were settled on the right bank of the Tiber, tactically speaking, it would havebeen better to prevent the magistrates of Cosa from welcoming them.

Narnia was an entirely different case. Although the colony suffered a shortage of colonists, it was alsohome to a foreign population that was acting ‘like colonists’. Livy does not say whether the triumvirs werecontent to integrate these non-colonist inhabitants or whether they sought and found new settlers in Rome.The expression pro colonis se gerere recalls the Pro Archia, in which Cicero says that Archias could berecognized as a Roman because se iam tum gessisse pro cive.45 From a lawyer’s perspective this is reasonablygood evidence of citizenship; it arouses the suspicion that the triumvirs enrolled at least some peregrini,the majority of them certainly Italians.46

The following complicated case further illustrates that there was considerable migratory movement andintegration at the beginning of the 2nd c. B.C. In 194 B.C., shortly before the definitive dispatch of coloniststo Puteoli, Salernum and Buxentum, the Senate was confronted with a petition from ‘Ferentinates’ demandingthat Latins who had signed up for a Roman colony were immediately granted Roman citizenship.47 It cannot

48 Liv. 32.29.4; Ferrary 2003, 111.49 Liv. 34.45.1-2.50 Humbert 1978, 108, note 71; ibid., 213. On account of

this very text, it is assumed that Ferentinum became a

municipium only after 195 B.C., but this is circular rea-

soning. Cf. RE 6, 1909, 2208. More recently, because of

this same passage in Livy, it has been assumed that the

city had received Roman legal rights in 195 B.C. (DNP

4, 473, Ferentinum). Practically nothing is known about

the city after 306 B.C., except that it was, as was

Teanum Sidicinum, the scene of a scandal, probably in

the years 130-20 B.C.: a Roman praetor is said to have

flogged a local quaestor because the city baths was not

to his liking. The other quaestor committed suicide

(Gell., NA 10.3.3). This would have been a surprising

event in a municipium, but more acceptable in a civitas

foederata. In a disputed story, Florus (Flor. 1.13.7-8) re-

lates that a certain Obsidius, commander of the Feren-

tine cavalry, tried to kill King Pyrrhus near Heraclea

(280 B.C.). If Florus is right, Ferentinum was then a

civitas foederata.51 Liv. 9.43.23.52 The hypothesis is bold, since the dissolution of the

Latin League in 338 B.C. would have ended military

gatherings at the outlet of Lago Albano, near the

“laghetto di Turno”. However, it is impossible to ex-

clude some form of continuity of worship – because

a ritual would or could not have been terminated

abruptly. Sharing sacrificial animals at Mount Alban

was still a well-established ritual in 199 B.C. (Liv.

32.1.9). On the Ferentina aqua, see Grandazzi 1996. 53 Smith 1954, 19.54 Moatti 1993, 11-12. From my point of view, the differ-

ence between the two stages might have been more

than formal, as Moatti assumes.55 For Novum Comum, see Coşkun forthcoming.

be a coincidence that the decision to establish the three settlements dated back to 197 B.C. and threetriumvirs had been appointed over all the colonies for this purpose – before the Ferentinates made theirdemand.48 The triumvirs were also responsible for the foundation of Volturnum and Liternum later in 194B.C. on the authority of Sempronius Longus who was then consul.49

The interpretation of these related events depends on the exact legal status of Ferentinum.50 Livy says thatFerentinum, faithful to Rome in 306 B.C., was granted the right to retain its institutions aliquamdiu.51 Thereforeit was probably a federated city. However, the question is: did it keep this status until the Social War? Thesources are absolutely silent on this matter. It seems logical to agree with Michel Humbert that what theFerentinates wanted in 194 B.C. would, in general measure, apply to all Latins. The only stumbling block isthe question of why Ferentinum, a Hernician city, would have made this request in the name of all the Latins.Explanations proposed are:

I) many Ferentinates subscribed to the petition; II) the city was perhaps in some way assimilated as a Latin city; III) or, very hypothetically, the word Ferentinates does not derive from Ferentinum but from Ferentina. It

would in that case have been a collective demand made by the old Latins through their common cultplace.52

We know that Latins registered their names for Roman colonies and were enrolled without objection.However, the fact that the Ferentinates asked that Roman citizenship be granted at the moment they signedup for colonization (thus a couple of years before the colonists departed to their new homes) seems toimply that being registered on the lists of future Roman colonists was not sufficient grounds for claimingRoman citizenship. This is in line with the theory of Richard Edwin Smith who pointed out that colonistswere granted citizenship in their colony only when the census was taken, not during the enrollment of‘volunteers’ (adscriptio).53 Furthermore, Claudia Moatti observes that Appian also distinguishes betweenenrollment (καταλέγειν) and distribution to different colonies (ἐπινέμειν).54 Indeed, there was a real risk thatpersons registered on the lists might not actually settle in a colony and would unrightfully claim Romancitizenship. This was a problem that recurred in Novum Comum a century and a half later.55 Moreover, as

56 Lex agraria, passim: “quoi colono eive quei in colonei

numero scriptus est” (Crawford 1996, 188). Bispham

2009, 84.57 Liv. 34.53.1-2.58 Liv. 34.56.5-7.59 Liv. 34.56.12-13.60 Being a Latin resident in Rome was perhaps a unique

solution to escape conscription in the army. Indeed,

the allies were usually rounded up by force and the

urban legions were called to take up arms without any

possible exemption (Liv. 34.56.11).61 Liv. 35.7.2-5.62 Plut., Vit. Flam. 18.1: “Μετὰ δὲ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις καὶ

τὸν Ἀντιοχικὸν πόλεμον ἀπεδείχθη τιμητής, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀρχὴμεγίστη καὶ τρόπον τινὰ τῆς πολιτείας ἐπιτελείωσις. καὶσυνῆρχε μὲν αὐτῷ Μαρκέλλου τοῦ πεντάκις ὑπατεύσαντοςυἱός, ἐξέβαλον δὲ τῆς βουλῆς τῶν οὐκ ἄγαν ἐπιφανῶντέσσαρας, προσεδέξαντο δὲ πολίτας ἀπογραφομένους πάντας,

ὅσοι γονέων ἐλευθέρων ἦσαν, ἀναγκασθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦδημάρχου Τερεντίου Κουλέωνος, ὃς ἐπηρεάζων τοῖςἀριστοκρατικοῖς ἔπεισε τὸν δῆμον ταῦτα ψηφίσασθαι.”(“After his achievements in Greece and the war with

Antiochus, Titus was appointed censor. This is the high-

est office at Rome, and in a manner the culmination of

a political career. Titus had as colleague in this office a

son of the Marcellus who had been five times consul,

and the two censors ejected from the Senate four men

of lesser note, and received into citizenship all who of-

fered themselves for enrollment, provided they were

born of free parents. To this step they were forced by

the tribune Terentius Culeo, who wanted to spite the

nobility and so persuaded the people to vote the meas-

ure”) (transl. Perrin 1921). Cf. Ferrary 2003, 120.63 Liv. 38.36.10.64 Liv. 36.9.2.65 For the census figures, see Lo Cascio 2008.

Bispham observes, a similar distinction can be found in the lex agraria of 111 B.C. which records thepresence of persons who were ‘enrolled in the colony’ alongside the colonists.56 In short, this lawdistinguished between actual colonists and ‘potential colonists’. In light of this evidence, the case of theFerentinates should not be taken as evidence of the existence of sanctions that prevented Latins fromenrolling in a Roman colony and, potentially becoming Romans.

During the 194 B.C. census, besides the above mentioned Roman colonies, it was decided to create twonew Latin colonies (one in Bruttium and the other in the territory of Thurium).57 By this time, the census ofthe Latins had certainly been archived in Rome. This is deduced from the fact that in 193 B.C. the consul Q.Minucius went to the Capitol with the magistrates of the Latin cities to enlist troops according to theproportion of iuvenes in each city.58 However, the urgency of the military situation (i.e. the rising of theLigurians) led the Senate to declare a tumultus and enlist the Latins already under arms and allow the consulto conscript all the men he wanted from the cities and countryside.59 This measure certainly encouragedLatins to migrate to Rome in order to escape arbitrary conscription by the magistrates.60

That same year, Rome imposed Roman money lending regulations on the Latins in an effort to eradicatethe questionable practice of asking an illegally high usury rate by using Latin straw men as lenders.61

Imposing this rule meant that most, if not all, Latins now had the right to conclude a contract with a Roman(was it nexus?). The decision was made shortly before the completion of the census. The logical conclusionis that the Latin cities had their own laws on interest rates (which apparently in some cases were higher)and that the Roman Senate had the power to impose an agreement by which debtors could choose underwhich law credit would be granted.

To complicate things even further, Plutarch says that during the following censorship (189-88 B.C.) thetribune Terentius Culleo passed a plebiscite requiring the censors (Flamininus and Marcellus) to registercitizens according to a new rule.62 This regulation can be interpreted as either the registration of all the sonsof free men as citizens, which would be a rather surprising measure, or a simpler solution would be toassume that the censors were compelled to register all the freeborn citizens (πολίτας ἀπογραφομένους πάντας).This could be interpreted as a measure justified by gaps in the previous census. Indeed, the figure for thecensus for 189-88 B.C. is 258,318,63 whereas in 194 B.C. only 143,704 citizens were registered,64 an absurdlylow figure.65 Furthermore, Livy mentions a decree of the Senate for the year 189 B.C. that required the

66 Liv. 38.36.5-6: “Campani, cum eos ex senatus consulto,

quod factum erat priore anno, censores Romae censeri

coegissent (nam antea incertum fuerat, ubi censerentur),

petierunt ut sibi ciues Romanas ducere uxores liceret, et

si qui prius duxissent, ut habere eas, et ante eam diem

nati, ubi iusti sibi liberi haeredesque essent; utraque res

impetrata.” (“The Campanians, since, according to the

decree which had been passed the year before, the cen-

sors compelled them to be assessed at Rome – for – re-

quested that they should be permitted to take Roman

citizens as wives, that any who had already married

Roman citizens should be allowed to keep them, and

that children born before this day should be legitimate,

and capable of inheriting from their fathers. Both re-

quests were granted.”) (transl. Sage 1936).67 Liv. 29.37.6.68 Cf. Lo Cascio 2008, 246. I agree with Lo Cascio’s argument

that the census figures include all citizens (see also Hin

2008, 189). Cicero tries to explain the non-registration of

men-at-arms by saying that it was normal. Archias was

not registered, because he was campaigning as a member

of Lucullus’ general staff. Cicero pretends not to know

that the registration of soldiers had commenced in 204

B.C. Furthermore, Archias was not a “citizen at arms”, but

merely a foreign professional flatterer (Cic., Arch. 11).69 Primarily Coşkun 2009, and Broadhead 2001; id. 2002;

id. 2003; id. 2004.70 Undique ex Latio means either the entire area of Latium

or all the Latin cities (this is the position of Kremer

2006, 33). But the text virtually imposes the first solu-

tion (socii Latinis nominis ex Latio), as noted by Weis-

senborn (Teubner edition) in his commentary. See Laffi

1995, 43, 45 and 49, who tends towards a global de-

scription of Latins and their allies. See the discussion in

Coşkun 2009, 161-87, without any positive conclusion.71 Transl. Broadhead 2003, 132: “(3) Legatis deinde

sociorum Latini nominis, qui toto undique ex Latio

frequentes convenerant, senatus datus est. (4) His

querentibus magnam multitudinem civium suorum

Romam commigrasse et ibi censos esse, (5) Q.

Terentio Culleoni praetori negotium datum est, ut

eos conquireret, et quem C. Claudio M. Livio

censoribus [204-3 B.C.] postve eos censores ipsum

parentemve eius apud se censum esse probassent

Campanians to register in Rome. Previously it was uncertain where they should be registered. They gainedwhat must be described as a conubium.66 Therefore it is tempting to regard the senatus consultum oremergency decree and the plebiscite responsible for the high figure of capita civium registered in 189-88B.C. as removing the need to suppose this was the result of many Latins being registered as Romans.However, bearing in mind that the census of 204 B.C. had already registered 214,000 capita civium, cautionis advisable.67 For the first time, says Livy, soldiers were registered in the Roman census.68 As far as Livy’sfigures are reliable, the conclusion is twofold: on the one hand, the census of 194 B.C. had certainly left outmany people; on the other, the figures in the census of 189 B.C. had risen probably because it was morecomplete, not because many Latins had come to Rome.

