article_antaf_0066-4871_1994_num_30_1_1222

7/29/2019 article_antaf_0066-4871_1994_num_30_1_1222

1/26

Duncan Fishwick

On the origins of Africa Proconsularis, IIIn: Antiquits africaines, 30,1994. pp. 57-80.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Fishwick Duncan. On the origins of Africa Proconsularis, II . In: Antiquits africaines, 30,1994. pp. 57-80.

doi : 10.3406/antaf.1994.1222

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/antaf_0066-4871_1994_num_30_1_1222
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_antaf_294http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/antaf.1994.1222http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/antaf_0066-4871_1994_num_30_1_1222http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/antaf_0066-4871_1994_num_30_1_1222http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/antaf.1994.1222http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_antaf_294


2/26

Rsum

Une comparaison de Dio 52, 43, 1 et Tertullien, De pallio, 1,2 avec Appien, Pun. 135-136 fait ressortir

que M. Aemilius Lepidus aurait dmoli des constructions qui avaient empit sur le sol maudit de la

Carthage romaine. En dpit du fait qu'on avait illgalement nomm Lpide pontifex maximus, les

actions de celui-ci doivent tre envisages comme une dmarche positive destine supprimer toute

trace de maldiction de la future mtropole d'une province unifie d'Afrique. Les activits de M. Caelius

Phileros autour des mmes annes {CIL 10, 6104 ; 8, 26274) renvoient clairement l'attribution rcente

Carthage d'une vaste pertica. tant donn que son territoire administratif n'a gure pu chevaucher

deux provinces distinctes gres par deux gouverneurs, on a de bonnes raisons de conclure que Africa

Vetus et Africa Nova avaient t dj groupes en une seule province. Il ressort de ces diverses

donnes que les origines de la province connue plus tard comme Proconsularis reviennent

indubitablement l'administration de Lpide, en 40-36 avant J.C.

Abstract

Comparison of Dio 52,43, 1 and Tertullian, De pallio 1, 2 with Appian, Pun. 135-136 suggests that M.

Aemilius Lepidus wil l have demolished bui ldings that had spi lled onto cursed ground at Roman

Carthage. Despite the fact that he had been illegally appointed pontifex maximus, Lepidus' actionsshould be seen as a positive step intended to remove all taint of curse from the future metropolis of a

consolidated province of Africa. The activities of M. Caelius Phileros at Uchi Maius about the same time

(CIL 10, 6104 ; 8, 26274) clearly reflect the recent attribution to Carthage of a vast pertica. Since her

administrative territory can hardly have overlapped two distinct provinces under two governors, we have

good reason to infer that Africa Vetus and Africa Nova had already been fused in a single province.

These various considerations appear to place the origins of the province later known as Proconsularis

squarely under the governorship of Lepidus, 40-36 B.C.


3/26

Antiquits africainest. 30, 1994, p. 57-80

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, IITHE ADMINISTRATION OF LEPIDUS AND THE COMMISSIONOF M. CAELIUS PHILEROS

byDuncan FISHWICK*

RsumUne comparaison de Dio 52, 43 , 1 et Tertullien, De pallio, 1,2 avec Appien, Pun. 135-136 fait ressortir qu e M. AemiliusLepidus aurait dmoli des constructions qu i avaient empit sur le so l maudit de la Carthage romaine. En dpit du fait qu'on avaitillgalement nomm Lpide pontifex maximus, les actions de celui-ci doivent tre envisages comm e une dmarche positivedestine supprimer toute trace de maldiction de la future mtropole d'une province unifie d'Afrique. Les activits de M. CaeliusPhileros autour des mmes annes {CIL 10, 6104 ; 8, 26274) renvoient clairement l'attribution rcente Carthage d'une vastepertica. tant donn qu e son territoire administratif n'a gure pu chevaucher deux provinces distinctes gres par deux gouverneurs,on a de bonnes raisons de conclure qu e Africa Vetus et Africa Nova avaient t dj groupes en une seule province. Il ressort dece s diverses donnes qu e les origines de la province connue plus tard comme Proconsularis reviennent indubitablement l'administration de Lpide, en 40-36 avant J.C.AbstractComparison of Dio 52,43, 1 and Tertullian, De pallio 1, 2 with Appian, Pun. 135-136 suggests that M. Aemilius Lepidus willhave demolished buildings that had spilled onto cursed ground at Roman Carthage. Despite the fact that he had been illegallyappointed pontifex maximus, Lepidus' actions should be seen as a positive step intended to remove all taint of curse from the futuremetropolis of a consolidated province of Africa. Th e activities of M. Caelius Phileros at Uchi Maius about the same time {CIL 10,6104 ; 8, 26274) clearly reflect the recent attribution to Carthage of a vast pertica. Since her administrative territory can hardly haveoverlapped tw o distinct provinces under two governors, we have good reason to infer thatAfrica Vetus and Africa Nova had alreadybeen fused in a single province. These various considerations appear to place the origins of the province later known asProconsularis squarely under the governorship of Lepidus, 40-36 B.C.

According to th e information preserved in th e fasti et commentarii triumphorum and fasti triumphalesBarberiniani, th e Republican provinces of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova were already united in a combinedwhole by th e time that T. Statilius Taurus served as proconsular governor in 35-34 B.C. Nothing in th e fastiindicates any change in th e status of Africa in th e years immediately following 27 B.C., no r is there anyepigraphical evidence elsewhere to confirm th e long-standing view that th e origins of Proconsularis date fromth e so-called "division" of th e provinces between emperor and senate in that same year. A fresh look at th eliterary sources, particularly Dio 53,12,4-9, suggests that such a proposition is , in fact, based on a misreading* University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.


4/26

58 D. FISHWICKof what th e ancient authorities report. A more precise date at which Africa might have been unified does notemerge immediately from th e available data, but th e confusion that reigned in th e region from 44 to 40 B.C.would seem to undermine any possibility that so important a step could have been taken at some time duringthese years of turmoil. We are left with th e proconsulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus in 40-36 B.C., a period whenexternal pressures, both military and economic, might be thought to have forced th e amagalmation of th e twoRepublican provinces almost of necessity '. The question that arises next is whether any direct evidence can bebrought to bear that points definitively to Lepidus' term as th e point of origin of what was later to be knownas Africa Provincialis.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF LEPIDUSHard evidence for any activity on th e part of Lepidus while governor of Africa is extremely slight. A fewdenarii which he issued were conjecturally attributed by Grueber to th e period from the summer of 40 toSeptember 36 B.C. These had earlier been placed by Babelon among th e triumviral issues of 43 B.C. and havenow been assigned to 42 by M. Crawford, who holds that they were struck from th e proceeds of th eproscriptions in preparation for th e campaign of that year 2. Nothing would appear to tie these coins directly toLepidus' administration of th e province. The obverse shows th e head of Lepidus and refers to him as pontifexmaximus as well as triumvir, while th e reverse bears th e head of Octavian, imperator and triumvir. Otherwisewe have a single inscription from th e port of Thabraca set up, in recognition of some unknown benefit, toLepidus as patron ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum), an office which seems to imply a Roman colony or municipality ;the text is dated between spring (? ) 37 B.C. and th e disgrace of Lepidus in September 36 B.C. by a referenceto him as triumvir rei publicae constituendae bis (sic) (A.E., 1959, 77 = ILLRP 2, 1276) 3. It is true that asecond-century text records th e name of th e town as Colonia VP Mia Thabracenorum (ILAlg 1, 109), whichmight conceivably be expanded V(ictrix) P(ontificalis) - therefore an allusion to Lepidus - but V(ictrix) P(ia)looks equally possible, in which case th e title could point to a foundation of Caesar 4. Beyond th e singlededication to Lepidus th e triumvir, therefore, tangible traces of his presence remain illusive. Whether asomewhat liberal extension of Roman citizenship by Lepidus is to be seen behind th e name of th e M. Aemilii,who occur at numerous centres in Africa, notably Carthage, Utica, Lepcis Magna, Hadrumetum and Cirta, isvery debatable. The possibility remains open even if in th e colonies of Marius th e name ante-dates th e period40-36 B.C. 5.Discussion is consequently restricted to th e literary evidence. Dio reports that Octavian re-settled Carthagebecause Lepidus had razed a part of th e city and was thought to have thereby abrogated th e rights of th e earliercolonists :

1 Fishwick (D.), On the Origins of Africa Proconsularis I : Th e Amalgamation of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova, AntAfr. t. 29,1993, p. 53-62.2 GRUEBER (. .), Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, Oxford, 1910 (1970), Vol. 2, p. 568f., 579, nn. 1-2 ;CRAWFORD (M. H.), Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge, 1974, Vol. 1, pp. 51 If., no. 49 5 ; cf Vol. 2, p. 739, 740, n. 5. Seefurther Weigel (R . D.), Lepidus the Tarnished Triumvir, London, 1992, p. 84, 157, n . 67 with bibl.3 Guey (J.) and Pernette (.), Lpide Thabraca, Karthago t. 9, 1958, p. 81-89. For further commentary se e now E. Badin,M. Lepidus and the Second Triumvirate, Arctos t. 25 , 1 991 p. 5- 1 6 at 7f , 1 0, arguing that the strangely combined titles of Lepidusreflect his eagerness to keep up with his (disloyal) colleagues Octavian and M. Antony ; cf Weigel, supra, n. 2, p. 82f., 156. Seefurther below, p. 63 with n . 32 .4 Gascou (J.), La Politique municipale de l 'Empire romain en Afrique Proconsulaire de Trajan Septime Svre (Coll. del'cole franc, de Rome 8), Rome, 1972, p. 23 .5 Lassere (J . -M.), Ubique Populus, Paris, 1977, p. 201 ; Weigel, op . cit., p. 84, 157, n. 70, noting also the possibleconnection of Lepidus with the founding of the colony of Rusguniae.


5/26

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 59 , , .

