The Augustan Empire 43 BC

¹ See САН ix², ch. 1The evidence for provincial administration under Augustus and the Julio- Claudians is mainly inscriptional, supplemented by scattered references in the literary sources. No attempt is here made to provide exhaustive documentation. Care is needed in using the more abundant documentary and literary sources for the period from the Flavians to the Severi which are likely to reflect a more highly developed provincial administration than that which existed between 4j b.c. and a.d. 69. Some later items of evidence are cited in what follows, but only those which seem unlikely to be seriously anachronistic.

344

economic scale, then negotiators, veteran colonists and increasing numbers of assimilated provincial Roman citizens. For all this the visible and effective support system lay in the military establishment, the institutions of provincial and civic government, the power of Rome's currency, the increasing dominance of her economic interests, and the gradual spread of Roman law.[503]

The patterns of provincial government established in the late Republic certainly survived the triumviral period, although it is difficult to see whether the political and military disturbances entailed any long- term disruption on more than a local scale. From the point of view of Roman magistrates and officers serving in the provinces, the arrange­ments enunciated in the Lex Titia of 27 November 43 в.с. and emended after Philippi offered the triumvirs the opportunity to exercise patronage and appoint supporters to provincial governorships and legateships; the more general implication was the evoludon of 'spheres of influence' which gave them access to the military and financial resources provided by the provinces in their areas.[504] But it would be mistaken to deduce from this that either the constitutional power or the influence of a triumvir was limited by any 'iron curtain'. Antony might write to the koinon of Asia on the subject of privileges enjoyed by athletes and artists, but Octavian was also able to maintain his close relationship with Aphrodis- ias-Plarasa in Caria, to bestow personal privileges on the naval captain (nauarchos) Seleucus of Rhosus and to issue an edict on veteran privileges whose beneficiaries were not confined to one part of the empire.⁴ But the solicitude of a triumvir for Rome's subjects was not universal even in his own area; some communities suffered from neglect or from inability to enlist effective aid and support, as is suggested by the evidence for internal faction and belated reparation for damage caused in the Asian cities of Aphrodisias and Mylasa during the invasion by Labienus and the Parthians.[505]

The enduring administrative arrangements made at the beginning of 27 B.C. will certainly have owed something to the experience of the previous fifteen years, even though it was politic to suppress any overt appeal to triumviral precedents. The assignation to Augustus of a large provincia, with leave to govern it through senatorial legates appointed for terms determined by the princeps, might rather have recalled the Spanish governorship of Pompey the Great in 5 5 B.C. As defined in the first instance, Augustus' province was to include Spain (though Baetica was soon removed), Gaul, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus and Egypt (governed, since 30 B.C. by an equestrian praefectus personally appointed by the princeps).[506]Within a few years Cyprus and Narbonensis were to be returned to the control of proconsuls, selected by the traditional lot for annual gover­norships and by the end of Augustus' reign Illyricum, now reorganized to form the provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, was in the emperor's hands.[507]

New provinces, by their very nature, demanded assignation to the emperor. Distinctions of rank existed within the categories of governors of 'imperial' and 'public' provinces, the major military imperial pro­vinces being entrusted to men of consular status, the lesser to praetor­ians, the Senate appointing ex-consuls only to Africa and Asia, ex- praetors to the remainder. For those imperial provinces normally entrusted to equites, the prefecture of Egypt was perhaps the prototype; others were governed by men whose positions evolved from military praejecturae or civil procuratorships, becoming assimilated under the general title of procurator in the reign of Claudius. These governorships were in no constitutional sense reserved for men of equestrian rank - a freedman could be appointed deputy-prefect of Egypt and there is no evidence that Pallas' brother, Antonius Felix, was elevated to equestrian rank to hold the prefecture of Judaea.[508]

It is essential to emphasize that under Augustus and his successors practice remained flexible. It allowed provinces to be governed in groups, a province to be transferred from the control of a proconsul to that of a senatorial legatus Augusti or an equestrian governor (or, occasionally, vice versa), to place public and imperial provinces under a combined governorship, to allow a province to be 'upgraded' from equestrian control to that of a legate or from a praetorian to a consular legate, to recognize, in adjacent provinces, although perhaps only in special circumstances, the superior status of the legatus Augusti of the one to the equestrian praefectus of the other.[509] There are obvious differences between the categories of governors in length of tenure and method of appointment. Legates and procurators, appointed directly by the prin­ceps, normally enjoyed a tenure of several years; proconsuls were appointed by lot and served for one year, although there are isolated examples of prolongation and of appointment without the lot (extra sortem). Beyond that, powers and responsibilities tended to become increasingly assimilated (this had been the purpose and effect of the law regularizing the position of the equestrian prefect of Egypt¹⁰) and proconsular independence of the emperor is all too easily exaggerated.

The evolution of this 'system' shows that the implications were far- reaching, although not in any sense which imposes a misleading division of the empire into two halves or two separate methods of government. Augustus could have claimed, if he were ever asked, to be entitled to act in his own and in the public provinces in virtue of his consular imperium until 23 B.C.; a consular decree of Augustus and Agrippa was certainly applicable in the province of Asia not long after 27 в.с. Thereafter he might claim to act by virtue of the lifetime grant of imperium proconsulare maius. But the renewal of the grant of theprovincia in 18 в.с. (and at five- and ten-year intervals thereafter until the practice lapsed after a.d. 14) seems to show that at first the imperium was in principle separable from the territories assigned to him.¹¹ That these were all regarded, at least in the beginning, as provinces of the senatus populusque Komanus seems evident if we accept Velleius' implication that Egypt's tribute was properly the revenue of the aerarium, Tiberius' censure of his legates for not sending reports on their provinces to the Senate, or the fact that the operation of the emperor's Special Account (Idios Logos) in Egypt could be affected by regulations made by the Senate.¹² On the other hand, there is abundant evidence to show that, in fact, business from both public and imperial provinces tended to gravitate towards the emperor as the most clearly identifiable and effective source of power. The first of Augustus' Cyrene edicts can just as naturally be taken to show this as any implied exercise of imperium maius, since it clearly shows the Cyreneans taking the initiative by consulting the princeps, and it is noteworthy that Tiberius, by contrast, thought it appropriate in similar circumstances not to handle the business himself or in conjunction with the Senate, but to allow the Senate an illusion of its traditional functions (imaginem antiquitatis) by remitting to it embassies from cities in proconsular provinces.¹³

governed by procurators, then transferred to legates in the second century; for the relationship between the prefect of Judaea and the legate of Syria see Joseph., A] xvni.88-9, xx.132, BJ 11.244 and Schŭrer 1973 (e i 207) 1. 360-1. For the status of the provinces in a.d. 69 see Table 2.

Extended tenure of legateships: Tac. Ann.1.80; proconsul appointed extra sortem-. GCN 237; Egypt: Tac. Ann.xu.60.), Ulpian, Dig 1.17.

RDGE 61 (Cyme). Dio Liii.16.2-3. 12 Vell.Pat. 11.59.2, Suet. ГЛ.32, BGU 1210,praef.

¹³ EJ² 311.1-40, Tac. Ann. 111.60.3.

Growth in the emperor's influence and control may also be illustrated by observing his relations with governors. In 22 в.с. public embarrass­ment was caused by Augustus' role in the misbehaviour of the proconsul Primus in Macedonia, brought to book for waging war on the Thracian Odrysae outside his province.¹⁴ Obscure though the details of the affair are, it is evident that Augustus' advice to Primus carried so much authority that it might have helped him avoid conviction for treason (maiestas)-, what was potentially embarrassing to Augustus was the alleged intermediary role of his nephew Marcellus. But later the emperor's control of governors could easily be exercised overtly. He could intervene, when convenient, in the sortition of senatorial governorships; Augustus' explicit refusal to criticize a proconsul of Crete and Cyrene for despatching a provincial to Rome suggests that he could easily have done so had he thought it appropriate; in the reign of Claudius, an inscription yields explicit evidence that the emperor might furnish senatorial proconsuls, as well his own legates, with imperial instructions (mandata) and this may well have been the case under Augustus. It is worth noting, conversely, that the prolongation of legateships by Tiberius looks from its context as if it may well have been discussed in, or at least reported to, the Senate.¹⁵

The gradual establishment of patterns of control was as much a process of trial, adaptation and evolution as design. The flexibility is most obvious in the emergence and definition of new provinces during the early Principate but it is no less significant in those acquired earlier. An established province could be defined as a specific geographical area: sometimes its boundaries were clearly delineated by natural features, but often there was no clear border, and then the province would be defined as comprising the communities in it and their dependent territoria. A new province could be delimited (confirming or modifying the area orig­inally assigned to a military legate with imperium) and given a guberna­torial structure, a military establishment, developing communication routes and a tax assessment. Various features (none of them universal) might further emphasize the unity of a province: the existence of a charter (lex provinciae), defining the basis of taxation, the military establishment and, in broad terms, the nature of local government; the governor's provincial edict setting forth his intentions in administ­ration; the encouragement or creation of a koinon or concilium, a federal representative assembly for the communities of the province, with a particularly important role in the organization of imperial cult.

On the other hand, the picture is far from uniform within the provinces, except for certain broad features of the military establish-

Dio liv. j. 1-4; for the uncertainty over the date see above, p. 84.

EJ² 311.40-55, Tac. ArnA.So.

ment. In many provinces, even those of long standing, the degree of military control was incomplete in less civilized regions; there could be no blanket of administrative organization and hence the role of the towns and cities was crucial. The provincial superstructure did not cut across or invalidate other pre-exisdng or developing institutions and relationships; rather, 'Romanization' went beyond simple intrusions like the building of arteries of communication or the introduction of the Roman currency and encouraged the persistence or development of certain kinds of insdtutions, fostering and moulding the relationship between Rome and individual community, between disparate elements within the provincial communities. Thus, established city-foundations in the eastern provinces might have their subjection to Rome tempered by a treaty written in the language of 'freedom' or of 'friendship and alliance', their aristocracies encouraged to undertake the burdens of civic government in return for the prospect of prestige and social advance­ment.¹⁶ Even in the less urbanized province of Egypt, the district capitals (metropoleis of the nomes) assumed some of the features of the Greek poleis — magistrates and a 'Greek' gymnasial class.¹⁷ Local laws (nomot) would be allowed to subsist in many places, survivals of pre-existing laws, religious and judicial institutions like the Athenian council of the Areopagus or the Jewish Sanhedrin. Where 'freedom' was maintained, the lives of the citizens might largely be conducted according to local law, but the civic magnates could easily be made to see that the 'independence' of the community was at the disposal of the ruling power.¹⁸ Even a city like Palmyra, on the fringe of the empire in the early Principate, had accepted Germanicus' instructions on the details of payment of local taxes in cash; if there was a precise moment at which it became integrated into the province of Syria, it is not clear when that was.¹⁹ An example of firmer and more overt extension of control can be seen in the west with Corbulo systematically imposing 'senatus, magis- tratus, leges' on the borders of Gallia Belgica in a.d. 47.²⁰

Roman control did not end at provincial boundaries. As important as the patterns of control within provinces, from the point of view of the consistent desire to create the conditions for further annexation of territory, are the tentacles which reached out beyond the frontiers, signs of a presence designed to impress Roman power upon tribes and client kings. The methods used outside provinces hardly differed from those used inside and must surely have emphasized the insignificance, in important respects, of the frontier between 'Roman' and 'non-Roman'

" RDGE 26, Reynolds 1982 (в 270) no. 8. " See below, p. 696. ¹⁸ Tac. Алпли.60.6.

" CIS 11. j. 3 913.181-6 (Greek text), Matthews i984(e 1037) (translation); on Palmyra's status see J.C. Mann in M.M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomat 1978-84 (ICS 1983), 217-19.

²⁰ Tac. Ann.xi. 19.2-3.

35° io. provincial administration

territory. In Germany, for instance, occupation of military sites in sensitive areas beyond the frontiers is probable for a few years after the defeat of Quinctilius Varus and the loss of three legions in a.d. 9, and again in a.d. 47, but it is only part of the story. Neighbouring tribes supplied soldiers; Segimundus, the son of a Cheruscan chief, was appointed priest of the imperial cult at Ara Ubiorum, though still domiciled on the east bank of the Rhine, and Arminius' nephew Italicus was educated at Rome in the reign of Claudius; c. a.d. 2/3 the governor Aelius Catus, perhaps legate of Moesia and proconsul of Macedonia, transplanted 50,000 Getae into Thrace, Aelius Plautius Silvanus settled more than 100,000 transdanubians in Moesia in the reign of Nero; in Juba's Mauretania there were twelve Roman veteran coloniae, founded between 33 and 25 B.C. and attached to Baetica for administrative purposes; in 4 B.C. auxiliary units of Gauls were operating in Herod's Judaean kingdom.[510]

For provinces and their towns, villages and individual subjects, as for client kings and tribal chieftains, the embodiment of Roman power and authority was in practice inescapably and increasingly identifiable as the emperor. It is important to emphasize that he was far more than a mere figurehead, for his administrative role was always an active one. His position as a magistrate could be invoked (if it were ever necessary) to justify the issuance of edicts and epistulae addressed to specific provinces and communities within them, and imperial pronouncements in these forms soon hardened into a central feature of the development of a body of administrative law for the provinces. Pronouncements of a general nature which illustrate the emperor's role as an executive on a broad front are reladvely few: the Augustan measure establishing a new procedure for extortion cases is in the form of a senatus consultum but the imperial edict which prefaces it makes the emperor's central role clear; imperial edicts guaranteeing the privileges of the Jews or of veterans, or regulating the system of vehiculatio (requisitioned transport) are not limited by civic or provincial boundaries and retain validity beyond the lifetime of an individual emperor undl they are explicitly modified or superseded or occasionally, if in danger of being over­looked, reiterated.[511]

It is not difficult to see how groups of communities and individual communities and persons naturally perceived the emperor as the prime focus of power and tended to direct embassies and requests to him, normally, though not always, through the filter of the governor, as the most natural source of effective action and patronage. This impression will have been further reinforced by the evident interests of the emperor and his property {patrimonium) in many provinces and areas. Imperial reaction by verbal decision or rescript thus also became a central feature of the growing corpus of law and regulation. How much of the actual decision-making was done by the emperor in person (as opposed to the palatine bureaucracy), how much was acdon and how much reacdon does not alter the significance of the role. As the volume of business naturally increased, provincial officials multiplied; a matter brought to an emperor's attendon by an embassy might be referred back to a provincial governor for investigation, as happened at Cnidus under Augustus.[512] A significant illustration of the occasional need to define responsibility is Claudius' explicit pronouncement of a.d. 5}, amplified in a senatus consultum, that the decisions {res iudicatae) of his procurators were to be regarded as having validity equal to his own. Under Tiberius a procurator of Asia who had overstepped the mark was castigated by the emperor but neither of these acts can have entirely prevented abuse of their powers by officials.[513]

ii. structure

The functioning of the administrative system in the provinces depended upon a superstructure of military and civil officials, appointed to their positions by the central government and directly responsible to it. The relatively small corps of senators and equites who occupied the higher posts were normally not natives of the provinces in which they served, although there are sufficient exceptions, especially later in the Julio- Claudian period, to assure us that this was not an inflexible rule.[514] The infrastructure consisted of the elements of local government in the provincial communities - towns and villages - with varying degrees of autonomy. In this section these two elements will be examined in detail and some final observations will be made on the nature of the relation­ship between them.

Governors of all ranks, legates, proconsuls and prefects or procura­tors, exercised the full range of administrative, military and judicial powers within their provinces which their imperium implied; if a proconsul or a procurator had only a handful of auxiliary troops in his province, his authority over them was no weaker than that of the legate of Syria over his four legions and auxiliary troops. The governor's responsibility for maintaining the quies provinciae was paramount and Ulpian's description of his duties as they were in the early third century indicates a breadth of authority which must be valid for the early imperial period.²⁶ Needless to say, the governor's freedom to act was subject to the will of the emperor, as it was to that of his delegated agent, be it Agrippa, Gaius Caesar, Germanicus or Corbulo, with overriding powers. The events surrounding the death of Germanicus in the East in a.d. 19 and his difficult relationship with Piso, the legate of Syria, illustrate the tensions which might arise; as they similarly might if an imperial procurator, as personal agent of the princeps, encroached on a governor's prerogatives, as is shown by the quarrel in Britain in a.d. 62 between the governor Suetonius Paulinus and the procurator Julius Classicianus which Nero attempted to solve by despatching the imperial freedman Polyclitus.²⁷ At the other end of the spectrum, a governor's powers were, in theory, limited by the privileges of particular communi­ties or individuals; often they no doubt chose to observe them, in practice they could certainly be overridden.

There was a variety of officials in direct subordination to the provincial governor. As far as the routine work of the governor's officium was concerned, there is very little evidence for the early imperial period but an inscription of the second century shows that his staff consisted of a retinue of lictors, messengers (viatores), slaves and soldiers (beneficiarii consulares seconded from their units); in the first century it might perhaps have been smaller but similar in character.²⁸ At a higher level legates and proconsuls would have civil and (where there were legions) military legati-, military tribunes, commanders of auxiliary units and centurions would also play an important role in civil as well as military administration. Proconsular governors had quaestors who performed their traditional role in public finance, whilst the financial interests of the imperial property {patrimonium) were tended by a procurator provinciae (normally an eques, sometimes a freedman) with subordinate equestrian or freedmen procurators assigned to specific estates or sources of revenue. Their degree of independence from the governor cannot always be precisely measured and the issue was gradually more obfuscated by the increasingly public nature of the fiscus and the fact that in imperial provinces the procurator provinciae had, from the first, assumed the traditional duties of the quaestor in the sphere of public finance. Only in Egypt can it be clearly seen that the equestrian officials of procuratorial status acted directly as 'departmental heads' for the governor but the same may be true, and increasingly so as time

²⁶ Dig. 1.16.4.3, 1.18.3, xlviii.18.1.20. ²⁷ Tac. Ann.ii.)-;, xiv.38-9.

²⁸ J.H. Oliver, AJP 87(1966), 75-80, P.R.C. Weaver, AJP 87 (1966)457-8.

passed, in other imperial provinces too.²⁹ From these officials the governor was relatively free to select those who would assist him in their own areas of expertise by sitting on his advisory council (consilium), but he was not restricted to co-opdng a quaestor, legate, procurator or military officer; he might also summon a client king, a local magnate, a city magistrate or an expert in local laws and institudons.

