The 'Piracy Law' from Delphi and the Law of the Cnidos Inscription Sumner, G V Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 3; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 211

The 'Piracy Law' from Delphi and 
the Law of the Cnidos Inscription 

G. v. Sumner 

I N A MAJOR ARTICLE which appeared in 19741 Mark Hassall, Michael 
Crawford and Joyce Reynolds (hereafter "H-C-R") published the 
text of a recently discovered inscription from Cnidos2 together 

with a revision of the related Delphic inscription commonly known 
as the 'Piracy Law'.3 In discussing these texts they worked from the 
hypothesis that the Roman law inscribed in Greek translation on the 
monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi (Law D) and the Roman 
law inscribed in Greek translation on the Cnidos inscription (Law K) 
are identical. They conceded that there are important differences 
between the two inscriptions. In order to maintain the view that 
what is inscribed at each place represents one and the same law, they 
were forced to assume that "we have two different translations."4 
They did not mention, but no doubt had in mind, a well-known 
feature of Roman lawmaking summed up in the word tralaticius: 
Roman legislators in framing their drafts of laws were in the habit of 
repeating whole sections from previous enactments.s The close 
resemblance, then, of parts of Law D to parts of Law K is not, ipso 
facto, conclusive proof that Laws D and K are identical. It is necessary 
to decide whether the admitted differences between the two inscrip­
tions are compatible with the proposition that Laws D and K can be 
identified as a single law. 

There are two major obstacles to the identification, and these are 
to some extent recognized by H-C-R.6 (1) "There are large areas of 
text at Cnidos to which nothing corresponds at Delphi and vice versa." 

1 "Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the Second Century B.C.," jRS 64 (1974) 
195-220. 

2 AJA 76 {1972} 64f. 

3 Fouilles de Delphes IlI.iv no.37 (G. Colin); S. Riccobono, FIR A 2 I no.9 (lex de piratis per­
sequendis). 

4 Art.cit. (supra n.1) 199. 

5 Cf Cic. Att. 3.23.2ff; Rab.Post. 4 (on the lex Iulia de repetundis) sin hoc totidem verbis trans­
latum caput est, quot fuit non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia . .. 

• Art.cit. (supra n.1) 198-200. 

211 



212 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPHI 

They correctly point out that not all of these non-correspondences 
are significant, but they are left facing the difficulty of the third block 
of the Delphi inscription, block C. This begins with a fragmentary 
clause apparently corresponding to the end of Cnidos column IV and 
the lost upper part of Cnidos column V. Then follows "the notorious 
iusiurandum in legem." There is no trace of this at Cnidos, "but we 
reckon that almost all of what appears on Delphi block C could have 
been inscribed on the lost area of Cnidos column V." Delphi block C 
ends with" arrangements for the prosecution of those who break the 
provisions of the iusiurandum in legem; the content of Cnidos column 
V is not absolutely clear, but it is certainly concerned with trial pro­
cedure, and it is therefore a reasonable conjecture that its content 
may have followed what we have at Delphi." This perhaps does not 
bring out sharply enough the essential problem of Delphi block C, 
which is that it does not have the concluding clauses of Law K. The 
economy of the inscription at Delphi is that it was wholly contained 
within the three blocks A, B and c.' So the concluding part of Law K 
cannot have been inscribed at Delphi. H-C-R's defence to this diffi­
culty is tucked away in a footnote 8 and hardly stands up to repetition, 
let alone examination: "the part omitted relates to details of pro­
cedure for trials: Delphi had much more experience in inscribing 
Roman documents and doubtless saw little point in inscribing all 
this." Clearly, unless a reasonable explanation can be found for the 
omission of the concluding clauses as they appear in Cnidos column V, 
we have here a formidable obstacle to identification of Law D with 
LawK. 

A comparable problem, which H-C-R do not discuss, arises over 
the beginning of Delphi block A. In their reconstruction (which there 
is no reason to dispute) Cnidos column I and the upper half (missing) 
of Column II cannot have been inscribed at Delphi. Nothing legible 
survives of Cnidos column I, but it is clear that the inscribed text did 
not occupy the whole column: "the text is not continuous with that 
on columns II-V, though it may be related to it."9 In my opinion it is 
probable that Cnidos column I carried the letter which the senior 

7 There were inscribed blocks immediately above A, and one inscribed block immediately 
below C: thus no space for the inscription of Law D to extend before or after what appeared 
on blocks A-C (cf Fouilles de Delphes ill.iv 35, 70, 86f; H. Stuart Jones,JRS 16 (1926) 155-58; 
H-C-R, art.cit. [supra n.1] 198 n.5). 

