THE REGULATIONS ABOUT OFFICIALS.
The question now arises whether the new colonists had better rights legally than the old citizens, and whether they had the majority of votes and elected city officers from their own number. The inscriptions with which we have to deal are both fragments of lists of city officers, and in the longer of the two, one gives the officers for four years, the corresponding column for two years and part of a third. A Dolabella, who belongs to the gens Cornelia, as we have seen, heads the list as duovir. The ædile for the same year is a certain Rotanius.[253]This name is not found in the sepulchral inscriptions of the city of Rome, nor in the inscriptions of Præneste except in this one instance. This man is certainly one of the new colonists, and probably a soldier from North Italy.[254]Both the quæstors of the same year are given. They are M. Samiarius and Q. Flavius. Samiarius is one of the famous old names of Præneste.[255]In the same way, the duovirs of the next year, C. Messienus and P. Cornelius, belong, the one to Præneste, the other to the colonists,[256]and just such an arrangement is also found in the ædiles, Sex. Cæsius being a Prænestine[257], L. Nassius a colonist. Q. Caleius and C. Sertorius, the quæstors of the same year, do not appear in the inscriptions of Præneste except here, and it is impossible to say more than that Sertorius is a good Roman name, and Caleius a good north Italian one.[258]C. Salvius and T. Lucretius, duovirs for the next year, the recurrence of Salvius in another inscription,[259]L. Curtius and C. Vibius, the ædiles,—Statiolenus and C. Cassius, the quæstors, show the same phenomenon, for it seems quite possible from other inscriptional evidence to claim Salvius, Vibius,[260]and Statiolenus[261]as men from the old families of Præneste. The quinquennalis for the next year, M. Petronius, has a name too widely prevalent to allow any certainty as to his native place, but the nomen Petronia and Ptronia is an old name in Præneste.[262]In the second column of the inscription, although the majority of the names there seem to belong to the new colonists, as those in the first column do to the old settlers, there are two names, Q. Arrasidius and T. Apponius, which do not make for the argument either way.[263]In the smaller fragment there are but six names: M. Decumius and L. Ferlidius, C. Paccius and C. Ninn(ius), C. Albinius and Sex. Capivas, but from these one gets only good probabilities. The nomen Decumia is well attested in Præneste before the time of Sulla.[264]In fact the same name, M. Decumius, is among the old pigne inscriptions.[265]Paccia has been found this past year in Prænestine territory, and may well be an old Prænestine name, for the inscriptions of a family of the name Paccia have come to light at Gallicano.[266]Capivas is at least not a Roman name,[267]but from its scarcity in other places can as well be one of the names that are so frequent in Præneste, which show Etruscan or Sabine formation, and which prove that before Sulla's time the city had a great many inhabitants who had come from Etruria and from back in the Sabine mountains. Ninnius[268]is a name not found elsewhere in the Latian towns, but the name belonged to the nobility near Capua,[269]and is found also in Pompeii[270]and Puteoli.[271]It seems a fair supposition to make at the outset, as we have seen that various writers on Præneste have done, that the new colonists would try to keep the highest office to themselves, at any rate, particularly the duovirate. But a study of the names, as has been the case with the less important officers, fails even to bear this out.[272]These lists of municipal officers show a number of names that belong with certainty to the older families of Præneste, and thus warrant the statement that the colonists did not have better rights than the old settlers, and that not even in the duovirate, which held an effective check (maior potestas)[273]on the ædiles and quæstors, can the names of the new colonists be shown to outnumber or take the place of the old settlers.
THE QUINQUENNALES.
There remains yet the question in regard to the men who filled the quinquennial office. We know that whether the officials of the municipal governments were prætors, ædiles, duovirs, or quattuorvirs, at intervals of five years their titles either were quinquennales,[274]or had that added to them, and that this title implied censorial duties.[275]It has also been shown that after 46 B.C. the lex Iulia compelled the census in the various Roman towns to be taken by the proper officers in the same year that it was done in Rome. This implies that the taking of the census had been so well established a custom that it was a long time before Rome itself had cared to enact a law which changed the year of census taking in those towns which had not of their own volition made their census contemporaneous with that in Rome.
