QICONSULARIS c L ‘ r: th. ¢ ¥ ° i : EC IMPERIAL ia University of Virginia Library DT170 .v3 e imperial domains of Africa Huma Wn= ts a. F a id Ai. $e ‘ye aot > Fi 5 , 2 4 2 e E A t ' t e J | - i i i | ; 2 5 , 3 3 ¥ > t f 2 } } 7 4 a 4 b HS 7 i os a a Le o # 4 Ig me.) ss a : é : eee f k, 7a. '¥ rs = eee a 5 aS = * Ss Sas si reer Se de —- . a ao so 2 +. oo ee Fae na ~*~ PAS ° tau. _ se eh oe dat Pe a ale lie ™, -\’ aay ah xa we ems i Rae ee Aes Ps - . an ae he eee a Ss Re a i na ial all ee ae eo ; : a = oe ) lili ee aa Fy St ia tea FRETS x ~ ed ~*~ a a a J oh Cae Sees ~~ / xo Ned » \ = i i \ ee a Tr t Me g: 5. 4 t a 3 f i : é ee ; ; ae a “ Py ; ps 7 Ag 4 r. iz q | P t i ; y 3 i Fi | i : i. ee a P % 4 | ie a : ft: Bo. 4 Fd | Sd i 7 i 7 b f a e Uti aol —_— -*< a) eh Rel. - oy « ws ms ea -) eb he rrr ek oe ee r a Re Ls | aan es 6 wee ee rota a. Se a oe ee nT a . ov ; ; re “ine a Pete ae me) = = ‘> ah Ce oe ace Ae Ft =, 3 art nsa. ¥ a a e i Ay. iy L. « PT ‘ % * a 7 : 4 Bo ; i i fe 3 | 3 ; ‘ Li ¥ iF fe j Bec a a i | | . | 5 H g 3 ry | \¢ B t , i y . : 4 : b, f 4 ? f e * ; ; i i ¢ . y a ¢ oe * a + ¢ ‘ , : ae a eelae eS, ee rae ee he a ee oa Seta i i xk > = << “..* ” - = et oe opr at > = r —_ > See ee ts Mle aay, Ss ed he et oe >" S Pa be ot OM code Sl a 2 Seas STE pS THE IMPERIAL DOMAINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS Sie xt a a "hy tr kg he ts . os A i ae 2 a a ee RERSLS-EHST AN EPIGRAPHICAL STUDY. - hs ao. ie -BY JOHN. JAMES VAN NOSTRAND ~'s we -” eS Ae - ed it ot a aia Sl Ld at eS sl a a ee eer te ee ad a i UNIVERSITY oF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN* HISTORY Volume 14, No. 1, pp. 1-88 . 4 J A " m " O 4 ‘ D “« * P i .* a ba re ae) -_ 0 - A a Te % a : a oe ns a oP 4 ye oh ee eo oe Od , a ae 8 as UNIVERSITY. OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 1925Vol, 1, Vol. 2. Vol. 3. ‘Vol, 4. Vol,-5. Vol. 6. ‘Wol. 7. Vol. &: Vol, 2. Vol. 10. VoL. 11. Vol. 12. Vol. 13. Vol 14. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY HERBERT EUGENE Bouton, Editor Studies in American History. 1. Colonial Opposition to Imperial Aiamoaiie during the French | and Indian Wars, by Eugene Irving McCormac, Pp: 1-98. 2. The Viceroy of New Spain, by Donald’ E. Smith. Pp. 99-293. 8, The Beginnings of Spanish’ Settlement ‘in the El Paso. District, by Anne E. Hughes: Pp. 295-392. In paper cover, $2.75; cloth, $3. 00. ‘Index, -pp,. 393-406. A History of the Western Boundary of the Louisiana Purchase, 1819-1841, by Thomas Maitland Marshall. Pp: xiii wa 266, 30 maps. December, 1914. mm paper cover, $1.75: cloth, $2:00, Texas in the Middle Highteenth Century, by Herbert Sericene Bolton. Pp, x +°501, 11 plates and Asai isaamnen 1915, In paper cover, $3. 2D; cloth, $3.50. Li The Influence of Ratuocaae on the Codece of Political Science, by John ‘Linton Myres.. Pp. 1-81. February, 1916. In paper cover, $0.75, 2. The Reorganization of Spain by Augustus, by John James Van Nostrand, Jr. ! Pp. 83-154; October, 1916), In paper cover, $0.75. 3 Prolegomena to History: The Relation of History to Literature, Philosophy, and Science, by Frederick J. Tebeett, Pp, 155-292. August, 1916. In paper cover, $1.50. | 4, California: the Name, by. Ruth Putnam, with the collaboration of Herbert I, Priestley, PhD. Assistant: Professor-of History, University of Cali- fornia. -Pp. 293- 365. ‘One map. December, 1917. In Paper cover, $0.75. José de Galvez, Visitor-General of New Spain, 1765-1771, by Herbert Ingram Priestley.. Pp, xv + 449, .7 plates.and map.’ November, 1916, In paper “over, $2.75; cloth, $3. 00, The Formation of the State of Oklahoma, 1803-1906, by Roy Gittinger. Pp. mi + 256, 5 maps, ‘November, 1917. In paper ‘cover, $1. 15; cloth, $2.00. The Northwest Company, by Gordon Charles Davidson. Pp. 1-349, 5 maps. November, 1918. Cloth, | $3.00. Catalogue of Materials in the Archivo. General de Indias tor: the History of : the Pacific Coast and the American Southwest, by Charles E. Chapmiany 2 Pp, -v = 755. January, 1919. Cloth, $5.50. vie The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies as Dilustrated eet the Audiencia ‘of Ae Manila (1683-1800), by Charles Henry eT er ae Pp. Vv + ix + 463, November, 1919. . Cloth, $4.00. , ees The Constitutional History of the Louisiana Barenuse: 1803-1812; by Everett S. Brown, Pp. xii + 248. April, 1920. Cloth, $2.50. ‘Official Explorations for Pacific Railroads, by George Leslie aeoHent Pp. Wil: +187. October, 1921.” In paper cover, $1.50. History of the San Prancisco Committee of Vigilance of 1851, by Mary Floyd ‘Williams. Pp. xii+543, 4 plates, November, 1921. Cloth, $5.00, The Expansionist Movement in Texas, 1836-1850, by William Campbell Binkley. Pp. x +253, 8 maps. December, 1924, In paper cover, 33.00; 1. The Emperial Domains of Africa Proconsularis.. An Epigraphical Study, by John James Van Nostrand. Pp, viil+88. December, 1925, $1.00..THE IMPERIAL DOMAINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS AN EPIGRAPHICAL STUDY BY JOHN JAMES VAN NOSTRAND ‘*. a \, ~ “Se oy ‘ ol ag re 2 i SY a. ie Th he Pe ot "4 = Pea , Pe ap a | sF a ee ak he a Pid bcs Mk rs Fi ee te se eee ee See te 2 ~- 2 } SS e + * tf Bis - ey ee ny + os 3 ae thems a te oe Oe ee oe at an ee ae a “us ve Pe alae eae SeEree ae a aa ae eel ee i ~ fay" ee ok a th il ie ol . oe 2 : ae a en an Be ees ea i a ee he r a ee oe * a P * ae he i oe as a Pe er eee arf 7 eS xe | le lt ad el ol . s * ee “ ™ aa REIN «“yr* ee eee . : - ty) F toh a * “Ok a \ ee —¥ ” teat at eS > nn fo Cee Is oan a i | - ou ee a Pr eho nee) arene J 5 . ce , a Ke eo — te oh hd de hs i ie Mill, Klee _ al = - ed ~ Se a ae ay — ee ied ra ee te 1s = a a tN TT ~ a * a a te lll Sel race 9 2? ie os a ae deter et Clee re CPCS Sere ie - - + nee "ie ald * = ain = ‘an .- é P ri beep ee * he . - ’ = «1 ~ * 2 £ ao —t_> Pie al f- ‘Ya a H i ‘ :: ae : f a ‘ EE 4 ; 3 re | ae t ae 5 te he Se ar - ae bd UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN HISTORY Volume 14, No. 1, pp. 1-88 Issued December 15, 1925 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY,:> CALIFORNIA THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, ENGLANDee ee pa _— Pe it oe ee. re Soy te et oe a skbek us es “tee “ wae a nell CONTENTS Ue eee tien teat ene dene stananc mead ennan nnn aoaan ss horse ee wae Us Vv TGNEETER OD ULC LION ce ca ene enna ener = seenenennetecanennaw=rrnaesae=nneonmenosnccon a. i THE INSCRIPTIONS ev INSCRIPTION OF HENCHIR METTICH .......----.------22--:002-0cecceceeceeeee cone cc eee cee ccceeenees = a i ) TS LALO LL UTA OS ba ae ae een eee a none ano anew oannecneancene * ww ~~ | = INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-DJEMALA .......-----2--------c02 secnce cc eene nce een nec ceeneessee essence nnenes Mranslatiou 2G) ce XU ere Ne See ie Ae ee pele 38 oa ee eed i a ~ - a ‘te A- te is ore: - INSCRIPTION OF SUK-EL-KHMIS ......--------- PhS UN MG iter Seeger af + oy — ae Mransiation) aud -Lextee ee fale ge: aor sie ic kl age baeelaea eA 50 - i Ps INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-WASSDD ......----------222c2-2en2 ence eeccne cece crnnneneenee serene ceeescnees 5 a —— * . Tere eM TiS 121 GLOW UTA La eee ene menrin snc nen anna eres ancora aoe 5? GQENIERIAT DIS CUSSION oer oe te re ne neneentn teaeenncn sos aaa LINDE ee Pace 65 « PEI . » ¥ 4 a ‘ 48 7, %@ " ") 7 TE QC ATION OL GLO tL G US eee ene eden sete nnsiiec s Hanaw= aot erearmennso as 65 IMA MINISELAGLV CH GLVASLOUS eee renee ee rea ne aeenenarenaeerons: ARO, | LS eel 68 ARCOLA NAS) eee ee bere cet ore reac CEH E ERE COCEE co R Oc CLC oH IS cn CoS JO EEL TEER Ene oar eaceoc aoc 70 ¥ ~] q _ Co Z ee - eee ee ete ee ak ST a aa EEE Pe aaea eee fae an eee en cen Sano enme enema rac r . ~ a a WON GCIUSTON: te SE aR IO Uae: WiMa sal i Sle wommeartans a a — hs ee ae OTHER INSCRIPTIONS ....------ ae ti a ase AOE ah oer ecient ene ee Fad ~ ne es eae BTS TET ONCE RANE ELA ee i ee ee naan iti Ne a tla TEU IT ales SEA « DM mae _ ae | yo on OL >t ee ee * Ott x: yee oe “S es ae - rs “ str Foes ee a le as . - i ee x La = ~ teal =a a at ii - . ee — i —— ae i OX ae rf rsoe ao eet 4 a oF ‘ 4 bal % , ke t 4 ae : rE ' : 7. a a 2 a La + * | ten 4 My rs iS is fe, . F 'z H ¥ \ pee ; a ie ele Oo Cen Oa a ee bos 7 t » -< ee es =i. xPREFACE The documents on which this study is based are found in Bruns and Girard. The commentaries cited are also in print. There would no doubt be value in a mere collection of the scattered material, value sufficient to justify a new publication. The writer ventures this presentation, however, on the additional erounds of a fresh study of the documents in the order of their original publication,! the application of new evidence to an interpretation of the documents, and a strict adherence to his- torical (as opposed to philological) method. The immediate aim has been to restore to its really important position the rural administrative problem of the Romans. ‘Take care of the cities and the country will take care of itself,’ 1s a motto the falsity of which the Romans learned only after their state had reached maturity. One result of this procrastination was the predominance in literature and in legislation of muni- cipal problems, a predominance which has led modern scholars to an unquestioned acceptance of Mommsen’s dictum that the Roman Empire was an aggregate of city-states.” A few voices have been raised in protest, but Rome’s success and failure are still generally attributed to the progress and decline of her cities. A second aim has been to seek in Roman experience such precedents as may be found for the social and economic bases of medieval European organization. That organization naturally bears the imprint of the Teutonic conqueror, but it would be 1 Inscription Original publication Discovered Basic regulation Henchir Mettich 116-117 A.D. 1896 Lex Manciana 69-96 A.D. Ain Djemala 117-138 1906 L. M. and L. Hadriana before 120 Suk el Khmis 182 1879 L. Hadriana, after 120 Ain Wassel 209-212 1892 L. Hadriana 2 Marquardt, Organisation, I, 1-2. Recently stated by Boak, History, 280. = s — Ss, - " ~ aN - 1 ~*~ r = , Ay = inte ee a Ph id - - . — — = - _" “ - a — a , oa v2 ve a ede eT — ~ < * tees - + — ‘ ee a ps me — _ P rae ee int ae fE* tier Sn aa “ Pe “~y ete ves eo - x my ey Ped * J a a ee r S » ‘ ote Wak Big. Py ie ee hy oh ee ee PSR La eae “— * 1 ey te he SS ee ‘ ‘ —- : se Oe ESS ar AN ee Spy ee a See ae ry 7 2 i ae i a “——s ¥ - — Paw Ns eS ay ie <>? ~~ ‘ Pe ue Fash y mgr a i dh — Pee ee a Ie tae ay? a 2 ) Fe es a’ > * eo - = oe eT ee ~ "Ao > AA AO os a — = os °} oe oe = , mS ae. : ed i = ee plat ew hen: > ed Ct hel . A ee pel ewe oe Le _ i me : ‘ ret e ’ OE te ape ee ee) rh eee ee “ re th send = 3 — a wa BRIAS Pe ad oe oe ~ ay, = "7 ; PIs, ¥ iw Gee aie a a aie nd a oe firm > Ree oe os : ae - nd ol ol ee tk ge a a 9 i eS - s -_re t Ae fo ae f- : § re f ‘ :, a | $< a t i | ee A 4 a a ap i. i q P \< t ‘ f } Y 1 4 a) ed nr a acs nt i Ee Ark gg aie Da ata el aa att eee A er? ace a a ae i en Talal strange, certainly inconsistent with the accepted theory of con- tinuity in history, if Roman organization, in theory or in prac- tice, had been completely ignored by barbarian kings. Such an assumption becomes doubly strange when one considers that the transition period was one of long duration, that the conquerors were much less advanced than the conquered, and that they con- stantly professed an admiration for the institutions of the great empire in which they found their home.® The scope of this study has been limited to the first three centuries of the empire, for during that time the Romans attacked the problems of administration with greatest efficiency and with greatest success. The quantity and quality of the evidence from Roman Africa make that area an excellent field for an introductory study. It should be remembered that this is only a brief chapter of the long story of Roman agrarian legis- lation and regulation.* Conclusions drawn in this study should be applied with extreme caution to other provinces, or to other centuries. One criticism holds good for almost all® the contributions to our knowledge of the Roman imperial domains® in North Africa: the failure to adhere rigidly to a respect for the limitations of time and place. Literary sources from the days of the Republie and excerpts from the constitutions of Christian emperors are 3’ Beaudouin, Rev. Hist. de Droit, XXI (1897), 543. 4 Many titles are appended to the articles, Ager Publicus, Colonus, Lati- fundia & Leges Agrariae, in the classical dictionaries of Daremberg et Saglio, Pauly, Ruggiero, Smith, and in Das Handworterbuch der Staats- wissenschaften. 5 Rostowzew, Studien is a brilliant exception to this rule. See also Carcopino (Mélanges, 463, 464). } 6 The few syntheses are not only out of date, but also lack the historical background which is here given in briefest outline. See, e.g., Leerivain (1887), Weber (1891), His (1896), Schulten (1896), Beaudouin (1897-98). Histories of Rome, in English, neglect the subject: Pelham (a few scattered references) ; Jones (brief mention, vd. index under Coloni, Agri decumates, Patrimonium); Ferrero and Barbagallo (17 lines on conditions in fourth century A.D., II, 467); Frank (five paragraphs on coloni, vd. index) ; Boak (the best treatment, 271, 272, 288-292). vlbrought together to explain a term separated from both by two eenturies. The fact that the literary source refers to Italy and that the constitution is, perhaps, addressed to an Egyptian official makes no difference to the worker. He is seeking a definition regardless of the time or place to which the citations apply. If this study errs, it is on the side of caution. No evi- dence from other localities or centuries has been accepted unless it may reasonably be considered applicable to Africa and to the period under discussion. 4 Le aa = 7 = . A a i ee oe yn — h J ue - +) ™ < ee a ee te ae le ee ek - LA Dn Re es . oe bs aise, Se aia Seay e ey fi i 5 > 24-4 ao — - am re . rt m ~~ 2" Fy SEAR Es Sas SR a | + de a ta" Ln 1 ‘ fx LP ‘ oP 7) cA P ‘ Pi A et ei a A “a ey ee ir at ) = ey ene ® ee a, 4 4 Ls . et ee et ; at fof ; ; ake m “\ ~se “s a | - ae ot dl Btn - Mi - om ; ener Rs AES ee] ft th inde lant uwrw @ se - eee oe Poe : Tak < . 7, feet * Pe a a ro vv S sig cael av eri el ae ert 6 ‘ Lg ae a - 4 a ee =e " ua - meee le! * od a ed a > ~~ © - a be os = Tp aCe . ‘ — : . ~ “ - ~"s ah a es eo a es a i al . - a i a, ae fo a ae —. Creo) a~~ ee a ~ me a — a : = ff Ps - Se er ae = ee a , & 3 t. 7 : f : si | ee ‘ Be g niga oi e: ee } ae fe t : t 4 ; . "i oe ' i 5 : se y i Ff ij t y ee le “> c - oe aea or 7. A r ie mY oy ape wet am a - . oa - " ae A ie = J lat dl) ot eo oe es | Fae dir Me Re tor a = Saw IE Os te Ye ee ee ee ee ~ yes o . " » * —— Lae Pu — 3% Pee et a aye Ss INTRODUCTION = ee a = aS 4 = old formula given by Livy® gave to the conqueror ownership of ih ie ae LR eT ee Ce ee ee the persons, movables, and real property of the conquered. But a well-defined tradition indicates that Rome, at least in her con- = fa Ve a ee ae ee _ 4 quest of Italy, seldom took more than one-third of the land.” A et careful survey of the evidence led Frank" to the conclusion that “ ¥ —~ a three rather than thirty-three per cent would more accurately —- eh at edd - 4 ome ~, indicate the total acreage of Italy actually occupied by Rome. With the acquisition of territory outside of Italy, the theory adsl a ay ek < ES tee and practice of Rome changed. ‘The old principle of absolute at ea ed surrender found its counterpart in the Hellenistic theory that 7 the king was absolute owner of his subjects and their possessions. If one conquered the king, one became owner of his kingdom by m=) ad right of conquest. The Romans accepted and applied this theory , a Ce ee ee 3 A ; ; to overseas possessions.'? Therefore Roman public land in- a 7 es - >) m5 oy creased enormously in the course of the two centuries following the First Punie War. — * . ee ~ eee ~~ pf n 1 ey at awrtin 5 é¢ var . _ 7 Dionysius, ii. 7; ili. 1. Cf. Daremberg et Saglio, arti le, ‘‘Ager pub licus.’’ — rs 8 Other sources: bona damnatorum, caduca. 9 Livy, i. 38. Marquardt, Organisation, I, 129-130. — 10 Frank, Roman Imperialism, 80, 8/. — oe es eee a _— = ee te ce ¥ PN ee | - — an a Qi 4 ate 11 Roman Imperialism, 80-81. 12 Ferguson, Greek Imperialism, 169, 199. Frank, Roman Imperialism, 93—- 94. Rostowzew, Studien, 287. 13 Mommsen, le Droit Public, VI, pt. 4, 368. 369. Cf. 97, n. 21, and 251, n. 28. Frank agrees as to the practice but believes that the theory was not accepted by Rome before the days of Augustus (Roman Imperialism, 97, 251, 340). 7 eho PF oe oe eS TRAE on eee ete vs ¥ eerie a caf ees a li ttle ied Pk - - r ee - 2 wy? iy , - * oe , “~s - *- = . an hy — 7 hee F - “— a 7 ~~ hd A . - _—— a, - Pi ie “ . 4 Pe! Ce — eee Le a BL rs =x sey 2 , fa me ecg ~ was ~ “ Ne ee pee ne a oe a eT Pe de, ‘ e > | 3 f : | i f t : ; r , 7 4 i; } 4 ?. : t & A | 3 ; be § E. iM ¥ ee A : i F, L ‘ 2 Unwersity of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 Theory and practice, however, were not carried to an absurd equality even by Hellenistic monarchs. Their rights were asserted in the form of a general land tax, but were limited in actual exploitation to crown lands and to estates which they owned as individuals.'** The Romans, in general, accepted this plan when they organized as provinces the territories acquired by conquest, bequest, or treaty. A general land tax was levied as a proof of sovereignty, but only crown lands, royal estates, and state property became Roman public land. The administration of such an extended domain would have ealled for a eivil service list of magnificent size, had Rome retained and exploited all of her public land. As a matter of fact she did not do so. Part of the land was ‘given back’ to the original owners (either to individuals, or to municipalities; both of course paying the land tax); part was used for Roman or Latin colonies; part was sold to Roman eitizens.*° That which was not thus distributed, both in Italy and in the provinees, was placed under the control of the censors, who leased the land to Romans, either individuals or groups. The return to the State was generally one-tenth of the cereal, and two-tenths of the fruit, yield.1° Poor bookkeeping, an inadequate staff, or collusion between officials and lessors gradually reduced the area of public land in Italy.‘* The land bills of the Gracchi caused, for a time, a more equitable distribution but increased the rate of diminution. Further reductions were made by the opEpnems of the ented a: when they obtained legislation which Tee to tie full Pere of ee : ‘This left to ine state: in 14 Rostowzew, Studien, see index under Konigsland, Landprivat-besitz. 15 Daremberg et Saglio, I, 134-135. Pauly-Wissowa, I, 791-793. 16 Appian, b.c., i. 7. Plutarch, Tib. Gracch., chap. 8. 17 Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 37. Daremberg et Saglio, I, 134, 135. 18 Hardy, op. cit., 48-52. Cardinali, Studi Graccani, 202-211. Both authors cited maintain that this law was framed and supported by friends of the Gracchi, and that it was by no means reactionary. One may grant the second point without accepting the conclusion that those who acknowl- edged the results of Graechan legislation were friendly to it. These laws (there were three of them) did nothing for the urban poor; and it was for the poor that the Gracchi worked and died.Je “a. « - ct a - ef vies 7 ape ad ir kl os Pe Cae — on es os a Qor - i : : Wes ; 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis + Nee! ; " ee Italy, the valuable Campanian fields and the valueless mountain tops. Distribution of the former by Caesar practically elim- it ee eS. — = Pai er Ov ee inated usable publie land in Italy.” ss | al tel Pe a ny oe ea oy ; See Cer Ren Eee a RS OS SRS ET IR PRATT ns ee ata a aioe In the provinces a different tendency prevailed. ‘The demand was far less than the supply in respect to public land. Large estates of the plantation type were not uneommon,”? but many factors combined to increase the amount of provincial public land. Quicker returns on capital from money-lending and from farming the provincial taxes, from civil and foreign wars, eonfiseations and proscriptions, especially those of Lepidus, he il a arg Pe se nee “ “ry k id SAVEUMELALELSLSE LPS LE eben ee ee Antony, and Augustus (then Oectavianus), helped to preserve and augment the State’s holdings.” ~~ a Pa on: é om ee fe et ee ey erat aes THE REORGANIZATION OF AUGUSTUS saad a aad ‘ere* aT With the accession of Augustus there came not only political but also economic reorganization and administrative reform. ahs * tl i a One of the first steps in reorganization was the division of the ae pe ee ea ta “g-'s provinces by Augustus between himself and the Senate.** In theory the revenues from the senatorial provinees fell to the old republican treasury, while those from the imperial provinces helped to form a new treasury which was later called the fiseus.2? This division separated the public land into two admin- istrative and financial groups. The rentals of public lands 1m a "4 ee en er “ F ~ st = a es ae . . 