The evidence for subdivision of provinces into regional administra­tive units is patchy and sporadic and it is impossible to imagine anything like a general pattern. In newly acquired or less Romanized areas special arrangements might be appropriate. In the Alpine regions in the early imperial period we find military praefecti assigned to groups of civitates in a region; as the regions became more organized and subjugated these praefecturae were integrated into the more regular gubernatorial pat­tern.³⁰ The requirements which dictated such an arrangement were doubtless analogous to those which later produced centurions in charge of regions (centuriones regionarii) in Britain, for example, and they serve to emphasize that in many \^f not all 'frontier' provinces the organization of the military establishment was inseparably linked to the development of the embryonic civil administrative structure.³¹ In some provinces the evidence shows the survival of traditional regional units — the three (or four) epistrategiae and their constituent nome divisions in Egypt, the strategiae in Thrace (gradually phased out from the late Julio-Claudian period), toparchies in Syria and Judaea. In some places groups of cities were agglomerated into administrative units (the Syrian Decapolis, for example), in others pagi were created perhaps mainly with a view to facilitating the organization of taxation.³² The officials in charge of such divisions will have formed an important bridge between the civic authorities and the officials with province-wide responsibility, theoreti­cally without prejudice to whatever degree of autonomy in internal government obtained in the individual communities. Finally, it should be added that, in effect, another type of regional unit was created by the growth of large imperial estates, often embracing numbers of small communities within their boundaries and assigned to the administration of an imperial procurator. The efficient functioning of this relatively small central bureaucratic superstructure (perhaps not more than 300 officials in all) depended upon an infrastructure of effective local administration in the towns and villages of the provinces. In this respect there are bound to be striking differences from province to province and region to region, particularly noticeable in broad terms between East and West; in much of the East Rome acquired provinces which retained

® Below, pp. 682-4. ³⁰ EJ² 243, 244. ³¹ Tab Vindohi(=n 250).

³² Egypt, below, p. 682; Thrace, below, p. 567-8; the Decapolis, 1СRR 1 824, cf. Isaac 1981 (d 93); Pflaum 1970 (e 75 5).

their Greek or hellenistic legacy of poleis whilst many of the western provinces required a greater degree of direct initiative in the organiza­tion of communities or tribal units into civitates, a process in which the military presence played a vitally stimulating social, economic and technical role. If a general pattern can be extrapolated from this diversity, it should probably be defined in terms of the aim of Roman imperial government to perpetuate or create a system of civic govern­ment which depended upon the primacy of the urban centre in its region and the supremacy, within that urban centre, of the wealthy aristocracy. Urbanization, thus defined, was the essence of social and political control and this process of development is one of the most important features of provincial history in the first century a.d. There was the foundation of coloniae in both the East and the West. The poleis of the East could be encouraged to better their status and their corporate privileges. In Gaul (and, to a lesser extent, in North Africa, Spain and Sardinia), existing urban centres were developed as civitates-, some of the native oppida were developed, others were replaced by new civitates which, sooner or later, could aspire to the status of a colonia or municipium.

The structure of government in the provincial poleis and civitates depended heavily upon the oligarchical institutions of councils and magistrates, based upon qualifications of wealth and birth and vested with the executive power to govern their communities internally and to represent them in their dealings with the central authority. The more broadly based assemblies, whose composition was carefully defined so as to distinguish citizens from non-native residents (incolae), constituted a more democratic element but it was one with a restricted role, exercised under the direcdon of the local Senate and the curial class.³³ In some cities specific groups were permitted their own communal laws and institutions, so long as they did not infringe the laws of the city as a whole.³⁴ Of more general importance are other sorts of civic institudons whose functions fitted into the administrative pattern and whose officials exercised power and influence and gained status and prestige: local courts, temple foundations, gerousiai (councils of elders), collegia (guilds) and associations of all kinds. The curial classes may well have played an important part in these institutions as execudves or patrons but many of them were, for others below that level, catalysts of social and political upward mobility in a pattern which systematically linked privilege and obligation and gave the ruling aristocracies the responsibi­lity for apportioning the burdens of local government among both themselves and the lower status groups of the citizen body. The best illustration of this as a general feature of the system comes in the form of

MW4J4, cap.LIII, cf. Mackie 1983 (e 25i)ch. III.

The best known is the Jewish community of Alexandria, see CP] 1, p. 7, below, ch. 14d.

the ubiquitous public services (called liturgies in the East and munera in the West) which distributed the necessary burdens of local administ­ration (including such functions as tax-collection for the central govern­ment) amongst the populace according to property qualification. The highly developed and organized liturgical system of the later Empire cannot safely be retrojected to the earlier period nor can it be assumed that it developed pari passu in different areas. But the vestigial and scattered evidence for the early imperial period makes it clear that the roots are to be sought here, at a time when it was probably still meaningful to make a clear distinction between such public services (whether prestigious and theoretically voluntary or, to an increasing extent, menial and compulsory) and the elective magisterial offices (honores or archai).³⁵

Although the cities normally enjoyed a primal position in relation to the villages of their territorium, it is important to emphasize that this only rarely seems to have involved direct administration of villages from the civic centre. Some Alpine tribal villages were governed from their neighbouring municipia and in Africa magistrates of Carthage were involved in the administration of villages whose population included Roman citizens. But even there, other native settlements probably had their own magistrates and in Spain a vicus may be found acting independently of its civitas.³⁶ In western Asia Minor and Syria village political life was vigorous, involving village assemblies, sometimes councils of elders (gerousiai), and boards of magistrates; in Cappadocia, which had been little affected by Hellenism and consequently boasted few cities, it was the villages which were at first the centres of organization and of economic and religious life; internal village admi­nistration in Egypt did not depend on the nome-capitals, though it was perhaps subject to a greater degree of supervision by government officials than was the case elsewhere. In Gallia Belgica, where some 15 о vici are known, periods of growth have been identified immediately after the conquest and in the middle of the first century a.d., involving both pre-Roman oppida and new foundations appearing close to the main roads. Here the grouping of villages in pagi and the development of the major vici as cult-centres emphasizes the variation in size and the general tendency of groups to form their own central-place hierarchies.³⁷ An important role as a centre of market, commerce and manufacture together with the existence of a wealthy landowning (and hence magisterial) elite will have been the basis for claims to city-status which

» EJ² 31 i.j5-62, FIRA i 56,1 2i,cap.XCII.

³⁶ Anauni and Tridentum, GCN 368.21-36; Carthaginian magistrates, ILS 1945, CIL viii.26274; Spanish vicus, AE 1933, 267; compare Hiera polls sending peace-keeping officials to villages in OGIS j27 (date uncertain). ³⁷ Wightman 1985 (e 520) 91-6.

larger villages made with increasing frequency in the second and third centuries.

This sketch of the governmental system as consisting of a central bureaucratic structure and the local administrative institutions ignores one feature which deserves mention in this context - the existence of leagues of cities and provincial federate assemblies (koina or concilia). The former were never very widespread and where they did exist were probably a concession to local traditions (as in Greece, where limited rights of coinage were enjoyed) or a pre-existing and convenient instrument of organization in a new province like Lycia-Pamphylia. The provincial assemblies, of which only the Asian and the Gallic (serving the Three Gauls) are known in any detail during this period, played an important role in emperor-cult and might be the medium for trans­mission of measures affecting the province as a whole or for expressing the common grievances of the provincial cities at the imperial court, but neither they nor the leagues had a role of any vital administrative importance, nor did they occupy a regular role as intermediary between the cities and the central government; it is, however, worth noting one interesting instance from the reign of Tiberius of the Thessalian League attempting, by vote of the constituent members, to resolve an inter-city dispute which was remitted to it by the provincial governor.³⁸ A more important feature is the fact that they allowed concentration of the city aristocracies in a broader and more prestigious context, reinforcing their standing and control in their individual cities.

Effective links between the central and the local administrative structures, nevertheless, did exist. As far as function was concerned, the main feature is the way in which the provincial authorities of the central government exercised a supervisory or controlling interest over the local, sometimes under the pressure of requests from the communities themselves. This is illustrated in more detail in the following section, but it is worth noting here first, that even if such intervention frequently went beyond what the central government would have chosen to do of its own accord, this possibility was always inherent in the relationship between Rome and the provincial community and second, that the inability of the communities to exercise their autonomy satisfactorily foreshadows the situation in the later Empire when the higher echelons of the local administration were effectively incorporated in the central bureaucracy; in the early Empire it might occasionally be expedient to send a person who already enjoyed influence at the imperial court back to his native city to regulate its affairs, as happened to Athenodorus of Tarsus under Augustus.³⁹ Intervention by central government and the

MEJ2321. 39 Strab. xiv.j.i4 (674c).

use of local people was greatly facilitated by the opportunity for local magnates or their descendants to enter imperial service, perhaps availing themselves of the patronage of provincial governors or other powerful contacts; in doing so, they thus effectively withdrew from direct participation in local government, and deprived the communities, in the long run, of the use of their administrative capability and the resources upon which it was based. This may be seen as an inevitable consequence of the opening up of the equestrian status to the wealthier provincials. Antecedent to this might be the opportunity for a local magistrate, such as Lampo of Alexandria, to assist the provincial governor in his court or to sit on his consilium. A local dynastic family, like the Euryclids of Sparta, which gained citizenship under Augustus, could boast a member of equestrian procuratorial status by the reign of Claudius.[515]

III. FUNCTION

In contrast to the relative formality of the bureaucratic structure, an attempt to describe how provincial administration worked in practice must take account of the flexibility which the structure permitted and observe the patterns and relationships which developed in the early imperial period. A useful analysis of the working of provincial govern­ment can be presented in terms of the role of the various elements in the structure — emperor, Senate, the provincial governor and his subordi­nates, communities, institutions and individuals - the relationships between them and the factors which limited or determined the scope and nature of their action. Their functions can be illustrated by examples which show what kind of action they were free to take in what kind of situation and how different kinds of situations affected the complex of their interrelationships.

Here it is perhaps best to begin at the bottom of the structure and discuss the villages first. In general, they seem to have enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in communal affairs (though this doubtless varied from region to region), electing boards of magistrates from amongst the local landholders to manage village funds, gifts and bequests, the administration of markets, temples, public buildings and common property. The democratic element in local government sur­vived quite vigorously in the form of village assemblies which discussed substantive matters as well as making corporate dedications and honor­ary decrees.⁴¹ Detailed evidence for village affairs can be found only in

Egypt but we should not underrate the significance of what we know of a village like Tebtunis in the Fayum (an area particularly affected by large- scale settlement of Greeks in the Ptolemaic period) where, for instance, documents of the reign of Claudius show the administration of the village record office which kept detailed account of contractual transac­tions between villagers and the activity of the local guild of salt- merchants in organizing members' rights to ply their trade in and around Tebtunis.⁴² Here government officials played a significant supervisory role as a matter of course and, as in other provinces, the links with larger towns in the region may normally have been quite tenuous except in so far as the towns functioned as the nuclei of their regions for the purposes of taxation. Even where there were significant links with the towns a degree of tolerated independence and autonomy was not precluded but the lack of clearly defined status and privileges will have meant that small communities were more readily subject to interference and control by a provincial governor and his subordinates.⁴³

The more abundant evidence from the provincial towns and cities naturally affords a more detailed picture. The status of the urban communities varied a good deal and the privileged cities were, at least in the early period, relatively few, of the 399 towns enumerated by Pliny the Elder in the three Spanish provinces, for instance, 291 were merely civitates stipendiariae (tribute-paying communities).⁴⁴ The more favoured communities might enjoy freedom and immunity from taxation, or freedom established by charter, senatus consultum, imperial edicts or letters; but the gradual emergence of general patterns did not preclude the existence of rights and concessions specific to a single community.⁴⁵ In the West the early pattern of peregrine and citizen communities defies simple classification but it is clear that, in general, elevation of status meant achievement of the status of colonia or of municipium with the Latin right, which could be confirmed by charter and which normally conferred Roman citizenship on the magistrates and their families. Native towns such as those of Spain or Africa might prepare themselves for higher status by imitating Roman institudons in their patterns of magistracies and local civil law. In consequence even in the Republic an issue in a peregrine Spanish community could be described in Roman legal language; in early imperial Africa a local magistrate marked the elevation of his town to municipal status merely by a change of title,

« PMicb 237-42, 245. « See above, n. 36.

HN hi.7, 18, 4, 117. The lists are generally agreed to be based on sources of the Augustan period.

I us Italicum: Dig. 50.15.1; senatus consulta etc.: Reynolds 1982 (в 270) nos. 8, 9, 13; rights of asylum for the temple of Zeus at Panamara: RDCE 30; income from indirect taxes given by Augustus to the Saborenses, requests for additions to be addressed to the proconsul of Baetica: MW 461.

from sufes to duovir.*⁶ Sometimes the process operated in reverse, for the imperial authority could diminish or revoke the privileges of a specific community or group of communities. Even when this was not done on a permanent basis, there was always the potential for a ruling by an emperor or governor which could override the rights of the community for some specific reason.[516]

Differences between the old-established poleis of the East and the developing civitates of the western provinces and the wide range of status enjoyed by the different communities does not make it impossible to identify the general features of their role in provincial government. In both East and West the privileged communities exercised their local autonomy and met their obligations to the imperial government through the institutions of councils and magistrates recruited from the propertied classes. Their role is adumbrated by Plutarch in a frequently cited passage which must primarily reflect the experience of the Greek East under Roman domination: the civic magistrate is also a subject, controlled by proconsuls, and should not take great pride in his crown of office, for the proconsul's boots are just above his head; he must avoid stirring the common people to ambition and unrest and he must always have a friend among the powerful, for the Romans are always very keen to promote the political interests of their friends.[517] In the East, as one might expect, the propertied families which provided these magnates and dynasts were frequently old-established ones which had been powerful when the poleis were city-states rather than merely provincial towns. An old aristocracy could absorb influential new elements (such as Italian immigrants), a less hellenized one could adapt to the pattern. In the West, aristocratic tribal patterns might be suitably modified to encourage the development of a pro-Roman upper class, as they seem to have been in the Three Gauls (though not so effectively as completely to suppress anti-Roman feeling).⁴⁹ Free birth and sufficient wealth were the technical prerequisites of curial status; freedmen with only the latter qualification were normally debarred from office, but freedmen's sons were entitled to enter the curial order and by the second century they were to make their mark in local politics in increasing numbers.⁵⁰

City government was thus essentially oligarchic. From the beginning of the second century, as the attractions of civic office faded, effective power was concentrated in the hands of an ever-smaller group which, by the later Empire, became institutionalized and appears in the legal texts as the principales (leading decurions). Many towns, however, retained democratic citizen assemblies which could theoretically exercise elec­toral powers and pass resolutions; by the end of the first century a.d. the electoral function had become less meaningful, as co-option to councils and appointment of magistrates by those councils became more common, but it is noteworthy that voting procedures in popular assemblies still find a place in the municipal charters of the Flavian period; popular decrees may never have been concerned with much more than the formal or honorific, but their survival in the inscriptional evidence from the Greek East is none the less significant of the fact that the assembly (demos) remained a formal element in the communal structure.[518]

Autonomy in internal administration conducted through the bouleu- tic or curial class allowed economy in the number and function of government administrators. The areas in which self-government was theoretically exercised add up to an impressive list. The regulation and organization of the councils and magistrates and other communal institutions such as gerousiai, trade- and cult-associations and gymnasia; performance of public services through a system of munera or liturgies; regulation of food supply and market facilities; general control of communal finances, including the exploitation of particular resources, management of property owned by the community, imposition of some tolls or local taxes; management of temples and cults (including some degree of control in emperor-cult once permission for its establishment had been granted) with attendant festivals and games; exercise of such specific legal powers as were permitted to individual institutions or officials (perhaps less severely limited than is commonly believed); the maintenance of public order and the supervision of prisons; sometimes rights to local coinage; organization of building projects in the town, frequently accomplished through the munificence of the local elite.

The ways in which the autonomy of communities in internal govern­ment were restricted and limited were nevertheless effective and signifi­cant. It was subject to general regulations applicable to a province as a whole, such as those embedded in a lex provinciae (which could be modified by imperial or senatorial authority) or those promulgated by individual governors; or to general enactments which affected the status and privileges of particular groups in the empire such as Jews or veteran soldiers.⁵² Not dissimilar was the effect of the spread of Roman citizenship through personal grants to individuals, military service and the institutions of municipal government. The citizenship extended privileges to individuals and groups which could override or curtail the hold which their community's laws and institutions had upon them. We may note the complaints made in a.d. 63 to a prefect of Egypt by a mixed group of veterans that their citizen rights were being ignored; and conversely a striking instance from the Augustan period at Chios which makes it clear that Roman citizens resident there were subject to local laws.⁵³ An important indication of the general need to limit the scope for using Roman status to avoid local obligations occurs in the third Augustan edict from Cyrene which forbids Cyreneans with Roman citizenship to evade liturgical service in Cyrene; general recognition of this principle meant that provincial towns could continue to benefit from what was, in effect, a form of local taxation.⁵⁴ But, on the whole, the upward mobility of the local elite into citizen and sometimes ultimately equestrian or senatorial status made that elite more remote from the needs and the control of the cities, which could only retain their hold by encouraging ties of patronage.

Explicit interference in city autonomy by government officials tended to become more frequent in the course of time, partly because the nature of the ruling classes in the cities was always potentially factious; when the community itself did not have the means or the power to resolve internal difficulties which resulted, it would be likely to resort to an appeal to the central authority. The invitation to intervention was bound to weaken the confidence of the Roman government in the ability of the communi­ties to govern themselves peacefully and efficiently, and ultimately to lead to erosion of their independence.

The phenomena which most frequently demanded the attention of cemtral government were the inability to resolve internal conflicts, the reaction of communities to attempts to erode their privileges, and disputes between communities. Internal conflict evidently underlies the fourth of Augustus' Cyrene edicts, which attempts to deal with the problem of the bias of Romans against Greeks in juries dealing with non­capital cases, or the criminal accusation brought by a Cnidian embassy in 6 в.с. to Augustus and referred by him to the proconsul of Asia.⁵⁵ Attacks on communal privilege are illustrated in an inscription which records the fixing of boundaries for the town of Histria and the area of

Augustan emendation of the Lex Pompeia: Pliny, Ep. x.79; governors' regulations: Lex Irnitana, cap.8; (Gonzalez 1986 (в 255)); Jews and veterans: above, п. 22.

Egyptian veterans, CCN 297; Chios, EJ² 317 (for a possible precedent from the republican period see J. and L. Robert, C/aroi I, l^ei decrett hclltnistiques (Paris, 1989) p. 64, lines 43-4).

