MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ‘IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

BY FRANK FROST ABBOTT

Late Kennedy Professor of Latin, Princeton University AND ALLAN CHESTER JOHNSON

Profestor of Classics, Princeton University

PRINCETON PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

%e MCMXXVI

I, i.

Ill. Iv.

vi.

VII.

vd, IX.

xi. XII. III,

XIV.

Il,

CONTENTS

PARTI

COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA (Abbott)

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI, CASTELLA, CONCILI- ABULA, CANABAE, PAGI, GENTES, SALTUS (Abbot?)

VILLAGES IN THE ORIENT (Fohnson) THE SALTUS IN ASIA AND EGYPT (‘Fohnson)

CIVITATES LIBERAE ET IMMUNES AND CIVITATES STIPENDIARIAE (Abbott)

THE MUNICIPAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC AND EARLY EMPIRE IN THE WEST (Abbott)

THE MUNICIPAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC AND EARLY EMPIRE IN THE EAST (Fohnson)

HONORES AND MUNERA (Fohnson)

IMPERIAL TAXES AND REQUISITIONS IN THE PROVINCES (Abbott)

MUNICIPAL FINANCES (Abbott) ARBITRATION AND TREATIES (Fohnson) PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLIES (Fohnson)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL POLICY (Fohnson)

THE DECLINE OF ROMAN MUNICIPALITIES (Fohnson) . ; MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS AND THEIR PREPARA- TION (Abbott)

PART If

MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS IN GREEK AND LATIN FROM ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

DOCUMENTS FROM EGYPT

page 3

“10 21 31

39

56

69 84

117 |

138 se 162

177

197

232

247 507

PART I

INTRODUCTION

‘MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

This book is published on the Shreve Foundation established at Princeton University in memory of Benjamin Davis Shreve of the Class of 1856 by the bequest of his widow “‘for the study of the history of nations, both ancient and modern, to ascertain the cause Of their decay, degeneracy, extinction, and destruction, and to show the dangers that now éxist and are arising whirh, if not checked, will injure, if not destroy, our free government.” In 1924 Professor Abbott was elected as the first Fellow on this Foundation.

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ‘IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

BY FRANK FROST ABBOTT

Late Kennedy Professor of Latin, Princeton University AND ALLAN CHESTER JOHNSON

Profestor of Classics, Princeton University

PRINCETON PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

%e MCMXXVI

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

PREFACE |.

The studies set forth in this volume were first planned by Professor Frank Frost Abbott.in 1914. In collaboration with the present writer the work was carried.on with many interruptions under the general editorship of Professor Abbott until his death, July 23, 1924. For his kindly criticisms and generous help I shall always remain pro- foundly grateful.

rs ,

The municipal institutions of the Roman Empire contain in large measure the secret of the vitality and the decay of that ancient civilization which controlled the destinies of the world for a longer span than any imperial power whose history has yet been recorded. For this reason it has been our aim to trace the history of the rela- tions of these municipalities to Rome, their differing status, the development of Roman policy towards them, and the circumstances attending their decline, and there- fore the decline of the empire. These matters and certain others clearly relating to them are set forth systematicilly in the Introduction. In this portion of the book we have made a study ofsthe juridical and fiscal relations to Rome of communities of various classes, of the political organiza- tion and financial systems of these communities, of the attempts which were made to combine them into larger political entities through the provincial assemblies, of the development of the municipal policy of Rome, and the decline of the municipality.

The last chapter, on municipal documents, may serve as a technical introduction to Part 11 of the book, in which are brought together inscriptions and papyri that throw light on the relations which the municipalities bore to Rome. These documents have hitherto been so widely

vi PREFACE scattered that it was thought advisable to gather ¢ghem together in order that those interested in municipal institutions might be able to gain a first-hand compre- hensive survey of the problems involved in their study. No collection of this kind exists and the information which - such a corpus provides is definite.and accurate. The lower limit of time for this collection has been set at the end of the third century, for the reason that most constitutions antedate the fourth century and the influences which determined the course of events are clearly discernible in *the earlier period. Moreover, it would be impossible to deal fully with the Byzantine period without doubling’ the compass of the book. f It has been the aim of the editors to include all in- scriptions which furnish information of importance bearing upon the relations of Rome to her municipalities. Very fragmentary inscriptions and those which gave no information, known from documents already included, have been omitted. In the case of the documents from Egypt our choice has been limited more especially to the more important and representative papyri dealing with the towns and villages from the Roman occupation to the beginning of the Byzantine period.

n general it should be stated for the purpose of de- fining the work of the two collaborators, that Mr Abbott directed his attention to conditions in th West, and the present writer to those in the East. This means, practically, that the former is primarily responsible for the Latin inscriptions and for the commentaries on them, and the latter for the Greek and Bilingual inscriptions, the papyri, and the commentaries on the documents of these three classes. The authorship of each chapter in the Introduction is indicated in the Table of Contents. Thé manuscript of Mr Abbott’s portion was fortunately in final form, and is here published with slight editorial revision.

