367 On Rome's conquest of Sabinum, Picenum and Etruria. By Tenney Frank. The generally accepted view of Rome's method of subjugating and disposing of the Sabines in the third century B. C. is now, apparently, the one given by Mommsen in CIL IX, p. 396. To outline briefly, Mommsen holds that in 290 B. C. the Romans devastated the Sabine country, driv- ing out most of the natives (plurimos exterminanint) ; they then assigned a part of the conquered territory to their own citizens, without the for- mality of colonization, sold some of it, but kept the greater part as public land for the sake of revenue. A few natives were left in undisturbed possession of their lands, and given Roman citizenship : — half rights, immediately, and full rights in 268. If one examines all the trustworthy evidence now available, however, I think one must arrive at quite a different conclusion, namely, that the native Sabines Avere left in the possession of most of their land, being by degrees admitted into full citizenship, and that, though a part of their territory was taken as war indemnity, we are not justified in assuming that Rome assigned any of the Sabine land to her own citizens with or without colonization, nor sold any part of it at that time. We need not trouble ourselves to prove that the inhabitants of Sa- binum were Roman citizens at least after 225 B. C.The fact is gen- erally acknowledged. The question is whether or not those citizens were native Sabines. The documentary evidence is as follows : Velleius I, 14 says explicitly : M. ' Curio et Bufino Cornelio consulïbus (290) Sabinis sine suffragio data civitas, . Sempronio Sopho et Appio consulibus (268), suf- fragi ferencìi ius Sabinis datum. Cicero says on two different occasions (De Off. I, 35, and Pro Balb. 31) that citizenship was early given to the Sabines, and Livy (XL, 46, 12 and XLII. 34, 2) relates incidents that con- tain the same information by implication. This combined testimony of independent sources not only makes it clear that at least some portions of the Sabine people were early given Roman citizenship but it leaves a 1) Niese, Β. G.4 p. 71, on the strength of Pol. II, 24, assumes that the Sabines were still allies in 225. Considering however that Polybius probably includes the Pieentes and Praetuttii under the term Sabini, and that at best their number is ex- ceedingly small, this one passage alone can hardly bear the burden he places upon it. 1 Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library Authenticated | 128.148.252.35 Download Date | 5/25/14 3:04 PM 368 Tenney Frank, strong presumption that in the first century B. C. the belief was preva- lent that the Sabines as a whole were left in possession of their country and granted Roman rights. In support of these explicit affirmations we may add a number of less direct, nevertheless noteworthy considerations. 1) Strabo for instance has no idea that the original inhabitants were supplanted by the Romans, as is apparent from his words in Bk. Y, 228 εστί δε και παλαιότατον γένος οι Σαβίνοι και αυτόχθονες .... άντέσχον μέχρι προς τον παρόντα χρόνον. He apparently includes as the cities of this stock all the well-known municipalities of the Sabine region. 2) Livy. XXVIII, 45,19, by recording the offers of volunteers from the JSursini, Reatini et Amiternini Sábinusque omnis ager among those of the Umbrian and other Sabellic peoples, implies at least that these are of non-Roman stock, otherwise the offer would hardly have seemed worthy of special note. 3) Evidence of a different nature may be gathered from Schulten's studies of some Italic names as presented in Klio, II and III. From his list, it is apparent that the percentage of peculiarly Sabellic names in (i)edius and iditis is nearly as large for inscriptions from Sabinum as for those of the neighboring tribes whose native stock unquestionably remain- ed undisturbed. If the percentage is not quite as large, the explanation lies in the fact that this district was so near Rome that it attracted a considerable immigration from the city. Conway's list of personal names (It. Dial. p. 367) will in convenient form furnish material for additional linguistic proof. 