¹ The problem of the colony of Dertona was discussed PBSR XX, 1952, p. 68Google Scholar.

² ‘M. Aemilio senatus negotium dedit, ut Patavinorum in Venetia seditionem conprimeret, quos certamine factionum ad intestinum bellum exarsisse et ipsorum legati attulerant. … Patavinis saluti fuit adventus consulis.’

³ ‘M. Iunius consul transire in Galliam et ab civitatibus provinciae eius, quantum quaeque posset, militum exigere iussus. … M. Iunius consul ex Liguribus, in provinciam Galliam transgressus, auxiliis protinus per civitates Galliae militibusque coloniis imperatis Aquileiam pervenit.’

⁴ De Romanarum tribuum origine et propagatione Vienna, 1882, pp. 69 and 75Google Scholar.

⁵ The participation of this far-away little town is even more improbable than that of Brixellum, and the only way we could disregard it would be by supposing Albintimilium a late foundation, made after a change in the ‘values’ of the tribes. We cannot place it very late, however, because the first Roman walls date back to the first century B.C. (Lamboglia, N., Liguria romana, Istituto di studi romani, sezione ligure, 1939, vol. I, p. 94Google Scholar), and it is mentioned in Strabo's account of the region (IV. 6. 1. 202), which is generally taken to depict, in the main, pre-Augustan conditions. It is true, however, that Albintimilium may have been a stage behind other places, like Albingaunum, and so not have acquired Roman citizenship in 49 B.C. Its magistrates were IIviri, and this may indicate that the place acquired Latin rights late, that is, after 89 B.C., or else retained them longer. See below, especially n. 54.

⁶ If it was founded as a Latin colony, and so gained the full franchise and membership of a tribe only in 89.

⁷ See Mommsen, , Hermes, XXII, 1887, p. 101Google Scholar = Gesammelte Schriften, V, 1908, p. 262Google Scholar.

⁸ See p. 76 f.

⁹ See below, p. 79 f.

¹⁰ This colonisation may indeed have been a far more important factor in the story of the Pompeius—Caesar rivalry than is generally thought. It should be noted that Comum and Mediolanium were in the same tribe, the Oufentina, and that in fact of all inscriptions specifying membership of that tribe over one-half are attributable to these two places (RE XVIII, 2, 1904Google Scholar). The political history of Mediolanium is hard to trace, and it may even be that it was linked in some way with Comum before 49, and that as a result of a close link already established, either then or perhaps earlier both towns were placed in one tribe. See below.

¹¹ Panegyricus IX Constantino Augusto 8 reads: ‘Verona maximo hostium exercitu tenebatur … scilicet ut, quam coloniam Cn. Pompeius aliquando deduxerat, Pompeianus everteret.’ It may be, however, that this is only a reference to the granting of Latin rights to the area as a whole by the lex Pompeia.

¹² The best and most convincing argument against Mommsen's view is that of Hardy, E. G., ‘The Transpadane question and the alien act of 65 or 64 B.C.’, JRS VI, 1916, p. 65Google Scholar. He is followed by Chilver, G., Cisalpine Gaul, Oxford, 1941, p. 8Google Scholar. Certainly the first well-authenticated governor ofthe province is to be dated to 75 B.C. (Sallust, Hist. II. frag. 98. ed. Maurenbrecher ‘sed consules a patribus provincias inter se paravere; Cotta Galliam citeriorem habuit, Ciliciam Octavius’. See, for the following year, 74, Plutarch, , Lucullus 5. 1.Google Scholar) The passage in Licinianus (Teubner, p. 32) which reads ‘data erat et Sullae provincia Gallia Cisalpina’ remains obscure.

¹³ CAH IX, p. 270. But see also p. 196 and pp. 301 f.

¹⁴ loc. cit.

¹⁵ op. cit., pp. 66–7.

¹⁶ Inscriptiones Italiae, IX. Regio IX. fasc. i. Rome, 1948, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ See also Kubitschek, op. cit., p. 75.

¹⁸ See Hardy, op. cit., pp. 66–7.

