The Provinces of the Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian. v. 1

FOOTNOTES:

1 Dio, li. 23, expressly says this as to the year 725: t??? ?? ??? ta?t? ?p????? (i.e. so long as the Bastarnae attacked only the Triballi—near Oescus in Lower Moesia, and the Dardani in Upper Moesia), ??d?? sf?s? p???a p??? t??? ??a???? ??? ?pe? d? t?? te ???? ?pe???sa? ?a? t?? T????? t?? ?e??e??t?? ??sp??d?? a?t??? ??sa? ?at?d?a?? ?. t. ?. The allies in Moesia, of whom Dio, xxxviii.10 speaks, are the coast towns.

2 When Dio says (li. 23): t?? Se?et???? ?a??????? p??sep???sat? ?a? ?? t?? ??s?da ???a?e, the town spoken of, doubtless, can only be Serdica, the modern Sofia, on the upper Oescus, the key to the Moesian country.

3 After the campaign of Crassus the conquered land was probably organised in such a way that the coast went to the Thracian kingdom, as Zippel has shown (RÖm. Illyricum, p. 243), and the western portion was, just like Thrace, assigned in fief to the native princes, in place of one of whom must have come the praefectus civitatium Moesiae et Triballiae (C. I. L. v.1838), who was still acting under Tiberius. The usual assumption that Moesia was at first combined with Illyricum, rests only on the circumstance that in the enumeration of the provinces apportioned in the year 727 between emperor and senate in Dio, liii.12 it is not named, and so was contained in “Dalmatia.” But this enumeration does not extend at all to the vassal–states and the procuratorial provinces, and so far all is in due keeping with our assumption. On the other hand, weighty arguments tell against the usual hypothesis. Had Moesia been originally a part of the province of Illyricum, it would have retained this name; for on the division of a province the name was usually retained, and only a defining epithet added. But the appellation Illyricum, which Dio doubtless reproduces l.c., was always in this connection restricted to the upper (Dalmatia) and the lower (Pannonia). Moreover, if Moesia was a part of Illyricum, there was no room left for that Prefect of Moesia and Triballia, or in other words for his kingly predecessor. Lastly, it is far from probable that in 72727. a command of such extent and importance should have been entrusted to a single senatorial governor. On the other hand, everything admits of easy explanation, if small client–states arose in Moesia after the war of Crassus; these were as such from the outset under the emperor, and, as the senate did not take part in their successive annexation and conversion into a governorship, this might easily be unnoticed in the Annals. It was completed in or before the year 74311., seeing that the governor, L. Calpurnius Piso then waging war against the Thracians, to whom Dio (liv.34) erroneously assigns the province of Pamphylia, can only have had as his province Pannonia or Moesia, and, as at that time Tiberius was acting as legate in Pannonia, there is left for him only Moesia. In 6 A.D. there certainly appears an imperial governor of Moesia.

4 The official title of Cottius was not king, like that of his father Donnus, but “president of the cantonal union” (praefectus civitatium), as he is named on the still standing arch of Susa erected by him in honour of Augustus in the year 745–69–8.. But the position was beyond doubt held for life, and, under reservation of the superior’s right to confirm it, also hereditary; so far therefore the union was certainly a principality, as it is usually so termed.

5 We know this road only in the shape which the emperor Claudius, the son of the constructor, gave to it; originally, of course, it cannot have been called via Claudia, but only via Augusta, and we can hardly regard as its terminus in Italy Altinum, in the neighbourhood of the modern Venice, since, under Augustus, all the imperial roads still led to Rome. That the road ran through the upper Adige valley is shown by the milestone found at Meran (C. I. L. v.8003); that it led to the Danube, is attested; the connection of the making of this road with the founding of Augusta Vindelicum, though this was at first only a market–village (forum), is more than probable (C. I. L. iii.p. 711); in what way Augsburg and the Danube were reached from Meran we do not know. Subsequently the road was rectified, so as to leave the Adige at Bautzen, and to lead up the Eisach valley over the Brenner to Augsburg.

6 The locality “in which the Bessi honour the god Dionysos,” and which Crassus took from them and gave to the Odrysians (Dio, li. 25), is certainly the same Liberi patris lucus, in which Alexander sacrificed, and the father of Augustus, cum per secreta Thraciae exercitum duceret, asked the oracle respecting his son (Suetonius, Aug. 94), and which Herodotus already mentions (ii.III; compare Euripides, Hec. 1267) as an oracular shrine placed under the protection of the Bessi. Certainly it is to be sought northwards of Rhodope; it has not yet been discovered.

7 That the battle at Arbalo (Plin. H.N. xi. 17, 55) belongs to this year, is shown by Obsequens, 72, and so the narrative in Dio, liv.33, applies to it.

8 That the fall of Drusus took place in the region of the Saale we may be allowed to infer from Strabo, vii.1, 3, p. 291, although he only says that he perished on the march between Salas and Rhine, and the identification of the Salas with the Saale rests solely on the resemblance of name. From the scene of the mishap he was then transported as far as the summer camp (Seneca, Cons. ad Marciam 3: ipsis illum hostibus aegrum cum veneratione et pace mutua prosequentibus nec optare quod expediebat audentibus), and in that camp he died (Sueton., Claud. 1). This camp lay in the heart of the barbarian land (Valerius Max. v.5, 3) and not very far from the battlefield of Varus (Tacitus, Ann. ii.7, where the vetus ara Druso sita is certainly to be referred to the place where he died); we may be allowed to seek it in the region of the Weser. The dead body was then conveyed to the winter–camp (Dio, lv.2) and there burnt; this spot was regarded, according to Roman usage, also as the place of burial, although the depositing of the ashes took place in Rome, and to this is to be referred the honorarius tumulus with the annual obsequies (Sueton. l.c.). Probably we have to seek for this place at Vetera. When a later author (Eutropius, vii.13) speaks of the monumentum of Drusus at Mentz, this is doubtless not the tomb, but the elsewhere mentioned Tropaeum (Florus, ii.30: Marcomanorum spoliis et insignibus quendam editum tumulum in tropaei modum excoluit).

9 What we learn from Dio, lv.10, partly confirmed by Tacitus, Ann. iv. 44, cannot be apprehended otherwise. Noricum and Raetia must have been put under this governor as an exceptional measure, or the course of operations induced him to pass beyond the limit of his governorship. The assumption that he marched through Bohemia itself, which would involve still greater difficulties, is not required by the narrative.

10 To a connection in rear of the camp on the Rhine with the port Boulogne we might perhaps take the much disputed notice of Florus, ii.30, to refer: Bonnam (or Bormam) et Gessoriacum pontibus iunxit classibusque firmavit, with which is to be compared the mention by the same author of forts on the Maas. Bonn may reasonably have been at that time the station of the Rhine–fleet; Boulogne was in later times still a fleet–station. Drusus might well have occasion to make the shortest and safest land–route between the two stations for the fleet available for transport, though the writer, probably bent on striking effect, awakens by his pointed mode of expression conceptions which cannot be in that form correct.

11 As to the administrative partition of Gaul there is, apart from the separation of the Narbonensis, an utter absence of accounts, because it rested only on imperial ordinances, and nothing in reference to it came into the records of the senate. But the first information of the existence of separate Upper and Lower German commands is furnished by the campaigns of Germanicus, and the battle of Varus can hardly be understood under that assumption; here, doubtless, the hiberna inferiora appear, viz. that of Vetera (Velleius, ii.120), and the counterpart to it, the superiora, can only have been formed by that of Mentz; but this was not under a colleague of Varus, but under his nephew, who was thus subordinate to him in command. Probably the partition only took place, in consequence of the defeat, in the last years of Augustus.

12 The praesidium constructed by Drusus in monte Tauno (Tacitus, Ann. i. 56), and the f??????? ?? ??tt??? pa?’ a?t? t? ???? associated with Aliso (Dio, liv.33), are probably identical, and the special position of the canton of the Mattiaci is evidently connected with the construction of Mogontiacum.

13 That the “fort at the confluence of the Lupias and the Helison,” in Dio, liv.33, is identical with the oftener mentioned Aliso, and this must be sought on the upper Lippe, is subject to no doubt; and that the Roman winter–camp at the sources of the Lippe (ad caput Lupiae, Velleius, ii. 205), the only one of the kind, so far as we know, on German ground, is to be sought just there, is at least very probable. That the two Roman roads running along the Lippe, and their fortified places of bivouac, led at least as far as the region of Lippstadt, the researches of HÖlzermann in particular have shown. The upper Lippe has only one confluent of note, the Alme, and as the village of Elsen lies not far from where the Alme falls into the Lippe, some weight may be here assigned to the similarity of name. To the view, supported among others by Schmidt, which places Aliso at the confluence of the Glenne (and Liese) with the Lippe, the chief objection is that the camp ad caput Lupiae must then have been different from Aliso, and in general this point lies too far from the line of the Weser, while from Elsen the route leads directly through the DÖren defile into the Werra valley. Schmidt, who does not adhere to the identification of Aliso and Elsen, remarks generally (WestfÄlische Zeitschrift fÜr Gesch. und Alterthumskunde, xx. p. 259), that the heights of Weser (not far from Elsen), and generally the left margin of the valley of the Alme, are the centre of a semicircle formed by the mountains in front, and this highlying, dry region, allowing an exact look–out as far as the mountains, which covers the whole country of the Lippe and is itself covered in front by the Alme, is well adapted for the starting–point of a march towards the Weser.

14 This and not more is what Velleius says (ii.110): in omnibus Pannoniis non disciplinae (= military training) tantummodo, sed linguae quoque notitia Romanae, plerisque etiam litterarum usus et familiaris animorum erat exercitatio. These are the same phenomena as are met with in the case of the Cheruscan princes, only in increased measure; and they are quite intelligible when we bear in mind the Pannonian and Breucian alae and cohortes raised by Augustus.

15 If we assume that of the twelve legions who were on the march against Maroboduus (Tacitus, Ann. ii. 46), as many as we find soon after in Germany, that is, five, went to form the army there, the Illyrian army of Tiberius numbered seven, and the number of ten (Velleius, ii. 113) may fairly be referred to the contingents from Moesia and Italy, that of fifteen to the contingents from Egypt or Syria, and to the further levies in Italy, whence the newly raised legions went no doubt to Germany, but those thereby relieved went to the army of Tiberius. Velleius (ii.112) speaks inaccurately, at the very beginning of the war, of five legions brought up by A. Caecina and Plautius Silvanus ex transmarinis provinciis; firstly, the transmarine troops could not be at once on the spot, and secondly, the legions of Caecina were of course the Moesian. Comp. my commentary on the Mon. Ancyr. 2d ed. p. 71.

16 Velleius (ii.118) says so; adsiduus militiae nostrae prioris comes, iure etiam civitatis Romanae eius equestres consequens gradus; which coincides with the ductor popularium of Tacitus, Ann. ii.10. Such officers must have been of no infrequent occurrence at this time; thus, there fought in the third campaign of Drusus inter primores Chumstinctus et Avectius tribuni ex civitate Nerviorum (Liv.Ep. 141), and under Germanicus Chariovalda dux Batavorum (Tac. Ann. ii.11).

17 The effigy of Varus is shown on a copper coin of the African town Achulla, struck under his proconsulate of Africa in the year 747–8, B.C. 7–6 (L. MÜller, Num. de l’ancienne Afrique, ii.p. 44, comp. p. 52). The base which once supported the statue erected to him by the town of Pergamus has again been brought to light by the excavations there; the subscription runs: ? d??? [?t??se?] ??p???? ?????t????? S??t?? ???? ????[??] p?s?? ??et?[? ??e?a].

18 The report of Dio, the only one which hands down to us a somewhat connected view of this catastrophe, explains the course of it sufficiently, if we only take further into account—what Dio certainly does not bring into prominence—the general relation of the summer and winter camps, and thereby answer the question justly put by Ranke (Weltgeschichte, iii.2, 275), how the whole army could have marched against a local insurrection. The narrative of Florus by no means rests on sources originally different, as that scholar assumes, but simply on the dramatic accumulation of motives for action, such as is characteristic of all historians of this type. The peaceful dispensing of justice by Varus and the storming of the camp are both known to the better tradition, and that in their causal connection. The ridiculous representation of the Germans breaking in at all the gates into the camp, while Varus is sitting on the judgment–seat and the herald is summoning the parties before him, is not tradition, but a picture manufactured from it. That this is in utter antagonism to the description by Tacitus of the three bivouacs, as well as to sound reason, is obvious.

19 The normal strength of the three alae and the six cohortes is not to be calculated exactly, inasmuch as among them there may have been double divisions (miliariae); but the army cannot have numbered much over 20,000 men. On the other hand, there appears no reason for assuming a material difference of the effective strength from the normal. The numerous detachments which are mentioned (Dio, lvi. 19) serve to account for the comparatively small number of the auxilia, which were always by preference employed for this duty.

20 As Germanicus, coming from the Ems, lays waste the territory between the Ems and Lippe, that is, the region of MÜnster, and not far from it lies the Teutoburgiensis saltus, where Varus’s army perished (Tacitus, Ann. i. 61), it is most natural to understand this description, which does not suit the flat MÜnster region, of the range bounding the MÜnster region on the north–east, the Osning; but it may also be deemed applicable to the Wiehen mountains somewhat farther to the north, parallel with the Osning, and stretching from Minden to the source of the Hunte. We do not know at what point on the Weser the summer camp stood; but in accordance with the position of Aliso near Paderborn, and with the connections subsisting between this and the Weser, it was probably somewhere near Minden. The direction of the march on the return may have been any other excepting only the nearest way to Aliso; and the catastrophe consequently occurred not on the military line of communication between Minden and Paderborn itself, but at a greater or less distance from it. Varus may have marched from Minden somewhat in the direction of OsnabrÜck, then after the attack have attempted from thence to reach Paderborn, and have met with his end on this march in one of those two ranges of hills. For centuries there have been found in the district of Venne at the source of the Hunte a surprisingly large number of Roman gold, silver, and copper coins, such as circulated in the time of Augustus, while later coins hardly occur there at all (comp. the proofs in Paul HÖfer, der Feldzug des Germanicus im Jahre 16, Gotha, 1884, p. 82, f.) The coins thus found cannot belong to one store of coins on account of their scattered occurrence and of the difference of metals, nor to a centre of traffic on account of their proximity as regards time; they look quite like the leavings of a great extirpated army, and the accounts before us as to the battle of Varus may be reconciled with this locality. As to the year of the catastrophe there should never have been any dispute; the shifting of it to the year 10 is a mere mistake. The season of the year is in some measure determined by the fact that between the arrangement to celebrate the Illyrian victory and the arrival of the unfortunate news in Rome there lay only five days, and that arrangement probably had in view the victory of 3d Aug., though it did not immediately follow on the latter. Accordingly the defeat must have taken place somewhere in September or October, which also accords with the circumstance that the last march of Varus was evidently the march back from the summer to the winter camp.

21 Tacitus, Ann. i. 9, and Dio, lvi. 26, attest the continuance of the state of war; but nothing at all is reported from the nominal campaigns of the summers of 12, 13, and 14, and the expedition of the autumn of 14 appears as the first undertaken by Germanicus. It is true that Germanicus had been proclaimed as Imperator probably even in the lifetime of Augustus (Mon. Ancyr. p. 17); but there is nothing to hinder our referring this to the campaign of the year 11, in which Germanicus commanded with proconsular power alongside of Tiberius (Dio, lvi. 25). In the year 12 he was in Rome for the administration of the consulate, which he retained throughout the year, and which was still at that time treated in earnest; this explains why Tiberius, as has now been proved (Hermann Schulz, Quaest. Ovidianae, Greifswald, 1883, p. 15), still went to Germany in the year 12, and resigned his Rhenish command only at the beginning of the year 13, on the celebration of the Pannonian victory.

22 The hypothesis of Schmidt (WestfÄl. Zeitschrift, xx. p. 301)—that the first battle was fought on the Idistavisian field somewhere near BÜckeburg, and the second, on account of the morasses mentioned on the occasion, perhaps on the Steinhudersee, near the village of Bergkirchen, which lies to the south of this—will not be far removed from the truth, and may at least help us to realise the matter. In this, as in most of the accounts of battles by Tacitus, we must despair of reaching an assured result.

23 The statement of Tacitus (Ann. ii.45), that this was properly a war of the republicans against the monarchists, is probably not free from a wish to transfer Hellenico–Roman views to the very different Germanic world. So far as the war had an ethico–political tendency, it would be called forth not by the nomen regis, as Tacitus says, but by the certum imperium visque regia of Velleius (ii. 108).

24 There triumphed over Spain—apart from the doubtless political triumph of Lepidus—in 718 36,40.
34.
38,34,29.
38.
38,28.
39,26.
29. Cn. Domitius Calvinus (consul in 714), in 720 C. Norbanus Flaccus (consul in 716), between 720 and 725 L. Marcius Philippus (consul in 716) and Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul in 716), in 726 C. Calvisius Sabinus (consul in 715), and in 728 Sex. Appuleius (consul in 725). The historians mention only the victory achieved over the Cerretani (near Puycerda in the eastern Pyrenees) by Calvinus (Dio, xlviii.42; comp. Velleius, ii.78, and the coin of Sabinus with Osca, Eckhel, v.203).

25 As Augusta Emerita in Lusitania only became a colony in 72925. (Dio, liii.26), and this cannot well have been left out of account in the list of the provinces in which Augustus founded colonies (Mon. Ancyr. p. 119, comp. p. 222), the separation of Lusitania and Hispania Ulterior must not have taken place till after the Cantabrian war.

26 Callaecia was not merely occupied from the Ulterior province, but must still in the earlier time of Augustus have belonged to Lusitania, just as Asturias also must have been at first attached to this province. Otherwise the narrative in Dio, liv.5, is not intelligible; T. Carisius, the builder of Emerita, is evidently the governor of Lusitania, C. Furnius the governor of the Tarraconensis. With this agrees the parallel representation in Florus, ii.33, for the _Drigaecini_ of the MSS. are certainly the ????a??????, whom Ptolemy, ii.6, 29, adduces among the Asturians. Therefore Agrippa, in his measurements, comprehends Lusitania with Asturia and Callaecia (Plin. H. N. iv.22, 118), and Strabo (iii.4, 20, p. 166) designates the Callaeci as formerly termed Lusitani. Variations in the demarcation of the Spanish provinces are mentioned by Strabo, iii.4, 19, p. 166.

27 These were the Fourth Macedonian, the Sixth Victrix, and the Tenth Gemina. The first of these went, in consequence of the shifting of quarters of the troops occasioned by the Britannic expedition of Claudius, to the Rhine. The two others, although in the meanwhile employed elsewhere on several occasions, were still, at the beginning of the reign of Vespasian, stationed in their old garrison–quarters, and with them, instead of the Fourth, the First Adiutrix newly instituted by Galba (Tacitus, Hist. i. 44). All three were on occasion of the Batavian war sent to the Rhine, and only one returned from it. For in the year 88 there were still several legions stationed in Spain (Plin. Paneg. 14; comp. Hermes, iii.118), of which one was certainly the Seventh Gemina already, before the year 79, doing garrison–duty in Spain (C. I. L. ii.2477); the second must have been one of those three, and was probably the First Adiutrix, as this soon after the year 88 takes part in the Danubian wars of Domitian, and is under Trajan stationed in upper Germany, which suggests the conjecture that it was one of the several legions brought in 88 from Spain to upper Germany, and on this occasion came away from Spain. In Lusitania no legions were stationed.

28 The camp of the Cantabrian legion may have been at the place Pisoraca (Herrera on the Pisuerga, between Palencia and Santander), which alone is named on inscriptions of Tiberius and of Nero, and that as starting point of an imperial road (C. I. L. ii.4883, 4884), just as the Asturian camp was at Leon. Augustobriga also (to the west of Saragossa) and Complutum (AlcalÁ de Henares to the north of Madrid) must have been centres of imperial roads, not on account of their urban importance, but as places of encampment for troops.