(52, 43, 1)What was th e reason fo r these demolitions Dio fails to make clear. For this one must turn to a slightlycorrupt passage of Tertullian which seems to offer reasonable possibilities fo r legitimate inference : Vobis veropost iniuriae beneficium, ut senium non fastigium, exemptis, post Gracchi obscena omina et Lepidi violentaludibria, post trinas Pompei aras et longas Caesaris moras, ubi moenia Statilius Taurus imposuit, sollemniaSentius Saturninus enarravit, cum concordia iuvat, toga oblata es t (De pallio 1,2: Corpus ChristianorumSeries Latina. II ) The sequence of events given by Tertullian is clearly out of chronological order - he putsLepidus' activities before those of Pompey and Caesar - but his pairing of episodes, far from being just arhetorical device, serves th e purpose of highlighting incidents that are linked thematically 6. Viewed in thisperspective, th e passage becomes of crucial evidential value fo r present purposes.Our primary concern here is with th e allusion to Lepidus' violent shams . The adjective violentatransparently captures th e demolitions reported by Dio (above) but in what sense does Tertullian use ludibria ?Analysis of th e term suggests that the relevant meaning here must be that of matters which to others seemserious or purposeful but are judged by th e writer or speaker to be vain, inept, unworthy 7. In this sense th e wordis used particularly by Christian writers with reference to pagan cults and superstitions. Two further passagesin Tertullian are of particular interest in this connection : sed conversus ad litteras vestras... quanta invenioludibria (sc. ineptiae decor e quae de deis creduntur ; Apol. 14 , 2) ; diximus retro aeque ilium et nativitatis etinfantiae imaginariae vacua ludibria subire potuisse (De cam. Chr. 5, 2 ; cf 1, 4 : scilicet qui carnem Christiputativam introduxit, aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma configere). So also Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 4,35 :... indignas de dis fabulas etflagitiosa ludibria comminisci ; Lactantius, Epit. 16 , 3 : quam multa sunt aliaportenta atque ludibria. cf . id., Div. inst. 1, 21, 49 ; Augustine, De civ. dei : 2, 4 : veniebamus... ad spectaculaludibriaque sacrilegiorum ; o.e. 4, 31, 2 : quaecumque taies viri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria

posuerunt. Simply in terms of linguistic usage, then, it would appear very likely that Tertullian's reference toLepidus' ludibria must have some connection with pagan superstition and that the author's pejorative use of th eword is conditioned by his Christian outlook and impassioned resentment at th e violence done to his patria.This conclusion is surely confirmed by th e adjoining episodes in th e text. Lepidus' activities are linked withth e obscena omina of Gaius Gracchus, clearly a reference to th e prodigies and evil omens that were conjuredou t of reports that wolves were tearing up his boundary markers (whatever these may have been) at th e sitewhich Scipio Aemilianus and a senatorial commission had cursed in 146 B.C. Tall tales ; but they served theirpurpose very well and, on th e proposal of Minucius Rufus, th e Gracchan Iunonia was formally abolished in12 1 8. The way that Tertullian combines Lepidus' activities with these obscene omens strongly suggests thatth e violenta ludibria will have been likewise associated in some way with th e curse. This possibility looksconsiderably strengthened by Tertullian's next two allusions, both of which are surely linked also, if indirectly,

with th e curse. The three altars of Pompey presumably relate to some episode in 81 B.C., during Pompey'scampaigns in Africa against th e Marians, led by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and th e Numidian king, Iarbas(Plut. Pomp. 11-13). While there is no direct evidence that can be brought to bear (Plutarch makes no mention),nothing tells against Gsell's suggestion that, on th e occasion of hi s stay at Carthage, Pompey se t up altars forth e gods to whom th e territory of Punic Carthage had been devoted sixty-five years earlier, before the final6 Gsell (S.), Les premiers temps de la Carthage romaine, RH t. 156, 1927, p. 225-240 at 225 ; Le Glay (M.), Les premierstemps de Carthage romaine : pour une rvision de s dates, Bull. Arch, du C.T.H.S. n.s., fase. 19B, 1985, p. 235-248 at 236.7 ThLL Vol. 7, 1759f. s.v. II A, citing numerous parallel instances.8 For detail se e recently Cristofori (.), Colonia Carthago Magnae in vestigiis Carthaginis (Plin., Nat. Hist., V, 24) , Ant.Afr. t. 25, 1989, p. 83-93 at 84ff. with n. 13 and refs.


6/26

60 D. FISHWICKassault on th e city 9. On Romanelli's interpretation this will have been a renewed consecration of the site to th einfernal gods, one that in effect re-emphasized optimate opposition to any re-birth of Carthage which th epopular party might plan on th e lines of Gaius Gracchus' initiative 10 . Who precisely these gods were in thatcase is revealed by th e 'devotion' formula reported by Macrobius, namely Dis Pater, Veiovis and th e Manes(Sat. 3, 9, 10-11 ; see further below, p. 75.) ".In Cicero's time, at any rate, we know that Punic Carthage wascompletely abandoned since he strenuously objected in 64 B.C. to th e agrarian proposal of P. Servilius Rullus,who wished to divide the site into lots and put them up fo r sale (De leg. agr. 1,2,5 ; 2,19,51) 12 . If thisinterpretation is correct, th e fact that TertuUian balances th e longas moras of Caesar against th e trinas aras ofPompey suggests that the delays - hesitations gives a more accurate picture 13 - will also have beenoccasioned by th e curse. In that case Caesar will surely have hesitated because of political opposition to th esacrilegious idea of colonizing a cursed site. The circumstance that he had been Pontifex Maximus since63 B.C., not to mention Augur since 47 B.C., will doubtless have made him sensitive to th e delicate matter ofth e taboo, a far more serious concern than th e (irregular) obstruction of Bibulus which he had ignored in 59 B.C.In point of fact th e colony seems not to have been led out until sometime in 44 subsequent to his assassination- two years, therefore, after it was first projected following Thapsus - and not to have been fully realized until42 when th e foundation got its name Colonia Iulia Concordia Karthago 14 . So an ironical illusion to longhesitations on th e part of Caesar would be entirely appropriate.

Simply from th e context, therefore, it would appear that Tertullian's sneer at Lepidus' violent shams isye t another reference to th e curse, one of four such so far (see further below, p. 64). As for what form theseactivities could have taken, th e above analysis of ludibrium would seem to rule out several possibilities thathave been suggested : forced enrolment of settlers to be sent to Sicily 15 , th e suppression of supposed partisansof Octavian in Carthage before Lepidus' departure for Sicily 16 . Might then Lepidus have simply demolishedbuildings that had spilled onto th e cursed site, a possibility first raised by Gsell ? 17 Two points become criticalat this stage.The first concerns th e site of th e Caesarian colony. None of th e extant literary sources provides explicit

information that might serve to pinpoint th e exact location. The nearest is Appian's notice that Octavian, findinga written memorandum of Caesar, established th e present colony of Carthage not on th e site of th e Punic citybut as near as possible in order to avoid th e curse :... " , , , , .(Pun. 136).

This information coincides almost word for word with th e historian's earlier statement that the Romanssubsequently occupied th e site at Carthage with colonists of their own, very near to th e location of th e Punic9 GSELL, supra, n. 6, p. 226 ; ID., Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, Paris, 1928, Vol. 7, p. 284f. with n.7.10 Romanelli (P.), Storia delle Province romane dell'Africa (Studi pubblicati dall'istituto italiano per la storia antica 14),Rome, 1959, p. 94 with n . 1.11 Marquardt (J.), Rmische Staatsverwaltung, Leipzig, 1885 (1975), Vol. 3, p. 279f.12 CRISTOFORI, supra, n. 8, p. 90 .13 Romanelli, supra, n. 10, p. 139f. ; Le Glay, supra, n. 6, p. 247.14 Van Nerom (C), Colonia Iulia Concordia Karthago in Hommages M . Renard (Coll. Latomus 102), Brussels, 1969,Vol. 2, p. 767-776 ; Le GLAY, o.e. p. 236ff., 24 7 ; Gascou (J.), La carrire de Marcus Caelius Phileros, AntAfr. t. 20, 1984,p. 105-120 at 108, n. 17 ; Cristofori, o.e. p. 92, n. 60 .15 AUDOLLENT (.), Carthage romaine (Bibl. de s coles franc. d'Athnes et de Rome 84), Paris, 1901, p. 45 post alios.' 6 Teutsch (L.), Das Stdtewesen in NordAfrika in der Zeit von C. Gracchus bis zum Tode de s Kaisers Augustus, Berlin,1962, p. 128.17 Supra, n . 6, p. 23 8 ; ID., HAAN, supra, n. 9, Vol. 8, p. 195 ; Weigel, supra, n. 2, p. 83f., 156.


7/26

ON TH E ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 61city, and that this was because of its advantageous site : ' , , .

(Pun. 2)There can be no question, therefore, that on Appian's information th e deduction of Octavian avoided th ecursed site. Since, however, Dio's record of th e settlement of 29 B.C. (supra, p. 59) uses th e unusual word, possibly a hapax legomenon, it follows from th e combination of both sources that the Caesariancolony, on which th e later deduction was superimposed, will likewise have avoided th e location of th e Puniccity. In that case th e decision on where to place th e colony must surely go back to Caesar, even if th e colonywas, as we have seen, led out in th e months after hi s death. The precise location - beside but not on th e Punicsite - will presumably be th e outcome of his long hesitations . Does this exclude th e entire area of th e Puniccity in that case ? A partial answer is provided by Appian, who states quite clearly that the imprecations levelledin 146 B.C. applied , (Pun.135) ; no one was to inhabit th e site, though one could tread on it 18 . While the term may not entirelyexclude elsewhere in th e vicinity (below, p. 62), it is clear that the acropolis of Byrsa and th e district calledMegara were particularly affected. To what extent th e rest of th e site was concerned is uncertain ; Appiandescribes th e outer city elsewhere as ) (Pun. 2).How far next does th e archaeological evidence conform with th e picture deducible from th e literarysources ? The main lines of th e present picture were drawn up seventy years ago by Ch. Saumagne and havenot been substantially affected by more recent exploration l9. Two grids, th e rural and th e urban, are to besharply distinguished. The rural cadastration, which bounded th e city on th e northwest, is generally supposedto have been th e work of Gaius Gracchus, who took planted hi s groma at a point situated on top of th e Byrsa,nowadays below th e apse of th e cathedral of St . Louis. On th e communis opinio this centuriation was thenadopted by th e colony of Caesar. The urban grid, in contrast, is usually thought to have been th e work of somemaster-planner of Augustus, following th e deduction of 29 B.C. The main intersecting lines of this plan,

traditionally called th e decumanus maximus and th e cardo maximus, intersect at th e same point on th e summitof th e acropolis. On th e view of Saumagne th e centre of th e colony of Caesar lay in th e area of La Malga andavoided th e Byrsa, whereas th e grid of th e superimposed Augustan settlement, which overlay th e Punic city, didinclude th e Byrsa - in apparent contradiction to Appian's information. In support of this overall picture,reference is usually made inter alia to th e oldest-known cemetery of Roman Carthage, that at Bir ez-Zitoun nearth e La Malga cisterns, which seems to go back to th e pre-Augustan period ; it was near to here that was founda fragmentary inscription giving th e names of what look to be th e Hlviri fo r assigning lands in 12 1 B.C. (CIL8, 12535). In addition, it now seems clear from recent exploration that monumental construction on th e Byrsahill - including large scale remodelling of the terrain that entailed levelling th e summit of th e acropolis - is tobe dated to th e Augustan and Julio-Claudian epoch 20. In light of al l this it will be th e Carthage of th e Augustan

