Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus

"p WT 'fJ . At the end here the manuscripts have I
SEVT'P� ICT/pw/LaTL "pWTT/,

%. Fo � o �h�r passages �hat contain informati?n see �ur No. 2�, 57-59: Jv �,;" avp.{3ovt.'WL .. apija : I ol a av, TO' OL El-' "pay/La:rwv aVI-'(3E{30V>'EV/LEJlWJlIlE>'TWL "PWTT/L, IlCT/pw/LaTL TEaaapEaKa.IlEKaTwL. And in No. IZ, 20, we find: LU>'TO§" v (lleiTEpa) v K[1jpWI'a--); c£ the decree of L. Helvius Agrippa (above, n. 19). One difficulty arises in the fact that 1l'>'Tor sometimes may mean codex (as in No. 23, 3 I) and at other times tabula (as, e.g., in No. 23, 58). Then K1jpwl-'a (cera) becomes obscure when it is found in the same context with 1l'>'TOS" = tabula. Perhaps K1jpwI'a then means" column," especially if the

tablets at times were bound chain-fashion, each one linked to the next in a long series. See T. Birt,

10

SENATUS CONSULTA

THE PUBLICATION OF SENATUS CONSULTA

3.

The only extant copy of a senatorial decree which contains exact and detailed in­ structions for its publication is the S.C. de Bacchanalibus." Actually it appears to be a letter of the consuls of 186 B.C. to the Teurani informing them officially of the decree and directing them to publish it locally. The instructions (11.22-30) are as follows: Haire ulei in convenlionid exdeicalis ne minlB Irim,m I noundinulII. se"ahUlsque se.lenliam l
I

exslrad quam sei quid ibei sacri esl,

I

I

"ace in labo/am aHenam inceiderelis, ila senalus aiql40m

uleique eam figier ioubealis, ubei jaci/umed gnoscier pOlisil; alque

I

I

ulei ea Bacana/ia, sri qua sunl,

ila ulei suprad scrip ll,m esl, in diebus X, quibus vobeis labelai dalai

er.ml, facialis IIlei dismola sienl.

No other senatorial decree offers a parallel to this, and it has been suggested that the instructions were given in this case because of the special problem of the Bacchic wor­ ship; the Senate felt that it constituted a danger for the Italian communities and therefore took special measures to suppress it." Publication was highly desirable. Not only was the decree to be engraved on bronze and erected in a conspicuous place-one is re­ minded of the banal formulas of Greek epigraphy in this regard-but also it was to be read aloud on three successive market days before the assembled people (in conventionid). One unusual form of publication is seen in the fifth Augustan edict from Cyrene (No. 31), in which Augustus himself communicated a senatus cO/Isultum by means of the edict. And a special problem exists in the matter of the foedera concluded by Rome with foreign states or cities. Two copies of the treaties were made on bronze tablets in each instance, one of which was erected in Rome on the Capitol, the other in the foreign city. We have the explicit statement of Suetonius (Vesp. 8. 5) that 3,000 Capitol bronze tablets had been destroyed by fire and that these consisted of senatus cOl1sulta, plebiscita de societate et foedere ac privilegio cuicumque concessis. But since senatus cO/Isl/lta were passed for the execution of many of these treaties-the so-called senatorial treaties-and were published in the Greek East along with the treaties, the question arises as to whether the senatorial decrees of authorization were also published in bronze and set up on the Capitol in Rome. Some scholars have separated the decree from the treaty, e.g., in the case of the treaty with Astypalaea (No. 16), and have concluded that the publication in the Greek Krilik ulld Hermeneulik nebsl Abriss des anliken Buchwesens (Munich, I9IJ), pp. 262-6J. But Wengcr, op. cil., p. 75, n. lO, suggests that it means one side of a wax tablet. He would translate the pertinent part of the decree of L. Helvius Agrippa thus: .. Polyptychon (tabula i.d.S.)

5, Seite 8-lO."

The

labula would therefore be waxed on both sides, and in the present case very many of them would be tied together. consistent.

From a consideration of all the examples it would appear that the terminology is not

Some illustrations of labula. bound together can be found in the Nolilia Dignilalum, ed.

O. Seeck (Berlin, 1876; reprinted 1962), or. XIX, and oc. XVII. ZI

C.I.L ., IZ, 5 8 1.

vol.

Latest text with notes by A. Degrassi, Inscripliones Lalinae Lib.,.ae Rei Publicae,

2 (Florence, I96J), no. 511, pp. IJ-I7. Von Schwind, op. cit., pp. 59--6 1.

See also Riccobono, op. cil., no. JO, pp.

240-41, and

lac.
.. Von Schwind,

JJ

ROMAN D O C UMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

city did not reflect exactly the form of publication in Rome.13 They think the treaty alone saw publication in Rome, while the decree was merely deposited in the aerarium. The Greek city, having acquired copies ofboth the decree and the treaty, published both. The inclusion of senatus consulta in the statement of Suetonius might then refer only to those passed for the granting of privileges, e.g., to the S.c. de Asclepiade (No. 22) . Such a view appears to be wrong. Silvio Accame, in my opinion, is right when he says that the authorizing decrees of the Senate were also erected on the Capitol along with the treaties. As proof he cites the text of the treaty with Pergamum, which clearly states that two tablets of bronze were placed in the Temple of Jupiter and that they contained the text of both the decree and the treaty.14 Here is prooffor the publication of decrees of this type. None of them, however, have survived. The bronze tablet containing the text of the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22) would seem to indicate not only tha t it was an official publication by Rome but that other decrees of this nature, i.e., those which granted privileges, also were published regularly by Rome. This is not the case, however. No. 22, line 2 5 of the Greek, specifically gives the recipients of the decree pemrission to erect a bronze tablet. We may then assume that the recipients did so at their own expense ; such an assumption is warranted by the fact that the last two lines of the inscription, containing their names, could not have been part of the decree itself and must have been added by them. The fact that Suetonius (Vesp. 8. 5 . , cited in part above) saw fit to include among those documents which had been destroyed in the fire senatorial decrees granting privileges to anyone leads one to believe that recipients of these decrees often did erect bronze tablets in Rome. Such decrees were publications, but they were not official Roman publications. Consequently we have no way of knowing whether, when such decrees were published in bronze and set up on the Capitol by the recipients, they always included both the original Latin text and the Greek translation. Likewise we have no way of knowing how many of these decrees were actually erected at private expense. But certainly they were not official Roman publications. From these exampies It IS reasonably ..lea;. th,.: ;;�Ule !�"! !!ft'" r� ��lta were oublished, but only those which were of an unusual nature demanding official promulgation or those which were passed to authorize treaties. In addition permission was given to the recipients of decrees involving privileges to erect bronze tablets containing the text of the decree on the Capitol in Rome. But that is all. The great mass of senattls consulta were not published officially until the era of Julius Caesar. How does it happen that we possess a good number of decrees from the Greek East ? The answer is this : Whenever a decree of the Senate was passed in the interest of. or at ..

op. ci/., p. Z 4 7 , a n d H . Ho rn, FoederaJi (Frankfurt, 1 9 3 0), pp. 76.if. 11 dOlll i nio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augus/o (Rome. 1946). pp. 81>-8 3 . The treaty from Pergamum or a nearby community is most easily accessible in S.l.G.'. 11. 694 : ,iva.wp.lvo [ v) B. Ell' 'Pwf''11 , e v .,.w. i£pw [ , .,.oii) I .:::I "ls .,.oii Kam.,.w,\ [ lov 'lTl) va/Cos [ X ) a.\/Co [ ii '3 HeuB,

.. S. Accame,

/Ca� l l ev ail.,.w, /Ca.,.a.,.na [yfL€l'wv) .,.oii [.,.£ y£) yov,;"'os I [B) oyp.a.,.os [ �) '/T(l rijs [<7vy/C'\�"' ) ov 'IT£P' rijs <7U/'I, a \ [x ) {as. /C.,.'\ (11. Z3-Z7) .

12

SENA TVS CONSVL-L"A

the request of, a foreign community, a copy was usually sent to it with a covering letter of a consul or praetor. z 6 , and z 8 . from Rome. decree.

For these covering letters see Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 13 ( ?) , 14, 18, ZO , z 3 ,

One embassy, at least ( N o . 10 B, I ) , b rought a copy of the decree back The Greek city then undertook at its own expense the publication of the

It could serve as a mark of honor or as a legal text in the local society.

These

decrees, therefore, which have been p reserved for us from the Greek East are not really official Roman publications ; for the most part they were erected for private interests. They are copies of copies, for the originals al ways remained in Rome_ A good example of an unusual circumstance that prompted the publication of a decree concerns one passed in 44

B.C.

Dio ( 44 . 7) supplies

us

with the details.

To honor

Julius Caesar the Senate passed a series of decrees which gave him the right to be buried within the Pomerium.

These decrees were then inscribed

in

golden letters on silver

tablets and deposited beneath the feet of Jupiter Capitolinus-unusual honor for an unusual Roman.

4. THE GREEK TRANSLATI O N

If one examines a l l the extant Greek copies of senalus

consu/la from

the viewp oint o f

the language employed and the details o f translation, he will soon discover a remarkable consistency in phraseology and vocabulary.

The texts span

a

period of two hundred

years, yet one someti mes feels that a single individual has done them all. course, are short and business-like (No.

5)

Some, of

while others are long and involved (Nos. z,

10, 14, IS, 18, ZZ, z3 , 3 1 ) , but these are matters beyond the control of the translator. The texts have been found in widely separated areas of Greece , Asia Minor, and even in Italy (No. zz) .

If the translations had been made in the countries in which they were

found, we should then expect a variety of expressions and vocabulary reflecting the linguistic habits of a number of minds working independently of one another.

B ut such

was not the case. The fact that there is a uniformity

in

good evidence that they were not made been found.

the method and technique of the translations is ID

those cItIes or iands ID whIch the copies have

It is clear that they are official translations and that they are not the p roducts

of chance endeavor. could not be left

in

Senalus consulla

were important documents, and their transla tion

the hands of amateurs or Greek provincials, who might deliberately

or unintentionally distort the true meaning. them, and, in the light of the been in Rome.

One official source was resp onsible for

calor lalinus which they display,

that source could only have

A brief analysis of the translations is necessary in order to b ring out

these p oints more effectively. " . . N o attempt

will be made here t o give an analysis of the orthography and syntax o f the documents. op.
The work of Vier eck,

only served to confirm his observations.

1J

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The Prescript Senatum consuluit is regularly translated as rift avyI(A�'Twt aVVtt{30vAttVaa'TO ( Nos. J. C 1-2. ; 2.. 2. ; 9. 9; 10. B 2. ; 11. 4 ; 18. 19 ; 19. 2. ; 2.2.. 3) · Dates are reproduced literally. e.g in No. 2.2.. 4: a. d. XI k. Iun. becomes 7Tpo<�)/LttPWII £1I8ttl(a I(Mall8w II ·[ovvlw lI. They are probably the most striking of the Latinisms to appear in these documents. Any Greek who was ignorant of the Roman calendar would be unable to equate them with his own method of dating. (See Nos. J. C l ; 2.. 2. ; 4. I2. ; 8. 7 ; 9. 9 ; 10. B 2. ; 14. 76 ; 19. 3 ; 2.0. A 4 ; 2.2.. 4 ; 2.3. 60. One finds '"po 1J."i� ttl [8vwlI] in No. 2.3. 5. fTpO eX ttl8wII in No. 32.. 5. ttl8vto's £1I'Tt:pl« a)Aa [p] lots in No. 5. 18. and 'TTpo'TEpat t:l8vwv ' Ol<'Twl43plwv in No. 2.. 14. ) The place of meeting is usually in comitio. expressed £II I(OILt:'Tlwt : Nos. 2.. 2. ; 4. 14 ; 5. 17 ; 7. 3 8 ; 8. 8 ; 9. 10 ; 10. B 2. ; 15. 4 ; 2.2.. 4 ; 2.3. 60. B u t we also frnd £ ll l(ovplat '[ovMat in No. 2.6. 39. and £ll] 'TWt 11(1.0t 'TOU [Ll tch·] in No. 19. 4. The place in No. 2.0. 5. however. is not certain ; perhaps one could read £11 TWt Tt ] /L7jT1)plw t . In No. 2.7. 4-5. we have .•

£JJ 'Tip vaip 'Tip rifs ' O/Lovola�.

The enumeration of the witnesses (scribendo adfuerunt) usually appears in one of two forms: either as ypat/>olLE11Wt 'TTapfjaall• ( Nos. 2.. 3. 14 ; 2.0. A 5; 2.2.. 4 ; 2.6. col. b. 39 ; 2.9. 4) or as ypat/>o/LEVOV 'TT apfjaav ( Nos. 4. 14 ; 5. 19 ; 7. 3 8 ; 2.3. 60) . But in one instance ( No. 2.7. 5) it is found as ypa.t!>0I,EVOtS 'TTapfjaav. The Theme The introductory clause. quod . . . verba fecit. etc assumes the form 'TTtt pt �v • • • . AOYOVS l7Tot�aa'To followed by indirect statement. as. e.g in No. 2.2.. 6; flttpt �v KOtV'TOS A V'TC�·TtoS KollI'Tov vtos Ka'T
.•

.

5. 2.3 ; 7. 40; 9. 14 ; 10. A I, B 4. 7 ; 11 . 5 ; 14. 8 ; 15. 2.9. 34. 36. 56. 62. ; 18. 73 ; 2.2.. 5 ; 2.3. 16. 2.2.. 2.4. 63 ; 2.6. I , 17 ; 2.7. n .) In No. 31. 8 1 . the form tiTT� p �II • • . I<'TA is found. The concluding clause, de ea re ita censllerunt, becomes "TTttpl. 'TOV'TOV 'TOU 'TTpaypa'TOS cv'!"w': �cogf''' l.'1rl :;erve5 to introduce the decree proper (ut O'TTws) . ( Nos. 2.. 10. 2.1. 42.. 51 ; 3. 6; 5. 3 I ; 6, B 7 [pI.] ; 7. 46. 57 ; 9, 59 ; 1 0 : B I Q ; 1 1 . I2.; I), 7 ; .1 4; ) 5 ; :::5 , 5 3 [pl.] ; 16, I ; 18, 67 ; 2.2., 9 ; 2.6, b 19. c 5 . 2. 1.) =

The Decree Proper Even here, despite a variety of subject matter, certain common formulas recur. Envoys to Rome, for example, or the recipients of honors are viri boni et amici populi boni et amici: �v8ptts I(at aya80t I(at .plADt 'TTapa. �/LOV l(aAOU I(at aya.8ou ( Nos. 7. 41, 43; 9. 17, 40; 10. A 2.) . Whenever it is appropriate, their country is further qualified b y the addition of et socii nostri : aVILILaXov 'Tt: �/Ltt'TEPOV (Nos. 1 0, B 5. 8 ; 15. 8, 55 ; 18. 70-72. ; 2.0, D 3-5 ; 2.1. col. I, 3) . The designation " frne and noble man " is, of course, a common­ place also in Greek epigraphy.

14

SENA1VS CONSVLTA

A list of important phrases. apart from those which have already been mentioned, will be useful.

1. quod cognovimu5 : 0 brlyyw/I-£v (N o. l.J. 30). 2. 5ententiam pronuntiare : YW/I-"I Y Aiy£1Y or lmo4xdvw8(t., (No. 2.3, 43, 29) . 3 . referre: 7Tpoo(t.Ylp£'v (No. l.J . 30). 4 · 5enalui placere: aploK£w rij . OVYKA�TWO (N os. 1.6. c 3; %8. B 6; but Nc. 3 1 . 97. 1 3 7. 1 42. has aploK£w Tij. /3ouAij.) . j . ceruuere : £ao�£v (paHim). 6. ex 5enalu5 con5ulto: K(t.T6: ooY/l-a UIJ')'KAlJTO U (No. 9 . 5 4 ) ; K(t.T6: O"i'KA�TOl) So"fta (No. 14. 77) ; K(t.T6: TO 8oY/l-a O1!YKA�Tou (No5. 7. 46 ; 1 4, 27) ; K(t.T6: rO TijS'OVYKA�'TOU 8 6yfJ.<X (Nos. Lt, 8 5 ; 15. 12 I p t] ; l.J . 3. 34 ). 7. ex (de) coruilii 5ententia : U1TO Otll-4'Otli\lOtl YlIWftl1, (Nos. I ". 78 [ ?l. 97 ; 2. 3 · 29. 39, 43 ,

8.

9.

1 0.

55-5 6 ) ; /I-£T 6: =/'-f3oVAlOV yyw/-'-"I' (N os. 1 7. 9 ; 1 8 . 96) ; fJ.£Ta. o-tJ/J.fiou),, {ou (N o. Lt , 75-'7 6) ; J K Otlp.{3 oUA" lot(t.S' 1T{OT£W,) ,patV'l)T(t., (Nos 6, B 9 ; 7. 5 0 ; 9. 70-72 ; 10. A l I . B 1 3 ; I ". 7 3 ; 15 . 63. 65 ; 16 , 8 ; 18. 120 ; 1.1.. 3 I ; l.J. 68-69 ; 1.6, b 25 -26. has 01TW, JJ, &v KTA and 1.6. c 7. has WOT£ &v KTA). extra ordinem 5enatum dare : JKTO, Toii UTtxOV O. tXPXOVT�' oVyKA1jTOV o,owu ( wl (No. 18. 66). coram 5enatu : KaT6: 'rrpooW7Tov (Nos. 7. 42. 44. 5 6 ; la. B 6 . 9 ; 18, 68). ex formula: Ka.m TO O.&Tet:y/L(t. (Nos. 1 5 . 64 ; 16, 10 ; 18. 90; 1.1.. 26). in amicorumformuJam reJerre: £., TO TWV ,ptJtwv o.aTet:y}L(t. &va,plp£w (No. 1.1.. 24).

1 1. 12. 13. 14. munu5que ei5 ex formu la locum lautiaque qu ae5tore m urbanum locare mittereque iuberent : �"',a TE a,),.o " K(lTO: TO 8 .cfTaYft(l -r01T0" 1TCEpOXllV TE TOV Tcq.t(a:v To., K(lTa. 11(}AW TO,)TO., fLw8W{l(t.' ,;"roOT£'A(t.t T£ K£A£UOWOW (N O. 1.1.. 25-26). The verbs are : !l",(t. ooUv(t., (Nos. 9. 67 ; 16� _ 1 O ; 18. 90) ; !{"I(t. d,7TOOTEAA£w (Nos. 10, A, 9. B 12 ; 15, 64 ; 1.1.. 25 ). I S . benigne wpondere : 4xJt(t.V8ptinrws- &1ToKp�Bfjvcr., (Nos. 6. B 5 ; 9. 61 ; 10. A 6 ; 1 5 . 5 4 ; 16, 5 ; 18, 3 5. 6 8 ) . 1 6 . gratiam amicitiam 50cietatemque renovare : -Xd.P'T(t. 4xJtt(t.y ovp.p.
15

ROMAN D O CUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

magistrates or officials with similar duties were used (quaestor = TCtp.las) ; per translation em,

which is a literal translation (quaestor = �"I'7'7)n/S') ; and per transcriptionem, which is simply a transliteration from Latin into Greek (quaestor = KuatC1TWp) ,

All three of these methods

are used in the sellatus consulta.

TCtp.lCtS' (Nos. 9, 6 8 ; 10, B 1 3 ; 15, 6 5 ; 16, 10; 2.6, b 2 5) ; quaestor urballus: TCtp.lCts KCtTa 1I'OAW (Nos. 2.3, 26 ; 2.9, 3 ) . 2. practor: C1TPCt'7'7)YOS' (passim) ; praetor urbanus et peregrinus: C1TPCt'7'7)YOS KCtTa 1I'OAW KCt' 4111" -rWV �lllwII (No. 2.2., 2) . 3. censor: TLP.7In/S' (No. 2.5, 10, 1 2) . 4. consu l: ihrCtTOS (passim; but in Nos. 10, B 2, and 14, 6 1 , 62, 70, we find the older C1Tpet'7'7)'Y0S' ihrCtTOS) . 5. dictator: 8LKTaTwp (Nos. 1 8, 4 3 , 74, 10 3 , 1 2 5 ; 2.6, b 7) . 6. triumvir rei publicae constituendae: Tp�i:S' all8p�s ° I I TfjS' TWV 8"1P.0C1lwII 1I'pCtyp.aTwII 8LCtTa��ws (No. 2.8, B 4 [cf. 2.8, A 3 -5 ] ) . 7. proquaestore: &V'TLrop.lCtS' (No. 18, 90) . 8. proconsule: &v6V7rCtTOS' (Nos. 1 5 , 60 ; 1 8 , 1 1 4 ; 2.1, col . I , I. B u t No. 2.6, e 1 1 , has &vlTapxwv ; perhaps it is pro-magistratu) . 9. designatlls: &1I'o8�8ELyp.lvos (No. 2.8, 1-2 ; but No. 2.6, b 7, has KCt6 [£C1TCtp.lvosl . 10. magistratus: apx wv (Nos. 18, 61, 66 ; 2.2, 1 9 , 2 3 , 30 ; 3 1 , 100, 101 , 105, 120, 1 2 5 , 1 3 7) . 1 1 . imperator: CtVroKpaTwp (Nos. 1 7, 10; 1 8 , 104 ; 2.0, E 1 4 ; 23, 36, 3 9 ; 24, 1 1 ; 26, b 7, 24, c 27; 31, 8 6 ; but No. 21, col. I , 1 1 , has lp.1I'�paTwp) , 12. princeps: W�p.wv (No. 3 1 , 8 6) . 1 3 . senatus: � C1QyKA1jTOS' (passim ; but in No. 31, 8 8 , 90, 97, 101, 1 06, 1 1 6, 1 2 5 , 1 3 7, and 142, � fJow.� is found) . 1 4. senator: 0 UUVKA"ITLKOS' (No. 3 1 , 1 10) . 1 5 . res publica: Ta 8"1p.OC1LCt 1I'payp.Ctro (passim) . 16. p"blican/Is: 8"1P-OC1L(f.,V1jS' (No. 23, passim) . 1 7. iudex: KpLn/S' (Nos. 22, 1 9 ; 3 1 , passim ; but No. 3 1 , 1 3 8 , has 8LKCtunjS). I S. · ptovilil.'·/i ; lii CtPXdr:.: (No�. 1 8 , 77, 1 1 4 ; loO, G 1 0 ; 3 1 , 78 , 80, 9 5) . 19. decretum : €1I'UcPLP.Ct (No. 2.8, A 2 5 , B 4 ; but s ee Stroux-Weliger, op� cit., p. 2 5 , for I . quaestor:

the word in the Augustan edicts) .

K�rpCtAfjs �u6vv�w (No. 3 1 , 99) . K�rpaACtLOV XP"iP.CtTOS' (No. 3 1 , 1 3 2) . accusator: 0 �6vllwII (No. 3 1 , 1 3 2) . reus: 0 �6vII&p.�IIos (No. 3 1 , 1 1 8 ) . milia (passuum) : P.�lALCt (No. 3 1 , 108 , 109, 1 12) . sestertius: C11j C1TlpnoS' (Nos. 9, 69 ; 10, A 10, B 1 3 ) .

20. capitis accusare :

2 1 . summa pecuniae: 22. 23. 24. 25.

The Definite Article

The lack of a definite article conditioned the Romans to neglect it when translating into Greek.

J6

In the Greek copies of the senatus consulta it is absent in those places where

SENIt TUS CONSUL Tit

a Greek would normally and naturally have supplied it. Its omission is regular in the prescript for the title of the presiding magistrate. And the place of meeting usually lacks it. Elsewhere it is sometimes used and sometimes omitted. with no real consistency except the general tendency to omit it. No. 22. 25. has €V Tip Kct:1T£TWA�. and No. 2. 3 3 . £ls T O Ka:rr£T(oA,ov ; but i n other passages (Nos. 16. 1 I ; 26. b 1 7. 21 ) the same phrase lacks the article. And one finds ICaTa UVYKA>1TOV SaYILa (No. 14. 77). KaTa TO '"is UVYKA>1TOV SaYILa (Nos. 14, 8 5 ; 23. 3. 3 4). and KaTa TO SaYILa UVYKA>1TOV (Nos. 7, 46 ; 14, 27). Generally one feels that the translator is unfamiliar with the use of the article. He knows of its existence in Greek. but is careless about using it-a good indication that he is a Roman. not a Greek.

Ka/. and T£ Of all the particles which the Greeks used so effectively in composition. and almost certainly in speech as well. only Kat. T£. ovSi. OVT£, IL"lSi, IL>1T£, and Si are used at all commonly in the senatus consulta, and they are almost colorless, lacking the subtlety of the others. The use of Kat and T£ corresponds exactly to et and -que, but they are not used very often, for asyndeton is common : compare No. 28, B 5, 7Tpou£pJp,uav 7TpoulL£P'ovuw, uvv£xwfY')uav uvvxwP>1uovuw, and No. 1 1 , 9, [S,j WpBW87) €8wp..j 1hj &..pE87) €'7)IL,w [87)j . Especially revealing is XIXp'Ta rp"'f.a.v uvf.LILaxtav T£ Q.V£V£WUavTO (No. 9, 19, 42, 60). Here the hand of a Roman rather than of a Greek is felt to be moving over the lines, although not so surely as in the case of the definite article.

Filiation The practice of including the parent's name among the tria nomina was official, and it was certainly followed in the Latin originals of our decrees. In Latin the name took the form of the genitive and the word filius. So habitual to the Roman mind was this practice that even in Greek one had to have a word for filius. In No. 22 the Greek tr::nsbtion ef [Polustr..:uJm Po/unuhi f Carystium is llOAVU1·pa-rOi/ JIoAVo.PI
ROMAN D OCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

We may conclude that Romans were responsible for these translations, Romans who worked in an office where a continuity of translation style and vocabulary was achievable. They must have been professionals whose lifetime duties kept them in close contact with official state papers and who were at the same time familiar with Roman constitutional forms. Under the Republic there was no real counterpart to the imperial ab epistulis. The closest would be the personnel employed in the aerarium, and it is there that we hope to find the particular office we are searching for. The chief of the aerarium during the Republic was the quaestor urbanus ; he was re­ sponsible for the administration and safeguarding of that institution. This was a double responsibility, for the aerarium was a combination of Treasury and Record Office. The quaestor was usually a young man, holding a position of great importance in the State for the first time. B ut since the office was an annual one, a more-or-less permanent staff of lower-ranking men performed the necessary routine of bookkeeping, filing, storing, copying, and classifying the documents in its possession. Such work required continu­ ous effort, continuous attention. The most important of these men were the scribae librarii quaestorii, each of whom had under him a full staff of librarii.·6 These scribae were organized into decllriae, apparently three in number, with first nine and later (after Sulla) twelve scribae in each demria. They were assigned to the various magistrates on an annual basis. They were professionals, the key men in the routine and operation of the aerariuIII, and very often they were able to overawe and manipulate the young quaes­ tors,21 They were also men of some standing in the community. There is no doubt that some of them had legal training or had otherwise managed to acquire knowledge of the law. 'B One of them, a certain L. Naevius L. I. Urbanus, had inscribed on his tombstone vixi iudicio sine iudice (C.IL. VI 1 8 19 = I. L.S. 1 896), and another (C.IL. VI 1 85 3) prided himself on being iuris prudens. They and their assistants were the officials who received the original senatus consulta at the aerarium, saw to their proper

Z6 SeeE. Kornemann,

R.E., S.P. " Scriba, " cois� 8¥-),/, C;)jJ"o C s :

5�,

Civil Service (Clerical and Sub-Clerical Grades)," Journal of Roman

�r.-( A.. H M. Tones. " The Roman Studies. 39 (1 949): 38-55 ( = A. h.

Studi" in Roman Government and Law [New York, 1 960). pp. 1 53-75). Cato min. 1 6, gives a most revealing and important account of the clash between Ca to and the scribae. Cato expelled one of the scribae from the aerarium and brought another to trial for fr.ud. R.ther th.n instruct and acquaint the young quaestors with the intricacies of the office, as they should have done, the scribae refused to give up to them any of the power they held through their M. Jones,

• 7 Plutarch, in

special knowledge.

Cato began by treating them as assistants rather than as superiors.

Virtual war

resulted. says Plutarch. •8

F. Schulz, History of Roman Le gal Science (Oxford. 1 946). p. 87. speaking of laws. senatorial decrees,

and magisterial edicts, say s : " The technicalities of these acts being beyond the capacity of politicians generally. their texts were framed by professional draftsmen.

These men. who were of course

jurists and scribae. evolved traditional schemes for the various kinds of act. veritable counterparts to the traditional forms of acts in sacral, public. and private law."

And on p.

97 he says :" The language

of the senatlls cOnJlllta is different. Here too a stereotyped scheme betrays the collaboration of the secretariate, but the pedantic circumstantiality of the leges is avoided." This last remark is relevant to our conclusion about the role played by the scribae in the redaction and translation of decrees.

SENA TVS CONS VL TA

registration, and supplied copies when duly requested. z9 The drafting of State acts is generally performed by professional draftsmen. Roman politicians, of course, had some knowledge of legal form, but, given the well-known Roman propensity for exact form and precise detail in matters of law, we may assume that the services of scribae were available to the presiding magistrate and his committee at some time during the redaction of the senatorial decrees. In any case the scribae could have examined them when they were presented to the aeraril lm for deposition. Their opinions on the proper form to be followed would surely have carried weight. Considering the position and technical knowledge of the scribae, we may now ask our­ selves the important question : Is it possible that they, or perhaps other personnel under them, were responsible for the Greek translations of the senatus consulta ? There is no proo( However, such an assumption does satisfY the main requirements : a central office in Rome, a continuity of duty, and professional ability. In my opinion the scribae in the aerarilll1l or qualified persons on their staff made the translations . ••

cr.

Cicero De leg. 3. zoo 46 : Legum cUJlodiom nullom hobemuJ, iloque eae lege! J"nl, qUOJ odporilartJ

naJlri valun l : a IibroriiJ pelimuJ, publiciJ IilleriJ canJignolom memariom p u blicom nullom hobemuJ.

the ltnolll! canlUllo fell generally into the same pattern; see Schulz, ap. cil., p.

87.

Surely

C. THE D OCUMENTS

I E PIST U LAE SPURII POSTUMII ET SENATUS CONSULTUM

Letters, 1 8 9 B.C.

DE PRIVI LEGIIS DELPH ORUM

B I B L I OGRAPHY.

Decree ?

H. N . Ulrichs, Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, I

(Bremen, I 8 40), l IO, l I 5 n. 3 6 ; Le B3S-Wadd ington, Voyage archeologique ert Grecc et en Asie Mineure: ltlScriptions, II ( I 870), no. 852 ; P. Viereck, Sertno

Graecus (Gottingen, I 8 8 8), no. X, pp. ulf. ; H Pomtow, Neue JahrbucherJar

Philologie ulld PiiJagogik, I889, p. 5 6 5, and I894, p. 683 ; J. Schmidt, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, I 8 89, p. 590; M. Holleaux, Revue archeologique, I9I7, pp. 3421f. ; H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G. l, II ( I 9 I 7), 6 1 2 ; M. Holleaux,

1:TPC%T WOS · Y17C%TOS, Etude sur la traductioll en Grer du titre consulaire (Paris, I 9I8),

pp. I47-49 ; K. J. Beloch, Klio, I5 ( I 9 I 8 ) : 3 821f. ; H. Pomtow, Klio, I6 ( I 920),

nos. 1 2 0-2 3 , pp. I 3 21f. ; E. Preuner, Rheinisches Mllselllll, 73 ( I 920-24) : 2 8 5 1f. ;

Abbott-Johnson, MUllicipal Administration in the Romall Empire (Princeton, I 926), no. 3, pp. 2 5 I-52 ; M. Holleaux, RC.H., 5 4 ( I 9 30) : I -4 I , and 55 ( I 9 3 I ) : I -I O

(Etudes IEpigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques, V [Paris, I 9 57], 249-94) ; E. Cavaignac,

Meltmges Palli Thomas (Brugge, I930), pp. 1201f. ; P. Roussel, B . G.H., 56 ( I 9 3 2) : I -22 ; G. Daux, Delphes au 11" et au lor Sihle (Paris, I93 6), pp. 2 6 I If. and 3 5 21f. ;

J. A. O. Larsen, " Roman Greece," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of

Ancient Rome, I V (Baltimore, I 93 8), 28 5-86 ; M. I . Rostovtzelf; S.E.H.H. W., I I ( I94I), 690, and I I I ( I 94 I), I460, n. I 3 ; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, I 9 5 I), no. 122, pp. 3 1 I-1 2 ; E. Badian, Foreign Cliemelae (264-70 B . C.

) (Oxford,

I958), p. 88 ; Johnson. Coleman-Norton, Boume. Ancient Romall

Statutes, no. 2 5 .

DE5CR.iF'1'iON. and copies.

A talge: mai ule sick existiug LUuay on1), in small fragments

Ulrichs i.1l I 840 discovered and published the first of them, but he

did not consider all the fragments worth publishing and they lay buried in his notes unt i l Preuner brought them to the attention of scholars. Ulrichs has long since disappeared.

The stone seen by

In I 894 the French excavators of Delphi

found another fragment (A), and in I9I4 still another (B).

The only

trustworthy arrangement of the fragments is the one by Holleaux, whose work unfortunately has all too often escaped the notice of scholars and translators.

It can be found in RC.H., 54 ( I930) : 3 8-39 (Etudes, v, 282-8 3 ),

and is the one presented here.

Originally the large stele must have contained a

full record, in chronological order, of the official correspondence between Delphi and Rome concerning the status of the city and of the Amphictyonic League.

21

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΠΙΕ GREEK EAST

Document Α

[Σπόpιo� Πoστόμιo� Λευκίου υίό�, στpαττιγό� 'Ρωμαίων, ΔελΦών το ί � άρχουσι καί τηι πόλει χαίρεlν" οί παρ' υ,...ών] [άποσταλέντε, πρεσβευταί Βούλων, Θρασυκλή" Όρέστα, περί τfj� άσυλία� του ίερου καί τη, πόλεω, καί τή�] [xώpα� διαλεxθέντε� καί περί τη� €λευθεpία� καί άνεισΦορία; ή] ξί.συν σπω[� υιιίν €πιxωpηθηι παρά του δ-ήμου τoiί] ['Ρωμαίων' γινώσκετε 03ν δεδογμένον τηl σVΓKλήτωι τό τε ίερό] ν του Άπόλλωνo[� του Πυθί.συ άσυλον εΙvαι καί την] [πόλιν τώll Δελφών καί την χώραν καί ΔελΦoύ� αυτονόμ]ου; καί Ι [€)λευθέpoυ, καί ανε.[σΦό Ρου" οίκουντα, καί πολιτεύοντα , αυτού,] [καθ' αυτού, καί] κυριε1Ιον [τα� τη� τε lεp] α, χώρα, καί του ίερο Ι υ λιμένο" καθι1, πάτρ[ιον αυτοί, €ξ ίXpxi, ην' σπω,]

[03ν είδητε, έκρ]ι\lον ίη..ι.ίν γρά[ψαι περί τούτων.] Frag. Preuner

Frag. Α

Frag. Β

Frag. Α

Frag. Β

Document Β Frag. Ulrichs

Σπόριο, Πoστόμιo� Λευκί.συ υίό�, στραττιlγό, 'Ρωμαίων, τώι κοιlνώι τών ΆμΦΙΚΤιόνω [ν χαίΡειν' οί ΔελΦών πρεσβευ-] ταί Βούλων, Θρασυκλή" Όpέστα� περί τή; άlσυλlα; τoiΓl;φo6 ".:.:[1]-1 ":'�':;' ...�λF.Ι'.I� καί τή, [χώρα, διαλεxθέντε�] καί περί τή� €λευθεpία� καί ανεισΦορ [� lα, ήξίο υν σπω� αlυτoί� €ΠΙXωpηθiί πα [Ρα του δήι-ιου του 'Ρωμαίων'] γ.νώσκετε 03ν δεδογμένον τη. σVΓKλή[τ] Ιωι τό τε ίεΡόν τοlυ Ά7Tόλλωνo� του Πυθίο[υ άσυλον εΙναι καί] την πόλιν τών Δελφών καί την χώραν, καί ΔΙ [ελφου]; αύτσνόlιιου, καί €λευθέpoυ;

�[αί. άνEισΦόpoυ!)� οΙκοϋν-] τα ; καί 7Toλιτεύσντα� αυτού; καθ' αύl [τού; καί] κυριεύ ο[ν]lτα; τή; τε [ερα; χώρ[α; καί του ίερου λι-] μ.ένος, καθι1; πάτριον αυτοί; €ξ αρΧΉ> [ην' σπω; ο]δν είδ[ή] Ιτε, έκρινον ύμίν γρά[ψαι περί. τούτων.]

22

SENATUS CONSULTA

Document C Frag. Ulrichs

Frag. B

l1po �P.£pWII uaaapwllllwllwlI MaL [WII £11 KOP.£"TLWI ? - - ]'9J:CTalDS" rllaLOU aTpaT ['1yoS"? aU II£"] /3ouA£uaaTo Tijl aUYKA�TWL ypoop[O/dllWI 1Tapijaall' - -]0S" [J01T>..{OU, ,] Mall[ l oS" raIDS" 'ATLVIDS" ralou, T£{3ip lD[s" - - - -' 1T£p: cr.1I L1]£A,pO: AOYOUS" £1TO[I �aaIlTO 1T£p: -

-

-

-

-

-

L£ poii] cZat5AOVJ 7I"O�E'W5' £AE'u8lp[aS' Kai. aVTOIIOfLOU Kai. a.VfI.UrPOpOU·] TrE'PL 'TOO'TOV 'TOU 1T[paY/LaTOS" OVTWS"] iSo�£II' Ka9wS" 1TpO-r£pO[11 - - - - - - � aUyKA'ITOS" ?] £K£KPLII£I £K£LIIW[I TWI KpLp.an £/L/..!]II£III iSo�£II.

Document D

[A]£UKIDS" 1P0UplDS" A [£UKLOU ULOS", aTpaT'IY0S" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _] - -]

[L1£]>"r/>wlI £[A£u9£pLaS"

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Text b y Holleaux, who showed that i t is a case 0 ftwo letters, not one.

-

-

-

-

-

•

He restored Document A

Illa>'£xIUIIT£S, L. Robert, adopted by Holleaux in place of Viereck's 1l.£>.iY'laall. C I '9J:CTCitOS: Holleaux previously had thought of Bal- or Bil{1a,os, but a revision of the stone made the present reading almost positive. At the end of this line could be aTpaT [wck or aTpaT 1 "Iy,k U1TaTOS". C 4 E>'EU(J.PI, Ulrichs, corrected by Holleaux.

from Document B.

COMMENTARY.

B 2.

When the military advance of Manius Acilius Glabrio freed

Delphi and the Amphictyonic League from the control of Aetolia in 191 B.C., arrange­ ments were made by the Roman authorities for the future status of the city and the League.'

To validate these "on the spot" arrangements and to be able to have docu­

mentary proof of their status, the Delphians and, presumably, the representatives of the League a! well, sent envoys to the Roma:!. Sena�c.

In �he absence ef the two ceLm!; :he

praetor Spurius PostunUus Albinus convened the Senate and introduced the envoys. A senatorial decree was then passed guaranteeing the inviolability of the Temple of Apollo and affirming the free and autonomous status of the Delphians.

Spurius

Postumius then sent one letter to the: Delphians and another to the League, both of them identical in content, in which he gave a resume of the contents of the decree. letters are the present Documents A and B.

The date is 189

B.C.,

These

and very likely after

April of that year, when the two consuls were absent from Rome.' I

For the details see Daux, op. cit., pp. 2.2.7f[

The two consuls ofl89 B.C., M. Fulvius Nobilior and Cn. Manlius Vulso, were each given command of an army and sent abroad, Fulvius in Aetolia and Manlius in Asia. Fulvius, however, returned to Rome to hold the elections. For the chronology ofthe whole year see Holleaux, /oc. cit., and T. R. S. Broughton, The MogiJtratu Of the ROlllan Republic, [(New York, 1951), 360. 2

23

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

In the two letters it is a point of interest to note that the Greek JA£v9£p{a is not felt to be completely adequate to convey the effect of what the Latin liberlas had upon a Roman. For, whereas Iiberlas was capable of exact definition in the Roman world-one was free or he wasn't-the Greek term in this age had lost its original connotation and was inter­ preted in a very elastic maruler by the Hellenistic kings. 3

The present documents are the

earliest of their type: in them a Greek city is formally declared Iibera el immunis. Beneath these letters on the stele appeared Document C, a senalus consullun! de pr i lIi/egiis Delphorum.

Unfortunately it cannot be dated exactly, and all that one may say is that

it was passed at a time when the Senate had been convened by a consul or praetor whose g enli/idum was Octavius. 168

B.C.,

Beginning with the year 190

when CIL Octavius was praetor.

urban command, that year must be discarded. came consul in 165

B.C.,

Senate was passed.4

B.C.

no such official appears until

But since his was a military rather than an The same Cn. Octavius, however, be­

and that might very well be the year in which this decree of the

The mutilated condition of the fragment makes even this identifi­

cation only possible and certainly not positive. Document D is much too short for any definite conclusions to be formed about it, and no satisfactory identification of L. Furius L. f. has been made.s In the third century the political life of Delphi, the sanctuary of Apollo, and the Amphictyonic League were all more or less controlled by the Aetolians, who in the course of that century had acquired great power and prestige. the city as their cultural and intellectual capital.

They came to consider

In addition the political rivalry of the

Hellenistic states, one for the other, produced a corresponding cultural rivalry that was expressed in their efo f rts to surpass one another in the erection of buildings and monuments in the sanctuary.

Under the aegis of the Aetolian League the city enjoyed a quiet

prosperity, reasonably secure at a time when the Celtic invasion and later wars might have proved disastrous. better than most.

No city in that period was completely saf e, but Delphi fared

Nevertheless the Delphians must have looked upon the Aetolians

with mixed feelings, for, after all, they were not their own masters. ROIil.i1US i.."1. I�r

.!!.�_

Thus, when the

ljl-.erat!"d the city from Aetolian control, it was at last in a position

to be truly free and autonomous. In the two years that followed the expulsion of the Aetolians the city was engaged in a series of diplomatic relations with Rome in an effort to secure its future independence. We are fortunate in having several epigraphic documents illustrating this effort. there is the letter (early in 190

B.C.

)

First

of Manius Acilius Glabrio (No. 37) in which we hear

of various properties and houses being removed from Aetolian possession and given to the god and the city.

Acilius pledges to use his infiuence in preserving the ancestral laws

of the city and the temple, and in obtaining automony for the city. Delphi lost little time in pressing the point. 3 Cf. Badian, 0 p. cit., pp.

In 189

B.C.

Good news!

three envoys named Boulon,

s?fi".

op. cit., pp. 4ZS and 43S, and F. Miinzcr, R.E., S.II. "Octavim z," cols. 1803-4- Ad­ ditional material on Octavius has been assembled by P. Chameaux, B.C.H., SI (1957): IS I-ZOZ. • Broughton, 5

Sec Holleaux, Eludes, V, z60, n.

2.

SENATVS CONSVLTA

Thrasykles, and Orestas were sent to Rome to obtain confirmation of their freedom and autonomy.

The Senate yielded to their request and passed a decree on the matter.

The praetor Spurius Postumius then communicated the favorable action of the Senate to the city and to the Amphictyons in the present letter (No. I) in that same year.

Un­

fortunately the three envoys were murdered on their return to Delphi, but two others were almost immediately sent back to Rome to request assistance in fixing responsibility and apprehending the murderers.

Rome again received these envoys favorably, as­

sured them of Roman co-operation, and gave them duplicates of the documents that the three previous envoys had been carrying back to their city. Salinator sent a letter (No.

38)

The consul C. Livius

at that time (late in 189 or early in 188 B.e.) to the DeI­

phians explaining Rome's determination to give them all possible help.

Thereafter

Delphi was free and autonomous, and it was able to maintain its independence despite the power struggle among the Aetolians, Macedonians, and Thessalians for the control of the Amphictyonic League: see the commentary to No.

39.

It is important to dis­

tinguish between the city of Delphi, the sanctuary of Apollo, and the Amphictyonic League.

Each was separate, but actually each was conditioned by the presence of the

others. The gratitude felt by Delphi for Roman favor and assistance was immediate and long­ lasting, as one can see by the series of statues and honorary inscriptions They reflect not empty flattery but sincere appreciation.

to

the Romans.

There were statues to T.

Quinctius Flamininus, Manius Acilius Glabrio, M. Minucius Rufus, and others.

But

perhaps the most impressive display of the city's feeling was the founding of the ·Pwp.a.'ia. which thereby set an example for other Greek cities.

2 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE THISBENSIBUS

P. Foucart, Archives des missions scient!fiql4es et litteraires, 2"

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

serie, 6 (1872): J21ff.; Th. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, I (1872): 278ff. (Gesal/lmelte SchrUien, 8 (1913): 274ff.; I. N. Madvig, Nordisk TidskrUifor

Filolo gi, I (1874): I ff.; Aubert, Forhandlinger Videtlskabs-Selskabet j. Christiana,

1875,pp. 278ff.; Th. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 2(1875): 102-4; J. Schmidt, Athen. M itt., 4 (1879): 235ff.; idem, 2.S.S., 2 (1881): 116ff.; idem, Hermes, 16 (1881): 1 55ff.; E. L. Hicks, A Manual afGreek HistoricalInscriptions,

1st. ed. (Oxford, 1882),no. 195; P. Viereck, SermoGraecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XI, pp. 12-16; J. Schmidt, Rheinisches Museum, 45 (1890): 482; W. Dittenberger, I.G., VII (1892),2225; idem, S.I.G.', 1(1898),300; C. Michel, Recueil d'Inscriptio"sGrecques (Brussels, 1900), no. 69; A. Wilhelm,G.Htingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 10 (1903): 795; G. Colin, Rome et laGrfce de 200 cl

146 av ant

j.-C.(Paris, 1905),pp. 424-30; P. Foucart, Sinatus-consulte de Thisbi; Memoires de I'Acadbnie desInscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 37 (1905): 309ff.; Bruns-Gradenwitz, FOlltes iuris Romani atltiqlll'7 (Tiibingen, 1909), no. 37, pp. 166ff.; A. Wilhelm, Neue Beitriige zur griechischenInscllfijienk.. nde, 111(1913), 19; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, 11 (1917), 646; Abbott-Johnson, Mlmici pal Administration in the Romall Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 5,pp. 254ff. ; L. Robert, Etudes ipigraphiqlles et philologiques (Paris, 1938), pp. 287ff.; M. Segre, Clara RJlOdos, 9 (1938): 205; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani anteillstiniani', pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 31, pp. 24zff.; S. Accame, 11 domillio rOlllano inGrecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augllsto (Rome, 1946),pp. 47 and 62; idem, Rivista di Filologia, 77 (1949): 222; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York,

1951),no. 123, pp. 3 14ff-; P. Meloni, Perseo e laji"e della monarchia macedone, (Rome, 1953), pp. 245ff.; J. Robert and L. Robert, La Carie, 11 (Paris, 1954), lC2,1'.. 2: F G. Maier.Griechische MallerballitlSchrUietJ, I (Heidelberg, 1959), 126-28; L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts �ft he ROlllatl Repl4biic, American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960),pp. 167-68; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statlltes, no. 30; C. N icolet, L' ordre iqllestre a /'ipoqlle ripllblicaine

DESCRIPTION.

(312-43

av.

J.-C.), I (Paris, 1966), )48.

Stele of white marble found in the modem village of

Kakosi (the ancient Thisbae) in Boeotia. Thickness: 0.19 m.

height of 0.008-0.01 I m. inventory no. 10053.

Height: 1.18 m.

Now in the epigraphical museum in Athens,

There is a photograph in Maier's publication, Plate 1 5

a t the end, which is unfortunately very inadequate.

26

Width: 0.54 m.

The letters are regularly formed with clear apices, having a

170 B.C.

SENA TUS CONSULTΑ

10

IS

�o

�S

]0

',;."

3S

. l-'"

40

Κό,ντος Μα.ίν,ος Τίτου υίός στρα.τηγός τη, συνκλ-ή­ τω, συνεβoυλειJσα.TO έν κοιιετίω, πρό ήμερ[ω]ν έπτά εΙδυων Όκτωμβρίων. γριχΦομ1νωι. πα.pijσα.ν MΆV,oς 'Ακίλ,ος Μ"α.νίου υίός Όλτε[,]­ [νία.], Τίτος Νομίσ,ος 1Ίτου υίός. Περίών Θισ­ [βε]ϊς λόγους έπο,-ήσα.ντο περίτων κα.θ' α.υ[τ]ούς πρα.γμάτων, οίηνες έν τη, Φ,λί.a., τη, ήι.ετέρα.ι ένΙμ-ε,να.ν, όπως α.ύτοίς δοθωσιν, [ο] Τς τά κα.θ' α.VτOύς πΡάγμ.α.τα. έξ·'JYήσωντα.ι· περίτούτου του πΡάγμα.τος ούτως έδοξεν· όπως Κό,ντος Μα.ίν,ος στρα.τηγός των έκ της συνκλήτου [π]έντε άποτάξ,ι1', Or αν α.ύτωι έκ των δημοσίων πρα.­ [γμ.] άτων κα.ίτης Ιδία.ς 'πίστεως φαινωντα.ι. έδοξε. προτέρα.ι εΙδυων Όκτωμβρίων· γρα.φοιιένωι πα.ρησα.ν Πόπλιος Μούκιος KOtVTOV υίός, Μάα.ρκος Κλα.ύδιος Μα.άρκου υίός, Μάνιος ΣέΡΥιος Μα.νίου υίός· ώσα.ύτως περΙ �y οί α.ύτοΙ λόγους έποιΨα.ντο περι χώρα.ς [κ]α.Ι περι λψένων κα.Ι προσόδων κα.ίπερίόΡέων· & α.υτων έΥε­ [γ] όνε,σα.ν, τα.υτα. ήμων μ [ε] v ένεκεν έχε'Υ έξείνα., έδοξεν. περί άρχων κα.ίπερίίερων κα.ίΠΡοσόδων όπως α.ύτοί [κ]υρ,εύωσι, περίτούτου του πράγμ.α.τος ούτως έδοξεν· οίηνες εΙς rTpι φ,λtα.ν rTpι ήμ-ετέΡαν πρό ToU 7j Γά,ος Αοκρέ­ ηος τό στρα.τόπεδον πρός την πόλ,Υ Θίσβα.ς προσ-ήγα.γεν, όπως ΟΟΤΟ' έτη δέκα. τ[ά] έΥΥιστα. κυρ,εύωσιν. έδοξ[εν]. περι χώρα.ς, οικ,ων κα.ίτων υπα.ρχόΥτων α.ύτοίς· 00 ποτέ τι αυτών Υέγονεν, όπω$ [τα] έιχυτώll' αύτοίς έχειν έξήι έδσςεν. ώσαύτως 'περί WII σι αυτοί λόγους έπo&�σανTO, ό'Πω[S'] οί α.ύτόμ-ολο, οί ίδ,ο, έκει Φυγάδες ΟΥτες, την άκρα.ν α.ύτοίς όπως TfStXlaat Jξfjι καίέκεί κατσικώσιν οδτοι, καθότι ένεΦάνισαν, OV4 τως έδοΕε,,·. όπως έκει κα.τοικωσιν κα.. τουτο τειχίσωσιν. έδα­ ξεν. την πόλιν τειχίσα., ούκ έδοξεν. ώσα.ύτως περί�y οί α.ύτοί λόγους έποιήσα.ντο, χρυσίον, δ σννήνεγκα.ν εΙς στέΦα.νΟΥ, όπως εΙς τό Κα.πετώλιον στέΦα.νον Kα.Tα.σKεVΆσωσιν, TOιJTOις, καθ[ότι] ίνεΦάνισαν, όπως ΙXVTOiS' άτrσδoθΉι ό[πω]ς' 'TOU'TOV τον στέφανον ELS" [τό] Κα.πετώλιον κα.τα.σκευάσωσιν· ούτως άποδουνα., ϊδοξεν. ώσα.ύ­ [τ]ως περί�y οί α.ύτοΙ λόγου> έπο,ήσα.ντο, άνθΡώπους, οίηνες ύπενα.[ν]­ [τί]α. τοίς δημοσίο,ς πΡάγμα.σ, τοίς ήμετέροις κα.ίτοίς έα.υτων εΙσ,ν, [όπ]ως οΟτοι κα.τέχωντα.,· περίτούτου του πράγμα.το" κα.θώς αν Kotv­ [τω], Μα.,νίω, στρα.ττιγωι έκ των δημοσίων ΠΡα.Υμάτων κα.ίτης Ιδία.ς πί[σ]τεως δOKiί, ούτως πο,είν έδOξΕV. οίηνες εΙς άλλα.ς πόλεις ά­ π-ήλθοσα.ν κα.ίούχίπρός τόν πα.ρ' ήμων σΤΡαΤηΥόν πα.ρεγένοντο, όπως μη εΙς τάξιν κα.τα.πορεύωντα.ι· περί τούτου του πράγμα.τος πρός Aδλov

27

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

45

50

SS

60

['0]UTlAtOV WaTOV ypap.p.aTa a1TOU'Tf:;;Aa& £80�f:v, 01TWS 1Tf:pt TOlholl Tfj& 8&­ [av]ola& 1TpoulX"l&, KaOws av aU'TC1J& £K TWV 8,.,p.oulwv 7TpaYP.,x.TWV Kat [T]i/S l8las 1TlUTf:WS <palv.".-a&. £8�f:v. WaauTws 7Tf:pL wv ol aUTOt AOyOIls" £1TO&1}uaVTO 1Tf:p[q [T]WV 81KWV 8f:V01T&8l80s Kat Mvaa/.8os, 01TWS £K XaAKl80s a ·rrf:pL oJ TauTas Yllva;;Kas v8pla!; uuv apyllptw[&] [f:l]s TO V U'Tpa'T"TJYOv £Vf:VKf:;;V £L1Taaav· 1Tf:pt TOUTOII TOU 1Tpay[p.a]­ [TO]S VU'Tf:pOV £vav'T& ratoll AOKPf:TlolI {3oIlAf:UUaaOa& £8�f:v. tiJuauTws 1Tf:PL wv ol aUTOt e&u{3f:;;S £Vf:<pav&uav 1Tf:PL UlTOII Kat £A [a&1011 €aIl'TO;;S Ko&vwvlav 'rrpas rva;;ov Ilav80u;;vov Yf:yovlva&· 1Tf:pt TOU[T]OIl TOU 1Tpayp..aTO!; KaV KP&TaS Aa{3f:;;V {3ouAwvTal, TOUTO&S KP&TaS 80[u]vat £80�f:v. WaauTws 'rrf:pt WV ol aUTOt AOYOIIS £1TO&1}uaVTO 1Tf:pt TOU ypap..p.aTa 80uva& e&u{3f:Uu&V £ls AlTWALav Kat r!JwKl8a· 1Tf:pL TOlholl TOU 1Tpayp.aTos e&u{3f:UU& Kat KopWVf:UU&V f:ls AlTWALaV Kat r!JwKl8a Kat £av 1T01I f:ls .xMas 1TOAf:&S {3ouAWVTa&, ypap.p.aTa
zz

A verb has been omitted here:

1Tap€yivovTO, Viereck; 1Tp�>'80v or 1Tpom/A80uav, Robert.

anacoluthon; one expects av8pw.".01/S" - - - - KaTix€u8a&.

38 [o.".)ws oiSTOI KaTixwVTa&,

SS The stone has KAN, but Mommsen

and Viereck (notes) change to [£1a" (=(E)a..,).

COMMENTARY.

In 17� D.C. a Roman mission led by

Q.

Marcius Philippus (COs.

186 D.C. ) was sent to Greece for the purpose of cementing friendly relations between the Greek communities and Rome, for Roman suspicions of King Perseus had fmally become acute when Eumenes went to Rome and spoke to the Senate about the Macedonian king'! :l.tTI,hitions and actions.

The mission succeeded in breaking up the Boeotian

League and winning over to the Roman side numerous Greek <.OUUlU.u..itiC., b::

:!e�pir..

these measures three Boeotian cities remained steadfastly loyal to the Macedonian cause and drove out the pro-Roman party: Thisbae, Haliartus, and Coroneia.'

In 171 D.C.

the praetor C. Lucretius Gallus captured Haliartus and marched on Thisbae.

The city

surrendered, was placed in the hands of pro-Romans, and the Macedonian partisans , For the situation in Greece and Macedonia at this time see, besides the standard histories, E. Bikermann, R.E.G., 66 (1953): 479-506, and Melon;, loc. cil. The sources for the stand of the three Boeotian cities against Rome are Polybius z7. 5 and Livy 4Z. 46. 7 and 4Zo 63. IZ. For the reading of the text in these places see Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 1 (187Z): z88-89. Especially per­ tinent to our document is Livy 4Z. 63. u: Ime Thebas duclus exereilus; quibus sine cerlamine receplis urhem Iradidil exulib,1S el qui Romanorum par/is eranl; ad"ersae faclionis homilJIIIn faulorumque regis ac

Here it is clear (ef. Mommsen, 10c. cil.) that Thebas must be replaced by Thisbas, for the city of Thebes was predominately pro-Roman and did not, of course, resist the Roman army. The commander of this army was the praetor C. Lucretius Gallus.

Macedonu", fa",ilias sub corona "endidil.

z8

SE-NI! TUS CONSUL T I!

were sold into slavery.

The following year a Thisbaean embassy-clearly composed of

members of the pro-Roman party in the city-was sent to Rome

10

obtain official

rulings on the various political and legal questions that had arisen as a result of the city's surrender.

The present senatus consuitum paints a rather full picture of Thisbae's

condition at the time and deserves a careful study. Actually we have two decrees, the first (11. 1-13), of October 9, 170 B.C., authorizing the praetor

Q.

Maenius to select a commission of five senators to investigate more fully

the Thisbaean requests, and the second (11. 14 to the end), of October 14, granting con­ cessions to the Thisbaeans on the various issues.

The connection between the first

decree and the second would appear to be as follows: When the Thisbaeans first ap­ proached the praetor with their request for an audience with the Senate, the praetor found that the matters which they wished to present were so lengthy and complex that confusion and misunderstanding might arise.

In addition the pro-Roman envoys were

perhaps not quite clear in their own minds about their position in Thisbae with respect to Rome.

From the type and large number of issues presented in the second decree it is

very apparent that they were having difficulties of a serious nature.

They needed advice.

Therefore I believe that the praetor suggested to them that at the first meeting of the Senate they request that a special committee of senators be formed to advise them about what particular measures would be most effective in securing the control of the city for them.

This same committee could then help them to organize and coordinate this

material with their other requests in order to present everything in a systematic manner at the next meeting of the Senate.

The Thisbaeans themselves were hardly likely to

have known about senatorial committees of this sort, and the presiding magistrate of the first session would be the one person most likely to have suggested the matter to them. The Thisbaeans agreed to this proposal.

Maenius convened the Senate, and the motion

for the creation of a five-man committee was dui y approved.

After the Thisbaeans had

explained their difficulties to the committee, their requests in a revised form were pre­ sented at the next meeting of the Senate and were approved.>

In this whole procedure

we can see that these envoys were becoming the c/ientes not only of the praetor but also of the five men who formed the committee.

The relationship between c/iens and

patronus may be cemented in many ways, and one of them was certainly to be found in the social and political atmosphere created when foreign envoys arrived in Rome. Here, for example, I believe the envoys are bewildered.

They appear to know no one

who can help them-just the right conditions for Roman senators to add to their foreign c/ientela.3 There is a distinct possibility that in this instance the committee was composed of the five wimesses to the decree.

They would be the most likely choices.

Since the pre­

siding magistrate was obliged to supervise the writing of the decree in its final form after • This is one of the very few examples of a senatorial committee being formed to aid in the preparation

of material which would later come before the Senate: see Mommsen,

1002. 3 On t he whole subject see

29

E.

Badian,

Fa'eign Cliellteiae (264-70 a.c.)

Riimisches Staatsrecht, lIil, 2,

(Oxford, 1958).

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

the meeting of the Senate, in the presence of witnesses, it would have been most natural for him to ask those first two witnesses to serve on the committee.

Then, at the con­

clusion of the second meeting and the passage of the second decree he could have asked the other three members of the committee to take their turns at the witnessing of the decree.

1. In the first proposal (11. 17-20) we learn that the ager Thisbaeorum had become ager publicus in 1']0 B.C., after the surrender of the city.

The land, harbors, revenues, and

mountain pasture are now returned to the possession of the city. 2. The various magistracies of Thisbae are to be held only by members of the pro­

Roman party for the next ten years (11.20-24). 3. Private property may be retained by the legal owners

(U.

25-27).

4. The pro-Roman party is given permission to fortify the acropolis and live there (11.27-31). 5. Permission to fortify the city is denied

(I.

3 I) .

6. Gold, collected for a crown to be dedicated in the Capitol, but evidently con­

fiscated by the anti-Roman party, is to be returned (11. 31-35). 7. Concerning the proposal that anti-Roman Thisbaeans be held in detention, the

Senate decreed that

Q. Maenius should act as appears best for the interest of the

State and

according to his own good faith ( 11 . 35-40).

8. Concerning the proposal that those anti-Roman Thisbaeans who went to other cities to avoid meeting the Roman praetor should not be permitted to return to their former rank in the city, the Senate decreed that a letter be sent to the consul A. Hostilius authorizing him to deal with the matter as appears best for the interest of the State and according to his own good faith (11.40-45).

9. Three women, formerly of Thisbae, are to be prevented from living in either Chalcis or Thebes, where they now reside, and are not to be allowed to return to Thisbae (11. 46-49). 10. The matter 0 f the bribing (?)

0f

the praetor C. Lucretius b y these three women is

he po�t!,oned until Lucretius can be present (11. 50-52).4

to

I I.

Concerning the Thisbaean partnership with the h .. lian Gn:.eU5 Pandosi'lus, jurlges

are to be appointed, if so desired (11. 53-56).5 12. Travel visas are to be given to citizens of Thisbae and Coroneia whenever they

wish to visit Aetolia, Phocis, and other states (11. 56-60). This bare enumeration of requests is sufficient to indicate the very strong Roman measures taken to make sure that a pro-Roman party would not only survive but would • The entire episode of these three women is expressed in a (deliberately 1) vague marUler and no

satisfactory explanation of i t has been given.

C. Lucretius seems to have expelled them from Thisbae

and (as Mommsen thinks) imprisoned them in Chalcis and Thebes.

Viereck (notes) suggests that the

Thisbaean envoys are requesting their release because they might in some way be related to the local nobility at Thisbae.

S On this man and his overse�s business enterprises see Mommsen, op. cit. R.E. s.v ... Pandosinus," cols. 552-53, where further references loco cit.

Miinzer,

30

pp. z87 and Z95-96, and

F.

will be found; cf. Nicolet,

SENA TUS CONSUL TA

also, and more importantly, assume direct control of the local government in all spheres. Maier has also noted that the precaution of allowing the pro-Roman party to fortif y the acropolis, while refusing to allow the whole city fortification, appears to have been followed also in Elateia and Coroneia.

This would almost guarantee the protection of

Roman interests in such cities but would certainly not lead to cordial relations.

3 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE CORONEIA

170 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 1. Robert, Etudes epigraphiques et philolo giques (Paris, 1938). p p . 287-92; P. Melon� Pemo e lajine della monarchia macedone (Annali Univer.

Cagliari, XX) (Rome, 1953),2631£; F. G. Maier, Criechische Mauerbauinschryten, I (Heiddberg, 1959), no. 29, pp. 130-31 (c£ SEC., XIX (1963).374).

Stele of white marble now in the Museum at Thebes,

DESCRIPTION.

complete only on the left side, the reverse decorated with palmettes. 0.305 m.

Height:

Height of letters: 0.oo8�.009 m., but 0.005 m. for

Width: 0.13 m.

omicron and omega. Apices. There are excellent photographs in Robert, 0p.
10

[- - - O£'TtVES Els -r1]v rplAtav -r1]v �fLETt][pal v wpoaijA8[ov wpO Toil � 1Tp<>
-

-

-

TOYA

32

-

-

_

_

-

_

-

_

_

-

_

_

_

-

_

SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENTARY.

Despite Roman efforts on the eve of the Third Macedonian War

to win over the Boeotian cities, three of them remained steadfastly loyal to Macedonia and Perseus.1

When C. Lucretius Gallus in 171 B.C. captured Haliartus and accepted the

surrender of Thisbae, only one of them, Coroneia, remained to face Rome.

After

harassing the Thebans for their pro-Roman sympathies, Coroneia also was captured.. From the fragmentary remains of the present decree one may deduce with great probability that the pro-Roman party in Coroneia had been driven out and all the property-owners deprived of their possessions while the city was in the hands of the pro­ Macedonian faction.

After the Roman victory the exiled pro-Roman party must have

sent an embassy to Rome, where the present senatorial decree was obtained.

Lines

3-10, at any rate, would seem to mean that their possessions are now to be returned to them and that they are to have permission to fortify the city's acropolis for their own protection.

If so, then we may be assured that the pro-Roman party, like the one in

Thisbae, is to control the political affairs of the city? Although parts of the wall on the acropolis are at present in situ, it is not possible to fix the exact date of their construction. J I See the commentary and note to the •

A

comparison of

11. 25-31

of the

S.C.

S.c.

de Thisbensibus (No. z).

de Thisbensibus with the present decree

contents of both documents must have been quite similar. 3 Maier,

op. cit.,

pp.

128-2.9, 13 1.

will

show that the

4 EPISTULA P. CORNELII BLASIONIS Between 175

ET SENATUS CONSULTUM DE

and 16oB.C.

AMBRACIOTIBUS ET ATHAMANIBUS

Archtiologischer Anzeiger, I914, (Etudes d'Epigraphi e et d'Histoire Grecques, V [Paris, 19571,433-47); L. Robert, S.E.G., III (1929),451; L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Rep ublic, American Academy in Rome, Notice by w. Dorpfeld in

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

p. 50; M. Holleaux,

B.G.H.,

48 (192-4): 381-98

Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, Ig(0), p. 168.

DESCRIPTION. (Inv. no. 215).

Discovered at Corcyra in 1912, now in the city museum

G. Fougeres and A. Plassart made copies and squeezes.

photograph will be found in the original publication by Holleaux. was also made by Klaffenbach and was used by Viereck (notes). front face: 0.44 m.

Maximum width of front face: 0.26 m.

A

A squeeze

Height of

The lettering is

irregular and peculiar, the omicron and theta being very small and placed above the line.

II6TT)uo!; KOP!'[-rijA,O!; 11[0j7TAlov vlo!; BAaal wlI UTpaT1}YO!; Xalp€W My€, apxovu, 8-rip.wI T€ KOPKV palWII' 7TP€U{3€V­ Tat Ap.{3paKlwTal Ka, 'A8ap.!XII€!; £p.ot TTPOU­ -riA80aall. iv' allToiS" aVy­ KA77TOV 8w. 'Eyw auToi!; aVYKA7)TOV l8wKa. L'VYKA-rJ-r0V 86Yf4a T68€ £aTllI. IT pO �P.€pWlI TPlWII IIWIIWII KOIYKTI­ AlwlI £Y KOf'€TlwI' ypat/>0f,lllov 7Tapfjaall rllaio!; 'EYlla{a}TIO!; rat­ ov vli>!; L'(T>7)AaTllla!;. Tt­ TO!; 'Qt/>l810!; MapKov vl•

10

IS

Numerous other peculiarities may be observed in the photograph.

34

SENATUS CONSULTA

11; IIomAta;, raro; �fiP.­ zo

{JPWJ,tO; Anllclov vi[ liS'] [-----------] 1

Kopv[>iJA,or, ratov.

HoIIeaux,

Viereck

(notes) ;

Kop[�JAto;.

others,

16 ErNAETIOl:, stone.

COMMENTARY.

1-2

ll[OJ1TAtOV,

Klaffenbach,

but

17l:H.tl.ATINAl:, stone.

There are three basic facts necessary for the proper understanding

of this document: (I) The praetor is here writing to the people of Corcyra in order to communicate to them certain information about Ambrakia and Athamania.

(2)

The

Ambrakiots and the Athamanians had sent envoys to the Roman Senate to obtain a

(3)

decree.

The praetor here gives a copy of the decree not only to them but also to the

people of Corcyra.

Although only the prescript of the decree itself is extant, these

three facts enabled Holleaux to reconstruct the situation.

The Ambrakiots and Atha­

manians had a dispute over some piece of land and had agreed to leave the decision up to Rome.

The Senate in turn decided to hand the case over to the people of Corcyra for

final judgment, and the present decree

(11. 12-20)

state of Corcyra to act as arbitrator.

We may confidently assume that Corcyra ac­

was passed to authorize the friendly

cepted the Senate's ruling, for some fragments of the decision of the Corcyrean tribunal have survived. I

Such, in brief, would appear to be the purpose of the decree and its

covering letter. The year in which P. Cornelius P. £ Blasio held the praetorship is unknown, but by a careful sifting of the available evidence Holleaux has established that it must have been between

175

and

160

B.C.'

Having arrived at this date by historical, epigraphical, and

also prosopographical means, Holleaux drew attention to the fact that the tribal affilia­ tions of two witnesses are given (It

16-19).