29 With this we may connect the fact that the same legion was, though only temporarily and with a detachment, on active service in Numidia.

30 The expression used by Josephus (contra Ap. ii.4), that “the Iberians were named Romans,” can only be referred to the bestowal of Latin rights by Vespasian, and is an incorrect statement of one who was a stranger.

31 Probably the most recent monument of the native language, that admits of certainty as to its date, is a coin of Osicerda—which is modelled after the denarii with the elephant that were struck by Caesar during the Gallic war—with a Latin and Iberian legend (Zobel, Estudio historico de la moneda antigua espaÑola, ii.11). Among the wholly or partially local inscriptions of Spain several more recent may be found; public sanction is not even probable in the case of any of them.

32 There was a time when the communities of peregrini had to solicit from the senate the right to make Latin the language of business; but for the imperial period this no longer held good. On the contrary, at this time probably the converse was of frequent occurrence. For example, the right of coining was allowed on the footing that the legend had to be Latin. In like manner public buildings erected by non–burgesses were described in Latin; thus an inscription of Ilipa in Andalusia (C. I. L. ii.1087) runs: Urchail Atitta f(ilius) Chilasurgun portas fornic(es) aedificand(a) curavit de s(ua) p(ecunia). That the wearing of the toga was allowed even to non–Romans, and was a sign of a loyal disposition, is shown as well by Strabo’s expression as to the Tarraconensis togata, as by Agricola’s behaviour in Britain (Tacitus, Agric. 21).

33 These remarkable arrangements are clear, especially from the lists of Spanish places in Pliny, and have been well exhibited by Detlefsen (Philologus, xxxii., 606 f.). The terminology no doubt varies. As the designations civitas, populus, gens, belong to the independent community, they pertain de jure to these portions; thus, e.g. there is mention of the X civitates of the Autrigones, of the XXII populi of the Asturians, of the gens Zoelarum (C. I. L. ii.2633), which is just one of these twenty–two tribes. The remarkable document which we possess concerning these Zoelae (C. I. L. ii.2633) informs us that this gens was again divided into gentilitates, which latter are also themselves called gentes, as this same document and other testimonies (Eph. Ep. ii.p. 243) prove. Civis is also found in reference to one of the Cantabrian populi (Eph. Ep. ii.p. 243). But even for the larger canton, which indeed was once the political unit, there are no other designations than these, strictly speaking, retrospective and incorrect; gens in particular is employed for it even in the technical style (e.g., C. I. L. ii.4233 Intercat[iensis] ex gente Vaccaeorum). That the commonwealth in Spain was based on those small districts, not on the cantons, is clear as well from the terminology itself as from the fact that Pliny in iii.3, 18, places overagainst those 293 places the civitates contributae aliis; moreover it is shown by the official at census accipiendos civitatium XXIII Vasconum et Vardulorum (C. I. L. vi. 1463) compared with the censor civitatis Remorum foederatae (C. I. L. xi. 1855, comp. 2607).

34 As the Latin communal constitution is unsuited for a community not organised as a town, those Spanish communities, which still after Vespasian’s time lacked urban organisation, must either have been excluded from the bestowal of Latin rights or have had special modifications to meet their case. The latter may be regarded as having more probability. Inscriptions, even of the gentes, subsequent to Vespasian’s time, show a Latin form of name, as C. I. L. ii. 2633, and Eph. Ep. ii.322; and if isolated ones from this period should be found with non–Roman names, it must always be a question whether this is not simply due to actual negligence. Presumptive proofs of non–Roman communal organisation, comparatively frequent in the scanty inscriptions that certainly date before Vespasian (C. I. L. ii.172, 1953, 2633, 5048), have not been met with by me in inscriptions that are certainly subsequent to Vespasian.

35 The direction of the via Augusta is specified by Strabo (iii.4, 9, p. 160); to it belong all the milestones which have that name, as well those from the region of Lerida (C. I. L. ii.4920–4928) as those found between Tarragona and Valencia (ibid. 4949–4954), and lastly, the numerous ones ab Iano Augusto, qui est ad Baetem, or ab arcu, unde incipit Baetica, ad oceanum.

36 At Clunia there was found a dedication to the Mothers (C. I. L. ii.2776)—the only Spanish example of this worship so widely diffused and so long continuing among the western Celts—at Uxama, one set up to the Lugoves (ib. 2818), a deity that recurs among the Celts of Aventicum.

37 The choliambics (i. 61) run thus:—

Verona docti syllabas amat vatis,
Marone felix Mantua est,
Censetur Apona Livio suo tellus
Stellaque nec Flacco minus,
Apollodoro plaudit imbrifer Nilus,
Nasone Peligni sonant,
Duosque Senecas unicumque Lucanum
Facunda loquitur Corduba,
Gaudent iocosae Canio suo Gades,
Emerita Deciano meo:
Te, Liciniane, gloriabitur nostra,
Nec me tacebit Bilbilis.

38 The domain of Iberian coins reaches decidedly beyond the Pyrenees, though the interpretation of individual coin–legends, which are among others referred to Perpignan and Narbonne, is not certain. As all these coinings took place under Roman authorisation, this suggests the question whether this portion of the subsequent Narbonensis was not at an earlier date—namely before the founding of Narbo (636 U.C.)118.—under the governor of Hither Spain. There are no Aquitanian coins with Iberian legends any more than from north–western Spain, probably because the Roman supremacy, under whose protection this coinage grew up, did not, so long as the latter lasted, i.e. perhaps up to the Numantine war, embrace those regions.

39 This is shown by the remarkable inscription of Avignon (Herzog. Gall. Narb. n. 403): T. Carisius T. f. pr[aetor] Volcar[um] dat—the oldest evidence for the Roman organisation of the commonwealth in these regions.

40 Noviodunum (Nyon on the lake of Geneva) alone perhaps in the three Gauls may be compared, as regards plan, with Lugudunum (iv.254)iv.242.; but, as this community emerges later as civitas Equestrium (Inscrip. Helvet. 115), it seems to have been inserted among the cantons, which was not the case with Lugudunum.

41 The persons earlier driven forth from Vienna by the Allobroges (?? ?? ???????? t?? ?a????s?a? ?p? t?? ????????? p?t? ??pes??te?), in Dio, xlvi. 50, cannot well have been other than Roman citizens, for the foundation of a burgess–colony for their benefit is intelligible only on this supposition. The “earlier” expulsion probably stood connected with the rising of the Allobroges under Catugnatus in 693 61. (iv.223)iv.213.. The explanation why the dispossessed were not brought back, but were settled elsewhere, is not forthcoming; but various reasons prompting such a course may be conceived, and the fact itself is not thereby called in question. The revenues accruing to the city (Tacitus, Hist. i. 65) may have been conferred upon it possibly at the expense of Vienna.

42 The ground belonged formerly to the Segusiavi (Plin. H. N. iv. 15, 107; Strabo, p. 186, 192), one of the small client–cantons of the Haedui (Caesar, B. G. vii.75); but in the cantonal division it counts not as one of these, but stands for itself as ?t??p???? (Ptolem. ii.8, 11, 12).

43 This was the 1200 soldiers with whom, as Agrippa the king of the Jews says in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4), the Romans held in subjection the whole of Gaul.

44 Nothing is so significant of the position of Treves at this time as the ordinance of the emperor Gratianus of the year 376 (Cod. Theod. xiii. 3, 11), that there should be given to the professors of rhetoric and of the grammar of both languages in all the capitals of the then subsisting seventeen Gallic provinces, over and above their municipal salary, a like addition from the state chest: but for Treves this was to be on a higher scale.

45 In Caesar there appear doubtless, taken on the whole, the same cantons as are thereafter represented in the Augustan arrangement, but at the same time manifold traces of smaller client–unions (comp. iv.237)iv.226.; thus as “clients” of the Haedui are named the Segusiavi, the Ambivareti, the Aulerci Brannovices, and the Brannovii (B. G. vii.75), as clients of the Treveri the Condrusi (B. G. iv. 6), as clients of the Helvetii the Tulingi and Latobriges. With the exception of the Segusiavi, all these are absent from the Lyons diet. Such minor cantons not wholly merged into the leading places may have subsisted in great number in Gaul at the time of the conquest. If, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii.16, 4), three hundred and five Gallic cantons and twelve hundred towns obeyed the Romans; these may be the figures that were reckoned up for Caesar’s successes in arms; if the small Iberian tribes in Aquitania and the client–cantons in the Celtic land were included in the reckoning, such numbers might well be the result.

46 This is indicated not only by the inscription in Boissieu, p. 609, where the words tot[i]us cens[us Galliarum] are brought into connection with the name of one of the altar–priests, but also by the honorary inscription erected by the three Gauls to an imperial official a censibus accipiendis (Henzen, 6944). He appears to have conducted the revision of the land–register for the whole country, just as formerly Drusus did, while the valuation itself took place by commissaries for the individual districts. A sacerdos Romae et Augusti of the Tarraconensis is praised ob curam tabulari censualis fideliter administratam (C. I. L. ii.4248); thus doubtless the diets of all provinces were invested with the apportionment of the taxes. The imperial finance–administration of the three Gauls was at least, as a rule, so divided that the two western provinces (Aquitania and Lugudunensis) were placed under one procurator, Belgica and the two Germanies under another; yet there were probably not legally fixed powers for this purpose. A regular taking part in the levy may not be inferred from the discussion held by Hadrian—evidently as an extraordinary step—with representatives of all the Spanish districts (vita, 12).

47 For the arca Galliarum, the freedman of the three Gauls (Henzen, 6393), the adlector arcae Galliarum, inquisitor Galliarum, iudex arcae Galliarum, no other province, so far as I know, furnishes analogies; and of these institutions, had they been general, the inscriptions elsewhere would certainly have preserved traces. These arrangements appear to point to a self–administering and self–taxing body (the adlector, the meaning of which term is not clear, occurs as an official in collegia, C. I. L. vi. 355; Orelli, 2406); probably this chest defrayed the doubtless not inconsiderable expenditure for the temple–buildings and for the annual festival. The arca Galliarum was not a state–chest.

48 As the total number of the communities recorded on the altar at Lyons, Strabo (iv.3, 2, p. 192) specifies sixty, and as the number of the Aquitanian communities in the Celtic portion north of the Garonne fourteen (iv.1, 1, p. 177). Tacitus (Ann. iii.44) names as the total number of the Gallic cantons sixty–four, and so does, although in an incorrect connection, the scholiast on the Aeneid, i. 286. A like total number is pointed to by the list given in Ptolemy from the second century, which adduces for Aquitania seventeen, for the Lugudunensis twenty–five, for the Belgica twenty–two cantons. Of his Aquitanian cantons thirteen fall to the region between the Loire and Garonne, four to that between the Garonne and the Pyrenees. In the later one from the fifth century, which is well known under the name of Notitia Galliarum, twenty–six fall to Aquitania, twenty–four to the Lugudunensis (exclusive of Lyons), twenty–seven to Belgica. All these numbers are presumably correct, each for its time. Between the erection of the altar in 74212. and the time of Tacitus (for to this his statement is doubtless to be referred), four cantons may have been added, just as the shifting of the numbers from the second to the fifth century may be referred to individual changes still in good part demonstrable.

Considering the importance of these arrangements, it will not be superfluous to exhibit them in detail, at least for the two western provinces. In the purely Celtic middle province the three lists given by Pliny (first century), Ptolemy (second century), and the Notitia (fifth century), agree in twenty–one names: Abrincates—Andecavi—Aulerci Cenomani—Aulerci Diablintes—Aulerci Eburovici—Baiocasses (Bodiocasses Plin., Vadicasii Ptol.)—Carnutes—Coriosolites (beyond doubt the Samnitae of Ptolemy)—Haedui—Lexovii—Meldae—Namnetes—Osismii—Parisii—Redones—Senones—Tricassini—Turones—Veliocasses (Rotomagenses)—Veneti—Unelli (Constantia); in three more: Caletae—Segusiavi—Viducasses, Pliny and Ptolemy agree, while they are wanting in the Notitia, because in the meanwhile the Caletae were put together with the Veliocasses or the Rotomagenses, the Viducasses with the Baiocasses, and the Segusiavi were merged in Lyons. On the other hand, instead of the three that have disappeared, there appear two new ones that have arisen by division: Aureliani (Orleans), a branch from the Carnutes (Chartres), and Autessiodurum (Auxerre), a branch from the Senones (Sens). There are left in Pliny two names, Boi—Atesui; in Ptolemy one, Arvii; in the Notitia one, Saii. For Celtic Aquitania the three lists agree in eleven names: Arverni—Bituriges Cubi—Bituriges Vivisci (Burdigalenses)—Cadurci—Gabales—Lemovici—Nitiobriges (Aginnenses)—Petrucorii—Pictones—Ruteni—Santones; the second and third agree in the 12th of Vellauni, which must have dropped out in Pliny; Pliny alone has (apart from the problematic Aquitani) two names more, Ambilatri and Anagnutes; Ptolemy one otherwise unknown, Datii; perhaps Strabo’s number of fourteen is to be made up by two of these. The Notitia has, besides these eleven, other two, based on splitting up the Albigenses (Albi on the Tarn), and the Ecolismenses (AngoulÊme). The lists of the eastern cantons stand related in a similar way. Although subordinate differences emerge, which cannot be here discussed, the character and the continuity of the Gallic cantonal division are clearly apparent.

49 The four represented tribes were the Tarbelli, Vasates, Auscii, and Convenae. Besides these Pliny enumerates in southern Aquitania no less than twenty–five tribes—most of them otherwise unknown—as standing on a legal equality with those four.

50 Pliny and, presumably here too following older sources of information, Ptolemy know nothing of this division; but we still possess the uncouth verses of the Gascon farmer (Borghesi, Opp. viii.544), who effected this change in Rome, beyond doubt in company with a number of his countrymen, although he has preferred not to add that it was so:—

Flamen, item dumvir, quaestor pagiq[ue] magister
Verus ad Augustum legato (sic) munere functus
pro novem optinuit populis seiungere Gallos:
urbe redux Genio pagi hanc dedicat aram.

The oldest trace of the administrative separation of Iberian Aquitania from the Gallic is the naming of the “district of Lactora” (Lectoure) alongside of Aquitania in an inscription from Trajan’s time (C. I. L. v. 875: procurator provinciarum Luguduniensis et Aquitanicae, item Lactorae). This inscription certainly of itself proves the diversity of the two territories rather than the formal severance of the one from the other; but it may be otherwise shown that soon after Trajan the latter was carried out. For the fact that the separated district was originally divided into nine cantons, as these verses say, is confirmed by the name that thenceforth continued in use, Novempopulana; but under Pius the district numbers already eleven communities (for the dilectator per Aquitanicae XI populos, Boissieu, Lyon, p. 246, certainly belongs to this connection), in the fifth century twelve, for the Notitia enumerates so many under the Novempopulana. This increase is to be explained similarly to that discussed at p.95, note 2. The division does not relate to the governorship; on the contrary, both the Celtic and the Iberian Aquitania remained under the same legate. But the Novempopulana obtained under Trajan its own diet, while the Celtic districts of Aquitania, after as before, sent deputies to the diet of Lyons.

51 There are wanting some smaller Germanic tribes, such as the Baetasii and the Sunuci, perhaps for similar reasons with those of the minor Iberian; and further, the Cannenefates and the Frisians, probably because it was not till later that these became subjects of the empire. The Batavi were represented.

52 Thus there was found in Nemausus a votive inscription written in the Celtic language, erected ?at?e? ?aa?s??a? (C. I. L. xi. p. 383), i.e., to the Mothers of the place.

53 For example, we read on an altar–stone found in NÉris–les–Bains, (Allier; Desjardins, GÉographie de la Gaule romaine, ii.476); Bratronos Nantonicn Epadatextorici Leucullo Suio rebelocitoi. On another, which the Paris mariners’ guild under Tiberius erected to Jupiter the highest and best (Mowat; Bull. Épig. de la Gaule, p. 25f.) the main inscription is Latin, but on the reliefs of the lateral surfaces, which appear to represent a procession of nine armed priests, there stand explanatory words appended: Senani Useiloni … and Eurises, which are not Latin. Such a mixture is also met with elsewhere, e.g., in an inscription of ArrÈnes (Creuse, Bull. Épig. de la Gaule, i. 38); Sacer Peroco ieuru (probably = fecit) Duorico v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito).

54 The posting–books and itineraries do not fail to remark at Lyons and Toulouse that here the leugae begin.

55 The second Berne gloss on Lucan, i. 445, which rightly makes Teutates Mars, and seems also otherwise credible, says of him: Hesum Mercurium colunt, si quidem a mercatoribus colitur.

56 Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii.16, 4. There king Agrippa asks his Jews whether they imagined themselves to be richer than the Gauls, braver than the Germans, more sagacious than the Hellenes. With this all other testimonies accord. Nero hears of the revolt not unwillingly occasione nata spoliandarum iure belli opulentissimarum provinciarum (Suetonius, Nero, 40; Plut. Galb. 5); the booty taken from the insurgent army of Vindex is immense (Tac. Hist. i. 51). Tacitus (Hist. iii.46) calls the Haedui pecunia dites et voluptatibus opulentos. The general of Vespasian is not wrong in saying to the revolted Gauls in Tac. Hist. iv.74: Regna bellaque per Gallias semper fuere, donec in nostrum ius concederetis; nos quamquam totiens lacessiti iure victoriae id solum vobis addidimus quo pacem tueremur, nam neque quies gentium sine armis neque arma sine stipendiis neque stipendia sine tributis haberi queunt. The taxes doubtless pressed heavily, but not so heavily as the old state of feud and club–law.

57 This epigram on “barley–wine” is preserved (Anthol. Pal. ix. 368):

??? p??e? e?? ?????se; ? ??? t?? ?????a ??????,
?? s’ ?p??????s??? t?? ???? ??da ????.
?e???? ???ta? ?d?de? s? d? t?????? ? ?? se ?e?t??
t? pe??? ?t???? te??a? ?p’ ?sta????.
t? se ??? ?a??e?? ???t????, ?? ?????s??,
p??????? ????? ?a? ????, ?? ??????.

On an earthen ring found in Paris (Mowat, Bull. Épig. de la Gaule, ii. 110; iii.133), which is hollow and adapted for the filling of cups, the drinker says to the host: copo, conditu(m) [cnoditu is a misspelling] abes; est reple(n)da— “Host, thou hast more in the cellar; the flask is empty;” and to the barmaid: ospita, reple lagona(m) cervesa—“Girl, fill the flask with beer.”

58 Suetonius, Dom. 7. When it was specified as a reason, that the higher prices of corn were occasioned by the conversion of agricultural land into vineyards, that was of course a pretext which calculated on the want of intelligence in the public.

59 When Hehn still appeals (Kulturpflanzen, p. 76) for the vine–culture of the Arverni and the Sequani, beyond the Narbonensis, to Pliny, H. N. xiv. 1, 18, he follows discarded interpolations of the text. It is possible that the sterner imperial government in the three Gauls kept back the cultivation of the vine more than the lax senatorial rule in the Narbonensis.

60 One of the professorial poems of Ausonius is dedicated to four Greek grammarians:—

Sedulum cunctis studium docendi;
Fructus exilis tenuisque sermo;
Sed, quia nostro docuere in aevo,
Commemorandi.

This mention is the more meritorious, seeing that he had learned nothing suitable from them:—

Obstitit nostrae quia, credo, mentis
Tardior sensus, neque disciplinis
Appulit Graecis puerilis aevi
Noxius error.

Such thoughts have frequently found utterance, but seldom in Sapphic measure.

61 Romana gravitas, Hieronymus, Ep. 125, p. 929, Vall.

62 This division of a province among three governors is without parallel elsewhere in Roman administration. The relation of Africa and Numidia offers doubtless an external analogy, but was politically conditioned by the position of the senatorial governor to the imperial military commandant, while the three governors of Belgica were uniformly imperial; and it is not at all easy to see why the two Germanic ones had districts within the Belgica assigned to them instead of districts of their own. Nothing but the taking back of the frontier, while the hitherto subsisting name was retained—just as the Transdanubian Dacia continued subsequently to subsist in name as Cis–Danubian—explains this singular peculiarity.