¹⁹ The mentions of the Transpadani are the following: Asconius, loc. cit.; Dio Cassius, XXXVII. 9, ; Cicero, , ad Fam. VIII. 1. 2Google Scholar, ‘illi rumores de comitiis Transpadanorum Cumarum tenus caluerunt, Romam quum venissem, ne tenuissimam quidem auditionem de ea re accepi’; ad Att. V. 2. 3, ‘eratque rumor de Transpadanis, eos iussos IIIIviros creare, quod si ita est, magnos motus timeo’; Suetonius, div. Iul. 9, ‘pactumque ut simul foris ille (Gnaeus Piso), ipse (Caesar) Romae ad novas res consurgerent, per Ambrones et Transpadanos’. Suetonius in c. 8 of div. Iul. does not speak of the Transpadani, but says ‘decedens (Caesar) ergo ante tempus, colonias Latinas de petenda civitate agitantes adiit’. Similarly, in describing the supporters of Catiline, Sallust does not single out the Transpadani explicitly, but says (in c. 42 of BC) ‘in Gallia citeriore atque ulteriore motus erat’.

The term ‘Cispadani’ is not found in ancient authors.

²⁰ See PBSR XX, 1952, p. 63Google Scholar.

²¹ But see above, n. 5, for the possibility that Albintimilium did not acquire Latin rights until after 89 B.C.

Both the places are mentioned by Strabo (IV. 6. 1. 202) in a way which suggests that they were small towns of some importance, although he describes Genua as the emporium of the Ligures. Pliny (III. 46) says ‘nec situs originesque persequi facile est Ingaunis Liguribus (ut ceteri omittantur) agro triciens dato’. Presumably land was given to them as it was pacified, and probably Albingaunum (and perhaps Albintimilium) had rights over the hinterland similar to those we know that Genua possessed. If we date the reference in the Strabo passage quoted above (see p. 73) to the second century B.C. we may conjecture that this type of political organisation was accompanied, at least originally, by the exaction of tribute.

²² This, of course, was the view of Beloch, Römische Geschichte, 1926, p. 623.

²³ See below p. 91 for Caesar's legislation.

²⁴ This argument is even more powerful if we think that Cisalpine Gaul was made a province not in 89 B.C., but by Sulla.

(It is true that enfranchisement in 49 was not accompanied by inclusion in Italy, but circumstances were very different then.)

²⁵ op. cit., p. 65.

²⁶ Many authors consider that, even although in theory similar treatment was given to Cispadane and Transpadane Gaul by the lex Pompeia, the actual result was to create a community almost exclusively Latin in political status north of the Po, and one almost exclusively Roman south of it. Thus Hardy says ‘with the possible exception of Ravenna, the Cispadani after 89 were practically all Roman citizens’. Not only is it extremely unlikely that this was true even of the Aemilian plain; it is quite impossible to suppose it true of Liguria, once we have rejected the theory of an outright grant of Roman citizenship there. Roman and Latin rights were not sufficiently widespread in the Cispadana prior to 89 to make this reconciliation of evidence possible.

²⁷ See below, p. 93.

²⁸ ‘Del sito di Comum e quello di Novum Comum’ Atti e memorie del primo congresso lomoardo, Milan, 1937, p. 1Google Scholar.

²⁹ Two aspects of Caesar's activity may thus be commemorated by Catullus' ‘Novi … Comi moenia’ (XXXV. 4), which was perhaps written when the foundation was still an item of news.

³⁰ Strabo's use of the word συνῳκίЗειν suggests this.

³¹ See n. 11.

³² The IIvir = colonia and IIIvir = municipium distinction still holds for most places. For references to recent studies of the evidence see H. Stuart Jones' review of Rudolph's Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien in JRS XXVI, 1936, p. 269Google Scholar. On Verona and its magistrates see Mommsen, , CIL V. 1. p. 327Google Scholar.

The ‘colonia’ in Catullus XVII has been taken to be Verona (and the object of the poet's dislike to be a municeps or fellow-townsman of his own), but even if this identification is correct Catullus, too, might have been calling Verona a colonia simply because of the possession of Latin rights.

