Duncan Fishwick

On the origins of Africa Proconsularis, II

In: 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

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 will have demolished buildings that had spilled onto cursed ground at Roman Carthage. Despite the fact that he had been illegally appointed pontifex maximus, Lepidus' actions should 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.

Antiquits africaines t. 30, 1994, p. 57-80

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II THE ADMINISTRATION OF LEPIDUS AND THE COMMISSION OF M. CAELIUS PHILEROS

by Duncan FISHWICK*

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 will have demolished buildings that had spilled onto cursed ground at Roman Carthage. Despite the fact that he had been illegally appointed pontifex maximus, Lepidus' actions should 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. According to the information preserved in the fasti et commentarii triumphorum and fasti triumphales Barberiniani, the Republican provinces of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova were already united in a combined whole by the time that T. Statilius Taurus served as proconsular governor in 35-34 B.C. Nothing in the fasti indicates any change in the status of Africa in the years immediately following 27 B.C., nor is there any epigraphical evidence elsewhere to confirm the long-standing view that the origins of Proconsularis date from the so-called "division" of the provinces between emperor and senate in that same year. A fresh look at the literary sources, particularly Dio 53,12,4-9, suggests that such a proposition is, in fact, based on a misreading * University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

58

D. FISHWICK

of what the ancient authorities report. A more precise date at which Africa might have been unified does not emerge immediately from the available data, but the confusion that reigned in the 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 during these years of turmoil. We are left with the proconsulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus in 40-36 B.C., a period when external pressures, both military and economic, might be thought to have forced the amagalmation of the two Republican provinces almost of necessity '. The question that arises next is whether any direct evidence can be brought to bear that points definitively to Lepidus' term as the point of origin of what was later to be known as Africa Provincialis.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF LEPIDUS Hard evidence for any activity on the part of Lepidus while governor of Africa is extremely slight. A few denarii which he issued were conjecturally attributed by Grueber to the period from the summer of 40 to September 36 B.C. These had earlier been placed by Babelon among the triumviral issues of 43 B.C. and have now been assigned to 42 by M. Crawford, who holds that they were struck from the proceeds of the proscriptions in preparation for the campaign of that year 2. Nothing would appear to tie these coins directly to Lepidus' administration of the province. The obverse shows the head of Lepidus and refers to him as pontifex maximus as well as triumvir, while the reverse bears the head of Octavian, imperator and triumvir. Otherwise we have a single inscription from the port of Thabraca set up, in recognition of some unknown benefit, to Lepidus 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 the disgrace of Lepidus in September 36 B.C. by a reference to him as triumvir rei publicae constituendae bis (sic) (A.E., 1959, 77 = ILLRP 2, 1276) 3. It is true that a second-century text records the name of the town as Colonia VP Mia Thabracenorum (ILAlg 1, 109), which might conceivably be expanded V(ictrix) P(ontificalis) - therefore an allusion to Lepidus - but V(ictrix) P(ia) looks equally possible, in which case the title could point to a foundation of Caesar 4. Beyond the single dedication to Lepidus the triumvir, therefore, tangible traces of his presence remain illusive. Whether a somewhat liberal extension of Roman citizenship by Lepidus is to be seen behind the name of the M. Aemilii, who occur at numerous centres in Africa, notably Carthage, Utica, Lepcis Magna, Hadrumetum and Cirta, is very debatable. The possibility remains open even if in the colonies of Marius the name ante-dates the period 40-36 B.C. 5. Discussion is consequently restricted to the literary evidence. Dio reports that Octavian re-settled Carthage because Lepidus had razed a part of the city and was thought to have thereby abrogated the rights of the earlier colonists : 1 Fishwick (D.), On the Origins of Africa Proconsularis I : The 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. 495 ; cf Vol. 2, p. 739, 740, n. 5. See further 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 see 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 Lepidus reflect his eagerness to keep up with his (disloyal) colleagues Octavian and M. Antony ; cf Weigel, supra, n. 2, p. 82f., 156. See further below, p. 63 with n. 32. 4 Gascou (J.), La Politique municipale de l'Empire romain en Afrique Proconsulaire de Trajan Septime Svre (Coll. de l'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 possible connection of Lepidus with the founding of the colony of Rusguniae.

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

59

, , . (52, 43, 1) What was the reason for these demolitions Dio fails to make clear. For this one must turn to a slightly corrupt passage of Tertullian which seems to offer reasonable possibilities for legitimate inference : Vobis vero post iniuriae beneficium, ut senium non fastigium, exemptis, post Gracchi obscena omina et Lepidi violenta ludibria, post trinas Pompei aras et longas Caesaris moras, ubi moenia Statilius Taurus imposuit, sollemnia Sentius Saturninus enarravit, cum concordia iuvat, toga oblata est (De pallio 1,2: Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. II) The sequence of events given by Tertullian is clearly out of chronological order - he puts Lepidus' activities before those of Pompey and Caesar - but his pairing of episodes, far from being just a rhetorical device, serves the purpose of highlighting incidents that are linked thematically 6. Viewed in this perspective, the passage becomes of crucial evidential value for present purposes. Our primary concern here is with the allusion to Lepidus' violent shams . The adjective violenta transparently captures the demolitions reported by Dio (above) but in what sense does Tertullian use ludibria ? Analysis of the term suggests that the relevant meaning here must be that of matters which to others seem serious or purposeful but are judged by the writer or speaker to be vain, inept, unworthy 7. In this sense the word is used particularly by Christian writers with reference to pagan cults and superstitions. Two further passages in Tertullian are of particular interest in this connection : sed conversus ad litteras vestras... quanta invenio ludibria (sc. ineptiae decorae quae de deis creduntur ; Apol. 14, 2) ; diximus retro aeque ilium et nativitatis et infantiae imaginariae vacua ludibria subire potuisse (De cam. Chr. 5, 2 ; cf 1, 4 : scilicet qui carnem Christi putativam 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 alia portenta atque ludibria. cf. id., Div. inst. 1, 21, 49 ; Augustine, De civ. dei : 2, 4 : veniebamus... ad spectacula ludibriaque 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 to Lepidus' ludibria must have some connection with pagan superstition and that the author's pejorative use of the word is conditioned by his Christian outlook and impassioned resentment at the violence done to his patria. This conclusion is surely confirmed by the adjoining episodes in the text. Lepidus' activities are linked with the obscena omina of Gaius Gracchus, clearly a reference to the prodigies and evil omens that were conjured out of reports that wolves were tearing up his boundary markers (whatever these may have been) at the site which Scipio Aemilianus and a senatorial commission had cursed in 146 B.C. Tall tales ; but they served their purpose very well and, on the proposal of Minucius Rufus, the Gracchan Iunonia was formally abolished in 121 8. The way that Tertullian combines Lepidus' activities with these obscene omens strongly suggests that the violenta ludibria will have been likewise associated in some way with the curse. This possibility looks considerably strengthened by Tertullian's next two allusions, both of which are surely linked also, if indirectly, with the curse. The three altars of Pompey presumably relate to some episode in 81 B.C., during Pompey's campaigns in Africa against the Marians, led by Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and the 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 the occasion of his stay at Carthage, Pompey set up altars for the gods to whom the territory of Punic Carthage had been devoted sixty-five years earlier, before the final 6 Gsell (S.), Les premiers temps de la Carthage romaine, RH t. 156, 1927, p. 225-240 at 225 ; Le Glay (M.), Les premiers temps de Carthage romaine : pour une rvision des 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 see 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.

60

D. FISHWICK

assault on the city 9. On Romanelli's interpretation this will have been a renewed consecration of the site to the infernal gods, one that in effect re-emphasized optimate opposition to any re-birth of Carthage which the popular party might plan on the lines of Gaius Gracchus' initiative 10. Who precisely these gods were in that case is revealed by the 'devotion' formula reported by Macrobius, namely Dis Pater, Veiovis and the Manes (Sat. 3, 9, 10-11 ; see further below, p. 75.) ".In Cicero's time, at any rate, we know that Punic Carthage was completely abandoned since he strenuously objected in 64 B.C. to the agrarian proposal of P. Servilius Rullus, who wished to divide the site into lots and put them up for sale (De leg. agr. 1,2,5 ; 2,19,51) 12. If this interpretation is correct, the fact that TertuUian balances the longas moras of Caesar against the trinas aras of Pompey suggests that the delays - hesitations gives a more accurate picture 13 - will also have been occasioned by the curse. In that case Caesar will surely have hesitated because of political opposition to the sacrilegious idea of colonizing a cursed site. The circumstance that he had been Pontifex Maximus since 63 B.C., not to mention Augur since 47 B.C., will doubtless have made him sensitive to the delicate matter of the taboo, a far more serious concern than the (irregular) obstruction of Bibulus which he had ignored in 59 B.C. In point of fact the 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 until 42 when the foundation got its name Colonia Iulia Concordia Karthago 14. So an ironical illusion to long hesitations on the part of Caesar would be entirely appropriate. Simply from the context, therefore, it would appear that Tertullian's sneer at Lepidus' violent shams is yet another reference to the curse, one of four such so far (see further below, p. 64). As for what form these activities could have taken, the above analysis of ludibrium would seem to rule out several possibilities that have been suggested : forced enrolment of settlers to be sent to Sicily 15, the suppression of supposed partisans of Octavian in Carthage before Lepidus' departure for Sicily 16. Might then Lepidus have simply demolished buildings that had spilled onto the cursed site, a possibility first raised by Gsell ? 17 Two points become critical at this stage. The first concerns the site of the Caesarian colony. None of the extant literary sources provides explicit information that might serve to pinpoint the exact location. The nearest is Appian's notice that Octavian, finding a written memorandum of Caesar, established the present colony of Carthage not on the site of the Punic city but as near as possible in order to avoid the curse : ... " , , , , . (Pun. 136). This information coincides almost word for word with the historian's earlier statement that the Romans subsequently occupied the site at Carthage with colonists of their own, very near to the location of the Punic 9 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., 247 ; 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. des 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 des Kaisers Augustus, Berlin, 1962, p. 128. 17 Supra, n. 6, p. 238 ; ID., HAAN, supra, n. 9, Vol. 8, p. 195 ; Weigel, supra, n. 2, p. 83f., 156. '

