¹ Vespasian: Suetonius, Vesp. 4. 3; Galba: Suetonius, , Galba 9.2Google Scholar; Antoninus Pius: Philostratus, VS 534.

² That this article is concerned with proconsular governors reflects merely the relatively superior quality of evidence for the ‘senatorial’ provinces, not any belief in fundamental differences between ‘senatorial’ and ‘imperial’ provinces.

³ The existence of assizes for example in Asia, has of course, never been doubted; but standard accounts relegate discussion to learned and lengthy footnotes with little effort to integrate the evidence about proconsuls and provincial administration into this background, e.g. Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁴ Latin: Festus, Epitome, p. 41 (Mueller): ‘Tertio, cum a magistratibus iudicii causa populi congregatur’; Greek translation: e.g. Josephus, Ant. Jud. 14. 10. 21 (245): προσελθών μοι ἐν Τράλλεσιν ἄγοντι τὴν ἀγόραιον. Examples are collected and discussed briefly by L. Robert, ‘Études d'épigraphie grecque’, Rev. Phil. 37 (1934), 276, with two further cases in ‘Le Culte de Caligula’, Hellenica 7 (1949), 206Google Scholar. The basic, if not wholly satisfactory, modern account of conventus is by E. Kornemann, ‘Conventus’, in P-W 4 (1900), 1173.

⁵ Strabo, 13. 4. 12 (p. 628): εἰς δὲ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην οὐ μικρὰ συλλαμβάνει τὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μὴ κατὰ φῦλας διελεῖν αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερον τρόπον διατάξαι τὰς διοικήσες, ἐν αἷς τὰς ἀγοραίους ποιοῦνται καὶ τὰς δικαιοδοσίας. Though διίκησις can also be used of the actual assize-hearings themselves (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 45. 10).

⁶ The original draft of this article contained much more detailed argument, based on the admirable analysis of Robert, L., Hellenica 7 (1949), 206Google Scholar, about the identity of the Asian assizes. However, the combination of that article with the commentary of C. Habicht on the new Ephesian inscription (see above, p. 64 ff.) makes such detail redundant. The sceptical reader will find full documentation for the assertions of my text in these two lucid discussions.

⁷ Sherk, R., Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1969), no. $z, ll. 42 fGoogle Scholar.

⁸ The possibility of a date c. 29 B.C. has recently been canvassed by G. W. Bowersock (AJPh 91 (1970), 226 f.), but see the comments of C. Habicht, pp. 68–9; 71 above.

⁹ Pliny, NH 5. 95 ff. For his Augustan source see L. Robert, op. cit., 213 and 227, and Jones, A. H. M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces ² (Oxford, 1971), Appendix I, 503 f. at 506Google Scholar.

¹⁰ On Pliny's method see L. Robert, op. cit. 235 ff. (no conventus for the coast of Caria and the neighbouring islands). For Tralles, renamed as Caesarea, see Pliny, NH 5. 120.

¹¹ Inschriften v. Didyma, no. 148.

¹² L. Robert, op. cit. passim.

¹³ Robert in fact argued that the neopoios from Miletus was only elected because the temple to Gaius was to be built there. However the new inscription from Ephesus (col. I ll. 29 f.) shows that there was a Milesian conventus in Vespasian's time, and it is therefore most economical to believe that it never lost its status attested in the republican period. For detailed argument see C. Habicht, pp. 70–1 above.

¹⁴ Aristides, Or. 50. 78 K. Further evidence for Ephesus at JÖAI 47 (1965), Beibl. p. 29, ll. 20 f. with BE 1968, 462; JÖAI 49 (1968–71), Beibl. p. 22, no. 4, and p. 81 no. 15, and AE 1966, 428.

¹⁵ Aristides, Or. 50. 85K. καὶ δὴ καὶ τότε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τούτῳ δείκνυμεν, ἐντυχόντες πρώτῳ καὶ γὰρ ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς διοικήσεως τῆς περὶ Σμύρναν.