Pliny, (NH. III. 130Google Scholar) calls Verona an oppidum, which suggests that at any rate it was not colonised by Augustus. Frothingham, A. L. (Roman Cities in Northern Italy and Dalmatia, London, 1910, p. 247Google Scholar) and Marconi, P. (Verona Romana, Bergamo, 1937, p. 158Google Scholar) think that Pliny made a mistake and that Verona was an Augustan colony. This will account for the fortifications and buildings which date from the Augustan age, and also for the title colonia Augusta Verona Nova Gallieniana on the gate built by Gallienus, (CIL V. 1. 3329Google Scholar). The title Augusta could have been given by an emperor after Augustus, but in fact it probably does go back to an Augustan reorganisation and embellishment of the city. Verona should be compared with Mediolanium (also called Augusta—see below, p. 86) and Augusta Bagiennorum, neither of which was probably an Augustan colony. It is most likely that all these towns benefited from the interest of Augustus and were changed in accordance with the military and political needs of the time, but they lacked the essential feature of real colonisation, the settlement of new citizens.

³³ op. cit., p. 30.

³⁴ ‘Roman Verona’, PBSR XIII, 1935, p. 69Google Scholar.

³⁵ See Beloch, Röm. Gesch., p. 623.

³⁶ See Sherwin-White, A. N., The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1939, pp. 141 fGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ op. cit., p. 613.

³⁸ See Caesar, , BG I. 24Google Scholar; II. 2; V. 24; VI. 1 for Caesar's troops. See also the passage of Lucan (IV. 462) discussed below. For Pompeius Magnus, see Cicero, (ad Q. f. II. 3. 4Google Scholar) ‘magna manus ex Piceno et Gallia exspectatur’. ‘Though the interpretation of Gallia has been open to doubt, it is likely that Pompey was drawing on his father's clientes in the Po valley’ (Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul, op. cit., p. 112 n.).

³⁹ For Brixellum early colonisation is not proved (see PBSR XX, 1952, p. 56Google Scholar), but there are not certain traces of centuriation either, and in any case the place was colonised under Augustus.

⁴⁰ See Vital, A., Traccie di romanità nel territorio di Conegliano, Venice, 1931, p. 19Google Scholar. The evidence is this passage of Lucan speaking of ‘coloni’; but this is a term not used exclusively of colonists, but sometimes of farmers in general. (The inscription (CIL V. 1. 331) ‘patrono splendidissimae col. Aquil. et Parentinorum Opiterginor. Hemonens.’ is adduced by Vital, but this raises rather than solves problems. Why is the designation ‘col’, given only to Aquileia ?) The magistrates are IIIIviri, and Pliny (III. 130) does not call it a colonia, but that suggests only that it was not colonised by Augustus. The scholiast himself calls the town oppidum, not colonia as we should have expected if it had been one. Mommsen (CIL V. 1. p. 186) did not think the place was ever colonised.

As was the case with Verona, Opitergium might have been called a colonia by virtue of Pompeius Strabo's grant of Latin rights in 89.

⁴¹ See Thomsen, Rudi, The Italic Regions, Classica et Mediaevalia: Dissertationes, IV, Copenhagen, 1947, p. 25Google Scholar.

⁴² Compare the case of Mevaniola and Forum Livi, discussed in PBSR XX, 1952, p. 58Google Scholar.

⁴³ See Lamboglia, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 232.

⁴⁴ Lamboglia, op. cit., p. 183.

See also Gabotto, F., I municipi romani dell'Italia occidentale alla morte di Teodoslo il Grande, Biblioteca della società storica subalpina, XXXII, 1907, p. 251Google Scholar. The author has an ingenious but unlikely theory to account for the various names given to this town in ancient sources.

⁴⁵ op. cit., p. 520.

⁴⁶ See below, especially n. 54.

⁴⁷ See n. 10.

⁴⁸ In this much-discussed problem the conclusions of Hardy, (‘Caesar's Colony at Novum Comum in 59 B.C.’, Some Problems in Roman History, Oxford, 1924, pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar) are in the main acceptable.

