Chapter VII: Greek Europe (3)

Beyond the imperial frontier, between the mouths of the Danube and the Crimea, the Greek merchant had made few settlements on the coast; there were here only two Greek towns of note, both founded in remote times by Miletus, Tyra at the mouth of the river of the same name, the modern Dniester, and Olbia on the bay into which the Borysthenes (Dnieper) and the Hypanis (Bug) fall. The forlorn position of these Hellenes amidst the barbarians pressing around them, in the time of the Diadochi as well as during the earlier rule of the Roman republic, has already been described (iii. 297) {iii. 282.}. The emperors brought help. In the year 56, that is, in the exemplary beginning of Nero's government, Tyra was annexed to the province of Moesia. Of the more remote Olbia we possess a description from the age of Trajan;[210] the town was still bleeding from its old wounds; the wretched walls enclosed equally wretched houses, and the quarter then inhabited filled but a small portion of the old considerable city-circuit, of which individual towers that were left stood far off in the desolate plain; in the temples there was no statue of the gods which did not bear traces of the hands of the barbarians; the inhabitants had not forgotten their Hellenic character, but they dressed and fought after the manner of the Scythians, with whom they were daily in conflict. Just as often as by Greek names, they designated themselves by Scythian, _i.e._ by those of Sarmatian stocks akin to the Iranians;[211] in fact, in the royal house itself Sauromates was a common name. These towns were indebted doubtless for their very continued existence less to their own power than to the good-will or rather the self-interest of the natives. The tribes settled on this coast were neither in a position to carry on foreign trade from emporia of their own, nor could they dispense with it; in the Hellenic coast-towns they bought salt, articles of clothing and wine, and the more civilised princes protected in some measure the strangers against the attacks of the barbarians proper. The earlier rulers of Rome must have had scruples at undertaking the difficult protection of this remote settlement; nevertheless Pius, when the Scythians once more besieged them, sent to them Roman auxiliary troops, and compelled the barbarians to offer peace and furnish hostages. The town must have been incorporated directly with the empire by Severus, from whom onward Olbia struck coins with the image of the Roman rulers. As a matter of course this annexation extended only to the town-territories themselves, and it never was intended to bring the barbarian dwellers around Tyra and Olbia under the Roman sceptre. It has already been remarked (p. 239) that these towns were the first which, presumably under Alexander († 235), succumbed to the incipient Gothic invasion.

[Sidenote: Bosporus.]

[Sidenote: Asander.]

[Sidenote: Polemon.]

