Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:21:27.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Private and Imperial Management of Roman Estates in North Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

Dennis Kehoe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the second century, North Africa was one of the Roman empire's most important producers of food, supplying perhaps two-thirds of the grain consumed in Rome. In addition, North African olive oil was exported all over the Western Mediterranean. The Roman imperial government took a continuing interest in North Africa's importance as an agricultural center and so maintained control over a large proportion of North African farmland. One of the most important centers for imperial land was the fertile Bagradas valley in northern Tunisia. There, a regulation called the lex Manciana served as a basic lease arrangement for tenants cultivating land on imperial estates. Since the lex Manciana is attested only on North Africa, it seems to have been a regulation designed specifically for the conditions of that region and so represents part of the imperial government's long-term program of exploiting North African farmland.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Fall 1984 , pp. 241 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For the most recent discussion of North Africa's importance as a supplier of grain for Rome, see Rickman, G., The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1980) 108–12, 232Google Scholar. See also Haywood, R., “Roman Africa”,: An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome iv, [hereafter ESAR] ed. Frank, T. (Baltimore 1938Google Scholar; rept. 1959) 39–55, for a general discussion of North African agricultural products.

2. ep. 8. 18.

3. Groag, E., Stein, A. and Peterson, L., Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2d. ed. [hereafter PIR2] (Berlin, 1933) C 1605Google Scholar.

4. PIR2 D 152.

5. PIR2 D 167.

6. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum [hereafter CIL] (Berlin, 1863Google Scholar) 8.25902 from HenchirMettich (abbreviated HM); CIL 8.25943, Ain-el-Djemala (AD); CIL 8.26416, AinWassel (AW); CIL 8.10570 (and 14464), Souk-el-Khmis (SK); CIL 8.14428, GasrMezuar(GM); CIL 8.14451, Ain-Zaga (AZ). D. Flach has offered a new text of the first four instriptions in ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen zum römischen Kolonat in Nordafrika,’ Chiron 8 (1978) 441–92Google Scholar. All references to the first four inscriptions will be based on Flach's text; references to the GM inscription will be based on the text in CIL. The HM, AD and SK inscriptions are published with commentary in Abbott, F.F. and Johnson, A.C., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton 1926Google Scholar; rept. New York, 1968) nos. 74, 93 and 111.

7. Share rent: HM 1.23–30, etc., AD 3.b–2 = AW 2.13–3.b, SK 3.8–9; labor services: HM 4.22–36, SK 3.8–9, 3.11–2, 4.5–6, GM A. 12; draught animals: SK 3.8–9. For discussions of the regulations contained in the inscriptions, see most recently Kolendo, J., ‘Sur la législation relative aux grands domaines de 1'Afrique romaine,’ Revue des Etudes Anciennes 65 (1963) 80–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kolendo, , Le colonat en Afrique sous le haut-empire, Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon (Paris 1976) 47–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flach, ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen,’ supra note 6, and Flach, D., ‘Die Pachtbedingungen der Kolonen und die Verwaltung der kaiserlichen Güter in Nordafrika,’ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.10.2, ed. Temporini, H. (Berlin, 1982) 427–73Google Scholar; and D. Kehoe, ‘Lease Regulations for Imperial Estates in North Africa.’ forthcoming in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik [hereafter ZPE].

8. See Kehoe, ‘Lease Regulations,’ supra note 7.

9. Il Tun. 629. Merlin, A., Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie (Paris, 1944) 111Google Scholar, follows C. Saumagne. Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions el Belles-Lettres [hereafter CRAI] (1937) 294–5, in taking manciane as an adverb; J. Carcopino, CRAI (1937) 300f., reads cultor (legis or partis) Mancian(a)e. Toutain, J., ‘Culturae Mancianae’, Mélanges Fr. Martoye (Paris 1941) 95–97Google Scholar, doubts that this farmer cultivated land on an imperial estate.

