atkinson, the governors of the province asia in the reign of augustus

8/12/2019 ATKINSON, The Governors of the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/atkinson-the-governors-of-the-province-asia-in-the-reign-of-augustus 1/32

The Governors of the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus

Author(s): K. M. T. AtkinsonSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jul., 1958), pp. 300-330Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434578 .

Accessed: 09/04/2011 04:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434578?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434578?origin=JSTOR-pdf




THE GOVERNORS OF THE PROVINCE ASIA IN THE REIGN OF

AUGUSTUS

Since the publication of Magie's book on the Roman provinces in Asia

Minor it is natural to take his list of governors' as the basis for any further

study of the fasti of the province Asia. The justification for examining the list

afresh is that it has grown out of the work of earlier researchers, in particular

from the work of Waddington,2who wrote before the study of Roman prosopo-

graphy had developed to any considerable extent; nor was it a part of Magie's

purpose to give special consideration to this particular part of the fasti of this

particular province. Now that other historians have thrown new light on the

rest of the career of some of the known proconsuls of Asia in the reign of Au-

gustus, it seems desirable to consider whether the principles of dating which

have hitherto been assumed on the basis of the literary evidence are so strictly

applicable to the reign of Augustus as that evidence taken by itself wouldimply.

Our only direct source for the method of appointment of senatorial govern-

ors in general, and governors of Asia and Africa in particular, is Dio, who goes

into this matter in detail in connection with the division of provinces in

27 B.C., thereby implying that the system operated from that time onwards

exactly as he describes it. He says that governors of senatorial provinces,

whether consulars or praetorians, were selected by lot, and to hold office for

one year; an interval of at least five years was imposed between the holding of

the office in Rome and the corresponding provincial governorship, and theprovinces of Asia and Africa were reserved exclusively for ex-consuls.3Apart

I Magie, op. cit. (see the following note), II, p. is8of.

2 Bibliography and abbreviations (universally accepted ones omitted): Waddington,

Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques de l'Empire Romain (I872), referred to in the rest of this

article as 'Waddington'; V. Chapot, La Province Proconsulaire d'Asie (1904), cited as

'Chapot'; R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, I939 ('Syme'); M.'Grant, From Imperiumto

Auctoritas, 1944, ('Grant, F.I.T.A.'); Magie, Roman Rule in Asia, vols. I and II, I950

('Magie'); Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and

Tiberius, ed. 2. 1955, cited as 'Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents.' Dessau, Inscr. Lat.

Select., is cited as 'Dess.'; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Graecarum, ed. 3, as 'Syll.3' Ann6eEpigraphique as 'A.E.' See also Syme, J.R.S. 1955, 155-I60, and Addendum (p. 330

below).

3Dio 53,14: Tm 8i 8 3ou)PjU, ta. .&v T0o9 TnaTrux6aL 'rZv 'f 'AgpLxnV xcs 'rs

'Aesav, xcl -rok atpoay-rx6at 'ro& otTrc 7r&vrc &7r&vet[.c. otvf 8& 8' natv aurolq

a7r&y6pewcs, V8wva 7p'o ntVTe 1'T@V VCT& Tb &v Tr6kC1L&piCL x?,jpoiatOcx (cf. Dio 40. 56,



The Governorsof the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus 30I

from the last provision, which is also referred to by Strabo (XVII, 3.24.840),

though without indication of when precisely it was introduced, all the rest, asis well known, was in accordance with the Lex Pompeia of 52 B.C. Dio notes

however certain other changes introduced into the system by Augustus,'the

universal adoption of the name 'proconsuls'both for consular and forpraetorian

governors, the abolition of the former military insignia in the case of all

governors of senatorial provinces, and the extra seniority given in the allotting

of provinces on account of the number of the candidate's children. Here we may

note an anachronism, albeit a slight one, in his account if it is intended as a

description of the system adopted in 27 B.C., for the special privileges for

married senators with children are hardly likely to have been put into practicaleffect before the passing of the Lex Julia demaritandisordinibus in i8 B.C. More

serious an anachronism is Dio's assumption in the same passage that adlectio

interpraetorioswas already at that time an established practice ;" this certainly

leaves room for the suspicion that there may be other features in the account

which belong rather to the established system of the developed Principate than

to its first years, or even to the reign of Augustus in general. If this turned out

to be the case it could hardly surprise us, in view of Dio's general methods in

dealing with this period so remote from his own times.

Consideration of the recent history of this part of the empire at the timewhen the settlement of 27 B.C. was made also suggests some doubt whether the

province Asia was so firmly held and so indubitably loyal right from the be-

ginning of the Principate that it was now officially assumed that it could be

dealt with by a more or less mechanical selection of governors from the number

of available ex-consuls. The same question in fact arises over Africa, but the

present inquiry is not concerned with it. With regard to Asia, we need to

remember the long record of Roman exactions and depredations from which

this province had suffered in the period of the civil wars (not to go back even so

far as the explosion of anti-Roman feeling which had marked the beginning ofthe second Mithridatic War). The demands made by rival generals both, or all,

claiming at the same time authority to raise troops and levy tribute in the

describing the provision of the Lex Pompeia in similar terms. See also on the Lex Pompeia

Willems, Le S6nat de la RWpublique Romaine, II (I883). p. 588, n. 2, and on the rule of

annual tenure, ibid., p. I67, n. i). Reaffirmation of the five-year interval (rather than an

intermediate enactment) is probably also implied in Suet. Aug. 36, ne magistratus deposito

honore statim in provincias mitterentur (no indication being given of the date of the

change).

4 Dio 53.I3:70o64 pkv (i. e. senatorial governors) xal &TrcaT0Eou xodxXnp&T7o6q

tvaXt,

7 1V CtTP 7o?U7rOa8tiOCq 1 yOFou 7povo1Aod7rpoaetn .... t.LrTe yoqompaocdtuAvour

wnLte CTpwvryLxf IaO)yrt XpcosUivou. xoxt avOurn-rouq xoXtclaO, 86rtTOU4860 'ro

O7r-el)x6,roc, O' aol to6q &X)ou0Tv &vaponynx6,Trcv, h oxoUovCJTJv e aTpT'rnYp-

x&vaL, j6vov 6v ocT .... To0C;8i &Tkpou5 U' 6 re &kutoo tuak ....

6 The passage is quoted ini the preceding note.



302 KATHLEEN M. T. ATKINSON

province-as for example Labienus and the governors sent by the triumvirs

from the end of 4I B.C.-; the savage reprisals upon individual cities foradherence whether to the one side or to the other; the levying of ten years'

tribute at one swoop by Cassius in 43 B.C. followed by the exaction of nine

years' tribute (representedas a concession) by Antony two years later-these

were happenings which must have made their permanent impression of the

injustice of Roman rule, however naturally mild and compliant the native

population.6 How could these people become convinced all in a moment that

Octavian (even after the formal announcement of his restoration of constitu-

tional government at home) was both in actual fact permanently established

and in disposition mild and well-intentioned? Moreover there were stilldisturbancesof the peace fromwithout on the northernbordersof the province

by the still untamed Thracians which lasted into Caligula's reign,7 and also

frequent earthquakes which, however illogically, might revive memories of

past miseries due to the Romans. In these circumstances there is no real

justification for Chapot'sexpression of surprise at the 'bizarrerie'of Augustus'

decision to include Asia in the list of provinces assigned to Agrippa in his

proconsulare imperiumof I8-13 B.C. Indeed it has now been shown by Magie

that Agrippa also held a similar command covering the province Asia as well

as others in 23-2I B.C.,8and it is worth noting that this arrangementwas madein the years immediately following one of the serious earthquakes in the pro-

vince, in 25 (?) B.C.9Nor is the attention which the emperorpaid in personto

this region, both before and after his settlement of 27 B.C., to be overlooked.

His long stay in 30-29 B.C., endinigwith the establishment of the new cult of

himself and the goddess Roma with its centre at Pergamum, suggests a clear

recognition of the necessity for special efforts to overcome the inheritance of

suspicion directed against Rome which faced him in this province, as in

Bithynia. At the same time continuity in good works-no easy matter this of

which to persuade these particular provinces-was subtly suggested by theparallel cult of Julius Caesar and Rome instituted 'for Romans only' at Ephe-

sus. A similar purpose may perhaps be detected in Augustus' second stay in

Asia in 2I-i9 B.C.;10 omingas it did immediately after the exerciseof authority

in the province by Agrippa, it will have given conclusive proof that under the

new regime benefits conferred by one proconsul were not to be immediately

repudiated and cancelled out by the next. Dio's account (54.7) also implies

6 On the whole subject of the treatment of the province Asia in the late Republic see

Chapot (op. cit. above, n. 2), especially p. 32f., 50f., 56f.

7 Cf. Chapot, p. 63, n. i, and for conditions about io B.C., Vell. II, 98.

8 Cf. Magie, I, p. 468f., II, p. 1330, notes 2 and 3 (first command); I, p. 476f., II,

p. 1339, n. 26 (second command).

* So Magie, II, I331, n. 7 (Tralles). But cf. Suet. Tib. 8 (Laodicea, Thyatira, Chios,

apparently, in 24 B.C.)10 Cf. Magie, I, p. 469f.



The Governorsof the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus 303

further reorganisation of the province by Augustus personally at this time.

Clearly it could not have been said of this province that in 27 B.C. it wasperdomitaet statim omissa; for at least fifteen years afterwards, including the

period of Agrippa's activity there, it was the object of continued care and

watchfulness on the part of the emperor; and as it happened, another serious

earthquake afflicted the province in I2 B.C., which as we shall see was made

the occasion of yet another special arrangement emanating from the emperor.

It therefore seems somewhat rashto assume, as several historians have done,

that in the reign of Augustus the only reason for occasional shortening of the

prescriptive interval of five years between consulship and proconsulshipwas

consideration of internal power-politics and personal favour, and that therewere no instances of proconsuls of praetorian rank in Asia in this period. That

amici Caesaris account for all the cases of irregularity in this respect, and that

the irregularity is limited to shorteningof the interval after the consulship,and

to permissiongiven to the proconsul in question to have his head represented

on the provincial coinage, is a view which originated with Waddington"1anid

has been re-affirmed in recent years both by R. Syme und by M. Grant. Thus

Syme remarks:12 "The young consul of thirty-three did not have to wait too

long for a province-Africa or Asia might be his by the workingof the lot after

an interval of five years. But favour could secure curtailment of legal prescrip-tion-". He cites as examples L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. ord. i6 B.C.), who

is known from dated African inscriptions (CIL VIII, 68) to have been pro-

consul of Africa four years later, and for an even shorter interval, Paullus

Fabius Maximus and C. Asinius Gallus (consuls respectively in ii and 8 B.C.),

whose dates as proconsuls of Asia are regarded as certain."' Iullus Antonius

(cos. ord. IO B.C.) may be adduced as another example in Asia.14

These names certainly lend support to the view that in this matter amici

Caesaris were treated on a special footing, a theory which Grant has sought to

reinforceby considering the stylistic affinities of provincial coins which show orseem to show the head of the governor. This leads him to conclude that the

younger M. Tullius Cicero (cos. 30 B.C.) whose head appears as it would seem

on coins of Magnesiaad Sipylum, but who certainly was not an amicusCaesaris,

was proconsul of Asia in 29/8 B.C., that is, before the new system came into

force.'5 This is not the place to discuss Grant's theory further in detail, but it

may be remarked that it involves placing in the list of amici Caesaris one pro-

11 Waddington, p. 98 (also in M61. de Num., 2e s6rie, p. 133f.).

1" Syme, p. 395.13 For C. Asinius Gallus see below, p. 327. 1 prefer to reserve my opinion for the

presenton Paullus Fabius Maximus, the date of whose proconsulship depends on the evidence of

the Calendar-Edict (O.G.I.S. 458, S.E.G. IV, 4go, Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents,no. 98). The problem will be the subject of a forthcoming article.

