Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
From Asculum to ActiumThe Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus$

Edward Bispham

Print publication date: 2007

Print ISBN-13: 9780199231843

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2008

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231843.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 26 February 2017

(p.462) APPENDIX 3 The Roman Republican ‘Municipia’

(p.462) APPENDIX 3 The Roman Republican ‘Municipia’

From Asculum to Actium
Oxford University Press

(p.462) APPENDIX 3

The Roman Republican ‘Municipia’

For initial discussion of Roman expansion and incorporation of Italian communities in this period reference is given only to the lucid remarks of Humbert,1 where discussion of earlier views, especially those of Mommsen, Beloch, and Sherwin‐White, can be found.

Latium Vetus








Latium Adiectum















Interamnia Praetuttiorum21






Interamna Nahars24 [24]

For Samnite Aufidena,25 for the Sabines,26 Vestini, and Picentes the evidence does not allow a decision whether their praefecturae were centred on municipia or not. The absence of significant nucleated settlements among these peoples until at least the first century BC suggests that there were few if any municipia in these areas of Italy before the Social War.

We may now proceed to consider the evidence from the sources listed for municipia created after the Social War. Included, underlined, are those municipia (also) known from their magistracies. Former Latin colonies are given in capitals.

Latium Vetus









[8 = 6.6%]

Latium Adiectum






Cereatae Marianae39









Teanum Sidicinum46



[15/17 = 12.3–14.8%].









Trebula Balliensis56

[7/8 = 5.7–6.6%]











Ligures Baebiani63


[8 = 5.7%]










[6/8 = 4.9–5.7%]








[5/6 = 4.1–4.9%]









Teanum Apulum(?)86


[8/9 = 6.6–7.4%]



[1 = 0.82%]





[1/2 = 0.82–1.6%]



[1 = 0.82%]



[1 = 0.82%]




Trebula Suffenas93

[3 = 2.4%]


Forum Novum94


[2 = 0.82%]








Falerii Novi102
















[22 = 17.3%]











Pitinum Pisaurense125





Urvinum Hortense130

Urvinum Metaurense131

[14/16 = 11.5–13.2%]





Cupra Maritima135



[5/6 = 4.1–4.9%]

Ager Gallicus


[1 = 0.82%]

Cisalpine Gaul





[4 = 3.3%]

(p.463) (p.464)


(1.) Municipium, 149–250.

(2.) Paulus, 155L, Livy, 8. 14. 3, Cic., Phil. 3. 15; Humbert, Municipium, 193–4.

(3.) Livy, 8. 14. 2, cf. Cic., Balb. 31, Mur. 86, 90, Tac., Ann. 3. 48. 1; AE (1966), 165; Humbert, Municipium, 192–5. Milo's dictatorship (Cic., Mil. 27, 45, Asc., p. 31C) was probably a full municipal magistracy, not simply a sacral office, as suggested by Rudolph, Stadt, 30–1. See Wiseman, New Men, no. 30, on Milo's Lanuvine adoptive father.

(4.) Sherwin‐White, Citizenship 2, 68: praetores under the Empire; Humbert, Municipium, 179–84, not wholly convincing for a municipalization in 338. This had occurred by 211 it seems—Livy, 26. 8. 10.

(5.) Livy, 8. 14. 3; Humbert, Municipium, 178, 191–5.

(6.) See under Nomentum.

(7.) Livy, 6. 26. 8, cf. Cic., Planc. 19, Font. 41, Nepos, Cato 1. 1, ILLRP 688; Humbert, Municipium, 154–7.

(8.) Humbert, Municipium, 185–6, cf. Suet., DA 2. 2.

(9.) Paulus, 155L, ILLRP 271, cf. ILLRP 533–4; praetores under the Empire, Sherwin‐White, Citizenship 2, 68; Humbert, Municipium 214.

(10.) Livy, 10. 1. 2, 38. 36. 7–9. Livy nowhere uses the term municipium, but the municipal status attested later (esp. Cic., Fam. 13. 1. 1, 11. 3, cf. Sull. 23, Sest. 116 (on Marius), Planc. 20, 22, Leg. 2. 6, 3. 30, 36, Phil. 12. 20, Val. Max. 2. 2. 3, ILLRP 546–7) must surely date back to 303; Humbert, Municipium, 219–20.