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

61

city, and that this was because of its advantageous site : ' , , . (Pun. 2) There can be no question, therefore, that on Appian's information the deduction of Octavian avoided the cursed site. Since, however, Dio's record of the settlement of 29 B.C. (supra, p. 59) uses the unusual word , possibly a hapax legomenon, it follows from the combination of both sources that the Caesarian colony, on which the later deduction was superimposed, will likewise have avoided the location of the Punic city. In that case the decision on where to place the colony must surely go back to Caesar, even if the colony was, as we have seen, led out in the months after his death. The precise location - beside but not on the Punic site - will presumably be the outcome of his long hesitations . Does this exclude the entire area of the Punic city in that case ? A partial answer is provided by Appian, who states quite clearly that the imprecations levelled in 146 B.C. applied , (Pun. 135) ; no one was to inhabit the site, though one could tread on it 18. While the term may not entirely exclude elsewhere in the vicinity (below, p. 62), it is clear that the acropolis of Byrsa and the district called Megara were particularly affected. To what extent the rest of the site was concerned is uncertain ; Appian describes the outer city elsewhere as ) (Pun. 2). How far next does the archaeological evidence conform with the picture deducible from the literary sources ? The main lines of the present picture were drawn up seventy years ago by Ch. Saumagne and have not been substantially affected by more recent exploration l9. Two grids, the rural and the urban, are to be sharply distinguished. The rural cadastration, which bounded the city on the northwest, is generally supposed to have been the work of Gaius Gracchus, who took planted his groma at a point situated on top of the Byrsa, nowadays below the apse of the cathedral of St. Louis. On the communis opinio this centuriation was then adopted by the colony of Caesar. The urban grid, in contrast, is usually thought to have been the work of some master-planner of Augustus, following the deduction of 29 B.C. The main intersecting lines of this plan, traditionally called the decumanus maximus and the cardo maximus, intersect at the same point on the summit of the acropolis. On the view of Saumagne the centre of the colony of Caesar lay in the area of La Malga and avoided the Byrsa, whereas the grid of the superimposed Augustan settlement, which overlay the Punic city, did include the Byrsa - in apparent contradiction to Appian's information. In support of this overall picture, reference is usually made inter alia to the oldest-known cemetery of Roman Carthage, that at Bir ez-Zitoun near the La Malga cisterns, which seems to go back to the pre-Augustan period ; it was near to here that was found a fragmentary inscription giving the names of what look to be the Hlviri for assigning lands in 121 B.C. (CIL 8, 12535). In addition, it now seems clear from recent exploration that monumental construction on the Byrsa hill - including large scale remodelling of the terrain that entailed levelling the summit of the acropolis - is to be dated to the Augustan and Julio-Claudian epoch 20. In light of all this it will be the Carthage of the 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 romaine d'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 in L'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 Carthage et son territoire dans l'Antiquit (Actes du IVe 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.

62

D. FISHWICK

period 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 hard data ; in practice it is to the literary evidence that one must turn for clarification of the succeeding stages of habitation and urbanization. E. Wightman has argued vigorously that it is stretching the evidence to locate the Julian city near the area of La Malga or to suppose that it was laid out on the rural cadastration ; as it would have been quite out of character for the dictator to have had any hesitation about the curse, she concludes that the decision to locate the new Carthage on top of the Punic city was, if fact, taken by Caesar himself. While Wightman succeeds in showing that the archaeological evidence falls short of conclusive proof, this thesis necessarily jettisons the entire evidence of Appian, who supposedly follows a different tradition. In fact Appian's statement that the Augustan foundation was beside, not on, the Punic site she rejects as patently false, perhaps an attempt at propaganda 22. Yet Appian precisely locates the colony in this way on two occasions and his information, as we have seen, implies a similar location for the Caesarian foundation. Furthermore the circumstance that what looks to be a pre-Augustan cemetery was situated in the area of La Malga clearly supports the possibility that Caesar's colony was situated to the north-west of the later deduction : that is, in an area which adjoined or coincided with forbidden ground, the ancient Megara 23. Given that on the above analysis of violenta ludibria Lepidus' demolitions will have been connected with the taboo, there seems every reason to accept Gsell's hypothesis that construction had in fact infringed on cursed ground and that this was what Lepidus cleared. If Saumagne's hypothesis is correct, two whole centuries will have been affected 24. The second point concerns the status of Lepidus at the time. M. Aemilius Lepidus had already served as a member of the pontifical college in 64 B.C., when he will undoubtedly have become acquainted with ritual, and in the aftermath of Caesar's assassination had been made pontifex maximus by Anthony in succession to Caesar himself 25. As the post was tenable for life and empowered the holder to enforce or interpret the fine points of ritual 26, Gsell makes the reasonable assumption that it was in this capacity he demolished constructions that had been erected in contravention of the curse 27. The suggestion has much to recommend it but the legal situation needs clarification. In 64 B.C. the tribune Titus Labienus had proposed a bill restoring the election of the pontifex maximus to the 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 the high priesthood by transferring the office from the people back to the priestly college (CD 44, 53, 6f. ; cf. Appian, B.C. 2, 132). From the legal standpoint this would have required the passage of a law but, as Mommsen first noted, such a law is nowhere reported to have been later rescinded, whereas we find the pontifex maximus later elected by the people once more 28. Furthermore Velleius refers to Lepidus as a Chief Pontiff furto creato (2, 63), while Augustus remarks in his Res Gestae that he received the office eo mortuo qui civilis motus occasione occupaverat (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 deserted area 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, RRG p. 400-402. 27 Gsell, above, n. 6, p. 238 ; ID., HAAN, Vol. 8, p. 195 ; cf Fishwick (D.) and Shaw (B.D.), The Formation of Africa Proconsularis, Hermes t. 105, 1977, p. 369-380 at 372 with n. 16. The minor objection (ibid.) to Gsell was based on a misunderstanding 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 (.), Zur Aufzeichnung der Res Gestae Divi Augusti im Pisidischen Antiochia, Hermes t. 59, 1924, p. 95-107 at lOlf., inferring the passage of a law from Dio' s language.

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

63

intercepit.) So it would appear that no appropriate law was introduced at the time. As Dio further states that, in company with the priests of the college, Anthony then consecrated Lepidus performing few or none of the accustomed rites, Lepidus' position will have been that he had been made pontifex maximus illegally and in contravention of regular ritual. Furthermore he was subsequently declared a public enemy on June 30th, 43 B.C., a few months before the Second Triumvirate, legally recognised by the Lex Titia of 27th November, brought the Roman Republic to an end. The office of triumvir might be thought to obviate any need to legitimize his position as Chief Pontiff - at any rate there is no mention of the matter in the sources - but he was excluded in the repartition of the Empire after Philippi and was clearly in Africa from 40 B.C. by grace and favour of Octavian. His status as pontifex maximus must therefore have been questionable at best - and remained so until 36 B.C., when he was stripped of his command by Octavian, who nevertheless allowed him to retain his pontificate 29. Given that the triumvirs had the 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 any strictly legal or quasi-legal sense from 36 B.C. From then until his death in 13 B.C. he continued to serve as pontifex maximus, in practice as an appointee of Octavian. The colonists at Carthage would have had justifiable grounds for complaints, therefore, if their buildings were razed because of religious scruples on the part of an illegally created pontifex maximus whose position was not to be regularized for several years. Dio reports that by this act Lepidus was held to have abrogated the rights of the earlier colonists (52, 43, 1 : supra, p. 59). The precise point at issue remains obscure but on the above reconstruction the 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 the curse. From the point of view of Lepidus, on the other hand, it is conceivable that it might have reinforced his own dubious claim to office if he proceeded to act boldly in his capacity as high priest de facto, if questionably de iure 32. Presumably his authoritarian procedure will have been in accord with the wishes of Octavian, to whom he owed his governorship of Africa ; retrospective approval, at least, is surely be read into Octavian's confirmation of Lepidus as pontifex maximus in 36 B.C. In any event, his activities must have had the positive effect of forestalling any malicious rumours of the kind that had ruined the colony of G. Gracchus and might be directed anew at the future capital of Africa. To this extent his violent shams will have removed any potential impediment to the future development of the colony, in particular the urbanization 33 begun under the governorship of T. Statilius Taurus in 35-34 B.C. 34 - ultimately also the initial phase of the reinforcement of the foundation by Octavian in 29 B.C., before removal of the curse permitted building on the Byrsa 35. Well might a Christian writer sneer at all this as violenta ludibria. 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. see Badin, supra, n. 3, o.e. 30 Millar (F.), Triumvirate and Principate, JRS 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 annulled the devono of hesitations" of146 Caesar see Debbasch and the implication (Y.), La vie thatetthe les Caesarian institutions settlement de la Carthage avoided romaine, the cursed RHD, site t. (supra, 31, 1953, p. p. 61) 30-53 tell against at 39. The any"long such action on Caesar's part. 32 Similar self-assertion may be reflected in the Thabraca inscription (supra, p. 58), which apart from the office of Pontifex Maximus, records a previously unknown imperial salutation and a second triumviral tenure. For the view that Lepidus was trying to 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 aedificiis see 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 new metropolis of Africa would be a reasonable initiative in his attested term as proconsular governor, following the amalgamation of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova. Cf Le Glay, supra, n. 6, p. 245, 247 ; Fishwick, supra, n. 1, p. 59f. 35 For the view that the curse was lifted in 12 B.C. see Fishwick (D.), De la Carthage punique la Carthage romaine. La leve de l'interdit, VIe Coll. sur hist, et l'archol. de l'Afrique du Nord, forthcoming, arguing that, following his election as Pontifex

