ROMAN

DOCUMENTS
FROM THE
GREEK EAST
SENNA LUS*GONSULTA AND EPIS FULAE
TO THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS

ROBERTK Pere
RK
In the first and second centuries B.C.,
Greek cities under Roman rule often
obtained official rulings from the
Roman Senate on problems confronting
them as subjects or free communities.
These decrees were subsequently trans-
lated into Greek and inscribed on stone
in the cities. An amazing number and
variety of these senatus consulta were
issued during the Republic. Together
with official Roman letters (also
translated into Greek) sent by Roman
magistrates to the Greeks, they provide
a unique and invaluable source of
historical information on Roman policy
toward the Greek East. In this volume
—the first such venture since the long-
outdated one of 1888—the official,
verbatim Greek translations of the
original Latin texts are published.
The book is divided into two parts.
The first, Senatus Consulta, contains
decrees dealing with nearly every
possible aspect of political life. Asa
result, their contents present a vivid
outline of the competence and
jurisdiction of the Roman Senate.
Among the subjects covered are matters
of private law, treaties, international
arbitration, finances, and instructions to
magistrates.

The second part contains all the known

letters written by Roman officials to the
PS etefre

foo
 —THis &
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST O
HHEGSGASSSISAISSSSSSSSSSSOUSSSSHGSSSS9SESS9S9S9E8 245)
ST —

Gin
ROMAN
DOCUMENTS
FROM THE
GREEK EAST
SENATUS CONSULTA AND EPISTULAE
TO THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS

OBERT K. SHERK

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

The photograph reproduced as the frontispiece is that of a squeeze showing the
text of document No. 12, Senatus Consultum de Agro Pergameno. The upper
half of the photograph has been enlarged for reproduction on the jacket.
(Courtesy of the author.)

Copyright © 1969 by The Johns Hopkins Press

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-19442

PREFACE
HHRHGOGDGSOHS
HHS HOOD OHS HAG HASHANAH HOGSSSSoSggggg
Paul Viereck’s dissertation, entitled Sermo Sraecus quo senatus populusque romanus
magistratusque populi romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt
(Géttingen, 1888), was a pioneer work that assembled for the first time all the extant
copies of Roman senatus consulta, foedera, and epistulae down to the Principate of Tiberius.
In the years that followed its publication Viereck turned away from such studies generally
and worked in the new and rapidly expanding field of papyrology, without, however,
forgetting his earlier interest. After World War I he began to make plans for a new
edition of his first book. Other duties constantly interrupted his work, and World War
II found him still collecting information and making notes of new texts on the subject.
He died on February 9, 1944, in Wittenberge at the age of seventy-nine. His Nachlass
revealed that he had planned a second edition of his Sermo Graecus on a scale much vaster
than was possible for the original work. It was to include not only the material from
the Republic but also all the epistulae and edicta of the Empire. His papers and plans for
this work eventually reached the hands of James H. Oliver and the present writer. For
the most part the papers consist of handwritten copies of the Greek texts as they were
published in collections such as Dittenberger’s Sylloge or in various periodicals. Oc-
casionally he had taken the time to add a note or two of his own to these bare copies.
Whenever the reader of the present volume finds the reference Viereck (notes) he will
know that the information given has been found in his posthumous papers.
The importance of assembling and studying all documents of the same type has been
well illustrated by such publications as L. Robert’s magnificent Les gladiateurs dans
Orient grec, C. B. Welles’s Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, and J. H.
Oliver’s Sacred Gerusia, to name only a few of the outstanding examples. The geo-
graphic arrangement of inscriptions followed in the various Corpora is a necessary and
useful one, but the process should not stop there. An arrangement by type or category
would in many ways be far more useful to the investigator of religion, public law, or any
of the various institutions of the ancient world. Clearly, the decrees of the Roman
Senate and the letters of Roman magistrates can be studied more effectively this way, and
it was for this reason that the present work was thought to be necessary.
Several problems were encountered almost immediately. There was the matter of
chronological limitation. The large number of imperial letters and edicts made it clear
that no single volume could possibly include them all. Division was inevitable. The
most that one volume could include easily would be the material from the Republic.
Then it proved inadvisable to remove the Augustan decrees and letters from such a
volume, for the figure of Augustus stands as a bridge between the old and the new and
not merely as the founder of the Principate. Thus the basic design came to be the pres-
PREFACE

entation of all the Roman material in Greek down to the death of Augustus, complete
with bibliography, apparatus, and commentary.
In the establishment of the text the matter of control was considered vital. In the case
of inscriptions on stones that had been lost after their discovery in modern times, there
was, of course, little to do but to utilize the old copies. But for all the others every effort
was made to verify the readings. The author is especially indebted to Professor Giinther
Klaffenbach, who made it possible for him to examine many squeezes from the incom-
parable collection in Berlin. Whenever these were used, the word squeeze was added to
the heading of the document in question. In addition, Mr. Pierre MacKay kindly took
the time to photograph and to make a new squeeze of the S.C. de agro Pergameno, and
Mr. Sacantis Symeonoglou graciously sent me a photograph and a squeeze of I.G., VII,
2413-14. Every line of text of the remaining documents was verified, wherever possible,
by the use of published photographs.
This is a study in which epigraphical texts have been used to illustrate the machinery of
Roman public law and to broaden our knowledge of republican history. One papyro-
logical text (No. 57) has been admitted, but the decrees and letters found in our literary
sources have been excluded. The model followed by Viereck in this regard is as valid
now as it was then.
It soon became apparent, in the course of assembling the material, that very extended
commentaries were out of the question, for some of them would easily fill small volumes
in themselves. The commentaries, therefore, had to be limited to the presentation of
only essential information. They were designed to orient the reader in the historical
background of the documents, to acquaint him with problems of interpretation, and to
give him full bibliographical references.
Occasionally it was believed necessary to include documents other than decrees or
letters in order to place those texts in their proper historical perspective. To lift any
document out of the body of a large dossier is almost always risky. Such a procedure
may not be tampering with evidence, but it is certainly one which can often omit facts
of importance. Sometimes, as in No. 68 (Augustus to Sardis), it was impractical to in-
clude all the documents in a dossier.
Through the financial assistance provided by the Research Foundation of the State
University of New York and the Graduate School of the State University of New York
at Buffalo, the expenses involved in travel and extended research were reduced to a
minimum. For the original idea of such a work and the encouragement to carry it
through, deep gratitude is owed to James H. Oliver. He read the entire manuscript and
made possible the elimination of many errors. T. R. S. Broughton and E. Badian also
read the manuscript and contributed a large number of suggestions, many of which
were adopted in the final stages of the work. To both of them I would like to
acknowledge my thanks. The responsibility, of course, for all omissions and mistakes
is mine alone.
Rosert K. SHERK

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QHGOGOHOH
HOH VHSHSHOH
SHG SHVSUSSN
HRD SSesgggg
HO
Preface Vv

List of Abbreviations Xi

PART I: SENATUS CONSULTA

A. Special Bibliography on Senatus Consulta

B. Introduction

C. The Documents

. Epistulae Spurii Postumii et Senatus Consultum de Privilegiis Delphorum

. Senatus Consultum de Thisbensibus
. Senatus Consultum de Coroneia
.
WwW
—&
N Epistula P. Cornelii Blasionis et Senatus Consultum de Ambraciotibus et
Athamanibus
. Senatus Consultum de Sarapeo Deli Insulae
. Senatus Consultum de Prienensibus et Ariarathe
. Epistula M. Aemilii et Senatus Consultum de Magnetum et Prienensium Litibus
. Epistula P. Sextilii cum Senatus Consulto
oO
AA. Senatus Consultum de Narthaciensium et Melitaeensium Litibus
Cos

10. Senatus Consulta de Prienensium et Samiorum Litibus

Ii. Senatus Consultum Popillianum de Pergamenis
EZ: Senatus Consultum de Agro Pergameno
B3. Senatus Consultum de Rebus Phrygiae Ordinandis
14. Epistula L. Calpurnii Pisonis et Senatus Consultum de Itanorum et
Hierapytniorum Litibus
IS. Senatus Consultum de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum
16. Senatus Consultum et Foedus cum Astypalaeensibus
UG, Senatus Consultum de Tabenis 100
18. Senatus Consultum de Stratonicensibus 105
IQ. Senatus Consultum de Cormis 112
20. Epistula L. Cornelii Sullae cum Senatus Consulto de Thasiis
PME Epistula Cn. Cornelii Dolabellae 119
22s Senatus Consultum de Asclepiade 124
228 Senatus Consultum aliaque acta de Oropiorum et Publicanorum
Controversiis
24. Senatus Consultum de Issaeis? 139

vil
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ise Senatus Consultum de Agris Mytilenaeorum 143

26. Epistulae et Senatus
Consulta de Mytilenaeis 146
27 Senatus Consultum de Panamara 158
28. Epistula M. Antonii ad Plarasenses et Aphrodisienses et Senatus Consultum 163
29. Senatus Consultum de Aphrodisiensibus 170
30. Senatus Consultum (?) de Rebus Stratonicensium 72
31, Edictum Augusti et Senatus Consultum de Pecuniis Repetundis 174
Bas Senatus Consultum (?) de Heraeo Samiorum et Asclepieo Coorum 183

PART IU: EPISTULAE

A. Introduction: Official Roman Correspondence during the Republic 186

B. The Documents 210

. Epistula T. Quinctii Flaminini ad Chyretienses 211

. Epistula M. Valerii Messalae Praetoris ad Teios 214
. Epistula Lucii Cornelii Scipionis eiusque fratris ad Heracleotas ad Latmum 217
. Epistula Lucii Cornelii Scipionis fratrisque ad Colophonios 219
. Epistula Manii Acilii ad Delphos 221
. Epistula C. Livii (Salinatoris) ad Delphos 225
. Epistula Licinii cuiusdam ad Amphictiones 229
. Epistula aut Magistratus aut Legati Romani de Perseo Rege ad Amphictiones 233
. Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) ad Eresios 240
. Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Amphictiones 242
. Epistula Q. Fabii Maximi ad Dymaeos 246
. Epistulae Magistratuum Romanorum ad Collegia Artificum Bacchiorum 249
. Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) de Arbitrorum Iudicio 253
. Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) ad Cyparissenses 255
. Epistulae Q. Mucii Scaevolae de Sardianorum et Ephesiorum Foedere 256
. Epistula C. Cassii ad Nysaeos de Chaeremone 260
. Duae Epistulae L. Cornelii Sullae de Collegiis Artificam Bacchiorum 263
. Iudicium Cn. Cornelii Lentuli Marcellini 267
. Epistula Magistratus Romani de Agris Mytilenacorum 269
. Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Milesios Aliosque 272
. Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Ilienses 277
. Epistula C. Iulii Caesaris ad Pergamenos 280
. Epistula P. Servilii Isaurici ad Pergamenos 285
. Epistula L. Sestii Quirinalis ad Thasios 288
. Epistula Marci Antonii ad Koinon Asiae 290
. Epistulae Octaviani de Seleuco Nauarcha 294
. Epistula Magistratus Romani ad Mylasenses 308
. Epistula Octaviani ad Mylasenses 310
. Epistula cuiusdam Vinicii ad Cumas et Iussum Augusti
313

Vili
TABLE OF CONTENTS

62. Epistula (?) Augusti ad Samios 321

63. Epistula M. Agrippae ad Gerusiam Argivam 323
64. Epistula Augusti ad Eresios 325
65. Epistula Pauli Fabii Maximi et Decreta de Fastis Provincialibus 328
60. Epistula P. Cornelii Scipionis ad Thyatirenos 338
67. Epistula Augusti ad Cnidios 341
68. Epistula Augusti ad Sardianos 340
69. Epistula Cn. Cornelii Lentuli ad Nysaeos 348
70. Epistula Proconsulis ad Chios aye
Fle Edictum (?) M. Herennii Picentis de Muro Ephesio 354
oe Epistulae Imperatoris cuiusdam ad Mytilenaeos 358
73- Epistula et Foedus 359
74- Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) ad Mytilenaeos 360
75- Epistula ad Mytilenaeos 361
70. Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) 362
77- Epistula (Magistratus Romani ?) 363
78. Epistula (Cn. Pompei Magni ?) 364
General Bibliography 365
Indexes
I: Sermo Graecus 369
Il: Verba Latina 386
Ill: Nomina Graeca 388
IV: Nomina Romana 390
V: Nomina Locorum Gentium, Similia 393
VI: Sacra 395
VII: Reges 396

ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GBHIGGAGATGHOOSOGCSHO§SSHHHHHSHAAHHGS
IH HGHSSAgggggggsg
INSCRIPTIONS
A.E. - L’Année Epigraphique
Choix — Choix d’ Inscriptions de Delos
C.I.G. — Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
C.ILL. — Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Ehrenberg—Jones — Documents Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus and Tiberius
I.G. — Inscriptiones Graecae
I.G.R.R. — Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes
IL.S. — Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
O.G.I.S. — Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae
S.E.G. — Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
Sermo Graecus — Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque romanus magistratusque populi romani
usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt
S.I.G.1~3 — Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum
T.A.M. — Tituli Asiae Minoris

BOOKS

C.A.H. — Cambridge Ancient History

Etudes — Etudes d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques
P.I.R.2 — Prosopographia Imperii Romani
R.E. - Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
S.E.H.H.W. — Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World
S.E.H.R.E. — Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire

PERIODICALS

A.J.A. — American Journal ofArchaeology

A.J.P. — American Journal of Philology
’Apy. ’Ep.—’Apyaoroyixn ’Epnyuepis
Athen. Mitt. - Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung
B.C.H. - Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique
Jahreshefte — Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archdologischen Instituts
J.H.S. — Journal of Hellenic Studies
J.R.S. — Journal of Roman Studies
R.E.G. — Revue des Etudes Grecques

xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sitzungsberichte Berlin — Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

Philosophisch-historische Klasse
Sitzungsberichte Wien — Sitzungsberichte der (Kaiserlichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse
Z.S.S. — Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung

xi
SENATUS CONSULTA
A. SPECIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SENATUS CONSULTA

HHGHHGHTARSA ASHES SOHRD SHE SEOEEHSESSSSSOSEagS

1. SENATUS CONSULTA AND PROCEDURE

E. Hiibner, De Senatus Populique Romani Actis (supp. 3, Jahrbiicher fiir Classische
Philologie) (Leipzig, 1859), pp. 559ff.
P. Willems, Le Sénat de la république romaine, Il (Louvain-Berlin 1883), 144-223.
B. Pick, De Senatusconsultis Romanorum, pt. 1 (Diss., Berlin, 1884).
O. Karlowa, Rémische Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 640ff.
Th. Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, 113, 2 (Leipzig, 1888), 905-1048.
P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Diss., Géttingen, 1888).
Ch. Lécrivain, in Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines,
s.v. “Senatus Consultum,” pp. 1199-1200.
G. Pacchioni, Corso di diritto romano?, vol. 1 (Turin, 1918), pp. 258ff.
F. Stella Maranca, ‘‘Di alcuni senatosconsulti nelle iscrizioni latine,” Rendiconti della
Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Classe scienze morali, Storiche e Filologiche, V1, no. 1 (1925):
504-49.
B. Loreti-Lorini, “Il potere legislativo de senato romano,” Studi in onore di Pietro
Bonfante, IV (Milan, 1930), 379-95.
A. Stein, Rémische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur (Prague, 1931), pp. 13ff. (examples
in the literature).
A. O’Brien Moore, R.E., suppl. 6 (1935), s.v. “Senatus,” cols. 700-19 (procedure) ;
s.v. “Senatus Consultum,” cols. 800-12 (redaction, formulas, Greek copies,
publication, and a list).
S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani?, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), pp. 237-39.
B. Biondi and V. Arangio-Ruiz, Acta Divi Augusti (Rome, 1945), pp. 227-74
(Augustan S.C.*).
L. Wenger, Die Quellen des Rémischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 381-88.
V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del diritto romano? (Naples, 1960), pp. 237-40.

2. THE ARCHIVES IN ROME

Th. Mommsen, “Sui modi usati da’ Romani nel conservare e pubblicare le leggi ed i
senatusconsulti,” Annali dell’ Istituto di corrispondenza archeologica, 30 (1858): 181-212
(Gesammelte Schriften, 3: 290-313).
P. Willems, op. cit., pp. 217-23.
Th. Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, 113 (Leipzig, 1887), 545-49, 557-61.
W. Kubitschek, R.E., s.v. “Aerarium,” cols. 667-74.
SENATUS CONSULTA

K. Dziatzko, R.E., s.v. “Archive,” cols. 559-64.

E. Weiss and E. Sachers, R.E., s.v. “Tabularium,” cols. 1962-69.
A. O’Brien Moore, op. cit., cols. 805-6.
M. Puma, La Conservazione dei documenti giuridici nell’ antica Roma (Palermo, 1935).
L. Wenger, op. cit., pp. 55-59, 65-74, 379-81.

3. GREEK COPIES, TRANSLATIONS, INFLUENCE OF LATIN ON GREEK

Ch. Diehl, B.C.H., 9 (1885): 455ff.
Th. Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, 1113, 1004-15.
P. Viereck, op. cit., pp. 55-88.
T. Eckinger, Die Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griechischen Inschriften (Munich, 1892).
D. Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum
sermonem conversis (Diss., Halle, 1904).
L. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-rémischen Osten: Mit besonderer
Beriicksichtigung der Sprache, bis auf die Zeit Hadrians (Leipzig, 1906).
P. Viereck, Berliner Philologische Wochenshcrift, vol. 34 (1907), col. 1068.
F. Zilken, Inscriptiones Latinae Graecae bilingues (Leipzig, 1909).
A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter rémischer
Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1915), pp. 132ff.
Ch. Déttling, Die Flexionsformen lateinischer Nomina in den griechischen Papyri und
Inschriften (Lausanne, 1920).
B. Meinersmann, Die lateinischen Worter und Namen in den griechischen Papyri (Leipzig,
(1927).
J. Stroux and L. Wenger, “Die Augustus-Inschrift auf dem Marktplatz von
Kyrene,” Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-
historische Klasse, vol. 34, treatise 2 (Vienna, 1928), sec. 3, “Uber die Sprache,”
pp. 18-43 (by Stroux).
A. Wilhelm, “Lateinische Wérter in griechischen Inschriften,” Wiener Studien, 46
(1928): 227-32.
R. J. Bonner, “The Conflict of Languages in the Roman World,” The Classical
Journal, 25 (1929/30): 579-92.
A. Cameron, ‘‘Latin Words in the Greek Inscriptions of Asia Minor,” A.J.P., 52
(1931): 232-62.
V. Bassler, Inscriptiones Graecae Latinae bilingues (Diss., Prague, 1934).
A. O’Brien Moore, op. cit., cols. 803-4, 806-8.
L. Gallet, “Essai sur le Sénatus-Consulte de Asclepiade Sociisque,” Revue historique de
droit frangais et étranger, 4° set., 16 (1937): 259-62.
F. F. von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im rémischen Recht (Miinchener Beitrdge 31)
(Munich, 1940), pp. 53-63.
R. Cavenaile, “Influence latine sur le vocabulaire grec d’Egypte,” Chroniques
d’Egypte, 26 (1951): 391-404.
B. INTRODUCTION
HGHA
HS HSS SS HGS
HHGHTAHS SHS
SSS SSSHSSSSSHSo gsEs

1. THE SENATUS CONSULTA AND THEIR SOURCES

The reader of Livy or Dionysius of Halicarnassus who keeps his attention fixed upon
Roman political institutions soon discovers the wide variety and amazing number of
senatus consulta issued during the Republic. The Senate was often an extremely busy
organ of government, for, unlike our modern Congress, it rarely had an official holiday
or vacation. Senators were expected to be on hand constantly and, down to the first
century, were subject to call on almost any day of the year.!| Beginning with the first
recorded notice of a senatorial decree in the period of the Republic, introduced on the
relatio of Brutus and providing ut omnes Tarquiniae gentis exsules essent (Livy 2.2. 11), their
number and subject matter increased in direct proportion to the political and military
expansion of Rome. They dealt with almost every possible aspect of political life, and
their contents alone present a vivid outline of the competence and jurisdiction of the
Senate: matters of private law, treaties, international arbitration, triumphs, public
honors and games, funeral ceremonies, thanksgiving, declarations of war and peace,
military levies, advisability of appointing dictators, emergency powers for the consuls,
constitutional or magisterial modifications, prorogation of certain magistrates, elections,
founding of colonies, salaries for soldiers, public lands, temples, finance, instructions to
magistrates, and provincial administration, inter alia.
In the strict theory of law a decree of the Senate was merely advice to the magistrate
who requested it, and, it has been said, the whole Senate was the consilium of the higher
magistrates—a board of advisers. But the peculiar nature of the Roman State during the
Republic made it de facto much more than that, for the senatorial order as a whole was a
social as well as a political organization. By its exclusiveness and its monopolization of
the higher magistracies the Senate controlled the entire state and perpetuated itself from
generation to generation by marriages and liaisons within its own orbit. Thus co-
operation among its members was essential, even though the aggrandizement of personal
power was the individual goal. Each one of the senators owed his position, his privileges,
and his career to that nice balance of ability, social connections, and political collegiality
which formed the living body of the Senate. Each was forced to look to the others for
the continuation and strengthening of his own interests. Hence the will or desire of the
1 Willems, op. cit., pp. 149-56; A. O’Brien Moore, R.E., s.v. “Senatus,” cols. 702-3. Apparently
even the division of days into dies fasti and nefasti did not affect meetings of the Senate. But Varro
(apud Aulus Gellius 14. 7. 9) tells us that there were some days on which no meeting could take place.
We do not know what days he meant. Not until quite late (perhaps either 71 or 61 B.c.) did a lex
Pupia introduce regulations on the days on which the Senate could not meet. Unfortunately, exact
details are not known; see Weiss, R.E., s.v. “Lex Pupia,” col. 2405.
SENATUS CONSULTA

senatorial class became a kind of silent command; one could disregard it and place his
career in jeopardy or listen and gain power. To incur the displeasure of the Senate could
be fatal. Only a strong man with a large following could challenge it successfully—a
condition generally reserved for the late Republic. The higher magistrates therefore
consulted the Senate, not only to be advised of the proper and the most expedient pro-
cedure to follow in difficult situations, but also to discover its will or desire. A long
tradition had given Rome a Senate, and, with the passing of the monarchy, the New
Republic continued to use it and made of it an institution that soon formed the very heart
and soul of the ruling class. Naturally, when the aristocrats had expelled the kings,
they formed the New Republic around themselves, i.e., around the Senate. Consulting
it therefore generated a kind of collective responsibility, at least to a degree.
A competent magistrate convened the Senate, presided over the meeting, introduced
a relatio, and asked for sententiae. When he judged that a sufficient number of opinions
had been heard, he asked for the vote.2_ Such in brief was the procedure, and so power-
ful was the force of the resultant senatus consultum that, even when vetoed by a tribune, it
became known as a senatus auctoritas and occasionally could still command some degree
of political influence. Although technically in Republican times they had no legislative
force, nevertheless, representing the voice of the Senate as they did, the result was that
senatus consulta were felt to be binding. And by the time of the early Empire they had
acquired the full force of law.3
Unfortunately for the student of Roman constitutional form, comparatively few
complete texts of these decrees have survived. A new and full collection of all the refer-
ences to them that appear in our sources throughout the entire period of Roman law
would fill a small book, but most of them would be mere references with, at best, sum-
maries of their contents. By far the overwhelming majority of the actual texts have
been lost. And the authors who refer to them, such as Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Appian, or Diodorus, may never have consulted the originals at all. They were usually
content with the second-hand information they found in the works of their predecessors.5
2 For full details on the procedure followed in the Senate see the works of Willems, Mommsen, and
O’Brien Moore cited in the Special Bibliography on Senatus Consulta.
3 Senatusconsultum est quod senatus iubet atque constituit idque legis vicem optinet, quamvis fuerit quaesitum:
Gaius I. 4. See Loreti-Lorini, loc. cit., and the remarks of H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to
the Study of Roman Law? (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 372-74.
4E. Hiibner, op. cit., has attempted to give such a list, but it is incomplete and now almost hopelessly
antiquated. There is room for a new work, a collection of references chronologically arranged and
with a short summary added to each, similar to what Rotondi has done for the leges. The present
writer has already started such a work.
5 See P. G. Walsh, Livy: Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 112-14, who notes that
Livy’s account of the S.C. de Bacchanalibus, in bk. 39, sec. 14, ll. 3-9, differs from the extant copy
(C.LL., I2, 581); cf. the remarks of R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy: Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965),
pp. 5-17. For Dionysius of Halicarnassus we have his own statement (bk. I, 7) for the sources he
used (Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerias Antias, Licinius Macer, and other annalists). Appian’s chief
sources were also the annalists, especially Asinius Pollio, and the reliable Greeks Polybius and Hierony-
mus: details in Schwartz, R.E., s.v. “Appianus,” cols. 216-37, and the Introduction to E. Gabba’s
edition of Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus (Florence, 1958), pp. XXli-xxv. Notices or sum-
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Polybius, however, does appear to have consulted some original material in this regard,
but never to the point of quoting the full text.6 Such a distinction was claimed by
Josephus, who, in his Jewish Antiquities, has given us what he claims are true copies of
those senatus consulta which concerned Jewish history. They may be regarded in general
as genuine, but whether he changed anything or was guilty of mistakes in transcription
is a matter of conjecture. Even the texts he gives may be mere copies of copies.7
Frontinus (De aquis urbis Romae 100, 104, 106, 108, 125, 127) gives us excerpts from the
six senatus consulta passed in 11 B.C. concerning aqueducts. Suetonius quotes from the
S.C. de philosophis et rhetoribus of 161 B.c., and Aulus Gellius from a S.C. de hastis Martiis
of 99 B.c.8 From Macrobius (Sat. 1. 12. 35) we learn of aS.C. de mense Augusto of8 B.C.
And Cicero (Ad Fam. 8. 8. 5-8) quotes in extenso from several senatus auctoritates, vetoed
by the tribunes, and one senatus consultum of 51 B.c., De provinciis consularibus.9
Thus the literary sources have given us a mass of information on senatorial decrees—
mostly in the form of summaries or notices—but only a handful of actual texts or parts
of texts. For the later period of Roman history, the Principate through the Dominate,
the story is not much brighter. The Codex of Justinian, the Digest, and other legal
sources then add to our knowledge. These too, however, usually give summaries or
notices, occasionally excerpts.
Although we possess not one of the originals, ie., those on deposit in the aerarium
Saturni in Rome, fortunately, official copies (exempla, avtiypagpa) were often made and
sent or given to interested parties upon request. These official copies were then used,
especially by the Greeks, to set up permanent records of those decrees which concerned
them. It is to the Greek inscriptions, therefore, or to the Greek copies, that we look for
full texts in sufficient number and of wide enough chronological spread to study the
nature and the redaction of Roman senatus consulta. Naturally the subject matter of
these inscriptions will be limited generally to those matters which caused the Greek
cities to go to the Roman Senate and seek official action: to obtain dovAia either for a
maries of senatus consulta, of course, are found in many other historians and writers. No attempt
at an exhaustive treatment of such notices can be made here.
© Viereck, Sermo Graecus, pp. 89-91, still has the best treatment on the senatorial decrees preserved in
Polybius. For the treaties in Polybius see E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 373-77,
whose remarks must be tempered by the observations of A. HeuB, “Abschlu8 und Beurkundung
antiker Staatsvertrage,” Klio, 27 (1934): 45-53. On the general sources of Polybius see K. Ziegler,
R.E., s.v. “Polybios,” cols. 1560-64, and F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford,
1957), pp. 26-35; cf. E. Mioni, Polibio (Padua, 1949), pp. 119-27.
7 Josephus Ant. 13. 9. 2; 14. 8. 5; 14. 10. 10. A large literature has developed concerning these
decrees, for there are numerous problems of chronology and sources. A useful discussion of the
older theories, together with a full evaluation of all the important documents given by Josephus, will
be found in Viereck, op. cit., pp. 91-116. A full bibliography is given by Ralph Marcus in his Loeb
edition of Josephus, vol. 7 (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1943), app. J, pp. 775-77. It is very
probable, as Niese and Viereck believed, that Josephus found these documents in books 123-24 of the
history written by Nikolaos of Damascus.
8 Suetonius De Rhetoribus 1; Aulus Gellius 4. 6. 2.
9 On these see M. van den Bruwaene, “‘Précisions sur la teneur et l’importance du sénatus-consulte
d’ Octobre 51 av. J.C.,” Les Etudes Classiques, 21 (1953): 19-27.
SENATUS CONSULTA

temple, a city, or an area of land; to retain or acquire possession of territory, buildings,

harbors, or to collect revenues from them; to fortify or wall their city or land; to settle
disputes between cities or corporate bodies; to conclude treaties of friendship and al-
liance; to obtain or have confirmed grants of privilegia and immunitates; and to enter
complaints against various groups or people, such as the publicani. To attempt a full
listing would be tedious. The texts will speak for themselves.
The fact that the inscriptions are in Greek, for the most part, and are, therefore, trans-
lations from the Latin, does not detract from their value, for, as we shall see, they were
official translations made directly from the originals on deposit in Rome. In addition
they were not “literary” translations. On the contrary, the translators slavishly repro-
duced each word of the Latin, so that at times the Greek becomes intelligible only when
the Latin idiom is uppermost in the mind. The value of the translations cannot easily
be overestimated. The Latin copies that have survived, on the other hand, are not
nearly so numerous or complete in the information they give us.1°

2. THE REDACTION AND DEPOSITING OF SENATUS CONSULTA

Down to the first consulship of Caesar (59 B.c.) there may have been no scribae or
librarii in the Senate to keep accurate records of meetings and the various matters dis-
cussed in them.'! Thus a small committee was formed immediately after each meeting
to put into final form any senatus consultum that may have been passed. The committee
contained a chairman, i.e., the relator, who was usually the presiding magistrate as well,
and those members of the Senate who had supported the matter. They acted as wit-
nesses. On the basis of notes and memory they drew up the document. The number
of such witnesses, who were always senators, was usually two or three, down to about
the middle of the first century B.c., but there were sometimes as many as ten or more.!?
The official redaction itself was always in Latin and was sometimes completed in the
meeting-place of the Senate or in the home of the relator, but in any case within a short
time after the meeting."
Each senatus consultum took a specific form, which was rigidly followed, and was com-
posed of four main sections: the prescript, the theme, the decree proper, and the mark
of approval.
10 They can be found in Bruns—Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tiibingen, 1909), chap. s.
In general see Stella Maranca, loc. cit., who also gives (pp. 520-49) a full list of those senatus consulta
which are alluded to or mentioned in Latin inscriptions.
11 Willems, op. cit., pp. 204-6; Mommsen, Roémisches Staatsrecht, 113, 2, 1015-21; O’Brien Moore, op.
cit., cols. 718-19 and 770-71 (acta senatus).
12 The number of witnesses named in the extant copies may be summarized here: Nos. I (4), 2 (2), 4
(at least 3), 5 (3), 7 (2), 9 (3), 10 (3), 15 (3, or 42), 18 (2), 22 (3), 23 (3), 26 (b=6, c= possibly 8 or 9), 27
(10), 29 (at least 10); Josephus Ant. 14. 10. 10 (11 witnesses) ;ibid., 13. 9. 2 (2); De Bacchanalibus (3).
13 Plutarch Mar. 4; Cicero In Cat. 3. 13. It could even be completed in the home of the relator:
Cicero Ad Fam. 9. 15. 4. The S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22) was passed on the eleventh day before the
Kalends of June (1. 4) but was deposited in the aerarium before the first of June, as the notation in line 3
shows. Willems, op. cit., p. 207, goes too far in saying that the redaction always took place on the
same day as the meeting. There is no proof.
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The prescript gives the name and rank of the presiding magistrate (or magistrates)
followed by the phrase senatum consuluit (7 ovyxAyjr@ ovveBovdedouro), the day and
month of the meeting, the place, and the names of the witnesses introduced by the phrase
scribendo adfuerunt (ypopopevw maphoav).
The theme announces the relatio in the form quod (name of relator) verba fecit de (or
HE) ene (rept dv 6 Seiva Adyous emovjouro rept (or Gmws) ..... ). It gives
a résumé of the events or motives that prompted the relator to lay the matter before the
Senate, and there are sometimes several clauses to it in order to make the whole matter
clear, as in Nos. 14, 15, 18, 22, 23, and 26. At the conclusion of the theme is found the
phrase d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt) (wept tovrov Tod mpéyparos otTws édofev), which
actually serves to introduce the next section, the decree proper.
The decree proper, in indirect discourse or introduced by ut (uti), is technically the
advice given by the Senate to the magistrate who had brought forward the relatio for
consideration. It had been obtained by a simple majority vote. If it included a remark
or some kind of instruction to the magistrate, it was always softened by the traditional
formula si ei (eis) videbitur or ita uti ei (eis) e republica fideve sua videatur. The Senate in
strict theory did not issue orders.
The mark of approval is the vote of the Senate formally expressed: c(ensuere) (€60€ev).
However it is not found in all decrees, a fact that may be attributed to the vagaries of a
transcriber or stonecutter. In some cases it is found in the body of the decree proper, at
the end of individual sentences.!4
From our earliest extant decree (No. 1) to those of Augustan times this basic structure
remained unaltered. Only under the Principate, which does not concern us here, were
serious modifications introduced.15
After the decree had been written up in the proper form, the relator had to deposit it in
the state archives, the aerarium Saturni. This was a most important act, necessary for the
validity of the decree, and it was usually performed as soon as possible after the writing.'®
At the aerarium it was received by the urban quaestor, who saw to it that it was entered
into the public records. The technical phrase was in tabulas publicas referre (Plutarch
Cato min. 17; Josephus Ant. 14. 10. 10). This was the original copy, and it was never
permissible to take it from the building. None of the originals have survived.
14 Full discussion by Willems, op. cit., pp. 213-15. For the mark of approval within the body of the
decree see Nos. 2, 7, 15, 16, and 18. Willems assumes that when it appears only once, at the end, it
means that the Senate voted in only one discessio, while its repetition at the end of each article shows
that the Senate voted separately for each of them. Again we must say there is no proof. Valerius
Maximus (2. 2. 7) explains it thus: veteribus senatus consultis C littera subscribi solebat eaque nota sig-
nificabatur illa tribunos quoque censuisse. He appears to have misunderstood it; cf. O’Brien Moore, op.
cit., col. 803. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht III3, 2, 1009, n. 8, would substitute senatores for tribunos.
15 O’Brien Moore, op. cit., col. 803.
16 That the deposit was necessary for validity can be seen by the decree quoted by Josephus (Ant. 14.
10. 10), for the whole purpose of passing the decree was to ensure the registration in the aerarium of 2
decision rendered by Julius Caesar in accordance with a senatorial decree. It is there stated that there
was no time for it to be properly registered. Hence, clearly, registration of a state act was a legal
necessity; cf. Suetonius Aug. 94 and Cicero In Cat. 1. 2. 4.
SENATUS CONSULTA

A second archive in Rome in which copies of senatus consulta were also on deposit was
the Temple of Ceres, under the control of the aediles. Its exact relationship to the
aerarium is not known, but it has been suggested that it was established in order to provide
outside, i.e., plebeian, control over the quaestorian records. This sounds reasonable, for,
despite many safeguards to guarantee accuracy of the texts of the senatus consulta, there
was always the possibility of someone tampering with the records or even removing them
at some future time.!7_ Having an official copy on file in Rome as a check on the original
would help to reduce such criminal acts. But since the Temple of Ceres was under
plebeian control, its record office may have contained only those decrees which con-
cerned the plebs. At any rate this second archive ceased to function after 11 B.c., and
the quaestors remained the sole keepers of the records.18
After the document had been received by the quaestors it was handed over to the scriba
quaestorius, who then took care of the details of registration. The decree was apparently
surrendered to the quaestors in the form of wooden tablets that were then kept together
as a unit with other decrees in the order of arrival. It would appear that the scribae did
not copy the decree into the records immediately, but rather retained the written form
and the materials that the relator had deposited. The wooden tablets were given a file
number for identification and were bound together with others into a codex. And each
annual batch in turn was marked off into monthly groups so that all the decrees registered
in the space of one month would be bound together in the exact order of registration.
They would be stored according to that system. At some time, however, it is possible
that they may have been copied into libri (Cicero Ad Att. 13. 33). To find a particular
decree one had to know the year in which it was passed, the month in which it was
registered, and the tablet number. Our knowledge of these matters can be deduced
largely from the decrees themselves, as we shall see later. Despite the lack of full
knowledge of the details of registration, storing, and possible changes in procedure in
the course of time, we can be sure that the wooden tablets themselves were registered and
stored in the aerarium.!9 The material in them may have been copied into /ibri at a later
date.

17 Plutarch Cato min. 17; Cicero Ad Att. 4. 18. 12; ibid., 15. 26. 1; Cicero Ad Fam. 12. 29. 2; Cicero De
lege agraria 2. 14. 37. For the role of the aediles in safeguarding the texts see Livy 3. 55. 13 and the
comments by Ogilvie, op. cit., p. 503. Zonaras (7. 5) is witness to the fact that the plebeian aediles
exercised some amount of control over the acta of the people and the Senate, i.e., over the texts of
those acta. It must be emphasized that in the Republic the official record office was always the
aerarium under the direction of the urban quaestors. The records apparently kept in the Temple
of Ceres were official copies, not the originals.
18 Dio 54. 36. I, where, however, he gives the mistaken impression that the tribunes and aediles
alone had previously watched over the records.
19 Clearly, wooden tablets were still in use in A.D. 68, when a decree of L. Helvius Agrippa was
registered. The beginning of it (I.L.S., 5947) is as follows: Descriptum et recognitum ex codice ansato L.
Helvi Agrippae procons., quem protulit Cn. Egnatius |Fuscus scriba quaestorius, in quo scriptum fuit it,
quod infra scriptum est, tabula VD VIII |et VIIII et X (ll. 2-4). Here the O (an obviously reversed C)
is an abbreviation for ceris. Full commentary by Mommsen, Hermes, 2 (1867): 102-27 (Gesammelte
Schriften, 5: 339ff. and 506). See also O’Brien Moore, op. cit cit., cols. 805-6.
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Whenever an official copy was requested, the scriba would locate it and make the copy.
He would also indicate on the copy the location in the archives where the original could
be found. Ata later date, when the copy was published, e.g., in the Greek East where
most of our copies have been found, this notation was sometimes engraved along with
the decree. It was not a part of the decree at all, but merely served to vouch for the
authenticity and accuracy of the copy. Those notations which surely must have been
added in the aerarium are assembled here.
No. 22, 1-3: Emit trétrwv Kolvtrov Avrariov Koivrov viod KérAov cat Méprov
Aip[iAiov Koivrov viod|| Méprov viwvotd A<e>r<i>dou, orparnyod dé Kara TOAWw Kal
ent trav Eévwv Aevkiov KopyyAio[v....... viod|| Licévva, wnvos Maiov.
No. 29, 1-3: [Eat Xéérov Lloumniov Le—rov viob Kat Aevkiov Kopwiduxi]ov
Aevxiov viod imdrwv ex tev aX<a>|yeypap|ucvwy ev mpayydrwr ovpBeBovrcvpevwv
Knpwpaow m]eumtw exrw éBddpw dydow evérw ra[puevt.|K@v deATwy - - nomina
quaestorum = - - ropu|@v Kara mow d€Atw mpwrTn.
Josephus Ant. 14. 10. 10: Adypo ovyKAjrou é€x Tob Tapwelou avtvyeypappevoy eK
tav déA\Twv Tv tapuevtiK@v Koivtw ‘Povtiriw Kowvtw tapiais Kare toAw déATw
Seutépa Knpwuart mpwtw. At the end here the manuscripts have kat €« t@v TpwTwv
mpw7Tn, which Viereck, in his Sermo Graecus (p. 101), emended as given.
L. Gallet (op. cit., pp. 255-64) thought that lines 1-3 of No. 22 were “une rédaction
purement privée,” and that they had been added by the three Greek naval officers for whom
the decree had been passed. In his view the reference to the month of May does not
allow us to form any conclusion about the system of filing or registering in the aerarium.
It was on the basis of this text that Willems (op. cit., p. 218, n. 3) had concluded that the
archival records were divided into monthly groups within each year for reference pur-
poses. Gallet disagreed, for he saw here a Greek and nota Roman notation. However,
he failed to notice that the filiation used in these lines is in the Roman manner, not the
Greek (simple genitive). The conclusion of Willems was correct.
In addition to these notations we may suspect others whenever we find a dating by
consuls at the beginning of a decree, as in No. 27, lines 3-5. The prescript to a decree
did not begin with a consular dating. It began with the name of the relator followed
by senatum consuluit.
From these notations and other references it is possible to form some idea of the Roman
filing system, but in the absence of full information it would be foolish to attempt a com-
plete description.2°

20 For other passages that contain information see our No. 23, 57-59: ev T@t oupBovAlwr Traphoav |of
abrot ot eu mpoyydrwr ovpBeBovrevpevewy S€Arwr mpwrne, |Knpdpare recoupeckadeKcTwe.
And in No. 12, 20, we find: 4éAros v (Sevrepa) v K[jpwpya - -]; cf. the decree of L. Helvius Agrippa
(above, n. 19). One difficulty arises in the fact that §¢éAros sometimes may mean codex (as in No. 23, 31)
and at other times fabula (as, e.g., in No. 23, 58). Then «7pwpa. (cera) becomes obscure when it is found
in the same context with d€Aros = tabula. Perhaps «yjpwyo 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

3. THE PUBLICATION OF SENATUS CONSULTA

The only extant copy of a senatorial decree which contains exact and detailed in-
structions for its publication is the S.C. de Bacchanalibus.2X Actually it appears to be a
letter of the consuls of 186 8.c. to the Teurani informing them officially of the decree and
directing them to publish it locally. The instructions (Il. 22-30) are as follows:
Haice utei in conventionid exdeicatis ne minus trinum |noundinum, senatuosque sententiam utei scientes
esetis,—eorum | sententia ita fuit: sei ques esent, quei arvorsum ead fecisent, quam suprad | scriptum est,
eeis rem caputalem faciendam censuere—atque utei |hoce in tabolam ahenam inceideretis, ita senatus aiquom
censuit, |uteique eam figier ioubeatis, ubei facilumed gnoscier potisit; atque |utei ea Bacanalia, sei qua sunt,
exstrad quam sei quid ibei sacri est, | ita utei suprad scriptum est, in diebus X, quibus vobeis tabelai datai
|erunt, faciatis utei dismota sient.
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.22__ 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 consultum 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 consulta, plebiscita de
societate et foedere ac privilegio cuicumque concessis. But since senatus consulta 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

Kritik und Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des antiken Buchwesens (Munich, 1913), pp. 262-63. But Wenger,
op. cit., p. 75, Nn. 10, 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 8-10.” The
tabula would therefore be waxed on both sides, and in the present case very many of them would be
tied together. From a consideration of all the examples it would appear that the terminology is not
consistent. Some illustrations of tabulae bound together can be found in the Notitia Dignitatum, ed.
O. Seeck (Berlin, 1876; reprinted 1962), or. XIX, and oc. XVII.
21 C.I.L., 12, 581. Latest text with notes by A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae,
vol. 2 (Florence, 1963), no. 511, pp. 13-17. See also Riccobono, op. cit., no. 30, pp. 240-41, and
Von Schwind, op. cit., pp. 59-61.
22 Von Schwind, loc. cit. This is made clear by Livy’s account in bk. 39, secs. 8-18, especially secs.
15-16, in which the consul speaks to the people of its dangers.

11
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

city did not reflect exactly the form of publication in Rome.?3 They think the treaty
alone saw publication in Rome, while the decree was merely deposited in the aerarium.
The Greek city, having acquired copies of both 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.24 Here is proof for 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 that 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 25 of the Greek, specifically gives the
recipients of the decree permission 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 examples it is reasonably clear that some senatus consulta were published,
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 senatus 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

23 HeuB, op. cit., p. 247, and H. Horn, Foederati (Frankfurt, 1930), pp. 76ff.
24S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 80-83. The
treaty from Pergamum or a nearby community is most easily accessible in S.I.G.3, II, 694:
avacepevo[u] dé €[v “Padyun]t ev rau bepd [« 706] |Avds rod KeerwaA[ tov ri] vaxos [x] oAxo[é
Kat]| ev adrau Karatera[ypevwr] tod [re ye] yovdros | [S]dyporos [d]a6 ris [cvyKAnjr]ou
Trept THs cvppo| [yx] tas, KrA (Il. 23-27).

12
SENATUS CONSULTA

the request of, a foreign community, a copy was usually sent to it with a covering letter
of a consul or praetor. For these covering letters see Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 13 (2), 14, 18, 20, 23,
26, and 28. One embassy, at least (No. 10 B, 1), brought a copy of the decree back
from Rome. The Greek city then undertook at its own expense the publication of the
decree. It could serve as a mark of honor or as a legal text in the local society. These
decrees, therefore, which have been preserved 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 always 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 TRANSLATION

If one examines all the extant Greek copies of senatus consulta from the viewpoint of
the language employed and the details of translation, he will soon discover a remarkable
consistency in phraseology and vocabulary. The texts span a period of two hundred
years, yet one sometimes feels that a single individual has done them all. Some, of
course, are short and business-like (No. 5) while others are long and involved (Nos. 2,
10, 14, 15, 18, 22, 23, 31), 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. 22). 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. But such
was not the case.
The fact that there is a uniformity in the method and technique of the translations is
good evidence that they were not made in those cities or lands in which the copies have
been found. It is clear that they are official translations and that they are not the products
of chance endeavor. Senatus consulta were important documents, and their translation
could not be left in the hands of amateurs or Greek provincials, who might deliberately
or unintentionally distort the true meaning. One official source was responsible for
them, and, in the light of the color latinus which they display, that source could only have
been in Rome. A brief analysis of the translations is necessary in order to bring out
these points more effectively.5

25 No attempt will be made here to give an analysis of the orthography and syntax of the documents.
The work of Viereck, op. cit., pp. 55-70, is still the best one on the subject, and the new material has
only served to confirm his observations.

13
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The Prescript
Senatum consuluit is regularly translated as ru cvyxAnta ovveBovdedouro (Nos. 1, C
I-2; 2, 2; 9, 9; 10, B 2; 11, 4; 18, 19; 19, 2; 22, 3).
Dates are reproduced literally, e.g., in No. 22, 4: a. d. XIk. Iun. becomes 7p0<7 ep@v
&vSexa KkoAavdOv "lovviwv. 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. 1, C 1; 2, 2;
4, 12; 8, 7; 9, 9; 10, B2; 14, 76; 19, 3; 20, A 4; 22, 4; 23, 60. One finds zp0d pds
ei[Svav] in No. 23, 5, mpo & eddv in No. 32, 5, eldviots evrepK(arex [p] éous in No. 5,
18, and mporépar eiSvav "OxrwyuBpiwyv in No. 2, 14.)
The place of meeting is usually in comitio, expressed év kowertan: Nos. 2, 2; 4,143 5,173
7, 38; 8, 8; 9, 10; 10, B 2; 15, 4; 22, 4; 23, 60. But we also find ev coupiau ’JovAlas in
No. 26, 39, and év] 7r@u vade rob [Aids] in No. 19, 4. The place in No. 20, 5, however,
is not certain; perhaps one could read év ra Ti] unrnpiar. In No. 27, 4-5, we have
ev TO vad TO THS ‘Opovolas.
The enumeration of the witnesses (scribendo adfuerunt) usually appears in one of two
forms: either as ypadopéven maphoay. (Nos. 2, 3, 14; 20, A 5; 22, 4; 26, col. b, 39; 29, 4)
or as ypadopevov maphaav (Nos. 4, 14; 5, 193 7, 38; 23, 60). But in one instance (No. 27,
5) it is found as ypadopevors Taphoav.

The Theme

The introductory clause, quod... verba fecit, etc., assumes the form zepi dv. . . .Adyous
éroinoaro followed by indirect statement, as, e.g., in No. 22, 6; [Tept dv Kéwtos Aurérios
Koivrov vios Ker<Ados tmaros Adyous eroujouto KtA. (Cf. Nos. 2, 5, 17, 27, 31, 363
5, 23; 7, 40; 9, 14; 10, At, B 4, 7; 11, 5; 14, 8; 15, 20, 34, 36, 56, 62; 18, 73; 22, 5; 23,
16, 22, 24, 63; 26, I, 17; 27, 11.) In No. 31, 81, the form dep dv... .«rA is found.
The concluding clause, de ea re ita censuerunt, becomes rept todrou Tod mpcypatos
ovtws €do€ev and serves to introduce the decree proper (ut=67ws). (Nos. 2, 10, 21, 42,
$1;.3,,.0335, 31; 6, D7 [pl.|;-7, 40,57; 9,59; 10, D 10; IT, 12; 13, 7514.55; 15.53 (pl;
16, 1; 18, 67; 22, 9; 26, b 19, c 5, 21.)

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: dvdpes Kat cyoBol Kot piror rape Sxjpov KaAod Kod &yabod (Nos. 7, 41, 43;
9, 17, 40; 10, A 2). Whenever it is appropriate, their country is further qualified by the
addition of et socii nostri: ovuppdyov te jyerépov (Nos. 10, B 5, 8; 15, 8, $5; 18, 70-72; 20,
D 3-5; 21, col. 1, 3). The designation “fine and noble man” is, of course, a common-
place also in Greek epigraphy.

14
SENATUS CONSULTA

A list of important phrases, apart from those which have already been mentioned, will
be useful.
. quod cognovimus: & éméyvwpev (No. 23, 30).
- Sententiam pronuntiare: yropnv Aێyew or aropaivecbou (No. 23, 43, 29).
. referre: mpooavadéperv (No. 23, 30).
TS)
TS). senatui placere: apéoxew tht ovyxAnrar (Nos. 26, c 3; 28, B 6; but No. 31, 97, 137,
AS)
142, has apéoxew tHe BovdAtu).
. censuere: €do€ev (passim).
. ex senatus consulto: kara ddyya ovyKAjtou (No. 9, $4); Kar& ovyKAjrou Sdypo
(No. 14, 77); Kara 76 Séypc ovyKAjrov (Nos. 7, 46; 14, 27); KaTaTO THs cuyKAnTOU
ddyua (Nos. 14, 85; 15, 12 [pl.]; 23, 3, 34).
. ex (de) consilii sententia: amd ovpBovAlov yvodpns (Nos. 14, 78 [2], 973 23. 29, 39, 43,
55-56); weT& ovpBovdtov yrwduns (Nos. 17, 9; 18, 96); were cvp.Boudtov (No. 14,
75-76); ex ovpBovdAlov. yvwuns (No. 31, 87).
. si ei (eis) videretur: édv odt&u (adrots) paivyrou (Nos. 18, 104; 20, E 5; 22, 8,
24, 29; 26, b 24, c 6, 22).
. ita uti ei (eis) e republica fideque sua videretur: odtws Kabads cv odbtar (adrois) ex
T@v Snwociwy mpayudtwr mictews Te THs iBias (vel Kat THs iSias mioTews)
paivynrat (Nos 6, B 9; 7, 50; 9, 70-72; 10, A 11, B 13; 14, 73; 15, 63, 65; 16, 8;
18, 120; 22, 31; 23, 68-69; 26, b 25-26, has dws wes dv KTA and 26, c 7, has
@OTeE ap KTA).

Io. extra ordinem senatum dare: éxrds tod otiyou of &pyovtes avyKAntov 66H [wv]
(No. 18, 66).
EL: coram senatu: Kat& mpdawrov (Nos. 7, 42, 44, 56; 10, B 6, 9; 18, 68).
12. ex formula: kara To ductraypo (Nos. 15, 64; 16, 10; 18, 90; 22, 26).
E3; in amicorum formulam referre: eis TO TOV hidwy Sucraypo. avadépew (No. 22, 24).
14. munusque eis ex formula locum lautiaque quaestorem urbanum locare mittereque iuberent:
Educ te adtots Kata 76 Siatraypa TéTOV TApoYNnY TE TOV TOpiay TOV KaTa TOAW
rovTois puab@ou emrooreiAut te KeAcVowow (No. 22, 25-26). The verbs are:
Eévia Sodvea (Nos. 9, 67; 16, 10; 18, 90); f€via amoor€édAew (Nos. 10, A 9, B
12; 15, 64; 22, 25).
ES: benigne respondere: piravOpdimws amoxpiO jive (Nos. 6, B 5; 9, 61; 10, A 6; 15, 54;
16, 5; 18, 35, 68).
16.gratiam amicitiam societatemque renovare: xépura didlov ovppoxiay avavewouoban
(Nos. 9, 19, 42, 60; 14, 3; 15, 9, 55; 18, 69; 20, D 2; 21, col. 1, 12; 26, b 16).
7. ut legibus et iustis et moribus suis uterentur: drrws vopous Te Kod EBeow Keil SiKcciots
tots iStows yp@vrau (vel similia: No. 18, 49, 91).
18. in integrum restituere: ets &xépcuov amoxabloraabau (No. 22, 14, 21).

Magistrates, Institutions, Res Romanae

David Magie long ago demonstrated the principles whereby the titles of Roman
magistrates were expressed in Greek: per comparationem, in which the titles of Greek

15
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

magistrates or officials with similar duties were used (quaestor=rots) ; per translationem,
which is a literal translation (quaestor=Cnrnrijs); and per transcriptionem, which is simply
a transliteration from Latin into Greek (quaestor = Kvaiorwp). All three of these methods
are used in the senatus consulta.

I. quaestor: raptas (Nos. 9, 68; 10, B 13; 15, 65; 16, 10; 26, b 25); quaestor urbanus:
Topas Kare ToAw (Nos. 23, 26; 29, 3).
. praetor: orparnyds (passim); praetor urbanus et peregrinus: otparnyos Kata moAw
Kal emi TOv E€vwv (No. 22, 2).
. censor: tysntns (No. 25, 10, 12).
4. consul: drreros (passim; but in Nos. 10, B 2, and 14, 61, 62, 70, we find the older
oTparnyos Umaros).
. dictator: Suxtérwp (Nos. 18, 43, 74, 103, 125; 26, b 7).
. triumvir rei publicae constituendae: tpets cv8pes 0] i THs TOV Snwooiwy mpayycrwv
Suaraews (No. 28, B 4 [cf. 28, A 3-5]).
. proquaestore: avtitapias (No. 18, 90).
. proconsule: evOdmaros (Nos. 15, 60; 18, 114; 21, col. 1,1. But No. 26, e 11, has
av|répywv; perhaps it is pro-magistratu).
. designatus: crodeSevypevos (No. 28, 1-2; but No. 26, b 7, has xa [eorapevos].
. magistratus: &pywv (Nos. 18, 61, 66; 22, 19, 23, 30; 31, 100, IOI, 105, 120, 125, 137).
. imperator: odtoxpaétwp (Nos. 17, 10; 18, 104; 20, E 14; 23, 36, 39; 24, 11; 26, b 7,
24, C27; 31, 86; but No. 21, col. 1, 11, has dusrepeérwp).
12. princeps: iyyeuov (No. 31, 86).
13. senatus: 7 ovyKAntos (passim; but in No. 31, 88, 90, 97, 101, 106, 116, 125, 137, and
142, 7 BovAx is found).
14. senator: 6 avvKAntixds (No. 31, 110).
15. res publica: r& Snucova mpe&ypore. (passim).
16. publicanus: dnwoowrns (No. 23, passim).
17. index: kpurjs (Nos. 22, 19; 31, passim; but No. 31, 138, has Sucaor7s).
18. provincia: émapyeta (Nos. 18, 77, 114; 20, G 10; 31, 78, 80, 95).
19. decretum: érixpiyo (No. 28, A 25, B 4; but see Stroux-Wenger, op. cit., p. 25, for
the word in the Augustan edicts).
20. capitis accusare: kepadfs edOdvew (No. 31, 99).
21. summa pecuniae: kepcdAcuov xpyparos (No. 31, 132).
22. accusator: 6 edvOdvwyr (No. 31, 132).
23. reus: 6 edOuvdpevos (No. 31, 118).
24. milia (passuum): wetdua (No. 31, 108, 109, 112).
25. sestertius: onoréprios (Nos. 9, 69; 10, A 10, B 13).

The Definite Article

The lack of a definite article conditioned the Romans to neglect it when translating
into Greek. In the Greek copies of the senatus consulta it is absent in those places where

16
SENATUS CONSULTA

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 ev 7T® KametwXiw, and No. 2, 33,
ets 70 Karrerwuov; but in other passages (Nos. 16, 11; 26, b 17, 21) the same phrase lacks
the article. And one finds cara ovyKdArjrov Sdypce (No. 14, 77), KaT& 70 THs auyKAHTOU
ddypo (Nos. 14, 85; 23, 3, 34), and Kara To Sdéype ovykAjrov (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.

Kei and Te
Of all the particles which the Greeks used so effectively in composition, and almost
certainly in speech as well, only Kat, re, odd€, odre, unde, prjre, and 8 are used at all
commonly in the senatus consulta, and they are almost colorless, lacking the subtlety of
the others. The use of «ad and re corresponds exactly to et and -que, but they are not
used very often, for asyndeton is common: compare No. 28, B 5, mpocepuepicav
Tpoopepiodow, avvexwpynocy ovvywpyaovow, and No. II, 9, [d1]wpwbn edwp7On
apeOn eCnusrw[n]. Especially revealing is yepura pidiav ovppayiay Te dvevedaavTo
(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
translation of [Polustratu]m Poluarchi f. Carystium is Ilo\dotparov IlodvépKov viov
Kapvoriov. If a Roman, therefore, translated into Greek a document containing
filiations, he tended to add the word vids; a Greek would have omitted it.
In some cases, however, vids is indeed omitted (e.g., in Nos. 5, 20ff.; 7, 39; 12, 24ff.).
These instances can be explained quite easily when one examines No. 10, B, where in
line 2 we find vids used in the name of the presiding magistrate but omitted in the names
of the witnesses in lines 3-4. It may be suggested that the Greek translation originally
contained vids everywhere, but that the Greek engraver found it superfluous. He might
accept it once at the beginning but not thereafter; to him it was odd. Similarly with
No. 12, the engraver omitted vids each time, even though, we may assume, it stood in
his copy.

17
ROMAN DOCUMENTS 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. But 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.2© These scribae
were organized into decuriae, apparently three in number, with first nine and later (after
Sulla) twelve scribae in each decuria. They were assigned to the various magistrates on an
annual basis. They were professionals, the key men in the routine and operation of the
aerarium, and very often they were able to overawe and manipulate the young quaes-
tors.27. 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.28 One of them, a certain L. Naevius L. |. Urbanus, had inscribed on his
tombstone vixi iudicio sine indice (C.ILL. VI 1819 =I.L.S. 1896), and another (C.I.L.
VI 1853) 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

26 See E. Kornemann, R.E., s.v. “Scriba,” cols. 848-57, esp. 850-55, and A. H. M.Jones, ‘‘The Roman
Civil Service (Clerical and Sub-Clerical Grades),” Journal of Roman Studies, 39 (1949): 38-55 (=A. H.
M. Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law [New York, 1960], pp. 153-75).
27 Plutarch, in Cato min. 16, gives a most revealing and important account of the clash between Cato
and the scribae. Cato expelled one of the scribae from the aerarium and brought another to trial for
fraud. Rather than 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
special knowledge. Cato began by treating them as assistants rather than as superiors. Virtual war
resulted, says Plutarch.
28 F. Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford, 1946), p. 87, speaking of laws, senatorial decrees,
and magisterial edicts, says: ‘‘ 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 senatus consulta 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.

18
SENATUS CONSULTA

registration, and supplied copies when duly requested.29

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 aerarium 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
proof. 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 aerarium or qualified persons on their staff made the translations.

29 Cf. Cicero De leg. 3. 20. 46: Legum custodiam nullam habemus, itaque eae leges sunt, quas adparitores
nostri volunt: a librariis petimus, publicis litteris consignatam memoriam publicam nullam habemus. Surely
the senatus consulta fell generally into the same pattern; see Schulz, op. cit., p. 87.

19
C. THE DOCUMENTS
QHTGSGTG STG GOGO OOH OGG GSH GGG SSS ssgq
ggggggqqsEs
EPISTULAE SPURII POSTUMII ET
SENATUS CONSULTUM Letters, 189 B.C.
DE PRIVILEGIIS DELPHORUM Decree?
HHEVOH
SHOT OHSOHHOSH
GGE GSHHSHSSH
OHD SNSOSyggg
T g

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H.N. Ulrichs, Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, 1

(Bremen, 1840), 110, 115 n. 36; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archéologique en
Gréce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, Il (1870), no. 852; P. Viereck, Sermo
Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. X, pp. 11ff; H. Pomtow, Neue Jahrbiicher fiir
Philologie und Padagogik, 1889, p. 565, and 1894, p. 683;J.Schmidt, Deutsche
Literaturzeitung, 1889, p. 590; M. Holleaux, Revue archéologique, 1917, pp. 342ff.;
H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 612; M. Holleaux,
Ztparnyos “Yraros, Etude sur la traduction en Grec du titre consulaire (Paris, 1918),
pp- 147-49; K. J. Beloch, Klio, 15 (1918): 382ff.; H. Pomtow, Klio, 16 (1920),
nos. 120-23, pp. 132ff.; E. Preuner, Rheinisches Museum, 73 (1920-24): 285ff.;
Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926),
no. 3, pp. 251-52; M. Holleaux, B.C.H., 54 (1930): 1-41, and $5 (1931): I-10
(Etudes d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques, V [Paris, 1957], 249-94); E. Cavaignac,
Meélanges Paul Thomas (Brugge, 1930), pp. 120ff.; P. Roussel, B.C.H., 56 (1932):
1-22; G. Daux, Delphes au II® et au I®* Siécle (Paris, 1936), pp. 261ff. and 352ff.;
J. A. O. Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey of
Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 285-86; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II
(1941), 690, and III (1941), 1460, n. 13; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I
(New York, 1951), no. 122, pp. 311-12; E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70
B.C.) (Oxford, 1958), p. 88; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman
Statutes, no. 25.

DESCRIPTION. A large marble stele existing today only in small fragments

and copies. Ulrichs in 1840 discovered and published the first of them, but he
did not consider all the fragments worth publishing and they lay buried in his
notes until Preuner brought them to the attention of scholars. The stone seen by
Ulrichs has long since disappeared. In 1894 the French excavators of Delphi
found another fragment (A), and in 1914 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 B.C.H., 54 (1930): 38-39 (Etudes, V, 282-83),
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 THE GREEK EAST

Document A

[X'idptos TToordépuos Aevxiov vids, orparnyos ‘Pwyaiwv, AcAp@v tots epyovor Kot THe
~ a + \ ~

moder yaiperv' of Tap dav]

[amooradévres mpeoBevtat BovrAwv, OpacukAss, “Opéoras mepi ris aovdias Tod tepod
~ a ae ~

Kal THs TOAEws Kal THS|

[ywpas Suadeybevres Kal rept Tis eAevbepias Kal everapopias 7] Elovv dmw|s dptv
emiywpnOqe mapa Tod Si.ov Tod]
[“Pwpaiwy: ywwoere ody Sedoypevov The cvyKAntw. TO TE Lepo|v Tod
’"AmddAwvo[s Tob [Ivbiov covdov etvou Kai TH]
[wodw tov AeAddv Kat Iv ydpav koi Aedpods adrovdp| ous Kat |[é]AevBepous Kat
aver[apdpous, oikobvras Kat troditevovTas adTovs|
> ie > ~ \ / b) \

[xab? adrovds Kat] Kupiedov [ras Tis TE lep| Gs ywpas Kal Tod iepo| Aysevos, KaBads
> ¢€ \ \ / ~ i a / \ ae ~ A "2 i] \

marp|vov adrois e€ apyfs jv:

, ? aes > eS
dws]
¢

[ody «ldAre, exp|wov bpuiv ypa[pou mepi TovTwv.|

Frag. Preuner Frag. A Frag. B

Document B

Frag. Ulrichs Frag. A Frag. B

Lmépvos [Toordpwos Aevxiov vids, otpary|yos ‘Pwpoiwr, tH. Korlvau TOv

"Auductidva|v xaipew: of AeApav mpecBev-|
tat BovrAwv, Opacuxdijs, Opéoras epi ris &lavAlas Tob iepod Ka[t]| THs woAEws Keel
tis [xdbpas diccAeyOevres|
Kal mept THs eAevepias Kal averopop|i||as AElovv dws a|dtots émuywpnbA ma[pa
\ \ ~ aN A} / ‘ > / ? / i > aA > ~ \

Tob Sypov Tod ‘Pwpoiwv:|

ywookerte obdv Sedoypevov tH. cvykAj[T]|we 7d Te Lepov to|5 "AmddAwvos Tod
TTv8io[v covaov etvau Kat]
Thy Tod Tov Aedpdv Kai rHv xwpav, Kal A|[eApod]s adrovd|uous Koi €AevOépous
K [at aveopdpous, otKodv-|
\ > / > ~ gl (aa,

Tas Kal TodTEvovTas adtods Kab’ oni|[rod

ovs Kat]l Kupedo[v]|ras
j n Te lepas
THs iepas ywplas
yw
Kal TOD Lepod AL-|
pevos, Kabws matpiov adrois €€ apyis [jv
, / S a“ a a
Sms ol dv «tS[4]|re, Expivov dutv ype [pou
bY a a

mept ToUTw.|
\

22
SENATUS CONSULTA

Document C

Frag. Ulrichs Frag. B

IIpo jpepdv recodpwv vovav Mai [wv ev Koperian ? - -|’Oxrdwos Ivaiov orpar [nyos?
ouve-|
Bovrevouro ri cvykdjtrun. ypablopévean raphoa: - -|os ITomXiov,
Mavi[os - - - - - - - A
Teuos *Arivos I'aiov, TeBépio[s - - - -- mept Sv A]edAdot Adyous emo [unoavro rept
iepod|
aovrov,
> /
Toews eAevbép[as Kal odbtovdpov Kal avevapdpov: | zept tovTov Tob
7 |p&yporos obtws]|
edokev:
”
Kalas mpdtepo[y - - - - - - n avyKAntos ?| exexpiver exetvw[e radu
\ fe

Kpiware eupelvew edokev.

Document D

[A]evKuos Dovpios A[evkiov vids, orparnyds - ------------------- ]

[Ae]Adav é[AevOepias ------------------------------- ]

Text by Holleaux, who showed that it is a case of two letters, not one. He restored Document A
from Document B. B2 diAexOévres, L. Robert, adopted by Holleaux in place of Viereck’s
dueAeynowv. C1 ’Oxrcsos: Holleaux previously had thought of Bai- or Bé]Bauos, but a revision
of the stone made the present reading almost positive. At the end of this line could be orpar[nyos
or otpat] nyos Umaros. C 4 éAevbepu, Ulrichs, corrected by Holleaux.

COMMENTARY. When the military advance of Manius Acilius Glabrio freed

Delphi and the Amphictyonic League from the control of Aetolia in 191 8.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 as well, sent envoys to the Roman Senate. In the absence of the two consuls the
praetor Spurius Postumius 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 résumé of the contents of the decree. These
letters are the present Documents A and B. The date is 189 B.c., and very likely after
April of that year, when the two consuls were absent from Rome.”

! For the details see Daux, op. cit., pp. 227ff.

2 The two consuls of 189 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 of the whole year see Holleaux, loc. cit., and T. R. S.
Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 1(New York, 1951), 360.

23
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

In the two letters it is a point of interest to note that the Greek éAevepia is not felt to
be completely adequate to convey the effect of what the Latin libertas had upon a Roman.
For, whereas libertas 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 manner by the Hellenistic kings. The present documents are the
earliest of their type: in them a Greek city is formally declared libera et immunis.
Beneath these letters on the stele appeared Document C, a senatus consultum de privilegiis
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
gentilicium was Octavius. Beginning with the year 190 B.c. no such official appears until
168 B.c., when Cn. Octavius was praetor. But since his was a military rather than an
urban command, that year must be discarded. The same Cn. Octavius, however, be-
came consul in 165 B.c., and that might very well be the year in which this decree of the
Senate was passed.+ 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.5
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. They came to consider
the city as their cultural and intellectual capital. In addition the political rivalry of the
Hellenistic states, one for the other, produced a corresponding cultural rivalry that was
expressed in their efforts 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. No city in that period was completely safe, but Delphi fared
better than most. Nevertheless the Delphians must have looked upon the Aetolians
with mixed feelings, for, after all, they were not their own masters. Thus, when the
Romans in 191 B.C. liberated 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. First
there is the letter (early in 190 B.c.) 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 influence in preserving the ancestral laws
of the city and the temple, and in obtaining automony for the city. Good news!
Delphi lost little time in pressing the point. In 189 B.c. three envoys named Boulon,
3 Cf. Badian, op. cit., pp. 87ff.
4 Broughton, op. cit., pp. 428 and 438, and F. Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Octavius 2,” cols. 1803-4. Ad-
ditional material on Octavius has been assembled by P. Charneaux, B.C.H., 81 (1957): 181-202.
5 See Holleaux, Etudes, V, 260, n. 2.

24
SENATUS CONSULTA

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. 1) 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. The consul C. Livius
Salinator sent a letter (No. 38) at that time (late in 189 or early in 188 B.c.) to the Del-
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 to the Romans.
They reflect not empty flattery but sincere appreciation. 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 “Payeta
which thereby set an example for other Greek cities.

25
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE THISBENSIBUS 170 B.C.

FHDHGTSODGSSDSHOSNSHHOTEODODTSESSHOHOREESYSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Foucart, Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, 2°

série, 6 (1872): 321ff.; Th. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 1 (1872): 278ff.
(Gesammelte Schriften, 8 [1913]: 274ff.; I. N. Madvig, Nordisk Tidskrift for
Filologi, 1 (1874): 1ff.; Aubert, Forhandlinger Videnskabs-Selskabet J. Christiana,
1875, pp. 278ff.; Th. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 2 (1875): 102-4;J.
Schmidt, Athen. Mitt., 4 (1879): 235ff.; idem, Z.S.S., 2 (1881): 116ff.; idem,
Hermes, 16 (1881): 155ff.; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions,
tst. ed. (Oxford, 1882), no. 195; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888),
no. XI, pp. 12-16;J.Schmidt, Rheinisches Museum, 45 (1890): 482; W.
Dittenberger, [.G., VII (1892), 2225; idem, S.I.G.2, 1 (1898), 300; C. Michel,
Recueil d’Inscriptions Grecques (Brussels, 1900), no. 69; A. Wilhelm, Gottingische
Gelehrte Anzeigen, 10 (1903): 795; G. Colin, Rome et la Gréce de 200 a 146 avant
J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 424-30; P. Foucart, Sénatus-consulte de Thisbé; Memoires
de I’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 37 (1905): 309ff.; Bruns—Gradenwitz,
Fontes iuris Romani antiqui’ (Tiibingen, 1909), no. 37, pp. 166ff.; A. Wilhelm,
Neue Beitrdge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, III (1913), 19; F. Hiller von
Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.°, II (1917), 646; Abbott-Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 5, pp. 254ff.;
L. Robert, Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), pp. 287ff.; M. Segre,
Clara Rhodos, 9 (1938): 205; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani?,
pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 31, pp. 242ff.; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia
dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 47 and 62; idem, Rivista di
Filologia, 77 (1949): 222; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I(New York,
1951), no. 123, pp. 314ff.; P. Meloni, Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone,
(Rome, 1953), pp. 245ff.;J.Robert and L. Robert, La Carie, II (Paris, 1954),
102, n. 2; F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, 1 (Heidelberg, 1959),
126-28; L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, American
Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960), pp. 167-68;
Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 30; C. Nicolet,
L’ordre équestre a l’époque républicaine (312-43 av. J.-C.), I (Paris, 1966), 348.

DESCRIPTION. Stele of white marble found in the modern village of

Kakosi (the ancient Thisbae) in Boeotia. Height: 1.18 m. Width: 0.54 m.
Thickness: 0.19 m. The letters are regularly formed with clear apices, having a
height of 0.008-0.011 m. Now in the epigraphical museum in Athens,
inventory no, 10053. There is a photograph in Maier’s publication, Plate 15
at the end, which is unfortunately very inadequate.

26
 SENATUS CONSULTA

Kéwros Mainos Titov vids orparnyds THL GUVKA -

/ i , ¢€ a

: as
Ta ouveBovrevaaro év KopeTiont mpd *pep-
[O]v émra eidvdv ’OxrwpBpiwv. ypadhopeven
~ e at > ~ >

Trapyoav Mavos ’Axidtos Maviov vids ’OAre [c]-

a U > ,

[via], Tiros Nouiovos Tirov vids. Tlept dv Qic-

/ / / / e

[Be] ts Adyous eroujouvro mept Tv Kab? od-

aA , > 2 ~

[tT] ods mpaypcrer, oiriwes ev ri didlau rH

\ 4 a ~ a

NMETEpHL Evemewvav, OWS adTots Sofdaw,

€ , eee A ~

e \ ° € \ , > ,
lo] fs ta Kal” adrods mpdypara eEnyjowvra mepl \ tov-,
TOU TOU TPayU“ATOS OUTWSs edoEev: Omws Kéwros
Aa ,
10

Mainos otparnyos tv ex THs cuvKA}TOU

/ \ ~ a

[7] vre arrorcéni, of dv adrau ex tav Sypooiwy mpc-

ta > 4 Cee) > ~ > ~ /

[yu] arwr Kat ris iSlas tictews daivwvra. edo€e.

7, \ a 7 / Lf ”

mpotepa eldvav “OxtwuBpiwv: ypadopéven raph-

, > ~ > / la onl

aav IIdmdvos Movkios Koivrov vids, Méapxos Kia'-

/
15
d10s Macpxov vids, Mavios Xépyios Maviov vids:
li e Ul

WoanvTws TEpL Dv of adTot Adyous erroinoavTO TEpL ywpas

e / WOK 3s (

[x] at mrept Awevwy Kal mpocddwy Kal Tept dpéwv: & adbtav éeye-
\ \ a

[y] oveccar, ratra judy plé]v everev eyew eSetvou edo-

/ lol ¢ ~ \ LA ” > aA ”

fev. epi apy@v Kal rept lep@v Kal mpocddwv dmws adbtot
> ~ ~
20

[x] vpredwor, TEpt ToUTOV TOD mp&ypwaTos OUTWS edokeV:

\ ~

oltwes eis THY piriay THY HweTepav mpo TOO H I'cos Aoxpé-
iJ > \ / A ¢€ ig \ AN 4 /

TLos TO OTpaTOTrEdoV TpOs THY TOAW OicBas mpoorya-

A / \ \ 4 / /

¢ a ” , \ ” , ”
yev, Omws obra. ETn deka T[a] eyyroTa Kupredvwow. edo€ [ev].
25 Teplt ywpas, olkiay Kal THY UrapydvTwy adTots: ov TroTé
Tt adTaYV yeyovev, Gmws [Ta] ExuTav adtots exe eEFu
. ~ \ ~ a lol

gdogev. waattws Tept dv of adrol Adyous eroujoavTo, d7rw[s]

” ¢ te Neer tS > \ la a) / 7

ot adropodot ot idior exe’ duyddes ovTes, THY aKpav adTots dws

e > / eof > cal 45) w+ \ + 2 a a

teryloo e&fu Kal eel KaTouKBaw odro., KabdTi eveparicay, ov-

a a ~ lol /

30 tws €dofev' dmws exel KaTOLK@ow Kal TobTO TeLylcwow. €do-

fev. THv moAw Terylom ovK edokev. waattws TEpt dv ot avTOL
\ '4 / > ” ¢€ rd See: € > \

/ / > / av
Adyous erroijoauvto, ypuctov, 6 avvyveyKay eis oTtépavov, 6-
/ 4
mws eis TO KarerwmAvov orépavov Katackevdowow, Tovtos, Kab-
[drt] evedcvicav, Grws adbtois ar06007, 6|1w|s Tobrov tov arépavov ets
a a lol \ {4 >

[76] KamerwAvov KaracKkevaowow: ovTws amodobvan €d0€ev. woaav-

Y v? Ui 4 > ~ ” ¢€ /
35
Ve CP ae \ r 1 ? , > 6 / ¢ ¢
[t]ws wept dv of carol Adyous eroujcavro, avOpwrrous, oirwes drever[y] -
[ri]a rots Synpoctous mpdypact rots nweTEpois Kol Tots ExvTdY ELow,
A zh a ¢€ , \ a ¢€ ~ >

[or] ws odrou KaréywvTo epi TovTou Tob mp&yparos, Kabws ay Koiv-

a ~ / \ nn oh

[rw] Mawien orparnyas ex tOv Snpooiwy mpayparwy Kol THs itas m-

~ ~ / U \ a 297 /

[o]trews doy, ovTws Trovetv edofev. oltwes els HAAaS TrdXELS O-

a a Ld ? + / >
40
miAGocav Kal ovdyl mpos TOV TAP’ juUdY oTpaTHyoV TapEyEvoVTO, OTTWS
A eng ~ x la ov

ee , , \ , A , \ A ayy
7) €ts THEW KQATAXTOPEVUWVT AL” TEpl TOVTOV TOU TIPAYLAaTOS TTPOS VAOV

27
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[‘O]oridtov drerov ypeppara crroorethon edoev, dws Trepl rovTou Tie Ou-
[ov] otcu mpocdyn, Kabds adv adbrdu ex TOv Snuootwy mpayyarwv Kat
~ ~ \

45 [rt] As (Silas mictews daivnra. edoev.

a 97 / , ”

Haavrws mept dv ot adtol Adyous eroujoavto trep[t]

¢ , \ @ ¢ > Nl a > / \

[tT] Gv Sixdv FevoribidSos Kal Mvacidos, dws ex Xadkidos ageOGor,

Kat Acyroxpira Avovuciov ey OnBav: tavras ex rovtwy THv 7dde-
wv adetvon eSo€ev, Kal dmws eis OicBas pu Karé\Owow. edo€ev.
50 [d]oatrws wept ob radras yuvaixas ddpias adv apyupiw [c]
[ei]s rov orparnyov eveveeiy elmacav: epi tovTov Tod mpdy [ya] -
[ro]s vorepov évavti Taiov Aoxpetiov Bovretdoacbar edokev.
doadrws mept Sv ot adrot QioPeis eveparicay mept airov Kat éA[at] -
ov éavtots Kowwviav mpos I'vaiov Ilavdoctvov yeyovevar: rept Tov-
55 [r]ov tod mpcyporos Kav Kpitas AaBetv BovrAwvrar, rovTors Kpiras Bo[A] -
aA / Bo ‘ Xr a 5X / \ 5 A

vou €do€ev. wWaoavrws mepl dv ot adtol Adyous errowjoavTo TrEept TOO

ypdupara Sodver QicBetow eis AitrwAtav kat Dwxida- epi TovTov
Tob mpaeyparos Q.cBedou Kai Kopwvedow eis AitwAtoy Kat Dwki-
Sa Kat ec mov els &AAas TrOXEts BovAwWYTOU, ypdppara dircv-
60 Opwrra Sotvan edokev.

This text is based upon those by Foucart and Mommsen. 22 A verb has been omitted here:
mapeyevovto, Viereck; mpoofAOov or mpoorjdOocav, Robert. 38 [d7]ws odto Katéywvrau,
anacoluthon; one expects avOpurrous - - - - KaréxecOa. 55 The stone has KAN, but Mommsen
and Viereck (notes) change to [€]av (=<éav).

COMMENTARY. In 172 B.c. a Roman mission led by Q. Marcius Philippus (cos.

186 B.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 finally become
acute when Eumenes went to Rome and spoke to the Senate about the Macedonian
king’s ambitions and actions. The mission succeeded in breaking up the Boeotian
League and winning over to the Roman side numerous Greek communities, but despite
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 B.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 Meloni, loc. cit. The sources for the stand of the three
Boeotian cities against Rome are Polybius 27. 5 and Livy 42. 46. 7 and 42. 63. 12. For the reading
of the text in these places see Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, 1 (1872): 288-89. Especially per-
tinent to our document is Livy 42. 63. 12: Inde Thebas ductus exercitus; quibus sine certamine receptis
urbem tradidit exulibus et qui Romanorum partis erant; adversae factionis hominum fautorumque regis ac
Macedonum familias sub corona vendidit. Here it is clear (cf. Mommsen, loc. cit.) 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.

28
SENATUS CONSULTA

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 to obtain official
rulings on the various political and legal questions that had arisen as a result of the city’s
surrender. The present senatus consultum paints a rather full picture of Thisbae’s
condition at the time and deserves a careful study.
Actually we have two decrees, the first (Il. 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 (Il. 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 duly 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 clientes not only of the praetor but also
of the five men who formed the committee. The relationship between cliens 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 clientela.3
There is a distinct possibility that in this instance the committee was composed of the
five witnesses 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
2 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, Rémisches Staatsrecht, III, 2,
1002.
3 On the whole subject see E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.) (Oxford, 1958).

29
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 (ll. 17-20) we learn that the ager Thisbaeorum had become ager
publicus in 170 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 (Il. 20-24).
3. Private property may be retained by the legal owners (Il. 25-27).
4. The pro-Roman party is given permission to fortify the acropolis and live there
(Il. 27-31).
5. Permission to fortify the city is denied (I. 31).
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 (Il. 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 (Il. 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 (Il. 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 (Il. 46-49).
10. The matter of the bribing (?) of the praetor C. Lucretius by these three women is
to be postponed until Lucretius can be present (Il. 50-52).4
11. Concerning the Thisbaean partnership with the Italian Gnaeus Pandosinus, judges
are to be appointed, if so desired (Il. 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 (Il. 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
4 The entire episode of these three women is expressed in a (deliberately 2) vague manner and no
satisfactory explanation of it 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.
5 On this man and his overseas business enterprises see Mommsen, op. cit., pp. 287 and 295-96, and F.
Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Pandosinus,” cols. 552-53, where further references will be found; cf. Nicolet,
loc. cit.

30
SENATUS CONSULTA

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 fortify 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.

31
 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE CORONEIA 170 B.C.
HHEGRTRASRHSOSHSOODHODHDHSHHDSOSHSSSSSSSSSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. L. Robert, Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938),

pp. 287-92; P. Meloni, Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone (Annali Univer.
Cagliari, XX) (Rome, 1953), 263ff.; F. G. Maier, Griechische
Manerbauinschriften, 1 (Heidelberg, 1959), no. 29, pp. 130-31 (cf. S.E.G., XIX
[1963], 374).

DESCRIPTION. Stele of white marble now in the Museum at Thebes,

complete only on the left side, the reverse decorated with palmettes. Height:
0.305 m. Width: 0.13 m. Height of letters: 0.008-0.009 m., but 0.005 m. for
omicron and omega. Apices. There are excellent photographs in Robert, op. cit.,
at the end, Plates X (stone) and XI (squeeze).

[- - - oirives els thy pidtav TH Here] -

oe > \ / \ ¢€ la

[pa]v mpooHAO[ov rpo rob 7 mpoojyayev IIdrAvos|

[Ac] Kiros 76 o[tpardmedov mpods THr]
modw Kopdve[vav, dws Kupievwor yapas|
, vA a Vd Up

kai oikiav Kat T&v drapydvrwy adrois:|

Tept TovTov Tob 7[pdyparos odTws edofev']
Orrws Goa Tote [adrév yeyovev, Ta Eav] -
Tav adrois éxer[v eq. edo€ev.]
~ b) A ” A ”

woadtws trept d[v of adrol Adyous errornoar] -

e 2 \ @® ¢ ? \ , > /

Io TO TEpl a&Kpas [------------ ]

teiyilew e[------------- ]
extos Tav [-------------- ]
TOYA

Text by Robert. 11 [6zws]| reuyilew é[Eqe or - - reryilew. €[Soéer].

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.3

1 See the commentary and note to the S.C. de Thisbensibus (No. 2).
2 A comparison of Il. 25-31 of the S.C. de Thisbensibus with the present decree will show that the
contents of both documents must have been quite similar.
3 Maier, op. cit., pp. 128-29, 131.

33
 EPISTULA P. CORNELII BLASIONIS
ET SENATUS CONSULTUM DE Between 175
AMBRACIOTIBUS ET ATHAMANIBUS and 160 B.C.

DHEGHGGDDGOOHHDSHOEEETOROOSSEEESESSSEEROSSS
SESS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Notice by W. Dérpfeld in Archdologischer Anzeiger, 1914,

p. 50; M. Holleaux, B.C.H., 48 (1924): 381-98 (Etudes d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire
Grecques, V [Paris, 1957], 433-47); L. Robert, S.E.G., III (1929), 451; L. R.
Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, American Academy in Rome,
Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960), p. 168.

DESCRIPTION. Discovered at Corcyra in 1912, now in the city museum

(Inv. no. 215). G. Fougéres and A. Plassart made copies and squeezes. A
photograph will be found in the original publication by Holleaux. A squeeze
was also made by Klaffenbach and was used by Viereck (notes). Height of
front face: 0.44 m. Maximum width of front face: 0.26 m. The lettering is
irregular and peculiar, the omicron and theta being very small and placed above
the line. Numerous other peculiarities may be observed in the photograph.

IIérXvos Kopy|7]Avos IIo] -

mXiov vies BAaciwv
OTPATIYOS Yuipew
Reyer &pyovar SHuar
te Kopxupaiwy: mpeoBev-
Tat AuBpaka@drar Kat
*"Abapéves €uot mpoc-
HABocar, tv’ adbrois avy-
KAntov 6. "Eyw adtots
sae) avykAntov cdwKe.
LvykAyrov Soya 10-
de coriv. IIpo wepadv
tTpiav vwvav Kovykt-
Niwy ey Kopetioi ‘ypa-
+S) pomevov Taphaay
Ivatos ’Eyve{ao}rios Dai-
ov vios X<7ynAativas, Ti-
tos ’Qdpidi0s Mépxov vi-

34
 SENATUS CONSULTA

os IomXias, Deios Lep-

20 Bpavios Aevxiov vi[ds]
tA / Ct pel

1 Kopy[y]Avos, Viereck (notes); others, Kop|vj|Avos. 1-2 IT[o]rAiov, Klaffenbach, but

Holleaux, aiov. 16 ETNAXTIOS“, stone. 17 LHAATINAS, stone.

COMMENTARY. There are three basic facts necessary for the proper understanding
of this document: (1) 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
decree. (3) 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 (Il. 12-20) was passed to authorize the friendly
state of Corcyra to act as arbitrator. We may confidently assume that Corcyra ac-
cepted the Senate’s ruling, for some fragments of the decision of the Corcyrean tribunal
have survived.' Such, in brief, would appear to be the purpose of the decree and its
covering letter.
The year in which P. Cornelius P. f. 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.2_ 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 (Il. 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 senatus
consulta to be dated on the basis of the presence or absence 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.3
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 38. 4). Pyrrhus made the city his capital, built a palace there,

I See I.G., [X, no. 690, and the remarks of Holleaux, op. cit., p. 438.
2 For the complicated method used to arrive at this date see Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 438-46. His dating
is accepted by Broughton, Magistrates, I, 438, who suggests that Cornelius 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. But after the Aetolians invaded Acar-
nania it joined the Actolian League (229 B.c.), while at about the same time Athamania,
to the east, declared itself'a separate kingdom under Amynander. It was captured by M.
Fulvius Nobilior in 189 B.c. and pillaged by the Roman Army, after which it was
separated from the Aetolian League and declared free (Livy 38. 44).

36
 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE SARAPEO
DELI INSULAE ca. 164 B.C.
HHOTOH
HGH SOSH
GHGNHDHSHSHSH
SAS SSHGHSHSSH
HS SHHgyH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Cug, “Le sénatus-consulte de Délos de l’an 166 avant

notre ére,” Mémoires de I’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 39 (Paris, 1912),
pp- 139-61 (cf. A. Thomas, Comp. Rend. Acad. Inscriptions, 1911, p. 834); R.
Cagnat and M. Besnier, A.E., 1912, no. 288; P. Roussel, “Le sénatus-consulte de
Délos,” B.C.H., 37 (1913): 310-22; P. Wahrmann, Berliner Philologische
Wochenschrift, 1914, cols. 403-7; P. Roussel, Les cultes égyptiens 4 Délos du IIT® au
I® siecle av. J.-C. (Paris, 1915), no. 14, pp. 92-94; idem, Délos colonie athénienne
(Paris, 1916), pp. 17, 27, 121; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger,
S.I.G.%, II (1917), 664; G. De Sanctis, Atti della 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. 1 (=Etudes d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques, V
[Paris, 1957], 440); Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman
Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 6, pp. 256-57; P. Roussel and M. Launey,
Inscriptions de Délos (Paris, 1926), no. 1510; W. A. Laidlaw, A History of Delos
(Oxford, 1933), pp. 178-79; J. A. O. Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T. Frank, An
Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 337, n. 1; Lewis—
Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. 1 (New York, 1951), no. 124; Johnson,
Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 33.

DESCRIPTION. This is a stele of white marble with three small projections

at the top in the form of acroteria, found in 1911 during the excavations at
Delos in the ruins of a building that may have been a sanctuary of Serapis.
Height: 1.00 m. Width: 0.33 m. Thickness: 0.11 m. Height of letters:
0.011 m. The letters are decorated with large apices.

Oi otparnyot Xopyider émyedn-

tet Arjrov yaipew ‘yevowevwv
mAevovwv Adywr ev Tet Bovdret
mept Tod Sdypatos ob HveyKev
éx ‘Pans Anuntpios ‘Pyvow-
evs brép TOV Kara TO Lapam-
efov: édofev pur) KwAvew od-
Tov avolyew Kal Deparedverv
TO tepov KaBdrrep Kal TpoTE-
Io pov, ypcapor dé Kal mpds oe TeE-

37
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

pt rovtwr iva «dfs: vmote-

\ , ¢ QA ¢

Ta&yapev S€ cou Kal TOO eve-

a ?

x9évros tm’ odbtod Sdéyparos

la e 9 2 A /

TO avriypadov.
Ay) tg

Koivtros Muxios Koivrou

vids oTparnyos Tet cvyKAN-
a /

Twi ouveBovAevoato ev Ko-

petit elduiots evTEepKCa>Aa-
[p] tous: ypadowevov mapihoav
20 TTémuos Iépxios [TorXiov, Te-
Bépios KAavditos TeBeptov
Kpvotopivas, Mevos Povry-
tos T'aiov: epi dv Anurrpros
oh \ © td

Pnvaios Adyous émoujoaro,

¢€ aA / > /

ows TO ev ArjAanx tepov Lapa-

U
25
midos adT@u Oeparrevey €-
Ect, AnXlous S€ cwdvew Kat
tov e€ ’AOnvav emapyov
Trapayiwopevov wi eAac-
30 cov Oeparever: mepi TovTou
Tob Tp&ypwatos oUTWSs €d0-
fev: Kabws To mpdTepov é-
Beparrevev, evecev Hu@v
Oeparevew eEcotw Tob
35 pn Te brevavtiov Tat THs
ovykAnrou Sdypore yivynra.
edo€ev.

1 First two words in rasura. The stone-cutter may have engraved OJYTATHT OI and then
corrected it. 6 The first alpha of Lapameiov is engraved over an erased epsilon, the spelling with an
epsilon perhaps reflecting that of the Latin original; cf. Roeder, R.E., s.v. “Sarapis,” col. 2395.
18 évrepKAcpiows may be a mistake for evrepKadapiows. 24 ‘Pnvatos (for “Pyvoweds ll. 5-6);
B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, and M. F. McGregor, eds., The Athenian Tribute Lists, vol. 1
(Harvard, 1939), “The Register,” pp. 392-93, where the usual form is ‘Pevowés, but where ‘Pevaciou
appears as well (for the year 443/42 B.c.). 34-35 Tod uy: For the construction see the S.C. de
Prienensium et Samiorum Litibus (No. 10) and Durrbach, op. cit., pp. 117-18.

COMMENTARY. In 167/66 B.c. 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

38
SENATUS 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 that 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
Senate, and won his point. A senatus consultum was drafted in his favor and he hurried
back to Athens to make known its contents. It was there decided at a meeting of the
Athenian boule (I. 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. f. had held office is unknown. Clearly the events took place
after 167/66 B.c., but how long after? Livy (45. 44. 2) gives us the names of the praetors
for 166 B.c., and our Q. Minucius is not one of them.? Since the praetor urbanus (or
peregrinus) in 165 B.c. may have been P. Cornelius Blasio, the next earliest year would be
164 B.c. And it is very reasonable to assume that the quarrel between Demetrius and
Athens developed very soon after 167/66 B.c. and the subsequent expulsion of the in-
digenous population. At present, however, we do not have the means of dating exactly
any of the officials mentioned in the document.

I He almost certainly belonged to a priestly family of Egyptian origin and had at some time in the past
acquired Delian citizenship. See Roussel, op. cit., pp. 319-20, and Durrbach, op. cit., pp. 119-20.
2 See Broughton, Magistrates, 1, 437. He tentatively lists Q. Minucius as praetor in 164 B.C. (p. 439).

39
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE PRIENENSIBUS
ET ARIARATHE (a, 150.B.C;

QHDHHGODDHHHSSSSHHGSSHSHTTSSSRSOOTEESYYSSS9999

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. L. Hicks, The Collection ofAncient Greek Inscriptions in

the British Museum, III (1886), nos. CCCCXXIV a-b; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus
(Gottingen, 1888), no. XXVIII (B only), pp. 50-51; W. Dittenberger, O.G.LS.,
I (1903), 351; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906),
39; E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum (Ithaca, 1947), pp. 123-24; D.
Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 117 and 202, II, 969, n. 93,
and 1097, n. 9; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes,
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. Measurements by Hicks. Height:
20 inches (=ca. 0.50 m.). Width: 13 inches (=ca. 0.33 m.). Fragment B:
broken only on the right; copied by A. S. Murray at Priene and later lost.
Height: 20 inches (=ca. 0.50 m.). The lettering is well done, with apices
throughout.

[prose eee Sp (eees ee oe

[------- T&v] pilwy tods avave|woopevous - - - ----- -]
[--------- ] émet yap "Apiapab[ns - ----------- ]
[-------- od]K ndvv7nOn dua TH[v------------- ]
[---------- ] Kat “Pwyaiwy rOv [------------- ]
[----------- ] 7@v olopevwy [------------- ]
[-------- ev Tau itlep@ur pera O[€ - ---------- ]
[-------------- | wiv cmox|[pivacbat - - - - - - - ]
[----2 222222 reese ] dw e[--+22222---
B
[------- "Apiapabys tiv ITpunvéwr] méAw trodvo[pxjcas]
[kal K] rHpa[r]o o[vdArjoas, wAetora] d€ Kal odpara [iduwtiKd Te Kel]
[Spd] ove cmlayayav --------- ] adets we[v-------- ]
[--]Ocu & "Opodepyns ev rau iepau [A]s ’A[Onvas mapaxarébero, &moxpiva-|

40
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[cOcu] adrots prravOpdam[ws: eédjo[fe---------- ovTe THs|

ovykAjrov ote Tod Sijpou emi OeAn[---------------- |
os* mept Te TovTWY TOV Tpaypdrw[v odrws Sofev: Tév Seiva mpos|
[B] aowrdo. “ArraAov Kat Baordréce Apuce [paOnv ypdapou rept rHs em-]
[S] pops otrw Kabds dv adbra&i él TOV Snpociwy Tpayuarwr miaredds|
pie) [Te ris iSias daivyra: eo€ev].

A 2 avave[woapevous tiv ovppayxiav, Hiller. 4-5 Perhaps i& 7O[v dmAwY Kparfqoou
TOV xpnuctwr, eumodiabeis t70 - - - |- - ‘Podiwv 2] Kat “Pwuciwy tay [- -, Hiller. 5-6
Perhaps [- - rijs r@v ‘EAArjvwv edvopias? Kal | edvolas mpoeord|twr, Hiller, acting upon
suggestion of Dittenberger to compare the phraseology of S.I.G.?, 304 (=S.I.G.%, 665), 1. 43.
7-8 For the general sense Hiller gives werd 8[é radra mpeoBevrav eAOdvrwv rape [Tpunvéwy
---| - Boer 7]uiv amox[pivacbou - - .
B 1-4 Cf. Polybius 33. 6 (below, n. 1). 2 woAAd, Dittenberger; wAeiora, Hiller. 2-3 (Sudrind
te Kat Snudlove Hiller, Opéupara, Hicks; wodAamdc]ove, Hicks, incorrectly; d&mfayayey,
Dittenberger. 7-8 Dittenberger. 8-10 Dittenberger and Hicks, but Viereck formerly had ézws
----- yptppara atroaretAnt mpos|| [Blacwda "Arradov Kat Baortéa "ApialpdéOnv, tve.
anéxwvrat THs eis THY IIpinvéwy ywpov ém|d]popjs.

COMMENTARY. In 159 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. After amassing a huge sum of money, he deposited 400 talents in the
Temple of Athena Polias in Priene as a safeguard against future misfortune. Early in
157 B.c. the Senate ruled that Orophernes and Ariarathes should rule jointly. However,
Ariarathes considered such an arrangement impossible and immediately enlisted the help
of Attalus II of Pergamum. The two kings soon drove out Orophernes. When
Ariarathes then attempted to withdraw the 400 talents from the temple at Priene, that
city refused to surrender the money to anybody but the original depositor. Ariarathes
and Attalus again joined forces, and an army marched on the city. Priene appealed to
Rhodes for help and then to Rome.! Our two documents refer to the situation at this
precise moment.

1 The single most important source for this entire incident is Polybius 33. 6, and because of its direct
bearing upon the present document it must be quoted in full:
"Ort kare Tovds Kaipods ToUTous Kol ITpunvets evérrecov TrapaAdyw avudopd. Sedpevor yap
nap’ "Opogépvous, 51” exparnae Tis dpyis, ev mapabjkn retpuxdova t&hovta amprodvrTo
Kate Tovs EAs xpdvous bm’ ’Apiapabov, dre pereAaBe tiv apyyv. of pev odv ITIpinveis, ws
euol Soxeiv, dpOds toravro, dackovres pndevi mpojoecIau 7% xprpara Cavros ’Opodpepvous
adi abt 7H rapabenevy: 6 8 ’ApiapeéOns troddois eddKet mapamimrew Tod KaOnKovtos,
dmrourav tiv &AAoTplav rapabjkny. od pnv GAN Ews pev TovTou Tay’ av Tis ExoL OvyyY@pnV
adt@ Karamepalovte TO Soxeiv ris éxeivov Baorrelas elvau tx xpyjpara To de Kol Trop-
pwrépw mpoBalvew dpyis Kal furorysias oddapds eddner yeveobou Kata Noyov. Kard bé
rods viv Aeyopévous Kaupods eramoareiAas eAenAcrer Ti xdpow Trav ITpunvéwv, ovvepyobvros
’"Arrddov Kal mapokdvovtos adrov Sia tH iSiav Svadopav, iv elye mpos tovs IIpinveis.

41
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Fragment A is either a decree of Priene (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. Line 8 would seem to support
Hiller’s view. In its present state one can only say that it included a résumé of the affair
up to the moment of writing. Fragment B is the decree of the Roman Senate, which
was favorable to Priene (I. 5) 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.2 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. The war ended in
154 B.C. with Pergamum vindicated and Prusias defeated.

TOAD S€ Kai cwpaTtwv Kat Opeupetwv arrodopevwy Kal mpds TH TdAEL TTWEATwWY Yyevo-
pevwr, apvvacbou pev ody oloi 7 haav of IIpunveis, empéaBevov dé Kat pds ‘Podious, wera
8€ tabr’ emi ‘Pwpaiovs carépvyov. ot 8 od mpocetyov Tots Aeyouevors. Kat [Ipunveis pev
peyddas €xovres eArridas emt TH TAHOE TOV ypnuctwv Tois evartiois evexvpnoav: T@ wev
yep “Opodépver tiv trapabjkny amédwxav, bd Sé tod Baotkéws "Apiapabov ikavats tiat
BAcBous meprérreaov adixws dia THY TrapabhKnv.
Some further details may be found in Diodorus 31. 32. For modern accounts see Hansen, op. cit.,
pp. 123-23, and Magie, loc. cit. P. V.M. Benecke, C.A.H., VIII (1930), 281, appears to be unaware of
the existence of the present decree. M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., III (1941), 1520, n. 71, mentions
the very difficult economic situation of Priene in this period. An excellent survey of the entire
Ariarathes-Orophernes affair will be found in the account by Th. Lenschau in R.E., s.v. “Orophernes,”’
cols. 1168-71. The fact that Orophernes had presented the city of Priene with many gifts (ibid.,
cols. 1169-70) may have influenced the city in showing such noteworthy loyalty to its greatest
depositor.
2 See Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 96-115. For the relationship of the cities in Asia to Rome see
Magie, op. cit., 1, 111-18, with the notes in II, 958-69. The attempt to preserve a balance of power in
the Greek East after Pydna no doubt reflects the laissez faire attitude of the Senate. This attitude
changes in about 155-154 B.c.; see H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics 220-150 B.c. (Oxford, 1951), pp.
232-36.
3 For the attack and the war as a whole see Magie, op. cit., pp. 316-17, and, of the older accounts the
most detailed, B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten, III (Gotha, 1903), 326-28.
For Prusias’ route into the Pergamene kingdom see L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), pp.
112-18. The most recent account of the war is that of Christian Habicht in Hermes, 84 (1956): 101ff.

42
SENATUS CONSULTA

The date of the decree can be determined only by considering the historical back-
ground of the times. Orophernes 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
the Pergamene kingdom in 156 B.c. or after it, around the end of 154 8.c. But I cannot
see Orophernes leaving his 400 talents in Priene untouched for two or more years after
his explulsion from Cappadocia. Accordingly, I would like to place the decree in 156
B.C., almost on the very eve of Prusias’ attack, but the lack of precise information on the
chronology precludes positive dating for the document. About 156 B.c. is as much as
one should say.

43
 EPISTULA M. AEMILIT ET SENATUS
CONSULTUM DE MAGNETUM ca. the middle of the
ET PRIENENSIUM LITIBUS second century B.C.
[Squeeze]

QHHHHAHDGAHDHDSHOSHDS
DOGS SOD SUSSSOSSSHHSaS9

BIBLIOGRAPHY. O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin,

1900), 93 b; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, II (1900), 928; J. Partsch, Die
Schrififormel im rémischen Provinzialprozesse (Breslau, 1905), pp. 27ff.; G. Colin,
Rome et la Gréce de 200 4 146 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 509-10; F. Hiller von
Gaertringen, Die Inschrifien von Priene (Berlin, 1906), 531 Il B; M. N. Tod,
International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), pp. 44-45; M.
Holleaux, B.C.H., 38 (1914): 67, n. 2 (Etudes d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques, 1
[Paris, 1938,] 334-35); F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.,3
II (1917), 679 Il b; M. Holleaux, B.C.H., 48 (1924): 384-86 and 396-98 (Etudes
d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques, V [Paris, 1957], 436-37 and 446-47; cf. S.E.G.,
IV [1929], 508); A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 15 (1937): 26ff.; V. Arangio-Ruiz,
Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani2, pt. 3 (Florence, 1943), pp. 501-4; D. Magie,
Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 113-14, and II, 964, n. 82;
Lewis—Reinhold, Roman Civilization I (New York, 1951), 336-37; Johnson,
Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 38.

DESCRIPTION. White marble inscribed on all four sides, from the southwest
corner of the agora in Magnesia. Height: 0.50 m. Width: 0.83 m.
Thickness: 0.83 m. Height of letters: 0.01 m.

[- - Adypo 76 Kopicbev map|a THs cvyKAjrov{v} ‘Pw[watwy bd tov

anooTadévtwr mpecBevt
dr]
35 [dep tv mpods ITIpunvets.] Meiapxos Aiptdos Macprov [vids orparnyds
Mvdacéwv|
[BovAje Kat Spar xai|pew. mpeoBevtal Mayrytes xa[t IIpinvets éuot
mpoo7Adooar|
[orws adbrots obyxA|nrov 8&1: tovrous eye adyKAntov &S[wKa. ovyKArrov
Sdypa mpo jpe-|
[p@v--------- |Bpiwv ey Koperian ypadopevov mapialav - - - - - ]
[------- Po ?|vrijos Kotyxrov ITamepia, Tiros Mé&dXos Dal- - - - - - - - |
40 [-------- ] wept dv Mayvy|re|s mpeoBevrat [Iv0d8wpos
“HpaAl[evtos - - - - év-]

44
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[Spes Kado Keyab] ol rapa Siuov Kodod Kat ayoBod Kai pidov ovp.[ucyou Te Hyere-]
\ > \ \ / lo Siew “A

[pov Kara mpdow] mov Adyous eroujoavto Kal wept Sv IIpinveis

\ / /

mpe|oBeutal - - - - - - ]
[-------- ]vns avdpes KocAot Kal eyabot Kat iro. mrapc Sipuov KaAod Kall
EA \ \ >

ayaBod Kol pi-]

[A]ov o[v] upctyou re uetépov Kard mpdcwrov Adyous ETOLNTAVTO TEpL 7S
te ¢€ /, \ /, G4)

45 xwpas eLexwpnoav Mayrnres cal rv karoyny tadrns ris ydpas eeyes [pyoavr|
tA 2 te Ud \ \ ~

Snort ITpinvéwy xara 6 rhs cvyKdAjrou Sdypc Srrws Kpirhprov S009: rept
/ : Ni \ ~ /

to[vrov Tod]
Tpayuatos ovTws edokev'
7 4 mw
Omws Méapxos AipvdAvos Macpxov vids orpaurnyds
5[jpov é-|
e[¥] Oepov Kpiriyy Sax, ds dv ev adbtots duddoyos yernO:
, \ ~ b) a a
edv 8 ev adrots aA

opodoyos [p7 yivn-]

(4 /

tat, orws Maapxos Ali] utAvos Macpxov vids orparnyos Sipov éAevbepov
id 4,

Kpitn |v da]
50
el
S$ ToUTOUs TOUS Adyous oUTwWS, KxAws av abtadi ex TOV Snuociwy Tpayyatw |v
4, 4 Xr / 4 A nn > ~ > ~ / U

mlaTe-|
Ws Te THs idlas paivnra: dokev: ds Kpwet Meyvnow Kai [Ipunvedow wept
7 Lol 297 LA al lol

tav[tns THs]
xXapas tis mapa ITIpinvéwy arroxexpysrerns ovons, €€ Hs xdpas Mayrytles éav-]
rd ~ A ae

TOVs epaucav EKkeywpnKEevat, OTPOTEPOV AV TOUTWY SHuwWY EvploKnTaL TAUTHV

xwpav eiaynKevan, STE els THY PiAiay Tod Siypov Tob ‘Pwyaiwy rapeyevero, radTn |v]
1A A lon

55 THY Xopav Grrws adTa. mpookpivyn dpic te oTHon: dokev- WoatTws TeEpl dv ot
adtrot IIpi-
nvets mpeoBeutal Kara mpdawrov mpos Mayvnras mpecBevtas Adyous errovjouv-
~ ‘ MS / \ 4 ‘ / 2 /

TO TeEpl aduKnpctwr & adbtots Meyvntes TremoiKeroay, Trept TOUTOU mp&ypLaTos Ov-
tws €do€ev, 61ws Maapxos AipvAvos Macpxov vids otpatnyos Tov adtov Sfjpov
Z8 i 4, > 7, "4 e\ \ ‘ ? \ lol

[kpiv] au KeAeva[n], ds av rept ywpas KpiTis Sedopévos 7, Os Kpwet Taira

GOUKH LATA EL ‘yeyo-
[vor] eioty dd Mayrvijtwy, dcov av Kaddv Kal Sikaov daivnrar, Svarysnotobw,
/ 1 ea, | e A if i a“ \ \ / / /
60
Kal OWS
[ets] Tov odrdv Sqwov Kpitiv Maapros Aiwtdvos Macpkov vios otparnyos mept
‘ \ > \ ~ AY Ul Ai (i Ud e\ \ \

TOUTWY TOV
[mpay]ucrwr ypeppora d@1, mpos iv av Nuepav EKaTEpoL TOpHyiVwYTOL TpOS
Zt Pd ~ on “a an ¢ , ¢ / / \

ExaTEpa TH Kpi-
[wor]o [Kal cub”) A[v &]v jdpay xpivwoil.... d]mws Kat [----]

36 enol mpooHAOov or mpoa7jAPoowy, Holleaux, also Viereck (notes); Adyous émoujoavro Hiller.
39 DalApva or Dal Bia, Kern, Holleaux. 40 Meyvr|re]s, Hiller; Mcyvn(re)s, Kern. The squeeze
is next to useless at this particular point. Two, not three, names followed. 43-44 Perhaps «ot
didlov should be omitted. 48 éAe[¥]Gepov. The squeeze shows a badly worn area on the stone.
63 [Kat Kab] A[v é]v, Hiller, Viereck (notes). I cannot detect the efa on the squeeze. Kern saw
nothing between xpi[waro and juépav.

45
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. Somewhere in the vicinity of Priene 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.!_ 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. f., to appoint some free state as arbitrator, one which both Priene and
Magnesia might find 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.2. 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 Lepidus Porcina (cos. 137, praetor in 140 at the latest). Holleaux believed the
date to be about the same as that of the letter of P. Cornelius Blasio which contains the
Senatus Consultum de Ambraciotibus et Athamanibus (above, No. 4), that is, about 175-160
B.c.5 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
this particular dispute between Priene and Magnesia, for there were five documents that

1 That the present quarrel was not the only one between the two cities may be seen in Kern, op. cit.,
93 a, ll. 26-28 (= S.I.G.3, II, 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: 6 djju0s
vuknoas TO Sedrepov IIpunveis thu brép THs xwpas Kpiloe emt Mvra|cd] wv Sixaorypiov xa.
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.
2 Most probably this took place at the conclusion of the war with Antiochus or very soon thereafter.
Tacitus in his Annals (3. 62) states that after the defeat of Antiochus (190 B.c.) L. Scipio paid homage
to the loyalty and courage of Magnesia by making the Temple of Artemis inviolable. Priene had
been free ever since Apamea (Polybius 33. 6; cf. S.I.G.3, II, 688).
3 Holleaux, Etudes, V, p. 447.
4 Broughton, Magistrates, I, 443 with n. 2 for the former, and 472 with n. 1 forthe latter. He lists M.
Aemilius Lepidus Porcina under the year 143 B.c., but, as he notes, the date is not assured.
5 Op. cit., p. 446.

46
SENATUS CONSULTA

Magnesia had engraved on 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. The second is our letter of M. Aemilius and its accom-
panying senatorial decree. The third is lost. The fourth contains the final decision of
the Mylasan arbitrators, and the fifth 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 from Priene and Magnesia, it had been settled originally by Athe-
nian emigrants and had become an independent city in its own right.7_ In the Hellenistic
age, however, it had been absorbed by Miletus and then in turn acquired by Philip V,
who gave it to the Magnesians in return for food to feed his army.’ In 196 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.2 It may have been the northern part of that land over
which the present quarrel between Priene 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 the Prienean and the Magnesian advocates on
the spot, and retired to the Temple of Apollo in Myus. It is wholly possible therefore
that the land in question originally had formed part 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.!°

6 S.I.G.3, 679 I-V.

7 For the history of Myus see the account by W. Ruge in R.E., s.v. “Myus,” cols. 1430-37. Cf. also
the remarks of L. Robert, Villes d’ Asie Mineure? (Paris, 1962), p. 55; idem, Hellenica, 2 (1946): 88, n. 3;
and Magie, op. cit., II, 883-84.
8 For Philip’s possession of Myus and subsequent gift to Magnesia see Polybius 16. 24. 9: 10 Kat
Mvoivros Kupievous tots Méyvnow éexapicauto To xwptov avti Trav avKwv.
9 $.I.G.3, 588 (Miletus).
10 That Magnesia had acquired the northern part of the old land once probably belonging to Myus is
spelled out in the terms of the treaty between Miletus and Magnesia (S.I.G.3, 588, ll. 28-32). Hiller
(n. 2 in S.I.G.3, 679 a) believed that the land over which Priene and Magnesia had quarreled was north
of the Maeander and between the two cities, for 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
arose. One cannot wholly agree with this reasoning. The text reads (Il. 9-11): (Succeoreel) ol Kau
eredOdvres [emi rHv xdpav 7] uépas Kat mretovas dujKovoay Tapaxphuc Te ert TOY TomWV
[kod were radra ev] tau lepdu rob ’ArdAAwvos Tod eu Mvodv7r. In this passage I would read
[xat exéOccav ev] tau tepdu xrA. on the analogy of S.I.G.3, 685, ll. 28-29, and I.G., XII, suppl.
(1939), 142, C, ll. 122-23. Lines 9-11 mean merely that after the Mylasan arbitrators listened to the
arguments from both cities “‘on the spot” (that is, on the disputed area), they retired to the Temple
of Apollo in Myus for divine guidance in reaching a decision. The temple could have been two
miles or twenty miles away from the disputed area. 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. Cf. M. N. Tod, op. cit., pp. 140-42.

47
 EPISTULA P. SEXTILIIT CUM
SENATUS CONSULTO Second Century B.c.?

HOAGDHDHAHHHHHHTTTS
SOOO EEESUSOSEEESOSESSSRSS9

BIBLIOGRAPHY. N. Giannopoulos, ’E¢ ’Apy., 1934-35, no. I, pp. 149ff.,

L. Robert, Etudes épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), pp. 287-88, n. 1;
T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Il (New York, 1952),
4065.

DESCRIPTION. Found at Triccala in Thessaly. The stone is 0.25 m. high,

0.24 m. wide, and 0.20 m. thick. The letters are 0.005 m. high.

IIémdvos Le€atino|s - - - - - - - - oTpo-|

Tyos ‘Pwpoiwr, KO| - - - - - Tots Tayois]
Kal 7H BovdAn xaip[ew: ------- mpe-|
ymatos KaAds y[wwoKw? -------- ]
dpiv ey avy[KAnrov edwKa - - - - - - ]
te Tpixkai[wy ------------- ]
mpo Hueplav vel @v---------- ]
ey kope|[tiw: ypadouéevov maphaay - - - -]
ENTENSS
Fai ASS Zetori-|
10 Atos [~~ ales win wel we am ]

Text by Robert. Viereck (notes) had recognized it as a senatus consultum. 8 Alternative

spelling, ypadopeve.

48
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE
NARTHACIENSIUM ET MELITAEENSIUM
LITIBUS Ca. 140 B.C.
HOHGHHGGHHSHASHSAHSOHAHHSHAHSHSHOSOHOSSSsysggg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. B. Laticheff, B.C.H., 6 (1882): 356-87; P. Willems, Le

Sénat de la république romaine, vol. 1 (Louvain, 1885), app., pp. 708-14; H. G.
Lolling, Athen. Mitt., 10 (1885): 284-85; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (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. 18ff.; E. De Ruggiero, L’arbitrato pubblico
presso i Romani (Rome, 1893), pp. 251ff.; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, I (1898),
307; A. Wilhelm, Géttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1903, p. 795; 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. Hiller 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. 258-61; F. Stahlin, R.E., s.v. ““Narthakion,” cols. 1760-64; idem,
Philologus, 88 (1933): 130-32; G. Daux, B.C.H., 57 (1933): 97; S. Accame, II
dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 69-70,
217-24; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), no. 133, pp.
333-34; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Il (New
York, 1952), 643; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes,
no. 39.

DESCRIPTION. A grayish stone found near the Thessalian village of

Limogardi, where ancient Narthacium must have been located. The
inscription is engraved on two of its sides, the front face being crowned with a
cornice and the other decorated in the Byzantine period by a semicircle. Height
of the front face is 0.67 m., width 0.345 m. Height of the other side is 0.68 m.,
width 0.425 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.

49
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[Xrpar] wyéovros Tav Ocooadadv Aovro[s]

[rod ‘Ay]notarov Aapioaiov, év dé Napbariw |]
[txyevdv] wv Kpitwvos rob ’Apewia, [TohuKAéos
[rob Dew] dSiamov, PAavKéera rob ’"Ayedcov, av[e| -
[ypadn 70] Sédypa ro yevouevov bro avyKA[7] -
/ \ / \ if S. \ Dr 4

[tov emi a] tparnyot trav Ocooaddv Ocaoa-

[Aod rob] Opacvprdeos Pepaiov. vv
[Pcios “Oc]ridvos Avdov vios Mayxivos orpa-
[rny0s T] fe ouyKAjrar cvveBovAedauto mp0
10 [pw] vadv KoivriAtwy ey Kopetion ypado-
[weve tr] aphoav Koivtos <2>rariAunvos Koivrov
[vios Kop] vnAia, Ivatos Aorarios I'vaiov vio[s]
(A... .Av]on, AddAos Leumpevios AvAov vios Ba-
[A€pve.] vv sept dv Oecoadol Med rauets “Apud-
+S) [Eevos Av] cavdpov, Aaympdpuayos [oXira
[mpeoBev| tat Adyous erroujaavro, avdpes Kc-
\ / > / +

[Aoi Kay] abot Kat Piror mapa dHpov Kadob

[xayoBo]6 Kot pirov cuppcyou <Te>, xapuTa
> ~ \ / Us /

[prrtav o]uppoayiay Te aveveddourto, TeE-

20 [pt xwpas] Snuooias Kal rept ywpiov éprov
[etracav ?], weB” Fs ywpas els Hu pirtav Tob
Ww 2 Fk / > A / ~

[Sjyou T]o6 ‘Pwyaiwy vy mapeyévovto, ny xw-

[pov NapOa] xvets were rabra éavta@v adicws
[eaoujnoavr|o, rept TovTov Tob mp&ypwatos STrws
25 [rHv Sicvor] av mpdo<a>ywow, dws TobTo TO TpE-
[yu aKépa]vov adrots aroKxaraorabh obtw
[xabws mpdrepoly émi Mydetun Kal emi Occoadrdv
(eae Jey Kat emt rdv rept ITvAov Make-
[Sovey Kexps] uevov adrots jv, Taira Te TH K[pi| -
30 [mara Kvpiox drrw|s 7° mept TovTov Tob mp&ypa-
[ros ouvevddx|noev jyiv Kat Nopbakrebow
[Grws tov ay@v)a tov rapdvra Kpivyn eu M[eA] -
a7 \ > ~ A / / ?

fretei(?)\inc we: ely ravdrne THe ywpale....... ]

[.. audorépwr] tdv Sypwv é[mitperdvrwr]
> / aA / > /

35 epee: ] €or du pal-------------- ]

[- - -]on|..]um[- - Kat wept dv Oeooadoi]

[Naplactets Nltxdras Tal)... .yasennee ]
[eaters , mpeoBe| vrai Adyo[us] ér[oujoavTo Kara]
[mpdowrov ev thu] avyKArjr[we cévdpes KadAol]
40 [xaryo.] Bot Kod Pirou rapa Sypov Ka[Aod Ka] -
[yaBod Kali PirA[ov cvpycyxov te Hperepov xe] -

50
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[pura iA] dav ov [u]voalyiav re cvevedourto kat]

/

[wept rOv mpay|ucrw[v rdv Kad’ cedtods dted€| -

x ~ aA

[y] noav mepi xdpas [Kat] E[e]p [Sv epi TH|s TE\ a a

> /
ad[n]pn[wevns] ris Kare Mer] a[0] das &pyis Nap-
~ A ~
45
Baré[w]v [rar] ev r[A Ayouiac[e-
, aA
Kod yap] wera ra[vrns|
> a > / s \ \ 5 \

t[f]s xwpas ets rH [fh] Ala[v] 7 [od 8%] wou [rod ‘Pw -
“a Bs ? \ / ~ lol

[p] atw[v] Nopboxvets rapoy[eyover] cu [x] ol mept

/ a

THs xwpas Kal TOV lepdv Kpityplors [ver] nx [é]-

50 vou KaTa vopous Tods Occoadrdr, ofs [vd] -
Hows ews ta[v] dv yp@v[r] cu, ods vopous Titos
Kotyktwos braros ao ths Tv SéKa mpec-
Bevrdv yrabpns ewxev, Kai Kare Sdypa
ovyKAnrou, mept Te ToUTWY TOV TPAYLE-
55 [tw]v ere: avwtepov tpitw emt rpidv Sikac-
[77] ptwy verixnevon, emi Lopiwv, Kodro[d] wr [i] -
[wv,] Mayrirev, cer [pr] uevee elvow Kar& vopov[s],
o A ,
OTws THOTA KUpLA Hmt OUTWS, KAAS\ Kal Nee:&AXOLS
yeyoves €oTw: mTepl TovTOU TOD Tpa&yyaTos
60 ovtws edofev-
4
yapita dirlav ovppaylav
4 4 / /

[a] vavewoucba tovtos te pilavOpwtws &-

> / Li vA >

ToKpiOjvar, avdpas KaAovs Kayabods mpoc-

ayopetou, Gon KeKpiyweva eoTly KaTa VouLoUS
ovs Tiros Kotyxtios traros eOwKev, TadTa, Ka-
a“ / oh a yA ~

65 Oas Kexpyreva eotiv, odtw SoKet Kipic elvou Seiv-

TOUTS TE pn) EDYEpes Elvou, Goa KATA VopoUS KE-
Kpipeva €otiv akupa troveiv. Edvica Te Exatépors I'ai-
, >? \ »” aA , Ul ¢ , it Fee

os “Ooridtos otpatnyos Tov Tapioy dobvat Ke-

[A] evon ard onoteptiwy vopwy Exarov eikoot
70 [wé]pre eis Exchorny mpeoBetav, odTw Kalas cv
[adra&u ex] TOv dypociwy mpayyatwv Ticte-
[ws te THs] Wias paivnrar: Eedofev. w

Text based upon those of Laticheff and Viereck, except where noted. 3 [rayevdv]rwr, Stahlin
and Accame; [apyov]rwy, others. 4 Pex]dirzov, Lolling; Kv]8irmov Laticheff. 11 The first sigma
of LrariAunvds was omitted by the engraver. 13 Apvyjvlon or Avijv|on. 18 Viereck added re.
21 [etacar], Wilamowitz, but Kern seems to see Y before pe” Hs. If Y is right, there may have
been another noun or adjective in the genitive in this place. Viereck, however, feels the need of a
verb at this point (notes). 22 The engraver seems to have inscribed POMAIQNQN and to have
erased the second QN (Kern). 26° Axépou ?Jov, Kern. 28 Laticheff transcribed part of a mutilated
omega followed by a clear nu at the very beginning of the line, likewise Kern. Viereck rightly
indicates (Sermo Graecus, and notes) that one expects here the name of some Thessalian city that
had formerly rendered a decision about the land in question. 30 d7rw]s 4, Kern; adroi]s 7), others.
32 eu M[cAcretou ?, Kern. 33 rovrnp: it is uncertain whether the iota is on the stone, for the space

51
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

there is badly worn. 34 €[mrpemdvrwy], Dittenberger. 35 pa, stone; [d]a, Kern. 36 IHIINHIII
stone. 43-46 restored by Dittenberger and Viereck (notes).

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 the Narthacians 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 judgments
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 legati, approved by a decree of the Senate.”
Then they cite, in particular, a decision concerning the land, won by Narthacium before
a composite tribunal whose members came from Samos, Colophon, and Magnesia.!
The Senate then passed the present decree in favor of Narthacium.
Since the presiding magistrate, C. Hostilius Mancinus, had been consul in 137 B.c., his
praetorship may be dated in 140 B.c. at the latest, under the Lex Villia.2 The early
editors of this decree (Laticheff, Viereck, Kern, Hiller, and Abbott-Johnson) believed
that it must have been passed prior to 146 B.c., for they saw that in it Thessaly is free and
not subjected to the authority of the Macedonian governor. Objections to such a date
for the decree were first advanced by Daux, Stihlin, and Accame. It was shown in
great detail by Accame that after 146 B.c. all of Greece was divided into two parts, one
connected with the province of Macedonia, the other independent.3_ There is therefore
no valid objection to a date after 146 B.c. for the decree. And since it has been shown
that the Thessalian officials, whose names are given in the decree, held office toward 140
B.C., it was very probably in that year that Hostilius was praetor and presided over the
Senate. Thessaly belonged 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.

‘ Tod’s interpretation of the phrase emi tpid@v dixao[rn]piwy appears to be the correct one and
it is here accepted.
2 Broughton, op. cit., I, 480, and II, 643.
3 Op. cit., pp. I-15.
4 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;
Agesilaus 2. 2) in connection with the expedition of Agesilaus in 394 8.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.

Jo
 lO
SENATUS CONSULTA
DE PRIENENSIUM ET SAMIORUM A: before 135 B.C.
LITIBUS B: 135 B.C.

QHAHGHAHTADGSHAS
HOD HOOS SAO DSSHRSESSSSYSSSSHSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. R. Chandler, Inscriptionum Syllabus, p. VI, F 6 and G;

A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), 2905, F 6 and G 7; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage
archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), nos. 195-99; E. L.
Hicks, The Collection ofAncient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Ill (1882),
nos. CCCCIV-CCCCV;; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), nos.
XIII-XIV, pp. 19-22; E. Sonne, De Arbitris externis, quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad
lites et intestinas et peregrinas componendas, quaestiones epigraphicae (Diss.,
Gottingen, 1888), nos. XIX-XX, pp. 13-14; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, I (1898),
315; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906), nos.
41-42; M. N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913),
nos. LXIII-LXIV, pp. 42-43; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger,
S.1.G.3, I (1917), 688 (B only); D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), 1 114, and II, 965, n. 84; F. Ceruti, Epigraphica, 17 (1955): 138; Johnson,
Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 41 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. These
included, among others, the dedication of the temple itself in 334 B.c. by
Alexander (Hiller, Inschriften von Priene, no. 156 [=M. N. Tod, Greek
Historical Inscriptions, M1, 184]); an edict of Alexander (ibid., no. 1 [=Tod, op. cit.,
II, 185]); a decree of the city granting divine honors to King Lysimachus (ibid.,
no. 14 [=O.G.1.S., 11]); the answer of Lysimachus to Priene (ibid., no. 15
[=C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven,
1934), no. 6]); the celebrated record of the Rhodian arbitral tribunal concerning
a dispute between Samos and Priene (ibid., no. 37); the Senatus Consultum de
Prienensibus et Ariarathe (ibid., no. 39 [= No. 6 of the present volume]); and the
present two senatus consulta (ibid., nos. 40-41). Our two decrees were
immediately to the right of Inschriften von Priene no. 37, near the bottom of the
cella wall. They are now in the British Museum.
A (Inschriften von Priene no. 40): 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: 0.59 m. Height of letters: 0.015 m.
The stone contains lines 1-10 only of A, for line 11 is found on the upper edge
of the stone containing B. Hicks (op. cit., no. CCCCYV, p. 20) assumed that
this single line might indicate the existence of still another senatorial decree
between A and B, line 11 forming its conclusion. Hiller, however, felt that the
stone containing A rested directly upon the one containing line 11 and B, and A

54
 SENATUS CONSULTA

therefore considered line 11 as the concluding line of A. An uninscribed space

of one line separates line 11 from the beginning of B.
B (Inschriften von Priene no. 41): four fragments of wall stones of bluish
marble. The early copy of Le Bas is here very valuable, for the stones were
badly damaged before 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 (1): 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
Inschriften von Priene no. 37 y. The measurement of this fragment, like that of
the other three, is given by Hicks. Height: 103 inches (=ca. 0.27 m.).
Width: 564 inches (=ca. 1.435 m.). Fragment (2): contains about the last
two-thirds of the ends of lines 1-7. Height: 103 inches (=ca. 0.27 m.).
Width: 384 inches (=ca. 0.977 m.). Fragment (3): found on the same stone as
Inschriften von Priene no. 37 z, but on the right side of the stone. It 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. 0.228 m.). Width: 133 inches
(=ca. 0.349 m.).