⁴⁹ But Passerini, A. (‘I primi magistrati di Milano in eta imperiale’, Athenaeum, XXII–XXIII, 1944–4, p. 98Google Scholar) has suggested that Mediolanium had first IIIviri and then IIviri.

⁵⁰ For example, Colombo, , Milano, preromana, romana e barbarica, Milan, 1928, p. 79Google Scholar; ‘Di Milano nell'evo antico’, Nuova riv. storica X, 1926, p. 19Google Scholar.

⁵¹ For views on the date and the nature of this colonisation see Mommsen, , CIL V. 2. p. 634Google Scholar; Colombo, ‘Di Milano nell'evo antico’, op. cit., pp. 20 ff.; Galli, , Corso di storia milanese, Milan, 1920, vol. 1, p. 90Google Scholar. Passerini (loc. cit.) quotes CIL V. 2. 5847, which mentions a ‘IIvir i. d. m. p.’ and also a ‘IIIvir a. p.’. We may reject Passerini's argument that m. p. means ‘manumittendi potestate’, but Mommsen's explanation—that it refers to the ‘municipium Placentiae’—remains unsatisfactory.

The inscription may be a record of Mediolanium's change of status from municipium to colonia. The date was probably the end of the second century.

(If it became usual for different emperors to give their names to an important city like Mediolanium, as a mark of respect and without a genuine colonisation, some variety in the titles used is only to be expected.)

⁵² See n. 32.

⁵³ It has been suggested that the reference in Strabo, V. 1. 6. 213, to ‘οἱ πεντακόσιοι τῶν Έλλήνων’ is in fact mistaken, and conceals the record of enfranchisement of some local people, or their upper class, who were to be included on the roll of Novum Comum together with new colonists (Pompeian veterans?). But it is dangerous to suppose Strabo wrong on such a point, and his statement seems to be confirmed by Cicero, , ad Fam. XIII. 35. 1Google Scholar. On the other hand, the enfranchisement of these Greeks does suggest that political considerations as well as military ones influenced the method in which Caesar founded his colony.

⁵⁴ Which was at Trissino (Fraccaro, P., ‘I Dripsinates, Dripsinum e Trissino’, Athenaeum, XVII, 1939, p. 171Google Scholar), and was probably one of the Euganeae gentes attributed to municipia (Pliny, III. 133), some of them possibly as early as 89 B.C. (ibid. 138). That this place had retained considerable independence is shown by the fact that it was placed in a fresh tribe, the Collina, when it was given the citizenship. Compare the case of the civitas Camunnorum, which was attributed to Brixia, but was placed in the tribe Quirina when it became independent. These places were alike in that both had IIviri. Pliny III. 134 suggests that at one and the same time some of these peoples had Latin rights but were also attributed to nearby municipia. Presumably when they were given magistrates of their own (a state hardly compatible with attributio) these magistrates were IIviri either because the areas still had only Latin rights and were coloniae in the sense that towns granted Latin rights by Pompeius Strabo had been coloniae, or because it had become customary to use the IIvirate in areas which had enjoyed Latin rights for a long period, whether as independent units or as attributi. Other possible examples in Cisalpine Gaul which we have had occasion to discuss are Alba Pompeia and Albintimilium (although both these places must have acquired full citizenship long before the Alpine peoples did).

⁵⁵ See Sticotti, P., ‘Ad Tricesimum’, Memorie storiche forogiuliesi, IX, 1913, p. 373Google Scholar, for comments on the use of the tribe Claudia in the tenth region of Italy.

⁵⁶ Degrassi, A. (Il confine nord-orientale dell'Italia romana, Berne, 1954)Google Scholar suggests (p. 37) that the place was founded by Caesar as a castellum, not a forum, perhaps in 50 B.C., to act as part of the defensive system of Aquileia. He thinks it became a municipium during Augustus' Danubian campaigns, but that the date of its colonisation cannot be determined.

⁵⁷ See Beloch, Röm. Gesch., p. 497.