64

D. FISHWICK

Any assessment of Lepidus' administration of Africa turns on the proper interpretation of his activity in razing part of the Caesarian colony. J. Gascou finds it impossible to believe that he made any positive contribution at Carthage in view of the detestable reputation he left behind, as evidenced by Tertullian's allusion 36. But this surely reflects the warped outlook of a Christian writer prejudiced against the ancient curse, to which he refers in one way or another on no less that five occasions 37. The upshot of the analysis is to see the violent activity of Lepidus in a different light. Anxious to remove all taint of curse from the new foundation at Carthage and thus avoid political difficulties of the sort that had plagued the Gracchan foundation, Lepidus took an important step which paved the way for the colony to assume its new role as the metropolis and centre of a consolidated province of Africa. Whether any building program was begun under Lepidus himself escapes our knowledge 38 ; we have seen that Tertullian places the beginning of urbanization under Statilius Taurus. But at least it seems clear that Carthage now replaced Utica, which lost its rank as the pre-eminent city of Africa 39. What is more important, we have definite epigraphical evidence that, taken as a whole, seems to offer firm indication in itself that the fusion of the old Republican provinces in the new province of Africa did indeed take place at the period to which the fasti of provincial governors and the turmoil of recent events in the region have already pointed.

THE COMMISSION OF M. CAELIUS PHILEROS At some stage in its early evolution Roman Carthage was attributed a vast administrative territory, of which the distinguishing characteristic was the juxtaposition of Roman pagi and peregrine civitates 40. Following the recovery of a fragmentary inscription at Thugga (AE, 1963, 94), the term pertica can properly be applied to an area so wide that the majority of its centres were situated to the west of the fossa regia, the line which had separated Africa Vetus on the east from Africa Nova on the west. That Carthage could have administered a dependency lying in two separate provinces - therefore under the jurisdiction of two distinct governors - is scarcely conceivable 41. By the far the likelier eventuality is that it will have administered dependencies to the west of the fossa regia only in the aftermath of the fusion of the two Republican provinces, at a time when Carthage had been made the metropolis of a united province of Africa. So if the origins of the pertica can be linked to Lepidus' presence in Africa, there clearly would be still further grounds for assigning the origins of the later Proconsularis to the period 40-36. An inscription found near Formiae preserves the 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 rid 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 Sentius Saturninus ubi ... 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 is correct ; 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 at Agbia, Numluli, Auensa, Uchi Maius, Thibursicum Bure, Thibaris, Thignica, perhaps also at Chiniaua, Belalis Maior and Thuburbo Maius. 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) see Gascou, p. 106, n. 9. He suggests it may be by inadvertence that Broughton refers to "the funerary inscription of M. Caelius Phileros" in ID., The Territory of Carthage, R.E.L. t. 47 bis (Mel. Marcel Durry), 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. :

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II I

65

M(arcus) Caelius, M(arci) l(ibertus), Phileros, accens(us) T(iti) Sexti imp(eratoris) in Africa, Carthag(ine) aed(ilis), praeflectus) i(ure) d(icundo) vectig(alibus) quinq(uennalibus) locand(is) in castell(is) LXXXIII, aedem Tell(uris) s(ua) p(ecunia) fec(it) ; Hvir Clupiae bis ; Formis 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(uentissimae), 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 : [... M(arcus) C]ae[l(ius) Ph]ileros castellum divisit inter colonos et Uchitanos termin(os) que constituit. (CILS, 26274 + ILT 1370) The background of M. Caelius Phileros can be surmised only from his name, but probability supports the communis opinio that he was a freedman of M. Caelius Rufus, whose father had properties in Africa and who served there himself under the proconsul Q. Pompeius Rufus between 62 and 59 B.C. 43 Presumably M. Caelius Rufus recommended his freedman at some stage to Titus Sextius, who subsequently took him as accensus to Africa on the strength of his local knowledge and experience. We have seen that T. Sextius was intermittently governor of one or both of the African provinces from 44 to 40 B.C., when he was succeeded by Lepidus M. The principal interest of the cursus for present purposes is that, after an aedileship at Carthage, Phileros served as praef. i. d. vectig. quinq. locand. in castell. LXXXIII. If one may judge from later examples of the office 45, he will have been sent out from Carthage to exercise jurisdiction in the castella and to farm out taxes, that is to lease the proceeds of taxes in return for a fixed sum 46. The eighty-three castella give every appearance of falling within the Carthaginian pertica 47, while the activities of Phileros at Uchi Maius, where he divided a castellum between the coloni and indigenous Uchitani, attest the extension of the pertica well to the west of the fossa regia. Taken together, the two inscriptions appear to mirror a situation arising from the recent assignment to Carthage of its vast dependency. The crucial question for present purposes is when Phileros exercised his commission as praefectus i.d. If this could be established, the date would provide an implied terminus ante for the formation of a unified province, since it must have occurred at a time when the two Republican provinces had already been amalgamated. The sequence of posts which has usually been proposed is that Phileros' career unfolded at Carthage in the wake of his service as accensus to T. Sextius, therefore in the 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 the result that his activities within the newly-formed pertica would be datable quite possibly to the first half of the decade, say 38-37 B.C. or soon after. On the view of J. Gascou, in contrast, this latter part of the chronology is 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 I I I I I I I 43 Luisi (.), Il liberto Marco Celio Filerote, magistrato municipale, Atene e Roma n.s. 20, 1975, p. 44-56, at 45f ; Gascou p. 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 des dcouvertes pigraphiques rcentes, 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 ?, AntAfr t. 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. I

66

D. FISHWICK

there are crucial objections to holding that any except the first of the succeeding offices of the cursus could have been held under Lepidus. The earliest date at which he might theoretically have become aedile at Carthage would be 39 B.C., yet even if this were the case, Phileros could not have been made praefectus i.d. before 35 B.C. - after the departure of Lepidus, that is. The reason is that, after an annual magistracy, one necessarily became privatus in order to be accountable, if so required, for any irregularities in office the previous year an impossibility if one could pass directly from one office to another. What is more to the point, there had by law to be an interval of three years before the tenure of another magistracy, just as by law there had to be an interval of five years between tenures of the same magistracy 50. The provision on which Gascou bases this reasoning is a law attested under Gordian. As recorded in the Justinian Code, this concerns a legal exemption that one could invoke if so desired : a vacano of five years is allowed before one had to perform the same office and three years before obligatory tenure of a different office : ab honoribus ad eosdem honores quinquennii datur vacado, triennii vero ad alios. Legatione autem perfunctis bienii vacano concessa est (10,41,2). On the analysis of W. Langhammer, what by Gordian's time was a protective beneficium had originally been an enforced delay : obligatory intervals between tenures had become concessions 51. Gascou applies this argument retrospectively to the career of Phileros at Carthage and concludes that he could not have served as praefectus i.d. for a minimum of three years after the aedileship : that is, not before 35 B.C. at the earliest. Is this reasoning correct ? First, a brief review of the pertinent evidence. According to the Digest : Gerendorum honorum non promiscua facultas est, sed ordo certus huic rei adhibitus est. nam eque prius maiorem magistratum quisquam, nisi minorent susceperit, gerere potest, eque ab omni aetate, eque continuare 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 the regular term of one year. However, if no other suitable candidates are available, previous office-holders can be re-appointed in line with Hadrian's ruling. The second text, also from the Digest, is a rescript of Septimius Severus : Divus Severus rescripsit intervalla temporum in continuandis oneribus ( honoribus : edd.) invitis, non etiam volentibus concessa, dum ne quis continuet honorem (50,1,18). Those unwilling to serve are allowed intervals of time before holding another office but for those who have no objections the intervals do not apply, except that one might not hold the same office for two successive years 52. This clearly repeats the Hadrianic prohibition against more than one year in one office. The expression in continuandis oneribus is not entirely clear but ought to mean continuation in the same office 53. The key point would then be that one can be continued in an office but only after a set interval, a provision which does not apply to those willing to shoulder office - except for the obligatory interlude of a year 54. Finally, the law of Gordian (above) quantifies 50 Gascou, o.e. p. Ill with nn. 33f. 51 ID., Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipales und der Decuriones, Wiesbaden, 1973, p. 51-53, inferring that the change took place in the late second century A.D. The thesis goes back to Mommsen (Th.), Die Stadtrechte der lateinischen 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 one office to another", a step up on the cursus honorum (which is surely unlikely), then the re-script states that intervals are allowed in that case also for those unwilling to hold office, but do not apply to others who are willing, provided only that no-one prolongs his term in office beyond a year.

