29f5578

Caesar and the South of RussiaAuthor(s): M. RostovtseffSource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 7 (1917), pp. 27-44Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295578 .Accessed: 20/08/2011 12:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

CAESAR AND THE SOUTH OF RUSSIA.

By PROF. M. ROSTOVTSEFF.

A new series of Chersonesus inscriptions published by V. V. Latishev in the supplements to the second edition of the " Inscrip- tiones orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini' (I.O.S.P.E.) gives a great deal of hitherto unknown and very valuable information in regard to the history of Chersonesus.

I shall not dwell to any extent on the three fragments-two new and one old-of the decree made in honour of an ambassador of Mithradates Eupator, giving almost the full text of the inscription, beautifully reconstructed by Latishev (I.O.S.P.E. I2 349).

Despite its comparatively scanty contents, the decree gives valuable evidence regarding the diplomatic activity which evidently preceded the expedition of Diophantus sent by Mithradates for the purpose of liberating Chersonesus from the invasions of its neighbours -the Scythians.

A matter of interest is the new fragment of a series of documents referring to the famous reXo TIropvoKOu of Chersonesus (N. 710).

But the first place, both for their historical importance and for the amount of fresh information they contain, must be held by the preamble and the first part of the decree, devoted to Julius Satyrus (N. 691), to which I have already appended a few comments in Latishev's edition. The inevitable brevity of these comments necessitated by the method of Latishev's publication compels me to expand and amplify the ideas already indicated, as follows:

The text of the inscription, of which only the upper part was found, is damaged on the top and left side. It was restored by Latishev as follows:

[NoouaK:1 ....... aaTpLOV, 'A7roXXo;Los [Zj0ov] Kalt ETrL 8COLK7jLCOS AAO | [vatos] rTpaTovIKov EL7raTLV' ETrEIS ra I [LoS JIo0]X0to E[Eo]y[eV]ov vtLO acTr[vp]o TroXLI [ra


The fragment of the decree composed in honour of Julius Satyrus, at the first glance, seems of little importance. The foundation of the text is missing completely, the beginning only having been discovered. But even this small fragment provides ample material for comparison and historical combinations.

The decree was made in honour of some Satyrus son of Theogenes, who at the time the inscription was made was evidently an old man who had previously been made a citizen of Chersonesus, during the rule of the ' fathers' of the actual generation of magistrates.

Following this he was given the distinction of Roman citizenship, evidently by C. Julius Caesar, whose praenomen and nomen he had adopted.

Satyrus, as an Ambassador of Chersonesus, was appointed to carry to Rome important messages to the Roman senate and Julius Caesar.

The scarcity of the evidence regarding the period of Julius Caesar makes one appreciate all the more every bit of documentary evidence throwing new light on the character and the policy of the greatest Roman citizen.

The period of Satyrus' sojourn in Rome (which is not the same as the time when the decree was issued) or even more precisely the time of his journey from Chersonesus to Rome, is defined with sufficient accuracy as the year of Caesar's third consulate and third dictatorship. The combination of both leads one to assume that the event took place between May 46 and December 46 B.c. 1

At this juncture Caesar returned to Rome from Africa (summer 46 B.c.) and was about to leave for Spain (the beginning of November 46 B.c.). This short period of time spent in Rome he devoted entirely to internal affairs and prominent reforms, of which a com- plete series was carried out (see Drumann-Groebe, G.R. iii, 550 f.).

Eastern kings and Greek towns were at the same time sending numerous envoys to Rome with requests to Caesar and the senate to decide their political position, which had only temporarily been settled by Caesar during his stay in the East.

Immediately after the battle of Pharsalus, Caesar, who was still carrying on military action against Pompey, had to settle in some way or other the numerous appeals and demands of the Greek towns, as their relations to Rome were very indefinite, especially since Caesar's victory over Pompey, the old master of the East.

By this time, according to very inadequate information which has reached us in fragments, freedom was granted to Cnidus2

1 Most scholars differ in their opinions as to the ad Att. xiii, 7, i. The attitude of Theopompus date of Caesar's dictatorship. So far as I know in connexion with the above event will be dealt with Groebe was the last to deal with the matter (Dru- later. Pursuing Pompey, Caesar probably passed mann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms etc. iii, 735 ff.) , and through Cnidus (App. B.C. ii. I16). Cf. the Del- his arguments in regard to the time of Caesar's phian decrees of 48-47 B.C. in honour of Callistus, third dictatorship are in my opinion well grounded. another friend of Caesar, a native of Cnidus

2 Plut. Caes. 48; Strabo, xiv, 2, I5, c 656; Cic. and Theopompus: Dittenberger,Sylloge3, 761.

28

CAESAR AND THE SOUTH OF RUSSIA,

privileges were given to the population of Ilion l; provinces of Asia were freed of heavy taxations2; something was done for Chios3 and Carthaea on Ceos.4

For a time this active work was interrupted by the Alexandrian war, but Caesar resumed it immediately on his return to Syria; see B. Alex. 65, 4, ' commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus, quae maiore sunt dignitate, praemia bene meritis et viritim et publice tribuit, de controversiis veteribus cognoscit et statuit; reges tyrannos dynastas provinciae finitimos, qui omnes ad eam convenerant, receptos in fidem condicionibus impositis provinciae tuendae ac defendendae dimittit et sibi et populo Romano amicissimos.'

Among the kings who presented themselves to Caesar, probably at Ptolemais Ace, were Antipatros and Hyrcanus II (Judeich, Caesar im Orient, II9 f.), the results of whose claims and supplications are to be found in documents, which were incorporated in his work by Flavius Josephus.5

After Caesar's brilliant victory over Pharnaces in the vicinity of Zela, he had many more appeals and discussions to deal with when passing through Bithynia, Galatia, Asia and Hellas on his way to Rome. This is stated again by a contemporary author; see B. Alex. 71, I: "ita per Gallograeciam Bithyniamque in Asiam iter facit omniumque earum provinciarum de controversiis cognoscit et statuit: iura in tetrarchas, reges, civitates distribuit."

At this juncture a mission was sent to Caesar from Rhodes-this fact being derived from a decree made in honour of some native of Rhodes, which unfortunately is in a very bad state of preservation (see I.G. xii, I, 57, 8 ff. Ka 7TrpecO /evcoavTa ro]rT rPdo[v]' ovaXov raFov vtov K[a]iocrapa avro[Kp]a[r]o[pa].6

1Luc. ix, 96i f.; Strabo, xiii, I, 27 c 544-5. Bruckner comparing fragments of an edict dealing with the freedom and immunity of Ilion (D6rpfeld, Troia and Ilion, 457 ff. no. xvi, xvii) thinks that these might possibly belong to Caesar's edict; the words eXev0upav and [dXet] Tropytrov are still to be found (Cagnat, Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, I99).

