ZEITSCHRIFT
FUR
PAPYROLOGIE UND EPIGRAPHIK
herausgegeben
von
Werner Eck, Helmut Engelmann, Dieter Hagedorn, Rudolf KasselLudwig Koenen, Wolfgang Dieter Lebek und Reinhold Merkelbach


BAND 801990
DR. RUDOLF HABELT GMBH • BONN

PATRONS OF GREEK CITIES IN THE EARLY PRINCIPATE
1. THE PROBLEM
It is well established in scholarly literature that the incidence of formal, civic patronage inthe eastern part of the Roman Empire during the Principate decreases precisely at the sametime that it dramatically increases in the West. How is this phenomenon to be explained?Was there a different policy regarding civic patronage in the eastern and western parts of theEmpire?
Unfortunately, the raw data for such a study has never been systematically collected andorganized. Gelzer, Touloumakos and Chiranky have collected many cases for the LateRepublic; Harmand provides some data for the Republic, but stresses the developments inthe Principate and Dominate. Not one of them can be said to have provided a complete list.There is, however, general agreement on several issues. First, the bulk of the Greekevidence on civic patronage is Late Republican or Augustan. Second (and during thisperiod), the cities of the Greek speaking part of the empire extended traditional Hellenistictitles (euergetes, soter, theos, etc.) to Roman magistrates more frequently than they extendedthe imported title "patron". By my count, and based on incomplete data for the LateRepublic, euergetes and soter are about four times more likely to occur epigraphically than is"patron".3 Beginning with Tiberius, however, the traditional Hellenistic titles, with theexception of euergetes, cease to be used in respect to Roman magistrates. Third, formal civicpatronage also continued to be offered as it had before (i.e. to governors by peregrine
1 The patronage discussed here is the formal Roman variety which is not necessarily identical to what thesociologist might recognize. S.Eisenstadt and L.Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends, Cambridge, 1984.For comments and suggestions I am endebted to W.Eck, J.Reynolds, to my colleagues and friends in theSeminar für Alte Geschichte in Heildelberg, and to the German Fulbright Commission.
2 M.Gelzer, "Die Nobilität der römischen Republik", 1912, now in Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1983 =The Roman Nobility, tr. by R.Seager, Oxford, 1969; J.Touloumakos, "Zum römischen Gemeindepatronat imgriechischen Osten", Hermes, 116,1988,304-24; G.Chiranky, "Rome and Cotys: Two Problems",Athenaeum 60,1982,461-81; L.Harmand, Le patronat sur les collectivites publiques, Paris 1957. Gelzer andTouloumakos do not offer a list of patrons; Chiranky does, but only for the period between 140 and 44 B.C.Also, K.Tuchelt, Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien = Istanbuler Mitteilungen Beiheft 23, Tübingen,1979,61-3, and especially 196-232, for the Late Republic to the death of Augustus, but limited to AsiaMinor. On the more general problem of public honors, J.Nicols, "Zur Verleihung öffentlicher Ehrungen inder römischen Welt", Chiron 9,1979,242-60, and G.W.Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World, Oxford1965,119-21 especially.
3 Consider the case of Julius Caesar, A.E.Raubitschek, "Epigraphical Notes on Julius Caesar", JRS44,1954,65ff. has collected the data. The percentages are 82% for euergetes, 65% for soter and 24% forpatron. For Agrippa, in contrast, they are 88%, 33% and 11% based on data collected by R.Daniel,M.Vipsanius Agrippa, Breslau 1933. For Pergamon, to take the record of one town, the percentages are 100,50 and 22, respectively, Tuchelt, 61-3, and especially, 196-232. The calculations are based on the totalnumber of inscriptions mentioning any one of these titles against the number of instances each is recorded.

81

4

4

82J.Nicols
communities), though on a reduced scale. Though the essence of the first two generalizationsis substantially correct, both require clarification; the third demands substantial revision.
2. THE EPIGRAPHICAL RECORD
It will here be argued that Augustus, late in his reign, did indeed define the manner bywhich public honors were conferred. The regulations, with some exceptions, denied toperegrine communities the freedom to find patrons among their senatorial governors andgenerally tended to limit civic patronage to citizen communities. Though the legal formremains uncertain, the evidence indicates that they were indeed effective at least for thecentury or so following A.D. 11.
To understand the nature of the Augustan regulation of A.D. 11/12, it is necessary toreview the epigraphical record on civic patronage in the East for the periods preceding andsubsequent to that date.
Greek inscriptions for the late Republic indicate that many poleis claimed formal patronsamong the Roman senatorial nobility. Moreover, and hardly surpising, most of thesepatrons were individuals who, like Lucullus and Pompeius, held special commands in theeastern part of the empire or who were at the very least, like Q.Oppius, governors. Theredoes not appear to be any substantial change in this pattern during the first half of theprincipate of Augustus.5 Just as earlier, senatorial governors continued to receive the title inGreek cities and did so almost to the end of Augustus' reign. For example, M.ValeriusMessala Potitus (in about 24 B.C.), C.Antistius Vetus (in about A.D. 3), M.PlautiusSilvanus (in about A.D. 6-7) and Q.Poppaeus Sabinus (in about A. D. 13) were all honoredas patrons by Greek cities.6
In other respects, significant changes were introduced during the second half of hisprincipate. As Octavian, Augustus had accepted the title of patron of many Italiancommunities. Thereafter he seems to have preferred the title of pater. In the westernprovinces, however, he accepted the title in citizen communities at least until the death ofAgrippa. The epigraphical record on Augustus as patronus ceases around 2 B.C., a datewhich suggests that, as pater patriae, the Princeps no longer wanted to be coopted by anyone town.  Sometime thereafter (probably under Tiberius) this decision appears to have been
4 For Lucullus, IGR IV 701; for Pompeius, IGR III 869; for Oppius, J.Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome,London 1982, No.3. For more examples, Chiranky, 474-87, Touloumakos, 321, and Tuchelt, 61-3.
5 The pattern for Augustus and the immediate members of his family and household is somewhatdifferent, but cannot be reviewed here. The subject is treated in forthcoming book.
6 On Messala, Ihnken, Inschr. v. Magnesia = 1K 8, No.2; on Antistius, IGR IV 399; on Silvanus andSabinus, see Appendix A.
7 On the use of pater and pater patriae, A.Alföldi, "Parens patriae" MusHel 9,1952,204-43 = Der Vater desVaterlandes im römischen Denken, Darmstadt 1978,40-101 and L.Keppie, Colonisation and VeteranSettlement in Italy, Rome 1983,114. E.g.: CIL IX 2142, X 206; XII 145. F.Engesser, Der Stadtpatronat inItalien und den Westprovinzen des römischen Reiches bis Diokletian, Diss. Freiburg 1957,18-24. On thisissue, Appendix A, No.23.

Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate83

extended to other members of the imperial family, which suggests that the patrociniumimperii Romani was properly the responsibility of the Julian family.
The only list of patrons of Greek communities with any claim to completeness is that ofL.Harmand. It is given here (Appendix A) with numerous additions and deletions as noted.9The patterns are sufficiently clear so that one may with confidence predict that newdiscoveries (or oversights) will not disrupt the scheme.
When one examines the epigraphical record for the period after A.D. 11/12 (thesignificance of this date is discussed below), one finds a decisive break in the pattern of thecivic patronage. First, in terms of numbers, Table 1 demonstrates that after this datepatronage was indeed Iess frequent in the East when compared to the West or even whencompared to the East in the Republican and Augustan eras.
Table 1: Epigraphical Attested Cases of Civic Patronage

 90 B.C.-A.D. 11/12
 A.D. 13 to 117
 
Eastern Provinces
 72
 11
 
Western Provinces
 22
 61
 
Italy
 27
 44
 

There is then a clear and dramatic decline in the epigraphical incidence of civic patronage inthe Greek speaking provinces. Moreover, references to civic patronage are at least five or sixtimes more frequent in the western provinces than they are in the eastern ones. This figure isparticularly significant because the East was always more densely urbanized.
Second, the record for both the eastern and western provinces (summarized inAppendices A and B) indicates that peregrine communities suddenly ceased to select patronsof senatorial status and that this is true also in areas, like western Asia Minor, where thetradition had been expecially strong (details in Table 2). Citizen communities, however,continued to coopt patrons, if senators, the latter tended to be governors (App. A, Nos. 2and 4), if equestrian, prominent local citizens (App. A, Nos 1, 6 and 7). In other respects,however, the pattern of patrocinium publicum is not discernibly different, East and West,except in terms of absolute numbers. As there were more citizen communities in the Westthan in the East, it follows that the incidence of public patronage would be greater in theformer than in the latter.
8 Vell.Pat. II 120.1, Tiberius as perpetuus parr-onus Romani imperii. The last epigraphical reference inthe East is to Germanicus as patron of Patras and dates to between A.D. 4 and 14, L.Moretti, RFIC108,1980,453. As there is no reference to a dedicator, we cannot be certain that civic patronage is the subject.CIL II 609, refers to Drusus, the son of Germanicus, as patron of Medellinum in Spain.
9 Harmand, 199-201, includes patrons dating to the period before A.D. 11/12 and after 117, but his listfor the triumviral and Augustan periods is, for various reasons, very incomplete. It would be an act of hubristo claim that Appendix A is complete even for the period indicated.
10 This list does not include members of the Augustan family, like Marcellus, Agrippa, Tiberius, etc.Moreover, no distinction is made between citizen and peregrine communities, but note Table 2.