63 The strength of the auxilia of the upper army may be fixed for the epoch of Domitian and Trajan with tolerable certainty at about 10,000 men. A document of the year 90 enumerates four alae and fourteen cohortes of this army; to these is to be added at least one cohort (I Germanorum), which, it can be shown, did garrison–duty there as well in the year 82 as in the year 116; whether two alae which were there in the year 82, and at least three cohorts which were there in 116, and which are absent from the list of the year 90, were doing garrison work there in 90 or not, is doubtful, but most of them probably were away from the province before 90 or only came into it after 90. Of those nineteen auxilia one was certainly (coh. I Damascenorum), another perhaps (ala I Flavia gemina), a double division. At the minimum, therefore, the figure indicated above results as the normal state of the auxilia of this army, and it cannot have been materially exceeded. But the auxilia of lower Germany, whose garrisons were less extended, may well have been smaller in number.

64 At the frontier bridge over the rivulet Abrinca, now Vinxt, the old boundary of the archdioceses of Cologne and Treves, stood two altars, that on the side of Remagen dedicated to the Boundaries, the Spirit of the place, and Jupiter (Finibus et Genio loci et Iovi optimo maximo) by soldiers of the 30th lower German legion; the other on the side of Andernach, dedicated to Jupiter, the Genius of the place, and Juno, by a soldier of the 8th Upper Germanic (Brambach, 649, 650).

65Limes (from limus, across) is a technical expression foreign to the state of things under our [German] law, and hence not to be reproduced in our language, derived from the fact that the Roman division of land, which excludes all natural boundaries, separates the squares, into which the ground coming under the head of private property is divided, by intermediate paths of a definite breadth; these intermediate paths are the limites, and so far the word always denotes at once the boundary drawn by man’s hand, and the road constructed by man’s hand. The word retains this double signification even in application to the state (Rudorff, Grom. Inst. p. 289, puts the matter incorrectly); limes is not every imperial frontier, but only that which is marked out by human hands, and arranged at the same time for being patrolled and having posts stationed for frontier–defence (Vita Hadriani, 12; locis in quibus barbari non fluminibus, sed limitibus dividuntur), such as we find in Germany and in Africa. Therefore there are applied to the laying–out of this limes the terms that serve to designate the construction of roads, aperire (Velleius, ii.121, which is not to be understood, as MÜllenhoff, Zeitschr. f. d. Alterth., new series, ii.p. 32, would have it, like our opening of a turnpike), munire, agere (Frontinus, Strat. i. 3, 10: limitibus per CXX m. p. actis). Therefore the limes is not merely a longitudinal line, but also of a certain breadth (Tacitus, Ann. i. 50; castra in limite locat). Hence the construction of the limes is often combined with that of the agger—that is, of the road–embankment (Tacitus, Ann. ii. 7: cuncta novis limitibus aggeribusque permunita), and the shifting of it with the transference of frontier–posts (Tacitus, Germ. 29: limite acto promotisque praesidiis). The Limes is thus the imperial frontier–road, destined for the regulation of frontier–intercourse, inasmuch as the crossing of it was allowed only at certain points corresponding to the bridges of the river boundary, and elsewhere forbidden. This was doubtless effected in the first instance by patrolling the line, and, so long as this was done, the limes remained a boundary road. It remained so too, when it was fortified on both sides, as was done in Britain and at the mouth of the Danube; the Britannic wall is also termed limes (p.187, note 2). Posts might also be stationed at the allowed points of crossing, and the intervening spaces of the frontier–roads might be in some way rendered impassable. In this sense the biographer of Hadrian says in the above–quoted passage that at the limites he stipitibus magnis in modum muralis saepis funditus iactis atque conexis barbaros separavit. By this means the frontier–road was converted into a frontier–barricade provided with certain passages through it, and such was the limes of upper Germany in the developed shape to be set forth in the sequel. We may add that the word is not used with this special import in the time of the republic; and beyond doubt this conception of the limes only originated with the institution of the chain of posts enclosing the state, where natural boundaries were wanting—a protection of the imperial frontier, which was foreign to the republic, but was the foundation of the Augustan military system, and above all, of the Augustan system of tolls.

66 The Sugambri transplanted to the left bank are not subsequently mentioned under this name, and are probably the Cugerni dwelling below Cologne on the Rhine. But that the Sugambri on the right bank, whom Strabo mentions, were at least still in existence in the time of Claudius, is shown by the cohort named after this emperor, and thus certainly formed under him, doubtless of Sugambri (C. I. L. iii.p. 877); and they, as well as the four other probably Augustan cohorts of this name, confirm what Strabo also in a strict sense says, that these Sugambri belonged to the Roman empire. They disappeared doubtless, like the Mattiaci, only amidst the tempests of the migration of nations.

67 The fortress of Niederbiber, not far from the point at which the Wied falls into the Rhine, as well as that of Arzbach, near Montabaur, in the region of the Lahn, belong to upper Germany. The special significance of the former stronghold, the largest fortress in upper Germany, turned on the fact that it, in a military point of view, closed the Roman lines on the right bank of the Rhine.

68 The levies (Eph. Epigr. v.p. 274) require us to assume this, while the Frisians, as they come forward in the year 58 (Tacitus, Ann. xiii.54) rather appear independent; the elder Pliny also (H. N. xxv.3, 22) under Vespasian names them, looking back to the time of Germanicus, as gens tum fida. Probably this is connected with the distinction between the Frisii and Frisiavones in Pliny, H. N. iv.15, 101, and between the Frisii maiores and minores in Tacitus, Germ. 34. The Frisians that remained Roman would be the western; the free, the eastern; if the Frisians generally reach as far as the Ems (Ptolem. iii.11, 7), those subsequently Roman may have settled perhaps to the westward of the Yssel. We may not put them elsewhere than on the coast that still bears their name; the designation in Pliny, iv.17, 106, stands isolated, and is beyond doubt incorrect.

69 The fourth upper German legion was sent in the year 58 to Asia Minor on account of the Armeno–Parthian war (Tacitus, Ann. xiii.35).

70 Frontinus, Strat. iv.3, 14. In their territory the advancing troops must have constructed a reserve station and a depot; according to tiles recently found near Mirabeau–sur–BÈze, about fourteen miles north–east of Dijon, men of at least five of the advancing legions had executed buildings here (Hermes, xix. 437).

71 Under the legate Q. Acutius Nerva, who was probably the consul of the year 100, and so administered lower Germany after that year, there were stationed, according to inscriptions of Brohl (Brambach, 660, 662, 679, 680), in this province four legions, the 1st Minervia, 6th Victrix, 10th Gemina, 22d Primigenia. As each of these inscriptions names only two or three, the garrison may then have consisted only of three legions, if during the governorship of Acutius the 1st Minervia came in place of the 22d Primigenia drafted off elsewhere. But it is far more probable—seeing that all the legions were not always taking part in the detachments to the stone quarries at Brohl—that these four legions were doing garrison–duty at the same time in lower Germany. These four legions are probably just those that came to lower Germany on the reorganisation of the Germanic armies by Vespasian (p.159 note), only that the 1st Minervia was put by Domitian in the place of the 21st, probably broken up by him.

72 According to the ingenious decipherings of Zangemeister (Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, iii.307 ff), it is established that a military road was already laid out under Claudius on the left bank of the Rhine from Mentz as far as the frontier of the upper German province.

73 The full name c(ivitas) M(attiacorum) Ta(unensium) appears on the inscription of Castel in Brambach, C. I. Rh. 1330; it occurs frequently as civitas Mattiacorum or civitas Taunensium, with Duoviri, Aediles, Decuriones, Sacerdotales, Seviri; peculiar and characteristic of a frontier town are the hastiferi civitatis Mattiacorum, probably to be taken as a municipal militia (Brambach, 1336). The oldest dated document of this community is of the year 198 (Brambach, 956).

74 The accounts of this war have been lost; its time and place admit of being determined. As the coins give to Domitian the title Germanicus after the beginning of the year 84 (Eckhel, vi. 378, 397), the campaign falls in the year 83. Accordant with this is the levy of the Usipes, which falls on this same year, and their desperate attempt at flight (Tacitus, Agr. 28; comp. Martialis, vi. 60). It was an aggressive war (Suetonius, Dom. 6: expeditio sponte suscepta; Zonaras, xi. 19; ?e??at?sa? t??? t?? p??a? ????? t?? ??sp??d??). The shifting of the line of posts is attested by Frontinus, who took part in the war, Strat. ii.11, 7: cum in finibus Cubiorum (name unknown and probably corrupt) castella poneret, and i. 3, 10: limitibus per cxx. m. p. actis, which is here brought into immediate connection with the military operations, and hence may not be separated from the Chattan war itself and referred to the agri decumates, which had for long been in the Roman power. The measure of 108 miles is very conceivable for the military line which Domitian planned at the Taunus (according to Cohausen’s estimates, RÖm. Grenzwall, p. 8, the later Limes from the Rhine round the Taunus as far as the Main is set down at 137 miles), but is much too small to admit of its being referred to the line of connection from thence to Ratisbon.

75 The Germans (Suetonius, Dom. 6) could only be the Chatti, and their earlier allies, perhaps in the first instance just the Usipes and those sharing their fate. The insurrection broke out in Mentz, which alone was a double camp of two legions. Saturninus was assailed from Raetia by the troops of L. Appius Maximus Norbanus. For the epigram of Martial, ix. 84, cannot be understood otherwise, the more especially as his conqueror, of senatorial rank as he was, could not administer a regular command in Raetia and Vindelicia, and could only be led into this region by a case of war emerging, as indeed the sacrilegi furores clearly point to the insurrection. The tiles of this same Appius, which have been found in the provinces of upper Germany and Aquitania, do not warrant the making him legate of the Lugdunensis, as Asbach (Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, iii. 9), suggests, but must be referred to the epoch after the defeat of Antonius (Hermes, xix. 438). Where the battle was fought remains doubtful; the region of Vindonissa most naturally suggests itself, to which point Saturninus may have gone to meet Norbanus. Had Norbanus encountered the insurgents only at Mentz, which in itself seems conceivable, these would have had the crossing of the Rhine in their power, and the contingent of the Germans could not have been hindered by the breaking–up of the Rhine from reinforcing them.

76 The detached notice is found subjoined to the Veronese provincial list (Notitia dignitatum, ed. Seeck, p. 253): nomina civitatum trans Renum fluvium quae sunt; Usiphorum (read Usiporum)—Tuvanium (read Tubantum)—Nictrensium—Novarii—Casuariorum: istae omnes civitates trans Renum in formulam Belgicae primae redactae trans castellum Montiacese: nam lxxx.leugas trans Renum Romani possederunt. Istae civitates sub Gallieno imperatore a barbaris occupatae sunt. That the Usipes afterwards dwelt in this region, is confirmed by Tacitus, Hist. iv.37, Germ. 32; that they belonged to the empire in the year 83, but had perhaps been made subject only shortly before, is plain from the narrative, Agr. 28. The Tubantes and Chasuarii are placed by Ptolemy, ii.11, 11, in the vicinity of the Chatti; that they shared the fate of the Usipes is accordingly probable. No certain identification of the other two corrupt names has hitherto been found; perhaps the Tencteri had a place here, or some of the small tribes named with these only in Ptolemy, ii. 11, 6. The notice in its original form named Belgica simply, as the province was only divided by Diocletian, and named it rightly in so far as the two Germanies belonged geographically to Belgica. The specified measurement carries us, if we follow the Kinzig valley to the north–east, beyond Fulda nearly to Hersfeld. Inscriptions have been found here far eastward beyond the Rhine, as far as the Wetterau; Friedberg and Butzbach were military positions strongly garrisoned; at Altenstadt between Friedberg and BÜdingen there has been found an inscription of the year 242 (Brambach, C. I. Rh. 1410) pointing to protection of the frontier (collegium iuventutis).

77 What the designation agri decumates (for the latter word is at anyrate to be connected with agri) occurring only in Tacitus, Germ. 29, means, is uncertain. It is possible that the territory regarded in the earlier imperial period certainly as property of the state or rather of the emperor, like the old ager occupatorius of the republic, might be used by the first who took possession upon payment of the tenth; but neither is it linguistically proved that decumas can mean “liable for a tenth,” nor are we acquainted with such arrangements in the imperial period. Moreover it should not be overlooked that the description of Tacitus refers to the time before the institution of the line of the Neckar; it does not suit the latter period any more than does the designation, which doubtless is not clear, but is at any rate certainly connected with the earlier legal relation.

78 This has been proved by Zangemeister (Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, iii. p. 246).

79 The fact that here several altars were dedicated, while elsewhere at these central sanctuaries only one is mentioned, may be explained perhaps by the cultus of Roma falling into the background by the side of that of the emperors. If at the very outset several altars were erected, which is probable, perhaps one of the sons caused altars to be set up as well to his father and perhaps his brother as to his own Genius.

80 That the transfer took place shortly before Tacitus wrote the Germania in the year 98, he himself states, and that Domitian was its author, follows from the fact that he does not name the author.

81 This, too, has been documentarily established by Zangemeister (Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, iii.237 f.).

82 This measurement holds for the line of forts from Rheinbrohl to Lorch (Cohausen, der RÖm. Grenzwall, p. 7 f.). For the earthen rampart there falls to be deducted the stretch of the Main from Miltenberg to Grosskrotzenburg, of about thirty Roman miles. In the case of the older line of the Neckar the rampart is considerably shorter, since, instead of that from Miltenberg to Lorch, here comes in the much shorter one of the Odenwald from WÖrth to Wimpfen.

83 If, as is probable, the statement that Hadrian blocked the imperial frontier–roads by palisades against the barbarians (p.122) relates in part and perhaps primarily to the upper Germanic, the wall, of which remains are extant, was not his work; whether this may have carried palisades or not, no report would mention these and pass over the wall itself. Dio. lxix. 9, says that Hadrian revised the defence of the frontier throughout the empire. The designation of the pale [Pfahl] or pale–ditch [Pfahlgraben] cannot be Roman; in Latin the stakes, which, driven into the wall of the camp, form a palisade–chain for it, are called not pali, but valli or sudes, just as the wall itself is never other than vallum. If the designation in use from of old for this purpose apparently along the whole line among the Germans was really borrowed from the palisades, it must have been of Germanic origin, and can only have proceeded from the time when this wall stood before their eyes in its integrity and significance. Whether the “region” Palas which Ammianus mentions (xviii.2, 15) is connected with this is doubtful.

84 In such an one recently discovered between the forts of Schlossau and Hesselbach, 1850 yards from the former, about three miles from the latter, there has been found a votive inscription (Korrespondenzblatt der Westdeutschen Zeitschrift, 1 Jul. 1884), which the troop that built it—a detachment of the 1st cohort of the Sequani and Raurici under command of a centurion of the 22d legion, erected as a thanksgiving ob burgum explic(itum). These towers thus were burgi.

85 The oldest dated evidence for these is two inscriptions of the garrison of BÖckingen, opposite Heilbronn, on the left bank of the Neckar of the year 148 (Brambach, C. I. Rh. 1583, 1590).

86 The oldest dated evidence for the existence of this line is the inscription of vicus Aurelii (Oehringen) of the year 169 (Brambach, C. I. Rh. 1558), doubtless only private, but certainly not set up before the construction of this fort belonging to the Miltenberg–Lorch line; little later is that of Jagsthausen, likewise belonging to that line, of the year 179 (C. I. Rh. 1618). Accordingly vicus Aurelii might take its name from Marcus, not from Caracalla, though it is attested of the latter that he constructed various forts in these regions and named them after himself (Dio, lxxvi. 13).

87 As to the distribution of the upper German troops there is a want of sufficient information, but not entirely of data on which to rest. Of the two headquarters in upper Germany, that of Strassburg can be shown to have been after the construction of the line of the Neckar occupied but weakly, and was probably more an administrative than a military centre (Westdeutsches Correspondenzblatt, 1884, p. 132). On the other hand, the garrison of Mentz always demanded a considerable portion of the aggregate strength, all the more because it was probably the only compact body of troops on a large scale in all upper Germany. The other troops were distributed partly to the Limes, whose forts, according to Cohausen’s estimate (RÖm. Grenzwall, p. 335), were on an average five miles apart from one another, and so in all about fifty; partly to the interior forts, especially on the line of the Odenwald from GÜndelsheim to WÖrth; that the latter, at least in part, remained occupied even after the laying out of the outer Limes, is at least probable. Owing to the inequality in size of the forts still measurable, it is difficult to say what number of troops was required to make them capable of defence. Cohausen (l.c. p. 340) reckons to a middle–sized fort, including the reserve, 720 men. As the usual cohort of the legion as of the auxiliaries numbered 500 men, and the fort–buildings must necessarily have had regard to this fact, the garrison of the fort in the event of siege must be estimated on an average at least at this number. After the reduction the upper German army could not possibly have held the forts, even of the Limes alone, simultaneously in this strength. Much less could it, even before the reduction, have kept the lines between the forts even barely occupied with its 30,000 men (p.119); and, if this was not possible, the simultaneous occupation of all the forts had in fact no object. To all appearance each fort was planned in such a way that, when duly garrisoned, it could be held; but, as a rule—and on this frontier the state of peace was the rule—the individual fort was not on a war–footing, but only furnished with troops, in so far that posts might be stationed in the watch–towers, and the roads as well as the byways might be kept under inspection. The standing garrisons of the forts were, it may be conjectured, very much weaker than is usually assumed. We possess from antiquity but a single record of such a garrison; it is of the year 155, and relates to the fort of Kutlowitza, to the north of Sofia (Eph. Epigr. iv.p. 524), for which the army of lower Moesia, and in fact the 11th legion, furnished the garrison. This troop numbered at that time, besides the centurion in command, only 76 men. The Raetian army was, at least before Marcus, still less in a position to occupy extensive lines; it numbered then at the most 10,000 men, and had, besides the Raetian Limes, to supply also the line of the Danube from Ratisbon to Passau.

88 This is proved by the document of Trajan of the year 107, found at Weissenburg.

89 The investigations hitherto as to the Raetian Limes have but little cleared up the destination of this work; this only is made out that it was less adapted than the analogous upper German one for military occupation. A weaker frontier–bar of that sort may reasonably, even before the Marcomanian war, have been chosen to face the Hermunduri; nor does what Tacitus says of their intercourse in Augusta Vindelicum by any means exclude the existence at that time of a Raetian Limes. Only in that case we should expect that it would not end at Lorch, but would join the line of the Neckar; and in some measure it does this, inasmuch as at Lorch instead of the Limes comes the Rems, which falls into the Neckar at Canstatt.

90 Of the seven legions which at Nero’s death were stationed in the two Germanies (p.132), Vespasian broke up five; there remained the 21st and the 22d, to which, thereupon, were added the seven or eight legions introduced for the suppression of the revolt, the 1st Adiutrix, 2d Adiutrix, 6th Victrix, 8th and 10th Gemina, 11th, 13th (?), and 14th. Of these, after the close of the war, the 1st Adiutrix was sent probably to Spain (p.65, note), the 2d Adiutrix probably to Britain (p.174, note 4), the 13th Gemina (if this came to Germany at all) to Pannonia; the other seven remained, namely, in the lower province the 6th, 10th, 21st, and 22d (p.147, note), in the upper the 8th, 11th, and 14th. To the latter was probably added in the year 88 the 1st Adiutrix, once more sent from Spain to upper Germany (p.65 note). That under Trajan the 1st Adiutrix and the 11th were stationed in upper Germany is shown by the inscription of Baden–Baden (Brambach, C. I. Rh. 1666). The 8th and the 14th, it can be shown, both came with Cerialis to Germany, and both did garrison duty there for a considerable period.