10. See especially Courtois, C., Leschi, L., Perrat, C., Saumagne, C., eds. and comm., Tablettes Albertini (Paris, 1952)Google Scholar. Other discussions of these documents include E. Albertini, ‘Actes de vente du Ve siecle trouvás dans la région de Tébessa Algérie,‘ Journal des Savants (1930) 23–30; Lambert, J., “Les ‘Tablettes Albertini”,’ Revue Africaine 97 (1953) 196–225Google Scholar; Pallasse, M., ‘Les “Tablettes Albertinis,” interéssent-elles le colonat romain du bas-empire?’ Revue Historique de Droit francais et étranger, 4th ser., 33 (1955) 267–281Google Scholar; Kolendo, supra note 7, Le colonat; Percival, J., ‘Culturae Mancianae: Field Patterns in the Albertini Tablets,’ The Ancient Historian and his Materials. Essays in Honour of C.E. Stevens, ed. Levick, B. (Westmead, 1975) 213–27Google Scholar; Whittaker, C.R., ‘Land and Labour in North Africa,’ Klio 60 (1978) 358–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Flach, ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen,’ supra note 6, 447–49.

11. On this service, see Tacitus, Annals [hereafter Tac., Ann.] 13.56.2, and Phlegon, FGHrist 257 F 36.27.

12. Domini are listed as landlords alongside the conductores (and vilici) at HM 1.10–1, 1.22–3 (restored), 2.4–5, 2.9–10, 3.19–20, 4.25. Domini are omitted at HM 1.15–6, 1.19, 2.12, 2.16–7, 2.19, 2.24, 2.29–3.1, 3.9–10, 3.16, 3.24–5, 4.15, 4.17, 4.21, 4.22, 4.30, 4.34–5.

13. Flach, ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen,’ supra note 7, 444 and n. 47 discusses this theory, originally formulated by A. Schulten, ‘Die lex Manciana, eine afrikanische Domänenord nung,’ Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen [hereafter GGA] N.F. Bd. 2.3 (1897) 18–19, who argued that the lex Manciana was originally enacted for estates under the administration of the Birley, Aerarium. E., Journal of Roman Studies [hereafter JRS] 52 (1962) 221Google Scholar, suggests that Mancia may have been proconsul ca. 67–8. See also Vogel-Weidemann, U., ‘Miscellanea zu den Proconsules von Africa und Asia zwischen 14 und 68 N. Chr.,’ ZPE 46 (1982) 288. Cf.Google Scholar, however, the view of Toutain on the application of the lex Manciana, infra, note 17.

14. Rostovtzeff, M. (Rostowzew), Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates (Berlin, 1910) 324–30Google Scholar. Cf. Leglay, M., ‘Les Flaviens et l'Afrique,’ Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Hisloire de l'Ecole Francaise de Rome [hereafter MEFR] 80 (1969) 226Google Scholar.

15. Saumagne, Tablettes Albertini, supra note 10, 140–42; his arguments are based on an older chronology of the careers of the Domitii, see infra, notes 75–76.

16. Hirschfeld, O., Die Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletain (Berlin 1905Google Scholar; rept. 1963) 123–24 and nn. 3–4.

17. Frank, T., ‘A Commentary on the Inscription from Henchir Mettich in Africa,’ American Journal of Philology 47 (1926) 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Broughton, T.R.S., The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis (Baltimore, 1929Google Scholar; rept. New York, 1968) 161–62; Kolendo, (1963) supra note 7, 92–93, and Le colonat, supra note 7, 48; Flach, ‘Die Pachtbedingungen,’ supra note 7, 444–46. Whittaker, supra note 10, 360 argues that the lex Manciana embodied the Roman government's recognition and codification of traditional native rights of land usage. Toutain, ‘Culturae Mancianae,’ supra note 9, 93–100 argues that the lex Manciana applied only to private estates, a view that cannot be considered.

18. Cf. Rostovtzeff, Studien, supra note 14, 332, followed by Flach, ‘Inschriftenuntersuchungen,’ supra note 6, and Flach, ‘Die Pachtbedingungen,’ supra note 7, 444, 443 and n. 45.

19. Contra Kolendo, (1963), supra note 7, 92–93; Kolendo, Le colonat, supra note 7, 48; cf. Flach, ‘Die Pachtbedingungen,’ supra note 7, 443. See also above, note 17.

20. For the restoration of imperial estates to private ownership, see Crawford, D., ‘Imperial Estates,’ Studies in Roman Property, ed. Finey, M.I. (Cambridge, 1976) 40–44Google Scholar; cf. Dio 52.28.3–4, and Pliny, Pan. 50.