(11.) Livy, 8. 14. 10–11, 38. 36. 7–9, ILLRP 595; Humbert, Municipium, 195–6, 201–2. As with Arpinum, municipal status is not attested, but must go back to incorporation in 334; cf. Cic., Att. 2. 14. 2, CIL i2. 3113.

(12.) Paulus, 155L, Livy, 8. 14. 10–11, 38. 36. 7–9, ILLRP 601–4; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 201–2, 288, 292–4. The inclusions in the Festus/Paulus list, despite the strange categorization of the municipium (on which see Humbert, Municipium, 206), should be valid evidence for a municipalization of Fundi and Formiae in 334.

(13.) Paulus, 117L, 155L, cf. Livy, 8. 17. 12, Vell. Pat., 1. 14; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 205–6. CIL x. 3759 and x. 3921 may come from here: both are quattuorviral.

(14.) Cic., Planc. 22, implies that all the communities named in this passage were municipia in 54. Since Cicero here carefully distinguishes between the municipium of Tusculum and the praefectura of Atina, and since we know independently that Aquinum, Sora and Arpinum were municipia, this status may be accepted with some confidence for Allifae and the others. The date of the municipalization is most uncertain, but it may have occurred at Allifae and Venafrum before the Social War; Humbert, Municipium, 245–7, suggests it was contemporary with incorporation. Laffi, VI Kongr. Epigr., 46, raises the possibility that their municipalization is roughly contemporary with that of Casinum. Non liquet.

(15.) Paulus, 117L; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 205–6. Its autonomy was removed in 211, restored by 63 (c.83 is suggested by Laffi, VI Kongr. Epigr., 43); or in 55 by the lex Mamilia? Note that CIL x. 3736 (quattuorviral) may come from here.

(16.) Humbert, Municipium, 205. Its incorporation and probably its municipalization were contemporary with those of Capua; see below.

(17.) Vell. Pat., 1. 14. 3, Livy, 8. 14. 10–11; Humbert, Municipium, 173, 195, 198–9. Her municipalization, according to Livy, was on the same terms as that of Fundi and Formiae. Stripped of autonomy in 211, restored briefly as a colony in 83, and definitively again in 58.

(18.) Paulus, 117L, 155L, Festus 126L; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 206; incorporated under the same circumstances as Capua. Cf. Livy, 8. 14. 10–11, 23. 31. 10 (215 BC), 40. 42. 13, Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86, Att. 10. 13. 1; CIL x. 3711 (Caesarian or Augustan: Sartori, Problemi, 36, 38); praetores under the Empire: Sherwin‐White, Citizenship 2, 68.

(19.) Livy, 8. 14. 10–11; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 205. Enfranchised under same circumstances as Cumae and Capua.

(20.) See under Allifae.

(21.) Frontinus, De Controv. 66. 28–68. 2 Campbell, Cic., Cael. 5; Humbert, Municipium, 239–40. CIL i2. 1903–4 shows that the municipium existed beside the Sullan colony, and since the municipium can hardly be later than the colony, and had octouiri (CIL ix. 5067), it must be pre‐Social War. The exact date of municipalization remains unknown.

(22.) Paulus 155L; Bormann, CIL xi. p. 534; Humbert, Municipium, 164–5. The history of the incorporation of Caere is opaque.

(23.) Had praetores under the Empire and as a so‐called municipium foederatum (see Ch. 2), it should have been municipalized before the Social War; Sherwin‐White, Citizenship 2, 68; Humbert, Municipium, 260–2, 289, 291–2.

(24.) Humbert, Municipium, 222–3, 225–6. Fulginiae was certainly a municipium after the Social War (Cic., Pro Vareno frs. 3 and 4 Crawford). Interamna Nahars was also a municipium after the war (CIL i2. 2510, Q62, CIL xi. 4222). Florus (2. 9. 27) uses the term, which cannot be pressed for technical significance in so late a source; Florus' testimony as to the importance of Interamna does how ever suggest that its municipalization antedated the Social War (cf. CIL xi. 4170, which refers to foundation in 672 BC, not a municipalization in 82 (Bormann, CIL xi. 611) or 81 (Degrassi ad ILLRP 615)—the same is probably true by analogy for Fulginiae. Note that Interamna is one of the few pre‐Social‐War Roman communities for which there is no evidence of a praefectura: Humbert, Municipium, 379, who nonetheless assumes one, ibid., carte V. See now the argument of Bradley, in Epigraphic Landscape, that Interamna was a Latin colony.