This becomes important when it is realized

that formerly it was thought that the mention of the tribe and the cognomen of witnesses in this type of document followed a regular procession that would allow the

consulta

senatus

to be dated on the basis of the presence or a�ence of one or the other of the two.

But such a view, as Holleaux saw, can no longer be true with regard to the mention of the tribal affiliation, for from the time of this document the custom of adding the name of the tribe to the name of each witness is followed down to the end of the Republic.!

In the older documents, generally, its use is accidental. Ambrakia lay in the southern part of Thesprotis, in southern Epirus, on the River Arachthus.

It was situated on the northern slope of a hill and protected by the river on

the north and west (Livy I

38. 4).

Pyrrhus made the city his capital, built a palace there,

See I.G., IX, no. 690, and the remarks of Holleaux, op. cit., p. 438.

For the complicated method used to arrive at this date s e e Holleaux, 0 p. cit., pp. 438-46. His dating is accepted by Broughton, Magistrates, I, 4]8, who suggests that Comelius attained the praetorship .. very soon after 166." •

3

Holleaux, op. cit., p. 447.

35

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

and adorned the whole city with works of art. nania it joined the Aetolian League

(2.2.9

But after the Aetolians invaded Acar­

B.C. ) , while at about the same time Athamania,

to the east, declared itself a separate kingdom under Amynander. Fulvius Nobilior in

189

It was captured by M.

B.C. and pillaged by the R.oman Army, after which it was

se parated from the Aetolian League and declared free (Livy

38. «).

5 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE SARAPEO DELl INSULAE

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

ca.

E. Cuq,"Le senatus-consulte de Delos de I'an 166 avant

notre ere," Memoires de rAcademie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 39 (Paris,1912),

(er. A. Thomas,Comp. Rend. Acad. Inscriptions, 19II ,p.

pp. 139-61

834); R.

Cagnat and M. Besnier,A.E., 1912, no. 288; P. Roussel, "Le senatus-consulte de Delos," B.C.H., 37 (1913): 310-22; P. Wahrmann, Berliner Philologische

Wochenschr!ft, 1914,cols. 403-7; P. Roussel,Les cultes egyptiens a Delos du Ill" I/U

Ier siecle

QV.

J.-C. (Paris,1915), no.

14, pp. 92-94; idem, Delos colonie atMnienne

(Paris,1916),pp. 17,27,121; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I·G.3, II (1917 ),664; G. De Sanctis,Alii del/a Reale Accademia di Torino,

1918/19,pp. 526-30; F. Durrbach, Choix, I,fasc. 2 (1922), no. 77. M. Holleaux, B.C.H., 48 (1924): 390, n. I (=Etudes d'Epigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques, V

[Paris,1957), 440); Abbon-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926),no. 6,pp. 256-57; P. Roussel and M. Launey,

Inscriptions tk Delos (Paris, 1926), no. 151 0; W. A. Laidlaw,A History ofDelos

(Oxford, 1933), pp. 178-79;J. A. O. Larsen, "Roman Greece," in T. Frank, An Economic Surve y oJ Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 337, n. I ; Lewis­

Reinhold, Roman Civilizatioll, vol.

I

(New York, 1951 ), no. 124;Johnson,

Coleman-Norton, Boume,Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 33.

DESCRIPTION.

This is a stele

0f

white marble with three small projections

at the top in the form of acroteria, found in 1 9II during the excavations at Delos in the ruins of a building that may have been a sanctuary of Serapis. Height: 1.00 m. n.nU!J1.

Width: 0.33 m.

Th,. lettel'll

..r,.,

Thickness:

Ol C7TpaT'ljyot Xapp.{8€t (7rtIUATj­ T€'i LI�AOV

Xa{P€Iv'

Y€VOldvwv

7rA€tOVWV AOYWV (V T€'i f30VA€'i

ov ijV€YK€V 'pwp.TjS LlTjI'o/PtoS 'PTjVCXt­ €vS VrrEP TWV KaTtt TO l:apa7r'­

7r€pl. TOV 80yl,aTOS (K

€'iOV'

E8o�EV I'� KWAV€W av­

TOV avo {Y€ lv Kat 8€pa7rw€w TO l€pOV Ka8&7r€p Kat 7rpOT€10

pOV, ypoopal 8E Kat 7rpor CT€ 7r€-

37

O.I I

m.

d"r.orated with large apices.

Height of leners:

164 B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM TIlE GREEK EAST

IS

2.0

2S

pi TOVTWV iva €l8jjr' VrrOT€­ T'iXap.€V 8( C10' Kat TOV JV€­ x8(VTOr inr' aVTOV 8oyp.aTor -rei a.vTlyparpov. K&VTor MwvK,or KotVTOIJ v{or C1TpaT7fYor T€i C1VYKA.j­ TW, C1VV€{3oVA€VC1aTO Jv KO­ p.€T{W' €l8v,o ir JVT€pK(a)Aa­ [pI low yparpop.(VOV 1I'ai"?aav IIo1l'Mor IIopK,or II01I',\{ov. T€­ {3(p,or KAav8Lor T€{3€p{OIJ KPVC1Top.{var. M&vwr rt>ovT.j­ LOr ratov' 1I'€pt wv .1"1p..jTpLor 'P1]va ior Aoyovr J1I'0L.jC1aTo. o1l'wr TO Jv .1.jAW' {€pOv Eap&1I'I80r aVTW' 8€pa1l'€v€w J�€i .1"1 A{ovr 8E KWAV€W Kat TOV J� 'A8"1VWv E1I'apXOV 1I'apay,vop.€VO V WI EAaC1C10V 8€pa1l'€V€" 1I'€pt ToVTOIJ TOV 1I'pcCyp.aTor oVTwr E80�€v· Ka8wr TO 1I'pOT€POV J8ff.pcC 1I'€v€�·. EV€K€II �p.wv 8ff.pa1l'€v€w E�€C1TW TOV p..j T' V1I'ff.vaJlT{ov TW' Tfjr avyKA.jTOV 80yp.an y{ V'ljTr1.'. E8o�ff.v. •

30

lS

First twc wore!. in r4�u,n The stone-cutter may have engraved OIl:TATHrOI and then 6 The first alpha of l:apa7T,£iov is engraved over an erased epsiiol1, lilt; 'pdl;',gw ith ;.n epsilon perhaps reflecting that of the Latin original; cf. Roeder, R.E., s.v. "Sarapis," col. 2395. 18 EVTEpI
corrected it.

Priellensium

fl

SamiorulII Litibus

COMMENTARY.

(No.

)

10

and Durrbach,

op. cit.,

pp.

II 7-18.

In 167/66 B.e. the island of Delos was designated a free port by

Rome and placed under the control of Athens.

Although most of the Delians were

driven off the island, a few were allowed to remain on condition that they renounce their nationality.

Athenian colonists moved onto the island, and an Athenian epimelete was

placed in charge.

At some unknown date not long after this momentous event had

SENtlTUS CONSULTA

changed the whole pattern of life in Delos, the Serapeum of the priest Demetrius was closed by order of the Athenian government.

The reasons for this are obscure.

Cuq

believed that Athens favored the cult of Apollo and therefore suppressed that of Serapis. Roussel and Wahrmann objected to this view on the grounds that Athens herself did in fact recognize the Egyptian cults and could hardly have been expected to oppose them in Delos.

Roussel believed that the Serapeum was closed because it had been a private

rather than a public sanctuary.

This view is supported by the fact that public sanc­

tuaries had become the property of Athens, and Athens naturally would not permit private competition to interfere with the public sanctuaries.

Furthermore, Wahrmann

thought that it was not the cult of Serapis at all which angered the Athenians but rather the fact tha$ it was not an Athenian who controlled this particular sanctuary; Demetrius was not an Athenian.'

It is possible, I might add, that by closing the sanctuary of

Demetrius the Athenians hoped to acquire it themselves.

Whatever the motive or

motives, Demetrius did not acquiesce meekly.

He went to Rome, appealed to the

senatus consult urn

was drafted in his favor and he hurried

Senate, and won his point.

A

back to Athens to make known its contents. Athenian boule

(I.

It was there decided at a meeting of the

3) to comply with the Roman decree.

Accordingly the epimelete of

Delos, Charmides, was instructed to allow Demetrius to reopen his Serapeum and not to interfere with him in the future.

There the matter rested.

The date of this decree cannot be established with certainty, for the year in which the praetor Q. Minucius Q. £ had held office is unknown. after 167/66 B.C., but how long after? for 166

B.C.,

peregrinus) in 164

B.C.

and our Q. Minucius is not one of them.' 165

B.C.

Clearly the events took place

Livy (45. 44. 2) gives us the names of the praetors Since the

praetor urbalms

(or

may have beenP. Cornelius Blasio, the next earliest year would be

And it is very reasonable to assume that the quarrel between Demetrius and

Athens developed very soon after 10/66 digenous population.

and the subsequent expulsion of the in­

B.C.

At present, however, we do not have the means of dating exactly

any of the officials mentioned in the document.

in the. p�st 319-20, and Durrbach, 0p. cit., pp. II9--20. lists Q. Minucius as praetor in 164 B.C. (p. 439).

J He almost certainly belonged to a priestly family of Egyptian origin and had at some time

acquired Delian citizenship. • See Broughton,

39

See Roussel,

Magistrates, I, 437.

op. cit.,

pp.

He tentatively

6 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE PRIENENSIBUS ET ARIARATHE

ca.

156 H.C.

The C olle ction of An cient Greek Inscripti ons in Sermo Graecus (GOttingen. 1888 ). no. XXVUI (B only). pp. 50-51; W. Dittenberger. O.G.I.S 1(1903),351; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Ins chrijien lion Priene (Berlin. 1906). 39; E. V. Hansen. The Attalids if Pergamum (Ithaca. 1 947). pp. 123-24; D. Magie. Roman Rule in Asia Min or (Princeton. 1950), I. II7 and 202, 11, 969. n. 93. and 1097. n. 9; Johnson. Coleman-Norton, Boume. Ancient R oman Statlltes. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

E. L. Hicks.

the British Museum, III

(1886 ). nos. CCCCXXIV a-b; P. Viereck.

.•

no. 36a.

DESCRIPTION.

Two fragments of wall stone from the cella wall of the

Temple of Athena Polias in Priene.

Fragment A: top and bottom are complete.

sides broken ; now in the British Museum.

20 inches (=ca. 0.50 m.).

Measurements by Hicks.

Width: 13 inches (= ca. 0.33 m.).

Height:

Fragment B :

broken only on the right; copied b y A. S . Murray a t Priene and later lost. The lettering is well done. with apices

Height: 20 inches (= ca. 0.50 m.). throughout.

A

[_ - - -- - - --]_1[ .. ]1[- ----- ------- - -- - __ ] [-- - - - - -TWV] .pt)" wv TO US avo:v£ [wuo:pivous ---------] [--- - - ---- ] .111'£' yap 'Ap&o:paO[1jS-- - ---------]

[-

_ ... .. .. .. ... ...

(J�J�. 'rjSuv,;e�i

S;e:

.w[J.o ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. -..... -]

[----------]l!o:'·PWp.o:LWVTWV [-------------] [--------- - -] TWV oloplvwv [--- - ---------] [- - - - - - - - b Tc,h l] £pWt· P. £Ta Il [£ -----------] ] [-- - - ----------�] p. 'v a1l'OK [pl vo:u OO:t [----------------] ,!!,aAtV € � [-----------] -

-

-

-

-

-

B

[- - - - - - - 'Apt o:pa01jS n)v npt·'P'l wv]1I'o)..tV 1I'O)"tO[pK-r/UO:S] [KO:' K ] nlP.O:[T ] 0: u[u )" -r/uo:s. 1I')..£'UT o: ]ll£ KO:' UWP.O:TO: [l1l,wT'Ka '1'£ KO:'] [1l'l]p.6 ]u ,0: cX7r[O:YO:YWV---- - - - --] a.pds p.£[v - - - - - - - -] [ .. ] 00:' eX 'Opo.plpv1js €VTW' l£pw, T[ij]S 'A[ O·,wus 1I'O:PIXKO:UO£TO, a1l'OKplvo:-]

40

SENATVS CONSULTA

10

[a8a,] auTO'S" r/l1;\aIl8p�71[WS"· EIl]o[�£ - - - - - - - - - - OUT£ rijS"] a1JYK;\�T01J oun TOU 1l�'£01J £71' 8£;\71[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] oS"· 71£pl T£ TOlhwII TWII 71paY/LClTw [11 oihwS" Ello�£II· T<)II 8£'lIa 71pOS"] [,B]aalM'a 'ATTaAOII Ka, ,Baa,Ma 'Ap.a[pa8"111 yparpa. 71£P' rijS" £7TI-] [1l]pO/LTjS" oihw Ka8wS" all aUTw. £ [K TWII 8"1/LoalwII 71paYI£aTwII 71laT £�S"] [T£ rijS" llllaS" r/lalll"lTal· E80�£II]. A 2. allall£[waa/LfllouS" Tijll aUI'/l-axlall, Hiller. 4-S Perhaps Il,,;' TW[II o1TAwII Kparijaal TWII XP1Jl�aTwII,
IUTa. Il [e Taum 1TpEO{1E1JTWII '>''', Dittenberger; 1TA"oTa, Hiller. 2.-3 llll�TIK& T< Kai Il'jl.cllola Hiller, 8pfl"l',am, Hicks; 1ToAAa1TA&lola, Hicks, incorrectly; a1T[ayaywII, Dittenberger. 7-8 Dittenberger. 8-10 Dittenberger and Hicks, but Viereck formerly had 01TWS" - - - - - ypa/l-I"aTa a1TOOT
-

-

-

1

-

COMMENTARY.

In IS9 B.C. King Ariarathes V of Cappadocia was driven out of

his kingdom by his half-brother Orophernes.

During his short reign Orophernes

quickly earned the great displeasure of his people by his constant and excessive forced contributions.

Af ter amassing a huge sum of money, he deposited

400 talents in

Temple of Athena Polias in Priene as a safeguard against future misfortune.

IS7 B.C. the Senate ruled that Orophernes and Ariarathes should rule jointly.

the

Early in However,

Ariarathes considered such an arrangement im possible and immediately enlisted the help of Attalus II of Pergamum.

The two kings soon drove out Orophernes.

Ariarathes then attempted to withdraw the

400

city refused to surrender the money to anybody but the original depositor. and Attalus�gain joined forces, and an army marched on the r.ity. Rhodes for help and then to Rome.'

When

talents from the temple at Priene, that Ariarathes

Priene apr,.�led to

Our two documents ref er to the situation at this

precise moment. I

The single most important source for this entire incident i.

bearing upon the present document it must be

quo te d in full:

Polybiu5

JJ. 6,

and because of it.

direct

·OT� �a:Tci T�Vi lCa,p��i �OU�OU5' lCal... n�"7V�is �vf""faov ,,;apaAoyql rn;l-upoP�. &ecirf.vm lap Trap O�O,p fP:OV5'J OT f���af"!S' ap'X,,']5', £lI ;rapa(J'7 �n TfTr:alCoa�a :MC:VTIX a:7f!1TOV�O . , , .. WS" KaTa, TO US" '�T}S" XPOIIOUS" U1T Aplapa80u, OT< /l-'T,'Aa{1, T1jll apXT}II. 01 1""11 01J\l IIplT}II£IS", £ILO;' 80K££"', op8w§' raTCi:VTO, r/la.aICOVT£5' 1.l.T}8£vi. Trpo'lG£a8a, Ta xprj,...aTIX CWVTOS' 'OpatjJfPV01J5' 7l'A�v aVTcp TCP Tra.pa(J£P.fVqJ' .; S' 'Ap&a.pa.0"1� 7l'O,UO&S' (SOIC£r. 7TapaTri:1T'T£U' TOU 1Ca811ICovTo�J a.1Tar.Twv T�V aAAOTptav 7Tapalh}1C11v, a,} p.�v aAA' fW� jJ-f.V T01fTOV Tax' av Tr.� ('X,or. aVYYvWl£7JV a.,}T� lCaTa·1T£r. �COVT� T� SOIC � & V rijS' (�£ LVOU, f3aa!A£ Lr:�, (lvar. T� xp�l.&aT�' ;0 S£ ICW ,!,oP: pWT'PW 1Tpo{1atllf lll oPY"IS" Kal r/"AOTI/l-IaS" oulla/l-wS" ,1l0Kf I y'II,08al KaTa AoyoII. KaTa Il, TOU� vvv A(yoJ"vov� lCar.pou� (7TaTrO aT£l Aa� (An]>"&'T£r. 1'�V xwpav TWV llpr.71 VfWVJ aVII�yoVVTO� 'ATTaAov lCal TTapoeVVOVTO� aUTov ar.a T1'1v lSr.'av Sr.arpop&.vJ 1ft]V (1'X,( TTpO� TOV� IIpr.T]v£fS'.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Fragment A is either a decree ofPriene (Dittenberger), perhaps thanking the Senate for its favorable attitude toward her, or else a covering letter from a Roman magistrate (Hiller), to which was appended the following decree. Hiller's view.

Line

8

would seem to support

In its present state one can only say that it included a resume of the affair

up to the moment of writing. was favorable to Priene

(I. 5)

Fragment B is the decree of the Roman Senate, which

and directed that a note of protest be sent to the two kings.

The Senate could hardly be expected to do more than that, for the two kings were allies of Rome.

The situation was a delicate one, and the Senate compromised.

If the

restoration of this decree is substantially correct, we may say that Rome gave the im­ pression of sympathizing fully with Priene without actually interfering openly with her two allies. Such a decision on the part of the Senate is in general agreement with the policy adopted by Rome after Pydna in Asia Minor, a policy calculated to establish and main­ tain a "balance of power" by making the kingdoms and cities dependent upon Rome alone.1

The Senate wished to control Asia by playing one kingdom against the other,

by never allowing any single power to acquire great superiority, and by forcing them all to accept Roman arbitration.

Resort to force was not her intention as yet, for there

were easier, less expensive, and less dangerous means to achieve the same end.

A good

example of this policy, worth mentioning here because of some similarity to the present situation in Priene, may be seen in the attack launched against the Pergamene kingdom in 156 B.C. by Prusias of Bithynia.3

The Senate intervened, ordered Prusias to desist,

and, when he refused, authorized allied cities to support Pergamum.

154 B.C.

The war ended in

with Pergamum vindicated and Prusias defeated.

1ToA,\6;v 8E /Cal a Wf'cXT WV /Cal (JP"f'f'riTwV a1TON>,.EVWV /Cal 1TPO� Tjj 1I"(lA", 1rTWf'&TWV ,,&0f'EVWV, a,.u$vaa(Ja, f'EV o"x orol T' .qaav o[ Jlp"I""'�' '1TpEa{1Evov 8E /C a l1Tp� 'P08lo�, f'E TCr. 8E TaUT' €1Tl 'Pwf'alov� /CaTlq,vyov. o[ 11' OIl1TpoaE,Xov TO'� A " O f'EV O '�. /Ca, np,"IV€'� ,.Ev " E,,& A a� iXOVTE� €A1Tllla� €1Tl Tt/> '1TA..j8", nul' XP"I,.riTWV TO'� €vavTlo,� €VE/CUP"Iaav' TCP f'EV 'OPotPEP�O 1iv "r:pa,91jIC,?v JTEaWIC�, lma 8£ Tau {JaUl).EWf 'Ap,ap&.8ov LKava.'S' T,a.. ; fJAafJa,� 1TEp'E'1TEaov a81/Cw� 8,a T'/V 1Tapa(J,/lCTjv.

E

Y�

?

Some further details may be' four"l pp. ll3-Z3, and Magie,loc. cit.

il-, DivJ"ru!

31.

p.

For mQdem

accounts see Hansen, op. cit.,

P. V. M.Benecke, C.A.H., VlIl(1930), Z81, appears to be unaware ot

the existence of the present decree.

M.

l.

Rostovtzetf,

S.E.H.H. W.,lIl(1941), 152.0,

the very difficult economic situation of Priene in this period.

Ariarathes-Orophemes affair will be found in the account by Th. Lenschau cols. II68-71.

n. 71, mentions

An excellent survey of the entire

in R.E.,

s.v .

.. Orophemes,"

The fact that Orophemes had presented the city of Priene with many gif ts (ibid.,

cols. 1169-70) may have influenced the city

in

,howing such noteworthy loyalty to its greatest

depositor. Z See Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 96-115.

Magie, op. cit., I, I I 1-18, with the notes

in 11,

For the relationship of the cities in Asia to Rome sec 958-69.

The attempt to preserve a balance of power

the Creek East after Pydna no doubt reRects the laissez faire attitude of the Senate.

in

This attitude

changes in about IH-I54 B.C.; see H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics 220-150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), pp. Z3Z-36. l For the attack and the war as a whole see Magie, 0 p. cit., pp. 316-17, and, of the older accounts the

most detailed,B. Niese,Geschichte der griechischen und makedonisclum Stamen,

III (Cotha,

1903), 3z6-z8.

For Prusias' route into the Pergamene kingdom see L. Robert, Etudes Allatoliennes (Paris, 1937), pp. Ill-I8.

The most recent account of the war is that of Christian Habicht

in

Hermes, 84 (1956): IOIff.

SENATVS CONSVLTA

The date of the decree can be determined only by considering the historical back­ ground of the times.

Orophemes ruled for only about two years,

158-156

B.C.,

and

Attalus II could hardly have given much military assistance to Ariarathes in the period of

156-154

B.C.

The decree should date, therefore, either from just before the attack upon

thePergamene kingdom in see Orophemes leaving his

156 400

B.C.

his explulsion from Cappadocia. B.C.,

or after it, around the end of

154 B.C.

But I cannot

talents in Priene untouched for two or more years after Accordingly, I would like to place the decree in

156

almost on the very eve ofPrusias' attack, but the lack of precise information on the

chronology precludes positive dating f or the document. one should say.

About

156

B.C.

is as much as

7 EPISTULA M. AEMILII ET SENA TUS CONSULTUM DE MAGNETUM

ca.

the middle of the

second century B.C.

ET PRIENENSIUM LITmUS [Squeeze]

Die Insc/vijien v on Magnesia am Maeatrder (Berlin. S.I.G.l, II (1900),91.8 ; J. Partsch, Die Schriftformel im rO'mischen Provinzialprozesse (Breslau,1905). pp. z7f[; G. CoEn. R ome et la Grece de 200a 146 avantJ.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 509-10; F. Hiller von Gaertringen. Die Inschrijien v on Priene (Berlin, 1906). 531 II B; M. N. Tod. International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913). pp. 44-45; M. Holleaux,B.C.H., 38 (1914): 67, n. 1. (Etudes d'Epigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques, I (Paris, 1938,) 334-35); F. HilIer von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, SLG.,3 II (1917),679 II b ; M. Holleaux, B.C.H., 48 (191.4): 384-86 and 396-98 (Etudes d'Epigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques, V [Paris, 1957J, 436-37 and 446-47; c£ S.E.G., I V [191.9 ), 508); A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 15 (1937): z6ff.; V. Arangio-Ruiz, FOllies iuris Romani ant�ustinianiz, pt. 3 (Florence, 1943), pp. 501-4; D. Magie, R oman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, II3-14, and II, 964, n. 81. ; Lewis-Reinhold, Romall Civilizati on I (New York, 1951),336-37; Johnson, Coleman-Norton,Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 38. BIDLlOGRAPHY.

O. Kern.

19(0). 93 b; W. Dittenberger.

DESCRIPTION.

White marble inscribed on all four sides, from the southwest

corner of the agora in Magnesia. Height: 0.5 0 m. Thickness: 0.83 m. Height of letters: 0.01 m.

3S

40

Width: 0.83 m.

[- - LIOyfLa 7'0 KOfLIU8�v 1Tap ] a rijS' UVYKA1)7'OV{V} ' P w [fLal wv I;"TO 7'WV a1Tou7'aAb'7'wv 1TPEU,sEV'TWV] [,m�p 7'WV 1TpOS' l1PI'1/VEL,.] M aap K o , A'fLVA10, MaapKov [via, u7'pa'T'1)yo, M V Aaul wv] [,sovA7j' Ka, a'lfLW' Xa�pElv. 1TpEu,sEV7'a, MaY"?7'E, Ka [, IIp'''IvEL, EfLO' 1Tpou1)A8ouav] [01TWS' al h o L S' uVYKAl"I7'OV aWl' 7'0117'01, E YW U VYKA'f/'TOV ;a[WKa . UVYKA'I7'OV o6yp.a· 1TpO .JfLE - ] [ pWV - - - - - - - - - ] tlpl wv EY KOfLE7'l wl' ypa
44

SENA7VS CONSULTA

4S

,SO

[ δρε ς Kαllo� Kάγαθ )o� πa:p α &ιjμσυ καιιου Kα� άγαθου Kα� Φlλoυ συμ [ μιfx oυ τε ήμετέ-) [Ρου κατα πρόσωJ "ο" lΙόγου, έΠOΙ:ιjσα"TO Kα� 1Γεp� ώ" Πρ ιψε" 1Γρε[σβευ'Tα� - - - - - -) [ - - - - - - - -] "ψ άνδρε, Kαllo� Kα� άγαθo� Kα� ΦΙIΙσι. παΡα &ήμσυ καιιου Kα [� άγαθου Kα� Φt-) [ 11] ου σ [υ) μμιfxoυ τε ήμι τέ Ρου κα τα πρόσωπο... lΙόγου, έποιήσαιιτο πεp� ή, χώρα, έξεχώ ρησαν ΜιfγγljTε, Kα� Πι ν κα τοχη ιι ταύτη, τή, χώρα, έξ εχ':' [Ρ"σαll) &ίμωι Πριψίων κα τ α το τή, συγκlΙή του δόγμα C:πω, ΚΡ Ι Τ11 ρι ον δοθΌ' πεp� '70 [ύτου του] πpιfγι , αTO, ούτ ω , ;δοξεν' C:πω, M ιfαPKO, Α lμ ύlΙι ο , MαιfpKσυ υ{ο, σΤρατηγό, δ [ήμσν έ-) lΙε[ ύ)θερον κρι την δω" α, άι' έι' αύτο" όμόlΙογο, γEV1jBjj' έα" δ� σι αύτο" όμό lΙογο , [μ� ytvη - ] ται, C:πω, MιfαPKO, Α [Ι)μύlΙιο, MαιfpKoυ υ{ο, στρατηγο, δήμον έlΙεύθεΡον κριτη [ν δώι.] ε Ι, τούτου, τού, lΙόγου, ούτως, καθώς άν αυτωι έκ των δ"μ.οσtων πpαγμιfτ ω [ ν

πίστε-) ας κ ρι νε, Mιfyνησιν Kα� Πρ ιηνευ σ,ν πεp� τ α ύ [ της τή,) χώρα, τη, παρα Πρι"νέωll ά πο κεκρι μέ Ι'11ς Or'Ja"" έξ '>/' χώρας Mιfγνηr{ες έαυ-] τους ;φa;σα,' έκκεχωΡ,lκέναι. ό πό τεΡον άν τούτων δήΙLω" roptUK"To:ι. ταύτην χώΡα'Ι βσ Χ , lκέναι , οτε "l, την φιιι t α l' του &ήμσυ του 'Pωμa:tων πa:pεγένετO, ταύτη [11] ώς τ ε τη, lδtΜ φa;t"ψo:ι.'

Η

60

;δοξεν'

την χώραν C:πω, αύTlLIΙ προσκplνυ op,ιf τε σ τ ήσυ ' ;δοξεν' ώσαύτως πεp� ών ο{ αύτo� Πρι ηνε,ς π p.;σβευτα� κατα πρόσωπον προς M ιfγVΗτα, ΠΡεσβευτα, lΙόγους ίπσι.-ιjσα,'το πεp� άδ ΙK"μιfτω., α αύτο" MιfyYηTες πε πο, ή κεισ αν, πεp� τούτου 'frpιfγIlh.TO> ού­ τως ;δοξεν, C:πως MιfαPKO, ΑlμύlΙιος MαιfpKOυ υ{ο, σΤΡατηγο, τον αύτοιι δ1jιιo�' [κρ,ν] ο:ι. κεlΙεύσ [rι]. α, άν πεp� χώρα, κ ριΠις δε δομένο , 'δ, ας Κρ'ιιεί ταυτα άδ,κ' ήμα τα ' ε: γε γο [νότ!α "la�1I ύπο Mαyνnτωιι, όσον αι, "α lΙοll ι<α� δtκαιον φαιlΠJτα" δ,αT.,..,Iσιfσθω, , . κα ,σπως [ εί,) τον αυτον δ1jμo�' κριτηιι MιfαPKOς ΑlμύlΙιο, MαιfpKOυ υ{ό, στρατηγο, πεp� 'Το ύ τ ω ν ιr ώ ν [πραγ] μιfTωl, γpιfμμαTα δώ., προ, 7]" άι' ήμΙραν tκιfτεΡΟΙ παραγtν ω ντο:ι. προς εκατερα τα κρι [μα;.,.] α [Kα� καθ') 7] [ ν άΙ ν ήμέραν κρtνωσι [ . . .. ο) πως Kα� [- - - -) r

Ι

'

J

36 �μo: 1I'poσfjλθoν or 1Ι'Ροσήλθοσαν, Ηοlle:ιuχ, :ιlso Viereck (notes): IIdyoUS" lπo,oήσoιYTo HίDer. 39 Φοι(λι!ρνα or Φοι(βία, Kem, Ηοne:ιux. 40 MΆΓVΗ(T�l>', HίIler; Mάγιι?ι(T�»-, Kern. The squeeze is next to usdess :ιt thίs Fticukr poίnι Two, not three. nunes followed. 43-44 Perh:ιps κα: φίλ]ου should be omirted. 48 .1λ.;(υ1θ"l,ον. The squeeze shοws :ι b:ιdΙΥ wom :ιre:ι οη the stone. 63 (κα: καΟ'] oJ)( v ά] ν, HilIer, Viereck (notes). Ι caιυιot detect the trd m the squeett. Kem S:Ιw nothing between

45

κΡί(ιιοι.,α :ιnd ήμί!""ν.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM mE GREEK EAST

COMMENT AR Y.

Somewhere in the vicinity ofPriene and Magnesia is a stretch of

land which was a bone of contention between the two cities.

There are indications that

they had quarreled for some considerable time, but it was not until about the middle of the second century

B.C.

that friction over the possession of this land finally caused them

to send envoys to Rome for the purpose of settling the matter permanently. 1

The

Senate answered their request with the present decree. The method adopted by Rome to settle the dispute was to authorize the praetor, M. Aemilius M. E, to appoint some free state as arbitrator, one which both Priene and Magnesia might fmd acceptable.

If they could not agree upon some such state, the

praetor himself was to make the appointment.

This arbitrating state was to be instructed

to determine which one of the two cities actually possessed the land at the moment when amicitia with Rome had been established.'

That city was then to be granted possession.

It seems that the Magnesians were also charged with the commission of injustices against the people of Priene.

The arbitrating state was directed to investigate this matter;

if

the charges were true, the damages were to be evaluated fairly and a corresponding fine was to be levied against Magnesia. The date of the decree is uncertain, for, although the name of the presiding magistrate is indeed preserved, the omission of his cognomen makes positive identification most difficult.

The presence or the omission of tribal affiliation and cognomen may not serve

as a sure and reliable guide to the dating of Roman decrees.3

But since the lettering

appears to belong to the first half of the second century, possible candidates for our praetor include M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 158, praetor in 161 at the latest) and M. Aemilius LepidusPorcina (cos. 137, praetor in 140 at the latest).4 date to be about the same

as

Senatu5 Consultum de Ambraciotibu5 et Athamanibu5 (above, No. B.C.S

Holleaux believed the

that of the letter ofP. Comelius Blasio which contains the

4),

that is, about 175-160

Such a dating may be tentatively accepted until such time as further evidence

either confirms it or disproves it. Fortunately the present document is not the only one which contains information on"' thi� particular dispute betweenPriene and Magnesia, for there were five documents that I That the present quarrel was not the only one between the two cities may be seen in Kern, op. cit., 93 a,l!. 26-28 (= S.I.G), H, 679 I. a), where we learn that Magnesia not only won the present dispute with Priene but also another on a previous occasion. The pertinent section reads as follows: 0 3ijp.o� VII<'ljaCX� 'TO &V'TEPOV np,,,vEi� 'Ti)< VrrEP .",'jr xwpcx� Itpl[O'EI br' MIIAcxlO'E1 wv 31ItcxO''T'IPIOIlIt'TA. I take this to mean that there were two disputes concerning the same area of land. It is possible, how­

ever, that the words might mean that Magnesia is merely boasting of having won two disputes with Priene and that only the last of them involved this land. •

Most probably this took place at the conclusion of the war with Antiochus or very soon thereafter.

Tacitus in his

Anllals (3. 62) states that after the defeat of Antiochus (190 B.e.) L. Scipio paid homage

to the loyalty and courage of Magnesia by making the Temple of Artemis inviolable. been free ever since Apamea (Polybius

33.

6;

cf. S.I.G.3,

Priene had

11, 688).

Etl/des, V, p. 447. Magistrates, I, 443 with n. 2 f or the former, and 472 with n. 1 for the latter. He lists M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina under the year 143 B.C., but, as he notes, the date is not assured S Op. cit•• p. 446.

3 Holleaux,

• Broughton,

SENIlTUS CONSULTIl

Magnesia had engraved

en

stone and set up in her public square.6

The first, a decree of

the city to honor her public advocates and to order the engraving of the entire dossier about the dispute, informs us that Mylasa had been selected as the arbitrating state and that Magnesia had won. panying senatorial decree.

The second is our letter of M. Aemilius and its accom­

The third is lost.

The fourth contains the final decision of

the Mylasan arbitrators, and the fif th lists the names of the Magnesian advocates who had presented their city's arguments so convincingly to the Mylasan tribunal. The exact location of the disputed land is not known, but there are indications that it may have been part of the old territory of the city of Myus.

Located south of the

Maeander but not far fromPriene and Magnesia, it had been settled originally by Athe­ nian emigrants and had become an independent city in its own right.'

In the Hellenistic

age, however, it had been absorbed by Miletus and then in turn acquired byPhilip v, who gave it to the Magnesians in return for food to feed his army.8

In I96

B.C.,

when

Miletus and Magnesia signed a peace treaty, much if not all of the land of Myus was divided between those two cities. 9

It may ha ve been the northern part of that land over

which the present quarrel betweenPriene and Magnesia broke out, for in the first of the Magnesian documents in the dossier on the dispute we are told that the Mylasan ar­ bitrators went to the land itself, heard both thePrienean and the Magnesian advocates on the spot, and retired to the Temple of A pollo in Myus.

It is wholly possible theref ore

that the land in question originally had formed pan of the territory of Myus.

At any

rate one could maintain that the land is not too far away from the triangle formed by the lines Priene, Magnesia, Myus.10 6 S.l.G.], 679

I-V.

1 For the history of Myus see the account by

the remarks ofL. Robert, and Magie,

op. cil., 11,

W. Ruge in R.E.,

Villes d'Asie Mil1l!ure' (Paris,

S.II. "Myus," cols. 1430-37.

1962), p. ss;

idem, Hellenica,

a.

also

2 (1946) : 88, n. 3;

883-84.

8 For Philip's possession of Myus and subsequent gift to Magnesia see Polybius 16. 24. 9:

MvoGv1'oS I
Il,,, I
9 S.I.G.3, s88 (Miletus). •• That Magnesia had acquired the northern part of the old land once probably belonging to Myus is


'1'""<

of the

tteaty hetween Miletus and Magnesia

(S.l.<:;.],

S88, 1128-p. ) .

HiIle.

(n. 2 in S.l.G.3, 6791 a) believed that the land over which Priene and Magnesia had quarreled was north of the Maeander and between the two cities, f or he thought that the phraseology of the document indicated that the Temple of Apollo at Myus was not within the area of land over which the dispute One cannot wholly agree with this reasoning. The text reads (ll. 9-II): (,s'l
arose.

arguments from both cities" on the spot" (that is, on the disputed area), they retired to the Temple of Apollo in Myus fer divine guidance in reaching a decision. miles or twenty miles away from the disputed area.

The temple could have been two

However, considering the previous connection

between Magnesia and Myus and considering the fact that the arbitrators did in fact go to the temple in Myus, I am strongly tempted to believe that the land in the present dispute lay south of the Maeander.

47

a. M N.

Too,

op. cit.,

pp. 140-42.

8 EPISTULA P. SEXTILII CUM Second Century B.C. ?

SENATUS CONSULTO

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

N. Giannopoulos, 'E1>

'Apx.,

1934-35, no. 1, pp. 1491'[,

L. Robert. Etudes ipigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), pp. 287-88, n. I; T. R. S. Brollghton. The Magistrates of tire Ro man Republic, 1I (New York, 1952), 465.

DESCRIPTION.

Found at Triccala in Thessaly.

0.24 m. wide, and 0.20 m. thick.

The stone is 0.25 m. high,

The letters are 0.005 m. high.

116-rrA'o, E£�a'Tt>..,o[S' - - - - - - - - a'Tp a-] '"lYoS' 'Pw/La{wv, KO[ - - - - - 'TOt, 'Ta'1'ot,] KO!l -rfi {3ovAfl Xatp [£tV. - - - - - - - 7Tpa-] '1'/La'T oS' KaAw, '1' [, vw a Kw ? - - - - - - - -]

UfLtV £'1'0.. at!y[KA7J'TOV UlwKa - - - - - -] Tp'K Ka{[wv - - - - - - - - -----] 7TpO�/dp[a vvelwv- - - - ------] £'1' KOfL£['T{tp' '1'pa,pOfLEVOV 7Tapfiaav - -- -] fLO!paK [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E £�a'T {-] At O S' [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] 'T£

10

Text by Robert. spelling,

yparpo/-,EvCp.

Viereck (notes) had recognized it as a senatus consultum.

8 Alternative

9 SENATUS

CONSUL TUM DE

NARTHACIENSIUM ET MELITAEENSIUM LITIBUS

ca.

B[BL[OGRAPHY.

B. Laticheff, B.C.H., 6 (1882): 3s6-87; P. WiIlems, Le

Senat de la republique romaine, vol. I (Louvain,188S), app., pp. 708-14; H. G.

Lolling, Athen. Mitt., 10 (188S): 284-8S; P. Viereck, Sermo GraeCII s (Gottingen, 1888), no. XII, pp. 16-19; E. Sonne, De arbitris externis, quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas componendas, quaestiones epigraphicae (Diss.,

Gottingen, 1888), no. XXVIII, pp. 181f.; E. De Ruggiero, L'arbitrato pubblico presso i Romani (Rome, 1893), pp. 2SIIf.; W. Dittenberger, S.I·G.', 1(1898),

307; A. Wilhelm, Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1903, p. 7 9S; O. Kern, I.G., IX, 2 (1908), 89; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, I (Leipzig, 1913), 122-23; M. N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), pp. 23- 24, 129-30; F. H iller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917),674; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton,1926), no. 8, pp. 2S8-61; F. Stahlin, R.E., s.v. "N arthakion," cols. 1760-64; idem, Philologus, 88 (1933): 130-32; G. Daux, B.C.H., S7 (1933): 97; S. Accame, 11 dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 6 9- 70,

21?-24; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 19SI), no. 133 , pp. 333- 34; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of tlte Roman Republic, II (New York, 19S2), 643; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Boume, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 3 9 .

DESCRIPTION.

A grayish stone found near t h e Thessalian village of

Limogardi, where ancient Narthacium must have been located. inscription is engraved on

two

The

of its sides. the front face being crowned with a

cornice and the other decorated in the Byzantine period by a semicircle. of the front face is 0.6 7 m., width 0.345 m. width 0.4ZS m.

Height

Height of the other side is 0.68 m.,

The engraving is carefully done,the letters measuring almost

one centimeter in height. Omicron and omega have the same height as the other letters except that at the ends of lines omicron is sometimes smaller or elongated. The transverse bar of the alpha is sometimes straight, sometimes curved, and sometimes broken.

I40 B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

Α

10

15

2.0

2.5

30

[ΣTpαT]�έoνTO, των Θεσσαλων Λέοντο[,] [του 'Αγ]ησίΠ'που Λαρισαίου, έν δε Ναρθακίω[ι] [ταγευόν]των Κρίτωνο, του 'Αμεινία, 17ολυκλέο, [ToV Φει] δtιrπoυ, Γλαυκέτα ToV 'Αγελάου, άν [ε] [γΡάφ,ι τό] δόγμ.α τό γενόμενον fJ'πό συΥκλ[ή]­ [του έπ� σ]ΤΡατηγου των Θεσσαλων Θεσσα[λου του] Θρασυιιήδεο, Φεραίου. νν [Γά,ο, Όσ]τίλιο, Αύλου υίό, Μαγκϊνο, στρα­ [Τ1)γό, τ]ηι συγκλήτωι συνεβουλεύσατο πρό [ νω]νων Κο,ντιλίων έγ κομετίωι' γραΦο­ [μένωι π]αΡήσαν Κό,ντο, (Σ)ταηλιψό, KOtVTOV [υίό, Κορ] VΗλία. Γναίο, Λοτάηο, Γναίου υΙό [,] ['Α ....ήν] ση. AιJλo, Σεμπρώνιο, Αύλου υΙό, Φα­ [λέρνα.] νν πεp� ιlίν Θεσσαλo� Μελιταιεϊ, 'Αρμό[ξενο, ι1υ]σάνδρου. Λαιιπρόμαχο, Πολίτα [ΠΡεσβευ]τω λόγου, έποιήσαντο, a.νδρε, κα­ (λo� Kάγ]αθo� Kα� Φίλοι παρά δήμου καλου [κάγαθο] υ Kα� Φίλου συιψάχου <τε). χάριτα [Φιλ{αν σ]υιιμαχίαν τε άνενεώσαντο. πε[p� χώρα,] δημοσία, Kα� πεp� χωρίου έΡήιιου [είπασαν ?], μεθ' ή, χώρα, εΙ, τημ Φιλίαν του [δήιιου τ]ου 'Ρωμαίων νν παρεγένοντο, ήγ χώ­ [ραν ΝαΡθα]κιεϊ, ιιετσ. TΑVTα laVTWV άδίκω, [έποιήσαντ]ο, πεp� τούτου του πράγματο, σπω, [η7ν διάνοι] αν πρόσ<σ)χωσιν, σπω, τουτο τό πρα­ [γμ.α άκέρα].ον αύτοι, άΠOΚαTασTαθiί ούτω [Kαθιlι, πρότερο ]ν έπ� Μ"Ιδείωι Kα� έπ� Θεσσαλων [ ........] φν Kα� έπ� των περί Πύλλον Μακε[δ611(ιlΙl Κ'fiI<ΡΙ].ιUvοιι αύτοίS" -ijVJ ταυτά T� τά κ (ρί][ιιατα κύρια σπω Ι' 'Π. πε� τούτου του πΡάγμα­ [το, συνευδόΚ]1)σεν -ήμίν Kα� Ναρθακιευσιν [σπω, τόν άγωνΙα τόν παρόντα Kplll'{/ έιι Μ [ελιl­ [τείαι(?) ..... έ]ν ταύτη. τηι χώρα[• . . . 1 [ .. άμΦοτέρων] τών δήιιων έ[π,τρεπόντων] [ Ι έσT�ν ιlίι ρα[- - - - - - - - - - - - - -ι • • • •

·

35

Β

.

.

•

.

.

•

.

·

·

.

[- - -]ιη [.. ]νη[- - Kα� πε� ιlίν Θεσσαλo�] [Ναρθακιεϊ:, Ν] ικάτα, Τα[...............] [ πpεσβε]υTα� λόγο [υ,] έπ[οιήσαντο κατσ.] [πρόσωπον έν τηι] συΥκλήτ[ωι a.νδρε, Kαλo�] [κάγα]θοί Kα� Φίλοι παρά δήμου �II' (λου κά]­ [γαθου καμ Φίλ[ου συμιιάχου τε -ήμετέρου χά].

40

•

·

50

.

.

.

.

•

SENATUS CONSULTA

4S

50

55

60

65

[ριτα: φ ιλ]ίαν συ[μ]μ..g[Χίαν τε άνενεώσαντο Kα�] [πεp� τών πρα:γ]μάτω[ν τών καθ' αύτου. διελε1[Υ]ησαν πεp� χώρα. [Kα�] ί[ε]ρ[ών πεp� τη]. T� άφ[ΙΙ]Ρη[μένη.] τ[η. καηΧ Μ ελιτ]α[LHQ]ων[ι1[ων,] Μα:γνήτων, κεκ[ρι]μίνα εΤνσ.ι κατά νόμου[.], όπως ταϋτα κύρια Ώ ούτω., καθι1. Kα� άλλοι. ΥΕΎονός έστιν· περί TOQTOV του πΡάΥιιaτος" ούτω. ;δοξεν' χι%Ριτα φιλίαν συμμαχίαν [ά] νανεώσα:σθαι τούτοι. τε φιλανθρώπω. ά­ ποκρι θηναι, άνδρα. καλου. κάΥαθού. προσ­ αΥορεύσαι, όσα κεκριμένα έσT�ν κατά νόιιου. ου. Τίτο. KotYKTLO' ύπατο. ;δωκεν, ταύτα, καθι1. κεκριμ.ένα έστίν, ούτω δοκε'ί κύρια εΤναι δε'ίν' τουτο τε μη εvXεpε. ειναι, οσα κατα νοιιου. κεκρψένα έστ�ν άκυρα ποιε'ίν, ξένιά τε έκατέΡοΙ' Γάϊ­ ο. 'Οστίλιο. στραΠ]Υό. τόν ταμίαν δούναι κε­ (λ]εύσll άπό σηστεPTf.ων νόΙLων έκα:roν είκοσι [πί]!,τε εΙ. έκάστ-Ι]V πρεσβείαν, ούτω καθι1. αν [αύτώι έκ] τών δΤΙΙLOσίων πραΥιιάτων π{στε­ [ώ. τε τη.] Ιδία. φαίνητα:ι' ;δοξεν. νν ...

70

,

\

,

\

...

.,

\

'

Text based υροη those ofLaticheff and Viereck, except where noted. 3 [ταγευόν]των, StahJin and Accame; [άρχόν]των, others. 4 Φει]δlππου,Lolling; Κv]δίπποvLatίcheff. IIThefirstsigIna of

21

Στατιλιηνό. was omitted by the engraνer. 13 Άρνήν]ση or Άνιήν]ση. 18 Viereck added τε. [ε,πασαν], Wilamowitz, but Kem seems ιο see r before με/! -η.. lfr ίs ήght, there may haνe

been another ηουη or adjectiνe ίη the genitίνe ίη this place.

Viereck, howeνer, feels the need of a

22 The engraνer seems ιο haνe inscribed ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝΩΝ and ιο haνe ' erased the second ΩΝ (Kern). 26 Ακέραι ?]ον, Kem. 28Laticheff transcribed part of a mutilated νerb at this ροίηι (notes),

oInega followed by a clear nu at the νery beginning of the line, likewise Kem. indicates

(Serιno Graecus,

had formerly rendered a decision about the land ίη question.

32 'μ. Μ

51

Viereck rightly

and notes) that one expects here the name of some Thessalίan ,ίιΥ that

[ελιτεlαι ?, Kem. 33

30

άπω] • .η, Kern; αύτοψ ύ,

others.

ταύτη!: ίι is uncertain whether the ίο/α is οη the stone, for the space

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE

GREEK

EAST

there is badly worn. 34 �[""TPE1TOVTWV], Dittenberger. 35 ea., stone; [.p ]a., Kern. stone. 43-46 restored by Dittenberger and Viereck (notes).

3611!!!!!!l!!!1

Here we have a familiar scene: envoys from two Greek cities in Rome asking the Senate to act as arbitrator in their dispute about a piece of land.

Although the Senate

could, and usually did, appoint a third city as the arbitrator, in this instance it hands down the decision itself. Two envoys from Melitaea in Thessaly claim that theNarthacians had unjustly seized control of" public land and a deserted area" which had belonged to Melitaea when that city became a friend of the Roman people.

They cite previous arbitral awards in their

city's favor and request the Senate to restore the land to its previous status.

The envoys

from Narthacium state that their city had possessed the land with its sanctuaries when it became a friend of the Roman people and add that it had received favorable j udgments in previous cases of arbitration concerning this same land" in accordance with Thessalian laws which they enjoy up to the present moment and which the consul Titus Quinctius had granted them on the advice of the ten legali, approved by a decree of the Senate." Then they cite, in particular, a decision concerning the land, won byNarthacium before a composite tribunal whose members came from Samos, Colophon, and Magnesia.! The Senate then passed the present decree in favor o fNarthacium. Since the presiding magistrate, C. Hostilius Mancinus, had been consul in 137 praetorship may be dated in 140

D.C.

at the latest, under the Lex Villia.%

D.C.,

his

The early

editors of this decree (Laticheff: Viereck, Kern, Hiller, and Abbott-Johnson) believed that it must have been passed prior to 146 not subjected

tc

D.C.,

for they saw that in it Thessaly is free and

the authority of the Macedonian governor.

Objections to such a date

for the decree were first advanced by Daux, Stahlin, and Accame. great detail by Accame that after 146

D.C.

conuectec v.rith the pr�"i.nr� or M.aredonia. the other independent.3 no valid objection to a date after 146

D.C.

It was shown in

all of Greece was divided into two parts, one for the decree.

There is theref ore

And since it has been shown

that the Thessalian officials, whose names are given in the decree, held office toward 140 D.C.,

it was very probably in that year that Hostilius was praetor and presided over the

Senate.4

Thessaly belonBed to that group of Greek states which retained independence

after the Achaean War, and no changes were made in the arrangements agreed upon by T. Quinctius Flamininus. I Tod's interpretation of the phrase �'lTl Tp,,'iJV a&Ka.U[ T'I'/]ptaw appears to be the correct one and it is here accepted. • Broughton, op. cit., I, 480, and II, 643 . 3 Op. cit., pp. I-IS • • On the Thessalian officials see F. Stahlin, "Zur thessalischen Strategenliste," Philologus, 88 (1933):

130-32.

52

SENATUS CONSULTA

The city of Narthacium, situated in Achaea phthiotis and protected by strong walls

with a series of towers, falls outside the mainstream of Greek history until Hellenistic times.

The nearby mountain of the same name is mentioned by Xenophon (Hell. 4. 3. 8;

Agesilalls 2. 2) in connection with the expedition of Agesilaus in 394 B.C., but the city

itself apparently remained undisturbed.

Only a few inscriptions and the present

document tell us of the city's history. To the north of Narthacium lay Melitaea, separated from it by a ridge of mountains, a city that already in the fourth century had acquired a reputation as a secure fortress. Near the end of the third century it appears, on the evidence of inscriptions, to have been favored by the Aetolians at the height of their power.

In the second century, after the

humiliation of the Aetolians at the hands of Rome, Melitaea was part of Thessaly and, later, of Phthiotis.

The border between the two cities must have been somewhere in

the mountains, and the area over which the dispute arose was very likely some choice mountain pastureland.

10 SENATUS CONSULTA DE PRIENENSIUM ET SAMIORUM

A: before

LITIBUS

B:

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

R. Chandler,Imcriptiom/m Syllabus, p. VII,F 6 and G;

A. Boeckh,C.I.G., 11 (I84 3),2.905,F 6 and G 7; Le Bas-Waddington,Voyage

archtEoIogiql/e en Grece et en Asie Minnlre: Inscriptions, III (I870),nos. 195-9 9; E. L.

Hicks,The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British MUseI/m, III (I882.), nos. CCCCIV-CCCCV; P. Viereck,Sermo GraeClls (Gottingen,1888),nos. XIII-XIV,pp. 19-2.2.; E. Sonne,De Arbitris externis, quos Graeci adhibuerl/nt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas componendas, quaestiones epl'graphicae (Diss. ,

Gottingen,1888),nos. XIX-XX,p p. 13-14; W. Dittenberger,S .I.G.·, I (I898), 315; F. Hiller von Gaertringen,Die Imchrijien von Priene (Berlin,1906),nos. 4 1-4 2.; M. N. Tod,IlIlernational Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford,1913), nos. LXIII-LXIV, p p. 4 2.-4 3; F. Hiller von Gaertringen,in W. Dittenberger, S. I.G.3, 11 (I917),688 (B only); D. Magie,Romall Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,

1950),I Il4 ,and 11,965,n. 84; F. Ceruti,Epigraphica, 17 (I955): 138;Johnson, Coleman-Norton,Boume,Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 4 1 a. DESCRIPTION.

A long series of documents had originally been inscribed on

the north anta and the north cella wall of the Temple of Athena Polias in Priene to record those events which had been of importance to the city. included,among others,the dedication of the temple itself in 334

These B.C.

by

Alexander (Hiller,IlIschriften von Priene, no. 156 [= M. N. Tod,Greek Historical Inscriptiom, 11,I 84)) ; an edict of Alexander (ibid., no. I [ = Tod,o p. cit.,

11, 185]); a decree of the city granting divine honors to King Lysimachus (ibid., 11';;. �.;. [ "... O. Cc., S,. T!])' �he answer of Lysimachus to Priene (ibid., no. 15 [=C. B. Welles,Royal Carrespondence in the Hellenistic Period (l�ew naVCI"!,

1934 ),no. 6]); the celebrated record of the Rhodian arbitral tribunal concerning a dispute between Samos and Priene (ibid., no. 37); the Sellatl/S Consultllm de Prienensiblls et Ariarathe (ibid., no. 39 [= No. 6 of the present volume]); and the

present two semtus cO/lSl/lta (ibid., nos. 4 0-4 I).

Our two decrees were

immediately to the right of Irlschrijien von Priene no. 37,near the bottom of the cella wall. They are now in the British Museum. A (Inschrf/ien von Prime no. 4 0): a wall stone of bluish marble,complete at bottom and right side with enough of the top preserved to assure the dimensions.

Height: 0.50 m.

Width: 0.5 9 m.

Height of letters: 0.OI5 m.

The stone contains lines I-IO only of A,f or line II is fowld on the upper edge of the stone containing B.

Hicks (o p. cit., no. CCCCV,p. 2.0) assumed that

this single line might indicate the existence of still another senatorial decree between A and B,line II forming its conclusion.

Hiller,however,felt that the

stone containing A rested directly upon the one containing line Il and B,and

54

135 B.C.

135 B.C.

SENATUS CONSULTA

theref ore considered line

II as the concluding line of A. An uninscribed space

of one line separates line II from the beginning of B . B (lnschr!fien lion Priene n o . 41): four fragments of wall stones o f bluish marble.

The early copy of Le Bas is here very valuable, for the stones were

badly damaged bef ore reaching the British Museum.

His readings allow us to

form a fuller and more accurate picture of the central portion of lines 6-14.

Fragment (I) : contains approximately the first third of the beginnings of lines

1--6,

the text itself being inscribed on the right side of the same stone that carries lion Pri.ne no. 37 y. The measurement of this fragment, like that of

Inschrift...

Height: lOi inches ( ca. 0.27 m.). 1.435 m.). Fragment (2): contains about the last two-thirds of the ends of lines 1-7. Height: Ioi inches (= ca. 0.27 m.). Width: 38t inches ( ca. 0.97 7 m. ). Fragment (3): found on the same stone as lnschr!fien lion Priene no. 37 z, but on the right side of the stone. 11 contains the first eleven or twelve letters of the beginnings of lines 8-14. Height: 20 inches (=ca. 0.50 m.). Width: 34 inches ( ca. 0.864 m.). Fragment (4): contains the ends of lines 8-13. Height: 9 inches (=ca. 0.:1.}.8 m.). Width: I3i inches (=ca. 0.349 m . ). the other three, is given by Hicks.

=

Width: s6f inches (=ca. =

=

A

ID

B(I)

[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - £a] TlV' Ka� 7I"£P [� wv 0L] [a7l"0aTaAEVT£� 7I"apa. ITPL."V£WV 7I"p£C7{3wTa� av(Jp£� Ka'\o� Kat] aya80� KW #'\OL 7Ta[pa. (J..]fLOU] [Ka'\ov Ka� a ya80v Ka� .p{,\OU '\6you� £7TOL�aaVTO aup.fLax{]"",v T£ av£v£waaVTO, [Ka� 71"£-] [� Tij� xwpa�, �V AEyouaLv EauTiiJV y£vEa8aL 7I"P�V £'\.,,'\ u] �£vaL £1� £Kdv."v T�V xwpav M[ av-] ['\LOV Ka� TOV� (JEKa 7Tp£a{3wTa�, ;;"W� TavT'ljV ;x]waw' KW eaa KpLT..JpLa K£Kp'p-EVa €la[L] [71"£� TavTT7� Tij� xwpa�, e7l"w� TaVTa 7I"aVTa avavhw8jj Ka�
55

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

(3)

10

PWV 7TlVT€ €l8v1WV rI>€{3poaplwv. ypaopOf.L[lvWI 7Taplijaav A€VKIOS- Tp€p.�>"os- rvalov Kap.€Ml�, rmos- "AvvlOS- ralov Kap.€Ml�, v A€l$KIOS- "AVIIIOS- AWKlov 110[A'\{�. 7Tl€ pl div Eap.lol 7Tp€a{3€v-raI T.,y..l p.axos- M&:rpwvos-, A€wv Al ovTos-, av8p€s- Ka[AO� Kla� aya80� Ka� opl�OI 7Tap« �'lp.o[v KaAOvl K� aya80v Ka� oplAOV UVp.p.axov T€ �p.€Tlpov v AOYOVS- E7TO�aaVTO KaTa 7TpO[UlW7TOV 7TpOS- 11pl'7jv[€]i: s- 7T[€� xlWpas- [Ka� OplWV, 07TWS- diuwl, Ka�<1s­ rvai:o{.}s- M&.vA.OS" Ka� O{ SlKa Trp€u{3tivTal S"{Ta�aV [p.€Ta TaV 7TpOS- 'AVTloxov 7TOA€P.OV· Ka� 7T€� c:iv 11pl'7jV€i:S- 7Tp€u{3 €VTa� - - - - - - - - -lpov, v 'Ava[�l'[- - - - - - - -l, [Z)7jv080Tos- 'Ap[Tlp.wpos- alv8p€s- KaAo� aya80� Ka� #AOI 7T[apa 8,1p.ov lCaJAov (4) IC� ay[a80vl CTVP.,.,.aXOV T€ [�p.€TO!povl AOYOVS- E7To.iaa [VTO lCaTla 7TpOUW[7TOV 7Tplas- Eap.lov[sol 7T€pl xwpas- lCa� 7T€� oplwv, 07TWS- OVTW[S- dilaw, Ka8<1s- 0 8ijp.0s- 0 'P08lwv lKaTlpwv 8€AOV[Tlwv EICPIV€V' 7T€P� TOVTOV TOU 7Tpayp.a'TO[S- a7ToKpll8ijval OVTWSE80�€v' �p.i:v OVIC €vX[€plls- {€lvm} EaTtllp.€Ta8€;;\lal cl 0 8ijp.0s- 0 'P08lWlI llCaTlpw\1 8€AOVTW11 KlKp'[K€ Kla� op[lap.avl 7T€7TOl'7jTal, TOU p.[�l TOVTWI TWl lCplp.an Ka� TOV[TOI S- TO;;S- oplols-l Ep.p.€lvwUIV· T[OVTlWI T€ TWI ICplp.aTI Ka� TOV[TOIS- TO;;S- oplOIS" Ep.p.€V€llV E&�€lI" 'TOVTOIS- T€ �lvIOV €lS- llCauT'7jv 7Tp€u{3€lav EWSa7TO CT7jCTT€p-rlwY yop.wv llCaTaV € �ICOUI [Elpo VIOS- 4'>lOA[0 1 VIOS- KolVTOV ihraTos- TaV Tap.lava7TOUT€i:Aal 1C€[A€VUaTW lCa� 7T�aTwl, Ka8<1S- av aVTWI EIC [TlW\1 8'7jp.oulwv 7Tpayp.aTwv [lCa� Tijs- l8las- 7TlulT€[WS­ opalV'7jTall. E80�€v. A Text with restorations as given by Hiller in his Die lnschrifien von Priene, but in lines 1-3 and Hicks had already given the restoration, suggesting, however, tic!KK6,£Evo,insteadof a....oCT-raMV'TES" in line 2. Viereck originally had 7T€p[, .Lv E&I/LlOI] in lines 1-2, which he later abandoned (notes). B 4 Af ter KCZ/£illl'1 space f QC a single letter is uninscribed. Similar spaces are seen in lines 5 ......: 7. 8 [Zl'JI.c��ToS", hrac"'et� omitted in S.I.G. 3;' Ap[ I(�T&pXOV, Le Bas-W addington, Hiller, but corrected by Viereck; for the name see Die InschriJten lion Priene; no: 60,1. Ici: 10 {€ivac} is the stone
On the mai.oland opposite Samos lies the rich plain of Anaea.

The ownership of the

southern part of this land, called Batinetis, was a long-standing controversial issue between Samos and Priene. back as about 700

B.C.,

The beginnings of the controversy may be found as far

when the city of Melia, located in that area, was destroyed by a

combination of enemies and its surrounding territory divided among its neighbors.'

The two most important documents for the history of the quarrels between Samos and Priene are Hillcc's lnschrijten lion Priene, no. 37, the first forty-four lines of which are to be found in S.I.G.', 599, and lnschriften lion Priene, no. 500 (= D.G.I.S., 13 = Welles, 01. cit., no. 7). The first of these is a I

SENA TUS CONSULT A

Samians and Prieneans promptly moved in and took possession.

When the arrange­

ments then made between them for the division of the land were interrupted by the Cimmerian invasion under Lygdamis in the third quarter of the seventh century, all the Samians and Prieneans living there were forced to leave.

Mter the departure of

Lygdamis some years later, the Prieneans and a limited number of the Samians returned to Batinetis, the Prieneans apparently in the majority.>

Relations between the two

cities later in the early sixth century became so strained that a war of seven years' duration was fought.

At the conclusion of hostilities a peace treaty was drawn up which

appears to have left Priene in possession of much if not all of the land.]

After a lapse of

three centuries, during which time we know nothing of the situation, we learn that King Lysimachus in 283/82 same piece of land. 196-192

B.C.

)

B.C.

arbitrated a dispute between the cities concerning the very

He awarded the vi ctory to Samos.4

About a century later (ca.

we find the Rhodians in the role of arbitrator in still another quarrel

between them, this time over the possession of the fortress Carium and the surrounding area of Dryoussa.

This fortress apparently was located southwest of Batinetis and had

been a part of the disputed territory from the very earliest times. bunal awarded the victory to Priene.'

The Rhodian tri­

The southern plain of Anaea therefore had been

the principal cause of friction between Samos and Priene for five centuries bef ore the Romans interfered in Greek politics. The present documents, both of them decrees of the Roman Senate, may be said to have brought a more lasting solution to the problem of the possession and boundaries of the Batinetis and adjoining regions.

Both of them are here grouped together, for there

has been some question about the exact relationship of one to the other.

Are they

separate parts of the same decree, or do they represent two separate documents?

After

a careful consideration of the previous theories Hiller concluded that they were two decrees and that A preceded B in time.6

The fact that line

I I

of A rests upon the same

block that contains the first six lines of B is not, however, conclusive proof that A was immediately followed by B, for line lost.

II

might have belonged to some other decree now

But Hiller felt that they went together.

Clearly both of them are concerned with

:he questic.. of land, and it is here believed that they are indoc:d

:w;;

seF .. rate decr;:es.

long inscription of some I70 lines dating from about I96-I92. B.C. and records in detail the dispute between Samos and Priene as argued

be[ore

a Rhodian tribunal.

The second is a letter of King

Lysimachus to Samos in which that city's possession of the Batinetis is confl.rmed. of Hiller and Welles are very valuable, but the following works should also

be

The commentaries

consulted: Ulrich van

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Sitzungsbe,ichte d., Koniglich P'e&lssischen Akademie d., WisserlSchajten,

Phil.-hist. Klasse, I906, pp. 4Iff. (=Kleine Sch,ijien, (I944): 2.2.7ff.; Magie, 0p.
Welles, op.
V,

11. I4-2.0.

, For this war see Plutarch 2.95 F-2.96 B. 4 Welles, op.
7.

s Hiller, op.
6 Ibid.,

57

no. 40, p. 46.

VI

I, pp.

I2.8ff.); Th. Lenschau, Klio, ]6

There is a good summary in Tod, op.
for location of Carium.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

A. It appears reasonable to assume that the date of this decree is prior to that of B , perhaps even i n the immediately preceding year.

And i f the restorations are correct, o r

even approximately correct, t h e subject matter m u s t have concerned t h e efe f ct that the Treaty at Apamea had upon the question of Priene's territorial possessions.

It would

not be" rash to suggest that the possession of the Batinetis or the nearby fortress of Carium was at stake, but some other tract of land cannot be excluded.

There is the possibility

that this decree resulted from an early attempt on the part of Priene to obtain a senatorial ruling on the justice of the territorial arrangement of the Batinetis as made by Manlius and the Ten Commissioners in r88

B.C.

Since the second decree (B) invalidates the

arrangement made by ManIius, the first may have been an earlier step in this direction. The fragmentary nature of A, however, makes any positive statement about it virtually impossible. B. The mention of the consul Servius Fulvius Q. f. (Flaccus) dates this decree in 135 B.C.7

Here again we fmd Samians and Prieneans at odds over the possession of the same

land that had been the origin of their quarrels over five hundred years before.

Samians

request the Senate to respect and uphold the arrangement of land made by Manlius and his commissioners, and Prieneans ask the Senate to uphold the decision of the Rhodian tribunal (ca. 196-192

)

B.C. .

The Senate rules that it cannot very well change the dis­

positions previously made by Rhodes and that the Prienean claim is to be upheld. From this simple fact it becomes clear that the territorial concessions made at Apamea by ManIius with respect to Samos and Priene were in conflict with the Rhodian decision. Bribery has been suggested as the reason which prompted ManIius to favor the Samians at Apamea.8

Since the main result of the Rhodian arbitration was the awarding of

Carium and Dryoussa to Priene, the present decree guaranteed Prienean possession of that area. 7 Broughton,

Magistrates, I, 488-89.

8 Sce note 5 in S.I.G.', 688,

where reference is made to Polybius 21. 35.4 andLivy 38. 42. II in order

to show that Manlius was quite willing to accept money

-:l.. r.t in tb... r..latian

in

retUrn for Roman favors.

campai�n (Livy 38. 12-25) could also be cited to prove his venality.

His

oon­

11 SENATUS CONSULTUM POPILLIANUM

Latter part

DE PERGAMENIS

of 133 B.C.?

[Squeeze] ��������������������������������������������� A. Conze and C. Schuchhardt, Athen. Mitt., 24 (18 99), no. 61,pp. 190-97,with supplements by Wilamowitz and Mommsen (c£ Gesammelte Schrifien, 4: 63 -68 ); R. Cagnat and M. Besnier, Revue archeol., Troisieme sbie, 35 (1899),no. 200,p. 509; P. Foucart, "Formation de la Province Romaine d' Asie," in Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles­ Let/res,3 7(1904): 3 13 ; W. Di[[enberger, O.G.I.S.,11 (1905), 43 5; G. Laf aye, I.G.R.R.,4 (1927): 3 01 ; H. Last, G.A.H.,IX (1932),103 ; T. R. S. Broughton, .. Roman Asia," in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome,IV (Baltimore, 193 8 ),508 ; M. Segre, Athenaeum,16 (193 8): I23 ff.; M. I. Rostovtzeff; S.E.H.H. w., 11 (1941), 8 Il (with n. 83 on p. 1524); G. I. Luzzano, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), chap. 5,pp. I Il-43 ; E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum (Comell, 1947),pp. 141-42; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950),I, 3 3 ,and 11, 103 3 -3 4 , n. I; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), 3 21-22; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic,I (New York, 1951), 496-97,n. I; G. Tibileni, "Rome " and the Ager Public\l$: the Acta of 129 B.C., J.R.S., 47(1957): 13 7,n. 17;J. VOg!, Atti del terzo congresso internazionale di epigrafia greca e latina (Rome, 1959), pp. 45-54; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Boume, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 42; A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, Sources For Roman History 133-70 B.C., 3d ed. by E. W. Gray (Oxford, 196 0; corrected reprint, 1961),p. I2. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

DESCRIPTION.

The stone is white marble, broken on all sides.

Height:

0.28 m. Width: 0.21 m. Height of letters in lines 3 -21: 0.006 m. Height of letters in line 2 and apparently also in line I: 0.013 m. The lettering is very beautif ully and carefully executed, with apices used throughout.

