The Claudian Monument at Patara

8/10/2019 The Claudian Monument at Patara

1/9

The Claudian Monument at Patara

Author(s): Christopher P. JonesSource: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 137 (2001), pp. 161-168Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20190946.

Accessed: 30/10/2014 15:57

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 of

content 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].

.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

toZeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.27.186.191 on Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:57:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=habelthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20190946?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20190946?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=habelt


2/9

161

The

Claudian

Monument

at

Patara

A

fire

on

the

site of ancient

Patara

in

October, 1992,

had the

unexpected

result of

bringing

to

light

a

monument

of Claudian

date.

Originally

a

square

column

over

five

meters

tall,

it bore

on

three sides

an

inscription,

more

precisely

two

inscriptions,

of unusual

interest

and

importance.

The

first

inscription

(Face

A)

comprises

a

dedication

to

Claudius

by

the

Lycians,

the

second

(Face

B

and

C)

a

long

list of

roads

built

by

the

emperor

and

their

lengths;

this list is

prefaced

by

an

explanatory

sentence

of

eight

lines.

The

nearly

sixty

blocks

on

which these

texts

were

inscribed

were

found rebuilt into

a

Byzantine

wall. Fahri

I?ik

and his

team

of

archaeologists

have

done

an

extraordinary job

of

saving

and

recording

these blocks under

extremely

difficult

conditions,

and of

putting

them into

a

coherent order.

They

have

now

published

their

results,

at

the

same

time

calling

on

others

to

help, especially

with

the

primary

inscription on Face A.

*

As

materials

for

restoration of

the

text

they

have

provided

a

majuscule

version,

prepared by

Helmut

E(ngelmann)

(p.

107-09).

E. has

put

spaces

between words

in

order

to

facilitate

comprehension,

and

very

few

of

his

implied readings

can

be called into

question.

The authors have also

supplied

detailed

drawings

of

each inscribed

stone,

together

with excellent

photographs,

thus

immensely facilitating

the

necessary

work of collaboration.

All in

all,

this is

a

model of

scholarly generosity.

In

the

following

paper,

I

discuss the

inscription

that

occupies

Face

A,

the

opening

lines of

that

on

Face

B,

and its

very

last lines

on

Face C.

Finally,

I

discuss the historical

context

of

the

two

inscriptions

and draw

out

some

implications,

at

the

same

time

adducing

parallels

to

some

of the

supplements

that

I

have

proposed.

The text of Face A takes the usual form of

a

honorific inscription, and begins with the

name

of the

honorand,

Claudius.

(The

use

of the dative

strikingly

confirms

an

argument

of

Paul

Veyne,

that this

case,

an

imitation

of

Latin

usage,

is

especially

at

home

in

dedications

to

emperors,

whereas

in

Greek the

accusative

would be

expected.)2

Claudius'

titles,

with his fifth

tribunician

power,

eleventh salutation

as

imperator,

and fourth consulate

in

prospect,

indicate the

year

46.3

Next

come

the

dedicants,

the

Lycian

people,

with

a

participial phrase

in

apposition

to

explain

their

motive for the

dedication.

The last lines

consist

of

one or more

clauses

which

give

a

further

reason

for the

Lycians' gratitude,

and mention the

emperor's

legate,

the well-known

Q.

Veranius.

That

fits

with the dates of his

tenure,

approximately

43

to

47.4

The

first

13

lines

concerning

Claudius

are

all

in

order

except

for the

last

phrase,

which

E.

gives

thus:

12

TME[NQI..]..

Q

...

OY

EAYT??NE0NOYX

Like several of the

lines

on

both

faces,

line

12

is

cut

across

the

join

of

two

courses,

and

except

for the

final OY all the

surviving

traces

are on

the

lower

blocks,

that

is,

only

the

bottom of the

letters is

preserved.

On the left-hand block the

traces

are

compatible

with the

required

TME

of

aTco????i|yp?vc?i,

but

in

addition the

photograph

(Plate

15,

block

12

A

IV)

shows the

lower left-hand hasta of

the

1

Fahri

I?ik,

Havva

??kan,

Nevzat

?evik,

Miliarium

Lyciae:

Das

Wegweisermonument

von

Patara.

Vorbericht,

Lykia

IV,

Akdeniz

?niversitesi,

1998/1999

[2001].

2

P.

Veyne,

Latomus

21, 1962,49-98,

cf. J. and L.

Robert,

Bull.

?p.

1966.220.

3

The

same

date in ILS 205

(Rome)

=

E. M.

Smallwood,

Documents

illustrating

the

principates

of

Gaius,

Claudius and

Nero, Cambridge, Eng., 1967, 308 b.

4

A. E.

Gordon,

Quintus

Veranius,

consul

A.D. 49:

A

Study

based

upon

his

recently

identified

sepulchral

inscription,

University

of

California Publications

in

classical

Archaeology

2.5,

Berkeley

and

Los

Angeles

1952,

238-44;

R.