¹⁶ Aristides, , Or. 50. 89–93KGoogle Scholar: (also ibid., 105 f. K. for a criminal suit at Pergamum which concerned Aristides); and cf. Anz. Akad. Wien. 93 (1956), 219 ff.Google Scholar, no. 6 (a lawyer—νομικός—in service of the Pergamene conventus).

¹⁷ Dio Chrysostom, Or. 35. 15 f. and IGR 4. 788–9 = MAMA 6. 180.

¹⁸ Philostratus, VS 524: …καὶ [ὁ Πολέμων] ἐπεδήμει ταῖς Σάρδεσιν ἀγορεύσων δίκην ἐν τοῖς ἑκατὸν ἀνδράσιν ὑφ᾿ ὧν ἐδικιοῦτο ἡ Λυδία.

¹⁹ Cyzicus: Aristides, Or. 51. 43K. (and perhaps also 46 if the emendation of Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968), 287Google Scholar, n. 81, is acceptable); Miletus: Inschriften v. Didyma, no. 279b, ll. 11 f.: ἀγοραίας ἀγομἑνης.

²⁰ Aristides, Or. 50. 96K. and IGR 4. 1638, and perhaps compare IGR 4. 1620 which may refer to the first assizes in Philadelphia. For the town's original relation to Sardis see Pliny, NH 5. 111.

²¹ Keil-Premerstein, , Reisen iiGoogle Scholar, no. 116. It had before belonged to the conventus of Pergamum (Pliny, NH 5. 126).

²² Kornemann, E., ‘Dioecesis’ P-W 5 (1905), 716 fGoogle Scholar. Note that acceptance of this hypothesis already presents a formal problem in that the term dioecesis/διόικησις can sometimes be a homonym for conventus (see Cicero, ad. fam. 3. 8. 4 and 13. 67. 1; and ad Att. 5. 15. 3, 5. 21. 7 and 6. 2. 4) and other times describe a different and larger administrative area.

²³ Strabo 3. 4. 120.

²⁴ Albertini, E., Les Divisions administratives de l'Espagne romaine (Paris, 1923), esp. 43 fGoogle Scholar. His account, which is now generally accepted, can be supplemented by the brief and lucid summary of Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (Wiesbaden, 1969), 236 fGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ The evidence of the titulature is set out clearly by G. Alföldy, op. cit., 237 f. One Greek inscription (ILS 8842) does refer to a διοίκησις Ταρρακωνησίας, but this evidence should be connected with the temporary division of the province under Caracalla (ibid. 244–5).

²⁶ E. Kornemann, op. cit., 721–3 (Africa), and 724 (Asia): both provinces divided into three larger ‘dioceses’, each regularly controlled by a separate legate. For earlier criticism of this argument, see Thomasson, B., Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus (Lund, 1960) i, 71 f.Google Scholar

²⁷ Aristides, Or. 50. 85K. It is interesting to note that the proconsul was in Smyrna at the same time, but for the purpose of attending the annual festival of Dionysus.

²⁸ CIL 6. 1507 and 12. 3170.

²⁹ By Habicht, C. in Gött. Gel. Anz. 215 (1963), 193 f.Google Scholar (a review of Thomasson). The latter registers this evidence in ‘Zum Problem der Diozesen im Africa Proconsularis’, Eranos 62 (1964), 176Google Scholar. The two fragmentary inscriptions are ILS 8842 and AE 1911, 136 which read where relevant: [ὑπα]τικόν, [ἡγεμόνα? ᾿Ασί]ας διο[ικήσεως Περγα]μηνῆς … and […λογ]ιστὴν ἐ[ν ᾿Ασίᾳ? διοικήσεως?…]. Note also the different restoration of the former as [λογιστὴν? ᾿Ασί]ας at ILS 3. 2, p. cxci.

