Latin colonies: Cales (334 BC); Fregellae (328 BC); Suessa Aurunca (313 BC); Sora (303 BC)

Citizen colony: Tarracina (329 BC)

Maritime citizen colonies: Antium (338 BC); Minturnae and Sinuessa (both 296 BC)

Cities enfranchised in 188 BC: Arpinum; Fundi; Formiae

Prefectures listed by Festus: Anagnia; Frusino; Arpinum; Privernum, Fundi, Formiae; Capua

Underlining indicates tribal allocations: asterisk indicates tribal allocation after the Social War:

Red = Pobilia (formed in 358 BC): Anagnia; Aletrium; Ferentium, Cales*

Dark blue = Oufentina (formed in 318 BC): Tarracina; Frusino; Privernum

Orange = Teretina (formed in 299 BC): Minturnae; Sinuessa

Green =  Falerna (formed in 318 BC): Capua*

Yellow = Cornelia (old tribe): Arpinum; Verulae (?)

Light Blue = Aemilia (old tribe): Fundi; Formiae; Suessa Aurunca*

Latin War (341 - 38 BC)

Tim Cornell (referenced below, at pp. 347-8) described this war between Rome and its Latin neighbours as:

1. “... a major turning point in Italian history.  [Although Livy gave as its cause] the Latins’ resentment at being treated as subjects rather than as allies, ...[it is also likely that recent events] had made them justifiably afraid of Roman territorial encroachment.”
   

It seems that this concern was widely shared, since the Latins were joined in opposing Rome by their southern neighbours, including the Volsci, Aurunci, Sidicini and Campani. 

Revolt at Privernum (340 BC)

The Volscian centre of Privernum had a history of antagonism to Rome.  According to Livy, in 340 BC:

1. “... the men of [the ancient Latin colonies of Setia and Norba] brought tidings to Rome that the Privernates were in revolt ... [The consul Gaius Plautius Venox] marched on Privernum ... [He easily] overcame the enemy, captured Privernum and, putting in it a strong garrison, restored it to the inhabitants  but deprived them of two thirds of their territory”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 1: 12).
   

Aftermath (338 BC)

Viritane Settlement

Although the historicity of the surviving sources on the war is open to doubt,  its outcome is clear: Rome emerged as the dominant power in the region.  Livy reported that::

1. “The Latin territory, [together with]:
   

2. ✴that belonging to Privernum; and
   

3. ✴the [ager Falernus] (which had belonged to the Campanian people) as far as the river Volturnus;
   

4. was parcelled out amongst the Roman plebs.  The assignment was:
   

5. ✴2 iugera in Latium,
   

6. ✴[2.75] iugera at Privernum; and
   

7. ✴3 iugera [in the ager Falernus]”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 11: 13-14).
   

See Saskia Roselaar (referenced below, at pp. 301-2, entry 5 and note 20) for this interpretation of Livy’s description of the respective allotments.

Incorporation as Civitates Sine Suffragio

According to Livy:

1. “The Campanians, out of compliment to their knights, because they had not consented to revolt along with the Latins, were granted citizenship without the suffrage; so too were the Fundani and Formiani, because they had always afforded a safe and peaceful passage through their territories.  It was voted to give the people of Cumae and Suessula the same rights and the same terms as the Capuans”, (‘Roman History’, 8: 14: 10-11).
   

I discuss the settlement of the land south of the Volturnus (around Capua, Cumae and Suessula) where?

Foundation of the Colony of Antium (338 BC)

Antium was an ancient settlement, albeit that its early history is obscure. However, it is clear from Livy that the Romans founded a citizen colony here in 338 BC, at the end of the Latin War, when:

1. “... a colony was dispatched to Antium, with an understanding that the Antiates might be permitted, if they wished, to enrol as colonists; their warships were taken from them, and their people were forbidden the sea; [those who chose not to do so] were granted citizenship”, (‘Roman History’, 8: 14: 7-9)
   

This was one of  the ten ‘colonia maritimae’ that Livy recorded in 207 BC (‘History of Rome’, 27: 38: 1-4) and 191 BC (‘History of Rome’, 36: 3: 3-5).