⁵⁸ For examples of such connections see PBSR XX, 1952, n. 28Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Epigraphical evidence is completely lacking for a road through Forum Iulium; for roads in the neighbourhood of Iulium Carnicum we have the testimony of the itineraries and of inscriptions. The Antonine Itineraries give two routes from Aquileia to the north: Aquileia— ad Tricesimum—Iulio Carnico—Longio—Agunto; and Aquileia—viam Belloio—Larice—Santico—Viruno. CIL V, 2, 7995–9, are inscriptions from milestones on the road north from Concordia, all erected by Augustus.

Degrassi (op. cit., pp. 30–3) gives fully the arguments for Forum Iulium being a Caesarian foundation. (I did not have an opportunity to read Degrassi's book until I had in effect completed this paper.)

⁶⁰ Although Tergeste is called a κὠμη by Artemidorus (see Stephanus s. v. Τέγεστρα) and a φρούριον by Strabo (V. 1. 9. 215) it is mentioned by Hirtius, (BG VIII. 24Google Scholar) in a way which suggests it was already important enough to become a municipium in 49.

⁶¹ op. cit., p. 376.

⁶² Degrassi (op. cit., p. 52) argues for 42 or 41 as the date for the colonisation of Tergeste, which he persuasively connects closely with the frontier change from Timavus to Formio, made when Cisalpine Gaul became part of Italy. He dates Pola to the same period, comparing its title ‘Pietas’ with those of other triumviral colonies (op. cit., pp. 63 ff.).

⁶³ Degrassi (op. cit., pp. 70 ff.) refers to inscriptions mentioning IIIviri, and suggests that Parentium was made a municipium by Octavian (or Augustus) and not colonised until the time of Tiberius or Gaius (either of whom could have founded coloniae Iuliae).

⁶⁴ It should be borne in mind that the Augustan colonisation might have been only in reinforcement of colonisation by Caesar.

⁶⁵ See Degrassi, op. cit., pp. 14 ff. and 49 ff.

⁶⁶ When other places, such as Nesactium, may have been made municipia (see Chilver, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 65). The passage of Mela (II. 57) ‘Tergeste … finit Illyricum’ must be referred to the years before 42; unless Mela is writing of ethnical rather than political divisions (cf. II. 55).

⁶⁷ op. cit. (n. 4), p. 81.

⁶⁸ R. Thomsen, op. cit. (n. 41), p. 28.

⁶⁹ See the account of recent work on Emona in Degrassi. op. cit., p. no. Kubitschek (op. cit., p. 98) thought that the ager had been already assigned by Caesar, because it was in the Claudia tribe, the very reason, on our view, for believing it almost certainly a post-Caesarian foundation.

⁷⁰ op. cit., p. 377.

⁷¹ It should be noted, however, that even although Augustus may have given the Histrian towns the franchise, these were not placed in the tribe Claudia. Their foundation perhaps dates to a time prior to the adoption of this policy.

⁷² See n. 102.

⁷³ See CIL V. 1. 5050, for tribes which until the time of Claudius were ‘ne attributi quidem’. This edict speaks of the Anauni, the Tulliasses, and the Sinduni, attributed to Tridentum, probably by Augustus. See also n. 54.

⁷⁴ See n. 19. And see E. G. Hardy's ‘The Transpadane Question’, op. cit., and ‘Caesar's Colony at Novum Comum’, op. cit., for the period 59–49 B.C., and a discussion of theories to account for the fact that an enfranchising law was not passed by Caesar until 49.

⁷⁵ Below, p. 94.

⁷⁶ E.g. Chilver, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 8.

⁷⁷ Strongly felt by Niccolini, G., I fasti dei tribuni della plebe, Milan, 1934, p. 441Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ E.g. by Niccolini, loc. cit.

⁷⁹ See Sibers, H.. v. Plebiscita, , RE XXI, 1, 56Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ A comprehensive list of municipal organisations which could hardly be applied only to those communities which had the full Roman citizenship before 49 B.C.

⁸¹ See Niccolini, loc. cit.

⁸² The phrase does, however, call to mind the Patavine inscription (CIL V, 1, 2864) ‘M. Iunius Sabinus IIIIvir aediliciae potestatis e lege Iulia municipali’, and I cannot help wondering whether this lex Iulia municipalis may not be Caesar's enfranchising law. It has also been taken, with plausibility, as a lex data referring to Patavium alone (see Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, p. 145).