59

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM

IS

Ul

GREEK EAST

[- - - - - - - - - - -]X[ - - - - - - - - - - - - -] XVVK.\[-,JTOV 80YILa] [f}xtos Jl.nrf).'\.os ralov vtas a[.-pan}yas rilt aVYK.\-,J-] [T]W& aVV€{3oV.\€VaaTO '1Tpa>1IL [€PwV - - - - - - - - -] [ ]€/Lf3plwv' '1T€P� WV .\oyovs €'1T [O'-,J - - - '1T€p� TWV €V n €pyU-] [/L]q.x(?) '1TPO:YILU'TWV, 'TlV€S €VTO.\[a� EaOV'Ta. 'TOLS €ls] ['A]alav 7rOP€VOILlvo.s aTPO:-nJYOLS, o [aa €V 'Aala. E-] [W] S rijs 'A'T'Tu.\ov T€.\€VrijS .l'1Ta 'TWV [{3o:a •.\tWV] [8.]w p8wB1'} €8wp-qe1'} «EB,} €�'}IL&W [B,} O'1TWS 'TaV'Ta 1j.] [KV]p.a, WEP 'ToV'TOV 'Tij. aVVK.\-,J'TW' OU'T[ ws E80e€· '1T€P�] [WV flU'os Jlorrf)J..tOS ro:lov vtas a'Tpa'T'I}[yas .\oyovs €-] ['1To'-,J]aa'TO, '1T€� 'TOV'TOV 'TOV '1TpUYILa'TO [S OU'TWS 380e€· ] [o".]WS oaa {3aa.'\€Vs ·A....o:.\os oZ 'T€ .\0 [.'1T0� {3aa.-] [.\€LS] 8.wp Bwaav E�'lILlwao:v � [«.pfjKav €8wp-,Jaav-] , ' 1'}'Ill] ['TO, 0"]aa 'TOV'TWV €Y€V('TO '1TpO I"as [rTilL(, pas '1Tptv [.A'T'T]a.\ov 'T(.\£1Jrijaat, O'1TWS 'Tau'T [a Kvp.a �. aTPO:'T1}-] [yojl'T€ ol (ls 'Aalav 'lTOP(vOlL£V[O' ILT] KwWa. -rT]v 8.a-] [B-,JK(?)hv, «Ma €wa. KVp.a I"V£&V, [a'1TaV'Ta KaBwS>1 aVvK.\'I}-] vv 'TOS €'1TIKptv[(v.] [rpc:qL]ILU'TWV [no]'!J'.\lov X€pov•.\[lov - - - - - - - - - -] [ ] V 'T( [- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -] .

10

THE

•

.

"

•

•

I

•

,

_

•

The bottom of the

sigtna and the lower ends of the next letter (u ) appear to be in letters larger

Presumably this is the last line of a In large letters: 0.013 m. 5-6 €VR€pycXl'lw" Wilhelm, but restoration is not positive. 7-80[oa Ell 'AoLa. �xp'l5" Conze-Schuchhardt; E"wl5", Dittenberger. 9 a1>£'8,,/, stone-cutter's error? a�L8'1, Viereck (notes). 9-10 '1TD-rEPOV Y Kujp.a Conze-Schuchhardt. 14 � [a1>ijKav, Conze-Schuchhardt; �[1>l(oall, conjecture of Dittenberger. 17 than those of lines 3-ZI, but absolute certainty is not possible.

document quite different from the present decree.

Z

IL1)8EV Kwwaw, Conze-Schuchhardt; IL1)8EV Kwwa. ILtH-11)v, Dittenberger; I'T] Kwwa. T7jv8.a1hjK l1)v, 18 '1T'\T]v ooa..j OUVK'\1)T05", Conze-Schuchhardt. 19 Since

Foucart, followed by Viereck(notes).

empty '!lace at the beginning of this line, it has been assumed (Dittenberger, Viereck) zo This is probably the beginning ofa new u.u.:;umellt. All previous editors record only R01TIAlOII, but the horizontal bar and the vertical hasta of the pi

!her�

;� ."

that the text of the decree ends in this line. appear plainly on the Berlin squeeze.

With

ypal'll'aTWV one expects to find the word aV'TLypaif>ov

21 Viereck (notes) reads rT Er, and on the squeeze it is possible to detect one upper bar of the u psi/at., but the trace is too minute to be positive. For P. Servilius

(Dittenberger and Viereck).

Isauricus see his letter to the Pergamenes (No.

COMMENTAR Y.

SS).

When Attalus III died in 133

B.C.

he bequeathed the Pergamene

kingdom to Rome, with the stipulation that the city of Pergamum and its civic territory were to be free.1

It has been suggested that the motives for his action may be found in

the social and economic conditions which prevailed in the Pergamene kingdom at the I For conditions in the Pergamene kingdom during the reign of Attalus HI see Rostovtzelf, o p. cit., pp. S06-u; Hansen, op. cit., pp. IJ4-42; Magie. op. cit•• I. JO-JJ and 11. 10JJ-37, 1lD. I-S.

60

SENATUS CONSULTA

time.'

Although the bourgeoisie of Pergamum, like that of Asia in general, enjoyed

prosperity and security, the working classes were poor and discontented. kingdom may have been hovering on the brink of a social upheaval Attalus left the kingdom to Rome.

The whole At any rate,

Very soon after his death Aristonicus, the ille­

gitimate son of Eumenes, disputed the will and began to gather support for a revolt. The resulting war continued until l29 succeeded in restoring peace.

when a Roman army under Manius Aquillius

B.C.,

The province of Asia was then formed.

The present senatorial decree was passed sometime between l33 and l29 the latter part of one of those years, but the exact year is unknowIL

B.C.,

and in

If we knew when

C. Popillius C. £ was praetor, we could date it very precisely, but unfortunately he is otherwise unknown.

The traditional view of scholars has been that the date is l33,

immediately after Rome learned of the bequest and before any news of the revolt started by Aristonicus had reached the Senate,3 but Magie has challenged this on the ground that a praetor could convene the Senate only when both consuls were absent from Rome.4

Since he did not believe that both consuls had been absent in l33, he

favored the year l29 when such was the case.

And since Aristonicus is not mentioned in

the decree, Magie felt obligated to account fur this omission and explained it by the fact that by late l29 the war was already over and there was no longer any need to mention him or the war.

Broughton, however, rejects this view and champions the older theory

that the date is I 3 3, reminding us that one of the consuls for that year, L. Calpumius Piso Frugi, was in Sicily and the other, P. Mucius Scaevola, might have left Rome for some unknown reason late in the same year.s

Support for this older date, he believes, may

be found in the relation between this decree and the Senatlts Consulturn de Agro Pergarneno (No. 12).

He argues that the latter decree, which concerns land disputes brought about

by the formation of the new province, was probably passed in l29 and that such disputes could hardly have arisen before the general principles of governing the whole province had been stated.

Hence the present decree must have preceded it.

It would appear therefore that the date of l33 cannot be stated positively. Z

B.C.

is indeed the correct one, but it

The purpose of the decree is to record the Senate's ratifica-

Rostovtzeff, lac. cit.: see also Hansen,

0p. ci/.,

p.

I40.

'It must have been passed toward the end of t h e year, for the document itself (11. was between the Ides of August and the Ides of December. others favor I J J as the date.

loc. cit. • For his

shows that it

For the very early beginning of the revolt of Aristonicus see J. Vogt,

arguments see his Roman Rill. in A!ia Mina"

5 Broughton, Magi!/,a/f!, I,

4-5)

Mommsen, Dittenberger, Foucart, and

496-97.

n, IOJJ-J4,

n. 1.

Although it is true that a praetor would normally convene the

Senate only in the absence of both consuls, it is a point worth remembering that occasionally the

consuls could empower a praetor to convene the Senate even when they were present in the city. the full discussion and citation of sources by Mommsen, Riimi!Chf! S/aa/!recht, II', I,

JJ.

See

I29-JI and 2J2-

But since the consul could prevent a meeting of the Senate by his int..ceHio, this situation is only

likely to arise when the consuls give their approval.

Sickness, for example, could easily prevent a

consul from convening the Senate, and, if the other consul was absent from the city and if the situation was sufficiently important, a praetor could be authorized to convene the Senate with the consul's approval.

6J

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

tion of the will of Attalus and to guarantee his acts and those of his predecessors up to one day bef ore his death.

All future Roman governors will honor those acts [and make no

changes without good reason].

This fmal clause may mean that no drastic changes in

the internal arrangements of the country as established by the Attalids were to be made by the Romans.

Roman rule would be substituted for Attalid rule.

part of the text is missing at this point, due caution is best.6

However, since

A sweeping generalization

of this sort in the decree would be a very effective means of softening the fears of the Pergamene bourgeoisie, who might see a possible reversal of their economic security. Perhaps even at this early date (late 133) Rome had been informed of their fears and of the general discontent among the people and had used this opportunity to reassure them. 6 The restoration of

a,all�l(] 'IV in 11. 17-18 appear. incorrect to the present writer, but I can suggest /L� I(
nothing else except possibly

to a neuter plural noun or pronoun in the clause immediately preceding.

12 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE AGRO PERGAMENO

129 B.C.?

[Squeeze] m��m��������m��������������������mmm���m����� BIBLIOGRAPHY. Copy A (Adramyttium): G. Earinos, '/wvtu 1877,no. Ill; idem,°O",,/po., September, 1877,p. 396 (cf. also MOVC1£iov KUt BtpAI.DIh/K,/ -nj. Etla.yy�>..,.,cijS"

Ixo>'ij., [ 187Sl ,137) ; T. Homolle, B.C.H., 2.( 1878) : 12.8-32.; E. Pottier and A. Hauvette-Besnault, B.C.H., 4( 1880) : 37 6; Th. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 4( 1881) :

2.13-2.2.(Gesalllmelte

Schr!Jien,

)

8: 344-SS ;

P.

Willems, Le Senat de I a republique romaille, IZ (Paris, 188S) ,693-708; P . Foucart,

B.C.H., 9 ( 188S) :

)

401-3;

1888 ,967-68,n. 4;

Th. Mommsen, Riimisches Staatsrecht,lIIl, 2. (Leipzig,

P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888) ,no. XV, p. 62.;

P. Foucart, Memoires de r Acadernie des Inscriptions et Belles-ullres, 37 ( 1904) :

337if. ; T. Wiegand, Athenische Mill. , 2.9 ( 1904) : 2.67; C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908) ,pp. 1-6, 9; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 192.6) ,no. 12.,p. 2.68; G. La faye, l· G. R. R. , IV ( 192.7) ,2.62.. Copy B (Smyma): F. Miltner and Selahattin Bey, TUrk Tarih,Arkeologya lie etnograJy a Vergisi, IT ( 1934) ,2.4Q-42. (A.E.,1935,no. 173) ; A. Passerin� Athenaeum IS ( 1937) : 2.S2.-83 ; M. Segre, Athenaeum, 16 ( 1938) : 12.4; 1. Robert, Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepbunl Buckler (Manchester, 1939) ,pp. 2.2.7-30; G. 1. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e rornana (Milan, 1942.) ,pp. 136-41; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 19S0) ,IT, loSS-S6,n. 2.S; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I (New York, 19SI) ,4 96-97; G. Tibiletri , J R. S ., 47 ( 19S7) : 136-38; T. R. S. Broughton, Supplement to The Magistrates of the Romall Republic (New York, 1960) ; 1. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic,American Academy in Rome,

Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960) ,pp. 17Q-7S; A. H. J. Greenidge and

A. M. Ciay, Sources for Roman History 133-70 H.C., Jd ed. rev., by h. W. Gray (Oxford, 1960) ,app. II A, p. 2.78; J. H Oliver, Greek,Roman and ByzantilJe Studies, 4( 1963) : 141-43; C Nicolet, L'ordre equestre a I'q,oque republicaine (3IZ-43 all. J.-C.),I (Paris, 1966), 348-so; R. K. Sherk, Greek,Roman and Byzantine Studies, 7 ( 1966) : 361--<;9.

DESCRIPTION.

Copy A: found not far from the ancient site of

Adramyttium: Height: 0.700 m.

Width: 0.300 m.

I have examined the Berlin squeeze.

Height of letters: 0.010m.

Earinos dated it according to the lettering

in the last twenty or thirty years of the second century

B.C.

Copy B: discovered in the agora of Smyma, where it is still to be seen, at the west end of the north basilica. Thickness: 2..31 m.

Height: 1 .17 m.

Width: 0.82. m.

Originally it may have been the anta block of a large

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

public building in the ancient agora.

The inscribed surface, on the front face, is

damaged on all sides but still contains the largest of the fragments (a). Fragment b is cemented to the block and measures 0.21 m. in height, 0.25 m. in width.

A new break in this fragment has obliterated many of the words and Fragment c is a mere sliver, containing 14

letters once seen by Passerini.

letters of the text at the ends o f lines 34-36.

Fragment d is 0.10 m. high on the

left, about 0.18 m. high on the right, 0.12-0.13 m. wide, and contains part of eight lines belonging to the ends of lines 45-52.

A new photograph and a new

squeeze of fragment. a and b havc been made by Mr. Pierre MacKay. have been used in the preparation of the present text.

These

The letters of the fragments vary in size from 0.010 m. to 0.015 m. in height and are sometimes squeezed quite tightly together so that as many as 75 or f ew as 58 might appear in a given line. On the evidence of the lettering, Segre

(apud Passerini, op. ci/.,

as

p. 254) estimated that the inscription had been

engraved in the first century B.C. Besides the four fragments containing the present decree of the Senate and the magistrate's sen/entia, there are two other fragments (e and f ) belonging to the same dossier.

They preserve part of a

letter written by Julius Caesar (No. 54) and another document which recorded

inter alia

the boundaries of Pergamene land (see L. Robert,

loc. cit.).

These

facts make it likely that the question of Pergamene land was raised again in the middle of the first century

B.C.

and that then all the documents bearing on the

matter were engraved in a large dossier on the anta block of the building. Hence the date of the engraving proves nothing about the date of the senatorial decree.

Apices are used throughout. Beta has a larger lower loop.

bars of the u psi/on meet the lower vertical bar very near the bottom.

The two

[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Frag. b (1-9) [- - - - - ca. 40 - - - - - - - - - - - -] Ka. 1T£[pt - - - ca. 15 - - - -] [- - - - - ca. 2.5 - - - - - 1T£pL TotlTOV Th)U 1TpaYfUXr[os OUTWS E 80�£v· ll£p]­ [yalL1/VOVS 7TP£U/J£VTaS «v8pas KaAovs Kaya8]ovs Ka• .plAO[VS 1Tap« 8-,]lLov KaAou] [Kaya80u Ka• .plAOV uvlLlLaxov T£ TJf'£Tlpov 1TpoU]..-.yop£uual, xap[ITa .pIAlav uvlLlLaXlav] [TE avav€cUu(Wuu.,. '/�t:P� S� "�3 A.�pa.;J -r;-:'"!!: �]�, ,y')"f""')..",,t'!- JO'TC.V I(a (i 1T�pC. ... - ca. 10 - ] [- - ca. 10 - 01TWS .7T£pL TotITWV] TWV 1TpaylL[aT]wv, 1T£pL div �6yovs J1T[ol�uavTo, ca. 6 - -] [- - UTparwOS KaTa &iiILOV? €]mY"tfI Tlv£s (lPO[I] II£pyaW'll'wV £lulv, [€aVaVTCP .palV1JTal] [ - - - - ca. 2.0 - - - - (lPI ?]ufUX Vrr£�£'P1/ILI[vo]II1T€.pv"ar[lLlvov€UT.VIL� Kap1Tl,€a800.?] [Ka. Mavlos 'AKV'\'\IOS ralos L'€IL1T! W]III�S v1TaTol ava IL([U]OV aV[TwII .ppoVTluWC11 01TWS 1/] [avTo. ij - - «> 8€�va - - UTpaTlnyOS" Kam 8fjf'O!', [� eXII aVTWII .palV1JTaI, TOUTO 8 eXv] " . , UTpaT1JYOS ['o o€lva <' • KaTa • 01/lLov <'']' . €1TlYVCfJ- "7T£pI. TOVTWII r'P - [ 11 1TpaYfUXTWV €IS T1JV UVyKA1JTOV] [a1Tayy€AWuI. 'QUaVTWS �]v UVYKA1/TOV 81A£w Ka[. 8lKalov TJy€�u8al EK T€ TWV] -

10

SENATUS CONSULTA

15

�o

25

30

[ήμετΙΡωΙΙ S"1ftoalwv] ΠΡαΥμάτωιι διαλαμβάιιειιι [εΧιιαl όπωS'. ούτω> καθώ. αιι τιμ δείιια] [στραΤ'lΥιμ κατά δημοιι? δοκΏ] ι;rε p, τούτωιι τωιι ΠΡαΥflάτωv. [άρχοντε> ήμΙτεροl. οϊ rfί 'Aal�] [προσόδου> έπιηθωσιιι ή] τη. 'AalaS' τά. προσόδου> μι[σθωσιιι. ΦΡοvτlζωσl ούτω> ώ. ιΧιι] [αύτοίς έκ τών δ'lμοσίων ·π]ραγμάτων πί.στεώς τε της lδl�[r φαί.VΗται., ταύτα οϋτως ποιείσθαl ?] [ό'πω> τε Μάιιιο> Άκ]ύλλιο> ύπατοS'. ιι έάιι α,)τωl φαlν'1ταl. Θ![ - - nomina legatonιm ,α. 20] [τόπον 'Παροχην] ξΙ νιά τε κατά το διάταγμα {έάν αύται" Φαίγ["lται} τον ταμίαν μισθωσαι] [άποστείλαl τε κελεύ] ι777 ούτω> καθώ. ιΧιι α,)τωι έκ τωιι S"1Itoalwv [ΠΡαΥιιάτωιι -πίστεώι; τε] [τη. lSlaS' φαlνηται. έδο]ξειι. υ Κρίμα περ, τη. χώΡαS'. 11 ΔΙλτο> v Β v κ [ήρωμα - - - - προ] [ήμερών τριών καλανδώ] ν Κοι.νκ.τειλί.ων έΥ Κομ,ετί.ωι μετά συμ,βουλ[ί.ου - - - ό δείιια - - - - -] [στραΤ'lΥΟ> κατά δηιιοιι ?] περ, χώρα> ήη> έιι άντιλσΥl� έστ,ιι δ'ιμΟ9'[ιώιιαι> πρό. τού. Περ][Υαμψού. έπlyιιιJ,. ?). έιι τιμ συιι]βoυλlωι παρησαιι Κόιιιτο> ΚαικlλιοS' Kσlιιτoυ '[Αιιιήιισψ, ΓάιοS'] [ ....ιο> Γαloυ Με] yηvl�. Μάαρκο> Πούπιο> Μαάρκου Σκαπτl�. Γιi[ιo> Κοριιήλιο> Μαάρκου] [Στελατεlιι�, Λεύ] κιο> ΜΙμμιο> F alou Μειι ψl�. Κόιντο> Ο,)άλΥΙΟ> [Μαάρκου .....λl�.] [Λεύκιο> Ίούλιο> ΣΙξτ] ου Φαλlpιι�. Γάιο> "Αιιιιιο> Falou 'ApvJjvmjS'. Γάιο> [Σψπρώιιιο> Falou] [Φαλlpν�, Γάιο> Kσlλι]o> Falou AlIuλl�, Ποπλιο> "Αλβιο> Πσπλloυ Kuplv�, [M&.rr.f1Kt)� KσσKΙ��][ιιιο> Μαάρκου T"1P"1T]�lII�, Πόπλιο> ΓΙσσιο> Π oπλloυ 'A pIIήva,lS', ΛεύK�[O> ΆΦεlιιιοS'] [Λευκlου ΏΦειιτε�ιι�, Γάιο> 'Ρούβριο> F alou ΠοU'Πειιιl�, Γάιο!> ALKlvvtoS' Γαloυ [Τηρ"1] [τεlιι�, Μάαρκο!> Φα]λΙριο!> Μαάρκου XλauSl�, Μάιιιο!> ΛευκεlλιοS' Μαάρκου Π ω[μεντεlν�,] [Λεύκιο!> Φl]λιοS' Λευκlου 'QpaTl�, Γάιο!> Δlδιo!> Γαloυ Kupl�, Κόιιιτο!> [XλaιISLOS'] [Άππlου Πσλλl�,] Λεύκιο!> ΆνθΙσηο!> F alou Με vψl�, Σπόριο!> K apoul�[LoS' Λευκlου] [Σαβατεlν�,] Πόπλιο!> ΣεlλlοS' Λευκlου Ο,)αλεΡl�. Γναίο!> Όκτάυ ι[ο!> Λευκlου] [AlfUλl�, Μάα]ρκο!> Άππολήιο!> Μαάρκου K afLLλl�. Λεύκιο!> ΆΦεlιιιοS' Λε[υκlου]

65

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Frag. c lS

[A£/LwVt'!'. raID.] NauTlo. KotVTov Oun·vpt'!'. raID. N£/.t.erwplD' rat [ov A] £/L [w]­ [vt,!,. A£VICID' Kop.nl]AID. MaaplCov 'PW/LIM'!'. rVaLO' 110!-,7T�1D' rvatov Kp loa] TO/L,d­ [v'!'. l1chrAID' l1cmtA]AID' l1cmMov TTJPTJT£t V,!,. A£VICID' LJo/LlTlo. rv [at;;;; cJjat/t-;.r­ [- - ca. 15 - Maap]«'ov [Jovrr<£)lvt'!'. Maa.plCo. Mou vlD' Ma.aplCov A£/L [wvt'!'. - -] [- - ca. 15 - -] ov A£/LWVt'!'. KOIIITO' l1cmt»'.IO' l1cmMov 'PW!-,I [M,!, ] [- - ca. 12 - Ma']lCt'!'. KOIIITO' Aat/lplD' AWlCtov MallCt'!'. raiD> 'Epl!, [VID' .......] [- - ca. 15 - - -] o. KolVTOV QrjmlT£tv,!,. Ma
40

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

45

50

Restorations are those made by Passerini except where noted.

The text is based essentially on a

new examination of the photograph and squeeze. except for fragments c and d. which are given as recorded by Passerini. I lCa1

rr£p 1, Passerini.

3

4olA[0v>,

Passerini. 4 xap&['I'a, Passerini. 5--9 The

underlined letters were seen by Passerini but are no longer extant. 7 £ia1[v, Passerini. 10 a'l'paTT} j

yo., Passerini.

15 'I'a.j 'I'ij. 'Aala• .".poaclllov., Passerini

to decide what the second letter was.

=,,"oy�.

""

er

No.

T�,l. 75:

17 9'1[

- -, Passerini, but it is difficult

One expects here the name or names of the Pergamene

IllA'I'ov dyllcl,/. IC'IPwfLa'l'l [uaaap£ajlCalll£lCa'l"p.

21 KOIVIC'I'£Mwv,

Passerini; KOINKTEIAIQN, stone. Copy A begins here ami cominLles' LU lit,.;, j,' ,,[ B .. It differs from B in the construction, for it clearly contained an indirect statement: [' Y/La. £illlval

{Jou>'o/Lal 1C£lCpllC£val- - -.; Il£ova - - - a'l'pja'l'['1yjov ['''po �fL£pWV 'I'Pljwv lCa>.avllwv IC'I'>' (Foucart). Passerini explains this difference by the fact that copies A and B were engraved in different periods. Copy A might have been influenced by the letter from Rome which communicated the text of the decree.

Other differences between A and

the preparation of the copy.

B

may be due to errors at the time of engraving or in

23 E"£'YVW (?), Passerini, but perhaps E7T£ICPIV£V should not be dis­

counted. 23-47 Parts of names are restored in B only when they are extant in A. It will be best to number each of the names and to treat them in the order of their appearance in B. and the numbers, see below.

For the list

References here will be to lines. 24 For the tribe of C . ....iw

C. f.there is a mistake in copy A, for it reads MEAIHNIA.

26 The names of c. Annius C.£

Amensis and c. Sempronius C.f.Falema, numbers 8 and 9 in copy numbers 23 and 24 in A. Taylor

(op.

B,

have been delayed until


by pointing out that the tribe in post number 7 is also Falema. Hence the engraver, when he glanced back from his work on the stone to the list ill his copy, saw the Falema of post number 9

66

SENATUS CONSULTA

and assumed that he had already engraved it.

He discovered his omission laler and then entered

the two names out of order; copy B, therefore, contains the correct order of names.

Rubrius C. f. Pupinia. For his tribe, copy A has non I AAI A. A has Sabatina for the tribe.

29 C.

31 1. Filius L. f. Horatia. Copy

Taylor (0 p. cit., p. 173) believes that copy B is more likely to be

correct. 321. Antistius C. f . Menenia. In copy A the nomen is given as ANOTIOl:, confirmed by the Berlin squeeze. Taylor (op. cit., p. 191) correctly labels copy A a mistake; B is again correct.

op.

33 P. Silius1. f. Valeria. This is a mistake in copy B ; there was no tribe Valeria (Taylor,

cit., pp. 255 and 173).

Copy A has Galeria, which must be correct.

35 C. Nautius Q. f.

Veturia. Mommsen's NaunoS" is confIrmed by the squeeze. 371. Domitius en. f. Fabia. Copy A breaks o/rat this name with the reading A,u".[oS" - - 22 --lEll:. On the Berlin squeeze I was able to make out the top parts of what appeared to be rt!'� near the end of that lacuna. Clearly, those traces must be the remains of the tribe of Domitius.

A,u",[oS" Llol""Ttos" rvaloIII CP�t.l[la l;

restored thus:

40 [- - - - - Maelcia.

n>"a"T"TWplOS",

Hence copy A at that point may be

this would confirm the tribe of the Domitii.

Passerini failed to notice the iota between the kappa and the alp ha.

Passerini, but what he took to be the first tau is actually an iota.

near the end of the line indicates the beginning of a new section.

43

47The smaIluacat

54 - - -h�[--Passerini, but these

are not visible.

COMMENTAR Y. In a famous speech before the assembled representatives of the Greeks in the province of Asia, Marcus Antonius is quoted by Appian (B.C. 5. 4lf.) as saying that the Romans had released the Greeks from the taxes which they had formerly paid to the Pergamene kings. Only the action of demogogues (i.e., the Gracchan party in 123 B.C. ) had forced them to reverse this decision and to reimpose the taxes. His actual words are: ·Yj.£aS" �ILi.V. t1i r%vllpES" ·E>'>'"'}VES". "ATTa>.oS" 0 f3au'>'EuS" VILWV £V ll,a8�KalS" a7TE>'I7T£. Kat Ev8uS" aILE{VOVES" Vj.£i.V�ILEV 'ATTa>.ov·

OVS" yap ("TE>',i.TE r/>opovS"

'ATTa>',!,. j.£E8�KafLEV VILi.V. �XPI 1l",}ILOK07TWV avllpwv Kat 7Tap' �j.£i.v Y'VOj.£EVWV £llb}GE

rp opwv . Clearly the two events meant here are the acquisition of the Pergamene kingdom after the death of Attalus III in 1 33 B.C. and the legislation ofe. Gracchus in 123 or 122 B.C. The Pergamene kingdom had been willed to Rome by Attalus, but actual possession and organization of the land into the province of Asia had been dela yed by the revolt of Aristonicus until129 B.C. The statement as reported by Appian seems to mean that no plibiicani were engaged in collecting taxes in Asia until they were authorized to do so in 123 or122 B.C. by the terms of the lex Sempronia. There is no question whatever that e. Gracchus had a law passed in123 or 122 B.C. which regulated the taxation in Asia. From the references to this lex Sempronia in our sources (Cicero In Verr. 3. 6. 12; Scholia Bob., p. 157, Stangle ed.; Fronto Epist. ad Ver. 2.1 ; AppianB.C.5. 4) it is clear that the principal tax imposed on Asia was to be the decumae, a tenth of the produce, and that it was to be collected by private agents under contract to the government in Rome through the offices of the censors. This meant, of course, that the pubiicani hencef orth would be able to obtain those contracts, for they alone had sufficient experience, organization, and working capital to carry through successfully such a corn plex operation. They would also be able to collect the portorillm and the scriptura.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS PROM THE GREEK EAST

Therefore, until the discovery of the present documents from Smyma, modem scholars have generally felt that Appian was right and that no taxes were collected in Asia by the publicani until af ter 123 D.e. But the present decree of the Senate and its accompanying magisterial decision have caused many scholars not only to doubt the accuracy of Appian's remarks but also to re-examine the scope and intent of the lex Sem pronia. In the case of the latter, for example, one might ask whether it merely regulated and redefined already existing conditions in Asia or actually introduced a sy�tem that had not previously been in force. The contents of these documents are of vital interest to students of Roman Asia and are of exceptional importance for the study of republican prosopography. Lines 1-20: the senatus consultum. The Senate decreed in the usual way to recognize the Pergamene envoys and their city as friends and allies. Concerning the land over which a dispute had arisen between the Pergamenes and the publicani (I. 22), a Roman magistrate was to conduct an investigation and then determine what were the opal of the Pergamenes. His decision was to be communicated to the Senate. And those who collected the taxes in Asia were to be ordered, apparently (the text is fragmentary), to honor that decision. The consul [- - - - - - -1 vN\U)S was then ordered to provide the customary accommodation f or the envoys. Such, in the briefest of terms, was the decree proper. Lines 20-53: the decision of the magistrate and the members of his consilium. In order to settle the land dispute between the two parties a Roman magistrate, probably the praetor "rbatlus, conducted an investigation as ordered, and in consultation with his consilium of 55 Senators (and equites?) reached his decision. The text of this decision (11. 48ff.) is hopelessly mutilated, and the most that can be said is that it defmed the borders or extent of the land rather carefully. There are two reasons fer the major interest in this inscription. first, it appears to indicate that Roman publicani were collecting the taxes in Asia hef ore the lex Sempronia. The consul in line 17 is most likely Manius Aquillius, who succeeded Perperna in Asia and brought the revolt of Aristonicus to an end. He was consul in 129 D.e., but he spent the next three Ye'u. u< A�i;; ;;: p�a���"! "rg�n.i7in�q he l1ew province with the help of a ten-man commission. The phrase in line 17 Jav a:VTWI ,paivrrra:& shows that the consul mentioned there was actually in office. When these points are combined with the fact that, of the two consuls in line 9, one had a name ending in --lnius, it becomes rather apparent that the year of the decree was 129 D.e., when the two consuls were C. Sempronius and Manius Aquillius. The only other combination of consular names that might fit the mold would be M. Tullius Cicero and C. Antonius, consuls in 63 D.e., a date that seems too late not only because of the lettering in copy A but also because of the age at which some of the members of the consilium must have lived.' Second, the -

, A weightier objection to such a date is the possibility that Sulla had deprived Pergamum of her freedom as a result of the city's participation in the Mithridatic War; see the commentary to No.

55.

It is known that Julius Caesar had been honored by Pergamum as savior and benefactor for having restored to the god "the city and the sacred territory."

68

And Mithridates of Pergamum in that same

SENATUS CONSULTA

consilillm itself is unusually large and without parallel in this regard. It is extremely valuable in the information it gives us about the tribal connections of some famous Roman families and in the simple fact that it is a list of Romans who were all (or par­ tially?) active in the Senate at a single point in time. One assumes they are all senators, but there is a slight possibility that others may have been included. Full identification with known individuals, however, is rendered very difficult because of the omission of cognomina.

The assumption of 12.9 B.C. as the date can be considered reasonable only if it can be shown that the members of the consilillm were indeed alive and active in the Senate at that time. A list is essential:

2..

Q. Caecilius Q. £ Aniensis (Taylor, p. 19B). C. ... .ius C. £ Menenia (Taylor, p. 2.2.3; Broughton, Supplement to Magistrates,

3. 4. 5.

M. Pupius M. £ Scaptia (Taylor, p. 2.49). C. Comelius M. f . Stellatina (Taylor, p. 2.07). 1. Memmius C. f. Menenia (Taylor, pp. 2.33-34; Broughton, Supplement, pp.

I.

p.

33).

40-41). 6. Q. Valgius M. £ .....lia (Taylor, p. 2.62.; Broughton, Supplement, p. 67). 7. L. Iulius Sex. f. Falema (Taylor, p. 2.2.2.; Broughton, Supplement, p. 32.). B. C. Annius C. f. Amensis (Taylor, p. 190). 9. C. Sempronius C. f. Falema (Taylor, p. 2.52.). 10. C. Coelius C. £ Aemilia (Taylor, p. 199). 11. P. Albius P. f. Quirina (Taylor, p. IBB). 12.. M. Cosconius M. £ Teretina (Taylor, p. 2.oB). 13. P. Gessius p. f. Amensis (Taylor, p. 2.1B; Badian, Historia, 12. [1963]: 134). 14. L. Afmius L. f. Oufentina (Taylor, p. 1B7). 15. C. Rubrius C. £ Pupinia (Taylor, p. 2.51; Broughton, Supplement, p. 54). 16. C. Licinius C. £ Teretina (Taylor, p. 2.2.4; Broughton, Supplement, p. 33). 17. M. Falerius M. f. Claudia (Taylor, p. 2.13). 18. M'. Luciliu! M. f. Pomenti!!:! (T�ylor, ? 227; Erry�:.ght0!!t SUPF!e::::!!:t, p. 37). 19. L. Filius L. f. Horatia (copy A has Sabatina; Taylor, p. 2.13). 2.0. C. Didius C. £ Quirina (Taylor, p. 2.10). 2.1. Q. Claudius Ap. f. Pollia (Taylor, p. 2.03). 2.2.. L. Antistius C. £ Menenia (Taylor, p. 191). 2.3. Sp. Carvilius L. £ Sabatina (Taylor, p. 2.01). 2.4. P. Silius L. £ Galeria (Taylor, p. 2.55). 2.5. Cn. Octavius L. f. Aemilia (Taylor, p. 2.39). 2.6. M. Appuleius M. £ Camilia (Taylor, p. 192.). period was instrumental, because of his friendship with Caesar, in obtaining Pergamum's freedom; see No. 54. IfPergamum had not been free in 6] s.c., there could hardly have been any dispute with the public... i about taxation.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM TIlE GREEK EAST

27. L. Afinius L. £ Lemonia (Taylor, p. 187). 28. C. Nautius Q. £ Veturia (Taylor, p. 237). 29. C. Numitorius C. £ Lemonia (Taylor, p. 238). 30. L. Cornelius M. f. Romilia (Taylor, p. 207; Broughton, Supplement, p. 18). 31. Cn. Pompeius Cn. f. Crustumina (Taylor, p. 245). 32. P. Popillius P. £ Teretina (Taylor, p. 247; Broughton, Supplement, p.49). 33. L. Domitius Cn. £ Fabia (Taylor, p. 211; Broughton, Supplement, p. 23). 34. [-------] M. £ Pupinia. 35. M. Munius M. £ Lemonia (Taylor, p. 236). 36. [- -----] Lemonia. 37. Q. Popillius P. f. Romilia (Taylor, p. 247; Broughton, Supplement, p. 49). 38. [- ----- Mae]cia. 39. Q. Laberius L. f. Maecia (Taylor, p. 223). 40. C. Herennius [- - --- -]. 41. [- -- -] Q. £ Oufentina. 42. M. Serrius M. f. [ - --]. 43. [- ------] Teretina. 44. L. Genucius L. £ Teretina (Taylor, p. 218). 45. [-----------]a. 46. L. Plaetorius L. £ Papiria (Taylor, p. 243). 47. Missing. 48. M. Lollius Q. f. Menenia (Taylor, p. 226). 49. C.[-----------]. 50. [-----]ilius Sex. £ Camilia (Badian, His/oria, I2 [1963]: 132). SI. Cn. Aufidius [---]na (Taylor, p. 196). 52. [-- -----] Velina. 53. L. Antistius [-- -]na (Taylor, p. 191). 54. P. [--- ] Sabatina. 55. M. [----------]. -

It must be emphasized that it is dangerous to work outward from this list in order to date the documents. The absence of cognomina is the weak link. One should postulate a probable date by other means and then examine the names to determine if they tend to support or reject that date. Because of the evidence of the consuls' names in lines 9 and 17 and the consequent probability that the date is 129 B.C., Passerini, Broughton, Taylor, and Badian have examined the names from that point of view and appear con­ vinced that such a date could be correct. At least the names in part can be tentatively identified with known individuals or families. The number of these tentative identifica­ tions is admittedly small, but despite the objection of one modern scholar it is sufficient to support the date. It is generally agreed that the names are listed in the order of rank, as was done in the

SENATUS CONSULTA

listing cI witnesses to decrees cI the Senate.' Hence, those names that occur near the beginning of the list ought to be the senior consulares, followed by the praetorii. The others, perhaps two-thirds, were oflower rank. There could have been an age difference of perhaps twenty or thirty years between the men at the head of the list and those at the end. A few of the more important identifications must be mentioned at this point, each one, of course, based on the assumption that the date is 129 B.C. Q. Caecilius Q. f Aniensis could be the consul of 143 B.C., Q. Caecilius Q. £ L. n. Metellus Macedonicus. Since his name appears first on the list, he must have been the senior consular. The man whose name is second on the list could have been the consul of 140 B.C., C. Laelius C. £, as suggested first by Passerini. The man in post number 7 is most probably the son of the consul of 157 B.C., Sex. Iulius Sex. t L. n. Caesar, and the father of the consul of 90 B.C., L. Iulius L. £ Sex. n. Caesar.3 Mommsen (Gesammelte Schrijien, 8: 35 I ) was the first to identifY him as the father of the consul of 90 B.C. Passerini, Taylor, and Broughton agree. Thus it is likely that our L. Iulius Sex. f. Falema in post number 7 is identified with a known family in a known period of time. The three generations are accounted for nicely. The names and the sequence fit. As Broughton put it, this" points to an earlier rather than a later date" for the consilium. L. Domitius Cn. f Fabia, in post number 33, may have been the son of the consul of 162 B.C., Cn. Domitius Cn. f. L. n. Ahenobarbus (cos. suff.), and the brother of the consul of 122 B.C., Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Cn. n. Ahenobarbus, as suggested by Taylor and fol­ lowed by Broughton. Quite a few of the other names can be tentatively identified with known individuals or families in such a way that they create no obstacles to the date 129 B.C. The rest of them are unknown or are too fragmentary to allow any attempt at identification. Rostovtzeff thought that the date was" almost certainly" 129 B.C. and that taxes were probably imposed on Asia at that time.' He doubted the accuracy of Appian and believed the evidence suggested" that the province of Asia was never (even between the d"ath (If A rr,Jns ,nrl T'911 r: ) imrnnn� fTO!1" t�x�tion, not even the cities ef the p:ovinc::, to say nothing of the parts of the province not organized as cities, and that the appearance in the province of publicani was not deferred until the time of C. Gracchus." Such a view naturally requires a reconsideration of the contents of the lex Sempronia. If it did not impose the taxes and allow the publicarli to farm them, what did it do? Passerini and Rostovtzeff both felt that it merely instituted a reform in a system already functioning. For example, it may have introduced the decumae as a substitute fex older taxes rooted in •

CL Mommsen, Gesammelte Schr iften,5: 508 and 8: 350; Taylor, op. cit., p. 175.

Broughton, op. cit.,1,4 9 7. Cf. Passerini, op . cit.,p. 2. 6 6. Taylor, op. cit., p.2.2.2., notes that Falerna of copy B may be a mistake for Fabia. But copy A has -va. The tribe of the Iulii was the Fabia.

1

•

S.E.H.H. W., n,

8 Il-13.

The date was also accepted by M. Segre, loc. cit .; E. V. Hansen, The

Attalids of Pergalllum (lthaca, 1947), p. 151; Tibilett� loc. cit.; Greenidge and Clay,loc. cit.; Nicolet, loc. cit.; and H. Hill, The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period (Oxford, 1952.),p. 67.

71

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Attalid times, the older taxes either being abolished or changed to conform to this new method. Thus, the Jecumae, portorium, and scriptura may not have recived their final form until 123 B.C. The period between 133 and 129 B.C., of course, must have been one of confusion from this point of view, but even then there is evidence that Rome exacted forced contributions from the Pergamenes for the conduct of the war against Aristonicus. 5 David Magie, in his monumental work on Roman Asia Minor, objects to the dating in 129 B.C., believes Appian is correct, and places the document in 101 B.C. for him the consuls in line 9 need not necessarily be those of the current year, and the consul of line 17 is more likely to be the younger Manius Aquillius, who was consul in 101 B.C. He thinks that the Lucius Domitius Cn. f. of post number 33 in the c onsilium ought to be the consul of 94 B.C., which would appear to make him too young to have been a member of the consilium in 129 B.C. He returns therefore to the view that the lex Sempronia introduced Roman taxes into Asia for the first time and that it was not until then that publicani began their operations there. His view, however, has not been accepted by the majority of scholars. Broughton was the first to point out its weaknesses by noting that the words rmaTo� and jhraTOL in the nominative probably meant the consuls currently in office, that L. lulius Sex. f. in post number 7 almost certainly was the son of the consul of 157 B.C., and that 129 B.C. was the very time when disputes over land or boundaries would naturally have risen in the new province. And Lucius Domitius Cn. f. could just as easily be the son of the consul of 162 and a brother of the consul of 122 B.C. 6 The date 129 B.C. appears to be correct. Appian is wrong or, at the very least, guilty of excessive compression in his description of conditions in Asia. Before 123 B.C. taxes in Asia were probably farmed out in the province itself under the control of the governor. The lex Sempronia simply established the tithe system and laid it down that contracts in the future would have to be let out in Rome by the censors. Such a course of action would have won C. Gracchus the support of the equites and any others involved in the societates.7 Magie stands alone, as far as I know, in rejecting the date 129 B.C., but the evidence for his view is far less convincing than the view of Passerini, Rostovtzeff. Broughton. Taylor, and all the others. There remains the question of the ordo to which the members ofi.he CV;";:;..,,, L':'!<:ingcd. Willems thought that they were all senators, but Mommsen (Romisches Staatsrecht, m, 968) warned that such a consilium need not of necessity consist entirely of senators. And after the discovery of copy B Passerini felt that equites may have been included in the list. Broughton treated the names in his Magistrates on the assumption that they were all senators, and Taylor agreed with him. Syme and Badian, however, were not entirely S Forced contributions: 1,G.R.R.,

IV,

292

(cf.

L. Robert, Etudes A.. atolitm�s (Paris, 1937), pp. 4S-S0).

These must have been wartime measures introduced by the Romans to help finance the war against Aristonicus. eit., p. 136.

They were not regular taxes.

6 Broughton,

op.

eit., p. 497; see also

Latom"s, IS (19S6): 2 3.

E.

7 Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 183-84.

See Magie, op. eit.,

n,

104S-46, n. 34, and Tibiletti, o p.

Gabba, Athenaeum, 32 (19S4): 69, n. 3, and P. A. Brunt,

SENIITUS CONSULTII

convinced and felt that nonsenators might have been included.8

The mutilated state

of the list and the lack of cognomina make it almost impossible, with the present evidence, to decide this question one way or another, especially in view of the fact that the names become more mutilated toward the end of the list, precisely where equites would have appeared.9

But the possibility still exists.

R. Syme,

Classical Philology. so (1955)' 137, and

8

E. Badian,j.R.S., 52 (1962): 208-9 .

See the lists given by Nicolet, op. cit., Deuxi�me Partie: Titulature et Prosopographie, Les Structures de I'Drdre Eqllestre, pp. 147-464. He assumes, it seems, that our list is senatorial and does not consider the possibility of the presence of equites. •

13 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE REBUS II9 B.C.?

PHRYGlAE ORDINANDIS

or

II6 B.C.

W. M. Ramsay,Joumal of Hellenic Studies, 8 (1887): 496;

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

idem, Classical Review, Z (1888): 3z6; P. Viereck, Sermo Grae Ctl s (Gottingen,

1888),no. XXIX, p. 51; W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bislwprics of Phrygia, 11 (Oxford,1897), no. 710,p. 76z; Th. Mommsen, Athen. Miu., z4 (1899): 195 (Gesammelte Schrifien, 4: 66); Th. Reinach,Mithridate Eupator, R o i de Pont

(Paris,1890),no. 4,p. 457; B. Niese,Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten, III (Gotha, 1903),p. 373; W. Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., 11 (1905),436; G . Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (19Z7), 75Z; A. H. M .Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford,1937),p. 59; T. R. S. Broughton, .. Roman Asia," in T.

Frank,An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 511; W. M. Ramsay, The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor (Aberdeen University Press, 1941),pp. z8z-83; D. Magie,Roman Rule in Asia Minar (Princeton,1950), I, 16 9, with nn. 35-37 in 11, pp. 1058-59; A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, Sources for Roman History 133-70 D.C., 3d ed. rev., by E. W. Gray (Oxford,

1960),p. 55; Johnson,Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 48.

DESCRIPTION.

Found in the modern village of AresH about two miles It has been assumed by Ramsay that

from Oynayan and northeast of Apameia.

the ancient site of Lysias was in the vicinity, but there is no real proof of the actual location of that ancient city (c£ L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure2 [Paris, 196zI,pp. 156,367,and 4z6).

Unfortunately, no adequate description of the

stone has ever been reported,and for the lettering one must rely upon the transcript�on first given by Ramsay in the J.H.S. ( 8[18871: 496).

- - - - - - . - - - - - - 0] VTWS" [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] v 8Iwp8c.U[ ] €Y(V€TO 1TPO­ [81j - - - - - - - -]0 S" Tav-ra Kvpla pi­ [T€POV" - - 8oy],La UVVK'\�OV. [V€W [1T€p1 wv KO£VTOS" tlJa{JloS" - - VLOS" Ma�I'LoS" (?) r]aloS" AIKtVVIOS" IIo1T,\{ov [uloS" r€TaS" VTTaTOI (?) '\oyovs- €1TOI..juav] TO, ·7r€p1 ToVTOV 1TpUYiLaTOS" OV­ [TWS" £�€V· oua (Jaal'\€l)S" M£8pa8aTl/]S" £ypa.p€v � £OwK/V TIUW � a..p€t­ [K€V, iva TaVTa Kvpla ,L€tvrl OVTW Ka8wS"] €Owp..juaTO €iS" €UxUTl/V T,,./pav, [1T€pt T€ TWV '\OI1TWV iva KptVWUW OL 8/Ka( ?)] 1Tp€u{J€VTa1 €iS" 'Autav &a{JaVT€S" [- ] -

-

-

•

-

-

•

-

-

•

-

-

•

-

-

-

-

•

•

•

•

-

-

•

-

-

-

-

•

•

-

-

•

-

-

-

•

-

•

.

74

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

-

•

•

•

•

•

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.

-

.

-

-

-

-

-

•

•

[0

•

•

•

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

•

-

.

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

•

SENATUS CONSULTA

2. 1l''''plJw[IJ'I Dittenberger and Viereck (notes); 1l''''plJw[aa:To, others. TOVr"''') <"I'''OTO WpO[TEpO", for the phrase Ta:UTa: ICUp.a: in line 4, requires a

S.C. Papillianllm de Pergamenis (No.11),1.IS. 8 Ramsay, Viereck, but Dittenberger restored

1lr.a:{3a:i"""

a,po,[IC<")

(or

a,p1j[ICO")),

] Perhaps [-

- caa: caa:; cf. the and Reinach accepted a,pOir"OTO, -

preceding

which Viereck later (notes) followed.

10 On

in these documents see1. Robert in Hellenica, I (1940): SS, andLa Carie, H, 104, n. ].

COMMENT AR Y. Because of the many di fferences in character, civilization, cate­ gories of land, and city life in the Pergamene kingdom Manius Aquillius and the commissioners required two full years to lay the foundation of the new Roman province. On November 1 1, I2.6 B.C., in Rome he was granted the singular honor of a triumph for his role in bringing peace to the land and in organizing the province. It had been the general senatorial policy of annexing as few provinces as possible and using client kings to ensure the protection of Roman interests, and in keeping with this policy Aquillius gave rather large portions of the land to the neighboring kings who had aided Rome in the war against Aristonicus. It was for this reason that Greater Phrygia was given to Mithridates V of Pontus.' A storm of protest broke out in Rome when the provisions made in Asia became known to the party of Gaius Gracchus and the pllblicani. The Senate was interested in simplicity and a minimum of administrative difficulties, the equestrians in new sources of profit. Greater Phrygia was a potentially profitable source of revenue. Hence the disagreement about its disposition. The land, however, remained in the possession of Mithridates V until his death in I2.0 B.C. at the hands of his courtiers.Z His heirs, two small sons, were much too young to off er serious opposition when Rome reversed its earlier policy and seized Phrygia.J This reversal may be attributed, apparently, to a decision on the part of the Senate to avoid any further serious confrontations with the I Justinus ]7. I and ]8 .5; Appian Mitl". 5 7 (ef. II and I ]). There is some discussion as to whether or not the Phrygian gift formed one of the issues in the speech that C. Gracchus made concerning the so-called Lex Allfeia, for only one fragment of the speech survives (A. Gellius Noetes Atticae 11. 10 = H. !w1ako'l;.&ti. O;'Ili"ufM;rl Rtimanoi"lIrti f"ragJlitfll"U1 [[laicllct:, 1955], pp. lS'i-.Lfiil = Gcc;tr,Lid�e and Clay, ap. cit., p.29). See Magie, ap. cit., H, 104]-44, n.2 7, and, on the possibility that theux Auftia may have been the actual l ex p ralJinciae Asiae and is really the Lex Aqllillia, see the article by H. Hill in Classical Review, 62 (1948): Il2-I]. Magie believes that this law, whatever its name, had little if anything to do with the gift ofPhrygia to Mithridates. • He was murdered in Sinope: sources and references in Magie, ap. cit., H, 1 091, n.So. Mithridates Eupator, was only eleven years old.

J Justinus

The elder son,

]8.5; Appian Mitl". n, IS, and 56. The speech that Sulla is said to have made to Mithri­ dates VI in 85 B.C. (Appian Mitl". 5 7 ) attempts to justify Rome's seizure ofPhrygia by emphasizing that the land was made free and autonomous. Magie, however (ap. cit., 1,169), flIlds it difficult "to regard as an historical fact a statement in a speech evidently composed foe the purpose of justifying the seizure, and it seems very improbable that the Senate proceeded on any such elaborate theory or compromised by giving Phrygia this temporary status. . .......There is no evidence to show that Phrygia was regarded thencef orth in any other light than as an integral part of the province of Asia." Broughton, ap. cit., p. SIl, evidently accepts the historicity of the speech, foe he says that .. this stage when Phrygia was non-tributary and autonomous must have lasted only a short time."

75

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

equestrians, but in the absence of reliable source material both the motive and the method used for authorizing the seizure must remain unknown.4 The present document clearly concerns the arrangements made in Rome for the future status of Phrygia, for the stone was found well within the borders of the district and the ratification of somebody's acta "to his final day" points unmistakably to the death of a king or ruler. The phraseology reminds one of the clauses in the S.C. Pop illianum de Pergamenis (No. I1 ) , which is concerned with the arrangements made by Rome for the confirmation of the will of Attalus. And, since the presiding magistrate of our document (11.6-7) must be C. Licinius P. f. Geta (cos. II6 B.C.) , there can be no doubt that its date is II6 B.C. at the very latest and that it laid down the principles by which Rome would be guided in establishing the present status of those acts which the former king had committed" to his last day." Viereck believed that this decree of the Senate (11. 6-10) was included in a letter of the two consuls for 1 16 B.C., of which only the present lines 1-5 remain.s There is a pos­ sibility, however, that the first five lines also belong to the text of the decree, for the end of line 5 might have contained the phrase l((X1'a 1'0 Soy 1 jLa owI().>/'rov rather than 'I'o/)' eon 1'0 SOY]jLa OVVI().�'I'OV aut similia. However that may be, lines 6-10 certainly belong to the decree. Some doubt remains about the exact date, for, although 1. Licinius Geta spoke in support of the motion, there is no real proof that he was consul at the time. The reason it is assumed that the name of the other consul for 1 16 B.C., Q. Fabius Maximus, should be restored in line 6 rests merely upon the position of Licinius' name at the end of the line. This part of a decree is introduced by the words ,""pi. cLv followed by the names or name of the person speaking. Since these two words must have stood at, or at any rate near, the beginning of the line, according to Viereck and the other editors, somebody else's name must have preceded that of Licinius. Thus it is only an assumption and not a fact that Licinius was consul at the time that this decree was passed. The phrase '""P� cLv need not always occur at the beginning of the line, for in the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 1� ) , HTle' 5 of the Greek version, and in the S.C. de Prienensium et Samiorum Litibus (No. 10 ), line I, it is found later in the line. Slight as this is, one cannot �l.aLe pl,.iilvdy tht the name of Q. Fabius Maximus should be restored in line 6. But it is very clear that the decree must date after the death of Mithridates V in 120 B.C., but unfortunately the date of the praetorship of Licinius is unknown. The latest •

Magie, lac. cit., believed that another d ecree must have been passed prior to the present one, which

authorized the seizure and annexation of Phrygia.

But there is no reason why both of those items

could not have formed part of the present decree, especially if its date is not II6 but II9, as is possible (see below). 5 Ramsay's suggestion, Cities and Bislwprics, 11, 767., that the commissioners sent to regulate Phrygian

affairs may have written the letter to the city of Lysias, where the stone would have been erected i n antiquity, is very unlikely.

Such commissioners make their recommendations t o t h e Senate a n d the

Senate either accepts them or does not; if it accepts them, a magistrate is directed to communicate that decision to the people concerned.

Besides, there is no proof that the ancient city of Lysias was

the recipient of the letter, for the exact location of that city is not known; cf . Robert, Villes d'Asie Minellre2, p. 156.

SENATUS CONSULTA

possible date for his holding c:i the praetorship is given by Broughton as 119 !I.C., ac­ cording to the Lex Villia Annalis.6

This date for the present decree is a more probable

one than 116 !I.c., for, considering the furor in Rome over the Phrygian affair, the death of Mithridates in 120 !I.C. must have aroused almost immediate pressure for a reversal of the grant by Aquillius.

The Senate may have acquiesced.

Four years and then seizure

of Phrygia are difficult to explain if the year 120 !I.C. actually saw a concerted effort on the part of the publicani and the equestrians in general to have the Senate reconsider its earlier decision.

And because of the earlier opposition to the loss of Phrygia I believe

that such a concerted effort was begun in Rome in

120

or II9 !I.C.

Both consuls for

II9 may have been absent from Rome campaigning against the Segestani and the Dalmatians, and theref ore the praetor would have been able to convene the Senate.7 Of course, such a date cannot be considered until it can be shown by independent evidence that Licinius had been praetor in I I 9 and that both consuls for that year had been absent from the city.

And it must be added that the present decree says absolutely

nothing definite about the status of Phrygia.

Further evidence is needed bef ore final

judgment can be rendered.

It is interesting to notice that the other consul of I 16 B.C., Q. Fabius Maximus, II9. 7 Ibid., p. 525. One of the consuls, L. Caecilius Metellus, certainly was absent on the campaigns, and his colleague, L. Aurelius Coua, ma y have accompanied him as Broughton suggests. 6

Magilt,atu, I, 526.

ha d been praetor in

14 EPISTULA L. CALPURNII PISONIS ET SENATUS CONSULTUM DE ITANORUM ET II2 B.C.

HIERAPYTNIORUM LITmus

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

S. Xanthudidis, 'ApX' 'Eq.., 192 0, pp. 82f[; W. Cronert,

S.E.G., II (1924), S 11; M. Cary, ].R.S., 16 (192 6): 194-200; G. De Sanctis, Rivista Jijilologia, n.s., 4 (1926): 130ff.; A. Passerini, Athenaeum, n.s., IS (1937):

34f[; N. Papadakis, 'H apxala 'Ava"ToA,,(� Kp�"T"I (Canea, 1938), pp. 184fl:; V. Arangio-Ruiz, SluJia et Documenta Historiae et [uris, 2 (1939): S 92ff.; M. Guarducci, Irrscriptiones Creticae, 1II (1942), 4, no. 10, pp. 106-11; H. van Effenterre, R.E.A., 44 (1942): 3Iff. ; F. W. Schehl, Kp"l"TIICtJ. XpovllCa, S (19SI):

302-12; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. So (cf. T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I [New York, 19SI},

S37 -38, on Q. Fabius and his embassy).

DESCRIPTION. Candian Museum. cit., p. 109.

Found in 1919 at Erimupolis (Itanus) and now in the

Photograph of the right side of the stele in Guarducci, o p.

Height: 1.2S m.

Width: O.48-<>.so m.

Thickness: 0.I3-<>.IS m.

It is engraved on the front and right side, but lines 74 and 8 8ff. appear only on the front

The letters belong to the second half of the second century, having

a height of 0.007-<>.008 m.

The front is badly corroded and the letters are

difficult to decipher, whereas the right side is quite legible.

The new

publication of the inscription by Guarducci is the only one to be used, for she has examined the stone and a squeeze so thoroughly that the older readings have been superseded.

This stele must have contained the conclusion of the

document, for there is an extensive vacant space at the bottom.

SENATUS CONSULTA

[ ..............] ιcαTασTάσιo� πρεσβευται KpήTε� Ίεpαπύnιιoι Φε,δων ΙETεάνopo� ύόS', �ώμ.ων [ ......]po� [ύ]ό�, Mνάσιπ·πo� Δ,ωνο, ύό,. Eύβl� Βειδιίλω ύό" λόγον έπσιή σαν-ro χ [άριτα Φιλ] ,αν συμμαχ,αν τε ανενεώσαντο ιcαί συV7jσθήναι -rjj συνιcλήTφ επί τψ [- ................................................... ΕΖπ]ασαν κα, καθ' ίδίαν επί το f1έλτεl.ον π ροχωρ εί.ν πεΡ ' τε τη, γεγενrιμ. [εΊ - Φιλοτ] Ψ.'α, εύx αp,σrησα[ν] ιcαι περί των - V7j� [ αδlιc·ημάTων των Τιμίν γεγεV7jμένων [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Ίτάνιοι γαρ αδικημάτων μη _

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

_

γινoμlνων ύ [Φ'] Τιμων αυτοί" ύπο δε [TΤ;S' των] Κνωσίων [πό]λεω5' 'ποτέ, πόλεμ.ον α.παράνγελίον ήμ.ί.ν εποίησαν -παρά τά τη, συν-

10

κλτ}'Του δόγμ.ατα και αδι.κήματα [ήμίν] €ςε7'ελέσαντO, 'περί ών και πρότερον πρεσβεία§' άπεστε'λαμ.εν [επί την σύνιcληToν] μ[αρτυρού]σα, τα γεγεV7jμlνα αδlιcήμαTα εί, ψιιΧ,. Τι δε [σύνιcλ]ητO� ιcαTα [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] μεν ε·πί Mάpιcoυ Αίμυλ,ου ιcαι επί Μαν,ου 'Aιcιλ,oυ ύπάτων ιcαί [ο] ύτε συμμ.άχου, αυτου, προσηγόρευσε ούτε Κνωσ,ου, ούΤΕ 'TOV§' [- - - - - - - - - - -] Δpαγμ'oι� ούτε [- - - -] ίYπ ω� ανειcpLθ·rι ιcαί εδογμάησε πόλεμον ιcαί αδικήματα 1)� μίν αν[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] παραγενόμενοι ύπΙρ τε του πoλlμoυ - - - - - - - - - - - - -]Tη� -ήμlpα� [ ..... ]ν ην απεδε{ςαμ�ν ιcαί [-ήμ�Tlpαν 00σαν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] δια γlνoυ� ιcαί ανάβατ[ο]ν UΠO μηθενo[�] _

15

_

_

_

γεωργηθείσαν, την aJ Υοησον ""ην 1�c.:"οι;μIΙΙϊ;iΙ Λ�ύKη:; Τ;μ.ετΕραν 03σαν έκ _

ΖΟ

προγόv.:.Jίι'.

'17'�II:'ίJ;� Sc μ-.]

δυνάμενοι περί των [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] των εί� ΨιιX� αδιιc·ημ.ιΣT [ ω]ν απολογήσασθαι μ.ήτε πρότερον μ.ήτε νυν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] των πρεσβευτών αντενκαλουσιν Τιμίν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] την χώΡαν >περl.σσάν ουσαν ετεσι είκοσι όιcτώ, λόγου§' έ­ ποιησα [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] πpo� τfi συνιcλψιρ, Τι δε σύνιcληTO� εδογμάησε [σπω, την χώραν ιcαί την νήσον πολ] '[μ.ου α ρ]χΤιν έλομΙνου διαιcαTlσxoμεν, ίνα ούτως κα-

79

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

ROMAN OOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

;15

τέ[χω ]μ.εν· πράξινστρατηγου εΙναι, Kα� όπως Λαlλιο; δ-η μ.ον δψ τον έν �μίν κρινουντα. δοθέν το; Si �μ.ϊ.ν του Μαγν'ήτων δήιιου κοο. ralov Λαιλtoυ �πάToυ γράφαντο; [πρ ] ο; τον δ-ηιιον τον Μα ............ l. τσλήν την ύπ' αυ['Τ ]συ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ] και την έ'Πσ [ νήτων Υ [γ ]ραφεϊσαν έμ. μτι-] δε ώ� ύΦΙ �μ.ών τε κάκείνων [ όμόλογον έγενήθη. νν r ανTt την νησον την καλουμένην - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] σ [ Λεύκην Kα� την χώ ρα ν [ - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Ο; ό δ-ηιιο; ό Μαγνψων ..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

_

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

έκρι.νε κατά 'Το δό.. [γμα τη; συνκλήτου �'π'] J.Taνlwν π [ ρσγο ]νικά; ούσα; καΡπlζεσθαι. Kvplw;. ου . συναντη .. .. σαιε ι ν[.. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. ........ :.. : - .. .............. .... .. - - -] ημων αΙTlαν επιΦεΡσ υσι [ . ]ε[ . ]σον[ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •

..

]0

..

..

..

..

..

,

, ..

,

-

[ --------------

-

,

-

..

..

..

...

..

-

τε ]λευτα [ί]ας υπ' αύτών άνEΊ�" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

- - - - -]

αντε; έπ� τήν σύνκλητον εν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]1'

]S

εΙ; Κρήτψ τε παραγεγονότων Kα� τά; [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --πρ ]εσ[β ]εlα? ουδέποτε 'περί τούτων Φω vTιν ΠΡσ-ηκαν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -] ΠΡεσβευσνΤΕ"ς περι. τών έν[ε ].. [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]1' μ.νήιιην έποιήσανΤΟ - - - - - - - - - - - - -έν τψ] μεταξυ χρόνψ ΣVνβόλων γεγενημένων wε[ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]χότων �πέ Ρ τε ιΧνδρων � [ - - -- - - --- - ........ ................ ........ .... ] vάντι.πσι.σϋ[ν ] ται. και νενικηκο των [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] νημ α κα:[θ] ώ; συνεθέμε θα [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]αυ[ ]ν Kα� δεδωκότων Kα�εΙ - ύ]τε λόγον ληΦότων [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ο εποιησαντο ov - -] τουμ[έ]νου; � τε σα[ - -

[- - - - -

-

- -- - - - - -

..

..

,

40

..

..

..

,

.

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.

80

.

,

-

-

αvτων �

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

•

SENA TUS CONSULT Λ

45

[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]του καθω, ήμεϊ, 0[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] έν Μ[ α]γνησί� γενομεv [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ση> δια του πρό, αυτ[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]ιω[.] δ' ένKαλlσαι Kα� - - - - - -πε ]p� των άνδρων K� πε� "Των ΟΙKεηLιν oiJS' έπι[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -άδ]ικψιατά τε K[α]� πpσrεpoν κα1 νϋν [ .......]ιοι ουσιν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] τών π α[ρα]ΥεΥονότων εΙ> 'Ρώμ:ην πρεσβευτών υμών, έπέμψαμεν δε έπ1 την σΙΙ νκλ1}7'ον, άξιοϋμεν ουν την σΙΙνκλ1}7'ον [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - έμ πα ]ντ1 καιΡΨ την εύνοιαν πρό, ήμα, [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τοί] S' ύμετέροι> δόγμασι βoτιθ�σαι ήμίν άπω> �σανη [- - - - - - - - - ] ΦτιΦίσματο> δι' ύμών άναγκασθώσιν ήμιν τό δίκαι, φ.\ι ' ον [- - - - - - - - - - - - - -] τε> προ> ττιν υμετεΡαν ",ιαν και συμμαχιαν προ> τιμα, [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ΠΡεσβ]ευταLS'. περ1 τοιΙτου τοϋ πΡάγματο> [ούτω> έ'δοξεν'] ον τρόπον έκάτεροι [την χώραν Kα� την ν�σ]oν νενωμτιμένοι ε�τισαν 'Tjj πρό του ήμέρα[ι 7j ό πόλεμο> έν αύΤοι> 7jPξCtT O ου πojλέμoυ ένεκεν Σέρουιο> Σο(λ)πίκιο> KάKείvτι ή ΠΡεσβεία εΙ, ΚΡήτην άπεστάλτισαν άπω> οϋτω> [νωμ]ώνται έ'χωσιν καρπίζωνταί τε Toiho το [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]σθαι πρό> ΛεΙΙκιον Κ αΜπόρνιον σTpα7'TjΎόν ϋπατον [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] 7'ινε> τοιΙτου του κριτη Ρίου [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ού]τ [ε] έπ� τό κριτηρι [ον] παpεTVXOσαν oιJ.re [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Λεύκιο> Καλοπ]όρ [νιο> σ] τρατηγό, ύπα­ το S' [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] τιν [ά]πω> έαV7'οίS' κρίνηι ον TPόΠOV έκάτεροι Ta.rrτιv [την χώραν Kα�] την ν�σoν πεp� 00 ή πραξι, [ένέ ]στη κε νενωμτιμένοι ε�τισαν T�Ι πρό τοϋ ήμέραι 7j ό πόλεμο> έν αυτοί> ήΡξαΤΟ 00 πολέμ [ου] ένεκεν Σέρουιο> , ΣΟλΠ 'ΙΚΙΟ> KCtKEIVTj " ' , 'λφαν οπω> ο [" απεστα V7' ]ω ΚΡινωσιν τι. ΠΡεσβ" εια ει> Κρτιτην αύτου[5'] \ • 3. υμ.ατα τε ΛΤΙ τιμ.εΡαν τε OP ,ΙUΤΙ προ 'ι> τιμ. ε["εχειν] κατε'χειν καρπι'ζ εσθ' αι τε ε'ξ ε ιναι και θ' ρα> κΡίνωσιν ε [- - - - ]τα> Κόιντο> Φάβιο> κα[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] v άπω> ΛεΙΙκιο> Καλο_ πορνιο> σΤρατηγο> υπατο> VΠO ΤΤΙ> αυ'Τ'ου πρεσβεια> επιγνtιJ εαν εν TαIΠ9 τ[ τι] xώ� ώlκοδομ.τιμ.ένον έ'ιιεσ[7'ιν] άπω> αυτού, καθελειν κελεΙΙ[σ]ΤΙ. 'Πε� δε τών λο [1]­ [π]ών ΠΡαΥμ.άτων ών λόγου> έποιήσασθε όταν ή έσχάτη ΚΡ-ητών ΠΡεσβεία εΙ,

[- - - - - - - - - - -

-

- - --- - - -

_

_

_

_

-

50

,

\

55

60

65

_

f

,

Ι

,

.

•

-

-

•

,

•

•

•

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

,

8ι

,

.

r

-

-

'

....

'

....

Ι

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

70

-

)

-

-

-

-

....

t\

-

t

-

-

-

,

-

-

-

-

-

_

,

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

7S

80

85

90

9S

τ-ην σύνκλητον �Ισ�πιι'σ [β�υ] σαν οϋτ [ω] ς άποκριναι καθι1ς άν αύτψ έκ των δημ.οσί­ ων πραγμάτων πίστ�ώς τ� της ίδίας Φαίν,Ιται, Ιδoξ�. νν [του]το τό πραγμα δΕλτου όγδόης κηρώμ.αη [τεσσαp�σ] Kαιδ�Kάτψ μ.ετσ. συμ­ βουλίου έπέγνων πρό ήμ�pων δΕκα έπτσ. Kaλ. Κοινκτειλίων έν rfί βασιλικjj rfί Πopκί� [- - - - - - - - - - - - - -ή]μέρας τυχούσ[ης [�]pας κατσ. συνκλήτου δόγμα [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -άπό συμ.βουλί] ου γνώμης γνώμην άπ�ΦτιVΆμτιν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ο]ϋτω [ς] καθι1ς πpότ�poν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] σι ήμEpαv όρ[ιω]πρό .ης ήμέρας κρίνωσι �[ύσ�βως τ� κα! δικαίως την δια φορσ.ν] κα! � [, τι ένφ]κοδόμηται μ�τσ. τό τούς πp�σβ�υτσ.ς [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] σω έν αύτοις τόν δη μ.ον τόν ίιμ.'Τ�Poν κατσ. [τό της συνκλήτου δόγμ.α] Φροντίσαι όπως έκ του πoλιτ�ύμ.ατoι; [ίιμ.ων άπoστ�ίλητ� δικα] στσ.ς καλούς κάγαθούς ΤΡι.άκοντα [να οΧ τό [- - - - - - -] κατσ. τό της συνκλήτου δόγμα κΡίνωσι Κοινκτολίων των έ[π! A�υKloυ Kaλo]πopνίOυ κα! Μάρκου A�ιβίoυ ίιπάτων έν ήμ.Εραις τριακο­ σίαις έξήκοντα, έσ.ν δε πρό έK�ίν,Iς της ήμΙρας μη κρίνωσl, τότ� όπως έν rfί έξηκοστϋ και τριακοσlοστϋ ήμE� κρίνωσ[ι] ν ν A�ύKιoς KaλoπόpνΙOς A�υKίoυ ίιός Π�ίσων γπατος Ί�pα'Πυo τνίων το'ίς a.ρχουσι κα! rfί βoυλfι κα! τιρ δήμφ x αίp�ιν' [Ιό]VT�ς 'Ιτάνιοι π�σβ�υτα! κα! ίιμ.Eτ�pOl προσήλθοσάν μ [οι ό·π]ως αύτοις σύΥκλητον δψ. έγι1 αύτοις σύνκλητ[ο] ν [δωκα. συνκλήτου δόγμα τουτο γ�γoνός έση' ίιμας θΕλ[ω] ΦΡοντίσαι � ,τι έν τα ύηι rfί xώp� rfί έν άνφ.λ[oγ]�� ογσυ ένφκοδομτιμΕνον έστί, όπως έκ ταύτψ τ[η .. χώ]ρας καθΕ­ λτιτ� οϋτως καθι1ς ή σύΥκλητοι; έδoyμ.άησ� κα! καr ... ]ωσ�. ι%-πό συμβουλίου γνώμης γνώ [μην ά]π�Φτινάμτιν. .

