¹ Seston, W., Euzennat, M., ‘La citoyenneté romaine au temps de Marc Aurèle et de Commode d'après la Tabula Banasitana’, CRAI 1961, 317–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Un dossier de la chancellerie romaine, la Tabula Banasitana, étude de diplomatique’, ib. 1971, 468–490, published in 1972. A version of this paper was read to the Oxford Philological Society in December 1972. The ensuing discussion was profitable to me, and I am under obligations to M. W. Frederiksen, Professors P. A. Brunt and A. M. Honoré, and others whose contributions I was unable to record. I am also grateful to the editors of the Journal for enabling me to present here a more considered study of the Tabula than the second edition of my Roman Citizenship could contain, through the late appearance of the complete text.

² Frézouls, E., ‘Les Baquates et la province romaine de Tingitane’, Bull. Arch. Maroc. 2, 1957, 65 ff.Google Scholar

³ Oliver, J. H., Hesperia Suppl. xiii (1970).Google Scholar Revised texts and a translation were provided by Jonesc, C. P., Zeitschr. Pap. Epig. 8 (1971) 161 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ For a photograph and the measurements, see Seston, a.c. (1971) 469, 471.

⁵ cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford 1966) ad loc.Google Scholar

⁶ The obvious correction of indulgentia (sc. principali) for ingentia should not require detailed justification, despite the curious proposal of Oliver, J. H., Am.J.Phil. 93 (1972) 338–40Google Scholar, who would amend to in gente a principali, which is supposed to mean ‘with very great services in a tribe (performed) by a member of a leading family’. This ungrammatical and inelegant Latin is quite uncharacteristic of the text. A passive participle other than provocata, which is qualified by meritis (which is here a noun, cf. meis), would be required by a principali, which itself requires a noun such as viro. For the ubiquity of indulgentia as an imperial quality, cf. Diz. Epigr. s.v.

⁷ Seston, a.c. (1971) 470.

⁸ cf. Seston, a.c. (1971) 473 for the date of I.L.Mar. 142 where his name occurs.

⁹ ‘non cunctamur et ipsi Ziddinae uxori item liberis … civitatem Romanam dare’. Here et ipsi is ambiguous. But the tenor of the text, and the lack of a gentile name, imply that this Julianus is among the beneficiaries.

¹⁰ The principle of the diplomata ‘dumtaxat singuli singulas’ should exclude the enfranchisement of a second wife.

¹¹ Frézouls, a.c. 68–74 published twelve collocutio texts, nn. 3–4, 6–15, and AE 1966, n. 602 adds one dated A.D. 226–9. Some are altars and others mention altars in a variable formula of the type ‘procurator collocutus … cum principe gentis … pacis aram dedicavit’.

¹² Frézouls, a.c. n. 2, Aelius Tuccuda princeps gentis Baquatium to the emperor Pius in A.D. 140. Frézouls n. 5 (= ILS 855) names Memor, son of Aurelius Canartha, named without his gentilicium in Frézouls n. 4, a colloquium text of A.D. 180, as principe constitute gentis Baquatium.

¹³ Frézouls, a.c. 87 ff. Aelius Tuccuda and Aurelius Canartha do not occur with gentile names in colloquia texts. Julius Matif rex gentis Baquatium, and his son Juiius Nuffusis princeps gentis, and his brother Julius Mirzis occur on colloquia documents of 277 and 280. Frézouls, a.c. nn. 10–11. In the new text AE 1966, n. 602 of A.D. 226–9 the princeps Uret or Urel lacks a nomen.

¹⁴ Though Julii are fairly common in Mauretania Caesariensis, Tingitana contributes only one instance in ILMar. out of some hundred and fifty inscriptions. An alternative derivation of the nomen of this family from Julia Mammaea remains nominally open; cf. J. Carcopino, Maroc Antique 310.

¹⁵ The finding of the documents at Volubilis is of no help here. Frezouls, a.c. 95 ff., discusses the flimsy evidence of the late topographers. The least imprecise, Julius Honorius (Geog. Lat. Min. p. 53), sites the Baquates and Bavares either side of the river Malva, i.e. the lengthy Wadi Moulouya (the ancient Muluccha), and hence somewhere east of the High Atlas in the Moulouya basin. The Zegrenses are much less clearly located. In Frézouls n. 7 the princeps rules over both Bavares and Baquates, and in n. 3 over Macennites and Baquates. Cf. Geog. Lat. Min., ‘Liber Generationis’, cited by Frézouls as listing together Mauri Baccates et Massenas, and Itin. Ant. 1, 1: ‘Mauretania … ubi Bacuates et Macenates Barbari morantur’.