If the Greeks had but sparingly settled on the mainland to the north of the Black Sea, the great peninsula projecting from this coast, the Tauric Chersonesus--the modern Crimea--had for long been in great part in their hands. Separated by the mountains, which the Taurians occupied, the two centres of the Greek settlement upon it were, at the western end the Doric free town of Heraclea or Chersonesus (Sebastopol), at the eastern the principality of Panticapaeum or Bosporus (Kertch). King Mithradates had at the summit of his power united the two, and here established for himself a second northern empire (iii. 298), which then, after the collapse of his power, was left as the only remnant of it to his son and murderer Pharnaces. When the latter, after the war between Caesar and Pompeius, attempted to regain his father's dominion in Asia Minor, Caesar had vanquished him (iv. 439), and declared him to have forfeited also the Bosporan empire. In the meanwhile Asander, the governor left there by Pharnaces, had renounced allegiance to the king in the hope of acquiring the kingdom for himself by this service rendered to Caesar. When Pharnaces after his defeat returned to his Bosporan kingdom, he at first indeed repossessed himself of his capital, but ultimately was worsted, and fell bravely fighting in the last battle--as a soldier at least, not unequal to his father. The succession was contested between Asander, who was in fact master of the land, and Mithradates of Pergamus, an able officer of Caesar, whom the latter had invested with the Bosporan principality; both sought at the same time to lean for support on the dynasty heretofore ruling in the Bosporus and on the great Mithradates, inasmuch as Asander married Dynamis, the daughter of Pharnaces, while Mithradates, sprung from a Pergamene burgess-family, asserted that he was an illegitimate son of the great Mithradates Eupator--whether it was that this rumour determined the selection, or that it was put into circulation in order to justify it. As Caesar himself was called in the first instance to attend to more important tasks, arms decided between the legitimate and the illegitimate Caesarian, and once more in favour of the latter; Mithradates fell in combat, and Asander remained master in the Bosporus. In the outset--without doubt, because he had not the confirmation of the lord-paramount--he avoided assuming the name of king, and contented himself with the title of archon, borne by the older princes of Panticapaeum; but he soon procured, probably even from Caesar himself, the confirmation of his rule and the royal title.[212] At his death (737-738 U.C.) {17-16.} he left his kingdom to his wife Dynamis. So strong was still the power of hereditary succession and of the name of Mithradates, that both a certain Scribonianus, who first attempted to occupy Asander's place, and after him king Polemon of Pontus, to whom Augustus promised the Bosporan kingdom, conjoined with the taking up of the dominion a marriage-alliance with Dynamis; moreover, the former asserted that he was himself a grandson of Mithradates, while king Polemon, soon after the death of Dynamis, married a granddaughter of Antonius, and consequently a kinswoman of the imperial house. After his early death--he fell in conflict with the Aspurgiani on the Asiatic coast--his children under age did not succeed him; and even with his grandson of the same name, whom the emperor Gaius reinstated, notwithstanding his boyish age, in the year 38, into the two principalities of his father, the Bosporan kingdom did not long remain. In his place the emperor Claudius called a real or alleged descendant of Mithradates Eupator, and in this house, apparently, the principality thenceforth continued.[213]

[Sidenote: The Eupatorids.]

[Sidenote: Extent of the Bosporan rule.]

While in the Roman state elsewhere the dependent principality disappears after the end of the first dynasty, and from Trajan's time the principle of direct government is carried out through the whole extent of the Roman empire, the Bosporan kingdom subsisted under Roman supremacy down to the fourth century. It was only after the centre of gravity of the empire was shifted to Constantinople that this state became merged in the empire at large,[214] in order to be soon thereafter abandoned by it and to become, at least in greater part, the prey of the Huns.[215] The Bosporus, however, in reality was and continued to be more a town than a kingdom, and had more similarity with the town-districts of Tyra and Olbia than with the kingdoms of Cappadocia and Numidia. Here, too, the Romans protected only the Hellenic town Panticapaeum, and did not aim at enlargement of the bounds and subjugation of the interior any more than in Tyra and Olbia. To the domain of the prince of Panticapaeum belonged the Greek settlements of Theudosia on the peninsula itself, and Phanagoria (Taman) on the opposite Asiatic coast, but not Chersonesus[216]--or at least only somewhat as Athens belonged to the province of the governor of Achaia. The town had obtained autonomy from the Romans, and saw in the prince its immediate protector, not its sovereign; as a free town, too, in the imperial period, it never coined with the stamp either of king or emperor. On the mainland, not even the town which the Greeks called Tanais--a stirring emporium at the mouth of the Don, but hardly a Greek foundation--stood permanently under subjection to the Roman vassal-princes.[217] Of the more or less barbarian tribes on the peninsula itself, and on the European and Asiatic coast southward from Tanais, probably only the nearest stood in a fixed relation of dependence.[218]

[Sidenote: Military position of the Bosporus.]