14 On Iullus Antonius as proconsul of Asia see below, p. 327.16 See below, p. 325.




consul of Asia (M.Plautius Silvanus, cos. 2 B.C.) and two proconsuls of Africa

who are not otherwise attested as belonging to this category, P. QuinctiliusVarus (cos. I3 B.C., with Tiberius) and L. Volusius Saturninus (cos. I2 B.C.),

all of whose names and portraits appear on the local coinage during their

respective proconsulships.16

It is true that some evidence of rather remote parentelawith Tiberius has

been found in the case of Volusius Saturninus,16and with Augustus in the case

of Quinctilius Varus,17but neither this fact nor evidence of a distinguished

military careeris enough in itself to establish membershipof the class of amici

Caesaris,which was an institutiQndirectly derived from the Hellenistic period,"8

and implied that the amici were attached to the Princeps in an advisorycapacity, much as the members of his consiliumwere attached to a provincial

governor. Indeed there is a serious dangerof a petitioprincipii in the argument

that amici Caesariswere promoted to be provincial governors independently

of the normalworkingof the lot; if we have evidence of early promotion we are

tempted thereby to say that the person appointed was a amicus Caesaris,and

(with Syme) that the appointment was due to 'favour' rather than to serious

consideration of the special needs of the province and the special qualifications

of the newly appointedgovernor.On the other hand, if there is literary evidence

that the governor in question was an amicus Caesaris, it may be tempting toassume that he became proconsul very soon after his consulship; but the

argument is not a valid one, as may be seen from the example of L. Nonius

Asprenas, consul A.D. 6, describedby Suetonius (Aug. 56) as arctiusiunctusto

the Princeps, who became procos.Africaeonly in A.D. I4. It is in itself unlikely

that the improvedcondition of the senatorial provinces in the reignof Augustus,

which no one would deny, came about under a system combining chance and

favouritism. It would seem more plausible to suggest, as an explanation of the

appointment of amici to proconsulships,that the two 'consular'provinces were

recognised to have been somewhat neglected, and at the same time requiredtoprovide resources, during the fighting in the north which occupied the years

12-8 B.C., and that from about the time of the ending of hostilities governors

were sent out to the provinces of Asia and Africa who were well-known to

Augustus and were trusted by him. Special concessions and privileges made at

this time in the provinces in question, on instructions from home, could well

account for the heads of governors on the local coinage without the need to

assume that these were without exception amici Caesaris.

16

Cf. Grant,F.I.T.A., p. 228, and for Paullus Fabius Maximus and Asinius Gallus,

ibid. p. 387, "coinage with their heads was intended as propaganda for the new amicitia."

It is not clear why he assumes it to be 'new'. He also regards the case of Plautius Silvanus

as similar (p. 388).1la Syme, p. 424.

17 ibid., p- 434-

18 See my paper-in Aegyptus xxxii (I952), p. 204f.




But it is important to realise that this is not the only time in the reign of

Augustus when similar arrangements may have seemed desirable; the Cantabri-an War and Augustus' own long absence in Spain, for example, could well have

had the same effect. Thus we may perhaps explain the case of L. Sempronius

Atratinus (cos. 34 B.C.), resurrected from the past to govern Africa and to hold

a triumph from this province in October, 2I B.C. Soon afterwards there is the

even more exceptional case of L. Cornelius Balbus, never consul, who holds a

triumph (the last general to do so) as procos.ex Africa in March,19 B.C.

This last instance leads us to ask whether the general rule that Asia and

Africa should always be 'consular' had yet been established at this time. In

fact there seems to be an instance of a praetorian proconsul of Asia, at orshortly before the time of Balbus in Africa, in C. Iunius Silanus (cos. I7 B.C.),

the reason for this identification of the proconsul mentioned in the letter of

Agrippa to the city of Ephesus19 rather than M. Iunius Silanus the consul of

25 B.C., as proposed by Waddington)20 eing that the governor is referredto in

the letter under the title of strategos,which clearly implies a praetorian pro-

consul, as may be seen from Augustus' own use of the same title in referring to

the proconsuls of CreteandCyrene.21 The epigraphic evidence on this point from

Cyrene was unknown to Waddington, who therefore concluded that lack of

precision on the part of literary writers accounted for the term strategos nAgrippa's letter.22But we can now see that Agrippa and Augustus in speaking

of (or to) proconsuls in official documents would use the correct term; their

usage is not to be considered as on the same footing as that of (for example)

Tacitus, whose actual preference for the inexact expression in such cases is

wvident.

In the light of the chronology established by Magie and others for Agrippa's

two visits to the East with proconsulare mperium, in 23-2i B.C. and from

i6 B.C.,23 he governorship of (C. lunius) Silanus must be assigned to the first

of these periods on account of the date of his consulship, and M. IuniusSilanus, the consul of 25 B.C., must be removed from the list of proconsuls.

These two instances of praetorian proconsuls in the early part of the reign of

Augustus, the one in Africa and the other in Asia, inevitably raise the question

whether other consuls in the fasti of Asia were in fact praetorian governors in

this province at an earlier period than the accepted view would suppose. But

further doubts as to the correctness of the usually accepted list of proconsuls

19 Cf. Joseph., A.J. xvi, 6.4 (067f.), containing the phrase lyp4a+ 8i xoCi EL4y r6j

aSpOrPTny6(tvoC &PPOxaLv n8El5 &vocyxKn 'Iou8xtov kyyuZ4 6[Aooyelv).20 Cf. Waddington, no. 55 (followed by Magie, II, p. 1341, n. 34, and in his list of pro-

consuls, ibid. p. i18of.).21 Cf. Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, no. 311, line 37.22 Waddington, p. go. He notes also the reference in the letter of Agrippa cited in

Joseph., A.J. xvi, I6gf., to Flavius the strategos of Libya (i.e. Cyrene).

28 See above, p. 302 and note 8.

20 HistoriaVII, 3




arise from consideration of the criteria which (in addition to those implied by

Dio) have in fact been adopted in compiling it. The assumption of an averageinterval of ten years between consulship and proconsulship is one of these,

although in fact there is not one single known instance of this in the reign of

Augustus. Thus Dittenberger (Syll.3 785, n. 2) dates Antistius Vetus (consul

6 B.C.) as procos.Asiae about A.D. 3-4, "quia tum decennii fere intervallum

inter consulatum et proconsulatum Asiae esse solebat." Similarly in referring

to the proconsul M. Herennius Picens (Syll.3, 784), Dittenberger, supposing

(erroneously)24 hat the consul of A.D. i is the one in question, dates his

governorship of Asia "fere decennio post." Similarly G. Lafaye in I.G.R.R.

IV (94)ascribes to about io A.D. the proconsulship of L. CalpurniusPiso Augur,cos. i B.C. A further assumption commonly made is that the order of proconsul-

ships was the same as the order of consulships, and even more meticulously,

that suflectiheld the proconsulship later than ordinariiof the same year, where

both are recorded as proconsuls." Yet as we have seen it is specially mentioned

by Dio that consideration of the ius trium liberorumwas taken into account in

the drawing of lots for the provinces,26and this would in any case disturb, after

I8 B.C. if not earlier, the strict chronological order of the consuls.

It is worthy of remark that the list resulting from these assumptions on the

part of modern scholars produces rather a surprising ratio of governors for thetwo periods c. 3o-Io B. C. and io B.C.-I4 A.D.-five altogether for the first

twenty years, fourteen (ormore likely, fifteen)27for the following twenty-four

years. This is perhaps due to chance; but one would have expected the years of

the formation of the imperial cuilt in Asia, from 29 B.C. onwards, to have

resulted in an unusually large number of coins and inscriptions relating to

Roman governors, and the possibility cannot be overlooked that a few of these

governors have been post-dated on the basis of the dates of their consulships

when in fact the governorship was a praetorian one, as in the case of Silanus

already discussed. This might do something to fill part of the long gap whichappears in Magic's ist of governorsin the years c. 2I-io B.C.,on the supposition

that other praetorian proconsuls were appointed in Asia during Agrippa's

second term of proconsularemperium n the East. It also seems ratherstrange,

if in fact Asia was officially scheduled as 'consular' as early as 27 B.C., that

none of the recorded governors of Asia who are generally assigned to the reign

of Augustus are men who held the consulship in the last few years before

Actium, seeing that at least half of the numerous suffect consuls nominated in

2 On M. Herennius Picens see further below, p. 324.25 Cf. Magie, II, p. 1347, n. 6i, referring to Vibius Postumuis, and suggesting that since

he was cos. suff. in A.D. 5, his proconsulship would have followed that of Messalla Volesus,

cos. ord. in the same year.26 See above, p. 301.

27 See below, p. 314, on Sulpicius Quirinius.



The Governorsof the ProvinceAsia in the Reign of Augustus 307

advance at the Treaty of Brundisium were supporters of Octavian. But this

peculiarity is perhaps to be accounted for rather by revising the dates of someof the individual proconsulships27ahan by rejecting the main hypothesis, and

in fact, the fixed rule that Asia and Africa should be 'consular' may not im-

probably have been adopted as the natural consequence of an initial period in

which it was adjudged best, in an annual decision on this matter (surviving

from the Republic) to select these two provinces as 'consular';the reason being

perhaps (in the case of Asia) the need to appease and flatter a province which

had been particularly oppressed in the Republic and deprived of its natural

prosperity. It is to be supposed that such decisions would immediately fall once

more within the competence of the Senate after the laying down by Octavianof his triumviral powers in 28 B.C. The early years of the Principate, then,

before the introduction of special privileges for married senators with children

in i8 B.C., may well have been marked by unusual regularity in the succession

of proconsuls in the chronological order of their consulships and at six years'

interval from it, especially as this was a period when plenty of ex-consuls must

have been available.

It is not suggested that the considerations mentioned above lead to any

positive conclusions. On the contrary, they serve to show that all is shifting

and uncertain until more evidence can be obtained about individual proconsuls.Btit above all, it is necessary to draw attention to yet one more source of

irregularity in the succession of proconsuls, namely the appointment from time

to time of proconsuls who were not selected by lot, but were specially selected

(atpe'ro(), nd held their position for two years, or even three,28instead of one.

Dio, who mentions such appointments as having been made in a number of

instances in order to guard against revolts in the senatorial provinces at the

time of the great Pannonian Revolt of A.D. 6,29 s doubtless referring to selection

of governors extra sortemauctoritateAug. Caesaris ex senatusconsulto,as in the

case of P. Paquius Scaeva in Cyprusabout 15 B.C.30A fuller account of what isprobably the same procedure is found in Tacitus' description of the appoint-

ment made to the province of Africa (a closer parallel to Asia) in A.D. 2I, on

account of the revolt of Tacfarinas; the Senate then excluded this province

from the operation of the sortitio, but passed at the same time a decretumre-

questing Tiberius to make an appointment; the emperor then nominated

(nominavit) two candidates ex quis proconsuleAfricae legeretur.3"

27a See below, p. 324f.