³⁰ AE 1966, 428: ‘leg. dioeceseos Ephesiacae’; JÖAI 49 (1968–1971), Beibl. p. 22, no. 4: πρεσβευτὴν καὶ ἀντιστράτηγον διοικήσεως Ἐφεσιακῆς (perhaps cf. ibid. p. 81 no. 15).

³¹ Similarly, B. Thomasson, op. cit. (n. 26) i, 72: ‘Die erstgennante Provinz [Asia] hatte etwa ein Dutzend Conventstellen, eine Einteilung in Diözesen ist also nicht nur unbeweisen, sondern auch unnötig…’.

³² So, hesitantly, C. Habicht, art. cit. (n. 29), 193.

³³ Aristides, Or. 50. 96K. and above, n. 20.

³⁴ Dig. 1. 16. 4. 6 and 1. 16. 6. 1: ‘Sicut autem mandare iurisdictionem vel non mandare est in arbitrio proconsulis’ etc.

³⁵ A full survey of earlier work can be found in B. Thomasson, op. cit. (n. 26) i, 72 f.

³⁶ For joint dedications by proconsul and legate see e.g. ILAlg. i, 1230–1; IRT 534; ILT 672, IRT 232 and ILA 506 from Africa Proconsularis.

³⁷ ILS 1061.

³⁸ See B. Thomasson, op. cit. i, 79 and ii, 138 f., to which I add AE 1964, 178 and 1968, 109. In fact only two ‘dioceses’—Carthage and Numidia Hipponensis—are clearly proved by this evidence.

³⁹ ibid. i, 78–9. Note also note 197 where he states ‘dioecesis = Bezirk eines Legaten, … διοίκησις conventus oder forum in Asien’.

⁴⁰ Apuleius, , Florida 9. 36 f.Google Scholar, esp. 37: ‘Nam etiam eo tempore quo provinciam circumibas, manente nobis Honorino …’. For the date see R. Syme, REA 61 (1959), 318.

⁴¹ Apuleius, Apologia 59 for the site of the trial.

⁴² Tertullian, ad Scapulam 3. 3. For the date and context of this event see Barnes, T. D., Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), 38 and 267 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Cyprian, Ep. 81. 1 ff.

⁴⁴ Acta Proconsularia 2. 3.

⁴⁵ See e.g. Dig I. 16. II and I. 16. 13.

⁴⁶ Asia: NH 5. 9 ff.; Baetica: 3. 7 ff. Cf. 3. 18 ff. (Hispania Citerior), 3. 139 ff. (Dalmatia), and 4. 117 ff. (Lusitania).

⁴⁷ Egypt: see the demonstration of Wilcken, U., ‘Der ägyptische Konvent’, Archiv für Papyrusforsckung 4 (1908), 365 ff.Google Scholar; Cilicia: Cicero, ad fam. 3. 8. 6 and 15. 4. 2.

⁴⁸ Dio Chrysostom, Or. 40. 10 f. and 33 f.; 45. 6 and 10. The other two privileges were an enlarged council and permission for certain building-projects.

⁴⁹ Pliny, Ep. 10. 58. 1.: ‘conventum incohaturus’.

⁵⁰ JRS 30 (1940), p. 148, 1. 9: ἀγοαίας οὔσης. IG Bulg. 4. 2264, l. 9 (from Parthicopolis) probably refers to markets rather than assizes.

⁵¹ I would like to thank Miss J. M. Reynolds for her kind permission to refer to this text, originally discovered by the late R. G. Goodchild, which she is preparing for publication.

⁵² Though for Achaea note the proconsul Gallio at Corinth (Acts of Apostles 18. 12), and also Suetonius, , Nero 28. 2Google Scholar, a reference to Nero and Sporus visiting the conventus mercatusque of Greece.

⁵³ Sicily: e.g. Verr. v. 28; Cyprus: Cicero, ad Att. 5. 21. 6.