2 Dio, xlii, 6, 3; Plut. Caes. 48; App. B.C. ii, 89, 24; Cic. fam. xv, I53. It is possible that Caesar had by this time visited Ephesus, see Caes. B.C. Io5, cf. the inscription of Ephesus Dittenberger Syll.2 347 (48 B.C.)= Syll. 760 and those of Pergamon, Ath. Mitth. I908, 410; Ann. ep. I909, 40; Inscr. gr. ad res r. p. iv, 303 and 307; Inschr. von Pergamon, 377 and 378; Drumann-Groebe, iii, 477 Judeich, Caesar im Orient, 6i f.

3 C.I.Gr. 22zz5; Inscr.gr.adr. r.p.iv, 928 (48 B.C.). Another inscription was set up in honour of Caesar in Chios, in all probability in 47 B.c. on his return to Italy from Asia, see Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 929 (the second dictatorship and evidently the second consulate). Chios very likely wanted Caesar to confirm its freedom, granted during the campaign of Sulla, see the letter of Antistius Vetus (proconsul of Asia A.D. 4-I4), Dittenberger, Syll.2 355; Inscr. gr. ad. r. r. p. iv, 943, where Antistius, tracing

the relationship between Chios and Rome, deals firstly with the s.c. of Sulla's time (80 B.C.) and almost directly refers to a letter from Augustus. Therefore it is unlikely that the freedom of Chios was confirmed by Caesar in writing.

4 I.G. xii, 5, 556. The Olympian inscription, Inschr. v. Olympia 365 does not refer to Caesar, see ibid. p. 800. 5 See Ant. Jud. xiv, Io, I ff. I85 ff. 'Caesar's era' is undoubtedly to be connected with the actions of Caesar, mentioned in B. Alex, in the following Syrian towns (see Judeich, Caesar im Orient, IIo; Kubitschek in P.W. R.E. i, 650, xlvii): Antiochia (from 49 B.C.), Laodicaea-on-sea (from 48 B.C.), Gabala (47 or 48 B.C.) and Ptolemais Ace (49-47 B.C.). Laodicaea received its autonomy chiefly through Theopompus who also did a great deal for Cnidus, see G. Hirschfeld, Journ. of Hellen. St. vii (i886), 288. Further particulars on this matter will be given later.

6 In the reconciliation of Rome and Rhodes the above-mentioned agent for Greek towns, Theopompus of Cnidus, played a considerable part, see the inscription in his honour, I.G. xii, I, 90. Caesar passed through Rhodes while pursuing Pompey (App. B. C. ii, 89; Caes. B. Civ. o16).

29


At the same time an appeal for Mytilene was made by the famous rhetor Potamon and other members of the legation, I.G. xii, 2, 30: 7rp]E?rojevcraL 8e [7Trpo6 rv Kaicvapa . . . dvepXJo1LEVOV EK1] TU EV Ka77rrTaoKla 7ToXE'/co],l in reply to which Caesar issued his well- known edict, which was published in Mytilene (I. G. xii, 2, 35; I. Gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 33) and which will be dealt with later.

It is a matter of great interest that by another edict Caesar- apparently at the same time-granted freedom to Amisus which was destroyed by Pharnaces.2 The claims of Amisus were evidently delivered through a mission.

In Asia Caesar still carried on his policy of liberation. Provinces and towns were guarded against heavy taxes and exactions of the publicani. We learn this first of all from Appianus, B.C. ii, 92z: 6 8E Kaccrap .... e rrv 'Actiav /LETrXOe, KaL TrapoSevcov avTr7v I

Y)/j ~, XETL TOE-LV ,VOXXOVE' 1LL3 , VTT TVUL ,OVjXe EXpr MaTio-e Tra rrokecw evo ov evtLs vrco Eov ilo'0ovzeVOV roVw O0pOVS Uo cLOL KaTa TrV 'Ao-tcavv crvyypacfv 8E8qXcoTat.

The attitude of Caesar towards Pergamon is most interesting, the latter having apparently lost its freedom after Sulla's domination. Indeed the city was guilty of many misdeeds during the war between Caesar and Pompey.

However, it has recently been proved by Hepding (Ath. Mitth. xxxiv (I909), 329 ff.) that Pergamon was forgiven on account of Mithradates of Pergamon, who rescued Caesar from the Alexandrian mishap.

Good substantiation of this fact is found in two similar Pergamon inscriptions paying tribute to Mithradates as to the aTroKarao'r-'cavTa rolS 7rTaTppO OEO;S' rT'v TE rTOX6 KCal TrV XWpav Kal yeVO/zEVOv T? TaTrpL8o5 FLera lepyacLov EKai 'Xe'raLpov veov KTLrT'rrv.

It is to be noted that at the same time inscriptions were set up in honour of Caesar, praising Caesar in approximately the same expressions : o 8,/tos3 [erT/O-cre] rov eavrov o'corTpa KalL EVEpyeTr7v | iraLov 'IovXLo[v] raLov vLov KaL[-capa rov avTOKpaTopa CKaL aDpX]epea KaL 8LKTaTropa T0r [3' TracOrq's apeETrs KcaL evoL,as !! EVEK]EV a7roK[a]TacaT)7ca[VTa Tol 0EOlS T?7\V TE TrOtiv Ka\ Tr\]V Xopav o[i]o-av lEepa[v Kat ao-vXov Ka avrovo,lov](Inschr. v. Perg. 379, 380; I. Gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 304 and 306; Hepding, 1.1. 336).

The position of Pergamon was definitely decided by the proconsul P. Servilius Isauricus (I. v. P. 413, 414). In all probability the decision was carried out without the intervention of a new s.c. the validity of the previous s.c. of 133 through which Pergamon first won

1 Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 30, cf. I.G. xii. 2, 25; 70, 5-6; Dio, xlii, 46, 3; App. B.C. ii, 91; Mithr. Inscr.gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 27, and also I.G. xii, 2, 24; 120. Concerning liberation see Dio, xlii, 48, 4 Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 26. Concerning Potamon (in which the reforms effected by Caesar after the see Pros. inmp. Rom. iii, 92, N. 675 ; Dittenberger, battle of Zela are dealt with): roUs re A'ito-Vobts Syll.3 764, n. I and 2. eXevOepfi 6tzebLaro (cf. Strabo, xii, 3, 14, c 547).

2 For particulars as to destruction see B. Alex.

30


its freedom and o-vut//aXJa having been merely restored by the decision of Servilius Isauricus. 1

In the same way the situation was settled in the demos Aegae, which, as is already known, accepted Caesar's era (P.W. R.E. i, 675, xl, 64).