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

67

the permissable intervals as five years between the same office, three years between different offices, and two years before a renewed munus legationis. Langhammer argues convincingly that there had earlier been mandatory intervals before one was allowed to hold office a second time. It is clear from the Lex Municipii Flavii Malacitana in particular that five years was the prescribed interval between two tenures of the duumvirate {CIL 2,1964 = ILS 6084,c54). But once it became difficult to find local citizens to shoulder the burdens of office, this prohibition evolved into a beneficium which provided a legal vacano of five years before one could be obliged to hold office again. For the lower offices of quaestor or aedile, on the other hand, there are no known regulations about intervals between repeated tenures, other than the prohibition of two successive years, and nothing whatever is known of any prescribed intervals that might have had to be observed in moving from one office of the cursus to the next 55. The only regulations recorded in the Digest (50,4,14,5-6 : above) are that one had to observe a regular succession of offices and be of a certain age. It is a big leap in reasoning, therefore, to infer from the law of Gordian that there must earlier have been a mandatory interval of three years between two different offices. Gordian's law shows that the principle of beneficial intervals certainly applied in A.D. 238 to tenures of two different offices, but we have no evidence for the earlier existence of an obligatory interval corresponding to the earlier set interval between two terms of the same office. The beneficium of three years could well have developed independently in the light of Severus' rescript, just as the vacado of two years before a second munus legationis (above) clearly did not evolve out of an obligatory interval : in the later Republic or Triumviral period no such prescribed munus existed 56. It follows that there is no sound reason to hold that Phileros could not have held office for three years after his aedileship. As for Langhammer's point that one had to be privatus the year following a magistracy, no definite evidence 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 for this reason that Kontinuation was forbidden - either by extension of the period of office (continuatio) or by immediate election to another office, alternatively re-election to the same. The text he cites in support of this, however, is the rescript of Severus... dum ne quis continuet honorem (above), which refers to prolongation of the same office, as the singular shows 57 ; it says nothing to forbid immediate election to another office, for which the Latin might conceivably have been dum ne quis continuet honores (plural). With no solid evidence to show that a year as privatus was mandatory, the point is at best unconfirmed 58 ; notice of impending charges against an incumbent could presumably have prevented his immediate reelection. In any event, even if a year as privatus was mandatory between succeeding offices (which does not seem substantiated by positive evidence), it should be 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 for themselves and require no more than cursory attention. It may well be, as Langhammer notes, that a similar regulation to the law of Gordian had long been in existence before 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 des cursus honorum zum Duumvirat gewerteten mter der Quaestur und Aedilitt scheinen, abgesehen vom Verbot der Kontinuation, berhaupt keine diesbezglichen Vorschriften bestanden zu haben oder ein Intervallum von nur drei Jahren." No evidence is presented for the conjectured 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 (31 B.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 unmittelbar nach einander zu bernehmen, scheint nicht unerlaubt gewesen zu sein." :

68

D. FISHWICK

Carthage in North Africa, two and one-half centuries earlier in the Triumviral period 59 ? In any case Papinian states explicitly that the rules fluctuated from place to place : Praescriptio temporum, quae in honoribus repetundis 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 at Ostia : ...Hic primus omnium, quo anno dec(urio) adl(ectus) est, et q(uaestor) a( erarii) fact(us) est et in proxim(um) annum Hvir designat(us) est\ ... (CIL 14, 409 = ILS 6146) Gascou's qualification that this is an exceptional case hardly alters the fact that, on the evidence of this inscription, immediate passage from one office to another could and did occur. In support of his argument against placing Phileros' municipal offices in the early or later thirties, Gascou next invokes a subjective argument. Is it conceivable that an accensus of T. Sextius will have exercised responsibility at Carthage under Lepidus 61 ? Dio reports that Sextius put up no resistance to Lepidus - either because he thought Antony approved of the assignment to Lepidus of Vetus and Nova or because he did not have sufficient troops to resist (48,23,5). Gascou infers, however, that relations between the two will have been strained and notes Appian's statement that Lepidus deprived Sextius of the four legions he had under his command (BC 5,75). He concludes that it is difficult to think Phileros, the ex-accensus of Sextius, un homme mal vu de Lpide , could have held any office at Carthage under the latter's domination. All this is very speculative. In point of fact, Dio adds that Sextius deliberately remained quiet, acting as if the inevitable was a favour on his part to Lepidus (ibid. ). So there is no clear reason to suppose animosity on Lepidus' part or that he will necessarily have harboured any prejudice against a freedman of low status who had served as Sextius' aide-de-camp. On the contrary, far from being persona non grata at Carthage under Lepidus, Phileros could well have been viewed as a cooperative, experienced official, someone with special local knowledge who might and, in the event, did give good service. Conjecture along these lines is in any case of little or no historical value in the lack of hard data. Gascou's hypothesis is inevitably coloured by the fact that he holds a distinction between Africa Vetus and Africa Nova continued to be observed down to 27 B.C. and that what Dio and Tertullian report of Lepidus's activities at Carthage precludes the possibility he could have accorded the city any such favour as extending its pertica. As we have seen, the first of these points is invalid 62, the second in no way follows from the literary evidence (above, pp. 63f). Having ruled out any role for Phileros at Carthage under Lepidus, Gascou then suggests that his past association with Sextius makes it difficult to believe he could have held any magistracy at Carthage before the Battle of Actium. After 31 B.C., on the other hand, when Octavian was anxious to show his dementia, a simple freedman might well have found favour with the Carthaginian authorities, particularly in light of his wealth, which must have appreciated in these years if one may judge from his munificence in building the temple of Tellus. This again is pure hypothesis, unsupported by evidence, and requires, apart from anything else, that from 40-30 B.C. Phileros was without any municipal function at all. Gascou supposes that he spent these years in building a fortune in commerce and that this explains his generosity at Carthage, later also at Formiae, where he embellished the temple of Neptune. Why Phileros should have resumed a municipal career at Carthage in particular after an interval of ten years is not explained, whereas on the standard view his earlier service with T. Sextius in Africa (above) locates him already in the region, well placed to serve at Carthage in the 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 the election 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. I

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

69

thirties. As for the source of Phileros' wealth, we simply have no information on this. Nothing excludes the possibility suggested by S. Treggiari that some at least was inherited from his patron M. Caelius Rufus 63, whose family had properties there 64. Far from being fanciful, this looks a definite possibility if, as will be argued, construction of the aedes Telluris began under the governorship of Lepidus (below, pp. 75f). A controversial point that arises here concerns the status of Phileros as a freedman. Caesar is known to have authorized liberti to hold magistracies in the colonies he founded, a concession reinforced by the lex coloniae Genitivae Iuliae sive Ursonensis, of 44 B.C. {CIL 2,5439 = ILS 6087), which lays down that freedman status should not be a bar to membership of the local senate (c. 105) : freedmen are in fact attested in several Caesarean colonies 65. On the other hand, the lex Visellia of 24 A.D. excluded liberti from the decurionate {Cod. lust. 9,21,1), while the lex Municipii Malacitani of 82-84 B.C. {CIL 2,1964 = ILS 6089) prescribes that magistrates shall be chosen from ingenui (e. 54). We do not know what were Octavian's ideas in the matter either in 29 B.C., when he reinforced the existing colony of Caesar, or later in his reign, but so far at least we do not know of any freedman magistrate in a colony of Augustus. Strictly speaking, of course, Carthage remained a Caesarean colony after the deduction of 29 B.C., 66 so it is perfectly possible that the Caesarean rules continued to apply. Given all the uncertainties, the point is best left open : on present evidence 29 B.C. cannot be considered a rigorous terminus ante for this part of the cursus simply on the score of Phileros' status as libertus. On the other hand, it is certainly the point before which his posts conform unequivocally to the data we have on the municipal careers of liberti in other colonies of Caesar. On the basis of the above conjectures Gascou proceeds to assign the 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. in 26 (?) B.C., next as duumvir at Clupea in 25 or more likely 24 B.C.,67 and for a second time as duumvir at Clupea in 18 (?) B.C. The one point clear in all this is that Phileros served two terms as duumvir ; evidently he moved at some stage from Carthage to Clupea, where his previous experience and personal wealth will no doubt have recommended him for office. But the specific dates assigned are entirely conjectural 68. To suppose an interval of five years between the two tenures assumes that one can legitimately retroject the provision of the Flavian lex Malacitana, 69. More importantly, if one discounts the purely subjective argument above (pp. 68f.), nothing goes to show that the first duumvirate could not have been served at some point in the second half of the thirties B.C. - nor for that matter that the second duumvirate will necessarily have been served five rather than more than five years later. We simply have nothing to indicate the dates of these magistracies at Clupea. The final office served by Phileros is that of Augustalis at Formiae. Here in Italy it is entirely consistent with 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 into business he will presumably have needed a financial basis on which to start. Gascou conjectures that he will have served as Augustalis ca. 13-12 B.C. The reason for this date is that Phileros must have been the first or 63 EADEM, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic, Oxford, 1969, p. 239, cf 155, n. 7, 157. Rejected as arbitrary by Gascou, 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 qua 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, as attested 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 his prefecture at Carthage) before assuming the duumvirate at Clupea. For the office see 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.