⁸³ The problem of Italian municipalisation is beyond the scope of this article. See Sherwin-White's full discussion, op. cit., pp. 141 ff. Although the suggestions of Rudolph (Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien) have not met with general acceptance (see particularly the review by Jones, H. Stuart, JRS XXVI, 1936, pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar), his interpretation of the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia as a law of 55 B.C. which fulfilled at least some of the functions of a municipal law has been thought to have attractions. Mr. Sherwin-White (loc. cit.) says, ‘This lex Roscia, which is a properly municipal law, is the first known document to envisage the creation of artificial municipia, and the assimilation of the various forms of oppida to municipalities by the assignation of territoria.’ MissTaylor, L. R. (‘Caesar's agrarian legislation and his municipal policy’, in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of A. C. Johnson, Princeton, 1951Google Scholar) thinks that the law ‘may well have contributed to a process of evolution by extending to praefecturae and fora and conciliabula a type of government already known in coloniae and municipia. At the same time the law “constituted” municipia. … The “constitution” in such cases may have concerned a new delimitation which took account of the settlements made under Caesar's agrarian laws.’ I quote this because it is a view of the law which seems very reasonable in itself, and which has something in common with the interpretation of it which has tempted me to the suggestions which follow in this article.

⁸⁴ See Sherwin-White, loc. cit., for the change in the use of the word municipium in the late Republic. We may note that a similar list of municipal organisations is found in the Table of Heraclea (Bruns, , op. cit. (p. 92), xviiiGoogle Scholar).

⁸⁵ See above, p. 88. We have already discussed the re-colonisation of Novum Comum, and the colonisation of the Histrian peninsula. Forum Iulium Iriensium was more probably founded by Augustus in connection with the building of the Via Iulia Augusta. (It is perhaps worth pointing out here the ambiguity in the title Iulia, which makes certainty in ascription to Iulius Caesar or Augustus (before 27 B.C.) often impossible.)

⁸⁶ The seventh and eighth legions were settled in Campania (Nic. Dam. Vita Caes. 31; Cicero, Phil. II. 102Google Scholar); the sixth at Arelate and the tenth at Narbo (J. Kromayer, Hermes, 1896, p. 1).

⁸⁷ See above, p. 82.

⁸⁸ Although what was done in the case of Patavium, Mantua, and Ariminum may well have taken place also in other towns, less famous in themselves or in their publicists, it seems hard to accept this alternative as a complete explanation.

⁸⁹ See Chilver, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 148.

⁹⁰ Cicero, (ad Fam. XII. 5. 2Google Scholar) writes to Cassius ‘Praeter Bononiam, Regium Lepidum, Parmam, totam Galliam tenebamus studiosissimam rei publicae; tuos etiam clientes Transpadanos mirifice coniunctos cum causa habebamus’. (There was a C. Cassius from Patavium later who opposed Augustus (Suet., div. Aug. 51. 2Google Scholar) and a C. Cassius Parmensis (Appian, , BC V. 579Google Scholar; Velleius II. 87) who was one of Caesar's murderers.) See also Cicero, , Phil. III. 13Google Scholar; X. 10; XII. 9–10. For the statue of Brutus erected at Mediolanium see Plutarch, Comp. of Dion and Brutus, 5, and Suetonius, De Rhet. 6.

⁹¹ loc. cit. (n. 83).

⁹² As for the date of the law, the year 55 B.C. is now generally accepted. The principal reason, however, is the negative one, that there is room for five tribunes in the Fasti of that year. The view that the law was one initiated by a group of praetors in 49 (see Cary, M., JRS XIX, 1929, pp. 113 ff.Google Scholar) needs reconsideration in the light of the evidence for the praetors of that year collected in Broughton's, T. R. S.The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 1952, vol. II, p. 257Google Scholar. It may be pointed out, however, that there may have been some extraordinary appointments in the period of Caesar's dictatorship, and that at least two of the names in the title of the law are names of known praetors for 49! It must also be remarked that the law stands alone in the plurality of its named sponsors, for which there seems no particular reason in the circumstances of 55 B.C. (See Siber, , Plebiscita, , RE XXI. 1. 55.)Google Scholar

(It may be that in fact the agrimensores have wrongly associated provisions of different laws, or have reproduced part of one law which itself contained chapters of various earlier laws (cf. the lex coloniae Genetivae). If this is the type of explanation to be adopted, then arguments based on the assumption that the three chapters belonged to a single original enactment obviously fall to the ground.)