We have little information concerning Miletus, but one inscription only recently correctly dated (Milet. Erg. der Ausgr. iii, Das Delphinion in Milet, Berl. (1914), 257 f.) states that in 44 B.C. Caesar *extended the borders of the dcvXAa-territory two miles. This event was no doubt preceded by numerous appeals, promises, missions, ,etc. and it is possible that one of these missions is mentioned in the inscription discovered near the Didymeion of Miletus (Ditten- berger, Or. I93). Haussoullier (Et. sur l'hist. de Milet. I8I and 253) and Rehm (Milet. Erg. d. Ausgr. etc. 252) disagree with regard to the date of this inscription. I fail to see any reason why the mission in question should not be dated 46 B.C. (Hepding is of the same opinion) as suggested by Haussoullier. The grounds of Rehm are not of a decisive nature; he suggests that the proposed data are in contradiction with the facts quoted in the list (Milet. Erg. d. Ausgr. 126, 234), where under the year 39-38 B.C. we read : e7rr'i TOVTV 7Tro'dXLS EXEvfpa Kal avrovo/os eEyevero.

During the troublous times after the death of Caesar Miletus, as most other towns, must have lost its autonomy and got it back again under the conditions pointed out by Rehm, i.e. after the incident with Labienus.

It is probable that something was done for Cyzicus which, as is well known, sent a fleet to support Caesar during the Alexandrian and African wars. 2

I am brought to this conclusion by the fact that Asclepiades, commander of a flotilla or even of the whole fleet, was celebrated in a newly discovered inscription as the oLKLCT7r)' of Cyzicus in about 25 B.C., see I.Gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 159 III ff: KaLL ev roZ KaT evLavTrv Tr0e/U[E]vo[ ? evX]cappLcTr7pLoL aycTLt Hpcn)OL T(O) 7rdrr7rIT( avrov 'AcKXrwc7aS T(e) oLK[lO TI 7 KCl T]OlS cvvay&vL aJLevoL aLVT&) KarT 'A XEaavSpei'av ev Tr a [K]ara ITro XEp]a[^ov 7ro]E[ ]lpT) ETcL ra rov rrarpo. avTrov Ka; Wov OCLov Eo-T?feavCL.ve


Measures taken by Caesar in Eastern provinces and the decisions he proclaimed in his edicts with regard to the towns and to some vassal kings, however, did not decide definitely various matters in connexion with the allied provincial and hostile towns and monarchs; although after the battle of Pharsalus Caesar enjoyed full power in that direction,1 he hardly enforced it in matters of second rate importance.

Therefore all the measures taken in 47 and 46, and especially treaties newly concluded or renewed, were considered informal both by Caesar and by his correspondents. They could only be definitely confirmed by a s.c. which, however, might be only formal. This meant a fresh pilgrimage to Rome of all those who were interested in the case in question.

Such was at least the development of two cases, on every stage of which we have some information. I have in view the case of Antipatros and Hyrcanus on the one hand, and the case of the Mytilenaeans on the other.

The matter of the Mytilenaeans is quite clear as stated in that series of documents, which was engraved on the monument of Potamon in Mytilene. 2 As already indicated, in reply to the mission of Potamon and his colleagues, Caesar sent a letter or edict which in the series of documents directly follows the missing preamble.

In this edict, judging from the few remnants of the same, Caesar not only forgave Mytilene and accepted the honours granted to him by the city, but also made some promises to the Mytilenaeans (doc. i, 2, according to Mommsen). In connexion with this edict stand undoubtedly some fragments, which possibly belong to the same, or some other analogous document (i, 3 col. C).

Even if Caesar came to certain terms with Mytilene, they were far from being equivalent to the restoration of the old treaty between Rome and Mytilene.

For this purpose a new special mission with Potamon at its head was sent to Rome and the formal decision of a s.c. was forwarded in Caesar's letter to Mytilene in 45 B.c. (ii, 2-s.c. and the end of the letter; ii, I-the letter of Caesar). Besides the attached copy of the s.c. Caesar, by right of his dictatorship, gives in his letter some supplementary cXnadv0popwra independent of the s.c. (see ii, 2 and ii, 3).

The development of the affairs put in motion by Hyrcanus and Antipater was much the same. Documents dealing with this case and preserved by Flavius Josephus gave rise to different interpreta- tions. All the literature in connexion with the case has been put

1 Dio,xlii, 2o, I: Kcti 7roXtowv KatL eLp,'vj?s KVptov, 2 1.G. xii, 2, 35; Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 33; one 7rpo


together by Schiirer, 1 who also gives satisfactory details in regard to the main points of the dispute.

I am surprised that, in the studies in connexion with this matter, general attention has not been attracted to a very close likeness between the series of Judaean and Mytilenaean documents. 2

However, the general development of the matter is quite clear. On the arrival of Caesar in Syria the messengers of Hyrcanus and Antipatros presented themselves, and in reply to this mission (Ant. Jud. xiv, 10, I) Caesar issued an edict, copies of which were to be published on the Capitol in Rome, in Sidon, Tyre and Ascalon (ibid. IO, 3). Part of the text of the Sidonian copy has reached us (ibid. Io, 2), the remainder being given by Josephus in extenso (Io, 3). This edict is quite similar to the first of the Mytilenaean documents, with perhaps one exception, that the Mytilenaean document is written more in the form of a letter. This, however, does not alter the substance of the case.

The following clause is one of the most important in the edict (Io,. 3, 197): 7rE4a 8E ITpo cTpKavov rov AXed'avpov vlOV apXcEpea rov Iovlacov KaC rTpeorpevTas 7rov 7Trep,L pLXcia KacL crvlCXaiLas sL3 aXoeLjevove One must agree with Judeich (11. I27 f.) that the point dealing with the despatch of messengers by the senate (not by Caesar) to Hyrcanus is most incredible and in all probability the text was misunderstood or carelessly copied. The original text possibly mentioned the mission sent by Hyrcanus to Rome, as it was not likely that messengers would be sent 'to Judaea by the senate. At all events, despite its deficiency or inadequacy, this clause is certainly genuine, proving that Caesar did not decide the matter definitely, but left the decision of the question to the senate.

Therefore the next step ought to have been a mission to Rome and the issue of a special s.c. in regard to the alliance with Judaea. This is how Josephus explains the matter. Speaking of Antipatros being appointed ruler and Hyrcanus high priest (Ant. Jud. xiv, 8, 5, I43 ff.), Josephus mentions Caesar's edict, the text of which he deals with later, and cites directly the text of the corresponding s.c. (11. I45 ff.).

I shall not discuss questions raised by Ehwald and Mendelssohn (quoted by Schiirer, 1.1.) as to whether the above-mentioned s.c. refers to the time of Caesar or to 131 B.C.-this being a matter of little importance to us. Even if both Ehwald and Mendelssohn are right and the s.c. quoted by Josephus really belongs to the time of Hyrcanus I, it still does not affect the essential point of the matter. Josephus may have lighted upon the wrong document, but the

1 Schurer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Yesu Compare e.g. I.G. xii, 2, 35, v. 28 ff. and Christi, i, 251, 22, cf. 344 foll, v, 345, I; Mommsen, Fl. Jos. Ant. Jud. xiv, 25. Ges. Schr. iv, (Hist. Schr. i), 146 n; Drumann- Groebe, iii, 397, I.