9 s a ; x VAWiaAtTate the senatorial provinces’? went to the treasur) of the Senate ; ‘a e” a eA 4 > a fd a a a . us i U ; a ‘ it - a) aL s? r ec " Pa “" 2 a ee. ee ae f 7 those of the imperial provinces’? went to the fiscus. ee 19 For Caesar’s law, see Appian, b.c., i. 10-14. Vell. Paterc., ii, 44. On the general situation see Daremberg et Saglio, I, 137 Marquardt, Organ- isation, I, 133-156. 20 Daremberg et Saglio, articles, “ Leges Agrariae, 21 Frank, Economic History, chap. 13, esp. pp. 923, 23 22 Marquardt, Organisation, II, 566 ff. 23 Marquardt, De l’organisation financicre, I, 24 Arnold, Studies, 28. 25 Daremberg et Saglio, article, ‘ ? ! : a e y c ke ¥ ie oe ie of a 4 Unwersity of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 That this division was formal and unreal, at least from the administrative point of view, is universally conceded.2° This is particularly noticeable in connection with the public lands. There were many reasons why it proved impracticable if not impossible to separate public lands into two classes. (1) Augustus had many private holdings in the senatorial pro- vinees.** These were administered by his representatives2® who were as responsible to him as were the procurators in the im- perial provinees.?® Why should not these men, chosen for ability and rigidly controlled, handle the publie lands in senatorial provinces? (2) Augustus, as military leader of the State. re- tained the right to apportion public lands to veterans whether those lands were in senatorial or imperial provinces.*° (3) 1G was Augustus who instituted and carried out a complete survey of the Roman Empire,*! recovering for the State a large amount of public land claimed as private property by its possessors.*” (4) The Senate’s well-known inefficiency in administrative matters did not improve. In fact, it went from bad to worse. with the result that Augustus, in the interest of the State, was forced to assume executive and administrative responsibility in the provinces which had been retained by the Senate.** This distinction between imperial and senatorial provinces was one which played no important part in the administrative history of the Empire. The distinction which was real, perma- nent, and extremely important was that between country and °6 The maius imperium of Augustus made him supreme in all portions of the empire. *7 Lecrivain, De agris publicis, 15-16. Dio, liv. 30. Mon Ancyranum, ITT, 8, 9, Ti, 4, 42 VE 22 9 — 28 Léerivain, op. cit., 43. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 42. 29 Daremberg et Saglio, article, ‘‘Procurator.’’ 80 Lécrivain, op. cit., 8. Mon. Ancyr., I, 17-19. 31 Marquardt, De l’organisation Jinanciére, I, 266-277. 82 Lécrivain, op. cit., 8, quoting Tacitus, Annals, iii. 28. Dio, liu. Suetonius, Aug., chap. 32. ’8 Gardthausen, Augustus, I, 568-569. Briefly stated by H. S. Jones in Hney. Brit., ed. 11, XXIII, 649. ~~ae ‘ cae , 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 5 city, between municipal and extra-municipal territory.** It was founded on the old division between state land and land under municipal control, not on the tentative and unsuccessful theory that Senate and Princeps could rule different parts of the empire on equal terms. The real administrative reorganization of Augustus took a dual form, it is true, but both parts looked to the Princeps as the guide and final authority. The municipalities of the empire administered the strictly civie portions of their corporate selves, the agricultural and other territories assigned to them, and the smaller unincorporated villages or communities attributed to them.*® In the east and in Italy, where civic organization was widespread and highly developed, a great deal of local administration was placed in the hands of municipal officials and senates. In the west, where vast townless areas were found, Augustus did not attempt heroie measures. but followed the lines of least resistance. In some places he organized citizen eolonies of veterans;*® in others, he settled the responsibilities of administration upon tribal organizations.** By using municipal or tribal organization the Princeps retained, in great measure, the system of revenue col- lection employed during the Republi. There remained the non-municipalized districts. ‘These were of different kinds and covered a vast area. They comprised (1) Egypt, with the exception ot Alexandria. Egypt had been ruled by monarchs who claimed not only divine descent, but also absolute ownership of the soil. Augustus, as conqueror, Was in turn the owner of the soil of Egypt. The country had been to all intents and purposes a royal estate” (Alexandria excepted®” ). 34 Schulten, Grundheerschaften, 2-19. Beaudouin, Rev. Hist. de Droit, XXI (1897), 549-562. 35 Reid, Municipalities, 7-10. 36 Augustan colonies in Spain: map 2. 37 Tribal civitates in Gaul: Arnold, Studies, 84. ile. 88 Frank, History, 340, 360-361. 39 Liebenam, Stiddteverwaltung, Aiea s *) Liebenam, Stadte verwaltung, 2-13. Van Nostrand, Reorgamsation, 112-117, Reid, Municipalities, 2s S Z a baz * ;! vs A ‘ 7s aT 4 a -~ he / - r Ty a al Pat Sed i n> ce Pe +. | oe U Php a ~ SI ee i 2 eee er _— ar ed sg » ee SM aa a a eS sre » ro - .~ - * s Joe yi Lh te iP apa aa — « ar SO eT eo F vk a an i eh 7 er a - . . . a ie =k ee i i ell = A ee A ek ee ee he "=z. “ CERI ACLEEREL e-maee J i ds 53 ~~ Ss ae BA ti ll alia (tnt aie hate . 2 oe “77 es Pee ; 2 a - COS ae ee Ne en em eT) “ye ¥ . Bi e | orem ave _ A aft o* ". “me we 4 4 ‘ a * a Pate x oe i Lt y %: § +2) vf fl ty . FS | a | ae ie oie _ a ee A = = ee Sh me Seen) | a Seo wee 2 Sed ee ak Meee os ‘= " i ~ a eT — co — FF =! - Letx eh ‘oe &. | ae & ps Ay. a a7 : i 2 r Z % 7 t [ re r e | | a : 3 F ¥. Py i be Bs t., iz : , {3 f S , g 3 t 7 z ‘ § , ac te x 4 ar = Be a a ee i lee i tele SO Ne Cr ne eg ene De ena <7 Se; nee 8 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14 Roman history neglect the subject entirely, or give but slight attention to public lands from the time of the Graechi until the reign of Constantine? One reply is that our histories deal with military, political, constitutional, social, or cultural phases rather than with the administrative side of Roman history; another is that the material on administrative history is much more com- plete for the towns than for the publie domain. Our knowledge of the public domain is based on (1) a few references in the literary record, (2) brief mention in the textbooks of the sur- veyors, (3) an inadequate number of inscriptions, and (4) some legal notes in the Theodosian Code and in the Code and Pandects of Justinian. The writers of classical days shehted the subject for obvious reasons. Lack of interest in administration, the non-dramatic character of the material, and the tendency which ruled out of literature and polite conversation subjects of this type account for the silence of the historians. ‘The surveyors mention the imperial domain only in their discussion of bound- ary disputes. Epigraphical evidence is seldom equal to the demands laid upon it. Each inscription deals with an individual, or a single district, or a particular law or contract. Finally the codes are unsatisfactory on several counts. References taken from the jurists of the first three centuries are fragmentary. They were often misunderstood, and were subject to interpo- lation. They were chosen for their elucidation of civil law, and were included in eodes of that character, that is, codes which were applicable to citizens in citizen courts presided over by civie officials.°? The dwellers on public lands were outside of muni- cipal jurisdiction. They were governed by imperial officials who used administrative regulations. 53 A complete list of literary sources is given in Bolkestein, H., De colonatu. It will be noted that the codes mention coloni or public domains only when their relations with municipal domains or officials are under eonsideration.1925] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 9 RoMAN AFRICA It is not a mere accident that the richest store of material comes from North Africa. Italy had lost its cereal independence for more than three hundred years. Sicilian fields had given way under the strain of continuous wheat cultivation, and were no longer, as in the Republican era, the granary of Rome. Egypt became the chief source of supply in the time of Augustus, but the distance from Rome and the constant danger of a break in the transport system made a second granary advisable if not necessary. In North Africa conditions were ideal for an exten- sive development of agriculture. Exploitation was limited only by the amount of water obtainable for irrigation, and by the skill of the exploiters. Fragmentary as our information 1s, It still shows that, save leadership, all the elements for successful agricultural development had been accumulating in Africa for more than two centuries. Aside from a few notes on Carthaginian agriculture in the literature of the Republican period,** we possess one valuable piece of epigraphical evidence concerning Roman puble land in the province. The agrarian law of 111 B.c. was devoted in part to a settlement of the land question in Africa. After the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.c., nearly all the land was confiscated by the Roman State. The law of 111 B.c. provided for the sale of a part of this land to Roman citizens.” The sale was not complete, since an annual quitrent was demanded. The term describing this type of land indicates that it was classed as private, in spite of the rent.°* We may there- fore dismiss it from this discussion with the remark that it 54 Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, ‘‘ Jur. Schr.,’’ I, 65 ff. esp. 119. DD VV. 49, 66. 56 ager privatus vectigalisque. . a wen s . - ne ca, om ee ae he ee ie, he 5 — a er 4 ae i oe oe ee : a oh ee Sk Be MT ty ee ati ae pall, Ut ha Eyes ak Ph + Che ap he Pa * St ee ed - *. ay OSH ae oS a +e re Yas BEL EES-ES » a - Pa iltmttn, — FS ik A Bir em i Pa Re ST te a et tm a e*= a we SO ee eRe) fo tn Vics aaa 7 “yy ae Ss sa See ol eel S — - es he by, a * 7“ Pe > - in ie i eee SR Sei a Ne ~ ay a> e a le * he 7 “a eR ee OS ape Mite ee & eed _ Oe ge ipa ah ie ee sa + 4 es Oe SP - a ace? > ae oe J em ll Med Pree Ae es ¥ a os Rae * ae a a Ca Sa ar al a i’ a ee yr ad rb al aly Hye KN i | 5 ee a Ay. = 3s " ] cf 4 a oa sf oe ig . | f oe ee ee e 2 : | | 5 ; iz | 7 . R ; a x 3 4 b ) ‘i , 5 ; 3 OT el a < nl * Be a eels - a. 7 ~ i= Ls Sete Mt te he a7 te en i a Raat eae De oe Lea 10 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vow. 14 tended to establish on African soil a large number of great private estates; for it is highly improbable that this land eould be exploited by any but men possessing a relatively large capital, and that such men would not be content with small holdings. -— = ‘ A second part of the land was ealled stipendiary.*? It was assigned to non-Romans who were subject to the payment of a tax called the stipendium, paid in return for the use of the land and for the protection in possession offered by Rome. A third part, and this the least desirable, remained public land. open to occupation by Romans, Latins, or provincials, and sub- ject to a land tax.°* The length of lease was probably the normal five years corresponding to the intervals between censorships. Renewal was probably automatic, making the lease, in fact. if not in law, a perpetual one.°*® The next comment on African land is a statement by the Hilder Pliny® that six men were in possession of one-half of Africa when the Emperor Nero killed them (and confiscated their property). The history of the period from 111 B.c. to the principate of Nero is based on conjecture and inference. It is best stated by Rostowzew,*! whose conclusions are (1) that the logical development was toward the building up of large estates, (2) that these estates were exploited by a practice of sub-leasing to free men (rather than the direct cultivation by the owners with slave labor), (3) that relations between land- lord and tenant were probably regulated by Roman officials (censors under the Republic, procurators during the Empire), and (4) that a tendency toward concentration of property in the hands of the emperor preceded the confiscation of Nero. A final conclusion and one which is least conjectural is that the 57 vy. 76, 77, 80. o8VV. (o—Jil. °9 Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 79, n. 33, pp. 86-90. 60 Pliny, .h., xvili, 35. 61 Rostowzew, Studien, 318 ff.L920 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 11 emperor had become the most important landlord and that the private estates of others were administered under the general rules which governed imperial domains. Both were exempt from municipal control; both depended directly upon the emperor for financial, judicial, and police supervision. The senatorial landlord differed but slightly from the lessor of imperial land. If any special privileges were his, they had been granted or approved by an emperor, and might be withdrawn by the emperor at his pleasure. The year of the four emperors brought fresh problems to a state which had been slowly shifting from a republican to an autocratic form of government. The military success of Vespasian and the recognition of his authority by the Senate and people was a triumph for the principle of one-man rule. But there were many changes necessitated by the promotion of a plebian to the principate. Among them was the change in status of the private property held by Nero. This was taken by Vespasian as one of the fruits of victory, but was classed as erown land.®? It could not well be considered a part of Vespasian’s patrimony, but was no less at his disposal under its new title. There are indications that Augustus had never formulated a permanent policy with reference to public lands, but that he had instituted his arrangement of personal®*® control of public lands as the most effective temporary expedient in a period otf transition. Claudius and Nero had cleared up some disputed points and made some progress along lines of centralization.** This policy was continued by Vespasian, who made publi his plans in the form of edicts or laws.°? The law pertaiming to 62 Lécrivain, De agris publicis, 21-22. Rostowzew, op. cut., 32 63 Frank, History, 358-360. Gardthausen, Augustus, I, 608-609. 64 The former by organizing a bureau of administration, the latter by his confiscations of private property. 65 Rostowzew, Studien, 322-323. La os thet ae i. ai a + = ed 2 ) é Uh * le! : = —, Pi et ld al Gree Xn ~*~ Fh an = * a it ae 4% . C ae 4 iy Of a a Pe on a 6 ors > “4 he erin oe og oe A < + et lana ee oe SER PERLE EE = PEI +" u Boe oS ee eS a ee Ps Fh ee A eS Ko Phere erro ks SESSSeELEDS-E} ~~ Ye . = ee a a es os ek ee a a et _ CARE IO EY a ee ay Pe) a ea *,~4 2 tt’ & “Ve ae ee * .- se _ = od Wem * “© . a ed Se eed . ~*~ Fe eee eR a en ee ee me — » * >= Poe ¥ ne her wt fits af at ee ™s *~ —" Se4: 7 yn = ra ak ane Y v ae, a ss Ail Parent Pe eae es -= _ 4 - 7 =, Ser akties) . an ’ ht " a r shen: or Tinea eek Pahoa, ta-ae aetna tadiacaeaaaeteadeianeeeiaiaipae tial Sic th ah ae Th An Pde techn oad aia oehaneried iene ieieae SMILE eI I a atl haat ie a ER il alam ae pur 2 id ase ala ge a pe ent ’ i a ; } a % A ie ; be ; : ; f ‘e Z 12 Unwersity of Californa Publications in History (|Vou. 14 agricultural lands in Africa was ealled the Lex Manciana. It was an administrative act, drawn up, apparently, by an imperial officer appointed to perform this particular task. It contained the rules governing the relations between emperor and landlord, or lessor, as well as the rules governing the relations between landlord, or lessor, and the tillers of the soil. These rules were general in statement. They confirmed, for the benefit of the lessors, the system which had been worked out by the censors of the Republic, and asserted, for the benefit of the sub-lessors, that their customary rights and duties were to be continued. The Lex Manciana applied to all land not subject to muni- cipal control. A copy of it was sent from Rome to the provincial land office at Carthage. Its general terms were interpreted by the imperial official in charge of extra-municipal lands His interpretations in the form of letters of instruction were sent to his subordinates. The latter presented the letter to the lessor. if it affected him alone, or published it, if it were an answer to a petition from the sub-lessors. The preservation of the publica- tion was assured by making it an integral part of an altar dedi- cated to the reigning emperor.®® It is in this form that the only extant document based entirely on the Lex Manciana has been found, namely, the inscription of Henchir Mettich. 66 This is the interpretation of Rostowzew. See Studien, 321-336. For other views see the notes appended to the translation of the document.“\y >" : 4 — 5 < Woe 3 >. Pat a a a fi Aah 7 E . eat Oe) aes ae s ewe en ee I SS, ee Md a AL. eS a= et eS ay OTe Taper BLE S be rrr ereey a + al " pe ava eb Se a Se esa: " ee a CEB ZI v« ~ a i “qe X-= ’ & , ay Ne a Po - THE INSCRIPTIONS yrs ee - - te te ie rit ee ee er erm TE ol Ee ae INSCRIPTION OF HENCHIR METTICH — a a Ee ee ed . oe * - ot Cs te ee ee od a cae | it 6 aay 1. ‘ enn n a a id z) ré oat et fhe = a ee ae SOLE ee eee ee se Ree Ter? fre Se ie a Ya il ii a red te nell) pr oe aN po Fed tan on eo. < Ln a eae a ae oe PK. ae hee’ = ai ers me as # “~~ ¥ - “~ - sa p -a ay ie oa ey ry 4 : oa The : roe i | Ss e is a ee a | 3 a ee 1 i: . a § i RY 7 | t pee es 4 : : P F 4 &. i ps Pa B ? | f: ye a : ae : 3 f 3 - i t 3 | } ‘§ r oe ¢ ? oe hs ¥ +} ee a. e 4 5 : ; 4 oorTHE INSCRIPTION OF HENCHIR METTICH was discovered by a French officer in the year 1896, at a spot about ten kilometers northwest of Testour. Henchir Mettich, as the natives call the locality, is an arid district of barren hills, its former cultivation represented in survival by a few wild olive trees. The stone upon which the document was inscribed had no doubt been moved from its original location, but it seems probable that it was set up near the administrative center of the estate to which its clauses apply, namely, the fundus, Villa Magna Variana. The dedication ‘‘to the safety of the Emperor Trajan’’ enables us to fix the date of erection at 116-117 A.D. The document was addressed to and published for the benefit of persons connected with the fundus. The actual boundaries cannot be determined, but we learn that the estate was large enough to permit a variety of agri- cultural operations. There were fields of wheat, barley, and beans, orchards of olives and figs, vineyards, pastures, and home sites for the workers. Although the inscription is silent on the subject, we may infer that there was also a home for the steward. Only a portion of the land was under cultivation, for there is reference to uncultivated portions and to deserted fields and orchards. oe Spano _es bo Bo CoLumMN II 13, sec. 4. lLessor’s share of crop from scattered fig trees. oe et s.o-" ej rs “yy Ce ee ie A a: ins See ss AA Ae ee ee Ce ee Ce ds ee ol 17, see. 5. Lessor’s share of crop from fig orchards. —s 20, sec. 6. lLessor’s share of crop from newly planted fig — orchards. ead oa 24, sec. 7%. lLessor’s share from vineyard replacements. re aT CoLuMN III F - = o~="e 7 ms at . r = | bi ‘ 7 Mae * Beh oe de eh Ape eel ey RENO Oi fs me ee ee ae ene 2, sec. 8. lessor’s share from olive grove replacements. 10, see. 9. lLessor’s share from grafted wild olives. a he ae 12, see. 10. Lessor’s share from fields planted to grasses. 17, see. 11. Per capita charge for sheep on estate pastures. in| a 20, see. 12. Penalty for destruction or theft of crops. CoLUuUMN IV p oo 2. see. 138. Testamentary and fiduciary rights of colon. ~"., I~ a a 9 see. 14. Procedure im re deserted farms. a we 7} 22, sec. 15. Regulation coneerning inquilini. wk ea Sate bth fie- fy”? e a es ie fete oon ee ae a Lae an Sore tate ? ae = i ak ae ~ "4 23, see. 16. Amount of personal service by coloni for lessor. 27, sec. 17. Guard duty required of inquilini. 32, sec. 18. Duty of stipendiari (incomplete). v a % eee a nt Pi int) omer ths ao ae TD a ot=gs . a ph, OAS + eee rl Sm ee oa Za = Sed _- 7 . 7 edd CS a fe beneit: - Se ee as rie | - -_ oF Nor -* TQ SS ao - P a id Pepe) a eV ae Os a (ae eer sty a ~— a Ph A ; » a ee oe Oy ee ee eee ——— rs a ot oa ey ot, .) sk a = 2 ee : ha ey te ad . as —_ eer eae eras ee) Steak shee ot oe E2 ye ee - pete ee as i Sk KAT “ss Ne ee ee koaa) ; 7 ALS ee pe a PEP ESAS Ss i 1 E. a. 5 \ ‘ 3 i ‘ t 1 e | 3 : “ ; ry p y f | 4 e | | : H , 3 rN = ; 4 t hs 3 a 2 ¥ ‘ } ae ‘ * ?., 3 f v i / a ‘ a g. a a i fied a § oe & we iy : Ce a i 3 E ¥. 2 5 20 Unwersity of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14 1. *To those ecoloni dwelling on’? the fundus?