18 Cf Appian 's report in BC 1, 24 that Scipio had devoted the site to sheep-pasturage for ever. Gsell, above, n. 6, p. 234. n . 6,observes that this statement is contradicted by the agrarian law of 111 B.C. (CIL I2, 585, 1. 81.). See further ID., HAAN, Vol. 7,p. 75ff. ; Romanelli, o.e., supra, n. 10, p. 66ff. with refs., n.l.19 ID., Le plan de la colonie Julienne de Carthage, in tudes d'histoire sociale et politique relative la province romained'Afrique: CT t. 10, 1962, p. 463-471. For a helpful summary see WlGHTMAN (E. M), The Plan of Roman Carthage:Practicalities and Politics, in Pedley (J . G.) (ed.), New light on Ancient Carthage, Ann Arbor, 1980, pp. 29-46 ; Lassere, supra,n. 5, p. 204f. with fig. 16.20 Gros (P.), Le premier urbanisme de la Colonia Iulia Carthago. Mythes et ralits d'une fondation Csaro-Augustenne inL'Afrique dans l'Occident romain (Ier sicle av. J.-C. - IVe sicle ap . J.-C.) (Coll. de l'cole franc, de Rome 134), Rome, 1990,p. 547-573 at 548ff. ; Deneauve (J.), Le centre monumental de Carthage. Un ensemble cultuel sur la colline de Byrsa in Carthageet son territoire dans l'Antiquit (Actes du IV e colloque international sur l'histoire et l'archologie de l 'Afrique du Nord:Strasbourg, 5-9 avril 1988), Paris, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 143-155.


8/26

62 D. FISHWICKperiod to which Pliny's description most closely applies ; Colonia Carthago Magnae in vestigiis Carthaginis(NH 5,24) 21.

What emerges from this brief summary is that the archaeological remains themselves provide few harddata ; in practice it is to th e literary evidence that one must turn for clarification of th e succeeding stages ofhabitation and urbanization. E. Wightman has argued vigorously that it is stretching th e evidence to locate th eJulian city near th e area of La Malga or to suppose that it was laid out on th e rural cadastration ; as it wouldhave been quite out of character fo r th e dictator to have had any hesitation about th e curse, she concludes thatth e decision to locate th e new Carthage on top of th e Punic city was, if fact, taken by Caesar himself. WhileWightman succeeds in showing that the archaeological evidence falls short of conclusive proof, this thesisnecessarily jettisons th e entire evidence of Appian, who supposedly follows a different tradition. In factAppian's statement that the Augustan foundation was beside, not on , th e Punic site she rejects as patently false,perhaps an attempt at propaganda 22. Yet Appian precisely locates th e colony in this way on two occasions andhis information, as we have seen, implies a similar location fo r th e Caesarian foundation. Furthermore th ecircumstance that what looks to be a pre-Augustan cemetery was situated in th e area of La Malga clearlysupports th e possibility that Caesar's colony was situated to th e north-west of th e later deduction : that is, in anarea which adjoined or coincided with forbidden ground, th e ancient Megara 23. Given that on th e aboveanalysis of violenta ludibria Lepidus' demolitions will have been connected with th e taboo, there seems everyreason to accept Gsell's hypothesis that construction had in fact infringed on cursed ground and that this waswhat Lepidus cleared. If Saumagne's hypothesis is correct, two whole centuries will have been affected 24.The second point concerns th e status of Lepidus at th e time. M. Aemilius Lepidus had already served asa member of th e pontifical college in 64 B.C., when he will undoubtedly have become acquainted with ritual,and in th e aftermath of Caesar's assassination had been made pontifex maximus by Anthony in succession toCaesar himself 25. As th e post was tenable fo r life and empowered th e holder to enforce or interpret th e finepoints of ritual 26, Gsell makes th e reasonable assumption that it was in this capacity he demolishedconstructions that had been erected in contravention of th e curse 27. The suggestion has much to recommend itbut th e legal situation needs clarification. In 64 B.C. th e tribune Titus Labienus had proposed a bill restoring th eelection of th e pontifex maximus to th e people, from whom Sulla had withdrawn it. What Anthony had done,in an attempt to ensure Lepidus' support, was to arrange that the latter would succeed to th e high priesthood bytransferring th e office from the people back to th e priestly college (CD 44, 53, 6f. ; cf . Appian, B.C. 2, 132).From th e legal standpoint this would have required th e passage of a law but, as Mommsen first noted, such alaw is nowhere reported to have been later rescinded, whereas we find th e pontifex maximus later elected by th epeople once more 28. Furthermore Velleius refers to Lepidus as a Chief Pontiff furto creato (2, 63), whileAugustus remarks in his Res Gestae that he received th e office eo mortuo qui civilis motus occasioneoccupaverat (10, 2 ; cf Livy, Epit. 117 : In confusione rerum ac tumultu M. Lepidus pontificatum maximum

21 Desanges (J.), Pline l'Ancien, Histoire naturelle, livre V, 1-46 Ire partie (L'Afrique du Nord) , Paris, 1980, p. 218-19 ;Sallman (K.), Gnomon 56, 1984, p. 119.22 Wightman, supra, n. 19, p. 44-6, nn. 37, 52 .23 Gsell, o.e., p. 237f. suggests that it might have seemed less of a violation to install a new colony in an almost desertedarea of the site that at the heart of the Punic city.24 Saumagne (CH.), Le plan de la colonie Gracchane de Carthage, in Etudes, supra, n . 19, p. 473-487 at 485.25 RE 1 (1893) 556ff., no. 73 (Von Rohden) ; PIR2 1, p. 59f., n . 367.26 Wissowa, RuKR2 p. 508ff ; Latte, RR G p. 400-402.27 Gsell, above, n . 6, p. 23 8 ; ID., HAAN, Vol. 8, p. 195 ; cf Fishwick (D.) and Shaw (B.D.), Th e Formation of AfricaProconsularis, Hermes t. 105, 1977, p. 369-380 at 372 with n. 16. Th e minor objection (ibid.) to Gsell was based on amisunderstanding of his text and is now withdrawn.28 Mommsen (TH.), Rmisches Staatsrecht, Leipzig, 1887 (1963), Vol. 2, 1, p. 31, n. 3. Contra Von Premerstein (.), ZurAufzeichnung der Re s Gestae Divi Augusti im Pisidischen Antiochia, Hermes t. 59, 1924, p. 95-107 at lOlf., inferring the passageof a law from Dio' language.


9/26

ON TH E ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 63intercepit.) So it would appear that no appropriate law was introduced at th e time. As Dio further states that,in company with th e priests of th e college, Anthony then consecrated Lepidus performing few or none of th eaccustomed rites, Lepidus' position will have been that he had been made pontifex maximus illegally and incontravention of regular ritual. Furthermore he was subsequently declared a public enemy on June 30th,43 B.C., a few months before th e Second Triumvirate, legally recognised by th e Lex Titia of 27th November,brought th e Roman Republic to an end. The office of triumvir might be thought to obviate any need to legitimizehis position as Chief Pontiff- at any rate there is no mention of th e matter in th e sources - but he was excludedin th e repartition of th e Empire after Philippi and was clearly in Africa from 40 B.C. by grace and favour ofOctavian. His status as pontifex maximus must therefore have been questionable at best - and remained so until36 B.C., when he was stripped of his command by Octavian, who nevertheless allowed him to retain hispontificate 29. Given that the triumvirs had th e right to bestow and (CD 46, 55, 3-4 ; cf . Appian,BC 4, 2, 1) and did make appointments by fiat or patronage 30, Lepidus' tenure would appear to date in anystrictly legal or quasi-legal sense from 36 B.C. From then until his death in 13 B.C. he continued to serve aspontifex maximus, in practice as an appointee of Octavian.

The colonists at Carthage would have had justifiable grounds for complaints, therefore, if their buildingswere razed because of religious scruples on th e part of an illegally created pontifex maximus whose position wasnot to be regularized fo r several years. Dio reports that by this act Lepidus was held to have abrogated the rightsof th e earlier colonists (52, 43, 1 : supra, p. 59). The precise point at issue remains obscure but on th e abovereconstruction th e colonists may have believed they were entitled to build on land that he considered tainted 3I ;in other words he viewed their constructions as a violation of th e curse. From th e point of view of Lepidus, onth e other hand, it is conceivable that it might have reinforced his own dubious claim to office if he proceededto act boldly in his capacity as high priest de facto, if questionably de iure 32. Presumably hi s authoritarianprocedure will have been in accord with th e wishes of Octavian, to whom he owed hi s governorship of Africa ;retrospective approval, at least, is surely be read into Octavian's confirmation of Lepidus as pontifex maximusin 36 B.C. In any event, his activities must have had th e positive effect of forestalling any malicious rumoursof th e kind that had ruined th e colony of G. Gracchus and might be directed anew at th e future capital of Africa.To this extent his violent shams will have removed any potential impediment to th e future development ofth e colony, in particular th e urbanization 33 begun under th e governorship of T. Statilius Taurus in 35-34 B.C. 34- ultimately also th e initial phase of th e reinforcement of th e foundation by Octavian in 29 B.C., before removalof th e curse permitted building on th e Byrsa 35. Well might a Christian writer sneer at all this as violentaludibria.