84].Nicols
Only after 135 do we begin to find in the epigraphical record unambiguous cases ofperegrine communities acquiring civic patrons.
Geographically, the cases of patronage of cities in the eastern part of the empire are,between Tiberius and Trajan, to be found primarily in a rectangle defined by PisidianAntioch in the northeast, Xanthos (if indeed the Ignotus No. 13 is properly dated to thisperiod) in the southeast, to Cnossos in the southwest and Bithynia in the northwest. I havenot found epigraphical evidence of formal patronal activity of senators in the communities ofEgypt (hardly surprising), Palestine or Syria, or of mainland Greece during the period inquestion.
More specifically, we have eleven fairly certain cases of civic patronage in the East. Ofthese, five involve Roman coloniae and six peregrine communities.
Table 2: Patrons of Greek Communities, A.D. 11-117(includes "reasonably certain" cases; the numbers refer to the individuals described inAppendix A, part 1)
Citizen CommunityPeregrine Community
senator as privatus8
senator as governor2, 43, 9, 10, 11
equestrian/decurio1, 6, 75
The table appears to suggest that the major hypothesis of this paper, that Augustusregulated patronage so that senators could not become patrons of peregrine communities inthe province they administered, is untenable. When the material is examined more closely.however, the hypothesis is not only substantiated, but one also gains considerable insightinto several central elements of Roman provincial administration. The argument will bedeveloped in two stages. First, we need to understand the nature of the hypotheticalregulation of Augustus and, second, to account for the exceptions (Nos. 3, 9, 10 and 11 inpart 1 of Appendix A and for Lepcis Magna in Appendix B).
3. THE AUGUSTAN REGULATION OF PUBLIC HONORS
Though there is no direct evidence that Augustus was specifically interested in theregulation of patrocinium publicum, we do know that he was concerned about howunscrupulous governors might abuse the public honors they had received from peregrinecommunities. Indeed, the concern was apparently sufficient to cause him to issue a

11 Note Appendix A, Nos. 19 and 21. If Ulpia Nicopolis is indeed a peregrine community as the evidenceindicates and if Trajan did not extend some municipal privileges (including the right to name a patron, seebelow) to her at the time of foundation then 138 would be the first violation in the Greek East.
12 A case for Syria may be Appendix A, No. 15 and SEG 27,1971, 976 (from Laodiceia), but in the lattercase, ntatpalva is heavily restored and the date and identities are uncertain.

y

Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate85

regulating edict. It needs to be stated clearly before reviewing the details that this regulationwas only one step in a series of attempts to resolve the problem. Cassius Dio describes theprocess:
"He also issued a proclamation (ztpocrcapllyyetXE) to the subject nations (tw vnrlxoc^)forbidding them to bestow any honours upon a person assigned to govern them either duringhis term of office or within sixty days after his departure; this was because some governorsby arranging beforehand for testimonials and eulogies from their subjects were causing muchmischief (56,25.6).
Dio's words are unfortunately very imprecise.14 Under "Cep U7Crpc6c we shouldunderstand non-citizens including individual provincials, civitates, provincial assemblies orany combination thereof. This interpretation is supported by Dios use of the word at 52,5.4: Agrippa says, "...it is difficult, when so many enemies beset us round about, to reduceagain to slavery the allies and subject nations (iircmcoovc), some of which have had ademocratic government from of old, while others of them have been set free by usourselves." The sense of the regulation is then that senatorial governors should not receivehonors from the peregrine communities they governed. Note that Dio appears to includecivitates liberae among the peregrine communities. Citizen communities were regulated inthis respect by their municipal charters which included specific guidelines for cooptation.Hence, Pisidian Antioch and other colonies in the East could and did coopt patrons (Nos. 1,2, 4, 5, and 6) of both equestrian and senatorial status. It is important to recognize that thevery fact of regulation indicates how important civic patronage was considered to be.
Equally inexact is the key word npocnaprjyyel).E. Brunt understands it as something likehe secured a senatus consultum. Mason notes that ltapayy€ ga does often stand looselyfor edict, which seems to be close to what Dio suggests.
What honors did Augustus have in mind? Though Dio specifically mentions onlytestimonials and eulogies, honors which would require the attention of other emperors, thecontext and the epigraphical record suggest that Augustus may also have been concerned
13 The edict may have been intended to give new force to the older provision of the lex Julia repetundum,Nicols, Verleihung, op.cit., 246.
14 P.Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege, Oxford 1970, 112, n.5, referring to similar problems atthe beginning of the next chapter in Dio, notes: "Perhaps we have before us an amalgam of regulations issuedat several times, and tied only loosely to A.D. 12."
15 Translated by E.Cary for Loeb Classical Library. Other examples: 52, 27.1 and 30.1. On upekooi, seealso D.Nörr, Imperium und Polis in hohen Prinzipatzeit = Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusf. und Rechtsges.No.50, Munich 1966, and B.M.Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor, Oxford 1967, 73 and 79.
16 Lex Ursonensis, cc. 97 and 130 and the lex Malacitana, c. 61. On the latter, J.Gonzalez "Lex Imitana",JRS 76,1986,218 with recent literature.
17 P.A.Brunt, "Charges of Provincial Maladministration in the Early Principate", Historia 10,1961,216.H.H.Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, Toronto 1974,128, stresses that paraggelma has notechnical meaning, but see Preisigke, Wörterbuch, for examples: = "Erlass des Königs" PLond. 904.36,"kaiser!. Edikt" POx. 1411.8, "Verordnung des Statthalters" PHib 78.19.





86J.Nicols
about more general problems of provincial maladministration and the competition for thosepublic honors which he felt defined his own position.
Maladministration was a problem. Indeed, one possibility is to see the 'edict' inconnection with L.Valerius Messalla Volesus who was prosecuted and convicted for crimescommitted as governor of Asia at about this time. Dio does not discuss the case in anydetail nor does he make any connection between the trial and the edict, but the latter may wellrepresent the reaction of Augustus to the former.
There were however more general considerations which may have led Augustus to takethis step. Titles like soter, ktistes and theos challenged the uniqueness of his ownachievement and could not be allowed to senators. Euergetes, as Bowersock suggests, mightbe permitted because it generally indicated actual gift; in terms of performance, it tended to bemore retrospective than prospective. Though patrocinium was an import it had becomeduring the late Republic one of the standard honors Greek cities extended to Romanmagistrates. If I am right, Augustus eventually concluded that the patronal relationship wasnot appropriate for peregrine communities. Moreover, patrocinium involved a number ofassumptions about the future behavior of both parties. Most important for this discussion isthe fact that in Roman tradition it was considered immoral for clients to bring their patrons totrial (Dion.Hal. II 10.3: "For both patron and client it was impious and immoral [ov'c &tovovtie 6Etc] to accuse each other in court"). Hence, an unscrupulous and extortionategovernor, who could claim to have a significant number of provincial cities in his clientele,had the moral advantage over his clients and victims. Verres certainly understood this fact; tocounter it, Cicero successfully portrayed the Claudii Marcelli as the true patrons and Verres("the patron and soter of the island") as a usurper.21
If patrocinium publicum was included in this or in related legislation, we would expect tosee a particular pattern in the evidence. Specifically, those cases of formal civic patronagecommunities in the Greek speaking East after 11/12 should involve:
1.patrons who were not senatorial governors in the province of the client community, or
2.clients who were citizen communities.
With the exception of the Bithynian material (discussed below), this is indeed( the pattern inthe Greek evidence.
The epigraphical data suggests that regulation may have gone further than Dio reports. Byimplication Augustus allowed peregrine communities to select patrons from senators whowere not their current governors. Nevertheless, communities did not take advantage of this
18 I have discussed this problem has been discussed more fully in Verleihung.
19 PIR1 V 96; Komemann, RE 8A, 170f.
20 This hypothesis is developed more fully in a forthcoming book.
21 Cicero, Vert-hies, 11,2,114 and 154.

Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate87

opportunity to acquire senatorial patrons.22 That they did not do so suggests either that theywere particularly interested in short-term, administrative benefactions and expected little inthis respect from their ex-governors. Alternatively, parallel legislation of Augustus, or atleast discretion on the part of provincials and senators, may have discouraged the formationof such connections. Against the first hypothesis is the statement of Herennius Senecio that,because he had (among other things) served as quaestor in the province of Baetica, he wouldcontinue to represent its interests at Rome (Plin., ep. VII, 33; a statement that is remarkablysimilar to one made by Caesar, BHisp. 42). Against the latter there is the fact that there is noparallel for such a restriction anywhere in the legal and epigraphical sources, indeed, all othersuch regulation forbids such honors only during the term of office and sixty daysthereafter. In sum, communities appear to be particularly interested in the administrativebenefactions that governors could confer.
There are other patterns in the evidence on public honors that are consistent with the casemade for patrocinium.
1.Nock and Bowersock have collected the data on the use of soter, a title which wasfrequently applied to Roman governors in the Republican and Augustan periods. After A.D.11/12 and for the next century, we no longer find such cases, despite the fact that the titlecontinued to be given to non-senatorial easterners .
2.As I have argued elsewhere, senators do not become patrons of provinces or of theirpatriae in this period.
3.Eck's data indicate that peregrine communities did not set up monuments to senators atRome during this period.
4.The last known cult for a governor (C.Marcius Censorinus) in his province dates toabout 8 B.C., a date that is somewhat earlier than might be predicted by my argument, butnot inconsistent with it.27
22 Glitius Gallus, Appendix A, No. 7, might appear to be an exception. He had been a senator and he didbecome patron of the peregrine community at Andros; at the time of appointment, however, he was in exileand probably not a formal member of the senate.
23 Nicols, Chiron, 1979, op.cit.
24 A.D.Nock, "Soter and Euergetes" in The Joy of Study: Papers presented to F.C.Grant, New York1951,127ff., especially 142-3 = Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z.Stewart, Cambridge MA1972, II 732-3 and Bowersock, op.cit., p.120-1. There are two cases in which a senator is called soter duringthis period: Julius Quadratus was honored apparently before he was adlected into the senate and JuliusPolemaeus at the time that he was governing another province. In both cases, the individual had close andlong standing ties with the cities involved, note Nos. 11 and 17 in Appendix A.
25 For provinces, "Patrons of Provinces in the Early Empire", forthcoming in ZPE; for their patriae"Pliny and the Patronage of Communities" Hermes 108,1980,365-385.
26 Chiron 14,1984,212. There are only two for the period in question, one from a citizen community to asenator, L.Cassius Longinus (AE 1930,70; PIR C 350) who apparently did not govern the province (notmentioned in this capacity by Pflaum, Fast. Narbonen., or in Laterculi. The other, published by Bartolini, isvery fragmentary and the identities of the parties honored and honoring are not clear, nor is the date, Ep. e ord.sen., I, 615. For the periods before and after there are respectively six and seven secure cases.
27 SEG II 549, discussed by Bowersock, Augustus, Appendix I, 150-1.