91 Traian was sent by Nerva in the year 96 or 97 as legate to Germany, probably to the upper, as at that time Vestricius Spurinna seems to have presided over the lower. Nominated here as co–regent in October of the year 97, he received the accounts of Nerva’s death and of his nomination as the Augustus in February 98 at Cologne. He may have remained there during the winter and the following summer; in the winter 98–99 he was on the Danube. The words of Eutropius, viii.2: urbes trans Rhenum in Germania reparavit (whence the often misused notice in Orosius, vii.12, 2, has been copied), which can only be referred to the upper province, but naturally apply not to the legate, but to the Caesar or the Augustus, obtain a confirmation through the civitas Ulpia s(altus?) N(icerini?) Lopodunum of the inscriptions. The “restoration” may stand in contrast not to the institutions of Domitian, but to the irregular germs of urban arrangements in the Decumates–land before the shifting of the military frontier. There is no indication pointing to warlike events under Trajan; that he planned and gave his name (Ammianus, xvii.1, 11) to a castellum in Alamannorum solo—according to the connection, on the Main not far from Mentz—is as little proof of such events as the circumstance that a later poet (Sidonius, Carm. vii.115), mixing up old and new, makes Agrippina under him the terror of the Sugambri—that is, in his sense, of the Franks.

92 Not merely the causal connection, but even the chronological succession of these important events is obscure. The account, relatively the best, in Zosimus, i. 29, describes the Germanic war as the cause why Valerian immediately on ascending the throne in 253 made his son joint–ruler with equal rights; and Valerian bears the title Germanicus maximus as early as 256 (C. I. L. viii.2380; likewise in 259 C. I. L. xi. 826), perhaps even if the coin in Cohen, n. 54, is to be trusted, the title Germanicus maximus ter.

93 That the Germans, against whom Gallienus had to fight, are to be sought at least chiefly on the lower Rhine, is shown by the residence of his son in Agrippina, where he can only have remained behind as nominal representative of his father. His biographer also, c. 8, names the Franks.

94 It is difficult to form a conception of the degree of historical falsification which prevails in a portion of the Imperial Biographies; it will not be amiss to present here a specimen of it in the account of Postumus. He is here called (no doubt in an inserted document) Iulius Postumus (Tyr. 6), on the coins and inscriptions M. Cassianius Latinius Postumus, in the epitomised Victor, 32, Cassius Labienus Postumus.—He reigns seven years (Gall. 4); Tyr. 3, 5; the coins name his tr. p. X., and Eutropius, ix. 10, gives him ten years.—His opponent is called Lollianus, according to the coins Ulpius Cornelius Laelianus, Laelianus in Eutropius ix. 9 (according to the one class of manuscripts, while the other follows the interpolation of the biographers) and in Victor (c. 33), Aelianus in the epitome of Victor.—Postumus and Victorinus rule jointly according to the biographer; but there are no coins common to both, and consequently these confirm the report in Victor and Eutropius that Victorinus was the successor of Postumus.—It is a peculiarity of this class of falsifications that they reach their culmination in the documents inserted. The Cologne epitaph of the two Victorini (Tyr. 7), hic duo Victorini tyranni (!) siti sunt criticises itself. The alleged commission of Valerian, whereby the latter communicates to the Gauls the nomination of Postumus, not only praises prophetically the gifts of Postumus as a ruler, but names also various impossible offices; a Transrhenani limitis dux et Galliae praeses at no time existed, and Postumus ????? ?? ?e?t??? st?at??t?? ?pep?ste????? (Zosimus, i. 38) can only have been praeses of one of the two Germanies, or, if his command was an extraordinary one, dux per Germanias. Equally impossible is, in the same quasi–document, the tribunatus Vocontiorum of the son, an evident imitation of the tribunates, as they emerge in the Notitia Dign. of the time of Honorius.—Against Postumus and Victorinus, under whom the Gauls and the Franks fight, Gallienus marches with Aureolus, afterwards his opponent, and the later emperor Claudius; he himself is wounded by a shot from an arrow, but is victorious, without any change being produced by the victory. Of this war the other accounts know nothing. Postumus falls in the military insurrection instigated by the so–called Lollianus, while according to the report in Victor and Eutropius, Postumus becomes master of this Mentz insurrection, but then the soldiers kill him because he will not deliver up Mentz to them for plunder. As to the elevation of Postumus, by the side of the narrative which agrees in the main with the ordinary one, that Postumus had perfidiously set aside the son of Gallienus entrusted to his guardianship, stands another evidently invented to clear him, according to which the people in Gaul did this, and then offered the crown to Postumus. The tendency to eulogise one who had spared Gaul the fate of the Danubian lands and of Asia and had saved it from the Germans, comes here and everywhere (most obviously at Tyr. 5) to light; with which is connected the fact that this report knows nothing of the loss of the right bank of the Rhine and of the expeditions of the Franks to Gaul, Spain, and Africa. It is further significant that the alleged progenitor of the Constantinian house is here provided with an honourable secondary part. This narrative, not confused but thoroughly falsified, must be completely set aside; the reports on the one hand in Zosimus, on the other in the Latins drawing from a common source—Victor and Eutropius, short and confused as they are, can alone be taken into account.

95 The rule of Postumus lasted ten years (p.164, note 1). That the elder son of Gallienus was already dead in 259, we learn from the inscription of Modena, C. I. L. xi. 826; the revolt of Postumus thus falls certainly in or before this year. As the captivity of Tetricus cannot well be placed later than 272, immediately after the second expedition against Zenobia, and the three Gallic rulers reigned, Postumus for ten years, Victorinus for two (Eutropius, ix. 9), Tetricus for two (Victor, 35), this brings the revolt of Postumus to somewhere about 259; yet such numbers are frequently somewhat deranged. When the duration of the expeditions of the Germans into Spain under Gallienus is definitely stated at twelve years (Orosius, vii. 41, 2), this appears to be superficially reckoned according to the Chronicle of Jerome. The usual exact numbers are unattested and deceptive.

96 According to the biographer, c. 14, 15, Probus brought the Germans of the right bank of the Rhine into dependence, so that they were tributary to the Romans and defended the frontier for them (omnes jam barbari vobis arant, vobis jam serviunt et contra interiores gentes militant); the right of bearing arms is left to them for the time, but the idea is, on further successes, to push forward the frontier and erect a province of Germania. Even as free fancies of a Roman of the fourth century—more they are not—these utterances have a certain interest.

97 To all appearance the political relations between Rome and Britain in the time before the conquest are to be regarded essentially as arising out of the restoration and guarantee (B. G. v.22) of the principality of the Trinovantes by Caesar. That king Dubnovellaunus, who along with another quite unknown Britannic prince sought protection with Augustus, ruled chiefly in Essex, is shown by his coins (my Mon. Ancyr. 2d ed., p. 138 f.). We have to seek also mainly there the Britannic princes who sent to Augustus and recognised his supremacy (for such apparently we must take to be the meaning of Strabo, iv.5, 3, p. 200; comp. Tacitus, Ann. ii.24). Cunobelinus, according to the coins the son of king Tasciovanus, of whom history is silent, dying as it would seem in advanced years between 40 and 43, and thus contemporary in his government with the later years of Augustus and with Tiberius and Gaius, resided in Camalodunum (Dio, lx. 21); around him and his sons the preliminary history of the invasion turns. To what quarter Bericus, who came to Claudius (Dio, lx. 19), belonged we do not know, and other British dynasts may have followed the example of those of Colchester; but these stand at the head.

98 Tacitus, Agr. 13, consilium id divus Augustus vocabat, Tiberius praeceptum.

99 The exposition in Strabo, ii.5, 8, p. 115; iv.5, 3, p. 200, gives evidently the governmental version. That, after annexation of the island, the free traffic and therewith the produce of the customs would decline, must doubtless be taken as conceding the proposition that the Roman rule and the Roman tribute affected injuriously the prosperity of the subjects.

100 Suetonius, Claud. 17, specifies as cause of the war: Britanniam tunc tumultuantem ob non redditos transfugas; which O. Hirschfeld justly brings into connection with Gai. 44: Adminio Cunobellini Britannorum regis filio, qui pulsus a patre cum exigua manu transfugerat, in deditionem recepto. By the tumultuari are doubtless meant at least projected expeditions for pillage to the Gallic coast. The war was certainly not waged on account of Bericus (Dio, lx. 19).

101 Mona was in like manner afterwards receptaculum perfugarum (Tacitus, Ann. xiv.29).

102 Tacitus, Ann. xii.37: pluribus gentibus imperitantem.

103 The three legions of the Rhine were the 2d Augusta, the 14th, and the 20th; from Pannonia came the 9th Spanish. The same four legions were still stationed there at the beginning of the government of Vespasian; the latter called away the 14th for the war against Civilis, and it did not return to Britain, but, in its stead, probably the 2d Adiutrix. This was presumably transferred under Domitian to Pannonia; under Hadrian the 9th was broken up and replaced by the 6th Victrix. The two other legions, the 2d Augusta and the 20th, were stationed in England from the beginning to the end of the Roman rule.

104 The identification, based only on dubious emendations, of the Boduni and Catuellani in Dio. lx. 20, with tribes of similar name in Ptolemy, cannot be correct; these first conflicts must have taken place between the coast and the Thames.

105 Tacitus, Ann. xii.31 (P. Ostorius) cuncta castris ad …ntonam (MSS. read castris antonam) et Sabrinam fluvios cohibere parat. So the passage is to be restored, only that the name of the river Tern not elsewhere given in tradition cannot be supplied. The only inscriptions found in England of soldiers of the 14th legion, which left England under Nero, have come to light at Wroxeter, the so–called “English Pompeii.” The epitaph of a soldier of the 20th has also been found there. The camp described by Tacitus was perhaps common at first to the two legions, and the 20th did not go till afterwards to Deva. That the camp at Isca was laid out immediately after the invasion is plain from Tacitus, Ann. xii.32, 38.

106 A worse narrative than that of Tacitus concerning this war, Ann. xiv. 31–39, is hardly to be found even in this most unmilitary of all authors. We are not told where the troops were stationed, and where the battles were fought; but we get, instead, signs and wonders enough and empty words only too many. The important facts, which are mentioned in the life of Agricola, 31, are wanting in the main narrative, especially the storming of the camp. That Paullinus coming from Mona should think not of saving the Romans in the south–east, but of uniting his troops, is intelligible; but not why, if he wished to sacrifice Londinium, he should march thither on that account. If he really went thither, he can only have appeared there with a personal escort, without the corps which he had with him in Mona—which indeed has no meaning. The bulk of the Roman troops, as well those brought back from Mona as those still in existence elsewhere, can, after the extirpation of the 9th legion, only have been stationed on the line Deva—Viroconium—Isca; Paullinus fought the battle with the two legions stationed in the first two of these camps, the 14th and the (incomplete) 20th. That Paullinus fought because he was obliged to fight, is stated by Dio, lxii. 1–12, and although his narrative cannot be otherwise used to correct that of Tacitus, this much seems required by the very state of the case.

107 Tacitus, Hist. i. 2, sums up the result in the words perdomita Britannia et statim missa.

108 The imperial finance–official under Pius, Appian (proem. 5), remarks that the Romans had occupied the best part (t? ???t?st??) of the British islands ??d?? t?? ????? de?e???, ?? ??? e?f???? a?t??? ?st?? ??d’ ?? ????s??. This was the answer of the governmental staff to Agricola and such as shared his opinion.

109 The opinion that the northern wall took the place of the southern is as widely spread as it is untenable; the cohort–camps on Hadrian’s wall, as shown to us by the inscriptions of the second century, still subsisted in the main unchanged at the end of the third (for to this epoch belongs the relative section of the Notitia). The two structures subsisted side by side, after the more recent was added; the mass of monuments at the wall of Severus also shows evidently that it continued to be occupied up to the end of the Roman rule in Britain.

The building of Severus can only be referred to the northern structure. In the first place, the structure of Hadrian was of such a nature that any sort of restoration of it could not possibly be conceived as a new building, as is said of the wall of Severus; while the structure of Pius was a mere earthen rampart (murus cespiticius, Vita, c. 5), and such an assumption in its case creates less difficulty. Secondly, the length of Severus’s wall 32 miles (Victor, Epit. 20; the impossible number 132 is an error of our MSS. of Eutropius, viii.19—where Paulus has preserved the correct number; which error has been then taken over by Hieronymus, Abr. 2221; Orosius, vii.17, 7; and Cassiodorus on the year 207), does not suit Hadrian’s wall of 80 miles; but the structure of Pius, which, according to the data of inscriptions, was about 40 miles long, may well be meant, as the terminal points of the structure of Severus on the two seas may very well have been different and situated closer. Lastly, if, according to Dio, lxxvi. 12, the Caledonians dwell to the north and the Maeates to the south of the wall which divides the island into two parts, the dwelling–places of the latter are indeed not otherwise known (comp. lxxv.5), but cannot possibly, even according to the description which Dio gives of their district, be placed to the south of Hadrian’s wall, and those of the Caledonians have extended up to the latter. Thus what is here meant is the line from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

110 A limite id est a vallo is the expression in the Itinerarium, p. 464.

111 The chief proof of this lies in the disappearance of this legion, that undoubtedly took place soon after the year 108 (C. I. L. vii.241), and substitution for it of the 6th Victrix. The two notices which point to this incident (Fronto, p. 217 Naber: Hadriano imperium obtinente quantum militum a Britannis caesum? Vita, 5, Britanni teneri sub Romana dicione non poterant), as well as the allusion in Juvenal, xiv.196: castella Brigantum, point to a revolt, not to an inroad.

112 If Pius, according to Pausanias, viii.43, 4, ?pet?et? t?? ?? ???tta???? ??????t?? t?? p?????, ?t? ?pesa??e?? ?a? ??t?? s?? ?p???? ???a? ?? t?? Ge?????a? ???a? (unknown; perhaps, as O. Hirschfeld suggests, the town of the Brigantes, Vinovia) ?p?????? ??a???, it follows from this, not that there were Brigantes also in Caledonia, but that the Brigantes in the north of England at that time ravaged the settled land of the Britons, and therefore a part of their territory was confiscated.

113 That he had the design of bringing the whole north under the Roman power (Dio, lxxvi. 13) is not very compatible either with the cession (l.c.) or with the building of the wall, and is doubtless as fabulous as the Roman loss of 50,000 men without the matter even coming to a battle.

114 The division results from Dio, lv.23.

115 To it doubtless the epigram of Seneca applies (vol. iv.p. 69, BÄhrens): oceanusque tuas ultra se respicit aras. The temple too, which according to the satire of the same Seneca (viii.3), was erected to Claudius during his lifetime in Britain, and the temple certainly identical therewith of the god Claudius in Camalodunum (Tacitus, Ann. xiv.31), is probably to be taken not as a sanctuary for the town itself, but after the analogy of the shrines of Augustus at Lugudunum and Tarraco. The delecti sacerdotes, who specie religionis omnes fortunas effundebant, are the well–known provincial priests and purveyors of spectacles.

116 The command stationed here was, at least in later times, without question the most important among the Britannic; and there is also mention here (for it is beyond doubt Eburacum that is in view) of a Palatium (Vita Severi, 22). The praetorium, situated probably on the coast below Eburacum (Itin. Ant. p. 466), may have been the summer seat of the governor.

117 None have been found to the north of Aldborough and Easingwold (both somewhat north of York). See Bruce, The Roman Wall, p. 61.

118 The baptistery is perhaps the tomb of the emperor.

119 That there were no legions stationed on the Danube itself in the year 50, follows from Tacitus, Ann. xii.29; otherwise it would not have been necessary to send a legion thither to receive the accession of the Suebi. The laying out also of the Claudian Savaria suits better, if the town was then Norican, than if it already belonged to Pannonia; and, as the assignment of this town to Pannonia coincides certainly as to time with the like severance of Carnuntum and with the transference of the legion thither, all this may probably have taken place only in the period after Claudius. The small number also of inscriptions of Italici found in the camps of the Danube (Eph. Ep. v.p. 225) points to their later origin. Certainly there have been found in Carnuntum some epitaphs of soldiers of the 15th legion which, from their outward form and from the absence of cognomen, appear to be older (Hirschfeld, Arch. Epigraph. Mittheilungen, v.217). Such determinations of date cannot claim full certainty, where a decade is concerned; nevertheless it must be conceded that the former arguments also furnish no full proofs, and the translocation may have begun earlier, possibly under Nero. For the construction or extension of this camp by Vespasian we have the evidence of the inscription, attesting such a structure, of Carnuntum, dating from the year 73 (Hirschfeld, l.c.).

120 We know whole sets of Thracian, Getic, Dacian names of places and persons. Remarkable in a linguistic point of view is a group of personal names compounded with –centhus: Bithicenthus, Zipacenthus, Disacenthus, Tracicenthus, Linicenthus (Bull. de Corr. Hell. vi. 179), of which the first two also frequently occur isolated in their other half (Bithus, Zipa). A similar group is formed by the compounds with –poris, such as Mucaporis (as Thracian, Bull. l.c., as Dacian in numerous cases), Cetriporis, Rhaskyporis, Bithoporis, Dirdiporis.

121 Tacitus, Ann. ii.64, says this expressly. Of free Thracians, viewed from the Roman stand–point, there were at that time none; but the Thracian mountains, and especially the Rhodope of the Bessi, maintained even in the state of peace an attitude as regards the princes installed by Rome, that could hardly be designated as subjection; they acknowledged the king doubtless, but obeyed him, as Tacitus says (l.c. and iv.46, 51), only when it suited them.

122 We have still a Greek epigram, dedicated to Cotys by Antipater of Thessalonica (Anthol. Planud. iv.75), the same poet who celebrated also the conqueror of the Thracians, Piso (p. 24), and a Latin epistle in verse addressed to Cotys by Ovid (ex Ponto, ii.9).

123 It is one of the most seriously felt blanks of the Roman imperial history that the standing quarters of the two legions, which formed under the Julio–Claudian emperors the garrison of Moesia, the 4th Scythica and the 5th Macedonica (at least these were stationed there in the year 33; C. I. L. iii.1698) cannot hitherto be pointed out with certainty. Probably they were Viminacium and Singidunum in what was afterwards upper Moesia. Among the legion–camps of lower Moesia, of which that of Troesmis in particular has numerous monuments to show, none appear to be older than Hadrian’s time; the remains of the upper–Moesian are hitherto so scanty that they at least do not hinder our carrying back their origin a century further. When the king of Thrace in the year 18 takes arms against the Bastarnae and Scythians (Tacitus, Ann. ii.65), this could not have been put forward even as a pretext, had lower–Moesian legionary camps been already at that time in existence. This very narrative shows that the warlike power of this vassal–prince was not inconsiderable, and that the setting aside of an uncompliant king of Thrace demanded caution.

124 That the regnum Vannianum (Plin. H. N. iv.12, 81), the Suebian state (Tacitus, Ann. xii.29; Hist. iii.5, 21), must be referred, not merely, as might appear from Tacitus, Ann. ii.63, to the dwellings of the people that went over with Maroboduus and Catualda, but to the whole territory of the Marcomani and Quadi, is shown clearly by the second report, Ann. xii.29, 30, since here, as opponents of Vannius alongside of his own insurgent subjects, there appear the peoples bordering on Bohemia to the west and north, the Hermunduri and Lugii. As boundary towards the east Pliny l.c. designates the region of Carnuntum (Germanorum ibi confinium) more exactly the river Marus or Duria, which separates the Suebi and the regnum Vannianum from their eastern neighbours, whether we may refer the dirimens eos with MÜllenhoff (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie 1883, p. 871) to the Jazyges, or, as is more natural, to the Bastarnae. In reality both doubtless bordered, the Jazyges on the south, the Bastarnae on the north, with the Quadi of the March valley. Accordingly the Marus is the March, and the demarcation is formed by the small Carpathians that stretch between the March and the Waag. If thus those retainers were settled inter flumen Marum et Cusum, then the Cusus not elsewhere mentioned is, provided the statement is correct, not the Waag, or even, as MÜllenhoff supposed, the Eipel falling into the Danube below Gran, but an affluent of the Danube westward of the March, perhaps the Gusen near Linz. The narrative in Tacitus xii.29, 30, also requires the territory of Vannius to have reached to the west even beyond the March. The subscription to the first book of the Meditations of the emperor Marcus ?? ????d??? p??? t? G?a????, proves doubtless that then the state of the Quadi stretched as far as the river Gran; but this state is not coincident with the regnum Vannianum.