28 In the case of C. VibiusPostumus (below, p. 308f.).29 Dio 55.28.2 (in A.D. 6, at tlle outbreak of the Pannionian Revolt) xxl Tr6XL;q

6Uux OYOC &VE ;pL4OV,O ic xet br 8O'

'rou &XUrou5v tO4 toV LoOUca-,-T

aiLpe'rkuye a'Cvl.XVAC pCOTiiv, &p ctx.

30 Dess. 915.

30a Tac. Ann. III, 32, ad fin.



308 KATHLEEN. T. ATKINSON

In speaking of the special arrangements made in A.D. 6, Dio seems to imply

that two years was a more or less standard duration for irregularappointmentsof this kind. He also mentions that in the province ofAsia a similarappointment

by 'election', for two years, was made to deal with the situation created by the

great earthquake of I2 B.C.,31when Augustus as a measure of relief paid the

whole of a year's tribute of Asia himself into the aerarium. It is impossible,

bearing in mind the actual Greek in this passage of Dio, to agree with

Magie's explanation of this arrangement as being merely the continuation

of the current governor in office for a second term.32 The implication of

Dio's words (in spite of some slight corruption of the text which must be

admitted) is clear; he means that a newgovernor, 'elected', not chosen by lot,was sent.33

There are two known cases of individual governors of Asia in the reign of

Augustus who held the position for a second (consecutive) term at least; Potitus

Valerius Messalla (cos. suff.29 B.C. ?)34was procos.Asiae bis at a date not pre-

cisely known,35and C. Vibius Postumus (cos. suff. A.D. 5) was proconsul for

three successive years (6o Tp'L &0v 7rroNTo),36 as is now usually supposed from

A.D. I3 to I6.37 This dating however depends on the unsound assumption that

because Messalla Volesus (son of the Potitus just mentioned) had been consul

ordinarius in the year when Postumus was merely sujfectus,Volesus' term asproconsul of Asia, which not being signalled as unusualpresumablyfell within

al Dio 54.30.3: 7retBL -re T 'Aatx sZ 96Ovo4koup7ocX0q &V 8a Gettaouzq y&ta-rM

BEIT0, t6v -rey6pov muri 'r6v eteov AxrZv utoi xp ljt0V 'rT XOLVq?a7veyxe, XoXt

&pxovT& i & to xX'pou, X?' oUX atpet6v, &kdl&0. n TrpoaT&oce.he text is evidently

disturbed, but the meaning is clear from 55.28.2 (cited above, n. 29) and from 53.13.2

(cited above, it. 4). We should probably read, with the early editors followed by Fitzler-

Seeck in R.E. X, 359, &pXO)Vrxot oix Ax To xXy'pou, DX)' 4tpeT6v ...

32 Cf. above, notes 3I and 29. Magie's interpretation (LI, p. 479) would require ri;

8h'repovIToc

in place of itl Suo ?T.

33 Cf. note 3I, ad fin.3 Cf. P.I.R. III, p. 370, no. 94.

3s Dess. 8964 (Rome; cf. A.E. i908, no. 229). Dessau remarks "mirum eum dici pro-

consulem bis, non proconsul(em) per biennium." But there is the parallel of TroTpIq&vOivona-

-rog in the same reign (see n. 36), and on coins and inscriptions from Africa of the reign

of Tiberius and later the formula procos. II (or III) is frequently found (e.g. of L. Apronius,

on the coin cited in P.I.R.2 I, p. I89; also in Reynolds and Ward Perkins, Inscriptions of

Roman Tripolitania, 1952, nos. 273, 346.) These parahels seem to have escaped the atten-

tion of H.-G. Pflaum who in Rev. Et. Lat. 32 (I954) p. 435f., in a review of A. E. Gordon's

monograph on Potitus Valerius Messalla, cos. 29 B.C., (Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Arch.,

vol. 3, no.2,

p. 3I-64), claims thatin

the inscription above referred to (Dess. 8964)bis

ismore likely to go with leg. (which follows, being the last word preserved of the text) than

with [procos.] Asiae, which immediately precedes.

36 O.G.I.S. 469 (Samos). For the formula, cf. preceding note.

37 Cf. P.I.R. III, p. 423, no. 392, citing Diehl and Holleaux in B.C.H., I884, p. 467. This

dating is also followed by Magie, I, p. 489.




the years II-I4 A.D.,38must have preceded that of Postumus.3 It seems most

unlikely that such niceties would be considered at a time of exceptional crisissuch as the outbreak of the Pannonian Revolt when on Dio's evidence special

governors to senatorial provinces were 'elected',40we know from the fact that

Postumus was 'thrice proconsul' that his appointment to Asia was exceptional;

we know of no crisis in the last years of Augustus which might account for this,

and possible slackening of control by the emperor in his declining years ob-

viously could have nothing to do with it, since in such conditions the normal

senatorial machineryin the Senate's own provinces would be all the morelikely

to function. On balance of probabilities it seems therefore not unlikely that

Vibius Postumus was one of the specially selected governors sent out tosenatorial provinces in A.D. 6. This interpretation of the chronology conflicts

with no other dated proconsul of Asia,"'and would fit in with the evidence of

Dio, Velleius, and Florus, which brings Vibius Postumus on the scene in

Pannonia only at the very end of the revolt, which he was destined to finish off

in the absence of Tiberius and Germanicus.42

As for Potitus Valerius Messalla, procos. Asiae bis, we have no further

knowledge of his later career except that he was afterwards (and this for the

first time) legatus of some province unknown." This however is enough to in-

dicate that he held his proconsulship at no very long interval from his consul-ship. Consideration of the dates of other proconsuls of Asia in the years fol-

lowing 23B.C.4`a whichwould represent the minimum interval) favours the view

that he immediately succeeded Agrippa's legatus Silanus on Agrippa's own

return from the East early in 21 B.C., and held the proconsulship for the rest

of this proconsularyear and for the whole of the next.

38 Cf. Seneca, De ira, II, 5.5: Volesus nuper sub divo Augusto proconsul Asiae cum

trecentos una die securi percussisset (etc.). In view of the tender years of Seneca at the

time of Augustus' death (cf. P.I.R.2 I, p. 102, no. 617) no precise indication of date can be

intended. From Tac. Ann., 3.68, a reference to his trial and condemnation, it appears that

the trial (probably for extortion; cf. Ann. III, 66) was concluded before the death of

Augustus.

39Cf. above, note 25.

40 Above, note 29.

"1It is not possible to accept the suggestion of Groag (P.I.R.2 II, p. 68) that L. Calpur-

nius Piso Augur (ibid., no. 290) may have been procos. Asiae in A.D. 6, merely on the

grounds that Cossus Lentulus, his colleague in the consulship in i B.C., appears to have

governed Africa in that year. This is to attribute far too great regularity to the working

of the system. Note also that both the consuls of 8 B.C. (a year when there were no suffecti),

C. Asinius Gallus and C. Marcius Censorinus, became proconsuls of Asia, and two of the

suffect consuls of A.D. 8 both became proconsuls of Africa.

42 Reff. in P.I.R. III, p. 423, no. 392.

43 For his cursus see Dess. 8964, with the comments in note 35 above, and the monograph

by A. E. Gordon there cited, with the review by Syme, J.R.S. 1955, p. 158f.43a See below, p. 325 f-



3IO KATHLE EN M. T. ATKINSON

In this last as in other individual cases (and so for example with the unknown

special governor who was sent for two years after the earthquake of I2 B.C.)any chance of exact determination of the year depends on the time of year when

the proconsul normally took uiphis office. No formal enactment on the date of

departure of the governor-designate from Rome seems to have existed before

Claudius introduced the rule, intended to prevent undue lingering in the

capital, that they should leave before the middle of April." The emperorhad

apparently made a preliminary attempt to prescribe April ist."4 but this

evidently proved impracticable. This serves to indicate what had previously

been the normal practice, namely to leave for the province afterthe middle of

April.The sortitio of provinces in the early Principate took place a month or two

earlier than this; in A.D. 2I it was very soon after Tiberius had entered on his

fourth consulship.4" This was evidently a survival from the Republic, for in

58 B.C. the sortitio had taken place before March I5.47As regardsthe date of

departure of the governor designate from Rome in the late Republic, the Lex

Pompeia seems to have permitted a relaxation rather than the reverse. For

whereas Q.Cicero n 58 B.C.is foundleaving his province (Asia)beforeMay1st,

his brother, one of the first governors to hold office under the Lex Pompeia,

only left Rome at the beginning of May to take up his proconsulship,49 nd hemakes it clear that neither he nor the other consular governor of this year,

Bibulus, was obliged to arrive in his province by any fixed date; in fact he

seems to take some credit to himself for having arrived in his own province by

July 30,50 and implies that Bibulus was delayinghis arrival in Syriamuchlonger

in order to be able to stay in the province as late as possible,," the rule being

apparently that the year of the actual proconsulshipranfromthe date of arrival

in the province.62Nevertheless it appears that the population of Ciliciawereall

expecting Ciceroto arrive about the time that he did,63 o that his journey out,

however leisurely it may appear, was presumablynot unusually protracted.At44 Magie (I, p. 541) so interprcts the evidence of Dio 6o.ii.6 (7rp6-rt ro5 'A7rpt?.(ou

voutLY1VLoq)nd 60.17.3 (rplv aoro5v T6v 3A7rpE>XtovbroupeLv).

45 Apparently in the previous year; cf. note 44.

46 Tac. Ann. III, 32 (A.D. 21, soon afterTiberius had entered on his fourth consulship).

47 Cic. ad Att. I, 15.I. (In notes 47-55 the citations are from Nobbe's edition of Cicero,

Opera, I869).

48 ad Att. III, 9.I.

49 He started from near Pompeii on May io (ad Att. V, 2.1; cf. V, 3).

50 ad Fam. XV, 4, ad Att. V, 15.1; I6.I.

51 acl Att. V. i6.4: Bibulus ne cogitabat quidem etiam nunc in provinciam suam

accedere; id autem facere ob cain causam dicebant, (uod tardius vellet decedere. Cf. ad

Fiam. XV, I.T (still unicertain at a datc later than Septemlber i9 whether Bibulus has yet

arrived in hiisprovince of Syria).52 ad Att. V, I4.I; 15.1; Cf. above, n. 51, on Bibulus' alleged motive for delay.53 ad Fam. XV, 4.2.



The Governorsof the Province Asia in the Reignof Augustus 3II

the other end of the tenure of the governorship some degree of standardisation

was imposed by the Lex Cornelia which in Cicero's time forbade a retiringgovernor to stay longerthan thirty days after the arrival of his successor,54 o

that we may reasonably assume that the chronological side of the whole

machinerywas regulated, in so far as it was regulated at all, by commonconsent

and understanding among the members of the governing class ;" if a proconsul

or propraetor chose to arrive in his province verv late indeed, he might find

that he had even less than a year in which to earn the Senate's necessary

approbation at the end.

Since the theory of the early Principate was that the Senate continued to

govern its own provinces as before, since there was no furthergenerallegislationon the matters in question after the Lex Pompeia, and since as we have seen

the dates of the sortitioand of the customary departurefrom Rome remained as

before even after the reign of Augustus, it seems justifiable to assume that

governors of Asia in the reign of Augustus normally arrived in their province

some time in June orpossibly in July. At all events we may safely assumethat

if a proconsul is attested in Asia near the beginning of May, his governorship

had begun in the previous summer.

