Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:48:43.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Latin Colonies at Vitellia and Circeii

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

E. T. Salmon
E. T. Salmon
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the fifth book of Livy there is a passage of which hitherto no good explanation has been forthcoming:

Romae interim multiplex seditio erat, cuius leniendae causa coloniam in Volscos, quo tria milia civium Romanorum scriberentur, deducendam censuerant; triumvirique ad id creati terna iugera et septunces viritim diviserant (Livy v, 24. 4: 395 B.C.). (Livy then goes on to describe the viritane division of the ager Veientanus.)

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1937 , pp. 111 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 111 note 1 Niebuhr, B. G., Röm. Gesch., ii, p. 550Google Scholar, who is followed by Mommsen, T., Röm. Munzw., p. 311, n. 63Google Scholar, E. Kornemann in P-W s.v. Coloniae, Pais, E., Stor. Crit. di Roma, ii, pp. 4–8Google Scholar.

page 111 note 2 De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, ii, p. 152, n. 4Google Scholar.

page 111 note 3 Last, H. M. in Camb. Anc. Hist., vii, p. 510Google Scholar.

page 111 note 4 Burger, C. P., Sechzig Jahre aus der älteren Geschichte Roms, p. 115Google Scholar.

page 111 note 5 Livy vi, 13. 8 makes it clear that Circeii was colonized before 385.

page 111 note 6 Mommsen, T., Röm. Staatsr., ii 3, p. 638Google Scholar.

page 111 note 7 Clason, J., Röm. Gesch., ii, p. 214Google Scholar.

page 111 note 8 Beloch, J., Röm. Gesch. bis zum Beginn der pun. Kriege, p. 359Google Scholar.

page 111 note 9 Lugli, G., Forma Italiae, Regio 1, vol. 1, part 2, pp. v, 2, 3Google Scholar (cf. Ashby, T. in Mélanges d'Arch. et d'Hist. de l'Ecole Franc. de Rome, xxv, 1905, pp. 158–209Google Scholar).

page 112 note 1 Bagnani, G., Roman Campagna and its Treasures, p. 163Google Scholar.

page 112 note 2 See Ashby, T., Roman Campagna in Classical Times, p. 152Google Scholar.

page 112 note 3 See Last, H. M. in Camb. Anc. Hist., vii, pp. 502 fGoogle Scholar.

page 112 note 4 Op. cit., p. 469.

page 112 note 5 Tomassetti, G., Diss. dilla Pont. Accad. Rom. di Arch., Ser. ii, viii, 1903, pp. 45 f.Google Scholar; Ashby, T., Rom. Camp., p. 150Google Scholar; Bagnani, G., op. cit., p. 128Google Scholar; De Sanctis, G., op. cit., ii, p. 119Google Scholar.

page 112 note 6 Mommsen, T., Röm. Gesch., i, p. 349Google Scholar; Stephenson, A., Public Lands and Agrarian Laws in the Roman Republic (Baltimore, 1891). p. 23Google Scholar: E. De Ruggiero, s.v. colonia in Diz. Epigr.; E. Kornemann, loc. cit.; De Sanctis, G., op. cit., ii, p. 431Google Scholar; Beloch, J., op. cit., p. 157Google Scholar.

page 112 note 7 Mommsen adduces the silence of Diodorus (which is inconclusive), Livy's description of Labici as a colonia Romana (Livy applies this phrase to many of the pre–338 colonies), Cicero's statement that Labici was a municipium (after the Social War all the Latin colonies that so desired became such), the fact that Labici was on originally Latin territory whither Latin colonies were never sent (yet Ardea, also on territory originally Latin, undoubtedly received a colony).

page 113 note 1 Ostia also is said to have been a colony before 338, but excavation has revealed that the colony belongs to the late fourth century. There is also a notice in Livy ii, 16 of Latin colonies at Cora and Suessa Pometia, but mention of the Aurunci in the passage shows that Livy has confused Suessa Pometia with Suessa Aurunca and accordingly his notice is to be rejected.

page 113 note 2 When Livy viii, 14. 7 says that coloni were sent to Velitrae in 338 he is talking loosely. He expressly tells us (viii, 20. 9) that in 338 Velitrae had received the same treatment as Privernum suffered in 329, i.e. the land of local senators was confiscated and given to Roman settlers, but there was no formal colonization.

page 113 note 3 Röm. Gesch., i, p. 349.