Syme,

Roman

Papers

1,

Oxford

1979, 333-35;

A.

Balland,

Inscriptions

d'?poque

imp?riale

du

L?t?on,

Fouilles

de Xanthos

7,

Paris

1981,

ch.

3;

B. E.

Thomasson,

Laterculi

Praesidum,

G?teborg

1984,

275

no.

1,

who cites

IGR

3.703

(Smallwood,

Documents

23

la,

Cyaneae)

and

Balland,

pp.

79-100,

nos.

37?40

(Xanthos),

in

addition

to

the other

inscriptions

to

be discussed

below.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

162

C. P. Jones

following

nu.

On

the

right-hand

block

(Plate

15,

block 40 A

IV),

the

trace

immediately

after the break

looks

at

first

sight

like

a

rightward sloping

vertical,

which

would

only

be

compatible

with

alpha

or

lambda.

However,

the

photograph

indicates that

this

is

not

a

letter,

but

an

accidental

edge

due

to

breakage.

To the

right

the two letters are almost

certainly sigma

and

omega

(omega

throughout

has

curious

wedge-shaped

marks

in

place

of

serifs),

and after that

there

are

traces

of

two

or

three

letters,

then

room

for

one

or

two

more

before the

OY.

I restore

[x

i]

oc?xfjp[i

x]o\)

?aw

v

?0vo\)?,

'the savior

of

their nation'.

An

inscription

from

Myra

had

previously

called

Agrippa

x?v

???py?xr|v

Kai

a

xfjpa

xo\)

?0vo-o?.5

In the nominative

phrase

that

begins

in

line

13,

all

is clear down

to

lines

20-24,

where

E.

reads:

20

A

nEIAH[0]OTEI

AE

OMO

.

[.. .]N

KAI THN IIHN A

[.]0[. ].

IANKAI

TOYI

24 [.]I NOMOYI

In line

21,

the

photographs

(Plate

17,

blocks

18

A VI

and

45

A

VI)

clearly

show

the

phi,

the bottom of

the

vertical

being

visible

on

the left-hand

block,

and the

rest

of the

vertical

and

part

of

the

loop

on

the

right-hand

one,

so

that

the

two

blocks

are

almost

touching.

In

line

22,

E.'s

calculation of

four

missing

letters

before the

preserved

nu

looks

correct,

but

not

so

his

reading

of

a

trace

in the first

space;

the small

gamma-shaped

letter

shown

in

the

drawing

is

merely

damage

to

the

stone.

The letters

OMO[_]N

must

represent

the

word

?p?|[voia]v.

In

line

23,

again

E.'s

calculation

of five

missing

letters

looks

correct,

but after the omicron

on

the

left-hand

block

the

next

letter,

preserved

on

the

right-hand

one,

has

two

horizontal

parallels,

and

can

only

be

epsilon

or

sigma;

it also

is

immediately

adjacent

to

the

iota,

and

not

separated by

another letter.

Since no Greek word can end in -o?iav, this one must end in -oaiav. Now the isolated delta at the end

of the

previous

line

is

suspect,

since

a mason

would

not

isolate

an

initial

consonant,

and

the sketch

and

photograph

both

suggest

that

the

surface of the

stone to

the

right

ofthat

letter

is

abraded.

There is

room

for

one or even

two

more

letters,

and

the

required

word

must

be

?[i|Kai]o[?]oaiav,

'fair

administration

of

justice'.

In

line

24,

an

adjective

is

required

to

qualify

v?pouc.

If

E. is

right

in

allowing

seven

letters,

then

a

tempting

restoration

is

xovq

[7taxpioi)]?

v?pou?.

An

inscription

from

Pergamon

honoring

P.

Servilius

Isauricus,

Julius

Caesar's

powerful proconsul

of

Asia, may

be

compared:

?

oflpoc

?x?pr)a?v

??7i^iov

l?po?^iov

noTT?ioi) m?v

TaaupiKOv,

x?v

?vQvnaxov,

y?yov?xa ac?xfjpa

Kai

?\)?py?xr|v xfj?

7t??,?C??

Kai a7ro???c?KOxa

xfji

noXtx

xo??

TtaxpioD? v?pouc

Kai

xr]v

?rjpoKpaxiav

aooutauxov.6

The

genitive

absolute

begins

in

line

25,

and the

first

phrase,

if there is

more

than

one,

has

xr\q

7io?ax??a?

as

its

subject,

with

the verb

clearly

contained

in

the

traces

of

lines

29 and 30.

E.

gives

these

lines

as

follows:

THE nOAEITEIAI

TOII

EHAPIITiiN

E[n]IAEAE

TMENOII BOYAEY

28

TAIXAnO

TOY AKPITOY

riAHOOYI

n[. ]ITEY[

]

[..

.]HZ

.

[

Line 29 is

divided

between

two

courses

(Plate

18,

blocks

21 A

VII,

48

A

VII,

plate

19,

block

24

A

VIII;

the lower

right-hand

block

is

missing).