*® of Villa‘ Magna Variana, that is, of Mappalia Siga, who wish to cultivate the fields, permission is given to cultivate those fields which have not been allotted,'? under the terms of the Lex Manciana; namely, that he who eultivates shall have personal use’®, of the land. Of the erops which are raised on said land, the cultivators Shall give to the owners,’* or lessors, or stewards of this fundus the shares fixed by the Lex Manciana, in the following manner :18 the coloni shall report, at their own convenience, to the lessors or stewards of this fundus the total yield of each of the crops which they shall bring to the threshing floor, and grind: then Compare Rostowzew, Studien, 336 and note 1 above. Toutain followed by Beaudouin (Nouv. Rev., XXII (1898), 39-48) limits the law to the fundus on which the description was found. Schulten, Rostowzew, and others give it a much broader application. (See p. 47.) The date is a subject of controversy. The adjective Manciana, which was probably derived from the name of the official who issued the law, slightly favors the period before the Principate (Schulten, Die Lex Manciana, 18). Rostow- zew, in support of a dating after 69 a.p., refers to Vespasian’s activity in Cyrene (Tac., Ann. xiv. 18; Hyg., de cond. agr., p. 122), to Domitian’s interest in Sicily, and to Flavian organization of imperial officials in Africa (Hirschfeld, Klio, II, 295. Idem, Verwaltungsbeamten,2 125. Schulten, Grundheerschaften, 62 ff.). In any event we know that the law was effective in the year 116-117 a.D., and that it applied at least to the territory described in this document. 11 The absence of a formal introduction is another proof that we have an excerpt, or commentary, and not a complete law in this inscription. (Rostowzew, Studien, 322.) 12 Dwelling on (intra). This word implies other coloni who dwell out- side (ultra) the fundus. The inscription is silent concerning them, but Rostowzew has some interesting conjectures (Studien, 340). Compare Seeck, in Ztschr. fiir Soz. und Wirtschaftsg., V1 (1898), 325. 13 Fundus. A synonym of praedium, casa, sometimes of K\jpos. AN economic unit, usually named after its first owner. Its parts defined in SUSU ING CST XXOAII a Osi DO LOe Oi A part of a saltus (thus Cuq, Mémoires, 123) on evidence from private domains. The evidence from im- perial domains makes fundus = saltus. 14 Villa, ete. The Roman name, to which is added the former native appellation. (Sehulten, Die Lex Manciana. 20.) For the meaning of Mappalia (=—huts), see Sallust, Jugurtha, chap. 21.1925 ] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 21 leg|is Manciane. *1. Qui eorum [i|ntra fundo villae Mag- ne Variani id est Mappalia Siga, eis eos agros qui su- [b]eesiva sunt excolere permittitur lege Manciana ita ut eas qui excoluerit usum proprium habe- 10 at. Ex fructibus qui eo loco nati erunt, dominis aut conductoribus vilicisve eius f(wndi) partes e lege Ma- neiana prestare debebunt hae condicione: coloni fructus cuiusque culture quos.ad area|m| deportare et terere debebunt, summas de |fer]ant arbitratu 15 [s]uo conductoribus vilicis [ve ei]us f(wndz) et si conducto- 6 Gradenwitz interprets as follows: qui coloni agros excolere volent, qui eorum intra fundos villarum morabuntur eis eos agros . et pro permittitur lege Manciana fuit: permittitur hac lege. 7 Schulten supplies habitabunt after siga. 13 quos, or quot. (Schulten. ) 15 The unallotted portions or oddments (see Schulten,’ Die Lex Man- ciana, 19; Rudorff, Schriften d. rom. Heldmesser, re 390 fh.) ‘chs bed; I, 22, 2, for loca relicta) resulted from the division of land for purposes of assignment to private individuals. From this one infers that the fundus, Villa Magna, was originally surveyed and distributed to individuals becom- ing ager privatus. It does not follow that the land was still private prop- erty in 117 A.D. 16 Personal use. Toutain (L’inscription d’Henchir Mettich, 58-63) cites Ulpian and Gaius. Rostowzew, more conservatively compares with this an Egyptian tenure, katapheusis, of similar though not identical nature. It is apparently not use (usus) in the strictly legal (Roman) sense of the word. Rights to cultivate and to dispose of the fruits are included, but not the right to will the land or to offer it as security. Perhaps an encour- agement of small farms independently owned. If so, the encouragement was not sufficient. (Rostowzew, Studien, 345. Cf. Kruger, Ztschr. fur Savigny Stiftung (1899), 268-72, who econeludes that the colonus was ‘Cweder Usuar noch Emphyteuta,’’ and infers that usus proprius = 1us fruendi and ius possidendi. See pp. 74-70.) 17 Owners. This word, found also in three other lines of the document (II, 4, 9; IV, 24), is extremely difficult to explain. If taken literally, it means owner, and leads definitely to the conclusion that Villa Magna was a private estate. Toutain (Nowvelle Rev. Hist. de Droit (1899), 144-104) supported this conclusion and based upon it his interpretation of the in- scription as a unique document, referring only to the Villa Magna. Rostow-" zew (Studien, 224) notes the confusion in the writings of Cicero and of NN \ 7 7 =. = = tl a ee = ae fol he seer bere ae tw eke 24 os a er ne ht A a - 7 ets — fom 4 ~ - A - Pp ee te A - > ae a. 7 ae . ae. eg ar = a. a ee YD ad Pie a | or ~ Ba ees Ps . pine Fhe del Me oe ee ee “~~ ’ m Li - ~ ah aa Peed tas —" Po thd Oe Os reed Y Sf Tied th ATE Sal tl ape aad pi NY et eek % ee ee . car cae pot > SR STR tho on ke Te ee Ae Wn Stary a ear rn a ee aan a a ¥ P r ~ ad . 9 y ie a ee EY rs a e . oes | * firma AH I se eat oe a a ee . a ae « ele To = ov - » x“ = a AA aS ae a Pe a ee ed ba Pr ed dl ea ole E - “ a “= ks ¥ 5 a ee * ~~" ed ee ie i oe , 7 ie tal eet ee le spss Sea ee, *) fi oe Pn A oe ES ~ CE Ts 2 a M4 Fo ee a ee ar ov he oe a te te Se ate oe <. a et ie de ee Oe ee peers ed For eee ee r Sano wt Pod -i bik gas > Ld ¥ XE fF oe a | . Ly i * ¢ 2 me Pp i P i : 4 | — 2 i 3 iF i j 4 | ! | e t oe s i a, Fs Ps > a { a i ¥ 7. ae 3 ;. Fs a 5 7 t t 4 + aes c } fa E-: - cs ¥ LR ie : , y ; Hi i i ad 22 Uniwersity of California Publications in History [Vow.14 if the lessors or stewards of this fundus shall announce [in reply | the exact amount that they will give to the coloni: and the latter. in sealed tablets, stipulate without deception the amount of the crops which they shall give [to the lessor]; the lessors or stew- ards of this fundus shall guarantee to the coloni their share. 2. ‘These [coloni’®] dwelling within the fundus, Villa Magna, that is, Mappalia Siga, who possess or shall possess domain farmsteads of that fundus, shall furnish to the lessors or stew- ards the exact shares of orchard and vineyard produce, and of whatever variety [of crop] they have in accordance with the custom [inserted in] the Lex Manciana: of wheat from the threshing floor, the third part; of barley from the threshing floor, the third part; of beans?° from the threshing floor, the fourth part; of wine”! from the vats, the third part; of oil from the presses, the third part; of honey in containers.2? one sextarius for each honey jar. Pliny between dominus and possessor and presents In convineing fashion the arguments which favor the interpretation that the fundus was a part of the imperial domain, and that dominus does not imply ownership. The use of the plural may indicate corporate exploitation, but is probably only an abbreviated expression meaning domini present and future. 18 The text of this important passage is neither accurate nor complete. Additions, deletions, and other corrections of commentators give rise to different interpretations. I have followed Schulten (Die Lex Manciana, 21-24. See also Rostowzew, Studien, 363-365, and for other renderings, Kruger, op. cit., Seeck, op. cit., 342 it) - 19 The differences between the coloni of section 1 and those of section 2 are not fundamental. The former are house-owners, have permission to cultivate subseciva, and have their crop shares determined in the field. The latter are home-renters, apparently cultivate fields of regular size, and have their crop shares determined at some central spot, e.g., the threshing floor, or the wine vats, or the olive presses. (Schulten, Die Lex Manciana, 24.) Rostowzew points out (Studien, 342) that the operae (see section 16) are the same in each category.vr, 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis res viliec «s»ve elus f(wndv) in assem pa|rtes eco}|l(on)ieas datur- as renuntiaverint tabellis {que obsignatis . . .| es cavea- nt elus fructus partes, qu|as presta|re debent eonductores vilici «s»ve eius f(wndz) |eolo|ni colonie- 20 as partes prestare debeant. *2. Qui in f(wndo) villae Mag- nae sive Mappalha Siga villas habent habebunt dominicas eius f(undr) aut conductoribus vilicisv|e | eorum in assem partes fructum et vinea. es ee =e yy i, i arly alee we | A a SA tae Ad iS Ta de ee kT, FER Ns aaa _ = + s fe ta sy “4 — ca y + Ci pean ~ at hs + 4 ‘ . - ,. a “Pre oe us a % * bs Pa - a bh Cs aa ao hae eS ye RAYA SES OES S-E > ae a a Th - Fs oa os a? ~ a ae “. ~ a ery er anv ar a. a a én” ie a ere ay rene ee no - = ayy" Oe ae eh iil aA a > Mh Se oy. ~~ ie” bere ie _ -e ee be * a! Se eee ae = * pet ne * ¢ fi ao Ween ae ae oe RP ia Se ee — , sae * , ot Seer oie if = od o J oe ted Lo re a Pan a ee Ky hy ily Set dee - ae et ee de at te PES eae * x ig my " _— . . aie = gs te a - ia a Se hae atma RCN ae | » bce atl 4 a . oe pe ; a ; | Sf 1 ' a 4 t cE a b : : ys ie et | } R f ‘ 7 kk i | ? 'e | . , H ; A > 4 t a | f ; I i. : y N 4 ie ? S 3 : , b a a " ig m-) FS ci Ms +f etal - FS «> 24 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 3. He’* who shall have more than five honey jars at the time when the honey has** been, or shall be, gathered shall furnish to the owners, or lessors, or stewards of this fundus exactly what he gathers. If any one shall have transferred from the fundus, Villa Magna, that is Mappalia Siga, to a distant field?°> hive, swarms, bees, or jars of honey, with intent to defraud in any way the masters or lessors or stewards, the hives, swarms, bees, honey jars, and the honey contained in them, which shall remain within the fundus, shall revert, in toto, to the lessors or stewards of this fundus. 4. From’® the fig trees which shall be outside the orchard. provided they be within the limits of the estate, and further that they shall not [cover more than (?) jugera], the colonus, at his own discretion shall give to the lessor or stewards of this fundus a |small?]| share of the dried fruits. “3 In order to support his quotum versus quantum theory Schulten changes the following text and inserts ‘‘partem tertiam’’ in a space which he admits can hold at most seven letters. His reading would mean that for a total of not more than five jars of honey a fixed amount was given the colonus, for a total of more than five jars a third part was given. It is more in accord with the text, as it stands, to assume that a definite share was given for a limited amount of honey, and that excess in production was discouraged by confiscation of the entire amount produced. This might be a protective tariff in favor of honey produced by the bees under the direct control of the lessor. A certain amount of honey would be allowed for home consumption, but sale of honey would then be a monopoly of the lessor. 24 The comments of the jurists on bees and honey are of interest. Bees, hike wild animals, are masterless (Just., Digest, xli. 1. 5. 2. Cf. Inst. ii. 1. 14). But hives and domesticated swarms are considered a part of an estate (Just., Digest, xxxiii. 7. 10). 25 Distant field. A free translation of ‘‘Octonarium agrum.’’ Schulten (Die Lex Manciana, 26) cites Frontinus, de agq., xxviii. 42, octonaria fistula, a water pipe eight fingers thick. He also notes that the agrimensores do not list octonarius ager in the nomina agrorum. Rostowzew (Studien, 341) conjectures that this may be the name of the African agri stipendiaril, and that it may give us the amount of the stipendium levied on such land. The land is certainly beyond the limits of the estate.nD Or 1925 ] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis II 1 quinque alveos habebit in tempore quo [|vin]- demia mellaria fulit fuerit], dominis aut conduct |oribus vill }- D) elsve elus f(wndi) qui in assem |[colunt| d(are) d(ebebit). Si quis alveos, examina, apes, | vasa] mellaria ex f(uwndo) villae Magne sive M- appalie Sige in oectonarium agru|m| transtulerit quo fraus aut dominis au|t| 10 econduetoribus vilicisve eis usquam fiat, al|v|- el«s>, exama, apes, vasa mellaria, mel qui in leo £( undo) | erunt conductoribus v|ili]ecorumve in assem e|ius| f(undi) erunt. *4. Ficus aride arbo[res ... q|ue extra pom |a|]- rio erunt, qua pomariu|m in|tra villam ipsam 5p sity UG mon ampliuUs imi, . 4 4) 5 2 at, colon- us arbitrio suo co|actorum fructuu]m econ| ducto |- ri vilicisve elus f(wndz) par[tem d(are) d(ebebit) |. 5 partem tertiam? (Schulten.) colunt. (Gradenwitz. ) 10 eis quam: usquam, or eis q(ui) in a(sse)m. (Gradenwitz. ) 12 for conductoribus read conductorum. 13 arbo[resve aliae q]ue. (Schulten.) Quae. (Gradenwitz. arbo[r]u[m earum qlu(a)e. (Toutain. ) 15 iu[geris non pate|at, or iu[sta vidmenia fijat. (Schulten. 17 par{tem tantam d. d.| (Schulten. ) 26 This may be a general regulation applying to all varieties of fruit- bearing trees growing outside the orchard of each farm (for example, in the fields of grain, or on stony patches), or it may apply solely to fig trees thus situated. The first is Schulten’s interpretation, which makes the first four words nominative plural, a sort of nominative independent. This construction requires too much interpretation and interpolation to be satisfactory. The rendering of Rostowzew is simpler and does less violence to the mutilated text. Ficus aride is considered a genitive which modifies both arborum and fructuum. The trees are healthy, not past their prime yw sans FE == + F 4 aes 3, 1 i a: “«~" a. ee 5 Pek th. oe a A . ot ok ee ot alt ade ee hr “an sted eT nad 4 be ak eo al ay AS RES I Sd Rea . aa a in “=, as ‘~ td rato ~— at a. oo PS ee 2 oe epee ae ea at "Tak, Lae ey . ‘= Pd > ee yy =? ALA TNTLS: . a a. ee a ah oe er ran ba tee oS a . Pl od “v = a ee oe — 2 eee Ve here ne eee be aay = ete \ a ed pou os el ti, | F e - os id ‘3 i! J [a a> ed ie a el ll ts og eo Rnd eae se - “prs er i Ae me nen ees “ e aoe fat ad «"@ Se ‘bp ke - 7 # “me Fer pemiveragtas Ss vegeta. A ey a = PEP PAE EAL re ga ee ee A aa —"* a - en.ie oe .* ry oe re t 3 ] S be t f 1 iH t Ps ae 5 : 7 t k : tT ( 7 t ry i H ae is 7 P ; 3 n | | ie Bs ‘ } ; ww 3 i if ie a | i t. es ie f A Pg m ‘= ¥ 7 p af Fu ¥. RY A , 26 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 0. The old fig and olive groves which were planted before this regulation [was published] shall furnish to the lessor or stewards of this fundus their customary share.’ 6. If any fig grove shall have been planted after this time. he who shall have planted it shall be allowed to dispose of the fruit of that fig grove at his own pleasure for five consecutive harvests, but after the fifth harvest he shall furnish to the lessors or stewards of this fundus the amount fixed by the Lex |Man- clana|, as written above. (. Permission is given to plant and cultivate new vines in place of old on the following condition: he who shall have planted them shall dispose at his own pleasure of the fruit of these vines from that planting for the next five harvests, but after the fifth harvest from vines thus planted they shall give to the lessors or stewards of this fundus the exact third part of the crop in accordance with the Lex Manciana. 8. Permission is given to plant and to cultivate an olive erove in that place which some one has ceased to eultivate on the following condition: that for ten consecutive harvests after the planting |the cultivator] shall dispose at his pleasure of the crop of the grove thus planted, but after the tenth crop, he shall furnish a third part of the pressed oil to the lessors or stewards of this fundus. as Schulten supposes. They are exempted from the normal tax perhaps for expediency ’s sake, perhaps ex consuetudine, with the possible understanding that the crop is to be used by the farmer, and not sold. (Schulten, Die Lex Manciana, 27. Rostowzew, Studien, 346. Toutain, L’Inscription d’Henchir Mettich, 65.) * *7 ‘The customary share, from the olive groves, is given in sec. 2, near the close.QOF 1925 19 20 * ww “ 1 [ Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis DF *). Ficeta vete- ra et oliveta, que ante ha|ne lege|m [sata sunt, ex] consuet| u|- dine«m» fruetum conductori vilicisve elius presta|re| consuetudine M(anciana). (Toutain.) debeat. *6. Si quod ficetum postea factum erit, eius fie | eti | fruect «uet>um per continuas ficationes quinque arbitrio suo eo qui seruerit pereipere permitittur, post quintam ficationem eadem lege«m» qua s(wpra) S(criptum) est econductoribus vilicisve eius [f(uwndv) | p(restare) d(ebebit). =, Vineas serere colere loco veterum permittitur ea condicione | ut| ex ea satione proxumis vindemi|s| quinque fructu|m| earum vinearum is qui ita fuerit suo arbitra>o per- cip{iljat itemque post quinta(m) videmia(m) quam ita sata erit, fructus partes tertias e lege Manciana conduc- toribus. III v{ilicisve] eius in assem dare debe- bu/nt. *8. O]|livetum serere colere in eo loe{o] qua quis ineultum excolu- erit permittitur ea condici«ciyone u- t ex ea satione eius fructus oliveti q- uid ita satum est per olivationes pro- ximas decem arbitrio suo permitte- re debeat, item post olivationes (decem) ole|1| coacti partem tertiam [c|onducto- ribus vilicisve eius f(wndi) d(are) d(ebebit). *9. Qui inserue- eadem lege M(anciana). | Toutain ) for fuerit, read seruerit. ( Schulten. ) permittere debeat. Was it not percipiat, or perc, permittitur m the Lex Maneiana? (Gradenwitz. ) — \ a io a ey ai > * Slt ha eed oa iain a he ot alt ake ack en PN nes a ae cea a ¥ Re an on ne, ee te. 3 r= i? & a ae ea se ce e+ 5 a kt oe 5 . ee an i | - 1 ® 1 de a Bis ot Ty ’ 1 fo - “4 xX * ‘4 = ¥ a _ a eet ee ge bth gt ~~ & afi > os al we ee! SRE A dete et ae ee ert et hae ee ao a a a a ee Mined Pei | OT ee ie tee a = th Sees Pd oon, gr ites wy sy oy * Pn Tene : e-e° 3 -¥ st ae elie “s oa a Shere de | - ~~ 3 x f-~ oa : a a“! *- a ee - a. Peea a. | eds < ™ Pe oad 5 e co re re : re i N ‘: nN ; 2 : | i | a f B, re cl bE _ fh. or | ; ae Po ‘ a » | i A 3 2 Le ak f , . ¢ i i 2 e Re he em a ee! NE nT ee ne aa 28 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 9. Those who shall graft wild olives shall furnish a third part after the fifth harvest. 10. As to the fields which are or shall be planted to grasses,”® excepting those fields which have vetches, in the fundus, Villa Magna Variana, the crops of these fields shall belong to the lessors or stewards. The overseers shall dispose of this crop. 11. And as to the sheep which are pastured within the fundus, Villa Magna, that is, Mappalia Siga, the owners shall pay for each |four ases?®?] to the lessors or stewards of the masters of this fundus. 12. If any one*® shall cut down, destroy, carry away (i.e., from the fundus), carry off (1.e., to his home), burn or cut off a crop of the fundus, Villa Magna, that is, Mappalia Siga, whether it be standing or hanging, ripe or unripe, the loss to the lessors or stewards of this fundus shall fall on the ecolonus: he shall pay a double share to his ereditor (i.e., to the lessor). 13. Those who have or shall have planted fruit-bearinge trees on the fundus, Villa Magna, or Mappalia Siga, may leave by 28 Allotment of hay-lands to lessors. Schulten (Die Lex Manciana, 29) notes that the lessors, who are capitalists rather than farmers, reserve for themselves the easier, less intensive cultivation, subletting those portions of the estate which demand hard work and agricultural skill. Toutain (L’Inservption d’Henchir Mettich, 67-69) cites Pliny, n.h., xvii. 7. 1; xviii. 37. 1, and Columella, d.77r., 11. 14. to prove that the value of vetches to an exhausted soil was not unknown to the Romans. The inscription clearly excepts them from this regulation. 29 Four ases, or one sesterce, a nominal charge. Sections 10 and 11 balance each other. The agreement is, ‘‘Give me the crops and I shall let you pasture for next to nothing.’’ (Schulten, Die Lex Manciana, 30.) 30 Anyone. Since the entire inscription deals only with residents in or workers upon the fundus, I believe that no outside marauder is thought of in this instance. Anyone really means any colonus of the fundus. Toutain is probably correct in assuming that the coloni are held responsible and are heavily punished in order to keep them from aiding or abetting fellow-workers (L’Inscription d’Henchir Mettich, 70-71).20 19 24 Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 29 rit oleastra post [olivationes qui]nque par- temytertiamy di(are) di(ebebih) 4 0 | ee in: f f (undo) ville Magne Varliani| silve Mappaliae Sige sunt eruntve ex|tra eo|s agros qui vicias habent, eorum a[egr|orum fruct- u«uy»s econductoribus vilicisv|e e lus d(are) d(ebebunt) : custodes e- xigere debebut. *11. Pro pecora [que i|]ntra f(undum) ville M- agne sive Mappale Sig|e| pascentur, in pecora sin- oula aera quattus conductoribus vilicisve do- minorum eius f(undi) prestari debebu[n]|t. *12. Si quis ex f(wndo) ville Magne [siv|je Mappalie Sige fructus stantem pen- dentem, maturum inmaturum ecae|cide]rit excider- it, exportaverit deportaverit conbuserit desequer- it seq [. .Jenii deterimentum conductoribus vilicisve elus £(wndv) IV eoloni erit ei cui de|[. tantum prestare d(ebebit). *13. Si cui in f(wndo) ville Mag- ne siv(e) Mappalie Sige arbores frugiferas se- Q[ui algr[t herbosi]. (Rostowzew. ) Q[ui algr[i herbis con|siti. (Schulten. ) Quattus. Cf. C.I.L. IV 1679. XI 5717. (Dessau. ) sequ. |b |enmi = desequerit sequ (entis) bien. ( Schulten. ) sequens, or sequens inde. (Gradenwitz. ) ei cui de[bet p. colonicas alterum]. (4ruger. ) i ‘ 2 é 20] ieee uy 5) e ? | +\y¥e ; E a : wv ‘ id J we | et if CD et nee CIIEER AAA 7 es —— Se eat in Mt eo - a ee . , ‘Fs 5 SCL oe AACS a a a de ae ra eases % Pe ee ' ames ase — ee ee OD heh ole ya a Pe a ==, tata i ae a ee a HR BSL Pep Re et Se rn PA ee ek et eS eee i ter 3 a ele i ke i Ai aha pe eet at a 2 * . A J . ™ " ey eT ee ae Ee | F 3 maa} ee be eel ae at a Ye ge et ee ae —< Ene a. 7. 