^{page 408 note 1} Verr. 2. 2. 13. 32. For discussion of the lex, see Mommsen, Th., Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 1887), iii. 745 f.Google Scholar; Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (Oxford, 1901) pp. 114 f.Google Scholar; Rotondi, G., Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milan, 1912), p. 489Google Scholar; Carcopino, J., La Loi d'Hieron et les Romains (Paris, 1919), pp. 71 f., 144 f.Google Scholar; V. M. Scramuzza in Frank, T., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1937), iii. 246 f.Google Scholar; Accame, S., Il dominio romano in Grecia dallaguerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 36f.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} Verr. 2. 2. 33. For the use of ‘perperam’ in a legal context cf. Pro Caecina 69; for the wording of the protasis cf. Daube, D., Forms of Roman Legislation (Oxford, 1956), pp. 4f.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 3} Not attested before Gaius, Institutes 4. 52; Digest 5. 1. 16. Cf. Ad Q. Fr. 1. 1.3. 10 and 7. 20 for the governor's duty to supervise his own judicial delegates, and Pro Flacco 4. 11 for removal of a Roman recuperator from duty for partiality.

^{page 409 note 1} Status of Romans employed for judicial business in Sicily: Verr. 2. 2. 29. 70, ‘honestos’; 2. 2. 71, ‘equitem Romanum’; 2. 2. 79, ‘honestos’; 2. 2. 81, ‘viris primariis’; 2. 3. 136, ‘conventus honestus Syracusis, multi equites Romani, viri primarii, ex qua copia recuperatores reici oporteret.’ Cf. Pro Flacco 40, Equites serve in Asia; SEG ix 8, 11. 4f., a census requirement for iudices in Cyrene. Cyrene Edict I (ibid., II. 7 f.) makes the first reference in a public decree to corruption among Roman jurors in the provinces.

^{page 409 note 2} Taken in conjunction with the clause in section 32, ‘Siculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet Buis legibus’, the phrase ‘quod civis cum civi ageret’ (section 33) shows that the litigants were Greek, the words ‘suae leges’ show that the trials concerned were conducted ‘domi’ by local law, while the use of ‘ad civem suum iudicem venerant’ shows that the judge was Greek.

^{page 409 note 3} Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1898), P. 467, n. 4Google Scholar; Röm. Staatsr. 1³. 233. Cowles, F. H., Gaius Verres; An Historical Study (Ithaca, 1917), p. 34Google Scholar, seems also to relate the decree to judges appointed by Costa, Verres. E., Cicerone giureconsulto² (Bologna, 1927), ii. 42 and 159, n. 4Google Scholar, relates the decree to Verres' own court and endorses Mommsen's interpretation.

^{page 410 note 1} Verr. 2. 2. 27. 66. For infamia resulting from conviction of judicial corruption, see Lenel, O., Das Edictum Perpetuum³ (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 77 f., 92 f.Google Scholar Cowles (above, p. 409, n. 3), p. 40 accepts Cicero's version of the judge's punishment as literally accurate. Verr. 2. 2. 56–57 suggests that Verres' procedure would be advocatio of defendant and witnesses, then personal cognitio aided by a consilium. But the iudicia reversed by Verres' successor as governor (Verr. 2. 2. 62–63) were decisions of Verres' own court and not relevant to the edict under discussion.

^{page 410 note 2} Similarly, Cicero gives no hint in descriptions of his own assize work in Cilicia that he allowed appeal from the city courts, whose autonomy he allowed by edict (Ad Att. 6. I. 15) to his tribunal. Had he done so, we would surely read of it in letters where he boasts of his reform of magisterial corruption. See Ad Att 6. 2. 5; Ad Fam. 3.8. 5. Transfer of a suit from city to Roman court is granted as a special privilege for a limited class of cases to three provincials in the senatusconsultum de Asclepiade et sociis of 78 B.C. (IGRR 1. 118, 11. 28 f.); this suggests that such access was not normally available then.

For the later growth of appeal from the city courts to the Roman authorities, see, e.g., IGRR 4. 1044, with Paton, W. R. and Hicks, E. L., The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891), pp. 41 f.Google Scholar; Aristides, Aelius, On Rome, chs. 38–39Google Scholar; Plut. Moralia 814 f.Google Scholar; Philostr. Vit. Soph. 1. 25 (532).Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 3} Verr. 2. 2. 57; cf. 2. 2. 59, ‘suum decretum pecunia esse temptatum’.

^{page 410 note 4} Op. cit. (above, p. 401, n. 1), 295–6Google Scholar. He was possibly misled by his view (ibid. 114) that under the lex Rupilia it was the governor who appointed the native judge to try cases between citizens of the same state. There is no evidence to support this theory, and it is not probable that the governor played any role at all in suits in which two non-Roman litigants were dealt with in their home city under local law. This clause of the lex simply absolved him of direct responsibility for internal civil business of the Greeks, which he had neither time nor reason to administer. In Pliny's day, Sicily contained as many as sixty-eight towns (N.H. 3. 8. 88); cf. E. W. Gray's brief but valuable remarks in FRS xlii (1952), 124.

^{page 411 note 1} Verr. 2. 2. 32, ‘domi certet Buis legibus’. See Jones, A. H. M., FRS xxvi (1936), 229 f.Google Scholar and xxxi (194i), 26 f., for argument against Mommsen's theory that citizens of unprivileged provincial cities were dediticii with no rights save those allowed them de facto by Rome. They were, rather, peregrini belonging to communities whose autonomy was based on the lex provinciae. See also Buckland, W. W., ‘L’ “Edictum provinciale” ’, Revue historique de Droit franfais et étranger, 4th series, xiii (1934), 81 f.Google Scholar, for the absence of non-Roman civil law from the governor's edict.

