The Main Problem of the Augustus Inscription from Cyme Oliver, James H Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1963; 4, 2; ProQuest pg. 115 The Main Problem of the Augustus Inscription from Cyme James H. Oliver THE AUTHOR has long been puzzled by a sentence in the edict of Vespasian published by R. Herzog, "Urkunden zur Hoch­ schulpolitik der romischen Kaiser," Sitzungsb. Berlin 1935, p. 971 (= AE 1936, No. 128). For violation of privileges granted to teachers at the Asclepieum ofPergamum there would be a penalty, " , "'" [ Ie' ] £l'" Wh k· d f TO €7TLTLf.L£OV 0 av Ta",7]L ° - - - K aTaO'TaU€LS £7Tapxos. at 1n 0 an office was that of the E7Tapxos? Perhaps the inscription published by H. W. Pleket as No. 57 on pp. 49-66 of his impressive first book, The Greek Inscriptions in the Rljksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden (Diss. Leyden 1958), will throw some light on the subject. This inscription from Cyme in Asia con­ tains an order of the consuls Augustus and Agrippa (27 B.C.), a Latin letter of an Augustan proconsul (not yet dated with precision) to the magistrates of Cyme, and a Greek translation of the proconsul's letter. No Roman inscription of the last ten years has aroused so much interest, but, even so, the text as late as 1962 seemed in several places wrongly punctuated or inadequately restored. Here is a corrected version of the inscription: [A]VTOKp&TWp Kal.O'ap (B)€OV vids E£{3aO'Tds [ ] [M]&pKOS' 'Aypt7TaS' A€VKtOV vtds v7TaToL V €[ - - - J­ [Er] TLV€S S7]f.LOO'£OL T07TOL ~ {€po!, EV 7TO'\£O'[t - - - ] [] ''\ ., , ",,, [" £l'J 7T ° €WS' €KaO'T7]S £7TapX£Las ELO'LV HTE TL va avau7] - 5 I ~, "" I [ c:,,] f.LaTa TOVTWV TWV T07TWV €LO'LV EO'OVTat T E, f.L7]0ELS [T J~vTa aipETw I-'YJ8E cXyopa~ETw 1-'7]8E cX7TO[ TLI-'YJI-'a] [~J 8wpov '\al-'f3avlTw. 0 av €K€1.8€v cX7T€V7J[v€yf.Llvov] [ " '] I" c:, I ~ c:, , l' [" " " ~ ] YJ 7] yopaO'I-'EVOV EV TE OWPavlTov vacat [ - - -osJ OVtVlKtOS XalPEW MYEt apxovut Kv,."alwv. 'A[1TOAJ­ [AwvlSJ7]s AEVKlov NwpaKELos 1TOAEl7"'f}s v,."lTEpa[s ,."OtJ 25 [1TpoufjAJ 8EV Kat. v1T'8EL~Ev A LOVVUOV iEpOV ova,." [ aTL J [1Tp&UEWS KJ~T;xwOaL tmo Avulov TOV AtoYEJlOVS [TVK&A]­ [AEWS 1ToAElTOV ~""ETEPO Jv. Kat OTE ~,BOV[AOJITO O{ OtaUEL]- ~oo-------------------------] Translation Imp. Caesar Divi f. Augustus and M. Agrippa L. f. consuls [gave as rules] : In regard to any public or sacred localities in cities [when] these localities fall [within the jurisdiction of the] prefecture [protecting] each city's [interests], and in regard to any [dedica]tions which belong or will belong to these localities, [no one] shall take, buy, or accept this property as [security] or gift. [Whoever] may be [in charge of the] prefecture shall see to it that what has been transferred or bought or received in gift therefrom be restored to the public or sacred [account] of the city, and whatever of this may be given [as security], he shall not recognize as legitimately pledged or mortgaged. [.] Vinicius proconsul sends greetings to the magistrates of Cyme. Apollonides, son of Lucius, Noracean, your citizen, approached me and deposed that a sanctuary of Dionysus was by title of sale possessed JAMES H. OLIVER 117 by Lysias, son of Diogenes, Tycallean, your citizen, and that when the devotees wished to restore to the god his sacred property, as Augustus Caesar ordered, by payment of the price inscribed on the sanctuary, the property was withheld by Lysias. I want you to see to it, if this is so, that Lysias accept the price assessed for the sanctuary and restore the sanctuary to the god and that there be inscribed thereon "Restored by Imp. Caesar Divi f. Augustus." [If], however, Lysias disputes the demand of Apollonides, let him give the latter security wherever I shall be. I think it is [more] proper for Lysias [to offer] the sanctuary. (Received) when Phanites was prytanis. Commentary These two documents were the basis for the recovery of a sanctuary of Dionysus. The end of the first line may have been left blank, but the date is usually given. LINE 2: Perhaps €[l7TOV] or l[Tagav] or l[yvwuav] or, if from the acta, l[ 7Tpagav],1 or even l[8ouav]. LINES 3-4: Pleket restored Jv 7T6'\€u[w ~ Jv xcfJpq. 