•



88J.Nicols
5. Peregrine communities cease to contract hospitium publicum with senatorial governorsduring this period, though they readily did so with others.28
That these patterns are all consistent indicates that some kind of legal (or even extra-legal)framework governing public honors must have been put in place late in the principate ofAugustus.
There is, it may be argued, an alternative explanation for this pattern. Could it not be the
case that, under the New Order, the peregrine communities did not seek patrons because theyrecognized that the title was meaningless?3° This explanation should be rejected for tworeasons. First, references to civic patronage are frequent all through the reign of Augustus,but cease very abruptly in about A.D. 11/12. Second, the evidence from the citizencommunities, East and West, and from Bithynia and Lepcis suggests that the communities ofthe empire did indeed wish to acquire patrons (especially governors) who were in a positionto promote their individual interest. This is not, of course, to say that they were successful intheir attempts to manipulate their patron-governor.
To this point, the regulation on public honors has been attributed to Augustus. Indeed,Dio is quite specific that the edict was issued by him. Nonetheless, the timing of the newpolicy suggests that Tiberius may also have exerted influence. Bowersock argues that thenew ordinance was designed to control the competition for honors.31 Nonetheless, it is clearAugustus had not been unduely disturbed that governors continued to receive such honors allduring his Principate and even at times when he was pursuing his dynastic goals and wantedto stress, for example, the personae of C. and L.Caesares. Hence, it may be that the impetuscame from Tiberius. It was precisely in A.D. 11/12 that he was ascendant both in the familyand in the state. He no longer faced a credible rival in Agrippa Postumus, he was in Rome tocelebrate his triumph, had received the aequum ius with Augustus and a place between theconsuls in the curia. He may already have determined that he would not become paterpatriae, a title he continued to stress in respect to Augustus after A.D. 14.33 Could Tiberiushave had some ideas about reserving the title patronus for himself? Velleius, in fact, callshim perpetuus patronus Romani imperii (II 121).
28 The most recent collection of material is by M.Dolores Dopico Cafzos, La Tabula Lougeiorum,Vitoria, 1988,67-72. Between A.D. 12 and 117, there are seventeen tesserae/tabulae, but only No. 25 ( = AE1962,287, for Sex.Curvius Silvinus, qu. pro praetore, dates to the period. G.Alföldy, Fast.Hist., dates him toAugustus or Tiberius, but the case made here suggests a date before A.D. 11.
29 These restrictions on senatorial use of such titles, with the exception of the one on cults, begin tobreak down, as noted above, in the Trajanic period. The material is discussed more fully in my forthcomingbook, The Patronage of Communities in the Roman Empire.
30 P.Veyne, Le pain et le cirque, Paris 1976,767 writes: "...car le patronat n'est pas une chose, unefonction formelle or informelle; c'est un titre honorifique..." Cf. text here at n.40.
31 Augustus, 119; also R.Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford 1986,9.
32 On his powers in 11/12, Vell. II 121; Suet. Tib. 21; P.A.Brunt, "C.Fabricius Tuscus and an AugustanDilectus", ZPE 13,1971, especially 171-3.
33 The Divus Augustus pater coinage was the largest of the Tiberian principate, C.H.V.Sutherland,Roman History and Roman Coinage, 44 B.C. - A.D. 69, Oxford 1987,39-42.

Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate89

4. THE RULES AND THE EXCEPTIONS
To this point, it has been demonstrated that Augustus (and Tiberius?) attempted toregulate public honors, but that the epigraphical record is somewhat uncertain. The majorproblem in the East is the evidence from Bithynia: the patrocinia of four governors, Cadius,Mindius, Pasidienus and Plancius appear to represent clear violations of the Augustan edict.The fact that all these "violations" appear in Bithynia suggests, however, that the provincemay have been exempted from the Augustan regulations at least in respect to the appointmentof civic patrons. The source of this exception may have been the lex Pompeia which was stillthe governing charter of the province under Trajan.
In brief, Pompeius, probably by virtue of the lex Manilia, issued a charter for Bithynia inca. 63, which was probably confirmed in Caesar's legislation of 59 and modified, apparentlyin minor ways by Augustus either in 29 (when he re-established the province) or in 20. Incontrast to other Pompeian provincial settlements, for example in Pamphylia, this one hadconsiderable permanence
The charter established twelve poleis in the province (Pun. NH V 14.3) and introduced atleast some Roman usages into their civic adminstration. For example, admission to andtenure in the local boulé followed the Roman model with permanent senates enrolled bycensors.35 Among other provisions, it may also have established norms by which the twelvecities of the province might acquire patrons. As noted above, such provisions arecharacteristic of the charters of cities established on the Roman model. That Pompeius wouldinclude a section on civic patronage in his law is consistent with his well known pride in hismany clientelae (e.g., Cic. ad fam. IX 9.2: regnum ac nationum clientelis quas ostenderecrebro solebat). Moreover, the epigraphical record supports the hypothesis that the cities ofBithynia had a notable interest in acquiring patrons. A good example is the enormousmonument (over 9 m. long) that at least nine Bithynian communities set up at Rome to theirproconsul and patron, Rufus. Though it cannot be dated exactly, it probably belongs, as Eckhas suggested, to the triumviral period. Notable is the fact that, though the monument is aunit, each individual city claims Rufus as a patron.
34 In general on Bithynia: A.H.M.Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford 1971,159;A.N.Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, Second Edition, Oxford 1973,303 and 376; on Plin.Ep. X 114;A.J.Marshall, "The Greek City in the Roman World: Pontus and Bithynia", Praktika of the 7. Congress forGreek and Latin Epigraphy, Athens, 1984,120-33. Also, Abbott, and Johnson, 72. On ratification, Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, Oxford, 1966, on X 79. On Augustus re-organization in 29 and 20 B.C., Dio 51,20.6 and 54, 7.5; on his edict, Plin. epp. X 80 and 84. On the relative permanence of the settlement, Strabo,XII 3.1 and Jones, 166, Antonius was especially disruptive.
35 Sherwin-White, Citizenship, 303 and 376; Jones, Cities, 159.
36 On the date, Eck, Chiron 14,1984,209. Though the koinon is not mentioned, the unitary character ofthe monument does suggest collective action. This does not necessarily mean that Rufus was the patronusprovinc iae.







90J. Nicols
Even if this interest in civic patronage is manifest, it is not clear whether Bithynia simplydisregarded the provisions of the edict of A.D. 11/12 (or parallel legislation) or, alternatively,was exempted. There is evidence for both hypotheses, but the latter would appear the morelikely. It has long been recognized that at least some sections of the lex Pompeia, e.g., theban on plural citizenship, were not being enforced in the time of Pliny. Moreover, Pliny'scorrespondence indicates "the proconsuls were very much left to themselves in the centurybefore Nerva's accession" and they may not have been concerned to enforce provisions theprovincials felt were "unnatural".37 Still, it may have been one thing to violate "unnatural"(for the Greeks) provisions of the Pompeian charter, it was something else to violate an edictof Augustus.
The more plausible hypothesis is that among the Roman models introduced by the lexPompeia, there was also one which regulated the appointment of patrons. Augustus musthave accepted this section of the charter(s) when he reviewed the provincial organization inthe 20's B.C., that is, at a time when he had no open misgivings about governors becomingthe patrons of peregrine communities. Even so, would Bithynia have been exempted fromthe edict of A.D. 11/12? This may well have been the case. Trajan, in responding to arequest from Pliny for a ruling on the applicability of one item of imperial legislation in thelatter's province, notes: sed inter eas provincias, de quibus rescripsit, non est Bithynia (ep.X, 66.2). Indeed, Pliny and Suetonius indicate that, in the first century, A.D., there wasconsiderable variety in the details and privileges of each city's constitution.  Finally, acomparison with the province of Asia, which had a long and rich tradition of Romanpatrons, is instructive: Civic patronage for governors, men who were among the mostimportant of their age, ceases absolutely at this time.
Hence, the conclusion should be that the lex Pompeia, which remained essentiallyunchanged in Bithynia from 63 B.C. through the reign of Trajan, also defined the manner inwhich patrons might be acquired by cities. Such criteria may have been fairly similar to whatwe find in the lex Ursonensis (c. 130: senators must be sine imperio). It may well be thatPompeius included the same provision in other provincial charters, but, for one reason oranother, the latter were rescinded. Hence, we find a clear epigraphic and numismatic recordof civic patrons in the peregrine communities of Bithynia in the period from Augustus toTrajan, but nowhere else in the eastern provinces.
If the edict of Augustus were valid throughout most of the East, we should also expect tofind traces of the same pattern in the West. Appendix B is a list of reasonably certain cases ofcivic patronage in the Western Provinces for the same period (A.D. 13 to 117). It is

37 On un-enforced provisions, Plin.Ep. X 114, and Sherwin-White, ad loc. On the independence ofgovemors, Sherwin-Whites comments to Plin. Ep. X 73. Unfortunately, Sherwin-White does not make itclear whether this was characteristic of Roman provincial administration, in general, or of Bithynia, inparticular. On the unnatural character of some of the provisions, Sherwin-White, Citizenship, 303.
38 Plin. Ep. X 84: concessa...a diva Augusta to the Nicaeans, also X 109. Suet. Vesp. 8.



Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate91

immediately apparent that the same pattern also prevails there: Citizen communities cooptpatrons. Most of these were senators who are known to have governed in the province of theclient; those of equestrian status were either prominent locals or imperial officials known tohave served in the area.
As in the East, there is a notable exception. Lepcis Magna, a peregrine community,secured the patronage of many of the governors of Africa proconsularis between A.D. 13and 117. The status of the city has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. There isgeneral agreement that Lepcis, as a civitas libera et immunis, reorganized itself and adopted aconstitution on the Roman model probably as early as 5 B.0 . At that time it acquired anumber of privileges, including the right to issue its own coins ('ius feriendi'). By the timeof Vespasian, there are indications that Lepcis might also have become a genuinemunicipium, or at least had the right to call itself one.39 During the reign of Trajan, itachieved colonial status (IRT 353). Even if we accept the argument of di Vita-Evrard that itwas a Flavian municipality, we still have to explain how it was that Lepcis acquired at leastfour patrons in Julio-Claudian period. The answer, as with Bithynia, should be that herconstitution allowed her to coopt patrons, that this right was guaranteed in the provincialcharter and was not rescinded by the edict(s) of A.D. 11/12. It should be stressed that thecritical factor here was not that Lepcis was a civitas libera, there are many cities with thisstatus who do not have patrons, or even that it enjoyed a number of privileges. Significant isthat it had adopted a Roman style constitution, a constitution which must have contained asection similar to those found in the leges Ursonensis and Malacitana and one which definedhow patrons were to be appointed. That patrons could be important to peregrine communitiesis demonstrated by the fact that Lepcis acquired ten of them during the first century, thehighest number by far during this period.
It is reasonable to conclude that Nicomedia, Nicaea and Lepcis regularly secured thepatronage of the provincial governor and that other peregrine communities would have doneso, if they had been allowed to.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The word "mirpwva" should not be casually restored to Greek inscriptions in thisperiod. In particular it should be replaced by svcpy&v or xiöiptava in BCH 50,1926,443
n. 80 (for Memmius Regulus) and IGR IV 125 (for Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa).
39 M.Grant, FITA, 371; J.Reynolds, IRT 79f.; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 363; H.E.Herzig,"Die Laufbahn des Lucius Septimius Severus, Sufes", Chiron 2,1972,394-404; G. di Vita-Evrard,"Municipium Flavium Lepcis Magna", Bull.Arch. = BCTH 17-B, 1981,198-209. Herzig argues that it hadthe right to name itself a municipium, 400; di Vita-Evrard, that it was a-"municipe latin dans la pléntitude duterme", 209.
40 They are evenly divided between the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods. Thugga had five, but they areall members of the local aristocracy, though note Licinius Tyrannus, a libertus, C.VIII 26518. Hippo Regiushad three, all were senators and at least two were govemors.



•

92J.Nicols
More generally, Augustus recognized that patrocinium publicum might serve the NewOrder, but he also perceived the dangers. As patron, a governor might be encouraged by hisclients to promote Romanization and urbanization. But, because the Roman ethical systemreckoned it as immoral for a client (community) to go to court against the patron, senatorswith tendencies to extortion may then have believed that they were protected fromprosecution by the title. If so, they were mistaken, for the governors of Bithynia, wheresenatorial governors could become patrons, were the most frequently prosecuted of all.This not to argue that the emperors believed that provincial maladministration could beprevented by banning patrocinium, but that one important temptation was removed.
What, then, was the policy of Augustus? Because patrocinium publicum was closelyassociated with the history of the Republic, he could not deny citizen communities the rightto coops patrons, even if the former were in the provinces and the latter were senators.Peregrine communities, in contrast, might extend significant and extravagant honors of asecular or religious character to the Princeps and even to prominent locals, but not tosenatorial governors.  The diplomatic aspects of patrocinium were, thereby, reserved forthe Princeps. In support of this argument, it should be noted that the pattern of other publichonors in this period is very similar. Senators do not become patrons of provinces or of theirpatriae, they are not honored as hospites or as soteres, nor do provincial communities set up"Ehrendenkmäler" to them at Rome. Moreover, and to judge by the epigraphical record, therestriction on all of these honors breaks down at about the same time. These consistentpatterns indicate that there must have been some kind of legal framework governing thepublic honors which was instituted late in the reign of Augustus and enforced until that ofTrajan.
There is then no fundamentally different policy for the East and West; the observeddifferences depend rather on the status of the community and the status of the patron. AfterA.D. 11/12, only those peregrine communities which had constitutions on the Romanmodel, and one which gave them (what might be called) a ius cooptandi or adoptandi,acquired patrons. That the numbers of civic patrons were so much greater in the West thanin the East is a consequence of the absolutely greater number of citizen communities in theWest. Moreover, if this argument is valid, then the existence of a formal patron of senatorialstatus in a peregrine community should indicate a change in the constitution or in the statusof that community, or both.
Augustus must have been of two minds about civic patronage. On one hand, the role ofpatronage in the crisis of the Late Republic demonstrated that it was potentially dangerous forthe Ruler, for provincials and ultimately for the State. On the other hand, he must also haveseen the advantages for his urban and imperial programs. His solution was subtle and

41 Brunt, Charges, especially p.224. Seven cases of forty involved the Bithynians. As not one of thecases is mentioned in Book X, there is not reason to discount Plinys evidence.
42 Bowersock, 119 and 150; also R.Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford 1986, esp. p.9.



Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate93

effective. First, patrocinium publicum was to be understood as a privilege or benefactionreserved for citizen communities. Second, by taking the title pater patriae, Augustus couldset himself above other patrons and, if he so wished, might claim to be, as was suggestedfor Tiberius, patronus perpetuus Romani imperii (Vell. II, 120). Third, by a combination ofregulation and incentive, he successfully changed the expectations about the role of civicpatronage. No longer was the patron associated with the levying of auxiliary forces to fightcivil wars and extortionate governorships and taxes, but he now appears as a publicbenefactor.43 Once civic patronage became equated with public benefaction there was nolonger any reason to regulate the award of the title.
APPENDIX APatrons of Cities in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire between A.D. 11 and ca. 117
The material is divided into four groups. The first includes cases that are relatively clear inrespect to date and identity of both parties. The second group consists of cases where the textis very uncertain or has been incorrectly restored and, consequently, where there is nocertainty about date and/or identities. The third group consists of cases which are properlydated to periods beyond the range of this study and is not intended to be complete. Thefourth lists one interesting case of imperial patronage dating to the period. Harmand, 199-201 lists other patrons not relevant for this study.
Part I: Certi
1, ... Aedituus, patron ÿf Cnossus 
AE 1900, 215.
Clearly not a senator or a governor, but a duovir of the Roman colony at Cnossus and aprovincial flamen. Date cannot be determined exactly, but is post 79.
2.L.Antistius Rusticus, patron of Antiochia Pisidia
AE 1925, 126; PIR2 A 765; RE Suppl. VI, 7, No.41; Laterculi, I 266, Eck, Chiron12,1982,321, R.Syme, Historia 32,1983,359-74 = Roman Papers IV 278-94. LegatusAugusti for Cappadocia, Galatia, Pontus, Pisidia, etc. in 92-3.
Antiochia is a Roman colony. He was active in minimizing the effects of a famine.
3.C.Cadius Rufus, patron of Nicomedia,
Waddington, et al., Recueil, I 2 Koinon Bithyniae, No.6; I 3, Nicomedia, Nos. 20 and 23 =Bosch, II 1, 82. PIR2 C 6; RE III 1170; Laterculi, I 244. Proconsul of Bithynia-Pontus at
43 On auxiliaries, Caes. BCiv. I 29, 61; II 18; on governors, Cic. Verr. II 2.154, on extraordinary taxesand patronage, R.Merkelbach, ZPE 16,1975,39-42 and 31,1978,36-7 (in reference to L.Antonius). Also:Nicols, Patronage of Communities in the Roman Empire, forthcoming; on the expectations about patronagein the Principate, Nicols, id. and R.Duthoy, "Sens et fonction du patronat municipal durant le principat",L'Antiquité classique, 53,1984,145.