That the duration of the quinquennial office was one year is certain,[276]that it was eponymous is also sure,[277]but whether the officers who performed these duties every five years did so in addition to holding the highest office of the year, or in place of that honor, is a question not at all satisfactorily answered. That is, were the men who held the quinquennial office the men who would in all probability have stood for the duovirate in the regular succession of advance in the round of offices (cursus honorum), or did the government at Rome in some way, either directly or indirectly, name the men for the highest office in that particular year when the census was to be taken? That is, again, were quinquennales elected as the other city officials were, or were they appointed by Rome, or were they merely designated by Rome, and then elected in the proper and regular way by the citizens of the towns?
At first glance it seems most natural to suppose that Rome would want exact returns from the census, and might for that reason try to dictate the men who were to take it, for on the census had been based always the military taxes, contingents, etc.[278]The first necessary inquiry is whether the quinquennales were men who previously had held office as quæstors or ædiles, and the best place to begin such a search is in the municipal calendars (fasti magistratuum municipalium), which give the city officials with their rank.
There are fragments left of several municipal fasti; the one which gives the longest unbroken list is that from Venusia,[279]which gives the full list of the city officials of the years 34-29 B.C., and the ædiles of 35, and both the duovirs and prætors of the first half of 28 B.C. In 29 B.C., L. Oppius and L. Livius were duoviri quinquennales. These are both good old Roman names, and stand out the more in contrast with Narius, Mestrius, Plestinus, and Fadius, the ædiles and quæstors. Neither of these quinquennales had held any office in the five preceding years at all events. One of the two quæstors of the year 33 B.C. is a L. Cornelius. The next year a L. Cornelius, with the greatest probability the same man, is præfect, and again in the year 30 he is duovir. Also in the year 32 L. Scutarius is quæstor, and in the last half of 31 is duovir. C. Geminius Niger is ædile in 30, and duovir in 28. So what we learn is that a L. Cornelius held the quæstorship one year, was a præfect the next, and later a regularly elected duovir; that L. Scutarius went from quæstor one year to duovir the next, without an intervening office, and but a half year of intervening time; and that C. Geminius Niger was successively ædile and duovir with a break of one year between.
The fasti of Nola[280]give the duovirs and ædiles for four years, 29-32 A.D., but none of the ædiles mentioned rose to the duovirate within the years given. Nor do we get any help from the fasti of Interamna Lirenatis[281]or Ostia,[282]so the only other calendar we have to deal with is the one from Præneste, the fragments of which have been partially discussed above.
The text of that piece[283]which dates from the first years of Tiberius' reign is so uncertain that one gets little information from it. But certainly the M. Petronius Rufus who is præfect for Drusus Cæsar is the same as the Petronius Rufus who in another place is duovir. The name of C. Dindius appears twice also, once with the office of ædile, but two years later seemingly as ædile again, which must be a mistake. M. Cominius Bassus is made quinquennalis by order of the senate, and also made præfect for Germanicus and Drusus Cæsar in their quinquennial year. He is not found in any other inscription, and is otherwise unknown.[284]The only other men who attained the quinquennial rank in Præneste were M. Petronius,[285]and some man with the cognomen Minus,[286]neither of whom appears anywhere else. A man with the cognomen Sedatus is quæstor in one year, and without holding other office is made præfect to the sons of Germanicus, Nero and Drusus, who were nominated quinquennales two years later.[287]There is no positive proof in any of the fasti that any quinquennalis was elected from one of the lower magistrates. There is proof that duovirs were elected, who had been ædiles or quæstors. Also it has been shown that in two cases men who had been quæstors were made præfects, that is, appointees of people who had been nominated quinquennales as an honor, and who had at once appointed præfects to carry out their duties.
Another question of importance rises here. Who were the quinquennales? They were not always inhabitants of the city to the office of which they had been nominated, as has been shown in the cases of Drusus and Germanicus Cæsar, and Nero and Drusus the sons of Germanicus, nominated or elected quinquennales at Præneste, and represented in both cases by præfects appointed by them.[288]
From Ostia comes an inscription which was set up by the grain measurers' union to Q. Petronius Q.f. Melior, etc.,[289]prætor of a small town some ten miles from Ostia, and also quattuorvir quinquennalis of Fæsulæ, a town above Florence, which seems to show that he was sent to Fæsulæ as a quinquennalis, for the honor which he had held previously was that of prætor in Laurentum.