4) The political organization of Sabinum also lends support to our contention1). Festus (M. 233) includes Reate and Nursia in a list of pre- fectures, all of which, with one late exception, consisted of native Italic peoples who had early been given half citizenship by Rome. Further- more, inscriptions show that the Sabine towns of Amiternum, Nursia, Tre- bula and Interamnia Praetuttiorum employed the peculiar magistracy of the octovirate 2), a fact that is more easily explained on the assumption that it was a survival of a native form of government in that region than 1) Since Niese has proved that the Campanian cities were foederata and not in- corporated into the Roman domain before 210 B. C., it follows that we must also bring down the date of the Campanian prefectures to 210. If we now examine Festus' lists from this point of view, we find that the distinction between his two classes may fundamentally have been a chronological one, since the second group, with one peculiar exception, dates before 290, while the first class dates after 210. If this difference actually points to a historical change, there is further significance in the presence of the Sabine prefectures here. 2) Plestia in Umbria is so near the Sabine country that the presence of octoviri there may point to a Sabine origin of the town. 2 Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library Authenticated | 128.148.252.35 Download Date | 5/25/14 3:04 PM On Rome's conquest of Sabinum, Picenum and Etruria. 369 that it was of Roman invention, since it does not seem to occur in muni- cipalities organized by the Romans at this time. 5) Finally, I would point to the strong probability that Rome did not thus early so disregard her treaty obligations with her Italic allies as to take land in Italy for her own use, whether for assignation to in- dividual citizens, for sale, or for the Roman public domain. This point has not been made before, I think, and it cannot even be established ab- solutely, but a survey of Roman policy so far as it can be determined for the century following the Latin war will at least establish a probability that during that period Rome fairly divided the fruits of war with her allies, reserving for herself — and doubtless by explicit stipulation — only the special privilege of planting small maritime colonies of 300 trust- worthy citizens at critical coastal points. The full discussion of this statement must rest at present, with only an indication of the chief evidence. We know for instance that the al- lies, at least during the third century, shared not only as individual sol- diers in the military donatives, but also as communities in the apportion- ment of booty to the municipal treasuries (Beloch, It. Bund, 217 ; Mommsen St. JR. Ill 680). Now the most important material fruit of a war was a portion of the land taken, according to an old Italic practice, by way of war indemnity. Many incidental references naturally lead to the conclu- sion that the allies also shared fairly in the distribution of this form of booty. The evidenceJ) is well known, and should, I think, satisfactorily prove that the clause relating to the booty in the so-called foedus Cas- sianum2) was also incorporated in the new treaties signed with the Lat- ins and Campanians about 340—38, and probably in most of the Italic treaties made before the Pyrrhic war. The reason why this apparently logical conclusion has not long ago been accepted seems to be that the annals contained so much regarding the distribution of Roman public lands to poor citizens that the historian seemed compelled to assume some source for the acquisition of so much land. Most of these references, however, can now be disregarded as an- achronistic (Niese, Hermes 23 p. 410). A brief examination of Rome's method of disposing of captured land during the century following 340 will prove that she must have been obeying some such regulation as we have as- sumed. A few new tribus of Roman citizens were, to be sure, formed, but in such a way as to betray the fact that Rome had not a free hand. The Maecian and Scaptian tribes (332 B. C.), whether settled by new as- signments, or, as is inore likely, simply organized for the reception of 1) See Serv. Aen. I, 12; Liv. 42,4; 34,42; 33,24, Lex agr. 1. 29 etc., also Momm- sen St. Β. II 636. 2) Dating the treaty after 390, but considering it otherwise in the main as an authentic document. 3 Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library Authenticated | 128.148.252.35 Download Date | 5/25/14 3:04 PM 370 Tenney Frank, newly incorporated municipalities like Lanuvium, came into existence with, and not subsequent to, the new alliances. The Falerna and Oufentina, thougO h settled as late as 318, ' were also established on land that ac- crued to the state prior to or with the settlement of 338. The Aniensis and Teretina apparently grew out of a resettlement with the Hernici of a foeclus that antedated, and was therefore independent of, the new al- liances of 338. Obviously 338 marks a change in Rome's method of creat- ing tribes.