Jinyu Liu Local Governments and Collegia : A New Appraisal of the Evidence * Introduction Contrary to earlier collegium scholarship, as represented by Th. Mommsen, J.-P. Waltzing, and F.M. De Robertis, more recent work has attempted to divert our attention from ‘overemphasized’ Roman anxieties about collegia. 1 There has been a noticeable tendency, particularly among social historians, to downplay the significance of legal questions concerning collegia either by questioning the efficiency of Roman law enforcement or by denying the existence of consistent state control over associations. These scholars advocate a cross-disciplinary approach to the study of collegia and have convincingly demonstrated the inadequacy of earlier discussions, which were confined to the juristic framework. This tendency to move beyond the legal sources, however, must not result in wholesale neglect of the impact of official interventions and regulations on associations. In fact, there remain to be investigated many questions regarding governmental attitudes and policies towards collegia, as well as their implementation at the central, provincial, and municipal levels in different regions and in different historical periods. This paper has a rather limited goal, intending merely to draw attention, mainly in light of chapter 74 of the now well-known lex Irnitana, to the complex relationship between collegia and the authorities at all levels—local, provincial and central—in the first and early second centuries A.D. 2 I look at this issue * It has been an honor and a privilege to have Professor William V. Harris as my doctoral advisor. Over the course of my graduate years (1998-2004) at Columbia University, I have accumulated an immeasurable intellectual, professional, and moral debt to him. Only by striving to work as hard as he does—as teacher, scholar, and intellectual—can I hope to repay such a debt. I would also like to thank Claude Eilers, Ilias Arnaoutoglou, and the two editors of this book for their valuable criticism. They are, of course, not responsible for any mistakes. 1 Earlier work: Waltzing 1895-1900; De Robertis 1938; 1955; 1963; and esp. 1971. Recent work: Cotter 1996, 74-89; de Ligt 2000, 237-52; and 2001, 345-58; Van Nijf 1997 and 2002, 316; Arnaoutoglou 2002, 27-44; and (forthcoming); and Harland 2003b, 161-73. 2 For text and commentary, cf. González 1986 with the English translation by Crawford; for the date of the inscription, cf. Mourgues 1987.