In view of the cost of printing, critical notes have been feduced to a minimum, typographical devices in the texts

‘PREFACE* 7 vii

have heen used as sparingly as possible, and in the Latin inscriptions in particular deviations from the text of a stone or tablet have been indicated simply by the use of italic letters. In the text of the papyri indications of obscure or doubtful letters by the customary convention have been omitted, but in all cases where the interpretation of a document depends upon the reading, the fact has been indicated in the commentary.

In conclusion, thanks are due to Professor John W. Basore for reading the manuscript; to Professor Paul R. Coleman-Norton for undertaking the arduous task of * verifying references and reading proof; to Professor D. M. Robinson for furnishing in advance of publication his text and commentary on the inscription discovered by him at Antioch; to Profegsor Edward apps for his generous and helpful interest in these studies; and finally, to the Secretary and staff of the Cambridge University Press for their unfailing courtesy and care.

ALLAN CHESTER JOHNSON

PRINCETON March 20, 1926

I, i.

Ill. Iv.

vi.

VII.

vd, IX.

xi. XII. III,

XIV.

Il,

CONTENTS

PARTI

COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA (Abbott)

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI, CASTELLA, CONCILI- ABULA, CANABAE, PAGI, GENTES, SALTUS (Abbot?)

VILLAGES IN THE ORIENT (Fohnson) THE SALTUS IN ASIA AND EGYPT (‘Fohnson)

CIVITATES LIBERAE ET IMMUNES AND CIVITATES STIPENDIARIAE (Abbott)

THE MUNICIPAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC AND EARLY EMPIRE IN THE WEST (Abbott)

THE MUNICIPAL SYSTEM OF THE REPUBLIC AND EARLY EMPIRE IN THE EAST (Fohnson)

HONORES AND MUNERA (Fohnson)

IMPERIAL TAXES AND REQUISITIONS IN THE PROVINCES (Abbott)

MUNICIPAL FINANCES (Abbott) ARBITRATION AND TREATIES (Fohnson) PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLIES (Fohnson)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MUNICIPAL POLICY (Fohnson)

THE DECLINE OF ROMAN MUNICIPALITIES (Fohnson) . ; MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS AND THEIR PREPARA- TION (Abbott)

PART If

MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS IN GREEK AND LATIN FROM ITALY AND THE PROVINCES

DOCUMENTS FROM EGYPT

page 3

“10 21 31

39

56

69 84

117 |

138 se 162

177

197

232

247 507

PARTI

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER IF COLONIZE AND MUNIGIPIA!

: . ONG before:the republic came to an end Rome had placed the different communities which had been brought under her control in five or six,well defined categories, according to their political status. But these distinctions do ‘not hold for the earliest settlements or acquisitions of.territory outside the physical limits of the city. The Jittle market-towns which sprang up in early days on Roman territory had no sepdrate political existence, and those who lived in them enjoyed no political rights or privileges because’ of their residence in them. Even Ostia had no local magistrates at the outset®. It was a part of the city-state of Rome. In other words Rome did not recognize-the possibility of local self-government in any community dependent upon her or under her suzerainty. This policy was:sidlated when Rome took certain com- muniti¢s under ‘her control, but allowed them to retajn - some part of their previous sovereignty. She adopted the new practice for the first time, according to tradition, in the case of Antiurn, whose people were made up partly of Roman colonists and partly of earlier settlers. Livy tells 1 The early chapters of this Introduction are intended to present.in out- line the charaeteristic features of the different classes of municipalities unde?” the Roman government, and to observe the changes in the political status of these towns or in the method of founding them which we notice in passing: from one peridd to another, or from one part of the Roman world to another. It should be observed, however, that no description can be given which will be applicable to all the members of a class, beqause they did not all enjoy identical rights and privileges. Some of the differences between towns of the same class in the matter of autonomy will discussed in the commen- taries on the several inscriptions. 2 Cf Mommsen, 87. R. 3, 775- . 2 3 Mommasen, Sz. R. 3, 778; Kornemann, R.E. 4, 585.

= fF 3sy

4

COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA

us; Antiatibus quoque, quise sine legibus certis, siné magis- tratibus agere querebantur, dati ab senatu ad iura statuenda ipsius coloniae patroni. Communities of this sort had their own charters, and eleeted magistrates took the place of the prefects heretofore sent out by Rome. Local pride prob- ably played a part in bringing about this change, and a desire to retain as mfuch as possible of the old institutions and customs of the’ place, and the feeling that residents could administer the affairs of a village better than non- residents. Whether Rome thought it a wise policy to yield to these pleas for self-government, or-whether she followed the line of least resistance, it is hard to say.

