[Footnote 166: "Praeneste wird immer eine selbstaendige Stellung eingenommen haben" Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alt., II, p. 523. Praeneste is mentioned first of the league cities in the list given by [Aurelius Victor], Origo-gentis Rom., XVII, 6, and second in the list in Diodorus Siculus, VII, 5, 9 Vogel and also in Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor).

Praeneste is called by Florus II, 9, 27 (III, 21, 27) one of the municipia Italiae splendidissima along with Spoletium, Interamnium, Florentia.]

[Footnote 167: Livy XXIII, 20, 2.]

[Footnote 168: Livy I, 30, 1.]

[Footnote 169: Cicero, de Leg., II, 2, 5.]

[Footnote 170: Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under "Anicia."]

[Footnote 171: The old Oscan names in Pompeii, and the Etruscan names on the small grave stones of Caere, C.I.L., X, 3635-3692, are neither so numerous.]

[Footnote 172: Dionysius III, 2.]

[Footnote 173: Polybius VI, 14, 8; Livy XLIII, 2, 10.]

[Footnote 174: Festus, p. 122 (de Ponor): Cives fuissent ut semper rempublicam separatim a populo Romano haberent, and supplemented, l.c., Pauli excerpta, p. 159 (de Ponor): participes--fuerunt omnium rerum--praeterquam de suffragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo.]

[Footnote 175: Civitas sine suffragio, quorum civitas universa in civitatem Romanam venit, Livy VIII, 14; IX, 43; Festus, l.c., p. 159.]

[Footnote 176: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): Qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.]

[Footnote 177: I do not think so. The argument is taken up later on page 73. It is enough to say here that Tusculum was estranged from the Latin League because she was made a municipium (Livy VI, 25-26), and how much less likely that Praeneste would ever have taken such a status.]

[Footnote 178: C. Gracchus in Gellius X, 3.]

[Footnote 179: Tibur had censors in 204 B.C. (Livy XXIX, 15), and later again, C.I.L, I, 1113, 1120 = XIV, 3541, 3685. See also Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 159.]

[Footnote 180: C.I.L, XIV, 171, 172, 2070.]

[Footnote 181: C.I.L., XIV, 2169, 2213, 4195]

[Footnote 182: Cicero, pro Milone, 10, 27; 17, 45; Asconius, in Milonianam, p. 27, l. 15 (Kiessling); C.I.L., XIV, 2097, 2110, 2112, 2121.]

[Footnote 183: C.I.L., XIV, 3941, 3955.]

[Footnote 184: Livy III, 18, 2; VI, 26, 4.]

[Footnote 185: Livy IX, 16, 17; Dio, frag. 36, 24; Pliny XVII, 81.

Ammia.n.u.s Marcellinus x.x.x, 8, 5; compare Gellius X, 3, 2-4. This does not show, I think, what Dessau (C.I.L., XIV, p. 288) says it does: "quanta fuerit potestas imperatoris Romani in magistratus sociorum," but shows rather that the Roman dictator took advantage of his power to pay off some of the ancient grudge against the Latins, especially Praeneste. The story of M. Marius at Teanum Sidicinum, and the provisions made at Cales and Ferentinum on that account, as told in Gellius X, 3, 2-3, also show plainly that not const.i.tutional powers but arbitrary ones, are in question. In fact, it was in the year 173 B.C., that the consul L.

Postumius Albinus, enraged at a previous cool reception at Praeneste, imposed a burden on the magistrates of the town, which seems to have been held as an arbitrary political precedent. Livy XLII, 1: Ante hunc consulem NEMO umquam sociis in ULLA re oneri aut sumptui fuit.]

[Footnote 186: Praenestinus praetor ... ex subsidiis suos duxerat, Livy IX, 16, 17.]

[Footnote 187: A praetor led the contingent from Lavinium, Livy VIII, 11, 4; the praetor M. Anicius led from Praeneste the cohort which gained such a reputation at Casilinum, Livy XXIII, 17-19. Strabo V, 249; cohors Paeligna, cuius praefectus, etc., proves nothing for a Latin contingent.]

[Footnote 188: For the evidence that the consuls were first called praetors, see Pauly-Wissowa, Real Enc. under the word "consul" (Vol. IV, p. 1114) and the old Pauly under "praetor."

Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 1, p. 74, notes 1 and 2, from other evidence there quoted, and especially from Varro, de l.l., V, 80: praetor dictus qui praeiret iure et exercitu, thinks that the consuls were not necessarily called praetors at first, but that probably even in the time of the kings the leader of the army was called the prae-itor. This is a modification of the statement six years earlier in Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 149, n. 4.]

[Footnote 189: This caption I owe to Jos. H. Drake, Prof. of Roman Law at the University of Michigan.]

[Footnote 190: Livy VIII, 3, 9; Dionysius III, 5, 3; 7, 3; 34, 3; V, 61.]

[Footnote 191: Pauly-Wissowa under "dictator," and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II, 171, 2.]

[Footnote 192: Whether Egerius Laevius Tuscula.n.u.s (Priscian, Inst., IV, p. 129 Keil) was dictator of the whole of the Latin league, as Beloch (Italischer Bund, p. 180) thinks, or not, according to Wissowa (Religion und Kultus der Roemer, p. 199), at least a dictator was the head of some sort of a Latin league, and gives us the name of the office (Pais, Storia di Roma, I, p. 335).]