One point has irrefutably emerged: in those years Rome was heavily involved in controlling the censusand various reforms were undertaken. However, nothing indicates that the Senate contemplated includingLatin migrants in the citizen lists, as has sometimes been inferred from two particularly famous episodes. In187 and 177 B.C., the Senate decided to send many Latins settled in Rome back to their cities. Both eventshave been extensively debated. The following discusses them briefly and refers to recent work.69

In 187 B.C., ambassadors from the Latin cities of Latium,70 waiting at the doors of the Senate, complainedabout the loss of many of their citizens who had been registered in Rome:

Then the Senate granted an audience to embassies from the allies of the Latin name, who had gathered in

large numbers from everywhere in all Latium. When these complained that a very great number of their citizens

had migrated to Rome and had been registered in the census there, the task was given to the praetor Q.

Terentius Culleo of searching these migrants out and of forcing to return to the place where they had been

registered any whom, or the father of whom, the allies proved to have been registered in one of their cities in

or after the censorship of C. Claudius and M. Livius (204 B.C.). As a result of this investigation, 12,000 Latins

returned home: already then a great number of foreigners were burdening the city (Liv. 39.3).71

socii, ut redire eo cogeret, ubi censi essent. (6) Hac

conquisitione duodecim milia Latinorum domos

redierunt, iam tum multitudine alienigenarum

urbem on<e>rante.”72 Liv. 29.15.9-10. Cf. 29.37.7-8 [204 B.C.]. This is probably

one reason why the Latin magistrates had to wait to

submit their complaint. Cf. Kremer 2006, 82-85.73 Laffi 1995, 44.

74 McDonald 1944, 22, quoting Liv. 33.42.8 and 34.1 (lex

Oppia). The latter citation is consistent with this hy-

pothesis, which cannot be said of the first because it

is not known whether recent immigrants were eligible

for the public distributions.75 Cf. Coşkun 2009, 162.76 Moreover, there is no mention of any tribunician in-

tercessio.

The ambassadors had to wait, probably until the census was complete and all the Latin records werecollected on the Capitolium. Only then could the Senate have a proper understanding of the situation bycomparing these new statistics with those of the censuses of 204, 199, and 194 B.C. The choice of 204 B.C.as a reference point is explained because, from that specific date, the Latins had to conduct their censusaccording to Roman stipulations and at the same time.72 To identify Latins qui (Romae) censi erant themagistrates had to compare the lists, with many names erased, of Latin cities (apud se censi)73 to those ofRome (which lists precisely are not known) containing many new names. The episode attests clearly of aLatin migration to Rome, perhaps resulting from the resumption of various wars beginning in 192 B.C. whenthe Latins anxiously tried to escape by evading conscription and the heavy duties levied on Latin cities.Moreover, they must have also been attracted to migration in order to share in the economic prosperity ofRome.74 But, if the problem of 187 was that Latins had actually been enrolled as Roman citizens en masse,as has been assumed,75 the Roman magistrates should have been in a position to withdraw their citizenshipwithout resorting to a specific law.76 It would actually have been easier to send them back if they hadregistered in the Roman records as Latin residents (like Imperial incolae) without enrollment in a tribe.Curiously, Livy does not allude to any problem of citizenship, but only of demography.

In 177 B.C., the Latin cities brought another complaint before the Senate. Livy begins by summarizingthe demographic problem:

The Senate was also moved by embassies from the allies of the Latin name, who had wearied both the censors

and the previous consuls, and had finally been brought in to the Senate. The point of their complaints was that

a great number of their citizens had migrated to Rome and had been registered at Rome; and that, if this trend

were allowed to continue, within a few lustra, their deserted towns and deserted territories would not be able

to produce a single soldier. Samnites and Paelignians were also complaining that 4,000 families from their

territory had gone over to Fregellae, and that neither of them as a result of this emigration furnished any fewer

soldier in the levy.

He goes on to explain how some Latins had managed to acquire Roman citizenship clandestinely bycommitting fraud:

Moreover, two kinds of fraud had been practised to secure individual transfers of citizenship. The law granted to

any persons among the allies of the Latin confederacy, who should leave in their home towns offspring of their

loins, the privilege of becoming Roman citizens. By the abuse of this law some were injuring the allies, some the

Roman people. For in the first place, in order to evade the requirement that they should leave offspring at home,

they would give their sons to any Romans whatsoever in slavery, on the condition that they should be manumitted

and thus become citizens of freedman condition; in the second place, those who had no offspring to leave behind,

in order to become Roman citizens adopted children. Later, disdaining even these pretenses of obedience to law,

just as they pleased, with no regard to the statute or to the requirement of offspring, they would transfer to the

Roman citizenship by migration and recognition in the census. In order that these things might not occur in future,

77 Transl. Broadhead 2008: “Moverunt senatum et

legationes socium nominis Latini, quae et censores et

priores consules fatigaverant, tandem in senatum

introductae. Summa querellarum erat, cives suos

Romae censos plerosque Romam commigrasse; quod si

permittatur, perpaucis lustris futurum, ut deserta

oppida, deserti agri nullum militem dare possint.

Fregellas quoque milia quattuor familiarum transisse

ab se Samnites Paelignique querebantur, neque eo

minus aut hos aut illos in dilectu militum dare. Genera

autem fraudis duo mutandae viritim civitatis inducta

erant. Lex sociis [ac] nominis Latini, qui stirpem ex sese

domi relinquerent, dabat, ut cives Romani fierent. Ea

lege male utendo alii sociis, alii populo Romano

iniuriam faciebant. Nam et ne stirpem domi

relinquerent, liberos suos quibuslibet Romanis in eam

condicionem, ut manu mitterentur, mancipio dabant,

libertinique cives essent; et quibus stirps deesset, quam

relinquerent, ut cives Romani * * fiebant. Postea his

quoque imaginibus iuris spretis, promiscue sine lege,

sine stirpe in civitatem Romanam per migrationem et

censum transibant. Haec ne postea fierent, petebant

legati, et ut redire in civitates iuberent socios; deinde ut

lege cauerent, ne quis quem civitatis mutandae causa

suum faceret neue alienaret; et si quis ita civis Romanus

factus esset, <civis ne esset>. Haec impetrata ab senatu.”78 See Laffi 1995, 54-57; Coşkun 2009, 107-11, who pro-

vides a parallel with SIG2, I, no. 47 (founding of Nau-

pactus by the Locrians). Discussion in Ferrary, 2003 115;

Broadhead 2003, 135; Kremer 2006, 36-8. No text is

conclusive. This problem was not raised in 187 B.C. It

might have been a condition imposed by the Latin cities

to limit the exodus, but it might also have been in-

tended to increase the population of Roman adsidui.

On the other hand, neither in 187 nor in 177 B.C. it is

said that the Latins who had actually left a son in their

cities were excluded from eviction from Rome. The an-

swer might be that this rule was very old (perhaps from

the time of the foedus Cassianum, or from 338 B.C.?),

obsolete, or rarely used, but with new life breathed into

it to cope with the Latins’ situation after the war.79 Broadhead 2004, 316 and 325; id. 2008, 454-55.80 See Broadhead 2004, 320-22; Coşkun 2009, 178-84.81 A point that seems important in the modern debate

because this ‘law’ has been identified with the so-

called ius migrandi.

the ambassadors requested first, that the Senate should direct allies to return to their cities; second, that a law

should be passed providing that no one should acquire a son or dispose of one for the purpose of changing his

citizenship; third, that if anyone had thus become a Roman citizen, he should not be a Roman citizen. The Senate

granted these petitions (Liv. 41.8.6-12). 77

It is noteworthy that the decision to grant Roman citizenship was made individually, viritim, and wasfar from fraud-proof. Tired of the confusion, the Latin cities had apparently asked for definitive measures.The law requiring Latin citizens who wanted to become Roman to leave a son behind in their home citiesis the source of endless debate.78 Scholars agree that the law in question was a Roman law intended toprotect the Italian cities from depopulation (lex dabat sociis). Broadhead says that it might have been anamended part of the colonial lex data.79 Ultimate proof that a son had been left behind could only be foundin colonial archives, not in any Roman record. Today it is difficult to see how the fraud would have worked.80

If a Latin went to Rome and became Roman, how could he sell his son who had remained in his nativeLatin city, to a Roman? If he sold his son before he left, he could not become Roman because he had notleft a legal son behind. Or should it be assumed that, once such a man had become a Roman, he stillretained patria potestas over his Latin son? As Livy says, however, most people came to Rome sine lege,outside any legal framework.

One important point that has often been made is that the protest came from cities that had suffered aserious drain on their manpower (Latins and Samnites); those cities which had stable or growing populationsdid not complain. This raises the question of whether the whole affair was really about Roman naturalizationor,81 more simply, a demographic problem caused by mass migration. The Senate agreed to send the Latinsback to their cities and took firm measures to restore the situation. However, it seems likely that, as Coşkunargued, the (few) Latins who had gained full Roman citizenship – meaning they had actually left one adult

82 One probably related fact is however, that after these

events Rome suspended the creation of Latin colonies

in Italy. The only possible exception would have been

Luca, much discussed on the basis of a difficult pas-

sage in Vell. Pat. 1.15.2. 83 Transl. D. Spillan, C. R. Edmonds and W. A. McDevitte

1850-1856, modified: “Eo anno lustrum conditum est;

censores erant Q. Fulvius <Flaccus A. Postumius> Albinus;

Postumius condidit. Censa sunt civium Romanorum

capita ducenta sexaginta novem milia et quindecim,

minor aliquanto numerus, quia L. Postumius consul pro

contione edixerat, qui socium Latini nominis ex edicto C.

Claudi consulis redire in civitates suas debuissent, ne quis

eorum Romae, et omnes in suis civitatibus censerentur”.

Cf. Laffi 1995, 72-74.

84 Compare with Liv. Per. 41. Cf. Lo Cascio 2008, 244. 85 Broadhead 2003, 133; id. 2004, 322. It seems that an

incensus was no longer a citizen of any city (a good

reason to prefer exilium). See: Cic., Caecin. 99; Gai.,

Inst. 1.160; Tit. Ulp., 11.11; Zonar, 7.19; Dion. Hal.,

Ant. Rom. 4.15.6; Liv. 1.44.1. Vell. Pat. (2.14) records

that the Roman citizens living outside Italy had to

come back to Rome at each census to register. An ex-

ception was made after 204 B.C. to cover serving sol-

diers. Lo Cascio (2008, 250-1) supposes that the

punishments meted out to incensi had become ob-

solete by the 2nd c. B.C. and that proletarii had lost

interest in registering at each lustrum.

son in their cities and had been registered in a Roman tribus – were not expelled. This senatorial decisionis generally considered to have been the end of the ius migrandi, if it ever really existed, but such anassumption is perhaps excessively hypothetical.82

However, the measures did not stop the immigration problem and a lex Claudia was passed in 177B.C., at the end of the census, to prevent the registration of Latins in the Roman census. This law was appliedfor the first time during the next census, in 173 B.C.:

This year, the census was closed. The censors were Quintus Fulvius Flaccus and Aulus Postumius Albinus,

the latter of whom performed the ceremony. In this survey were rated 269,015 Roman citizens. The number

was considerably less, because the consul Lucius Postumius gave public orders in assembly that none of the

Latin allies (who, according to the edict of the consul, Caius Claudius, ought to have gone home) should be

registered at Rome, but all of them in their respective cities (Liv. 42.10.1-3).83

The result of this new law, according to Livy, was that the census of 174-73 B.C. was lower than that of179-78 B.C. This assertion is contradicted by his own figures which actually suggest an increase of morethan 10,000 citizens.84 The upshot was that only a few Latins were actually registered in the capita civiumin 177 B.C. The law raises no questions about legal or illegal naturalization or an obligation to leave a sonbehind. Its sole concern is censorial procedure. Moreover, there is no indication that the Latins were forcedto return to their cities permanently. Once registered in their place of birth, they were probably supposedto remain domiciled there, even if they chose to reside in Rome most of the year. If they chose to do so,they would have had to pay taxes and serve in the army in the contingent of their cities. It seems strangethat the law was proclaimed in the second year of the census and not right at the outset, unless Livy hasconfused, L. Postumius Albinus (cos. 173 B.C.) and Sp. Postumius Albinus (cos. 174 B.C.). In fact, the actualcensor was Aulus Postumius Albinus. Therefore, it seems safe to conjecture that the contio, during whichthe consul ordered the Latins to return home, was held at the opening of the census. Perhaps Latins whorefused to go back home were classified as incensi.85 In short, the events discussed above suggest that thelex Claudia was not a lex de civitate, but a lex de censu.