⁹³ It is not always possible to decide exactly which were triumviral colonies. Many of these may have been replaced or refounded after 27 B.C.

⁹⁴ See n. 32.

⁹⁵ See Mansuelli, G. A., Ariminum, Italia romana: Municipi e colonie, I, vi, Rome, 1941, p. 78Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ See Ducati, P., Storia di Bologna, Bologna, 1928, vol. I, p. 432Google Scholar. An inscription near by is a milestone of 2 B.C. recording Augustus' repair work on the Via Aemilia.

⁹⁷ See Mancini, G., ‘Le colonie ed i municipi romani dell'Emilia’, Emilia romana, Florence, 1944, vol. II, p. 103Google Scholar, who quotes CIL XI. 1. 863, ‘Vettius Sabinus Cam. IIIIvir aed. pot. et mag. mun. Raven.’

⁹⁸ See above, n. 85.

⁹⁹ La Liguria antica, Istituto per la storia di Genova, Milan, 1941, p. 311Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ This puzzling inscription is worth some comment. It reads ‘(line 5) … cipio suo Alba Pompeia patrono coloniarum / (line 6) … m municipior Albae Pompeiae Aug. Bagiennorum / (line 7) … ens. Genuens. Aquens. Statiel.’, and it is often assumed that the towns still appearing in this list were all municipia. But there is hardly room for two names at the beginning of line 6, and the space there (of about twenty-two letters) was probably filled with some such phrase as ‘et splendidis simorum ite)m’. If this is the kind of supplement required, we have here a combined list of coloniae and municipia, with some gaps to be filled, and the only certain deduction we can make is that Alba Pompeia itself was a municipium.

¹⁰¹ See above, p. 86.

¹⁰² See Gribaudi, D., Lo sviluppo edilizio di Torino dall'epoca romana, Turin, 1933, p. 3Google Scholar. There is one stretch of wall which seems to be so early that some authors would ascribe it and a colonial foundation to Caesar. But see Rondolino, F., ‘Storia di Torino antico’, Atti della società piemontese di archeologia e belle arti, XX, 1930, p. 155Google Scholar.

Since Pliny mentions Forum Vibi in his account of the Transpadana, it was probably independent under Augustus. But it was in the same tribe as Augusta Taurinorum, the Stellatina; which suggests that the latter town was given this tribe one stage before Forum Vibi, which was then a part of its territorium (see below, n. 112). Augusta Taurinorum, or rather the centre of the Taurini which preceded it, was probably enfranchised in fact by Caesar. But we may grant this without supposing any colonial settlement by him.

¹⁰³ Not. Scavi, 1894, p. 369. See also Ferrero, G., ‘Un'iscrizione di Aosta’, R. acc. di Scienze di Torino, Turin, 1895, pp. 172–176Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ For the position of these Salassi see Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History, op. cit., p. 28.

¹⁰⁵ See above, p. 89.

¹⁰⁶ CIL V. 1. 4212, refers to the ‘colonia civica Augusta Brixia’, which probably means that it was a later foundation distinct from the veteran colonial settlements.

¹⁰⁷ For full discussions of the date of the second colonisation of Aquileia see Brusin, G., ‘Il problema cronologico della colonia militare di Aquileia’, Aquileia nostra, VII–VIII, 1936–1937, p. 15Google Scholar; and Degrassi, A., ‘Problemi cronologici delle colonie di Luceria, Aquileia, Teanum Sidicinum’, Riv. di filologia, XVI, 1938, p. 132Google Scholar.

Pliny may be following his geographical source in calling Aquileia a colony here. The title in that case would have reference to the original foundation.