⁵⁴ Dig. 27. 1. 6. 2: εἰκὸς δὲ τῷ μὲν μεγίστῳ ἀριθμῷ χρήσασθαι τὰς μητροπόλεις τῶν ἐθνῶν, τῷ δὲ δευτέρῳ τὰς ἐχούσας ἀγορὰς δικῶν, τῷ δὲ τρίτῳ τὰς λοιπάς. This is Modestinus' own gloss on a letter of Antoninus Pius which spoke of the smaller, greater and greatest cities.

⁵⁵ Gaius, Inst. I. 20: ‘idque fit ultimo die conventus; sed Romae certis diebus apud consilium manumittuntur’.

⁵⁶ Dig. 1. 16. 7 pr. (Ulpian) carries an implicit expectation of an annual tour.

⁵⁷ e.g. J. Keil, P–W 13 (1927), ‘Lydien’, 2195 f.

⁵⁸ Exemptions: Dig. 27. 1. 6. 2; economic benefits: Dio Chrysostom, Or. 35. 15 f. (Apamea in Phrygia). For local jealousy of assize-towns see idem.Or. 40. 33.

⁵⁹ See above, n. 20. This is, of course, not to deny that towns could in special circumstances be deprived of a status, as for example Philadelphia losing the status of metropolis on the damnatio memoriae of Heliogabalus (SEG 17, 528).

⁶⁰ Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1897), 364 f. and 428 f.Google Scholar: Apamea and Eumenea, or these two and Acmonia, as alternative centres of the Apamean conventus.

⁶¹ IGR 4. 788, ll. 4 ff.

⁶² JÖAI 47 (1965, Beibl. 29 f, l. 20 f (with BE 1968, 462). At such a time, of course, there would be a large influx of visitors in Ephesus.

⁶³ Dio Chrysostom, Or. 35. 17 f.: μέτεστι δὲ αὐτοῦ [justice] ταῖς πρώταις πόλεσιν ἐν μέρει παρ᾿ ἔτος. On this passage see Th. Mommsen, ‘Die Einführung des asianischen Kalenders’, Ath. Mitt. 24 (1899), 275 ff., at 281 n. 1.

⁶⁴ Note also that the idea that Eumenea was an alternative assize-centre originates from a misinterpretation of OGIS, 458. The towns where copies of this edict were found—Apamea, Dorylaeum, Eumenea, Priene, and Maionia—were not necessarily, pace Ramsay, assize-centres; see the convincing rebuttal of Robert, L., Hellenica 7 (1949), 233 fGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ Plutarch, Anim. an corp. aff. 501 E–F.

⁶⁶ Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971), 14 fGoogle Scholar. suggests Smyrna as the location, and dates the speech to Plutarch's eafly life.

⁶⁷ See above, n. 51.

⁶⁸ Cicero, ad Att. 5. 21. 9 and 6. 2. 4.

⁶⁹ See Coroi, A. N., ‘La Papyrologie et l'organisation judiciaire de l'Égypte sous le principat’ Actes du V.^e Congrès Internationale de Papyrologie (Brussels, 1938), 615 f., esp. 638 f.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Proposed by Wlassak, M., ‘Zum römischen Provinzialprozess’, S.-Ber. Ak. Wien 140, 4 (1919) P. 35, n. 54Google Scholar. and accepted, for example, in the standard handbooks of Kaser, M., Das römische Zivilprozessrecht (Munich, 1966), 370 and nn. 29–30Google Scholar, and Wenger, L., Institutions des römischen Zivilprozessrechts (Munich, 1925), 72–3Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Theophilus, Inst. 3. 12 pr.: bonorum emptio … τότε χώραν ἔχουσα ἡνίκα τὰ δικαστήρια ὀρδινάρια ἥν, τούτεστιν ἡνίκα ἐκινοῦντο ὲν μόνῳ καιρῷ τοῦ κονβέντου…σήμερον δὲ τῶν δικαστηρίων ἐξτραορδιναρίων ὄντων καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ καιρῷ γυμναζομένων.