Atall events,the-way was open for the ificorporation into the Roman state of communities possessing some measure of local autonomy. Such a political. unit was called a civitas, whethér it took the form of a city or not, whereas the term oppidum was used only of a city. The free use of

the word civitas for Roman as well-as for non-Roman com-

munities begins in the second century of our eral. Before that time it was usually applied to native communities only, while those of Roman origin were styled coloniae or municipia. It is convenient for us to make this early distinction in the present disoussion.

Colonies were cities or villages made up of settlers sent but by Rome?. They fell inte two classes, coloniae civium Romanorum and coloniae Latinorum, according to the political rights of the settlers and the status of the colony. The founding of a tolony was a sovereign act, and, there- fore, under the early republic it was effected: by a lex, while under the empire it was the prerogative of the em- peror. ‘Before thé period of the revolution the establish-

1 Kornemann, R.E. Suppl. Erstes Heft, 302 f.

2 Much use has been made in this discussion of colonies of Kornemann’s excellent article co/onia in R.E. 4, 511 f. Other important articles are de Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. 2, 415 f.; Lenormant, Dict. Dar. 1. 1303 §.; Momm- sen, St. R. 3 passim; Marquardt, Sz, Verw. t passim; Abbott, Class. Phil. 10 (1915), 365 f

| oes |

v COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA

ment of a colony called for the enactment of a special law by the popular assembly. This law specified the location of the colony, and the amount of state-land to be assigned, fixed the number of commissioners entrusted with the duty of making the settlement, and determined their duties. A typical instance of the method of founding a colony is the case of Antium}, In the period of transition, Sulla, Caesar, and the triumvirs did not trouble themselves to secure the passage of a special law, but acted by virtue of the general powers given to them. Thus Urso is styled a colonta iussu C. Caesaris dictatoris deducta®. Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus based their right to found colonies on the dex Titia, whieh established the triumvirate. When this transfer of authority had come about, of course the new sovereign named the commissionérs, as the people had done in earlier days. It was the duty ofthe commissioners to lead the colonists out, settle them upon the land, estab- lish the form of government, and nominate the first incumbents of office. The colonists were given conquered land set aside for the: purpose.

The settlers in a Roman colony were Roman citizens, with an occasional admixture ’of socii, and in-Italy they had full right of ownership in their'land (ex iure Quiritium), and the Roman settlers enjoyed all the other public and private rights of Roman citizens, except in the matter of holding Roman magistracies. In the enjoyment of this privilege they were for a time restricted 8, When Roman colonies in the later period were established in the provinces, the land was usually left subject to the burdens-of other pro» -vincial land. ° Dog 7

The Latin differed from the Roman colonies in size, composition, and political status. ‘Three hundred was the normal number sent out to a Roman colony’, rarely as many as 2000 or 30005, while Latin colonies usually

1 Livy, 3. 1. 5-7. 2 Cf. no. 26, chap. 106. 3 Cf. no. Ir. 4 Of eg. Livy, 8. 21. 11. 5 Cf. Livy, 39. 555 41- 13. .

Cs]

: ‘COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA

numbered several thousand?. The majority of those who were sent out to a Latin colony were Latins or Italian allies, but .Remans who were willing to accept Latin in place of their Roman citizenship were also enrolled. The Latin colonies of the early period on the same relation to-Rome that the members of the Latin League had held. - They were free from the payment of tribute. They had the right of coinage. They had their own magistrates and laws, and they enjoyed the same private rights as Roman citizens?. On the other hand, while the settlers in the early Roman colonies were excused from regular military service, each Latin colony was réquired to furnish a military con- tingent to serve in the alae or cohortes. However, the twelve Latin,colonies which were founded after 268 B.¢. suffered a diminution in their privileges. They lost the right of coinage and the ius conudii, and they found it more , difficult to obtain Roman citizenship*. Stillaniother change ‘in the'situation-came about in 89 8.c., for by virtue of the grant of Roman citizenship to the Italians in this year, all Latin colonies south of the Po were transformed into Roman mynicipia. In the same year the cities in Transpa- dane Gaul were given the rights of Latin citizenship, to be transformed in 49 B.c. into those of Roman citizenship. Consequently Latin colonies henceforth disappear from the peninsula.

In Italy and the provinces the Latin colonies numbered about ‘sixty-one, and the Roman colonies, about three hundred and eighty-one*. The earliest colonies were estab- lished as military outposts to hold and Romanize newly acquired territory. Thé most characteristic feature of the Roman colonies was the fact that they were established on the coast. This practice was followed without exception

until 183 B.c.,, when the rule -was broken by sending : 4 1 Cf. Livy, 10. 1. 1-2. 2 Mommsen, S¢. R. 3, 627 f. 3 Kornemann, Rf. 4, S18; cf., however, Stein wented R.E. 10, 1267 f. 4 Kornemann, R.E. 4, 5847.3 v. Premerstein, R.E. 10, 1240.

COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA

Romar colonies to Mutina, Parma, and Saturnia. A change in the motives which led to the founding of _ colonies appears under the Gracchi, who used colonization for the purpose of relieving the needy populatiomof Rome, , of promoting the prosperity of the country districts, and of stimulating trade. The admission of the proletarjat to the army by Marius naturally led him to found:cglonies, for needy veterans. A step which looked to this dhange i policy had been taken as early as 171 B.c. in the case o Carteia in Spain, which.was settled by the sons berny of. Roman soldiers and Spanish women. ‘The precedent thus set at Carteia, and taken up by ‘Marius, of providing for veterans in colonies, was freely followed by the triumvirs * and under the empire. ey

Narbo Martius, established in *Gallia Narboriensis in « 118 3.c., is the first clear instance of a colony outside: the peninsula of Italy, a precedent which was’ pdt fully accepted until’ we come to the time of Caesar and:the © triumvirs, Ynder whom between forty and fifty'suth settle- ments were made in the provinces!. Undet the empire this policy was gradually discontinued. From the time of Hadrian almost all the new colonies in the previnces were’ not newly established settlemerits, but existing munitipia or native civitates to which the title and rights of a colony were given by the emperor. This change in status was usually in the provinces the first step towards the acquisi- tion of Latin rights and of immunity from the payment of tribute®.

The change which the republican system of nomencla- ture underwent under the dictato?s of the first century B.C. is significant of a change in the seat of power. The earliest instance of the new practice of naming a colony in honor of its autocratic founder is probably that of the colonia Mariana. The practice. became the accepted one under the

if

1 Abbott, Class. Phil. 10 (1915), 372f- 2 Kornemann,'R.E. 4, 566. :

{7d

: * .

COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA

empire, and is helpful in determining the foundatién-date of a colony}. A municipium was not a new settlement, as a colony was, but resulted from the incorporation of a conquered town _ into the Roman state2. The functions of its local magis- trates and the limitations put upon their powers were determined in each case by the charter granted to it. Some interestifig specimens of charters. granted to colonies and municipia have come down to us from the time of the late republic, for Tarentum in Italy? and for the colony of Urso int Spain4, and from the time of the empire, for the municipia of Salpensa and Malaca in Spain®, The inhabit- ants of a municipium received complete Rowman citizenship, as in Lanuvium and Aricia®, or received it in a restricted form, site suffragio, as in Fundi and Formiae, or with such limitations as the provincial municipia of Salpensa and Malaca had at a later date’. As we have already noticed, all the sivitates sine suffragio south of the Po were given Roman titizenship by the /eges Iulia et Plautia Papiria of go-89 u.c, Like Roman colonists the citizens in municipia were liable to service in the legions, and were subject to all the muxera to which Roman citizens were subject. Indeed the ancients believed that the word municipium was derived: from munus and capere. In their juridical position the manicipia differed from the colonies in the fact that they could retain their traditional procedure in cases heard by their local magistrates, whereas the colonies

| For a list of the imperial appellatives used, cf. de Ruggiero, Le Colonie dei Romani, 96. = Ag

® Recent literature: Comparette, 4. F. P+. 27 (1906), 166.f.; Decla- reuil, Que/gues problémes d’ histoire des institutions municipales au temps de PEmpire romain; Heisterbergk in Philol. 50 (1891), 639 f.5 Jouguet, Vie munic.; Jung, Hist. Zeitsckr. 67 (1891), 1 ff3 Levy, Reo. d. ef. grecg. 8 (1895), 203 ff; 12 (1899), 255 fs 14 (1899), 350f7; Liebenam, Sv. Verw.; Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 1, 293 f7.; Toutain, Dict. Dar. s.. munici- pium; Toutain, Les cités romaines deta Tunisie. +

3 No. 20. 4 No. 26. yg > Nos. 64 and 65. - § Livy,8. 14. 2-3. 7 Livy, 8. 14. 10; no. 64. :

[8]

COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA®

followed Roman law. If a municipium in Italy adopted Roman law, it was known as a municipium fundanum},

In the provinces we find two main classes of municipia, those whose citizens had Roman, and those whose citizens were restricted to Latin citizenship?. Some cities of the _ second class had the maius Latium, others only the minus Latium, Citizens in communities having the maius Latium gained Roman citizensltip when admitted to the local senate. In towns having minor Latin rights only election to a local magistracy could win this privilege for them®. Provincial municipia, like colonies and peregrine cfvitates, were subject to tribute, and did not enjoy full ownership of land, although perhaps the ius Italicum was granted to favored municipia, This right by a legal fiction made their land part of Italy, and therefore corterred full ownership, or dominium, on the holders, as well as freedom from the payment of tribute4, So far as local administration wag, concerned, most municipia were more or less under the control of the governor of their province, whereas the colonies were strictly autonomous in the matter’ of local affairs®, This difference explains in part why so many * provincial municipia begged the emperors to make them colonies. : oo