29 For the possibility that on the renewal of the triumvirate at Tarentum in 37 B.C. Lepidus lost his standing as Illvir r. p. c.se e Badin, supra, n. 3, o.e.30 Millar (F.), Triumvirate and Principate, JR S t. 63, 1973, p. 50-67 at 51-53.31 For the suggestion that these rights derived from the deduction of Caesar, who as Pontifex Maximus could have annulledthe devono of 14 6 see Debbasch (Y.), La vie et les institutions de la Carthage romaine, RHD, t. 31, 1953, p. 30-53 at 39 . Th e "longesitations" of Caesar and the implication that the Caesarian settlement avoided the cursed site (supra, p. 61) tell against any suchaction on Caesar's part.32 Similar self-assertion may be reflected in the Thabraca inscription (supra, p. 58), which apart from the office of PontifexMaximus, records a previously unknown imperial salutation and a second triumviral tenure. For the view that Lepidus was tryingto keep on level terms with Octavian and Antony see Badin, supra, n. 3, p. 8, 10.33 ". . .ubi moenia Statilius Taurus imposuit" (supra, p. 59). For moenia by synechdoche for oppidum cum omnibus aedificiisse e ThLL Vol. 8, s.v. IB , 1327f., citing inter alia Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3, 24, p. 419, 30 .34 Gsell, above, n . 6. p. 230f. dated the building programme of Statilius Taurus to 44 B.C. ; cf Wightman, supra, n. 19,p. 44, n. 32 . But no firm evidence exists to place him at Carthage in this turbulent period, whereas urbanization of the newmetropolis of Africa would be a reasonable initiative in his attested term as proconsular governor, following the amalgamation ofAfrica Vetus and Africa Nova. Cf Le Glay, supra, n . 6, p. 245, 24 7 ; Fishwick, supra, n . 1, p. 59f.35 For the view that the curse was lifted in 12 B.C. se e Fishwick (D.), De la Carthage punique la Carthage romaine. La levede l'interdit, VIe Coll. sur hist , et l'archol. de l'Afrique du Nord, forthcoming, arguing that , following his election as Pontifex


10/26

64 D. FISHWICKAny assessment of Lepidus' administration of Africa turns on th e proper interpretation of his activity inrazing part of th e Caesarian colony. J. Gascou finds it impossible to believe that he made any positive

contribution at Carthage in view of th e detestable reputation he left behind, as evidenced by Tertullian'sallusion 36. But this surely reflects th e warped outlook of a Christian writer prejudiced against th e ancient curse,to which he refers in one way or another on no less that five occasions 37. The upshot of th e analysis is to seeth e violent activity of Lepidus in a different light. Anxious to remove al l taint of curse from the new foundationat Carthage and thus avoid political difficulties of th e sort that had plagued th e Gracchan foundation, Lepidustook an important step which paved th e way for th e colony to assume its new role as th e metropolis and centreof a consolidated province of Africa. Whether any building program was begun under Lepidus himself escapesour knowledge 38 ; we have seen that Tertullian places th e beginning of urbanization under Statilius Taurus. Butat least it seems clear that Carthage now replaced Utica, which lost its rank as th e pre-eminent city of Africa 39.What is more important, we have definite epigraphical evidence that, taken as a whole, seems to offer firmindication in itself that th e fusion of th e old Republican provinces in th e new province of Africa did indeed takeplace at th e period to which th e fasti of provincial governors and th e turmoil of recent events in th e region havealready pointed.

THE COMMISSION OF M. CAELIUS PHILEROSAt some stage in its early evolution Roman Carthage was attributed a vast administrative territory, of whichth e distinguishing characteristic was th e juxtaposition of Roman pagi and peregrine civitates 40. Following th erecovery of a fragmentary inscription at Thugga (AE, 1963, 94), the term pertica can properly be applied to anarea so wide that the majority of its centres were situated to th e west of th e fossa regia, th e line which hadseparated Africa Vetus on th e east from Africa Nova on th e west. That Carthage could have administered a

dependency lying in two separate provinces - therefore under th e jurisdiction of two distinct governors - isscarcely conceivable 41. By th e far th e likelier eventuality is that it will have administered dependencies to th ewest of th e fossa regia only in th e aftermath of th e fusion of th e two Republican provinces, at a time whenCarthage had been made th e metropolis of a united province of Africa. So if th e origins of th e pertica can belinked to Lepidus' presence in Africa, there clearly would be still further grounds for assigning th e origins ofth e later Proconsularis to th e period 40-36.An inscription found near Formiae preserves th e following cursus : 42

Maximus on 6th March of that year, Augustus commissioned Sentius Saturninus, probably at the close of his proconsular term,13-12 B.C., to ri d the site once and for all from all taint of curse.36 Gascou, supra, n . 14, p. 112f.37 In addition to the four occasions noted above, p. 60, Tertullian clearly refers to the removal of the curse by SentiusSaturninus : ub i ... sollemnia Sentius Saturninus enarravit {supra, p. 59). See supra, n . 35 .38 Some building could well have been undertaken under Lepidus though not on the land he cleared, if the above analysis iscorrect ; cf Le Glay, supra, n . 6. p. 245, 247.39 Le Glay, o.e. p. 247, noting that Utica was compensated with the status of a municipium in 38 or 36 B.C.40 Gascou, supra, n . 14, p. 106, 108, noting that , in addition to Thugga, this organization occurs certainly or presumably atAgbia, Numluli, Auensa, Uchi Maius, Thibursicum Bure, Thibaris, Thignica, perhaps also at Chiniaua, Belalis Maior and ThuburboMaius.41 Fishwick-Shaw, supra, n. 27, p. 373, 375 ; GASCOU, o.e. p. 108.42 On the content of the cursus (given in direct order) se e Gascou, p. 106, n. 9. He suggests it may be by inadvertence thatBroughton refers to "the funerary inscription of M. Caelius Phileros" in ID., The Territory of Carthage, R.E.L. t. 47 bis (Mel. MarcelDurry), Paris, 1970, p. 265-75 at 270. But this can perfectly well mean "the funerary inscription set up by M. Caelius Phileros"rather than "the funerary inscription to M. Caelius Phileros", which would of course be incorrect, as Gascou points out.


11/26

ON TH E ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 65M(arcus) Caelius, M(arci) l(ibertus), Phileros, accens(us) I T(iti) Sexti imp(eratoris) in Africa, Car-thag(ine) aed(ilis), praeflectus) I i(ure) d(icundo) vectig(alibus) quinq(uennalibus) locand(is) in castell(is)

LXXXIII, I aedem Tell(uris) s(ua) p(ecunia) fec(it) ; Hvir Clupiae bis ; Formis I August(alis), aedem Nept(uni)lapid(ibus) vari(i)s s(ua) p(ecunia) ornav(it) ; Fresidiae, N(umerii) l(ibertae), Florae, uxori viro opseq(uentis-simae), I Q(uinto) Octavio, (mulieris) l(iberto), Antimacho, karo amico.{CIL 10 , 6104 = ILS 1945)To this can be added a second inscription found at Uchi Maius :

[... I M(arcus) C]ae[l(ius) Ph]ileros I castellum divisit inter colonos et I Uchitanos termin(os) I queconstituit.(CILS, 26274 + ILT 1370)The background of M. Caelius Phileros can be surmised only from his name, but probability supports th ecommunis opinio that he was a freedman of M. Caelius Rufus, whose father had properties in Africa and who

served there himself under th e proconsul Q. Pompeius Rufus between 62 and 59 B.C. 43 Presumably M. CaeliusRufus recommended his freedman at some stage to Titus Sextius, who subsequently took him as accensus toAfrica on th e strength of his local knowledge and experience. We have seen that T. Sextius was intermittentlygovernor of one or both of th e African provinces from 44 to 40 B.C., when he was succeeded by Lepidus M.The principal interest of th e cursus for present purposes is that, after an aedileship at Carthage, Phileros servedas praef. i. d. vectig. quinq. locand. in castell. LXXXIII. If one may judge from later examples of th e office 45,he will have been sent out from Carthage to exercise jurisdiction in th e castella and to farm out taxes, that isto lease th e proceeds of taxes in return for a fixed sum 46. The eighty-three castella give every appearance offalling within th e Carthaginian pertica 47, while th e activities of Phileros at Uchi Maius, where he divided acastellum between th e coloni and indigenous Uchitani, attest th e extension of th e pertica well to th e west of th efossa regia. Taken together, th e two inscriptions appear to mirror a situation arising from the recent assignmentto Carthage of its vast dependency.The crucial question for present purposes is when Phileros exercised his commission as praefectus i.d. Ifthis could be established, th e date would provide an implied terminus ante fo r th e formation of a unifiedprovince, since it must have occurred at a time when th e two Republican provinces had already beenamalgamated. The sequence of posts which has usually been proposed is that Phileros' career unfolded atCarthage in th e wake of hi s service as accensus to T. Sextius, therefore in th e early thirties under Lepidus 48.On this reconstruction he will have been aedile about 40-39 B.C., then praefectus i.d. soon afterwards, with th eresult that his activities within th e newly-formed pertica would be datable quite possibly to th e first half of th edecade, say 38-37 B.C. or soon after. On th e view of J. Gascou, in contrast, this latter part of th e chronologyis impossible 49. He notes first that Phileros was accensus of T. Sextius during his term in Africa, 44-40 B.C.,and hence could hardly have begun his municipal career before Sextius gave way to Lepidus in 40 B.C. But

43 Luisi (.), Il liberto Marco Celio Filerote, magistrato municipale, Atene e Roma n.s. 20, 1975, p. 44-56, at 45f ; Gascoup. 107, nn. 11-15 with refs. See further infra, . 64 .44 FlSHWlCK, supra, n. 1, p. 61. For Phileros' service as accensus to T. Sextius see Luisi, supra, n . 43, p. 47-49.45 Pflaum (H.-G.), La Romanisation de l'ancien territoire de la Carthage punique la lumire de s dcouvertes pigraphiquesrcentes, AntAfr t. 4, 1970, p. 75-1 17 at 76, 1 12ff.46 Luisi, p. 50f. ; GASCOU, p. 113, n. 45, 118f. with n . 89 ; ID., Y avait-il un pagus Carthaginis Thuburbo Maius ?, AntAfrt. 24, 1988, p. 67-80 at 74, n. 32 .47 Poinssot C), Immunitas perticae Carthaginiensium, CRAI, 1962, p. 55-72 at 69 ; Laffi (U.), Adtributio e Contributio.Problemi del sistema politico-amministrativo dello stato romano, Studi di lett. st. e filos., Scuola Normale di Pisa, t. 35, 1966, 82 .For the term castellum see Gascou, p. 119 ; further infra, p. 73 .48 So Broughton (T.R.S.) The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis, Baltimore, 1929, p. 61 ; Luisi, supra, n. 43, p. 55 .49 O.e. p. 11 Off.