[------------------ €a|tw: Kal ep[t dv of]

[aroorahevtes rapa IIpinvéwy mpeoBevtat &vdpes KaAol Kal] a&yaBol Kat pidor
Tra |[pa dHpov]
[kadod Kat &yalod Kal Pidrov Adyous erroujoavtTo cuppoyi] av TE KvevedourTo,
[Kot zre-|
[pt ris xdpas, hv A€yovow éavTav yeveaBou mpiv €Andv] Pévoeu eis exeivyv THV
yopav M[cv-|
[Avov Kal rods d€ka mpecBevtds, 6mws TadTyv Ex] wow: Kal dow KpiTnpLE
Kexpyseve: ei [t|
[wept radrns THs ywpas, Omws Tadra maévra avor]ewOR Kal pravOpwrrws {re} adrois
A = / > a

omroKpt-
[04- ofev- Kai doa [Ipinvets Aéyovow emt to] aabra érn Karéxew exeivns THS
xwpas,
[epi rovtwv odtw, KaBdds Kol “Pddior K]e[K] pixaow, odTws Soret elvan el Oe Ti
eoTw
[evarriov dv cdpropeve bd Avi] ydvov eoriv, ovtws paiverou detv elvar: Edict
TE av-
[rots &mooreiAon Tov Toplav Ews dard vd] pwr onoTEpTioV EKarov EiKoaL TEVTE
\ w ,

10
Kal? Excornv
(
[mpeoBetav], nabasbs dv adrar éx€ t[Gv
av abrau f mpayy
Dv 6 dnuooiwy :
aypatwv BeAtiore (?)
dl ain[r]ou edoFe[v].
Adypo 76 Kopiobev mapa tis ov[yKAjrov ‘Pwyatov ind t]@v amooradévrwy
~ > ld
(2)
mpeaBevta@v brép Tv mpos Laptous
~ ~ / ‘

épovios Bédovros Koivrov vids ot[paryyds t]waros rie ovedjror avveBovAevouro

~ / /

ey KOpETiot TPO NMLE-

A. ¢

55
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

pv mévre ciSvidv DeBpoupiwv. A

ypadopu [ever map| joav Aevxvos Tpeurdvos Ivatov
A iP.

Kapedria, D'cos ”“Avvios Taiov

Kopedria, v Aed«vos "Avios Aevxiov Ilo[AXig. m]epi dv Ldpror mpecBevrau
A

Tnr€uayos Mérpwvos, Aewv A€ovtos,

avdpes Ka[Aol Kat d&yoBol Kat Pidor apc Syuol[v Kadob] Kol ayabod Kai pidov
ovppcyou TE NweTepov v Adyous EeTroHTaVTO
Kare mpd[a]wzov mpos IIpunv[e]is m[ept x] pas [Kat dpiwv, érws dow], xadws
Tvaiofi}s McévAvos Kot ot S€xa mpeoBevrai diérafar
[wera Tov mpos ’Avrioyor moAeuov: Kat rept dv IIpinvets mpecBevrot
--- eee eee Jpou, v "Aval[E]i[--------],
[Z] nvddoros ae [réuwpos a] pecs KaAol c&yabot Kat pidror m[apa Sypov Ka]Aod (4)
Kat &y[abod] cvppcyou te [juerépov]
Adyous erojnca[vrTo Kar]& mpdow|[mov mp]os Sapiov[s] wept ywpas Kat rept opiwv,
4 > / ‘ / \ Uf \ 4 \ biel Bet 2

dmws odtw|s d]ow, cabas 6 Sfjuos 6 ‘Podiwv

Li 4 > XN ¢ onl ¢€ ‘P. éu

Io éxarépwy Oedrdv[T] wv expwev* epi todTov Tob mpéyuato[s amoxp.] Ojvou ovTws
e; , / ” . \ ye ~ /, > ~ 4

eSofev Hiv odk edy[ep|es {elvar} eorw pera-

” € ~ > > ld >

etvar & 6 Shuos 6 ‘Podiwy éxatépwv OedAdvrwy KéKpi[Ke K]od dp[topor] mezotnran,
Tob [7] TovTax Ta. Kpiuare Kat Tov[ToLs Tots dpiors]
eupeivwow: tlovt]w. Te Tat Kptuate Kat Tov[ToLs Tots pious eupever|v edokev
Tovtows Te E€viov eis ExcoTHY mpeaBelav ews
aro onoTepTiwy vouwy éxatov eikoor [L€povios P| dA[o]wos Koivrov daaros tov
> | / / ¢ \ w , ®@ 5A Ki / 4 \

Taploy cmooretAu Ke[Aevodrw Kal mpatérw],

\ n wae
Kaas cv adra&. ex> [tT] @v
A ,
Snuociwy ,
mpaypétwv [KalView SOE
ris dias ,
mic] Te [ws
pauirnrou|. dokev.

A Text with restorations as given by Hiller in his Die Inschriften von Priene, but in lines 1-3 and
10 Hicks had already given the restoration, suggesting, however, afuxdpevorinstead of &ooraAevtes
in line 2. Viereck originally had ep[i dv Lc|.101] in lines 1-2, which he later abandoned (notes).
B 4 After KapeAAle space for a single letter is uninscribed. Similar spaces are seen in lines 5
and 7. 8[Z]nvddoros, brackets omitted in S.I.G.3; ’Ap[vordpyov, Le Bas—Waddington, Hiller, but
corrected by Viereck; for the name see Die Inschriften von Priene, no. 60, 1.10. 10 {efvac} is the
stone-cutter’s own error. I1 Tod y[7n: The scribe seems to have confused two constructions, rod
py). . .€upeévew and tva p...... €upeivwow (Viereck, notes).

On the mainland 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. The beginnings of the controversy may be found as far
back as about 700 B.c., when the city of Melia, located in that area, was destroyed by a
combination of enemies and its surrounding territory divided among its neighbors.
1 The two most important documents for the history of the quarrels between Samos and Priene are
Hiller’s Inschriften von Priene, no. 37, the first forty-four lines of which are to be found in S.I.G.3, 599,
and Inschriften von Priene, no. 500 (=O.G.I.S., 13 = Welles, op. cit., no. 7). The first of these is a

56
SENATUS CONSULTA

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. After 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.2 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.3_ After a lapse of
three centuries, during which time we know nothing of the situation, we learn that King
Lysimachus in 283/82 B.c. arbitrated a dispute between the cities concerning the very
same piece of land. He awarded the victory to Samos.* About a century later (ca.
196-192 B.C.) 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. The Rhodian tri-
bunal awarded the victory to Priene.s The southern plain of Anaea therefore had been
the principal cause of friction between Samos and Priene for five centuries before 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. The fact that line 11 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 11 might have belonged to some other decree now
lost. But Hiller felt that they went together. Clearly both of them are concerned with
the question of land, and it is here believed that they are indeed two separate decrees.

long inscription of some 170 lines dating from about 196-192 B.c. and records in detail the dispute
between Samos and Priene as argued before a Rhodian tribunal. The second is a letter of King
Lysimachus to Samos in which that city’s possession of the Batinetis is confirmed. The commentaries
of Hiller and Welles are very valuable, but the following works should also be consulted: Ulrich von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Sitzungsberichte der Kéniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1906, pp. 41ff. (=Kleine Schriften, V, 1, pp. 128ff.); Th. Lenschau, Klio, 36
(1944): 227ff.; Magie, op. cit., pp. 892-93, n. 99. There is a good summary in Tod, op. cit., pp.
135-40.
2 Welles, op. cit., no. 7, Il. 14-20.
3 For this war see Plutarch 295 F—296 B.
4 Welles, op. cit., no. 7.
5 Hiller, op. cit., no. 37; see p. VI for location of Carium.
6 Ibid., no. 40, p. 46.

57
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 in the immediately preceding year. And if the restorations are correct, or
even approximately correct, the subject matter must have concerned the effect 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 188 B.c. Since the second decree (B) invalidates the
arrangement made by Manlius, 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 find 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
Manlius with respect to Samos and Priene were in conflict with the Rhodian decision.
Bribery has been suggested as the reason which prompted Manlius to favor the Samians
at Apamea.® 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 See note 5 in S.I.G.3, 688, where reference is made to Polybius 21. 35. 4 and Livy 38. 42. 11 in order
to show that Manlius was quite willing to accept money in return for Roman favors. His con-
duct in the Galatian campaign (Livy 38. 12-25) could also be cited to prove his venality.

58
 I]
SENATUS CONSULTUM
POPILLIANUM Latter part
DE PERGAMENIS Oil 4a)B cre
[Squeeze]

HHOHHHOO
HOSS HOG
HHGS
OHOSHHSAHSHH
AOTSSHSNHSHgggH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Conze and C. Schuchhardt, Athen. Mitt., 24 (1899), no.

61, pp. 190-97, with supplements by Wilamowitz and Mommsen (cf.
Gesammelte Schriften, 4: 63-68); R. Cagnat and M. Besnier, Revue archéol.,
Troisiéme série, 35 (1899), no. 200, p. 509; P. Foucart, “Formation de la
Province Romaine d’Asie,” in Mémoires de I’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres, 37 (1904): 313; W. Dittenberger, O.G.L.S., II (1905), 435; G. Lafaye,
IG.R.R., 4 (1927): 301; H. Last, C.A.H., [IX (1932), 103; T. R. S. Broughton,
“Roman Asia,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore,
1938), 508; M. Segre, Athenaeum, 16 (1938): 123ff.; M. I. Rostovtzeff,
S.E.H.H.W., I (1941), 811 (with n. 83 on p. 1524); G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia
giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), chap. 5, pp. 111-43; E. V. Hansen, The
Attalids of Pergamum (Cornell, 1947), pp. 141-42; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia
Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 33, and II, 1033-34, n. 1; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman
Civilization, I (New York, 1951), 321-22; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates
of the Roman Republic, 1(New York, 1951), 496-97, n. 1; G. Tibiletti, “Rome
and the Ager Publicus: the Acta of 129 B.c.,” J.R.S., 47 (1957): 137, n. 173J.
Vogt, Atti del terzo congresso internazionale di epigrafia greca e latina (Rome, 1959),
pp- 45-54; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, 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, 1960; corrected reprint, 1961), p. 12.

DESCRIPTION. The stone is white marble, broken on all sides. Height:

0.28m. 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 1: 0.013 m. The lettering is very
beautifully and carefully executed, with apices used throughout.

59
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Luvka[yrov ddéypo|
[I] cos ITomidd\os Patou vids a[tparnyos rie ovyKdn-|
[tT] a ovveBovretoaro mpo hu [ep@v - - ------- es

[...]euBpiwv: sept dv Adyous ém[oun - - - wept trav ev ITepyc-]

[4] @u( 2) mpaypcrwr, tives evtoA[al Ecovran trois €ts]
[A] ocr mopevopevois otparnyois, [ca ev "Acta €-]
[w]s rAs "ArrcAou tedeutis brr0 t&v [Bacréwv]
[8c] wpbwOn eSwpyOn abeOn elyued [On Srws rairo jv]
pe) [Kv] pic, dep TovTou TH. cvvKArjrux ovr[ws edofe- rept]
[dv I]cos [TomiAdos Daiov vios otparn|yos Adyous €-|
[zon] ouro, wept TovTov Tob mpcyparo[s ovTws edoke: |
[Sr] ws daw Baorreds “Arrados ot te Ao[uroi Bact-|
[Acts] SidpOwoar elnpiwoar 7 [apjkarv édwpyjoav-]
[ro, d]ow rovTwr eyevero mp0 pds [juepas mp 7]
["Arr]adov tereurijoa, Saws tabt [a Kipia. ne oTpar7-|
[yo]ére of eis "Aatav rropevdmerv [or pr) KWador THY dia-]
[OnK(?)| nv, AAG eGor kdpra pevew, [amavra Kalas 7 advicAn-|
vv Tos éméxpwv [ev.|
20 [Ipap|cérwv [Io] rAlov LepourAliov - - - - - - - - - - ]
[....]Jv te[--------------------- ]

1 The bottom of the sigma and the lower ends of the next letter (4/ )appear to be in letters larger
than those of lines 3-21, but absolute certainty is not possible. Presumably this is the last line of a
document quite different from the present decree. 2 In large letters: 0.013 m. 5-6 evITepyap|ur,
Wilhelm, but restoration is not positive. 7-8 d[oa év ’Aaiat wéypt]s Conze-Schuchhardt; éw]s,
Dittenberger. 9 a&deOn, stone-cutter’s error? aeify, Viereck (notes). 9-10 mérepov 7 KU] pice
Conze-Schuchhardt. 14 7 [&@fKov, Conze-Schuchhardt; 7[Piecav, conjecture of Dittenberger. 17
pndev Kev@ow, Conze-Schuchhardt; undev cw dor wer] nv,Dittenberger ;47) Kev@ar rH SuaOHK|nv,
Foucart, followed by Viereck (notes). 18 arA7v 6a 1)o¥vKAnTOSs, Conze-Schuchhardt. 19 Since
there is an empty space at the beginning of this line, it has been assumed (Dittenberger, Viereck)
that the text of the decree ends in this line. 20 This is probably the beginning of a new document.
All previous editors record only [om]Aéov, but the horizontal bar and the vertical hasta of the pi
appear plainly on the Berlin squeeze. With ypop]ucrwv one expects to find the word avriypadov
(Dittenberger and Viereck). 21 Viereck (notes) reads YTEY, and on the squeeze it is possible to
detect one upper bar of the upsilon, but the trace is too minute to be positive. For P. Servilius
Isauricus see his letter to the Pergamenes (No. 55).

COMMENTARY. 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.t 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
1 For conditions in the Pergamene kingdom during the reign of Attalus III see Rostovtzeff, op. cit.,
pp. 806-11; Hansen, op. cit., pp. 134-42; Magie, op. cit., I, 30-33 and II, 1033-37, nn. 1-8.

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. The whole
kingdom may have been hovering on the brink of a social upheaval At any rate,
Attalus left the kingdom to Rome. 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 129 B.c., when a Roman army under Manius Aquillius
succeeded in restoring peace. The province of Asia was then formed.
The present senatorial decree was passed sometime between 133 and 129 B.c., and in
the latter part of one of those years, but the exact year is unknown. If we knew when
C. Popillius C. f 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 133,
immediately after Rome learned of the bequest and before any news of the revolt
started by Aristonicus had reached the Senate,? but Magie has challenged this on the
ground that a praetor could convene the Senate only when both consuls were absent
from Rome.* Since he did not believe that both consuls had been absent in 133, he
favored the year 129 when such was the case. And since Aristonicus is not mentioned in
the decree, Magie felt obligated to account for this omission and explained it by the fact
that by late 129 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 133, reminding us that one of the consuls for that year, L. Calpurnius Piso
Frugi, was in Sicily and the other, P. Mucius Scaevola, might have left Rome for some
unknown reason late in the same year.5 Support for this older date, he believes, may
be found in the relation between this decree and the Senatus Consultum de Agro Pergameno
(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 129 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 133 B.c. is indeed the correct one, but it
cannot be stated positively. The purpose of the decree is to record the Senate’s ratifica-

2 Rostovtzeff, loc. cit.; see also Hansen, op. cit., p. 140.

3 It must have been passed toward the end of the year, for the document itself (Il. 4s) shows that it
was between the Ides of August and the Ides of December. Mommsen, Dittenberger, Foucart, and
others favor 133 as the date. For the very early beginning of the revolt of Aristonicus see J. Vogt,
loc. cit.
4 For his arguments see his Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Il, 1033-34, n. 1.
5 Broughton, Magistrates, 1, 496-97. 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. See
the full discussion and citation of sources by Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, II3, 1, 129-31 and 232-
33. But since the consul could prevent a meeting of the Senate by his intercessio, 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.

61
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 before his death. All future Roman governors will honor those acts [and make no
changes without good reason]. This final 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. However, since
part of the text is missing at this point, due caution is best.6 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 5ia64«]|

nv in Il. 17-18 appears incorrect to the present writer, but I can suggest
nothing else except possibly ur) Kw@ow adra& uar|nv. The phrase aAAd eau KUpia peverv points
to a neuter plural noun or pronoun in the clause immediately preceding.

62
 [2
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE
AGRO PERGAMENO 129 B.C.?
[Squeeze]
HEOHEGOHGSHS
SAH TSHRHGSHS
OHUG HSHOSOSOS
HAGH Sssegggys
D

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Copy A (Adramyttium): G. Earinos, "Iwvia 1877, no. 111;

idem, “Ounpos, September, 1877, p- 396 (cf. also Movceiov Kou BiBrAvwoOnKy THs EbvayyeAuciis
ZxoAjs, [1875], 137); T. Homolle, B.C.H., 2 (1878): 128-32; E.
Pottier and A. Hauvette-Besnault, B.C.H., 4 (1880): 376; Th. Mommsen,
Ephemeris Epigraphica, 4 (1881): 213-22 (Gesammelte Schriften, 8: 344-55); P.
Willems, Le Sénat de la république romaine, 12 (Paris, 1885), 693-708; P. Foucart,
B.C.H., 9 (1885): 401-3; Th. Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, 1113, 2 (Leipzig,
1888), 967-68, n. 4; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XV, p. 62;
P. Foucart, Mémoires de I’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 37 (1904):
337ff.; T. Wiegand, Athenische Mitt., 29 (1904): 267; C. Cichorius,
Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908), pp. 1-6, 9; Abbott—Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 12, p. 268;
G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 262.
Copy B (Smyrna): F. Miltner and Selahattin Bey, Tiirk Tarih, Arkeologya ve
etnografya Dergisi, II (1934), 240-42 (A.E., 1935, no. 173); A. Passerini,
Athenaeum 15 (1937): 252-83; M. Segre, Athenaeum, 16 (1938): 124; L. Robert,
Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler (Manchester, 1939), pp.
227-30; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp.
136-41; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1055-56, n.
25; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 1(New York,
1951), 496-97; G. Tibiletti, J.R.S., 47 (1957): 136-38; T. R. S. Broughton,
Supplement to The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1960); L. R.
Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, American Academy in Rome,
Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960), pp. 170-75; A. H. J. Greenidge and
A. M. Clay, Sources for Roman History 133-70 B.c., 3d ed. rev., by E. W. Gray
(Oxford, 1960), app. II A, p. 278; J. H. Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies, 4 (1963): 141-43; C. Nicolet, L’ordre équestre a I’époque républicaine
(312-43 av. J.-C.), I (Paris, 1966), 348-50; R. K. Sherk, Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies, 7 (1966): 361-69.

DESCRIPTION. Copy A: found not far from the ancient site of

Adramyttium: Height: 0.700 m. Width: 0.300 m. Height of letters: 0.010 m.
I have examined the Berlin squeeze. 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 Smyrna, where it is still to be seen, at
the west end of the north basilica. Height: 1.17 m. Width: 0.82 m.
Thickness: 2.31 m. Originally it may have been the anta block of a large

63
 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
letters once seen by Passerini. Fragment c is a mere sliver, containing 14
letters of the text at the ends of 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 fragments a and b have been made by Mr. Pierre MacKay. These
have been used in the preparation of the present text.
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 as
few as 58 might appear in a given line. On the evidence of the lettering,
Segre (apud Passerini, op. cit., 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 sententia, 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. The two
bars of the upsilon meet the lower vertical bar very near the bottom.

[------------- eee eee eee eee eee eee ] Frag. b (1-9)

[----- (a. 40------------ ] Kat ae[pt
- -- ca. 15 - - - -]
[----- (a.25----- mept TovTov T|ob mp&ypwar[os obtws eogev' ITep] -
[yopnvods mpecBevras avdpas Kadods Kayab]ods Kat Pirto[vs rape dipov Kadod]
[xayo0o6 Kat pidov cvppcyovu Te HyeTépov Trpoc] wyopedoou, yap[ira pudtav
ovuppway tov]
[Te cvovewoucbo. epi d€ Tis xopas, Aris €]v avTioyia éorly Ka[t wepl - - ca. 10 --|
> / \ \ a v2 td ) > / > \ \ \

[- - ca. 10 - dws epi tovTwr] TOv mpayp[ér]wv, wept dv Adyous ém[oujoavro,

ca. 6 - -|
[- - orparnyos Kara Shuov? €lmuyv@ tives Spo[t] Iepyapunyar «ioiv, [édv adr
paivnrces|
[- - - - ca.20 - - - - dpe 2]opa trreferpnud [vo] vrepudcy [wévov early pr KapmilecBou ?]
[xoit Manos ’AxvdAdos Iévos Leumpa| vos taro. ave pé[alov odb[ra&v dpovricwor
omws 7] peat
Io [adroit 7 - - 6 deiva - - otpur|nyos Kard& Sipoy, [b dv adbrdv paivnta, robro 6 dv]
[6 detva orparnyos Kara Shwov 2] emuyv@ rept rovtwv TH[v mpaypdrwv es Thv
avyKAnrov|
[arrayyeAdar. ‘Qoavtws ™ |v avyKAnTtov Odrew Ka [i dikavov nyetobau €k TE Tov]

64
SENATUS CONSULTA

[jwetépwr Snpooiwy] mpaypcrwr SidrepBdvew [elvar Srws, odrws Kabds ev TO

2 é ,

detva]
oTparny@ Kara Ojuov ? doxy| Tept ToUTwWY TOY mpayparwr, [dpyovTes Hpuérepor, of
~ AY on P) 8 A \ , ~ U ” ¢ / a

TH Aoic|
[mpooddous emitiOBow 7] ris "Aaias tas mpoaddous jut [cAdow, dpovrilwor ottws
ws ay]
[adrois ek TOv Snuoolwy 7] payydérwr miateds te Tis iSlals dalvynrar, Tadra odrws
b a > ~ / 4 ig / ~ 27 / ~ 4

Trovetabou ?|
[orws te Ménos *Ak]vAdos draros, v édv adds pairnreu, OL[ - - nomina legatorum
ca. 20]
, \ rhe \ \ , Pay vA , ‘ ,
[ré7rov mapoxny] Educ te Kare 7d Sicdraypo {edv adrau paiy|[nrou} tov Toto
pucddaa|
[amoorethat re KeAev]on odtws Kabds dv odtdi ek TOV Snuociwy [rpaypérwv
rs ~ , va A \ a“ ? ~ > ~ / 4

miatews TE]
[ris iSias paivnra. edoléev. v Kptwa wept ths ydpas. v AéAros v Bo
«[jpwpe - - - - mpo]
[juep@v tpidv Kodavdd|v Kowxrediwv ey Koperios were cvpBovdliov - - - 6
detva - - - - - ]
[orparnyos Kara Shuwov 2] wept xdpas rris ev cvtiroyia. éorly Sypog[iwvas mpds
tovs Ilep| -
[yapnvods éréyva(?). €v TO ovp]|Povdtaxr rapfoav Kéwros Kaixtduos Koivrov
*[Avujvons, F'cuos]
[....vos Tatov Me]vnvie, Mcapros Iovmos Madprov Lkanria, Ie [vos
Kopv7jdvos Macprov|
[Lredareive, Aev] xvos Méupuos Taiov Mevnvig, Kéwros Odedywos [Macprov
Ei PeeAe;|
[AevKios *lovAos LéEt]ov Dardpva, I cos “Avyos Iaiov ’Apyvyvons, Tcuos
[Lepumpadrvios Iaiov|
[Dar€pve, Icios Koidt]os Datov Aiwirig, [omdos “AABwos [lomAiov Kupivg,
[Mcapros Koora| -
[vos Macpxov Typyr|eive, I1dmdos Téaovos [omAiov ’Apvivons, Aevxt[os
"Adeivios|
[Aevkiov ’Qgevrei] ve, I'cuos ‘PovBpios Taiov [ovrewie, Deos Aucivvios Patou
[Tnpn] -
[retve, Méapros Da] Agpios Macprov Knravdia, Menos Aevreitios Macprov
ITw [pevreive,|
[AevKuos Di] duos Aevitov ‘Qparia, Tcéios Aidvos I atov Kupive, Kowros | KAavdi0s]
[’Ammiov IToAdig,| Aevnvos ’AvOorios Datov Mevnvia, Xmopios Kapovid [tos
Aevxiov|
[XeBoreive,] ITdmvos Detos Aeveiov Odarepia, Ivaios Oxrévi[os Aeviov]
[Aiprle, Mca] pros *Ammodnjuos Macprov Kouwhie, Aev«uos ’Adeivios Ae|vxiov]

65
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Frag. c
35 [Acpwvic, Idsos] Nadrios Koivrov Overupix, Detuos Newerwpuos Teilou Tat A]jeu[o]-
[vic, Aevicvos Kopvij] vos Macprov ‘Pwpuria, Pvaios [lopayjuos Tveiov Kp [oa] ropec-
[ve, [Témdos TTomid| Atos HTomdov Tnpnreive, Aevnvos Aoperios I'v [aéov DaBic,|
[- - ca. 15 -Macp]xov Ioum<e>wix, Méapxos Movvios Madpxov Acu[wrig, - -|
[- - ca. 15 - -]ou Acuwvia, Kéuwros TomiANos HomAiov ‘Papu[Aig,......+++- ]
40 [- - ca. 12 - Meu] Kin, Kéwros AcBépios Aevkiov Mourig, Davos ‘Epéy|vos....... ]
[- - ca. 15 - - -]os Kolvrov ’Qgevreive, Mcaypxos Zéppios Mac|prov .......... ]
[- - ca. 15 - - T] npnreive, Aevnwos Tevixios Aevxiov Thpn|reivy, - - ca. 10 -|
[- - ca. 15 - - -]a, Aevxvos TTAcutdpios Aeveiov TTazeupic, [- - ca. 15 - - - -|
[- - ca. 15 - - - M|dapxos AddXos Koivrov Mevnvia, I'éuo|s - - ca. 15 - - - - - - ]
45 [- - ca. 15 - - - -]ethuos NéErov Kopurla, Pvaios Add [iSios - - ca. 10 - - -|ve, Frag. d
[- - ca. 17 --- -] Odereive, Aevdxios ’Avbéori0[s - - ca. 13 - - - -|ve, TIérX-
[os - - ca. 18 - - -] LoBareiva, Méapkos [- - - ca.22------- ]eooe. v °Arro
[ovpBovriov yrwouns yr]dunv amedyvaro tad[tnv - - - ca. 23 ------- ]vns
elva do-
[Ket - - ca. 20 - - - -]wu ds Kadetro [- - --ca.18------ a|t7@ TO TroTa-
50 [u@ - - ca. 20 - - - - élgtly ex Tovrov T[ob ToTapod ? - - ca. 10 - -]aoxwpavert[- -]
[---ca.25------ Jo[...7 ?]upPnv [------- ca. 20 - -| évyrora ef [va]
[- --ca.30----------- ] amo de [----- - ca. 25 - -|nona[- ----]
[- --ca.30----------- ] épiov [------- (a.30---------- |

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. 1 Kal zrepi, Passerini. 3 PiA[ous, Passerini. 4 ya&pi[ra, Passerini. 5-9 The
underlined letters were seen by Passerini but are no longer extant. 7 edot[v, Passerini. 10 otpatn|
yos, Passerini. 15 tas] 7s "Aatas mpoaddous, Passerini. 17 Oy - -, Passerini, but it is difficult
to decide what the second letter was. One expects here the name or names of the Pergamene
envoys. 20 Cf. No. 14, l. 75: d€Arou dyddns Knpwmpartt [recoupeo|Kaidexatw. 21 KowxreXiwv,
Passerini; KOINKTEIAIQN, stone. Copy A begins here and continues to line 37 of B.
It differs from B in the construction, for it clearly contained an indirect statement: [‘Yuas eiSévae
BovdAopon Kexpixévas - - - 6 deiva-- - orplat[ny]ov [mpd jepav tpi]Ov keAavdav Krd (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 B may be due to errors at the time of engraving or in
the preparation of the copy. 23 ééyvw (?), Passerini, but perhapsésréxpwev 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. For the list
and the numbers, see below. References here will be to lines. 24 For the tribe of C. ....ius
C. f. there is a mistake in copy A, for it reads MEAIHNIA. 26 The names of C. Annius C. f.
Arnensis and C. Sempronius C. f. Falerna, numbers 8 and 9 in copy B, have been delayed until
numbers 23 and 24in A. Taylor (op. cit., p. 171), after consultation with E. Gabba, explained this
by pointing out that the tribe in post number 7 is also Falerna. Hence the engraver, when he
glanced back from his work on the stone to the list in his copy, saw the Falerna of post number 9

66
SENATUS CONSULTA

and assumed that he had already engraved it. He discovered his omission later and then entered
the two names out of order; copy B, therefore, contains the correct order of names. 29 C.
Rubrius C. f. Pupinia. For his tribe, copy A has TIOIIIAAIA. 31 L. Filius L. £ Horatia. Copy
A has Sabatina for the tribe. Taylor (op. cit., p. 173) believes that copy B is more likely to be
correct. 32L. Antistius C. f, Menenia. In copy A the nomen is given as ANOTIOS, confirmed
by the Berlin squeeze. Taylor (op. cit., p. 191) correctly labels copy A a mistake; B is again
correct. 33 P. Silius L. f. Valeria. This is a mistake in copy B; there was no tribe Valeria (Taylor,
op. cit., pp. 255 and 173). Copy A has Galeria, which must be correct. 35 C. Nautius Q. f.
Veturia. Mommsen’s Noddrvos is confirmed by the squeeze. 37 L. Domitius Cn. f. Fabia. Copy
A breaks off at this name with the reading Aevxi[os - - 22--]EIX. On the Berlin squeeze I was
able to make out the top parts of what appeared to be YOAB near the end of that lacuna. Clearly,
those traces must be the remains of the tribe of Domitius. Hence copy A at that point may be
restored thus: Aevxu[os Aoperios Ivaioly Bab[ia]; this would confirm the tribe of the Domitii.
40 [----- Mae]cia. Passerini failed to notice the iota between the kappa and the alpha. 43
ITharra@pvos, Passerini, but what he took to be the first tau is actually an iota. 47 The small vacat
near the end of the line indicates the beginning of a new section. 54 - - -]1«[- - Passerini, but these
are not visible.

COMMENTARY. 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. 4ff.) 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: “Yués ypiv, d avdpes “EXyves, “Atrados 6 Baotreds tudv ev
SicOjKous amréAure, Kal evOVS cpetvoves duty Huev "Arrédov- ods yap éreAetre Popous
-Arradw, weOjxaperv div, wéxpr Onwokorwy avdpOv Kal map’ nuiv yevowevwy edenoe
ddépwv. Clearly the two events meant here are the acquisition of the Pergamene
kingdom after the death of Attalus III in 133 B.c. and the legislation of C. 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
delayed by the revolt of Aristonicus until 129 B.c. The statement as reported by Appian
seems to mean that no publicani were engaged in collecting taxes in Asia until they were
authorized to do so in 123 or 122 B.c. by the terms of the lex Sempronia.
There is no question whatever that C. Gracchus had a law passed in 123 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; Appian B.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 publicani henceforth would be able to obtain those contracts, for they
alone had sufficient experience, organization, and working capital to carry through
successfully such a complex operation. They would also be able to collect the portorium
and the scriptura.

67
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Therefore, until the discovery of the present documents from Smyrna, modern
scholars have generally felt that Appian was right and that no taxes were collected in
Asia by the publicani until after 123 B.c. 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
Sempronia. 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
system 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 épou 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 [- - - - - - - - ]¥AAtos was then ordered to provide the
customary accommodation for 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 urbanus, conducted an investigation as ordered, and in consultation with his
consilium of 55 Senators (and equites?) reached his decision. The text of this decision
(Il. 48ff.) is hopelessly mutilated, and the most that can be said is that it defined 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 before 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 B.c., but he
spent the next three years in Asia as proconsul organizing the new province with the
help of a ten-man commission. The phrase in line 17 edv adt&i daivnrou 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 ——|nius, it becomes
rather apparent that the year of the decree was 129 B.c., 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 B.c., 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

1A 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.” And Mithridates of Pergamum in that same

68
SENATUS CONSULTA

consilium 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 2) 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 129 B.c. as the date can be considered reasonable only if it can be
shown that the members of the consilium were indeed alive and active in the Senate at
that time. A list is essential:
tr. Q. Caecilius Q. f. Aniensis (Taylor, p. 198).
2. C. ....ius C. f. Menenia (Taylor, p. 223; Broughton, Supplement to Magistrates,
p- 33).
. M. Pupius M. f. Scaptia (Taylor, p. 249).
. C. Cornelius M. f. Stellatina (Taylor, p. 207).
> . L. Memmius
nA
WwW C. f. Menenia (Taylor, pp. 233-34; Broughton, Supplement, pp.
40-41).
. Q. Valgius M. f. .....lia (Taylor, p. 262; Broughton, Supplement, p. 67).
. L. Tulius Sex. f. Falerna (Taylor, p. 222; Broughton, Supplement, p. 32).
. C. Annius C. f. Arnensis (Taylor, p. 190).
Oo
AN
oN . C. Sempronius C. f. Falerna (Taylor, p. 252).
10. C. Coelius C. f. Aemilia (Taylor, p. 199).
1. P. Albius P. f Quirina (Taylor, p. 188).
12. M. Cosconius M. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 208).
13. P. Gessius p. f. Arnensis (Taylor, p. 218; Badian, Historia, 12 [1963]: 134).
14. L. Afinius L. f. Oufentina (Taylor, p. 187).
15. C. Rubrius C. f. Pupinia (Taylor, p. 251; Broughton, Supplement, p. 54).
16. C. Licinius C. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 224; Broughton, Supplement, p. 33).
17. M. Falerius M. f. Claudia (Taylor, p. 213).
18. M’. Lucilius M. f. Pomentina (Taylor, p. 227; Broughton, Supplement, p. 37).
19. L. Filius L. f: Horatia (copy A has Sabatina; Taylor, p. 213).
20. C. Didius C. f. Quirina (Taylor, p. 210).
21. Q. Claudius Ap. f. Pollia (Taylor, p. 203).
22. L. Antistius C. f. Menenia (Taylor, p. 191).
23. Sp. Carvilius L. f Sabatina (Taylor, p. 201).
24. P. Silius L. f. Galeria (Taylor, p. 255).
25. Cn. Octavius L. f. Aemilia (Taylor, p. 239).
26. M. Appuleius M. f: Camilia (Taylor, p. 192).

period was instrumental, because of his friendship with Caesar, in obtaining Pergamum’s freedom;
see No. 54. If Pergamum had not been free in 63 B.c., there could hardly have been any dispute
with the publicani about taxation.

69
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

27. L. Afinius L. f. Lemonia (Taylor, p. 187).

28. C. Nautius Q. f. Veturia (Taylor, p. 237).
29. C. Numitorius C. f. 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. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 247; Broughton, Supplement, p. 49).
33. L. Domitius Cn. f. Fabia (Taylor, p. 211; Broughton, Supplement, p. 23).
34. [------- ] M. f. Pupinia.
35. M. Munius M. f. Lemonia (Taylor, p. 236).
36. [------ ] Lemonia.
37. Q. Popillius P. £ 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. f. Oufentina.
42. M. Serrius M. f. [- - -].
43. [------- ] Teretina.
44. L. Genucius L. f. Teretina (Taylor, p. 218).
45. [----------- Ja.
46. L. Plaetorius L. f. Papiria (Taylor, p. 243).
47. Missing.
48. M. Lollius Q. f Menenia (Taylor, p. 226).
1, Cj poe n seee |.
50. [----- Jilius Sex. £ Camilia (Badian, Historia, 12 [1963]: 132).
51. 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

70
SENATUS CONSULTA

listing of witnesses to decrees of the Senate.2 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 of lower 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. f. 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. f., 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. f. L. n. Caesar, and the father of the consul of 90 B.c., L. Iulius L. f. Sex. n.
Caesar. Mommsen (Gesammelte Schriften, 8: 351) 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. Tulius Sex. f. Falerna 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
death of Attalus and 129 B.c.) immune from taxation, not even the cities of the province,
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 publicani 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 for older taxes rooted in

2 Cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 5: 508 and 8: 350; Taylor, op. cit., p. 175.
3 Broughton, op. cit., 1, 497. Cf. Passerini, op. cit., p. 266. Taylor, op. cit., p. 222, 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.
4 S.E.H.H.W., Il, 811-13. The date was also accepted by M. Segre, loc. cit.; E. V. Hansen, The
Attalids of Pergamum (Ithaca, 1947), p. 151; Tibiletti, 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 decumae, 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 ror B.c. He
thinks that the Lucius Domitius Cn. f. of post number 33 in the consilium 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 daaros and dao in the nominative probably meant the consuls currently in
office, that L. Iulius 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.®
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 of the consilium belonged.
Willems thought that they were all senators, but Mommsen (Rémisches Staatsrecht, Il,
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

5 Forced contributions: I.G.R.R., IV, 292 (cf. L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), Pp- 45-50).
These must have been wartime measures introduced by the Romans to help finance the war against
Aristonicus. They were not regular taxes. See Magie, op. cit., II, 1045-46, n. 34, and Tibiletti, op.
cit., p. 136.
6 Broughton, op. cit., p. 497; see also E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 32 (1954): 69, n. 3, and P. A. Brunt,
Latomus, 15 (1956): 23.
7 Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 183-84.

72
SENATUS CONSULTA

convinced and felt that nonsenators might have been included. 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.

8 R. Syme, Classical Philology, 50 (1955): 137, and E. Badian, J.R.S., 52 (1962): 208-9.
9 See the lists given by Nicolet, op. cit., Deuxiéme Partie: Titulature et Prosopographie, Les Structures de
l’Ordre Equestre, pp. 147-464. He assumes, it seems, that our list is senatorial and does not consider
the possibility of the presence of equites.

73
 [5
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE REBUS
PHRYGIAE ORDINANDIS TTOIB.C.?) OF L1G B,cs

HHGHGOODDDDHHHHHHHDDDDDDTYSTSSESESSOSXSSSSSSS

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

idem, Classical Review, 2 (1888): 326; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen,
1888), no. XXIX, p. 51; W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I
(Oxford, 1897), no. 710, p. 762; Th. Mommsen, Athen. Mitt., 24 (1899): 195
(Gesammelte Schriften, 4: 66); Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, Roi 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.1.S., II (1905), 436;
G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 752; 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 ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 511; W. M.
Ramsay, The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor (Aberdeen University
Press, 1941), pp. 282-83; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950),
I, 169, with nn. 35-37 in II, pp. 1058-59; A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay,
Sources for Roman History 133-70 B.c., 3d ed. rev., by E. W. Gray (Oxford,
1960), p. $5; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 48.

DESCRIPTION. Found in the modern village of Aresli about two miles

from Oynayan and northeast of Apameia. It has been assumed by Ramsay that
the ancient site of Lysias was in the vicinity, but there is no real proof of the
actual location of that ancient city (cf. L. Robert, Villes d’Asie Mineure? [Paris,
1962], pp. 156, 367, and 426). Unfortunately, no adequate description of the
stone has ever been reported, and for the lettering one must rely upon the
transcription first given by Ramsay in the J.H.S. (8[1887]: 496).

[---------------------eee
eee eee o] ¥rws
[------ 0 ree eee rere ee eee eee eee ]v Siwpbb-
[0n ------------------ eee eee eee ] eyevero mpo-
[Tepov -- - ------------------- Jos radra Kvpia pé-
[vey ------------------- ddy]ua cuvKAjrov.
[wept dv Kowros PdBros - - - - vids Mc&ipos (?) I] duos Atkivwos TomAtov
[vios Tetras taro (?) Adyous erovjoay|ro, wept rovTov mp&ypatos ov-
[ws edofev da Baoirteds Midpadcrn|s eypoupev 7) ESwxev tiow 7) apet-
[xev, iva radra K¥pix pelvy otTrw Kabas| eSwpyjoaro eis eaycrny Epa,
10 [wept te TOV Aoiv Wa Kpivwow ot déko( ?)| mpecBevrat eis "Aciav diaPavres

74
SENATUS CONSULTA

2 SiwpH[On Dittenberger and Viereck (notes); SuwpOd[ouro, others. 3 Perhaps [- - - dca

Tovtwy] éyévero mpd[repov, for the phrase radro. xvpve in line 4, requires a preceding daa; cf. the
S.C. Popillianum de Pergamenis (No. 11), 1.15. 8 Ramsay, Viereck, and Reinach accepted adeé [Aero
but Dittenberger restored afei[kev] (or &dA[xev]), which Viereck later (notes) followed. 10 Oa
SvaBaiver in these documents see L. Robert in Hellenica, 1 (1940): 55, and La Carie, II, 104, n. 3.

COMMENTARY. Because of the many differences 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 11, 126 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 publicani. 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 120 B.c. at the hands of his courtiers.2_ His heirs, two
small sons, were much too young to offer serious opposition when Rome reversed its
earlier policy and seized Phrygia.3 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 37. 1 and 38. 5; Appian Mithr. 57 (cf. 11 and 13). 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 Aufeia, for only one fragment of the speech survives (A. Gellius Noctes Atticae 11. 1o=H.
Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2 [Florence, 1955], pp. 187-188
=Greenidge and Clay,
op. cit., p. 29). See Magie, op. cit., II, 1043-44, n. 27, and, on the possibility that the Lex Aufeia may
have been the actual lex provinciae Asiae and is really the Lex Aquillia, see the article by H. Hill in
Classical Review, 62 (1948): 112-13. Magie believes that this law, whatever its name, had little if
anything to do with the gift of Phrygia to Mithridates.
2 He was murdered in Sinope: sources and references in Magie, op. cit., II, 1091, n. 50. The elder son,
Mithridates Eupator, was only eleven years old.
3 Justinus 38. 5; Appian Mithr. 11, 15, and 56. The speech that Sulla is said to have made to Mithri-
dates VI in 85 B.c. (Appian Mithr. 57) attempts to justify Rome’s seizure of Phrygia by emphasizing
that the land was made free and autonomous. Magie, however (op. cit., I, 169), finds it difficult “to
regard as an historical fact a statement in a speech evidently composed for 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 thenceforth in any other light than as an integral part of the province of Asia.”
Broughton, op. cit., p. 511, evidently accepts the historicity of the speech, for 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.*
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. Popillianum de
Pergamenis (No. 11), 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
(Il. 6-7) must be C. Licinius P. f. Geta (cos. 116 B.c.), there can be no doubt that its date
is 116 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 (ll. 6-10) was included in a letter of the
two consuls for 116 B.c., of which only the present lines 1-5 remain.’ 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 kar& 7d S6y] ux ouveArjrov rather than 768”
€or. 76 Sdy] ua avvedjrov aut similia. However that may be, lines 6-10 certainly
belong to the decree.
Some doubt remains about the exact date, for, although L. 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 116 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 zrepi dv 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 zrept
av need not always occur at the beginning of the line, for in the S.C. de Asclepiade (No.
22), line 5 of the Greek version, and in the S.C. de Prienensium et Samiorum Litibus (No.
10), line 1, it is found later in the line. Slight as this is, one cannot state positively that
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
4 Magie, loc. cit., believed that another decree 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 116 but 119, as is possible
(see below).
5 Ramsay’s suggestion, Cities and Bishoprics, II, 762, 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 in
antiquity, is very unlikely. Such commissioners make their recommendations to the Senate and 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
Mineure?, p. 156.

76
SENATUS CONSULTA

possible date for his holding of the praetorship is given by Broughton as 119 B.c., ac-
cording to the Lex Villia Annalis.6 This date for the present decree is a more probable
one than 116 B.c., for, considering the furor in Rome over the Phrygian affair, the death
of Mithridates in 120 B.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 B.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 119 B.c. Both consuls for
119 may have been absent from Rome campaigning against the Segestani and the
Dalmatians, and therefore the praetor would have been able to convene the Senate.?
Of course, such a date cannot be considered until it can be shown by independent
evidence that Licinius had been praetor in 119 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 before final
judgment can be rendered.
6 Magistrates, I, 526. It is interesting to notice that the other consul of 116 B.c., Q. Fabius Maximus,
had been praetor in 119.
7 Ibid., p. 25. One of the consuls, L. Caecilius Metellus, certainly was absent on the campaigns, and
his colleague, L. Aurelius Cotta, may have accompanied him as Broughton suggests.

77
 la
EPISTULA L. CALPURNIL PISONISSER
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE ITANORUM ET
HIERAPYTNIORUM LITIBUS 11258 .c

QHDHHDHHDDDDTSS
HOODOO TTOOOSHEE TOO TOSSES

BIBLIOGRAPHY. S. Xanthudidis, *Apy. ’E¢., 1920, pp. 82ff.; W. Cronert,

S.E.G., II (1924), 511; M. Cary, J.R.S., 16 (1926): 194-200; G. De Sanctis,
Rivista di filologia, n.s., 4 (1926): 130ff.; A. Passerini, Athenaeum, n.s., 15 (1937):
34ff.; N. Papadakis, ‘H epyaia "AvarodiKnn Kpyrn (Canea, 1938), pp. 184ff.; V.
Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 2 (1939): 592ff.; M.
Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae, III (1942), 4, no. 10, pp. 106-11; H. van
Effenterre, R.E.A., 44 (1942): 31ff.; F. W. Schehl, Kpyntuxe Xpovixe, 5 (1951):
302-12; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 50 (cf.
T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 1[New York, 1951],
$37-38, on Q. Fabius and his embassy).

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

Candian Museum. Photograph of the right side of the stele in Guarducci, op.
cit, p. 109. Height: 1.25 m. Width: 0.48-0.50 m. Thickness: 0.13-0.15 m.
It is engraved on the front and right side, but lines 74 and 88ff. appear only on
the front. The letters belong to the second half of the second century, having
a height of 0.007-0.008 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.

78
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[..............] Koraardéovos mpecBevrat Kpijres ‘Iepumitvio. DeiSwyr

, A

*"Erecvopos tds,
Kopwv [......]pos [d]6s, Mvcourmos Aiwvos tds, Evperns Bedviw ids, Xdé-yov
if

€7TOLN)~
Xaperee pir] cov ovppuccyiay re aveveddoavto Kal cuvnabjvan TH ovvKAjTw emt TO
OavTo [Na \ / / > 7 \ ~ ~ / b Bale | ~

[------------------ elt]acav Kat Kab” iSiav emi ro BéATEvov mpoywpeiv ” \ bY Kats ta | \ , 5 A ‘

Tepl Te THS yeyern.[e] -

/ ~

vns [-------------------- piror| mins edyaplornoa|y] Kal wept rv / ~

aouKNucTwY TOV Hiv yeyery-

> ~ a

pevwy [----------------------- |] “Lrevos yep adixnwarwv pur)

ywonevwr b[f’| ydv adrots, do dé
, ¢ > ¢ ~ >? cal ¢. A \

THs TOV] Kvwotwy [7d]Aews ord, 7éAeuov arrapdévyedtov iyiv éroinouy mapa ré
~ ~ Ky la / r , m\ > U ¢€ a > / \ M

THS Ovv-
KAnrov doypara Kol adianpora [juiv] e€ereAcoavto, trepl dv Kal mpdtepov
>\ / 8 / ee 7 ¢ aA > e Ne \ /

mpeoBelas a-
mreatetAcpev [emt tHv avvedAnTtov| u[aptupod]
ir me.
aus Te yeyernweva adiKnuoTe Els
\ 4 >Y 7 \ la > / >

Huds. 1 de
¢€ ~ € \

5
fe) [ovvKA] nTos Katal--------------
tn
22 - eee eee ee eee eee ]wev emt oa

Meépkov AipvrAiov kai émi Mavi-

ov ’“AxiAlov brarwv Kat [o] Ure cvppcyous adtods mpoonydpevoe ovte Kywotous
> / ie 4 \ ” U > \ / ” /

” \
OUTE TOUS

[----------- ] Apayptous obre [- - - -] draws avexpin Kat eoypdérice méAepov

Kal COLKT LATO 7)-
FeO |ehMeee metho) meme elim = = mc mm = oo ] mepoyevopevor
tmép Te TOO TroE“OV
Kal[------------------- 7ee lays juepas [....- ]v nv amedeiEapev
HeTepav ov-
15 guy [----------------==- ] dre yevous Kat avdéBar[o|v bo pnbevo[s]
yewpynfetoav, THV
aA \

S€é vijcov Thy KaAouperny Aedkny jpuetepav odoav ex mpoyovwy. “Iravor de fu)
A ~ A /, L ¢€ {é > > / FE / r) Ni \

Suvepevor trept TOV

at esa ialae ooh eee - = |twv els Huds adienucr [wv
> ¢ lel > /

Soe eet
arohoynaua0an prjTE TPOTEpoV
PICS TEP | ILI a i I I a a aaa a a a No ]Twv
mpeoBevTOv avrevKadodaw Hiv
i! lade a nl tala ] thy xopav
\ /
cs oie aePree (Mra A ES AM
\ > ” ” > , na >
Trepiaaay odaay ereat elKoor dKTW, Adyous €-
i ea ] mpos TH ovvedynra, 7) dé
\ onl / ¢ \

20 TG CAEN IN eg i
avvKAnTos edoyuaTicE
/ > 4

[Srrws rH ydpav Kal ri vacov 7oA] €[pov cp|y7v éAopévou Siakaréoyoper, Wo

lol , / 7

ouTWwSs KQ~

79
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

té[yw] ev: mpaéw orparnyod elven, Kal dws Aaidvos djuov 8@ tov ev nyiv
KpwobvTa. dolév-
tos 5é Huty To6 Mayrijrwv Srjpov Kat Datov Acudlov taérov ypeapavros [mp]os Tov
djpov tov Ma-
yuntwy [--------------------- ] Kat tiv emoroAny rhv br’ od[r] 06
[y]padetoay eu pn-
25 [------------------
eee eee ee ] de ds bd? qudv te KaKelvwv
opodoyov eyevnOn. vv
[------------+--------
ee eee ] toavre tiv vijcov tiv KaAoupevnv
Aedvnnv Kal thy yo-
pay [----------------+
+--+ +e - eee eee eee ] os 6 dfpos 6 Mayvjrwv
éxpive Kata TO 86-
[ywa Hs ovvedjrov bn’| *Iraviwy [mpoyo|wKas odcas KapmilecBar Kupiws. ob
OvVaVTY ~

30

35
LUHLNY erroinoavTo
[------------------------------- ev TH] petak&d ypovw avvBdAwv
Yay
vnpevw bre[----------
2-2 eee ee ee ee eee ee eee |xoTwv brép Te
avdpa@v €
[------------------------------------- ]v evtutrov0b [v] TOL
KQL VEVLKNKO-
toy [----------------------------------- ]unua Ka[O] as
ouvebeue-
40 Oa [----------------------------------- Jov[..]v Kot
dedwKdoTwv Kal €-
Anfotwy [-------------------------------- ov| te Adyov
ETOLNOAVTO OV-
te ou[----------------------------------- ]roup[é]vous bz’
avta@v

80
 SENATUS CONSULTA

Powe ot Ee One ees a |tov Kabars

nets o-
gti
nn ~~ 0 ~~ -Jev M[a] yynoia
yevope-
45 r[ SUS UE ES IS OEE! ON ET) GYORCC RC ea ia ae allie ]ons duc Tod
Tpos avd-

[(ta lh ot hate \ a > A \ \

ttt tree eee eee eee eee me|pt TOv cvdp@v Kal rept
TOV OL-
KeT@v
~
ovsa em[------------------
?
ad|ucnparaé
>
te K[a]t mpdrepov Kal viv~
ERGs ]uor odow [------------------- ] 7Av a[pa] yeyovdrwr els
ay A

50 ¢
Paynv mpecBevtdv buadv, éerémpopev dé ext rv odvedntov, a€vodpwev odv Thy
ve ~ ~ A

avvKAntov [-------------- eu Ta] VTi Kaup@ THv evvoiay TrpOs

fd > \ a \ Ly \

¢ A A € , / on ¢
Nas [SP ONE go et eo otigh Cd Tot|s UPLETEPOLS ddypaar BonOjocu n-
Liv Orws touts [--------- ] ¢ndioparos bv tudv avaeyKacbdow jyiv 7d dSikou-
~ id wv ~ ~ aA

ov [-------------- |Tes mpos THv bwerepay dirlav Kol cvppayiav pds 1- \\ \ ¢ , / \ / \ (2

55 pas [------------------ mpeoBlevtais. rept TrovTov Tod mp&yparos

a A s\ / ~ le

ovTws edokev']| dv tpdmov Exerepot [THY yopay Kak THY Via] ov vevwpNuevor einoa
4 25 < “a / ¢ Ul x 4 \ iv ~ - w

Th po
Tod juepals 7) 6 mdAeuos ev adrots pEato ob Tro] A€uou evexev Lépovios Lo<Aymikvos
a ¢ A &

KaKELVN 1)
mpeoBela eis Kpnrnv aneorcAnoay ows ottws [vwp|@vrou. éywow kaprilwvrai re
7 >? / > 4 a “ ~ ” / /,

TotTo to[----------------- ]oOcu mpos Aedvov Kadomdpriov

60 oTparnyov Umarov [---------------- ] tTwes tovTou Tod KpiTn-
plov [-------------- ov|t[e] emi ro Kpurypi[ov] maperdxoour ovre
/ »” DIN \ / 4, LA

[----------------- Aevxios Kado] dp[vos a] tparnyos vzra-

4, / \ 4

tos [---------- reer reer ee ]nv [6] ws éavrois Kpi-

vn dv tpdmov éxerepor radrny [Tiv yadpav Kol] tiv vijcov rept ob 7H mpa&krs [eve] ornKe
“a / e , Fé ip /, \ \ inl \ Oc. a oS ae

VEVvLN -
65 pevor elnoav Thu mpd Tod Hepa 7) 6 TdAcMos ev adrois jpEato ob mod€u[ov] Everev
/ ” a \ ma -€ , cs tog 2 +r > x) A ” e A ys ¢

L€pouos
LoAmixvos kaxelvyn 4 mpecBela eis Kpyjrnv ameoréAnoavy érws o[br]w kpivwow
U ij 4 /

adrov[s]
[eyew] Kardyew Kaprilecbat te eeivon kal Upurea TeH yuepav TE opion ™po Hs Hwe-
cal a ¢ ld ee \ ¢€ }.)

pas Kpivwow e[

wee eee ]v dws Aevnvos Kado-

7O mépvios otparnyos Uraros tnd Ths abrod mpeoBelas ervyv@ edy ev ravrn 7(A]
yop ducodounpevor évea[rw] drws adrods xabeheiv kerev[a]n. rept dé rHv Ao[t] -
[7] Ov mpayparwv dv Aoyous emoujouobe drav } eayarn Kpntav mpeoBeia eis

81
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

rv abyeAntov elcerpéo [Bev] cov obr[w]s amoKpiven Kabws dv abt ex r&v Snpoat-
wy mpayparwv mlorTews Te THS (Bias paivnrou, Edoke. vv
75 [rod] 70 To mpaype SéArov dyddns Knpwyware [recouped] Kadexderw peTe GUEL-
BovAlov éréyvev mpd jpepdv Séxa era Kad. KowxreiAiwy év rf Baowe-
Kh 7H [lopkia [-------------- Hh]uepas Tuxyova|ns te]pas Kara ovveAjrov
Sdppwa [---------- +e eee er eee errr ee amd avpBovdAi]ov yvapns
yvapnv
amednvaynv [--------
errr rrr ree o]drw[s]
Kabws mpdTEepov
80 ee a ]ou juepav dp[td] apo As jépas
Kpivwot
e[doeBds Te Kad Sixaiws rHv Suadopev] Kat e[t tu eve] KoSdunrou wera TO
tovs mpeaBeutas [----------------re errr errr ow ev adrois
TOV Of-
pov Tov bpuerepov Kata [TO THs cuvKAjTov Sdoypa] PpovTica Gmws EK TOD
\ € , ‘ \ aA r / PS)/, / i > ~

modtevparos [Judy cmroareiAnre Suxalaras KaAods K&yabods TpicKov-

85 Ta éva ol To [------ -] Kar& 7d ts cuvKAjtov Séypya Kpivwor KowkresdA-
i a A \ ‘ ~ / / / /

wy T&v é[mt Aevkiov Kado|mopviov Kat Mcépkov AeiBiov brarwv ev jucpais TpraKo-
aias éEnKovta, ev S€ mpd ekelvyns THs Huepas fun) Kplvwor, TOTE OWS
ev TH eEnkoorh Kal TpicKkoovooTh yuepe Kpivwo[t] vv
AedKios Kadorrépvios Aevkiov tos [letowv trraros ‘lepamv-
90 tviwv Tots &pyover Kal TH BovdAj Kal TH Shum yaipew:
/ A *
[id] vres Ay a ~ V aA v4 / 27

Téviot mpeoBevTat Kal buerepor TpocjADocdy ju[ou dz] ws

iE , \\ OG / / ee @

adtois atvKAntov 6@. éyw abrois advKAnt[olv edwxe.

> A 4 ~ > \i b) a A w

auvKdjrov Sdypa TobTo yeyovds eott: tuds OA[w] dpovti-

/ i A / ? ¢ ~ / Uf

ou eb Tt ev TadTH TH YHpe TH ev avpiAloy]eie odan evw-

” > 4 ~ / ee > / wy >

95 Kodounuevov eat, dtrus éx Tavryns T[As yo] pas Kabe-

Ante ottws Kabas 4 advKAnTos éSoypatice Kal Ka-
ae ]woe. ard cupBovdrlov yrwuns yrds [wnv &| repnvepnv. > \ /, 7 / > 4

vacat

The text followed here is that of M. Guarducci, except where noted. 2 Or [Tdpwv (cf. Inscrip-
tiones Creticae, 1, 16, no. 43, 1). 4 Kowf re edorabetv, Crénert. 12 Before Apwypiors there seems
to be space for about nine letters, of which the first two may have been EJ, Guarducci. 24-25
Perhaps €4 pn|vi? 27 Before OX remnants of letters (PK ?) are visible on the squeeze used by
Guarducci. 28-29 ob cvvavrnooper[wv S€ judv, Guarducci. 32 mpeoBevtalv ? 33 mpleo[B]letas
or mpleo[P]etay. 34-35 evleornKdrwy, Crénert. 40 ad[ro]y or ad[td]v? 42 - - odS€ ods
avSpas amédoaav tods Kpa|rovp[é|vous bx’ adr@v, Crénert, but questioned by Guarducci with
a reference to Passerini, op. cit., p.35,n.1. 45 After YH it is uncertain whether there is a fault in
the stone or a letter has disappeared. 56-58 Cf. Inscriptiones Creticae, III, 4, no. 9, Il. 51-54, in which
is found the quotation of this part of the decree by the Magnesian tribunal, with minor differences.
59 mpocépye|abau (?), Guarducci. 60 of]rwes (?), Guarducci. 68 zpeaBev|rds (?), Guarducci,
noting that Q. Fabius came to Crete with legates. 75 [recoupes|xoudSexcérw, Schehl. 77 rads

82
SENATUS CONSULTA

<k>[aba]pats [Sé ris j]uepas rvyova[ns fe]pas Kurd ovvedjrov |Sé-ypoe [apous - - -, Schehl,
whose word order, however, is bad; tats i[Aa]lpats [dipous f]uepas, Guarducci, but one misses
the article with 7¢pas. Since this day was one of the intercisi dies, one might expect here a literal
translation into Greek of some form of the Latin verb intercidere. 80 [rots ep 8é tev Spwv abr dv
Suxcoalou xrd., Schehl. 81 First lacuna restored by Schehl. 82 gTnow (?), Guarducci, who notes
that she seems to see NJOI before this word. arapayevécbou mpdrepovr' aitn|ow KrA., Schehl.
83 Schehl. 84 [duadv yerporovire Sixalords «rA., Schehl, but in this type of document one
would expect amooreiAnre. 85 [audioByrnua], Schehl, but the usual word in epigraphical texts
of this nature is 7)auguoBrrnors or Te dudioByrovpeva. 97 Before Jwoe is either I’ or I or T.

COMMENTARY. 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 (112-I1I 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. After 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

1 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 im rémischen Provinzialprozesse (Breslau,
1905), pp. 5-23.

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 140 B.c.,
awarding the victory to Itanus. 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 differences once more. The time of this intervention was I15 B.C., under
the consulship of M. Aemilius, and 114 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 111 B.c. that the final decision was reached. At any rate Itanus again was
victorious. (All of this is taken from nos. 9 and 10.)
Chronologically our document (no. 10) precedes the other (no. 9). In ours, four
distinct sections may be seen, each of them referring to events that occurred in 112 B.C.
while L. Calpurnius Piso was the consul: (1) speech of the Hierapytnian envoys to the
Senate (Il. 1-55); (2) the senatus consultum (ll. 55-74); (3) decree of L. Calpurnius Piso
authorizing the city of Magnesia to set up an arbitral tribunal (ll. 75-88); (4) letter of
Calpurnius to the Hierapytnians ordering them to destroy any buildings they may have
erected on the disputed land. Document no. 9, on the other hand, is the decision of the
Magnesian tribunal made later, within the period of one year (or actually 360 days; no.
10, Il. 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 (Il. 89-97) 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: (1) the prescript of the consul’s
letter to the Magnesians; (2) the prescript of the senatus consultum 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. It has
2 For these two consuls see Broughton, op. cit., p. 531 (M. Aemilius Scaurus) and p. $33 (M’. Acilius
Balbus).

84
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. The Senate
instructed the second tribunal (no. 9, Il. 51-54, and no. 10, Il. 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, Il. 84-88).3 One may surmise that the Senate handled the later
episodes of the dispute in a disinterested and therefore 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.+
3 TO de movrey péytorov Kal loxuporarov TEK [LTpov Tod eyywopevay Trav KaBdhou mpoy-
a > / ~ /

patwy vo ‘Pwpyaiwy ed oporoyoupevors MGS Kol KEKpyLevols THY oidov EMEVIVOX EVOL"
*Troviwy yap akiwodvtwv Thy avvKAntov iva To evwKodopnpevov b70 ‘leparutviwy ywpiov ev
4

The Kpwoperns ywpar KoOoupeOqr 7 ovvedAntos eméragev Aeveiw Kadom|[opvig Aevxiov

a / /

Tleicwv otrpaurnyd orws KaBoup| 09 €t re evwKodduntot, KTA.

4In a later generation Cicero (Pro Plancio 26. 63) said regretfully: sed ita multa Romae geruntur ut vix
ea quae fiunt in provinciis audiantur. See R. E. Smith, The Failure of the Roman Republic (Cambridge,
1955), chap. Io.

85
 15
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE COLLEGIIS
ARTIFICUM BACCHIORUM 112 B.C.

GHDHHHGSHDHDDDOSHHHGODHOHTSSAOODTSSSSOSHOOSSEES
BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Colin, B.C.H., 23 (1899): 1-55, 303-16; E. Ziebarth,
Rheinisches Museum, $5 (1900): 515-18; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, II (1900), 9303
Bruns-Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tiibingen, 1909), no. 40, pp.
171-76; F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesen (Leipzig, 1909), pp.
132ff.; W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens (London, 1911), pp. 370-71; G. Colin,
Fouilles de Delphes, UW, 2 (1911), no. 70 a (tab. 7, 2); G. Klaffenbach, Symbolae ad
historiam collegiorum artificam Bacchiorum (Diss., Berlin, 1914), pp. 29-35; M.
Holleaux, Hermes, 49 (1914): 581-89; H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3,
II, (1917), 705; M. Holleaux, Revue des Etudes Anciennes, 19 (1917): 157f.; F.
Poland, R.E., s.v. “Technitai,” in the Nachtrige to vol. V A 2 (1934), cols.
2504ff.; G. Daux, Delphes au II® et au I°" Siecle (Paris, 1936), pp. 356-72; S.
Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani?, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 34, pp.
248-55; J. Day, An Economic History ofAthens under Roman Domination (New
York, 1942), pp. 92-94; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra 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 uninscribed.
Unfortunately only stones 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 II, lines 17-33: fragments 113, 160, 179, 184, 227, 269, 289, 291, 301, 39144,
and two unnumbered fragments.
Stone III, 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. The attempt by Pomtow (op. cit., pp. 704-5) to restore many of

86
 SENATUS CONSULTA

the other fragments and to 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 and judicious remarks of Daux
(loc. cit.).
The lettering is very badly executed, the down-strokes often tilted out of the
vertical or curved instead of being straight, with the result that often H may be
confused with A or K. The number of letters in each line varies; on stone III it
fluctuates between 70 and 79. The height of the letters is 0.010 m., the space
between lines, 0.006 m.

[Emi Avov]vcio[v &pyovros, emi rAs .. Sos mpaitns mputavelas, Fu Adpuos Tysodyov
‘Povovovos eypappcrevev,|
[“ExcrouB]advo[s --------- Ths mputavetas. Adyywa avykAjrov. AevKwos
KeArépvios}
[Aevxi] ov vids Iiglwv Kevowvivos tratos tH ovykAjrwn cvveBovrAedauto mpd
Huepav ...|
[et]6@[v “L]ovviwy ey k[opetion. Tpadhopeven rapqoav Mepros Aipidvos Mépxov
vids
[ZX] xa[6] pos KopuArie, Lé[povos - -------- Lepo|vio[v vildos [---------- ]
Aevxiov vids Kopyn[Ain, ------------- Tom] Alov vios [Tar] tpie. [ITepi dv
ot mpeoBevtat|
"AOnvator Oewicotox [Ais - - - - - - - - vids, Anuloxépns An [uoxcpou] vids,
°A[-------------- vids,|
[O] copirtoxos "Odvprixo[v vids, &vdpes KoAol Ke&ya] Bol pido]. wa[pa] dxjuov
[xaAod Kayabod didrov]
[co] vppccyou re tperépo[v, Adyous eroujoavro, xe] pra pirlav ov[up|ayiow [re
avevewouvTo Kal excAccay|
10 thy avvKAnrov brép tT[Gv wap’ éavtois texvit@v TOV] rape 7a Sedo[yp] eve [r7u
ovyKAntwr Hou npEevwr, O7rws|
rabra Kvpuoc Suopevn Kall of reyviron of ovvredobytes eis "Iobuov cai Nepéav Cnpiay
oroTetowat |
Kora ta 7hs ovyeAntov [Ooypard === + = ==) 2

én avvkdAjtrou yvipns ém[ws------- 7-777 Jv eer e-

[----------

cv S€ tis ut) rebapyh tot[s Sedoypevors pnd €]upev[ne rats ovvOyKeus brrdduKos
Zorw Kara THv duce ?)-]
15 [Bl ovAcvow, drrws Hris av io [ayn TOY ovvddwv Sixy|v cel Sue[pvdrdrrovoe ras
awOjKas avayKaly Tovs|
[a] weBodvras éupévew toils SeSoypévors THe a] vyKAnran [- - - - of dé PaoKovtes
mpos Tovs| , ;
[re "Audixriovas «lot tiv avyKr [n] rov cupdpedvous ds yeve[o] Aon [Soxety, aAAa
ras avvOnkas T| €Beiabou

87
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[evarri]ws als e[A&]Boouy evrodais t[u]

ves rdv &x IleAoTov<y)Hoov TE [yver@v Koel
dua TadTH €lvou aK] pouvs, OUTE
[rats] ovvOjKau[s] eu<p>evovow, ris te [€]pyacias darapy [od] ons [juty
arok|wrv[o] vali ids adikws], Te TE xpH-
20 [wo] ra Aucv r& b[vr]a Kowe e&dica [Lov] ro, avve[A] Odvres Te ets [Lixvdva]
avvodov érrou[jnoavro] mapa To 56-
[y] uo tis ovykAy[t]ov 76 emt Iom[Alov Kop|ynAio[v, é]v du eo€ev jpals ovr] -
opevecbou ev OnBlous Kat "Ap| ye, Ka[t]
/ > / \u \

apyeta karéot|[n] aay, Kat TH[v Ko] wOv ypnuctwy tas mpoad|dous K] arexpyouvro
[ets Tas (dias Sarcvas]
mapa \ Tovs\ [Kowods\ vopous
/
TOV
cal
Tex] Tav,
a
mpeoBevdvrwr
/
Hudv
¢ a
eisaS ‘Pl wpnv
/
x] at\
Kadovy[twv thy avyKAnTov: To de]

[------ ] rods evrirdyovras juiv, ob5[év EAaccov] Tis Te Epyacias juds a-

\ > , eee > N ” a > / ¢€ ~ >
25
[woxwAvovor, TK TE XpHaTa Hudv e€1]duclovrat, avvoddv [Te] ev L[uKvde
avy] éyovat mapa To Soypwa THs ovv-
[KAjrov 76 emt KopvnXlov Kat rape to]ds ypnopod[s] rod |’AmddAwvos.
to] Suev odv tH ovyKAntov wa 7
aA lol aa \ , »\ eo OL I +

[---------------------- ]s éxarépun [---------------------

----] judy éxtos TOv Tpidv pwep@v
[------------------- Ka]t mept dv of r[pecBevrat amd Tt]@v mept Tov
Atdvucov teyuitadv e&-
30 [wmooradevres TOV avvteAovvtwr] és "lobuov [Kat Neudav], Lworrdeidas
Diroxpérov, Aapoéevos
[-------------------- ITo]Aukpérns [- - - - - - - Di] Aurmros ‘Hpddov,
evepavicay TH avykAnTau:
[rv TeyitOv TOv ev TH ArriKH dvrwy 7] ovrnoepev|wy Katy] yoplav Karis
auvddovu emt Tob otpa<rn>yod éu Make-
[Sovie KopyynAiov Licévva, kai ypoppc|trwv arrodo [Pvt] wy rH ovvedan bn’ adradv
Tape TOO oTpaTHYyOD 6m7wWs
[mp] eoBevras arro[orletAwpev ev [7] u€pous [..] Kol am[oore]Acy[T] wr Aud
mpeoBe|uras mlep[t dv 6 orpa-|
35 THyos ékédevaev Tods arrodoyiovpevous adrd1, Avovdarov, "Avdpdvixov, Dioxparny,
Apéxovra,
tovade mrepi dv pev e(l>yov tas evtoAds pun) emireA€ocu, KaTtadpovncavr<ars Sé Tod
TE THs ovyKAnToU
Sdyparos Kal Tob oTpatnyob Kal THs avvddov eADovras eis ITéAAav avvOnKas
trounawabou pos Tods
ev "Abnvous d[éox]ovras elvou texviras emitiwov emvypcapavt
ads Kara THs cvvddSou
TéAdavra éKa"

88
 SENATUS CONSULTA

ep ofs Kat [do] Pevrwy adrots éyeAnuctrwy Kare Tovs Tis avvddov vopous Tapdvres
24? ae \ , > A > 4, ~

ev OnBous Ka-
40 Taduco. eyevovto Kal dic Taira mpoodaBdpevol twas TOV ev OnBous Kat Bowron
, > la \ \ A ~

TEXVITOV TH TE
Ypappara ra Kowa amAABov Exovres were Bias Kal amoorérar yevopevor Ka” iSiav
7 \ \ > A vp

avvodov é-
trovobvTo pet aAAjAwWY drrevavTia mpar<T>oVvTEs TH avvddw1 Kal Tots KoLWots Vdpots,
A b) > / / Ul a aA a

tH Te Sux [a] -
odociay diexopav TOV Dv, TWAS
Th TEXVITOV, Tivas Lepewovvas
b j eXT>yov
z emEeveyUwY,
: j TA t TE ypTLcTa
)
Kat T[o]
\ Ni

a 7 > “A
avabnuara arAAPov éxovtes Kal Tods iXepods aredcvous, & Kal odK amodéSwKav
ovd€ ews Tob
45 viv, Tas Avotas Kal orrovdas exwAvov trovety KaDds EiOopevov tv TH ovvddar TH. TE
~ \ , \ \ BJ fe A \ ~] , > a / A

Avov[v] - /

awi Kal Tots &AAots Deots Kal Tots Kowots edepyerais “Pwycaiors. *A€obpev odv rip
ovyKAn-
Tov, yeyovetay Kal év Tots eumpoobery ypdvois Tapacitav TOV peylotwr ayabdy rie
ovvddw [t],
ouvrTnphoa Ta ek Taduav ypovwv
a
Sedopeva timia Kal PrrcvOpwmra Kat dpovricas
A > aN ~ / PS) } , iA \ m , 0 \ (2

OTWS
T0007 T& yphuara Kal Ta avabywara Kal ot oTépavot TH ovvddwt TH KOWH TH
lol A , A bts igs / N: e , a / tonal onl lod

auvtedovon<eis»
*ToOuov cai Newéav, & €xovow ot ev OnBous texvirou Kai Tes TOV ey Bow tias
A J} A ,
50

anocare [ra]
yeyevnuevor, Tas TE ovvOnKas Es eTrOLnCAYTO iva KKUPOL YEVWVTHL, ETTEL ETTOLKKH)GAVTO
Ni) /

[dz] - >

[as of mpeoBe]uTat mapa tas SoBetous adbrois evrohas Kai yeyovay UmEep TOUTWY
A \ \ , \ 7,

KaTaduKo. [Kara Tovs|

t [is ovved]ov vopous, drrws TE of vopor THv e€ “Iobu06 Kai Nepéeas rexvirev Kvpror
A ~ > > an \ , ant ,

dow. mept rov[Twr]

tov [mpalypcrwv odtws éokev: *APnvaiows mpecBevtais piravOputrws
~ > / a ,

amoKpiOjvou, &vdpas KaAods Ko[t]

a \ \

ayabods Kat dirovs rapa Sipov Kadod Kayabod Kat pidov cuppayou TE npLETEpoV
~ > lo \ / 4 ¢ ,
55
mpocnyopedaat, xapr[Ta|
lot /

l ovppayiay
diriav x soaad .
fh re avavedoucbar dv mpayparwy
mept L déde dv mpayparwv royous H
Aoyous errownoavto, . Tt
npwotnoav 7 <e>yndic [ar] -
? i AD ? ,

ro év écaurois of rexvirou of €€ Io0pob Kai Nepéas du eAuooov cua per avrdv ot

a lo \ , e ” oe b) >? ~ €

rexviran of ev rH “Arrix|A]
a >? a> onl

dvres epyactav moot, Tobro drws apwow. 6 de avudwvov yeyovds EoTw Tots
~ ~ + a“ \ / / > aA

Texvirous Tots EV
A >

tH ArriKy ovow Kat Tots Texvitous Tots e& "Iobwob Kat Newéas emt Tvaiou
S \ , 2 , A an > > lol

Kopvniiov Sisevva oTparnyo [3]

89
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

60 i) cvOuncrov éxet dvros, adudwvov éaraveu eSofev. dmov To mpdrepov eEvyKAynTov

D a uj \ / > /

ddyparos Tas
\

auvddous adbr@v Trovety HHOaow, exel ai aUvodor peTa TADTA OTTWS yiwwYTaL EOOSEV.
/ > A a tUeds >? A ¢ A ra) \ a i / Z6 €

mept de
xpnucTtwy Snpooiwy 7} Kowdv trepi dv Adyous errounoavto, ows mpos MaopKov
4 , an ~ Ae m\ / > / ig \ M /

AciBiov trarov pola] -

éMwow, obrds TE exvyvar emikpivyn odTws KaDwS (avy abt ai EK TOV Snwootwy
e ~ \ ~ > ~ /

TpaAyLaTwY moTEWsS
re idia<s> daivnra éSokev. Saws te Aedxios KaArropvios traros ’APnvatous
> /

Eevee Kata TO SidTaypwa

65 TOV\ Talay
/
amoaTetAc
> a
KEAEvon
/
OUTWSs
oe
KAAS\ cv
a“
adTai
Ve
ex>? TOV
la
SNwooWwY
/
TpPAyYLaTwY
,

TIOOTEWS
TE LOla<s> paivnrar edo€ev —vacat

Text and restorations are those of Colin, except where noted. 14-15 dva( ?)B]ovAevowr, Klaffen-
bach; ovp]BovAevo(e)wv, Dittenberger. 17 &AA& dadoKovar ovvOyjKas ovvte]GeicGou, Colin;
r€|0cetoOou, Klaffenbach (cf. Polybius 1.11.7). 19 [jpiv drox]wAv[olvalu juds &dixws], Klaffen-
bach; [ras arox|waAlvov]o[e mapa 76 dikauov], Colin. 20 [Avcv@va]; cf. 1. 26. 22 [els ras
iStas Samavas], A. Wilhelm, Anzeiger Akad. Wien, 1922, p. 26(S.E.G., II [1924], 320). 25 odd[ev
éAacoor, ie., nihilo minus. 32 XTPATOY, stone. 34 Klaffenbach reports space for about two
letters after 7]u€pars, 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. KATA®BPONHZANTES, stone. 38
EWIT'PAVANTES, stone. 42 ITJTPATONTES, stone. 44ITPOY2,stone. 47 ITAPAITAN,
stone. 49 At the end of the line the space after cvvreAovo7n is uninscribed. Colin thought of eis
at this place but did not include it in the text; it was added by Klaffenbach. 51 EIJOIXANTO,
stone. §2 At the beginning, - -]orau, Colin, but Klaffenbach saw - -]YTAI. 56 HYHO@IZ..
TO, stone. 64 IMIA, stone, as also in |. 66.

COMMENTARY. This important document contains a senatus consultum of 112 B.C.

which settled once and for all—at least as far as we hear—the long-standing quarrel
between the Athenian and Isthmian guilds of Dionysiac Artists.!_ For some 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. Consequently,
when this final decree of 112 was passed in favor of the Athenians it was engraved upon
the wall of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi for all to see. Fortunately it contains a
fairly full résumé of the quarrel.

' The clearest and most trustworthy account of the quarrel is the one given by Daux, loc. cit. Shorter
résumés are presented by Day, loc. cit., and A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of 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 (Il. 2-3) and M. Livius C. f. Drusus (1. 62); see Broughton, Magistrates, I, 538.

90
SENATUS CONSULTA

Four stages of the quarrel are at once apparent. The first one culminated in a senatus
consultum (1. 21) that regulated the relations between the two guilds and established Argos
and Thebes as common places in which to hold their meetings. Such co-operation
called for the establishment of common officials and funds. 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
138), P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (consul in 134), or P. Cornelius P. £ Lentulus
(praetor in an unknown year).? The second stage ended in 118/17 B.c., when repre-
sentatives of the two guilds met with C. Cornelius Sisenna, the governor of Macedonia.3
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 senatus consultum, a few
years after the meeting before Sisenna, to confirm the provisions of the first decree and
to uphold the agreements made in 118/17. When these three measures failed to produce
peace between the guilds a fourth appeal to Roman authority was made. This resulted
in a third senatus consultum, the present one of 112 B.c., which gave complete victory to
the Athenian claims. 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. Their respective complaints in 112 B.c. were as follows:
1. The Athenian guild:
a. The Isthmians refused to pay the ten-talent fine 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 first 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
actions and were condemned. Thereupon they won sympathizers in Thebes,
took the records of the guild, and absconded. 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.

2 Pomtow, op. cit., 704, n. 3, identified the official with the P. Cornelius P. f. Lentulus who had been
honored by the Isthmian guild, apparently in 128 B.c. (704 B-C), believing him to be the praetor or
propraetor of Macedonia at that time. Daux, op. cit., pp. 361ff., rejects this view. See also
Broughton, op. cit., p. §07, n. I.
3 The date of his governorship can be determined by means of Dittenberger’s S.I.G.3, II, 704 K’,
which allows us to collate the Macedonian and Athenian years. For his title orparnyo[6] 7)avOumarov
in 1. 60 see Holleaux in Hermes, 49: 581-89, and in Revue des Etudes Anciennes, 19: 88ff. See Broughton,
op. cit., p. 528, n. 2.

91
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 additional information on the quarrel is obtained, the
most significant being the fact that the Amphictyonic Council in about 125 B.c. began
to show great affection for the Athenian guild. This gave the Athenians a powerful
ally in their 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. Nevertheless, some questions must be asked and at least
tentative answers given. 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 B.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.5 The destruction of Corinth in 146 B.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 No solid evidence exists,
however, to substantiate such a situation. 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 B.c. (I.G., Il2, 1132) and had been renewed in ca. 130/29 B.c. (ibid.),
very strong motives must have prompted the people or the state which violated them.”
One of the reasons for the renewal of Athenian immunities may have been the fact that
the Isthmians began to disregard them. That it was no small matter may be deduced
from the fact that in our decree of 112 B.c. it is not the Athenian guild which sends its
41.G., Il?, 1134, ll. 1-63 (=S.I.G.3, II, 704 E). For the date and interpretation of the decree see
Daux, op. cit., pp. 366ff., and, for further discussion of the date, see G. Klaffenbach, Gnomon, 1938,
p. 20, as well as Daux, Chronologie Delphique, (Paris, 1943), p. 59. Daux observed that nowhere is
there any better evidence for the enthusiasm and good will of the Amphictyonic Council toward the
Athenian guild than in this decree. One of the reasons for this good will was certainly the exemplary
fashion in which the Athenian guild had taken part in the Pythais of 128/27 B.c. (for this see Daux,
op. cit., pp. 722-26, and the text in Fouilles de Delphes, Ill, 2, no. 47).
5 See Poland, op. cit., cols. 2500ff.
6 The territory of Corinth and perhaps all of Boeotia and Euboea became ager vectigalis: M. I.
Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II, 748. For the details and latest discussion of the problem see Accame,
op. cit., 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 of I.G., II, 1132, ll. 52-94 (= S.1.G.3, II, 692) hinges on the date of the Delphian archon
Aristion and that of the Athenian archon Demostratus. Daux, in his Chronologie Delphique, pp.
58-59, dates it in either 134/33 (?) or 130/29 (?).

g2
SENATUS CONSULTA

delegates to Rome but the Athenian state. Therefore, 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 a joint 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. Thereafter it became the leading association
of its kind.

93
 l6
SENATUS CONSULTUM ET FOEDUS
CUM ASTYPALAEENSIBUS TOS 5-C.

DHDEERDHHHHDDDDHHHHSSSSSSSESSESEESSSTEERSOSaSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. G. Osann, Sylloge Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graecarum et

Latinarum (Leipzig, 1834), pp. 388ff. (based on the copy by J. B. G. d’Ansse de
Villoison now in the Bibliothtque Nat., cod. ms. suppl. graec. 930, f. 78); A.
Boeckh, C.1.G., II (1843), 2485, and add., p. 1098; Th. Mommsen, Hilgenfelds
Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 18 (1874): 232ff.; E. L. Hicks, A Manual
of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1882), p. 203; G. Cousin, B.C.H., 10
(1886): 171; Th. Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, III3, 1 (1887), p. 596, with n.
2; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XXI, pp. 42-45; F. Bechtel,
in Collitz—Bechtel, Sammlung der griechischen Dialektinschriften, III, 4 (1889): 3463;
C. Cichorius, Rheinisches Museum, 44 (1889): 444-47; F. Hiller von Gaertringen,
I.G., XII, 3 (1898): 173, and suppl. (1904), p. 278; E. Taubler, Imperium
Romanum (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 45, 48-50, $6, 59-62, 124-25, 363-69, 458; Th.
Mommsen, C.I.L., I? (1918), commentary on no. 588; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV
(1927), 1028; Horn,
H. Foederati (Frankfurt, 1930), pp. 73, 76-77; G. H.
Stevenson, C.A.H., IX (1932), 464; A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman
Citizenship (Oxford, 1939), pp. 158-59; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., Il
(1941), 1514, n. 48; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad
Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 80-90; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I(New
York, 1951), no. 132, pp. 331-32; G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, n.s., 31 (1953): 7ff. (cf.
S.E.G., XV, 506); Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes,
no. 52; A. Donati, Epigraphica, 27 (1965): 13-17.

DESCRIPTION. 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. Villoison, however, had made a copy in minuscules, which, despite its
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

A. Senatus consultum

[- -] wept rovrov Tob mpdyparos obrws Soke: [pds]

[Tov Shuov tov "AorurradAnéwy elprynv didlo ovuppo-|
[xéov] avavedboucbe cvdpa Kaddv Kal &yabdr [rope 57-]
[wou] KoAod Kod eyoBod Kat Pitov mpoccyo[pedocu rodTw]
[re] prev Opumrws crroxpiOfveu: eSo€ev. Kat [dru ITé7A-|
[os] “Poridtos brraros yeAkwpe ovppaylas [radrns ev]
[7G] Kosrerwriwnr karnrwOfveu dpovrion [odtws Ko-]
[Alas cy abt ek rHv Snuoctwr mpaypcérwv [mioreds]
[te] Tis Bias paivnrar eokev. “Ori [re [Idmos ‘Pori-]
pide) [Ac]os tararos Tov topicy ard To Sidraypa [Eve Sodveu abra]
[x] Aevon Ovoiay re ev Karetwriw, édv O€An, roufa[au odbt@ e&f Kot Kare]
tov vouov [rév te] ‘PdBpiov Kal tov "Axidov [amdypadov avabeivan ev]
[7] dan dypooiw [Kai emipavet] mporetper[ov, ob av mretoTou rapa-]
[co] retxwou [7Ov odtav,| Kol Kar’ evvavrov [ev rH exkdAnat-]
15 [¢] avayopede>obeu eSoéev. Emi trdr<w>v IonA[lov ‘PotiXi-|
[ov] LomXiov viot Kat [Iv]atou MaaXiov Ivaiov viod, [otparnyot Ka-]
[ra] adAw Aevkiov [- -]wviov Aevxiov viod, [emt 5é trav Edvwv - -|
[---------- ] HomXiov viod, [ads dé "AoruTadaeis]
ayovow émt [Dire] TaXi>pov tod [------------ , edo0€e]
20 [wiveKe ovppayias avareOqver, tpecBedvocvtos ‘Podoxréovus Tob ’Avriyscyov]
Kat <tadrns <tis> ovppayias SoOAven TH Shum [7@ Aotutadaréwv rrive-|
[xa] Kare Sdéypo ovyKArjrov.

B. Foedus
(Space of three lines)
eiei ie ae APIS TAR? WS Hest 7 Sip 7O]
[‘Pwpaiwy cat] TO Sym tO "Aorumadcuewr eipyyn Kat [pric]
[Kot ovppayia] gorw Kol Kare yh Kal Kare OcAucoow [els Tov &-|
[avra ypdvov'] mdAepos S€ yy eoTw. ‘O Sfyos [6 "AoruTtadaéwv p71) d.-]
30 [ver Tods| oAeplovs Kol drevewtiovs [Tob Sypov Tod ‘Pwpoiwr]
[Sud ris iSias ywpas Kal Fs dv 6 Shpuos 6 AotuTaAuéwv xpath dn-|
[woo] <it>e Bovdg, wore TH ‘“Pwyaiwy Kat tots bd ‘Pwpotov<sy
[7] <a>aoopevois méAcpov emupepwor punjte Tots 7o<A>[Eplous pre drrAcis]
pre xpyjpaor prjre vavolv Bonfeirw {0} Snuoari>au Bovds SdA[w ovnpa.|
35 °O Siuos 6 ‘Pwpaiwy tods troAepuious Kal daevavrious [- - - - - |
[- - r]08 Sijpov rod "Aotumahoudwr Sic THs iSias yapas Kal As av
[kparq 6 Siuos 6 ‘Pwpaiwy pr) dwérw] dyuoorirar Bovds 50¢A>w [7r0-|
[ynpd, dore TH Shpuw 7H] ’AoruTraraéwv Kat tots bn’ adbtods
Tacoopévous TdAELov emipepwow: pre [Tots moAepious wHTE] SmACoLs> TE
xpypwo{rajor pyre

95
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

vavot BonfeKXrw> pjre S0Aw movnp@. Edy 8€ tis [mpdrepos oAepwov| emupepy TO
~ , ~
40

Snuw [74]
’Aoruradéwv, 6 Sipos [6] ‘Pwpyciwy [7 Syuw 7H "AotuTradcuéwv BonBetrw ?.
aA ~ A si

*Ecw dé}
[ris] mpdrepos méAcnov emipepn [7H Syuw 7H ‘Pwyaciwv, 6 Shpuos 6 “Aorumadouéwv
Bonbeirw éx]
[dv] ovvOnkdv Kal opxiwy [tOv yeyevnuevwy - - - - - - ave pecov
~ lon) \ ¢ / ~ , > \ ,
?|
?

tod Sypov Tav “Pwpaiwy kat rod djuov trav “AotuTadnewv.

45 "Edy Sé t1[s] mpos tradras tas cvvOjKas Kowh Bovdf mpocbeiven 7
aderctv BovrACwy>vrau Snpwoo<ia Bovdn [ds 2] dv Oedjon eE€orw: «& dé av mpocbdow
ev tais ovvOnKcus 7) [a] av ape{Arwow &k THv cvvOnkOv, exTos EoTw TadTH [ev] rats
ovvOnKous yeypoppeva. [avabévrwv dé] avdbnwa eu wev “Pwpaiwv ev TO
i, VA > , \ > ta “a A € / > ~

Karetrwriw vag Tob

Atos, év 8é "Aarumadaéwv ev tO tep@ tis "AOnvas Kai rod *Aokdynmob Kal mpos
50
T@ Bea@ [- - -] ris “Payns.
C. Decree of the Astypalaeans

"Edoke 7@ Sduw: CAp>ywvidas Edxrcds ereatcére:, mputaviwy [yvopa|

[Ex] <d<9> mrapa<ye)yevntou 6 amoaradels mpecBevtas eis “Papav “P{odoxAjjs
"Avruscyou Kat
[ra] wre[pi cvprcyias] Soyparicbevra [amevyvoxe,| So0cion (2?) de 8v adrob [rod]
padiapwaros
[---------- ] rods mpeoBeutds brép tas mrarpidos Kat ‘Pu[pas - - - - - - - - |
55

[------ ] ovuppayiay moti rods [‘Pwuaious ---------- |

[----- -] emrouveoo pev [‘PodokdAnv ’Avtiyscyov - - - - - - - |

Text is essentially that of Viereck (notes) except where noted.

A 2-3 elpyvnv or xe&pira; Mommsen had [zpos rov dfuov trav *AoruTadaewv didrlav Kat
ovppaxiav]. 4-5 Cf. S.C. de Narthaciensium et Melitaeensium litibus (No. 9), B, ll. 61-63. 6-7 See
Polybius 3.26. 1: rnpoupevwr rv ovvOnKkOv Ett viv ev yaAKwpaor mapa TOV Ala rov Kametwdvov
ev T@ TOV cwyopavopwv topretw. 7 Villoison indicates iota adscriptum here and in 1. 13, but
elsewhere it is missing. 10 (end) Mommsen had zapéyew instead of Sodveu. 12 As interpreted
by Tibiletti, two laws; [avabeivat re &rdypadov ev] xrX., Viereck and others. 13 Previously
Viereck restored [kai emupavds] mpoxeerv[w, but he adopted the present restoration from a
suggestion by J. Schmidt; mpoxetpevov, Villoison. 13-14 Viereck was previously uncertain about
the restoration, but he has retained it (notes). 15 ovayop¢evabc, Villoison; umarov, Villoison.
16 [orparnyav], Mommsen. 18-19 Hicks followed by Viereck; «yovow em - - - arapoutou,
Villoison. 19-20 Hiller and Viereck; Cousin, [mivaé |ovppjo[yic]s [av]e[r€0n mpeoBevoar]ro[s
“Podokdéovs to *Avryscxov]; Taubler, [I1ém\os ‘Porittos | traros émérate yoAkwpo
ouppayias ev TH Karetwriw xabnrwbA|vou] cai nrA. 21 Kew avtys, Villoison, according to
Hiller’s transcription.

96
 SENATUS CONSULTA

B 31 No indication in Villoison of the existence of this line. 31-32 After BovA# Cichorius adds
[S0Aw movnp@]; Pawpouow, Villoison. 33 eocopevois and ov[- -, Villoison. 34 Snpoolé]a
BovAj, Cichorius. Previous editors had 6 840s Kat Bovdr. For this error, introduced by Villoison,
see Cichorius, op. cit., p. 444. 35-36 drevavrious \[7T]od Sypov tod ’Aorumadaéwy Krd.,
Cichorius; but dzevartious [ris BovAgs | Kal t]oo Siou Krd., Viereck and Hiller. Taubler
objected to the latter because Snjzos Kou Bovdn, which is in the copy by Villoison, is a mistake for
Sypoorar Bovdn. 37 Syuos Kat Bovdn Sow, Villoison. 39 pyte oma pnTe ypnwaraor,
Villoison (with the ra deleted). 40 BonOew, Villoison. Cichorius adds [y7jre?Squooia Bovag]
after BonBei¢rw>. Cichorius has [pdrepos 7dAeor], followed by Viereck (notes). 41 Cichorius
has [oreAAérw (?) Bon Bevav evKapov. “Edw Sé tis] .... 40-44 Taubler inverts the order of
the lines because of édv 8€ in 1. 40. He restores the lines thus: [étv rus] mpdrepos méAepov
empepn |[7@ Siuw TO “Pwpaiwv, 6 Sfpos 6’ Acrurradaéwv], edv 5€ ris [mpdrepos] emidépn
| tO Shuw [7] "Aorumadcudwy, 6 SHpos [6] ‘Pwuaiwy [Boneirw | Kard 76 edxoupov 6 av
ex TOV] ovvOnKdv Kat dpxiwy [e€f moveiv]| 7(O> SHu<w> tov ‘Pwpaiwy Kal r(O> Shu<w>
t@v “Aotumadaéwv. 45 Ts, Villoison, who deleted the sigma. 46 BovAovrot, Villoison;
[elev AeAjo[n], Viereck (previously); [60°] &v OeAjoet, Hiller and Taubler; [ds (?)] av OeAjon,
Cichorius. 47 7 avagepwouw, Villoison; ékrdés apparently means here extra contextum (cf. A.
Wilhelm, Géttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1903, pp. 79sff., but see also Taubler, op. cit., p. 60); [ev],
Cichorius, Hiller, and Taubler, but rejected by Viereck. 48 [avari0écOw 5é€], Taubler. 50 7h
Bwpe® [rod Atos keel] rAs “Podpns, Boeckh, followed by Viereck at first but then (notes) rejected.
51 Evxwvidas, Villoison, corrected by Wilamowitz with reference to I.G., XII, 3,172, 1.10. 52 2
Se mapayernrat, Villoison; PadoxAns, Villoison, but Wilamowitz corrected to ‘P{o>doxAfjs (cf.
S.1.G.3, Ill, 1215, ll. 16, 18-19). 58 ore tow, Villoison.

COMMENTARY. 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 immunis was more useful in aligning them on her side and
making them dependent upon her without making the arrangement a permanent one.
Thus the use of the treaty in Roman foreign policy fell into disfavor and was eventually
abandoned.!_ 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.?

1 Sherwin-White, loc. cit. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 113-14, rightly sees in the year 146 B.C.
“the end of proper international relations and proper international 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 defined and interpreted by Rome.”
2 References in Taubler, op. cit., pp. 44-47, and Horn, op. cit., pp. 70-71. For Aetolia see S.E.G.,
XIII, 382 (now in I.G., [X?, 1, 241; see also S.E.G., XVI, 370, and XVII, 280). For the new
foedus Callatinum see A.E., 1933, p. 106, and, most recently, St. Martin, Epigraphica, 10 (1950):
104ff.

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. 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. One final, but, I
think, significant point is added (ll. 14-15): 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 foedus aequum. And at the
end, perhaps as a postscript, one finds the order for publication (Il. 48-50).
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 the foedus appeared on the Capitol in bronze, while the
decree was merely deposited in the aerarium.4 Others, however, believe that both of
them were engraved on bronze.5 In other words, how reliable are these Greek copies
in reflecting the arrangement of documents in Roman archives? Then there is the other
matter of the “renewal” ofa treaty. In the present instance does it mean that Astypalaea
had an existing treaty prior to 105 B.c. which is here being “‘renewed”? Taubler says
yes, Horn says no. Taubler 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
3 I follow here A. Heuss, Klio, 27 (1934): 247.
4 See the remarks of Horn, op. cit., pp. 76ff., and of Heuss, op. cit., pp. 246-47.
5 Accame, loc. cit. On this particular point see also the review of his book by F. W. Walbank in
J.R.S., 37 (1947): 206, and our Introduction, section 3.
® Taubler, op. cit., pp. 122-23; Horn, op. cit., pp. 72-73. Taubler suggests that the occasion for the
making of the treaty may have been the war with Aristonicus. For the meaning of évaveodabat see
G. Daux, Delphes au II? et au I*" Siecle (Paris, 1936), p. 304, n. 2, and idem, in Mélanges offerts aA.-M.
Desrousseaux (Paris, 1937), pp. 119-22; cf. L. Robert, Hellenica, 1 (1940): 96-97, n. 5.

98
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.

99
 be
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE TABENIS 81-80 B.C.?

QHHDGDHGSHDDSHHSO
HOODS SHS OSHS SSHTSSSSSSSggsSH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Doublet, B.C.H., 13 (1889): 503ff.; P. Viereck, Hermes,

25 (1890): 624ff.; Th. Mommsen, Hermes, 26 (1891): 145ff. (Gesammelte
Schriften, 5: 514ff.); V. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris,
1904), pp. 38ff.; W. Dittenberger, O.G.L.S., II (1905), 442; Abbott—Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 16, p. 271;
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Mommsen und Wilamowitz: Briefwechsel
1872-1903 (Berlin, 1935), pp. 392ff.; M. Segre, Clara Rhodos, 9 (1938): 205;
W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, VI
(Manchester, 1939), no. 162, pp. soff.; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941),
956, and III (1941), 1564; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950),
I, 234ff., and II, 965, 1003, 1112; J. Robert and L. 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 und Kommentare (Heidelberg, 1959), no. 75, pp.
245-47; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 67;
R. K. Sherk, Greek, Roman and 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 surface.” Height: 0.40 m.
Width: 0.58 m. Thickness: 1.05 m. The letters are 0.01-0.015 m. high.
“The inscribed surface of this block allows room for sixteen lines; above and
below it must have lain similar blocks bearing the beginning and the
continuation of our text. This did not extend beyond the 1. and r. edges of our
block, as is plain from lines 11-14; this stone was therefore 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]).

100
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[- - - rots re Bl ao [Adws MiOpadcérov nyenoow |

[Suvdpecty] re eravdpdrare [epi ris ’Aoias]
[kat tT]As “EANKSos avtirercyO[ou, &péoxew THe]
[ovv] KArjren Kod tHe Sic [rae ‘Pwy]
ce[wv mévra od] -
[rots] ta&piora elvan écecbul Te, TH [v Te mpos THY avr] -
[xAn] tov Kol tov SHov tov ‘Papoa[lwv odrav (?) wiorw]
[Suk] prryjuns eyew e€ew re vv Salas te Kdpas Ths |
[rod] rwv aperis Kat Karadoyhs év[exev adrois]
[wer]@ ovvBovdrlov yraipns Aevnvos K[opvijAos]
Io [ZVAA] as adroxpérwp ovvexwpyoev vv drw[s adr] -
[cu ad] rots tots vépos aipécecty te How [dai}Koor,]
[G7w]s te ywpiov Ovnoadr, 6 eorw evtds Tdv [6]-
[piw]v adrav, edv BovrAwvrou, dyupmowow: [rH]
[re od] vcAnrov rév te Shuov tov ‘Pwpaiwy [Sc] -
15 [Aa] vBavew rabra odbrots adds Kat vv [poor] -
[xdv7] ws Kal a&iws adradv, Seddc0cu Te [- -- -|

The text here given is based essentially on that of Robert. 1-2 Restored originally by Doublet
from the phraseology in the S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), ll. 82-84; Buckler and Calder added
ouvrrerone |unxévan at the beginning. 3-7 Viereck, but with some changes by Robert. ‘Pwpo [iw
avp.axtov] was introduced by Buckler and Calder, but Robert rightly rejected it. Perhaps one
might restore “Pwyaliwy mpoaipecw]. 7-11 All editors and commentators except Wilamowitz
were misled by the faulty reading of [7]éA[ecs] in 1. 10, which was found to be 6zw[s] when Buckler
and Calder had re-examined the stone. 7 6a[« re pydioO Avan, Buckler and Calder; da[« re émaOAce
ths |,Wilamowitz, followed by Maier; do[a re drAcvOpwre (?), Robert; dalas Te Kawpas Ty],
Sherk. 10-11 dw[s én’ t|on od]rois and [Kvpic] at the end (Buckler and Calder) ;dws tabra
éx’” ad|rots and [kvpia] at the end (Robert); daw|[s df’ | éav]rois and [mdoats] at the end
(Klaffenbach with hesitation, followed by Maier); drq@[s abrlou odjrots and [da7jxoor] at the
end (Sherk). 16 Viereck joined S<Sdc0cu re[r&x8cu to the preceding words in thought; zpoo7]|
kovt|ws, Doublet.

COMMENTARY. At the conclusion of the first war against Mithridates in 85 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. He is called adroxpérwp but not
yet "Emradpddiros.t Sometime after his return to Italy in 83 B.c., and probably in 81,
the people of Tabae dispatched an embassy to obtain senatorial confirmation of Sulla’s
grant and also permission to fortify Thyessos. This was normal procedure. The Senate
approved. 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 10-11. The difficulty has also been
1 For Sulla’s titles see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, “Sulla Felix,” J.R.S., 41 (1951): I-Io.

101
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

aggravated by a faulty reading in line 10, [7] dA[ecs] for d7w[s]. It was thereby assumed
that Sulla had granted Tabae control of cities in the area, an assumption rejected by
Mommsen and Wilamowitz. In 1933 and 1934 Buckler and Calder established the true
reading. But the main problem still remained.
The problem is this. The grammatical connection between oo[- - in line 7 and
émq@[s] in line 10 makes it reasonable to believe that whatever was mentioned after
oa[- - should be either the subject of dow in line 11 or otherwise connected with the
ér@[s| clause.2 But the key words are missing.
Buckler and Calder restored do[a re ndicOFvau] in line 7 and completed lines 10-11
as follows:
[XvAA]as adroxpaétwp ovveydpycev vv mw|s en’ t]-
[on ad] rotsa totsA vdpous atpéceciv re dow
ae
[Kvpicr]
/
.

Robert objected, for on historical grounds “all that Sulla permitted them to be voted”
was not possible. He had not been in Tabae and could hardly have given the city
permission to vote anything at the time of the resistance it offered to Mithridates.
Thus Robert proposed da|a re ducvOpwrra ? for line 7 and restored lines 10-11 in quite
a different fashion:
[LvAA] as adroxpdrwp ovveywpynoev vv érw|s tabra]
[ear ad|tots tots vopois aipéceciy Te Wow [Kvpuc] .

Bean disapproved of this and felt that lines 10-11 should be completed in such a way
as to allow the city to make its own laws and decisions:
[LVAA] as odroxpdrwp ovveywpnoev vv dtrw[s KUptot]
[e¢’ ad] rots (?) tots vdpous aipéceow te dow [yphobau].
And Klaffenbach was not satisfied. He felt sure that Wilamowitz was right in
suggesting da[a re émabdAa THs|| - - - for line 7, and accordingly he followed this up
in lines 10-11 with a tentative restoration:

[SVAA] as adroxpdrwp ovveywpnoev vv dw[s bd’]

[€xv] rots tots vouous atipéceciv re Sow [réoas].
€ a a Lae Z / MeOy 4

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 éa@A« or some similar word must be
restored in line 7. Such a word must carry over to the d7w[s] clause and the verb in
line 11, 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. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), ll. 50-52, and the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22), Il. 16-18.

102
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.
1. S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), lines 53-56: ywpla [Kcbpos Aywevas mpoad|Sous
te TOV] TOAewr, dv AedKios Kopy[jAvos LvAAas adroxpdétwp | Tihs TovTwr| aperis
Karadoyis Te €|vexev mpoowpioev cvveydpy|cev, dmws T| aire adbrots éyew e& [Fur KA.
Compare lines 93-97 and 102-4.
2. S.C. de Thasiis (No. 20), lines 13-16 ofE: &s te mpooddous ris todtwv &p[eris
Kal Karadoyhs evexev ard ovpBovdtov yrwmns|| Aevivos KopyiAuos [2] Aas
adtokp|&rwp trois adrots ovy|| exdpnoev v mdAleis ywpila Kal b[répyovra adtois
(2) - - -]| Aevas Krd.
3. S.C. de Oropiis (No. 23), lines 19-23: ém<e>i ev Ou ris pucbdoews Vopr abou
at | yOpar dreFerpnueven cioiv, ds Aevdevos LvAas Oedv aBaverwr lepdv Tewevav |
pudakis Everev ovvexwpnoer {irreEeipnucvar elaiv}, ravras Te Tas mpoa|ddous, mept
dv cyerou TO mp&ypa, AevKwos LUANas rH Ved Audiapcwr mpoyadupi|aev (!), rd.

Thus it is possible to suppose that Sulla had also granted Tabae the control of villages
or districts. These are in no sense cities and have nothing to do with a confederation of
any sort. Some support for this view is to be found in the following clause of the decree
(ll. 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 fortifications 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.3
With villages for the subject of the verb in line 11, the possibility of restoring dar7jKoou
at the end of that line is introduced. And the use of that word in lines 16-19, column 1,
of the letter written by Dolabella to the Thasians (No. 21) makes the possibility almost
a certainty. Lines 7-11 of our decree may then be translated: “..., and whatever
villages L. Cornelius Sulla imperator granted to them, after consultation with his consilium,
for 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 cvveywpyoev by itself was not sufficient to convey the meaning of attributing
territory to Tabae; he believed that zpoowpucev would also be necessary in such a case. But a passage
(quoted above, no. 3) from the S.C. de Oropiis, Il. 19-23 (cf. ll. 25-27), seems to show that ovveywpnoev
alone could be enough. See Sherk, op. cit., p. 299.
4G. Gatti, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita, 1887, pp. 110-11, and ibid., 1888, pp. 134 and 189 (I.G.,
XIV, 695-96 b; I.G.R.R., I, 63; C.LL., 12, 730b; C.L.L., VI, 30922 b; J. Robert and L. Robert,
op. cit., no. 4, p. 96); cf. Magie, op. cit., II, 954-55 and r090.

103
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

‘O 8[jpuos] 6 TaBnvav
pidlos] Kol adppoayos
‘Pw [wai] wr.
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.

104
 Id
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE
STRATONICENSIBUS 81 B.C.
DSHOAHHOSHOAHOGH
SNA HHAS
YAAH
HOON SSSssEgs
OGHS ggy
BIBLIOGRAPHY. L. Ross, Kleinasien und Deutschland (Halle, 1850), p. 104;
C. T. Newton, Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae, I (London,
1863), 75; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Groce et en Asie Mineure:
Inscriptions, II (1870), nos. 543-44; O. Benndorf and G. Niemann, Reisen in
Lykien und Karien (Vienna, 1884), p- 155; Ch. Diehl and G. Cousin, B.C.H., 9
(1885): pp. 437-74; S. Bases, "Ed. "Apy. 1886, pp- 42-48; P. Viereck, Sermo
Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XVI, pp. 24-31; Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator,
Roi de Pont (Paris, 1890), no. 18, pp. 467-70; W. Dittenberger, O.G.LS., II
(1905), no. 441; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, I (Leipzig, 1913), 158-59 and
457-58; Abbott—Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire
(Princeton, 1926), no. 17, pp. 272-76; H. Horn, Foederati (Diss., Frankfurt, 1930),
p- 72; L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), pp. 520 and 561-62; T. R. S.
Broughton, “Roman Asia,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome,
IV (Baltimore, 1938), 517, n. 86; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla
guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), p- 92; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia
Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 235, Il, 1112-13, n. 9; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman
Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), no. 134, pp. 337ff.;J.Robert and L. Robert,
La Carie, II (Paris, 1954), 98-101; F. Papazoglou, R.E.G., 72 (1959): 100-5;
Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 68.

DESCRIPTION. This decree has been engraved on the wall of the Temple of
Hecate at 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. O), but with the discovery 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 B1-2 is extant, the first half of block B (=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 blocks and the columns see
the revised plan in Viereck, op. cit., p. 24.)
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
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

reproduced here. They can be found in the publications by Diehl and Cousin
and by Dittenberger.
The fragments containing our decree show some peculiarities worthy of
mention from an epigraphical point of view. In the first place the beginnings
of lines are indented in a rather unusual way, and we have tried to preserve this
indentation in the text. Fragment B? contains a good example, for in it we
find the beginnings of lines 15 and 17 forming the extreme left margin of
the text with other lines indented from one to seven letter spaces.
Secondly, the stones were originally joined so carefully and fitted together so
smoothly that lines of text could be engraved both above and below the
horizontal line formed by the joining of two stones. For example, stone H rests
on top of stone K, and the upper half of the word Ltparovixetow (1. ror) is
engraved on stone H and the lower half on stone K. Thirdly, at the bottom of
stone K, to the right of and one line below odrws yiv[w]yrau (1. 112), is found a
solitary "Aya64 rv[yn] engraved in different characters from those of the decree.
This means that below it was a different inscription and that line 112 marks the
bottom of that particular column (the third one according to Diehl and Cousin
and Viereck), and probably of all five columns belonging to the senatorial
decree.

Frag. ABt [Aledxuos Kopvyjduos A]evxiov [vids] LvAAas ’Emadpdditos

[Sucrérwp Ltparovi]kéwy &p[xo] vor Bovdte Sipe. yaiperv-
[ode eyvoobpev buds] dic poly] vey ravra te Sikowa
[mpos tIv Huetépaly jyeu[ov] ov merounKdras Kal ev
5 [wovri Koup&e THY mpos 4]was milo] tw eiAuKpwds TeTnpHKdOTUS
[ev re rae pds MiOpadé| rnv m[o]Acuar mpwrovus tau ev rie
[’Actou evrireraypevous Ka]t du& tadra Kwddvvous moAAovs
[re Kol ravrodamovs]| tirép Tv 7LeTépwv Snuooiwv
[mpoypdrwv tpobupd| tara &[v] adeSeypevous
10 [--------- ] Kot tlods Kowvods] Kal Tods iSuwriKods
[pirlas €]ve[Kev 7] pos 7wGs edvolaus Te
[Kal yepitos, Kal ev TH. TOD ToAE] wou Koupadi mpds TE
[tas GAAas THs ’Aoias wéAets memp]eoBevKdtas Kat mp[d]s
[ras rhs “HAAddos - - ----------------- ]
Frag. B2C! Aevxuos Kop [vjAvos LWAAas *Eradpoditos Sixt] aéTwp
Lrparo|vKewy a&pyovar BovaAH Shwe yotpew:]
mpeoPevrais duletépos TO yevouevov bro avyKAyjr|ov Sdéypua TobTo [rapeédwxc..]
Aéuxios Kopyijdu[os Aeveiov vids Lédas ’Eradppoditos Sixt] &rwp
ovykAjrw ov[veBovredouro mpd ypepOv €& Ko] Aavddv
20 "Anpiriwn &v rt Koperion ypadouevan maphoov I’) cos
Dévvwos Taiov [vids -------------- I} cuos
PDovdernos Tailov vios ----. Iepi dv Utparovxe]is é« Xpv-
ano [péwv]
ITaubvios ‘Iep[oxAdous, - - ---------------------- ]

106
 SENATUS CONSULTA

EQ Re ron IGA 20 ee ]
Avowsowos E[-------------- mpeoBevrat Adyous errovy| cavTo
7

cup [ddvws Kal &KorovOus rH. Utpwrovixewy Undiopare|

Frag.D [@&todvres ourideabou emt rai rT]a Snudsov mpcy [ware t]ob Sypov
> ~ ~ ~

[Tod “Pwyaiwy ev Bedtion Ka] racréoen elveu

30 ©[d7ws xpvoodv orépavov Tape THs i]dias méAews THe cvpKAjran
hd ~ / \ ~ > / / “A if

[aveBetven e&fe amd raAdvrwr 8] cexoolwy,

[Qvotav re ev re Karetwrtun Srrws| rrovfoou e&fu brép THs v[cK]ns
[kat ris Hyepovias Tod Syov Tod] ‘Pwyolwr,
[Srws re 76 Aowrov Aevkian Kopyyndar Alevxtov vidu SvAAa ’Eradpodiren
35 [Sixrérope daivnrou Lrparovikewy] Shpwe prcvOpdmws Kexpho[G] cu
[ered re 6 SHpos ev Tat Kaupat THs elpyv|ns ovverrpnoev rv iSlav
[edvouty re Kat miotw Kat dirtay] mpds Tov SHpwov tov ‘Pwpodwv
” / \ / \ / \ \ ~ \ ¢< /

[kat mpros trav ev rH Aciau, dre MiOp|adcrns ev odt [Fu]

\ -~ al > Ane / ¢ , > ? a

[Seworara erupdvvever, mpoeirero av] tireT&yOou*

40 [ézret 5€ 6 Bacideds emt tiv mdAw erArOev,| Ehdv 8 experyale]v

Frag.O [--------- Aevrias KopynAian Aevxiou vidi Sia]

Suxta@rop. emu[taéavr - ---------------------ee ]
[x]ot eel 6 Shpuos [ovverypyoer cel rH dmdpyovoay abrar]
45 evvoiay Kal milotw] Kat ovppayt[av mpos Tov Shpuov Tov “Pwpoiwy, Te t]-
dice mpcypara Klar t]7v mpoatpeow [Hv exeivwy dioixnoas, Kot Mibpadcrnt]
mroAepnov errolinae, Ka|t Tov idiov dn[Adoas Gvpov mpobvudtara avrercyxOn|
THe Boothe Blijou Kot Suvtper [--------------------
ere eee

Frag.E
es
[Suxacous te K] al vdpors Kal eOrop[ots Tots idious, ofs expav-|
50 [ro ercv|w, dmws ypOvra, doa te [Yndiopara éroinoay tov-|
[rov rod ro] A€wou evexev, dv mpos Bac [iAd Mibpadcryny avédegav]
[Srrws tT]aire ravra Kipi% dow:
[ITjSaodv te, ?] Oeunoody, Képopov, ywpia [kapas Apwéevas trpoad-|
[Sous te Tv] wéAewv, dv Aevevos Kopv|jAwos LUdAas adroxpatwp|
55 [ris roUrwv] dperiis Karadoyfs Te €|vexev mpoowpicev ovvexwpn-|
[cev, Omws tT]abra adrots éxew €& [ju]
[76 fepov ris] ‘Excrns émpoveora[rys Kol peylorns Jeds, &k TroA-|
[otere crt|ita revov KatroAAce| siainamtel a io ye <Cnieneias 8m]oir ~ oni ann iaen

[rd re réuev]os, 6mws Tobro &av[Aov drepyne']

foe
60 [mept Te THY &] 7 [oAwA] 67 [wv adrots év Tht Trodguwt, orrws|
‘rag. C2F 4 o[vy]KA[nTos THe &p] xovT [c 7] @u ets "Aciow rropevopevan evroAas
Sax, iva dpo[vric]n Kat émotpodiy roumonrar, 6rws TH epovi}
adrots crodobqva ppovrions, Tovs TE cxpwaddrous
Kopiowvrar mept Te TOV [A] our@v wa TUywWor THY dukatwy*

107
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

65 Omws Te MpeaBevtais rots mapa LtparoviKewy eis “Padunv

mopecopevois €xtdos TOO atixou of &pyovres adyKANTov Sddo[w"]
mept TovToV TOO mpa&ypatos oUTWs edofev mpecBevrais
Srparovikéwy Kar% mpdawrrov ev tHe cvyKaAjrar prravOpw-
/ \ / b] lod he 4

Tus amoKpiOnvar, xepiTa dirlav cvuppayiay avavedouobar,

yo Tovs mpeaBeutas &v[Spa]s Kadods Kal ayabovds Kat pidous
\ \ a” \ h Wrest} a] \ \ in

auppcyous Te Hye[Tépo]vs rapa Syuwov KoAod Kal wyobod

Kat dirov avppdayou [Te Hu]eTépov mpooayopedocn edokev.
Tlepi re Sv obrou of [apecBev] ral Adyous eroijoavro Kol trep[t dv]
Aevxvos Kopviju[os LUA] s "Eradpdditos Suxtaérwp Adyo[vs]
Frag. G [erroujouro, yworov elveu “Pw] patois [kare ras amooradeioas |
> tA \ t °P. / \ \ > mn /

[wap]& rv "Actay rHv te ‘EMAdda [Siaxaracydvrwy Tov Te €v|

[ravra]is rats emapyetos mpeoBev[Tav yeyernucvwy émotorAds|
[rods] XrparovKeis tHv te Pidlav K[at miotw Kal edvorav pos Tov]
[59] ov tov “Pwpaiwy dice téAovs [ev Kaupau eipyvns trodepov|
80 [re] (@>el ouvrernpynKevan orparicds [tous Te Kal oirar Kol peycAais|
[Sarrcv] ous r& Snudove. rp&ypara [rod djyov Tod “Pwyaiwv]
[apo] Ovporara bmepnomuéva m[-------------+--+------ ]
[..]us dep ris peyaroppoovyy|s THs éavtdv adrots cvptre-|
[oA] eunnevon tots re BactAdw[s Mibpadcrov ryeudow]
85 [Suv] a&pecty Te erravdpoTaTa TE [pt Tov TOAewv THs ’Aoias Ko]
/ / > / \ ~ / ~ > / \

[ris] “EAAdSos &[v] rererey Bou:

[wept rovTwr TOV mpayydrwv odtws edokev' apéoKew THe ovy-|
Frag. H [KAjron avdpdv cyabdv] Sixciwy [re cro] uynp[ovevew Kol mrpo-|
[voeiv rms Aevxu]os Kopyyjduos Lvs *Emradpodit [os]
90 [Siuetarwp tov cv] tirapiay Eévo. odtots Kare 76 Sura [ypa dod-|
4 i > / fa > aA \ \ 7 ~

[vou KeAevon, ols] Te vopors eOvcpots Te iSious mpdTEpov

[expOvro, tov] ros ypéoOwoar:
[Goous re vépous aro] Wndiopara re eroinoay tovrov Tod [zoXé-]
a / ef \ / 4, > if i ~ /

[wou evexev Tod mp|os Mibpaddrnv yevopevov, iva tovro[ts tadrex]

95 [revra. Kvpic trcp|ywou ds TE TWAS THS TOUTwWY apETH [s karado-|
[yfjs Te evexev pet]& cvpBovdAiov yuduns Aedxvos SVA[Aas ad-|
[roxparwp Tots ad] rots mpoowpicev cvvexdpyoev [oAtet-|
[as mpoaddous yw] pia Kuspas Apevas Te TovTo[ts, va Tadre]
[adrots éyew e&fur td]v re Spor tov “Pwyoiwv [- - - - -- - - - |
100 [----------- mpoon| KovTws agiws te adt[o0 ---------------
[------------- ] ta re Stparovxedow [ebndiopéva? -------- ]
Frag. K [------------ ] aodex [ra brrepyet|v Setv:
[Sw] s te Aevxvos Kopyydr[os LUA] Aas ‘Emradpddiros Sucrér[wp, ev adrou|
[pa] ivnrou, &s adtos adtoxpdrwp Lrparovixedaw troX [retas|
105 [x] bpas yapas Ayevas Te mpoodpiser, emvyvdr Siardén|e doas éxaorn |
mpoaddous Ltparovikedow TeAju:

108
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[ed]vre Siarcéne, mpos tadras tas modrelas, &s Ip [wrovkedow]

22 ,

Mpoowpioey, ypeppwara amoareiAnt, iva tooodrov T[ێXos|

a tpatroviKedow TeABow*
IIo [t]oGré re, otrwes dv more cel "Aatav rip re ‘ENdSa €[mrapyetas]
[Sia] caréywow, dporilwow Siddow re epyaciav, tv[o Tadro.|
ovtws yiv[w]vrow.
frag. LM! To [iep]ov rAs ‘E[xérns] Saws F[o aovAov"]
avOumaros otis av det “Acicy ér|apyeiar]
> , 4 n eee Tage U > /

II5 Siakaréyni, emuyvatw atwa adrots & [ze] orev

ot Té TwWes TadTa Sunpracay of Té TwWel[s 5] vaKeré-
xovow adra, iva map adtadv amodobjver amroKara-
orabqvas dpovrion.: iva Te Tods aiywaddrous
aveKoptonabe Sdvwvrc drép te THV A[o]imdv
120 mpaypatwrv Tdv Sucaiwy téywouw o[b]t[w Ka] Ads av
adtots €x Ta&v Snuociwy mpaypyat [wy ria] reds
Te THs idias daivnra edokev.
~ 97 / ”

Lrépavov re Tov rapa Tod Sypov [rhe ovykAjrwe]

amreotaAwévov, od av Aedxos [Kopv7A] tos
125 LAras ’Erappdditos Sixreér [wp]
[Wy] Arae [eyabov dws avabetvon odrois]
e ~ > \ av > ~ > cal

[eEfu, Ovoiay re ev rat KarerwXiwr av O€-|

[Awow dws odrois rrovfoa e&Fe.]
[rots te mpeoBevtais rape LrparoviKewy eis]
Frag. N! [‘Papnv mopecopevais edo€e a] ¥yKAnrov
‘<P iA / HS , Xr

[dd t&v apydvrwy exrds Tob atixou Sid|occu- [éo€ev.]

e \ ~ > / > A lo / / ”

The text is that of Dittenberger except where noted. 7 [’Aotou avbeorapévovus, Diehl and Cousin.
8-9 [kal peydAous bheatynKdtas| brép TaV HueTepwv Sypociwy [mpayyarwr Kal Sewd|raTa
&[AA]a Sedeypevous, Diehl and Cousin; zoAdovs [re Kat movtodamovs], Dittenberger; tpoOv-
polrara a[v]adedeypévous, Bases, followed by Dittenberger and Viereck (notes) ; oAAous [re Kal
Sewordrous, Wilamowitz. 13a Added by Viereck. 15 &pyovar added by Viereck. 17 [rapédwxe],
Dittenberger; [svveydspyoc], the former editors. 18 Aevxiov vids first added by Viereck. 19 éé,
Viereck by measurement of available space. 25 [To[uwviov (?), Diehl and Cousin. 26 “E[karaiov(?),
Diehl] and Cousin. 27 &koAovOws, Viereck; émaxoAoVOws (Diehl and Cousin) appears to be too
long. 28 émt rau, Viereck; due 7d, Diehl and Cousin. 36 rau and rjs added by Viereck. 38
mp@ros re, Diehl and Cousin. adr[7]: Diehl and Cousin seem to see AYTAIZ on the stone, but
the reading is uncertain. 39 dewdrara, Viereck; wpdrara, Diehl and Cousin. 40 [ézed re 6
Baorreds TH moAW ToALopKyoas], Diehl and Cousin, but here Viereck saw that the particle (8¢)
with €Adyv argued against such a construction. He therefore originally restored [€zred re 6 Baotdeds
mpos THY TOW erHAGev,] but now (notes), following Dittenberger, prefers a change of preposition
to émt r1v 7éAw and refers to Appian Mithr. 82. 21. 42ff. Fragment O inserted here by Viereck.
Diehl and Cousin had placed it after Fragment N!, an arrangement which put an unequal number
of stones in columns two and three. 43 ém[rééavrt, Dittenberger with a reference to S.I.G.3,
748, 25. 47 1Aemov érro[Aeue]t, Diehl and Cousin, corrected by Viereck; rov idvov 57j[ Wor], Diehl
and Cousin and Viereck previously, but dn[Adous xrA., Dittenberger. 48 Robert and Robert, op.

109
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

cit., p. 99, n. I. 49-50 ols mpdrepor| éxp@vro], Diehl and Cousin falsely, for their own transcription
of Fragment E shows IQ before dws ypavrau in |. 50; thus Viereck restored éemav]w, ows
ypa@vrat, KTA. $3 [I]njSaodv re], Dichl and Cousin and all others, on the basis of Strabo 13. I. 59,
but L. Robert (Etudes Anatoliennes, pp. 561-62) questions its restoration here. 57 [7¢ re tepov js],
Diehl and Cousin, but Viereck deleted re for reasons of available space. 75 yuwordv elven
‘Pwp]atous suggested by Viereck, accepted by Dittenberger. 76 rap]& r@v xrA., Viereck, retained
by Dittenberger. 77 émioroAds], Dittenberger, but other restorations here and in Il. 78-79 are
Viereck’s. 80 TEI on the stone according to Diehl and Cousin, but emended by Viereck and
followed by Dittenberger; oirws added by Viereck from Josephus Ant. 12. 10. 8. 83-84
[empoverare. |arerroAlepnxévon, Dichl and Cousin. 88 [kaAds odv exer avdpav Kaddv Keri]
Sixadiwv, Diehl and Cousin. 92 70 Aourov tov] ros ypaoOwoar, Diehl and Cousin, but Viereck
deleted 76 Aowrdv for reasons of available space.. The transcription of Fragment H by Diehl and
Cousin at this point shows TOIZXPAZOQXAN, and hence the brackets in Dittenberger are
incorrect. 98 Apévas te, TovTOo[ts, Diehl and Cousin with comma between, but Viereck puts
comma after rovro[is, as does Dittenberger. 100 Or az[o(?). 105 At the end, restored by Diehl
and Cousin, retained by Viereck and also by Dittenberger. 107 [éc]v re, Wilamowitz; dao] re,
Diehl and Cousin. 110 €[7apyeias], Bases; é[7éA@wow, Diehl] and Cousin. 123 [rH ovyK
Ajrwr], Viereck, followed by Dittenberger. 126-29 Restored by Viereck. 130-31 Cf. ll. 65-66
for these expressions. After line 131 follow Fragments I, M2, N?2, an uncertain fragment, and P,
all of them quite separate from the senatus consultum.

COMMENTARY. Between the end of the first Mithridatic War in 85 B.c. and the
departure of Sulla from Asia in 84 B.c. 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
Mithridates. In the interior of Caria we know that Tabae (see the Senatus Consultum de
Tabenis, No. 17) and Stratoniceia had remained loyal. Mithridates had captured
Stratoniceia and had imposed a fine upon it.! Sulla had accordingly rewarded the city
for its gallant stand against the enemy and had voiced high praise for its loyalty to Rome.
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. The present decree
was the result.
In this document we see that Sulla is dictator (Il. 14, 18, 43, 74, 103, 125) and has already
received officially his title of Epaphroditos (Il. 1, 34, 74, 89, 103, 125). His dictatorship
(82-79 B.C.) 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 81 8B.c.) reduces this by
one 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 81 B.c., for in 80 B.c. he held the consulship with
Q. Caecilius Metellus. The assumption that all of Sulla’s title at this time would have
appeared on the documents is, I think, a valid one.3
1 Appian Mithr. 21, and the information given in the present decree, ll. 6-9, 36-40, 46-52, 83-86.
2 On Sulla’s titles see Balsdon, /oc. cit.
3 Viereck, op. cit., p. 29, in speaking of the proquaestor (1. 90), says he was a “‘magistratus militaris et
extraordinarius, qui vix per duos annos munus obtinebat. Itaque documento est senatus consultum
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 Stratoniccia;
(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; (10) they may dedicate a crown to Rome and the
Senate and offer sacrifice on the Capitol; (11) their future envoys shall be given ex-
traordinary audience before 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 positive evidence. It is accepted
by Dittenberger, op. cit., n. 68. On the proquaestor see Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, II, 1,
Pp- 531-32.
SENATUS
I9 CONSULTUM DE CORMIS 80 B.C.?
FRGODOGGCHGGGAS
DDD GHA SHSSGAGGHSHSSHOSSSOggggg9H
BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Kalinka, Tituli Asiae Minoris, Il, fasc. II (1944), no. 899;
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1385, n. 42; R.
Syme, Historia, 13 (1964): 160.

DESCRIPTION. A small fragment of limestone, complete only on the top.

Height: 0.14 m. Width: 0.19 m. Thickness: 0.11 m. Height of letters:
0.015 m.

Col. A

[AevKvos Kopvydvos Aevkiov vids] LvAAas

[------ Umaros TO SevTe] pov, auv-
[KAnrwr cuveBovrAedouro | po nwep@v
[----------e ev] TOL VaOL TOD
[Aids: ypadoueven mapjoav Ae] yxio<s> Levre-
[os T'wiov vids, --------- ]tov vids,

Col. B

71gbs ciaoes
ies
plas +
t[----
y (Roce
The restorations are by J. Keil and A. Wilhelm. 4 The spelling NAOI 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. The sigma of the witness’s name was omitted by
haplography.

