ProQuest Dissertations - Historia Antigua

without its approval.Livy explicitly mentions a senatus consultum or at least asenatorial discussion for twelve commissions between 338 and 169.Based on theconjunction of a senatus consultum with a plebiscite in some of these passages, Gargolaconcludes that this combination of legal procedures was probably standard practice forinitiating and passing a colonial law. 14The issuance of a senatus consultum implies thata discussion (formal or informal) on whether to establish or supplement a colony occurredin the senate; this discussion must have been introduced by at least one senator, but weonly have rare mentions of who these men were in the middle Republic. 15Introducing asuccessful proposal for a colonial law onto the senate floor could serve many of the12 Veil. Pat. 1.14.1. Cf. Gargola (1995), p. 53. Salmon (1970), p. 103 cites the plebeian assembly as deiure source of colonial law, but the senate as the de facto decision maker as to when and where a colonywould be established. Feig Vishnia (1996), p. 145 suggests that the participation of the tribune of the plebsin passing a colonial law was probably a relic of the past when a double sanction by the senate and Romanpeople (SPQR) was required for colonial foundation.13 Cales (Livy 8.16.14), Luceria (Livy 9.26.3), Interamna (Livy 9.28.7-8), the supplement of Narnia (Livy32.2.6-7), Castra (Livy 32.7.1f.), the supplement of Cosa (Livy 33.24.8), Vibo Valentia and Copia (Livy34.53.1-2, 35.40.5-6), the supplement of Placentia, Cremona, and foundation of Bononia (Livy 37.46.9-47.2, 57.7-8), the supplement of Sipontum and Buxentum (Livy 39.23.3-4), the supplement of Aquileia(Livy 43.17.1), and possibly the foundations of Minturnae and Sinuessa (Livy 10.21.7-10), where tribunisplebis negotium datum est, presumably by the senate, and Aquileia (Livy 39.55.5-6) where the passagebegins with the senate debating whether to make the colony a Latin or citizen one.14 Gargola (1995), p. 53. Gargola confines this necessary sequence of events to the period from 200 to 167BCE. e.g. Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Salernum, Buxentum (Livy 32.29.3-4, plebiscite only), ViboValentia and Copia (Livy 34.53.1-2, both), Placentia and Cremona (suppl), Bononia (Livy 37.46.9-47.2,both), Sipontum and Buxentum (suppl) (Livy 39.23.3-4, senatus consultum only), Aquileia (Livy 39.55.5-6,senatus consultum only), and Minturnae and Sinuessa (Livy 10.21.7-10, both implied).15 Gargola (1995), p. 52 notes that the people who initiated and secured the necessary authority for acolonial foundation must have been among the elite, but the names of these men are rarely known. Indeed,Livy only mentions the following initiators of colonization between 338 and 169: for Cales, the consuls, T.Veturius and Spurius Postumius, suggested founding a colony to anticipate the wishes of the people (Livy8.16.14). For Placentia and Cremona (suppl), and Bononia, L. Aurunculeius introduced a deputation (torequest a supplementation) from Placentia and Cremona into the senate, and later the consul C. Laeliusbrought forth a proposal that two new colonies be added, although ultimately only Bononia was (Livy37.46.9-47.2). For Sipontum and Buxentum (suppl), S. Postumius reported to the senate that he found thecolonies empty while investigating the so-called Bacchanalian conspiracy (Livy 39.23.3-4). The tribunes,whom the senatus consultum ordered to obtain a plebiscite, or the magistrates, whom the plebiscite orderedto elect the commissioners, should not be counted among the colonial initiators because there is no way totell if they were chosen to participate in the legal procedure because of their office or because of theirsupport for the colonization effort. Contra Salmon (1970), p. 19, who asserts that the tribunes initiated101