125 Regibus Bastarnarum et Roxolanorum filios, Dacorum fratrum captos aut hostibus ereptos remisit (Orelli, 750) is miswritten; it must run fratres, or at any rate fratrum filios. In like manner afterwards per quae is to be read for per quem and rege instead of regem.

126 In Pannonia there were stationed about the year 70 two legions, the 13th Gemina and the 15th Apollinaris, in room of which latter during its participation in the Armenian war for some time the 7th Gemina came in (C. I. L. iii.p. 482). Of the two legions added later, 1st Adiutrix and 2d Adiutrix, the first still at the beginning of the reign of Trajan lay in upper Germany (p.159, note 1), and can only have come to Pannonia under Trajan; the second stationed under Vespasian in Britain can only have come to Pannonia under Domitian (p.174, note 4). The Moesian army numbered after the union with the Dalmatian under Vespasian probably but four legions, consequently as many as the two armies together previously—the later upper–Moesian, 4th Flavia and 7th Claudia, and the later lower–Moesian, 1st Italica and 5th Macedonica. The positions shifted by the marching to and fro of the year of the four emperors (Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii.435), which temporarily brought these legions to Moesia, need not deceive us. The subsequent third lower–Moesian legion, the Eleventh, was still under Trajan stationed in upper Germany.

127 Josephus, Bell. Iud. vii.4, 3: p?e??s? ?a? e???s? f??a?a?? t?? t?p?? d???ae? ?? e??a? t??? a?????? t?? d??as?? te???? ?d??at??. By this seems meant the transference of the two Dalmatian legions to Moesia. Whither they were transferred we do not know. According to the Roman custom elsewhere it is more probable that they were stationed in the environs of the previous headquarters Viminacium than in the remote region of the mouths of the Danube. The camp there probably originated only at the division of the Moesian command and at the erection of the independent province of lower Moesia under Domitian.

128 The chronology of the Dacian war is involved in much uncertainty. That it had begun already before the war with the Chatti (83), we learn from the Carthaginian inscription (C. I. L. viii.1082) of a soldier decorated three times by Domitian, in the Dacian, in the German, and again in the Dacian war. Eusebius puts the outbreak of the war, or rather the first great conflict, in the year Abr. 2101 or 2102 = A.D. 85 (more exactly 1 Oct. 84–30 Sept. 85) or 86, the triumph in the year 2106 = 90; these numbers indeed have no claim to complete trustworthiness. With some probability the triumph is placed in the year 89 (Henzen, Acta Arval. p. 116).

129 The fragment, Dio, lxvii.7, 1, Dind., stands in the sequence of the Ursinian excerpts before lxvii.5, 1, 2, 3, and belongs also in the order of events to a time before the negotiation with the Lugii.Comp. Hermes, iii.115.

130 Arrian, Tact. 44, mentions among the changes which Hadrian introduced into the cavalry, that he allowed to the several divisions their national battle–cries: ?e?t????? ?? t??? ?e?t??? ?ppe?s??, Get????? d? t??? G?ta??, ?a?t????? d? ?s?? ?? ?a?t??.

131 The walls, which, three mÈtres in height and two mÈtres in thickness, with broad outer fosse and many remains of forts, stretch in two almost parallel lines, partly—to the length of ninety–four miles—from the left bank of the Pruth by way of Tabak and Tatarbunar to Dniester–Liman, between Akerman and the Black Sea; partly—to the length of sixty–two miles—from Leowa on the Pruth to the Dniester below Bendery (Petermann, Geograph. Mittheilungen, 1857, p. 129), may perhaps be also Roman; but there has not been as yet any exact settlement of this point.

132 According to von Vincke’s estimate (Monatsberichte Über die Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fÜr Erdkunde in Berlin in the years 1839–40, p. 197 f.; comp. in von Moltke’s Briefe Über ZustÄnde in der Turkei, the letter of 2d Nov.1837), as well as according to the delineations and plans of Dr. C. Schuchhardt communicated to me, three barriers were here constructed. The south–most and probably oldest is a simple earthen wall with (singularly) a fosse in front of it towards the south; whether of Roman origin may be doubtful. The two other lines are an earthen wall, even now at many places as high as three mÈtres, and a lower wall, once lined with stones, which often run close beside each other and elsewhere again are miles apart. We might hold them as the two lines of defence of a fortified road, though in the eastern half the earthen wall, in the more southern half the stone–wall, is the more northerly, and they cross in the middle. At one spot the earthen wall (here more southerly) forms the rear of a fort constructed behind the stone–wall. The earthen wall is covered on the north side by a deep, on the south side by a shallow, fosse; each fosse is closed off by a bank. A fosse lies also in front of the stone–wall to the north. Behind the earthen wall, and mostly resting on it, are found forts distant from each other seven hundred and fifty mÈtres; others at irregular distances of the like kind behind the stone–wall. All the lines keep behind the Karasu–lakes as the natural basis of defence; from the point where this ceases, they are carried as far as the sea with slight regard to the character of the ground. The town Tomis lies outside of the wall and to the north of it; but its fortress–walls are put in connection with the barrier–fortification by a special wall.

133 Vita Hadriani 6: cum rege Roxolanorum qui de imminutis stipendiis querebatur cognito negotio pacem composuit.

134 Vita Marci 14: gentibus quae pulsae a superioribus barbaris fugerant nisi reciperentur bellum inferentibus. Dio, in Petrus Patricius, fr. 6, says: ?a?????d?? ?a? ???? (otherwise unknown) ??a??s?????? ?st??? pe?a?????t?? t?? pe?? ???d??a (perhaps already then praef. praetorio, in which case the guard would be marched out on account of this occurrence), ?pp??? ??e?as??t?? ?a? t?? ?f? ???d?d?? pe??? ?p?f?as??t?? e?? pa?te?? f???? ?? ??a??? ?t??p??t?? ?f’ ??? ??t? p?a??e?s?? ?? d?e? ?atast??te? ?? p??t?? ?p??e???se?? ?? ??a??? p??se?? pa?? ?????? ??ss?? t?? ?a????a? d??p??ta st?????s? ?a???????? te t?? as???a ?a??????? ?a? ?t????? d??a, ?at’ ????? ?p??e??e??? ??a? ?a? ?????? t?? e?????? ?? p??se?? p?st?s?e??? ???ade ?????s??. That this incident falls before the outbreak of the war, is shown by its position; fr. 7 of Patricius is an excerpt from Dio, lxxi. 11, 2.

135 The Moesian army gave away soldiers to the Armenian war (Hirschfeld, Arch. epig. Mitth. vi. 41); but here the frontier was not endangered.

136 The participation of the Germans on the right of the Rhine is attested by Dio, lxxi. 3, and only thereby are the measures explained which Marcus adopted for Raetia and Noricum. The position of Oderzo also speaks for the view that these assailants came over the Brenner.

137 The alleged first mention of the Goths in the biography of Caracalla, c. 10, rests on a misunderstanding. If really a senator allowed himself the malicious jest of assigning to the murderer of Geta the name Geticus, because he on his march from the Danube to the east had conquered some Getic hordes (tumultuariis proeliis), he meant Dacians, not the Goths, scarcely at that time dwelling there and hardly known to the Roman public, whose identification with the Getae was certainly only a later invention.—We may add that the statement that the emperor Maximinus (235–238) was the son of a Goth settled in the neighbouring Thrace, carries us still further back; yet not much weight is to be attached to it.

138 Petrus Patricius fr. 8. The administration of the legate of lower Moesia here mentioned, Tullius Menophilus, is fixed by coins certainly to the time of Gordian, and with probability to 238–240 (Borghesi, Opp. ii.227). As the beginning of the Gothic war and the destruction of Istros are fixed by Dexippus (vita Max. et Balb. 16) at 238, it is natural to bring into connection with these events the undertaking of tribute; at any rate it was then renewed. The vain sieges of Marcianopolis and Philippopolis by the Goths (Dexippus, fr. 18, 19) may have followed on the capture of Istros. Jordanes, Get. 16, 92, puts the former under Philippus, but is in chronological questions not a valid witness.

139 The reports of these occurrences in Zosimus, i. 21–24, Zonaras, xii. 20, Ammianus, xxxi. 5, 16, 17 (which accounts, down to that concerning Philippopolis, are fixed as belonging to this time by the fact that the latter recurs in Zosimus), although all fragmentary or in disorder, may have flowed from the report of Dexippus, of which fr. 16, 19, are preserved, and may be in some measure combined. The same source lies at the bottom of the imperial biographies and Jordanes; but both have disfigured and falsified it to such a degree that use can be made of their statements only with great caution. Victor, Caes. 29, is independent.

140 Perhaps the irruption of the Marcomani in Zosimus, i. 29, refers to this.

141 Ammianus, xxxi. 5, 15; duobus navium milibus perrupto Bosporo et litoribus Propontidis Scythicarum gentium catervae transgressae ediderunt quidem acerbas terra marique strages: sed amissa suorum parte maxima reverterunt; whereupon the catastrophe of the Decii is narrated, and into this is inwoven the further notice: obsessae Pamphyliae civitates (to which must belong the siege of Side in Dexippus himself, fr. 23), insulÆ populatÆ complures, as also the siege of Cyzicus. If in this retrospect all is not confused—which cannot well be assumed to be the case with Ammianus—this falls before those naval expeditions which begin with the siege of Pityus, and are more a part of the migration of peoples than piratical raids. The number of the ships might indeed be transferred hither by error of memory from the expedition of the year 269. To the same connection belongs the notice in Zosimus, i. 28, as to the Scythian expeditions into Asia and Cappadocia as far as Ephesus and Pessinus. The account as to Ephesus in the biography of Gallienus, c. 6, is the same, but transposed as to time.

142 In the case of Zosimus himself we should not expect complete understanding of the matter; but his voucher Dexippus, who was a contemporary and took part in the matter, knew well why he termed the Bithynian expedition the de?t??a ?f?d?? (Zos. i. 35); and even in Zosimus we discern clearly the contrast, intended by Dexippus, between the expedition of the Borani against Pityus and Trapezus and the traditional piratic voyages. In the biography of Gallienus the Scythian expedition to Cappadocia, narrated at c. 11, under the year 264, must be that to Trapezus, just as the Bithynian therewith connected must be that which Zosimus terms the second; here indeed everything is confused.

143 This is said by Zosimus, i. 42, and follows also from the relation of the Bosporans to the first (i. 32), and that of the first to the second expedition (i. 34).

144 The report of Dexippus as to this expedition is given in extract by Syncellus, p. 717 (where ??e???t?? must be read for ??e???te?), Zosimus, i. 39, and the biographer of Gallienus, c. 13. Fr. 22 is a portion of his own narrative. In the continuator of Dio, on whom Zonaras depends, the event is placed under Claudius, through error or through falsification, which grudged this victory to Gallienus. The biography of Gallienus narrates the incident apparently twice, first shortly in c. 6 under the year 262; then better, under or after 265, in c. 13.

145 In our traditional accounts this expedition appears as a pure sea–voyage, undertaken with (probably) 2000 ships (so the biography of Claudius; the numbers 6000 and 900, between which the tradition in Zosimus, i. 42, wavers, are probably both corrupt) and 320,000 men. It is, however, far from credible that Dexippus, to whom these statements must be traced back, can have put the latter figure in this way. On the other hand, considering the direction of the expedition, in the first instance against Tomis and Marcianopolis, it is more than probable that in it the procedure described by Zos. i. 34 was followed, and a portion marched by land; and under this supposition even a contemporary might well estimate the number of assailants at that figure. The course of the campaign, particularly the place of the decisive battle, shows that they had by no means to do merely with a fleet.

146 The organisation of the Delphic Amphictiony under the Roman republic is especially clear from the Delphic inscription, C. I. L. iii.p. 987 (comp. Bull. de Corr. Hell. vii. 427 ff.). The union was formed at that time of seventeen tribes with—together—twenty–four votes, all of them belonging to Greece proper or Thessaly; Aetolia, Epirus, Macedonia were wanting. After the remodelling by Augustus (Pausanias, x. 8) this organisation continued to subsist in other respects, except only that by restriction of the disproportionately numerous Thessalian votes those of the tribes hitherto represented were reduced to eighteen; to these were now added Nicopolis in Epirus with six, and Macedonia likewise with six votes. Moreover the six votes of Nicopolis were to be given on each occasion, just as this continued to be the case, for the two of Delphi and the one of Athens; whereas the other votes were given by the groups, so that, e.g. the one vote of the Peloponnesian Dorians alternated between Argos, Sicyon, Corinth, and Megara. The Amphictionies were even now not a collective representation of the European Hellenes, in so far as the tribes earlier excluded in Greece proper, a portion of the Peloponnesians, and the Aetolians not attached to Nicopolis, were not represented in it.

147 The stated meetings in Delphi and at Thermopylae continued (Pausanias, vii.24, 3; Philostratus, Vita Apoll. iv.23), and of course also the carrying out of the Pythian games, along with the conferring of the prizes by the collegium of the Amphictiones (Philostratus, Vitae Soph. ii. 27); the same body has the administration of the “interest and revenues” of the temple (inscription of Delphi, Rhein. Mus. N. F. ii.111), and fits up from it, for example at Delphi, a library (Lebas, ii.845) or puts up statues there.

148 The members of the college of the ?f??t???e?, or, as they were called at this epoch, ?f??t???e?, were appointed by the several towns in the way previously described, sometimes from time to time (iteration: C. I. Gr. 1058), sometimes for life (Plutarch, An seni, 10), which probably depended on whether the vote was constant or alternating (Wilamowitz). Its president was termed in earlier times ?p?e??t?? t?? ?????? t?? ?f??t????? (Delphic inscriptions, Rhein. Mus. N. F. ii.111; C. I. Gr. 1713), subsequently ???ad????? t?? ?f??t????? (C. I. Gr. 1124).

149 The original bounds of the province are indicated by Strabo, xvii.3, 25, p. 840, in the enumeration of the senatorial provinces: ??a?a ???? Tetta??a? ?a? ??t???? ?a? ??a?????? ?a? t???? ?pe???t???? ????? ?sa t? ?a?ed???? p??s???st?, in which case the remaining part of Epirus appears to be assigned to the province of Illyricum (reckoned here by Strabo—erroneously as regards his time—among the senatorial). To take ???? inclusively is—apart from considerations of fact—unsuitable for this very reason, because according to the closing words the regions previously named “are assigned to Macedonia.” Subsequently we find the Aetolians annexed to Achaia (Ptolem. iii.14). That Epirus also for a time belonged to it, is possible, not so much on account of the statement in Dio, liii. 12, which cannot be defended either for Augustus’s time or for that of Dio, but because Tacitus on the year 17 (Ann. ii.53) reckons Nicopolis to Achaia. But at least from the time of Trajan Epirus with Acarnania forms a procuratorial province of its own (Ptolem. iii.13; C. I. L. iii. 536; Marquardt, Staatsalth. v.I, 331). Thessaly and all the country northward of Oeta constantly remained with Macedonia.

150 Nothing gives a clearer idea of the position of the Greeks in the last century of the Roman republic than the letter of one of these governors to the Achaean community of Dyme (C. I. Gr. 1543). Because this community had given to itself laws that ran counter to the freedom granted in general to the Greeks (? ?p?ded???? ?at? ?????? t??? ????s?? ??e??e??a) and to the organisation given by the Romans to the Achaeans (? ?p?d??e?sa t??? ??a???? ?p? ??a??? p???te?a; probably with the co–operation of Polybius, Pausan. viii.30, 9), whereupon at all events tumults had arisen, the governor informs the community that he had caused the two ringleaders to be executed, and that a less guilty third person was exiled to Rome.

151 Comp. iii.312, 316.iii.297, 300 The Delian excavations of recent years have furnished the proofs that the island, after the Romans had once given it to Athens (ii.329)ii.309, remained constantly Athenian, and constituted itself, doubtless in consequence of the defection of the Athenians from Rome, as a community of the “Delians” (Eph. epig. v.p. 604), but already six years after the capitulation of Athens was again Athenian (Eph. epig. v. 184 f.; Homolle, Bull. de corr. Hell. viii.p. 142).

152 Whether the ?????? t?? ??a???, which naturally does not occur in the republican period proper, was reconstituted already at the end of it or not till after the introduction of the imperial provincial organisation, is doubtful. Inscriptions like the Olympian one of the proquaestor Q. Ancharius Q. f. (Arch. Zeitung, 1878, p. 38, n. 114) speak rather in favour of the former supposition; yet it cannot with certainty be designated as pre–Augustan. The oldest sure evidence for the existence of this union is the inscription set up by it to Augustus in Olympia (Arch. Zeitung, 1877, p. 36, n. 33). Perhaps these were arrangements of the dictator Caesar, and in connection with the governor of “Greece,”—probably the Achaia of the imperial period—to be met with under him (Cicero, Ad fam. vi. 6, 10).—We may add that certainly also under the republic, according to the discretion of each governor for the time being, several communities might meet for a definite object by deputies and adopt resolutions; as the ?????? of the Siceliots thus decreed a statue to Verres (Cicero, Verr. i. 2, 46, 114), similar things must have occurred in Greece also under the republic. But the regular provincial diets with their fixed officers and priests were an institution of the imperial period.

153 This is the ?????? ????t?? ?????? ?????? F????? ??????? of the remarkable inscription probably set up shortly before the battle of Actium (C. I. Att. iii.568). We cannot possibly with Dittenberger (Arch. Zeitung, 1876, p. 220) refer to this league the notice of Pausanias (vii. 16, 10), that the Romans “not many years” after the destruction of Corinth had compassion on the Hellenes, and had again allowed them the provincial unions (s???d??a ?at? ????? ???st??? t? ???a?a); this applies to the minor individual leagues.

154 To it belonged not merely the neighbouring Amyclae, but also Cardamyle (by gift of Augustus, Pausan. iii.26, 7), Pherae (Pausan. iv.30, 2), Thuria (ib. iv.31, 1), and for a time also Corone (C. I. Gr. 1258; comp. Lebas–Foucart, ii.305) on the Messenian gulf; and further the island of Cythera (Dio, liv.7).

155 In the republican period this district appears as t? ?????? t?? ?a?eda?????? (Foucart on Lebas, ii. p. 110); Pausanias (iii.21, 6) is therefore wrong when he makes it only released from Sparta by Augustus. But they term themselves ??e??e???????e? only from the time of Augustus, and the bestowal of their freedom is therefore justly traced to him.

156 There are coins of this city with the legend c[olonia] I[ulia] D[ume] and the head of Caesar, others with the legend c[olonia] I[ulia] A[ugusta] Dum[e] and the head of Augustus along with that of Tiberius (Imhoof–Blumer, Monnaies grecques, p. 165). That Augustus assigned Dyme to the colony of Patrae, is probably an error of Pausanias (vii.17, 5); it remains indeed possible that Augustus in his later years ordained this union.

157 This is shown, at least for the time of Pius, by the African inscription C. I. L. viii.7059 (comp. Plutarch, Arist. 21). The accounts of authors as to the freed communities give no guarantee at all for the completeness of the list. Probably Elis also belonged to them, which was not affected by the catastrophe of the Achaeans, and even subsequently dated still by Olympiads, not by the era of the province; besides, it is incredible that the town of the Olympic festival should not have had the best of legal rights.