112
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 ovproAcreta with Acalissus and Idebessus.?
Why this obscure Lycian community obtained a senatus consultum 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.3 The document’s mutilated
condition, however, prevents us from drawing any further conclusions.
L. Sentius C. f. must be the monetalis of ca. 89 B.c. (Broughton, Magistrates, II, 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.
1 Kalinka, op. cit., no. 900, mentions a Koppéwv 6 S408; no. gor refers to Sfpov tov Kopp[é] wv
The name therefore could have been Képun, Koppos or Képpor.
2 Ibid., no. 830 (=I.G.R.R., III, 646) and no. 833 (=I.G.R.R., Ill, 647). Cf. A. H. M. Jones, The
Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), p. 108, with nn. 18 and 20; Magie, op. cit., p.
1378, n. 24; and Robert, Villes d’Asie Mineure?, pp. 56-57 and 272, n. 6.
3 Cf. Magie, op. cit., p. 1385, n. 42. For the grant of freedom see Appian Mithr. 61. As a possible
aid in the interpretation of the present decree the editor in Tituli Asiae Minoris refers to the letter of
a proconsul to the Chians (S.I.G.3, 785 =I.G.R.R., IV, 943), No. 70 of the present volume.

113
20-21 DOCUMENTA QUAE AD RES THASIAS
PERTINENT
GHHGRORHDDHDHHHHHHDHHDDDHHHDHDDTDAYSSOOSORSRSSSSSNSgS

A letter of Sulla to the Thasians with a copy of a senatorial decree,

and a letter of Cn. Cornelius 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 after 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 CONSULTO DE THASIS 80 B.C.
HEOGOHHH
OHO SOOSSOHSOS
GAOO HASHASHSHS
HTSHOHHHHggg
BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Dunant and J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur [histoire et les
cultes de Thasos, I: Etudes thasiennes, V (Paris, 1958), no. 174 (Plate VI), pp.
37-45;J.Bousquet, B.C.H., 83 (1959): 402 (cf., S.E.G., XVIII, 349);
L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, American Academy in
Rome, Papers and Monographs XX (Rome, 1960), pp. 268-69.

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. 715 «, B, or. These are three fragments that join together.
Over-all dimensions of the three stones together: width, 0.48 m.; height, 0.15
m.; thickness, 0.07 m.; height of letters, 0.014 m. Lines 1 and 3 project two
letter spaces out into the left margin of the text.
Section B: Not preserved.
Section C: Inv. 715. Contains the end of the first column and a part of the
last lines of the second. Largest of the fragments: width, 1.28 m.; height,
0.15 m.; thickness, 0.13 m.; height of letters, 0.011 m.
Section D: Inv. 715 «. Width: 0.45 m. Height: 0.18 m. Thickness: 0.09
m. Height of the letters: 0.010 m.
Section E: Inv. 715 (right side; for dimensions, see above, under Sec. C) to
the end of Col. Il, line 8, followed by Inv. 715 y of Col. III. Inv. 715 y shows
a margin on the left. Width: 0.38 m. Height: 0.18 m. Thickness: 0.07 m.
Height of letters: 0.012 m. The first two letters of line 4 (Col. II) and of line 13
(Col. Ill) project out into the margin. The ends of lines 9-11 (Col. II) are
contained on a small fragment (Inv. 715 A) which shows the empty space
between Cols. Il and IV. Width: 0.14 m. Height: 0.095 m. Thickness:
0.055 m. Height of letters: o.or2 m. (Col. Ill), 0.008 m. (Col. IV).
Section F: Inv. 715 6. Broken on all sides. Width: 0.085 m. Height:
0.050 m. Thickness: 0.010 m. Height of letters: 0.011 m.
Section G: Inv. 507 and 520. Found in 1922 and published in B.C.H., 50
(1926), no. 7, p. 234. 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 5 of Section G, but
with line 6 begins Inv. 715 6. Width: 0.19 m. Height: 0.11 m, Thickness:
0.055 m. Height of letters: 0.009-0.010 m. The ends of lines 6-15 of Section
G are found on Inv. 715 7. Width: 0.18 m. Height: 0.16 m. Thickness:
0.07 m. Height of letters: 0.010 m.
Section H: Inv. 715 A (right edge). This small fragment carries on its left side

115
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

the ends of lines 9-11 (Col. II) (dimensions given above, Sec. E).
Section I: Inv. 715 t. Small sliver of marble broken on all sides. Width:
0.10 m. Height: 0.045 m. Thickness: 0.015 m. Height of letters: 0.012 m.
SectionJ:Inv. 715 ¢. Tiny fragment broken on all sides except the right.
Width: 0.14 m. Height: 0.195 m. Thickness: 0.075 m. Height of letters:
0.01 §-0.013 m.

Col. I
Aev[k]vos Kopyy[A]tos Aevxiou [vids LvAdas ’Eradpddiros varecros|
70 Sevtep[olv xalpew A€ye[t Oaciwy &pyovor Bovdje Srjpwr] -
éy@ mpeoBeutais tpetépors [Td THs cuvKAnrou ddypa mapédwKa: TO]
A a \

Sdypa TobTo yeyovds eat mpo [jpepav - - - - - - - ev Tt]

[..]unrypion ypadoperw|t ml apjoav Ia[vos LkpiBdvios Tatov vios]
[...]erivas Koupi[wy IIwpevtivg - - -------------- ]
BAM el peter cehingerestin
cece sas:}
Begibarbter
cnpenye cence ey-eocee: }
[wept dv of mpecBevtal Adyous emowjouvto - ----------- ]
[emel ----------------------------- ]
ee ee eee
b[.]Sdrwv
os seset se sey osseete FiQponse nace |
r&v [modAen|iwv [..... [fed ior ] cvvopd [cao] Bou éavtods TéKve
auvBiovs avedetv Kal rais TOY TroAeuiow|v] Suvdpeow maparabacban Kal re mvev-
/ > ~ \ ~ ~ / 4 Ul \ \ /

para drep Tav Snuooiwy mpayuctwv nweTepwv ev TH. ypetou arroBaretv

lot a > A

pcdAov 7 ev Tit KapOt aro THs TOO Sjpyov Tod ‘Pwyaiwv didrtas arreotratnKevae
4 vn 4 ~ > \ onl A / at @) / / > fe

dd€wow: v rtavrny Te adtois owrnpiay op@vtes THs ToALOpKias yeyovevan, Suc

/ a / foal od

TE THUTYVY THY HiTLaY TUKPOTEpoY aUTOs THY TrOAELiWY ypnoapevwY pEyio-

7 \ / aA ~ -

Tas cuppopais Kat PA&Bous mepiecetv v TroANOUs TE KwWdUvoUS avadedéxOan,

Col. II
[wept rovrov Tob mpcdyparos obrws eofev' mpeoBevtai]s Ouciwv [kara]
\ ig “A U 4 ” A / N

[mpoowmov ev ri ovvdjrar giravOpeirws croKxpiOAve: yee] pura pidtay [ovp] -

/ >? “~ / / 2 ~ id /

[Maxiav cvavedioucba, rods mpeoBevtds &vdpas] Kadods Kat &[yabods]

[kat pirous cvpycyous Te terepovs tape Sypov] KaAod Kal eyo [Bod]
\ / 4 € / \ / ~ V3) fot

[kat pirov cvpcyou Te HueTépov mpooayopedoa €]So€ev: vacat

[epi re dv obra of mpeoBevtal Adyous pods] THv advedAnTov ex [our] -
[cavro, Aevxiov KopyyAlov LvA|Aa ’EnadpoSirov iac&rov rob ev [cavtod]
[-------- oupPeBovdevk ?]dT0s Kat rv mpeoBevt [Ov rav per - -|
[--------------- |THNTE|- -------------- ]
pete cee ahd ae ode es
[==] ENT ileal: eleer ee }
116
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[.]XTE mpecBey[--------------- TOv Snpoolwy mpaypc] -

Twv Tov Nnuetéepwly----------------------- ]
wa te Aevdxros Kopyjduos Z[vANas ’Emadpdduros, Kéwros Kouxidvos MéreAXos
EvceBys|
5 Umraro., édv adtots paivnra [------------------------- ]
mpoonrAwevos Hv: ev Se tax Cutt [poobev ypdvar? --------------- ]
we ev TH vads TOt ths [Tiorews al ---------- , Ovotav Tre ev THt Kaze] -
twriwe edv trovnaa BovAwvral[s adtots ef -------------- apéokew ?|
Col. III adta THe Te ovvKA[HTaxr Kal Toi Swe toi ‘Pwyatwy - - - - - - - apilora te ef
10 vou Kal eoecOar tabra te [--------------------- Sve pu] pyuns
exe efew Te Swoew te €[----------------------- Tre|7pa-
ypeva tr’ adtav EYKATAI|--------------------------- ]
as Te mpoaddous Tis ToUTwY apleTAs Kal KaTadoyis Evexev ad cupBovdlov yrdyns]
Aedxios Kopyvjdvos [Xv] Aas adroxp[érwp tots adtois - --------- avy] -
15 exwpnoev v moAlers ywpila Kal ta b[mdpyovra abrois?----------- ]
Aévas wat t[-- c. 8 -|ITE[------------------------ ]
[xa]t rovrw[- ------------------------------ ]
| os so 200096: Alle ee aaa ia ea )
F [------ mp|oaddou[s - ------------------------ ]
[-------- mr] dAeus yw[pia - --------------------- ]
[------- |TQNITA'[-------------------------- ]
poses sar oman nan et; Joel gee }
GS [-------- ] obrow af modreta[t ------------------ |
[------- Tov ?]Twv Td TrOAEWwY y[wpiwy ---------------- ]
[--------- Joe Svaxardoyov [-------------------- ]
[--------- ]ous Tots Tém lous - - ------- eee eee eee |
s [--------- ] dtvaxarey[----------------------- l
[------- St] ws tabra obrws '[---------- 6] dfpuos 6 ‘Pupaiw[r]
[------- Od] cvor Kapmilecbou dvy[wvran - - - - - - |] vacat
[------- ‘Pown|ntradKcas 7 Toure 7 [--------- ]v 7) Acot adrdv E
[------- ] Svaxaréyovow 7 [----------- tT]wu mroAduan jer [épwe]
2) Seana Guinean Canoe weenie JE 8s dv erapyeta [= --
esoSC ]O[--14z[--
HOSA ET A
-------=----
gM ai
JI ABdovnopis [> ~~“
a |twoor kat OZ[- - - - - - ]
[--------
eee re reer errr: ] vacat
eeeee AB]ovnops [=~ =~ +
oa.joc

117
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

M[- +2 4~ testo eae ae ea

ER[: <2. 222, S320 eeeeeeeeeeee
psd /(e=-4 Bea saierieesoe Je: |
Enapyaes 4
[- - -] TH4[- - -]
[- = = ove] whjrou Bé[yue ~~
[- - dmoa ?]TevA[-------]

A 5 [Ti]unrnptwr (2), Taylor, but [7r0|Ae]un7npiax, Bousquet. A 5-6 Taylor restored the name;
cf. E. Badian, Athenaeum, n.s., 40 (1962): 356-58. E 9 a&modd ?]x7a, Dunant and Pouilloux, but
the photograph shows ]X'TA; cf. S.C. de Tabenis (No. 17), ll. 5-7. G6 Dunant and Pouilloux
print 6mlws tadra yl[ivwrrow, but an examination of the photograph seems to show
QSTAYTAOYTQSI.

118
 EPISTULA
2I
CN. CORNELII DOLABELLAE
GIGATGTOHSS AGHA AAG
DOGS SSAA SHSAGSSEg
H§OA HHH gss
BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Dunant and J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur I’Histoire et les
Cultes de Thasos, I: Etudes thasiennes, V (Paris, 1958), no. 175, pp. 45-55, Plate
VII, 1; E. Badian, “The Dolabellae of the Republic,” Papers of the British School
at Rome, 33 (1965): 48-sr.

DESCRIPTION. Block of marble carrying the present letter and also one of
L. Sestius Quirinalis (No. 56). Much has been lost because of the holes bored
into it for fittings. Width: 1.34m. Height: 0.48 m. Thickness: 0.19 m.
Inscription is in two columns, with 0.035 m. between each column. Height of
letters: 0.010 m.

Col. I
[Ivat]os KopynAvos [orAlov [vids AordaBeddAas avOdmar|os yaipew r¥kyer &pyovar
BovdAje Sjpuwt Oact-
wy: Mirés Miké vids, Xa[- - - Kal” viobecialy Evpupevidov, pice: dé Avijrov,
mpeoBevTat
buerepor, avdpes Ka[Aol Kal a&yaBol Kat diror rapa Sipov Ka] Aob Te Kol eyaBod Kat
dirov ovppcyou TE 7LE-
tépou, ev Deaoudo[vikne evrvydvTes pot - - - -|ov THY GvyKANnTov Tob Sipov Tob
‘Pwpoatwv
dep rhs tuereplas mdAcws Sdypa rept THs eis TH Snudor|a mpdypara Karadoyijs
buav eoynkevo-
TOUTO TE TOOCY [iG minim = = mm we i ee te nn ]
TOU eHEV ECT eT) fiwtelabo Wima aiahapaie niaiinimee mein amici mimi me eienh elon ine]
FODOMIEC VT Ice| Oba ities! ih oak en aha iam mee il pw a oman mh in ]
PB MOE ONT: |(DE MD PPE OTSeMOREE ODOM! fal CMCC ENE hg Malt Nd Cae

10 Neumupious mept[mecew 2? -------- eer tr rrr rcs ]

bpumepceTOpis Teh |= * = iri re iryrie a aim aur min mos en ]
dpav dpiv yepira [PiAtav ovppaxiay avavewouoIar
/ > 7 0 ee ee ae te Ura
€ ~ e a“ 4 /

Gmep buds éereyv[------- ]vov tots mpeoBevrais "Apdnpita@v cu Tpdrran

Aev {x} -
xuos Kopvyduos SUA[ Aas - - - ---->- Sid] kpwev Kal 4 odyKAntos Sikavov
dueAaBev, 6 O7-

119
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

T5 pos te ‘Puyoiwy éxéAlevoev - ----------- ]MO..OZN.A.

XOIZETOYZENATIOZTEAE., . ia%-
Koou duty dow tas Te T[- -]-IEN..... ZNE.EI rpoadsovs4)avy«nros [7 “Pw] -
paiwy ovvexwpnoev tva ypag[9-------- tlovrous tots TO. .INA yivnrou
Viren: - Op-
ows re Kat [TemapnBiows Kat [XkveBiors] ypeppora daéorerra iva dpiv barjKoor
dow dt tpdrren 4 ovy-
KAnTos Huerépa HO€Ancev. vacat
20 Ei 8€ wepi tis ydpas iv spopodcav “Iopapov (2?) [..]ENE. AIE ri xdpav eye
ora0 [qv] ce NTO[- - -|
dpiv cxyordlovoay, mapadoivan S€ twa ayoAclovoal|y - - c. 19 - -|AIONIAA koi
mpos ods [....] ypa&p-
para améoteAa iva mept tadrns THs ywpas NOTH.N.ONO.II.E.-
ENAMHBIATINEZSENITAKHIIHI crroyw-
[p] Aowouw dpiv te cxoAcLovoay mapaddow Kabws .Q[- -c. 11 - -|IN[--c.9 - -]
TOIOI...ANEIN etv-
[w?]¢ re €t reve ‘Powsnradkas 7 ABAovropis } Tura K..LET.KA.O..PT..
bperepa. SiacKxaréyo|v] -
25 [o]w rabra duiv cxoAclovra crodobGow: cpoiws tre AM[- - 14 - 15 - -]
TAIAIT, AZINQTIAIL
[.]v duerepa rabra jpiv dmoxaracrabiven ppovricc [- - --] dep rovtwy ra&v
Tpaypcrov vu[er] -
[€pwr] Sypooion 7 iSicu iva mpos ue TA.Z[--c.9--]YT[-------------

Col. II

Tvaios [KopyjAws] IomXiov vids AodaBédras avOdmaros [yalpew r€éyer &pyovar

Bovdje Sjpwr Quai] -
[wy ------------------- ] o[vpp] éyqu dmoxpw[-------------- ]
Spatium versuum quinque
[---------- ] 1 buds 0€Aw dpovricn[t------------------ ]
[----------- ]wow dsrjKoo tre ottws [----------------- ]
[----------- Joa ré ru brrevowtiov Trout[- --------------- ]
[----------- ]n adr} LkvaBious.

vacat

120
SENATUS CONSULTA

13-14 AEYK|KIOZ. 15]MO..OZN.A (or O) xrd. 16 I[- -]4 (or Y) «rA.; Dunant and
Pouilloux suggest tds te qlodutelas ywpia A]ueylas Kdpals te [K]ai mpoodSous KrA.
17 Dunant and Pouilloux suggest with great reservation tlovrois rots E6[eo]w & pinto KrA.
20 EMAPON..E (or 2) NE (or IT or I’) rd. 21 [IT]euopiSa? suggested by Dunant and
Pouilloux. 22 In the middle Dunant and Pouilloux suggest the possibility of ru[v]e[s]év "Aun Bin,
twes év Iaxnane (or Taxne rx); but the place names are unknown. 23 ...ANE (or O)IN
kta. 24 K(or E). 25 AM (or ANNI or AII1), and, later, AXIN (or A).

COMMENTARY. 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. But his ambitions did not
end there. They took in an even broader horizon, for in the late autumn of 88 B.c. he
sent Archelaus to Greece with an army to secure allies or to take possession. 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 all 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
oppose Archelaus, but he was forced to retreat. Then Sulla arrived, early in 87 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. Taxiles turned his troops over to the
retreating Archelaus. The combined armies then fell before Sulla at Chaeroneia in
86 B.c. 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. Then, in the autumn of 85 B.c., the war
ended.
It is this northern campaign in Thrace that is of special interest, 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 Pont
(Paris, 1890), pp. 121-211. Newer material and the results of later scholarship will be found in D.
Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), chap. IX, with notes.
2 That the plans of Mithridates did not end with the conquest of Asia may be surmised from what
Sulla said at Dardanus in 85 B.c. (Appian Mithr. 57): kat rodrov Texpnptov, Ott Kal Opgkas Ket
ZvOas Kol Lavpoucras, ovrw Twi trodreuav, es cvpyraxiay bayyov, Kal €s rovs ayyxod
Baovréas mepiereptres, vais Te err010, Kal mpwpéas Kal KvBepyyjras ovvexaets. Sulla accused
Mithridates of planning the war for a long time and of aiming at world domination.
3 Appian Mithr. 55.

121
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 85 B.c. at Dardanus, the Thracians may have
made advance preparations with the connivance of the Pontic king for the devastation
of the area. Details, however, are lacking.
The letter of Sulla, dated 80 B.c. by the mention of his second consulship, com-
municates the text of a senatorial decree to the magistrates and people of Thasos. It is
at once clear that the Thasians 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 therefore 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 offering 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 refer to the restoration of specific lands and
possessions of Thasos occupied by the Thracian chieftains Rhoemetalcas, Ablouporis,
and Tiuta. The customary gifts (secs. H-J) for the Thasian envoys while in Rome
probably formed the conclusion of the decree.
The letter of Cn. Cornelius P. f. Dolabella, governor of Macedonia from 80 to 78 B.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 consultum.5 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 by Thasos. The mention of the Thracian chieftains
would suggest that they had seized those lands in the course of the war and that they were
situated on the mainland just opposite the island: the Thasian Peraea. A second letter of
Dolabella (Col. II, ll. 4-9) apparently refers to instructions of some kind issued to Thasos
concerning the nature and the extent of its control over Peparethos and Skiathos.
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. Such was, almost certainly, the sequence of events. Envoys would normally return
with a copy of a decree passed in their favor: cf. the S.C. de Serapeo (No. 5), ll. 4-7, where it is specif-
ically stated that a [copy of a] decree was carried from Rome. But it is not certain whether the
envoys are the same men in both documents, before the Senate in Rome and before the Macedonian
governor. Their titles, however, would lead to that conclusion, as Dunant and Pouilloux state.
For Cn. Cornelius P. f. Dolabella see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Il
(New York, 1952), 80. The present letter is important for his filiation; cf. Badian, loc. cit.

122
SENATUS CONSULTA

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, Il. 21ff) apparently has to write
a letter to effect 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 of Thasos. 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 Q. Braetius Sura because it was being used as a storehouse for the
barbarians. Hence, both islands may have been involved in the war on the side of the
Thracians. 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, 17). It
becomes a civitas libera—small enough reward.
Rhoemetalcas may be related to the Rhoemetalcas of about 12 B.c.-a.D. 14 who was
the first king of a united Thrace, although they are two generations apart.7 Ablouporis
is a Thracian name found only once in our sources.8 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.°

6 Appian Mithr. 29. For the name of this legate of the Macedonian governor see I.G., IX, 2, 613;
on coins see Dunant and Pouilloux, op. cit., p. 6.
7 Dunant and Pouilloux, op. cit., pp. 51-52.
8 Ibid., p. 52, referring to W. Tomascheck, Sitzungsberichte Wien, 131 (1894): 3; P. Kretschmer,
Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache (Géttingen, 1896), pp. 184-85; and D. Detschew,
Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Vienna, 1957), p. 3-
9 Dunant and Pouilloux, op. cit., p. 52. They draw attention to the Illyrian queen Teuta of the third
century B.c. The variant forms of her name in our documents merely reflect the Roman attempt to
spell her name in Latin and Greek.

123
 22 CONSULTUM DE ASCLEPIADE 78 B.C.
SENATUS
HHGHTCAGTHHGSSSHSHGSHSASASSHSSHSSSSSSSSSSSSEqgsH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Petrus Victorius, M. Tullii Ciceronis Epistulae (Florence,

1571), p. 8; K. W. Goettling, Fiinfzehn romische Urkunden auf Erz und Stein
(Halle, 1845), pp. soff.;J.Franz, C.I.G., III (1853), 5879; F. Ritschl, Priscae
latinitatis monumenta epigraphica (Berlin, 1862), tab. XXX; Th. Mommsen, C.LL.,
I (1863), 203, with notes on the works of Sigonius, Ursinus, Lipsius, and
Gruter; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XVII, pp. 31ff.; G.
Kaibel, I.G., XIV (1890), 951; Bruns—Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7
(Tiibingen, 1909), p. 41; R. Cagnat, IL.G.R.R., I (1911), 118; E. Lommatzsch,
C.LL., I? (1918), 588; L. Gallet, Revue historique de droit francais et étranger, 4°
sér., 16 (1937): 242-93, 387-425; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani?,
pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), p. 35; C. Pietrangeli, Bullettino della Comm. Arch. Govern.
di Roma, 69 (1941): 109-12 with photograph; idem, Capitolium, 16 (1941):
171-74; F. De Visscher, L’antiquité classique, 13 (1944): 26, n. 2; S. Accame, II
dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 10-11,
56; C. Pietrangeli, Bullettino dell’ Istituto del diritto romano, 51-52 (1948): 281;
E. H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin, IV, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, 1950), 444-50 (Latin only); D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor
(Princeton, 1950), I, 236, and II, 1113-14, n. 10; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman
Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), 267-69; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del diritto
romano, 7th ed. rev. (Naples, 1960), p. 213; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne,
Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 71; A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei
Publicae, II (Florence, 1963), no. 13, pp. 19-24; new photograph in A.
Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, Imagines (Corpus
Inscriptionum Latinarum, Auctarium) (Berlin, 1965), Plate No. 393.

DESCRIPTION. Bronze tablet found in Rome in 1570, now in the Museo

Capitolino. It contains eleven lines in a fragmentary form of the original
Latin text followed by a complete Greek translation. Dimensions: height,
0.34 m.; width, 0.65 m. In 1939 three additional fragments of this same tablet
were unearthed near the Palazzo del Museo. This new material is underlined in
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
 SENATUS CONSULTA

[Co(n)s(ulibus) Q. Lutatio Q. f 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 ££ Clazomenium, Polustratum Poluarchi f. Carystium, Meniscum
Trenaei, 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.]
[Clazomenium Polustratu]m Poluarchi f: Carystium, [Meniscum Irenaei, qui
fuit ante Meniscus Thargelii, filium 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 profectei sunt, utei]
[ea omnia eis in integrum restituantur; sei]ve quae dies praeterieit,
postqua[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] ;
[quaeque 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
a velint utei ibei iudicium de eis rebus fiat. Sei qua [iudicia
de eis absentibus postquam domo profectei sunt]
10 [facta sunt, ea] utei in in[tegrum restitu]antur et de integro iudicium
ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) fiat. Seiquas pecunias c[ivitates
eorum publice deberent, in eas pecunias nei]
[quid dare dJeberent. Malgistrat]us nostri queiquomque Asiam Euboeam
locarunt vectigalve Asiae [Euboeae imponent curent, ne
quid ei dare deberent].

125
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[Uteiq]ue Q. Lutatiu[s M.] Aemilius co(n)s(ules) a (Iter) a(mbove) s(ei)

e(is) v(ideretur) eos in ameicorum formulam re[fe]rundos
curarent, eis[que tabulam aheneam amicitiae in 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]
[mit]tere ipseive veneire vellent, uti <e> is leibereis postereisque eorum
legatos venire mittereque liceret.////Utei[que Q. Lutatius
M. Aemilius co(n)s(ules) a(Iter) a (mbove)]
15 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 fieri, i(ta) u(tei) e(is) e r(e) p(ublica) £(ideve)
s(ua) v(ideatur). C(ensuere).

°Ent brétwv Koivtov Avrariov Koivtov viob Karhov kai Méprov Aip[tAtov
Kowrov viod]
Mépxov viwvod A<e)r<iSovu, aotparnyot 5é Kara moAw Kal émi Tov E€vwv Aevxiov
KopynAio[v ....... viod]
Sicevva, pnvos Maiov. Keéwros Avrérios Kotvrov vios KérAos traros ovyrAjran
avveBova |evoaro]
mpo <n »pepOv evdexa Karavddv "lIovviwy év kopetian. Tpadopéever raphoav
Aevkwos PaBépios Aeveiov vios Lepyia, Mcio[s .......... Aev-|
klov vios IlomAXAdia, Kowros ITeriAduos Titov vids Lepyia. Tlepi dv Kowros
Avrérios Koivrov vids Kar<X>os trraros Adyous emoujoaro ’A [oxAnmadyv]
Dirivov viov Kraloyenov, [Iodkvotpatrov IlodvepKov viov Kapvotiov, Mev<idoxov
Eipnvaiov tov yeyovdta Mevioxov OupynXiov viov Midrj [ov ........ |
€v tots tAolous Tapayeyovevon Tod ToA€uov Tob *Itadikod é[v]|apyouevov, tovtous
epyaciay emavdpov Kat moriv Tots dnuoctos mpeypaow tots juerép [ous
Troapecynke- |
vou, ToUToUS éavTOV KaTa TO T<H>s avyKAHToU Sdypa els Tas TaTpidas amoddoat
BovrAccbou, eav abt paivntra, dws brép TOV KadAds Tempaypevwv tr’
ad|[Tadv Kol avdpa-|
yaxOn>warov eis te Snudova (m>pdypwara Te ypuerepa Katadroyn [- -] adtav
yevnra epi TovTou Tob mpaypyatos odTws edofev: ">
AaKkAnmadyv
Dirivov viov Kral [opeviov,|
Io ITodvotparov IcAveépxov viov Kapvotiov, Mevicxov Eipnvaiov vicv Midrjowov rév
yeyovota Mevicxov, cvwhev 5€ Oapynriov vv évdpas Kadods Kat dyabods
Kat pi[Aovs mpoo-|
ayopetoa: 77<v o>dvKAnTov Kal Tov Shuwov Tov ‘Pwpaiwy diocAcevBavew tiv TovTwr
epyaciav Kah<nv> Kai eravdpov Kal mov Tots Snpwootois mpaypaow Tots
nLETEpo [ts yeyo|vévat,

126
 SENATUS CONSULTA

80? Xv) adriay tiv odveAntov Kpivew, Omws odto. Téxva Exyovol Te adtav ev tais
éauTa@v trarpiow cAevtrovpynto. mévTwy TaV mpayuatwv Kal caveiaodopor
dow: el twes eiod[opat é]K r&v
Umapxovrwy odrdv eiomrempaypevan eiatv pete 7d todTous Tov Syuootwy mpayparwv
TOV HuEeTepwrv xap<w> Spujoc, Orws ccdrou adbrots &moS0b@a<vy
amokaractab@aw: «lt ré twelus {7}
aypot, oikiar, imdpyovta adrav mémpavrou pete 76 ex THS TmarpiSos TOV dnpwooiwy
Tpayuatwr TOV eTépwv yapw dputoo, Smws Tabra mévra adrois eis
aKEepaov cmToKATMOTC-
Ss) 05° el Té Tis mpoBeouia mape<Aynrvber, ad? od ex Tis marpiSos TOV Syuoolwy
TpayudTwv TOV hueTépwv yep Wpunoa<y>, ux Tu Tooro TO mp&y.o.
adtots BAaBepov yéevnrou
unde te adrots Sue radrnv TH aitiay eAaccov d<PyeiAnrau und€ Tu €Aaooov adrots
perarropevecOou mpdacew e€* dao Te KANnpovopia adtois 7 Tots TéKVvOLS
adTav
TOapEyevovTo, OTws TAUTUS Eywow CS iaKaTéeywow KapTEvWYTaL TE’ SoM TE AV adTOL,
TEKVA, Ekyovot yuvaikes Te AUT@V Tap’ ETEpov pEeTaTOpEvWYTAL, eaY TE TL
T70.-
p adrt&v téxvwv, exyovwv yuvaix@v te adTa@v Erepor weTamropevwvrar, Ows TovTwY,
TEeKVY, Cexyovav> yuvark@v Te adT@v eEovola Kal aipeois <A>: ec TE
év Tats ma-
Tplow Kata Tovs idiovs vduovs BovAwvrat KpivecBau 7} emi TOV jweTepwr apydvTwv
emt “IraduK@v Kpit@v, edv te emi mdAews eAevbepals| trav du& Téovs
20 ev THe dirt TOD Sypov Tob ‘Pwyciwy pewevnkurdy, ob av mpocupavro., Gmws eKet TO
Kp<>THpLov TeEpl TOUTWY THY TpayUaTav yunrar El TiVO KpLTHpLO
meplt adt@v amrdvrwy peta TO eK THS TaTpidos Opyhoc yeyovdra €otiv, TabTa drrws
eis aKépaiov amoKataoTabhy Kal e€ ckepaiov KpiTnpLov Kare
TO THs ouvKAjrov Sdypa yivnta el Tia xpHwara at ToAELs adTaV Snpoatou
ddeitAwow, py Tu eis Tatra Ta ypHpwara Sodvar ddeiAwow*
dpyovres Hperepor, oltwes av mote "Aciav, EvBowwy prcbGow 7 mpoaddous *Aaicu,
Exotica émiriGow, prrcEwvrar, uy Te obror Sobveu dpetAwow:
émws te Kéwtos <Adutrérios, Mapros Aiwidwos trraro., 6 erepos 7 apdpdrepor, ec
a<d>tots paivynras, t<ov»rous eis 70 TOV hilwy Sidraypa aveveyO [7-]
25 vo. dpovticwow, T[ov] Tos Te mivackay yaAkobv dirlas ev tHi Karrerwri cvoBetvar
Ovoiav re mrovjoo e(E>Hu Eee Te adrots Kara TO Sicera-
El>AcE TE
ypce TOmrov TUpoXTy TE TOV Taplay TOV Kara TdAW TovTOLS pLOOGaoL coat
KeXevowow: édy TE TreEpt TOV (Siwy mpayyatwr
mpeoBeutas mpos THY avyKAnTov amooTéMew adbrot TE TroapoyivecBou mpocipOvra,
émws abrots, réxvois exydvol[is Te] adr [Gv]
mpeoBevtais mapayivecbar Kat dmooreMew re e&fu: dmws te Kowros Avrérios,
a Ay ¢ an” > i:

Mépxos Aipinrvos UMTATOL, O €TEpos u] apporepor,

127
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

edy adrois patvnra, ypdppara mpos tods &pxovras Tovs tpmerepous, oitwes *Aatav,
MaxeSoviay érapyeias <S>vaKxaréyovow,
30 Kat mpos tods &pyovtas abrav dmoateiAwow, tiv atve<A>nTov Bédew Kol Sikcwov
Hyetobou Taira odrw yivecba,
odtws cs av adrois ex Tav Snoolwy mpayparwv miotTeds Te THs iBlas pact>vynTar.
edo€ev.
’AakAnmddov to Dirivov Kralopeviov, [lokvatpeérov Tob [loAvépkov
Kapvoriov, Mevioxov 706 Eipnve.[iov M] .Anoiov.

Latin text: 8 F. De Visscher, L’Antiquité Classique, 13 (1944): 26, n. 2. 14 FIS. Greek text:
2 AITIEAOY. 4 TIMEPQN. 5 IIOIAIAIA. 5 KATAOC. 6 MENOCKON; at end of
line, [é0eAovrds], Gallet; [vavdpyous], Mommsen; [wera ro], Kaibel. 7 €[vlapyopevov,
Viereck; €[£]apyopevov, Goettling. 8 TIIC CYTKAHTOY; Goettling changed ai7é to airij
(sc., TH ovyKAjrw). 8-9 avdpa|TAOTIMATQN. 9 TPATMATA,; after karoAoyy the tablet
is damaged. 11 THMOYNKAHTON. 11 KAAYH. 12 jv: HH. 13 XAPHI.
13 AITIOAO@QCIA. 13 TINEICT. I4 amoKaraaTab he; for u the stone has C. I4 AIPO!I
is inscribed over an erasure. 15 ITAPEAHAY@EN. 15 QPMHCAH. 16 OCEIAHTAI.
17 AIAKATEXQCIN. 18 <f>, Mommsen. 19 The first ei appears on the stone as EITT;
the second émi has a small eta above the epsilon. 20 KPHTHPION. 24 AYTATIOC
24 AOTOIC. 24 TCCTOYC. 25 KAITETQAIQI. 25 EITHI. 26 AIOCTOYAAI.
29 AIAKATEXOYCIN. 30 CYNKAHTON. 31 ®ANHTAI.

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 unofficial, 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 hospitium or amicitia might be enough. Others
might require a foedus, more rigid and lasting. By the second century B.c., perhaps
much earlier, amicitia had become such a common institution on the international level
that it achieved a definite form and procedure. A list (formula) was kept of all amici of
Rome. Such status did not necessarily derive from a treaty, as was formerly held by
modern 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. They would then
seek to strengthen and expand the ties. Thus amici gradually became clientes.2 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 résumé of the various theories about the nature of amicitia see Gallet, op. cit., pp.
265-93. For the more recent discussion see Accame, op. cit., pp. 48-57; Badian, Foreign Clientelae,
pp- II-12, 44, 68; Magie, op. cit., II, 960-61, n. 76.
2 Badian, op. cit., p. 68.

128
SENATUS CONSULTA

exhibit remarkable similarities in the matter of privileges, but they differ 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. This would seem to be the war of 90-89 B.c., but the Sullan war of 83
and 82 B.c. must not be discounted.3_ The interval of time between 89 B.c. and 78 B.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.

1. Fiscal Privileges
a. The three men and their children and descendants are to be exempted in their
respective lands from all liturgies and taxes. Seleucus of Rhosus (II, ll. 20-23) will later
receive these same privileges. 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 dAevrovpynrot and
avetopopor 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.4
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. Euboea may have been named simply because Polystratus came
from there. 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 (l. 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. The language used is
very broad, very comprehensive. Such immunity is noticeably absent from the
privileges granted by Octavian to Seleucus.

3 Mommsen (cf. the note in Bruns—Gradenwitz, op. 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.
4 Cf. Gallet, op. cit., p. 390, on this point.

129
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

2. Juridical Privileges
a. Any property of the three men that may have been sold after they had left home in
the service of Rome is to be restored to them in full. This is an early application—to
non-Romans—of the legal procedure called in integrum restitutio. In Roman law it was
one of the methods used by a praetor to annul a result which he considered inequitable.5
b. If any 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 (Il. 15-16).
c. They and their families are to enjoy full, legal possession of any inheritances that
may have come to them (ll. 16-17).
d. 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 amici of the
Roman people without interruption (ll. 17-20).6 These are similar to the choices later
to be given to Seleucus of Rhosus (II, Il. 53-59). 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
c. Any judgments handed down concerning them in their absence from their cities
shall not be binding. They revert to their previous status and new judgments are to be
given (Il. 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 in Rome.
e. In the future they may send envoys to the Senate on matters of personal interest,

5 See Klingmiiller, R.E., s.v. “restitutio,” cols. 676-85; J. M. Kelley, Princeps Iudex (Weimar, 1957),
pp. 92ff.; K. M. T. Atkinson, Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 7 (1960): 248-49, 259-71
Cf. Gallet, op. cit., pp. 407-25.
6 There is a difficulty in line 19. A small eta appears above the epsilon in the phrase émt *ItaAuKkav
kpita@v. Thus the line might be expressed 7)€(77>i T@v juetepwv apyovTwv H emt IraduKk@v KpitOv.
Kaibel and Gallet follow this interpretation, believing that there was a further choice between a
judgment by a magistrate or before a jury, i.e., a choice between a cognitio 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 from the text he was following, or was it added
much later by some person living under different conditions?
7 See F. De Visscher, L’antiquité classique, 14 (1945): 41-47.

130
SENATUS CONSULTA

or they may come themselves. Similarly, Seleucus of Rhosus (II, Il. 61-63) was granted
this privilege.
Such were the impressive privileges accorded to the three Greek captains. Clearly,
such amici belonged to a special class within the provincial framework. 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. 26, Col. b, Il.
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. The last two lines (32-33)
clearly do not belong to the decree proper. 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 (I. 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.8 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 inviting 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 aerarium.9 Presumably they
themselves had to pay for the engraving. 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 (Il. 1-3). It is written in larger letters than
the remainder of the text and it is not an original part of the senatus consultum itself. It
serves, of course, to date the document in a very precise manner. 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.!° Thus the decree was voted on on May 22 and

8 Gallet, op. cit., pp. 263-64.

9 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. See below.
10 P, Willems, Le Sénat de la république romaine, Il (Louvain-Berlin, 1883), 218, 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 aerarium. How else could it have
appeared in the Greek? It was not added by the three Greek captains. See the next note.

131
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. One could conclude that the records were sub-
divided into months. Despite the objection of Gallet, this seems to be the correct
interpretation.!1

11 Gallet, op. cit., pp. 255 and 263-64. He thinks that the three Greeks added this sentence, but he
failed to notice that the manner of filiation is Roman, not Greek—quite different from Il. 32-33.

132
 ye
SENATUS CONSULTUM ALIAQUE ACTA DE
OROPIORUM ET PUBLICANORUM
CONTROVERSIIS 7348.0.
HHGHGHHTOHUDS
SOUS SHOE OHSVOHAS HAS HSHHSSHSHSSHES

BIBLIOGRAPHY. S. Bases, "Ed. ’Apy., 1884, pp. 97ff.; Th. Mommsen,

Hermes, 20 (1885): 268ff. (Gesammelte Schriften, 5: 49sff.); S. Bases, "Ed. *Apy.,
1886, pp. 46ff.; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hermes, 21 (1886): 103, n. 1;
P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XVIII, pp. 35-40; W.
Dittenberger, I.G., VII (1892), 413; E. De Ruggiero, L’arbitrato pubblico presso i
Romani (Rome, 1893), pp. 313ff.; F. Miinzer, Philologus, 55 (1896): 388; W.
Dittenberger, S.I.G., I (1898), 334; Anton von Premerstein, R.E., s.v.
“Commentarii,” cols. 732-33; A. Wilhelm, Géttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1903,
p- 797; E. Bormann, Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfeld (Berlin, 1903), pp. 431f.;
Bruns—Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tiibingen, 1909), no. 42, pp.
180-85; B. Laum, Stiftungen in der griechischen und rémischen Antike (Leipzig,
1914), no. 26 (Il. 42-50); F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3,
II (1917), 747; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire
(Princeton, 1926), no. 18, pp. 276-79;J.A. O. Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T.
Franks, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 307 and 365;
M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 748-49; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris
Romani antejustiniani2, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 36, pp. 260-66; S. Accame, Il
dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 18, 201;
Lewis—Reinhold, Roman Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), no. 137, pp. 344-46;
L. Wenger, Die Quellen des rémischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 384-85, n. 44;
U. Kahrstedt. Das wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit, Diss. Bern.
Ser. I* VII (Bern, 1954), p. 59; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del diritto romano?
(Naples, 1960), pp. 213-14; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman
Statutes, no. 74; C. Nicolet, L’ordre équestre a l’époque républicaine (312- 43av.
J.-C.) (Paris, 1966), pp. 351-52.

DESCRIPTION. A stele of white marble found on July 20, 1884, near the
statue of Sulla in Oropus. Height: 1.85 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 THE GREEK EAST

M[éapx]os Tepévrios Macprov vids Oveppwv AedKoMos, I'éuos Kéowos Aevxilov

,

vios Aov-]
yivos brato. vv "Qowriwv &pyovow Bovdf Sypar yoipew: ef Eppwobe, ed av
A a 3, LW, Ss an

éx [ou]
Buds €iS€vou BovrAdpeOo: Huds Kurc 76 TAS cvyKAjTov Sdypa TO yevopevov €[7t Aev«i-]
ov Axwiov Macprov AdpnaAlov trdrwv éreyvwévou rept avtiroyiav Tav ava w[€oor]
Bed Audiepdar Kat tov Snwoowvdv yeyovorwr {ereyvwkeveu}. vv mp0 pds
ei [dvdr]
’OxrwuBpiwy eu Baorriey Tlopkia: év cvpBovAtax vv raphoav Méapros KAavé.os
Macpx [ov]
vids ’Apvyicons Macpreddos, vv Devos KAaddi0s Datov vios "Apyvjaons I'aBep,
Meapros Keovos Macprov vids TIwpevriva, vv I'éos Auxivos Tatov vios
{IIwpevriva, vv Dcos Aucinos Taiov vids} Xrnrariva{s} Lanépdws,
10 Aevkios OdodAvcKios Aevxiov vids ’Apvinoons, vv Aedxios Acprios Aevkiov vids
II<o>mupia, vv Devos "Avvatos Daiov vids KAvtopive, vv Méapros TvAAos
Macpxov vids
Kopynvi« Kixépwv, v Kowrtos "Atos Macprov vids Kupive, vv Kowtos [opumijos
Koiv-
tov vids ’Ap[vy] cans ‘Poddos, Addos KacxéAdos Addov vids {6 vids} “Pwpirice,
Kéwtos Muvixios Koivrov vids Tnpnytive Odppos, v Méapros [lomAixtos
15 Macpxov vidos ‘Oparia Xkatovas, vv Tiros Mainos Titov vids vv Acpwvia, v
AevKuos
Knradvdvos Aevriov vids Acwwvig. vv trept dv “Epuddwpos ’Odvvriyou vids tepeds
’"Avdiapdov, dois mpdtepov bo Ths ovvKAnToU avvuaYos TpoonyopeupeE-
vos eotiv, Kat “AdeElSnuos Oeodwpov vids, Anuaivetos Beorédov vids mpeaBev-
tat Qpwrriwv Adyous eroujoavto: vv en edi ev TO THs prcwoews voww abrar at
20 xOpou breLeipnucvan eiciv, &s AevKios LvAAas Oedv abavatwv lep@v TewevOv
pudakis evecev avvexwopnaev {imefeipynpevou eioiv}, vv Tadtas Te TaS TPOG-
ddous, mEpl dv ayerar TO mpdypa, AevKios LUANas Tai Hedi "Audiepaewr
mp<oawipt-
cev, OTws brep TOUTWY TAY YwpHv mpdcodov tai Snuoowwvyn TeADow:
Kat mept wv Aevkios Aoperios AivdBadBos vv imép Snuocwvav etrev:
25 emrel ev TOL THS picOwoews vopwi abrar ai yHpou Uretepnuevan Eloi,
ds AevdKuos LUdAas Oedv aBaverwv lepdv tewevOv dhurakiis everev
auvexwpyoev, vv ove 6 ’Audidpaos, du abrou ai yOpar cuvvKeywpnuevace
héyovrau, Feds eativ, Grws Tadras Tas ywWpas KapmialecBar &&F
tous dnpoowwdvas: vv ao avvBovdAlov yuwmns yrwpnv amepynve-
30
pela, o eréyvaperv, THe ovvkAntwe mpooavoicopev, vv TobTo 6 Kal
els THY TOV brropynuctwv d€ATov KaTexwpiccnpev* VV TEpl ywpas
‘Qpwrias, rept hs avtiroyia Hv mpds rods Snuooidbvas, Kare TOV THs
pucbadcews vowov, adrn breLeipnpern eativ, va wi) 6 Snpoo.w-
vns adtiy Kaprilnta: KaTd TO THs ovvKAnTOU Sdoypa éréyvwpev

134
 SENATUS CONSULTA

35 ev TO THs cbwcews vouw breLeipnwevnv Soxe? elvou odtws-

> ~ ~ ih / € / aA

EKTOS TE TOUTWY 7) El TL Soya GuVKArTOU adroKpdtrwp abtoKpéTopés T[E]

> / y4 bal ” / / > /

nuetepor Kataoyis Dedv aBovdrwy tepav reuevav re dudaxijs

c fd onl ~ > U i} ~ ~ ~

Kaprilecban ESwKav KaréNrov, v exTds Te TOUTWY, & AedKios

/ ”

Kopvjdios
/
LUdMas
,
cadtoxpétrwp
? /
and
See
ovvBovAlov yvoiuns Vedv
a

> / G a ~ a »
40 abavarwv tep@v Tewevdv te drrakis everev Kapmilecbou eSwxev,
0 TO avTO 1 aUVKANTOS ErreKUpwoerV, obTE LEeTa TadTA Sdypart
a \ ? Wa 4 > oP A

auvKAjtov a&Kupov eyernOy. v Adios Kopvij\uos SvdAas a6 ovv-

(a ” > is

BovAiov yraiuns yrepny eipnkévan Soxe?. vv ris ebyfs aroSécews

, / / > / aA ~ lol

evekev Tat Lep@ “Audiapctov ywpav mpootiOnu mavtn mavrobev 7ddas

o ~ e ~ > / A / 4

xtAlous, va Kal airy 7) yopa trépyyn covros: Woadrws tdi Ved ’Auduapcéwr
/ ” \ 4 ¢ 7 ¢ / + ~ ~
45
KabrepwKevan THs méAEws Kal THs ywpas Apevwv TE TOV "Qowriwv
(2 col # \ ~ ~

Tas TpoTddous amraaus Eis TOUS ayOVvas Kal Tas Avaias, ds ?Qpdrror
\ / ¢ td > > ~

auvtedovaw Oe ’Audiapdwi, dpolws S€ Kal ds av pera TadTH UrEep Ths

~ a / ¢ / \ AV fs . A ~

ViKNS KaL THS YyEepovias TOD Srjuov Tod “Pwyaiwy ovvred€covaw,

/ \ ~ ¢ / ~ / ~

ExTOs aypa@v Tv “Eppodwpov ’Odvvriyou viod, iepéws >Audiapcov, Tob

> \ > ~ A (3 / > / ~ A
$0
ua TéAous ev TH pidAia Tod Srwov Tob
PS) \ aN
‘Pwyalwy pwewevrnKdtos* rept TOv-
> a ri ~ ry , lo °P. / / \ 4

Tov TOO Tpaypwatos Séypa cuvKAntov v emt Aevkiov LvAAa ’Emadpodirov,

~ i) / /

Koivrov MeréAXov EvceBots trarwr v émuxexupwpevov Soxel elvou,

/ / ? A 4 A

omep 7) aUvKANTOS edoyparicev {Kal} els ToUTOUS Tovs Adyous: doa TE Decdu
oe ¢ / Xr 25 oh % > / \ / i ~

Apdiapcar kal tat iep adtod v AevKios KopyvyAvos LUAXas ard av<vy>BovdAiou
> 4 » ~ ¢ ~ b] A
35
yvwUNs Tpocwpicev avvexwpnoev, TA ABTA 7 GUVKANTOS TOUTUL THL Dede
/ 7 / \ AY ~ a

Sob Hvar ovvywpnOjvae yynoato: ev Tdi ovpPBovAiwr Traphoav

~ ~ € fant ond

ot adrol of eu mpaypatwr ovpBeBovAevpevwr déATar TPwTNL,

¢€ > \ Lore J UU / / A

Knpwpart Tecoupeckadekatar. v Adyua ovvKAjtov TobTo yevdopevov

/ / a

€oTw: po nuepa@v dexaerTa KaAavddv NoevBpiwy év Kkopetiwe:

> a) '¢ ~ \ ~ / > /
60

ypauhouevov maphaav v Tiros Mainos Titov vics Aceuwvria,

/ ~ me

Kéwros ‘Péyxios Kolvtov vios KAavdia, Duos OdodAAvos Deciov ie

vids Kupiva Ovdeppwv. vv Tlepi dv Méapros AevKoddos, I'évos Keovos

¢ is 4

braro. emuyvovres anjvyeray rept “Qpwrias ywpas Kol TOV

65 Snpoowwvav éavtods emeyvwxevar, Woadtws THY ’Qpwriwy
yaipav treEeipnuerny Soxety elvou Kata Tov Tis picbwoews vopor,
pt Soxeiv Tovs Snpuoowvas tabra Kaprilecbar, oTws
Kalas av adtois ex TOV Snpociwy mpayyuatwv TioTEWs TE THS
A ~ / lol

idtas epuivero, edo€ev.

4 ava plécov, Bases; ave p[épos, Mommsen. § yeyovotwy for yeyovurdy, Viereck (notes) ;
éreyvweeveu repeated by error. 8 Mcéapxos Ka<i>ovos suggested by E. Badian, Historia, 13
(1963): 135. 9 The stone-cutter has repeated a line or so from his draft; cf. Badian, loc. cit. 11
TIHIJIPIA stone. 13 6 vids not dittography according to Bormann. 14 Between the eta and
nu in the middle of Typyvrive there is a tiny worn or damaged area on the stone. 35 Mommsen
changed to dre€eipyevov. 36 Bases changed dédypa to ddypare; Viereck (notes) thinks he is

135
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

right, but he retains the reading. 37 Bases added évexey at the end after dvdaxijs, but it is not
necessary. 54 Bases deleted kai. 62 OdoddAos, Bases, Dittenberger, Viereck; Od<i>a€ANos,
others.

COMMENTARY. This inscription speaks for itself very plainly. It tells us that Sulla,
in fulfillment of a vow, had once given to the Temple of Amphiaraus in Oropus a con-
siderable amount of land which was to be inviolable. In addition, all the revenues of
the city, the surrounding territory, and the harbors of the city were to be turned over to
the god Amphiaraus and used as an endowment for the celebration of the games and
sacrifices in honor of the god and the victory of Rome. Only the lands of Hermodorus
were to be exempted. After Sulla’s return to Rome from the East this grant was con-
firmed by the Senate in a senatus consultum. A few years later, however, after Sulla’s
death, the publicani attempted to collect taxes from this area and were informed by the
Oropians of Sulla’s arrangement. The publicani did not honor such an arrangement.
Oropus refused to pay, and an embassy headed by Hermodorus was sent to Rome.
The two consuls, with the assistance of an advisory council composed of fifteen senators,
listened to the evidence presented by both parties and rendered their decision on October
14, 73 B.c.1_ L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the representative of the publicani, maintained
that the exemptions granted by Sulla referred only to those lands which were sacred to a
god and that Amphiaraus was no god.?_ His claim was rejected. The consuls and their
committee ruled in favor of Oropus. Their ruling was then presented to the Senate
two days later, at which time it was promptly ratified.
The two consuls, M. Terentius M. f. Varro Lucullus and C. Cassius L. f. Longinus,
wrote the present letter to the Oropians outlining the procedure followed in Rome and
officially communicating to them their decision. Their letter also contains a brief
résumé of the various documents connected with the case: a lex censoria (ll. 36-43), the
proclamation of Sulla about the land grant to Amphiaraus (ll. 43-51), the senatus
consultum (of 80 B.c.) ratifying Sulla’s grant (ll. 52-59), and the senatus consultum (of

1 For such advisory councils during the Republic see John Crook, Consilium Principis (Cambridge,
1955), 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 (Il. 3-4),
but that the final verdict was made in October of 73 B.c. The reasons for this delay are not given.
The senatus consultum of 74 B.C., which authorized the arbitration by the consuls and a senatorial
board (Il. 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 left 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. 151-52). 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, loc. cit.).
2 Cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deorum 3. 49; An Amphiaraus erit deus et Trophonius? Nostri quidem publicani,
cum essent agri in Boeotia excepti lege censoria, negabant immortalis esse ullos, qui aliquando homines fuissent.

136
SENATUS CONSULTA

73 B.C.) confirming the decision of the consuls and their board in favor of Oropus
(Il. 59-69).3
Here again we find the Senate involved 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
verdict is given official senatorial confirmation in the form of a senatus consultum—
standard procedure.
The consilium is composed of fifteen Romans, all senators, as is proved by the presence
of T. Maenius T. f. Lem. in both the consilium (at post number 14) and the list of witnesses
to the senatorial decree.+

1. M. Claudius M. f. Arn. Marcellus, perhaps only of praetorian rank (Taylor,

p- 204).
2. C. Claudius C. f. Arn. Glaber, probably not the praetor of 73 3.c., but an elder
praetorian (Taylor, p. 204).
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 the last half of line 8. Hence his tribe is Stelatina, not
Pomentina (Taylor, p. 224).
5. L. Voluscius L. f. Arn. Taylor (p. 267) believes he is an aedilicius.
6. L. Lartius L. f. Pap. (Taylor, p. 224).
7. C. Annaeus C. f. Clu. (Taylor, p. 190).
8. M. Tullius M. f. Corn. Cicero (Taylor, p. 260).
9. Q. Axius M. f. Quir., a quaestorian (Taylor, p. 197).
10. Q. Pompeius Q. f. Arn. Rufus, a quaestorian (Taylor, p. 247).
t1. A Cascellius A. f. Rom. (Taylor, p. 202).
12. Q. Minucius Q. f. Ter. Thermus (Taylor, 236).
13. M. Publicius M. f. Hor. Scaeva (Taylor, p. 239).
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 in the border zone
between Attica and Boeotia, was famous in antiquity for the nearby Amphiarcion.
This consisted largely of the Temple of Amphiaraus, with a great altar, a fountain, and a
theater with an adjacent stoa. Within the precinct have been found a large number of
statue bases with inscriptions—largely of the Roman period—the remains of an aqueduct,
a bath for men, and various buildings 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 Amphiareion as a whole was both the seat of an oracle and a
3 The consilium mentioned in Il. 57-59 must be that of Sulla mentioned in Il. 55~56 (Viereck [notes]).
4L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960), p. 176. She lists sixteen
members of the consilium, however, since she believes that ll. 8-9 recorded two men with the name of
C. Licinius C. f., each belonging to a separate tribe. But the second entry is in part a repetition of the
material in the preceding line.

137
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

sanatorium. Games in honor of the god are known to have been celebrated there
from at least as early as the fourth century, and, after the victory of Sulla, they were
extended to honor Rome (S.1.G.3, III, 1064). They included musical and gymnastic
performances, which, no doubt, were responsible for Sulla’s interest in the place. The
decision to extend the games to honor Rome was most wise. This brought the pre-
cinct to the attention of Sulla. His liking for theatrical people in general did the rest.

138
 i
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE ISSAEIS? 56 B.C.
HHGHGGGGGHGS
GSS HHA GS HHHHSHOSGOADHGGSSSSSHHHHg9H
BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. Vulié, Viesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 8
(1885), no. 425, p. 115; J. BrunSmid, Abhandlungen des archdologisch-
epigraphischen Seminars der Universitat Wien, 13 (1898): 33ff.; F. Vuliz, Vjesnik za
arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 27 (1904): 92ff.; W. Kubitschek, Jahrbuch fiir
Altertumskunde, 1 (1907): 78-85; A. Wilhelm, Neue Beitrége zur griechischen
Inschriftenkunde, III (Sitzungsberichte Wien, vol. 175, treatise 1) (Vienna, 1913),
18-22; M. Abramié¢, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 47-48 (1924-
25): 3-7; D. Rendié-Miotevié, ibid., 52 (1935-49): 19-34; idem, in Studi
Aquileiesi offerti a Giovanni Brusin (Aquileia, 1953), pp. 67-76 (with excellent
photograph of the four fragments of document A); J. Robert and L. Robert,
R.E.G., 67 (1954): 144 (Bull. épigr., no. 155).

DESCRIPTION. Document A is composed of four fragments found at

Salona. The lettering is irregular, the omicron smaller than the other letters, the
distances between letters inconstant. The limestone slab is about 0.10 m. thick,
the joined fragments being about 0.45-0.50 m. wide. The fourth fragment was
first published in 1924-25 by Abramié. Documents B and C, published by
BrunSmid 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.

139
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Eni brerwv Tv[ato]y AgvrAov M[ap] -

KeMetvou Kat Alevx] tov Mapxiov Gx [Ai] -
mov mp0 jpep[av mé]vtre Nwvdv [Map] -
tiwv [év dé "Ioon] emi icpopvepo[vos]
Zw7d|pov Tob - - -|vos unvos ’Ap[re] -
putiov [- - - torap]evov, mpeoBe[v] -
ovr Tpwyup![vwv] Iopdirov rob IT [ap] -
dirov viot kat KXeeu[rdp]ov tod Tiyo.[ote| -
vos viod <Kal> dirogévov [rod] Avovvciou [viod]
10 év ’Axodnia émt Taiov "IovAi[ov] Kai[capos]
adtoxpéropos Ios Davémlos Iaiov ? vi] -
os DaBia Adyous eronoa[ro rept THs TE]
eAev [Ge] pias r&v "Iocaiw|v Kat rhs pirtas]
t[@v ‘Pwpoai]wv cob Iooui[wy - - - - - ]

[------------ T] abroe dé
[------------ | EWEVELK EVO [c]
[------------- |v *Icoaiovs Alyur-
[------------- ]s eds rHv xopa[v]
[weP” As ywbpas eis tHv pl iAlay Kat cvppo-
[xiav Tob Srjpov tod “Pwyai] wy mapeyévov-
[ro----------- ] voprors Kod 7H [a]d-
[rav 2?---------- ] maou Kot éret
[------------- |v mAcoveris
[----------- apdo|tépas "loca
panamesepna: JAIZI- -
Io

par[---------
cusonee Jopw[--------------
Fu pao eae aco
[------- Tpoyo|vpwot «[at *Ezerwvol - - -]
[----- Kat *Ia|daorw[ol --------- ]
panties Jetow yap ---------
ee ] mere cup [poy -------- ]
[---------- ]zre odv *Ia[oaious - - - - - |
[---------- Jou Maviov ]--------- |

Text based on those by Kubitschek, Wilhelm, and Rendi¢-Mioéevié.

A 7 Tpayvpi[ywyr], new reading by Rendié-Miotevit; maya, Abrami¢é. 11 JOST'AYENT in
rasura.
B Restorations by Wilhelm. 7-8 rots adrots] vopous Kol [o]d[rH woAtreia ypavrau Hv
ci]macav suggested by Wilhelm, with an earlier introductory Kai dmws. 9-10 mAeoveKis
|[7oAets &de]répas, BrunSmid, but this makes |. 10 too short.
C 3-4 Rendié-Mioéevié.

140
SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENTARY. Soon after the death of Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, Issa, oldest
and strongest of the Greek colonies on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, established a
peraea on the opposite coast of Dalmatia and founded colonies in the area. Among such
colonies were Tragurion and Epetion. Down to 230 B.c. 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 B.c. Rome reversed
its policy of noninterference and decided upon war. The exact motives for such a
reversal are not known with certainty, but, as Badian has shown, the deep-seated Roman
fear of powerful neighbors may have been responsible. The Illyrian queen Teuta was
defeated. Terms of peace were agreed upon in 228 B.c. Among the cities which were
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 167 B.c., after the fall of King Genthius and the division
of Illyricum, freedom and immunity were granted to Issa by Rome.! 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. Taking advantage of Julius Caesar’s
presence in Illyricum very early in the year 56 B.c., envoys from Tragurion were sent
northward to meet him and present him with a request. The exact nature of the request
is unknown. 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 (Il. 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.2 Wilhelm has therefore rightly suggested that we may have
here a senatus consultum 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 Iader. 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 Rendi¢é-Mioéevi¢ it was thought that the envoys
1 For the history of Issa see the account by A. Bauer, Archdologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus
Osterreich-Ungarn, 18 (1895): 128-50; Brun’mid, op. cit., pp. 111ff.; Kubitschek, op. cit., pp. 79-80;
Fluss, R.E., s.v. “Issa,” suppl. V (1931), cols. 346-50. For the pirate problem in this part of the world
see L. Robert, B.C.H., 59 (1935): 489-513, esp. 506-7. For the Roman interference in Illyrian affairs
and the establishment of amicitia with the cities see E. Badian, “‘ Notes on Roman Policy in Illyria
(230-201 B.c.),” in his Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964), pp. 1-33. Rome did not
make a treaty with Issa; see Livy 45. 26. For Issa’s colonies see Polybius 32. 9.
2 §.C. de Narthaciensium et Melitaeensium litibus (No. 9), ll. 14ff.; S.C. de Thisbensibus (No. 2), ll. 17ff.;
cf. Wilhelm, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

141
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

had come from Issa. Thus the request could very well have concerned the renewal of
friendship and alliance. But with the new reading in line 7 the entire matter becomes
much more complicated. There is the strange fact that the envoys are from Tragurion,
the friendship and alliance concerns Issa, and the inscription was found at Salona.
Rendié-Miotevié 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 Rendié¢-
Mioéevié. 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 Jacunae in the texts suggest caution in the use of these docu-
ments to form any judgment about the status and the interrelationship of these cities.
3 L. Robert, loc. cit., says rightly, “On hésite 4 préférer cette derniére solution A celle de l’existence de
liens de dépendance (ou de sympolite, etc.) entre Issa et Tragurion.”
4 Rendi¢-Mioéevié also proposes a new theory on the status of Salona, considered by earlier scholars
asa colony of Issa. He prefers to think of it as a foundation of Tragurion, but not fully organized as
a polis. Perhaps that was the case.

142
 a)
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE AGRIS
MYTILENAEORUM 5 5eBL
[Squeeze]

HOODDOTS
HHGH HOSAHHAH HAHAHA
OHAT SHYSSHHSHSSHHg
S ggygy
BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, I.G., XII, suppl. (1939), no. 11,
p- 208; S. Accame, Rivista di Filologia, 74 (1946): 111-12 (cf. idem, in De
Ruggiero’s Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane, s.v. ““Lesbus,” P:073)3 Re Ka
Sherk, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 217-30.

DESCRIPTION. Fragment of coarse-grained marble, now in the museum at

Mytilene. Height: 0.44 m. Width: 0.40m. Thickness: 0.23 m. Height of
letters: 0.02 m.

[wept dv Ivatos [Toumyios I'v] aiov vids Mcy|vos traros ro Sevrepov ?]

[Adyous erroujoauro rept THs xop|as dws éxwlow Karéywouw Kaprilwvra]
------ qTEeplt p poy
TOUTOUV TOO] mpayuwatos a|/--------------
------ eee eee \rwv pL cupBovdio|- ------------
[---------- mpov]|opiay tovTois Tot[s ---------- |
[----------- M]vriAnvaious Kal tots [--------- ]
[------ ot mpoyey]pappevor tiv oA Mur |[iAnvaiwy - - - - - ]
[- - dws eywow Kareyw]
ow Kkaprilwvrow ovvele[vypev - - - - - - - - ]
[----------- | Te 7) moAurete MuriA[nvan - - - ravrqy rHy]
10 [ywpav e€edopevwv tar] tYuntrdv ex ths Snuoa[wvias - - - - - - - - - |
[------ eee ] Kal amoKaTaoTtaais Toy [[-----------
[----------- ] Sepovidsos tyunrat [------------ ]
[----------- ] &yp@v témwy ot[Kwy - ----------- ]
beads sanuiereed be eee
15 [xabads Menos "AxvdAos Kat of] déka t[pecBevrai duéragay - - - - - - ]

1 [epi dv and vraros 76 Sevrepov, Sherk. 2 [Adyous emoujowro, Sherk. 3 o[vvevdoxnoe

Th ovyKArrw ? Sherk. 5 adrovjopiay, Hiller; mpovlouiay, Sherk. 8 ovvele[vypevws, Hiller;
ovvele[vypévwv (sc. Bodv) 7AdOpa, J. H. Oliver, but also possibly ovvefe]uypevor, Sherk. 10
and 15 Sherk.

143
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. 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
presiding magistrate. And the following words and phrases are important in deter-
mining the nature of that decree: right of prior pasturage (I. 5); to hold, possess, and
enjoy the use of (land) (1. 8); leasing of the revenues (I. 10); restoration (I. r1); fields,
places, homesteads (I. 13); 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. Asa 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.1 For Theophanes it was his greatest political feat, and the
grateful city hailed him as savior and benefactor.2_ For Mytilene, it was an unexpected
windfall. 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. The Asian Company
had suffered a disastrous financial loss in the period 61-59 B.c. 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.* 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 embassy, 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
approved and passed the decree, we may assume that the Mytilenean embassy first
sought out their patron and supporter. After hearing their story he would have pre-
1 For Mytilene in the Roman period see C. Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene (Leipzig, 1888), pp. 1ff.; R.
Herbst, R.E., s.v. ““Mytilene,” cols. 1412ff.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, I.G., XII, suppl. (1939), 7off.;
Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I, 245-46, 365, 404, 415-16, with the relevant notes in II. Cf.
Sherk, op. cit., pp. 218-19.
2 The facts about the life of Theophanes are conveniently collected by F. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist., II B,
no. 188, pp. 919-23. For an estimate of his high reputation see R. Laqueur, R.E., s.v. “ Theophanes,”
cols. 2090ff. ;F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Fachgruppe,
I (1934-36), 109-10; Magie, op. cit., II, 1280, n. 28. Cf. L. Robert, R.E.A., 1960, p. 286.
3 Dio 38. 7. 4; Appian Bell. Civ. 2. 13; Cicero Ad Att. 1. 17. 9 and 2. 1. 8; Cicero Pro Plancio 34ff.;
Suetonius Iu]. 20. See Hill, Roman Middle Class, pp. 170-71.
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. 11). See now also Accame, II dominio romano in
Grecia, pp. 46-74.

144
SENATUS CONSULTA

sented them to the Senate. But in order to convene the Senate he would have had to be
praetor or consul. His first consulship, in 70 B.c., was too early to figure in this docu-
ment. Thus we are left with his second, in 55 B.c., and his third, in 52 B.c. The decree
must have been passed in one of those two years. A passage in Cicero (Ad. Att 4. 11. 1)
is decisive: Dixit mihi Pompeius Crassum a se in Albano exspectari ante diem IIII Kal.; is
cum venisset, Romam eum et se statim venturos, ut rationes cum publicanis putarent. Not only
is this letter dated in 55 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 military annals of Asia Minor and
known to have been censor in Rome in $5 B.c. in advanced old age.5
We may conclude, therefore, that in 55 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 from 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 Mytilenaeorum (No. 51).
5 The sources for his censorship are listed by Broughton, Magistrates, II, 215. He was still in office in
July of 54 B.c.

145
 26
EPISTULAE ET SENATUS CONSULTA Age of Caesar
DE MYTILENAEIS and Augustus
[Squeeze]

DHA T TORAH HOHOHHDHHHSSSS

SSS SSSSRSRSESSSSSSSSS99

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Fabricius, Athen. Mitt., 9 (1884): 83; C. Cichorius, Rom

und Mytilene (Leipzig, 1888), pp. 12ff.; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen,
1888), nos. XXIII, XXX, XXXI; C. Cichorius, Sitzungsberichte Berlin, 1889, pp.
953-73, with a note by Th. Mommsen on pp. 973-81; Th. Mommsen,
Sitzungsberichte Berlin, 1895, pp. 888ff.; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, I (1898), 349;
W.R. Paton, I.G., XII, 2 (1899), 35; L. Lafoscade, De Epistulis Imperatorum
Magistratuumque Romanorum (Lille, 1902), no. 4; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum
(Leipzig, 1913), pp. 46, 50-51, 56-58, 179-82, 366-67, 456; F. Hiller von
Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 764; J. Hatzfeld, Les
trafiquants italiens dans I’Orient hellénique (Paris, 1919), p. 91; Abbott-Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 25; G.
Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 33; L. Robert, R.E.G., 42 (1929): 426ff.; H. Horn,
Foederati (Frankfurt, 1930), pp. 70-71, 73, 75; A. Heuss, Klio, 27 (1934): 245-46;
F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Géttingische Gelehrte Nachrichten, Phil.-hist. Klasse,
Fachgruppe, I (1934-36), 121-22; idem, I.G., XII, suppl. (1939), 11; V.
Arangio-Ruiz, Rivista di filologia, 70 (1942): 125ff.; idem, in Acta Divi Augusti,
pt. 1 (Rome, 1945), pp. 232-38; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla
guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 90-92 and 95-99; idem, Rivista di
filologia, 74 (1946): 104-21; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), I, 415-16 and 468, II, 1269-70, n. 39, and 1330, n. 2; Ehrenberg—Jones,
no. 307; S. Accame, in De Ruggiero’s Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane,
s.v. “Lesbus,” pp. 674-75; L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman
Republic, American Academy in Rome, Papers and Monographs XX (Rome,
1960), p. 169; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, nos.
111 and 135; H. Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta, 4th
ed. (Turin, 1962), no. LX VIII, p. 42 (this document should have been omitted
from this collection, for 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): 145-53; A. Donati, Epigraphica, 27 (1965): 20-25.

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 Potamon, an
orator of repute who had benefited his native city of Mytilene in many ways
during the last half of the first century before 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,

146
SENATUS CONSULTA

and, although they have been arranged in a form similar to their original order,
it is evident that much is missing.
Stone A comprises all we have of column a. It is located high on the inside
of the fortress wall. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.59 m. (Cichorius, Rom und
Mytilene, p. 43.)
Stone B contains lines 1-12 of column b. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.475 m.
(Cichorius, Sitzungsberichte Berlin, 1889, p. 955).
Stone C contains slightly more than half of the text of lines 14-27 of column
b. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.71 m. (Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene, pp.
12-3.)
Stone D contains slightly less than the last half of lines 14-27 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 14-27 of
column c. Thus, an examination of stones C and D reveals the width of the
entire column. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.68 m. (Cichorius,
Sitzungsberichte Berlin, 1889, p. 956).
Stone E contains lines 28-43 of column b. Height: 0.50 m. Width 0.66 m.
(ibid.)
Stone F contains lines 1-13 of column c. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.69 m.
(Mommsen, op. cit., p. 888.)
Stone G contains lines 1-13 of column d and lines 14-27 of column c.
Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.79 m. (Fabricius, loc. cit.).
Stone H: its left side contains lines 15-27 of column d, its right side lines 1-14
of column e. Height: 0.41 m. Width: 0.65 m. (Mommsen, op. cit., p. 889).
The height of the letters is uniformly the same (0.020 m.) except in line 36 of
col. b (0.025 m.). We may note the following characteristics of the engraving:
(1) The first word of several lines projects into the margin one or two spaces (Il.
I, 9, 17, 27, of col. c; Il. 1, 3, 7, 12, of col. d; 1. 7 of col. e). (2) In some lines
the letters are closer together than in others, but even in the same line there is
sometimes a slight variation in the space between letters (col. b, 1. 21, and col. b,
1. 8). (3) Occasionally spaces are left 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. Paton in the Corpus.

Col. a
[Ipeppara Kaioupos Qeod.|
[Tduos *Iovduos Kaicaup odbtoxpdétwp vraros 70] Se[vre] pov Muri [Anvaiwv e&pyovor]
[Bovdy Sijpw yaipew: el Eppwobe, Kadrds av] éxou Koya dé petra TOD
otpatevy.|aros]
[dyiavov. Tlorépwv AeoBdvarros, - - - --- -|xadévous, Kpwoydpas
KadXir| mov, Z| wiro[s]
lelirey aro te earn eeeOk => =Xw|rés Arcaiov, “YBpias
Avodavrov, ‘lotuatos
Pepe Remar te te Nate caroNeyahah iaP—Yniatels Pus!nisie #.= Anyy|tpros Tipatov, ot
\ a ,
mpeoPevTot bpov, OUVE-

147
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[Tuyoy potme Meet Kal To Uyndiopo tudv aré|SwKav Ko wept TOV TYL@V
/ \ \ / € ~ > / \ \ ~ ~

dier€yOnoav

KaTwpOwKapev, KaL EVYApLOTHOUVTES

[--------------
+e eee ee eee eee eee ee eee evé| TUXov pera
\

TOAATs pidotipias Kol Eis

Eya) d€ tovs te evdpas emjve-

> \ x / ” > /

Io [ow dick rH mpobvpiav odrdv Kal piogpdv]ws aredeEtnv, 7d€ws Te THY TOAW
a a , \ \ \ , \ Cech) a \ a
[dav evepyeTetv TIELPXOOMAL KAXL KATA T| OVS TTXPOVTAsS KALPOVS KHL EV TOLS META TAU-

[rx ypovois - - -------

+--+ - eee eee eee eee av émuorépevos Hv
€xovTes eVVvol-
[ay -----------------------eee eee eee eee |rov Lorépwvee.
vy ["Erc] te tiv mpo-
[-------------------
+e -- eee eee eee eee ee eee ] adrov
emt tlovs [...]ovra[- - -]

Col. b
[-------------------- ] odde [---------------------- ]
ote[------------ ]
[------------------ Bl ovAdpevos [db]uOv kexopuio[Ocu] rHv [-------- |
[---------- emcaprialy (?) ths pirdias aopcAeray, év re [Tots A] ou-
[wots ypovois - - - ------ THV]| moAw aiet twos [du] ty a[|yabod] bé-
[Aw yevéobar. Oagpobvres odv epi 7] dvTwv evruyydvete Hyutv. ["Eppwobe.]

[[péppora] Katcapos Ocod.

[I'dvos *IovAvuos Katoaup odbroxpét|wp duxtatwp t[6 tT]ptrov, cabe[orope-|
[vos 76 réraprov, MuriAnvaiwy c&pyovat Bo] vAqu Sjpwr yaipew Kat épp@obau:
Kay[a dé wera]
[rod orparevparos byiawov. Bovddpevos] edepyereivy rv mdAw Kol od 4d[vov]
pie) [puddrrew ra PrcvOpwra & Sverpa€]aobe Sv ypdv aAAX Kod avvav [Ecverr]
Jabra ----------------------- Jos rv ryepoviae, pirtas ddy[waros]
[Tob jpiv ovyreywpypevou 81] aréroppa mpds duds 76 &[vriypapor.|
Praescriptio erasa.

[ITept dv | peoBevrait MuriAnvaiwv [loréuwv AeoBdvaxrtos, Pawias Pawiov rob

KoadnXi[7-]
15 [7ov, T] €ppnos Avoids, ‘Hpwdns Kréwvos, Avis MatporaAgous, Anurjrpios KAewvipov,
Kpwaydpas Kaddrmov, Zwidros ’Enuyévous Adyous érounoavto, yapita didtav cvppa-
xiav aveveobvro, iva te ev KarerwXiun Ovo[i] av rovjoa e&fu & re adbrots

148
 SENATUS CONSULTA

MpoTepov U7r0 THs ovyKAjrov ovyKexwpyu|é]|va Fv, radra ev S€Arwu yaAKhu

/ e A A , > A a

Yeypappeva mpoonrdoa iva eu

/ ~ lal
mept rovrov Tod mpcyparos obrws “A

20 edogev'
ra)
xapita pidicy ovppaylay avevedoucba, dvdpas c&yabods Kel pi-
f U Ni - > / a] ” } > 0 \ \ y/

Aovs mpocayopetocn, ev Karerwriwr Ovoiav rrovfoou eeivon, & re adbtots mpo-

TEpov bro avyKAjTov PrcvOpwra svyKkeywpnueva Hv, Tara év S€éA-
TUL XaAKHL yeypappeva mpoonrA@ocn eetvon, Srav OéAwow:
~ oe
iva te cos ~ > a ov td LZ td

Kaicup adbroxpdérwp, écv odra daivnto, rémous yopryyix adbtois Kar& 6

25 T@v Tpoyovev €Bos Topiav picOdocu KeAevon, dws Ws av adtar ek Tdv Sy-
pocliwy mpaywarwr miotews Te THs iSias dairntou. “Hdogev. [’Em]et 8€ kat
MpOTEpov EveTvYXETE Lor Ko Eypaxa pds duds, TéAW dréu[vac] av ot
A /

[duerepor mpeoBevtad yun] Seve Setv dred ef [vou] map” dutv akodrovO [ws rots]
e / \ / aA > ol > CLS otro > / A

€ / , \ a s A Ste) a a ,
[dpuerépors vopLolts Kat Tots | piravOpwzrots @ EXETE TAP YUWV TOLS TE [mpdre-]

[pov Kat tots 8i& Trovrou To]b Sdyparos Sedopevois 76 e€eivou suily - - - -]
A A \ , ~ le / ME eZ a cA ‘
30

[---------------- Tais] Tis méAews Kal THs xwpas mpoaddors Kab 4[avyiar]
[xpHebcu. BovrAopou ody] arodivacbaa dtr oddevi cvyywpe obdé ovy|ywpr-|
[ow a@redet map’ div elvou. O]trws ody memevopevor Oappodvres ypjod [e- -]
[----------------------- aveutod|toTws' eyw yap Tatra te 7déws
metroinka b[7rep]
35 [dudv Kot meypdcopa eis tT] weAAov ailet Twos cyabob mapatrios div [yev-]
[€oBc.]
[Adyp] ora ovyKArjrou rept dpxiov.
[Adroxpéropos Kaicapos] LeBaorod 76 évarov, Mépxov Liravob b[rérwv]
[mporebev (2) - - - - ém|rayhe Mépxov LtAavob ex ovyrdArjrov 66[ypcros].
[-------------------- "Il ovviwy év Kkoupica IovAtar. ypadopévan
ma. [phoav]
40 [ITadros Aipidwos Aev|xiov vids Hoharive Aémedos, Duos ’Aciv[vos Ivai-|
[ov vids - - - - - TIwAriw|v, Aedkvos Leumpadvios Aevtiov vios Dad[épve ’A-|
[tparivos, Mapxos Teper] tos Mépxov vids Iumeipia Odeppwv, éo[s *Iov-|
[vuos ------- ee - -e- eeee 21] Aavés, Kowros >Axovrios Koivtov vids.

Col. c

Tlept Sv [M4] pros Zircvds Ady[o]us [emoujoaro emi adbroxpéropa Kaioupa LeBac-|
rov [t]ov ovvepyovra ypdpplara meupO vou Kel amdkpiow €Aeiv, wore],
[e]av rie ovyKAnran apéokn pet[& rv Muridnvaiwy Ta opKice yeveoBa| ,
[t]ovrou tod mp&yparos oabtO[e rau LiAravax 7 ppovtis emiTpernrat, mé-|
[p]t rovrov 70d mpcyparos o[trws eokev- dws Mépxos LiAcevos |
[8] tars, edv adradi paivyrau, 6px [ia rv Muridnvaiwy yevéobou ppovtion aAr-|
[Ao] re drrotov wore ex TOv [Snuooiwy mpayydrwr miateds Te THs o-|
rob daivnra. "“Hdokev.
[IT] po tywepav tpidv KoAavdav "Io|vAtwy ev - ---------- ypapopwever ees)
Io cav Ituos NwpBa[vos] Dailou vios PAdkkos - ----- ---
7-77 rrrr Ar-|

149
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

alov ving dleAo:| rive r= =seisie << is 0s) tall iain aie aie Eee SR CRotk
-- Mépxos]|
[K] nvowptvos. [-:=!u)= <9.4) ote stepelet= cia reali a- Star eer ee

Mépros Odba|Adpios - - - -- - ee
Bea teSto teeoe re ne ew nme nee ae

Kou vids ------ ere te tr

ae }
rte cee eee nn een me o]v vids
KnXooro-
15 pivg A[----------------- Mépxos Tepévrios Mépxov vids [laze] ipicc
Ovdcppwv
Téwos K[------------ ccc crc err eeee

Tlepi dv M[apxos XtAavos Adyous errovjouto, TH THs avyKAjrov] Sdypare eavTar

ded0[pevan, dmws, dv ExvTds paivytou, T& dpkie TOv Mut] Anvaiwy yevéo-
Bou dpovt ian: &AXo TE Orrotov ware av eK TAV SnuoG]iwy mpayyatwr
20 miotews Tle THs ldlas paivnrou, mévTa éavTov meicacO] ou: Aovrrov elvou
/ / lo O7 Up U ¢ A / \

ive tovt[ov Tod mp&yparos Ta aKdrovba mpatrnto.|, mEepi TovTOV TOD

mpaypat los ottws édo€ev: “Orws Mépxos XtAavds| trratos, éav ad-
tau paivy|rou, Te dpKia meupOFvow mpos Tods MuriAnvailous ws Eorake
~ / Soe, a \ \ e. oe

yevéobou [kal radra Kal Ta THs ovyKAjTrov Sdypara T]& mEpl ToTOU
25 Tod mp&y|pwaros yevoueva. ev deArwr yOAKHe ....... ey] xapay Ova Kat
eis Snud[ovov avareOjvon ppovtion.. “Edo€ev.]
Abroxpét[opos Kaicapos LeBaotob 7d evarov, Mapx|ov LiAavob bre-

Desunt versus fere 30.

Col. d
‘O [dfpJo[s 6] Mutwnvaiwr apyn[v Kat émpérevav hv expe viv éoxev (?)]
praaocérw odtws ws cv Tt K[parhras apiotar SiKaiwr apiorar Te vopwel] .
Tods rroAepiovs Tob Syov 706 “Papaiwv 6 dios 6 MuriAnvaiwy de ris iSias é-]
miKparelas un apereru{e} Snoo[loe Bovdfi dueADetv, Hore THe Shur TA]
‘Pwpaiwy 7 tots apxopévors ba” [adrod 7) tots cvpyuccyous Tob Sxjpou Tob ‘Pwyci-]
wv moAemov Troviao, pnTe adtots [dmAois xprjpcou vavol Bonfeitw.]
‘O dios 6 “Pwpaiwy rods rodepilous T06 Sipov toh Mutnvaiwy 8d rod iSiov]
aypod Kal ris iSlas émucparetal|s pur) adererw Snuoota Bovdrju diedGetv,|
@are TOt Shar THe Murirnvaliwv } rots &pyopévois br” adbrod 7) Tots ouppe-]
10 xous Tob Syjpou tod MuriAnv|aiwy - - - 7édewov rrovfoa, pnte odrots]
6rrAos xpyuc[or v]avot Bon8[eirw.| vacat
"Hey tis mpotepos 7dAenov rol joys THe Shar THe Muriryvaiwy-7 rd. 87-|
pon Ta ‘Papaiwy [at] rot[s cvppcxors Tob Sijyou Tob ‘Pwyaiwr, Bonbetrw]
[6 dfpwos 6 “Pupaiwy rau Sjpws tH. Muridnvaiwy kal 6 Sipos 6 Morirnvai-|

150
 SENATUS CONSULTA

~ 8 / ~ ‘Pp , \ A /
15 [wy TW NEWL TW WLALWY KXL TOLS OULULayots
“A /
to] 6 drjpov TOU
ae
Pwpoiwvr:
/

PORE MC eh de a ar a ] BeBouds re oT.

/ / ”

Etpyvn
[eorw eis rov éravra xpovov. | vacat
(ee ] €avrod gorw.
“Opoiws
60a ---------------- 6 dios ‘Pwpoiw)v Sip Murirnvaiwr éw-
20 are ued oh oa ] tod Syjov tod Murwnvaiwy
€OTW
[ick OGG === == --------~--5~- MurtiAn] vaiwr éyéevovro ev vijcwn
Ve: / > / > /

[AdoBun nai doa ------------ mpo Kad] avdav "lovoupiwv, aitives

lee 2 2G Re a es ,» ToU| Tos eyevovTo etre
TOAUTNL
[rie vijown etre GMAn------------ ]s, @s exaorov TovTwy TOV
~ / ” »” € id 4 ~

25 Pec SS Be Sees Baas eer eee gay ener |te ob7ou

[two] . vacat

M]vriAnvaiwy éorwoar./ ”

Desunt versus 27.

Col. e
emeyede [----------------- éyé]-
vovto €oOA[ol---------------- ]
wy hyopaop[evwy - -------------- ]
rovtwy dy[-------------- MoriAn] -
vaiwy brak[ov---------------- ]
mpoxpysat[------------------ ]
tots a&AAous y| oe ee ee ee ]
éorw 6 ay [----------------- ]
GP eta Ba, gl a Ms Moz] -
mee mpocon |CF EARS SD
pide) Anvaios ma[----------- dpywv 7) cv] -
taépywy os dy [---------------- ]
amro8LOoTw. vacat

“Arwa diravOp[wra------------ ado] -

vOmov On} [ou ------ eee eee ee ee ]

The arrangement of the stones and columns is that of Mommsen and Paton. To control the
text I have used the Berlin squeezes.

151
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Col. a Restored by Cichorius, except where noted. 1 Paton, but I have added vmaros 4
Sw|rés Hiller. 7 [as ebndicacbé por cal repli rod ToA€uov lv karwpladkaper, Sherk. 11
Cichorius had [dudv edepyeretv BovAopou xrd., but Paton changed the verb to zeupdéoopo.
12-13 evvou[av diareActre, Cichorius. 13 (end) mpo|Ouptav 2], Cichorius.
Col. b 1-5 Paton. 5 Oappodvres xrA. restored by Cichorius. 6-12 Restored by Cichorius,
except for Il. 8-9, where F. Ziemann (De epistularum graecarum formulis solemnibus quaestiones
selectae [Diss., Halle, 1910], p. 267, n. 1) suggested the formulization given. 11 jovx]ws,
Cichorius, but Paton read - -Jos, not clear on the Berlin squeeze. 14-27 Restored by Cichorius.
27 bréu[vac]av, L. Robert, R.E.G., $3 (1940): 215; earlier, in R.E.G., 42 (1929): 427, he had sug-
gested trréu[vyna|av. 29 duerépors vdpors, Hatzfeld. 30-35 Paton, but in 1. 35 Robert suggested
mreipdoopet. 36-43 Restored by Cichorius, but in 1. 38 Arangio-Ruiz suggested ets Sypdotov
avatebévra émi|rayhu KTA..
Col.c 1 Mommsen and Paton. 2-6 Restored exempli gratia by Arangio-Ruiz. 7-16 Mommsen
and Paton, except for 1. 9, where Arangio-Ruiz suggested év koupiou *JovAtat (?)], 1. 10, where
he has KAavéi0s ’Az]|ziov, and ll. 13-14, where he proposes Mcép|xov. 17-21 Restored by
Arangio-Ruiz; in l. 19 Mommsen and Paton have ¢povz[ionu c&AAo te Orroiov wate av THV
Synpoa|iwv. 22-26 Restored by Cichorius, except that in 1. 23 Paton saw the basic construction,
to which Arangio-Ruiz added rewPOFvan, as followed here; in 1. 25 Cichorius had év d€Arous
xoAKats, which Paton changed to the singular. 27 Paton.
Col. d 1-3 Arangio-Ruiz; apy7[v tHv éavtod, Mommsen and Paton. 4-11 Cichorius and
Paton. 12-16 Paton. 16 ws dv evKoupov ex Tav avvOnka@v éExarépun daivnrat|, Arangio-Ruiz.
17-27 Paton, but for ll. 21-24 see Robert in his Etudes Anatoliennes, p. 115, n. I.

COMMENTARY. The first document (col. a): Mommsen (op. cit., 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 II, then the letter would be
dated sometime after Pharsalus (August 9) but before the beginning of his second
dictatorship late in October of 48 B.c.!_ But if he had been dictator IT, the letter would
have been written between October of 48 and October of 47 B.c.2_ 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.3 These reasons may be summarized here.
When Pompey fled from the battlefield of Pharsalus, he made his way 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 a brief talk with Cratippus, the famous philosopher, put his
wife and friends aboard ship, and sailed away.4 Caesar, in rapid pursuit, marched across
™ Caesar’s second dictatorship probably began late in October. The reasons for such a date are given
by Broughton, II, 284-85, n. 1.
2 For Caesar’s second dictatorship see A. E. Raubitschek, J.R.S., 44 (1954): 70.
3 Full details may be found in R. K. Sherk, “Caesar and Mytilene,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
Studies, 4 (1963): 217-30.
4 Plutarch Pompeius 75.2 and 76.1. The account by Lucanus, Civil War, bk. 8, ll. 110-47, is full of
rhetortical exaggeration and the details are therefore suspect.

152
SENATUS CONSULTA

Macedonia and then sailed down the coastal waters of Asia Minor to Ephesus.’ 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-
cern. No mistake like the one committed in 88 B.c. must be permitted at this point.
The city must be quick to indicate her loyalty to Rome’s new master. Caesar’s army
would appear in the vicinity shortly. Delay might be disastrous. An embassy to
Caesar at that time would be the best policy. And accordingly, I believe, the city
actually did send an embassy, the very one mentioned in this first document of ours,
headed by Potamon.® This distinguished citizen, in company with his fellow envoys,
presented Caesar with a decree (I. 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
ruler. In turn Caesar assured the city of his good intentions both for the present and the
future. The leaders of Mytilene breathed easier when this reply was brought back to
them. And Caesar continued on his way in pursuit of Pompey. 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
after Pharsalus many Ionian and Aeolian cities sent envoys to Caesar just after he had
crossed the Hellespont.?_ 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. And there is additional support for this
date. Many 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, Il. 1-5): We have here the conclusion of a letter written
by a Roman official. 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
between two letters of the dictator Caesar’s—makes it certain that some high Roman
official wrote it. Its position, in fact, supports the possibility that Caesar wrote it.? If
the documents on Potamon’s monument are chronologically arranged, and such seems

5 For the itineraries of Pompey and Caesar see W. Judeich, Caesar im Orient (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 52ff.;
J. P. Postgate, Lucani de Bell. Civ. Lib. VIII (Cambridge, 1917), pp. LXXIff.; T. Rice Holmes, The
Roman Republic, Ill (Oxford, 1923), 173ff.
6 Magie’s attempt (op. cit., II, 1269-70, n. 39) to connect I.G., XII, suppl. (1939), no. 30,
p- 9 (=I.G.R.R., IV, 30) with the present situation must be discounted.
7 Bell. Civ. 2. 89.
8 See Raubitschek, op. cit., pp. 65-75, with Plate III, and the additional material cited by L. Robert,
Hellenica, 10 (1955): 257ff.
9 It is engraved on the same stone (B) that contains the beginning of the third document. Cichorius
(Sitzungsberichte Berlin, 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 before 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.!° Since the
following document contains the relevant part of a senatus consultum 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.1!_ Such a move on the part of Mytilene would be perfectly natural,
for 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, Il. 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.'2 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 consultum 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 (Il. 26-36) in which
he specifically states that nobody in Mytilene is to be immune from [local] taxation.!3
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."
10 The position of the phrase “meet with us” at the very end of a letter could look to a coming con-
ference in the near future. When we search the third document for some possible reference to this
earlier meeting of the second document, we find the phrase (col. b, ll. 26-27) spoken by Caesar:
[em]et d€ Kal mpdrepov evervyere wow KTA. Hence the possibility of a connection. Of course the
phrase in col. b, 1. 5, may be a simple, formal way of closing having no literal significance; cf.
Octavian’s letter to Rhosus (No. 58), IV, 1. 93: @uppodvres rept dv av Bovrcobau mpds pe
amoatédete. "“Eppwole.
11] prefer to give it a literal significance, but see the preceding note.
12 Broughton, op. cit., pp. 294-95. The word used (col. b, ll. 7-8) for designatus is unusual, for
ka0eorapevos soon disappeared from official Greek documents emanating from Roman sources and
was replaced by amodedervypevos. One other example may be noted: the letter of Augustus to
Mylasa (No. 60), Il. 2-3.
13 Caesar says (1. 12) that he is sending the copy, but what follows (ll. 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 1. 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.
14 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 clientela 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-

154
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.'’ 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, Il. 36-43, and col. c, ll. 1-8) 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.!6 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, ll. 9-28) 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 (1. 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. Here we see that the
dictator Caesar was, apparently, the first to act on their petitions. Augustus later imposed similar
restrictions on the use of immunity in Cyrene; cf. M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 971-73.
The granting of immunity by the Greek cities does not seem to have aggravated social unrest until
after the Mithridatic wars. The rising number of Roman grants in that period and the growing body
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. And for these cities Rome was at once the main cause of their difficulties as well as their
salvation. For the close connections between prominent Greeks and Romans of this age see G. W.
Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965), pp. I-13.
15 Previously scholars had thought that a renewal of amicitia with Rome presupposed the existence of
a foedus between the contracting parties, but this view has been successfully challenged. See A. Heuss,
“Die vélkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der rémischen Aussenpolitik in Republikanischer Zeit,” Klio,
31 (1933): 12ff., 25ff., and 75ff.; Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia, pp. 48-57 and 91-92; Badian,
Foreign Clientelae, p. 44. Amicitia 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 Taubler must be abandoned. Cf. Magie, op. cit.,
II, 960-61, n. 76, and the commentary to the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22).
16 Dio 53. 25. 2-8.

155
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.
Mommssen 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, for 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
belief. 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 seems to have
gone to Spain, perhaps to persuade Augustus to agree or perhaps to thank him after it
had been concluded. 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, 1. 3, and col. b, 1. 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 Augustus.17 We must, therefore,
7 The epigrams of Crinagoras have been assembled by M. Rubensohn, Crinagorae Mytilenaei epi-
grammata (Berlin, 1888). This edition should be used in the citation of the epigrams. The remarks
of Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene, pp. 47-61, on this poet must be used with caution, for his chronology

156
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 25 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.'8 That an in-
scription from Mytilene should even mention this city in the age of Augustus is sufficient
reason to suggest a visit to that city at the time when the ailing emperor was confined
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.!9
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 of F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur
in der Alexandrinerzeit, Il (Leipzig, 1892), 561-65. cf. Geftcken, R.E., s.v. ““ Krinagoras,” cols. 1859-64.
1a Gree AA (= 1G Ree LV, 38).
19 A, N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 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 rémischen Republik,” Historia, 12 (1963): 283-320, esp. 294.

157
 pe
SENATUS CONSULTUM DE PANAMARA 39 B.C.

QHAGHDA ADH HHHHHHDHHSTSSSS

SSS SESSSSSSSSSS SSSSog9H

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Cousin and G. Deschamps, B.C.H., 11 (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 Minor (Princeton, 1950),
I, 432, and II, 1282, n. 15; L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the 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 of Zeus 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
effaced and the remainder is very difficult to read.

Adypa vvv Emi oredarnddpov ’Aprepidapov tod °Aprep-

vov dapov Tob Ilapdpirov, Kal’ v(iobeciav) d€ *Apioreidov, “Hpaxdedvos yn-
vos [t]p[i]rm e& eixcdos. vy Aeveiw Mapxiw Knowpivw cat Daiw Kadovnoiw
bmcrows Tpo Huepa@v Sexaoxtw Kadavddav LemrevBpiwv ev TH vad
T@ Ths ‘Opovoias: ypadopevois raphoov Icuos Ka|pp]ivas Daiov vids
Kovpiva, [I1d]m[A] vos SHotvos Aeveiov vios Koddie, AevKos Nebvios Aev-
klov vios O[ve]Actva *Aomprvas, [IérAvos ”Arrios [lomXiov vidos K[.. .|é-
va, Kowtos KXo€éduos Mépxov vios Koupive, Mépxos Xepotiitos Iaiov vi-
OS al ee Rh: Ja, v P'cuos “Héit0s Datouv vios KAcvdia Odpos, [Iémd\v0s Snatvia-
pie) dos [TorXiov vids [... . evrive, vv Tiros ’Arinos Titov vids PaBia Tupa-
vos, Mépxos |- - - ca. 16 - - -] vids ITomAAia Haddakeivos: vv ep{t]
dv Aevkios Knowpivos traros Noyous eroijouto Stpaétwva
Mevirmov, [....... |] ’ArrodAwvidov, |’ Api] oréav Mevevdpov,
*"ApiaréAaov "Apiatorcov, [....]e[.]av "Apiorodypov, “Exatatov ‘Ayn-
15 odvépov, [----- - (a. 24----- Jous, Muwvidny ‘IeporaA[é] -
ous, v ‘lepoxAjj[v - - - - ca. 22 - - -]oKARv Atovuciov
[------------- ca. 33. - - -| airetobat re rape THs
[ovveAntov -------- ca. 24 - - -|wv vov Tas akias THs
[------------- ca. 35 - - -| tovr[ov] miorews
20 [------------- (a.39-------- ] ‘Pwpatwr

158
SENATUS CONSULTA

Editio princeps by Cousin and Deschamps. 6[”A]m[z]tos, Cousin and Deschamps; [II6]z[A]vos,
Viereck. 7 K[ovp]iva or K[oAA]iva, Cousin and Deschamps. 10 [Oddlevrive, Cousin and
Deschamps; [’Qd]evriva, Viereck, but there is room for four letters: [Tpwylevriva (2); cf.
T. R. S. Broughton, Supplement to The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1960), p-
60. 11 E. Badian, Historia, 12 (1963): 137, suggests M. Quinctius M. f. 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 of Parthia 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 of Philippi 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 in Parthia. 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 41/40 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-
jugation of Syria and the adjoining regions was possible. Labienus and the king’s son

1 The fullest source material on Labienus, his Parthian mission and subsequent invasion of Asia Minor,
will be found in Dio 48. 24-27, 39-40. Additional information can be obtained in: Strabo 14. 2. 24;
Appian Bell. Civ. 4. 63 and 5. 65; Appian Syr. 51; Plutarch Ant. 28. 1, 30. 1, and 33. I and 4; Velleius
Paterculus 2. 78. 1; Frontinus Strateg. 2. 5. 36; Justin 42. 4. 7; Florus 2. 19. 3. The best modern
accounts are W. W. Tarn, C.A.H., X, 47-51, and Magie, op. cit., I, 430-33, with notes in II, 1280-82.
See also F. Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Labienus” (no. 5), cols. 258-60; R. Syme, The Roman Revolution
(Oxford, 1939), pp. 223-24; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II, 1009-12; Roussel, op. cit., pp. 92-93.
Of older accounts the one by V. Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1891-1904), I, 224ff.,
and II, 107ff., is worthy of consultation.

159
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Pacorus marched westward in 40 B.c. at the head ofa 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.
Stratoniceia, however, was a real exception, for it was successful in resisting and even
driving off repeated attacks. But the nearby Temple of Hecate at Lagina was dese-
crated.s Labienus styled himself imperator Parthicus, 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.? 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

2 See Roussel, op. cit., p. 93, and Magie, op. cit., II, 1280-81, n. Io.
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. 24 and the remarks of L. Robert in
Hellenica, 8 (1950): 95-96. His career is outlined in the Prosopographia Imperii Romani2, IV, 2 (1958),
no. 234.
4 Dio (48. 26) says plainly that, despite a long siege, Labienus was unable to capture it. At the nearby
Temple of Zeus at Panamara, the god 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” of Zeus, 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 similar “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.
5 See Ch. Diehl and G. Cousin, B.C.H., 11 (1887), no. 56, pp. 151-52 (cf. Roussel, op. cit., p. 93, and
H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden [Leiden, 1958], p. 62).
® See H. Gundel, R.E., s.v. “ Ventidius Bassus” (no. 5), cols. 807-13, for his Parthian command, and
Broughton, Magistrates, II, 388 and 393.
7 In addition to the sources and references mentioned above (n. 1), seeJ.Miller, R.E., s.v. “‘Pakoros,”
cols. 2437-38.
8 Broughton, op. cit., p. 386.

160
SENATUS CONSULTA

noteworthy facts which allow us to assume that it is connected with the Parthian in-
vasion led by Labienus. First, there is the matter of the date. It must have been quite
early in 39 B.c. that Ventidius entered Asia and caused Labienus with his soldiers to
withdraw to the east, for Dio (48. 39-41) tells that in the course of the same year Ventidius
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 of Ventidius easily defeated them and put them to flight. Labienus escaped
for a time in Cilicia but was later arrested and put to death. 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. This was a considerable accomplishment for one year, and Antonius
was duly praised. Thus, if Labienus left the province of Asia in the spring of 39 B.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 B.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, especially burdensome after the hard months
of a siege, is an indication of the importance of the mission.? 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. To win their point,
apparently they remind the Senate of their loyalty (l. 19). 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 is the additional fact that Tacitus tells us quite plainly that Stratoniceia had
resisted the Parthians.!° 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.

9 For the size of embassies see R. K. Sherk, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 149.
10 Annales III. 62; see the commentary on the S.C. de Plarasensibus et Aphrodisiensibus (No. 28) for a
discussion of the passage and its connection with these decrees.
11H, Dessau, I.L.S., 8780.

161
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.
1. C. Carrinas C. f. Quir. He must be the consul suffectus of 43 B.c., and is clearly the
highest ranking senator on the list.
2. P. Sestius L. f. 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 L. Sestius
P. f. L. n. Albfinianus] 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. L. Nonius L. f. Vel. Asprenas. He is here of praetorian rank, since he did not
become consul until 36 B.c.
4. P. Attius P. f 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. f. . Perhaps the man who was accused of res repetundae in
Cicero (Ad Fam. 8. 8. 2-3) is this Servilius.
7. C. Hedius C. f. Claudia Thorus. He is also one of the witnesses in the S.C. de
Aphrodisiensibus (No. 29).
8. P. Sestuilius P. f. Ouf. aut Tro. (see Broughton, Supplement to Magistrates, p. 60).
9. T. Atinius T. f. Fab. Tyranus.
10. f. Pop. Pallacinus. 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. f. Pop. (or Pol.) Plancinus. The Greek form of his name
makes Plancinus more likely as the Roman original.

162
 28
EPISTULA M. ANTONII AD
PLARASENSES ET APHRODISIENSES
ET SENATUS CONSULTUM 39-35 B.C.
HHEOQOHH
SOOT SHOOTS HOOHOSHHGAHY
HGEA SASSSHSSHggg
AS
BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Chishull, Antiquitates Asiaticae (London, 1728), pp. 150-
55; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), no. 2737, pp. 493-95; C. F. M. Texier,
Description de l’Asie Mineure, Ill (Paris, 1849), 152-53, 155; P. Viereck, Sermo
Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. V, pp. 5-7; K. Buresch, Aus Lydien.
Epigraphisch-geographische Reisefriichte (Leipzig, 1898), p. 185; B. Haussoulier,
Revue de philologie, 23 (1899): 152, n. 3 and 5; W. Dittenberger, O.G.L.S., II
(190s), 453-55; Th. Reinach, R.E.G., 19 (1906), no. 16, pp. 102-103; Bruns—
Gradenwitz, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui7 (Tiibingen, 1909), no. 43, pp. 185ff.; E.
Taubler, Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 177-79; Abbott—Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 29, pp. 324—
26; E. Schlesinger, Die griechische Asylie (Diss., Giessen, 1933), p. 793 S.
Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani?, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 38, pp.
269-72; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto
(Rome, 1946), pp. 92-94; M. Gelzer, Gnomon, 21 (1949): 24; D. Magie, Roman
Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 418, 432-33, and II, 1271, n. 43, and
1282, n. 15; Ehrenberg—Jones, no. 299; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne,
Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 122; Sir William M. Calder and J. M. R. Cormack,
Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, VIII (Manchester, 1962), 148; R. K. Sherk,
Historia, 15 (1966): 123-24; L. Robert, L’antiquité classique, 35 (1966): 400ff.
(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 were 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.

163
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[Mépros ’Avraivios Mépxov vids adbroxpétwp traros amodedet-|

a , >

ypevos To B’ Kat [7d y’]

/ \ 7 ‘i si /

[rv] tpidv cvdpadv r%[s]

~ ~ > ~ lol

TOv Snpooiwy mpa-

yparwv dvarcEews
/ ,

TTapacéwy nai °Adpo-

Sevovewy a&pyovat
wv

BovdF Siw yaipew: a / /

el eppwobe, ed av E-
bore Ss WN ”

pie) you vyiaivw dé Kat e UJ \ \

adTOS MET TOD OTPA-

Tevpatos. drwy
NLNTpLov <b>wEeTEpos
A / ¢ /

mpeoBevtrs, €m-
15 peAdotara Treppov-
/

TKOKWS TOV THS 16-

Aews bu@v mpay-
pLa&Twv, ov LOvov
npkéaOn emi Tots
? I i ) aA

20 yeyovoow olkovo-
[ur] waow, wAAc Keel
Huds TrapeKxcrec-
ev els TO TOD yeyo-
votos vpetv em-
25 Kpiwatos Kal déypwa-
TOs Kal OpKlov Kal vd-
pov avtimedwvnte-
va ék TOV Snpooiwy
d€Atwv eEaroorei-
30 Aou buetv Ta avriypa-
gpa. ef ols émawe- ae hi i} /

cas Tov SoAwva war-

Aov amedeEcunv éo-
> / a

yov Te ev Tots bm” ewod

35 yELVWOKOLEVOLS,
@ kal tae KaOnKovra.
amenepion pirav-
> / 4

Opwra, aEvov Wyn-

Od[LEVOS TOV GV-
/

40 Spa tis €€ judy Te-

Lifjs, twety Te ov-
vndouas emt TH exe
AS iLeo | ~ Ww

164
 SENATUS CONSULTA

ToLovTov TroAeiryy.
eat d€ avtiypada
” od /

45 TOV yeyovotwy b-
pety diravOpuitrwv
TH UTOVEYPApLWEeve.’
\

& buds BovrAowou

Ae 18 A 7

ev Tots Snuoctous
> A

50 Tots Tap
A >
very
A

ypdppaow evraéar.
Ul

Tpcéppare Katoupos.

[- -]+ &yeoOau cre [ets K] <i> edevBepovs elvan, TB [Te] Sixaiw Kal rats [kploeow Tats
+ > A ~ a tal

idtous THY 76-] 7 \ /

[Aw] tiv TDapacéwv kat ’Adpoderorewy ypiobou prjre éyydnv e[is ‘Pdynv adrods
Kara déypwa 71]
[K]oai xéAev<a)>w spodroyetv: & Té Twa erabra Teds PirevOpw [re - -
wee ee ee eee eee Tpets avdpes]
[o]é rHs Tay Snpociwy mpayyucrwr Svarckews TH Siw emixpiwore ITA apaceiar Kat
"Adpoderored-|
[ou] mpocewepicay mpoopepiobaw, cvvexdpynoay cvvywpyoovow, ta|dra wavra
Kp etvou|
[ye] vécOc. dpotws te apéoxew TH avyKAjtw, Tov SHuov Tov ITa[pacéwv Kat
Adpodevore-
"Adgp
wy thy erevdepiav Kal THY aTérevay adtods TéVTWY TOV Tpay[pWaTwY eyeLW
\ > / \ \ > / b) \ Ud aA U wv

Koprilecba,|
,

[kab] émrep Kat tis rodurelae TH KaANOTH Sikaiw KadAloTw TE Voumw eoriv, [7TIS
Tapa Tod] A lot

hy ye
Shuolv rod ‘Pwwatwv thy éeAevbepiav Kat Tiv aréAevav eye. 7) p 7 xer pidy
diAn TE Kal av|upmayos ppsory
veye-]
Ke

[vyro. 6 re] réwevos Dds ’Adpodirns ev moder TTapacéwy Kat ’Appoderorew [|v
7 / A > } > 4 / V3 g
10

KaOvépwrat, ToOTO|
/ a

[dovrov Zlorw tabr@ {7G} Sixaiw roadbrf re Servodcupovi d® Succi Koc

Seva [daipovie. ’Apreut-|
[Sos "Edel aias eorty ev Edbéow. Kxvnaqw re éxeivov tod tepod elite Téwevos eit [e
&Aaos eoriv, ob-|
[ros 6] té70s dovdos €oTw.Orws TE 1) TOALS Kod of TroAETTOW of IThapacéwv
[kat "Adpoderorewr]
[we B]v cwpdv ywpiov dxvpwucrwv opav mpoaddwyv mpos TIHv didtav told Srov
mpoonrbov, Tabra|
15 [2ywa]iwv Kpar@ow xp@vrar kaprilwvrat re TeVTWY Tpayuarwv ate|A€is OvTeEs.
pnoe twee]

165
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[Adpov Suc twa airiay éxetvwy SiSdveu pndd <o>vveragepew dgheiAwow, [add
b) ’

adrot mé-|
[ou rovr]ous, Kar’ odoav peta taba ev Exvtois kupSow xpGv[rou Kopmilwvrou
Kpat@ow: do€ev.|

Text based on that by Dittenberger except where noted.

A 1 Perhaps two lines instead of one? 3 [rar], Viereck. 31 After évriypo|do there is a
small, raised omicron in Sherard’s copy, according to Boeckh, which appears to be a mark of
punctuation.
B The underscored letters (Il. 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
restored by Mommsen: [ITepi dv - - - - - - ------ Adoyous émounoavTo - - - - - - Tept ToUTOU
Tod mpayuaros ovTWws edokev’ apéoKew TH ovykAntw IThapaceis kal Adpoderoreis, ds Expwe
Tcuos Kaioup airoxpatwp Kata rx Si|Kau eobAr& Te [70AA]& eAevOepous elvar. He did not
know Reinach’s fragment. 2 (end) Restored by Mommsen, with reference to Dionysius Ant. 11.
32. Approved by Viereck, who adds Josephus Ant. 16. 163, 168. Hence vadimonium facere in
Greek becomes éyydnv cpodroyetv. 3 KéAcvow, all editors, but Reinach’s fragment shows
KEAEYEIN. 8 xai ris, Viereck, Mommsen, Dittenberger, but Boeckh emended it to Kat 77718.
9-10 yeyevnrou], Wilamowitz. 11 tw deleted by Boeckh; [’Apréusdos], Wilamowitz. 12
eit[e &Xoos eoriv, Wilamowitz. 14 dp@v, not épwy (as Chishull and Boeckh); cf. Mommsen,
Rémisches Staatsrecht, 13, 1, 687-88, n. 4. At end of line: ro[6 d%0v zpooHAPor, Pick, in Bruns-
Gradenwitz. 16 Boeckh records that the copy shows ZYNEIX®EPEIN, which he, followed by
Mommsen, changed to [€]uvecodeperv, but [o]uvevoepew 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. At some time in the
course of this meeting it was agreed that the consuls for the period 34-31 B.c. were to be
named by them in advance.!_ For 34, Antonius was to be consul II with L. Scribonius
Libo; for 33, Octavian and Pompeius; for 32, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and C.
Sosius; and for 31, 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] designatus II and [III]
(no other restoration appears possible), its terminus post quem must be the spring of 39
B.c. And since the envoy from the united community of Plarasa-Aphrodisias asks for
official copies of records from the archives (at Rome), it has been assumed that Antonius
1 Dio 48. 35. 1 and so. 10. 1; Appian Bell. Civ. 5. 73. For the discrepancy between Dio, 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 of Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms, I? (Leipzig, 1899), 315, and
of M. P. Charlesworth, C.A.H., X (1934), 46, n. I.

166
SENATUS CONSULTA

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. Magie therefore
assumed that his letter must have been written in 39 B.c. The official records, of course,
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.2_ 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: decretum, senatus
consultum, iusiurandum, lex. Presumably they would have appeared in just that order.
The first document, however, is introduced by the heading Ipéupar« Kaicapos.
This must mean a letter of the dictator Caesar, of which there is no mention in the letter
of Antonius. How is this substitution of a letter for a decree to be explained? The
word ézrikpysc is the usual one for decree or edict.3 In addition the senatus consultum
(B 1-17) which followed the letter of Caesar seems on the surface to contain a reference
to the decree mentioned by Antonius. It reads (B 3-6): “‘Whatever rewards, honors,

2 At the conclusion of the letter it is also stated (Il. 44-47) that the copies are subjoined. Hence
Antonius is most likely to have been in Rome when he wrote the letter; cf. Magie, op. cit., II, 1282,
n. 15. 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. There is one word, of doubtful interpretation, that might lend some support
to this latter view. In lines 22-31 of the letter of Antonius we are told that the envoy from Plarasa-
Aphrodisias 7ués tapexcAecev els TO TOD yeyovdTos beiv emiKpiwatos Kal ddypmatos Kal OpKlov
Kal vopov avtimepwrnueva ex TOV Snpociwy déATwy eEatrooTeirar tpueiv Ta avtiypada. The
word avriredwvnpeva 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. cit.,
p.77, and Dittenberger, op. cit.,n. 10, 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 the period after Polybius it commonly means “to answer by letter’’; cf. the lexicons of Liddell-
Scott-Jones, Preisigke, and Stephanus. Therefore one should not discount the possibility that such
is its meaning here. If Antonius were in the East when he was asked for official copies of the various
documents, he would naturally write to Rome and have them sent to him by the post. Thus lines
22-31 may mean: “he asked me to dispatch to you copies of the decretum, the senatus consultum, the
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 (Ant. 14. 265) in which a similar
situation is described: ypdupora mpos Tas TEpl TOV jpweTepwr Sixkaiwy emaTords avrTimepwvnEeva
Tots Hyyepoow, which means “letters sent by the governors in answer to our letters about our rights.”
It is therefore possible that Antonius was trying to convey by this word the fact that he had to have the
copies sent to him from Rome. In such a case, if true, he would have written the present letter after
the copies arrived. 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. cit., p. 371 with references),
but here I think he meant exactly what he said. The only objection to this interpretation is that one
expects an answer to come from a bureau or an office (€« Tod Tapwetov) rather than from the records
themselves (é« tv Sypooiwy SéATwv). But that is not sufficient to allow one to disregard the normal
meaning of évrumepwvnpeva. Viereck, op. cit., Addenda et Corrigenda, p. VII, dated the document
35 B.c., while Magie, loc. cit., believed that the date could not be later than the autumn of 39 B.c.
See the remarks of the present writer in Historia. loc. cit.
3 See the Introduction to the Epistulae, sec. 1, Magisterial Decisions and Decrees.

167
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. But this still does not explain the
failure of Antonius to mention the letter. 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. The actual decree mentioned in A,
lines 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. In a famous
passage Tacitus (Ann. 3. 62) writes that, 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 before him first the Ephesians, then the Magnesians, and Aphrodisienses posthac
et Stratonicenses dictatoris Caesaris ob vetusta in partis merita et recens divi Augusti decretum
adtulere, laudati quod Parthorum inruptionem nihil mutata in populum Romanum constantia
pertulissent. This seems to mean that the Aphrodisians produced a decree of Caesar
which they had received for service to his party, and that the Stratoniceians brought 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

4 See Boeckh in his commentary, op. cit., pp. 494-95. It has been accepted by Dittenberger and
Hatzfeld (B.C.H., 51 (1927): 59-60, and has made its way into the various commentators on Tacitus.
See, most recently, E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen, vol. 1, bks. 1-3 (Heidelberg, 1963),
P- 539.

168
SENATUS CONSULTA

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 ézépiya must have been the decree by which the
acta Caesaris were confirmed by the triumvirs. The city already had a copy of Caesar’s
letter and would not have needed another. When the four documents arrived in
Aphrodisias, the letter of Caesar would naturally have been added to the dossier. All
were then published. After all, the letter of Caesar must have been the first document of
the series that defined the status of the city in the Caesarian period, for Antonius’ decree
had only confirmed its provisions. And the senatus consultum had merely confirmed the
measures of the triumvirs. Thus the letter of Caesar, perhaps itself containing an
emikpyuc, 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.5
If this explanation is accepted, then the next document in the dossier would have been
the decree of Antonius. It is lost. The senatus consultum (B) must be dated after the
establishment of the second triumvirate (autumn, 43 B.c.) and before the introductory
letter of Antonius. 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 B.c. The chronology would
suit such a view, and Antonius, whose imperium 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
fragmentary and vague for one to draw positive conclusions from it.®
The nature of the oath and the law (A 26-27) cannot be determined. One thinks
naturally, however, of a treaty sealed by an oath and confirmed by a law.

5 See No. 55, a letter of P. Servilius Isauricus to the Pergamenes with the heading ’Eaixpiyo rept tijs
éovAlas. Cf. the Introduction to the Epistulae, sec. 1, Magisterial Decisions and Decrees.
6 M. Holleaux and P. Paris, B.C.H., 9 (1885), no. 5, p. 75 (cf. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, pp. 312-14,
and Magie, op. cit., II, 1281, n. 10). 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.

169
 SENATUS
29 CONSULTUM DE APHRODISIENSIBUS B5BeCe

QDHGHDHGADS HOON D HOTS EOSOHDSSSEHHOSTRSSSSSSS9H

BIBLIOGRAPHY. J. Franz, Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza archeologica,

19, (1847), no. 5, p. 113; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Greéce et
en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, Il (1870), 1627; P. Willems, Le Sénat de la
république romaine, I (Paris, 1878), 252; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen,
1888), no. XIX, pp. 40-41, and Addenda et Corrigenda, p. VII; Th. Reinach,
R.E.G., 19 (1906), no. 1, pp. 81-82; T. R. S. Broughton, Supplement to The
Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1960), p. 9; W. M. Calder and
J. M. R. Cormack, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, VII (Manchester, 1962),
no. 405, pp. 72-73 (Plate 20, at the end).

DESCRIPTION. A marble block broken on all sides, found at Geyre

(Aphrodisias). Height: 0.57m. Width: 1.24m. Thickness: 0.43 m. Height
of letters: 0.025-0.03 m.

[Ent Léérov [opmniov LéErov viob Kai Aeveiov Kopridixi] ov Aevxiov viod trarwv
ex TaV cacy [yeypap| -
[udev ev mpaypatrwy ovpBeBovAevpevwy Knpwmpacw m|gumtw extw EBddpw dyddow
/ > U / / / 4 e / > /

evra To [peut] -
[x@v d€Atwy - - nomina quaestorum - - - - rape] @v Kara& rodw S€ATw mpaTH* TPO
m<p@[v]
[- - dies, mensis, locus- ---------- ] vpadopeve{y} rapfoav Mépros
Od [ad€pros]
[--------------------- vids] OeMeive "Aorprvas, Aedxiol[s - - - - - ]
[------------------ Ae]|vuxiov vids “Qdevreiva BadBos, [- -- - ---- -|
[----------------- vids] Dad€pve ITabros, Ios M[- ---------- ]
[-------------------- ] L[émdvos Shots Aevxioy [vids - ------- -]
[--------- Tcuos “H610s Paiov v] ios KNovdic OGpos, Ae[UKios - - - ------- ]
10
acne
tenes een crs Nena chest ilstent rota ottees erated ae ]
A new reading of the stone was made by Calder and Cormack. 1 (at the end) ANE[- - . For the
possible restorations of the names of witnesses see the commentary. In |. 10 Viereck has
0 IINOLZT|- - .

170
SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENTARY. The S.C. de Panamara of 39 B.c. (No. 27) mentions at least two
witnesses who are identical with senators named in the present decree. Therefore this
decree cannot be dated too far removed in time from that one. 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 cognomen is important. After Sulla, official documents regularly
included a citizen’s full name. Ifa man had a cognomen, it would be given.! 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 1 is the consul of 35 B.c., L. Cornificius L. f.
The decree must be dated to that year.
The witnesses:
1. We expect a ranking consular to come first in the list. Viereck accepted the
restoration here of M. Valerius M. f. Messala, who could have been the consul suffectus of
32 B.C., or possibly the one of 31 B.c. But either of them would have been only of
praetorian rank in 35 B.c. Nota serious objection, but doubtful because the person in
post number 2 in the list may have been the the consul suffectus of 36 B.c. and in that case
would have outranked him. I prefer to leave the identity of the first witness an open
question.
2. Viereck originally restored the name of L. Nonius L. f. Vel. Asprenas for this
witness, making him identical with the man of the same name in No. 27, but then
(Addenda, p. VII) rejected it “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?
ae its
4. L. f. Ouf. Balbus. Viereck had accepted the restoration here of the Senator
M. Attius L. £ Ouf. Balbus, but other candidates are better suited (see Broughton, op. cit.,
p- 9). Possibilities for the gentilicia include Lucilius, Octavius, and Paccius. Perhaps
Balbus was related to the consul suffect of 30 B.c., L. Saenius L. f., as Broughton also
suggests.
ce Fal. Plautus. Unidentified.
6. C. M—. Viereck accepted the name here of C. Memmius L. f. without good
reason. Unidentified.
7. P. Sestius L. f. He was also the witness in the S.C. de Panamara (No. 27).
8. C. Hedius C. £ Claud. Thorus. He too was one of the witnesses in the S.C. de
Panamara (No. 27).
OL:

1 See E. Fraenkel, R.E., s.v. ‘“Namenwesen,” col. 1649; Mau, R.E., s.v. ““Cognomen,”
>
col. 225;
L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, American Academy in Rome, Papers and
Monographs XX (Rome, 1960), p. 169.

171
 3
SENATUS CONSULTUM (?) DE First Century B.c.
REBUS STRATONICENSIUM (Augustan?)
QHHQHHDGHADSHODSS
SHOT EOO HOTT SOOO HRTESSSSSOOHRSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. J. Hatzfeld, B.C.H., 51 (1927), no. 3, pp. 59-61; Cronert,

Hiller, et al., S.E.G., IV (1930), 246; J. Robert and L. Robert, La Carie, II
(Paris, 1954), 100.

DESCRIPTION. Two fragments from a stele of white marble found in

Panamara. The left side only is preserved. Height: 0.32 m. Maximum width
(bottom): 0.55 m. Thickness: 0.095 m. The letters are carefully engraved but
badly worn.

x¥<ad>pnoav ris moAew|s airovons (?) -------- ]

ATAXAEETO.YI.I.E[----------------- ]
TINO PYCUTS WUYTS. |< 26 aces cial 1 es ]
Sypocice[t]s (?) mpcypaow to[----------- ]
cavres ywpls méon|s .] KA[------------- ]
maperaéavto. vv Tovrov d[é----------- ]
e€eBadev, ev & Trodduw té Tle] we yrota Kexivduvev-|
KoTes Sic TavTas Tas aitias Siccds [- - - - deddy-|
Bou rive, ér[a]OAa, aria [fi] AcvOpwra [zpdtepov 7H]
Sjua. Lrparoverkewy Sedopeve poop |eweprope-|
va TE €oTW, TADTA TAVTA SiKaiws aiws T[e ad-|
tots dedopeve mpoopenepiopeve [Te elvou Kat]
mravra Kup éxew [.]OMO[...]| AEQKAIO[- - - -]
15 [...]wrarns miorews a[dradv- 0 dé] te[pov rod Avs]
[rod ev [Tove] cpous KvK [Aw te Tob Lepod, etre]
[réwevos etre cAcos eotiv, covdov elvan - - -|

1-2 Ziebarth, 2XOPH2ZAN, stone. 5 Cousin reports AHMOXIAS, but Hatzfeld says there
is room for an iota between A and X. 6 IIAZI..KA, stone; Hiller writes mé&on[s] ka[-, but
Viereck (notes) follows what is given here. 7 tovrou 8[€ yevouevov, Crdnert. 8-9 Hiller, but
7é& t[€] pe[yaAa 2], Hatzfeld. 10 and 14 The readings here by Cousin are not altogether satisfactory.
16-17 Cf. S.C. de Plarasensibus et Aphrodisiensibus (No. 28), B 12-13.

172
SENATUS CONSULTA

COMMENTARY. A comparison of the expressions in lines 10-17 with those in the

S.C. de Plarasensibus et Aphrodisiensibus (No. 28), B 3-6, and in the S.C. de Stratonicensibus
of 81 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.! J. 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.
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 after either of those two events. The city received
its first major grant of privileges in 81 B.c. from Sulla (No. 18), and the present document
(Il. 15-17) in at least one respect supplemented those by making the Temple of Zeus at
Panamara, together with its territory, inviolable. This would appear to date the
document after the senatorial decree of 81 B.c. 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 divi Augusti.4 It may well be that our document
is of Augustan date, but to select 31 B.c. 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 senatus consultum from the Senate. I
believe our document is a senatorial decree.
One last possibility for a date must be considered. Can this document be part of the
S.C. de Panamara of 39 8.c. (No. 27)? 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.

t Robert and Robert, loc. cit., are convinced sans doute that it is a senatorial decree.
2 He is led to this view because of the passage in Tacitus Annales III. 62 (cf. the S.C. de Plarasensibus et
Aphrodisiensibus [No. 28]), in which we learn that the city of Stratoniceia had received a recens divi
Augusti decretum.
3 $.I.G.3, 768.
4N. 2 above.

173
 3]
EDICTUM AUGUSTI ET SENATUS
CONSULTUM DE PECUNIIS REPETUNDIS 4 B.C.
QHHDHDDDGDODODAHSOAOOOODSETORORESEEOSSREOOSSS9SS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Oliverio, Notiziario archeologico del Ministero delle

Colonie, IV (Milan-Rome, 1927), 15-67, with five plates, reviewed by A. Neppi
Modona, Aegyptus, 9 (1928): 146-51; F. Ebrard, Philologische Wochenschrift, 47
(1927): 1193-98, 1226-32, 1311, 1440; R. Cagnat and M. Besnier, L’Année
Epigraphique (Paris, 1927), 166;J.G. C. Anderson, J.R.S., 17 (1927): 33-48; L.
Radermacher, Wiener Anzeiger, 65 (1928): 69-82; Anton von Premerstein, Klio,
22 (1928): 162-64; V. Groh, Listy Filologické, 55 (1928): 83-91 and 200-5;
Anton von Premerstein, Z.S.S., 48 (1928): 419-531, reviewed by W. Graf
Uxkull-Gyllenband, Gnomon, 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. Klaffenbach, Hermes, 63 (1928): 368;J.Stroux and L. Wenger,
Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, vol.
34 treatise 2 (Vienna, 1928), pp. 1-145, reviewed by J. G. C. Anderson, J.R.S., 19
(1929): 219-24, by V. Arangio-Ruiz, Rivista di Filologia, n.s., 58 (1930): 220-30,
and by A. Fliniaux, Revue historique de droit frangaise et étranger, 1931, pp. 715-24;
G. La Pira, Studi italiani di filologia classica, n.s., 7 (1929): 59-83 (on Edict V and
the S.C.); E. Schénbauer, Z.S.S., 49 (1929): 396-403; H. Dessau, Geschichte der
romischen Kaiserzeit, II, 2 (1930), 832ff.; E. Levy, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, treatise 5 (1930-31), pp. 40ff. (on
capital punishment); V. Arangio-Ruiz, Atti del I° Congresso di Studi Coloniali
(Florence, 1931), pp. 11ff. (on public law and citizenship); A. Steinwenter,
R.E., s.v. “Tudex,” suppl. V (1931), cols. 352-56; P. Wahrmann, Glotta, 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.v.
“‘Senatus,” suppl. VI (1935), cols. 783ff.; P. Romanelli, Africa Romana (Milan,
1935), pp. 226-27 with Plate VI; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et Documenta
Historiae et Iuris, 2 (1936): 518ff. (answer to La Pira);J.J. E. Hondius et al.,
S.E.G., IX, 8; F. De Visscher, Les édits d’Auguste découverts a Cyrene (Louvain-
Paris, 1940), reviewed by H. Last, J.R.S., 35 (1945): 93-99, and by L. Wenger,
Z.S.S., 62 (1942): 425-36; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani?, pt. 1
(Florence, 1941), no. 68, pp. 403-14; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e
romana (Milan, 1942), pp. 239-84; F. De Visscher, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres
et de Sciences Morales et Politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, 5° sér., 23
(1947): 50-59; J. H. Oliver, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 19 (1949):
105-14; A. N. Sherwin-White, Papers of the British School at Rome, 17 (1949):
5-25 (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—Jones, no.
311, pp. 139-43;J.H. Oliver, A.J.P., 76 (1955): 287; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman
Civilization, Il (New York, 1955), no. 9, pp. 36-42; F. Serrao, Studi in onore di
Pietro de Francisci, 11 (Milan, 1956), 504ff.; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne,

174
 SENATUS CONSULTA

Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 148; P. A. Brunt, Historia, 10 (1961): 199-200, 202,
2045 J. Bleicken, Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht (Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in
Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., dritte Folge, Nr. 53) (Gottingen, 1962), pp. 36-43,
168-78.

