The Provinces of the Roman Empire 68

The Provinces of the Roman Empire 68

[296] More clearly than by the Latin inscriptions found in Africa,

which begin too late to illustrate the state of things before

the second century A.D., this is shown by the four contracts of

_patronatus_ from the time of Tiberius, quoted in next note, concluded

by two small places of the proconsular province Apisa maius and Siagu,

and two others nowhere else mentioned, probably adjacent, Themetra and

Thimiligi; according to which the statement of Strabo (xvii. 3, 15, p.

833) that at the beginning of the last war the Carthaginian territory

numbered 300 towns, appears not at all incredible. In each of those

four smaller places there were sufetes; even where the old and new

Punic inscriptions name magistrates, there are regularly two sufetes.

That these are comparatively frequent in the proconsular province, and

elsewhere can only be pointed out in Calama, serves to show how much

more strongly the Phoenician urban organisation was developed in the

former.

 

[297] The contracts of _patronatus_ from the time of Caesar (_C. I.

L._ viii. 10525), of Augustus (_ib._ 68 comp. 69), and Tiberius (_C.

I. L._ v. 4919-4922), concluded by the _senatus populusque_ of African

communities (_civitates_) of peregrine rights with Romans of rank,

appear to have been entered into quite after the Roman fashion by the

common council, which represents and binds the community.

 

[298] On the coin undoubtedly struck under Caesar (Müller _Num. de

l’Afr._ ii. 149) with _Kar(thago) Veneris_ and _Aristo Mutumbal Ricoce

suf(etes)_, the first two names are probably to be taken together as

a Graeco-Phoenician double name, such as elsewhere is not rare (comp.

_C. I. L._ v. 4922: _agente Celere Imilchonis Gulalsae filio sufete_).

Since on the one hand sufetes cannot be assigned to a Roman colony, and

on the other hand the conducting of such a colony to Carthage itself is

well attested, Caesar himself must either have subsequently changed the

form of founding the city, or the founding of the colony must have been

carried into effect by the triumvirate as a posthumous ordinance of the

dictator (as is hinted by Appian, _Pun._ 136). We may compare the fact

that Curubis stands in the earlier time of Caesar under sufetes (_C.

I. L._ viii. 10525), in the year 709 U.C. as a Caesarian colony under

duoviri (_ib._ 977); yet the case is different, since this town did

not, like Carthage, owe its existence to Caesar.

 

[299] For Africa and Numidia Pliny (_H. N._, v. 4, 29 f.) numbers in

all 516 communities, among which are 6 colonies, 15 communities of

Roman burgesses, 2 Latin towns (for the _oppidum stipendiarium_ must,

according to the position which is given to it, have been also of

Italian rights), the rest either Phoenician towns (_oppida_), among

which were 30 free, or else Libyan tribes (_non civitates tantum, sed

pleraeque etiam nationes iure dici possunt_). Whether these figures

are to be referred to Vespasian’s time or to an earlier, is not

ascertained; in any case they are not free from errors, for, besides

the six colonies specially adduced, six are wanting (Assuras, Carpi,

Clupea, Curubi, Hippo Diarrhytos, Neapolis), which are referable,

partly with certainty partly with probability, to Caesar or Augustus.

 

[300] Pliny, v. 1, 2, says indeed only of Zulil or rather Zili _regum

dicioni exempta et iura in Baeticam petere iussa_, and this might be

connected with the transfer of this community to Baetica as _Iulia

Traducta_ (Strabo, iii. 1, 8, p. 140). But probably Pliny gives this

notice in the case of Zili alone, just because this is the first colony

laid out beyond the imperial frontier which he names. The burgess of a

Roman colony cannot possibly have had his forum of justice before the

king of Mauretania.

 

[301] Frontinus in the well-known passage, p. 53 Lachm., respecting

processes between the urban communities and private persons, or, as

it may be, the emperor, appears not to presuppose state-districts _de

iure_ independent and of a similar nature with urban territories--such

as are incompatible with Roman law--but a _de facto_ refractory

attitude of the great land-owner towards the community which makes him

liable, _e.g._ for the furnishing of recruits or compulsory services,

basing itself on the allegation that the piece of land made liable is

not within the bounds of the community requiring the service.