¹⁶ CIL viii, 9663 (= ILS 6882) records an attack of the Baquates on Cartenna in Mauretania Caesariensis, which may be linked with Mauretanian troubles under Hadrian, SHA, Hadr. 5, 11. Worse followed under Marcus, when unspecified Mauri invaded Baetica (SHA, Marcus 21, 22) and were repulsed by Vallius Maximus, then procurator of Lusitania, shortly before his promotion to the governorship of Tingitana, ILS 1354. Cf. Frézouls, a.c. 104 ff.

¹⁷ Frézouls n. 9, Sepemazin in A.D. 245. AE 1966, n. 602, Urel or Uret in A.D. 226, whose name recalls Uretius in Frézouls n. 6, A.D. 200.

¹⁸ Seston, a.c. 1971, is largely concerned with the administrative aspects of the documents. Though much indebted to him I differ on several major points for which my commentary on Pliny, Epp. x provides a different approach: A. N. Sherwin-White, o.c. (n. 5).

¹⁹ e.g. Pliny, , Epp. x, 48Google Scholar, 1, ‘libellus Apamenorun quem epistulae tuae iunxeras’. See my note on Epp. x, 22, 1.

²⁰ Pliny, , Epp. x, 106–7Google Scholar, with notes ad loc. Seston's comment (a.c. 1971, 477), that Marcus does not communicate directly with the petitioner by libellus rescriptus because this was not a judicial decision, is misplaced. Trajan replied in this form but through the governor, like Marcus in the Tabula, simply because the mechanism of the imperial post functioned only between officials, who act as post-boxes to other persons out of courtesy. Cf. Pliny, , Epp. x, 47, 2Google Scholar; 59; 60, 2; 83; 92.

²¹ Bruns, FIR ⁷ 90.

²² For the persons see Seston, a.c. (1971) 485–7. Only the first five are consulars ex officio. Next on the list are two ex-equestrian officials promoted by adlection to consular status about this time, followed by the current ab epistulis and Pretorian Prefect or Prefects, so far as can be determined. The jurist Cervidius Scaevola may appear as praefectus vigilum or as plain amicus. The list conforms to the composition of the consilium of Caracalla given by the inscription of Dmeir: ‘cum sal. a praef. praet. item amicis et princ. officiorum, etc.’. Cf. Crook, J., Consilium Principis (Cambridge 1955) 82–3.Google Scholar

²³ cf. ‘recognovi signa’ in the rescript ad Scaptoparenos, Bruns, FIR ⁷ 90. FIRA ² i, 59 distinguishes ‘in Consilio fuerunt’ from ‘signatores’ in a proconsul's edict of A.D. 69.

²⁴ ILS 8888. Cf. the list of consiliarii supporting the decision of a iuridicus Aegypti in A.D. 67, FIRA iii, 171: παρόντων συμβουλίων.

²⁵ Seston, a.c. (1971) 487 f., citing Lydus de mag. 3, 11. Cf. contra Dio lii, 33, 4. Nero's usage of written sententiae is cited by Suetonius, Nero 15 as a novelty. Though use of tabellae is occasionally mentioned, Trajan in Pliny, , Epp. iv, 22, 3Google Scholar; vi, 22, 5; 31. 12, and Marcus in Dig. xxviii, 4, 3; xxxvii, 14, 17 pr., took oral sententiae. Cf. Crook, o.c. 110 f.

²⁶ The procedure of Vespasian described in Suet., Vesp. 21 implies that he consulted his amici about problems arising from epistulae and officiorum breviario. Of the evidence cited by Crook only the Marcan consultation in Dig. xxxvii, 14, 17 pr. seems to arise from a written petition.

²⁷ Seston, a.c. (1971) 481–2, citing the similar omission from the canon of emperors given by Ptolemy and later authorities. Tac. Hist. ii, 76, a fictitious political exhortation, proves nothing about the official rating of Otho and Vitellius.

²⁸ ILS 1986, of A.D. 52–3, is still the earliest.

²⁹ See FIRA iii, nn. 1–5. A question of Professor Brunt in the Oxford discussion led to the suggestion that auxiliaries alone received metal certificates because their domestic circumstances made the preservation of documents more difficult for them than for resident provincials.

³⁰ In the diplomata the formula ‘ipsis liberisque posterisque eorum civitatem dedit et conubium cum uxoribus quas tunc habuissent cum est civitas data aut … quas postea duxissent dumtaxat singuli singulas’ devotes more words to the wives than to the citizenship. FIRA ² i, 76, dismisses citizenship with the words ‘omni optimo iure civium Romanorum esse possint’.