(25.) CIL i2. 2543 mentioning quaestors and perhaps decurions seems to be 1st cent. BC.

(26.) Livy, 28. 45. 19 (205 BC) tells us that Nursia, Reate, Amiternum, and the whole ager Sabinus offered Scipio troops, but contra Galsterer, Herrschaft, 106, this has no clear implications for autonomy as opposed to suggesting that the Sabine centres named were the main ones; what Livy describes is not normal recruitment in any case. Cures was quattuorviral under the Empire: Beloch, RG 504; its promotion may be from not long after the Social War. Reate is named as a praefectura in 63 (Cic., Cat. 3. 5), and Val. Max., i. 8. 1 describes Vatinius as ‘Reatinae praefecturae uir’—there is no sign of municipal status. The mention of decurions at Amiternum in 24 BC (Supp. It. NS 9, 81, no. 29) may indicate that, while still nominally the centre of a praefectura, it had become a municipium. Nursia was octoviral; the titulature octouir duouirali potestate (Cordella and (p.467) Criniti, Nuove iscrizioni latine di Norcia, Cascia e Valnerina, 154–5 (Giappiedi no. II)—late republican/triumviral/Augustan; AE (1950), 89 = ibid. 50–4, text I—imperial; ibid. 140–1 (Capanne di Collegiacone)—imperial) does suggest a constitutional reorganization probably including jurisdictional and other changes which may be compatible with municipalization, perhaps as early as the late Republic (ILLRP 1257a = CIL i2. 832 = Cordella and Criniti, 32–3, a ?2nd‐cent. BC text mentioning quaestors acting ‘d. s. s.’ is probably Spoletine (ibid. 33); for other Nursian octouiri: ibid. 158–9. (Maltignano no. III)—early imperial); AE (1950), 89 = Cordella and Criniti, 50–4, text II—imperial; AE (1983), 306 = Cordella and Criniti, 64–5 (Ancarano no. IV); and octouiri aed(ilicia potestate ?)—preferable in any case to Cordella and Criniti's ‘aed(ilium) [pleb(is) pot(estatis)]’ (p. 77)—Cordella and Criniti, 76–8 (Norcia, Chiesa dell'Addolorata)—late republican/triumviral/Augustan. This volume, infuriatingly hard to use, supplements and updates Cordella and Criniti, Iscrizioni latine di Norcia e dintorni, to which the later volume, at the pages cited above, refers for earlier versions of the texts and other octoviral material, and to which the reader is referred.

(27.) Lib. Col., 180. 19–20. Campbell. Cic., Planc. 23. Probably a quattorviral municipium: Beloch, RG 504.

(28.) Lib. Col., 182. 8–10 Campbell. Probably quattuorviral: Beloch, RG 504.

(29.) Q74, ILLRP 60(?). For its federate status before the Social War see Salmon, Colonization, 51 n. 60, Making, 55; CIL i2. 1513, x. p. 645, and coin issues.

(30.) D1, 2. CIL i2. 1709 from Aecae is probably from the second half of the 1st cent. BC: see Ch. 9.

(31.) Cic., Planc. 22. Gabii was allied until the Social War: Beloch, RG 501; quattuorviral: CIL xiv. p. 278.

(32.) Cic., Planc. 22. Cornell, Beginnings, 303, argues for an incorporation in 418 BC; it is possible that the municipalization antedates the Social War. Magistrates unknown. The community seems to have been virtually abandoned in Strabo's day (5. 3. 2, 230C, 5. 3. 9, 237C; see Coarelli, in Strabone e l'Italia antica, 79–80, for Strabonian autopsy here).

(33.) Probably until 80, when colonized by Sulla.

(34.) Q1–3, 37, 38.