The

drawing

of

the

upper

course

shows

the

tops

of

the

first

letters

read

by

E.,

but the

photograph

fails

to

show the

final

upsilon,

which

was

perhaps

on a

chip

now

broken

away.

After that

upsilon

there

may

have been

one

or

two

further

letters,

but

not

necessarily,

5

IGR

3.719,

cf.

D.

Magie,

Roman

Rule

in Asia

Minor,

Princeton

1950,

529.

6

OGIS

449;

IGR

4.433.

On

Isauricus

in

Asia,

J. and L.

Robert,

Hellenica

6, 1948,

37-42.



4/9

The Claudian

Monument

at

Patara

163

since

the

lines

do

not

always

go

to

the

margin

(cf.

line

27

just

above).

At the

beginning

of line

30,

the

photograph

shows

one

or

two

letters

missing

(what

looks

like

a

lower

horizontal

seems

again

to

be

damage

to

the

stone).

Next

there

is

a

very

clear

sigma

before the

eta.

In

short,

the

traces

are

fully

compatible with the required participle, 7t[i]cx?\)|[0eio]r|

?\)?pye]|xr|

0r|oa[v

?i?

Kowtod]

|

Ouripavtioi),

kxX.],

'in

return

for

the

many

benefits

they

have received from

him

through

Quintus

Veranius'.

After

Veranius'

name

in

line

33,

we

would

expect

mention of his

function,

as

in

Face

B

lines

7

and

8.

This

time

the

clue

comes

from line

34,

where

I

see

nothing

before the

first

omicron,

but

a

vertical

just

following

the

upsilon;

thereafter

I count

five

or

six letters

missing

before the

ITPAT

on

the

right-hand

block,

not

eight

as

calculated

by

E.

I

therefore

restore

33

through

35

as:

0\)T|pav[io'o

7ip?o??'o]|xo'?

ic[ai

avxi]oxpaxr||yo'o.

7tp?a??WTic

Kai

?vxiaxpaxrvyo?,

with

or

without

the

Kai,

is the

usual

rendering

of

legatus

pro

praetore?

On

Face

B,

however,

the

Kai

is

apparently

omitted.

I

propose

the

following

text

and

translation

of Face

A:

Ti?fipicui

[K?,]ai)?ic?i

I

Apouaoi)

[vi]m

Kai|aapi le?aoxoi

rep|4paviK

i,

?p%iepe?

[p]e|yioxc?i,

?[r|]papxiKfi?

|

e^oi)[ai]ac

x?

7t?|i|7tx?v,

[?]xo|8Kp?xopi

x?

?v??ralxov,

rcaxpi 7taxpi|?o?,

vnax(?[i x]?

x?|xapxov

?7co[?e]?ei|12yp?v[c?i,

x

i]

oa>xfjp[i

x]ov

\

?avx&v

eQvovq,

A|/?]|kioi

(pi?op

paioi

Kai

|

cpi?,OK[a]iaap??,

7tio|16xoi


5/9

164 C. P. Jones

odovq

as

the

object;

thereafter there

is

a

prepositional

phrase again

involving

Q.

Veranius,

and

then

a

relative clause

dependent

on

?Sovq.

All the

rest,

in

the form 'from

X to

Y,

x

stades'

lists

the

roads

'made'

by

the

emperor.

These

opening

lines

are

longer

than

on

Face

8,

about

22-24

letters

per

line

rather than 14-16, and usually occupy three blocks rather than two.

All is

clear down

to

line

4,

which is

written

across

two

courses

(Plates

20

and

21,

blocks

1, 2,

3

B

I,

4

and 6

B

II,

with

5

B

II

missing).

In

line

4,

E. reads:

TQ[P]

OAOYI

KA0O[...

]N

.

[. ]

EIIOI

Though

some

of these letters should be

dotted,

the

only problem

resides in

the

central

ones,

which

on

the

photograph

look

like

KA0O[

5

]KI[. .].

The omicron

could

theoretically

be

another

rounded letter

such

as

theta;

the

kappa

and iota

seem

clear

in

the

drawing

and the

photograph,

so

that

E.'s

nu

seems

to

be

a

misreading.

The

correct

supplement

is

surely

Ka0'

o[?lr|v

Ai)]Ki[av],

'throughout

all

Lycia'.

For lines

5

through

8,

E.

gives

the

following:

HIEN

AIA

TI[BEPIOY]YHPAN[IOY]

TOYIAIOY[ 6 ]OYANTIIT[PA]

THTOY

?H

.

[ ]

N

[E]ZTIN

ETPO

8

N

TO

Yn{P}OrErPAMMENON

vacat

Ti[??pio\)]

in

line 5

cannot

be

right,

for

the

reason

that Veranius'

praenomen

is

Quintus.

The

photo

graph

(plate

21,

block

4

B

II)

shows what could be

a

horizontal attached

to

the

hasta of

the

supposed

iota,

in

other words

a

damaged

eta.