158 This is pointedly expressed by Aristides in the panegyric on Rome p. 224 Jebb: d?ate?e?te t?? ?? ??????? ?spe? t??f??? ?p?e??e??? … t??? ?? ???st??? ?a? p??a? ??e??a? (Athens and Sparta) ??e??????? ?a? a?t?????? ?fe???te? a?t??, t?? d’ ????? et???? … ??????e???, t??? d? a?????? p??? t?? ???st??? a?t?? ??sa? f?s?? pa?de???te?.

159 But the Hellenic literati remained grateful to their colleague and patron. In the Apollonius–romance (v.41) the great sage from Cappadocia refuses Vespasian the honour of his company, because he had made the Hellenes slaves, just as they were on the point of again speaking Ionic or Doric, and writes to him various billets of delectable coarseness. A man of Soloi, who broke his neck and then became alive again, and on this occasion saw all that Dante beheld, reported that he had met with Nero’s soul, into which the agents of the world–judgment had driven flaming nails, and were employed in turning it into a viper; but a heavenly voice had interposed, and ordered them to transform the man—on account of his Philhellenism when on earth—into a less repulsive animal (Plutarch, De sera num. vind., at the end).

160 At least in the ordinance of Hadrian regarding the deliveries of oil to the community incumbent on the Athenian landowners (C. I. A. iii.18), the decision was indeed given to the Boule and the Ekklesia, but appeal to the emperor or the proconsul was allowed.

161 What Strabo reports (xiv.3, 3, p. 665) of the Lycian cities–league, in his time autonomous—that it had not the right of war and peace and that of alliance, except when the Romans allowed it or it operated for their advantage—may probably be, without ceremony, held to relate also to Athens.

162 At all events the hitherto known presidents of the ?????? t?? ??a???, whose home is made out, are from Argos, Messene, Corone in Messenia (Foucart–Lebas, ii.305), and there have been hitherto found among them not merely no citizens of the freed communities, such as Athens and Sparta, but also none of those belonging to the confederation of the Boeotians and allies (p.259). Perhaps this ?????? was legally restricted to the territory, which the Romans called the republic of Achaia—that is, that of the Achaean league at its overthrow—and the Boeotians and allies were united with the ?????? proper of the Achaeans into that wider league, whose existence and diets in Argos are vouched for by the inscriptions of Acraephia mentioned in the next note. We may add that alongside of this ?????? of the Achaeans there subsisted a still narrower one of the district of Achaia in the proper sense, whose representatives met in Aegium (Pausanias, vii.24, 4), just as the ?????? t?? ????d?? (Arch. Zeit. 1879, p. 139, n. 274), and numerous others. If, according to Pausanias, v.12, 6, ?? p??te? ?????e? set up statues in Olympia to Trajan, and a? ?? t? ??a???? te???sa? p??e?? to Hadrian, and no misunderstanding has here crept in, the latter dedication must have taken place at the diet of Aegium.

163 So (only that the Dorians are wanting; comp. p.259, note 2) the union is termed on the inscription of Acraephia (Keil, Syll. Inscr. Boeot. n. 31). But this very document, along with the contemporary one, C. I. Gr. 1625, furnishes a proof that the union under the emperor Gaius, instead of this doubtless strictly official appellation, designated itself also on the one hand as union of the Achaeans, on the other as t? ?????? t?? ?a?e??????, or ? s???d?? t?? ???????, also t? t?? ??a??? ?a? ?a?e?????? s???d????. This grandiloquence is nowhere so glaringly prominent as in those Boeotian petty country–towns; but even in Olympia, where the union especially set up its memorials, it names itself for the most part no doubt t? ?????? t?? ??a???, but shows often enough the same tendency; e.g. when t? ?????? t?? ??a??? ?. ?????? ???st??a … s??pa?te? ?? ?????e? ???st?sa? (Arch. Zeit. 1880, p. 86, n. 344). So too in Sparta, ?? ?????e? set up a statue to Caesar Marcus ?p? t?? ?????? t?? ??a??? (C. I. Gr. 1318).

164 In Asia, Bithynia, lower Moesia, the president of the Greek towns belonging to the province is also called ???ad?????, without more being thereby expressed than the contrast with the non–Greeks. But, as the name of Hellenes is employed in Greece in a certain contrast to the strictly correct one of Achaeans, this is certainly suggested by the same tendency which was most clearly marked in the Panhellenes of Argos. Thus we find st?at???? t?? ?????? t?? ??a??? ?a? p??st?t?? d?? ??? t?? ??????? (Arch. Zeit. 1877, p. 192, n. 98), or on another document of the same man p??st?t?? d?? ??? t?? ?????? t?? ??a??? (Lebas–Foucart, n. 305); an ???a? t??? ????s?? s??pas?? (Arch. Zeit. p. 195, n. 106) st?at???? ?s?????t?? ???a? t?? ????d?? (ib. 1877, p. 40, n. 42) st?at???? ?a? ???ad????? (ib. 1876, n. 8, p. 226), all likewise on inscriptions of the ?????? t?? ??a???. That in this ??????, though it may perhaps be deemed to refer merely to the Peloponnesus (p.264, note), the Panhellenic tendency none the less asserted itself, may well be conceived.

165 The Hadrianic Panhellenes name themselves t? ?????? s???d???? t?? ??????? t?? e?? ??at??? s?????t?? (Thebes: Keil, Syll. Inscr. Boeot. n. 31, comp. Plutarch, Arist. 19, 21); ?????? t?? ????d?? (C. I. Gr. 5852); t? ?a?e??????? (ib.). Its president is termed ? ????? t?? ?a?e?????? (C. I. A. iii.681, 682; C. I. Gr. 3832, comp. C. I. A. iii.10: ?[?t]????? t?? ?e??t?t?? ?[????? t?? ?]a?[e?]??????), the individual deputy ?a?????? (e.g. C. I. A. iii.534; C. I. Gr. 1124). Alongside of these in the period subsequent to Hadrian the ?????? t?? ??a??? and its st?at???? or ???ad????? still occur, who are probably to be distinguished from those just mentioned, although the latter now sets up his honorary decrees not merely in Olympia, but also in Athens (C. I. A. 18; second example in Olympia, Arch. Zeit. 1879, p. 52).

166 That the remark of Dio of Prusa, Or. xxxviii.p. 148 R., as to the dispute of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians ?p?? t?? p??p?pe?a?, refers to the festival at Plataeae, is evident from (Lucian) ???te? 18, ?? pe?? p??p?pe?a? ???????e??? ??ata??s??. The sophist Irenaeus also wrote pe?? t?? ????a??? p??p?pe?a? (Suidas, s. v.), and Hermogenes, de ideis, ii.p. 373. Walz gives as the topic spoken of ????a??? ?a? ?a?eda?????? pe?? t?? p??p?pe?a? ?at? t? ??d??? (communication from Wilamowitz).

167 Two of these are preserved, for Cibyra in Phrygia (C. I. Gr. 5882), issued from the ?????? t?? ????d?? by a d??a t?? ?a?e???????; and for Magnesia on the Maeander (C. I. Att. iii.16). In both the good Hellenic descent of the corporations concerned is brought out along with their other services to the Hellenes. Characteristic are also the letters of recommendation, with which these Panhellenes furnish a man who had merited well of their commonwealth to the community of his home Aezani in Phrygia, to the emperor Pius, and to the Hellenes in Asia generally (C. I. Gr. 3832, 3833, 3834).

168 Beyond doubt Plutarch in these words (de defectu orac. 8) does not mean to say that Greece was not able at all to furnish 3000 men capable of arms, but that, if burgess–armies of the old sort were to be formed, they would not be in a position to set on foot 3000 “hoplites.” In this sense the expression may well be correct, so far as correctness can be expected at all in the case of general complaints of this sort. The number of communities of the province amounted nearly to a hundred.

169 [Dio, Orat. xxi. 501 R.]

170 This is told to us by Herodian, iv.8, 3, c. 9, 4, and we have the inscriptions of two of these Spartiates, Nicocles, ?st?ate????? d?? ?at? ?e?s?? (C. I. Gr. 1253), and Dioscoras, ?pe???? e?? t?? e?t??est?t?? s?a??a? (= expeditio) t?? ?at? ?e?s?? (C. I. Gr. 1495).

171 The f??????? (C. I. A. iii.826) cannot well be understood otherwise.

172 “You have no want of means,” says Dio (Or. xxxi. p. 566), “and there are thousands upon thousands here, for whom it would be advantageous to be less rich;” and further on (p. 620), “you are richer than any one else in Hellas. Your ancestors possessed not more than you do. The island has not become worse; you draw the profit of Caria and a part of Lycia; a number of towns are tributary to you; the city is always receiving rich gifts from numerous citizens.” He further states that new expenses had not been added, but the earlier outlays for army and fleet had almost fallen into abeyance; they had to supply annually at Corinth (and so to the Roman fleet) but one or two small vessels.

173[Dio, Orat. xxxi. 649, 650.]

174 At the popular festivals, which in Tiberius’s time a rich man gave at Acraephia in Boeotia, he invited the grown–up slaves, and his wife the female slaves, as guests along with the free (C. I. Gr. 1625). In an endowment for the distribution of oil at the fencing–institute (????s???) of Gytheion in Laconia it is ordained that on six days in the year the slaves should also partake in it (Lebas–Foucart n. 243a). Similar largesses occur in Argos (C. I. Gr. 1122, 1123).

175 In answer to one of the numerous complaints, with which the towns of Asia Minor plagued the government on account of their disputes as to titles and rank, Pius tells the Ephesians (Waddington, Aristide, p. 51), that he was glad to hear that the Pergamenes had given to them the new title; that the Smyrnaeans had doubtless merely by accident omitted it, and would certainly in future be ready to do what was correct, if they—the Ephesians—would accord to them their right titles. To a small Lycian town, which applied to the proconsul for the confirmation of a resolution adopted by it, the latter replied (Benndorf, Lykische Reise, i. 71), that excellent ordinances require only praise, not confirmation; the latter is implied in the case. The rhetorical schools of this epoch furnished also the draughtsmen for the imperial chancery; but this alone mattered little. It belonged to the essence of the principate not to accentuate outwardly the subject–relation, and especially not against the Greeks.

176 A formal alteration of the tax–organisation does not follow of itself from this change, and is not hinted at in Tacitus, Ann. i. 76; if the arrangement was made because the provincials complained of the pressure of taxation (onera deprecantes), better governors might help the provinces by suitable redistribution, and eventually by procuring remission. That the furtherance of the imperial postal service was felt specially in this province as an oppressive burden is shown by the edict of Claudius from Tegea (Ephem. ep. v.p. 69).

177 The Athenian insurrection under Augustus is certainly attested by the notice derived from Africanus in Eusebius, ad ann. Abr. 2025 (whence Orosius, vi. 22, 2). The riots against the strategoi are often mentioned; Plutarch, Q. sympos. viii.3, init.; (Lucian), Demonax, 11, 64; Philostratus, Vit. soph. i. 23, ii.8, 11.

178 The magistrate even of culture, that is the freethinker, is advised to attach the largesses which he makes to the religious festivals; for the multitude is strengthened in its faith, when it sees that the men of rank in the city lay some stress on the worship of the gods, and can expend something upon it (Plutarch, Praec. ger. reip. 30).

179 A model sample is the inscription (Lebas–Foucart, ii.p. 142 n., 162 j.) of ?[?????] ???[?????] ?e???pp?? ? ?a? ???a?d??? F?????s?, a contemporary therefore of Pius and Marcus, who was ?e?e?? ?e???pp?d?? ?a? ???da??d??, of the Dioscuri and their wives, the daughters of Leukippos, but—in order that with the old the new might not be wanting—also ????e???? t? Seast? ?a? t?? ?e??? p??????? ?t?. He had in his youth, moreover, been ??a??? ??????dd?????, literally herd–leader of the little ones, namely, director of three–year–old boys—the “herds” of boys of Lycurgus began with the seventh year, but his successors had overtaken what was wanting, and embraced in the “herd” and provided with “leaders” all from one year old onward. This same man was victorious (?e???a? = ????sa?) ?ass??at????, ?a? ?a? ??a?: what this means, may be known perhaps to Lycurgus.

180 “Inland Attica,” says an inhabitant of it in Philostratus, Vitae Soph. ii.7, “is a good school for one who would learn to speak; the inhabitants of the city of Athens on the other hand, who hire out lodgings to the young people flocking thither from Thrace and Pontus and other barbarian regions, allow their language to be corrupted by these more than they impart to them good speaking. But in the interior, whose inhabitants are not mixed with barbarians, the pronunciation and language are good.”

181 Karl Keil (Pauly, Realencycl. 1² p. 2100) points to t???? for ?? t???? and t? ????a ?????a? in the inscription of the wife of Herodes (C. I. L. vi. 1342).

182 Dittenberger, Hermes, i. 414. Here, too, may be adduced what the stupid champion of Apollonius makes his hero write to the Alexandrian professors (Ep. 34), that he has left Argos, Sicyon, Megara, Phocis, Locris, in order that he might not, by staying longer in Hellas, become utterly a barbarian.

183 Tacitus (on the year 62, Ann. xv.20) characterises one of these rich and influential provincials, Claudius Timarchides from Crete, who is all powerful in his sphere (ut solent praevalidi provincialium et opibus nimiis ad iniurias minorum elati), and has at his disposal the diet and consequently also the decree of thanks—a due accompaniment very desirable for the departing proconsul in view of possible actions of reckoning (in sua potestate situm an proconsulibus, qui Cretam obtinuissent, grates agerentur). The opposition proposes that this decree of thanks be refused, but does not succeed in bringing the proposal to a vote. From another side Plutarch (Praec. ger. reip. c. 19, 3) depicts these Greeks of rank.

184 Herodes was ?? ?p?t?? (Philostratus, Vit. Soph. i. 25, 5, p. 526), ?t??e? ?? pat???? ?? t??? d?s?p?t??? (ib. ii.init. p. 545). Otherwise nothing is known of consulships of his ancestors; but certainly his grandfather Hipparchus was not a senator. Possibly the question is even only as to cognate ascendants. The family did not receive the Roman franchise under the Julii (comp. C. I. A. iii. 489), but only under the Claudii.

185 The first Roman Olympionices, of whom we know, is Ti. Claudius Ti. f. Nero, beyond doubt the subsequent emperor, with the four–in–hand (Arch. Zeit. 1880, p. 53); this victory falls probably in Ol. 195 (A.D. 1), not in Ol. 99 (A.D. 17), as the list of Africanus states (Euseb. i. p. 214, SchÖne). In this year the conqueror was rather his son Germanicus, likewise with the four–in–hand (Arch. Zeit. 1879, p. 36). Among the eponymous Olympionicae, the victors in the stadium, no Roman is found; this wounding of the Greek national feeling seems to have been avoided.

186 An agonistic institute thus privileged is termed ???? ?e???, certamen sacrum (that is, with pensioning: Dio, li. 1), or ???? e?se?ast????, certamen iselasticum (comp. among others, Plin. ad Trai. 118, 119; C. I. L. x. 515). The Xystarchia too is, at least in certain cases, conferred by the emperor (Dittenberger, Hermes, xii.17 f.). Not without warrant these institutes called themselves “world–games” (???? ?????e?????).

187 The emperor Gaius declines, in his letter to the diet of Achaia, the “great number” of statues adjudged to him, and contents himself with the four of Olympia, Nemea, Delphi, and the Isthmus (Keil, Inscr. Boeot. n. 31). The same diet resolves to set up a statue to the emperor Hadrian in each of its towns, of which the base of that set up at Abea in Messenia has been preserved (C. I. Gr. 1307). Imperial authorisation for such erections was required from the first.

188 At the revision of the town–accounts of Byzantium, Pliny found that annually 12,000 sesterces (£125) were set down for the conveyance of new–year’s good wishes by a special deputation to the emperor, and 3000 sesterces (£32) for the same to the governor of Moesia. Pliny instructs the authorities to send these congratulations thenceforth only in writing, which Trajan approves (Ep. ad Trai. 43, 44).

189 That the land–routes of Greece were specially unsafe, we do not learn; as to what was the nature of the insurrection in Achaia under Pius (Vita, 5, 4), we are quite in the dark. If the robber–chief generally—and not precisely the Greek one—plays a prominent part in the light literature of the epoch, this vehicle is common to the bad romance–writers of all ages. The Euboean desert of the more polished Dio was not a robber’s nest, but it was the wreck of a great landed estate, whose possessor had been condemned on account of his wealth by the emperor, and which thenceforth lay waste. Moreover it is here apparent—as indeed needs no proof, at least for those who are non–scholars—that this history is just as true as most which begin by stating that the narrator himself had it from the person concerned; if the confiscation were historical, the possession would have come to the exchequer, not to the town, which the narrator accordingly takes good care not to name.

190 The naive description of Achaia by an Egyptian merchant of Constantius’s time may find a place here:—“The land of Achaia, Greece, and Laconia has much of learning, but is inadequate for other things needful; for it is a small and mountainous province, and cannot furnish much corn, but produces some oil and the Attic honey, and can be praised more on account of the schools and eloquence, but not so in most other respects. Of towns it has Corinth and Athens. Corinth has much commerce, and a fine building, the amphitheatre; but Athens has old pictures (historias antiquas), and a work worth mentioning, the citadel, where many statues stand and wonderfully set forth the war–deeds of the forefathers (ubi multis statuis stantibus mirabile est videre dicendum antiquorum bellum). Laconia is said alone to have the marble of Croceae to show, which people call the Lacedaemonian.” The barbarism of expression is to be set down to the account, not of the writer, but of the much later translator.

191

?e???d?? ??t? e ?a?sa?, ?d’ ??a???? ???????,
T???e??? te p??e??, ??t? t’ ??a?t?????,
???e?? ?f?????? te, ?a? ?pp?sa ?a?sat? ?????
?ste’ ?p????s??? d????a??? p??e??,
e?sat? ????p????, ?e??? p????? ??t? d? ?????
f???? ??a? ta?t?? d????ta? ??t??d??.

Anthol. Gr. ix. 553.

192 When Tacitus, Ann. v.10, names Nicopolis a colonia Romana, the statement is one liable to be misunderstood, but not exactly incorrect; but that of Pliny (H. N. iv.1, 5), colonia Augusti Actium cum … civitate libera Nicopolitana, is erroneous, as Actium was as little a town as Olympia.

193 ? ???? ???p??? t? ??t?a, Strabo, vii.7, 6, p. 325; ??t??? Josephus, Bell. Jud. i. 20, 4; ??t??????? oftener. As the four great Greek national festivals are, as is well known, termed ? pe???d??, and the victor crowned in all four pe???d??????, so in C. I. Gr. 4472 t?? pe???d?? is appended also to the games of Nicopolis, and the former pe???d?? is designated as the ancient (???a?a). As competitive games are frequently called ?s???p?a, so we find also ???? ?s??t??? (C. I. Gr. 4472), or certamen ad exemplar Actiacae religionis (Tacitus, Ann. xv.23).

194 Thus a Nicopolite terms himself ????? t?? ?e??? ??t?a??? ????? (Delphi, Rhein. Mus. N. F. ii.111), as in Elis the expression is used: ? p???? ??e??? ?a? ? ???p??? ???? (Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 57; similarly ibid. 1877, pp. 40, 41 elsewhere). Moreover the Spartans, as the only Hellenes that took part in the victory at Actium, obtained the conduct (?p???e?a) of the Actian games (Strabo, vii.7, 6 p. 325): their relation to the ???? ??t?a?? of Nicopolis we do not know.

195 The description of its decay in the time of Constantius (Paneg. 11, 9) is an evidence to the opposite effect for the earlier times of the empire.

196 The excavations at Dodona have confirmed this; all the articles found belong to the pre–Roman period except some coins. Certainly a restoration of the building took place, the time of which cannot be determined; perhaps it was quite late. When Hadrian, who is named ?e?? ??d??a??? (C. I. Gr. 1822), visited Dodona (DÜrr, Reisen Hadrians, p. 56) he did so as an archaeologist. A consultation of the oracle during the imperial period is only reported—and that not after the most trustworthy manner—in the case of the emperor Julian (Theodoretus, Hist. Eccl. iii.21).