The Roman solution to the problem of emigration from and consequent weakening of the Latin allieswas, in the first instance, to send Latin citizens back to their cities after the census in which they had tried toenroll (either as Roman citizens, or as Latin incolae). In the second instance, it was to force them, right fromthe start, to return to their home cities to register. Nothing in these texts indicates that Latin immigrants had

86 Cic., Balb. 11.28: “Duarum civitatum civis noster esse

iure civili nemo potest: non esse huius civitatis qui se

alii civitati dicarit potest”.87 Cic., Balb. 11.28: “sed etiam postliminio potest civitatis

fieri mutatio. Neque enim sine causa de Cn. Publicio

Menandro, libertino homine, quem apud maiores

legati nostri in Graeciam proficiscentes interpretem

secum habere voluerunt, ad populum latum <est> ut

is Publicius, si domum revenisset et inde Romam

redisset, ne minus civis esset”. Pomponius (Paulus, Dig.

49.15.5.3) develops the principle suggested by Cicero

in Pro Balbo and considers that only individual choice

could determine citizenship, which was certainly

wrong, at least at the time of Menander. Otherwise

the People would not have had to vote. Coşkun (2009,

89-91) considers this episode unclear. On the contrary,

I think that the example of Menander helps explain

the measures taken in Rome. By returning to his for-

mer homeland, he fell under postliminium. Cf. about

Balbus, Cic., Balb. 12.29: “Quod si civi Romano licet

esse Gaditanum sive exsilio sive postliminio sive

reiectione huius civitatis […]?”88 The sharing of the Samnite ager publicus, distributed

in 201 B.C. to the veterans of Africa (Liv. 31.4.1-2), and

the trientabulum, an action that consumed a large

part of it, probably also reduced allies’ and Latins’ abil-

ity to use part of the ager publicus alongside their own

land. Roselaar (2010, 128) assumes that the trientabula

were given as ager publicus, but with “virtually com-

plete security of tenure”.89 Cf. Cic., Arch. 4. In the next chapter, Cicero explains

that peregrines might have illicitly obtained civitas by

registering in municipia. This would have allowed

them to bypass the lex Papia. Perhaps this situation

was no longer the same as in the 2nd c. B.C., because

the municipia were Roman: Roman citizenship could

be obtained outside Rome.90 Ferrary 2003, 128. He refers particularly to a law for the

Campanians in Sicily and the Numidian Muttines. The ab-

sence of any such mention in the case of Praeneste can

be explained by the fact that the cavalry declined the Sen-

ate’s offer; a vote on a law was therefore unnecessary. 91 By and large, Laffi 1995 believes the Latins had no

legal claim to be registered and that their removal was

therefore a matter of course. However, he assumes

that registration in the Roman census would have in-

volved a transfer of citizenship.92 Cic., Arch. 5.11: “Census non ius civitatis confirmat ac

tantum modo indicat eum, qui sit census, ita se iam

tum gessisse pro cive.” Cf. Laffi 1995, 66.

actually become Romans, not even in 187 B.C., when they were expelled after the conclusion of the census.They were still registered in the records of their Latin home cities, since Roman citizenship under normalcircumstances could not be held concurrently with another, implying that they formally were still citizens oftheir original cities.86 By returning home, even for a short time, Latins forfeited all right to become Roman.This explains, for example, why the Menander mentioned by Cicero needed a special law to secure that hecould remain Roman after taking part in a delegation to his native city, where he probably was still regardedas a local citizen.87

The scandal of 177 B.C. was not only about Latins, but also about the Samnite and Paelignian migration.These people were complaining that four thousand of their families had emigrated to Fregellae. Theirproblems were the same as those of the Latins: the Samnites could no longer muster the contingent ofsoldiers demanded by Rome.88 What is unclear is whether these Paeligni and Samnites had been registeredin the local census and whether they had had the opportunity to become Latin citizens of Fregellae whichwould have opened the door to Roman citizenship by a two-step procedure.89 The parallel with the Latinsin Rome is significant and arouses the suspicion that they were perhaps registered as incolae, in the sameway the Samnites were incolae of Aesernia or the Salassi incolae of Aosta. In any case, Fregellae did notask for anything and on this occasion the Senate does not seem to have interfered in its affairs.

The inevitable conclusion is that the cases cited above give no evidence of massive integration of Latinsinto the Roman citizen body. To quote Jean-Louis Ferrary, the naturalization of individuals or groups requireda law.90 If such a law was needed to reward meritorious (Latin) soldiers, it is inconceivable that a Latin couldhave received precious Roman citizenship just by taking up residence in Rome. Even registration in thecensus,91 as Cicero records, did not guarantee citizenship.92

93 Humbert 1978. But see Mouritsen 2007.94 On the question of the authority of the Senate in Italy

in the event of an emergency, I refer to Bispham 2009,

115-23 whose conclusions I adopt. See also the decree

ordering Eumenes to leave Italy (Polyb. 30.19.6-8).95 Competition among the patricians drove the Roman Senate

to close access to citizenship, just at the time the wars fueled

by this competition required an increase in the number of

allies, who would have cost more. See Bispham 2009, 136.96 Smith 1954, 20 connects the complaint of the Latin cities

and the eventual decision to create a Latin colony at

Aquileia, whereas the Senate had initially planned to

make it a Roman colony (Liv. 39.55.5). The complaints

will have persuaded the Senate not to accelerate the nat-

uralization of the Latins, which would have weakened

the colonies, which still played a strategically significant

role. The early 2nd c. B.C. was undeniably a period of

intense political activity and heated debate over citizen-

ship and the relationship between Rome and its allies.97 Broadhead 2002, passim and 121.98 Cic., Balb. 23.52.99 Brunt 1982, 145. Brunt notes that Balbus was prose-

cuted not by the city of Gades but by an individual.

There might be some truth in Valerius’ statement, but

I fear I must plead ignorance of what the problem

with Perperna’s citizenship was.100 Coşkun 2009, 150-55.101 Asc., Pis. 67-68 C.102 Cicero considers that, if it is normal to prevent the

usurpation of citizenship, it is uncivilized to forbid for-

eigners to reside in Rome. Cf. Cic., Off. 3.47: “Male etiam,

qui peregrinos urbibus uti prohibent eosque exterminant,

ut Pennus apud patres nostros, Papius nuper. Nam esse

pro cive, qui civis non sit, rectum est non licere, quam

legem tulerunt sapientissimi consules Crassus et Scaevola.

Usu vero urbis prohibere peregrinos, sane inhumanum

est.” Asc., Pis. 68 C: “Nam cum summa cupiditate civitatis

Romanae Italici populi tenerentur et ob id magna pars

eorum pro civibus Romanis se gereret, necessaria lex visa

est ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. The refer-

ence to Pennus is strange, because the lex Iunia as we

know it was a lex repetundatum” (Crawford 1996, vol.

1, 73). There should have been another lex issued by the

same magistrate banning peregrines.

The timing of these events, punctuated by census years, is interesting. As noted by Humbert, the census of188-87 B.C. did away with the last sine suffragio municipalities by granting full citizenship to Formia, Fundi andArpinum.93 At the end of the census the Senate sent twelve thousand Latins home. Finally, with the outlawingof the Bacchanalia, which also extended to Latin cities in 186 B.C., the same Senate instigated a witch-huntthroughout Italy, thereby asserting its authority over all Italy, even beyond the Roman territory.94 It seems thatrelations between Rome and the Latins were evolving fast.95 While many Latins migrated to Rome and potentiallytried to acquire Roman citizenship, Rome founded several new Latin colonies and reinforced others, therebycreating thousands of new Latins.96 It would be wise to accept Broadhead’s main conclusions, namely that therewas very high internal migration in Italy after the Second Punic War.97 Inevitably, this migration would havecreated only a few new Roman citizens, because most migrants remained Latins or Italian allies.

What real proof is there that some or indeed many Latins became Roman by migration? As stated byPeter Brunt, there are only two secure cases in which foreign communities prosecuted their citizens foracquiring Roman citizenship without their consent. The first is that of Cassius or Crassus, whom the Mamertiniunsuccessfully tried to reclaim as their own under the lex Papia.98 He may have been made a citizen viritimby an imperator; those seeking to prosecute him withdrew their case. The second case is that of Perperna,consul in 130 B.C., whose father allegedly was later sentenced under the lex Papia for obtaining Romancitizenship by fraudulent means. Brunt notes that Perperna’s father had died many years before the lex Papiawas passed; he therefore concludes that “the testimony of Valerius Maximus (3.4.5) is a tissue of falsehoods”.99

The lex Papia, which passed a century after the lex Claudia, 100 was the last in a series of laws intendedto control the acquirement of citizenship. There are references (most of them in Cicero) to a lex LiciniaMucia passed in 95 B.C., just after the censorship of L. Valerius Flaccus and M. Antonius, and to a lex Papiaof 65 B.C., passed during the troubled censorship of M. Licinius Crassus and Q. Lutatius Catulus. Asconiussays that the lex Licinia Mucia was a law de civibus redigendis like the lex Claudia.101 However, the realpurpose of the law was to prevent allies from acting as Romans by sending them back in their cities.102

103 Cic., Balb. 48 and 54.104 Cic., Brut. 16.63: “Catonis autem orationes non minus

multae fere sunt quam Attici Lysiae, cuius arbitror plurumas

esse, est enim Atticus, quoniam certe Athenis est et natus et

mortuus et functus omni civium munere, quamquam

Timaeus eum quasi Licinia et Mucia lege repetit Syracusas.”105 In 187 B.C. the investigation had risen to 204. It might

be assumed that the lex Licinia Mucia allowed them

to go back one generation at least.106 Cic., Arch. 5 (supra, note 92).107 Cass. Dio 37.9.5: “Κἀν τούτῳ πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ

διατρίβοντες, πλὴν τῶν τὴν νῦν Ἰταλίαν οἰκούντων, ἐξέπεσον Γαΐουτινὸς Παπίου δημάρχου γνώμῃ, ἐπειδὴ ἐπεπόλαζον καὶ οὐκ ἐδόκουνἐπιτήδειοί σφισιν εἶναι συνοικεῖν.” (“Meanwhile all those

who were resident aliens in Rome, except inhabitants

of what is now Italy, were banished on the motion of

one Gaius Papius, a tribune, because they were com-

ing to be too numerous and were not thought fit per-

sons to dwell with the citizens”) (transl. Cary 1914).108 Cic., Arch. 10: “Quid? cum ceteri non modo post civitatem

datam, sed etiam post legem Papiam aliquo modo in eorum

municipiorum tabulas inrepserunt, hic, qui ne utitur

quidem illis in quibus est scriptus, quod semper se

Heracliensem esse voluit, reicietur?” (“What? When others

were smuggling themselves onto the records of those towns

(Rhegium, Locri, Naples, Tarentum), not only after the grant

of citizenship but even after the Papian law was passed, is

this man, who did not even make use of his citizenship of

these towns, because he always wanted to be a Heraclean,

really to be driven out?”) (transl. Polkovnik 2005, online).109 Cic., Balb. 52: “Iudices cum prae se ferrent palamque

loquerentur quid essent lege Papia de M. Cassio

Mamertinis repetentibus iudicaturi. Mamertini publice

suscepta causa destiterunt.”110 Some are given by Cicero to strengthen the cases of

Balbus and Archias. Cf. Sanchez 2007.