70

D. FISHWICK

one of the first Augustales at Formiae, given that the office was created about this time when Augustus, after becoming pontifex maximus in 12 B.C., made the worship of his genius an official cult 70. Here it may be noted in the first place that there is no evidence at all to show that Augustus created an official cult of his genius. On the contrary, not until the time of Nero do the Arvals begin to record any sacrifices to the emperor's genius11. But that is a side issue. A more important point is that there is no compelling reason to connect the creation of the Augustales with Augustus' election to the chief priesthood. This took place on 6th March, 12 B.C. (Lepidus had died the previous year) 72, whereas the earliest Augustales to be attested go back to 13/12 B.C. at Nepi in Eutruria, where they are said to be the first (CIL 11,3200 = ILS 89) 73. Furthermore, nothing goes to show that the appointment of the first Augustales at Nepi will have coincided with the institution of the office or that Nepi might not have lagged behind other centres in introducing the function locally. Formiae, where it is not stated that Phileros was Augustalis primus, could well have been earlier 74 - or later - in the field. In practice we have no solid evidence to show when Augustus founded the Augustales. A variant of the word occurs already in the name of the festival of the Augustalia, instituted in 19 B.C. 75, and the fact that at the outlying center of Nepi the first Augustales are recorded in 13/12 B.C. could point to a somewhat earlier origin of the office in Rome and elsewhere - before the pontificate of Augustus. In short the date of 13-12 B.C., which Gascou assigns to Phileros' office at Formiae, is no more secure than the conjectural dates of the preceding posts in the cursus. Lastly, Gascou finds support for his chronology of Phileros' career, more particularly the prefecture i.d., by placing it in the context of the attribution to Carthage of her vast pertica, a step he ascribes to Octavian at the time he reinforced the colony in 29 B.C 76. The thesis goes back to C. Poinssot in particular and is based on Appian's statement that Julius Caesar surnamed Augustus, finding a memorandum written by his father, established () the present Carthage. Appian goes on to say he has ascertained that he gathered together () three thousand Roman colonists and the rest from the perioikoi, but whether these particulars relate to the foundation of 44 B.C. or the deduction of 29 B.C. has been debated inclusively for the better part of the last 100 years. The passage is best cited in its entirety : ... ' " , , , , . ' , . ' , . (Pun. 136) On Gascou's view the three thousand ' are demobilized veterans, to whom Octavian gave properties in the territory of Carthage. The perioikoi are probably descendants of Italian veterans and Gaetulian allies of Marius, who had received Roman citizenship and been installed in the 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.), The Pontificate of Augustus in Raaflaub (K.A.) and Toher (M.) (edd.), Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, Berkeley, 1990, p. 380-394. 73 For the connection of the Augustales with the worship of the Emperor see Fishwick (D.), The Augustales and the Imperial Cult 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. 519 s.v. Oct. 12 ; cf p. 257 : 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 cult of the emperor at the festival of the Augustalia. That this freedman organisation was instituted in 19 B.C. remains nevertheless an attractive possibility. 76 GASCOU p. 116f., following POINSSOT, supra, n. 47, p. 69f : Ds lors (se. 29 B.C.) rien n'empche de penser que c'est cette date que Carthage non seulement se vit accorder immunitas mais aussi obtint un agrandissement de sa pertica ; cf Fishwick-Shaw, supra, n. 27, p. 376, n. 34.

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

71

west of the fossa regia, and whose situation was now regularized by Octavian when he made their lands into pagi within the Carthaginian pertica. Some of the three thousand additional colonists, Gascou conjectures, may have been installed at this time on the territory of such towns as Thugga or Uchi Maius and their lands added to the pagi. In so doing Octavian will have been acting in accordance with a strategy which, according to Hyginus Gromaticus, he practised in colonies that had suffered in the civil wars : illas quoque urbes quae deductae a regibus aut dictatoribus fuerant, quas bellorum civilium interventus exhauserat, dato herum coloniae 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 the Formiae inscription are to be conceived as peregrine localities, the territory of which consisted partly of a pagus, where resided the descendants of Italian veterans and Marius' Gaetuli (perhaps also some of the new colonists of 29 B.C.), and partly of a civitas composed of relatively independent indigenous occupants, who inter alia could elect their own magistrates 77. One can see the distinction between the two at work behind the Uchi Maius inscription :... castellum divisit inter colonos et Uchitanos termi[nos] que constituit (CIL 8, 26274 + 1LT 1370) 78. This division was of particular significance for its financial implications. According to the Consularia Constantinopolitana at 726 a. u.c. (28 B.C.) : Octaviano VI et Agrippa. His conss. Cartago libertatem a populo Romano 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 the concrete meaning of immunity from taxes, as originally proposed by Y. Debbasch before the discovery of the Thugga inscription attesting immunitas perticae Carthaginiensium (A.E., 1963, 64) 80. Furthermore, the payment of taxes is considered by Tertullian to be a part of captivity (Apol. 13,6), so dispensation from taxes might very well be considered libertas. The key point, however, is that only the territory of Roman citizens in the pagi enjoyed the grant of immunitas ; the land left to the indigenous inhabitants of the 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 the castella. Phileros' commission, therefore, must have been not only to farm out taxes in the castella, but also to distinguish rigorously between the territory of the pagus and the civitas, a procedure clearly in evidence at Uchi Maius. For only a part of a castellum was henceforth stipendiary, the territory of the civitas. Thus Gascou's chronology of Phileros' career, which puts his activities as praefectus i.d. in 26 (?) B.C., is entirely comprehensible in light of the deduction of 29 B.C., which brought with it the assignment to Carthage of its pertica and the grant of immunitas to Carthage and its territory (the pagi) in the following (?) year81. Three years would be a plausible interval for all the administrative preliminaries that would be required before Phileros could allocate contracts for collecting taxes in the castella and it is a striking parallel that in this very year lands were assigned by a duumvir of Octavian's colony at Cirta to new settlers installed on her 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 were under one governor from 40 B.C., they nevertheless remained separate provinces on his view right down to 27 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 I I 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. 217 (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 see 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, 726 a.u.c. (15th July, 28 B.C.) as the date of the "restitution" of Carthage. It might be added that the corresponding entry under Barbarus Scaligeri 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 later than the deduction of Octavian, as reported by Dio. 82 Gascou, p. 120, n. 93 with refs. For discussion on the development of Cirta see recently Cristofori, supra, n. 8, p. 90-92 with n. 56. I

72

D. FISHWICK

into what had been Africa Nova at some point after the two provinces were merged into one, a step that on the evidence of the fasti triumphales had already been taken by 36 B.C. (supra, p. 51). The crux of the argument for dating the pertica to 29 B.C. is nevertheless the information provided by Appian. To attribute the details he gives to the deduction of Octavian raises a number of problems. In the first place there is a prima facie conflict with Augustus' statement in the Res Gestae that the colonies he founded were military : colonias in Africa... militum deduxi (28) 83. The incorporation of perioikoi is mentioned neither here nor in Dio's notice, which states only that Octavian reinforced the existing colony of Carthage (52,43,1 : above p. 58f) 84. A way around this might be to take Augustus' statement as loosely consistent with just the three thousand colonists, who are in fact distinguished from the perioikoi in Appian's account 85, but there are more serious difficulties. In contrast to the action of Caesar, who in 46-44 B.C. established Cirta with a vast stretch of surrounding country apparently as an autonomous fiefdom under P. Sittius (Appian, B.C. 4,54) 86, we have no clear evidence for any initiative along these lines on the part of Octavian. That the passage of Hyginus {supra, p. 71) can be brought into play is doubtful at best. The term employed by the grommatici for an administrative territory is pertica not fines and pertica should technically mean territory assigned on the foundation of a colony 87. Strictly speaking therefore, the Carthaginian pertica, now attested by the Thugga inscription, should be associated with the foundation of 44 B.C. rather than the reinforcement of 29 B.C. Secondly, it is debatable whether Appian's ' are to be conceived as entirely consisting of discharged veterans. One would have thought the phrase equally appropriate to the Roman poor whom Caesar had gathered together () on his return to Rome with the intention of sending some to Carthage, others to Corinth. Strabo states explicitly that Caesar sent as colonists to Carthage such Romans as preferred to go there along with some soldiers (17,3,15). Against this Plutarch mentions that Caesar courted the soldiers with new colonies, of which the 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 restored Carthage as a Roman colony, honouring it with its ancient name (43, 50, 3-4). On the proposed interpretation these Roman colonists would then be the embodiment of the weeping that Caesar saw in his dream, as a result of which he wrote a memorandum to colonize Carthage. Rather than being dismissed as legend 88, the tale should surely be related to contemporary politics as propaganda put out to show that the gods favoured a plan which must have run into opposition in Rome 89. Tertullian seems to confirm this by his reference to Caesar's longas moras (supra, pp. 59f). Appian's may well be intended in the wider sense of a crowd or band of men 90 and thus correspond not only to the information on the Caesarean colonists provided by the literary authorities but also to what the demographic studies of J.-M. Lassere have revealed, namely that relatively few soldiers - perhaps five to six thousand legionaries plus an uncertain number of auxiliaries participated in Caesar's African foundations91. What is more to the point, this interpretation would then be

83 So GSELL, supra, n. 6, p. 231. 84 For the point that the deduction of Octavian was not a new foundation see Fishwick, supra, n. 35, forthcoming. 85 So Lassere, supra, n 5, p. 206. 86 Cristofori, supra, n. 8, p. 91 with n. 52 ; see further, below n. 93. 87 See the helpful discussions of Veyne (P.), La table des 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 see Oxford Latin Dictionary 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. :