(35.) Q4, Cic., Clu. 46, 49. Probably enfranchised under the lex Iulia in 90.

(36.) Q44, Cic., Planc. 22, Phil. 2. 106, AE (1988), 264.

(37.) D18.

(38.) D15, Cic., Planc. 22.

(39.) D3.

(40.) Cic., Fin. 4. 7 (the sense may here not be technical, but Circeii was a former Latin colony in any case).

(41.) Enfranchised together with Aletrium: quattuorviral (CIL x. p. 572).

(42.) Q45; former Latin colony.

(43.) Q41, 42, Supp. It. NS 6, 26, no. 8.

(44.) Q39, 40.

(45.) Q43, AE (1985), 266, Cic., Planc. 22.

(46.) Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86. Probably came under the terms of the lex Iulia, and thus quattuorviral.

(47.) As a community with a patron (App. 2), it may have been a municipium by 53 when the patron is first attested, but this is uncertain. If so the II uiri (CIL x. 6489) should be the regular magistrates of the community—cf. Beloch, RG 508. On the other hand the II uiri may be colonial: Laffi, VI. Kongr. Epigr., 47 n. 52.

(48.) CIL i2. 3101a attests a senate at Verulae; under the Empire it was a duoviral municipiumCIL x. 5796, which Beloch wrongly attributed to Cereatae Marianae (see Manni, Per la storia, 175; Laffi, VI Kongr. Epigr., 47 n. 52).

(49.) D19.

(50.) Q5, 6, 46, 75, 89, Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86, Fam. 9. 13. 3.

(51.) D4, 5, 16.

(52.) Cic., Fam. 13. 30. 1 (decurio here though is used of the pre‐Social‐War period), Att. 10. 13. 1, Arch. 10, Leg. ag. 2. 86. Enfranchised in 90 under the terms of the lex Iulia: see Cic., Balb. 21, Sartori, Problemi, 45. Unlike other Campanian cities, Neapolis was in the Maecia. Suet., DA 92. 2 calls it a respublica, perhaps an accurate reflection of late Augustan discourse.

(53.) Q9.

(54.) Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86. Quattuorviral: CIL x. 1075.

(55.) Q7, 8. Existed until the mid‐50s: see App. 1.

(56.) Q76.

(57.) Q6, CIL i2. 1744a, b. There is no evidence on Caudium's role in the Social War, and hence on the probable date of enfranchisement. The quattuorvirate in southern Italy strongly implies enfranchisement in or after the Social War, and Salmon (Samnium, 290) must be wrong to place the incorporation c.270 BC.

(58.) Q12, cf. i2. 1724, Q48, 49, 79; alone of the Hirpinian towns it was in the Cornelia rather than the Galeria.

(59.) Q10, 11, 47, 78.

(60.) CIL ix. 2142.

(61.) Cic., Verr. 2. 5. 156, 161, seems to refer to the municipium of Cosa, but Compsa is the more likely MS reading.

(62.) Q77. CIL ix. 2660, AE (1993), 549, are quattuorviral inscriptions which have a fair chance of being republican or triumviral.

(63.) Q80.

(64.) CIL i2. 787.

(65.) D7, 17.

(66.) Q13, Caes., BC 3. 22. 3, cf. CIL i2. 3163a.

(67.) Cic., Arch. 8, 31. Enfranchised with Neapolis in 90. Magistracy unknown.

(68.) See Ch. 6.

(69.) Q52.

(70.) Enfranchised in 90 under the lex Iulia? Velia continued to coin after the Social War, unlikely if it had no autonomous status prior to that.

(71.) Q90. Former Latin colony.

(72.) Q53.

(73.) D6.

(74.) ILLRP 574, Inscr. It. iii 1. 208, mentioning decurions. Under the Empire, Cosilinum is referred to as a res publica; despite the lack of reference to a muncipium or magistrates, Bracco was sure that Cosilinum was one, probably quattuorviral (Inscr. It. iii/1. 117): certainly possible, but less likely.

(75.) Cic., Arch. 10, cf. Leg. 2. 15.

(76.) Cic., Arch. 10.

(77.) Q81, cf. CIL x. 113–14.

(78.) Q50, 51, Cic., Verr. 2. 5. 40, Planc. 97.