Edward Bispham (referenced below, 2012, at pp. 229-20) suggested that the Antiates who were not enrolled in the colony became citizens without voting rights.  He also observed (at p. 230) that:

1. “Antium alone of the cities whose fate was decided by the Romans in 338 BC received a citizen colony.  The reasons for [this] must have been ... dictated by its peculiar location with respect to the other cities affected by the settlement. ... [Since our sources associated it with piracy from and early date], one function of the colony may have been to control or discourage piratical practices.  That the Antiates were now forbidden access to the sea points in the same direction.  Nevertheless, ... this cannot have been the whole story ...”
   

Further Roman Encroachment (338 - 318 BC)

Revolt of the Sidicini and Ausones (337-4 BC)

According to Livy, in 334 BC:

1. “... a war broke out between the Sidicini and the Aurunci.  The Aurunci had surrendered in [337 BC] and had given no trouble since that time, for which reason they had the better right to expect assistance from the Romans.  [However,] before the consuls marched from Rome ... to defend [them], tidings were brought that [they] had abandoned their town and ... taken refuge ... in Suessa ..., which they had fortified”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 15: 1-6).
   

The Aurunci were protected from further attack by the walls of at Suessa, but the Sidicini continued to annoy the Romans.  According to Livy:

1. “The following year ... was remarkable for a war more novel than important,  to wit with the Ausonians, who inhabited the city of Cales.  They had joined forces with their neighbours, the Sidicini, and the army of the two peoples [was defeated] in one (by no means memorable) battle ... However, the Senate [remained concerned about the perennially restive Sidicini] ...  They marched on Cales, [which was taken with the help of a Roman prisoner there who managed to escape from his drunken guard.  The Romans] then marched against the Sidicini. ... [In 334 BC, while this war was stillin progress], in order to anticipate the desires of the plebs, [the consuls] brought forward a proposal for sending out a colony to Cales.  The Senate resolved that 2,500 men should be enrolled for it, and appointed. .. a commission of three to conduct the settlers to the land and apportion it amongst them”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 16).
   

The Sidicini (like the Aurinci) survived to fight another day. The Ausones had lost Cales, but Livy (‘History of Rome’, 9: 25: 4) recorded their cities of Ausona,  Minturnae, and Vescia in 314 BC (see below).

What is important here is the foundation of the Latin colony at Cales: as Tim Cornell (referenced below, at pp. 351-2) pointed out:

1. “After the [defeat of the Latin League in 338 BC], Latin status ceased to have a distinct ethnic or linguistic significance, and came instead to to depend on the possession of [legal rights conferred by the Romans] that could be exercised in dealing with Roman citizens.  A Latin state could therefore be created simply by [the conferral] of Latin rights on it. ... The first colony to be established under these conditions was [founded in 334 BC] at Cales, a crucial strategic site between Roma and Capua.”
   

Revolt of Privernum (329 BC)

Privernum revolted again in 329 BC.  When the city subsequently fell to the consul Gaius Plautius Decianus, its walls were demolished, its senators were sent into exile, and Plautius was awarded a triumph.  This revolt took place in the tense atmosphere that was to culminate in the Second Samnite War (326 -304 BC).  Thus, according to Livy, Plautius argued against any further punishment of the Privernians on the grounds that:

1. “...  [since they] are situated in the neighbourhood of the Samnites, with whom our peace is exceedingly uncertain, I should wish that as little reason for animosity as possible may be left between them and us”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 20: 12).
   

This argument prevailed, and it was agreed that:

1. “... the freedom of the state should be granted to the Privernians”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 21: 10).
   

Thus Privernum presumably became a civitatas sine suffragio in 329 BC.

Tarracina (329 BC)

Livy completed his account of the events of 329 BC  as follows:

1. “In that same year, 300 colonists were sent to [the Volscian port of] Anxur where they each received 200 iugera of land”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 21: 11).
   

Velleius Patroculus (‘History of Rome’, 1: 14: 4) also recorded this foundation in 329 BC, albeit that he refers to the colony by its Roman name, Tarracina.  We might reasonably assume that this colony was founded on the land that had been confiscated from Privernum in 340 BC (See, for example, Saskia Roselaar, referenced below, at pp. 300-1, entry 3 and pp. 303, entry 9).

Tarracina (329 BC)

Volscian Prefectures: Privernum, Fundi and Formiae

Citizen colony: Tarracina (329 BC)

Underling indicates tribal assignations: red = Oufentina; blue = Aemilia

According to Livy, the Romans suppressed a revolt at the Volscian city of Privernum in 329 BC and:

1. “In that same year, 300 colonists were sent to [the Volscian port of] Anxur where they each received 200 iugera of land”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 21: 11).
   