The approximatedate of the change-over from one governorshipto the next

being thus fixed, we are in a better position to judge in a doubtful matteralready raised, the years when the special governor was in office who was ap-

pointed for a term of two years after the earthquake. Dio's account (54.30)

implies that news of the earthquake first reached Rome after the death of

Agrippa which occurred towards the end of March,5 and therefore after the

sortitiofor provinces which were to be governed in the year 12/1i B.C. Dio also

mentions, after the death and funeral of Agrippa and before he mentions the

earthquake, various other matters which were raised in senatusconsultao the

same year. Thus the probability is that the proconsul of Asia appointed by the

sortitio early in this year had already left for his province, even if he had notactually arrived,when the disaster occurred. It is likely thereforethat Augustus

contented himself as an immediate measure with cancelling the tribute of Asia

for the currentyear, and that the special two-year governorshipbegan from the

spring of the year iI/Io B.C.

Finally, in considering the practice of Augustus' reign in regard to the nor-

mal order of senior posts in the cursus honorum, t must be stressed that this

has to be deduced (so far as Asia is concerned)from the list of proconsuls based

on individual cases (examinedbelow, p. 3I2 f.) rather than the dates of proconsul-

ships from any hard and fast principle. Whatever may have been the case in

f4 ad Fam. III, 6.3.

55 cf. ad Fam. III, 3.1 (Cicero suggests this kind of accommodation to his predecessorin Cilicia).

56 News of his last illness reached Rorne from Campania on March 19 (Dio 54.28)



3I2 KATHLEEN M. T. ATKINSON

later reigns, the evidence for the reign of Augustus shows that at all events

there wasno fixed rule as to the order of the proconsulship of Asia and thefirst tenur ofi a senior imperial command. For example, of the governors of

Asia, Sex.eAppuleius (cos. 29 B.C) immediately after his consulship held a

command (orwhich he triumphed)in Spain, and a comparable example later in

the reign is that of the subject of the 'acephalous' nscription from Tibur (Dessau

9I8) ;5P similarly, late in the reign L. Nonius Asprenas, cos. A.D. 6, was legatus

in command of two legions in Germany under Varus before becoming proconsul

of Africa (a comparable province to Asia) in A.D. 14. On the other hand, we

have seen (above,p. 309) that Potitus Valerius Messalla (cos. 29 B.C.) held the

proconsulship of Asia before he was legatus, and the same applies much laterin the reign to Asinius Gallus (cos. 8 B.C., procos. Asiae 6/5 B.C., never through-

out nis life holder of any senior military command).

After considering the various anomalies which have been mentioned in the

foregoing account, it seems permissible to draw the general conclusion that in

this department of administration at least the reign of Augustus was markedby

the absence of rigidity and fixed rules, which were only gradually being evolved

during the course of it, as the result of adaptation and practical experience.

Apparently unusual cases need never cause us surprise.

NOTES ON INDIVIDUAL GOVERNORSHIPS

i. Additions to the List of Proconsuls

i. L. VINIcIUs M. f., (cos. suff. 33 B.C.), probably 27/6 B.C. See Syme,

J.R.S. I955, P. I59 (on the evidence of a newly-recognised inscription at

Leyden).

2. L. VOLCACIusULLUS(?26/25 B.C.)

Both Mommsen and Dittenberger have denied on grounds of chronology

that there can be any connection between the L. Volcacius Tullus named in the

Calendar Edict (O.G.I.S. 458, line 43, where however [&vOu]7trd'ous now

attested before his name67 and the consul of the same name who appears as

cos. ord. in 33 B.C. On the other hand, both these scholars agreed that the

'Tullus' whom Propertius addresses in the first book and elsewhere in his

Elegies,57amentioning in the first book that his uncle held an office with im-

perium,is to be identified with the nephew of the consul of 33 B.C.68 n this case

the dates fit extremely well; the first book of the Elegies is admitted to have

been published very early in the reign of Augustus, 'precariously' dated, how-

56a See further below, p. 314f.

57 For evidence see Syme, J.R.S. 1955, 159.

67a Propertius, Eleg. I, i.9; 6.if.; 22.1; IV, 22.58 cf. O.G.I.S. 458, p. 54, n. 28.



The Governorsof the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus 3I3

ever, according to H. E. Butler in OxfordClass. Dict., s.v., to any precise year;

in fact the elder Tullus' consulship appears to have played a large place in thescheme of dating. I shall not here give any further consideration to the problem

of the identity of the Volcacius Tullus of 0. G.I.S. 458,11but would draw atten-

tion once more to the evidence about the elder and the younger Tullus provided

independently of this by Propertius. These indications do not appear to have

been sufficiently studied hitherto, and they lead to the indisputable conclusion

that the elder Tullus (i.e. the consul of 33 B.C.) became proconsul of Asia

shortly before Propertius completed the first book of his Elegies.

The significant poem for this purpose is I. 6, and its most significant passage

the reference in line I9 to the form of the uncle's authority:Tu patrui meritas conareanteiresecures.

Both the context in general and the use of the term secures in particular

show that this is not a mere referenceto the uncle's consulship, as has apparent-

ly been generally assumed by scholars. As is well known, the urbanmagistrates

had no right to the insignia of the axes within thefasces during their exercise of

the imperium domi, and this was certainly the only form of the imperium

exercised at all by the consuls in the early part of the reign of Augustus and

indeed long before it. The reference in Propertius must therefore be to a

provincial imperium, and here it is perfectly in place.The whole poem may be paraphrased thus: "It is not fear, Tullus, which

forbids me to see with you the Adriatic or Aegean, or further afield the realm of

Memnon-but Cynthia keeps me here. What do I careto visit Athens or see the

ancient wealth of Asia? You have so far been a soldier, with no time for love.

Try then to earn an even greater right to the 'axes' (see above) than your

uncle, and give back to the socii the rights which they have forgotten (20: et

veteraoblitis iura refer sociis). Whether you are to be in luxurious Ionia or

where the stream of the Pactolus range stains the Lydian fields, if you are to

have a share in the granted imperium (34: (seu) accepti pars eris imperii), thenspare a thought for me at times."

Could a poet possibly indicate more clearly that his friend was going out

to the province Asia as one of the comitesof his uncle, recently appointed as

governor, and with the prospect of an even more influential position in the

province as legatusproconsulis?The custom by which governors of senatorial

provinces at this period and earlier normally took with them their promising

young relatives in this way is too well known to need comment. In this case a

special function is indicated both for uncle and nephew, to restore the iura of

the provincials, for long lost sight of in the period of confusion. This gives anapproximate date very early in the reign of Augustus, and very probably as a

part of the policy of 'restoring the Republic' announcedat Rome in 27 B.C., for

we find the Senate confirming the earlier treaty with Mytilene in the same6g ibid.




province in the year 25 B.C.,Oand a letter of Augustus re-affirmedthe libertas

of Chiosin his eighth consulship(26 B.C.),6Oaothclearly instancesof the restora-tion of iura oblitaat this time.

Since it seems unlikely that Augustus would inaugurate the 'restoration of

the Republic' with an appointment to a senatorial province which contravened

the Lex Pompeia, it seems likely that Volcacius Tullus (the elder, cos. 33 B.C.)

would hold his proconsulship of Asia not earlier than 27/26 B.C. At the same

time it appears that he cannot have held it later than, 26 B.C., because at the

end of his first book of the Elegies, in which the poem discussed above is included,

Propertius alludes to the death of CorneliusGallus (whichoccurred n the same

year 26 B.C.)as of recent occurrence.6" oth on grounds of general probabilityin its relation to events in Rome at this time, and on account of the date of the

foedus with Mytilene and the decision relating to Chios which are alluded to

above, the most likely year for Tullus' governorship is 26/25 C.B.

3. ? P. SULPICIUS UIRINIUS, I B.C./A.D. i

The controversy over the 'acephalous' inscription from Tibur (Dess. 918;

cf. P.I.R. III, p. 287 f.) is well known. The general who is the subject of this

elogium erved as proconsuloi Asia after earlier service in a provincewherethere

had been operationsconnected with a king (cf.regem n the firstline preserved),for which he received the honour of a double supplicatio and for himself the

ornamentatriumphalia; and before a later governorship of Syria. The career

certainly fits that otherwise attested for Sulpicius Quirinius62 etter than it fits

any other known person. But since for the purpose of the present study it is

above all important to discover whether the proconsul of Asia here referredto

is one of those elsewhere named as such, or an addition to the list, reasonsmust

be given, as briefly as the complexity of the problem permits, for preferringthe

attribution to Quirinius,first fully worked out by Mommsen63 nd later, with

modifications, by Syme,64 to any of the three rival theories.

60 I.G.R.R. IV, 33.

6ea Syl11.. 785 (cited by the proconsul as a later document on the same subject; the

text is actually incomplete at this point).61 Propert. I, 22.7. Gallum per medios ereptum Caesaris enses Effugere ignotas non

potuisse manus (implying ignorance at the time by Propertius of the precise manner of

Gallus' death in exile and by suicide, in 26 B.C. For the date, cf. Dio 53.23. A second and

less cryptic reference to Gallus' recent death occurs in Propert. III, 32.91 f. cf. P.I.R. III,

p. 104, no. 752).

62 Tacitus (Ann. III, 48) quotes an extract from the senatorial laudatio delivered at the

time of his death: mox (i.e. after his consulship) expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensiumcastellis insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armeniam optinenti,

Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat. For the other relevant passages in Strabo, Luke,

and Josephus see P.I.R. III, p. 288.

63 Res Gestae Divi Augusti2, p. I6I-178.

64 JKlio xxxiii (1934) p. 133f., cf. J.G.C. Anderson in C.A.H. X, p. 878.




Professor Lily Ross Taylor has argued the case for M.Titius, seeing in the

rex an allusion to the setting up by Rome of a new king in Media in 20 B.C."This theory suffers from the fatal defect of failing to account for the orna-

mentatriumphaliamentioned by the inscription, since at the time of the east-

ern demonstrations of 20 B.C. there was no fighting at all, as Professor Taylor

admits. Dio does indeed state that the Senate, anticipating fighting inArmenia

between the adherents of the existing king and the new Roman nominee, had

voted a supplicatio (0uactu,Dio 54, 9.5) to Tiberius (not, be it noticed, to his

legatus) in advance; but he implies that in the event Tiberius' claim to credit

in the matter was merely a hollow sham (ea vi vuveToo; xaoL.'' &pvr-qvL

7r0oraacq), and would undoubtedly have used a further grant of ornamentatriumphalia to reinforce his point, had any such grant been made. For trium-

phalia ornamenta,just as triumphs earlier, were by well-established tradition

reserved for military exploits. As Cato in 50 B.C. pointed out to Cicero, there

was no reason at all why a supplicatio, which was not granted for military

achievements, should be followed by the grant of a triumph.66Nor, in 20 B.C.,

could a legatus have received an honour so great which had not been accordedto Tiberius when involved in the same series of operations. A furtherobjection

which Professor Taylor has not convincingly answered is that in 20 B.C. gene-

rals had not yet been deprivedof the possibility of a full triumph; the substitutionof triumphaliaornamenta, irst mentioned by Dio under the year 14 B.C.,87was

commonly supposed, according to Suetonius,68o have been first put into prac-tice in the case of Tiberius, possibly after the fighting in Vindelicia about this

time.69

On somewhat inadequate grounds (an alleged find-spot for the copy of theelogiumnearthe monument of the Plautii at Tibur)Groag70 referredto connect

the inscriptionwith M.Plautius Silvanus, cos. 2 B.C.,andthis suggestionhasbeen(somewhathesitantly) acceptedby Magie.71Themain objectionsto it (apartfrom

the strong reasons for thinking that Plautius Silvanus died before Augustus,72CZ5J.R.S. xxvi. 2 (1936), i6If., esp. p. 171.