197 The ordinance of Caesar is attested by Appian, B. C. ii.88, and Plutarch, Caes. 48, and it very well accords with his own account, B. C. iii.80; whereas Pliny, H. N. iv.8, 29, names only Pharsalus as a free town. In Augustus’ time a Thessalian of note, Petraeos (probably the partisan of Caesar, B. C. iii.35), was burnt alive (Plutarch, Praec. ger. reip. 19), doubtless not by a private crime, but according to resolution of the diet, and so the Thessalians were brought before the tribunal of the emperor (Suetonius, Tib. 8). Presumably the two incidents and likewise the loss of freedom stand connected.

198 In the time of the republic Scodra seems to have belonged to Macedonia (iii.181)iii.173.; in the imperial period this and Lissus are Dalmatian towns, and the mouth of the Drin forms the boundary on the west.

199 The towns founded in these regions outside of Macedonia proper bear quite the character of colonies proper; e.g. that of Philippi in the Thracian land, and especially that of Derriopus in Paeonia (Liv.xxxix. 53), for which latter place also the distinctively Macedonian politarchs have epigraphic attestation (inscription of the year 197 A.D., t?? pe?? ????a?d??? F???pp?? ?? ?e????p? p???ta????, Duchesne and Bayet, Mission au mont Athos, p. 103).

200 That for Lysimachus the Danube was the boundary of the empire, is evident from Pausanias, i. 9, 6.

201 Calybe near Byzantium arose according to Strabo (vii.6, 2, p. 320) f???pp?? t?? ???t?? t??? p?????t?t??? ??ta??a ?d??sa?t??. Philippopolis is alleged even according to the account of Theopompus (fr. 122 MÜller) to have been founded as ??????p????, and to have received colonists corresponding with that description. However little these reports deserve trust, they yet in their coincidence express the Botany–Bay character of these foundations.

202 Yet the northern Bessarabian line, which perhaps is Roman, reaches as far as Tyra (p.226).

203 That Byzantium was still in Trajan’s time under the governor of Bithynia, follows from Plin. ad Trai. 43. From the congratulations of the Byzantines to the legates of Moesia we cannot infer their having belonged to this governorship, which from their situation was hardly possible; the relations to the governor of Moesia may be explained from the commercial connections of the city with the Moesian ports. That Byzantium was in the year 53 under the senate, and so did not belong to Thrace, is plain from Tacitus, Ann. xii.62. Cicero (in Pis. 35, 86; de prov.cons. 4, 6) does not attest its having belonged to Macedonia under the republic, since the town was then free. This freedom seems, as in the case of Rhodes, to have been often given and often taken away. Cicero, l.c., ascribes freedom to it; in the year 53 it is tributary, Pliny (H. N. iv.11, 46) adduces it as a free city; Vespasian withdraws its freedom (Suetonius, Vesp. 8).

204 This is proved by the absence of coins of the inland Thracian towns, which could be assigned by metal and style to the older period. That a number of Thracian, especially Odrysian, princes coined in part even at a very early period, proves only that they ruled over places on the coast with a Greek or half–Greek population. A similar judgment must be formed as to the tetradrachms of the “Thracians,” which stand quite isolated (Sallet, Num. Zeitschrift, iii. 241).—The inscriptions also found in the interior of Thrace are throughout of Roman times. The decree of a town not named found at Bessapara, now Tatar Bazarjik, to the west of Philippopolis, by Dumont (Inscr. de la Thrace, p. 7), is indeed assigned to a good Macedonian time, but only from the character of the writing, which is perhaps deceptive.

205 The fifty strategies of Thrace (Plin. H. N. iv.11, 40; Ptolem. iii.11, 6) are not military districts, but, as is apparent with special clearness in Ptolemy, land–districts, which correspond with the tribes (st?at???a ?a?d???, ?ess??? ?. t. ?.) and form a contrast to the towns. The designation st?at???? has, just like praetor, lost subsequently its original military value. Here perhaps the analogy of Egypt, which likewise was divided into urban domains under urban magistrates and into land–districts under strategoi, served primarily as a basis. A st?at???? ?st???? pe?? ???????? from the Roman period occurs in Eph. epigr. ii.p. 252.

206 In Deultus, the colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium, veterans of the eighth legion, were provided for (C. I. L. vi. 3828). Flaviopolis on the Chersonese, the old Coela, was certainly not a colony (Plin. iv.11, 47), but belongs to the peculiar settlement of the imperial menials on this domanial possession (Eph. epigr. v.p. 83).

207 This town ????p???? ? pe?? ???? of Ptolem. iii.11, 7, ????p???? p??? ?st??? of the coins, the modern Nikup on the Jantra, belongs to lower Moesia geographically, and, as the names of governors on the coins show, since Severus also administratively; but not merely does Ptolemy adduce it in Thrace, but the places where the Hadrianic terminal stones (C. I. L. iii.749, comp. p. 992) are found, appear to assign it likewise to Thrace. As this Greek inland town fitted neither the Latin town–communities of lower Moesia nor the ?????? of the Moesian Pontus, it was assigned at the first organising of the relations to the ?????? of the Thracians. Subsequently it must, no doubt, have been attached to one or the other of those Moesian groups.

208 The ?????? t?? ?e?tap??e?? is found on an inscription of Odessus, C. I. Gr. 2056 c., which may fairly belong to the earlier imperial period, the Pontic Hexapolis, on two inscriptions of Tomis probably of the second century A.D. (Marquardt, Staatsverw. i.² p. 305; Hirschfeld, Arch. epigr. Mitth. vi. 22). The Hexapolis in any case, and in accordance therewith probably also the Pentapolis, must have been brought into harmony with the Roman provincial boundaries, that is, must have included in it the Greek towns of lower Moesia. These are also found, if we follow the surest guides,—the coins of the imperial period. There were six mints (apart from Nicopolis, p.282, note) in lower Moesia: Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessus, and Marcianopolis, and, as the last town was founded by Trajan, the Pentapolis is thereby explained. Tyra and Olbia hardly belonged to it; at least the numerous and loquacious monuments of the latter town nowhere show any link of connection with this city–league. It is called ?????? t?? ??????? on an inscription of Tomis, printed in the Athenian Pandora of 1st June 1868 [and in Anc. Gr. Inscr. in the British Museum, ii.n. 175]: ??a?? t???. ?at? t? d??a?ta t? ??at?st? ???? ?a? t? ?ap??t?t? d?? t?? ?ap??t?t?? ?t??p??e?? ?a? a? t?? e?????? p??t?? ??e?? t?? ???t????? ???. ??e?s???? ????a??? ???a?ta t?? ?????? t?? ??????? ?a? t?? ?t?[?]p??e?? t?? a? ????? ?????, ?a? ????e?as?e???, t?? d?’ ?p??? ?a? ?????es??? ??d???? f???te??a? ? d?a??p??ta, ???? ?a? ???e?t?? ?a? t?? p??te???t?? f?a?a? ??a? p??e??, ?a? t?? ??????e?a? s???? a?t?? ?????a? ?p??a?st?? p?s?? te??? ?????.

209 This is shown by the remarkable inscription in Allard (La Bulgarie orientale, Paris, 1863, p. 263): Te? e???? Sa??p[?d? ?a?] t??? s??????? ?e??? [?a? t? a?]t????t??? ?. ????? ?d??a?[? ?]?t??e??? Seast? ??se[e?] ?a? ?. ??????? ????? ?a?sa?? ?a?p??? ????????? t? ???? t?? ??e?a?d???? t?? ??? ?? t?? ?d??? ??????e? ?t??? ??? [????] fa????? a? ?p? ?e???? [?]?????t?? t?? ?a? Sa?ap????? [????]??? t?? ?a? ???[?e????]. The mariner’s guild of Tomis meets us several times in the inscriptions of the town.

210 Olbia, constantly assailed in war and often destroyed, suffered, according to the statement of Dio (Borysth. p. 75, n.), about 150 years before his time, i.e. somewhat before the year 100 A.D., and so probably in the expedition of Burebista (iv.305), its last and most severe conquest (t?? te?e?ta?a? ?a? e??st?? ???s??). ????? d?, Dio continues, ?a? ta?t?? G?ta? ?a? t?? ???a? t?? ?? t??? ???ste???? t?? ???t?? p??e?? ???? ?p??????a? (Sozopolis or Sizebolu, the last Greek town of note on the Pontic west coast): ??e? d? ?a? sf?d?a tape??? t? p???ata ?at?st? t?? ta?t? ???????, t?? ?? ????t? s??????s?e?s?? p??e??, t?? d? fa???? ?a? t?? p?e?st?? a????? e?? a?t?? s??????t??. The young citizen of rank with a marked Ionic physiognomy, with whom Dio then meets, who has slain or captured numerous Sarmatians, and though not acquainted with Phocylides, knows Homer by heart, wears mantle and trousers after the Scythian fashion, and a knife in his girdle. The townsmen all wear long hair and a long beard, and only one has shorn both, which is suspected in him as a token of servile attitude towards the Romans. Thus a century later matters there looked quite such as Ovid describes them at Tomis.

211 Quite commonly the father has a Scythian name and the son a Greek, or conversely; e.g. an inscription of Olbia set up under or after Trajan (C. I. Gr. 2074) records six strategoi, M. Ulpius Pyrrhus son of Arseuaches, Demetrios son of Xessagaros, Zoilos son of Arsakes, Badakes son of Radanpson, Epikrates son of Koxuros, Ariston son of Vargadakes.

212 As Asander reckoned his archonship probably from the very time of his revolt from Pharnaces, and so from the summer of 70747., and assumes the royal title already in the fourth year of his reign, this year may warrantably be put in the autumn 709–71045–44., and the confirmation have thus been the work of Caesar. Antonius cannot well have bestowed it, as he only came to Asia at the end of 71242.; still less can we think of Augustus, whom the pseudo–Lucian (Macrob. 15) names, interchanging father and son.

213 Mithradates, whom Claudius in the year 41 made king of Bosporus, traced back his descent to Eupator (Dio, lx. 8; Tacitus, Ann. xii.18), and he was followed by his brother Cotys (Tacitus, l.c.). Their father was called Aspurgus (C. I. Gr. ii.p. 95), but need not on that account have been an Aspurgian (Strabo, xi. 2, 19, p. 415). Of a subsequent change of dynasty there is no mention; king Eupator in the time of Pius (Lucian, Alex. 57; vita Pii, 9) points to the same house. Probably, we may add, these later Bosporan kings, as well as the immediate successors of Polemon not even known to us by name, stood in relations of affinity to the Polemonids, as indeed the first Polemon himself had as his wife a granddaughter of Eupator. The Thracian royal names, such as Cotys and Rhascuporis, which are common in the Bosporan royal house, connect themselves doubtless with the son–in–law of Polemon, the Thracian king Cotys. The appellation Sauromates, which frequently occurs after the end of the first century, has doubtless arisen through intermarriage with Sarmatian princely houses, but, of course, does not prove that those who bore it were themselves Sarmatians. If Zosimus, i. 31, blames the petty and unworthy princes who attained to government after the extinction of the old royal family, for the fact that the Goths under Valerian could carry out their piratical expeditions in Bosporan ships, this may be correct, and in the first instance Pharnaces may be meant, of whom there are coins from the years 254 and 255. But even these, too, are marked with the image of the Roman emperor, and later there are again found the old family names (all the Bosporan kings are Tiberii Julii), and the old surnames, such as Sauromates and Rhascuporis. Taken as a whole, the old traditions as well as the Roman protectorate were still at that time here retained.

214 The last Bosporan coin is of the year 631, of the Achaemenid era, A.D. 335; this is certainly connected with the installation, which falls in this very year, of Hanniballianus, the nephew of Constantine I., as “king,” although this kingdom embraced chiefly the east of Asia Minor and had as its capital Caesarea in Cappadocia. After this king and his kingdom had perished in the bloody catastrophe after Constantine’s death, the Bosporus was placed directly under Constantinople.

215 The Bosporus was still in Roman possession in the year 366 (Ammianus, xxvi. 10, 6); soon afterwards the Greeks on the north shore of the Black Sea must have been left to themselves, until Justinian reoccupied the peninsula (Procopius, Bell. Goth. iv.5). In the interval Panticapaeum perished under the assaults of the Huns.

216 The coins of the town Chersonesus from the imperial period have the legend ?e?s???s?? ??e????a?, once even as??e???s??, and neither name nor head of king or emperor (A. v. Sallet, Zeitschrift fÜr Num. i. 27; iv.273). The independence of the town evidences itself also in the fact that it coins in gold no less than the kings of the Bosporus. As the era of the town appears correctly fixed at the year 36 B.C. (C. I. Gr. n. 8621), in which freedom was conferred upon it presumably by Antonius, the gold coin of the “ruling city” dated from the year 109 was struck in 75 A.D.

217 According to Strabo’s representation (xi. 2, 11, p. 495) the rulers of Tanais stand independently by the side of those of Panticapaeum, and the tribes to the south of the Don depend sometimes on the latter, sometimes on the former; when he adds that several of the Panticapaean princes ruled as far as Tanais, and particularly the last, Pharnaces, Asander, Polemon, this seems more exception than rule. In the inscription quoted in the next note the Tanaites stand among the subject stocks, and a series of Tanaitic inscriptions confirms this for the time from Marcus to Gordian; but the ?????e? ?a? ?a?ae?ta? alongside of the ?????te? ?a?ae?t?? and of the frequently mentioned ????????a? confirm the view that the town even then remained non–Greek.

218 In the only vivid narrative from the Bosporan history which we possess, that of Tacitus, Ann. xii.15–31, concerning the two rival brothers, Mithradates and Cotys, the neighbouring tribes, the Dandaridae, Siracae, Aorsi, are under rulers of their own not legally dependent on the Roman prince of Panticapaeum.—As to titles, the older Panticapaean princes are wont to call themselves archons of the Bosporus, that is, of Panticapaeum, and of Theudosia, and kings of the Sindi and of all the Maitae and other non–Greek tribes. In like manner what is, so far as I know, the oldest among the royal inscriptions of the Roman epoch names Aspurgos, son of Asandrochos (Stephani, Comptes rendus de la comm. pour 1866, p. 128), as as??e???ta pa?t?? ???sp????, Te?d?s??? ?a? S??d?? ?a? ?a?t?? ?a? ???et?? ??s?? te ?a? ?a?ae?t??, ?p?t?sa?ta S???a? ?a? ?a?????. No inference as to the extent of the territory may be drawn from the simplified title.—In the inscriptions of the later period there is found once under Trajan the doubtless adulatory title as??e?? as????? ??a? t?? pa?t?? ???sp???? (C. I. Gr. 2123). The coins generally, from Asander onward, know no title but as??e??, while yet Pharnaces calls himself as??e?? as????? ??a?. Beyond doubt this was the effect of the Roman sovereignty, with which a vassal–prince placed over other princes was not very compatible.

219 This was the king Mithradates, installed by Claudius in the year 41, who some years afterwards was deposed and replaced by his brother Cotys; he lived afterwards in Rome, and perished in the confusions of the four–emperor–year (Plutarch, Galba, 13, 15). The state of the matter, however, is not clear either from the hints in Tacitus, Ann. xii.15 (comp. Plin. H. N. vi. 5, 17), or from the report (confused by the interchange of the two, Mithradates of Bosporus, and Mithradates of Iberia) in Petrus Patricius fr. 3. The Chersonese tales in the late Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de adm. imp. c. 53, do not, of course, come into account. The bad Bosporan king Sauromates, ???s??????? (not ??s??p????) ????, who with the Sarmatians wages war against the emperors Diocletian and Constantius, as well as against the Chersonese faithful to the empire, has evidently arisen from a confusion of names between the Bosporan king and people; and just as historical as the variation on the history of David and Goliath, is the despatch of the mighty king of the Bosporans, Sauromates, by the small Chersonesite Pharnaces. The kings’ names alone, e.g. besides those named, the Asander, who comes in after the extinction of the family of the Sauromatae, suffice. The civic privileges and the localities of the city, for the explanation of which these mirabilia are invented, certainly deserve attention.

220 There are no Bosporan gold or pseudo–gold coins without the head of the Roman emperor, and this is always that of the ruler recognised by the Roman senate. That in the years 263 and 265, when in the empire elsewhere after the captivity of Valerian Gallienus was officially regarded as sole ruler, two heads here appear on the coins, is perhaps due only to want of information; yet the Bosporans may at that time have made another choice amid the many pretenders. The names are at this time not appended, and the effigies are not to be certainly distinguished.

221 This we may be allowed to believe at the hands of the Scythian Toxaris in the dialogue placed among those of Lucian (c. 44); for the rest he narrates not merely ????? ???a, but a very myth, of whose kings Leucanor and Eubiotes the coins, as may well be conceived, have no knowledge.

222 As respects the export of grain, the notice in the report of Plautius (p. 218), deserves attention.

223 From the offer of a township of the Siracae (on the Sea of Azoff) hard pressed by the Roman troops to deliver 10,000 slaves (Tacitus, Ann. xii. 17), it may be allowable to infer a lively import of slaves from these regions.

224 Had the state of Lysimachus endured it would probably have been otherwise. His foundations, Alexandria in the Troad and Lysimachia, Ephesos–Arsinoe strengthened by the transference of the inhabitants of Colophon and Lebedos, tended in the direction indicated.

225 Nowhere have the boundaries of the vassal states and even of the provinces changed more than in the north–east of Asia Minor. Direct imperial administration was introduced here for the districts of king Polemon, to which Zela, Neocaesarea, Trapezus belonged, in the year 63; for Lesser Armenia, we do not know exactly when, probably at the beginning of the reign of Vespasian. The last vassal king of Lesser Armenia, of whom there is mention, was the Herodian Aristobulus (Tacitus, Ann. xiii.7, xiv.26; Josephus, Ant. xx. 8, 4), who still possessed it in the year 60; in the year 75 the district was Roman (C. I. L. iii.306), and probably one of the legions garrisoning Cappadocia from Vespasian’s time was stationed from the first in the Lesser–Armenian Satala. Vespasian combined the regions mentioned, as well as Galatia and Cappadocia, into one large governorship. At the end of the reign of Domitian we find Galatia and Cappadocia separated and the north–eastern provinces attached to Galatia. Under Trajan at first the whole district is once more in one hand, subsequently (Eph. Ep. V. n. 1345) it is divided in such a way that the north–east coast belongs to Cappadocia. On that footing it remained, at least in so far that Trapezus and so also Lesser Armenia were thenceforth constantly under this governor. Consequently—apart from a short interruption under Domitian—the legate of Galatia had nothing to do with the defence of the frontier, and this, as was implied in the nature of the case, was always combined with the command of Cappadocia and of its legions.

226 Urban coining and setting up of inscriptions are subject to so manifold conditions that the want or the abundance of the one or the other do not per se warrant inferences as to the absence or the intensity of a definite phase of civilisation. For Asia Minor in particular we must take note that it was the promised land of municipal vanity, and our memorials, including even the coins, have for by far the greatest part been called forth by the fact that the government of the Roman emperors allowed free scope to this vanity.

227 “The ordinance,” says the jurist Modestinus, who reports it (Dig. xxvii.1, 6, 3) “interests all provinces, although it is directed to the people of Asia.” It is suitable, in fact, only where there are classes of towns, and the jurist adds an instruction how it is to be applied to provinces otherwise organised. What the biographer of Pius, c. 11, reports as to the distinctions and salaries granted by Pius to the rhetoricians, has nothing to do with this enactment.

228 Dio of Prusa, in his address to the citizens of Nicomedia and of Tarsus, excellently lays it down that no man of culture would have such empty distinctions for himself, and that the greedy quest of the towns for titles was altogether inconceivable; how it is the sign of the true petty–townsman to cause a display of such attestations of rank on his behalf; how the bad governor always screens himself under this quarrelling of towns, as Nicaea and Nicomedia never act together. “The Romans deal with you as with children, to whom one presents trifling toys; you put up with bad treatment in order to obtain a name; they name your town the first in order to treat it as the last. By this you have become a laughing–stock to the Romans, and they call your doings ‘Greek follies’ ” (???????? ?a?t?ata).