Velleius Patroculus (‘History of Rome’, 1: 14: 4) also recorded this foundation in 329 BC, albeit that he refers to the colony by its Roman name, Tarracina.  We might reasonably assume that this colony was founded on the land that had been confiscated from Privernum in 340 BC (see, for example, Saskia Roselaar, referenced below, at pp. 300-1, entry 3 and pp. 303, entry 9).

Epigraphic evidence suggests that Tarracina was assigned to the Oufentina, which was formed in 318 BC and named for the river Ufens: this assignation is unsurprising, since Anxur/ Tarracina was sited at the point where this river reached the sea.  We might therefore reasonably assume that that the Oufentina was formed in 318 BC for:

1. ✴viritane settlers on the land that had been confiscated from Privernum in 340 BC; and
   

2. ✴colonists that had been enrolled at Tarracina in 329 BC.
   

Oufentina Tribe 

Livy recorded that, in 318 BC:

1. “At Rome two tribes were added, the Oufentina and the Falerna” (‘History of Rome’, 9: 20: 6).
   

The names of these two tribes belie the fact that they were each established for citizens settled on land that had been confiscated in 340 BC:

1. ✴the Oufentina was given the name of the river Oufens, which ran through its territory of Privernum; and
   

2. ✴the Falerna was named for the ager Falernus in Campania. 
   

It is possible that Privernum itself had been enfranchised at this point.  However, we have no evidence that this was the case:

1. ✴Henry Armstrong (referenced below, at pp. 171-2 and  p. 189) argued that this assignation was initially given only to Roman settlers on the land confiscated that had been confiscated in 340 BC, and that Privernum itself probably received full citizenship shortly before 188 BC, since Fundi and Formiae, which were further from Rome, received citizen at this date (as discussed below).
   

2. ✴Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at p. 56) was of a similar view:
   

3. “The Oufentina [tribe], named for the river Ufens, was in the territory of Privernum, much of which had been had been in Roman possession certainly since 329 BC [and probably since 340 BC]. ...  the tribe would have been made up of confiscated territory, assigned largely to Roman citizens.  The Privernates, after a period of partial rights, were eventually registered in the Oufentina.”
   

In fact, there is no evidence that Privernum itself received citizenship and was assigned to the Oufentina at a date prior to the Social War. 

Epigraphic evidence suggests that Tarracina was assigned to the Oufentina, which is unsurprising, since it was sited at the point where the river Ufens reached the sea.  We might therefore reasonably assume that that the Oufentina was formed in 318 BC for:

1. ✴viritane settlers on the land that had been confiscated in 340 BC; and
   

2. ✴colonists that had been enrolled at Tarracina in 329 BC.
   

Prefecture at Privernum

We might reasonably assume that the prefecture at Privernum was established at some time between:

1. ✴340 BC, after which date viritane settlement became possible on the land that had been confiscated from the city; and
   

2. ✴318 BC, when the the level of citizen settlement in the area of the river Ufens was sufficient for the formation of a new tribe, the Oufentina.
   

As noted above, Privernum itself had probably been formally incorporated into the Roman state as a civitatas sine suffgragio only in 329 BC, and it probably retained this status until the Social War.  The jurisdiction of the prefect who had his seat here would have encompassed the territory confiscated in 340 BC, and he presumably administered the legal affairs of citizens who had settled there, possibly including the colonists at Tarricina after 329 BC.  

Fundi

As we saw above, Fundi and Formiae (below) were incorporated into the Roman state as civitates sine suffgragio in 338 BC, in recognition of the help that they had given to Rome in the recent war.    However, these friendly relations were disrupted at Fundi by the revolt of Privernum on 329 BC (discussed above): the rebel army was led by Vitruvius Vaccus, who came from Fundi and apparently had supporters from his home town.  According to Livy:

1. “Plautius [see above],... after laying waste the lands in every direction and driving off the spoil, led his army into the Fundanian territory.  The senate of the Fundanians met him as he was entering their borders; they declared that they had not come to intercede on behalf of Vitruvius or those who followed his faction, but on behalf of the [innocent] people of Fundi  ... [They insisted] that they were at peace, and that they had Roman feelings and a grateful recollection of the political rights received [in 338 BC].  They entreated [Plautius] to withhold war from an inoffensive people ...  [Plautius duly] despatched letters to Rome, [saying] that the Fundanians had preserved their allegiance ... Claudius [Livy’s source] states that [Plautius] first punished those [Fundians] who were at the head of the conspiracy; that 350 of the conspirators were sent in chains to Rome; and that such submission was not received by the Senate because they considered that the people of Fundi wished to come off with impunity by the punishment of needy and humble persons”, (‘History of Rome’, 8: 19: 9-14).
   