^M EJ² 511.33-62. 55 EJ² 311.62-71.

operation for a contractor of customs dues by decision of the governor of Lower Moesia, Laberius Maximus, in a.d. ioo. Earlier letters of three legates of the Julio-Claudian period are quoted, repeatedly asserting the rights of the town to revenues from fish-pickling and pine-forests in its area. One cannot but conclude from the frequency with which these rights were upheld that they were constantly under threat, presumably from contractors collecting taxes for the imperial government, as the letter of Laberius Maximus implies.[519] As for disputes between communi­ties, reference has already been made to the case referred to the Thessalian League by a governor in the reign of Tiberius. Greater detail is to be found in a decree of a.d. 69, issued by the proconsul of Sardinia, Helvius Agrippa, dealing with a dispute between the Patulcenses and Galillenses over territorial boundaries. These had originally been estab­lished by an adjudication of a republican proconsul, recently reiterated by an equestrian governor in a.d. 66/7, apparently acting in accordance with the advice of the emperor Nero. It was this situation which the Patulcenses wished to have upheld, but the Galillenses had been encroaching on their property and had informed Agrippa's predecessor that they could produce a document (presumably the original judgment) from the imperial archives in Rome which would support their case and, by implication, invalidate whatever local documentation the governors were using. However, after two adjournments they had failed to produce it and Agrippa's decree ordered them to vacate the disputed territory.[520]Internal self-government was not the only important aspect of the role of the cities. They also functioned as guarantors of the fulfilment of obligations imposed upon them by the central government. The overall assessment of the burden of direct personal and property taxes on a province was imposed en bloc, but individual liabilities were determined on the basis of the provincial census. It was the civic authorities who were responsible for providing their portion of the tribute, and they were free to determine, at least in the cases of those taxes which were not assessed at a fixed rate, the liability of individuals, as is shown by an inscription from Messene which gives details of the division, and honours the magistrate who organized it.[521] Much of the work of collecting these taxes was devolved upon the towns who appointed local collectors and if they failed to meet their quota the responsibility for making up the deficit fell on the community. Collection of indirect taxes through farming remained common and the administration of some contracts was in the hands of the civic authorities. The same practice obtained with regard to impositions for military purposes - requisitions of supplies, the provision of transport and billeting facilities - according to a schedule which divided the burden imposed on the province between its constituent communities.⁵⁹

It is not difficult to see how the interests of the central government weighed heavily on the independence of the cities in these areas, where close monitoring and liaison with provincial officials were essential. The inscription from Messene, mentioned above, states that the apportion­ment of the tax burden by the magistrate was carried out in the presence of the praetorian legate.⁶⁰ Evidence of tax-payers failing to meet their obligations could lead provincial officials into direct intervention, either on their own initiative or at the request of the local authorities. These same officials, or sometimes the civic authorities themselves, might take opportunities to exact taxes and services above the quota, and com­plaints about such abuses might, on occasion, attract the attention of the provincial governor or even of the emperor; it was abuses of this kind, inter alia, which prompted the benevolent edict issued by the prefect of Egypt, Tiberius Iulius Alexander, in a.d. 68.⁶¹

The areas in which the central government exercised direct administ­ration were very broad. The responsibilities for the military establish­ment, for financial affairs and for the administration of justice were interlocking and any implied division may be misleading unless it is borne in mind that, apart from the strictly military command and use of troops, a matter falling most obviously into one of these categories might also involve elements relevant to the others. The powers of officials subordinate to the governor tended to be defined by their function; a legate with judicial responsibility (legatus iuridicus) could handle cases involving property or financial matters, a military officer or a financial procurator would naturally deal with questions involving legal issues and the competence to do so was conferred by their administrative function. Even in matters of criminal jurisdiction, except for clearly defined and limited powers like the right to impose the death penalty (Jus gladii), officials enjoyed great latitude and discretion, especially in dealing with non-citizens. There were occasional attempts to define the powers of governors or procurators in a specific way (and it is probably significant that these were more frequent in the second and third centuries) but more often limits and restrictions were imposed by the limits of their administrative role and the need to observe the prerogatives of other officials and the rights of communities and individuals with whom they were dealing.⁶²

Organization of the functions and upkeep of the military establish-

^w Mitchell 1976 (в 155), cf. GCN 575, 582. ⁶⁰ /G v. 1.1451.6, 10-11.

GCN 391.10-126-9, 46.

Rights of procurators and lex for the prefect of Egypt, Tac. Ann.xu.6o. 1-5; later evidence, Ulpian in Moj. et Rom. leg. toll. 14.5.1-2 (FIRA 11, pp. 577-8), C] nr.26.1-4 (a.d. 197-253).

ment in a province involved a variety of tasks, normally the responsibi­lity of the military legates, the junior officers (tribunes and praefecti) and the centurions. Groups of soldiers or units needed to be moved around for garrison, guard or escort duties. Numbers had to be maintained by recruitment, either in the legionary recruiting grounds or, in the case of auxiliaries, in the local area or the home province of the unit. The administration of soldiers' pay and military supplies may seem to be largely internal to the army but it must be borne in mind that these, like the organization of requisitioned transport and billeting, had wider repercussions for the province as a whole in terms of the circulation of currency and the availability, collection and movement of commodities. Some of its functions brought the army into closer contact with the civilian populace — road-building, policing, supervision of mines and quarries and of other specific establishments such as mints, factories or markets, assisting in carrying out the provincial census and transporting the annona\ it is also likely that military personnel supervised the assignment of land to discharged veterans and performed an important escort role in frontier provinces when large numbers of inhabitants were moved and resettled. More crucially and not infrequently, the army was called upon to perform its peace-keeping role when civil disturbance or banditry threatened the quies provinciae,[522]

The administration of provincial finances was complex. Proconsuls had quaestors with responsibility for public finances, but in the imperial provinces this task fell on the equestrian or freedman procurators and their staffs and the regional provincial officials. The conduct of the provincial census was fundamental to the taxation system and to the general management of the controls applied to the population by fiscal means. The census, which may well have occurred at fixed intervals in all provinces although it is only sparsely attested, was probably the regular responsibility of the governor and his staff. Records of property ownership and personal status must have necessitated periodic large- scale revision, and there are likely to have been arrangements which allowed for running amendments. It was also of vital importance to maintain effective liaison with provincial communities and with the collectors and transporters of direct and indirect taxes. In some pro­vinces management of the leasing of public land to state tenants and the collection of rents was also in the hands of provincial officials but it is impossible to make anything like a general estimate of the amount of land which fell into this category.[523]

In all provinces the procuratorial officials were responsible for supervision of the interests of the imperial property {patrimonium), ever growing and playing an increasingly important role in the public economy.⁶⁵ Management of imperial agricultural estates is the most obvious feature but by no means the only one, since the patrimonium also gradually acquired widespread ownership of mines, quarries and various kinds of manufacturing establishments.⁶⁶ It exercised a more general financial control through regulation of the money supply and exchange; in this sphere above all, perhaps, the blurring of the distinction between public and patrimonial interests needs stressing, for the coinage was the emperor's, the mines were owned by the patrimonium, but the organiza­tion of the volume and use of money in the provinces affected all areas of the administration.⁶⁷

The very wide interests of the fiscus in Egypt are early attested in the Code of Regulations of the Special Account (Gnomon of the Idios Logos), whose operations affected the status of individuals and groups (Egyp­tians, Greeks, Romans, metropolites, freedmen and women, priests and soldiers), and matters relevant to property, inheritance and confiscation. It is possible that it provided the precedent for the similar extension of the role of the fiscus more generally which features prominently in later legal sources.⁶⁸ The ramifications of its activity at a modest level of society are illustrated in detail by a group of papyri from the village of Socnopaiou Nesos in the Fayum concerning a dispute between two villagers named Nestnephis and Satabous.⁶⁹ In a.d. 12 Nestnephis assaulted Satabous and stole a mortar from his mill. Satabous sent letters of protest to the chief official of the nome (the strategos), his assistant, a centurion named Lucretius and the prefect of Egypt, informing them of this attack. Whether the matter was investigated we do not know, but in a.d. 14/15 Nestnephis sent a statement to the royal scribe of the nome accusing Satabous of having added, in that year, some vacant land (adespotos), which was technically the property of the Idios Logos, to a house which he had purchased in a.d. i 1. The official in charge of the Idios Logos, Seppius Rufus, placed the matter on the prefect's assize list and the disputants were summoned to appear in Alexandria. In fact, Satabous did not appear and the investigation, largely conducted through correspondence, extended into the next year. The upshot was that Satabous was compelled to pay the sum of 5,500 drachmas to the Idios Logos for the land. This affair also illustrates the wide scope and variety of'legal business' and emphasizes the impossibility of isolating it

The much debated question of the relationship between patrimonium and fiscus is here avoided, cf. Millar 1963 (d 148), Brunt 1966 (d i 16) and above, ch. 8.

Evidence for agricultural estates and other imperial properties collected by Crawford 1976 (d 125), Millar 1977 (a 39) 175-89. ⁶⁷ See above, ch. 8.

⁶⁸ BGU 1210, cf. P0*7 3014. ⁶⁴ Documents listed by Swarney 1970 (e 972) 41-2.

from other areas of administration. Provincial governors, legates and some procurators had jurisdictional powers in both criminal and civil matters. Governors and their legates, usually acting with the advice of a consilium, would deal with hordes of cases, petitions and disputes during their assize tours. The assize circuit (conventus) is central to the judicial administration of the provinces since it provided the only opportunity for dealing with business outside the provincial capital. Even so, it was far from comprehensive and, from the point of view of the provincial subject, the elements of time and space might be decisive: for almost everyone outside the capital and for almost all the time, the governor was not to hand. Naturally, the governor would not expect to deal with all judicial matters himself. Some cases could be directly delegated by provincial officials to appointed judges or jury-courts; subordinate officials in the hierarchy are also to be found performing judicial functions in matters arising within their administrative competence whilst civic authorities and institutions were permitted to retain defined and limited jurisdictional powers. For each governor, his province generated a mass of criminal charges, major or minor disputes between central government and an individual community or subject, between one community or one individual and another. Cases of murder, criminal assault, public violence or treason (maiestas) would naturally attract the attention of the governor, who possessed the power of capital jurisdic­tion, or even the emperor. Disputes between communities over property or rights to revenue, between individuals over contracts, property, inheritance, public liability or questions affecting the status of particular persons or groups might also do so, especially if the parties concerned were persistent, but many such matters were doubtless settled by officials lower down the hierarchy.

In matters dealt with at the highest level, procedure was relatively clear-cut. The first and second Augustan edicts from Cyrene present a fairly straightforward picture of the emperor responding to a provincial embassy and regulating the composition of jury-courts which heard cases delegated by the governor, and dealing with an individual sent from the province, perhaps under suspicion of maiestas.¹⁰ Further down the hierarchy there was a great deal more uncertainty and confusion, as is sharply illustrated by the experiences of St Paul at Jerusalem. There, it was a tribune who arrested Paul during riots, but then allowed him to address the Jews; after further unrest he ordered Paul to be examined by scourging but on discovering that he was a Roman citizen he detained him, released him the following day to appear before the priests and the Sanhedrin but fearing another riot after his address, took him back to the barracks. After discovering a plot against Paul's life, the tribune wrote to

'о EJ² 311.1-55- the governor Felix and sent Paul under armed escort to Caesarea. The trial before Felix was inconclusive and Paul was held in detention. Two years later the Jews again initiated a prosecution before Festus, the successor of Felix. On this occasion Paul produced his famous appeal to Caesar and Festus, after consulting his advisers, felt compelled to allow it. But a few days later Festus took the opportunity to discuss the matter with the client king Herod Agrippa II, the upshot of which was a second hearing for Paul before Festus and Agrippa. After Paul's defence Festus and Agrippa conferred and concluded that Paul had done nothing to merit death or imprisonment and Agrippa remarked that he could have been discharged if he had not appealed to the emperor.⁷¹ Earlier episodes in Greece emphasize the blurring of the lines of demarcation between the jurisdiction of the civic authorities and that of the provincial officials. At Philippi Paul and Silas had been brought before the local magistrates in the market-place by the owners of a slave girl and were ordered to be stripped, beaten and thrown into jail. Later, however, alarmed by the discovery that they were Roman citizens and therefore entitled not to be punished in this way, the magistrates ordered their release. At Corinth it was the Jews who had taken Paul before the proconsul's court but Gallio, who happened to be on the spot, considered it a matter of internal Jewish Law, refused to judge the case and disregarded the beating of the synagogue leader.⁷²

The incoherence of the system, if it can be called such, has recently been described in terms to which the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles gives point: 'The process might involve individuals of the same or differing status, Roman or non-citizen, local communities or officials, Roman officials or any combination. No matter, either, that all manner of processes jostle each other: in trial by jury in the provinces or at Rome on charges established by statute; inquiries into conduct alleged by informers to be criminal; civil cases brought by litigants; arbitration between communities and decisions administrative rather than legal; police action .. ,'⁷³ From the government's point of view it had two outstanding virtues: it was very flexible and economical with the time and energies of the officials available and, by and large, it worked.

IV. CONCLUSION

From one point of view, the provincial administration can be analysed in terms of the complex of coexisting relationships between the different elements, the emperor, the provincial governor and his subordinate officials, the province, the provincial communities as a group, the individual community and finally the individual subject. There is a

⁷¹ AA 21.j1-26.52. ⁷² AA 16.16-40, 18.12-17. ⁷³ Levick 198) (d 98) 46.

temptation to argue (especially on the basis of the more abundant evidence for specific detail from the Roman East) that policy-making was not part of the dynamics of this complex of relationships, that the empire was governed, in effect, by a series of ad hoc decisions, the formation of which was significantly influenced by precedent. This is clearly a valid characterization of one aspect of provincial administration and it is true that observable change was rarely comprehensive and sharp, rather a series of gradual modifications. One noticeable feature is the flexibility of administrative practice and this emphasizes the import­ance of reaction to specific stimuli which might or might not harden into patterns and rules by the discriminating application of precedent; discrimination occurs when a decision has to be made as to whether a matter is to be dealt with in the same way as some previous, similar case or whether some new solution is to be devised. This might be described as, in essence, a system of rule by case-law with an infinite capacity for fine tuning according to the particular circumstances. Relevant circum­stances might include the nature of the province, features surviving from the pre-Roman era, the status of the community, institution or indivi­dual, the positions and powers of the officials involved. Roman provin­cial government was not a matter of deciding, a priori, how administ­ration was to be conducted and fitting any situation into a preordained procedure. Rather, it worked because of its capacity to grasp the essential point of any issue, to deal with it according to the means available and certain general notions governing the relationship between the imperial power and its subjects and, once dealt with, absorb it into a developing mosaic of flexible patterns and institutions.

It is notoriously difficult to extract from the items of evidence which illustrate specific cases and different relationships in action any coherent notion of an emperor forming or implementing a 'policy of provincial administration'; even less do we have programmatic statements which explicitly set out any such broad view, except in terms of general benevolence or intention to rectify known abuses. If consistent themes and policies are to be observed in the Julio-Claudian period and credited to the vision of particular emperors, they have to be drawn from disparate individual items of evidence, unevenly spread in time and space, or from observable trends: the spread of Roman citizenship, particularly in the reigns of Augustus and Claudius; the encouragement of urban communities and their aristocracies (especially in the West, where it was intimately linked to the spread of citizenship through the spread of colonial and municipal status); growth of communicadon systems; integration of the economic structures of town and country; the fostering of trading links within the structure of a relatively coherent

Table 2 Provinces and governors at the end of the Julio-Claudian period

Province

Title

Rank

Remarks

SICILIA SARDINIA

HISPANIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-consul

TARRACONENSIS

BAETICA

Proconsul

Ex-praetor

LUSITANIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

NARBONENSIS

Proconsul

Ex-praetor

AQUITANIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

LUGDUNENSIS

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

BELGICA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

GERMANIA SUPERIOR

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-consul

LYCIA-PAMPHYLIA

CYPRUS

SYRIA

Proconsul Proconsul

Ex-praetor Ex-praetor

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Proconsul

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Procurator

Ex-praetor Ex-praetor Ex-consul

Eques

JUDAEA

GERMANIA INFERIOR

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-consul

ALPES MARITIMAE

Procurator

Eques

ALPES COTTIAE

Procurator

Eques

ALPES POENINAE

Procurator

Eques

BRITANNIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-consul

RAETIA

Procurator

Eques

NORICUM

Procurator

Eques

DALMATIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-consul

MOESIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-consul

THRACE

Procurator

Eques

MACEDONIA

Proconsul

Ex-praetor

ACHAEA

Proconsul

Ex-praetor

ASIA

Proconsul

Ex-consul

BITHYNIA-PONTUS

Proconsul

Ex-praetor

GALATIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

CAPPADOCIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

Coupled with Alpes Poeninae until a.d. 47

Cf. ch. 13h

Governed by praefectij procuratores earlier in the Julio-Claudian period and again under the Flavians, cf. ch. 15 b

Until the reign of Domitian, these were military commands rather than provincial governorships, cf.

ch. I}/

During Nero's Parthian War governors were ex-consuls. At the beginning of the Flavian period the governor was an ex-praetor but the post was later upgraded again.

Included Cilicia Campestris from c. 44 b.c. - c. a.d. 72 Governed by an equestrian procurator until the outbreak of the First Jewish War (a.d. 66). During the war the command was held by Vespasian as consular legate. Thereafter it was normally governed by a Leg.Aug.p.p.

Table 2 {cont.)

Province

Title

Rank

Remarks

AEGYPTUS

Praefectus

Eques

CRETE-CYRENE

Proconsul

Ex-praetor

AFRICA

Proconsul

Ex-consul

NUMIDIA

Leg.Aug.p.p.

Ex-praetor

Cf. ch. i 3i

MAURETANIA

Procurator

Eques

Coupled in a.d. 68/9 and again

CAESARIENSIS

(under a Leg.Aug.p.p.) in

MAURETANIA

Procurator

Eques

a.d. 7ĵ

TINGITANA

fiscal and taxation system in which (it has been argued⁷⁴) the volume of currency was adjusted in a rational manner; a military establishment which infused new urban, social and economic structures into new provinces and a frame of mind which always aimed to ensure the security and peaceful development of territory in possession whilst keeping open the options for further expansion.

⁷⁴ Lo Cascio 1981 (d 144).

CHAPTER И THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

LAWRENCE KEPPIE

i. the army of the late republic

By the middle of the first century B.C. the Roman army had developed over centuries of all but continuous warfare into a professionally minded force. At least fifteen legions (a total of about 60,000-70,000 men) were maintained in being each year, their manpower drawn from all Italy south of the Po. Military service was the duty of every Roman citizen aged between seventeen and forty-five. Those who enlisted were usually held for at least six years of continuous service, after which they could look for discharge. In law they remained liable for call-out as evocati to a maximum of sixteen years (twenty years in a crisis).¹ Some men were happy to remain in the army well beyond the six-year minimum and constituted a core of professionals for whom soldiering had become a lifetime's occupation; but conscription was employed throughout the late Republic, and it should not be imagined that the legionaries were always predominantly volunteers. Until the later second century, cavalry was formed from the equites (as the name implies), who might be expected to serve three years, with a maximum of ten. Thereafter Rome looked to her allies, in Italy and beyond, to make up the deficiency. (In theory the equites remained liable for service, but were not called upon.)