94J.Nicols
sometime between 43-8 (see below). CIL VI 1508, a monument in honor of a Rufus, datesto the late republic and cannot refer to Cadius, Eck, Chiron 14,1984,201 ff. Also SEG29,1979,992.
Nicomedia was a peregrine community and appears to be a clear violation of the Augustanregulation. Tacitus notes (Ann. XII, 22), that Cadius was prosecuted on the complaints ofthe Bithynians and convicted under the lex repetundarum. There is, however no specificconnection made between patronage and the conviction. The Bithynian material is discussedin the body of the article.
4, P.Calvisius Ruso Jplius Frontinus, patron of Antiochia Pissidia. 
AE 1924,126. PIR2 C 350; RE III 1411, No.10; Laterculi, I 268; Eck, Chiron 12,1982,340;R.Syme, ZPE 56,1984,173-92 = Roman Papers IV 397-417, with bibliography. LegatusAugusti for Cappadocia, Galatia, etc., in 104-7.
Antiochia is a Roman colony.
5.O.Casellius Geminus. patron of Kaunos 
SEG XIV 647. Not in Harmand. Casellius is not otherwise known. No rank is given, hencehe is presumably a local. The inscription dates to about A.D. 30.
6.L.Flavonius Paullinus. patron of Pisidian Antioch 
Not in Harmand. Stein, Ritterstand, 314-5; Levick, JRS 48,1958,74.
Probably of equestrian rank and a duovir at the colonia of Antioch besides being patron.Father of the following and grandfather of a senator.
7.C.Flavonius Anicianus Sanctus, patron of Pisidian Antioch
Not in Harmand. Levick, JRS 48,1958,74-8. Inschr. von Ephesus = IK 14, No.1238. PIR2F 446; SEG 26,197617,127.
Flavonius was not a senator, but of equestrian rank and a duovir of his patria, a colonia.
8.P.Glitius Gallus. patron and euergetes of Andros
Not in Harmand. IG XII 5, 757 = Syll. 811. Also mentioned by Tacitus, ann. XV 56 and71; hist. 190; Plut. Otho. 1. PIR2 G 184; RE Suppl. 3, Glitius, No.2.
Sent into exile on Andros by Nero after Pisonian Conspiracy. Tacitus notes only that he andothers exilia data, which probably included loss of senatorial dignity.  He was recalled(i.e., probably readmitted to the senate) by Galba and at least part of his property wasrestored by Otho. His wealthy wife, Egnatia Maximilla (also honored as euergetes)accompanied him. Groag (in RE) suggests that the inscription would have been set up afterGalba had recalled him to Rome and Otho restored his property. The benefactions to Androsprobably date to the time of their arrival on the island when Egnatia's considerable fortunewas still intact. Her benefactions may have led to the subsequent confiscation of her property(Tac. ann. XV 71).
44 Note the penalty for Pedius Blaesus, Tac. Ann. XIV 18.1. On exile, P.Garney, Social Status and LegalPrivilege in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1970,111-122. The language of literary writers is not exact,suggesting that there was considerable variation in treatment.

Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate95

9.L.Mindius Pollio. patron of Nicomedia
Not in Harmand. Waddington, et al., Recueil I 3, Commune Bithyniae, Nos. 1,3,4,5 =Bosch, II 1,80 = SNG (Aulock) 271. PIR2 M 598; RE XV 1773,6; Laterculi 1243. Nicols,Chiron, 9,1979,256.
Proconsul of Bithynia under Claudius, probably before 48.
He was probably patron of Nicomedia (for the arguments, Nicols, Verleihung, and "Patronsof Provinces in the Early Principate", forthcoming in ZPE.
10.P.Pasidienus Firmus. patron of Nicomedia
Not in Harmand. Waddington, et al, Recueil lII Nicomedia, Nos. 18 and 19 = Bosch, II, 1,82 = SNG (Aulock) 738, 7100; (Copenhagen) 18, 550. PIR P 103; RE XVIII 2058;Laterculi I 243. Proconsul of Bithynia under Claudius. The Bithýnian material is discussedin the main text.
11.M.Plancius Varus. patron of Niceae (Bithynia) 
Not in Harmand. S.Mitchel, IRS 64,1974,27. Shahin, Bithynian Studies = IK 7,14-15; RESuppl. XIV, 485, No.5; Eck, Chiron 13,1983,202, Laterculi I, 245; Tituli II, 642.
Citizen of Perge in Pamphylia; praetorius in 69; quaestor and later proconsul of Bithynia. Hewas a legatus pro praetore in Achaea and in Asia before 75, but not consul or proconsul ofAsia.
H. Incerti (for reasons as noted)
12.M.Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa. Hierapolis or Coruna in CappadociaWaddington, BCH 7,1883,128, no.3 = IGR III 125. PIR2 N 56; RE XVI 2545, No.10 andSuppl. VI 7, No.10; Laterculi I 264; Eck, Chiron 12,1982,299. Legatus Augusti forCappadocia, Galatia, etc. in 79, R.P.Hopkins, "Tituli Comanorum Cappadociae", AS18,1968,94-5.
The word ruxtpwva has been restored at the end of line 4. As the whole right side of thisinscription is missing and as there are no cases for this outside of Bithynia, the restorationshould be rejected, Eüepykriv is more likely. Hopkins also questions neetpwva.
13.Ignotus, patron and euergetes of demos of Myra (Lucia) 
Not in Harmand. Büyükkonlanci, et. al., ZPE 40,1980,256-8, No.6 = 1K Ephesus 17,No.3903. No trace of rank, personal name or of date. Lettering suggests the late Hellenisticperiod through Augustus.
14.Ignotus, patron and euergetes of Xanthos in Lycia
Not in Harmand. A.Balland, Fouilles de Xanthos VII 123, No.48.
Balland dates the inscription to the reign of Nero, despite the fact that his best parallel careerdates to the mid 2nd century. There is no indication that he came from Lycia or governed the
45 My thanks to Prof. F.Gschnitzer for discussing the problem with me.

)

96J.Nicols
province, though he did apparently command a legion in Syria, close enough for his servicesto be considered of value also to the people of Xanthos. Balland suggests that he may havebeen patronus causae, but he may also have owned property in the area or have married intoa local family (cf. No.21 below and note 24)
15. P,Memmius P. 1. Regulus. patron of Thespiae(?) and Pergamon(?) or of Alexandria Troas
a.= Plassart, BCH 50,1926,443, no.80, Groag, Reichsbeamten 26, for Thespiae
b.(for Pergamon) and
c.(for Alexandria Troas) = CIL III 7090 = D.962.
PIR M 468; RE XV 626, No.29; Laterculi I 191. Legatus Augusti of Moesia, etc., from35-41/44; Proconsul of Asia, ca. 48/9.
It has been claimed or suggested that he was patron of several Greek communities, ofThespiae (a.) and of Pergamon (b.) or of the colonia of Alexandria Troas (c.). The evidencein all instances is weak. The case for Thespiae (a.) rests on Plassart reconstruction of line 2(where about 15 to 19 letters are missing at the beginning of the line) to read ticcu toynatipcova apct]tjc EvEtcev. There is nothing compelling about this suggestion. Indeed,6spyet11v fits equally well into the space and, is paralleled on four other contemporarydedications to Memmius (IG II/III 4174 and 4175; Inschr. v.Olympia, 337; IG IV 1139 =665). There is no reason to consider him a patron of Thespiae. PIR is cautious, mentioningonly that he was honored at the town. That Memmius was patronus Pergamenorum (b.) isnot suggested by Harmand, but appears, as far as I can tell, first in PIR. CIL III 7090, wasindeed found at Pergamon and Memmius is named as patron, but the inscription was set upby a certain Potamon. Because the text is in Latin, Mommsen attributed the monument not toPergamon, but to the Roman colonists of Alexandria Troas. As the text does not refer to himas patronus coloniae, or mention a colony or any community at all (as is frequently the case,cf. AE 1925, 126 for Antistius Rusticus), the most plausible interpretation is that it honors apersonal rather than a public patron. As a colonia, however, there would be no/conflict withthe argument advanced here.
16. L.Popillius Balbus. patron of an unknown community with a Greek constitution 
CIG 4697b = 4529 and p.1175 = IGR III 1209, 1540; PIR P 622; RE XXII PopilliusNo.36; Laterculi I 306. R.Syme, ZPE 61,1981,125-44 = Roman Papers III 1381. Legatusof Claudius at some time between 41-55.
Harmand makes three different patrons out of what is one inscription. There are a numberof problems with this case. The man is not otherwise known. Thomasson assigns him to a

46 P. 200, based on 1GR III 1209 and 1540. It is not at all clear why IGR, which refers to the addendumCIL III, p.1175 should assign the first text (1209) to Joppe. On this inscription, E.Schürer, The History ofthe Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by G.Vermes, F.Millar andM.Black, II 113, n.145. There is a persistent tradition in the epigraphical literature of the 19th Century thatthe inscription does come from the Syrian coast. My thanks to W.Eck for this reference.



Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate97

gap in the list of governors of Syria between 49 and 51, but does so reluctantly because thetext does not designate him as "antistrategos". Syme, referring to C. III 6703, does nothowever consider this to be a serious impediment to assigning him a governorship andconsulate. Both Syme and Thomasson suggest that he may have been legatus of one of theSyrian legions (for presbeutes as legatus legionis, AE 1965,320; SEG 18,216). Moreover,the name of the client community is not known. The editors of CIG and IGR think it musthave been Berytus, a colonia. The wording of the text is most unusual for colonies, butnot unparalleled. If indeed, the client community is the colony of Berytus, then there is noproblem as far as this argument is concerned. Even if the client is not Berytus (Symesuggests a city on the coast of Syria or Cilicia Pedias), there are still too many questions tobe answered before the text can be evaluated properly. If the thesis of this article is accepted,he should be removed from the list of governors of Syria.
III. Patrons which are not to be attributed to this period
17.C.Julius Plancius Varus Comutus. patron and euergets of Perge in Pamphylia Not in Harmand. S.Jameson, JRS 55,1965,54-7; D. 1024; Syme, Historia 18,1969,365f. =Roman Papers II 787ff. Eck, Chiron, 13,1983,192; Tituli II, 642.
Consul and perhaps legate of Cilicia under Hadrian. He is not known to have been governorof Pamphylia.
18.M.Plautius Silvanus, patron of Attaleia
AE 1941,147 = SEG VI 646; PIR1 F 361; RE XXI 30, No.43; R.Syme, Klio 27,1934,139-43. Harmand (p.201) dates him to the reign of Nero. No M.Plautius Silvanus is known tobe active in the imperial administration at this time. Silvanus must the consular colleague ofAugustus in 2 B.C., and the latter's legate in the East in AD. 6-7.
19.C.Poppaeus Sabinus. patron of Delphi
Waddington, Fast. No.68 (Delphi) also in Groag, Reichsbeamten 25. PIR1 P 627; RE XXII82, No.1; Laterculi I 190. Governor of Achaea from 15-35; of Moesia, from 11/12.
Patron and euergetes of Delphi. As the inscription does not mention any office, it should bedated to the period between 11/12, when he became governor of Moesia, and (if myargument here is correct) 15, when Achaia was added.
20 C.Rubrius Vinicius (?) Porcius Marcellus. patron of Ulpia Nicopolis 
AE 1926,91. PIR P 639; RE XXII 227, No.37; Suppl. XIV 589, No.22a; Eck, Chiron13,1983,184; Laterculi 1164. Legatus Augusti in Thrace in 138.
47 F.Vittinghoff, Römische Kolonisation und Bürgerrechtspolitik. Abh.Mainz, 1954, No.14, Wiesbaden,134-5.
48 Rubrius Porcius Marcellus was patron of Ulpia Nicopolis and was honored by the beule kai demos,but this town may not have been a proper colonia. On this issue, B.M.Levick, Roman Colonies in SouthernAsia Minor, Oxford 1967,73 and 79, and CIL III 6883 from Cremna in Pisidia.