[Footnote 193: If it be objected that the survival of the dictatorship as a priestly office (Dictator Alba.n.u.s, Orelli 2293, Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 149, n. 2) means only a dictator for Alba Longa, rather than for the league of which Alba Longa seems to have been at one time the head, there can be no question about the Dictator Latina(rum) fer(iarum) caussa of the year 497 (C.I.L., I.p. 434 Fasti Cos.

Capitolini), the same as in the year 208 B.C. (Livy XXVII, 33, 6). This survival is an exact parallel of the rex sacrorum in Rome (for references and discussion, see Marquardt, Staatsverw., III, p. 321), and the rex sacrificolus of Varro, de l.l. VI, 31. Compare Jordan, Topog. d.

Stadt Rom, I, p. 508, n. 32, and Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult d. Roemer, p.

432. Note also that there were reges sacrorum in Lanuvium (C.I.L, XIV, 2089), Tusculum (C.I.L, XIV, 2634), Velitrae (C.I.L., X, 8417), Bovillae (C.I.L., XIV, 2431 == VI, 2125). Compare also rex nemorensis, Suetonius, Caligula, 35 (Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. d. Roemer, p. 199).]

[Footnote 194: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3000, 3001, 3002.]

[Footnote 195: C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2994, 2999 (possibly 3008).]

[Footnote 196: C.I.L., XIV, 2975, 3000.]

[Footnote 197: C.I.L., XIV, 2990, 3001, 3002.]

[Footnote 198: See note 28 above.]

[Footnote 199: Livy XXIII, 17-19; Strabo V, 4, 10.]

[Footnote 200: Magistrates sociorum, Livy XLII, 1, 6-12.]

[Footnote 201: For references etc., see Beloch, Italischer Bund, p. 170, notes 1 and 2.]

[Footnote 202: The mention of one praetor in C.I.L., XIV, 2890, a dedication to Hercules, is later than other mention of two praetors, and is not irregular at any rate.]

[Footnote 203: C.I.L., XIV, 3000, two aediles of the gens Saufeia, probably cousins. In C.I.L., XIV, 2890, 2902, 2906, 2975, 2990, 2994, 2999, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3008, out of eighteen praetors, aediles, and quaestors mentioned, fifteen belong to the old families of Praeneste, two to families that belong to the people living back in the Sabines, and one to a man from Fidenae.]

[Footnote 204: Cicero, pro Balbo, VIII, 21: Leges de civili iure sunt latae: quas Latini voluerunt, adsciverunt; ipsa denique Iulia lege civitas ita est sociis et Latinis data ut, qui fundi populi facti non essent civitatem non haberent. Velleius Pater. II, 16: Recipiendo in civitatem, qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius, vires refectae sunt. Gellius IV, 4, 3; Civitas universo Latio lege Iulia data est. Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 49: [Greek: Italioton de tous eti en tae symmachia paramenontas epsaephisato (ae boulae) einai politas, ou dae malista monon ou pantes epethymoun ktl.]

Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 60; Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311; Abbott, Roman Political Inst.i.tutions, p. 102; Granrud, Roman Const.i.tutional History, pp. 190-191.]

[Footnote 205: Cicero, pro Archia, IV, 7: Data est civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: si qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti fuissent, si tum c.u.m lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent, et si s.e.xaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi. See also Schol. Bobiensia, p. 353 (Orelli corrects the mistake Sila.n.u.s for Silva.n.u.s); Cicero, ad Fam., XIII, 30; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, I, p. 60. Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 311 thinks this law did not apply to any but the incolae of federate communities; Abbott, Roman Political Inst.i.tutions, p. 102.]

[Footnote 206: Livy VIII, 14, 9: Tiburtes Praenestinique agro multati, neque ob recens tantum rebellionis commune c.u.m aliis Latinis crimen, etc., ... ceterisque Latinis populis conubia commerciaque et concilia inter se ademerunt. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 46, n. 3, thinks not an aequum foedus, but from the words: ut is populus alterius populi maiestatem comiter conservaret, a clause in the treaty found in Proculus, Dig., 49, 15, 7 (Corpus Iuris Civ., I, p. 833) (compare Livy IX, 20, 8: sed ut in dicione populi Romani essent) thinks that the new treaty was an agreement based on dependence or clientage "ein Abhaengigkeits--oder Clientelverhaeltniss."]

[Footnote 207: Mommsen, Geschichte des roem. Muenzwesens, p. 179 (French trans, de Blacas, I, p. 186), thinks two series of aes grave are to be a.s.signed to Praeneste and Tibur.]

[Footnote 208: Livy XLIII, 2, 10: Furius Praeneste, Matienus Tibur exulatum abierunt.]

[Footnote 209: Polybius VI, 14, 8: [Greek: eoti d asphaleia tois pheygousin ente tae, Neapolito kai Prainestinon eti de Tibourinon polei]. Beloch, Italischer Bund, pp. 215, 221. Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 45.]

[Footnote 210: Livy XXIII, 20, 2; (Praenestini) civitate c.u.m donarentur ob virtutem, non MUTAVERUNT.]