21. Nero 32.2.

22. NH 18.35.

23. On bequests to the emperor, see Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca, 1977) 153–58Google Scholar. On Nero's confiscations, see Frank, T., ‘Rome and Italy of the Empire,’ ESARV (Baltimore, 1940) 43–44 and nn. 25–26Google Scholar.

24. Sat. 117.

25. On the development of large estates in Africa, see Kolendo, Le colonat, supra note 7, 7–19.

26. 1.3.12.

27. See Frier, B.W., ‘Law, Technology, and Social Change: The Equipping of Italian Farm Tenancies,’ Zetschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) [hereafter ZRG] 96 (1979) 222 n. 94Google Scholar.

28. See Saumagne, Tablettes Albertini, 138 and n. 2; Chevallier, R., ‘Essai de chronologie des centurations romaines de Tunisie,’ MEFR 70 (1958) 102–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Hinrichs, F.T., Die Geschichle der gromatischen Institutionen (Wiesbaden, 1974) 131Google Scholar. On the activity of the Flavians in North Africa in general, see Leglay, ‘Les Flaviens et l'Afrique,’ supra note 14, 210–46, especially 222–34, and Di Vita-Eurard, G., ‘Quatre inscriptions du Djebel Tarhuna: le territoire de Lepcis Magna,’ Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia [hereafter QAL] 10 (1979) 83–87Google Scholar.

29. Thomasson, B., Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus (Lund, 1960) 1.29–30Google Scholar. Eck, W., Chiron 12 (1982) (full citation, below, note 75) 287, 291–92Google Scholar and n. 37 lists no proconsul for 70–71, but indicates that Q. Manlius Ancharius Tarquitius Saturninus, attested as proconsul for 72–73, was also probably in Africa during the previous year.

30. Most commentators who see the lex Manciana as originally a public regulation argue that it applied to both imperial estates and to private land. But as I argued above (at notes 18–20), the inscriptions from the Bagradas valley provide no evidence to support this argument. But even if the lex Manciana at some point came to be applied to private land by the imperial government, my objection as to how a public commission could in the first place have made a regulation concerning the tenure arrangement on imperial estates still stands.

31. See Brunt, P.A., ‘The ‘Fiscus’ and its Development,’ JRS 56 (1966) 75–91Google Scholar; earlier discussions include Jones, A.H.M., ‘The Aerarium and the Fiscus,’ JRS 40 (1950) 22–29Google Scholar, and Millar, F., ‘The Fiscus in the First Two Centuries,’ JRS 63 (1963) 29–42Google Scholar; cf. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World, supra note 23, 623–24.

32. For the most recent discussion of these procurators, see Flach, Die Pachtbedingungen, supra note 7, 456–64, with bibliography; cf. Kolendo, J., ‘La hiérarchie des procurateurs dans l'inscription d'Ain-el-Djemala (C.I.L., VIII, 25943),’ REL 46 (1968) 319–29Google Scholar.

33. Flach, ‘Die Pachtbedingungen,’ supra note 7, 455–56 (with bibliography) argues convincingly that the lex Hadriana applied only to imperial estates in North Africa.

34. PIR2 A 82.

35. Ann. 14.18. An inscription from Kasr Taurguni (Cyrenaica) records Strabo's activity: (Nero) per L. Acilium Strabonem leg. suum fines occu[p]atos a privatis p. R. res[ti]tuit. (‘Nero restored to the state lands occupied by private individuals through his legate Lucius Acilius Strabo.’) Smallwood, F.M., Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge, 1967Google Scholar) no. 386 (= Supplementum Epigraphicae Graecae [hereafter SEG] 9.352).