 

[302] The technical designation _gens_ comes into prominence

particularly in the fixed title of the _praefectus gentis Musulamiorum,

etc._; but, as this is the lowest category of the independent

commonwealth, the word is usually avoided in dedications (comp. _C. I.

L._ viii. p. 1100) and _civitas_ put instead, a designation, which,

like the _oppidum_ of Pliny foreign to the technical language (p.

331, note), includes in it all communities of non-Italian or Greek

organisation. The nature of the _gens_ is described by the paraphrase

(_C. I. L._ viii. 68) alternating with _civitas Gurzensis_ (_ib._ 69):

_senatus populusque civitatium stipendiariorum pago Gurzenses_, that

is, the “elders and community of the clans of tributary people in the

village of Gurza.”

 

[303] When the designation _princeps_ (_C. I. L._ viii. p. 1102) is

not merely enunciative but an official title, it appears throughout in

communities which are neither themselves urban communities nor parts

of such, and with special frequency in the case of the _gentes_. We

may compare the “eleven first” (comp. _Eph. epigr._ v. n. 302, 521,

533) with the _seniores_ to be met with here and there. An evidence

in support of both positions is given in the inscription _C. I. L._

viii. 7041: _Florus Labaeonis f. princeps et undecimprimus gentis

Saboidum_. Recently at Bu Jelîda, a little westward of the great road

between Carthage and Theveste, in a valley of the Jebel Rihan, and so

in a quite civilised region, there have been found the remains of a

Berber village, which calls itself on a monument of the time of Pius

(still unprinted) _gens Bacchuiana_, and is under “eleven elders”;

the names of gods (_Saturno Achaiaei [?] Aug[usio]_), like the names

of men (_Candidus Braisamonis fil._), are half local, half Latin. In

Calama the dating after the two sufetes and the _princeps_ (_C. I. L._

viii. 5306, comp. 5369) is remarkable; it appears that this probably

Libyan community was first under a chief, and then obtained sufetes

without the chief being dropped. It may readily be understood that our

monuments do not give much information upon the _gentes_ and their

organisation; in this field doubtless little was written on stone.

Even the Libyan inscriptions belong, at least as regards the majority,

to towns in part or wholly inhabited by Berbers; the bilingual

inscriptions found at Tenelium (_C. I. L._ viii. p. 514), in Numidia

westward from Bona in the Sheffia plain, the same place that has

furnished till now most of the Berber stone inscriptions, show indeed

in their Latin part Libyan names, _e.g._ _Chinidial Misicir_ f. and

_Naddhsen Cotuzanis_ f., both from the clan (_tribu_) of the _Misiciri_

or _Misictri_; but one of these people, who has served in the Roman

army and has acquired the Roman franchise, names himself in the Latin

text _in civitate sua Tenelio flamen perpetuus_, according to which

this place seems to have been organised like a town. If, therefore,

success should ever attend the attempt to read and decipher the Berber

inscriptions with certainty, they would hardly give us sufficient

information as to the internal organisation of the Berber tribes.

 

[304] That the Gaetulian purple is to be referred to Juba is stated by

Pliny, _H. N._ vi. 31, 201: _paucas (Mauretaniae insulas) constat esse

ex adverso Autololum a Iuba repertas, in quibus Gaetulicam purpuram

tinguere instituerat_; by these _insulae purpurariae_ (_ib._ 203) can

only be meant Madeira. In fact the oldest mention of this purple is

that in Horace, _Ep._ ii. 2, 181. Proofs are wanting as to the later

duration of this manufacture, and, as the Roman rule did not extend to

these islands, it is not probable, although from the _sagum purpurium_

of the tariff of Zarai (_C. I. L._ viii. 4508) we may infer Mauretanian

manufactures of purple.

