^{page 30 note 1} The literature is voluminous. The following works have beenaccessible to me, and contain, I think, everything of value that has been said on the matter:

Andreotti, in Historia i (fasc. 4), 1927, p. 55Google Scholar. Beloch, , der italische Bund, p. 147Google Scholar; Rὂmische Geschichte, pp. 457, 611. Bormann, in C.I.L. xi, pp. 259, 295Google Scholar. Bruzza, in Dissert, della pont. acc Rom. di arch. ii, 1884, p. 392Google Scholar. Buffa, in Annali delle Univ. Toscane, Pisa, xxix, 1910Google Scholar. Dennis, , Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, ii, p. 63 fGoogle Scholar. Sanctis, De, Storia dei Romani, iv, 1, p. 424Google Scholar. Frank, in Cambridge Ancient History, viii, p. 329Google Scholar. Honigmann in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, s.v. Luca. Hofmann, Von, das Land Italien und seine Geschichte, PP. 34, 211Google Scholar. Jung, in Atti e mem. r. dep. di storia pat. per le prov. Modenesi, ii, 1903, p. 245Google Scholar; and in Mitt. d. Inst. für oesterr. Gesch. xxii, 1901, p. 193 fGoogle Scholar. Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Kornemann in, s.v. coloniae Madvig, Opuscula Academica, i, p. 287Google Scholar. Marquardt, , Römische Staatsverwaltung, i ², p. 39Google Scholar. Mommsen, in C.I.L. i ¹, p. 147Google Scholar. Niese, , Grundriss der röm. Gesch.⁵, p. 150Google Scholar. Nissen, , Italische Landeskunde, ii, pp. 146, 182 fGoogle Scholar. Pais, , Ricerche stor. e geogr. sull' Italia antica, p. 470, n. 2Google Scholar; Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto pub. Romano, 1, 2, p. 699 f. (reprinted in Dalle Guerre Puniche a Cesare Augusto, vol. ii); Mem. della r. acc. naz. dei Linei, xvii, 1924, p. 3491 fGoogle Scholar. Piganiol, , La conquête romaine, p. 260Google Scholar. Philipp in Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, s.v. coloniae. Poggi, , Luni, Ligure-Etrusca, e Luna, colonia romana, Genoa, 1906Google Scholar, passim. Promis, in Mem. dell' acc. delle scienze di Torino, i, 1839, p. 165Google Scholar. Sardi in Atti delle acc. Lucchese, xxx. Sforza, in Mem. dell' acc. delle scienze di Torino, Ix, 1910, p. 163Google Scholar. Solari, in Studi Storici, i, 1908, p. 465 f.Google Scholar; ii, 1909, p. 348 f.; Tipografia Storica dell' Etruria, ii, 1920, p. 190 fGoogle Scholar.; Studi Storici (Pisa), xiii, 1904, p. 279 fGoogle Scholar.; Mem. acc. Luniginese di scienze, G. Capellini, viii (fasc. 1), p. 8Google Scholar. Tozzetti, , Viaggi in Toscana, x, p. 406Google Scholar. Weissenborn, note on Livy xlv, 13, 10. Zumpt, A. W., Commentationes Epigraphicae, i, p. 349Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 2} Cf. Andreotti, Buffa, loc. cit.; Solari in Mem. acc. Lunig., loc. cit.

^{page 30 note 3} This fact prevents us from thinking that Livy, who for thisperiod at times confuses his sources, is repeating the same event.

^{page 31 note 1} The MSS. have the unintelligible et una. coloniam. In view of Livy xlv, 13, 10, the alteration Lunam seems certain. If we emend to Lucam then we are obliged to emend on two occasions the Lunenses of Livy xlv, 13, 10, to Lucenses.

^{page 31 note 2} The figure is too high. In other citizen colonies the largest allotment recorded is ten iugera, at Saturnia in 183 (Livy xxxix, 55). Therefore it seems that in the passage before us an original vis has become corrupted into LIS. Cf. especially Sanctis, De, op. cit. iv, 1, p. 568, n. 204Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 3} E.g. Madvig, Mommsen, Weissenborn, Marquardt, Poggi, Sforza, locc. cit., who therefore emend Velleius’ Luca to Luna. But they all fail t o explain Livy xl, 43, 1 (the event of 180). Bruzza, loc. cit., does so by arguing that Luna was colonized in 180 and reinforced in 177. But Livy's language (xli, 13, 4)—de Ligure captus is ager erat—scarcely implies a reinforcement of an existing colony.

^{page 31 note 4} So Zumpt, loc. cit., and apparently Beloch, , Röm. Gesch., p. 457Google Scholar. (Previously, however, Beloch, , Ital. Bund., p. 147Google Scholar, admitted that Luna was a citizen colony.)

^{page 31 note 5} Philipp, loc. cit., thinks that both places were Latin colonies; von Hofmann, loc. cit., states that 177 is the date for both.

^{page 31 note 6} So Bormann, De Sanctis, Frank, Honigmann, Niese, Nissen, Pais, Piganiol, Solari, locc. cit.

^{page 31 note 7} Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsrecht, iii, p. 623, fGoogle Scholar.; Röm. Münzw., p. 317 f.

^{page 32 note 1} In the past it has been argued that Pliny (n. h. iii, 30) mentions the colony at Luca when he says primum Etruriae oppiinm Luna portu nobile colonia Luca a mari recedens. Here colonia might refer to Luna or to Luca according to punctuation; and in any case only means that Luna, (cf. Lib. Colon., p. 233, 4)Google Scholar or Luca was a colony after the time of Caesar or Octavian. Pliny, (n. h. iii, 46)Google Scholar admits that he was not interested in earlier colonial foundations.