36. Livy, Per. 71, Justin 39.5.2.

37. On Acilius Strabo, see Bleicken, J., Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (Göttingen, 1962) 152–53Google Scholar, who emphasizes that the senate lacked the institutional competence to play a continuing role in the management of state property; contra Hinrichs, supra note 28, 131 n. 21; cf. Saumagne, Tablettes Albertini, supra note 10, 141. The Thisbe edict (Dittenberger, W., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3d. ed. [hereafter SIG3] (Leipzig, 1915Google Scholar) 884 = Inscriptiones Graecae, [hereafter IG], ed. Dittenberger, W. (Berlin, 1892) 7.2226, 2227 Add. p. 747Google Scholar) is published in Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration, supra note 6, no. 129. Brunt, supra note 31, 86 and note 73 refers to several other senatorial commissions concerned with financial questions: Dio 55.25.6, 60.10.4; Tac, Ann. 15.18, Histories [hereafter Hist.] 4.40.2; Pliny, Epistles 2.1.9 and Panegyric [hereafter Pan.] 62.2; cf. Dio 68.2.2–3, and Sherwin-White, A.N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966) 145Google Scholar. None of these commissions dealt with imperial property. The lack of senatorial control over financial matters is emphasized by Tacitus in his account of a senate meeting early in 70 (Hist. 4.9). The senate could not fulfill the request of the praetors of the Aerarium to reorganize public expeditures. A tribune prevented any action from being taken, on the grounds that the presence of the emperor was required for such an important matter.

38. On Hirschfeld's objection concerning the name of the lex Manciana, see supra note 16. This objection cannot be pressed too far, since exceptions to the rule that consular laws took their names from the gentilicium of their author could occur; this objection will not be compelling to those who argue that Mancia enacted the law as proconsul or legate.

39. Thomasson, Die Statthalter, supra note 29, 2.13–14, and R.E. Suppl. Bd. 13 (1973) 2–3Google Scholar s.v. ‘Africa.’ On the proconsuls of Africa who became landowners, see Kolendo, Le colonat, supra note 7, 11 and nn. 52–53; cf. earlier Carcopino, J., ‘L'inscription d'Ain-elDjemala,’ MEFR 26 (1906) 433–37Google Scholar, and Schulten, A., ‘Die “Lex Hadriana de rudibus agris” nach einer neuen Inschrift,’ Klio 7 (1907) 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Flach, ‘Die Pachtbedingungen,’ supra note 7, 446 hesitates to identify the owner of this estate.

40. On these proconsuls, see Thomasson, Die Statthalter, supra note 29; cf. preceding note. On Rubellius Blandus, cf. Charles-Picard, G., ‘Rubellius Plautus, patron de Mactar,’ Les cahiers de Tunisie, [hereafter CT] 11 (1963) 69–74Google Scholar. The grandfather of Lamia (PIR2 A 200) was a knight in the late Republic with business interests in Africa (Cic, Fam. 12.29).

41. Ep. 8.18. See the commentary of Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny, supra note 37, 468–71.

42. On the publication date, see Sherwin-White (supra note 37) 38–39. Bloch, H., I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana (Rome, 1947) 46Google Scholar. prefers dates a few years earlier for the book and for Tullus's death.

43. PIR2 D 182.

44. Ep. 8.18.4. For discussion of the legal issues in this letter, see Tellegen, J.W., ‘Was there a consortium in Pliny's Letter VIII 18?’ Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité 27 (1980) 295–312Google Scholar. B.W. Frier has also recently presented a paper on the legal issues in this letter, which he has kindly given me to read.

45. 8.18.4 On the textual problems in this passage, see Bretone, M., ‘“Consortium” e “communio”,’ Labeo 6 (1960) 212–13Google Scholar and n. 22; cf. Tellegen, ‘Pliny's Letter,’ supra note 44, 309–11, with references to other commentators. It is not clear who is to be understood as the subject of revocaverat. As Tellegen argues, Tullus is the more likely, since he is the one who adopted Domitia Lucilla. But does fratris (sc. patris) refer to Lucanus? Tellegen argues for Tullus again, but this makes for an awkward sentence. More convincing is Bretone, who identifies the frater as Lucanus.

46. Quotation A in Appendix.

47. ILS 990–91; CIL 6.16671. See Groag, PIR2 D 152 (Lucanus); cf. Frier, Paper, supra note 44.

48. Tac, Ann. 14.19.

49. PIR2 D 126. On his background, see Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958) 2.456, 605Google Scholar. See also infra note 82.

50. PI., ep. 8.18.5.

51. 8.18.5–6.

52. See supra note 42.

53. 8.18.7.

54. 8.18.4.

55. See Helen, T., The Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D. (Helsinki, 1975) 100–2Google Scholar, and Setälä, P., Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire (Helsinki, 1977) 13, 34–37, 233Google Scholar. Setälä also suggests (36, 193–94) that the Domitii may have been adopted by M. Epidius Titius Marcellus, whose family owned brick-producing land in northern Italy.