Livy himself was clearly less than completely convinced by Claudius’ record and it is difficult  to establish whether the Fundians were actually punished to any extent.

As noted above, Fundi received full citizenship under a tribunical law in 188 BC, together Formiae and Arpinum: this programme of enfranchisement is discussed in a separate section below.

There is epigraphic evidence for the prefecture at Fundi: Edward Bispham (referenced below, 2008, at pp. 97-8) and Maria Carla Spadoni (referenced below, at pp 21-2) discussed the inscription in question(CIL X 6231), which originally identified a prefect (now Titus Fa ...) who had his seat at Fundi.  The inscription recorded that, with the agreement of “the whole  prefecture of Fundi”, this prefect had established ties of hospitality with an obviously important Roman (now Titus C ...), who, in effect, became their patron.  The words “praefectura tota Fundi” (the whole prefecture of Fundi) presumably indicated the totality of the people under the prefect’s jurisdiction, and the last three lines seem to indicate that the prefect and the whole prefecture had:

1. “... entrusted [themselves] to the good faith of Titus C ..., and came together ‘cooptamus eum patronum’ (to choose a patron).”
   

The inscription is dated to the consulate of Marcus Claudius, son of Marcus and his now-anonymous colleague.  Unfortunately for our purpose, this Marcus Claudius could have been any of the following:

1. ✴Marcus Claudius Marcellus, consul on five occasions in the period 222-208 BC;
   

2. ✴his eponymous son, the consul of 196 BC and censor of 189 BC; or
   

3. ✴his eponymous grandson, consul on three occasions in the period 166 - 152 BC.
   

In the light of the uncertain date of this inscription, we cannot use it to determine whether the prefecture was constituted before or after Fundi was enfranchised in 188 BC.  However, in my view, this matter can be settled by considering its tribal allocation at that point.  As noted above, the Oufentina tribe had been founded in 318 BC for viritane settlers on land confiscated from Privernum.  Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at p. 56) noted that:

1. ✴the Falerna had been constituted at the same time on land confiscated from Capua known as the ager Falernus; and
   

2. ✴each the territories of these two new these two new tribes was protected by a Latin colony:
   

3. •the Oufentina by Fregellae, a Latin colony founded in 328 BC; and
   

4. •the Falerna by Cales, a Latin colony founded in 334 BC.
   

Thus, if Fundi had suffered land confiscation and viritane settlement in 329 BC or thereafter, one would expect that these settlers would have been assigned to one of these tribes (probably the Oufentina) and that Fundi itself would have been assigned to the same tribe in 188 BC.  However, Fundi was assigned to an old tribe, the Aemila.  As discussed below, I therefore believe that the prefecture at Fundi must have been constituted at about  this time, when there would have been sufficient Roman citizens in the region to warrant his services.  If so then the inscription discussed above would have dated to the period 166 - 152 BC.

Formiae 

Like Fundi, Formiae received citizen rights without the vote in 338 BC and was enfranchised and assigned to the Aemilia in 188 BC.  However, unlike Fundi, it played no part in the revolt of Privernum in 329 BC, so there is even less reason to believe that it suffered viritane settlement on land confiscated from its erstwhile territory.  Had it suffered such confiscation, one would expect that the citizen settlers would have been assigned to either the Oufentina or the Falerna, and that Formaie would have been similarly assigned in 188 BC. As discussed below, in my view, its assignation to the Aemilia at this points strongly suggests that the prefecture at Formiae, like those at Fundi and Arpinum, was constituted at or shortly after its enfranchisement in 188 BC.