Both laws did not exclude the possibility of granting citizenship to foreigners.103 The procedure adoptedunder the first can be understood from literary evidence provided by Cicero, interestingly, recalling theprocedure of 187 B.C. According to Cicero, Timaeus writes that Lysias, who was born in Athens and hadacted like an Athenian all his life, was actually a Syracusan, as if the lex Licinia Mucia was applicable tohim.104 Lysias was from a Sicilian family, so Cicero’s passage seems to imply that the lex Licinia Mucia wouldhave required scouring old city archives to identify foreign citizens and subsequently forbid them to act likeRomans.105 The worst fate that could befall them was expulsion from Rome during the census, which Ciceroclaims is the moment at which one should act like a Roman.106 Therefore, it seems that the lex Licinia Muciawas probably the first act of legislation to link migration and the fraudulent acquisition of citizenship.

The lex Papia is less well known. Dio Cassius claims that it expelled only non-Italian foreigners fromRome.107 However, Cicero suggests that the law complemented another law on citizenship (probably herethe lex Plautia Papiria) and set limits on the registration of peregrines in municipia.108 The supposition isthat registration of foreigners may have offered a fraudulent way to obtain Roman citizenship. By excludingall the non-Italians from Rome, probably even from Italy, the censors would register only citizens alreadyon the official lists and list only Italian allies not already included as citizens during the previous census of70 B.C. This is probably why the Mamertines initially thought that they could make a bid to reclaim one oftheir former citizens but withdrew their complaint when they understood the real purpose of the law.109

In a nutshell, the evidence discussed above, suggests that migration emerged as a real citizenshipproblem only in the 1st c. B.C. or, perhaps in the second half of the 2nd c. B.C at the earliest. Previously,the laws that required foreigners to be expelled from Rome ensured that the census would be conductedin good conditions and probably stabilized the demography of the Latin cities. Should disputes or instancesof fraud arise, the records of allied cities could be examined and fraudulent citizens sent home.

Individual naturalization Therefore, the best solution for a person eager to acquire Roman citizenship was individual naturalization,

granted by the decision of a magistrate or the People. This type of naturalization probably often includedprivileges in terms of property status and taxation. There are numerous examples of this procedure110 and

111 Liv. 3.29.6.112 Liv. 8.11.16.113 Liv. 23.20.2: Livy adds that he ignores the fate of the

Perusian soldiers, who had apparently not been the

subject of a senatus consultum.114 Liv. 23.31.10-11: “Et de trecentis equitibus Campanis qui

in Sicilia cum fide stipendiis emeritis Romam venerant

latum ad populum ut cives Romani essent; item uti

municipes Cumani essent pridie quam populus

Campanus a populo Romano defecisset. Maxime ut hoc

ferretur moverat quod quorum hominum essent scire se

ipsi negabant vetere patria relicta, in eam in quam

redierant nondum adsciti.” Cf. Ferrary 2003, 109. The sur-

vivors of the Casilinum garrison were also sent to Cumae.115 Sanchez 2007, 236.116 Vell. Pat. 2.16.117 Cic., Balb. 55.118 Smith 1954, 19-20. This is one of the options consid-

ered by Gagliardi 2011, 65; id. 2014, 72-75, in the

event that natives were still established in a colonial

territory.119 Ennius was made citizen by Q. Fulvius Nobilior (Cic.,

Brut. 79), perhaps during the deduction of either

Pisaurum or Potentia in 184 B.C. Cf. Cic., Orat. 3.42.168.

Salmon 1936, 50; Piper 1987, 40.120 Supra, p. 165.121 Cic., Balb. 21.48: “Sed cum lege Apuleia coloniae non

essent deductae, qua lege Saturninus C. Mario tulerat

ut in singulas colonias ternos civis Romanos facere

posset, negabat hoc beneficium re ipsa sublata valere

debere.”122 This might explain why provincials took the name of

governors, such as the Domitii in Gaul. Plutarch (Vit.

Mar. 28.3) records that some people regarded the

granting of citizenship to a thousand soldiers from

Camerinum as illegal. Marius probably had no recourse

to a specific law. He might have hoped for a global rat-

ification of his actions at the end of his consulship.

three different procedures can be identified. The oldest recorded is the naturalization of an individual or smallgroup by the People as a reward for military service. This tradition began very early with L. Mamilius in 458B.C.111 and with the Campanian cavalry in 340 B.C.112 In 216 B.C., the cavalry of Praeneste rejected the ‘privilege’offered them for their courage during the siege of Casilinum.113 In 215 B.C., after the betrayal of Capua, thePeople passed a law or plebiscite granting Roman citizenship to three hundred loyal Campanian cavalrymenwho no longer knew to what country they should be linked. The bestowal of citizenship was therefore datedretroactively to the day before the defection of Capua, and they were attached to the municipium of Cumae.114

The procedure apparently included a senatus consultum asking the People, who were competent in mattersof citizenship, to validate the proposed naturalization.115 One of the latest examples is that of Minatus Magiusfrom Aeclanum, mentioned by Velleius.116 A very special case was the naturalization of the priestess of Ceres.At the request of the praetor urbanus, the People passed a law for each new priestess nominatim.117

Another way to obtain citizenship was to take advantage of the right of a colonial foundation toincorporate peregrines in its civitas.118 It is a known fact, for instance, that Ennius was naturalized by beingregistered in a colony.119 Probably a peregrine was initially enrolled in the colony as a civis in the colonialtribe and then registered with all Roman citizens during the first census after his enrollment. The requestmade by the Ferentinates (discussed above) shows that it was possible,120 indeed probably common, toallow some Latins to register for Roman colonies. Another, more individual colonial procedure is knownfrom the time of Marius. The accuser of C. Matrinius of Spoleto argued that Marius had not founded thecolonies originally planned and that therefore the right granted to him by the lex Apuleia to make threeperegrines per colony citizens had lapsed.121 This argument seems legitimate, but in spite of this, Matriniushad officially been made a Roman citizen. It can be assumed that Marius had received the privilege on thepretext of founding colonies but without the requirement to the actual founding of a colony. He did exactlywhat the Ferentinates had requested a century earlier, granting citizenship at the moment the colonistsentered their names and not during the first census of the Roman colony.

Later, Roman citizens were created individually by magistrates – no longer by the People – for outstandingmerit in warfare. The examples cited throughout the Pro Balbo date no earlier than Marius but many confirmthat the practice was well established, probably as early as the late 2nd c. B.C.122 It can be supposed that the

123 Cic., Arch. 24: “Quid? Noster hic Magnus, qui cum

virtute fortunam adaequavit, nonne Theophanem

Mytilenaeum, scriptorem rerum suarum, in contione

militum civitate donavit; […].” One suspects that Pom-

pey had made a travesty of this military reward during

a contio in order to formally enforce his own lex de im-

perio, because Theophanes was not a soldier.124 Cic., Arch. 26.125 CIL I2 709; VI 27045; ILS 8888; ILLRP 515: “[C]n

Pompeius Sex. [f. imperator] virtutis caussa / equites

Hispanos ceives [Romanos fecit in castr]eis apud

Asculum a.d. XIV k Dec / ex lege Iulia, etc.”126 The lex Iulia is generally identified with the lex Iulia

de civitate danda (already Stevenson 1919, 96, who

supposes that Pompeius Strabo gave civitas to P. Cae-

sius of Ravenna by virtue of the same lex Iulia). Cicero

says this lex Iulia granted citizenship to entire commu-

nities if they agreed to become Romans (Cic., Balb. 21;

see Brunt 1982, 144). See also App., B Civ. 1.49; Cic.,

Balb. 8.21; Vell. Pat. 2.16 and 20. Therefore the bene-

ficiaries were probably the socii nominisque Latinis of

the Tarentine fragment (Crawford 1996, vol. 1, 212; id.

l. 12) and of the lex de provinciis praetoriis (Cnidos

copy, col. II, 6-8: “οἵ τε πολλῖται Ῥωμαίων οἵ τε σύμμαχοιὀνόματος Λατίνου”). Therefore the Asculum Decree is the

only text to include a grant of civitas viritim to

Spaniards under the conditions laid down by the lex

Iulia de civitate. After the example of the lex Gellia

Cornelia in favor of Pompey (Cic., Balb. 8.19), it might

have been assumed that the lex Iulia of Asculum was

a special law giving Pompeius Strabo the right to make

brave allies citizens, maybe his lex curiata de imperio. 127 As assumed by A. Degrassi (ad loc.) following E. Païs.

Cf. Sanchez 2007, 236-37. Stevenson’s 1919, 100 argu-

ment is inconsistent: if the Ilerdenses were already Ro-

mans, they had no need of the decree. Moreover, their

names do not contain any tribe, whereas this is always

present in the names of members of the consilium. It

seems the document reflects one stage in the proceed-

ings. The fact that some of them had names also at-

tested in the consilium is not proof of any

“pre-naturalization”, despite the possible parallel with

Cic., Verr. 2.4.37: like Archias, Q. Lutatius Diodorus

was under the protection of Q. Lutatius Catulus, who

obtained citizenship for Diodorus from Sulla as a

favor. We might conjecture that, in the normal proce-

dure during military awards ceremonies, Roman offi-

cers would have proposed names and the soldiers,

who had to choose Roman nomina, would have pre-

ferred these suggestions. In favour of Ilerda as a Latin

city, see also Galsterer 1995, 86.128 Raggi 2004.

specific laws that permitted magistrates to grant citizenship were limited to rewarding bravery on the battlefield(perhaps by virtue of imperium militare). Certainly, it is recorded that Theophanes of Mytilene was grantedcitizenship in the camp, in front of the army.123 Some magistrates apparently did not have the benefit of sucha clause in their leges de imperio. Cicero, for example, says that Catulus could not have granted Archiascitizenship personally, but could have asked Metellus for this favor.124 Archias was a member of Lucullus’sarmy and had never served with Metellus. It can be assumed that Lucullus did not have a law authorizinghim to create new citizens and that is why Archias took advantage of the lex Plautia Papiria.

The Asculum decree remains the best evidence for this type of naturalization.125 Pompeius Strabo gaveRoman citizenship to a group of Spanish cavalry in the turma Salvitana, citing a lex Iulia.126 The documentlists the soldiers’ names prior to their naturalization. They are identified by their home cities, which wouldhave been important for the archives of the cities that lost elite citizens. Their names are still peregrine inform (for example, Beles Umarbeles f.) with the exception of the citizens of Lerida (for example, Cn. CorneliusNesille f.) who were most likely Latins.127 Nevertheless, the cavalrymen still had to be included in the Romanvoting tribes and registered in Rome. Obviously, an imperator had no right to assign anybody a new tribe:that was a censorial privilege and one that could be exercised only during the census. The difference withthe Campanian equites was that an imperator could act on a request for citizenship before a public votewas taken and it was no longer necessary to assign them to a municipium.

The letter of Octavian to Seleucos of Rhosos half a century later attests the procedure explicitly and remindsus that naturalization implied some tax privileges in one’s home city that also had an impact on property rights.128

First (§ 3), by virtue of a lex Munatia Aemilia, Octavian grants Seleucos Roman citizenship with exemptions

129 Raggi 2004, 129: “πολειτείαν καὶ ἀνεισφορίαν τῶνὑπαρχόν/[των πάντων δί]δομεν, οὕτω[ς ὡς οἵτινες τῶ]ιἀρίστωι νόμωι ἀρίστωι τε δικαίωι πολεῖται / [Ῥωμαῖοιἀνείσ]φο[ρ]οί εἰσιν.” (§3, l. 20-2).