The

genitive

of

Veranius'

name

and

titles

must

therefore

depend

on

a

feminine

noun,

presumably beginning

with the letters

YFIH

in line

7.

Instead of

Ti[??pio\)],

that

is,

we

should read

xr)[v

Koivxo-o],

making

a

slightly longer

space

than

E.

allows for. That is

corroborated

by

line

6,

where

the

lacuna

surely

represents

7i[p?a??ux]o'6,

seven

letters

rather

than six. Hence

in

line

7

the

lacuna

after the

eta,

which is of

about

the

same

width,

should also be of

about

seven

letters. On the left

hand

block,

the

trace

after

YI1H

appears

as a

vertical

standing

close

to

the

eta;

on

the

right-hand

one

(plate

21,

6

B

II),

the

drawing

shows

the

nu

and the

sigma

as

well

preserved,

while

they

seem

to

have

flaked

away

in

the

photograph.

The

word

to

be

supplied

should be

imr|p[?oiav],

with

one

letter

(or

perhaps

two)

to

follow before the

nu;

this

letter

should

then be

omega,

[cb]v,

providing

the

required

relative

pronoun

to

qualify

p?xpov.

tmripEG?a

is

not

uncommon

in

inscriptions

for

the 'services'

rendered

by

citizens

to

their

city:

its

application

to

an

imperial legate

seems

unusual,

though

not

surpris

ing

when Claudius has

just

been

called

'emperor

of the

world'.

An

inscription

from

Thyatira

praises

a

citizen

who

among

his

other

services had

been

priest

of

Roma

and also

?7ti??a?(o)i

Kai

KupiaKa??

imr|p?G?ai?

('services

to

the

emperors')

%pr)oi|H?\)oavxa

xfj

rcaxpioi.9

I

propose

the

following

text

and

translation of

Face

B,

lines

1

through

8:

[Ti?ep]ioc

K?aiS?to?

[Apoujooi)

|

vxbq

Ka?aap

l??aaxoc

T?ppavi|K?c,

?

xfj? oiKo\)[|i?vr|?

a]uxoKp?|4xc?[p],

??o??

Ka0'

?[?,r|v

Au]K?[av]

?7ioi|r|a?v

?i?

xf)[v

Koivxo\)]

O?r)pav[un)]

|

xov \b\ov

7c[p?a??-?x]oC

avxiaxtpallxiiyoi)

\>7cr|p[?a?av,

cb]v

?axiv

p?xpo|8v

x?

\)7r{p}oy?ypapp?vov

vac.

Tiberius

Claudius,

son

of

Drusus,

Caesar

Augustus

Germanicus,

the

emperor

of

the

world,

made

roads

throughout

all

Lycia

by

the

agency

of

Q.

Veranius,

his

own

legatus

propraetore,

of

which

(roads)

the distance

is written

below.

The last

lines

on

Face

C

(28-29)

are

exceptional

in

that

they

mention

roads built

in

the

province

of

Asia,

and

not in

Lycia;

moreover,

whereas

in

the

rest

of

this

section

the

basic

formulation is

'from

X

to

Y,

x

stadia',

here

there

stands

'and

inAsia

between

C[

]

and

Laodicea

in

the

.

..' The lines

are

longer

here,

some

35

or so

letters,

and

E. reads:

KAI EN

THI

A2IA[I]

METAEY

K[

K[AIA]AOAIKHA[I]NTQIEIIIKAAOt

9

TAM 5.2.940

(CIG

3490;

IGR

4.1228).

For

this and

other

epigraphical

examples,

L.

Robert,

Opera

Minora Selecta

7.733

n.

14

(Arch.

Eph.

1969).



6/9

The

Claudian

Monument

at

Patara

165

The

editors

tentatively

suggest

that

the

two

cities

meant

are

Cibyra

in

southern

Phrygia

and

Laodicea

on

the

Lycos,

in

the

Caro-Phrygian

borderland.10

This is

unduly

tentative.

An

inscription

from

Cibyra,

known since the

nineteenth

century,

shows

Veranius

being

honored

for

'supervising

the

Augustan

constructions (x v lefiacx&v ?pyoov) in accordance with the mandates of Tiberius Claudius Caesar

Augustus,

the

founder of

the

city,

and of

[name erased]

Augusta';

the

mention

of

an

empress

(in

this

case,

Messallina)

as

issuing

mandata is

highly

striking,

though

not out

of

place

for

the

reign

of

Claudius.11

Cagnat

had

glossed

the

expression

lefiacxa

?pya

in

the

Cibyra

inscription

as

referring

to

roads and the

like,

whereas Louis Robert held

that

they

were

buildings

within the

city.

While

Veranius

might

have

performed

work of both

kinds,

it

now

looks

as

if

Cagnat

was

essentially

right.12

In

addition,

another

inscription

of

Cibyra,

dated

in

or

about

the

reign

of

Claudius,

mentions

a

Q.