At Tibur, in Hadrian's time, a L. Minicius L.f. Gal. Natalis Quadromius Verus, who had held offices previously in Africa, in Moesia, and in Britain, was made quinquennalis maximi exempli. It seems certain that he was not a resident of Tibur, and since he was not appointed as præfect by Hadrian, it seems quite reasonable to think that either the emperor had a right to name a quinquennalis, or that he was asked to name one,[290]when one remembers the proximity of Hadrian's great villa, and the deference the people of Tibur showed the emperor. There is also in Tibur an inscription to a certain Q. Pompeius Senecio, etc.—(the man had no less than thirty-eight names), who was an officer in Asia in 169 A.D., a præfect of the Latin games (præfectus feriarum Latinarum), then later a quinquennalis of Tibur, after which he was made patron of the city (patronus municipii).[291]A Roman knight, C. Æmilius Antoninus, was first quinquennalis, then patronus municipii at Tibur.[292]
N. Cluvius M'. f.[293]was a quattuorvir at Caudium, a duovir at Nola, and a quattuorvir quinquennalis at Capua, which again shows that a quinquennalis need not have been an official previously in the town in which he held the quinquennial office.
C. Mænius C.f. Bassus[294]was ædile and quattuorvir at Herculaneum and then after holding the tribuneship of a legion is found next at Præneste as a quinquennalis.
M. Vettius M.f. Valens[295]is called in an inscription duovir quinquennalis of the emperor Trajan, which shows not an appointment from the emperor in his place, for that would have been as a præfect, but rather that the emperor had nominated him, as an imperial right. This man held a number of priestly offices, was patron of the colony of Ariminum, and is called optimus civis.
Another inscription shows plainly that a man who had been quinquennalis in his own home town was later made quinquennalis in a colony founded by Augustus, Hispellum.[296]This man, C. Alfius, was probably nominated quinquennalis by the emperor.
C. Pompilius Cerialis,[297]who seems to have held only one other office, that of præfect to Drusus Cæsar in an army legion, was duovir iure dicundo quinquennalis in Volaterræ.
M. Oppius Capito was not only quinquennalis twice at Auximum, patron of that and another colony, but he was patron of the municipium of Numana, and also quinquennalis.[298]
Q. Octavius L.f. Sagitta was twice quinquennalis at Superæquum, and held no other offices.[299]
Again, particularly worthy of notice is the fact that when L. Septimius L.f. Calvus, who had been ædile and quattuorvir at Teate Marrucinorum, was given the quinquennial rights, it was of such importance that it needed especial mention, and that such mention was made by a decree of the city senate,[300]shows clearly that such a method of getting a quinquennalis was out of the ordinary.
M. Nasellius Sabinus of Beneventum[301]has the title Augustalis duovir quinquennalis, and no other title but that of præfect of a cohort.
C. Egnatius Marus of Venusia was flamen of the emperor Tiberius, pontifex, and præfectus fabrum, and three times duovir quinquennalis, which seems to show a deference to a man who was the priest of the emperor, and seems to preclude an election by the citizens after a regular term of other offices.[302]
Q. Laronius was a quinquennalis at Vibo Valentia by order of the senate, which again shows the irregularity of the choice.[303]
M. Træsius Faustus was quinquennalis of Potentia, but died an inhabitant of Atinæ in Lucania.[304]
M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who was ædile and duovir in Pompeii,[305]was not elected quinquennalis, but made præfectus quinquennalis, which implies appointment.
M. Holconius Celer was a priest of Augustus, and with no previous city offices is mentioned as quinquennalis-elect, which can perhaps as well mean nominated by the emperor, as designated by the popular vote.[306]
P. Sextilius Rufus,[307]ædile twice in Nola, is quinquennalis in Pompeii. As he was chosen by the old inhabitants of Nola to their senate, this would show that he belonged probably to the new settlers in the colony introduced by Augustus, and for some reason was called over also to Pompeii to take the quinquennial office.
L. Aufellius Rufus at Cales was advanced from the position of primipilus of a legion to that of quinquennalis, without having held any other city offices, but he was flamen of the deified emperor (Divus Augustus), and patron of the city.[308]
M. Barronius Sura went directly to quinquennalis without being ædile or quæstor, in Aquinum.[309]
Q. Decius Saturninus was a quattuorvir at Verona, but a quinquennalis at Aquinum.[310]
The quinquennial year seems to have been the year in which matters of consequence were more likely to be done than at other times.