33


fact remains that there was bound to be another s.c. the text of which did not reach Josephus, who adopted that of 131 instead.

However, it is quite clear that both Josephus and the sources he referred to were well informed of Caesar's s.c. and knew that the latter dealt with the case of Hyrcanus II. Unfortunately the date of Caesar's s.c. is not known, but there is reason .to believe that it belongs to 46 B.C. at the latest.

At the same time, as in the case of Mytilene, Caesar published a supplementary edict containing a series of new fLXdvOprora. The edict was partly quoted by Josephus in Ant. Jud. xiv, 6, 202-2Io. The date of this document coincides with the second dictatorship of Caesar, i.e. the first half of 46 B.C. This date may be a possible one for the s.c. also.

The affair was, however, not yet concluded. In 44 Hyrcanus' representatives were sent to Rome once again (Ant. Jud. xiv, 10, 9, 217) and further privileges were granted by Caesar (ibid. xiv, ii, 5 and 7). The s.c. confirming these new privileges was voted only after the death of Caesar. It is quoted by Josephus (Ant. Jyd. xiv, I0, IO).

The foregoing facts prove that in order to conclude a treaty of alliance the matter had to be dealt with by the senate, although Caesar had previously come to a decision on the principle to be adopted.

It is evident that in 46 B.C. when for the first time after the battle of Pharsalus Caesar spent a considerable time in Rome, the senate must have been very active, in connexion with the numerous missions, sent from various towns and kings. Very often, of course, messengers were sent from towns to which only informal promises were given; also from towns and kings, whose situation Caesar had no time to consider and settle during his stay in the East; many cases required special attention and different modifications. Therefore the invasion of Rome by all sorts of missions and claimants did not decrease in 45 and 44 B.C., which fact is proved by a series of documents.

This period e.g. is marked by the arrival of Cleopatra (summer 46 B.c., see Groebe, P.W.K. R.E. x (I917), 247) as well as of Ariarathes1 (summer 45) and the messengers of Deiotarus.2 The Judaean mission of 45 or 44 I have already mentioned above.

With regard to the work done by the senate we possess an exceedingly interesting document in one of the letters of Cicero, who happened to be quite involuntarily an active though often a merely nominal assistant in Caesar's painstaking work.

In the second half of 463 Cicero writes to Paetus from Rome (fam. ix, I5, 4 ff.): 'an minus multa s.c. futura putas, si ego sim

1 Cic. ad Att. xiii, 2; Niese, in P.W. R.E. ii, 820. 12, I; , 2; xvi, 3, 6; Niese in P.W. R.E. iv, 2 Schol. Gron, in Cic. p. 421 (Or.) c 298 (Stangl); 2403. Cic. Deiot. 38; Phil. ii, 93 ff.; ad Att. xiv, 3 Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel, 259.

34


Neapoli ? Romae cum sum et urgeo forum s.c. scribuntur apud amatorem tuum, familiarem meum; et quidem, cum in mentem venit, ponor ad scribendum et ante audio s.c. in Armeniam et Syriam esse perlatum, quod in meam sententiam factum esse dicatur, quam omnino mentionem ullam de ea re esse factam. Atque hoc nolim me iocari putes; nam mihi scito iam a regibus ultimis allatas esse litteras, quibus mihi gratiam agant, quod se mea sententia reges appellaverim, quos ego non modo reges appellatos, sed omnino natos nesciebam . . .

From all these comparisons it is quite clear that the Chersonesian ambassador C. Julius Satyrus visited Rome as one of the numerous Greeks who after the battles of Pharsalus and Zela made appeals on behalf of their country. His direct claims and achievements will be dealt with later.

Meanwhile I wish to give a few interesting particulars of his mission, not only with regard to the mission itself and to his own personality but also with regard to the period.

Satyrus was not a native of Chersonesus-he was 7roXIT, 7TroI/70r'. Though he held his citizenship for many years, we cannot be sure that he was a permanent inhabitant of the town. It seems to me that he was appointed ambassador not only owing to the fact that he was a citizen of Chersonesus and a person of importance in the city, but also because he was well connected in Rome and perhaps known to Caesar personally. These connexions, however, do not accord with a permanent stay in Chersonesus, and suggest a residence in some other more important centre of the Hellenic or the Eastern- Hellenic world. It must be noted that many towns-in their earlier and later stages-often profited by the influence of their honorary citizens in achieving certain results. Many instances could be given, but I will refer only to the events and personalities of the period with which I am dealing.

A person of great interest in that connexion is the distinguished Theopompus of Cnidus, a well-known writer and personal friend of Caesar, thus exceedingly well connected in Rome.1 His son Artemidorus had inherited part of his father's influence. There are some half-legendary, half-historical facts connecting Artemidorus with the tragic day of Caesar's death. 2

Plutarch (Caes. 48) states that owing to Theopompus freedom was granted by Caesar to Cnidus, evidence of which is provided by a series of inscriptions collected by G. Hirschfeld. 3 There are two inscriptions in his honour in Cnidus-one made by the Laodicaeans of Syria (Inscr. in the Br. Mus. iv, 8oi) and the other by a certain

1 He is dealt with as a mythologist in Susemihl, cf. Inscr. in the Br. Mus. iv, 787, and Lebas-Wad- Gesch. der gr. Lit. der Alexandrinerzeit, ii, 52, dington, I574. cf. 689. 3yourn. of Hellen. St. vii (1886), 286ff.; cf.

Dittenberger,Syll.3 76I c and Strabo, xiv, 2, 13 c 656; 2 Plut. Caes. 65; App. B.C. ii, II6; Dio, xliv, I8; Cic. ad Att. xiii, 7, I.

35


MaapcKo? AbL('KLOS MacpKov 'ArroXXoJvos (ibid. 787; Gr. Dialect- Inschriften, 3527) not counting the fragment of a decree paying tribute to a dead woman, connected with Theopompus (ibid. 792): 7ro KaLTaKTr)(ralLEvov [Nlrzv EXEv] epLav Kca cavLc-optav OEv[roJL7Trov] |rov 'ApreLtt pov rTEOVLaKE[V? . . . .].

It is to be noted that recently another inscription devoted to the same Theopompus was found at Cnidus (B.C.H. 1910, 425, I; Hatzfeld, ibid. I912, 667). The inscription was set up by the Roman community of Cnidus: Toi KaTOLKe?V[rTe] lI[Ev TaL 7rT)]eL 'PCE,aOLo. The fact that even the privileged Roman citizens paid him tribute shows how strong his influence was.