BRIEF ANALYSES. E. Ghislanzoni, Enciclopedia Italiana, 10 (1931), s.v.

“Cirene,” p. 435; Sir H. Stuart Jones, C.A.H., 10 (1934): 167 and 171; G. H.
Stevenson, ibid., p. 212; A. Momigliano, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford,
1949), p. 250; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II,
1052-53, N. 10, III4, n. 10, 1347, n. 58; H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to
the Study of Roman Law (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 542-45; L. Wenger, Die Quellen
des rémischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 455-56; A. Berger, Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 447. The fullest résumé is the
one by P. Romanelli, La Cirenaica Romana (Verbania, 1943), pp. 80-87.

DESCRIPTION. Marble stele found in the agora of Cyrene (2.05 m. high,

0.70 m. wide at the bottom, 0.61 m. wide at the top, and 0.38 m. thick,
complete on all sides). In modern times it was used as a bench on the outside of
a house with its engraved surface turned toward the wall. The inscription was
engraved in two parts. The first part, consisting of four edicts, is separated by
one vacant line from the second, which contains the fifth edict and the senatus
consultum. Both parts were engraved at the same time, however. A few
centimeters below the last line (144) there is evidence that from there to the top
of the stele the surface had been polished slightly. The letters (0.006-0.010 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 for 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
other kinds of omissions. The engraving on the whole is a most instructive
example of the several kinds of mistakes an ancient engraver was likely to make.

Edict V

Abroxpétwp Kaicup v XeBauoros apxvepeds wéyvotos

Snwapyixys e€ovatas vvv IO vyvvvvvv déyer
vacat spatium unius versus

Adoypa ovveAnrov ro emt Taiov Kadoviciov Kai Aevkiov

A /

Tlacoujvou trétwv Kupwhev ewod mapovtos Kou ovv-

~ / \

7S
emypadopevov, avikov de ets THY THY TOD drjpov Tob
~ > \ ~ ~ / aA

t
wiLalwy ovppcywv
‘Pwo LOPar
aopadnay, Wo 7 yvworov ;
iva 7 méow HY

175
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

dv kndopeba, méprrew els Tas ErrapyHnas Sveyvwv Kol TAL

«e@ {a / > A > /, } / \ ~

€uc. mpoypéupari vroraocew, €€ od SiAov Eorou méow

~ ~ ” ~

80 rots Tas errapynas KaToLKoDaW, Sony ppovTida mroLovpeE-

a fol i4 / /,

Ba eyed Te Kal 7) avvKANTOS TOD UNndeva. TOV Hiv daoTaco-

A ~ CA

Lévwv rapa TO MpoonKoy TL TMaaXW 7 ElompaTrecBau. vacat a UJ

vacat Aoypa cuvkAnrov vacat

‘Yrép dv Ieuos Kadoviowos LSaPetvos Aevnvos [Tacar-
85 v vos ‘Potdos trator Adyous €Trowjoavro TrEept Ov Vv
¢ lol 4 / > 7 0

v Abroxpétwp Kaicap v LeBaords, yyeuawv v nuérepos, Aa € \ ¢ /

ex EvpBovrlov yrwuns, 6 €k THs cvvKAjtouv KAnpwrov Eoxev,

td Nt tA “a > A Xr / Xr \ wv

avevexOnvar dv” judy mpos tiv BovdAny nOéAncev, avnKdovTwy vv

coal ~ >

és THY TOV cvppcywv Tod Sjpov Tod

>? \
‘Puyaiwy acpadeav,
A
do- , ~ ry / A °P. / > LA Z8

Ee tHe Bovdpu: vv Tdv mpoydvwv T&v juetépwv dikas xpnucrwv

A a A ~ ¢€ / / Uh

[fern] errartycews vouolernsdvTwr, dtrws p&ov ot avppayxot v-

~ ¢

mép\ dva oN
av > =
adiunbdow > a
erefedOeiv kal \ kopicacbou
, ,
yphnuara >
apas-
pelévres SUvwvTa, dvTos Sé TOD yeévous THY TovovTwY SiKao-
Thpiwy éotw ote BapuTarov Kal andeorarov adrots du’ ovs eypa-
, w LA if se a 4 > aA 8 > a“ 2 /

95 $1 6 vopos, TOY erapynav waKkpav amrexovady KA>KeoIon paptv-

pas mévyntas avOpwrous Kal Twas acbXe>vis dia vdaov 7 dua yhpas, apé-
ig > vA / > a \ / a” \ A > /

oxe THE BovdAqu: "Edy twes TOV ovppcywv peta TO yeveobou tobTo To
lol lol A UL M ~

Sdypa THs cuvKAnrov ypyjpara Snpoctou 7) (dia mpayOevres cemrau-

tetv Bovdnbdaw, ywpis Tob Kepadfs edOvvew Tov eiAnddta, Kal dep
aA ~ \ lo lol ? / \ >? / AV 1€ \

100 TovTwy KaTaoTavTes evpavicwor TOV apydvTwY Twi, dt epetrar ovr[c] -

yew THY ovy[KA]nTOV, ToUTOUS TOV apyYoVTa Ws T&XLOTA mpos THY BovAny
Mpoowyoyety Kol avviyopov, d<s> drép adtav epet emt ris {n} ovvedAjrov, dv &[v]
w~ \ / a“ ¢ \ ? ~ > a Hof ~ / a“ nN

adtol airjowow, diddvar a&kwv dé pr) ovvnyopeitw, di ex TOV vouwv Trap-

aitnos TavdTyns THs Aevtoupyias Sédorca. voy *Qv av ev TH ovvKdjrar ai-
/ lol & b) ~

, > , > A ¢ >

105 Tlas emipepovow aKovabdaw omws (dow Kpital>\ &pywv ” a
ds oN
av ? *
adtots ,
mpdcodov
eis THY
avvKAntov bd, abOnwepov apovons THs BovAjs, Wote ju) eAatTovs SiaKo-
4 ~ a ~

ciwv elvou, KAnpodobw{t} ex mévrwy TOV dTaTiKav TaV 7) én” adtijs ‘Pduns
/ “A ~ ~ ~ B) ~

[7] evros etxoor pedi ar{r}o THs TéAcws dvTwv Téacupes: dpolws ex TOV OTpATY-
an > A ” , > ~ ~

[y] cay révrwv tdv én’ adbris ris ‘Pwpns 7) evtds eikoor perAlwy amd Tis méde-
~ / ~ 5 eee) a ~ a

[w]s dvrwy, tps: dpoiws ex tOv &hAwy ovvEdyntiKav 7} ols eal ris cuvKArrov yro-
a a / ~ ~ . ~
110

Env anopaivecbas
> / 6
eeotw
”
mévrwyr,
/
ota av»” Tore
/
7)is Wingemt
ea TS
“Pads
/
7)N evyevov
4
elkoar
”

peidiwr ris moAews Bow, dvo0° KAnpobobw S€ ynOeve, ds dv EB(S>oprjKovre 7}

/ ~ / > ~~

Teli ETN 'yeyovas hu 7) en” apyfs 7 én eLovolas reraypevos 7) emararns KpiTN-

/ uv A Ss bg hat Ve) ~ AY SE eS /

pov 1) emipedAnris cevroperpias 7 dv av vooos KwAvHL TadTHY THY AevToUpyia

/ ” > | / a” an”

ew: ‘in
II5 Aettoupyety avtuKpus THs cuvKAntov e€opoadpevos Kal Sods trép TovTOV
Tpets opvivras Tis BovAtjs avdpas, 7) Os av ovvyevetau 7) olKNdTHTL mpoOT)-
a > / ~ a ” “a n“

Kye oda. ware vouwt “lovAian tau SixaotiKds waptupety emi Snpooiov Suxaory-
> a a / > / ~ ~ a

plov C&>Kwv pn avoyraleabar, 7) dv av 6 edOvvdpuevos dpdon. emi THs GUVKATOU

/ + A > U ni a a“ c ~

176
 SENATUS CONSULTA

€xOpov éardu elvan, put) <a>Aclovas Sé 7) pets eEopvdobw. vvvvvy Of dv

> My e ~ \\ , \ a *

evvea, Tod-
120 Tov TOV‘ MpoTrov
,
AxYwow, EK2 TOUTwWY
Xr 4, 4
apYwY
»
ds
a.
av TOV\ KAjpov
a ,
TromjonTou dpovTt-
Cérw, Omws evrds Svelv puepav ot re yprjuara pweramopevdpuevor Kal ad? of dy
/ i id \ a e aA ¢ \ ta

MeTOrropevwvron ava pépos arodéywrrou, ews dv mévre UrroradOaow.

, hah
vvvv
/ > / ~

Os dv r&v Kpirdv rovtwr mplv av KpiOfu 76 mpdypa croOdvne, 7) &AX Tus octrbee
a“ an ~ A 4 \ \ A

SiaKkwdAv-
On aUTOV Kpive, od av mapaiTnors SoKiyLaoOAL 6uocckvTwY TévTE avdpOv TaV é-
2 \ , 6 vn / a > fd / > aA ~ >

x Ths Bovdjjs, Tote 6 dpywy mapdvTwr TV KpLTaV Kal TOV TH YpHwaTe jLEeTOTOpEV-
lal A / ee / ~ ~ ~
125
OMEevwY
fe
Ka ‘ TOUTOU
,
TAP >? odA AVY pETaTopevwYTaL, emiKANpovGIW ek ToUTWY TOV a

avdp@v, ot av THs avris ta€ews Wow, kal Tas adras &pLavtas apyas, Hv av TU-
> } ~ an fond a 4 Ss \ \ > \ »” > Ud a an“ ,

xn apas exeivos, els Tob Tov Tomov emuKAnpodroau, ef” cu pur) emucAnpw-
” b A > lot \ A

cero avdpa, dv KAnpoboba Kar& Tod edOvvouevon TovTw TH Sdypart TH<s> ovv-
” a A \ A ~ ~

130 KAjt<ov> odk e€eotw. vevvv Oi 8€ aipebévtes Kpital epi rovTwWY pdvov aKovE-
és ”

\ e B)
Twouv Kal SuvyervwoKeTwoar, Trepl dv av Tis evOUYNTOL Sypoaice H (Oto ve-
voog.iopevos, vvvvv Kal doov av Kedc&Aauov ypnuctos of evOdvovTEs amode<iy-
Ewow aevnveybar eavtadv dieu 7 Snuooiar, rocodrov amodiddvan KeAeverw-
> ~ a

aay, ep dt evTos TpLGKOVTa HuEpav ot KpiTal Kpwodow. vevvv Obds ev Sén baep
279 @ > A 4 e A ¢< \ ~ a“ nv / e \

135 TOUTWY SiKyeMoKEL KAL yrauNY amopaivedBou, odTOL expt STOU av Svayyvdouw Kal
THY yvouny amroprvwvra, m&ons Aevtoupyias Snpocias éxros lepHv Snpoat-
> ~

wy trapicbwouv. vuvev péoxew de tH. BovdAte Tov &pyovta Tov THY KAnpwow
, 6 Al Va 6c lol AA ‘ ” AN \ /

TO&v Sikaotav trouncavta 7, ef pu) odTos S¥vaito, THV bTaTwWV TOV TE TPONyopotv—
Ta TAUTHS THs Svaitns TpoltoTracbou Kal KaTayyehAYW pdpTvow Tots emt THs *ITa-
140 Nias odaw &&ovaiay Siddvan, ep’ adi TH ev (Sian Tu weTaropevopevwe py TA€elo- —-v
7, tg > , / 243 @ ~ \ 07 / \ ,

ow Tévte, Tots dé Snuooiaa 7) TrAcloow <d>€Ka KarayyetAcs émitpéper. vvvvvevvvrv

/ A \ 8 / 3 Xr / ry / ont > /

‘Opoiws apéokew the Bov< Ahi Kpitds, ot av ex TovToV TOO (Sdyparos Tis cvvKARTOU>
~ a Ul lot A

Adxwow, Kal? 6 dv abtdv Excotan ddéni, avadovddv {0} vacat

~ >

anodaivecbar, Kal 6 av ot TAElous arropyvwvraL, Edy. vacat

> Ud ag | ec / > / IA

vacat

Edict V 74-82 In this section the letters are larger and the intervals between them greater than
in the remainder of the text. 91 (beginning of line) Erased by engraver. 95 EAKEXOAI (?), but
Oliverio reads éax-. 96 AXONIZ. 102 OYIIEP. 105 AKOYZSOQSINOIQLAPXQN;
here Oliverio, Premerstein, and Stroux and Wenger invert—érws axovo0Gow—but La Pira
thought a clause had fallen out after 67ws, and the text in S.E.G., retains the order found on the
stone. Olliver’s solution (Memoirs) is followed here, *Qv, attracted into the case of its antecedent,
being the subject of the verb. Thus ém¢epovow is the dative plural of the participle. 108
Oliverio changed to récoup<as. 112 EBOMHKONTA. 118 AKQN. 119 TAEIONA2.
127 d&p£avr<e)s, Oliverio, 129-30 THYYN KAHTQ. 132-33 ATIOAE SQ2IN. 138 te;
Radermacher proposed <rd)te. 139 KATAITEAAIN. 140 EXOYXIAN. 141 AEKA (?),
but Oliverio read AEKA. 142 BOYAHI. After éx rovrov 708 the space is empty to the end of
the line. The phrase used here was supplied by Oliverio; S.E.G. has rod (Sdyparos).

COMMENTARY. Of all epigraphical discoveries only the Res Gestae of Augustus

177
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.! 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 find 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, Il. 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.2 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.

1 Wenger and Premerstein were convinced, but McFayden was not. Although the modern literature
on the problems connected with the imperium and auctoritas of Augustus is enormous, there are several
articles that serve as excellent introductions to the various theories and controversies: G. E. F.
Chilver, Historia, 1 (1950): 408-35; V. Ehrenberg, A.J.P., 74 (1953): 113-36; L. Wickert, R.E., s.v.
“Princeps,” cols. 2270-78; E. T. Salmon, Historia, 5 (1956): 456-78. In addition one should consult
J. Béranger, Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du Principat (Basel, 1953), pp. 77ff. (reviewed by L.
Wickert, Gnomon, 26 [1954]: 534-44); A. Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis (Paris, 1947), chap. 2 (re-
viewed by H. Last, J.R.S., 40 [1950]: 117-23); and the posthumous work of P. Grenade, Essai sur les
origines du Principat (Paris, 1961), passim. A new document of importance in this regard has been
published by H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden (Diss.,
Leyden, 1958), no. 57, pp. 49-66 (= S.E.G., XVIII, 555). There is a very detailed commentary on it
by K. M. T. Atkinson in the Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité, 7 (1960): 227-72, which is
marred by the serious error she has committed in believing that the first document of that inscription
is a part ofa senatus consultum in a curtailed form. Further details are available in J. H. Oliver, Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 115-22. The document is No. 61 of the present volume.
2H. Last, C.A.H., 11 (1936): 401, and De Visscher, Les édits, p. 47. Digest 16. 1. 2. 1: arbitrari senatum
recte atque ordine facturos ad quos de ea re in iure aditum erit. Cf. also Digest 1. 16. 4. 4 and 40. 12. 27. I.

178
SENATUS CONSULTA

The Fifth Edict and the Senatus Consultum

Livy (43. 2) tells us that in 171 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 recuperatores, chosen from the
Senate, for each separate complaint. Each accuser in turn could choose a patronus and
through the recuperatores could institute proceedings to recover his money. These
temporary commissions were made into a permanent board of recuperatores by the Lex
Calpurnia of 149 B.c., with the penalty for conviction being the simple recovery of the
money by the victim and nothing more. This was the origin of the first quaestio
perpetua. Modifications of this court, mainly with regard to the penalty, were intro-
duced by the Lex Acilia of 123 B.c., the Lex Servilia, the Lex Cornelia of 81 B.c., and the
Lex Iulia of 59 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 senatus consultum 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 patronus of the accuser’s
choice, who will address the Senate on the matter. On that same day the magistrate
will select by lot from the Senate (at least two hundred senators being present) four
consulares, three praetores, and two other senators. No senator chosen shall be seventy
3 See Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 1: 1-64 and 3: 339-55; J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Problems
of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford, 1912), 2: 75-152;J.P. V. D. Balsdon, Papers of the British School
at Rome, 14 (1938): 98-114; Sherwin-White, ibid., 17 (1949): 5-25; Henderson, loc. cit.; A. N. Sherwin-
White, J.R.S., 42 (1952): 43-55; G. Tibiletti, Athenaeum, 31 (1953): 5-100; Brunt, loc. cit. For part
of a new law belonging to the leges repetundarum see R. Bartoccini, Epigraphica, 9 (1947): 3-31 (A.E.,
1950, no. 80) and G. I. Luzzatto, Archivo storico pugliese, 4 (1951): 28-41.
4 Usually the presiding magistrate attended to the communication of a senatus consultum 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 [1928]: 482-83) mentions the S.C. de Bacchanalibus and suggests the
Edictum Augusti de Aquaeductu Venafrano (H. Dessau, I.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 émixpio while Edict V is labeled a mpdypoppa.

179
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 left. These five, freed of all public
duties except the public cult, will hear the case. 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
Iulia of 59 8.c., but not until the discovery of the present senatus consultum did we know
its source. 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. Does the new supplant the old
completely? To what extent can the new procedure be used to determine the nature of
penalties in the old quaestio under the Lex Iulia? Everything hinges on a key phrase in
our decree (Il. 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....” This vital and obscure phrase, ywpis
Tob Kedadjs edOdvew Tov eiAnddra, 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 consultum. The phrase therefore
cannot be used to give positive proof about the nature of the penalty specified by the Lex
Iulia. What is certain is that the new regulations were concerned with a reform of
procedure and not with penalty, and that they provided for a simple repayment of the
amount of money extorted. Infamia of the condemnati was not, however, excluded. It
is only when one asks the question, “ What if the accuser does wish to include capital
charges?”’, that a difficulty and a dilemma arise.
The school of Premerstein (Oliverio and Arangio-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 before the senatorial
jury. Thus, in this view, the old quaestio de repetundis disappears and the existing laws on
extortion apply without any change to the new senatorial procedure. And these laws,
notably the Lex Iulia, did not know the capital penalty. The limiting clause in our

180
SENATUS CONSULTA

decree is accordingly a very loose one and, being parenthetical, does not qualify any
particular word or phrase. Thus, extortion was not in itself a capital offense 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 &ouretv BovAnOSow. 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 repetundis 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 jury. This separation removed
the extortion charge from the criminal 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 criminal
offenses had been committed in conjunction 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
the provincials had been allowed to decide the type of jeopardy into which a Roman
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. Such was the purpose of the preliminary
hearing in the Senate. 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 criminal charges were involved, it would send the
case to the public court.5
5 His view, that the Senate decides what would be the appropriate procedure, has not been 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.

181
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Then Sherwin-White, in his detailed and valuable account of the republican leges
repetundarum, 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.Ӣ
Thus, to him, the limiting clause, as well as the regulations in lines 130-31, 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
therefore 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. And we are not wholly
disappointed. 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. 15, recorded by
Tacitus (Ann. 1. 74). Perhaps we could include the case of Caesius Cordus (Tacitus
Ann. 3. 70), 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
known to us from the Trajanic era is not convincing. By that time we find the entire
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 which 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.®
The full meaning and evaluation of the edicts from Cyrene have not yet been realized.
Fresh evidence and the resifting of the old may clarify some of the obscurities.
6 Sherwin-White, Papers of the British School at Rome, 17 (1949): 25.
7 De Visscher, Les édits, pp. 184-210, and Brunt, op. cit., pp. 198-206.
8 For the development of the criminal jurisdiction of the Senate see Th. Mommsen, Rémisches
Staatsrecht, 113, 1, pp. 118ff., and Roémisches Strafrecht (Berlin, 1899), pp. 251ff.; Premerstein, Z.S.S.,
48 (1928): 527-28 (with further references); De Visscher, Les édits, pp. 184-86. For a list of senatorial
processes de repetundis see the work of Bleicken, op. cit., app. I, pp. 158-66.

182
 32
SENATUS CONSULTUM (?) DE HERAEO
SAMIORUM ET ASCLEPIEO COORUM ISDE 26:
QHYGHGHHGH
HSH SH TOOHSHSHASHS
SHSHS HSSHSHSHyggg
HS
BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Herrmann, Athen. Mitt., 75 (1960), no. 5, Pp- 90-93,
with Plate no. 3 (Beilage 38).

DESCRIPTION. Fragment of a stele of white marble, broken on all sides, the

surface badly weathered. Height: 0.45 m. Width: 0.27m. Thickness:
0.095 m. Height of letters: 0.014 m. Found on Samos in the Palea Ekklisia, a
small church now demolished.

ee NUE S ease
[---------- TO.2S[---------------- ]
[--------- JAW NEIZAO|------------- |
[[ctos Lrepri|os Mc&Ewos xe[t Dcvos "Acinos [ToAXiwv brarou 2]
[------- ]ev apo A «i8av = [emreuBpiwv - - - - - - ]
[------- ] mpeoBevrdv Kwwv [ ----------- ]
[- - - - a]drots "AckAnmod tlepdv - - -------- ]
[----- ] | “Hpas 6 edoeBéata[tos? ---------- ]
[----K]araoravrwy kabwl[s ------------- ]
vacat
10 [----- |]7@u iepdt tHs “Hpas t[ ---------- ]
[----- Jute Sixcsorgpay [------------- ]
[----- o|y emutvyxeiv ql --------------e ]
[-=- Seror]Sauovians A[ -.------------- ]
[------- Ths| wodkews kL --------- erro ]
15

Text by Herrmann except where noted. 1 [a] vv¢[Aqr - - (?), Herrmann, and perhaps [kare ro
Sdypce tod o]uv«[Arjrov. 7¢.g.,70 map’ a]|drois, Herrmann. 9 azrox |araordvrwv suggested by
Herrmann. 13 Herrmann refers to radr@ Sixaiw radrH re Sevodcayovig¢ in the S.C. de
Aphrodisiensibus et Plarasensibus (No. 28), |. 11.

183
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.! It
was not until a.p. 23, however, that the Samians and the Coans requested the Senate to
confirm the grants of asylia for 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 refer to C. Stertinius Maximus, the consul
for that year. 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 consuls would have rendered their decision and then delivered it to
the Senate. 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 éypouf] av or eréyvwa] av or ééxpw] av might have appeared. But the document
cannot be identified as a senatus consultum positively. 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.+ This
might have been the case with this document from Samos. It is at most, however, only
a remote possibility.

1 Cf. the letter of M. Antonius to Plarasa and Aphrodisias (No. 28).

2 Tacitus Ann. 4. 14: Is quoque annus legationes Graecarum civitatium habuit, Samiis Iunonis, Cois
Aesculapii delubro vetustum asyli ius ut firmaretur petentibus. Samii decreto Amphictyonum nitebantur, quis
praecipuum fuit rerum omnium iudicium, qua tempestate Graeci conditis per Asiam urbibus ora maris potiebantur.
Neque dispar apud Coos antiquitas, et accedebat meritum ex loco; nam cives Romanos templo Aesculapii
induxerant, cum iussu regis Mithridatis apud cunctas Asiae insulas et urbes trucidarentur.
3 See Herrmann, op. cit., pp. 91-92.
4 S.C. de Itanoram et Hierapytniorum Litibus (No. 14), ll. 74ff.; S.C. de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum
(No. 15), ll. 61-64; S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18), ll. 103-6; S.C. de Oropiorum et Publicanorum
Controversiis (No. 23), ll. 1-4.

184
 I]
EPISTULAE
QHEGHGHOOSTS HS HS HS HSSSHSOHHOHSHSHSHSSSSSSHogggs

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 Itanorum et Hierapytniorum Litibus

18 S.C. de Stratonicensibus cum Epistula Sullae

20 S.C. de Thasiis cum Epistula Sullae

21 Epistula Cn. Cornelii Dolabellae

23 S.C. aliaque acta de Oropiorum et Publicorum Controversiis

26 Epistulae et S.C. de Mytilenaeis

28 Epistula M. Antonii ad Plarasenses et Aphrodisienses et S.C.

A. INTRODUCTION: OFFICIAL ROMAN
CORRESPONDENCE DURING THE REPUBLIC

GHDHHGGSODHDD
AHHH SO SH DTTSOOUTSSESHOHTESSSSS99H

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 before the wars with Carthage.?
The use of letters, of course, by educated men dates from the beginning of the Republic.?
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

1 Tt 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. Weare told that T. Quinctius Flamininus
sent many letters to the Greeks: Livy 35. 39. 4 (to the Thessalians), 35. 25. 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 of letters 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, Sermo Graecus (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. 204-10, 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 rémischen Literatur (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 Roman Empire,
(Princeton, 1926), pp. 232-45, offers some information. More strictly on the Greek side, but often
very useful for our purpose, are the contributions made by F. Ziemann, De epistularum graecarum
formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae (Diss., Halle, 1910): C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the
Hellenistic 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 Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griechischen
Inschriften (Munich, 1892); C. L. Déttling, Die Flexionsformen lateinischer Nomina in der griechischen
Papyri und Inschriften (Diss., Lausanne, 1920); B. Meinersmann, Die lateinischen Worter und Namen in
den griechischen Papyri (Leipzig, 1927). Besides the standard grammars of Kiihner—Gerth (Ausfiihrliche-
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache3, 2 vols. in 4 [Hannover, 1890-1904]) and E. Schwyzer (Griechische
Grammatik, 3d ed., 2 vols. [Munich, 1959], with the Register by D. J. Georgacas, 2d ed., 1960), in-
formation of value for our letters can be found in Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957); Blass-Debrunner, A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, English translation and revision of
‘the 9th and roth eds., by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961): and E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen
Papyri aus der Ptolemderzeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1906-33).
2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (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. 1.

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.3 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. Personal con-
tact was indispensable. 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
with detailed instructions. A whole body of procedure and regulations developed
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 with Carthage
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 201 B.C. and reported Philip’s agreement with Antiochus and the details of his Carian
expedition, there was a change in senatorial feeling. War with Philip resulted, then
victory at Cynoscephalae. 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 patrocinium libertatis Graecorum, an outgrowth of an earlier tactic whereby weak states

3 For a collection of imperial letters see the work of L. Lafoscade, De epistulis aliisque titulis imperatorum
magistratuumque Romanorum (Lille, 1902), which is now, of course, badly in need of revision. For a
list of imperial constitutiones see R. Taubenschlag, Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 6 (1952): 121-42
(= Opera Minora, II, pp. 3-28).
4 Anton von Premerstein in R.E., s.v. “‘Legatus,” cols. 1133-41; G. Iacopi, in De Ruggiero, Dizionario
epigrafico di Antichita romane, s.v. “Legatus,” pp. 500-26. For the procedure followed in Rome for
the reception and accomodation of foreign envoys see Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, M13, 2, pp.
1148-57.

187
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

were protected against strong states in order to strengthen one’s own position.’ 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 Philip 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 36
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. The possible motive was the securing of friends in Greece to the
Roman cause. 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 for Augustus
on his birthday. Official letters were also used to transmit the texts of senatus consulta to
Greek cities. Each has its own special value to us. And all of 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 the Great, when
the Hellenistic monarchies were engaged in their great struggles for power, they did not
yet possess a full bureaucratic organization. The development of the various depart-
ments within each of the kingdoms was gradual, but by the second century s.c. they had

5 Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 81-83.

Welles, op. cit., pp. XXXVII-XXXVIII. For the chancery in the Seleucid Empire see E. Bikermann,
Institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938), pp. 190-97. Thanks to the papyri the bureaucratic organization
of Egypt is known in some detail: see A. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens
unter romischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1915), and the work of F. Oertel, Die Liturgie (Leipzig, 1917).
See also the remarks of M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 1078-81.

188
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. In Syria the head of the chancery was
called the émvaroAoypédos. 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 B.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.

Bm FORM.OP 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 finally the word of greeting.
The letter of Antigonus to Teos at the very end of the fourth century B.c. (S.I.G.3, I,
344, ll. ro9ff.=C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period [New Haven,
1934], no. 4) begins in this way: [Bao]iAeds ’Avriyovos Thiwy thu BovAfu Kat rau
Sypwr yatpew. 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. The style is formal, business-like, and
informative. It is found in private Greek letters, and in time it became the form used
everywhere in Latin letters.’
The sender is usually one person, generally a consul, praetor, or promagistrate (Nos. I,
4, 7, 8, 14, 21, 23, 33, 38, 43, 44, 47, 50, 55, 56, 65, 66, 69, 70), but may also be a dictator
(Nos. 18, 20, 26, 49, 54), a triumvir (Nos. 28, 57), Augustus (Nos. 58, 60, 61, 64, 67, 68,
72, etc.), or a special figure of very high authority (No. 63, Agrippa). In two letters
(Nos. 35 and 36) the brothers Scipio collaborate in writing.
The addressee includes the name of the city in the genitive, followed by the specific
city magistrates or other governing bodies in the dative. The name of the city usually
appears immediately after the name of the sender (Nos. 1, 8, 14, 18, 23, 26, 28, 33-36,
38, 43, etc.), but the order is not rigid. Sometimes the name of the city comes after the

7 Koskenniemi, op. cit., pp. 155-63.

189
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

city magistrates (Nos. 4, 2, 55, 61). In two cases the name of the city or recipient is
itself in the dative (No. 39, ’Auduxrio [ar yaipew] ; No. 66, Qvareipnvois &pyou| au Bovdju
Siu yotpew]), 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 &pyovar BovAf Srjuw (Nos. 14, 18, 23, 26, 28, 49, 55, 56, 58, 60, 67, 68), BovdAj
Koc Srjuw (Nos. 34-36), and occasionally the names of the magistrates followed by 77
Xe (Nos. 1, 33, 38, 43). In four instances letters are addressed to organizations rather
than cities: No. 39 to the Amphictyons, No. 44 to the Dionysiac Artists, No. 57 to the
koinon of Asia, and No. 63 to the Argive Gerusia.
The simple yaipew is sometimes expanded to yatpew Aéyer (Nos. 4, 20, 21, 61), and it
is then placed before the name of the city and the various magistrates. The single word,
on the other hand, is regularly found at the end of the salutation. No. 26 (col. b, 8) has
the unusual yaipew Kal éppdobau.

The Formula Valetudinis

The formula of health is rare in official Hellenistic correspondence and is not found
earlier than the middle of the second century B.c. In private Greek letters it is common.’
In the letter of Eumenes II to the priest of the Temple of Cybele (O.G.LS., 315 = Welles,
op. cit., no. §6) it appears immediately after yacpew and has the form ef éppwoo, ed dv
éxyou' Kaya dé dyiawvov. In official Roman letters it does not appear until the first half
of the first century B.c., in the form ef éppwofe, ed av €xou (No. 23). Whenever a
writer employs it, he always puts it after ya/pew. In only one case, however, is the
simple phrase alone used (No. 23), for ordinarily (Nos. 26, 28, 54, 58, 60) it is expanded to
include a reference to the army. In the letter of M. Antonius to the city of Plarasa-
Aphrodisias (No. 28, A 9-12) we have ei eppwode, eb dv €xou dyraivw S€ Kal adros wera
tod otparevparos. Sometimes this is abbreviated to merely xéy[® 5€ peta rod
aTparevpccros vylavov],as in No. 26 (col. b, 8-9), or Kal adres dé wer& Tod oTparevuaros
[dyécuvov], as in No. 58 (I 4-5). Such a reference to the army is not found in the royal
Greek letters, to my knowledge, and it may have originated with the Romans.

The Background and Motives for Writing

A wide range of circumstances prompted a Roman magistrate to send a letter to a
Greek city. Most often it was because of information or requests brought to him by
Greek envoys. Whenever this was the case, his letter naturally mentioned the fact,
regularly after the salutation or the formula valetudinis, as in Nos. 1, 4, 7, 14, 18, 20, 21,
26, 28, 34-36, 38, 39, 48-49, 55-58 III, 60-61, 64, 67-68, 70, 72, 74-75. It is in these
sections of the letters that we learn the names of the envoys, where they met the Roman
magistrate, what instructions they were given by the home states, and, occasionally,

8 Ibid., pp. 130-39.

190
EPISTULAE

what special honors might have been decreed for the magistrate. The magistrate, in
turn, noted in his letter how well the envoys acted and spoke on behalf of their countries.
All of this material soon became stereotyped in form and style, another diplomatic in-
heritance from the Hellenistic period. The expressions and vocabulary may be seen
best by examining them as a whole.

No. 4, 5-10: mpeoBevrait ’AuBpaxi@rar Kat "Adopdves €uol mpoorydocav, wv’

avtots avyKAntov 66.
> aA /
~Eyw adtots ovyKAntov Swxa.
~ > \ 2 aA / ww

No. 7, 36-37: mpeoBevrat Meyrntes xa[t IIpinvets euot mpoorAPocav dws

avrots ovykA)nrov dau: rovTas ey adyKdAnrov €5[wKe].

No. 14, 90-92: [6]vres *Iravior mpecBevtad Kal duerepor tpoonABoce [or dm] ws
adrots avvKAntov 6@. ~Eya abrois ovvKAnt[olyv éwxa.
> a (2 ~ > s > a 4 ”

No. 18, 17: mpeoBevrais duletepors To yevouevov bd ovykdyjtlov ddéyya tobro

[zrapedwxa] .

No. 21, 2-6: Mixés Miké vids, La[- - - Kad viobecialy Edpupevidov, dice: dé
Avirov, mpecBevtat buerepor, avdpes Ka[Aoi Kad ayaBoi Koi Pidor rapa djuov Ka]rob
te Kat ayabod Kat ditov ovppcyou te jpetepov, ev Oecoado|vikn. evruydvres
prot - - -|ov tHYv avyKAnTov Tob Syuov Tob ‘Pwyaiwy brép ths bwerép[as médews
Soy rept THs eis Ta Snudor|a mpcypara KaTradroyhs tudv eoynkevan.

No. 26, 3-10: [otépywv AeoBavaxros, KrA., of mpecBevtat tuadv, ovveltvydv

pou - - - Kal TO Udiopa dudv are] dwKav Kot wept TOV Tidy Sveh€xOnoav KrA.

No. 28, 12-43: XYoAwv Anuntpiov <d>pérepos mpeoBevtis, emipedeorara trep-

povr<Ka@s TOV Tis ToAcws tuwv mpaypdrwy, od udvov npKéaOn emi Tots yeyovoow
olkovo[pj]|uaow, arAd Kal Huds trapexcAecev eis TO TOD yeyovdtos byety emuKpiwatos
Kat Sdypatos Kat dpKiov Kal voyov avtimedwvnueva ex Tv Snuociwy déATwy
eEamrooretAa tueiv Te evtiypada. ef’ ols eroauveoas Tov LoAwva w&dAov aredeE&unv
Cre , EA rate gd A x ,
KTA. ~~, UME TE ovvydopce €7TL TW EXELVY TOLOUTOV 770 €ELT)V.

No. 34, 4-11: Mévuamos 6 re rap’ ’Avtidyouv tod Baowéws croatadels mpos juts
mpeoBeuris mpoxerpiabels Kol df’ tudv mpecBetoou mepi Tis TéAews, TO TE Ynpropo.
cvedwKev Kal adbtos aKodAovOws Tovtwr SiedéyOn were Ta&onS Tpobvpias: pets de
rv Te dvdpa amedeEcpcba piroppovws Kat Suc tiv mpoyeyernuevny oadrau Sdkav Keut
Sid tiv tdpyovaay KadoKayaBlav mepi te Gv H£tov dSinkovoapev edvows.
© Eye a2

No. 35, 3-7: evé[tvxov] jyiv of map’ tuadm mpéoBers Aras, Avis, xrd., cvdpes
~ A lod ”

Ka[Aol Kayabot] of 7d te [prjd]iopa amédwxay Kal adrol duedeynoav cKodov[Ows

toils ev TH[e Yn] piopacre KaraKkeywpiopevois ovdev €Adetrrovtes [ptAoTe] pias.

191
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

No. 36, 4-9: évérvyo[v atv of rap’ tu)]a@v mpéoBers ’"AyaprHdns Kat [- - evdpe]s
KoAoL Ka&yabot, <ot> 76 Te [Yjdropa amédw| Kav Kal adtol diedeyna|av cxodov8| ws
trois bd’ tudv SeSoype[vors, oddev €A]Aetrrovtes pirotysias KA.

No. 38, 3-6: of map’ dudv amooradévres mpecBevtat “Hpus Evddpov, [A] apo-
[cbé]uns "Apyéda re Te ypdppara dréSooay Kal adrol dedéynouy axodovbws tots ev
adrots Karakeywp[wo] uévors pete meéons orrovdijs, protyslas odBev €Aretrrovtes, KTA.

No. 39, 2-8: [of ameoradwé]vor aap tudv mpeoBevrat Ailaida[s, - - -]as,
Mvaci8apos, cvdpes Karol Kai ayaBot, eiceA[Odvres elis tHv ovyKAnTov, Siehéynouy
rept dv adto[ds ameo|téAKerte Kal 4 ovyKANTOs amedeEatd Te a[dTovs 6] Aodpdvws
\ @ ? \ > i Ve , > / / > \ A /

KaOdt. mpoonkey map avdp@v KalAdv] Keyabdv cmeotadpevovs Kat SinKkovow

emi [eds] KTA.

No. 48, 2-3: [X]aipyywr [Tv[Poddplov v[tid]s, wodetrns bué[repos,] ampos ewe
HAP[ev ely "Arayna hpwrncev te [dws] KrA.

No. 49, 4-7: "Ey ’AdeEcvdpw Aaodice? KiPapioth, avdpt KoA@ Kal aeyob@ Kat
pilw yuetépw, mpeoBevth mapa tod Kowod tav tepi tov Aid[v]voov teyvitdv Tov
emt "Iwvias Krd., - - émér[pea Krad.
cee} , ? /

No. 55, 5-11: KAetros Tipwvos mpvtaus, >AokAnmcdns Métpwvos tepeds, xrX.,
- --, dpolws Te Kal mpecPevTat duerepot, avdpes HyaBol enol mpooHAPov KTA.
€ / \ Nee / + > See! \ ~

No. 57, 5-6: évruxovtos pot ev ’Edéowt Mcpxov ’Avrwviov ’Apteuiddpov Kr.

No. 58, 76-79: of meudbevres mpeoBevtat bd’ tudv LéAevKos vavaupyos eos,
‘“Hpés KodXu[- -]épws, Lvppoyos, avdpes cyabot, mapz Syuov cyabod, didrov
ouppaxov Te HueTépov, [amodnuyalavtes els "Edecov mpds pe dvedéyOnoav rept dv
etyov Tas evtodds: éyw odv tods [dvdpas am]ledeEcunv edipav dirorarpiSas Kat
ayabods Kat Tas TYuas Kal TOV oTépavov SéSeypwou, KTA.

No. 67, 5-7: ot mpéoBers tudv Atovdoros B’ Kat Atovdcros B’ rod Avovvciov
evervyov ev “Padspne wou Kat To Yjpuopa caaroddvres KTH.
es > ¢ 4 \ \ / > /

No. 68, 23-25: ot mpéoBeus tudv *[ddAdas re Myntpoddpov kat Mynvoyérys ’IowWdpov
tod Mnvoyévous avvéruyov ev “Pdun pou kal To rap’ buav yjdiopa aaréSooay KrA.

A comparison of these expressions with those used in the corresponding sections of the
letters from Hellenistic chanceries will prove to be instructive. In the letter of Antiochus
II to Erythrae from the middle (?) of the third century before Christ (O.G.L.S., 223
= Welles, op. cit., no. 15, Il. 2-5) we read: Oapotvywv kot TTv0
As Kat Borrés of Trap Dav
mpeaBevrai ro re Yngiopa amédwKav Huiv Kal’ d enpicaabe ras Times, Kal Tov oréhovov

192
EPISTULAE

canvercav di €orepavdioure, err. Lines 3-6 in the letter of the kings of Athamania
to Teos from the end of the third century B.C. (Welles, op. cit., no. 35) contain the
following: ITv@ayo[p]as «[a]t KAetros of drooradévres 1a [p 3] wav 7[ple[o]Bevraire
te pyprope amédwxov [Kat od|r[ot d.] edéyna[av mpds huds 7] €[ pl] rod cvyywpnO Aven
Tap nav tHv Te TdAW Kal TA. And in the letter of Antiochus (son of Antiochus III)
to Magnesia, dating from about the beginning of the second century B.c. (O.G.L.S., 232
= Welles, op. cit., no. 32, ll. 2-12) we find the words: Anpoddv Kal Dirloxos Kod Bépns
ot rap’ tudv meudbevres mpos Tov marépa Oewpol ...... amédwKav Kal TO TpOs Epe
Unpropa Kol SvedeyOnoav pera orrovdhs akorovOws tots ev rovTw KaTAKEYWpLOLEvoLS,
«TX. With these one should also examine the similar constructions in Welles (op. cit.,
no. 33, Il. 16-20, no. 41, Il. 2-3, and no. 64, ll. 3-5). The general agreement between the
phrases and the modes of expression in the Hellenistic letters and those in the Roman is
striking. Diplomatic courtesy and chancery procedure had developed a pattern to be
followed in the opening remarks of official Greek letters. The Romans took up this
pattern, consciously or unconsciously, and used it in their own correspondence.

The Tenor of the Letters

After the motives for writing have been described (usually involving a reference to
Greek envoys and to the information brought by them) the main body of the letter
begins. Because of the great variety of topics treated, the vocabulary and phraseology
followed no standards or stereotyped model. The several topics demanded their own
special models, but, of course, letters that were concerned either in full or in part with
the same topic generally tended to employ a similar phraseology. An examination of
the more important topics will be useful.

The Granting of Privileges or Benefits Roman magistrates frequently made use of

letters to grant or confirm privileges of various kinds upon cities, organizations, and
individuals: Nos. 21, col. 2, 4-9; 26, col. b, 6-10; 34, 19-24; 35, 10-12; 44, 3-6; 49,
B 2-13; 53-54; 57, 12-19; 58. The common Koine and Hellenistic chancery word for
“privileges” was diAcvOpwaa. In Latin it was beneficia (S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris
Romani antejustiniani?, 1 [Florence, 1941], no. 72, |. 15, letter of Vespasian to the Vanacini).
Sometimes the phrase rijuvee kat prAcvOpwrre: is used to add the notion of “honors” (Nos.
34, 223 57, 13-14; 58, 30), a combination found also in the Hellenistic letters (Welles, op.
cit. pp. 369-70). When the writer wishes to emphasize that he will watch over or
protect the privileges of a given community, he uses the verb cvvrnpeiv (No. 58, 80-81;
cf. No. §2, 40). The granting of privileges was expressed by cvyywpetv (Nos. 26, b 22;
49, B-7; 57, 19) or SiSdveu (Nos. 49, A 10, B 7; 58, 66). In one case (No. 58, 90) a
Greek is said to have been kexdopntou prravOpadrrois.
The most important of the privileges granted or confirmed were those of Roman
citizenship (oAvrefx), freedom and autonomy (éAcevOepiac, adrovouie), inviolability
(aovAie), immunity from compulsory public service (dAevroupynoia), exemption from

193
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

the payment of taxes or tribute (dvevodopic), freedom from billeting of any kind
(dvemorabuele), and freedom from military service (dotporevoia).? (On these see M.
Segre in Rivista di filologia e d’istruzione classica, 66 [1938]: 260-62; De Visscher, Les édits,
chap. IV.) M. IL. Rostovtzeff (S.E.H.H.W., II [1941], 971-73) has shown that Roman
policy in the first century B.c., and earlier, favored the establishment of an aristocratic or
even an oligarchic rule in Asia and that Rome supported the people of such groups by
granting them the privileges of immunity from taxation and exemption from special
imposts. This policy tended to aggravate already serious economic difficulties in the
Greek cities. Eventually Augustus (Cyrene Edict III) took some measures to correct
the situation.

The Restoration of Land In our earliest Roman letter (No. 33) Flamininus writes to
Chyretiae that property which had been confiscated by Rome after the victory over
Philip V was to be restored to the rightful owners. Lines 8-10: “Ooou yép mote
amoAetmovra KTHOELS eyyetor Kal OlKiou TOV KAOnKOVOdY Eis TO SnUdaLoV TO ‘Pwyaiwy,
maoas SiSopev THe duetepou ove, KTA. Manius Acilius in his letter to the Delphians
(No. 37) also refers to the restoration of confiscated property, and an appendix to his
letter under the headings Te Sedopeva ywpla TH: Pedi kal [G]e woAer and “As ewxe
olklas TH. Oecdi Kal r&t [7rdAex] gives a detailed list of the owners of the lands and houses.
And perhaps a similar return of confiscated property may have been the object of a
letter of an unknown Roman magistrate concerning land in Mytilene (No. 51). The
Roman policy in some cases was to confiscate property and then, at a later date, restore it
(see J. A. O. Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome,
IV [Baltimore, 1938], 311-13).
Magisterial Decisions and Decrees The Roman magistrates frequently exercised their
authority in the Greek East to render decisions on various legal matters that had been
brought to their attention. In his letter to Dymae (No. 43) Q. Fabius Maximus states
that in the matter of the destruction of the town hall with all its records and the enactment
of laws contrary to the constitution granted by Rome to the Achaeans he has listened
to testimony and has reached a decision. He finds a certain Sosus guilty and condemns
him to death (1. 20): evoyov elvau Oaveérun 7a[p]exadpiow. This appears to be the only
passage in which such a verb is found. In line 3 of No. 66, which appears to be con-
nected with legal matters, the pertinent phrase is Aékavov elven vopilw t[uds -- ]. And
Augustus, in his letter to the Cnidians (No. 67), shows a fine, diplomatic touch in the
wording of his instructions (Il. 37-39) to the city officials after he has found the accused,
Tryphera, innocent: adda viv dpOds cv por Soxeire movpoa THe ewe [wept (2?) rod] rwv
yrertujune mpovonaavres Kat Ta ev Tois Snu[ociois] Judv duodroyety ypepmpare.
The group of documents and passages in which we find the noun ézikpie all relate to
pronouncements or decrees of high Roman authorities. Appended to a letter of Marcus
° The whole subject of the liturgies in the ancient world needs to be re-examined in a comprehensive
work that will illustrate the history of the institution and relate it to the social and economic develop-
ment of the Graeco-Roman world. The material on the subject is enormous, but, with the exception
of Egypt, it has never received adequate treatment as a whole.

194
EPISTULAE

Antonius to Plarasa-~Aphrodisias (No. 28, B 4; cf. A 5) is a senatus consultum which states

that whatever honors and privileges the triumvirs have assigned or will assign to the
city by their own decree (7@ i8iq émruxpiperc) are to be valid. Julius Caesar in his letter
to the Pergamenes (No. 54, 3) says that [dpiv avréypadov T] 06 emxpiwa [tos &méaraAKe
TOU yeyovoros epi THs xwpas - -]. The heading affixed to the letter of P. Servilius
Isauricus (No. 55, 2) reads: "Emixpio rept ris dovAlas. No. 50 isa fragmentary docu-
ment of 67 B.c. which begins with the words ’Emixpyyuo I"va[iov KopynAlov Aevrédov
LomAtov viob] MapxedXivo[v - - -]. And in the third of the Cyrene Edicts (No. 31)
Augustus orders (Il. 56-59) that those in Cyrene who have received Roman citizenship
must perform the liturgies just as the Greeks do, “except for those to whom éverodople
has been granted, along with the citizenship, by virtue of a law or a decree of the Senate,
THt TOO TATpOs Lov EmUKpiware 7) THt edu.” Despite textual difficulties in this passage
the intent of the last phrase is clear enough. But in the fourth edict, lines 68-69, we
find: dv 8 ave pécov ex tobde Tod euod emixpiwatos “EAnv<e>s Kpitat SoOhcovra,
KTA.
The noun ézixpye did not come into use by Roman magistrates until the first century
B.C. Properly speaking, from the etymological point of view, it signifies decretum, a
decree issued by a magistrate. But Augustus, in the passage just quoted from the fourth
edict, uses it as ifit meant edictum. The usual term for edict was ducroyyo.!° However,
it has been noted that there was a certain amount of fluctuation or elasticity with such
words in Latin terminology.!! For further examples of the word ézrixpipsa see the edict
published by F. K. Dérner. Der Erlass des Statthalters von Asia Paullus Fabius Persicus,
(Diss., Greifswald, 1935), ll. 1ff.; Josephus Ant. 14. 321 (a letter of Marcus Antonius in
which is mentioned the phrase dvarcéypaow Kol Kpiaowv, where the last word may be a
mistake for émuxpiucow); O.G.I.S., 669, 28, first century a.D.; P. Teb. 286. 4 (= Mitteis
Chrestomathie 83, second century a.D.). The corresponding verb émixpivew was used
by the Hellenistic chancery in the sense of “decide” or “‘render a decision,” as can be
seen in the letter of Antigonos to Teos (S.I.G.3, 344 = Welles, op. cit., no. 3, ll. 29, 51-52,
60, and 108). In our documents the verb is also found in the letter of Octavian to
Rhosus (No. 58, 72), the S.C. Popillianum de Pergamenis (No. 11, 18-19), and the S.C.
de Collegiis Artificam Bacchiorum (No. 15, 63), in the last of which we learn that it had
been decreed dws pos Méaprov AciBiov trarov mpo[a]eAdwow, obrds te émuyvdu
emuxpivn otras Kalas <dv> add. ex TOv Snuociwy mpayyarwv mioteds TE idia<s>
paivnro edokev.
Letters were therefore used in one way or another for the communication of magisterial
decisions and decrees.
Arbitration The Hellenistic kings had frequently acted as arbitrators in the many
quarrels that arose between the Greek cities. In the course of the second century B.c.
10 J, Stroux and L. Wenger, Die Augustus-Inschrift auf dem Marktplatz von Kyrene (Abhandlungen der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 34, 2 [1928]), p. 25; see also L. Wenger, Die
Quellen des rémischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), P. 430, n. 45, and, for the edict, pp. 407-14.
11 Cf. A. Passerini in Athenaeum, 15 (1937): 274, and De Visscher, Les édits, p. 40.

195
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Rome began to supplant them in that capacity, the Senate emerging as the institution to
which the Greeks directed their disputes. The Senate sometimes decided each of these
while sitting in session (No. 9, 59-67), but it also made use of a second method whereby
a senatorial commission was formed to hear the evidence and render a decision. A third
method, which recognized the difficulties in making ajust decision so far from the actual
scene, was for the Senate to state the rule that was to be applied in the case and then to
hand it over to some third party, a neutral city, for an investigation of the facts and the
finding of a verdict (Nos. 7 and 14). In any event the two parties first dispatched
envoys to Rome to present their cases to the Senate, and official letters were usually
employed at some time either to send instructions to the parties or to communicate the
final decision (cf. Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 45). In No. 7, 61-63, for example, it is expressly
decreed that the praetor was to write to the arbitrating state concerning possible penalties
(cf. No. 14, 23-24, 89-97). Very often the letters are but examples of the common
practice of using official sources to communicate senatorial decrees to Greek cities or
organizations. It is interesting to note that each time the Senate acted as arbitrator
between Greek cities the first thing it did was to take cognizance of the status that each
city had at the moment of the submission of Antiochus III (see No. 7, $3-55). On the
whole subject see the following works: E. de Ruggiero, L’arbitrato pubblico presso i
Romani (Rome, 1893); G. Colin, Rome et la Gréce de 200 a 146 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905),
pp. so7ff.; A. Raeder, L’arbitrage international chez les Hellénes (Christiania, 1912);
M. N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913); A. Passerini,
Athenaeum, n.s., 15 (1937): 26ff. (on uti possidetis in cases of international arbitration in the
second century B.c.); E. Bickermann, R.E.G., 50 (1937): 225; Accame, II dominio
romano in Grecia, pp. 38ff.; Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, I, 113-14; cf. also M.
Holleaux, Etudes, V, 437ff, n. 4.
Because of the distances involved, the number of the parties concerned, and also the
complexity of the problems often encountered it was only natural that official letters be
used in one or more stages of international arbitration.

The Communication of Senatus Consulta One of the most common uses of the letter
form was to communicate senatus consulta to Greek cities and organizations which had
requested them or were in some way involved in the rulings established by them. See
the examples in Nos. 4, 7, 8, 14, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 49. The usual formula in such
letters was very formal and to the point: of detva mpecBevrai wor tpoo7ADocay iva adrots
avyKArjrov déypa8@. *Eya adbrois cvyrArjrov ddypa wxa. LvyKdijrov Sdypa 7d8€
eotiv. Compare Nos. 4, 5-12; 7, 36-37; 8, 5; 14, 90-93. This is sometimes abbreviated to
"Eyo) mpeoBevrais dperépors [70 ris ovyAjrov ddéypa rapéSwxe], as in Nos. 20, A 3,
and 18, 16. A more friendly and personal touch is added in No. 23, 3-5: duds etSdvou
BovropeDa judas Kara TO Tis ovyKdArjrov Sdéyyc TO yevopevov é[7t Aevki]ou Arcwiov
Moacprov AdpnAiov imdrwv emeyvwxévon rept avtioyidv trav dvd p[écov] Bedu
"Audiapaws Kal TOv Snwoowvav yeyovotwrv. This letter of the consuls then outlined
the procedures that had been followed, including a résumé of the senatus consultum

196
EPISTULAE

(Il. 52-59). The letter of Marcus Antonius to Plarasa~Aphrodisias (No. 28), although
short, is extremely courteous. It employs the familiar phrase éorw S€ dvriypada Tav
yeyovoruwy tpetv pravOpwirrwy ta troyeypappeve (Il. 44-47) to introduce a series of
documents, one of which was a senatorial decree. The notion of “appended” documents
is also found in the letter of Sulla to Cos (No. 49, 1 5).
Sometimes, of course, the envoys to Rome simply carried back with them a copy of
the senatorial decree, a point expressly stated in No. 5, 4-7.
Although these are the common motives found in the extant letters, we must keep in
mind that we possess only a minute fraction of what was certainly a considerable body
of correspondence. Internal affairs, such as finances (No. 59) and wars (Nos. 48 and 60),
as well as events of great interest to the whole Empire, such as the birthday of Augustus
(No. 65), would have given rise to alively exchange of letters between Greek and Roman
authorities. The Hellenistic chanceries developed into large, busy institutions, and there
is no reason to believe that Roman magistrates and provincial headquarters were any
less active, especially in the East. But only those letters which were inscribed on stone
(except No. 57) have survived. The great mass of them has perished.

The Conclusion
Just as official letters begin with a courteous greeting and polite inquiry into the good
health of the addressee, so do they end with a wish for his future well-being. Letters
sent from the Hellenistic chanceries usually ended with "Eppwode, also to be found in
private Greek letters.!2 It is short and formal. This type of ending also was used in
the Roman letters (Nos. 34, 35, 52, 58, 67, 68, 76). And even when it is missing in our
epigraphical copies, one may suspect that it often was to be found in the originals. Only
under special conditions, such as the use of letters to communicate senatus consulta, may
it have been altogether omitted. Sometimes a different, rather colorless expression
ended a letter: [67ws 0] dv €f5 [4] re, Expivov dyiv ypa[you rept rovrwr] in No. 1; tiv
5é yéypada wept rovrwv in No. 57. In one letter (No. 52) the writer mentions the names
of the Greek envoys to whom he has given his letter for delivery, putting this information
at the end of the letter, just before the formal ending.
In external form, therefore, these Roman letters followed Hellenistic models. The
agreements are too striking to be explained in any other way. In the face of the evidence
it would not be rash to maintain that the Romans learned the art of letter writing from
the Greeks. Whatever the earlier Roman forms and models might have been before
the third century B.c., they soon yielded to the well-finished and highly polished products
from the Hellenistic chanceries.

2. LANGUAGE OF THE LETTERS

In the second century B.c. the eastward advance of Roman arms was paralleled by
a westward advance of Greek culture. Quite unconsciously Philip V became the
12 Koskenniemi, op. cit., pp. 151-54.

197
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

instrument of fate, for, although he did not start the process, he clearly provided the con-
ditions for its acceleration and success. The richness of Greek literature, the fascination
that Greek philosophy had for Romans, the great prestige and the past glory of Greece,
and the tenacity of the Greek language could not fail to exert a lasting influence upon the
Roman character. The West in time became Romanized, with Latin displacing most
of the native languages, for in that part of the world Rome represented a higher
civilization. But in the East the situation was different. Rome became Hellenized.%3
Romans began to learn Greek and to use it for literary purposes. Wealthy and socially
prominent families soon considered a knowledge of the Greek language and literature a
necessary part of their education. A reaction set in to combat this love of Hellenism,
but it was late and ineffectual. The river was too strong.
When Roman generals and statesmen crossed over to Greece at the end of the third
and the beginning of the second century B.c., many of them were already quite familiar
with the language. They, like their successors, soon gave up any attempt to make the
Greeks learn Latin. Instead, Greek was in time recognized as a second official language,
at least in the East. As we have seen, senatorial decrees were translated into Greek, a
thing done for no other people; never do we hear of decrees officially translated into
Punic or Germanic. So it was also with official communications between Romans and
Greeks. Cato might refuse to speak Greek in Athens, despite his ability to do so,
13 The most detailed and instructive account of this process is still the one by G. Colin, Rome et la
Gréce de 200 a 146 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 15-18, 97-172 (philhellenism in the time of Flamininus),
242-372 (reaction against philhellenism in Rome), 447-606 (Hellenism in Rome after Pydna). For
the influence of Latin upon Greek and the problem of Latin as an official language in the East see L.
Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-rémischen Osten (Leipzig, 1906). Valuable for the lasting
influence of Hellenism upon Roman education is H. I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity,
English ed. by G. Lamb (New York, 1956), pt. 3, chaps. 2-3. In time a conflict of languages developed
between Latin as the official language of the ruling power and Greek as the recognized common lan-
guage of the whole eastern Mediterranean. The overwhelming superiority of the Greeks in literature
and the arts presented a much different and more complex problem than the one in the West, where
Rome was felt as the superior civilizing force. In the West, Latin triumphed over the barbarian
languages. Not so in the East. See R. J. Bonner, “The Conflict of Languages in the Roman
World,” The Classical Journal, 25 (1929/30): 579-92; Hahn, op. cit., passim; H. Zilliacus, Zum Kampf
der Weltsprachen im ostromischen Reich (Diss., Helsingfors, 1935) (there is an important review by F.
Délger in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 36 [1936]: 108-17). Cf. R. Cavenaile, “Influence latine sur le
vocabulaire grec d’Egypte,”’ Chroniques d’Egypte, 26 (1951): 391-404. Even in southern Italy the use
of Greek continued officially until well into the Principate: see the Greek inscriptions in I.G., XIV,
714-828. In the matter of everyday contact between Greeks and Romans, official or otherwise,
interpreters were used, but one frequently feels, upon reading through examples of their use, that
often they were employed for official form and were not always absolutely necessary. See W.
Snellmann, De interpretibus Romanorum deque linguae latinae cum aliis nationibus commercio (Leipzig,
1914); H. S. Gehman, The Interpreters of Foreign Languages Among the Ancients (Diss., University of
Pennsylvania, 1914); R. Taubenschlag, ‘‘The Interpreters in the Papyri,”’ Charisteria Thaddeo Sinko
(Warsaw, 1951), pp. 361-63 (= Opera Minora, II, 167-70); R. Calderini, Aegyptus, 33 (1953): 341ff.
On the whole, all educated Romans in the last two centuries of the Republic knew the Greek language
and literature, some better than others, of course. In the second century there prevailed in many
Roman circles a kind of intellectual excitement and enthusiasm for everything Greek. Thus Hellenism
helped to mold the Roman character. The concept of utraque lingua (Horace Carmina 3. 8. 5) was a
real, vital force.

198
EPISTULAE

Aemilius Paulus might make some announcements in Latin to assembled Macedonians,

and Greek envoys might be forced to employ interpreters in the Senate, but this was for
the sake of outward appearances, calculated to preserve and uphold the majesty of Rome
and her language.!# Latin was the official language, but the recognition of Greek as a
second came to be an acceptable concession.
For that reason the copies of Roman letters that have been preserved for us in the
inscriptions are in Greek, not in Latin. But what of the originals? When a Roman
general wrote a letter in Greece to a Greek city, did he compose it in Greek? Or did he
write it in Latin and then translate it into Greek? Did any of the Romans write letters
in Latin and have them translated into Greek by others? If so, were such translators
native Romans who had learned Greek, or were they Greeks who had learned Latin?
These are important questions, for which simple answers, unfortunately, are not possible.
It will be necessary to examine the language of the more fully preserved letters before
any conclusions can be reached.

T. Quinctius Flamininus to Chyretiae (No. 33)*

From our literary sources we learn that Flamininus was an enthusiastic admirer of
Greek culture and was able to speak the language. Plutarch (Flam. 5. 5) called him “‘a
Greek in voice and language,” a statement supported by other authorities and amplified
by modern scholars.15 We may then assume that he himself wrote the letter to
Chyretiae in Greek. It is, however, carelessly composed, contains several mistakes, and
on the whole gives the impression that its author is using an acquired language, that he is
not a native Greek. This last is to be expected. He writes Pavepaw merronkapev TH TE
idlav Kal Tod Sxypov Tod ‘Pwyciwy tpoatpeow, in which strict usage would require tv
before tod Sju0ov. The use of the perfect tense in werojKapev and BeBovArjucb« (bis)
betrays the Roman thinker. The phrase edyvepova déyortes is apparently used with
the meaning “give an honest answer,” while the adjective usually means “considerate,
prudent, reasonable.” And éyxpiors means “approval.” Flamininus should have
written Kpiois. Behind xara wav uépos seems to hover omni ex parte. Finally, in
the last part of the letter, in the sentence “Ooo. pévtou pr) KeKopiopévor elo TOV
émBadddvrwy adrots, Flamininus ought to have used ra émBdAdovra adrois, as
Viereck observes. On the other hand, the use of zpoaipeous shows a familiarity with
Greek diplomatic phraseology. Like afpeous it means “policy” and is common in
Hellenistic official Greek letters (Welles, op. cit., p. 310).
* Viereck, op. cit., pp. 75-76.
14 Hahn, op. cit., p. 35, n. 3, refers to Valerius Maximus (2. 2. 2): illud quoque magna cum perseverantia
custodiebant, ne Graecis umquam nisi latine responsa darent, quin etiam ipsos linguae volubilitate, qua plurimum
valent, excussa per interpretem loqui cogebant non in urbe tantum nostra, sed etiam in Graecia et Asia, quo
scilicet Latinae vocis honos per omnes gentes venerabilior diffunderetur. Nec illis deerant studia doctrinae, sed
nulla non in re pallium togae subici debere arbitrabantur, indignum esse existimantes inlecebris et suavitati
litterarum imperii pondus et auctoritatem donari.
15 Colin, op. cit., pp. 133-34. Plutarch Flam. 12. 6 also says that he composed the Greek verses on
some silver shields and a golden wreath which he dedicated at Delphi.

199
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

M. Valerius Messala to Teos (No. 34)*

Here is a good example of a reply by a magistrate to a Greek envoy, the diplomatic
phrases so familiar from chancery Greek flowing with ease from the writer’s hand.
Courteous yet pointed are his remarks at the end, where he says, “we shall try to assist
in making an increase of honors for the god and of privileges for you, as long as you also
preserve your good intentions toward us in the future.” The phrase vreypacopebo
ouverravéew recalls the same formula in Hellenistic chancery Greek (see Welles, op. cit.,
p- 365). The Roman mind at work, however, can be detected in the letter of Messala
in the omission of the article with S7jepyo (l. 3) and from the faulty position of re in
line 4, Mévirmos 6 te rap’ "Avridyou crX. The noun mpotipic in line 17 is extant
elsewhere only in the second century A.D. writer Maximus Tyrius (2. 5 Diibner), al-
though the verb zporipcéw is common enough in chancery Greek (Welles, op. cit., p.
361). Viereck believed that the noun was too strong to be used in the present context
and suggested that Messala ought to have used poOuvpic. The use of card in the phrase
adoporAdynrov ard Tod Sipov Tod “Pwyciwy (Il. 20-21) is odd. The meaning seems to
be “immune from taxation imposed by the Roman people,” but S.1.G.3, II, 539, A 34,
an Amphictyonic decree, has dodcAcvoy Kal aovdAlay ard mévTwr.
Messala, if he wrote the letter himself; was familiar with diplomatic Greek, but his
Roman mind obtrudes and betrays his origin.

L. Cornelius Scipio and His Brother to Heraclea (No. 35)t

No errors of language have been committed in this letter. We find everywhere good
Koine usage and vocabulary. One expression, however, if correctly restored, reveals a
truly Roman frame of mind. It is found in lines 8-9: rapwyeyovdtwy tudv els TV
Huerepa[ pu miorw]. The Latin idiom is in nostram fidem se permittere. The translation of
this expression into Greek had caused considerable misunderstanding between the
Aetolians and the Romans. Livy (36. 28) tells us that a meeting was held between the
Aetolians and the consul for 191 B.c., Manius Acilius Glabrio, to discuss their differences.
The Aetolian envoy said that his people were ready to entrust themselves and their
possessions to the good faith of the Romans (se suaque omnia fidei populi Romani permittere).
Upon being asked to weigh his words carefully, the envoy produced and read from a
decree that supported his remark. But when the consul forthwith began to issue
orders, the envoy stopped him and said, “not into slavery but into your good faith have
we delivered ourselves.” It was promptly explained to him what the phrase really
meant, to his consternation.!6 The Latin meant unconditional surrender, but the Greek
translation had used mioris to render fides. That meant only “good faith, trust,
guarantee.” It is possible that this same word was used in the present letter to Heraclea

* Viereck, op. cit., p. 76.

fTViereck, op. cit., pp. 76-77.
16 For the whole episode see Livy 36. 28 and Polybius 20. 9-10. For examples of the phrase see
Polybius 2. 11. 5, 3. 30. 1, 18. 38. 5, and 20. Io. 2.

200
EPISTULAE

as the equivalent of fides. A very short word is required by the amount of space avail-
able in the lacuna, which excludes the possibility of emutpomyy or even aipeow, as sug-
gested by Boeckh and Waddington. Besides, Polybius (3. 30. 1; 18. 38. 5; and 20. 10. 2)
uses riots in just this way. The restoration appears unavoidable.

C. Livius Salinator to Delphi (No. 38)

Apart from the usual titles of Roman magistrates and “Senate” (ll. 1-2, 7, 11, 18),
there is little to distinguish this letter from Hellenistic chancery Greek. The subject
matter, of course, stamps it as Roman, but the language and phraseology are consistent
with Koine usage. Especially interesting are four words or expressions. In fifth- and
fourth-century Greek mpocéyew tov vodv was used very commonly, but in Hellenistic
times the phrase r7)v Sucvowe mpocéyew makes its appearance. For the first of these see
Aristophanes Equit. 503 and Plutus 113; Plato, Symp. 174 d; Antipho 3. 4. 1. For ex-
amples of the second see No. 9, 25; I.G., VII, 2225, 45 (second century B.c.) has zrept
tovtov TH Svavoig mpocéyeu (cf. Septuagint Exod. 9. 21; No. 2, 43).
The verb d:apwvéw usually meant “be out of tune, disagree, be found wanting,” but
in the Hellenistic age it also acquired the meaning “perish,” as in the present letter (1. 10).
For the latter meaning see also I.G., XII, 7, 386 (=S.I.G.3, I, 521, Amorgos); P. Teb. 8.
25; Ps Flor.59.5§ B.G.U., 530231.
In line 11 the expression é6rav Kal? yds yernrou Te Kare Ti Lepnv mpeyware must
mean “when affairs at Same turn out favorably for us.” This use of yivowau seems to
have originated in the language of sacrifice. See Thucydides 5. 55 and Xenophon Hell.
ter Fick
In line 19 the verb edapeoréw is rare in fifth-century Greek, the only occurrence known
to me being in the comic poet Lysippus (Kock, I. 702 = Edmonds, I, no. 7, p. 204). It
means “be well pleasing, take delight in.” It is fairly common in Koine. See Diod.
Siculus 14. 4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 11. 60. 1; Philo Abr. 35; Septuagint Genesis 5.
22 and 6. 9; I.G., XIV, 757, 8 (Naples, first century A.D.).

Q. Fabius Maximus to Dyme (No. 43)*

Fabius writes very well, his language and style being in keeping generally with the
prevailing practices of the age. Only two passages require comment. The first (I. 14)
contains the noun écvvaAA [a] E [ta], which appears only here in the epigraphical texts (cf.
Stobaeus 2. 7. 25). The adjective &ovvdAAaKxros, however, is known from Dionysius
of Halicarnassus 1. 41 and 5. 66; and Plutarch Moralia 416 F (Bernardakis). The meaning
is “lack of intercourse.”” The second passage (I. 20) reads: (X@oov)... .xpivas Evoyov
elvou Oaveéranr tra[plexadpiox. The verb rapaywpitw is not found elsewhere. The
meaning is “‘Having judged Sosus to be guilty, I sentenced him to death,” but the con-
struction is not completely clear. “Evoyos is often construed with the dative (“liable
* Viereck, op. cit., p. 77.

201
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

to...) (see Preisigke, Worterbuch, s.v. €voyos”). It has been suggested (see S.L.G.3,
II, 684, n. 13) that the verb was used in place of rapéSwxa, but it is equally possible that
Fabius made a mistake and intended to write wapeywpynoe. Latin influence may have
been responsible for the present combination of words. He may have had the verb
tradere in mind when he was writing.

C. Cassius to Nysa (No. 48)

Latinisms abound in this letter. On the whole there is far too much Latin and too
little Greek in it. More than any other it seems to have been composed in Latin and
then translated into Greek. Whether the same person, C. Cassius, was involved in both
of these procedures is not easy to say. He wrote the Latin original, of course, but he
may or may not have put it into Greek.
Line 3: npwrnoedy re [d7ws]. Here épwrew has the later meaning “beg, request,”’and
is followed by dézws (or iva), a construction common in the New Testament and the
papyri. For examples see Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957), s.v. “épwrdw”’ 2.
Line 5: e€ovoiav od[7]@ [a] owjow emi rob ovvBovAio[v]. The writer clearly has a
phrase such as potestatem facere in mind. Possible parallels have been pointed out
(S.1.G.3, II, 741, n. 6) in Cicero Epist. ad Quintum Fratrem 1. 2. 5. 15 (neque praetores diebus
aliquot adiri possent vel potestatem sui facerent) and Philipp. 8. 10. 31 (quotidie, simulatque
luceret facere omnibus conveniendi potestatem sui). And A. Wilhelm (Géttingische Gelehrte
Anzeigen, 160 [1898]: 215) referred to section x’ in the ancient table of contents attached
to Josephus Ant. 16, where we find: ws Kaioapos e€ovciay Sévtos ev Bnput@ mapa Th
ouvedpiw Katnyopnoe TOV Traidwy KTA.
Line 6: karadoyfs tis [avy] KAjrou Kat S[jpov] ‘Pwyatwr. The noun caradoyy
is rare in this usage among the Greek authors, but quite a few examples occur in the
Greek copies of Roman documents. They may be cited here. No. 17, 8: [ts tov] twv
aperis Kal karadoyfs ev[exev KTA. No. 18, 55: [THs rovTwy] aperis Katadoyrs Te
eE[vexev xtA. No. 21, 5: [epi ris cfs ta Syudotla mpcypara Kataroyfs tuadv
KT. No. 22, 9: Omws dep t&v Kadds wempaypéevwr br’ ad Trav Kol avdpa]-yacn>
pdrov eis Ta Onda Cr yYpdypwara Te HuEeTEpa KaTaroyy vvV adTav yévrntou. No. 23,
37: Karadoyhs Oedv aBavdrwy tepdv Tewevdv te dudakhs KtrA. No. 49, B4: Karodo-
[ys aut -y7j] tod Avovvcov Kai tav Movodyv xrA. Elsewhere it is found in an in-
scription from Delphi (S.I.G.%, II, 739, 9, ca. 85 B.C.): T&s Te TOO Deod Tias Evera Kal
tis Aedpdv xaradoyés, «7A. It also occurs in a long inscription from Solomos,
near Corinth, in which the Lycian Koinon honors a woman called Iunia Theodora
(B.C.H., 83 [1959]: 496-508 = S.E.G., XVIII, 143, |. 20): éyouev (adray) ev rhe wAelorne
Karadoyh, KTA., dating from about the middle of the first century A.D. Polybius may
have used it in 22. 12. 10: rots d€ mpeoBevtais Tots altel map” éxvt@v exmEeurropevors
TrapyveEer TpPOTeXEW TOV VvOdV Kal KaTAdOXnY TroLEtaOon THY &pudlovoay, KaBdmEp Kal

202
EPISTULAE

“Pwpcior movotyra. t&v mapeywopevwy mpos adrods mpeoBevtdv. In this passage

the group of manuscripts called Y in the edition by Buettner-Wobst reads xaraAoyip
where modern editors print xaraSoy7jv. The manuscript reading, however, ought
to be retained, since the use of the word certainly is in agreement with the meaning
obtained from the epigraphic examples just cited. Besides, Polybius appears to have
obtained his information on this matter from a Roman document, where the word is
more likely to have occurred than in a Greek source. Viereck (op. cit., p. 73) argued
that the word meant honos, for in Nos. 17 and 18 it could be equated with virtutis
honorisque causa. But Dittenberger (S.I.G.3, II, 741, n. 9) felt that, because it was also used
in the genitive without a preposition in the present letter (as well as in Nos. 23 and 49), its
meaning was more likely to have been gratia or reverentia, for honore was not used in that
way. The use of the genitive alone indicates a Roman frame of mind. It is not Greek.
Lines 9-11: aexpiOn[v Ka]ADs [adr] ov we[ mou] nKeveu Kat taker ewardy re 8 [doe]
epya[ota]v xkrA. Here r&€eu reflects a Latin use, the ablative ordine. See Cicero Pro
Quinct. 7. 28: existima, C. Aquili, modo et ratione omnia Romae Naevium fecisse si hoc, quod
per litteras istius in Gallia gestum est, recte atque ordine factum esse videatur. For recte atque
ordine see the Digest 1. 16. 4. 4; 16. I. 2. 1; and 40. 12. 27.1. Apart from this, the use of
the accusative €uardv is a Latinism, for Greek would use a nominative when the subject
of the infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb. Behind the phrase épyaciav
5iSwu clearly stands operam dare. See Nos. 18, 111, and 15, 58. For many examples of
the phrase in the New Testament and the papyri see Blass-Debrunner, A Greek Grammar
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, English translation and revision
of the oth and roth editions, by R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961), p. 5.
Line 11: é67[ws é|myv@ tabira jet yepira elv[cu]. Dittenberger thought that
yepura was a barbarism, the neuter plural of an adjective ydpiros, corresponding to
gratus. But, as A. Wilhelm thought, it is more likely a mistake in the use of the noun
xépis. It also betrays the non-Greek.

An Unknown Roman Magistrate to Miletus (No. 52)

Latinisms are seen in line 46 (tva re ders instead of iva dpets Te) and line 51 (éorope-
vov Au=constitutum sit). But the most unusual feature of this letter is the statement to-
ward the end (Il. 54-57) about the language employed in the writing of the letter: rip
Sé airiay bv Hv EMn[Vu] Kots eypoxpo, wr) emlnrjonre: Kara vodv yap [ec] xov, px) TH
ope TH épunvelav Ehacaov Tx [yeypapp]éva vofjoa dvvncbe. This could be trans-
lated as follows: “Don’t ask the reason why I wrote in Greek. It was my intention
that it should be impossible for you to have any thoughts about my letter contrary to the
correct interpretation.” The writer means that he wants to make absolutely sure that no
mistaken impressions be created in the mind of any Greek who reads his letter. His
alone is the official text. Hence, the writer must have composed in Greek. That he
“thought” in Latin in the process of that composition, however, seems a reasonable
assumption from the Latinisms already mentioned. At first glance his statement might

203
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

be taken to mean that Roman magistrates up to his time sent their letters to Greek cities
only in Latin. This requires careful thought. No such Latin letters from the Republic
have come to light.17 Latin and Greek, yes. Latin alone, no. Furthermore, the
extant Greek copies contain Latinisms and mistakes of such a nature that a Roman and
not a Greek mind is seen at work upon them. Hence, the Romans either composed in
Greek or had their Latin originals translated into Greek by Romans who had learned
the language. We must understand our writer to mean merely that he wrote his letter
in Greek to avoid the danger of mistakes in translation by someone else. In other
words, he trusts himself alone. For the publication in Greek cities of both the Latin and
the Greek of official Roman letters see Nos. 61, 62 (?), and 65.

The Letters of M. Antonius (Nos. 28 and 57)*

Marcus Antonius spent some time in Greece after the death of the dictator Caesar,
enjoyed the company of Greeks, listened to their literary discussions, and no doubt knew
something of their language.!8 That he himself, however, was responsible for the Greek
of these two letters is very doubtful. In his letter to Plarasa~Aphrodisias he calls himself
tpiav avdpav tis Tav Snpociwy mpaypatwyv Svata&ews, while in the other, to the koinon
of Asia, he substitutes a6 karaordoews for Suarééews. Does this change reveal a
different person, a different translator? One might expect that if Antonius wrote both
letters in Greek he would have used the same phrase or word in both of them. The
matter should not be pressed, but the possibility exists.
In the letter to Plarasa-Aphrodisias (No. 28) a phrase occurs which Viereck called
parum graeca. It is found in lines 32-35: rov SéAwva .... eayov te ev Tots bm” euod
yewvwokopevois. And in lines 48-51 we have ev rots Snuoolos tots map’ dpetv
ypdppacw evragat. One expects the accusative (cf. Josephus Ant. 14. 319). In lines
22-31 is an awkwardly constructed sentence: uds mapexcAecev els TO TOD yeyovdtos
dpety emuxpiwaros Kal ddyporos Kal OpKlov Kal vowou avTiTEepwrneva ek TOV SnjLociwy
bdAtwr eEarroorethas tuetv ra avtiypada. The use of avtipwvetv is odd. For details
see the commentary.

The Letters of Augustus (Nos. 58, 60, 62, 64, 67, 68)
Suetonius (Aug. 86-89) has given us a fairly good résumé of the emperor’s manner of
speaking, his peculiarities of style and vocabulary in writing, his oddities in orthography,
and his command of Greek. We are told that from his youth he had devoted himself
to the study of oratory and belles lettres, and that he had written several prose works—

* Viereck, op. cit., p. 77.

‘7 Communications from Rome to Roman magistrates in the East were written in Latin, of course,
a practice continued in imperial times: Stroux and Wenger, op. cit., p. 23.
18 Plutarch Ant. 23. 2-3, and Appian Bell. Civ. 5.76. Josephus (Ant. 14. 12. 3-5) has preserved three
of his letters (one of them communicating an edict) which are related to Jewish affairs.

204
EPISTULAE

including his autobiography, in thirteen books, up to the Cantabrian War—as well as a

few pieces of poetry. His speeches were carefully composed and well ordered, free
from sententious remarks and obscure words, his chief aim being simplicity and clarity.
He had studied under Apollodorus of Pergamum and under the philosopher Areus, but,
for all that, he was never able to speak Greek fluently or to compose anything in it.
When conditions demanded that he write to Greeks, he composed in Latin and had
someone else translate it: non tamen ut aut loqueretur expedite aut componere aliquid auderet;
nam et si quid res exigeret, Latine formabat vertendumque alii dabat, as Suetonius puts it (Aug.
89. 1). This is important evidence, and, considering the fact that Suetonius had access
to the records in the imperial chancery, we must accept it.
Compared with the mass of correspondence and the written material which Augustus
must have produced in the long period of his official activity, the extant remains are
small.19 The Res Gestae, of course, is the longest and the most important of these
remains, followed by the Cyrene Edicts, the Rhosus letters, the letters to Cnidus and
other Greek cities, and a few other edicta and decreta. From this material some general
estimate of his style and technique can be formed, but the Greek itself in the documents
should not be ascribed to Augustus. It was the work of anonymous translators in the
service of the emperor. Since he is known to have made use of freedmen in his court
for administrative purposes, we may be sure that he had a number of bilingual secretaries
constantly available. Out of the problems generated by the complexity of the Empire
there would have arisen at an early date the need for a more-or-less permanent staff of
such personnel, competent to deal with the mass of correspondence. It was accordingly
under Augustus that the seeds of the imperial ab epistulis latinis and ab epistulis graecis
were to begin their period of germination.2° But the high level of organization
achieved by the time of Hadrian cannot be assumed for the reign of the first Princeps.
They were private secretaries rather than the heads of bureaus, and they were very likely
the men whom the emperor called upon for the translation of his Latin letters into
Greek. But we have no first-hand evidence on these translators. Two of the emperor’s
secretaries are known by name, Polybius and Hilarion (Suetonius Aug. 101), but surely
more than two would have been required.
When Viereck (op. cit., p. 78) evaluated the Greek letters of Augustus, he concluded
that they were elegantly written, with a fine feeling for the use of particles and correct

19 For his letters see Viereck, op. cit., p. 78; Peter, op. cit., pp. 97-100; E. Bourne, “Augustus as a
Letter-Writer,” T.A.P.A., 49 (1918): 53ff.; H. Malcovati, Caesaris Augusti Imperatoris Operum Frag-
menta* (Turin, 1962), pp. XVIII-XXV and 6-so.
20 For the bureau ab epistulis see M. I. Rostovtzeff, R.E., s.v. “ab epistulis,” cols. 210-15; O. Hirschfeld,
Die Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian (Berlin, 1905), pp. 318-25; L. Friedlander and
G. Wissowa, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms°-, I (Leipzig, 1922), 56-59, and IV (Leipzig,
1921), 35-46 (comment by Bang). In the course of time (Hadrianic) the freedmen were replaced by
imperial procurators: H. G. Pflaum, Les procurateurs équestres sous le haut-empire romain (Paris, 1950),
pp. 60-61. Cf. G. B. Townend Historia, 10 (1961): 375-81. The title existed under Augustus:
Ianuarius Caesaris Aug. (servus) ab epistulis (C.I.L., VI, 8596). Trajan, of course, also was active in the
placement of equestrian officials in posts of prominence.

205
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

grammar, and that the writer had imitated in one case the Attic of the fifth and fourth
centuries. Some expressions in the letter to the Cnidians (No. 67) he found particularly
happy, such as tpdmwe Twi toAoxias (Il. 15-16), and duxaudrepov av awlévra Tob
adeAgoo (Il. 26-27). The material which has come to light since Viereck expressed his
opinion has amply supported his conclusion. Latinisms do occur in the letters, but in
the translation of technical expressions, such as official titles and legal terminology, they
are almost unavoidable. Some awkwardness of language, some pulling and stretching
of words, is usually necessary. Without attempting to be exhaustive in the case of the
emperor’s letters, some of these phrases may be listed here. Titles are omitted because
they are obvious.
No. 58
Line 11: eis rovrous Tovs Adyous, clearly for in haec verba =“‘on the following terms”;
cf IN05235/54:
Line 16: [idlous Kaip]ovs THe juetépar owrn[picu] ovvelevéev, apparently for suas
utilitates cum nostra salute coniunxit.
Line 53: Kpitipiov....AxpBeveww, for iudicium capere. De Visscher refers to Cicero
Part. Orat. 28. 100: de capiendis subeundisve indiciis.
Line 54: Kpi] ow ovvioraoba = litem constituere or possibly litem contestari.
Line 61: mpoxpysa KepoAts=praeiudicium capitis, explained by Arangio-Ruiz (Studia
et Documenta, 1936, p. 515), who refers to Cicero De Inv. 2. 20. 59-60: agit is, cui manus
praecisa est, iniuriarum. postulat is, quicum agitur, a praetore exceptionem: extra quam in
reum capitis praeiudicium fiat...non enim oportet in recuperatorio iudicio eius maleficii, de
quo inter sicarios quaeritur, praeiudicium fieri. Roussel, in Syria, 15 (1934): 60, n. 3, has
found another example in Greek in an imperial rescript of the second century a.D.: I.G.,
VesteacoletLs lls sf,
Line 64: ex mpowywyfs yvat. Oliver took this to be the equivalent of pro tribunali
cognoverit. For the first part of the expression, however, De Visscher had suggested per
ambitionem.
Line 67: dodvan Kat [dédiKor €o| rwoar. It was the opinion of Arangio-Ruiz, op. cit.,
p- 516, that this was the translation of dare damnas esto.
The majority of these examples are legal terms and, as such, pose special problems for a
translator. The Greek equivalents of the original Latin might well be obscure to a
Greek with no knowledge of Roman law. When we turn to the letter to the Cnidians,
no such technical expressions are found, despite its legal nature. The Greek is everywhere
fluent and correct, marred by only one slight slip. In line 29 the noun é£eraote is used,
the only occurrence of such a word to my knowledge. The translator ought-to have
used e&éraats.
We may conclude that those who translated the Latin letters of Augustus were well-
educated men, capable of writing Greek in the Attic of the fifth or fourth century B.c.
But excellent though they were, technical phrases from the language of Roman law
taxed their abilities to the limit. And in their particular case it is not easy to decide
whether they were Romans who had mastered Greek or Greeks who had mastered

206
 EPISTULAE

Latin. Technical phrases would have been just as difficult to translate for the one group
as for the other. One must also take into consideration the possibility that in the long
rule of Augustus many secretaries of different backgrounds and nationalities must have
seen service in his court.

The Letter of Paulus Fabius Maximus (No. 65)

Here at last we have a fair amount of the Latin text to compare with the Greek, a rare
piece of luck. The Latin, it seems, was not often published along with the Greek, but
the nature of the material in the present letter required a full publication. As we shall
see, it is a composition of a special kind. The two texts must be seen together, so that
they can be compared.

The Latin Copy from Dorylaion

(corrected spelling)
B2-9

Cumque non ullo ex die feliciora et privatim singulis et uni-

versis publice trahi possint auspicia quam ex eo, quem felicissi-
mum communiter (credunt), fere autem omnium in Asia civitatium idem
tempus anni novi initiumque magistratuum sit, in quod fortui-
to, videlicet ut honoraretur, principis nostri natalis incidit, vel
quia tot erga divina merita gratum esse difficile est nisi omnis
pietatis temptetur materia, vel quia dies est propria cuique
lactitia ingressui honoris statutus, publicum videretur diem
[- - - === =n nnn ence
The Greek Copy
(composite)
A II-19

Kal emel ovdEULES KV ATO HULepas Ets

TE TO KOLWOV Kal Eis TO tOtoV ExaoTos Opedos edTUXETTEpas AcBor
adopuas 7} Ths maow yevowerns edtvxobs, axeddv Te cvpPoiver
tov abrov tats ev "Aatou médeow Koaupov elvan THs els THY apy eiaddou,
+) SnAovdre Kare twa Onav BovrAnow otrws ris rafews mporeTuTMpE-
vns, Wa adopur yévoito THs eis Tov LeBaorov rTysfs, Kat éret SvoKO-
¢ > \ / lol a ‘ \ a Ve. \ if

Nov pev eotw Tots ToaovTos abrob evepyeTipaow Kar’ icov ebyapio-
reiv, ef 111) Tap’ Exaora emiwvojoaper TpdTov TWH THs apelpews,
Hdecov 8 av cvOpwror THY Kou T&ow jpEepay yevebAvov ayeyou| ev]
KTA.

It is at once apparent that here is no simple or literal translation from Latin into Greek.
Everywhere there is a naturalness of expression and structure, with practically no vestige

207
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

of a Latin original clinging to it. The only passage in which one might suggest a
Latinism is in A 29, where the passive infinitive in mpoorafw..... 70 Undiopa ev TH vad
dvareOfveu is slightly suspicious. But even that should not be pressed. When one
compares whole clauses, one with the other, the result is surprising. The gracefulness of
style, the ease with which the clauses are handled, and the manner in which the various
ideas are expressed lead one to suspect an original composition in Greek. The thoughts
found in the Latin are present in the Greek without a hint of what may be called
“translation Greek.” There are no slavish or stiff reproductions of words from a
glossary, no stilted expressions, no peculiar combinations. The mind of the person
writing the Greek does not appear to be confined or restricted by a Latin structure.
His rendition of fortuito, for example, by cara tive Ojav BovAnovr is not the sort of thing
likely to occur to a translator.
Wilamowitz in Athn. Mitt., 24 (1899): 292, was so impressed by the language and style
of this letter that he felt it must have been composed in Greek. It was too good to be a
translation from Latin. And H. Dessau in his Geschichte der rémischen Kaiserzeit, I
(Berlin, 1924), 105-6, agreed with him, thinking that the Latin either was a translation
from the Greek or was composed later in time.
We must accept the view that this letter was composed in Greek, and by a person who
possessed an excellent knowledge of the language. But that person need not have been
Paulus Fabius Maximus. The presence of a Latin text so different from the Greek
demands an explanation. It is here suggested that the proconsul explained in general
terms to his translator or bilingual secretary what he wanted to say in his letter. The
secretary took down the Latin words of his master, but probably only in the form of
notes or isolated phrases. Then he composed the letter in Greek, working not from a
full text but only from his notes to guide him. This would have given him scope for
greater freedom of expression and for a more natural Greek style. When he finished
the letter, he turned to the Latin and made it agree with the Greek as best he could.
Hence, not all of the Latin is a verbatim record of the proconsul’s actual words. Its
skeleton is his; the rest was added by the secretary to make it conform to the Greek.

From all these examples one can see that the style and the language can vary con-
siderably from letter to letter. Some are poorly written, with many Latinisms, while
others are in excellent Greek, with little trace of Latin influence. They are generally in
the Koine of the second or first centuries B.c., but one (No. 67) is worthy of the Attic in
the best period. Mistakes in grammar and awkward expressions often must have
caused Greek readers to smile or shake their heads in bewilderment. There is even a
dative absolute in No. 70, line 12. Those who knew Latin would understand.
Many of the letters were certainly composed in Greek. Such compositions generally
were good or bad, depending upon the abilities of the individuals writing. The good
ones can be recognized by the scarcity of Latinisms and by the Greek style. Some
Latinisms, of course, were unavoidable, such as those necessary in the rendition of Roman

208
EPISTULAE

titles and technical expressions from Roman law. They should not, however, be taken
always to mean that letters containing them were translations from Latin originals, for
by their very nature they do not have precise equivalents in any language except their
own.
Some of the letters seem to have been much more affected by Latin originals, in some
cases (No. 48) to such a degree that one may suspect they were originally written in
Latin and then translated into Greek. This could have been done, for example, by
certain Roman magistrates who may not have been able to think out their letters in
Greek and then simply write them down. They may have expressed their ideas first
in Latin from beginning to end and then either translated them at their leisure or turned
them over to somone else. I cannot call these “compositions in Greek.” They were
not conceived or drawn up in that language. They are really translations. It is not
possible, however, in all instances to decide which of these procedures was used, for the
one might have been done very badly and the other very well. And at times a writer
may have used a combination of both. Clearly No. 65 may be called a “‘composition
in Greek,” as we have here defined the term, but No. 48 should be labeled a translation.
The remainder of the letters fall somewhere between these two points, for only a few
are as good as the former or as bad as the latter. Sometimes letters were sent out in both
Greek and Latin, but certainly not always. The individual magistrate used his own
discretion in this matter.
On the whole we may say that these letters were originally intended, from beginning
to end, to appear in Greek, but the method used to produce the Greek text was not
always the same. A capable Roman could think in Greek and write in Greek, but
another required a slower process and a different approach. In any case, except for the
letters of Augustus, we may be quite sure that the Romans themselves were responsible
for the Greek.
Finally it must be emphasized that these letters were written under a number of
different conditions. Some were written by consuls or praetors in Rome, some by
generals in the field, and some by governors in provincial headquarters. Each has its
own history, its own story to tell. The form and the language are Greek. The spirit
and the contents are Roman.

209
B. THE DOCUMENTS
 a3
EPISTULA T. QUINCTII FLAMININI
AD CHYRETIENSES 197-194 B.C.

HEELODHOODDHDS
SS OOOH SSS OOHRS EOHHSHOHHSSSHGSHggE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. M. Leake, Classical Journal, 14 (1816): 330ff.; E. Q.

Visconti, Journal des Savants, Sept., 1816, pp. 21ff.; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., I
(1828), 1770; W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, 1V (London, 1835), 305ff.;
Le Bas—Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure:
Inscriptions, II (1870), 1303; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions
(Oxford, 1882), no. 190; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. I,
p. 1; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, I (1898), 278; G. Colin, Rome et la Gréce de 200
a 146 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 160ff.; O. Kern, I.G., IX, 2 (1908), 338;
A. S. Arbanitopoulos, ’Apy. ’E¢., 1913, p. 145 (cum imagine), and ibid., 1917, pp.
2ff.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 593; A.
Wilhelm, Jahreshefte, 17 (1919): 116ff.; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal
Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 1, pp. 249-50; J. A. O.
Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome,
IV (Baltimore, 1938), 311-12; C. Michel, Recueil d’Inscriptions Grecques (Brussels,
1940), no. 44; S. B. Kougeas, "Apy. ’Ed., 1945-47, p. 105; Lewis—-Reinhold,
Roman Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), 309-10; I. Calabi, L’uso storiografico
delle iscrizioni latine (Milan, 1953), p. 176; H. Volkmann, Hermes, 82 (1954): 4673
H. E. Stier, in Studium Berolinense (1960), 614ff.; Johnson, Coleman-Norton,
Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 19; S. Accame, L’espansione romana in
Grecia (Naples, 1961), pp. 252-53; H. Gundel, R.E., s.v. “ Quinctius” (45), col.
1082.

DESCRIPTION. A stone of white marble built into the wall of a church near
the village of Demeniko in Thessaly. Height: 0.56 m. Width: 0.61 m.
Height of letters: 0.012 m.

211
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Tiros Kotverwos, orpatnyos traros ‘Pwpoiwv, Xupetvéwv

\ 4 € / /

trois Tayots Kat THe moAE yaipew. *Erret Kol €v tots Aowrots m&ow
a A a \ et aac} a aA =

pauvepav tremojKapev THY Te Olav Kal TOO SHwov Tod “Pwyatwy

\ fol id a ¢ /

mpoaipeat iv exopev ets duds dAoaxepas, BeBovdAjpweba Kou

aA A f a

év Tots e&s emidetEau Kara mév wépos TpoEeaTHKOTES

a onl A N a /

Tob évddgou, wa und’ ev TOUTOLS ExwoW Nuds KaTO-

fot me th o ‘2 oe 7 ” ¢€ A

Aadetv of odk ard TOD BeATiorou eiwhdtes ava-

a ¢ > > \i A / > / >

otpedpecOar.
/
“Ooou yep tote aroXetrovtTa KTHGELS La U > / /

€yyetor Kal otkian TMV KaOnKovady eis TO Snudavov

~ on \

age) 70 ‘Pwpaiwy, méoas didopev THe vuerepae moAee,

Lee / UJ / a ¢€ / 5A.

Omws Kal ev ToUTOLs UdOnTE THY KaAOKayaBiay NUdV

/ / ¢ a

Kal OTe TeAws ev ovOevi dilapyupia|a]. BeBovArjpeba, a /

mept mAeltaTou Trovovpevor yapita Kat pirodogiav.

\ ¥,
“Ocor pév- / / \ / a” /

TOL 1) KEKOpLOpEvoL Elaly TOV emriPadrAdvTwr adrots,

eav buds SidaEwouw Kal paivwvrou evyvaprova ré-
AN ¢ a Ud \ Me > 7 /
15
yovtes, oToyalopevwy bud@v ex TOV UT’ euod yeypap-
pevw eyKploewy, Kpivw Sixouov elvou aroxabiorac-
>

Bou adrots.
"Eppwade.

Text based on the one by Viereck (notes). 4 Viereck puts comma before dAocyep@s. 13-14
pevrot, Leake, but MENTON, stone (cf. L. Cohn, Hermes, 17 [1882]: 645). 19 "Eppwofe was
inscribed twice, the first one being erased.

COMMENTARY. According to the terms of peace imposed on Philip after his defeat
at Cynoscephalae in 197 B.c., all Greeks who had not been subject to the Macedonian
king were to be free and autonomous, but the Macedonian dependencies in Greece were
to be surrendered to the Romans.! Ten commissioners headed by T. Quinctius
Flamininus took on the task of settling Greek affairs and carrying out the terms of the
peace. By the summer of 194 B.c. the job was finished. Flamininus and his army had
left Greece and returned to Rome. His letter to Chyretiae was written, therefore,
sometime between those two dates. Arbanitopoulos assigned it to 192 B.c., when
Flamininus had returned to Greece, but such a date is improbable.?
Since Livy (31. 41. 5) tells us that the Aetolians, as allies of Rome, had captured and
sacked the city of Chyretiae (in 199 B.c.), it is permissible to assume that the city had been
‘For the terms of the peace with Philip see the two most important sources: Polybius 18. 44 and
Livy 33. 30. For the interpretation of these sources see G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, IV, 1 (Turin,
1923), 95, and E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 228-39. Of great value for the
background and motives for the peace are M. Holleaux, C.A.H., VIII (1930), chap. VI, pp. 138-98
(Etudes d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, V (Paris, 1957], 320-86), and Accame, op. cit., pp. 197-208.
2 From 197 to 194 B.C. Flamininus was proconsul, but in 192 B.c. he was consul. However, it was in
195-194 B.C. that he visited Thessaly and organized it. Thus it may have been exactly in that period
that the present letter was written. Cf. M. Holleaux, Xtparnyos ” Yararos (Paris, 1918), pp. 3-4, n. 3.

212
EPISTULAE

a subject of Philip. Thus, after Cynoscephalae, the property of the partisans in that city
would have been confiscated by the Romans, an assumption supported by the letter
itself (Il. 8-10), which states that ‘“‘all landed property and buildings belonging to the
public domain of the Roman state” are to be returned to their owners.
Flamininus, certainly acting in accordance with general instructions from Rome con-
cerning his official attitude toward the Greeks, not only frees the Greek cities that were
not subject to the king of Macedon but also takes steps to win the future loyalty of the
former Macedonian dependencies. These could pose a greater problem and a greater
burden to Rome than any of the other cities. He feels himself justified, therefore, in
dictating to them what steps should be taken for the future, for he must secure in all of
Greece a state of affairs in harmony with Roman interests.3 Despite the fact that
Chyretiae had been within the Macedonian sphere in the past, her confiscated lands are
now to be returned to their rightful owners, if they can successfully establish their
ownership. It is plain that Flamininus speaks as a representative of a generous Rome.
It is equally plain that he speaks as a master and not an equal. For it is only by the good
will and the graciousness of Rome, his letter implies, that the lands and possessions of
Chyretiae are being returned.
The returning of confiscated property appears superficially to be an act of generosity,
a fine gesture to prove the good will and altruistic character of Romans, but actually it is
a very practical and clever maneuver to convince the wealthy classes that Rome will look
after their interests. It was designed basically, I think, to cause the wealthy to look to
Rome as their protector and their patronus. Thus the Roman policy in Greece at this
time was, as Badian has so vividly illustrated, not merely to free Rome from foreign
commitments of a military or administrative nature, but also, more importantly, to
plant the seed of Roman paternalism everywhere. This was the proper approach to the
establishment of a Greek clientela on a grand scale. Free them and win the support of the
wealthy, then withdraw.*

3 See F. M. Wood, Jr., “The Military and Diplomatic Campaign of T. Quinctius Flamininus in 198
B.C.,” A.J.P., 62 (1941): 277-88. At the same time, of course, he may have been motivated by a
sincere effort to secure the stability and prosperity of the various towns.
4 See Badian, Foreign Clientelae, pp. 69-83.

213
 3a
EPISTULA M. VALERIT MESSALAE
PRAETORIS.AD SLEIOS 193 B.C.

QHGQHHHDAS HOSA DHHS SOOOUTSEOSHDESSSOHOOSSESS9SS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Chisull, Antiquitates Asiaticae (London, 1728), p. 102,

from a copy by Sherard; F. Hessel, Antiquae inscriptiones quum Graecae tum
Latinae olim a Marquardo Gudio collectae (Leeuwarden, 1731), app. no. 3044, from
a copy by Duker; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), 3045; Le Bas-Waddington,
Voyage archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, Il (1870), 60; P.
Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. II, p. 2; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?,
I (1898), 279; M. Holleaux, Revue des études anciennes, I (1899), 7 (Etudes
d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, I [Paris, 1938], 357); C. Michel, Recueil
d inscriptions grecques (Brussels, 1900), no. 51; M. Holleaux, Klio, 13 (1913):
156-59 (Etudes d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, IV [Paris, 1952], 200-3); F. Hiller
von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 601; G. Lafaye,
I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 15573; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra
acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 51-52; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor
(Princeton, 1950), II, 943, n. 39; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, 1(New
York, 1951), 310; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes,
no. 20; S. Accame, I’espansione romana in Grecia (Naples, 1961), pp. 66-67.

DESCRIPTION. A stone discovered among the ruins of the Temple of

Dionysus on the site of the ancient Teos.

‘Pwpaiwv.
Mépkos Odvadcpios Mépkov orparnyos Kat
A 4 /,

Srjpwapyou Kat 7 avvKANTOs Tniwy tHe BovAqe Kat THe

té Nee / / ~ lol \ ~

Srjpwwe yaipe’ v Meévaos 6 te rap’ *Avtidyou tod Ba-

/ if / id a29 / lot

atAéws aroatarels mpos Huds mpeaBevtis Tpo-

> a

xerprabeis Kat tp tudv mpecBedoou trept THs mdAcws,

\ Nines foie: ~ lol \ lol /

76 Te Undiopa avédwKev Kal adTOS KHKoADVOWS TOUTWL

/ / > / \ > \ > 4 4

eA€yOn pera ré&ons mpoOvupias: wets dé TOV TE KV-

ry Xr / 0 b 4 0 / P ¢€ A Py \ / LA

Spa amredeEcpeda, prrodpdves Kal dic TV mpoyeyevn-

> 7

pie) pevnv adrayu dd€av Kat dv& tiv drepyovoay KadoKa-

yabiav rept te dv HElov Sinkovoapev edvows. Kal OTL
eh / e ? fi) ry 4 > / Nie:

pev didAov trA€taTov Adyov Trovovpevor SicreAod-

\ th a A

Lev THS mpos Tovs Deovs edocBelas, waALoT’ KY TLS OTO-

oul \ \ ia) \ ? / 4 tes

xalouro ex THs cvvaevTwpevyns jwety edprevetas

L >? ~ / a

\ ~ \ a
dua radra mapa Tob Sopoviov: od pny GAG Kat && KA-

214
 EPISTULAE

Awv rrevdveav Trerrelopebax cuppavi m&or yeyovéeven

bs / a a

THY NMETEpay Els TO Hetov

\ Ly / > \ a
mpotimiav. S16 Kat duct TE THB- fol

TH Ka Le THY Tpds Buds

\ \ \ \ ~
ebvoray Kod Suc Tov HEw [Ev] ov
mpeoBeutyy Kpivopev elvau tiv moAW Kal THY yw-
\ /

pay tepav, Kabws Kat viv €otw, Kal &ovdov Kal &hopo-
¢ Ul \ i ~ > Nee \ >
20

oyntov aro Tob Syov Tob “Pwyaiwy Kai

Ar / > \ ~ / a¢ {i \
ré& TE els
i) ?

Tov Deov Tima Kat Ta eis ues PrrcvOpwra treipacd-

ss \ / \ \ > ¢€ A 4 fe

beOae cvverravéew, Suctnpovvtwv tuav Kat els TO

{2 ~

MEeTa TAOTA THY TOS Nuas evvorcaev. vv “Eppwobe.

\ ~ Ni \ ¢ a ” ”

Text by Viereck (notes). 1 In larger letters. 3 ovyxAnros, Dittenberger, repeated by Hiller,

but Boeckh and Le Bas-Waddington indicate a nu instead of a gamma. 4 Tod omitted by Le Bas-
Waddington, Dittenberger, and Hiller. 6 dep, Boeckh; epi, Le Bas—Waddington. 7 &[7]édwxev,
Boeckh, but cf. Holleaux, Etudes, I, 357. 16 m&@ou omitted by Le Bas-Waddington, Dittenberger,
and Hiller. 17 zpotuutav, stone, but Sauppe preferred to write mpoOvpiav; however, since one
finds r& ets tov Bedv ripe in Il. 21-22, as Hiller observed, the reading of the stone should be
retained.

COMMENTARY. In the Hellenistic age the Teans had acquired considerable fame
through their worship of Dionysus and the selection of their city as the headquarters of
the Ionian and Hellespontine branch of the Dionysiac Artists. And when, in about
205 B.C., they decided to introduce a festival in honor of their patron god, they requested
that numerous cities recognize the inviolability of their city. A large number of decrees
from Greece and Crete testify to their success in this direction.! And, after Cyno-
scephalae had impressed the Asiatic Greeks with the reality of Rome and her willingness
to enter the arena of Greek politics, they decided to obtain similar recognition from
Rome.?_ The praetor for 193 B.c., M. Valerius Messala, speaking for the people and the
Senate, responded with the present letter granting, as one would expect at this time, all
that the Teans had requested: the city as well as its land was to be “holy, as it now is, and
inviolable and immune from taxation by the Roman people.”
The envoy Menippus is a known representative of Antiochus III, having been sent to
Rome earlier in the same year. This could mean that, although Teos may have acquired
some independence by this time, she still looked to the Seleucid king for protection and
assistance in matters of this sort. As Holleaux has pointed out, a representative of
Antiochus would be the natural intermediary at this particular time, for the Seleucid king
was not yet an enemy of Rome and formal negotiations were still being conducted on a
nominally friendly basis. No hidden meaning should be suspected in the phrase which

1 See W. Ruge, R.E., s.v. ““Teos,” cols. 547-50; Holleaux, Etudes, IV, 178-203; Magie, loc. cit. The
Cretan decrees may now be found in Inscriptiones Creticae, I no. 1*, p. 292; II, no. 21*, p. 161, and
no, 3%, p. 197.
2 For the Tean tardiness in appealing to Rome see Holleaux, Etudes, IV, 200-3.
3 Cf. Holleaux, Etudes, II, 96, n. 2, and IV, 200ff. For Menippus in Rome see Livy 34. 57. Off;
Diodorus 28. 15. 2ff.; and Appian Syr. 6.

215
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

granted Teos immunity from Roman taxes, for this almost certainly is a simple statement
recognizing the city’s immunity and freedom without any implication of Roman
authority in the area.4
Notice the appearance of the tribuni in the prescript. This is a very unusual feature.
4 Accame, loc. cit.

216
 35
EPISTULA LUCII CORNELII SCIPIONIS
EIUSQUE FRATRIS AD HERACLEOTAS
AD LATMUM 190 B.C.
QHGODH
HSH OHS
SOOO OHA HGH
AHGHSHASHHONSSSs
GHS gggg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Boeckh, C.LG., II (1843), 3800, based on a copy by

Moustoxydis; W. Henzen, Annali dell’ Instituto archeologico, 24 (1852): 138ff.; Le
Bas-Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions,
III (1870), 588; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford,
1882), no. 193; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. III, pp. 2-3;
W. Judeich, Athen. Mitt., 15 (1890): 254; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, I (1898),
287; B. Haussoullier, Revue de philologie, 23 (1899): 277-78; G. Colin, Rome et la
Gréce de 200 4 146 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 202-3; M. Holleaux, Revue des
études anciennes, 19 (1917): 237ff.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W.
Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 618; M. Holleaux, Stpatnyds *Ymaros (Paris,
1918), pp. 131-46; G. De Sanctis, Atti dell’ Accademia di Torino, 57 (1921/22):
242ff.; M. Holleaux, Rivista di filologia, 52 (1924): 29-44; S.E.G., II (1924), $66;
Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926),
no. 4, p. 253; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp.
125ff.; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto
(Rome, 1946), pp. 52-53; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), II, 949, n. 8; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I(New York, 1951),
pp. 313ff.; F. Ceruti, Epigraphica, 17 (1955): 127, 132; H. H. Schmitt, Rom und
Rhodos (Munich, 1957), p. 130, n. 2; E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (Oxford,
1958), p. 88; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 23.

[Aedxuos KopyvyAvos Xkimiwv] orparnyos vraros ‘Pwyatwv

[Kal [Idmdvos Lkuriwv aed] dos ‘Hpaxrewrav rie Boudte ko rd. 8y-
[pan yaipew:| eve[tvyov] qty of rap’ budp mpéoPers Aras, Aris, Avovd
/ AS a a € aA ¢ rh AS ~ V4 A a A ~ A (en

[avos, - -]e&u[av]Spos, [Ed] Snuos, Moxos, ’Apioreidns, Mévys, avdpes Ka-

[Aol Keyaboi] ot rd Te [Yyjd]iopa amédwKay Kat adrot dvedéynoay aKodov-
[Ows tot]s ev TH[e Yq] diopars KaraKeywpropevors oddev €AdetmovTes
[prrore] utes: p[et]s 5é mpods mévras tods “ENqvas ebvows diakeiner[or]
[ruyyé]vopey Kat meipacdpeba, apayeyovdtwy duav eis THY jueTépa.[t|
[zriorip|, mpovovap trovetobou TH evdexomerny, del Tivos ayaBod mropo|¢] -
[rior yev]dpwevory cvyywpodpev Sé butv tiv te eAevdepiay KaBdre Kou
[rats &]AAcus moAcow, doa juiv THY emurpomrmy edwKav, Exovow b[¢’|
[adrods mé|vre re adrOpy rrodirevecOau Kara rods tpeTEpous vopous,
[kal ev t]ots &AAois treipaodpeda edypnotobvres dptv ael Twos cyabot

217
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[wapair] vor yiveoOou: crrodeyopeba Sé Kal ra map’ Sudp prrcvOpwmee Kal TOS
~ ‘

15 [wioreis, K]at adrot dé mepaodueba undevos AetreoBou ey xapiTos arrodocEL

/ \ ¢) \ \ / } \ Xr ih 0 J 4 > PS)/ 2

[amearc]Akapev Sé pos duds AedKov “OpBiov rov émipeAnoopevov Tis

[woAews K]a[i] THs yabpas Srws pndels duds mapevoyAp. “Eppwode.

1 Before orparnyds Haussoullier believed that he could see a nu, but Holleaux found no trace of
it on the stone. 2 ]pos, Judeich and Haussoullier. Holleaux disagreed with their identification of
the rho. It was actually part of a phi: &deA|pos. 4 [’Avaki]u[av]Spos, Judeich and Dittenberger;
but [ITaA]éu[cr]8pos, Haussoullier; [Xk]ep[av]dpos, De Sanctis; [Ev]Snuos, Haussoullier.
7 mpobv|uias, Haussoullier. 9 Boeckh and Waddington restored [wépeow]; Dittenberger and
Viereck, [zréorip] ;Holleaux, ropa[irvor. 10 ywv]dmevor, Henzen and Viereck (notes) ;yev] opevor,
Holleaux and Haussoullier; but yevyo]opevor, Boeckh. 11-12 5[¢’ adrois, Judeich and Haus-
soullier, but then 5[¢’ adrovs, Holleaux and Viereck. 15 [aiorets], Boeckh.

COMMENTARY. In 1852 W. Henzen suggested that the author of this letter was
Cn. Manlius Vulso and that its date should fall between the summer of 189 and the sum-
mer or autumn of 188 B.c. He also thought that the second line might have contained a
reference to the ten commissioners sent out by the Senate to conclude the treaty with
Antiochus and to regulate the local affairs. The majority of scholars accepted this view
and restored the name of Vulso in line 1.
Acting upon a suggestion by Holleaux, however, De Sanctis established that the author
was actually L. Cornelius Scipio and added that the person named in line 2 might be the
brother, P. Cornelius Scipio (Africanus). The date would be 190 B.c., when Lucius
Cornelius held the command in Greece and Asia. Holleaux immediately agreed and
discovered that the two brothers were co-authors not only of this letter but also of
another, to Colophon.! Memnon (Jacoby FrGrHist 434. 18. 6ff.) mentions another
letter by the Scipios, to Heraclea Pontica. Thus the two were associated in public life.
Furthermore, they were honored together in a decree from Aptara in Crete (Inscriptiones
Creticae, II, 3, no. 5). There can be no real doubt that both their names appeared in
lines 1-2 of the present letter.?
Presumably it was not long after the brothers arrived with the Roman army in Asia
that the Heracleans placed themselves under the protection of Rome and dispatched
envoys to the commanders to communicate their decree and to ask for assistance. The
two brothers in the field then responded with the present letter and granted them free-
dom, just as had been done for those other cities which had acted in a similar fashion
(Il. ro-14). Lucius Orbius also was dispatched by the Scipios to protect the city and its
adjacent area from harassment. This last provision could mean that the war against
Antiochus was still in progress and that the danger was a military one, or that there were
anti-Roman partisans in the area who might cause the city trouble.
1 See the next letter (No. 36).
2 Unfortunately, the old mistake of Henzen is perpetuated in S.I.G.3, II, 618; see also Luzzatto, loc.
cit., and Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, loc. cit.
3 Cf. A. Heuss, Klio, n.s., Beiheft 31, Heft 18 (1933): 94-113, esp. 97-98, for the present letter.

218
 36
EPISTULA LUCII CORNELII SCIPIONIS
FRATRISQUE AD COLOPHONIOS 190-189 B.C.

HAVE OHHOHRTOOOEE YOURS SHOOODORYSETSOHHHHSHHHHHH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Ch. Picard, Ephese et Claros (Paris, 1922), p. 145, n. 5 (cf.

Th. Macridy-Bey and Ch. Picard, B.C.H., 39 [1915]: 47-48); P. Roussel, S.E.G.,
I, 440 (=A.E., 1925, no. 107); M. Holleaux, Rivista di filologia, 52 (1924): 29-443
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 949, n. 58; F. Ceruti,
Epigraphica, 17 (1955): 125.

[A]ev«vos K[opyidvos Leutiwy otparny-|

[yo]s vararos “Pwpoiwy cai [I]dmdos Xke-|
[ziw|v adeApos KodAodoviwy rH [teBovAge cat]
[Tae dy] rar yaipew: evervyo[v Hiv oF]
[rap’ du] @v mpéoBers "Ayaundys Kot[- -]
[a&vdpe]s KaAol Kayaboi, <ot> r6 Te [Wyjdiopcr]
[amédw] Kav Kal adrot deAéyna[av axo-|
[Aovb] ws tots tp’ budv dedoypé|vors, od-]
[Sev eA]Aetzovres pirotiysias Kat [- - -]
10 [-“* =6 ]voce (2) TO tepov a&av|[Aor - -|

219
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Text by Picard and Holleaux. 3 Kodod¢oviwy for KoAopwviwv, perhaps an engraver’s error.
6 Cot», Holleaux. 9-10 kai [omovdis epi ||rod ef]vau xrA, Picard; Kat [jEi||ovv ef]vau 76 tepov
dov[Aov 76 rod ’AmdAAwvos Tod Kicapiov suggested by Holleaux; cat [wept rod ||Suapet] vou ?
70 tepov d&av[Aov HEtovy jas | mpdvovav troujoaaban (vel similia) rAd], S.E.G.

COMMENTARY. Livy (37. 26. 5-11) reports that in 190 B.c., after L. and P. Cornelius
Scipio had landed in Asia with a Roman army, Antiochus decided to besiege Colophon’
because of that city’s strategic position overlooking Ephesus. Colophon promptly
requested L. Aemilius Regillus, the praetor with headquarters at Samos, to protect them.
But Aemilius had more extensive plans in mind. In the late summer of 190 his naval
force succeeded in defeating the fleet of Antiochus near Myonnesus. This alarmed
Antiochus so much that he withdrew his garrison from Lysimachia and abandoned the
siege of Colophon (Livy 37. 31. 3). Therefore, it must have been sometime after this
Roman victory at sea that the city of Colophon dispatched envoys to the camp of the
two Scipios to obtain the privilege of inviolability for their Temple of Apollo.!
The present letter is the reply written by the two Scipios to the Colophonian request
for inviolability of the temple. Although only the opening remarks are preserved, one
may safely assume that the request was granted in due form.? Since the command of L.
Cornelius Scipio came to an end in the spring of 189 B.c., the letter must have been
written before that date, probably in 190.

' Ceruti, loc. cit., suggests further that Colophon, like Teos (see No. 34), may itself have been granted
inviolability by the Romans. Perhaps.
2 Colophon would hardly have erected the stele if the request had not been granted.

220
 37
EPISTULA MANII ACILIT AD DELPHOS Early in 190 B.c.
HHHOHOGEUGEOSOHHDTTSSUHHHHAAYHHHSAYSSSHHSHVsggygg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 609-

10; H. Pomtow, Klio, 16 (1920), nos. 117-18, pp. 123ff.; P. Roussel, B.C.H., 56
(1932): 3ff.; G. Daux, Delphes au II® et au I® siecle (Paris, 1936), pp. 227ff.;
J. A. O. Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient
Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 311-12; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941),
614.

DESCRIPTION. An equestrian statue was erected by the Delphians to honor

Manius Acilius Glabrio, who had freed Delphi and the Amphictyonic League
from Aetolian control toward the end of 191 B.c. A number of inscriptions
were engraved on the base of this statue, including a dedication to Glabrio, a
decree of the city, the present document, and a letter of C. Livius Salinator to
the Delphians. A tentative, and partially inaccurate, description of the
monument has been attempted by Pomtow (Klio, 16 [1920]: 114ff.; cf. the
remarks of Roussel, op. cit., p. 2, n. 3). The block on which this letter of
Acilius Glabrio appeared formed the rear of the monument. Measurements of
the block alone: height, 0.76 m.; width, above, 0.69 m., below, 0.71 m.;
thickness, above, 0.57 m., below, 0.58 m.; height of letters, 0.005 m. The
block itself is of gray limestone. The entire monument was of a type common
to Delphi: a plinth, then three blocks slightly pyramidal, and finally another
plinth, on which the statue rested.

221
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[---------------- ] drepy[ec]v [Karc]Avpa rots iperepou[s oA] ira[es.

‘Ypets dé hpovricare]
[ila ratra révra cvaypadevra eis orHAnv ABlvny avarebyu ev
T@[t lepa@i. "Hav b€ twes ave] -
[wou] Ovrau wept TOY KTHTEWwWY 7) TOV EK TOUTWY KapT@V 7 OLKL@V
7} TO[v drrapydvtwv, pe] -
[wev]ou Eavtadv elvau, rept rovTwr, doo pwev ed’ NUa@v yeyovact
€ ~ > \ 7 La ai rN heb 3 ~ /

Kploes, K[Upicu €eotwoav: dvpets dé,|

[xpur]jprov amrodelEavtes TO uéANov CpOds SvaArjpippecbac,
dveEayay [ere Tas AouTas - - - - - - a
[..] “HyyedArar 5€ por wepropors Te yiveoBou aro ToUTWwY Els Twas
” , / Ys > \ 4 ”

AcOpali Kai wvas, avadopés |

[ut ylevoul[é]vns emt 70 Kowov: aroyaoaobe obv rws pnde Ev
\ / eA A / / iy a” Va et

toobro yivnrat [Tob Aourob. ITepi de]

a / A lo \ \

~ \ a 2 0, / EL. + \ We
[7] @v Kara To lepov, eav TE Occoadol, ecv te &dXou Tives TrpecBevwou,
mreipcéoo[pou ev “Pon? Kara]
[r]& eula]vtob dpovricas iva duiv Kkarc&pova ju tx €€ apyis UrapyovTa
bt 2 ~ I ¢ ¢€ aA Uy > A >? > ~ € /

matp[ia, cwloperns? ths]

THs TOAEws Kal TOD lepod adTovoyias.
Tc ded0puéva ywpia tai Dede "As ewe olkias Tht Peds Katt
Kot T[&]e mode. Tau [mdAec]-
’ Ev *YrromrAevoriou: vacat
TO ’Avdpoober |i] d« ToAdwviov 35 Tav Ayedtou Navrakriov
70 Mixnv<Aiwvos Bvakéos tov Ilétpwvos ToAdwviov
70 Aapouvéerov ’Audiacéos trav IloAewcpyou Puaxéos
76 Ap|[a]«dvrios KaAAurroXiridos trav AeEbéou Duckéos
To Dawéa ’Apowoéos tov Nixayopa ‘Hpakreusro
70 E[d]puBovAas ’Apdiacidos go tav Kaddxkdéos ’Audiocéo[s]
70 K[p]arivov Tpiréos tav Tovpiwvos > AAmeaiov
70 *“Apyedcov ’Audiacéos trav ’ApiotodvAov Puakéos
70 II|p|a&ots ToAdwvias trav ITpaéWenov ’Audisoéos
70 Mvacidéov Xadev€éos trav Aapokévov Xadevéos
To Hevia Xaderéos 45 Tav Owmia KadduroXira
70 Aapoappévov ToAdwviov tav AvKov Apvorratov re cvw
70 Aapappévov TodrAdwviol[v]. tav AvKov Apvoraiov te& KaTw
vacat trav "AXeEwcyou ’Audusa€os
"Ev A[t]mepou: tov Ebdixov ’ Audicoéos
to [Ivppov Navrraktiov 50 Tav Mixckvriwvos Puoréos
To ’ApytAcouv ITAvyovéos tov "Apiatodamov "Audiacéos t& KeTw
To Aapouverov ’Audiacéos tav “Apiotod&mov ’Audiocgos T& vw
vacat tav T[t]watov ’Apawoéos
"Ev Tobetau: tav Onpiwvos *Avraéos

222
 EPISTULAE

> Aopoverov ’Audiacéos.

a) ie}
55 tav *ApioreiSa ToApwviov
vacat trav Ocayéveos ’ Audioc€os
°Ev Baooat: trav *IoxyordAos ’ Auduoaidos
70 ’Eyékdeos ITdvyoveos. tav Acpwvos Tpiréos
trav Evvixov ®uvaKéos
25 "Ev Aldea: 60 tav Mvaoircov Xadevéos
To Kaddortpaérov IT\vyovéos tav Awpobéov KadX\uroXira
TO Aopoxpéreos [TAvyoveos. tav ’Apioto&évovu ’Audiccéos
vacat trav Xadétrov Navrrarriov
"Ev Naretou: trav Xapifas Xadevidos
30 To Lwéévov *Audiacéos 65 tov ‘Apuiov ‘HpakAewridos
70 “Aynowvos >Audiooéos trav *AXeEcvdpov Puokéos
70 KpitoAcov ®uokéos. cov ITIpakidcpnov > Audiocéos
Ev ’ Avdpécu: tov. Nikie Dvoréos
70 KaAXotobds Xadeuidos. tav Kpativov Tpitéos
70 tav “Aynowmodos Tpryovidos
tov ’AdeEouévov ITevpwviov
tov "Aynra KadXuroXra ta KeTw
tov ’Ayrra KadduroXira r& dv
trav Dirovicov ToAdwviov
75 tav Aioxptos ’Aypiicdos
trav Acapoobéveos Navirakriov
tav Kpwia ®voKéos
ta IIdppov Navranriov Badavetea
trav Ev«ratov ’AAraiov
80 TOV “YBpiAcov Otvociov.

Text based on that of Roussel. 1 [kar&]Aupo, Pomtow; cf. LG., V, 1, 869. 3 [avtuzrou] Gvrou
mept; cf. P. Berl. 993. col. Il. 12. 4 Daux, op. cit., p. 229, n. 2, reads KU[prou since he sees the
upsilon. 4-5 [tod dé Aourod, Kpit]jprov amodetEavtes... , SveEayey[ere To Sixcwov is an alter-
native. 9-10 mér[puw r& aepi rijs| is an alternative. 17 Perhaps Aemdépa, as Daux reads,
op. cit., p. 229, n. I.

223
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. This document falls into two parts: one is a letter from a Roman
magistrate to the Delphians (Il. 1-10), and the other a list of properties and houses that
had been given to the god and the city of Delphi. The fact that the heading of the second
part does not cite the name of the giver but merely records the simple verb é6wxe would
indicate that “he” is well known from the letter. Thus, once we know who was
responsible for giving all these pieces of property and houses to the city, we shall know
the author of the letter. There is good evidence to show that this person was Manius
Acilius Glabrio, for in another document of later date concerned with the demarcation
of the sacred land at Delphi we learn that Acilius Glabrio had once given the region of
the city called Néreva to the god.!_ Since this same region is mentioned in our document
(I. 28), there can be no doubt that Acilius Glabrio was the author of the letter.?
When Acilius Glabrio freed Delphi from Aetolian control toward the end of 191 B.c.,
it was brought to his attention that Aetolians and Aetolian subjects had gained control of
a considerable part of the area in and around Delphi consisting of property and houses.3
Clearly the Delphians found their presence unacceptable and appealed to Acilius, who
gave the area in question to the god and the city. This amounted to an act of eviction or
expulsion of the Aetolians and their subjects from Delphi. Naturally such an act re-
sulted in a series of complicated legal problems, for our letter indicates that the Delphians
were to set up a tribunal to hear and to judge impartially whatever future litigation might
arise. Of the fifty men and nine women evicted from their holdings forty-six came
from Ozalian Locris and only nine from Aetolia proper. The reason for this would
seem to be the proximity of Delphi to Locris.
Most interesting is the conclusion of the letter, for Acilius pledges himself to use all his
influence in upholding and preserving the ancestral laws of the city and the temple. _ It is
unfortunate that we cannot tell precisely what he had to say about the liberty (adrovopic)
of Delphi, although it is certain that it was some statement such as “preserving the
freedom....”4 His sentiments about Delphi coincided with those of Rome in general
during the years that followed.
The letter was written sometime before Glabrio left Greece, in about April of 190 B.c.
Since it mentions legal difficulties that had already arisen (1. 6), some period of time must
have elapsed between the gift of the property and the composition of the letter. Thus
one would be reasonably safe in assuming that it was written during the first few months
of 190 B.C.5
1 For the whole matter see Roussel, op. cit., pp. 6-7. The other document is S.I.G.3, 826 E, col. III,
1. 38, and its date is 125 B.c. See Daux, op. cit., pp. 228-29, and for the events of 125 B.c. his com-
mentary on pp. 381 ff.
2 There is no way of knowing how much of the beginning of the letter is lost. But from the tenor
of the concluding sentences it may be assumed that it was addressed to the Delphians rather than the
Amphictyons. Acilius had been consul for the year 191 B.c. and had been placed in charge of the
war in Greece against the Aetolians and Antiochus. His command ended in about April of 190.
3 It is not known how they gained possession of the property or by what legal means they retained it.
Any irregularity in these matters would have given the Delphians legal justification for asking Acilius
to evict the Aetolians and their subjects. Daux, op. cit., p. 231.
+The restoration ra e€ apyijs trdpyovra mérpl[va ta mepl THs] THs moAews Kal Tod fepod
avrovopias would give much the same sense.
5 Roussel, op. cit., pp. 18-19. Acilius, of course, was not in Delphi when he wrote it, but he was
almost certainly still in Greece.

224
 38
EPISTULA C. LIVII (SALINATORIS)
AD DELPHOS 189-188 B.C.