2 es —— mR! ae =~ ee Cy Ne * 2 “4 nw i » a eg i ; ¥ Seat ORO te mee “av a7 t- iy + ~ ee ee ? = od ered a — ed z aa rai fe =~ Po eee Ee eee * i ~ ¥ = * oe er —_ _ ~ , abs - 7 ee es >: is SS be i *. § a re + % ‘Y Pe £ J I | on | e = rf 7 ‘| f | i H | ve ae x ff - é y = ; 4 i Be " 3 f : ; i ¢ | | ? ie af Sn he = eee aa ita De reer et — 4 ™ = 30 Unwersity of California Publications in History |Vou.14 will,*! after .... years, to children born in lawful wedlock, the use of that improvement. As*? to improvements** which have been or shall be given after this date in accordance with the Lex Manciana, as pledge or security, the rights thereto shall be preserved for the colonus in accordance with the Lex Maneciana (for a term of two years). 14. If** anyone has brought or shall bring under cultivation land hitherto uneultivated, and has built or shall build a dwell- ing thereon; and if anyone who has eultivated shall have ceased, or shall cease cultivating, from the time at which the land ceases or Shall cease to be eultivated the right of cultivation which belonged or shall belong to the cultivator is and shall be pre- served for the two years sueceeding the day on which he ceased cultivation. After the second year the lessors or stewards of these plots shall cultivate them. As to that piece of land which has been cultivated in the previous year, but has ceased being cultivated, the lessor or steward of that fundus shall report to the men whose property this land is said to be that the land must be cultivated. If, after this report, the man continues to delay, and likewise in the following year he persists, after the $1 The reconstruction of section 13, lines 5-6, suggested by Seeck, accepted by Schulten, and quoted by Gradenwitz renders intelligible an extremely important passage. Even without the conjectural insertions, it is clear that testamentary right is given the coloni with regard to some- thing planted. Was this ius herendi an encouragement to permanent resi- dence, or is this sentence merely a restatement of a custom long established ? 82 The second sentence (lines 6-9) proves the right of the colonus to mortgage his property, the establishment of this right in the Lex Man- clana, the protection (of the creditor?) by the same law (for a definite number of years?). 33 If superficies means in section 13 what it certainly means in section 14, namely, the land and not the improvements thereon, we must assume the first usage is figurative and apples only to the rights conferred upon the tenant by lease. The colonus, under the Lex Manciana, was not an owner. It was the produce of the soil, not the soil itself, which he could leave by will, or offer as security.SS et i - e bl me = ape) Eh dhe fa ik = “ern a eo os er kd be 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 31 ~ lit, et ge, oo oe a ay > SF PR a ns le Ne or at ~~ a ak ee Pa an a Se Sr er peay verunt severint |1is elus superficiel usum | See Ouicenleoitimoles 45 <4) testameni| a6). ys er SUD erficies . - . hoe tempus lege Ma|neciana | ritu.... fiducieve data sunt dabuntur ... [id| <> ad ad ” ee o proximo ex qua die colere desierit servatu|r ee el le 15 servabitur; post biennium conductores vilici«s»ve + eor|ums. = 4 Ea superficies que proxumo anno <«f»eculta fuit et coli — | desi | - — ee e’ hy IE -EP DOY Sh eh Ma erit conductor vilicusve eius f(wndi) ea superficies esse decit- RN ek eg pe ota Pe a * ee alld ur denuntiet superficiem cultam denuntiationem denuntiatur ... testa |. . .|- 0 itemque insequentem annum ..... at ea sine que|[re]- 4—6 [post . . . annos liberis | qui e legitimo [matrimonio procreati sunt} testamen|to relinquere licet ....] (Seeck.) e i + ‘ 3 . 4 eT nae, : a a. a * mart ltd aes - 7 ae 8 For ritu read [pigno|ri, or [pign]oribus, or [ pigno |ri t(itulo). (Gradenwitz. ) 1 | ewe, read isve. (Gradenwitz. ) 15 eo co[lere]? (Gradenwitz. ) eor[um c(olere) d(ebebunt) |? (Schulten. ) 16 f culta. exculta? (Gradenwitz. ) ae oat a = ve f(undi) et cuius added. (Schulten. ) 20) [persist |at. (Schulten.) et ae ee OT eo eth ed - “ ee he | oo « ~ 34 The advantages are all those of the colonus in this section. He, pre- ead a int tel peel sumably, was granted the right to cultivate by the lessor. He was guaran- teed possession for at least two years (probably for five if he kept the land he fm — IRS LAG under cultivation). He might cease cultivation at any time, with no penalty ~~ ee al ld other than loss of the right of possession. On the other hand, the risk | eet tte Te fee ees ees eer a ~~ heel wx cf a RO Sa Pkg Teed ea Po! —s. Me a= 4 : + 7. é- i ee ce re . . y Pi i 1 7 } , L a 4 a : 3; i i / i. 1 t: g.°3 A in H eo , . 4 t { A ! fh. 1 ie t i ; a \ f | t Bee % ; e ! if [ | i. a is } si . Ee R . vr ci y iF bs y i Pa 32 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 second year the lessor or steward of this fundus shall eultivate the land with no right of redress (to the former cultivator). 15.°° Let no lessor or steward of these .... an inquilinus of this fundus 16. The ecoloni who shall dwell within the fundus, Villa Magna, or Mappalia Siga, shall furnish to the owners or lessors or stewards exactly per year, per man, two days’** work at the plow, two days’ work at the harvest, and at weeding one day’s work of each kind (that is,) two days’ work total. 17. The coloni*’ inquilini of this fundus shall within [some portion of] a year g give their names to the lessors or stewards of this fundus, and [arrange for] the guard duty which each [shall furnish in the fields ... .| 18. (Incomplete. For interpretation of terms see n. 38 below. ) of crop failure was his, together with the loss of labor and of capital invested in the venture. One wonders whether the colonus had the right to remove from the property such improvements as he had placed upon it. 85> Section 15 is unintelligible in itself, and yet it cannot be attached to that which precedes, nor to that which follows. $6 The completion of line 26 is based on passages in the inscriptions which follow. Although these inscriptions are of slightly later date, it appears reasonable to accept the suggestion of Schulten. The service was no doubt applied to that portion of the fundus retained by the lessor for direct cultivation. If the coloni plowed and harvested, why should they not also keep the crops clear of weeds? On the other hand, weeding might be the task of slaves. In that case, this regulation would eall for only four days’ work each year, to be contrasted with the more burdensome six days’ service of the later inscriptions. 87 Schulten (Die Lex Manciana, 35) reads coloni and inquilini, referring to post-Constantinian legislation in which the inquilini are classed below coloni and yet above the slaves. Rostowzew (Studien, 341-342) eon- siders the inquilini as a class of eoloni recruited from transient labor and from dispossessed natives. He notes (op. cit., 365) the similarity of their duty and that of the custodes fructum of Pliny, and the saltuarii of private domains. (For details see Philologus, LXIV (1905), (n.F. 18), 297 ff.). 88 Stipendiarli of line 32 are persons paying a stipendium. The Stipendium was a tax on land and applies therefore only to persons occupying ager stipendiarius. That there was land of this kind in Africa1925] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 33 lia elus «elus» f(wndr) post biennium conductor vilicusve co|lere de|- beto. “15. Ne quis conductor vilicus| ve eoru|m inquilinum |eius | f(undi). *16. Coloni qui intra f(undum) ville Magne [sive] Mappalia Sige habit- abunt dominis aut conduct] oribus vilicisve] in assem |qu|- 25 odannis in hominibus |singulis in arati|ones ope- ras n(wmero) II et in messem op|....... .| generis singulas operas bin[as] pr[estare debebunt|. *17.Coloni inguilini elus f(wndv) intra... anni n- omina sua conductor|ibus vilicisve ... . 1] m eusto- SO mee ciasesinoulasequUlleaeiess = 4 Sy er | enene Latamy SCOLsU ee ne 6 4 4 a SUT *18. Stipendiario[rum qui in f(wndo) ville Magne sive M | appa- her Sigveshabitablunte. .. ... 25. . a Uas) c- onductoribus viliicisve ........ - jit; Cusiiu|- 30 DGhiomns seanks Comll, oo 650005000 ol] WES 26 [eras n. II et in sarritiones cuiusque]. (Sehulten. ) 29 | vilicisve eius f. edere et operas i\n. (Schulten. ) 2() qu| as agr \ts. (Schulten. ) qu|. rele G.e |ne ne«ne>ra tam. (Dessau. ) 33 [. .. operas s|uas. (Schulten. ) | 34 vilficisve eius f. prestare debean|t. (Schulten. ) 3D odias f. (Schulten.) Text is that of Dessau. 36-40 Illegible. we know from the Lex Agraria of 111 B.c. (ll. 77, 80). Following Rostow- zew (Studien, 341) I assume that the stipendiarii here mentioned were the native inhabitants of Mappalia Siga, whose village homes had been classi- fied by the Romans as ager stipendiarius, a part of the ager publicus, but reserved for native occupation upon payment of a stipendium. Their con- fiseated farms had become the fundus, Villa Magna. They worked on these farms and were therefore obliged to perform guard duty, as were the eoloni inquilini. Rostowzew (Studien, 341), following Seeck, suggests that this ager stipendiarius may be the ager octonarius of section 3. If this be correct, we have a hint as to the amount of stipendium demanded by Rome (eight units per lugerum?). AS ‘\ ah “ 4 a a | a © » oe had Sas \ yun i er oe ee ‘| 7 a Dap. the ale ida ta ak s 7 ah nh Re a a be Ehy ate H BIT PR AR to es ee ia ¥ ee * a at tad eas a i oe 7 Pra Pers be a i aon ie een a oe a ra ae a, ike a ls «= a a eh Bye Se Sel -Aa te ea Oe tits aa eo ey eee ar rere Se 2.* “9 ~~ ” aA n=} Es 2 a i Yow ee eee ee eed A oe oe ee 7 “Y ae. ¥e ag et me a i lil lil Th a er to * = oo a = em | W-Eipnolobesenion an fF ae of a - TS = , Si i ett ee a a “ne Pee ne tr = - bali d = * *# 4 af - a oe tere oe ie ek ee ae ee 4 -* ts ae fete Seyt en oe CS ee ee sa bd + = ere - LJ a eR ee eee J + “. Pe , - ers. oe oe af *s = ~ eae one. i Pyoy a = oe = = PA 4 e a= BN a eae Sue Naa ahaa a I SN li aia i a a lita aed telah academe inclement ah rent Sheet a aa EV EE i el haan el ern a ht ee eae Tr aewee « TaD “4 . aot re EN ELBE are INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-DJEMALA Po oy > = A ek rm lal a i ee el ol 4 me were a ae a * | tn ee ai See a es ay oe em} Se x ws tos rar Sa Ls edly Cd teed ewe a “¢ s a dn ed ee i ad eera 7 Sonne “i vee ~ a) Fs a — ‘i P- ars a = ‘ a . 7os oral 7 as Ne To . ~ ea Fy a oe | pak { a S 4 a 2 ' - i ; b ; ie | i 3 f i ‘ i = : ee ea ee Aa le ee ki a a eh dil ea | 6 te i ks PTT hie a i comme NR sree ee Sette ters re eat eS eon rg ten rh cm Ey GE re Tt o 36 University of California Publications in History [Vow. 14 INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-DJEMALA The importance of the INSCRIPTION oF AIN-EL-DJEMALA rests not only on the wealth of new material it contains, but also on the clear light which it throws on many dark passages of the inscription of Henchir Mettich. An illustration of its value in respect to the latter concerns the closely related questions as to the character of the Lex Manciana and the status (publie or private) of the Villa Magna. Many of the conjectured limitations of the Lex Manciana (see n. 10, p. —) must be withdrawn after a reading of this inscription. That law is here referred to as controlling an estate which is obviously imperial, the saltus Neronianus (Col. I, 8), and is used by imperial procurators as a basis for rules governing other estates pre- sumably imperial (Col. IV, 10). It was certainly a part of the imperial regulations in the days of Hadrian; nor had it been superseded entirely by the Lex Hadriana, for both are cited in this inscription. It had been applied to the saltus Neronianus for some time. long enough at least for an inerementum habit(atorum) to have resulted from its application (Col. I, 11). On the whole, a comparison of the two documents strengthens, in many points, the impression that the Lex Manciana was a part of the im- perial administrative code in the time of the Flavians, while it gives no Support to the theory that the Lex Manciana was a private contract or the regulatory act of a single estate. For the same reasons, one is inclined to the assumption that the Villa Magna was not a private domain. It may have been originally a fundus exceptus. Of the new items in this inscription the most striking are (1) the names of six imperial domains, (2) the names of seven officials of the imperial civil service, (3) the unusual application of possessores to men who are coloni, (4) a portion of a petition addressed by agricultural workers to the imperial procurators.Le = * ~ ee A - aa. a ee — “ oo yuanry ar De ea Pr my = _ es ta oS en * a 7 > “sw ** DiS ar et at ra eS eS. o - 1925 ] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 37 a Te eo ee ite VR a es Sar % Pry 4 ea a ee ie CONTENTS CoLuMN I a . Say ad oe Petition requesting permission to cultivate swamps and 2 8 wooded land (l. 5, 6), lege Manciane (1. 7), condicionr ee # Se oe Nr ee ee i. — > «= “dey ane. es eS * Se ee eo te ase saltus Neromani (1. 8). ee Se CoLuMN Il Sk he el ade. ie Commentary of the procurators based on the Lex Hadriana (ll. 17-20), applying to certain estates (ll. 10-11, 12), and referring particularly to unexploited arable land (ll. 8-14) as well as to a ie Ke a at ig ea i he aa “tA eee oe ee ee en ol ieee ee — es CoLuMN III Waste lands (1. 9). The lessor’s share in either instance 1s a definitely stated. CoLuMN IV Signatures and covering letters of imperial officials (11. 1-6), followed by the beginning of a commentary which is based at least in part on the Lex Manciana, and appears to be J te Ae ~ oy a re oe ae , -, a i ie o A a : e, wt. A att ‘a a 57 ave & aL Bah. | a8 rae | ¥ a direct reply to the petition of Column I. ta "2 we - \ A Po Se as > + — it fh eS “1 ya*e « ~ , 5 ee ff ie et Dek ae dey oe alge efi eae eS oe ee gia vs ee a ee ee ee ser ee i ae eo ng os ea ot a" et ~ a Oh itty ie ele sg. * SE alin a ¥ ct SEN tilled , - Ss = " ~~ + oe te . - on ee ie ro ee . iS 4" aa ee SS Rae Ud * s ya = Se aa ee rl oe + i a. 6 Oe enh il en a oe ~ egrea ka er rere res: et ata Pea nae ah ee eet el ae bade Se a Scar ae Fa ek haha ard ate a a a a an —— “oe : H a A t ; A oe ¢ es | ; re : rf ¥ Y: Li 4 3 H | ; Bes Fa mK, . pS eee Pst: 38 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-DJEMALA [2 we ask;? O proecurators, that through the foresight which you exercise in the name of Caesar, you agree to consider our advantage and his, [and] grant us those fields which are swampy and wooded, that we may plant them to olive groves® and vines‘ in accordance with the Lex Manciana,° on the terms applying to the neighboring saltus Neronianus.® While we were composing this petition |we saw that the fundus named above had received an increase in inhabitants and was giving greater returns |. 1 Order of the four columns. Continuity in form and thought obviously link columns II and III. Column I received first place chiefly because it contains the cause (a petition) which produced an effect (the reply of ad- ministrative authority). This effect I find in the last four legible lines of Column IV. The problem is discussed by Careopino (Mélanges, 389-390, and Klio, VIII, 163-166), by Schulten (Klio, VII, 192-193), by Rostow- zew (Studien, 335) and by Mispoulet (Nouv. Rev., XXXII (1907), 11-12, 34—42), who prefers the order IV, I, II, III. 2The identity of the petitioners is uncertain. Carcopino (Mélanges, 393-402) conjectured that they were inhabitants of a municipality border- ing upon the imperial domains. Schulten (Klio, VII, 205-206) rejected but did not disprove the conjecture which was repeated by Careopino (Klio, VIII, 170-172). The words omnibus (II, 8), Quis (III, 2), quisque (III, 8), are at least nonecommittal. 3 A helpful clue in dating the Lex Manciana. Cultivation of vine and olive was forbidden by Domitian. The one exception to this prohibition (loco veterum) is indicated in Column II, line 24 of the first inscription. The implications are (1) that the Lex Manciana was in force before the prohibition of Domitian, and (2) that the procurators of Inscription I made the correction in their sermo of the year 116-117. The reading of this inscription (Col. I, 13, to II, 1) would indicate that Hadrian had withdrawn the prohibition of Domitian. (Seeck, Ztschr. fiir Soz., VI (1898), 323. Rostowzew, Studien, 323.)NOE rT, - ’ A . e ee 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis og « | ... . tuant, rogamus, procurato- [res, per pr|ovidentiam vestram, quam Inomine Ca esaris praestatis, velitis nobis fet utilitat]i illius consulere, dare no. (Dessau. ) 8-9 culm edljeremus. (Gradenwitz. ) 10 [fu|ndum suprascriptum N{ieronianum]. (Gradenwitz. ) 1] habit|atorum]|. (Careopino. ) 4Schulten (Klio, VII, 206) sees in this request proof that olive and vine were gradually supplanting cereals in this section of North Africa. Is it not more probable that silvestri et palustres were more suitable for orchard and vineyard than for farm? See Careopino, Mélanges, 447. 5 Lex Manciana. Citation of this regulation by the petitioners may show (1) that the Lex Hadriana was not in existence at the time when the petition was drawn up, (2) that the Lex Hadriana was in existence but unknown to the petitioners, or (3) that the Lex Hadriana was only a modi- fication of the Lex Manciana. (Schulten, Klio, VII, 199, 201-203. Mis- poulet, Nouv. Rev., XXXI ( 1907). 23. Rostowzew, Studien, 335-338. ) 6 A name derived from its imperial owner. Perhaps a part of the con- fiseations mentioned by Pliny the Elder. A proof that the Lex Maneciana was not a private, but a general and cvovernmental, regulation. (Cf. Schulten, Klio, VII, 201.) =~ a a) 9 ok ay ae a4 = * - ES ot ee « ah ee = ? = - . ae ed : a i I = ik he a : be Oh Ss “\,* Pe ae pi aa et a a ee J a at el a - oe -— > is = ie” “ a Se ra a a a i i + ek ied at a teal oe Ay ‘ t iB : i 3 = es ae “ ¥ ~~ ee 4 — ld et ee a a py eR. Nn ee Pa i ie ve - oo r P ‘~ a le, ~ Peas es) PEP Le?) SE rd as ae ‘ ~ Seg bes i a) ay a td foes ed i a) Sore ee a. Saal , re Sd r - > + eT) awe" a _ B _ a ** the Ms Py A a ay ey ieee EP eee) net ate or ~~ _S a a —— * id , nt “* eae aA ED Na es eg oe r ad ot A ae oh vad i ny “ae AEX, es el Oe > oe ee ET ie s ae . on al dll - Jt BOS phe - so a tas PE Pn te PP Se Cee eee ce es ee Cat ead ot 5 - a , 0 v xa J Sr - at a : -* "4 .—~ Fn att Pad a a msa de x OP teal al re aT Das a fe ae i . PY } e 3 . re = ¢ 3 } Cs : rf 3 i +S : ie @: . y H ee ki rf f : 4 i oe $ ; 4 k Py 3 P| , , ; '. is ee ' ; } 4 >, f e t* i ie | | a : f. f “a. *. ig rn .: © cia 40) University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 | I] Commentary of the procurators of the Imperator Caesar Hadrianus Augustus. Since our Caesar in the untiring zeal with which he constantly guards human needs‘ has ordered all parts of the land which are suitable for olives or vines, as well as for grain, to be cultivated, therefore by the grace of his fore- sight the right is given to all to oceupy even those parts of said land which are ineluded in the leased units® of the saltus Bland- usianus and of Udensis, together with those sections of the saltus Lamianus and Domitianus, which border upon’ the saltus Thusdritanus, and which are not exploited by the lessors;*° and to those who shall have occupied said fields the right*! is given of possessing and of enjoying the produce, and of leaving the same to an heir, a right which is derived from both the Lex Hadriana’” concerning virgin soil, and |the Lex Hadriana] con- cerning fields which have remained untilled for ten consecutive years; nor {shall there be] from the saltus Blandianus!® and Udensis greater shares of fruits *Schulten (Klio, VII, 206-207) notes the points of resemblance and difference between Hadrian’s action and that of the Gracchi. It is clear that both had a utilitarian basis. The welfare of the State coincided with that of the lessors in Hadrian’s regulation. It meant great loss and hardship to the possessors in the days of the Gracchi. 8 Centuries. The farm unit consisting of 200 to 240 iugera (Schulten, Klio, VII, 209). The units here referred to have been leased but not con- tinuously exploited. They are the loca neglecta of III, 1, the agri inculti of II, 19-20. Cf. the agri rudes of 11, 18; also the subseciva of the first inscription. 9 Border upon (iunectae), after Schulten. Mispoulet translates: les par- celles .... ratachées pour l|’exploitation au saltus Tuzritanus mais non comprises dans le bail. (Nouv. Rev., XXXII (1907), 17.) 