66 Cic. ad Fam. XV, 5.2 (Nobbe): Quodsi triumphi praerogativam putas supplicationem,et idcirco casum potius quam te laudari mavis, neque supplicationem sequitur sempertriumphus, et triumplho multo clarius est, senatum iudicare potius mansuetudine et in-inocentia imperatoris provinciam quam vi militum aut benignitate deorum retentam atqueconservatam esse.

67 Dio, 54, 24.8.

68 Suet., Tib. 9.2.

69 cf. Suet., ibid. The ovatio and thicfull triumph, which he refers to in the same passage,both belonig to later fullscale operations.

70 In P.-W., s.v. Sulpicius, no. go.

71 Magic, II, p. 158I (in his list, under M. Plautius Silvantis).72 cf. Dessau's commentary on C.I.L. XIV, 3605-6: certe ante Augustum; nam Tacitus

in annalibus Tiberii neque mortem eius refert nequc ipsum memorat ibi ubi memoraridebuit, si fuisset in vivis (Ann. IV, 22).




whereas the subject of the elogium outlived him73) are that no king can

possibly have been associated with the campaigns for which he won his trium-phalia ornamenta,namely (as attested in many sources),74 in the Pannonian

Revolt of 6-9 A.D., and that we should have to assume that the chronological

order of the elogium was inverted in order to make it fit the career of Plautius

Silvanus, who was certainly governor of Asia beforehe won his triumphalia

ornamenta.75But as Syme has pointed out, the word iterumcoming near the end

of the inscription is a fatal objection to this interpretation.76

Finally, the suggestion has been made that the subject of the elogium may

be L. Calpurnius Piso (Frugi), cos. I5 B.C.77About his career before he became

praefectus urbi about the end of Augustus' reign (for twenty years) nothingfurther is known for certain except that, being governor of 'Pamphylia' (Dio

54, 34.6), he was sent from here about ii B.C.78o fight in Thrace against the

faction which had murdered Cotys and later had driven out Rhoemetalces. For

his eventual victory after three years 'fighting79he was awarded triumphalia

ornamentaand a supplicatio (kLpo[LrqvLxo,io). If this is the successful campaign

referred to in the elogium, the king in question could be Rhoemetalces (I), but

the legateship of Piso in which the campaign occurred (forhe fought it according

to Velleius as legatus Caesaris, and Syme calls him legatus Augusti in Thrace)

would be his second at least;80 there is also reason to think that he was sentagainst the Vindelici either immediately before or immediately after his con-

sulship,8' so that if he subsequently governed Syria (and he is not recorded as

having done so at any time, though the suggestion has been madethat a Greek

inscription from Cilicia calling him the equivalent of legatus propraetore efers

to this),82 he later governorship of Syria would be Piso's third legateship at

73 I find it impossible to agree with Professor L. R. Taylor (J.R.S. XXVI, p. I67) that

the copy of an official elogium made for a tomb or the like would be altered in its wording

in any way. If the elogium, as in this case, referred to the emperor as Divus, this must mean

that it was first composed after that emperor's death.

7' Literary and epigraphic: see P.I.R. III, p. 46, no. 36I; Dess. 921.

76 See below, p. 328 f., and Syme, p. 435 "M. Plautius Silvanus governs Asia and then

Galatia (A.D. 4-6)."76 Syme, Klio xxvii, p. 138.77 Syme, R.R., p. 398, n. 7.

78 The war is put a year earlier (I2-I0 B.C.) by Syme. cf. P.I.R.2 II, p. 63.

79 cf. Vell. II, 98: legatus Caesaris triennio cum his bellavit.

80 He is called 7xp areurV el 'irLa-rpM',r-nyo in an inscription from Hieropolis-

Castabala in the extreme east of Cilicia (Jahresh. i8, I9I5, Beiblatt 5I), connected by

Syme (Klio xxvii, p. 128) with his command in Galatia. For the command in Thrace see

above, n. 79, and Syme, ibid. p. 131. For the controversy as to whether Piso was at the

same time proconsul of Macedonia see P.I.R.2 II, p. 64.81cf. Orosius VI, 2I.22 (cited in P.I.R., ibid.).

82 cf. Magie, II, p. 1420 (foot), following Groag (P.I.R., ibid.). For the inscription see

above, n. 8o.



The Governorsof the ProvinceAsia in the Reign of Augustus 3I7

least, whereas the interpretation of legatus iterum Syriam-(obtinuit) which

Syme adopts in dealing with the elogium83 would requireit to be onlyhis second.If however it should eventually turn out that operations in, or from,

Pamphylia are to be connected with the province of Syria, as some scholars

stillbelieve,84 and if the old interpretation of legatus iterumSyriam(i.e., twocommands of Syria) were to be revived, the appropriateness of the elogiumto

this Piso would still depend on fresh proof that he was (after his command in

'Pamphylia') also governor first of Asia and then of Syria. I shall give reasons

further below (p. 323) for rejecting as illusory the suggested evidence of an

epigram in the Palatine Anthology for attributing to the Piso in question a

governorship of Asia.85On the other hand, a proconsulship of Asia for Quirinius, whose known

career otherwise fits in with the elogiumso perfectly, is not entirelydependent

upon his being identified as the subject of it, but receives some confirmation also

from his performance of officia to Tiberius while Tiberius was in Rhodes

(6 B.C.-A.D. 2). There can be no possible doubt about this, because it is

attested by Tiberius himself in a eulogy of Quiriniusdelivered in the Senate at

the time of Quirinius' death, and paraphrased by Tacitus from the Acta

Senatus86.It can also be shown from the evidence of Velleius and Suetonius

exactly what Tiberius meant by the word officia in this context, namely theofficialcourtesy-visits paid to him at Rhodes by holders of imperiumwhen they

were on their way to govern the various eastern provinces. Tiberius had

apparently consoled his affronted dignity while in exile by requiringor expect-

ing these governors to lower theirfasces in his presence, in spite of the fact that

he himself was officially a privatusat the time.87Both authors seem to imply

that the governors in question were on their way out to their provinces (not on

the return journey to Rome), and although perhaps too much stress should not

be laid on this, it is at all events clear that what Tiberius wanted was the

gratification of seeing the loweredfasces, which he could not see in the case of83 In Klio xxvii, 1934, p. 122f.; cf. R.R., i939, p. 399, n. 4.84 See the bibliography on this question in Magie, II, p. 1304 f., adding however Syme's

very strong argument (Klio ibid., p. I 29) based on the name Pylaemenes (the name of a son

of Amyntas, C.I.G. 4039) in Anthol. Pal. VI, 241.

86 Accepted by Syme, Klio xxvii, p. i8, and R.R., p. 398, with n. 7.86 cf. Tac. Ann. III, 48 (after giving the cursus as far as the appointment as rector Gaio

Caesari Armeniam optinenti): Tiberium quoque coluerat, quod tunc patefecit in senatu,

laudatis in se officiis et incusato M. Lollio, quem auctorem Gaio Caesari pravitatis et dis-

cordiarum arguebat.

87 cf. Veil. II, 99: ita septem annos Rhodi moratum (Tiberium) ut omnesqui proconsuli-bus legatique in transmarinas profecti provincias visendi eius gratia ad eum convenientes

semper privato (si illa maiestas unquam privata fuit) fasces suos summiserint, fassique sint

otium eius honoratius imperio suo. Similarly Suet. (Tib. I2): vitansque (2 B.C.-A.D. i)

praeternavigantium officia, assidue quibus frequentatur, nemine cum imperio aut magi-

stratu tendente quoquam, quin diverteret Rhodum.



318 KATH1LEEN M. T. ATKINSON

legati returningfromimperial provinces, since these (unlike the proconsuls,who

kept theirfasces until they re-entered the pomerium) were obliged to lay downtheir imperium and their insignia as soon as they left their province at the end

of the period of their command.88

The officiafor which Tiberius praised Quirinius had thereforeno connection

with his return from waging the Homonadensian War as legatuspro praetore,

but must have been performedwhen he was going out to (or returning from as

proconsul) another eastern province; and the express contrast which Tiberius

made between Quirinius and Lollius in this respect must surely, seeing that

Quirinius directly suceeded to the disgraced Lollius as rectorGaii in A.D. 2,

be explained by the circumstance that Quirinius stepped in to improve therelations between Tiberius and Gaius (and thereby between Tiberius and

Augustus); these had been at their worst (and according to Tiberius, followed

by Suetonius, this was throughthe direct influenceof Lollius upon Gaius)when

the young man and his stepfather met in Ionia in A.D. I.189For the last date there

is certain evidence in an inscription from Assos honouringGaius as consul," so

that the visit of Tiberius to the Ionian coast is fixed to the spring or early

summer of this year. Gaius had certainly moved on into Syria by the autumn

of A.D. i.11

Nothing is more likely, in view of all this, than that Quiriniustook up thegovernorship of Asia in the late spring of A.D. i, after the departureof Gaius

and Lollius, and paid to Tiberius in Rhodes on the way out one (or more) of

those duty-calls which, as we learn from Suetonius, had at this time been

suspendedfor two years, ever since the exile of Julia in 2 B.C.92Since Rhodes

was actually in the province Asia, he may even have been considered the most

suitable person to bring to Tiberius the slightly consoling news, whichreached

him at this time, that through Livia's intervention he had been granted the

honorary title of legatusAugusti,93 or Quirinius'appointment soon afterwards

as adviser to Gaius shows that he was already in the previous year high in theemperor's confidence; this possibility may be mentioned as an explanation of

what may otherwise seem strange, that Quirinius, in Syme's words, had "paid

assiduous court to the exile of Rhodes without impairing his own advance-

ment."94

88 Dio 53, 13.8 (legati); 13.4 (proconsuls).

89 Suet. Tib., I2 (Samos); Dio 55, IO.I9 (Chios). At all events on one of the larger

Ionian islands; the discrepancy is unimportant.'D

I.G.R. IV, 248.91 He also went to Egypt before reaching Parthia (Gardthausen).92 Suet., Tib. 12.13 init.

D3ibid. 12: vix per matrem consecutus, ut ad velandam ignominiam quasi legatus ab

Augusto abesset.

*4 Syme, p. 429.



The Governors of the Province Asia in the IReignof Augustus 3I9

At all events, Tiberius was recalled as soon as Quiriniusbecame rectorGaii,

and he did praise Quiriniusand condemn Lollius at the time of Quirinius'deathwhen his cursus was summarisedin the Senate. The explanation given here may

not amount to complete proof, but the details of the chronology and of the

whole story fit together extremely well.