8 Art.cit. (supra n.1) 200 n.ll. 
'Ibid. 195. 



G. V. SUMNER 213 

consul was instructed to send to demoi and politeiai " ... so that the 
citizens of Rome and the Allies and Latins and those of the external 
nations who are in the friendship of the Roman People may be able 
to sail the seas in safety; and that Cilicia has for this reason been made 
a praetorian province in accordance with this law" (Cnidos III 28-37, 
cf Delphi B 5-8).10 The missing upper half ofCnidos column II (which 
H-C-R estimate, perhaps over-generously, at about 60 lines) must 
have contained the preamble of the law,ll but should also have carried 
the letter which the governor of Asia was instructed to send to the 
communities (Sc. of his province) along with the text of the law 
(Delphi B 20ff, cf. Cnidos II 1-4). If this reconstruction is correct, we 
can see an explanation for the absence of the letter of the governor of 
Asia from the Delphi inscription: Delphi was no concern of that 
governor's. The absence of the consul's letter, which is certainly 
referred to at Delphi (B 5-8), is not so easy to explain away. Moreover, 
the assumption that all that is missing from Delphi is the preamble 
of the law and the letters from the consul and the governor is the 
most favourable hypothesis for the identification of Delphi and 
Cnidos. If the missing part of Cnidos column II really contained 
additional parts of the law besides the preamble, the difference be­
tween Cnidos and Delphi would become so great that the identifica­
tion of Law D and Law K would be harder to sustain. 

(2) The second major obstacle to identification lies in the phenom­
enon of two independent translations: "where the documents overlap 
the language is different in many respects."12 H-C-R are unable to 
produce any examples, let alone any Republican examples, to confute 
the usual opinion13 that such a document would be translated in 
Rome by public officials in the state archive when it was to be pub­
lished in Greek for the information of provincials in the East. They 
are compelled to resort to a desperate sort of special pleading. "If a 
governor's letter could be composed in Greek, why could not the law 
from Cnidos be translated in Asia?" "Some evidence suggests that 

10 I am grateful to the editor, Professor Willis, and to Professor J. H. Oliver for alerting 
me to the fact that H-C-R's reading in III 30-31, TOV 8fi I P.OV TOV ·Pwp.aLwv K.T.'\., is incorrect. 
Examining again H-C-R's photograph (pI. XIII), I believe that one might read a reference to 
vwvwv MaLwv instead of TOV ·Pwp.aLwv. However, we must await Professor Oliver's publica­
tion of his own reading. 

11 This was already deduced by Stuart Jones, without benefit of knOWing the Cnidos 
text (an. cit. [supra n.7] 158). 

12 Art.cit. (supra n.l) 199. 
13 Cf R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969) 13, 18f. 



214 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPI-ll 

both the Delphi and the Cnidos texts were prepared by Greeks (see 
p.210 on the misunderstanding by both translators of sc. dolo malo) 
though it is a paradox that the Greek seems sometimes so inept."14 
Expressed differently-the translators, whether Latin or Greek was 
their first language, encountered difficulty in rendering certain ex­
pressions from lawmaker's Latin into Greek idiom. Nothing here 
tells us who they were, or whether they did or did not do the work of 
translation in Rome.lO 

There is a curious aspect of the translation of the law inscribed at 
Delphi. The law contained provision for the sending-out of copies of 
itself. But the sending was required to be done only by the governor 
of Asia, and the distribution was presumably to be only to the cities 
and communities of his province (8 20-23). There is absolutely no 
provision in the law for the setting-up of a copy at Delphi. We seem 
to need a special reason for the existence of the Delphi version. At 
the same time we need explanations for the independence of the 
Delphi translation and for the absence of the preliminaries and the 
concluding section of the law from the Delphi version. Only then 
might we be justified in assuming the identity of the Delphic and 
Cnidian laws. 

At this stage it becomes imperative to look into the question of 
the dating of the law or laws. The two inscriptions have, on 
the one hand, material that is common to both and, on the other, 
material that is unique to one of them. I shall discuss first the 

u. Art.cit. (supra n.1) 200. Their discussion of the translation of sc(iens) dolo malo (ibid. 210) 
leaves something to be desired. H-C-R suppose that the Delphi translation misunderstood 
the Latin phrase at C 10, 15 and 16 but understood it correctly at C 21, and that the Cnidos 
translation misunderstood it at III 15 but understood it correctly at III 8-9 and possibly at 
II 6 (if a negative can be supplied). They suppose that the translators sometimes took sc. 
in the Latin phrase as s(in)e instead of sciens. This of course leaves us wondering why the 
translators sometimes took it the right way. The Delphi translation gives av£v 3&'Aov 
1TOVTJpOV three times (C 10, 15, 16) and 3&'Aw, 1TOVTJ"wL once (C 21). The simple explanation 
for this variation is that it is due to the presence or absence of a negative in the surrounding 
expression. The Cnidos translation gives av£v M'Aov 7rovTJpov at II 6, £l3wc 3&'AWL 7rOVTJpWL at 
III 8-9, and £l8wc av£v 8&'Aov 7roV'T]pov at III 15. The presence or absence of a negative in the 
context again is probably sufficient explanation of the variations. (At III 15 the negative 
idea in I(WAvl.TW [= ne sinat?] is continued from ,.,.~ 1Tpoayl.Tw in III l3. H-C-R resort to the 
extraordinary notion that "he has apparently had a marginal note to say that sc. is to be 
read as sciens, but has translated both sciens and s(in)e.") 

16 Since Cnidos appears to give a complete version while Delphi does not, we should not 
discount the possibility that the Delphi translation was made locally; whereas the Cnidos 
version ought to be the official translation sent out from Rome. 



G. V. SUMNER 

common material, then the unique material. 