⁷² M. Wlassak, op. cit. (n. 70), n. 54, almost inverts this sense by stating that the reference to ‘ordinary’ courts should ‘unbedenklich’ indicate the existence of extraordinary courts. If this is a logically sound argument—and I doubt it—it does not seem necessary or convincing to propose that any extraordinary courts before Diocletian (that is courts not held during an assize) were permanent tribunals. Because all the courts which met without break in Theophilus' time were called extraordinary, it hardly follows that any putative extraoidinary courts at an earlier period were necessarily permanent.

⁷³ Note also firstly that Egypt was the only province which lacked local civil courts, and second that when the proconsul—who was the only Roman magistrate in his province with full imperium and iurisdictio—and his legate(s) were on assize tour there was no theoretically competent Roman magistrate present who could have presided over the standing courts!

⁷⁴ Dio Chrysostom, Or. 35. 15 f.

⁷⁵ idem. 40 33. The passage has nothing to do with local (i.e. non-Roman) jurisdiction at Prusa, as M. Kaser, op. cit. (n. 70), 121, n. 28.

⁷⁶ see above, n. 51.

⁷⁷ See A. N. Coroi, op. cit. (n. 69), 644 f. Defendants could also be summoned by evocatio; I fail to see the practical difference, and they were perhaps interchangeable forms of action (ibid., 650 ff.).

⁷⁸ e.g. P. Oxy. 3. 484 (A.D.138), ll. 19 f: ’…παραγένηται ὅπου ἐὰν ὁ κράτιστος ἡγεμὼν…διαλογίζηται ἤ δικαιοδοτῇ, καὶ προσκαρτερήση μέχρι κρίσεως ἵνα φανῇ τὸ γεγονός.

⁷⁹ See A. N. Coroi, op. cit. (n. 69), 654 f., with references.

⁸⁰ P. Oxy. 36. 2754, esp. ll. 5 f. The document was probably issued to regulate a forthcoming assize but the marked asyndeton between sections and the reference to cases of a previous assize make the circumstantial background uncertain. However, the facts to be deduced about procedure seem certain.

⁸¹ ibid., ll. 5–7.

⁸² ibid., ll. 7–13.

⁸³ For the continued operation of local courts during the empire, see generally Dig. 50. 1. 29 and 50. 9. 6.; Plutarch, Praec. rei publ. ger. 815A; and Philostratus, VS. 532. In specific towns note especially the charters of Malaga and Salpensa (FIRA i², no. 24 and 23), and the letter of Antoninus Pius to a Macedonian community (IG Bulg. 4. 2263, ll. 12 ff.). For modern discussions see Nörr, D., Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit ² (Munich, 1969), 30 ff.Google Scholar; also note that CJL 3. 412 (from Smyrna), incessantly quoted in this context, has no clear connection with local jurisdiction at all.

⁸⁴ Africa: above, nn. 42–4; Asia: above, nn. 65–6.

⁸⁵ Aristides, Or. 50. 78 f. K.: ὡς δ᾿ ἦκεν ἡ κυρία καὶ τοὔνομα ἐκλήθη.

⁸⁶ ibid., 50. 88 f.K.

⁸⁷ Pliny, Ep. 10. 81. 1 f.

⁸⁸ Apologia 1. 1 f.

⁸⁹ Dig. 1. 16. 9. 4.

⁹⁰ For the use of denuntiatio in civil law see especially Dig. 5. 2. 7. and 48. 19. 5 pr. with M. Kaser, op. cit. (n. 70), 372 f.

⁹¹ Aristides, , Or. 50. 77Google Scholar and 94K. The sum is, of course, not negligible if we think, for example, of the annual rate of pay for legionaries.

⁹² Cf. Dig. 5. 1. 79 (de officio proconsulis 5): defendants who had been rashly brought to law should receive compensation for the costs of the suit and for travel expenses.