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

73

consistent with Suetonius' statement that Caesar exhausted Rome by dispatching eighty thousand citizens, drawn from the city itself, to overseas colonies (lui. 42,1) 92. Finally, Appian definitely dates the synoecism of the colony to 44 B.C., 102 years after the destruction of Corinth. Rather than attribute his data to Octavian's deduction, it seems by far the likelier interpretation to associate these with the original colony in 44 B.C., simply screening out the reference to Octavian, who, as Gsell noted, had no legal basis on which he might act at this stage 93. By Caesar's death the scheme had reached the stage at which he had enrolled as colonists a body primarily of the poor 94, who set out for Carthage in the months following the Ides of March. On arrival they were joined by perioikoi as Caesar had planned. In this way the 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 the later deduction of Octavian. When he says that Augustus, finding his father's memorandum, synoecised () the present Carthage, he is simply in error ; this had been the achievement of the Julian foundation, whereas what Octavian did was to reinforce the colony with veterans - how many we are not told. It is even conceivable that Appian's report on the location of the colony also derives from information that originally related to the Caesarean foundation and which the historian has likewise again misapplied to Octavian's venture. In any case, the point is necessarily true of the Julian colony if, as Dio states (52,43,1), the reinforcement of Octavian was superimposed () on the earlier foundation (supra, p. 60). The only potential weakness in this reconstruction is that Romano- African names - Caecilius, Sextilius, T. Sextius - occur among colonists who are taken by J.-M. Lassere to be of Augustan date, whereas similar names do not occur among the early settlers of the Julian colony 95. As Lassere himself has stressed, however, the total number of names we have is very small, some sixteen in all. Nothing excludes the possibility that similar names may yet appear among colonists that Lassere attributes to the earlier foundation - or that the Romano-African settlers of the Augustan period are, in fact, descendants of earlier colonists. As it happens, two of the Augustan names, M. Bennius and Octavius, already appear in the list of Caesarean colonists 96. The demographic data are consequently too insecure simply in themselves to link the synoecism definitively with either the Caesarean or the Augustan colony. If the synoecism of Carthage, accomplished by consolidating Roman settlers with perioikoi, was in fact the achievement of the Julian colony, it follows that the deduction of 29 B.C. can no longer stand as an absolute terminus post for the office of praefectus id. How, then, does this affect the supposed link with Phileros' commission and the grant of immunitas to the Carthaginian pertica ? Here Gascou's argument is surely flawed in the first place by a change in his definition of castellum. Whereas this is initially taken to cover the combination of pagus and civitas, 97 he now infers that by vectig. quinq. locand. in castell. LXXXIII is meant that Phileros was concerned with farming taxes to be paid by the civitas alone : il (se. Octave) transforma ces civitates (ou castella) avoisantes en source de revenus pour la colonie.... Le rle de Phileros fut non seulement de procder l'adjudication des impts dans ces civitates (ou castella) mais encore d'tablir une rigoureuse sparation entre les terres relevant des civitates et celles qui relevaient des pagi. 98 One would have thought from the wording of the Formiae inscription (supra, p. 65) that, if the taxes were to be farmed in castellis, then 92 On Caesar's program of colonization, see 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, was the author of the synoecism of Carthage, see Piganiol's commentary on Poinssot, supra, n. 47, p. 76. 94 For the enrolment of colonists, see 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 que ce (se. ces castella) furent les localits peregrines dont le territoire fut en partie assign Carthage pour constituer les pagi ... En revanche, les terres laisses aux civitates continurent ... . For the term castellum see now Rebuffat (R.) in Encyclopdie Berbre, Aix-en-Provence, 1993, Vol. 12, pp. 1822-33 s.v. (C29). 98 Ibid.

74

D. FISHWICK

the commission of Phileros must have related in some way to the pagi also, given that a castellum (on Gascou's definition) consisted of both sl pagus of Roman citizens and a civitas of indigenous inhabitants. If, then, the grant of immunitas dispensed Roman citizens from the payment of taxes to Rome and if Phileros was empowered to lease contracts for the collection of these taxes, his task would make sense only before 28 B.C. By placing the prefecture after 28 B.C. Gascou is obliged to restrict the sense of castellum to civitas alone. Furthermore he is constrained to infer that Phileros will have leased taxes to be paid now to Carthage by members of the civitas, since the praefectus iure dicundo was clearly a Carthaginian magistrate. The striking feature about the latter proposal is that it brings the discussion round full circle to the old, largely overlooked view of W. Liebenam that the commission of Phileros was concerned with farming local taxes payable to Carthage, not provincial taxes payable to Rome ". Such local levies would presumably have included land rents of various kinds (farms, pasture-land, woods, lakes, ponds...), also dues for the use of communal buildings or properties (houses, shops, industrial premises, baths, roads...) 10, and, as the Formiae inscription confirms, will have been payable in both the pagus and the civitas covered by the term castellum. In favour of this interpretation is the circumstance that, as Gascou notes, Phileros was a Carthaginian official, also the fact that the term vectigalia can clearly refer to the local income of cities and communities - not that the usage is restricted to these 101. What is equally pertinent, contracts for the collection of such local revenues were leased to publicani (cf. CIL 13, 7623) in much the same way as the taxes of a province were farmed to companies at Rome 102. Quite clearly, Phileros' activity in the eighty-three castella reflects a mandate that extended to much, if not all, of the Carthaginian pertica, where as praefectus i. d. he may also have been concerned with setting boundaries between the pagus and the civitas in other communities (just as at Uchi Maius : CIL 8, 26274). If this interpretation of Phileros' commission is correct, however, as seems very possible on the above analysis, then it could have occured equally well before or after the grant of immunitas, whenever that took place, and discussion of whether the term libertas does or does not cover immunity from taxes is beside the point. More particularly, no argument linked to the grant of immunitas can be used for determining the possible date at which Phileros let out tax contracts in castellis or set boundaries between the two communities of each castellum. The immunitas perticae Carthaginiensium is simply irrelevant now to the responsibilities of Phileros. At the end of this protracted discussion, the only securely fixed points in the cursus of M. Caelius Phileros would appear to be his service as accensus to T. Sextius, which cannot be later than 40 B.C., and his post as Augustalis at Formiae, which must be contemporary with or later than the creation of the office by Augustus - whenever that took place. Can, finally, any further arguments be invoked than might serve to assign this or any other part of the cursus to a more specific date ? There remains a possible inference, overlooked in all previous discussion, that seems to place the praefecture i.d. with great probability under the administration of Lepidus. The point turns on the aedes of Tellus, which Phileros constructed out of his personal funds. Gascou does not propose a specific date for this, but clearly includes it with the offices held at Carthage, therefore in the twenties B.C. after Phileros had been engaged in making his fortune between 40 and 30 B.C. l03 Why a temple should have been built to Tellus, Gascou does not suggest, though he doubts the view of Broughton, taken over from Gsell, that Tellus was one of the Cereres, and cites with approval the contrary view of H. Le 99 ID., supra, . 65, p. 312ff. 100 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, 1 150 s.v. (Pekry). For vectigalia in the form of ground rents paid to the municipality of Veleia or the colony of Beneventum see Veyne, supra, n. 87(1957), p. 98-100. See further Langhammer, supra, n. 51, p. 85ff., 89f. with n. 352, 96ff, 116ff., et passim. 102 Daremberg-Saglio 4, 1, 1907 (1963), p. 753, n. 3 with refs. s.v. (Cagnat). 103 O.e. p. 113.

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

75

Bonniec that the cult of Tellus was always distinct from that of the Cereres, also A. Audollent's opinion that the temple of Tellus at Carthage was autonomous and separate from that of the Cereres 104. An interpretation along radically different lines may be proposed. We have seen that, before the final destruction of Carthage, Scipio devoted the city to Dis Pater, Veoivis and the Manes. On Gsell's convincing interpretation, it was to these three deities that Pompey set up altars in 81 B.C., thereby re-consecrating the soil of Carthage to the Infernal Gods (supra, p. 59f). On the 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, in effect restoring the land once more to the Gods of the Netherworld, to whom it had originally been devoted . It is surely in this connection that one must understand the action of Phileros in building an aedes to Tellus. Macrobius gives the formula by which Scipio devoted the city of Carthage as follows : Dis pater Veiovis Manes, sive vos quo alio nomine fas est nominare, ut omnes illam urbem Carthaginem exercitumque quern ego me sentio dicere fuga formidine terrore compleatis quique adversum legiones exercitumque nostrum arma telaque ferent, uti vos eum exercitum eos hostes eosque homines urbes agrosque eorum et qui in his locis regionibusque agris urbibusque habitant abducatis, lumine supero privetis exercitumque hostium urbes agrosque eorum quos me sentio dicere, uti vos eas urbes agrosque capita aetatesque eorum devotas consecratasque habeatis ollis legibus quibus quandoque sunt maxime hostes devoti. ...Si haec itafaxitis ut ego sciam sentiam intelle gamque, tune quisqus votum hoc faxit ubiubifaxit recte factum esto ovibus atris tribus. Tellus mater teque Iuppiter obtestor. (Sat. 3,9,10-11) On the 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 have been devoted including Carthage and Corinth. What this formula makes clear, therefore, is that the chthonic goddess Tellus played a key role in the act of devotio. 105 Confirmation is provided by the formula with which the consul P. Decius Mus devoted himself in order to save the Roman legions in 340 B.C. : lane Iuppiter Mars pater Quirine Bellona Lares Divi Novensiles Di Indigetes Divi quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque Dique Manes, vos precor veneror veniam peto oroque uti populo Romano Quiritium, vim, victoriam, prosperetis, hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. Sicut verbis nuncupavi, ita pro re publica populi Romani Quiritium, exercitu legionibus auxiliis populi Romani Quiritium, 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 formula for, when Decius, the son of P. Decius Mus, devoted himself along with the legions of the enemy in 295 B.C., the formula used was : lam ego mecum hostium legiones mactandas Telluri ac dis Manibus dabo (10,28,13 : cf. 8,6,10 :... deis Manibus matrique Terrae deberi). The inference to be drawn from these passages is self-evident, as is its relevance to the aedes of Tellus at Carthage. The temple which Phileros financed to propagate the cult of the deity must celebrate, commemorate, 104 O.e. p. 110, n. 32 with refs. The statement of Hild in Daremberg-Saglio 5, 1919, (1963), p. 79f. (followed by Luisi, supra, n. 43, p. 5 1 , n. 59) that the aedes at Carthage is the only temple of Tellus which is recorded to have been built outside of Rome is in error. See CIL 8, 14392 (Vaga A.D. 2), CIL 8, 23712 (Hr. Ghaada ; reign of Severi), CIL 8, 8309 (Cuicul : late 2nd century A.D.) ; cf CIL 3, 63 1 3 = 8333 : Templum Terrae Matris (Rudnik ; reign of Septimius Severus). Aside from the early temple at Carthage, where the association of Tellus with the devotio of Punic Carthage must surely be uppermost (above), the significance of the goddess elsewhere in Africa looks attributable to her link with Ceres and the agricultural fertility of the soil (cf Tellus Genetrix : CIL 8, 8309). See further, Fishwick (D.), On the Origins of Africa Proconsularis III The Era of the Cereres again, forthcoming. 105 Marquardt, supra, n.l 1, ibid. ; Daremberg-Saglio 2, 1, 1892 (1963), p. 1 13-1 19 s.v. (Bouch-Leclerq) ; RE 5, 1903, 277-280 s.v. (Wissowa). For acts of devotio in the Republic see recently RPKE (J.), Domi militiae. Die religiose Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart, 1991, p. 156ff. : :

