^{page 11 note 1} The provinces in Sulla's time were: Hither and Further Spain, Hither and Further Gaul, Sardinia - Corsica, Sicily, Africa, Macedonia Asia and Cilicia.

^{page 11 note 2} de prov. cons, 7, 17.

^{page 12 note 1} The important thing was to get the consular provinces settled before the consuls were elected, and accordingly tribunes were debarred from blocking this. As, when things were normal, the praetorian provinces were practically settled too, there had been no need to prohibit intercessio.

^{page 12 note 2} Compare the phrase Gabinio et Pisoni provincia rogata est in pro Sest. 24, 53, and in de dom. 9, 23, Gabinio … Syriam nominatim dedisti, and L. Pisoni nonne nominatim populos liberos … vinctos et constrictos tradidisti? also de dom. 21, 55 and 26, 70, impediebantur … ea lege quam idem iste de Macedonia Syriaque tulerat.

^{page 12 note 3} It is certain that Piso and Gabinius started for their provinces before the end of 58. This is implied by Cicero's question—An, cum preficiscebamini paludati in provincias vel emptas velereptas, consules vos quisquam putavit? (in Pis. 13, 31) conf. also pro Sest. 33, 71. It seems probable indeed that, like other commands conferred by special laws, e.g. the lex Vatinia and probably the lex Trebonia, the provincial imperium of Piso and Gabinius commenced potentially as soon as the law was passed, though the government might be carried on temporarily either by the previous governor or by a legatus of the new one. It is difficult to explain in any other way Cicero's statement, twice repeated, that Piso governed Macedonia for a triennium (in Pis. 23, 55 and 35, 86), since he certainly returned in the beginning of 55. I imagine that any provincial command (at any rate, if not guaranteed by law for a definite term) could at once be brought to an end by a law assigning the province to a new governor. Gabinius, e.g., whose province was made consular for 54, would naturally retain it till the end of 55. He was, however, technically superseded by the lex Trebonia, and if he stayed till the end of the year, this was because Crassus did not start from Rome till November (ad Att. 4–13, 2), and because Gabinius refused to hand over the province to a legatus sent forward by Crassus (Dio Cass. 39. 60).

^{page 13 note 1} The allotment of praetorian provinces probably took place quite early in each year for the year succeeding and there might sometimes be a question as to which provinces should be thrown in, and which allowed to remain under present governors. It was in such cases that resort from personal considerations might be had to intercessio.

^{page 13 note 2} This could no doubt have been done, though probably at a subsequent meeting, called to revise the arrangement already made. If the number of praetors was insufficient, two of the existing praetorian provinces could be prorogued for another year under the same governors. Cicero was no doubt justified in foreseeing probable attempts to block such a manipulation of provincial appointments, but, as we shall see, it was successfully managed in the case of Piso.

^{page 13 note 3} For this view of Cicero's position and its constitutional basis I appeal to the following passage of the de provinciis consularibus (7, 17)-Atqui duas Gallias qui decernit consulibus duobus, hos (Piso and Gabinius) retinet ambo-qui autem alteram Galliam et aut Syriam aut Macedoniam, tamen alterum retinet, et in utriusque part scelere disparem condicionem facit. ‘Faciam’ iniquit ‘illas praetorias, ut Pisoni et Gabinio succedatur statim’ Si hic sinat, tuncenim tribunus intercedere poterit, nunc non potest. Itaque ego idem, qui nunc consulibus iis qui designati erunt Syriam Macedoniamque decerno, decernam easdem praetorias, ut eas praetores annuas provincias habeant, et eos quam primum videamus, quos animo aequo videre non possimus. Sed, mihi credite, nunquam illis succedetur, nisi cum ea lege referetur qua intercedi de provinciis non licebit. Itaque Jwc tempore omisso annus est integer vobis expectandus.

^{page 14 note 1} The provinces, however, held by Silanus and Antonius would not be consular in the technical sense, since that term was limited to the two provinces held by the consuls of the previous year. E.g., the two Gauls were consular in 58, but, though Caesar still held them, not in 57, in which year the consular provinces were Macedonia and Syria. Similarly, though, Piso and Gabinius still held Macedonia and Syria in 56, the consular provinces in that year were Cilicia and Hither Spain, held by Lentulus Spinther and Metellus Nepos. Again, Spain and Syria, granted to Pompey and Crassus for five years, were consular in 54, but not in 53, when Cilicia was the only consular province, held by Appius Claudius.

^{page 15 note 1} I might have put the matter more positively, for L. Caesar was one of the duumviri perduellionis in the trial of Rabirius, while Figulus is mentioned by Cicero among the consulares present in the senate when the Catilinarians were condemned (ad Att. 12, 21, 1).