Bonk 1 Cf. Elmore, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 47,35 f- -' 2 Toutain, Dict. Dar. s.v. municipium, 2030 f. 3 Gaius, 1. 95-96; no. 64. : 4 Of. v. Premerstein, R.E. 10, 1242 ff. 5 On the posseision of /idertas by Roman colonies, cf. Toutain, Mé?. d. arch, 18 (1898), 141 ff.; v. Premerstein, op. cét. 124.8. -

{9 ]

CHAPTER II

> « PRAEFECTURAE; FORA, VICI, CASTELLA, CONCILIABULA, CANABAE, PAGI, GENTES, . SALTUS!

HE writer of the ex de Gallia Cisalpina, in desig-

natiag-the communities in Cisalpine Gaul to which

a certain provision is to apply, mentions oppidum municipium colonia praefectura forum vicus conciliabulum castellum territorium®, Oppidum is a generic word for an autonomous community, and serritorium is used of the country district outside the limits of a settlement, but belonging to it. The other words inthe list have more or less definite technical meaning, and if to them we add the terms pagus, gens, canabae, and saltus, we shall probably have a complete catalogue of the names given in the West te the smaller administrative units. The first three of these terms, muxicipium, colonia, and praefectura, stand apart fromthe rést to,indicate communities of a clearly marked, ‘getierdl “typé, and again the praefectura, which did not swHjog lp phe rights’ of self-government in Idcal affairs, stands opposed to the more fortunate municipium and

'. colonia. ¢Praefectura, in fact, may be thought of as a generic

term applicable to any community which lacked the full tight of self-government. In this sense, as we shall see,

1 Outside of the discussions in the standard treatises of Mommsen (Sz. R. 3,765 f-), Marquardt (Sz. Verw. 1, 34 f.), Willems (Droit public rom. 357 f.) dnd Madvig (Verf. u. Verw. 1, 44, 49), some of the most recent literature on the communities treated in this chapter are papers by Schulten in’PAi/o/. 53 (1894), 629-686; Hermes, 29 (1894), 481-516; and RA. Mux. 50 (1895), 489-5573; Hardy, Six Romen Laws, 143 ff. and articles under the pertinent headings in Dict. Dar., RE. and the Diz. Ep. For a convenient list of the praefecturae, fora, vici, castella, pagi, and saltus mentioned in Dessau’s collection of inscriptions, cf Dessau, 3, pp. 619, 660-664, 669. :

2 No. 27, ¢. 21, 2f.

[ 10 ]

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI? CASTELLA, ere.

it comprehends all the terms, except territorium, which follow it in the list given above. 1, Sk

The title praefectus was given to an official to whom some higher authority had delegated the power to perform certain functions. So far as the villages and cities of the: empire were concerned, the source of authority might be © the central government at Rome or some one of the dvitates. The officials of the first sort were the pracfectt iure dicundo sent out by the urban praetor to administer ' justice in the settlements founded by Rome of annexed by her, ds well as the special praefecti iure dicundo Cqpuae Cumis who were elected in the comitia on the nomination of the praetor. Thé term prefecture could also be applied to the small communities which did not have an inde- pendent status, but were attachéd to a neighboring civitas. In this case the authority of the prefect came, not from Rome, but from the civitas. The residents in Italian prefectures connected with Rome lacked in the early period some of the qualities of citizenship, but later these communities either attained the position of wyzicipia, ‘or while retaining the name of praefecturae, diftered from .municipia only\in the fact that they did hot hdvey//miri . or IV viri}, As for the other class. of prefecstves, they maintained their existence down to 4 late date.’ Ctvitates usually had serritoria dependent upon them, In these territovia hamlets were scattered here and there, and in the villages at a distance from the governing city justice was - administered ‘and certain other powers were exercised by a prefect sent out for that purpose by the municipal~ authorities. To such an official, for instance, reference seems to be made in C/L. x, 6104, an inscription of the Augustan age: Carthagine aedilis, praefectus iug dicundo vectigalibusqué quinquennalibus locandis in castellis ixxxi. Similarly the magistrates of the Genuenses .ex- ercised jurisdiction over the residents of the castellum

¥ 1 Cagnat, Dict. Dar. s.v. praefectura. >

[rr]