10 A similar penalty for failure to exploit leased ground is found in the Lex metallis Vipascensis (another regulation of Hadrian), given in Bruns, Fontes *113, p. 294, Column II, 7-12. a Be eS ke eke ~1925] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 41 Il 1 iubeas. Sermo procurato|rum im|]- p. [C]aes. Hadriani Aug. Quia Cae sar n. pro| infatigabili cura sua, per [quam adsi|- Or due humanis utilitibus execu| bat, om ]- nes partes agrorum, quae tam oleis au|t| vineis quam frumentis aptae sunt [ex]- [e|oli iubet, itcireo permissu«m» provid |- [en]tiae elus potestas fit omnibus e|tia]- m eas partes occupandi quae in ¢elent]- 10 [u]ris elocatis saltus Blandiani e|t U]- [de]nsis ifn illi]s partibus sunt q[uae ex] [saltu Lamiano et Domitiano iunctae| [Thusdritano sunt nee a conductoribus | [exercentur ; isque qui occupaverint pos]- 15 = [sidendi ae fru[en]di «i» eredique s[u] |- [o relinquendi id ius datur | [quod et lege Hana compre }- [hensum de rudibus agris| [et iis qui per X anos conti]- 20 [nuos ineulti sunt; nee ex] [Blandiano et Udensi sal|- { aCe sy — - « od ot oe - ee ee - re . - a Ys thes . r nities i. ee = . 5 a an a eT ee a eh - , ' r = cd aaai~ ~~ ‘pe Oe es oi Pe eee ar et | , e ae = Peon eae ey BB FOE OO a SO SE -, “~_ oe ied leStal le ~ es = , 4 ata’ ‘ hear | en aaanaN RE NR ie OE A NT Ni a a at ae, at eae ae a bee a ae ed tts bal shen ~ am ee 7 ete oi ie Sey or: A ‘ % * ; ¢ - a f 3 i a ae ‘ § ? ? 4 f a rt b f a i, 4 a ¢ : . a s ¢. p ig K C4 cl bi } F ¥ 4 a A & > 42 University of California Publications in History [Vow.14 Itl If anyone shall have occupied fields uncultivated by the lessors, he shall give the third part of the crops which are wont to be given |to the lessors]. In like manner, from those sections of the saltus Lamianus and the saltus Domitianus which border upon |the saltus| Tuzritanus he shall give the same amount. As to olive groves which anyone shall have placed in ravines| ?], or shall have added to groves of wild olive, no part of the gathered fruit shall be required for the next ten years; nor of apples for the next seven years; nor shall other fruit be subject to any division other than that which shall be sold by the pos- sessors."* Whatever share of the dried fruit anyone should give, he shall give, for the next five years, to him under whose lease he shall have oeeupied the ground; after that time to the Treasury. Ive Karinus and Doryphorus to their Primigenius. ereeting. A copy of the letter written by Tutilius Pudens, egregius vir, that you may become familiar with it. That, too, which is appended do you publish in the most frequented places. 14 Mispoulet (Nouv. Rev., XX XI, 47) infers from this that coloni may retain their status as coloni and at the same time become possessores. But the coloni had to pay a share to the lessor. This clause, I believe, gave to the coloni the rights of cultivation and of enjoyment of the crop. 15 This column has caused more difficulty than the other three. The placement of the numerous officials in their proper relationships is still an unsolved problem. The method indicated by Rostowzew (Studien, 334) is the one followed here; namely, the attempt to connect the names of officials with the various documents published in or referred to in the inscription. An analysis of the inscription discloses at least five documents quoted. The first is the petition of some agricultural workers living on or near the imperial estates named in Column II. The extant portion of this petition is given in Column I. The second document is represented only by the final word iubeas. It is presumably the order of an official to a subordinate. The third document, entitled sermo procuratorum imperatoris Caesaris10 DO SN ed Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 4: Til (49) ee Ua (CO) OD((El GO) (CG) eee Isl quis lo]ea neglecta a co[ndul]- etoribus o|eeupaverit, qua e da|- lr1 sole|nt tertias partes fruetuu[m] idabit. De 'e ex| Lamiano et Domitiano els quoq. regionibus qua- isaltu|jiunetae Tuzritano sunt |tantum idem| dabit. De oleis quas quis [q. in| iserobibu|s | po]suerit aut oleas[tr]- [is Inseruerit|], e[aptor]um fruet{uum | [nul{la pars] decem proximis annis exige |- itlur]; set nee de pomis septem annis proximis| ; [nee alia pom(a@) in divisione(m) umquam | |eadent qu(a@)m quae venibunt a posses ]- [soribus. Quae partes aridas fruct|u| | lum quisque debebit dare, eas pr|o| |- |/xi1mo quinquennio ei dabit in| ‘cuius conductione agr(wm) occupa |- |verit; post 1t tempus ration. | Following Careopino. According to Merhn: Wi oS). 4) 0 0 g) (db) and g in partonly)) a mm, Ce Sa): [qui ea lo|ea. (Dessau. ) | BK ‘s|uo salutem. Exemplum epistulae serip- arinus et Dor|ypho]rus Primige|nio | tae nobis a Tutilio Pudente egregio viro ut notum haberes et it quod subiectum est [ce|leberrimis loecis propone. Verridius ff i) Pd a = a ~ ) en Be Pie be eh el ab i Ti ye apne a} os oe Se le ras . “en * Ss tal le th i "5 re * ie ie? a oe en Se ss a ‘> ate te 5 ONS x _— * Are ty ete Pero Peet oes ey a i ao ye a a a le ieee ae i le J RR ee kT Ee ee a a “ wits ee i ch ee ea Me all “= a a Flas eg = a fee oe a > + a kh, ea SEF PR Re al ere ed el allies af 4 ee ~~. ae a ee a -— “* | ae 1) 4 a | 3 23 Barret FE ee he oe Toe ah ol ehteleiahdhe otat uel ake ae eieenia naa ae eke ip Te ~~ J aaron hated a 5 +. UE me ee ee + = S 7 : ed oe = a Nt i ae ae a Shek Aa na Seinen aah a Se Oe ht el a Soa lee ede fae ats lea neal ah at ese seta ath a tah a= +4 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 Verridius Bassus and Januarius to their Martialis, greeting. If any fields lie fallow and are untilled, if any wooded plots or swamps [exist] in this district of saltus, [do not hinder from cultivating the same] those who desire [to do so] in accordance with the Lex Maneciana Hadriani, completes Column II and fills Column III. The fourth document is a brief letter from two officials to a third (subordinate), noting two enclosures and ordering the publication of one (or both) enclosure(s). The fifth document is a formal letter of instruction from two officials to a third (subordinate). We have but a portion of this document; enough, however, to make it reasonably certain that it is the reply to the petition engraved on Column I. On the other hand, there are eight officials or sets of officials, mentioned in the text or inferred from the text. (1) In Column I, line 1, the peti- tioners address certain unnamed procurators. (2) In Column II, line lI, we have the final word of an order from some unnamed official. (3) In the same line procurators of Hadrian are mentioned. (4) In Column IV, line 1, two officials, Earinus and Doryphorus, address a greeting to one (9) Primigenius. (6) In Column IV, line 3, a Tutilius Pudens, vir egregius is mentioned. (7) In Column IV, line 5, two officials, Verridius Bassus and Januarius, address one (8) Martialis. Is it possible to assign to any of these eight officials any of the five documents? This has been done in part when the sermo of columns II and III was assigned to the procurators of Hadrian. In like manner, Earinus and Doryphorus may be credited with the four lines following their names. Again, Verridius Bassus and Januarius send to their subordinate document number 5, which seems to be a direct reply to the petition of Column I. Is it possible to equate any of these officials? If it be true that docu- ment number 5 was written by Verridius Bassus and Januarius, then it is at least possible that they were the procurators addressed in the petition. With somewhat less assurance one may infer that the author of the passage ending with the word iwbeas was Tutilius Pudens. It is his letter which Earinus and Doryphorus forwarded to Primigenius. That which was appended thereto is that which follows the letter in the inscription, namely, the sermo of the procurators of Hadrian. We may assume, we may even consider it axiomatic, that the officials of imperial domains in North Africa were authorized to decide ordinary questions of administration on the basis of general rules with which they were familiar. Should the request be unusual, beyond the scope of theseAOE Mee a He 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 45 Bassus et Januarius Martiali suo salut|em | Si qui agri cessant et rudes sunt, s[i qui sil]- vestres aut palustres in eo sal|tuum trac}- ‘tu, vjolentis lege Mancia|na & s[ive sil|. (Dessau. ) general rules, one can understand the necessity of an appeal to Rome for a ruling. It might go, even then, not to Rome, but only to the official who had been authorized to issue such a ruling. There was nothing unusual, though, in this petition. It referred to a precedent in a neighboring estate and sought only an extension of a practice already in existence. That practice was based on a regulation cited by the petitioners, namely, the Lex Manciana. Column II bears witness to the fact that a later regulation, the Lex Hadriana de rudibus agris, had reaffirmed the validity of the practice. It would be absurd to believe that the administrators of North Africa were not kept informed of the regulations which applied to land under their management, and that they were not authorized to administer in accordance with these regulations. Reason, then, dictates that we seek to explain the parts of this inscription and the position of the officials in terms of North Africa. Turning again to the inscription, we find that the petitioners refer to the Lex Manciana, and that they are answered (in Column IV) with a reference to that Lex. If they had heard of the Lex Hadriana, they would have mentioned it. It may be that the procurators did mention it in that part of their reply which is lost. At any rate the publisher of the inscription thought it wise to quote an interpretation of the Lex Hadriana, an interpretation which was indirectly a reply to the petition. The sermo was manifestly written by those whose competence included the estates named. It was written at the order of an official immediately superior to them. Since it is not the direct answer to the petition, I see no reason for including it in the inseription other than this: that it was a hitherto unpublished or less widely known ruling covering the situation presented by the petitioners. The procedure might be reconstructed as follows: certain unnamed and unidentified agricultural workers desire to exploit some hitherto unculti- vated soil on an imperial estate, or estates. The land which they wish to exploit could not be far distant from the saltus Neronianus, since that saltus is near them. Their petition, handed to the procurator of the land in question, is referred by him to his superiors. These men, Verridius Bassus and Januarius, reply in a rather elaborate manner, with (1) a direct answer to the petition, and (2) copies of documents in their official archive. aN + = ‘ re oe Cp ee Te Se - \ ws I ea a = ? vo oe * Orsay -. ane SS ch 1 ee] ry ae ed = eo | “a kt c aa a6 i a - aH para a a a ea —— = i te ~ : ee ee ae _ + oA ' a. ae ta as — ~ a ee ee Ee aL =~ Lage + 7 ala ¥ ee oe a} oes ee 3 oF Th Pape 5 Pad fm * ae mie ee = > - . BS eae pibieg th nas a > a a ee te ae, an) oe a es i~ + ~ ~ = eae. a _ on i ~ eo te Ss ae sa +. “te cae dd a ae ae Ps “. Ln i a a BUELL DSL pet ee i a ie /~s . Chee eon Se a oe. a; oe a ety neat nd a. a tel he xs oS Ys | a “=~ SOR ee et ee Papen a = Pe) 4 a ee pee a te se ae ee . a Bol es te thw tent fa Re nt foes eee * ns "a a. a “ ; rT en ot ed St lhe pees ae Se “4 j ne r See knee epee ’ i-- « i a as ‘ het a eS = ae Fr), Pr on eared c rae hd ret = a a’as ed aie Sr eT 7 A a ~ Sarai! Be Se ee rd od Se Se a aaa * & 4 : i 3 3 | i : = , ; | E | Fd i 1 i ; 3 teehee arene des. OE ene a i dh ee Ol ee Ne e ee eke ne Pe eg 46 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 These copies are of an order sent to predecessors of theirs, Earinus and Doryphorus, of a sermo sent by E. and D. to Primigenius, a procurator subordinate to them, and of the covering letter giving their instructions to P. The order, we may conjecture, explained the terms of the Lex Hadriana, or accompanied a copy of that Lex. The sermo gives the appli- cation of the Lex Hadriana to the five saltus named therein. Martialis, the procurator who received all these documents, apparently thought it best to publish them. Publication would give the petitioners information concern- ing the new law in so far as it touched on uncultivated lands, and would inform them of the additional privilege granted by the law with reference to deserted lands. Tutilius Pudens, author of the original order, would be, as Rostowzew conjectured, a procurator ad hoc, or legatus, the official, who at Hadrian’s request, drafted a regulatory act which applied to all of the extra-municipal territory in the province of Africa. The chief objection to this reconstruction appears at once. Verridius Bassus, a free man, cannot be equated with Earinus, a slave. We have, however, no reason for assuming that Earinus is a slave other than the reconstruction of the first part of his name. There is space enough on the stone for a name of the highest respectability, even though it end with -AYTINUS.* ewer eee ee ke ea ras “ es oe a ad a Ps = - ae. a a al 3 i a ed a Rr a eo oe ak ety tet ad eet in ial nd al * a INSCRIPTION OF SUK-EL-IKHMIS x 4 3 * « ae “~~ a ee ee Fe a be: - et | ee a) et ithe ke or aw ‘ ed a Pon «v* Oe Oe tel ae eS ie Pe Pod a < vv at 8 fe 4 area ae sy ‘ ‘ e « ee ta er ae a nr 5 ee Cen am ee et rrredo oy a bo 3 * Jj + A i Be em ot eal Si a a a E a we P ds é + é- y : 3 & f t 3 f % t F i x = b ‘ : b 2 | ? ie } ; 3 i" : | f é } | i , 7 i ¢ 3 » f ié ' i fi i ‘ a ; ; Ly tt 5 ig " G * pista W nil Se te kad Po eee & = “ ‘gi te ela a. a tS F pi firthy — ae | be) 4 ne a J or +4 Py Date! : 4; . 7 ‘ : oe 7 ws ae oa ot Re \ at | — _ “~~ alt Ts Sal eS le G . i. eee . 7 ) i ee ee i "av *- ROE ea Te Be ean) - a _ ~ = = ro - bn ee a re PuIs ere BA a pa ee “a i ~ oa - > lhe ie | “ey MAVEN LEAL EE SPS ESL a Seton De ast ap rsa ee Sa te » s - oI x es re a +. ra m a ~ iin a ee a m4 i os Fe | | 3 . 4 ye we * - a ¥ ate le wee ee 2" + “_* Se ee - 4 _ a >." ERR LS * . ~ > SO nt haem eet ae ad ed ee! ~ A il ae ce eae i og ' ape a he . a ew Ya aA ig Pe J vs - ms ‘< a * + nd oe a | pa ot Sal Sk BR “a Pts ~ Set oe . pae = A - 4 | + J — oom etm ; ferers - Be ee he ke eh el pays — ; —— _ ers Saree at ak inet as emeatenelele aia EEE Va MN a al ean ee tell ela) alah at OEE rad i tabthees Ter , ; et Te ne eee ee ene eel Rh Aa a oa ee at “s ni ape ee ee il : : ; Cs ; ; ; ra ; , ’ ‘ i, a gee Pal 50 Unversity of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 INSCRIPTION OF SUK-EL-KHMIS I II f (. . . . that you may be informed of the collusion of your procurator) collusion which he has practiced not only with Allius Maximus,’ our oppressor, but also with almost all the lessors,” against the law, to the detriment of your treasury, and without limit. The result is that he has refrained from investi- gating, for many years, our petitions and supplieations and our appeals to your*® divine resecript.t More than that. he has yielded to the wiles of the said Allius Maximus. lessor. who is very high in his favor, to such an extent that he has sent soldiers’ into the said saltus Burunitanus and fciven orders that some of us be seized and tortured, others be fettered and others. although they are Roman citizens, be beaten with rods and cudgels. The sole alleged reason for this treatment was that we — 1 The procurator of the saltus Burunitanus (see note 2). * There was apparently more than one lessor, that is to say, more than one leasehold, of the saltus Burunitanus. Column III, 22-23, indicates a Succession of leases held by Allius Maximus. Each lease was for five years. If we assume only a minimum of fifteen years | per vices succes- sions) for Allius Maximus, in the course of which he maltreated the petitioners, it appears improbable that the phrase almost all the lessors (omnibus fere conductoribus) could be applied to men holding the lease of the entire saltus in succession. If a single leasehold be assumed. the illegal treatment would have to be extended over a period of twenty-five years, fifteen years for Allius Maximus, five years for another oppressor, and five years for one who did not oppress. The difficulty may: be avoided by assuming that the procurator mentioned is the procurator tractus, but this raises other questions. Why did not the petitioners use the normal plural in referring to the official heads of a tractus? Why were the peti- tioners limited to one saltus?1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis D1 oe tus, Cl 2) 2 0s (ES) a ee rm (le 4) cele) II [Proeuratoris tui intellegis praevaricationem |, 1 quam non modo cum Allio Maximo adv|er|- sarlo nostro, set cum omnibus fere |con|- duectorib(ws) contra fas atq(we) in perniciem rationum tuarum sine modo exercuit, 9 ut non solum cognosecere per tot retro annos instantibus ae suplcantib (ws) vestramq (we) divinam subscriptionem adlegantibus nobis supersederit, ve- rum etiam hoe eiusdem Alli Maximi 10 e|/onductoris artibus gratiosissim1 !an?]imo indulserit, ut missis militib (ws) undem saltum Burunitanum ali- lin e [os nos|trum adprehensi et vexari, ali- irl. nonnullos eives etiam Ro- 1Oos vine 15 [manos| .. virgis et fustibus effligi 1usse- [rit, scili]eet eo scio merito nostro, qu- 3 This may be a plural of respect, but, more probably, an indication that the rescript referred to was issued in the name of Marcus Aurelius and of Commodus. It should be noted that tuus is used throughout the rest of the petition. 4Was this a reply to a former complaint of the coloni? Apparently it was, and is to be dated between the years 177 and 180, the period of joint rule of the two emperors. 5 Soldiers were under the control of the provincial governor, but a request for their service could be made by the procurator. Mommsen notes that the complaint of the coloni was not against the use of soldiers, but against their harsh methods (Hermes, XV (1880), 401-402). =‘ a a > a mer DN ro ad Pa a a A ad ee ee ee ’ me | ae 7 a, oe 7 Fea the > 9) oe at ast . << os 4 “” SS -*- ie ob we a yy, x S < a Sas Tee - ~~ ree RN eS ear ee - ie ek tl i itll adh, ies a « a ae ie ee ot ee a a =< ee eee re TE tar eas eee . ’ ee - i Set tah ashe ae ee ee oy 4 Ac eke Se ee, et dee get, er | gs ca r re i ’ 7 a » 1 7 re 4 i TH, P A " ’ ) i= om we ey oe” Le a ee ak -~ the ba, fn. +" @ Te ts a 7 eI Pot] —— oe 29-44 fee he =," “ Pe he ee fe te St iy ale rer eo i eee e% - eo paw} ‘pg tat ee SS ae SAL ERRE AS JQ Ae a A al 4 » AE . ne’ 2 © oe Ce sak ne - iY2 ab eT ay = - ea ES at BN de Be oe . = Pi = eis ee. ed 7 - “= 2 i ae a re ol 7 | a ‘ | 2 ; rf f | a ; | ao ME e 7 A f 4 k | ‘ H y. % H § ; S 7 e } j 5 3 ¢. S f b r t a ‘ : ‘ x p, A. ct z. 5 Fg * a 02 Unwwersity of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 had written a frank letter,® beseeching your majesty [for aid] since we found ourselves in danger so great in proportion to our weakness and so immediate. The proof of our danger, O Caesar, may be determined from this III and this forees us unhappy men to seek your divine aid. We ask, therefore, O most sacred Imperator, that you succor us; that the right which, in accordance with the clause of the Lex Hadriana,’ as it has been written above, has been limited, continue to be limited with reference to procurators® and especially to the lessor, namely, the right of increasing the shares |for rent in kind], or the tasks [for rent in manual labor], or the teams [for the latter service]; that the conditions remain as in the commentaries® of procurators, which are deposited in your archive of the tractus Karthaginiensis; that we owe not more than two days’ work per year of plowing, two of weeding, two of harvesting; and that there may be no dispute: inasmuch 6 This letter was addressed to Commodus alone (tuus maiestas). If the distinction between tuus and vester be intentional, we cannot make this letter the cause of the reseript of n. 4 above. ‘Another instance in which the Lex Hadriana is found to confirm a provision of its predecessor, the Lex Manciana. 8 There is nothing in the corresponding clause in Inscription I (*16) to indicate that the procurators were either permitted or forbidden to interpret this provision. Excessive demands on the time, crops, and labor of the coloni were probably for the benefit of the lessor and not of direct advan- tage to the procurator. The latter would profit indirectly in receiving a share of the spoils. 