At first, military service had been viewed as an essential public duty: only men with substantial property were permitted (or could afford) to serve. However, the property-requirement was gradually reduced, and from the time of Marius no more is heard of it. No pay was at first considered necessary, but from the early fourth century a payment {stipendium) was introduced to cover out-of-pocket expenses; in Poly- bius' day (f. 160 B.C.) the stipendium stood at one third of a denarius per day, an annual rate of 120 denarii.² Soldiers looked to supplement it with booty. The stipendium was 'doubled' by Caesar, probably about 49 b.c.,

¹ Knowledge of the length of servicc rests on Polvbius (vi.19.2), but the text is corrupt. The manuscripts give ten years in the cavalry and six in the infantry as the normal scrvicc requirement. The latter figure is generally emended to sixteen, given that it should be more than that required for the cavalry (cf. Tab. Hcraclcensis, 11Л 608 (. 90). Sixteen years were established as the scrvicc norm by Augustus in 1 j b.c. (Dio liv.25.5, and below, p. 377). ² Polvb. vi.39.12.

371

to 225 denarii.[524] Out of this sum the soldier had to pay towards his food, clothing and weaponry.[525] Soldiers were armed with an oval shield (scutum),[526] one or more throwing javelins (pi/a), a short sword of Spanish origin (gladius), a dagger (pugio), and a bronze helmet. They wore shirts of chain-mail over a leather tunic, and leather sandals.

The individual legion was a body of some 4,000-5,000 men divided into ten cohorts; in battle these could be arranged in three lines, but other dispositions are known. Each cohort was made up of six centuries, each commanded by a centurion. The centurions were soldiers of many years' experience, normally promoted from the ranks. The legions were given numerals on formation, and might remain in service for several years; but there was no permanent 'army list'.

The legions of a province came under the direct control of the proconsul or propraetor who was its governor. The legions raised each year were distributed according to current needs; some provinces had no legions at all, and might lie exposed to unexpected attack. The legion had no individual commander, but day-to-day responsibility lay with the military tribunes, six to each legion, who held command by rotation in pairs. This lack of a single permanent commanding officer in the legion had not seemed very important when armies were small and under the direct eye of the proconsul or propraetor, but as armies grew in size and the geographical extent of provinces and areas of military operations increased, some delegation of responsibility became essential. From the later third century legates were appointed, to act as assistants to the magistrate. These legates were senators, varying in age and military experience, to whom some part of the military or juridical duties could be delegated. Legates were placed in command of one or more legions, but had no long-term link within any particular unit.

No rewards were envisaged at the end of the individual's military service; men returned home to their families, to take up the threads of civilian life. Only in exceptional circumstances might they be specifically rewarded for their years of service, with a cash donative at the time of a triumph, or with a land grant on discharge, should their commander make a special effort to obtain it.

The legions had always been supported in battle by contingents drawn from their allies. Up till 90 в.с. these consisted mainly of detachments from the towns of Italy, grouped together to form alae sociorum. In addition infantry and cavalry had been, and continued after 90 в.с. to be, raised in the provinces and from allied kingdoms, often those in the immediate area of the war zone; each group served under its own chieftains and aristocracy, with Roman praefecti in overall control. Some regiments, including bodies of Cretan archers and Numidian cavalry, seem to have been kept in Roman service on a more permanent basis, and served throughout the Mediterranean.

Just as the size of the army fluctuated according to the needs, of the moment, so also did the navy. Only a few ships were maintained in permanent commission in Italian ports or in dock, to be supplemented by the summoning of squadrons from allied states in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean. A governor might appoint one of his legates to command such fleets; the ships' captains offered him professional advice. The lack of a navy adequate to keep sea lanes open was particularly evident in the 70s в.с. when pirate squadrons from bases in Cilicia operated openly and with success in the Mediterranean.

ii. the army in the civil wars, 49-30 b.c.

The onset of civil war in 49 в.с. between Caesar and the legitimate forces of the Republic brought a swift military build-up. The legions then serving under Caesar in Gaul, numbered in a set sequence from V to XIV, formed the basis of his army thereafter. In the months following the invasion of Italy and during his consulship in 48, Caesar formed many more legions, probably numbered I—IV (the numerals tradition­ally reserved each year for the consuls to use) and from XV to about XXXIII. After Pompey's defeat three or four more were formed out of the latter's soldiers, so that by 47 в.с. the number of legions in service stood at a minimum of about 36-8; all but a few had been raised or reconstituted under Caesar's direct command. With the ending of effective resistance, Caesar's longest serving legions (composed of men who had been with him in Gaul and who had over the years agitated several times, and with good cause, for release) were discharged and settled in colonies in Italy and southern Gaul. New legions were raised to replace them. Caesar evidently intended a tight grip over Roman territory, some of it newly won. Sixteen of the legions, drawn largely from the garrisons of Macedonia and Syria, were to participate in the planned Parthian campaign.

But fate decreed otherwise. Caesar's assassination was ill-received by the serving legionaries and by the discharged veterans, most of whom had by now received the promised allotments and were settling to a new life. In the months following Caesar's death several of the protagonists, jostling for position and power, drew to their side groups of Caesar's veterans; many, perhaps all, of the recently disbanded legions were

SCALE

0 2SO 500 750 1000 km

Syria

i

Fig. г. Distribution of legions, 44 в.с. (After Keppie.)

reconstituted. Much emphasis was placed on their glorious antecedents; they formed the backbone of the triumviral army for the Philippi campaign and played a significant role in the victory.

After Philippi Caesar's veterans, together with time-served men of the extensive levies of 49-48 B.C., who had now fulfilled the six-year service norm, some 40,000 men in all, were released and given land in Italy. Many of the towns selected (e.g. Capua, Ariminum, Bononia)⁶ lay at important road junctions, controlling access to Rome. Eleven legions were formed now from those who had not yet served the six-year minimum; many bore the old numerals and titles of formations which had been prominent in the service of Caesar and subsequently the triumvirs, and had fought at Philippi. Those legions, with their battle- honours, titles and emblems, had become household names and were important as visible supporters of the triumvirs, the natural successors of the dead and deified Caesar. After the sea battle at Actium, in which the legions had played little part, a week of negotiation ensured that Antony's soldiers received adequate rewards for their long years of service: land in the provinces, but probably not in Italy itself. Some of the most senior of the Antonian legions were accepted intact into Octavian's army. Octavian could pose as reuniting the old Caesarian army under himself as the dictator's intended heir. His own legions received land in Italy, in twenty-eight colonies.⁷ The legions which emerged from the civil wars were to remain in permanent commission throughout the following three centuries or more, unless disgraced or destroyed in battle.

Bodies of native infantry and cavalry serving with the legions on campaign in the civil wars of the later first century в.с. are repeatedly mentioned in the literary sources. They were numbered in thousands, and formed an important adjunct to the armies of each protagonist. Bodies of slingers, foot-archers, horse-archers and even elephants are reported. Caesar's wide-ranging campaigns carried Gallic, German and Spanish troops to the furthest corners of the empire; 10,000 Spanish and Gallic cavalry participated in Antony's Armenian campaign.⁸ Octavian continued to recruit auxiliaries from the western provinces under his control. In the East Pompey, the Liberators and later Antony were able to draw on the armies of client kings in Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Judaea and Egypt, summoned to service by virtue of treaty obligations or force majeure. They often served (as during the Republic) under their tribal chief, or a member of his family, or local nobility. Contingents of varying strength are reported, and it is uncertain whether they were yet organized into regiments of standard size.

Seapower and the ability to transport troops overseas became import­ant in the civil wars. Substantial fleets, gathered by Pompey, and later by the Liberators, Sextus Pompeius and Antony from the allied states of the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, made a formidable force. Octavian had much less opportunity to gain access to warships from these traditional sources, and was forced to build up his own navy almost from scratch. After initial setbacks through inexperience and ill-luck, this new fleet was to prove superior in the end, at Mylae, Naulochus and Actium.⁹ In the mid-30s, in preparation for an offensive against Sextus Pompeius, Agrippa saw to the construction of a major harbour and stores complex at Lake Avernus on the Bay of Naples; it was given the name Portus Iulius in honour of Octavian. Foundations of some of its quayside buildings have been located below the shallow waters of the bay.¹⁰

Squadrons of ships with legionaries on board acting as marines cruised in the Mediterranean; some civil-war legions even adopted the title Classica, an epithet which must reflect their service at sea.¹¹ At Actium we know that Antony embarked 20,000 legionaries (i.e. four legions) for the battle, and Octavian placed eight legions on his ships (including legion XI, some of whose veterans adopted a surname Actiacus in later years, in proud commemoration of their role), together with five praetorian cohorts.¹²

III. THE ARMY AND NAVY OF AUGUSTUS

i. The Legions

By the middle of Augustus' reign the number of legions in service stood at twenty-eight. Almost all had seen service in the civil wars. They were numbered from I to XXII, with some numerals duplicated, the result of the acceptance into an already complete sequence of Antonian legions after Actium. The highest number in the sequence is XXII, a legion surnamed Deiotariana to commemorate King Deiotarus of Galatia, an ally of Pompey and later Caesar in the civil wars, who had raised local troops on the Roman model. The legion seems likely to have gained its numeral by 25 b.c. at the latest, when the kingdom of Galatia was

® For a Cilician navarch who served Octavian and was suitably rewarded, see P. Roussel, Sjria 15 (i934) 35-74; CJL xvi, p. 145, no. 11 = EJ 301.

¹⁰ Strab. v.4.5 (244c); Veil. Pat. 11.79.2; Virg. G. 11.161; Suet. Aug. 16.1; G. Schmiedt (ed.), Atlante aereofotografico delle sedi umanc in Italia; parte II, к sedi anticbe' scomparse (Firenze, 1970) tav. cxxxvi. ¹¹ ILS 2231,2232.

¹² Plut. Ant. 64; Oros. vi.19.8; L.J.F. Keppie, CR 85(1971) 329-30.

incorporated into the empire. The Augustan sequence of legions had thus reached its final form by that date, and older theories about the gradual increase in forces throughout the reign, and especially at the time of the Pannonian revolt and the Varian disaster, can be set aside.

The legions were disposed in the frontier provinces of the empire, mostly in those provinces controlled by Augustus himself through his legates. As new provinces were added under Augustus, the legions moved forward to aid in the conquest. The precise areas of service of many legions are unknown in the Augustan period; much movement of forces can be assumed as provinces were pacified or extended. For a time Egypt had three legions; by a.d. 23 the garrison was reduced to two.¹³ Spain in the 20s в.с. had upwards of seven legions; by about a.d. 14 the garrison had been cut to three.¹⁴ The loss of three legions (numbered XVII, XVIII and XIX) on the Rhine frontier in a.d. 9 with Varus led to substantial westward transfers to fill the gap.¹⁵ In all, twenty-five legions were in service at the close of the reign. The total had not been increased to match the enlargement of the areas to be controlled, or to make good the losses of a.d. 9: the financial burden was simply too great.

Throughout the late Republic the length of service required of a man joining the legions had been a minimum of six years. But the civil wars witnessed a lengthening of the period spent with the standards. Some­times, it is clear, men were willing to remain under arms, but others certainly were not, and made their feelings clear whenever the oppor­tunity arose. In 16-14 ^B-^c- Augustus and Agrippa oversaw a substantial programme of colonization and land-settlement in the provinces, very probably to cater for men who had enlisted in the aftermath of Actium. Qn his return to Rome in 13 Augustus ordained that army service in the legions should in future be for a fixed term of sixteen years (which had in any case been the republican maximum, though not the norm), and that those who survived would obtain a cash reward, in place of the land allotments which had become common in recent decades, especially during the civil wars. Cassius Dio's report¹⁶ indicates that the soldiers would still have preferred land, but it was no longer politically acceptable to establish colonies in Italy itself, with the attendant ill- feeling and disruption. The sixteen years of service were to be followed by a further four years in reserve. (This too had a republican precedent, as men could be asked to serve a maximum of twenty years in times of special danger.)¹⁷ In a.d. 5 the service requirement was further increased, to a minimum of twenty years, plus five in reserve. There is no record of the amount of gratuity fixed in 13 b.c., but Dio's account of the new regulations implies that in a.d. 5 it was increased to 3,000 denarii.¹⁸

¹³ Strab. xvii.1.12 (797-8C); Tac. Ann. iv.5. Speidel 1982 (e 969). ¹⁴ Jones 1976 (e 226).

¹⁵ Syme 19}} (d 238). ¹⁶ uv.2j.5- ¹⁷ Polyb. vi.19.4. ¹⁸ DioLV.23.1.

Centurions were paid at much higher rates, and could become wealthy men. To deal with the problem of financing the army, Augustus in a.d. 5 began by proposing that public funds be allocated annually for military pay and rewards.¹⁹ This proposal came to nothing, and in the following year he took the initiative in establishing an aerarium militare (military treasury); Augustus himself provided pump-priming funds, and intro­duced a 5 per cent tax on inheritances, none too popular with the citizenry, which, together with the proceeds from an evidently pre­existing i per cent tax on auctions, went to maintaining its cash reserves.²⁰ The purpose of the aerarium militare was to dispense cash gratuities to time-served veterans.²¹ Whether the aerarium also provided funds to pay serving soldiers — as might seem natural and as both Dio and Suetonius seem to indicate - is not clear;²² but the soldiers themselves thought of both their pay and their gratuities as coming direct from the emperor. By fixing cash rewards and regulating the length of service to be completed before receiving them, Augustus swept away the uncer­tainties of past generations. Yet he and his successors did not always live up to their responsibilities.²³ Soldiers were forbidden, probably by Augustus, to marry during service, and any marriages already existing were dissolved on enlistment.²⁴ Voluntary enlistment was preferred, but conscription was employed as the occasion demanded, notably in a.d. 6 after the outbreak of the Pannonian revolt, and in a.d. 9 after the Varus disaster.²⁵

During Augustus' reign changes were introduced in the command structure of the legions, which took account of the fact that they had become permanent, self-perpetuating formations. Legates, usually ex- praetors, but sometimes ex-quaestors, ex-aediles and ex-plebeian tri­bunes, began to be appointed by Augustus directly to command a specific legion and held office, with the title legatus legionis (legionary legate), for a period of several years. An equestrian officer with the title praefectus castrorum (prefect of the camp) was appointed to supervise the running of each legion's permanent base-camp. The military tribunes remained, but in the hierarchy of command ranked below the praefectus castrorum, except that one of their number who held senatorial status necessarily outranked the praefectus, and nominally at least was second- in-command below the legate. In Egypt, from which senators were excluded, command of a legion fell to the praefectus castrorum. So far as can be determined, the internal organization of the legion remained unchanged, except that a small body of cavalry (the equites legionis) was

Dio lv.24.9.

Dio Lv.24.9; Suet. Aug. 49.2; cf. Tac. Ann. 1.78, it.42; Suet. Calig. 16; Dio Lix.9.6.

RG 17. ²² Corbier 1977(0 123).

Below, p. 379; cf. also Suet. Tib. 48, Calig, 44, Ner. 32.1.

Dio lx.24.3; Campbell 1978 (d 172). ²⁵ Suet. Aug. 24.1; Tac. Ann. i.iŭff.

added to its complement, seemingly for escort and scouting duties.[527] The size of the legion, at full strength, was probably about 5,000-5.²°° men.

Some alterations in equipment can be detected from the archaeologi­cal and sculptural record: the oval shield gave way to a curving rectangular or near-rectangular shield, and the shirt of chain mail to a cuirass of articulated iron strips (the lorica segmentate?). The new shape of shield and sophisticated body-armour afforded greater protection to the individual soldier. Whether the changes were imposed from Rome, or came about more gradually is not yet clear. Later it seems that there might be a substantial variation in equipment between provincial armies. Archaeological evidence has also identified some of the army's tempor­ary and permanent installations of this time, especially along and beyond the Rhine.[528] In other provinces little is known, though for Spain mention can be made of the recently identified legionary fortress at Rosinos de Vidriales south of Astorga, which seems likely to have been built before the end of Augustus' reign.[529]

Augustus had introduced fundamental changes, which were not universally popular. In a.d. 14, when his death was announced to the legions on the Rhine and in Pannonia, the legionaries saw a chance to voice their grievances: long service (well beyond the limits set down by Augustus), low rates of pay, harshness and corruption of the centurions, and a prospect for the survivors of settlement on poor upland soils far from home.²⁹ The legionaries asked to be released at the end of sixteen years (the old republican maximum) and to have their praemia militiae (rewards of military service) in cash, paid immediately upon release. Concessions extorted from Germanicus were rescinded in a.d. 15.³⁰

2. Auxiliary forces

The task of maintaining the integrity of the empire did not fall on the legions alone; it was shared between Rome and her subject peoples. With the close of the civil wars, many of the regiments formed from tribal groups and allied kingdoms were disbanded or went home, but others, whose lifespan had been lengthened out by the civil wars and had acquired a permanence akin to the legions, seem likely to have been retained to act in support of the legions in the wars of Augustus' reign.³¹ Such forces were normally supplemented, in time of active war, by substantial bodies of troops drawn from client states and tribes in close proximity to the theatre of operations; there was at this time no clear dividing line between the two categories. These auxilia (or auxiliares)

Fig. 3. Rodgen, Germany: ground-plan of Augustan supply base. (After Schonberger and Simon.) A growing number of installations have been identified east of the Rhine, which can be related to the various campaigns between 13 b.c. and a.d. 16. The supply base at Rodgen had an area of 3.3 hectares (8 acres). Within a rampart and double ditch were a number of timber-framed buildings: three granaries (a-c), a headquarters or commandant's house (d), and barracks (e). There were 4 gates (1-4); the chief entrance lay on the east side.

were formed (now, if not earlier) into cohortes (cohorts) of infantry and alae (wings) of cavalry. There were also some regiments which combined infantry and cavalry; these were termed cohortes equitatae. Most regiments were about 500 men strong.