.

.

'ναιαι

The text followed here is that ofM.Guarducci, except where noted. 2 Or ηώμων (ά. Inscrίp­ tiones Creticαe, � ι6, no. 43, ι). 4 /(oινfj τε εύσταθ�ίν, Cronert. Ι2 Befoι:e Δραγμ[οις there seems το be space for about nine letters, of which the fIrst two may have been ΕΠ, Guarducci. 24-25 Perhaps Jμ μηΙν[ ? 27 Bef ore ΟΣ remnants of letters (ΡΚ ?) are visible οη the squeeze used by Guarducci. 28-29 ού συναντησαμJν[ων δέ ήμών, Guarducci. 32 πpεσβεvτώ]ν? 33 πρ]εσ[β]ε[ας or πp]εσ[βjε[aγ. 34-35 Jν[εστηκότων, Cronert. 40 αύ[το]v or αύ[τώ]ν? 42 - - ούδέ τούς ανδρας ιΧπέδοσαν τού. /(ρα]τουμ[έ]νου. ύπ' αύτών, Cronert, but questioned by Guarducci with a reference το Passerini, ορ. ,ίι., ρ. 35, n. Ι. 45 After ΣΗΣ ίτ ίs uncertain whether there is a fault in the stone or a letter has disappeared. 56-58 ό. Inscriptiones Creticαe, ΙΠ, 4, no. 9,11. 5 Ι-54, in which ίs found the quotation of this part of the decree by the Magnesian trίbunaΙ with minor dilferences.

59 προσέρχε]σθαι (?), Guarducci.

60

oL]TιVE' (?),

noting that Q. Fabius came το Crete with legates.

8Ζ

68 πp�σβευ]τάι; (?), Guarducci, 75 [τ�σσαpεσ]Kσ.ιδε/(άτφ, Schehl. 77 T�'if

Guarducci.

SENATUS CONSULT A

[a8aJp.�i� [& Tii� �Jp.Epa� Tvxova["I� LE)pa� KaTa avvKA�TOV I ao-Y/La [.:\pa,� - -

-, Scheh.l,

whose word order, however, is bad; Ta,� L[Aa)pa,� [wpa,� �)/dpa�, Guarducci, but one misses the article with �/dpa�. Since this day was one of the in/ereisi dies, one might expect here a literal

[TO;:� ·"EpISE TWV opwv aVTwv (111/aw (?), Guarducci, who notes that she seems to see NIOI before this word. 1TapayEvEa8a, 1Tp6TfpoV· al-niJaw KTA., Schehl. 83 Schehl. 84 [VILWV X"POTOVijTE Il'KajaTa� KTA., Schehl, but in tills type of document one

translation into Greek of some form of the Latin verb intercidcre. 80

a'K"'aa)a, KTA., Schehl.

81 First .lacuna restored by Schehl.

82

would expect a1ToaTEtA"'1TE. 85 [al."'wp�T"'1I.a), Schehl, but the usual word in epigraphical texts of this nature is � aJL'/>,ap�TT/a,. or Ta a,.q" ap"ITOIJ ILo a. 97 Before jwaE is either r or II or T.

COMMENTAR Y.

The land dispute between the Cretan cities of Itanus and Hiera­

pytnia has been known for some time through two inscriptions, one from Itanus and the other from Magnesia on the Maeander.

Although these contained lengthy descriptions

of the origins and general history of the dispute, unfortunately they presented such casual references to the Romans and their participation in the events that it was most difficult, if not impossible, to date and evaluate the various stages of the dispute.

The

discovery at Erimupolis (the ancient Itanus) in August of 1919, therefore, of a third inscription concerned with the arbitration between the two cities was most welcome, and, although a precise and detailed picture of the whole episode from beginning to end is still not possible, this third document clarifies much that had formerly been very obscure. The first two inscriptions, far too long to be reproduced here, are really separate copies of the same document and have been published most recently by Guarducci in the Inscriptiones Creticae, Ill, 4, no. 9.

Since that document (to be cited as no. 9) and the

present one (no. 10) complement each other in the presentation of the past history of the dispute from the time of its very beginning (145 B.C.) to its conclusion (r 12-111 B.C.) , it will be convenient to give a brief summary in chronological order of the information found in them.' Before the death of Ptolemy VI Philometor in 145 B.C., the Itanians had controlled considerable land adjoining the nearby sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus, as well as several off­ shore islands, one of which was Leuke.

Af ter they had been harassed on various

occasions by the Praisians, whose territory adjoined theirs, they asked for help from Ptolemy VI, who obliged them by sending a garrison in order to guarantee the security of Itanus and its possessions.

When this garrison was recalled to Egypt after Ptolemy's

death, the Itanians managed to defend themselves and their land through the help of friends.

But then a general war in Crete broke out, and Praisus was destroyed

The

city of Hierapytnia promptly disputed with the Itanians their possession of the land and the island.

Servius Sulpicius (Galba, cos. 144 B.C.) arrived in Crete ( 141 B.C. ) with

I For the tWO earlier inscriptions, copies of the same document, see M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae, Ill, 4, no. 9, and the bibliography there cited, to which, however, should be added R. C. Bosanquet, Annual of the British School at Athens, 40 (1939-40): 60-70, and, especially important for the details pertaining to law, J. Partsch, Die Schriftformel in. riimischen Provillzi./prozesse (Breslau.

1905), pp. 5-2.3·

83

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

legates from Rome and put an end to the war.

Itanus, thereupon, because of Hiera­

pytnia's claims, sent an embassy to Rome to address the Senate on the subject of her land. The Senate in

turn

called upon the city of Magnesia to act as arbitrator in the dispute.

The Magnesian tribunal gave its decision under the consulship of C. Laelius in awarding the victory to Itanus.

140 B.C.,

The matter, however, did not end at that time.

Later,

when the Knossians, as the friends of the Hierapytnians, had committed some act of in­ justice against the Itanians, the Itanians began an undeclared war against the Hiera­ pytnians.

Thereupon the Roman Senate intervened, stopped the war, and attempted

to settle their diiferences once more.

The time of this intervention was II 5 B.C., under

the consulship of M. Aemilius, and II4 B.C., under the consulship of Manius Acilius.' The attempt was unsuccessful.

Finally, in 112 B.C., the Senate decreed that the consul

L. Calpurnius Piso was to appoint an arbitral tribunal to review the case and hand down

a decision.

The consul was also instructed to see to the destruction of any buildings on

the territory belonging to the sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus.

This arbitral tribunal was

authorized to act upon the recommendations given to it by Quintus Fabius and his legates who had visited the land in question.

The Magnesians, again chosen as the

arbitrators, were instructed by the Senate to award the victory to that party which possessed the land prior to the earlier Cretan War which had been settled by Servius Sulpicius.

They were given one year to settle the case.

Accordingly, it may not have

been until

I

I I B.C. that the final decision was reached.

At any rate Itanus again was

victorious.

(All of this is taken from nos.

Chronologically our document (no.

9 and 10.) 10) precedes

the other (no.

9 ).

In ours, four

distinct sections may be seen, each of them referring to events that occurred in II2 B.C. while L. Calpurnius Piso was the consul: (I) speech of the Hierapytnian envoys to the

(IL I-SS);

Senate

(2) the senatl4s consl4itl4m

(H. 55-74);

(3) decree of L Calpumius Piso

authorizing the city of Magnesia to set up an arbitral tribunal

(11. 75-88); (4)

let�r of

Calpurnius to the Hierapytnians ordering them to desttoy any buildings they may have erected on the disputed land.

Document no.

9, on the other hand, is the decision of the 360 days ; no.

Magnesian tribunal made later, within the period of one year (or actually

10,

11.

84-88).

.

The vacant space at the end of our document would seem to indicate that it contained the conclusion of the inscription.

In lines

84-88

one can see that up to that point our

document is in outward form a letter of the consul in 112 B.C. to the Magnesians and that it was followed by a short letter to the Hierapytnians

(I!. 89-�)7) which

ordered them

to remove any buildings that they might have erected in the territory under question. Hence one may postulate that the beginning of our document (now lost) must have con­ tained the following matters, as suggested by Guarducci: (I) the prescript of the consul's letter to the Magnesians; (2) the prescript of the senatus consultllfll on the motion of the consul;

(3)

the speech of the Itanian envoys to the Senate.

Although much of it is

missing, enough remains to present a connected account of the several episodes. For these two consuls see Broughton, Balbus). •

op.

It has

cit., p. 53 I (M. Aemilius Scaurus) and p. 5 33 (M'. Acilius

SENATUS CONSULTA

been observed by Cary, op. cit., pp.

198-200, that, although the "second Magnesian jury

performed its task in a thoroughly businesslike way," the Roman Senate behaved in an almost irresponsible manner.

In the first place, why did the Senate allow the entire case

to be reopened after the first Magnesian tribunal had settled it?

If the Senate were not

guilty of some mistake itself, it should have upheld the verdict of the first Magnesian tribunal.

Secondly, the instructions given by the Senate to the second tribunal are, in

one sense, equitable and just while, in another sense, strange and prejudicial.

9,

instructed the second tribunal (no.

The Senate

H. 51-54, and no. 10,11.56-71) that the land was to

be possessed in whatever manner it had been possessed prior to the earlier Cretan war. This much is excellent.

But it also instructed the Hierapytnians to destroy any buildings

they might have erected on it. This prejudged the case, as the Magnesian tribunal pointed out (no.

9,

11.

84-88).3

One may surmise that the Senate handled the later

episodes of the dispute in a disinterested and theref ore negligent manner, a manner that reminded Cary of the senatorial indecision in the matter of the quarrels between Adherbal and Jugurtha of about this same time .

And these are, of course, only two of

many examples that could be cited to show that Rome's foreign policy in the period beginning with the Gracchi was not dictated by any honest effort to govern the provinces with justice or responsibility.4 3 �o SE ;ra.,II'T,lJ.JJ.' JLEy�(jTOJ.: �CX! lcrxup6-ra;ov T�I(I-l��PLOVI TOV EYII�ap.lv�1I T�II Ka�oAotJ Tr�C1.y­ ,/"aTCJJ� V1TO, �CJJlLa,�v €cP ,OI.LO�OYOVP.fVO,,"� TJP;C1.,S Kat. KEKpt.t:€VO,; �v t/Jiy/Jov �7T(V1JVO�f.Va�· Tra"LW" yap agLwUa"TW" T1)" UWKiI"ITO" wa 1"0 '"'I'K0I501-'''I1-''"0'' 'mo hpmrU"-'LW. XWpLOV '" T�L KPWOI-"""IL xwpa, Kai}a,p,i}�, � urJvKilTjTO� <"(Tag,. I1WK"1' Kailo'''[ op."!J I1wK{ov 1I,luw., UTpaT"IY'r ';""w, Kai}a,p1 �i}fj " 7"L '.'1JKoS6"""ITaL, KTiI .

26. 63) said regretfully: led ita nil/Ita Romae guuntur ut vix R. E. Smith, The Failure of the Roman Rep"blic (Cambridge,

• In a later generation Cicero (Pro Plancio

ea quae fiunt in provinciis audiantur.

19 5 5), chap. 10.

See

15 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE COLLEGIIS ARTIFICUM BACCHIORUM

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

II2 B.C.

G. Colin, B.C.H., 23 (1899 ) : I-55, 303-16; E. Ziebarth,

Rheinisches Museum, 55 (1900) : 515-18; W. Dittenberger, S.I.Cf, II (1900 ),930;

Bruns-Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tiibingen, 1909 ), no. 40,pp.

Vereins wesen ( Leipzig, 1909), pp. W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London, 1911) , pp. 3 70-71; G. Colin, Fouilles de Delphes, Ill, 2 ( 1911) , no. 70 a (tab. 7, 2 ) ; G. KlaJfenbach, Symbolae ad historiam collegiorwn artificum B acchiorum (Diss., Berlin, 1914) , pp. 29-35; M. Holleaux, Hermes, 49 (1914) : 581- 89; H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, I1, ( 1917) ,705; M. Holleaux, Revue des Etudes Anciennes, 19 (1917): 157ff.; F. 171-76; F. Poland, Ceschichle des griechischen

132ff.;

Poland, R.E., s.v. "Technitai," in the Nachtriige to v o l. V A 2 ( 1934 ) ,cols. 2504ff.; G. Daux, Delphes au

lIe et au [e, Siecle (Paris,

)

1936 , pp. 356-72; S.

Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antljustillianiz, p t . 1 (Florence, 1941) , no. 34, pp. 248-55;

J. Day, An Economic History ofAthens u,rJer Roman Domination (New

York, 1942 ) , pp. 92-94; S. Accame, 11 dominio romano in Crecia dallaguerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946 ), pp. 4-5; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient

Roman Statutes, no. 49-

DESCRIPTION. Inscribed on four stones that originally formed part of the southwest corner of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi. The fourth stone contained the conclusion of the document, for its lower part is Iminscribed. Unfortunately only �tones III and IV are reasonably complete, for I and II exist only in fragments. Stone I, lines 1-16; fragments 210, 968, 2524, 3914C, and two unnumbered fragments. Stone 11, lines 17-33 :'£ragments 1I3 , 160, 179, !ii4, j,.J.'I, ;'09, ..�);, .. ;;r, 3:::, 3)l:�, and two unnumbered fragments. Stone 1II, lines 34-51: fragment 300. Stone IV, lines 52-66: fragment 462. The number of each fragment is the number appearing in the official catalog of the Greek Ephor, but the smallest fragments are unnumbered. Thus we can see that stone I has been put together from six fragments, and stone II from twelve fragments.

In the editio princeps of Colin will be found a sketch

illustrating the position assigned to each fragment in each stone.

The present

document, however, is not the only one appearing in this part of the Athenian Treasury which was concerned with the events described in it, for actually it is only part of a large dossier connected with the quarrel between the Athenian and Isthmian guilds of Dionysiac Artists.

Colin recognized a total of eight

stones, and there may have been many more, all connected somehow with the same topic.

86

The attempt by Pomtow (op. cit, pp. 704-5) to restore many of

SENATUS CONSVLTA

the other fragments and ιο reconstruct the outline of this great series of documents must be used with caution.

His chronology and interpretation of

the fragments should be tempered by the cautious andjudicious remarks of Daux

(/oc. ,ίι.). The lettering Ίs very badly executed, the down-strokes often tilted

OUI

of the

vertical or curved instead of being straight, wίth the result ιΜι of ten Η may be confused with Α or Κ.

The number of letters in each line varies;

fluctuates between 70 and 79. between lines, 0.006

The height of the letters iS

stone ΙΠ ίι

οη

m., the space

0.010

m.

[' Επι Διοιι] υσ{ο[υ αρχοιιτος, έ·πΙ τη,. . {δο'!; πρώτης "pVTaVE{aS, ηι Λάμιο .. TιμoιJxoυ 'PαμιιoιJσιo'!; έγΡαμμάτευειι,] [Έκατομβ]αιώιιο[,. - - - - - - - - - της ·ΠΡυταιιε{αs. Δόγμα συγκλήτου. ΛειJKΙOς ΚαλπόΡΙΙΙΟS] [Λευκ{]ου υίο'!; Π{ρ-[ωιι Καισωιιιιιος ύπατο'!; τηι συγκλήτωι συιιεβOυλειJσαTO προ ήμερώιι ... ] [εί]δώ[ιι 'Ι]ουιι{ωιι έγ Κ [ομετ{ωι. ΓραΦομέιιωι ·παρησαιι Μάρκο'!; Αίμίλιο'!; Μάρκου vloS'] [Σ] κα [ϋ]ρο'!; Kαμιλt�, ΣΕ[ρουιος - - - - - - - - - Σερο]υ{ο[υ υί]Ο .. [] Λε!l«{ου υίο'!; Kopνη[λt�, - - - - - - - - - - - - - Πσπ]λ{ου υίο'!; Π[απ]ιpί�. [ΠεΡ1 cLv σί ΠPεσβ€VΤαι] Άθψαιοι Θεμισστο«[λη,. - - - - - - - - υίόs , Δ,Ιμ ]οχάρψ Δη (μ.οχάρου] υίόs, Ά [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - υΙόs,] [Θ]εoΦιλtσKO'!; Όλυμπ{χο[υ υίόs, αιιδρε.. καλοι κάγα]θοι Φ{λ[ο] ι πα[ρα] δήμου [καλοϋ κάγαθοϋ Φ{λου] [σ]υμ.μ.άχου τε ήμετΕρο[υ, λόγου'!; έποιήσαιιτο, χά]ριτα Φιλ{αιι συ[μμ]αχ{αιι [ΤΕ άνενεώσαΥΤΟ και έ κάλεσαιι] τηιι σιJΙΙKλη-rOΙΙ ύπερ τ[ώιι παρ' έαυτοις τεχιιιτώιι τώιι] ·παρα. τα. δεδο [γμ] Ειια [τηι συγκλήτωι ήδικημΕιιωιι, οπως] ταϋτα KιJpια ataμE"ll κα(1 ο[ τεχιιιται ο[ συιιτελοϋιιτες εΙ,. 'Ισθμόιι και Νεμέαιι ζημ{αιι άποτεισωσιν 1 κατα ., τα, τη.. - συγκλ' ' ητου [δ'ογματα . - - -Ι άπο συιικλήτου γιιώμης οπ [ω.. - - - -]ιιαι [. .

.

-

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

-

-

-

-

-

•

-

-•

•

-

-

-

•

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

_

_

•

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

•

•

_

•

_

_

_

_

- - - - -Ι δΕ Τις μ.� ·πειθαΡΧΏ τοι(, δεδογμΕνοις μ'1δε έ]μμΕν[ηι ταις συνθήl<αις υπόδικος έστω κατα τηιι δια( ?)-] [β]oιJλευσιιι, Ο'πως ήΤις αιι εΙσ[άγrι τώιι συιιόδωιι δ{κ'1]ΙΙ άει δι�[ φυλάττοιισα τα, συιιθήκα> άιιαγKάζrι τους] ο;. δε Φάσκοιιτες [άΙ 'πειθοϋιιτα> έμμίιιειιι τοι[, δεδογμίιιοις τηι σ]υγκλήτωι [- 'προς TOιJς] [τε ΆμΦικτ{οιια> κΙα1 τηιι σιJγKλ[11]TOΙΙ συμφιJJιιoυ? ήμας γειιΕ [σ]θαι [δοκειιι, αλλα τας συιιθήκα> τ] εθεισθαι έαν

15

•

•

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

'0

'5

]0

[έναντl] wr α.rr έ [λά]βοσα.ν έντολα.ίr τ[ι]VEr τών έ κ 1J ελo-ι;roν<ν)ήσου τε [χνιτών κα.ί δι.ά 'τα.ϋτα εΙναι. άκιί]ΡσvS", ούτε [τα.ίr] συνθήκα.ψ] έμ.<μ.)lνOυσlν. rijr τε [έ]Ργα.σlα.r �πα. Ρχ[ού]!1"Ιr [�μ.ίν άποκ]ωλJi[ο]!Jσ[lν �fLa.r άδlκωr]. τά τε χρή­ [μ.α.]τα. �μ.ών τα σ[ντ]α. κοινα έξιδιάσ[ζον]τα.ι. συνε[λ]θόντεr τε Elr [Σικυώνα.] σύνοδον έποι [ήσα.ντο] πα.ρα τό δό[γ]λlα. rilr συγκλή[τ]ου τό έπί Ποπ [λloυ Kop ]!'1Jλlo[v. έ]ν ιLl έδοξεν �fLa.[r συμ.π] ­ ορεύεσθα.ι έν Θήβ[α.ιr κα.ί Άρ] γεl. κα.[ί] άρχεία. κα.τέστ['1] ρ-α.ν. κα.ί τώ [ν κο]ινών xprιμ.άτων rιXr ΠΡοσό[δουr κ]α.τεχρήσα.ντο [εls τα§' lδία.S' δαπάνα§'] πα.ρα rovr [KOIVOVr νόμ.ουr τών τεχνl]τών. πρεσβευόντων �μ.ών Elr ·Ρ[ώμ.ην κ]α.ί κα.λού" [των την σύγκλψον· τό δε] [μ.έγlστον. o�δε τα.ύτηl ύπήκουσα.ν. ά]λλα κα.ί δόγμ.α. �μ.ών λα.βόντω[ν έν ιLl - - - - -] «ι,x� [- - - - - - - - - - - -] [ - - - - - -] rovr άνTlλέγοντα.r �μ.ίν. o�δ[εν έλα.σσον] ;iJr τε έ Ργα.σlα.r �fLa.r ά­ [ποκωλύουσl. τά τε χρήμ.α.τα. �μ.ών έξl]διάζοντα.ι. σύνοδόν [τε] έν Σ[ικυώνl συν]άγουσl 'πα.ρα τό δογμ.α. rilr συν­ [κλήτου τό έπί Kopν,Iλloυ κα.ί πα.ρα ro]�r ΧΡψμ.οV[r] τού [Άπόλλωνοr. Άξιο]ύμ.εν οΟν την σύγκλψον Ζνα. πι [- -] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]r έκα.τέρωl [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] �μ.ών έκτόr τών τριών μ.ερών [-_ ...... .............................. κα]� περ! ιLν οίπ[ρεσβευταί. άπό τ]ων "Περ;' τόν Διόνυσον τεχνιτών έξ[α.ποστα.λέντεr τών συντελούντων] έr Ίσθμ.όν [κα.ί Νεμ.έα.ν]. Σωσlκλεlδα.r Φιλοκμάτου. Δ α.μ.όξενοr lJο]λυκμάτψ [- - - - - - - φηλιπποr Ήρώδου. [ , ένεΦάνlσα.ν rfi συγκλήτωl· [τών τεχνιτών τών έν rfi ΆΤTlκϋ σντων π]οl'ισα.μ.έν[ων κα.τη]γοplα.ν κα.rijr συνόδου έπί τού σΤΡα<τη)γού έμ. Μα.κε_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Ι&ν[� Ασρν11Λ,'ου

3S

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

Σιάέννα., KU.�

-

_

·Υ1"uμ,..ι&]r�;:· .�����[.qI.!"!"]UJ1I7fj συνόδωι. ύπ' αυτών

πα.ρα τού στρα.τηγού σπωr [ΠΡ]εσβευταr άπο[στ]εlλωμ.εν έν [�]μ.έΡα.lr [..] κα.ί άπ[οστεl]λάν[τ]ων �μ.ών ΠΡεσβε[υταr π]ερ[ί ιLν ό στ Ρα-] τηγόr έκέλευσεν rovr άπολογlουμ.ένουr α.�τώl. Διονύσιον. Άνδρόνlκον. Φιλοκράτην. Δράκοντα.. τούσδε 'περί ιLν μ.εν ε<Ζ>χον rιXr έντολαr μ.η έπlτελέσα.l. κα.τα.φροvrισα.ντ<α.)r δε τού τε T'�r συγκλήτου δόγμ.α.τοr κα.ί τού σΤΡατηγού κα.ί rijr συνόδου έλθόντα.r Elr Πέλλα.ν συνθήκα.r ποιήσα.σθα.ι ΠΡόr rovr έν Άθήνα.ιr Φ[άσκ] οντα.r εΤ να.ι τεχνlτα.r έπιτlμ.ιον έπιγμάφα.ντ<α.)r κα.τα rijr συνόδου τάλα.ντα. δέκα.·

88

SENA TUS CΟΝSr...τLΤΛ

40

45

So

J.Φ' οΤ, κω [δο] θέντων αύτοι> J.γκλημ.ιΧτων κατά τού, τη, συνόδου νόμοVS' παΡόνΤΕ> J.v Θήβαι> κατάδικοι J.yέvovTo κω διά ταυτα προσλαβόμενοί τινα> των J.v Θήβαι> Kα� Βοιωτίαι ΤΕχνιτών τά τε γράμματα τά κοινά άmjλθoν έχονΤΕ> μΕτά βία> Kα� άποστάται γΕνόμενοι καθ' Ιδίαν σύνοδον J.ποιουντο μΕΤ' άλλήλων υΠΕναντία πράτ(τ)οντε> τfi συνόδωι κω τοι> κοινοι> νόμοιS', τΉv ΤΕ δικ [ αι] οδοσίαν διέκοψαν τών ΤΕχνιτών, τίνα> ΙΕρεωσύνα> ε(σχον J.πενεγύων, τά τε χρήματα KcU τ[ά] άναθ·ήματα άπ-ηλθον έχοντε> Kα� τού, ό(ε)ρού, στεΦάνουS', ά Kα� ούκ άποδέδωκαν ούδέ έω!ί του νυν, τά, θυσία, Kα� σπονδά, J.κώλυον ποιειν καθώ, εΙθισμένον ήν τΏ συνόδωι τώι τε Διον[ύ]σωι Kα� τοι> �oΙ> θεοι> Kα� τοι> κοινοι> εύεΡΥέται> ·ΡωμαWιS'. Άξιουμεν οδν τήν σύγκλητον, γεγονείαν Kα� J.v τοι> έμπροσθεν χρόνοι> παρα(ιτσαν τών μεγίστων άγαθών τηι συνόδω[ι], συVΤΗp·ησαι τά J.K παλαιών χρόνων δεδομένα τίμια Kα� Φιλάνθρωπα Kα� ΦΡοντίσαι ό'πω!ί άΠOδOθiί τά χρήματα Kα� τά άναθήματα Kα� οΙ στέφανοι τfi συνόδωι τfi κοινΏ τfi συντελούιηι( elS') 'Ισθμόν Kα� Νεμέαν, & έχουσιν οι J.v Θήβαι> τεχνιται κα. τινε> τών J.y Βοιωτία> άποσστά['Τω] γεγενημένοι, τά, τε συνθήκα> ά, έποιήσαντο �να &κυΡοΙ γένωνται, J.πεΙ J.ποι(ή)σαντο ι;ε[ύτ][ά, ol πpεσβε]υτα� παρά τά, δοθΕίσα> αύτοι> J.ντολάS' Kα� γέγοναν υπερ τούτων κατάδικοι [κατά 'TOUS'] τ[ή> συνόδ]ου νόμουS', σπω> 'ΤΕ οΙ νόμοι τών J.ξ 'Ισθμου Kα� ΝΕμέα> ΤΕχνιτών κύριοι

�':1ΙI'"

55

πr:ρ�. 7"!>J['TtoV]

Άθψαίοι> ΠΡΕσβευταί> Φιλανθρώπω> άποκριθηναι, &νδΡα> καλού, καΙ'] άγαθού> Kα� Φίλου> 'παρά δήμου καλου κάγαθου Kα� φίλου συμμάχου τε ήμετέρου προσαγορευσαι, χάρι[τα] Φιλlαν ΣVμμαXίαν τε άνανεώσασθαι. 'πεp� δε ιLν ΠΡαΥμάτων λόγου> J.ποιήσαντο, τί ήρώτ-ησαν 1j (J.)ψ7jΦίσ[αν]το J.v εαυτοι> οΙ τεχνιται οΙ J.ξ 'Ισθμου Kα� Νεμέα> (�ι έλασσον &μα μετ' αύτών οΙ τεχνιται οΙ J.v τΏ Άττικ[Ώ] οντε> J.pyaalav ποιώσιν, τουτο σπω> &ρωσιν. .3 δε σύμΦωνον γεγονό, J.στιν τοι> τεχνίται> τοι> J.v τfi Άτ'Τ&κΏ οδσιν Kα� τοι> ΤΕχνίται> τοι> J.ξ 'Ισθμου Kα� Νεμέα> J.πΙ ΓVΑΊoυ Κορνηλίου Σισένvα στΡατηΥΟ [υ] τών [πρα]γμάτων ούτω> έδοξεν'

89

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

60

1j ay8vm:fTov EKEi OYT05", cru/Lq,WYOY EaTaYal ;80�EY.

07rOV TO 7rPOT€POY E�VYKA�TOV

80Yf,aT05" Ta5" avv680V5" aVTWY 7rOlEiy TJw8aa,y, EK€"i al avy0801 /LETa TaUTa 07rW!:ylYWlITCU ;80�€Y. 7rEP' 8E Xp7//LaTWY 87J1.I.Oalwy 1j KOIYWY 7rEP' �y AOYOV!: E7rOl�aall'TO, 07rW!:7TP0!:MaapKOY AEl{310Y V7raTOY '7TpO [0']iABwalll. OUTO!: T€

E7rlYYWI lmKplVfl OVTW!:Ka8c1!:(ay) aVTWI EK TWY 8TJ/Loalwy 7rpayp.cXTWY 7rlUTEW!:

TE l8la{!;) q,alYT}Tal ;80�€V.

07rw!:TE A€VKIO!:Ka:\'7TOpYIO!:V7raTo!: 'A8TJyalol!: �iYla KaTa TO 8UXTaYl'a

65

TOY Tap.{av a7roaTE"iAal KEAEvaI/ OVTW!:Ka8c1!:ay aVTWI I

EK TWY 87JI'oalwy 7rpayp.cXTWY

I

'maaTEWS"

Text and restorations are those of Colin, except where noted. 14-15 81a{ ? ),B)otlAeuo-w, Klaffen­ bach; O'u,..l,BouAetlO'{e).v, Dittenberger. 17 &AAa ,paO'KouO'I avv8..jKa, O'uvTE)8e�0'8al, Colin; Te18eL0'8a., Klaffenbach (cf. Polybius I. 11. 7). 19 [�I'�v &1TOKlwAy[olvO'[w �l'ii,&SLKw,l, Klaffen­ bach; [�I'ii, &1TOKlwA[tloulO'[I 1TapC. T() SLKa&oII), Colin. 20 [L"Kvwval; cf . I. 26. 22 [El, Ta, lSL(X5" Sa1Talla,j, A. Wilhelm, Anzeiger AkaJ. Wien, 1922, p. 26 (S.E.G., II [1924),320). 25 OVS[EII ;AaO'O'OII, i.e., lIihilo minus. 32 l:TPArOY, stone. 34 KWfenbach repom space for about two letters after �jfl.!pal', and Colin two or three. At any rate the stone-cutter forgot to inscribe the numeral, for the space was left empty. 36 EXON , stone. KA TAcfJ PONHl:ANTEl:, stone. 38 EIIlrpA 1f'ANTEl:, stone. 42 llPATO NTEl:, stone. 44 I POYl:, stone. 4 7 IIAPAllAN, stone. 49 At the end of the line the space af ter O'WTEAotlO'!/ is uninscribed. Colin thought of El, at tllis place but did not include it in the text; it was added by Klaffenbach. 51 EllOIl:ANTO, stone. 52 At the beginning, - -jaTal, Colin, but Klaffenbach saw - -j ITA I. 56 H1f'HcfJIl: .. TO, stone. 64 I tJIA, stone, as also in I. 66. ..

COMMENTARY.

This important document contains a senatus cousultum of

112 B.C.

which settled once a n d for all-at least as far as we hear-the long-standing quarrel be,wee" thc.1'.lh.:.ui...i aIid-I:;th�,i::..-::. builds cfD!(}ny�;?c Artisrs.'

For �ome.years these

two associations had been engaged in such bitter disputes that they appealed to Roman intervention on four separate occasions.

The entire matter eventually became a point of

honor with the Athenian people and assumed political importance. when this fmal decree of

11 2

Consequently,

was passed in favor of the Athenians it was engraved upon

the wall Cif the Athenian Treasury at Delphi for all to see.

Fortunately it contains a

fairly full resume of the quarrel. 1 The clearest and most trustworthy account of the quarrel is the one given by Daux, 10c. cit. Shorter resumes are presented by Day, loco (it., and A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals cif Athens ( Oxford, 1953), pp. 294ff. The attempt made by Pomtow (op. cit., pp. 704-5) to present the docu­ ments and the evidence in sequence suffers ( at times) from faulty or misleading chronology and unsupported restorations of the minor fragments. His texts must be used only with due attention to the researches of Daux. The date of the present document is assured by the mention of the consuls L. Calpurnius L. f. Piso (11. 2-3) and M. Livius C. f. Drusus (L 62); see Broughton, Magistrates, I, 538.

SENATUS CONSULTA

The first one culminated in a senatus

Four stages of the quarrel are at once apparent.

consultum (I. 2I) that regulated the relations between the two guilds and established Argos

and Thebes as common places in which to hold their meetings. called for the establishment of common officials and funds.

Such co-operation

The date of this decree is

uncertain beyond the fact that it was passed under the consulship or praetorship of a certain P. Cornelius.

This official may have been P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (consul in

I3 8), P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (consul in (praetor in an unknown year).'

I34),

or P. Cornelius P. £ Lentulus

The second stage ended in

I I8/I7

B.C.,

when repre­

sentatives of the two guilds met with C. Cornelius Sisenna, the governor of Macedonia.' At this meeting the Isthmian representatives agreed to pay a fine of ten talents.

The

end of the third stage was reached by the passage of a second se natus consult urn, a few years after the meeting hef ore Sisenna, to confirm the provisions of the first decree and to uphold the agreements made in II8!I7.

When these three measures failed to produce

peace between the guilds a fourth appeal to Roman authority was made. in a third senatus consultum, the present one of II2 the Athenian claims.

B.C.,

This resulted

which gave complete victory to

Unfortunately the first two decrees of the Senate are lost and we

are dependent upon the present one for their general provisions. The representatives of the two guilds were given an opportunity to present their cases. I.

Their respective complaint! in I12

B.C.

were as follows:

The Athenian guild: a. The Isthmians refused to pay the ten-talent fme imposed by Sisenna.

b.

The Isthmians obstruct them in their profession.

c. The Isthmians appropriated money belonging to the common fund. d. The Isthmians disobeyed the fi.rst decree of the Senate by forming a separate

guild. 2. The Isthmian guild: a. The agreement reached under Sisenna to pay a ten-talent fine was made contrary

to the instructions given to the Isthmian envoys. b. These envoys, upon their return to Thebes, were called to account for their Action; �nd were ccndem!!d.·

T!lerr"'pon

they

took the records of the guild, and absconded.

won sympathizers in Thebes,

As rebels they formed a separate

guild, set up their own laws, and then appropriated the priesthoods, the money, votive offerings, and the holy crowns that had originally belonged to the common guild. • Pomtow,

op. cit.,

704, n. ], identified the official with the P. Cornelius P. f. Lentulus who had been

honored by the Isthmian guild, apparently in 128 H.C. (704 B-C), believing him to be the praetor or propraetor of Macedonia at that time. Broughton,

op. cit.,

Daux,

op. cit.,

pp.

3611[, rejects this view.

See also

p. 507, n. 1.

'The date of his governorship can be determined b y means of Dittenberger's

S.I.C.', n, 704 K', [ill � &v8I17TaTOU

which allows us to collate the Macedonian and Athenian years. For his title uTpaT7jjfO

I. 60 see Holleaux in H ermes, 49: op. cit., p. 528, n. 2.

in

91

581-89, and

in Revue desEtudes Anciennes, 19: 88/f.

See Broughton,

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

c.

Because of the actions of the rebels the Isthmians have been hindered in the performance of their customary sacrifices to Dionysus, to the other gods, and to the Romans.

From several other documents addit ional information on the quarrel is obtained, the most significant being the fact that the Amphictyonic Council in about us to show great affection for the Athenian guild. 4

D.C.

began

This gave the Athenians a powerful

ally in the ir quarrel with the Isthmians. When one considers the cleverness with which the complaints of the two guilds are worded, it becomes clear that any connected story of the events is bound to be con­ troversial or misleading. tentative answers given.

Nevertheless, some questions must be asked and at least If we knew the precise origin of the quarrel, we might be in a

far better position to understand and interpret the present decree. It would appear that in the course of the second century D .C. the somewhat younger Isthmian guild expanded and spread out from its place of origin in the Isthmus.

Because

of its eventual monopoly over much of Greece it is probable that tension between it and the Athenian guild built up early in the century.s

The destruction of Corinth in

146 D.C.

may have been a serious economic blow to the Isthmian guild, and the Athenians may have seen an opportunity to expand into the Isthmian "territory" and to break the Isthmian monopoly in cities such as Thebes and Argos.6 however, to substantiate such a situation.

No solid evidence exists,

But we do know that the Athenian guild

began to experience difficulty in the exercise of its various immunities at just about this time.

Since the Athenian immunities had been guaranteed to them by an Amphictyonic

decree of

ca.

278/77

D.C.

(I.G.,

lP,

IIp)

and had been renewed in

ca.

130/29

D.C.

(ibid.),

very strong motives must have prompted the people or the state which violated them.7 One of the reasons for the renewal of Athenian immunities may have been the fact that the Isthrnians began to disregard them. from the fact that in our decree of

That it was no small matter may be deduced

II2 D.C.

it is not the Athenian guild which sends its

+ 1.G.. Ii', II34, n. 1-63 (= S.1.G.'. 11, 704 E). For the date and interpretation of the decree see DllUA, ap.
See Poland, op. cif., cols. 2500tf. The territory of Corinth and perhaps all of Boeotia and Euboea became agtr vtctigalis: M I. Rostovuetf, S.B.HR. W., 11, 748. For the details and latest discussion of the problem see Accame, op. cif., pp. 28ff. On the other hand, however, the evidence for the economic condition of Athens indicates that the Athenians enjoyed considerable prosperity in this same period. See Day, op. cit., pp. 88-100, who points out (p. 94) that the Athenian guild at this time was also prosperous, for very large delegations were sent to Delphi for the Pythaids of 128/27, 106/5, and 97/96 B.C. 7 The date ofl.G., Ii', JI32, n. 52-94 ( = S.I.G.', 11, 692) hinges on the date of the Delphian archon Aristion and that of the Athenian archon Demostratus. Daux, in his C/rrotlologit Delploiql
6

92

SENATUS CONSULTA

delegates to Rome but the Atheni�n state.

Thetef ore, it is possible that successful

Athenian expansion of its guild and" immunity incidents" may have been the basis of the quarrel between the two guilds.

Then the difficulties of administering ajoint guild,

the unauthorized agreement to pay a fine, the rebel Isthmian artists, and the favoritism shown the Athenian guild by the Amphictyonic Council obviously would have widened the breach between them.

However that might be, the Athenian victory was a mile­

stone in the history of the Athenian guild. of its kind.

Theteafter it became the leading association

16 SENATUS CONSULTUM ET FOEDUS CUM ASTYPALAEENSmUS

BIBLIOGR.APHY.

105 B.C.

F. G. Osann, Sylloge I mcriptionum Antiquarum Graecarum e t

Latinarum (Leipzig, 1834) , p p . 388/f. (based o n t h e copy b y J. B. G . d'Ansse d e Villoison n o w i n the Biblioth1:que Nat., c o d . m s . supp!. graec. 930, £ 78); A.

Boeckh, C.I.G., 11 ( I843 ) , 2485, and add., p. I098; Th. Mommsen, Hi/genftlds

Zeitschrijifiir wissemchaJtliche Theologie, 18 ( I874) : 232/f.; E. 1. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1882 ) , p. 2 03; G. Cousin, E.C.H., IO

( I886) : 2;

I7I;

Th. Mommsen, Riimisches Staatsrecht, lIP, I ( I88 7) , p. 596, with n.

P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Giittingen, 1888) , no. XXI, pp. 42-45; F. Bechtel,

in Collitz-Bechtel, Samm/ung der griechischen Dialektinschr!{ten, Ill, 4 ( I889) : 3463;

C. Cichorius, Rheinisches Museum, 44 ( I889) : 444-47; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, I.G., XII, 3 ( I898) : 173, and supp!. ( I904) , p. 2 78; E. Taubler, Imperium

Romanum (Leipzig, 1913 ), pp. 45, 48-50, 56, 59-62, 124-25, 363-69, 458; Th.

Mommsen, CI.L., !Z ( I918) , commentary on no. 588; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV

( I927) ,

I02 8;

H. Horn, Foederati (Frankf urt, 1930) , pp. 73. 76-77; G. H.

Stevenson, CA.H., IX ( I932 ) , 464; A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman

Citizenship (Oxford, 1939) , pp. 158-59; M. l. R.ostovtze/f, S.E .H.H.W., III

( I94I) ,

1514,

n. 48; S. Accame, 11 dominio rOlllano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad

Augusto (R.ome, 1946) , pp. 80-90; Lewis-R.einhold, Roman Civilization, I ( New York, 195I) , no. 132 , pp. 331-32; G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, n.s., 31 ( I953) : 7/f.

(cf.

S.E.G., XV, 506); Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statl/tes,

no. 52; A. Donati, Epigraphica, 2 7 ( I965) : 13-17.

DESCR.IPTION.

The stone was found in the Church of St. Ann on the island

of Astypalaea and then transported to Smyrna, where it was destroyed in the fire of 1797.

Villa is on, however, had maa.e a l.ujiY .ill. i.iLi'bw("ti!e:;, v"hich. de!p;"'" it�

inaccuracies, forms the basis for all subsequent editions.

F. Hiller von

Gaertringen has given a transcription of it in I.G., XII, 3, 173.

94

SENATUS CONSULTA

Α. Senatus consu[tum

10

15

20

[- -] πεp� τούτου του πράγματο<; ούτω<; έδοξε' [πρό<;] [τόν δημον τό., Άστυπαλαιέωι, εΙΡήνην φιλίαι' συμμα-] [χίαν] άναι'εώσασθαι' σ.νδρα καλόν Kα� άγαθόι, [παρά l3ή-] [μου] καλου Kα� άγαθου Kα� φίλου προσαγο[ρευσαι τσύτιΡ] [τε] φιλανθρώπω<; άποκριθηναι' έI30ξει" και [ότι Πόπλι-] [0<;] 'Ροτίλιο<; ύπατο<; χάλκωμα ΣVμμαXία<; [ταύτη<; �ν] [τιρ] Καπετωλίωι κατηλωθηι,αι φΡοντίιηι [οϋτω<; κα-] [ θ] ω<; αν αύτιΡ �K των δημοσίωι, πραγμάτων [πίστεώ<;] [τε] τη<; Ιδία<; φαίνψαι' έδοξεν. ·Οτι [τε Πόπλιο<; 'Ροτί-] [λι] 0<; ϋπατο<; τόν ταμίαν κατα τό διάταγμα [ξέl'ια δουι,αι αύτιΡ] [K]ελειΙσn θυσίαι' τε �ν Καπετωλίψ, �d:ν θέλ,!/, ποιησ[αι αύτιρ �ξfj Kα� κατα] τόν νόμον [τόν τε] 'Ρόβ ριον καί τόν Άκίλιον [άπόγραφον άναθείναι �ν] [τ]όπωι l3ημοσίψ [Kα� �πιφανεϊJ προκείμει, [οιι, 00 αν πλείστοι παρα-] [σ]τείχωσιν [των πολιτων,] καί κατ' �νια,ιτόν [�ν rfi �KKλησί-] [1/1] άναγορεύ(ε>σθαι' έδοξεν. Έ·π� ύπάτ(ω>.' Πσπλ[ίου 'Ροτιλί-] [ου] Πσπλίου υ[ου Kα� [.lIι]αlσv Μαλλίου Γναίου υ[ου, [στρατηγου κα-] [τα] πόλιν Λευκloυ [- -]ωνίου Λευκloυ υ[ου, [EΠ� 13� των ξ/νων - -] [- - - - - - - - - -] Ποπλ{ου υ[ου, [ι:Ι<; δt Άστυ·παλαιεί:<;] σ.γOvΣ'" �π� [Φιλε]τα(σρου του [- - - - - - - - - - - - , έl30ξε] [πίι>ο:κα ΣVμμαXία<; άνατεθη�'<Xι, πρεσβεύσαντο<; 'ΡοI30κλέου<; του Άντιμάχου] Kα� (T>ιxJT7j<; (τη<;> συμμαχία<; δοθηναι τιρ δήμφ [τιρ Άστv·παλαιέων πίνα-] [κα] κατα δόγμα συγκλήτου. Β. Foedus

30

35

(Space of three lines) [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τιρ δήμψ τιρ] ['Pωμαlωι} Kα�] τιρ δήμφ τιρ Άστvπαλαιέων εΙρήνη Kα� [φιλία] [καί ,!υμ.μ.αχία] έστω και κcιτα '}'7]V κ_σί l('αT� B&'�rι(7fT('f.Y [fίςτ Av �-] [παντα χρόι'ον'] πόλεμο<; δε μη έστω. Ό δημο<; [ό Άστιιπαλαιέων μ.η δι-] [ιέτΙΡ του<;] πολεμ10υ<; Kα� ύπεναντίου<; [του δήμου του 'Pωμαlωι,] [δια τη<; Ιδία<; χώρα<; Kα� η<; αν ό δημο<; ό ΆσΤ\J"παλαιέων KPατfj 13'1)-] [μοσ](σl/Ι βοvλfj, ώστε τιρ ·Pωμ.αlων Kα� τοί<; ύπό 'Ρωμαίου(<;> [τ] (α>σσομέι'οι<; πόλεμον �πιΦέpωσι' μ.ήτε το;:<; πο(λ> [εμ10Ι<; μήτε όπλοι<;] μήτε χρήμασι μήτε νΑVσ�.. βο'l)θεlτω {ο} δ'l)pooo(l>at βοvλfj δόλ[ιρ "fTOV'l)PΙP.] Ό δημο<; ό 'Pωμαlωι' του<; πολεμ10υ<; Kα� ύπεναντίου<; [- - - - -] [- - τ]ου δήμου του Άστυπαλαιέων δια τη<; Ιδία<; χώρα<; και η<; αν [Kp arfi ό δήμο<; ό ·Pωμ.αlων μη διιέτω] δ'l)ILOo(l)at βοvλfj l3ό(λ>ψ [πο-] [V'I)PIP, ώστε τιρ δήμφ τιρ] ΆστIJ"Παλα.έων κα. τοί<; ύπ ' αύτου<; τασσομένοι<; πόλεμον Επιφέρωσιι" μήτε [τοί<; πολεμloι<; μήτε] &πλ(οι<;> μήτε χΡήμα{τα}σι μήτε

95

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

40

ναυσι βοηθεί(τω) μήτε δόλιΡ ΠDνηpιμ. Έαν δέ τι. [πρότερο. πόλφον] έπlΦέρτι ΤΙΡ δήμιΡ [τΙΡ] ΆστVΠαλ.έων, ό δημο. Ιό] 'Ρωμαίων [τΙΡ δήμιΡ ΤΙΡ Άστυπαλαlέων βοηθείτω? Έαν δέ] [τι.] πρότερο. πόλεμον έπι.ΦέΡΤΙ (τιμ δήμφ ΤΙΡ 'Ρωμαίων, ό δημο. ό Άστυπαλαιέων βοηθείτω έκ] [των) συνθηκων και όρκίων [των ΎεΎειπιμένων άνα μέσον ?] τού δήιιου των 'Ρωιιαίων και τού δή,ιου των ΆσΤVΠαλαιέων. Έαν δέ τι [.] προ. ταύτα. τα. συνθήκα> KOIIJfj βΟVλfj προσθείναl ij άΦελείν βούλ(ω)νταl BTjItou(l)q. βοvλfj (ό. ?] αν θελήιηι έξέστω' ά δέ αν προσθωσιν έν ταί. συνθήκαl> ij (ά] αν άΦέ(λ)ωσ.ν έκ των συνθηκων, έκτο. έστω ταύτα [έν] ταί. συνθήκαl. γεγραιφένα. [άναθέντων δέ] άν άθημα 21' ιιέν 'Ρωιιαίων έν τιμ Καπετω λίιΡ ναιμ τού Διό., ;ν δέ Άστιιπαλαιέων έν τιμ ί.εΡιμ τή. Άθηνα. και τού Άσκλη'πιού και. προ. τψ βωμψ [ο ο ] τη. 'Ρώμψ. ο

45

50

ο

ο

ο

ο

C. Decree

55

ο

of the

Astypalaeans

»Εδοξ ε τιμ δάμιΡ- (Ά p)Xωνlδα. Εύκλεϋ. έ-πεστάτε l, πρυτανίων (γνώ l,α'] (Έπ]ειδ(η) παρα(γε)γένηται ό άποσταλεΙ. πpεσβεVΤα. εΙ. 'Ρώμαν 'Ρ(ο)δοκλη. Άντιμάχου και [τα] πε [ρι σvιιιιαχlαS'] δΟΎl' ατισθέντα (άπενήνοχε,] δοθείσα ( ?) δέ δι' αύτού [τού] r/ιαΦίσιιατo> [ ο] τού. ΠΡεσβευτα. ύπέρ τα. TTaTplBOS' και 'Ρώ [μα. ο] ] [ προαφούμενο> [και] πασαν σπουδαν και Φιλοτιμίαν [ποτ] ενενκάμενο. [_ ] .. ( ο] συμμαχίαν ποτι τού. ['ΡωΙLαlοVS' ] [ ] έπαlνέσα. I'έν ['Ροδοκλήν Άντιμάχου ] ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

_

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

_

_

ο

ο

ο

ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

_

_

_

ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

_

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

Ο

Ο

_

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

Ο

_

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

Ο

ο

-

-

_

.

ο

ο

ο

ο

•

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

Text iS essentίalIy that ofViereck (notes) except where nULc:J. Α 2-3 ι:ΖΡήνην οτ χάρ.τα; Mommsen had [TTpor Τον δήμον τών

συμμαχίαν].

4-5 α. S.C.

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

ο

_

ο

ο

Άστvπαλαιέων φ.λίαν καΙ

deNarthaciensi"m el Me/ilaeensilιtn /itibus(No. 9), Β,Ι!. 61-63.

6-7See

τηΡουμένων τι;;ν ΣVΝθηKι;;ν έτι νυν nι χαλκώμασ. παΡα. τον Δίατον Καπετώλ.ον nι τψ τών &γορανόμων ταμ.είψ. 7 Villoison indicates ίσια adscriptutll here and ίη 1. 13, but elsewhere it is missing. 10(end) Mommscn had παρέχε.ν instead of δουνα.. 12 As interpreted by Tibiletti, two laws; [&ναθείναί τε &τrόγpaφoν nι] κτλ, Viereck and o thers. 13 Previously Viereck restored [καΙ έπ""ανι;;r] τrpOKειμέν[ω. but he adopted the present restoration from a suggestion by J. Schmidt; ΠΡοκειμενου.Villoison. 13-14Viereck was previously uncertain about the restoration, but he has retained it (notes). 15 αvaγορtvσθα., VilIoison; υτrατoν, VilIoison. 16 [στpaτηγι;;ν], Mommsen. 18-19 Hicks folIowed by Viereck; αΎουσlν ετr. σταΡουτου, VilIoison. 19-20 HilIer and Viereck; CouSΊn, [πίναξ Ι σvμμ]α[χ{α]r [&ν]ε[τέθη ΠΡεσβεΟΟαν]τψ 'Ροδοκλέοvr του 'Αντ.μάχου]; Taubler, [Πόπλ.οr ·Ροτίλ.οr Ι waTor έπέτaξε χάλκωμα σvμμαχlαr έν τψ Καπετωλ{ψ Kαθηλωθήlνa.] και. κτλ. 21 και αυτ,l•• VilIoison. according to Polybius ].26. ι:

ο

HilIer's transcription.

ο

SENATUS CONSULTA

B 31 No indication in Villoison of the existence of this line.

31-32 Af ter

(Jou>' fi Cichorius adds

[80>',1' 1T0"'lP'fi, Cichorius. Previous editors had'; /lijl'0' lCa; {Jou>'1j. For this error, introduced by Villoison, see Cichorius, op. c it. , p. 444 .

3 5-36 .nr£va"Tlou, [[T)oil /l..jI' 0U TO;; 'A<1ru""a>.al';wv KT>'., [Tij, {Jou >'ij, [ lCa; T)O;; 8..j/Lou KT"., Viereck and Hiller. Tliubler /l7J1'0' lCal {Jou>'TJ, which is in the copy by Villoison, is a mistake for 8TJI'0alal {JOU"TJI. 37 /lTJI£o, lCal (Jou>'TJ /lOTW, Villoison. .J) 1'7JTE o1T>'a I"jT£ XP7JI£aTaal, Villoison (with the Ta deleted). 40 (J0TJ(J£w, Villoison. Cichorius adds u£..jT£? /l'lIwal!" (Jou>'fl) after (Jo'j(J�l'£I£OV], followed by Viereck (notes). 41 Cichorius has [aT£>.MTw (?) (J o..j(J€Iav £UICCUpoV. 'EaI' /lE TI,) . . .. 4<>-44 Tliubler inverts the order of the lines because of tal' a.; in I. 40. He restores the lines thus: [Jav TI,] -rrPOT£PO, ....o>'£l'ov t"""pip?J I h', /"11£'1' T';, 'PwI'aiwv,o /lii,£o, 0 'AaTIJ""a>.al';wv), EaV Sol TI, [1TpOT£pO,] Em.p'P7/ I T.p 8..jl"1' [T.aliwv, 0 8ij ,w, (0) 'Pwl£alwv [(J07J8€lTW I KaTa TO £ lJlCalpov 8 av tIC TWV] aw(J'jICWV Ka; 0plClwv [ten 1ToI€tvl l T<'a.iwv. 45 TI>, Villoison, who deleted the sigrna. 46 (Jou}.ovTal, Villoison; [t)av (J£>...ja[.j), Viereck (previously); loa') av (J£>'..ja£l, Hiller and Taubler ; [os( ?)) .xv (J£>'..jOi/, Cichorius. 47 TJ ava.p€pwaw, Villoison; tICT';, apparently meanS here extra con/ex/urn (er. A. Wilhelm, GoUingische Gelehrte Anze(gen, 1903, pp. 795/1:, but see also Taubler, op. cit., p. 60); [tv� Cichorius, Hiller, and Taubler, but rejected by Viereck. 48 [uvaTI(Jia(Jw /lE), Tliubler. 50 T/lolC>'ij, (cf. S.1.G.J, Ill, 1215,11.16,18-19 ). sS 1TOTI TOUI, Villoison. Cichorius; but V1T£VOOIT l ou s objected to the latter because

COMMENT ARY.

One of the means used by Rome in the course of the second

century to control the city-states of the Greek East without incorporating them into the body of her own government was the treaty relationship.

This laid down certain rules

of conduct and therefore, since Rome was the dominant partner, served as an instrument of empire by constantly reminding the Greek states of their obligations and limitations as well as their rights and privileges.

But it was soon discovered by Rome that the in­

stitution of civitas libera et immullis was more usef ul in aligning them on her side and making them dependent upon her without making the arrangement a permanent one.

T;lUS Lht: use of the treaty ill Roman foreign policy fell into disfavor and was eventuaiiy abandoned.1

The following states are known to have had treaty relationships with

Rome: Cibyra, Methymna, Astypalaea, Tyrrheum, Cnidus, Mytilene, Pergamum (or Elaea or Pitane), Epidaurus, Aphrodisias, Aetolia, Callatis, to name only those where we have inscriptional evidence.' I Sherwin-White, 1oc. cit. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 1 1 3-14, rightly sees in the year 146 D.C. "the end of proper international relations and proper intemational law over the Roman world. Henceforth all allies-' free' or 'federate'-are clients, in the sense that their rights and obligations are in practice independent of law and treaties and are entirely defmed and interpreted by Rome."

References in Taubler, op. cit., pp. 44-47, and Horn, op. cit., pp. 70-71. For Aetolia see S.E.G., I, 241; see al so S.E.G., XVI, 370, and XVII, 280). For the new foedus Callati,a,," see A.E., 1933, P. 106, and, most recently, St Martin, Epigraphica, 10 (1950): 104ft". •

XIII, 382 (now in I.G., IX',

97

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The republican organ of government entrusted with the power to conclude formal treaties with foreign states was, of course, the Senate.

Hence one or more senatus

consulta were usually associated with the proceedings involved in the making of a treaty; therefore, when a treaty was concluded and a copy of it published in the Greek East, one usually found with it a copy of the relevant senatus consulta.

And when a letter from

some Roman official was involved, this too was published along with it.

But probably

neither of these, strictly speaking, should be called a part of the treaty proper.J

In the

Greek states, however, all these documents were engraved on the same stone or monu­ ment as the treaty in order to preserve a full picture of the proceedings, to pay honor in so doing to various local citizens whose efforts were instrumental in obtaining the treaty, and to have on public display all the documents on which the state's legal relationship with Rome was based. Unfortunately, in the present case the beginning of the decree of the Senate is lost. The remainder states that peace, friendship, and alliance with Astypalaea will be re­ newed, that the consul is to see to it that a bronze tablet containing the treaty will be affixed to the Capitol, that the Astypalaean envoy be accorded the usual privileges, and that a copy of the treaty be set up on public display in Astypalaea. think, significant point is added (11.

14-15):

One final, but, I

each year in the Astypalaean Assembly the

treaty shall be read aloud. The treaty proper (B) is of the usual type for this period, a fo edu s aequum. end, perhaps as a postscript, one finds the order for publication (11.

48-50).

And at the

As with all extant treaties, and especially with this one, there are many unsolved problems.

There is the matter of the bronze tablet erected in Rome on the Capitol.

Did it contain only the foedus, or was the senatus consultum engraved along with it? Some scholars maintain that only thefoedus appeared on the Capitol in bronze, while the decree was merely deposited in the aerarium.4 them were engraved on bronze.s

Others, however, believe that

in reAecting the arrangement of documents in Roman archives? matter of the" renewal" of a treaty. had an existing treaty prior to yes, Horn says no.6

105

�oth

of

In other words, how reliable are these Greek copies Then there is the other

In the present instance does it mean that Astypalaea B.C.

which is here oeing ''It:i1C·w,,J'' ?

T;;;.:!::!=: says

Tliubler believes that the original treaty was agreed upon in the

field by a Roman general with Astypalaea and that in the present document it is being confirmed and renewed at the same time.

Horn's argument is that the renewal phrase,

here, as often elsewhere, is nothing more than a diplomatic expression of courtesy , I follow here A. Heuss, Klio, 27 (1934): 247. • See the remarks of Ho m, op. cit., pp. 76ff., and ofHeuss, op. cit., pp. 246-47.

s

Accame, loc. cit.

On this particular point see also the review of his bo o k by

F.

W. Walbank

in

j.R.S., 37 (1947): 206, and o u r Introduction, section 3.

op. cit., pp. 122-23; Horn, op. cit., pp. 7 2-'73. T:iubler suggests that the occasion for the making of the treaty may have been the war with Aristonicus. For the meaning of uvCtV€ovu8c.. see G. Daux, Delp/les all IIe et au [OF Si,de (Paris, 1936), p. 304, n. 2, and idem, in Melanges rts a A.-M.

6 T:iubler,

Desrousseaux (Paris, 1937), pp. II9-22;

98

cf. 1.

c1Je

Robert, Hellenica, I (1940): 96-97. n. s.

SENATUS CONSULTA

affixed to the head of all international proceedings in the Senate.

Taubler, of course, is

aware of this use of the word, but he does not believe that it is applicable here. To pay full honor to Rhodokles, the envoy who represented his city in the making of the treaty with Rome, the city of Astypalaea passed a decree in his honor and engraved it along with the other documents.

It is included here for the sake of completeness.

17 81-80 B.C.?

SENATUS CONSULTUM DE TABENIS

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

G. Doublet, B.C.H., 13 (1889): 503ff.; P. Viereck, Hermes, 25 (1890): 624££.; Tb. Mommsen, Hermes, 26 (1891): 145ff. (Gesammelte Schri/ten, 5: 5 14/[); V. Chapot, La province romait/e proconsulaire J'Asie (Paris, 1904), pp. 38ff.; W. Dittenberger, O.G.l.S., II (1905),442; A bbott-Johnson, Municipal Admit/istration in the Romat/ Em pire (Princeton, 1926), no. 16,p. 27 1; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorif, Mommset/ unJ Wilamowitz: Bri1wechsel 187Z-1903 (Berlin, 1935), pp. 392ff.; M. Segre, Clara RhoJos, 9 (1938): 205;

W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae M inoris Antiqua, VI

(Manchester, 1939),no. 162, pp. 59ff.; M.l. Rostovtze/f, S.E.H.H.W., II(1941),

956,and III (1941),1564; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia M inor (Princeton, 1950), 1,234/[, and 1I, 965,1003,IIIl; J. Robert and 1. Robert , La Carie, II (Paris, 1954), no. 5, pp. 97ff.; Klaffenbach, Gnomon, 27 (1955): 234-35; G. E. Bean, A.J.A., 60 (1956): 196 (cf. S.E.G., XV [1958), 656); F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften. I: Texte unJ Kommentare (Heidelberg, 1959), no. 7 5, pp. 245-47; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Boume, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 67 ; R. K. Sherk, Greek, Roman anJ Byzantine Studies, 6 (1965): 295-300.

DESCRIPTION.

First discovered by G. Deschamps and G. Doublet in the

wall of a house at Davas, the site of ancient Tabae in eastern Caria. After a long search it was located by Buckler and Calder in 1933 in the wall of a private courtyard which formed part of the house of Kadioglou Mehmet, from which it was removed for safe-keeping at Denizli.

It is a .. marble block, smoothly

tooled on four sides and at end, inscribed on this end surbce." Width: 0.58 m.

Thickness: L05 m.

Height: 0.40 m.

The letters are 0.01-0.015 m. high.

.. The inscribed surbce of this block allows room for sixteen lines; above and . the begiTl�h�.g �.ud the beLow it must have iain sim.ilu l..!u\..1u bc ....--iL'b continuation of our text.

This did not extend beyond the I. and r. edges of our

block, as is plain from lines II- 14; this stone was theref ore probably one of those forming one of the antae near the entrance to some temple, the whole document being inscribed on the front of the anta." (Buckler and Calder, op. cit., with a photograph of a squeeze on Plate 28 [no. 162 D.

100

..

SENATUS CONSULTA

117

IS

[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [- - - Toi; T€ ,B]IltV[I.\Ew; M,8pa8aTolJ ..jY€ILaUIV] [8IJVaIL€ULV] r€ l7Tav8pOTar� [7T€pl rii; 'AuLa;] [lCa� T]ij? 'EAAa80; aV'l"LT€Tarll[al, ap£ulC€w rii'l [UIJV]ICA�TWI lCa� TWI 8�/LWI [TWI 'PwlLla[lwv 7TavTa au]­ [Toi;] rapluTa €lval €U€aBaL'I"£, rn[v T€ 7TPO; T�V uuv]­ [ICA"1] TOV lCa� "TOV 8ijlLOV TOV 'Pwf.a[lwv aUTWV ( ?) 7TLUTIV] [a.a] f.'�ILT/; €X€W ;�EW '1"£ VV 017 [a; TE ICwlLa; Tij;] [TOU] TWV ap€Tij; lCa� lCaTaAoyfj; El' [€IC€V aUToi;] [/L€T] � uw,BolJALOIJ YVWILT/; A€ulClO; K[Op�AIO;] [EUAA]a; aUTolCpaTwp UIJV€xwPT/U€V VII omp [; aih]­ [at av] TOZS' TOLS' vo� .(,o,s al�(]'€(]lv rE: C:;'ULV [Vm]KOOL,] [01TW]; T€ xwp{OV C91J"Iaaav, 0 £unv £VTO; TWV [c]­ [p{W] V aUTwv, €cXv,BouAwvTal, 0XlJpwuwuw· [-niv] [T€ UU]VICA1jTOV Tal' T€ 8ijlLOV TOV 'PwlLaLwv [ala][Aa] v,Bav€1V TaUTa aUToi; lCaAw; lCa, vv ['7TpoU'lj]­ [lCaVT]!p; lCa, a�Lw; aUTwv, 8€oou8al T€ [- - - -] The text here given is based essentially on that of Robert. from the phraseology in the S.C. de StrdtoniceIIsibus (No.

1-2 Restored originally by Doublet 82-84; Buckler and Calder added

18), ll.

aUII 7TE7TcAE I /LT/ ICEll al at the beginning. 3-7 Viereck, but with some changes by Robert. 'Pw/La [twv uU/L/Laxtall] was introduced by Buckler and Calder, but Robert rightly rejected it. Perhaps one might restore 'Pw/La[twII "pc a tp Eaw] . 7-1I All editors and commentators except Wilamowitz were misled by the faulty reading of[,,]oA[£&o;] in I. 10, which was found to beo"
r/J'lrf"a8ijlla., Buckler and Calder ; oa[a TE €1Ta8Aa oa[a n <,b,Aall8pW1Ta (?), Robert; oa[ao; TE ICwlLa. T?lo;], Sherk. 10-11 0774'[0; �1T' tlUTJ atl]Tc,o; and [Kup,a] at the end (Buckler and Calder); 01T' I lau]1"oio; and ["aua,.] at the end (Klaffenbach with hesitation, followed by Maier); 01T 4' [. a�1"la, atl]1"o,o; and [ti�KOO'] at the end (Sherk). 16 Viereck joined 8£80a8a, TE[TaX8al to the preceding words in thought; 1Tpoa'll KOll1"]W., Doublet. and Calder had re-examined the stone. 7 oa[a n

T ijo;

I, Wilamowitz, followed by Maier ;

'COMMENTARY:

At the conclusion of the tirst war against Mithrid:ltes in

8S

B.C.

Sulla rewarded those cities which had remained loyal to Rome and had resisted the king of Pontus.

We learn here that Tabae in Caria had been one of those cities and had re­

ceived its reward from Sulla while he was still in Asia. yet

'E7Tat/>paalTO;.'

He is called airrolCpaTwp but not

Sometime after his return to Italy in

83

B.C.,

and probably in

81,

the people of Tabae dispatched an embassy t o obtain senatorial confirmation of Sulla's grant and also permission to fortify Thyessos. approved.

This was normal procedure.

The Senate

The city in turn erected the present inscription in commemoration of the

event. The extent of Sulla's grant to Tabae, however, has been obscured by the unfortunate mutilation of the text at crucial points, lines 7 and J

10-1 I.

The difficulty has also been

For Sulla's titles sec]. P. V. D. Bals don, "Sulla Felix," J.R.S., 41 (19S1):

10 1

I-IQ.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

aggravated by a faulty reading in line

lO,

[TT] OA [El,] for omp [,]. It was thereby assumed

that Sulla had granted Tabae control of cities in the area, an assumption rejected by In 1933 and 1934 Buckler and Calder established the true

Mommsen and Wilamowitz. reading.

But the main problem still remained.

The problem is this.

OTTCP [,] in line ou[-

-

a7Tcp

[,]

lO

The grammatical connection between oU [-

-

in line 7 and

makes it reasonable to believe that whatever was mentioned after

should be either the subject of Wa"1 in line II or otherwise connected with the clause.'

But the key words are missing.

Buckler and Calder restored au [a TE r/ni
[Eu).).] a, aUToKpaTwp uuv£XWPTJUEV \1\1 OTTCP [, £TT' �]­ av] TOtS' TOtS' vop.ors aLp£C1eulv 'rE tiJaw [1Ct1pta].

[aT]

Robert objected, for on historical grounds" all that Sulla permitted them to be voted" He had not been in Tabae and could hardly have given the city

was not possible.

permission to vote anything at the time of the resistance it offered to Mithridates. Thus Robert proposed

au[a

TE
a different £uhion:

[Eu).).]a, aUToKpaTwp UVVEXWPTJUEV \1\1 OTTcp[, TaiiTa] [£11' av] 'TOLS' TOLS' V6P.OLi a'p£a£alv 'rE (Lur.v [KUpta]. Bean disapproved of this and felt that lines Io-II should be completed in such a way as to allow the city to make its own laws and decisions:

[Eu).).]a, aUToKpaTwp UUVExwpTJuev vv OTTcp[, KUpLOI] [£rp' a�] TO', ( ?) TO', VOfLOI' alp£uealv TE WULV [xpi)u(}aL]. And Klaffenbach was not satisfied. suggesting in lines

au[a

10-1I

TE £TTa(}Aa

Ti),] I

-

He felt sure that Wilamowitz was right in

- - for line 7, and accordingly he followed this up

with a tentative restoration: l2.;,jM J a, aVToKpaTwp UUVEXWPT/Utv 1111 .j°It'!J [s �4-'J [€'au]TOLS' TOLS' VOILOt§' alp£GEUlv 'rE cljULV [-"aaaLS'].

Maier later agreed substantially with Klaffenbach.

But no one was happy or satisfied

with any of these suggestions. It would appear that the main source of difficulty after the re-examination of the stone by Buckler and Calder is the assumption that restored in line 7.

£TTa(}Aa or some similar word must be OTTcp[,] clause and the verb in

Such a word must carry over to the

line II, a combination of words and phrases not ordinarily found.

One does not

usually speak of" privileges" in connection with "laws" and"policies."

A different

subject, therefore, must be found, and it is submitted that villages is that subject.

From

an examination of the concessions made by Sulla to other cities at about the same time, 2

See the S.C.

102

de St,atonimuibwJ (No. 18), 11.

50-52., and the

s.c. de AJclepiade (No. :1:1), H. 16-18.