17T]6,\€ws EKau'T1}S E7Tapx€Las. Though he recognized that EKau'T1}S went with 7T6,\€ws, he thought that £7Tapx€las meant" of the province" despite the absence of the article. Others extended the coverage of the order to every province. Against this error V. Arangio-Ruiz, "L'iscrizione Leidense di Augusto," BIDR 64 (1961) pp. 323-342, rightly protested; he re­ stored EV 7T6'\€u[tv ~ KaTa ri}s] I 7T6,\€ws €Kau7"YJS €7Tapx€las and rightly insisted that the last word did not here mean "province." He inter­ preted it rather freely as "territory." But if this eparcheia were an office like that of the eparchos under whose jurisdiction the Asclepieum of Pergamum fell, the basis of this slightly too long restoration would change. Since the whole order concerns jurisdiction, and since the Latin word praefectura here rendered with eparcheia could imply juris­ diction, the sense seems to be as we have given it in the translation: "[when] these localities fall [within the jurisdiction of the] prefecture [protecting] each city's [interests]." Three thoughts may lead to the right restoration. First, the meaning of the word eparcheia in line 4 must agree with the meaning of the word eparcheia in line 9, and any interpretation of the lacuna in line 3 that disregards the sense of lines 1 Is it an article from a set of rules like the Gnomon of the Idios Logos? It does not seem to be a lex dicta, a type studied by G. Tibiletti, "Leges Dictae," Studi giuridici in memoria di Alfredo Passerini (=Studia Ghisleriana II [1954]) pp. 179-190. In the writer's opinion line 2 ended in a word which announced leges datae. 118 MAIN PROBLEM OF THE AUGUSTUS INSCRIPTION FROM CYME 8-9 should be ruled out. Secondly, there is no possibility of restoring a word like 1T€V'Tal1T]6AE"WS' or €vn-o"E"u[TOl (i.e. with analogical spread of sigma from &yopa<17"6S'), but the restoration, as Pleket saw, must be based on 1T6"E"u[, and 1T]6"E"wS'. Thirdly, the phrase, when complete, cannot have left room for doubt as to which noun EKa<17"T}S' modified. Under these austere conditions the lacuna seems to me too short fi . • I, [ ~ • \ I J I, ., • I or any restoratIon except €V 1TOI\E"U L 7TJS' V7TE"P 1T OI\E"WS' E"Ka<17"T}S' E"1TapX€Las E"lulv, where the preposition V1T€P has the meaning "in defense of" (each city's rights) or "for the benefit." An Abderite decree of 166 B.C., SIG3 656, contains a parallel: KaTaU7TJu&fL€VOL 8~ TOOS' 1TaTpwvaS' TfjS' [1TaTpl]ooS' E"lS' rYjv V7r~P Toil TJfLE"T€POV O'TjfLOV {Jo'TjO€LaV, where in {Jo'TjO€LaV, as probably in €1Tapx€laS', lies the thought 1TpouTfjvaL V7r~P OLKatwv (to borrow a phrase from SIGS 679, line 15). Another argument, less satisfactory but worth mentioning, would rest on the analogy of the phrase TOOS' «""ov[s] «PxoVTaS' 61T6uOL V1T~[P] Toil KOLvoil Toil @JE"TTaMJv apxovu[L]V of Tod, GHI 147, lines 25-26. Thus from two points of view the preposition V7r€P appears to be needed in this lacuna; but for the time being, at least, we hesitate to insert the restoration Tfjs V1T€P into the text as imposed. In any case there is no reason to think that the status of the property was originally determined by Rome; Augustus may have ordered the establishment of prefectures in all or more cities, but, if so, he was merely supporting the dties. LINE 6: a1T0[TlfL71fLa] Arangio-Ruiz, reworking Kunkel's suggestion (a1To[ TlfL1]Uw]). LINE 9: "6rov Arangio-Ruiz. LINES 10-11: Kunkel2 proposed ~ i1v xp[€OVs XalpL]V ooOn, and Father Sokolowski in SEG 18 (1962) 555 proposed €V€xvlpo]v. but there is only one letter lost at the beginning of line 11, where syllabic division limits the choice. Furthermore, Kunkel's restoration is too short for line 10. Hence Oliver restores xp[ fjfLa (so Pleket) €VE"xOpLI 0 ]v, in the belief that both Kunkel and Father Sokolowski have the right sense. LINES 12-13: Either the letters c. v. or the last two letters of Noraceus were omitted. LINE 14: In defence of Pleket's [ven]ditiones (read -is) see Arangio­ Ruiz, p. 342. LINES 16-17: The punctuation is very important. Oliver rejects the restoration [Li]berei and places a comma after fano. A verb on which 2 W. Kunkel, "Ober die Leidener Augustus-Inschrift aus Kyme (zugleich ein Beitrag zur aestimatio possessionis)," Studi in onore di Emilio Betti II (Rome 1962) 591-620. JAMES H. OLIVER 119 the phrase ab Lusia (not Lusiae) can depend is indispensable. Oliver restores [ha]berei ("was withheld") to supply the verb. A compound like prohiberei would be too long. Furthermore, Oliver puts a period after Lusia, where other editors placed a comma. The letters VVC were correctly resolved by Pleket, and the