Veranius

Philagrus

who

'ended

a

great

conspiracy

that

was

greatly

harming

the

city'.13

Nor

can

there

be

any

doubt

that

the

stretch of

road referred

to

here

is the

one

leading

north-north-west

to

Laodicea

on

the

Lycus,

where it

joins

the

King's Highway

down

the Meander

valley

to

the

coast.14

The

puzzle

of

these

two

lines is

in

the

last

preserved

words of

29.

The

one

following ?v

x?i

must

be the participle eniKaXo[v\i?,vm], 'in

the so-called

. .

.'

It

is

unclear,

however,

whether this

phrase

refers

to

the

whole

district

through

which

the

road

ran,

or

only

to

Laodicea,

but

either

way

I cannot

see a

satisfactory supplement.

Nonetheless,

I

would

constitute these

two

lines thus:

Kai ?v

xfji

Aa?ai

p?xa^t) Kti?upac

ca.

10

]

|

K[ai

A]ao?iKT|a[?

?]v

x i

?7UKa?,o['U|jivc?i

ca.

10

].

If

Tacitus'

account

of the

year

42

had

not

perished

with

the

rest

of

Book

IX

or

X

of

the

Annales,

we

would

certainly

know

much

more

about the

background

to

Claudius'

decision

to

impose

direct

rule

on

Lycia.15

The

historian

is

interested

in

Veranius'

father,

who

had

had

a

similar

post

to

his

son

as

the

first

legate

of

Cappadocia

(Ann.

2.56.4).

At

the

time

he

was a

comes

of

Germanicus

in

the

East,

and

again

Tacitus

gives

him

a

prominent

role

in

the

prosecution

of

Cn.

Piso

(2.74.2, 3.10.1, etc.).

The

historian

might

have

treated

the

son's

appointment

to

Lycia

as an

example

both

of

inherited

ability

and

of

the

power

of

adsentatio;

when

commenting

on

Veranius'

death

in

Britain,

he

notes

his

'great

reputation

for

severity',

and

at

the

same

time his

flattery

of

Nero

(14.29.1).

Otherwise,

our

literary

evidence

for

the

absorption

of

Lycia

is

practically

confined

to

a

sentence

in

Suetonius

and

a

more

informative

paragraph

in

Cassius

Dio.

The

former

says

merely

that

Claudius 'took

away

the

liberty

of

the

Lycians

because of

their

destructive

internal conflicts'

(ob

exitiabiles

inter

se

discordias,

Cl.

25.3).

Cassius Dio

is

more

informative.

He

reports

under

the

year

42

(60.17.3-4):

'[Claudius]

enslaved

the

Lycians

because

they

had

been

in

turmoil

(axaoiaaavxac),

and

incorporated

them in

the

province

of

Pamphylia.

In

this

investigation,

which

he

conducted

in

the

senate,

he

used the

Latin

language

when

questioning

one

of

the

ambassadors,

a

man

originally

Lycian

who

had

become

a

Roman.

Because

the

man

did

not

understand

the

question,

he

deprived

him

of

his

citizenship,

saying

someone

should

not

be

a

Roman

if

they

did

not

understand

the

language.'

Some modern

scholars

have

10

F.

I?ik

et

al.

(n.

1)

101,

'Es

k?nnte

Kibyra

und

Laodikeia

am

Lykos

gemeint

sein.

Die

Stelle w?rde

sich

dann

m?glicherweise

darauf

beziehen,

da?

ein Teil

der

gro?en

?berlandstra?e

nach

Laodikeia

lykischer

Aufsicht

untersteht,

wobei auch

diese

Angaben

mit

dem

Zollgesetz

der

Provinz

Asia

zusammenh?ngen

k?nnten.'

11

IGR

4.902

(Smallwood,

Documents 231

b),

with

the

impossible

supplement

Ze?acftfic

guvkXtitoi)];

for

the

correct

text,

L.

Robert

in

M.

Holleaux,

Etudes

d'?pigraphie

et

d'histoire

grecques

6,

Paris

1968,

14-15;

Balland,

Inscriptions

26

n.

102. Cf. Suet.

Cl.

29.1.

12

Cagnat

on

IGR

4.902;

Robert,

Etudes

anatoliennes,

Paris

1937,

89

n.

2.

13

IGR

4.914,

cf.

Robert,

Et.

anat.

375-78.

14

On this

road,

R. J.

A.

Talbert, ed.,

The

Barrington

Atlas of the

Greek

and

Roman

World,

Princeton

and

Oxford

2000,

Map

65

B2

and

3,

and

see

also

W.

Ruge

s.v.

Themisonion,

RE

10

A,

1934,

1638-41. On

communications

between

Cibyra

and

Laodicea,

Robert,

Et.

anat.

385.

15

R.

Syme,

Tacitus,

Oxford

1958,

386,

Tacitus would not

fail

to

register

the first

campaigns

of

Veranius.'

On

the

position

of

the

year

42 in

the

Annales,

Syme,

op. cit.,

259-60.