SENATUS CONSULTA

it can be seen that he had no objections to the granting of villages, districts, or even revenues to loyal cities of Asia Minor.

Examine the following, for example.

18), lines 53-5 6: xwpla [Kw/La5' Atfl-EVa5' 1Tpou61.sovs- ·rrOIlEWV, '\ A ' T? ... [ 7}IIW5' '\ , , , ' TE TW'" nEVKt05' n.op .£......v'\\ llll a s- aVTOKpaTWp W ... 1 T7JS- TOVTW'"J apET,,/5' J KaTaAoyijs- TE E[ VEKEV 1TPOUWptUEV UVVEXwpl7IUEV, 01TW5' T JaUTa aVTO�S- EXEtV l, ['ljt· KTA. I.

S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. ?

Compare lines 93-97 and 102-4.

2. S.C. de Thasiis (No. 20), lines 13-16 of E: as- TE 1Tpou680vs- T'ljS- TOlhw... apt ET'ljS­ Ka� KaTaAoyijs- EVEKEv a.rro UV/L{3ovAtov yvw/L7}s-JI AEUKt05' KoJlV7iAt05' [Eu]AAas­ aVTOKp[aTWp TO�S- aVTo�s- Uv"'JI EXWP,,/UE... v 1T6A[Et5' xwplJa Kat V[1TaPXO ... Ta aVTO�S­ ( ?) - - -JI At/LEVa5' KTA. 3. S.c. de Oropiis (No. 23), lines 19-23: l1T<E)� l... TWt T'ljS- /Ltu8WuEws- v6/Lwt alhat .... '\\ EtUtV, as.£.. vllll as- 8EW'" =a ... aTw ... tEPWV TE/LEVWV V1TE�EtP"//LEVat at• 1 xwpat - ).{j ' • - 1 • i: ' " . It EUKW5' ' ,pvAaK'ljs- EVEKEv UVVEXWP7jUE... {V1TE,EtpTj/LEVat Elul ... }, TauTas- TE T«XS- rrpouI6.sovs-, 1TEpl .r.... aYETat Tt) 1TpaY/La, I1EUKto5' EuAAas- TWt 8EWt 'A/L,ptapawt 1Tp
These are in no sense cities and have nothing to do with a confederation of

Some support for this view is to be found in the following clause of the decree

(II. 12-13 ) , where we see that Tabae had been given permission to fortify some (nearby) place called Thyessos.

One may assume that, despite the advantageous position Tabae

occupied in the deep mountainous retreat of central Caria, it still felt the need of ad­ ditional fortifi.cations outside its immediate area.

It was concerned for its future military

security and may have asked Sulla for the control of villages that it considered important from a strategic point of view.

Or these villages may have defected to Mithridates and

thus were stripped of their freedom as punishment.

In any case it appears reasonable

to assume that Tabae was given control of villages in the area.l With villages for the subject of the verb in line I I, the possibility of restoring V1T�KOOt at the end of that line is introduced.

And the use of that word in lines 16-19, column I ,

o f the letter written by Dolabella t o the Thasians (No. a certainty.

21) makes the possibility almost

Lines 7 -II of our decree may then be translated: ...... , and whatever

villages L. Cornelius SuIla imp erator granted to them, after consultation with his consi/illlll, fer the sake of their courage and honor, that these villages be subject to them, to their laws, and to their policies." Tabae enjoyed a privileged position under Roman rule, and the present decree is not the only piece of evidence to illustrate it.

A short dedication set up in Rome has been

known for some time.' 3 Robert thought that

UUVEXWp7/UEV by

itself was not sufficient to convey the meaning o f attributing

territory to Taba e; he believed that 1Tpouwp,aE ... would also be necessary in such a case. But a passage (quoted above, no. 3) from the alone could be enough.

S.c. de Oropiis,lI. 19-23 (et: 11.25-27), seems to

See Sherk, op. cit, p. 299 .

103

I.G.R.R.,

I,

63;

96); cf . Magie,

UVVEXWp7/UEV

IIo-II, and ibid., 1888, pp. 134 and 189 (I.G., C.I.L., I', 730 b; C.I.L., VI, 30922 b; J. Robert and L. Robert, op. cit., H, 954-55 and 109 0.

• G. Gatti, NoIizie degli Sea ... i di Antiehita, 1887, pp.

XIV, 695-96 b; op. eit., no . 4, p.

show that

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

'0 8 ["ifLoS'] 0 Taf3-,JVw v .ptA [oS'1 Ka� av fLfLaxoS' 'Pw[,.,.al]wv. Unfortunately we cannot tell whether this dedication dates from a period soon after

167

B.C.

(the war against Perseus) or from the age of Sulla.

18 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE STRATONICENSIBUS

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

8r

L. Ross, K leitulsien u n d Deutschland (Halle, 1850),p. 104;

C. T. Newton, Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Bral1chidae, II (London, 1863), 75; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage arc/ltfologique en Grece et en A.•ie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), nos. 543-44; O. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen in

Lykien und Kariel1 (Vienna, 1884),p. 155; Ch. Diehl and G. Cousin, B.C.H., 9

(1885): pp. 437-74; S. Bases,

'Erp. 'ApX. 1886,pp.

42.-48; P. Vier eck, Serlllo

Graecus (Gottingen, 1888),no. XVI, pp. 2.4 -31; Th. Reinach, Mithridate Bupator, Roi de Pont (Paris, 1890), no. 18, pp. 467-70; W. Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., 11

(1905),no. 441; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, I (Leipzig, 1913), 158-59 and 457-58; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 192.6),no. 17, pp. 2.72.-76; H. Horn, Foederati(Diss., Frankfurt, 1930), p. 72.; L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937),pp. 52.0 and 561-62.; T. R. S. Broughton, .. Roman Asia," in T. Frank, An Ecotlomie Survey ofAtlcient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 19 38),5 17,n. 86; S. Accame, I1 dominio romarzo in Greria dalla

guerra «aiea ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), p. 92.; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minur (Princeton, 1950), I, 2. 35, 11, IIU-13,n. 9; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 1951), no. 134,pp. 3 37ff.;J. Robert and L. Robert,

La Carie, 11 (Paris, 1954),98-101; F. Papazoglou, R.E.G., 72. (1959): 100-5;

Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Boume, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 68.

DESCRIPTION.

This decree h a s been engraved on the wall of the Temple of

Hecate a t Lagina in Caria.

Small fragments of it were first published by

Newton (Frag. E), Benndorf and Niemann (Frag. G-H), and Le Bas­ Waddington (Frag. 0), but with the discov.ery of many more fragments Charles Diehl and George Cousin assembled all of them and attempted a reconstruction of the entire text.

They saw that it was spread out over five

parallel columns, that the extant fragments represented parts of thirteen stones or blocks, and that the sides of the columns did not, of course, agree with the sides of the blocks.

Thus Fragment A is all that remains of block A in column one,

and, while much of Fragments B J-' is extant, the first half of block H ( = B ') contains part of the text in column one, and the second half (= B'), part of the text

in column two.

(For the arrangement of the bl ocks and the columns see

the revised plan in Viereck, o p. cit., p. 2. 4.)

The document begins with a letter of Sulla to the city of Stratoniceia, followed by another letter introducing the decree.

At the end of the decree is

found a local decree of the city of Stratoniceia which authorizes the engraving of a list of those cities which recognized the inviolability of the Temple of Hecate. Part of this local decree and parts of the list of cities are extant but are not

105

H.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

reproduced here.

They can be found ίη the publications by Diehl and Cousin

and by Dittenberger. The fragments containing our decree show some peculiarities worthy of

In the nrst place the beginnings

mention from an epigraphical ροίηι of view.

of lines are indented ίη a rather unusual way, and we have tried ιο preserve this indentation ίη the text.

Fragment Β' contains a good example, for in ίι we

find the beginnings of lines

15

and η forming the extreme left margin of

the text with other lines indented from one ιο seven letter spaces. Secondly. thc stones wcrc originally joined 50 ca refull y and fitted together so smoothly that lines of text could be engraved both above and below the hοήΖοntalιine formed by the joining of two stones. For example. stone Η rests οη ιορ of stone Κ, and the upper half of the word Στρa:τομικεϋσιμ (Ι. ιοι) is

engraved οη stone Η and the lower half οη stone Κ. stone Κ, ιο the right of and one line below solitary

Thirdly, at the bottom of

o;;τω� γ{μ[ω]μτιχι (1. 112), is found a

'ΑγαθΉ τύ[ΧlΙ] engraved ίη diiferent characters from those of the decree.

This means that below ίι was a diiferent inscription and that line 112 marks the bottom of that particular column (the third one according ιο Diehl and Cousin and Viereck). and probably of all nve columns belonging ιο the senatorial decree.

Frag. ΑΒ'

10

Frag. B'C'

20

[Λεύκιο!>" Kopνfιλιoς Λ]ευκίου [υίός] Σύλλας Έπa:ιΙ>pόδιτo!>" [δικτάτωρ Στρατομι]κέ ωμ άρ[χο]υσι βoυλfίι δήμωι χαίρειν' [ουκ άγνοούμεν ύμας] διιΧ προ [γ] όνων πάντα τιΧ δίκαια [πρός την ήμετέ ρα] ν ήγεμ [ον] ίιχμ πεΠΟΙ1)Κότας Kα� �ν [παμτί καιρωι την πρός ή]μας πί[σ]τιμ είλικριμως τετηΡηκότας [έ'μ τε τωι πpόS" Μιθραδά]τημ π [ο]λέμωι πρώτους τωι �μ τήι ['Ασίαι άμτιτετa:γμένoυς κα]ί &ιΧ ταύτα κιμδύμους πολλούς [τε καί παντοδαπους] ύπέρ των ήμετέρων δτιμ.οσίων [πΡιχγμάτων π ροθυμό]τατα ά[ν]αδεδεγμέ νους [- - - ..... - - - -] κα.. T[συ� Koινoύ�] κα.. Tσύ� ίδι.ωTΙKσίι� [Φιλίας έ] νε[κεν π]ρός ήμας ευνοίας τε [καί χ&ριτος, καί 'ν τωι του πολέϊμου καιρω. 7tp�s' ·ι" [τιΧς άλλας τής 'Ασίας πόλεις πεπρ]εσβευκότας καί πρ[ό]ς [τιΧς τής Έ λλάδος - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Λεύκιο!>" Κορ[μήλιος Σύλλας ΈπιχΦρόδιτος δικτ]άτωρ Στρατο [νικέων αρχουσι βουλήι δήμωι χαίρειν'] πρεσβευταί.!>" ύμ,[ετέροις τό γεμόμεμομ ύπό συγκλήτ]ου δόγμα τούτο [παρέδωκα.] Λέυκιο!>" Κορμήλι[ος Λευκίου υίός Σύλλας ΈπαΦρόδιτος δικτ]άτωρ ΣVγKλήτωι συ[νεβουλεύσατο πρό ήμερων aξ κα] λανδων 'Απριλίων �μ τω [ι κομετίωι' γριχΦομ,ένωι παρήσαν ηάιος Φ' αννιος �Τ"αιου [" υιος - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 α, ιος Φονδάνιος Γαί[ου υίός - - - -. Περί ών Στpa:τOνΙKε]ίς �K ΧΡυ­ σαο[ρέων] Παιώνιος Ίερ[οκλέους, ] -

J06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

SENATUS CONSULTA

25

ΈKαταί:o� 17α[-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

Δ ιoιιύσιo� Ε[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Πp€σβευταl λόγoυ� έποιή] σαvτo Frag. D

30

35

40

συμ[Φώιιω� Kαl άKoλoύθω� τUι. Στρατοιι,κέωιι ιfnιΦ{σματι] [άξιoυIIτε� συVΉδεσθαι έ·πΙ τώι τ]α δημόσια πράγ[ματα τ] ου δήμου [του 'Pωμαlωιι έιι βελτ{οιιι κα]ταστάσει εΙναι· [οπωS- χρυσουιι στέΦαιιοιι παρα τη� ί]δ{α� πόλεω� τήι συγκλήτωι [άιιαθεί:ιιαι έξήι άπο ταλάιιτωιι δ]ιακοσ{ωιι. [evaUxV τε έιι τώι Kαιrετωλ{ωι oπω�] πο.ησαι έξήι ύπiΡ τή� VI{K]TJS­ [και Tijs- ήγεμ.oιι{α� του δήμου του] 'Ρωμα{ωιι. [οπωs- τε το λοι ποΙΙ Λευκίωι KopVΗλίωι Λ] ΕVKίoυ υ{ώl Σύλλαι Έπαφροδίτωι [δlκτάτορl Φαίιιηταl Στρατοιιlκέωιι] δήμ.ωl ΦlλαιιθPώ'πω� κεχpijσ[θ]αl· [έ7Τε{ τε ό δήμo� έιι τώι καιΡώl τή� είpήιι]η� συιιετήρησειι τη., ίδίαιι [εγιιοιάιι τε Kαl πίσTlΙΙ και Φιλίαιι] πpO� τοιι δήμοιι τοΙΙ 'Pωμαlωιι [και 7Τρώτοs- τώιι έιι τήl 'Ασίαl. οτε Μlθρ ]astfTTJs- έιι αύτ[ijl] [δειιιότατα έΤVpάIIIIευειι. προείλετο άιι]τιτετάχθαι· [έπει Si ό βασιλειΊs- έ,πι τηιι πόλιιι έπijλθειι.] έλώιι δ' έκράτησ[ε]ιι [- [- - - - - - - - - Λευκ{ωι KopVΗλ{ω. Λευκίου υ{ώι Σύλλαι] δlκτάτορl έπl [τάξαιιτι ] -

Frag.

Ο

45

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50

55

-

60

rog.C>F

-

_

-

-

-

_

_

_

-

_

-

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

]

_

[κ]αί. έΠΕ;' ό δήμ.ος [ΣVνEτήρησεν άεί την ύπάρχουσαν αύτιίn] εύιιοιαιι Kαl 'π{[στιιι] και συμμαχ{[αιι προS- τοιι δήμοιι τοΙΙ ·Ρωμα{ωιι. τα ηδια πράγματα κ [ατα τ ]ηιι προα{ρεσ•., [τη., έκε{ιιωιι διοικήσαs-. και Μιθραδάτψ] πόλεμ.οιι έπο[{ησε. καΙ' τοιι ίδιοιι δη[λώσα� θυμόιι προθυμότατα άιιτετάχθη] - - - - - --- - - - τηι βασιλικήι β[{]α. και δυνάμε. [- - - - - - - -] [SIKa{OΙS- τε κ]αι vόμ.ο.s- και έθισμ[oί:� τoί:� lS{OIS-. ots- έχρώιι-] [το έπάν]ω, όπω� χρωιιται, όσα ΤΕ [ψηΦίσμa.τα έποίψαν 1'"ού-] [του του πojλέμoυ ;ιιεκειι. οιι προS- βασ[ιλέα Μιθραδάτ7)ll άιιέδε.ξαιι] [ό'πω� τ]αυτα πάντα κύρια. c1ja,V' [Π�8ασ6" -r", '] FJ'Ψησσόv. Κ;ραμον, χωρία [κώμιχs- λιμέιια, 7Tpoσ�-] [δoυ� τε τώιι] 7Τόλεωιι. ι1ίιι ΛεύKIO� ΚΟΡν[ήλlοs- Σύλλα� αύτοκράτωρ] [τη� τούτων] άpεTή� καταλοyijs- τε ;[νεκεν 7Τροσώρlσεν συνεχώρη-] [σεν. ο'πωs- τ]αυτα αύτοί:s- έχειν έξ[ηl·] [το {ερόν τη�] ΈKάTη� έπIΦcrνεστά[τη .. και μεγ{στη.. θεά ... έκ πολ-] [λου τε τι] μ.ώμενον και πολλα[- - - - -] [τό τε τέμn']οs-. οπωs- τουτο ασυ[λον ύπάρχτιι·] [περ{ τε τών ά]π[ολωλ]ότ[ων αύτοί:s- έν τώ. '7Τολέμωι. οπωs-] ή σ[ύγ]κλ[ητοs- τώι αρ]χοντ[. τ]ώ. εΙ .. 'Ασ{αν π ' op€υoμένωι JvToλιXsδώι. ίνα Φρο [ιιτ{σ]η. Kαl έπlσΤΡοφην πο.ήσητα •• οπωs- τα JμΦcrvij aύTois- άποδοθ'ήναl Φpovτ{ση •• τούs- τε αΙχμαλώτουsκομ{σωιιταl περί τε τών [λ]οl'πών ίνα τύχωσι τώιι δΙKαlωιι· -

-

Frag.E

]

J07

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

65

70

Fr,g. G

80

85

Frag.

Η 90

95

100

Frag.K

105

όπω� τε πρεσβευταΤ� τoΤ� παρά Στρατονικέων εΙ� 'PώιιΤΙV παpεσoιιlνoι� έKτό� του στίχου οΙ αpxoντε� σι.:Υκλητον διδωσ[ ιν·] περί τΟΟτου του πpάyιιατo� oϋτω� έδοξεν' πpεσβευταΤ� Στρατονlκέων κατά πρόσω'πον έν τήι συΥκλήτωι Φιλανθρώπω� άποκριθήναι, χάριτα Φιλίαν συιιιιαχίαν άνανεώσασθαι, τo� πpεσβευτά� αν [δρα] � Kαλoύ� καί άyαθoύ� και Φίλoυ� συμμάxoυ� τε ήιιε[τέ ρο]υ� παρά &ήμ,ου καλου καί άΥαθου καί φtλoυ συμμάχου [τε ήμ]ετέρου προσαΥορευσαι έδοξεν. Περί τε (�ν OQTOI οΙ [πρεσβευ] ται λόyoυ� έποιήσαντο καί περ[ί �ν] Λει.:KΙO� KopVΉλι[O� Σι.:λλα]� ΈπαΦpόδιτo� δικτάτωρ λόyo[υ�] [έπ · οιήσατο, Υνωστόν efvat 'Ρω ]ιιαίoι� [κατά τά� άπoσταλείσα�] [παρ]ά των Άσίαν τήν τε Έλλάδα [διαKατασXόVΤων των τε έν] [ται.:τα]ι� ταΤ� έπαpxείαι� πρεσβευ[των ΥεΥενηιιένων έπιστoλά�] [τoυ�] ΣτpατoνΙKεΤ� Τιίν τε φιλίαν κ[αί π ' ίστιν καί εί!νοιαν πpό � τόνΙ [δή]μον τόν 'Ρωμαίων διά τέλoυ� [έν καιρωl εΙp-ήνη� πολέιιου] [τε] <ά)εί συVΤετηpηKέναι στΡατιώ[ται� τε καί σίτωι καί ιιεyάλαι�] [δαπάν]αι� τά δημόσια πΡάΥιιατα [του δήιιου του 'Ρωμαίων] [προ] θυμότατα ύπερησπικέναι π[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [ .. ]υ� ύπερ τή� μεyαλoΦpOOι.:VΗ [� τή� έαυτων αύτoΤ� συμπε-] [πολ]ειιηκέναι τoΤ� τε βασιλέ ω[� Μιθραδάτου ήΥειιόσιν] [δυν]άμεσίν τε έπανδρότατα πε [ρί των πόλεων τή� Άσία� καί] [τή�] Έλλάδo� ά [ν]τιτετάχθαι' [περί τΟΟτων των ΠΡαΥμάτων oϋτω� έδοξεν' άρέσκειν τήι συΥ-] [κλήτωι άνδρων άΥαθων] δικαίων [τε άπο] μνημ [ονει.:ειν καί προ-] [νοεΤν όπω� Λει.:KΙ]O� KopVΉλιo� Σι.:λλα� ΈπαΦpόδιτ[o�] [δικτάτωρ τόν άν]τιταμίαν ξένια αVτOΤ� κατά τό διάτα [Υιια δου -] [ναι KελειJσ?/, oΤ�] τε νόιιoι� έθισμoί� τε Ιδίoι� πρότερον [έχρωντο, τoι.:]τoι� χράσθωσαν' [oσoυ� τε νόιιoυ� αύτο]ί ψrιφtσΙLατά τε έπolησαν τοι.:του του [πολέ-] [μου ένεκεν του πpIό� ΜιθΡαΜrrjV·Υεvομiiιdύ,·'ιiα-τοιJΤ6ίιΓ1'ι:.Gi":] [-πάντα κι.:ρια ύπάΡ]χωσιν' α� τε τινα� τή� τοι.:των άpετij[� καταλο-] [yή� τε Ενεκεν μετ]ά συμβουλίου Υνώμψ Λει.:KΙO� Σι.:λ[λα� αύ-] [τοκΡάτωρ τoΤ� αύ]τoΤ� ΠΡοσώρlσεν συνεχώρησεν [πολιτεί-] [α� προσόδου, χω]ρία Kώιια� λιμένα, τε τοιΙτο [ι�, ίνα ταίίτα] [αVτOΤ, έ χειν έξήι' τό]v τε δήμον τόν 'Ρωμαίων [- - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - πpoση]Kόντω� άξίω� τε αύτ[ου - - - - - - - - - - - -. - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - - -] τά τε ΣτpαΤOνΙKείiσιν [έψrιΦισμένα? - - - - - - - -] [- -. - - - - - - - - -] άποδεκ[τά ύπάρχει]ν δεΤν' [όπω]� τε Λει.:KΙO� KopVΉλι[O, Σι.:λμα, ΈπαΦρόδιτο, δικτάτ[ωρ, έάν αύτωι] [Φα]ίVΗται, ιΧ, αύτό, αVτOKpάτωp Στρατονικευσιν πολι[τεία,] . [K]ώμα� χώρα, λιμένα, τε ΠΡοσώρισεν, έΠΙΥνωι διατάξη[ι όσα, έκάστη] προσόδου, Στρατονικευσιν τελήι·

108

SENATUS CONSULTA

110

LMI

ΣIS

I�O

I�S

Ι· ΝΙ

[Jd]v 'ΤΕ δια.τάξτιι, πpό� τα.ύτα.� τά� πoλΙTεία.�, α� Στρ[α.τονικείίσιν] προσώρισεν, γΡάμμα.τα. ιΧποστείλτιι, �να. τοσοίίτον τ ['λo�] Στρα.τονικείίσιν τελώσιν' [τ ]οίίτό τε, o �τινε� άν 'Ποτε ιΧε, ΆσΙα.ν την τε 'Ελλάδα. '[πα.pxεία.�] Ιδια.]κα.τ'χωσιν, Φροτίζωσιν διδώσιν τε 'ργα.σία.ν, �ν[α. τα.ίίτα.] oύTω� γΙν[ω]ντα.ι. Τό (Ζερ]όν τij� 'E[KάTη�] �ω� ή[ι άσυλον'] άνθvπατOS' όστι.ί άν άε, Άσ{αν Επ[aρχείaν] δια.κα.τ'χτιι, 'πιγνώτω ατινα α.ύToί� ά[πε]στιν οΤ τ, τινε� Tα.ίiτα. διήρπα.σα.ν o� τ, τινε[� δ]ια.κα.τ'­ χουσιν α.ύτά, �να. παρ' α.ύτών ιΧπΟΟοθηναι ιΧποκα.τα.­ στα.θηνα.ι Φpoντlσηι' ,να. τε TOιl� ωXιιa.λώTOυ� άνα.κομίσα.σθαι δύνωνται ύπ' Ρ τε τών λ [ο]ιπών πρα.γμάτων τών δικα.ίων τύχωσιν ο [ύ]τ[ω Kα.]θώ� αν α.ύToί� JK τών δηιιοσίων πρα.γιιάτ[ων πίσ]Tεώ� τε τij� Ιδία.� φα.tνηTα.ι· έδοξεν. Στ,φα.νόν τε τόν πα.ρα τοίί δήιιου [τijι συγκλήτωι] ιXΠEaTa.λIUvOY, ου αν ΛεύKΙO� [Kopνήλ]ιo� Σύλλα.� 'Eπα.ΦpόΦιTO� δικroτ [ωρ] [τίγ]ητα.ι [ιΧγα.θόν ό·π� ιΧνα.θεί ναι α.ύToί�] [Jξijι, θυσία.ν τε Jv τώι Κα.πετωλίωι αν θ'-] [λωσιν όπω� α.ύτoί� ποιησα.ι 'ξηι.] [Toί� τε πpεσβευTα.ί� ·πα.ρσ. Στρα.τονι.κ'ων εΙ�] ['Ρώιιην 'Πα.pεσoιι'νoι� έδοξε σ] ύγκλητον [ύπό τών ιΧρχόντων 'ΚTό� τοίί στίχου δίδ]οσθα.ι· [έδοξεν.] The text is that of Dittenberger except where noted. 7 [' Ασίαι άνθεσταιιένoυ�, Diehland Cousin. 8-9 [καΙ μεγάλov� ιίΦεστηKόTα�) IJτrEP τών ήιιετέρων δτιιιοσίων [πραΎ/ιάτων κα. δεινό)τατα

ά[λλ)α δεδεγμένov�, Diehl and Cousin; πoλλσύ� [τε καΙ παντοδC<'ποιJ�), Dittenberger; προθv­ μόjτατα ά[ν)αδεδεγμένo�, Bases, followed by Dittenberger and Viereck (notes); πoλλoύ� [τε καΙ δεινo.,.ά"'oυ�. Wilamowirz. 13:1 Added by '!i:reck. !� ,Ζρχουσ, ::ddc:!. by Vi�reck. Ιί :·.. ι.>:i'�δu;"ι.>:J, Dittenberger; [συνεχώρτισα), the former editors. 18 Αευκίου υ;ό� fi rst added by Viereck. J9 έξ, Viereck by measurement of available space. 25 Πα[ιωνίου (?), DiehI and Cousin. 2.6' Ε[καταιου(?), DiehI and Cousin. 27 άKoλoύθω�, Viereck; έπακoλoύθω� (DiehI and CouSΊn) appears to be too Iong. 2.8 έπΙ τώι. Vierec k; διά τό. DiehI and Cousin. 36 τι;;. and ηϊ� added by Viereck. 38 πpώτό� τ�, DiehI and Cousin. α.ύήijι]: DiehI and Cousin seem t o see Α ΥΤΑΙΣοη the stone, but the reading is uncertain. 39 δε, νό τατα, Viereck; ώμότατα, DiehI and Cousin. 40 [έ·πεί τε ό β α.σιλ.ειl � την 'πόλιν πoλ,opKήσα�], DiehI and Cousin, but here Viereck saw that the particle (δέ) with ;λών argued against such a construction. He theref ore οήginallΥ restored [έπεί τε ό βασ,λειls ' πp o� η}ν ·πόλιν έπijλθεν,) but now (notes), following Dittenberger. prefers a change of preposition to έ'ΠΙ την πόλιν and ref ers to Appian Mithr. 82. 2. 1. μff. Fragment Ο inserted here by Viereck. DiehI and Cousin had placed it af ter Fragment ΝΙ, an arrangement which put an unequaI number of stones in columns two and three. 43 έπl[τάξαντι, Dittenberger with a reference to S.I.G.3, 748,25. 47 πόλε μον έπο[λέμε)" DiehI and Cousin, corrected by Viereck; τον rδιαν δή[μον). DiehI and Cousin and Viereck previously, but δη[ λώσαs κτλ., Dittenberger.

J0 9

48 Robert and Robert, ορ.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

cit., p. 99. n.

49-50 ots "'pOTE:povl EXpWII'TO), Diehl and Cousin falsely, f or their own transcription ;".ws xpwvTa. in I. 5 0; thus Viereck restored E1TW)W, ;.,..w s xpwvTa., ICTA. 5 3 [n..jllaooovTE), Diehl and Cousin and all others, o n the basis ofStrabo 13. I . 59, but L. Robert(Etudes Anatolientles, pp. 561-62 ) questions its restoration here. 57 [T O T£ t.pOv -nis), Diehl and Cousin, but Viereck deleted T£ for reasons of available space. 75 YVWooTOV £ Tva. 'Pwp.)alo'6" suggested by Viereck. accepted by Dittenberger. 76 ".ap)a TWV ICTA., Viereck, retained by Dittenberger. 77 E1TIooTOAasj, Dittenberger, but other restorations here and in 11. 78-79 are Viereck's. 80 TEI on the stone according to Diehl and Cousin. but emended by Viereck and followed by Dittenbergcr; alTW' added by Viereclc fro m Josephus Ant. 12. 10. 8. 83-84 [.11T1p.ovWTaTa 1.,...".OA).P.7jlClvw., Diehl and Cousin. 88 [lCa.�ws oJv €X., Qvli,x;.v lCaAwv lCal) 1l.lCalwv, Diehl and Cousin. 92. TO Ao.".ov TOr$)TOIS Xpaoo8wooav, Diehl and Cousin, but Viereck I.

of Fragment E shows ID bef ore

deleted

TO .\o,,,.ov

for reasons of available space.

The transcription of Fragment H by Diehl and

Cousin at tins point shows TQIEXPAEeDEAN. and hence the brackets in Dittenberger are incorrect.

98 >..,..lvas

T£,

TOr1TO['S.

Diehl and Cousin with comma between. but Viereck puts

comma after TOr$TO[.S, as does Dittenberger. 100 Or aVT[ov(?). 105 At the end, restored by Diehl and Cousin, retained by Viereck and also by Dittenberger.

107 [fa)V TE, Wilamowitz; ;ooo)v T£, Diehl and Cousin. 12.3 [ni' ooVYIC >,7)TW'). Viereck, followed by Dittenberger. 12.6-2.9 Restored by Viereck. 130-31 Cr. n. 65-66 for these expressions. After line 131 follow Fragments I, MZ, NZ, an uncertain fi:agment, and P. all of them quite separate from the unatus consultum. Diehl and Cousin.

IIO

COMMENTARY.

.1[1Tapx.las].

Bases;

.1[·"l>'8woolV,

Between the end of the first Mithridatic War in

departure of Sulla from Asia in

84

B.C.

85

B.C.

and the

a general reorganization of the communities of

Asia was undertaken, a reorganization that had as its principle the rewarding or punishing of those cities which had proved themselves loyal or disloyal to Rome in the war against

In the interior of Caria we know that Tabae (see the Senatus Consultum de

Mithridates.

Tabenis, No. 17) and Stratoniceia had remained loyal.

Stratoniceia and had imposed a fine upon it}

Mithridates had captured

Sulla had accordingly rewarded the city

for its gallant stand against the enemy and had voiced high praise for its loyalty to R'ome. Later, after Sulla's return to Italy, the city had dispatched envoys to obtain from the Senate written confirmation of all that Sulla had bestowed upon it. �d';

The present decree

�h,. :�sul:.

In this document we see that Sulla is dictatorQl. 14, 18,43,74,103, 12S} and has already

I, 34, 74, 89,103, 125). His dictatorship (82-79 B.e.) gives us a rather wide span of four years in which to date the decree, but his title of Epaphroditos (bestowed at the very end of 82 or early in 8 I B.C. ) reduces this by

received officially his title of Epaphroditos (11.

onc year.'

The fact that Sulla is named dictator but not consul is good reason to believe

that the decree is to be dated exactly in

Q.

Caecilius Metellus.

81

B.C.,

for in

80 B.C.

he held the consulship with

The assumption that all of Sulla's title at this time would have

appeared on the documents is, I think, a valid one.3 I

Appian Mithr. 21, and the information given in the present decree, 11. 6-9, 36-40,46-52, 83-86.

•

On Sulla's tides see Balsdon, loc. cit.

Viereck, op. cit., P. 29. in speaking of the proquaestor (I. 90� says he was a "magistratus militaris et extraordinarius, qui vix per duos annos munus obtinebat. Itaque documento est senatus consultum 3

JJO

SENATUS CONSULTA

For their good will and loyalty to the Roman people in the recent war the Stratoni­ ceians are rewarded as follows: (1) renewal of good will, friendship, and alliance with Rome; (2) they are to be given gifts; (3) they may enjoy their own laws and institutions just as they had before the Mithridatic War; (4) whatever laws and decrees they may have passed because of the war shall remain in force; (5) whatever cities, revenues,lands, and other places Sulla and his council may have given to them shall remain theirs; (6) Sulla, if he wishes, shall decide how much taxes these places shall pay to Stratoniceia; (7) the Temple of Hecate shall be inviolable; (8) the future governors of Asia shall provide for the restitution of lost property to them upon their claim; (9) whoever of them had been prisoners shall be returned; (IQ) they may dedicate a crown to Rome and the Senate and offer sacrifice on the Capitol; (Il) their future envoys shall be given ex­ traordinary audience bef ore the Senate. It is an impressive list. In a time of general misery for the communities of Asia, such beneficence would be visible proof of the rewards to be won by loyalty to Rome. This and similar grants in Asia must have done much to awaken the eastern cities to a realization of Rome's iron grip upon their futures and of her willingness to reward their loyalty. Thus, when Mithridates returned, their attitudes were generally hostile to his overtures. There is another side of the picture as well, for, although the loyal cities such as Stratoniceia had been rewarded,the possession of their newly won privileges depended in the future upon their continued good behavior. The Greeks more than the Romans realized the vagaries and general unreliability of political ascendency. What Sulla and the Sullan Senate had given them might be taken away by a different master and a different Senate. Hence we find the reason why so many of the eastern cities in the first century before Christ requested confirmation of their privileges from the Senate whenever the political atmosphere in Rome appeared to have changed. esse ex a(nno) 673/81." This makes sense but can hardly be called posirive evidence. It is accepted by Dittenberger, .p. cit., n. 68. On the pro quaestor see Mommsen, Riillli"lI.. StaalJrfCllt, lP, I, pp. 531-32.

19 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE CORMIS

E. Kalinka, Tittdi Asiae Minoris, II. fase. 1lI (1944).

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

80 B.C.?

no.

899;

D. Magie. Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1385, n. 42; R. Syme. His/aria, 13 (1964): 160.

DESCRIPTION. Height: 0.14 m.

A small fragment of limestone, complete only on the top. Width: 0.19 m.

Thickness: 0.11 m.

Height of letters:

0.015 m.

CoL A

[AdK'OS' KOPvr/A,OS' A€VK'n)17aTO 7T jpo �IUPWII €JI] reOL vaOL TOU [ [LI,oS" ypacpo,.dvw, 7Tap1jaav A € 1 �KtO<S'> 1:/11'1"[oS" ra.l.ou vioS', - -] {OV vloS', ..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

-

..

•

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

CoL B

f.L [- - - -

,8l---­ p[---7(d- -

-

-

­

-

The restorations are by J. Keil and A. Wilhelm.

4 The spelling NAO) seems assured.

5 A

short name of a god is demanded because the following restoration is assured and would allow only a small space at the beginning of the line. haplography.

112

The sigma of the witness's name was omitted by

SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENTARY. In 1894 R. Heberdey discovered a small settlement on the east bank of the Limyrus River in eastern Lycia near the village of Karabiik. from two honorary inscriptions found on the site it is clear that its ancient name was Cormus or Cormi, but no Greek or Latin writer mentions it anywhere.' Two other inscriptions, from Idebessus, indicate that it had formed a avp:rro),.,-rt£la. with Acalissus and Idebessus.· Why this obscure Lycian community obtained a senatus consulturn from Rome is unknown, but the editors think that it must concern the granting or the renewal of certain privileges by Sulla in his second consulship, whose grant of freedom to the Lycians after the first Mithridatic War is well known.J The document's mutilated condition, however, prevents us from drawing any further conclusions. L. Sentius C. £ must be the moneta/is of ca. 89 B.C. (Broughton, Magistrates, 11, 452). Since he is here named first among the witnesses, his rank must be at least praetorian. In fact, this is good evidence that he did actually reach the praetorship before the date of this decree. J Kalinka, 0 p. cit., no. 900, mentions a Kopp.lwv " liijp.os; no. 901 refers to 8ijl'ov -rtlv Kopp. [ El Wv The name therefore could have been Kopp.Tj, Kopp.os or Kopp.a.. Z

Ibid., no. 830 (=I.G.R.R.,

Cities

of the Eastern

Ill,

Ill, 647). Cf. A. H. M.Jones, The with nn. 18 and 20; Magie, op. cit., p.

646) and no. 8 3 3 (=I.G.R.R.,

Roman Pr""inces (OxfOrd, 1937), p. 108,

1378, n. 24; and Robert, Villes d'Asie Minellrez, pp. 5&-57 and 272, n. 6.

l a. Magie, op.

cit., p. 1385, n. 42. For t h e grant of freedom see Appian Mithr. 61. As a possible aid in the interpretation of the present decree the editor in Titllli Asiae Minoris refers to the letter of a proconsul to the Chians (S.I.G.l, 785 =I.G.R.R., IV, 943), No. 70 of the present volume.

20-21

DOCUMENTA QUAE AD RES THASIAS PERTINENT

A letter of Sulla to the Thasians with a copy of a senatorial decree, and a letter of Cn. Comelius P. f. Dolabella to the Thasians concerning the decree. Here are documents of exceptional interest and importance for the history of the island during and af ter the first Mithridatic War. They serve to illuminate and to supplement our knowledge about the effort of Mithridates to extend his field of operations into Thrace. Both documents must be studied together. for each aids in the interpretation of the other.

20 EPISTULA L. CORNELII SULLAE CUM SENATUS C ONSULTO DE THASIIS

SOB.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Dunant and J. Pouilloux, RrcHrrches sur /' Histoirr rt Irs mltrs dr THasos, 11: Etudrs tHasirnnrs, V (Paris, 19S8), no. 174 (Plate VI), pp.

J. Bousquet, B.C.H., 83 (19S9): 402. (cf, SE.G., XVIII, 349); 1. R. Taylor, THr VoIillg Districts oftHr Roman Republic, American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960 ), pp. 2.68-69.

37-4S;

DESCRIPTION.

These fourteen fragments, engraved on blocks of gray

marble, originally formed part of some official building in the agora of Thasos. The stones were later used in the construction of an old Christian basilica. Section A: Inv. 71S a,

p, aT.

These are three fragments that join together.

Over-all dimensions of the three stones together: width, 0.48 m.; height, O.IS m.; thickness, 0.07 m.; height o f letters, 0.014 m.

Lines I and 3 project two

letter spaces out into the left margin of the text. Section B: Not preserved. Section C: Inv. 71S.

Contains the end of the first column and a part of the

last lines of the second.

Largest of the fragments:

width, 1.2.8 m.; height,

O.IS m.; thickness, 0.13 m.; height of letters, 0.011 m.

Section D: Inv. 71S (. m.

Width: 0.4S m.

Height: 0.18 m.

Thickness: 0.09

Height of the letters: 0.010 m.

Section E: Inv. 7'S (right side; for dimensions, see above, under Sec. C) to the end of Col. 11, line 8, followed by Inv. 7'S i' of Col. Ill. Inv. 7'S i' shows a margin on the left.

Width: 0.38 m.

Height of letters: 0.012. m.

(Col. Ill) project out into the margin. mnr.ined on" small

frall","nt (In"

between Cols. III and IV. o.oSS m.

Thickness: 0.07 m.

The ends of lines 9-II (Col. Ill) are

iTS

).) wh;�h shows t.l:.c empty spac�

Width: 0.14 m.

Height: 0.09S m.

Height of lctters: 0.012. m. (Col. 111),0.008 m. (Col.

Section F: Inv. 71S e. o.oSo m.

Height: 0.18 m.

The fim two letters of line 4 (Col. 11) and of line 13

Broken on all sides.

Thickness: 0.010 m.

Section G: Inv. S07 and po. (192.6 ), no. 7, p. 2.34.

Thickness:

IV).

Width: 0.08S m.

Height:

Height of letters: 0.011 m. F ound in 192.2. and published in B.C.H., SO

After its publication the stone was broken into two parts,

and several letters (underlined in our text) were obliterated.

Over-all

dimensions: width, 0.19 m.; height, 0.090 m.; thickness, 0.030 m.; height of letters, 0.010 m.

These two pieces form the text up to line S of Section G, but

with line 6 begins Inv. 71S S. o.oSS m.

G are found on Inv. 7'S "I. 0.07 m.

Width: 0.19 m.

Height of letters: 0.009-0.010 m. Width: 0.18 m.

Thickness:

Height: 0.1 6 m.

Thickness:

Height of letters: 0.010 m.

Section H: Inv. 7 1 S'\ (right edge).

115

Height: 0.1I m.

The ends of lines 6-1S of Section

This small fragment carries on its left side

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

the ends oflines 9-ΙΙ Section Ι: Inv. 715

(COI. ω) (dimensions given above. Sec. Ε). ι. Small sliver of marble broken οη all sides.

Width:

0.10 m.

Height: 0.0 45 m. Thickness: 0. 015 m. Height ofletters: 0. 012. m. Section J: Ιην. 715 C. ΤίηΥ fragment broken οη all sides except the right.

Width: 0.14 m.

Height: 0.195 m.

Thickness: 0.07 5 m.

Height ofletters:

0.015-0.013 m. cοι.Ι Α

Λ�ύ[,Ψοs- Kopli1) [λ] ιοs- AeUKlou [υίόs- Σύλλαs- Έπa.ιpρόδιτοs- ύπατοs-] τό δεύτερ[ο]ν χαlρειν λέΥε[ι Θασlων αρχουσι βουλήι δήμωι]· 41Υ':" πρεσβευταιι; ύμετέροιs- [τό TijS- συνκλήτου δόΥμα παρέδωκα· τό] δόΥμ.α τουτο ΥεΥονόs- 41σην πρό (ήμερών - - - - - - - 41ν τώι] [ ..]μ:ljTηρlωι· ΥραΦομ.i"Ψ[ΙΠ]Ι;ΖΡ'ijσαν Γά[ιοs- Σκριβώνιοs- Γαloυ vίόs-] [ ...]ETlvas- ΚουρΙ[ων Πωμ.εντlν
Β

.

.

.

' οιήσαντο - - - - - - - - - - -] [περί ών οί πρεσβευταί λόΥΟVS- 41Π - ] [41'Πεί ] [- •

-

c

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

.

•

•

•

.

-

-

•

•

•

.

-

.

-

•

-

-

•

-

[ -.... - - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.]-9'9 .. [ .]δότων τών [πολφ] {ων [ ... .μη . . ] συνομ.ό [σασ] θαι laVTOiJS- τέκνα σwβlοvs- άνελειν καί ταίι; τών πολεμ.lω[ν] δυνάμεσιν παρατάξασθαι καί τα πνεύ· ματα ύπερ τών δημ.οσlων ΠΡαΥμάτων -ήμετέρωιι 41ιι τήι ΧΡεlαι άποβαλείιι μ.ιΧλλον ή έιι ΤΙΙΙΙ καφώι ά-πό Tijs- του δήμ.ου του ·Pωμ.αlων φιλtαs- άπεσ-rαr,lκέναι δόξωσιιι· ιι ταύτην τε αύτοιs- σωΤ1ΙΡlαν όρώιιτεs- TijS- ·πολι.οΡκlαs- ΥεΥοιιέναι. διά τε ταύτηιι την α1.τlαν 'πικρότεροιι αύτοιs- τώιι πολεμlωιι χρησαμέιιωιι μεylσταιs- σvp.φopαΙι; καί βλάβαι? πεΡΙ'πεσειιι v πολλούs- τε κιιιδύνοvs- άναδεδέxθιlι, : - - - - - - - -] � [- - - - - - - .

.

- .-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

.

-

. -

-

-

.

-

.

-

.

-

.

-

•..

CoI. ΙΙ D

[Π ' ερί τούτου του -rrpcfYjLaTos- ούτωs- έδοξειι· πρεσβευταϊ] S- Θασlων [κατα] [πρόσωπον 41ιι τήι συνκλήτωι φιλανθρώΠ ' ωs- άποκριθηναι· χά]ριτα Φιλ{α!, [συμ.]· [jLaXlav άνανεώσασθαι. TOiJS- πρεσβευταs- ανδΡαs-] καλούs- καί ά[Υαθούs-] [καΙ φtλσυs συμμάχου!; Τε -ήμετέρου!; Πάρα δήμου] καλου κα Ι άΥα[θου] [καΙ Φlλου συμμ.άχου τε -ήμετέρου προσαΥορευσαι έ] δοξεν· vacat [περ; τε ών οδτοι οί πρεσβευταί λόΥουs- -rrpόs-] την σύνκλη-τον 41v[οιή][σαν-το, Λεvκlοv ΚΟΡνηλlοv Σύλμα Έπa.ιppoδΙ-τoυ ύπά-του -του 41ν[ιαυ-του] - - συμ.βεβουλευκ ?]ότοs- καί -τών πρεσβευτ[ών -τών με-τ - -] [- - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ΤΗΝΤΕ[· [- - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -...... -.. -] -

•

Ε

-

-

•

•

•

-

-

•

-

-

•

-

-

•

[- - -] �N![- - - - - - - - - - - - .. -...... -......]

JJ6

SENATUS CONSULTA

Ι. ] ΣΤΕ πρεσβεΥΙ - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - των δηΙLοσlων ΠΡαΥιιά]­ των των ήμετέΡφΙ ν - - - --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ίγα τε Λεύκιο5' Koρvήλιo5' ΣΙύλλα5' Έπαιf'ρόδιτo5'. Κόιντο5' Καικlλιο5' Μέτελλο5' Εύσεβη5'] ύπατοιι Εάν αυτοίs- Φσ.lνητα� [- - - .. - .. - - ..................................... _] προσηλωμένο5' .ην· έν δε τωι έμ;rΙροσθεν χρόνωι ? -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ωι έν τωι ναωι τωι τη5' ΙΙlστεω5' π Ι - - - - - - - -- -. θvσlαν τε έν τωι Καπε] τωλlωι έαν ποιfjσαι βούλωνταΙ ι αύτο;:5' έξfjι - - - - - - - -- - - - - - άρέσκειν ?] αύτα 'TfjI τε συνκλΙήτωι κα1 τωι δήμωι τωι 'Pωμαlων - - - - - - - άρι)!ττά τε εΙ ναι καί έσεσθαι 'TaVTa τε Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - δια 1'] γήμψ έχειν έξειν τε δώσειν τε εΙ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - πε]vραΥμένα ύπ' αύτων ΕΥΚΑΤΑΙ( - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - ] &5' τε προσόδου5' 'Tfj5' τούτων άΡ'Ι ETfj5' κα1 καταλΟΥfj5' Ενεκεν άπο συμβoυλloυ γνώιιψ] Λεύκιο5' KoΡVΉλιo?, ΙΣύjλλα5' αύτοκρΙάτωρ ΤΟ;:5' αύτο;:5' - - - - - - - - - - συν]­ εχώρησεν ν 'πρλΙει5' χωρl] α καί τα ύΙπάρxovτα αύτο;:5'? - - - - - - - - - - -] λ,l,ένα5' καί τι - - c. 8 -]Π-?Ι- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] Ι κι;χ)1 τούτωΙ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -] Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -] -

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Ι - - - - - - πρ]οσόδουΙ5' - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Ι - - - - - - - - π]όλει5' χω [pla - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Ι -- - - - - -]ΤΩΝΠ Λ r Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] Ι - -------- - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- - -- - - - - - - - - -] ΙΙΙΙΙ-

-----------

-

-_-

-

- -] αδται αί πολιτε;:αΙι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] - τού ?]των των 'πόλεων χΙωρlων - -- - - - - - - -- - - ---] - - -] οι διακατέσχον Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] - - -];;;5' ΤΟ;:5' τόπΙ ΟΙ5' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - ] - - -] &ακατεχΙ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [- ... - n""Jo� τιχύτιχ njjτ(ι.ς Ι Ι - - - - - - - - , - ό] ljfjIL05' ό 'Ρωμ",{ωΙν] Ι - - - - - - - Θά] σιοι καρπlζεσθαι δύ" Ιωνται - - - - - -] vαcαt Ι - - - - - - - 'Ροψ]ψαλκα5' 7j Τιουτα 7j Ι - - - - - - - - -]ν 7j λαοί αύτων -? Ι- - - - - - -] δι ακατέχουσιν 7j Ι- - - - - - - - - - - τ]ωι πολέμωι ?)μετΙέρωι] Ι- - - - - - - ά]πήΥαΥον' σπω5' η- - - - - - - - -]-?85' άν έπαρχεlα Ι- - -] Ι - - - - - - -]9Ι - -] Α ΣΙ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]! Α βλουπορι5' 7j Ι - - - -] Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]τωσαν καί ΟΣΙ- - - - - -] Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] vαcαt Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Αβ] �ovπoρι Ι -- - - - - -] Ι- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -]των Ι - - - - - - - --] Ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

ξέγΙια ? -

117

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

Μ[ - -- -- - -------- - - - - - - - ---- - ------] ] Σ-?[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ - - - ] 1[----] [- - -μΥ/[- --] ] [- ] ΤΗΔ [ -

-

-

-

-

[----] Ι.{ΙΙ [ - - - - - - - -] [- - - σιιψ,λήτοιι δό [γμα - - -] [- - ιΧποσ ?] τ..,λ ί - - - - - - - ]

Α 5 [Τ,)μ.ψηρίω, (?), Taylor, but [πο!λ,)μητηρίω" Bousquet. Α 5-δ Taylor restored thename; cf. Ε. Badian, AthenaeIIm, n.s., 40 (196Ζ): 356-58. Ε 9 ιΧποδέ?)(Cτα, Dunant and Pouilloux, but the photograph shows )?,ΤΑ; cf. S.C. de Tabetιis (Νο. 17), 11. 5-7. G 6 Dunant and Pouillnux print σπ)ω. ταυτα γ[ίνωνται, but an examination of the photograph seems ιο show ΩΣΤΑΥΤΑΟΥΤΩΣΙ.

118

21 EPISTULA CN. CORNELII DOLABELLAE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Dunant andJ. ΡουίΙΙοιlχ, RecJιι,rc�t Sl" ΙΉisιοire et /es Cu/tes Je Thasos, Η: EιuJes thasiennes, V (Paris, 1958 ), no. 175, ρρ. 45-55, Plate VH, ι; Ε. Badian, "The Dolabellae of the Republic," Papers of the British School αι Rome,

33 (1965): 48-51.

DESCRIPTION. Block of marble carrying the present letter and also one of Much has been lost because of the holes bored into it for fittings. Width: 1.34 m. Height: 0.48 m. Thickness: 0.19 m. Inscription ίs ίη two columns, with 0.035 m. between each column. Height of letters: 0.010 m. Ι. Sestius Quirinalis (Νο. 56).

[Γνα,]ο; Κορνήλιο; ΠσπΜου [υlό. Δολαβέλλα; άνθύπατ]ο; χαίρει ν λέγει άρχουσι βoυλiίι δήμωι Θασίων' Μι/(α; Μι/(α υlό;, Σα[ - - - /(αθ' υίΌθεσία]ν Ε?JΡυμενίδου, Φύσει δέ Λυήτου, πΡεσβ ευταί ύμέτεροι, ανδΡε; /(α[λοί /(α, άγαθοί /(αί Φίλοι παρά δήμου /(α ]λου τε /(αί άγαθου /(α, Φίλου συμμάχου τε ήμετέρου, έν Θεσσαλο [νί/(ηι έντυχόντε; μοι - - - -]ον τψ σύγ/(λητον τοίί δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων ύπέρ τη; ύμετέρ[α; πόλεω; δόγμα περ, τη; εΙ; τά δημόσι]α πράγματα /(αταλογη; υμων εσΧ1)/(εναι' τουτό τ ε τό δόγ[μα· ......' - ... ... . .. . .. .. - - . - -J του έπέγνων τ[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] τερον έσΧ1)/(έ [ναι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] έν τώι πολέμωι [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τα]�αlπω�ίαΙ; πεpι [πεσειν? - - - - - - --- - ] -, τε [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ιμπερατορα; ύμών ύμ.'ν χάριτα [ΦιΜαν συμμαχίαν άνανεώσασθαl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] όπερ ύιια; έπεγν[- - - - - - -]f'OV το,; πρεσβευτα,; Άβ&ηριτών ιLι τρόπωι Λεύ{ /(}/(10; Κορνήλιο. Σίιλ[λα. - - - - - - - - - διέ] /(ρινεν /(αί ή σύγ/(λητο; δί/(αιον διέλαβεν, ό δη r

-

,

,

-

-

1 19

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK :EAST

15

ΟΣΝ.4. ΧΟ/ΣΕΤ9ΥΣΕΙ'ΜΠΟΣΤΕΑΕ . ύ"ll'ή κοαι ύμΤν �σlν τάι; τε ,11,[ - -μΕΝ .....ΣΖΥΕ. ΕΙ τrpoσ6δoυι; ή σύγκλητοι; [ή 'Ρω]­ μαΙων σvνεXώpησεν ίνα χραv[θ - - - - - - - - τ]οι$ταιι; τοΤι; ΤΟ..ΙΝΑ Υιν'1ταl μ6ι; τε 'Ρωμ.σ1ων �κιI�[ευσεν - - - - - - - - - - - -]�Ό

.

.

.

όμν. olωι; τε και ΠετrαpηθΙolι; και [ΣκlαθΙοlι;] γράμματα ι6rΙΙστεlλα ίνα ύμΤν ύ"ll'ήκoαι " , .. .,. ωσιν ωl τpoτrωl η σvy κλητοι; ήμετΙΙρα ήθιΙλησεν. vacat ΕΙ δέ τrεμι τηι; χώραι; ην όμΟΡουσαν �ΙσμαΡον (?) [. . ]�N�. ΑΙΕ την χώραν �μ.έ σταθ[ήν]αl ΝΤΟ[- --] ύμΤν σχολάζουσαν, τrαpαδoυναl δι! τινα σχολάζουσα[ν - - c. 19 - -]AIQZY!4-:1KαL τrpά. oiJ. [ .... ] γράμματα άτrΙΙστεlλα ίνα περι ταύτη. τή. χώραι; NQTH.N. ΟΝΟ IJ E ΕΝΑΜΗΒΙΗΤΙΝΕΣΕΝΠΑΚΗΠΗΙ άτrOXω­ [Ρ]ήσωσιν ύμΤν τε σχολάζουσαν τrαpαδωσlν καθωι; .Ω [- - c. 11 - -]ΙΝ[- - c. 9 - -] ΤΟΠΟ/ ... AN�IN εΙν[α ?] Ι τε εί: τινα 'Ραιμηταλκαι; η Aβλovτroplι; η Tvτα Κ ..ΣΕΤ ..[U. ο . . ΡΤ.. ύμΙΙτερα δlακατιΙχο [υ] [σ]lν ταVτα ύμΤν σXoλάζovτα άτroδoθωσlν· όμοΙωι; τε Al1f[ - - 14 - is - -] .

20

.

.

.

.

•

.

Ζ5

.

.

­

Τ�HIJ.AΣ!ZY!JTI4Il [.]v ύμΙΙτερα ταυτα ύμΤν άτroκατασταθήναl ΦΡοντΙσαl [- - - -] ύτrέp τοι$των των τrραγμάτων ύμ..[ετ] [ΙΙρων] δημοσΙφ η Ιδlαl ίνα τrpό. �μέ ΤΑ.Σ[- - C. 9 _

_

_

_

_

_

- -

]

] ΥΤ[-

-

- -

---------

[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] CoLll

Περι δέ των καταλεlτroμΙΙνων, �άν εΙι; άμ.φ,.λογΙαν [- - - - - -] 8 " " ' ωσαν Ι [- 'Γ.t!J) '1r.OfI.'Y.μ.ατο.ς ΊT.REfl ..f!VTαι. :!'fJO!; εμε ε'λθετ Λ

'

- - - - -]

- - - - - - - - - - - -Ι- -

-

- - - -

- -

-

---

--------

-

αίτινε. �ν τηl ΦlλΙαl του δήμου του 'Pωμαlων Ε'μεινα [ν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ΓναΤοι; [Κορνήλ,οι;] Πoτrλ[oυ υΙό. ΔολαβιΙλλαι; άVΘΎΠατoι; [χαΙρεlν λlγεl αρχουσl βουλήl δήμωl Θασl][ων - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] σ[υμμ]4χψl άτroκplν[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [- - [- - [- - [- - -

Spatium versuum quinque

- - - - - - -] l ύμάι; θιΙλω ΦpovτΙσςψ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] - - - - - - - -] ωσιν ύπήκοοl ήτε οwωι; [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -J - - - - - - - -]σαl τι! τι ύτrεvαντlov τουτ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

- - - - - - - -]η αύΠι Σκιαθlo".

vacat

120

SENA TUS CONSULTA

15]MO . . O.EN.A (or 0) KT)... 16lI[- -p (or Y) KT)...; Dunant and Tas TO ",[O)..ITO'a:S' xwp,a: )..,lp.",,[a:s KW/La:ls ro [K]�l ..poa6ooIJS KT)... 17 Dunant and Pouilloux suggest with great reservation T lDliTo,s TO'S ;�[Ea IV a ylll17Ta:1 KT).. . 2.0 EMAPON.. E (or .E) NE (or II or r) KT)... 2.1 [111a:lp!,;�,!,? suggested by Dunant and Pouilloux. 2.2. In the middle Dunant and Pouilloux suggest the possibility ofTI[V]o[S']t'v Af"7P'!I' TIV<S lv lIa:K'7Tr'T/I (or lIa:K'71 Tijl); but the place names are unknown. 2.3 ., .ANE (or O)IN KT).. . 2.4 � (or E). 2.5 AP(! (or ANNlor AllI), and, later, A.E!l'! (or A). 13-I4 AEYKIKlO.E.

Pouilloux

suggest

•

COMMENT ARY.

In the first year of the first Mithridatic War the Pontic king had

overrun Bithynia,seized control of Asia, instigated the murders of thousands of Romans and Italians in the province,and started the siege of Rhodes. end there.

They took in

an

But his ambitions did not

even broader horizon, for in the late autumn of 88

sent Archelaus to Greece with an army to secure allies or to take possession.

B.C.

he

Soon the

forces of Mithridates were well entrenched in Athens, the Peloponnese, all Boeotia except Thespiae, and Euboea.'

A second Mithridatic army then entered Thrace and

Macedonia without, apparently, meeting very serious opposition.

This was a strategy

presumably calculated to obtain a strong foothold in Europe as an anchor to secure Mithridates' new Asian possessions and eventually as a base to annex ill the Balkans.' The Pontic king had planned well.

The legate of the governor of Macedonia, Q.

Braetius Sura, gathered together his numerically weaker troops and marched south to Then Sulla arrived, early in 87

oppose Archelaus, but he was forced to retreat.

B.C.

The Pontic army in Thrace and Macedonia overran the whole area and advanced south­ ward against Sulla,but the son of Mithridates, who shared the command of this northern army with a general Taxiles, died on the way. retreating Archelaus.

86

B.C.

Taxiles turned his troops over to the

The combined armies then fell before Sulla at Chaeroneia in

in complete disorder.

The following spring Sulla marched north into the

borderland of Macedonia and Thrace for a punitive expedition against the Eneti, Dardani,and Sinti,who had been plundering Macedonia after the collapse of the Roman forces in that area during the previous year.3

Then,in the autumn of 85

B.C.,

the war

ended.

�: i. this l.orthem "Ail'p"."'" in Tl..,,(;c .hit' lsuf sl'edal intere�L, for the present docu­ ments are all directly connected with the Thracian situation that arose during and after the invasion of the country by the Pontic army.

The Thracian tribes seem to have

taken advantage of the opportunity to attack and plunder the territory of their neighbors. With the Roman troops of Macedonia out of action and the army of Mithridates I

For the fullest account of the first Mithridatic War see Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, Roi de Pant

(Paris, 1890), pp. I2.1-2.II.

Newer material and the results of later scholarship will be found

Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950) , chap.

•

IX,

in

D.

with notes.

That the plans of Mithridates did not end with the conquest of Asia may be surmised from what

Kat TOUTO� TE�f'1p'OIl, 5T� K:X' fap f!.Ka,r; Ka � , t%yXou TtV.!' .,ro�£f'wJ," fS' a�,.,.p.a'X.,aJJ, 1.I""I),ou, �al. fS' TOU� , Ka:1 KIJpOpVrrra:S' awOKa:KflS. Sulla accused pa:m)..oa:s ..oPLf.. ofL..OS', va:IJS' TO 017010IJ, Ka:1 "P'f'poa:S' Sull� said at Dardanus n 8S D,;, (Appi� Mithr 57) � :.. ,

EKu8a,s Kat

,i �aupo,...aTa�!.. OI17T�

Mithridates of planning the war for a long time and of aiming at world domination. 3 Appian Mil/lr. 55.

12J

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

securely in control of Asia they had little to fear, and, if we can believe the accusations uttered by Sulla against Mithridates in 8S

B.C.

at Dardanus, the Thracians may have

made advance preparations with the connivance of the Pontic king for the devastation of the area.4

Details, however, are lacking.

The letter of Sulla, dated 80

D.C.

by the mention of his second consulship, com­

municates the text of a senatorial decree to the magistrates and people ofThasos.

It is

at once clear that theThasians had resisted the enemy forces and had sworn an oath to kill their families and to die fighting on behalf of the Republic rather than prove disloyal in Rome's hour of need.

Because of their resistance they had suffered terribly

at the hands of the enemy. The Roman Senate theref ore decreed that" friendship and alliance" between Rome and Thasos would be renewed; that the Thasian envoys to Rome would be allowed to make a sacrifice and an ofe f ring in the Capitol; that whatever revenues Sulla had previously assigned them would be confirmed; and that whatever cities, ports, and territories they had previously possessed would be restored to them. Later sections of the decree (F and G) seem to ref er to the restoration of specific lands and possessions of Thasos occupied by the Thracian chieftains Rhoemetalcas, Ablouporis, and Tiuta. The customary gif ts (secs. H-J) fa: the Thasian envoys while in Rome probably formed the conclusion of the decree. The letter of Cn. Comelius P. £ Dolabella, governor of Macedonia from 80 to 78

D.C.,

is also addressed to the Thasians and recounts how Thasian envoys had met him in Thessalonike and had made known to him the newly passed senatus consultul1I.s

Dolabella

outlines in some detail the contents of that decree and lists the various measures he has adopted or will adopt in order to carry out its provisions.

He states that he has sent

letters to the islands of Peparethos and Skiathos informing them that henceforth they

will be under the control of Thasos, and that he also has sent letters ordering the res­ toration of the land formerly owned byThasos. The mention of theThracian chieftains

�

would suggest that they had seized those lands in the course of the war and that t ey were situated on the mainland just opposite the island: theThasian Peraea. Dolabella (Col. I� II

A second letter of

4-9) apparently ref ers to instructions of some kind issued toThasos

concerrung the nature ana the 'extent of iL� LUil�lO!

V'ye,

rC¥drC:i:hv� ;'tid �!datho::.

Such, in brief , is the information contained in these important documents.

It would

appear that when the Pontic army under the son of Mithridates entered Thrace and 4 See the passage from Appian quoted above (n.

2).

5 Dunant and Pouilloux, op. cit., pp. 48-49, suggest that the two Thasian envoys who met Dolabella

may have been the men who had gone to Rome for the decree.

They had carried a copy of the

decree back with them to Thasos and then had met the Macedonian governor to inform him of its provisions. with

Such was, almost certainly, the sequence of events.

a copy of a decree passed in their favor: cf. the

Envoys would normally return

S.C. de Serapeo (No.

ical1y stated that a [copy of a] decree was carried from Rome.

5),

11. 4-7, where it is specif­

But it is not certain whether the

envoys are the same men in both documents, hef ore the Senate in Rome and before the Macedonian governor.

Their titles, however, would lead to that conclusion, 3S Dunant and Pouilloux state.

For Cn. Comelius P. f . Dolahel1a see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Repllb/ic, (New York,

122

19S2), 80.

The present letter is important for his filiation; cf. Badian, lo co cit.

II

SENATVS CONSVLTA

Macedonia the native chieftains of the area seized the Thasian possessions on the main­ land.

Whether the "enemy" mentioned in the Senatorial decree and the letter are the

Thracians or the Pontic army cannot be decided, but perhaps the word is meant to cover both of them.

And since Dolabella (his letter, CoL I,ll. 2Iff.) apparently has to write

a letter to e ffect the restoration of that land, one might assume that the land was held or controlled by the Thracians,perhaps intermittently, down to 80

B.C.

This is possible,

but the fragmentary nature of the present documents makes it impossible to establish certainty.

At any rate,at the conclusion of the first Mithridatic War Sulla was aware of

the island' s resistance and assigned it certain revenues to compensate to some degree for its suffering and consequent poverty. From the letter of Dolabella it is possible to see that the senatorial decree also had assigned Peparethos and Skiathos to the control ofThasos. The reason for this is almost certainly connected with the fact that in the course of the war the island of Skiathos had been attacked by barbarians.6 Thracians.

Q.

Braetius Sura because it was being used as a storehouse for the

Hence,both islands may have been involved in the war on the side of the In addition, as we might expect, Thasos is to be allowed to use its own

[laws and] customs, i.e., it is to be autonomous (letter of Dolabella, CoL I, I7).

It

becomes a civitas libera-small enough reward. Rhoemetalcas may be related to the Rhoemetalcas of about I2

B.C.-A.D.

the first king of a united Thrace,although they are two generations apart.7 is a Thracian name found only once in our sources.8

I4 who was Ablouporis

Tiuta or Tuta is also a Thracian

name, but nothing whatever is known about a king or chieftain bearing such a name; it may be feminine.9 6 Appian Mithr. 29.

For the name of th is legate of the Macedonian governor seel.G.,

IX,

2, 61];

on coins see Dunant and Pouilloux, "p. cit., p. 6. 7 Dunant and Pouilloux, " p. cit., pp. SI-52. B Ibid., p. 52, referring to

W.

Tomascheck, Sitzungsberichte Wien, 1]1 (1894): ]; P . Kretschmer,

Einieit14ng in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache (Gottingen, 1896), pp. 184-85; and D. Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Vielma, 1957), p. ]. • Dunant and Pouilloux, "p. cit., p. 52.

\.cniulY .D.It"...

The valioll"LL

fUHI1S of he1.

spell her name in Latin and Greek.

12J

They draw attention to the Illyrian queen Teuta 0 fthe third name

in

UUl do,"umenLs merdy leiiecfthe Roman attempt to

22 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE ASCLEPIADE

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Petrus Victorius, M. Tullii Ciceronis Epistulae (Florence,

1 57I), p. 8; K. W. Goettling, Fi.inJzehn riimische Urkunden auIErz und Stein (Halle, 1845), pp. 50ff.; J. Franz, C.I.G., III (I853), 5879; F. Ritschl, Priscae latinitatis monument a epigraphica (Berlin, 1862), tab. XXX; Th. Mommsen, C.I.L., I (I863), 203, with notes on the works ofSigonius, Ursinus, Lipsius, and Gruter; P. Viereck, Sermo Grateus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XVII, pp. 3Iff.; G. Kaibel, I.G., XIV (I890), 95I; Bruns-Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tilbingen, 1909), p. 4I; R. Cagnat, I.G.R.R., I (I9II), II8; E. Lommatzsch, C.I.L., l' (I918), 588; L. Gallet, Revue historique de droitfranfais et itranger, 4a ser., 16 (I937): 242-93, 387-425; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani', pt. I (Florence, 194I), p. 35; C. Pietrangeli, Bullellino della Comm. Arch. Govern. di Roma, 69 (I94I): I09-I2 with photograph; idem, Capito/ium, 16 (I94I): 171-74; F. De Visscher, L'antiquiti classique, 13 (I944): 26, n. 2; S. Accame, 11 dominio romano in Greda dallaguerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. ID-II, 56; C. Pietrangeli, Bullellino dell' Istituto del dirillo romano, SI-52 (I948): 28I; E. H. Warmington, Remains oJOld Latin, IV, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, 1950), 444-50 (Latin only); D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 1,236, and 11, III3-14 , n. IO; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New York, 195I), 267-{\9; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del dirillo romano, 7th ed. rev. (Naples, 1960), p. 213; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Boume, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 7I; A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, 11 (Florence, 1963), no. 51 3, pp. 19-24; new photograph in A. Degrassi, Inscri ptiones Latinae Liberae Re i Publicae, Imagines (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Auctarium) (Berlin, 1965), Plate No. 393.

DESCRIPTION. Capitolino.

Bronze tablet found in Rome in 15 70, now in the Museo

It contains eleven lines in a fragmentary form ot the ongmai

Latin text followed by a complete Greek translation.

Dimensions: height,

In 1939 three additional fragments of this same tablet were unearthed near the Palazzo del Museo. This new material is underlined in

0.34 m.; width, 0.65 m.

the present edition. It has been estimated by Pietrangeli that the height of the entire tablet must have been about 0.50 m., but that the tablet was still of greater width than height.

The first three and the last two lines of the Greek

portion are engraved in larger letters than the others and are indented slightly.

124

78 B.C.

SENATUS CONSULTA

[Co(n)s(ulibus) Q. Lutatio Q.