HHIDHHODHSHGU SOUUOO DODD O OD HDHHSTSSSOASSSSHAHHHggygsg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 611;

M. Holleaux, Stparnyos braros, Etude sur la traduction en Grec du titre
consulaire (Paris, 1918), pp. 159-65; K. J. Beloch, Klio, 15 (1918): 382ff., esp.
400ff.; H. Pomtow, Klio, 16 (1920), no. 119, pp. 130ff.; O. Leuze, Hermes, 58
(1923): 268 ff; M. Holleaux, B.C.H., 54 (1930): 3-6, 15-16, and text on pp.
40-41 (=Etudes d’épigraphie et d'histoire grecques, V [Paris, 1957], 250-51, 261-62,
and text on pp. 284-85); P. Roussel, B.C.H., 56 (1932): 2 and 23-24; G. Daux,
Delphes au II° et au I®* siécle (Paris, 1936), pp. 262ff.;J.A. O. Larsen, “Roman
Greece,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938),
285; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 609; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman
Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), 312-13; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne,
Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 26.

DESCRIPTION. This is a block of gray limestone forming part of the

equestrian statue of Manius Acilius Glabrio in Delphi (see No. 37). _Its
measurements are exactly the same as the block carrying the letter of Glabrio to
the Delphians. Height: 0.76 m. Width: above, 0.69 m., below, 0.71 m.
Thickness: above, 0.57 m., below, 0.58 m. The text followed here is that of
Holleaux, which in turn was based on a revision by R. Flaceliére.

225
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[T'ésos AiBios Mackpxov or|parnyos br[arlos ‘Plw]u[atwy Kot dn] -

[u]apyou Keel [1) odyKA] gros AcApdv rots cép[xo] vor Kat ri mo [Ae yoiperv: |
of map’ budv arrooradevtes mpeoBevrat “Hpus Evscpov, [4] apuo[obe] -
ns ’Apyéra ré& Te ypdpara amédooav Kal adrol diehéynooy aKodovbws
tots év adbrots Karakeywp[io] wevors peta m&ons omrovdhs, Prorimias ov-
Bev eAdelmovres, evedcrilov Sé Kat S[u] ore Tov TE HyGva TOY yupYLKOV
Kol THY Ovolov brép Hyudv avvereAécute: Kal 7) avyKAnTos THY Sudvowuy
mpooeaxev Te Kal dokev adtois brép Te TH TpoTEpov TpecPevTa@v
BovAwvos, Opacurréos, "Opéora, Tau Tmpos Has ev adikopevar, ev d€
10 rhe ets olkov avakopidhr Suapwrnocytwr, ypcapat mpos Méaprov Podovov
TOV HeTEpov aTpaTnyov, iva dpovtiont STrws, dTav Kab” yas yevnrou
Ta KaTa THY Launv mpeyara, avalynrynon Tods aducnoovtas Kai Ppov-
tlone wa tUywow THs KxOnKOvONS TiLwplas Kal TX TOV TpecBevTaV
dmapxovra amoKaractabhe mavra Tots olkelous adta@v: edokev S€ Kat
15 mpos Aitwrods ypeupar rept TOV ywopevwv Trap’ buiv aducnuatwr, ive
vou ev TH amnymeva ArravTa avalnTnOWOW KO HTOKATMOTHOW-
ow vty, Tod S€ Aowrod pnbev ere yivnTau: Kat mept TOV ev AeAdgots Ka-
TOLKEOVTWY exe buds e€ovolay edfkev 7 avyKANTOS e€ouKileww
[o]ds au BovdAnobe Kai ev Katoixety Tap buds Tods edapeoTobvTas Tat
20 [x]owds tov AcApav: ras dé dobeicas cmoxpicers Tots Eumtpoabev mpos
[7] was adixopevors map’ tudv mpecBevtats aveddkopev adbtots Kabws
[7] Evodv Huds, Kat eis TO Aowrrov dé TEeipaoducba cel Tivos Hyabod
[wrap]airioe tots AeAdots yiveobou duct te Tov Deov Kat dv buds Kal dua TO
Té&TpLov Hiv etvou Tods Heods céBecbat Te Kai TYLaY TOdS dVTAS TE&V-
Twv aitious TOV ayabar.
hth ~ > ~
25

1 Macpkov] vilds, Pomtow; Macpkov vids orlparnyds, Viereck. 4 amédwxav, Pomtow,

amédooay in Homolle’s copy; &koAovOws, Homolle. 6 d671, Pomtow; 8.671, Homolle; Kad,
ort, Viereck. 15 ywouevwr, Pomtow; yevowevwr, Homolle. 22 cet [z]eipacducb« aet, Pomtow;
dé mretpacducba wei, Homolle. 23 cal dv’ tues, Homolle.

COMMENTARY. The difficulties experienced by Delphi at the hands of the Aetolians

are well known from a series of documents dated in and after 190 B.c._ The present letter
is one of the same series and is especially interesting because of the unusual light it sheds
on the fate of three Delphian envoys (and their state papers) known to us from another
source.
The facts are these: sometime after April, 189 B.c., three envoys from Delphi—Boulon,
Thrasycles, and Orestas—had gone to Rome in order to procure Roman confirmation
of Delphi’s autonomy and freedom, a measure designed in the first instance to rid the
city of Aetolian control (see No. 37). From the present letter we learn that the three
envoys had been murdered while returning from Rome with the senatorial documents
that were the object of their mission (Il. 8-10). As soon as Delphi learned of the murders

226
EPISTULAE

it sent two other envoys—Herys and Damosthenes (Il. 3-4)—to inform the Roman
Senate and request assistance. After the two envoys were heard in the Senate, the present
letter was drafted to explain briefly to Delphi what actions the Roman people were
taking in the matter. These actions were four in number: (1) M. Fulvius Nobilior, the
consul of 189 B.c., was to be instructed to track down and punish the murderers (ll.
10-14). (2) The Aetolians were to be ordered to bring back to Delphi whatever they
had removed from the city and thenceforth to cease and desist from similar action (Il.
14-17). (3) The Delphians were to have a free hand in expelling any undesirable in-
habitants from their city or allowing to remain those people who were acceptable to the
Delphian koinon (Il. 17-20). (4) Copies of the Roman documents previously given to
Boulon and his companions but lost after their murder were given to the present envoys,
Herys and Damosthenes, for delivery to Delphi.
Since the Boulon documents may be dated sometime after April, 189 B.c., we may be
sure that, whatever the exact date of those documents within that year, the present
letter was drafted soon after the murder of the three envoys. The murder of state
officials and the loss of state papers are not matters about which the Delphians would
have delayed very long; immediate action may be assumed. In addition it is obvious
that the letter could not have been written after the news of victory at Same reached
Rome, for the letter expressly states that Fulvius is to begin tracking down the murderers
after affairs at Same have been cleared up (Il. 11-12). Clearly the siege of Same was
going on at the time the letter was written, or else news of the city’s fall had not yet
reached Rome. Holleaux, in an exhaustive and brilliant essay on this letter and the
siege of Same, has shown that the siege lasted from October of 189 B.c. to the end of
January, 188.1 Thus the letter must have been written sometime between October of
189 and late January of 188 (or early February, 188 B.c., allowing time for the news of
Same’s fall to reach Rome).
In line r the restoration of the name of the Roman official who presided over the Senate
introduces a nice point in chronology and just might allow us to be more precise in our
dating of the letter. That this official was a consul is evident from his title of [or] parnyos
im[arlos. The two consuls for 189 B.c. were M. Fulvius Nobilior and Cn. Manlius
Vulso, but neither was in Rome at the end of the year: Fulvius was in Same, as the letter
itself informs us, and Manlius Vulso was in Asia Minor (Livy 38. 35. 1). The solution
appears to rest upon the deviation of the Roman calendar from the dates of the solar
year. The extent of this deviation is seen in the statement by Livy (37. 4. 4) that the
eclipse of the sun in 190 B.c. occurred on the fifth day before the Ides of Quinctilis (July
11), while modern computations have established the fact that it really happened on
t “Te consul M. Fulvius et le Si¢ge de Samé,” B.C.H., 54 (1930): I-41 (=Etudes, V, 249-86). It should
also be noted here that the title which Fulvius bears in the letter, orparnyés, is of little value in deter-
mining the date of the letter, for in this period such a title was used for either a consul or a proconsul,
After Fulvius’ consulship was over, his military command in the East was prorogued for a year (Livy.
38. 35. 3). .
2 For this whole matter and its connection with Fulvius see the remarks of Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 36-38
(=Etudes, V, 280-81).

227
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

March 14 of that year.3 Keeping this in mind, together with the fact that the Varronian
year of 565 was intercalary, we find that the Ides of March for 188 B.c. actually fell on
November 19 or 20 of 189 B.c. This becomes important when we realize that the con-
suls for 188 B.c., M. Valerius Messala and C. Livius Salinator, were inaugurated as
consuls on the Ides of March in 188 B.c. (Livy 38. 35. 7). Because of the calendar
deviation this inauguration of the new consuls actually took place on November 19 or
20, 189 B.c.4_ Therefore, the presiding officer to be restored in the first line of the letter
must be one of the consuls for 188 B.c. Since the available space at the beginning of the
line is rather short for the name M. Valerius Messala to appear, Pomtow restored the
name of C. Livius.5
One final point on this interesting document is worth mentioning. It concerns the
fact that M. Fulvius in particular was directed to investigate the murders at a time when
he was fully occupied with the siege at Same. This could be interpreted to mean that
the murders took place on the island of Cephallenia itself or in the vicinity, where
Fulvius could begin his investigations without delay. It has been observed that in this
period pirates were active in the area and might very well have been responsible.6 To
blame the Aetolians is unwarranted, for, if the Delphians had any sort of evidence,
however flimsy, of Aetolian complicity, we may be sure thay would have exploited it to
the full. In that case, surely, there would have been some reference to it in the letter.
Nevertheless, lack of evidence is not proof of innocence.

3 G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, IV, 1 (Turin, 1923), 368-69.

4 Holleaux, loc. cit. If, as some think, the Varronian year 564 was intercalary (this is doubtful, how-
ever), the inauguration would have taken place on December 12 or 13 of 189 B.c. Holleaux rightly
admits that the matter of such precise dating may be open to scepticism, but just as rightly he maintains
that the Ides of March of the Varronian year 566 could not have preceded the beginning or the course
of the month October, 189 B.c., or have fallen later than about mid-February, 188 B.c.
5In S.I.G.3, 611, n. 1, approved by Holleaux, op. cit., p. 3, n. 2 (=Etudes, V, 250, n. 2).
6 Daux, op. cit., pp. 262-63.

228
 a,
EPISTULA LICINIT CUIUSDAM
AD AMPHICTIONES 186 B.C. ?
HHOBSOOT
OHHHSOOSOOSAOHT
OHHH
OHOSHSSHHSHSSHgygg
L

BIBLIOGRAPHY. L. Couve, B.C.H., 18 (1894), no. 895, pp. 240ff.; H.

Pomtow, Philologus, 54 (1895): 358, n. 3; G. Colin, B.C.H., 24 (1900): r02ff.; G.
Blum, B.C.H., 38 (1914): 29; M. Holleaux, Revue des études anciennes, 19 (1917):
77f.; H. Pomtow, in Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 826 K; P. Roussel,
B.C.H., 56 (1932): 32-36; G. Daux, Delphes au II® et au I siecle (Paris, 1936),
app. VIII, pp. 675-78; R. Flacelitre, Fouilles de Delphes, Ill, fasc. 4 (1954), no.
160; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 47.

DESCRIPTION. Quadrangular base of gray limestone with a frame of plain

molding; broken at top and on right and left sides. Height: 0.89 m. Width:
0.67 m. Thickness: 0.77 m. On the same stone is a decree of Delphi from
about the middle of the second century B.c. (O.G.L.S., 150= Fouilles de
Delphes, Ill, 4, no. 161). The contrast between the lettering of our document
and the decree is striking: that of the decree is very carefully executed in small,
thick letters with apices, while that of our document is work of a different type,
with larger letters and less-regular spacing.

[Méapr]os Auxivios Macpx[ov (?) AevKoddos (?) orparnyds (2) Kat 5%-]
[ua] pyor Kat 4 odyKAntos "Audixtio[or xaipew: ot areorad-|
[ue] vor rap’ tudv mpecBevrai Alakida[s,........0006+ ]
[.a]s, Mvacidapos, avdpes KaAol Kal wyabol, eiceA[Odvres]
[e]is tiv ovyKAnrov, SueAeynoay mrepl dv abro[ds are-]
[a]rcAKerte Kal 4 adyKAntos amedé£ard re a[drovs]
[Pp] Aodpdves Kabdre mpoofkev trap’ avdpav Ka[Adv]
Kayabav cmeataApévous Kat Sujxovoev émrys[eAds |
[w]epi rev Kpitypiov Kol Yjdwv tov ’Audieriov[3—-4"]
fe) [wep]i rovtwr edokev odtws amoxpiOvan dr[]
[od] re adaipetobau ovre Siddveu vopilopue[v detv.]

229
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Based on Daux. 1 Daux restores the official’s name without mark of interrogation. Pomtow
restores Auxivios Macp[kov vids T'éras, bmaros ‘Pwpaiwy and refers the entire document to the
“Scandal of 125” when a huge deficit in the treasury was discovered. 4 xeya6ot, Flaceliére.
6 Couve transcribed AJTEAEIZATO, which was followed by Colin, Holleaux, and Roussel.
Daux reports that there is no iota on the stone. 9 ’Audixrior[ixdv] or ’Apdurridv[wr].
II voldpe[vor, Blum; vouilope|v], others; vopiLope[y Setv], Daux, followed by Flaceliére.

COMMENTARY. Although the freedom of the Amphictyonic League had been

guaranteed by the Peace of Nicias in 421 B.C., its freedom was often one in name only.
The control of the League was a constant source of rivalry among the Greek states and
often led to political intrigue, bribery, and violence. During the third century the
Aetolians actually directed affairs at Delphi as they saw fit, making the League a political
tool. Delphi then took on a more cosmopolitan character and became the second
capital of the League.’ And, although nominally an independent state, it found the
Aetolians and their subjects all too frequently intervening in its domestic affairs. Thus,
when Roman arms overthrew the Aetolian confederacy and brought freedom to Delphi
toward the end of 191 B.c., the city and the League had hopes for a brighter future. The
Delphians have been aptly described as opportunists,? quick to sense the turn of events
and the emergence of a new order. We are not surprised, therefore, that they took
immediate steps to profit by the confused conditions in Greece, to make the League more
independent, and to play a more profitable role in its administration. They cultivated
the Romans from the very beginning and succeeded in obtaining from them one docu-
ment after another to establish Roman backing for their political status.3
The greatest obstacles to their plans were the Thessalians, ancient masters of the League,
and the Aetolians. For, although the Aetolians no longer controlled affairs at Delphi,
they stubbornly refused to concede defeat. But the quick action of the city in gaining
Roman recognition of its freedom and in evicting Aetolian property owners had done
much to check any future encroachment on the city and the sanctuary. The control of
the League, however, soon passed into the hands of the Thessalians, whose power was
clearly expressed in the reorganization of the League in about 190-186 B.c.4 Their
supremacy did not go unchallenged, for from 190 to 168 the Aetolians,s’ Macedonians,
and Thessalians all struggled for control. But no single state achieved sufficient voting
power to endanger Delphi, whose ambition was simply to maintain her independence
within the city and the sanctuary. In this she was successful.
After Pydna (168 3.c.) the previous Roman attitude of good will and philhellenism
underwent a change. Greece was free, but Rome was skeptical. Three times Rome
1 Daux, op. cit., p. 219.
2 Ibid., p. 313.
3 See the letter of Acilius Glabrio, No. 37; the letter of Spurius Postumius, No. 1, Documents A-B;
the letter of the consul C. Livius (Salinator), No. 38.
4 Daux, op. cit., pp. 280-92.
5 The Aetolians were excluded by name from the League, but through the votes of the Aenianians,
Locrians, and the Dorians of the Metropolis their influence and pressure were very real. See ibid.,
pp- 307ff. Even Heraclea represented Aetolian interest.

230
EPISTULAE

had left Greece free; four times would be unthinkable. Thenceforth the political im-
portance of the Amphictyonic League all but disappeared, for there was simply no part
left for it to play in the political life of the Greek states. Nevertheless, the various
members of the League still fought over its control, for the sending of representatives
became a matter of pride and honor. And, although the general distribution of the
Amphictyonic votes had been settled in the period of the reorganization before Pydna,
enough rivalry remained for the privilege of sending the representatives that within the
member states individual cities and groups quarreled frequently.”
Somewhere within this background of second-century Delphi and the League is to be
found the reason that prompted the Roman Senate, upon request, to send the present
letter to the Amphictyons. The unfortunate lacuna of the first line and the extreme
brevity of the concluding lines complicate its dating and interpretation. But Roussel
and Daux have advanced noteworthy theories. The main difficulties center on three
crucial points.
1. The xpitrpia cai bjgo. tov Audixtidvav. The difficulty of this phrase lies in the
fact that we know of two periods in the history of the League in which there were dis-
putes or quarrels involving the votes. The first is the period before Pydna, especially
around the years 190-184 B.C. (reconstitution of the League), in which were decided the
important questions of what states were to be admitted and in what manner the total
number of votes was to be distributed among them. The second begins in about 166
B.C., when we hear of several disputes on the local level concerned with votes within
single states. The words themselves do not admit of a positive interpretation, and the
decision of the Senate “neither to take away nor to give”’ is equally obscure. Then, too
Kpitnpa means either “judgments, decisions” or “‘tribunals.’” Roussel believed the
whole phrase meant “judgments concerning Amphictyonic votes,’ making pjdor
depend upon xpirjpic.8 And Daux is ready to believe that, if the phrase does refer to
the internal organization of the League, the document must be dated prior to Pydna.
The phrase, however, is not precise enough to allow us to make positive statements.
We must look elsewhere for further evidence.
2. The Envoys. Fortunately, the two envoys, Mnasidamos and Aiakidas, may be of
additional help in dating the letter. A secretary of the Amphictyons in the period of its
reorganization was a Corinthian named Mnasidamos, and it is just possible that he might
be the envoy of our letter. In 191-190 B.c. we know that a certain Aiakidas was
strategos of the Thessalians, and he could have exercised the duties of representative to the
League.!° This may be coincidental, but at least it may be used to lend support to a
date before Pydna.

6 Ibid., p. 343. Throughout the Hellenistic period there was also a decline in the importance of the
Delphic oracle. See H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle?, I (Oxford, 1956), 260ff.
7 For the quarrels after Pydna see Daux, op. cit., chap. VI, pp. 326ff.
8 Roussel, op. cit., p. 35. For a different interpretation see also Holleaux, op. cit., p. 80, n. 3.
9 S.1.G.3, II, 613 (=Daux, op. cit., pp. 281ff., ll. 1-2), for Mnasidamos.
10 See I.G., IX, 2, 24, and Daux, op. cit., p. 677.

231
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

3. The Roman Magistrate. A third piece of evidence that might suggest a date before
Pydna would be most welcome. Daux (and Blum) soon saw that in 186 B.c. there was a
praetor peregrinus called M. Licinius Lucullus, whose name would fit the lacuna of line 1
very nicely. Such a date for the letter would correspond well with the reorganization
of the League, the period in which we would expect quarrels to be most prevalent."
When one considers these three points as a whole, one must admit that there is a
strong possibility that the date of the letter is 186 B.c., but, as Daux himself admits, it is
still only a possibility. All that we may safely say is that, perhaps in 186 B.c., some con-
troversy avout Amphictyonic votes and tribunals (or judgments) became so involved
that the Roman Senate was asked its opinion; the Senate answered that nothing (votes ?)
should be given or taken away. There the matter must rest. The attempt by Pomtow
to refer this letter to the deficit in the Delphian treasury in the last quarter of the second
century has little to support it.1?
1! Daux, op. cit., pp. 677-78. For the praetorship of M. Licinius Lucullus see Livy 39. 18. 1 and
Broughton, Magistrates, I, 371.
12 Daux, op. cit.,p. 676.

232
 40
EPISTULA AUT MAGISTRATUS AUT
LEGATI ROMANI DE PERSEO REGE
AD AMPHICTIONES 171-170 B.C.

HHOEGGOOOSOSHD
TS SS OHUTSSOHOGSSHVHHHASHHSSHHSSH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. Pomtow, Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie und Padagogik,

153 (1896): 760; A. Nikitski, Journal du ministére de l’instruction publique, April,
1906, pp. 174ff., with photograph of squeeze (deceptive, since the letters had
been penciled in); A. J.-Reinach, B.C.H., 34 (1910): 249-53, with excellent
photograph; H. Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 643; G. Colin,
Fouilles de Delphes, Il, 4 (1930), no. 75, pp. 108-16, with Plate X, 3; G. Daux,
Delphes au II® et au I® siécle (Paris, 1936), pp. 319-25; M. I. Rostovtzeff,
S.E.H.H.W., Ill (1941), 1460-61, n. 14; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I
(New York, 1951), no. 71, pp. 184-85; E. Bikermann, R.E.G., 66 (1953): 486-
87; P. Meloni, Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone, Annali Univer. Cagliari
XX (Rome, 1953), pp. 241-43; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient
Roman Statutes, no. 29.

DESCRIPTION. Stele of white marble found at Delphi in 1887. Maximum

dimensions: height, 0.44 m.; width, 0.26 m.; thickness, 0.06 m.; height of
letters, 0.006 m. It may have formed part of the famous monument of
Aemilius Paulus. The lettering is small and carefully executed, omicron and
theta being smaller than the other letters.

233
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

A. Pomtow, following Nikitski

[.. rév x] ePeorand[twr] b[---------- 2-222 -2- eee een ee ]

[hammer ] Saws adroit of *A[upuctioves - - - - = = - - == ~~ 2-2 ee ]
| Sheen ]ynre rots Beots xal------- = = 5 9 -- 5 2 - =e wm ew ew awe ]
[...] S[eoe] xfjre xabads mPa [Ade - - - --------------
=~ - = =e w= ]
Tlepoga rape 76 KabjKov [era Tob atparedpatos ets AeApovs mrapedbetv ev rie
exexerpicce |
[rO]puTTvOiwv: od Sixcuov dé a[vvdAws rv e&v exeivov ote Tapiévar ovTE TOD
xenaTnpiov peréexew]
otte Ova ove aywvwv o[tre Tob "AudixtiovKod avvedptov Tob Kowod THV
+ ~ + > 7 a” a> a / A a ~

EdAjvwv. exetvos yep] ¢ / > ~ \

10 erreoT7&oaTo Tovs Trépav To[b "Iatpov oikobvras BapB&pous, ot Kat mpoTEpov TOTE
> Ul ih / AW > ~ 4 a \ / /

en” ayabar prev]

ovlevi, emt KatadovAdoe dé [Tdv ‘ENjvwv arcvrwyv svvabpoicbevtes eis THY
“EAA eveBocdAov Kort]
emoTparevourtes emt TO tepo[v Tod "AmdAAwvos rob IIvbiov ro ev AeXdois,
Sicevoovpevor Siaprré-|
[o]ou kat AMS avedety
eg ~
adro,
sek
ervxyov
”
m[apa\ TobA Feodlon THs
io
mpoonKkovons
,
Timwplas,
/
Kol \ ot€
TA€ioro. amddovro.|
mrapeBn dé Kat Ta yevoueva TH B[P Hudv TH rarpt adrod dpkia Kal Tas cvvOjKas, as
/ A My Ni / \ ¢€ Je ~ ~ \ ? a a \ \ 7 a

adTos avevewouto.|
15 [x]at OpédiKas wev ovtas juweTtlepous dirovs Kal cuppcyous KaTamoAcunous
\ A \ + ¢€ / / \ te /

avaotatous émoinaev. *ABpov-]

Todw dé, dv jets mepreAcBopev Talis mpds adrov cvvOnKaus pirov hudv dvTa Kat
/ a“ ¢€ aA / A \ i} y\ /, / € ~ + \

avppaxov, e&é-|
Badev éx ths Bacireias. mpecBelutas 5€ mapa te TOV “EAAjvwv Kat r@v Baoréwv
arrooTeANopevous|
eis “Papnv rept ovppayias toy [wev OnBaiwy Katerovticev, &Adous S€é &AAWS
ExTOOWY TroLnaa erreBcAETO. |
[z]Anv ets TobTo 7ADEv arrovoias [wore Kal THY avyKANTOV Hudv PappcKo.s
\ > A > > / ee \ \ , ¢ ~ &

avaddaoar év vdu elye. Addores dé &dbn-|

20 podvro tHv erevbepiay dia TO[v exetvou eicBordv. ev dé AitwAlau wdAEudv TE Kat
povous €Bovdev-|
[caro] Kat dAov 70 €Ovos €i[s] tapalyas Kal ordoes KaTéoTnOEV. Kal KaTe m&ONS
\o@ WW, ’ \ \ / fd \ \ ,

ths “Edd8os yei-|

[pra]ra mpcoowr dieréAer, Ada [TE KaKc emwoovpevos Kal Karadeydpevos Tods ek
TOV TOAEwr puycdas. |
[xo]t duapbetpwv tods mpoeornKdr[as, dua dé Kat Ta TAAON Oeparredwv, ypewKorias
TE emnyyeNe- |

234
 EPISTULAE

[To K]ai\ vewrepropods erroler Kar&S[nAov movovpevos nv exer »

mpoclpeow mpds TE
tovs “ENnvas Kol rods ‘Pw-|
,
25 [patolus. > ae
&& dv cvpBeBynxe[v] totsa ITe[ppouBotsa kal rots~ Oerradols Kal totsa
Airwhots actos trepure-|
[cctv] ovpdopais, rods re BupBepous fo[Bepwrépous eri Karauarhvan tots "EXdAnow.
mpos d€ Huds x moAAod xp0-|
[vou emBu]udv ror€uov, dws &BonO[rrovs judas KoroAaBay pndevds evavTiovpévou
tasxs “EAA ‘ENn-|
[vidas 77d]Aets Karadovduonra m[ cous, rov te I'évOiov tov "DAAupiov yphwaow
avateioas Kal” judy]
™
enaveotnoe|v. 1
Hdwévec te tov BaotAléa, didov Tuerep pporxov, Sv
huérepov dvra Kat ovupcyov,
Evcvdpov éreBov-|
30 ; bv Kaupov
[Aevev avede]iv, KaB” p croAvdp|evos
vou. iy edyty
Thy €Byn) els AeAdods emropeveTo,
p
ovdev ppovricas odd€]
> \ / ? \

[tis mapa Tob] Geod m&ow Tots rapwywol[pévors mpds adrov Sedoperyns cadadetas
ovde ev Adywi Tronoe-|
[wevos, Ore dra] py[e]e 7) mapa mavtwr avO[pamwy vevopuropern KaOépwors Kel
aovrla THs TéAEws TOV AeApdv]
[tots te “EAAnow | Kot BapBdpous ex movt[os ypovou - - -----------------
“==7] bE Pg le ice Se ReEr
[5 atic Cee eo] Tw Budes emt me | torov Pe Sa,

] Kowdv
+7]
elpalu -----------------------------
Dom ee Sto Koa
teat

- eee ee eee ee ee ee ee eee ]

[Ste, ohcanyon. Jovr [o ---
icone RTP(OGOaCOT|oa| VOLE Narn eateraie ]
ese ree Spores a0T0|!| olioc| = = = = atm etn a> = ]
[iere
Mee rors Ceca KO |e mine a= Sam 2 een) = ]
[...]8[vov]Kire Kabers emBa [Are duiv. —"Iote pev obv mp@rov |
[ITep] oda mapa 76 KabAKov [era orparids eADovra. eis EopTny |
[7B] [TvOiwv- ob Sixouov b€ aladds exeivov nv Kowwvetv dpi |
[od] re [O] voy odre ayawvwv o[vre Tavnyuplowy ovoapdas, e7ret|
font ? A

émeamdéaauto Tovs mépav To[6 "Iotpov BapBdpous, ot én’ ayabar pev]

aA” / Cope teat es ~ A
10

235
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

ovfevi, emi katadovrAdoer 5é [Hs “EAAdbos 76 mpiv edwpunOnoay, Kat,|

a /

emuotparevoartes emt 70 lep[ov 70 ev AeAdois, Sucvoovpevor avA7-|

> / k ae Ae A Me A Xr A re) / Aq

oa Kal avercty adrd, ervyov m[apa Tob Oeod THs akias Tipwpias.|
TTapéBy Sé Kat ra yevoper[a] rO[e warp dpkia, & adros avexatvnioer’|
[x]al Opéuxas pév, dvras yperé[pous cuppcyous, exparnae: °*ABpov-|
\ ~ / + € / ie b] 4 > Pe
15
[z]oAw Sé, dv nets tepreAcBopev [rats mpos Didvarov avvOjKaus, e€€-|
[B]aAev ek tis Buctretas: mpeaBelutas d€ rape OnBoaiwv éoraduevous |
[e]is “Pwynv rept ovppayias TO[t vavaylas dédAwi extrodwv errovjoaro.|
> € / \ / a“ / / >? \ >? oe

[IT] Any eis todT0 HADev arovoias [dore, weya Te HyoUpevos Tapa Tovs Gp-|
20 [k]ous 70 rH eAcvbepiay Sia TO[v Ferepwv otparny@v dobeicav apavi-|
\ si >? / \ ~ ¢€ / ~ aA > /

[Ce]uv rau drov 76 EOvos els Tapalyas Kal ordoers euBaAAew, oddev et 47]
“A id \ om” > \ \ 4 > / > \ > \

[po] GAc mpcoowy dueréAer, GAA, [wdvTa ovyyewr, Kal TO TARGOS Oeparredwy,|
~ 4 / > / 4 / \ \ a a

[kat] Siapbetpwr tods mpoeornKd|Tas, ypewkorias Te aAoyioTws émnyyee-|

\ / \ / / > / > /

[ro K]al vewrepiopovds erroter, KaTad[erKvds NV axYoin améxOevay pos Tods

Bed-|
25 [riat]ous: e&€ dv ovpPeByKe[v] tods ITe[pparBovs Kat Oecaadovs Seuvais
eptre-|
[cety o]updopats, Tovs te BapB&pouvs do|Bepwrépous ert emorjvor. Ket,
peya-|
[Aov emOu] udv troA€uov, dtrws, aBonO[7jTovs buds KaradaBadv, Taxa TAS
Mn-]
[vidas 7d]Aers KaradovAwaonras m[d&oas, “Apferadpar te tad. “TAAvpion dovov
erre-|
[BovAevoe]v, Edpevec re tov Bacrr|éa, Pidov jutv Kal ovppayov ovra,
eToAun- |
30 [cev evedped]ew [Kk] a0” dv Kaipdv, aroAvop|evos edynv, eis AeAdods Fev,
od ppov-|
[ticas THs Tob] Oeod ma&aw Tots mapayivon|évois vevoioperns KaOLEepwmcews,
ovde|
[tnpyjoas Hv] oxoln mapa mévtwv avO[pdrwry aopdAcvav TO bueTEpov tepov
ev Tots|
[“EAAnow opoiws] Kat BapB&pors ex mavrd[s ypdovov - - - - - - - - -]
RSAoer ea|tw buds emi méalt--------------- ]
35 leer oaets Strike stet |v kowwvet[ - ------------------ ]
Ye bee ob chris, Alen cg T@|v dAA[wy - ------------------- ]

There is room on the stone for two lines before the visible tau of our first line. 2 Pomtow read
ovre v[- -, but this is almost certainly wrong. Colin says, “peut-étre trace d’un O aprés ONT,”
and from the photograph one can clearly see that the pitted surface of the stone led Pomtow into
thinking of an alpha. Dim and deceptive traces of grooves are visible at this point on the stone.
3 Viereck (notes) follows Colin here, as everywhere in the present text. 5 Colin believes the letter
before nre is round. 6 The restorations of the text from here to 1. 33 are all based on the edition by

236
EPISTULAE

Nikitski. His restorations were made only to illustrate the general meaning and were not intended
to be exact and accurate in detail. Pomtow used them for the edition in S.I.G.3, and Colin ac-
cepted many of them. However, Colin believed that the stele had been built into the monument
of Aemilius Paulus in Delphi. He was forced, therefore, according to his calculations of the space
available on the monument, to shorten the length of each line of the inscription. This is an as-
sumption on his part and is not to be accepted as fact (cf. Daux, op. cit., p- 320, n. 2). 14 After
yevoper|cc] Colin notes that “un T est sir, et ensuite un Q est probable,” but Reinach agrees with
Pomtow’s reading. 20 Colin thinks he sees OYTO at the beginning of the line with only
enough space before it for one letter. Nikitski read nothing before THN. Reinach adopted
povvro from a reading by Bourguet. Colin seems able to distinguish JNTQ at the beginning of
]. 21, but Reinach reads KAJ. In 22 the traces of letters are very difficult to read as far as ADZQN,
but Colin thinks of Y4A or YAA before rpccowv, not PISTA; Reinach has ra mpacowv. 25
Colin sees TOY, not TOIZ. 27 The theta of éBon6[- - seems to have been superimposed on a
tau, almost totally obliterating it. 30 The engraver first engraved ATTOAAOM, but then an
upsilon was engraved on the second lambda. 31 The brackets are missing in S.I.G.3 for this line.
32 Colin believes that Pomtow’s original reading of YXOJH is more reasonable than Nikitski’s
PXEIH. 33 Colin sees the trace of a round letter at the end. 34 “A la fin, TAZ trés net,” Colin;
it is visible on the photograph. Reinach, ézi wAe[iorov - - .

COMMENTARY. Eumenes II of Pergamum arrived at Rome in 172 B.c. and ad-

dressed the Senate on the matter of Perseus, King of Macedonia, and his dynastic plans
for expansion and power.! He began by outlining the Macedonian king’s abilities, his
military frame of mind, his prestige and popularity among the Boeotians and the
Achaeans, and the legacy of war against Rome which he had inherited from his father.
Then he turned from general observations to specific charges:

Abrupolim, socium atque amicum vestrum, regno expulit; Arthetaurum Illyrium, quia scripta ab
€0 quaedam vobis comperit, socium item atque amicum vestrum, interfecit; Eversam et Callicritum
Thebanos, principes civitatis, quia liberius adversus eum in concilio Boeotorum locuti fuerant
delaturosque ad vos quae agerentur, professi erant, tollendos curavit; auxilium Byzantiis adversus
foedus tulit; Dolopiae bellum intulit; Thassaliam et Doridem cum exercitu pervasit ut in bello
intestino deterioris partis auxilio meliorem affligeret; confudit et miscuit omnia in Thessalia
Perrhaebiaque spe novarum tabularum, ut manu debitorum obnoxia sibi optimates opprimeret.?

The purpose of Eumenes in making such a speech was to convince the Senate that
Perseus posed a danger to the peace of Greece and that steps should be taken to halt his
growing power. And, although many of the senators must have felt that some of the
charges brought against Perseus by Eumenes were motivated by his hatred of the
Macedonian king, his speech, at any rate, made a profound impression upon the majority
ofthem. It was considered so important, in fact, that a cloak of secrecy was thrown over

1 Livy 42. 11-14 gives us a lengthy account of his visit and speech to the Senate. See ie Whe Wile
Benecke, C.A.H., 8 (1930): 256-57; F. Geyer, R.E., s.v. “Perseus,” cols. 1004-5; Meloni, op. cit., pp.
150-66, with a wealth of detail and discussion. For the social and political conditions in Greece at
this time see A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 11 (1933): 309ff.; Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 611-15,
and III, 1460-61, n. 14; Meloni, op. cit., chap. III; E. Bikermann, R.E.G., 66 (1953): 479-506; cf.
the S.C. de Thisbensibus (No. 2) and the standard histories of the period.
2 Livy 42. 13. 5-9.

237
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

that particular meeting of the Senate. The general public knew only that Eumenes had
spoken. The contents of the speech were kept an official secret until after Pydna.3
Diplomatic envoys were sent out that very year to regain or strengthen the support of
the Hellenistic kings for the cause of Rome. A propaganda mission was dispatched to
the Greek mainland under Q. Marcius Philippus, who met with Perseus himself at the
Peneus River. The envoy’s purpose in meeting Perseus was to win time for the
mobilization and transportation of Roman military forces, hardly a noble procedure.*
But it was successful. In the course of the negotiations Marcius repeated the charges
made against Perseus by Eumenes and insinuated that Perseus may have tried to murder
Eumenes on his way home from Rome.’
Not long after the conference at the Peneus the war officially began (171 B.c.). It was
brought to an end with the Roman victory in 168 B.c. at Pydna.
With these facts in mind let us examine our document. That it is a letter can be
deduced easily from the words jer [€povs] and jpuéas (Il. 15 and 34) and from the use of
the second person of the verb 8[ov] «fre and the first person of ets repreAcBoper (Il.
6 and 16).
Despite its fragmentary state enough significant phrases are extant to identify the
subject matter. These phrases are the following: Perseus, contrary to what is proper
om (l'7); the Pytiiane games (198) meee eee marched with an army against the
Temple [of Apollo in Delphi] ....... (M12) .2 28 and ‘to, destroy.it (2 13)> aes the
Thracians being our [friends and allies] ... (I. 15), ........ and he expelled [Abrou] polis
from his kingdom ..... (isin 5=10)}Se ee he came to such a degree of madness ....
(ENO) tec eron ence [he planned to murder] King Eumenes .... (ll. 29-30). These frag-
ments and the others remind one strongly of the list of charges brought by Eumenes
against Perseus in 172 B.c. (Livy 42. 13. 5-9, quoted above). A close study will reveal
that our document is actually a listing of those very same charges. Nikitski was the
first to use the passages in Livy and Polybius to restore the lacunae in the document.
Since the inscription was found at Delphi it must have been addressed either to the
city or to the Amphictyons at Delphi. In view of its subject matter, clearly one of very
broad political implications (and therefore of interest to all the Greeks rather than one
individual city), it was almost certainly addressed to the Delphian Amphictyons.6 They
in turn could have made it known to all the representatives at one of their meetings.
3 Livy 42. 14. 1: Haec oratio movit patres conscriptos. Ceterum in praesentia nihil, praeterquam fuisse
in curia regem, scire quisquam potuit: eo silentio clausa curia erat. Bello denique perfecto, quaeque dicta ab
rege quaeque responsa essent emanavere.
4 See F. W. Walbank, “A Note on the Embassy of Q. Marcius Philippus, 172 B.c.,” J.R.S., 31 (1941):
82-93. Meloni follows Walbank’s chronology of the events, but he also follows De Sanctis (Storia
dei Romani, IV, 1, 398) in regarding Livy 42. 36. 8-9 as of Polybian origin. This causes a difficulty ;
see F, W. Walbank, J.H.S., 75 (1955): 194 (review of Meloni).
5 Livy 42. 40-43; Polybius 22. 18; Appian Maced. 11; Diodorus 29. 33; see Meloni, op. cit., pp.
177-78, 180-82, 185-91. For the attempt on the life of Eumenes see ibid., pp. 162-64. It took place
at Delphi in sacrato loco ante aras (Livy 42. 40. 8) on the return of Eumenes from Rome to his
kingdom.
© See Nikitski, loc. cit., Colin, loc. cit., and Meloni, op. cit., pp. 241-42.

238
EPISTULAE

Who wrote it? King Eumenes is excluded, for his name appears in the document in
the third person (I. 29). Considering the subject matter again and the obviously
belligerent tone toward the Macedonian king, it could only have emanated from some
Roman source. And, if it is true that the stele had once formed part of the monument
of Aemilius Paulus, as Colin thinks, then the matter of Roman authorship is virtually
assured. However, there is no solid proof that such is the case.
The important historical issue at stake here is the reason why Rome would even write
such a letter. The motive may be found in the political atmosphere prevailing in the
Greek states on the mainland on the eve of the third Macedonian War. The Greeks in
the various cities were divided into several groups, each group having its own views
about Rome and Macedonia: some of the Greeks were completely pro-Roman, others
were toadies to Perseus, while a third group preferred the Romans to Perseus only as
the lesser of two evils.?7_ The situation was explosive: the dynastic policy of Perseus, the
divided loyalties of Greeks, the fear of a resurgent Macedonia in the mind of Eumenes,
and the growing belief that war between Rome and Macedonia was inevitable. Then
the speech of Eumenes to the Roman Senate clearly turned Roman minds even more
swiftly to the contemplation of war. The atmosphere was charged. But preparations
were necessary. The mainland of Greece was an indispensable military theater of
operations, one to be held at all costs. Therefore, the adherence of Greece to the Roman
cause was a necessity. The Greeks had to be convinced, not merely overwhelmed by
military superiority. Hence, diplomacy and propaganda were employed. Personal
envoys were sent in large numbers to win over those Greeks of wavering sentiments and
to retain the loyalty of the pro-Romans. No efforts were spared to secure friends in
Greece in the period 172-170 B.c. Therefore, a general proclamation by the Delphian
Amphictyons to their members concerning the crimes allegedly committed by Perseus
might be an effective means to help achieve that end. The present document would
seem to be just such a device of propaganda.®
If it is a piece of propaganda, and I believe that it is, then clearly it must have been
written before the end of the war (168 B.c.). Colin thought it was written and set up on
public display after Pydna, but his view seems mistaken.? Propaganda serves no purpose
after the objective has been gained. The early years of the war (171-170 B.C.) appear to
be the period in which the letter was written.
7 Livy 42. 30.
8 See esp. Rostovtzeff, loc. cit.
9° The arguments of Daux (op. cit., pp. 322-25) on this matter appear to be decisive.

239
 4]
EPISTULA (MAGISTRATUS ROMANI ?)
AD ERESIOS Second Century B.c.

QHOVOUOSEROOEETOOETEOEETEOETESOSSESETESEESSSSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, [.G., XII, suppl. (1939), no. 123,
p- 37; S. Accame, Rivista di filologia, 74 (1946): 106.

DESCRIPTION. Stele found in Eresus. Maximum height: 0.12 m.

Maximum width: 0.165 m. Thickness: 0.11 m. Height of letters: 0.008-
0.012 m. Good lettering of the second century B.c.

[Jot tov dAwy [-------------- tre] -

trelopeba yap oT[L-------------- ]
moAeuov, aAAa ma[--------------- ]
ToTEepov TOV Seoy|evwy - ----------- ]
Tov bay rel[----------------- ]
Karta Adyov éy[---------------- |

[...Jv[-------------------- ]

240
EPISTULAE

COMMENTARY. Sometime between 200 and 167 B.c. a league of the Lesbians was
formed for the prosperity and friendly co-existence of its members: Mytilene, Methymna,
Antissa, and Eresus. The event that sparked this new spirit of co-operation on the island
must have been either the defeat of Philip or that of Antiochus, for clearly the freeing of
the island from Ptolemaic domination and the introduction of a new and sterner Roman
policy in Eastern affairs against Philip—and later against Antiochus—must have made the
Lesbians realize that they would have to present a united front in order to achieve the
“common safety’’ as well as the “growth and harmony” mentioned in their treaty.!
The sincerity and strength of the union are attested by its duration, for, with perhaps only
a relatively short interruption, it continued to exist until at least the second half of the
second century A.D. Clearly it enjoyed the favor of Rome. Mytilene, its most power-
ful member, had aided Rome in the war against Antiochus.? Silvio Accame, therefore,
has suggested that the present letter was written in those early days of the league and,
following a suggestion of F. Hiller von Gaertringen, that its author may have been a
Roman praetor. Of this there is no proof.
The city of Eresus certainly had first-hand connections with the Romans, for the pres-
ence of a well-known family of negotiatores in Eresus implies business affairs.3

11.G., XI, 1064 b, ll. 13 and 33. For the history of the league see Accame, op. cit., pp. 104-21.
2 Livy 37. 12. 5: Livius omni classe, cui adiunxerat duas triremes Mitylenaeas, Phocaeam petit.
3 In a list of Eresian proxeni (I.G., XII, suppl. [1939], no. 127, page 39 we have a [IémAvov ’ApéAAuov
Kérr[av? The Arellii had been established on Delos since early in the second century B.c. and from
there, evidently, spread out to other locations. J. Hatzfeld, Les trafiquants italiens dans l’Orient
hellénique (Paris, 1919), has located them on Naxos, Boeotia, and Delos; see his list on p. 385, with
references. To his list should now be added the one from Eresus and another, from Thera (I.G.,
XII, 3 [suppl.], 1643); cf. A.E., 1926, 9. The most interesting of these is the Eresian Publius Arellius
Cotta.

241
 ry
EPISTULA MAGISTRATUS ROMANI
AD AMPHICTIONES Cd.a125.8:C.t

HHOHHHEETTDUUOOOSES
TOTO OOSEESESOSSRESOSSSSSSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Wescher, Etude sur le monument bilingue de Delphes

(= Mémoires présentés par divers savants a I’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,
Ist ser., VIII) (Paris, 1868), pp. 119-26; G. Colin, B.C.H., 27 (1903): 104-21;
M. N. Tod, International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), pp. 19-
20; H.,Pomtow, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 826 A; G. Daux, Delphes
au II® et au I sidcle (Paris, 1936), pp. 376-77;J.A. O. Larsen, “Roman
Greece,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938),
306; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., II (1941), 756.

DESCRIPTION. A badly damaged block discovered by Wescher at Delphi,

now bearing the number 717, which had originally formed part of the
orthostates of the Temple of Apollo. For a sketch of the block and its position
among the other documents of the same dossier see Colin, op. cit., Plate I.
Height: 0.45 m. Width: 0.41 m. Thickness: 0.38 m. Wescher indicates that
the mean height of the letters is 0.005 m.

242
EPISTULAE

J Se eu Maxedo]vicu

Lo. po] puprocrex

— ws d€ Ae|Agot &yovar

: prem MP is eitisi iin = amooté|AAw Soypa.

(oS ES SS es
-- eee eee eee ddy]wa dedope-
TE ee ee
------------------ ml ept Onoa|[v-|
Uri ee ee mm ms em et oe in ie we we lee win
-------- eee ---- eee Kal wye-
[Ady ---------------------------+---------- thet
--------------------e ] cvpBov-
[Ato - -------------------------------------
+--+ +e
--------------- ddyp|aros of
[Hoos Coos et Gas 6S eee SS © SS Oe ee ae eee ee Ss ee ee

ee é|m adrots te
[ON ee ep eae tg ada ako ana) aaa wade rape) eyo yetuseda) cparaneve? ancl = Teyapome

----------------- ee €lori Kal o-

[Spied Sak 2 eS Bee Sa ee ee ee oh re eee: ee ee eee

Sue aoe SS erg ee oe Jous Kat ou

[-----------
or rrr rr rrr rer eee err eee "Al m6AAw|[vos - -
Bessescgzesu0g5o4 ] edpioxw
_y Lae a ee oe eee ranean fecal
wee eee eee ee ee ee ee eee Jou Ko-
[@ws dv------ éx Tov Snpociwy mpayparwy miot|eds Te ila[s patvyrou - - - -
-]ws
[---- rrr re errr ree av|vKAjnrov yéyove[- ---------- Je
avy[KAnt - - - - - epi Tob
[---------
eee ee eee eee eee ] empeucdnobe. vv mplecBev]
ras
omeéaret|[Aa - - -]uv é€av-
[----- émws ----------+------ Je e& ovvkAjrou Sdyparos duets Kpoy[te
------ ]t1 ye-
[----- +--+ eee ee- ]v ows emyednOj. vacat

Text based on Colin, Pomtow, and Viereck (notes). 2 [I'vaios Kopyjdvos Siaévve. orparnyos
dvOdmatos ep Maxedolviaa Pomtow and Viereck. 5 At the beginning: [wyvos (Crénert, in

243
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

notes of Viereck). At the end: JeAw, Colin; aooré]AAw, Pomtow. 13-14 [wept tep@v Kat
Teuevlous Kat ol[Kicewr - - - - - ta@v Tod ’A]mdAAw [vos (CrGnert, in notes of Viereck). 20 The
end of this letter is indicated by a short vacat, and then on the same line begins the catalog of
the Amphictyones (S.I.G.3, 826 B).

COMMENTARY. During the archonship of Eukleidas at Delphi (ca. 125, 119/18, or

118/17 B.C.), a huge deficit was discovered in the treasury of the Pythian Apollo.t The
amount of money was so large and the feelings of so many were aroused that the matter
was brought to the attention of the Roman Senate by thirteen Delphians who had been
sent into exile because of the affair. It was clearly robbery or embezzlement on a grand
scale. After hearing the thirteen Delphians and a counter-embassy, probably composed
of their adversaries, the Senate issued a decree. The decree itself is lost, but the present
letter from the Macedonian governor indicates its essential contents: there is to be an
immediate meeting of the Amphictyonic Council to investigate the matter and to make
an inventory of the total assets of the treasury. The decree of the Senate certainly must
have instructed the governor of Macedonia (who would of course have jurisdiction over
Greece at this time) to write to the Amphictyonic Council and communicate the will of
the Senate. Unfortunately this letter is badly mutilated, but the phrases “treasury,”
“flocks,” “decree of the Senate,” “Apollo,” “that you see to it,” and “that you vote on
the matter in accordance with the decree of the Senate” would indicate that a full
investigation of the deficit was to be made. An extraordinary session of the Council was
duly ordered, an inventory made, and a deficit of fifty talents announced. All other
assets of the treasury, whether Apollo’s or not, were investigated, including the herds
belonging to the temple and the location of the boundaries of the sacred territory.
Responsibility for the loss was determined and a fine against each one was levied. The
entire affair has been called by Georges Daux “The Scandal of 125,” and, although the
date is only approximate, the designation is a happy one.?
When this session of the Council adjourned, appropriately enough a record of the
proceedings was inscribed on the orthostates of the Temple of Apollo. Very large
fragments of this dossier have been found, which, despite their fragmentary nature, show
that there were eight major documents: (1) our letter from the Macedonian governor;
(2) catalog of the Amphictyons, the Hieromnemones, and the Agoratres; (3) speech of
the Amphictyons; (4) estimate of the deficit in the treasury; (5) demarcation of the

‘ For the date of Eukleidas see Daux, op. cit., pp. 622-23; G. Klaffenbach, Gnomon, 1938, p. 20; Daux,
Chronologie Delphique, p. 59. Pomtow, op. cit., 704 E, n. 4, puts his archonship in 117 B.c. but does
not exclude 119/18. Klaffenbach prefers 119/18 or 118/17 B.c., while Daux, with hesitation, says
“vers 125?” and admits that one of the later years is not impossible.
2 The documents relating to the affair were first studied by Wescher and Colin, but the account
given by Daux, op. cit., pp. 372-86 and 699-707, is extremely valuable, not only for the new material
to be found in it, but also for the chronological and prosopographical observations. To study the
documents properly one should begin with the article by Colin and then read the remarks by Daux.
The texts may be found in Dittenberger’s S.I.G.3, II, 826 A-I (no. 826 K has nothing to do with the
affair and actually belongs to an earlier age; see No. 39).

244
EPISTULAE

territory belonging to Apollo; (6) evaluation of the deficit discovered in the accounts
separate from those of Apollo; (7) evaluation of the deficit in the account attributable to
the temple herds; (8) amount of the fine imposed on the “culprits.” Below these
documents was inscribed a decree of C. Avidius Nigrinus, a legate of Trajan, whose
intervention in the affairs of Delphi was necessitated by fresh boundary disputes at that
late date.3
Since the exact year in which this scandal took place cannot be determined, it would
be hazardous to supply the name of the Macedonian governor in the second line, as
Pomtow has done. It may well be, of course, that Cn. Cornelius Sisenna was the
governor who sent this letter to the Council, but, until the exact date of Eukleidas and
the extent of Sisenna’s office can be discovered, I prefer to leave the second line un-
restored.

3 For the decree see C.I.L., Ill, 567 (=ibid., 7303, and cf. suppl., p. 987; S.I.G.3, Il, 827). For C.
Avidius Nigrinus see E. Groag and A. Stein, Prosopographia Imperii Romani?, I (Berlin, 1933), no.
1408.

245
 Br
EPISTULA Q. FABIL MAXIMI
AD DYMAEOS T15i8-Gac
[Stone]

DHGHRHHHDHHHDHDD
DSSS ESSERE SSSSSSSOSSSS99999

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. J. Rose, Inscriptiones Graecae Vetustissimae (Cambridge,

1825), pp. 393 and 4osff.; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., I (1828), 1543; E. L. Hicks, A
Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1882), no. 202; P. Viereck, Sermo
Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. IV, pp. 3-5; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, I (1898),
316; T. W. Beasley, Classical Review, 14 (1900): 162-64; G. Colin, Rome et la
Grece de 200 a 146 avant J.-C. (Paris, 1905), pp. 654ff.; M. Holleaux, Hermes, 49
(1914): 583, n. 4; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II
(1917), 684; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire
(Princeton, 1926), no. 9, p. 261; J. A. O. Larsen, “Roman Greece,” in T.
Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 307; S.
Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946),
Pp- 9-10, 33-34, 149-53; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, 1(New York,
1951), no. 127, p. 319; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of theRoman
Republic, If (New York, 1952), 644; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne,
Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 40.

DESCRIPTION. A marble slab broken in four pieces, discovered by I.

Hawkins in 1797 in the ruins of Dyme in Achaea. It is now in the
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, where I examined it in September of 1967.
It is 0.59 m. high, 0.53 m. wide, and has a maximum thickness of 0.14 m. In
lines 1-2 the letters are 0.015 m. high, but elsewhere only 0.008 m. There is a
small molding at the top, 0.61 m. wide. Very often, but not consistently, the
horizontal central bar of the epsilon is separated from the vertical bar. The
letters are very carefully inscribed.

246
 EPISTULAE

*Emi Beoxddov Adwvos, ypoppare-

os Tob avvedpiov XtparoKéos.
Keéwros Be&Bios Kotvrov Mcéwpos evOvraros ‘Papoiwv Avpai-
wy tots &pxovar Kat ovvédpois Kal THe mdéAeu yaipew: Tov Tept
KudAcnmov ovvedpwv eudanocvtwv ror tept tv ovvrede-
obevraw rap’ duiv ddicnucrwy, Aéyw Sé dep THs eumproe-
ws Kat POopas TOV apy eidwv Kat rdv Snwoolwv ypapypycrwr, dv eye-
yover apxnyos THs dAns avyxyvoews LGoos Tavpopeveos 6
Kal Tods vdpous ypcabas brevavtious TH drodSobelant Tots
10 [A] xowots ba0 ‘Pwpaiwy rodir[eta]e, mepi dv ra xar& pépos Su7j[A] Bo-
pev ev [II] arpous wera rob a[p]ov[ro]s cvpPovdriov: ézret odv of Svampa-
[c] wevor radra epaivovrd por THs xeupiorns Ka[tac] récews
[xa] rapayis Ka[tacKkeviy] movovpevo[s tots “Edgar mao]: od pd-
viov yep] ris mp[o]s aAAnAov[s] aovvedAl a]E[ta] s Kal ype[wxorias of-]
15 [xeta,] GAAX Kat [7]¥s arodeSopervns Kare [K]owsdv rots “EAAn[ow é-]
Aevbepias adorpia Kat rA[s] queré[pa]s mpoapécews: ey[c ma-|
paoyopevwy TOV KaTnyopwr GAnBiwas amodei~ers TA-
gov fev TOV yeyovoTa apynyov [T]@v mpaybevtwv Kat vo-
poypadnoavra emi Katadvce THs amodobelons ToATEt-
20 [a]s Kpivas evoyov elvau Paveérun ra[pleywproa, duoiws dé Kal
[Dop]|picxov ’Eyecbéveos tHv Sapwopy@v tov ovprpagavra
[rot]s eumpjoace Ta apyeia Kol Snudove yptppara, émel Kol
[adros] wpodrdyncev: Tydbeov d€ Nixia rou petra tod Lwaov
[yeyovd]|ra vopoypédor, eet Ehacoov épaiveto AdiKynKods, €-
25 [KéAevox] mpocyewv eis “Pudynv dpxicas, ef’ [|e rhe voupyvica rob év-
[érov unvo|s €ora[et] exe? Kai eudavicas t| Gu €] ai rOv E€vwv orparn-
[ya@u 7d Sd€] av, [7 7] pdrepov era[v] evo[w €i]s olkov, éa[v u]7 AY

1-2 The letters here are larger than in the rest of the text. There is a very small epsilon before
"Emi. 7 APXON, stone. 12 I follow Beasley’s reading of d:y[A]9o|uev ev [TT] arpous. 13
Ka[taoxevny], Colin, followed by Hiller and Viereck (notes), the latter previously having restored
Ka[raBodjv] ; Ka[re&rerpav], Dobree and Hicks. zovodpevo[e trois “EAAnos Go], Wilamowitz
(among the works of Viereck), followed by Hiller and Viereck (notes) ;7) xoAuoréa €or], Dobree,
followed by Boeckh and Hicks; od .d|[vov yap, Wilamowitz, is, Dobree; are, Boeckh. 14
dovvaadar[a] [das], Beasley, followed by Hiller and Viereck (notes); ype[wxozias], Foucart (among
the works of Beasley); ype[éas ris Kar’ i8tav], Dobree and Hicks. 14-15 oixeta], Beasley, who
says he made out a bar that might be part of the alpha. 16 Hicks saw the gamma of éy[w]. 20
ma[p]exwp(n)oo, Beasley, who could not see the rho; this is apparently the only occurence of the
verb and is equivalent to rapéSwxe. 21 Dop|picxor, Boeckh. 22 Beasley saw the sigma of roi]s.
25-26 Tob év[érov unvo]s, Dittenberger, followed by others. 27 Dobree restored é7w]s av [wu
m|pdrevov érd[v]eva[s pols olkov, éc[v 7; but Viereck objected to omws av with the future
indicative. Wilamowitz (among the works of Viereck) suggested ro d0f] av.

COMMENTARY. There are four consulars who could have been the Q. Fabius

247
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Maximus mentioned in line 3: the consul of 145 B.c. (Aemilianus), of 142 B.c. (Ser-
vilianus), of 121 B.c. (Allobrogicus), or of 116 B.c. (Eburnus). Boeckh originally
thought that it was Aemilianus, the date of his consulship being closer to the formation
of Macedonia as a Roman province, but he did not exclude the possibility that it might
be any of the others. However, since the first three of these men were consular pro-
magistrates in Spain or Gaul, it has been thought most recently that Q. Fabius Maximus
Eburnus wrote the letter.!
Dyme, situated on the southern coast of the Gulf of Patrae and at once the most
western of all Achaean cities, is known from Polybius (2. 41) to have been an early
member of the Achaean League in the third century B.c. That it was a city of no small
importance can be gathered from the fact that Polybius also tells us (4. 59) it took a very
active part in the military operations of the League. In addition, one of its citizens, a
certain Miccus, became the dzoarparnyos of the Achaeans.
Our letter gives us direct proof of a revolutionary movement in Dyme after the for-
mation of the province of Macedonia. Achaea was then under the supervision of the
Macedonian governor, and such a movement would naturally have fallen into his
sphere of authority. A certain Sosus was the ringleader of the whole affair, described as
a ovyyvots, meaning here “confusion,” “disorder,” or perhaps “breach of the peace.”
That it was no small episode may be seen in the plans of the conspirators. They must
have established some sort of an organization, for they enacted “laws contrary to the
type of government granted to the Achaeans by the Romans.”’ This implies rather
grandiose plans. The movement had reached the point of violence—the city hall had
been burned down and the records destroyed—when the Dymean odvvedpor sent a
report to the governor. Q. Fabius, in Patrae with his advisory board, listened to the
evidence and passed judgment on the men. Sosus and Phormiscus were found guilty
and were condemned to death. A third conspirator was ordered to Rome to stand
trial. That ended the matter.
It is important to note, as Accame has done, that here Dyme has its own magistrates
and enjoys autonomy within the limits imposed by Rome in 146 B.c. One might also
suggest that Kyllanios was probably the leader of the pro-Roman party.2_A few genera-
tions after the conspiracy of Sosus we learn that Pompeius settled many pirates in Dyme
because at that time it was underpopulated (Plutarch Pomp. 38; cf. Appian Mithr. 96).
Also, in 44 and 27 B.c., it was the site of a Roman colony (Pliny N.H. 4. 4. 13; cf. E.
Kornemann, R.E., s.v. “coloniae,” col. 530).

1 F. Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Fabius,” col. 1794, believed that the writer of the letter was Aemilianus,
but his belief rested basically upon the assumption that he was identical with the Q. Fabius who led a
Roman embassy to Crete in connection with a dispute between Hierapytnia and Itanus. Since that
embassy is now known to have taken place at a later date than he realized, his identification will no
longer hold; see the commentary to No. 14, and cf. Accame, op. cit., p. 149. Broughton, loc. cit., now
believes that it was probably the consul of 116 B.c. who addressed the letter to Dyme. Whether he
was also the Q. Fabius who headed the embassy (ca. 113 B.C.) is unknown.
2 Boeckh and Hicks thought that Kyllanion was the name of a city, Cyllene. For the phrase of mept
with the accusative, see S. Dow, T.A.P.A., 91 (1960): 382-409, esp. 395-409.

248
 at
EPISTULAE MAGISTRATUUM
ROMANORUM AD COLLEGIA Last half of
ARTIFICUM BACCHIORUM second century B.C.
[Squeeze]

HOHHGEDHSOHGHAASOSSHSU
HAAG SHSASSSSHSHGSSSHSsggg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. G. Lolling, Athen. Mitt., 3 (1878), no. 2, p. 140; W.

Dittenberger, I.G., VII (1892), 2413-14; P. Foucart, Revue de philologie, 23
(1899): 257; G. Colin, B.C.H., 30 (1906): 279, n. 1; F. Poland, Geschichte des
griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig, 1909), p. 137; A. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte, 17
(1914): 70-71; G. Klaffenbach, Symbolae ad historiam collegiorum artificum
Bacchiorum (Diss., Berlin, 1914), pp. 24-28; M. Holleaux, Ytparnyds “Yaaros,
Etude sur la traduction en Grec du titre consulaire (Paris, 1918), p. 5, n. 2; F.
Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Mummius,” col. 7a, in the Nachtrdge to XVI (1st half-vol.,
1933), col. 1203; F. Poland, R.E., s.v. “Technitai,” in the Nachtrége to V A (and
half-vol., 1934), cols. 2491 and 2503; R. Herzog, Sitzungsberichte der Kéniglich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1935, p. 9743 G.
Daux, Delphes au II® et au I siecle (Paris, 1936), p. 358, n. 1; M. Segre,
Rivista di filologia, 16 (1938): 259; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., Ill (1941),
1463, n. 22, and 1561, n. 17; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra
acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 2-15; M. Gelzer, Gnomon, 21 (1949): 21-22;
T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Il (New York, 1952),
644-45; H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte? (Munich, 1960), p. 491, n. 4.

DESCRIPTION. Found at Thebes. Mr. Sacantis Symeonoglou, curator of

the museum at Thebes, has kindly sent me a photograph of the stone and a new
squeeze. He has also supplied me with the following dimensions: height,
0.333 m.; width, 0.336 m.; thickness, 0.090 m.; height of letters, 0.008 m.
The lettering is clear and carefully executed, except for line 9, which is much
less legible.

249
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

pons
[MareSovicu]
se JOYIE[.]OI...]
+ ‘Pwpatwr emapyeioa Kat hs éncpyoug [ww]
[ris “EMc8os| ovyywpd tyiv everev rob Avovdoov xa[t]
[rv dv Oe]Gv Kod rod emirNSevparos ob mpoeoT}K [are]
[suds mavrera| ow a&Aevroupyyntous elvou Kat avemora-
[wedrous Kal areA]ets Kal av[er]odd[plous méons elopopG[s]
[kod adrods Kat yluvaikas Kal réxva ews av els yAu [Kiar]
[avdpucnv e€ikw|yrau Kalas mapexadetre. vacat
vacat [a|yabH t¥yn. — vacat
10 [- - 13-14 - - -] otparnyds draros ‘Pwpyoilwv, ro]
[xow® t&v rept] tov Ardvucov text Gv tav én” *Ia| -
[vies Kat “EAAnomd|yrov Kat TOv tep[t rov Kabyyeyo] -
[va Avdvucor - - - - - - ]|KPAT[---------- |

3-4 For the combination “Dionysus and the other gods” Klaffenbach refers to Fouilles de
Delphes, Il, 2, 7, 1. 45. 6 The new squeeze clearly shows AN..2X®O.OY2. 7-8 HAL Kia
avSpujv, Wilamowitz; #Au[Kiav €AQwor, Dittenberger; HAu[Kiav tiv mpoonkovaay, Viereck
(notes). 10 [AevKtos Moppuos], Klaffenbach; [Mcéapxos AeiBios], Accame. 13 Klaffenbach
suggests Kal trois b7r0| Kpat[wvos Zwriyou ovy|nypevors "Atrradvorais yaipew] aut similia.

COMMENTARY. Here we have the remains of two official Roman letters addressed
to the guilds of Dionysiac Artists, the first almost certainly to the Isthmian-Nemean
guild, the second to the Ionian-Hellespontine. The author of the second one, whose
name would have appeared in line 10, could have been either a consul or a proconsul.!
Not enough of this letter is extant to allow us to form any idea of its contents, but the
fact that it is addressed to the Ionian-Hellespontine guild is interesting. No positive
and satisfactory reason has ever been given to account for such a letter’s being published
in Thebes.? The first letter grants the members of the Isthmian-Nemean guild the
privileges of freedom from local liturgies, from the burden of giving quarters to
military personnel, and from every kind of tax, both for themselves and their families.
The most debated question raised by this inscription concerns the identity of the writer.
All early scholars interested in the text believed, in varying degrees of certainty, that he
1 Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 1-2,n.2. The title otparnyos baaros could mean consul or proconsul.
2 The only scholar, to my knowledge, who has seriously tried to explain the presence of the second
letter in the city of Thebes is Klaffenbach, and, although certainly not positive or completely ac-
ceptable, his explanation is worthy of notice: ‘‘Graecia in potestatem Romanorum redacta illius
collegii technitas et ipsos eos adisse, ut sibi liceret etiam posthac veteribus privilegiis usos professionem
suam in Graecia quoque administrare; in quibus optatis explendis videtur etiam constitutum esse de
horum artificum ratione et cum Atheniensibus et cum iis €€ [o0uot cai Newéas intercedenda, sicut
id etiam de his duobus factum esse infra videbimus. Itaque collegium é& "IoOy00 Kat Newéus et
hanc epistulam in lapide incidendam curaverat.” (Klaffenbach, op. cit., p. 28.) Poland op. cit., col.
2510) doubts that the Ionian-Hellespontine guild was even mentioned in the second letter, but I
cannot see how the final lines of our second letter can exclude it. For possible points of contact
between the two guilds see ibid., col. 2504; cf. A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of
Athens (Oxford, 1953), pp. 293-94 and 317.

250
EPISTULAE

was L. Mummius, who, as consul in 146 B.c., destroyed the Achaean army and razed
Corinth. Doubts have been expressed, but no serious effort has been made to disprove
the identification. Some support for believing Mummius to be the author was found
in the fact that he looked with favor upon the Artists in general.3 Certainly the de-
struction of Corinth and the disarmament of Thebes must have been detrimental to the
prosperity of the Isthmian-Nemean guild. For these reasons one would expect the
guild to approach the Roman authorities with a request for recognition of their pre-
viously privileged position in Greek society. Mummius and the ten commissioners
would have been the obvious officials to contact. Hence the name Lucius Mummius was
supplied in the lacuna of line to.
Silvio Accame, however, argued that these letters should be interpreted in light of the
events portrayed in the S.C. de Collegiis Artificum Bacchiorum of 112 B.c. (above, No. 15).
In that decree of the Senate, concerning a quarrel between the Athenian and Isthmian-
Nemean guilds about the loss of money and various obstructionist tactics, we learn that
both guilds are to appear before Marcus Livius, governor of Macedonia, who is in-
structed to render a decision in the matter of the misappropriated funds (ll. 61-64).4
The decree also informs us that the Isthmian-Nemean guild had made a request of the
Senate to have its old privileges preserved (I. 48). Accordingly, Accame felt that the
present letters were connected with this incident. He restored the name Marcus Livius
in line 10 of the second letter and dated both letters 112-111 B.c. “con quasi assoluta
certezza.’ Accame also saw in the first letter, lines 1-2, what he considered to be proof
that at that time Greece was divided into two parts, one united with the province of
Macedonia, the other independent. Although Accame has apparently solved the old
riddle of the status of Greece after the destruction of Corinth in 146 B.c. by the use of
this inscription and many other references, he has by no means proved that our two letters
are to be dated 112-111 B.C.5
In the first place M. Livius Drusus had been instructed by the terms of the decree (No.
15, ll. 61-64) to conduct a hearing concerning the public or common funds belonging to
the two guilds and to render a decision in that matter. Nothing was said anywhere in
the decree about permission for him or anyone else to honor the request of the Isthmian-
Nemean guild about recognition of its ancient privileges. But Accame asks us to believe
3 Tacitus (Ann. 14. 21) says that after the annexation of Achaea and Asia Iudos curatius editos, nec
quemquam Romae honesto loco ortum ad theatralis artes degeneravisse, ducentis iam annis a L. Mummii
triumpho, qui primus id genus spectaculi in urbe praebuerit. From this it has been concluded that Mummius
imported Greek actors to present his triumphal plays in Rome; see Klaffenbach, op. cit., p. 28, and M.
Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater? (Princeton, 1961), p. 168. And, although one
might object to such an interpretation of the passage, it is clear that Mummius must have favored the
Greek theatrical performances. Hence it is likely that he would have looked with favor upon the
Dionysiac Artists.
4 mept S€ xpnudtwv Snpociwy 7 Kowdv mepi dv Adyous erroinoavto, Omws mpos Mcapkov
AeciBrov brarov mpocehOwoar, obrds Te emvyvar emikpivnt ovtws Kalas (dv) adrau ex TOV
Snwoolwy mpayparwy miateds Te Sia(s) patrynrar.
5 For an appraisal of Accame’s view on the status of Greece in this period see M. Gelzer, loc. cit., and
H. Bengtson, loc. cit.

251
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

that a second such request was made and granted at the time when the two guilds
presented themselves before M. Livius Drusus, or, if not then, on some other occasion
connected with similar matters. However, we must not forget that in the quarrel
between the two guilds the final verdict of the Senate in 112 B.c. was to uphold the
Athenian cause, not that of the Isthmian-Nemean guild. The period of 112-111 B.c.
was certainly not one in which the Isthmian-Nemean guild enjoyed good relations with
Rome.
Secondly, Accame has failed to explain why M. Livius Drusus sent a letter to the
Ionian-Hellespontine guild. Since he supplied Livius’ name in line 10, he must assume
that Livius wrote both letters. What is the connection, therefore, between the two
letters? Why would Marcus Livius Drusus write to the Dionysiac Artists in Ionia and
the Hellespont? Considering the present state of our evidence, these questions must
be answered before we can assume that Livius is the author of the letters.
In the way of positive evidence for the date there are, in my opinion, only two facts
worthy of mention. The mention of 77 ‘Pwyuciwy emapyetou in line 2 must refer to
the Macedonian province as established after the Achaean War of 146 B.c., and the title
of the official in line 10, orparnyos traros ‘Pwpyailwy], would indicate a date within
the second century B.c.6 An additional piece of information is obtained if it is estab-
lished that both letters were written by the same official, for then it might be theorized
that they were written at a time when some far-reaching considerations of the status of
all the guilds of Dionysiac Artists were under way. If this is true, there is more reason
to ascribe the letters to Mummius than to Livius. The first real annexation of Greek
land and the first formation of a Roman province in the Greek East would have been
visible evidence of a change in Rome’s policy in dealing with the countries of that area.
Mummius and his commissioners would have had the power at that time to grant or
confirm general privileges for the various guilds.

6 Holleaux, op. cit., pp. 1-9, has shown that the title began to disappear about 120-115 B.c. Its last
occurrence appears to have been in 112-111 B.C. (Inscriptiones Creticae, III, 4, no. 9, 1. 11; cf. Accame,
op. cit., pp. 3-4).

252
 =o
EPISTULA (MAGISTRATUS ROMANI?)
DE ARBITRORUM IUDICIO Second Century B.c.
HOOHHGHG
SHOTS
SHDH
HAH HASHASHSS
TSSA HSOHNSSgg
OSgs

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Monceaux, B.C.H., 7 (1883), no. 9, pp. $7-59; O.

Kern, I.G., IX, 2 (1908), 301 (from a copy by Giannopoulos).

DESCRIPTION. A marble block, broken on both sides and at the bottom,

very worn in the middle section, found in the wall of a church in Trikkala,
Thessaly. Height: 0.33 m. Width: 0.40 m. Thickness: 0.37 m. Height of
letters: 0.003 m.

[------ |NZYN[- ---------------------- ]

[----- e|ai ta m[p]os Tpi[k] kav pépyn Kat ayaydvres uals eri]
[------ ]rézov eréderEav jut TO<v> oiKetov ma[- - - - - - - ]
[------ ]v ds ad’ HAtov Svopadv TH ywpou tadry [- - - - - - ]
[Seoa¢ ]edacav elvau |’ Ayo8] opevous Kat Karl eta dd THV|
[- - eydikw]v Aepxaiay [............. ] mAeor[-------- ]
[- - - Tov o| txetov SOELE [pee les ales ]vous[-------- |
[------ ]6 "Ayabopévys [....]evov tod [t]ety[ous - - - - - - ]
[------ [rece [os ee ts ] tovrov t[ob - ------- ]
10 [- - - du]opov ws amo t&v mpos TpiXk>Kav pep[Gv - - - - - - - - ]
[- - - -] mtv of eydixor tH Te Alor] axida Kai n[- - - - - - |
[- - yetto] vevovoas radrn xaipou, Nv adroit [---------- |
[----- ] Kat ovvyyooar [emi (?)] Ta yeurdovva Kall - - - - - ]
[----- ] dreépye, fv odrot Aéyovor Aepkaiav [- - - - - - - |
15 [- - - - A]oBav S€ Kot "AyaBopévys rov Adylov - - - - - - - - - ]
[- - - €yd]uxor epacav Kadetobar Aepkailav ---------- |
[----- ]v KaAetobon Bovkoducov thy p[------------ ]
[----- Joon|[v] anxriv, nv of &yducou TH[- - - ---- ~~ -|
[----- ] rH re d80v, ef’ F rH[v] Kadovp[evny - - - - - - - - |
20 [----- |van, Av of eydixor ew[..... |fY[----------- ]
[------- Vices tO fle |O@Y tai a= 2 A = ie) mole ae ]
[------- OLN 1 tere iets ate, Ona > R= =,25/0 ntsn ]

253
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The text is that of Kern and Viereck (notes.) 2 xa[t]aydvres, Wilamowitz. 3 TOIOIKEION,
stone, corrected by Wilamowitz. 8 [7]od [r]e¢y[ovs, Hiller.

COMMENTARY. Boundary disputes between Greek cities were very common and
are well illustrated in the inscriptions. The precise topographical descriptions in the
present document make it very clear that we are dealing here with a land dispute.
However, it appears not to have been a case involving two cities but rather a city and a
private person, namely, the city of Trikkala and an individual called Agathomenes.
The lands in question are called Aepxaia and BovxoX:kov.
Using the parallel example of C.ILG., 1732 (I.G., IX, 1, 61), as a guide, Monceaux
believed that the city of Trikkala, represented by its €kSuxou, disputed with Agathomenes
over certain areas of land nearby.!_ To settle the dispute a judge was appointed (by the
consul and/or the Senate ?) to investigate the claims. He and his assessors would have
gone to see the land itself and then would have rendered a decision. The present
document in its entirety would have contained a short history of the dispute, his decision,
and the future boundary and ownership of the land. Only a part of the topographical
description is extant.
Two questions arise. Who was the judge, a Roman or a local individual? Who
sent the present report, the judge himself or some other intermediary agency? No
positive answers can be given. Monceaux, Kern, and Viereck (notes) all believe that
it is the letter of a Roman magistrate to Trikkala. Possibly, but not positively. There
is nothing in the document itself that would suggest such a conclusion. The entire
matter could have been handled on a strictly local level without recourse to Roman
intervention. Of course, if the document belongs to the second century B.c., as seems
apparent from the lettering, the possibility of Roman involvement must be considered.
The example of C.I.G., 1732 (I.G., IX, 1, 61), while it also is a case of a city disputing
with a private person the ownership of a strip of land, should not be pressed too far.
Our document belongs to the second century B.c., the other to the period of Hadrian.

11.G., IX, 1, 61, from Daulis in Phocis, is dated in the year A.D. 118 and is a dossier of a dispute
between Daulis and an individual named Memmius Antiochus over certain areas of land. Cassius
Maximus, proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 116/17, appointed T. Flavius Eubolus to act as the judge. The
case required one to two years to complete. The judge listened to both parties and then visited the
land in question. His decision was to divide the land between the city and Memmius Antiochus. In
that case, as well as in the present one, the city employed its legal representatives, the €«duKou, to
meet with the judge and to present the city’s claim. As city officials they functioned in purely local
matters as well as in those cases involving the Romans. Their presence in our document, therefore,
cannot be construed to mean that Rome or Roman officials had a hand in the case. On their duties
see Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 1, 648-49, and II, 1517-18, n. 49.

254
 46
EPISTULA (MAGISTRATUS ROMANI?) Second or First
AD CYPARISSENSES Century B.c.

HHDHHOHOHGUST OOOO ODDHDHHDHSHHHRHHOHHHHHHHHDATASSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. N. S. Valmin, Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i

Lund, Arsberattelse, 1928-29, no. 11, pp. 142-43 (Plate XIX a) (S.E.G., XI, 1025).

DESCRIPTION. Stele of gray limestone, broken on the left and bottom,

decorated with rosettes, with an ornamental pediment. Found at Christianoi,
southeast of Philiatra, in Messenia. Height: 0.58 m. Width: 0.44 m.
Thickness: 0.12 m. Height of the letters diminishes from 0.018 m. in lines 1-2
to 0.010 m. in the last line. Letters belong to the second or first century B.c.
and are decorated with apices.

[Ayabyt] rosette Tvyne.

vacat
[‘O Seiva - - ca.20 - - Tav K] uTapiccéwy apxovor Koi rij
[roAeu] vacat yolpew.
[------------- | roAcAéyx Bou bm’ Ewod Thy
[te ay ex oor eae Jev errornoaunv TOV
[-------------- Jou BaAcvetov rob

In regard to the bath, it was noted by Valmin that the modern village had an abundance of good
water. Could the author of the letter have been the governor of Macedonia?

255
 a,
EPISTULAE Q. MUCII SCAEVOLAE DE
SARDIANORUM ET EPHESIORUM 98/97 or
FOEDERE 94/93 B.C.
QHHDHHHHODDSS HOODS HSE STOOD ESEEESEESEOSSEEOSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. E. Sonne, De arbitris externis, quos Gracci adhibuerunt ad lites

et intestinas et peregrinas componendas, quaestiones epigraphicae (Diss., G6ttingen,
1888), no. 47, p. 26; M. Frankel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, Il (Berlin, 1895),
no. 268, pp. 196-203; P. Foucart, Revue de philologie, 25 (1901): 87ff.; W.
Dittenberger, O.G.I.S., II (1905), 437; M. N. Tod, International Arbitration
Amongst the Greeks (Oxford, 1913), no. 60, pp. 40-41; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV
(1927), 297; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana (Milan, 1942), pp.
133-35; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1064;
T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Il (New York, 1952),
5-6, n. 2 (on Scaevola’s governorship of Asia); L. Robert, Revue des études
anciennes, 62 (1960): 342-46.

DESCRIPTION. Three fragments (A, B, C) of bluish-white marble, found at

Pergamum in 1883-84. Fragment A contains the last few letters of the lines
(1-7) in column 1 and the beginnings of the lines (26-32) in column 2. It is
broken on all sides, the letters of the heading (line 1) being larger (0.015 m.)
than those of the remainder of the text. Fragment B contains the ends of the
lines (26-32) in column 2. It is complete only on its lower right side. Because
the restorations here appear to be assured Frankel has calculated that column 2
must have been about 0.32 m. wide and that the width of the upper part of the
whole stele was about 0.65 m. Fragment C, broken on all sides, is 0.305 m. high,
0.345 m. wide, and 0.06 m. thick, containing lines 8-25 of column 1 and lines
34-57 of column 2. The height of the letters on all three fragments, apart from
the heading, varies from 0.009-0.010 m. (top) to 0.012 m. (bottom). For
greater ease in referring to various lines, I have numbered them consecutively.
There are two other fragments (D and E) belonging to this same dossier
which are not reproduced here. They contain the treaty between Sardis and
Ephesus.

256
 EPISTULAE

Col. 1 [AvvOFjKou Lapdialvdv «lal ’Edeoi] wv.

A [Kowtos Movxios IomXiov vids LKoaudras, |
[evOdmraros “Pwpaiwr, Lapdvavdv rie Bovdge «| at
[T@u Srjpon yaipew. Tédv ev rie didlou xpibévrw] v{u}
5 [Sjpwr re Kat ebvdv Yndioapevwy 7iHé] vou
[Qvperixods Kat yupvixods &y@vas me] vTo-
[ernpixods -------------- ]

quot versus exciderint incertum

Cc [-------------- eis TO adTO ol up-

[opevouvTo, éméupapev..... cov | Dudo-
10 [tiwov “APnvaiov trav - - - - - , av] dpa Ka-
[Aov Kal wyaBov Kal THs weyiorns ac] ovpe-
[vov miatews map’ Hiv, mpds Te TOV b] werTE-
[pov Sjpuov Kat tov “Edeciwv, tov rap] a[Ka]A€
[covra Sodven Tas yetpas Hutv eis] ovAXv-
1s [ow. ovyKxarabewevwr 5€ TOV SHpuwly exa-
[Tépwv Tots mapaKcAoupevois Kol trepibc]|v-
[tw mpeoBevtas tudv pev Tods orpat]n-
[yous Mevexpérnv Avoddpov, Doirixa Doi-|
[vuxos, "ApyéAnov Oeodirov, ’Edeciwv b€]
20 [‘Ixéovov "Aprewidapov, ITocedaviov]
[ITocedwviov tod Awvoiov, ’Apioto-|
[yetrova ITétpwvos, ’Apreuidwpov ’Apre-|
[usSepov, Mevexparnv Mevexpérov 70d]
[’Aprepidcipou, *ArroAAdSwpov ‘Eppoxparou,|
25 [“Eppummov Mevoirov - - - - - - - - - - ]

quot versus exciderint incertum

Col. 2
A Kéwrtos Mov [ios [omAXiov v] ios Loud [Acs,| B
avOdraros ‘Pw[uaiwv, Edeot] wy rie BovAlfu Ket]
tau Shon yai[pewv: tev ev rH]. prdcou pi [vrwv]
Siwy re Kai €[Ovadv Yndioapé]| vwv riHévan Ou [e-]
30 AuKods K[a]t [yupriKods ayd]va<s> mevraernpt-
[ods BovAevoupeva - - - - - - a|e mept Tod
ee ke elt eta mp|otpeyo-

quot versus exciderint incertum

257
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[- = <0 ]ENOX[---------- ]
35 [------ Dapdia|vdOv te. tap[aco- - - -]
[- - €y] par Kat Suapopev Kal[- - - - - - ]
emipaveatépas Kal evdoé<o>r[ pas, iva of ad -|
coTnkdtes adtav Shor pet [& mc&ons edvoi-|
as eis TO adro{v} avpmopevouTo, éréu[papev - -|
40 cov Dvdoripov *"APnvaio[v +] @v €[- - - -]
avSpa K[aA]ov Kat &yabo|v] Kol ris [weylorns a€-]
ovpevov mlatews rap [nu] tv, mpds [Te Tov dpe-|
Tepov Sfpov Kat Tov LapdiovO|v, Tov mrapoce-|
A€oavra Sobveu T[a]s yetpas Hiv ei[s oddAvOwW.|
45 ovykarabenevwy Sé rav Sjuwv [éxarépwr|
Tots mapaKkarovpevors Kal Treusevtw|v mpec-|
Bevras duav pev ‘Ikéovov ’"Apreudapol[v, [Toce:-|
Saviov TToceSwviov rob Atovuciov, ’A[pioro-|
yetrova ITétpwvos, "Aprepidwpov ’Apr[eudo-]
50 pov, Mevexparnv Meve[xpa|r[ov] rod "Ap[rep-]
dadpov, ’ArrodAdS [wpov ‘Eppo|kp|[crov, “Eppurr-|
mov Mevoirov, Xal|pdvavav dé rods otparn-|
yous Mevexpér|nv Avoddpov, Poivika Doirkos, |
’"ApyéAaov @eo[dpirov ----------- ]
55 Kijou te mp[---------------- ]
Te peoite[Vew - ------------- ]
oupdépe[w ---------------- |

exciderunt aliquot versus, deinde

sequitur pactum inter Ephesos et
Sardianos

The restorations in the first letter depend upon the extant remains of the second. 4 NI, stone;
vu|vi, Frankel. 10 The parallel passage in the letter to the Ephesians (1. 40) shows 7] @v €[- -, for
which Frankel suggested r] Ov é[u Iepycéuw, but Dittenberger read 7] v e[ddoxiuwv. Robert
thought of r| dv €[uadv diAwy, the sense of which fits nicely into the context. However, the fact
that the epistulatory plural is used in the letters suggests that 44@v would be found instead of éudv.
28 r&v vuv|t didcau, Frankel. 29 Kat é[répwv koww|vav xrd., Frankel. 30 NA, stone. 37
ENAOZOT, stone.

COMMENTARY. The mention of the games instituted in honor of the proconsul

(Il. 6-7 and 29-31) indicate that the Q. Mucius Scaevola of lines 2 and 26 is the consul of
95 B.C., the Scaevola who was famous for his systematic treatise on the ius civile. Un-
fortunately, there is divided opinion about the date of his governorship in Asia; one view
(Waddington, Dittenberger, Viereck, Last, Balsdon, Broughton) puts it in 98-97 B.c.,

258
EPISTULAE

but the other (Reinach, Miinzer, Magie, Badian) places it in 94-93 B.c., after his consul-
ship.
The general heading of the dossier makes it plain that its primary purpose was to
record the treaty between Sardis and Ephesus, but at the same time it served to honor
the governor for his efforts in the cause of provincial welfare and also to make known to
everyone the fact that Pergamum had been selected to act as the arbitrator between the
cities. It is in three parts: two letters of Scaevola followed by the text of the treaty
itself.2
Scaevola had written two letters, one to Sardis and the other to Ephesus, each of
similar content. Although the beginning and the ending of both letters are fragmentary,
it would appear that the governor first expressed his pleasure about the institution of
games in his honor and then, perhaps, his displeasure concerning the trouble that had
arisen and the animosity felt by each city toward the other (Il. 35-36). We then learn
that he had suggested a meeting between the two to talk over their differences. To
facilitate this meeting he had sent his representative [- - - -]cov ®vAoripov, an Athenian.
The venture was successful. Both cities sent their envoys and concluded a treaty, with
the city of Pergamum acting as arbitrating power. According to the terms of this
treaty, Sardis and Ephesus agreed to the legal principle that civil suits for damages
involving citizens of either city were to be tried in the defendant’s city. Neither would
make war upon the other or aid the other’s enemies, a clause that was more a concession
to old treaty formulas than a statement of possibility. All future differences were to be
settled by arbitration.
Since the names of the Ephesian and Sardian representatives at the treaty conference
mentioned in both of Scaevola’s letters (ll. 17ff: and 47ff:) agree with the names of the
representatives recorded at the end of the treaty proper, it would appear that Scaevola’s
letters were written either while the arbitration itself was underway or after it had been
concluded. Scaevola could hardly have known their names before the negotiations
started. In the first case, therefore, his letters might have contained some sort of
exhortation or diplomatic suggestion that accord be reached, while in the second case
they might have expressed his pleasure that the arbitration had been concluded success-
fully. But, since the conclusion of both letters is missing, one can only guess.

1 W. H. Waddington, Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques de l’Empire Romain (Paris, 1872), nos. 4 and 7, pp.
36ff.; Dittenberger, loc. cit., n. 3; Viereck (notes); H. Last, C.A.H., 9 (1932): 175;J.P. V. D. Balsdon,
Classical Review, 51 (1937): 8-10; Broughton, loc. cit., and his Supplement to Magistrates, p. 42; Th.
Reinach, Mithridate Eupator Roi de Pont (Paris, 1890), pp. 107-8, n. 3; F. Miinzer, R.E., s.v. ““Mucius,”
col. 438, and s.v. “Rutilius,” cols. 1273-74; Magie, loc. cit.; E. Badian, Athenaeum, n.s., 34 (1956):
104-23, and Proceedings of the African Classical Associations, 1 (1958): 17 (= Studies in Greek and Roman
History [Oxford, 1964], p. 101, n. 94).
2 The text of the treaty is omitted here, but it can be found easily in the publications by Frankel,
Dittenberger, and Lafaye. For what may be a new fragment of the treaty see Sardis VII: Greek and
Latin Inscriptions, pt. 1, by W. H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson, no. 6, pp. 13-15, which is a clause
concerning admission to citizenship.

259
 48
EPISTULA C. CASSIE AD NYSAEOS
DE CHAEREMONE 88-87 B.C.
[Squeeze]

QHGDHADODASASSSSHHHHHDDODODDDDDYDOSYSSSASSSSSNNS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. Hiller von Gaertringen and Th. Mommsen, Athen.

Mitt., 16 (1891): 95-106, 441; Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator (German ed. by
A. Goetz [Leipzig, 1895]), no. 23, p. 474; A. Wilhelm, Géttingische Gelehrte
Anzeigen, 160 (1898): 215; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, I (1898), 328; C. Michel,
Recueil d’ inscriptions grecques (Brussels, 1900), 50; O. Kern, Inscriptiones Graecae
(Bonn, 1913), pp. XV—XVI (tab. 40); F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W.
Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, Il (1917), 741; Fiehn, R.E., suppl. V (1931), s.v.
“Chairemon,” cols. 57-58; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., Il (1941), 819-21;
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1102, n. 28; Lewis—
Reinhold, Roman Civilization, 1(New York, 1951), no. 82, pp. 200-1; G. W.
Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965), p. 8.

DESCRIPTION. A stele of &vydSadirns found in a Carian village called Akca.

Compare the report by J. R. S. Sterrett, An Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor
([Boston, 1888], pp. 340-41). Height: 0.90 m. Width: 0.58 m. Thickness:
0.22 m. Height of letters: 0.015 m. Apices.

Tos Kéovo[s N]vowéwy a&pyovor yaip[ew:|

[X] apjuwv ITv[Aodap]ov v[id|s, roAeirns byu€[TEpos,|
Tpos ene HAD[ev é]v “Arrapna jpwrnoev te [d7rws]
eEovatay ab[T|@ [a] oujow emi rob cvvBovdXio[v.]
TovTw eya THVv eEovotav edwKa odTws, ée[t TH]
avvBovaAi|w du] oAdynoev Karadoyfs THs [ovv-]
KAjTtou Kat S[jwov| “Pwyaiwy emi rob otparoré [Sov]
Sdcew SB[pov aA] evpwv odious eEaxropupi [ous]
[ey@ d€] wept [rovr]ou rob mpaypyaros aarexpiOn[v Ka-|
10 ABs [od] rov qe [rou] neévou koi taker ewardv re 8[doe]
epya[ata|v, or[ws €]muv@ radra jet yepira ety [cu]
[n]wet[s de Kat tladra +]7 ovvKdAjrw Kat TH Syjuw TO [‘Pwpect-]
wv d[vacadjaopev (?)]. vacat

Sequuntur duae Mithridatis epistulae

ad Leonippum satrapum

260
EPISTULAE

Ihave examined the Berlin squeeze and have collated it with the texts by F. Hiller von Gaertringen
and Viereck (notes), The dossier begins with the heading [6 84] wos [6 Nuoadwv xed7Bov] Ay
€[tiunoa]| X[aip]ju[ov]a IvOo8dpov. s-6 Dittenberger (S.I.G.2, 328) had read obt [ols
emt [tod] ovvBovAc[ ov], which Viereck (notes) preferred, although he did not introduce it into his
text. 13 Hiller, but it remains uncertain.

COMMENTARY. On the eve of the first Mithridatic War the Roman forces were
divided into three army corps. One, under C. Cassius, governor of Asia, was stationed
on the border of Bithynia and Galatia. A second, under the legate Manius Aquilius,
had taken up a position in eastern Bithynia. And a third, under Q. Oppius, governor
of Cilicia, was deployed in the mountain passes of Cappadocia. As soon as the army of
Mithridates advanced out of the east to a plain near the Amnias River, the Bithynian
army under King Nicomedes fled after a single encounter and joined Aquilius. When
Mithridates destroyed the army of Aquilius and marched into Bithynia, Cassius did not
even offer battle but retreated to central Phrygia. Then Oppius also retreated, stopping
at Laodiceia-on-the-Lycus and defending it. Mithridates overran Bithynia, then turned
south into Phrygia and finally west to Asia. Cassius vainly tried to reorganize his
forces and train new recruits, but he was forced farther south to Apameia and eventually
to Rhodes in defeat. In Asia, Laodiceia, Tabae, Stratoniceia, and Magnesia-ad-
Sipylum resisted, but the majority of cities received Mithridates with enthusiasm as a
liberator from Roman oppression.!
In this year of military blundering and wholesale murder (88 B.c.) C. Cassius and his
army found a faithful friend and an active helper in the person of Chaeremon of Nysa.
Like many of the wealthy businessmen and members of the old noble families of Asia he
was pro-Roman. He proved his loyalty by distributing 60,000 modii of wheat flour to
the troops of Cassius in their camp at Apameia. In return, probably very soon after the
event itself, Cassius sent a letter to the city of Nysa. The effectiveness of Chaeremon’s
action can be seen clearly in the two letters that Mithridates subsequently wrote to his
satrap Leonippus.? In them he offers a reward for the capture of Chaeremon, dead or
alive. Chaeremon, however, escaped. At the end of the war a grateful Nysa erected
a stele to honor her famous citizen. It contained copies of three documents attesting his
loyalty to Rome and his hatred of Mithridates: the first is our letter; the other two are
the letters of Mithridates.
The erection of such a stele after the war would serve, of course, not merely to honor
the far-sighted Chaeremon but also to establish a future bargaining power with the
Romans for the welfare of the city. Chaeremon gave aid to Rome in a desperate hour.
Chaeremon was a citizen of Nysa. The implication is clear.

I The fullest account will be found in Appian Mithr. 17-21; cf. Magie, op. cit., I, 211-13.
2 They were engraved on the same stele as the present letter and may be found in S.I.G.3, 741, and in
Welles, Royal Correspondence, nos. 73-74, with commentary.

261
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Chaeremon probably had inherited his wealth from his father and then in turn passed
it on to his sons, who played an important role in the republican history of Asia Minor.3
One of his sons—or perhaps grandsons, the exact relationship being uncertain—went to
Tralles and prospered to such a degree that he could boast of a fortune of more than 2,000
talents. He became a friend of Pompeius, and his daughter became the wife of King
Polemon of Pontus.
The language and style of the letter would seem to indicate that it was first written in
Latin and then translated into Greek. Latinisms are patent from beginning to end.
Observe the addition of vids (filius) in line 2, the use of re (-que) in line 3, the genitive
of xaraoyfs (gratia or reverentia) in line 6, the strange r&&ex (ordine) in line 10, the pres-
ence of ewarév in line 10, and the bizarre yépure (neuter plural of a barbarous adjectival
formation to reproduce grata ?) in line 11.

3 See Strabo 14. 1. 42. For Anatolian families of wealth and prominence in this period with Roman
connections, see Bowersock, op. cit., pp. I-13.

262
 aa,
DUAE EPISTULAE L. CORNELII
SULLAE DE COLLEGIIS ARTIFICUM
BACCHIORUM ca. 84 and 81 B.C.
HHGOHOGH
HSH SOCHOOOS
GOHG SHAH SHSHSSHSHSgg
HSHS ggg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. M. Segre, Rivista di filologia, 66 (1938): 253-63, with an

inadequate photograph; L. Robert, R.E.G., 52 (1939): 487; M. I. Rostovtzeff,
S.E.H.H.W., Ill (1941), 1560-61, n.n 16-17; D. Magic, Roman Rule in Asia
Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 900; Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I (New
York, 1951), 342-43; C. Garton, Phoenix, 18 (1964): 144-46; R. K. Sherk,
Historia, 15 (1966): 211-16.

DESCRIPTION. From Cos, now in the museum there (Inv. ED 7). Upper
part of an opisthographic stele of white marble, decorated with a small
projecting cornice on the anterior face. Height: 0.32 m. Width: 0.43 m.
Thickness: 0.08 m. Approximate height of letters: 0.012 m. Side A is
well preserved and easily read, but B is badly worn and difficult to read. The
letters are carelessly and inelegantly inscribed.

"Ayabér Tiyou.
[A]evKvos Kopyjdvos Aevxiov vidos LvdAAas ’Erra-
dpddeitos Sixtétwp Kdwv a&pyovor BovaAj
Syuw yaipev: “Eya "AreEcvdpw Aaodicet k-
BaupiorH, avdpt KaAd Kol ayabs Kal Pilw jpe-
Tépw, mpecBevTh mapa Too Kowod TOV epi Tov Ai-
[v] voov reyit@v tOv emt *Iwvias Kai ‘EAAnorovroy
[kat tT]Ov wept rov Kabyyeuova Avdvucov exer |pe-]
[yo ornAnv] rap’ dpetv ev TH emionporar@ tdmen avaby-
sfe) [oeoOau ev 7] avaypadrycera ta bm’ euo0d Sedopéver
[rots Texvirous] prrcvOpwra: mpecBevoarros 5[e]
[vov adrod eis “Pdyny,| ris cvyxAjrou de ddypo t[ept]
[rovrwv indiowpervys, buds] odv OérAw Ppovriccn dmws [azo-|
[SevyO7 map’ dpetv Toros ema] nudraros ev @ avobr-
15 [cern 7) orjAn } wept TOV TexviT@|y. ‘Yaoyéeypadda de
[ris map” €u0d emaroAns Tob Te Sdyparos] Tis cuvKAy-
[rou Te avriypadu =~ === += -- ]NT2

263
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[...]Sep adv 5é kod Fy exer mpods [jules [ed] vo[vor,]

buds obv Oddrw [€] weyvwxevan eye ard ovuBo[v-|
Nov yrduns yrounv anorepavOcu, & prcvO[p-|
[w] ao Kot Te] uds aAevroupynaias te duetv Karado-
[yf] tod Avovdoov Kal rv Movody Kat rijs 70 [Ac-]
telas tudv yapite avvKAntos &pxovtes Te [7) av-|
TapYOVTEs NueTEpor COwKav a[vvEexe-|
pnoav, va tradra éyere, Kal K[aO@s Kat mpiv]
maons TE AetToupyias aA€e[vTovpyntor ATE|
10 oTparetas TE, NTE TWe [elopopay 7 Samc-|
vas eladepynre, unre [é]y[oyAetobe bd twos|
mapoyys evexev Tle Kal emorabuelas, unTe|
twa déxeoO [ou Karaddrnv eravayKalnodbe. |
va S€ kai [-------------- ]
15 [..]JONII[--------------- ]
deity(pete a tree ee as
Text by Segre. A 2ff. Cf. Sulla’s letter to Stratonicea with the senatus consultum of 81 B.c.
(No. 18) for the heading. 8-9 éér[a&«] was considered by Segre and then rejected. 11 Segre
also considered and then rejected [adrots ripe Kal] pircvOpwra. 12 [rodtwr doyparioapevns
bpés| would be too long. B 4-5 cataAo[yfs], Segre; kataAo[y7A], Robert. For privileges ac-
corded to the Artists and athletes see the letters of the Roman magistrate(s) to the Artists at Thebes
(No. 44), the letter of M. Antonius to the Greeks in Asia (No. 57), and the series of documents in
B.G.U., IV, 1074; cf. Segre, op. cit., pp. 259-62, and R. Herzog, Sitzungsberichte der Kéniglich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1935, pp. 974ff.

COMMENTARY. Sometime after the middle of the third century B.c. inscriptional
sources attest the existence of the Ionian-Hellespontine guild of Dionysiac Artists.
With its headquarters at Teos and much of its activity centered on the great Temple of
Dionysus in that city, it seems to have flourished in its early years and to have enjoyed
friendly relations with its host. It participated in the great festival in honor of Artemis
Leukophryene in Magnesia at the end of the third century and had become known to the
people of Cos. But with the expansion of the Pergamene kingdom the guild entered a
new and more turbulent period in its history. Teos fell into the hands of the Per-
gamenes. This brought a rival guild into the picture, one called of wept rov Kabnyeudva
Aidvucov rexvira, with headquarters in Pergamum. By about the middle of the
second century a most important change has taken place in the organization of the two
1F. Poland, R.E., s.v. “‘Technitai,” vol. V A 2, cols. 2507-11; Welles, Royal Correspondence, com-
mentary on no. 53; Magie, op. cit., I, 80-81, and II, notes, 899-900. Also useful are the remarks of
W. Hahland, “Der Fries des Dionysostempels in Teos,”’ Jahreshefte, 38 (1950): 66-109. The account
by A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (Oxford, 1953), chap. VII, pp. 286-319,
is to be used with caution, especially in the case of the epigraphical texts quoted by him.

264
EPISTULAE

guilds. The two are now united and form one large guild whose composite structure
is clearly revealed in its new title: rd Kowdv TOV mept Tov Aidvucov Texvit@v TeV én”
‘Tavias Koi ‘EXAnorovrov Kal rev wept tov Kabnyendve Aidvucov TEXVITOV.
After a stormy political ordeal in Teos the headquarters of the combined guilds is
moved to Ephesus, then to Myonnesus, and finally to Lebedus. Internal quarrels and the
end of the Pergamene kingdom were no doubt responsible for the eventual splitting of
the combined guilds and a return to their separate structures.? But, since the present
letter of Sulla shows the names of both guilds again joined to form a single title, we may
assume with some degree of certainty that they were united in one organization during
the age of Sulla.
Like the Athenian, Isthmian-Nemean, and Egyptian guilds of Dionysiac Artists this
Asiatic guild also had sought and obtained grants from the various controlling states
which gave them immunity from liturgies and certain compulsory services. These
were, of course, valuable grants, and everything possible was done to keep them. A
change of government or a war might invalidate them. We may be certain, therefore,
that at the end of the first Mithridatic War (autumn, 85 B.c.) and with the reorganization
of Asia under the leadership of Sulla the guild lost no time in approaching the Roman
authorities. The proper person to see would have been Sulla himself. This appears to
be the course that the guild followed, probably in 84 B.c., while Sulla was still in Asia.
The present document B is very likely a copy of the original letter sent by Sulla to the
Asiatic artists, in which he confirms their possession of those privileges and exemptions
which the Roman Senate and magistrates had previously granted them. In addition he
excuses them from public and military services, from any tax or special contribution,
and assures them that they will not be troubled by Romans demanding food or lodging.
The fact that Sulla here mentions his advisory board makes it apparent that he is still in
Asia and not yet dictator.
A few years later the joint guild sent a citharist as its representative to Rome to request
permission to erect a stele in Cos concerning its privileges. This representative, an
otherwise unknown Alexander of Laodicea, was sucessful. Sulla approved. The
Senate passed a decree. The guild was then allowed to erect in Cos a stele on which
would be recorded the various privileges granted by Sulla. The date of this event
would be about 81 B.c., when Sulla was dictator and “Felix.” 3
The stele on which the present documents were inscribed also must have contained the
Senate’s decree of approval, but unfortunately it is lost.

2 Two inscriptions mention the guilds separately in a period when we would expect them to be united:
LG., XII, 8, no. 163 (Samothrace, first century B.c.), and S.I.G.3, 694 (near Elea) (=F. Sokolowski,
Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure [Paris, 1955], no. 15, ca. 129 B.C.). Concerning the union of the two,
Segre, op. cit., p. 257, has this to say: “‘e non credo che esse si siano staccate subito dopo la fine del
regno di Pergamo, per poi riunirsi nuovamente, ma che piuttosto sempre abbiano avuto ciascuna una
attivita a sé, per cid che era di interesse di ciascuna, e un’ attivita commune, per cid che era di interesse
comune.” He believes that the repetition of the article in the title of the guild indicates that it is a
case of two separate entities. Perhaps, but the matter will bear further inquiry.
3 On the title “‘Sulla Felix” see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, J.R.S., 41 (1951): I-10.

265
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Since the Ionian-Hellespontine guild was a closed organization and had no smaller
branches similar to those of the Isthmian-Nemean guild, it is very probable that there
were no artists residing in Cos. They would have traveled there from the headquarters
at Lebedus at the times of the festivals. Therefore, when the representative Alexander
of Laodicea was sent to Rome he was probably instructed to request permission to erect
steles in the major cities to which the guild most frequently sent its members. The
guild may have experienced difficulties in having the various cities recognize its grant
of immunity after the end of the Mithridatic War because of the terrible burdens placed
upon them by Rome. The erection of steles bearing Sulla’s original letter and the
senatus consultum in those cities would have the desired effect—recognition of the guild’s
privileges. There were also Roman magistrates and investors who may have needed
solid evidence of the guild’s privileged position before deciding not to molest its members.
Such a situation would account for the guild’s desire to erect a stele in Cos, but we have
no solid evidence on which to base this interpretation. It can only be a possibility,
therefore, not to be confused with established fact.

266
 1,
IUDICIUM CN. CORNELII LENTULI
MARCELLINI 67 B.C.
QHGHHODEROSYOOTOSTOSEOOSYOREEOSRSROOESOSSESgggS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. J. Reynolds, J.R.S., 52 (1962), no. 6, p. 99 (Plate XIII 2);

S.E.G., XX, 709; E. Badian, Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (Pretoria,
1967), Pp- 34-35.

DESCRIPTION. “Fragment from the upper left corner of a marble stele

with molded pediment and acroteria (0.18 by 0.25 by 0.12) inscribed on one
face. Found at Apollonia in 1920, during Italian excavation of the East Church;
now in Cyrene Museum.” Reynolds, loc. cit. Its discovery was reported by G.
Oliverio, Africa Italiana, II (1928), 112, and by P. Romanelli, La Cirenaica
Romana (Verbania, 1941), p. 49. Letters are of the first century B.c., 0.010 m.
high.

’Exixpipa Iva[iov KopynAiov Aevrddov ITorXiov viod]

MeapxedAwvo|v mpecBevt0b avtiotpariyov Tept Tis]
Siadopas b[mép - - - ca. 16 - - - THs 7déAEws THs]
"ArroAdw [view - - - ca. 16 - - - mpos THY TOAW]
thv Kup|nuaiwy ----------------- ]

267
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. The lex Gabinia of 67 B.c. assigned to Cn. Pompeius Magnus an

unlimited imperium over the coastal areas of the Mediterranean, extending fifty miles
inland, and authorized him to appoint legates with praetorian power. Good organiza-
tion and strategic commitment of men and materials brought him a swift and well-
deserved victory by the summer of the same year. Eighteen names of his legates are
known to us, and one of them was Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (praetor in 60 B.c.
and consul in 56 B.c.). His specific duties called for control of the Libyan coast from
Cyrene to Egypt, and he was probably given a free hand to drive out or defeat the pirates
in that sector.!
The present inscription is of unusual importance for an understanding of the develop-
ment of provincial administration during the late Republic. It shows beyond doubt
that Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, who was merely a legate of a military com-
mander and not a holder of any independent command, could and did exercise his
assigned powers in the local affairs of a province, in this case Cyrene. Presumably, of
course, he had been asked to do so by the citizens. That does not lessen the importance
of the document in any way. The clause of the lex Gabinia must have been interpreted
literally and fully. It would be extremely pertinent and revealing to know whether
Cyrene in 67 B.c. had its own governor—a point raised by the first editor.?
The nature of the matter concerning which Cornelius rendered a decision is not known.

Florus, I. 41. 9, and Appian Mithr. 95. For Cornelius see Broughton, Magistrates, II, 148, and
Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Cornelius” (no. 228), cols. 1389-90. All the known legates are listed by
Broughton, op. cit., pp. 148-49.
2 Reynolds, op. cit., pp. 102-3. The title legatus pro praetore is attested twice for Cornelius; therefore,
its restoration in this inscription is assured. See S.I.G.3, 750, and S.E.G., IX, 56 (Reynolds, op.
cit., NO. 2, p. 97).

268
 |
EPISTULA MAGISTRATUS ROMANI
DE AGRIS MYTILENAEORUM After 55 B.c.

HHDOROROSOUSOSOSESTOEOSSEEESTSEOSESSESESSSRS9

BIBLIOGRAPHY. D. Evangelides, "ApyavoAoyixov AeAriov, 9 (1924/25): 46ff.,

with photograph; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, [.G., XII, suppl. (1939), no. 11, p.
12; S. Accame, Rivista di filologia 74 (1946): 111-12; idem, in De Ruggiero’s
Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane, s.v. “Lesbus,” p. 673; R. K. Sherk,
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 217-30.

DESCRIPTION. A stele of bluish marble found at Mytilene, near the sea, in

the ruins of a tower called Kastraki. Height: 0.59 m. Width: 0.63 m.
Thickness: 0.17 m. Height of letters: 0.02 m. The inscription is in two
columns, the ends of lines appearing in the first column and the first few words
of lines in the second column.

Col. 1

| cone coiaaheeae
eeanes |
SRSA GN REE a el iM ali Jepxeo
epee tee aie ie yale in 3 ~~ ] adrav
[---------- rrr reer cee T]06 ‘Pwyoiwy
[------- rrr rrr cree cee | eputetTw-
[e------
eee errr eee ]o Kat mov
[---------
rrr rrr ccc: |) mpos mpeo-
[Petey ----------------- ] wedevyevan
[--------------- Tob adto| Kpé&Topos Huav
[-----------
+r -re Kat tv Aov-
10 [wav --------- 7-777 --- ] ey. |eounirrwy
[SSS eo PS ee Ori ]KWL Bion KOL
[--------------e> KopynA|vov SvAAav
[----- +e errr rc ccc: ]oe Kat rov
[----------
errr eee |vo[. Joxe
15 [--- 2 eee eer ert Jovous re
[nner eer eee eres eee Jepou rie we
[---- +e errr reece ]7+ dea To
[een en ie ]Aenopern
[we wee we nw ee ee ew ee ]ue - -|Acu

20 [-----+---------
eee Ths] adris untpos
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Col. 2
pida|------------ 2-7-2 eee ee ]
tomov [--------------+------77-- ]
Kew b6[----------------------- ]
gomevous [------------ 2-7-7 - rere e- ]
25 av Tens pila[-------------------- ]
ou go COwKay [-------------------- ]
Tadrnv te THY [ywpav --------------- Tre] -
Opwv dSioytAtw[v ----------------- evep| -
yeolas aperas [Te ------------- eer e-]
30 wi be duxaiws [-------------------- ]
pev akdvtws a[--------------------- ]
ovdeva de[- ------------------- ado] -
Kpa&Twp [------ +e ree eee eee eee ]
toUtwy [------------------------ ]
35 yuvaiKos [----------------------- ]
mpovopiay Kre[- - - ------------------ ]
Kabws Ivatlos IToumios ------------ aro ovp] -
BovAiov yraun|s yvapnv amedynv ------------- ]
ovUTws Te tudv [----------- exe Karéyew TE]
40 Kaprrilecbat [re e€eivar (?) -------------- ]
Kol Tept TOU K[ Seeeeoaeese ces eaeeanac ]

Restorations are by F. Hiller von Gaertringen except where noted. 1 - -] a yso[- -, Evangelides;
- -Japyio[- -, Hiller. 10 &y[wv]o[a]u[e&] wv (2), Hiller. 37 xaOdds y[.]au[- -], Evangelides;
I'[p]ou[- -], Hiller; Tvat[os Iopuayjuos, Accame.

COMMENTARY. This inscription belonged to the monument on which the Senatus

Consultum de agris Mytilenaeorum (No. 25) was inscribed. The type of marble is identical,
the letters have the same height and form, and, as we shall see, there is a connection
between the two documents.!
To judge from the presence of the second person pronouns in lines 26 and 39 we
apparently have here a letter. Together with the senatorial decree it was probably
engraved on a large monument designed to honor some worthy citizen or benefactor of
Mytilene. Like Potamon’s monument in the same city, this one seems to have contained
all the various documents that mentioned or were somehow concerned with the in-
dividual who was honored. These could have included not only “Roman” documents
but also local Greek decrees. The celebrated Theophanes of Mytilene, friend of Pom-
peius, would be a suitable candidate for the honor.2
* See F. Hiller von Gaertringen’s note in I.G., XII, suppl. (1939), no. 11, p. 12, and his letter to Viereck
a part of which is printed by Sherk, op. cit., p. 217.
? Certainly he was one of the most respected citizens of Mytilene in the age of Pompeius, for it was

270
EPISTULAE

The document is badly mutilated, and a large part of it contains nothing but the
empty space between two columns of text. It is evident, however, that past history is
being reviewed, probably the troublesome days of the Mithridatic wars and those
connected with Mytilene’s unfortunate decision to accept Mithridates in 88 B.c.
Tantalizing references to “flight,” “Cornelius Sulla,” “mother,” “a gift,” “honor,”
and “‘imperator” are too brief to allow one to reconstruct what particular aspect of that
past history is being recounted, but certain other words and phrases are more revealing.
The mention of rézrov (I. 22), [7A] Opwr SiayAiw [v - - (Il. 27-28), and povoplay (1. 36)
indicates that a large part, perhaps the major part, of the letter was concerned with the
ownership and the enjoyment of some particular area of land. Such a view is greatly
strengthened by the reference to a senatus consultum in lines 37-41 which in turn was
clearly concerned with the ownership of land. Thus one might assume that the situation
or problem discussed in the letter is one which falls under, or is covered by, the pro-
visions of that senatorial decree.
The identification of that decree is assured by the introductory phrase caOws I'vai[os3
in line 37 of the letter, by the fact that the decree concerned the ownership of land, and
by the circumstance that the letter was engraved on the same monument as the Senatus
Consultum de agris Mytilenaeorum (No. 25) of 55 B.c. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was
the presiding magistrate at the passage of the senatorial decree in 55 B.c.; therefore, the
reference in lines 37-41 of the letter must be to that decree. Furthermore, the zpovopiay
(“right of prior pasturage’”’) of line 36 has its counterpart in line 5 of the decree passed in
55 B.c. The letter refers to the Senatus Consultum de agris Mytilenaeorum. The purpose
of that decree was the clarification of Mytilene’s position with regard to pasturage and
property rights without interference from the publicani.
This inevitably leads one to believe that the present letter concerns the ownership and
enjoyment of a certain plot of land over which some dispute had arisen. Mytilene’s
loss of freedom after her capture by Roman forces in 80 B.c. opened up vast new areas
to the publicani. The recovery of her freedom in 62 8.c., however, does not seem to
have guaranteed the withdrawal of publicani without incident. Claims and counter-
claims must have been very common in the years immediately after 62 B.c. They
appear to have been settled by the senatorial decree of 55 8.c., which specifically ex-
cluded the publicani from taxing the land. The writer of our letter thus appears to be
handing down a decision concerning a particular area of land, and, in support of his
decision, cites the terms of the senatorial decree. The dispute may have been confined
to the rights of pasturage alone, but the fragmentary condition of the text makes pre-
cision in this matter impossible. The date would be soon after 55 B.c. The writer may
have been the governor of Asia.

he who had persuaded Pompeius to grant the city its freedom in 62 B.c. He, no less than Potamon
in a later generation, had more than earned the right toa monument. Cf. Sherk, op. cit., pp. 218-19,
with references in n. 3.
3 For this new reading see Accame, op. cit., p. 112.

271
 oa
EPISTULA MAGISTRATUS ROMANI
AD MILESIOS ALIOSQUE 51-50 B.C.?

HHHHHHHDDHSDS
HOSS TODOS ESESESESESOOSSTSSS9H

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene

(Berlin, 1906), no. 106, p. 82; H. Knackfuss, Das Rathaus von Milet (= Milet, Il)
(Berlin, 1908), no. 3, pp. 101-3; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the
Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), n. 22, pp. 286-87; A. H. M. Jones, The Cities
of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), p. 391, n. 49; L. Robert,
Hellenica, 7 (1949): 227-28; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), II, 1060-61, nn. 41-42.

DESCRIPTION. Fragments of two copies. One was found in the middle

room of the North Hall of the agora in Priene. Height: 0.84 m. Width:
0.69 m. Thickness: 0.36 m. Height of letters: 0.012 m. The other,
consisting of three fragments, was found in the bouleuterion at Miletus. The
first fragment (Inv. 226 b) is from the right half of a block belonging to the
anta. Height: 0.59 m. Width: 0.31 m. Thickness: 0.60 m. Height of
letters: 0.016 m. The second (Inv. 226 c) belongs to the left of the first
fragment and contains only the remains of the upper eight lines. Height:
0.46m. Width: 0.14. m. The third (Inv. 226 a) belongs to a different course.
Height: 0.59 m. Width: 0.705 m. Thickness: 0.73 m.

272
 EPISTULAE

226 c and 226 b

feet paeei[seeee esses. |

eee ee ]
[-- -]e move dé [-------------- ]
[-- -]v xaré [---------------- ]
[- - tH] s emapye[ias ------------- ]
[-- -]pou pev[S--------------- ]
ePel sepals cee eso
[- - --] gAaco[ov -------------- ]
[- - - -]ryoep[...... ]yodo[----------- |
Io [- ---]a ewo[...... ]v MueAro[v -------- ]
[- - emap]yetas [...... ]eo@at roun[- - - - - - - ]
[- - -]v "E¢eo[..... ] radrns Kal [------- ]
Psp Ho| oy 2s 5 sas Joriov éemI[------- ]
[- - -Jevo]||[..... t]ovs vopous [- - - - - - - ]
15 ae (ag Peer ]| pew Kot rov[- ------ |
fee Ae erase.oe Jara Koi mu[-------- ]
beiaps| ousthie: .3)<2s5 ]woe kara ri[v------- ]
bocce on [EStens qve|yKdunv ta[------- ]
[erie J—o[ viesans. ] tHv omovd [jy - - - - - - ]
20 [-------- ]ve Kat e’s tues I'[- - - - - - ]
[------- ] etdéveu OéAw K[------- ]
[------- a| dros THv eral pyetay (?) - - -|
[-------- ] emt €vaxn [--------- ]

(12 lines missing)

226a
Deelate Jo Kotv[r]ov T[..... Td beeceee ]
Bee][pass lee. ns ] én’ axupdce: d[v] cveiA[nde cat Map-]
[w]e Kixép[wy], ovvrvyav ebyapiornce [re Taxx-]
40 evra ém [i] eAads ovvryp@v ra én’ éu[ot pur) ducae( ?)-]
Ave. ev rds dpets rHv twwv Tept [rabira o-]
vaiSevav avéaynobe, TeOatpaKa 8.’ ds [airias]
/ > / / 7 a eel}

mpos Te TO Kowov THV ‘ENAjvwv yéypada, [zpos]

/ Mi \ ~ ¢€ 7 / \

[d] was, ’Edeatovs, TpadAdavovs, "AaBavdets, M [v-]

45 [A]acets, Zwupvaious, Iepyapnvods, Lapdiavo [vs,]
’A8Spapurnvods, iva te tyeis mpds Tas ev rie 5[so1-]
[x] joer rie Stax mdAers SvamoareiAnabe ev re réx e7[t-]
daveotaérun Toren ev atvAoTapacTéds emi
AiBov AevKos evyapayOAvar ppovrionte T[ad-|

273
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Ta Te ypcppwore, va KowOs meant THe emapyela[e 70]

¢ A lol \
50
Sikauov éotapévov
ime Hu eis TOV alel x ypdvov, ai Te &A-
7)
Ae m&oc ores Kat Shot TO adTOV Trap’ adTois
aA a > a

romowow, eis Te TH Snpdora arobGvreu vouo|[pvac-|

/ ” \ 8 / > fa]A \ 4

Kua Kal ypnpariornpic. THv Sé airiay dv’ Hv EAAy[-|

\ / \ PY \ 5 at PS) eu Xr

55 Kots €ypoaba, un) emilnrnonte: Kara vodv yap [éc-|

Yov, pr TL Tapa THY Epunveiay Ehaccov Ta |yeypap-|
[u] eve voou Svvnobe: rHv Sé€ emorody[v wx]
[Ti] worAqu ’Avataydpov Kal Sworxparne Ty [Biwvos]
[mp] eoBevrats Mayyitwv tv mpos t[@e Mavev-]
60 ple
Sp]w. vv pp
eppwobe. vacat
vacat

Restorations by Friedrich, Wilamowitz, and Rehm. 23 I suggest orparnyos] emt E€vw[v](?).

51 Prienean copy begins with «i]s tov adet xr. 55 Prienean copy has éo[yov. $58 Tipoxdet
’"Avatéalyopov, Swoux|peérer [Ivbiwvos, Priene. 60 Prienean copy lacks Eppwobe but employs
the paragraphos in its place.

COMMENTARY. Some event cr condition in the province of Asia, unknown to us

but certainly one of importance, caused the writer to compose this letter. He is amazed
to see how the Greeks have endured the shamelessness of certain people (Il. 41-42) and
for that reason has decided to write to the koinon of Asia, to the peoples of Miletus,
Ephesus, Tralles, Alabanda, Mylasa, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, and Adramyttium.!
Each of those cities, certainly the centers of the Asian conventus, is given instructions to
I! According to the original editors, as well as Robert and Magie, Miletus is to be included in the list.
The supposition is that the present letter was addressed to the city of Miletus directly—it was found in
the bouleuterion of Miletus—and that the phrase [zpos 5] us must refer to the Milesians. The writer
evidently had ten copies of his letter prepared, one for the koinon of Asia and the others for the judi-
ciary centers. Each one would have carried the name of the addressee in the salutation, but in the
list of cities which followed the phrase [zpos b]ués its name would have been omitted. There
would have been no need to say zpos buds MiAnaious. Such is the normal way of interpreting
that phrase. If we would suppose that the names of the cities following [zpos b]ués were merely
in apposition to that phrase, we would have to assume that the salutations in all nine letters were
identical, perhaps tots emi ths ’Acias “EAAnow yaipew aut similia. This was possible but not very
likely. If true, it would mean that Miletus was not a judiciary center at all and that the presence of
the letter in its bouleuterion meant the same thing as it did in the case of Priene: it was sent there for
publication by a judiciary center in compliance with general instructions (ll. 46-50). Jones, in fact,
did not make Miletus a judiciary center, but his reason for not doing so was based on a misunder-
standing of the letter (see Robert and Magie). Since the writer, almost certainly the Governor of
Asia, had also written an identical letter to the koinon of Asia, which in turn would have disseminated
the information in the letter to all its many members, it seems more likely that he would have ad-
dressed the nine letters individually to the judiciary centers. A directive separately addressed adds
to the importance of the matter. The finger is pointed, so to speak. General directives were
channeled through the koinon. Personal, individual responsibility was assigned through direct com-
munication. For these reasons I believe that the first interpretation is the correct one and that
Miletus had been a judiciary center in the middle of the first century B.c. By the age of Augustus
conditions had changed and other arrangements were made.

274
EPISTULAE

transmit his letter to the smaller cities in its district, and the letter is to be published and
preserved in each of the various archives. The writer then adds a most unusual statement
about his reason for writing in Greek, viz., in order that the Greeks might not mis-
understand his meaning (Il. 55-57). He appears to have taken advantage of the fact that
two envoys from Magnesia happen to be present, for he asks them to deliver his letter.
Such are the bare facts.
Who is the writer and what is the date? The answers depend upon the correct
interpretation of two pieces of information: the mention of Cicero and the list of cities.
There seems to be little or no doubt that the cities are the centers of the Asian conventus,
but a comparison with the list preserved by Pliny (N.H. 5. 105-26), which reflects the
conditions of the Augustan age in general, shows several variations. These may be seen
best in tabular form:

Letter Pliny
*Miletus Ephesus
Ephesus Alabanda
*Tralles Smyrna
Alabanda Pergamum
*Mylasa Sardis
Smyrna Adramyttium
Pergamum *Cibyra
Sardis *Synnada
Adramyttium *Apameia
Note: The starred entries of one list are missing in the
other.

For our present purpose the most important point to be noted here is the omission of
the Phrygian judiciary centers of Cibyra, Synnada, and Apameia from the list given in
the letter. It is important because we know that between 56 and 50 B.c. those three
centers belonged to the province of Cilicia, but that before and after those dates they
belonged to Asia.2 Hence the date of our letter must fall within the period 56-50 B.c.,
and the Cicero of line 39 must be the orator and statesman M. Tullius Cicero.
The combination of such a date and such a notable Roman figure suggests that the
writer of the letter is Q. Minucius Q. f. Thermus, governor of Asia in 51-50 B.c.3_ The
evidence for this is circumstantial rather than direct. Cicero is most likely to have been
named in a governor's letter to the cities of Asia during the time in which he himself was
governor of Cilicia (51-50 B.c.), for then he would have been more closely involved in
the affairs of Asia Minor. He is known to have been on very friendly terms with
Thermus in the course of that year and to have written to him on many occasions for a

2 For the Asian judiciary districts in general see Magie, op. cit., I, 171-72, and II, 1059-63, nn. 41-42,
and Robert, loc. cit. For the Phrygian districts see J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, 1?
(Leipzig, 1881), 335-36; R. Syme, in Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler, ed. W. M.
Calder and J. Keil (Manchester, 1939), pp. 301-5; Magie, op. cit., II, 1060, n. 41, and 1245, n. 18.
3 For his governorship see the references in Broughton, Magistrates, Il, 243, and Magie, op. cit., I, 399.

275
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

variety of reasons. One final piece of information may also have a bearing on the
present letter: Cicero had passed through the province of Asia in 51 B.c., on his way
to Cilicia. On that occasion he had met Thermus in Ephesus before proceeding into
the interior. And on his return to Italy the following year he had again stopped at
Ephesus while awaiting transportation.’ The possibility is that Cicero may have
noticed something while passing through Asia and later brought it to the attention either
of Thermus or some other official. This in turn prompted the letter. There are,
however, no facts to substantiate such a possibility.
Turning to the contents of the letter and the nature of the information communicated
to the cities of Asia, we are almost hopelessly in the dark. Isolated expressions such as
“false” (1. 6), “Ephesus” (in Ephesus ?) (1. 12), “laws” (1. 14), and “I was forced by...”
(I. 18) are not sufficient in themselves to be of much help. But that it is a matter about
which Cicero had some knowledge I am almost certain. I am led to this belief by the
statement (Il. 37-41) that someone, perhaps a subordinate in the officium of the governor
of Asia, had met with Cicero. Surely that meeting was not unconnected with the matter
at hand. Why else would the writer have mentioned it? Official letters from the
Roman government may be courteous in their approach, colorful in language at times,
and occasionally verbose, but they are never given to idle remarks or extraneous pieces
of information. Whatever is said has some connection with the subject. In the present
instance, however, we do not have the means to discover what it was.®
4 Ad Fam. 13. 53 (Cilicia, 51 B.c., letter of recommendation); ibid., 54 (Laodicea, 50 B.c., personal
matter); ibid., 55 (Cilicia, 51.B.c., recommendation); ibid., 56 (Cilicia, 51 B.c., concerning the fact that
several Asian cities owe Cluvius, a friend of Cicero’s, a great deal of money); ibid., 57 (Laodicea,
50 B.C., request that Thermus send Cicero’s legate M. Anneius back to Cilicia from Asia); cf. also Ad
Fam. 2. 18; Ad Att. 5. 13. 2; 20. 10; 21. 14.
5 On his way to Cilicia in 51 B.c., Cicero arrived at Ephesus in July and met Thermus (Ad Aft. 5. 13).
On his return to Rome in 50 B.c., however, he left Cilicia by boat by way of Rhodes and was de-
layed twenty days on the trip from Rhodes to Ephesus. At Ephesus itself he was further delayed
until October 1 (Ad Aft. 6. 8).
6 Two possibilities, however, present themselves for consideration. The first is that while passing
through Asia in July of 51 B.c. Cicero may have noticed or heard of infringement of the Lex Iulia de
Repetundis of 59 B.c. This law provided inter alia for a number of restrictions to be placed upon
Roman public officials in the provinces. They were forbidden, for example, to accept any sort of
gift in the administration of justice or to accept anything from the provincials while traveling through
their country, except shelter and the necessities of life (cf. Magie, op. cit., I, 380, and II, 1243, n. 8, for
details and references). Cicero, who at the time prided himself a great deal on his strict observance
ofits provisions (cf. Ad Att. 5. 21. 5; ibid., 10. 2; ibid., 16. 3; ibid., 6. 7. 2; ibid., 15. 11.), would clearly
have been told by surprised (?) provincials in the interior of any cases concerning its infringement.
The absence of any such reference in his letters to Thermus, however, does not make this possibility
a very likely one. The second possibility is that the letter concerns business dealings of some sort,
as suggested by the editors in the edition of the Milesian copy (Knackfuss, op. cit., p. 102). In this
regard the letter to Thermus (Ad Fam. 13. 56) may be pertinent. In it we learn that Cluvius of
Puteoli, a wealthy banker with investments throughout the province of Asia, is afraid that he will
lose all his interests in the province unless he can secure the help of the governor. The people of
Mylasa, Alabanda, Heraclea, Bargylia, and Caunus all owe him money but will not or cannot pay.
Cicero outlines the situation for Thermus and adds at the end that the matter is so important that Cn.
Pompeius himself is worried. Such a piece of business might be sufficiently large to cause Thermus
finally to compose a letter in order to make known his decision to all the cities. I therefore find this
second possibility at least worth consideration. Perhaps even Pompey’s investments were involved.