(1) Delphi B 5 and Cnidos III 28f: 

215 

ii]7T<XTOe, ~e av TTpwToe y'v'l') [Tca, ypaJLJL]aTa TTpoe Tove 8"JLove TT[oALT€lae T€ .••• ] 

and 
fI • _ , , I" <;" \ ' () VTTaToe 0 TTpWToe yevoJL€Voe ypaJLJLaTa TTpoe Tove o'l')JLove TTOI\LT€Lae T€ etc. 

The Delphi version shows clearly that the Latin original read some­
thing like consul qui prior factus sit.16 The reference is to a consul not 
yet elected, not yet known. Therefore not the prior (maior) consul of 
100, C. Marius, who is known in B 20 (to be discussed below). It must 
refer to the man who will be prior consul in 99 (M. Antonius, as it 
happensI7). This is especially apt in that the consular elections for 99 

were interrupted on or about 9 December 100 by the murder of one 
of the candidates, C. Memmius, and on 10 December another candi­
date, C. Servilius Glaucia, was killed.18 It is a reasonable assumption 
that the final elections were delayed at least till late December. It 
would have been absurd for the law to give the responsibility for 
taking required action, not to one of the consuls in office in 100 but 
to his successor, if the law had been passed in the early or middle part 
of the year. It does make ample sense, however, if the law was pro­
posed not far from year's end, that the prior consul of 99, holding the 
fasces in January, should be the one to take the action prescribed by 
the law. In a normal year it would have been known before late 
December who the future consuls were. But not in the year 
100.19 

These texts show that the law was (or the laws were) not earlier 
than late 100, nor later than early 99. The narrowness of the period in 
question is in fact a potent argument for regarding Law D and Law K 
as identical, since it is difficult to imagine any reason why two similar 

16 Cf Festus 154 L. The Latin translation printed in FIRA2 I p.122 is consul qui primus 
electus sit. I see no way the Greek can be regarded as a translation of consul qui fasces habebit. 
H-C-R's note on this (art.cit. [supra n.1] 211) is confused and hard to follow. 

17 This is inferred from his being named before his colleague in consular lists (T. R. S. 
Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic II [New York 1952] 1); see T. R. S. Broughton 
and L. R. Taylor, Historia 17 (1968) 167. 

18 App. BCiv. 1.32.142-45; see R. Seager, CR 17 (1967) 9f, for a sufficient defence of Appian's 
chronology. 

19 It is true that it was already clear as a result of the interrupted election on or about 9 
December that M. Antonius would head the poll (App. BCiv. 1.32.142), but this obviously 
was not something that the lawmaker could include in his law. 



216 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPHI 

laws would have been passed within the space of a couple of months. 

(2) Delphi B 6 and Cnidos TIl 31-33: 

and 
" \ I \ , 'p , \ \ , A I ' ~" WeT€ Tove 1TOl\tTCXe WP.CXtWV KCXt Tove evp.p.cxxove cx Twove T€ TWV T€ €KTOe 

l8vwv (etc.) 

The Cnidos text shows that the reference here is to the formula socii 
et nominis Latini, the Italian Allies and the Latins.20 Such a reference 
would be inappropriate after 91 B.C. The way the formula is handled 
at Delphi is somewhat odd. £K Tfje 'ITcxALae is a gloss to explain the 
particular sense of socii as the Italian Allies, and the Latins are not dis­
tinguished from them by'TE. The suspicion is that at the time when 
the Delphi translation was made the phrase socii nominis Latini (or 
socii et nominis Latini) was no longer thoroughly familiar: i.e., this 
translation was made a long time after the phrase was rendered 
obsolete by the settlement of the Bellum Italicum, though the text 
itself predated that war by a decade. 

(3) Delphi B 7 and Cnidos TIl 35-37: 

I 17\' ~\ I '" [ T7JV T€ n.tI\LKLCXV aLa TavTae Tcxe atTtae 

and 

T7}V T€ KtALIK{CXV SUI TOVrO TO 1Tpayp.a KaTa Toihov TOV v61p.ov brapx€tav 

eTpaTTJYLK~V 1T€1ToL7JKEvaL (etc.) 

Cilicia was certainly a praetorian provincia by the time of Sulla's 
praetorship (De Vir.Ill. 75), for which 93 is the latest acceptable date; 
I believe a case can be made for 95.21 It should be added that Cilicia 
had already come into view as a potential praetorian province through 
the command ofM. Antonius against the pirates, 102-100.22 The first 
praetor of Cilida under the terms of our law would most likely be a 
praetor of 100 going out either in that year or as promagistrate in 99. 

20 H-C-R (art.cit. [supra n.l] 207) mistranslate TOiJC CVfLfLaxovc AaTlvovc TE (III 32f) as "the 
Latin allies." It is probable that in II 7f [oi] n ~V[p.fL]9!X!lf ovofLaT[o]~ AaTlvov represents the 
formula socii nominis Latini, with the same meaning as socii et nominis Latini (cf Livy 21.55.4, 
38.35.9). 

21 "Sulla's Career in the Nineties," forthcoming in Athenaeum. See also A. N. Sherwin­
White, CQ 27 (1977) 182. 