12/26

66 D. FISHWICKthere are crucial objections to holding that any except th e first of th e succeeding offices of th e cursus could havebeen held under Lepidus. The earliest date at which he might theoretically have become aedile at Carthagewould be 39 B.C., ye t even if this were th e case, Phileros could not have been made praefectus i.d. before35 B.C. - after th e departure of Lepidus, that is. The reason is that, after an annual magistracy, one necessarilybecame privatus in order to be accountable, if so required, for any irregularities in office th e previous year -an impossibility if one could pass directly from one office to another. What is more to th e point, there had bylaw to be an interval of three years before th e tenure of another magistracy, just as by law there had to be aninterval of five years between tenures of th e same magistracy 50. The provision on which Gascou bases thisreasoning is a law attested under Gordian. As recorded in th e Justinian Code, this concerns a legal exemptionthat one could invoke if so desired : a vacano of five years is allowed before one had to perform th e same officeand three years before obligatory tenure of a different office : ab honoribus ad eosdem honores quinquenniidatur vacado, triennii vero ad alios. Legatione autem perfunctis bienii vacano concessa es t (10,41,2). On th eanalysis of W. Langhammer, what by Gordian's time was a protective beneficium had originally been anenforced delay : obligatory intervals between tenures had become concessions 51. Gascou applies this argumentretrospectively to th e career of Phileros at Carthage and concludes that he could not have served as praefectusi.d. for a minimum of three years after th e aedileship : that is , not before 35 B.C. at th e earliest. Is this reasoningcorrect ?First, a brief review of th e pertinent evidence. According to th e Digest :

Gerendorum honorum non promiscuafacultas est, sed ordo certus huic rei adhibitus est. nam eque priusmaiorem magistratum quisquam, nisi minorent susceperit, gerere potest, eque ab omni aetate, equecontinuare quisque honores potest. Si alii non sint qui honores grant, eosdem compellendos, qui gesserint,conplurimis constitutionibus cavetur. divus etiam Hadrianus de iterandis muneribus rescripsit in haec verba : Illud consentio, ut, si alii non erunt idonei qui hoc muere fungantur, ex his, qui iamfuncti sunt, creentur. (50,4,14,5-6)

The crucial point here is that one cannot prolong one's time in office {continuare) beyond th e regular termof one year. However, if no other suitable candidates are available, previous office-holders can be re-appointedin line with Hadrian's ruling. The second text, also from th e Digest, is a rescript of Septimius Severus : DivusSeverus rescripsit intervalla temporum in continuandis oneribus ( honoribus : edd.) invitis, non etiamvolentibus concessa, dum ne quis continuet honorem (50,1,18). Those unwilling to serve are allowed intervalsof time before holding another office but for those who have no objections th e intervals do not apply, exceptthat one might not hold th e same office fo r two successive years 52. This clearly repeats th e Hadrianicprohibition against more than one year in one office. The expression in continuandis oneribus is not entirelyclear but ought to mean continuation in th e same office 53. The key point would then be that one can be continued in an office but only after a se t interval, a provision which does not apply to those willing toshoulder office - except for th e obligatory interlude of a year 54. Finally, th e law of Gordian (above) quantifies50 Gascou, o.e. p. Ill with nn. 33f.51 ID., Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung de r Magistratus municipales und de r Decuriones, Wiesbaden, 1973, p. 51-53,inferring that the change took place in the late second century A.D. Th e thesis goes back to Mommsen (Th.), Die Stadtrechte derlateinischen Gemeinden Salpensa und Malaca in der Provinz Baetica in ID., Gesammelte Schriften I : Juristische Schriften, Berlin,1905 (1965), I, p. 312. See further JACQUES (F.), Le Privilge de Libert. Coll. de l'cole franc, de Rome t. 76, Rome, 1984,p. 464-66.52 So Mommsen, supra, n . 51, p. 312 with n. 76 .53 ThLL IV 724b, 1.70ff., s.v.54 If by "in continuandis oneribus" is meant "proceeding from on e office to another", a step up on the cursus honorum (whichis surely unlikely), then the re-script states that intervals are allowed in that case also for those unwilling to hold office, but do notapply to others wh o are willing, provided only that no-one prolongs his term in office beyond a year.


13/26

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 67th e permissable intervals as five years between th e same office, three years between different offices, and twoyears before a renewed munus legationis.

Langhammer argues convincingly that there had earlier been mandatory intervals before one was allowedto hold office a second time. It is clear from the Lex Municipii Flavii Malacitana in particular that five yearswas th e prescribed interval between two tenures of th e duumvirate {CIL 2,1964 = IL S 6084,c54). But once itbecame difficult to find local citizens to shoulder th e burdens of office, this prohibition evolved into a beneficiumwhich provided a legal vacano of five years before one could be obliged to hold office again. For th e loweroffices of quaestor or aedile, on th e other hand, there are no known regulations about intervals between repeatedtenures, other than th e prohibition of two successive years, and nothing whatever is known of any prescribedintervals that might have had to be observed in moving from one office of th e cursus to th e next 55. The onlyregulations recorded in th e Digest (50,4,14,5-6 : above) are that one had to observe a regular succession ofoffices and be of a certain age. It is a big leap in reasoning, therefore, to infer from the law of Gordian that theremust earlier have been a mandatory interval of three years between two different offices. Gordian's law showsthat th e principle of beneficial intervals certainly applied in A.D. 238 to tenures of two different offices, but wehave no evidence fo r th e earlier existence of an obligatory interval corresponding to th e earlier se t intervalbetween two terms of th e same office. The beneficium of three years could well have developed independentlyin th e light of Severus' rescript, just as th e vacado of two years before a second munus legationis (above) clearlydid not evolve out of an obligatory interval : in th e later Republic or Triumviral period no such prescribed munusexisted 56. It follows that there is no sound reason to hold that Phileros could not have held office fo r three yearsafter his aedileship.

As fo r Langhammer's point that one had to be privatus th e year following a magistracy, no definiteevidence is offered in support. Langhammer argues that one clearly could not be called to account while in office(from which one could not be dismissed before conclusion of his term) and that it was precisely fo r this reasonthat Kontinuation was forbidden - either by extension of th e period of office (continuatio) or by immediateelection to another office, alternatively re-election to th e same. The text he cites in support of this, however, isth e rescript of Severus... dum ne quis continuet honorem (above), which refers to prolongation of th e sameoffice, as th e singular shows 57 ; it says nothing to forbid immediate election to another office, for which th eLatin might conceivably have been dum ne quis continuet honores (plural). With no solid evidence to show thata year as privatus was mandatory, th e point is at best unconfirmed 58 ; notice of impending charges against anincumbent could presumably have prevented his immediate reelection. In any event, even if a year as privatuswas mandatory between succeeding offices (which does no t seem substantiated by positive evidence), it shouldbe noted that Phileros could still in theory have served as praef. i.d. in 37 or 36 B.C., that is under Lepidus.Other objections to Gascou's argument speak fo r themselves and require no more than cursory attention.It may well be , as Langhammer notes, that a similar regulation to th e law of Gordian had long been in existencebefore it was made statutory, but what is there to show that such a provision applied to a municipal cursus at

55 Contra Langhammer, o.e. p. 51 : "Fr die minder angesehenen... nur als Sprossen auf der Leiter de s cursus honorum zumDuumvirat gewerteten mter der Quaestur und Aedilitt scheinen, abgesehen vom Verbot der Kontinuation, berhaupt keinediesbezglichen Vorschriften bestanden zu haben oder ein Intervallum von nur drei Jahren." No evidence is presented for theconjectured interval of three years, which looks to be an inference from the law of Gordian back into the Republican period.56 On embassies see Langhammer, o.e. p. 126-128 with refs. ; further Millar (F.), The Emperor in the Roman World (31B.C. - A.D. 337), London, 1977, p. 381ff.57 Supra, n. 52 .58 Cf Liebenam in RE 5, 1905, 1 809 following Zumpt : "Zwei verschiedene mter unm ittelbar nach einander zu bernehmen,scheint nicht unerlaubt gewesen zu sein."


14/26

68 D. FISHWICKCarthage in North Africa, two and one-half centuries earlier in th e Triumviral period 59 ? In any case Papinianstates explicitly that th e rules fluctuated from place to place : Praescriptio temporum, quae in honoribusrepetundis vel aliis suscipiendis data est, apud eosdem servatur, non apud alios (Dig. 50,1,17,3) 60.Furthermore, Gascou himself cites clear epigraphical confirmation of successive offices without interval atOstia :

...Hic primus omnium, quo anno dec(urio) adl(ectus) est, et I q(uaestor) a( erarii) fact(us) est et inproxim(um) annum Hvir designat(us) est\ ... (CIL 14 , 409 = ILS 6146)Gascou's qualification that this is an exceptional case hardly alters th e fact that, on th e evidence of thisinscription, immediate passage from one office to another could and did occur.In support of his argument against placing Phileros' municipal offices in th e early or later thirties, Gascounext invokes a subjective argument. Is it conceivable that an accensus of T. Sextius will have exercisedresponsibility at Carthage under Lepidus 61 ? Dio reports that Sextius put up no resistance to Lepidus - eitherbecause he thought Antony approved of th e assignment to Lepidus of Vetus and Nova or because he did not havesufficient troops to resist (48,23,5). Gascou infers, however, that relations between th e two will have beenstrained and notes Appian's statement that Lepidus deprived Sextius of th e four legions he had under hiscommand (BC 5,75). He concludes that it is difficult to think Phileros, th e ex-accensus of Sextius, un hommemal vu de Lpide , could have held any office at Carthage under th e latter's domination. All this is veryspeculative. In point of fact, Dio adds that Sextius deliberately remained quiet, acting as if th e inevitable wasa favour on hi s part to Lepidus (ibid. ). So there is no clear reason to suppose animosity on Lepidus' part or thathe will necessarily have harboured any prejudice against a freedman of low status who had served as Sextius'aide-de-camp. On th e contrary, far from being persona non grata at Carthage under Lepidus, Phileros couldwell have been viewed as a cooperative, experienced official, someone with special local knowledge who mightand, in th e event, did give good service. Conjecture along these lines is in any case of little or no historical valuein th e lack of hard data. Gascou's hypothesis is inevitably coloured by th e fact that he holds a distinctionbetween Africa Vetus and Africa Nova continued to be observed down to 27 B.C. and that what Dio andTertullian report of Lepidus's activities at Carthage precludes th e possibility he could have accorded th e city anysuch favour as extending its pertica. As we have seen, th e first of these points is invalid 62, th e second in noway follows from th e literary evidence (above, pp. 63f).Having ruled out any role fo r Phileros at Carthage under Lepidus, Gascou then suggests that his pastassociation with Sextius makes it difficult to believe he could have held any magistracy at Carthage before th eBattle of Actium. After 31 B.C., on th e other hand, when Octavian was anxious to show his dementia, a simplefreedman might well have found favour with th e Carthaginian authorities, particularly in light of his wealth,which must have appreciated in these years if one may judge from his munificence in building th e temple ofTellus. This again is pure hypothesis, unsupported by evidence, and requires, apart from anything else, that from40-30 B.C. Phileros was without any municipal function at all. Gascou supposes that he spent these years inbuilding a fortune in commerce and that this explains his generosity at Carthage, later also at Formiae, wherehe embellished th e temple of Neptune. Why Phileros should have resumed a municipal career at Carthage inparticular after an interval of ten years is not explained, whereas on th e standard view his earlier service withT. Sextius in Africa (above) locates him already in th e region, well placed to serve at Carthage in th e earlier

59 Cf Gascou's reservations, o.e. p. 115, n . 60. Note that at p. 114, n . 57 he expresses astonishment (!) that S. Treggiari(infra, n . 63) p. 63f. would adduce the lex Malacitana (reign of Domitian) in support of the possibility that Augustus forbade theelection of freedmen to magistracies.60 Cf Gascou, o.e. p. Ill, n . 34, suggesting that this state of affairs may be particular to the Severan epoch.61 O.e. p. 111-113.62 Fishwick, supra, n . 1, p. 54-60.