It seems justifiable to conclude that Quirinius was proconsul of Asia in the

proconsular year A.D. I1/2, and that being conveniently close at hand as well

as trusted by Augustus, he succeded Lollius as rectorGaii immediately after

(or towards the end of) his governorship.This would of course fit extremely well

into the framework of the elogium (Dess. 9I8) which would make its subject

proconsul of Asia between his earlier legateship for which the triumphaliaornamentahad been won, and his governorship of Syria, this last being well

attested for Quirinius in A.D. 6.96

4. C. NORBANUSFLACCUS,COS.24 B.C. ?i8/17 or I7/I6 B.C.

The reason why no governor of this name has been included by Waddington

or Magie in the fasti of Asia under Augustus is that the proconsulship has

hitherto been attributed to C. Norbanus Flaccus the consul of 38 B.C., who was

very probably his father. Of the consul of 24 B.C. nothing further at all is

thought to be known.96Of the proconsul of Asia we have evidence, apart froman inscription from Pergamum which cannot be dated,97only frompassages in

Philo and in Josephus connecting him as proconsul with an edict or edicts in

favour of the Jews.98This last source of evidence does not up to the present

appear to have been studied in a wide enough context, for if it is considered in

relation to the edicts on this subject in general (so far as the eastern provinces

are concerned) in the reign of Augustus, the chronological sequence becomes

clear.

It is convenient for this purpose to list the relevant documents in reverse

chronologicalorder, beginning with the latest (a), and omitting for the presentthe letters of the proconsul Norbanus Flaccus to Ephesus and to Sardis (though

these again are concerned with the same matter) which are the subject of our

inquiry. In all of them the subject of the pronouncement is the same, namely

the right of the Jews in all the eastern provinces to send contributions to the

temple at Jerusalem wich are to be exempt from any form of levy by non-

Jewish authorities. It is hardly necessary to mention that the Jewish sources

(Philo quoting a letter of Herodes Agrippato the emperor Gaius, and Josephus)

95 Joseph. A.J.17, 35; ct. i8, I etc., and Dess. 2683 (the inscription being evidence forhis census, menitioned in Luke 2.3).

96 cf. P.I.R. II, p. 4i5, no. 136.

97 I.G.R. IV, 428.

98 Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 40 (p. 592); Joseph., A.J. xvi, 6, 3 and 6 (also in Ehrenbergand Jones, Documents, nos. 304-306.)



320 KATHLEENM. T. ATKINSON

do not themselves reproduce the documents in chronological order, but the

sequence is not hard to recover from the authority cited by each one of them inturn. We begin then with the latest.

a) Letterof Iullus Antonius, procos.Asiae, to Ephesus (A.J. xvi 6, 7, ? I72),

cf. also Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, no. 3I3. The date is between

9-6 B.C.; see further on this below, p. 327. The Jews are to enjoy the privilege

legibus suis uti (XpiAox 'roZLL&oL46[toL4), as conceded to them by 'Caesar

Augustus' and by Agrippa, and in particular, are to have the unimpeded right

of sending contributions to the temple at Jerusalem. (We should note that it

does not necessarily follow from the order in which Augustus and Agrippa are

mentioned that the concession made by Augustus precededthat of Agrippa).b) Generaledict of Augustus to theprovinceAsia (and ?theprovinceGalatia)

(A.J. xvi, 6.2, ? I62-5; Ehrenberg and Jones, no. 314). Probably I3/I2 B.C.

(the Latin version here has the number XI in margin, referring to the Trib.

Pot.), at all events after March6, I2 B.C. (Augustus Pont. Max.), and before

the proconsulship of Iullus Antonius (see above, a). The Jews, who are de-

scribed as having been loyal to Rome since the time of Julius Caesar, are to

keep their own laws (Xpao roqllOL4 COLa[LoZ4)s hitherto from the time

of the High Priest Hyrcanus (i.e. Hyrcanus II), and are to be allowed in accord-

ance with their ancestral custom to send contributions to Jerusalem. Theirsacred property is to be protected by law ('v &auMX);nyone caught stealing

their sacredbooks or sacredfunds is to be subject to Roman criminaljurisdiction

(sov ov aU oi0kvexOivLCcxs t oatLov 'rrv 'PcLa.Lcov), nd they are not to

be requiredto enter into legal obligations on the Sabbath. (Theorderto have a

copy of this edict set up by the CommuneAsiae in Ancyra (sic ) is clearly due

to confusion between two edicts, the other possibly referring n similarterms to

the province Galatia. A reference at the end of the edict to the honours being

paidby the Jews of Asia at the time to C. MarciusCensorinus hrowsunexpected

light on the date of this proconsul; see further below, p. 326).c) Letter of Agrippa to Ephesus (A 1. xvi, 6.4, ? I67-8; Ehrenbergand Jones,

no. 309). The Jews in the province Asia may send their contributions to

Jerusalem,and those who steal their sacredproperty,even if they seek sanctuary

in temples, will be ejected and handed over to the Jewish authorities conform-

ably to the treatment of other thieves of sacred property (CLp6auXot).grippa

says that he has written to the strategosSilanus (on whom see above, p. 305)

ordering that no-one shall compel Jews to enter into legal obligations on the

Sabbath. The different provision made here about jurisdiction over those who

steal Jewish sacred property (hereentrusted to the Jews, in Augustus' edictto

the Roman authorities) implies that this letter of Agrippa belongs to an ap-

preciably earlierstage than the edict (?) of Augustus cited above (b). This fits

in with the dating of Silanus on other grounds to the first period of Agrippa's

proconsulare mperiumin the East.



The Governorsof the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus 32I

d) Letterof Agrippa to the city-officials of Cyrene (A.J. xvi, 6.5, ? I69-70;

Ehrenberg and Jones, no. 3Io). The Jews in Cyrene, about whom Augustus

('Sebastos') earlier wrote a letter to Flavius the strategos9and to other (i. e.

future) governors of the province, are to be permitted an accordance with their

ancestral custom to send contributions without hindrance to Jerusalem. The

letter of Agrippa explains that the occasion of his intervention was the com-

plaint that tax officials, acting on private information, had been claiming from

the Jews taxes (octroi-duties n connection with the money sent to Jerusalem)

for which they were not legally liable ( Gy opIvwv). The letter might

belong to either of the two periods of Agrippa's command in the East, but the

reference to the letter of 'Sebastos' on the authority of which it was based shows

that this last was dated after 27 B.C.-a significant point for the purpose of the

present inquiry.

e) Letters of Augustus to 'all the governors of the Asian provinces' (?oZc

7rLp67roLmTiv xa-oc' rM 'AAa[vbLxpotLev). Cf. Herod Agrippa, quoted by

Philo, leg. ad Gaium,40 (p. 592), "Though it would be in my power to demon-

strate the wish of your great-grandfather Sebastos by innumerable proofs, I

content myself with two." He then cites first the general letter of Augustus,

then a letter of the proconsul Norbanus Flaccus to Ephesus issued in consequence

of it. The points dealt with in the general letter to governors are: i) the Jews

may have the right of meeting in their synagogues, these being assemblies for

no improper purpose, but for teaching and for the collection of annual dues

used for the purpose of sacrifices; and 2) the money which they send in ac-

cordance with their ancestral custom to Jerusalem is not to be interfered with.

The proconsul's letter to Ephesus deals with the last point only; the Jews may

send money to the temple at Jerusalem without interference. The law referred

to in the letter of 'Sebastos' (see below) is that of Caesar concerning collegia

(Suet., Jul, 42),10 but the occasion of the intervention is some later attempt to

interfere with one only of the rights comprehended under the recognition of

the Jewish synagogues as collegia licita, namely their right to send their con-

tributions to the temple at Jerusalem.

We learn on the authority of Josephus (A.J. xvi, 6.6) that Sardis also

received a letter from Norbanus Flaccus on precisely the same subject (the

sending of contributions to Jerusalem) and in virtually the same words. The

two letters of Flaccus, to Ephesus and to Sardis, may be conveniently compared

in Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents,nos. 305, 306. Josephus also provides the

text of the official letter (of Augustus? On the correctness of this ascription see

below) to Norbanus Flaccus on which the letter of the proconsul to Sardis was

based: "Caesarto Norbanus Flaccus greeting. The Jews, all of them wherever

99A L. Flavius was cos. suff. in 33 B.C. (Otherwise unknown; cf. P.I.R.2 III, p. 132

no. i88). The Flavius of the letter of Augustus would be the right age to be his son.

100Not the later re-enactment or revision of Augustus (Suet., Aug., 32).

2 I Historia VII, 3




they are, who have been accustomed by ancient practice to contribute sacred

moneys and send them to Jerusalem are to do this without hindrance" (A.J.xvi, 6.3). It cannot be doubted therefore that the letter of 'Caesar'here quoted

was one of the several letters of 'Sebastos' on this subject which were written to

'all the governors of the Asian provinces' (above, e). The term 'Caesar'could of

course be used, even in an official document, to denote Augustus after 27 B.C.;101

but it might perhaps be contended (and apparently this view has actually been

held)102 hat when Philo (or rather, Herod Agrippa) in this connectionrefers to

"your great-grandfather Sebastos" he is committing an anachronism, and is

really quoting a document composed before Augustus received this title. But

this contention seems to be refuted by the evidence contained in the letter ofAugustus' minister Agrippa to Cyrene (above, d)), in which he quotes a letter of

Augustus (Sebastos) on the same subject to the governor and future governors

of that province.Clearly he Roman Agrippawould not commit an anachronism

in referringto an officialdocument which it was necessary to identify accurately,

and the probability that this letter also was one of the same series, written by

the emperor to all the eastern provincial governors on this subject at one and

the same time, is so strong that it would be quite gratuitous to reject it.

We may therefore conclude that Norbanus Flaccus was proconsulof Asia in

the reign of Augustus, after 27 B.C. To determine his date moreclosely, there isan indication in the wording of one of his letters, the one to Sardis, which uses

the expression Ka&hp I.oLlypa4?e x0tucov. An'order' of this kind could not

have been issued in an senatorial province by Augustus, after he assumed that

title, until after the new constitutional settlement of 23 B.C., which gave him

new authority in those provinces.103 But neither would it have been issued while

Agrippa was exercising his proconsulare imperium in the East. This rules out

23-22 B.C. and i6-I3 B.C.104 ut it is also clearthat since the letters of Norbanus

Flaccus are based on a letter of Augustus, and not on the emperor's edict of

I3-I2 B.C. (for which see above, p. 320, b)), the proconsul's letters must beearlierin date than this edict. The proconsulshipof Flaccus therefore falls in the

period 2i-i6 B.C. But this must obviously referto the consul of 24 B.C., not to

the consul of 38 B.C. If the five-year interval was applied, the only possible

years for the governorship of Norbanus Flaccus would thus be I8/I7 or I7/16

B.C. At all events it seems unlikely that during Augustus' own visits to Samos

101 cf. for example O.G.I.S. 458, line 5, 37, 6o.

102cf. Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, nos. 304-6 (assigned to triumviral period);

Magie, II, p. I58I (between 36/35 and 33/32). It is in fact inconceivable that during this

period Octavian can have addressed letters embodying commands to 'all the governors' of

Antony's provinces. Edicts issued in Rome, in pursuance of existing laws (e.g. the right

to grant citizenship to individuals given to the triumvirs, illustrated in the letter to the

Rhosians, Ehrenberg and Jones, no. 30I) are a different matter.103 cf. Dio 53, 32.5.