22 Cic. De Or. 1.82; Liv. Per. 68; Jul.Obseq. 44, a. 652/102; cf ILLRP II p.342: MRR I 568ff. 



G. V. SUMNER 217 

This is a passage which again makes it difficult to believe that there 
are two laws, since they would have to be extremely close together in 
time. 

(4) Delphi B 8f and Cnidos III 38-41: 

Kat. 7T[p]OC Tall {3aoMa Tall Ell [Til lI]7}cctJ KV7TPWt {3actA€voIlTIX Kat 7TPOC TOll 
{3aoA[€a TOll Ell )lAtE] Igallop€tat Kat. Alyv[7TTWt {3aO'\€VOIlTIX Kat 7TpOC TOll {3aoMa 
TOll Ell KV]fJ77l1'l7 {3aCt'\€VOIlTa Kat 7Tp [Oc] TOVC {3actA€'ic TOVC Ell Evptat (3aG'\€voll [Tac, 
o lc mxct] (etc.) 

and 

OjJ-OLWC T€ 7TpOC Tall {3an'\€a Tall Ell KV'FP.[M] OtlaKaT€XOllTIX Kat {3aGMa Tall Ell 
.:4A€~~!,§p.;1 at Kat AlYV7TTwt {3aGA€VOIlTa Kat 7TPOC [{3]actMI a Tall E7Tt KVfJ77l17Jt 
{3aOA€VOIlTa Kat 7TPOC {3act -

The mention of the king ruling in Cyrene produces a terminus ante 
quem of 96 B.C.23 H-C-R claim that Cnidos "in describing the King 
of Cyprus as OLaKaT€XWII displays a precise awareness (unlike Delphi) 
of an abnormal situation in Cyprus, which fits only, within this general 
period, 104/3 to 101/0 B.C."24 They do not explain what Latin phrase 
they suppose Cnidos to be translating. Elsewhere in these texts 
OLaKa'T€X€tv (with E7TapX€Lav) represents obtinere provinciam.25 If the 
original Latin read something like ad regem qui insulam Cyprum obtinet 
(or tenet), it is not inconceivable that this might be rendered by the 
two different phrases found at Cnidos and Delphi, especially if the 
Delphic version was translated at a later time when the reason for 
avoiding the natural ad regem qui in Cypro regnat was no longer ap­
parent. In that case it would not be necessary to assume that special 
local knowledge influenced the translation in the Cnidos text-an 
awkward assumption to have to make since it would imply that the 
translation was either done in Asia or interfered with in Asia. The 
situation in Cyprus is somewhat confused during this period. Ptolemy 
IX (Soter II) was chased from Alexandria in autumn of 107 and fled to 
Cyprus but passed straight to Syria. Later he returned to conquer 
Cyprus, which he again left in 103 in an attempt to take over Coele­
Syria followed by an abortive effort in 102 to take back Egypt from his 
younger brother Ptolemy X (Alexander I). From then on he remained 

23 Liv. Per. 70; Jul.Obseq. 49, a. 658/96. 
24 Art.cit. (supra n.1) 198. 

25 1115, r~v M[aK€]8ovlac E1Tapxdav 8,aKar£xovra: III 22f, r~v J1clav E1Tapxdav 8,aKar£xwv: 

III 24 and B 4 (restored). 



218 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPHI 

ensconced in Cyprus, and the separation of the Cypriot and Egyptian 
kingdoms lasted until 88.26 H-C-R (following information from o. 
M0rkholm) believe that it was not until 100/99 that coinage began to 
be struck for Ptolemy IX by Cypriot mints.27 This might suggest that 
up to then Ptolemy IX did not accept that he was just king of the 
"kingdom" of Cyprus. Thus "the king who holds Cyprus" would be a 
fitting and diplomatic way for the Romans to describe the situation 
about 100 B.C. The fact that the translation found in the Delphi in­
scription fails to respect this subtlety seems best explained by the 
assumption that the translation was done much later. 28 

Finally, the reference to "the kings ruling in Syria" corresponds 
well to the situation in the period of some twenty years up to the 
murder of Antiochus VITI Grypos in 96 and of his rival Antiochus IX in 
95.29 

(5) Delphi B 27-29 and Cnidos IV 6-11: 

.E'Tp[a'T7JYoc aV'T£c'Tpa'T7}Yoc 1} av8J]7Ta'TOc. ot'TWEC lCa'T~ 'TOVTO[V] I 'TOV VO/Lov. Ei'TE 

S~/LOV yvw/L7J Ei7J{£} [Ei'TE VO/Loc. 1} lCa'T~(?) CvyICA~'TOV SOY/La £V Ma]ICESovla£ 
£7TapXElav EgE£. Ev[8vc 7TpOC XEPCOV7Jcov KawE]£~v. 7]c Tl'TOC LldS£oc ?jYOV/LEVO[c] 
I £Kpa'T7}cEV. 7TOPEV(J~'TW· 

and 

.E'TP~171[YOC aV'T£c'Tpa]'T7}Yoc av86rra'Toc OC 'TE &[v] IIf~r~ ['TOVTOV 'TOV v]O/LOV 1} 
ifJ~4>LCILa 1} CvyICA~'TOV Sol [YILa MaICESovt]~ £7TaPXElav S£alCa'TEX7J£ S£alCalUI e[7J£ 
Ev8v]c [Elc] XEpCOV7Jcov KawE£K~v 'TE ~v Tll'To[c LlElS£oc] 7TOAE/LWV 8oplK'T7}'TOV 
tAa{3Ev 7TO I [pEVEC8]'P· 