⁹³ For the proper procedure in criminal cases see Dig. 48. 2. 3 pr. and 48. 2. 7 pr. f., with, briefly, Jones, A. H. M., The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (Oxford, 1972), 116 f.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The sad case of the Egyptian lady who obeyed a summons to the prefect's court at Alexandria is apposite (P. Oxy. 3. 486). Her accuser did not appear, and while she waited in Alexandria her property was destroyed by an excessive flood of the Nile.

⁹⁵ See Dig. 1. 16. 7. 2: ‘Cum plenissimam autem iurisdictionem proconsul habeat, omnium partes qui Romae vel quasi magistrates vel extra ordinem ius dicunt, ad ipsum pertinent’. Cf. Dig. 1. 18. 10 and 1. 18. 11.

⁹⁶ See now the dossier of the attempt by a widow, Babatha, in Arabia to obtain proper care for her son from his tutors by approaching the governor's tribunal (Eretz Israel 8 (1967), 46Google Scholar = SB 10288). For commentary see Lemosse, M., ‘Le Procès de Babatha’, The Irish Jurist, N.S. 3 (1968), 363Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Note however the prefect of Egypt who received 1,804 petitions in two and a half days of an assize at Arsinoe in 208–10 (P. Yale 61, ll. 5–7); but little can be made of such an isolated figure.

⁹⁸ Dig. 1. 16. 10 pr.

⁹⁹ See Josephus, BJ 2. 16. 4 (366); Apollonius of Tyana, Ep. 58, and Philostratus, VS 548; also cf. Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Munich, 1970), 84, n. 41Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ For the Republic see Marshall, A. J., ‘Governors on the Move’, Phoenix 20 (1966), 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰¹ See Hirschfeld, O., Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten ² (Berlin, 1905), 59 f.Google Scholar, with references.

¹⁰² Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), 604 f.Google Scholar, who cites especially Pliny, Ep. 10, 31; 47; 56; 58; 65 and 72.

¹⁰³ e.g. Pliny, , Ep. 6. 22. 4Google Scholar: the case of an adviser (comes) of a proconsul who had tampered with the commentarii.

¹⁰⁴ Or. 50. 78 K.

¹⁰⁵ Apuleius, , Florida 9. 12Google Scholar: ‘provinciae instrumento refertur’. Cf. Dig. 4. 6. 33. 1 (a reference to scribes who take dow n the acta of governors).

¹⁰⁶ Eusebius, HE 5. 18. Frontinus was probably proconsul under Marcus or Commodus (PIR ² A 348).

¹⁰⁷ Anatolian Studies 10 (1960), 71, no. 124Google Scholar = AE 1961, 24 (cf. BE 1961, 780). Note that the first governor of the province, Q. Veranius, had already tried to impose more honest standards on the civic archives (Anz. Ak. Wiss. Wien. 99 (1962), 5 f.Google Scholar, no. 2—which still needs a proper edition and commentary).

¹⁰⁸ Contrast again the situation in Egypt where, for example, copies of contracts were sent to the central record-offices (P. Oxy. 1. 34 verso). Briefly see Reinmuth, O. W., The Prefect of Egypt (Leipzig 1935). 41 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ A good example is the record of the dispute over lands at Aezani in the reign of Hadrian (IGR 4. 571, now re-edited by Laffi, U., ‘I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi’, Athenaeum, N.S. 49 (1971), 3)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ AE 1966, 436; cf. Dig. 1. 16. 4. 5 for one of the imperial rescripts mentioned by Ulpian about the privileged states of Ephesus.

¹¹¹ ILS 423.

¹¹² Dig. 1. 16. 9. 1 (Ulpian, de officio proconsulis 1).

¹¹³ Dig. 1. 16. 7. 1.

¹¹⁴ None of what follows, of course, is intended as a full discussion of the topics adumbrated, but merely as a demonstration of an essential means by which relations between governor and governed were mediated.

¹¹⁵ Pliny, Ep. 10. 47.