9 The ltterae of the procurators are undoubtedly sermones bearing on the question of partes and operae.1925] 20 JU 10 a oY , N 2 See = A tT = pe 7 - “on a r D ‘ aa a ia oe es ae or a oe} "ome FP ie —— i a * pas a ~ | = Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis D3 Se ee ata Te be — wae [od euntes|] in tam gravi pro modulo me- ee ‘ Es = —., e a a [dioeritat|is nostrae tamq(we) manifesta ath hess EELS LEE PETE ERNE TR ERIE - ae [iniuria im|ploratum maiestatem tu- Se a [am, inmodesta] epistula usi fuissemus. Cu- [ius nostrae in]iuriae evidentia, Caes(ar), [inde profec|to potest aestimarl qu- i a lod] ...... quidem, quem maiesta > + . . [ex]sistimamus vel pro . J ro t omnino cognos Par a i oe - hi a eee se e ree kere Font a . plane gratificati mum invenerit e -= ae a = nostris, quibus " . banus cogni _— Ps ner an enone = beret inte tare operas ie he Ms _ eek Oe et oat ae ok al = a ret ita tot pe “om 1erl me A *—_ “oe dies y= (deficiunt quaedam) EI Od « tee es III — ™ a _ . [Idque com] pulit nos miserrimos hom1- aA engl [nes iam rur]sum divinae providentiae de Ge dkee hoe eR. [tuae suppllicare. Et ideo rogamus, sa- eratissime imp(erator), subvenias. Ut kapite le- cis Hadriane, quod supra seriptum est, ad- ar = eh ee - yf Be 9 = Ht. ed ‘ty P emptum est, ademptum sit lus etiam proceb. ha pod nedum conductori, adversus colonos am- pliandi partes agrarias aut operar (wm) prae- ¢ a ee — Poet era hs bitionem iugorumve: et ut se habent lttere proe(uratorum), quae sunt in taulario tuo tractus Kar- yee eet > . fe tee thag(iniensis), non amplius annuas quam binas © dhe « * aratorias, binas sartorias, binas messo- er A ed rias operas debeamus itq (we) sine ulla contro- a, a > 7 a Dh a ae Or eee vs ids hs Ps a | ~~ Pe i fa A Poet ee ee ee Le Oe _* — o — +a ae ) a. Fi ’ te -o re a "i ae $ a a ‘ +S t i 4 ‘. 3 i Ct 1 i Ez i d id . oe a & a b i a | a . ae ' ; j }. ¥ H i § bd Fs f : ¥ ? i ¥ , : t : ; ¢ : ' a a i se Ce i ed i = es - De oe et a ee o4 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 as this has been established in the forma perpetua’® inseribed upon bronze and has been recognized by all our neighbors on every side, and has been confirmed by the commentaries of the procurators cited above. Come to our aid since we are powerless men, farmers who earn our living by the work of our hands, unequal in power before the procurators to the lessor who is in high favor because of his frequent gifts to them and to whom he is known because of the many times he has renewed his lease. Have pity, and deign to demand of us in a sacred reseript that we shall give no more than we owe under the Lex Hadriana and the commentaries of the procurators, that is, six days’ work [per year]. So that through the kindliness of your majesty we, thy rural workers, born't and raised on thy estates, may no longer be harassed by the lessors of the imperial estates IV The Imperator Caesar Marcus’? Aurelius Commodus Anto- ninus Augustus Sarmaticus Germanicus Maximus to Lurius Lueullus'? and others to whom it may concern. In view of the law and of my decision, procurators shall not demand more than thrice two days’ work |per year] lest anyone be unjustly bur- dened by you, in violation of the forma perpetua. 10 What was the forma perpetua? How did it differ from the sermones or litterae or epistulae? Rostowzew, citing the Lex Metallis Dicta (Studien, 332-333) equates the forma perpetua and the Lex. These perma- nent regulations or laws give general statements for an entire district (province or tractus). They may, for example, indicate minimal and maximal limits, phrased in so flexible a manner that they are susceptible of interpretation and adaptation to local needs or local customs. The adaptation and interpretation is made by the procurators of districts in the form of sermones, ete. 11 The geographical fixity of these coloni is either voluntary or foreed upon them by economic necessity. There is no evidence that, at this time, legal fixity had been expressed or even considered. Economie laws, then as now, were more rigidly enforced than laws of assemblies or admuinistra- tors.7 oN “a, * i) ~ ~ * _ ~~. al > ok Ay Lr i we i 4 o ee oe r haet hyp ye ia a ladle mo impares aput proe(uratores) tuos simu|s], quib(ws) [pe]r vices successi- ih i a a on(is) per condicionem conductionis notus est. ay miserearis ac sacro rescripto tuo non ampli- vs 20 is praestare nos, quam ex lege Hadriana et 2 ex litteras proe(uwratorum) tuor(um) debemus, id est ter oe ‘» a A — a oe ee 8 ee le aE ee LE el ea eas ee binas operas, praecipere digneris, ut bene- ficio malestatis tuae rustiei tul vernulae et alumni saltum tuorum n(on) ultr(a) a econdue- ad a 380. ~—s torib(ws) agror(wm) fiscalium inquietem|ur| ——— > (deficiunt quaedam) i ee a “ure ras | vie, | i ba 54 | i 7, fe oy 4 u IV ] |Imp. Caes. M. Aurelius Commodus An|]- a ._ a = ee el ath a gall ee he — — eT ee ee a we 'tonijnus Aug (ustus) Sarmat(icus) Germanicus maximus Lurio Lueullo et nomine a- | aed ‘ horum. Proe(uratores) econtemplatione dis- Aon eae PRON Nh ae a eh irae ee 2 c¢lplinae et instituti mei ne plus =" « quam ter binas operas curabunt, ne quit per iniuriam contra perpe- 4 tuam formam a vobis exigatur. ‘a, ae « i ges ba > = = a ak oe “- ere te | 12 The date of the rescript may be fixed in part, by (1) the praenomen Marcus, assumed by Commodus near the close of the year 180; (2) the wa -_* ~~ INS AG absence of Britannicus, assumed in 184, and of Pius, assumed in 183. 13 Lucius Lucullus appears to be an official close to the emperor. Mommsen (Hermes, XV (1880), 398) and Cagnat (Rev. Arch., n.s., XLI (1881), 151) identify him as the procurator a rationibus. It is strange — that no official or honorary title is given him by his subordinates, Tussanius sc ies il ee ie ey ay* ye = . a ed , A 5 De Be nl i OP Ce Cee es nen Mety a Fe .* A ie a . ES 3 ) 3 f f f 1 é vir i } ¥ & & ' | k i v : 1 { i 7 Fy " ; 2 ; 3 3 i. 2 }" 4 r } } 4 e : F i a it 3 é ; t “ae @ 4 i ‘ al i Hi yer a ? y a * e 26 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14 Then in another hand :'* I have written. I have certified |to the signature]. A copy of the comment of the procurator, Tussanius Aristo, vir egregius, and Chrysanthus to their Adronicus, greeting. According to the sacred resecript of our most sacred imperator, the reseript which Lurius Lucullus sent to us in reply to the petition [of the coloni| And in another hand:'® We wish you every happiness pos- sible. Farewell. Written on the day before the Ides of Septem- ber, at Carthage. Happily completed and dedicated*? on the Ides of May in the consulship of Aurelianus and Cornelianus,'*® under the super- vision of Caius Iulius ... . ops Salaputis, magistrate. Aristo and Chrysanthus, but he is manifestly nearer the top of the admin- istrative ladder. 14 Tt was probably the a libellis who wrote the reseript which was then signed by the Emperor, or someone authorized by him to sign. A third official attested the signature. - 15 Tussanius Aristo, procurator tractus, sends not only a copy of the reseript, but a copy of his commentary to Andronicus, the procurator of the saltus Burunitanus. Chrysanthus, as Mommsen conjectured, was the tabularius, the secretary of the procurator tractus. 16 The copy of the epistula was probably written by Chrysanthus. The closing words of the covering letter were written by Tussanius. 17 Completion and dedication of an altar containing the documents of this inseription. 18 R. Mowat (Rev. Arch., n.s.. XLI (1881), 284-291, 374-376) reached the following acceptable conclusions: Aurelianus and Cornelianus were con- sules suffecti in the year 182. The dates of the documents in this inscrip- tion would then be: Petition of eoloni, after October 22, 180. Resecript of Commodus, between October 22 and September 12, 181. Letter of Tussanius Aristo, September 12, 181. Dedication, May 15, 182.* \ a » * sl ee | oa gs i, . Se A oa . W. oe a bes et ee ok ha ee eee de ee ee ee ee Pe re ts a) a ret i ee QOr Ve = 3 CS . 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis * Jt OC ~] + a gh SG Srey Kt alia manu: Seripsi. Recognovi. 10 EKxemplum epistulae proe(uwratoris) e(gregii) v(iri). eee A a ee at Ye or . ": Tussanius Aristo et Chrysanthus Ts ar “T+ Andronico suo salutem. Secundum a ee Sacram subseriptionem domini n(ostr?) [ah at a ok a ae Dean sanctissim1 imp(eratoris), quam ad libellum a.?7 % 15 suum datam Lurius Luecullus |misit] > ee ee 16—21 (Erasi versus sex. ) 21 | Et alil- a manu: [Opt]amus te felli- “Pa fin atl Ty ee e al - So ee a ie let ah Baht ie a A ae er ae a ee © Ae - oem Qe gtr ar ones SATE AE elssimum be Ine vivelre. Vale. Dat(a) se are Pe EAT" pr(idie) idus Sept. Karthagine. 29 Feliciter consummata et dedicata a yey - 7 | oa De et oes tk oe a idibus M[a]is Aureliano et Corne- “i ~ ie CS han|[o] eos|s], cura agente a a ae | C. lulio ... ope Salaputi mag (istro). —_ a a w7e"9- “ + 4 ; wy Pi f } * yr “ ‘ " ' ad ie oe a al “ — eat Grae « _ at ct ae heh —-* - hd al od > os i _ Pee ee en Dee ‘ ee a fi ft i ee pee ee Pett St ps fee ee eT , ed yeas eee ‘7 = nad A addin EeIVieN we, aed eee x om, et of ac a . ~ ROR Er, ote ree a ee coe , F Fe - n ; a = oe id ee - ee Pe, . eae i . : * ars ES i er . - + ee) - * ld 5 + arLy y ied ao = ety — . 4 Ben) tt a eh oe » set an . to A ee a i Na Lae tein et ce ee a Ge ceo en Le ee ee ee eT er ee et eh ee a Meg Dae ie : P Z A 7 ~~ peak eanreny . ha - ue Sieg ae . ca] a i , » : AA oy te a. ar) ry nad. P 2s : See etd ” a » % _ z : — ree . 5 aa eta . Po) ; ‘ : . ete 5 iS 2 te ee + is i RS i de Or oti eles PC iaed th | gh > . ee ~ “Ww 7 a ie) ae | iy a » ee < 2 Pe ys Tr x Se ee) a << a i ee a i a a Pe ee ee ae | ‘et eee es = era ie dese aes pear NL a 4 x= vv eet ine INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-WASSEL L A so Pp ae ee ms “ah te eas LS 1% d. f t | i VE ¢ , & oa b. ry 3 3 | : ; i b. i. a 1 4 ‘ - ¥ ri 3 ~ sr: Gk ee ne cred ees b . = SC it oh oll Oe ira ike cat kde am saan ae ee ee} + dal i ee ee te ete Penne eae 60 University of California Publications in History \|Vou. 14 INSCRIPTION OF AIN—-EL-WASSEL Discovered in 1892 by a French army physician, Dr. Carton, the INSCRIPTION OF AIN WASSEL was incorrectly entitled the Lex Hadriana. It is true that, like all the other inscriptions of this series, it was based on an imperial regulatory act. It is also true that it resembles the others in its outward form, that of an altar. But since the form was only used as a means of preservation and since it contains merely a commentary on a portion of the Lex Hadriana, it is more fitting that it should be named after the place OL As discovery, Ain Wassel. The body of the inscription is undoubtedly the sermo of Hadrian’s procurators which appeared on columns II and III of Inscription *2. The lack of a concluding sentence or paragraph led the discoverer to doubt the completeness of the document, but the same abrupt close at the end of Column III of inseription *2 strengthens the belef that this was the com- plete sermo. It is only the introductory paragraph that is novel. From it we can date the publication at about 210 a.p., and in it we find evidence which upholds conjectures based on the study of its predecessors. Remarks of commentators upon this inscription were made shortly after its publication. They were therefore rendered obsolete, for the most part, by the notes on the inscription of Ain Djemala. I have endeavored to include the most valuable of the earlier comments in my discussion of the latter. The text is here given in full, in order that its resemblance to the In- scription of Henchir Mettich may be noted, and in order that the relative contributions of the two monuments to the combined text may be readily observed.1920 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 61 CONTENTS CoLuMN [| 1-8 Dedication of an altar in honor of Septimius Severus, his two sons and his wife. It is deseribed as the altar of the law of the deified Hadrian, and is dedi- cated by Patroclus, an imperial procurator. 8-13 That which follows is a commentary of the procurators upon the law of Hadrian. With the exception of errors in inseribing it 1s identical with the com- mentary of the inscription of Ain-el-Djemala. | i . ] yt od a} ed yo “ ’ a ad a Beh Py. ag ¢ | .. A a meer : ; aS oe. , ie ae ee a iret - a es o ? - la dee ee - ~ al * >= - o be - « a Mite ae tet a Ne ok he RAT Mat yA ed ss Be a Seen) — Pe Pe oe ie te —— > ™ ‘se i / "a *~ so ie + ay ee ‘, aS a Coe ‘ Ee ape ae ae aS SAS SUR ge i ee ee a ee re! ike OTE AS MEDS eb} eee Le ee el tea." - > eal oe - *) i i ae oe “ 5 ated oe alee ol) ta Ad a ox: bd taal . kk Ted ol ede el yh a a ee ee a hs Ls 2 Ls +) ~— * ee > * ft ere ae ae ~~ - . a ¢ ~ in eh eee a ee dled le " mt ad hee s en ee eet ane veer a ied ray -—™ « Rad er 4 ar Pe Lee ee oe . p ad ¥ lpi ¥ Ps ed oe ile - a Seer ie toe Z ~ a Pod a me faa are eos ot — a ae as- ee \ .= - - iis = Te : = F , P om . = ‘ HY é A r oe a - 5 : 7 ; 4 ne p! rs f rf a f P 4 5 ; t 7 Py t 4 fe } f i i } a ' 4 ar y ra i ; 1" { } ; = 5 e 7 ? i i: i a a Hy ; : x - s + 4 id r . ¥ + . ig ye aoe & 4 5 ‘i ‘ p if ¥ 5. 62 University of California Publications in History |Vou.14 INSCRIPTION OF AIN-EL-WASSEL For the safety' and security of Imperator Lucius Septimius Severus Pertinax Augustus and of Imperator Caesar Mareus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus and of Lucius Septimius Severus Geta Caesar, and of Julia Domna Augusta, mother of the camps, Patroclus,? freedman of the three Augusti,* procurator, erected this altar of the Law of the divine Hadrian and placed upon it the regulation as written below. A* eopy of the Lex Hadriana published on the altar. The commentary’ of the procurators 1The resemblance between this dedication and that of Inscription “1 is obvious. A dedication of this kind served the practical purpose of a ‘No Trespassing’ notice. 2 Patroclus was probably the procurator of one of the estates named in the commentary. 3 The reference to the three Augusti dates this inscription between 209 and 212 a.p. (Sehiller, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit, 1, 739). 4 This sentence seems to be a direction to the engraver. 5 The commentary which follows corresponds almost word for word with the second and third columns of the preceding inscription. I have used the word commentary in translation for sermo. Both imply the spoken word although neither has retained in this usage its original meaning (Schulten, Hermes, XXIX (1984), 212).1925 | 10 OT Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis I [pro salute et incolumitate | limp. Caes. L. Septimi Severi Pi] |Pertinacis Aug. et imp. Caes. | |M. Aurelii Antonini Aug. | let L. Septi]mi Severi Get|ae| |Caes. et Juliae D|/omnae Aug. matr. [cast |rorum, aram legis divi Ha- driani Patroclus Auggg. lib. proe instituit et legem infra se Uden|[sis] et [in] iis partibus su|nt |] quae ex saltu Lamiano et Dom |1|- tiano iunctae Thusdritano sunt nee a conductoribus ex|er|- 63 Se ee - T * hs i oy Pi ph Bo > ar = ~~ . h 4 » 7 a =," a ee oe Poa Oat hee - “ 5 sa Noe F <0 Pies ts Es a . ‘ he ae he ee SR At teas aoe 7 ay i i Ge ae = ee ee en eo a *“s a he ns ~ - fone? sardae ‘ ~ rae NS aes oe us - rss * erties Lat = « ~“ neti te > wre 7 si ee ee J = Oh hc tt Tl le Ae Ce ee A eet ay el ake “ey ae an 7 _. 5. "4 =. ~ hee Se ee ane As om i eh al late oo a a ete -e yk « & a — > wo s os a ‘| a . AR ra ar REDE OD ot et = Ye sian it alle ~ rl “ od wv ey a =. ee Ly | ay ut fd ~ “ re + Ra ae i ce : * oT) a ) | ie Seis EYAL eee a i! “< Led Set > a er me x | ores Pl ht POAT a al Basho * a et a ~~ a." LLC SIRE MEE To oe ee ees 9 “Rep - Cas r - aT a 64 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vot. 14 centur: isque qui occupaverint pos- sidendi ae frulen|di na compre- hensum de rudibus agris et 118 qui per X anos conti- nuos ineulti sunt; nee ex Blandiano et Udensi sal- 15 ~=—s «sal» tu maiores [p|artes fruc- | tuum | Il ie stquis lolica neclectal ay conduc- toribus occupave|rit, quae dari so}- lent tertias part|es fructuwum da|]- bit. De his quoque r|{egionibus quae] 9 ex Lamiano et Domitiano saltu wn|- etae Thusdritano sun|t tantundem da]- bit. De oleis quas quisq|ue aut in sero| bibus posuerit aut oleastris | inse|- ruerit, captoruwm fructuum nu|{lla pars| decem proximis annis exiget|ur] ; set nec de pomis septem annis proximis; nee alia pom(a@) in divisione(m) umquam ecadent qum quae venibunt a posses- soribus. Quas partes aridas fruct|u]- um quisque debebit dare, eas pr|o|- x1mo quiquennio ei dabit in culus conductione agr(wm) oecupa- verit; post it tempus rationi. oD . i -. A i 5 : z Ni i * . t 4: ‘ f i - ; ih E a J. H - a : » } f a 5 « es i } ‘ Y 3 , ¢ Pe Le iy Y | 3 3 } : a - i x an go. . a 4 Ms gt . i The Se me St a . a1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 65 GENERAL DISCUSSION LOCATION OF THE SALTUS The geographical data of the inscription supplemented by other epigraphical records furnish materials for a fairly accurate map of the imperial domains in the Medjerda Valley. The site of the saltus Burunitanus [sic] was determined first by the location of the inscription at Suk-el-Khmis, ‘‘on the road from Carthage to Bulla Regia, between Novae Aquilianae and Ad Armasela.’”? OMS 2a/h some foundation for the conjecture that the saltus had been A reference in Victor Vitensis (De pers. Vand. 11 |38]) to a Faustus Burnitanus episcopus offers made a bishoprie with boundaries unchanged.? a ee i. atthe PA ee . - 4 a ee i) a - je tol fh a y © °) > a Lig oe ai eet typ eae ey Be “ ” as aa Po SEP ER B24 a a 7 ee id 2 She fi ee f ReR EE Son eae Ot el 4 ae er Ue of So Soy a ~ asA os ae 2 aS c} o & i 4 ai , a a fi H 5 4 - 4 f i f ‘1 j Ps e a c a ; f : : ( + ; » f ; if } . - : 66 University of California Publications in History ([Vou. 14 west of Bulla Regia completes the list of known estates on the north side of the Medjerda. The land bounded on the north and east by the Medjerda, which makes a sharp turn at a point about 40 kilometers east of Suk-el-Khmis, included the fundus, Villa Magna. If we accept Schulten’s generalization that streams were sought by the Roman surveyors as boundaries, it would follow that the fundus was bounded on the north and east by the Medjerda, and by the Ued Kralled and Ermuscha on the south. Henchir Mettich is close enough to the geographical center of this area to be the administrative headquarters. The saltus Neronianus, I would place east of the Kralled and south of the Medjerda. It lay near the homes of the petitioners of Ain Djemala,* and their homes could not be far from the place where the inscription was discovered; for it appears to have rested near the spot where it had once been erected; 1t cannot le west of the Kralled. The choice between locations north or south of Ain Djemala is purely conjectural. I have selected the northern site on the ground that another. unnamed, saltus was located to the south. West of the Kralled, and no doubt near, 1.e., directly south of, the civitas Sustritanus, lay the saltus which was obviously named after the civitas, Thustritanus. To this estate, and on its southeastern boundaries, were joined the saltus Domitanus and Lamianus. Beyond them were the two other estates named in the sermo, namely, the saltus Blandianus and Udensis. The inseription of Ain Wassel gives us a central point for the southern extension of the group. Thuburiscum Bure, Thugga, and Uci Maius, with their muni- cipal territories furnish a rough southeastern and southern boundary, while the Saltus Thibaritanus® marks the western limit. sisee ps 39, Col! Ty 158:1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 67 In addition to the estates definitely named, I infer another from a study of the inscription of Ain Djemala. That inserip- tion was found on ground which has not been and cannot well be attributed to the estates named therein. It was certainly not within the limits of the saltus Neronianus, for that is said to be nearby.’® Commentators agree that columns II and III of the inscription deal also with neighboring estates. They assume, however, that the petitioners were interested in the estates across the Kralled. The commentary of Earinus and Doryphorus applies only to the estates named by them. The ruling of Verridius Bassus and Januarius applies, if the conjecture ‘‘sal[tuum tractu]’’ be correct, to the entire tractus, 1.e., to the tractus Karthaginiensis. If the petitioners had sought the right to bring under cultivation the waste lands only of the five estates named, they would have been answered by columns II and III. But the real answer to the petition lies in Column IV. It extends the privileges of columns II and III to other estates within the tractus. In what estates would the petitioners be interested? Presumably those near at hand. If the Saltus Neronianus and the group to the west be excluded, there remain two possibilities. (1) Ain Djemala was the village home of the petitioners who were coloni of an estate centering there. (2) Ain Djemala was a municipal unit. To the south lay an estate which some of its inhabitants wished to exploit lege Manciana, condicione saltus Neroniani. To choose between these possi- bilities would be to build conjecture on conjecture. Still, what appears to be evident is that the petitioners sought a ruling, similar to that of columns II and III, on land which was not included in the estates named in the inscription. 9 T[ovi] O| ptimo} M{[aximo |] | pro salute. 4. ) Ga Helieis Aug|usti] et totius domus divinae colfoni] sal[tus] | Thi b[aritam|. See Carcopino, Mélanges, 432, and Schulten, Klio, VII (1907), 209 footnote. 10 See n. 8 above. @ 4 ~ m = * ano * wart ni -_ a a yi Pt FE Me att * a - - a ir | ae ee ae . ee fit i a Ets Sa - ate ~ - Cod - 2 . a a J o -, te ; 2 eral ai tie gk - * 2 “yy we . re the “e i eon “s oe ~ 1 co A ae! . eo < — 3 oye ae a) PDN - ee ee Ss eee LN 0 ale) roo 3 = . Fion Pet i ie ee = AW - at eo. ~~ ~ 7c, = rm oo ‘+ rd ae, "2 Ps * =. ee ee py Da ao rl PPE - oe ~~ 2 i ea Se : os Pg ee a a a a = aa a Wr ee et eo he ha ae ett <3 e er eet oe Aes at f a ed LAS. i ae et Bo ph OR »* * " s i. ri © iT LY ee A ar ge? e.' 7 ct. * ee Ps -, 2 2 , ee a F J ee hae} “ ? 