The auxiliaries of the early Empire were usually drawn from the non- citizen populations of newly won provinces of the empire, often those under the emperor's direct control. Regiments attested under Augustus or his immediate successors were drawn from Gaul, Spain, the Rhine- land and the Alpine territories, Dalmatia, the Danube lands and Thrace, north Africa and the East. Recruitment (initially, it must be supposed, under treaty obligations), served to draw off the young tribesmen and harness their vigour in the empire's defence.³² Often, regiments were stationed in, or close to, their area of origin, and local deployment was taken for granted. The cohortes and alae were normally named after the tribe from which they were recruited (e.g. cohors VI Nerviorum from the Nervii of Gallia Belgica), or the name of the city-state of origin in the more urbanized East (e.g. ala I Hamiorum, from the town of Hama in Syria). A few regiments, mainly alae of cavalry, were named in honour of distinguished Romans (for example, ala Agrippiana, probably from Agrippa), or sometimes after their founder or first prefect (for example, the ala Scaevae, from Caesar's stalwart centurion, ala Atectorigiana, after a Gaul Atectorix, and ala Indiana, from Iulius Indus). Recruitment from the homeland was kept up; very probably this was part of the treaty obligation. Auxiliary regiments were equipped according to local custom and tradition, with the weapons they knew well. Those regi­ments stationed along a major frontier such as the Rhine lay in close proximity to the legionary encampments.

Tacitus, in a valuable comment, notes the strength of auxiliary forces in a.d. 2 3 as about the same as the legions, i.e. some 15 0,000 men.³³ It was not, he felt, worthwhile giving the numbers in each province, as these did not remain constant; indeed the total in service fluctuated according to the needs of the moment. Few regiments in service under Augustus can be identified by name from the epigraphic evidence, and the listing of provincial garrisons hardly becomes possible before the Flavian period. Conditions of service at this time are not well attested: whether or not auxiliary regiments supplied under treaty obligations always received pay from Augustus is uncertain. There may have been no standard length of service - some auxiliaries are known to have served over thirty years. It is unlikely that any gratuity was automatically payable on completion of service, but individuals might be rewarded, with citizen­ship, privileges and cash bounties.³⁴

Legions and auxiliaries operated in tandem on campaign: Varus in Germany in a.d. 9 marched with six cohorts of infantry and three alae of cavalry, in addition to his three legions. Tiberius at Sirmium in a.d. 7 mustered ten legions, more than seventy cohorts, and ten alae.³⁵ In any garrison cohorts of infantry were normally in the majority.

Regiments of auxilia were commanded by prefects, with the title praefectus cohortis (of infantry) or praefectus equitum (of an ala of cavalry).

³² Dio Liv.22.5. ³³ Tac. Ann. rv.j. ¹⁴ 1LS 2531. ³⁵ Veil. Pat. 11.117.1,11.113.1.

Often the prefects were tribal nobles, though the closeness of the link with their tribe is sometimes obscured by the Roman names they bore as a result of an individual grant of citizenship. Arminius, later to spearhead the successful resistance to Roman domination east of the Rhine, had gained Roman citizenship and equestrian status in return for his military exploits, probably as a praefectus, in the wars of Augustus' reign.[530] Where Roman officers were appointed as prefects, these were often centurions of substantial military experience, especially primipilares (former chief centurions of a legion), or men of equestrian rank, often former tribunes in a legion. For a time Augustus appointed sons of senators in pairs to command alae, seemingly as an alternative to the legionary tribunate.[531]There was as yet no set sequence or hierarchy in the grading of such appointments.

Excessive reliance on the military potential of recently subjected peoples entailed some risk. Loyalty to the communities from which they had been raised might prove stronger than to Rome. The Pannonian revolt in a.d. 6 was fuelled by an unwise concentration of Dalmatian auxiliaries for the campaign against Maroboduus, when the auxiliaries saw a chance to throw off the Roman yoke.[532]

Regiments were formed on the Roman model in the territories of client kings, especially in the East. Herod used Roman officers to command his forces, which included Gauls and Germans.³⁹ Marobo­duus, on the fringe of the Roman world, based the organization and training of his own forces on the successful Roman exemplar.[533] Rather later, during the reign of Tiberius, cohorts nominally serving a client king in Thrace mutinied on the rumour that they were to be posted away from their homeland, and their ethnic homogeneity diluted; fierce fighting ensued before they admitted defeat.[534]

A few auxiliary cohorts were raised among Roman citizens. Under the Empire there are records of at least six cohortes ingenuorum civium Komanorum ('cohorts of freeborn Roman citizens') and a large number (at least thirty-two) cohortes voluntariorum civium Komanorum ('cohorts of Roman citizen volunteers'). Almost certainly the creation of these regiments belongs during the crises of a.d. 6-9. The literary sources are unanimous in emphasizing the difficulties faced by Augustus in raising extra forces to meet these emergencies.[535] A dilectus ingenuorum ('levy of free men') was held at Rome itself in a.d. 9;⁴³ in part this supplied recruits for the legions, but it may also have produced the cohortes ingenuorum, from men unfit or unsuitable for the legions. The cohortes voluntariorum c.R. seem likely to have been formed out of freed slaves summoned to service by Augustus; the epithet voluntariorum highlights a willingness to serve not shared by other elements of society.⁴⁴ A few other citizen cohorts seem also to have been raised early in Augustus' reign in Italy and beyond. The commanders of these citizen cohorts were styled tribunes. Their intermediate status, between legionaries and auxiliaries, was emphasized in Augustus' will in a.d. 14: they received the same donative as legionaries.⁴⁵ Later it seems that they were treated as auxiliaries and drew their manpower from non-citizens.

j. The navy

The value of retaining a substantial fleet in permanent commission had been amply demonstrated during the civil wars. Two major bases were established by Octavian in the years immediately following Actium: one was placed at Cape Misenum, at the western end of the Bay of Naples (replacing Portus Iulius, which was abandoned, despite the considerable efforts expended on its construction). The other base was at Ravenna, near the head of the Adriatic.⁴⁶ From 31 в.с. (or even earlier) a squadron was maintained at Forum Iulii (Frejus) on the south coast of Gaul where substantial storage and administrative buildings have been postulated; but the base there soon ceased to have a major role.⁴⁷ From later evidence it seems that ships based at Misenum patrolled the western Mediterra­nean and the coastline of Africa and Egypt, while those at Ravenna had a more restricted role in the Adriatic and the Aegean. Both major fleets had out-stations on Corsica and Sardinia, at Ostia and at Rome itself.

The combined strength of the two major fleets can be estimated only roughly, at about 15,000-20,000 men, perhaps manning some 75-100 ships. Their crews formed a useful source of trained manpower within Italy. From epigraphic sources and sculptured reliefs it can be seen that the ships were mainly triremes, with a few quadriremes, together with some light vessels, known as liburnians. The ships were individually named, after rivers, gods, goddesses, and personifications, male and female. Individual ships were commanded by trierarchs, squadrons by navarchs, and each of the major fleets by a praefectus classis. The strong tradition of seamanship in the Greek East and the lack of matching Roman expertise is reflected in the Greek names given to the ships, the titles of officers and skilled personnel; under Augustus trierarchs and navarchs were often recruited from maritime city-states of the East. The fleet-prefects at this time were usually ex-legionary tribunes or ex-chief centurions. The crews were drawn from non-citizen provincials, together with some freedmen; slaves, briefly employed in the civil wars of the late Republic when manpower was scarce, were not used. Sentencing criminals to the galleys was not a punishment employed in Roman times. The crews were organized on a military model, with oarsmen and marines forming a centuria, under the command of a (non- citizen) centurion. The fleets kept the Mediterranean safe for merchant shipping; very little is heard about piracy.

4. The praetorian guard and other troops at Коте

In the Republic a magistrate on campaign in his province regularly formed a small bodyguard from the troops at his disposal. It was given the name cohors praetoria ('commander's cohort'). Caesar never formed such a battalion, though he once flattered the soldiers of legion X by claiming that they fulfilled this role.⁴⁸ In the civil wars several com­manders are known to have had praetorian cohorts. After Philippi 8,000 time-served veterans who rejected the proffered land-allotments were retained by Octavian and Antony to serve as praetorians.⁴⁹ At Actium we know that Octavian had five cohorts present, of uncertain size; rather earlier there is a report that Antony had three cohorts.⁵⁰

After Actium, Octavian continued to employ cohortespraetoriae which became a permanent 'household division'; they were attached to the military headquarters {praetorium) which he maintained as a proconsul. In a.d. 23 nine cohorts were in being.⁵¹ At first, for political reasons, Augustus based only three of the cohorts at Rome itself, and had them billeted about the city in small groups, to avoid the overt appearance of armed force.⁵² Initially the cohorts were responsible directly to Augus­tus himself, but in 2 в.с. he appointed two equestrians as praefecti praetorio, i.e. prefects of the praetorium,⁵³ These were men of administra­tive ability rather than military expertise. Normally, throughout the Julio-Claudian period, there continued to be two prefects, but on occasion a single individual held sole command (Aelius Seianus, 14—31; Sutorius Macro, 31—8; Afranius Burrus, 51-62). The role of the cohorts was to support the emperor's position in Rome, and accompany him on his travels. They served too as ceremonial troops on state occasions.

During the civil wars the manpower of praetorian cohorts had been drawn from time-served veterans, or men of long experience, heavy with

⁴⁸ Caes. BGall. 1.42. «» App. BCiv. v.3. ⁵⁰ Oros. vt.19.8; Plut. Ant. 59, 53.

⁵¹ Tac. Ann. iv.5. 52 Suet. Aug. 49, Tib. 37.1; Tac. Ann. iv.2. ⁵³ Dio lv.io.io.

honour and medals.⁵⁴ They were thus an elite force made up of specially chosen individuals. However under Augustus (and later) the praetorians were recruited directly from civilian life, in Italy itself; at first recruits were drawn chiefly from Latium, Etruria and Umbria, and from the old colonies of the Republic.⁵⁵ In 13 в.с. service in the praetorian cohorts was fixed at twelve years, later increased in a.d. 5 to sixteen years.⁵⁶ Pay was set at well above the legionary rate; by a.d. 14 it had risen to 750 denarii per year.⁵⁷ The legionaries far away in the frontier provinces of the empire soon became jealous of the privileged position and higher pay of the praetorians.⁵⁸

The nine cohorts of the guard (if we may use this term, which has no Latin equivalent) were each commanded by a tribune; most tribunes had already been primus pi/us (chief centurion) in a legion. The size of each cohort under Augustus is not reported, but it most probably consisted of 480 men on the legionary model, divided into centuries of eighty men. The praetorians were armed as legionaries, but interestingly they retained into the Empire some of the equipment used by soldiers of the late Republic. The ceremonial uniforms of Britain's Guards Brigade may be compared. On duty in Rome the praetorians carried weapons, but wore civilian dress.⁵⁹ Each cohort had a small cavalry component.

To match the three praetorian cohorts stationed at Rome itself, three cohortes urbartae were formed, soon to be placed under the supervision of a senatorial praefectus urbi. These urban cohorts served as a police force for the city. A fourth cohort was soon formed, and stationed at Lugdunum, presumably to protect the imperial mint there.⁶⁰ The cohorts, which were commanded by tribunes (ex-chief centurions), were probably 480 men strong. Soldiers of the urban cohorts at Rome (numbered X-XII, in continuation of the praetorian series) had to serve for twenty years.

In a.d. 6, seven cohortes vigilum (of uncertain initial size) were formed as a fire-watch for the fourteen regiones into which Augustus had divided the city, under an equestrian praefectus vigilum.^bX The establishment of this permanent force replaced earlier haphazard attempts to protect the city from all too frequent conflagrations; the vigiles may also have acted as a night-time police force, but they were not armed as soldiers. Members of the cohorts were freedmen; from later evidence it may be inferred that after six years (which may have been the service norm), they obtained full citizenship. The cohortes vigilum were officered by tribunes who had been chief centurions of a legion.

For his personal protection Augustus established a small body of

N

t R

'•■-._ ; Pannonia

.ВЦ

Spain

т" ш

. \Мое[536]1а_

О'

*—"V"

SCALE

• Egypt

О 260 500 750 1000 lim 0 250 600 miles

Fig. 4. Distribution of legions, a.d. 14. (After Keppie.)

mounted bodyguards, the Germani corporis custodes, recruited from Rhineland tribes, principally Batavians.⁶² This force, the successor to bodyguards recruited during the civil wars of the late Republic, remained in being until disbanded by Galba.

iv. army and navy under the julio-claudians

When expansionist policies were abandoned late in Augustus' reign, the empire settled to a generation of peaceful development. The army was stationed largely along the outer limits of the empire, and was principally engaged in the consolidation of Roman control. As time passed, large concentrations of military forces, assembled at strategic points along the frontiers in preparation for further advance, gave way to a more even distribution. Temporary encampments gradually took on a more perma­nent air. The role of the army became increasingly defensive, greater attention being paid to preserving the integrity of those areas controlled by Rome against attack from without. This attitude was to lead, from the later first century onwards, to the physical construction of frontier lines which in some areas constituted a clear demarcation line between land under full Roman control and the tribes beyond.

The distribution of the legions at the death of Augustus can be fairly well defined, though the location of individual legions within a province may remain somewhat uncertain.⁶³ The army of a province could consist of up to four legions (Syria and the two German 'districts' each had four), along with auxiliaries in perhaps a roughly equal number. Some provinces, less threatened by external foes, had a garrison consisting of auxiliary cohortes and alae, but no legions. The epigraphic evidence, which increases enormously in volume as the century progresses, allows a picture to be built up of dispositions and transfers of legions and auxiliaries, as imperial policies (or external pressures) changed. A careful balance was evidently maintained between the total strength of forces on the Rhine, on the Danube and in the East. The needs of a major campaign for additional troops in a particular area were met by the temporary, sometimes permanent, transfers of legions and auxiliary troops. For example, legion IX Hispana was sent from the Danube to Africa for four years in the middle of Tiberius' reign; in the course of Corbulo's campaigns in the East, three legions were transferred in succession from the Balkans to augment his forces.⁶⁴ Thus pressure on one frontier of the empire was often met by weakening the defences at another. Soon, however, the practice developed of putting together vexillationes (detachments) from the increasingly static garrisons to form

Bellen 1981 (d 160); Speidel 1984 (d 256).

Tac. Ann. iv.j gives the disposition of the Roman army in a.d. 25.

Tac. Ann. 41.9, iv.23, xiii.55, xv.6, 2j.

Table 5 The legions of the early Empire

Legion

Station in a.d. 14

Station in a.d. 70

I Germanica

Lower Germany

(disbanded a.d. 70)

I Adiutrix

(formed a.d. 68)

Upper Germany

II Adiutrix

(formed a.d. 69)

Britain

I Italica

(formed a.d. 66)

Moesia

II Augusta

Upper Germany

Britain

III Augusta

Africa

Africa

III Cyrenaica

Egypt

Egypt

III Gallica

Syria

Syria

IV Macedonica

Spain

(disbanded a.d. 70)

IV Scythica

Moesia

Syria

IV Flavia

(formed a.d. 69-70)

Dalmatia

V Alaudae

Lower Germany

(?disbanded a.d. 70)

V Macedonica

Moesia

Moesia

VI Ferrata

Syria

Syria

VI Victrix

Spain

Lower Germany

VII Claudia

Dalmatia

Moesia

VII Gemina

(formed a.d. 68)

Tarraconensis

VIII Augusta

Pannonia

Upper Germany

IX Hispana

Pannonia

Britain

X Fretensis

Syria

Judaea

X Gemina

Spain

Lower Germany

XI Claudia

Dalmatia

Upper Germany

XII Fulminata

Syria

Cappadocia?⁶⁵

XIII Gemina

Upper Germany

Pannonia

XIV Gemina

Upper Germany

Upper Germany

XI Apollinaris

Pannonia

Pannonia

XV Primigenia

(formed a.d. 39-42)

(disbanded a.d. 70)

XVI Gallica

Upper Germany

(disbanded a.d. 70)

XVI Flavia

(formed a.d. 69—70)

Syria⁶⁶

XVII

(lost with Varus, a.d. 9)

XVIII

(lost with Varus, a.d. 9)

XIX

(lost with Varus, a.d. 9)

XX Valeria

Lower Germany

Britain

XXI Rapax

Lower Germany

Lower Germany

XXII Deiotariana

Egypt

Egypt

XXII Primigenia

(formed a.d. 39-42)

Lower Germany

a.d. 14

a.d. 70

Total in service:

28 or 29

task-forces, to be sent to another province; this avoided leaving a long stretch of the frontier devoid of its garrison.⁶⁷ Major campaigns could still lead to the creation of new legions, which were normally raised in Italy itself: under Caligula or Claudius two new legions, XV and XXII Primigenia (First-Born) were formed, to release seasoned troops for the projected invasion of Britain; in a.d. 66 Nero formed a new legion, I Italica (Italian), for his planned expedidon to the Caucasus.⁶⁸ Otherwise

⁶⁵ AE 1983, 927; D. van Berchem, MH 40 (1985) 185-96. « /fov/.

⁶⁷ Saxer 1967 (d 228). ⁶⁸ Ritterling 1925 (d 223) 1758, 1797, 1407; Suet. Ner. 19.

the number of legions in service remained constant, until the particular requirements of the civil war after Nero's death led to the formation of new legions and its aftermath to the disbandment of several long- established entities (see Table 3).

The legions of the Republic had been composed of Italians, the traditional manpower source, though during the civil wars all the protagonists from Caesar onwards succeeded in augmenting their forces by forming 'legions' from the non-citizen populations of their provinces and by training and arming them in the Roman manner. Though Octavian sent home non-Romans found serving in Antony's legions, he was prepared soon to accept XXII Deiotariana into his permanent army, and later in his reign he had recourse to non-Roman sources to fill out the ranks, especially in the East.⁶⁹ Italians who had been prepared to serve in the civil wars for a fairly short term proved unwilling to spend a span of twenty-five years or more, much of their adult life, in a frontier province far from home. Greater emphasis was placed on seeking recruits in the provinces, where (it seems clear) men were eager and willing to serve, and saw in legionary service a route to social advancement.⁷⁰ Some of these men would be citizens, sons of Italian families long resident there, or of colonists of the Caesarian and Augustan periods, but it is suspected that increasingly non-citizens were enlisted, and given citizenship and Roman names on enlistment. By the close of the Julio-Claudian age it is likely that less than half of all legionaries throughout the empire had been born in Italy; in the East the proportion was probably very small indeed.

The realization that the empire had all but reached its manageable limits deprived the army of its traditional role. Long decades of relative peace could easily sap morale, as Corbulo discovered in Syria early in Nero's reign.⁷¹ Energetic commanders occupied the troops' energies with route marches and manoeuvres; the troops were much involved with the internal security of the provinces in which they were stationed. The army also formed a useful reserve of disciplined manpower, to be drafted in to undertake construction and labouring work, a role the soldiers deeply detested.⁷² The very presence of the army had a substantial impact on the developing economies of the provinces; the soldiers had to be fed and clothed, and had money to spend. At the close of their military service (which between 40 per cent and 50 per cent might be likely to survive), most legionaries received a gratuity in cash, but some were settled (as of old) with land grants in colonies, in or near the provinces where they had served, and constituted bulwarks of loyalty to the system which they had once served. Under Claudius

" /L.f2₄8_} = EJ² 261. *> Tac. Ляя. iv.₄. ⁷' Tac. Ann. xni.3 j.