 

[305] The tariff of Zarai set up at the Numidian customs-frontier

towards Mauretania (_C. I. L._ viii. 4508) from the year 202 gives a

clear picture of the Mauretanian exports. Wine, figs, dates, sponges,

are not wanting; but slaves, cattle of all sorts, woollen stuffs

(_vestis Afra_), and leather wares play the chief part. The Description

of the earth also from the time of Constantius says, c. 60, that

Mauretania _vestem et mancipia negotiatur_.

 

[306] According to an epitaph found in Mactaris in the Byzacene (_Eph.

epigr._ v. n. 279), a man of free birth there, after having been

actively engaged in bringing in the harvests far around in Africa,

first throughout twelve years as an ordinary reaper and then for another

eleven as a foreman, purchased for himself with the savings of his pay

a town and a country house, and became in his turn a member of council

and burgomaster. His poetical epitaph shows, if not culture, at least

pretensions to it. A development of life of this sort was in the Roman

imperial period doubtless not so rare as it at first may seem, but

probably occurred in Africa more frequently than elsewhere.

 

[307] How far our Latin texts of the Bible are to be referred to

several translations originally different, or whether, as Lachmann

assumed, the different recensions have proceeded from one and the

same translation as a basis by means of manifold revision with the

aid of the originals, are questions which can scarcely be definitely

decided--for the present at least--in favour of either one or the

other view. But that both Italians and Africans took part in this

work--whether of translation or of correction--is proved by the famous

words of Augustine, _de doctr. Christ._ ii. 15, 22, _in ipsis autem

interpretationibus Itala ceteris praeferatur, nam est verborum tenacior

cum perspicuitate sententiae_, over which great authorities have been

perplexed, but certainly without reason. Bentley’s proposal, approved

afresh of late (by Corssen, _Jahrb. für protestant. Theol._ vii. p.

507 f.), to change _Itala_ into _illa_ and _nam_ into _quae_, is

inadmissible alike philologically and in substance. For the twofold

change is destitute of all external probability, and besides _nam_

is protected by the copyist Isidorus, _Etym._ vi. 4, 2. The further

objection that linguistic usage would require _Italica_, is not borne

out (_e.g._ Sidonius and Iordanes as well as the inscriptions of later

times, _C. I. L._ x. p. 1146, write _Italus_ by turns with _Italicus_),

and the designation of a single translation as the most trustworthy

on the whole is quite consistent with the advice to consult as many

as possible; whereas by the change proposed an intelligent remark is

converted into a meaningless commonplace. It is true that the Christian

Church in Rome in the first three centuries made use throughout of

the Greek language, and that we may not seek _there_ for the _Itali_

who took part in the Latin Bible. But that in Italy outside of Rome,

especially in Upper Italy, the knowledge of Greek was not much more

diffused than in Africa, is most clearly shown by the names of

freedmen; and it is just to the non-Roman Italy that the designation

used by Augustine points; while we may perhaps also call to mind the

fact that Augustine was gained for Christianity by Ambrosius in Milan.

The attempt to identify the traces of the recension called by Augustine

_Itala_ in such remains as have survived of Bible translations before

Jerome’s, will at all events hardly ever be successful; but still

less will it admit of being proved that Africans only worked at the

pre-Hieronymian Latin Bible texts. That they originated largely,

perhaps for the most part, in Africa has certainly great probability.

The contrast to the one _Itala_ can only in reason have been several

_Afrae_; and the vulgar Latin, in which these texts are all of them

written, is in full agreement with the vulgar Latin, as it was

demonstrably spoken in Africa. At the same time we must doubtless not

overlook the fact that we know the vulgar Latin in general principally

from African sources, and that the proof of the restriction of any

individual linguistic phenomenon to Africa is as necessary as it

is for the most part unadduced. There existed side by side as well

vulgarisms in general use as African provincialisms (comp. _Eph.

epigr._ iv. p. 520, as to the cognomina in _-osus_); but that forms

like _glorificare_, _nudificare_, _justificare_, belong to the second

category, is by no means proved from the fact that we first meet with

them in Africa, since analogous documents to those which we possess,

_e.g._ for Carthage in the case of Tertullian, are wanting to us as regards Capua and Milan.