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI, CASTELLA,

Vituriorum1, In one case we hear of the duovir of 4 colony acting as-prefect of a castellum*. It is impossible to draw an exact line of distinction between the several minor com- munities, but for purposes of convenience in discussion the fora, conciliabula, vici, and castella may be put together. These in turn fall into two groups, the fora and conciliabula on the one hand, and the wici and castella on the other. Settlements of the first two classes were always authorized by the central government and thus bore a certain re- semblance tg colonies. Indeed it is quite possible that in the earliest period Roman colonies held the same legal relation to Rome as the fora and conciliabula did in later times‘, This official relation for the fofa is indicated by such typical names as Forum Popili and Forum Livi. Most of them weré founded by. Roman magistrates charged with the construction of a highway, and the name is found most frequently in northern Italy, and for settle- ments made under the republic. In the last century of the republic most of the fora and conciliabula were erected into communities with full rights of local self-government. On a somewhat lower plane stood the vici and castella. Of them Isidore remarks®: vici et castella et pagi sunt, quae fulla dignitate civitatis ornantur, sed vulgari homi- num tonvesitu incoluntur et propter parvitatem sui maioribus civitatibus attribuuntur. The vici, at least, were usually private settlements, and the castella may be re- garded as fortified vici, although in the founding of a castellum probably the initiative would ordinarily be taken * by a military authority, and the commandant may well have acted at the outset as the local magistrate?, Most of

1 Nor ro, Il. 43~44. For a specific illustration of thé relations between a civitas and its attriduti, see commentary on no. 49 on the question at issue between the muzicipium of Tridentum and the Anauni.

2 CIL. vi, 15726. = Schulten, RE. 4, 799f. * Mommsen, S¢. R. 3,775 f. 5 Schulten, R.E. 7, 62. § Orig. 15.2. 11. 7 Mommsen, Hermes, 24 (1889), 200.

T yo 7

CONCILIABULA, CANABAE, ere.

the casté//a were naturally on the frontiers}. Some of the vici and castella were in time made independent com- munities. This happened, for instance, in the case of Sufes?, and occasionally a civitas was reduced to the position of a dependent vicus. An interesting instance of this sort is furnished by the petitiontof the pepple of Orcistus?. In a few cases we.find the name vicus sana- barum* applied to a community, but settlements of this sort do not seem to have differed from canabae, Which. come next in the order of discussion. R

This word in its general sense was applied to the temporary shops and booths put up by merchants. It was natural to usv it also of the settlements of merchants and camp-followers which sprang up about the camps. They were usually located so as to leave a free Space between the fortifications of the camp and the hamlet in uestion. The organization was based on the resident oman citizens, and, with its magistri or curatores®, prob- ably bore a close resemblance to the conventus civium Romanorum, of which we have a reasonably complete record®, Probably the native women by whom the soldiers jn the camp had children lived in these nearby villages, so that it was natural for the veterans on receiving their discharge and the legalization of thejr marriages to settle in the canadae with their wives and children. To them we have reference in an inscription from Aquincum? and elsewhere. In the history of the Roman municipality the canabae have a special interest for us, because we can,

1 For a list, not absolutely complete, cf. Miz. Ep. 2, 130)f. The cas- tellum Carcassonne has preserved its external features up to the present day.

2 CIL, vist, 11427; Kubitschek, R.£. 3, 1757.

3 No. 154. 4 Schulten, PAi/o/. 53 (1894), 671f.

5 CIL. 111, 61663 v, §747; and the phrase civibus Romanis cotsistenti- bus ad canabas leg. v (42. ép. 1920, no. 54). .

® See Kornemann, s.v. conventus, R.E. 4, 1182-1200. Mommsen’s theory (Hermes, 7 (1873), 299 f-) that the canaéae hada military organiza- tion is no longer held; cf Schulten, R.EZ. 3, 1452; Hermes 29 (1894), 507.

7 CIL. 1, 3505.

[13 ]

.

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI, CASTELLA,

in some instances, trace their growth from the ‘earliest settlement by Roman citizens up to the granting of a municipal charter. This is true, for example, of Apulum}, Aquincum?,: Carnuntum3, and notably of Lambaesis4. Some of these settlements, like Carnuntum, even attained the dignity of a colony?. :

The pagus® differed essentially from all the communities which have been mentioned thus far. The meaning of the term varied somewhat from one period tb another and from one part of the Roman world to another, but the

“canton was always thought of as a rural administrative unit, gpd was opposed in sense to civitas, urbs, or oppidum. The Rriane found these rural subdivisions in their con- quest of Italy and of other parts of the western world, and they Were frequently’preserved intact, but were usually given a Roman name. Caesar uses the term to indicate part of anative tribe’, but under the empire it came to designate very definitely a territorial unit.