56. 1.36.3, 5.28.3.

57. 3.20.17.

58. Kunkel, W., ‘Ein unbreachtetes Zeugnis über das römische Consortium,’ Mée. A.B. Schwarz, Ann. Fac. Droit Istanbul Hukuk Fakullesi, Annales 4 (1954) 56–78Google Scholar, especially 57–68; Sherwin-White, supra note 37, 470; Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht, 2d. ed. [hereafter RP2] (Munich, 1971) 1.59–60Google Scholar and n. 14 (for bibliography); has, Kaser modified his views in ‘Neue Literatur zur Societas,’ Studia et Documenta Histohae et Ivris [hereafter SDHI] 16 (1975) 287 n. 34Google Scholar.

59. Inst. 3.154 a-b. The term fratres consortes in Paul, D. 27.1.31.4, also apparently refers to consortium. On the Gaius fragment, see de Zulueta, F., The Institutes of Gaius [hereafter Inst.] (Oxford, 1953Google Scholar; rept. 1975) 2.174–78. The literature on the Roman law of partnerships is extensive. Kaser, RP2, supra note 58, 99–101 (with sources and bibliography) discusses the consortium; see also his review of recent literature in SDHI 16 (1975) 278–338Google Scholar, especially 281–7, on the consortium.

60. On the archaic nature of the consortium, see most recently Kaser, ‘Neve Literatur zur Societas,’ supra note 58, 283–84, as well as Kunkel, ‘Ein unbeachtetes Zeugnis,’ supra note 58, 56–57.

61. Ibid. 63–68.

62. Gaius, Inst. 3.154b refers only to the sharing of rights over a freedman who had formerly been a slave belonging to the consortium. Against Kunkel, see Bretone,’ ‘Consortium’ e ‘communio’,’ supra note 45, 213–15, who argues that Pliny uses the term patria potestas in a social rather than juridical sense; cf. Kaser, ‘Neue Literatur Zur Societas,‘supra note 58, 287.

63. See Tellegen, ‘Pliny's Letter,’ supra note 44, 308.

64. See Bretone, ‘‘Consortium’ e ‘communion’,’ supra note 46 and Kaser, ‘Neue Literatur zur Societas,’ supra note 58; cf. Tellegen, ‘Pliny's Letter,’ supra note 44, 308.

65. On the societas omnium bonorum in general, see Kaser, ‘Neue Literatur zur Societas,’ supra note 58, 288–300; on the question whether the soc. o. b. developed independently from the consortium, see ibid. 303–17.

66. On the problems of language at 8.18.4, see supra note 45.

67. See Ulpian, D. 17.2.73, referred to by Frier, Paper, supra note 44.

68. 8.18.7 and Quotation in Appendix B.

69. ILS 990–91 = CIL 11.5210–1. See also Groag in PIR2 D 152 and 167. Alfö<dy, G., Die Hilfstruppen der römischen Provinz Germania Inferior, Epigraphische Studien 6 (Düseldorff, 1968) 166–67Google Scholar, reproduces the epigraphical sources for Lucanus and Tullus, including Reynolds, J.M. and Ward-Perkins, J.B., The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania [hereafter IRT] (Rome, 1952) 527–28Google Scholar, inscriptions honoring the brothers at Lepcis Magna.

70. Suet., Vit. 5.

71. FO 14.

72. See Syme, R., JRS 43 (1953) 150Google Scholar, Syme, Tacitus, supra note 49, 2.642 43; cf. Nesselhauf, H., Gnomon 26 (1954) 270Google Scholar. Tullus's name has been restored to AE 1956.104 (= FO 14).

73. See Quotation C in Appendix.

74. See Quotation D in Appendix.

75. See Alföldy, Die Hilfstruppen, supra note 69, 131–32. Groag, had earlier suggested the war waged by Rutilius Gallicus, legate of Germania Inferior, in 77–78; Groag also refers to the suggestion of Bormann (CIL 11.5210–11), namely the war fought in 74 under Cn. Pinarius Clemens, legate of Germania Superior. See also Dessau in ILS. Alföldy's reconstruction is largely accepted by Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Munich, 1970) 91–92Google Scholar, and Eck, , ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/9,’ Chiron 12 (1982) 287–89Google Scholar and n. 28; cf. 309–10 nn. 115, 124.