abbreviation was improved by G. Dunst (Gnomon 31 [1959J 677) who read Lusia EVVC. LINES 21-22: Kunkel, who made the restoration prom[ittere magi]s probo, placed no punctuation after ero; neither did Arangio-Ruiz, who commented: "Perfetto Ku(nkel): e del resto solo un giurista poteva intend ere che quel satisdato= cum satisdatione e riportarsi a Gai(us) IV 185." But is not satisdato a third person imperative? Mrs. Atkinson3 was surely right in this and in placing a period after ero. The subject would be Lusias understood; the pronoun ei refers to Apollonides. LINE 26: Kunkel restored the genitive as Atoy'vovs with the conso­ nant at the end. LINE 27: TVKcXAI A€WS Kunkel. His objection to the restoration ~,BoV["OVTO] (Pleket) or ~,Bov["1}e'7aav] seems ill founded. In view of Pleket's presentation it should be stated that the phrase 'E7T~ 7TPVTcXV€WS (/JaV{TOV of line 22 has nothing to do with the Greek translation (lines 23ff) but gives the local date at which the Latin epistle was received. The word £7Tapx€{as occurs in line 4 and again in line 9. In both places it presumably has the same meaning. As Arangio-Ruiz recognized, the word cannot mean Roman "province" in line 4. Well, then, it cannot mean Roman "province" in line 9 either. Nor would Augustus and Agrippa have referred to a Roman governor as 0 E7T/. TijS E7Tapx€{as. It is here suggested that the Roman government proceeded to restore and protect the sacred and public property of Greek cities after the civil wars by reviving something like the ancient Roman institution of the praefectura municipalis through the appointment usually perhaps of a local polites as a praefectus iure dicundo. The cautious Augustus surely did not neglect appearances and did not present a remedy unprecedented in republican history. For Romans it was a praefectura municipalis;4 for Greeks it was anything traditional 3 K. M. T. Atkinson, "Restitutio in integrum and iussum Augusti Caesaris in an inscription at Leyden," RIDA 7 (1960) 227-272. 'A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford 1939) 41; E. Manni, Per la storia dei municipii alia Guerra Socia Ie (Rome 1947) Ch. III; E. Sachers, RE 22 (1954) colI. 2349-51 and 2387-90, s.w. "Praefectura" and "Praefectus iure dicundo." 5-G•R •B•S• 120 MAIN PROBLEM OF THE AUGUSTUS INSCRIPTION FROM CYME they wanted to call it. The phrase O!) av £-1T!. Tfj!) brapx£ia!) V leaves the local title open, although the title in a Roman code or correspondence could be praefectus. This official had iurisdictio but no imperium. In the Pergamene Astynomic Law,5 a Hellenistic code engraved in the Trajanic-Hadrianic Period, there occurs an interesting title, o E7T!. -rij!) 7T6AE"W!). If the astynomoi do not see to it that the streets are kept clean, they shall be fined imo -rwv u-rpa77JYwv Ka!. -rov E7T!. -rij!) 7T6AE"W!) (line 69). At Athens there are ten, at Sparta two inscriptions which mention the office of the epimelete of the city.6 The Athenian inscriptions run from the Augustan through the Hadrianic Period, and the personages are recognizable as among the most distinguished Athenians. One is the millionaire Tib. Claudius Novius;7 another is the hierophantB Tib. Claudius Oenophilus, who had connections with a senatorial family ofItaly and Gau1.9 Another has his name prominently engraved below an epistle of Hadrian fixing market prices,lO because this copy 6 The inscription should be consulted in the edition of G. Klaffenbach. "Die Astyno· meninschrift von Pergamon," Abh. d. Deutschen Akad. Wiss. ZU Berlin (Kl. fUr Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst) 1953, Nr. 6. See further J. H. Oliver, "The Date of the Pergamene Astynomic Law," Hesperia 24 (1955) 88-92 and G. Klaffenbach, "Varia Epigraphica," Abh. Berlin 1958, Nr. 2, pp. 24f. Oliver believes that Klaffenbach's restoration of line 60 appears three letters too short on the photograph when you place a ruler vertically through the first visible letter of line 60 and compare the restoration of lines 59 and 61 ; in Oliver's but not in Klaffenbach's opinion one should add the word a€l. Another disagreement exists about the proper treatment of the phrase which Klaffenbach in line 17 edits as TO a£ {,\ot1TOV} a,&tPopov. Oliver will not accept this solution, nor will Klaffenbach accept Oliver's solution TO a' ;'\opov in line 17. Since 1955 a third change has come to seem necessary. In line 192 Oliver would read