98J.Nicols
Patron of Ulpia Nicopolis ad Istrum, a foundation, perhaps a colonia, of Trajan in 138.
21.O.Voconius Sex. f. Saxa Fidus,patron of Phaselis
D.8828 = IGR III 763f = SEG 31,1987,1300. RE Suppl. IX 1834, No.14. Not inHarmand. He was leg. Aug in Lycia-Pamphylia ?143-7 (Alföldy, Konsulat, ad loc. Barbieri,speculating on the name of his son, concludes he was married to a woman from the easternpart of the empire (Albo, 614); if so, the patronage of Phaselis may indicate her origin.
22.Terentius Marcianus, patron of Termessos
AE 1900, 128 = PLRE 1557, Marcianus No.22.
Harmand dates him to the period 74-135, but was probably praeses of Lycia-Pamphylia inthe late 3rd or early 4th century.
IV. Emperors as Patrons ??
23.M.Cocceius Nerva. patron of Teos in 96 ? 
AE 1927,43
Harmand, 165, and Touloumakos, 322, date the inscription to immediately after the death ofDomitian. It refers however, to the consul ordinarius of 36 B.C., note D.8780, to the sameman.
Addendum
E.Varinlioglu ("Inschriften von Stratinokeia in Karien", EA 12,1988,93) mentions a'neugefundenen' inscription from Stratinokeia which proclaims a M.Junius Silanus as"patron and euergetes". Varinlioglu tentatively ('wahrscheinlich') identifies him as proconsulof Asia in A.D. 54(?), PIR J 833 = RE X 1079, No.176. Proper evaluation of this text willhave to wait until publication. Münzer notes the difficulty in assigning "Notizen undInschriften" to the Junii Silani of the late Republic and Principate. The Silanus in questionmight also be the proconsul of Asia in 76 B.C., and patron of Mylassa, LeBas-Waddington,no.409.
APPENDIX BPatrons of Communities in the Western Part of the Empire, A.D. 13 to 117
Date NomenCognomenOffices in RegionClientStatus Evidence
Rank:DECURIO?
37 PostumiusChiusThuggacitz ILAfr 558
75 Attenius C.f.AferEporacitzC ii 2159

Patrons of Greek Cities in the Early Principate99

Rank: DECURIO 40 Julius L.f.
40 Praeclus L.f.42 Caesetius C.f.48 Artorius
80 Cornelius Q.f.100 Julius T.f.110 Fulvius
Crassus
Clemens
Perpetuus scrd Aesc/Jov; pr i d KarthaBassus
Persaflam prov LysitanValerianus
Carisianus
Thuggacitz
Salonacitz
Thuggacitz
ThuggacitzOssonoba subj
Viennacitz
Arvacitz
C viii 26475
C iii 2028=EE iv 259
C viii 26519C viii 26517D'Encarnnacao,Conimbr 84C xii 2608
C ii 1064

Rank: EQUESTRIAN -> SENATOR
73 Sempronius
 Fuscuspraef coh, procos Baetica
 Augustacitz C v 5127; AE 1962 288Firma
 


fl Narb, fl Nem, cur Aq.proc Aug Maur Caes

Aviolatrib mil leg iii Aug
Aviolatrib mil leg iii Aug
Aviolatrib mil leg iii Aug
Aviolatrib mil leg iii Aug

Rank:
27 Silius27 Silius27 Silius27 Silius
55 Afranius Sex f. Burrus65 Aufustius C.f. Macrinus100 Cominius M.f. Aemilianus
107 Caesemius T.f. Statius
Apisa maius subjSiagu subjThemetra subjThimiliga subj
Vasiocitz
Gurzasubj
Vasiocitz
gns Mauror subjMaccuum
Cv4921C v 4921C v 4919C v 4920
C xii 5842=D.1321C viii 69
C xii 3212/13 + add.
AE 1904 150=D.900



Rank: LIBERTUS
25 Licinius M.l. Tyrannus

Rank: REX
35 Ptolemaeus
 Thuggacitz C viii 26518
Caesareasubj C viii 20977
 


Rank: SENATOR16 Vibius C.f.19 Aemilius
22 Comelius
23 Volusius L.f.
24 Aemilius26 Pontilius33 Cassius L.f.33 Mennius P.f.35 Rubellius C.f.
HabitusLepidusLentulusSatuminusRegillus FergellanusLonginusRegulusBlandus
procos Afr
leg of governorleg leg
leg Aug Dalmnon known
leg pro pr
procos Afr
Assurascitz AE 1913,40Rusguliae citz C viii 9247
Banasacitz AE 1954,260
Aenonacitz C iii 2975-6Saguntum citz C ii 3837=13.949
Salonacitz C iii 8715
Arelatecitz AE 1930 70
Ruscinocitz ILG 633
Lepcislibr IRT 330

100J.Nicols

36 Etrilius
41 Servilius M.f.
42 Allius
42 LiciniusCrassus
42 Marcius C.f.Barea
42 Marcius C.f.Barea
52 PompeiusSilvanus
55 Julius Q.f.Secundus
58 Aelius M.f.Gracilis62 Cornelius Ser f. Scipio
62 DucenniusGeminus
70 CaecinaAlienus
72 Funisulanus L.f.Vettonianus
72 ManliusAncharius75 Sentius Sex f. Caecilianus
77 DomitiusPonticus
78 PacciusAfricanus
78 PacciusAfricanus
80 GaleriusTrachalus
82 AvidiusQuietus
83 Nonius L.f.Asprenas
90 IgnotusBE
93 Domitius Sex f. Afer
98 Licinius Q.f.Silvanus
100 Glitius P.f.Atilius
100 Glitius P.f.Atilius
105 Julius Sex f.Maximus
105 TerentiusGentianus
I06 Minicius L.f. Natalis
110lgnotusAP
110 Larcius A.f.Priscus
116 IgnotusAK
leg procosprocos Afr
leg with father in Mauret.procos Mr.
procos Afr.procos Afrleg pr pr
procos Africaeleg Aug Dalmat
leg Aug Dalm-Pann-Moes.procos Afr
leg Aug Mauret
praetor pro prprocos Afrprocos AfrprocosAft
leg Aug in Thrace
procos AfrIeg leg ?
procos Aft
leg Aug Pann
leg iurid Hisp citleg iur Tarrac
leg pr pr Africae
leg Aug Germ sup?leg Aug exer.Afr
Lepcislibr
UticacitzHippo regius citz
VolubiliscitzHippo regius citz
Lepcissubj
Lepcislibr.Tupusuctu citz
Dertosacitz
Lepcislibr
Naronacitz
BosacitzAndautonia citz
Lepciscitz
Banasacitz
Lepciscitz
LepciscitzHippo regius citz
Uticacitz
Deultumcitz
Lepciscitz
Latobicicitz
Lepciscitz
Baetulo citz...enacates? citzCalagurris? citzCalagurris citzSarmizege- citz
tusa
Cirta citzAventicum citzThamugadi citz,
Avenniocitz
IRT 330
C viii 24585a; AE 1932 24AE 1935 32
AE 1943,43AE 1935,32IRT 273
IRT 338=AE 1948,17
C viii 8837=D.6103
EE ix 385IRT 341
D.9484
EE viii 227
C iii 4013=D.1005
C viii 22671=IRT300
AE 1941,79;D.8979
IRT 342
IRT 342
AE 1949,76ILAfr 419
C vi 31692=D.6105
IRT 346
C iii 10804Epigraphica 7(1945)8.4AE I936,66C v 6987,6986C v 6987,6986X xii 3167=D.1016
C iii 1463
C viii 7069
C xiii 5089=D.1020C viii 17891=0.1055C xii 3I69