76

D. FISHWICK

or be linked in some similar way with the action of Lepidus in razing buildings that had been unlawfully erected on cursed ground 106 ; by his action Carthaginian soil had been restored to the goddess Earth, to whom it had been devoted by Scipio. How long the aedes took to build we do not know - a private shrine financed by a wealthy freedman will presumably have been of moderate size (at Formiae Phileros simply embellished the aedes of Neptune) 107. The more important point is that it is difficult to think construction could have begun at any time after Lepidus' disgrace and official deposition by Octavian in September, 36 B.C. (supra, pp. 58, 63) l08, still less a decade or so later in the twenties B.C. All probability suggests that work will have started soon after Lepidus' violenta ludubria. At what stage of his governorship in 40-36 B.C. the violent shams took place we do not know, though one would have thought the earlier part of his term more likely than the later. In any event, since Phileros' post as praefectus i.d. is listed in the cursus before the aedes Telluris, there seems good reason to conclude that he will have served in this capacity during Lepidus' term, not long after holding the aedileship at Carthage - quite possibily immediately afterwards. That Phileros owed his career in the colony at least in some measure to Lepidus' support and patronage seems likely enough, given the course of events before 39 B.C. What is more important for present purposes, Phileros' activities at Uchi Maius and in farming out taxes in castellis clearly reflect the situation arising from the recent assignment to Carthage of her pertica. So we have every reason to conclude that this was already in existence under Lepidus. It follows that Nova and Vetus had been already merged, a development that on the evidence of the fasti triumphales took place before 36 B.C. Presumably Lepidus now extended the original pertica of Carthage by including territory west of the fossa regia. I09 Alternatively, if a pertica had been formally attributed in 44 B.C. but not yet put into effect, Lepidus will have enlarged on the original plan in the same way u0. Whatever the precise development may have been, the attribution to Carthage of her dependent territory, which sealed the fusion of the old Republican provinces, looks to be an accomplished fact under Lepidus' term as governor. What is now required as a final step is to see whether other evidence can be brought to bear that might yield a more precise date within this period to which one may reasonably assign the formal creation of a unified province of Africa111. November 1992

ADDENDUM One of the great benefits of an international colloquium is that it provides an opportunity to speak with colleagues who may be better informed than oneself on the latest scholarship in a particular field. The foregoing analysis had been completed and already submitted for publication when, on the occasion of the X International 106 For the interesting suggestion that the temple might have been financed from the summa honoraria deposited earlier by Phileros see Luisi, supra, n. 43, p. 52 with n. 64 ; further in general Langhammer, supra, n. 51, p. 105ff. In that case, construction of the temple may well reflect (unhappy) recognition by the colony of Lepidus' fait accompli in returning "devoted" ground to Tellus. 107 Construction of the temple of Tellus under the governorship of Lepidus would strengthen the possibility that Phileros inherited his wealth from his patron M. Caelius Rufus ; cf Treggiari, supra, n. 63, ibid. Conversely, the fact that he later adorned the temple of Neptune at Formiae might indicate he had been successfully engaged in maritime trading. 108 Cf Badin, supra, n. 3, p. 7, noting that the Thabraca inscription (above, p. 58) would hardly have been engraved by the city after Octavian deposed Lepidus. 109 For the persuasive view that the original pertica will have been limited to the surrounding countryside, see Poinssot, supra, n. 47, p. 68. 110 Fishwick-Shaw, supra, n. 27, p. 374-76, noting the possibility that Thugga itself may have found a place in the pertica by the time of Lepidus. 111 See Fishwick, supra, n. 104, forthcoming.

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

77

Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Nmes, Oct. 4-10, 1992, my attention was kindly drawn to a recently published article by F. Jacques (J.) in which the author makes passing references to the early years of Roman Carthage and, more particularly for present purposes, contributes an extensive appendix on the adjudication of vectigalia and delimitation of Uchi Maius by M. Caelius Phileros "2. From the perspective of the present discussion J.'s observations are flawed by the fact that he evidently assumes Africa to have still been divided into Vetus and Nova down to 27 B.C.(?), when Proconsularis was officially created "3. It should be noted, too, that he makes no reference whatsoever to the aedes Telluris which Phileros constructed at his own expense, a project which we have seen to be of crucial significance for dating his post as praefectus i. d. {supra, p. 16). Nevertheless J.'s arguments focus on a number of problems that are central to the issue and are well worth careful appraisal in the light of the present enquiry. J. begins by observing that the chronology proposed by Gascou is coherent and probable without yet being imperative. This positive assessment can scarcely hold for the sequence of offices, given that Gascou's scheme is based on a supposedly mandatory interval of three years between successive posts in the cursus, an idea which J. himself emphatically rejects in favour of an obligatory interlude of one year only ' 14. On J.'s own view the career in the Formiae inscription {supra, p. 65) may not be given in strict chronological succession. He suggests that Phileros might have been one of the first settlers at Clupea or Carthage and have served as accensus to Titus Sextius only after 42 B.C., when the latter controlled Africa Vetus. One or two municipal functions could therefore have preceded the post of accensus, which will have been placed first in the cursus in order to stress its importance. Phileros might then have pursued parallel rather than successive careers at Carthage and Clupea and there is no reason to suppose with Gascou that Phileros' Antonine connections will have blocked his career down to Actium. He could very well have rallied to Octavian's cause at a much earlier stage. Objections to Gascou's subjective argument for beginning the municipal career of Phileros in 30(?) B.C. have already been raised and require no repetition {supra, p. 68f). As for the early part of the cursus, if one or two municipal functions were served in the period between the foundation of Carthage in 44 B.C. (sometime after the Ides of March : supra, p. 60) and 42 B.C., then one of these would surely have had to be a duumvirate at Clupea. For in J.'s view an interval of one year betweeen two honours at the same centre was legally binding. In that case Phileros will have served subsequently as praefectus i. d. at Carthage : that is, presumably, between the two tenures of the duumvirate at Clupea. Alternatively, if Phileros began his career at Clupea, he could have been aedile at Carthage, likewise between the two duumvirates at Clupea - or the post as praefectus i. d. could also have intervened. But on none of these schemes does the sequence of posts look convincing. Quite clearly the record at Formiae (of which J. makes no mention) is in its proper chronological place at the end of Phileros' cursus since it includes the office of Augustalis, which can hardly have existed before 19 B.C. at the earliest {supra, p. 70). At the very least this is consistent with the prima facie chronological development of the career : Carthage - Clupea - Formiae. At the beginning of the cursus, in contrast, Phileros' post as accensus of Titus Sextius in Africa is broadly enough formulated to cover the entire period from 44 B.C. onwards, that is the years 112 Jacques (F.), "Municipia libera" de l'Afrique proconsulaire in Epigrafia : Colloque A. Degrassi (Coll. de l'cole franc, de Rome 143), Rome 1991, p. 583-606 at 600f. See also ID., Les cits de l'Occident romain, Paris, 1990, p. 199f., no. 112. 113 O.e., p. 606, n. 12. 1 '4 O.e., p. 601 , n. 1 : ...II n'y a pas de raison de penser partir du rescrit de Gordien CJ X, 41 , 2 qu'un intervalle minimum de trois ans ait jamais t lgalement obligatoire entre deux honneurs : dans ce cas, toutes les carrires rapides attestes par l'pigraphie seraient illgales. La seule obligation est celle de l'intervalle d'un an entre deux honneurs (qui est bien respect, malgr Gascou, dans le cursus d'Ostie ILS 6146)). Sans doute interpol, D, L, 1, 17, 3 signifie seulement que les intervalles prvus pour l'itration ne valent pas pour accder un autre honneur. J.'s conclusions coincide broadly with those reached above (p. 66f), though he cites no evidence for his contention that a one-year interval was in fact obligatory, a provision open to question (supra, p. 67). As for the cursus in CIL 14, 409 = ILS 6146 (supra, p. 68), this clearly states that in the year Cn. Sentius Felix was adlected decurio he was both made quaestor aerarli and appointed duumvir for the next year. There is no question therefore of a year's gap between two posts ; service as duumvir was to follow in the year immediately succeeding tenure of the quaestorship.