³¹ Gaius i, 93, 95. Pliny, , Pan. 37, 3Google Scholar; 39, 1–2. The Lex Salpensana (FIRA ² i, 23) 21, 22, provides for the automatic enfranchisement of the annual magistrates ex hac lege without further reference to Rome.

³² Pliny, , Epp. x, 104–5Google Scholar, cited above, p. 90.

³³ FIRA ² i, 55, ii, 1. The immunitas is conjoined with militiae vacatio and muneris publici vacatio in the clause concerned solely with Roman status. The local status and privileges of Seleucus are defined only in the third and following paragraphs. So too the edictum de veteranis (ib. 56) deals separately with Roman status and exemptions (1–11) before turning to local privileges. Cf. Claudius' grant of citizenship to the Volubilitani together with ten years' exemption from Roman taxes, ILA 634.

³⁴ Schönbauer, E., Iura 14 (1963) 72 ff.Google Scholar Seston, a.c. (1961) 319–20.

³⁵ Cic., pro Caec. 101; pro Balbo 28. The Lex repetundarum (FIRA ² i, 7) 79: ‘militiae munerisque poplici in su(a quoiusque ceiv)itate (vocatio esto).’

³⁶ FIRA ² i, 55, ii, 3; 56, 5–22. So much seems certain in the evolution of dual citizenship in the late Republic. For the general debate and bibliography see my Roman Citizenship ² (Oxford 1973) 296 ff. The actual situation of the Triumviral extern is however clearer than the process by which it was achieved.

³⁷ FIRA ² i, 68, iii. For the controversy and a discussion see again Roman citizenship ², 304–5, 334–6. The crucial sentence withdraws from enfranchised Cyreneans an undefined ‘freedom from liturgies’ unless they had been enfranchised as cives Romani immunes. The problem is whether the words λειτουργεῖν …. κελεύω refer to both Roman and local obligations or to one alone of these.

³⁸ FIRA ² i, 76. This concerns the grant of immunitas to legionary veterans and of immunitas with citizenship to their wives and children: ‘Omnibus vectigalibus portitoribus (sic) publicis liberati immunes esse debent’. The term publicus is normal for the taxes due to the aerarium populi Romani, as in its derivative publicanus—and as in the use of populus in the Tabula's citation from the Commentarius.

³⁹ FIRA ² i, 56.

⁴⁰ ibid. 55, 3. Arangio-Ruiz restored ἀτελὴς ἦν ἐν τῇ πάτριδι, introducing the notion of exemption from local taxes or liturgies. But the context is concerned with retention of magistracies, priesthoods and titles to property. The following nineteen lines are however extremely fragmentary, and may conceal anything. They certainly touch on conubium.

⁴¹ Detailed documentation is superfluous, but for evidence from Athens in the time of Marcus Aurelius see below n. 52. For an Augustan example cf. OGIS 470.

⁴² FIRA ² iii, 524.

⁴³ a.c., 98 f.

⁴⁴ FIRA ² i, 35, 3. This text is concerned only with the property rights of the beneficiaries, omitting any reference to criminal or political accusations, doubtless because the three beneficiaries were citizens of cities under the immediate jurisdiction of proconsuls of Asia and Macedonia, cited in the text, who would control capital jurisdiction.

⁴⁵ The SC de Asclepiade uses κριτήριον and μεταπορεύεσθαι for Greek equivalents of iudicium fieri, iudicio certare and persequi of civil law.

⁴⁶ For the independent jurisdiction of free cities in the Republic see the Sullan SC about Chios cited by an Augustan proconsul of Asia, , SIG ii ³, 785Google Scholar; the Lex de Termessibus (FIRA ² i, 11) 9–11, 18–23; and the SC de Aphrodisiensibus (ibid. 38) 1–5. Later, Tac., Ann. iv, 36, Dio liv, 7, 6; lx, 24, 4, of Rhodes and Cyzicus, which abused their powers at the expense of Roman citizens.

⁴⁷ Cic., pro Flacco, 70–83, discussed by Marshall, A. J., G.R.B.Stud. 10 (1969) 255 ff.Google Scholar Cf. the Lex de Termessibus l.c.: ‘quae leges quodque ius quaeque consuetudo …. inter cives Romanos et Termenses … fuit ‥ eadem esto.’

⁴⁸ For the contemporary situation at Athens see below, 95.

⁴⁹ Gaius i, 75–6.

⁵⁰ ILA 634.

⁵¹ Dig. L, 1, 37.

⁵² I cite the revised texts from C. P. Jones, a.c. (n. 6 above).

⁵³ Jones, a.c. 165, 7–15; 171, 35–47.