T. Didius (or Deidius) was tribune of the plebs in 103,30 and after 
holding the praetorship and propraetorship or proconsulship of 
Macedonia, attained the consulship of 98.31 It is virtually certain that 
he was praetor in 101, propraetor or proconsul of Macedonia in 100.32 
It is noticeable that Didius is not given his title (avTLcTpch1]Yoc or 

28 E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellbtistique II (Nancy 1967) 370, cf 376f. 
27 Art.cit. (supra n.l) 198 n.4. 
28 We have already seen from B 5 that the law of the Delphi inscription cannot be later 

than early 99. Hence it could only be the translation that was later. 
29 Cf Stuart Jones, art.cit. (supra n.7) 162f, 164; E. Will, op.cit. (supra n.26) II 374f. 
80 Cic. De Or. 2.197; MRR I 563. 
31 MRR I 571ff, II 3, 4. 
82 Broughton (MRR II 3, 4 n.ll) thinks that he may have continued as governor into 99 

(citing the Delphi inscription). The subsequent discussion, however, will show that Didius 
probably ended his governorship in 100. 



G. V. SUMNER 219 

aV(}V7TlXTOC )33 in either inscription. We can surely infer from this that 
he was no longer governor of Macedonia. It is consequently un­
reasonable to date these references to him to the year 101 or even 
early 100.34 A date in the later months of 100 (or even early in 99) is 
indicated. 

It should also be noted that the "praetor or propraetor or pro­
consul" of Macedonia here referred to is probably the first person to 
have the province following Didius' conquest of the Caineic Cherso­
nese in eastern Thrace; he is to go directly to the Chersonese. Delphi 
seems to put his tenure in the future (EgEt = obtinebit35 ). But Cnidos is 
not so clear-Oc TE av . . . tJtlXKlXT'XYft StlXKaO,gT}t. This probably repre­
sents quicumque . .. obtinet obtinebit, and has to cover both the first and 
the subsequent successors (in IV 11ff). The Delphi translation may 
have simplified the formula. At any rate the date to which these 
phrases first apply is after the end of Did ius' tenure in Macedonia and 
either before or after the beginning of his successor's. 

As in the case of Cilicia-..:..see (3) above, on B 7 and III 35-37-the fact 
that both inscriptions imply reference to Didius' immediate successor 
is a strong point in favour of the identity of Law D and Law K. 

(6) Cnidos III 4-6: 

~6A n I [ ] I TT I \ , I \, A I I I n.. f3 I lVlapKOC • 0 PKLOC .na'TWV C'Tpa'T'T)Yoc €lfuPq;Cf 7TpO 'T)/-L€PWV Y vwv WV 'V€ paLwv 

EKT9~ rii~ [EhT~px€{ac (etc.) 

H-C-R think that the date 3 February perhaps "relates to action 
by M. Porcius Cato. "36 That is difficult to decide because of the un­
intelligibility of the context.37 Certainly EXVPWCE could not refer to 
legislative action by the praetor (as in III 17, 0 SfjJ.LoC KVpWCn), because 
a.d. iii non. Febr. is a dies nefastus in the Roman calendar.3s 

33 It is impossible to tell from our inscriptions which title the governor of Macedonia 
would have borne at this time: II 14f, B 27 (restored), IV 6, show the two titles as alterna­
tives, but IV 26 gives only av8V1Taroc (cf C 8 [restored]). 

34 As H-C-R, art.cit. (supra n.1) 218, in the wake ofG. Colin, BCH 48 (1924) 63, and Fouilles 

de Delphes IlI.iv 47-50. They make the riddling statement that the Cnidos text falls between 
the conquests of T. Didius and 101/0. 

35 So translated in FIRA2 I p.126. 
36 Art.cit. (supra n.1) 210. 
37 £KT9~ Tiif [€1<7~pxdac in line 6 makes no sense and must be considered a dubious 

reading. 
88 Cf ILLRP 12 p.26. 



220 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPI-ll 

The praetor M. Porcius39 Cato is to be identified with the son of the 
person known to Gellius as M. Cato Nepos, who was consul in 118: 
is sans vehemens orator fuit multasque orationes ad exemplum avi scriptas 
reliquit et consul cum Q. Marcio Rege fUit inque eo consulatu in Africam 
profectus in ea provincia mortem obit.40 Of the son, our Cato here, Gellius 
writes: cum aedilis curulis et praetor fuisset, in Galliam Narbonensem pro­
fectus ibi vita functus est. 41 As Gellius notes, he must be distinguished 
from his namesake and contemporary the father of Cato Uticensis, 
who did not reach the praetorship: tribunus plebis fUit et praeturam 
petens mortem obiit.42 The latter's tribunate is dated to 99.43 The date 
of his cousin's praetorship, previously put about 92,44 can now be 
moved to ca 100. 