A matter of still greater interest is the fact that Theopompus interceded not only in favour of his own city but also on behalf of other Greek towns, as for instance Delphi (Dittenberger Syll. 3 76I, c), Rhodes (I.Go xii, I, 90) and the above-mentioned Laodicaea of Syria. From the main expressions of the inscription put up to him by the Laodicaeans one can realise his direct influence on the freedom and autonomy of this city;: 6 'IovXc'ow rSov KaLc Aao&LKEc(V1] TwV Tp6 OtXcakdaro r7rj lepac| Kac acOVXov KaL avrovokov fdcov 'Iov'Xov

'AprTE,U8(sPo ViLOV Eo)61TO[7'] TTOV EVVoIaOL E61KEV. I have already mentioned another prominent writer of the same

time and a personal friend of Caesar, who used his influence on behalf of his and other cities-Potamon of Mytilene.

In all probability C. Julius Theon, the owner of large estates in Egypt during the rule of Augustus (P. Oxy. xii, I434), is identical with the philosopher Theon, the well-known Stoic, who was after the death of Areius the ' recteur de conscience' of the emperor Augustus.1 It is probable that he received his Roman name from Caesar or Augustus and was obliged to Caesar and Augustus for his prominent position and large estates in Egypt.

Caesar's connexion with the literary world of his Hellenic contemporaries, both in the senior (Theopompus) and junior (Artemidorus, Potamon) generation is very characteristic. Was not Satyrus also one of the representatives of the later Hellenistic literature, and is this not the reason of his acquaintance with Caesar ?

There is, however, a more probable alternative. The rank of citizen of Chersonesus could hardly be granted to Satyrus on account of his literary distinctions. More than likely Satyrus was not a distinguished writer but one of those prominent sea-merchants and shipowners of the Pontic towns, who are very typical of the late period of Hellenism. I have mentioned one of them in my article ' Mithridates and Olbia' (Bull. de la Comm. Arch. 23) and have pointed out that the instability of trade and the rapid increase of robbery

1 Suid. Oe'v 'AXecsav6pe6s, sX\6aoO0os STrwUKS, he was a pupil of Stratokles, who was pupil of 7yEyov&s 7ri AVyoVorov tLera7 "ApeLov. Diels, Dox. Panaetius, Susemihl, ibid. 239. gr. 84, 85; Susemihl, Gr. Lit.'ii, 236; Zeller, 586 f;

36


at sea forced these merchants to become fighting-sailors for the sake of self-defence. Occasionally, these merchant ships became pirates themselves and robbed ships poorly armed but laden with costly goods.

Another representative of the same type but of an earlier period was the Olbian Posideos, as in his inscriptions discovered in Olbia and the Scythian Neapolis he praises himself and the victory he had won over the local pirates, the Crimean tribe of Satarchaei.1

It is also very probable that similar trade was carried on by the above-mentioned Asclepiades, a native of Cyzicus and distinguished both by his town and by Caesar. He was probably Caesar's companion- in-arms, who helped Caesar greatly at the head of the fleet of Cyzicus at the time of Caesar's imprisonment in Alexandria.

Naturally when the countries of these sailors were in danger these owners of armed mercantile fleets handed over their ships to meet the requirements of their countries, assuming the command of their ships themselves.

No doubt they were also in command of the ships sent by towns already mentioned to support the Romans in the Eastern wars. These were the flotillas of Asia and Pontos (naves Asiaticae, Ponticae) which rendered assistance to Caesar during his campaigns in Egypt and Africa.

We must realise the importance of Caesar's Greek fleet at this period, and the tribute paid to the warships of Rhodes and especially to their commander Euphranor (B. Alex. ii, 15, 25) is explained by the importance of the fleet of Rhodes in Alexandria.

I assume that for such reasons as are given above, Satyrus, a native of one of the important Pontic towns, which were mostly in direct trade relationship with Chersonesus (Sinope, Amisus, Heraclea) became well known to Caesar and obtained a certain influence which he exercised for the advantage of his permanent partners and customers. 2

We can only understand the real importance of the war conducted by Pompey against the sea pirates, when we fully realise the terrible state of anarchy which prevailed at sea during the universal power of the Roman republic. Not until the time of the Roman empire did the newly formed powerful fleets end the prolonged period of absolute decline in the world's trade, which really started from the day when the Romans abolished the supremacy of Rhodes on

1 I.O.S.P.E. i2, 672 cf. 325; Count I. Tolstoi, 2As I have already stated, Mithradates of Perga- The White Isle and Taurike on Pontus, Petrograd, mon, partisan and deliverer of Caesar, played a similar I918, 43 ff.; see my criticism of this book in Bull. part to the above-mentioned commanders of allied de la Comm. Arch. 65 (1918), 90o; see also the fleets. The friendship of Caesar with Callistus inscription of Tomi in Arch.-ep. Mith. aus Oest. xiv. of Cnidus may be explained by the help which 22. The dangers of a sea-journey are illustrated Callistus gave to Caesar's legatus Fufius during his by the fears of ambassadors sent by the city of operations in Greece; see Caes. B. Civ. iii, 56; Lampsakos to Greece, Gaul and Rome in 196 B.C. Dittenberger, Syll.3 761 A and B, p. 445, n. 14. Dittenberger, Syll.3 591.

37


the sea, by which order had been maintained on the Eastern European seas since the fall of Ptolemaic power.

It is a matter of interest that both Satyrus and Theopompus were distinguished by the rank of Roman citizenship which was directly granted to them by Caesar, as indicated by the name they both adopted. Thus we are dealing with a case which was quite usual in connexion with Pompey, as he often granted his name to certain Greeks who were well known to him. 1

One must admit that, although Caesar was fairly generous in granting the distinction of Roman citizenship to separate individuals and also to whole communities, still, without influence and connexion it was very difficult for a provincial to receive this valuable distinction.

In regard to all this there is a very important letter from Cicero to the proconsul Acilius (46 B.c. fam. xiii. 36). It runs as follows: 'cum Demetrio Mega mihi vetustum hospitium est, familiaritas autem tanta, quanta cum Siculo nullo. Ei Dolabella rogatu meo civitatem a Caesare impetravit, qua in re ego interfui; itaque nunc P. Cornelius vocatur; cumque propter quosdam sordidos homines, qui Caesaris beneficia vendebant, tabulam, in qua nomina civitate donatorum incisa essent, revelli iussisset, eidem Dolabellae me audiente Caesar dixit nihil esse quod de Mega vereretur, beneficium suum in eo manere.'

After the death of Caesar, Antonius, as is well known, was very successful in selling the rank of citizenship. Evidently large sums of money were paid for it. 2

There can be little doubt that Satyrus received the rank of Roman citizen by the help of personal friends and connexions in Rome, i.e. in the same way as his above-mentioned contemporaries.

One of the important points of the inscription is the one dealing with Satyrus' despatch both to Caesar and the Roman senate. Although the embassies and missions had always communicated with the senate entirely through the consuls (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii, 148, cf. 959, 3; ii, 74I), nevertheless the formula of the inscription remains very characteristic. Here we have a good opportunity of following the gradual concentration of .all diplomatic relations in the hands of the emperor, on whose wish it depended entirely whether or not any matter was handed over to the senate.

