[30] The expression used by Josephus (contra Ap. ii. 4), that “the Iberians were named Romans,” can only be referred to the bestowal of Latin rights by Vespasian, and is an incorrect statement of one who was a stranger.
[31] Probably the most recent monument of the native language, that admits of certainty as to its date, is a coin of Osicerda—which is modelled after the denarii with the elephant that were struck by Caesar during the Gallic war—with a Latin and Iberian legend (Zobel, Estudio historico de la moneda antigua española, ii. 11). Among the wholly or partially local inscriptions of Spain several more recent may be found; public sanction is not even probable in the case of any of them.
[32] There was a time when the communities of peregrini had to solicit from the senate the right to make Latin the language of business; but for the imperial period this no longer held good. On the contrary, at this time probably the converse was of frequent occurrence. For example, the right of coining was allowed on the footing that the legend had to be Latin. In like manner public buildings erected by non–burgesses were described in Latin; thus an inscription of Ilipa in Andalusia (C. I. L. ii. 1087) runs: Urchail Atitta f(ilius) Chilasurgun portas fornic(es) aedificand(a) curavit de s(ua) p(ecunia). That the wearing of the toga was allowed even to non–Romans, and was a sign of a loyal disposition, is shown as well by Strabo’s expression as to the Tarraconensis togata, as by Agricola’s behaviour in Britain (Tacitus, Agric. 21).
[33] These remarkable arrangements are clear, especially from the lists of Spanish places in Pliny, and have been well exhibited by Detlefsen (Philologus, xxxii., 606 f.). The terminology no doubt varies. As the designations civitas, populus, gens, belong to the independent community, they pertain de jure to these portions; thus, e.g. there is mention of the X civitates of the Autrigones, of the XXII populi of the Asturians, of the gens Zoelarum (C. I. L. ii. 2633), which is just one of these twenty–two tribes. The remarkable document which we possess concerning these Zoelae (C. I. L. ii. 2633) informs us that this gens was again divided into gentilitates, which latter are also themselves called gentes, as this same document and other testimonies (Eph. Ep. ii. p. 243) prove. Civis is also found in reference to one of the Cantabrian populi (Eph. Ep. ii. p. 243). But even for the larger canton, which indeed was once the political unit, there are no other designations than these, strictly speaking, retrospective and incorrect; gens in particular is employed for it even in the technical style (e.g., C. I. L. ii. 4233 Intercat[iensis] ex gente Vaccaeorum). That the commonwealth in Spain was based on those small districts, not on the cantons, is clear as well from the terminology itself as from the fact that Pliny in iii. 3, 18, places overagainst those 293 places the civitates contributae aliis; moreover it is shown by the official at census accipiendos civitatium XXIII Vasconum et Vardulorum (C. I. L. vi. 1463) compared with the censor civitatis Remorum foederatae (C. I. L. xi. 1855, comp. 2607).
[34] As the Latin communal constitution is unsuited for a community not organised as a town, those Spanish communities, which still after Vespasian’s time lacked urban organisation, must either have been excluded from the bestowal of Latin rights or have had special modifications to meet their case. The latter may be regarded as having more probability. Inscriptions, even of the gentes, subsequent to Vespasian’s time, show a Latin form of name, as C. I. L. ii. 2633, and Eph. Ep. ii. 322; and if isolated ones from this period should be found with non–Roman names, it must always be a question whether this is not simply due to actual negligence. Presumptive proofs of non–Roman communal organisation, comparatively frequent in the scanty inscriptions that certainly date before Vespasian (C. I. L. ii. 172, 1953, 2633, 5048), have not been met with by me in inscriptions that are certainly subsequent to Vespasian.
[35] The direction of the via Augusta is specified by Strabo (iii. 4, 9, p. 160); to it belong all the milestones which have that name, as well those from the region of Lerida (C. I. L. ii. 4920–4928) as those found between Tarragona and Valencia (ibid. 4949–4954), and lastly, the numerous ones ab Iano Augusto, qui est ad Baetem, or ab arcu, unde incipit Baetica, ad oceanum.
[36] At Clunia there was found a dedication to the Mothers (C. I. L. ii. 2776)—the only Spanish example of this worship so widely diffused and so long continuing among the western Celts—at Uxama, one set up to the Lugoves (ib. 2818), a deity that recurs among the Celts of Aventicum.
[37] The choliambics (i. 61) run thus:—
Verona docti syllabas amat vatis,
Marone felix Mantua est,