130 FIRA I, no. 68, III (Latin translation): “Si quidam ex

Cyrenaica provincia civitate honorati sint, hos

nihilominus muneribus pro rata fungi in corpore

Graecorum iubeo, exceptis iis quibus ex lege senatusve

consulto patris mei meove decreto tributorum

immunitas una cum civitate data fuerit: hosque ipsos,

quibus tributorum immunitas data fuerit, harum rerum

esse immunes, quas tunc habuerint, placet mihi, de

postea acquisitis omnibus munera subire.” (“If any per-

sons from the province of Cyrene have been honored

with Roman citizenship I command that they nonethe-

less shall discharge their compulsory public services

among the body of the Greeks in their proper turn, ex-

cept those persons to whom by a law or by a decree of

the Senate, by my father’s or my own decree, the citi-

zenship was granted with exemption from taxation. It

is my pleasure that these same persons, to whom ex-

emption from taxation has been granted, shall be im-

mune in respect to the property in their possession at

that time, but that they shall pay taxes on all property

that they later acquired”) (transl. Johnson, Coleman-Nor-

ton and Bourne 1961). Cf. Sanchez 2007, 241-43. 131 Coşkun 2009, 134-47 notes the importance of the years

125-22 B.C., after the destruction of Fregellae, in the

process of the integration of the Latin elites. Perhaps

some imperatores received the right to grant the civitas

to some peregrines in the same years. In Gaul, some

Domitii, a name which must be connected with Domi-

tius Ahenobarbus (cos. 122 B.C.), are known, perhaps

linked to the foundation of Narbonne. There were also

Fabii (Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, cos. 121 B.C.).132 On this topic: Bispham 2009, 127-31; Coşkun 2009,

134-46. Crawford 1996, vol. 1, 65-112; Lex

repetundarum: “(76) vvvv de ceivitate danda. vvvvvv

sei quis eor[u]m, quei ceivis Romanus non erit, ex hace

lege alteri nomen [—- ad praetor]em, quoius ex hace

lege quaestio erit, detolerit, et is eo {eo} iudicio hace

lege condemnatus erit, tu[m eis, quei eius nomen

detolerint, quoius eorum opera maxume is quoius

nomen delatum erit condemnatus erit, ipse ceivis

Romanus iustus esto filieique eiei gnatei, quom] / (77)

ceivis Romanus ex hace lege fiet, nepotesque [d]um eiei

filio gnateis ceiveis Romanei iustei sunto[inque eius

tribum, quei ex h(ace) l(ege) condemnatus erit,

sufragiu]m ferunto, inque ea<m> tribum censento,

militiaeque eis vocatio esto, aera stipendiaque o[mnia

eis merita sunto. nei qui magistratus prove magistratu

—- eius h(ace) l(ege)] / (78) nihilum rogato. vvvvvvv

de provocation[e vocation]eque danda.” Cf. Cic., Balb.

54; Strab. 4.1.12; Asc., Pis. 3C; App., B Civ. 2.26; Gai.,

Inst. 1.95-96.133 Liv. 42.1.7-12.

from tax and military service. In a second step (§ 4), he specifies that Seleucos would be a member of the tribusCornelia, in which he would vote. The new conferral of citizenship notably includes a modification in the statusof his property: “We grant citizenship and tax exemption on [all?] proper/[ty], in the same way [as those who]are [Roman] citizens with the best conditions and the best status”.129 From a land surveyor’s point of view, thequestion was to determine whether any piece of land bought by Seleucos automatically became tax-free. Duringthe reign of Augustus, under the conditions laid down in the third Cyrene edict, there was a legal differencebetween the grants of citizenship and grants of citizenship with immunitas.130 On these grounds it can beconcluded that, from the time of the letter to Seleucos and subsequently, this measure required either a law ora senatus consultum.

More controversial and rather more obscure, the last method by which an individual could acquirecitizenship, is what modern scholars call the ius civitatis adipiscendae per magistratum. There is little to begained from lingering on this matter. The date at which this privilege was granted to the Latins is not known131

but it is possible to draw a parallel with the lex repetundarum, which grants a successful prosecutor Romancitizenship and exemption from military service.132 The law also conferred the right of provocatio and vacatiomilitiae on those who declined citizenship (cf. also the contribution of De Ligt in this volume). Whatever thedetails were, these rights are never mentioned in the years 204-167 B.C. At that time, provocatio had apparentlybecome indispensable to the colonial magistrates, since Roman magistrates had grown accustomed to treatingthe allies as subjects. Livy traces this bad habit back to L. Postumius Albinus in 173 B.C.133 The speech in which

134 Gell., NA 10.3.3.135 Coşkun 2009, 137-42.136 Galsterer 1995, 83: he notes that the lex Acilia

repetundarum and the Tarentum fragment do not in-

dicate that magistrates automatically received civitas.137 However, Cicero (Caecin. 101) declares that it was

impossible to take away civitas from a citizen who

did not want to relinquish it and that Sulla’s law

against Arretium violated established legislation. Cic.,

Dom. 29.77: “Sed cum hoc iuris a maioribus proditum

sit, ut nemo civis Romanus aut libertatem aut

civitatem possit amittere, nisi ipse auctor factus sit.”

Cf. Galsterer 1995, 80.138 Cic., Caecin. 100: “Nam, cum ex nostro iure duarum

civitatum nemo esse possit, tum amittitur haec civitas

denique, cum is qui profugit receptus est in exsilium,

hoc est in aliam civitatem.” (“For as, according to our

law, no one can be a citizen of two cities, when the

one who has fled is hosted as an exile, that mean re-

ceived in another citizenship, he lose our citizen-

ship”) (transl. M. Tarpin: the double meaning of the

word civitas makes it difficult to follow exactly what

Cicero means).139 There is absolutely no evidence on this subject. It is

not even known whether Scipio was buried in Roman

territory. Cicero’s exile was very short and occurred

during a period when there was no census. 140 Cic., Caecin. 98: “Quaeri hoc solere me non praeterit

– ut ex me ea quae tibi in mentem non veniunt audias

– quem ad modum, si civitas adimi non possit, in

colonias Latinas saepe nostri cives profecti sint. Aut sua

voluntate aut legis multa profecti sunt; quam multam

si sufferre voluissent, manere in civitate potuissent.”

Kremer 2006, 65-66 assumes that the multa is the debt

owed by proletarians destined to leave for the colonies

who could have fallen under nexus. It sounds

anachronistic. What does nexus mean in this case? For

an example of threatened penalty for colonists in ar-

chaic Rome, see Plut., Coriol. 13.3. 141 Cic., Balb. 11.28; Caecin. 100.142 AE 2006 645 = 1991 1020 a-b = 2004 744: §14:

“Quicumque in col(onia) G(enetiva) I(ulia) decurio

erit, is decurio in ea colon(ia), / intra qua aratro

circumductum est, aedificium, quod / non sit minus

tegular(um) DC, qui colonus neque decurio erit, / is

aedificium, quod non sit minus tegularum CCC,

habeto / in biennio proxumo, quo ea colon(ia)

deducta erit.”

Gaius Gracchus criticizes such behavior among his contemporaries is well known.134 However, as Coşkunpoints out,135 it is impossible to determine whether a Latin magistrate instantly became Roman136 or retainedthe possibility to decline this ‘privilege’. Furthermore, it is not known whether he had to stay in Rome to enjoyhis citizenship, whether he forfeited his previous citizenship, whether his entire family had the same rights, orwhether he had the same privileges as those later granted to Seleucos of Rhosos.

It was also possible to lose Roman citizenship.137 One of the more obvious ways was through banishment.Cicero says that an exile (trying to evade conviction) lost his citizenship by taking up residence outsideRoman territory.138 No source indicates, for instance, that Scipio Africanus, who was exiled to Liternum, losthis Roman citizenship.139 In an attempt to understand why Latin colonists leaving Rome lost their citizenship,Cicero assumed that it was either a deliberate renunciation or a disguised exile. In fact, he claims that hadthe colonists agreed to serve their sentences in Rome they would have kept their citizenship.140 This claim issignificant because the colonists he discusses were not criminals but Cicero wanted to prove that everyonewho lost his citizenship must have renounced it willingly. What is more important is the fact that, just as inthe example of Menander or Balbus, Cicero connects change of citizenship to residence (perhaps domicile)in another community.141 This assumes that Roman law allowed not only the possibility of integratingforeigners into the civitas but also the possibility of making such citizens peregrine by registering them in anew city and, obviously, erasing their names from the Roman records.

A passage in the lex Ursonensis strengthens the above discussed ‘renunciation of civitas’ as well as theclose link between personal status and property. It is a known fact that decurions were required to own ahome of six hundred roof tiles inside the city. A new fragment adds that colonists who were not decurionsshould have a house of at least three hundred roof tiles, probably in colonia intra qua aratro circumductumest (cf. Sisani in this volume).142 New settlers would have two years after the founding of the colony to build

143 Broadhead 2008, 455-56. Confusion with § 91, which

obliges decurions and priests to be domiciled in the op-

pidum or within a limit of one thousand paces for five

years after their election should be avoided. These were

long-term functions and applicants had to make this com-

mitment to maintain their position during their tenure. 144 Cic., Caecin. 99: “Cum autem incensum vendit, hoc

iudicat, cum ei qui in servitute iusta fuerunt censu

liberentur, eum qui, cum liber esset, censeri nolverit,

ipsum sibi libertatem abiudicavisse.” The punishment

for refusal to submit a declaration to the census was

a general rule, which also appears in the Oscan law

of Bantia, l. 20-23 (Crawford 1996, vol. 1, 277). The

Latin translation is as follows: “sed si quis in censum

non venerit dolo malo ast eius vincitur ipse in comitio

caedatur pro magistratu populo praesente sine dolo

malo et veneat omnis familia et pecunia omnis quae

eius fuerit quae incensa fuerit publica esto.” See refer-

ences in Broadhead 2003, 133.145 AE 1986, 685: “T. Annius T. f. tri(um)vir / is hance aedem

/ faciundam dedit / dedicavitque legesq(ue) / composivit

deditque / senatum ter coptavit.” Liv. 43.17.1. See Gordon

and Reynolds 2003, 221; Bispham 2009, 155-56.

146 Excluding preparatory works carried out in Rome or

in Northern Italy147 The very lacunose elogium of Brundisium has given

rise to much discussion, because the inscription men-

tions facts that do not correspond to the foundation

of Brundisium. (Barbula cos: 317, 311, 281, 230 B.C.).

The text does not give us the name of the magistrate

who primus senatum legit (in Brundisium?). However,

the date (230 B.C.) seems too late for the first comitia

of a colony founded in 247 or 244 B.C., Bispham 2009,

153-54 and suggests that it might have been some kind

of informal consilium between the foundation and 230

B.C., which was a censorial year. Muccigrosso 2003

suggests that the first censor should be Appius

Claudius (cens. 311 B.C.), instead of Cunctator (cos.

230 B.C.). 148 E.g., the lex Aelia on the founding of two Latin colonies:

Liv. 34.53.1-2. Ferrary 2003, 111. The foundation took

place in 193 B.C. at Castrum Frentinum (Liv. 35.9.7-8)

and Livy mentions it in connection with the conclusion

of the census. It is therefore likely that the triumvirs then

deposited the first records of the new city in Rome, ac-

cording to the rule laid down in 204 B.C.

a house; if they failed to do so they would not be counted as colonists.143 Legally, a person who did notbuild a house was in the position of an incensus, a citizen who had not been registered in the census andwas therefore liable to exclusion from the city or even sale into slavery.144 This is why a census had to beheld two years after the founding of the colony.

This rule could also explain a peculiarity regarding the second foundation of Aquileia in 169 B.C (cf. Sewellin this volume). An inscription found in 1995 indicates that the triumvir T. Annius made three selections ofsenators.145 The text is undated, which might be taken to mean that he held three different censuses, five yearsapart, returning to Rome after each mission. However, it is also possible that the triumvir had already enforced theabove discussed principle known from the lex Ursonensis. In the year of the foundation, he could have designatedan initial group of decurions (perhaps the equites, who received larger lots and who gained immediate access tothe required census) among those who “gave their names”. In the following year he could have registered decurionsand citizens who had already built their houses. Finally he could have repeated the process a third time. In thisscenario, the whole procedure would have actually taken place in only two years.146 Subsequently, the city censorsthemselves could confirm or deny the integration of new citizens. The two years during which one of the triumvirswas present would have been a reasonable amount of time to establish the city. It took at least one year to ensurethe self-sufficiency of the colony in terms of food.147 The exact procedure is never reported but a period of threeyears for the foundation seems reasonable and accords with what Livy suggests about the term triumvirs served.148

Note that, beginning in 169 B. C., T. Annius would have achieved his mission in 167 B.C. at the moment when thecolonial censors had to deliver their registers to the Roman censors.

