though at first reluctant, consented to be nominated. When the preliminary hearing came before the senate, Marius pleaded guilty to the pecuniary offence, and claimed that the matter should be sent before the iudices. Pliny, however, and Tacitus, who acted with him, opposed this, because Marius was accused not only of extortion but of receiving money for the death of innocent persons, and this was beyond the jurisdiction of the quaestio. After some discussion it was decided that Marius should go before the iudices on the pecuniary charge, but that the more serious accusation should be tried by the senate. The trial came on in January 100 A.D., Trajan himself presiding as consul. The occasion was one of unusual importance; Pliny himself seems to have in some degree shared the feelings of sympathy and commiseration which the spectacle of Marius, already degraded from his senatorial and official dignity raised in his peers. The trial lasted for three days. Two alternative sentences were proposed (1) that 'septuaginta millia quae acceperat Marius aerario inferenda, Mario urbe Italiaque interdicendum'; (2) that 'septuaginta millia aerario inferenda; Marium repetundarum poenae quam iam passus esset relinquendum.' The former was carried, while Firminus, one of the legates of Marius, though not expelled from the senate, was precluded from holding any provincial governorship, a sentence which, as Pliny points out, was a compromise and inconsistent.

In the autumn of the next year, 101 A.D., Pliny was requested by 'legati provinciae Baeticae' to conduct their accusation against Caecilius Classicus, their late proconsul. Again Pliny hesitated, but again he finally acceded, principally for three reasons-(1) he felt bound to supplement his previous advocacy of the province against Baebius Massa; (2) Classicus was himself dead, 'amotumque erat quod in eiusmodi causis solet esse tristissimum, periculum senatoris'; (3) he would be able more easily for the future to excuse himself by compliance now. The conduct of the case throws much light on the motives and influences which usually decided such cases. Classicus had held his post in the same year in which Marius was in Africa, but his probably voluntary death had delayed the trial for nearly two years. He had behaved 'non minus violenter quam sordide,' and was accused by the whole province. A number of his socii ministrique' were included in

the accusation. These Pliny, and his colleague Albinus, decided to take separately, on the principle of the horse's tail. The case against Classicus himself was easily proved, since his own handwriting showed that he had made four million sesterces out of the province. It was decided 'bona Classici quae habuisset ante provinciam a reliquis separari, illa filiae, haec spoliatis relinqui.' With regard to his subordinates, the accusers had first to prove 'ut constaret ministerium crimen esse,' the plea of the accused being that as provincials they were bound to obey the proconsul. However, the point was made good, and two of them were in quinquennium relegati.' A few days later Cluvius Fuscus, son-in-law of Classicus, and Priscus, the tribune of a cohort, were tried; the former, probably owing to private influence, was acquitted, the latter banished for two years. In the third trial a number of minor offenders were tried together, of whom some were acquitted, some condemned, 'relegatis aliis in tempus, aliis in perpetuum.' In the latter part of the trial incident occurred which showed the animus' of the senatorial iudices, and the danger to which the provincial legates were sometimes exposed. While Casta, the wife of Classicus, was being tried, one of the witnesses, probably suborned by the defendants, accused Norbanus, one of the legates, of praevaricatio with Casta. Legally this question

should have been postponed till the original trial was decided, but personal feelings against Norbanus overruled constitutional rules, and he was tried then and there, not only on the charge of praevaricatio, but of other matters perfectly unconnected with the present trial. No formal copies of the accusations were shown him, and he was 'in insulam relegatus.' Casta, however, in spite of the presumed praevaricatio of her accuser, was somewhat inconsistently acquitted.

The next two cases were both connected with Bithynia, and in both Pliny defended the accused. Iulius Bassus, who for some reason had been 'relegated' by Domitian, was proconsul of Bithynia under Nerva, and on his return was accused by the province, which as usual sent legati to conduct its case, and among them one Theophanes 'fax accusationis et origo.' The trial took place in 103 or 104 A.D. What the other offences of Bassus may have been we have no means of knowing from the ex parte statement of Pliny (iii 9), but by his own confes

sion, he had incautiously, as Pliny puts it, received presents from the provincials. This was forbidden by the lex Iulia, and not unnaturally hampered Pliny in his defence. There must, however, have been other accusations, for the trial lasted four days. At the end two sentences were proposed (1) lege repetundarum Bassum teneri; (2) salva dignitate iudices dandos. The latter, though, as it was pointed out, 'non congruens erat retinere in senatu cui iudices dederis,' was carried, since as we have already seen, it was within the power of the senate, ‘et mitigare leges et intendere.' An attempt was made to get up an accusation against Theophanes for his conduct of the case; but this, though favoured by a majority of the senate, was not countenanced by the consuls. The virtual escape of Bassus was received with great acclamation; we know, however, from ad Trai. 56 that his acts in the province were rescinded.

Two or three years later, probably in 106 A.D., Varenus Rufus, whom the Bithynians had themselves chosen as one of their advocates against Bassus, was accused by the province for acts done in his subsequent proconsulship. The preliminary inquiry (Plin. Ep. v 20) raised a somewhat important question, for Varenus demanded that he might be allowed to compel the attendance of his witnesses equally with the accusers. This was no doubt equitable, but it was not ‘lege constitutum,' and accordingly the granting of his request by the senate can only be ascribed to the partiality which too often marked senatorial justice. This, however, was an act too patent to be passed unnoticed. The question was brought up again without result in the next meeting of the senate by Licinius Nepos, and the Bithynians even appealed to the emperor. He, however, true to his policy of conciliation with the senate, refused to interfere. A new and unexpected aspect was given to the case before the day for the trial, for another legate arrived from the province bringing a 'decretum consilii,’ by which the accusation against Varenus was dropped. What the cause of this sudden change was we can only guess. Senatorial influence may have been at work in the province, and pressure brought to bear on it. At any rate, the previous legati declined to give up the accusation, and Pliny on his side declined to defend one who apparently was not accused. The matter was brought before the emperor for his decision, not

however on the merits of the case, but on the question whether the trial should take place or not. He promised 'explorare provincialium voluntatem,' and there, as far as we know, the matter rested.

A consideration of these four cases leads us to the conclusion, to which the cases mentioned more shortly by Tacitus also point, that, if as a rule substantial justice was done, yet the senate was by no means an ideal tribunal, that its sympathies were usually on the side of the accused, and that the punishment inflicted on senatorial offenders was the minimum which any sense of decency and a regard to the emperor, in the background, would permit. Senatorial accusers, even the best of them, were reluctant to undertake the case of the provincials (Plin. i 7, 2; iii 4, 3, and 8: ad Trai. 3 a). If they undertook it, they were exposed to the secret prayers and the open resistance of the accused man's friends (iii 9, 25), to which, not unnaturally, they often yielded. To a still greater extent the provincial legati were exposed to these influences, and, as the case of Norbanus (iii 9, 24) and of Theophanes (iv 9, 20) show, even to greater dangers. Again, in its punishments, the senate was laudably severe to non-senators like Priscus and Martianus and Probus and Hispanus (iii 9, 14), but as lax as they dared to be towards Marius Priscus (cf. Juv. i 50, 'victrix provincia ploras') and the daughter and wife of Classicus (iii 19, 17) and Bassus.

It remains to notice that in certain cases neither the provincial organisation nor the responsibility of governors proved themselves adequate to the circumstances of a province, and in these cases we find that extraordinary missions were sent to restore order. A minor instance of the kind occurred under Nero, when Polyclitus was sent ad spectandum Britanniae statum,' and to compose the quarrel between Suetonius and his procurator, as well as, if possible, to put an end to the barbarian rebellion. The latter part of this mission not unnaturally failed. But it was under Trajan that this course was most frequently adopted. Messius Maximus was sent about 108 A.D. to Achaia, 'ad ordinandum statum liberarum civitatum' (Plin. Ep. viii 24). What the particular matters were which needed rectification in the province we do not know for certain, but we have sufficient evidence from various sources of

the anarchy, factions, and financial mismanagement of these so-called free and allied communities. Pliny, in his letter of advice to Maximus, calls the mission a legatio, and no doubt for the time Achaia was under him as legatus Caesaris, instead of under a proconsul. Another instance of the same sort is seen in Wilmann, 874, where we find that Avidius Nigrinus, described as 'legatus Augusti pro praetore,' settles a boundary dispute between the peoples of Anticyra and Delphi. From his title of legatus, we must assume that he was sent on a similar mission to that of Maximus. The next and a more important case is that of Bithynia, which under senatorial administration had already become disorganised. Its finances were in great disorder; it was apparently subject to turbulence and faction owing to the existence of unregulated collegia, and there seems to have been little supervision on the part of the municipal authorities over contracts and contractors of public works. Two long and complicated cases of repetundae within four or five years also point to the need for a decisive reform. The case of Varenus, it will be remembered, had ended in a promise, on the part of the emperor, 'explorare provincialium voluntatem.' Possibly in the fulfilment of this promise, Trajan may have found that the disorganisation was too deep and widespread to be remedied by any more trials under the lex repetundarum, and in choosing a special commissioner to carry out necessary reforms, no one would seem more fitted for the post than Pliny, who, though he had held no provincial governorship, had obtained a certain reputation from undertaking the cause of Africa and Baetica, and was, in particular, acquainted with Bithynian affairs from the part he had taken in the two recent trials. From the well-known inscription of Pliny (see p. 16), we know that his title was 'legatus pro praetore provinciae Ponti et Bithyniae consulari potestate ex senatus consulto missus ab imperatore Caesare Nerva Traiano,' etc. etc. Like Maximus and Nigrinus, therefore, he was 'legatus Augusti,' and therefore necessarily, as we have seen, pro praetore; but in order that he might not, by having only five fasces, seem to the provincials a less important personage than their ordinary proconsuls, the 'consularis potestas' was quite exceptionally added, which would give him the privilege of six fasces, while, to save the authority of the senate over its