¹¹⁶ ibid. 10. 48.

¹¹⁷ Dio Chrysostom, Or. 48. 1 f., esp. 2.: ζητήσει γὰρ αὐτὸς τὰ δημόσια, κἂν ὑμεῖς κωλύειν θέλητε.

¹¹⁸ ibid. 48. 3 (Varenus' return), and 9 (δημόσια χρήματα).

¹¹⁹ Pliny, Ep. 10. 37.

¹²⁰ AE 1966, 424b, 11. 2 f.: ἐπὶ Καλουεισίου Ῥούσωνος ἀνθυπάτου τοῦ καὶ φροντίσαντος τῆς [εἰ]σαγωγῆς καὶ καθιερώσαντος with AE 1967, 471. Cf., also from Ephesus, Anz. Ah. Wiss. Wien. 1961, 72 = BE 1963, 210 (A.D. 80–2). For a locus classicus see ILS 5795: various procurators of Mauretania Caesariensis and the construction of an aqueduct at Saldae.

¹²¹ Dig. 49. 4. 1. 4.

¹²² e.g. Abbott, F. F. and Johnson, A. C., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), 202Google Scholar.

¹²³ Dio Chrysostom, Or. 48. 1 and 15 (Varenus); and 45. 15 f. (redevelopment scheme).

¹²⁴ Forsch. Eph. ii, no. 19 = F. F. Abbott and A. C. Johnson, op. cit. (n. 122), no. 98, esp. ll. 54 f.: Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὑμεῖν ὀρθῶς καὶ καλῶς ὥσπερ [ἂν] ε(ἰ) αὐτὸς εἰσηγησάμενος ἔτυχ[ο]ν νενομοθετήσθω.

¹²⁵ For the implication of εἰσηγέομαι see Th. Mommsen, ‘Volksbeschluss der Ephesier zu Ehren des Kaisers Antoninus Pius’, JÖAI 3 (1900), 1 ff. Note also Pliny, Ep. 2. 11. 23 for a speech made by a legate of the proconsul of Africa in the council chamber of Lepcis.

¹²⁶ The latter tendency is deplored by Plutarch Praec. ger. reipub. 814e–815a.

¹²⁷ So the statement of D. Magie, op. cit. (n. 3), 641, that ‘the enactments [of councils and people] had to be approved by the Roman governor’, rests on this kind of error. For examples of local enactments in eastern cities without sign of Roman approval see D. Nörr, op. cit. (n. 83), 23, nn. 66–73.

¹²⁸ Though note the members of an important Ephesian family recorded to have judged cases in place of a proconsul of the late second century (Forsch. Eph. 3, no. 72); the isolation of this case makes it all the more puzzling.

¹²⁹ For the regular λογισταί of the gerousia of Ephesus in the second century see Oliver, J. H., ‘The Sacred Gerusia’, Hesperia, Supp. vi (1941), nos. 7, 9 and 11Google Scholar. For curatores generally still see Liebenam, W., ‘Curator Reipublicae’, Philologus 56 (1897), 290 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. I hope to return to this subject elsewhere.

¹³⁰ Procurators and roads: IGR 3. 15 and ILS 253 (Bithynia under Nero and Vespasian); ILS 4052 (Crete under Marcus); boundaries: Ins. Cret. 1. 8, 49 and BCH 93 (1969), 846 f., no. 3 (Crete under Nero and Domitian). Special legates: see the survey, unfortunately incomplete, of Pflaum, H. G., ‘Légats imperiaux à l'intérieur de provinces sénatoriales’, Hommages à Albert Grenier (Brussels, 1962), 1232Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Fiscal cases: Dig. 1. 16. 9 pr. Civil cases: note especially CJ 3. 13. 1 (Caracalla) and CJ 3. 3. 1 (Gordian III). See generally Brunt, P. A., ‘Procuratorial Jurisdiction’, Latomus 25 (1966), 461 ff.Google Scholar