276
 Se
EPISTULA MAGISTRATUS ROMANI
AD _ ILIENSES First Century B.C.

QHHOVHOOGTD OARS YORE TEORORSEETERSOSASSSEEgggggyg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Briickner, in W. Dérpfeld, Troia und Ilion (Athens,

1902), nos. XVI-XVII, pp. 457-58; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 199; D.
Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1258, n. 3.

DESCRIPTION. No. XVI: four fragments of a block found at Ilium in a

well (B a) of the Temple of Athena. Of these fragments, A and B join
together with an over-all height of 0.23 m. and width of 0.145 m. Height of
letters: 0.015 m. Reproduced by Briickner, loc. cit. Fragment C: height,
0.05 m.; width, 0.035 m. Fragment D: height, 0.05 m.; width, 0.036 m. The
height of the letters in C and D is the same as in A-B.
No. XVII: one fragment, the dimensions of which are not given by
Briickner, found in the same location as no. XVI, and probably belonging to the
same text as no. XVI.

XVI

eeoe one
Pi a mba a pet eye a me "TA
vad[e 2 - -]
[eo SS Sa See ee ely TO tep@u
[----------------- Jous eypoape.
[-------- Thy TOAw budv ety]ou eAevbepav
[------------ Kal aAevt
|]ovpynrov
[--------
errr rere ] eravro. Koel
[SScaee Claes Dee ev vojLous ie| pots vacat
[----------------- avy|yevets
[----------- rrr rere 56] Eav
fbma gelswana dete eee et
[Abn] vas [- -] Delve [--]

277
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

XVII

[p= =e e eee eee eee

heeeebeyct
pai cheeea eis Scns |
[- --- Hs "AOnvas| rhs "Ide [Sos - - - - - ]
[oeeee |Voptaus [== =r oe|

A-B 3 One should not exclude éypdifa|[wev]. 7 Briickner refers to Die Inschriften von Pergamon,
246, ll. 61-62; 7d 5é Yndropa Tdde [K]Uprov elvou els drowvTa TOV Ypovov | Kat Kat|a|re[OAv
ce
adTo ev vopolts t]e[pots].

COMMENTARY. Strabo (13. 1. 26-27) tells us that Ilium was only a village with a
small temple of Athena until Alexander visited it after his victory at the Granicus. He
is said to have given it the title of city, adorned the temple, and decreed that the city was
to be free and exempt from tribute.!| After Alexander’s death Lysimachus built a wall
around the city and joined the neighboring cities to it (synoikismos). For a time there-
after, however, it seems to have fallen into bad times, but then it was improved very
greatly. In 205 B.c., by the terms of the Treaty of Phoenice, it was recognized by the
Romans as independent and under Roman protection. After 188 B.c. we know from
Livy (38. 39. 10) that Ilium was given control over both Rhoeteum and Gergithus. It
was therefore a free city.3 Much later, in the course of the first Mithridatic War, it
was captured by Fimbria and suffered greatly. But, when Sulla emerged triumphant
and Fimbria lay dead, Ilium’s previous status was confirmed by a grant of freedom.5
Little more than a generation later Julius Caesar not only preserved that freedom (and
immunity from taxation, Strabo adds) but also gave land to Ilium. The Romans, of
course, were very well disposed toward Ilium because of the tradition that Aeneas had
been their founder. The additional legend that the Julian gens could be traced all the
way back to Iulus caused Julius Caesar to be all the more anxious to display his respect
toward the city. It is not surprising, therefore, to discover that in Pliny’s time Ilium
was still immunis.7
Briickner, on the basis of the letter forms and the report of Strabo, believed that the
present document originated in the arrangement made by Caesar for the status of the
1Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, p. 40, discounts Strabo’s statement that Alexander
declared Ilium a city “‘as due to Strabo’s theory that Ilium was a mere village hitherto.”
2 For the controversy about the “inclusion” of Ilium in the treaty see the summary by Magie, op.
cit., II, 744-46, n. 35.
3 The mere fact that it was rewarded at this time must mean that it continued to be free. Magie, op.
Cib gwLOS JONES Opn cit. Dans 3.
4 Strabo 13. 1. 27; Appian Mithr. 53; Livy Epit. 83.
5 Appian Mithr. 61.
® Strabo 13. 1. 27; Lucan Phar. 9. 961ff., esp. 998; cf. Magie, op. cit., I, 405, and II, 1258, n. 3.
7 Pliny N.H. 4. 7. 8; 5. 124.

278
EPISTULAE

city. He did not call it a letter, but the use of the first person in fragment A-B, line 3,
and the possibility of a pronoun of the second person in fragment D would certainly
identify it as such. The date in the first century B.c. would point to a Roman magistrate,
but whether he is Sulla, Caesar, or someone else I cannot decide. More evidence is
needed. The writer, however, clearly confirms a grant of freedom and immunity to the
city.

279
 err
EPISTULA C. IULII CAESARIS
AD PERGAMENOS After Pharsalus

HHHHHGHGHTERSSS
SOSH SHOHHDDDHDDDSHSSHSSHSSHSIYYS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Passerini, Athenaeum, 15 (1937): 273-75; M. Segre,

Athenaeum, 16 (1938): 119-27; L. Robert, in Anatolian Studies Presented to
William Hepburn Buckler, ed. W. M. Calder and J. Keil (Manchester, 1939), pp.
227-30; M. I. Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.H.W., III (1941), 1527-28, n. 98; D. Magie,
Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1258-59, n. 3.

DESCRIPTION. Part of the dossier which contained the S.C. de Agro

Pergameno (No. 12), from Smyrna. The letters are of the same form and size
as those of the senatorial decree. Called fragment e by Passerini. If the width
of all the columns in that dossier is the same, then the number of letters in each
line of the present letter would average from about 58, minimum, to about 75,
maximum. Precise figures, however, cannot be given, because of the
irregularity in the spacing.

280
 EPISTULAE

[D'csos *Iovduos Kaioup| adrox|pcrwp, &pyrepeds Kat duxtatwp 70 B’ Ilepyapnvav

a&pxovor|
[BovAy dium xaiper|v- ef éppw[obe, ed dv yor bylawvov S€ adrds rere Tod
oTparevpatos. |
[vpuiv avriypadov t]od emupiualros améoraAKa Tob yeyovdros mrept THS Kopas THs
dpir|
[mpoowpiopevns: m]ept dv MiO[padcrns Myvodédrov mrodirns buérepos Kel pidos
Lov|
[Adyous €rroujoar]|o, wepi rovt [ov Tod mpéyparos obrws éméxpiva vacat]
/, 3 ~

[rHv Te rodw IT] épyopov Kol y[dpas daov Baucireds "Arrados Bacwéws Evpévous
/ , /

™ mroAeu|
[mpoowpicev, €]xtos Baowuko[b ------------- , eAevOepa adrovoprce
avelogope ? |
[a@popordynra ?|re elvan Soxe[t - -------------------------- |
[------ Jas re rovTwy [---------------------------- ]
10 [70d THv ‘P| wuaiwy dyylov - --------------------------- ]
[------ ] te daiverou Oé[Aew --------------- Baowreds ”Arrados |
[Bocordws| Edpevous vio[s - - -------------------------- ]
[------ Joovaore aovdlia-------------------------- ]
[------ Jw bheornoay [--------------------------- ]
15 [- - mpovy ?]poabav expewov [-------------------------- |
[----- b|wép tOv lepdv n[- ---------------eeeeee eee ]
[- -- “Pace] tos & te &AXNa | avro wrt rr rr rr ee re ee ee eee eee ]
[- - - - aldr@v amevt[wy - - ----------------
ee eee eee |
[------ ] Kptots Tob p[- ---------------
eee ee eee eee ]
20 [-<== -IP en nee tae cma rn naa The A GC ]

Restorations by Passerini and Segre. 1-8 The restorations of Segre are followed. 1 Lpupvaiwy
&pxovot KrA., Passerini. 3-4 mepl exeivwy Tdv mpaypatwv tlepi dv Mib[padaryns ? emot
Adyous €rroujouro, Passerini. 7 After BaoAxod perhaps a noun such as Kyou, mapadeioou, aut
similia, Segre. 9-20 As given by Passerini. 16 Robert thinks of a phrase such as r@v tepav
VOMLWY.

COMMENTARY. For Pergamum’s reception of Mithridates Eupator in 88 B.c. and

the murder of Roman citizens seeking asylum in its Temple of Asclepius, that city was
almost certainly deprived of its freedom and immunity by Sulla.'' But, like Mytilene
and other cities, it possessed a renowned citizen whose friendship and influence with the
Romans may have brought about the return of that freedom. The man himself,
Mithridates of Pergamum, was an interesting and important figure in the Greek East

1 Appian Mithr. 1off., esp. 23; Plutarch Sulla 11; Cicero Pro Flacco 57; see H. Hepding, Athen. Mitt.,
1909, pp. 333-34.

281
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

about the middle of the first century B.c.2_ Son of Menodotos and Adobogiona, he
traced his lineage back to the tetrarchs of Galatia. His mother was said originally to
have been a concubine of Mithridates Eupator, and his father belonged to a very aristo-
cratic family of Pergamum. The son was reared in the court of the Pontic king, it
seems, and performed his military service in the royal army. Although embassies to
Rome had brought him to the attention of his Roman masters, his great chance for
honor and glory came when Julius Caesar was besieged in Alexandria. He marched to
his assistance at the head of an army and managed to rescue him.3 For this act Caesar
rewarded him with the title ‘‘friend”’ and the more material benefits of a tetrarchate of
the Trocmi and a kingdom in southern Russia. Unfortunately, Mithridates did not
live long enough to enjoy his rewards to the full, for in 46/45 B.c. he fell in battle against
Asandros, King of the Bosporus.
Pergamum honored her famous citizen with statues and inscriptions. In one of
them he is credited with “having restored to the gods the city and its land that is holy”’
and is called the “‘ New Founder after Pergamos and Philetairos” of his country.* Jt was
concluded by Hepding, long ago, that Mithridates was described in such terms because
he had succeeded in winning back Pergamum’s long-lost freedom. His friendship with
Caesar no doubt would have made this possible, especially after the rescue in Alexandria.
That Caesar was actually responsible for restoring Pergamum’s freedom upon the request
of Mithridates is nowhere stated positively, but Hepding believed that it was mentioned
in a Pergamene inscription, which he restored as follows:5

[*O dF p05]
[erinoe] Tov exvTod olwrfpa Kat edepyéerny]
SP: A e ~ ~ A ? /

[[csov *Lob]Avoy Daiov dov Kaiolapa tov adttKpatopa Kal]

[epxtlepéa Kat Sixtaropa 70 [B’ ma&ons aperhs Kal edvotas]
> Ig \ 4 A /, , > ~ \ > /

[evex]ev amoxataotioa|yra Tots Beots THY Te mdAWW]

[kot ry]v yopav o[dloav iepaly Kat dovrdov Kat adrovopov.|
Another copy of the same inscription assured the correctness of the restoration in the
fifth line, but Segre could not agree with Hepding’s conclusion of the sixth line. He
thought that the name of some divinity should follow the phrase o[d]oav fepa[v],
perhaps that of Dionysus or Athena.® Nevertheless, like Hepding, he concluded that
Pergamum had regained her freedom through Mithridates and Caesar. He interpreted
the phrase “restored to the gods the city and its land sacred to...” as indicating the

2 The basic article about the man and his exploits is still that of H. Hepding, op. cit., pp. 329-40. Cf.
Segre, op. cit., p. 120; Geyer, R.E., s.v. “Mithridates” (15), cols. 2205-6; L. Robert, Etudes
Anatoliennes, pp. 53 and 56, and in Anatolian Studies, pp. 227-29; Rostovtzeff, loc. cit., Magie, op. cit.,
p. 1259, n. 4.
3 Caesar Bell. Alex. 26ff.; see M. Gelzer, Caesar der Politiker und Staatsman® (Wiesbaden, 1960), pp.
230-32 (English translation by P. Needham [Blackwell, 1968], pp. 251-52).
4In two copies, first correctly published and interpreted by Hepding, op. cit., pp. 329-31 (I.G.R.R.,
IV, 1682; cf. L. Robert, in Anatolian Studies, p. 230).
5 Hepding, op. cit., pp. 336-37 (IL.G.R.R., IV, 1677; cf. L. Robert, loc. cit.).
° Segre, op. cit., pp. 122-26. Magie (op. cit., p. 1259) believed that there was little reason to justify
the restoration of the name of a god at this point.

282
EPISTULAE

restoration of the traditional constitution that had been lost since the end of the first
Mithridatic War.
Caesar was in a generous mood after the victory at Pharsalus in 48 B.c., and because of
his clementia largenumbers of cities succeeded in obtaining grants or favors of various
kinds from him. It would have been the proper moment for Mithridates to bring up
the question of Pergamene freedom and immunity (ifnot then, at any rate after the rescue
in Alexandria). Mithridates probably could have received an affirmative reply from
Caesar to any reasonable request. What could have been more important to him than
the freedom and immunity of his city? Accordingly, Hepding and Segre believe that
Caesar restored the city’s freedom. L. Robert also agrees. Magie does not.7 But one
must admit that the available evidence tends to support Hepding, Segre, and Robert.
When Pergamum called Mithridates a ‘“‘ New Founder after Pergamos and Philetairos,”
it did not seem to be (in view of the man’s friendship with Caesar) merely extravagant
praise, but rather a statement of fact. It must have meant that Mithridates was respon-
sible for some momentous change in his city’s political condition or status. The res-
toration of freedom would be of sufficient importance to warrant such praise.
We turn to the present letter of Caesar. It is important to remember that it is here a
part of a large dossier engraved at Smyrna, Pergamum, and probably other cities. The
fact that all the texts were assembled and engraved at Smyrna means that all of them were
concerned with the same problem, Pergamum and its land.8 From the letter we learn
that Mithridates had met with Caesar, presumably after Pharsalus, and discussed with him
the Pergamene question. Extant expressions in lines 6, 7, 8, 13, and 16 make it reason-
ably clear that the status of the city and its land is the issue.? Segre thought that in this
letter Caesar officially communicated to Pergamum his decision to declare the city and
its territory free and immune. This explains his restoration in lines 7-8.
Magie, however, thought that Caesar’s decision “may have resembled in some way
the recognition of inviolability received by various Asianic cities during the later third
century,” and that the grant of freedom was not made until the governorship of P.
Servilius Isauricus (46-44 B.c.).!° There is no doubt that Servilius was responsible for
some political or constitutional changes in Pergamum, for one Pergamene inscription
speaks of him as “savior and benefactor of the city and one who gave back to the city
its ancestral laws and an unrestricted democracy.” For Magie this was decisive.'!_ For

7 Magie, op. cit., I, 405-6, and II, 1258-59, n. 3.

8 Passerini thought that the present letter of Caesar had been addressed to Smyrna, but it was shown by
Segre and Robert that it must have been addressed to Pergamum. The only reason why the docu-
ments had been engraved and set up at Smyrna is that the Pergamene land issue was one of great
importance for all the cities of the area. Publication in many cities was believed to be essential. See
Robert, in Anatolian Studies, p. 228, n. 3, and the commentary to No. 12 of the present volume.
9 Another fragment from the same dossier was published by Passerini, op. cit., p. 276 (fragment f),
which apparently defined the Pergamene boundaries. It mentions Elaia and Julius Caesar. See also
Robert, in Anatolian Studies, p. 229, for the text.
10 Magie, op. cit., I, 405.
11 ©.G.LS., 449 (LG.R.B.71V, 433).

283
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Hepding and Segre it meant merely that the work of restoration was not completed
until the proconsulship of Servilius. It is not really necessary to separate the two acts—
those of Mithridates and Servilius—for surely the grant of freedom did not solve all
Pergamene problems immediately. The difficult questions of the city’s lands and its
legal status might have required considerable time to resolve. Indeed, Servilius was
called upon to adjudicate in a legal issue which concerned the sacred laws and the asylia
of the Temple of Asclepius in Pergamum (No. 55), an event which proves that the de-
cision of Caesar did not end all difficulties. To restore democratic institutions takes
time; to restore them “unrestrictedly” takes even longer.
Although solid evidence is lacking, it would seem that Mithridates of Pergamum
managed to have his city’s freedom and immunity restored. His friendship with
Caesar and the weighty credits “‘New Founder after Pergamos and Philetairos,” not to
mention “Restorer to the gods of the city and its land,” are sufficient to warrant such a
suggestion. To state it as a fact may be rash, but to dismiss it altogether would be ill-
advised. I tend to believe it.

284
 3
EPISTULA P. SERVILII ISAURICI
AD PERGAMENOS 46-44 B.C.

HHYGOHOOHDTSS SOOO ODDOODOHHHHHDAHDHADDSSSSSSSSagggg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. T. Wiegand, “Zweiter Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen in

Pergamon 1928-32: Das Asklepieion,” Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, no. 5 (Berlin, 1932), no. 1, p. 32 (A.E., 1933, no.
260); M. Segre, II Mondo Classico, 3 (1933): 485-88 and 4 (1934): 71; L.
Robert, Hellenica, 6 (1948): 39-40; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor
(Princeton, 1950), I, 417, and II, 1271, n. 42.

DESCRIPTION. Found at Pergamum at the site of the ancient Asclepieion.

Height: 0.28 m. Width: 0.42 m. Thickness: 0.12 m. Height of letters:
0.007-0.008 m. (except those of |. 2, which are 0.012 m. high).

"Ayabhu Tiyne.
Enixpiya trepi tis aavAlas.
> fe \ ~ > /

[I16]mAvos Xepoidvos [omAiov vids *Ioaupixcs avOvTraros

[&] pyovar BovdAF Sjpw Ilepyapevav yaiperv.
Kietros Tipwvos mpitavs: >AokAnmcdns Mérpw-
vos tepevs: Moipodevns Mntpoddpov: Mevéuayos
Fevordetous, ‘Hpwdns ‘Hpwdov: Néwv Medecypou,
’Arododherns ’Opéctov: a&pyovtes: Ilepoeds [lepoéws
tod Aiwvos ypappareds dipouv: Kpirwy Mnvodapou,
10 yupvaciapyos: Opmolws Te Kal mpecBevTal tueTEpoL, av-
Spes &yabot uot mpoonAPov brép tav tod *"Ackdy-
mod lep@v vopwv aovdias te. v “Hrs dpetv avtiora-
ois brep TOV TOD iepod Sikaiwy mpos Maprov Pavnov
¢€ 5 ~ fai. ~ / \ M / ®@ U

Nepeptov viov Typeretva. trfipyev, brép tovr [ov Tod]

mp&yparos, Ths drobcew|s e& avtixaractacews UP |
, ~ € / > > 4 ¢€ >
15
éxatépwv pnbeions, [---- - -- emeKpiva rept|
dv Meépros De|vvvos Nepepiov vids Tnpereiva eve] -
Covey [a7 =e = ne eae an = ]
[--JON[-------------221-7---

285
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Note the marks of punctuation in 5-10. 12 At first Segre thought that TEH TIX was corrupt
and that the correct reading was JTEPIH, but later, on the basis of a photograph, he changed his
mind and punctuated as shown here. 15 drobécew|[s a&xpiBeorara €] |karépwr, Wiegand, but
Segre, with reference to S.I.G.3, 785, 7ff., and Josephus Ant. 14. 246, suggests dofécew [s e€
dvticataordcews 3$’|| éxatépwr. 17-18 eve] |dcvcer, L. Robert among the works of Segre.

COMMENTARY. PP. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 79 B.c.) helped his family to
regain a share of its old prestige, while the good marriage and personal ability of his son
P. Servilius Isauricus (cos. 48 B.C.) renewed family ties and strengthened its position.
The son, about 60 B.c., had married Junia, a niece of M. Porcius Cato and a daughter of
Servilia and Dec. Silanus. His close friendship and political rapport with Cato lasted
some ten years, but then he turned from his father-in-law and the majority of his as-
sociates to ally himself with the Caesarian party. Caesar received him eagerly as one of
the few nobiles to make such a change. Servilius found his reward for this in the
consulship of 48 B.c., during which he had Caesar himself as colleague. Further honor
came a few years later when he was appointed proconsul of Asia, a position which he
held from 46 to 44 B.c. In that office he was a man of exceptional ability and great
humanitas. Not since Scaevola, perhaps, had Asia found a greater benefactor or a more
just administrator. Inscriptions in his honor have been found in greater numbers than
for any other governor of Asia under the Republic.2_ Magnesia ad Maeandrum,
Aegae, Smyrna, Ephesus, Mitylene, Cos, Calymnus, Tenus, Hierocaesarea, and Per-
gamum all honored him in the appropriate manner. And at Pergamum his name was
added to the cult of Roma.3 His concern for provincials in general was evident at an
early date in his career, for in 61-60 B.c. he and Cato had managed to introduce into a
senatus consultum a clause which helped to protect free cities against the unlawful demands
of the publicani, an action which was sufficiently strong to cause Atticus to complain
about his holdings in Sicyon and Cicero to sympathize. Following his governorship of
Asia he returned to Rome only after the death of Caesar and there sought to become
an intermediary between the opposing parties. Both he and Cicero spoke out against
Antonius in the Senate, but on the whole he remained neutral in the conflict and thus
won his reward in a second consulship in 41 B.c. Not long afterward he died, in an
unknown year.
When Servilius became governor of Asia in 46 B.c. the city of Pergamum may already
have received its freedom. That is a point, however, about which some doubt exists
(see the commentary to No. 54). The fact remains that Servilius was praised at Per-
gamum for, inter alia, “having given back to the city its ancestral laws and an un-
restricted democracy” (O.G.1.S., 449=ILG.R.R., IV, 433 =LL.S., 8779). Clearly he

™F, Miinzer, Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), pp. 354-58; idem, R.E., s.v.
“Servilius” (67), cols. 1798-1802; Syme, Roman Revolution, pp. 69, 109, 123, 134-36, I47, 164, 170,
182, 189, 197, 208; Magie, op. cit., I, 416-17, and II, 1270-71, n. 42.
2 See Robert, loc. cit., and Magie, op. cit., II, 1270-71.
3 See Robert, loc. cit., on this subject.

286
EPISTULAE

was responsible not merely for good government but also for substantial improvements
in the political and/or legal status of Pergamum. We turn to the present letter.
Sometime during his term of office a delegation of nine Pergamene citizens met with
him and discussed the matter of the sacred laws and asylia of the Temple of Asclepius.
A certain M. Fannius Numerii f. Ter., otherwise unknown, was involved in some sort
of legal difficulty with the temple. Whatever its exact nature might have been, it must
have had rather broad implications for the future. Its importance can be judged by
the number of the delegates and their high positions in the city government. Servilius
listened to both sides and then rendered his decision. Details are lacking, but the
decision may have been favorable to the city and the temple.
What relationship this document had to the one which appeared after the S.C. de
Pergamenis (No. 11, ll. 20-21) is not known.
4 It is difficult to agree wholly with Segre (op. cit., p. 487) in thinking that the case might have been one
of an escaped slave seeking sanctuary or perhaps one involving Fannius’ violation of the sacred pre-
cinct by the cutting of wood or the dumping of garbage in the temple area. The issue seems much
more important.

287
 56
EPISTULA L. SESTIT QUIRINALIS
AD THASIOS 44-42 B.C.

HHGHLGESDDHDSOOHHHOHHOHDDDDDTTYSYOOSSSOOSSSSSSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Dunant and J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur [histoire et les

cultes de Thasos, II (Etudes thasiennes, V) (Paris, 1958), no. 176, pp. 55-56 (Plate
VII, 1).

DESCRIPTION. Inscribed on the same block as the letter of Cn. Cornelius

Dolabella to the Thasians (No. 21), its first line being just 0.085 m. below the
last line of that inscription. Height of letters: 0.014 m.

Aevkvos XHatvos [TorXiov vids Kupivad|ts - - - - - Oaciwy dpxyovat Bovdju]

Spor yaipew: ‘Ixéovos IIv@iwvos, Kr[no.---------------------- é|
mpeoBurepos mpeoBevTat tuerepo[t evervydv [Lol - - - - --------------- ]
anébo[a]av te To map’ budv Wplvoua - --------------------------

amoota evra Snudava ypdppara [------------------------------

3-4 See the letter of the dictator Caesar to Mytilene in 48 B.c. (No. 26), ll. 5-6; the letter of M.
Antonius to the koinon of Asia (No. 57), ll. 5ff.; the letter of Augustus to the Cnidians (No. 67),
ll. 7-8; and the letter of Augustus to Sardis (No. 68), 1. 24, with cuvéruyov.

288
EPISTULAE

COMMENTARY. L. Sestius P. f L.n. Albinianus Quirinalis (cos. suff: 23 B.c.) was

the son of that P. Sestius who, as trib. pl. in 57 B.c., had struggled against Clodius and was
accused the following year de vi et ambitu. It was Cicero who defended him and, with
the help of others, succeeded in having him acquitted. In the course of that trial the
young son had read aloud documents for his father’s defense (Pro Sestio 6. 10. 144). The
political affiliations of the son are clearly seen in the fact that in 44 B.c. he joined the party
of the liberators and aided them in the outfitting of ships for their eastern journey
(Cicero Ad Att. 15. 17. 1; 16. 2. 4). He was a constant admirer and loyal follower of
Brutus, fought in the wars at his side, and became his proquaestor in Macedonia for the
period 44-42 B.c. He was asked by the party of Antonius to betray Brutus, but he
refused and was therefore placed on the proscription list. He was, however, pardoned
by Augustus and was won over to his party. In fact Augustus admired Sestius’ qualities
of devotion and loyalty to the memory of Brutus (Appian B.C. 4. 51; Dio 53. 32. 4).
In 23 B.c. Augustus chose him to fill the vacancy in the consulship created by his own
resignation from that office—a signal honor, and significant.!
It would appear that the present letter dates from the activity of Sestius in Macedonia
just prior to the Battle of Philippi, for he certainly is writing to the Thasians in an
official capacity.2 The island of Thasos was under the command of the Macedonian
governor and must have had little choice in the role it was to play in the few years
between the death of Caesar and the decision at Philippi. It became, in fact, a supply
base of real aid to the liberators. No military commander could have afforded to
neglect it. After Philippi the defeated forces of Brutus and Cassius looked to their own
safety in flight or capitulation, and many of the high-ranking officers escaped to Thasos
(Appian B.C. 4. 136). Antonius himself came to the island and received from these
officers a huge quantity of money, arms, and supplies. For its role in the cause of the
liberators Thasos was deprived of its control over Skiathos and Peparethos.

I For the facts of his career see F. Miinzer, R.E., s.v. “Sestius” (3), col. 1885; Broughton, Magistrates,
Il, 326, 349, and 362-63 (cf. Supplement to Magistrates, p. 59); Dunant and Pouilloux, loc. cit. He
was a friend of Horace and was honored by having an ode dedicated to him (Od. I. 4).
2 There is only a slight possibility that the letter dates from the year of his consulship, but it is one that
should not be dismissed. That it might have been written in the period of his proquaestorship is
also the opinion of L. Robert, R.E.G., 72 (1959): 234.

289
 af
EPISTULA MARCI ANTONI
AD KOINON ASIAE 42-41 OF 33-32 B.C.

QHEGTGUGSADS SOUS SHHHOHOHHDHDSYYSSSSSSSESSSSSSSS9

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. G. Kenyon, Classical Review, 7 (1893): 476-78; C. G.

Brandis, Hermes, 32 (1897): 509-22; E. Thomas, Philologus, 57 (1898): 422-27;
E. Ziebarth, Rheinisches Museum, 55 (1900): 518-19; V. Chapot, La province
romaine proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris, 1904), pp. 464 and 492; F. Poland, Geschichte
des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 150-51 (document no. H 26);J.
Keil, Jahreshefte, 14 (1911), cols. 123-34; M. San Nicold, Agyptisches Vereinswesen
zur Zeit der Ptolemder und Romer, 1 (Munich, 1913), p. 64, n. 1; F. Preisigke,
Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten, I (1915), 4224; F. Poland, R.E.,
s.v. “Technitai,” in the Nachtrage to vol. V A 2 (1934), cols. 2515-16; L. Robert,
Hellenica, 7 (1949): 122-23; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), I, 428-29, and II, 1279, n. 4; A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic
Festivals ofAthens (Oxford, 1953), p. 305; Ehrenberg—Jones, no. 300, p. 132;
C. A. Forbes, Classical Philology, 50 (1955): 239-41; M. Amelotti, Studia et
Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 21 (1955): 127-31; Johnson, Coleman-Norton,
Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 125.

DESCRIPTION. This text was written on the verso of a British Museum

medical papyrus (P. Lond. 137) discovered by Kenyon. ‘‘Why it was transcribed
on the back of the medical MS., cannot even be guessed with any confidence.
The contents relate to the province of Asia, whereas the papyrus comes from
Egypt; and while the rescript was issued in the middle of the first century
before Christ, this copy of it can hardly be earlier than the second century of our
era. To guess at the personal reasons which may have made the owner of the
medical work wish to preserve such a document would be obviously futile. It
is written in a single column, in a rather large semi-cursive hand, and with the
exception of a few letters near the end it is preserved intact” (Kenyon, op. cit., p.
476). Part of the beginning (Il. 1-5) is also extant, in a very mutilated form, in
an inscription said to have been found in Tralles (Keil, op. cit., cols. 123-27).
See below, in the critical apparatus on lines 3-4 of the text.

290
 EPISTULAE

Me
&pkos CA Avrwuos
/
adtoxpatwp
> UY

Tpia@v avdpav Snwooiwy mpuyucrwv

~ 2 ~ ti

amr KATKOTAKCEWS, TH KOWAL TOV G-

> \ 4 lo ~ a

m0 THs “Aaias “EdAjvwv yatpew: Kot

Aj onl > / e

TpoTepov evtuxovTos jor ev ’Edéown

/ > ee > > /

Mépxov ’Avrwviov ’Apreuiddpov, tod

4 > A

euod dpidov Kal cAeimrov, were TOO é-

> lol oe a

TwVvULOV THs Gvvddou TV amo THs

/ ~ ~ lol

OLKOULEVNS LepoviK@V Kal oTEpa-

> Cd ¢€ ~

~ €
Io veit@v Lepéws Xaporreivov ’Edeciou,
TEpt TOD <Ta> TpovmdpyovTa TH cvve-
\ ~ \ on ~

Swe weve avadhaipera, Kal mTEpt TOV

> ~

A re as ee o es
Aowrdy dv jretro am’ euodA Tystwy
,

Kal piravOpwimwy> Tis aotparevalas

\ ~

Kal aAevToupynaias TéONS Kal cvETL-

\ bs
15
oTabwetas Kal THs TEpl THY TAV?-
/ \ ~

yupw éexeyeipias Kal aovrlas Kai

Toppvpas, wa cuvywpyatw> ypcpou
/ a vA fd

TUpPAXPHUA pos vuds, cuvywpaf{v} ~ \ ~ ~

20 BovAdpevos Kat da Tov eov di-

/ 3 \ A >? \ /

ov “Aprenidwpov Kal Tat emmvi-

ny, 7A he) \ ~ bd 4

por adtav lepel eis Te TOV KdapLOV THs

avvddov Kal THY avEnow adbtis ya-
ploacba. Kal Ta vov maw evTv-
, A Ni ~ UA >

25 xovros ot TOO
/
’Aprepidwpov oTrws ~ Al PY fZ o

e€p adtots avabetva d€dTov yad-

Kh Kal evyapaéau eis adrny trept
Tov mpoyeypappevwr piravOpuTrwv,
eya Tpoapovpevos ev undevi Kab-
30 votepetv TOK» *Aprepudupotu> mepi <Tov»>Twv
evTvyovTos emrexwpnoa Tr [Vv ava| -
>

beXa>w Tris S€ATo(v) ws rapaxcdrc? [ye].

duty
(a
O(€)\ yeypada
/
epi \ TovTwv.
/

3-4 The copy on stone at Smyrna, originally found at Tralles, reads as follows for this section
(Keil, op. cit., col. 127): Mpxos’Av]resvios adbroxpa [twp tpidv avSp@v Sypoot| wv mpoypcr |wv
ano KataoTd[cews TH Kowa TaV ano THs ’Alaias “EMjvwr] Kat Tots mpo€ [Spots - - - - -
yail|pew: Kal mpdte] pov evruydv[ros pouxTA. Note that ro?s mpo¢8pos is missing in the papy-
rus. The phrase dé xaraordéoews has a partial parallel in the letter of Octavian to Rhosus (No.
58, II 9), where, however, the preposition is émi. Cf. also Res Gestae Divi Augusti I. 12: emt] TH
Kataotéce Tov Snpwociwy mpayyarwy. 14 Papyrus has prdarOpwrrov. 18-19 The papyrus has
ovvywprhan - - - - avvywpav, which Kenyon emended. 30-31 tov ’Aprepidwpov mept Trav
evruydvros éemexwpnaa 7 [v - -]|Geéwv, papyrus. The change from the accusative to the genitive

291
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

in the envoy’s name, first suggested by Oliver, appears correct and in agreement with the verb
governing it (kaOvarepeiv). Kenyon, wept tovrwy éevtuydvra; Brandis, wept dv evérvy€é por.
The editors of Sammelbuch (I [1915], 4224) suggest epi T(wwv evtvxdvt <a>, which is followed
by Ehrenberg-Jones. At the end of the phrase (Il. 32) Kenyon has expanded - -] ef, a reading
confirmed by Skeat (per litteras), to xa] Océwv krA ; Amelotti corrected it to avd] Beau.

COMMENTARY. At some time prior to the writing of this letter two envoys from
the world-wide organization of iepovixen and orepavetrau had met with Antonius and
had asked him to confirm their former privileges and to add those of exemption from
military service, immunity from all liturgies, freedom from billeting, a truce during
their festival, personal inviolability, and the right to wear the purple (Il. 4-18). He
agreed. Later, when one of the envoys met with him a second time and asked for
permission to erect a bronze tablet that would contain a record of these privileges, he
also agreed—an understandable after-thought.! Antonius then wrote the letter to the
koinon of Asia.2
Since the meeting between Antonius and the envoys took place in Ephesus (I. 5), we
have an indication of the approximate date, for, although the titles imperator and triumvir
rei publicae constituendae merely point to a period in the career of Antonius (after the
autumn of 43 B.c.) and offer here no solid evidence of a more precise date, our sources
tell us that he had been in Ephesus on two occasions, first in 42-41 B.C. after Philippi and
a second time toward the end of 33 B.c.3 Kenyon placed the letter in 41 B.c., but
Brandis believed that the privileges of freedom from military service and billeting fitted
better into a period when unusual military activity would have made them matters of
immediate, if only temporary, importance to the organization. He therefore placed
the letter in 33-32 B.c., before Actium because of the demands that the military situation
placed upon the Greek East. His proposal might be countered by the reflection that
the mere memory of the hardships before Philippi (43-42 B.c.) could have prompted the
organization to ask Antonius for those same privileges. Dolabella, then Brutus and
Cassius, even Antonius himself—memory of the past prompted action to safeguard the

' Cf. the letter of Sulla to Cos (No. 49) in which the principal objective seems to be the granting of
permission to the Dionysiac Artists to erect a stele in Cos which would contain a record of their
privileges. A grant of privileges had to be accompanied normally by an order or directive authorizing
publication. Otherwise a city might refuse to allow the stele to be erected.
2 The earliest use of the koinon of Asia as an official organ through which the Roman government
communicated its pleasure or orders appears to have been in about 51-50 B.c. (?) ina letter of a Roman
magistrate to the Milesians and other centers of the Asian conventus (No. 52). The organization, of
course, had existed at least from the beginning of the first century B.c. See Magie, op. cit., I, 447-48,
and II, 1294-95, n. $4.
3 The first visit: Plutarch Ant. 24; Appian B.C. 5. 4. 5; Dio 48.24. The second: Plutarch Ant. 56 and
58.
4 There is the additional point that grants of immunity from billeting are now known to have been
more common than was thought when Brandis wrote his article. See L. Robert, Hellenica, 3 (1946):
84-85, n. 3, and cf. the two letters of Roman magistrates to the Dionysiac Artists in the last half of
the second century B.c. (No. 44, ll. 5-6) with the letter of Sulla to Cos (No. 49), ll. 9-12).

292
EPISTULAE

future. There is, therefore, good reason for dating the letter just after Philippi in 41
B.C., as Kenyon and Magie have done.
The professional organization to which Antonius here grants and confirms privileges
was composed, as its title indicates, of those who had been victorious in sacred games and
had won garlands.’ Such victors could be either athletes or dramatic performers, and
for that reason Brandis, Poland, and others have maintained that both athletes and
Dionysiac Artists could have been members of it. This seems to be confirmed by the
fact that the principal envoy from the organization was an dAeimrys, or physical trainer.
The present document is not the only one which mentions this organization, but it does
give us the earliest example of its formal and official title. Contemporary with or
preceding it is an inscription from Erythrae which contains three wreaths and the fol-
lowing phrases: 6 duos 6 *“Epulpaiwy, 6 Siuos 6 ’HAeiwv, of amd ris otkoupévys
aOAnrai, and of ard Tis otKoupevys tepovetKa.6 Thus the organization of athletes was
separate and distinct from the organization of fepovetKou kal orepavetro. Membership
in the former was open to all athletes, the winners as well as the losers, while membership
in the latter would naturally have been restricted to those who had been victorious in
the sacred games in which the prize was a garland. Of course, any given athlete could
have been a member of both organizations as long as he qualified for both; similarly, a
dramatic performer could have belonged to his own separate guild of Dionysiac Artists
as well as the iepovetkat Kal oredpavetrou as long as he qualified for both. But the two
organizations were quite separate and should be carefully distinguished.7 Later in-
scriptions allow us to trace in bare outline only those ‘epovetxau from the period after
Actium to the second century a.p.8

5 For a good orientation on athletic guilds see Forbes, op. cit., pp. 238-52, with references to earlier
literature.
6 J. Keil, Jahreshefte, 13 (1910), no. 54, p. 70; on this inscription see also Forbes, op. cit., p. 239.
7 Magie, op. cit., II, 1279, n. 4, seems to have misunderstood the intention of Brandis and Poland.
They did not mean that the present organization of winners in the sacred games “included the pre-
viously independent society of athletes,” as Magie assumed. They merely meant that members of
one organization could also belong to the other, if they qualified.
8 Forbes, op. cit., pp. 240-42, with full references.

293
 58
EPISTULAE OCTAVIANI DE SELEUCO
NAUARCHA 42-30 B.C.

FHDDHDOT DODD OSOHHDSEDSOHTTSSSOOSTESSESOOORSEES

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Roussel, Syria, 15 (1934): 33-74, Plates IX-X, fig. 1

(cf. résumé in A.E., 1934, no. 217); G. Goodfellow, Roman Citizenship
(Lancaster, 1935), pp. 41ff., 90ff.; F. Cumont, L’antiquité classique, 4 (1935):
191-92; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 2 (1936):
497-98, 515; H. Nesselhauf, C.I.L., XVI (1936), no. 11, p. 145; L. Gallet, Rev.
hist. de droit francais et étranger, 4% ser., 16 (1937): 387ff. et passim; M. A. Levi,
Rivista di filologia, 16 (1938): 113-28; F. De Visscher, Comp. Rend. Acad.
Inscriptions, 1938, pp. 24-39 (with some restorations by H. Grégoire); M.
Guarducci, Rendiconti Pontif. Accad. Arch., 1938, pp. 53-59; V. Arangio—Ruiz,
Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 5 (1939): 552ff.; E. Schonbauer, Archiv fiir
Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939): 177-209 (with restorations by A. Wilhelm); F. De
Visscher, Les édits d’Auguste découverts a Cyrene (Louvain= Paris, 1940), pp. 37
(n. 1), 65, 105, and 177 (n. 1); F. von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im
romischen Recht (Munich, 1940), pp. 175-77; S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris Romani
antejustiniani?, pt. 1 (Florence, 1941), no. 55, pp. 308-15; M. I. Rostovtzeff,
S.E.H.H.W., Il (1941), pp. 1012, 1570, 1581;J.H. Oliver, A.J.A., 45 (1941): pp.
537-39;J.Robert and L. Robert, R.E.G., 54 (1941): 262-63; E. Schénbauer,
Z.S.S., 62 (1942): 267ff.; G. I. Luzzatto, Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana
(Milan, 1942), pp. 285-321; A. Wilhelm, Wiener Anzeiger, 80 (1943): 2-10;
F. De Visscher, L’antiquité classique, 13 (1944): 11-35 and 14 (1946): 29-59; J.
Robert and L. Robert, R.E.G., 59-60 (1946-47): 55-56; L. Wenger, Mélanges
Fernand De Visscher, Il (Brussels, 1949), pp. 533-50; L. Jalabert and R.
Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latins de la Syrie, III, 1 (1950), no. 718, pp. 395-
411; H. Seyrig, Syria, 27 (1950): pp. 32-34 (on the era of Rhosos); D. Magie,
Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1114, n. 10, and 1288, n. 31;
Lewis-Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I(New York, 1951), no. 152, pp. 389-91;
L. Wenger, Die Quellen des rémischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 401-402;
Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 301, pp. 133-35; G. Manganaro, Siculorum Gymnasium,
1958, pp. 289-96; J. Robert and L. Robert, R.E.G., 73 (1960): 199-200;
Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 128; H.
Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta* (Turin, 1962), nos.
LXL-LXIII, pp. 32-38.

DESCRIPTION. Found at Rhosus, limestone tinged with blue, of uneven

surface. Height: 1.39 m. Width: 0.58 m. Thickness: 0.15 m. Height of
letters: 0.01 m. (first two lines), 0.007 m. (elsewhere), but the size varies. Now
in the Museum of Antioch.

294
 EPISTULAE

I
"Erous .., unvos ’AmedAaiov [- - - - - ]
[Adroxpa] twp Kaioup, bod ’IovaAlov vids, adtoxpétwp 76 Térauptov, br [wros]
[76 ded] epov Kod 1d tpitov crroSeSevypévos, ‘Pwodwy ris lepas Kat &ovdAov Kat
[edrovdu]ov apyovor, Bovdtu, Siw yalpew: Kot adrds S¢ pete Tod OTPATEVJLATOS
[syiawov: +]& droyeypappeve eEedjpOne ek orHAns ex Tod ev ‘Payne KarerwXlov
[amep a€1d] Karaywpioa eis ta map’ Suiv Syudove ypdupora. mépibare Sé Kal
avtiypapov
[adrav eis] Topodwy ryv Bovdjy Kal tov Shpov, "Avrioyéwv tiv BovAy Kod Tov
d7jpov,
[ZeAevKéw]v tiv Bovdjy Kat tov Shuov dws Kataywpiowow. vv "Eppwode.

II
[? Kaicap a|dtoxpétrwp, tpidv avdpav emt ris Karaotécews TOV Sypootwv
A / ~ > ~ ~ ~

TpoyLuc-
[twv, Kara v]duov Movveriov kat Aipidioy moAetelav Kat averapopliay mévTw TOV
\ / / \ i) / / My 22 jt) / ~
10

[drapydvT| wy eSwKav eis TovTous Tods Adyous. vacat

/

[Eret LeAev| kos Oeoddrov ‘Pwoeds cvveotparevoaro jpetv ev tots Kara THV
> lal A

Vege es i: Jous, dvtwy adroxpardépwv Hudv, TOAAG Kal peydAc TrEpl judy exaKkoTra-
[Oncev exw] dvvevaer Te oddevos devacpevos TOV Tpos bropovny Sewav
[Kal mécav| mpocipeow miotw TE mapécxeTo Tots SnLocios TpP&ypwacL, TOUS TE
~ a / U
15
[iStous Kaup]ovds THe jyerepou owrn|piar] ovvelevEev macav re BAGBnv meEpt TOV
Ines \ ~ ¢ / LY / a 4 A \ a

[Sypooiwy mpa|yycrwv Tob dju[ou T]o[6 “Pwy|aiwy drépewe, wapotow Kat

~ A a \

amrobow > ~

[re qwerty xpn|aros eyévero.

¢ aA ‘ > /

[Adra&u Kai y|ovedo., téxvois Te adTob yuvauKt Te TOUTOU 7TIS peE-

~ ~ A / tp Ld

[r& tobro] eor|a - - - ca. 16 - - -] modetElav Kal verapopiay THY UTapyov-

~ Vo? / ~ /
20

[rw 85] oper ottw[s oltwes TO]taplorw. vopan apiotan TE diKciet TroA€traL
/ 4 7 ~ > / / > / PS) / DY a

[aveiogo]
pot [elow, Kat orpareias Ae] rou[pyia]s re Snpwootias amaans ma&pe-
> f I > \ ie mn / } ig c / 4

[ous €or]. vacat

[Adros 6 én] cvw yeyp[appévos Kat yovets, téx|v[a] exy[o]vo[é re] adrod pudjjs
aA td lj (A ? lol ~

KopvnAias €orwe
25 [xai? pidlos re [vy] r[a] G00 [fepeobw? Koi----------- ] ora: Kal €av
QITOVTES TEL-

paolo O ehcoow tl gal elects tain waer ole ei cache ]vas *LroAtas etvou
béAwow
[Coane OGTet
lo iarth2h-yctailel
=inom i=|. vacat
[Kabdaov] 6 mpoyeyp[a]u[wevos Kat yuv7 Kou yoveis rT]éxvoe €[xyovoi] te adrob
mpo Tob TroAeirns
[’Pwpato|s aveiopopos e[]ou [-------- ] Kod zroAei[rys “Pw watos
avelapopos ‘yeyovws

295
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

30 [xara 76 2] Sixcuov eav x[pH]oO[av? OéAnu........ Tas] tepwo[dvas ....... Jes

Tei pircvOpwra
(eeees |ra te d[mepyovra? éxew, Kaprilecboun Kabdmep Tis TH KptaTwr v6|owe
apiotan Te SuKaian éxet
[xapmilerau]. vacat
[es ]rov [----------- (a. 35-77-77-- ] @[.]o[.] ode xeyptorny
cio¢ [o| -
[p&v dy] poo. [yyy re] ur [- - ca. 20 - - - - - | gvern| eee br] odoyfs Evexev ovTE
35 [sropa] yerwa[atas - - ------------
7-7 -ee ]. vacat
[’Aciav?] Kat Edpwrny [--------- ]Avo[-------- ] edr&[e] 7)adros
[.... t]éxva, yuvatka [ad]rod g[---------------- ] pera rab-
[rx...|jonras ews 6 Ae[------------------ Jo[..] mé&ons
[See ] ¢orw. vacat
40 Faces: ]v emuyoptay o[------------------- ]OEQNION
(Seen |Z xpnual--------------- eee eee ])TQ2NIKQN
[ome ] QNHEIZ|- --------------------- |AI exapaérrecban
[enditctis ]va re odre [- - ------------------ ] vopan ’Arerian
[Kot vouan| “lovdAi[wi-------------- Jous [&] péoxer rabra mavra
45 [eee )AE[- ------------- JA[..]O[..]22 emapyeiar Al... .|
eeriics: |NOYMENEZL|- - - - - - - |ZEAOL|- ------ ]ONE|..]EPOIK[. .]
XIOYTE
[....]gs odre [------ ] ‘Pwpoiwy AapB [dv] ew PédAov[ow ?....] TETPAP
[.. Aap] BevecBou [- - - ca. 20- - -] adr @[t] eis 7oAW 7 ywpav >Aolas Kat
Edpuarns erapyei-
[av .. dy] pootwv od p[- - - ca. 22- - - ellocyn 7 Cdyn Tis iias ypetlas] ev[e] Kev
50 [ex mA] ews 7) ek yd[pas ------------- ] eEeyn ek re trav idiwv rHv
Opepparwv Te
[ris idia]s yp[et]as [é]vexe[v - - - ca. 15 - -] TovTwY THY Tpaypctwr Téros OUTE
~ 2>O7 / eo , ~ U / A

moXeurelav ov-
[re Sypoor| dvnv map’ odt[od elomparrew]. vacat
7 > > ~ > 4,

[’Eav ris «| drav karnyopetv G€A[ne eyx|Anuc tle ev] &yew Kpurnpiov Te KaT
°K 4 >’ ~ ~ Q £N wv 7A > Ul / / >

adbTov AapBa-
[veww kpi]ow re ovvicraa [Bou - - - - ca. 20 - - -lew, emt roUTwy TOV mpaypaTwr
TVTwV
55 [eav re €]v oixar Tots idious [vdpors ety Te ev mdAcaw] édevbpas ety TE mpds
a&pyovras 7) av-
[r&pxovra|s jerepous [- - - ca. 20--------- Kpi|vecOau OéAwow, adt@v tiv
vs ¢ / fs / > ~ \

aipeow elvau
Mesdpeice ] pare tus GMAw[s 7 ev tT]ovT[ouws yeypappevov eori rroujo?| nu wept TE
/ LAA: “ 3 / / > \ / c) /

adray Kpivn<.> mpooave |v] éy-

[Kas you |unv te etarqu: [eav d€ Kpurnpidv te Trept adt&v bm] evavtiws rovtou[s
, a
yet] VYTAL, TOUTO KUpLoV

296
 EPISTULAE

[un elvo]e. vacat

60 [’Eav 8€ ris rovrou [7]05 mpoyeypappeévou, y[ove] wv, yuvaicds, 7] exvev
exyovey Te adt@v von SéEaobau
[eAnjone?] mpd[K] pyc te Kepordfjs mouja [aca - - - ca. 20 - - - - Jew,
|p] eoBeurds re pds tiv [ov] vkAnTov
[7Hv jperé] paw [pds] te &pyovras dvra[pyovrds Te Tods nLETE| pous
mrapayetvedO [au mp|eoBeutas te TéU-
[mew epi] r&v Siwy mpauypcrw[v rots mpoyeypappevors €€] ovata elvan
[apéloxe. “Hris dv mroAe-
[Teta doris] Te &pywv doa Tle Kard Tabra Set, put) moujone 7} drevevriov] Tovrous
Toone 7) EK Tponywyhs yva
65 [7) duoA] oye (2) 7 evexupcion<i> SdAwx TE 70 [ve] n[p] @[e cwAvon] d<u> eAacaov
ovToL ot mpoyeypapupevor Tots
[prrcvOpa| ros [tT]ots Sedoypevois [ypHoba Suv7y|covrou, rH. Spar TH
‘Pwuaiwy vouwv on-
[orepriw|y Séxa pupiddas Sodvon Kat |[d&diKou €o]tTwoav TovTov TE TOO ypHaTos Tat
[OeAovre?] a&[twu]a exmpakis re €orw|t ecy re] ev THe erapyeiau mapa a&pyovow
avrepy [ov] -
[ow re nye] repos ect re ev “Payne [mploda[iv]ew €[x] mpcocew re GAN wepi Se
TOUTWY TOV
70 [kpirnpiw|v eyyvas ixavad|s du] dopevee [Kpive] cau apéoxer. Tadra re
Tpoyey POLE
[va drrws od] ws yelvntar, dpy[ovres avrcpyovté]s Te Hpuerepor oltwes <&>v
exe<i> emt THs di-
[kns Kat] aor» Bow empew|ér|w[c]lav dpovrilérwody re. vacat

Ill
["Erous ...] penvos Avotpov sé: adroxpdtwp Kaicap, bod vids, abroxparwp 70
EKTOV, UTaTOS
[ro tpi] tov, amodeSevypevos 76 réraprov, ‘Pwoewy rijs iepas Kou aavdAov Kou
adTovop.ov
75 [epxovc.], Bovdte, Siar xaipew: el Eppwobe, Kadds av Exou Kaul adbros dé perc
Too oTparev-
[waros dyi]ouvov: of reupbévres mpecBevrai vp’ judv Lédeveos vowapxos eos,
‘“Hpéds KaAd-
[.....]€pws, Svupoyos, avdpes vyaBot, mapa Snuov eyabod, pirov cuppdxou TE
n-LETEpov,
[arroSnuna] avres eis "Edecov mpods pe SiedeyOnouy rept dy elyov Tas evtoAds:
eyw odv Tods
[cvSpas cm] eSeftuny eipdv prrorarpidas Kat ayabovs Kal TAS TYLAS KOL TOV
otepavov dédeypc,

297
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[weipc&oop]ai te emt rods Tomous eADdv cyabod Twos byeiv yetverBan mapaitios Ka
lon \ A / / \
80
ouvTnphabou
[ra pircvO] pwrre rhe oAE, Kal rabra ydevov dua LEAevKov Tov vawapyov pov
~ ~ id \ / \ / /

TOUNOWL OUVEDTPATEU[LE -
/

[vov poor 7] cvra Tov Tod ToAg“ou Ypovov Kol dia TAVTOS NPLOTEVKOTE KOU TOTO
~ \ \ A > / \ ~

amoderEw evdvolas
/

[re kal ria] Tews trapecynpevor, ds ovdéva Kaypov TapeAcAouTev EvTUyXavwV UTEP
\ / / a“ > / \ > aN > / (2 \

Sav Kal mé-

[oa eiod] epdpevos orrovdny Kal mpobvuiay brép THv tuciv cvppepovTwr.
> / \ s\ / ¢ \ lal e a /

"Eppwale.

IV
["Erous .., | nvos "AzreAAaiou 8’: abtoKpatwp Katicap, Geod vids, adtoxpatwp
A ~ es > td

85
TO EKTOV, UMaTOS TO TETP-
[rov, ‘Pwod] wv ris tepas Kat aovdou Kai oadtovduov &pxovar, BovdAti, djwar
~ ~ a ~ ie

yatpew: el eppwobe, KaADs

[av €you Kat] adros dé wera Tob oTparedparos byiawov. XéAevKos 6 Kat
” ” \ > \ \ \ ~ / € / / ¢ \

bperEpos TroAEt-
[rns Kal ew]os vavapyos eu méau Tots ToAEwoLs CUVEDTPUTEVTepEVOS [LOL KELL
~ a / \

m[oAA] as ccrro-
[Seters K] al THs edvolas Kal THs mioTews Kal THs avdpelas SedwKws, Os KaOHKO[V
/ \ ~ ») / A ~ / % ~ > / 4 a ~

H|v Tovs
[ovvorparev| capéevous Helv Kal KaTa TOAEMOV ApLiaTEevaaVTUS, KEKSOMNTHL
ral A >
[ele)

dprAavOpedrrois
[Kat averod|opiou Kat mroAevretou tobdrov obv bueiv ovviornp ot yap ToLodToL
‘ > - ‘\ / lot mv ¢€ aA / a A ~

avdpes Kal THY Tmpos TAS

a

/ > , , A € 7» , ue: ,
[zarpidas| edvoiay mpofvporepay Tovotow: ws obv emov révtTa SvvaTa ToaaTOS
tpety 7Oer-
[ov duc LEA] evxov, Oappobvres mrept dv av BovAnabe mpds pe cerooréAXeTe.
~ e \

"Eppwole.

The number of letters which have disappeared on the left varies from line to line because of the
irregular engraving, but a maximum of 9-10 and a minimum of 5 may be used as a working rule.
1 After €rous can be seen traces of H or IP, probably H (see commentary). 6 [aep aia],
Schénbauer with Wilhelm; [& de? buds] or [& a£1 buds], Roussel. 7 [XeAcuxéw]v, De Visscher;
[’Edeoiw]v, Schénbauer. 9 One expects I'évos, praenomen of Octavian, but the phrase [Ios
Kaioup appears to be too long and [Kaioup alone too short (Roussel). Manganaro suggests
[P'cu(os) Kaioup a] }roxpérwp, but such an abbreviation is without parallel. One can write tos
or I"(céos) butnot Md (os). 11 é6wov: note the plural form. 12-13 Roussel suggested the name
of a country after kar& 77v, such as Opduxny or LixeAlav, followed by év] ofs xr. But Guarducci
thought of kara ri [avaroAjy 76] ros for in Orientis partibus. [’Aaiav oA] ous, Schénbauer;
Kara THY [’IraAtav ore|vots, Manganaro, with reference to the forces of Caesar’s murderers in 42
B.C.; [OIX, stone. 17-18 wapodow kat drobolv [re jpetv], Roussel. But the re was omitted by
Guarducci and Jalabert and Mouterde. 19-20 pre[r& TovTov, Roussel; we [7& robro, De Visscher;

298
EPISTULAE

pe[7’ adrod, C. Préaux; €or [au vopiuws rip map Hiv] moAewtetav, Schonbauer with Wilhelm.
25 [pépew Kol rexpGobar e€]éorwi, Arangio-Ruiz. 26-27 [7) K]a[l twos méAews } atrouk|bas
“Tradias etvou OéAwow, [- - obr] ws Teye[oOou - - apéoxer(?), Arangio-Ruiz; [mp] doreuo[r(2),
Schénbauer. 29 €[i]au [aredjs Hv, Roussel; [aredrjs Hv ev rhe marpid., Arangio-Ruiz. 30
eav x[pHloO[ou (2) OdAm, cLeivar, tas Te] fe[pw]o[vvas, Roussel; I follow Jalabert and
Mouterde. 52 map& X'e[AevKou(?), Roussel. Guarducci reads ITAPAYT; hence rap’ oabr [03,
Jalabert and Mouterde. 53 [Hav twes a|dra@v Karnyopetv G€A[wow eyKAn|wa tle ev] eye
Kpirnptov Te Kar’ adr@v AcpuBa[vew Kpilow Te cvvicraaé [cu diknv re Sodvan 7 bréy]ew KA,
Schénbauer; éyx]Anuc tle ev] &yew had been restored by Grégoire. 54 yprjpard te abradv
exmpétt| ew, Arangio-Ruiz. 55-57 Roussel referred to the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22), ll. 17-20.
55-57 [écv Te €|v oixan Tots iStous [vdpors ypHobau Tots ev ToAcow]| eAevbepais, eav TE mpds
&pxovras 7 avr [&pxovras] Hpetepous [kata vopovs TOV “Pwpaiwy Kpiv] ecba OéAwow, adrdv
Thy atpeow [apéoxer] , Schénbauer. 56 rywerepous [‘PwpouKxds dixcier xpi] veabau(?) or [emt
*Tradik@v Kpitdv Kpi|vecOou(?), Arangio-Ruiz. 61 owjoau[obo dvevéyeynt, Wilhelm;
mroijaa[oba toAunont mpocavadep|ew(?), Arangio-Ruiz. 61-63 Cf. the S.C. de Asclepiade
(No. 22), ll. 13-14 (Latin). 64 €« mpoeywyfis yvau |[7) dod] oynu (= pro tribunali cognoverit vel
concedat), Oliver. 66 [ypfobc S8vv%s|covra, Schénbauer. 67 Kar’ [eSos], Jalabert and
Mouterde (commentary). 68 [@éAovre ?] at [rn] a, Grégoire; &€[éwpy]a, Oliver; stone, AE.
69 (middle) OOA. . EIN, stone; air|<iv, De Visscher; [7p]ode[irJew, Oliver; [mp]o<o>a[ur]-
ety, Jalabert and Mouterde; wéAce[« air]
ety(?), Arangio-Ruiz. 70 Oliver’s restoration was fol-
lowed here; [ypnucérw]v eyyvas tkavd[s b:] dopeven [....€] e002, Roussel, who also thought
of [S€ye]o6cu but considered it too short. De Visscher first suggested [@pxet]o0au but then
rejected it in favor of Wilhelm’s [8ixcle] Oar. 71 (end) Stone, OFTINEXENEKEN, Roussel
had ofrwes <av)] [evexer]] emi rs 81| [Kavodoai] as, but De Visscher, otrwes (ob) everev emt Tis
8i| [Kns Kat]ao<t>@ow. The restoration of Jalabert and Monterde was followed here. 72
(beginning) Stone, AX EQXIN.

COMMENTARY. I. The first document is a letter from Octavian advising the city
of Rhosus to enter in its records an attached document (II), which had been copied from
a column in the Capitol at Rome. He also requests that the city send copies of the letter
to Tarsus, Antioch, and, most probably, Seleucia.
The titles of Octavian immediately place the letter in the triumviral period. According
to the Treaty at Misenum, Octavian was to be consul II in 33 B.c. and consul III in 31 B.c.
Since he had been consul for the first time in 43 B.c. and in the letter is not yet consul I,
it is clear that he must have written the letter in the period 42-34 B.c.!_ The title of
imperator IV was granted after the victory over Sextus Pompeius in 36 B.c., which
reduces the date to 36-34 B.c.2 Can it be reduced still further? The weak traces of
the numeral H after érovs in line 1 would seem to offer a possibility. H. Seyrig has

1 For the arrangement made at Misenum see Dio 48. 35. 1 and Appian Bell. Civ. 5. 73; cf. Drumann—
Groebe, Geschichte Roms, I? (Leipzig, 1899), 315, and M. P. Charlesworth, C.A.H., X (1934), 45-46.
In the present letter it is important to note the position of arodedevypevos in the phrase bi [aros ro
Sevr]epov Kal TO mpitov amrodedevypévos. Comparing it with Unatos [TO TpilTov, amodedet-
ypevos TO TéTaprov of the second letter (III) makes it certain that in this first letter Octavian is not
consul II and consul III designatus but rather consul II et III designatus. N. Festa’s Latin translation
among the works of Riccobono (consul iterum designatus tertium) is therefore incorrect.
2 Roussel, op. cit., p. 66, with discussion.

299
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

demonstrated, on numismatic evidence, that the year 42 B.C. is most probably the era
of Rhosus. The eighth year of Rhosus would give us the year 35 B.c., and it is possible
that the letter was indeed written in that very year.3
The omission of triumvir among the titles of Octavian has been very plausibly ex-
plained by Roussel as the result of Octavian’s growing dislike of what it implied, a
partnership with Antonius and a former association with Sextus Pompeius.
II. The second document has been called by Schénbauer an extract from a body of
commentarii, a description that has not gone unchallenged. But, in any case, as De
Visscher points out, the act itself constitutes a decretum. By its terms Seleucus of Rhosus,
his parents, children, wife, and descendants are granted Roman citizenship along with
a whole series of immunities. Accordingly, they are to be immune, in the fullest legal
right, from taxation on their property, from military service, and from the public
liturgies; they are to be enrolled in the Cornelian tribe, a special honor in itself, and
given the right to vote therein; they may enjoy the legal protection of their own native
laws and courts, but, if an accusation is brought against them, they may decide whether
to have the case tried in their own city by the local laws, in a free city, or in Roman
courts under Roman magistrates; they have the right to enter the Roman Senate as
appellants or to send envoys in their behalf. To these considerable grants and im-
munities a binding clause is added, making it mandatory upon all states and magistrates
to honor the terms and provisions outlined under penalty of a fine.
Seleucus, we are told (Il. 12-18), deserves all these honors because of the naval aid he
has given to Rome, the hardships and dangers he has endured, and the loyalty and
devotion to duty he has shown in the cause of Rome. This reminds us of the naval aid
rendered by Asclepiades, Polystratus, and Meniscus during the Italic War and the various
benefits and immunities conferred upon them for their services (S.C. de Asclepiade, No.
22). In that case, however, only amicitia was joined with their special privileges, while
here civitas Romana is granted.
The date of this act is not given, but the Lex Munatia et Aemilia was passed in 42 B.C.,
when L. Munatius Plancus and M. Aemilius Lepidus were the consuls, and seems to have

3 Seyrig had concluded (among the works of Roussel, op. cit., p. 64) that the traces of the numeral in
1. 1 could be either H or IP, while Wilhelm thought he could make out an E. Manganaro, op. cit.,
pp. 290-91, n. 6, believed that the era was not that of the city but that of Caesar and dated the letter
in November-December of 36 B.c. This is unlikely, in my opinion. In an important article (loc.
cit). Seyrig has shown that the era of Rhosus must have begun in 42, 41, or 40 B.c., but most probably
in 42 B.C., according to numismatic evidence, part of which was not available to G. Macdonald, who
had previously (Journal International d’Archéologie et de Numismatique, 1903, pp. 47-48) dated it in 39
B.c. This would seem to assure the reading of H on the stone (cf. Robert and Robert, R.E.G., 73
[1960], p. 199). Nevertheless, positive dating requires a positive, first-hand reading of H and positive
assurance of the era. I believe that 35 B.C. is correct. But again, a word of caution: that date was
not part of the letter proper, but only a local addition, probably, as Roussel thinks, the date on which
the letter was either received or registered in the archives of the city. Such was the case in documents
Ill and IV. That a delay, admittedly perhaps of only a few months, could intervene between the
writing of the letter and the registration is seen in document III.
+ Schonbauer, Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939): 197; but see Luzzatto, op. cit., p. 294.

300
EPISTULAE

authorized the triumvirs to confer Roman citizenship upon certain groups of individ-
uals.s Octavian is using this law to grant citizenship to Seleucus and thus he observes
the legal requirements. Since this act cannot postdate the letter of advice (I), it must fall
into the general period of 42-35 B.c. To determine its exact date is not possible, given
the present state of the evidence, although good possibilities would seem to be either
41 B.C. (the naval action of Seleucus would then have been connected in some way with
the Battle of Philippi in 42) or perhaps 36 B.c. (victory of Octavian over Sextus Pompeius
at Naulochus).6 Of course, there is the added complication that the granting of citizen-
ship need not necessarily have taken place immediately after the war in which Seleucus
was involved. Nor was it necessary that the letter of advice be written immediately
after the granting of citizenship, although that would seem to be the most reasonable
procedure to expect. Various unknown quantities, therefore, make positive dating
hazardous, and none of the attempts to fill out the /acuna in line 13 should be considered
correct until further evidence substantiates it.
III. In the third document, a letter to Rhosus, Octavian says that the Rhosian envoys
Seleucus and his companions have met with him in Ephesus and have explained the
purpose of their mission. He receives them in the customary way, finds them to be
noble and patriotic men—the usual phraseology—and reports that he has received the
crown which they brought him. He promises to go to their city and to preserve its
privileges, things which he will do all the more readily because of his admiral Seleucus
and the loyalty shown by him throughout the course of the war.
The date of this letter can be determined by Octavian’s titles. His sixth imperial
acclamation was granted right after Actium (September 2, 31 B.c.), and his fourth con-
sulship began on January 1, 30 B.c. Thus the letter must have been composed between
those two dates, in the last four months of 31 B.c., after Actium.? This was a period in
which the victorious Octavian distributed rewards or penalties and listened to requests
or pleas of the various states in Asia, the same period in which he had sent a letter to
Mylasa (No. 60).
The fifteenth day of the month Dystros probably represents the date on which the
letter had been registered in the archives of Rhosus. Dystros, in the Macedonian
calendar, corresponds approximately to February or, in the Syrian calendar, to March.

5 The law is mentioned only here. Note, in this regard that Antonius also seems to have been in-
volved in the granting of citizenship to Seleucus, for, although the name of only one triumvir is
apparently given at the head of document II, the use of the plural forms—especially édwxav in |. r11—
indicates in the present instance not a mere epistulatory plural but a real plural; €Swxav can be ex-
plained in no other way that is convincing. Why, then, is Antonius’ name omitted? Probably
because when the dossier was engraved (in 30 B.c. or later) Actium was past history and Antonius was
dead. The original in the Capitol would have contained all the names of the heading (Lepidus too ?).
The copy may or may not have carried them. At any rate, the prudent city fathers of Rhosus would
have used only the name of Octavian; cf. De Visscher, Comp. Rend. Acad. Inscriptions, p. 31.
6 Roussel and Manganaro favor 41 B.C., Levi prefers 36 or 35 B.C., and De Visscher and Magie incline
toward 35-34 B.c. No positive facts, however, single out any of them.
7 Roussel, op. cit., pp. 72-73.

301
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

The difference of two or more months between the composition of the letter and its
registration in the archives may have been caused by a delay in transportation during the
winter months or by some event unknown to us.8
IV. A third and final letter concerning Seleucus brings the great dossier to a close.
Dated in 30 B.c., it is addressed to the city of Rhosus and may be described as a letter of
recommendation. A most important point, here presented in unmistakable terms, is
that Octavian refers to Seleucus not only as a Roman citizen but also as a citizen of
Rhosus. The principle of double citizenship seems to be confirmed for this period of
the Republic.
Two large questions inter minora arise from a study of these valuable documents and
demand attention. _Is this grant of citizenship an individual measure designed exclusively
for Seleucus or is it merely a part of a much more comprehensive grant in favor of a
large number of veterans? And, secondly, what are the legal implications of double
citizenship in the provinces?
Roussel was the first to raise the question of the comprehensiveness or scope of the
grant made to Seleucus.? Was it a special measure for Seleucus alone, he asked, that was
engraved on the original stele on the Capitol, recalling the grants of proxenia so common
in the Greek world, in which a single individual is named? He replied in the negative.
He felt that the verb é&eAjdOm in line 5 of the letter (I) implied that the document (II)
sent to Rhosus was an extract from a much more comprehensive act and that the phrase
eis ToUTOUs Tods Adyous (=in haec verba) seemed to indicate some modification in the
original. He then supported this line of reasoning by referring to a passage in document
IV, lines 89-91, in which Octavian says that Seleucus had been honored by citizenship
and immunity as was fitting for those who had campaigned with the Romans and had
distinguished themselves in battle, and by comparing this passage with the famous edict
of Octavian concerning veterans. Of somewhat lesser importance in this regard is the
decree of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in which Spanish cavalrymen had been granted Roman
citizenship.'° The edict of Octavian, however, contains passages and phrases that
remind one instantly of the phraseology in parts of the present document. It is given
here for easy reference.!!

8 Jbid., p. 73, n. 6: “Octave quitta précipitamment |’Orient et resta un mois en Italie (cf. R. Holmes,
p. 159-160). Les ambassadeurs peuvent avoir attendu son retour en Asie.” I am more inclined to
attribute the delay to bad weather, despite the shortness of the trip from Ephesus to Rhosus. Ad-
mittedly, the numeral indicating the local year is missing from the heading of the document as we
have it, but to suppose that the letter was received or registered in Rhosus a year later (i.e., 29 B.C.) is
difficult. A few months delay, yes. More than a year, no.
9 Roussel, op. cit., pp. 46-SI.
10 C.\LL., I, 709 (cf. p. 714 and ibid., VI, 4, fasc. 3, 3, 37045); H. Dessau, I.L.S., 8888 (incomplete);
R. Menéndez Pidal, ed., Historia de Espafia, 2d ed. (Madrid, 1955), pp. 195-98 (with good photo-
graph of the entire inscription and a full transcription); A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei
Publicae, 1, (Florence, 1963), n. 515.
™U. Wilcken, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I, 2 (Leipzig-Berlin, 1912), n. 462. The
papyrus, however, was re-examined by Wilcken expressly for inclusion by Roussel in his edition of
the Rhosus documents. Therefore, Roussel’s text (op. cit., pp. 48-49) is to be preferred over the

302
 EPISTULAE

p- cum Manius Valens veteranus ex[. .]ter recitasserit

partem edi[c]ti hoc quod infra scriptum est: Imp. Cacsar
[d]ivi filius trium[v]ir rei publicae consultor dicit: visum
[est] edicendum mi [hi vete]ranis dare om[nibus], ut tributis
Nese
(Lacuna of at least four lines)
Ipsis parentibu[s lib]erisque eorum e[t uxo]ribus qui sec{um]-
que erunt im[{mu]nitatem omnium rerum d[a]re; utique
Io optimo iure optimag[u]e leg<e> cives Romani sunto, immunes
sunto, liberi su[nto millitiae muneribusque publicis fu[ngen]-
[d]i vocatio <esto>. Item in [. .]s tribu s(upra) s(cripta) suffragium
[fe]rendi c[e]nsendi[que] potestas esto et si a[b]sentes voluerint
[clenseri, detur, quod[cum]que iis qui s(upra) s(scripti) sun[t ip]sis parent<ibus>
15 [co]n[iu]g<ibus> liberisq{ue] eorum. Item quemmotum veterani
imm|u]ne[s] esint, eor[um]esse volui quec[u]mque sacerdotia
qu[o]sque hon[or]es queque praemia [b]eneficia commo<d>a
habuerunt, item ut habeant utantur fruanturque permit[t]i
[dJo. Invitis e1s ne[que] magistr[at]us cete[ros] neque lKe>gatum
20 [n]eque procuratorem [ne]que em[p]torem t[ri]butorum esse
[p]lace<t> neque in domo eorum divertendi <h>iemandique causa <ne>que
[a]b ea quem de<d)uci place<t>.

Text based on Wilcken’s revision as given by Roussel and Riccobono. 3 consultor: probably
corrupt, perhaps for const(ituendae) iter(um) or simply const(ituendae). 8 qui: masculine in place of
feminine. 10 leg<e>: papyrus, legis. 11 sunto (at beginning): papyrus has sint, below which is sunto
(Wilcken’s revision). 12 vocatio: for vacatio. 14-15 parentes [co|n|iu]ges, papyrus; quemmotum:
quem <ad> mo<d>um, Roussel. 16 esint: e(s>s<e>nt, Roussel; sacerdotia: through the letters dotia of
this word a line has been drawn and they are written on the following line. 17 queque: note also
quec[u]mque in the preceding line, for quaeque. 21 iemandique causamque [a]b ea, etc., Riccobono.
In several places I have substituted ¢> for Roussel’s ().

In this edict Octavian grants immunity to all veterans, their parents, children,
and wives, adding that they are to be Roman citizens optimo iure optimag[u]e leg<e>.}?
It is a comprehensive grant. Accordingly, Roussel believed that the original stele of
the present act (II) might have carried the names of a large number of veterans, the
companions of Seleucus, his comrades in arms. The mere fact that this document refers
only to Seleucus does not necessarily mean that the original also concerned only him.
Roussel concluded that Seleucus “a dfi faire partie d’une nouvelle fournée de citoyens.”

older editions. Riccebono (op. cit., no. 56) has utilized this new text. Copy in Ehrenberg—Jones,
no. 302.
12 Note that they are not granted civitas Romana, only immunitas. See Roussel, op. cit., pp. 49-50.

303
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Guarducci and Schénbauer agreed with Roussel on this point, but Levi saw the act
(II) as one taken expressly for Seleucus and his family.'3 He did not believe that the
analogy of the privileges accorded other veterans constituted real proof of the collective
nature of the act for Seleucus. De Visscher came to the support of Roussel, adding that
the general manner in which the act speaks of the free cities (I. 55) is an indication
favoring a large extension of the original text.
To all these arguments one point might be added to substantiate Roussel’s contention.
The use of €&eAx}hOn. seems somewhat unusual in the present context. One expects here
a verb in the passive signifying “copied,” but that appears to be a meaning foreign to the
verb éxAapBavew. The verb here can mean only “taken out,” i.e., lifted out of the
main body of the original, in the sense that the document is an abstract, as Roussel says,
rather than a straight and full copy of the original.'* Otherwise one would expect a
verb such as evrvypaéperv. Hence, we must agree with Roussel. One is reminded here
somewhat of the later military diplomata, in the sense that each of them is a separate
document, a separate application of a collective grant of citizenship for a large number
of veterans. In fact, the general procedure and form of documentation for the diplomata
of the Principate may find their origins right here in the first century B.c.—a collective
grant for many veterans easily approved en masse by competent Roman authority, then
separate “extracts” whenever necessary. The singularly outstanding services performed
by Seleucus had brought him to the attention of Octavian. Not all could receive such
an honor and such preferential treatment. But other extracts could have been made for
other individuals. Out of such a procedure could have developed that which was fol-
lowed later for the military diplomata. It is only the procedure, of course, and not the
actual wording of the documents themselves, to which I refer.
When we turn to the matter of double citizenship we are confronted immediately
with the old problem of whether it existed under the Republic. Mommsen denied it
absolutely, maintaining that it was not until the age of Augustus that the rule of incom-
patibility was reversed. In the third edict from Cyrene, and especially in the present
documents, De Visscher found what he considered proof to justify a revision of Momm-
sen’s theory. He further believed that the rule of incompatibility was unilateral, in that
Roman citizens “by origin” could not accept any other citizenship without forfeiting
their own, while new Roman citizens could maintain their former citizenships in some
other state or city.!5
The very fact that grants of Roman citizenship and of various privileges are mentioned
separately in the Rhosus documents is important. It shows that the grant of citizenship
to a provincial did not excuse him from the duties and responsibilities he owed to his

13 Guarducci, op. cit., p. §5; Sch6nbauer, Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939): 197; Levi, op. cit., pp.
123ff.
14 The phrase éxAapBavew avtiypadov in P. Gen. 74. 8 (third century A.D.) seems to indicate that the
verb alone is not sufficient to mean ‘“‘make a copy of.” At any rate I know of no parallel where it
would have such a meaning.
15 See De Visscher, Les édits, pp. 108-18, and L’antiquité classique, 14 (1945): 49-59.

304
EPISTULAE

native city. The third edict from Cyrene makes it clear that provincials who have
acquired Roman citizenship are not on that account exempt from the local liturgies.
Despite some ambiguity or difficulty in the language there used, the general intent of the
clause is that a grant of citizenship does not carry with it immunity, unless, of course,
such immunity is expressly granted by Caesar or Augustus. Hence, the two are sepa-
rated. Seleucus is given not only citizenship but also évevoopia. and &Aevroupynate.
And these are to admit of no exceptions whatever.!6 In fact, in order to avoid any future
misunderstanding, the exemptions and immunities are spelled out at length. A rather
large portion of the text concerned with them, however, is unfortunately mutilated to a
serious degree (Il. 33-52). But émvyopiay (I. 40) would point to a grant of conubium.
The lex Atilia (1. 43) concerned the appointment of a guardian by a praetor (datio tutoris)
if no guardian had been named in the last will or designated by law.17_ The lex Iulia
cited here (1. 44) is perhaps the one which extended the provisions of the lex Atilia to the
provinces.'8 Lines 48-52 seem to refer to indirect taxes and customs, both Roman and
local. The total impression one gains from all the various privileges given to Seleucus
and his family is that he and his descendants were thereby elevated to a position of ex-
ceptional importance in their portion of the Graeco-Roman world. From such people
arose the leading families of Asia Minor.?9
The jurisdictional privileges require here some explanation, for they involve matters of
great importance for the development of Roman law. The text is fragmentary (ll.
53-59), but enough remains to indicate that Seleucus and family have a choice to make.
According to Roussel, whenever a criminal or civil action is brought against any one of
them, three separate jurisdictions are open to them: they might choose to be judged by
their own local laws in their own local courts; they might take the case to some free city,
following a custom well known in the Hellenistic world; or they might ask for the case
to be tried by Roman magistrates in a Roman court.?° In all three of these the law
would be the local law, not the Roman. Schénbauer objected.2!_ He thought that the
passage should be restored in such a way that only two possibilities were left open. His
restoration (see the critical apparatus pertaining to Il. 55-57) allows Seleucus and family

16 De Visscher, Les édits, pp. 36-39.

17 Gaius Instit. I. 185: Si cui nullus omnino tutor sit, ei datur in urbe Roma ex lege Atilia a praetore urbano
et maiore parte tribunorum plebis, qui Atilianus tutor vocatur; in provinciis vero a praesidibus provinciarum
<ex> lege Iulia et Titia. Cf. ibid., 194-95. See also R. Taubenschlag, R.E., s.v. “Lex Atilia,” col.
2330.
18 See the citation from Gaius in the previous note, and cf. De Visscher, Les édits, p. 40.
19 Rostovtzeff, op. cit., pp. 970-71.
20 Roussel, op. cit., pp. 58-59. For a parallel he makes use of the passage in the S.C. de Asclepiade
(No. 22), ll. 17-20, in which Asclepiades and his companions are given somewhat similar choices of
jurisdiction. It must be remembered, however, that they were not given citizenship, only amicitia.
21 Schénbauer, Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung, 13 (1939): 204; cf. his remarks in Wiener Anzeiger, 86
(1949): 343-69, and in The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 7-8 (1953-54): 137. W. Kunkel, in his
Herkunft und soziale Stellung der rémischen Juristen (Weimar, 19 52), p. 361, agrees with him in principle.
E. Weiss, in The Journal ofJuristic Papyrology, 7-8 (1953-54): 75-76, also thought it was a choice of
law which was granted to Seleucus and family, stating the case as if it were a fact accepted by all.

395
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

to choose between either local law or Roman law. De Visscher could not agree with
Schénbauer, for in addition to an annoying imbalance that would then arise between
[xpAo0cu] and [piv] eo8cu he saw no reason for believing that the jurisdiction of Roman
magistrates entailed the use of Roman law. They could follow the local, Greek law by
way of doing a favor for the provincials.22_ Thus, for Roussel and De Visscher there
were three choices open to Seleucus and family, each of them a matter of jurisdiction, of
judges, and not of laws. Otherwise, as De Visscher puts it nicely, they would become
Proteus-like individuals with whom no one could do any business.?3
If we believe De Visscher, the concession of Roman citizenship to provincials would not
affect their private condition. They would remain subject to local law. To accept this
view involves a consideration of the effects it would have upon the development of
Roman law in the first two centuries of the Principate and also upon the status of the
local law after the edict of Caracalla in A.D. 212.
Ludwig Mitteis, in his great work Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den éstlichen Provinzen
des rdmischen Kaiserreichs (Leipzig, 1891), made a comprehensive examination of the
connection between official Roman law and local Greek law in the eastern provinces of
the Empire. He found that in some of the eastern provinces a local, pre-Roman law
existed side by side with official Roman law. He believed that this local law had been
attacked, and in many places defeated, by the overpowering strength of the official
Roman law. But here and there it survived more or less successfully. He felt that it
had been branded as illegal and was slowly but surely being eradicated by imperial
constitutiones, but that in the process the Roman law was being contaminated or in-
fluenced by the local law. He believed that, when the edict of Caracalla in a.D. 212
extended Roman citizenship to almost all of the free inhabitants of the Empire, a con-
certed attempt was being made in one stroke to extend Roman law to all parts of the
Empire and to stamp out once and for all the local law that still persisted in many places.
A battle between the two systems developed, but local law was not wholly destroyed
even then. It survived to a degree and managed to provincialize the Roman law.*4
The enormous mass of documents, especially from Egypt, which has been discovered
since the publication of Mitteis’ book bears out fully his view that local law in the Greek
East continued to exist and to be used side by side with the official Roman law. And
this local law was not only Greek and Hellenistic but also, to a degree, Oriental. Widely
divergent views, however, have been advanced by scholars concerning the official
Roman position in regard to this local law both before and after a.D. 212. The survival

22 De Visscher, Les édits, pp. 41-47. The best discussion of the whole institution will be found in
Gallet, op. cit., pp. 290ff.
23 De Visscher, Les édits, p. 53: “C’ett été rendre tout commerce juridique impraticable avec ces
individus-Protée, en mesure de se couvrir de telle ou telle législation au gré de leurs intéréts.”
4 For an excellent introduction into the great controversies that have arisen as a result of this book
see Wenger, Mélanges Fernand de Visscher, Il, 521-50. In addition cf. E. Weiss, op. cit., pp. 71-82;
Sch6nbauer, The Journal ofJuristic Papyrology, 7-8 (1953-54): 107-48; S. von Bolla, ibid., Pp. 149-56;
and F. Pringsheim, ibid., pp. 163-68.

306
EPISTULAE

of native principles in the Greek East was proved by Mitteis. His theories about the
interaction of these principles and the official Roman law, however, have not gone
unchallenged by scholars.
Schénbauer attempted repeatedly to show that the local law was allowed to survive
in the East in peaceful co-existence with the Roman law, even after the edict of Caracalla.
Political expediency may have prompted such a policy. Co-operation and persuasion
can often be more successful than outright rejection of foreign customs. This explains
his belief that Seleucus and family had a choice between two systems of law.?5
De Visscher also attacked this particular aspect of Mitteis’ view. He believed that the
Roman law introduced into the provinces of the East was not in principle imposed upon
new citizens. They could use the local law. The real evolution of the law was not one
in which there was a provincialization or contamination of the Roman law but rather a
Romanization or penetration of Roman elements into the local laws. This Romaniza-
tion was not forced upon the provinces but was voluntarily accepted by them because
of the superiority of Roman law and the prestige that went with its use.
Arangio-Ruiz, however, defended Mitteis’ original view. But he would remove the
word “battle” from that view. There were no battles or riots or other displays of
violence. Otherwise Mitteis was right.?7
One thing seems clear and unshakeable. Local law continued to exist alongside
Roman law during the first two centuries of the Principate. Whether it was outlawed
after the Constitutio Antoniniana cannot be answered with assurance. It may have been
tolerated and allowed to die gracefully, leaving vestiges of its former existence in the
great body of Roman law, or it may have been declared illegal and suppressed by force.
In any case it will have left its mark.
Thus, lines 53-59 cannot be lightly restored, for the implications of the restoration will
have to reflect the official Roman stand in regard to local law in the East. And that is a
matter about which we have no positive information. Opinions differ.

25 B. Schénbauer, Z.S.S., 49 (1929): 315ff.; ibid., 51 (1931): 277ff.; ibid., 54 (1934): 337ff.; ibid., 57
(1937): 300ff.; ibid., 62 (1942): 267ff.; and his articles cited above, n. 21.
26 De Visscher, Les édits, pp. 55-59.
27 V. Arangio-Ruiz, Bulletin de I’Institut d’Egypte, XXIX, 1946-47 session (Cairo, 1948), pp. 83-130.
Cf. his remarks in Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, 5 (1939): 552ff.; Annali del Seminario giuridico
dell’ Universita di Catania, I (1946-47), 28-37; and Storia del diritto romano? (Naples, 1960), pp. 338-41,
424-27.

Bo7
 EPISTULA
59 MAGISTRATUS ROMANI
AD MYLASENSES After 39 B.C.
QHAHTADTSRHDGSHDS
HOTS HSH TASHSOSSSESESSSSSSSgggS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843), 2695 b, 2700 e, 2717 b; Le

Bas—-Waddington, Voyage archéologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions,
III (1870), nos. 442-43; report of Briot’s copy in B.C.H., 18 (1894): 543-44;
Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926),
no. 32, pp. 327-28; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I,
442, and II, 1290, n. 39; Ehrenberg—Jones, no. 20 (in part only); Johnson,
Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 132.

DESCRIPTION. Two stones from Mylasa, copied first by Boeckh, then by

Le Bas-Waddington, but with substantial improvement by Briot. It was Briot
who saw that the stone here designated as A ought to be placed to the left of B,
not the reverse, as done by Le Bas-Waddington and Johnson.

Kat [t]as dep TOV Snpociwy KrHoEs Els TE TOV KOLVOV THS
TroAews Kappropov TWaV ava[ara] cers brrovobeverv, ols 517) Kev emuTpE-
aN \ ~ > U ¢ 0 , e \ nn > /

Trapev poporoyety tHv [Mv] Aacewv mdAw els SovAtK}Y TrEpLovu-

clay, yet pev av tows 4 eplop@|ow alcypa Te Kal judv avetios, adv-
/ € ~ \ an ” Ss > ~ > 4 ‘ e ~ > 4 > iS

vatos b€ av opws KaKeilv]ous yévorto mpa€ovar Snuoatou

tovs dnpoaia Kupious, w[4|TE xpNnUcTwY unTE Tpodddwv
/,

Snpootwy droKepev[w]v, et wn Kara TeAdv emripeupuw Aoyev-

, ¢ / o} \ \ ~ yy 7

ew Tovs évos Excatov [Adyo]us (?) Tas Te Kepadds emiTeAwvety

A hth t € / mr / 2) , \ > lal

Gédovev, Tis TOAEws odd[E THY] EravdpOwow TOV ex THs AoBujvou

10 noTnas Epertiwv érowws a|v|apepovons, 6 51) Kal adtot mpoiddpevor
Xr / > / ¢ / > / a“ 5 \ \ > \ - /

mpodaveropots duwrdv IT ypéa dnudove tiv 7oAw brynyeyov-

To, od dia 70 Kal” bradAay7y|v --louatwv tv Kaioapos trép MvdAucéwv

308
EPISTULAE

Briot’s new readings in capitals. 1 [és] xr7}oeus (?), Johnson; at the end, THY. 2 émTPE-.
3meptOY-. 4aAY-. $mptHovor. 6 mpooddwN. 7oyEY-. 8 émredwveiN. 9 AcBujvoY.
10 mpoiddeNOI. 11 Le Bas-Waddington show IJAJQTQNIT at the end of the line in stone A;
Johnson has [ets] ; perhaps (ra) (?) danycyoN- at the end of the line in stone B. 12 ava] wpc-
twv (2), Johnson; |Ovatwr, Briot; MuAacéQN, Briot.

COMMENTARY. In his letter of 31 B.c. to Mylasa (No. 60) Octavian describes the
suffering of the city during the Parthian invasion of 40-39 B.c. under the leadership of
Q. Labienus. Even after Actium it still had not recovered from the effects of that
terrible episode. The present document, clearly a letter, explains the financial debacle
into which it had fallen. Despite textual difficulties it is possible to see that the collection
of tribute had been entrusted to greedy and corrupt opportunists who amassed a profit
by the financial enslavement of the people. So desperate had the situation become that
“the advance of loans by private citizens” was accepted to pay the public debts. The
result of such a procedure is not difficult to imagine: an entire city would eventually
owe a crushing debt to a few wealthy families. An intolerable situation, this was the
sort of financial chaos that during the Principate required the appointment of special
imperial agents, the curatores rei publicae. In this age, however, there were no such
agents. The provincial government usually did what it could. And the Senate in
Rome might be asked for suggestions. Here we find a Roman magistrate, perhaps even
Augustus, outlining the situation in Mylasa. But, unfortunately, his suggestions or
regulations to correct it are missing. To speculate on his identity, beyond the fact that
he lived in the period after 39 B.c., would be useless.

309
 60
EPISTULA OCTAVIANI AD MYLASENSES 31 B.C,

QHDHGHOHHHSAOHHSSAO
HOTS ESOODTESSOOHRRESSSS9SS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. Frohner, Les inscriptions grecques du Musée du Louvre

(Paris, 1865), no. 72, p. 157; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage aechéologique en Grece
et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions, III (1870), no. 441; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus
(Gottingen, 1888), no. VI, pp. 7-8; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, I (1898), 350; F.
Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 768; Abbott-
Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 30,
pp. 326-27; T. R. S. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” in T. Frank, An Economic
Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore, 1938), 586, n. 42, and 664; D. Magie,
Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 431, 442, and II, 1290, n. 39;
Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 303; H. Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum
Fragmenta, 4th ed. (Turin, 1962), no. LXV, pp. 39-40.

DESCRIPTION. Two fragments found at Mylasa, now in the Louvre.

Abroxpatwp Kaicup bob *Ioviiov

vios v UmaTOs TE TO TpiTOV Kabec-
tapevos v Mudacéwv c&pyovar Bov-
Aju Sj yalpew: vv ef éppwobe Ka-
Ads av Exou- v Kat adros 5ێ peta T[od]
oTparevpmatos byltuvov. v Ka[t mpd-|
TEpov ev 407 TrEpl THs Kat |aayov- |
ons buds TUYNS TpoceTE |pore |
fo, v Kal viv Tapayevwperw|v TOV]
pie) mpeoBevT@v, vv OvAuc6s [ov --|

310
EPISTULAE

[- -]s tv todepio mratoo Keel Kporn[Oec-|

ans THs TOAEws, v TOAOds ev alypaddro [us]
amoBadiv v moXiras, odk ddlyous pev povevbé[v-]
> lal

Tas v Twas d€ Kai ovvKaradreye<v>TAs TH TOAE[t,]

\ A \ / col /

Tis TOV Tokcuiov WudTnTos Vv ode TOV

vadv odd THY lepOv TOV aywwrarwv -
mooxomevns: v vrédieav dé ou Kal sept
/ ¢ / / MY N

THs xwopas THs AeAenAatynéerns vv Kai TOV

erravaewy TOY EuTrETPNOLEVvWV, WOTE ELL
Tréow buds nrvynKévar’ v ed’ ols m&ow ovve|[?-|
[Sov rabdvras] tabra mé&ons Teyuys Kal yapr-
[ros a€tous cvdpas yevoper] ous tues ze [pi]
[“Pwpaiovs --------------- ]

Restorations by Waddington and Dittenberger. A 4 (at the end) The copy of Le Bas-Wadding-
ton shows K’. B 1 xparn[Oet] |ons is correct and was read also by Dittenberger (S.I.G.! [1883],
271) and followed by Viereck (including his notes). F. Hiller von Gaertringen (S.I.G.3) has
mpatn [Get] |ons, which must be a mistake, but one which subsequent editors (except Malcovati)
have followed. The copy in Le Bas-Waddington here shows that the first letter of the word must
be a kappa, for we see the vertical bar and the lower oblique hasta. 4 Stone, SYNKATA®AETE-
TAX. 10-12 Restored by Dittenberger; Waddington had suggested ovve|[yvwv arvyjparo|
a , a \ , Rew ay/ ” 2¢7 er en s
TAUTA TAHONS TELULNS KML xepr| [Tos KQL EVVOLAS OVTAS aki] OUS ULaS Tre| | ovO€vou CT ic)

COMMENTARY. After Actium (September 2, 31 B.c.) Octavian crossed over to

Asia and remained at Samos, except for a trip to Ephesus, until January of the following
year. He probably sent this letter to Mylasa in the autumn or early winter of 31 B.C.,
when he was consul for the third time. For Asia it was a period when cities and states
looked anxiously to Octavian for mercy or reward, depending upon their individual
actions during the past few years. He proved merciful and helpful rather than vindic-
tive and cruel, a policy adopted, perhaps, from a mixture of sympathy and expediency
because of the immense exactions of Brutus and Cassius, the liberators, and then Antonius.
Mylasa, at any rate, had shown her loyalty and friendship long before Actium and
might reasonably expect assistance.
In his letter Octavian gives a résumé of the city’s suffering. His description of the
city’s capture, the taking of prisoners, the murders, the cruelty and impiety of the
enemy, the pillaging of the land, and the burning of the homesteads must refer to the
Labienus episode nine years earlier. In that Parthian invasion, under the leadership of
the renegade Quintus Labienus, the son of Caesar’s famous legatus, Mylasa suffered a
terrible fate after its capture.! So great, in fact, was its suffering that even now, after
Actium, it has not recovered. Unfortunately we do not know the specific request made

1 See the commentary and notes to the S.C. de Panamara (No. 27), where the sources are cited; cf.
also Magie, loc. cit.

311
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

of Octavian by the Mylasan embassy at this time, but it must have been the granting of
some favor designed to aid in the city’s rehabilitation. Octavian certainly must have
granted it, but that it was not sufficient to assure rapid recovery may be seen in another
letter, later in date, in which the city’s financial situation may be described as practically
hopeless.2_ Strabo, however, who knew of the city’s destruction during the Parthian
invasion, was able to say of it in his day that rovyéprou oroats Te Kat vaois, et Tis @AAN,
KeKOounToa TrayKcdAws (14. 2. 23). And Hybreas, the Mylasan orator who had refused
to yield to Labienus and had caused his city to resist, is said by Strabo (14. 2. 24) to have
returned to his city Koi avéAaBev éxvrov Te Kal TV TOAW. We may assume, then, that
much rebuilding must have taken place and that by about the end of the first century
B.C. some progress has been made.3

2 Abbott-Johnson, op, cit., no. 32 (our No. 59).

3 J. G. C. Anderson, in “Some Questions Bearing on the Date and Place of Composition of Strabo’s
Geography,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay ed. W. H. Buckler and
W. M. Calder (Manchester, 1923), pp. I-13, concludes (p. 10) “that Strabo’s knowledge about
Eastern affairs was becoming meagre by B.c. 6/5, but that it extends to B.c. 3/2.”

312
 6]
EPISTULA CUIUSDAM VINICII AD CUMAS
ET IUSSUM AUGUSTI 2758 C

QHGHGAHAAHDHOOTDOOSESESOATESEUUOAASYSSHHSHSSHHH

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H. W. Pleket, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rijksmuseum van

Oudheden at Leyden (Diss., Leyden, 1958), no. $7, pp. 49-66 (Plate XI); G.
Dunst, Gnomon, 31 (1959): 675-77; A. E. Raubitschek, A.J.A., 63 (1959): 99;
A. M. Woodward, J.H.S., 79 (1959): 195; idem, Classical Review, n.s., 9 (1959):
280-81; A. H. M. Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (New York,
1960), p. 6; J. Pouilloux, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’ Histoire, 38 (1960): 426-
27; K. M. T. Atkinson, Revue internationale des droits de I’antiquité, 7 (1960):
227-72 (excellent photograph facing p. 231); V. Arangio-Ruiz, Bullettino dell’
Istituto del Diritto Romano, 64 (1961): 323-42; W. Kunkel, Studi in Onore di
Emilio Betti, 11 (Rome, 1962), 591-620; A. M. Woodward et al., S.E.G., XVIII
(1962), 555; J. A. Crook, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, n.s., 8
(1962): 23-29; J. H. Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963):
115-22 (cf. idem, A.J.P., 84 [1963]: 163).

DESCRIPTION. Marble stele broken at the bottom, damaged on the right

and left sides, decorated with a festoon of ivy at the top. Now at Leiden.
Height: 0.475 m. Width: 0.31 m. Thickness: 0.075 m. Height of letters:
+0.010 m.

313
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[A] droxpérwp Kaicup Ocob vids XeBaoros | |

[M]@pxos ’Aypimas Aevkiou vids traro v e[- - -].
[Ei] ries Sndoror rdzr01 7 iepot ev moAeo[e - -|
[77] dAews Exccarns emapyetas elolv etre tu[ve avery] -
para TovTwy T&v Témwv elo €oovrai T[e, wndets|
[tT] adra aipérw unde &yopalérw nde aro [ripnpo]
[7] Spor AapBovérw. 6 av exeiBev carevy[veypevor]
[} }] yopaopevov &v re Scipw Sedopevov 7, [ds av emi ris]
[é] wapyeias 7 &oxaracrabAven eis Tov dnu.[dorov Adyov]
sae) }) fepov THs TéAews fpovrilérw, Kat 6 adv xp[Fuc evexvpr] -
[o]v 5009, robro 7 Suxauodoreitw {v} vacat
[.] Vinicius proc(onsul) s(alutem) d(at) mag(istratibus) Cumas. Apollonides
L.f. No [race(us)|
[c(ivis) v(ester)] me adeit et demostravit Liberei Patris fanum nom{ine]
[ven]ditiones possiderei ab Lusia Diogenis f. Tucalleus c(ive) [v(estro)],
15 [et c]um vellent thiaseitae sacra deo restituere iussu Au[gu]-
[s]ti Caesaris pretio soluto quod est inscreiptum fano,
[..]berei ab Lusia. E(go) v(olo) v(os) c(urare), sei ita sunt, utei Lusias quod
[est] positum pretium fano recipiet et restituat deo fa-
[num e]t in eo inscreibatur Imp. Caesar Deivei f. Augustuls] re[sti]-
20 [tuit. Sei] autem Lusia contradeicit quae Apollonides pos|tu]-
[lat, vadi]monium ei satisdato ubi ego ero. Lusiam prom{it]-
[tere magi|s probo. “Emi mpurcévews Davirov vacat
[ - - - os] Ovuwikvos yaipew Ayer &pyovar Kupaiwv. °A[zoA| -
[Awrid|ns Aeveiov Nwparetos rrodeitns tyuerepo[s jor]
25 [poofA] ev Kat bredeEev Avovdaov tepov dvou [are]
[mpaoews Kk]aréxyegbou do Avaiov rob Avoyévous |Tuxad] -
[Aews mroAeirou dpertépo|v, Kat dre HBov[AovTo of Mace? -
[Ol ope a ela ws ee ee |

1 At the end there may have been a vacat. Pleket has [ro €BSopov ?]; Atkinson, [76 f 2].
2 Pleket, €[kéAevooy or -yparbav], but also possible are e[éov], €[ragav], €[yvwour],
€[mpagav], or €[Soccv]. The amount of available space seems to be about 6-7 letters long.
3 Pleket, €v oAca[w7) ev xepa | 7] dAews KrA.; Arangio-Ruiz, év médeo[w 7) Kard ris |
m1] dAews KrA.; Oliver, with hesitation, €v réAco[t rs dep |7] dAews KTA.; Atkinson, modeo | wv
doo] «tA.; Kunkel, méAeo[w airwes| rr. 4 Pleket, ti[va avobé-?]; Atkinson, tu[vo
xp7] |wara; Kunkel, coop] |wara. 6 Pleket, ad [unSevos] ; Kunkel, azro[riunow]; Arangio-
Ruiz, amo[tiwnua]. 9 Pleket, d5yu[dovov rémov]; Arangio-Ruiz, Syu[dovov Adyov]. 10
Pleket, xpi [uo odrixe c|70]5009; Kunkel, yp [éous ye|pu]v 8009; Sokolowski, in S.E.G., XVIII,
no. $55, xp[Hpa evéxv|po|v 5009; Oliver, yp[ Fue eveyvprlo]v 5009; Atkinson, ypA [wc Bde |
€]vd069. 12 Pleket, Kunkel, and Arangio-Ruiz have [L.]. 14 Read [ven]ditionis. 16-17
Punctuation by Oliver, making satisdato third person imperative. In 17 Pleket has [Li]berei, which
Oliver changed to [ha]berei. 21-22 Kunkel, prom[ittere magi]s probo. 23 Kunkel and Arangio-
Ruiz, [Aev«cos].

314
EPISTULAE

COMMENTARY. One of the many novel features of the Augustan edicts from
Cyrene (No. 31) is the fact that Augustus had issued them to the inhabitants of a province
under the control of the Senate. This was hailed by a majority of scholars as good
evidence not only that the imperium of Augustus was maius but also that he did not
hesitate to use it whenever and wherever he felt it was necessary. Some did not and
still do not agree with that conclusion.
The present inscription from Cyme in Asia complements the Cyrene Edicts in the
matter of imperium and auctoritas as held by Augustus. Unfortunately, some key phrases
and words are missing. Its meaning, therefore, cannot be fully understood, given the
present state of our knowledge. The inscription consists of two basic documents.
The first of them (Il. 1-11) is a joint order or pronouncement of some kind made by
Augustus and Agrippa at a time when they were sharing the consulship, i.e., in 27 B.c.
Taken by itself the pronouncement establishes that public places or sacred areas in the
cities of each eparcheia, along with their various properties, shall in no way fall into the
possession of anyone. All such places and properties that may have come under
the control of any private person are to be restored to public or sacred ownership. The
person in charge of each eparcheia shall take measures to insure the restitution of such
places and properties to the ownership of the city or the god. In brief, we may say
that Augustus (and Agrippa) intended public and sacred places to remain in the possession
of the city and the gods, and if for any reason they had come into the possession of private
individuals they were to be returned to the city and the gods. Clearly, many such
places had indeed passed into private ownership, probably because of the great exactions
of the Roman generals in Asia during the years preceding Actium. Otherwise the
pronouncement would have been meaningless.
The jurisdictional extent of this order is not stated, but, since it had been engraved
here undoubtedly as the authority by which a governor of Asia handed down a ruling,
it must have applied to some part of the Greek East, almost certainly to the province of
Asia or a part of it. The word eparcheia here is important. It may mean “district” or
perhaps even “ prefecture,” according to one view. The point is a delicate one, and the
extant remains of the document do not allow any kind of positive answer.!
The second document (Il. 12-22) is a letter from the governor of Asia, Vinicius,
directing the magistrates of Cyme to investigate the truth of a declaration made by a
citizen of Cyme to the effect that the sanctuary of the god Dionysus in the city is in the
private possession of an individual named Lysias, and, if true, to see to it that the in-
dividual is made to accept the price and to return the property to the ownership of the
god. He further directs that the sanctuary be inscribed with the statement “ Restored by
Imperator Caesar Augustus, Son of the Deified.”” A most important passage of his

1 The absence of the article would seem to be telling evidence against the view that the word meant
provincia, its ordinary meaning in this type of document, for it would then mean ‘“‘of a province”
and would extend the geographical limits of the order beyond the borders of one province. Further-
more, the word éxéorns should be taken with 7éAews. See Arangio-Ruiz, op. cit., pp. 330-32, and
Oliver, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 4 (1963): 117-18.

315
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

letter (Il. 15-16) indicates that the members of the thiasos of the sanctuary thought they
could recover ownership for the god iussu Au[gus]ti. Although only the name of
Augustus is mentioned here, the iussum in question must be the one represented by the
first document. Why else would it appear first on the stele? The emperor takes
precedence over Agrippa.2 A Greek translation (ll. 22-28), unfortunately incomplete,
concluded the short dossier.
The general situation is clear enough. In 27 B.c. Augustus issued an order of some
sort regulating the possession and restitution of public or sacred places. At a later date
the proconsul Vinicius was informed of an apparent violation of this order in regard to
the sanctuary of Dionysus in Cyme. Having been asked for his decision in the matter, he
sent the present letter with his solution. Since he specifies that an inscription be set up
naming Augustus as the “‘Restorer” of the sanctuary, we may rightly assume that the
procedure he outlines is the one authorized or intended by the iussum of Augustus.3
The implications of both the iussum and the letter are patent for the student of Roman
constitutional history. But caution is necessary. There are unknown elements in both
which may make it extremely difficult to be exact about the legality of the action taken
by Augustus in issuing the order. Can we be sure that Augustus on his own initiative
issued such an order to the province of Asia, which by the settlement of 27 B.c. was to
remain under the control of the Senate? Or was he authorized in some way to do so?
And who is Vinicius? How much time separates him and his letter from the iussum?
The particular point that distinguishes the first document from the Cyrene Edicts is
not simply that Augustus appears to be issuing an order to a senatorial province, but
rather that he does so in the year 27 B.c., the very year in which he is said to have publicly
transferred the state from his own power to the disposition of the Senate and the people.
From 27 B.c. down to 23 B.c. he was consul each year and, as he himself says, he possessed
in that period no more power than any of his colleagues in office. After 23 B.C. we are
told by Dio that he received an imperium maius. Pleket and others were not disturbed
by the thought of Augustus issuing an order to Asia even in 27 B.c. Nor should one be
disturbed. But Mrs. Atkinson was immediately alarmed. She could not believe that
Augustus would have done such a thing on his own initiative in 27 B.c. She therefore
searched for an explanation to circumvent the idea and found one in the view that the
first document was really a senatus consultum in an abridged form. This would have
“exculpated” Augustus. Her view must be rejected. One has only to examine the
framework and formulas of the Greek copies of senatus consulta to see that even in an
abbreviated form there are no points of comparison between them and the Cyme

2 Mrs. Atkinson, op. cit., pp. 238 and 252, felt that the iussum of the second document was not the
same as the iussum of the first. But the fact that the name of Agrippa as co-author of the iussum is
missing in the governor’s letter need not mean that a different order is intended. Augustus, not
Agrippa, is Princeps.
3 For the procedure itself, restitutio in integrum, see the S.C. de Asclepiade (No. 22) and its commentary,
and Atkinson, op. cit., pp. 259-72.
4 Res Gestae 34; see E. T. Salmon, Historia, 5 (1956): 461-62, on this passage.

316
EPISTULAE

document.5 Her approach, however, may indeed have some merit. Everything from
the constitutional point of view hinges on the nature of that first document. What is its
legal form ?
The prescript could point to a decretum, edictum, or perhaps even a lex. Wolfgang
Kunkel thought it was a lex, or that it pointed to one, for he was struck by the use of the
imperative. He was aware, of course, that the prescript to a /ex, even in a shortened
form (populus iure scivit), was too long to fit into the space available at the end of line 2.
Andhe was also aware that it was not customary for provincial regulations of such a
nature to be authorized by leges. Nevertheless, he favored é[xéAevoar] in line 2. J. H.
Oliver likewise believed that the verb in line 2 announced or proclaimed leges datae. He
thought that Augustus had revived something like the old republican institution of the
praefectura municipalis and had had a praefectus iure dicundo appointed in Asia. According-
ly, he saw in the word eparcheia, as used here, the Greek equivalent of the Latin praefectura.
These praefecti in Asia would have been authorized to perform their duties and functions
by leges a consulibus datae.
But others, such as Arangio-Ruiz and Crook, preferred to see in the document an
edict rather than a lex.®
In the absence of direct evidence no explanation is likely to be accepted by all scholars,
but all possible suggestions must be examined and evaluated. Like the Cyrene Edicts,
the Cyme document will require a large number of minds attacking the problem from
different angles. One such approach is suggested here.
The nature of the regulation established by Augustus, in my opinion, implies the pre-
vious existence of complaints from the cities of Asia about private ownership of public
or sacred places. It would appear likely that after Actium, when through imperial aid
the cities of Asia slowly began to recover from the burdens placed upon them by the
wars, various communities discovered that many of their public and sacred places had
passed into private ownership. The cities and the sacred officials quite naturally would
want to recover this lost property, now that some semblance of economic stability had
begun to appear. We may assume that the owners refused to give up or sell back what
they considered to be a good investment. The cities then, perhaps collectively, sent
envoys to Rome to lodge an official complaint and to ask for a ruling. The matter
would have come up before the Senate, the government organ ordinarily used to handle
such provincial details. The Senate listened and approved. Approval of the Senate
would normally be given in the form of a senatus consultum. This would not necessarily
mean that the Senate itself gave a direct opinion on the solution to the problem in Asia,

5 Kunkel, op. cit., p. 597, saw immediately that her view was wrong. Only if the consul had con-
vened the Senate would his name appear in the nominative, and then it would be followed by the
standard formula ri. ovyKArjrw ovveBovAevoaro. In addition, the usual way in which the Senate
issues its instructions involves the use of one or all of the following formulas: (1) 6aa---- 7yyjoaT0;
(2) wept dv - - - Soxeiv efvou; (3) 6mws ----. And oratio obliqua prevails.
6 The mere fact that there is room for only one word at the end of line 2 makes the case for calling
the document either an edict or a highly abbreviated letter more probable.

317
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

for frequently in such cases it would delegate or authorize an official, usually one or both
of the consuls, to investigate the matter more thoroughly and to render an opinion. This
is exactly the sort of procedure which, I believe, was followed by the Senate at some time
immediately prior to the issuance of the iussum by Augustus in 27 8.c. The following
parallels may be cited.
1. S.C. de Itanorum et Hierapytniorum Litibus (No. 14). By the terms of this decree of
the Senate the consul L. Calpurnius Piso was instructed to appoint an arbitral tribunal to
review the history of the quarrel between the Cretan cities of Itanus and Hierapytnia over
a stretch of land and to hand down a final decision. The consul, thus authorized to act,
obeyed.
2. S.C. de Collegiis Artificam Bacchiorum (No. 15). This decree of the Senate, which
settled the long-standing quarrel between the Athenian and the Isthmian guilds of
Dionysiac Artists in 112 B.C., stipulated that in regard to the common fund of the com-
bined guilds the consul M. Livius was to conduct an investigation and hand down a
decision. He obeyed.
3. S.C. de Stratonicensibus (No. 18). Here the Senate in 81 B.c. stated that the dictator
Sulla, if he so wished, was to determine what amount of taxes the surrounding cities
and lands were to pay to Stratonicea.
4. S.C. de Oropiorum et Publicanorum Controversiis (No. 23). M. Terentius Varro
Lucullus and C. Cassius Longinus, the consuls of 73 B.c., had been commissioned by the
Senate to appoint and head a senatorial commission to investigate and render a decision
in the dispute between the officials of the sanctuary of Amphiaraus and the publicans.
The two consuls obeyed.
5. S.C. de Mytilenaeis (No. 26) of 25 B.c. The consul Marcus Silanus, in the absence
of Augustus, convened the Senate and apparently was authorized by it to seek approval
from Augustus for the renewal of a treaty with Mytilene and then to give the oaths.
This last example, despite the poor condition of the text, certainly brings the procedure
down to the age of Augustus.
Taken as a whole, several conclusions may be drawn from these examples. Clearly
it was common for the Senate to instruct the consul or consuls to investigate and render
binding decisions on specific problems raised by provincials. This is a procedure well
known to us.?__ These senatorial instructions were communicated in the form of senatus
consulta. And the verbs used to describe the decision of the consul, when he was
authorized to render it, were émuyryvwoxew and émixpivew.8 The consuls in such a
situation did not act on their own initiative but were empowered to act by the Senate.
This was true even under Augustus.
When we turn to Cyme, we see that the matter of private ownership of public or

7 In such examples of “consular discretion” the Senate often gives the consul a consilium. See De
Ruggiero, L’arbitrato pubblico in relazione col privato presso iRomani (Rome, 1893), pp. 158ff., and W.
Liebenam, R.E., s.v. “Consilium,”’ cols. 919-20.
8 See the senatus consulta cited as examples: No. 14, ll. 74-75; No. 15, ll. 61-64; No. 18, Il. 103-6; No.
23, ll. 1-4; and cf. the S.C. de Pergamenis (No. 12), ll. 7-8; S.I.G.3, 831 (letter of Hadrian), 1. 9.

318
EPISTULAE

sacred places is one of purely provincial interest. One cannot conceive of Augustus’
regulation as having had very wide application. It certainly might have extended
throughout the province of Asia, but hardly beyond it. Therefore, one may assume
that the problem reached the Senate in the usual manner, by envoys coming to Rome
and requesting a Senate hearing. The Senate in turn must have agreed that their com-
plaints were justified and accordingly have passed a senatus consultum authorizing the two
consuls, if they saw fit, to hand down their decision on the matter. Augustus (and
Agrippa) did so in the old, customary manner. After all, it was a small affair and was
not likely to require much time. To follow the old procedure would do no harm.
They reviewed the case and communicated their decision to the envoys. They probably
then wrote a letter to the city, cities, or provincial organ that sent the envoys and in it
explained their decision officially. This decision could certainly be referred to as a
iussam. And perhaps the verb at the end of line 2 was é[7éyvwoar] or é[aéxpwar].
It must not be pressed, however.°
Thus it is possible that Augustus in 27 B.C. is not issuing orders or pronouncements on
his own initiative without the prior approval of the Senate. He may be following the
time-honored procedure so familiar from republican times. The Senate had turned a
matter over to him and his colleague and requested a decision. They complied.
Therefore, the possibility exists that the first document may be simply the bare decision
of the two consuls, perhaps shortened and extracted from a broader context.1° There
is, however, no way to prove that such is the background of the document. Like all
the other suggestions, it must remain tentative.
We turn to the letter of Vinicius, and are confronted immediately by the problem of
his identity. It is a complex problem, for at least two and possibly three Vinicii are
known to have been proconsuls of Asia. M. Vinicius (cos. A.D. 30 and 45) appears to
have held the office in a.D. 39/40, but 67 years is much too long for Cyme to wait for the
restoration of the god’s property. He may be rejected as a candidate.!!_ P. Vinicius
(cos. A.D. 2) was the governor in about a.D. 3, although a somewhat later date is also
possible.!2 And a M. Vinicius is also attested as a governor, according to an inscription
from Mylasa mentioned by L. Robert.'3 Whether he is the same person as the consul

9 The amount of space available would seem to limit the restored word to six or seven letters at most.
A shorter word would be preferable.
10 Mrs. Atkinson’s suggestion (op. cit., pp. 240-41) that the prescript is given in a “curtailed form”
seems well founded. The stele appears to have been erected at private cost by the worshipers of
Dionysus, and to reduce the expense a shortened version of the documents would therefore be
expected.
11 R. Hanslik, R.E., s.v. “Vinicius” (7), cols. 116-19, refers the inscription from Mylasa reported by
L. Robert (Revue archéologique, 1935, Il, 156) to this man and not to the M. Vinicius who had been
consul in 19 B.c. He also believes that the inscription from Chios (A.E., 1932, 7; cf. Pleket, op. cit.,
p- 61) was erected to honor the consul of A.D. 30 and 45.
12 See R. Hanslik, R.E., s.v. “Vinicius” (8), cols. 119-20, and Pleket, op. cit., p. 61. Mrs. Atkinson,
op. cit., p. 329, makes him governor in the period A.D. 10/11-14/TS.
13 Revue archéologique 1935, Il, 156-58. Seen. 11, above, and Pleket, loc. cit.

319
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

of A.D. 30 and 45 is not wholly clear, but Robert seems to be convinced that they are not
identical. He identifies him with the M. Vinicius who had been consul in 19 B.c.;
however, the possibility of confusion because of the similarity of names would make it
advisable to suspend judgment. Which of these men is the Vinicius of the Cyme
document? Mrs. Atkinson, believing that the natives of Cyme approached Augustus
himself during his presence in Asia in the period 20-19 B.c., thought that the M. Vinicius
who had been consul in 19 B.c. might have been our Vinicius. Her reasons for sug-
gesting such a date are not in any way conclusive, and her view must remain merely a
possibility.'* Pleket, on the other hand, thought that none of these Vinicii was the
governor of our document, for to him it was much more likely that there would not
have been much of an interval between the iussum of 27 B.c. and the subsequent action
of Cyme which prompted the governor’s letter. He thought that L. Vinicius (cos. suff.
33 B.c.) may have held the governorship in either 28/27 or 27/26 B.c., and others tend to
support him.'5
Despite the numerous Vinicii that might enter into consideration, it seems much more
probable that the action of Cyme in seeking to recover possession of the sanctuary for
the god would not have been delayed very long. Once the iussum of Augustus had
become known in Asia, the worshipers of Dionysus in Cyme would have taken
almost immediate steps. And there is nothing in either of the two documents which
would permit the suggestion that they went first to Augustus and then to Vinicius.
The sequence of events most likely was the usual one, simple and uncomplicated. They
learned of the ivssum and its applicability to their situation, went to Vinicius, and re-
ceived a favorable response. Vinicius then sent the letter with his official decision to
Cyme, and the worshipers erected the stele after the successful recovery of the sanctuary.
The stele, erected at their own cost, probably presented the documents in a shortened
form, an especially reasonable supposition in the case of the first document. Thus, the
governor Vinicius was most likely the consul suffect of 33 B.c.
Vinicius, of course, was very careful to give credit to Augustus for the original legal
concept. Even in senatorial provinces the authoritative presence of Augustus was a very
real thing. The mere fact that the governor wishes Augustus to be recorded as the
“Restorer” of the sanctuary is highly significant. Outward agreement between Senate
and Princeps was one thing, practical politics quite another.

14 Atkinson, op. cit., pp. 256-59. There is absolutely nothing in the inscription to indicate that the
citizens of Cyme went to Augustus first and then turned to the governor.
15 See R. Syme, J.R.S., 45 (1955): 159, and Kunkel, op. cit., pp. 613-14.

320
 62
EPISTULA (?) AUGUSTI
AD SAMIOS 19 B.C. (July 2)
HOHHGHHGHHGAASDGSHSDHASHSHGAGSHSHSSSNSsHsgggg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. Herrmann, Athen. Mitt., 75 (1960), no. 4, pp. 84-90; A.

D’Ors, Epigrafia juridica griega y romana, VII (Studia et Documenta Historiae et
Iuris, 29 [1963]), 468-69.

DESCRIPTION. Stele of white marble, broken on all sides. Photograph in

Herrmann, op. cit., Beilage 37, no. 3. Height: 0.40 m. Width: 0.14 m.
Thickness: 0.09 m. Height of letters: o.or1 m., Latin; 0.015 m., Greek. The
lettering of the Latin section is similar to cursive or “freehand lettering,” the
words separated by points, and the letter S lengthened at the beginning of
words. The Greek has large apices.

[------- ]m et cohortis me[------------ ]

[----- iu] reiur(ando) proveisum [--------- ]
[------- d]iscipleina tam[----------- ]
[-------- ] tot praetorib[us ---------- ]
[------ ] ordinum atque h[------------ ]
[------- ]ennium praebu[- ------------ ]
[------- Je functa sit leibe[- ---------- ]
[----- cei] vitatem ex form[a?----------- |
[------- ]scriptione nostr[a?---------- ]
Io [------- ]re solet remitt[------------ |
vacat
["Erous I\B ths Adtox|[péropos|
[LeBaor] ob vinns, é[7m - - -]
[- - - -] unvos ‘E[KaropBoudvos ?]
[.. mpo] émra 5 [Gv *LovAiwv ?]
15 [I’. Levri] ws. Lar [opvivan brarar]
[Adroxpd]rwp Kalioap ZeBaords]

8 Or ex form[ula?, Herrmann.

321
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. The double dating of the Actian era (ll. r1-12) and the Roman
consul gives us the year 19 B.C., for, although the text is fragmentary, enough is left of
both dates to assure the restoration. Only one consul appears to have been named, to
judge from the space available on the stone, and this fixes the date between the beginning
of that year and the month of September.! The restoration of the Samian month in line
13 is not certain, for it is attested nowhere else. But, if it is correct, it would seem to
correspond with July.
Herrmann believes that there is a connection between this document and another from
Samos (I.G.R.R., IV, 976), which is a short heading on a block that apparently formed
part of a large monument. It reads: Adroxpérw[p Kaioa]p LeBuords adtoxparup |
76 evato|v, Snuap] yiKhs e€ovoias 76 €’. The fifth tribunician power of Augustus puts
it in the period from July 1 of 19 B.c. to June 30 of 18 B.c., well within the date of the
present document. Thus, both of them may be dated in the very year in which Augustus
terminated his visit on Samos and left for Italy.2_ Dio (54. 9. 7) tells us that Augustus
gave Samos her freedom in the winter of 20/19 B.c., a fact that may be of significance in
the interpretation of the monument.
The Greek section of our document would appear to be an edict or a letter, but no key
words or phrases are extant to identify it absolutely. The Greek is perhaps a translation
of the Latin, but the two may also be separate documents that were placed together when
the material for the stele was assembled. The remains give us little exact information:
military cohort, an oath, discipline, praetors, military ranks, citizenship. Important words,
but the link between them is lost. The mention of citizenship probably refers to that of
the soldiers involved rather than to the citizenship of Samos as a whole. Herrmann
reminds us of veteran colonies but tempers his remark wisely with the observation that
no veteran colonies on Samos are known. There is some support for a connection with
a colony, for two Samian inscriptions speak of an era ris KoAwvias, but the full
significance of such an era on Samos has not been explained satisfactorily.
The most that one may say of the document in its present shape is that it appears to be
an edict or letter of Augustus from 19 B.c. which concerned military matters and citizen-
ship. That these matters affected Samos and the Samians goes without question. Why
else would Samos have erected the stele?

1 C. Sentius Saturninus was sole consul in 19 B.c. until the month of September, Q. Lucretius Vespillo
being added as a colleague at that time. And on September 2 began the thirteenth year of the Actian
era. See Herrmann, op. cit., pp. 85-86.
2 Herrmann (ibid., p. 86) thinks that Augustus may still have been on Samos at the beginning of July,
19 B.C.
3 1.G.R.R.,1V, 991-92. Herrmann (op. cit., pp. 88-89) suggests that our documents may concern the
granting of citizenship to soldiers who have served their time and, as veterans, have started a colonia
on the island. This might account for the colonial era. But he is rightly skeptical of this, even
though it is attractive. See also J. Robert and L. Robert, R.E.G., 79 (1966), no. 340, p. 417, with
references.

322
 63
EPISTULA M. AGRIPPAE AD
GERUSIAM ARGIVAM 17-16 B.C.?

HHIAIAHAAAHHAHH
HHH HHGSSSSSSHAHOHDTSSSRHAHHHSSASHNgE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. Vollgraff, Mnemosyne, 47 (1919), no. 28, pp. 263-70

(A.E., 1920, no. 82); M. Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa (Geneva, N.Y., 1933), pp. 122,
169-72; Ehrenberg-Jones, no. 308;J.H. Oliver, Historia, 7 (1958): 474-76 and
app. II, pp. 480-81.

DESCRIPTION. Stele found at Argos. It contains two inscriptions, the

present one and one in honor of Alexander of Sicyon (Mnemosyne, 44 [1916]:
64). Height of letters: 0.026 m. (I. 1) and 0.015 m. (Il. 2-11).

Tepovrwy
Aypinmas ’Apyetwv yépovat tots ao
> , > ie / A > Xi

Aavaot Kai ‘Yrepunotpas yaipeuw.

~ Y& /

°"Eya Tod Te Siopetvou TO avoTNWo

~ A \ v2

tua Kat pvdc&ou 7d tradaov a€iope

~ 4, \ > ,

THY ciTloy eware avvoida Trapecyn-

pévy Kat TOAAG TOV Katadehupevwv
~ /

dpetv amodedwKore Sixaiwv mpos TE

¢ a > eS) } / PS) / /

Tovm.ov mpovoety budv [rpobdpws|

a” ~ ,

Io

323
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

After the zeta in |. 11 the upper part of O or Q is visible on the stone. 5-8 For the phrase
dvrc&ocew ra Sixouc in Roman imperial letters see L. Robert, Revue de Philologie, 84 (1958): 30.

COMMENTARY. The gerusia was an aristocratic corporation of elder citizens

existing in many Greek cities (very likely from the earliest periods) and concerned with
the management of one or two of the local cults. In Hellenistic Ephesus, for example,
it cared for the festival of Artemis and the various resources used to defray the expenses.
Our information about their numbers and functions becomes much fuller by the
Hellenistic and Roman ages, and we learn that they suffered a general decline in the
third century B.c. Many weathered the economic storm and continued to exist on into
the early third century a.p.!
The letter of Agrippa to the “Gerusia Descended From Danaus and Hypermestra”’ at
Argos shows Roman interest in the institution, for Agrippa says that he restored many
of its lost rights and that he will safeguard them in the future. It has been suggested that
the Roman government deliberately revived (where necessary) and fostered these
gerusiae as a sort of eastern counterpart to the western Augustales.2 Agrippa himself
may have been the key figure in the movement, but we have no proof except for this
letter. Thereafter Rome treated them with distinct respect and carefully observed
their rights. They became useful to the imperial cult, for their activities were no longer
restricted to the local festivals. The figure of the emperor was added. A letter of M.
Aurelius and L. Verus to the financial commissioner of the Ephesian gerusia is our source
for this new development, for in it are mentioned “old” and “worn out” silver images
of the emperors stored in the gerusia’s synedrion. Thus the Ephesian gerusia, and cer-
tainly the others, served imperial policy.3
It is not at all unlikely, cherefore, that the Roman interest in the revival and en-
couragement of the eastern gerusiae goes back to the Augustan age and that, as Oliver
has suggested, it was a policy deliberately formulated to strengthen the ties of loyalty
between the cities and the Roman government.
The date of the letter would fall in the period 17-13 B.c., when Agrippa was con-
tinuously active and present in the Greek East. He passed the winter of 17/16 B.c. in
Corinth, and that would have been the most likely time for either a visit to Argos or the
reception of an embassy from that city. This may be accepted, but only provisionally,
as the date of composition.