⁷² Plut. Mar. 15; Tac. Ann. 1.20, xi.20, xiii.53; Suet. Aug. 18.

Fig. 5. Vetera (Xanten), Germany: ground-plan of a double legionary fortress, Neronian date. (After Bogaers and Riiger.) By the end of Augustus' reign the chief control points along the west bank of the Rhine had been established. Little is known of the fortress built at Xanten at that time, or about Tiberian or Claudian successors. The Neronian fortress was 56 hectares (138 acres) in size. Note: stone-built headquarters (a), two houses for legates (b, c), workshops (d), tribunes' houses (e) and hospital (f). Tacitus vividly describes the siege of Vetera by rebels in a.d. 69, after which the fortress was resited in a more commanding position.

veterans of the legions stationed in Britain, then newly added to the empire, were settled at Colchester (Camulodunum), those of the Rhine legions at Cologne and those of Syria at Akko (Ptolemais). An attempt by Nero to resume colonization in Italy itself met with little success.[537]

While legionary organization and service conditions under the early Empire were more or less fixed by the time of the death of Augustus, the auxiliary forces and the fleet took longer to reach their permanent form. An important stage in the integration of auxiliaries into the armed forces of the empire belongs under Claudius, who regularized the system of rewards for honourable service: citizenship after twenty-five years of that service (which might continue longer), and the regularization of any marriage contracted during service, so that children already born obtained citizenship, as well as any born to the same couple in the future. These grants were recorded on pocket-sized, folding bronze tablets called diplomas, presented to the soldier as documentary proof of his privileges.⁷⁴ These grants were seen as an important inducement to enlistment and made a useful contribution to the spread of citizenship in the provinces, which was seen as allied to loyal service to the emperor. Regiments continued to be formed, mainly in newly acquired territories such as Britain. When a client kingdom was absorbed, its army might be taken over into the Roman service.[538] By the death of Nero the total number of auxiliaries under arms, or available for service, was probably near 200,000. We still cannot name all the cohortes and alae in existence, or pinpoint where they served.

As the legions began to be spaced out along the frontiers of the empire, so too we find a more piecemeal distribution of auxiliary regiments placed singly or in pairs. The earliest recognizable ground- plans of forts, at such sites as Valkenburg, Hofheim and Oberstimm, belong under Claudius. It was perhaps about this time (if not earlier) that fixed rates of pay were established for auxiliaries. For the Flavian era, the figures of ^ or I of the legionary's pay have been proposed, but these seem over-generous for the Julio-Claudian age.⁷⁶

Furthermore, Claudius regulated the sequence of commands held in auxiliary units and defined more precisely who should hold them. He ordained that command of auxiliary regiments should be given solely to equestrians (to the exclusion ofprimipilares), and that the posts should be held in a set order: the prefecture of a cohort followed by the prefecture of an ala, followed by the tribunate of a legion.⁷⁷ Thus he rated the post in a citizen legion more highly than independent command over a body of

чша^в m

,, г-rn п- '.'.v-.-.ilz:!':":"*- [ ^ff-''/Л

* ^fmt.- — -

- ."4 ::;]

50

1 I I I I I m

Fig. 6. Valkenburg, Holland: fort-plan, с. a.d. 40. (After Glasbergen.) The earliest recognizable examples of forts built for individual auxiliary regiments belong at this time. Valkenburg, a fort of i. 5 hectares (j. 7 acres), was probably built for a cohort quingertaria equitata. Within a rampart and triple ditch were a timber-built headquarters (a), commandant's house (b), long barracks, for cavalry? (c) hospital (d), and barracks (e).

non-citizen auxiliaries. Some examples of this sequence can be docu­mented within Claudius' reign,⁷⁸ but it did not become universal: by Nero's death (or at least in the aftermath of the civil war of a.d. 68-69) had become normal for the tribunate of the legion to be held between the two prefectures rather than after both. Centurions were excluded from these commands, but a set sequence of tribunates in the cohorts at Rome became the preserve of the primipilares: a tribunate in a cohort of vigiles would be followed by that of an urban cohort and finally that of a cohort

sĵŝ - - с г: г..-Та

iir^iifi У

⁷⁸ CIL ii 4239 = PME P 96; (?) CIL v 4058 = PME с 2j; ILS 2681 = GCN 280 = PME v 137; AE 1966, 124 = PME d 33; Devijver 1970(0 178).

A.D. 70

of the praetorians. These avenues of promotion could lead in due course to the higher posts in the equestrian civil service as procurators. The prefectures of the fleets at Misenum and Ravenna were seen as having a place in the same developing hierarchy; military expertise was not considered a prerogative for these two posts, which were mainly administrative, and sometimes an imperial freedman, having the special trust of the emperor, held one of the fleet prefectures.

It may also have been Claudius who fixed the length of service for fleet personnel at twenty-six years, with citizenship and regularization of marriage on discharge, though the earliest secure evidence on the duration of service belongs under Vespasian.⁷⁹ Small locally based naval squadrons came gradually into being, some perhaps already under Augustus, to police the Rhine, English Channel, the Danube, the Black Sea, Egypt, Syria and the coasts of north Africa.

In Rome itself the early years of Tiberius saw the concentration of the nine praetorian cohorts and the three Rome-based urban cohorts in a fortress built on high ground in the north-eastern outskirts of the city, beyond the old Servian Wall. It was named the castrapraetoria. By a.d. 23 its construction was probably complete.⁸⁰ Limited excavation - the interior is again a military enclave - has yielded a partial ground-plan of its barrack accommodation.⁸¹ This concentration of the cohorts can be ascribed to the initiative of Aelius Seianus, sole praetorian prefect in a.d. 14-31; one almost inevitable consequence was an increase in the influence of the prefect himself on political events in the city. The number of praetorian cohorts was increased from nine to twelve before the death of Claudius, and perhaps much earlier.⁸²

v. the roman army in a.d. 70

Two detailed accounts survive of the Roman army in action in the last years of the Julio-Claudian era. Firstly, Josephus provides an apprecia­tion of the Roman army of the eastern provinces, supported by auxiliaries and levies from the adjacent client kingdoms, engaged in traditional warfare against rebellious subjects, the Jews, and a full account of the reduction of successive military strongholds between a.d. 66 and 73; archaeological evidence of siege-camps round Masada and at other sites offers dramatic confirmation of the historical record. The second account is from the hand of Tacitus, the surviving portion of whose Histories constitutes an almost day-by-day account of the military events of a.d. 69, when Roman armies from the northern and eastern provinces mobilized to fight one another. Here the expertise built up

⁷⁹ CIL xvi i, 12-17; Mann 1972 (d 214). so т_ас. Ann. iv.2; Suet. Tib. 57.1; Dio Lvn.9.7.

393

»• Nash 1968 (e 87) 22iff. к _ae 1978, 286; C. Letta, Athenaeum 56 (1978) 3-19.

'Judaea

SCALE

О г» 500 750 1000 km

Fig. 7. Distribution of legions, a.d. г}.

over a hundred years was turned against other legionaries, with similar tactics and weaponry deployed on both sides.

To the Roman public, the army of a.d. 69-70 probably seemed little different from its counterpart in the days of Julius Caesar. The legionar­ies wore familiar equipment and marched behind the silver (or some­times gold) aquila, their legions bearing names and titles which reflected their origins and the exploits of earlier days. But in reality much had changed: what had been an army of Italians was now increasingly made up of provincials owing no particular allegiance to, or common bond with, the Senate or the people of the urbs Roma\ rather they were loyal to the emperor who paid them and whose benevolent rule had brought great advantage to their homelands. Rome was a city they were pledged to defend, but which they would mostly never visit. Increasingly they began to identify their interests with those of the provinces in which they were stationed. Only the praetorian and urban cohorts continued to be recruited principally in Italy, so providing an outlet for the military aspirations of young men for whom the legions with their long service in distant provinces held little appeal. The emperor, if he was wise, took pains to maintain a meaningful bond with the army, by donatives and special coin issues honouring the troops; Nero's lack of real interest in military affairs was a significant factor in his downfall. In the spring of a.d. 69 the invading army of Vitellius appeared to the citizens of northern Italy to consist of barbarous foreigners.⁸³ At the Second Battle of Cremona, a crucial turning-point came at daybreak on 25 October when soldiers of legion III Gallica (which had been based in Syria since Actium a hundred years before) turned to salute the rising sun in oriental fashion, a gesture which wrongly suggested to the weary Vitellians that Flavian reinforcements had reached the battlefield. By a.d. 69 the ranks of III Gallica, like other legions long stationed in the East, contained a very high proportion of men born in the eastern provinces.⁸⁴ The spectacle of legions swearing loyalty to a Gallic empire, and a veteran colony (Cologne, founded a.d. 50) making an easy transition to the party of Civilis, becomes a little more comprehensible, when localized recruit­ment over several generations is considered.⁸⁵ In the summer of 69 a rumour circulating in Syria, that Vitellius proposed to reward his Rhine legions by transferring them en bloc to Syria and, in turn, sending the Syrian garrisons to the cold northern frontiers, was guaranteed to galvanize the eastern legions to fight on Vespasian's behalf.⁸⁶

A blurring of the traditional distinctions between branches of the army can be observed. Physical and mental attributes would soon become more important in determining whether a man became a

⁸³ Tac. Hist. 11.21. w Tac. Hist. 111.24. Cf. Joseph. BJ iv.38, with vi.34, 81.

⁸⁵ Tac. Hist. iv.)4ff, 6jff. ⁸⁴ Tac. Hist. 11.80.

legionary or an auxiliary than his cultural or ethnic antecedents! In the crisis of a.d. 68—9 the manpower of the major fleets was utilized to form two new legions, I and II Adiutrix ('Supportive'), which became a permanent part of the imperial army. Galba formed a new legion in Spain, at the time of his bid for power. Many legions were given fresh postings after the civil war of a.d. 69—70, with those legionary bases nearest Italy in the secure hands of Flavian legions.

Until a.d. 69—70 many auxiliary regiments had retained close contacts with their tribe or area of origin, sometimes being stationed at no great distance. It was only after the events of a.d. 69-70, when several Gallic and Rhineland units deserted en masse to Civilis, and ties to Rome were found to be more fragile than imagined, that local links were for a time decisively broken. Many regiments were posted to far-off provinces, and their ethnic homogeneity was destroyed. The practice of employing tribal nobility to command their own tribesmen was discontinued. Yet as the decades passed, the auxiliaries like the legions began to draw their manpower increasingly from the province in which they were stationed, so developing new loyalties. Now if not earlier a fairly standard uniform was evolved: mail shirt or scale-armour, sword and throwing spears for the infantry, long slashing sword and heavier spears for the cavalry; yet some regiments retained their traditional equipment, among them the oriental archer-cohorts with their long flowing robes, conical helmets and curving bows. In the aftermath of the civil war, larger-sized cohortes and alae, up to 1,000 men strong (entitled milliariae) were formed, perhaps on a model already serving in the East. The gradual integration of auxiliary formations into the armed forces of the empire is marked too by the beginnings of adoption of Roman nomenclature and the more widespread use of tombstones, which commemorated the deceased auxiliary in Roman fashion, with a suitable Latin text.

The Roman army of the later first century a.d. could still look on occasion to forward movement (for example in Britain and Germany), but for the most part it was settling to a static role of frontier defence. The era of rapid advance and easy victories was over.

CHAPTER 12 THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

H. GALSTERER

i

The following chapter is concerned with the application of law, not with law and justice itself. We shall have to deal with the different courts and officers of law, with judges and procedure, with actions and punishment; the development of law from the late Republic to early Empire, its pre- classical shape and the birth of Roman legal science are described in chapter 21 of this volume.¹

The limits of time given for this volume are irrelevant insofar as law and administration of justice are concerned. Caesar was killed before he could start on any reform programme he may have planned,² and the civil wars which began after his death postponed any serious reform until peace was restored by the new princeps. The end of the period dealt with in this volume is even less of a rupture in the field of justice. So it is best to begin with the situation as it had developed in the wake of Sulla's reforms, treat rather briefly some reforms under Augustus and his successors, and end with the state of affairs in the second half of the first century A.D.

There will be many 'probablys' and similar expressions in the following pages, too many perhaps in view of the fact that the period between Cicero and Tacitus is one of the best known in ancient history. But it is a lopsided picture we get, overstressing Rome and the upper classes. Legal literature on the other side is transmitted to us mostly in the pruned state passed down by Justinian's lawyers, who eliminated or altered many subjects no longer valid in the sixth century. This concerns municipal jurisdiction especially. But other fields too are less well known than one would like to think.

The best introduction 'to get a feeling' of how Roman law worked in practice, is probably still to read over large parts of the Digest, the collection of legal literature made by Justinian, of which there is a good new English translation. Of modern works Crook 1967^ zi)esp. ch. 3, and Garnsey 1970 (f 3 j) are outstanding in their endeavour to combine legal and social history, and are eminently readable too. The same may be said of chs. 13 and 14 of САН ix², by D. Cloud and J. Crook.

Suet. lul. 44.2; Isid. Etym. 5.1.5 and Polay 1965 (d 274).

397

ii

It is best to start with the city of Rome, as the administration of justice there is best known, and with civil jurisdiction.[539] In the final years of the Republic the main law officers of the populus Ко man us were still the two senior praetors, the praetor urbanus responsible - in principle - for jurisdiction among Roman citizens, and the praetor peregrinus for jurisdic­tion among foreigners and between foreigners and Roman citizens. The six other praetors were, from the time of Sulla, presidents of the different courts of criminal law.

The consuls, whose imperium contained jurisdictional rights as well as that of the praetors, usually did not meddle in the administration of justice, even if they could quash acts of the praetors.⁴ More important was the jurisdiction of the aediles: as superintendants of the urban markets, and thus responsible for standards of trade and quality, they helped to shape Roman commercial law to a considerable degree.

The procedure at the praetors' and the aediles' court was what is called the formulary system, at least for most cases (cf. Crook САН ix², ch. 14). Roman jurisdiction was from the beginning bipartite — the praetor (or aedile) examining the case in the presence of both parties, as to whether it was admissible according to the law, and then transferring the factual decision to a private judge.

Now the praetor could, and progressively did, accept cases not foreseen by the written laws or slightly different from the situation presupposed in these laws. If he did so, the case no longer depended upon civil law (Jus civile) in strict interpretation, but upon the imperium of the magistrate. He drew up the formula, a kind of scenario for the case to be decided by the judge. In its simplest form the formula ran as follows:

Let Titius be iudex. If it appears that N.N. ought to pay 10,000 sesterces to A. A., let the iudex condemn N.N. to pay 10,000 sesterces to A. A. If it does not so appear, let the iudex absolve him.[540]

Formulae which successfully met new economic or social needs were taken over by successive praetors, who gave notice in their proclamation of intentions (edictum), published at the beginning of their term, that they would grant this or that formula.

A civil suit began in iure, in the presence of one of the two praetors.

The plaintiff and the defendant, or their representatives, had to be present. Normally they had made an appointment, a vadimonium, with him: 'for 3 December next at Rome in the Forum of Augustus before the tribunal of the urban praetor at the second hour', as it is stated in one of the new documents from Murecine near Pompeii.⁶ A money penalty in the vadimonium was meant to make both parties appear, and if your adversary neither gave sureties nor appeared on the stated day, the praetor could take him for indefensus and eventually grant you entry into his property. How far this system worked against recalcitrant defendants or between parties of very different social standing is uncertain.

If both were present, the praetor in discussion with the parties and their counsel and with the help of iuris periti he had upon his consilium shaped the formula according to the needs of the case — or he might refuse to accept the case, if he thought the claim not justiciable. The formula would rarely be so simple as stated above. There might be clauses, replications and many other specifications in it. An example of a formula to recover possession of property, the so-called actio Publiciana, runs like this: 'Let Titius be iudex. If A. A. has purchased that slave Stichus in good faith, on whom there is suit, and he has been transferred to him, and he has possessed him for a year, then if this slave ought to be his by the ius Quiritium, and this slave is not N.N.'s by the iusQuiritium, or if N.N. did not sell and transfer that slave on whom there is suit to A. A., and if in this matter no duress has been involved, iudex, if that slave at your award be not returned to A. A., do you condemn N.N. to A. A. of so much of his property as that slave may be worth; if it does not appear, dismiss.'⁷

There was ample opportunity given to the parties to state their points, and there was probably much discussion in this stage already, when questions of law were deliberated, but in the end it was the praetor who decided — he was never a simple referee between parties' claims.

With the naming of the iudex and the giving of the formula the transaction before the praetor, the part in iure, ended and the hearing before the judge, apud iudicem, might begin. For a long time all judges were taken from among the senators, the album iudicum being identical with the album senatorum. C. Gracchus first took the judges for his extortion court from among the knights. There is no need to recall the battles fought over the nomination of judges, mostly in the quaestio repetundarum (extortion court); they ended for good with the com­promise reached by the Lex Aurelia of 70 в.с. From then on the panel from which judges were taken was composed of socially different decuriae: the first one composed of senators, the second from knights and the third one from a somewhat mysterious category, the so-called tribuni

TabPomp XIV. The translation is by Crook 1967 (f 21) 75.

Schiller 1978 (f 689) 439? with commentary.

aerarii.⁸ These tribuni were removed by Caesar and reinstituted by Antony. Augustus created a fourth decuria of judges ex inferiore censtfi and Caligula a fifth one, which ranked as third because composed of equites. These decuriae had in the early Empire a thousand or more members each,¹⁰ Roman citizens from Rome, Italy and (probably from the time of Caligula) from the provinces, between thirty (twenty-five under Au­gustus) and sixty years old. One of the decuriae was granted leave each year, the members of the other four divisions had to serve at Rome if they were not enjoying a vacatio as imperial or municipal magistrates, because of military duty, or for other excusationes. That even important officials like the curators of streets, curators of aqueducts, and prefects of the corn supply were delegated three months each year to serve as judges shows the importance of this organization.¹¹

The album iudicum supplied judges to the criminal courts and to the centumviral court, but most of them worked as single judges (Judex unus), or in boards of summary judges (recuperatores) in civil cases. The system whereby judges were allotted to cases was rather complicated and need not be discussed here in detail;¹² but it may easily be imagined that a procedure working well when all - parties, judges and magistrates - were living in or near Rome, rapidly got into difficulties when parties and judges were summoned to Rome from the whole empire, from the shores of the Black Sea to those of the Atlantic.