The period of two years can furthermore be explained by considering property laws. Property wasnormally granted to colonists in ownership and therefore entailed a mancipatio, or something similar, whichwas adapted to the Latin colonies. Consequently, at the end of two years, during which a third party intheory could contest the property claims, a colonist would have been full owner of his plot. This rule is

149 Leg. XII Tab., 6, 3 (Crawford 1996 vol. 2, 658-59):

“auctoritas fundi biennium <esto. ?ceterarum rerum?

annus esto.>”. For an estate auctoritas <is to be> two

years. <? For other things? it is to be one year.> (Craw-

ford,1996). See Cic., Top. 4.23. Cic., Caecin. 19.54; Gai.,

Inst. 2.42; Gai., Inst. 2.52-53.150 Crawford 1996, vol. 1, 304, Col. I, l. 26-28: “[…] quei

decurio municipi Tarentinei est erit queiue in municipio

Tarenti[no in] / senatu sententiam deixerit, is in o[pp]ido

Tarentei aut intra eius muni[cipi] / fineis aedificium quod

non minu[s] (mille quingentis) tegularum tectum sit

habeto [sine] / d(olo) m(alo). Quei eorum ita aedificium

suom non habebit seiue quis eorum / aedificium emerit

mancupioue acceperit quo hoic legi fraudem f[aciat], / is

in annos singulos (sestertium) n(ummum) (quinque

milia) municipio Tarentino dare damnas esto.” “Whoever

is a member of the municipal Senate of Tarentum or who-

ever gives his vote in the Senate in the municipality of

Tarentum shall own without malicious deception a

dwelling roofed with at least 1,500 tiles within the town

of Tarentum or within the territory of that municipality. If

any senator does not own such a house of his own, or if

anyone of them purchases such a house or acquires pos-

session thereof in such a way as to evade this law, he

shall be liable to a penalty of 5,000 sesterces for each year

to the municipality of Tarentum” (transl. Crawford).151 This is one of the points that illustrates the fundamen-

tal difference between a colony and a municipium.

Cf. also Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, 4-5.152 Supra, note 56.153 If so, a Roman who had been sent against his will

to a Latin colony, would only have not to build his

house to return to Rome as a full citizen. This to

me seems unbelievable. 154 Galsterer 1988, 80, note 16 supposes that, in Irni, “it

remains possible that many inhabitants, previously in

a dependent status, did not benefit from the new

rights, but became incolae.” This is the most likely so-

lution.155 CIL I2 3201.156 ILS 6753.157 Gagliardi 2011, 65-69.

attested in the Twelve Tables.149 After two years, ownership of the property was unquestionable and thecolonist could at that time be fully registered.

Upon closer examination it seems that the text of the law of Tarentum is also consistent with that forUrso. The former demands only a fine, for the benefit of the city, from a decurio who still did not have ahouse (of one thousand five hundred roof tiles) or had acquired one by fraud.150 This difference can beexplained by the fact that Urso was a colony that had just been founded, whereas Tarentum was amunicipium in which the notables already owned large houses. Moreover, the colonists of Urso were inthe process of changing their citizenship, whereas the Tarentines moved en masse from one status to another:the citizen lists were already established. It was absolutely out of the question to deny any Tarentinescitizenship in the new municipium of Tarentum.151

It should be understood that colonists received their new citizenship only at the moment they recordedtheir houses and other property in the census records. This recording procedure also helps to explain theearlier discussed case of the Ferentinates. If the hypothesis is indeed right that they hoped to become Romanunconditionally at the moment of signing up for colonization, we can use the Urso case to understand whythe Senate could not accede to their demand. During the time between the registration of the ‘volunteers’and the two-year local census, the future colonists probably lived under the terms of the lex agraria: “queiin colonei numero scriptus est”.152 The text of the law of Urso does not say what would happen to thosewho did not register. Perhaps they would have had the option of resuming their previous status, althoughthis may be unlikely.153 Since the text does not say that they would forfeit their lot, it may be inferred thatthey probably remained in the territory of the colony, perhaps as incolae.154 Two famous examples suggestthat a person could be an incola of a city without being a citizen of another city. The first example is thatof the Samnites who were incolae of Aesernia (cf. also Hermon in this volume);155 the second is that of theSalassi of Augusta Praetoria, who were incolae qui se primi in colon(iam) contulerunt.156 These are referencesto natives who did not act according to the procedure which enabled people to become a citizen when thecolony was created.157 Another category (perhaps also incolae) might have been composed of non-citizen

158 Under the Empire, the incolae had the right to vote,

all in the same curia, by drawing lots. Law of Malaca,

CIL II 1964; ILS 6089: “[53]: r(ubrica) in qua curia

incolae suffragia / ferant / quicumque in eo municipio

comitia IIuiris / item aedilibus item quaestoribus

rogan/dis habebit ex curiis sorte ducito unam / in qua

incolae qui cives R(omani) Latinive cives / erunt

suffragi ferant eisque in ea cu/ria suffragi lato esto.”

Modestinus, Dig. 50.1.35. This very right is granted to

the Latins under the Republic.159 For instance, the Roman lawyers point out that

provincial land could not be sold by mancipatio,

which remained the privilege of the state (and the

Princeps under the Empire). Frontin., De contr. 36

L.: “Possidentur tamen a privatis, sed alia

condicione: et veneunt, sed nec mancipatio eorum

legitima potest esse. Possidere enim illis quasi fructus

tollendi causa et prestandi tributi condicione

concessum est”. Gai., Inst. 2.7; Gai., Inst. 2.31. Cf. Ca-

pogrossi Colognesi 2004, 10. For the main defini-

tions, see Roselaar 2010, 121-36 (with discussion of

vectigalia on ager quaestorius: 122-24) and 136-44

for the category of “ager publicus belonging to com-

munities”; Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, passim; Sau-

magne 1965, 80-85. At this time, one solution was

offered by the ius Italicum, which assimilated the

soil of a provincial colony to a piece of Italy, thereby

allowing the possessor to become a dominus, and to

sell his domain by mancipatio. See Chouquer and

Favory 1992, 29.160 Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, 3. Ibid., 194, recalling that

the Social War contributed to the general uniformity

of land statuses in Italy.161 However, Gaius (Gai., Inst. 3.145) seems to believe

that the normal situation in municipia was that of a

perpetual conductio-locatio, which he admits could

easily be confused with emptio. 162 The veteres possessores might have been the natives to

whom parts of land were given back (Gagliardi 2011,

65; id. 2014, 66-67), but could also have been colonists

from a previous phase, or, after the Social War,

municipes, which territory was used for a new colony.

colonial migrants. Some legal texts decree that incolae had to be domiciled within the city, just as thecolonists were, and share their duties. This would be a possible status for those colonial migrants who wereunable to build their house in the stated time.158

These cases all illustrate how diverse the social, ethnic and legal statuses of the various people living ina Roman colony could be. It is possible to distinguish I) the citizens of the colony: Roman citizens, comingfrom Rome or from Roman colonies, as well as municipes. Some of those were the true colonists who hadsigned up for colonization and others were II) possessores on the colonial territory. There were also III)incolae of different statuses, among which were also natives. Finally, there were perhaps IV) incensi (“thosewho had initially given their names for the colony”) but who did not meet the requirements to qualify as acitizen (for this category there is no epigraphic evidence). Maybe this category was included amongst theincolae. Probably there were many more categories of which there are no remaining traces. Adding to thiscolorful panorama the effects of individual migration and of naturalization granted as a personal favor, it isobvious how important it was to keep accurate lists for each category of people contributing to the city.These lists had to record not only the people but also the pieces of land they owned or possessed, forobvious taxation purposes.159

Between personal and territorial statusIn terms of landed property, citizens of a Latin colony possessed their land under the laws of their city

and could not be owners ex iure Quiritium.160 Conversely, in municipia, which apparently followed Romaninstitutions, property had the same status as that in Roman colonies.161 Since there are normally no newcolonists in a municipium, it can be assumed that the land of municipia was assigned to veteres possessoresby professio (when there was not already a local land register).162 The same procedure was followed in the(re)assignment of colonial land allotments to the previous occupants of these lands, allowed to remain onthe property that had previously been theirs. Such a procedure is shown by the famous example of

163 Chouquer and Favory 1992, 53. The drawing shows

the land of the colony: on the right is the division into

regular squares for new settlers; on the left is the ager

adsignatus per professiones to the veteres possessores

who received the right to stay where they had previ-

ously been settled. Limitatio is made here by using nat-

ural landmarks and visible monuments (here a grave

and a statue of Diana). Sic. Flacc., Cond. agr. 159.14-

20 L., 125 Th.: “aliquando vero in limitationibus si ager

etiam ex viciniis territoriis sumptus non suffecisset, et

auctor divisionis assignationisque quosdam cives

coloniis dare velit et agros eis assignare, voluntatem

suam edicit commentariis aut in formis extra

limitationem, MONTE ILLO, PAGO ILLO, ILLI IVGERA

TOT, aut ILLI AGRVM ILLVM, QVI FVIT ILLIVS; hoc ergo

genus fuit assignationis sine divisione.” Clavel-Lévêque

et al. 1993, 81-82.

164 Cf. Pelgrom in this volume, who, however, uses the

term to describe a different scenario (i.e. the sharing

of a territory by a colonial and a non-colonial com-

munity). On this see below.165 See now Gagliardi 2011, 68-72. Hyg., Cond. agr. 82

Th.; Hyg., Cond. agr. 119 L: “Alioqui<n>, cum ceteros

possessores expelleret et pararet agros quos divideret,

quos dominos in possessionibus suis remanere passus

est, eorum condicionem mutasse non videtur: nam

neque cives coloniae accedere iussit.” Hyg., Cond. agr.

83 Th.; 120 L.: “Illud vero observandum, quod semper

auctores divisionum sanxerunt, uti quaecumque loca

sacra, sepulchra, delubra, aquae publicae ac

vicinales, fontes fossaeque publicae vicinalesque

essent, item si qua conpascua, quamvis agri

dividerentur, ex omnibus eiusdem condicionis essent

cuius ante fuissent.”

Minturnae (fig. 2).163 Certainly, the same rule was also applied to the old colonists when a decision wasmade to found a new colony on the same territory. This might also explain the occasional occurrence ofwhat are called ‘double communities’.164

In this context, it should be remembered that it was rarely the case that the conquered were completelyexterminated. The agrimensores clearly underline the necessity of taking into account the presence ofperegrine communities in colonial territory. In some cases, their lands retained peregrine status and did notfall under the authority of the colony.165 What is more, in a somewhat difficult passage, Hyginus notes thata peregrine oppidum could still exist in the territory of a colony. In this instance he says the oppidum wouldretain its previous status. In fact, the authority of the colony was limited to what had been given to the new

FIG. 2. Minturnae, schematic drawing after a vignette of Hyginus, Vat. Palat. lat. 1564, f. 88r. fig. 89 Th., 150 L.