15/26

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 69thirties. As fo r th e source of Phileros' wealth, we simply have no information on this. Nothing excludes th epossibility suggested by S. Treggiari that some at least was inherited from hi s patron M. Caelius Rufus 63, whosefamily had properties there 64. Far from being fanciful, this looks a definite possibility if, as will be argued,construction of th e aedes Telluris began under th e governorship of Lepidus (below, pp. 75f).

A controversial point that arises here concerns th e status of Phileros as a freedman. Caesar is known tohave authorized liberti to hold magistracies in th e colonies he founded, a concession reinforced by th e lexcoloniae Genitivae Iuliae sive Ursonensis, of 44 B.C. {CIL 2,5439 = ILS 6087), which lays down that freedmanstatus should not be a bar to membership of th e local senate (c. 105) : freedmen are in fact attested in severalCaesarean colonies 65. On th e other hand, th e lex Visellia of 24 A.D. excluded liberti from the decurionate {Cod.lust. 9,21,1), while th e le x Municipii Malacitani of 82-84 B.C. {CIL 2,1964 = ILS 6089) prescribes thatmagistrates shall be chosen from ingenui (e. 54). We do not know what were Octavian's ideas in th e mattereither in 29 B.C., when he reinforced th e existing colony of Caesar, or later in his reign, but so far at least wedo not know of any freedman magistrate in a colony of Augustus. Strictly speaking, of course, Carthageremained a Caesarean colony after th e deduction of 29 B.C., 66 so it is perfectly possible that the Caesarean rulescontinued to apply. Given al l th e uncertainties, th e point is best left open : on present evidence 29 B.C. cannotbe considered a rigorous terminus ante fo r this part of th e cursus simply on th e score of Phileros' status aslibertus. On th e other hand, it is certainly th e point before which hi s posts conform unequivocally to th e datawe have on th e municipal careers of liberti in other colonies of Caesar.On th e basis of th e above conjectures Gascou proceeds to assign th e aedileship at Carthage to 30 (? ) B.C.After a supposedly obligatory interval of three years, Phileros will have then held office as praefectus i.d. in26 (? ) B.C., next as duumvir at Clupea in 25 or more likely 24 B.C.,67 and for a second time as duumvir atClupea in 18 (?) B.C. The one point clear in all this is that Phileros served two terms as duumvir ; evidently hemoved at some stage from Carthage to Clupea, where his previous experience and personal wealth will no doubthave recommended him for office. But th e specific dates assigned are entirely conjectural 68. To suppose aninterval of five years between th e two tenures assumes that one can legitimately retroject th e provision of th e

Flavian lex Malacitana, 69. More importantly, if one discounts th e purely subjective argument above (pp. 68f.),nothing goes to show that the first duumvirate could not have been served at some point in th e second half ofth e thirties B.C. - nor fo r that matter that the second duumvirate will necessarily have been served five ratherthan more than five years later. We simply have nothing to indicate th e dates of these magistracies at Clupea.The final office served by Phileros is that of Augustalis at Formiae. Here in Italy it is entirely consistentwith his background that Phileros should hold at Formiae a post suited to a freedman of evident wealth -whether simply inherited or augmented by commercial enterprise, as Gascou suggests : to have gone intobusiness he will presumably have needed a financial basis on which to start. Gascou conjectures that he willhave served as Augustalis ca. 13-12 B.C. The reason for this date is that Phileros must have been th e first or

63 EADEM, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic, Oxford, 1969, p. 239, cf 155, n . 7, 157. Rejected as arbitrary byGascou, o.e. p. 107, n . 15.64 Cf Cic, Pro Caelio 73 : cum autem paulum iam roboris accessisset aetati, in Africam profectus est (se. M. Caelius Rufus)Q. Pompeio pro consule contubernalis .., in qu a provincia, cum res erant et possessiones paternae...65 See MOMMSEN ad CIL 10, 6104 ; E.E. 2, p. 132f. ; Liebenam (W.), Stdteverwaltung im rmischen Kaiserreiche, Leipzig,1900 (1967), p. 233, . 4. ; further Gascou p. 114 with . 52, citing Curubis (CIL 8, 978) in addition to Carthage and Clupia, asattested in the Formiae inscription ; Langhammer, supra, n. 51, p. 44 with nn. 14f. ; Luisi, supra, n. 43 , p. 49, n. 38, 55 .66 Fishwick (D.), supra, n . 35, forthcoming.67 Gascou p. 115, n. 62, supposing that Phileros will likely have remained privatus for a year (to be accountable for hisprefecture at Carthage) before assuming the duumvirate at Clupea. For the office se e the commentary of Luisi, p. 51-53.68 Cf Gascou, p. 116 : Parvenu au terme de nos conjectures sur la chronologie de la carrire de Phileros ... .69 Cf Gascou, ibid. , n . 63, noting that it is uncertain whether a similar provision will have applied in this period at Clupea.See further supra, n . 59 .


16/26

70 D. FISHWICKone of th e first Augustales at Formiae, given that th e office was created about this time when Augustus, afterbecoming pontifex maximus in 12 B.C., made th e worship of his genius an official cult 70. Here it may be notedin th e first place that there is no evidence at all to show that Augustus created an official cult of his genius. Onth e contrary, not until th e time of Nero do th e Arvals begin to record any sacrifices to th e emperor's genius11.But that is a side issue. A more important point is that there is no compelling reason to connect th e creation ofth e Augustales with Augustus' election to th e chief priesthood. This took place on 6th March, 12 B.C. (Lepidushad died th e previous year) 72, whereas th e earliest Augustales to be attested go back to 13/12 B.C. at Nepi inEutruria, where they are said to be th e first (CIL 11,3200 = IL S 89) 73. Furthermore, nothing goes to show thatth e appointment of th e first Augustales at Nepi will have coincided with th e institution of th e office or that Nepimight not have lagged behind other centres in introducing th e function locally. Formiae, where it is not statedthat Phileros was Augustalis primus, could well have been earlier 74 - or later - in th e field. In practice we haveno solid evidence to show when Augustus founded th e Augustales. A variant of th e word occurs already in th ename of th e festival of th e Augustalia, instituted in 19 B.C. 75, and th e fact that at th e outlying center of Nepith e first Augustales are recorded in 13/12 B.C. could point to a somewhat earlier origin of th e office in Romeand elsewhere - before th e pontificate of Augustus. In short th e date of 13-12 B.C., which Gascou assigns toPhileros' office at Formiae, is no more secure than th e conjectural dates of th e preceding posts in th e cursus.

Lastly, Gascou finds support fo r his chronology of Phileros' career, more particularly th e prefecture i.d.,by placing it in th e context of th e attribution to Carthage of he r vast pertica, a step he ascribes to Octavian atth e time he reinforced th e colony in 29 B.C 76. The thesis goes back to C. Poinssot in particular and is basedon Appian's statement that Julius Caesar surnamed Augustus, finding a memorandum written by his father,established () th e present Carthage. Appian goes on to say he has ascertained that he gatheredtogether () three thousand Roman colonists and th e rest from th e perioikoi, but whether theseparticulars relate to th e foundation of 44 B.C. or th e deduction of 29 B.C. has been debated inclusively fo r th ebetter part of th e last 100 years. The passage is best cited in its entirety :... ' " , ,

, , . ' , . ' , .(Pun. 136)On Gascou's view th e three thousand ' are demobilized veterans, to whom Octaviangave properties in th e territory of Carthage. The perioikoi are probably descendants of Italian veterans andGaetulian allies of Marius, who had received Roman citizenship and been installed in th e Numidian kingdom,

70 Ibid, with n . 65 citing DuthOY (R.), Les *Augustales in ANRW 2, 16, 2 (1978), p. 1299, cf 1291.71 WEINSTOCK (S.), Divus Julius, Oxford, 1971, p. 21 5f. with refs.72 BOWERSOCK (G.W.), Th e Pontificate of Augustus in Raaflaub (K.A.) and Toher (M.) (edd.), Between Republic andEmpire. Interpretations of Augustus an d His Principate, Berkeley, 1990, p. 380-394.73 For the connection of the Augustales with the worship of the Emperor se e Fishwick (D.), Th e Augustales and the ImperialCult in The Imperial Cult in the Latin West (EPRO 108)2 ,1, Leiden, 1991, p. 609-616.74 Cf Dessau ad ILS 1945, n . 4, suggesting that Phileros' orfice at Formiae may be the earliest mention of an Augustalis.75 Degrassi, Inscrit 13, 2, p. 51 9 s.v. Oct. 12 ; cf p. 25 7 : Fasti Furii Filocali at Oct. 12 : Augustales. C(ircenses) m( issus)XXIIII. There seems to be no independent evidence to confirm Luisi's statement, p. 53, that the Augustales were attached to the cultof the emperor at the festival of the Augustalia. That this freedman organisation was instituted in 19 B.C. remains nevertheless anattractive possibility.76 GASCOU p. 116f., following POINSSOT, supra, n . 47 , p. 69f : Ds lors (se. 29 B.C.) rien n'empche de penser qu e c'est cette date qu e Carthage non seulement se vit accorder immunitas mais aussi obtint un agrandissement de sa pertica ; cfFishwick-Shaw, supra, n. 27, p. 376, n. 34 .