⁵⁴ Pliny, , Epp. viii, 24, 2–3Google Scholar, esp. ‘nihil ex cuiusque dignitate … decerpseris’.

⁵⁵ cf. FIRA ² i, 99, 34; 39; 46; 54. In the last clause the enfranchised daughter of a veteran loses the right of inheritance from her Egyptian mother. Julianus was wise to secure the status of his family.

⁵⁶ Sasse, C., ‘Literaturübersichte zur Constitutio Antoniniana’ J.Jur.Pap. 14 (1962) 109 ff.Google Scholar; 15 (1965) 329 ff.

⁵⁷ It is impossible to enter here into the minutiae of the debate. I give my conclusion about the ‘state of the question’ from a study of the material in Sasse's compendia, ἀπολιτικίων was fathered by E. Boehme, at immense and irrelevant length (Aegyptus 42–4, 1962–64), who believed contrary to clear evidence that the CA excluded the rural populations altogether. On this see my Roman Citizenship ² 386 f.

⁵⁸ Sasse, C., Die Constitutio Antoniniana (Wiesbaden 1958) 13–14Google Scholar, lists the various emendations that have been proposed. He leaves unchallenged the notion, revived by Boehme more recently, that the second delta of [δε]δειτικιων is not visible on the papyrus. See contra Heichelheim, F., JEA 26 (1940) 16, n. 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Sasse, o.c. (1958) 48–58.

⁶⁰ Jones, a.c. l82, 94–5. ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἐλλήνων φωνὴν πεπὶ τῶν δικασθέντων συντεταγμένοις προσενεθυμήθην…..’

⁶¹ cf. the Neronian text cited n. 42 above. Earlier, in the SC de Aphrodisiensibus, four times. Now in the letter of M. Aurelius, Jones a.c. 170, 30 for later times.

⁶² Estimates of the length of the gap vary from 18–19 to some 21 letters, because of the condition of the left side of the papyrus. B. Kubler, RE xix c. 642, acutely proposed ἀκεραίον τοῦ δικαίου τѽν πολιτεύματων.

⁶³ Sasse, o.c. (1958) 48–58.

⁶⁴ Jones, A. H. M., ‘Another interpretation of the CA’, JRS 26 (1936) 223 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Sasse, o.c. (1958) 117–18, cf. Schönbauer, a.c. 102. Gaius i, 14: ‘qui quondam adversus populum Romanum armis susceptis pugnaverunt deinde victi se dediderunt’. His quondam has caused unnecessary doubts about the continuance of dediticii. In the context of the Institutes, concerned primarily with citizens of Italy and seldom even with those of the Romanized provinces, the dediticius is a very rare bird. For Ammianus' use, cf. xx, 8, 13; xxi, 4, 8.

⁶⁶ cf. n. 16 above.

⁶⁷ For peregrini surviving in the late third century in the Rhineland villages, see A. Riese, Rhein. Germ. Ant. Inschriften nn. 237, 1748, and later at Brigetio, , CIL xii, 94.Google Scholar Cf. Roman Citizenship ² 387–8, modifying the generalizations of Condurachi, E. M., ‘La Constitutio Antoniniana e la sua applicazione’, Dacia 1958, 304 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ulpian in Dig. i, 5, 17 ‘in orbe Romano qui sunt’. Dio lxxvii, 9, 5, πάντας τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ αὐτοῦ.

⁶⁹ Preisigke, Wörterbuch s.v., cf. Roman Citizenship ² 286, 381.

⁷⁰ Bickermann, E., Das Edïkt des Kaisers Caracalla (Diss. Berlin 1926)Google Scholar. One may here note the odd proposal of J. H. Oliver (a.c. 339–340) that ἀδδειτικίων should be read instead of δεδειτικίων. The term is here supposed to mean ‘additional fiscal privileges’, but it is not known to the papyrological lexicons of Kiessling, Preisigke and Passau. It is cited once in its Latin form in Thesaurus L.L. from a single legal text in which Celsus quotes Cato's definition of a mensis intercalarius (Dig. L, 16, 98, 1). The place for such a limitation would be in the genitive absolute, as Bickermann saw, where some equivalent of salvo iure fisci et aerarii must remain a possibility. But it is hard to find a convincing and economical supplement with ‥ατων. Most of the suitable nouns combinable with e.g. μένοντος τοῦ δικαίου would require a defining adjective, e.g. ὀφειλημάτων δημοσίων or τελεσμάτων (for which see P.Ox. 1647, 45). Otherwise μένοντος τοῦ λόγον τῶν δημοσίων τελεσμάτων might fill the bill: ‘salva ratione tributorum et vectigalium’. But it is too long as it stands, and leaves the dediticii excluded from the grant of citizenship.