The inhabitants of a canton might live dispersed or in hamlets (vici). ‘They formed a commune for such religious purposes as the celebration of festivals and the mainten-: ance of the local cult, and for such administrative pukposes as the repairing of roads and the apportionment of the water supply, The religious side of the community life is indicated by such names as pagus Martius and pagus Apollinaris, although other cantons bore a local name, e.g. pagus Veronensis, or even a gentile name, as was the case, for instance, with the pagus Valerius. The cantons enjoyed

~acertain degree of autonomy. We read in the inscriptions’

1 Tomaschef, R.E. 2, 290 f.

2 "Tomaschek, R.E. 2, 333. 3 Kubitschek, RZ. 3, 1601 f. 4 Wilmanns, Comm. Mommsen, 190 ff; Cagnat, L’armée romaine a’ Afriqul, passim. &

5 CIL. ut, 4236.4 ® An extended discussion of the subject is given by A. Schulten, Die Landgemeinden in tim. Reich, Philol. 53 (1894), 629-655. For recent literature, see Toutain in Dict. Dar. and Liibker, Reallexikon, 5.0. pagus. 7 BG. 1. 12.

[ 14 ]

y . CONCILIABULA, CANABAE, ere.

of their magistri and their décrees. In most cases probably the decrees were passed in popular ass¢mblies, but in one case at least, we hear of the decurioris of a canton}. In later; days the pagi must have lost#largaly | their rights of self-- government, because after Diocletian’s time we hear fre- quently of the pracfecti or praepositi pagorum.

larger rural unit than the pagus was the gens or populus. In Spain and Gaul, for instance, the Ramans found it convenient to deal with the tribal organizations, and to accept the division of these tribes into thé tradition- ally accepted smaller cantons. The Helvetii, for example, were divided into four cantons in Caesar’s time’, A judicial prefect was put in charge of a tribe or group of cantons. Thus we hear of a praef. gentis Cinithiorum* and a praefectus civitatium in Alpibus Maritumis®, In these cases Rome dealt with a whole people, not with single cities. Each tribe, however, had one or mote willages, which were made centres of administration. If these grew in importance, they might develop into autonomous cities, and receive Latin or Roman rights as the panes millage of the Ara did ¢,

At the bottom of the scale, so far as the Enjoyment of self-government was concerned, were the co/oni on large. private ‘and imperial estates. Our information about the political and economic organization of these estates in the West comes almost entirely from inscriptions found during the last forty years’, All but one of these docu-

"1 CIL, vin, 1548.

2 The conventus civium Romanorum scarcely belong ampng the com- munities under discussion here.

3 BG. 1. 12. 4 CIL. vi, 10500. 5 CIL. v, 1838.

§ Cf. Kornemann, R.£. 4, 545 and Schulten, RA. Mus. 50 (1895), 521.

? These inscriptions are the Epistula data a Licinio Maximo et Feliciore Augusti Liberte procuratoribus ad exemplum legis Manctanae (no. 74) found in 1896 at Henchir-Mettich, the Ara /egis Hadrianae (Bruns, 115) found in 1892 at Ain-Ouassel, the Sermo et epistulae procuratoPum de terris vacuis excolendis (no: 93) found in 1906 at Ain-el-Djemala, the Rescriptum Com- modi de saltu Burunitano (no. 111) found in 1879 at Souk-el-Khmis, and

[15 ]

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI, CASTELLA,

ments ‘come from Africa, so that a description of the organization of the sa/tus based on them applies strictly to that region, although the same system in its general outlines probably preyailed in other parts of the empire. The growth of great estates is closely connected with the policy which Rome adopted in dealing with the ager publicus. The land of a conquered people passed auto- matically under Roman ownership. Some of the cultivated land might be used as the site of a colony, some turned back to the natives in return for a rental. As for the un-

_ cultivated land, capital was needed for its development,

and it was occupied to a great extent by rich Roman landlords. Under this system immense €states came under

the control of private owners both in Italy and the pro-

vinces. This was particularly true of Africa, of which Pliny tells us that in Nero’s time sex domini semissem Africae possidebant, cum interfecit eos Nero princeps'. The early emperors, as one may infer from Pliny’s remark, saw clearly the political and economic danger with which this ‘situation threatened the government and society, and set themselves to work to remove it®. The land must belong to the state. This change in ownership was accomplished «partly by way of legacies, but in larger measure through confiscation. The land became again public land, to be administered henceforth by the emperor, and by the time of the Flavians most of the great estates had become’ crown-lands*, They were too large to be madé ‘the

_territoria of neighboring cities. They were therefdre

organized on an independent basis, and with the formation of the sa/tas a new and far-reaching principle was intro- duced into the imperial system. Hitherto Rome had made

the Rescriptum Philipporum ad colonos vici cuiusdam Phrygiae, found in 1897 in Phrygia (no. 141). Cf. also nos. 122 and 142. Information con- cerning the system followed on each of these imperial domains may be found in the commentaries on the inscriptions mentioned.