1J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (Hesperia, suppl. VI) (Baltimore, 1941), and the same author’s
“Gerusiae and Augustales,” in Historia, 7 (1958): 476-96.
2 Oliver, “Gerusiae and Augustales,” pp. 475 and 494-96.
3 The letter: Forschungen in Ephesos, II (1912), no. 23, pp. 119-23 (= Sacred Gerusia, no. 11, pp. 93-96).
4 For the itinerary of Agrippa in the East see Reinhold, op. cit., pp. 106ff., and R. Hanslik, R.E., s.v.
“Vipsanius”’ (Nachtrdge), cols. 1251-66, for an excellent year-by-year account.

324
 E PISTULA
ck AUGUSTI AD ERESIOS After 15 B.c.
[Squeeze]
X QHGHGHGHGHGHSHHOGHOUHAHHGHGHAGHATHSSHSHHNHgggygg

BIBLIOGRAPHY. A. Conze, Reise auf der Insel Lesbos (Hannover, 1865), tab.
XV, no. 4; E. David, "Exvypadal *Epecod (Athens, 1895), no. 32; W. R. Paton,
I.G., XI, 2 (1899), 531; G. Lafaye, ILG.R.R., IV (1927), 7; D. Magie, Roman
Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1336-37, n. 19, and 1340, n. 28; H.
M alcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta* (Turin, 1962), no. 72,
PP. 45-50.

DESCRIPTION. A fragment of a stele of white marble found in the wall of

the house of Stavros Vaphiadis at Eresus. Height: 0.32 m. Height of letters:
0.006 m.

[----------------e eee ]oA[...]oAur[- - - - - - ]

[-------
rrr errr ree eee Jov AeoB[ ------- ]
[------------ rere ee ee- ]v [ev] oxeva[copevo - - |
[------------- ee eee ee- ]Onxe[....Jum[----]
]v ets ‘P[dpnv - - --|
[o o eee nna ene | Sréray m[-------
[--222202
eeeeeeeeeee! Jw y[-22222
10
ieRigerasbchiorhs
iv sticks tas se aeJov popru[------- ]
Pn ee i ] @zroxpysa[ - - - - - - |
[---- cr ter err ere ree oud ex Kailoapos - - - |
[Adroxpérwp Kaioup Qeob vids LeBaoros dnuapyi] Kis eLovalias 70 - - |
[----- adtoxpatwp 70 - - 8é]Kat[ov "Ep|eciwv &pyo[var Bovdjj]
15 [Sym yoipew> -------- ]@ 70 wrap’ dudv Wy [drop - - - - - |
[-------------- ]u[.] Kot darepefeunv [-------- ]
[---------------- ]ww Koi adrov [--------- ]
[------------7- ] Kat ris mpos huts [-------- |
[----------+--> ] ’Aypisrmas 6 duadépwy [--------- ]
20 aia (eho
[earths ]opevos 7@ beg Kaioapt | -------- ]
[----------
ce: ] 70 wap’ adrov an’ a[porépwr - - - - |
Seeam ]@ KeéAdurrov ATA[ ---------- ]
[oan

32 5
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

I have compared the Berlin squeeze with Paton’s readings. Above and slightly to the left of rw,
in the first line, David reads EZ, none of which was seen by Paton. 6 OHKEYIT, David, but
Paton agrees with what is given here and confirmed by the squeeze. 8 OIOTANIT, David, but
Paton could not see OJTO on the stone. I cannot see it on the squeeze. 9 AINITAPA, David;
AINT II, Paton. 10 ONMAPTY, David, but Paton could not see the omicron. 11 Perhaps
-] drroxpipa[ow xooproovra(?) aut similia. Cf. L. Robert, Etudes Anatoliennes, p. 324, for words
commonly found with &rdéxpiye, and see also J. Robert and L. Robert, La Carie, I (Paris, 1954),
106, n. 2. 15 Perhaps 76 rap’ judv Yj [dropa améSooay aut aréSwxev? David thought he saw
an alpha at the beginning of the text, but Paton could no longer see it. 22 David alone has read
the omega at the beginning.

COMMENTARY. Since the formula of lines 13-15 so clearly indicates the beginning
of a letter, lines 1-12 must belong to a different document. This document may also be
a letter, for the use of the first person in the verb [7] ov would point in that direction,
but its fragmentary state precludes any positive assertion about its contents. We may be
sure, however, that it was connected with the second letter in some manner.
Lines 13-22 are most likely part of a letter of Augustus to the city of Eresus. The
mention of tribunicia potestas (|. 13) and of Agrippa (1. 19) leads us almost without question
to Augustus. The date of the letter, on the other hand, can only be estimated, for the
imperial acclamation (l. 14) could be simply the tenth (S€]xar[ov) or some higher
number (--Kaid€]xar[ov). In any case the date must be after Augustus was imperator X,
ie., 15 B.C. or later. The old view of Paton, Lafaye, and Viereck (notes), that the letter
was written after the death of Agrippa (12 B.c.) on the ground that the length of lines
13-14 seems to demand somewhat long numbers for the tribunician power and the
imperial acclamation, may be discounted. There is no way for us to be absolutely sure
of the exact length of any line in the document, and therefore no way to tell whether
dé] xar[ov or, e.g., [Tprcxaid€] kar [ov is right. Therefore, 15 B.c. or later is the closest
dating possible.?
There are two general periods of time in which Agrippa could have visited Eresus.
The first is 23-21 B.c., when he spent practically all of his time right at Mytilene and on
Lesbus, using his special power as a “ deputy of Caesar” to rule the East through his own
representatives.? The second is 17-13 B.c., when, after traveling through Greece and
the Thracian Chersonese (17-15 B.c.), he spent the winter of 15/14 B.c. in Mytilene. He
was absent from the city for much of 14 B.c., but did return to Lesbus and Mytilene for
the winter of 14/13 B.c. Thus his connections with the island were of some duration.
™R. Hanslik, R.E., s.v. “‘ Vipsanius” (Nachtrdge), col. 1266, says that the letter may belong to the year
13 B.C., but he gives no real evidence. We may not assume, without evidence, that Augustus
mentions Agrippa in his letter in connection with some recent event. It is, of course, probable,
though not conclusive, that Agrippa was honored by Eresus during his second period of travel in the
East (17-13 B.C.), that a decree by Eresus concerning the honor had been forwarded to Augustus upon
the return of Agrippa to Rome, and that Augustus then (13 B.c.) wrote the present letter.
2 Josephus Ant. 15. 350; ibid., 16. 86; cf. Dio 53. 32. 1. For the chronology of Agrippa’s two visits
to the East see Hanslik, op. cit., cols. 1251-53 and 1259-66, where earlier works are cited along with
the sources.

326
EPISTULAE

On one of these occasions it is possible that he visited Eresus with Julia and was honored
in some fashion (a statue ?) by the city, an event that Augustus might have mentioned in
the present letter.
The phrase (1. 19) “Aypimmas 6 diadépwv may possibly be a reference to his general
imperium, but it is, unfortunately, too incomplete for us to be sure of its nature.3

3 Cf. Res Gestae 34: a€v&p| a) re evtwr Sijveyne (auctoritate omnibus praestiti). Agrippa might have
been qualified as 6 Suadépwv [ovata - -] or 6 Suadépwv [apes aut similia. See L. Robert, Etudes
épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), p.27,n.6. Cf. also T.A.M., II, 197 and 261 for other nouns
used with the verb.

327
 65
EPISTULA PAULI FABIIT MAXIMI ET
DECRETA DE FASTIS PROVINCIALIBUS dO B,Cas
[Squeeze]

QHDGRSHOSHOHDRSSHD
SAHOO S SS HDSESUSTSSSOSESSS9SEsSE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Th. Mommssen and U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,

Athen. Mitt., 24 (1899): no. 275-93; R. Cagnat and M. Besnier, A.E., 1900, no.
76;J.G. C. Anderson, Athen. Mitt., 25 (1900): 111-12; H. Dessau, Hermes, 35
(1900): 332-38; V. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris, 1904),
pp. 390-94; A. Harnack, Reden und Aufsdtze, I (Giessen, 1904), pp. 301-6; P.
Wendland, Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des
Urchristentums, 5 (1904): 335ff.; W. Dittenberger, O.G.LS., II (1905), 458; F.
Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906), 105; E. Groag,
R.E., s.v. “Fabius” (102), cols. 1782-83; J. Keil and Anton von Premerstein,
Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, $4 (1911), 2,
no. 166, pp. 80-82; A. von Domaszewski, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, X (1919), 2d treatise, pp. 1-6; A.
Deissmann, Licht vom Osten+ (Tiibingen, 1923), pp. 313, 316-17 (photos of the
Prienean copy); E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes (Leipzig, 1924), p. 157, n. 2;
H. Dessau, Geschichte der rémischen Kaiserzeit, 1 (Berlin, 1924), 105-6; Abbott-
Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 34,
Pp. 331-32 (second decree of the koinon only); R. Laqueur, Epigraphische
Untersuchungen zu den griechischen Volksbeschliissen (Leipzig, 1927), pp. 175ff.;
W.H. Buckler, Classical Review, 41 (1927): 119-21 (Il. 32-49; cf. S.E.G., IV
[1929], 490); W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris
Antiqua, VI (Manchester, 1939), nos. 174 and 175, pp. 65-66, with Plate 30, on
copy from Apameia; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I,
480-81, and II, 1342-43, n. 40; M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion,
II (Munich, 1950), 370-71; Lewis—Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Il (New York,
1955), 64-65 (this does not include the governor’s letter); A. H. M. Jones,
Classical Review, n.s., § (1955): 244-45 (=S.E.G., XV [1958], 815; cf. J. Robert
and L, Robert in R.E.G., 71 [1958], no. 466, pp- 319-20); Ehrenberg—Jones, no.
98, pp. 74-76 (without utilization of the copy from Maeonia); Johnson,
Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 142.

DESCRIPTION. This letter, as well as the other documents of which it was a

part, was published in numerous cities of Asia. Fragments of the copies from
five cities have survived, one of considerable size (Priene) and the others varying
from passages of many lines to short phrases and parts of lines. The dossier
was originally composed of at least three (possibly four) documents, beginning
with the proconsul’s letter and followed by two decrees of the provincial koinon.
1. Priene: Inschriften von Priene, 105. This is the fullest of the copies and gives
us a connected text of 84 lines. A significant fact is that it is preserved on two

328
 EPISTULAE

blocks of different type, one (the upper) of blue limestone and the other of
white marble. Dimensions of the upper: height, 0.485 m.; width, 0.67 m.;
thickness, 0.34 m. Dimensions of the lower: height, 0.84 m.; width, 0.68-0.69
m.; thickness, 0.35 m. The lettering is of a common type, without apices.
Height of letters: ca. 0.01 m. This copy was used by Dittenberger to form the
basis of his composite text.
2. Apameia: C.I.G., III (1853), 3957; C.LL., Ill, 12240 (cf. 13660 a, 141928);
B.C.H., 17 (1893): 315; Anderson, loc. cit.; Buckler and Calder, loc. cit. For the
new Apameian fragment, discovered by W. H. C. Frend in 1954, see Jones, loc.
cit., where, unfortunately, the dimensions are not given. Although the
Apameian copy is much more mutilated than the Prienean, it does contain part
of the original Latin text of the governor’s letter (to be given below) and a sort
of heading prefixed to the beginning of the Greek portion. White marble.
Dimensions of the older fragment (as reported by Buckler and Calder): height,
0.68 m.; width, 0.78 m.; height of letters, 0.015 m. Dimensions of the Latin
fragment: height, 0.20 m.; width, 0.85 m.; thickness, 0.68 m.; height of letters,
0.03 m. (I. 1), 0.02-0.025 m. (Il. 2-4), 0.033 m. (I. 5=the Greek heading). The
Apameian copy also seems to have included a fourth document, which was
engraved immediately after the proconsul’s letter but which is lacking in the
Prienean copy.
3. Eumeneia: C.I.G., III (1853), 3902 b. It contains only the remains of
lines 55-67 (of the composite text) from the decree of the koinon.
4. Dorylaion: C.I.L., Ill, 13651 (cf. 14189). Unfortunately, the stone was
destroyed and there remains only a very bad copy. See Mommsen, op. cit., pp.
276-77. This is the largest extant fragment of the Latin original of the
governor’s letter.
5. Maeonia: Keil and Premerstein, loc. cit. This fragment shows that the
dossier was erected not only in the larger cities of the province but also in the
less populated areas. White marble, broken on the right, top, and bottom.
Height: 0.33 m. Width: 0.455 m. Thickness: 0.08 m. Height of letters:
0.013-0.016 m. Contains the Greek translation of the governor’s letter
corresponding to lines 8-20 of the Prienean copy, but only about half of each
line is preserved. Nevertheless, it is of help in establishing the correct text in a
number of places where the Prienean copy is fragmentary.

A. The Proconsul’s Letter

[.. map]& r&v mpdr[ep]ov mapeA[jpapev - -------------- ]

LSSato | rap Beary) e|prreyeas ict, [t = 21% ams am mie, icitin a anizer © |
[7dr] epov 7detwy 7 dpeA[ yw] [px €loriv 7 rob Oevorarov Kaicupos yeve-
OALos Hepa, HY THe TOV Travrwy apyje tony dixciws av elvou ba [oA] Bower,
Kot ef pr THe pvoer, TH. ye xpynatpur, el ye oddE[v o] dxu Siametmrov Kat els aTU-
xés peraBeBynKos oxfua avaplwoev, érépay re edwKev TOaVvTt TOL
Koop ow, HovoTa dv SeEopéven POopav, et [Li) TO KoWWOV TrE&VTwWY €d-
roynua ereyerviOn Kaioup. 816 dv tus dixaiws drrodcBor robro aT@e
a a CID , \¢ a
Io apxnv TOU Biov KOL TNS Cwijs yeyoveva, O €OTLY TIEPAS KAHL OPOS TOU [E-

329
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

tapérecan, OTe yeyeryntar. Kal eel ovdemias dv amo NwEpas Ets

/ oe / Ay 3: AY 9 a nn > get / ow

TE TO KoLWOV Kal Eis TO WStoV ExaoTos dpedos EdTUYEDTEpas Ac Bor

apopuas 7) THs m&ow yevomevns edtvyots, ayeddv Te ovpPatver
tov adrov tats ev ’Aaiau oAcow Kaupov elvar THs els THY apynv eladdov,
15 SynAovori Kare tive Onav BovAnow ovtws Ths Tabews TpoTeTUTIMpE-
ns, iva adopun yévoito Tis eis Tov LeBaorov tyshs, Kot emret SVoKo-
eo > M / “~ > i \ aA Ls) \ /,

Nov peév eorw Tots ToaovTos abrod evepyeTHaow Kat’ toov edyapic-
teiv, ef 1) TAP EKaoTE emivonoaper TPOTTOV TIE THs Kpeipews,
Hdevov S dv &vOpwro. THY KoWnY meow Hucpav yeveOAov cycyor|ev|
20 [e]av mpooyerynron adrois Kat iSia Tis Suc THY apynv HOovy, SoKEt jor
Tac@v TOV ToAaTHay elvou piav Kal THY adrTIY véaY voupNrvia:
tHv Tob Onotétov Kaicapos yevebNov, éxeivn Te mavras eis THY
apynv evBaivew, ATs eotly mpo evven Kadavdav "OxtwBpiwv, dws
Kal TEplacoTEpov TYLNOHL mpocrAaBopevyn eEwhev tia OpnoKHnav Kat
25 paAAov meow yetvnTou yrwpios, NY olowoL Kal TAEloTHY edypnoTiav
The erapyna trapeecOou. wjdioua d€ bd Tob Kowob THs Actas den-
ae ypaphvar m&ous evrreperAndos Tas apetas adbtod, iva TO émwon-
Bev id’ judy eis tHY Ternv Tod LeBaorod pelvy aiwvov. mpooraEw
dé yapaybev <év> TH oTHAn To UHdiopa ev TO va@ avareOver, mpoore-
30 fas TO Sutraypo Exatépws ypadev.
Sequuntur decreta duo concilii
provincialis

Apameia B. The Latin Fragments of the Proconsul’s Letter

[- - - iuc]undior an salubrior principis nost[ri natalis - - - - - - -----------------

[- - -] cumque non ullo ex die feliciora et privatim singulis et universis publice [trahi
possint auspicia - -]
[- - -] quem Graeci suo nomine diem nean numenian appellant eum clarissimi viri
Caesaris [natalem - - - - ]
[- - -] nonus XXX decumus XXXI undecumus XXX duodecumus XXXI interkalaris
interpone[tur - -------- ]
[- -]ves KoPrepwOeious etre Sick Opnoxe[tav ---------------------- ]

Dorylaion [propterea recte homines existimant hoc sibi principium]

<vitae, q>uod paenitendi <f>uerit natos se esse <fi)nis.
c{uym<¢q>ue non u<]>lo ex die feliciora et (p>rivatim sin¢g)ulis et uni-
versis publice trahi possint aus¢pici>a <q>uam ex eo, <q>uem felicissi-
mum communiter (credunt), fere autem omnium in Asia <ci)vitatium
idem
s temp<us>an(n)i novi in(i)tiumq<u>e magist{e}ratuum sit, in <q>uod
<fo<rtui-

JJ0
 EPISTULAE

to, videlice<t> ut hono(r)are(t)ur, (p>rin<ci)pis nostri nata<])is incidit, vel

(q>uia tot er(g>a divina merita ¢g>rat(um) esse di<ff Yicile est nisi omnis
pietatis temptetu<r> materia, vel (quia <dies est) pro<pyria <cuiq>ue
<}aetitia in¢g>ressui honor<i)s <st>atu<t>us, publicum videtu<r> diem
io [-----------------~~------~----...--- Jum
[----------------------------------- om

fies
eener eS We ae 2 JAVNIA TNSA
[-------------------------- |]hacb>ebit u<tilditatem et
[----------------------- |tissimo dierum IC autem E
1s [----------------------- ]<q>ue <G)raecos DERICI NVN
[--------------------- JNRIA LI Ca¢e)saris trahentis
[-------------------- ] HL Caesar ANOC ARNXX S
[ona nanan n ene
C. The Appendix (?) to the Proconsul’s Letter in the Apameian Copy

Col. I
[----------- ] vpadev. Tovds
[------------ ] tov apibwor
[------------ ]s a6 THs mp0
[------------ ] Keatcapos ws
Io [------------- |AIONITEIKAI
poe |IZZIIN rév Ze-
[Baorov (?)-------- ]eov[- - -]AA
[--------- eee |AATITEOM
(a ipa creer haters Sg ]
Col. II
pndé €oran pica jpepa dv0 péowv yevouevwn [érdv]
Kara THY ‘PwpyailK| jv cvvydnav.
vacat

Sequuntur decreta concilii

provincialis

D. The Two Decrees of the Koinon

"ESo€ev tots emt ths "Actas
"EXXnow, yvipn Tod apyvepéws ’Arro\wviov 706 Myvodiov ’Alavirov:
ere [i52) 1) Oeiws] Siardéaca tov Biov pay mpovorw omrovdny eicev [eva |
[u]evn Kod purorysiav ro rednérarov Téa Bia Svexdopy[cev ayabov]
evevkapévn Tov LeBaorov, dv eis edepyeoiay avOpa [rev] érAy-

331
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

35 pwoev aperis, <d>amep jpeiv Kal trois pel? 4 [was owrfipa xopioopevy |
ol a aA a ~ /

Tov mavoavTa ev TdAELov, KoopjoovTa [S€ elpnvnv, emipavets de]

\ \

6 Kaioup ras éAnidus t&v rpodaBovrwy [edavyeda révrwy brep-|

€Onkev, od pdvov Tods mpd adbrod yeyovor|as evepyéras drepBa-|
Adpevos, GAN’ odS’ ev rots ecopevors eAmrid [a droAuTWV drrEpBodjs,|
40 hpfev dé ra Kooper Tov bv adrov edavyedi|wy 7 yeveOALos jpé] pa
0b Oeod, ris 8é ’Aaias eysmdiopevns ev Lpdpvyn [el avOv| rérov
Aevxiov Odvodcakiov TidAdov, ypapparevovtos Ilam[iwvos Atoorepitob|
Ta peylotas y es TOV Dedv Kabevpovte Teas elvar orépavor,
ITabAXos Pa Bios MaEyos 6 avOvmaros tis erapynas evepyéeTns
45 ao THs exeivou Sebvas Kal [y]vapns ameatadAuevos Edv tots a&dAous
> \ ~ > Py a \ (2 > A / \ aA LAA

ols evepyérnoev THv errapynav, dv evepyeoi@v Ta peyeOn Adyos

elrety ovdels av epiko.to, Kal TO expt Viv ayvonfev bro THV
> a > |
n- “ >? / \ \ / ~ > \ ¢ \ ~ “EX /

vw els THY TOO LeBaorod reuysry evpeto, TO amo THs eKelvov yeve-
cews apyew TH Biw Tov ypovov: S10 TUYN ayaOH Kal emt cwrnpia dedo-
” a / \ / \ , > A pot Br eh / r) ) /

50 x9au tots emt rhs "Aolas “EdAnor, dpyew TH véeav vovpnviay méca [cs]
a t Bothy lol > / 7 wy \ / / Ud

Tails moAeow TH mpo evvea Kadavddv ’OxrwBpiwv, ATs eat yeve-

a / lol A >? / ~ > A ia > \ /

OAvos Hepa Tot LeBaotod. dmws € cael 4 {re} Hepa otoryh Kal? éxco-
Thy TOAW, ovvypnuatilew TH “Pwwaikn Kat thy ‘EAAnui«yny jepav.
t2 / a ¢ oA \ \ € iy ¢ /

ayeoBou de Tov mpOtov phva Kaicapa, kala Kat mpoepyiprota, apYope-

” \ \ ~ ~ / \ \ tA > /

55 vov amo mpo evven pev KaAavdav

> \
"OrKwBpiwv, yevebXLiov 5€ Huéepas
Lae / \ >\ ~ 0 / / ts /

Kaioupos, tov dé ébndiopevov orépavov TO Tas peylotras edpovtt

temas vmep Kaicapos dedd00a Makiwer tds avOurraron, ov Kal cet
\ € \ / / / ~ > 2 “a Ny at a |

avayopevecbou ev TH yup.|vi]K@ ayavu tau ev Ilepyctuar t&v “Pw [po] twv

> / > ~ Ca ed ~ ~ b) / ~ ¢ /

LePaorayv, ot. atepavot [7 Aa] ia ITabrAov Pa&Biov McEmov ed[ceB] é[o-]

60 Tara mapevpovTa Tas eis Katoapa teuas. woadttws S€ ava|yopev] eo-
Bou Kal ev Tots ayopevors KaTa TOAW aydow Tov Koucaupjnwv.
avaypaphva dé To deAToypadynpa Tob avOuTrcérov Kal To yndiopa THs
’Aaoias ev aryAn AcvKorOwr, Hv Kal reO Hvar ev Tat THS “Peuns Kat Tob
LeBauorob reywever. mpovotjaa dé Kal rods Kal Eros éxdikous STws
65 ev Tais adnyoupevous TOV SioiKnoewy TrdAcaw ev aTHAcus Aev-
KoABous evyapayOA 76 Te SeAToypadynpwa Tob Makiwov Kal ro tHs ’ Alas
Undropa, abrai re at orfAa TeOGow ev tots Kavoupros. axOnoovrot
ot ufves kara rade: Katoup ypepdv ra, ’AreAAatos rpepav A,
Addvaios jpepav Aa, [Tepitios tuep@v Ax, Avotpos Kn, Havdurds Aco,
ae = —_ i —
A
7O >
Aprepioay jpyep@v A, Aaiovos Aw, [Tcvnpos A, Ados Aa, Topmuaios ree,
‘YrrepBeperaios A: pod iypepou rée. éd’ Eros S€ Sie Thy ivrepKaAcpiov
6 Bavducos axOjoerau juwep@v AB. iva d€ ard Tod vov aroryrjawow of
Lives Kol at HLépo, 6 ev vov eveatas Ilepitios pry &yOnoerau péxpe THs
18, TH Se mpo even Kaovddv DeBpovapiwy &owev voupnviay pnvos
Avorpov, Kai Kal? Exaorov phva apy7{t} €ora THs voupnvias % mpd evvece
/ \ > 7 ~ > a
75

332
 EPISTULAE

Koadavddv: 1 S€ evBoAuwos Huepa ora mévrore TOV ivrepkaAupiov Ko-

AwvdGv 106 Bavdixod unvds, vo erdv ueowv yetvomevanv,
"Edogev rots emt rijs "Actas “EMnow, yr tod apxrepéws ’AtroAAwviov Tob
Mnvogirov ’Aleavetrov: met riyv véav vounviay cel Set Earévon THv ody [v]
80 anacw THs eis Tas &pyas elad8ou Kard Te 76 [Taddov DaBiov Makiwov rod av-
Gurrcrov Sidraypa Kol 7d Tis "Aaia<s> Ujdropo, evmodilerou Se ” Tob ypovou
TaEis Tapa Tas ev Tots apyoupeciors emuKAoes, yelvecOou TH KUTH TH
epxyoupéore pnvi Sexdrw, as Kat ev TH KopynrAlwn vue yéypanros, evrds
dexcerns iorapévov. vacat

A. The proconsul’s letter. This is a composite text based on the copies from Apameia, Priene,
and Maeonia. I have consulted the Berlin squeeze of Priene. Of the heading which preceded the
Apameian copy of the Greek text only the following words have survived: - -] ves KoOvepwHelous
etre Sue Opnoxel[iav----]. 4 wWdeAlyuwrepa, Dittenberger, but dded[yw]r[épa, stone
(Priene). 5 tonv, Apameia; ton, Priene. 6 ¢voe, Apameia; dvou, Priene. 9 émeyerv}On,
Apameia and Maeonia; -Oy1, Priene; ar@s, Apameia; dt, Maconia. 15 Oyjoav, Priene and
Maeonia; Jetav, Apameia. 16 [Kat €]7et S¥cKodov, Maconia; Kat éme[- -]v, Priene. 17-18
evxapioteiv, Maeonia. 18 cpetbe[ws Kaur], Priene, and Hiller’s restoration, but Maeonia shows
[ape] pews Adevo[v KrA. 19 NOPQIIOIT, stone A and thus Dittenberger, but cvOpezrou[s]
hv, Hiller; ayéyou[ev- -], Maconia, but ayay[etv], Wilamowitz and Hiller on the basis of
Priene; however, Dittenberger correctly restored aya&[youev]. 22 exeivn, Apameia; éxeivny,
Priene. 24 tywnOjr, Apameia; tex Priene. 25 yeivnro, Apameia; yevnrat, Priene. 29
ev seems to have been omitted by the engraver. In 1. 30 the proconsul’s letter was followed im-
mediately, without an intervening space, by the first of the provincial decrees in the copy from
Priene. In the copy from Apameia, however, it was followed by a different document, extant
only in a very mutilated form.
B. The Latin fragments (Apameia). Lines 1-3 correspond to lines 4, 10-11, and 21-22 of the
Greek version. Thus the Latin portion must have been engraved in lines of quite unusual length.
4 In Mommsen’s view it ought to read undecumus XXXI duodecumus XXX. The Dorylaion
fragment. 1 TIVIA OVOD; only in one place (1. 5) is the letter Q correctly engraved; elsewhere
it is O; EVERIT; at the end, ELNIS-4-4-4. 2 CYMOVE; VILO; ORIVATIM; SINOVLIS.
3 AVSELIPA. 4 ELVITATIUM. 5 TEMRY MANI; INTIVMQYE; PONEVITO. 6
LICEP; ORINOPIS; NATACIS. 7 ERCA; CRATIN; DIPEICILE. 8 TEMPTETVA;
VELSOVIA IVVOVIS PROCRIAVISOVE. 9 IAETITIA INCRESSVI HONORES. RAT-
VIVS. 12 HAREBIT VILEITATEM. 15 CRAECOS. 16 CAOSARIS.
C. The appendix. The text is that of C.I.G., 3957, with additions by Mommsen, op. cit., p. 279.
The lines are numbered here from the beginning of the column in the Apameian copy. 6 ypadev.
This is the last word in the proconsul’s letter (cf. A, 1. 30, of the Prienean copy). 8-9 Wilamowitz
suggested to Mommsen: emo rijs mpo [évvea pev kadovddv ’OxraBpiwy, yevebdiov de] Kaio-
apos [---.
"D. ae two decrees of the koinon. The numbering of lines follows the Prienean copy. 31
Aileavirov, Apameia; "Ala[vi] tov, Priene. 32 7] ov [Biov, Priene; mavta], Wilamowitz, Hiller,
and Dittenberger; Aeiws], Buckler. 33 dvexdopn [cer] |,Wilamowitz, Hiller, and Dittenberger;
Svexdoun[cev ceyabor]|, Buckler. 35 OXIIEP, Priene; yapioapevn|, Buckler; wéusaoc)],
Wilamowitz, Hiller, and Dittenberger. 36 5¢ eipnyny, emupaveis de], Buckler; dé ravra, paveis
5€], Wilamowitz, Hiller, and Dittenberger. 37 Wilamowitz, Hiller, and Dittenberger leave un-
restored; Buckler’s suggestion is given here. 40-49 New Apameian fragment, Jones.

we:
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

COMMENTARY. That the writer of the letter (A) is Paulus Fabius Maximus, the
proconsul of Asia, is clear from the reference to him in the accompanying decree of the
koinon of Asia (D), lines 44ff. Addressing himself, probably, to the koinon, he eloquently
praises Augustus and proposes a somewhat unusual manner of honoring the emperor. He
suggests—and his suggestion is worded in such a way as to constitute virtually a directive
—that the calendar of the province be re-aligned in such a way that its first month begin
on September 23, the birthday of Augustus. Although the calendar is the Julian, the
Macedonian names of the months are to be retained, except that the first will be called,
as previously agreed, “Caesar” instead of “Dios.” Accordingly, the local magistrates
of the province will enter office on September 23, the first day of each new year. His
letter ends with the notice that the koinon ought to pass a decree approving the change.
He himself will then issue orders that the decree is to be inscribed and set up “in the
temple,” his own directive to be in both Latin and Greek.
His letter may have contained some sort of an appendix or accompanying note con-
cerned with the method to be followed in making the calendar change. This appendix
(B and C), however, is found only in the Apameian copy and too little of it remains
for one to be sure of its exact contents. That it was short may be gathered from the
available space allotted to it in both the Latin and the Greek text, and the fact that it was
in Latin as well as Greek indicates that it formed part of the governor’s letter. The
similarity of part of it to the material in lines 76-77 of the koinon’s decree (D) may mean
that for the sake of economy it was omitted from the Prienean copy. The decree of the
koinon probably incorporated the details of the letter’s appendix into the body of the
text, and therefore the officials at Priene may not have seen fit to have the appendix itself
engraved as a separate document. At Apameia, however, it was dutifully included.
To the governor’s suggestion the koinon responded with enthusiastic approval,
echoing his own praises of the emperor with an equally grandiloquent phraseology. It
decreed not only that the proposed calendar change should be approved but also that
Paulus Fabius Maximus should be honored with a crown for having suggested such a
unique way of honoring Augustus. It seems that under a governor of Asia by the name
of Lucius Volcacius Tullus (the consul of 33 B.c.?) the. province of Asia had decreed in
Smyrna that a crown be given to the person who suggested the best way of showing the
greatest honors to Augustus.'_ The crown is now to be given to Paulus, and his letter,
™ Of the older scholars who expressed opinions on the identity of L. Volcacius Tullus only Domas-
zewski had maintained that he was governor of Asia and that he was the consul of 33 B.c., the uncle
of that Tullus to whom Propertius had dedicated the first book of his Elegies. The new Apameian
fragment proved that he had been right in his contention that Volcacius Tullus was a governor of
Asia. K.M. T. Atkinson (Historia, 7 [1958]: 312-14) has demonstrated very well that the consul of
33 B.C, ought to have become governor of Asia in ca. 26/25 B.c., but she refused quite rightly at that
time to commit herself on the identity of the L. Volcacius Tullus of our documents. Thus, although
the consul of 33 B.c. became governor of Asia, he need not necessarily have been the same man
mentioned as governor in our decree of the koinon. This is an important point. It does appear
somewhat strange that a crown should have been proposed in ca. 26/25 B.c. to the one who conceived
of the greatest honors for Augustus, but that the crown was awarded some fifteen or more years
later to Paulus Fabius Maximus. Either the awarding of the crown would have had a time limit of,

334
EPISTULAE

together with the decree of the koinon (the present one), is to be inscribed on a stele of
white marble and erected in the precinct of Roma and Augustus. In addition the chief
cities in the judiciary conventus of Asia are to set up similar steles in the various temples of
Caesar.
The date of this letter by Paulus, and consequently the date of his proconsulship, can
only be approximated. Some familiarity with Roman chronology is necessary to
understand the reasoning used to arrive at the date.
To rectify the accumulative errors of the old pre-Julian calandar and to prevent their
recurrence Julius Caesar in 46 B.c. abolished the old lunar calendar and substituted for it
another, which used the sun as the unit for measuring time. This new solar calendar
produced a year of 365 days and included a different and less clumsy way of intercalating
than had existed under the old method. To compensate for the omission of one-fourth
of a day it was now necessary to intercalate only a single day (called bis sextum Kal. Mart.)
every four years (on February 24).?
The significant point for our present purpose is the fact that even in such a simple
system a mistake was made shortly after Caesar’s death in the intervals to be followed in
the intercalations. If allowed to continue unchecked, the civil year would again become
at variance with the solar year. Macrobius (Sat. I. 14. 13-15) explains it fully:
Sic annum civilem Caesar habitis ad lunam dimensionibus constitutem edicto palam posito
publicavit. Et error hucusque stare potuisset, ni sacerdotes sibi errorem novum ex ipsa emendatione
fecissent. Nam cum oporteret diem qui ex quadrantibus confit quarto quoque anno confecto,
antequam quintus inciperet, intercalare: illi quarto non peracto sed incipiente intercalabant. Hic
error sex et triginta annis permansit: quibus annis intercalati sunt dies duodecim, cum debuerint
intercalari novem. Sed hunc quoque errorem sero deprehensum correxit Augustus, qui annos
duodecim sine intercalari die transigi iussit, ut illi tres dies qui per annos triginta et sex vitio
sacerdotalis festinationis excreverent sequentibus annis duodecim nullo die intercalato devorarentur.
Post hoc unum diem secundum ordinationem Caesaris quinto quoque incipiente anno intercalari
jussit, et omnem hunc ordinem aereae tabulae ad aeternam custodiam incisione mandavit.

Thus the pontifices committed a serious error by intercalating in the years 42, 39, 36,
33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, and 9g B.c. It produced a total of twelve intercalated days
say, one year imposed upon it or else the crown was to be awarded each year. The proposed award
under the governorship of L. Volcacius Tullus, presumably sponsored by the koinon itself, sounds as
if it were a contest, and contests have time limits of some sort. One might argue that in ca. 9 B.c.
the koinon simply decided to award the crown to Paulus, regardless of the passage of time and the
expiration of the contest. An annual award would fit the present situation, but facts are lacking.
We simply don’t know. No other Volcacius Tullus in the age of Augustus is known to me (cf. H.
Gundel in R.E., s.v. “ Volcacius,”’ cols. 754-57). Jones (loc. cit.) and Broughton (Supplement to Magis-
trates, p. 70) believe that the new Apameian fragment shows that L. Volcacius Tullus of our documents
was the consul of 33 B.c. That is a conclusion, however, not an established fact. It may be true.
Nevertheless, the awarding of the crown fifteen or more years after the announcement of the “con-
test” has to be explained. I therefore prefer to suspend judgment on the identity of our L. Volcacius
Tullus and the year of his governorship. On the koinon see J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der
rémischen Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1965), pp. 16ff. and 36ff.
2 For the details and a bibliography see E. J. Bickerman, La Cronologia nel mondo antico (Florence, 1963),
pp- 43-44, and p. 47 for the calendar.

bsp)
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

where only nine were needed. Augustus corrected this error by ordering that for the
next twelve years no intercalations at all would be made. Thereafter the years in which
they should be made were to be a.p. 8, 12, 16, etc.
In his analysis of the present documents, however, Mommsen immediately saw that
the intercalations were to be made in the old, erroneous manner before Augustus had
begun his corrective measure. In D 77 (cf. C, col. Il), the phrase dvo éra@v péowv
yewouevwv must refer to the intervals of years in which intercalations were to take place.
But “two years coming between” is the interval used by the pontifices for the period
42-9 B.c. Therefore, Paulus must have written his letter in ca. 9 B.c. or before that date.
Since Paulus had been consul in 11 B.c., it seemed likely to Mommsen that his governor-
ship of Asia should have been in about 9 B.c. But he would not accept that date as
positive, since, as he says, the old error might still have continued after its discovery had
been made known by Augustus. And, in fact, the date can be only approximate, since
we do not know the exact year in which Augustus made his discovery.3 In addition
there is the possibility that Paulus received the proconsulship of Asia even sooner after
his consulship. The old five-year interval between the consulship and the governorship
was not strictly observed under Augustus. At any rate, Mommsen’s reasoning is still
valid.
These are documents of great importance, not only for the light they shed on Roman
chronology and the Asian calendar, but also for the history of the provincial koinon and
the early imperial cult. The koinon of the Hellenes in Asia had been in existence at
least from the beginning of the first century B.c. and had been used in about the middle
of that century, if not even earlier, as the organization through which the Roman
government could make known its intentions and decisions to the Greeks of that
province. Through its annual meetings, attended by representatives from the various
peoples and tribes, official communications could be made and official liaisons established
with all the sections of the province. It maintained the worship of Roma and Augustus
and celebrated various festivals in its centers of Pergamum, Smyrna, and, later, Ephesus.
Its importance was not so much religious as national and social, for it was used by Rome
to perpetuate and preserve a local loyalty to Rome and the emperor.5
Thus, when Paulus Fabius Maximus made such a suggestion to the koinon for the
greater glory of Augustus, that organization naturally replied in the affirmative, and one

3 Since the year 45 B.C. was intercalary, Macrobius presumably began his count of thirty-six years
from that date, but the year 45 could not, strictly speaking, be called the first year in which erroneous
intercalating began. The first mistake was intercalating one day in the year 42 B.c. Mommsen and
Dittenberger had assumed that Macrobius was counting thirty-six years from 45 B.c. That may be
true, but the other possibility should not be discounted. Perhaps ca. 9-6 B.c. might be better, at
least up to February 23 of 6 .c, And, since there were no absolutely rigid rules in the department of
administration of the provinces during the reign of Augustus, at least concerning the rank and tenure
of provincial governors in Asia, even that general date should not be accepted as positive.
4 Atkinson, op. cit., p. 303.
5 See Nilsson, op. cit., pp. 366-76 (“‘Der Kaiserkult”’), and L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Le Culte des
Souverains (Tournai [Belgium], 1957), pp. 313-39, with excellent bibliography.

336
EPISTULAE

more ever-present and visible symbol was created to bind the Greek world to the Roman
world. The position occupied by Augustus as emperor and god in the Greek East is
nowhere else more clearly or eloquently illustrated. The language used to describe him
reaches literary levels.¢
Augustus is called Gevdraros, significant enough in itself, especially since the Latin
does not seem to have a corresponding adjective in the extant fragments. Since Paulus
is addressing Greeks and not Romans, the use of such an adjective might seem appro-
priate. However, he appears not to have called Augustus anything but the usual “our
Princeps.” The Greeks must have added Oevdtaros.7 The birthday of Augustus is to
begin each new year in the Asian calendar because Augustus himself is described as the
originator of a new era and as one who has given the whole world a new appearance.
His birthday is rightly called the beginning of life. Such concepts may be found in
different media during the Augustan age, in the literature as well as in the inscriptions.8
They stand as a fine complement to the religious representation of Augustus in the Ara
Pacis, a monument perhaps completed at about the same time the present letter was writ-
ten. One is reminded of Virgil’s fourth eclogue with its resounding magnus ab integro
saeclorum nascitur ordo (|. 5) and his Aeneid VI with its aurea condet saecula (Il. 792-93).
The same motif is the spirit of the secular festival of 17 B.c. and of Horace’s Carmen
Saeculare. Augustus was ow7np, the savior of a war-torn and shattered world, the hope
for the future, the bearer of edayyéAvc. A title and an expression, these are keys to an
understanding of the religious movements which were then taking shape.?

6 Wilamowitz, op. cit., p. 292: “Der Stil ist auf der Hohe der Aufgabe. Zwar ist der Hiat nicht
geachtet und bestimmte rhythmische Cadenz nicht gesucht, aber die feierlichen Perioden sind
wolgegliedert, und die Wortstellung bringt ihren Effect durch das Aufsparen der wichtigsten Worte
auf den letzten Platz wol heraus (9, 13, 18, 20, 28, 34). Die Wortwahl ist nicht atticistisch, aber
durchaus rein von den Kiinsteleien, die wir zwei Menshenalter friiher finden wiirden.” Wilamowitz
thought that the letter was composed in Greek, and, in this, one would have to agree with him. It
is possible, however, that it was composed in Greek with the help of Latin notes to guide the writer.
Otherwise one would have to believe that the Latin text had been made after the Greek, probably
translated from it. But very likely the proconsul dictated to a secretary what he wanted to say in
very brief form. The secretary then wrote it out in Greek, using the Latin notes as a guide. See
the discussion of this letter in the Introduction to Part II (pp. 207-8).
7 Paulus, of course, may have been unwilling to call Augustus “most divine” in either Latin or Greek,
even when addressing Greeks. But it cannot be denied that the use of the word in Greek and the
absence of a corresponding word in the Latin are striking facts, not noticed by previous editors. It
could mean the composer was a Greek (see n. 6).
8 See E. L. Hicks et al., The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum (Oxford,
1874-1916), no. 894, and the remarks of Buckler, loc. cit.
9 Nilsson, op. cit., pp. 371-72.

337
 EPISTULA
66 P. CORNELII SCIPIONIS
AD THYATIRENOS 10-6 B.C.

HHYHHHDHHDHDHDHHDHDDDDD
DO OODDDSOHSEEESETTOSOSSSYYS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. M. Clerc, B.C.H., 10 (1886), no. 3, pp. 399-401; P.

Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Géttingen, 1888), no. VIII, p. 9; V. Chapot, La province
romaine proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris, 1904), p. 128 and p. 309; Abbott-Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 35, p. 3323
G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 1211; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor
(Princeton, 1950), I, 479-80, and II, 1342, n. 37; Johnson, Coleman-Norton,
Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 146 a.

DESCRIPTION. Stone, broken on the right, found at Thyatira. Height:

0.69 m. Thickness: 0.18 m. Alternate lines are indented one letter space.

IIérdvos Kopvyjdvos 2 [Kuriwv avOvraros ‘Pwpaiwy]

Ovareipynvots cépyova[s Bovdrje Sjucr yatpecv.|
Aixcuov etvar vopilw b[uds - - ca. 14 - - ws]
Kal vouy.ov eotw T[as yevouevas trep Tav te] -
\ / / > \ ~

pav xpnuctwv Kpicelis - - - - ca. 21 -- - |

yns ducaora@v KeAev[- - ca. 16 - - - Kat od] -
dev mA€ov Tots emuaA[oupevois - - ca. 10 - dre] -
pwvnfetar ro mapaBdA[vov - - - ca. 15 - -6] -
[7] don tots duyodiKoba[s - - - - ca. 20 - - |
10 eur amavra [---------- |
[E] conynoapevov Atdov ‘Pavol - - - - - - - - |

338
EPISTULAE

Restored by Clerc except where noted. 1 Viereck added ‘Pwpolwv. 3 ds added by

Wilamowitz, among the works of Viereck. 5 Kpice [us Suarypeiv, Clerc; omitted by Viereck. 6
KeXev[cevtwr, Clerc. 8 mapaBdA[tov, Wilamowitz. 8-9 6|7]d[o]n, Wilamowitz; Viereck
reported ///OPH on the stone, but Clerc saw OXH there. 9-10 Aet xard Thy yropny]
enn arovra [ylyvecbou, Clerc, but omitted by Viereck. Unfortunately, Clerc did not indicate
whether the beginning of |. to was unengraved. He does, however, say that the stone is complete
on the left except for one or two letters at the beginning of lines 9 andiz. 11 ‘Pavo [éov, Clerc;
“Pow(i)o[v, Viereck. Clerc believed he was probably Aulus Ravius Iulianus, mentioned in a
Pergamene dedication (C.I.G., 3543; cf. M. Frankel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, Ul [Berlin, 1895],
513), but of whom nothing else is known. For the spelling and the name see W. Dittenberger,
Hermes, 6 (1872): 304.

COMMENTARY. By the Augustan age all but a few of the Scipiones are extinct, one
of them who survived to achieve a high post being the consul of 16 B.c., P. Cornelius
Scipio.! Ronald Syme included him among those “aristocrats who rallied to the
Principate, receiving the consulate at the earliest age permissible, if not with dispensa-
tions,” and M. Grant has suppossed that he was one of the amici principis.2 It was an age
of some political security for Augustus, an age in which the young sons of the old
nobiles were approaching maturity and looking for their places in the new world, an age
which was in need of loyal followers to fill the posts of the growing empire. The P.
Cornelius Scipio of our letter was surely one of them. A coin of Pitane, whose obverse
bears the head of Augustus, probably carries his portrait on the reverse, for an inscription
IT. Xkumiwva can be made out.3 This was a most significant honor, illustrating the trust
and confidence placed in the young man.
His proconsulship of Asia can be dated in general 10-6 B.c., but the specific years of
8/7 or 7/6 B.c., advanced by some scholars for that post, are not certain.*
From the extant remains of the letter it is at once clear that Cornelius had been asked
to express his opinion on a point of law in which the city of Thyatira had become in-
volved.s Exact details are unknown, but the issue concerned previous decisions about
“sacred funds,” the “farming out at excessive rate” (of temple land ?), and a “deposit”’

1E. Groag, P.I.R.?, C 1438.

2Syme, Roman Revolution, pp. 373 and 423; M. Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas (Cambridge,
1946), pp. 229 and 387.
3 See Grant, op. cit., p. 229.
4 A general date of 10-4 B.c. for Cornelius is obtained by a comparison with the dates at which pro-
traits of such proconsuls on coins were allowed by Augustus. Mommsen (Gesammelte Schriften, 4:
183ff.) set the limits at 10-3 B.c., but R. Syme (A.J.P., 77 [1956]: 265) would reduce them to 10-4
B.c. The governorship of C. Asinius Gallus in 5 B.c. would reduce the limits of Cornelius to 10-6
B.C.; see the letter of Augustus to the Cnidians (No. 67), where I suggest 5/4 8.c. for the governorship
of Gallus. K. M. T. Atkinson, Historia, 7 (1958): 326, tentatively suggests 8/7 B.c. for the pro-
consulship of Cornelius, but she questions it. E. Klebs (P.I.R., C 1175) suggested 7/6 B.c. and was
followed by Chapot, op. cit., p. 309, by Magie, op. cit., II, 1342, n. 37, and by Grant, op. cit., p. 387.
5 Presumably he did not interfere in the affair on his own initiative.

339
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

presumably made in lodging an appeal to another court.6 Viereck had assumed it

concerned the publicani and that they had gone to the governor for a ruling against
Thyatira because that city had not lived up to the decisions previously handed down by
a court in a dispute over sacred property. The dispute may have centered on the very
high price for which that property had been let out. But Abbott-Johnson believed
that the “temple-lands had been leased for a high rental and the lessees had brought suit
for an abatement of the terms. It would seem that the decision of the court had been
unacceptable to the Thyatirenes and they had persisted in holding the lessees to their
contract. The latter had appealed to the governor, and he urged the city to abide by the
decision of the court or of the arbiters.” The absence of any mention of the publicani
would seem to favor the second of these two interpretations, but both of them rely to a
large extent on guesswork. The inscription is too mutilated to allow certainty in its
reconstruction.
The letter proper may end with line 10, for the next line possibly forms the intro-
duction to a new document. If true, this new document could nevertheless be con-
nected with the general subject matter of the letter.7 A local decree, for example,
might have been included.

6 From Pollux (8. 63) we learn that srapoBoAcov isa later form for 7apceBoAov and that it was a sum of
money which has to be deposited whenever an appeal to a court or tribunal was made. If the suit
was lost, the deposit was forfeited. For details see E. Berneker, R.E., s.v. “apaBodov,” cols. 1127-29.
71 do not know of any official Roman letter in which the verb efonyéopat is used in the genitive
absolute with a person’s name. It would appear that here it belongs to a separate document, but it is
engraved on the same stone and connected in some way with the case mentioned in the governor’s
letter. It would normally mean in official documents of the city “‘On the motion of. ..”’ and would
find its place in the prescript of a decree. It is thus used at Cyzicus (S.I.G.3, 798, A.D. 37); Delphi
(S.I.G.3, 836, 3-4, A.D. 125); Aegiale on Amorgos (S.I.G.3, 866, 6-7, A.D. 153); for others see W.
Larfeld, Griechische Epigraphik3 (Munich, 1914), p. 348.

340
 6/
EPISTULA AUGUSTI AD CNIDIOS Last half of 6 8.c.
[Squeeze]

HHUGEGGE
SSE UOHHSSASSH
OOES OTSSSSSSAH
HOOT SHOggggs
TS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. G. Osann, Sylloge Inscriptionum Antiquarum Graecarum et

Latinarum (Leipzig, 1834), no. XXX (Il. 1-3 only), p. 394; A. Boeckh, C.LG., II
(1843), 2493 (Il. 1-3); L. Ross, Inscriptiones Graecae Ineditae, III (Berlin, 1845), no.
312; A. Nauck, Philologus, 9 (1854): 168-72; M. Dubois, B.C.H., 7 (1883): 62-67
(first complete text); Th. Mommsen, Rémisches Staatsrecht, 113, 2 (Berlin, 1888),
Pp- 959, n. 1, and 967, n. 1; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no.
IX, pp. 9-11; L. Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den dstlichen Provinzen des
romischen Kaiserreichs (Leipzig, 1891), p. 88, n. 3 a; F. Hiller von Gaertringen,
I.G., XII, 3 (1898), 174; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, (1898), 356; U. von
Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Griechisches Lesebuch (Berlin, 1902), I, 2, pp. 394-95,
and Il, 2, pp. 257-58; Th. Mommsen, Rémische Geschichte, V5 (Berlin, 1904), p.
325, n. 1; V. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris, 1904), pp.
126-28; G. Ferrero, The Greatness and Decline of Rome, vol. 5, English
translation by H. J. Chaytor (New York, 1909), p. 251; R. Helbing, Auswahl
aus griechischen Inschriften (Berlin, 1915), no. 8; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in W.
Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 780; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration
in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 36, pp. 333-34; G. Lafaye, ILG.R.R.,
IV (1927), 1031; H. Dessau, Geschichte der rémischen Kaiserzeit, II, 2 (Berlin,
1930), pp. 596-97, n. 2; H. Volkmann, Zur Rechtsprechung im Prinzipat des
Augustus (Munich, 1935), pp. 161ff.; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Fontes iuris Romani
antejustiniani?, pt. 3 (Florence, 1943), no. 185, pp. 582-85; D. Magie, Roman
Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 480, and II, 1342, n. 38; Ehrenberg-
Jones, no. 312, pp. 143-44; Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman
Statutes, no. 147; H. Malcovati, Caesaris Augusti Imperatoris Operum Fragmenta*
(Turin, 1962), no. LXXV, pp. 47-48;J.Colin, Les villes libres de Orient gréco-
romain et l’envoi au supplice par acclamations populaires (Collection Latomus 82)
(Brussels, 1965), pp. 87-89; R. K. Sherk, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 7
(1966): 57-62; P. Garnsey, “The Lex Iulia and Appeal under the Empire,”
J.R.S., 56 (1966): 167ff.

DESCRIPTION. A marble stele found at Astypalaea, containing two imperial

letters: the first is the letter of Augustus to the Cnidians (height of letters ca.
0.01 m.), the second a letter of Hadrian to the Astypalaeans (height of letters ca.
0.014-0.017 m.). Height of the stele: 1.00 m. Width: 0.60 m. Thickness:
0.17 m.

341
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

[emi Sau] wpyod 5¢ Karpoyéveos Aev [Ka] gov (?).

Abroxparwp Kaioup Oot vids XeBauoros apyrepeds
Unatos TO SwdéKatov amodedevypevos
Kat Snuapyixns eEovolas TO dKTw{e}KadeKaTov
\ a > / eed /

Kuisiwy e&pyovar BovdAj Sjpor yaipew: ot mpéo-

Beis dudv Avovdovos B Kal Avovdoros B rod Avovy-
alov évérvyov ev “Pane pou kat To Yyjdiope arrodovtes
, > Ae A ? ¢€ (2 \ \ / > } /

Karnyopnoav EvBovAov pev tod ’Avaéavdpida teOve{e}-

Bros ndn{e}, Tpudepas dé tis yuvaukos adrod moapovons
~ ” / \ lol \ > lo id

10 mept Tod Baverou tod EdBovAov tod Xpvainmov. eyar{t}

Sé e€eraom mpoaraéas T'&dXan *"Aowian tdi euds hiro
TOV olKETa@V TOds evfEepopevous TH aitia due Bo-
oavwv éyvwy Diretvov tov Xpuainmov tpeis vw-
U ” a \ Ul A /

KTas ouvex@s erreAnAvOdra TH. oikia THe EVBov-

~ > / ~ hs Lol > 7

15 dov Kal Tpuddpas pel” bBpews Kal tpdman Twi moA-

opklas, THe Tpirne de ovvern{i}ypevov Kal Tov ader-
pov E’Bovdov, tods dé tis oikias deamrétas EvBov-
Aov Kal Tpvdépay, ws ovte ypnuwarilovres mpos
tov Diretvov ove avtiuppartopevor Tats mpoc-
Bodats aopadeias ev TH. EwvTav olkia tvyety ndvvav-
a > i ? lol ¢ ~ finan f al ? ,
20

To, mpootetay{yloras évi TOY olkeTa@v ovK caroKTet-

vot, Ws tows av Tis UT opyhs ov[K] adikov mponyOn{e}, aA-
¢ ” + (teed ee | lol ? > / / >

Aa cveipou KaTacKedcouvTa TH KOTpLA abTaV, TOV

d€ olkérnv adv Tols KaTaYEOMEVOLS ETE EKOVTE
25 elre dkovTa —avTos pev yap évepewev apvovpevo[s] —
adetvan thy yaotpav, [Ka|t tov EvBovdAov dromecetv diKcd-
> ~ \ / \ \ ” € iS ,

[tT] epov av owbévra ra{i}deApod. mérovda dé juetv Kat a[d] -

[rT]as Tas avaxpices: ebadualov S av, mas els TOcOV
A \ > / > / 3 ow: ~ > /

” \ > ¢ pt , A , ¢ ,
edevoav THY Tap vpelv eLeractav TOV SovdAwy ot [ev] -
yovres THY Sikyy, El pH Tor oPddpa adrots €dd& [are]
Si / > ve / > a 2Q 7
30

XaAerrol yeyovevon KaL Tpos TH evavTia pLcoTdvy [por] ,

pn Kara TOV a€iwy mév OTiobv Trabeiy, ex’ &rAo[Tpiar]
\ \ ~ > / A ¢ ~ aA came Pad /

otkiay vikrwp wel” UBpews Kat Blas tpis emednrAv[40] -

TW Kal THY KOWTY CmrcvTWY budv aaopcArcray |vou] -
35 povvtwy ayavaytobvres, GMAd Kara TOY Kol Hy[iK’ 7] -
HUvovTo NTUXnKOTWY, HOKNKOTwWY de odd’ EoT [WW 6 TL].
Vd ? / > / \ 29> »” Ld

adda viv cpbds av por Soxetre rovhoce THe eu [aept (2) rod] -
Tu yratijune mpovonoarres Kal Ta ev Tots Synu[oaiors]
bp@v oporoyety ypaypara. vv éppwobe. vacat
vacat
sequitur epistula Hadriani

342
EPISTULAE

The text followed here is that of F. Hiller von Gaertringen (S.I.G.3) as approved by Viereck
(notes), but I have checked each reading with the Berlin squeeze.

COMMENTARY. Augustus here informs the Cnidians of the steps he has taken and
the decision he has rendered in an alleged case of murder. Although he gives the back-
ground and the evidence, he does not give us enough of the details to allow us to answer
several important questions concerning the legal implications.
In brief the situation is as follows: Two Cnidian envoys appeared in Rome before the
emperor and accused Eubulus (now dead), son of Anaxandrides, and his wife Tryphera
of the murder of Eubulus, son of Chrysippus, in the city of Cnidus. Augustus ordered
his amicus C. Asinius Gallus to question by torture the slaves of the defendant, since they
had been involved in the charge. From this questioning it came to light that Philinus,
another son of Chrysippus, had gone to the house of Eubulus and his wife for three
nights, insulting them and threatening to take the house by storm. On the third and
final night Philinus was joined by his brother Eubulus. The husband and wife, fearing
for their lives, barricaded themselves in the house and ordered one of their slaves to drive
off the attackers by emptying the contents of a chamber pot over them. The slave lost
his grip on the pot and dropped it. It struck and killed Eubulus.
The letter ends with a statement by Augustus that he was amazed to see how fearful
the defendants were of allowing the Cnidian court to examine their slaves, unless it was
because of great hostility toward them on the part of the Cnidians. He finds the
defendants not guilty and asks the city officials of Cnidus to enter his verdict in their
public records.
Mommsen thought that the defendants, because of the official feeling against them,
had requested a decision by the emperor.! Augustus accordingly agreed and had
Asinius Gallus question the slaves. On that evidence he had then declared them in-
nocent, informing the Cnidians that they had handled the case in a highly prejudiced
manner. Then he directed the free city of Cnidus to uphold his decision. This, in
Mommsen’s view, constituted a violation of the city’s sovereign rights.
Viereck took quite a different view of the case. He believed that the defendants had
fled from Cnidus in order to escape the trial. Tryphera’s husband then died, either at
Rome or somewhere along the route. The Cnidians sent envoys to Rome and accused
them of the crime before Augustus. Viereck sees no evidence of appellatio, for, to him,
neither of the two parties had appealed to the emperor.?
1 Mommsen’s interpretation (Rémische Geschichte, V5, 325, n. 1) sounds as if it were a case of appellatio:
‘Die Besitzer des belagerten Hauses wurden darauf des Todtschlags angeklagt, perhorrescirten aber,
da sie die Sffentliche Meinung gegen sich hatten, das stddtische Gericht und verlangten die Ent-
scheidung durch den Spruch des Kaisers Augustus.” So also Mitteis, loc. cit., and the others. But in
his Rémisches Staatsrecht, 113, 2, p. 959, n. 1, Mommsen says: ‘“‘Appellation ist dies nicht, da das
knidische Gericht kein rémisches ist.”” He then adds by way of explanation: “Uebrigens kommt
die Sache an den Kaiser auf Grund eines Psephisma der Knidier, in dem sie vermuthlich formell ihn
um Entscheidung ersuchten.” He appears to be misunderstood in this regard. See his remarks in
his Rémisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), p. 106, n. 1 (=Le Droit Penal Romain, I [Paris, 1907], 123, n. 1).
2 See n. 1 above. Viereck (Sermo Graecus) does not seem to understand Mommsen’s interpretation.

343
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Dessau agreed with Viereck, adding that the sovereign rights of Cnidus had not been
violated, for the Cnidian envoys themselves had brought the case to the emperor. He
had not intervened.
Ferrero explained the embassy of the Cnidians by assuming that their purpose in
coming to Rome was to ask Augustus to arbitrate the matter.
Volkmann thought that the purpose of the embassy was concerned with the examina-
tion of the slaves alone. Believing that the law regarding the evidence of slaves was the
same in Cnidus as it was in Athens, i.e., that in particular the owner of a slave had to give
his consent before his slave could be examined, he felt that the defendants in this case had
declared themselves willing to have their slaves examined only if Augustus would con-
duct that examination. Hence they went to Rome and presented their request.3
Arangio-Ruiz could not agree with Volkmann, for he could not conceive of Augustus
in the role of an examiner involved in the torture of slaves. He thought rather that free,
federated states could have requested the cognitio of the emperor in certain doubtful
cases.
No real agreement, therefore, has been reached by scholars on the legal issues. In the
view taken by Viereck it would seem that no trial had taken place in Cnidus, for the
defendants may have fled to Rome merely to escape it. And clearly Tryphera is at
Rome in the presence of Augustus at the time of the proceedings.’ Whether she arrived
there before the Cnidian envoys or in their company cannot be decided. Evidently she
took up residence at Astypalaea after the emperor’s decision.© That the proceedings took
place as a cognitio of the Emperor is plain to see, but the matter of appellatio is doubtful.
The parties involved are not Roman citizens.”
Quite apart from these legal issues is the matter of the governorship of Asinius Gallus.
The present letter is usually cited as evidence that Gallus had been the governor of Asia
for the term 6/5 B.c., for the letter must date from the second half of the year 6 B.c.,
while other evidence places him in Asia as governor between the dates of January 1 and

3 He thus rejects the Viereck—Dessau interpretation. In his view the defendants would have gone to
Rome in the company of the Cnidian envoys, if I understand him correctly.
4 For the cognitio Caesariana see Arangio-Ruiz, op. cit., p. 583; Volkmann, op. cit., pp. 63-93 (criminal
cases only). Cf. L. Wenger, Die Quellen des rémischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 449ff.
5 The participle zrapovons in |. 9 can only mean, to meat least, “being present,” and not “being alive,”
as taken by Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, and Arangio-Ruiz. Evidence exists to show that
aépeut also has the meaning “to be present before a court or official.” See F. Preisigke, Wérterbuch,
s.v. “reper,” for many examples in the papyri. This leaves no doubt in my mind that Tryphera
must have been in Rome.
6 The fact that the stone had been found on Astypalaea has been offered by Viereck as a possible
indication that Tryphera went there to live either before or after the audience with the emperor.
This seems reasonable. Clearly, the family of the murdered Eubulus, son of Chrysippus, must have
been of considerable importance, perhaps a noble family. Why else should the city of Cnidus be so
disturbed and so hostile toward the defendants ?
7 For appellatio of Roman citizens see, most recently, A. H. M. Jones, “I Appeal Unto Caesar,”
Studies in Roman Government and Law, pp. 51-65. Appellatio, of course, in general merely means a
simple appeal by some litigant to a higher court in the event of an adverse judgment in a lower court.
To use the word in the present situation appears to be incorrect.

344
EPISTULAE

June 30 in the year § B.c.8 The absence of the title pronconsul Asiae in the present letter
is then explained by the fact that Cnidus is a free city and therefore beyond the jurisdiction
of the governor. Gallus is asked to conduct the examination of the slaves in his capacity
as a private individual and not as governor. A convenient explanation, plausible, but I
find it unconvincing. The omission of the title should mean that he was not governor
at the time. Furthermore, the examination of the slaves undoubtedly took place in
Rome, not Asia. Gallus must have been governor for the term 5/4 B.c.2 He had been
asked to question the slaves for the simple reason that, as an amicus principis, he would
have been present at the cognitio as a member of the emperor’s consilium. To have
dispatched slaves from Rome to Asia with the resultant delay would have been pointless.

8 The other evidence consists of four copies of an inscription from Ephesus (C.I.L., III, 6070 and 7118;
Hicks et al., Inscriptions in the British Museum, III, no. 522; H. Dessau, I.L.S., 97).
9 For a full discussion see Sherk, loc. cit.

345
 68
EPISTULA AUGUSTI AD SARDIANOS $..BaC.
[Squeeze]

QHGDHUHDDHDDDADSN NH HDHDS SS ODOHDDTSTSSESSSSSOSOOSOOaS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W.H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson, A.J.A., 18 (1914):

322-62; G. Lafaye, I.G.R.R., IV (1927), 1756; W. H. Buckler and
D. M. Robinson, Sardis, VII, 1 (Leyden, 1932), no. 8, pp. 16-27, with Plate IV;
Ehrenberg—Jones, no. 99, p. 85; H. Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti
Operum Fragmenta, 4th ed. (Turin, 1962), no. LX XVI, pp. 48-49.

DESCRIPTION. A stele of bluish marble found near the Temple of Artemis

in Sardis, almost perfectly preserved. The letter of Augustus is the second
document of a total of twelve relating to a citizen of Sardis called Menogenes. '
Height: 2.24 m. (of the pediment 0.23 m.). Width: 0.55 m. (of pediment 0.64
m.). Thickness: 0.11 m. Height of letters: 0.005-o.o1 m. There is a squeeze
of the whole stele at The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey,
the relevant part of which I have consulted.

Abroxpétwp Kaicap beob vio<s> LeBauX<a>rds, apxrepevs, Snuapyixts ex€ovalas

/ a a ~

a0,
Lapdvavav c&pyovar BovdAju djpuwe yaipew: ot mpéoBeis tudv *loAAas te
Mytpoddpov Kat
Mnvoyévns *“Iavépou rob Mnvoyévous avvéervyov ev ‘Pawn po kal To Tap’ tuav
/ 2 lon ~

25 Ynpropa amédocay du ob t& Te SdEavTA Buetv Tepl Hudv SynAodrtes Kat

/ 2 45) PS) > a / P>) / ¢€ tal Ae nn ~ \

ouvydeobe emi THe TE-

evwoet Tod mpeaBuTepov ov TOV Taidwv: emrawa obv buds PiAorepoupevous
my vA ~ / ~ / ? ~ 7 ¢€ ~ /

av? dv evepye-
Thode br’ Ewod edyaptaotous arovds eis TE Ee KL TOUS emods TaVTAS
~ 0 R he ~ > {4 € i ” c. \ \ \ ? \ (2

evdeixvucbar eppwabe.

22 vio¢s» LeBaca>rds: sigma had been omitted. 24 Mnvoyevns: the sigma at the end is engrav-
ed over a nu.

346
EPISTULAE

COMMENTARY. It was the cherished hope of Augustus that the transfer of im-
perial power to his grandsons, Gaius and Lucius, would be smooth and uncomplicated.
He adopted them as his own sons in 17 B.c. and appointed them immediately, says Dio
(54. 18. 1), as his future successors. Gaius, as the elder, was considered by the people as
the first in line. They agitated for his election to the consulship in 6 B.c., although he
was not yet of age. And a year later he received the toga virilis and was designated for
the consulship five years in advance (ic., in a.D. 1). The Senate approved. The
equites made him—and his brother—princeps iuventutis with suitable decorations (Res
Gestae 14). Tiberius was now in exile. The future ruler had been selected. Fate
would change the situation.
The occasion must have been one of great importance and satisfaction to Augustus.
It must also have been one to be carefully observed by the provinces. It was about the
beginning of the year 5 B.c., and as soon as the news reached Asia the city of Sardis
decreed that the very day on which Gaius had assumed the toga of manhood was to be
a sacred day each year, a day on which the people were to wear wreaths and festal
clothing, on which sacrifices were to be performed to the gods, supplications made for
his health, and his image consecrated in his father’s temple. Then an embassy was
chosen to carry a copy of the decree to Augustus and to convey the city’s felicitations.'
Undoubtedly the Sardian decree and embassy constituted but a part of a world-wide
expression of loyalty to Augustus and his line at this time, but diplomatic courtesy
demanded a separate answer to each city which saw fit to send a decree. The answer of
Augustus to Sardis is here happily preserved among a long series of decrees inscribed on
a stele erected in Sardis to honor one of the two envoys, Menogenes, son of Isidorus, for
his long and valuable service not only to his native city of Sardis but also to the koinon of
Asia. Its sentiments are cordial and sincere, its message brief but sufficient. Behind it
one can see a ruler busy with the demands of empire but still interested and courteous
enough to dictate or write an answer to an expression of loyalty. And it is perhaps
significant that, four years later, when Augustus wished to introduce his heir more
officially to the Roman world, Gaius was given proconsular imperium and sent to the
Greek East, where his authority was superior to that of any governor.

1 See the first decree on the stele published by Buckler and Robinson, Sardis, VII, 1, no. 8, ll. 6-21.
One is reminded of the letter of Paulus Fabius Maximus and the subsequent action of the koinon of
Asia in about 9 B.c. (?) in agreeing to a re-alignment of the Asian calendar to honor the birthday of
Augustus (No. 65). A special day to honor the emperor, and now another to honor his son—it is
a fine touch, with clear associations.

47
 69
EPISTULA CN. CORNELIT LENTULI
AD NYSAEOS L.B.Ge

QHAGHHHHDDADADAA
HOODS EEROOODTT SSE ESHHOHRRRSTOSYS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. R. Pococke, Inscriptionum antiquarum Graecarum et

Latinarum liber (London, 1752), I 2, 6, no. 5, p. 13; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II (1843),
2943; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XXIV, pp. 47-48; F.
Hiller von Gaertringen, in W. von Diest, Nysa ad Maeandrum (Jahrbuch des
kaiserlichen deutschen Instituts, Erganzungsheft X) (Berlin, 1913), pp. 64-65; C. B.
Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven, 1934), p. 56;
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 990, n. 27;
Ehrenberg—Jones, no. 316.

DESCRIPTION. The stone, from which Pococke made his copy, has long
been lost. Boeckh’s text was based on Pococke’s. Undoubtedly it formed part
of a long series of documents from Nysa connected with the rights and
privileges of the city’s Temple of Pluto.

[{]epéws “Paduns nat Adtoxpétopos Kaicapos LeBaoro[6 ‘Hpa] -

[«A] etSov tod ‘HpakAeiSov Macravpeirov: oredounddpov
Atop. [yj] dovs rob "APnvaycpov Tob Atop [%y]|Sous, tep<é>ws
[A] vos KometwAtov dic Biov, unvos Dopmiaiov évvenxade-
Katy, mpo pas [€]id@v Adyovotw iv), Kéocow [K]o[p]vnAiw AevtdAw
Kat evi Ietown drarous: eémi ypopparéws tod 8[7] wou “Hr-
odwpov Tod Maaydpiov Tob Oeoddtov, iepéws TiBepiov KAav-
diov Népwvros dic Biov- *Apreuidwpos Anunrpiov Ilamés, rav
Ths TéAEws oTpaTnYA<Y>, empedAnbels atoKatéaTy -
pie) GeV Els TO YPUUpaThov Ta lepa ypdupara Trepl TOV Oedv
Kai THS aovAlas odtOv Kal TH[s] ikeotas Kal Tis mEpt TO te-
pov arlelAnas, eud[a]<>icas (M™viw AdvrAw Adyopi tO evbuT [a] -
Tw Kal arrosovs <T)iV Broyeypappevny emiaToAn vy».

348
EPISTULAE

II
"Eri Avoundovs tod *APnvaydpov pnvos Aouciov ul’.
[I] vatos Aévrios Ayrov<p> avbdmaros Nucadwv Gpyovoar. &7>-
NpXd>r<mae *ApreniSwpos Anuntpiov ITaméds <e>i x<p7> (?)

Text by F. Hiller von Gaertringen. I 12 EM®|.|MIXA T[.])NHQ. Il 2 AYTOYITI, and

at the end EA. 3 HPOTEIH, and at the end IXJHZ.

COMMENTARY. On the main road running between Tralles and Nysa-on-the-

Maeander there existed throughout the Hellenistic age the so-called Plutonium, not far
from the city Acharaca. This was actually the Temple of Pluto and Kore, together with
a sacred cave, the Charonium. The cave became a famous place in Asia Minor where the
sick often experienced miraculous cures at the hands of experienced priests.! Its
sanctity was so well known and respected that it received special privileges from the
ruling monarchs of Asia Minor. In 281 B.c., soon after the defeat of Lysimachus at
Corupedium, Seleucus I and his son Antiochus sent a letter to the Athymbrians (later to
form the nucleus of the city of Nysa) in which they granted the temple the three privi-
leges of receiving suppliants, inviolability, and freedom from taxation.? In the second
century some Hellenistic king confirmed these privileges and all the other honors that
former kings had granted. Thus, the city of Nysa with the nearby Plutonium and
sacred cave had long enjoyed a special position among the cities of the area, and the
notable action of Chaeremon during the first Mithridatic War clearly brought it into a
favorable position with regard to Rome.* We may reasonably assume that the Roman
government showed the same respect toward the city and the temple as had the
Hellenistic kings.
From the present documents we learn that, in the consulship of Cossus Cornelius
Lentulus and Lucius Calpurnius Piso (1 B.c.), a member of Nysa’s Board of Generals by
the name of Artemidorus, son of Demetrius, had restored to the archives of the city the
various documents connected with the privileges that had been granted to the temple:
inviolability, the right of receiving suppliants, and immunity from taxation. But
before doing this he had explained the reasons for his action to the governor of Asia,
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. The governor, in turn, had then sent a letter to the city
officials in which he gave his formal approval for the restoration of the documents.
Only three lines of his letter are extant (II), but the mere fact that the documents had been
engraved on stone is sufficient indication that he had given his approval. And his

1 Fully described by Strabo 14. 1. 44.

2 Welles, op. cit., no. 9.
3 Ibid., no. 64; cf. also no. 43.
4 See No. 48.

349
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

approval, of course, in such a matter brings with it confirmation of those privileges by

the Roman authorities in Asia.
A question arises immediately. Why was it necessary for these documents to be
restored to the archives? What had happened to the originals? The only reasonable
answer would appear to be that the originals—the letters of the Hellenistic kings—had
been lost or destroyed in some way, perhaps by fire or an act of war. At any rate they
were gone, and an attempt was then made to duplicate them. Whether the Hellenistic
letters had originally been engraved and set up in the city or in the Plutonium is not
known, for the fragmentary epigraphic copies that we possess of them were all engraved
in 1B.c. In other words, they were erected as a result of the efforts of Artemidorus and
on the authority of the governor. Where, then, did the present copies come from, if
not from old steles? From private or perhaps temple copies? We do not know.

Je
 RO
EPISTULA PROCONSULIS AD CHIOS ca. A.D. 4/52
[Squeeze]

HHYGQHOHHGOT HG OOGOUOO OOOO SOSH ODHHHHHHHHHHATSSSSSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Vidua, Inscriptiones Antiquae (Paris, 1826), pp. 41ff.;

J. A. Letronne, Journal des Savants, 1827, pp. 476-79; A. Boeckh, C.I.G., II
(1843), 2222; E. L. Hicks, A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford,
1882), no. 206; P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XXVII, pp.
49-50; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.2, 1 (1898), 355; V. Chapot, La province romaine
proconsulaire d’Asie (Paris, 1904), pp. 114 and 125ff.; F. Hiller von Gaertringen, in
W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 785; Abbott-Johnson, Municipal Administration
in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 40, pp. 340-41; G. Lafaye, ILG.R.R.,
IV (1927), 943; H. Volkmann, Zur Rechtsprechung im Prinzipat des Augustus
(Munich, 1935), p. 143 and p. 167, n. 2; S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia
dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 59 and 75; D. Magie, Roman
Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), II, 1052, n. 9; J. Robert and L. Robert,
R.E.G., 65 (1952): 128; Ehrenberg—Jones, no. 317; Johnson, Coleman-Norton,
Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 153; H. Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris
Augusti Operum Fragmenta, 4th ed. (Turin, 1962), no. LXIX.

DESCRIPTION. From Chios, now in the museum there (Inv. 164). Height
of letters, as measured from the Berlin squeeze: 0.017 m. Interval between lines:
0.009 m. Very small apices. The stone was recently seen and studied by
W. G. Forrest, whose text, as given in S.E.G., XXII, 507, is presented here. A
few letters in some lines have been damaged since the original publication.

351
 ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

METAME |p ee evr] evyeis bm’ "Al... 2... eee )A2[- -]

Lradvrov trapydsvrwv mpos tos Xelwv mpéoPers, avoryewwo [Kov| -
> /

twv emorornv ’Avriatiou Ovérepos Tod mpd euod abu [Tov]

~ ~ U

av8pos emupaveorarov: KaraKorovav 7H KaBoAuKH wou [mpo| -

Oécet tod Ty[pletv r& bd Tav mpd euod avOuTarwv ypadevre [Pv] -
Aarrew Kal tiv dep ToUTWY hepomerny ematorAjv Ovére [pos]
evAoyov Hynacunv: vorepov dé éxarépou prepous e& avrika [Ta] -
oTdoews TEpt TOV KaTa épos CnTnpEaTwY evtvydvTos SijK [ov] -
oa Kal Kare THY env ouvvnelay Trap’ ExaTéepov pépous émipedl[éo] -
TEpa yeypappeva yrnow trouvnpara: [& A]oBav Kat Kara TO émB[aA] -
/ ” € / “A \ \ \ Aa? LA
10

Nov éemiorHioas edpov Tots pev xpovois apyadtarov Sdyyua[Tos]

ouvkAnrou avricppayiopa yeyovotos AouKkiw LvAAg 70 de [Ure] -
pov trarw, ev @ waptrupynbetar Tois Xelous daa brép ‘Pwpoaiwv d.€[6y] -
Kav Te Mibpidarny avdpayabotvres Kat bm’ adtob émabov 7 atvy« [An] -
tos elduK@s €BeBauiwoev dws vopots Te Kal Ceow Kat dixaiors x [par] -
> ~ ? / a / ef \ / ~
15
Tau & €axov ote TH “Pwpuaiwy didta mpoonAPov, va te bo wHA wrivi[odv]
TUTW Wow apyovtwy 7) avTapyovTwr, ot Te Tap adTois dvTes “Pw [at] -
/ cr > / nn > / 7 > > a a € a

ot Tots Xeiwy trakovwow vopors' AdtoKxpéropos Sé eod viobd Ze] -

Baorod 16 dydoov tmarov emoartoAn mpos Xelovs ypadovt[- - - - - - ]
~ ye ES ¢ 4 > \ ‘ /

20 Paci ancete [PN opicsel tenes. cate ] Tis mept tiv wédw €dev8
|epias|

Text by W. G. Forrest (S.E.G., XXII, 507), but I have checked each reading on the Berlin
squeeze. In several important areas, however, the squeeze is of little value, especially in]. 20. At
the beginning of |. 1 former editors had read M..A..NA. 19 Forrest thinks of émoroA[v]
- - - - yp&dhovt[os Tob Seivos or émuatoAy - - - -, KTA. 20 Forrest thinks of some form of
apdropyjrnats. L. Robert here had tezrev r7v; former editors, is. . ev T7v.

COMMENTARY. It is quite clear from this letter (Il. 15-18) and from the report of
Appian (Mithr. 61) that a senatus consultum, passed with the approval of Sulla in 80 B.c.,
had granted freedom to Chios. In addition the city was given the privilege of making
resident Romans subject to her laws, a privilege that may not have been too common.
Ordinarily such Roman citizens would come under the jurisdiction of the provincial
governor or, in criminal cases, under that of the emperor.!
Free cities, of course, were not subject to control by the provincial governor but were
free to settle their own civil and criminal actions of law, at least when the issues involved
did not transcend local interests and collide with Roman policies. In the present

See Volkmann, op. cit., sect. VI, pp. 126-50, for a good résumé of the information known to us
about the organization and jurisdiction of the courts in the various types of provinces. His notes
will lead one to the older material. Our information in this matter is very slight for the western
provinces, but quite full for the eastern, especially for Egypt. See Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del Diritto
romano’, pp. 330-32. The Egyptian material deals largely with private law.

352
EPISTULAE

instance, therefore, we may possibly assume that some legal issue arose which proved to
be too difficult or too politically involved for the Chian courts to resolve. Witness the
Cnidian affair (No. 67). Whatever the issue might have been, the governor of Asia here
appears to me to be cast in the role of an arbitrator. He has been asked to provide a
solution. Thus he is not infringing on the rights of Chios, nor is his attitude indifferent.
On the contrary, he appears to be most conscientious. He wants to examine documents
and proof before making his decision in the matter. His policy of examining and
honoring the prior action of his predecessors in office (in Asia) is very significant in this
regard.2_ And thus we may assume with confidence that he respected the provisions of
the senatus consultum passed under Sulla.
The exact nature of the matter put before the governor for his verdict is not known to
us. It would have appeared at the beginning of the document. But since he had re-
quested pertinent documents from each of the parties involved and since one of the
documents had proved to be a decree of the Senate concerning the freedom of Chios, it
is reasonable to believe that the matter may have concerned an infringement of the city’s
freedom. An alternative is the possibility that it was a legal issue involving a Roman
citizen, a citizen who refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Chian court. I prefer
the latter explanation.
The fact that Augustus appears to be alive at the time the letter was written would
indicate that the Antistius Vetus of lines 3 and 6 should be the consul of 6 B.c. (C. Antistius
Vetus), known to have been governor of Asia in about A.D. 2/3 or 3/4, and not the consul
of A.D. 55 (L. Antistius Vetus), governor of Asia under Nero.3 The writer of our letter,
therefore, may have been governor in about a.p. 4/5 (M. Plautius M. f. Silvanus ?).
However, since the exact year in which Antistius Vetus was governor is not known
(although clearly several years after his consulship in 6 B.c.) such a date can only be
tentative and approximate.

2 Very misleading is the statement by Johnson, Coleman-Norton, Bourne, loc. cit., that “as governor
he seems to have entered his province rather ill-informed about the status or the rights of various
cities under his care.” It is misleading in that it assumes that provincial governors knew such matters,
in general, prior to their arrival in the several provinces. How they could have acquired such in-
formation in Rome I do not know, apart from the remote possibility of their working their way
through the senatorial decrees in the aerarium or the various epistulae of Roman magistrates. The
way that most of them could be made aware of such matters, I believe, would be upon consultation
with the departing governor, when that was possible. Failing that, there were the provincial archives
in the provincial capital and the archives of the separate cities within each province. In the case of
documents not available in the provincial archives there was little for a governor to do but to gather
the information exactly as our unknown governor had done. In many instances such matters very
likely would become known to the governor only piecemeal, a full picture of the province's local
problems and the status of its various cities being acquired only by the end of his period in office.
Then he was relieved by a new governor. This was one of the defects of provincial administration
during the Republic, and it was not completely rectified in the senatorial provinces under the Empire.
The whole subject of the kinds of information to be found in the provincial archives should be
examined.
3 For C. Antistius Vetus see P.I.R.2, A, n. 771, and Atkinson, Historia, 7 (1958): 328. For L. Antistius
Vetus see P.I.R.2, A, no. 776.

Jo
 /\
EDICTUM (?) M. HERENNIL PICENTIS
DE MURO EPHESIO Augustan

HHQHHDHDHHHHDHHHDET
HOODY DOOOETESSEYOSSEEOSSYS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Curtius, Hermes, 4 (1870): 194-96; W. H.

Waddington, Fastes des provinces asiatiques de l’Empire romaine (Paris, 1872), p. 843
P. Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. VII, p. 8; E. L. Hicks, The
Collection ofAncient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, III, 2 (1890), no.
DXXI, pp. 176-77; W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.?, II (1900), 544; F. Hiller von
Gaertringen, in W. Dittenberger, S.I.G.3, II (1917), 784; Abbott—Johnson,
Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton, 1926), no. 39, p. 3403
O. Cuntz, Jahreshefte, 25 (1929): 72; M. Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas
(Cambridge, 1946), p. 395; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton,
1950), II, 1580; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of theRoman Republic, IL
(New York, 1952), 416; K. M. T. Atkinson, Historia, 7 (1958): 324-25; Johnson,
Coleman-Norton, Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, no. 154.

DESCRIPTION. Wall stone of white marble broken at the right and bottom.
Description by Hicks. Height: 1 ft. 83 in. Width: 4ft. 114 in. Height of
letters: 14 in. Apices.

Mépros ‘Epévwos ITixns avO[vmaros Aéyer (?)|

apavots yeyernuevov Tod tra|pareryia( ?)|-
> ~ A

pcros, Orrep Onuoatar KaraoKe|vA bd TOV]

"Edectwy petakd ris ayopés Ka[t tod Ayre] -
vos yeyovevan auvepwvetro, e[tre ev Tw]
TOV KaUp@V 7) TOD moA€uou mre [proTaoer, Et] -
Te Ove THY TOUTWY awEeAav, of T[eTaYpEVOL]
\ \ / > / a“ /

[7(0104) |

304
EPISTULAE

1 Aéyet added by Waddington. 2 Hicks suggested 7a [pareryic] |waros or me [pouxoSopm] |uocros,

but Waddington had 7[aAcuod yo] |waros. 5 cvvepwretro may be aliteral translation of consensum
est.; see the remarks of Hicks, loc. cit. 6 me[puorcéoes restored by Dittenberger, with reference to
S.1.G.3, 731, 1.2. 7 7[eraypévor (?), Hicks; Hiller added Foav and omitted the question mark.

COMMENTARY. “M. Herennius Picens, proconsul, [proclaims (?)]. Now that the
[cross-wall], generally agreed to have been built by the Ephesians as a public structure
between the agora and the [harbor], has disappeared either because of some vicissitude of
fate or the war or because of the carelessness of [those in charge]....”” These are meager
remains.
There is no reference to M. Herennius Picens as proconsul of Asia in any document
other than this one, but the Herennii, of Oscan origin, survived the revolutionary period
and reached positions of eminence in the Augustan world. The first of them to reach
the consulship was M. Herennius M.f., in 93 B.c. A certain T. Herennius from
Picenum fought among the insurgents as a general in the Bellum Italicum.1 And later a
M. Herennius became consul suffect in 34 B.c. A generation later we hear of another
consul suffect (A.D. 1), M. Herennius M. f. M’. n. Picens. These two would seem to be
father and son. Since the lettering of our inscription points to a date in the Augustan
age at the earliest, clearly the proconsul should be identical with one of the two consuls.
Dittenberger, Dessau, Miinzer, Groag, and Viereck (notes) identified him as the consul
of A.D. 1, but Cuntz, Grant, Magie (with a doubt), Broughton (“possibly”), and Atkinson
preferred the consul of 34 B.c. Opinions are thus sharply divided. The view of Mrs.
Atkinson is very positive and her reasons are set out fully. They must be given a hearing.
She states (loc. cit.):
Epigraphists being agreed in attributing the inscription to the period of Augustus, and it being
known that the father of the consul of 34 B.c. had a different praenomen . . . the last war which
comes into question in the province Asia is that of 35-34 .c., when Sextus Pompeius invaded
the province. This would hardly continue to be spoken of as “the war’ at a late date in the
reign of Augustus.
Mrs. Atkinson then proceeds to give her reasons for assigning the proconsulship of
Herennius to about 28/27 B.c. rather than 33-32 B.c. (Magie, tentatively). But her
reasons for selecting the earlier consul (of 34 B.c.) are open to serious doubt. The
praenomen of the father of the consul of 34 B.c. would have been Manis, if the consul
in A.D. 1 actually was the son of the consul in 34 B.c. But such information is of little
or no help in identifying the proconsul of our document. And the importance Mrs.

1 Eutropius 5. 3. 2: Duces autem adversus Romanos Picentibus et Marsis fuerunt T. Vettius, Herius Asinius,
T. Herennius, A. Cluentius. The Herennii were patrons of Marius; see Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p.
TQ$s Tete
2 For the consul of 34 B.c. see Miinzer, R.E., s.v. ““Herennius” (13), cols. 664-65; Broughton, op. cit.,
pp. 411 and 416. For the consul of a.D. 1 see E. Groag, R.E., s.v. ‘““Herennius”’ (34), cols. 675-76,
and idem, P.I.R.2, H 118; cf. Taylor, Voting Districts, pp. 219-20.

Bee:
ROMAN DOCUMENTS FROM THE GREEK EAST

Atkinson attaches to the article in the phrase “the war” must be discounted. Even today
“the war” means World War II to a whole generation at least twenty years after the
event, while to an older generation it means World War I. The presence of the article
proves nothing.
The proconsul indeed appears to be one of the two consuls, but from the available
evidence I cannot see how we can tell positively which one. No single piece of in-
formation points more to one than to the other. To speculate, therefore, on the
probable date of his Asian governorship is fruitless.
Turning to the document itself, the brevity of the opening line makes the restoration
of Aéyet very attractive, and this has been accepted by most editors, but it cannot be
taken for granted. The doubt about the verb in the inscription from Cyme (No. 61, 1.
2) should cause one to hesitate before restoring Aéyer or eypaipe here. A letter may have
been written or an edict issued. Precision is impossible. Herennius appears to have
been asked to render a decision connected with the disappearance of a wall of some sort
which had formerly stood between the agora and the harbor. The purpose of the wall
is unknown, but Hicks assumed that it served as a control or check point for the collection
of the portorium. That is possible, for customs dues seem to have been exacted at
Ephesus.3

3 T. R.S. Broughton, “Roman Asia,” in T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV (Baltimore,
1938), 799; S. J. De Laet, Portorium: Etude sur Vorganisation douaniére chez les Romains (Geneva, 1950),
p. 278. Cf. F. Vittinghoff, R.E., s.v. ‘“Portorium,” col. 373. One must bear in mind, however,
that in the present document there is no direct reference to the portorium.

356
72-78 FRAGMENTA QUAE AD RES
MYTILENAEAS PERTINENT

QHAGHHRHTDOSEEOSEE
ROOT TOOEERROASESEOOORES SHORES

This group of fragments was found in Mytilene, and all of them

seem in one way or another to be connected with events during the last
half of the Republic or the early Principate. Exact dating, of course,
is impossible, but at least one (No. 73) might have formed part of the
many documents that originally had been engraved on Potamon’s great
monument (see the Senatus Consulta de Mytilenaeis, No. 26).
 +2
EPISTULAE IMPERATORIS CUIUSDAM
AD MYTILENAEOS Augustus?
DHGHDHHGAOSDOODHDDSTSEROOSESESOOOESESOSSYSOSSS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. F. Hiller von Gaertringen, I.G., XII, suppl. (1939), no. 19,
p- 15; L. Robert, R.E.G., 53 (1940): 215-16.

DESCRIPTION. Height: 0.55 m. Width: 0.30 m. Thickness: 0.06 m.

Height of letters: 0.014 m. (I. 17: 0.019 m.).

[--=-=-Jowos Zefeg[r- == == =-=-

[------ |L° MuriAn[vou- -------- ]
[------ ]J1o TpoOup[---------- |
[----- ]Zevwv Ine[- - -------- ]
[------]Bcb |mpeoBel- ====-=
(ke nail ieee iesoecece |
[------- |’IovAvos At[- - - ----- ]

[- - Adroxp|¢érwp Kaicap O¢[od vids - - - -]

[- - - - Oc]os LeBuords [--------- ]
10 [------ ] vy’ Murinval-------- ]
[----- Jov Mnvoyev[---------- ]
[------ ]vee zrept tob|[-------- ]
[------ ]Sas Swe[----------- ]
eee A ee
[------ Jouror[------------ ]
15

[------ |Tws[------------ |

[- - Adro]xpérwp [------------ |

COMMENTARY. F. Hiller von Gaertringen considered this document to be a

catalog of eponymi, but Robert saw that we have here the remains of three imperial
letters. In lines 2 and 10 the gamma very likely indicates the third consulship of the
emperor, and, although the titulature is fragmentary, that emperor may well have been
Augustus. Certainty, of course, is not possible.

358
 73
EPISTULA ET FOEDUS
HOAGGIGIGFH GOATS OOOGS HSS HAHAHA AAS SOESHHSSSAgggggsg
BIBLIOGRAPHY. W. R. Paton, I.G., XII, 2 (1899), 36; G. Lafaye, LG.R.R.,
IV (1927), 34; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Acta Divi Augusti, pt. 1 (Rome, 1945), p. 236.

DESCRIPTION. Height of letters: 0.020 m.

[---------- ]Kowwiw[------------ ]
[-------- ] Moriurnvals ------------ |
[--------- ]etw ddAw[« trovnpar - - - - - - - - ]
[------- kow| fu yviune [----------- |
[-------- ]we ecw eEe[------------ |
[------- ddA] os movnp[os - --------- |
pssenesnobe Jaks: szanceneee |
Frag. b
[--------- Jos MuriA[nva ---------- |
[-------- Jov dua tov [----------- ]
[-------- ]ene Kal avac[----------- ]
[--------- ]v duty evr[----------- ]
[--------- Awe rau ay[----------- ]
[-- 2) modus 7) bulerépa eAe[vOepa - - -------- ]

COMMENTARY. One could conclude from the size and form of the letters that these
two fragments once belonged to Potamon’s monument. The first of them, a, is clearly
part of a treaty, the imperative (1. 4) and the Greek equivalent of dolo malo leaving no
room for doubt. But the second, b, appears to belong to a letter, and accordingly
Paton assumed that these two fragments might be part of a letter of Caesar in which an
old treaty is cited by him. Perhaps. There was ample room on Potamon’s monument
for the inclusion of many more documents than those which have been found. There
is also sufficient room for these fragments to fit into gaps of the extant documents.
Arangio-Ruiz felt that fragment a might be a part of the treaty concluded by Augustus
with Mytilene and he therefore placed it after col. ¢ in that series of documents (No. 26).
Paton, however, refused to separate fragment a from fragment b. Definite conclusions
are impossible.

359
 Tai
EPISTULA (MAGISTRATUS ROMANI ?) Age of Caesar
AD MYTILENAEOS or Augustus

HHAGDHOOOHDHDDDDSSSSORROOOAGOOOGOOOSERESESSRRESS9

BIBLIOGRAPHY. H.G. Lolling, Athen. Mitt., 11 (1886), no. 10, p. 268;

Papadopulos—Kerameus, [Tapéprnpa tod XV ropov rob ev Kwrrode gud. 2vAd.,
no. 5, p. 40; W. R. Paton, I.G., XII, 2 (1899), 37.

DESCRIPTION. Height of letters: 0.018 m.

[-------- ]ns Kat mpéoBe[ts - - - - - ]

[----- To|v dfjpov tudv K[-------- ]
[- - - -crroAd] pews m&oav eis [------ -]
[------ ] édbpwv Kat rhv m[dAw - - - -]
[kal ro -- du] @v aEvov edvoilas - - - - - - ]
[------ ]uew tyuiwv nywr[icacbe - - - |

COMMENTARY. In his notes Viereck considered this fragment to be part of a letter

of some Roman magistrate in the age of Caesar or Augustus. The use of the first
person (I. 5) would indeed point to a letter, but nothing else appears significant enough to
allow us to form any conclusions about the content.

360
 15
Age of Caesar
EPISTULA AD MYTILENAEOS or Augustus
QHIHGHHIHAASHHHHHHHADHHHADHTS
SS SASH HHHDSHYSHHHSTISS

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Cichorius, Rom und Mytilene (Leipzig, 1888), p. 29; P.

Viereck, Sermo Graecus (Gottingen, 1888), no. XXXII, p. 54; W. R. Paton,
IG., XII, 2 (1899), 38; G. Lafaye, ILG.R.R., IV (1927), 36.

DESCRIPTION. Height of letters: 0.018 m.

Sooecapes e665 4o595 65505 4605 65568 ]

------ Moz] Anva[iwv dpyovar Bova. Sywaxr xaipev (?)]

[ot mpéoBers 6] uv [Tor [duwv AeoBusvanrtos - --------- ]
[------ ]ov mpos b[uds - --------------- l
[------ Tlots jwerd[pous - - ------------- ]
vacat

------ Jw Adtoxplar- -----------------]

[- += = Mo[r]duaw [------=-2-2er
erene
[----- Javrie[---------------------- ]

5 [ITepi] dv Adroxp[érwp Kaicap Adsyous éoujoaro (?)}, first suggested by Cichorius.

361
 Age of Caesar
EPISTULA (MAGISTRATUS ROMANTI ?) or Augustus
QAHHRHHRDOTODSOUSYOESTOSOSOSOUSUSUSUSUSYSOSESESSS5

BIBLIOGRAPHY. W.R. Paton, I.G., XII, 2 (1899), 39.

DESCRIPTION. Found in a wall near a Turkish school. The letters are

carelessly inscribed, 0.02 m. high.

[------- TH|s edepy[ecias --------- |

[----- m|pos adrov [------------ ]
[- - diAwy] dOws odde [------------ ]
[----- |Twv ev ao[ ------------ ]
[----- ].4 [r@]v etodo[pav - -------- |
[----- ]ewv. “Eppwofe. [---------- ]
[- - - [lord] wvos viov [----------- ]
[- - Hv Olé yuvalixa - ------------ ]

362
 Age of Caesar
EPISTULA (MAGISTRATUS ROMANI?) or Augustus
HODOHUSDSODROYOR
OS OYREOSOEOSDSRSEOSOSOSSHSHSSgSE

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Cichorius, Athen. Mitt., 13 (1888), no. 16, p. 65; W. R.

Paton, I.G., XII, 2 (1899), 40.

DESCRIPTION. Height: 0.21 m. Width: 0.19 m. Height of letters:

0.015 m.

ee eee
Eo= Jou etl == =]
[----- ]@evre[------- ]
[- + == Jess Suds[> ~~ =~ =]
[-- == -Jruw dul = === =
Peg (eee? (26 |
[-----Jrap------- |

363
 70
EPISTULA (CN. POMPEI MAGNI ?)

QHDHHADHHDDHOATHOOAHT
TORE ETOOSEREOSSYRSYSSSSS9S

BIBLIOGRAPHY. C. Cichorius, Athen. Mitt., 13 (1888), no. 17, p. 66; W. R.

Paton, I.G., XII, 2 (1899), 41; G. Lafaye, ILG.R.R., IV (1927), 37.

DESCRIPTION. Height of letters: 0.02 m.

[--- =Jonel=--- 4
[- - - -]ouxarea[- - - - - |
[-- =~ Jeeyuoe'[- = =~
[- - - -]eveornoev [- - - -
[- - kar] aorabyvou ex <[- - ]
[- - - -]vepiderroAre'[- - ]
[- - - -]‘Pa&pns oe pt xpl- |
3 The first letter of the line could be any letter with a vertical hasta. Perhaps one could read the
name of Pompey: [Ivaios Iowaijios] Méyas, A[troxpérwp ---]. 6 Perhaps (as in I.G.R.R.)
qTept de modres[- - -].

364
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
ASHAHODOHOHG
THO HASRHAGS
DOAH SOAS AAHA
ONASSSsgggg
INSCRIPTIONS
Aus Lydien: Epigraphisch-geographische Reisefriichte. K. Buresch, edited by O. Ribbeck.
Leipzig, 1898.
Auswahl aus griechischen Inschriften. Edited by R. Helbing. Berlin-Leipzig, 1915.
Choix d’Inscriptions de Délos. Edited by F. Durrbach. Paris, 1921-22.
The Collection ofAncient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum. Edited by E. L. Hicks et al.
Vol. I-IV. Oxford, 1874-1916.
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by A. Boeckh. Vol. I-IV. Berlin, 1828-77.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin, 1863——.
Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander. Edited by O. Kern. Berlin, 1900.
Die Inschriften von Priene. Edited by F. Hiller von Gaertringen. Berlin, 1906.
Documents Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus and Tiberius. Edited by V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M.
Jones. 2ded. Oxford, 1955.
Ephemeris Epigraphica. Vol. 1-IX. Berlin-Rome 1872-1913.
Fouilles de Delphes. Vol. Il. Paris, rgto—.
Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta. Edited by E. Malcovati. 4th ed. Turin, 1962.
Inscriptiones Creticae. Edited by M. Guarducci. Vol. LIV. Rome 1935-1950.
Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin, 1873. Editio Minor, 1923—.
Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. Edited by R. Cagnat, J. Toutain, and G.
Lafaye. Vols. I, Il, IV. Paris, 1911, 1906, 1927.
Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Edited by A. Degrassi. Vol. I (two fascs.). Florence,
1957-1963.
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Edited by H. Dessau. Vols. I-III. Berlin, 1892-1916.
Inscriptions de Délos. Paris, 1926.
Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie. Edited by L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde. Paris,
1929——.
L’ Année Epigraphique. Paris, annually since 1888, in the Revue Archeologique.
A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Edited by E. L. Hicks. 1st ed. Oxford, 1882.
Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899. Edited by T.
Wiegand. Berlin, 1908-——.
Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. Edited by W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder. Manchester,
1928——.
Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Edited by W. Dittenberger. Vols. I and II. Leipzig,
1903, 1905.
Recueil d’Inscriptions Grecques. Edited by C. Michel. Brussels, 1900.
Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. Edited by H. Collitz, F. Bechtel, J. Baunack,
etal. Vols. LIV. Géttingen, 1883-1915.
Sardis: Publications of the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis. Vol. VII: Greek and Latin
Inscriptions, pt. 1. Edited by W. H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson. Leiden, 1932.
Stifiungen in der griechischen und rémischen Antike. Vol. Il, pt. 1, Griechische Urkunden. Edited
by B. Laum. Leipzig-Berlin, 1914.
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Edited by J. J. E. Hondius et al. Leiden, 1924.
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 1st ed., Leipzig, 1883; 2d ed.,
Leipzig, 1898-1901; 3d ed., by F. Hiller von Gaertringen, H. Pomtow, et al., Leipzig,
1915-24.
Tituli Asiae Minoris. Edited by E. Kalinka, R. Heberdey, et al. Vienna, 1901I—.

365
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Viereck, P. Sermo graecus quo senatus populusque romanus magistratusque populi romani usque ad
Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt. Dissertation, Gottingen, 1888.
Voyage Archéologique en Gréce et en Asie Mineure: Inscriptions Grecques et Latines recueillies en Grece
et en Asie Mineure. Vol. Ill, pts. 5-7. Edited by P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington.
Paris, 1870.
Wilhelm, A. Beitrdge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Sonderschriften des oesterreichischen
archdologischen Institutes in Wien, Vol. VII). Vienna, 1909.
. Neue Beitrdge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie
der Wissenschaft in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Pt. 1, vol. 166, treatise 1, 1910; pt. Il,
vol. 166, treatise 3, 1910; pt. III, vol. 175, treatise 1, 1913; pt. IV, vol. 179, treatise 6, 1916;
pt. VI, vol. 183, treatise 6, 1924; pt. V, vol. 214, treatise 4, 1932).

BOOKS OF GENERAL REFERENCE, HISTORICAL STUDIES

Abbott, F. F., and Johnson, A. C. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton,
1926.
Accame, S. II dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto. Rome, 1946.
. L’Espansione romana in Grecia. Naples, 1961.
Acta Divi Augusti. Pt. 1. Edited by S. Riccobono, N. Festa, H. Gabrici, B. Biondi, and
V. Arangio-Ruiz. Rome, 1945.
Arangio-Ruiz, V. Storia del diritto romano. 7th ed. Naples, 1960.
Badian, E. Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.c.). Oxford, 1958.
Berger, A. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, vol. 43, pt. 2. Philadelphia, 1953.
Broughton, T. R. S. “Roman Asia Minor.” In T. Frank, An Economic Survey of
Ancient Rome, IV, 499-918. Baltimore, 1938.
. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vols. I-Il. New York, 1951-52.
Bruns, C. G., and Gradenwitz, O. Fontes iuris Romani Antiqui. 7th ed. Tiibingen, 1909.
Calabi, I. L’ Uso Storiografico delle Iscrizioni latine. Milan, 1953.
Cambridge Ancient History. Edited by S. A. Cook; F. E. Adcock; and M.-P. Charlesworth.
Vols. 8-10. Cambridge, 1930, 1932, 1934.
Chapot, V. La province romaine proconsulaire d’Asie. Paris, 1904.
Cichorius, C. Rom und Mytilene. Leipzig, 1888.
Colin, G. Rome et la Gréce de 200 a 146 avant J.-C. Paris, 1905.
Daux, G. Delphes au II® et au I® sidcle depuis l’abaissement de l’Etolie jusqu’ a la paix romaine,
191-31 av. J.-C. Paris, 1936.
. Chronologie delphique. Paris, 1943.
De Ruggiero, E. Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane. Rome, 1895——.
Dessau, H. Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit. Vols. I-II. Berlin, 1924-30.
De Visscher, F. Les édits d’Auguste découverts a Cyrene. Louvain, 1940.
Dunant, C., and Pouilloux, J. Recherches sur [histoire et les cultes de Thasos, I (Etudes thasiennes
V). Paris, 1958.
Greenidge, A. H. J., and Clay, A. M. Sources for Roman History 133-70 B.c. 2d ed. by E. W.
Gray. Oxford, 1960.
Hansen, E. V. The Attalids of Pergamum. Ithaca, N.Y., 1947.
Hatzfeld, J. Les trafiquants italiens dans L’Orient hellénique. Paris, 1919.
Heuss, A. Die vélkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der rémischen AuBenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit
(Klio, suppl. 31). Leipzig, 1933.

366
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holleaux, M. A tparnyos *Yraros. Etude sur la Traduction en Grec du Titre consulaire. Paris, 1918.
. Etudes d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques. Edited by L. Robert. Vols. 1-5. Paris,
1938-57.
Horn, H. Foederati. Frankfurt, 1930.
Johnson, A. C.; Coleman-Norton, P. R.; and Bourne, F. C. Ancient Roman Statutes. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1961.
Jones, A. H. M. Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire. Oxford, 1937.
. Studies in Roman Government and Law. New York, 1960.
Klaffenbach, G. Symbolae ad historiam collegiorum artificum Bacchiorum. Dissertation, Berlin, 1914.
Lafoscade, L. De Epistulis (aliisque titulis) imperatorum magistratuumque romanorum quae ab aetate
Augusti usque ad Constantinum Graece scriptas lapides papyrive servaverunt. Dissertation, Paris,
1902.
Laidlaw, W. A. A History of Delos. Oxford, 1933.
Larsen, J. A. O. “Roman Greece.” In T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, IV,
259-498. Baltimore, 1938.
Lewis, N., and Reinhold, M. Roman Civilization. Vol. 1, The Republic, New York, 1951;
vol. II, The Empire, New York, 1955.
Luzzatto, G. I. Epigrafia giuridica greca e romana. Milan, 1942.
Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton, 1950. Vol. 1: Text. Vol. II: Notes.
Maier, F. G. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften: Texte und Kommentare (Vestigia. 1: Beitrdge zur alten
Geschichte). Heidelberg, 1959.
Meloni, P. Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone (Annali delle facolta di lettere: Filosofia e di
magistero dell’ Universita di Cagliari, vol. 20). Rome, 1953.
Meyer, E. Die Grenzen der Hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien. Leipzig, 1925.
Mitteis, L. Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den dstlichen Provinzen des romischen Kaiserreichs. Leipzig,
1891.
Mommsen, Th. Rémisches Staatsrecht. 1-II*, Leipzig, 1887; III°, 1, Leipzig, 1887; II%, 2,
Leipzig, 1888.
. Gesammelte Schriften. Vols. 1-8. Berlin, 1905-13.
Niese, B. Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten. 3 vols. Gotha, 1893-1903.
Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by Kroll,
Mittelhaus, and Ziegler. Stuttgart, 1893 .
Prosopographia Imperii Romani*. Edited by E. Groag, A. Stein, et al. Berlin, 1933 ——.
Reinach, T. Mithridate Eupator: Roi de Pont. Paris, 1890.
Riccobono, S. Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani. 2d ed. Pt. 1, Florence, 1941; pt. 2, edited by
J. Baviera and J. Furlani, Florence, 1940; pt. 3, edited by V. Arangio-Ruiz, Florence, 1943.
Robert, J., and Robert, L. La Carie. II: Le Plateau de Tabai et ses environs. Paris, 1954.
Robert, L. Villes d’Asie Mineure: Etudes de geographie antique. Paris, 1935. New edition with
important additions, Paris, 1962.
. Etudes Anatoliennes: Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Mineure. Paris, 1937.
. Etudes Epigraphiques et Philologiques. Paris, 1938.
. Hellenica, Recueil d’Epigraphie, de Numismatique, et d’Antiquités grecques. Vols. 1-12.
Paris, 1940-60.
Rostovtzeff, M. I. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Vols. 1-3. Oxford,
I94I.
. Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2d ed., revised by P. M. Fraser.
Oxford, 1957.
Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship. Oxford, 1939.
Sonne, E. De arbitris externis quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas
componendas quaestiones epigraphicae. Gottingen, 1888.

367
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Taubler, E. Imperium Romanum. Vol. 1. Leipzig, 1913.

Taylor, L. R. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic. American Academy in Rome, Papers
and Monographs XX. Rome, 1960.
Tod, M. N. International Arbitration Amongst the Greeks. Oxford, 1913.
Volkmann, H. Zur Rechtsprechung im Prinzipat des Augustus. Miinchener Beitrage zur
Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 21. Munich, 1935.
Von Schwind, F. F. Zur Frage der Publikation im rémischen Recht. Miinchener Beitrage zur
Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 31. Munich, 1940.
Welles, C. B. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. New Haven, 1934.
Wenger, L. Die Quellen des rémischen Rechts. Vienna, 1953.
Willems, P. Le Sénat de la république romaine. Vol. I, Louvain-Paris, 1878; vol. II, Louvain-
Paris, 1883.

PERIODICALS
American Journal ofArchaeology, 1897——.
American Journal of Philology, 1880—.
Archdologischer Anzeiger, published in the Jahrbuch des (kaiserlich) deutschen archdologischen
instituts, 1886——
"Apyaodoyixn "Ednpepis 1g10—.
Bollettino della Commissione Archeologica Communale di Roma, 1872.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1877——.
Comptes rendus de l’Academie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (cited by year).
Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archdologischen Institutes, 1893 —.
Mitteilungen des deutschen archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, 1873——.
Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 1921/22——.
Revue des Etudes Grecques, 1888 —.
Sitzungsberichte der (Kaiserlichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische
Klasse (cited by year).
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse (cited
by year).
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung, 1880—.

368
INDEX I: SERMO GRAECUS
QDHYQHGDHOHGDESGAGHGHSHATHOGHOHDGHAGHSSHSHHEHNggugygg

aBonOntos, 40, 27 BUtcd 23. $2, 43,54: 48; 31, 92, 102, 104, III,
ayabds, 14, 4, 84; 17, 5; 33, 63, 6; 67, 12 Tie rA se heel 20 Lat —
7; 58, 79. Sce also aitios, 38, 25 Piles WiPYos GPG Sieh Bik,
aitLos; avip; mapairtos; alyucAwros, 18, 63, 118; 134, 135, 143, 144;34) 13;
TUXn 60, B 2 38, 19; 44, 7; 58, 63, 93;
ayavaKtew, 67, 35 atwvios, 65, 28 59, 2, 4, 5; GF, 7,10;
ayyéerArAw, 37, 6 aképatos, 9, 26; 22, 21. eis 655.5, 87 .9,11,° 19, LAT;
ayeAn, 42, 8 akEepaov: 22, 14, 21 (yh, DP, Birk, Ae. AG
c&ytos, 60, B 6 akoAov0ws, 26, B 28; 34, 7; avd, 12, 9 (&. wécov) ;23, 4
ayvoéw, 65, D 47 , 35» 53 36, 7-8; 38, 4 (&. wécor)
ayopa, 71, 4 akKovTws, 51, 31 avaBaros, 14, 15
ayopalw, 26, E 3; 61, 6, 8 akovw, 31, 105, 130 avaywwoKu, 70, 2
aypos, 22, 14; 23, 50; 25, 13; aKpa, 2, 28; 3, 10 avayKalw, 14, 53; 31, 118;
26,D 8 &kupos, 9, 67; 15, $1; 23, 42 52, 18
ayw, 16, 19; 23, 22; 28, Bi; akvpwois, 52, 38 avayopevw, 16, 15; 65, D
42, 4; 45, 2; 65, 19, D 54, aKWY, 31, 103, 118; 67, 25 58, 60
_ 61, 67, 725 73> 74 adeintns, 57, 7 avaypapw, 29, I; 37, 23
aywv, 23, 47; 38, 6; 40, 9; adevroupynaia, 49, B 4; 57, 49, 10; 65, D 62. «.
47, 30; 65, D 58, 61 15 TO Sdypa: 9, 5
aywriloua, 74, 7 aAetovpyntos, 22, 12; 44, avadéxouat, 18, 19; 20, C 8
adeAdos, 35, 2; 36, 3; 67, 5; 49, B9; 53, § avadiowpt, 34, 7; 38, 21
EO 27, aAevpov, 48, 8 avalnréw, 38, 12, 16
aouKéw, 31, 92; 38, 123; 43, adnOivds, 43, 17 avabeots, 57, 32
24; 67, 36 GAAG, 41, 3; 67, 22, 35, 37 aveOnuc, 15, 44, 49; 16, 48;
adiknuc, 7, 57, $9; 14, 5, 6, G&AAnAot, 15, 42; 43, 14 61, 4
SOvet 2 er ye AS. 30, 155 c&AAos, 2, 40; 15, 46; 31, 110, avaideran, 52, 42
43, 6 UPS EY TSO aby a avarpew, 20, C3; 40, 13;
a@OuKos, 67, 22 U3 375005 40,2240.) 1° 67, 34
GOLKWS, 9, 23 52S he 54 705s DLA 5. avakopoy, 38, 10
aduvatos, 59, 4 See also oOmws Tatra avakopilw, 18, 119
wel, 15, 15. 18, 80, 110, 114; KUpLa KTA avaKpivw, 14, 12
52, 51; 65, D 52, 57, 79 a&dAdtpios, 43, 16; 67, 32 avaKpio.s, 67, 28
dn Sis, 31, 94 a&AAws, 58, 57 avarapBavw, 52, 38
abavatos, 23, 20, 26, 40 apa, 15, $7 avaveow, 6, 2; 10, A 3; 16,
atpeos, 17, 11; 22, 18; 58, operpis, 65, 18 3. See also yapis piAta
56 operera, 71, 7 ovppayla TE a.
aipéw, 14, 21; 18, 40; 31, apvvw, 67, 36 avaeos, 59, 4
130 apdiroyia, 14, 94; 21, col. avaoracts, 59, 2
aipw, 15, 58; 61, 6 Pye, Fi avaotpepopat, 33, 7-8
aiaxpds, 59, 4 apporepos, 22, 24, 28 avatlOnut, 22, 25; 37, 23 49,
airéw, 27, 17; 31, 103; 57, av, oy Laks 38, 44; 7, 53, 59, 9, 14; 57, 26; 65, 29
13; 70, 10 60, 62; 15, 15; 16, 36, 46; avadatpetos, 57, 12
airia, 14, 19; 20, C7; 22, TS 110.) Lid) 124.) 20, avadavddv, 31, 143
2 Ose oye DELO 30,80) G 10; 22, 17, 20, 23; 23, avapepw, 22, 24; 59, 10

This index includes only those words which are wholly or partially extant in the unrestored parts of the texts.