However, the reason for the mention of Caesar and the senate in this decree may be more superficial than we presume; very likely the authors of the decree were unable to avoid the point, having before them a document analogous to those of Mytilene and Judaea,

1 See the inscriptions of Theophanes of Mytilene, 2 Cic, Phil. i, Io, 24; v. 4, I Mommsen, I.G. xii, 2, I63; DittenbergerSyll.2 338-34 =Syll.3 Rom. Staatsrecht, iii, I35, 4. 752-755 ; Cic. pro Archia, 24; Strabo, xiii, c 618. Cf. the case of Pompeius Trogus, Just. xliii, 5, i.

38


i.e. Caesar's letter with the appended s.c. However, the fact that Caesar was connected with the senate, even although this was done from the average point of view of Chersonesian citizens, not initiated into the secrets of Roman law, still marks a characteristic era.

What were the demands and achievements of Chersonesus mentioned by its ambassador in his claim ? What sort of attitude did the town adopt and what were its ambitions ?

Let us go back to the circumstances of the period in question. Long before the appearance of Mithradates the Great, the alliance between Chersonesus and the Pontic kings, which was formed when Heraclea, the original foundress of Chersonesus, was annexed to the kingdom of Pontus, grew more stable and closer. The serious threat of a Scythian invasion forced Chersonesus to seek assistance from the nearest neighbours, the heirs of Heraclea-the Pontic kings.

The Scythians since the third century B.c. under the pressure of the Thracians and Sarmatians, were compelled to concentrate their forces in the Crimea, where they attempted to form a stable empire; they had naturally a tendency to settle down nearer the sea, whereas all the best harbours were in possession of Chersonesus. This caused renewed efforts on the part of the Scythians to capture Chersonesus and desperate resistance on the part of the latter in order to defend its freedom. 1

An interesting document, indicating how anxious Chersonesus was to receive support from the kingdom of Pontus and how, through this, the town for the first time got into communication with Rome,. is a recently published agreement between Chersonesus and Pharnaces of Pontus, drawn up with the consent and approval of Rome; by this time Pharnaces was already the vassal of Rome.2 The above- mentioned agreement is also referred to by Polybius,3 and was made undoubtedly for the defence of Chersonesus against the Scythians. Chersonesus also appealed to the Sarmatians for assistance.

This agreement enable. one to grasp why Mithradates the Great, many years after the agreement was. signed, decided to defend Chersonesus, which was threatened by the Scythians, and the Romans could not protest against his intervention-the results of which are well known, i.e. the Crimea became the essential support of

1 See the inscription ii honour of Syriscus, who gave ample material illustrating the international was appointed by the magistrates of Chersonesus treaties between Chersonesus and its neighbour- to write the history of Chersonesus composed in ing kings, in particular with the kings of Pontus. the style of the so-called ' aperaXo'yot' (see Reinach, and Bosporus. The inscription is published by Cultes, mythes et religions, ii (I908), 293; Count Loper, Bull. de la Connmm. arch. 45, 44 ff. ; Latishev,. I. Tolstoi, The White Isle and Taurike, Petrograd, I.O.S.P.E. i2, 344; see the critical analysis of the 1918). Considerable attention is paid by Syriscus inscription in my article ' Syriscus, the historian to the miracles (dritcdietact) of the Virgin-goddess of Chersonesus of Tauris,' Journ. Ministeretva (Oeak rapO&vos) (cf. the so-called Chronicle of Lindos Narodnago Prosviescenija, I915, 151 ff. published by Blinkenberg, Oversigt over det Kgl. 2 Loper, Bull. de la Comm. arch. 45, 23 if; Danske Videnskabernes Selskkabs Forhendlinger, I.O.S.P.E. i.2 402, cf. my article 'Amaga and. 1912, 5-6, and separately in Lietzmann's Kleine Tirgatao' in Zapiski Odesskago Obscestva Istorii i Texte, 1915; cf. Dittenberger, Syll.3 725), but at Drevnostej, xxxii. the same time he dealt with historical facts and 3 Polyb. xxv, 2, cf. xxvi, 6 fl.

39


Mithradates in his struggle against Rome and was his last shelter after his defeat by Lucullus and Pompey.

Chersonesus was annexed to the kingdom of Pontus almost entirely during the reign of Mithradates. But one must admit that the position of Chersonesus in the empire of Mithradates was somewhat exceptional, as is proved by the nature of its coinage. In all the other towns of Mithradates' kingdom small silver and copper coins were issued in great quantities; the types of the coins show little variety, obviously the favourite type being repeated over and over again, in accordance with special orders. These particular types enable us to distinguish the series of Mithradates' time.

Chersonesus in that respect stands apart, yet in some way its coinage was influenced by the spirit of the age, but not to such an extent as for instance the money coined in Pantikapaion and Phanagoreia. 1

After the death of Mithradates, during the reign of Pharnaces, only Phanagoreia obtained formal freedom from Pompey,2 of which, however, it was very soon deprived. 3 Chersonesus is not mentioned at this juncture, but one may assume that during the reign of Mithradates' heir and murderer, the position of this town grew worse rather than better. Evidently Chersonesus could not be satisfied with such a state of affairs.

After the battle of Zela Pharnaces, as we know, endeavoured to retake, at least, the kingdom of Bosporus, in which the authority had been usurped by Asandrus.4 The latter, however, did not enjoy Caesar's confidence and therefore the kingdom of Bosporus was officially given into the hands of Caesar's faithful assistant, the above-mentioned Mithradates of Pergamon.5 The Roman intervention, however, was not of much use, 6 as Mithradates was defeated and killed by Asandrus before the death of Caesar. 7

Taking into consideration these political conditions, we can understand that, after the battle of Zela and the defeat of Pharnaces, Chersonesus, enslaved by Pharnaces, tried to liberate itself and was striving-like Phanagoreia which obtained its freedom from Pompey and Amisus which received it from Caesar-to obtain its freedom and independence.

The circumstances were favourable: Asandrus, Pharnaces and Mithradates of Pergamon were too busy to think of Chersonesus, therefore it is very probable that Chersonesus, on the basis of

1 See my article ' On the history of Chersonesus 6OvTrv eK'pdreL Tr /'X-X, Ka (3\Xdias os5/5v ciXX *during the period of the early Roman empire,' 0plovu 7rotr)a,o'd.vos Kat Xa(3dv 6brsqpa da7rEXw?pEL. ,published in the volume dedicated to the Countess 4 Dio, xlii, 47, more particulars in App. Mlithr. P.S. Uvarov, Moscow, I916. 120 cf. B. Civ. ii, 91; Strabo, xi, 2, 17 c 498;

-2 App. Mi7tb. ii3.Eutrop. vi, 22, 3. 2 App. Mithr. II3. 5 Dio xlii, 48; App. Mithr. zi ; B. Alex. 3App. Mithr. 20o: IapvdKlKS ote7roXLtopKet 78, 2, cf. Strabo 11.

c,avayopeas KaLt i 7r reptoKa Troo Booar6'pov, geXpt 6 Dio, xlviii, 26, 5. rT&v (Pava'yopewv 8t& Xt/bv es dtiXsqv 7rpoeX- 7 Strabo, xiii, 4, 3, c 625.