17/26

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 7 1west of th e fossa regia, and whose situation was now regularized by Octavian when he made their lands intopagi within th e Carthaginian pertica. Some of the three thousand additional colonists, Gascou conjectures, mayhave been installed at this time on th e territory of such towns as Thugga or Uchi Maius and their lands addedto th e pagi. In so doing Octavian will have been acting in accordance with a strategy which, according toHyginus Gromaticus, he practised in colonies that had suffered in th e civil wars : illas quoque urbes quaedeductae a regibus aut dictatoribus fuerant, quas bellorum civilium interventus exhauserat, dato herumcoloniae nomine numero civium ampliavit, quasdam et finibus (De lim. constit. pp. 177 f. : ed. Lachmann).The activities of Phileros would then fit nicely into this context. The castella mentioned in th e Formiaeinscription are to be conceived as peregrine localities, th e territory of which consisted partly of a pagus, whereresided th e descendants of Italian veterans and Marius' Gaetuli (perhaps also some of th e new colonists of29 B.C.), and partly of a civitas composed of relatively independent indigenous occupants, who inter alia couldelect their own magistrates 77. One can see th e distinction between th e two at work behind th e Uchi Maiusinscription :... castellum divisit I inter colonos et I Uchitanos termi[nos] I que constituit (CIL 8, 26274 + 1LT1370) 78. This division was of particular significance for its financial implications. According to th e ConsulariaConstantinopolitana at 726 a. u.c. (28 B.C.) : Octaviano VI et Agrippa. His conss. Cartago libertatem a populoRomano recepii 79. Gascou argues that this libertas has nothing to do with a civitas libera - there never was a double community at Carthage - but has th e concrete meaning of immunity from taxes, as originallyproposed by Y. Debbasch before th e discovery of th e Thugga inscription attesting immunitas perticaeCarthaginiensium (A.E., 1963, 64 ) 80. Furthermore, th e payment of taxes is considered by Tertullian to be a partof captivity (Apol. 13,6), so dispensation from taxes might very well be considered libertas. The key point,however, is that only th e territory of Roman citizens in th e pagi enjoyed th e grant of immunitas ; th e land leftto th e indigenous inhabitants of th e civitates continued to be subject to taxes - but now payable to Carthage,as is clear from the presence of a Carthaginian praefectus i.d. in th e castella. Phileros' commission, therefore,must have been not only to farm out taxes in th e castella, but also to distinguish rigorously between th e territoryof th e pagus and th e civitas, a procedure clearly in evidence at Uchi Maius. For only a part of a castellum washenceforth stipendiary, th e territory of th e civitas. Thus Gascou's chronology of Phileros' career, which puts hisactivities as praefectus i.d. in 26 (? ) B.C., is entirely comprehensible in light of th e deduction of 29 B.C., whichbrought with it th e assignment to Carthage of its pertica and th e grant of immunitas to Carthage and its territory(the pagi) in th e following (? ) year81. Three years would be a plausible interval for all th e administrativepreliminaries that would be required before Phileros could allocate contracts for collecting taxes in th e castellaand it is a striking parallel that in this very year lands were assigned by a duumvir of Octavian's colony at Cirtato new settlers installed on he r territory (AE, 1955, 202 = ILAlg 2,4226 : Ksar Mahidjiba) 82.Analysis of Gascou's argument can pertinently begin by noting that, if Africa Vetus and Africa Nova wereunder one governor from 40 B.C., they nevertheless remained separate provinces on his view right down to27 B.C. In 29 B.C. we should therefore have a Carthaginian pertica that overlapped into two distinct provinces,even if both were subject to one authority. It is surely easier to believe that the pertica will have been extended

77 Gascou, p. 117 with n. 78 and refs.78 Broughton, supra, n . 42, ibid.79 GASCOU p. 118, citing Chronica Minora saec. IV . V VI. VII (Monumenta Germaniae Histrica t. IX , Berlin, 1892 [1961]),p. 21 7 (ed. Th. Mommsen).80 DEBBASCH, supra, n. 31, p. 36, 40f. with n. 60 ; Poinssot, supra, n . 47 , p. 61f. See further Le Glay, supra, n. 6, p. 240.For immunity from taxes as a concomitant to freedom se e Millar, supra, n . 56 , 430ff. See now Jacques, infra, n . 112, p. 589f.81 GASCOU p. 118, n. 86, notes that the Consularia Italica in Chronica Minora (supra, n. 79) p. 276 give the Ides of July, 726a.u.c. (15th July, 28 B.C.) as the date of the "restitution" of Carthage. It might be added that the corresponding entry under BarbarusScaligeri f. 50-50' refers to the "renovation" of Carthage in that year. This is the same date as the grant of libertas and a year laterthan the deduction of Octavian, as reported by Dio.82 Gascou, p. 120, n. 93 with refs. For discussion on the development of Cirta se e recently Cristofori, supra, n. 8, p. 90-92with n. 56 .


18/26

72 D. FISHWICKinto what had been Africa Nova at some point after th e two provinces were merged into one, a step that on th eevidence of th e fasti triumphales had already been taken by 36 B.C. (supra, p. 51). The crux of th e argumentfor dating th e pertica to 29 B.C. is nevertheless th e information provided by Appian. To attribute th e details hegives to th e deduction of Octavian raises a number of problems. In th e first place there is a prima facie conflictwith Augustus' statement in th e Res Gestae that the colonies he founded were military : colonias in Africa...militum deduxi (28) 83. The incorporation ofperioikoi is mentioned neither here nor in Dio's notice, which statesonly that Octavian reinforced th e existing colony of Carthage (52,43,1 : above p. 58f) 84. A way around thismight be to take Augustus' statement as loosely consistent with just th e three thousand colonists, who are in factdistinguished from the perioikoi in Appian's account 85, but there are more serious difficulties. In contrast to th eaction of Caesar, who in 46-44 B.C. established Cirta with a vast stretch of surrounding country apparently asan autonomous fiefdom under P. Sittius (Appian, B.C. 4,54) 86, we have no clear evidence fo r any initiativealong these lines on th e part of Octavian. That th e passage of Hyginus {supra, p. 71) can be brought into playis doubtful at best. The term employed by th e grommatici for an administrative territory is pertica not fines andpertica should technically mean territory assigned on th e foundation of a colony 87. Strictly speaking therefore,th e Carthaginian pertica, now attested by th e Thugga inscription, should be associated with th e foundation of44 B.C. rather than th e reinforcement of 29 B.C.

Secondly, it is debatable whether Appian's ' are to be conceived as entirelyconsisting of discharged veterans. One would have thought th e phrase equally appropriate to th e Roman poorwhom Caesar had gathered together () on his return to Rome with th e intention of sending someto Carthage, others to Corinth. Strabo states explicitly that Caesar sent as colonists to Carthage such Romansas preferred to go there along with some soldiers (17,3,15). Against this Plutarch mentions that Caesar courtedth e soldiers with new colonies, of which th e most conspicuous were Carthage and Corinth (Caes. 57,5),Pausanias simply states that he founded a colony at Carthage (2,1,2), while Dio reports only that he restoredCarthage as a Roman colony, honouring it with its ancient name (43, 50, 3-4). On th e proposed interpretationthese Roman colonists would then be th e embodiment of th e weeping that Caesar saw in hi s dream,as a result of which he wrote a memorandum to colonize Carthage. Rather than being dismissed as legend 88,th e tale should surely be related to contemporary politics as propaganda put out to show that the gods favoureda plan which must have run into opposition in Rome 89. Tertullian seems to confirm this by his reference toCaesar's longas moras (supra, pp. 59f). Appian's may well be intended in th e wider sense ofa crowd or band of men 90 and thus correspond not only to th e information on th e Caesarean colonists providedby th e literary authorities but also to what th e demographic studies of J.-M. Lassere have revealed, namely thatrelatively few soldiers - perhaps five to six thousand legionaries plus an uncertain number of auxiliaries -participated in Caesar's African foundations91. What is more to th e point, this interpretation would then be

83 So GSELL, supra, n . 6, p. 231.84 For the point that the deduction of Octavian w as not a new foundation se e Fishwick, supra, n. 35, forthcoming.85 So Lassere, supra, n 5, p. 206.86 Cristofori, supra, n. 8, p. 91 with n . 52 ; se e further, below n. 93 .87 See the helpful discussions of Veyne (P.), La table de s Ligures Baebiani et l'institution alimentaire de Trajan, M.E.F.R.t. 69 , 1957, p. 81-135 at 95-97 ; ID., Contributo : Bnvent, Capoue, Cirta, Latomus t. 18, 1959, p. 568-592 at 577, n. 2 ; Poinssot,supra, n . 47 , p. 63f. ; Broughton, supra, n. 42, p. 270f.88 GSELL, supra, n . 27, p. 173.89 Romanelli, supra, n . 10, p. 140.90 Appian's source conceivably used the term exercitus. For the word in the wider sense of multitudo, turba se e Oxford LatinDictionary s.v. p. 641, 2c, citing inter alia Livy 3, 14, 4 : cum ingenti clientium exercitu ; cf Cic. Pro Flac. 13.91 Lassere, o.e., supra, n. 55, p. 147f.


19/26

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 73consistent with Suetonius' statement that Caesar exhausted Rome by dispatching eighty thousand citizens,drawn from th e city itself, to overseas colonies (lui. 42,1) 92.

Finally, Appian definitely dates th e synoecism of th e colony to 44 B.C., 102 years after th e destruction ofCorinth. Rather than attribute his data to Octavian's deduction, it seems by far th e likelier interpretation toassociate these with th e original colony in 44 B.C., simply screening out th e reference to Octavian, who, asGsell noted, had no legal basis on which he might act at this stage 93. By Caesar's death th e scheme had reachedth e stage at which he had enrolled as colonists a body primarily of th e poor 94, who se t out for Carthage in th emonths following th e Ides of March. On arrival they were joined by perioikoi as Caesar had planned. In thisway th e Romans founded () Carthage again 102 years after its destruction. What Appian has done,then, is to combine this sequence of events with information he had on th e later deduction of Octavian. Whenhe says that Augustus, finding his father's memorandum, synoecised () th e present Carthage, he issimply in error ; this had been th e achievement of th e Julian foundation, whereas what Octavian did was toreinforce th e colony with veterans - how many we are not told. It is even conceivable that Appian's report onth e location of th e colony also derives from information that originally related to th e Caesarean foundation andwhich th e historian has likewise again misapplied to Octavian's venture. In any case, th e point is necessarilytrue of th e Julian colony if, as Dio states (52,43,1), th e reinforcement of Octavian was superimposed() on th e earlier foundation (supra, p. 60). The only potential weakness in this reconstruction is thatRomano-African names - Caecilius, Sextilius, T. Sextius - occur among colonists who are taken byJ.-M. Lassere to be of Augustan date, whereas similar names do not occur among th e early settlers of th e Juliancolony 95. As Lassere himself has stressed, however, th e total number of names we have is very small, somesixteen in all. Nothing excludes th e possibility that similar names may ye t appear among colonists that Lassereattributes to th e earlier foundation - or that the Romano-African settlers of th e Augustan period are, in fact,descendants of earlier colonists. As it happens, two of th e Augustan names, M. Bennius and Octavius, alreadyappear in the list of Caesarean colonists 96. The demographic data are consequently too insecure simply inthemselves to link th e synoecism definitively with either th e Caesarean or th e Augustan colony.