(7) Delphi B 20-22: 

~ [\' 8 I I ( ;.) ]' 'II I, I r. I "'Tpa:r 7JYOC av V1TaTOC T£ . . ............... £ 'c .nnav £7TapXHav. a,w, 
Maplw, Ka~ A£VKlw, OvaA£plw, V[mho,c]. E1Ta[px]£la E[y£1Iv£TO. ypap,p,aTa 

.. H-C-R print the nomen as I! ( . . e. 6 .. ) in their edition of the text. 1)0 (.e. 5 .. ) seems 
readable on the photograph (art.cit. [supra n.1] pl.xm). In any case the praenomen 'Markos' 
and the cognomen 'Katon' make 'Porkios' the only conceivable reading ('OcTlA'OC is im­
possible). 

'0 Gell. NA 13.20.10. 
'1 Ibid. 12. This is RE Porcius no.lI. 
u Ibid. 14. This is RE Porcius no. 12. The relevant part of the stemma is as follows: 

M. CATO, cos. 195, died 149 (born 234) 

(1) j' LICINIA (2) mi' SALOMA 

M. CATO LICINIANUS 
pr.dcsig. 152, died 
(born by 191) 

I 
M. CATO NEPOS 
COS. 118, died 118 
or 1171 (born by 161) 

I 
M. CATO 
aed.cur., pro ca 100, 
died in Gall. Narb. 
(born by ea 140) 

M. CATO SALONIANUS 
?died as praetor (Plut. 
Cat.Mai. 27.5, possibly 
by confusion) 

M. CATO 
tr.pI. 99, died as pr.cand. 

I 
M. CATO (UncENsIS) 
pro 54 (born 95) 

U MRR n 2; R. Seager,loe.cit. (supra n.1S), has refuted E. Gabba's attempt to redate the 
tribunes Furius, Pompeius and Cato to 100 (in his commentary on App. BCiv. I [ed. 2, 
Firenze 1967] 32.142-33.147). 

"MRR II IS. The curule aedileship will go from ea 94 (ibid. 13) to ea 103. 



G. V. SUMNER 221 

7Tpoe roVe 8'1fLo [ve 7ToAtnlae n(?) EvOve(?) (XTTOerEtAarw Kat 7Tpoe] roVe 

f3aetAE'ic rovc €7T(XVW YEypafLfL€VOVe, <>fLolw[e 8€ 7Tpoe ove K]at <> V7Taroe Kar[u] 

rovrov rov VOfLoV ypacpEtV Ka[Owe (XV avrcf> 80Kfj KaAwe EXEtV &gu.oeEt. 

H-C-R's restoration here in B 20, erpar[7]'Y(Je aVTLerpaT7]'Yoe 7J 
&v(Jv7Taroc, cprwL E]lc, is uncertain. It is not supported by Cnidos III 22, 

where the governor of Asia is styled eTpaT7]yoe av8V7TaTCJc T€, nor by 
Delphi C 8, where there is no room for aVTLCTpaT7]Yoc (see below on 
this text). It does have the merit of filling the space available almost 
exactly, and the oddity of expression in the relative clause introduced 
by CPTLVL would not be abnormal for these texts. However, it may be 

P d t t t [ " () I I ]' more ru en 0 res ore CTpaT 7]')'OC av V7TaTOC T€ ............. € LC 

and abstain from guessing about the missing letters, except that it 
should be legitimate to insert some form of relative pronoun (e.g. 
tin or clJLTLVL). 

H-C-R think the beginning of the sentence represents the follow­
ing Latin :45 praetor prove praetore prove consule qui in Asiam provinciam 
C. Mario 1. Valerio coss. designatus est. They believe that the text points 
to a date in <Clate 101, after the elections of the Consuls for 100."46 But 
the idea that the dating by C. Mario 1. Valerio consulibus could have 
been set down in 101, the year preceding their consulship, seems most 
strange. H-C-R offer no parallel to this anticipatory use of a consular 
date. We surely have to take the date-reference at face value. The text 
is talking about the person who was allotted the province of Asia in 
100.47 

(8) Delphi C 8-9 

p [\'" 0' ..] " 'A ' "1\6 ~ " ", I [o"~' E']V ~7pa7 1]'Yoe 1] av v7Taroe, wtnvt 1] ~cta 1] lYlaKEoOVta E7TapXEta EC7tV, 0 

r, <;" A" .. " [' ~ ]" [~<;,' 1]fLEpate OEKa rate EyytCra, ate av yv wpteTJ rovrov r ov vOfLoV r WL 01]fLWL 

K€KVpW,OaL €]v rfjL €KKA1]ciaL, OfLVVETW on Dc' I (etc.) 

With regard to the opening phrase, the missing letters are only 
some eighteen. The restorationeTpaT[ry'Ydc ~ av()v7TaToc, ~LTLJIL] suffices, 

45 See the discussion by H-C-R, art.cit. (supra n.1) 210 ad loco Note that Stuart Jones (art. 
cit. [supra n.7] 160) was able to read V[1T(XTOLC] after the consuls' names in B 20. 

" Art.cit. (supra n.1) 218. 
'7 Cf F. T. Hinrichs, Hermes 98 (1970) 488 n.l. Theoretically £ylvETO could represent a 

future perfect (fuerit), so that at the time of drafting the law the allocation of praetorian 
provinces would still lie in the future. But the person who in the text under discussion is to 
take the specified action surely must be the incumbent governor of Asia, a praetor of 100, 
shortly to become a proconsul of 99. 