LupercusNonianusMaximus

University of OregonJohn Nicols

101

PATRONS OF PROVINCES IN THE EARLY PRINCIPATE:THE CASE OF BITHYNIA
INTRODUCTION
The history of patronage of provinces in the Roman Empire is most uneven. During themiddle and late Republic we do find cases of individuals who might be described as such.For example, Cicero indicates that the Claudii Marcelli were the patrons of Sicily, a claimthat was probably generally recognized by 100 B.C.; Verres made the same claim to theprovince in 70's; Caesar notes that Pompeius Magnus had magnae clientelae in the Hispaniaciterior. Some families were thought to have, or at least to share, the patronage of provinces,e.g. the Fabii and Domitii in the Narbonensis. By 28 B.C., Nonius Balbus is recorded on aninscription as patron of the koinon of Crete.'
The concept of patrocinium provinciae was quite amorphous in the Late Republic. In partthis is true because not every province had an organization which might confer the title and inpart because terms like 'Sicilians' and 'Achaeans' could interpreted narrowly (as forexample, natio) or broadly (as the province as an entity). Hence, several varieties of thisform of patronage may be observed:
1.More maiorum the conquerer of a natio or populus became the patron (Cic. de off. I,35). The classic case is Claudius Marcellus and his descendants in respect first to Syracusebut eventually including the whole province.
2.The senate, through the leges de repetundiis, gave to provincials (civitates, nationes,populi) a patronus to prosecute governors accused of extortion and maladministration, e.g.,Caesar claims the patrocinium of Hispania Ulterior, BHisp. 42 and Cicero that of Sicilians,Au. 14.12).2
3.The koinon or commune of a province might ask a governor to admit the province intohis clientele. Nonius Balbus exemplifies this format (C. X 1430 = 2405).
The title, patronus provinciae, might then be acquired by simple ascription (moremaiorum) with or without formal application by the clients, it might be also be assigned to aprovince by the Senate, or it might be the consequence of a formal request of a provincialassembly.
With the 'Restoration' of the Republic, there is a marked change in this pattern. Mostnotably, the title virtually disappears from the evidence for a good 150 years (until the
1 The republican material is collected and discussed by M.Gelzer, "Die Nobilität der römischen Republik"(1912), now in Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden, 1962, I, 89ff., E.Badian, Foreign Clientelae, Oxford, 1958. OnNonius Balbus, see Appendix B.
2 On this subject, J.Touloumakos, "Zum römischen Gemeindepatronat im griechischen Osten", Hermes116,1988,304-324.



102J.Nicols
principate of Hadrian) and does not become common at all until the very late 2nd/early 3rdcentury, A.D. Moreover, when this form of patronage re-appears in the 2nd century, it doesso in the western provinces of the Empire and is regularly associated with the provincialflaminate.
Two cases appear to build striking exceptions to this pattern. L.Mindius Polio andC.Cadius Rufus were proconsuls of Bithynia under Claudius. Under their authority, it isclaimed, the koinon of the province struck coins. As both of these governors are describednot only as, proconsul (anthupatos), but also "patron" on these coins, both would alsoappeai be the official patrons of the province.
These cases are exceptional for several reasons. First, as noted, they are inconsistent withthe pattern associated with the patronage of provinces in the post Augustan Empire. Second,as I have argued elsewhere, Augustus issued a regulation which denied to peregrinecommunities (cities and provincial assemblies) the right to claim their senatorial governors aspatrons.4 It will be demonstrated here that the so-called patrons of Bithynia were not patronsof the province, but patrons of the leading city of the province, Nicomedia.
We are relatively well informed about the history of the Bithynian koinon.  A temple toRoma and Augustus at Nicomedia had been completed and was the center of the provincialcult. Throughout the 1st Century, A.D., the Bithynians had been active in prosecuting theirgovernors for maladministration. It is not, however, clear to what degree reference to"Bithynians" in the literary evidence can be equated with the "Koinon Bithyniae". Note thatPliny only once refers to the provincial consilium (ep. 7, 6.1). To complicate matters,factional strife was rampant in the province at all levels, even within the provincialassembly.
THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE FROM BITHYNIA
At the beginning of his description of the coins of the province of Bithynia,Waddington, et al., write:
"Les monnaies frappées par le commune Bithynia, depuis Claude jusquà Hadrien, lontété probablement a loccasion des jeux fédéraux. Latelier est sûrement Nicomédie, et il
3 Appendix B. This is not to suggest that provincial assemblies did not confer public honors during thisperiod. The case of Claudius Timarchus, who claimed that he alone determined whether a governor wouldreceive the thanks of the koinon of Crete, is well known (Tac. Ann. XV 20). On this case, P.A.Brunt,"Charges of Provincial Maladministration in the Early Principate", Historia 10,1961,215 and J.Nicols, "DieVerleihung öffentlicher Ehrungen in der römischen Welt", Chiron, 9,1979,248-9.
4 "Patrons of Greek Communities in the Early Principate", above p. 81ff.
5 On the status of the Bithynian cities on this question, see the above mentioned article.
6 J.Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit, Munich, 1965, discussed at many points,especially I7-I9, 60-64; on patronage in the province, Nicols, op.cit.
7 The factional strife is mentioned at all levels, note especially Plin. epp. III 9.3I; IV 9.3 and 5; VII 6,and the many references in the speeches of Dio of Prusa. Sherwin-White, Letters of Pliny, ad loc., and Brunt,Charges, 212-3, discussed the effects of the strife on the working of the koinon.

•


Patrons of Provinces in the Early Principate: the Case of Bithynia103
existe des pieces de cette vile (reconnaissables au monogramme) qui sont identiques de toutpoint a celles du koinon. On a souvent range une partie de ces demières à Nicomédie.Cependant, nous nous sommes fait une regle de classer au koinon toutes les pieces qui neportent pas de nom de vile, à plus forte raison celles où figure le nom BITHYNIA."8
The argument is not compelling: As the coins of Bithynian cities regularly refer tothemselves on their coinage, it "follows" that coins without such references should refer tothe koinon. There are six coins in this group without a "monogramme" (described inAppendix A), all can be securely dated to the principate of Claudius. It should be noted thatthe first coins to make explicit reference to the koinon (as COM BIT on silver andKOINON BEIeYNIAE on bronze) were struck under Hadrian.9 Recueil offers noexplanation for the koinon's highly differential treatment of itself under Claudius and underHadrian. Nonetheless, the argument has never been challanged and the most recentprosopographical studies routinely repeat the claim that these two governors were indeedpatrons of the province.
On the obverse of these coins, one finds the titles and portrait of Claudius (Nos. 1-5, seeAppendix A for full description) and of Britannicus (No. 6). The reverses bear a number ofdifferent images, but they also include a reference to the proconsul of the province, by nameand title, and to the fact that the latter was also patron (the abbreviations vary between"IIATP" and "II". If these coins were struck by the koinon, then we should reckon the twoproconsuls, Mindius Polio and Cadius Rufus as the patrons of the province. Indeed, theyare usually described as such (App. B).
There are, however, good reasons to reject the assignment of these coins to the koinon ofBithynia and to attribute them to Nicomedia. In this case, the two men become patrons ofthat city.
1. To begin with, it is difficult to generalize about pattern of coin types in Bithynia at thebeginning of the reign of Claudius. Immediately after the departure of Pompeius for Rome inabout B.C. 63, eight Bithynian cities in a coordinated but nonetheless independent way,issued coins to "Roma".10 After Octavian had re-established the koinon in 29 B.C., theproconsul Thorius Flaccus authorized at least one major issue at various cities. Between 27B.C. and A.D. 41 there had been small and very irregular issues at Apamea, Nicaea andNicomedeia.  In sum, there is no indication that coins were regularly struck either by thekoinon, or by the two leading cities of the province before the principal of Claudius.
8 Recueil général des monnais Grecques d'Asie Mineure, Paris 1910, I, 2, 234-5.
9 Recueil, 239; C.Bosch, Die kleinaisatischen Münzen der römischen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, 1935, II, 172,Deininger, 63, Magie, RRAM II, 1485, n.48. Some doubt has been expressed about whether these coins canindeed be attributed to the koinon, Deininger 52, n.5 and 63, N.7.10
 R.Mellor, Thea Roma: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World, Göttingen, 1975, 84-5, and n.372, collects the evidence. Also, Magie, RRAM I, 400.
11 Recueil, 251, n.38, 516, 12ff.

104J.Nicols
2.Even Recueil admits that the so-called Koinon series were struck at Nicomedia.Indeed, they are in every technical way equivalent to the coins of the city which bear the civicmonogram.
3.There is nothing in the iconography that could be interpreted to refer unambiguously tothe Commune (see Appendix A for the types). Indeed, Recueil refers to the female head witha towered crown once as "Bithynia" (No. 3) and once as "Tyche urbaine" (for NicomediaNo. 8). It is, in fact, difficult to see how the province might be personified by the "turretedcrown".
4.The so-called Koinon coinage looks very much like earlier issues of Nicomedia.Bithynia 1 and 2 (womans head, helmetted Pallas? Roma?) = Nicomedia 5 (cf. plates35.1 and 88.22).
Bithynia 3 (womans head with turreted crown) = Nicomedia 8 (cf. plates 35.2 and88.23).
Bithynia 4 (head of Zeus) = Nicomedia 1 (cf. Recueil Plates 35.3 and 88.17 and 18).Bithynia 5 is not clear and Recueil does not illustrate it.
Bithynia 6 (bridge or aqueduct over GEU DOS with capricorn) has no apparent provincialcontent (see Appendix A).
5.If these coins (nos. 1 through 5, especially) were recognizable, as I believe they musthave been, as referring to earlier Nicomedian issues, would it be necessary to add a referenceto the name of the city? Alternatively, why would the koinon strike coins at Nicomedia thatwere identical to earlier Nicomedian coins and not make its own authority clear?
6) The size of the issues also speaks against the proposition that these coins were issuedby the commune. Single examples may have been known to Waddington, et al., but only"Bithynia 1" is in Aulock, otherwise, not one appears in the SNG of Aulock or Copenhagenor in the BM. The assumption here is that bronze coins struck by the koinon would havebeen struck in sufficient numbers to serve the fiscal needs of the province. They may,however, have been intended only as medallions. As Grant has shown, medallions andcommemorative coins were especially valued by the antiquarian Princeps, Claudius, andwere not intended for general circulation.
7. As noted above, the Koinon did issue coins in its own name under Hadrian. Toaccept the argument of Recueil that it also issued coins under Claudius, we must also acceptthe improbable notion that it struck its first coins without referring to itself, and then ceasedto strike any more for ninety years.
12 D.R.Sear, Greek Imperial Coins and their values: The Local Coinages of the Roman Empire, London1982, No.437, assigns "Bithynia I" a moderately high value for bronze of that time and place of £ 40,suggesting some rarity. That the others are still rarer is indicated by the fact that Sear does not even mentionthem.
13 M.Grant, Roman Anniversary Issues, Cambridge, 1950, 2I-4; 70 and 76.