Catulo et M. Aemilio Q. f. M. n. Lepido, pr(aetore) urbano et inter peregrinos L. Cornelio - - - f.) [Sisenna, mense Maio. Q. Lutatius Q. f. Catulus co(n)s(ul) senatum consuluit a. d. XI k. Iun. in comitio. Scribundo adfuerunt) [L. Faberius L. f. Ser(gia� C. [- - -) L. f. Pop(lilia), Q. Petillius T. f. Ser(gia). Quod Q. Lutatius Q. f. Catulus co(n)s(ul) verba fecit Asclepiadem) [Philini f. Clazomenium, Polustratum Poluarchi f. Carystium, Meniscum Irenaei, Meniscus Thargelii qui fuit, filium Milesium magistros (?) in navibus adfuisse) [bello Italico coepto, eos operam fortem et fidelem rei publicae nostrae navasse, eos se ex senatus consulto domos dimissos velle, sei ei videretur) [utei pro rebus bene gestis ab eis fortiterque factis in rem publicam nostram honor eis haberetur: de ea re ita censuerunt. Asclepiadem Philini f.) [dazomenium Polustratu)m Poluarchi f. Carystium, [Meniscum Irenaei, qui filit ante Meniscus Thargelii, fìlium Milesium, viros bonos et ameicos appellari). [Senatum populumque Romanum existumare eo)rum operam bonam fortem fidel[em rei publicae nostrae fuisse; quam ob rem senatum censere, utei iei leiberei postereique) [eorum in patrieis sueis liberei o)mnium rerum et sine tributa sin[t. Sei qua tributa ex boneis eorum exacta sunt, postquam rei publicae nostrae caussa profectei) [sunt, utei ea eis reddantur, restituant)ur, seive quae praedia aedificia [bona eorum venierunt, postquam domo rei publicae nostrae caussa prof ectei sunt, utei) rea omnia eis in integrum restituantur; sei)ve quae dies praeterieit, �m domo rei publicae nostrae caussa profectei sunt, neiquid ea res eis noceat neive quid eis) [ob eam causam minus debeatur neive quid minus eis) petere exigere liceat, quaeque her[ editates) eis leiberisve eor[um obvenerunt, utei eas habeant possideant fruanturque) ; lquaeque ei leiberei posterei uxoresve eoru)m ab altero petent seive quid ab eis leibereis postereis ux[oribusve eorum aliei petent, utei eis leibereis postereis) [uxoribusve eorum potestas et optio sit, seive domi le)gibus sueis vel(int) iudicio certare seive apUd magistratus [nostros Italicis iudicibus seive in civitate leibera aliqua) [earum, quae perpe)tuo in [amicitia p(opuli) R(omani) manse)runt, ubei velint utei ibei iudicium de eis �bus fiato Sei qua [iudicia de eis absentibus postquam domo profectei sunt) [facta sunt, ea) utei in in[tegrum restitu)antur et de integro iudicium ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) fiato Seiquas pecunias c[ivitates eorum publice deberent, in eas pecunias nei) [quid dare dJeberent. Ma[gistrat)us nostri queiquomque Asiam Euboeam locarunt vectigalve Asiae [Euboeaeimponent curent, ne quid ei dare deberent). --

lO

---

125

f.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

15

10

[Uteiq]ue Q. Lutatiu[s Μ.) Aemjlius co(n)s(ules) a (Iter) a(mbove) s(ei) e(is) v(ideretur) eos ίη ameicorum formulam re[fe)rundos curarent, eis[que tabulam aheneam amjcitiae ίη Capitolio ponere] [rem]que deivina[m) facere liceret, munusque eis ex formula locum lautiaque q(uaestorem) urb(anum) eis locare mitter[eque i]uber[ent. Seique de rebus sueis legatos ad senatum] [mίψere ipseive veneire vellent, uti (e) is leίbereίs postereisque eorum legatos venire mittereque liceret.////Utei[que Q. Lutatius Μ. Aemilius co(n)s(ules) a(lter) a (mbove)] sei v(ideantur) e(is), litteras ad magistratus nostros, quei Asiam, Macedoniam provincias optinent, et ad magistratus eorum mitt[ant senatum velle et] aequom censere ea ita fιeri, ί(αι) u(tei) e(is) e r(e) p(ublica) f (ideve) s(ua) v(ideatur). C(ensuere).

Έπl ύπάτων ΚοΙ.ντου Λυτατ'ου Κο'ντου υίοίί Κάτλου καΙ Μάρκου ΑΙμ[ιλ'ου Κο'ντου υίοίί] Μάρκου υίωνοίί Λ(ε)π(σδου, στΡαπιγοίί δε κατά πόλιν καΙ �πl τών ξ'νων Λευκ'ου Κορνηλ{ο[υ .. . . . .. υίοίί] Σισ'ννα. μηνδ. Mαf.oυ. Κόιντος Λυτάτιο. Κο'ντου υίό. Κάτλος ύπατος συγκλήτωι συνεβουλ[εύσατο] πρδ (ή)μεΡών ένδεκα καλανδών 'Ιουν'ων �ν κομετ{ωι. ΓΡαΦομ'νωι παpfjσαν Λεύκιος Φαβ'ριος Λευκ'ου υίό. ΣεΡγ'α, Γ ά.ιο [• . . . . . . . . . . Λευ-] κ'συ υίό. Ποπλι(λ){α, Κόιντος Πετ{λλιο. ΤΙτου υίό. ΣεΡγ{α. ΠεΡ1 ών Κόιντος Λυτάτιο. Κσ{ντου υίός Κάτ(λ)ο. ύπατος λόγου. Jποιήσατο' Α [σκληπιάδην] Φιλ{νου υίόν Κλαζοιι'νιον, ΠολύστΡατον Πολυάρκου υίόν ΚαΡύστιον, Μεν(ί)σκον EΙpηναloυ τόν γεγονότα ΜενΙσκον Θαργηλ{ου υΙδν Μιλή[σιον ......, .] Εν τοις πλο{σις παΡαγεγον'ναι τοίί πολέμου τοίί 'Ιταλικοίί J[v]apxoIL'vov. τούτους Jpγaa{av έπαVΔpoν καΙ 'πιστην τοις δημ-οσ{οι; πΡά.γμασιν τοις ήμ-επρ[οις . παΡεσχτικt-] ναι, τούτους έαυτόν κατά τό τ(ή)ς συγκλήτου δόγμα εΙς τάς 'πατρ{δας άπολίίσαι βούλεσθαι, JιXv αύτψ φσ.{νιjTαι, όπω. ύπερ τών καλώς πεπραγιι'νων ύπ' αύ [τών καΙ άνδρα-] γα(θτι)μάτων εΙς τά δτιμ-όσια (π)Ρά.γμ-ατα τά -ήι-ι'τεΡα καταλο.."η [- -] αύτών γ'νrιTαι' πεΡ1 τούτου τοίί πΡιΧ.γιιατος ούτως έδοξεν' Άσκλτι'πιάδην Φιλ{νου υΙόν Κλαζ[οιι'νιον,] Πολύστρατον Πολυά.Ρι.:ου υΙόν Καρύστιον. Mεv{σκoν EΙprινα{oυ υιον Μιλήσιον τόν γεγονότα Μενίσκον. ανωθεν δε ΘαΡγηλ{ου νν ανδΡας καλούς καΙ &'γαθους καΙ Φί[λους ΠΡοσ-] αγορείίσαι· ·τη(ν σ)ύνκλ7]Τον καΙ τόν δή/-,ον τδν 'Pωμαlων διαλανβάνειν την τούτων Jpγaa{av καλ(ην) κιU έπανδΡον κιU πιστΗv τοις δημοσίο&> πΡιΧ.γμ-ασιν τοις ήμ-ετ'ρο [ις γεγο] ν'ναι.

SENATUS CONSULTA

15

δι' ή(ν> αίτίαν την σύνκλ1j'Tον κΡίνειν, σπω, οοτοι τέκνα έκ')Ιονοί τε αυτων έν -ratS' έαυτών πατρίσιν άλειτούΡΥ1j'TΟΙ πάντων τών πpα')ψιX-rων και άνείσΦοροι ώαι.ν· εί Tιν€ς είσΦ [οραί έ] κ των ύπαΡχόντων αύτών είσπεπΡαγμ.έναι είσίν μ.ετα τό TOJTOVS' τώ" δημοσίων πραγμάτων τών ήμετέρων χάρ(ιν) όρμησαι. σπω, αυται aύTotS' άποδοθώσι(ν> άποκατασταθώσιν' εί τέ TιVE{t}S' {τ} άγροί, οίκίαι, ύπάρχοντα αύτών πέπρανται μετα τό έκ -rfjS' πατρίδοS' τών δημοσίων πραγμάτων τών ήμετέρων χάριν όρμησαι, άπωS' ταύτα πάντα αύτοιS' ElS' άκέραιον άποκατασταθjj' εί τέ TιS' προθεσμΙα παρε(λ)ήλυθεν, άΦ' ου έκ -rfjS' 'πατρίδοS' τών δημοσίων πραγμάτων τών ήμετέρων χάριν ώρμησα(ν>, μή τι τούτο τό πράγμα aύTOtS' βλαβερόν γένηταl μηδέ τι aύTOtS' δια ταύτην την αlτίαν έλασσον ό(Φ>είληται μηδέ τι έλασσον aύTOtS' μεταπορεύεσθαι 'Πράσσει.ν έξη, όσα" ΤΕ ι<ληΡοvομlf!. αύτοίς 17 τοίς τέκνοις αύτων παρεγένοντο, άπωS' -raJTaS' έχωσιν (δ>ιακατέχωσlν καρπεύωντa.tτε· οσα τε αν αυτοι, τέκνα, έκγονοι YVvatKlS' τε αύτών παρ' έτέρου μεταΠΟΡεύωνταl, έάν τέ τι παΡ αυτων τεκνων, εκγονων γυναικων τε αυτων ετεροι μ,εταπορευωνται, οπωS' τουτων, τέκνων, (έκγόνων) γυναικών ΤΕ αύτων ieOVala καί αίρεσις (ήι)- έάν ΤΕ εν -ralS' πατρίσιν κατα τούS' ίδίοvS' νόμοvS' βούλωνται κρίνεσθαl η έ(π)ίτών ήμετέρων άρχόντων έπί 'Ιταλικών κριτών, έάν τε έπίπόλεωS' έλευθέΡα[S'] τών δια τέλοvS' έν τηl Φιλίαι τού δήμου τού 'Ρωμαίων μεμενηκυιών, ου αν προαιΡώνται, άπωS' έκεί τό κρ(ι)τηριον περίτούτων τών πραγμάτών γlνηταl' εί τινα ΚΡιτηρια περί αύτών άπόντων μ.ετα τό έκ -rfjS' πατρίδοS' όρμησαl γεγονότα έστίν, ταύτα άπωS' ElS' άκέραlον άΠOKα-rασ-rαθήι καί έξ άκεραίου κριτηριαι, Karo τό -rfjS" συνκλήτου δόγμα γίνψαl' εί .,..να ΧΡή}Lατα αΙ ·πόλεlS' αύτών δημοσίαι όΦεΙλωσlν, μή τι ElS' ταύτα τα χρήματα δούναι &φεΙλωσlν' t\�X':'�I��!: ήμ.�7'eΡf)Ι.� CrT&J.IεS" αι." Π[''ΤΕ 'Ασίαν, Εύ{30ιαν μισθώ::�ν Τι 'ϊιΡCσόδ,,:;S ',,1at��J Εύβοlαl έπιτιθώσιν, Φυλάξωνταl, μή τι ουτοι δούναι όΦιΙλωσlν' άπωS' τε ΚόιντοS' (A>vTιXTιoS', Μάρκο, ΑίμίλιοS' ύπατοι, ό ETEΡOS' η άμΦότεροι, ίαν a(JJ>TotS' Φa.tνηταl, τ(ού>του, ElS' τό τών ΦΙλων διάταγμα άνενεχθ[η-] ναι Φροντlσωσιν, τ [ού] 1'ΟΙ, τε πΙνα(κα> χαλκού" Φlλtα., έν τωl Kα.πετωΛLψ άνα.θεΙνα.ι θυσΙα.ν τε ποιησα.ι έ(ξ)fjι ξένlά τε α.ύτοΙ, κατα τό διάτα· γμα τόπον ·παροχήν τε τόν ταμίαν τόν κατα πόλιν τούτοι, μισθώσαι άποστ(εί>λαί τε κελεύσωσιν' έάν τε 'Περίτών ίδίων πραγμάτων πpεσ βΕVτα, πρόS' την σύγκλ1j'Tον άποστέλλειν αύτοl τε παpαγlνεσθαι προαιΡώνται, όπως αύτοίS"1 τέκνο,,§" έκγόνο[ις τε] αύτ[ών] Π Ρεσβευταί, παpαγlνεσθαι καί άποστέλλειν τε έξηι· στrω, τε Κόιντο, ΛvτάτιοS', MάpKoS' Alμ.lMoS' ύπατοι, ό έτερο, η άμΦότεροι, rι

,

,

-

,

,

20

25

"

Λ

-

,

_

.

,

"'

.

."

,

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

10

£Ct.v a�'To;:S" t/>alvrrra" ypa/Lp.a'Ta '1TpOS" 'TOOS" apxolJ'TaS" 'TOOS" TJf£fi'TEpoVs", Ot'TWfiS" 'AC1lav, MaKfi80vlav £'1TapX£laS" <8),aKa'TEXOVC1'V, Ka, '1TpOS" 'TOVS" aPXOV'Tas a�'Twv a'1TOC1'TfilAWC1W, 'T.;p, aVVK(A)"7'TOV ()EAnv Kat 8lKa,ov TJYfirC19a, 'TaV'Ta oihw ylvfiC19a" OV'TwS" WS" av a�'To;:S" £K 'TWV 8"71J..OC1lwv '1TpaYf£a'TWV '1TlC1'TficfJS" 'Tfi rijS" l8laS" t/>a
2

Latin text: 8 F. De Visscher, L'Antiquitl Classique, 13 (1944): 26, n. 2. 14 FIS. Greek text: AIl7EL10Y. 4 l7MEPQN. 5 l7011AIAIA. 5 KATAOC . 6 MENOCKON; at end of

[J/1fiAov"aS'l, Gallet; [vavapxov.l, Mommsen; [f£�Ta Tol, Kaibel. 7 J[vpPXop.,{vov, J(E]CXPX0P.EVOV, Goettling. 8 THC cyrKtiHTOY; Goettling changed CXtlT.p to cxtlrfi (se., rfi C1Vj1KA..rr'/J). 8-9 cxvSpcxWA017MATQN. 9 TPArMATA ; after ICCXTcx.\DY'1 the tablet line,

Viereck;

is damaged. II TH MOYNKAHTON. II KAAYH. U �v: HH. I3 AII0L10eQClA. 13 TINEICT. 14 a7TolCcxTcxC1Tcx/1fjl; for I the stone has C. is inscribed over an erasure.

I7 AIAKATEXQCIN.

15

15

llAPEAH AYBEN.

18
19

The first

QPMH C AH.

JTI'l

16

13

XAPHI.

14 ArpOI

OC EIAHTAI.

appears on the stone as EITI;

the second JTI'l has a small eta above the epsilon. 20 KPHTHPION. 24 A YTATIOC 24 AOTOIC. 24 T C CTOYC. 25 KAIIETQAJQr. 25 EllHI. 26 Al70CTOYAAI. 29 AIAKATEXOYCIN. 30 CYNKAHTON. 31 tPANHTAI.

COMMENTARY.

The ancient institutions of amicitia and hospitium that had long been

familiar to Romans as necessary adjuncts of social life and interfamily ties were gradually extended to the international sphere when the Romans came into formal contact with foreign states.

Various gradations of agreement, official and unofficia� loose and rigid,

must have been necessary quite early to express Rome's level of relationship with cities and states.

For some the relations of hos pitium or amicitia might be enough.

might require a jo eJus, more rigid and lasting.

By the second century

S.C.,

'

Others perhaps

much earlier, a micitia had become such a common institution on the international level

till .. it. a�hicvt,;d Rome.

d.

i.kfuiltc fc,liY... G.lld pro:::e:du:e.

��.

list U!'!"�!!!!a)

,�!�S

k.ept nf all om id of

Such status did not necessarily derive from a treaty, as was formerly held by

modem scholars, but was granted by Rome as a unilateral favor.'

The honors and

privileges that went with it almost inevitably meant that those states or individuals so singled out would naturally feel very closely connected with Rome. seek to strengthen and expand the ties.

They would then

Thus amici gradually became clientes.'

Our

knowledge of the various privileges accorded to individuals who had acquired the coveted title of amici populi Romani depends mainly upon two inscriptions, the present senatorial decree and Octavian's letter concerning Seleucus of Rhosus (No. 58).

They

For a detailed resume of the various theories about the nature of ami'itia see Gallet, op. cit., pp. For the more recent discussion see Accame, op. ,it., pp. 48-57; Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. II-U, 44, 68; Magie, op. ,it., 11, 9CS0-4S1. n. 76. I

265-93. •

Badian,op. ,it� p.

128

68.

SENATUS CONSULTA

exhibit remarkable similarities in the matter of privileges, but they dilfer in one major point: Seleucus received Roman citizenship, our three Greek naval commanders did not.

It is a point worth noting.

Asclepiades of Clazomenae, Polystratus of Carystus, and Meniscus of Miletus are proclaimed amici populi Romani for their valiant naval service in the cause of Rome during the Italic War. and 82

D.C.

This would seem to be the war of 90-89

must not be discounted.l

D.C.,

but the Sullan war of 83

The interval of time between 89 D.C. and 78

D.C.,

the date: of the decree, is rather long, but we have no way of knowing how long the three Greeks remained on duty.

Twelve years would not be excessive, if one considers

the extent of the privileges granted to them.

I.

Fiscal Privileges a.

The three men and their children and descendants are to be exempted in their

respective lands from all liturgies and taxes. receive these same privileges.

Seleucus of Rhosus (lI, ll. 20-23) will later

In addition, presumably because of their long absence,

our three captains are to be paid back all the taxes that had accrued on their property since the day they left home in the service of Rome.

This means Roman taxes as well

as local taxes, for in line 23 it is stated that all future Roman magistrates in the leasing of public land and in the imposing of revenue taxes in their three countries will not require them to pay anything.

Thus the simple and unqualified words UA€ITOI/PY'/TOI and

UIJ€tU,poPO" must refer to public services and taxes of any description, whatever the source.

The implications of line 23 for the status of each of the cities involved are

obvious, but some degree of caution is necessary.

These are blanket privileges, granted

to all three men without consideration of the separate condition of any one city .• Similarly, it would be hazardous to assume that the decree speaks of Euboea and not of Achaia because conditions in Euboea were different from what they were elsewhere in

Greece.

That may be true, of course, but this document cannot prove it alone without

supporting evidence.

from thete.

Euboea may have been named simply because Polystratus came

But, clearly, Euboea was then subject to Roman taxation.

b. The three Greeks and their families cannot be forced to make contributions toward

any public debts acquired by their cities

(1.

22).

Mommsen took this to mean that im­

munity in such matters was granted not only in regard to Roman involvement but also

in regard to local affairs.

And despite the objections raised by Gallet that this appears to

be too comprehensive a grant, Mommsen's view seems correct. very broad, very comprehensive.

The language used is

Such inununity is noticeably absent from the

privileges granted by Octavian to Seleucus.

• Mommsen (cf. the note

in

Bruns-Gradenwitz •• p. cit., p. 177. n.

3) thought it was the war of 90-89

B.C., and his opinion has been followed by the others, except for Gallet, who prefers the Sullan war. • Cf . Gallet, 0 p. cit., p.

390, on this point.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

2. Juridical Privileges a.

Any property of the three men that may have been sold af ter they had left home in

the service of Rome is to be restored to them in full. non-Romans-of the legal procedure called

This is an early application-to

in integrum restitutio.

In Roman law it was

one of the methods used by a praetor to annul a result which he considered inequitable.s

b. If an y date for meeting old obligations has passed since the three left their homes, they cannot be held accountable for such an unavoidable situation and it shall not tell against them.

Any debts owed to them on this account shall be no less collectable, and

they shall have the right to sue and exact payment for such debts

(11.

I5-I6).

They and their families are to enjoy full, legal possession of an y inheritances that

c.

may have come to them

d.

(11.

I6-17).

In all legal actions, as plaintiffs or defendants, they and their families and descend­

ants have the choice of the type of court that shall be used to try any particular case. They shall have three main choices: in their own cities by their own legal procedures, by Italian juries before Roman magistrates, or in free cities that have been

I7-20).6 11. 53-59).

amici

of the

Roman people without interruption 01.

These are similar to the choices later

to be given to Seleucus of Rhosus (II,

Presumably, however, the "law" to

be followed in each of these would be the same, i.e., the local Greek law.

They have a

choice of jurisdiction, not of "law." 7 Any judgments handed down concerning them in their absence from their cities

c.

shall not be binding. given (11.

They revert to their previous status and new judgments are to be

20-22).

3. Honorary Privileges a.

Their names are to be entered on the official list of

amici populi Romani.

b. They are permitted to set up a bronze tablet attesting their new status. c.

They may offer sacrifice in the Capitol.

d.

They are to receive the usual gifts, housing, and allowances for the period of their

stay e.

m

Rome.

In the future they may send envoys to the Senate on matters of personal interest,

R.E., s.v. "restitutio," cols. 676-85; J. M. Kelley, Prillle ps Iudex (Weimar, 1957), 92f[; K. M. T. Atkinson, Revue internationa/e des droits de /'antiquite, 7 (1960): 248-49,259-71

S See Klingmliller,

pp.

Cf.

Gallet, op. cif., pp. 407-25.

:

!

�

?

q.

:re is a diffic�lty i� line 19. A sma l �ta a �pe:rs above the epsi on in �h� p rase E7I"1 Ta>.'I< v , , , , I
6 Th

Kaibel and Gallet follow this interpretation, believing that there was a further choice between a judgment by a magistrate or bef ore ajury, i.e., a choice between a cOjnitio and a formulary procedure. Mommsen, however, could not agree with that interpretation, and on his authority the eta was omitted by Bruns-Gradenwitz in their last edition.

The question is this: Did the engraver introduce

it when he saw that he had accidentally omitted it fro m the text he was following, or was it added much later by some person living under different conditions? 7 See

130

F.

De Visscher, L'antiquite classique, 14

(1945): 41-47.

SB.'lATUS CONSULTA

or they may come themselves.

Similarly, Seleucus of Rhosus (H, ll. 6I-63) was granted

this privilege. Such were the impressive privileges accorded to the three Greek captains. such amici belonged to a special class within the provincial framework.

Clearly,

That their

numbers must have been considerable and that local resentment arose against them may be seen in the actions taken by Julius Caesar in the case of Mytilene (No. %6, Co!. b, I!. 32-33) and by Augustus in the case of Cyrene (Edict III) to force them to carry their share of the municipal burdens.

And Suetonius ( Vesp . 8.

5)

tells us that 3,000 bronze

tablets were destroyed by fire in the Capitol, tablets recording the alliances, treaties, and special privileges granted to individuals almost from the foundation of the city.

The

percentage belonging to each category is not known, but the tablets concerning amici must have been very numerous.

In the text itself two items of special interest remain. clearly do not belong to the decree proper.

The last two lines (32-33)

The manner of indicating the filiation, by

the use of the genitive alone, is sufficient to show that they were added by Greeks. Gallet explained the point very well by assuming that the three Greek captains, exer­ cising a right granted to them by the terms of the decree itself(!. 25), had set up the bronze tablet on the Capitol as a private offering and had accordingly added their names in the Greek manner at the very end.s

This has a ring of truth to it.

It is even possible that

such a practice was generally followed by all the beneficiaries of amicitia, at least in the case of those whose names were to be added to the official list.

The wording of line 25

lends itself to such an interpretation, for it reads as if the Senate is inlliting the three Greeks to set up the tablet.

They could have received a copy of the Latin text together with

the official Greek translation from the quaestors in the aerariUIIl.9 themselves had to pay for the engraving.

Presumably they

Then it would have been perfectly natural

for them to have their names added at the end.

The normal practice.

Treaties with

foreign states, of course, were matters of international importance, matters of politics, and were published officially by Rome.

In the case of the granting of amicitia to

individuals, however, the initiative for publication might have been left to the beneficiaries. Then there is the matter of the first sentence (11. I-3).

It is written in larger letters than

the remainder of the text and it is not an original part of the senatus consulturn itself serves, of course, to date the document in a very precise manner.

It

Willems concluded

that it was taken from the official record in the aerarium and, presumably, that it had been added at the time of depositing. IQ

Thus the decree was voted on on May 22 and

I Gallet, op. cit., pp. Z63-64 . • The three Greeks, of course, must have had to wait

until the decree had been deposited in the

archives, for lines 1-3 were apparently added only at that time. I.

See below.

P. Willems, Le S,;nol de la ,epllblique ,omoille, 1I (Louvain-Berlin, I883), zI8, n. 3.

Since this

sentence appears in the official Greek translation, it would appear that, at least in the present instance, translation was made after the decree had been deposited in the o.,o,ium. appeared in the Greek!

131

It was not added by the three Greek captains.

How else could it have

See the next note.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

deposited in the archives before June

1.

Hence, the notation

mense

Maio,

as well as the

names of the magistrates in office, would have been added at the top of the document when it was entered in the records. divided into months.

One could conclude that the records were sub­

Despite the objection of Gallet, this seems to be the correct

interpretation. I I .. Gallet,

op. cil., pp. �55

and

�6J-64.

He thinks that the three Greeks added thj s sentence, but he

failed to notice that the manner of filiation is R.oman, not Greek-quite difierent from

11. J�-JJ.

,

23 SENATUS CONSUL TUM ALIAQUE ACTA DE OROPIORUM ET PUBLICANORUM CO NTROVERSIIS

73

H.C.

m�����m�mmmmmmmmmmm�mmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm BIBLIOGRAPHY.

S. Bases,'Et/>.

'Apx.,

1884,pp. 97ff.; T h. Mommsen,

Hermes, 10(1885): 1681f. (Gesammelte Schrifien, 5: 49SIf.) ; S. Bases,

'Et/>. 'Apx.,

1886,pp. 461f.; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hermes, 11(1886): 103, n. I; P. Viereck,Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888),no. XVIII, pp. 35-40; W. Dittenberger,I.G., VII (1891),413; E. De Ruggiero,L'arbitrato pl4bblico presso i Romani (Rome, 1893),pp. 313ff.; F. Miinzer,Philologus, SS (1896): 388; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.', 1(1898), 334 ; Anton von Premerstein, R.E� s.v. "Commentarii," cols. 731-33 ; A. Wilhelm,Glittingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1903, p. 797; E. Bormann,FeslSchrift zu 0110 Hirsch}tld(Berlin, 1903),pp. 43Iff.; Bruns-Gradenwitz,Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tiibingen, 1909),no. 41,pp. 180-85; B. Laum,Stifiungen in der griechischen und rlimischen Antike (Leipzig, 1914 ),no. 16(D. 41-50); F. Hiller von Gaertringen,in W. Dittenberger,S.I.G.3,

Il (1917),747; Abbott-Johnson,Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1916),no. 18,pp. 176-79;]. A. O. Larsen, "Roman Greece," in T. Franks,An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore,1938), 307 and 365; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H..W., 11 (1941), 748-49; S. Riccobono,Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani', pt.

1

(Florence, 1941),no. 36,pp. 160-66; S. Accame,11

dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946),pp. 18, 101; Lewis -Reinhold,Roman Civilization, I (New York,1951),no. 137,pp. 344-46; L. Wenger,Die Quellen des rlimischen Rechts(Vienna,1953),pp. 384-85,n. 4 4;

U. Kahrstedt; Das wirtschafiliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit, Diss. Bern. Ser. la VII (Bern, 1954),p. 5 9; V. Arangio-Ruiz,Storia del dirillo roman07 (Naples,1960),pp. 1I3-14;Johnson,Coleman-Norton, Boume,Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 74; C. Nicolet,L'ordre eqlU!stre a /'epoque repub/icaine (312- 43av. J.-G.) (Paris, 1966),pp. 3 51-51.

DESCRIP TION.

A stele of white marble found on July 10,1884,near the

statue of Sulla in Oropus.

Height: I. 8 5 m.

Width: 0.68 m.

Thickness:

0.16 m. Height of letters: 0.010 m. The omicron is somewhat smaller than the other letters. Many spaces are left uninscribed,the number of spaces varying from one or two to ten or eleven.

133

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEΚ EAST

10

Μ[άαpιc]Ο; Τερ/νηο; Mαάpιcoυ υιό; Ούά.ρρων Λεύιcoλλo;, Γάιο; Κάσιο; Λευιcί[ου υιό; Λον-] γ,νο; ύπατοι 1/1/ Ώρωπίων άρχουσιν βΟυλfj δ-ήμωl χαίρειν· εί έρρωσθε, εύ αν έχ[οl·] ύμα; είδ/ναl βουΜμεθα ήμα; ΙCαTα τό τη; συγΙCλ-ήTOυ δόγμα ro γενόμενοΙ.' έ[π: Λευιcί-] ου ΛIΙClνίOυ MαιXpιcoυ Αύρηλίου ύπάτων έπεγνωΙC/ναl περ: άνηλογιών τών άνα μ[/σον] θεώl Άμφι.αράωl ιcα. τών δημοσιωνών γεγονότων {έπεγνωΙC/ναl}. 1/1/ πρό μια; εί[δυών] ΌΙCTωμβPίων έμ βασlλlΙCfj ΠOPΙCίψ έν συμ.βουλίωl 1/1/ παρησαν Mάαpιco; Κλαύδιο; Mαάpιc[oυ] υιο; Άρνήσση; MαάpιcελλO;, 1/1/ Γάιο; Κλαύδιο; Γ αίου υιό; Άρν-ήσση; Γλάβερ, Mάαpιco; Κάσιο; Mαάpιcoυ υιό; Πωμ.εντίνq., 1/1/ Γάιο; ΛIΙCίνIO; Γαίου υιό; {Πωμεν-rίνα, 1.'1.' Γάιο; ΛIΙCίνIO; Γαίου υιό;} Στηλατίνq.{;} ΣαΙC/pδω;, ΛεύΙCIO; OύOλύσΙCIO; ΛευΙCίOυ υιό; Άρνl-ήσση;, 1/1/ ΛεύΙCIO; Λάρηο; ΛευΙCίOυ υιό; Π(α)ΠιΡίq., 1.'1/ Γάιο; Άνναίο; Γαίου υιό; ΚAUTOIIlνq., 1/1/ Mάαpιco; Τύλλιο; Mαάpιcoυ υιό; Kopv')Nq. KIΙC/pων, 1/ Κόιντο; Αξιο; Mαάpιcoυ υιό; Κ up lνq., 1/1/ Κόιντο; Πομπ-ήιο; Κοίντου υιό; Άρ[νή]σση; 'ΡούΦο;, Αγλο; Kασιc/λλIO; Αύλου υιό; {ό υιό;} ·Ρωμιλίq., Κόιντο; Mυνύιclo; Κοίντου υιό; TTJpTJνTlνq. Θ/ρμο;, 1/ Mάαpιco; ΠOπλίΙCIO; Mαάpιcoυ υιό; 'OpaTlq. ΣΙCαίOυα;, 1.'1/ 7Ίτο; Μαίνιο; Τίτου υιό; 1.'1/ Λεμωνίq., 1/ ΛεύΙCIO; Κλαύδιο; Λευιcίoυ υιό; Λεμωνίq.. 1.'1/ περ: �ν Έρμόδωρο; Όλυνπίχου υιό; ιερευ; ΆνΦlαράου, όση; πρότερον ύπό τη; συνΙCλ-ήTOυ σύνμαχο; προιτl)γορευμ/1.'0; έστίν, ιcαl. Άλεξίδημο; Θεοδώρου υιό;, Δημαίνετο; Θεοτ/λου υιό; ΠΡεσβευτα: 'Ωρωπίων λόγου; έποιφαντο· 1/1/ έπ<ε). έν τι;:' τη; μισθώσεω; νόμωl αύται αί χώραι ύπεξειΡημ/ναι είσίν, α; ΛεύΙCIO; Σύλλα; θεών άθανάτων ιερών τεμενών ΦυλαΙCTι; ένεΙCεν συνεχώρησεν {ύπεξειΡημ/ναl είσίν}, 1/1/ ταύτα; τε τα; προσ-, όδου;, πεΡ1. ι1ίν άγεται τό πραγμα, ΛεύΙCIO; Σύλλα; τώl θεώl ΆμΦlαράωl '".n<.n)rτI�ΙPIσεν, όπω; ύπέρ τούτων τών χωρών πρόσοδοΙ.' τώl δημοσlώV?/ τελώσιν· ιcα. περ: ι1ίν .1εύΙClo; Δομ/ηο; Αίνόβαλβο; 1/1/ ύπερ δημοσιωνών εfπεν· έπε: έν τώl τη; μισθώσεω; νόμωl αύται αι χώραι ύπεξειΡτιμ/ναι είσίν, α; .1εύΙCIO; Σύλλα; θεών άθανάτων ιερών τεμενών ΦυλαΙCη; ένεΙCεν συνεχώρησεν, 1/1/ ούτε ό ΆμΦlάραο;, ι1ί1 αύται α' χώραl συνΙCεXωpημ/VΑI λέγονται, θε&; έσην, όπω; ταύτα; τα; χώρα; ΙCαpπίσζεσθαl έξfj του; δημοσιώνα;· 1/1/ άπό συνβουλίου γνώμη; γνώμψ άπεΦηνάμε θα, ό έπ/γνωμεν, TTιI συνΙCλ-ήTωl προσανοίσομεν, 1/1/ τούτο Ο ιcα. εί; την τών ύπομνημάτων δ/λτον ΙCαTεXωpίσαμΕV· 1/11 περ: χώρα; Ώρωπία;, πεp:·ιj; άνηλογία ήν πρό; του; δημοσιών α;, ΙCαTα τόν τΤι; μισθώσεω; νόμον, αύΤ1) ύπεξειpημ/JΠ) έστίν, ίνα μη ό δημοσιών'); αύτην ΙCαpπίζη-rαl· ΙCαTα τό τη; συνΙCλ-ήTOυ δόγμα έπ/γνωμΕV· •

IS

.0

'S

30

134

SENATUS CONSVLTA

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

J v τψ τή, μισθώσεω, νόμφ ύπεξειΡημένην δοκεί εΖναl ούτω,' JKTQ, τε τούτων 7j εί τι δόγμα συνκλήτου ιxiπOKpd.TWP ιxiπOΚpd.TOPέ' τ[ε] ήμέτεροl καταλογή, θεων άθανάτων ί.ερων τεμενων τε Φυλακή, ΚιχΡπΙζεσθαl έδωκαν κατέλlπον, ν JKTQ, τε τούτων, α Λεύκιο, Κορνήλιο, Σύλλα:, ΙXVTOKpd.TWP άπό σvνβoυλloυ γνώμη, θεων άθανάτων ί.ερων τεμενων τε Φυλακή, ένεκεν καρπΙζεσθαl έδωκεν, Ο τό αύτό ή σύνκλητο, JπεκύΡωσεν, ούτε μετα τα.υτα δόγματι σVΝKλήTOυ άκυΡον Jγενήθ1j. ν Λεύκιο, ΚοΡνήλlο, Σύλλα:, άπό συν­ βουλΙου γνώμη, γνώμην ΕΙρηκέναl δοκεί. νν τη, εύχη, άποδόσεω, ένεκεν τωl ί.εΡψ ΆμΦlαράου χώραν ΠΡοστΙθημl πάντιι πάντοθεν πόδα, χlλΙου" ίνα και αύτη ή χώρα ύπάΡxrl άσυλο,' ώσαύτω, τωl θεψ Άμφιαpd.ωl καθlεΡωκέναl τή, πόλεω, κα, τή, χώρα, λιμένων τε των ΏρωπΙων τα, ΠΡοσόδου, &πάσα., εΙ, TOUs- άγωνα, κα, τα. θυσΙα., α. Ώρώπιοl συντελουσιν θεψ ΆμΦlαράωι, όμοΙω. δΕ και α. αν μετα ταϋτα ύπερ τή. νΙκη. και τή, 7ιγεμονΙα. του δήμου του 'ΡωμαΙων συντελέσουσlν, Jκτό. άγρων των Έρμ.οδώρου ΌλυVΠ'XOυ υίου, ίερέω. ΆμΦlαράου, του δια τέλου, Jv rfί Φιλl� του δήμου του 'ΡωμαΙων μεμενηκότο.· περι τού­ του του πράγματο, δόγμα συνκλήτου ν Jπ, ΛεvKΙoυ Σύ λλα Έποο!>ροδΙτου, ΚοΙντου Μετέλλου Εύσεβου, υπάτων ν JπlκεΚVΡωμ&Ον δοκεί ε(ναl, όπερ ή σύνκλητο, Jδογμάτισεν {κα'} εΙ. TOVTOVS- .,.ου, λΟγου,· όσα τε θεωl ΆμΦlαράωl και τωl ί.ερΨ αύτου ν Λεύκιο. Κορνήλιο, Σύλλα:, άπό σv(ν)βοvλlοv γνώμη, προσώρισεν συνεχώρησεν, τα αύτα ή σύνκλητο, τούτωl τωl θεωl δοθήναl ΣVνxωpηθήναl ήγήσατο' Jv τωl συμβουλΙωl παρψαν οί αύτοι οί. Jp. ΠΡα:γμάτων συμβεβουλευμένων δέλτωl πΡώτηl, κηρώμα:τι τεσσαΡεσκαlδεκάτωl. ν Δόγμα: συνκλήτου τουτο γενόμενον Jστιν' πρό ήμερων δεκαεπτα καλανδων ΝοενβρΙων Jv κομετΙωl' γραΦομ.ένου παΡψαν ν TlTO, ΜαΙνlο, Ί'ί.του υίό, Λεμωνί.�, Κόιντο, Ψάγκιο, ΚοΙντου υί.ό, KλαυδΙ�, Γάιο, Ούσέλλlο, ΓαΙου VΊό, Kvpl� Ούάρρων. νν Περ< ών ΜάαΡκΟ, Λεύκολλο" Γάιο, Κάσιο, _.ύπα.,ΟI_Jπιγνόν?:ες- άπήνγειλαν περι ΏΡωπΙας- χώρας- και των. δ-ημοσιωνων ;αυτου, J7TfiYVWKlvιxl, ώσαύτω. την ΏρωπΙων χώΡα:ν ύπεξειΡημέVYjν δοκείν εΙναl κατα τόν τη. μισθώσεω. νόμον, μη δοκείν του. δημοσιώνα. ταυτα καρπί.ζεσθαl, ούτω. καθι1. αν αύτοί. έκ των δημοσί.ων πραγμάτων πί.στεώ. τε τη. Ιδί.α, JφιxtVfiTO, έδοξεν.

4 άνά: μ[έσον, Bases; άνά: μ[έροο. Mommsen. 5 γεγονότων f or ΎEYOνυlWΝ, Viereck (notes); ι1πεγνωκένα, repeated by error. 8 Μά.αρκοο Κα(σσ,οο suggested by Ε. Badian. Hisloιia. 13

(1963): 135.

9 The stone-cutter has repeated a line o r s o &om his draft; cf. Badian, /oc. ,ίl. ΙΙ ΠΗΠΙΡΙΑ stone. 13 ό υΙό, ποι dittography according ιο Bormann. 14 Between the εΙα and nu ίπ the middle of ΤηΡτιντlνq. there is a ιίΠΥ wom or damaged area οπ the stone. 35 Mommsen changed ιο ύπεξεlρτιμ.ένον. 36 Bases changed δόyμ.a ιο δόΥμ.α.τι; Viereck (notes) thίnks he is

135

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

right, but he retains the reading. necessary. 54 Bases deleted Kaf..

37 Bases added ;V€K€V at the end after .pvAaKij!>, but it is not 62 OV(7€A.\'05", Bases, Dittenberger, Viereck; 011<')(7('\'\'05",

others.

COMMENT AR Y. This inscription speaks f or itse lf very plainly. It te lls us t hat Sulla, in fulfillment of a vow, had once given to the Temple o f Amphiaraus in Oropus a con­

siderable amount of land which was to b e in violable. In addition, all the revenues of the city, the surrounding territory, and the harbors of th e city were to b e turned over to the god Amphiaraus and use d as an endowment f or th e celebration of t he games and sacrifices in honor of the god and the victory of Rome. Only the lands of Hermodorus ' were to b e exempted. Af ter Sull a s return to Rome from the East this grant was con­ firmed by th e Senate in a senatus consultum. A f ew years later, however, after Sulla 's

d eat h , th e

publicani attempte d to co ll ect taxes from t his area and were informed by t h e ' Oropians of Su lla s arrangement. T h e publicani d id not h onor suc h an arrangement. d f Oropus re use to pay, and an embassy headed b y Hermodorus was sent to Rome. The two consuls, with the assistance of an advisory council composed o f fifteen senators,

listene d to the evidence presente d by both parties and rendered their decision on Octob er 14, 73 B.C.l 1. Domitius A henob arbus, the representative of the publicani, maintained that the exemptions granted by Sulla referred only to those lands which were sacred to a god and th at Amphiaraus was no god.2 His claim was rejecte d. Th e consuls and their

committee ruled in f avor of Oropus. Their ruling was then presented to the Senate two days later, at which time it was promptly ratifi ed. Th e two consuls, M. Terentius M. £ Varro Lucullus and C. Cassius 1. £ Longinus, wrote the present letter to the Oropians outlining the proce dure followe d in Rome and

officially communicating to them their decision. Their letter a lso contains a brie f resume of t he various documents connected with the case: a lex censoria QI. 36-43), th e proclamation of Sulla a bout the land grant to Amphiaraus (H. 43-51), t he senatus consultum (of 80 B.C.) ratifying Sulla's grant (H. 52-59), and the senatus cons�ltum ( of

, r.:;r .;u�!-..•d.;-:isorl ':01.:.i�cib :i�rb.g the Re?l:.!:E-: see J";Ihn. t:Took.. ('<,�(;r;,!Ht Prinr,?!! (�,ml:ld��". I9 55) , pp. 4-7. It is interesting to note that the present controversy was brought to the attention of the Senate in 74 B.C., when L. Licinius L. f . Lucullus and M. Aurelius M. f . Cotta were consuls (11. 3-4), but that the fmal verdict was made in October of73 B.C. The reasons for this delay are not given. The senalus consullum of 74 B.C., which authorized the arbitration by the consuls and a senatorial board (11. 3-4), may have been passed so close to the end of the year that L. Licinius and M. Aurelius

did not have enough time in office to begin the proceedings and these were accordingly lef t for the consuls of the following year. Such a situation, if true, still does not explain why ten months were needed to complete the hearing and render a decision. Perhaps one may postulate here a reflection of the struggle for power going on in this period between the Senate and the middle class. After Sulla had suspended the letting of the Asiatic contracts, for example, it may not have been until 75 B.C. that the publicani regained them (see Hill, Roman Middle Class, pp. ISI-S2). Whether politics played a part here is, of course, unknown. It is significant, however, that this document proves that the publicani were active in collecting the taxes in Boeotia (see Accame, loco cil.). •

Cf . Cicero, De Nat. Deorllm 3. 49; An Amphiaraus eril deus el Trophollius?

Noslri quidem publicani,

cum essenl agri in Boeolia e:r:repli lege censoria, negabanl immorlalis esse ul/os, qui aliquando homines Juissenl.

1]6

SENATUS CONSULTA

73

D.C.

)

confirming the decision of the consuls and th eir board in favor of Oropus

(11.

59�9).3 Here again we find the Senate invo lved in a case of arbitration and, although the actual details are left up to the consuls and a board of senators, we learn that the final verd ict is given official senatorial confirmation in the form of a senatus consultum­ standard procedure. The consilium is composed of fifteen Romans, a ll senators, as is proved by the presence of T. Maenius T. f. Lem. in both the consilium (at post number 14) and th e l ist of witnesses to the senatorial decree.4 I.

M. Claud ius M. f. Am. Marcellus, perhaps only of praetorian rank (Taylor,

P·204). 2. C. Claud ius C. f. Am. Gl aber, probably not the praetor of 73 praetorian (Taylor, p. 204).

D.C.,

but an e ld er

3. M. Cassius M. f. Pom., praetorian (Taylor, p. 202). 4. C. Licinius C. f. Stel. Sacerdos. The first part of line 9 appears to be a repe­ tition, by error, of th e last h a lf of line 8. Hence his tribe is Stelatina, not Pomentina (Taylor, p. 224). 5. L. Voluscius L. f. Am.

Tay lor (p. 267) believes he is an aedilicius.

6. L. Lartius L. f. Pap. (Taylor, p. 224). 7. C. Annaeus C. f. C lu. (Tay lor, p. 190). 8. M. Tull ius M. f. Corn. Cicero (Taylor, p. 260). 9. Q. Axius M. f. Quir., a quaestorian (Taylor, p. 197). 10. Q. Pompeius Q. f. Am. Ruf us, a quaestorian (Taylor, p. 247). II. A Cascell ius A. f. Rom. (Taylor, p. 202). 12. Q. Minucius Q. ( Ter. Thermus (Taylor, 236). 13 . M. Publicius M. f. Hor. Scaeva (Taylor, p. 23 9). 14. T. Maenius T. f. Lem. (Taylor, p. 228). 15. L. Claudius L. f. Lem. (Taylor, p. 203). Oropus, situated to the north of Athens at the mouth of the Asopus m the border zone between Attica and Boeotia, was famous in antiquity for the nearby Amphiareion. Th is consisted largely of the Temple of Amp hiaraus, with a great a ltar, a fountain, and a th eater with an a djacent stoa. With in the precinct have been found a large number of

statue bases with inscriptions-largely of th e Roman period-the remains of an aqueduct, a bath for men, and variolls bui ld ings to house the visitors and care for the sick. The temple itself stood at the western end of the precinct in a most impressive position by the bank of the river. The Amp h iareion as a whole was both the seat of an oracle and a , The consilium mentioned in 11.57-59 must be that ofSulla mentioned in 11.55-56 (Viereck [notes)}. 4 L. R. Taylor, The VoIing Dislricls of Ihe Roman Republic (Rome, 1960), p. 176. She lists sixteen

members ofthe colISilium, however, since she believes that 11.8-<) recorded two men with the name of

C.

Licinius C.

f., each belonging to a separate tribe.

material in the preceding line.

J37

But the second entry is in part a repetition ofthe

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

sanatorium. Games in honor o f t he god are known to h ave b een celebrated t here from at least as early as the f ourth century, and, af ter t h e victory of Sulla, th ey were extende d to honor Rome (S.I.G.l, III, 1064). They include d musical and gymnastic ' performances, whic h, no doubt, were responsible f or Sulla s interest in t he place. T he decision to extend t he games to h onor Rome was most wise. This broug ht t he pre­ cinct to t he attention of Sulla.

His liking f or t heatrical people in general did t he rest.

24 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE ISSAEIS?

BffiUOGRAPHY.

56

F. Vulic, Vjesnik z a arheologi)u i histori)u dalmati/lSku, 8

(1885), no. 425, p. 1I5;]. Brunsmid, Abhandlungen des archiiologisch­

epigraphischm Seminars der Unillersitiit Wien, 13 (1898): 331£; F. Vulic, ryesmk za arheologiju i historiju dalmatillsku, 27 (1904): 92ff.; W. Kubitschek , J ahrbuch }li r Altertumskunde, I (1907): 78-85; A. Wilhelm. Neue Beitriige zur griechischen Inschriftenkullde, III (Sitzungsberichte Wien. vol. 175. treatise Il (Vienna, 19 13), 18-22; M. Abramic, Vjemik za arheolog!;u i histor!;u dalmatillSku, 47-48 (192425): 3-7; D. Rendic-Miaeevic, ibid., 52 (1935-49): 19-3 4; idem, in Studi Aquileiesi offerti a Giollanni Brusin (Aquileia, 1953). pp. 67-76 (with excellent photograph of the four fragments of document A); J. Robert and 1. Robert,

R.E.G., 67 (1954): 144 (Bull. epigr., no. 155).

DESCRIPTION. Salona.

Document A is composed of four fragments found at

The lettering is irregular, the

distances between letters inconstant.

omicron smaller than the other letters, the

The limestone slab is about 0.10 m. thick,

the joined fragments being about 0.45-0.50 m. wide. first published in 1924-25 by Abramic.

The fourth fragment was

Documents B and C, published by

Brullsmid with improvements by Kubitschek and Wilhelm, were also found in Salona.

From a close examination of the squeezes in Vienna, Wilhelm

concluded that they belonged to the same monument as document A.

The

lettering, the length of the lines, and the type of stone are the same in all three documents.

B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

Α

'Επί ύπάτων Γ ν[αίο]υ Αέντλου Μ[αρ]­ κελλεί,lOυ και Α [ευκ] ίου Μαρκίου Φι [λίπ]­ που πρό ήμερ[ών πεΊντε Νωvών [Μαρ]­ τίων [έν δε "Iσσn] έπί ίεΡομιιάμΟ[1Ι05'] Ζωπιί[ρου τοίί - - -]ιιο5' μηl.ό5' Άρ[τε]­ μ,τίου [- - - Ζσταιι]έιιου. πρεσβε[υ]σά ,'τωιι rf.XZyvP.t[vwv] ΠαμΦίλου τοίί Π[αμ]­ Φίλου υίοίί καί Κλεεμ[π6ρ]ου τοίί Τψα[σίω] 1'05' υίοίί <καί) Φιλοξέιιου [τοίί] Διοιιυσίου [υΖοίί]

10

έιι Άκοληί", έπί Γαίου Ίουλί[ου] Καί[σαρο5'] αύτοκράτορο5' Γάιο5' Γαυέιιι[05' Γαίου ? υί] ό5' Φαβί", λ6Υου5' έπo�σα[TO 'περί τη5' τε] έλευ[θε]ρίαl" τώιι Ίσσαίω[ιι καί τη5' Φιλία5'] τ[ώιι 'Ρωμαί]ωιι καί Ίσσαί[ωιι

Β

[

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

[

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

[

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

]

- - - τ] αίίτα δε _

- - μ] εμειιεικέιια[ι]

- - - - - -] ιι Ίσσαίου5' Α1Υυπ-

[- - - - - - - - - - - - - ] 5' εl5' τήιι χώρα [ιι] [μεθ' τj5' χώρα5' εl5' τήιι Φ]ιλίαιι καί συμμα­ [χίαιι τοίί δ�μoυ τοίί 'ΡωμαιΊ ωιι παρεΥέI.ο.'' ]' [το - - - - - - - - - - - ] ιιομοι5' και rrι [α υ .

�

[τών ? ...... .. ....... ....] πασσJI KιU έπε� [- - - - - - - - - - - - -] ιι π λεοιιάκι5' �

10

c

[- - - - - - - - - - - άμΦο]τέρα5' "Ισσα•• [- - - - - - - - - - - - -] ΑΙΣ[- - - - ]

r- -

- - - - -

- - -] ΙΚ[- - - - - - - -

- - - - -]

[- - - - - - - - -] οριιι[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] [- - - - - - - Tpayojvp",ot κ[αί 'Ηπεη,'οί - - -) [- - - - - καί Ία] δασηιι[οί - - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - -] εισιν Υα [Ρ - - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - -] μετα συμ[μαχ - - - - - - - -] [.....................]ΠΕΙ σtJν Ία[σa{ΟΙ5" ...........] [- - - - - - - - - -]ου Μ ανίου ]- - - - - - - - -] Text based οη those by Kubitschek. Wilhelm. and Rendic-Miocevic.

Α 7

ΤραΥυΡ.ί[νων]. n ew readin g by Rendic-Miocevic; παΥια.

Abramic.

11

ΙΟΣΓΑΥΕΝΙ ίη

rasura.

Β Restorations by WiJhelm. 7-8 το;:, αιJTO;:'] νόμοι, και [α]ύ[ηϊ πoλΙTεί� 'ΧΡώνται TJν εί]πασαν suggested by Wilhelm. with an earlier introductory και ';πω,. 9-10 πλεονάκι, Ι [πόλ", άμ.Φε]τΙρα,. BrunSmid. but this makes 1. 10 ιοο short. C 3-4 Rendic-Miocevic.

SENATVS CONSVLTA

COMMENTAR Y. Soon after the death ofDionysius, tyrant ofSyracuse, Issa, oldest and strongest of the Greek colonies on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, established a

peraea on the opposite coast ofDalmatia and founded colonies in the area. colonies were Tragurion and Eperion. Down to 230

B.C.

Among such

the internal wars and the

numerous acts of piracy in the whole Illyrian area were not yet of such a serious nature that Rome felt the need to intervene in eastern politics.

But in 230

its policy of noninterference and decided upon war.

The exact motives for such a

B.C.

Rome reversed

reversal are not known with certainty, but, as Badian has shown, the deep-seated Roman fear of powerful neighbors may have been responsible. defeated.

Terms of peace were agreed upon in 228

The Illyrian queen Teuta was Among the cities which were

B.C.

then received into the fides of Rome was Issa, certainly because of that city's resistance to Illyrian aggression.

This was evidently the island's first official contact with Rome, and

it was a favorable one.

Later, in

I67 B.C., after the fall of King Genthius and the division

of Illyricum, freedom and immunity were granted to lssa by Rome. I

Thereafter

nothing much is known of the island's history until the present series of documents pre­ sents us with an interesting but incomplete picture of Issa and her colonies in the year

56

B.C.

Document A appears to be a prescript to the documents on the monument that followed it.

From it the following facts emerge.

presence in Illyricum very early in the year

56

Taking advantage ofJulius Caesar's

B.C.,

envoys from Tragurion were sent

northward to meet him and present him with a request. is unknown.

The exact nature of the request

At the meeting, in Aquileia, a certain Roman citizen with the name of

C. Gavenius, who evidently belonged to the party of the envoys and not to the entourage of Caesar, spoke about the freedom and the friendship that existed between Issa and Rome. Document B contains words and phrases 01.

4-7)

which remind one of the formulas

used in decrees of the Roman Senate in which conditions of "friendship and alliance" are agreed upon formally.. here a

senatus consulturn

Wilhelm has therefore rightly suggested that we may have

or piece of writing from the hand of a Roman official.

Document C is even less informative, but is perhaps more tantalizing because of the references to the people of Tragurion and lader. Since the exact relationship between all three documents is unknown, it is better to keep them separated.

That they all are

connected with the meeting at Aquileia, however, appears to be a reasonable assumption. Prior to the revision of the stone by Rendic-Miocevic it was thought that the envoys I

For the history of Issa see the accouot by

A.

Bauer, Arclliiologisch-£pigrapllische MitteilulIgen aus

Osterreicl,-UlIgarn, 18 (I89S): u8-so; Bruosmid, op. cit. pp. IIIff.; Kubitschek, op. cit., pp. 79-80;

Fluss, R.E., S.u. "Issa," suppl. see

L.

Robert,

B.C.H.,

V (I93I),

cols. 346-S0.

For the pirate problem io this part of the world

S9 (I93S): 489-SI3, esp. S06-7.

aod the establishmeot of alllicitia with the cities see

E.

For the Romao ioterfereoce io Illyriao aff airs Badiao,

•

Notes 00 Romao Policy io Illyria

(230-201 B.C.)," io his Studies i ll Greek and Roman History (Oxfurd, I964), pp. 1-33. make a treaty with Issa; see Livy 4 S . 26.

• S .C. de Narthaciensium et Melitaeensiu m litib14s (No.

cf.

Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

Rome did oat

For Issa's colooies see Polybius 32. 9.

9}.1l.

I4ff.; S.c. de ThisbetlSibus(No.

:l.},ll.

I7ff.;

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

had come from Issa.

Thus the request could very well have concerned the renewal of

friendship and alliance. much more complicated.

Bu t with the new reading in line 7 the entire matter becomes There is the strange fact that the envoys are from Tragurion,

the friendship and alliance concerns Issa, and the inscription was found at Salona. Rendic-Miocevic believed that Tragurion, fully supported by Issa, was using its relationship to Issa to obtain help from the Romans.

He thought that Tragurion had

become involved in some local difficulty and, in order to resolve it, had decided to send an embassy to Caesar.

At the meeting in Aquileia the envoys stressed the fact of

Tragurion's relationship to Issa in order to obtain a favorable answer to their request. They were capitalizing, therefore, on Issa's status.

Thus Issa is mentioned in the

documents only to create an atmosphere in the Roman camp favorable to Tragurion. It is difficult to accept this view entirely.

For one thing the colony would seem to be

acting too independently of the mother city, despite the interpretation given by Rendic­ Miocevic.

And the texts themselves are much too fragmentary to allow us to draw the

conclusion that Issa is mentioned merely to win sympathetic listeners.

Even if the

envoys had done such a thing, there would be little point in introducing the story into the document and publishing it.

Nevertheless it is a possible explanation and deserves

all consideration. 3 The reason the documents had been published in Salona is, apparently, that the city was somehow involved in the matter at hand.4

Other copies almost certainly would

have been published in Tragurion and Issa. Unknown elements and lacunae in the texts suggest caution in the use of these docu­ ments to form any j udgment about the status and the interrelationship of these cities.

3 L.

Robert,

loc. cit.,

says rightly, .. On hesite

a

preferer cette demiere solution

liens de dependance (ou de sympolite, etc.) entre

Issa

a

celle de I'existence de

et Tragurion."

4 Rendic-Miocevic also proposes a new theory on the status of Salona, considered by earlier scholars

as a colony oflssa. a

polis.

He prefers to think of it as a foundation ofTragurion, but not fully or�anized as

Perhaps that was the case.

25 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE AGRIS MYTILENAEORUM

55

B.C.

[Squeeze]

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

F. Hiller νοη Gaertringen, I.G., ΧΙΙ, suppl. (1939), no.

11,

ρ. 2 08; S. Accame, Rivista di Fi/%gia, 74 (1946): 111-12 (cf. idem, ίη De Ruggiero's Dizionario epίgrajico di antichitίi romane, s.v. "Lesbus," ρ. 673); R. Κ. Sherk, Greek, Roman and Byzantine St'Idies, 4 (1963): 217-30.

DESCRIPTlON. Mytilene.

Fragment of coarse-grained marble, now ίη the museum at

Height: 0.44 m.

Width: 0.4 0

m.

Thickness: 0.23

Height of

m.

letters: 0.02 m.

[π.φ' ών ΓναΙ05 ΠΟ/k πfjί05 Γν]αίου υ,05 Μάγ[ν05 ύπαΤ05 το δεύτερον?] [λό γου5 έποιήσατο περ, τη5 χώρ]α5 άπω, έ'χω[σιν κατέχωσιν καρπίζωνται] [- - - - - περ, τούτου του] πράγμαΤ05 σ [- ] [- - - - - - - - - - - - -]\.των συμβουλιο [ - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - -προν]ομ1α!, τούΤΟΙ5 τ οί:[5 - - - - - - - - - -] [ - - - - - - - - - - - Μ) υτιλΗVαίoι<; κα, ΤΟΙ5 (- - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - ο, προγεγ]Ρ'αμμένοι την πόλιν Mυτ[ιλΗVαίων - - - - -] [- - άπω, έ'χωσιν κατέχω]σιν καρπίζωνται συvεζf[υγμέv - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - - -]τη τε ή 'π ολιτεία Mυτιλ[ΗVαι - - - ταύTΗV την] [χώραν έξελΟ/kένων των] τψ,Ιτων έκ τη5 δημοσ[ιωνία5 - - - - - - - - - ] [.... - .......... - .. ] και. ά1Τοκα'Τ"άσίασις τωΥ [ .......... - - ........ ] [- - - - - - - - - - -] ΣεΡουtλΙ05 τιμψα, [- - - - - - - - - - --] ί - - - .: -:. - - - -- - -] αγρων τόπων ο t ί κων - - - - - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - -] δεξαμένω!, ( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] [καθciι5 Μάνιο, Άκύλιο, κα, ο,] δέκα ΊT[pεσβευ-rα, διέταξαν - - - - - - ] -

10

's

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

[περί ών ;md ύπατος το δεύΤερον, Sherk. 2 [λόγου, Jπο,ήσατο, Sherk. 3 σ[υνευδόΙΙ7)σε Sherk. S αυτον]ομίαν, Hiller; προν]ομίαν, Sherk. 8 συνες�[υγμένω" Hiller; συνες�[υγμένων (sc. βοών) πλέθρα, J. Η. Oliver, but also possibly συνες�]υγμένoι, Sherk. 10 ι

τfl συγιιλήτψ? and is Sherk.

J43

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENT AR Y.

The remains of the first few lines are very meager but sufficient to

identify the document as a senatorial decree at the passage of which Pompeius was the And the following words and phrases are important in deter­

presiding magistrate.

(I. 5); to hold, possess, and (I. 10); restoration Q. 11); fields,

mining the nature of that decree: right of prior pasturage enjoy the use of (land) places, homesteads

(I. 8);

(I. 13);

leasing of the revenues

ten commissioners

(I. 15).

When all of these are considered

side by side with the known facts about the history of Mytilene in the period during and after the Mithridatic wars, an outline of probable events takes shape and an interpretation becomes possible. Mytilene had turned against the Romans at the beginning of the first Mithridatic War, welcomed the Pontic king in person, and murdered the Romans who were living in the area.

At the conclusion of hostilities the city refused to surrender and

made preparations for a siege.

By

80

B.C.

it was all over.

Mytilene capitulated to the

Roman forces and was reduced to the status of a civitas stipendiaria, probably attached to the province of Asia.

As a result the city's territorial possessions, both on the island and

the mainland, were opened up to the publicani.

Eighteen years later, however, a

benevolent Pompeius was induced by his friend and historiographer, Theophanes of Mytilene, to free the city.'

For Theophanes it was his greatest political feat, and the

grateful city hailed him as savior and benefactor.2 windfall.

For Mytilene, it was an unexpected

It would appear, however, that forgiveness and freedom did not bring with

them an equal measure of good will on the part of the publicani. had suffered a disastrous financial loss in the period

61-59

B.C.

The Asian Company

because of too high a bid

for the contract, and consequently it brought great pressure to bear in an effort to com­ pensate for the loss.3

The claims of Mytilene on her possessions and her right to expect

immunity from Roman taxation might very easily have been ignored.4

If true-and

I believe the situation leads to that conclusion-her ultimate recourse would be Rome and the Senate.

The usual procedure would then have been followed: an emvassy, an

introduction to the Senate, discussion, and, in this case, the passage of a decree. Since Pompeius was the presiding magistrate at the meeting of the Senate which :lpproved �.n.d p:\ss�.-i �he -:1�r�",!,

"If'

TTJ.y

sought out their patron and supporter.

.�, .. mt"

thllt the Myti\t"ne:m '!TT1h ... y fir.-t

After hearing their story he would have pre-

I For Mytilene in the Roman period see C. Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene (Leip%ig,

Herbst, R.E., S.II. "Mytilene," cols. 1412.ff.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, I.G.,

1888), pp. Iff.; R.

XII, suppl. (1939), 70ff.;

I, 2.45-46, 365, 404, 415-16, with the relevant notes in 11.

Cf.

• The facts about the life of Theophanes are conveniently collected by F. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist.,

II B,

Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Sherk, 0 p. cit., pp. 2.18-19.

no. 188, pp. 919-2.3.

For an estimate of his high reputation s e eR. Laqueur, R.E.,s.II. "Theophanes,"

cols. 2.09011'.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Giittingische Gelehrte Naclrrichten, P hil.-hist. Klasse, Fachgmppe, 1(1934-36), 109-10; M agie, o p. cit., n, 12.80, n. 2.8. Cr. L. Robert, R.E.A., 1960, p. 2.86. 3 Dio

38. 7. 4; Appian Bell. Cill. 2.. 1 3; Cicero Ad Att. I. 17. 9 and 2.. See Hill, Roman Middle Class, pp. 170-71.

I.

8; Cicero Pro Plancio 34ff.;

Suetonius Iul. 2.0.

4 The rights of a free city are spelled out very carefully in the lex Antonia de Termessibus (S. Riccobono,

Fontes iuris antejustiniani', pt. 1 [Florence, 1941], no. Grecia, pp. 46-74.

J44

II).

See now also Accame,11 domitlio romatlo in

SENATUS CONSULTA

sented them to the Senate. praetor or consul. ment.

But in order to convene the Senate he would have had to be

His first consulship, in 70 B.C., was too early to figure in this docu­

Thus we are left with his second, in SS B.C., and his third, in 52 B.C.

must have been passed in one of those two years.

The decree

A passage in Cicero (Ad. Att 4.

1 I. I

)

is decisive: Di xit mihi Pompeius Crassum a se in Albano exspectari ante diem 1111 Kal.; is cum venisset, Romam eum et se statim venturos, ut rationes cum publicanis putarent.

Not only

is this letter dated in SS B.C., agreeing with the date of the second consulship of Pom­ peius, but it also appears to contain a reference to the very situation which prompted the passage of the present decree, i.e., difficulties with the accounts of the publicani.

The

date is thus assured. The identification of the censor Servilius in line

12

is accordingly complete.

He is P.

Servilius C. f . M. n. Vatia Isauricus, famous in the mjlitary annals of Asia Minor and known to have been censor in Rome in SS B.C. in advanced old age.5 We may conclude, therefore, that in SS B.C. Mytilene obtained this senatorial decree which granted the city two concessions, one being the recognition of her .. right of prior pasturage" in some particular area of land unknown to us, and the other a con­ firmation of her right to possess her lands without interference fi:om the publicani.

The

decree seems specifically to forbid the censors in Rome to include Mytilene's land in their various contracts with the publicani. For a citation of this senatus consultum by a Roman magistrate, possibly in support of a decision he had rendered about land belonging either to the city of Mytilene or to a citizen of the city, see the Epistula de agris Mrtil�naeorum (No.

51).

The sources for his censorship are listed by Broughton, Magistratfs, 11, July of 54 B.C.

:U5.

5

Hewas still in office in

26 EPISTULAE ET SENATUS CONSULTA

Age of Caesar and Augustus

DE MYTILENAEIS

[Squeeze]

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

E. Fabricius, Athen. Mitt., 9 ( 1884) : 83; C. Cichorius, Rom

und Mytilene (Leipzig, 1888) , pp. uf[; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen,

)

1888 , nos. XXlII, XXX,

XXXI; C. Cichorius, Sitzungsberichte Berlin,

1889, pp.

9S3-73, with a note by Th. Mommsen on pp. 973-81; Th. Mommsen,

Sitzungsberichte Berlin, 189S, pp. 888ff.; W. Dittenberger, S.I.C.', I ( 1898) , 349;

W. R. Paton, I.G., XII, 2. ( 1899) , 3S; L. Lafoscade, De Epistulis lmperatorum

MagistratuumqHe Romanorum (Lille, 1902. ) , no. 4; E. Taubler, lmperillm Romanum

(Leipzig, 1913) , pp. 46, SO-SI, S6 -S8, 179-82., 366-67, 4S6; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.l, 11 ( 1917) , 764; J. Hatzfeld, Les

trajiqllanls italiens dans I'Orient helUnique (Paris, 1919) , p. 91; Abbott-Johnson,

Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 19.16) , no. 2.S; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV ( 192.7) , 33; L. Robert, RE.G., 42 ( 192.9) : 42.6ff.; H. Horn,

Foederati (Frankfurt, 1930) , pp. 70-71,7 3, 7S; A. Heuss, Klio, 2.7 ( 1934) : 24s-46;

F. Hiller von Gaertringen, COttillgische Gelehrte Nachrichten, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Fachgruppe, 1 (1934-36) , 12.1- 2. 2.; idem, I. G., XII, supp!. ( 1939) , II; V.

Arangio-Ruiz, Rivista di jilologia, 70 ( 1942.) : 12.Sff.; idem, in Acta Divi Au gusti, pt. I (Rome, 1945) , pp. 2.32.-38; S. Accame, 11 dominio romallO in Grecia dalla

guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946) , pp. 90-92. and 9S-99; idem, Rivista di

jilologia, 74 ( 1946) : 104-2.1; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Millor (Princeron,

)

19S0 , I, 41S-16 and 468, 11, 12.69-70, n. 39, and 1 330, n. 2.; Ehrenberg-Jones,

no. 307; S. Accame, in De Ruggiero's Dizionario epigr'!/ico di anticmta romane, s.v. "Lesbus," pp. 674-7S; L. R. Taylor, The Votin g Districts of the Roman Rep.lblic, American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs

)

XX (Rome,

1960 ,p. 169; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, nos. III and 13S;

H.

Ma!co vati, llll peratoris Caesaru Au gusti

Operum Fragmema, 4th

ed. (Turin, 1962.) , no. LXVIII, p. 42 (this document should have been omitted

from this collection, f or it is not by Augustus at all, but rather by the dictator Caesar, and is our first document); R. K. Sherk, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 ( 1963) : 14S-S3; A. Donati, Epi graphica, 2.7 ( 196S) : 2.0- 2.S.

DESCRIPTION.

These inscriptions were found on the site of the old acropolis

of Mytilene, the marble blocks having been built into a Turkish fortress. Originally they had formed part of a huge monument in honor of Pot amon, an orator of repute who had benefited his native city of Mytilene in many ways during the last half of the first century be[ore Christ.

The monument

contained a record of his activities on behalf of the city. the record being mainly copies of official documents in which his name was mentioned or his benefactions enumerated.

These blocks were not all found at the same time,

SENATUS CONSULTA

and, although they have been arranged m a form similar to their original order, it is evident that much is missing. Stone A comprises all we have of column a. Height: 0.41 m.

of the fortress wall.

It is located high on the inside

Width: 0.59 m.

(Cichorius, Rom unci

Myti/fnt, p. 43.)

Stone B contains lines 1-12. of column b.

Height: 0.41 m.

Width: 0.475 m.

(Cichorius, Sitzungsbtrichtt Btr/in, 1889, p. 955). Stone C contains slightly more than half of the text of lines 14-2.7 of column b.