369
 INDEX I

avdpayaléw, 70, 14 avritapias, 18, 90 amoKpivopat, O78 7552> £05

avdpayaOnuc, 22, 9 avTitTacow, 17, 3; 18, 39, 86 Beto 1473921 Colmens:
avdpeia, 58, 89 avTipparTomevot, 67, 19 39, 10; 48, 9. See also
avdpias, 31, 52 avripwrew, 28, A 27 praarOpwrrws c&moKkpivopcat
avelpyw, 67, 23 cavwlev, 22, 10 amoKpwots, 38, 20
avecadopia, 58, 10, 20, 91 avesTEpov, 9, 55 amoKkrelvw, 67, 21
avelodopos, I, A 5, B3, 5; [email protected], 27, 18; 67, 32 amokwrvw, 15, 19, 26
225123 44,6358, 225.20 dfiow, TA 4;,.B 33/1450; amohێyw, 31, 122; 46, 4
avemioTaOpueia, 57, 15 15, 27, 46; 34, II, 18; 38, 22 amoXeitw, 33, 8
avemioTaOjwevtos, 44, 5 aE iw pce, 58, 68; 63, 5 atrohoyéopat, 14, 17
avexw, 52, 42 a&iws, 17, 16; 18, 100 amrodoyilopo, 15, 35
aVHKW, 31, 76, 88 amayyeAAw, 23, 64 amoAvw, 22, 8; 40, 30
cvnp, 26, A 9; 28, A 39; 31, amayw, 20, G 10; 38, 16 aTropvnovevw, 18, 88
1G); TOY, AA, GOR BVip OR QTOLTEW, 31, 98 amovoin, 40, 19
58, 91; 70, 4. dvdpes amaitno.s, 31, OI amootaTns, 15, 41, $0
Kadol Kayabol: 35, 4; 36, amapavyeAtos, 14, 7 amoatéAAw, 14, 9, 58, 66;
6; 39, 4, 7; 47, 10, 41; 49, amas, 23, 47; 38, 16; 53, 6; 18, 124; 34, 5; 39, 6, 73
SE EO Gare 67, 34 42, 5; 58, 93; 65, D 4s.
ayoBot). évdpes Kedoi amrevOéw, 15, 16 See also ypd&ppata; mpe-
Kayabol Kat pirow rapa arretpt, 18, 115; 22, 21; 58, oBevral; E€vie
dHpov Kadod Kai wyoabod: I7, 25 QmTOTATTW, 2, 12
7 M4243 369, 18740; 210) *AmeXAaios, 58, I, 85; 65, amoTlOnut, 52, 53
IN 18) Sp IE IG Sy SSS LIS D 68 amoTipnpuc, 61, 6
3-4; 18, 70-72; 20, D 3- améepyopat, 2, 40; 15, 41, 44 amodhaivopat, 26, b 32; 31,
Go ht, ell Si, 3S Goh Gk ameXw, 31, 95; 60, BZ 144. See also yvmpmn
avdpas Kadods Kayabods a7r0, 9, §23 20, C 5; 31, 108, amopepw, 31, 132; 61, 7
Tpoowyopevw: 9, 62; 12, LOO5533 507 S402 Uo 37s amoywpew, 21, col. 1, 22
33 14, 37; 15, 8, 55; 16, 4; Ay, Hl, MO) Bats Gy/5 Zs thy Uighe "Ampidios, 18, 20
is}, GOR GP, GIO PL Ts) oo 63323765, li. .G@:8. DAs, a&pyvpiov, 2, 50
See also tpidv avdpav 48,55. Ob ovis 22. 15; apéokw, 26, C3; 28, B6;
avOpwrros, 2, 36; 31, 96; 40, 31, 121. See also yvwpn; 31, 96, 137, 142; 58, 44,
32; 65, 19, D 34 onoteptiov 63, 70
avOumaros, 15, 60; 18, 114; amoBadAw, 20, C 4; 60, B 3 apeTH, 17, 8; 18, 55, 95; 20,
Pit, COll, i, He 7K}, Go 7h), OW amodeiKvupt, 14, 14; 28, I- E 13; 51, 29; 65, 27, D 35
55, 3; 65, D 41, 44, 57, AS Spin. UBS avs 8 GE Be apiOpos, 65, C7
62, 80; 69, 12; II 2; 70, 3, 67, 3 apioTevw, 58, 82, 90
$; 71, 1 amodeEts, 43, 17; 58, 82, 88 a&piatos, 58, 21, 31
avolyvup, 5, 8 amodeKTOs, 18, 102 apKkew, 28, A 19
avoplow, 65,7 amodéyopot, 26, A 10; 28, apveopot, 67, 25
avreyKadew, 14, 18 335 34, 9; 35, 14; 39, 6; *Aprepiotos, 24, 5
avrapywr, 26, E 11; 49, B 7; 58, 79 *Apremiovwy, 65, D 70
58, 55, 62, 68, 71; 70, 17 amodnuew, 58, 78 apxaios, 30, 4; 70, II
avreyKadéw, 14, 18 amrodlowt, 2 Re IR US apyaipeowa, Ta, 65, D 82,
avTi, 68, 26 33, 44, 48-49; 18, 63, 83
avriypaov, 26, B 12; 28, A TMS CAR, Celle ily, AGSEPY TieI apxetov, 15, 22; 43, 7, 22
30, 44; 58,6. dtaorcéocew 26, A 6, E 12; 31, 132; 35, apxy, 1, B7; 2, 20; 9, 45;
255,14 5; 36, 7; 38, 4; 43, 9, 15, 17, AUS PLT) Gh aPS Byiy mia
QVUTLKUTAOTAOLS, Ose 19; 56, 4; 63, 8; 67, 7; 127; 37; 9; 65; 5, 10) 14,
evTiKpus, 31, 115 68, 25; 69, 13 205/23) 75a SO
avriréyw, 15, 25 amodoats, 35, 15 apxnyos, 43, 8, 18
avtiroyia, 12, 5, 22; 23, 4, amobvnaKw, 31, 123; 67, 8 apxepevs (Greek institution),
32 amokabiornt, 9, 26; 18, 65, 31, 78
aVTUTOLEew, 14, 38 apo Odie, (Pla, it, PASS 27%, 11}, apxrepevs (= pontifex max.),
avriaracis, 55, 12 14, 21; 33, 17; 38, 14, 16; 31, 72; 68, I
avriodpayiop.c, 70, 12 61,9; 69,9 a&pxovar. See yaipew

370
SERMO GRAECUS

apyw, 14, 65; 26, d 5; 31,

adiornu, 20, C 5; 47, 38 14, 4, 5, 6, 9, 25, 36, 44;
127, 128; 65, D 40, 49, 50, apopun, 65, 13, 16 US el 7 40; 4 15047005 1
54 apopordyntos, 34, 20 (bis), 52, 58, 61; 18, 94,
a&pywv (= magistratus Roma- 1A 2h INA, (Os Pip
nus), 18, 61, 66; 22, 109, BoAcaveiov, 46, 6 Col, Ti, 09S 2%, 6), itt, 1G.
238305131) -10G,, £04, 0105; BapBapos, 40, 26, 33 SXoy, hit, HY, Bor Ok, By 5
$20, 0255 8137: -49.°B <6: Bapvs, 31, 94 Hy, oe PLS elit, SL (al ee
58, 55, 62, 64, 68, 71; 70, Baoavos, 67, 12 MIE PIs, Ia WO, BE, ZIG. 18) OP
17 Baowrela, 40, 17 31, 97, 113; 34, 16; 37, 4,
a&pxwv (= magistratus Graecus), Baowrevs, 6, B 8; 17, 1; 18, 6, 7; 38, II, 15, 17, 23;
55, 8; 69, I 3 SI, 84; 34, 5; 40, 29 40, 14; 43, Taos 18, 24;
aobervns, 31, 96 BaowrtuKds, 18, 48; 54, 7. 58, 18, 29, 58, 71; 59, 5;
aoTpatevata, 57, 14 ev TH BaotikH IlopKia: 65 uel Osun Tog LO 54
aavAia, I, B2; 55, 2, 12; 14, 76; 23, 6 D 3853967, 5313270, 25671,
57, 17; 69, I1 BéBasos, 26, d 16 2, 5. See also 6mws
aavidos, 1, B 4, C 4; 18, 59; BeBasdw, 70, 15 ywooKw, 1, B 4; 31, 10, 493
23, 45; 28, B13; 34, 20; Bic, 15, 41; 18, 48; 67, 33 58, 64; 67, 13
36, 10; 58, 3, 74, 86 Bios, 51, 11; 65, 10, D 32, yoopn: (A) amo tis
aouvadAuwéla, 43, 14 33, 49; 69, 4, 8 yropns: 9, $3; 15, 13.
aopareree, ZOsabe 35 3 Es 77 BraBepds, 22, 15 (B) yropnv amopatvomar:
89; 67, 20, 34 BAc&Bn, 20, C 8; 58, 16 12, 48; 14, 79, 97; 23, 29;
aréAeww, 28, B 7, 9; 69, 12 Bonbéw, 14, 52; 16, 34, 40; Swi, tigi, aeeXo Ey 18) eh.
areAns, 26, b 28; 28, B1, 26, dir (C) yrapnv etrov: 23, 43;
15; 44, 6 Bovdevouon, 2, 52 58, 58. Other: 65, D 31,
arvuxéw, 60, B 10; 67, 36 BovAn (senatus —_romanus), 45, 78; 67, 38. See also
arux7s, 65, 6 31, 88, 90, 97, IOI, 106, ovpBovAov
Abyovotwv, 69, 5 I16, 125, 137, 142 yvopysos, 65, 25
Addvaios, 65, D 69 BovAj (Greek _ institution), yvwords, 31, 77
avOnpwepov, 31, 106 Boise) S53 5103253450375 yovos, 58, 19, 24, 60
avénous, 57, 23 46. Kown Bovdq: 45. Topmuaios, 65, D 70; 69, 4
avtokpatwp, 17, 10; 18, See also &pxyovar Kal TH ypappora, 2, 57, $9; 7, 62;
104; 20, E 14; 23, 36 (bis), Bova Kati 7. 5. yauipew 168, PXes ii, Bie, PEs PAY.
BO sn24s isa 20, a7 weds BovAnas, 65, 15 C 2; 28, A 52; 38, 4; 42,
G27X 31, 72 eoO TOS EL US; BovAopou, 2, 55, 59; 16, 46; 33 $2)5 505 67, 039r{A)
32-33; 54, 1; 57, 1; 58, 2 E7snh3); 6205) 83,22, 8,29; ypdppara Synudova: 28,
(bis), 9, 13, 73, 85; 60, A 1; 23, 3; 26, b 2; 28, 48; 31, A 49; 43, 7, 22; 56, 5; 69,
61, 1; 62, 12 (avd. XeB.), 16 99; 33, 4, 12; 38, 19; 57, 10. (B) ypdupara amoore-
(ad. Ka[toup XeB.]); 67, 20; 58, 93 AAew: 2, 43; 18, 108; 21,
2 (= Aug.); 68, 22 (ad. Bwpods, 16, 50 GO] Mt eT OM 2 282202015 008s
Kaioup Oeot vi. LeB.); ypapparetov, 69, 10
69 NTAs); 870,028 yap, 6, 3; 14, 6; 33, 8; 41, 2; ypopparevs, 43, 2; 55, 9
(Adr. Oeod vi. LeB.= 52, 55 (y. Sjpov) ; 69, 6
Aug.) ;75, 5 yaotpa, 67, 26 ypapparedw, 65, D 42
adroporos, 2, 28 yetTovevw, 45, 12 ypadw, 1, A7,B7, C2; 5,
avrovopia, 37, 10 yeveOdos, 65, 4, 19, 22,D 51, 10; 13, 8; 14, 23, 24; 16,
avrovomos, I, As, B 5; 58, 55 48; 26, b 19, 23, 27; 33,
4, 74, 86 yeveots, 65, D 48 16; 38, 10, 15; 43, 9; 52,
apaipew, 9, 45; 16, 46, 47; yeévos, 14, 15; 31, 93 43, 55, 56; 53, 33 57, 18,
31, 92; 39, I1; 40, 19-20 yépwr, 63, I, 2 33; 58, 24; 65, 27, 30,
adavns, 71, 2 yewpyew, 14, 15 (CKOSMIDES 31-8701 5, LOL:
adnyéopor, 65, D 65 yy, 16, 28 (Kara y. K. KATO (A) ypadhopevw trapioav:
apinus, 2, 47, 49; 6, 3; II, OcrAacouv) 2, 3, 14; 9, 10-11; 10, B 3;
9; 13, 8; 26, d 4; 67, 26 yipas, 31, 96 205 AVS 3)22.04;)26,) D130,
abiKveopce, 38, 9, 21; 65, yiwopou, 2, 18-19, 26, 54; 5, cio (restored); 29, 4.
D 47 2, 36; 7, 593 9; 5; 13, 3; (B) ypadopevov raphcar:

371
INDEX I

4, 14-15; 5, 19; 7, 38; 28, B 6; 30, 11; 31, 76, 89; ducKeypo, 35, 7
23, 60. (C) ypadopevois 33; 937345528), 47 20a es dvaKomTw, 15, 43
TApHoav: 27, 5 43, 45; 48, 7; 52, 52; 54, dSvaKdatot, 18, 31; 31, 106
yupvactapyos, 55, 10 10; 58, 17, 66; 69, 6; 74, 3- diakoopew, 65, D 33
yupuikes, 38, 6; 65, D 58 See also avijp SuaKovw, 34, 11; 39, 8; 70, 8
yuvn, 2, $0; 22, 17, 18 (bis), Snudovn mpdkypata, 2, 375 Suaxpivw, 21, col. 1, 14
273; 44, 73; 51, 35; 58, 19, 12, 13, 16; 18; 85°28, 82; StakwAvw, 31, 123
37, 60; 67, 9; 76, 8 20,, © As:2tercole teasnpz2: SivarAapBovw, 12, 13; 17, 15;
7s Oy Alek ae AMES SONS: 21, col. 1, 14 (décor 8.);
Sapoviov, 34, 15 58, 6, 15, 17 oT Oh S
Aatovos, 65, D 70; 69, Il 1 Synpoota 7 tdig, 21, col. 1, dvadéyw, 34, 8; 35, 53 36, 73

de, 9, 65; 10, A 9; 18, 102; 27; 22, 22 (Snuooie alone) ; 38, 4. SuaAdyw mept +
26, b 28; 31, 134; 65, D 79 $1998 7083 1,41320(9) 0,); gen.: 9, 44; 26, a 6; 39, 5;
deldow, 67, 29 140-41 (...pev Steet 58, 78
dewvds, 58, 14 wbPeo , dé Snpoaiae) ;59, Svapéevw, 15, 11; 63, 4
devordarpovia, 28, B 11; 32, 6, 7 (8. alone) Sicevove, 2, 43-445 9, 25; 38, 7
13 dnudatos, 6, B 3; 9, 20; 15, dvaméuTw, 26, b 12
d€ka, 2, 23; 14, 76; 15, 38; 62; 16 (dynpocie BovdAf), duamintrw, 65, 6
31, 141; 58, 67 34, 37, 46; 28, A 28; 31, dtatroaTeAAw, 52, 47
SexaenmTa, 23, 60 E17, ©1363" -.33>,.9,s0(70 Svampacow, 43, II
SexaoKtw, 27, 4 Snpooov 7d ‘Pwpaiwv) ; Svapralw, 18, 116
d€Kkaros, 64,14; 65, D 84, 85 52, 53; 58, 22, 49; 59, I, Sidraypa, 22, 24 (els To
deAToypadnpuc, 65, D 62, 66 Tek lis OL) 351907 030snd Ls TOV pirwv Suckraypuc) ;
d€ATos, 12, 20; 14, 753 23, 3. See also ék trav 4. 65, 30, D 81. Kata TO
31. (trav Srropvnparwr TpaywaTwv ; Snpoove Sudroaypwa: 15, 64; 16, 10;
déArov), 58 (eu mpa- Tmpaywara otTws Kalas 18, 90; 22, 26
yudrwv ovpBeBovrevpe- av AUTO’ ...3 Ypappara; dvcrakis. See tpidv avdpav
vwv déArws mpadtyt); 26, TOTr0S dtataoaow, 10, B 6; 18, 105,
b 18, 22; 28, A29 (é Snpooiwvys, 12, 22; 23, 5, 107; 65, D 32
TOV Snpociwy §.); 29, 3 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 65, 67; diareAew, 34, 12; 40, 22
(8€Arw mpwtn); 57, 26, 58, 34, 52 dvatnpéw, 34, 23
32 did, 6, 4; 14, 15 (gen.), 45, Sarin, 70, 13
deEvds, 65, D 45 53 (gen.); 15, 40; 16, 36 SiaTiuaw, 7 (616)
d€opou, 41, 4; 65, 26 (gen.), 53 (gen.); 18, 3 dvadepw, 64, 19
deomdrns, 67, 17 (gen.), 7 (acc.), 79 (gen.); diadbeipw, 40, 23
devrepor, 58, 3; 70, 12 20.8C 63622, e128(ACc.) a6 Svadopa, 47, 36; 50, 3
d€xoma, 25, 14; 49, B13; (acc:)5 ror (cen.)s 235 esi; dSiapwvéew, 38, 10
58, 60, 79; 65, 8 26, b 10 (gen.); 28, B 16; dudaocKw, 33, 15
dijAos, 31, 79 30, 9; 31, 88 (gen.), 94 didwpt, 2, 8, 55, 57, 60; 4,
dnrow, 65, 15; 68, 25 (acc.), 96 (acc.); 34 (acc.), 9, 10; 7, 37, 46, 59, 62; 9,
Snpapxixy e€ovola, 31, 73; O-PLO LSs L775 ecSs9 3S, 23) $3,643; II, 9, 143) 133983
64, 13; 67, 4; 68, 22 40, 20; 52 (acc.), 42, $4; 14, 22, 40, 92 (bis); 15, 39,
Sypapxos, 34, 33 38, 1-2; 57a On (2CG,) eS SOT IE SOAS TY ig Saas TOE
39, 2 (ace))s S2m( Gen.) 959 mela £S, 62) Tlie seOn Penis
Snuropyds, 43, 21; 67, I G52 Ose A027 eo 22,225923\) 23509 03nd Ons 73
djpuos, 4, 4; 6, B6; 7, 46, (gen.); 68, 25 (gen.); 69, PUT, |e) Bio}, (Ikds fel eR Ly
49, 54, 58, 61; 9, 34, 47; 4, 8; 71, 7 B 16; 30, 11; 31, 103, 104,
LOB OM ia tAw2 2) 2302/7, dvaBaivw, 13, 10 LOO WELLS, 140: 133 Bros 5.
8201051205) 27 ZORRO 258355 SvaywodoKw, 31, 78, 131, II; 36, 8; 37, Br, 4; 38,
36, 40 (bis), 44, 51; 17, 4, 135 20; 39, II; 42, 6; 47, 44;
6, 14; 18, 28, 35, 37, 44, dlaura, 31, 139 48, 5, 8,103 49, 10; B 7;
79, 99, 123; 20, C 5, G6; Svakaréyw, 14, 21; 18, IIT, 51,203.58, Li, 20, 06,107)
21s Coln tw Awad seiCGl Aan DLS el LO 20m Gre nO sea te 7054893) OL, Osh ls O5,07%
22, II, 20; 23, 49, 51; 26, col. 1, 24. See also éyw D57. See also €&éwa
Ghai By Wh, Op, Si, iy, adep Hop SiaKkaréyw Kapmevw Sodva

372
SERMO GRAECUS

dvetyw, 37, 5 Soxipalw, 31, 124 30. (A) ef eppwobe, bd

dvepyouar, 43, 10 ddAos, 16, 34, 37, 40; 58, av €xot: 23, 2; 26, a2;
dixatodoaia, 15, 42 653 73, 4, 7 2570495154, 2 \(B) cet
Suxcuodoréw, 61, 11 d0€a, 34, 10 eppwobe, KadAds av exou:
Sixcuos, 7, 60; 14, 53; 18, 3, dovAKos, 59, 3 54, 75, 86; 60, A4. (C)
G45488;5)5205 2E, Col. rT, 14> dodXos, 67, 29 el O€ Tl €otw: 10, A 8
PV COS Pte ols katate Sn 2 oh dvvapoe, 6, 4; 14, 16; 18, elOuK@s, 70, 15
II; 33, 17; 40, 8; 52, 51; 119; 20, G7; 31, 93, 138; eidoi, 2, 3, 14; 5, 18; 10, B
55, 13; 58, 21, 30; 63, 8; 52, 57; 58, 66; 67, 20 3; 15, 4; 23, 5; 32, 5; 62,
66, 3; 67, 26; 70, I5 dvvapius, 18, 48, 85; 20, C 3 aks 69, 5
Sixaiws, 51, 30; 65, 5, 9 duvards, 58, 92 €LKaS, 27, 3
duxaorrjpiov, 9, 55; 31, 92, dvo, 31, 112, 121 (dveiv) elkoot, 9, 69; 10, A1o, B
117 SvoKoAos, 65, 16 DSL, LOO LOO. DLT
Sixaorys, 31, 138; 66, 6 dvouy, 45, 4 ethiuxpwds, 18, 5
duKaoriKos, Si, LET Avorpos, 58, 73; 65, D 69, elu, 14, 90
dikn, 2, 47; 31, 90; 58, 71- 75 elzrov, 2, 51; 15, 16, 38; 23,
72; 67, 30 dwdéKatos, 67, 3 24; 31, 102; 45, 5, 16; 65,
duxtatwp, 18, 43, 74, 103, dwpéw, 13, 9 D 47
125; 26, b 7; 49, 3 d@pov, 48, 8; 61, 7, 8 elpnvn, 16, 27; 18, 36
duvéprot, 31, 6, 18 eis, 2, 22, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42,
61d, 34, 17; 65, 9, D 49 dy, a 5557593 12, 17: 14, 49, 51, 57, 58, 59; 7, 50;
dtoukew, 40, 6 70, 87; 15, 14; 16, II, 40, 9, 21, 70; 13, 9, 10; 14, 9,
Stoiknots, 52, 46-47; 65, ASsaL7 wets 15,— 107.020), 17, 32, 49, 58, 66, 72; 15,
D 65 IES oi, CO, De US ey. Te 20.2353 7501 On 525) LOmOre
didAov, 34, 12 TS) 10, 520:420, C300) 12; OS.) 21, col 2s.h 22010519),
diophdw, Ii, 9, 14; 13, 2 315 97; 3338559) 37s0 > 38; 22; 23, 31, 47, $4; 26, C
dudT1, 38, 6 19; 43, 27; 58, 25, 30, 55, 26; 28, A 23; 31, 76, 78,
diaads, 30, 9 69; 65, 20. See also 89, 105, 128; 33, 4, 9; 34,
dioyxiAor, 51, 28 paivopce I7, 21, 22, 23; 35, 8; 37,

dudKw, 31, 28, 70 exw, II, 18 2, 6; 38, 10, 22; 39, 5; 40,
doypa, 5, 4, 13; 10, B 1; 14, éBdounKovTa, 31, 112 18, 19, 21; 43, 25, 273 44,
S23)05.0245 20, 45 21. col. EBSopos, 29, 2 7; 47, 443 52, 20, 51, 53;
E6226. DILL. 30227, 15 éyyetos, 31, III; 33, 9 57, 22, 27; 58, 6, 11, 48,
2S aeAG? Se 42547 0; 195 eyyvn, 28, B 2; 58, 70 78; 59, I, 3; 61, 9; 65, 6,
See also avyKAnrtos; eyyvs, 2, 24 TTphOs, 22,020.01 3A Aas
avaypadhew To Sdypc eyKadéw, 14, 46 48, 60, 80; 67, 28; 68, 27;
doyparilw, 14, 12, 20, 96; eyKAnpa, 15, 39 69, 10. See also axéposos
16, 53; 23, 54 eyKpiats, 33, 17 els, 14, 85; 16, 48, 49; 23, 5;
doxéw, 9, 65; 15, 10; 20, eyTvyxavw, PAH |b) Se Oye acy, 31, 70; 37, 7; 59, 8; 65,
C 6; 23, 35, 43, 53, 66, 67; 35 36, 4; 57, 5, 24-25, 31; 20 Grcols Lls67.21
31, 143; 54, 8; 65, 20, D 58, 83; 67, 7; 70, 8 eloayw, 58, 49
30, 50, 78; 67, 30, 37; 68, eyxapéoow, 26, C25; 52, eloepyopct, 39, 4
25. (A) éd0fe: 1, B4, 49; 57, 27; 65, D 66 elonyeopoe, 66, II
C622, i369, 21,24, 27; e0édw, 21, col. 1, 19; 31, 88 elaodos, 65, 14, D 80
30, 31, 43, 45, 49 (bis), 52, eOilw, 15, 45, 61 elomparTw, 22.5533 31, 82
56, 60; 5, 7, 31, 37; 6, B eOiopds, 18, 49, 91 elompeoBevw, 14, 73
GIs Yet, SO) LOS Fak aigtp ales €Ovos, 40, 21; 47, 29 elodepw, 49, B11; 58, 84;
2, f4 pil, LO; 12°20; 55, €0os, 21, col. 1, 17; 26, b 25; 65, D 32
60, 61; 16, 5, 8, 15, $1 (in 70, 15 elopope, 22, 12; 44, 6; 58,
a Greek decree = €. TQ €0w, 33,7 333 76, 5
Sapw); I8, 72, 122; 20, €, °F; $9; 21, col. I, 20, 24; elra, 31, 29, 31
Dr 5222.05 15° 23,0097'26, 222 Qe 5 ZO 222s; CHE Di7se 2 loa 7S
C8; 38, 8, 14; 39, Io. 36; 26, d 23; 28, B 12; 31, (€x)s 55, 293 7) 525 12,
(B) doe rH BovAju: 31, 138; 59, 7; 61, 4; 65, 6, 8, 50; 14, 16, 83, 95; 15, 18,
90. See also ovrws ed0€ev 17; 67, 24 (elre ... Etre), 60 (e€vyKAjrov); 16, 47;

373
INDEX I

TS, 22422 oaelA ees eats ewavTod, 375 Ow (A) evdo€os, 33, 6; 47, 37

26, big8i28.) Ae2ss 40: e€uavT@: 63, 6. (B) eveut, 14, 71

29, I; 31, 79, 87 (bis), €wavTov: 48, 10 evexev, 2, 19; 5, 333 14, 57,
103, 107, 108, 110, 124- euBaivw, 65, 23 Spy psec), dts Sl, SO
25, 126, 142; 33, 16; 34, éupevw, 2, 8; 10, B 12; 15, 23, 21, 26, 40, 44; 44, 3;
14°15 357 Bos O7 as 95 14, 16, 19; 67, 25 49, B 12; 58, 34, 49, SI
40, 17, 25; 58, 5, 50, 64; eu0s, 31, 79; 57, 7, 20; 58, evexupalw, 58, 65
59, 9; 64, 12; 70, 7. See 76; 67, 11, 37 EviauTos: KaT evLaUTOV, 16,
also ék tv Snpooiwy eurripmrpnt, 60, B9 14
TpoywaTwv eumrodilw, 65, D 81 eviornut, 65, D 73
exaoros, 26, d 24; 31, 143; Eumpnats, 43, 6, 22 evvec, 31, 119; 65, 23
59, 8; 61, 4; 65, 12,°17, eutrpoaber, 38, 20. See also evoikodopew, 14, 95
Di $2575 xpovos evoxrAéw, 49, B II
EKaTEpOS, 7, 62 (bis); 9, 673 eudavys, 18, 62 Evoxos, 43, 20
LO, B 10,) 11s) TAS 56; O42 eudavilw, 2, 29, 34, $3; 31, evreptAauBavw, 65, 27
15, 28; 55, 16; 70, 7 100; 38, 6; 43, 5, 26; 55, evTaTTw, 28, A si
ExaTépws, 65, 30 18;69,12. (A)evedaricay evrat0a, 58, 25
‘ExarouPouwv, 15, 2 Th ovyKAnTwe: 15, 31 evtepkaAdptos, 5, 18
éExaTov, 9, 69; 10, Ato, B eupepw, 67, 12 evTiOnp, 14, 64
13 CV 281377; 4, As Se ae tes evToAn, II, 6; 15, 18, 36, $2;
exB&AAw, 30, 8; 40, 17 25; 6, B 4; 7, 38 (ey); 8, 18, 61; 58, 78
éxyovos, 22, 12, 17, 18 (bis), 8 (ey); 9, 2, 10, 32 (eu); evtds, 17, 12; 31, 108, 109,
27; 58, 24, 60 10, B2 (ey); 12, 21, 22; £21, 134105, 83
€xduKos, 45, II, 18, 20; 65, 14, 22, 24, 44, 65, 70, 76, efayw, 58, 49, 50
D 64 82, 86, 88, 94; 15, 4 (ey), eLakiopvptot, 48, 8
ERED 2285295303815 1005 21, 24, 32 (eu), 34, 38, e€atroaTéAAw, 28, A 29
Om 2282037435 20385 5.07 8 39, 40,47, $0, $7; 16,.12, e€civar, 2, 19, 26, 29; 5,
exet0ev, 61, 7 48, 49; 18, 4, 6, 20, 38, 68; 26-27, 34; 14, 67; 16, 46;
exeyetpia, 57, 17 ZO Or Anes Of mee Ee ES. 92) 503 22,16) 2578280
exAapBavw, 58, 5 Coll, a5 25. Op tell, A, 3S eed. 235928920, Di Saat Ost
exmpakis, 58, 68 Al 7 12S 2O ea Ssh 250 23, 303/31, Lid, £302 57, 26
exmpaoow, 58, 42, 69 (bis), 19, 25, 35, SI, $8, e€etalw, 67, II
exteAéw, 14, 8 (OS PYG, wis PX, HUGE, [oy OE e€eraola, 67, 29
EKTOS, 29, 2; 58, 73, 85 ity) Plt, OP. OV (ol HIS Ay), 7B e€nkootos, 14, 88
€KTOS, 3, 12; 15, 28; 16, 47; 28; A 34,49, B 10; 12,173 eEfs, 33, 5
23, 36, 38, 50; 31, 136; 30, 8; 31, 104; 33, 2, 5, 123 e€vduceloprat, 15, 20, 26
54, 7. See also orixos Sey 03 W/o 2p 18 Gey yy Bite e€ouxilw, 38, 18
exywpéw, 7, 45 (bis), 53 23, 25, 32; 38, 5, 9, 173 e€duvup, 31, 115, 119
exw, 67, 24 43, I1; 48, 3; 49, 10, 14; ECCOUTLO 224 USGS Te TTSs
€Xavov, 2, 53 52, 46, 47, 48; 57, 5, 293 140; 38, 18; 48, 4, 5; 58,
€Aucoov, 22, 16; 43, 24; 52, 58, 5, 12, 55, 68, 69, 88; 63. See also SnwopyiKr
8, 56; 58, 65. See also 60, B 9; 61, 3, 8; 65, 14, e€ovala
puuKpos 2X0), ID) 7h, Shy ig ey, OA eEwlerv, 65, 24
erevbepia, 1, D 2(?); 24, 13; 67, 84; 67, 7, 20, 38; 68, €7raBAov, 28, B 3; 30, 10
285037535, Os AO2O$ 24; 70, 13 érawew, 16, 59; 26, a9;
43, 16 évavTt, 2, $2 28, A 31; 68, 26
eXevOepos, 1, A 5, B 3, 5; 7, éevavrios, 67, 31 €rravdpos, 17, 2; 18, 85; 22,
49; 22, 19; 28, B1; 53, 4; evavtiws, 15, 18 9, II
58, 55; 70, 20; 73, b 6 evepyopcee, 22,7 eTravEyt, 43, 27
EAKw, 31, 95 évaros, 26, b 37; 29, 23 43, erravopOwats, 55, 9
édXeirrw, 35510: (A) oddev 25-26 éemravw, 58, 24
€AXetrrovtes piroripias: evBoApos, 65, D 76 emrapyeia, 18, 77, 114; 20,
36, 9; 38, 5-6 evdetkvup, 68, 27 G 10; 31, 78, 80, 95; 44,
‘“EdAnvikos, 52, 54; 65, D 53 evoeka, 22, 4 2; 52, 5; 50; 58, 45, 68;
é€Amis, 65, D 37, 39 evdexopct, 35, 9 61, 4, 9; 65, 26, D 44, 46

374
SERMO GRAECUS

Errapxos, 5, 28 emipedAew, 35, 16; 42, 18, evyVapmwv, 33, 15

eTapXw, 44, 2 20; 69, 9 evepyecia, 51, 28-29; 65,
érravAvov, 60, B 9 emueAns, 28, A 14-15; 70, D 34, 46; 76, I
emeyyuaw, 15, 43 9 evepyeTew, 26, b 9; 65, 17,
emet, 6, 3; 15, 51; 18, 44; emueAntys, 5, 1; 31, 114 D 46; 68, 26
23, 19, 25; 24, B 8; 26, b emipeAds, 39, 8; 52, 40 evepyeTns, 15, 46; 65, D 44
26; 33, 2; 43, II, 22, 24; émivoew, 65, 18, 27 ev0uvw, 31, 99, 118, 129,
48, 5; 65, 11, 16, D 78 erripeuis, 59,7 TNT, TID
emretO7), 16, 52; 31, 4, 44, 48; emlonos, 49, 9, 14 evAoyos, 70, 7
65, D 32 ETLOTIAOMaAL, 40, 10 evpevera, 34, 14
emreLepyouat, 31, 92 erriorapat, 26, a 12; 31, 45 evevys, 65, 3
eTrepxYouce, O7-594833 éemioTrarew, 16, 51 evvoia, 14, 51; 18, II, 453
emepwraw, 69, II 2 emioTaTns, 31, 113 26, 212; 34, 18, 24; 49,
emt, (A) with genitive: 9, emLaToAn, 14, 24; 49, 16; B 1; 58, 82, 89, 92
$5, $6; 22, 2, 19; 24, A 10; , 52, 573 69, 3 (87 On, 10 edvows, 34, II; 35, 7
28 PA TIO#E3T. 102; lat. ETLOTPATEVW, 40, 12 evpioxw, 58, 79; 65, D 48,
19,/5873)118, 4393137, 43 emuoTpogpy), 18, 62 503.70. ti
48, 7; 49, 7; 52, 48; 58, emiTayy, 26, b 38 evoeBela, 34, 13
44; 165, 0),50,0:78: _(B) emiTeAew, 15, 36 edaeBns, 32, 8; 65, D 59
with dative: 9, 27; 15, émiteAwvew, 59, 8 evTUY HUG, 65, 8-9
39; 28, A 42; 40, II; 42, emiTHnoevua, 44, 4 edTUY7S, 65, 12, 13
II; 43, 19; 45, 19; 52, 38; emiTiOnur, 22, 23 evyaploTéw, 14, 5; 26, a7;
585. 725). 65,44D.49.:0 (2) ETTLTLLLOV, 15, 38 52, 39; 65, 17
ed’ols: 28oe AL 31 6OL8b emitpemw, 31, 141; 49, 8; evyaptoTos, 68, 27
10. (2) €9'@:. 31, 128, _ 59,2 edxepys, 9, 66; 10, B 10
134, 140; 43, 25. (C) emiTpomn, 35, II ed}, 23, 43
with accusative: 14, 4, emiTvyyave, 32, 12 evypnoTew, 35, 13
Ze SO7 OL SE, 305.3753; emipavys, 18, 57; 47, 373 52; edypnotia, 65, 25
40, 12; 67, 32. (D) emi + 48; 70, 4 *Edéotos, 28, B 12
genitive for purpose of emipepw, 14, 29; 16, 33, 39, epinyt, 31, 100; 38, 18
dating: 14, 10, 86; 15, 40, 423 31, 105 epioTnpe, 70, II
Die 32a 5 Oss LOL S..19 22, emxwpew, 1, B 3; 57, 31 edpopaw, 59, 4
I; 23, 3, $2; 24, Al, 4; émté, 2, 3; 14, 76; 62, 14 exOpa, 47, 306
27 EN3Ea74,51095,0L, 22; erwvupos, 57, 8, 21 €x9pos, 31, 119
69, 6, II i epyalopo, 31, 94 exw, 2, 19, 26; 3, 8; 14, 583
émiBadrAw, 33, 14; 40, 6; 70, epyaaia, 15, 19, 25, 58; 18, 15, 36, 41, 43, 44, 50; 17,
10 TE Lee22.675 LL eA weLl 7 AtlSs) SO;e20 wk Tt a,
emruyapia, 58, 40 €petmov, 59, 10 GOlwiis Sa 00 255 2 seone 2O:
emuyivopat, 65, 9 epew, 55, 16 NG, 14, A, Cage beh IN
emuywwoKw, 12, II; 14, 70, Epnios, 9, 20 33 584206D. 02030,0845. 35,
76; 15, 63; 18, 105, 115; Epunveta, 52, 56 87; 33, 4, 6; 35, 11; 38,
2EVCOMNT 1741035) 233145030; Epxopat, 10, A 4; 15, 373 185149,B 15:93 52,:553:58,
34, 64, 65; 48, II; 49, 21, col. 2, 2; 40, 19; 48, 3; 75eO35) TOs 70 eLOsmECA)
B2 58, 80 exw KaTeyw KopriCopct:

epwraw, 15, 56; 48, 3 28, B15, 17; 51, 40; 58,
emdeikvupt, 33, 53 45, 3
émulntéw, 52, 55 €oxaTos, 13,9; 14, 72; 31, II 31, (B) exw diaxaréyw
éemiuKkaAew, 66, 7 Erepos, 22, 17, 18, 24, 28; Kapmevw: 22, 17. See
emikAnpow, 31, 126, 128 65,7 also et
erixAnats, 65, D 82 €rt, 38, 17 €ws, 9, 51; 10, B 12; 15, 44;
éroipuws, 59, 10 58, 38. ews av: 31, 122;
emuxpareia, 26, d 4, 8
emrikpysc, 28, A 25, B 4; 50, €Tos, 2, 23; 9, $5; 10, A7; 44, 7. See also ypcéomou
1; 54, 3; 55, 2 14, 19; 31, 113; 58, 1; 62,
emikpivw, II, 19; 15, 63; 11; 65, D 64, 77 Cnuudw, 11, 9, 14
58, 72 evayyedov, 65, D 40 Cirnpa, 70, 81
evapeotew, 38, 19 Cw, 65, 10
emiKupow, 23, 53

375
INDEX I

ayemovia, 18, 4; 23, 49; 26, eios, 34, 17; 65, 4, 22 ive, 4, 8; 14, 21; 15, 27, 61;
6éAw, 10, B 10, I1; 12, 12; 18, 62, 64, 94, 108, III,
bir
Hyer, 31, 86 ny, we MOP Fh, Cok, oy, We 117, 118; 20, E 4; 21, col.
nyéopor, 18, 126; 22, 30; 22, 30; 26, b 23; 49, 13, Tr) D5) Ose 2st oee 5

23, 57; 28, A 38; 70, 7 B 2; §2, 21; 54, It} 58, 33, 45; 26, b 17, 19, 23,
Hdews, 26, a 10, b 34 26, 47, 53, 56, 69; 59, 9. c 21; 31, 77 (i. wéow F
78n, 60, A 7; 67, 9 See also apaitvos yvwordv) ;33, 6; 37, 2,95
7dov%, 65, 20 BeoxodAos, 43, I 38, II, 13, 15; 49, B8;
ndvs, 58, 81, 92; 65, 4, 8, Oeds, 15, 46; 23, 5, 20, 22, 52, 46, 50; 57, 18; 65, 16,
26, 28, 37, 39, 45, 48, 54, 27, N72 70.16
19
HAtKia, 44, 7 56; 20; b 6:434,822;51375 D ivrepkaAcptos, 65, D 70, 76
I, 34; 38, 23, 24; 40, 5, *TovAtos, 26, C9; 31, 117
jALos, 45,4
jets, 14, 433 34, 8; 35, 73 31; 44, 4; 58, 2; 60, AT; *Tovvios, 15, 4; 22, 4; 26,
40, 16; 48,12. (A) Hudv: 65, 3, D 41, 433 67, 2; 69, b 39
Be O14 25, 2950055 1205 10; 70, 18 toos, 31, 15; 65, 5, 17
2324s Oke2OD LO;e zo, bepamddw, Bron 20,8 3051445 torn, eS Sa) k 5s OO peaks
34 col. I, 20; 24, 6; 26, c 23,
A 40; 31, 88; 33, I1; 37,
4; 38, 7; 51, 8; 58, 13; 59, Onoavpds, 42, 7 d 28; 52, 51; 58, 67, 68;
4; 65, D32. (B) 2piv: Opéupo, 58, 50 65, D 79, 84
6, 8; 9, 31; 10, B 10; 14, Opnoxeia, 65, 24, B 5 tows, 59, 4; 67, 22
Be Ih til: Hy Be Pe} ie) Oia, 14, 67 *IraAuKos, 22, 7, 19
(bis); 15, 25; 26, b 5; 31, OupeAckds, 47, 29
81; 34, 14; 35, 3, 11; 38, Ovoica, 15, 45; 16, 11; 22, 25; Kabaipéw, 14, 71, 95
24; 45, 3, 11; 47, 44; 48, 2308472820, aDMiO ee toeso; Kabamep, 5, 9; 28, B 8
II; 58, 12, 90; 59, 4; 65, 7; 40, 9 Kabevpioxw, 65, D 43
D 35. (C) juds:@242 59, KaOnKw, 33, 93 38, 13; 40, 7
17; $1, 553 35, 17; 2%, 25; ’Toavocpios, 26, d 22 (ape ro KabFKov); 58,
1h, Sp We Shy BS eth Jee PPIs tovos, 2, 28; 14, 4; 15, 41; 89
33, 6; 34, 5; 38, 9, II, 21, 16, 36; 18, 30, 36, 47, 91; KaOvepow, 23, 46; 28, B 10;
Doe 71 OR Gy yaa 22, 19 (Kare Tovs ltdlous 65, B 5
also Trap’ uadv vopous), 26; 26, d 8; 28, Kabiornut, 15, 22; 26, b7
HEPA, 7, 62, 63; 13, 9; 14, B 4; 33, 33 52, 47; 58, 49, (= designatus); 31, 100;
14, 57, 65, 67 (bis), 77, 80 50, 55, 63; 65, 12, 20 32, 9; 40, 3; 58, 72; 60,
(bis), 86, 87, 88; 15, 34; idvditns, 59, 1 A 2 (= designatus)
Slat 21,86 5450 05, 55 bs iSuwrtKds, 18, 10 KaOoXKos, 70, 4
rie}, (Grell, 1M, ID Key, 57 iepevs, 23, 16, 50; 55, 6; 57, KaOdtt, 2, 29, 33; 35, 10;
53, 55, 68-76 TO}P225760 01831507 39, Ff

Hperepos, 2, 8, 22, 37; 10, iepomvnpwwr, 24, 4 Kabvorepéw, 57, 29-30

B 5: 14, 14, 16; 18, 8; 20, tepdv, 76, I, B 2, 4; 5, 9, 253 Kabws, I, A 6, B 7, C 5; 2,
C.4n EG Oar colat, 6, 7, B 4; 9, 44, 49; 16, 38, 44; 5, 32; 9, 64; 10, B
NOE SPY Gi, Wy tt, Tel. 7s AQS 19, 11328234 2061 20, 6, 9; 14, 39, 433) 25, 45;
15, 19, 23; 23, 37; 31, 86, 35, 40, 44, 55; 28, B 12; Zi coll 1,923: 32.00 3834;
90; 34, 17; 35, 8; 37, 1; 30, 15; 32, 10; 36, 10; 37, 20; 38, 21; 40, 6; 44, 8;
38, 11; 43, 16; 49, 5, B7; 10; 40, I2; 53, 2, 13; 60, 51, 37. See also ovrw
58, 16, 56, 61, 62, 69, 71, B 6; 61, 10, 25; 69, II Kabds
77 tepovixns, 57, 9 Kaipos, I4, 51; 18, 12; 20,
qvika, 67, 35 tepos, 1, A 6, B 6; 2, 20; 14, C 5; 26, a II; 40, 30; 58,
‘“Hpakdewv, 27, 2 77; 15, 44; 31, 136; 34, 16, 83; 65, 14; 71, 6
jovxla, 26, b 31 20; 37, 8 (KaT& TO ¢); 55, Kaioap, 26, b 6; 28, A 52;
12; 58, 3, 74, 86; 61, 3; 31, 72, 86; 58, 2, 73, 85;
OcAucou, 16, 28 66, 5; 69, IO 60, I; 61, 1; 62, 16; 64,
Odvaros, 43, 20; 67, 1o iepwovvn, 15, 433 58, 30 T25020%) 6554500, 2258 G10,
Boppéw, 26, b 5, 33, 58, 93 ixav@s, 58, 70 D 37, 56, 57, 60; 67, 2;
Bowpalw, 52, 42; 67, 28 txeaia, 69, II 68, 22; 69, I; 72, 8. (Name
Oe&, 28, B 10 iumreparwp, 21, col. I, 11 of a month): 65, D 54, 68

376
SERMO GRAECUS

KaKoTrabew, 58, 13 KaTaokedavvupt, 67, 23 Kopérvov, 2, 23 4, 143 5, 173

KoAcvdat, 14, 76; 18, 19; KaTacKevalw, 2, 33, 35 7388, 0:9, LO: 10, B 2:
22, 4; 23, 60; 26, c 29, d KaTaOKEUH, 43, 133 71, 3 Vomeay. 15.04 .022,04'623,
22; 27, 4; 65, 23, D sr, KaTaoTaoLOS, 14, I 60
74, 76 KaTaoTao.s, 18, 29; 43, 12; kopilw, 10, B 1; 18, 64; 26,
KaAéw, 12, 49; 14, 16, 26; 57, 3 b 2; 31, 92; 33, 14
15, 23; 45, 5, 16, 17, 19 Katappovew, 15, 36 KOTpLov, 67, 23
KoAokayabia, 33, 11; 34, 10 KaTayew, 67, 24 Koopew, 58, 90; 65, D 36
KaAds, 7, 60; 14, 84; 22, II; KaTaXpcopol, 15, 22 KoopLos, 57, 22; 65, 8, D 40
28, B 8. See also avip Kataxwpilw, 23, 31; 35, 6; koupla, 26, b 39 (ev Koupiou
KaAd@s, 8, 4; 17, 15; 22, 8; 38, 5; 58, 6, 8 *TovAtct)
48, 9-10 KaTepyomat, 2, 49 Kpatéw, 18, 40; 26, d25;
KazermAvov, 2, 33, 353 16, KaTréyw, 2, 38; 10, A 7; 14, 294 Dal 7 2OOsbel
7, 11, 483.20, E 7-8,. 22, 22, 67; 60, A 7; 61, 26 Kpiua, 7, 62; 9, 29; 10, B
25; 26, b 17; 21; 58, $ Katnyopéw, 58, 53; 67, 8 EL=12°) 12420
Kapmevw. See exw dic- KaTnyopla, 15, 32 Kpiva, Te AST D7 aCSS0 75
KaTéxw Kaprrevw KaTHyopos, 43, 17 51, 50,5 035-9)- 20 hes
Kapmilopat, 14, 28, 58, 67; KaTnAdw, 16, 7 OE, Chis 7s 15 ELS, fi, 18)
20, G7; 23, 28, 34, 38, KaTOLKEW, 2, 29, 30; 31, 80; TOvsr Le lA, 22,027 OA MOO?
40, 67; 28, B 17; 58, 31-32 38, 17-19 68, 80, 85, 87, 88; 22, 12,
Kapmos, 37, 3 KatopOow, 26, a7 iS Hh, Pik, URL, wey, eye
Kappiopos, 59, 2 KaTOXN; 7, 45 34, 19; 42, 19; 43, 203 47,
kata: (A) with genitive: KéAevats, 28, B 3 28; 54, 15; 58, 56, $7, 70
15, 38; 58, 53; 67, 32, 35. KeAevw, 7, 593 9, 69; 10, B Kpiots, 37, 4; 54, 19; 58, 54;
(B) with accusative: I, 13; 14, 71; 15, 35, 65; 16, 66, 5
BG; 2, 6, 9315.00; 75146; ET SaeeCOlMmE AE53 1.223020; KpiTnptov, 7, 46; 9, 49; 10,
14, 4, 27, 77, 83, 85; 15, 26, bi2s553) 3159132543525; AUS L481 OO Ola 22.820
1238395, 40:16, 28% 2252, 66, 6 (2) (bis), 21; 31, 113; 37, 53
8, 21, 26; 23, 3, 32, 34, KepcAaov, 31, 132 39, 9; 58, 53, 70
66; 26, b 24; 28, B 17; 33, Kepadn, 31, 99; 58, 61; 59, KpiTys, 2, 55 (bis); 7, 49, 59,
S53 35s 12; 37> 8x 38K, 8 OL39225 1959316105, 01235
12; 40, 30; 41, 6; 43, 10, KHSopet, 31, 78 TG, EXO, TEV, 1H)
15; 52, 55; 58, 12, 90; 59, Knpwpcc, 12, 20 (?); 14, 75; KTnua, 6, B 2
TIO5, or54 ty, © col. II, 23, 59 KTHots, 33, 8; 37, 3; 59, I
D525 GE, 64,168,075, 80, KiapioTys, 49, 4-5 KUKAos, 28, B 12; 30, 16
82; 70, 8, 9, 10. See also Kwvdvuvevw, 58, 14 Kupievw, I, A 6, B 6; 2, 21,
vomos; mpeaBelo xlvdvvos, 18, 7; 20, C 8 24
KkarayyeAAw, 31, 139, 141 KAnpovopia, 22, 16 KUptos, 9, 65; II, 10, 18; 13,
KaTadnros, 40, 24 KAfjpos, 31, 120 4; 15, 11, 53; 18, 525 30,
KaTaéouKos, 15, 40, 52; 58, KAnpow, 31, 107, 112, 129 14; 37, 4; 58, 58; 59, 6.
KAjpwois, 31, 137 See also o7rws
67
KaTadovAdw, 40, 28 KAnpwtds, 31, 87 Kupiws, 14, 28
KaTadovAwots, 40, II Koiyxridvos, 4, 13; 9, 10; Kupow, 23, 41; 28, B 17; 31,
KataKoAovbéw, 70, 4 12, 21; 14, 76, 85 iS
KaTtadadeéw, 33, 6-7 Kowov, TO, I, BI; 38, 20; Kwrvw, 5, 7, 273 15, 453 31,
KatoaAelmw, 21, col. 2, I; 49, 6; 52, 43; 57,3 (=k. 114
23, 38 tov ano ths *"Aaias Kwpn, 18, 98, 105; 28, B 14
Karadoyn, 17, 8; 18, 55; 21, ‘EAAnjvwr) ; 65, 26
Kowos, 15, 20, 22, 23, 41, Aayyavw, 31, 120, 143
Collies sees) 939235. 375
48, 6; 49, B 4 42, 46, 49, 62; 16, 45; 37, AcOpa, 37, 6
KaTaAue, 37,1 7 (€mi 76 Kowvdv) ;40, 35; AopBavw, 2, $5; 15, 18
43, 15 (KkaT& Kowor); 59, (€[A&] Boor) , 24; 31, 99;
KaraAvots, 43, 19
KaTaAvw, 63, 7 I; 65, 8, 12, 19; 67, 34 45, 15; 58, 47, 53; 61, 73
Kowwvia, 2, 54 65, 12; 70, 10
KaTa&Lovos, 37, 9
Kow@s, 52, 50 Aads, 20, G 8
KaTaTopevopia, 2, 42

377
INDEX I

Aéyw, 4, 4; 23, 28; 33, 15; 2; 57, 12; 65, 28 vopmoypapew, 43, 19
43, 6; 45, I4. déyet pLeptopos, 37, 6 vopoypados, 43, 24
(edict): 31, 73 [epos, 15, 28; 31, 9, 57; vopwolereéw, 31, 91
Aeniatéw, 60, B 8 1223933 543 10M4aSy oy vomos, 9, $1; 15, 42; 17, 11;
Aetzrw, 35, 15 IO, AEP 7), hy ted, ©) 18, 49, 91; 23, 19, 25, 32,
Aevroupyew, 31, 115 péoos, 12, 9; 65, C col. II, 35, 66; 24, B 7; 28, A 26,
Aevroupyia, 31, 104, I14, D777 B 8; 31, 95, 103, 117; 43,
136; 49, Bo; 58, 22 yyy °28, BS2n8 16,93 93525 14525 5sel 2p eens
AevkoAbos, 65, D 63, 65 TOO, sDSa O yea Smo. 31,43 (= VOMAL > AreiAan
AevKos, 52, 49 140, 141; 33, 6, 14; 37, 73 [kat vou] “Lovri[we]),
Anoreta, 59, 10 43, 273 52; 55, 595.583057 66; 65, D83 (& Td
AvBovos, 37, 2 (ujre); 59, 7; 61, 6 KopvnXtwt vopwe) 5 70, i$,

NiBos, 52, 49 (emi A. (unde ... undé), 11; 65, 18. KaT& vopov: 9, 50,
NevKod) GAS al ig Os PTE RSs 57,63; 665°15,.39, 53; 16,
Aupnv NI, A 6p B6;V 250 58; LTE: 16, 33, 39; 49,B 10; 12; 225 105 35, 225055020
18, 98, 105; 20, E 16; 23, 59, 6 (x. v. Movveriov Kat
46; 71, 4 pndeis, 14, 15; 31, 81, 112; Aipiriov). See also
Aoyedw, 59, 7 By on We BES ae Gy ke Xpcopa; oNnoTEpTios;
AGVOS MS, 035N7; S023 054; pry, 22, 3; 24, 5; 27, 23 43, plobwats
41, 6; 45, 15; 58, 11; 65, 2058583) 150735805 mO2 9s 5 vopopvrAcKov, 52, 53
D 46. Adyous moveiv: 1, 65, D 54; 68;)74, 75; 79; vooos, 31, 96, II4
3552500, 127,027, 9925630; 83; 69, 4, II rz voogilw, 31, 132
46, 56; 5, 245 7, 42, 44, paTnp, 51, 19 voupnvic, 43, 25; 65, 21, D
Sie (5, Ws RSE Os Jal 2}, 18) puKpos, 5, 29 (du CAnocov = 50, 74, 75, 79
57.93) LL, Leta 202 quominus); 15, 25 vods, 52, 55
1h FR 1b, OD, uO =e), Ast (odd[ev eAaocov]), 57 VUKTWP, 67, 33
72; 15, 56, 62; 18, 26, 73, (du eAaoocov); 31, 106 vov, 14, 48; 15, 45 (rod
7Atazes P2310 24 yen: (€Acrrous). See also viv); 34, 20; 38, 16; 60,
PLE KS, US Py, Tes sui €\uocov A'9} 65, Di47, 723 67, 37
85; 34, 12 (Adyor 7.) probdw, 12, 15; 22, 23, 26; vu&, 67, 13
Aowros, 14, 71; 18, 64, 119; 26, b 25 vwpwaw, 14, 56, 58, 64
ZONG 2058335253022 puicbwois: — pura Pcdoews VOVELy Ty Gir} 45/1339, 10;
57, 13 vomos, 23, 19, 25, 32, 35, 24, 3
Ados, 65, D 70 66
puooTrévnpos, 67, 31 Haveikos, 65, D 69, 77
Maios, 1, C 1; 22, 3 pvnun, 14, 353 17, 7 Eévia, Ta: (A) &. Sodvan: 9,
poaKpos, 31, 95 pdd.os, 48, 8 67; 16, 10; 18, 90. (B) €.
pucAa, 34, 13 (ucAvor’ cv) pLovov, 31, 130 amootTeAAew: 10, Ag, B
pGArov, 28, A 32; 65, 25. pupids, 58, 67 123 153 645) 22, 25
pGAAov 7: 20, C 5 févos, 22, 2 (arparnydos
pavOcvw, 33, 11 vads, 60, B 6; 65, 29 ....emt TOv E€vewr); 52,
Méprios, 24, 3 vowvaupxos, 58, 76, 81, 88 23
paptupew, 31, 117; 70, 13 vavs, 16, 34, 40; 26, d 11
peptus, 31, 95, 139 véos, 65, 21, D 50, 79 oydoos, 14, 75; 29, 2
Leyadoppoavvy, 18, 83 vews, 16, 48; 19, 4; 20,E 7; O0€, 4, II; 15, 36
péyas, 20, C 8; 58, 13; 65, 27, 4 00s, 45, 19
D 43, 56 VEWTEPLOLOS, 40, 24 o0ev, 52, 41
péyebos, 65, D 46 vicos, 14, 16, 26, 56, 64; olSa, 14, 26, 53; 23, 33 52,
petAvov, 31, 108, 109, 112 26, d 21 21. See also iva eidfre
peAdw: (A) eis TO péAdov, viKdw, 9, 49, $6; 14, 38 oikeios, 31, 36, 39; 38, 14;
26, b 35; (B) To péAdov, vikn, 18, 32; 23, 49; 62, 12 45, 3, Wf

37, 5 NoévBpwos, 23, 60 oikevoTns, 31, 116

pevrot, 33, 13-14 voew, 52, 57 oikérns, 14, 48; 67, 12, 21,
prev, II, 18; 13, 4; 21, col. voila, 39, I1; 66, 3 24
Pele oye Bion pey Sud ob 18} Vomtijmos, 66, 4 olkéw, I, B 5; 57, 9

378
SERMO GRAECUS

OLK(e, 25 255 3,) $7. 22ycz4: opy, 67, 22 23,839) 35) 403 Ssn3Tsc7;
33, 93 37, 3, 34; 67, 14, dpbas, 37, 5; 67, 37 47, 58; 9, 60; 10, B 10;
P75 20,933 opilw, 14, 67, 80 13; 7; 15, 54; 16, 1; 18, 67;
oikodomew, 14, 71, 81 ptov, 7, 55; 10, Bg; 12, 22, Oe 2ZOn TO, Ci5an(C)
olkoveunuc, 28, A 20 533.17; 13 (?) ottws Kabw@s cv adrar
oikos, 25, 13; 38, 10; 43, 27; Opiope, 12, 8 (?) (adrois) trav Snpooiwy
58, 55 dp[touov], 10, B 11 TpPAYUATwWY TloTEwWS TE
olopat, 6, 6; 65, 25 dpkilw, 43, 25 Ths dias daivntrou: 2, 12
olrwves, 2, 7, 22, 36, 40 OpkKtov, 16, 43; 26, b 36, c 6; (without otvtws Kabds
OKTW, 14, 19 28, A 26 av obt&t), 39; 6, Bg; 7,
OKTWKALOEKATOS, 67, 4 Opuaw, 22, 13, 14, 15, 21 SOs OM O=72 010, ALTi.
’OxrapBpios, 2, 3, 14; 23, Opos, 12, 7; 65, 10 B 13; I2, 15-16, 19-20;
6; 65, 23, D 51, $5 Opos, 2, 18; 28, B 14 14, 73-74; 15, 63, 65; 16,
driyos, 60, B 3 6900S, 3, 73 7, 60; 9, 63, 66; 8; 18, 120-22; 22, 31; 23,
OAos, 40, 21; 43, 8 TOMATSSHELO onSOs N22 010, 68-69; 26, b 25-26 (dmws
dAooyepOs, 33, 4 17; 23, 54; 31, 80, 132; ws dy...), ¢7 (dare
Opvupt, 31, 116, 118, 124 33, 8, 13; 35, 11; 37, 4; Ov aes 5. 19<2055.42,. 16.
Omolws, 23, 48; 26, d 18; 31, 70, 13 (D) otrws doxe?: 10, A 8
KOSNE LROWeTAZ® 43, 520. Oo7rep, 21, col. 1, 13; 23, 543 ovyl, 2, 41
Opmoiws Te: 21, col. 1, 17, 7I, 3 ofethw, 22, 16, 22 (bis), 23;
25; 28, B 6; 55, 10 Gattis, 12, 22; 15, 15; 18, 28, B 16
oporoyéew, 28, B 3; 43, 23; TOS TE TRS Pi, tolls, Oe dderos, 65, 12
48, 6; 58, 65; 67, 39 Ba EP ORIG ORs TYR OL cl ope oxupow, 17, 13
opodoyos, 14, 25 30, 10 dxvpwpuc, 28, B14
‘“Ouovoiw, 27, 5 Temple of 6Trav, 14, 72; 26, b 23; 38, 11 dys, 65, 8
Concordia OTE, 31, 94; 61, 27; 70, 16
Opmopéw, 21, col. 1, 20 O78, 16, 9:26, b 327 33, 12; Tats, 68, 26
Omopos, 45, 10 34, II; 39, 10; 41, 2; 65, TroAcos, 63, 5
Guws, 59, 5 11, D 59 maAw, 6, 9; 26, b 27; 57, 24
Ovop.a, 58, 60; 61, 25 OTLobV, 67, 32 Tovinyupis, 57, 16
O7rAov, 16, 39 od pny GAAG Kal... 534,15 ITévnpos, 65, D 70
Omrotos, 26, C7 od povov ... aAAX Kal, 26, movTobev, 23, 44
o7roTav, 64, 8 b 9; 28, A 18-21; 43, 13- mapa: (A) dative: 52, 52;
OmrOTEpos, 7, 53 15; 65, D 38 58, 68; 70, 17. (B) gen-
O7rov, 15, 60 ODS 2825220 itive: I, B 3; 7, 523 10, B
émws, I, A 3, B 3; 2, 8, I0, ovdemoTe, 14, 33 Del 5 0335) 19) 05 1b17902315
Py. PU, Dey Py MP EKER ovdels, 26, b 32; 33, 123 35, 227 (Diss 27el gees ie
32-33, 34 (bis), 38, 41, 43, 6; 36, 8-9; 38, 5-6; 40, II; 126; 34, 4, 153 35, 3, 14;
47, 493 3, 73 5, 253 7) 46, 51, 32; 58, 14, 83; 65, 6, 38, 3, 21; 39, 3, 7; 40, 32;
47, 55, 58, 60; 9, 24, 25, rir DA7 49, 6; 56, 4; 58, 52; 64,
SoceLOoeD Os LY, 35010; ovv, I, B 4, 7; 14, 503 37, 73 15; 65, 2; 68, 24; 70, 9.
TEAL 2992 2285 365.05) 03; 005 43, 11; 49, 13; 58, 78, 92; (C) accusative: 14, 7; 15,
69, 71, 83, 87, 91, 96; 15, 68, 26 IO, POR PI, XO OX, SHIR RY
13, 15, 33, 48, 53, 58, 61, ovata, 31, 17 82; 38, 19; 40, 7; 52, 56;
O2NO4sIE 7 LOLS. 85051 59, OUTE: OUTE aoe ovTeE, 39, II; 64,2 Tee O55) 027, Des.
62),165,5113; 20, G10; 22, 40, 9; 67, 18 (D) Top €uod: 49, 16.
S28 Leet Aes oe 20, ovTws, 9, 65 (odrw doKe?t (E) map’ yudv: 2, 41; 26,
Bl. 2An27 929323, 23,29; KUpicx elvou Seiv); 10, A 9, b 29. (F) map’ dpiv: 26,
Pi, DR 20 Ne) AGE ety Mesa e B 9; 13, 1; 14, 58, 66; 18, b 28; 43, 6; 49, 9; 58, 6;
Zit, Oli, WOK, WS aR, Re IAS FP, BO PEI, Re CL Le 67, 29
35, 173 37, 73 38, 11; 40, 33, d 2 (ovTws ws av...); mrapaBoaivw, 40, 14
4, 27; 42, 20; 48, II; 49, 48, 5; 51, 39; 58, 21, 71; trapaBddov, 66, 8
13; 57, 25; 58, 8; 65, 23, 65, 15. (A) ovTw Kabuds: mopayivomc, 2, 41; 5, 29;
D 52, 64; 70, 15 6, B9; 9, 26; 14, 79, 96. 7, 54, 62; 9, 22, 48; 14,
opaw, 20, C 6 (B) ovrws edokev: 2, 10, 13, 32, 49; 16, 52; 22, 7,

379
INDEX I

17, 27, 28; 24, 6; 35, 8; Treipcopal, 34, 22; 35, 8, 13, TOUTOV: 5, II; 31, 130;
40, 31; 58, 62; 60, Ag 15; 37, 8; 38, 22; 58, 80 39, 10 (a. 7. doer).
mropadidwp, 21, col. 1, 21, TEULTTOS, 29, 2 (H) wept rod + infinitive:
23 méepmw, 14, 50; 31, 78; 47, 2, 56. See also duadéyw
TapaiTnats, 31, 103, 124 39, 46; 58, 6, 62; 67, 27 meptrapBavw, 40, 16
moapaitios: (A) mapairios mens, 31, 96 meptovoia, 59, 3
aya0od: 15, 47 (mapouriay TEVTMETNPLKOS, 47, 30 mepimintw, 20, C8; 21,
Tov peylotwr ayabdy) ; mevTe, 2, 12; 9, 70; 10, A 10, (Soll Te KOR Cui 7
58, 80 (ayabod Tivos Bi 23624 eeeegl 226i 24, mepioads, 14, 19; 65, 24
bpeiv yelveoba mapai- I4I mepioraats, 71, 6 (?)
tuos). (B) cet twos dpiv mépav, 40, 10 ITepirvos, 65, D 69, 73
ayabod (mapaitios) 0éAw mépas, 65, 10 mnkTos, 45, 18
yevéobar: 26, b 4, 35; 35; mepi: (A) genitive: 1, B2, TKpOs, ZOmG 7
9, 13 (a T. ayabod TZ) Onl 7Log Ones Ass mivaé, 22, 25 (miva<Ka>
moapaitior y.); 38, 22-23 46;/50, 533.3, 103 5, 43 7, yaAkoby pidtas)
(meipacducOa a. T. a. 7. 51, 57, 593 9, 19 (bis), 48; TimTpaoKw, 22, 14
... ylvecOat) 10, B 6, 9; 12, 20, 22; 14, mlotis, 18, 5, 45; 20, E7
Trapakar€w, 28, A 22; 44, 8; Ay 51 165.3334, 47355205; (Temple of ITiorts); 27,
47, 43-44, 46 TS 804 e220 COleerw2 On 2" 193;30, 1$3'35,°9; 153°47,
trapoAcpBavw, 65, 2 COlM2N I 2252 be 20a SA A225 582115 h (Saeco lmeesce
ToapoaAeirw, 58, 83 645526582 6-8 DiGO 783 3e0rs also oUTws KaOwWs av.
Toapacreiyw, 16, 13 (a. aAetarov) ;34, 6; 37; mloTOs, 22, 7, II
TapaTaocow, 20, C 3; 30, 7 3, 4; 38, 15, 17; 39, 9; 40, mAeiatos, 65, 25
Tmoaparelyiopa, 71, 2 (?) 18; 42, 7; 43, 53 44, 12; mAeovakis, 24, B9
mapatuyyavw, 4, 61 5522 57k bE, ae O,e e275 mAnv, 31, 393 40, 19
(apeTrvyooar) Boe GEE i) HOS Sy Wzlg WO) mAnpow, 65, D 34
Tmoapayerpacia, 58, 35 60, A 7, B 7; 67, 10; 68, aAotov, 22, 7
TApaxXpHuUc, 57, 19 25:9 60; 10; 70, °8..)(B) Teva, 20, C 3
Tmropaywpile, 43, 20 ACCUSALLVE sO N27 eS, trot, 67, 30
mré&peys, 9, 32; 15, 39; 18, 30) 3158458495 0038 5758205 movew, 2, 40; 7, 573 9, 673
662°26,74 T1331, 75,, 100; 69, 11. (C) mepi dv: 2, IO, B IL; 14; 7; 35; 15720;
1257435) 0050595 0075107519 5, 17, 27, 31, 36, 46, 53, 32, 37, 42, 45, SI (bis), 58,
See also ypadopévw map- $65°5,°233 7,/40, 42; 55; OL3°1G6; Tis 18374, 320029
Hoav ; cvpBovAov 9, 14; 10, A573 Ar 73 1, 935 20, E 82)22, 253526, b
TmoapevoyA€w, 35, 17 5; 12, 6; 14, 8; 15, 29, 34, MD PRIN ev Gl <b ce 2s:
Toapepxopor, 22, 15 36, 56, 62; 18, 73; 22, 5; 47, 80, 120, 1383 33, 3, 13;
TapeEcts, 58, 22 ZZ ATO 240244 035 205C nr, 35, 9; 40, 24; 43, 13; 46,
Toapevpickw, 65, D 60 17; 27, 11; 31, 84 (= daep 5; 48, 4, 10; 52, 53; 58,
Tapexw, 22, 7-8; 43, 17; 58, @v where one expects 61, 64, 81, 92; 64, 12; 67,
15, 83; 63, 6; 65, 26 m. Dv), 85, 131; 34, 11; 39, 37. See also Adyous
Tropinn, 31, 137 (mapic0- 5; 43, 10; 54, 4; 55, 17; TTOLELV

waa) ? 58, 78, 93. (D) zepi od: ToX€pwos, 16, 30, 35; 20, C
TopoxXy, 22, 26 (ré70v . 14, 64. (E) wept Hs: 7, 3, 7; 26, d 3, 7; 60, Br, 5
Te); 49, B 12 44; 23, 32. (F) rept moXepos, 2, 48-49; 14, 7, 12,
meoXW, 31, 82; 67, 32; 70, ToUTOU TOD mpcypwaTos: 2, 13)) 20585741051 (Dis) 163020)
14 9-10, 21, 38, 42, SI, $4, 33, 39, 42; 18, 6, 47, $1;
marnp, 31,59 57; 3, 6; 5, 30-31; 6, B 7; 20,,G 9:'2Tcola Dag.aa2:
marptos, 1, A 6, B 7; 37, 9; 7, 46, 57, 61; 9, 24, 30, 43, 7; 26, d 6, 12; 30, 8; 40,
38, 24 SAR 5Oy LO. LOse TEs 12) 27; 41, 3; 58, 82, 88, 90;
martpis, 16, 54; 22, 8, 12, 14, 1) Oia (GUNS Tey, Ge 65, D 36; 71, 6
LS ples 20 14, $5, 71; 15, 53-54; 16, To\opKew, 6, B 1
mavw, 65, D 36 DLO WO7Me2asrO, 205823, ToXuopkKia, 20, C 6; 67, 15
mewWoapyéw, 15, 14 FN oe LUM leak Gy Ode WoAts, 1, B 2} $3/2, 23,131,
melOw, 26, b 33; 34, 16; 41, 25; 31, 54; 48, 9; 54, 5. 40, $9; 3, 4; 6, B1; 14, 7;
2 (G) wept rov’twy or zepi 18, 30, $4; 20, E15, Fo,

380
SERMO GRAECUS

G2; 22, 2 (orparnyds

Karc& médw), 19, 22, 26;
mpéoPets, of, 35, 3; 36, 5; mpoyovikds, 14, 28
67, 5; 68, 23; 70, 2; 74, 2 mpoyovos, 14, 16; 18, 3; 26,
23, 46; 26, a 10, b 4, 9, 31; mpeoBeutal, of SéKa, 9, 52; b 25; 31, 90
28, A 16, B Io, 13; 29, 3
(Tapias Kare moAw) ; 30,
10, B 6; 13, 10; 25, 15
Mpoypoppicc, 31, 79
mpeaBevtys, I, B 1-2; 4, 5; Tpoypédw, 57, 28; 58, 28,
2505 se LOS TeLOO RT 120 Esa. 7, 36, 40, 42, 56 (bis); 9, 60, 65, 70
WASH335 02510334570; 10; 16, 38; 10, B 4; 14, 1, 18, Tpodavevapos, 59, II
B5.e 158375 10.85/71; 140, $0, $5, 81, 91; 15, 29, 52, mpoetoov, 59, 10
16, 28; 52, 47, 52; 58, 48, 54; 16, 52, 54; 18, 17, 65, TPoepXop.cee, 70, 16
$0, 81; 59, 2, 3, 9, II; 60, OF arora fas 13020,0 A; mMponyopew, 31, 138
IB 23945 GI; 35.4;5 103) 65, DD Sea 20 colts 2..13, mpdo0ects, 70, 4
14, D $I, 53, 61, 65; 69, COl. 2e62822 929523 18° mpoleopia, 22, 15
9; 70, 20 26, a5, bi4; 28, Arq; mpoOupia, 34, 8 (pera
moAureia, 18, 104, 107; 25, 32, 6; 34, 19; 38, 8, 13, mé&ons m.); 58, 84
9; 28, B 8; 43, 10, 19; 49, 21; 47, 46-47; 49, 6; 52, mpoOupos, 18, 82; 58, 92
B 5; 58, 10, 20, 51, 63, 91; 59; 55, 10; 56, 3; 58, 61, mpoinut, 14, 34
65, 21; 78, 6 (°) 62;60,A 10. mpeoBevrai TpoloTn, 31, 139; 33, 53
moNrevwa, 14, 84 amootadévtes (aut 40, 23; 44, 4
moMrevw, I, B 6; 35, 12 Sitilid) el Os AC 2m Dail TpOKEyLcce, 16, 12
moXirns, 28, A 43, B 13; 37, 15, 29-30 (= e€[amoora- mpoKplua, 26, € 6 (2); 58, 61
I; 48, 2; 58, 21; 60, B 3; Aévres]), 34 (am[oor- mporapBavw, 65, D 37
61, 24. troXirns ‘Pwpo- ev]Acv[t]wy auadv mpe- mpovoew, 63, 9; 65, D 64;
tos: 58, 28, 29 aBe[utas ...]); 16, 52 67, 38
moAvs, 5, 3; 20, C 8; 26, a8; (6 a@mocradels m.); 22, Tpovo.e, 35, 9; 65, D 32
SIMPELSS PLIOSE T4051 AT, 27, 28; 34, 5; 38, 3; 39, 3; mpovopica, 25, 5; 51, 36
144; 33, 13; 34, 12, 16; 58, 40, 17; 58, 76 (of ze- mpos: (A) dative: 14, 20; 16,
T3 seSSs8 O02) DI25 63,7: udbevtres 7.) 49. (B) accusative: 2,
See also xivédvvos mpeoBevw, 14, 34; 15, 23; 23 cAN42ees4 11067.
trovnpos: SdAw trovnp®@, 16, 18, 13; 24, 6; 34, 6; 37, 8; 56, 62 (bis); 10, BI, 6, 9;
40; 58, 65 49, II 14, 23, 50, 54 (bis), 59;
mopevomat, II, 7, 17; 18, mpeaButepos, 56, 3; 68, 26 15, 37, 62; 16, 45, 58
61 mpiv, 31, 123 (mpl av) (wort); 18, Ii, 12, 13, 37,
Tlopwia, 14, 77 mpo: (A) mpo yéepas: 14, $1, 94, 107; 21, col. I, 21,
moppupa, 57, 18 67; 80, 87. (B) apo Gl Dp DS SFr, M7, GO oe}
MOTE, 2, 25; 3, 7; 14, 7; 18, ELO@V: 23, 5; 32, 5; 62, 14; 32; 26, b 12, 27; 28, B 14;
ILO; 22, 23; 33, 8 69, 5. (C) mpd ewea Gi scteleln TOLER BY anek, iets
mobs, 23, 44 Kadavidv *OxtwBpiwv: 24; 35, 7, 16; 38, 9, 10, 15,
mpdypwa, 2, 7, 9; 9, 25; Il, 65,823, 8LDISi,5 55..8(D) 20; 43, 14; 45, 2, 10; 48,
6; 14, 75; 18, 46, 120; 21, mpo even Kadavddv 3; 49, BI; 52, 43, 46; 55,
GOl NEN ZONCOla2 2 722.12, DeBpovapiwv: 65, 74. 13; 57, 19; 58, 14, 55, OI,
RSe2OAZS. 22) 553 20,645 (E) mp0 jwepOv: I, C1; 78, 91, 93; 63, 8; 64, 18;
28; A 17, B 7; 153 31, 123; 2, 2; 4, 12; 8, 7; 9, 9; 10, 67,708.31: 7012, 19
38, 12; 58, SI, 54, 63. B 2; 14, 76; 19, 3; 20, A Tpocayopevw, Tay TEse23"
See also mepi tovtTov Tob 4; 22, 4; 23, 60; 24, A3; 17. See also avip
Tpc&yLaTos ; dnpoowe. 26, C29; 27, 4; 29, 3. mpookyw, 2, 23; 31, 102
mptypara; odtws Kalas (F) mpo rob 4: 2, 22; 14, mpocavahepw, 23, 30; 58, 57
av. 57, 65 mpoaPoAn, 67, 19
mpca&is, 14, 22, 64 Tpoayw, 43, 25; 67, 22 Tpooyivop.cte, 65, 20
mpaats, 61, 26 Tponywyn, 58, 64 Tpocepxouat, 3, 2; 15, 62;
mpaoow, 15, 42; 20, E11; Tpocupeop.ot, 16, 56; 22, 20, 55, 11; 61, 25. mpo-
22, 8, 16; 31, 98; 40, 22; 27 onAPocav: 4, 7-8; 14, 91
43, 18 Tpoulpeats, 18, 46; 33, 4; TMpooexw, 2, 44; 9, 25; 38,
mpeaBeia, 9, 70; 10, A 10; 43, 16; 58, 15 8
Bezel A Gers 39505 00,705 mpouipew, 57, 29 TpoonkoOvTws, 18, 100
mpoyivopot, 34, 9 mMpoonkw, 31, 82, 116; 39, 7
72; 51, 6

381
INDEX I

mpoonr\ow, 20, E6; 26, b Lapamvetiov, 7d, 5, 6 atvAotrapacTas, 52, 48

19, 23 LieBaoros, 2, b 37, ¢23; 31, ovyyevern, 31, 116
mpooKpivw, tle SS) 72, 86; 5, 16, 28, D 34, ovyyevys, 53, 8
mpoodAcpuBavw, 15, 40; 65, 48, 52, 59, 64; 67, 2; 72, ovyKkaratiOnp, 47, 45
24. I, 9
ovyKatapréyw, 60, B 4
mpoopepilw, 28, Bs; 30, o¢Bopa, 38, 24 ovyKAntiKés, 31, TIO
Tit, Ie! LentévBpvos, 27, 4; 32, § ovyKAntos (Senatus Roman-
mpoaooos, 2, 18, 20; 12, 15; onoteptios: amo onoTepTiwv U5),.0 B45 eel Demers
15, 22; 18, 106; 20, E 13, vopwr, 9, 69; 10, A Io, 8-9, 10; 6, B 6; 7, 34; 7;
Pit? TcOler Lomz2q23e B 13; 58, 66 37 (bis); 8, 5; 9, 5, 393 10,
FE}, Pht, Ag, MGs Xs, |) Quis oTomeTplc, 31, 114 (ezrupe- Bitz. 6125 [4s LO. Zo
28, B 14; 31, 105; 59, 6 Ants cevtomeTpias) (bis), 31, 50, 51, 73, 92
mpooopilw, 18, 97, 105, 108; Gtros, 2, $3 (bis), 96; I5, 10, 16, 17,
23, 22, 56 omoven, 15, 45 22 275 Fla AO Lo OmOns
TpooTre UT, 60, A8 omrovd, 16, 56; 38, 5; 52, 68, 130; 20, D 6, Eg; 21,
mpootdoow, 65, 28, 29; 67, 19; 58, 84; 65, D 32 Cold, As TA LOLS 22,
it, Si otepaveitns, 57, 9 El, 12, 275830723 Os
mpooriOnu, 16, 45, 46; 23, otepavnpopos, 27, 1; 69, 2 4139541505020, DEL Som 2.
44 otépavos, 2, 32, 33, 34; 15, C 337.28, Bios 3L,n8it.nc 7s
mpoadhepw, 16, 56 44, 49; 18, 123; 58, 79; TOL, 102,) 104, 106,m in,
TMpocwmov: KaTad mpdoaw- 65, D 43, 56 118; 34, 3; 38, 2, 7, 18;
TOV, 7, 42, 44, 56; 10, B otepavow, 65, D 59 39, 2, 5, 6; 42, 17; 48, 6,
6, 9; 18, 68 aTHAn, 37, 2; 58, 5; 65, 29, 12; 49, B 6; 58, 61; 70, 14.
mpotepov, 1, C5; 5, 9, 323 D 63, 65, 67 ovykAnrou Sdypa: 4, IT;
13, 3, 14, 8, 17, 483 15, otiyos: ékTos Tod oTixov, 5, 36; 7, 46; 9, 53; II, 2;
60 (70 mpdTepor) ; 18, 91; 18, 66 13, 5; 14, 8, 27, 77, 83,
oy, itis OXS, lis, Die, 25/8 oroxyalouat, 33, 16; 34, 85,2933 E55) 125932920205,
38, 8; 43, 27; 57, 5; 60, 13-145 37) 7 20,003 169223518797 220;
A 5; 65, 2 aToryew, 65, D 52 J 2; 22, 8, 22; 23, 3, 34,
mpotepos, 16, 42; 26, d 12. oTparela, 49, B10 36, 41, 52, $9; 26, b 36,
mpotépat: 2, 14 (Roman otpatevpa. See dyraivw 38, C17; 31, 74, 83, 98,
date) oTpaTnyew, 9, I 129, 142; 42, 19; 49, 12,
TpoTipio, 34, 17 oTparnytKos, 31, 108 16; 70, 11. See also oup-
TpoTpeTrw, 47, 32 otpatnyos (Greek magi- BovAevopon TH ovyKAnTw
mpotuTow, 65, 15 strate), 005, iar On O14 7, ovyxpnpmatilw, 65, D 53
mpouTrapyw, 57, II 52-53; 69, 9 avyxvots, 43, 8
mpopaivw, 58, 69 otpatnyos ( = praetor), I, ovyywpéw, 17, 10; 18, 97;
mpoxeipilw, 34, 6 Cie e ne sly BOs Cae gis 20 PERT Seah ecOlomieml 7
mpoxwpew, 14, 4 £6 35 By WOE 7G ZK), Sty Wile 23, 21, 27 (bis), 56, $7; 26,
mpowndilowo, 65, D 54 9; S—979 O83 Fi Ess7 DeLOse2 2592 -52Sen 8s O5
mpUravis, 16, 51; 55, 5; OI, 12, 10 (o. Kat& dHpor); 2; 35, 10; 44, 3; 49, B 7-
22 1422018, .925693,4349 37; 8; 57, 18, 19
mp@tos, 18, 6; 23, 58; 29, 59; 16, 16-17 ([o7po- oulevyvupt, 25, 8; 58, 16
3; 65, D 54 THyos Kate] modu); 22, oupBaivw, 40, 25; 65, 13
mraiw, 60, Br 2 (otparnyod Kata moAw ovpfos, 20,63
m@s, 52, 41; 67, 28 Kal emt THVv E€vwv) ; 34, 2; ovpBorov, 14, 36
38, 11; 43, 26 (éi«r. ovpPovAcvw, 23, 58. ovp-
pdov, 31, 91 févwy a.). (A) orpa- Bovredopou TH ovyKAnTw:
‘Pwpaikds, 65, Col. II, Tnyos “‘Pwyaiwy: 1, B 1; 1, @ 122) 23 0505.10,.b
D 53 8,2. (B) orparnyos trea- 2; II, 4; 18, 19; 19, 2-3;
povvupe: "Eppwale, 34, 24; TOS 210, 2° TA.) 00.102. oe
35, 17; 52, 60; 58, 8, 84, 70; 33, 1; 35, 1; 36, 1; 38, avpBovAwov (= consilium),
93; 67, 39; 68, 27; 76, 6. I; 44, 10 25, 4; 42, 9; 48, 6. (A)
See also et Eppwobe; eb av oTpaTiwotyns, 18, 80 peeTa& ovpBovdAtov: 12, 21;
éxou oTparoredov, 2, 23; 48, 7 14, 75; 17, 9; 18, 96; 43,

382
SERMO GRAECUS

11. (B) amo ocvpBov- avvo.da, 63, 6; 68, 25 TEDOUPETKALOEKATOS, 23, 59

Alov yuwuns: 12, 48; 14, ovvopvupt, 205G 2 TETUPTOV, 58, 2, 74, 85
Th, OTR 2k 225 Bey. Zey ovvopaw, 60, B 10 Texvitns, 15, 18, 23, 38, 40,
55-56; 49, B 2-3; 51, 38. ouvteAéw, 15, 30, 493; 23, 48, 43, 50, 53, 57 (bis), 58, 59.
(C) €v ocvpBovrtjtw map- 49; 38, 7; 43, 5 of mept tov Avdvucov
NCEOVAT2 231235 6. 57. avvTnpew, 15, 48; 18, 36, Texvitol: 15, 29; 44, II;
(D) ex ovpBovrtov 80; 52, 40; 58, 80 49, 6-7
yuwpns: 31, 87. (E) em ovvriOnur, 14, 39 TNpEew, 18, 5; 70, §
tod ovvBovAiov: 48, 4 ouvtvyyavw, 26, a5; 52, TlOnut, 15, 173 47, 29; 65,
(_seaccessito aaa) 39; 68, 24 D 63, 67
ovuppayic, 16, 21, 58; 18, avaTnuc, 63, 4 Ticaw, 18, 58; 38, 24; 58,
AS etAweis 5s0 40, 18. nee ovoTparevw, 58, 12, 81, 88, 253.68, 24
also yapis piAlw ovppo- 90 TiN, 26, a 6; 28, A 40, B 3;
xla Te avavedw; yaAKww opddpa, 67, 30 49, B 4; 51, 25; 58, 79;
ovppayos, 14, I1; 21, col. axedov, 65, 3 60, B 11; 65, 16, 28, D 43,
2/53/23, 173.28, B 9; 31, oxXHua, 65, 7 48, 57, 60
77, 89, 91, 97- See also axoAdlw, 21, col. 1, 21, 23, TULNTHS, 25, 10, 12
diros avupaydos TE 25 Tipe, Ta, 34, 22; 57, 13; 58,
ouptroAcuew, 18, 84 owlw, 67, 27 30; 74, 7. See also
ouptropevouat, 15, 21; 47, o@pa, 6, B2 ovvrnpéw
39 owrTnpia, 20, C 6; 58, 16; TLLwplo, 38, 13
oupmpacow, 43, 21 65, D 49 Tl, 15, 56
oupdarvrs, 34, 16 TovtovTos, 28, A 43; 31, 933
ouppepw, 2, 32; 47, 57; 58, Tayol, 33, 2 37, 7; 58, 91
84 Tadowmwpia, 21, col. I, 10 TOmOS, 22, 26 (7. mapoynv
cupdopa, 20, C 8; 40, 26 TaAavrov, 15, 38 Te); 25, 13; 26, b 24; 28,
oupdwvew, 71, 5 Toplas (= quaestor), 9, 68; B 13; 31, 128; 45, 3; 49,
ovpdwvos, 15, 17, 58, 60 EO bata el S 055 LOw ros 9; 51, 22; 52, 47; 58, 80;
ovupduvws, 18, 27 22. 1206 (r. TOV KaTC i a, Se GPa. dnpooiw:
ovv, 65, D 45; 67, 24 moAw); 26, b25; 29, 3 16, 13
ouvayw, 15, 26; 31, 100 (top|Ov Kare od) TOGOS, 67, 28
ovvavTaw, 14, 28; 34, 14 TOPLEVTLKOS, 29, 2 TooovTos, 18, 108; 31, 1323
auvapyw, 26, c 2 Takis, 2, 42; 31, 127; 48, 10; 65, 17
ovvavécavw, 26, b 10 65, 15, D 82 TOTE, 14, 87; 31, III, 125
ouvedpiov, 43, 2 Tapaoow, 47, 35 Tpeis, 4, 13; 9, 55; 15, 28;
ovvedpos, 43, 4; 5 Tapayn, 40, 21; 43, 13 PX, 1S OR BR TG, Iie,
ovveopepw, 28, B 16 Taaow, 16, 33, 39; 31, 113; 119; 67, 13. (A) tpidv
ouverrayw, 67, 16 52, 39-40 avdp@v Ths TOV Snpwociwy
ovveTravéw, 34, 23 Taxvs, 31, 101 (ws Ta&yvoTa) mpaypatwv dvarakews:
ouvetuypadw, 31, 75-76 Tevxyilw, 2, 29, 30, 31; 3, II 28, A 3-5,B4. (B) tpidv
ouvepxopo, 15, 20 Tetxos, 45, 8 a. Snpociwy mpaypwarwv
auvevooKew, 9, 31 TéKvov, 20, C 2; 22, 12, 16, QMO KATAHOTAKOEWS: 57, 23
ovvex@s, 67, 14 17, 18 (bis), 27; 44, 7; 58, 58, 9
ouvnyopew, 31, 103 19, 24, 28, 37, 00 TPLAKOVTO, 14, 84; 31, 134
ovvyyopos, 31, 102 téAevos, 65, D 33 Tpiakdator, 14, 86
ovvndopot, 14, 3; 28, A 41 TEAclwots, 68, 26 TpiakoaioaTos, 14, 88
ovvnbeva, 65, C col. II; 70, tedevTy, II, 8 Tpis, 67, 33
9 Teréw, 14, 67; 18, 106, 109; Tpiros, 9, $5; 26, b 7; 27, 3;
ovvOyKn, 15, 17, 19, 275 513 2323 58, 3, 74; 60, A 2; 67, 16
16, 43, 45, 47 (bis), 48 TeAEws, 33, 12 Tpomos, 14, 56, 64; 21, col.
ovvioTnpt, 58, 54, 91 téAos, 18, 108; 22, 19; 23, MS TG}y WING hidy Tes GS) utsg
avvodos, 15, 20, 26, 32, 33, 515.58, 5155937 67, 15
37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 47, TEMEVosS, 23, 20, 26, 37, 40; Tuyyavw, 14, 77; 18, 64,
AQUS 35.00) (DiS) s5575 os Lls 28, B 10, 12; 65, D 64 THAOS 2Yig HAR Boy SH Sky
23 téaoupes, I, C1; 31, 108 13; 40, 13; 67, 20

383
INDEX I

TUupn, 12, 51 (?) 83, 84; 59, 1; 65, D 57; A 46, B 3; 30, 10; 34, 22;

tTU10s, 70, 17 700s 03 35, 14; 49, 11, B 3; 57,

tuyn: «yal tyN, 44, 93 brepaomilw, 18, 82 14, 28; 58, 30, 66, 90.
46, I; 49, 1; 55, 1; 60, ‘“YarepBeperaios, 65, D7I See also cuvrnpéw
A 8; 65, D 49 brrepTiOnp, 64, 16 prrovOpdirrws, 26, a 10.
brrepwveopat, 66, 8 diravOpwrrws amoKpivo-
banKoos, 21, col. 1, 15, 18, pou: 6, B5; 9, 61; 10,
UBpis, 67, 15, 33 col. 2, 7 A 6; 15, 54; 16, 5; 18, 35,
dytaivw: (A) Kaya pera to: (A) genitive: 67, 22. 68-69
Tod oTparevpatos dyic- (B) accusative: 16, 38. pirapyupew, 33, 12
vov: 26,22, b 8. (B) Kal (C) agent: 5, 13; 7, 60; 9, diria, 2, 7, 22; 9, 21, 473
avTos KTA.: 58, 75, 87; 60, 5; I1, 8; 14, 6 (bis), 15, 24, 18.78; 20). © 521 col..2,
A 5. (C) dylawov dé Kal 25x 30, 42,70; 15, 332.20; 53) 22).20, 252°23,5515 024,
adros peTa T. o.: 28, A Eei2) 225) Sina tus 20-8 B’53/26; b 3, 112 28,5 14;
II-12; 58, 4 £8,7225933,10;934,°0, 30, 47, 28; 70, 16. See also
Udpla, 2, 50 8; 46, 4; 49, 10; 58, 76; xapis piria cvppayia Te
bpérepos, 14, $2, 54, 83, 91; 61, 26; 65, 26, 28, D 47; avaveow
T8917-120,, Avg 4 21, colan, 68, 27; 70, 5, 14 pirodo€ia, 33, 13
2p Sy 2¥ly AG, PPS PIeh, Jelnieye drroypadw, 28, A47; 49, piAdorrarpis, 58, 79
33, 10; 35, 12; 48, 2; 55, 15; 58, 5; 69, 13 pidros, 6, 2; 22, 24; 28, B 9;
10; 56, 3; 61, 24 brrodeikvupu, 60, B 7; 61, 25 49, 5; 57, 7, 20-21; 67, II.
dmayw, 59, II brroboxyH, 58, 34 diros ovppayos TE. PaAle
dmakovw, 70, 18 bo0eaus, 55, 15 44; 9, 18, 41; 10, B 5; 12,
drradrAwyy, 59, 12 drrdKeypat, 59, 7 4; 58, 77. See also avijp
bmapxYovTa, Tx, 2, 25; 22, drroAapBavw, 65, 5, 9 piroTiyweopat, 68, 26
13, 14; 38, 14; 58, 20 U7oAEiTw, 31, 122 piroripic, 14, 5; 16, 56; 26,
dmapyw, 15, 19; 18, 95; 23, brropevw, 58, 17 8535075305895 30m:
45; 34, 10; 37, I, 9; 40, drropvnua, 23, 31; 70, 10 65, D 33
: 32; 45, 14; 55, 14; 70, 2 drrojLov", 58, 14 dirogpovws, 34, 93 39, 7
UTaTLKOS, 31, 107 vrrovobevw, 59, 2 dovetw, 60, B 3
Umatos (=consul), 2, 43; dmomintw, 67, 26 popodoyéw, 59, 3
Omns2, 04 LO Dalia rz. 0, UmoTaoow, 31, 79, 81. See fpovrilw, 14, 83; 15, 48;
T7 TA Ei 235 SO; SOs 15, also cvtiypadw 16; 7318,162, 025 TLtye bos
62, 64; 16, 6, 10, 15; 20, UaTepov, 2, 523; 70, 7 21, col. I, 26; col. 2,6; 22;
Besser oa lems nase Ane oS: bdhiornpt, 54, 14 2526 NCAOs 20 S31
23, 2, 4, 53, 64; 24, AT; 120; 37, 9; 38, II, 12; 49,
ZOMDETANGOma 2027-827 paivopat, 7, 60; 10, AQ; 13; 52, 49; 58, 72; 61, 10
4, 12; 29, 1; 31, 75, 85, 330165 43,000 24) 540 t. dportis, 31, 80
138; 58, 2, 73, 85; 60, A eav adtois (adt@) dai- puyas, 2, 28
2; 61, 2; 67, 3; 69, 6; 70, vyntrat: 15, 17-18; 18, 104; dvyodixéw, 66, 9
uieh, a1) 20, E 5; 22, 8, 24, 20; 26, pvAakn, 23, 21, 26, 37, 40
brrevavtios, 2, 36; 5, 35; 15, Di2dyac 6.) 22 erSeen also pvrcoow, 12, 8; 22, 23; 26,
A201 6.130,035482 0. 1COln2. ovtws Kabds dv adrdt ek d 2; 63, 5; 70, 6
8; 43, 9 T&v Snpooiwy KrA. pvdry, 58, 24 (= tribus)
drrevavTiws, 58, 58 pavepos, 33, 3 vous, 21, col. 1, 2; 65, 6
brreEaipew, 12, 8; 23, 20, PeBpocpros, 10, B 3; 65, D pwr, 14, 33-34
25, 33, 35, 66 74
tmép: genitive: 5, 6; 10, peiSoucn, 58, 14 xaipew: (A) epistolatory
Bite il TOs tA, 13503 72 pépw, 2, $1; 5, 4, 12; 65, greeting (general): 4, 3;
15, 10,0525) 10, 5545008,.05 D 34; 70, 6 5, 25 7, 36; 8, 3; 63, 3;
32;°03, LILO}; 20,,C45 21; pevyw, 51, 7; 67, 29 cf. 33, 2; 57, 4. (B)
(ells Ths Sp XS OPA, EP Oe IE. donut, 7, $3 xalpew Adyer: 20, A 2; 21,
24, 48; 31, 84, 92, 99, 102, Popa, 43, 7; 65, 8 (Oly Te tis (ells A, CTR, ey,
115, 134; 38, 7, 8; 43, 6; pircvOpwros, 2, 59. pirc- (C) yalpew omitted in
54, 16; 55, II, 13, 14; 58, vOpwrra: 26, b 22, 29; 28, greeting: 69, II2. (D)

384
SERMO GRAECUS

Tie Bovdje rai TH Swe XoprHyrov, 26, b 24 B 4; 26, b 31; 34, 19-20;
xaipev: 34, 4; 35, 25 36, xXpdéomar, 18, 35; 20, C7; 35, 17; 45, 4; 58, 48, 50;
3; 47, 27. (E) (rots) Ze CO t,617 226.0) 33% 60, B 8
&pxovar (kal 7H) BovdAH 28, B2, 17. (A) vopors ywplov, 9, 20; 17, 12; 18,
Kal TH) Shuw yatpew: €ws Tavov Xpa@vrat: 9, SI. KamOoe ZO Ets eh 2 G25
4, 4; 14, 90; 18, 2, 16; (B) vopors xpcopou: 18, 29 NLA SS 7 el
Zr COlmna2" Col. 25.45 23, 49-50, 91-92; 70, 15 xwpls, 30, 6; 31, 99
2; 26, b 8; 28, A 7-8; 38, xpeta, 20, C 4; 58, 49, 51
2; 43, 4; 46, 2-3; 48, 1; xpéos, 59, II pevdouc, 31, 50
49, 3; 55, 4; 56, 2; 58, 4; xXpe[wxomia], 43, 14 yndilopat, 15, 56; 65, D 41,
60, A 3; 64, 14; 66, 2; 67, xpHuUa, 15, 19, 22, 43, 49, 56
5; 68, 23 627 16, 24, 393 22, 22: 31, undropa, 14, 53; 16, 53; 18,
xaderos, 67, 31 90,92, 98, 121, 125, 1323 93; 34, 73 35, 5, 6; 36, 6;
xaAKobis, 22, 25; 26, b 18, 58, 67; 61, 10; 66, 5 56, 4; 64, 15; 65, 26, 29,
23; 57, 26-27 xXpnuatilw, 67, 18 D 62, 67, 81; 67, 7; 68, 25
xcAkwua: yoAKkwua oup- XpNmaTLaTH pov, 52, 54 Pidos, 39, 9; 58, 25
paylas, 16, 6 XpHowpwos, 65, 6 puxy, 30, 4
xapacow, 65, 29 xXpnopes, 6, 15, 27
xapilomar, 57, 23 xXpnotos, 58, 18 Wmorns, 60, Bs
xXapw: genitive, 22, 13, 14, xXpovos, 14, 36; 15, 47; 20, WS neDANI 5 E20 C23 deeds
15 E 6; 26, a 11; 52, Sr; 58, 45, 4,,10, 205°57; 323-58;
x&pis, 33, 33 35, 15; 48, 11; 82; 65, D 49, 81; 70, II 92°) 65, 9) 845 9675 22.
49,B 6;60,B11. yapita xpuaior, 2, 32 ws + superlative: 31, 101;
girtiay ovppayiavTe ava- yope, 1, A 6, Bs; 2, 57,25; 67, 18
veow: 9, 19, 42, 60; 12, 4; 7, 45 (bis), 51, 52, 553 9, woavTws, 2, 17, 27, 31, 35—
15, 9, 55-56; 18, 69; 20, 21, 22, 33, 44, 47, 49; 10, 36, 40; 5055385613, 987;
Dizt25. cooly pet25926;) b INTE. 9, BOS OF SPE Oey PPS 553 23, 45, 65; 65, D 60
16, 20 14, 19, 26, 71, 94, 95; 16, WoTrep, 65, D 35
xelp, 47, 44 BOVIS 1OSss21. COlat, 20, WoTe, 16, 32; 26, d9; 31,
xelptotos, 43, 12; 58, 33 De PE, PIO, Oly AS Shy on 106, 117; 60, B9
xiAcou, 23, 45 31, 44, 45, 46, 64, 66; 24, odheAysos, 65, 4

385
INDEX II: VERBA LATINA

BHHDHHDDSHHHDDADASY
SH HHDSSEDOAODDTTSSSSSSSSSagH

ab, 61, 14, 17 formula, 22, 12 (eos in amei- nascor, 65, B 2

adire, 61, 13 corum formulam re[fe]run- natalis, 65, B 6
aequom, 22, 16 dos), 13 (ex formula) nomen, 61, 13; 65, B 3
alter, 22, 7 fortem, 22, 2 novus, 65, B 5
a(Iter) a(mbove), 22, 12, 14 fortuito, 65, B 5 numenia, 65, B 3
annus, 65, B 5 fungor, 62, 7
appellare, 65, B 3 operam, 22, 2
apud, 22, 8 Graeci, 65, B 3, 15 optinent, 22, 15
Asia, 65, B 4 gratus, 65, B7 ordo, 62, 5

bonam, 22, 2 habere, 61, 17; 65, B 13

paenitendi, 65, BI
her|editates], 22, 6
pecunias, 22, 16
honor, 65, B 9
Caesar, 65, B 3, 16, 17 [perpe]tuo, 22, 9
honorare, 65, B 6
cernisere, 22, 16 (bis) petere, 22, 6, 7
certare, 22, 8 pietas, 65, B 8
ibei, 22, 9
civis vester, 61, 14 ponere, 61, 18
incidere, 65, B 6
civitas, 62, 8; 65,B4 possidere, 61, 14
ingressus, 65, B9
clarus, 65, B 3 postereis, 22, 7, 14
cohors, 62, 1 in in[tegrum restituantur, 22, 10
postquam, 22, 5
initium, 65, B 5
communiter, 65, B 4 postulare, 61, 20
contradeicere, 61, 20 inscribere, 61, 16, 19
praeterieit, 22, 5
cum, 61, 15; 65, B 2, 3
interkalaris, 65, B 4
praetor, 62, 4
interponere, 65, B 4
curarent, 22, 12 pretium, 61, 16, 18
i(ta) u(tei) e(is) e r(e) p(ublica)
princeps, 65, B 1, 6
f (ideve) s(ua) v(ideatur), 22, 16
dleberent, 22, 11 privatim, 65, B 2, 3
iluber[ent, 22, 12
de eis rebus, 22, 9 probare, 61, 22
iucundus, 65, B 1
de integro, 22, 10 proconsul, 61, 12
indicium, 22, 8, 9, 10
demonstrare, 61, 13 promittere, 61, 21
iusiurandum, 62, 2
deus, 61, 5, 18 providere, 62, 2
iussus, 61, 15
(HOS 982, S33, 1) 5s Se Bw provincias, 22, 15
difficilis, 65, B 7 publice, 65, B 2, 3
laetitia, 65, B 9
discipleina, 62, 3 publicus, 65, B 9
legatos, 22, 14
divinus, 65, B7 quaeque, 22, 6
le]gibus, 22, 8
q(uaestorem) urb(anum), 22, 13
libereis, 22, 6, 7, 14
ego volo vos curare, 61, 17 quei, 22, 15
licet, 22, 6, 12, 14
ex, 62, 8 queiquomque, 22, 11
litteras, 22, 15
exigere, 22, 6 locare, 22, 11 (locarunt), 13
ex s(enatus) c(onsulto), 22, 10 (locare) recipere, 61, 18
locum lautiaque, 22, 13 remittere, 62, 10
facere, 22, 13 [rem]que deivina[m], 22, 12
fanum, 61, 13, 16, 18 magistratus, 22, 8, II, 15; 61, rerum, 22, 3
felix, 65, B 2, 3 12; 65, B 5 restituere, 61, 15, 18, 19
fiat, 22, 9, 10 materia, 65, B 8
fidel[em, 22, 2 meritum, 65, B 5 Sacrum, 61, 15
fieri, 22, 16 mittere, 22, 13, 14, 15 salubris, 65, B 1
finis, 65, B 2 munus, 22, 12 salutem dicere, 61, 12

386
VERBA LATINA

satisdare, 61, 21 temptare, 65, B 8 uxores, 22, 7

s(ei) e(is) v(ideretur), 22, 12, 15 tempus, 65, B 5
seiquas, 22, 10 thiaseitae, 61, 15 vadimonium, 61, 21
seive, 22, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15 trahere, 65, B 16 vectigal, 22, 11
si ita sunt, 61, 17 velle, 22, 8, 9, 14; 61, 15
sine, 22, 3 venditio, 61, 14
singuli, 65, B 2, 3 ubei, 22, 9 veneire, 22, 14 (bis)
soleo, 62, 10 ubi, 61, 21 videlicet, 65, B 6
solvere, 61, 16 universus, 65, B 2, 3 videre, 65, B9
statuere, 65, B9 tei, 22, 9, 10, 14, 153 61, 17 vir, 65, B 3
sueis, 22, 8 utilitas, 65, B 13 vita, 65, BI

387
INDEX III: NOMINA GRAECA

DSHSGHSH
DHVHGHHH GHAG
HSS HSHSHSASSH S
SHSSHSSgaS SB

"Ayobowevns, 45, 5, 8, 15 ’Aprepidwpos Tod *Aprep- ‘Exatatos ‘Aynacvdpov,

’"Ayaundns, 36, 5 dwpov tov LIlapdirov, 27, 14
’Ayédaos, 37, B 35 Kal” v(iofeciav) Se “Exaraios ITa«[--], 18, 25
‘AynotroXs, 37, B 70 *Aptoreidov, 27, I ‘Eppimzos Mevoirov, 47,
’Ayjowr, 37, B 30 ’"Apreuidwpos Anpnrtptov Ge52)
*"Ayjras, 37, B 72, 73 Ilarés, 69, 8, Il 3 ‘Eppodwpos ’OXvvrriyou
Aicypis, 37, B75 ’Apyédapos, 37, B 11 vids, 23, 16, 50
*ArdEavdpos, 37, B 66 ’ApyéeAaos Oeodirov, 47, 54 EvBérns BevdvrAw bos, 14, 2
’"AhéEavdpos AwodiKeds, 49, ’Apyidaos, 37, B 19 Et Bovdos, 67, 10, 14, 17
4 7Apywvidas EdkaActs, 16, 51 [Ed] dnuos, 35, 4
’AneEiSnuos Deodcpov vids, ’"AcokaAnmdins Marpwvos, Estos, 37, B 49
23, 18 55, 5 Evdxratos, 37, B 79
*AdcEipayos, 37, B 48 ’"Aoxdnmadns Dirivov vids Etvkos, 37, B 59
*AdeEdpevos, 37, B71 Knralopenos, 22, 6, 9, 32 EdpvBovras, 37, B 9
’Ava[E]e[--], 10, B 7 ’Eyexdjs, 37, B 24
’ Avdovikos, 15, 35 Bovdwv, 1, B 2; 38, 9
’Avdpoobevidas, 37, B 4 [Z]nvddoros’ Ap[réuwpos],
(Mapros *Avrdévos) *Ap- Dravkéras rot ’AyeAcou, 9, 10, B 8
Teuldwpos, 57, 6, 21, 25, 4 Zwiros ’Emvyévous, 26, a 4,
30 b 16
’ ArrodAd8wpos Aapaivetos, 37, B 6, 20, 22 Zuwtrupos, 24, A 5
‘“Eppoxparns, 47, 51 Aopdéppevos, 37, B 15, 16
"AroAdopavns ’Opéorov, Acapoxparns, 37, B 27 “H\uddwpos Tob
55, 8 Acpoxpiras Atovvatov, 2, 48 Moucvdpiov rob Oe0do-
*ArrohAwvidyns Aevkiov Aopo€evos, 15, 30; 37, B 44 Tov, 69, 6
Nwpakeios, 61, 12, 20, 23 Aopoobévns, 37, B 76; 38, 3 “Hpakdetdns Tod
[---] ’"AzoAAwvidov, 27, 13 Acpwv, 37, B 58 ‘“HpakdAcidov
’ArrohAwios Tob Mnvodirou AcEéibeos, 37, B 38 Maoravpeirov, 69, 2
’ Alavirov, 65, D 31, 78 Anpaiveros Deorédov vids, ‘Hpas Kaddu[---]€pws, 58,
[’Api]oréas Mevavdpou, 27, 23, 18 76-77
13 Anpunrtpios KAewvtpou, 26, *Hpus Evdapov, 38, 3
*ApioreiSus, 37, B55 b 15 ‘“Hpwddns “Hpddov, 55, 7
*Apioretons, 35, 4 Anprrpros ‘Pnvavevs, Sees ‘“Hpwdns Kiéwvos, 26, b 15
*Apioroyeitwv Ila&tpwvos, 23
47, 48 [Anun|tpios Tiaiov, 26, Ocayéevns, 37, B 56
’Apiarddapos, 37, B 51-52 a5 Oewicorox [AAs], 15, 7
[---]e[.Jov "Aprorodjpov, [AnuJoxcpns An [noxepov] [O] ecopiAioxos
27, 14 vids, 15, 7 ’Odvprrixo[v vids], 15, 8
’ApiorodAaos "Ap
Apiorodcov, Avés, 35, 3 Onpiwyv, 37, B 54
27, 14 Aurjs, 35, 3 OpacukAjjs, I, B 2; 38, 9
’Apioroéevos, 2h, 18h oy? Avis MarpoxdAdovs, 26, b 15 Opacupndns Depaiov, 9,7
*Apiatodvdos, 37, B 42 Avoundns TOU *AOnvayopov Owmias, 37, B 45
“Aptos, 37, B 65 Tob Atoundovs, 69, 3, IL 1
“Appo|Eevos Av|cdvdpov, Atovvatos, 15, I, 35; 18, 26; ‘TepoxAjs, 27, 16
9, 14-15 27, 16; 35, 3; 67, 6 ‘Ikéowos "Aprewidwpov, 47,
’Aprepidwpos ’Aprep- Apaxwyv, 15, 35; 37, B 7 (?)
dwpov, 47, 49 Awpdbeos, 37, B 61 ‘Ixéatos IIv@iwvos, 56, 2

388
NOMINA GRAECA

*[ddAas Myrpodsdpov, 68, 23 Mooxos, 35, 4 ArpatokANs, 43, 2

‘Tatuaios, 26, a 4 Mvwvidns, ‘Iepoxdéovs, 27, Atpatwv Mevinmov, 27, 12
*IoxdrroXs, 37, B $7 Ts Avupaxos, 58, 77
LwEevos, 37, B29
Kepoyevfs Aev[Ka] O€ov, Néwv Medccypov, 55, 7 Aworkreidas Diroxparov,
(37f5 Nixeydpas, 37, B 39 15, 30
KodXuxrjjs, 37, B 40 Nixcéras Ta[--], 9, 37 Awoxparys ITv[Giwvos],
KeiAdurmos Ava[--], 64, 22 Nikias, 37, B 68 52, $7
Kaddworis, 37, B 33 aos Tavpopeéveos, 43, 8,
KeadAiotparos, 37, B 26 17, 23
Sevias, 37, B 14
Kreéurropos =tod Titec HevoribiSos, 2, 47 [Xw]|ra&s Areaiov, 26, a 4
[ciw|vos vids, 24, A 8
Kieiros Tipwvos, 55, 5 Tavpiwv, 37, B41
Kparivos, 37, B 10, 69 *Opéoras, I, B 2; 38, 9
OdrALcdyns, 60, A 10 [T]épdnos Atods, 26, b 15
Kpweydpas KaAXimrov, 26, TnA€uayos Marpwvos, 10,
as30D 16
TTcaavios ‘ep [oxAgous] , 18,
B4
Kpuwias, 37, B 77 Tipouos, 37, B 53
Kpirodaos, 37, B 31 24 Tipobeos Nixia, 43, 23
Kpirwyv TOU *Auewia, 9, 3 ITépdiros rob IT [op] pirov TipokrAjs *Avakaydpov, 52,
Kpirwv Mnvodapov, 55, 9 vids, 24, A 7
58
Kopwv [--] pos dos, 14, 2 TTamiwyv Atoorepitod, 65, D
Tpuddpa, 67, 9, 15, 18
42
Acprrpdpoxos TToXira, 9, Ilérpwv, 37, B 36
ITepoeds [lepoéws rob ‘YBpias Avodavrov, 26, a 4
TS “YBpiAaos, 37, B 80
Adéwv, 43, 1 Alwvos, 55, 8
Aéwy [rod ‘Ay]noimmov ITodewapyos, 37, B 37
Acpicaiov, 9, I ITodvnAjs [tod Doawéas, 37, B 8
Aégwv Aéovros, 10, B 4 Dew] dinzov, 9, 3 Dawias Bawiov tod
ITo]|Avkpaérns, 15, 31 Kadi [mov], 26, b 14
Avkos, 37, B 47-48 Davirns, 61, 22
ITodvarparos Ilohve prov
vids Kaptatuos, 22, 6, 10, Dcidwv ’Erecvopos tos, 14,
Meverxparns Atodedpov, 47,
ayn I
53
Mevexparns Mevexpaérov TTIoceddévi0s Locedwviov, Dircivos 6 Xpvainmov, 67,
Tod *“Apreuidapov, 47, 50 47, 48 13
Tlotépwv AcoBdvarros, [Di]Aurmos “Hpoddov, 15,
Mevéucyos Zevorieiovus, 55,
75 El pe DS UK Pee (OP 31
6
76,7 Didroxparns, 15, 35
Mevns, 35, 4 DiAovixos, 37, B 74
Méurmos, 34, 4 IIpaéfs, 37, B 12
TTpe€idepos, 37, B 43, 67 DiddEevos Avovvaiov, 24, A
Mevicxos Eipnvaios
Midrnoros, 22, 6, 10, 33 ITéos ~Maxe[Sdvwv], 9, 9
Doiné Poivikos, 47, 53
Mydevos, 9, 27 27
ITvéppos, 37, B 18, 78 [Dop]pioxos *Eyeabdveos,
Mnvoyervns “Iowdpov rob
43, 21
Mnvoyevovs, 68, 24
DvAdtipos, 47, 9, 40
M.8|[padcérns ?], 54, 4 ‘PodokAns *Avridyov, 16,
Mixes Miké& vids, 21, col. 1, 52
2 Xarpnuwv ITvboddpov, 48,
Mirkvirdiwv, 37, B 5, 50 Xa[--Kal’ viobeoia]v 2
Mvacidapos, 39, 4 Edpvpevidov, dicer dé X«adXetros, 37, B 63
Mvao.dos, 2, 47 Avyrov, 21, col. 1, 2 Xapiéas, 37, B 64
Mvaciraos, 37, B 13, 60 DéAevKos Peoddrov Xappidas, 5, 1
Mvaourmos Aiwvos tds, 14, ‘Pwoevs, 58, 12, 76, 81, Xpvowrmros, 67, 10
2 87, 93
Morpodcrns Mnrpoddpov, LoAwv Anunrpiov, 28, A 12, Lusia Diogenis f. Tucalleus,
55, 6 32 61, 14, 17, 20, 26

389
INDEX IV: NOMINA ROMANA

GQHGDGGUDGDGDODDS
DODO DODO DD DOSES EEEEEEERRSSSSSS

’Aypinmas, 63, 2; 64, 19 ulos - - - TIwAdiw |v, 26, [AevKios "JovAuos LeEr]ov
Mépxos ’Aypimas Aevkiov b 40 Dadépva, 12, 26
vios, 61, 2 Teuos ?Atrinos Iatov, 1, C Taos *Iovvos - - -
Mépxos AipvAos, 14, 10 Dt] Aaves, 26, b 42
Meéapros AiuvAos Titos ’Atinuos Tirov vidos
Macpxov [vidos], 7, 35, DaBia Tvpaves, 27, 10 Téuos K[- - - -], 26, c 16
49, $8, 61 IIémAvos “Artios ITomXiov Aevxvos Kadomépuos, 14,
Mépxos Aip|vAvos vids K[...]va, 27, 7 59, 69, 86, 89
Kowvtov vids] Meapxov Meéupxos AdpyAos tratos, Kowros Keauxiduos Kotvtou
viwvod A<é>m<i>d0os, 22, ase [’ Avujvons], 12, 23
TouzA es Kowrtos "Aftos Macprov [AevKuos KaAndpvios
[Mépxos Aipidtios Mapxov vidos Kupiva, 23, 12 Aevkilov vids Tlic[wv
vids 4] ka[
6] pos Ivaios Add[idios - - - -], Kouowvivos|, 15, 3
Kopudie, 15, 4 12, 45 Tcuos Kadovnjovos traros,
[ITatros Aiuidvos Aevxu|os "Adeivios 27, 3
Aev|xiov vids [adurive Aevkiov ’Qdberteilva, 12, DPauos Kadoviowos LaBeivos
Aéredos, 26, b 40 28 Umatos, 31, 74, 84
>AkiNuos, 16, 12 Aevkuos ’Adeinos Airépios Kapovid[os
[Mevos >Ax]vANos, 12, 17; Ae[vxiov Acpwvria], 12, Aevriov LoBareive|, 12,
14, II 34 32
Mevnos ?Axkidtos Maviov ‘cos ~Kalpplivas I aiov
vids ’Odre[wi]a, 2, 4 Téiuos Tavénlos Taiov (?) vidos Koupive, 27, 5
Kouwrtos ’Axovros vilos DoBia, 24, A 11 Tciuos Keovos Aevxilov
Koivrov vios, 26, b 43 AevKios Tevixuos Aevkiov vids Aov]yivos tmatos,
IIémAvos “AdBios LTomXiov Tnpn|retva], 12, 42 23,1
Kupiva, 12, 27 ITémdvos Iéaovos ITomAtov Taos Kacuos vrratos, 23, 63
Aevxios ’Avbéoro[s - -], "Apvyvons, 12, 28 Icuos Kaotos, 48, 1
12, 46
Teuos Aidvos Taiov Kupive, Meapkos Kaovos Macprov
Aevxios *AvOéarios Iatov vids ITwyevtive, 23, 8
12, 31
Mevnvia, 12, 32 Abdos KackédA\os AvaAov
AedvKvos Aopeértios
Teos *>Avvaios Tatov vids
AivoBadBos, 23, 24
vids ‘PwudAie, 23, 13
Kdvtopiva, 23, 11 [Mépxos K]nvowpivos
Aev«ios Aopérios Iv[aiov
Toeuos *“Avywos Patou [- - -], 26, c 12
DoBia|, 12, 37
KopedXla, 10, B 4 [Mépxos] Kixép[wv], 52, 39
Teuos “Avvios Tatov Taos KAavéStos Taiov viss
Tvaios ’Eyveo\rios Datov
"Apvyvons, 12, 26 "Apvynvons TAaBep, 23, 7
vids '<7>ndativas, 4, 16
AevKuos “Avywos Aevkiov Aevkios KdXavdios Aevkiov
Tivos ‘Epév| wos - - -], 12,
TTo[AXAla], 10, B 4 vtos Acpwvia, 23, 16
40
*Avriotios Ovdrep, 70, 3, Meapros KAavdios
Mépxos ‘Epévwos Ilixns,
6
71, 1 Macpx[ov] vidos
Mépxos ’ Avrasnos, 57, I "Apvnoons Maapxeddos,
[- - - Am] ziov vids Teuos “Hédi0os Tatov vids 23, 6
TTadra[ rive], 26, c 10 Kdavdie O@pos, 27, 9; Kowros [Kiavd:0s ’Aamiov
[Mca] pxos *Amodnuos 29,
9 (?) IToAXia] ,12, 31
Macprov Kapadia, 12, 34 TeBépios KXavdi0s
’ Aainos I'&AAos, 67, 11 Tétos "IovAvos Kaioup, 24, TeBepiov Kpvoropivas, 5,
Tctos ’Aaiv[tos Tvaiov A 10; 26, b 23 21

390
NOMINA ROMANA

Meapros Kravdvos [AcvKu]os Atkivios brraros, vios Tnpyntive O€ppos,

Macpkov vids, 2, 15 ann 4 23, 14
TiBépios Krawddvos Népwr, Mépxos AciBwos brraros, 14, Kowros Muikios Koivrov
69, 7 86; 15, 62 vids, 5, 15
Kéwros KXoé\os Mépxrov Ivaitos AévrAos Aibyoup,
vids Koupiva, 27, 8 69, 12, Il 2
[['ctos] Novrios Kolvtov
[Davos Kotd]os Patou Ivaios Aévriov Mapked-
Overupia, 12, 35
Aipirle, 12, 27 Aelvou braros, 24, AI
Tiros Nopiovos Tirov vids,
Tiros Koiverwos otpatnyos Deuos Atkivvwos Datov
Umatos, 33, 13 9, 52, 64 [Tnpynretva], 12, 30
26s
Téuos Neperwpios Teailov
Kéacos Kopv7\vos aos §Aukivvos TTomXlov
A]epu[wvia], 12, 35
Aérvdos, 69, 5 [vids Téras], 13, 6
Aevkios Novos Aevxiov
Tc [tos Kopvjdvos Macprov [Mcapx]os Aucivios vids O[ ve] Aetva
Arehareive], 12, 24 Macpx[ov AevKoddos], ’Aompnvas, 27, 6; 29, 5 (?)
Ivalios KopyynAvos 39, I
Tcos NwpBalvos] DPai[ov
Aévrodros IomXiov vids] [ITémduos At] xinos, 3, 2 vids DA&KKos], 26, c 10
MapkedAivos, 50, 1 [I'ctos AiBios Macpxov],
Tvaios Kopvydvos Licévve, 38, I
15, 59 Memos Acvuxethios Macprov ’Oxrdwos Ivaiov, 1, C 1
Aevxwos KopyvjAvo[s - - - - | ITw|pevreive], 12, 30 Ivaios ’Oxraui[os Aevxiov
DAicévva, 22, 2 Tcuos Aoxpértos, 2, 22, 52 Aipiria], 12, 33
Aedxios Kopyndtos Aevxiov Aevkuos ”OpBros, 35, 16
Meapros AevKoAdos
vios SvAXas, 20, AI, E 4, UTaTOS, 23, 63 Addos [‘O]orinios, 2, 42
14. *Emadpdditos: 18, 1, [M] capxos AdAdos Teuos “Oartitos Avdov vids
Mayxivos, 9, 8, 67
14, 18, 34, 54, 89, 96, 103, Koivrov Mevnvia, 12, 44
Ha5 32 ,°14°23;5523"49, 2. Ivaios Aoratios Ivatov Mépkos Ovdadcpios
AevKios SvdAas: 23, 20, vid[s 7A... .qv]on, 9, 12 Mepxov, 34, 2
22020303 5£;) 52/570, 12 Kowtos Avrariov Kowros Odvedytos
[Aev«os Kopv7}]Avos Kowrov vios KariXos, 22, [Macpkov ..... Nica] , 12,
Macprov ‘Pwpiria, 12, 36 eel SoZ AS 25
TIémdvos Kopv[7|Acos Mépxos Odal[r€pios - - - |,
26, c 13
II[o]Aiov vics BrAaciwv, Kowtos Matos Titov vios,
4,1 Fy, Ts WO Mépkos Od[ad€pios - - - |,
IIém|Avos Kop|vjAvos, 15, Kowrtos Mainos, 2, 38 29, 4
21 Titos Matuos Tirov vids Aevkios OtorAKaKwos
[A]evxuos K[opv7jAvos Aepwvia, 23, 15, 61 Tvddos, 65, D 42
Xkurriwyv], 36, 1; 66, 1 Tvaios Madd\uos Ivatov Aevxios OdodvcKios
Ivaios Kopyvndvos [omXiov vids, 16, A 16 Aevkiov vids ’>Apvinoons,
vios AodaBéAAu, 21, I, Titos MeAd\os Pal[- - -], 23, 10
Teuos OvodAAvos Taiou
colsz, 4 7, 39
[Aev«ios Kopvidixr]os [- -]ov Mavos, 24, C 8 vids Kupive Odveppwr, 23,
62
Aevkiov vids, 29, I Ivaios MavAvos, 10, B 6
[Mcaapxos Kooxdvos Aevxios Mapxios
Macprov Tnpyr|eive, 12, Knowpivos bratos, 27, 3, Mépxos [ - - - | vtos
27 12 Tlom\rie ~=TTaddakeivos,
[Aev] kos Méppuos Iatov 27, II
Kowtos AaBépios Aevktov Mevnyvia, 12, 25 Ivaios ITavdocivos, 2, 54
Meakin, 12, 40 IIéadtos MovKkios Koivtov Aevxvos Iacovqvos
AcBufvos, 59, 9 vids, 2, 15 ‘Potdos tmaros, 31, 74;
Taos AatAvos, 14, 22, 23 Melos - - -], 1, C2 84
Aedvnios Adprtios Aevkiov Koéwrtos Mov| kos [TomAiov Kéwros ITeriANos Titov
vios ITomipia, 23, 10 vu]los Xkavd[Aas], 47, 26 vids Depyia, 22, 5
Tcuos Atxivwos Iaiov vids Méapros Movvios Macpxov Aevx«ios ITeiawv, 69, 6
Arnrative Laképdws, 23, Aep[wvia], 12, 38 Ivaios [oprayos Ivaiov
8 Kéwtos Muvixios Koivtov vids Mayvos, 25, 1; 51, 37

391
INDEX IV

Kowtos TToprjos Koivrouv Menos Lépyros Moviov Aevxvos DaBépios Aeviov

vidos "Ap[v7i] cans vids, 2, 16 vids Depyia, 22, 4
‘Poddos, 23, 12 ITémdos Xepoidvos [Tomdiov Kowros DaBuos, 14, 68
[Xéétos Ioumyos LeErov vids "Ioavpikos, 55, 3 Kowros PaBios Koiwrov
vids] Uraros, 29, I [- - Ae]¥Kvo<s> Levre[os Me pos, 43, 3
ITémdos Iépxvos [omXiov, Taiov vids], 19, 5 TlaidAos PaBios Memos,
5, 20 [I[cuos Levrijos 65, D 44, 57, 59, 66, 80
[[']ctos ITomik\vos Teatou Lat [opvivov], 62, 15 [Mc&apxos Ba] A€pios
vids, II, 3, II ITomdwos LeEariNos, 8, 1 Macprov KAaviie, 12, 30
Xmopios [loordop.os Diepovidtos, 25, 12 [I] ctos Bavios Taiov, 18,
Aevkiov vids, I, BI Mépxos Xepoitios Iaiov 21
Meapkros ITomXixvos vids, 27, 8 Mépxos Davvios Nepepiov
Mapxov vids ‘Oparia TIémuos Lepovidtos, 11, 20 vids Typnteive, 55, 13
Nkalovas, 23, 14 X€[pouos - - - Lepo]viov [Aevkios Dildos Aevxiov
Aevxuos [TAcutapios vi]ds, 15, 5 ‘Qparia, 12, 31
Aevxiov Ilameupig, 12, Mé<a>pros L€ppros [I’] cos Dovdcrios 'ai[ov],
43 Mac[prov], 12, 41 18, 22
Ivaios ITopanjios Ivatiov Aevxios Anotvos [Tomiov Meapros Porouvios, 38, 10
Kp[oa]ropeiva, 12, 36 vlos Kupivaalts], 56, I Lé€povios PéAouvios
[ITomAvos [Torii] Avos [IT6]m[A]vos LHorvos Kowrouv, 10, B 2, 13
IIomAiov =Tnpnreivae, 12, Aevkiov vids KodAivg, 27, [®o(?) ]vrnros Kolyxrov
37 6 TTamewpix, 7, 39
Kowros ITomidXos IIémduos Hots Aevkiov Menos Povrijos Iaiov, 5,
TTorAiov ‘Pwpu[Aie], 12, vids, 29, 8 oy)
39 IIémvos Xnorvidvos [A]evKuos Dovpios
[- - - [Tom]Xlov vids TlorAiov vids [’Qh]evtive Alevxiov], Ty
IT [az] upia, 15, 6 27, 10
Meéaptos ITovmos Mépkos idravos vararos, Tiros ’"Qpidv0s Méprov
Macprov Lkantia, 12, 26, b 373.38. Gly 27 vidos ITomAtas, 4, 18
24 Ta [vos LkpiBadrios Teaiov
utos - - Jetivas Taos |... .tos Tatov
Kowros ‘Paéyxios Koivrou Kovpi[wv], 20, A 5 Me|vnvic, 12, 24
vids KAavdia, 23, 62 Kowrtos <2>raridunvos Tos [Aev] xiov vids
Abdos ‘Pavo [- -- ls 66, II Koivrov [vids Kop|vnAia, Tlom\<Adia, 22, 4
‘PoBptos, 16, 12 9, II Kowrtos Meréddov EvoeBis,
ITomdvos ‘Potidtos braros, [Devos Srepriv]os 23, 53
16, 6, 9, I5 MaEwpmos, 32, 4 [- - -Ae]uxiov vids
Tcuos ‘PovBpios Daiov Sé€pouios Lo<A>mikos, 14, ’"Qdevreiva BadBos, 29, 6
TTovrewia, 12, 29 57, 65 [ - - ]etAuos LeErov
Kopurta, 12, 45
IIémdvos Leidvos Aevxtov Méapxos Tepévrios IIérXu[os - - -] XoBareive,
Ovadepia, 12, 33 Macprov vids Odcppwv 12, 47
Addos Leumpuwvos AvdAov AevKodos, 23, I [- - - -] Dorkpve Tradros,
vids Dal[A€pve], 9, 13 [Mépxos Tepév] tos 29,7
Teios [Leumpwvios Taiov Méprov vidos TTarepia Aevxios Mapxiov Didirmos,
Darépve|, 12, 26 Odeéppwv, 26, b 42 24, 2
Téuos LeuBpwvios Aevriov Aev«vos Tpeurdvos Ivaiov Kaioup, 59, 12
vids], 4, 19 Kapeddla, 10, B 3 Augustus Caesar, 61, 15
Aevxios Seumpadvios Méapros TvdAvos Macprov Imperator Caesar Deivi f.
Aevriov vidos Bad[épva vios Kopvndia Kixépwr, Augustus, 61, 19
"Arparivos|, 26, b 41 23, 11 Vinicius, 61, 12, 23

392
INDEX V: NOMINA LOCORUM GENTIUM, SIMILIA

GOHHGOHGSHHSHHGSOG
ASSO HGSAHGHDSHGSHSHSHASSHSHsEgy
"ABSnpirou, 21, col. 1, 13 “EdAnves, 35, 73 43, 153 52, AéoBos, 64, 4
’Adpapurnvoi, 52, 46 Aer Gyn ZI Weis ID gins Zl Aevxn, 14, 16, 26
’"Abaupaves, 4, 7 50, 78 Aurdépa, 37, B17
*"AbFvar, 5, 28; 15, 38 ‘EXAjorovtos, 44, 12; 49, 7
"AOnvaior, 15,7, 54, 643 47, EvBo.x, 22, 23 Moyvnoia, 14, 44
40 Edparn, 58, 36, 48 Meéyvnres, 7, 36, 40, 45,
Aiyvr| rior], 24, B3 "Edeoos, 28, B 12; 52, 12, $1 =525, 50—57,..605 959577,
Aibéa, 37, B 25 44; 57, 5; 58, 78; 64, 14; 14, 23 (bis), 27; 52, 59
AirwAta, 2, 57, 58 71,4 Makedovia, 15, 32; 42, 2
Airwdo?, 38, 15 “HpakAe@rou, 35, 2 MeXravets, 9, 14
*AxodAnia, 24, A Io Mvdaoeis, 52, 44-453 59, 3,
’AdaBavdeis, 52, 44 Odor, 20, D1, G7; 21, 12; 60, A 3
"AuBparkidrot, 4, 6 COlm tae MouriAnvaior, 25, 6, 8, 11;
*Audixrvoves, I, B 1; 39, 2, Oeunocds, 18, 53 ALS, Aidt, 1) 17, 1d, Gl Gh, Op
9; 40, 4 Oecoudoil, 9, 1, 6, 13, 27, HO), 18); PIO), PHI, XIE GPA. D,
’Avipéax, 37, B 33 50; 37, 8 HOS FAY, By 1) ES VB
’Aprioyeis, 58,7 Ocooadovikn, 21, col. 1, 4
-"Arapna, 48, 3 O7Bou, 2, 48; 15, 21, 39-40, NapOakveis, 9, 23, 31, 45,
50 48
’Apyeiou, 63, 2
OiaBau, 2, 23, 49 Nareta, 37, B 28
"Apyos, 15, 21
*Aoia, II, 7; 12, 15; 13, 10; OQuoBeis, 2, 4, 53, 57, $8 Nepean, 15, 30 ([Nepea]),
ES; 6F, 76, I1IO, EI4; 22, Opéuxes, 40, 15 53, 57
Ovareipyvoi, 66, 2 Nvccaeis, 48, 1; 69, II 2
23 (bis); 57, 4; 58, 48; 65,
Ovnoaes, 17, 12
14, 30, 41, 50, 59, 53, 66, TTcvepapor, 30, 16
78, 81 TTerpou, 43, 11
[’La]daorw[oi], 24, C 4
*Aaraxis, 45, II ‘Teparvrviot, 14, I, 89 ITéAa, 15, 37
> AarumaAaeis, 16, 27, 36, [’IA]ids, 53, XVI 1, XVII 2 IleAorévvyaos, 15, 18
38, 41, 44, 49 *IoOuos, 15, 30, $3, 57 ITerrapy 6.01, 21, col. 1, 18
*Arrixy, 15, 57, 59 "Iooa, 24, B 10 Tlépyapov, 54, 6; 65, D 58
’Adpoderoreis, 28, A 6, B 2, TTepyapnvot, 12, 7; 52, 45
*Iacaior, 24, A 13, B3
4, 6, 10, 13
*Irodla, 31, 139; 58, 26 TThapaceis, 28, A 6, B 2, 4,
"Ayouta, 9, 46 6, 105, 13
*Iwvia, 49, 7
"Ayauol, 43, 10 *Travi01, 14, 6, 16, 28, 91 ITpinveis, 7, 42, 46, $I, $2,
55; 10, B 7, 6
Baoou, 37, B 23 Képapos, 18, $3
Bowwria, 15, 40, 50
Kvid.or, 67, 5 *Poéd.ot, 10, B 9, 11
Bovrodtkov, 45, 17 Kyvaovor, 14, 7, 11 ‘Pwprocior, 6, 5; 7, 34, 543 9,
Korodudvior, 9, 56; 36, 3 22, 47; 15, 46; 16, 32
Acddot, 1, Bs, C3, D2; Kopxupaiwy, 4, 5 (bis), 35, 37, 41, 44, 48;
38, 2, 17, 23; 42, 4 17, 4, 6, 14; 18, 33, 37, 75>
Kopuive[wc, 3, 4
Aepxaia, 45, 6, 14, 16 79, 99; 20, C5, G6; 21,
Kopwveis, 2, 58
Aros, 5, 2, 25 Kpijres, 14, 1, 72 Colma eS a)17s COla 2503/3
AnAXlous, 5, 27 Kpyrn, 14, 32, 58, 66 22, Il, 20; 23, 49, SI> 24;
Apcrypwor, 14, 12 TOR BI, G5 Fh els, Ue
Kvpacior, 61, 23
Avpator, 43, 3 27, 20; 28, B 9; 31, 77, 89;
Kurrapiaceis, 46, 2
“Eddas, 17, 3; 18, 76, 86, Kupnvaior, 50, § 33, I, 3, 10; 34, I, 21; 35,
K@ot, 32, 6; 49, 3 1; 36, 2; 38, 1; 43, 3, 10;
IIo

393
 INDEX V

44, 2, 10; 47, 27; 48, 7; Lapowavol, 47, 43, 52; 52, Tpixkot[ wy, 8, 6
Bin 85 GY, GOS Se, iG, na, 45; 68, 23 *YromAcvoria, 37, B 3
66; 65, D 58; 70, 13, 16, 2 [ucveiv], 15, 24
17. See also orpatnyos DikiaOor, 21, col. 2, 9 ®wxis, 2, $7, 58
‘Pan, 5, 5; 14, 50; 15, 235 Apupvetor, 52, 45
16, 50, 52, 54; 18, 65; 31, Apvpvn, 65, D 42
Xadkis, 2, 47
107, 109, III; 40, 18; 43, ATpatoviKeis, List; De Gs Box,
Xelou, 70, 2, 13, 19
25; 58, 5, 69; 64, 7; 65, Whey, 1, WOYL, TOKO, OA
Xpvacaopeis, 18, 22
D 63; 67, 7; 68, 24; 69, 1; 109; 30, II
Xupetiéwv, 33, 1
7337)
‘Pwoeis, 58, 3, 74, 86 Tabetia, 37, B 21
Tapoeis, 58, 7 ’Qpwric, 23, 64
Tijiou, 34, 3 ’Qpamvot, 23, 2, 19, 32, 46,
Leun, 38, 12 Tpayupwoi, 24, A 7, C 3 47, 65
Xe&pot, 9, 56; 10, Br, 4, Tpaddvavoi, 52, 44
9 Tpikke, 45, 2, 10 Cumae, 61, 12

394
INDEX VI: SACRA

HHEOEOSTOEDEDRRDORSOS
TOS EOSTORSRXSYRSSSSSSRggg

*Abjvn, 6, B 4; 16, 49 Atdvuoos, 15, 453 44, II; Kaocpyna, t&, 65, D 61, 67
’Audicpaos, 23, 5, 17, 22, 49, 6, 8 (KeOnyeuadv F
27, 44, 45, 48, 50, 55 A.), B 5; 61, 25 Moioou, 49, B 5
?ArodAwv, 1, A 4, B 4; 42, yee Hee neers
14 katy, 18, $7, 113 Thee th
’AoxAnmuos, 16, 49; 32, 73 tan
S5aTE Zevs, 16, 49 (Templum SSahlay Gee
*Adpodirn, 28, B 10 Iovis Capitolini)
‘Yreppunotpa, 63, 3
“Hpa, 32, 8, 10
Aavads, 63, 3 Liber Pater, 61, 13

395
INDEX VII: REGES

HHEOHRDORDODODOROS
OS RODS ESESSESERERERSESSSSNS9N5
*ABAovropis, 20, G II, 14; Ebvpérvns, 40, 29; 54, 12 ‘Powntadkas, 20, G 8; 21,
Z2rcolw iy 24) Mibpodarns, 18, 6, 38, 94; COlnr 24
*Avrioxos, 34, 4 70, 14
’"Apiapabns, 6, 3, B 8 Tvovra, 20, G 8; 21, col. 1,
”"Arrados, 6, B 8; 11, 8, 13, Opodéprns, 6, B 4 24 (Tura)
16
Ilepoevs, 40, 7 Direraipos, 16, 19

396
Designed by Gerard A. Valerio
Composed in Bembo (series 270) and Porson Greek
by William Clowes & Sons Ltd.
Printed offset by Universal Lithographers, Inc.
on 50 lb. Warren’s 1854
Bound by L. H. Jenkins, Inc.
in Columbia Riverside Chambray, RVC-3602
 (Makv Ad ore vd heurpe ony,
oe) every) baw (ore eure) oder ni havent) a
had are? & eval meilli W yd
2} aratkqytqurlrisl tanaytoll ye selfiy beta97
aot ‘mW ll ob, a
uth erialeyl,
A aie 4 :
ste opi wetted) ssitanswft
h i 6
- _
oy ohceeale
ee ae -
- ah
é
age of Augustus. Although these
letters did communicate factual in-
formation, they served more
importantly as diplomatic devices, as
tools to influence public opinion.
The author has assembled the texts,
established the correct reading of each
of the seventy-eight documents,
provided a critical apparatus, and
appended to each a commentary that
explains the present state of historical
knowledge on the subjects involved.
In addition, each document has its own
exhaustive bibliography. Altogether,
the volume is an essential sourcebook
for every historian who wishes to
understand the policy of Rome
toward the Greek East.
Presently Professor of Classics at the
State University of New York at
Buffalo, Robert Sherk is the author of
Legates of Galatia from Augustus to
Diocletian and numerous articles.
THE IDEA OF PROGRESS IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY

By Ludwig Edelstein
“Tt is an extraordinary, well documented study challenging the
belief that the idea of progress is of modern origin. With a full
muster of facts based on original sources, Edelstein shows he had a
master’s command of his subject....It should be welcomed by a
wide audience interested in the history of ideas.” —Choice
$8.00 cloth

DEMOKRATIA, THE GODS, AND THE FREE WORLD

By James H. Oliver
“A finely shaped piece of work, which will require the study of all
those interested in the evolution of political thought and in the
subtle interaction between politics and the mythology of ancient
religious belief.” —Classical Philology $5.00 cloth

THE POETRY OF GREEK TRAGEDY

By Richmond Lattimore
“ The Poetry ofGreek Tragedy must be one of the most stimulating . . .
introductions now available to this thorny, horribly over-discussed
subject: not least because of Professor Lattimore’s superb transla-
tions, which are scattered lavishly throughout the text. So well-
chosen and subtly rendered are they, indeed, that they form a kind
of private anthology to which the reader can turn back again and
again... .”—Times Literary Supplement $4.00 cloth

GALEN’S INSTITUTIO LOGICA

English Translation, Introduction, and Commentary

By John S. Kieffer
“The translation . . . is a welcome addition to English texts for the
study of the history of Logic. It is an accurate version of the
original and produced in a pleasing format.”—Mind “This is a
careful and useful study.”—The Classical World $5.50 cloth

NC THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, Baltimore, Maryland 21218