76. Alföldy, Die Hilfstruppen, supra note 69, 133–34. Cf., however, Thomasson, Die Statthalter, supra note 29, 2.155–56, who argues that Lucanus served in a special legation, perhaps an extraordinary supervision of boundaries or finances. Dessau, on ILS 990, suggested that the legation involved the command of the third legion. Thomasson 2.53 note 181, 2.156 dates this post to the reign of Domitian, arguing that the formula imp. Caesar. Aug. (ILS 990) is a circumlocution for Domitian, not mentioned in the inscription because of his damnatio memoriae. Alföldy, 133, points out, however, that the inscription was erected while Lucanus was still alive (he died ca. 94; see infra note 83), and therefore before the death of Domitian, which invalidates Thomasson's dating. Cf. Jones, C.P., Gnomon 45 (1973) 689Google Scholar, who dates Tullus's command in Africa ‘no earlier than ca. 75.’

77. On the political troubles in Africa resulting from the civil wars of 69, see Leglay, ‘Les Flaviens et l'Afrique,’ supra note 14, 203–09. of primary importance are the revolt of the legionary commander Clodius Macer in 68, the assassination of the proconsul L. Piso by Valerius Festus, the new legionary legate (Tac, Hist. 4.48.50; cf. 4.38), and the territorial dispute between Oea and Lepcis Magna (Tac, Hist. 4.50). On this last event, see di Vita-Eurard, ‘Quatre inscriptions,’ supra note 28, 91–98.

78. Alföldy, Die Hiffstruppen, supra note 69, 134.

79. See Nesselhauf, Gnomon, supra note 72. On the first consulship of Frontinus, see Degrassi, A., I fasti consolari dell' Impero romano (Rome, 1952) 29Google Scholar; Syme, R., ‘Legates of Cilicia under Trajan,’ Historia 18 (1969) 363Google Scholar, suggests 73 as the year for this consulship; cf. Zevi, F., ‘Un frammento dei Fasti Ostienses e i consolati dei primi anni di Traiano,’ La Parola del Passato 34 (1979) 190–91Google Scholar n. 25, who argues for 74.

80. Zevi, ‘Un frammento,’ supra note 79, dates the consulship of Tullus to 72 or 73, suggesting that Tullus may have held this post in absentia. Eck, ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten,’ supra note 75, 289 n. 28 follows Zevi.

81. Nesselhauf, Gnomon supra note 72; cf. Zevi, ‘Un frammento,’ supra note 79.

82. Pliny, ep. 8.18.5, refers to the will of Domitius Afer as written eighteen years before Afer's death in 59 (Tac, Ann. 14.19); Afer apparently adopted the brothers in this will. See Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, supra note 37, 470–71.

83. Martial 9.51. Friedlaender, L., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Leipzig, 1886Google Scholar; rept. Amsterdam, 1967) 61–62.

84. IRT 318a (= AE 1916.110), cited by Eck, Senatoren, supra note 75, 90, Eck, ‘Jahresund Provinzialfasten,’ supra note 75, 320 and n. 156.

85. See Eck, Senatoren, supra note 75, 91, who assumes an interval of 13–14 years. Thomasson, Die Statthalter, supra note 29, 1.30 suggests 12–15 years as the average interval under Domitian. Eck, ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten,’ supra note 75, 309–10 suggests 84/5 - 85/6 as the years for their proconsulates, based on an early dating of their consulships (see supra, note 80).

86. See supra, note 72.

87. Syme, R., ‘The Ummidii,’ Historia 17 (1968) 84Google Scholar, and Roman Papers, ed. Badian, E. (Oxford, 1979) 671Google Scholar.

88. PIR2 C. 357.

89. PIR2 C. 558.

90. PIR2 D 183.

91. P1R2 A 696.

92. PIR2 A 695.

93. See the stemma in Birley, A., Marcus Aurelius (London, 1966) Appendix II C, 320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Syme, Tacitus, supra note, 49, 793, on SHA Marc. 1.3. Setälä, Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps, supra note 55, 284 produces Birley's stemma; Setälä also discusses Domitia Lucilla Maior and Minor, 107–9. See also Syme, , Historia 17 (1968) 95–96Google Scholar = Roman Papers 682–83, and Some Arval Brethren (Oxford, 1980) 86Google Scholar.

