15 Provincials, patrons, and the rhetoric of repetundae Jonathan R. W. Prag In the Divinatio in Caecilium, Cicero famously describes the lex de repetundis as the citadel of the allies: ‘As if, in truth, there could be any doubt that the entire law for the recovery of monies was instituted for the sake of the allies . . . This is the allies’ law, this is the right of foreign peoples, they have this stronghold’. 1 Cicero’s rhetoric has stimulated extensive discussion about the reality and significance of his (and others’) patronage of the Sicilians, as well as about the reality of his role as legal patronus. 2 In what follows, I shall first examine Cicero’s rhetorical claims regarding patronage and repetundae in the Verrines and elsewhere, and secondly consider what can be said, on the basis of our evidence, about the reality of patron/client relationships in relation to repetundae proceedings. I shall suggest that, although repetundae and patron- age had the obvious potential to be, and indeed were, linked, the model here implied by Cicero is misleading. More commonly, the client was important to the patron in a defence against repetundae, whereas a patron was of value to individual provincials and provincial communities in much more specific 1 Cic. Div. Caec. 17–18: Quasi vero dubium sit quin tota lex de pecuniis repetundis sociorum causa constituta sit; nam civibus cum sunt ereptae pecuniae, civili fere actione et privato iure repetuntur. Haec lex socialis est, hoc ius nationum exterarum est, hanc habent arcem . . . . ‘Citadel of the allies’ is the apt rendering of Lintott (2008), 83. I am grateful to the audience at the Oxford conference for their comments on the oral version of this paper, as well as to the editors for their advice and patience. Much of the work for this paper was undertaken within the framework of the project directed by F. Pina Polo, Foreign Clientelae in the Western Roman Empire (HAR2010–16449, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Gobierno de España), and it owes much to my ongoing participation in UMR 8210 (Anthropologie et Histoire des Mondes Antiques [ANHIMA]) of the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), with Sylvie Pittia, Julien Dubouloz and colleagues to produce commentaries of Cicero, II in Verrem 2 and 3 (forthcoming). 2 See e.g. Brunt (1980), esp. 273 on the former (contrast Nicols [1981] and compare Badian [1958], 282–4, portraying it as a test of Pompeius’ ability to protect his provincial clients; cf. Deniaux [1987] and [2007]); and Ferrary (1998) on the latter (cf. David [1992]: 49–83). From: C. Steel and H. van der Blom (eds.), Community and Communication: Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 267-283