¹⁰⁸ Colombo, A. (‘Il campo Marzio di Vicetia e un cenno sulle origini della città’, Athenaeum, IX, 1921, p. 112Google Scholar) thinks that colonists were sent to Vicetia, and that there persisted a dual urban organisation of the colonists in a Roman-planned town and the municipes or former inhabitants, living at Berga. This is one application of the theory of dual-townships which in fact can find no secure evidential support in Cisalpine Gaul. With regard to Vicetia, the answer is given by Girardi, , ‘La topografia di Vicenza romana’, Archivio veneto-tridentino, Venice, 1924, pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ See above, p. 80.

¹¹⁰ See Ghislanzoni, E.—de Bon, A., Romanità del territorio padovano, Padua, 1937, pp. 41 ffGoogle Scholar. and 61; and P. Fraccaro, ‘Intorno ai confini e alla centuriazione degli agri di Patavium e di Acelum’, Studi di Antichità classica offerti a Emanuele Ciaceri, 1940, pp. 100–113.

These settlements may have been made on land taken from the territoria of both Patavium and Adria as is maintained by Gasparotto, C. (Patavium municipio romano, Venice, 1928, p. 69Google Scholar), referring to Siculus Flaccus (Lachmann, , Gromatici Veteres, I, p. 164Google Scholar). But they must then have been considered a part of one or other of these territoria, as no new independent organisation (colonia in the political sense) seems to have been created there.

¹¹¹ Possibly the island on which the centre of the Roman town stood was first drained by Roman engineers, and the bridges built by them to connect this new part with the original centre to the east.

¹¹² A word may be said about one or two of the places in Pliny's account whose status as municipia or whose identity are in doubt.

For Aemilia, , see PBSR XX, 1952, pp. 64 fGoogle Scholar.

For Liguria, see Lamboglia, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 228.

In Venetia we have no evidence to place the Quarquani and the Togienses.

In the account of Transpadana appear Forum Vibi, Forum Licini, and Segusio. This third place was certainly in the province of the Cottian Alps. Forum Vibi was probably founded by C. Vibius Pansa, proconsul of Gallia Citerior in 45–44 B.C., and, as Mommsen, (CIL V. 2. p. 825Google Scholar) said, was founded on a road built by Vibius through a newly-opened region. Being founded on land which was formerly under the jurisdiction of Augusta Taurinorum (see above, n. 102), it was probably in Transpadana, not in the Cottian province. (But see Gribaudi, D., ‘Il Piemonte nell'antichità classica’, Biblioteca della società storica subalpina, CXIV, 1928, p. 119.Google Scholar) Forum Vibi and Caburrum formed one municipium, though they may have been distinct localities (CIL V. 2. 7345, 7836; VI, 32638 b20; Gabotto, I municipi romani dell'Italia occidentale, op. cit., p. 295).

As for Forum Licini, this seems to have been some where near Bergomum. The only man to whom it seems attributable is L. Licinius Crassus, the jurist, who founded Narbo in 118 B.C. and had the province of Gallia after his consulship in 95. This date is early, though not impossibly early, for road-building along the foot-hills of the Alps. The site of the Forum is given as Erba-Incino, while at Lecco is placed Leuceris, (‘Italia romana’ Carta del grande atlante dell'istituto geografico di Agostini, Novara, 1938—ed. 4Google Scholar). The similarity in names is in favour of this view, but Erba—Incino seems too near Comum to have been independent of it, and Leuceris is placed by the ancient authorities (Rav. Geog. IV. 30; Guido, 15; Tab. Peut.) between Bergomum and Brixia. On the whole, it is better to place Forum Licini at Lecco. It may be identical with a Φόρος Διουγουντῶν or Ίουτούντων mentioned by Ptolemy, III. 1. 27.

¹¹³ They are mainly Alpine communities. See n. 54 for the examples of Dripsinum and the civitas Camunnorum.

¹¹⁴ On these see Gribaudi, ‘Il Piemonte nell'antichità classica’, op. cit., pp. 89 ff.

¹¹⁵ Doubts have sometimes been raised as to whether this position was ever reversed after 42 B.C. But see Chilver, op. cit. (n. 12), p. 119.