7/9

166

C. P. Jones

wondered whether the

allegations

of

Lycian

turbulence

are

a mere

pretext;

'this

high-handed

action,

in

accord with Claudius's

desire for the

glory

of

extending

the

Empire,

.

.

.

was

justified

on

the

specious

ground

that

no

other

means

could be found of

preventing

the

Lycians

from

quarrelling

with

one

another.'16 The present text does not quite dispel such skepticism, but at least it shows that very serious

internal

troubles had

preceded

the

imposition

of

direct rule.

Information

also

comes

from

several

inscriptions.

The

most

revealing,

though

very

mutilated,

is

Veranius'

sepulchral

inscription,

found

near

Rome.

After

mention

of

his

five-year

tenure

of

the

combined

province

of

Lycia-Pamphylia,

it

alludes

to

a

region

or

people

brought

'into

the

power'

of

Claudius,

to

the reconstruction

of

certain

walls,

and

to

'pacification'

(pacavit).11

The

new

monument

reveals

something

neglected by

Suetonius

and

Dio,

that

'brigandage'

(Face

A

line

18)

had broken

out

either before

or

possibly

after

the

imposition

of

direct

rule. Sir

Ronald

Syme

long

ago

proposed supplying

line 6 of

Veranius'

sepulchral

inscription

to

read:

[totam

provinciam

a

latronijb[usJ

pacavit.

For

support

he

adduced

Augustus'

proud

claim in

the Res

Gestae

(25.1),

mare

pacavi a praedonibus. His conjecture was published only in 1995, but it now receives corroboration

both

from the mention of

'brigandage'

on

Face

A

and 'of

all

Lycia',

Ka0'

o[X\\v

A\)]Ki[av],

if

that is

correctly supplied

on

Face

B.18

By

contrast,

the

new

text

corroborates Suetonius

and

Dio

in

their statement

that

Claudius' inter

vention

was

officially

motivated

by Lycian

discord;

that

follows from

the

phrase

on

Face

A,

'having

recovered

concord,

the fair administration of

justice

and the

ancestral

(?)

laws'.

Similar

expressions

are

found

in

Hellenistic

inscriptions,

for

instance,

'he

asked

the

king

to

restore

the

laws

and

the

ancestral

constitution',

used of

an

ambassador

to

an

Attalid

king.

Such

phrases,

which also

occur

in

literature,

'were

commonly

used

in

the third

and

second

centuries

in

contrast to

tyranny,

[and]

did

not

necessarily

imply

a

return to

the

previous

constitution

enjoyed

before

the

tyranny '.19

So

also

here

it is

not

neces

sary

to

suppose

that

the

restoration

of 'ancestral laws'

(if

that

is the

right supplement)

means

the

restora

tion of

the

status

quo

ante,

but rather the cessation

of

anarchy.

The

contrast

is

striking

with

a

somewhat

similar

inscription

put

up

by

the

Lycians

in

Rome,

probably

after

their

'liberation'

fromRhodes

in

167

BCE. There the

league

claimed

to

have 'recovered

its

ancestral

democracy' (Kopia?pevov

xtjv

7i?xpiov

??ipoKpaxiav),

'democracy' being

used

as a

near-synonym

of

'freedom',

as

often

in

this

period.20

The

new

inscription

makes

no

such

claim,

since what

was

restored

in

Lycia

could

not

be

called

democracy.

In

general,

the

term

'democracy'

does

not enter

the

normal

public

discourse

of

cities

of the Roman

empire,

to

judge

by

their

inscriptions;

in his

political

treatises,

Plutarch makes

very

little

use

of

the

word.21

The discord

of the time also

finds

an

echo

in

an

inscription

discovered

near

Corinth

in

the 1950's.

This contains

a

long

dossier of decrees

in

honor of

a

Lycian

woman

named Junia

Theodora.

One

of the

two

decrees

of the

Lycian

koinon

attests

that Theodora

had

'generously

sheltered

very many

of

our

people

when

they

were

exiled'

(7r?,??GX0\)?

x v

Tjpexepcov

?K7teoovxa?

urce??^axo

peya^pep

?,

SEG

16

Magie,

Roman Rule

529;

Syme,

Anatolica: Studies

in

Strabo,

Oxford

1995, 270-72,

also

inclines

to

seek

'extraneous

reasons'

for the

annexation.

17

The

restorations

given by

Gordon,

Quintus

Veranius

270-71,

and

reproduced

in

AE

1953, 251,

are

overly

generous,

as are

those

of

Smallwood,

Documents

231

c;

a

much soberer

text

in

A. R.

Birley,

The Fasti of

Roman

Britain,

Oxford

1981,

50.

^

Syme,

Anatolica

273.1

heard Professor

Syme

make this

proposal

in

an

Oxford seminar

forty

years ago.

19

Ambassador

to

Attalid

king:

Holleaux,

Etudes 2.92.