104 cf. above, p. 305, and note 23.




and his inspection of the eastern provinces in the years 2I-I9 (spring)105 e

would have communicated his will to the province of Asia by letter to the pro-consul rather than by direct edict of his own.

ii. To be omitted from the list of proconsulsof Asia

I. M. IUNIUS SILANUS,COS. 5 B.C.

The proconsulship in question is that of C. lunius Silanus, cos. I7 B.C. See

above, p. 305.

2. L. CALPURNIUSPiso FRUGI, CoS. 15 B.C.

In consideringthe case of L.CalpurniusPiso Frugi, (above,p. 3I6 f.) it has beenmentioned that he has been held by some to have governed Asia. Magieomits

him from his list, and this view is to be preferred for the following reasons:

I) the inscriptions which some believe refer to him as proconsul could equallywell apply to L. CalpurniusPiso Augur, cos. i B.C. (cf. Syme, p. 398, n. 7), andthis is the opinion of Magie (cf. Magie, II, p. I58I); 2) The only positive indica-tion suggesting otherwise is a poem by Antipater of Thessalonica in the Palatine

Anthology (X, 25), which on closer inspection must certainly be taken to referto the provincial command of Piso Frugi in 'Pamphylia' (cf. above, p. 3i6f.),

not to a proconsulship of Asia.The short poem is best quoted in full:

4DoZp, Keymc?Xvov ? irvoax067t, OZvo7rrvoptov

VOCO)V, TpnXMY4 CVTLT7repVO&xy,

864 0.LS 8L E?Uoo rt60wR 'AaL8c x'tLo4ao;IX0etv

IlfcLaov048oXL(i v7nt JVUV?OCVOV.

XOCL6V 4LOV pato 'rTOV&XXLULOVDtv c69Xe[C

txov, ED 8' voL4 &p'rLaoV LTS'rpOL4.

As Cichoriussuggested (Romische Studien, p. 325-332), the reference to thevoc4 8oXLtX (navis longa) indicates an official appointment in the easternprovince to which the poet expresses the wish to accompany him, and the

identity of the Piso in question can hardly be in doubt in view of the otherpoems by the same poet which are addressed to 'Piso'.106But the words in thethird line do not mean the province Asia. As in the second quatrain of themuch-disputed Eurymedon epigram (Diod. XI, 62) 'AaLq first syllable long) is

105 cf. above, p. 302.

106 cf. Anthol Pal., ed. Paton (Loeb), 1, Bk. vi.325 (a poem accompanying a Macedoniankausia addressed to Piso, wishing that he may subdue the Thracians; vol. III, no. 428:

'Thessalonica, the mother of all Macedonia, sends me to thee, despoiler of Thrace. I singthy conquest of the martial Bessi, collecting all that I learnt about the war" (6aa' 18&kqv7to?I4LouTr&vt'&vokvace?evoq). For the argument of Cichorius (followed by Syme) for con-necting Antipater's poem Anthol. vi, 241 with Piso in Galatia see above, n. 84.




evidently substituted for the name Pamphylia, impossible on account of its

long second syllable to accommodate in elegiac verse. It is no doubt for thisreason that Paton in his edition of the Anthology (Loeb Text, vol. IV) connects

the poem with Piso's command in Pamphylia. Another argument in favour of

this interpretation is that Antipater says (Anthol. vol. III (Loeb), no. 428)

that he was the author of a poem describingin detail Piso's conquest of Thrace,

his information being taken from the accounts of others.'07This leads to the

conclusion that he did not personally accompany Piso on his voyage to the

'Asianland' (7rp 'A"AaL),ut seeks the inspiration ofApollo to follow him there

in his verse, in order to sing of his martial exploits in some province which

certainly could not be Asia.

iii. List of dated or approximatelydated proconsuls

On the special principles to be observed in determining the order for the

first ten years see above, p. 306f; for the conventiones here adopted in indi-

cating the dates see note below: p. 329.

? 28/7 B.C. M. HERENNIUS PICENS,cOs.suff. 34 B.C.

Magie (II, P. I580) tentatively assigns the proconsulship of Picens.

(Syll. 8784)to 33-32 B.C.,without giving reasons. The contents of the in-

scription itself show that this date is too early, but that the ascription

of the proconsulshipto this Picens ratherthan to the consul of A.D. i (as

preferred by many scholars; cf. P.I.R. III, p. I37, n. 83, also Ditten-

berger in Syll. 3784,Dessau in I.L.S. 922) is certainly correct. In Syll.3

784 (the only evidence known for the proconsulship of any Herennius

Picens) the proconsul is giving a decision on an appeal of the Ephesians

to rebuild a wall formerly separating their agora and the harbour,

which had disappeared 'during one of their vicissitudes or in the war'

(gv Trvl] '6v xct -pv i 'o0 7to)Lou 7re[pLa&creL]). Epigraphists being

agreed in attributing the inscription to the period of Augustus, and it

being known that the father of the consul of 34 B.C. had a different

praenomen (cf. P.I.R., ibid.) the last war which comes into question in

the province Asia is that of 35-34 B.C., when Sextus Pompeius invaded

the province. This would hardly continue to be spoken of as 'thewar'

at a late date in the reign of Augustus. On the other hand the request of

the Ephesians, which was certainly correctly interpreted by Hicks as

a request for the restoration of a customs barrierto be operated in their

own interest, implies that peace had been effectively restored, and is

incompatible with the year 33-32 B.C., when Antony and Cleopatra

were making Ephesus theirbase for the forthcoming war with Octavian.

The most likely time for applications to be made by Ephesus for the

107 See the precedingnote, on Anthol., vol. III, no. 428.




restoration of this privilege was during or immediately after the first

two visits of Octavian to the province (3I-30 and 30-29 B.C.). The year28/27 is here suggested for the proconsulship because it allows for the

five-year interval from the consulship.

Probably 27/26 B.C. L. VINICIUSM.F., COS.uff. 33 B.C. See above, p. 3I2.

Probably 26/25 B.C. L. VOLCACIusULLUS,Os.33 B.C.

See above, p. 312f.

? 24/23 B.C. M. TULLIUS CICERO, COS. 0 B.C.

Grant's suggested date of 29/8 B.C. (see above, p. 303 andF.I. T.A. p. 385)

is based entirely on the style of the coin of Magnesiabearinghis name,and

neglects the five-year interval. The stylistic argument is inadequate; thealleged resemblanceto an official coin of Ephesus dated 28 B.C. (B.M.C.,

Imp., Augustus, no.69I, to be comparedwith F.I. T.A., P1.IX, 32) seems

over-stressed, and in any case very similar style in coin-portraiture

could well exist in coins a few years apart in date. If indeed the head

on the coin is a portrait of Cicerohimself, there are parallels for this in

Asia well after the beginningof the Principate (See below, p. 326,underP.

Cornelius Scipio). An anecdote in Seneca (Suas. 7,I3), even if apocry-

phal, favours a rather later date than Grant has suggested, since it re-

quires Ciceroas proconsulto have entertained Cestius Pius, the celebrat-ed rhetor and editor of the works of the great Cicero, and a native of

Smyrna, after Cestius Pius had already become famous on account of

his work on Cicero. But according to other passages in Seneca, Cestius

Pius was still active towards the end of the reign of Augustus and under

Tiberius (cf. Contr.1.3.IO, recording his insult to the son of Quintilius

Varusafter the disaster of A.D. 9). In the absence of definite indications

of an unusually short interval between his consulship and proconsulship,

the minimum legal interval is here assumed, in deference to the

numismatists' opinion; the possibility of a rather later date is not to beexcluded.

? 23/22 B.C. SEX. APPULEIUS SEX. F., COS.29 B.C.

Triumphed ex Hispania 26 B.C. His kinship with Augustus as the son

of Octavia (maior) makes it likely that he held the proconsulship at the

minimum interval from his consulship. His mother received honours

from the city of Pergamum during his proconsulship (O.G.I.S. 462),

which suggests that he was still unmarried at the time.

Probably 22/I B.C. C. IUNIUSSILANUS,COS.7 B.C.

Praetorian governor under Agrippa. See above, p. 305

? 2I/20 and 20/I9 B.C. POTITUSVALERIUSMESSALLA,COS. uff. 29 B.C.

Procos.Asiae bis. For the date see above, p. 308, 309.

? i8/I7 or 17/I6 B.C. C. NORBANUSLACCUS,os. 24 B.C.

See above, p. 319.



326 KATHLE-ENM. T. ATKINSON

15/14 or I4/I3 B.C. Q. AEMILIUS M.'F.) LEPIDUS,COS.2i B.C.

Inscriptions in his honour from Cibyra and from Halicarnassus (asproconsul; cf. P.I.R. 12, p. 63f.) are undated, but the next consul known

to have been proconsul of Asia is P. Scipio (cos. i6 B.C.), and Lepidus

after being the nominee of Augustus for his election as consul (Dio

54.6.2f.) is likely to have held his proconsulship very soon after the

minimum five-year interval.

I3/I2 B.C. C. MARCIUSCENSORINUS,os. 8 B.C.

Praetorian governor of Asia under Agrippa. For the evidence (an edict

of Augustus) see above, p. 320, and compare the case of C. Iunius

Silanus (above, under the year 22/2I). The honours to Censorinusfromthe Jews of Asia mentioned in this edict are stronger evidence of his

proconsulship than the inscriptions which merely give his name, with-

out title or date, from Pergamum (O.G.I.S., 466) and Miletus (Milet. I,

no. 255), and on the same level as S.E.G. II, 549 (Mylasa; a dedication

to -him as Saviour and Benefactor after his death, local games called

Censorineiahaving been established in his honour).

The evidence on which this proconsulship has been dated A.D. 2/3

(Waddington, no. 62; Dittenberger, O.G.I.S. 466, n. i, followed by

Magie) is plainly inadequate, being the referenceby Velleius (II, I02.J)to his death very soon after M. Lollius (who was shortly before this

adviser to Gaius in Mesopotamia) and in iisdem provinciis. 'The same

provinces' would more naturally mean Syria or Galatia than Asia, and

in fact C. may have been with Gaius as one of his comitesat the time.

His public career had already begun with distinction when Horace

addressed to him OdesIV, 8 (c. I3 B.C.); thus a (praetorian)proconsul-

ship of Asia in I3/I2 presents no chronologicaldifficulties.

ii/io and io/9 B.C. Exceptional two-year 'elected' governorship.

Following the earthquakeof I2 B.C. See above, p. 308.(For Paullus Fabius Maximus,cos. ii B.C., see note I3. Consideration

of the date of his proconsulshipis reserved for a special study).

? 8/7 B.C. P. CORNELIUS . F. Scipio, cos. i6 B.C.

Possibly a son of Scribonia (P.I.R.211, p. 354, no. I438). Coinsof Pitane

apparentlybearing his head as well as that of Augustus are connected by

Grant (F.I.T.A., p. 387, no. 2) with a group of amici principis which

includes as proconsul Asinius Gallus (see below, under 6/5 B.C.) The

epigraphic evidence (I.G.R.R. IV, I2II, a fragmentary letter of Scipio

to the people of Thyatira) is undated. The date 7/6 B.C. is suggested byKlebs (P.I.R. I, p. 463) followed by Chapot (La provinceproconsulaire

d'Asie, p. 309) and more doubtfully by Magie, (II, p. I342, n. 37) and

Grant (ibid.). But see below, on lullus Antonius, whose proconsulship

seems to belong that year.



The Governors of the Province Asia in the Reign of Augustus 327

? 7/6 B.C. IULLus ANTONIUS, M. F., cos. io B.C.