(79.) D9, 20.

(80.) Q54, 91, Cic., Planc. 97.

(81.) Q17–20.

(82.) Q83.

(83.) Q14, 15, 16, 55.

(84.) Q82.

(85.) Vitruv., De arch. 1. 4. 11–12. If Salapia was not a municipium before Hostilius' intervention (he was its patronus), it certainly became one then: see Ch. 5, s. 3.5. Sadly we know virtually nothing about the town.

(86.) Listed in Clu. 197 alongside the municipia of Luceria and Bovianum, contrasted with ethnic groupings. Note also the aedile of CIL i2. 3188a.

(87.) Lex Tarentina, D8, CIL i2. 3169, Cic., Arch. 10.

(88.) Cic., Clu. 11, 25, 125, 202, cf. 41, CIL i2. 2951b, AE (1966), 73. Larinum had become politically separate from the other Frentani long before the Social War (Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 197–200), and is only considered under this heading for convenience; it was also in the Clustumina, whereas the Frentani, along with the Marrucini, were in the Arnensis. There is no evidence for municipalization of any of the Frentane communities under the Republic. CIL ix. 724 might be a republican or triumviral quatturoviral text.

(89.) Q84, Caes., BC 1. 23, 4.

(90.) CIL ix. 3023, Supp. It. NS 4, 43, no. 7 (if not Augustan). Sulmo, along with Marruvium, may be one of the municipia from which Caesar requisitioned corn during the siege of Corfinium (BC 1. 18. 4), although, in line with his (juridically) inexact usage, he calls it an oppidum earlier in the same section (BC 1. 18. 1). A possible index of Sulmo's importance in the late Republic is Florus, 2. 9. 27 (see above on Interamna Nahars), but this cannot be pressed.

(91.) Q56. See also preceding note for Caes., BC 1. 18.

(92.) Q57, 85, Cic., Phil. 3. 39.

(93.) D10.

(94.) D11, 12, Supp. It. NS 5, 185, no. 18.

(95.) If the dating of the earliest inscriptions cited above at n. 26 and the interpretation given there are correct; Caesarian municipium?

(96.) Cic., Dom. 79. Existed alongside a Sullan colony from 80 BC onwards (see App. 1). Formed a single block in the Pomptina.

(97.) Emerged as a new municipium from the territory of Tarquinii in the late Republic, either before the Social War, or in 86/85 since it was in the Arnensis, not the Stellatina. On Blera and Tuscana, see Frederiksen, in Hellenismus, ii. 348, cf. Taylor, Voting Districts, 115 (on Tuscana), Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 330, 335; Ferentium is another analogous case. On the rise of new urban centres with the decline of Tarquinii in the 2nd cent. BC see Torelli, in Bourgeoisies, 245. For the suggestion that the dioikismos occurred after the Social War see Galsterer, Herrshcaft, 8 n. 4, with literature there cited. Quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 507.

(98.) Q25–9. Constituted a single block in the Arnensis.

(99.) Constituted a single block in the Stellatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 349.

(100.) Brown, Cosa, the Making of a Roman Town, 73 and n. 11, refers to epigraphic evidence for post‐Social War quaestores and aediles; the former are unlikely, and both might rather be pre‐Social War. The town was, in any case, largely abandoned between c.70 and the Augustan period (ibid. 74).

(101.) Constituted a single block in the Scaptia; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 299.

(102.) Probably enfranchised under the lex Iulia; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 466. Unlike any neighbour, Falerii was in the Horatia.

(103.) Q22, 23, Tac., Hist. 2. 50. 1.

(104.) Cic., Fam. 13. 13.

(105.) Q86. Constituted a single block in the Tromentina.

(106.) Surely enfranchised under the lex Iulia. Magistrates unknown. For the Augustan colony, Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 56.

(107.) Constituted a single block in the Velina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. 1541.

(108.) Constituted a single block in the Oufentina. Magistrates unknown.

(109.) Q24.

(110.) CIL xi. 3248: ‘P. Verginius P. f. R[‐‐‐] / iterum dedit [‐‐‐] / isdemque cu[rauit] / [‐‐‐] uir hanc aed[em] dedicauit’ is almost certainly quattuorviral and almost certainly republican.

