GOVERNMENT WITHOUT BUREAUCRACY 51bequests for games, hunts and other spectacles,^41 show that the voluntary
benefactions as well as the obligatory contributions of the local aristocracy
came under scrutiny and at least partial control, and in about the period
that we have already identifi ed as one in which imperial anxiety as to the
state of local fi nances was expressing itself in sporadic intervention. A
parallel, roughly contemporaneous and much more signifi cant development
is the increasing regulation of the whole liturgical system by the central
government and its representatives. Liability to serve, exemption from
service and the distribution of liturgies among those eligible are all addressed
by a stream of imperial rescripts, establishing rules where previously there
had been lack of regulation or simply confusion.^42
The risk of misinterpreting these interventions and exaggerating the scale
of the interference is reduced if two points are borne in mind. First, the
imperial rulings were invariably elicited by interested groups and individuals.
Similarly, when governors became involved in appointments, as they did
from time to time, it was only on receipt of appeals from aggrieved nominees
or councils attempting to nominate them. The involvement of the governor,
and even more so, the emperor, in the affairs of the cities remained sporadic,
limited and ad hoc throughout our period.^43 It was out of the question that
the central government should attempt to exert direct and continuous
control over local administration. The governor was best placed to do so,
but his term was too short (one year or three), his sphere of responsibility
too large and his supporting staff too small.
Secondly, the imperial rulings fell far short of a rash of general enactments
that drastically undermined the autonomy of local government institutions.
Above all, the emperors failed to produce new institutions and offi ces. (The
far from ubiquitous city curator stands alone.) Nor for that matter did they
reform old ones. The transformation of traditional Greek- style councils
with changing memberships into Roman- style permanent councils was a
gradual process and was not imposed by the central authorities.^44 More
generally, no attempt was made by Roman governments to eradicate the
many differences which persisted between city constitutions in the Greek
world. When a Roman offi cial tampered with a local constitution (leaving
aside the suppression or suspension of the systematically distrusted popular
assemblies, the last vestiges of Greek democracy) it was by invitation. This
is the origin of Marcus Aurelius’ intervention in Athens over the recruitment
of the council of the Areopagus. It is interesting that Marcus stood by the
traditional regulation that only men of good birth should be admitted,
defending it against Athenian attempts to undermine it by adlecting freedmen
into vacancies.^45
The treatment of privileged cities conveys the same impression. What
happened in Bithynia/Pontus under Pliny, when the accounts of Apamea and
Sinope (colonies), Chalcedon and Amisus (free and federate cities),
traditionally immune from inspection, were checked by order of the emperor,
was merely the temporary suspension of privileges. As Trajan explicitly states