If th e synoecism of Carthage, accomplished by consolidating Roman settlers with perioikoi, was in fact th eachievement of th e Julian colony, it follows that the deduction of 29 B.C. can no longer stand as an absoluteterminus post fo r th e office of praefectus id . How, then, does this affect th e supposed link with Phileros'commission and th e grant of immunitas to th e Carthaginian pertica ? Here Gascou's argument is surely flawedin th e first place by a change in his definition of castellum. Whereas this is initially taken to cover th ecombination of pagus and civitas, 97 he now infers that by vectig. quinq. locand. in castell. LXXXIII is meantthat Phileros was concerned with farming taxes to be paid by th e civitas alone : il (se. Octave) transforma cescivitates (ou castella) avoisantes en source de revenus pour la colonie.... Le rle de Phileros fut non seulementde procder l'adjudication des impts dans ces civitates (ou castella) mais encore d'tablir une rigoureusesparation entre les terres relevant des civitates et celles qui relevaient des pagi. 98 One would have thoughtfrom the wording of th e Formiae inscription (supra, p. 65) that, if th e taxes were to be farmed in castellis, then92 On Caesar's program of colonization, se e in general SALMON (E.T.), Roman Colonization under the Republic, London,1969, p. 132ff.93 Gsell, supra, n . 6, p. 228, followed by Gascou, p. 108, n. 17. For the view that Caesar, the founder of Greater Cirta, wasthe author of the synoecism of Carthage, se e Piganiol's commentary on Poinssot, supra, n. 47, p. 76 .94 For the enrolment of colonists, se e Salmon, supra, n . 92, ibid.95 O.e. p. 206-211.96 Ibid. p. 163f., 209.97 Gascou, o.e. p. 119 : II est tentant de supposer qu e ce (se. ce s castella) furent les localits peregrines dont le territoirefu t en partie assign Carthage pour constituer les pagi ... En revanche, les terres laisses aux civitates continurent ... . For theterm castellum se e now Rebuffat (R.) in Encyclopdie Berbre, Aix-en-Provence, 1993, Vol. 12, pp. 1822-33 s.v. (C29).98 Ibid.


20/26

74 D. FISHWICKth e commission of Phileros must have related in some way to th e pagi also, given that a castellum (on Gascou'sdefinition) consisted of both sl pagus of Roman citizens and a civitas of indigenous inhabitants. If, then, the grantof immunitas dispensed Roman citizens from the payment of taxes to Rome and if Phileros was empowered tolease contracts for th e collection of these taxes, his task would make sense only before 28 B.C. By placing th eprefecture after 28 B.C. Gascou is obliged to restrict the sense of castellum to civitas alone. Furthermore he isconstrained to infer that Phileros will have leased taxes to be paid now to Carthage by members of th e civitas,since th e praefectus iure dicundo was clearly a Carthaginian magistrate.

The striking feature about the latter proposal is that it brings th e discussion round full circle to th e old,largely overlooked view of W. Liebenam that th e commission of Phileros was concerned with farming localtaxes payable to Carthage, not provincial taxes payable to Rome ". Such local levies would presumably haveincluded land rents of various kinds (farms, pasture-land, woods, lakes, ponds...), also dues fo r th e use ofcommunal buildings or properties (houses, shops, industrial premises, baths, roads...) 10, and, as th e Formiaeinscription confirms, will have been payable in both th e pagus and th e civitas covered by the term castellum.In favour of this interpretation is th e circumstance that, as Gascou notes, Phileros was a Carthaginian official,also th e fact that the term vectigalia can clearly refer to th e local income of cities and communities - not thatth e usage is restricted to these 101 . What is equally pertinent, contracts for th e collection of such local revenueswere leased to publicani (cf. CIL 13 , 7623) in much th e same way as th e taxes of a province were farmed tocompanies at Rome 102. Quite clearly, Phileros' activity in th e eighty-three castella reflects a mandate thatextended to much, if not all, of th e Carthaginian pertica, where as praefectus i. d. he may also have beenconcerned with setting boundaries between th e pagus and th e civitas in other communities (just as at UchiMaius : CIL 8, 26274). If this interpretation of Phileros' commission is correct, however, as seems very possibleon th e above analysis, then it could have occured equally well before or after th e grant of immunitas, wheneverthat took place, and discussion of whether the term libertas does or does not cover immunity from taxes isbeside th e point. More particularly, no argument linked to th e grant of immunitas can be used for determiningth e possible date at which Phileros le t out tax contracts in castellis or se t boundaries between th e twocommunities of each castellum. The immunitas perticae Carthaginiensium is simply irrelevant now to th eresponsibilities of Phileros.

At th e end of this protracted discussion, th e only securely fixed points in th e cursus of M. Caelius Phileroswould appear to be his service as accensus to T. Sextius, which cannot be later than 40 B.C., and his post asAugustalis at Formiae, which must be contemporary with or later than th e creation of th e office by Augustus- whenever that took place. Can, finally, any further arguments be invoked than might serve to assign this orany other part of th e cursus to a more specific date ? There remains a possible inference, overlooked in al lprevious discussion, that seems to place th e praefecture i.d. with great probability under th e administration ofLepidus. The point turns on the aedes of Tellus, which Phileros constructed out of his personal funds. Gascoudoes not propose a specific date for this, but clearly includes it with th e offices held at Carthage, therefore inth e twenties B.C. after Phileros had been engaged in making his fortune between 40 and 30 B.C. l03 Why atemple should have been built to Tellus, Gascou does not suggest, though he doubts th e view of Broughton,taken over from Gsell, that Tellus was one of th e Cereres, and cites with approval th e contrary view of H. Le99 ID., supra, . 65, p. 312ff.10 0 Liebenam, o.e. p. 14ff ; Langhammer, supra, n. 51, p. 88 ff, 116ff.101 LIEBENAM, p. 312, n. 2, citing CIL 10, 6104 (Formiae) ; Daremberg-Saglio, Diet. desAntiq. 5, 1919 (1963), p. 665f. s.v.(Cagnat) ; Der Kleine Pauly, 1975, 1 15 0 s.v. (Pekry). For vectigalia in the form of ground rents paid to the municipality of Veleiaor the colony of Beneventum se e Veyne, supra, n . 87(1957), p. 98-100. See further Langhammer, supra, n. 51, p. 85ff., 89f. withn . 352, 96ff, 116ff., et passim.10 2 Daremberg-Saglio 4, 1, 1907 (1963), p. 753, n . 3 with refs. s.v. (Cagnat).10 3 O.e. p. 113.


21/26

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II 75Bonniec that the cult of Tellus was always distinct from that of th e Cereres, also A. Audollent's opinion that thetemple of Tellus at Carthage was autonomous and separate from that of th e Cereres 104.

An interpretation along radically different lines may be proposed. We have seen that, before the finaldestruction of Carthage, Scipio devoted th e city to Dis Pater, Veoivis and th e Manes. On Gsell's convincinginterpretation, it was to these three deities that Pompey se t up altars in 81 B.C., thereby re-consecrating th e soilof Carthage to th e Infernal Gods (supra, p. 59f). On th e analysis of Tertullian developed above (pp. 59-62)Lepidus took a third step in this direction when he razed buildings that had trespassed on forbidden ground, ineffect restoring th e land once more to th e Gods of th e Netherworld, to whom it had originally been devoted .It is surely in this connection that one must understand th e action of Phileros in building an aedes to Tellus.Macrobius gives th e formula by which Scipio devoted th e city of Carthage as follows :Dis pater Veiovis Manes, sive vos quo alio nomine fas es t nominare, ut omnes illam urbem Carthaginemexercitumque quern ego me sentio dicere fuga formidine terrore compleatis quique adversum legionesexercitumque nostrum arma telaque ferent, uti vos eum exercitum eos hostes eosque homines urbes agrosqueeorum et qui in his locis regionibusque agris urbibusque habitant abducatis, lumine supero privetisexercitumque hostium urbes agrosque eorum quos me sentio dicere, uti vos eas urbes agrosque capitaaetatesque eorum devotas consecratasque habeatis ollis legibus quibus quandoque sunt maxime hostesdevoti. ...Si haec itafaxitis ut ego sciam sentiam intelle gamque, tune quisqus votum hoc faxit ubiubifaxit rectefactum esto ovibus atris tribus. Tellus mater teque Iuppiter obtestor.

(Sat. 3,9,10-11)On th e last sentence Macrobius comments cum Tellurem dicit manibus terram tangit ; cum Iovem dicit,manus ad caelum tollit ; cum votum recipere dicit, manibus pectus tangit. He then gives a list of cities that havebeen devoted including Carthage and Corinth. What this formula makes clear, therefore, is that the chthonicgoddess Tellus played a key role in th e ac t of devotio. 10 5 Confirmation is provided by th e formula with whichth e consul P. Decius Mus devoted himself in order to save th e Roman legions in 340 B.C. :lane Iuppiter Mars pater Quirine Bellona Lares Divi Novensiles Di Indigetes Divi quorum es t potestasnostrorum hostiumque Dique Manes, vos precor veneror veniam peto oroque uti populo Romano Quiritium,vim, victoriam, prosperetis, hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. Sicutverbis nuncupavi, it a pro re publica populi Romani Quiritium, exercitu legionibus auxiliis populi RomaniQuiritium, legiones auxiliaque hostium mecum Deis Manibus Tellurique devoveo.

(Livy 8,9,6-8)In fact it is clear from Livy that Tellus could be invoked first in such a

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cy-wu
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

article_antaf_0066-4871_1994_num_30_1_1222

Documents