166 Hyg., Cond. agr. 81 Th.; Hyg., Cond. agr. 118 L.:

“Alioquin saepe et intra fines dictos et oppidum est

aliquod; quod cum in sua condicione remaneat,

<e>idem est in id ipsum ius, quoi ante fuit: ita illa

interpretatione oppidum civesque coloniae pariter

adsignaret. Sed nec fuisse<t> necesse in legibus ita

complecti quos agros, quae loca quaeve aedificia, si

universa regio, quae cancellata erat, coloniae iuris

dictioni accederet: dixisset enim intra finem illum et

flumen illud et viam illam iuris dictio cohercitioque esto

coloniae illius. Ita excipitur id quod non adsignatum

est vocaturque subsicivum. Ergo, ut saepius repetam,

hoc ait: quos agros, quae loca, quaeve aedificia dedero

adsignavero, in eis iuris dictio cohercitioque esto

[colonorum] coloniae illius, quoius civibus adsignati

erunt agri.” The act that formalized the return of the

land and oppidum to the natives and the definition of

the civic body of a peregrine city should have more or

less taken a form known from the lex Antonia de Ter-

messibus of 68 B.C., fixing a date on which the list of

people and of their property would be closed. See CIL

I2, 589; ILS 38; Crawford 1996, vol. 1, 319-40, col. I, l. 1-

7: “quei Thermeses Maiores Peisidae fuerunt, queique /

eorum legibus Thermesium Maior<u>m Pisidarum /

ante k(alendas) April(es), quae fuerunt L.  Gellio

Cn. Lentulo co(n)s(ulibus), / Thermeses Maiores Pisidae

factei sunt, queique / ab ieis prognati sunt erunt, iei

omnes / postereique eorum Thermeses Maiores Peisidae

/ leiberi amicei socieique populi Romani sunto.” (“Who-

ever have been Termessians and whoever by the laws

of these Termessians have become Termessians before

April I, when Lucius Gellius and Gnaeus Lentulus were

consuls, and whoever have been and are born from

them: all these and their descendants, being Termessian

citizens, shall be free, friends, and allies of the Roman

people.”) (transl. Crawford). Cf. Gagliardi 2014, 62-66.167 See http://www.archeogeographie.org/index.php?rub=ar-

pentage/romain/orange/b196 and http://www.archeo-

geographie.org/index.php?rub=arpentage/romain/orange

/cadastres.168 Gagliardi 2011, 66-69. But, unlike the imperial example of

Pisidian Antioch cited by Gagliardi, the Tricastini had their

own city, Augusta Tricastinorum (Saint-Paul-Trois Châteaux)

near Arausio.

community (cf. Pelgrom in this volume).166 This approach can be illustrated by Centuriation B of Arausio(Orange) in which the lands assigned or entrusted to the colony or given back to the Tricastini are carefullylisted (fig. 3).167 Lorenzo Gagliardi nevertheless concludes that these Tricastini had been placed under theauthority of the colony as incolae.168

Fig. 3. Orange, “Cadastre B,” slab III J (drawing by M. Tarpin).

Conversely, Roman space might also be encountered in peregrine territory. Siculus Flaccus mentions, forexample, montes Romani in Picenum. These hills became a Roman territory inside a conquered territorywhich, however, was not assigned.169 In the opinion of the author, the few pagi Romani attested byinscriptions should be interpreted in the same way. The two most obvious examples are on the Tabulaalimentaria Ligurum Baebianorum (fig. 4). The tabula reveal a pagus Romanus located in finibusBeneventanorum and also a pagus Romanus in Ligustino, located in Beneventano.170 It can be suggestedthat the first mentioned pagus was a plot of Roman public land in the territory of the former Latin colony ofBeneventum whereas the second would have been a parcel of Roman land in the territory allotted to theLigurian community at the expense of the Hirpini, later integrated into the triumviral Roman colony ofBeneventum. The mentioning of a res publica Baebianorum in the inscription suggests that a Ligurianoppidum was still there under Trajan. The pattern that can be abstracted from these examples reflects, onceagain, the complexity of colonial territorial history (fig. 4).

These examples also elucidate the diverse and complex connections that existed between taxation,different jurisdictions and individuals (cf. Hermon in this volume). In this context it is interesting to considerPomponius’ definition of territorium, by a false etymology, as an area subject to the power of a magistrate.171

It can be deduced from the combination of evidence that territories did not always constitute broad,contiguous lands (cf. the contributions of Pelgrom and Stek in this volume). The fact that a city, Capua is thebest-known example but Arpinum can also be cited,172 benefited from vectigalia in remote areas makes itdifficult to determine with any certainty what law would have been in force in these territories. PerhapsFrontinus’ statement is helpful in this context; he labels such enclaves praefecturae.173 These prefectures mayhave just been additional sources of income. One can conceive they were, for example, peregrine territoriesacquired by Rome for which the tribute was assigned directly to a colony rather than to the Roman aerarium.But the term praefectura, especially if it could be used for Republican Italy, might also indicate that jurisdictionover these distant lands was exercised by the colony because the occupants fell under the same jurisdictionas those of the colonial pertica, at least according to the principle set out above.174

Conversely, it is always possible that occupied land was given back to the former owners or possessores,excluding them from any assignment (agri excepti/concessi) and probably from taxes.175 Certainly somelandlords obtained exemptions for their lands from the assignments as a personal favor176 but there were alsosome conquered peoples who were allowed to recover a portion of their original territory, as the examples

169 Sic. Flacc., Cond. agr. 21 (136-37 L.): “Alii ita

remanserunt ut tamen p(opuli) R(omani) <terri>toria

essent; ut est in Piceno, in regione Reatina, in quibus

regionibus montes Romani appellantur. Nam sunt

p(opuli) R(omani) <terri>toria quorum vectigal ad

aerarium pertinet.”170 Hence the reconstruction of events I proposed more than

a decade ago in a drawing (in the style as the Roman

land surveyors did) seems in light of this evidence po-

tentially invalid (Tarpin 2002, 453; interpretation of G.

Chouquer:http://www.archeogeographie.org/index.php?

rub=dossiers/etudes/fragment).171 Pompon., Dig. 16.239.8: Territorium est universitas

agrorum intra fines cuiusque civitatis; quod

magistratus eius loci intra eos fines terrendi, id est

summovendi ius habent.172 Cic., Fam. 13.11.1; Dio Cass. 49.14.5; Vell. Pat. 2.81;

Suet., Aug. 46; Tac., Hist. 1.78.1; Rigsby 1976; Ducrey

1969. For other examples, see CIL XI 5291; Paci 1996-

97, etc. 173 Frontin., De contr. 49 L., 40 Th.: “Coloniae quoque loca

quaedam habent adsignata in alienis finibus, quae

loca solemus praefecturas appellare […] solent et

privilegia quaedam habere beneficio principum, ut

longe [et] semotis locis saltus quosdam reditus causa

acceperint.” Cf. Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, 14.174 Supra note 171. For a new example in Macedonia, see

Rizakis 2012.175 Chouquer and Favory 1992, 34-5.176 See Deniaux 1993; id. 1998. Agen. Urb., De contr.

81 L.: “Subsicivorum autem genera sunt duo […]

aliut etiam integris centuriis intervenit”. And he

adds obviously: “de quo maximae controversiae

agitantur”.

given above show.177 As a rule, these exceptions in the status of the soil represented complications, andAgennius Urbicus says precisely that de proprietate agatur, non de loco (p. 80 L.); thus from a technicalperspective, the difficulty was not that of the legal definition of a space but of ascertaining property titles.

Summing up, it is possible to find examples of Italian colonial territory assigned with full ownership ex iureQuiritium, ager publicus entrusted as a possessio either to colonists or to extra-colonial citizens or even toperegrines and land left under the terms of its previous status, which might have been a possessio of ager publicus,or even a peregrine property. In the last case, as seen above, jurisdiction was exercised by the original community.This is probably why an agrimensor had no choice but to mention a peregrine oppidum on the forma.

The question of whether all these different types of territory were subject to any strict limitatio cannotbe resolved by the important passage in what is known as the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducanea Alliena Fabia,quoted by the land surveyors. This text states:

Anyone who, according to this law, founds a colony or establishes a municipium, prefecture, forum, (or)

conciliabulum, shall ensure that boundaries and decumani are drawn and boundary stones are set up in the

FIG. 4. Beneventum: schematic layout of cities and pagi after the triumviral colony of 42 B.C. (drawing by M. Tarpin).

177 This is a category of agri redditi (Chouquer and Favory

1992, 35-36); Sic. Flacc., Cond. agr.156 L.: “Nec tamen

omnibus personis victis ablati sunt agri; nam

quorumdam dignitas aut gratia aut victorem ducem

movit, ut ei<s> concedere agros suos”. Gagliardi 2011,

70, (based on Siculus Flaccus and Hyginus) notes that

sometimes all the land could have been confiscated and

that the city might have been restricted to within its walls.

territory that will be included in the boundaries of this colony, municipium, forum, conciliabulum, (or)

prefecture.178

According to Luigi Capogrossi Colognesi, this clause would have been valid only under a specific law(ex hac lege) perhaps Caesarean.179 In short, it would be hazardous to generalize on the matter, especiallybecause the gromatic drawings give precise exceptions to limitatio.

Conclusion: back to the Palatinus vignetteThe complex panorama sketched above must, as promised at the start of this paper, lead to a better

comprehension of the famous gromatic vignette of the Palatinus 1564 (fig. 1). It will be clear by now thatthe vignette is a strongly simplified version of reality.180 However, at the same time, is succeeds intransmitting crucial information on this territory. The main point the composer of the vignette wanted tocommunicate was that the colony (colonia Augusta) was located in a predominantly centuriated area,organized in the vicinity of three major intersections. The landscape is furthermore shaped by mountains,the public status of which is specified, and by rivers. Rivers were particularly important because theircourse might determine a boundary or the presence of subsecivae. Besides the colony, on the border ofthe limitatio, the vignette indicates an oppidum Atelle, which should not be identified with the municipiumof Atella itself but rather should be taken as an example of oppida that survived in colonial territory,perhaps in the manner as that of Caudium.181 On the left, a third town with its own system of major axesis designated as praefectura coloniae Augustae ex finibus Antemnatium. It is obviously a prefecture of thecolony located at the center of the vignette and is situated on land taken from a neighboring people.182

The vignette thus successfully represents three distinct realities: the colony – a city (Roman or Latin)founded with a constitution based on its specific relationship with Rome; the old peregrine oppidum; andthe prefecture, a remote community subject to the authority of the magistrates of the colony but withouta proper constitution of its own.

The forma also includes the names of the neighboring communities from whom land had been seizedfor assignment: the Ottimi, Bitivamenses, Hirrenses, and Venetiatenses. The word veterum (top left) iscertainly incomplete (perhaps veterum possessorum, or veterum possessorum, concessum, this can also beseen on the Minturnae drawing). The reference on the right is unclear but the correction proposed by GérardChouquer and François Favory would perhaps enable us to read, “prefecture dependent on the oppidumAtella from the territory of the Hirrenses”,183 which would complete the range of possible situations. Twomountains are public areas, whereas a third marks a boundary. It should be assumed that such montesfinitimi represented a common space between the two communities. Finally, the author of the vignette

178 Lex Mamilia Roscia Peducanea Alliena Fabia: Grom.,

264 L.: “Qui hac lege coloniam deduxerit, municipium

praefecturam forum conciliabulum constituerit, in eo

agro, qui ager intra fines eius coloniae municipii fori

conciliabuli praefecturae erit, limites decumanique ut

fiant terminique statuantur curato”.179 Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, 211-12.180 I chose this version rather than that of Gudianus. My

drawing incorporates the legends as they can be read,

with uncertainties in some illegible names, perhaps

attributable to copy errors. Cf. Chouquer and Favory

1992, 59-63; Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, 299.

181 CIL IX, 2165: “Colonia Iulia Concordia Aug(usta) Felix

Beneventum devota maiestati Aug(ustorum) in

territorio suo quod cingit etiam Caudinorum civitatem

muro tenus”; confirmed by Lib. colon. 232 L. Cf.