Width: 0.71 m.

Height: 041 m.

(Cichorius, Rom unci Mytiltn., pp.

12.-13.)

Stone D contains slightly less than the last half of lines 1 4-2.7 of column b.

To the right of that text is a vacant space which separates column b from column c, and then, on the extreme right of the stone, is the beginning of lines 14-2.7 of column c.

Thus, an examination of stones C and D reveals the width of the Height: 0.41 Ill.

entire column.

Width: 0.68 m.

Sitzungsbtrichtt Berlin, 1889, p. 956).

Stone E contains lines 2.8-43 of column b.

(ibicl.) Stone F contains lines 1-13 of column c.

(Cichorius,

Height: 0.50 m. Height: 0.41 m.

Width 0.66 m. Width: 0.69 m.

(Mommsen, op.
Width: 0.79 m.

(Fabricius, loc.
Stone H: its left side contains lines 1 5-2.7 of column d, its right side lines 1-14 of column e. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.65 m. (Mommsen, op.
col. b ( 0.02.5 m.). We may note the following characteristics of the engraving: ( I ) The first word of several lines projects into the margin one or two spaces (11. I, 3,7,12., of col. d; I. 7 of col. e). ( 2.) In some lines the letters are closer together than in others, but even in the same line there is

1 ,9,1 7,2.7, of col. c; 11.

sometimes a slight variation in the space between letters (col. b, I. 2.1, and col. b, I. 8). (3) Occasionally spaces are lef t uninscribed to separate words or phrases.

(4)

The lettering is similar to other documents in the area belonging to the

same age.

For the arrangement of the blocks as they might have appeared in

Potamon's monument see the sketch by W. R. Pat on in the Corpus.

Col.

a

[rpUNLara Kar.aapo� �hov.) [rUIO� 'IovlllO� Ka'Laap avro/CprX-Twp ;n,.aro� ro) Il,,[vn:)pov MIITL[lI7IvaLwv apXollal ] [flovlljj &.//1.<1' xaLpEW· El lppwa8E. Kallw� av) lxol · Kayw Ili ILErrZ rov arparelf.L [aro�) [uylawov. IIOTUfLWv AEa flwvaKro�. - - - - - - -) Ka.pivov;. Kpwayop� Ka>.>.r.1T[1TOV. Z)wlllo[�] ['E1T&yivov� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ew)ra� .dIKawv. ·Yflpl.a� .d1O.pUVTOV. 'IaTla'Lo� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .d7lIL..j) TplO� T'ILalov. ol - - [ Trp£u!3€VTa;, vp.wv. aWE_

_

J47

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

[τυχόν μοl

10

καί 7"0 φ#ισμα υμών ά17έ]δωκαll καί περί. τώll τιμών δ,ελlXθτισαν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ν κατωρθώκαμεν, καί ειJXαplστήσαντε5' [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ένέ]τυχοll μετά πολλη5' Φlλοημία5' καί ε,5' [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]ων έχειν. Έγω δέ τού5' τε ά.νδρα5' έΠΊίνε [σα διά την προθυμίαν αιJτών καί ΦlλοΦΡόν]ω5' άπεδεξάμψ, ήδέω5' τε την πόλιν [υμών ευεΡΥετείll π€ι.pάσoμαι καί. κατά T]OVS' παρόντα§' KCXLPOVS' κα, έν TOLS' μετά ταϋ [τα χρόνοl5' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]αν έπlστάμενο5' ήν έΧΟ1lΤΕ'S' εύνοι- ] τον Ποτάμωνα. [αν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - νν ["Εη] τε την προ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] αιJτoν έπ[ί τ]oιJ5' [ . . .] οντα [- - - ] . DtsuιIt VtrSUs vtI 14 VtI 17. Col. b

[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] oιJδέ [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] οτε [- - - - - - - - - - - - ] β] ουλόμενο5' [ιJ]μών κεκομίσ [θαl] την [- - - - - - - -] [ [ - - - - - - - - - - έπlκαΡπία]ν ( ?) τη5' Φlλία5' άσΦάλεlαν, έν τε [τοί5' λ]01[ποί5' ΧΡόνοl5' - - - - - - - - - την] πόλιν α,εί ηνο5' [ιJμ]ίν ά[γαθοϋ] θέ [λω γενέσθαι. Θαρρούντε5' οόν περί π]άντων έντυγχάνετε ήμίν. ["Ερρωσθε.] ,

10

[Γράμματα] Καίσαρο5' Θεού. [Γάlο5' 'Ιούλlο5' Καίσαρ αιJΤOKpάτ]ωp δικτάτωρ τ[ο τ]ρίτον, καθε[σταμέ -] ίνο5' το TtTapτ01l, Iνiυ'T&λ:φ/α�ων α.ρχουσι. βο] υλ.ηι. ;j°ljμoWI. κ.u.Ψt:ι.ν Λι..� �ppιZίJ·(Ju.. κάγ[ω δέ μετά] [τού σΤΡατεύματο5' υγιαινον. Βουλόμενο5'] ειJεpγετείν την πόλιν καί ο,) μό[νον] [Φυλάττειν τά Φιλάνθρωπα & διεπράξ]ασθε δι' ήμών άλλά καί συναυ[ξάνειν] [αιJτά - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]05' την ήγεμονίαν, Φlλία5' δόγ [ματος] [τού ήμίν συγκεχωρημένου δι]ιχπέπομφα προ5' ιJμσ.5' το ά[ντίγΡαφον.] Pratscriptio trasa.

15

[Περί ι1ίν π]ρεσβευταί Μυηλτιναίων 170τάμων /1εσβώνακτο5', Φαlνία5' Φαινίου τού Καλλί[-π -] [που, Τ] έΡΨ'105' Δ lοϋ5', Ήρώδψ Κλέωνο5', Δlη5' MαΤpOKλlOυ5', Δημήτρlο5' Κλεωνύμου, Κρlναγόρα5' Καλλίππου, Ζωίλο5' Έπlγένου5' λόγου5' έποιήσαντο, χάριτα Φιλίαν συμμα­ χίαν άνενεοϋl/το, ίνα τε έ .., Καπετωλίωι. θυσ[ί]αν ποι.ησαι. έξή& ά τε αιποί§"

SENATVS CONSVLTA

;w

��

30

3S

πρότερον ιmό τη, συγκλ-ήτου συγκεχωρηιι[έ)να ·ην. ταύτα έν δέλτωl χαλκηl γεγραμμένα ·ΠΡοσ·τιλωσαl ίνα έξηl' περι τούτου τού 'τΡάγματο, ούται!; έδοξεν' χάριτα Φιλίαν συμμαχίαν άνανεώσασθαl. άνδρα, άγαθοι1, και Φί­ λου, προσαγορεϋσαl. έν Καπετωλίωl θυσίαν ποιησαl έξείναl. ά τε αυτοί, πρό­ τερον ύπό συγκλ-ήτου Φιλάνθρω'πα συγκεχωΡ7lιιένα ·ην. ταύτα έν δέλτωl χαλκηl γεγΡαμμένα ΠΡοστιλωσαl έξείναl. σταν θέλωσlν' ίνα τε Γάιο, Καίσαρ αύτοκ.ράτωρ, έάν αύταιι Φαίvηται, τόπους χορήΥια ανroίς κατά τό των προγόνων έθο, ταμίαν μισθωσαl κελεύσΉ. σπω, ώ, αν αυτωl έκ των δη­ μοσίων πραγμάτων πίσrεώ, τε τη, ίδία, Φαίνιyrαl. "Εδοξεν. [Έπ)ει δ� και πρότερον ένετύχετέ 1'01 και έγpαr!ια πρό, ύμά,. πάλιν ύπέμ[νασ)αν οι [ύμέτεροl ΠΡεσβεllTαι μτι]δένα δείν άτελη εΙ[ναl] παρ' ύμίν άκολούθ[ω, τοί,] [ύμετέροl, νόμοι, και τοί,] Φιλανθρώ'ποl, ά έχετε 'παρ' ήμων τοί, τε [πρότε-] [ρον και τοί, δια τούτου το]ύ δόγματο, δεδομένοι, τό έξείναl ύμί(ν - - - - ] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ταί,] τη, πόλεω, και τη, χώρα, ΠΡοσόδοl, καθ ή[συχίαν] [χρησθαl. Βούλομαι οόν] άποΦ-ήνασθαl στι ουδενι συγχωρω oυδ� συγ[χωρ+] [σω άτελεί παρ' ύμίν εΙναl. Ο] ύτω, οόν πεπεισμένοι θαΡΡούντε, χΡήσθ [ε- -] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - άνεμποδ] ίστω,· έγώ γαρ ταϋτά τε ήδέω, πεποίηκα ύ[π�p] [ύμων και 'πεlΡάσομαl εί, τ] ό μέλλον αίεί τινο, άγαθού 'παραίτιο, ύμίν [γεν-] [έσθαι.] [Δόγμ]ατα συγκλήτου περί όρκί.ου. [Αυτοκράτορο, Καίσαρο,] Σεβαστού τό ένατον. Μάρκου Σιλανού ύ[πιΧτων) [πpoτεθ�ν (?) - - - - έπl] ταγηl Μάρκου Σιλανού έκ συγκλήτου δό[γματο,] . - - - - 'ηουνίων έν κουρίαl 'Ιουλία ι. γΡαΦομένωι [ πα[Ρήσαν] [Παύλο, Αίμίλιο, Λευ] κίου υιό, Παλατίν,!- Λέπεδο,. Γάιο, Άσίν[ιο, Γναl-) [ου υιό, - - - - - Πωλλίω)ν. Λεύκιο, Σεμπρώνιο, Λευκίου υιό, Φαλ[έρν,!- Ά-] [τρατίνο,. Μάρκο, ΤεΡι!ν]τιο, Μάρκου υιό, ΠαπειΡί,!- ουάρρων. Γάιο[, 'Ιού-] [νιο, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Σι]λανό,. Κόιντο, Άκούτιο, Κolντου υΙό,. _

40

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

-

Col.

ΣΟ

c

Περι ών [Μά)ρκο, Σιλανό, λόγ[ο] υ, [έποl-ήσατο έπι αυτοκράτορα ΚαίσαΡα Σεβασ-] τόν [τ)όν συνάρχοντα γράμμ[ατα πφΦθηναl και άπόκρισιν έλθείν. �στε] . [έ] αν τηl συγκλ-ήτωl άρέσΚΉ μετ [α των Μιιτιληναίων τα σρκια γενέσθαι). [τ] ούτου τού 'τΡάγιιατο, αυτω [ι τωl Σιλανωl ή ΦΡοντι, έπlτpέΠ7jταl. πε-] [ρ] ι τούτου τού πΡάγματο, ο[ύτω, έδοξεν' σπαι!; Μάρκο, Σιλανό,) [ύ] πατο,. έαν αυτωl φαίv,Iταl. ΟΡΚ [ια των Μυτιληναίων γενέσθαι Φροντίσ'τιl άλ-] (λο] τε όποίον �στε έκ των [δημοσίων ΠΡαγμάτων πίστεώ, τε τη, αυ- ] τού Φαίνηταl. "Εδοξεν. [Π]ρό ήμερων τριων καλανδων 'Ιο[υλίων έν - - - - - - - - - - - γΡαΦομένωl παρή-] σαν Γάιο, Νωρβα[νό,] Γαl[oυ υιό, Φλάκκο, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Άπ-]

J49

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEΚ EAST

ττίου υlό, Παλa[τίνι.x -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

- - Μαρκο,] [Κ]ηνσωρίνο, [ ---- - - -- - - - - ---- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- ----- - - - -- -------] Μαρκο, Ούα[λέΡιΟ,-- - - - - - - - -------- - - ----- - ---- - - --- - - --------] ι<συ υΙό[� ο] υ υΙό� -

οφ

1$

ΖΟ

Ζ$

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

...

...

...

...

..

...

...

...

-

...

...

...

...

..

..

...

..

..

..

..

..

...

...

...

...

..

...

...

στο Κλο

μ1νι.χ Α[-- -- - - --- - -- - - - - - Μαρκο, TtiplvTlo, Μάρκου υΖό, Πατrε] ιpίι.x Ούάρρων Γάιο, Κ[ - - - ------ - - - -- ------------- - -- - - - ----- -- ---- - - -- -------- -] Π ερΙ ών Μ[αρκο, Σιλανό, λόγου, έποιήσατο, τώι τη, συγκλήτου] δόγμ,αTl �αυτώι δεδο [μ,ένωι, όπω" έα.ν �αυτώι Φαίνηται, τα. όρκια τών Mvτ] lλψαίων γενέσ­ θαι φΡοντ[ίσ?)1 άλλο τε ότrOίOν ώστε αν έκ τών δημ,οσ]lων πραγμ,άτων πίστεώ, τ[ε τη, Ιδία, Φaίvηται, πάντα �αvτόν πείσασθ]αl' λοιπόν εΤναl ίνα τούτ [ου του ττράγμ,ατο, τα. άκόλουθα ττράτΤΤ)ταl] , πεΡ1 τούτου του πpάγμ.aτ[o, ούτω, έδοςεν' eoTrw, Μαρκο, Σιλανό,] νπατο" έα.ν αύ­ τώι φαιVΗ[ταl, τα. όρκια πφφθηναι πρό, του, Mυτ,ληvαί] ου, ώ, έσΤal<ε γενέσθαι [κω ταυτα καΙ τα. τη, συγκλήτου δόγμ,ατα τ] α. πεΡ1 τούτου του πpιXγ[μ.aτO; γενόμενα έν δέλτωι χαλκηι ....... έγ] χαραχθηναι καΙ εΙ, δ'ljμ.ό [σιον άνατεθηναι φροντίσ?)Ι. "Εδοςεν.] Αύτοκράτ[ορο, Καίσαρο, Σεβαστου τό ένατον, Μάρκ]ου Σιλανου ύπάτων [- ---- ---- - ---- - - - - - ---------- - - - - - - - - --------- ----------] Desunt versusj'ere 30. Col.d

[δημ,] ο [, ό] Μυτιλτιvalων άρχ7ι [ν καΙ έπικράτειαν ην μ,έχρι νυν έσχεν ( ?)] φυιιασσετω ουτω, ω , αν τ ι Κ ιρατητα. αΡιιπω, υ,καιω. "-P'U'fωl. 'ί" νUj.i.υJό J του, πολεμ10υ, του δήμ,ου τ [ου 'Ρωμ,αίων ό δημ,ο, ό Μυτιληναίων δια. τη, Ιδtα, έ-] 'Πικρατεία, μ,� άΦεIέτω{l} δ'ljμ,οσ(lαl βουληl διελθείν, ώστε τώl δήμ,ωl τώl] 'Pwμoalwv η τοί)" άρχομ.ένοl, ύττ' [αύτου �ί τοί, σvμμ,άXOI)" του δήμ,ου του 'Ρωμ,αί-] ων πόλφον ποιησαl, μ,ήτε αύτοί, [όπλοl; χρήμ,ασl ναυσΙ βοηθείτω.] Ό δημ,ο)" ό 'Ρωμ,αίων του, πολφί[ου, του δήμ,ου του Μυτιλψαίων δια. του Ιδtoυ] άΥρου καΙ τη, Ιδία, έπικρατεία[, μ,� άΦειέτω δημ,οσίαl βουληl διελθείν,] ώστε τώι δήμωι τώι Μυτιληνα(lων η τοί, άρχομ.ένοι, ύττ' αύτου η τοί, σvμ.μ.ά-] χοι, του δήμ.ου του Mvτlλτιv[αίων -- - πόλεμ.ον ποιησαι, μ,ήτε αύτοί,] όπλοι)" X P'ήμ.a[σl ν] αυσΙ βοηθ[είτω. ] vacat 'Εάν τι; ττρότεΡο, πόλεμ.ον '1Το[ιήσ'1' τώι δήμ.ωι. τώι Mvτ,λΗVαίων-η τΜ δή- ] μ.ωι τώι 'Pωμ.alων [καΙ] τοί[, συμ,μ,άχοl, του δήμ,ου του 'Pωμ.aίων, βΟ'ljθείτω] [ό δημ,ο, ό 'Ρωμ,αίων τΜ δήμ,ωι τώι Mυτlληvαίων καΙ ό δημ.ο)" ό ΜυTlληνal-] Ό •

•

'\

,

�.

_ ιι!

..

!"

...

J

Ι

C)

Ι

"

,

1

•

10

JjO

SENATUS CONSULTΑ

IS

�o

[ων 'ι"ώι δήμωι τωι 'PWIIu.twv κα, ΤΟ'!> συμμάxoι� το] υ δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων' (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] βEβaι.ό!> τε έστω. EΙpήvrι (έστω εΙ!> τον άπαντα χρόνον.] vacat ( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] JαvToD έστω. 'OfLolωs(όσα - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ό δημ.ο!> 'PWfLlllw]ν δήμωι Mυτι.ληvmων έδω- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] του δήμου του Mvτι.ληναιων (κεν έστω [κα! όσα - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Μυτιλη] ναιων έγίνοντο έν νήσωι (Λίσβωι κα! όσα - - - - - - - - - - - - προ καλ]ανδων 'Iavoaplwv. αίτινε!> [.. τού] το,ς έγένοντσ Ε'ί τε ταύΤ7)Ι [τηι νήσωι είτε άλληι - - - - - - - - - - - -] r. ώ!> έκαστον τούτων των [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]τε οδτοι έKPάτησΑV έσχον (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ουτοι τε παvτα ταvτα εχε(τωσαν] vacat (- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - Μ] vτιληναlων έστωσαν. -

..

%5

..

-

..

-

..

_

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

οι

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

J

?

,

"

,

,

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Desunt ver sus 27. α,ι. e

έπεγελε ( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - έγί]νοντο έσθ�(oί - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ων �γopασμ (ίνων - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] τούτων άν(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Μυτι.λη]νσ.Ιων ύπακ[ου ] ] προκ pιμά-t ί - - - - - - � ..

-

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

-

..

-

..

-

..

-

..

-

..

-

..

..

-""=

..

-

:0 ,r ά:>'�ι!> γ [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

10

εστω ο αν [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] ται πρασσ,l (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Μυτι] ληvα,o !> πα[- - - - - - - - - - - άρχων η &ν]­ τ& ρχων 8r αν (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] &ποδιδότω. vacat ''Ατινα Φιλ&νθρ[ωπα - - - - - - - - - - - - αύτο]­ νόμου δήμ[ου - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] The arrangement of the stones and columns ί, that of Mommsen and Paton. text Ι αινe used the Βαlin squeezes.

151

Το control the

ROMAN DOCUMENTS fROM THE GREEK EAST

Col. a Restored by Cichorius, except where noted. 1 Paton, but I have added ikaTo� 4 EW]T.x� HilIer. 7 [&� JopTj.ptaaa8£ poOL f(a< ·rr€p< TOO rroMp.ov o]v f(aTwp8wf(ap.o, Sherk. 1 I Cichorius had [vp.wv €V€PY€Tf,'V f3ovAop.a, f(TA., but Paton changed the verb to 7r •• paaop.a,.

12-IJ aivo.[av a,aT€A€'T€, Cichorius. IJ (end) 1Tpo[8vp.low ?], Cichorius. Col. b I-S Paton. S 8appowT£� f(TA. restored by Cichorius. 6-12 Restored by Cichorius, except for 11. 8-9, where F. Ziemann (De episllllarum graecarum formulis so/emnibus quaestiones selectae [D iss . , Halle, 1910], p. 267, n. I) suggested the formulization given. II �avx]w�, Cichorius, but Paton read - -]o�, not clear on the Berlin squeeze. 14-27 Restored by Cichorius. 27 v"IT£p.[vaa]av, L. Robert, R.E.G., SJ (1940): 21S; earlier, in R.E.G., 42 (1929): 427, he had sug­ gested V7r£P.[1I'7a]all. 29 VP.€T£POL� 116p.o,�, Hatzfeld. JO-JS Paton, but in 1. JS Robert suggested 7r€,p&aop.aL J6-4J Restored by Cichorius, but in 1. J8 Arangio-Ruiz suggested €l� aTjp.6a,01l allaT€8£ IITa .1m]TaY'i' f(TA .. Col. c I Mommsen and Paton.

2-6 Restored exempli gratia by Arangio-Ruiz.

7-16 Mommsen

and Paton, except for 1. 9, where Arangio-Ruiz suggested.111 f(OVptlXL '/ovAtlXL (?)], 1. 10, where he has K>'avalo� , A"IT]"lTtov, and 11. I J-14, where he proposes Map]f(ov. 17-21 Restored by Arangio-Ruiz; in 1. 19 Mommsen and Paton have .pPOIIT[tUTjI .. Mo T£ O"ITO'OIl waT£ &v TWV a')p.oa]twII. 22-26 Restored by Cichorius, except that in 1. 2J Paton saw the basic construction, to which Arangio-Ruiz added 7r€p..p8ijval, as followed here; in I. 2S Cichorius had .111 a£>'TOI> xa>,f(a,�, which Paton changed to the singular. 27 Paton. Col. d I-J Arangio- Rui z ; apX�[v r7Jv (CXVTOO, Mommsen and Paton. 4-1I Cichorius and Paton. 12-16 Paton. 16 cJ,� &v dif(a'pov.1f( TWV aVII8,)f(WII(f(aT£pw' .patll'JTa,], Ara ngio- Ruiz.

17-27 Paton, but for 11.21-24 see Robert in his Etudes Analo/ien/les, p. lI S, n.

I.

COMMENTARY. The first document (col. a): Mommsen (op. dt., p. 896) has shown that the titulature of the official in the first line must refer to Caesar and not Augustus. There has been some debate, however, about the exact title of Caesar. Was he de­ scribed here as consul II or dictator II? If he had been consul l/, then the letter would be dated sometime after Pharsalus (August 9) but bef ore the beginning of his second dictatorship late in October of 48 B.C. [ But if he had been dictator l/, the letter would have been written between October of 48 and October of 47 B.C.Z Although several scholars have preferred to date the document in 47 B.C., believing that Caesar ,had been dictator II when he wrote it, the present writer believes that sufficient reasons exist to date it soon after Pharsalus in 48 B.C.l These reasons may be summarized here. · When Pompey fled from the b�ttle£i.eid ofPharsalils; lie made his wa:y to Lesbos where he was warmly received and invited to remain at Mytilene. That city, of course, still remembered his gift of freedom and had no intentions of abandoning her benefactor. But Pompey did not wish to remain in Mytilene, for after advising the city fathers to submit to Caesar he had 3 brief talk with Cratippus, the famous philosopher, put his wife and friends aboard ship, and sailed away.4 Caesar, in rapid pursuit, marched across 1 Caesar's second dictatorship probably began late in October. The reasons for such a date are given 11, 284-8 S, n. I. • For Caesar's second dictatorshi p sec A. E. Raubitschek, }. R.S. , 44 (19S4): 70.

by Broughton ,

3 Full details may be found in

R. K. Sherk, " Caesar and My tilene , " Greek, Roman, and Byzantine

4 (1963): 217-JO • Pl ut arch Pompeius 7S. z and 76.

Studies, •

I.

The account by Lucanus, Civil

rhetortical exaggeration and the details are therefore sus pect.

152

War, bk.

8,

ll. I I O-47, is full of

SENATUS CONSULTA

Macedonia and then sailed down the coastal waters of Asia Minor to Ephesus.s

With

Pompey's advice still fresh in their ears the news that Caesar was sailing down the coast in pursuit of his enemy must have caused the leaders of Mytilene some degree of con­ No mistake like the one committed in 88

cern.

must be permitted at this point.

B.C.

The city must be quick to indicate her loyalty to Rome's new master. would appear in the vicinity shortly.

Caesar's army

Delay might be disastrous.

An embassy to

I

believe, the city

Caesar at that time would be the best policy.

And accordingly,

actually did send an embassy, the very one mentioned in this first document of ours, headed by Potamon.6

Tills distinguished citizen, in company with his fellow envoys,

presented Caesar with a decree

(1. 6)

and told him of the honors paid to him by the city

of Mytilene, thus expressing in the customary way the city's submission to the new In turn Caesar assured the city of his good intentions both for the present and the

ruler. future.

The leaders of Mytilene breathed easier when this reply was brought back to

them.

And Caesar continued on his way in pursuit ofPompey.

We do not know the

precise location of this meeting between Potamon and Caesar, but there is a chance that it took place somewhere along the coast of the Troad.

Appian tells us that not long

af ter Pharsalus many Ionian and Aeolian cities sent envoys to Caesar just af ter he had crossed the Hellespont.7

This information serves not only to locate the meeting of

Potamon with Caesar but also to confirm the belief that the meeting actually took place soon after Pharsalus rather than a year later. date.

And there is additional support for this

Man y cities-among them Delos, Pergamum, Chios, Ephesus, and Athens­

decreed public honors for Caesar soon after Pharsalus.8

This would indicate an almost

immediate readiness to recognize Caesar as the new head of the Roman State.

Surely

Mytilene would have lost no time in sending Potamon and his fellow envoys to submit to the new ruler. The second document (col. b, 11. by a Roman official.

1-5):

We have here the conclusion of a letter written

The first and second person pronouns indicate a letter, the fact

that a new document begins in line

6

shows that line

5

contains the conclusion of that

letter, and the position of this second document on the monument-it is engraved h!"twc:ell-two leotters of the dictawr r�esor's-m�h� it cl!rt�;.'" rb� official wrote it.

""M.e

high :R_om�T'

Its position, in fact, supports the possibility that Caesar wrote it.9

If

the documents on Potamon's monument are chronologically arranged, and such seems S For the itineraries of Pompey and Caesar see W. Judeich, CdeS4r im Orient (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 5�ff.; J. P. Postgate, L.1C411i de Bell. Civ. Lib. VIII (Cambridge, 1917), pp. LXXIff.; T. Rice Holmes, The

Rom4n Republic,

III (Oxford, 19�3), 173ff.

n. 1269-70, n. 39) to connect I.G.. XII. suppl. (1939), no. 30. (= I.G . R. R., IV. 30) with the present situation must be discounted.

• Magie's attempt (op. cit.,

p. 9

7 Bell. Civ. �. 8 9. 8 See Raubi tschek, 0 p. cit., pp. 65-75. with Plate

Ill, and the additional material cited by L. Robert.

Hellenic4, 10 (1955): �57ff. • It is engraved on the same stone (B) that contains the beginning of the third document.

Cichorius

(Silzungsbericlrte Berlill. 1889. pp. 960-61) was the first to make the suggestion that its author was the

dictator.

153

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

to be the case, then this letter must have been written bef ore the second document and after the first, i.e., in the period 47-46 B.C. The mention of friendship (1. 3) and the use of the imperative (1. 5) might indicate some connection in content between this letter and the following document.lo Since the following document contains the relevant part of a senatus consuitlml ratifying the re­ newal of friendship and alliance between Rome and Mytilene, one might conjecture that the present letter indicates Caesar's willingness to go ahead with such a renewal. Mytilene could have communicated with Caesar beforehand about the matter. The present letter would then be his formal reply-in the affirmative. The imperative in line 5 is thus clear." Such a move on the part of Mytilene would be perfectly natural. f or the city's earlier success in establishing friendly relations with Caesar (the first document, col. a) would have given her some assurance of equal success in obtaining not only his but also the Senate's confirmation of her political status. This interpretation of the fragment, however, must remain only a conjecture. The third document (col. b, 11. 6-36): Since the titulature in line 7 will fit only the dictator Caesar, here is another of his letters. The date must be in the year beginning with April of 46 and ending with perhaps January or February of 45 B.C., for that is the length of his third dictatorship.1Z The main purpose of the letter is to communicate to Mytilene the success of her envoys-headed by Potamon and including the poet Crinagoras-in obtaining a senatus COlIsllitll1ll that approved the renewal of the city's status as "friend and ally" of Rome. After quoting the pertinent section of the decree, or perhaps sending a full copy of it, Caesar adds an edict of his own (ll. 26-36) in which he specifically states that nobody in Mytilene is to be immune from [local] taxation. ll The complaint of the provinces about the abuses and difficulties connected with the granting of immunity is widespread in this age, and a restriction is now imposed.14 IOThe position of the phrase "meet with us" a t the very end of a letter could look to a coming con­ ference in the near future.

When we search the third document f or some possible reference to this

earlier meeting of the second document, we find the phrase (coL b,

[,....] Elll') ICul.".pOTEPOV 'VE-rUXETE p.o. ICTA.

phrase in col. b,

O<:Li:.:... ion's l-::tte�' &.".OOTEMETE.

11. �6-�7) spoken b, Caesar:

Hence the possibility of a connection. Of course the may be a simple, formal way of closing having no literal significance; cr.

I. 5, to r....hO��i {�1::-. J8)," P.', 1.

•

Eppwo8E.

93":

�t;!p?aiilur-:�

r:t:P� �!.' .av. f30t�.\f"q�(Y., ,"p,jr

IL€

n I prefer to give it a literal significance, but see the preceding note. op. cil., pp. �94-95. The word used (col. b, 11. 7-8) for designallls is unusual, for

12 Broughton,

ICu8EoTup.Evor soon disappeared from official Greek documents emanating from Roman sources and was replaced by aTToIlEIl"n.Evor. Mylasa (No. 60),

11. �-3.

One other example may be noted: the letter of Augustus to

Il Caesar says(l. 12) that he is sending the copy , but what follows (11. 14ff.) lacks the prescript.

Some­

thing appears to have been erased in the missing line 13, but it is not known whether it was a heading (as in I. 6) or the beginning of the prescript. At any rate we cannot tell if Caesar's copy contained the full prescript with the full body of the text or an abbreviated form. There is also the possibility that the engraver, given the full text, omitted the prescript to conserve space. I. The wealthy families of Asia and the Greek East in the Hellenistic world had been supported by Rome from the second century before Christ and by this time had become the ruling class of the Greek

cities. Through them Rome could extend her clietllela and bind the centers of power and influence to her own cause-the old pattern in a new setting. To these families Rome naturally granted im-

J54

SENATUS CONSULTA

With this grant of amicitia et societas and the accompanying edict on local immunities, Mytilene not only has regained the security of her political autonomy (within the frame­ work of Rome's empire,of course,and subject to certain conditions),but also has moved into an even closer relationship with the ruling power.1S These are big steps from the days of hatred toward Rome,murder of Roman citizens, siege, capitulation, and loss of freedom. She learned her lesson well. The fourth document (end of col. b and all of col. c): Here we have two senatus consulta, both of them passed in 25 B.C. when Augustus was consul for the ninth time,and both of them passed on the relatio of M. Iunius Silanus,fellow consul with the emperor. The first of them (col. b,ll. 36-43, and col. c,ll. I-B) begins with a heading that makes it quite clear that both of the senatorial decrees concern the oath given to Mytilenean envoys for the sealing of a treaty between the two peoples. The treaty itself is given in columns d and e. For any interpretation of this first decree it is vital to keep in mind that Augustus is not in Rome at the time. He is in Spain actively engaged in war against the Astures and Cantabri. When illness forced him to relinquish active com­ mand, he retired to Tarraco and remained there.16 All that can be gleaned from the extant fragments with certainty is that Silanus convened the Senate, spoke about the proposed treaty with Mytilene, and made a suggestion about a letter to be sent to his fellow consul. The second decree (col. c, 11. !}- 2B) was passed only a very short time after the first. Since the fIrSt may be dated sometime between the sixteenth of May and the thirteenth of June (I. 39), the second must date from either May 29 or June 29. If the reference to a letter in the first decree meant that a letter was to be sent to Augustus in Spain and a reply awaited, then the date of the second would certainly be June 29. Unfortunately this second decree is not even as informative as the first,for not a single munities, thus putting the burdens of taxation and liturgies on those who could bear them least easily.

Eventually the cities and then the provinces voiced their displeasure.

dictator Caesar was, apparently, the first to act on their petitions. restrictions on the use of immunity in Cyrene; cf . M.

Here we see that the

Augustus later imposed similar

I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W.,lI (1941), 971-7].

The granting of immunity by the Greek cities does not seem to have aggravated social unrest until alter the Mithridatic wars.

The rising num her 0 f' Roman gronts in that !"'riod..md the growing hody

of privileged Roman citizens living and working in the Greek East could certainly have contributed to the severity of the economic imbalance and poverty of Greek cities in the second half of the first century B.C. salvation.

And for these cities Rome was at once the main cause of their difficulties as well as their

For the close connections between prominent Greeks and Romans of this age see G. W.

Bowersock, AUgIl5/115 and /lle Greek World (Oxrord, 1965), pp. I-I]. lS Previously scholars had thought that a renewal of amici/ia with Rome presupposed the existence of

afoedu5 between the contracting parties, but this view has been successfully challenged.

See A. Heuss,

"Die volkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der romischen Aussenpolitik in Republikanischer Zeit," Klio, ] 1 (1933): 12ft:, 25ft:, and 75tf.; Accame,

Foreign Clim/elae, p. 44.

11

dominio rom4UO in Grecia, pp. 48-57 and 91-92; Badian,

Amici/in was not necessarily a treaty relationship.

In the present instance

one sees that the agreement between Rome and Mytilene merely recognizes a state of affairs and does not commit the one city or the other to action of any sort. What the Senate can decree, the Senate can invalidate. The old views of Mommsen and T:iubler must be abandoned. Cr. Magie, o p. ci/.,

11, 960-61, n. 76, and the commentary to the S.c. • 6 Dio 53. 25. 2-8.

1,S,S

de Asdepiade (No. :u) .

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

extant word or phrase is significant enough to give a real clue to its meaning. That it was concerned with the treaty and the oath is, of course, obvious. Historians are there­ fore driven to theory and supposition. Mommsen believed that the first decree ordered the proceedings to be delayed until Augustus could be consulted and his opinion obtained by letter. When this was done, the Senate was convened a second time on the matter and a second decree was passed authorizing the treaty and the giving of the oath. But Arangio-Ruiz, closely examining lines 5-8 and 17-21. could find nothing to con­ firm Mommsen's view. He felt that Silanus had written to Augustus about the matter and had received an answer even before the first decree had been passed. He thought that Augustus had replied by letter that Silanus was to be entrusted with the making of the treaty, if the Senate were of the opinion that a treaty should be made. The Senate approved of Silanus's motion, naturally, f or he had the authority of Augustus behind him. Thus empowered, Silanus discussed with the Mytilenean envoys the various points to be covered in the treaty. When these had been worked out to mutual satisfaction. the Senate was summoned again and the second decree was passed. This second decree authorized Silanus to complete whatever details were necessary for the treaty, such as the giving of the oath and the engraving of the text on a bronze tablet. Despite the attractiveness of this latter interpretation it must not be accepted at face value. The restorations offered are in many places, as Arangio-Ruiz himself admits, exempli gratia, especially lines 2-4 and 21. Nevertheless it is worthy of serious con­ sideration. And since Augustus was in Spain the whole time, there can be little doubt that Silanus had corresponded with him. The remains of lines 1-2 would support that belie£ And it appears reasonable to assume that Silanus carried out the proceedings involved in the acceptance of a treaty from beginning to end, having at some time ob­ tained the approval of Augustus. The exact details and the exact sequence of events, however, are matters of conjecture. It is in connection with this treaty that the poet Crinagoras of Mytilene see� to have gone to Spain, perhaps to persuade Augustus to agree or perhaps to thank him after it h,d J,�"fJ conr.1.l.Ided Although the names of the Mytilenean envoys involved in the negotiations for the treaty are not mentioned, the mere fact that the documents had been engraved on Potamon's monument is proof enough that Potamon was not only one of the envoys but also very likely the leader. Crinagoras had accompanied him on the previous two embassies twenty years before (col. a, I. 3, and col. b, I. 16). Thus they were old acquaintances, and we may assume that the two of them also were together on this embassy to Augustus. There is no hint anywhere in these two senatus consulta that any of the Mytileneans went to Spain, but many of the poems of Crinagoras, preserved for us in the so-called Palatine Anthology, not only mention Spain but dwell at length upon several of its points of interest in the age of AugustusP We must, therefore, . .

.

17 The epigrams of Crinagoras have been assembled by M. Rubensohn. Crinagorae Mylilenaei epi­

grammala (Berlin. 1888).

This edition should be used

in the citation of the epigrams.

The remarks

of Cichorius. Rom und Mylilene. pp. 47-61. on this poet must be used with caution. for his chronology

SENATUS CONSULTA

reckon with a visit by Crinagoras to Spain. This naturally suggests that the visit took place at the time of the Mytilenean embassy to Rome in 2 5 B.C. and that some or all of the envoys went to Spain to see Augustus. Support for such a visit can be found in an inscription from Mytilene which actually mentions Tarraco by name.18 That an in­ scription from Mytilene should even mention this city in the age of Augusrus is sufficient reason to suggest a visit to that city at the time when the ailing emperor was confmed there in the course of his Spanish campaign. Thus it is generally agreed that Crinagoras made the trip in connection with the embassy in regard to the Mytilenean treaty. I would suppose that he went directly to Tarraco in 25 B.C. when word reached Rome that Augustus was ill. The fifth document (col. d): This is the text of the treaty, a nonaggression, defensive alliance designed to protect the territorial possessions of each party and to guarantee the status quo. Special interest centers on the very first line, for it may have contained a maiestas clause. However, the rarity of such a clause makes its restoration here a matter of doubt.19 The sixth document (col. e): These fragments may, in the opinion of Arangio-Ruiz, refer to the use of local private law within the framework of Roman law and to the guarantee of Mytilenean privileges. All these documents are of great value both for the light they shed upon the history of Mytilene after the Mithridatic wars and for the relations between Rome and the Greek East in the closing years of the Republic. Together with the S.C. de agris Mytilenaeorum of 55 B.C. and the letter of a Roman official on the same subject (Nos. 25 and 51), they allow us to trace. in outline if not in detail. the history of a Greek city-state from freedom to defeat and then from defeat and political subjection to rehabilitation under the patron­ age of Rome. Like Rhodes in earlier days, Mytilene affords the historian a fine example of Roman policy in the Greek East. of the present documents has been superseded by Mommsen and Paton.

The best treatment. with

excellent chronology and critical insight. is still that ofF. Susemihl, Gesc/lic/lle der griecllisc/um LileralllT in der Alexandrinerzeil.

II (Leipzig,

18 9�). 561-65.

cf. Geffcken, R.E .• s.v. "Krinagoras," cols. 18 59-64.

,.R I. C., XlI, 2. 4.. (=I.G.R.R., IV, 38). " A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (Oxfurd,

1939), p. 159.

And for the whole concept

of the maiestas clause see the study by Hans G. Gundel, "Der Begriff Maiestas im politischen Denken der romischen RepubHk," Historia, 12 (1963): �83-3�O, esp. 2.94.

J57

27 SENATUS CONSUL TUM DE PANAMA RA

39 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Cousin and G. Deschamps, RC.H., I I (1887)= 225-38; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XX, p. 41; E. Meyer, Die

Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien (Leipzig, 1925), p. 59; P. Roussel, B.C.H.. 55 (1931): 93; D. Magie. Roman Rule in Asia Mi ll o r { Princet on. 1 950), I. 432. and H. 1282. n. 1 5; L. R. Taylor. The Votillg Districts of t he Roman Republic. American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs XX (Rome. 1960). p. 169.

DESCRIPTION. A marble slab broken at the bottom, found in the ruins of the Temple ofZeus at Panamara in Caria. Height: 0.89 m. Width: 0. 69 m. Thickness: 0.09 m.

The left side of the last seven lines is almost completely

elfaced and the remainder is very difficult to read.

LloyfUl vvv 'E7r� uT£epaVTJepopov 'APT£JLL8wpov TOU 'APT£ILLvvv 8wpov TOU llaJJ. 'ATlvLOS TlTOV vlos CPaf3lCf Tvpa­ vos, MapKos [- - - ca . 16'- - ] vlos llo7rALAlCfllaAAaK£Lv�s' �'�v 7r£p['l c�v A£UKLOS KTJuwpLVos il-rraTos AOYOVS £7rOL�UaTo ETpaTwva M£vlmrov, [ .......] 'A7rOAAWlIl8ov, ['ApL]uTiav M£vav8pov, 'AptuToAaov 'ApLuToAaov, [ ....] £[.]av 'APLUT08�JJ,ov, 'EKaTaLov 'AYTJuall8pov, [- - - - - - ca. 24 - - - - -]ovs, MVWIIl8TJII 'l£pOKA[i]­ OVS, v 'I£poKAij[V - - - - ca. 22 - - -] OKAijV Ll Lovvulov [____ - - - - - - - - - ca. 33 - - -] alTELuOal T£ 7rapa TijS [UVIIKA�OV - - - - - - - - ca. 24 - - -] wv vvv TaS �las Tijs [_ - - - - - - - - - - - ca. 35 - - -] TOUT[ov] 7rlUT£WS [- - - - - - - - - - - - - ca. 39 - - - - - - - -] 'PwJLalwv •

.

10

.

0

.

,

-

IS

-

20

J58

.

.

.

SENIlTUS CONSULTIl

EJitio princeps by Cousin and Deschamps. Viereck.

7

Deschamps;

K[ollp)tva

K[o�)tva,

or

['Q.fo)£vTtVO:,

6

["A)".[".).os-,

(176)"'[�J.o$', [ Otl .fo)£l'1'lva, Cousin and letters: [Tpw")£VTlva (?); c£

Cousin and Deschamps;

Cousin and Deschamps.

Viereck, but there is room foe four

10

T. R. S. Broughton, Supplement to The Magistrales of the Roman Republic (New York, 1 960), p. 60.

II E. Badian, Historia,

12

( 1963) :

137, suggests M. Quinctius M.

£ Pop. (or Pol.) Plancinus,

but Cousin and Deschamps suggested a son of M. Lollius Palicanus, praetor in ca. 69 B.C.

COMMENTARY. In 43 B.C., after Mutina and the declaration of Antonius as a public enemy, the Senate, in a moment of magnanimity, confirmed the "liberators" M. Iunius Brutus and C. Cassius Longinus in their provinces of Macedonia and Syria. In addition they were granted an imperium superior to that of all other governors in the eastern provinces. After the formation of the second triumvirate in Rome in November of 43 B.C., Brutus and Cassius met in Smyrna and pledged their mutual support against Octavian, Antonius, and Lepidus. They planned at that time to cross over into Macedonia with all their forces and secure the country against attack. First, however, they agreed that they should amass both money and all available troops from the East. Consequently, every city and community of Asia fell prey to their exactions of money and supplies. In the summer of 42 B.C. they met once again, this time in Sardis, and then marched with their combined armies into Macedonia. In October of that year they fought the triumviral armies at Philippi and were defeated. Both died by their own hands. It was at one of the two conferences between Brutus and Cassius, either at Smyrna or Sardis, that they decided to approach King Orodes ofParthia with a request for assistance against the triumvirs. They sent the young Q. Labienus, the son of Caesar's legate, for this purpose to Parthia.' Orodes, however, was slow to give his answer, choosing to await the turn of events in the West before committing himself. Thus it was that the Battle ofPhilippi found Labienus still at the court of the Parthian king, and, choosing to live there rather then return and run the risk of losing his life as an enemy of the state, he remained inParthia. But then reports reached him of conditions in Asia, how Antonius had come into the province, levied forced contributions upon the cities, .. and rendez­ voused with Cleopatra in Egypt for the winter of 4I/40 B.C. Octavian was engaged in the West with Lucius Antonius at Perusia. Believing there might still be a chance to regain control of the eastern provinces, he managed to persuade Orodes that the sub­ j ugation of Syria and the adjo ining regions was possible:. Labienus and the king's son I The fullest source material on Labiellus, his Parthian mission and subsequent invasion of Asia Minor, will be found in Dio 48. 2.4-2.7,3 9-40. Additional information can be obtained in: Strabo 14. 2..2.4; Appian B.II. Civ. 4. 63 and S.6S ; Appian Syr. S I ; PlutarchAnl. 2.8. I, 30.I,and 33.1 and 4; Velleius Paterculus 2.. 78. I; Frontinus Slraleg. 2.. S. 36; Justin 42.. 4· 7; Florus 2.. 19. 3. 11Ie best modern accounts are W. W. Tarn, C.A.H., X, 47-SI,and Magie, o p.
159

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Pacorus marched westward in 40 B.C. at the head of a Parthian army, overran the province of Syria, and entered Cilicia. Pacorus turned south to complete the conquest of all Syria, invaded Palestine, and deposed Hyrcanus. Labienus marched through Cilicia and penetrated Caria as far as the seacoast, meeting only sporadic resistance. Some of the old" republican" troops joined him and the governor of Asia, Plancus, crossed over to the islands in fear for his life. He had to fight at Mylasa, Alabanda, Stratoniceia, and Aphrodisias. Numerous inscriptions from these cities bear witness to their hardships and suffering at the hands of Labienus and his Parthian troops.' Citizens of some com­ munities performed acts of heroism and devotion to country, but with little result.3 Stratoniceia, however, was a real exception, for it was successful in resisting and even driving off repeated attacks.4 But the nearby Temple of Hecate at Lagina was dese­ crated.s Labienus styled himself imperator Parthi,"s, levied money from the hapless provincials, and robbed the temples. This final misery of the cities lasted but a year, for in 39 B.C. Antonius at last began to take action and appointed P. Ventidius Bassus com­ mander of an army with Asia and Syria as his provincia.6 In the face of this organized force Labienus withdrew from Asia and called for reinforcements from Parthia. Eventually he had to face the army of Ventidius and was defeated. Although he escaped the disaster that engulfed his Parthians, he was eventually arrested in Cilicia and, pre­ sumably, put to death. The following year Ventidius met and defeated the army of Pacorus.7 The East was once more secure in Roman hands. Let us now turn to our document. It is a decree of the Senate passed under the consuls L. Marcius Censorinus and C. Calvisius Sabinus in 39 B.C. at a meeting in the Temple of Concord.8 Although one cannot say positively what was its object, there are three • See Roussel, op. cit., p. 93, and Magie, op. cit.,

n, 12.80-8 1, n. 10.

3 Zeno of Laodiceia and Hybreas of Mylasa, orators and men of spirit, refused to yield and caused

their respective cities to

offer resistance.

Both cities fell however.

Hybreas made good his escape

and returned to aid in the rehabilitation of his city; see Strabo 14. 2.4 and the remarks ofL. Robert i n Hellenica, 8 (1950): 95-96.

His career i s outlined in the Prosopographia Imperii Romani',

IV, 2. (1958),

no. 2.)4 .

< !);c (;0-6.

zt)sa)': ph:rl:;·-tbt,
At the nearby.

Temple ofZeus at Panamara, the g o d himself, we are told, came forth and routed the enemy by a miracle, an electrical storm of great power coupled with other atmospheric phenomena.

A re­

markable inscription gives a vivid description of this "miracle" ofZeus, how both a night attack and a day attack of the invaders failed to achieve success. See the reconstruction of the text offered by Roussel(op. cit., pp. 70-116), who presents a wealth of material on slmilar "miracles" from legendary literature and the later hagiography. Although the inscription does not specifically mention the Parthians, Roussel makes it appear that in all probability the military events are to be connected with the invasion under Labienus. $ See Ch. Diehl and G. Cousin, RC.H., Il (1887), no. 56, pp. 15 1-52. (cf. Roussel, op. cit., p. 93, and H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum v an Oudheden [Leiden, 1958], p. 62.). 6 See H. Gundel, R.E ., s.v. "Ventidius Bassus" (no. 5), cols. 807-13, for his Parthian command, and

Broughton, Magistrates,n, 388 and 393. 7 In addition to the sources and references mentioned above (n. I), see]. Miller, R.E., s.u. "Pakoros,"

cols. 2.437-38. 8 Broughton, op. cit., p. 386.

J60

SENA TUS CONSULTA

noteworthy facts which allo w us vasion led by Labienus. early in 39

H.C.

to

assume that it is connected with the Parthian in­

First, there is the matter of the date.

It must have been quite

that Ventidius entered Asia and caused Labienus with his soldiers to

withdraw to the east, for Dio (48.3 9-41) tells that in the course of the same yearVentidius pursued him all the way to Syria.

There the Parthian reinforcements, for which

Labienus had been waiting, arrived and immediately charged the Roman positions. The forces ofVentidius easily defeated them and put them to flight. for a time in Cilicia but was later arrested and put to death.

Labienus escaped

Ventidius then sent ahead

Pompaedius Silo with cavalry to the Amanus mountains and joined him there.

Then

the two of them with all their Roman troops overran Syria and occupied Palestine without trouble. was duly praised.

This was a considerable accomplishment for one year, and Antonius Thus, if Labienus left the province of Asia in the spring of 39

H.C.,

there would have been ample time for envoys from Stratoniceia to reach Rome and address the Senate by August of that same year.

Looking at this matter of date from a

different point of view, one might say that the very presence of envoys from Strato­ niceia in Rome in August of 39

H.C.

asking for passage of a decree concerning their city

is in itself good evidence that the decree dealt with matters occasioned by the Parthian invasion. The second noteworthy fact is the size of the Stratoniceian embassy.

Despite the

lacunae of lines 15-17 it is plain to see that at least ten, and more probably twelve, envoys traveled to Rome.

Such a large number, espedally burdensome after the hard months

of a siege, is an indication of the importance of the mission. 9

The size of an embassy, as

well as the eloquence of its spokesmen, can create an impression of urgency. Third, there is line 17, where we can see that all the envoys in the name of their city are asking from the Senate some specific grant or assistance. apparently they remind the Senate of their loyalty

(I.

19).

To win their point,

The time at which one men­

tions his loyalty is generally one in which it has been recently tested.

Certainly the

successful resistance of Stratoniceia in the Parthian invasion would be excellent proof of the city's loyalty. There i� th" �,l.dition�l fact rh3t T�",itus tells us quite plainly that Stratonice;.a had resisted the Parthians.'o

We may conclude that this senatorial decree was passed to

reward the city for its loyalty and to assist it in the havoc caused by the invasion.

This

may have included a grant of freedom, since we know that such a grant at one time must have been made." As Cousin and Deschamps have noted, the fact that a copy of this decree was found at Panamara should indicate that some clause in it referred to the sanctuary of Zeus, very likely granting it inviolability.

• For the size of embassies see R. K. Sherk, ID

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studi..,

4 (1963): 149.

Annal .. Ill. 62; see the commentary on the S.C. de Plarosmsibus et A phrodisiellsibus (No. 38) for a

discussion of the passage and its connection with these decrees. I! H. Dessau, I.L.S., 8780.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The names of the witnesses to the decree, so valuable for republican prosopography, are arranged in the order of rank. I. C. Carrinas C. £ Quir. He must be the consul SlifJectuS of 43 B.C., and is clearly the highest ranking senator on the list. 2. P. Sestius 1. £ Col. He would seem to be the quaestor of 63 B.C. and the tribune of 57 B.C. who worked for Cicero's recall. If so, he would be the father of 1. Sestius P. £ L. n. Alb[inianusJ Quirinalis who was proquaestor under Brutus in 43-42 B.C. (see his letter to the Thasians, No. 56). The father is also mentioned as one of the witnesses to the S.C. de Aphrodisiensibus (No. 29). 3. 1. Nonius L. £ Vel. Asprenas. He is here of praetorian rank, since he did not become consul until 36 B.C. 4. P. Attius P. £ Quir. aut Col. He may have been only an aedilicius at this time (Broughton, Magistrates, II, 466). 5. Q. Cloelius M. f . Quir. 6. M. Servilius C. £ . Perhaps the man who was accused of res repetundae in Cicero (Ad Fam. 8. 8. 2-3) is this Servilius. 7. C. Hedius C. £ Claudia Thorus. He is also one of the witnesses in the S.C.: de Aphrodisiensibus (No. 29). 8. P. Sestuilius P. £ Ou£ aut Tro. (see Broughton, Supplement to Magistrates, p. 60). 9. T. Atinius T. £ Fab. Tyranus. 10. f. Pop. Pall acinus. Is he a son of M. Lollius Palicanus, who had been praetor in about 69 B.C., as Cousin and Deschamps first suggested? Badian thought he might be M. Quinctius M. £ Pop. (or Pol.) Plancinus. The Greek form of his name makes Plancinus more likely as the Roman original. ---

--

28 EPISTULA M. ANTONII AD PLARASENSES ET APHRODISIENSES ET SENATUS CONSULTUM

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

E. Chishull. Antiquitates Asiaticae (London. 1728). pp. ISO-

55; A. Boeckh. C.I.G .• II (1843). no. 2737. pp. 493-95; C. F. M. Texier. Description de I'Asie Mineure. III (Paris. 1849). 152-53. 155; P. Viereck. Sermo

Graecus (Gottingen. 1888). no. V. pp. 5- 7; K. Buresch. Aus Lydien. Epigraph isch-geo graphische Reisefruchte (Leipzig. 1898). p. 185; B. Haussoulier. Revue de philologie. 23 (1899): 152,n. 3 and 5; W. Dittenberger. O. G.LS .• II (1905),453-55; Th. Reinach,R.E.G .• 19 (1906). no. 16. pp. 102-103 ; Bruns­ Gradenwitz,Fontes iuris Romani antiqlli7 (Tiibingen. 1909). no. 43,pp. 185/f.; E. Taubler. Imperil/m Romanum (Leipzig. 1913). pp. 177-79 ; Abbott-Johnson. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926). no. 29. pp. 32426; E. Schlesinger. Die griechische Asylie (Diss.• Giessen. 1933). p. 79; S. Riccobono. Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani'. pt. 1 (Florence, 1941). no. 38. pp. 269-72; S. Accame, I1 dominio romano in Grecia da/la gllerra acaica ad AI/gusto (Rome. 1946). pp. 92-94; M. Gelzer. Gnomon. 2I (1949): � D. Magie. Roman Rule in Asia Mirror (Princeton. 1950). I. 418. 432-33. and n. 127I. n. 43. and 1282. n. IS; Ehrenberg-Jones. no. 299; Johnson. Coleman-Norton. Bourne. Ancient Roman Statutes. no. 122; Sir William M. Calder and). M. R. Cormack. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. VIII (Manchester. 1962). 148; R. K. Sherk, Histaria. IS (1966): 123-24; L. Robert. L'amiquite classique. 3S (1966): 409/f. (with Plate Il).

DESCRIPTION.

First copied by Sherard in 1705 and 1716 from two pieces of

marble found at Aphrodisias in Caria.

Sherard's copies "",:ere then .used by

Chishull and Boeckh. During the 1934 expedition to the PiSidio..Phrygian borderland and to Aphrodisias. Sir Willaim M. Calder and his staff were unable to locate either of the stones.

39-35

B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM ΤΗΕ GREEK EAST

Α

[iν.fάρκοS' 'Αvτώv,οS' Μάρκου υ lόS' a.JTOKprZrwp ύπατοS' άποδεδε,-] 'Yμ.ένo� τό β' I(α� [τό γΙ]

[τών] ΤΡιών άνδρών τη[S'] τών δημοσίων πραγμάτων δ,ατάξεωS' ΠλαρασΙων και ΑΦροδε,σ,lων άρχουσ,ν βoυλiΊ δ ,ίμ,l, χαίΡΕ'ΙΙ' εί έρρωσθε, εδ αν έχο,' ύγ,αίνω δΕ και αυτό§" μετά τού στρα­ nVILaroS', Σόλων Δημψρίου (ύ)μΙτεΡΟS' ΠΡεσβε1JrιjS"J έτnμελΙστατα πεΦρον­ r(')KWS' τών τηS' 'πό­ λεωS' ύμών ΠΡαγματων. ου μοιιον ΤΙρκΙσθη έ-πι το ίS' γεγονόσ,ν οίκοιιο­ [μτί]μασ,ν. αλλά και TιILιXS' παρεκάλεσεν filS' τό του γεγοVOTOS' υμε,ν ε'π'KplILaTOS' και δόγμαTOS' κα, ορκ,ου κα, VOμου άIIτιπεΦωιrιιμlνα έκ τών δημοσίων δl'\των έξαποστεί•

10

is

,

20

,

�S

.

,

....

r

'

r

'

,

\

'

φα. έΦ· ors- έπαινέ­ aaS' τόν Σόλωνα μάλ­

λον άπεδεξάμψ έσχον τε εν το, S' ιnr ε μου , Yfi'VwaKOILfiVO'S' ι

3S

r

ι

ι

.

ι[J κα, τά καθήκοντα ά'ΠεμΙρ,σα Φ,λάν­ θρωπα. άξ,ον -ήγψ aafLfivoS' τον ανδΡα τηS' έξ ΤΙμών τε,­ f LfiS'. ύμείν τε συ­ νήδομα, έπι τιρ έχε,ν ,

40

..

,

.

...

SENATUS CONSULTA

45

SO

Β

'Τοιοίί'Τον πολε{'Τ7]ν. έσην δε άν'ΤlγΡαφα 'Των γεγονο'Των υμειν ΦιλανθΡώπων 'ΤιΧ ύποΥεγΡαμμένα' & ύμάι; βούλομαι έν 'ΤΟΙ> δημοσlοlS' 'ΤΟΙ> παρ' ύμειν γΡάμμασιν έν'Τάξαl. �

"

Γράμμ.α'Τα KalaapoS'. [------------ - - ---------------- - - ----- - - ---] [- -] ι άγεσθαl ά'Τε[λει> ιc]α(,) έλευθέρου> fifval, 'ΤΙΡ ['Τε] δlΙCαlιlι ιcα, 'ΤαΙ. [ιcplafialIJ 'Ται> ίδίαι) την πό-] [λιν] n)ν Πλαρασέων ιcα, ΆΦροδεισlέων χρήσθαl μή'Τε έΥΥύην ε[ί, 'Ρώμην αύ'Του> ΙCα'TιX δόγμα 'Τι] [ιc]α, ιcέλευ(σ)lν όμολογειν' ά 'Τέ 'ΤΙνα έπαθλα 'Τεψ.ιΧ, ΦιλάνθρωΙπα ------ ---- -- -- --- 'Τρει> ιXVSPfiS'] [ο] l 'Τή> 'Των δημοσlων ΠΡαγμά'Των δια'Τάξεω> 'Τιρ ίαιl. έπlιcp{μαη Πλ[αρασείίσl ιcα, ΆΦροδεισιείί-] [σι] προσεμέρισαν προσμ.εριοίίσιν, συνεχώρησαν συνχωρήσουσιν, 'Τα[ίί'Τα πάντα ιcύplα fifvat] [γε] νέσθαl. όμοlωS' 'Τε άpέσΙCεlν 'Tij συγΙCλή'Tψ, 'Τόν δήμον 'Τόν Πλα[Ρασέων ιcα, ΆΦροδεισIέ-] ων την έλευθεΡlαν ιcα, την ά'Τέλειαν αύτol�, πάνΤων 'Των πραγ[μά'Των έχειν ιcαρπlζεσθαl,] [ιcαθ]άπερ ιcα, 'TlS' πολl'Τfilα 'Τιρ ιcαλλlσ'Tψ δlΙCαιψ ιcαλλlστιl. 'Tfi νόι.uρ έσ'Τlν, [7j'TIS' παριΧ 'Τοίί] [δήμο]υ 'Τοίί 'PWIkalwv την έλευθεΡlαν ιcα, την ά'Τέλειαν έχει φtλη 'Τε ιcαι σύ[μμαχο> γεγέ-] [VIJ'TQ ,
. σ 'Τε] 'Τέμ.Β'Ο> θεά> ΆΦΡοδl'Τ7]S' έν πό,λεl Πλαρασέων ιcαι ΆΡΡοδεισlέω [ν ΙCαθIέpω'Tαl, 'Τοίί'Το] [άσυλον έ]σ'Τω 'Ταύ'Τ ιρ {'ΤιΡ} διιcαlιΡ 'Tαύτij τε BfilalBaψoovl� ι� BlιcalIfJ ιcαι Ti δεισ[ιδαιμ.ονl� Άρ'Τέμl-] [δο5' ΈΦε]σίας' JaTlv έν ΈΦέσιρ. KύKλψ.,.� έκ.είνσυ του [εΡσύ είτε τJμενo� εί'τ[ε άλσο5' έστ{ν. 00-] σπω> 'Τε ή πόλl> ιcα, ol πολει'Ταl ol ΠλαΡασέων ['ToS' ό] 'Τόπο> άσυλο> έσ'Τω. [ιcαι ΆΦροδεισlέων] [μεθ' �] ν ιcωμων xwplwv όχυρωμά'Των όρων ·προσόδων πρό, την Φlλlαν 'ΤΟ [ίί δήμου προσήλθον, 'Ταίί'Τα] [έχωσ] lν ΙCpα'Tώσlν χρων'Ταl ιcαΡ·πlζων'Ται 'Τε πάντων ΠΡαγμά'Των ά'Τε[λει> OIJ'TfiS'. μηδέ 'ΤΙνα] ---

ΣΟ

Σ5

�

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM TIlE GREEK EAST

[ .popov Il]UX

TWa alTlav JICElvwy 8,80va, P:1JIlE (U)UVE'U.pEPEW o.pEl'Awu,v, [aAA' aUTOc. 7Ta.-] [a, 'Tow]o'S", lCaT' oUaav ILETa. TaUTa Jv EaUTo,S" ICUPWU'V xpwv[Ta, lCap1Tl,wYTa, ICpaTWUW' ;80eEV.] Text based on that by Dittenberger except where noted. A I Perhaps two lines instead of one? small, raised

3 [TWV], Viereck.

31 After wTiypal.pa there is a

omicron in Sherard's copy, according to Boeckh, which appears to be a mark of

pUllctuation. B The underscored letters (11.

1-5) show the readings of

Reinach's new fragment, which did not

appear early enough to be incorporated into Dittenberger's edition. It is also missing in the editions by Bruns-Gradenwitz (7th ed.), Abbott-Johnson, and Riccobono. The beginning was

[nEpl.Lv - - - - - - - - - - - - '\0yovS' E-7To'oIaaJITo - - - - - - 1TEpI. TOv.,.OV TOU 1TpaY/laToS' OUTWS' "lloeEV' apEalCELJI rfi aVYIC'\oIT'P n'\apaaE'S' lCal 'ArppoIlE,a'E'S', �S' "lCptVE rc1.,oS' Ka,aap aUTOlCpc1.TWP lCaTa Ta lli]Ka,a EaO,\c1. TE [1TO'\'\]a E'\EVOEPOVS' ErVa,. He did not

restored byMommsen:

2. (end) Restored by Mommsen, with reference to Dionysius Ant. 11. Ant. 16. 163, 168. Hence vadimonium facere in Greek becomes EYY�V b/lO'\0YE'V. 3 ICE'\EVaLJI, all editors, but Reinach's fragment shows KEAEYEIN. 8 lCal TiS', Vier eck,Mommsen, Dittenberger, but Boeckh emended it to lCal ijT'S'. 9-10 YEYE"'1Ta,], Wilamowitz. II TW deleted by Boeckh; [,ApTEI.ulloS'], Wilamowitz. I2.

know Reinach's fragment.

32..

Approved by Viereck, who adds Josephus

EtTrE ci'\aoS' EaTiv,

Wilamowitz.

140pwv,

Romiscires Staatsrecht, Ill), 1,687-88,n. 4. Gradenwitz.

not opwv (as Chishull and Boeckh); cf: Mommsen, At end of line: TOrU llollLov 7T�'\OOV, Pick, in Bruns­

16 Boeckh records that the copy shows ZYNEIEr1>EPEIN, which he, followed by

Mommsen, changed to

[e]wE,a.pipELJI,

but

[a]wE,arpipELJI is

given by Dittenberger and Viereck

(notes).

COMMENTARY.

In order to bring about a modus vivendi with Sextus Pompeius, the

triumvirs met with him in the spring of 39 B.C. near Misenum.

A treaty was drawn up,

sealed, and handed over to the Vestal Virgins for safekeeping.

In return for various

concessions on his part, Sextus received command over Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, and Achaia.

Octavian, Antonius, and Pompeius then embraced one another and, for several

days, toasted each other's health in an outward show of affection. �-cursc

of :h�

:;-..cctlng

At some tim� in the 1:t c. ",rpr� f"n h,.

it \vas a.gr�cd th�t the C�:1::u.l:: fer �he period ��-�3 I

named by them in advance.l

For 34, Antonius was to be consul 11 with L. Scribonius

Libo; for 33, Octavian and Pompeius; for 32, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and C. Sosius; and for 3 I, Octavian and Antonius, both for the third time. Pompeius then went to Sicily and the two triumvirs returned to Rome. Since our first document (A 1-2) speaks of Antonius as [consul] designalUs 11 and [Ill] (no other restoration appears possible), its terminus post quem must be the spring of 3 9

B.C.

And since the envoy from the united community ofPlarasa-Aphrodisias asks for

official copies of records from the archives (at Rome), it has been assumed that Antonius 1 Dio 48 . 35. I and 50. 10. 1; Appian Bell. Civ. 5. 73. For the discrepancy betweenDio, who says that the consuls were named in advance for an eight-year period, and Appian, who says that it was a four-year period, see the remarks ofDrumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms, I' (Leipzig, 1899),315. and ofM. P. Charlesworth, C.A.H., X (1934),46, n. I.

J66

SENATUS CONSULT A

was actually in Rome when he replied (A 29-31) that he was sending those copies to the community.

Now it was in August or September at the latest in the same year that

Antonius left Rome for Athens and never returned to the city. assumed that his letter must have been written in 39

Magie theref ore

The official records, of course,

B.C.

could only have been found in Rome, but certainly Antonius could have had them sent to him in the east by the post or by a dispatch carrier.>

On the basis of the available

evidence one cannot date the letter any closer than the general period after the spring of 39

B.C.

and before the end of 35

B.C.

Following the letter we expect to find the documents mentioned:

consllltum, iusiurandllm, lex.

decretum, senatus

Presumably they would have appeared in just that order.

The first document, however, is introduced by the heading

Fp&.p.p.aT'a Kaluapo<;.

This must mean a letter of the dictator Caesar, of which there is no mention in the letter of Antonius. word

How is this substitution of a letter for a decree to be explained?

brll(p'p.a

is the usual one for decree or edict.]

The

In addition the senatus consu/tum

(B 1-17) which followed the letter of Caesar seems on the surf ace to contain a reference to the decree mentioned by Antonius.

It reads (B 3-6): .. Whatever rewards, honors,

• At the conclusion of the letter it is also stated

(ll. 44-47)

that the copies are subjoined.

Antonius is most likely to have been in Rome when he wrote the letter; cf. Magie, op. cil., n.

IS.

Hence

11, 1282,

However, we cannot state positively that he was in Rome, for it is possible that he obtained

copies of the documents from Rome by the post and then sent them on to the community with the present covering letter. to this latter view.

There is one word, of doubtf ul interpretation. that might lend some support

In lines 22-3 I of the letter of Antonius we are told that the envoy from Plarasa­

Aphrodisias �,.ii • ...a.pEKa>'E(7EV El. TO TOV ye)'ovOTOS' tJILE'V l."'Kplp.aT'O<; Kcxl116YILCXTOS' Kcxl OPKtov

I(a� tl0ILOV uVT&7recpwV71IJ.EVa. EK TWV aTJI.Loalwv cS'''TWV Efcx1f'OUTEl).CXf. �/LELtJ Ta aVTlypacpa. The word UVT' rrE.pwVTJ,.,VCX is very strange, to say the least, since apparently here it should have the meaning "copied," corresponding to the Latin exscripta or expressa. This meaning is accepted by Viereck, op. cil.,

p. 77, and Dittenberger, op. cil., n. ID, and has found its way into Liddell-Scott-Jones, where it is assigned

the meaning" taken from."

There is no other passage in which the verb might have such a meaning,

for in me period after Polybius it commonly means "to answer by letter"; cf . the lexicons of Lid dell­ Scott-Jones, Preisigke, and Stephanus. is its meaning here. �

Thererore one should not discount the possibility that sum

If Antonius were in the East when he was asked for official copies of me various

documents, he would naturally write to Rome and have them sent to him by the post.

22-31. n1ay

liU;'id.u;

"he

.... sked mt:: tL J.ispatl:h to you copies of the decretl.m.-che senattl;

Thus lines

cor.;;�::�m;, :hc

iusiurandum, and the lex-all of them concerning you-which have been sent in answer (to my

request) from the public records."

There is a passage in Josephus (Ani.

14- 265)

in which a simil.r

situation is described: ypaJ.'ILCXTCX7TpO. Ta. 7TEpl T';:'V �1"Tf PWV ll'.Kcxtwv E7Tt(7TO.\a. av-r'7TEq,wVTJIL'VCX

TO,. �y(,.6(7W, which means "letters sent by the governors in answer to our letters about our rights." It is therefore possible that Antonjus was trying to convey by this word the fact th.t he h.d to have the copies sent to him from Rome. the copies arrived.

In such a case, if true, he would have written the present letter after

It is true that Antonius did not have a native feeling for the language and his

knowledge of Greek was imperfect (on this point see Drumann-Groebe. op. cil., p. but here I think he meant exactly what he said.

371 with references),

The only objection to this interpretation is that one

expects an answer to come from a bureau or an office ('K TOV TCXP.,(tov) rather than from the records themselves ('K TWV ll'lp.ootwv ll'>'Twv). meaning of uVT',rrE.pwVTJp.lvcx.

35

But that is not sufficient to allow one to disregard the normal

Viereck, op. cil., Addenda et Corrigenda, p. VII, dated the document

B.C., while Magie, loc. cil., believed that the date could not be later than the autumn of

See the remarks of the present writer in Hisloria. loc. cil. 3 See the Introduction to the Epislulae. sec.