Hernican Prefecturues

Hernician prefectures: Anagnia; Frusino; and Arpinum

Assigned to the Pobilia (formed 358 BC): Anagnia; Aletrium; Ferentium

Assigned to the Oufentina (formed 318 BC): Frusino

Festus’ second list of prefectures contains three in Hernician territory: Anagnia; Frusino; and Arpinum.  These centres need to be considered in the context of the events of 308 BC when, according to Livy, after a Samnite camp was taken in the closing stages of the Second Samnite War:

1. “Those [soldiers in it] who declared themselves subjects of the Hernicians, were kept by themselves under a guard.  All these, [the consul Fabius  Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus] sent to Rome to the Senate and [those] that had carried arms on the side of the Samnites against the Romans were distributed among the states of the Latins to be held in custody; ...  this gave such offence to the Hernicians, that, at a meeting of all the states, assembled by the Anagnians, ... the whole nation of the Hernicians, excepting the Alatrians, Ferentines, and Verulans, declared war against the Roman people”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 43: 1).
   

When, soon after, Fabius led a forced march into Umbria to suppress an uprising there: 

1. “Calaltia [in Campania] and Sora [on the border of Hernicaian territory] were taken [by the Samnites], together with the Roman garrisons that were stationed there, and extreme cruelty was exercised towards the captive soldiers. ... By this time, an order had passed declaring war against the Anagnians and the rest of the Hernicians  and the command against the new enemy was decreed to Marcius [see below]”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 43: 1). 
   

In 306/5, the consul Quintus Marcius  Tremulus,was granted a triumph over Anagnia and the Hernicians.  According to Livy:

1. “Marcius returned into the city, in triumph over the Hernicians ...
   

2. ✴To three states of the Hernicians, (the Alatrians, Verulans, and Ferentines) their own laws were restored, because they preferred these to the being made citizens of Rome; and they were permitted to intermarry with each other, a privilege which they alone of the Hernicians, for a long time after, enjoyed.
   

3. ✴To the Anagnians and the others [unspecified] who had made war on the Romans, was granted the freedom of the state, without the right of voting; public assemblies, and intermarriages, were not allowed them, and their magistrates were prohibited from acting except in the ministration of public worship”, (‘History of Rome’, 9: 43: 24).
   

One might have expected Frusino and Arpinum to have been among the ‘others who had made war on the Romans’ in 306 BC and therefore to have shared the fate of Anagnia.  However, if so, its incorporation did not happen immediately: Livy recorded that:

1. “In [303 BC, with the war against the Samnites now concluded]:
   

2. ✴The freedom of the state was granted to the Arpinians and Trebulans [usually assumed to be Trebula Balliensis in Campania]. 
   

3. ✴The Frusinonians were fined a third part of their lands, because it was discovered that the Hernicians had been tampered with by them; and the heads of that conspiracy, after a trial before the consuls, held in pursuance of a decree of the senate, were beaten with rods and beheaded”, (‘History of Rome’, 10: 1: 3).
   

Anagnia

The Anagnians, who seem to have been the leaders of the revolt, were thus forcibly incorporated into the Roman state without voting rights, and their administrative structure was suppressed.  Adrian Sherwin-White (referenced below, at p. 56) observed that Anagnia was one of the three municipia that, according to Festus (quoted above):

1. “... came as a whole into the Roman state.”
   

He suggested that:

1. “This phrase may cover a reference to the suspension of magisterial functions at Anagnia  ...”
   

In other words, Anagnia might be an example of a prefecture that did not have its own magistrates, having been deprived of them as a punishment for rebelling against Rome.  Robert Knapp (referenced below, at p. 32) observed that:

1. “There is no mention of a prefect being sent [from Rome to Anagnia at this point], but one was surely dispatched there ... [This was] quite possibly the first case in which a prefect had to take charge of the whole civil government.”
   

When Anagnia was enfranchised (probably after the Social War), it was, like neighbouring Aletrium and Ferentium, assigned to the Poblilia tribe, which had been founded in 358 BC. Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at p. 52) summarised the events that in her view led up to this foundation: a war between Rome and the Hernicii that, according to  Livy (7: 15: 9), began in 361 BC and ended with the victory of the consul C. Plautius in 358 BC.  She noted that:

1. “There is no [record of] the confiscation of land [at this point] ... However, it is likely that territory in the upper valley of the river Sacco and further north towards the [territory of the] Aequii was annexed as the Poblilia tribe.”
   

In other words, the tribe would have been founded for viritane settlers un the upper Sacco valley.  In this scenario, it is at least possible that Anagni suffered land confiscations in 306 BC and that this led to an extension of the Poblilia tribe along southwards along this valley: this would explain why Anagnia, Aletrium and Ferentium were assigned to this tribe when they were enfranchised after the Social War. 