In 166 A.D. in Ostia a dedication was of importance enough to have the names of both the consuls of the year and the duoviri quinquennales at the head of the inscription.[311]
The year that C. Cuperius and C. Arrius were quinquennales with censorial power (II vir c.p.q.) in Ostia, there was a dedication of some importance in connection with a tree that had been struck by lightning.[312]
In Gabii a decree in honor of the house of Domitia Augusta was passed in the year when there were quinquennales.[313]
In addition to the fact that the emperors were sometimes chosen quinquennales, the consuls were too. M'. Acilius Glabrio, consul ordinarius of 152 A.D., was made patron of Tibur and quinquennalis designatus.[314]
On the other hand, against this array of facts, are others just as certain, if not so cogent or so numerous. From the inscriptions painted on the walls in Pompeii, we know that in the first century A.D. men were recommended as quinquennales to the voters. But although there seems to be a large list of such inscriptions, they narrow down a great deal, and in comparison with the number of duovirs, they are considerably under the proportion one would expect, for instead of being as 1 to 4, they are really only as 1 to 19.[315]What makes the candidacy for quinquennialship seem a new and unaccustomed thing is the fact that the appeals for votes which are painted here and there on the walls are almost all recommendations for just two men.[316]
There are quinquennales who were made patrons of the towns in which they held the office, but who held no other offices there (1); some who were both quæstors and ædiles or prætors (2); quinquennales of both classes again who were not made patrons (3, 4); præfects with quinquennial power (5); quinquennales who go in regular order through the quattuorviral offices (6); those who go direct to the quinquennial rank from the tribunate of the soldiers (7); and (8) a VERY FEW who have what seems to be the regular order of lower offices first, quæstor, ædile or prætor, duovir, and then quinquennalis.[317]
The sum of the facts collected is as follows: the quinquennales are proved to have been elective officers in Pompeii. The date, however, is the third quarter of the first century A.D., and the office may have been but recently thrown open to election, as has been shown. Quinquennales who have held other city offices are very, very few, and they appear in inscriptions of fairly late date.
On the other hand, many quinquennales are found who hold that office and no other in the city, men who certainly belong to other towns, many who from their nomination as patrons of the colony or municipium, are clearly seen to have held the quinquennial power also as an honor given to an outsider. In what municipal fasti we have, we find no quinquennalis whose name appears at all previously in the list of city officials.
The fact that the lex Iulia in 45 B.C. compelled the census to be taken everywhere else in the same year as in Rome shows at all events that the census had been taken in certain places at other times, whether with an implied supervision from Rome or not, and the later positive evidence that the emperors and members of the imperial family, and consuls, who were nominated quinquennales, always appointed præfects in their places, who with but an exception or two were not city officials previously, certainly tends to show that at some time the quinquennial office had been influenced in some way from Rome. The appointment of outside men as an honor would then be a survival of the custom of having outsiders for quinquennales, in many places doubtless a revival of a custom which had been in abeyance, to honor the imperial family.
In Præneste, as in other colonies, it seems reasonable that Rome would want to keep her hand on affairs to some extent. Rome imposed on the colonies their new kind of officials, and in the fixing of duties and rights, what is more likely than that Rome would reserve a voice in the choice of those officials who were to turn in the lists on which Rome had to depend for the census?
Rome always made different treaties and understandings with her allies; according to circumstances, she made different arrangements with different colonies; even Sulla's own colonies show a vast difference in the treatment accorded them, for the plan was to conciliate the old inhabitants if they were still numerous enough to make it worth while, and the gradual change is most clearly shown by its crystallization in the lex Iulia of 45 B.C.
The evidence seems to warrant the following conclusions in regard to the quinquennales: From the first they were the most important city officials; they were elected by the people from the first, but were men who had been recommended in some way, or had been indorsed beforehand by the central government in Rome; they were not necessarily men who had held office previously in the city to which they were elected quinquennales; with the spread of the feeling of real Roman citizenship the necessity for indorsement from Rome fell into abeyance; magistrates were elected who had every expectation of going through the series of municipal offices in the regular way to the quinquennialship; and the later election of emperors and others to the quinquennial office was a survival of the habitual realization that this most honorable of city offices had some connection with the central authority, whatever that happened to be, and was not an integral part of municipal self government.
Such are some of the questions which a study of the municipal officers of Præneste has raised. It would be both tedious and unnecessary to enumerate again the offices which were held in Præneste during her history, but an attempt to place such a list in a tabular way is made in the following pages.