COGNITIO

The powers of governors over Roman citizens abroad was extensive, although the precise extent is unclear. In some cases, such as Galba's crucifixion of a citizen in Spain (Suet. Galba 9.1) or the condemnation of Fl. Archippus of Bithynia to the mines in c. ad 84 (Pliny, Letter 10. 58), the governor's power over citizens in the provinces appears to have been absolute. But Roman citizens abroad, threatened with conviction on capital charges, also seem to have had the right of having their cases transferred to Rome, if the governor saw fit; Paul of Tarsus employed this device, partly perhaps in order to escape the social pressures exerted by his enemies and their supporters (Acts 25.1–12). As the citizenship expanded, this form of appeal (provocatio) appears to have become less viable. Instead, those convicted or dissatisfied with the outcome in a lesser court would resort to appeal against the judge's decision (appellatio; see D. 49.1–13; CT 11.29–38).

Governors heard cases not as presidents of quaestiones but as individual judges, sitting on their public tribunals and backed by an advisory council of distinguished friends and legal advisors. If a governor and the litigants' legal representatives were doing their job efficiently (and had access to Roman archives or equivalent provincial collections), the governor might have had resort to a melange of different legal sources to help his decision.