Propaganda:

F. W.

Walbank,

A

Commentary

on

Polybius

1,

Oxford 1957, 288; cf. J.-L. Ferrary, Philhell?nisme et imp?rialisme, BEFAR 271, Paris 1988, 196.

20

OGIS

551;

L.

Moretti,

Inscriptiones

Graecae

Urbis

Romae

1,

Rome

1968,

5.

On

'democracy',

J. A. O.

Larsen,

CPh

40,1945,88-91.

21

In the An

seni,

De

exilio,

and the

Praecepta reipublicae

gerendae,

apart

from

references

to

Periclean

Athens,

there

are

only

two

occurrences,

both

stressing

the need for submission

to

higher authority:

An

seni 783

D,

Praec.

reip.

ger.

816

E-F

(TLG

search).



8/9

The Claudian

Monument

at

Patara

167

18.143

line

58).

These

should

be

people

unjustly

exiled

before

the Roman

intervention,

since the

league

would

hardly praise

her

for

sheltering

victims

of

Roman

rule.22

As

well

as

discord,

the

new

text

also

alleges

that

there had

been

judicial

irregularities.

An

ordinance

of Veranius from Myra shows him putting an end to the falsification of official records, no doubt

another

aspect

of

these circumstances.23

The

expression

'having

recovered

the fair administration

of

justice',

xf]v

?o?)v

8[iKaio8]oc?av,

is

presumably

connected

with

the

Lycian peculiarity

of

calling

these

governors

?iKaio?oxai,

'dispensers

of

justice';

this

term

is

applied

to

Veranius

himself

in

an

inscription

of Xanthos.24

The verb

?iKaio?oxe?v

is also

used of

Lucius

Antonius,

brother

of the

better-known

Marcus,

as

proquaestor

of

Asia

in 49 BCE:

5iKaio8oxr|oavxa

xr\v

knap%r\av

Kaoap??

Kal

?iKaico?

Kai

?a?coc.25

The

constitution

of the

Lycian

Federation

is known

both from

a

detailed

account

in

Strabo,

and

from

a

number

of

inscriptions

both

earlier

and

later

than the

year

43.26

It has

often

been wondered

how

much

change

resulted

from

direct

Roman

rule,

but

on

this

point

the

inscription

is

not

explicit

(nor

was

such

a

text likely to be). It refers only to the Lycians' recovery of their 'ancestral laws', and yet there must

have been

Roman

legislation

for the

newly

incorporated region,

similar

to

the

lex

Pompeia

known

for

Pontus

and

Bithynia.

Neither

Dio

nor

Suetonius

mentions such

a

law,

but Michael W?rrle

inferred its

existence

from

the famous

dossier of C. Julius

Demosthenes

of

Oenoanda,

dated

to

the

reign

of Hadrian.

This refers

to

previous

governors

as

confirming

certain

privileges

attached

to

magistracies

that had

come

into existence

'after

the

legislative

acts'

(xa??

eTriyevop?vai?

pex?

x?? vopoOeaia?

Kaiva??

?p%a??);

the

implication

is that

these

governors

had

agreed

to

extend

such

privileges

on

the

basis

of

those

already

contained

in

the

original

law

or

laws,

of which

a

second

one

may go

back

to

Vespasian.27

That the

lexprovinciae

for

Lycia

should

have

favored

the

wealthy

classes

is

not

surprising; Pliny's

references

to

the

lex

Pompeia

for

Bithynia

show

a

similar

tendency.28

A

recently

published inscription

from Pergamon has revealed something of the constitution of Asia shortly after the end of Attalid rule in

133

BCE,

and

suggests

that

the

measures

taken

for the stabilization

of

Lycia

may

have been similar.29

'When

affairs

changed

to

democracy

and

the

people

voted

representatives

from

among

the best

men,

Metrodoros

was

appointed,

and

participating

in

the

council

(set

up)

in accord with the

Roman

legislation

...':

pexarceoovxcov

xe

x?v

Tcpayp?xcov ei?

?ripoKpaxiav

Kai

xov

?ripou

cruv??po'o?

xeipo

xovnaavxo?

x?v

?piaxcov ?v?p?v,

Kaxecx?Gr)

Kai

Mrixpo?copo?

Kai ?v

x?i

Kax?

xt]v

Tcopa?Kriv

vopo?eoiav

?oDAeDxripicui

yevopevo?,

kx?,.

Whatever

precisely

the function

of this

council,

and

whatever

its relation

to

the later

federal council

(koinori),

as

in

Lycia

it consisted of

members

chosen

from the

better

sort,

though

elected

by

the

people.

This

parallel

may

explain

a

detail

of the

present

inscription

which

is

otherwise

puzzling,

the

statement

that

'the

conduct

of affairs

[had]

been

entrusted

to

councilors

selected from

among superior

22

On

this

inscription,

see

in

particular

L.

Robert,

Opera

Minora

Selecta

2.840-48

(REA 1960).

I

am

not

convinced

by

the

arguments

of

R.