222 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPHI 

and it is a mistake to rectify the H accidental omission" of aV7'crpd.'T7}'Yoc 

as H-C-R do.48 

«The praetor or proconsul who has either Asia or Macedonia as 
province" is to swear the oath of obedience within ten days of learning 
of the passage of the law. At first sight this suggests that not only is 
there a governor of Asia in Asia at the time of promulgation of the 
law (see above on B 20) but there is a governor of Macedonia in 
Macedonia. If so, we should be able to settle the point left open in the 
discussion of B 27-29 and IV ~ 11 on whether Didius' successor had 
already taken possession of the province. But to have a province is not 
necessarily to be in occupation of it, so that the inference could not be 
pressed. 

(9) C 10-13: 

71pxoVTEc. o,nvEc I [vii]v Elcw EK:r6c 'TWV 8TJILd.pXWV Kat E7Tlt.pXWV. O~'TOl Ev 
., '[ ~ " T "] • ~- - " '" TJILEpalC 1TEV'TE 'TaLC EY'YlC'Ta aLC av 0 OTJILOC 'TOV'TOV 'TOV VOILOV KVPWC!1. OCOl \ I [ -] , ,-/: '\', "'" r, I A JI ILE'Ta TaV'T a apXTJv ESOVCl EKTOC E1Tapxwv. OVTOl €V TJILEpalC 1TEVTE 'TaLC EY'YlC'Ta 

[ • , T "] • \ • \., '" • - • 'P' [ I ., ] OlLoca'TW. aLC a v HC 'T'T'JV apX7Jv UCETal. OlTlVEC 'TE aV'TWV €V WIL TI HCW· 

It is striking, and deserves to be emphasized, that this law, in im­
posing an oath, does not impose it on Senators, as did the Lex Appuleia 
Agraria of Saturninus49 and the Lex Latina of the Tabula Bantina.50 
This is surely a very significant difference, which renders dubious the 
common assumption that our present law is the work of Saturninus 
or one of his political allies (Servilius Glaucia, according to H-C-R 51). 
«'Popularis' the law undoubtedly is," declare H-C-R. Their reasons 
for thinking so are flimsy.52 Per contra, the position and authority 

"An.cit. (supra n.l) 215 ad loco 
U App. BCiv 1.29-31. 
60 FIRAs I no.6. p.84. 
51 Art.cit. (supra n.l) 219. The Fragmentum Tarentinum (Epigraphica 9 [1947] 3ff, revised 

by G. Tibiletti. Athenaeum 31 [1953] 38ff). has an oath for magistrates but apparently not 
for Senators (lines 20-23). so that in this respect it resembles our present law. Unfortunately, 
there is no consensus. and probably no chance of reaching one, about the character and 
authorship of the Tarentum fragment (identified with the Lex Servilia Caepionis by Tibiletti 
[an.cit.]. the Lex Servilia Glauciae by H. B. Mattingly. the Gracchan Lex Repetundarum by 
Sherwin-White [seeJRS 59 (1969) 129ff.60 (1970) 154ff. 62 (1972) 83ff]). 

52 An.cit. (supra n.l) 219: "the absence of any trace of senatorial legates in the settlement 
of the area conquered by T. Didius" (why should such legates be expected?); "the imposi­
tion of specific functions on a provincial governor"; "the existence of governors' according 
to this law"'; "the definition of the main powers and duties of a governor or quaestor"; 
"there is also the iusiurandum in legem, and the law undoubtedly smacks of satura. despite 
an overall concern with Rome's eastern provinces." It is difficult to see anything in this 



G. V. SUMNER 223 

of the Senate are fully recognised in the law, which probably grew 
out of a senatus consul tum. 53 

The exemption of tribunes of the plebs (the current ones, but not 
their successors) from taking the oath to the law cannot be satis­
factorily explained on the assumption that "all tribunes of the year 
were in its favour."54 It reflects a constitutional point, which is some­
what fortuitously known to us: viZ., the colleagues of the proposer 
of a law could not be bound to observe it. 55 This conforms with an 
assumption that would probably be made universally, i.e., the author 
or authors of the law were tribunes. If my inference that the law 
implies a December date is correct, we should assume that it was 
promulgated after 10 December when new tribunes took office, to 
be passed in January of the next year. 

To sum up, if, as appears likely, the laws of the Delphi and Cnidos 
inscriptions are versions of the same law, this law was promulgated 
shortly before the interrupted consular election was resumed in 
December 100. It was probably proposed by a member or members 
of the tribunician college of 99 (in office from 10 December 100 to 
9 December 99).56 

list that could not have formed part of a senatus consultum before being transmuted into a 
plebiscitum (see next note). The iusiurandum in legem imposed on magistrates was probably 
a traditional requirement, not a recent or radical innovation (Sherwin-White,JRS 62 [1972] 
92). 

53 III 12 (someone "is not to go except in accordance with a decree of the Senate"); B 14f 
(the consul is to make a relatio to the Senate, and the Senate is to decide as it thinks best 
according to the public interest and its own fides); B Isf (every magistrate and promagis­
trate is to see to the putting-into-effect of whatever the Senate decrees); IV 7f (!CIlTa [TOVTOII 

TOil II ]OfLOII Tj ifJ~rf)tcfLa Tj CVYKA~TOV /)o[YfLa, surely demonstrating that the present law emerged 
out of a senatus consultum); IV 28 (confirming a senatus consultum). 

5' Art.cit. (supra n.l) 215 n.16. 
55 Cic. Att. 3.23.4, Tac. Ann. l3.11; T. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht 13 (Leipzig 1887, 

repro Graz 1952) 291 n.3. 
56 A plaUSible candidate for authorship (or co-authorship) of the law is M. Porcius Cato, 

pro-Metellan tribune in 99 (MRR II 2: G. V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's Brutus [Toronto 
1973] 23, R-160), cousin of the M. Porcius Cato, praetor ca 100, mentioned in the Cnidian 
text. (See n.42 above). The text of the law of course presents the text of the promulgated 
version. If the law was passed in January 99, the name of the prior consul could now have 
been supplied in B S and III 28, for example, but no change was made, nor would one 
expect it. Conversely, the magistrates "who now are," who were to take the oath within 
five days of the passing of the law (C 10f), would not be the same people when the law was 
passed in January as those who were in office when the law was promulgated in December 
(except for quaestors). But this is immaterial. There would be no ambiguity and no diffi­
culty in applying the phrase "who now are" when the law was passed. 



224 THE 'PIRACY LAW' FROM DELPHI 

To the questions about the differences between the Cnidian and Del­
phic versions of the law, an answer has emerged in the course of the 
discussion. The law itself prescribes that copies of it should be set up 
in Asian cities (such as Cnidos), but does not order this for any others 
(such as Delphi). The Delphic version was made independently, as a 
fresh translation from the original Latin text, with certain omissions. 
Why would a separate translation be done, when there was in 
existence the official translation exemplified at Cnidos? There is only 
one sensible answer. It was done much later for the Delphi inscription, 
when the official version was no longer easy of access. Evidently it 
was less trouble to translate the text anew than to send someone to 
Asia to copy the translation from some monument there (if one 
could be found). The Latin text may have been got from the archives 
at Rome (which would presume that the original translation was not 
preserved with it). Or a copy may even have been in the private 
possession of a Roman noble. 

The hypothesis of a later inscription at Delphi helps to explain the 
omission of the final part of the law from the Delphi text. The section 
in question contained detailed arrangements for the composition of 
a court to try cases of non-payment of the fines imposed by the sanctio 
of the oath. In the post-Sullan period such provisions would certainly 
have been obsolete, and in these circumstances their omission pre­
sented no problem. Other obsolete material could not be easily 
weeded out. 

In default of clear knowledge of what was said in the abbreviated 
preamble to the Delphic document, speculation on the reason for 
republishing the law of 100/99 is rather hamstrung. The law is likely 
to have given some space to M. Antonius' triumph-earning activities 
in Cilicia and against the pirates (102-100), as it did to those of T. 
Didius in Macedonia-Thrace. It certainly gave M. Antonius a good 
deal to do as prior consul in 99. One might conjecture (purely exempli 
gratia) that the law was inscribed at Delphi at the time when his son 
M. Antonius Creticus was busy against the Mediterranean pirates a 
generation later (74-72/1).57 But there may be other no less plausible 
occasions for the inscription. 

What is the significance of the law? The date is obviously important. 
If it is true that the law was promulgated by conservative tribunes 

57 MRR II 101f, 108 n.2, 111, 117, 123. His presence in and around Greece in 73 is con­
firmed by SIGa 748 (Gytheum). 



G. V. SUMNER 225 

after the fall of Glaucia and Saturninus, we can at least agree with 
H-C-R 58 that it had nothing to do with the provision of a great 
command for c. Marius. The essential purpose is clearly stated in the 
new text (Cnidos II lOf) as it was in the old (Delphi B lOff): to secure 
the safety of the seas against the menace of the pirates. To this end 
Rome has, by this very law, created a new praetorian provincia, 
Cilicia (III 35-37). The arrangements about Macedonia are surely 
related. The troops that are not to be sent back to Macedonia (II 12fl) 
are probably needed for Cilicia. The bulk of the law is devoted to 
mobilizing resources and opinion in Roman Anatolia and the Levant 
to deal with the piracy problem. The new Thracian conquest of 
T. Didius in the Caeneic Chersonese (IV Sff) is not unrelated, for it 
must surely be relevant to control of the approaches to the Thracian 
Bosporus from the Black Sea coast. The whole tone of the document 
suggests an intent to reassure friends and subjects in the East that 
Rome regarded their protection and the security of the area as a pri­
mary concern. "The law itself both presupposes Roman recovery and 
is intended to aid it," as H-C-R59 justly observe. 

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 

June, 1978 

58 Art.cit. (supra n.l) 218. 

59 Ibid. 219. Much of what they write on this theme is to the point but is far better suited 
to the end of 100 than to their date, the end of 101. I am heavily indebted to Professor C. P. 
Jones for frequent interchange of views on the subject of this paper. (See now also A. 
Giovannini and E. Grzybek, MusHelv 35 [1978] 33ff, dating the law in 99.)