^{page 411 note 2} Op. cit. (above, p. 408, n. 1), 296, n. 1Google Scholar, On Verr. 2.2.66; cf. Verr. 2. 2. 33, ‘Cum iudex alium de suo iudicio putaret iudicaturum segue in eo capitis periculum aditurum, voluntatem spectaret eius quem statim decapite suo putaret iudicaturum’. This makes it clear that any trial by Verres resulting from application of the edict was to be trial of the iudex, not retrial of the suit.

^{page 411 note 3} Röm. Strafrecht, p. 467, n. 4.Google Scholar Costa (above, P. 409, n. 3), 2. 42 echoes this with the censorious phrase ‘una esorbitanza illegale’.

^{page 411 note 4} Judicial autonomy regulated in Cicero's edict for Cilicia: Ad Att. 6. 1. 15; 6. 2. 4, on which see Larsen, J. A. O., ‘“Foreign Judges” in Cicero Ad Atticum vi. 15’, CP xliii (1948), 187–90.Google Scholar Cicero's ruling came from the edict of Q. Mucius Scaevola for Asia, and Cicero implies that his predecessor Ap. Claudius Pulcher had not allowed it. Presumably, the grant might be withheld on the ground of previous abuse.

^{page 412 note 1} Verres' edictal coverage: Verr. 2. 2. 90. The decree under discussion presumably appeared in his edictum perpetuum also, as a qualification after his duplication of the lex Rupilia regulations; his ruling ‘si qui perperam iudicarit senatus’ (Verr. 2. 2. 34) similarly qualified his edictal clause confirming the judicial duties of city councils which were assigned by the lex. Pliny, Ep. IO. 79, shows that the governor was recognized as the proper authority for interpretation of regulations for local administration in the lex provinciae and for supervision of its working. Note that the Senate itself was prepared to quash by decree verdicts of local courts which it thought unjust; cf. the senatusconsultum de Asclepiade, etc. (above, p. 410, n. 2), 11. 32 f.

^{page 412 note 2} Polybius 6. 56. 13 (Greek magistrates not to be trusted with public funds); 18.34. 7 (bribery prevalent in Greek public life). Cicero's boasts of successful treatment of this corruption (Ad Att. 6. 2. 5; Ad Fam. 3. 8. 5) establish both that it was a proper matter for the governor's attention and that vigilance was needed. As defence counsel for a governor, Cicero makes great play of the unreliability of Greeks in court in Pro Flacco g-10; 11–12; 23; 36; 37. Cf. ibid. 43 and 45, for an attack on peculation by Greek magistrates, and Ad Q. Fr. I. I. 5. 16 for an interesting assessment of Greek untrustworthiness. Pliny detected embezzlement by officials of Prusa (Ep. 10. 17 A), while Germanicus dealt with ‘magistratuum iniuriae’ in the Greek East (Tac. Ann. 2. 54).

^{page 412 note 3} Imported judges a remedy for corruption: Tarn, W. W. and Griffith, G. T., Hellenistic Civilization³ (London, 1952), p. 88Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1941), p. 613.Google Scholar Their use occasioned by civil discord: see, e.g., CIG 2671; IG 12. 5. 1065; BCH I (1926), no. 13, 1. II. For their use in the Roman period, see Robert, L., BCH lii (1928), 417 f.Google Scholar; Larsen, J. A. O., CP xxxviii (1943), 252–3.Google Scholar For biased city courts under Roman rule, see, e.g., SIG ³ 780, 11. 30 f. (Cnidus). For faction and class bitterness in Roman Sicily, see Diod. Sic. 35. 2. 48, with Scramuzza (above, p. 408, n. 1), 242–3. For the same in the E. Greek cities, see, e.g., Cicero, Ad Q. Fr. 1. 1. 8. 25; Pro Flacco 18; Pliny, Ep. 10, nos. 34, 92, 93; Philostr. Vit. Soph. I. 25 (531)Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, , op. cit., 970 f.Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., Historia x (1961), 213–14Google Scholar; Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965), chs. 1 and 8.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} See Verr. 2. 2. 90 f.; 2. 2. 60 for such trials, apparently by the governor's cognitio. Verres' corrupt motive: Verr. 2. 5. 103; cf. 2. 1. 88 for a similar charge that he interfered in the records of Miletus. For these city records, see Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City (Oxford, 1940), p. 238Google Scholar; Robert, L., Études Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), pp. 453, 459, 487.Google Scholar For local law on the subject of their falsification, see Verr. 2. 2. 90; Pro Flacco 39. The Dyme inscription (SIG ³ 684, 11. 8 and 23) lists the burning of the public archives during a political disturbance as a matter of serious concern to Rome. To suit his purpose as defence counsel, Cicero stresses Greek willingness to falsify records in Pro Flacco 20–21; 36.

^{page 413 note 2} Charges of intimidation by the edict: Verr. 2. 2. 33; 67. Its application: Verr. 2. 2. 66. Cowles (above, p. 409, n. 3), 34 endorses Cicero's contention and agrees that by directing the edict at the courts Verres' of course practically dictated the verdicts'. Ciaceri, E., Cicerone e i suoi tempi (Milan, 1939), 1, 61Google Scholar, also condemns the edict as a ruse to control all verdicts.

^{page 413 note 3} Note that the governor was himself made iable for judicial corruption by the lex Julia le pecuniis repetundis of 59 B.C. (Digest 48. 11. 3). The corresponding duty to supervise the integrity of the city courts of his province could, in turn, only be his.