94. See supra notes 39–40. Kolendo, Le colonat, supra note 7, 11 and n. 55 rightly emphasizes that proconsuls could often be expected to acquire property in their provinces. On this question, see Frank, ‘Rome and Italy of the Empire,‘ supra note 23, 25 and n. 45.

95. CIL 8.22632.41, 71, 82.

96. Setälä, Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps, supra note 55, ‘Un frammento,’ supra note 75, 191 n. 25 states without providing any argument that the Domitii had inherited property in Africa from Domitius Afer.

97. See supra, note 55.

98. PIR2 C.1116.

99. On this trial, see Rogers, R.S., Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Middletown, Conn. 1935Google Scholar; rept. Ann Arbor, 1966) 92–93.

100. Ann. 4.52.

101. Ann. 4.66.

102. See supra note 39.

103. Tac, Ann. 4.66.

104. Cf. Rogers, Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation Under Tiberius, supra note 99, 93–94.

105. PIR2 C. 1092.

106. See Groag, PIR2, C. 1348, on the relationship of Dolabella to Varus. On the Quintilii Vari, see also John, W., ‘Zu den Familienverhältnissen des P. Quinctilius Varus,’ Hermes 86 (1958) 251–55Google Scholar, and Koenen, L., ‘Die “Laudatio Funebris” des Augustus für Agrippa auf einem neuen Papyrus.’ 2 ZPE 5 (1970) 257–66Google Scholar.

107. Rogers, Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation Under Tiberius, supra note 99, 94 and n. 300.

108. Ann. 4.66.2; see Quotation E in Appendix.

109. See Tac, Ann. 4.23.2 - 26.1, for Dolabella's exploits against Tacfarinas. On his proconsulate, see also Thomasson, Die Statthalter, supra note 29, 26.

110. Ann. 4.66.2.

111. Syme, R., The Roman Revolution, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1952) 496Google Scholar, followed by Koestermann, E., Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen 2 (Heidelberg, 1965) 196Google Scholar.

112. HM 1.24, 2.18–19.

113. On the term consuetudo, see Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, supra note 14, 331–32, and Whittaker, ‘Land and Labour in North Africa.’ supra note 10, 360 and n. 165.

114. On the controversy surrounding the formula totiusqu[e] domus divin(a)e (HM 1.3), which may indicate that the surviving inscription was a later republication of a document originally published under Trajan, see Hirschfeld, Die Kaiserlichen Ver waltungs beamten, supra note 16, 123–24 n. 4, and Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates, supra note 14, 338.

115. It is difficult to date Mancia's death and the adoption of Domitia Lucilla. Against Setälä, Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps, supra note 55, 108, Pliny makes it clear that both Tullus and Lucanus were alive at the time of the adoption, so that 94 is a terminus ante quem for that event. When Tullus died c. 108 (or a little earlier), Domitia Lucilla Maior was already a grandmother: Pliny refers to Tullua' proneptis (8.18.2); see Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny, supra note 37, 469, and the stemmata referred to above, note 93. The mother of the grandchild was Domitia Lucilla Minor; her parents. Domitia Lucilla Maior and P. Calvisius Ruso (cos. 109), must have been married before c. 94 for Domitia Lucilla Minor to be a mother by 108 at the latest (see supra, note 42). Since Ruso was her second husband, Domitia Lucilla Maior was probably born by the mid-seventies. If Mancia was born c. A.D. 15 (he was consul in 55), he would have reached his sixties in the mid-seventies. Therefore the mid- to late seventies emerge as the likely period for Mancia's death and the adoption, which would have occurred soon afterwards. Even at this date, Lucanus and Tullus would have seen service in Africa and would have had control over Domitius Afer's estate for some fifteen or twenty years.

116. Ep. 8.18. This point is valid whether or not the phrase et quidem cum opibus amplissimis (8.18.4), omitted in the Medicean manuscript, is considered genuine. See Quotation F in Appendix.

117. ep.8.18.7.

118. ep.8.18.4.

119. The lex Manciana is attested as in force on the saltus Domitianus during the reign of Hadrian (AD 3.2 = AW 3.b-1, AD 3.6-9 = AW 3.4-7).

120. Cf. the argument of Whittaker, ‘Land and Labour in North Africa,’ supra note 10.