78

D. FISHWICK

when T. Sextius was first in charge of Africa Nova, then governor of both provinces by the summer of 42 B.C. as a result of his victory over Q. Cornificius, finally in contest with Q. Fufius Fango for control of the two provinces down to the latter 's defeat and suicide early in 40 B.C. l5 So nothing bars the possibility that Phileros served earlier with T. Sextius in 44 and 43 rather than just from 42 B.C., when Africa Vetus came under his command. Whatever the true circumstances may have been, we have seen that Phileros' background in Africa could well have been a factor in shaping his subsequent municipal career at Carthage under Lepidus {supra, pp. 68, 76), whereas on J.'s hypothetical reconstruction we have nothing to explain an oddly interwoven succession of posts as Phileros flits to and fro between Clupea and Carthage. The main interest of J.'s analysis for present purposes lies nevertheless in his interpretation of Phileros' post as praefectus i. d. and its relation or lack of relation to his delimitation of Uchi Maius. J. notes that Phileros' division of the castellum at Uchi Maius is not recorded in the Formiae inscription - either because it was not thought worthy of mention or, more likely, because it was incidental to the exercise of one of the functions that are listed. To suppose with Gascou (following T.R.S. Broughton) that Phileros was at this stage praefectus i. d., charged with letting contracts for the collection of taxes in the castella, raises problems that in J's view have not been tackled. Phileros could hardly have been invited to arbitrate by agreement between the two communities and the only way he could have set boundaries in his capacity as praefectus i. d. would be if the entire castellum and its territory already belonged to Carthage. One would in that case have to suppose that, in its early stage, the Carthaginian pertica agrandie par Octave comprised not only the zones already colonized in Africa (the future Carthaginian pagi) but also the peregrine communities (such as the Uchitani). Furthermore, if the adjudication of vectigalia and the delimitation of Uchi Maius were concomitant, it is surprising that Phileros' farming of taxes gets mentioned in the Formiae inscription but not his delimitation of territory. But precisely these circumstances are envisaged in the analysis above (p. 70ff.). On the view developed there Phileros' activity at Uchi Maius, one of the eighty-three castella, reflects a local situation following the recent assignment to Carthage of her pertica. That a praefectus i. d. from Carthage should have set boundaries at Uchi Maius is entirely comprehensible if the castellum had recently been made part of her vast administrative territory. The fact that the Formiae inscription should mention the farming of vectigalia, an activity that extended to much, if not all of her pertica, is perfectly consistent with a cursus that gives the highlights of Phileros' career. At Uchi Maius, on the other hand, where ILT 1370 was in fact found, Phileros' arbitrage in adjudicating boundaries between the coloni and the Uchitani was an event of local importance and hence recorded on a local inscription. Whether he played a similar role at other centres in the pertica we do not know : his possible delimitation of castella elsewhere remains to be attested (above, p. 74). Clearly the farming of taxes was a wide-scale operation that affected eighty-three castella, of which Uchi Maius was just one. For this reason it gets mentioned in the Formiae inscription as among the more important magistracies he held. J.'s argument is patently influenced by his assumption, in line with Gascou's view, that it was only after the re-foundation of Carthage 116 that Octavian attributed territory west of the fossa regia to the colony. Theoretically, he suggests, Phileros could have divided the castellum of Uchi Maius at the time of the new deduction en tant qu'agent des fondateurs . But, if so, why is this not recalled in the Formiae inscription ? The answer on the reconstruction argued above is that, on the contrary, Phileros performed no function whatsoever at the time Octavian reinforced the existing colony of Carthage, so such a supposed rle important in 29 B.C. could hardly have been commemorated epigraphically. Much the same considerations undermine J.'s preferred scenario : that Phileros' activity at Uchi Maius was linked with his service as accensus to T. Sextius in 42-40 B.C. J. presumes that the delimitation will have taken 115 For events in Africa 44-40 B.C. see Fishwick (D.), supra, n. 1, p. 60f. On the evidence of Appian and Dio there seems to have been no period when T. Sextius was governor of Africa Vetus alone, as J. believes, o.e. p. 600f. 1 6 O.e. p. 600, 602, cf 606. n. 1 2. For the point that Carthage was reinforced, not re-founded - which would have been legally impossible - see Fishwick, supra, n. 35. forthcoming, n. 13 citing Cic, Phil. 2, 102. J. himself refers to Octavian's reinforcement of the colony in Cits, supra, n. 112, p. 200. ' '

ON THE ORIGINS OF AFRICA PROCONSULARIS, II

79

place before the extension of Carthaginian territory west of the fossa regia, an event which on Gascou's arguments could not have taken place so long as there existed two distinct provinces of Africa (therefore not before 27 B.C.) T. Sextius supposedly sent his accensus into the Marian zone of colonization in order to establish the rights of citizens, potential conscripts, or soldiers of his legions. Yet the impression one has from the literary sources is that T. Sextius would have been too occupied with fighting C. Fuficius Fango to have found time for so minor an operation - one which, as we have seen, would be more appropriate to a Carthaginian official, following the attribution to Carthage of her pertica. J. nevertheless contributes a useful discussion of coloni and Uchitani , in which he demonstrates that the imprecision of the terms fits a period before the coloni were organized in a proper civic structure and when the Uchitani were just castellani. In other words the context coincides with the very origins of the Carthaginian pagus and the division of boroughs between two communities of different status, much as Gascou has reasoned 117. So the vocabulary oilLT 1370, fits the years 43-44 (sic) very suitably. This could well be the case ; but one would have thought it equally appropriate to the situation a few years later ca. 38 B.C., when on the reconstruction proposed above Phileros will have been sent out from Carthage in his capacity as praefectus i. d. Lastly J. turns to the nature of the taxes farmed out by Phileros. Gascou's interpretation he finds needlessly complicated, involving as it does the equivalences castella = civitatem (see the comments supra, p. 73), vectigalia = provincial tax. The vectigalia might be the tributum soli, as held by Broughton, but they could also be revenues due to Carthage itself that were farmed out every five years, normally by the duumviri. The latter alternative coincides with the interpretation proposed above (p. 74) and, as noted there, marks a return to the old view of W. Liebenam "8. But J. then theorizes that, since Carthage doubtless had immunitas from its foundation and certainly enjoyed it from 28 B.C. (see supra, p. 71, 73), it could have been deprived of freedom from taxation by Lepidus ; in support of this hypothesis he refers to Dio's report that Lepidus was thought to have abrogated the rights of the colony (52, 43, 1 : supra, p. 59). So if vectigalia refers to the provincial taxes owed by all the colony, Phileros could have farmed these out between 40 and 29. On the other hand, no particular period can be proposed if vectigalia has some other sense, more particularly revenues due to Carthage, which J. considers the more plausible interpretation. Here as throughout so much depends on the date at which Carthage came into possession of her pertica. Two points require emphasis. First, the passage of Dio makes it perfectly clear that Lepidus was thought to have abrogated the rights of the colony by razing part of the city. The abolition of rights is a consequence of Lepidus' demolitions (of which J. makes no mention) and there is nothing in Dio's text that would link Lepidus' actions with ending immunity from taxation. What Lepidus was deemed to have rescinded may rather have been the right to settle and build on land to which the colonists thought they had good title but Lepidus considered tainted by the curse {supra, p. 63). The second matter concerns J.'s conclusion that no precise period can be proposed for the farming of taxes by Phileros if these were in fact revenues due to Carthage, not Rome. On the contrary, the cursus surely puts this activity before Phileros' construction of the aedes Telluris, which we have seen good reason to place itself before Lepidus' disgrace and deposition in September, 36 B.C. (supra, p. 75f.). As noted at the outset, J. at no stage takes account of the temple of Tellus in his chain of reasoning. In conclusion J. considers that, because of the contradictory interpretations they allow, the inscriptions of Phileros can be construed in two ways. The first version is that of Gascou, according to which Carthage received - doubtless at the time of the deduction of 29 B.C. - a pertica that included zones where Roman citizens and peregrini already cohabited. The activities of Phileros, attested at Uchi Maius for example, will then have unfolded in the aftermath of this initiative on orders from Carthage. Arguments against this view have been developed above (p. 7 Iff.). J. adds that the structure of this grande Carthage , the work of Octavian not 117 ID., supra n. 14, p. 119. 118 O.e. p. 604 with n. 7, where J. gives a useful selection of sources in which vectigal refers to municipal revenues. See earlier ID., Cits, supra, . 112, p. 200.

80

D. FISHWICK

Caesar, must have then undergone a rapid dismantling to the extent that peregrine communities attained the rank of civitas, stipendiaires mais indpendantes de Carthage . In the process Carthage would have been deprived of part of its revenues, a development that must have been understood as a brimade or punition unless it was just a phase in the organisation of the colony or linked to the concession of libertas (supra, p. 71), which did not affect the peregrini attached to the colony. J. himself prefers the alternative hypothesis of a gradual process of incorporation, initiated by T. Sextius, in the period down to 29 or 28 B.C. In these years groups of Roman citizens saw their territory delimited and their rights defined vis vis the peregrine communities, which kept the village structure. The situation at Uchi Maius resulting from the activities of Phileros may be reflected in Pliny's phrase oppidum civium Romanorum, the citizens legally occupying part of the castellum without yet having a complete municipal organisation nor yet constituting a pagus of Carthage ; only in 29 or 28 were they attached to Carthage (when Africa was still divided into Vetus and Nova ?). At the same time perhaps, or shortly afterwards, the neighbouring peregrine communities (such as Uchi Maius ?) were recognized as civitates in full right, if they had not achieved this status earlier. Once again the proposed development hangs on the chronology of Phileros' career and the date when Carthage was attributed her pertica. On the analysis elaborated in the present paper Phileros served as praefectus i.d. in the early 30's B.C., a period when the territory administered by Carthage had recently been enlarged west of the /ossa regia. It was in this capacity that Phileros set boundaries between the coloni and the Uchitani at Uchi Maius, conceivably elsewhere as well, and leased contracts for the collection of taxes in the castella, payable to Carthage. The precise moment at Uchi Maius when the coloni were legally recognized as a pagus and the Uchitani as a civitas is of marginal interest for present purposes. Suffice it to say that it looks as if the actions of Phileros in drawing boundaries created ipso facto - at least in a territorial sense - the pagus and the civitas, both stipendiary to Carthage. The key point from the perspective of the present discussion is that this took place under Lepidus' administration, soon after Carthage had in practice been attributed her pertica. These circumstances imply an existing merger of the old Republican provinces of Vetus and Nova, probably ca. 40/39 B.C. The focal development in the next years was the grant of libertas in 29/28 B.C., as a result of which Roman citizens at Carthage and in the pagi of her pertica were granted immunity from taxation by Rome. November 1992