relation with his successor, or else, without any formal violation of a treaty, convert the kingdom into a province. This last policy was constantly adopted under the Principate, so that by degrees all the chief client principalities disappeared, and the provincial territory increased in corresponding measure. Even under the Republic the dependent princes paid fixed annual tributes to Rome.
(f). The treatment of Egypt by Augustus formed a new departure in the organization of the subject lands of Rome. It was, as we have seen, united with the Roman Empire by a sort of “personal union”, like that by which Luxemburg was till recently united with Holland. The sovran of the Roman state was also sovran of Egypt. He did not, indeed, designate himself as king of Egypt, any more than as king of Rome; but practically he was the successor of the Ptolemies. This principle was applied to dependent kingdoms which were afterwards annexed to the Empire, such as Noricum and Judea. Such provinces were governed by knights (instead of senators, as in the provinces proper), and these knights, who were entitled prefects or procurators, represented the Emperor personally. It is clear that this form of government was not possible until the republic had become a monarchy, and there was one man to represent the state.
(g). To make the picture of the manifold modes in which Rome governed her subjects complete, there must still be mentioned the unimportant class of attributed places. This was the technical name for small peoples or places, which counted as neither states nor districts (pagi), and were placed under or attributed to a neighboring community. Only foederate towns, or towns possessing cither Roman citizenship or ius Latinum, had attributed places. This attribution was especially employed in the Alpine districts; small mountain tribes being placed under the control of cities like Tergeste or Brixia. The inhabitants of the attributed places often possessed ius Latinum, and as they had no magistrates of their own, they were permitted to be candidates for magistracies in the states to which they were attributed. They could thus become Roman citizens.
It is to be carefully observed, that while the subjects of Rome fell into the two general classes of autonomous and not autonomous, the not autonomous communities possessed municipal self-government. The provinces, like Italy, were organized on the principle of local self-government. In those lands where the town system was already developed, the Roman conqueror gladly left to the cities their constitutions, and allowed them to manage their local affairs just as of old, only taking care that they should govern themselves on aristocratic principles. Rome even went further, and based her administration everywhere on the system of self-governing communities, introducing it in those provinces where it did not already exist, and founding towns on the Italian model. The local authorities in each provincial community had to levy the taxes and deliver them to the proper Roman officers. Representatives of each community met yearly in a provincial concilium. For judicial purposes, districts of communities existed in which the governor of the province dealt out justice. These districts were called conventus.
It thus appears that the stipendiary communities also enjoyed autonomy—a “tolerated autonomy”, of a more limited kind than that of the free and the federate communities. The Roman governors did not interfere in the affairs of any community in their provinces, where merely municipal matters, not affecting imperial interests, were concerned. It also appears that those not autonomous communities which had obtained exemption from tribute practically approximated to the autonomous, whereas those nominally independent states, in which tribute was nevertheless levied, approximated to the dependent.
Here we touch upon one of the great tendencies which marked the policy of Augustus and his successors in the administration of the Empire. This was the gradual abolition of that variety which at the end of the Republic existed in the relations between Rome and her subjects. There was (1) the great distinction between Italy and the provinces; and there were (2) the various distinctions between the provincial communities themselves. From the time of the first Princeps onward, we can trace the gradual wiping out of these distinctions, until the whole Empire becomes uniform. (1) The provinces receive favors which raise them towards the level of Italy, while Italy’s privileges are diminished and she is depressed towards the level of the provinces. But this change takes place more gradually than (2) the working out of uniformity among the other parts of the Empire, which can be traced even under Augustus, who promoted this end by (a) limiting the autonomy of free and federate states, (b) increasing the autonomy of the directly subject states, (c) extending Roman citizenship, (d) converting client principalities into provincial territory. But perhaps the act of Augustus which most effectually promoted this tendency was his reorganization of the army, which has been described in the foregoing chapter. While hitherto the legions were recruited from Roman citizens only, and the provinces were exempt from ordinary military service, although they were liable to be called upon in cases of necessity, Augustus made all the subjects of the Empire, whether Roman citizens or not, whether Italians or provincials, liable to regular military service. The legions were recruited not from Italy only, but from all the cities of the Empire, whether Roman, Latin, or peregrinae; and the recruit, as soon as he entered the legion, became a Roman citizen. Theauxilia were recruited from those subject communities which were not formed as cities, and no Roman citizens belonged to these corps. Such communities now occupied somewhat the same position as the Italic peoples had formerly occupied in relation to Roman citizens. It will be readily seen that the new organization of the legions, by largely increasing the number of Roman citizens, and by raising the importance of the provinces, tended in the direction of uniformity
It has been already stated that in the provincial administration, as in other matters, a division was made by Augustus between the Emperor and the senate. Henceforward there are senatorial provinces and imperial provinces. The provinces which fell to the share of the senate were chiefly those which were peaceable and settled, and were not likely to require the constant presence of military forces. The Emperor took charge of those which were likely to be troublesome, and might often demand the intervention of the Imperator and his soldiers. Thus (27 B.C.) Augustus received as his proconsular “province” Syria, Gaul, and Hither Spain. With Syria was connected the defence of the eastern frontier; Gaul, which as yet was a single province, he had to protect against the Germans beyond the Rhine; and Hispania Citerior (or Tarraconensis) laid on him the conduct of the Cantabrian war. To the senate were left Sicily, Africa, Crete and Cyrene, Asia, Bithynia, Illyricum, Macedonia, Achaia, Sardinia, and Further Spain (Baetica). In this division there was an attempt to establish a balance between the dominion of the Emperor, (who had also Egypt, though not as a province,) and the senate. But the balance soon wavered in favor of the Emperor, and the imperial provinces soon outweighed the senatorial in number as well as importance. When new provinces were added to the Empire, they were made imperial.
After the division of 27 B.C., several changes took place during the reign of Augustus; but before we consider the provinces separately, it is necessary to speak of the general differences between the senatorial and the imperial government.
The Roman provinces were at first governed by praetors, but Sulla made a new arrangement, by which the governors should be no longer praetors in office, but men who had been praetors, under the title of propraetors. This change introduced a new principle into the provincial government. Henceforward the governors are proconsuls and propraetors.
Under the Empire, those governors who are not subordinate to a magistrate with higher authority than their own, are proconsuls; those who have a higher magistrate above them are propraetors. The governors of the senatorial provinces were all proconsuls, as they were under the control of no superior magistrate; whereas the governors of the imperial provinces were under the proconsular authority of the Emperor and were therefore only propraetors.
The distinction between governors pro consule and governorspro praetore must not be confused with the distinction between consular and praetorian provinces. A propraetor might be either of praetorian or of consular rank, and a proconsul might be either of consular or of praetorian rank. In the case of the senatorial provinces, a definite line was drawn between consular and praetorian provinces. It was finally arranged that only consulars were appointed to Asia and Africa, only praetorians to the rest. In the imperial provinces, the line does not seem to have been so strict; as a rule the praetorian governor commanded only one legion, the consular more than one.
The proconsuls, or governors of the provinces which the senate administered, were elected, as of old,