If this is correct, then Anagni might well have been the seat of a prefect who looked after the legal affairs of Roman citizens who were settled in the Sacco valley.  However, despite the view of Adrian Sherwin-White and Robert Knapp (above), there is no evidence that this prefect had any role in relation to the administration of Anagnia.

Frusino

Livy  says neither that Frusino was constituted as a civitas sine suffragio nor that it had its magistracy suppressed, either in 306 BC or 303 BC.  However, it lost a third of its territory in punishment for the second revolt.  Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at p. 90 and note 31) suggested that the citizen settlers on this confiscated land were assigned to the Oufentina, which became the tribe of Frusino itself when it was enfranchised after the Social War. 

It seems to be likely that, like Privernum in 329 BC, Frusino in 303 BC became the seat  of a prefect who looked after the legal affairs of Roman citizens who were settled on the confiscated territory after a revolt.

Arpinum

As noted above, Arpinum became a civitas sine suffragio in 303 BC, presumably because if its participation in the Hernician revolt, albeit that we have evidence for neither the suppression of its magistracy nor for any land confiscation.   Had it suffered such confiscation, one would expect that;

1. ✴the citizen settlers would have been assigned to the Oufentina (or, perhaps to the Teretina, which, we shall see, was established in 299 BC on the territory immediately to the east); and
   

2. ✴Arpinum itself would have shared this assignation 188 BC, when (as noted above) it was enfranchised.
   

In fact, Arpinum was assigned to the Cornelia in 188 BC.  In my view, this strongly suggests that the prefecture at Formiae, like those at Fundi and Formiae, was constituted at or shortly after its enfranchisement in 188 BC.  This scenario is discussed further below.

Fundi, Formiae and Aprinum (188 BC)

Hannibal’s march on Rome (211 BC)

Adapted from the map in the website Wikiwand

According to Livy:

1. “Respecting the residents in the municipalities of Formiae, Fundi and Arpinum, Gaius Valerius Tappo, tribune of the people, proposed that the right to vote —for previously the citizenship without the right to vote had belonged to them —should be conferred upon them. ... four tribunes of the people vetoed this bill, on the ground that it was not proposed with the sanction of the Senate, [but] hey gave up the effort [when] they were informed that it was the prerogative of the assembly, not the Senate, to bestow the franchise upon whomsoever it desired.  The bill was passed, with the provision that the people of Formiae and Fundi should vote in the tribe called Aemilia and the Arpinates in the tribe called Cornelia; and in these tribes they were then for the first time registered under the Valerian plebiscite.  Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the censor ... closed the lustrum”, (‘History of Rome’, 38: 36: 7-9).
   

Lily Ross Taylor (referenced below, at pp. 92-3) suggested that the influence of Scipio Africanus might:

1. “... account for the assignment by a tribunical law of 188 BC of: Fundi and Formiae to the Aemilia; and Arpinum to the Cornelia. ... [The usual procedure would have been to assign these newly-enfranchised communities to neighbouring tribes, in this case, the Oufentina and Teretina, where they] would have had much less influence than they acquired when they were put into old rural tribes near Rome.  The assignment of these three peoples to the Aemelia and the Cornelia ... [in Ross Taylor’s opinion] represented an attempt of Scipio Africanus to obtain control of tribal votes.”
   

However, the evidence for this is purely circumstantial: as Rachel Feig Vishnia (referenced below, at p. 156) pointed out, it relies (inter alia) on:

1. “... the unattested assumption that, originally, all Cornelii  and all Aemilii had belonged to the tribes that bear their names [and the conjecture that these  tribes] were under the sway of Scipio Africanus.”
   

Furthermore, she pointed out that:

1. “... if the Aemilia and Cornelia tribes were indeed already committed to Scipio, it would have been politically more astute to distribute new voters among other tribes whose support was presumably less reliable.”
   

Nevertheless, Scipio seems to have had a good relationship with Marcus Claudius Marcellus was one of the censors when the law was passed.  According to Livy (29: 20: 11), Claudius was one of the tribunes of the plebs who took part in an investigation made in 204 BC against the Scipio’s conduct as he prepared for his assault of Carthage from his base on Sicily.  Livy reported that, following this investigation:

1. “No proceedings took place with regard to Scipio, except in the Senate, where all the commissioners and the [two] tribunes spoke in such glowing terms of the general and his fleet and army that the Senate resolved that an expedition should start for Africa as soon as possible”, (‘History of Rome’, 29: 22: 11).
   