1 NH. 18. 6. 35.

2 Cf. Rostowzew, Gesch. d. rim. Kol. 378.

3 Rostowzew, op. cit. 379.

[ 16 J

CONCILIABULA, CANABAE, ETC.

the cititas the political and social unit. It Had dealt administratively with the individual through the magis- trates or.decurions of his community. The co/oni on an imperial estate had no political organization, or at most only a rudimentary one. They were, therefore, brought into direct relations with the emperor or his personal representative. In catrying out this plan of government for the domains located in a given region, a method was adopted not anlike that which had been followed in the case of a newly acquired province. Just as a senatorial commission under the republic had drawn up a /ex pro, vinciae to fix the relations of the civitates to the cel tral’ government andthe form of government for the provirice within which they lay, or just as emperors granted charters to municipalities, so,representatives of the emperor drew ap a statute for the domains of a given district. The earliest of these statutes to which we have any reference ig, the lex Manciana4, which was probably not a system of regpla- tions drawn up by the owner of a private estate, as is commonly supposed?, but was rather the work of‘an im perial legate, perhaps of the Emperor Vespasian®. ..The lex Manciana continued in force in Africa until it was supplanted by the dex Hadriana, to which reference is made in a document of the time of Commodus? and jrf another of a later date’, From a study of these docu- ments, supplemented by information to be had from other inscriptions, it is possible to determine the administrative - i hii which was introduced into the imperial domains.

A 3 ach estate; or sa/tus, was in charge of a procurator saltus,

who was usually a freedman, and all the procurators of a given region were under a procurator tractus, of equestrian

1 No. 74, 1. 6. : e 2 Hirschfeld, 123, n. 3; Seeck, R.E. 4, 4843 Toutain, Nouv. rev. hist. de

droit fr. et dtr. 21 (1897), 393.f.3 23 (1899), 141 ff. 3 Rostowzew, op. cit. 329. 4 No. rrr, 5, 26. 5 Bruns, 115, 1. 7.

ete ere mos

©

PRAEFECTURAE, FORA, VICI, CASTELLA,

rank, Sometimes between these two officials ‘was a procurator regionis. The procurators were not under the control of the proconsul, but were directly responsible to the emperor?, The business affairs of an estate were in charge of a conductor, who was a freeman or a freedman and was responsible for the management of the entire estate. Most of the land was rented to tenants under five-year contracts, and each tenant was personally re- sponsible for the payment of the rental to the imperial collector. In case of non-payment the conductor proceeded against him’. Part of the land in an estate could be leased by the conductor and worked directly by him or leased to tenants4. For the purpose of working this land he could require a certain number of days’ labor annually from each tenant. <* E

With this sketch in mind of the administrative arrange- ments on an estate, let us fill in some of the details of the plan. No specimen of the fundamental law for an estate has come down to us in its entirety, but the articles of the tex Manciana and lex Hadriana which are extant prove that it provided in the minutest detail for the regulation of the affairs of the imperial domains. It established a system of administration; it specified the powers and duties of the procurator, the conductor, and their assistants; it determined the rights and duties of the co/onus, fixed his rental, and provided for him a method of appeal. Such a law was drawn up for a large region. Consequently it might violate the usage of a particular locality. There were two points especially in which this seems to have happened, viz. in determining the amount of corn, wine, or other

,

1 For a list of the ¢ractus in Africa, cf. Schulten, Die rimischer Grund- herrschaften, 62 ff. For a list of the imperial domains ia other parts of the Roman world, cf. Hirschfeld, Der Grundbesitz d. rim. Kaiser in d. ersten drei’ Fakrhunderten, Klio, 2 (1902), 45-723 284~315.

2 Hirschfeld, K/io, 2 (1902), 295.

® Rostowzew, Geschichte d. Staatspacht, 443:

4 Rostowzew, op. cit. 443-4.

[18 ]

CONCILIABULA, CANABAE, ere.

produte which the tenant should pay as rental!, and in « fixing the number of days’ labor which the conductor might require of the tenant. In case of dispute on such points the matter was referred to the procurator saltus, or was carried up to the emperor or his deputy, the pro- curator tractus. The same method of appeal was followed if the fundamental law was violated. Thus the tenants on the saltus Burunitanus complain that they are required to give more than six days’ labor each year to the conducror®, that the conductor is very wealthy and has secured the support of the procurator of the estate, and that they have been flogged and maltreated by soldiers, although some of them are Rorfan citizens‘. In the case of such petitions as this the emperor caused his decision to be engraved on a tablet and to be placed where it ¢ould be seen by all the tenants,

Within the limitations of, and in accordance with, the forms imposed by the statute and by subsequent decisions of the emperor, the procurator was the administrative and judicial officer of the domain. It is his duty to maintain order, and he may even employ soldiers for this purpose, The tenants on the saltus Burunitanus recognize their lowly condition in their petition to the emperor by speak- ing of themselves as rustici mi vernulae et alumni saltunm tuorum®, Inasmuch as they had the right to petition the emperor and had a magister,