Behrwald,

Der

Lykische

Bund:

Untersuchungen

zu

Geschichte und

Verfassung, Antiquitas.

Reihe

1,

Abhandlungen

zur

Alten

Geschichte

48,

Bonn

2000,

120-128,

cf.

129

n.

430,

for

placing

this

inscription

in

42/41 BCE.

23

M. W?rrle

in

J.

Borchhardt, ed.,

Myra:

Eine

lykische Metropole

in

antiker

und

byzantinischer

Zeit,

Istanbuler

Forschungen

30,

Berlin

1975,

254-286,

esp.

255-56

(L'Ann?e ?pigraphique

1976, 673,

cf. J. and L.

Robert,

Bull.

?p.

1963,

252).

24

Balland,

Inscriptions

93

no.

38,

cf. 84

n.

47 with further

bibliography.

25

IGR

4.400, 401;

on

his

position,

T. R. S.

Broughton,

The

Magistrates

of the Roman

Republic

2,

New York

1952,

260.

26

Strabo 14.664-665.

Cf.

Magie,

Roman

Rule

524-26, 530-34,

and

now

Behrwald

(n. 22),

especially

165-69.

27

M.

W?rrle,

Stadt und

Fest im kaiserzeitlichen

Kleinasien,

Vestigia

39,

Munich

1988,

especially

96-100.

28

Magie,

Roman

Rule

369,

603-04,

640-41;

A. N.

Sherwin-White,

The

Letters

of

Pliny,

Oxford

1966,

669-70: 'Such

changes

were

apt

to

favour

an

oligarchy

of wealth.'

29

M.

W?rrle,

Chiron

30,

2000, 543-76;

the

passage

cited

is

p.

544 lines 13-15.



9/9

168

C. P.

Jones

people

by

(?rco)

the

incompetent

majority'.30

(It

is

unclear whether

the

prepositional phrase

goes

with

the first

participle,

'entrusted',

or

the

second, 'selected',

though

the

latter

seems more

likely,

and the

difference

need

not

be

very

great.)

There

cannot

be

much doubt about the

meaning

of

the

phrase ?ncpi

xov

7rAfj0o?;

Josephus

uses

exactly

this

expression

about the

people

of Caesarea when it demanded his

punishment,

and

was

rebuffed

by Vespasian: Ovecmao?av??

??

xf]v

rcepi

xowou

??r|aiv

?

vn9

aKp?xo-?

yivop?vriv

nXr\Qovq

e^eXvcev

r\ov%?q

(BJ

3.411).

It

may

therefore be

that,

in

Lycia

as

in

Asia,

Rome

set

up

a

mechanism

whereby

the

commons

voted

on

their

representatives,

but

were

given

only

a

very

narrow

choice,

perhaps

by

means

of

a

high

census

qualification,

or

by

the

requirement

that the

governor

approve

the

list

of

candidates.

The official

justification

was

presumably

that the

majority

had

proved

'incompetent'

to

govern

itself because

of the

faction

that

had

prevailed

hitherto.

In

general,

therefore,

the

inscription

is

an

eloquent

witness

to

the

state

of

Lycia

before

its

absorption

in

42,

and

to

the

changes

that Claudius

introduced with

Veranius

as

his

loyal

agent.

The whole

monu

ment

should be

regarded

primarily

as

a

glorification

of the

emperor,

and

can

be

called

a

'Wegweiser',

'signpost',

only

in a

very

extended sense, since it

clearly

does not function within a

system

of roads.

Rather it

commemorates,

first,

Claudius'

general

work of

pacification

and

reconstruction,

and

second

the

building

of

a

road-network

of

which

Patara

was

only

a

part.

In

this

second

respect,

it

recalls

Augustus'

miliarium

aureum

at

Rome,

since

that

too

is

now

usually thought

to

be

rather

a

register

of

the

roads

built

by Augustus

within

Italy

than

a

signpost marking

the distance

between

Rome and other

cities.31

According

to

Suetonius,

Claudius'

favorite oath

was

by

Augustus,

and historians

have often

noticed

his interest

in

recalling

and

emulating

the achievements of his

predecessor.32

Harvard

University

Christopher

P. Jones

30

It

seems

impossible

to

take ano

in

any

other

way:

for this

sense,

note

Liddell-Scott-Jones

s.v.

Ill

4,

'in

later

Greek

frequently

of

the

direct

agent',

with

several

citations from

the

early

imperial period.

31

Z.

Mari

in E. M.

Steinby,

ed.,

Lexicon

Topographicum

Urbis

Romae

3, 1996,

250-51.

32

Suet.

Cl.

11.2;

see

e.g.

A.

D.

Momigliano,

Claudius:

The

Emperor

and

his

Achievement,

Cambridge, Eng.,

1961,

24

25.

I

am

greatly

indebted

to

Professor

Glen

Bowersock

for

his advice.

This content downloaded from 194 27 186 191 on Thu 30 Oct 2014 15:57:19 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp