ABSTRACT
By the standards of Hadrian (117-38), with his four great tours, Claudius was no peripatetic emperor. He knew little of the Empire first-hand before coming to power. Augustus as Triumvir had campaigned in the east and in the Balkans, and once in sole power moved to Spain and Gaul; it was only after 8 BC that he became rooted in Italy. By 14, Tiberius had seen service all over the Empire except in north Africa, though he never left Italy again. Gaius, precluded by youth, and Claudius, by unfitness, had no experience. Even the evidence that Claudius visited Thessaly in 10-1 I is fragile. Only the trip to Gaul in 39 is certain. As Emperor Claudius left Italy once, for six months in 43-4, and even in Italy we see him treading a worn track down to Ostia or Baiae, or visiting the Fucine Lake. Claudius did not need to travel, however, either to exploit the resources of Empire more widely, or to voice more demonstratively than ever before the care for the provinces that was a recognized part of the Princeps' duties. He showed brutality and sadism, but only where criminals were involved. To his dealing with provincials he brought freshness, conviction that he knew best, interest, and humanity. 2
was less glory and gain to be had from provinces under the Principate. Some men were reluctant to accept posts, or to set out for them. Proconsuls, whom Tiberius had enjoined to leave for their posts by June, were now given only until mid-April. Inevitably there were still greedy offenders. Dio reports that Claudius exiled a governor for taking bribes, and confiscated his gains; nothing new, but the case seems to have given rise in 45 to the rule that 'assessors', that is legates who were assistant-governors, might not draw lots for their next province without an interval in which prosecutions could be brought. Dio also claims that tenure of another office or absence on public business (rei publicae causa) was not allowed to inhibit prosecution, and that was novel. Of the few trials for extortion recorded under Claudius, one was politically motivated: the trials were brought from Bithynia and Asia, two provinces commonly involved in such prosecutions because of their wealth, their articulate ruling circles, and the contentiousness of their civic politics, in which governors sometimes became involved. At a lower level, a citizen of Cibyra, Q. Veranius Philagrus, was able to get Claudius to remove an agent who had been extorting 12,000 HS from the city every year, perhaps in connection with exactions of grain; and Ventidius Cumanus, procurator of Judaea, succumbed to accusations brought by his subjects in 52. Claudius saw himself as contending with human depravity. He complains of it in an edict from Tegea (49-50) dealing with another deeply rooted problem: misuse of the official transport facilities for which subjects paid. 3
It is probably a coincidence that the first firm evidence for regular instructions (mandata) issued to the incoming governors of senatorial provinces, as opposed to instructions on specific points given during their terms of office, such as Gallio received, comes from Claudius' reign; they began by being ad hoc and exceptional, as in the instructions that Tiberius gave the proconsul of Africa in 21 when a rebel had to be dealt with. A Claudian governor of Asia refers to them quite casually.4