40


some unknown facts or services rendered to Caesar, made an appeal to the powerful dictator in order to regain its lost freedom.

Caesar was far from being indifferent to Pontic affairs. The proposed campaign against Parthia and the necessity of intervening in the affairs of Thracial drew his attention to the situation on the Black Sea coast. His interest may be proved by the fact that he sent in 45 B.C. colonies of Roman citizens to the ports of the Euxine coast-Sinope and, perhaps, Heraclea. 2 Very likely he even planned the creation of a free town and harbour, directly bound to Rome and situated in the Crimea on the opposite shore of the Black Sea. We must remember that the fortunes of Chersonesus had always been closely connected with those of Sinope and especially of Heraclea. It is therefore quite possible that Chersonesus not only strove for but also gained its freedom and that the mission of Satyrus was quite successful.

The history of the last days of Chersonesus also accounts for the foregoing fact. We know that Pliny (Nat. Hist. iv, 85), dealing with Chersonesus and following a-writer who was well informed about the fate of the town, points out the fact that freedom was granted to Chersonesus by the Romans: ' in ora a Carcine oppida Taphrae in ipsis angustiis paeninsulae, mox Heraclea Chersonesus, libertate a Romanis donatum; Megarice vocabatur antea, praecipui nitoris in toto eo tractu custoditis Graeciae moribus, v passuum ambiente muro.'

There is no doubt that Pliny describes a state of things which did not belong to his own time and that the source he refers to was a good Greek periplus in a Roman reproduction of the period of the end of the last republic. One may presume that the source of Pliny was Varro, or the reproduction was issued in connexion with the results of geographical works produced during the rule of Augustus.

It is therefore quite probable that the author Pliny was dealing with was aware that freedom had been granted to Chersonesus during Caesar's period.

Meanwhile Strabo (vii, 4, 3 c 309), summing up the situation of Chersonesus, definitely affirms that during his time, i.e. during the rule of Augustus, Chersonesus was annexed to the kingdom of the Bosporus.

The solution of this contradiction, which seemed inexplicable, may be found in the inscription we dealt with. Speaking of the freedom of Chersonesus, Pliny deals, as we assume, with the events which took place during Caesar's rule. But after the death of Caesar the whole situation of the Black Sea became very troubled.

1 See the inscription in honour of Acornion, 2 Strabo, xii, 3, I I, cf. xii, 3, 6 (Heraclea): 8eaTro Dittenberger, Syll.3, 762, dealing with the facts aLrotKtav 'PtoAcluatv er'l r7S 7ro6ews KaC rTjs Xcpas; connected with the struggle of Rome against the Plin. Ep. x, 2 ; Plin. Nat. Hist. vi, 2; App. powerful king Boirebistas. Mithr. Iz2, IzI; Robinson, Ancient Sinope (Balti-

more, I906), 255 f-

41


For instance, Amisus was subjected by Antonius to the kings,1 perhaps to the Pontic Dareios, son of Pharnaces. 2 In consequence of this, disturbances took place in the town, which brought about the tyrannical rule of Straton. Only after the Actian victory, Amisus regained its freedom, which was granted by Augustus. 3

Nearly the same occurred in Chersonesus. Obviously just then, i.e. immediately after Caesar's death and after the defeat and death of Mithradates of Pergamon, Asandrus acquired a more stable position.4 At the same time great disturbances were taking place in Chersonesus, caused by the appearance of a tyrant. These events are recorded in an exceedingly interesting decree of Chersonesus, which has unfortunately come into our possession in a very poor condition. It is pointed out by Latishev, that the letters of this decree are similar to those in the inscription of Satyrus (I.O.S.P.E. i2, 355)-

On the other hand, a little later, i.e. in 25 B.c. the Chersonesians start a new era which they maintained to the latest period of their existence. At the same time a new -reform in the official life of Chersonesus was carried through and at the head of their body of magistrates they set the goddess-queen.

All this seemed quite incomprehensible to scholars dealing with that period. It is possible that my suggestions founded on the new materials dealt with above will help to solve the problem. It is curious that when Chersonesus was about to receive its freedom granted by Caesar, the town did not adopt a new era, as was the case in a series of places in Syria and Asia Minor. That leads one to believe that the freedom granted by Caesar to Chersonesus, like the freedom given by him to Amisus, was not lasting.

The Chersonesian mission was sent to Rome during the latter half of 46 B.C. Nothing was done in Rome without delay. Mean- while in March 44 Caesar was assassinated ; after which event begin the Bacchanalia of Antonius, during whose rule one could do any- thing one liked in return for money. Asandrus, the powerful and rich ruler of Bosporus who was coining solid gold, had evidently more money for purchases than Chersonesus. This leads one to the supposition that in all probability Chersonesus, like Amisus, lost its newly won freedom during the rule of Antonius, after having

1 Strabo, xii, 3, I4 c 547. to some Roman rulers (likeness to Caesar, Octavianus 2 App. B. Civ. v, 75 (39 B.C.). and Antony has been found), see Giel, Kleine 3 Strabo xii, 3, 14 c 547. Beitrdge, Io f.; Oreshnikov, Ann. de num. I888, 5 f.; 41I quite agree with Gardthausen (Augustus Wilcken in P.W. R.E. ii, 1517; Minns, Scythians

und seine Zeit, i, 244) who refers the strengthening and Greeks, 592. In the history of Bosporus of Asandrus to the period immediately after the during the period of Caesar and chiefly that of death of Caesar, i.e. 44 B.C. His authority was Augustus I deal in detail in my article, 'The Bronze probably confirmed by Antonius, and no doubt Bust of a Bosporan Queen and the history of cost him a large sum of money. The intricate Bosporus during the rule of Augustus,' Moscow, question about Asandrus' coins has been greatly 1914 (Drevnosti, xxv), cf. my article ' The copper confused owing to the tendency to decide it on the coin?ge of Dynamis and Aspurgus,' Izvestija ground of the likeness of the portraits on the coins Tavriceskoj Archivnoi Commissii, 54 (I918).

42


enjoyed it no longer than one year. Then comes the above- mentioned time of troubles, revolution, unrest and extreme danger..

The new era beginning in 25 B.c. and the entirely new part played by the virgin-goddess lead one to believe that the time of troubles came to an end at this date, and that the citizens of Chersonesus considered themselves relieved from some great danger and expected better times to come.1

The above-mentioned events coincide with the time of the definite strengthening of Augustus' power, and the feeling of relief which makes itself perceptible in the adopting of the new era can be explained by the measures Augustus took with regard to Chersonesus. Very likely Chersonesus, after being relieved of a great danger by its virgin-goddess, received from Augustus, like Amisus, the confirmation of its freedom which was granted by Caesar. 2

But, if we are right in our explanation of the events, how are we to understand the words of Strabo and the late appeals of Chersonesus for freedom, which belong to the period of Hadrian and Antoninus ?

