The Siege of Rome in 87 B. C.
IN THE year 88 B.C. Sulla had regained the coveted command against Mithridates by leading four legions to Rome and capturing the city by armed force'-a first in Roman history, surprising even to old Marius. This march aroused hostility to Sulla among all classes, even the many senators who shared the political profits of the march: the elimination of Marius and Sulpicius, the denial of equal suffrage to the Italians who had secured citizenship through the Social War, and the re-establishment of the ancient senatorial probouleutic power (App. BC 1. 59. 265-66). After Sulla's departure for the eastern war in early 87, one of the consuls of the year, Cinna, revived the Sulpician bill to distribute the novi cives among all the tribes, instead of restricting them to a limited number of tribes which voted last (in comitia with consecutive voting). Cinna perceived that bearing the banner of the irate novi cives as well as proposing recall of the exiles, including Marius himself, could pay high political dividends. His colleague, Octavius, however, took a staunch optimate line in defense of Sulla's arrangements, protecting the extremely oligarchic status quo. A bloody clash occurred between the followers of the two. Seeing the defeat, indeed, the slaughter of his partisans, Cinna fled the city. Soon afterward, the senate deposed Cinna from office (an unprecedented and illegal act) and his place was taken by Cornelius Merula, the flamen dialis. Cinna assumed the role of (live) martyr for the novi cives and champion of the people's rights (as a consul deposed without a vote of the people [App. BC 1. 65. 296-66. 300]). He easily collected money and men, including even the legion left behind by Sulla. The exiled Marius, long awaiting an opportunity for action (App. BC 1. 62. 281), joined Cinna in the attempt to repeat Sulla's military coup. Meanwhile, the regime in Rome, threatened by these activities, had been compelled to appeal to Pompeius Strabo,2 the only commander in Italy with a large regular armv; for, in general, the plebs urbana was an infrequent and unsatisfactory source of soldiers.3 Strabo had resumed control of his army in late 88, following the murder of the consul Pompeius Rufus, who had briefly superseded the proconsul. Although Strabo and the regime viewed each other with suspicion and distaste,4 he nevertheless brought his formi-
The administration of the empire
The expansion of the power of the city of Rome through the whole of the Mediterranean world during the last three centuries b.c. led to the establishment of Rome as the predominant military and economic force in the region. It also made it necessary to develop ways of administering so large and diverse an area. The patterns which emerged are now usually referred to as the provincial administration of the empire, and there is no doubt that some such collective title is necessary to describe the various methods used by officials of the state to control the communities and individuals with whom they were in contact. It is important at the outset, however, to recognize that ‘provincial administration’ was not a Roman concept, at least during the period of the Republic, within which the empire took shape. PROVINCES AND PROVINCIAE : THE ORIGINS OF THE SYSTEM Although the English ‘province’ is obviously derived from the Latin provincia , the meaning of the two is by no means identical. A province, whether in a constitutional context, as for example the province of Ulster or of Ontario, or in an ecclesiastical, such as the provinces of Canterbury and York, is an area defined for administrative purposes. The provincia on the other hand seems originally to have been a task assigned to a specified Roman magistrate or promagistrate, in the fulfilment of which he would exercise the imperium granted to him in virtue of his election or appointment. Although his task might well consist of using that imperium , the executive power of the Roman people, in a military command within a particular geographical area, it need not do so.
Italian Influence on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism
THIS ARTICLE TRIES to show that the rise of Calvinist scholasticism, which was the most important development in Calvinist theology during the second half of the sixteenth century, stemmed largely from several converging Italian influences, particularly from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi. Here Calvinist theology refers not only to the personal thought of John Calvin but also to the teachings of the founders of the Reformed or Calvinist tradition as it spread out from Geneva and Switzerland to France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland, and the Low Countries. In this context Calvin emerges as the brightest star in a galaxy of Reformed theologians which includes Heinrich Bullinger, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza and Wolfgang Musculus as well as Martyr, Zanchi and others. These theologians were often more influential than Calvin himself at a given place or time or on a given point of doctrine. Bullinger, Martyr, and Martin Bucer were all more important for spreading Calvinist ideas to Edwardian England than was John Calvin. Early Elizabethan Protestantism looked more to Zurich than to Geneva, as did early Polish Calvinism. German Calvinism owed more to Heidelberg than to Geneva.' These leaders developed their theologies sometimes in mutual dependence, sometimes with surprising independence. By no means was their relation to Calvin simply that of disciple to master, for each gave a personal nuance to his style of Calvinism. Thus the sixteenth century Jesuit Cornelius Schulting states on the opening page of his five volume polemic against Calvin and Peter Martyr that Martyr was clearer and far more learned than Calvin.2 Recently John Bray has pointed out that research in seventeenth century Calvinism leads "to the conclusion that the impact of Calvin upon the Calvinistic movement has been greatly over-rated. It may well be that some of