Furthermore, according to Livy:

1. “In Rome the censors T. Quinctius Flamininus and M. Claudius Marcellus revised the roll of senators [in 188 BC].  P. Scipio Africanus was selected [by the censors] as Princeps Senatus for the third time]”, (‘History of Rome’, 38: 28: 1-20.
   

According to Rafael Scopacasa (referenced below, at p. 126):

1. “Civitas sine suffragio used to be seen in historiography as an intermediary stage in the process of assimilation of Italian communities to Rome.  The idea was that Rome first granted citizenship without the vote, so that the community [that received it] could begin the process of assimilation to the institutions and to Roman culture. 
   

2. ✴However, the only references in the literature to citizens ‘without suffrage’ who [subsequently] received the right to vote ... [involve]:
   

3. •Fundi [and] Formiae, [which were granted citizenship without the vote in 338 BC]; and
   

4. •Arpinum, [which was granted citizenship without the vote in 303 BC];
   

5. [all three of] which were granted full citizenship in 188 BC. 
   

6. ✴It is possible that something similar also occurred with the Sabines, whose lands were probably confiscated by the Romans around 290 BC: 
   

7. •those of them who were not killed or expelled probably received some kind of partial citizenship, [perhaps immediately prior to the outbreak of the First Punic War in 264 BC ??]; and 
   

8. •they or their descendants were probably emancipated in 241 BC, [at the end of the First Punic War], with the creation of the Quirina and Velina tribes. 
   

9. However, it is difficult to generalise from these isolated cases.  An attentive reading of Livy suggests that the Romans themselves were unsure of when and how the granting of full citizenship could be made, suggesting the absence of a fixed procedure” (my translation from Portuguese using ‘Google translate).
   

It seems to me that the these two cases are not comparable:

1. ✴since the Sabine lands would have received a large number of viritane settlers after 290 BC, their descendants would have constituted the majority of the new citizens of 241 BC; while
   

2. ✴there is no evidence that any of Fundi, Formiae and Arpinum suffered extensive viritane settlement after their incorporation, and the likelihood is that Volscians constituted the majority of:
   

3. •those from these centres that received citizenship without the vote in the late 4th century BC; and
   

4. •those who received voting rights in 188 BC.
   

The reason for the decision to enfranchise Fundi, Formiae and Arpinum in 188 BC and to assign them to tribes other than those in their respective areas remains obscure.

Fregellae - in Construction

According to Livy, as he began his march on Rome in 211 BC, Hannibal passed:

1. “... into the territory of Fregellae as far as the Liris. Here he found that the bridge had been destroyed by the people of Fregellae in order to delay his advance. ... A messenger who had travelled from Fregellae for a day and a night without stopping created great alarm in Rome, and the excitement was increased by people running about the City with wildly exaggerated accounts of the news he had brought. ... After completely destroying the territory of Fregellae in revenge for the destruction of the bridge over the Liris, Hannibal continued his march through the districts of Frusinum, Ferentinum and Anagnia ...” (‘History of Rome‘, 26: 9: 3-11)
   

According to Livy, in 177 BC:

1. “The Samnites and the Paeligni ... [complained to the Senate] that 4,000 families had emigrated to Fregellae; and that neither of these places furnished less soldiers on that account.  That there had been practised two species of fraud in individuals changing their citizenship: there was a law, which granted liberty to any of the allies or Latins, who should not leave his offspring at home, to be enrolled a citizen of Rome; yet, by an abuse of this law, some did injury to the allies, others to the Roman people.  For, at first, to evade the leaving offspring at home, they made over their children as slaves to some Roman, under an agreement that they should be again set free, and thus become citizens by emancipation; and then those men, who had now no children to leave, became Roman citizens.  Afterwards, they neglected even these appearances of law; and, without any regard either to the ordinances or to progeny, passed indiscriminately into the Roman state by migration, and getting themselves included in the survey.  To prevent such proceedings in future, the ambassadors requested the senate to order the allies to return to their respective states, and to provide by law that no one should make any man his property, or alienate such property for the purpose of a change of citizenship; and that if any person should by such means be made a citizen of Rome, he should not enjoy the rights of a citizen” (‘History of Rome‘, 41: 8: 8-12).
   

2.