Patrons of Provinces in the Early Principate: the Case of Bithynia105

8. Finally, if the coinage was issued by the koinon, then Pollio and Rufus would have tobe reckoned as patrons of the province, but there is no other evidence for provincial patronsbetween 27 B.C. and the reign of Hadrian (Appendix B).14 There is however numismaticand epigraphical evidence indicating that at least Nicaea and Nicomedia acquired two of theproconsuls as patrons in this period.15
In general, the evidence suggests that the issues of Pollio and Rufus which do not have anexplicit reference to a community should be referred to Nicomedia and not to the Commune.The patrons on those coins are properly patrons of Nicomedia.
PATRONS OF PROVINCES IN THE SECOND CENTURY
Between A.D. 90 and 140, we have two cases in which senators appear to have becomepatrons of provinces. There is no doubt about the fact that the younger Pliny was thepatronus cause of the Baetici. Less certain is whether the patrocinium he describes in ep. III4, is to be understood narrowly as a reference to his role as advocate appointed by theSenate, or more generally as the result of a formal cooptation by the provincial assembly.Because Pliny's language is so ambiguous and because he would represent the first knowncase of the phenomenon in the Principate, I now tend to favor the second alternative.
The first definitive epigraphical reference to the phenomenon is the dedication of theprovincia Britannia to its patron, M.Vettius Valens. He served as legatus iuridicus there inabout 137. Nonetheless, he, too, may have been a patronus causae (note that he and Plinyhad legal expertise). The reason for this conclusion is simple enough. During these twocenturies, cities proudly recorded on stone and bronze the names of their senatorial patrons,so did patrons mention the names of their clients on inscriptions of a more private character.Provinces shared this tradition and honored their flamines and other benefactors. It is thenremarkable, if the title were regularly conferred, that no other province or patron mentionsthe honor. Hence, I do not believe that senators became patrons of provinces by a process ofcooptation in the pre-Severan period.
Three other cases may reasonably be dated to the end of the 2nd century and all involvemen of only local and provincial importance. As they are also known to be flamines of theprovince and one is celebrated for his eloquentia, it would appear that legal and rhetoricalskills were essential benefactions.
14 L.Harmand, Le patronat su les collectivités publiques, Paris, 1957,41I-2. The first securely attestedpatron of a province after 20 B. ., is M.Vettius M. f. Valens, CIL XI 383 = PIR V 344 = Birley, FastiBritan. p.215. The fact that senators do not become patrons of provinces may be connected to the Augustanedict of A.D. 11/12, discussed by me in Chiron, 9,1979, and forthcoming in ZPE. Note, however,Vehilius/Vilius discussed in Appendix B.
15 Nicols, Greek Patrons.
16 Hermes, 108,1980,370-4, and "Greek Patrons", op.cit.
17Thedetails are given in Appendix B.

•

106J.Nicols
In sum, senatorial patrons of provinces during the early Principate were probably patronicausae, that is, they were appointed by the senate to prosecute a governor accused ofprovincial maladministration. During the very late 2nd Century, the assemblies of thewestern provinces began to assign the title to individuals of provincial importance. There issome reason to believe that eloquence at the bar may also have been a decisive benefaction ofall these patrons.
Appendix A: The Numismatic Evidence for Bithynia
I. L.Mindius Pollio. PIR2 M 598; RE XV 1773;6; Laterculi 1243. Nicols, Chiron,
9,1979,256, and Greek Patrons, op.cit. Not in Harmand. Proconsul of Bithynia underClaudius, probably before 48.
Recueil I, 2 "Bithynia" 1: Obv: Claudius with his titles. Rev: Helmetted woman, Roma orAthena, with legend ElII MINAIOY IiSZAAISINOZ AN®YIIATOY UATPSlN(OE)(Plate 35,1). Examples: one illustrated in Recueil, Plate 35.1 and SNG (Aulock) 271.
"Bithynia" 2: Obv. Claudius with titles, now including P.M., trib. pot and pat. patriae.rev, same as 1, but "patr" not visible. Examples: None published.
"Bithynia" 3: Obv: Claudius with titles. Rev. Tyche (plate 35.2), name and titles ofMindius as in Bithynia 1, only "[pa]tro". Examples: Babylon, 213 (with variant reading inClaudian titulature, addition of AVTO at beginning. Recueil, plate 35,2. Not in BM or SNGAulock of Copenhagen.
"Bithynia" 4: Obv: Claudius, as in 3. Rev: laurelled head of Zeus, name and titles ofMindius, but "p" for patron. Examples: Recueil, plate 35.3.
"Bithynia 5: Obv. Claudius as on 4 (??; legend not clear). Rev: Mindius with titles andpatron; uncertain figure going right and turning head. Examples: Recueil, plate 35.4.
2,_ C.Cadius Rufus. PIR2 C; RE III, 1170; Laterculi, 1244. Proconsul of Bithynia-Pontus at sometime between 43-8, Nicols, Greek Patrons, op.cit. CIL VI 1508, a monumentin honor of a Rufus, dates to the late republic and cannot refer to Cadius, Eck, Chiron14,1984,201ff. Tacitus notes (Ann. XII, 22), that Cadius was prosecuted on the complaintsof the Bithynians and convicted under the lex repetundarum. There is, however no specificconnection made between patronage and the conviction.
Recueil I, 2: "Commune Bithyniae" No. 6. Obv: Britannicus Caesar (head laurelled to theright). Rev: arch or a bridge supported by two columns above the word "Geu dos";capricorn above; EnI FAIOY KAAIOY POY4 OY AN®YIIATOY IIATPSZNOE Boschbelieves the reference is to a bridge built over the Geudos river (Plin. NH 5,148) on the westcoast of Bithynia.  But, as the location of the river is not known, it cannot be claimed thatthe reference is to a structure of provincial or civic significance If, however, it is an
18 This problem is currently being studied by Angel Ventura Villaneuva of Cordova.
19 Op.cit. II, 197.

Patrons of Provinces in the Early Principate: the Case of Bithynia107

aqueduct, then that might suggest Nicomedia in particular, note Plin. ep. X, 37, on thehistory of this project.
Appendix B: Provincial Patrons 27 B.C. A.D. 200
M.Nonius Balbus. ca. 27 B.C. Patron of Crete
C. X 1430 ( = 2405).
L.Mindius Pollio. Claudius (41-48?). 
Evidence discussed here at length. He was probably patron of Nicomedia, not Bithynia.L.Cadius Rufus, Claudius (41-48?). 
It is here argued that he was patron of Nicomedia, not of Bithynia.
Vehilius(?)) Late Republic/Augustus? = [T.] Vilius Milionius (?) Nero. Patron of Cyprus Mitford, Opus. Arch. 6,1950,28-31 = AE 1953,167; also ANRW II 7.2, p.1301. The textand date are very uncertain, the nomen and cognomen rare. Moretti, RFIC 109,1981,264-8,questions a number of elements in Mitford's re-constructed text and dates it to the LateRepublican or Augustan era. Regardless of the identity, the provincial patron appears to bethe brother of the governor or former governor. If the text is indeed datable to the periodafter AD. 11/12 (which seems to be improbable), then we would have a clear attempt tocircumvent the legislation of Augustus which forbade peregrine communities to honor theirsenatorial governors. Also, Eck, Chiron 13,1983,193, n.522.
C.Plinius Caecilius Secundus. 93-99. Patron of Baetica? 
Pin. ep. HI 4; Nicols, Hermes 108,1980,370-4. Although his language is ambiguous, hewas probably patronus causae and not patronus provinciae.
M. Vettius Valens. ca. 137, Patron of Britannia
C. XI 383; PIR1 344; RE VERA 1869, No. 52; A.Birley, Fast. Brit. 215. The inscriptionconcludes with the words: "...provincia Britannia patrono". This appears to be the first clearcase of provincial patronage since Nonius Balbus. Valens did serve as legatus iuridicus inthe province, as such it is possible that he too should be reckoned as patronus causae.
r
 ni
 and
 _1I.
 

EE VIII 199 = Alföldy, RIT 284 and Flamines provinciae Hispaniae citerioris, Madrid,1973, p.15 and No. 35. Alföldy notes the many unusual qualities of this inscription.1---1 Vallerius ---1. 2nd century. Patron and flamen of Alpes Maritimae. 
AE 1924, 61 = Insc. lat. Gaule, no.3 (better reading).
C.Subrius Secundus. late 2nd or possibly 3rd Century Patron and flamen of AlpesMaritimae, His eloquentia is mentioned in the inscription.
C.V 7917.
[---]lus Albinus. 
D.687I = AE I902, 15. No indication of rank; date is also uncertain, could be in 3rdCentury.

108J.Nicols
Ignotus. 
C. VIII 9368. Probably 3rd Century.
For the period 180 to ca. 300, Ventura lists nine cases; for the 4th century, another nine.
University of OregonJohn Nicols