229 Pausanias of Caesarea in Philostratus (Vitae soph. ii.13) places before Herodes Atticus his faults: pa?e?? t? ???tt? ?a? ?? ?appad??a?? ?????e?, ????????? ?? t? s?f??a t?? st???e???. s?st????? d? t? ?????e?a ?a? ?????? t? ?a??a. Vita Apoll. i. 7; ? ???tta ?tt???? e??e?, ??d’ ?p???? t?? f???? ?p? t?? ??????.

230 Amyntas was placed over the Pisidians as early as 71539. before Antonius returned to Asia (Appian, B. C. v.75), doubtless because these had once more undertaken one of their predatory expeditions. From the fact that he first ruled there is explained the circumstance that he built for himself a residence in Isaura (Strabo, xii.6, 3, p. 569). Galatia went in the first instance to the heirs of Deiotarus (Dio, xlviii.33). It was not till the year 71836. that Amyntas obtained Galatia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia (Dio, xlix. 32).

231 That this was the cause why these regions were not placed under Roman governors is expressly stated by Strabo (xiv.5, 5, p. 671), who was near in time and place to the matters dealt with: ?d??e? p??? ?pa? t? t????t? (for the suppression of the robbers and pirates) as??e?es?a? ????? t??? t?p??? ? ?p? t??? ??a???? ??e?s?? e??a? t??? ?p? t?? ???se?? pep??????, ?? ?t’ ?e? pa?e??a? ?e???? (on account of the travelling on circuit) ?te e?’ ?p??? (which at all events were wanting to the later legate of Galatia).

232 Amidst the great unnamed ruins of Sarajik, in the upper valley of the Limyrus, in eastern Lycia (comp. Ritter, Erdkunde xix. p. 1172), stands a considerable temple–shaped tomb, certainly not older than the third century after Christ, on which mutilated parts of men—heads, arms, legs—are produced in relief, as emblems we might imagine, as the coat of arms of a civilised robber–chief (communication from Benndorf).

233 The famous list of services rendered to the community of Ancyra of the time of Tiberius (C. I. Gr. 4039) designates the Galatian communities usually by ?????, sometimes by p????. The former appellation subsequently disappears; but in the full title, e.g. of the inscription, C. I. Gr. 4011, from the second century, Ancyra always bears the name of the people: ? ?t??p???? t?? Ga?at?a? Seast? ?e?t?s???? ?????a.

234 According to Pausanius, x. 36, 1, among the Ga??ta? ?p?? f????a? f??? t? ?p?????? sf?s?? the scarlet berry is termed ??; and Lucian, Alex. 51, tells of the perplexities of the soothsaying Paphlagonian, when questions were proposed to him S???st? ? ?e?t?st? and people conversant with this language were not just at hand.

235 If in the list mentioned at p.314, note, from the time of Tiberius the largesses are given but seldom to three peoples, mostly to two peoples or two cities, the latter are, as Perrot correctly remarks (de Galatia, p. 83), Ancyra and Pessinus, and Tavium of the Trocmi is in the matter of largesses postponed to them. Perhaps there was at that time among these no township which could be treated as a town.

236 Cicero (ad Att. vi. 5, 3) writes of his army in Cilicia: exercitum infirmum habebam, auxilia sane bona, sed ea Galatarum, Pisidarum, Lyciorum: haec enim sunt nostra robora.

237 Decrees of the ?p? t?? ?s?a? ?????e?, C. I. A. 3487, 3957; a Lycian honoured ?p? t?? ??[???]? t?? ?p? t?? ?s?a? ??????? ?a? ?p? t?? ?[? ?a]f???? p??e??, Benndorf, Lyk. Reise, i. 122; letters to the Hellenes in Asia, C. I. Gr. 3832, 3833; ? ??d?e? ?????e? in the address to the diet of Pergamus, Aristides, p. 517.—An ???a? t?? ?????? t?? ?? ??????? ???????, Perrot, Expl. de la Galatie, p. 32; letter of the emperor Alexander to the same, Dig. xlix. 1, 25.—Dio, li. 20: t??? ??????, ?????a? sf?? ?p??a??sa?, ?a?t? t??a, t??? ?? ?s?a???? ?? ?e????, t??? d? ???????? ?? ?????de?? tee??sa? ?p?t?e?e.

238 Besides the Galatarchs (Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. 515) we meet in Galatia even under Hadrian Helladarchae (Bull. de corr. Hell. vii.18), who can only be taken here like the Hellenarchs in Tanais (p.315, note 2).

239 The s???d???? t?? ????a d??? (Schliemann, Troia, 1884, p. 256) calls itself elsewhere ???e?? ?a? p??e?? a? ????????sa? t?? ??s?a? ?a? t?? ?????? ?a? t?? pa?????e?? (ib. p. 254). Another document of the same league from the time of Antigonus is given in Droysen, Hellenismus, ii.2, 382 ff. So too other ????? are to be taken, which refer to a narrower circle than the province, such as the old one of the thirteen Ionic cities, that of the Lesbians (Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. p. 516), that of the Phrygians on the coins of Apamea. These have also had their magisterial presidents, as indeed there has recently been found a Lesbiarch (Marquardt, l.c.), and likewise the Moesian Hellenes were under a Pontarch (p.308). Yet it is not improbable that, where the archonship is named, the league is more than a mere festal association; the Lesbians as well as the Moesian Pentapolis may have had a special diet, over which these officers presided. On the other hand the ?????? t?? ???a???? ped??? (Ramsay, Cities and bishoprics of Phrygia, p. 10), which stands alongside of several d???, is a quasi–community destitute of civic rights.

240 The composition of the diets of Asia Minor is most clearly apparent in Strabo’s account of the Lyciarchy (xiv.3, 3, p. 664) and in the narrative of Aristides (Or. 26, p. 344) as to his election to one of the Asiatic provincial priesthoods.

241 See examples for Asia, C. I. Gr. 3487; for Lycia, Benndorf, Lyk. Reise, i. p. 71. But the Lycian federal assembly designates the years not by the Archiereus but by the Lyciarch.

242 Tacitus, Ann. iv.15, 55. The town which possesses a temple dedicated by the diet of the province (the ?????? t?? ?s?a? ?. t. ?.) bears on that account the honorary predicate of the “(imperial) temple–keeper” (?e??????); and, if one of them has several to show, the number is appended. In this institution one may clearly discern how the imperial worship obtained its full elaboration in Asia Minor. In reality the neocorate is general, applicable to any deity and any town; titularly, as an honorary surname of the town, it meets us with vanishing exceptions only in the imperial cultus of Asia Minor—only some Greek towns of the neighbouring provinces, such as Tripolis in Syria, Thessalonica in Macedonia, participated in it.

243 However little the original diversity of the presidency of the diet and the provincial chief–priesthood for the cultus of the emperor can be called in question, yet not merely in the case of the former does the magisterial character of the president, still clearly recognisable in Hellas, whence the organisation of the ????? generally proceeds, fall completely into the shade in Asia Minor, but here in fact, where the ?????? has several ritual centres, the ?s?????? and the ????e?e?? t?? ?s?a? seem to have amalgamated. The president of the ?????? never bears in Asia Minor the title of st?at????, which sharply emphasises the civil office, and ???a? t?? ?????? (p.344, note) or t?? ?????? (C. I. Gr. 4380?4, p. 1168) is rare; the compounds ?s??????, ?????????, analogous to the ???ad????? of Achaia, are already in Strabo’s time the usual designation. That in the minor provinces, like Galatia and Lycia, the Archon and the Archiereus of the province remained separate, is certain. But in Asia the existence of Asiarchs for Ephesus and Smyrna is established by inscriptions (Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. 514), while yet according to the nature of the institution there could only be one Asiarch for the whole province. Here, too, the Agonothesia of the Archiereus is attested (Galen on Hippocrates de part. 18, 2, p. 567, KÜhn: pa?’ ??? ?? ?e???? t?? ????e???? t?? ?a?????a? ???a??a? ?p?te????t??), while it is the very essence of the Asiarchate. To all appearance the rivalries of the towns have here led to the result, that, after there were several temples of the emperor dedicated by the province in different towns, the Agonothesia was taken from the real president of the diet, and, instead, the titular Asiarchate and the Agonothesia were committed to the chief priest of each temple. In that case the ?s?????? ?a? ????e?e?? ??? p??e?? is explained on the coins of the thirteen Ionic towns (Mionnet, iii.61, 1), and on Ephesian inscriptions the same Ti. Julius Reginus may be named sometimes ?s?????? ? ?a?? t?? ?? ?f?s? (Wood, Inscr. from the great theatre, p. 18), sometimes ????e?e?? ? ?a?? t?? ?? ?f?s? (ib. n. 8. 14, similarly 9).—Only in this way, too, are the institutions of the fourth century to be comprehended. Here a chief priest appears in every province, in Asia with the title of Asiarch, in Syria with that of Syriarch, and so forth. If the amalgamation of the Archon and the Archiereus had already begun earlier in the province of Asia, nothing was more natural than now, on the diminution of the provinces, to combine them everywhere in this way.

244 C. I. Gr. 3902?.

245 Dio of Prusa, Or. 35, p. 66 R., names the Asiarchs and the analogous archons (he designates clearly their Agonothesia, and to it also point the corrupt words t??? ?p?????? t?? d?? ?pe???? t?? ?sp??a? ????, for which probably we should read t?? ?t??a? ????) t??? ?p??t?? ?????ta? t?? ?e????. There is, as is well known, an almost constant absence in the designation of the provincial priests of express reference to the worship of the emperors; there was good reason for that absence, if they were expected to play in their spheres the part of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome.

246 Maximinus for this purpose placed military help at the disposal of the chief priest of the individual province (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. viii.14, 9); and the famous letter of Julian (Ep. 49, comp. Ep. 63) to the Galatarch of the time gives a clear view of his obligations. He is to superintend the whole religious matters of the province; to preserve his independence in contradistinction to the governor, not to dance attendance upon him, not to allow him to appear in the temple with military escort, to receive him not in front of, but in, the temple, within which he is lord and the governor a private man. Of the subsidies which the government has settled on the province (30,000 bushels of corn and 60,000 sextarii of wine), he is to expend the fifth part on the poor persons who become clients of the heathen priests, and to employ the rest otherwise on charitable objects; in every town of the province, if possible, with the aid of private persons, to call into existence hospitals (?e??d??e?a), not merely for heathens, but for everybody, and no longer to allow the Christians the monopoly of good works. He is to urge all the priests of the province by example and exhortation generally to maintain a religious walk, to avoid the frequenting of theatres and taverns, and in particular to frequent the temples diligently with their family and their attendants, or else, if they should not amend their ways, to depose them. It is a pastoral letter in the best form, only with the address altered, and with quotations from Homer instead of the Bible. Clearly as these arrangements bear on their face the stamp of heathenism already collapsing, and certainly as in this extent they are foreign to the earlier epoch, the foundation at any rate—the general superintendence of the chief priest of the province over matters of worship—by no means appears as a new institution.

247 This troop, according to its position in Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4, between the provinces of Asia and Cappadocia not provided with garrisons, can only be referred to Galatia. Of course it furnished also the detachments, which were stationed in the dependent territories on the Caucasus, at that time—under Nero—apparently also those stationed on the Bosporus itself, in which, it is true, also the Moesian corps took part (p.318).

248 Praetorian stationarius Ephesi, Eph. epigr. iv.n. 70. A soldier in statione Nicomedensi, Plin. ad Trai. 74. A legionary centurion in Byzantium, ib. 77, 78.

249 In the municipal matters of Asia Minor everything occurs except what relates to arms. The Smyrnaean st?at???? ?p? t?? ?p??? is of course a reminiscence equally with the cultus of Herakles ?p??f??a? (C. I. Gr. 3162).

250 The Eirenarch of Smyrna sends out these gens d’armes to arrest Polycarp: ??????? d????ta? ?a? ?ppe?? et? t?? s?????? a?t??? ?p???, ?? ?p? ??st?? t?????te? (Acta mart., ed. Ruinart, p. 39). That they had not the armour of soldiers proper, is also elsewhere remarked (Ammian. xxvii.9, 6: adhibitis semiermibus quibusdam—against the Isaurians—quos diogmitas appellant). Their employment in the Marcomanian war is reported by the biographer of Marcus, c. 26: armavit et diogmitas, and by the inscription of Aezani in Phrygia, C. I. Gr. 3031 a 8 = Lebas–Waddington, 992: pa?as??? t? ????? ?a?sa?? s?a??? d???e?t?? pa?’ ?a?t??.

251 In Cnidus (Bull. de corr. Hell. vii. 62), in the year 741–742 U.C.13–12., some apparently respectable burgesses had during three nights assailed the house of one with whom they had a personal feud; in repelling the attack one of the slaves of the besieged house had killed one of the assailants by a vessel thrown from the window. The occupants of the besieged house were thereupon accused of manslaughter, but, as they had public opinion against them, they dreaded the civic tribunal and desired the matter to be decided by the verdict of the emperor Augustus. The latter had the case investigated by a commissioner, and acquitted the accused, of which he informed the authorities in Cnidus, with the remark that they would not have handled the matter impartially, and directed them to act in accordance with his verdict. This was certainly, as Cnidus was a free town, an encroachment on its sovereign rights, as also in Athens appeal to the emperor and even to the proconsul was in Hadrian’s time allowable (p.262, note 2). But any one who considers the state of things as to justice in a Greek town of this epoch and of this position, will not doubt that, while such encroachment gave doubtless occasion to various unjust decisions, it much more frequently prevented them.

252 The Gerusia often mentioned in inscriptions of Asia Minor has nothing but the name in common with the political institution founded by Lysimachus in Ephesus (Strabo, xiv.1, 21, p. 640; Wood, Ephesus, inscr. from the temple of Diana, n. 19); its character in Roman times is indicated partly by Vitruvius, ii.8, 10; Croesi (domum) Sardiani civibus ad requiescendum aetatis otio seniorum collegio gerusiam dedicaverunt, partly by the inscription recently found in the Lycian town Sidyma (Benndorf, Lyk. Reise, i. 71), according to which council and people resolve, as the law requires, to institute a Gerusia, and to elect to it 50 Buleutae and 50 other citizens, who then appoint a gymnasiarch for the new Gerusia. This gymnasiarch, who meets us elsewhere, as well as the Hymnode of the Gerusia (Menadier, qua condic. Ephesii usi sint, p. 51), are, among the office–bearers of this body known to us, the only ones characteristic of its nature. Analogous, but of less estimation, are the collegia of the ????, which also have their own gymnasiarchs. To the two overseers of the places of gymnastic exercise for the grown–up citizens the gymnasiarchs of the Ephebi form the contrast (Menadier, p. 91). Common repasts and festivals (to which the Hymnodes has reference) were of course not wanting, particularly in the case of the Gerusia. It was not a provision for the poor, nor yet a collegium reserved for the municipal aristocracy; but characteristic for the mode of civil intercourse among the Greeks, with whom the gymnasium was nearly what the citizens’ assembly–rooms are in our small towns.

253 The milestones begin here with Vespasian (C. I. L. iii.306), and are thenceforth numerous, particularly from Domitian down to Hadrian.

254 This is most clearly shown by the road–constructions executed in the senatorial province of Bithynia under Nero and Vespasian by the imperial procurator (C. I. L. iii.346; Eph. v.n. 96). But even in the case of the roads constructed in the senatorial provinces of Asia and Cyprus the senate is never named, and the same may be assumed for them. In the third century here, as everywhere, the construction even of the imperial highways was transferred to the communes (Smyrna: C. I. L. iii.471; Thyatira, Bull. de corr. Hell. i. 101; Paphos, C. I. L. iii.218).

255 The Christians of the little town of Corycus in the Rough Cilicia were wont, contrary to the general custom, to append regularly in their tomb–inscriptions the station in life. On the epitaphs recovered there by Langlois and recently by Duchesne (Bull. de corr. Hell. vii.230 ff.), there are found a writer (??t?????), a wine–dealer (????p????), two oil–dealers (??e?p????), a green–grocer (?a?a??p????), a fruit–dealer (?p???p????), two retail dealers (??p????), five goldsmiths (a??????? thrice, ???s????? twice), one of whom is also presbyter, four coppersmiths (?a???t?p?? once, ?a??e?? thrice), two instrument–makers (??e????f??), five potters (?e?ae??), of which one is designated as work–giver (????d?t??), another is at the same time presbyter, a clothes–dealer (?at??p????), two linen–dealers (????p????), three weavers (?????a???), a worker in wool (??e??????), two shoemakers (?a????????, ?a?t?????), a skinner (??????f??, doubtless for ??????f??, pellio), a mariner (?a???????), a mid–wife (?at????); further a joint tomb of the highly reputable money–changers (s?sstea t?? e??e?est?t?? t?ape??t??). Such was the look of things there in the fifth and sixth centuries.

256 This traffic attested for the fourth century (Ammianus, xxii.7, 8; Claudianus in Eutrop. i. 59) is beyond doubt older. Of another nature is the fact, that, as Philostratus states (Vita Apoll. viii.7, 12), the non–Greek inhabitants of Phrygia sold their children to the slave–dealers.

257 S??e??as?a t?? ?a?a???? (Wood, Ephesus, city, n. 4). On the inscriptions of Corycus (p. 359) Latin descriptions of artisans abound. The stair is called ???d?? in the Phrygian inscriptions, C. I. Gr. 3900, 3902 i.

258 One of these is Xenophon son of Heraclitus of Cos, well known from Tacitus (Ann. xii.61, 67) and Pliny, H. N. xxix. 1, 7, and from a series of monuments of his native place (Bull. de corr. Hell. v.468). As physician–in–ordinary (????at???, which title first occurs here) to the emperor he acquired such influence that he combined with his medical activity the position of imperial cabinet–secretary for Greek correspondence (?p? t?? ????????? ?p?????t??; comp. Suidas s. v. ?????s??? ??e?a?d?e??), and he procured not merely for his brother and uncle the Roman franchise and posts as officers of equestrian rank, and for himself, besides the horse of a knight and the rank of officer, the decoration of the golden chaplet and the spear on occasion of the triumph over Britain, but also for his native place freedom from taxation. His tomb stands on the island, and his grateful countrymen set up statues to him and to his, and struck in memory of him coins with his effigy. He it is who is alleged to have put an end to Claudius, when dead–sick, by further poisoning, and accordingly, as equally valuable to him and to his successor, he is termed on his monuments not merely, as usual, “friend of the emperor” (f???seast??), but specially friend of Claudius (f?????a?d???) and of Nero (f????????; so according to certain restoration). His brother, whom he followed in this position, drew a salary of 500,000 sesterces (£5000), but assured the emperor that he had only taken the position to please him, as his town–practice brought in to him 100,000 sesterces more. In spite of the enormous sums which the brothers had expended on Naples in particular, as well as on Cos, they left behind an estate of 30,000,000 sesterces (£325,000).

259 The document is given by Dittenberger, n. 349. Attalus II. made a similar endowment in Delphi (Bull. de corr. Hell. v.157).

260 A physician of Smyrna, Hermogenes, son of Charidemus (C. I. Gr. 3311), wrote not merely 77 volumes of a medical tenor, but, in addition, as his epitaph tells, historical writings: on Smyrna, on the native country of Homer, on the wisdom of Homer, on the foundation of cities in Asia, in Europe, on the islands, itineraries of Asia and Europe, on stratagems, chronological tables on the history of Rome and of Smyrna. A physician of the imperial household, Menecrates (C. I. Gr. 6607), whose descent is not specified, founded, as his Roman admirers attest, the new logical and at the same time empiric medicine (?d?a? ??????? ??a????? ?at????? ?t?st??) in his writings, which ran to 156 volumes.

Clyx.com