^{page 32 note 2} So Beloch, , Ital. Bund, p. 147Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 3} Livy (xxi, 59, 10) says that in 217 Semproius, after engaging Hannibal outside Placentia, withdrew to Luca. But Livy's text is unquestionably to beemended to Luna, which with Pisae was the Roman base in this area, cf. Beloch, , Röm. Gesch., p. 457Google Scholar; Pais, , dalle Guerre puniche a Cesare Augusto, i, p. 485, n. 2Google Scholar.

From Placentia there was a straight and direct route to Luna via the Cisa pass, whereas Luca was not only beyond the Apennines, but beyond the Apuan Alps as well.

^{page 32 note 4} Strabo's words are: μεΤαξύ δέ Λούνης καί Πίσης ⋯σΤί ζριον. It is possible that there was a place called Macres between Luna and Pisae in Strabo's day, but it is far more probablethat Strabo has made the mistake of reckoning the Macra a town instead of a river. Mommsen, loc. tit., adduced an inscription from Lugdunum reading: sepellitus est Lunae Pisae in Tuscia ad flumen Macra. Bat this inscription is so late that I attach no importance to it, although it favours my view that Pisae and Luna were conterminous.

^{page 32 note 5} Cato apud Serv. ad Aen. x, 174, admits that Pisae was Etruscan and not Ligurian. Cf. too Frontin. iii, 2, 1, who appears to say that Luna was known to the Romans ca. 300; this must be a mistake—either textual or otherwise.

^{page 33 note 1} Pais, , Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto publico romano, i, 2, p. 699Google Scholar, is wrong in stating that the Serchio valley was the only route along which an attack could be made.

^{page 33 note 2} The reluctance of the Romans to establish transmarine citizen colonies—and Aquileia was equivalent to a transmarine colony—is demonstrated by the story of the Gracchi.

^{page 33 note 3} The number of the colonists, 2,000, might support this view. Parma and Mutina, both citizen colonies, each got 2,000 colonists (Livy xxxix, 55, 6). On the other hand, the Latin colonies Copia (Livy xxv, 9, 7), Bononia (Livy xxxvii, 57, 7), and Aquileia (Livy xl, 34, 2) each received 3,000 colonists, and Vibo 4,000 (Livy xxxv, 40, 5).

^{page 33 note 4} Ennius fr. i, 2, Steuart: Lunai potum est operae cognoscere cives. There is, too, an belonging to 155 B.C., C.I.L. xi, p. 259. For the fewarchaeological remains of a very extensive settlement see Poggi, , op. tit., p. 3 fGoogle Scholar.; Sforza, , op. tit., p. 163 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 33 note 5} Contra Honigmann, loc. cit., who says that its port was the mouth of the Macra. Admittedly Luna did not occupy the same site as the modern Spezzia (its ruins are to be found at Sarzana and Avenza), but I cannot believe that Pliny (iii, 50) applies the words portu nobile to the mouth of the Macra and not to the bay of Spezzia.

^{page 33 note 6} Podestà, P., Nuove Scoperte nell' antica luni, Rome, 1891, p. 14Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 7} See Poggi, , op. cit., p. 3 fGoogle Scholar. The Ligurian settlement, however, was not at Luna but on the neighbouring Monte Caprione.

^{page 34 note 1} The original MS. formerly preserved at Murbach has been lost. The copyist of it described it as follows (apud Bolaffi, in the Paravia Velleius, 1930, p. vi)Google Scholar: Ausim iurare eum qui ilium (codicem Murbacensem) descripserat ne verbum quidem intellexisse: adeo omnia erant confusa absque ullis punctis aut distinctionibus. Quod si scires quam laborarim in his fragmentis utcunque restituendis credo fateberis te mihi non nihil debere. Neque enim quia tu multa absque offensione legis idcirco codex planus erat: itnmo nihil erat non depravatum: in singulis paene verbis haerebatur.

^{page 34 note 2} In a similar way Velleius' text on the colonies (i, 14, 15) confuses the names Fregellae and Fregenae.

^{page 34 note 3} Epigraphic evidence corroborates Livy in the cases of Aquileia, (C.I.L. v, 873)Google Scholar, Graviscae, (C.I.L. i²elog. xxxii, p. 200)Google Scholar and possibly Sipontum, (C.I.L. i ¹, 200, 1, 43Google Scholar: however Pais, , I fasti dei tribuni, p. 42Google Scholar, argues, contra Mommsen, that the M. Baebius tr. pl. iiivir coloniae deducendae mentioned in thi s inscription may not be the same person as the Baebius who, according to Livy xxxiv, 45, 3, planted Sipontum). Cicero, (Brut. 20, 79)Google Scholar supports Livy (xxxix, 44, 10) in the case of the iiiviri for Potentia and Pisaurum.

^{page 34 note 4} Cf. Strabo v, 2, 5, p. 222; [Arist.] de mir. auscult. 92; Pliny, n.h. iii, 50Google Scholar; Rut. Numant. i, 566, and see especially Solari, , Tip. Stor. dell' Etruria² ii, p. 200Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 1} Unless, as I have suggested, the Pisans with-drew the offer when the commissioners of 180 made their report.

^{page 35 note 2} The Scriptores Gromatici inform us that, not infrequently, ownership of ager allegedly adsignatus to a colony was disputed by a neighbouring municipium or colony. See e.g. Frontin, ii, p. 46, 2, Lach.

^{page 35 note 3} Cf. Livy's words (xlv, 13, 10): Pisanis querntibus agro se … pelli, Lunensibus adfirmantibus eum de quo agatur a iiiviris siti adsignatum esse.

^{page 35 note 4} Livy (xlv, 13, 10) names Q. Fabius Buteo in first place in the commission of 168.