1.

Magisterial Decisions and Decrees.

39

B.C.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

and privileges which the triumviri rei publicae constituendae by their own decree have apportioned or will apportion, have granted or will grant to the people of Plarasa­ Aphrodisias, all are to be valid."

This indeed characterizes the senatus consultum as one

which confirmed the actions and measures previously taken by the triumvirs in regard to the city.

Hence, they, as well as Caesar, issued decrees or made pronouncements of

some sort about the city of Plarasa-Aphrodisias. failure of Antonius to mention the letter.

But this still does not explain the

Opinions on that subject are not unanimous.

Dittenberger advanced the possibility that Caesar's letter was one of the documents published after his death by Antonius, i.e., published ex actis Caesaris, some of which were forgeries.

He thought that after the triumvirs had confirmed these acta by their special

authority the Senate in turn had issued the senatus consultum to confirm what the triumvirs had done.

The "letter" of Caesar, perhaps a forgery, was for some reason not men­

tioned in the introductory letter of Antonius. lines

The actual decree mentioned in A,

24-25, is lost.

Taubler rejected Dittenberger's view with the observation that if Caesar's letter had been sent to the city for the first time ex actis, it would hardly have gone unmentioned in Antonius' letter.

He felt that Caesar had actually written a letter to the city at the time

of his stay in Asia and that the city had published it among the documents received from Antonius because of its connection with the confirmatory decree by the triumvirs of Caesar's acta.

Antonius had not sent it to the city at all.

It was already well known

there. Apart from the present documents one must also take account of the literary evidence that exists on the connection between the dictator Caesar and Aphrodisias. passage Tacitus (Ann.

3.62) writes that,

In a famous

when the Emperor Tiberius decided to examine

the credentials of those Greek sanctuaries which claimed inviolability, he ordered all of them to send their charters and documents to Rome as proof of their claims.

There

appeared bef ore him first the Ephesians, then the Magnesians, and Aphrodisienses posthac et Stratonieenses dictatoris Caesaris ob vetusta in partis merita et reeens divi Augusti decretum adtulere, laudati quod Parthonllll inruptionem nihil mutata in populum Romanum constantia perth!i:;:;e;1t.

Thi�

:cc:ns

tc

:r..C:!!l

!!lat the Aphr/')di.;�!'. I'rnd".r�rl

�

d..t;r.t:e of Ca�3r

which they had received for service to his party, and that the Stratoniceians b.ought a decree of Augustus which had been issued because of their loyalty to Rome during the Parthian invasion.4

There is certainly a connection between the decree of Caesar

mentioned by Tacitus and the letter mentioned in our documents.

It would be rash to

consider it accidental. It is here suggested that the letter of Caesar was an actual letter written and sent by Caesar to the city while he was in Asia.

A date soon after Pharsalus would be plausible,

since other cities of the East at that time also secured privileges of various sorts.

After

his commentary, op. cit., pp. 494-95. It has been accepted by Dittenberger and SI (1927): 59-«>, and has made its way into the various commentators on Tacitus. most recently, E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitm: Alllla/ell, vol. 1, bks. 1-3 (Heidelberg, 1963),

4 See Boeckh in

Hatzfeld (B.C.H., See, p.539·

168

SENATVS CONSVLTA

his death it was one of the many

acta that the

triumvirs confirmed, but a copy of it had

been sent long before to the city, where it was published and/or deposited in the local archives.

When Marcus Antonius was later asked for the copies of all the official

documents pertaining to the city, the brlKp'P.a. must have been the decree by which the confirmed by the triumvirs.

The city already had a copy of Caesar's

letter and would not have needed another.

acta Caesaris were

When the four documents arrived in

Aphrodisias, the letter of Caesar would naturally have been added to the dossier. were then published.

All

After all, the letter of Caesar must have been the.fir st document of

the series that defined the status of the city in the Caesarian period, for Antonius' decree had only confirmed its provisions. measures of the triumvirs.

And the

senatus consulturn had merely confirmed the

Thus the letter of Caesar, perhaps itself containing an

E1r{KP'P.a., was placed immediately after the introductory letter of Antonius on the stone, for chronologically and historically it belonged there.

It must have been concerned

with the inviolability of the sanctuary of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias and must have been the document mentioned by Tacitus.

Any official letter could contain or communicate

a decree.s If this explanation is accepted, then the next document in the dossier would have been the decree of Antonius.

It is lost.

The

senatus consulturn (B)

establishment of the second triumvirate (autumn, 43 letter of Antonius.

B.C.

)

must be dated after the

and before the introductory

By its terms the united community is to be free and immune from

all taxation, the honors and privileges accorded to it by the triumvirs are to remain in force, it is to be enrolled as a friend and ally of Rome, and its sanctuary of Aphrodite is to be inviolable.

Thus the whole community is "a most favored nation."

Such a high

status in this period of the Republic was not granted without good reason, and it is reasonable to assume that the triumvirs and the Senate felt it was justified because of the city's loyalty to Rome during the Parthian invasion of 40 suit such a view, and Antonius, whose

irnperiurn

B.C.

The chronology would

covered the Greek world, would have

been very thankful toward all those cities which had resisted the invaders.

A frag­

mentary inscription from Aphrodisias may actually refer to the invasion, but it is too fragm,!=ntary and vague for one to draw positive conclusions from it.6 The nature of the oath and the law (A 26-27) cannot b� determined.

One thinks

naturally, however, of a treaty sealed by an oath and confirmed by a law. I See No.

&av.\fa.s.

ss, a letter 0 f P. Servilius lsauricus to the Pergamenes with the heading' E.. lKp'P.a. .. «pl-rijs Cf. the Introduction to the Epistulae, sec. I, Magisterial Decisions and Decrees.

6 M. Holleaux and P. Paris,

B.C.H., 9 (I88S). no. S, p. 7S (cf. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, pp.

3 I2.-14,

and Magie, op. cit., n, I2.8I, n. IO). There are references to food shortages, war, danger, and a shattered economy. The person honored is said to have killed sixty of the enemy in battle.

J69

29 SENATUS CONSUL TUM DE APHRODISIENSIBUS

BIDUOGRAPHY.

J.

Franz, Annali delr

35 B.C.

Instituto di CorrisponJenza arclleologica,

19 , ( 1847 ), no. So p. IlJ; Le Bas-Waddington, Voya ge arclleologique en Greee et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III ( 1870 ), 1627; P. WilIems, Le Senat de la republique romaine, I (Paris, 1878 ) ,252; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888 ) , no. XIX, pp. 40-41, and Addenda et Corrigenda, p. V[[; Th. Reinach, R.E.G. 19 ( 1906 ) , no. I, pp. 81-82; T. R. S. Broughton, Supplement to Tile Magistrates of tile Roman Republic (New York, 1960) , p. 9 ; W. M Calder and J. M R. Cormack, Monumellla Asiae Milloris Antiqua, V[[[ (Manchester, 1962 ), no. 405,pp. 72-7J (Plate 20, at the end).

DESCRIPTION. (Aphrodisias).

A marble block broken on all sides, found at Geyre

Height: 0.57 m.

of letters: 0.025-0.0J m.

Width: 1.24 m.

Thickness: 0.4J m.

Height

['E'IT' EE�'TOV fl0I"TrTjlov EE�'TOV vlov KW A£VKlov KOPVII"IK�'ilV A£VKlov vZov inr&.'TWV €K 'TWV av(a)[y£y paIL][,LEVWV €V 'lTpayp.a'Twv uvP. f1£f1ovAruplvwv KTjpwlLaulV 'IT] ;p.7T'TW EK'TW lf18o/LW dy80w €va'Tw 'Ta [,LI£V'TI ][KWV 8EA'TWV - - nomina quaestorum - - - - 'TaILI] 'Pv Ka'TlZ 'lTOAlV 8EA'TCP 'lTpWTI/' 'lTpa 7j,LEp'P[v] [- - dies, mensis, locus - - - - - - - - - - -] ypwpOP.EVCP{V} 'lTlXpiiuav MapKOS O� [aMp,os] r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vlas] O€M..l�'AU'!l'p7jvas. A .. v{..fJ9S. [- - -- -,-- J [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - vlas] CPa.>..EpV� flAaV'TOS. ralos M[- - - - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] flO'ITAIOS E7ju'TIOS AEVKloV [vlas - - - - - - - - -] [- - - - - - - - - ralos H810s ralov v ]las K>..av8l� ewpos. Ad VKIOS - - - - - - - - - -j [- - - - - - - --- - ------ - - - j -�!,OS' r[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] -

-

•

10

A new reading ofthestone wasmade by Calder and Corma ck.

I (at the end)

possible restorations of the names of wimesses see the commentary.

]ID I1NOEr[- - .

ANE[- - . For the

In I. 10 Viereck has

SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENT AR Y.

The S.C. de Panamara of 39

iJ.C.

(No.

1.7 ) mentions at least

witnesses who are identical with senators named in the present decree. decree cannot be dated too far removed in time from that one.

two

Therefore this

This makes it easier to

identify the consul in the fIrst line, for, although only a small part of his name is extant, the fact that he lacks a wgnomen is important. included a citizen's full name.

Af ter Sulla, official documents regularly

If a man had a ,ognomen, it would be given.1

Now, as

Viereck observed, the only consul in the period who had no cognomen and whose nomen with filiation agrees with the remains of line

I

is the consul of 35

iJ.c., 1.

Cornificius L. f.

The decree must be dated to that year. The witnesses: We expect a ranking consular to come fIrst in the l ist.

1.

Viereck accepted the

restoration here of M. Valerius M. f. Messala. who coul d h ave been the consul suffi'/US of

32

or possibly the one of 31

iJ.c.,

praetorian rank in 35 post number

2

iJ . C.

iJ.C.

But either of them would have been only of

Not a serious objection, but doubtful became the person in

in the list may have been the the consul su ectus of 36

JJ

would have outranked him.

iJ.C.

and in that case

I prefer to leave the identity of the fIrst witness an open

question.

2. Viereck originally restored the name of 1. Nonius 1. f. Vel. A!prenas for this witness, making him identical with the man of the same name in No. (Addenda, p. VII) rejected it

cc

1.7,

but then

cum propter testium ordinem iidem esse non possint."

Broughton (Supplement to Magistrates, p. 42), however, believes the same man is mentioned in both decrees.

If true-and of course it is a distinct possibility-then the

man in post number one should outrank him.

Who was he?

3· 1. -4. --- 1. f. Ouf. Balbus. Viereck had accepted the restoration here of the Senator

M. Attius 1. f. Ouf. Balbus, but other candidates are better suited (see Broughton, op. cit., p. 9 .

)

Possibilities for the gentWcia include Lucilius. Octavius, and Paccius.

Balbus was rdated to the consul suflect of 30

iJ.C.,

Perhaps

1. Saenius 1. f, as Broughton also

suggests. �. -. - Fa.\. plautus. Unidentified. . 6. C. M--. Viereck accepted the name here of C. Menunius 1. f. without good

reason.

UnidentifIed.

7. P. Sestius 1. f. He was also the witness in the S.c. de Panamara (No.

1.7).

8. C. Hedius C. f. Claud. Thorus. He too was one of the witnesses in the S.c. de Panamara (No.

1.7).

9·1. --· I See

L.

E.

RE., s.v. "Namenwe,en," col. t649; Mau, RE., s.v. "Cognomen," coL 2.2.j; The Voting Districts of the Rom." Republic, American Academy in Rome, Paper. and

Fraenkel,

R. Taylo.,

M(>negraph,

XX

(Reme, t960), p. t69.

30 (?) DE

SENATUS CONSULT UM

First Century B.C.

(Augustan ?)

REBUS STRATONICENSIUM

J. Hatzfeld. B.C.H 51 (1927). no. 3. Pp. 59-61; Cronert. al S.B.C IV (1930).246;]. Robert and L. Robert. La Carie. IT .•

BIBLIOGRAPHY. HiIler. et

.•

.•

(Paris, 1954). 100.

DESCRIPTION. Panamara.

Two fragments from a stele of white marble found in

The left side only is preserved.

(bottom): 0.55 m.

Thickness: 0.095 m.

Height: 0.32 m.

Maximum width

The letters are carefully engraved but

badly worn.

ATA[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - avv£ -I x(w)f11Iaav rijS" '7TOA£W[, alTovCTt}S" (?) - - - - - - - -I ATAELJEETO. YI.I.E[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I Tjj apxalcpijS" VroxfjS" [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I cS7jp.oala [t I, (?) TTpayp.a.atV TO [ - - - - - - - - - - -I aavT£, xwpiS" TTcXO'?J [S" .1 KA [ - - - - - - - - - - - - -I TTap£rcX,avro. vv TOVTOV cS [£ - - - - - - - - - - - I 10

IS

J"f3a.A£V, Jv q, TTOAEM' TcX T[£I p.'[ywTa K£I<'tVcSuv£u-1 KOT£, cSta TaVTa.S" Ta, alTlaS" cStaaaS" [- - - - cS£cSox-1 Ba, aTwa ETT [aIBAa, aTwa [r/"I AcXvBpw'1Ta [TTpOT£pOV Tepl cS�p.w, ETpaTOV£'K'WV &&p.'va 71'poap.[£ p.£ptap.'- I va T€ €C1Tt.II, 'TtXV'Ta 1TaVTa 8"Ka.lw� &elws T [€ av .. ]

TOtS" cS£cSoldva TTpoa�p.£pt(1p.JIJa [Tfi £ IIJat K�iI TTctvTa Kvp,a E x£'V [.1 OMO [ .. ·1 AEllKAIO [- - - -I [ IWTcXT7)S" TTlaT£wS" a[UTWII' TO cS£l l£[pov TOV LJtoS'1 [TO V Jv I1avap.lcXpOt, KVK[A'i' T£ TOV l£pov, £tT£1 [T'P.£VOS' £tT£ aAaos JaTlv, aaVAov £lvat - - -I •

•

•

1-2 Ziebarth. is room for an

2 XOPH1:AN. stone.

iota between A and 1:.

5 Cousin reports tJHM01:IA1:. but Hatzfeld says there 6

Viereck (notes) follows what is given here.

lIA1:I. 7

. KA. stone; HiIler writes

TTaO?/[,) /Ca.[-, but

TOVTOV Ii[t YEVOflivou, Cronert.

8-9 HiIler. but

Ta T[E) "'E[yaAa ?). Hatzfeld. 10 and 14 The readings here by Cousin are not altogether satisfactory. 16-17 Cr. S.C. de plarascIIsibus et Aphrodisiensibus (No. 28). B 12-13.

173

SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENT AR Y.

A comparison of the expressions in lines 10-17 with those in the

de Plarasensibus et Aphrodisieflsibus (No. 28), B 3�, and in the s.c. de Stratonicensibus of 8 I B.C. (No. 18), lines 48-50 of fragment E, to mention only those decrees of this same area and time, makes it reasonable to assume that we have here part of a senatus con­ sultum.1 ]. Hatzfeld, however, thinks that it may be a decretum of Augustus or a senatus consultum confirming that decretum.' I believe it belongs to a senatus consultum. s.c.

Its date can be deduced only in a general way.

The mention of a war and danger

could be a reference either to the first Mithridatic War or to the Parthian invasion of 40

B.C.

The fact that privileges formerly granted to the city of Stratoniceia are to be

confirmed likewise points to a date af ter either of those two events. its first major grant of privileges in 8 I

B.C.

from Sulla (No.

18),

The city received

and the present document

(11. 15-17) in at least one respect supplemented those by making the Temple of Zeus at Panamara, together with its territory, inviolable. document after the senatorial decree of 8 1

B.C.

This would appear to date the

Hatzfeld believed its date was 31

B.C.,

at which time Octavian was in the East and had evidently helped the city of Mylasa for the damage it had sustained during the Parthian invasion nine years before.3

Such a

date is a mere conjecture and has nothing to support it except the fact that Tacitus tells us the city had once received a decretum is of Augustan date, but to select 3 I

dit/i AUgllsti.4

B.C.

It may well be that our document

merely because Mylasa had received a friendly

letter from Octavian in that year is not the best kind of evidence.

Octavian would not

have to be in the East for the city to obtain a

from the Senate.

senatus consulturn

I

believe our document is a senatorial decree. One last possibility for a date must be considered.

S.C. de Panamara

of 39

B.C.

(No.

27)?

Can this document be part of the

Only the beginning of that decree is extant.

Hatzfeld rejects this because, as he says, the number of letters in line 12 of the present document, if the restoration is correct, does not suit the length of lines in the other. But, he admits, the thickness of both steles is almost identical (0.095 m. for this one and

0.09 m. for the other), and the length of the lines in both is irregular. J

Robert and Robert,loc.
--� Hi: is led to this ·view because of the passage in Tacitus A"" � lts Ill. 6" (cf. th� S�C.dt Pla,ast��ib us tt Aph,odisitnsibus [No. "8]), in which we learn that the city of Stratoniceia had received a mtns divi Augusti dtcrttum.

, S.I.C.', 768. • N. "above.

J73

31 EDICTUM A UGUSTI ET SENATUS CONSULTUM DE PEC UNIIS REPETUNDIS

4 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Oliverio, Notiziario archeologico del Minis/ero delle Colonie, IV (Milan-Rome, 192.7), 15-67, with five plates, reviewed by A. Neppi Modona, Aegyptus, 9 (192.8): 146-51; F. Ebrard, Philologische WocherlSchriji,47 (1927): I I93-98, 1226-32, 13I I, 1440; R. Cagnat and M. Besnier, L'Annee Epigraphique (Paris, 1927), 166; J. G. C. Anderson,j.R.S., I7 (192.7): 33-48; L. Radermacher, Wiener Anze(�er, 65 (1928): 69-82; Anton von Premerstein, Klio, 22 (1928): 162-64; V. Groh, Listy Filolo gicke, 55 (192.8): 83-91 and 2()()-5; AnIon von Premerstein, Z.S.S., 48 (1928): 419-531, reviewed by W. Graf Uxkull-Gyllenband, Cnomon, 6 (1930): 121-32; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Rivista di filologia, n.s., 56 (1928): 321-64; D. McFayden, Classical Philology, 23 (1928): 388-93; G. Klaftenbach, Hermes, 63 (1928): 368;). Stroux and 1. Wenger, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissensch
.

(Florence, 1931), pp. u/[ (on public law and citizenship); A. Steinwenter,

R.E., s.v. "Iudex," suppL V (1931), cols. 352.-56; P. Wahrmann, Clolla, 19 (1931): 182,-84; Anton von Premerstein, Z.S.S., 51 (1931): 431-59 (bibliographical account and summary); A. O'Brien Moore, R.E., s.p. "Senatus," suppl. VI (1935), cols. 783ft:; P. Romanelli, Africa Romana (Milan,

:':�djJI 1'1'"

",2.$ ;"7 ·.-;i�h r!�:;.:··\'!; "I..' • ..A:.r�::gi�-!).. �!�, �f�'t!fQ�' n,.,r,lttu't?'If

Historiae et Juris, 2 (1936): 518ff. (answer to La Pira);).). E. Hondius et al., S.E.C., lX, 8; F. De Visscher, Les ldits d'Auguste decouverts .I Cyr�ne (Louvain­ Paris, 1940), reviewed by H. Last, j.R.S., 35 (1945): 93-99, and by L. Wenger, Z.S.S., 62 (1942,): 42,5-36; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustinianiz, pt. I (Florence, 1941), no. 68, pp. 403-14; G. 1. Luzzatto, Epigrafo giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942,), pp. 2,39-84; F. De Visscher, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et de Sciences Morales et Politiques de I'Academie Royale de Belgique, 5' ser., 23 (1947): 50-59;). H. Oliver, Memoirs of the Ameri(all Academy in Rome, 19 (1949): 105-14; A. N. Sherwin-White, Papers of the British School at R.ome, 17 (1949): 5-2,5 (on Edict V and the penalties in the extortion court); M. I. Henderson,

J�R.S., 41 (1951): 74 and 86-88 (on the extortion court); Ehrenberg-)ones, no. 3JI, pp. 139-43;). H. Oliver, A.J.P., 76 (1955): 287; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, II (New York, 1955), no. 9, pp. 36-42; F. Serrao, Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisci, II (Milan, 1956), 504/[; )ohnson, Coleman-Norton, Boume,

174

SENATUS CONSULTA

Ancient Romall Statutes, no. I 48 ; P. A. Brunt, Historia, IO ( I 96 I ) : I99-2.oo, 2.02., 2.04; J. Bleicken, Stnatsgericht und Kaisergericht (Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in

Gollingen, Phi/.-hist. KI., drille Folge, Nr. 53) (Gottingen, I 962. ), pp. 36-43, I 68-78.

E. Ghislanzoni, Enciclopedia Ita/iana, IQ ( I 93 I ) , s.v.

BRIEF ANALYSES.

"Cirene," p. 435; Sir H. StuartJones, C.A.H., IO ( I 934) : I 67 and I 7 I ; G. H.

Stevenson, ibid., p. 2.U; A. Momigliano, Oxford Classical Dictio'lQry (Oxford, I949),

p.

250;

D. Magic, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,

I 950) , 11,

I052.-53, n. I O, I I I 4, n. IO, I 347, n. 5 8 ; H. F. Jolowicz, Historicalltllroductiollto

the Study of Roman Law (Cambridge, I 952.) , pp. 542.-45; L. Wenger, Die Quellen des rOmiSCHtl1 Rechts (Vienna, I 953) , pp. 455-56; A. Berger, E'ICyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia, I 953) , p. 447.

The fullest resume is the

one by P. Romanelli, LA Cirenaica Romana (Verbania, I943) , pp. 80-87.

DESCRIPTION.

Marble stele found in the agora of Cyrene ( 2. .05 m. high,

0.70 m. wide at the bottom, 0.6I m. wide at the top, and 0.38 m. thick,

complete on all sides).

In modem times it was used as a bench on the outside of

a house with its engraved sur&ce turned toward the wall. engraved in two parts.

The inscription was

The fi rst part, consisting of four edicts, is separated by

one vacant line from the second, which contains the fif th edict and the unatus consultum.

Both parts were engraved at the same time, however.

A few

centimeters below the last line (I44) there is evidence that from there to the top of the stele the surface had been polished slightly.

The letters (0.006-{).OIO m.)

are of an uneven size, sometimes crowded together and sometimes widely separated, those of the second part being slightly larger than those of the first. Both parts were the work of the same engraver.

Very many vacant spaces were

used not only to divide the text or set off certain words but also to serve as marks of punctuation and to avoid an incorrect division of syllables at the ends of lines.

The engraver also seems to have sketched or drawn in the letters before

he cut them, a practice that might account f or several omissions and errors as the inscription is studied today.

But, aside from such errors as those

resulting from the engraver's failure to cut certain letters because his painted sketch gives the impression that they have already been engraved, there are

... o.her iCiilds 6f omissions.

The eiigraving 011 the whole is a most instructive

example of the several kinds of mistakes an ancient engraver was likely to make.

Edict V

AV"TOl(pa."TWP Kai.aap �hlp.apX
v

E€{1aa"Tor; apx<€pEiJr; p.ly
vvv

vacat spatium IInius versus 75

L1oyp.a avvl(��"TOV "TO £1Tl raiov KMov
175

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM

80

8S

90

9S

100

IOS

ΤΗΕ GREEX

EAST

�ν κηδόιιεθα, πέμπει ν είο τά, έπαρχ-ήαο διέγνων καΙ τώι� έμώι ΠΡογΡάμματι ύποτάσσειν, έξ ου BijAOII lσται πασιι. ·τοιο τά, έπαρχ-ήαο KαΤOΙKoiίσιν, σσην Φροντtδα -ποιοι$με­ θα έγώ τε καΙ ή σQνκλητοS' τoiί μηδένα τών ήμιν ύποτασο­ μένων -παρά το προσijκόν τι πάσχιν ή εΙσπράτεσθαι. vacat vacat Δόγιια ΣVVKλ-ήΤOυ vacat Ύ-πέρ �ν Γάιοο ΚαλοvtσιοS' Σαβεινο> ΛεQκιοS' Πασσιijv νο> 'PoiίΦoo Vπατoι λόγου> έποι-ήσαντο 'Π.φΙ �ν V v Α?ιτοκράτωρ Καί.σαρ v Σεβαστόο. ήγεμων v ήμέτεροο, έκ ξυμβουλ{ου γνώμηο, Ο έκ -rijS' συιικλ-ήτου κληρωτον lσχεν, άνειιεχθijvσ.ι. δι' ήμών 'ΠΡΟ> την βovλήν ήθέλησε�', άVΗKόντων ννν έ, την τών συμμάχων τoiί δ-ήμου τoiί 'Ρωιιαtων άσΦάλεlΑV, lBoξε τψ βοvλijl' νν Τών προγόνων τών ήμετέρων BtKaS' χρηιιάτων [ξετη] άπαιτησεωο νομοθετησάι/των, σπωο pq.ov οΙ σQμμαXOI ίι·πέρ ιLν αll άδlΚ7)θώσlν έ·πεξελθεΙν καΙ κομtσασθαl χΡ-ήματα άΦαl­ ρεθέντεο δQι'ωνταl, όντοο δέ τoiί γένουο τών ΤΟΙΟQτων δι κα σ­ τηρtων lστιν στε βαpvτάτoυ καΙ άηδεστάτου αύτοιο δι' 0{)S' έγράφη ό νόμοο, τών έπαρχηών μακράν άπεxovσών 3(λ)κεσθαl μάρτυραο πέVΗταo άνθρώπουο κα: τιναο άσθ<ε)νιο διά νόσον ή διά yijpaS', άρέ­ σκεl -rijl βοvλijl' 'Εάν τινεο τών συιιμάχων μετά το γε�,έσθαι τoiίτo το δόγιια τη, συνκλ-ήτου χρψιατα δηιιοσt.al ή lBtal πραχθέντεο άπαlτειν βουληθώσιν, χωρΙο τoiί κεΦαλijS' εύθύ�'εl1l τον εlληφ&τα, καΙ Υπέρ τούτων καταστάγτΕ'ς' ένΦανίσωσι τών άρχόιιτων τινΙ, ώ, έφείται συν[ά]γειν την σQγ[κλ]ητον, TOQTovS' τον άρχοιιτα ώο τάχιστα προο την βουλήν προσαγαγειν καΙ συν-ήγορον, 0(S') ίιπέρ αύτών έρει έπl -rijS' {η} συι,κλ-ήτου, ον α[ν] αύτοl αίτ-ήσωσιν, διδόιια;ι' άκων δέ ιιή σvvηγορεtτω, ιLι έκ τών νόιιων παρ­ αt.,.,ησιo ταύτηο -rijS' AeITovpytaS' δέδοται. ννν "Ων αl. έ�, τjj συνκλ-ήτωι αί-rtaS' έπιΦέρουσιν άκουσθώσιν σπωο <ιLσιν κριταl) άρχων 0S' αl. αύτοιο -πρόσοδοι. είο την uVιi"'/"'(IUJt δw" u.JO-ημ.t:Ρό-ιΙ 'ι,-u.μU�ίrη� -Ti]3 βο".;,\Τρ·ι �=7'( ;.:.7;. ':λ&�o!."� �t�.I!,Ct σtων εΙναι, Kληpoiίσθω{ι} έκ πάl_των τών ίιπατικών τών ή Jπ' aiJTijS' 'Ρώμηο' [ή] έI'Τοο είκοσι μειλίων ά-π{τ}ο TijS' πόλεωο όιιτων τέσσαρεο' όμοίωο έκ τών στΡατη­ [γ] ικών πάι.των τών έπ' aύTijS' -rijS' 'Ρώμηο ή έιιτοο είκοσι μειλίων άπο -rijS' πόλε[ω] S' όντων, τρί.ο· όμοίωο έκ τών άλλων συνκλητικών ή of S' έ·πΙ -rijS' συι/κλ-ήτου γνώ­ μην άποΦαίνεσθαι έξεστιν πάντων, ο, άν τότε ή έπΙ 'Ρώμψ η lVΓetov είκοσι μειλίων -rijS' πόλεω, ώσιν, δύο' Kληpoiίσθω δέ μηθένα, δ, αν έβ<δ)ομ-ήκοντα η πλείω lTη γεγονω, ήι η έπ' ιXpxijS' η έπ' έξουσίαο τεταγιιέvoο η έπιστάτη, κριτη­ ρίου η έ-πιιιελητήο σειτοιιετρtαS' η ον αν νόσοο κωλQηι ταVrην την λειτουργίαν λειτουργειν άι'Τικρυο τη, συνκλ-ήτου έξομοσάμ.ενοο καΙ δοι1ο ίιπέρ TOQTOV τρειο όμνύιιταο -rijS' βοvλijS' ά�,δpαo. η OS' αν συνγενείαι η οίκηότητι -ΠΡοσ-ήκηl αύτώι ώστε νόιιωι 'Ιουλ{ωι τώι δικαστικώι μαpτvpειν έπΙ δημοσίου δικαστη­ ptov (ά)κων μή άναγκάζεσθαι, η ον αν ό εύθυι/όμενοο όμόσηι έπΙ -rijS' συνκλ-ήτου ..

110

l1S

.

SENATUS CONSULTA

έχθρόν έατώl εrναl, μη <π)λείονα, δέ η ΤΡεί, έςομνύσθω. νννννν Οϊ αν εννεα τουτον τόν πρόπον λάχωσιν, έκ τούτων άρχων ι'J, αν τόν κλήρον ποιήσηταl Φροντl­ 'έτω, όπω, έντό, δυείν ήμεΡών οι τά χρήματα μεταΠΟΡευόμε1l01 κα1 άΦ' 00 αν μεταπορεύωνταl άνά μέΡσ' άπoλlγωνταl, εω, αν πέντε ι5πολεIΦθώσlν. νννν ·0, αν τών κριτών τούτων πρ1ν αν κριθήl τό πράγμα άποθάνηl, 7j άλλη τι, αίτία διακωλύσrι αJJτόν κρίνειν, 00 αν παΡαίτ'ησl, δοκψ.ασθήι dμοσάντων πέντε άνδρών τών έκ τή, βουλή" τότε ό άρχων παρόντων τών κριτών κα1 τών τά χρήματα μεταπορευοι.ι.ένων καί τούτου παρ' οί5 αν μ.εΤΙΧ·ΠΟΡεύωνται., έπικλ-ηρουσθω έκ. τούτων των άνδρών, αί αν τη!; αύτη§' τ&.ξεωS' ιΖσι.ν, κα! τάS' αύτο:S' ίί.Ρξανται; άρχά5ι .ην αν ru­ xn ίί.Ρξαι; έκείνΟS'J εΙ!; τού τον τόπον έ·ΠLκ.λTJροϋταLJ έΦΙ ιL" μη έπικ.λΙΙJρώσεταl άνδρα, ον κληρουσθαl κατά του εJJθυνομένου τούτι!ι τιμ δόγματι τη<,) συνκλήτ<ου) OJJK εςεστιν. ννννν ΟΙ δέ αΙΡεθέντε, κριτα1 περ1 τούτων IJ.dlIOlI άκουέ­ τωσαν κα1 δlαγεlνωσκέτωσαν, περ1 ών άν τι, εJJθύνηταl δηιιοσίαl η ίδίαl νε­ νοσΦισμένο" ννννν κα1 όσον αν κεΦάλαlον χρήματο, οι εJJθύνΟllτε, άποδε
1Ζ0

1Ζ5 •

130

135

140

vacat • .iciicί:

,,

'

74-82. Ιπ tiuS section the letters are Iarger aήd the intervals be�ee� them greater than

ίη the remainder of the text. 91 (beginn.ing οf1ίηο) Erased by engraver. 95 ΕΔΚΕΣΘΑΙ(?), but 01ίνοιίο reads

'ακ-. 96

ΑΣΘΝΙΣ.

102. ΟΥΠΕΡ.

105 ΑΚΟΥΣΘΩΣΙΝΟΠΩΣΑΡΧΩΝ;

here 01ίνοιίο, Premerstein, and Stroux and Wenger ίnvert-όπWS' άιιο"σθώσll>--but La Pira thought a clause had fallen out after όπω!;', and the text ίη S.E.G. retaίns the order found ση the stone. 01iver's solution (Mtmoirs) is followed here, �Ων, attracted ίηιο the case ofits antecedent, being the subject of the verb. Thus ΕπIΦέρο"σ,ν is the dative plural of the participle. 108

ΙΙ2. ΕΒΟΜΗΚΟΝΤΑ. ιι8 ΑΚΩΝ. ΙΙ9 ΤΑΕΙΟΝΑΣ. 129-30 ΤΗΣΥΝ ΚΑΗΤ Ω. 132.-33 ΑΠΟΔΕ ΞΩΣΙΝ. 138 ΤΕ; Radermacher proposed <τό)τ,. 139 ΚΑΤΑΓΓΕΑΑΙΝ. 140 ΕΣΟΥΣΙΑΝ. 141 ΑΕΚΑ(?), but 01ίνοιίο read ΑΕΚΑ. 142 ΒΟΥΑΗΙ. After Ειι τουτο" του the space is empty ΙΟ the end of the Ιίηο. The phrase us:d here was supplied by 01ίνοιίο; S.E.G. has του <δόγματo�). Olίνοιίο changed

ΙΟ

Tέσσαp<α)�.

12.7 άμςαντ<.)" 01iverio.

COMMENTARΥ.

J77

Ο[ all epigraphica! discoveries on!y the Res Gestae of Augustus

ROMAN DOCUMENTS fROM THE GREEK EAST

may be said to surpass the Cyrene Edicts as inscriptions that make significant con­ tributions to our knowledge of the political, social, and juridical history of Rome.

No

Greek or Latin literary source mentions the existence of these documents, and for that reason they come not only as a welcome surprise but also as an outstanding example of how inscriptional evidence complements and corrects the literary tradition. The single most important observation to be made from a study of these documents is the fact that Augustus in 7/6 and 4 B.C. was clearly issuing edicts in his own right to the inhabitants and officials of a province that the Senate had been allowed to control ever since the division of the Empire in 27 B.C.

Thus the statement of Dio (53. 32), that

Augustus possessed an imperium superior to that of all the governors of the provinces, seems to be confirmed. 1

And the manner in which he exercised that imperium maius in

a senatorial province is worthy of note, for he did not issue his orders with the brusque finality of a general in the field but rather with a courteous deference to the Senate and a mild form of expression: " ... until the Senate should reach a decision on this matter or I myself should fi nd some better way, the future governors of Crete and Cyrene would seem to me to be acting in a good and fitting manner if they .. . ," etc. (Edict I,ll. 12-14). It has been justly observed that Augustus used a style similar to that employed by the Senate in giving its instructions to Roman magistrates,

a

style at once familiar to

senatorial officials and therefore perfectly natural and acceptable.>

One can issue orders

and demand obedience by virtue of his imperium, or one can suggest a course of action and receive willing compliance by virtue of his auctoritas.

The result is the same,

obedience in both cases, but the attitudes are strikingly different.

A direct order, of

course, is sometimes necessary, but a nice appreciation of the difference between issuing an order and offering a suggestion makes an order more appropriate and its military directness

less

objectionable.

Thus

Augustus

diplomatically

combined personal

auctoritas and military imperium to correct those matters in the administration of the provinces which came to his attention. I

Wenger and Premerstein were convinced, but McFayden was not. Although the modem literature :hl! i'rob!.;ril� �C;"..;l�cted. v.ri:h tb: ::;:pc�i::� :,r.� !!Iuttl�:ft!t: �f �. '�Z'IIC"'� .le "f!I"l'f'!1nl-J� ,. ... r�;lre 5everal articles that serve as excellent introductions to the various theories and controversies; G. E. F. Chilver, Hisloria, 1 (1950): 408-35; V. Ehrenberg, A.j.P., 74 (1953): II3-36; L. Wickert, R.E., S.II. "Princeps," cols. 2270-78; E. T. Salmon, Hisloria, 5 (1956): 456-78. In addition one should consult ]. Beranger, Recherches sur /'aspecl idiologique du Principal (Basel, 1953), pp. 77ff. (reviewed by L. Wickert, Gnomon, 26 [1954]: 534-44); A. Magdelain, Auclorilas Principis (Paris, 1947), chap. 2 (re­ viewed by H. Last,j.R.S., 40 [1950]: 117-23); and the posthumous work ofP. Grenade, Essai sur le. origilU's du Principal (Paris, 1961), paHilll. A new document of importance in this regard has been published by H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriplions in Ihe Rijksmuseum lIan Oudheden al Leyden (Diss., Leyden, 1958), no. 57, pp. 49-66 (= S.E.G., XVIll, 555). There is a very detailed commentary on it by K. M. T. Atkinson in the Rellue illleTllaliooale des droils de l'anliqllite, 7 (1960): 227-72, which is marred by the serious error she has committed in believing that the fllst document of that inscription is a part of a senalus consullurn in a curtailed form. Further details are available in]. H. Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzanline Sludies, 4 (1963): 1I5-22. The document is No. 61 of the present volume.

- - 01.

• H. Last, C.A.H.,

II (1936): 401,

and De Visscher, Les edilS, p. 47. Digest 16. I. 2. I; arbilrari senalum Cf . also Digest I. 16.4.4 and 40. 12. 27. I.

recle alque ordinefatluros ad quos de ea re in iure adilum eril.

SENA TUS CONSULT A

The FiJih Edicl and lhe Se natus Consultum Livy (43. 2) tells us that in I7I B.C. envoys from Spain were introduced into the Roman Senate where they lodged formal complaints of extortion at the hands of the Roman magistrates in the province.

The Senate, convinced of the truth of their complaints,

instructed the Governor of Spain to set up a jury of five recuperalores, chosen from the Senate, for each separate complaint.

Each accuser in turn could choose a palronus and

through the recuperalores could institute proceedings to recover his money.

These

temporary commissions were made into a permanent board of recuperalores by the Lex Calpurnia of I49 B.C., with the penalty for conviction being the simple recovery of the money by the victim and nothing more. perpelua.

This was the origin of the first quaeslio

Modifications of this court, mainly with regard to the penalty, were intro­

duced by the Lex Acilia of 123 B.C., the Lex SerIJilia, the Lex Corne/ia of 8 I B.C., and the Lex Iulia of S9 B.C.

The exact details of these laws and the various penalties prescribed

by them have given rise to several controversies without final agreement.3

But there

is no disagreement about the intolerable burdens and numerous inconveniences that the extortion court of the Republic imposed upon any provincial who approached it.

The

trials could be delayed for unusually long periods of time and could cause not only financial but also physical hardships for the provincials.

Loopholes in the court's

provisions also may have allowed the accused various means to have judges appointed who would be partial to his side and hostile to the other.

In order, therefore, to remedy

the defects of the old system and in particular to reduce the time necessary for the trial to the barest minimum, the present senalus consullurn was passed.

Not only did Augustus

himself sponsor it but he also promulgated it in the form of an edict, two points which illustrate nicely the care and attention he gave to the fair and just administration of the provinces..

Its provisions may be summarized as follows:

Any ally of Rome who may wish to recover property of which he has been deprived is advised to present himself before a magistrate who has the power to convene the Senate.

If this accuser does not wish to press capital charges, the magistrate will then

introduce him immediately into the Senate and will appoint a palronus of the accuser's choice; wilO' will

..cl.1:ess

lhe Sellalt: 011 dlt: matter.

OIl that same day t'n: magistrate

will select by lot from the Senate (at least two hundred senators being present) four consulares, three praelores, and two other senators. l

No senator chosen shall be seventy

Gesammelle Schri.lien, I:

1-64 and 3: 339-55; J. L. Strachan-Davidson, P,oblems oflhe Roman C,imillal Law (Oxford, (912). 2: 75-I52; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Papers of Ihe B,ili,h School al Rome, I4 (I938): 98-II4; Sherwin-White, ibid., 17(I949): 5-25; Henderson, lo c .
•

Usually the presiding magistrate attended to the communication of a senalll' consullum to the per­ tinent city or state, more often than not with a covering letter. For a precedent to the present procedure Premerstein (Z.S.S., 48 [I928]: 482-83) mentions the S.C. de Baccha..alib,u and suggests the Ediclll," Aug./Sli de Aquaeductu Venaj;ano (H. Dessau, 1.L.S., 5743) as "nichts anderes als die Mitteilung eines Senatsbeschlusses im Rahmen eines kaiserlichen Edikts. .. This is possible. It is interesting to note that Edict IV is called an lTTl"p,,...a while Edict V is labeled a TTpOypa,...,...a.

J79

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

years of age or older, hold an active magistracy, or preside over a court of law.

Other

disqualifying provisions are included to insure the immediate availability of the senators to serve as judges in the matter.

The plaintiff and the defendant in turn may reject a

total of four judges within two days until five are lef t. duties except the public cult, will hear the case.

These five, freed of all public

Their majority vote rendered the verdict

within thirty days. It is immediately apparent in this new procedure that the elaborate provisions made for the selection of the judges and the rules to be followed in case of the disability or death of any one of them are all calculated to guarantee smoothness and speed from the beginning to the end.

And certainly the limitation of the new procedure to only those

cases in which no capital charges are to be introduced is a detail which by itself would speed up the trial considerably.

It had long been known from extortion cases men­

tioned by Tacitus and Pliny that a new procedure had been introduced after the Lex I ulia of

59

its source.

B.C.,

but not until the discovery of the present senatus consultu m did we know

However, despite the fullness of our decree and the apparent precision of its

provisions, it has generated a series of problems that, in the present state of our sources, are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to resolve. The most formidable question concerns the relationship of the new procedure to the previously existing form of prosecution for extortion. completely?

Does the new supplant the old

To what extent can the new procedure be used to determine the nature of

penalties in the old qtlaestio under the Lex lulia? Everything hinges on a key phrase in our decree

(11. 97-99):

..

If any of our allies, after the passage of this decree, wish to re­

cover money that has been extorted from them publicly or privately, without intro­ ducing a capital charge against the accused. . . . ..

Tav

KfiaMjs fiV80VfiW TOV fil}"'T/rha,

This vital and obscure phrase, xwpls

is unfortunately capable of taking two directions.

Without interpreting this phrase in the light of any other evidence, it appears at least possible that either capital or noncapital charges could arise in extortion cases, and not only before but also after the passage of this senatus consulturn.

The phrase therefore

cannot be used to give positive proof about the nature of the penalty specified by the Lex

I".Ut.6�

-

"�lh�t is- ecrtQi:1 �::: :r�t t!:e

ne'"...v

!"egulation�

�7,�rp

r.f)ncer.p�d .'Yllitn

a

t.-fOfn:1. of

procedure and not with penalty, and that they provided for a simple repayment of the amount of money extorted. Infamia of the condernnati was not, however, excluded. It is only when one asks the question, "What if the accuser does wish to include capital charges? n, that a difficulty and a dilemma arise. The school of Premerstein (Oliverio

:md Ar:mgio-Ruiz) believed that it was a question

of two separate charges which by the nature of the situation were connected.

A capital

crime (e.g., murder) has been committed in connection with extortion.

Only the

charge of murder is a capital offense, while the extortion is a civil matter.

The new

procedure provides that the concurrent capital offense will be tried in the appropriate quaestio court but that the charge of extortion will be tried separately bef ore the senatorial jury.

Thus, in this view, the old qllaestio de repetundis disappears and the existing laws on

extortion apply without any change to the new senatorial procedure. notably the Lex Iulia, did not know the capital penalty.

J80

And these laws,

The limiting clause in our

SENA TUS CONSULTA

decree is accordingly a very loose one and, being parenthetical, does particular word or phrase.

not

qualify any

Thus, extortion was not in itself a capital ofl"ense and never

carried the capital penalty. The contrary view, championed by Stroux, holds that the limiting clause makes good sense grammatically only when it is taken as qualifying chrO!t'T£LII

/3ovATJ8waw.

This

means that previously the extortion law (i.e., the Lex Iulia) had provided for capital penalties.

Stroux, then, believed that the provincial accusers could decide whether they

wished to prosecute by the old method, before the quaestio de repetulldis with its repay­ ment of extorted money plus capital punishment for the condemnati, or by the new method, which was faster but provided only for the simple restitution of extorted money without a capital penalty being involved.

Thus, for Stroux, the old quaestio court

continued to exist side by side with the new senatorial j ury.

This separation removed

the extortion charge from the crimjnal atmosphere with which it had been surrounded in the old public court, if the accusers wished to drop the criminal charges. Premerstein: The extortion charge itself was never criminal, and only when crimjnal off'enses had been committed in conj unction with it could the penalty have been capitaL The Lex Iulia carried no capital penalties for extortion.

Under the new procedure the

accuser could decide for himself whether he wished to press charges in the appropriate quaestio court (for murder, etc.) or before the new senatorial jury.

One would satisfy

his thirst for revenge: the other meant speedy recovery of his money.

The old quaestio

court for extortion disappeared. Stroux: The extortion charge was criminal and the Lex Iulia therefOre contained provisions for a capital penalty in a case of extortion.

The old quaestio court for ex­

tortion continued to exist and was used in those cases where the accuser desired to press the capital charges as well as those of extortion.

If the accuser were to forgo the capital

charges, the senatorial jury would try his case speedily. The one element common to both of these otherwise divergent views is the free choice allowed the provincial for deciding between the two alternatives, criminal or civil charges.

De Visscher, however, would have none of this, for he could not believe that

_J4e 'p.rov:inciak..h�d

bet'P allowed.

to

r!t:cide the type of jeopardy into which a Rc:nar..

magistrate or citizen was to be placed.

Accordingly, he felt that the Senate had had the

choice about what would be the appropriate procedure to follow in each case.

He

rejected the view of Stroux and followed that of Premerstein, with this last reservation: He felt that the Senate would examine the charges and not the evidence when deciding whether it would try the case itself according to the procedure outlined in the senatus consultum or refer it to the quaestio court. hearing in the Senate.

Such was the purpose of the preliminary

If the charges were civil, with no intent to present matters that

would involve the accused in a criminal suit, the five-man senatorial jury would try the case.

But, if the Senate decided that crimjnal charges were involved, it would send the

case to the public court.s 5

His view, that theSenate decides what would be the appropriate procedure, has notbeen generally accepted; see Last,J.R.S., 35 (1945): 98, and Oliver, Memoirs, pp. 108-9. He has also involved him­ self in a difficulty with his view of praeiudicium capitis in charges connected with those of extortion; see Sherwin-White, Papers of the British School at Rome, 17 (1949): 15-16.

J8J

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Then Sherwin-White, in his detailed and valuable account of the republican leges repetllndarum, reached the conclusion that "the Lex Iulia brought under the extortion law certain offenses which hitherto had had no connection with it, and introduced a scale of punishments culminating in the capital penalty for extortion with violence." 6 Thus, to him, the limiting clause, as well as the regulations in lines

130-3 I, refer to charges

other than extortion or to actual charges of extortion in .. aggravating circumstances." He therefore would disagree with Premerstein about the old noncapital nature of ex­ tortion and would agree with Stroux, stipulating that extortion was or could become a capital offense only when it was "aggravated" by saevitia or other actions already labeled capital under other laws. It should thus be clear that the present senatorial decree is hardly the best kind of evidence to use in discerning the nature of the republican extortion court.

Its provisions,

of course, would be immediately obvious to any competent provincial governor, because he would be familiar with the existing judicial background.

The decree assumes that

this judicial background will be known to those for whom it is intended.

One must

theref ore establish this background on independent evidence and then see how the present procedure fits into it.

To work back from the decree is dangerous.

When we turn from this backward look and examine the period after the introduction of the new procedure, we also find that difficulties arise.

For example, when we read of

extortion trials in the pages of Tacitus or Pliny, we quite naturally expect to find some similarity with the procedure established by Augustus in 4 B.C. disappointed.

And we are not wholly

However, the new procedure does not seem to have lasted very long.7

A clear-cut example would be the case of Granius Marcellus in A.D. IS, recorded by Tacitus (Ann. Alln.

3.70),

I.

74).

Perhaps we could include the case of Caesius Cordus (Tacitus

if his charge of maiestas actually were dropped.

But it is clear that, in the

majority of cases known to us from the literary sources, the new procedure of 4 B.C. was not used too often and did not last long into the first century.

By Pliny's day, charges

of extortion were usually complicated by or involved in charges of murder. perduellio. or maiestas.

And De Visscher's effort to read the use of the new procedure into the cases

k.lo\v!). to us from the Tr::jllr:.ic era is nc! con";]'I<;ic!1B·

"Ay th�t ,jTT1p' wf'6nd th .. ",,,.rire

Senate sitting in judgment on the accused. a procedure in keeping with the tendency of the Senate during the Principate to acquire jurisdiction over those matters 'Vhich during the Republic belonged to the quaestio courts.

In fact, as most of the commentators have

observed, the new procedure of 4 B.C. was a landmark in the beginning of the decay of the old republican courts and the development of senatorial jurisdiction.8 The full meaning and evaluation of the edicts fromCyrene have not yet been realized. Fresh evidence and the resif ting of the old may clarify some of the obscurities. 6

Sherwin-White. Pdpers of the British School dt Rome. 17 (1949): 25.

7 De

Visscher. L e s edits. pp. 184-210, a n d Brunt, op. c i t., pp. 198-206. For the development of the criminal jurisdiction of the Senate see Th. Mommsen, Riimisches Stddtsrecht, lP, I, pp. 1181f., and Romisc/les Strafrecl,t (Berlin, 1899), pp. 2511f.; Premerstein, Z.S.S., 48 (1928): 527-28 (with further references); De Visscher,Les edits, pp. 184-86. For a list of senatorial processes de repetundis see the work of Bleicken, op. cit.• app. I. pp. 158�6. 8

J82

32 SENATUS CONSULTUM

(?)

DE HERAEO

SAMIORUM ET ASCLEPIEO COORUM

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

A.D.23

P. Herrmann, Athen. Mitt., 75 (1960). no. 5. pp. 90-93.

with Plate no. 3 (Bei/age 38).

DESCRIPTION. Fragment of a stele of white marble, broken on all sides. the surface badly weathered. Height: 0.45 m. Width: 0.27 m. Thickness: 0.095 m. Height of letters: 0.014 m. Found on Samos in the Palea Ekklisia. a small church now demolished.

1- - - - - - - - -- j YN. 1- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -j 1- - - - - - - - - -] TO. E[ - - - -- - - - -- --- - - -] 1- - - - - - - - - pm NE/ELl 0 I - -- - -- - - - - ---] I ra,os Enp.,-{v,jos M�,p.os Kg. IL raw, , Aulvws no.u,wv V'7W:TO, ?j 1-- - - --- ] av 'TTPO A �l8wv El ��fLf3plwv - - - - - - ] [- ------ ] '1TP�Uf3WTwv Kwwv I - - - - - - - - - - - ] 1- --- a] li.,-o;;, AUKA7j'1T£oii l( �pov - - - - - - - - -- ] 1- - -- -] ,"Hpas 0 �Va�f3Ea-raI ...os? - - - - -- - ---] 1-- - - Kjg.'TaU'TaV'TWV Ka8w[s - - - - - - - - - - - --j •

vacat

la

IS

1- - - - - j'TW' [�pWL rijs Hpas T[ - - - - - - - -- - j [ ----- jl"TWL 8LKatO'TEpay I - --- ------ - - - j 1----- o]v ('1T£"'IJX�;;V 'TTI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -j T --- 8nut] §g.'fLovlas "I . : � - - - .- - - - - - - - - f 1- - - - - - - rijsj 'TToA�WS KI - - - - - - - - - - - - - -j 1- - - - - - - - - jll uav= I - - --- ------ - - - - ] [- - - - - - - - - - j '1T£T [ - - - - - - ------ - - .] •

Text by Herrmann except where noted. I! a I v v!"! �1l'" - - (?). Herrmann. and perhaps! Ka ...a . ...o 86Y/La ... oil U Ivv!,,! �.j... ov. 7 e.g.. ...0 7rap' a 1';"00" Herrmann. 9 &7rOK la... aa-ra.".wv suggested by Herrmann. 13 Herrmann refers to ... atirtP 8'Ka,Cl' ... av"'ii ... E 8E,a,8a'ILov[� in the S.C. de Aphrodisiensiblls et Piarasensibus (No.

28). I.

11.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY.

The mention of the sanctuary of (the Coan) Asclepius and the

Temple of Hera on Samos led Herrmann to assume that the subject matter was connected with the general investigation of the asylia of Greek temples which Tiberius ordered in

A.D.22. Greek states at that time were ordered to send envoys to Rome with documents to prove to the satisfaction of the Senate that their privileges had been properly granted. The great number of the envoys and the multiplicity of their documents proved weari­ some and endless to the senators, and accordingly the matter was entrusted to the con­ suls.

They were instructed to conduct the investigation and then refer their findings

back to the Senate for final action.

Appropriate senatus consulta were then passed. J

It

was not until A.D. 2 3, however, that the Samians and the Coans requested the Senate to confirm the grants of asylia f or their respective temples of Hera and Asclepius.2

The

agreement of names and places in the Tacitean account of these proceedings with those in the present material cannot be accidental.

The facts agree too exactly.

Even the

date of the present documents can be fixed as A.D. 23 by the fragments of the name in line 4, since almost certainly those fragments ref er to C. Stertinius Maximus, the consul for that year.3

The subject matter concerns the confirmation of asylia for the temples.

And the very fact that the present inscription was engraved on

a

stele and erected is

sufficient proof that the Senate did in fact confirm that asylia. The historical background is therefore reasonably clear, but the nature of the document is another matter.

It is included here among the senatus consulta only because there is a

possibility that it might be part of a senatorial decree.

Herrmann thought that such was

the case, adding that it contained a reference to the decision of the consuls on the matter of the asylia. the Senate.

The consuls would have rendered their decision and then delivered it to The Senate in turn would have issued the decree.

The previous decision

of the consuls just might be mentioned in lines 4 and following, where in line 5 a verb such as Eyparp] ay or €m!yywa] ay or

€1r€KpW] ay might have appeared.

cannot be identified as a senatus consultum positively.

But the document

Quite often, however, consuls

have been instructed by the Senate to perform some specific service and then report their actions to the Senate, which in turn issued a decree based upon those actions.4 might b':e be�!l t�e

�:!!e

',vi!]. ·hi. ,l'Yl1!D�nt f"rnm S�!Tlo.,

This

It i� at most. however. only

a remote possibility. , C£ the letter of M. Antonius to Plarasa and Aphrodisias (No. zII). Tacitus Ann. 4. 14: Is q uoq ue annus legaliones Graecarum civilalium habuil, Samiis Iunonis, Cois Aesculapii delubro veluslum asyli ius 141 jirmarelur pelenlibus. Samii decrelo Amphietyonum nilebanlur, quis

•

praecipuumJuil rerum omnium iudicium, qua lempeslale Graeci condilis per Asiam urbibus ora maris pOliebanlur. Neque dispar apud Coos anliquilas, el aceedebal merilUm ex loco; nam cives Romanos lemplo Aesculapii induxeranl, cum iussu regis Milhridalis apud cunetas Asiae insulas el urbes Irucidarenlur. 3

See Henmann, op.
S.C. de Ilanoram el Hierapylniorum Lilibus (No. 14), n. 74ff.; S.C. de Collegiis Arlificum Bacehiorum (No. IS), n. 61-{;4; S.c. de Slralonicensibus (No. 18), n. 103-6; S.c. de Oropiorum el Publicanorum Conlroversiis (No. 23), n. 1-4. •

11 EPISTULAE

For epistulae in Part I see the following: 1 Epistulae Spurii Postumii et Senatus Consultum

4 Epistula P. Cornelii Blasionis et S.c. de Ambraciotibus et Athamanibus 7 Epistula M. Aemilii et S.C. de Magnetum et Prienensium Litibus 8 Epistula P. Sextilii cum S.C.

14 Epistula L. Calpurnii Pisonis et S.c. de ltanorum et Hierapytniorum Litibus 18 S.c. de Stratonicensibus cum Epistula Sullae 2.0 S.C. de Thasiis cum Epistula Sullae .: ... .-:-:- . 2.1

Epistula Cn. Cornelii Dolabellae

2.3 S.c. aliaque acta de Oropiorum et Publicorum Controversiis

:z.6 Epistulae et S.C. de Mytilenaeis 2.8 Epistula M. Antonii ad Plarasenses et Aphrodisienses et S.C.

A. INT RODUCTION: OFFICIAL ROMAN CORRESPONDENCE DURING THE REPUBLIC

If by official Roman correspondence we mean letters sent by the Senate or magistrates of Rome to the officials of some foreign city or sovereign state, letters intended to com­ municate the policy of the Senate or magistrates on a particular point, then we must admit that our sources for the early Republic give us very little information.

In fact, such

letters do not appear even to have been mentioned bef ore the wars with Carthage.' The use of letters, of course, by educated men dates from the beginning of the Republic.1 And Roman magistrates sent back to the Senate from foreign posts official letters in order to make reports, request instructions, or make suggestions.

Common practice.

But official correspondence between Rome and foreign cities does not seem to have been I It is not until the war against Philip that the literary sources begin to mention, regularly at any rate, the sending of official letters of the type we are considering. We are told that T. Quinctius Flamininus sent many letters to the Greeks: Livy 35. 39. 4 (to the Thessalians). 35. 2 5. 5 (to the Achaean League); Polybius 18. 36 (to the allies in the war), 18. 6 (to Philip). Polybius (22. 4-5) mentions that he got the Senate to write to the Boeotians. And Appian Bell. Hisp. 8. 41 tells of sealed letters sent by Cato. the censor, to various Greek cities. Thereafter, the mentioning ofletters becomes more common in the literary sources. The whole subject of official Roman correspondence during the Republic has been much neglected since the work by P. Viereck, S... no Crarnu(Gottingen, 1888). Although the number of actual letters that have been preserved on stone was small in 1907. Brassloff. R.E., s.v. "Epistula," cols. 2.04-10, wrote as if there were none at all. Little or nothing of value for us in this regard can be found in K. Dziatzko, R.E., s.v. "Brief," cols. 836-43, or even in J. Sykutris, R.E., suppl. V, s.v. "Epistolographie." H. Peter, Der Brief in der riimischen Literatllr (Leipzig, 1901), was not really interested in official correspondence as we have defined it. The account by Abbott­ Johnson on official documents and their preparation, Municipal Administration in the Raman Empire, (Princeton, 192.6), pp. 2]2-45, ofters some information. More strictly on the Greek side, but often very usef ul for our purpose, are the contributions made by F. Ziemann, De epistul.r",n graecar"rn fOrl/mlis sollemnibus quaestiones seleclae (Diss., Halle, 1910): C. .Il. Welles, Royal Correspondence In tite Hellmistic Period (New Haven. 1934); H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki. 1956). For the orthography, inflection, and syntax of the Greek letters see Viereck, op. cit., pp. 55-79; T. Eckinger, Die Orthagraphie lateilliscl.. r Wiirter in griechisel,," [nschrijien (Munich, 1892); C. L. Dottling. Die Flexioniformen lateinischer Nomina in der griechischen Papyri und [nschrijien (Diss.. LausarUle. 1920) ; B. Meinersmann, Die lateinischen Wiirter und Namen in den griecllischen Papyri (Leipzig. 1927). Besides the standard grammars ofKlihner-Gerth ( Ausfol..liche­ Crammatik der griecllischen Spraclrel, 2 vols. in 4 [Hannover, 1890-1904]) and E. Schwyzer ( Criechische Crammatik, 3d ed., 2. vols. [Munich. 1959l, with the Register by D. J. Georgacas, 2d ed., 1960), in­ formation of value for our letters can be found in Amdt and Gingrich, A Creek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago. 1957); Blass-Debrunner, A Creek Crammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, English translation and revision of ·the. 9th and 10th eds., by R. W. Funk (Chicago. 1961 ): and E. Mayser, Crammatik der griechischen Papyri ails der Ptolemiierzeit, 2. vols. (Leipzig, 1906-33).

z Dionysius of Halicamassus (5. 6. 2) records that in the first year of the establishment of the Republic letters were delivered from the exiled Tarquins to friends in Rome; cf. ibid. 5. 7. I.

186

EPISTULAE

common until the beginning of the second century before Christ.

Then, as we shall

see, Hellenistic models and procedures exercised considerable influence upon Roman letters.

But only a comparatively small number of actual letters from the Republic has

survived, none of them dating before the second century.

This cannot be taken to mean

that Rome did not make use of diplomatic correspondence before contact with the Greeks.

The question must remain open.

Under the Empire such correspondence was

very common, since imperial epistulae and rescripta then became the normal vehicles for the creation of law and the communication of the imperial will to the cities and states within the provinces.

Their numbers are considerable.]

But under the Republic,

diplomatic exchanges of such important matters as war and peace, territorial rights, terms of treaties, and protests required more than mere correspondence. tact was indispensable.

Personal con­

Hence the rise of legati.4

The pages of Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius, and Appian are full of references to both Roman and foreign embassies.

From the beginning of the Republic,

and even earlier, in the time of the kings, they were and remained the chief instruments of diplomatic exchange.

These envoys were not magistrates but functionaries chosen at

Rome from among the senators to perform specific tasks.

Whenever Rome wished to

communicate officially with a foreign state, an embassy would be formed and dispatched A whole body of procedure and regulations developed

with detailed instructions. around its use.

In the course of the third century, however, Roman diplomacy gradually entered into a new phase.

Territorial expansion, war with Carthage, and involvement with

Illyria thrust Rome into the role of a world power.

Although the wars withCarthage

had made her aware of further possibilities in her political growth, and although she had conducted a war in 219 B.C. against the Illyrians, nevertheless she apparently had no real plans for eastern expansion.

Then conditions changed.

The suspicious actions of

Philip V, the appearance of his fleet in the Adriatic, his friendly attitude toward Hannibal, and the germination of the fear in Rome that he planned to invade Italy contributed to the general distrust of his ambitions.

When envoys from the Greek states came to Rome

in 20I B.C. and reported Philip's agreement with Antiochus and the de_t?oil,s of his Carian expedition, there was a change in senatorial feeling. War with Philip resulted, then victory atCynoscephalae.

Since military necessity required a peaceful and co-operative

Greece during the war, Roman diplomacy took the form of what has aptly been called the patroci'lil4m libertatis Graecorum, an outgrowth of an earlier tactic whereby weak states

]

For . collection of imperi.l let ters see t he work ofL. L.fosc.de, De epistulis alii"quetitu/is imperato,um (Lille, 19(2), which is now, of course, b.dly in need of revision. For . list of imperi.l constitutionfS see R. T.ubenschl.g, Jou,nal oJ Ju,istic Papy,olog y, 6 (19P): 121 -42 (= Opera Mino,a, 11, pp. 3-28) .

magistrat//umque Romano,um

s.v. "Leg.t us," cols, 1133-41; G. I.copi, in DeRuggiero, Diziona,io "Leg.tus" , pp. 500-26. For the procedure followed in Rome for t he recept ion .nd .ccomodat ion of foreign envoy s see Mommsen, Romisches Staa/srecht, Ill', 2, pp. II48-57·

•

Ant on vonPremerst ein in R.E.,

eJig,'1fico di Alllichitd ,omallf, s.v.

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

were protected against strong states in order to strengthen one's own position.s

This

policy could gain new friends and lay the foundations of a lasting structure, a structure to be built along Roman specifications and designed to benefit Rome, not Greece. It is from this age of the wars against Phi lip and Antiochus that our first epigraphic examples of official Roman correspondence emerge.

They were no doubt generated

out of the new situations in which Rome found herself involved.

Since Rome ap­

peared to be a permanent force in Asia Minor, this correspondence was preserved by the Greek cities.

Any communication between them and Rome would serve as solid proof

of loyalty and friendship to Rome or recognition of freedom.

They preserved, of

course, those letters which were favorable to their interests. It is instructive to note that during this early period-roughly from Cynoscephalae to Pydna-many of the letters reflected, directly or indirectly, the general Roman policy in the Greek East.

Number 33 (Flamininus to Chyretiae) may have been designed to

win the support of the wealthy classes in a former Macedonian dependency.

Number

34 (M. Valerius Messala to Teos) grants freedom and immunity to Teos, an action that

under the circumstances could have served as a beacon of Roman friendship shining to­ ward the Greeks of Asia Minor-a promise of things to come.

Numbers 35 and 3 6

likewise may have been inspired by diplomatic motives. And No. 40 is especially inter­ esting, in that it contains a list of the charges brought against King Perseus just before the war against him. Roman cause.

The possible motive was the securing of friends in Greece to the Its author very shrewdly addressed the letter to the Delphian

Amphictyons. The early Roman letters were therefore used not only to communicate information of a factual nature but also, more importantly, to serve as diplomatic devices, as tools to influence public opinion.

The rest of the letters on the whole are much more matter of

fact and deal with local problems: the granting of privileges or benefits of various kinds, the restoration of land, magisterial decisions, arbitration, negotiations between two cities, the loyal actions of a citizen, and a suggestion about suitable honors f or Augustus on his birthday.

Gr,=ek cities.

Official letters were also used to transmit the texts of senatus consuita to

E�ch h.� it.� own special value to us.

Al}d all q( them are an invaluable

and often unique source for republican history.

In form they exhibit certain outstanding characteristics of official letters from the Hellenistic chanceries.

In the early years, after the death of Alexander thct Great, when

the Hellenistic monarchies were engaged in their great struggles for power, they did not yet possess a full bureaucratic organization.6

The development of the various depart­

ments within each of the kingdoms was gradual, but by the second century S

Badian, Foreigtl Clietltelae, pp. 81-83.

6

Welles, op. cit., pp. XXXVII-XXXVIII.

B.C.

they had

For the chancery in the SeleucidEmpire seeE. Bikermann, Thanks to the papyri the bureaucratic organization of Egypt is known in some detail: see A. Stein, UtIlersuchungetl zur Geschichte utld Verwaltung Aegyptetls utlter riimischer Herrschl/t (Stuttgart, 1915), and the work of F. Oertel, Die Liturgie (Leipzig, 1917) . See also the remarks of M. 1. Rostovtzeff, S.E. H. H.W., II (1941),1078-81. mstitutiotls d es St!leucides(Paris, 1938), pp. 190-97.

J88

EPISTULAE

achieved a certain form and had reached a remarkable level of efficiency.

One of these

departments was the royal chancery, the staff of which cared for the official correspond­ ence and preserved copies of all the royal orders. called the

EmuToAoypacpo<;.

In Syria the head of the chancery was

In the hands of these men there gradually appeared a form

and a style of official letters.

Diplomatic correspondence between the Hellenistic

kingdoms was therefore well established by the end of the third century D.C. When the Romans entered eastern politics and began diplomatic relations with the Macedonian and Seleucid kingdoms as well as with Greek cities, they must have become rather quickly familiar with the formalism and style of the letters which they received from them.

This was only natural, especially if they had little or no deeply ingrained

system of their own in such matters.

But, whatever the nature of earlier official Roman

correspondence may have been, it now acquired and forever retained the general form and style of the Hellenistic models.

I.

FORM OF THE LETTERS

The Salutation Although no two letters are precisely alike, they all tend to follow prescribed rules which custom and courtesy had established.

The Hellenistic Greek letters, from the

earliest examples, begin with the name of the sender in the nominative, then the name of the addressee in a combination of genitive and dative, and fmally the word of greeting. The letter of Antigonus to Teos at the very end of the fourth century

344, 11. 109ft: 1934j, no. 4)

=

begins in this way:

lh]p.w, Xo:lp£w.

D.C.

(S.I.G.l, I,

c. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period [New Haven,

[Bo:aj,i\£v<; 'AI'TlY0l'a<; T."lWII rij, {JOIli\* 1(0:, TW'

All the others, with minor variations, follow this pattern.

It is exactly

the form followed in the Greek letters written by Roman magistrates under the Republic and then taken up by the imperial secretariat. .L'lfor-mative.

The style is forma� business-like, and

It is found in private Greek letters, And in dOle it b.:;caj"".� Lhe: rum, u.;�.l

everywhere in Latin letters.? The sender is usually one person, generally a consul, praetor, or promagistrate (Nos.

I,

4,7, 8, 14, ZI, 2.3, 33,38, 43, 44, 47,50, 55, 5 6,65,66,69,70 ) , but may also be a dictator (Nos. 18, 2.0, 2.6, 49,5 4) , a triumvir (Nos. 2.8, 57) , Augustus (Nos. 58, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68,

72., etc.), or a special figure of very high authority (No. 63, Agrippa). (Nos. 3 5 and 36) the brothers Scipio collaborate in writing.

In two letters

The addressee includes the name of the city in the genitive, followed by the specific

city magistrates or other governing bodies in the dative. appears immediately af ter the name of the sender (Nos.

38,43, etc.), but the order is not rigid. 7

Koskenniemi, op. cil., pp. ISS-
J89

The name of the city usually I,

8, 14, 18, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 33-36,

Sometimes the name of the city comes after the

ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

city magistrates (Nos. 4, 21, SS, 61) .

In two cases the name of the city or recipient is

itself in the dative (No. 39, ' A",.f.'KTW[a, xalpnll] ; No. 66, BVaT£'P'lllot, apxov [a, ,8ovMj,

8�",w, xmp£w D, but they are exceptions.

The actual names of the magistrates or bodies

vary from city to city in accordance with the local constitution.

The usual com­

binations are a"xova, ,8ov>'fi 8�",(p (Nos. 14, 18, 23, 26, 28, 49, SS,56,58,60, 67,68) , ,8ov>'fi

Kat 8�/A'