Gabba 1994, 86; Giampaolo 1991, 123-31.182 Antemnae was supposedly taken by Romulus. The

choice of this name therefore recalls the antiquity of

the procedure, and justifies our interpretation of it

as a theoretical example. 183 Chouquer and Favory 1992, 59: “praetensura /

praefectura (?) ex finibus Hirrensium Atellenatibus

adlat(a).”

indicates two private areas which are excluded from the centuriation. One is the piece of land namedconcessum Lucio Titio Lesple, a rich landowner with political connections, and the second is unnamed. Afew final details that can be added concern the mons sacer. Sacred territory is mentioned by Siculus Flaccusreferring to different types of shrines outside the centuriated area.184 This is confirmed to some extent bythe Oscan inscription of Abellinum which describes a sacred space that fell under the joint control ofAbellinum and Nola. The quaestor of Abellinum indeed signed the agreement, whereas Nola sent its meddixdeketasiís.185 Worship there was open to representatives of both communities.186

The Palatinus vignette thus turns out to be a rather convincing graphic reflection of what the territoryof a city with a long and dynamic history might have looked like in legal, social and ethnic terms. Moreover,it illustrates how various elements can intersect within the concept of territory. The agrimensores ofteninsisted on the legal function of territory and on the extent of magistrates’ powers. But they also discuss thevectigalia cities could collect and illustrate that legal jurisdiction and taxation did not always preciselyoverlap. Furthermore, it is seen how individual privileges result in gaps in the centuriation on the vignette,an apt illustration that the distribution of land was not always as straightforward as, for example, Appianproposed.187

The represented complex landscape agrees particularly well with what is known from Octavian’s letterin which he talks about the honors accorded to Seleucos.188 The immunity offered to the navarch at thetime he was made a citizen meant that his property was exempt from city taxes as well as from charges thathe otherwise would have had to pay to Rome. The favors were granted to Seleucos as a personal rewardso that any new acquisition he made would be exempt not only from city taxes but from those of theEmpire.

Once one understands the dynamics of Roman dealings with the different statuses of people and landsin colonial context, it is no longer surprising that numerous treatises De controversiis agrorum werepublished in Antiquity. Good lawyers and good land surveyors were essential to determining the legal andtax inventory of the dynamic Roman world.189

AcknowledgementsThis paper is the development of a talk presented in Ravenstein (Nijmegen) as part of a ESF workshop

organized by Tesse D. Stek and Jeremia Pelgrom. I would like to thank them for the invitation and for theirlectures presented in Grenoble on Roman colonial territorial organization, which contributed to this work.I must also thank John N. Dillon for reviewing and improving the English text.

184 Sic. Flacc., Cond. agr. 162-63 L.: “Collegia sacerdotum

itemque virgines agros et territoria quaedam etiam

determinata et quaedam aliquibus sacris dedicata, in

eis etiam lucos, in quibusdam etiam aedes templaque.

Quos agros quasve territoriorum formas aliquotiens

comperimus extremis finibus conprehensas sine ulla

mensurali linea, modum tamen inesse scriptum.”

Hyg., Cond. agr., 83 Th.; 120 L. (supra, note 165).185 Aberson 2010, 409; Rix, ST, Cm 1, p. 114 sq.186 The agreement between Rome and Clusium included

a similar clause (Liv. 8.14.2).

187 App., B Civ. 1.1.7. Senatore 2004, 86. The distinction

between ager adsignatus and ager occupatus is cer-

tainly true in his analysis, but does not systematically

cover the distinction between agri culti and agri

inculti.188 Supra, pp. 178-79.189 See Capogrossi Colognesi 2002, 210: “[…] il tipo di re-

lazioni esistenti tra regime giuridico e assetto groma-

tico del territorio romano […] è un problema quasi

mai affrontato nel pur straordinario corpus del nostro

sapere giuridico.”

References

Aberson, M. 2010. “Les lois sacrées en Italie du VIeau Ier siècles av. J.-C., auteurs, formulations,affichages, applications,” in L. Lamoine, C.Berrendonner, M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni (edd.), LaPraxis municipale dans l’Occident romain(Clermont-Ferrand) 401-19.

Ando, C. 2008. “Aliens, ambassadors, and theintegrity of the Empire. Part I. The conduct ofwar in the ancient world and early islamichistory,” Law and History Review 26, 491-519.

Bispham, E. 2009. From Asculum to Actium. Themunicipalization of Italy from the Social War toAugustus (Oxford).

Broadhead, W. M. 2001. “Rome’s migration policyand the so-called ius migrandi,” Cahiers duCentre Gustave Glotz 12, 69-89.

Broadhead, W. M. 2002. Internal migration and thetransformation of Republican Italy. Doctoralthesis, Univ. of London, 2002.

Broadhead, W. M. 2003. “The local élites of Italy andthe crisis of migration in the IInd century BC,” inM. Cébeillac-Gervasoni and L. Lamoine (edd.),Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans lemonde hellénistique et romain (Rome) 131-48.

Broadhead, W. M. 2004. “Rome and the mobility ofthe Latins: problems of control,” in C. Moatti(ed.), La mobilité des personnes en Mediterranéede l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne. Procédures decontrôle et documents d’identification (Rome)315-35.

Broadhead, W. M. 2008. “Migration and hegemony:fixity and mobility in second-century Italy,” in L.de Ligt and S. Northwood (edd.), People, land,and politics. Demographic developments and thetransformation of Roman Italy, 300 BC-AD 14(Leiden/Boston) 451-70.

Brunt, P. 1982. “The legal issue in Cicero, Pro Balbo,”CQ, New Series 32-31, 136-47.

Capogrossi Colognesi, L. 2002. Persistenza einnovazione nelle strutture territoriali dell’Italiaromana. L’ambiguità di una interpretazionestoriografica e dei suoi modelli (Naples).

Capogrossi Colognesi, L. 2004. “Le statut des terresdans l’Italie républicaine. Un aspect de laromanisation des campagnes (IVe-Ier siècle avantJ.-C.),” Histoire et Sociétés Rurales 22-22, 9-28.

Chastagnol, A. 1995. La Gaule romaine et le droitlatin (Lyon).

Chouquer, G. 2008. “Arpentage, cadastre et fiscalitéfoncière, de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne,”Études rurales 181-81, 203-36.

Chouquer, G. and Favory, F. 1992. Les arpenteursromains. Théorie et pratique (Paris).

Clavel-Lévêque, M., et al. (edd.) 1993. SiculusFlaccus: Les conditions des terres (Naples).

Coşkun, A. 2009. Bürgerrechtsentzug oder Fremden-ausweisung? Studien zu den Rechten vonLatinern und weiteren Fremden sowie zumBürgerrechtswechsel in der Römischen Republik(5. Bis frühes 1 Jh v.Chr.) (Stuttgart).

Coşkun, A., forthcoming. “Zum Rechtsstatus derspätrepublikanischen Kolonie Comum und einzweifelhafter Fall von Bürgerrechtsanmaßung imJahr 51 v. Chr.”

Crawford, M. H. 1996. Roman statutes, 2 vols(London).

Deniaux, E. 1993. Clientèles et pouvoir à l’époque deCicéron (Rome) 1993.

Deniaux, E. 1998. “Recherches sur les propriétésfoncières des amis de Cicéron en Afrique,”L’Africa romana 12 (Olbia, Sassari) 151-60.

Ducrey, P. 1969. “Trois nouvelles inscriptionscrétoises,” BCH 93, 846-52.

Ferrary, J.-L. 2003. “La législation romaine dans leslivres 21 à 45 de Tite-Live,” in T. Hantos (ed.),Laurea Internationalis. Festschrift für JochenBleicken zum 75 Geburtstag (Stuttgart) 107-42.

Gabba, E. 1994. Italia romana (Como).Gagliardi, L. 2011. “Brevi note intorno ai rapporti

giuridici tra romani e indigeni all’interno dellecolonie romane,” in A. Maffi and L. Gagliardi(edd.), I diritti degli altri in Grecia e a Roma(Sankt Augustin) 64-77.

Gagliardi, L. 2014. “Approche juridique des relationsentre Romains et indigènes. Le cas des coloniesromaines,” in E. Gojosso, D. Kremer and A.Vergne (edd.), Les colonies. Approches juridiqueset institutionnelles de la colonisation. De la Romeantique à nos jours (Poitiers) 59-76.

Galsterer, H. 1988. “Municipium Flavium Irnitanum:a latin town in Spain,” JRS 78, 78-90.

Galsterer, H. 1995. “La trasformazione delle antiche

colonie latine e il nuovo ius Latii,” in A. Calbiand G. Susini (edd.), Pro poplo Arimenese(Faenza) 79-94.

Gascou, J. 1999. “Hadrien et le droit latin,” ZPE 127,294-300.

Giampaolo, D. 1991. “Benevento” in La romanisationdu Samnium aux IIème et Ier siècles av. J.-C.(Naples) 123-31.

Gordon, R. and J. Reynolds 2003. “RomanInscriptions 1995-2000,” JRS, 212-94.

Grandazzi, A. 1996. “Identification d’une déesse:Ferentina et la ligue latine archaïque,” CRAI 140-1, 273-94.

Humbert, M. 1978. Municipium et civitas sinesuffragio. L’organisation de la conquête jusqu’àla guerre sociale (Rome).

Hin, S. 2008. “Counting Romans,” in L. de Ligt and S.Northwood (edd.), People, land, and politics.Demographic developments and thetransformation of Roman Italy 300 BC-AD 14(Leiden/Boston) 187-238.

Kremer, D. 2006. Ius latinum: le concept de droitlatin sous la République et l’Empire (Paris).

Laffi, U. 1995. “Sull’esegesi di alcuni passi di Liviorelativi ai rapporti tra Roma e gli alleati latini etitalici nel primo quarto del II sec. A.C.,” in A.Calbi and G. Susini (edd.), Pro poplo Arimenese(Faenza) 43-77.

Lo Cascio, E. 2008. “Roman census figures in thesecond century BC and the propertyqualification of the fifth class,” in L. de Ligt andS. Northwood (edd.), People, land, and politics.Demographic developments and thetransformation of Roman Italy 300 BC-AD 14(Leiden/Boston) 239-256.

McDonald, A. H. 1944. “Rome and the Italianconfederation (200-186 BC),” JRS 34, 11-33.

Martin, P.-M. 2001. “La tradition sur l’intégration despeuples vaincus aux origines de Rome et sonutilisation politique,” in G. Urso (ed.),Integrazione mescolanza rifiuto - Incontri dipopoli, lingue e culture in Europa dall’Antichitàall’Umanesimo (Rome) 65-88.

Moatti, C. 1993. Archives et partage de la terre (Rome).

Mouritsen, H. 2007. “The civitas sine suffragio:Ancient concepts and modern ideology” Historia56. 2, 141-158.

Muccigrosso, J. D. 2003. “The Brindisi ‘Elogium’ andthe rejected ‘Lectio Senatus’ of Appius ClaudiusCaecus,” Historia 52-4, 496-501.

Paci, G. 1996-97. “Terre di Pisaurum nella valle delCesano,” Picus 16-17, 115-48.

Piper, D. J. 1987. “Latins and the Roman citizenshipin Roman colonies: Livy 34, 42, 5-6, Revisited,”Historia 36-1, 38-50.

Raggi, A. 2004. “The epigraphic dossier of Seleucusof Rhosus: a revised edition,” ZPE 147, 123-38.

Rigsby, K. J. 1976. “Cnossus and Capua,” TAPhA 106,313-30.

Rizakis, A. D. 2012. “Une praefectura dans leterritoire colonial de Philippes les nouvellesdonnées,” in S. Demougin and J. Scheid (edd.),Colons et colonies dans le monde romain (Rome)87-105.

Roselaar, S. T. 2010. Public Land in the RomanRepublic: a social and economic history of AgerPublicus in Italy, 396-89 BC (Oxford).

Salmon, E. T. 1933. “The Last Latin Colony,” CQ 27-1,30-35.

Salmon, E. T. 1936. “Roman Colonisation from theSecond Punic War to the Gracchi,” JRS 26, 47-67.

Sanchez, P. 2007. “La clause d’exclusion sur l’octroi dela citoyenneté romaine dans les traités entre Romeet ses alliés (Cicéron, pro Balbo 32),” Athenaeum95-1, 215-70.

Saumagne, C. 1965. “Les Domanialités publiques etleur cadastration au premier siècle de l’empireromain,” Journal Des Savants 1, 73-116.

Senatore, F. 2004. “Il lessico delle distribuzioneagrarie in Appiano,” in A. Storchi Marino (ed.),Economia, amministrazione e fiscalità nelmondo romano. Ricerche lessicali (Bari) 85-96.

Smith, R. E. 1954. “Latins and the Roman citizenship inRoman colonies: Livy, 34, 42, 5-6,” JRS 44, 18-20.

Stevenson, G. H. 1919. “Cn. Pompeius Strabo and thefranchise question,” JRS 9, 95-101.

Tarpin, M. 2002. Vici et pagi dans l’Occident romain(Rome).