(111.) Q21, Cic., Caec. 10.

(112.) See under Blera. Since it is in the same tribe as Tarquinii, it probably became an independent political entity after 86/85; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 450.

(113.) Unlike any neighbour, Vetulonia was in the Scaptia. Magistrates unknown.

(114.) Q60, Cic., Dom. 79, Fam. 13. 4. 2. Constituted a single block in the Sabatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 325.

(115.) Q59. Volsinii constituted a single block in the Pomptina.

(116.) Q58; constituted a single block in the Sabatina.

(117.) Cic., Rosc. Am. 25, 115, cf. 43, 48.

(118.) Q67, 68, AE (1978), 294 (may, though, be early imperial). Constituted a block on its own in the Sergia.

(119.) AE (1985), 369 mentions decurions, but may well be Augustan, and should possibly be attributed to Firmum anyway. Certainly enfranchised by the lex Iulia.

(120.) Q30, 31, 66.

(121.) Caes., BC 1. 12. 2.

(122.) CIL i2. 3378 mentions a decree of the senate, but note the mention of the senate of Asisium in a pre‐Social‐War inscription in Latin: ILLRP 550, with Ch. 4. Nevertheless, Mevania was in the Aemilia alone of its neighbours, and had IIII uiri under the Empire, CIL xi. p. 732; of these there is a good chance that CIL xi. 5043, 5505, and the inscription published by Pietrangeli, Epigraphica (1945), 65, no. 3, are republican.

(123.) Q88.

(124.) Q61, 92, 93, CIL i2. 1424; constituted a single block in the Arnensis.

(125.) Constituted a single block in the Oufentina. Magistrates unknown.

(126.) Q32, 69, cf. i2. 2123; formed a single block in the Pupinia.

(127.) Quattuorviral under the Empire (CIL xi. p. 838). Formed a block in the Lemonia along with Attidium (quattuorviral—CIL xi. 5676). We cannot say whether either became municipia immediately after the Social War.

(128.) Q63–5.

(129.) This important community should really have been municipalized after the Social War, but in view of the absence of information on its magistrates and the fact that it is in the Clustumina, along with a number of other towns whose municipal status eludes us, the question must remain open. The same is true of the other towns in the Clustumina for which we have no specific evidence: Vettona, Arna, Carsulae, Tifernum Tiberinum, Tifernum Metaurense, Pitinum Mergens, Sestinum. Of these Arna was duoviral under the Empire (see Beloch, RG 508–11; for Carsulae see Ch. 10), and the magistracy of Tifernum Metaurense is unknown. Carsulae at least is probably an imperial municipalization, and all of these communities may have attained municipal status only some time after the Social War.

(130.) Constituted a single block in the Stellatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 747.

(131.) Constituted a single block in the Stellatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 894.

(132.) Constituted a single block in the Lemonia. Date of enfranchisement unknown, but likely to have been in 90. Caes., BC 1. 12. 3 ‘confisus municipiorum uoluntatibus’ should cover the towns where Caesar still had cohorts after dispatching Curio to Iguvium, namely Ancona and Fanum (see Caes., BC 1. 11. 4–12. 1). The usage may however be generic, not specific.

(133.) Constituted a single block in the Fabia, but there is no evidence for any autonomous community here before the arrival of the colony. This former rebel stronghold may never have been a municipium.

(134.) Caes., BC 1. 15. 2; duoviral in the early Augustan period.

(135.) D13.

(136.) D14.

(137.) CIL i2. 3393.

(138.) Q34–6, 72, 73; CIL i2. 2202, a donation by C. Annius T. f. ‘municipio A[quileiensi]’—despite Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, ad no. 51, ‘Interamna’ is unlikely to be Annius' cognomen—cf. Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 52?; CIL i2. 3426, CIL v. 973 ( = Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 47, if republican), Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 48, CIL v. 1002 (Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 199 no. 28, for the date), Brusin, Inscriptiones, no. 54 (decurions and senate). Some of these may be 2nd cent., and attributable to the Latin colony: CIL i2. 2197 ( = Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 53)—senatus—certainly is.

(139.) Q33, 70, 71.