The son of Antony and Fulvia, m. Claudia Marcella,niece of Augustus(2I B.C.) b. probably 43 B.C., praetor I3 B.C. In spite of family con-

nections, can hardly have been senior as procos. Asiae to P. Scipio

(above). Groag regards his death in 2 B.C. as the terminus ante quem

(P.I.R.2 I, p. I53, no. 800), but his proconsulship must precede that of

Asinius Gallus (fixed to 6/5 B.C.; see below) because in the first half of

5 B.C. the name jIollas' had already been assumed by one of the leading

citizens of Sardis (cf. I.G.R.R. IV, I756, decrees I and II; Iollas is now

known also as a benefactor of Tarsus; cf. A. E., 195I, no. 27I). Another

010,Mcq,on of "IoXaq,severaltimes ambassador and alsogymnasiarch ofSardis, is probably son of the Iollas mentioned above, mere evidence of

lettering being inadequategroundfor dating the decree of Sardisrelating

to him (I.G.R.R. IV, I757) in the late pre-Augustan period, as proposed

by Magie (I, p.257,followingI.G.R.R., ibid.). IoXXoc;I6XXoupaarsxreb

'Iepouro?Xtiivn coins of Hierapolis (B. M. Cat., Asia, no. I07) may be the

same man; cf. also I.G.R.R. IV, 767, of imperial date, from Cagyetta in

Phrygia, in honour of Eutyches son of "Io'UX It would seem that the

name 'Iollas' does not appear in the Greek world before the reign of

Augustus. Forthe form cf.O.G.I.S.462, Pergamum(X60rov'A=r7oX%tov).With regardto the date of the edict of Iullus cited by Josephus (above,

p. 320, a), the sacred revenues of the Jews in Ephesus may well have

been the subject of an imperial enactment in their favour at approxi-

mately the same time as the sacred revenues of the temple of Artemis,

which were guaranteed afresh by Rome in 6/5 B.C. (see inscriptions

cited by Magie, II, p. 1332, n. IO, and cf. Strabo XIV, p. 64I). The

Ides of February mentioned in the edict of lullus will then be those of

6 B.C.

6/5 B.C. C. ASINIusGALLUS,os. 8 B.C.

The proconsulship is fixed exactly by Syll. 378o (letter of Augustus as

cos. desig. XII to Cnidos) and Dess. 97 (from Ephesus; Augustus cos.

XII). The short interval from the consulship is plausibly explained by

the status of Gallus as amicusCaesaris, attested by Syll.3 780. cf. Grant,

F.I.T.A., p. 387, citing also the coins of Temnos with legend 'AaLvLoqrPxxog &yv6A,nd apparently bearinghis portrait. See furtherP.I.R.2 I,

p. 245f.2/I B.C. CN. CORNELIUSCN. F. LENTULUSAUGUR, COS. 4 B.C.

The proconsulship is precisely fixed by Syll.3, 78I (concessions granted

by him as proconsul to a temple at Nysa on the Maeander).The long

interval from his consulship, attributed in P.I.R.2 II, p. 333 to lack of

children, may indicate rather that his celebrated command on the

Danube leading to the mass plantation of Dacians south of the river



328 KATHLEENM.T. ATKINSON

(cf. P.I.R., ibid.) belongs then rather than after his proconsulship, the

order of proconsulship of Asia and high military commands being notyet fixed (cf. above, p. 3IIf.) Lentulus' lack of heirs at the time of his

death in A.D. 25 (Suet., Tib. 49) may be due to his extremasenectus

(Tac., Ann. IV, 29, referring to A.D. 24), and P. Corn. Cn. f. Cn. n.

Lentulus Scipio, cos. A.D. 2 (P.I.R.2 II, p. 343, no. I397) was very

possibly a son who died before him.

? A.D.I/2 P: SULPICIUS QUIRINIUS,COS. 2 B.C.

The case for this attribution is fully argued above, p. 3I4f., 3i8f.

Prol-ably A.D. 2/3 or 3/4 C. ANTISTIUSETUS, cos. 6 B.C.

His eldest son was cos. A.D. 23 (P.I.R.2 I, p. I48), and another wasconsul before A.D. 29 (P.I.R. ibid, no. 775). The eldest, at least, was old

enough to accompany his father to Asia duringhis proconsulshipand to

obtain public recognition in the province (A.E., I938, no. I57). The

father held the consulship at the minimum age (III vir monetalis

I6/I5 B.C.; cf. B.M.C. Imp., Aug., no. 95f.). Early tenure of the pro-

consulship after the minimum interval is therefore likely, as already

supposed by Waddington (no. 63), who proposed 3/4. His letter to the

Chians on a matter connected with their libertas is referred to in an

edict of his successoras proconsul(Syll.3785)whosenameis not preserved.Probably A.D. 4/5 M. PLAUTIUSM.F. SILVANUS,OS. B.C.

On his career see above, p. 315, with nn. 72, 74, 75. The date here given

for his proconsulship, first proposed by Waddington (no. 64) on the

basis of Vell. II, II2.4 (S., together with A. CaecinaSeveruswhowasthen

legatus of Moesia, brings troops for the Pannonian Revolt ex trans-

marinis provinciis in A.D. 6) has been supported on correspondingbut

different grounds by Syme (Klio xxvii, p. 139f.) who supposes that S.

had immediately before this been engaged in war with the Isaurians as

legatus of Galatia,whileWaddingtonsupposedthe'transmarineprovinces'

to refer to Thrace. In either case an interval following on the proconsul-

ship is implied, assuming that the proconsulship was held at about the

five-year interval (on this point see further below). The normal usage

favours the interpretation of ex transmarinis provinciis implied by

Syme's theory; cf. Vell. II, 62.3, referring to Syria; II, 99, referringto

provinces whose governors passed by Rhodes; also the Fasti, referring

to the return of Augustus from Asia in i9.B.C. (Oct. I2).

As to the date, only one inscription (I.G.R.R. IV, I362, from Lydia)

refers to his proconsulship. Coins of Pergamum bearing his portrait (cf.

Grant, F.I.T.A., p. 388; Mionnet, II, Mysie, nos. 535, 536, 543, and

Suppl., nos. 929, 936; Waddington, p. IO5)are associated through the

same magistrate's name, Demophon (probably annual, pace Wadding-

ton) with other coins of Pergamum bearing joint heads and inscr. of




Gaius and Lucius. These need not be before Lucius' death in A.D. 2, but

might well commemorate the honours paid by the Commune Asiae toboth jointly after the death of Gaius (as in Rome; cf. Ehrenberg and

Jones, no. 94a, 5f.) Since annual magistracies in Asia ran from Sep-

tember 23 (O.G.I.S. 458), the proconsulship in question would be that

of A.D. 4/5. This interpretation gains some support from one of the

coins mentioned above (Waddington, ibid., no. I) which shows the pro-

consul, standing, being crowned by another male figure (Waddington;

not a goddess, as suggested by Grant, ibid.); the obvious parallel is

found in O.G.I.S. 458 (a crown conferred at the festival of the League

upon Paullus Fabius Maximus for making the best suggestion forhonouring 'the god Sebastos').

? A.D. 6/7-8/9 (inclusive) C.VIBIUSPOSTUMUS, os. suff. A.D. 5.

An exceptional appointment. See above, p. 308 and note 29.

? A.D. 9/IO L. CALPURNIUS. F. Piso AUGUR,COS. B.C.

Son of the consul of 23 B.C., d. A.D. 24, without known immediate

descendants (cf. P.I.R.2 II, p. 67, no. 0go). The evidence for his pro-

consulship of Asia is Dess. 8814 (from Mytilene, without giving date).

An inscription fromDelos (B.C.H.XXXI, p. 237) giving the title [a'rp]-

rryov &v0'rvaorov) ust refer to Cn. Piso Frugi, cos. I5 B.C., as gov-ernor of Macedonia,cf. above, n. io6. Of the remaining inscrr. I.G.R.R.

IV, 4IO, 4II (Pergamum) add nothing, merely recording his name as

benefactor of the city, but B.C.H. V, p. I83 (Stratonicea in Caria)records

the gift of a gold crown and a statue to him as patron of the city, thus

favouring the view that the Piso in question was then proconsul.

The date here suggested rests a) on an apparent lack of heirs (see above),

implying that more than five years elapsed between consulship and pro-

consulship b) on the hypothesis as to C. Vibius Postumus (see above,

under A.D. 6-9).

NOTE: In the foregoing list the names have been entered according to three

categories: I. Precise dates, given without qualification attached, 2. 'prob-

ably' to be attributed to a given year, and so marked, 3. (marked with a

query) where the attribution is more tentative or the year admits of slight

variation. In the concluding group (iv) all the proconsulships must fall

within the period io/iI to I4/I5 inclusive, but the precise order is uncertain

except for the indications that P. Volusius Saturninus (see under this nanme)

is likely to be the latest.

iv. The proconsuls of the last five years (see the immediately preceding note)

? A.D. IO/II P. VINICIUSM. F., cos. A.D. 2

He had both a son and a daughter at the time of his consulship (cf.



330 KATHLEEN M. T. ATKINSON: The Governors of the Province Asia

P.I.R. III, p. 436, no. 446 and P.I.R.2 I, p. I25, no. 70I, showing that

his daughter's son was old enough to be accused together with hisfather Annius Pollio of maiestas in A.D. 32). The son was consul in

A.D. 30. The father is called procos. in I.G., XII, 5, 756.

? A.D. I2/I3 L. VALERIUSPOTITIF. MESSALLA OLESUS, cos. A.D. 5.

See above, p. 308 f., with note 38.

? A.D. I3/14 L. VOLUSIusL. F. SATURNINUS,os. suff. A.D. 3.

For the family tree see P.I.R. III, p. 487. He died in A.D. 56 at the age

of 92 (Tac. Ann. XIII, 30) so was consul in his fortieth year. His father

(d. A.D. 20) was the first consular of the family and the founder of its

wealth (Tac. Ann. III, 30). A late marriagefor the son is implied by theevidence that his mother accompanied him to Asia in his proconsulship,

and received public honours in the province (O.G.I.S. 468, from Per-

gamum);thus the birth of a son Q.Volusius (fromhis praenomen,not the

first) as late as A.D. 25 (Pliny, N.H. VII, 62) does not necessarily imply

a second marriage, as suggested in P.I.R. III, p. 485, no. 664. All this

suggests a longer interval between his consulship and his proconsulship

than would be appropriate in the case of Messalla Volesus, consul two

years later, but a descendant of the ancient Republican aristocracy.

NOTE: No more names of proconsuls of Asia under Augustus are known at the

present time. Favonius (Dess. 9483) was probably consul under Augustus

(cf. also Degrassi, Epigraphica viii, I946, 34ff.), but certainly belongs as

proconsul of Asia to the reign of Tiberius, since the inscription referring

to him comes from a bridge over the Cayster in Phrygia, and so must have

been put up during his proconsulship. Since the cursus which it contains

includes the description of Favonius as sodalis Augustalis, the proconsulship

is thereby proved to belong to a date after Augustus' death.

ADDENDUM: The posthumous work by E. Groag on the fasti of the pro-vince Asia to be published in Dissertationes Bernenses (for knowledge of

which I am indebted to Dr. H. Bengtson) was not available to me when

the present study was completed for publication.

Belfast K. M.T. ATKINSON