4 A PS | i “A he 4 ae : ~ ee ea ee oH . A vi » x bd we a PRO L ee ee eee. Let eT 7a"¢ * m «3. - “ a = a nS _ i= a i ad 4 . “sae bie te Eg A tee Soe eee ee 7 ENS id 40H OR hel et | wv -— eee > oa Ae el “ Pee fe er oy ie J sa m se oF a a i iJ . O es ee + ey. osee h b- a ry be | 3 ) : i i ¢ f | i a i I | PF Pe es es i eaten eta ar ae i ae ee ee ia ee ea ogo Saye 3 a rl STB: eS e thle eta Set heather tate edith ta oa aoe ete ao eee <> , * : . 68 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14 ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS The terms used in deseribing or defining portions of extra- municipal domain lands indicate either an extremely complex system, or, and this is more probable, a simple form of organ- ization applied to lands aequired at different times and from different sources. The definition and classification of these terms.is a part of Schulten’s contribution to our knowledge of the imperial administrative organization.11 To a summary of his conclusions, little may be added aside from material dis- covered since the publication of his work. The term tractus is the most general of those applied to the area studied in this paper. The great size and great number of estates in Africa rendered this division an advisable substitute for the normal grouping of all estates in a single province. The approximate size and location of the African tractus may be judged from their names; t. Karthaginiensis, t. Hadrumetinus, t. Thevestinus, t. Hipponensis, t. Tripolitanus. Each tractus had its subdivisions ealled regiones, mensae, or telonea, which were named after the municipalities in which their offices were located. Regio was not always used to describe a group of estates, for, 1n the inscription of Ain Djemala (eol. III, 5), ‘‘de eis quoque regionibus . . .,’’ the general and non- technical meaning of the term must be understood. In another inscription’? regio apparently refers only to one estate. The economie unit of the domain lands was the saltus or fundus. Hither term is used to deseribe a single estate. In at least one instance both terms are applied to the same domain, saltus Neronianus, or fundus Neronianus.’* If any distinetion 11 Grundheerschaften, see index under fundus, praedium, regio, saltus, tractus. Summarized and supplemented by Hirschfeld, Klio, II (1902), 284 ff. 12 Mundus or regio Beguensis. C.I.L. VIII, 270 (—11451). 18 See p. 39; Il. 8, 10:1925] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 69 is to be made between the two, it must be based on historical erounds, that 1s, on the original classification of the land. Saltus originally meant waste land, which did not pass under municipal control. fundus, in this connection at least, appears to refer to arable land partially exempted by special grant from municipal jurisdiction. The Italian fundi excepti of the sur- veyors,'* which were combined probably to make up the lati- fundia, had their counterparts in the provinees. It is my opinion that the word fundus crept into the nomenclature of imperial domains in this way. If a fundus exceptus came into the hands of an emperor, it might retain its name, as did the fundus, Villa Magna, or it might be ealled either fundus or saltus, as was the estate named Neronionus. Praedium is a more indefinite term, for, as Schulten notes, it could be used with reference to municipally controlled estates as well as to extra-municipal domains. He also points out that praedia is generally used as a plural of fundus. If one were to seek imperial estates in Africa by title alone, the distinguishing word would be saltus. Fundus, praedium, and praedia would need additional identification before they eould be classed as imperial. Each estate had a distinctive name. This was derived from (1) the name of the original (or best known?) owner (e.g., Blandianus, (2) the name of a nearby place (e.g., Ss. Sustr1- a ) tanus), (3) a combination of descriptive title with the posses- sor’s name (e.e@., villa, casa, vicus, horreum, kastellum Caesaris, or Variana). (4) a combination of names of the original and the present possessor, or (5) the native name to which was added the third form (e.g., Megrada, Villa Aniciorum). 14 Hyginus, 197, 10 (ed. Lachmann) : excepti sunt fundi bene meritorum, ut in totum privati iuris essent, nee ullam eoloniae munificentiam debean- trent, et essent in solo popul Romani. Cf. Rudorff, in Blume (et ali), Schriften, 2, 387, 388. \ pens = 4 - Tia a oe - r - - ~~ pie i lied —f- . a ~ a ns a a a ow Ps a) = i da oe an Seal _~.* S a 7! aa ~~ s* cae needed et kD at 3 ae et a a te i) Aa Wek es ~*~ od 7 = ee, be ¥ ; Te ea * “ . i] ell ad ae aoe Pore a nae ee a -& *e - 2 Me S he Sea a re Sa a. al - w Dew eee ea MTN a EGR. B.S-P ed. a ee ty ee el " ee, ee ee ‘tb ~ {7 ee ee ae } edt oo Ye” "ie Me lt le a 1 ae Del te el ok eli “= s = ’ > = a ent ed i ee ee ee os ee is aw “4 ee i ah lll , me a a .: ae 7 : b ‘* a ” + + ow ee _ Py ere sei . 3 1 3 i . 3 om 3 f gz ( f % E 3 | H 7 ce : 4 3 ‘ 1" { « ry if ? iy . F i ‘j | is . ie 4 3 f t Te a 4 Hs at L« a ¥ s | i Bo a i rs ; yj Fi a 70 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 Within each estate there were classes of land. In order to avold one of the interminable chapters which Heitland’® so prudently refrained from writing, I shall give here a mere list with a minimum of comment. The villae dominieae of the fundus, Villa Magna, were the farmsteads of the estate with fields under cultivation and build- ings for the use of the tenant. Other patches of arable land, unassigned and uncultivated, were the subseciva. The same divisions were deseribed with more accuracy in the inscription of Ain Djemala. The centuriae elocatae correspond to the villae dominicae ; the agri qui sunt in paludibus et in silvestribus (Col. I, 5-6, Col. 1V, 7-8), or agri rudes (Col. II, 17-18) correspond to the subseeiva. A third type, the abandoned farm, appeared in the inseription of Ain Djemala. It contained the loca neglecta (Col. III, 2), the farms nee a conductoribus exereentur (Col. II, 138. Cf. Col. 1V, 7). Fuimally, there was given at the close of the inscription of Suk-el-Khmis the inclusive phrase, agri fiseales (III, 30). The interest which attaches to these terms arises from the differing regulations concerning their cultivation, dis- cussion of which is reserved for the section entitled ‘‘Coloni.’’ PROCURATORS The first impression of one collecting material on the pro- curators of the imperial domains in Africa Proconsularis 1s that our stock of information is adequately large. An examination of documents and monographs brings disappointment. The records give names, titles, official grades, location, and little else. We know that there were district procurators (procuratores tractus) of equestrian rank with secretaries and clerks of lesser rank and status. We know that each subdistrict (regio) had its subordinate procurator. We know that each domain had its procurator, a freedman of Augustus. Of the procuratoral duties 15 Agricola, 342 ad fin.1920 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 71 we know that the most important was the handling of income from the domains.'® This included the supervision of both lessors and sublessors, an exercise of watchful care lest the pro- visions of leases and of general regulations be neglected. Dis- putes between lessors and sublessors were, no doubt, brought to the domain procurator for settlement, or for reference to the higher authority in regio or tractus. If one turns to the imperial reseripts and constitutions of the fourth century, it becomes evident that the original financial and administrative powers of the procurators were strengthened by grants of magisterial, Judicial, and police power. Did this begin with usurpation of such powers by the procurators, usurpation which was legalized in later centuries? Or did the procurators possess sueh powers from the first? In the absence of any other authority, and in the presence of the evidence from the mining districts of Spain, [ see no reason for rejecting the second alternative. If con- elusive proof still exists, it will probably be found in the ruins of the central administrative offices of the tractus. COLONI The African inseriptions have thrust back into the first century A.D. the frontiers of our information with reference to coloni in the western half of the Roman Empire. It was natural and proper that the new material should at first be interpreted in the light of evidence from later centuries. The colonate of the codes was an institution of respectable age. The colonate of Hadrian must have been its predecessor. Thus reasoned the scholars, and thus they sought to arrange and classify the new evidence. No one can deny the safety of this method during the first stages of study. Many will admit its dangers after it has out- lived its usefulness. The time has come when that method should 16 Schulten, Grundheerschaften, 75-82, 151. - 4 et cai ~ — a” — rs a Reps Te hax Eh ee — S > Sh - » a ba? ee a. oe 17 ad She ted So . o a ie ie el hee 2 ene “ Ps a ea a oa a .‘ ie Se a i ee ee Fe i) ee ee ee re - Od ee he * ee = Se oes eee n ee ¥ gah a ear gs Saw De OS ok 3 ot Bs he POE a Fe 2 oe . a ha ft Se Sah eT IT Aha a he ae ae ey eat ey Ses “= - QZ AEs ok th oe ol) ih el ee, ee co ad id Se pesn at Pa - ee aa a r 7 eee be see ee ie et een TP a Eee as ae oe Se : ss L A Pa ey areata i. ye > ee ee a ke 2s nw ; : a y Fi » " ‘ a he TJ D 4 S ¥ 2 ee i “_* PO Lee eRe OT eT * Sa a Te ad itn. BAA SS: te a ah a, ie ‘ y ~~" s came os ie aT i ee he 8 2 we _ a ted ~- - ae Fon oe ee ene eee eee ae er ied she 7 “yy Santint i aS LS EIS 5es = Pa ” (2 oe — ee os aio bor ae ‘? yf - fl | cy a ae 2 ¢ ¢: oi PF oy | } | 4 3 | ec a a f : 4 E ih ' « Nn an ee ae RE IE al ee ke 72 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 be supplemented and corrected by another, for no single formula will suffice to explain so complex an institution. The early colonate can and should be examined in and for itself, with the following principles as a guide to study. The problem of imperial domains, as presented to Augustus, ras purely administrative. Its legal aspects were late in devel- oping. The persons entrusted with administration were men of business, imperial slaves, and freedmen, not jurists. The men who cultivated the soil were not classified by the administrators with reference to their legal rights. They were considered as provineials, subjects who would accept as a favor the chance to make a living in peace. The historical background of this relationship between emperor and subject, between landlord and tenant, was local custom. The immediate aim was successful exploitation of the soil. The development was independent of and separate from that of municipally controlled land as well as that of the intermediate type, the fundus exceptus. Acceptance of these principles means the rejection, as evidence, of such contemporary experiments as those of Pliny," for he was dealing with Roman eitizens whose legal rights had always to be considered. It means the rejection of the opinions of contemporary jurists, e.g., lavolenus and Julianus,'* who were considering legal rights and men who possessed them, that is, Roman citizens or citizens of municipalities. It means also the rejection of the later jurists as witnesses, since they were dis- cussing a legal status. The colonate of the first three centuries. as 1t appeared on imperial estates, was a tenure open to all free- men rather than a status prescribed by law. The interest of the emperor was in the land rather than in its cultivators. He was so powerful and the cultivators so powerless that the imperial landlord could say: ‘‘This is my 17 Coulanges (Le colonat, 15 ff.) discusses the evidence from the letters of the Younger Pliny, especially of 9, 37. 18 Used particularly by Cuq (Le colonat partiaire).1925 ] Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 73 land. You may cultivate it on these terms. Your legal status does not concern me. My regulations include protection and justice as well as obligations.”’ This point of view has at least two advantages. It enables one to isolate the imperial estates and their administration from contemporary experiments with their tempting analogies. It begins at the beginning and in that way avoids the distortions which so often characterize the results of retrospection. The limits of this study forbid an elaboration of what may be called the historical approach to the subject of the colonate, but the results of its application to the phase presented in those pages demonstrate its value. Classifications of the coloni on the African domains have been made by Cuq’® and by Rostowzew.*® The former tacitly accepts the theory that we are dealing with tenure rather than status when he separates coloni, 1.e., coloni partiarll, with regard to the kind of land they cultivate (subseciva, agri rudes, agri deserti, agri quae exercentur). Rostowzew’s classification, in- eluding all the workers on the estates, is based on origin. Still, his conelusion that the shares and personal service of all were the same supports in its turn the tenure theory. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COLON] The inseription of Henchir Mettich probably resembled the others in that it was an answer to a request for information. It gave to the coloni the terms under which they might cultivate portions of a particular imperial estate, the fundus, Villa Magna. It contained both rights and obligations of the tenants. Under the latter head are included payment in kind as rental, and personal service on the lessor’s farm. The most serious obliga- tion placed upon the colonus was the heavy responsibility for 19 Op. cit., 86-123. 20 Studien, 340-342. 7 ‘\ . NN a n . * ee ee a tate a ae Je Ty > r » . r] » a. . o + i 3 ¥ 7 *, J, a a4 / ay : > ea ar | ser ; -. a >) at L 7 Te" | f ee FY pie? a a he ¥ «: A) _ * “ur t 4 A ~~ 2 , . s, & ) . t,: + Sad ' : . 7 " ° : 5 veel) ia a DS yi & " hy or ay ' i te t oy ie ns * 7 , Le! oe " ? ‘ A . i . » a eh” be 7 a 4 ee v t eer ee 44 o I “ = aw - es + ‘7 => > EE ~ - | a = ts oe ad i a ae a has a - 2 “= Pat a een et eee MY he ee eee ee eT OR Pa RT et ae at aoe Ee ls > i oS ee ae S = ea ae el ee - ine = is. Ps i ree eee eS 5 _ ht eM nf Seat es: Ce at ee oe Ae a a) ote >.< i Vd ek ee a ede ee ell te ee ep al eT Se ae Tt po) te at a uJ . Paebeey ay eee . 2 » a _ 4 ae al - - fay “6 — “~ ss ~~) el feed ie Pe 2 hy dep Pe PS oa ee eters | a . AS Ce ™ "s aa ST eh “ | ri es at ors a aSe ° ie a : : Ce ' a a -- § a ae ‘ | ) : 4 ; t | On ‘ % t ; L b | t | t } : ; PB) . P f a ; Hi a j cn u se le nd Be ty , Rie tle ea a eS 74 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 loss of his crop through destruction or theft. If the rendering of this passage be correct, it presents the one severe clause of the regulations. RIGHTS OF THE COLONI In all other respects the coloni were highly favored. Pro- tected by the emperor from the greed or injustice of the lessor- in-chief, granted terms of rental which were much more desirable than those of citizen landlords,?? and offered privileges of exceptional character, the coloni of the emperor had nothing to fear and much to hope for in the future. The rights of the cultivators vary with the kind of land and the kind of crop. Tenants of improved farms were granted usus proprius. That this phrase is not technically employed appears probable in view of the general non-legalistic tone of the inscription.** In reply to the question of the coloni: ‘‘Under what terms may we culti- vate subseciva?’’ the procurators reply, ‘‘ You will be protected from confiscation of your crop by the lessors and your right of possession will be guaranteed during the time which you culti- vate said subseciva, and for two years thereafter.’’ Protection was also given the coloni in their right to the maximum share of fruit from scattered fig trees, and in their right to the undivided crops from newly planted orchards and vineyards. Additional testamentary and fiduciary rights were granted with respect to orchards as permanent improvements. The right to pasture sheep on the lessor’s fields for a nominal charge may also be considered a privilege. That their lot continued to be an easy one appears from the second inscription. The identity of the petitioners does not materially affect the force of the conclusion that the colon received additional privileges from Hadrian. The motives of 21 One-fifth to one-ninth for the tenant was Cato’s advice. See Oliver, Roman Economic Conditions, 97-98. Heitland, Agricola, 172-173. 22 The inscription of Ain Djemala is much more concise and exact.Or ] r r * : _ 1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis i) tu the emperor need not be considered wholly altruistic. It is clear that what he desired was the maximum of eultivation. It is almost equally clear that the lessor would prefer an intensive cultivation by the coloni of those portions of the estate which he had accepted as improved land and for which he had to pay a relatively high rent. Hadrian’s regulation was framed so as to imerease the area of productive land without lessening the returns anticipated by the lessor when he made his contract with the emperor. If coloni had any surplus time and energy they were encouraged to cultivate deserted farms, or lands not yet placed under cultivation. In return for this effort they were granted the rights of possession, enjoyment, and of leaving to an heir. To a degree these rights had been granted by the Lex Manciana. But to the usus proprius, or personal use only, of uncultivated lands, Hadrian added the more desirable ius herendi, which had hitherto been limited to the produce of fruit- bearing trees. To the lessor’s objection that the loss from this expansion would fall upon him, while the gain, if any, would be that of his suecessor, Hadrian replied with the grant to the lessor of his share of marketed fruit for a period of five years from the beginning of cultivation even though that period did not coincide with the years of his lease. From the point of view of the cultivator of the soil, the regulation of Hadrian was an extension of privilege. If there were any dark side to the picture, it was that which Hadrian saw. The fact that farms were abandoned points to a mobility of labor which cannot be connected with fixity of status on the part oi the cultivators. The fact that they petitioned for the right to cultivate waste lands cannot be reconciled with an alleged pessimism and laziness of the farmers. The abandoned farms and waste lands were not forced upon them. They desired and asked permission to exploit them. Tenure and not status still remains the term to describe the colonate. =, —," TaN =| * Err a 4 ad « ls enh "7 ot to a i ms ~s* Pe Fe ‘a INN AS ea a a aS SD -.% &e — a= Sa -s he , a "> ‘ en Mee Me Pca ok 7 4 v =ytt Pind & ‘ eae me a hers AR ear ea ye ee iba Cee, ; ERY Te a = 3 ss a 7 + _ wt “a4 i! . i ak ?. ry ye ‘e — Cay ats 7 Ok A Re ate ry er ee > Fi in i Dh an) : eo Sh ae : a « Beyer . * ry A Pan a ed ry al os “ eae ae eter Rg oP rd i= r ae A - “i Ps ee"y Satter de J a j x _es Ss ST ete et ere oad a se “4 aa ~ Pas pix a a a Wek Se eng ho res iv a * = A : t : ed i eh o- oi‘ inal ih en tle paar: a <2 ee PR i ee eRe ee cee 4 * 4 "- eS i oe el _ or ee ie ee a eee) eH. 77 ¢ a. Ss eres 7 — a Se cee i Ai Me 2 ae ye ol et Py he ee “5 ~~ 4 - : ee eee Ee ¥ aT, a COE eT ae ea ee¢ iH 4 oe FA . ve Ss a a F ‘i 5 ) " i i. ' rf 3 i id 7 a i Fi 4 j A . be i ‘ bs 3 ! : i Ee es ot te i leat aa ae a ll Be eared ee eet ee er RI Sh le te ek a ee acts eb slat tac acon te lm hk thee t= = ng ~ > F es hs pe _— ; a 76 University of California Publications in History \Vou. 14 Heitland2? (with a footnote of support by Buckland) wishes to add the possessores of III 14 as a separate class, or status. It implies that coloni, per se, were not allowed the privilege of cultivating waste lands. But coloni were granted that privilege in the inscription of Henchir Mettich. Even if they were thus privileged, Heitland’s conclusion would force us to believe that such cultivation would not bring with it the right of possession to a colonus, since he could not be both colonus and possessor at the same time. If, on the other hand, the section refers to outsiders, that is, to citizens of neighboring municipalities, there would still be the difficulties of dual status to explain. A single status, a new class, could be obtained only through the abandon- ment of a former status (colonus or municeps) and complete acceptance of the new (possessor). The sermo indicates that the possessors were to pay to the treasury of Caesar a share of the dried fruit. It is, then, only of fruit land that the culti- vator becomes possessor. Where could there be found (outside the lessor-in-chief class) individuals with capital sufficient to engage solely in this precarious occupation of planting waste lands with orchards or vineyards? Would the emperor not be more likely to attract settlers, if his regulation was so worded as to permit anyone (peregrinus or municeps, the only terms of status in use at this time) to take up that amount of land which his surplus time appeared to justify? The land would become a possession which might be enlarged or diminished at the possessor’s pleasure. The possessor would remain pere- eranus or municeps with respect to status. In brief, Hadrian offered land under a certain tenure to free men of any status. The inscription of Suk-el-Khmis contains no evidence of change in the imperial regulations. The differences between the saltus Burunitanus and other estates of the emperor are differ- ences in the practice of the local administrators. The Lex 23 Agricola, 351.1925 | Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 77 Hadriana was still the basie guide, as indeed it was in the time of the Severi.