As I have already indicated in the above-mentioned article, the freedom of Chersonesus granted by Augustus seems to have been only formal, being in reality a political dependence on the kingdom of Bosporus, which in its turn had to defend Chersonesus from the raids of its neighbours. This dependence was entirely similar to that during the reign of Mithradates the Great, which meant the entire maintenance of formal freedom along with obligatory a-v/~/tXca (alliance).

The inscriptions of Dynamis and Polemon I-successors of Asandrus-excavated in Chersonesus have already proved this3 and the newly found fragment of an inscription devoted to the same Polemon gives a definite confirmation of the fact.

Very likely this state of affairs was brought about by Agrippa, so as to maintain order in the Crimea and protect the interests of the Greek population with the expenditure of the least possible amount of forces and means by Rome. 4

1 See Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 521. supreme command in Asia he settled the affairs of 2 On Amisus, which had already received its Bosporus and was ready to start a campaign against freedom in 32 B.C. see Cumont-Anderson, Studia the usurper Scribonius, if circumstances made it Pontica, iii, i, 2; Babelon-Reinach, Recueil, i, i, necessary. However, the war was avoided (Fl. 44; G. Hirschfeld in P.W. R.E. i, I839. Amisus Jos. Ant. Yud. xvi, I6 f.; Cass. Dio. liv, 24) and the being a Roman provincial town-a distinction which affairs of Bosporus handed over to Polemon I. It Chersonesus had been striving for in first and second is not precisely known how Agrippa ordered the cent. A.D.-still held the greatest part of its freedom state of affairs in Chersonesus, but the two inscrip- and autonomy. Asan exception the town was even tions of Chersonesus dealing with Polemon and allowed to coin silver. made just at that time show that the suggestion 3 I.O.S.P.E. i2, 354 and 419. made in the text is more than likely. Let us not 4 Agrippa's policy is dealt with in my book, forget that one of these inscriptions mentions ' Scythia and the kingdom of Bosporus,' which is still the orvusu,cXia.c and an armed force sent by in the press. I will only point out that Agrippa Chersonesus to Polemon, and the other contains settled the position of Cyzicus, Lampsacus and the beginning of a lengthy document also dealing other towns closely connected with the kingdom with Polemon. At this same period or a little later of Bosporus and with Chersonesus. During his a mission sent to queen Dynamis of Bosporus is,

43

44 CAESAR AND THE SOUTH OF RUSSIA.

The existence of this compulsory crv//aXtC a between Bosporus and Chersonesus enabled Strabo to consider Chersonesus a part of the kingdom of Bosporus in spite of its formal freedom granted by Rome. The whole situation was very unstable. The defence of the Bosporus could not be carried on owing to its own weakness.

In view of this we note that during the rule of Nero an attempt was made to convert the kingdom of Bosporus into a province, and Chersonesus into a provincial town. These plans were, however, not carried out owing to disturbances which took place during the period of Domitian and the strengthening of Bosporus at the time of Trajan. These events led to a formal subordination of Chersonesus to the kings of Bosporus from which Chersonesus was only liberated during the rule of Antoninus, when it formally regained its old EXEv0Oep'a, but in reality was' incorporated with the actual provincial territory defended by the Roman troops.5

-dealt with (I.O.S.P.E. i 2, 354) This is a matter of -great importance, that all these rulers of Bosporus are mentioned in Chersonesus just at this time, which is not done either before or after. Agrippa during his stay in Sinope actually subjected Chersonesus to Polemon, which probably did not affect the formal freedom of the town. This event took place in I4 B.c. during the stay ,of Agrippa and Herod of Judaea in Sinope. Strabo, whose information concerning Asia and Pontus goes as far as A.D. 17-18, could only consider the .state of affairs caused by Agrippa, which as I have proved in my above-mentioned article (p. 40, n. I) did not alter even after the death of Polemon and during the reign of Dynamis and Aspurgus. According to Strabo, Chersonesus remained for a considerable time a subordinate o6/zia&Xos and a part of Bosporus, while the latter was a vassal of Rome and was obliged to provide soldiers for the Roman army. See the most ancient mention of a .cohors Bosporanorum in the recently published Latin inscription from Antiochia in Pisidia dis-

covered by Sir W. Ramsay. This inscription probably refers to 8-7 B.C. and the praefectura cohortis of C. Caristanius evidently took place a little earlier or later. Evidently the obligation of providing troops for the Roman army must have been inflicted on Bosporus by Agrippa, see Cheesman, yourn. of Rom. St. I9I3, 252. It is interesting to note that Agrippa's scheme contained a certain autonomy for the towns of Bosporus, which has been proved by the independent copper coinage of Phanagoreia and Pantikapaion. 5 See my articles in Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosviescenia, 1900, March, I40 ff; Klio, ii, 30; Bull. de la Comm. Arch. I0, 4 ff; 23, iff.; 27, 55ff.; 32, Iff.; 40, Iff.; 58, Iff.; Christianskij Vostok, i and iii, and also my preface to the inscriptions of Ai-Todor (Crimea) in I.O.S.PE. i2. All the above-mentioned works deal with the history of the Crimea and the South of Russia in connexion with the occupation of the Crimea and Olbia by the Roman camps which took place during the Roman empire.

Article Contentsp.[27]p.28p.29p.30p.31p.32p.33p.34p.35p.36p.37p.38p.39p.40p.41p.42p.43p.44

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 7 (1917), pp. i-x+1-312Volume Information [pp.307-311]Front Matter [pp.i-ix]Professor Wickhoff on Roman Art [pp.1-26]Caesar and the South of Russia [pp.27-44]Phases of Commercial Life in Roman Egypt [pp.45-58]The Mints of the Early Empire [pp.59-70]The 'Commodus-Mithras' of the Salting Collection [pp.71-73]Trajan's First Dacian War [pp.74-97]Woodeaton [pp.98-119]Tigranocerta [pp.120-138]Notices of Recent Publicationsuntitled [pp.139-140]untitled [pp.140-142]untitled [pp.142-143]

Was Caesar Born in 100 or in 102 B.C.? [pp.145-152]The Catilinarian Conspiracy in Its Context: A Re-Study of the Evidence [pp.153-228]Studies in the Roman Province Galatia: I. The Homanadeis and the Homanadensian War [pp.229-283]A Cybele Altar in London [pp.284-288]Notices of Recent Publicationsuntitled [pp.289-291]untitled [pp.291-295]untitled [pp.296-299]untitled [pp.299-300]

Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1917 [p.301]Report of the Council for the Year 1916 [pp.302-305]

Date post:	14-Sep-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngoman1
View:	15 times
Download:	3 times