The parties could in principle agree upon any fit person to act as judge,¹³ but most cases seem to have gone to these iudicesex V decuriis, so that quite naturally the judicature became somewhat oriented to the upper class. Suetonius, Aulus Gellius and Pliny the Younger are only some of the known judges, and the latter wrote to a friend that he acted as a judge almost more often than as counsel.¹⁴

It was up to the judge to find out the facts in the law suit, to find out whether Numerius Negidius really owed the 10,000 sesterces to Aulus Agerius or what the circumstances were in the sale, if there was any, of the slave Stichus. As an additional difficulty the judge in most lawsuits had not only to condemn or acquit, but also to assess the value of something to be given or to be done, and (to complicate things still further) there were no acknowledged rules of relevance to restrain the

⁸ As Augustus decreed a minimal census of 200,000 sesterces for members of his new, the fourth decuria, and tribuni aerarii were evidently located between them and the knights, a census of 300,000 sesterces does not seem improbable; but cf. D. Cloud, САН ix² 509 for arguments that tribuni aerarii had a census qualification of 400,000 sesterces like equites. ⁹ Suet. Aug. 32.3.

¹⁰ Pliny, HN 33.30. ¹¹ Senatusconsulla de aquatductibus (FIRA I² 276-7) cap. 100.

Behrens 1970 (d 245) with Galsterer 1973 (d 253). Readers should be warned however that Behrens' interpretation is not accepted by all, cf. W. Eder, Gnomon 46 (1974) 583-9.

Excluded were slaves, women, the mentally ill and those persons who had been convicted of certain delicts, cf. Kaser 1966 (f 661) 140, and below, n. 20.

Gell.-ЛМ xiv.2; Pliny, Ep. 1.20.12, vi.2.7.

parties and their counsel from burying the evidence as much as possible under heaps of irrelevant statements — some of Cicero's speeches (e.g. the pro Balbo) are very good examples of this technique. The judge, on the other hand, was in a strong position because he was not restricted by too many rules, and if he really didn't find his way out, he could as a last resort declare that he did not understand the case, sibi поп liquere, and decline judgment. Aulus Gellius did just that in the second century when, in his very first case as a judge, he was presented with a man of splendid reputation ('vir bonus notaeque et expertae fidei') suing a rather disreputable character ('homo non bonae rei vitaque turpi et sordida') for a debt without presenting a scrap of evidence. Gellius gave up the case in the end, but only because he thought himself too young and of too little social standing to decide, as he evidently wanted to do, in favour of the 'good' man.[541] Incidentally, 'good' and 'bad' in this case are coupled with 'rich' and 'in straitened circumstances', a correlation which upper-class judges might easily take for normal.

After judgment, the duty of the iudex was at an end, unless the plaintiff had other suits running which he was entitled to present to the same judge immediately afterwards. It was now up to the winner either, if he had been the accused, to sue his adversary de calumnia, or, if he had been plaintiff, to get the defendant to do the thing the lawsuit was about. As there were nothing like bailiffs, court police or other enforcement officials, he had to bring another action against a recalcitrant defendant, this time the actio iudicati. At first sight it seems rather strange that the praetor did not grant immediately an executory title to the winning side, and there has been some speculation whether this second lawsuit served as a kind of procedure of appeal.¹⁶ More probably the second suit was introduced because with this title in hand the plaintiff now could wield the whole force of the law, up to selling his adversary's property.

hi

So far civil jurisdiction in the city of Rome. Criminal justice had not much altered since the days of Sulla, at least before Augustus.¹⁷ The main organs of this justice were the courts of law erected by statute and dealing each with specific crimes, with extortion (repetundae), embezzle­ment {peculatus), improper canvassing (ambitus) and so on. There were also courts for less political crimes, as for instance against murderers and poisoners (de sicariis et veneficis), but on the whole it is political misdemeanour which was tried in these standing jury-courts (quaestiones perpetuae). Judges were taken from the album iudicum\ probably there was a panel of names for each court from which the jury was taken by lot and by alternate elimination of names.[542] The actual number of judges was often not very large, so that the allegations of venality throughout the history of the courts are probably not too farfetched. Presidents of the courts were — from Sulla on — praetors and other, junior magistrates.

Procedure in the quaestiones was by nominis delatio, accusation before the president of the relevant jury by a citizen (normally) who was either concerned himself in the case or was prompted by the reward — informers and accusers, the notorious delatores and indices, were as ineradicable a defect in this system of 'popular accusation', as were the sycophants in Athens.[543] If there was more than one prospective accuser (and there might be rumour of collusion by one of them with the accused, praevaricatio), there was a first hearing of magistrate and jury (divinatio) to find out who should be the main accuser. This and the following steps can best be seen from the Verrines, Cicero's speeches in the extortion trial of Gaius Verres. After formal accusation and the constitudon of the jury came the presentation of the evidence, of testimony and witnesses. All this had to be organized by the prosecution - there was little help from the state here too and no police, even if witnesses could be subpoenaed to appear at Rome. After the final speeches of prosecution and defence the jury voted by ballot. If the reus was absolved, he was free to sue his accuser for libel (calumnia). If condemned, his civic existence was at stake, because condemnation brought at least loss offama,[544] and in most courts the capital penalty was the measure provided for in the law, even if culprits usually were not hindered if they prevented it by going into exile.

Beside this upper-class justice of the quaestiones and - possibly, if it had survived till now — process before the people, there existed at least from the second century в.с. a summary jurisdiction of the Illviri capitales, who normally looked after jails and the executions of confessi. Their office was the first step in the hierarchy of magistracies; it's incumbents were under twenty-five and had no imperium whatsoever, so it was doubted whether they were entitled to sentence people to death. But as their clientele was composed probably of 'thieves and evil slaves' ('fures et servi nequam'), that is, the scum of the metropolis, this lack of competence may not have mattered too much. It is not very probable either that all minor delinquents were given a process before the quaestio.²¹ As the Illviri had a consilium of experienced counsellors to compensate for their lack of experience, on the whole one should probably accept this capital jurisdiction.

IV

Jurisdicdon in Italy in the last century B.C. was shaped mainly by the consequences of the Social War, when all communities up to the Rubicon became citizen towns. Few will subscribe today to Rudolph's theory that the Italian municipalities received their own jurisdiction only by a law of Caesar instituting municipal jurisdiction.²² Latin colonies and cities of socii retained their own jurisdiction after 89 B.C., which only had to be adapted somehow to the Roman system - in the same manner probably as had been the case with old citizen towns (municipia and coloniae) before the Social War.

There were still — down to Augustus — praefecti iure dicundo in some towns, who were delegates of the Roman praetor (urbanus?) and responsible for local jurisdiction. But we need not spend much time on the thorny question about their duties and competences, as by the second half of the first century B.C. probably all towns in Italy had gained their own administrative structures and with that their own jurisdiction. Where praefecti iure dicundo are now mentioned in inscriptions, they are delegates of municipal magistrates, when the local law officers the Ilviri or Illlviri iure dicundo were away or when this office was given to a prominent Roman politician or even to the emperor.

Differences in jurisdictional competence between colonies and munici­pia, which may have existed in the Republic, had disappeared by the beginning of the Principate; laws dealing with municipal jurisdiction like the so-called Lex Rubria treat all towns on an equal footing. But there existed now, and we do not know from what date, upper limits of jurisdictional competence for municipal law-courts. The Lex Rubria of 41 B.C., adjusting municipal jurisdiction in the former Gallia Cisalpina to that of Italy after the abolishment of the province, seems to fix this limit at a value of not more than 15,000 sesterces and for several categories of cases involving infamia to not more than 10,000 sesterces but limits probably differed not only in the provinces but also in Italy according to the status and the importance of cities (cf. below, p. 410). As the right or the obligation to have one's case tried at Rome (revocatio Romam) became more and more diffused, especially among the local elites, municipal jurisdiction even in this way tended to be restricted to petty cases.

In criminal law it seems as if at the beginning of our period municipal juries existed and still enjoyed far-reaching competence. It is difficult to avoid the impression from Cicero's speech for Cluentius that there were local quaestiones for capital cases like murder and poisoning,²³ and as the competence of the Sullan quaestio de sicariis was restricted to Rome and her near surroundings such quaestiones were necessary to deal without too much delay with local crime.²⁴ Whether their sentences were appealable at Rome is not known.

Procedure in the Italian towns probably followed Roman practice, i.e. formulary process with the chief magistrates in the role of the praetors at Rome. They too had been called praetor from the beginning, so it seems, because their main duty was in jurisdiction, and when later this title seemed too grandiloquent for small town magistrates, now they were simply named Ilviri iure dicundo or IHIviri iure dicundo. Judges in the municipalities were taken from a roll (album) which was mostly identical with the album decurionum, the list of members of the council. There may have been local variations however: at Narbo an inscription was set up in honour of Augustus because he had added plebeian courts to those of the councillors (iudicia plebis decurionibus coniunxit); at Irni too there were judges of inferior census, but evidently with the same competence as those taken from among the decuriones.²⁵

v

Finally jurisdiction in the provinces, originally areas under the super­vision of magistrates or pro-magistrates with imperium. As they were few and their provinces generally large, there could be no idea of intense administration. In civil jurisdiction they were concerned mostly with the affairs of Roman citizens living in the province and with those of Italian socii, insofar as those had not the right of revocatio Romam, to have their case heard at Rome.

The governor used formulary jurisdiction as did the praetor at Rome. The recently published inscription of Contrebia shows the governor of Hither Spain giving in 87 в.с. a formula to two communities of the Ebro valley litigating about water rights; it is very complex and shows complete mastery of the technique. In the nominatio the Senate of a third community is named to be judge in the case.²⁶ This lawsuit is between peregrine communities, but if he had to give judgment to Romans, the governor gave single judges and recuperatores from a provincial album. On the other hand the governor was in no way forced to use the formulary process. With peregrine provincials mostly (not always, as we have just seen), but also with Romans he could, instead of naming a judge and instructing him in a formula what to do, inquire himself- in the presence of his consilium — into facts and legal circumstances. This jurisdiction, based entirely upon his imperium, was called cognitio; it played a certain role already in the doings of Verres in Sicily, but became really important, and then dominant, only with the Principate.²⁷

Jurisdiction in the provinces had one further peculiarity too, in that the governor did not reside all the time in one city where people had to go if in need of him but, following a certain calendar, he toured the main cities of his province where people from the surrounding areas could come to bring actions before him and to transact other legal business.[545]From the 'coming together' of plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, judges and business people of all sorts this meeting was called conventus, but the word soon acquired a geographic sense, meaning the circuit. So we know from the provincial lists given by the Elder Pliny the composition of the four circuits of Baetica, the seven circuits of Tarraconensis etc., and this partition into circuits soon served other purposes too, as was shown some years ago by new evidence for Asia Minor.[546]

VI

The introduction of one-man rule affected the different branches of the administration of justice in different ways. The mainstay of civil jurisdiction remained the two praetors' courts at Rome. The number of praetors was augmented by Caesar to between ten and sixteen and remained the same number under Augustus. Later they oscillated between twelve and eighteen, with twelve more or less the norm.³⁰ Some of them were presidents of the quaestiones perpetuae, some others had special competences in civil jurisdiction, like the praetor hastarius who (in the place of the old Xviri stlitibus iudicandis) now became responsible for the centumviral court, or the two (from Titus one) praetores fideicommis- sarii whom Claudius set over the fidei commissa (informal requests from the testator to heirs) newly actionable since Augustus. But the increasing number of praetors was due not so much to the requirements of jurisdiction as to political exigencies and the need for ex-praetors to fill administrative posts. The importance of the praetors diminished as imperial jurisdiction grew; development of law became impossible for the praetor because the edictum, which was taken over almost unaltered from one praetor to the next for a long time, was now almost standardized;³¹ and the famous jurists of the Severi tended to be not praetors, but praefecti praetorio on the emperor's staff. Jurisdiction of the aediles was taken over by various officials in the emperor's service, the lion's share going to the governor of Rome {praefectus urbi), the chief of the watch (praefectus vigilum) and the prefect of the corn supply {praefectus annonae). These imperial officers might on any occasion be members of the consilium of the princeps too, which by and by became the most important body for the development of law.³²

But the republican courts were still functioning and were reorganized by Augustus in a couple of very detailed laws, the leges Iuliae iudiciorum privatorum etpublicorum of 17 в.с. From what we can see the whole field of procedure and organization was touched: abolition of legis actiones, times of hearing and recess, obligations of judges, adjournments and so on. The leges Iuliae together with senatusconsulta giving specifications and updatings remained fundamental for several centuries.

The old jurisdiction by praetor and private judges was hemmed in now in two ways. One we will deal with later, the now regular use of the juridical competences of the consuls, acting with the Senate as their jury and functioning mostly as a peers' court for delinquent senators. More important and ever more increasing was the role of the emperor. Using the tribunicia potestas which gave the emperor ius auxilii against judg­ments based on imperium - this ius auxilii was reshaped in 30 в.с. as a prerogative to appellatum iudicare — and the permanent consular and proconsular imperium which allowed him cognitio in his own right, and his predominant auctoritas, the emperor very soon became the most import­ant institution in law: even if not all cases went to his court, the idea that a citizen might appeal to him as a last resort extended, till it reached even the last and least of the provincials.

Augustus, as we are told, was a most diligent judge who sat until the end of the day, very lenient according to Suetonius or, if we believe Cassius Dio, most severe.³³ Another emperor of outstanding zeal in jurisdiction was Claudius, but of him too people doubted whether he did

³¹ For the arguments about the codification of the edictum perpetuum under Hadrian cf. Guarino 1980 (d 261). ³² Cf. Crook >95) (d 10). ³³ Suet. Aug. 33; Dio Lv.7.2.

not do so only to have an outlet for his natural cruelty.³⁴ Of one of his reforms in jurisdiction we have first-rate evidence, a papyrus giving parts of what is probably a speech by Claudius in the Senate on the minimum age of iudices ex albo and on the repression of delatores,³⁵ 'Let us stop the lawless tyranny of the accusers' at least sounds good, even if the consequences were not nearly so impressive.

VII

The administration of justice continued to develop with the Principate. In civil jurisdiction at Rome the praetor urbanus and the praetor peregrinus worked as in the Republic, but of the old separation of their fields of competences, provinciae, next to nothing is left. These two praetors still made use of the formulae, as the praetor hastarius, the new president of the iudicium centumvirale, used the still older legis actio Sacramento. The new 'special' praetors appearing since Augustus all made use of cognitio, i.e. they were not bound by the limitations in procedure and timing characteristic of the old or do iudiciorum. Some quasi-judicial functions in civil law were given to the consuls too, probably to make good the loss of political influence of the former chief magistrates. At the end of Augustus' reign Ovid already regards jurisdiction as one of the main occupations of consuls, and Suetonius distinguishes carefully between Claudius' jurisdiction as consul and as a privatus.³⁶ But most of the job fell to the emperor himself. He took up some cases in the first instance, cases probably where decisions based on cognitio would serve as exempla and where the ordinary law did not suffice. Later on, the emperors delegated part of their jurisdictional tasks to officials in their service, so that the praefectus urbi, the praefectus annonae, the praefectus vigilum and occasionally even the praefectus praetorio might wield civil jurisdiction in the first instance, based of course on the imperium of the emperor. It seems rather doubtful if there were any precise delimitations of their prerogatives, so that - as in criminal justice - plaintiffs might have the possibility of choice among different courts.

The emperor's main activity lay of course in the field of appeals. Regular appeal from the sentences of ordinary judges or courts had not existed in the Republic: provocatio had always been a political measure directed against acts of imperium, and it was apparently with judgments in cognitio cases, that is, based on imperium, that appeals started under Augustus; it may have seemed logical to allow appeal from lower to higher and from delegated to original imperium. From the beginning it was more than provocatio. In 30 B.C., after the capture of Alexandria, Octavian was given - together with the tribunician ius auxilii - the right to еккХ-rjTov SiKd^eiv i.e. appellatum iudicare, and the calculus Minervae in all courts, wherewith votes of the jury might be rescinded.³⁷ Later on, when in possession of the imperium consulare, he received appeals from praetors and proconsuls in virtue of his imperium maius. Already in the first years of the Principate the number of appeals had grown to such dimensions that Augustus had to delegate appeals, those of urbani litigatores to the praetor urbanus and those coming from the provinces to selected consu­lates.³⁸ Nero enacted that all appeals from Italy and the public provinces should go to the Senate - as the consuls' consilium — and that the same caution-money should be paid for appeals to the Senate as to the emperor.[547] This policy failed blatantly: litigants preferred to go to the emperor's court, whether they came from Italy, from public or from imperial provinces.

viii

The co-existence of different courts became much more problematic in the field of criminal justice. When Cn. Piso in a.d. 20 was accused of (among other crimes) poisoning Germanicus, the delator brought his accusation before the consuls, but the friends of Germanicus claimed that the emperor himself should inquire into the case. This even Piso accepted, 'studia populi et patrum metuens'.⁴⁰ So, along with the Senate and the emperor, the Roman people, i.e. the appropriate quaestio de sicariis et veneficis, was competent in this case. The decision which court to choose lay with the accusers who - at least in maiestas cases - for evident reasons will have preferred to go to the emperor's court.

As the quaestiones dealt mostly with political crimes connected with the upper strata of society, they were the first to go. Augustus and the following principes, in virtue of tribunicia potestas and of consulare imperium, could and did exercise criminal jurisdiction, and so did the consuls with the Senate.[548] This body was not a peers' court proper but since the first century the senators felt that they should be tried by no one below them in social standing, at least in cases of maiestas and repetundae,⁴² Emperors agreed with that in theory but most of them were more hesitant to apply this principle to cases of treason in the face of a potentially hostile Senate. Emperor and Senate divided between them now most of the trials which in former times had gone to the jury-courts. So almost all the quaestiones seem simply to have passed away by the end of the first century a.d., with the one possible exception of the Augustan quaestio de adulteriis, which seems to have been in existence till the third century a.d.⁴³

As courts multiplied, so did fines and penalties. In the Republic, with the exception of some rather archaic punishments, like burying alive the Vestal Virgin who was found guilty of unchastity, or the drowning of parricides in a sack, together with snakes and other animals, there were either pecuniary fines or capital punishment, execution or voluntary exile, which involved deminutio capitis too, loss of citizenship. In the quaestiones system the appropriate penalty was laid down in the law instituting the quaestio.⁴⁴ Not so in the jurisdiction based on cognitio, either the emperor's or the Senate's. Even crimes for which there was a statutory penalty if brought before the jury-court, might in cognitio be punished in a quite different manner. In cognitio there also developed the system of penalties one tends to connect with imperial jurisdiction after reading Tacitus: the different ways of disposing of real or suspected opponents by deportatio or relegatio, commitment to forced labour or to gladiatorial troops, 'public-fair execution' (Volksfesthinrichtung). Here belonged also the increasing differentiation between honestiores and humiliores in criminal law.⁴⁵ Prison, by the way, was not a penalty, nor was torture: both were used only in the period before judgment, as custody for defendants or to enforce confessions.