** The procurators, lessor. and sub-tenants hold the same relationships as of old. But from the petition of the cultivators we can understand the extent to which an excellent system may be abused. The efforts to demonstrate, from this document, the legal fixity of the coloni and the development of a special status for them have been uneconvineing. The fact that some of them were Koman citizens is rather a proof that anyone might become a cultivator of imperial domain land, irrespective of. status. The abject expression of the petitioners is rather a proof of economie inferiority, and is after all the proper form of address to a god king. The cultivators do not move because they prefer to remain. If Mommsen’s econjecture’’ be correct, the -culti- vators of Gazr Mezuar did threaten to leave, to return to their homes. But what other homes did many of the cultivators have? Those who had become possessors under the Lex Had- riana, those who had built upon and improved the subseciva under the Lex Manciana had made the estates their homes and had passed on their improvements to their heirs. In short, I ean understand the economic forces which encouraged fixity of the cultivators, but I cannot believe that, in North Africa, the economic compulsion had received legal recognition and support. INQUILINI With reference to the inquilini I find no more satisfactory conjecture than that of Rostowzew.?° If one considers them as men ‘‘from home,’’ less successful men of the colunus class who work for pay, it is not difficult to understand why they were set apart as custodes of the crops which their employers had raised. It is not improbable that some of them might become the possessors of small patches of waste lands. 24 Inscription of Ain-el-Wassel. 25 See p. 83 ad fin. 26 Studien, 341. N ‘ . \ a = = itt A = ~ se . oe = « Re en + = a a . a ) ~~ 5 ‘on OY ae se oe - ’ a e s.¥ oh ns ~ ye > a . fa — - iG es dn ee a i eet le ol dO eee po RS Te es aa a or ee " Ee Pe * o aa Sh ie ee all ind eis OQTEN RA MGENS BSD, S05. et be ble iad oe —~ ee ha a oes << eA St ee le ee eh oe ee ee ol + er * i ak ea a a . A a ” & Se nee Re a ot a ke et a et oe fe . S a - F Bie ; ebig hae Rae GG ELLA % - =r - me a " - or a “* —— a Ls —~*- , Sh aE eee eg Tr x foe - ee ees 7 _ i nna a ne ~ & Recast. [eae ae Pana : e os i wet eee P| . bt is a * = as my h oy. : 4 = - — ra * > 77 yi Sw ie i] + oe eon yet ery) eh a dt Cael deel es) ral P =# ate ll re eee “ es 7 a a cs yi ae es ra Se ERSem hy Ce ' ae ee a i. | 3 os re ae ‘> | ca oo =, 4 UF 3 ' 3: a i ¢ Pf } , 3 a | { ; h * 3 } t ; a 7 = Rn te etd : —— ae li a I a er a a io a 78 University of California Publications in History \Vou. 14 The explanation of an omission in the inscriptions, pointed out by Heitland,?7 might be connected with the distinction between colonus and ¢. inquilinus. In not a single clause is there reference to instrumentum, to the tools of the farmer’s trade. Would it be too much to assume that the colonus brought to his farm the mechanical aids and the live stock necessary for culti- vation, while the inquilinus came only with his skill and willing- ness to labor? CONCLUSION The record of the first three centuries A.D. in North Africa may contain the causes for the establishment there of a class of serf cultivators. If the causes were there, they were latent and escaped the notice of imperial administrators. That which appears to the student is the working out of an administrative problem separated as widely as possible from political or legal complications. The holdings of the emperors increased at the expense of private owners, the administrative regulations tended to disregard variety of status in land and sought economic rather than historical or legal classification, the machinery of administration came to be made up of interchangeable parts, and the workers on the soil lost their former marks of distinction. Uniformity and unity were the means to the desired end—the maximum of agricultural exploitation. 27 Agricola, 344-345.a Ad ay . . he te i ta . APD ye oy > “ a a 1925] . Pig Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 79 ie x i . ne aye Ten APPENDIX I OTHER INSCRIPTIONS s ay ite a aaa es eT. <= The inseriptions which follow are taken from C.1.L. 8 moet | = i in Le -—* ed Supp. 4 (1916). Many are included which refer to private Ort es domains. The reason for this inclusion is that it shows the a a ar, a le Pree ae Impossibility of separating private and imperial domains by name alone. rt i eS a a i (AND en eee ae eee “soe aa iL Ss Ee oe A. FUNDUS ~_ he i 23022. Hr. Salar (or) Sadik Prov. Tripolitana picDSetundl «7. —. itani Municipally controlled, I believe, from the word plebs and from the con- clusion of the inscription s. p. f. idemq. d. d. mag. P. Statilio Silvano. ret _ e X . A | . any Pe a Ce, > * be 4 oe al A a a . - * Mi A ® 25425. Sidi Abdallah Prov. Proconsularis tecta Bassiani fundi cognomine Baiae 29966. Fundus Tigibelle ... .? Proy. Proconsularis Ara deo | Iovi fun | do Tigi | belle. rei| [p]ubl[i]cae | | | a ee a we i . ry * ie Il. Teanen | sium posu | erunt uni| versi pagani. - a - B. SALTUS 23842. Hr. Bent-el-Bey Prov. Proconsularis cives s|.. . [consistentes in?] saltu fecerunt | =} ~~ big RL ABE ELAS ne 8-7 t at ak © CASTELLUM St ad A we 2 at St i Co 23166. Thiges (near Bord} Gurbata) Prov. Tripolitana a wey ~ 2 = - i castellus Thigensium mf = 23849, Castellum Biracsaccarensium Prov. Proconsularis “-— er] rears ‘ro } cur. r. p. castelli Biracsaccarensium sum[ptu] ¢ivium ies — we ee - SIEM 7 rod ne a Se oe tin ite a ee ce 26274. Uchi Maius Prov. Proconsularis PihRO'S | casteilum divisit | inter ecolonos et! Uchitanos a at Bed ~~ « termin. | que constituit a 7 ek —“ ro v < "7 BRR L So eae ete * | Sa a a . - Pn ¥ 7 f ts G ae oF ee ~ a sea es . Pa . >. re a .. e é ‘ , 4 + ' 4. 4 i ¢: a i t 1 . ‘a f / i ‘ : 4 : < } . 7 | 4 : Pa Te fe ne re eI ale ee Nl et a Ton tae eter ree ee at a 80 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 D. PRAEDIA 22774. Hr. el Gueciret Proy. Tripolitana In his prediis Maniliorum, Arliorum Cf. 9725, 19328, 21531 24019. Uthina (Udena) Prov. Proconsularis in praedis Laberiorum 25990. Bur Tersas Proy. Proconsularis in his praed. | Rufi Volusiani 26415. Near Uchi Maius Prov. Proconsularis Praedia Pullaienorum 25366. El Mahrine Prov. Proconsularis (On one side) Term n. VIII | T. Anni (On the other) Term. n. VIII | Iuhorum | Flacei et Celsi { Ampliati E. AGRI CAESARIS 25893b. Hr. Gataa Proy. Proconsularis (On one side) Imp. Caes. | Aug. N. (On the other) Attia | Quieta 21% km. from Testour; 74% km. from Henchir Mettich; 16 km. from Ain-el-Djemala. 25944. Ain-el-Djemala Prov. Proconsularis (On one side) Caes. N. | N. (On the other) P. B. C. F. 25988. Dijebel Cheidi, a ridge between the Siliana and Kralled. Prov. Proconsularis A number (15) of boundary stones with one side inscribed Caes. N. | S. F. R. G.; the other inscribed Civit. | Thugg., with occasionally a number (e.g., N. VIII), and on three of the stones: t[ermini] p[ositi] Tiberino Aug. Lib. praeposito mes. (or mesorum, or mesori- bus). Nouv. arch. des miss. 17(1908) 165. Prov. Numidiana Hr. Kamellel Ex auctoritate Natalis | leg. Aug. propr. | inter Aug. et WAIL 1D), (Ch, (GF Hx auctor :).. | Imp: Nener. - - -|(Caes, Aug. Gerd5 ~~ -|| Cos.) Va | Imp. XIII | Lacilius Strabo Clod.|ius Nummus leg. Aug. | pr. pr. Aug. et Musul. Imp. Ner. Traiani| Caes. Aug. Germanici | L. Miniicius Musul. XXXT/P. M. P. int Cr (Reported by Guénin. )Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 81 DATA FOR DETERMINING BOUNDARY OF THE S. BURUNITANUS 25484-25500. Vicinity of Saltus Burunitanus. Prov. Proconsularis A res publicae 10 km. s.e. of Ain Zaga toward Béja (25484) A pagus 20 km. w. of Ain Zaga, 10 km. s.e. of Tabarba (25485) A civitas w. of Vaga at Hr. Terjba (25487) A municiplum, Saia Maior (Hr. Duemis) 10 km. s.w. of Ben-Béchir: 12 km. e. of Fernana (25500) ey Il. OFFICIALS A. ADVOCATUS FISCI 23219, 11341. Sufetula (Sbeitla) Prov. Tripolitana Muriano e. v. functo adv[oca] |tione fisci Hispaniarum [a] | lpium et patrimonii trac[tus] | Karthaginis et a com[men |tar]iis praeffector. praetor[io]| | [pro]euratori ducenario | Au[g.] nostri dioceseos Had- | [ru] | metinae. 24064. Zaghuan Prov. Proconsularis fisci advoc. patrim. | [tractus] Karthag. | d. d. B. PROCURATOR 11176 p. 2335. Hr. Harat Proy. Tripolitana [procura|tor provineiae Ting. 23068. Hr. Harat Prov. Tripolitana proc. Augustor. reg. Hadrimetin. 24530. Carthago Prov. Proconsularis proc. Aug. C. MISCBLLANEOUS 23948. Municipium Sululitanum Proy. Proconsularis magistro | summae privatae, magistro | summarum rationum 20692. Hr. Frouri (5 km. s.e. of Smitthus) Proy. Proconsularis Aug. lib. Aleeta proc. m(armorum ) N (umidicorum ) 24687. Carthago Prov. Proconsularis Anicetus ex | disp. fecit region. | Dessau suggests ex dispensatore regionis, or regionario, citing 12892, dispensator regionis Thuggensis 24690. Carthago Proy. Proconsularis | Romanus Aug. mens. | agrarius Pius For mensarll agrarll see p. 1337 24697. Carthago Proy. Proconsularis | saltuarius 24698. Carthago Prov. Proconsularis Stephanio Caes. N. ser. Romanus Aug. tabel. For tabellarii see p. 1337; also 24699-24707 C. gd ‘wn ™~ aos Pt he ed z= he J a. fe PE oer a i) ‘ Pe he) Perce be SH Paa ho a Tie ee eA ad 5t-: c IN La? ; » cd tS Se weary ro eo ee “ tl «) oe | 3 waka a r ae re ds _ eS een Ds oi _ | Pe Sat yee tee Re » oe Tha te tLe eee ee o ie 9 a ot. ia na ate alin lt * * oe ee oe ae - Pre IP i Dea kee TL M4 ~ = et 4 ee ocd aww . a ae ie Ce ele ee ek ed a. a : ou & ae o Lo a th a ae od ST ek : if a ) Ki : et a ln, Oe ee wt ie A aaa | > eal ‘= _ r a s a ee te oF sf Sa EE eRe a es a ee DA ~ tet pre nh eT Set aie ee oe D aA oo % i es ~~) - i a aa 7 » —— es “sw a eet 7 + + ¢ aim * ‘ons ba ~. on rf a ~ ° a Sel CPx ey a SS eee i “at Te . y -/ ret + = G ot =ms P ba ea Ce Los Co el a ae | « Sak ben ho ten Panielofeaaie tk ata cf caonient etalon ae ene Ce hited I . Se ee ad ae ee eae ae eat a a a = al a naa eta oe a a pA a a ee ee or — oie = Set is J / So v rerk ew EL oe ee Som catia al ean . ¢ 2 z ),. f bs tx te a bg * ¥ © + i | ve x ¥. i 7 Ls Ls 4 a i ! 82 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 III FRAGMENTS OF SERMONES PROCURATORUM 23977. Hr. Sidi bu-Hamida ) Prov. Proconsularis uni domin | ex hae lege dari debitam pi. .| [f|ructum natum centesi[mas] | m qui ex hace lege inst[itutas erit] | Lex hae le]ge dari fieri praest{ari oportebit] | abitur colon |jex SOIV 25945. Near Ain-el-Djemala Prov. Proconsularis aut eam | olivetis (From C. I. L. 8, supp. 1) 14451. yes Ss 5 i A ee ee ek A second fragment, more mutilated than the first, contained ar Ae i oh ii apparently the sermo procuratorum with reference to this lease- : + - a a ti oe teh a Sere a yw “3 Bowe WR ate ae hold. The conjectured dates, 139 and 149 A.p., make it possible, if not probable, that the sermo was based on the Lex Hadriana. + a A third fragment, containing the words fecim/us| and (p)ro- curato|. . . .| 18s without meaning. as Ss Te a ee a ye Li a ee a Of the numerous conjectures, I present only two. Schulten eoneludes (Hermes, X XIX (1894), 206, n. 1) that the petitioners were coloni of the saltus Burunitanus. The differences in operae F - > A ad = a ~ = " = | sos * — a — = os on the same saltus appear unusual, and the addressing of this reseript to the coloni rather than to the procurator has to be a i y, | o f | | explained. If one ean regard an imperial estate as an adminis- trative unit composed of parts which might be leased indepen- i > Be a a oe es iP Sirah i : dently and on different terms, the first objection disappears. ‘To dispose of the second, one must assume an ardent desire for reform on the part of the central administrative officials, who used this direct reply as a check upon the wiles of their subordinates in Africa. 5 p i ay ae A eu" re 4 , 7 hale’ Si Lire Er ee eo Le. Boge meee a eae = Mommsen’s conjecture, /domum reve|rtamur, if accepted, oe ok . Nee ke SLE would support the theory of special interest in this group by a ae rT i officials in Rome. It is not wise. however, to assume, with "i elle ile J ere Old rs Mommsen, that domum = Italia. oo be oe Peres) 7 el Pe a >» &- ea a ed A ~ Sd - M3 a Seo: or ' eee ee OT - , oo es * ‘>? - pa ee LL “eSee STARMAN Ag x pee aa 84 Unwersity of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY a So ti adele th _ Sa — 1 ae cee SS a od » x iby - ae re he tat en be) PLO ee ee ee ee TY rk ERI AI Se in ee ce a ce a ne FS phe a 86 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 LECRIVAIN, C. De agris publicis imperatoriisque ab Augusti tempore usque ad finem imperii Romani. Paris, 1887. LIEBENAM, W. Stadteverwaltung im romischen Kaiserreiche. Leipzig, 1900. Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri ....ed. M. Muller. Lipsiae, 1908-1912. 6 vols. MARQUARDT, K. J., et MOMMSEN, TH. .Manuel des antiquités romaines . . tr. de 1’allemand sous la direction de G. Humbert .... Paris, 1888- 1907. 19 vols. in 20. I-VII (1889-1906), Mommsen, Th., Le droit public roman. VIII-IX (1889-1892), Marquardt, K. J., L’admin- istration romaine; organisation de l’Empire romain. X (1888), Mar- quardt, K. J., De l’organisation financiére chez les romains. MERLIN, A. ‘‘ Deux remarques epigraphiques relatives 4 1’inscription d’Ain-Ouassel,’’ Klio IX (1909), 377-< MISPOULET, J.-B. ‘‘L/’inseription d’Ain el Djemala,’’ Nouv. Rev. Hist. et Droit, XX XI (1907), 5-48. ‘*L’inseription d’Ain-Ouassel,’’ zbid., XVI (1892), 117-124. i OO MoMMSEN, TH., ‘‘Decret des Commodus ftir den Saltus Burunitanus,’’ Hermes, XV (1880), 386-411. Reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften, III, 15 Site. Lex agraria, a.u.e. DCXLIII, ante Chr. 111, in Gesammelte Schriften, ‘*Juristische Schriften,’’ I, 65-145. Berlin, 1905. Mowat, R. ‘‘Détermination du consulat qui date la table de Henchir- Dakhla,’’ Rev. Arch., nouv. sér., XLI (1881), 285-291, 374-376. OLIVER, E. H. Roman economic conditions to the close of the Republic. Toronto, 1907. (University of Toronto Studies, History and Economics.) PauLy, A. F. von. Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertums- wissenschaft .... Neue Bearbeitung von G. Wissowa. Stuttgart, 1896—date. PELHAM, H. F. ‘‘The imperial domains and the colonate,’’ Essays Oxford, 1911. Outlines of Roman history .... New York, 1903. C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae .... Ed. C. Mayhoff. Lipsiae, 1892- 1909. 5 vols. Plutarchi vitae. Recognovit T. Doemner. Paris, 1877. Ptolemaeus, Claudius, Geographia e codicibus recognovit .... OC. Mullerus. Vol. I, partes 1-2. Paris, 1883-1901. 2 vols. REID, J. S. The municipalities of the Roman Empire .... Cambridge, 1913. Res gestae divi Augusti, iterum edidit, Th. Mommsen. Berlin, 1893.‘\ ‘ . ee : } 4 " ‘ 2 ne Ls r P) 4 4 A ,at? . f ic A be , ee : Se i ee, ~*~ a - Ly > ka on - a -- wow ¥ eh 7 WEBS 2% ‘ATA or ee Pe mie ied ue SE Van Nostrand: Africa Proconsularis 87 a ee el ee NO er tee " o> a Sa +" +: cs > SS = RostowzEew, M. I. ‘‘ Die Domanenpolizei in dem rémischen Kaiserreiche,’”’ Philologus, LXLV, n.F., 18 (1905), 297-307. bate eee a | sae at oe . ia a oe pe + ‘*Geschichte der Staatspacht in der rdmischen Kaiserzeit bis Diokletian. Philologus, Supplementband IX, 331-512. Leipzig, 1902. 1o, ts aN 7 x ‘*Studien zur Geschichte des romischen Kolonates,’’ Archiv fiir Papyrus forschung, Beiheft I. Berlin, L910. RUGGIERO, E. DE. Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane 1895-1910. 2 vols. im 3. te ace oma. ea ay a i a te > Sallustius Crispus, Gaius. Catilina, Jugurtha, ex historiis, orationes, et epistulae. Ed. A. Eussner. Lipsiae, 1897. ey ar ~ Fe ar SCHILLER. H. Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit. Gotha, 1883-1887. 2 vols. at et ct tit atk. dk, tele RO Te ke eS ee ae Lo “24 ae SCHULTEN, A. ‘‘Die Lex Hadriana de rudibus agris. Eine neue Urkunde aus den afrikanischen Saltus,’’ Hermes, XXIX (1894), 204-230. Gi a) a a eo pe ey ‘*Dies ‘Lex Hadriana de rudibus agris’ nach einer neuen Inschrift,’’ Pe Kho, 11 (1902), 188-212. a ‘* Die Lex Manciana, eine afrikanische Domanenordnung,’’ Abhandlungen ay 1 ne der konigl. Gesellsch. der Wiss. zu Gottingen, n.F., Il, pt. 3 (1897), ee ae ? Be Rh, a Da . y . y. oe ; : 7 oe % rm Die romischen Grundheerschaften. Eine agrarlistorische Untersuchung. eee Weimar, 1896. i = rr uf a = \ ‘“Zur Lex Manciana,’’? Rh. Mus. fir Phil., LVI (1901), 120-138, 187-201. wow ae re Sn rn =< os i ee SMITH, Sir W., ed. Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities. Ed. by W. Smith (and others). Ed. 3. London, 1901. 2 vols. a - te el C. Suetoni Tranquilli Opera... Recensuit M. Ihm. Editio minor. Lip- siae, 1908. or 4 | ie 2 ae - a a ~ aleey Cornelii Tactiti libri qui supersunt, quartum recognovit C. Halm. Ed. stereotypa. Lipsiae, 1911-1912. 2 vols. te ae 7 Theodosiani libri 16 eum constitutionibus Sirmondianas et leges novellae ad ee a ee ey Theodosianum pertinentes.... ediderunt Th. Mommsen et P. M. Ree Le ay = Meyer. Berlin, 1905. 2 vols. in 3. on fe fe Py a ee “t _ TouTAIN, J. ‘‘L’Inscription d’Henchir Mettich,’’ Académie des Inscerip- ; , 7 s gs fate r 99 Ys tions et Belles Lettres, Mémoires présentés ...., sér. 1, XI, 33-81. Also in Nouvelle Revue Historique de Droit, XXI (1897), 372-415. Pte ee ee de ‘‘Nouvelles observations sur 1’inseription d’Henchir Mettieh,’’ zbid., XXIII (1899), 137-169, 284-312, 401-414. oe Fag , ed ed Phe be ee ee - VAN NOSTRAND, J. J 3erkeley, 1916. Jr. The reorganization of Spain by Augustus —2 * a ee Se ed reer ee a) i fide Foe. ae mil - a i lee so a iat a ee Ta ok a in iid Pore eee ed . oe be a oe ere 7 7 ees oe”. 6 ate ps a aR Seen watsa Pak 7 = * * ge Se a ates ae oe i 4 2 a 2 3 4 i % a f ie H ‘a : if 5 i fe | i 1: t } i : i me RA * ~ id ara sa a i De Ni Ne eae ee ee a ee ee ee ee fe Sie So on Unwersity of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 e M. Terenti Varronis rerum rusticarum libri tres; post H. Keil iterum edidit G. Gotz. Lipsiae, 1912. C. Vellei Paterculi ex historiae Romanae libris duobus quae supersunt.... Ed. C. Halm. Lipsiae, 1876. Vuuic, N. ‘‘Zur Insehift von Ain Wassel,’’ Wiener Studien, XXVIII, (1905), 138-140. WEBER, Max. JDie romische Agrargeschichte in thre Bedeutung fir das Staats- und Privatrecht.... Stuttgart, 1891. WILMANNS, G., Ed. Haxempla inscriptionum Latinarum ... . composuit G. Wilmanns. Berlin, 1873. 2 vols. Norre.—The work by Mr. Roth Clausing, Roman Colonate, the theories of its origin (Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Publie Law, cxvil, No. 1, New York, 1925), was received too late to be eon- sulted in the preparation of this study.—J. J. V.5 a aos me” ae a a a Py at at “se ie ee ey a - ad F ne —. a a * 2% = o eee ee =] ws eee . 7 ~~ ah aie Po ue a ~ ae A a ee! J faiel colina tee ee alll at ba mt = wet oe > oe ee aaa oy os | ee ar - a9 ate fr 7+ ot ott | P Poa | eas rt eed ms ee ee Oe] ere Sr 7 ' a ws Le ed Pero one ee oe a ae sy et os oct eZ eo Te, be Psa Lo ” i : Ya i ie . i ee r. i. é .. 3 " : k i ; iy 3 ¢ 3 i ; rg “ 3 : es. a / e P 4 f 4 ‘ 3 3 1 { i ; ¢ 4 i 1: f i if 4 g i : if by ¥. > s : 4 v 1s t ie 4 is + Hi 4 ¢ B, ty . =| Ae ad pe a = seu . oe b i i : ip ee _-_< me he er aa at Ce ea NTT ee ee a i Pe oe Ped i a J , aA Ss ter ee ye A poe ao ee = oo J ur oS ] ; 2 a a Pes at Pam er haem CI Cat “. -) tebe fh i - ees ee oe" & a a >= ™ — vey Sey “2 “ya v= a ee oy - S$ SWeke Set -_—- = — ; I a eed Se eae Be Lee ad Soa ch i ee) = €. et beta 7 at - — rs *DATE DUE PRINTEDINU.S.A. GAYLORD a ie ie | ee a , “= a ae eee S a A co oe — ee ee Te ce at 4 whaler eel lee = vas es . ~ ad = a aoe hie hacia te ion) eee ewe A re Cy ie a he Std Sl . wa Lethnnyenp kee tt ee 7 nT f ~ é E nl : * i ae “ + ' ad) 5 . A Teer ears el de a eS Lm < - ) Feed chou te! Porat te , | | tt oe a a ae a i ie ak a ee a eee yy A yee . - c , ay A ee Dd etma Gow 3h bho (neat eaten heal wal a ad rT ’ ¥ ‘ . : Me . . o Mt» at ah r we ee , |e i a eal, a "te rc oe Y I e . - 5 Pa are , _* ¥ —) mo) Pots Xa i oo ha L# i ’ . ee 7 ¥ y aPX OOO 382 O49 2O3. 8. a i a 4 Ora i) he aA ak ee - St ee a Oe i el aa ~~ Be a. 4 ~ CT a asa es a aa! . Se M a a ee eae eA eS ee ee Mae ee ea el _ a = ot ee ayy - ae a ee pe ar are a. aa ete i Cat .* 4 eh Ne Sette NP a Pee ee ee - “4 2 Pears, ea er aed hy! en _—s a J Sa r aes * iti aN J Pea a ber . . eS Pera, om ce en ee cS . = N. MANCHESTER, INDIANA “ee yo r * a. es ‘ o