The emperor besides giving judgement in the first instance and functioning as judge of appeal from all his delegates (and more and more Roman officials came to be in public and in their own opinion the emperor's delegates!) became the heir of the populus Komanus too, in that he now was the addressee ofprovocatio, which for all practical purposes became identical now with appeal.⁴⁶ 'Provoco ad Caesarem' was the

praetor. It is only in the later years of Augustus, that we hear of the Senate acting as a court, as a possibility from Ovid in a.d. 8 and, with concrete cases, in a.d. i 2 and 13, cf. Talbert 1984 (d 77) 460-87. Already in 4 B.C. Augustus had, in the fifth edict of Cyrene, given the Senate jurisdictional competences in less important, i.e. non-capital, cases of repetundae, cf. FIR A i² 410-14.

Cf. Talbert 1984 (d 77) ₄₇of.

Paul in his commentary on the lex Iulia de adulteriis still cited the libellus (indictment) to be presented to the praetor who was president of this quaestio (Dig. 48.2.3 pr.).

The younger Pliny's opinion 'licere senatui, sicut licet, et mitigare leges et intendere' (iv.9.17) was still at the beginning of the second century opposed by other senators, cf. also 11.1 l.ifi and B. Levick, Hist. 28 (1979) 358-79. ⁴⁵ Cf. P. Garnsey, Natural Lam Forum 13 (1968) 141-62.

¹⁶ Tac. Ann. xn.60 and Garnsey 1966 (d 257).

password now of the Roman citizen, whose immunity from torture and from execution on the spot was even guaranteed by the Augustan law on vis publico. Kaiaapa eniKaXov^ai, 'I appeal unto Caesar', said Paul, and Festus, after discussion with his council, stopped all further proceedings: 'You appealed unto Caesar, you shall go up to Caesar.'⁴⁷

IX

In Italy jurisdiction in the municipia and coloniae went on as before. As in political supervision it was consuls and Senate who were responsible for Italia between the Alps and the Straits of Messina, so jurisdiction in cases exceeding the value allowed to municipal courts went to the praetors at Rome. According to the late republican Lex Rubria the limit of value apparently was 15,000 sesterces in 'normal' civil suits and 10,000 in trials which might bring infamia, at least in the cities of former Cisalpine Gaul. There is no distinction between towns according to size, status or anything else. On the other hand the new Lex Irnitana has shown that in Spain Latin municipia had different limits of value: 500 sesterces at Irni and i ,000 at Malaca.⁴⁸ This is in the provinces, in Flavian times and with Latins, but it shows at least that there was differentiation, and so we probably had better think of a gradation of cities according to import­ance, political and economic weight and so forth, in Italy too. One of the new tablets from Pompeii strongly suggests that local jurisdiction there might deal with cases worth well over 20,000 sesterces.⁴⁹ The llviri of Milan are called manumittendipotestate in some inscriptions, and the same may be true of those of Herculaneum, while as a rule emancipation of slaves was permitted only to holders of imperium.⁵⁰ The procedure to be followed in the municipal courts was the formulary process. In the so- called Florentine fragment of a muncipal law cognitio seems to be forbidden to colonial magistrates, but we know neither the field wherein magistrates are not permitted to cognoscere nor whether this was a rule for all towns or only for some.⁵¹

Criminal justice in Italian towns probably declined even earlier than civil jurisdiction. It used to be maintained that capital jurisdiction had never been given to the municipia and coloniae, but if there were municipal

Acts 25:12.

The relevant chapter is 69, which in the Lex Malacitana gives 1,000 sesterces as the upper level, in the otherwise identical Lex Irnitana 500 sesterces.

Cf. G. Purpura, Tabulae Pompeianae ij e Ĵ4: due documenti rclativi atprestitio marittimo, Atti /7. Congr. Intern, di Papirol. (Napoli, 1984) 1245-66.

AE 1947,47, cf. Kaser 1966 (f66i) i 29, r 34. Manumission at Herculaneum was inferred by V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studi Epigrafici e Papirologici (Napoli, 1974) ĵ 68—70 from one of the tablets of the Justa-dossier, probably rightly. Maybe it is not by chance that Milan and Herculaneum were colonies. In the late Republic magistrates of Italian and provincial towns might still have imperium, as is shown by Lex Ursonensis 125, 128 and Lex Rubria 20.

C. W. Bruns, Foutes Iuis Romani Autiqui⁷ (Tubingen 1909) 1 ;8 nr. 33.

quaestiones they may have had considerable competences, at least against defendants from lower social strata. This situation may still be the background to the contract of lease (lex locationis) of a local funeral, killing and torturing enterprise operadng in the first century a.d. in Puteoli. Its clientele probably was composed not only of slaves but of free persons as well.⁵² But in the course of the first two centuries a.d. all criminal jurisdiction in Italy was taken over by the emperor's delegates, the city prefect for the territory up to 100 miles from Rome and the praetorian prefects for the land farther away; for Ulpian the municipal magistrates were not even allowed to sentence slaves to death - only 'moderate punishment is not to be denied to them'-.⁵³

x

In the provinces the jurisdictional duties of the governor became more and more important as the waging of wars became the exception.⁵⁴ After 27 в.с. the distinction between public and imperial provinces was relevant for jurisdiction becauseproconsules had an imperium of their own, while the legati Augusti participated in the emperor's imperium. Therefore the proconsuls could appoint legati of their own to help them in jurisdiction, but the governors of the imperial provinces could not, having themselves a delegated imperium.⁵⁵ So the emperor had himself to send officials for jurisdiction, iuridici, into provinces where he thought it appropriate, for example to Hispania Tarraconensis. The prefect of Egypt did possess an imperium ad similitudinem proconsulis, imperium like that of a proconsul, but that was given to him by law under Augustus.⁵⁶ On the other hand the emperor, by his imperiumproconsulare maius, could give instructions to proconsuls too, and he issued mandata to them as to his own delegates, so in reality the difference between public and imperial provinces was less than might be expected.⁵⁷

The governor could, as before, use iurisdictio giving a formula based on his edict and naming iudices from a provincial album. The edict a, formulae, stipulationes etc. published by the governor are made compulsory for municipal magistrates in the Lex Irnitana. Even in new provinces like Arabia with little or no Romanization, strictly Roman forms of litigation

⁵² AE 1971, 88f and Agennius Urbicus (in Corp.Agrim. p. 47 Th.), implying that all cities had lota noxiorumpocnis dcstinata. The view given in the text is that of Kunkel, PW 24 (1963) 779—83 as against F. de Martino, Labeo 21 (1975) 211-14. ⁵³ Dig. 2.1.12.

Cf. Garnsey and Sailer 1987 (a 34) 54-40.

Another question concerns the iusgtadiigiven to some or to all governors, cf. Jones i960 (a 47) 38-63.

Dig. i. 17 for the praefectus Aegjpti. The position of iuridicus Hispantac Citerioris was a creation of Augustus too.

Cf. Burton 1976 (d 89). The inscription from Cos (AE 1974, 629) is relevant too for people trying to evade municipal jurisdiction.

were introduced, as has been shown lately by models for an actio tutelae found in the archive of one Babatha, dating from the first quarter of the second century a.d.⁵⁸ On the other hand the governor could try cases by cognitio and give judgment himself or by a judge delegated by himself (indexpedaneus). In criminal justice the double procedure holds good too, at least in the first century. The first edict of Cyrene sets up for capital cases a mixed panel of judges from Greeks and Roman citizens living in Cyrene and having a census of more than 7,500 denarii, but it becomes evident from the fourth edict that the governor could just as well conduct the inquiry and render decision himself.⁵⁹ Decisions of procon­suls wielding their own imperium and those of provincial jury-courts in theory might be final, without appeal, but in realityprovocatio or appellatio were attempted wherever possible.

Municipal jurisdiction in the provinces was different, depending on whether a city had Roman or Latin rights or was simply non-Roman, civitasperegrina, and among the latter there was a small, privileged group, the civitates liberae et foederatae, which were in theory free from Roman intervention. But already in the first century a.d. theory and reality were quite different. In 6 в.с. a case of killing by throwing a filled chamberpot out of the window was transferred from the jurisdiction of the free city of Cnidus to that of Augustus, who ordered the proconsul of Asia to investigate.⁶⁰ In the second century differences such as this had largely disappeared.

xi

According to Velleius Paterculus, the loyal historian of Augustus and Tiberius, after the end of the civil wars laws, juries and Senate regained their former authority: 'restituta vis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui maiestas'.⁶¹ So it might seem, and senators would be happier and certainly fared better if they believed in this phraseology. Tacitus knew otherwise: the emperor slowly began to arrogate to himself the functions of Senate, magistrates and laws, without meeting opposition.[549] As in politics, so in the administration of justice the old institutions first operated next to imperial jurisdiction and then slowly withered away, first in the provinces, then in Italy and finally in Rome, first in criminal justice, then in civil jurisdiction. Senators in the capital might, in the period comprised in this volume, still sometimes try to live under the illusion of the old respublica. But in addition to cognitio extra ordinem, there now existed regular appeal in private law cases as in criminal justice, and a supervision which, if not always and everywhere efficient, was at least decidedly better than anything the Republic had known. In the view of the large majority of the population, the new trends in the administration of justice were undoubtedly 'progress'.

ITALY AND ROME FROM SULLA TO AUGUSTUS

M. H. CRAWFORD

I. EXTENT OF ROMANIZATION

The enfranchisement of peninsular Italy in and immediately after 90 B.C., and of Transpadane Gaul in 49 B.C., was the culmination of a process which had begun in the fifth century b.c.¹ Similarly, the Romanization of Italy and the 'Italianization' of Rome, although both proceeded at an accelerated pace in the generations which followed the Social War, were phenomena whose roots lay deep in the past. In offering an interpre­tation of the essential features of the changing relationship between Rome and Italy from Sulla to Augustus, one must perforce take for granted much of their earlier history.²

A few words, however, by way of introduction. Within both the insurgent and the loyalist areas in 91 b.c., there were substantial variations in the extent of Romanizadon. Thus, of the Samnites and the Marsi, who both rebelled, the former still spoke their own language and used their own alphabet, the latter wrote and spoke Latin. The linguistic diversity of rebel Italy is indeed perfectly reflected in its bilingual coinage. The Samnites moreover remained directly acquainted with Greek cultural models down to the outbreak of war, for the Marsi these had probably long been mediated through Rome.³ Similarly, of the Etruscans, whose part in the rebellion lay somewhere on a scale between the minimal and the non-existent, the southern peoples had largely ceased to speak Etruscan or to funcdon as autonomous centres of artisdc production in the third century B.C., the northern cides remained Etruscan in their language and in their art.⁴

A similarly variegated picture emerges if one looks at other areas of activity. Traditional forms of agriculture survived in some parts of Italy

I should like, with the customary disclaimer, to offer my warmest thanks to Dr A.K. Bowman, Professor P.A. Brunt, Dr T.J. Cornell, Miss А.С. Dionisotti, Professor E. Gabba, the late Professor A. Gara, Mr Ph. Moreau, Dr J.A. North, for their comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. I should also have liked it if my thanks had been able to cross the Styx to Martin Frederiksen, without whose fertility in ideas and generosity with them this chapter would have been a much poorer thing.

I have tried to lay out its essential features in Crawford 1986 (e 27).

See Crawford 1981 (e 26). ⁴ Torelli 1976 (e 130).

414

in the second century B.C., against a general background of the spread of plantations and also of pastoralism oriented towards the market;⁵ by way of contrast, the whole of peninsular Italy had come to use the same coinage and the same system of reckoning within a generation or so after the end of the Second Punic War.⁶ The coinage which the insurgents struck in 91—89 в.с. was a coinage of denarii, with one issue of aurei. It is also worth drawing attention in this context to the Lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae, an inscription on bronze which conserves part of the charter of the Lucanian community of Bantia, to be dated just before the Social War.⁷ It is in the Oscan language, but the Latin script; its institutions are largely borrowed from those of the nearby Latin colony of Venusia, but the text still struggles to create a vocabulary in Oscan to describe them.

Romanized and non-Romanized, insurgent and loyalist, all had a common citizenship from (let us say) 86 в.с. Attempts had been made in the immediate aftermath of the Social War to limit the distribution of the new citizens either to a small minority of the existing Roman tribes or to a small number of specia'ly created additional tribes; and Sulla had tried to deprive some Italian communities of full Roman citizenship. But once these manoeuvres had failed, the whole of Italy south of the Po, perhaps with the exception of some parts of Liguria, formed in theory a single political unit centred on Rome. Even if they remained subject to the jurisdiction of the governor of Gallia Cisalpina, the citizens of the former Latin colony of Placentia were fully entitled to vote in elections at Rome. Entitlement and practice, however, need not coincide and it would be rash to suppose that the orientation of men's political consciousness necessarily changed very much or very fast. One small piece of evidence suggests that it did begin to change. Unknown on inscriptions outside Roman territory and of extreme rarity outside Rome itself before the Social War, consular dating formulae begin to turn up in all parts of Italy with some regularity (see Appendix I, p. 979).

Let us consider first, then, the problem of political structures. Censors were elected for 86 B.C., but they evidently did no more than nibble at the problem of compiling a list of all those who were now Roman citizens. No further census was held for sixteen years; for Sulla certainly took steps to ensure that the Republic could function without censors, whether or not he intended or directed that the census should disappear and whether or not he hoped or wished that the vast mass of new citizens should not be registered.⁸ Even the censors of 70 B.C., in the context of an abandonment of some of the more conspicuously objectionable features of the Sullan settlement, failed to register more than a propor-

⁵ Lepore 1981 (e 7j). ⁶ See Crawford 1985 (в }2o).

⁷ Roman Statutes 1995 (f 684) no. 15. ⁸ Wiseman 1969 (e 137).

Map j. Italy.

tion of those whom they could in theory have registered. No further census was completed before that of Augustus in 28 b.c. But this was not the only problem. The sheer size and dispersion of the citizen body now made plain what had long been the case, namely that no assembly at Rome could be regarded as reflecting the views of the citizen body as a whole; no longer could even the Roman system of group voting be regarded as achieving this end, despite the fact that if a few people from Arpinum travelled to Rome to vote, they could in some sense be seen as the representatives of their section of the tribus Cornelia. And in fact within a very few years of the failed census of 70-69 b.c. there emerged a new way in which the aristocracies, at least, of the towns of Italy could make their views known — decrees passed by their councils and transmitted to the Senate at Rome, as for instance in the course of the Catilinarian crisis of 63 B.C., evoked by Cicero in his defence of Flaccus in 59 B.C.:

Let the laudationes of great municipia and colonies serve to defend him, let the lavish and accurate laudatL of the Senate and people of Rome also serve. To think of that night which almost consigned this city to everlasting darkness .. ,[550]

Of course, in the age of Cicero, the domi nobiles who passed these decrees also attempted at the same time, to a greater extent than ever before, to make their way in politics or society at Rome, emulating the office­holders of the imperial Republic or, like Catullus, sleeping with their wives, sisters and daughters.[551] Now, as earlier, contact of whatever kind between Rome and Italy was to a large extent mediated through personal relationships between members of the Roman and Italian aristocracies and was never insulated from the political life of either. The extension of Roman citizenship and any accompanying acculturation always involved a very delicate balance between the transformation and the conservation of existing political and economic structures.¹¹

A sense of the tensions emerges in the passage in which Velleius Paterculus singles out for praise the help given to Rome in the Social War by his ancestor Minatius Magius of Aeclanum, who was himself the descendant of a man of Capua loyal to Rome in the Second Punic War; Velleius was well aware that the Italian cause was just, but that loyalty to

Rome was an overriding obligauon, that Rome granted after the outbreak of war what she had denied in time of peace (11.16.1-2):

The most important leaders of the Italici, however, were Popaedius Silo, Herius Asinius, Insteius Cato, C. Pontidius, Pontius Telesinus, Marius Egnatius, Papius Mutilus. Nor will I from modesty subtract a particle of glory from my own family, while continuing to tell the truth; for tribute must be paid to the memory of Minatius Magius of Aeclanum, my atavus, the grandson of Decius Magius, a leading Capuan and a most outstanding and loyal man; his loyalty to Rome in this war was such that with a legion which he had raised among the Hirpini he captured Herculaneum along with T. Didius, and Pompeii along with L. Sulla, and seized Compsa ...

The poignancy of the juxtaposition, Minatius Magius beside the insur­gent leaders, speaks for itself. We should also pause for a moment to stand before the Arringatore, a splendid bronze statue of an orator in full flood, now in the Museo Archaeologico di Firenze; belonging to the early Julio-Claudian period, he represents perfectly these men who stood between their two worlds, with the toga and calcei of a magistrate of Perugia, the anulus and angustus clavus of a Roman eques.ⁿ

But it is more than doubtful whether such men pursued their careers in the context of any kind of systematic policy in favour of administrative centralization or social conformity. It is true that there are a few coin- types which seem to advertise thepopularis themes of libertas or the union of Italy and Rome;¹³ but the ideology of a modern nation state seems to be wholly absent from the Roman world and perhaps too much emphasis has been put on the pressures making for the decline of local patriotism in the Italy of the late Republic.¹⁴ We need to remember that, even within the Roman elite, the age of Cicero was a period of exuberant diversity and experimentation with new social and cultural models.¹⁵ And the enfranchisement of Italy actually removed one powerful reason for the privileging of Roman models, namely the need to emphasize the difference in status between, say, a Latin colony with all its rights and privileges, such as Aesernia, and a neighbouring Samnite village. On the other hand, another factor may have been relevant. Just as in the third century в.с. the final stages of the extension of Roman control over Italy coincided with and were influenced by the beginning of Roman expansion overseas, so the period with which we are concerned

Demougin 1988 (d 37) 781; M. Cristofani 1986-7 (f 338).

Crawford 1974 (в 319) i nos. 391 (C. Egnatius Cn.f. Cn.n. Maxsumus), 392 (L. Farsuleius Mensor), 403 (Kalenus, Cordus).

E.g., Galsterer i97Ĉ(E52) 13-14; for the ideology of a modern nation state, see e.g., E. Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen. The Modernisation of Rural France, 1S7 0—1)14 (London, 1979); for the absence of an Italian consciousness in the early Empire, see Gabba 1978 (e 43).