The territory of Panticapaeum was too extensive and too important, especially for mercantile intercourse, to be left like Olbia and Tyra to the administration of changing municipal officials and a far distant governor; therefore it was entrusted to hereditary princes--a course further recommended by the circumstance that it might not seem advisable to transfer directly to the empire the relations which this region sustained to the surrounding tribes. The rulers of the Bosporan house, in spite of their Achaemenid pedigree and their Achaemenid mode of reckoning time, felt themselves thoroughly as Greek princes, and traced back their origin, after the good Hellenic fashion, to Herakles and the Eumolpids. The dependence of these Greeks on Rome--the royal in Panticapaeum, as the republican in Chersonesus--was implied in the nature of things, and they never thought of rising against the protecting arm of the empire; if once, under the emperor Claudius, the Roman troops had to march against an insubordinate prince of the Bosporus,[219] yet withal this region itself, amidst the fearful confusion in the middle of the third century, which especially affected it, never broke away from the empire even when it was falling to pieces.[220] The prosperous merchant-towns, permanently in need of military protection amidst a flux of barbaric peoples, held to Rome as the advanced posts to the main army. The garrison was doubtless chiefly raised in the land itself, and to create and manage it was beyond doubt the main task of the king of the Bosporus. The coins, which were struck on occasion of the investiture of such a king, exhibit doubtless the curule chair and the other honorary presents usual at such investiture, but also by their side shield, helmet, sword, battle-axe, and war-horse; it was no peaceful office which this prince undertook. The first of them, whom Augustus appointed, fell in conflict with the barbarians, and of his successors, _e.g._ king Sauromates, son of Rhoemetalces, fought in the first years of Severus with the Siracae and the Scythians--perhaps it was not quite without reason that he stamped his coins with the feats of Herakles. By sea, too, he had to be active, especially in keeping down the piracy which never ceased in the Black Sea (p. 242); that Sauromates likewise is credited with having brought the Taurians to order and chastised piracy. Roman troops, however, were also stationed in the peninsula, perhaps a division of the Pontic fleet, certainly a detachment of the Moesian army; their presence even in small numbers showed to the barbarians that the dreaded legionary stood behind these Greeks. In another way still the empire protected them; at least in the later period there were regularly paid from the imperial chest to the princes of the Bosporus sums of money, of which they stood in need, in so far as the buying off of the hostile incursions by stated annual payments probably became a standing practice here--in what was not directly territory of the empire--still earlier than elsewhere.[221]

[Sidenote: Position of this vassal-prince.]

That the centralisation of the government had its application also in reference to this prince, and he stood to the Roman Caesar on a footing not much different from that of the burgomaster of Athens, is in various ways apparent; it deserves mention that king Asander and the queen Dynamis struck gold coins with their name and their effigy, whereas king Polemon and his immediate successors, while retaining the right of coining gold, seeing that this territory as well as the adjoining barbarians were for long accustomed exclusively to gold currency, were induced to furnish their gold pieces with the name and the image of the reigning emperor. In like manner from Polemon's time the prince of this land was at the same time the chief priest for life of the emperor and of the imperial house. In other respects the administration and the court retained the forms introduced under Mithradates after the model of the Persian grand monarchy, although the chief secretary (ἀρχιγραμματεύς) and the chief chamberlain (ἀρχικοιτωνείτης) of the court of Panticapaeum stood related to the leading court-officers of the great kings, as the enemy of the Romans Mithradates Eupator to his descendant Tiberius Julius Eupator, who, on account of his claim to the Bosporan throne, appeared as a suitor at Rome at the bar of the emperor Pius.

[Sidenote: Trade and commerce in the Bosporus.]

This northern Greece remained valuable for the empire on account of its commercial relations. Though these at this epoch were doubtless less important than in earlier times,[222] yet the mercantile intercourse continued very lively. In the Augustan period the tribes of the steppes brought slaves and skins,[223] the merchants of civilisation articles of clothing, wine, and other luxuries to Tanais; in a still higher degree Phanagoria was the depôt for the exports of the natives, Panticapaeum for the imports of the Greeks. Those troubles in the Bosporus in the Claudian age were a severe blow for the merchants of Byzantium. That the Goths began their piratic voyages in the third century by pressing the Bosporan vessels to lend them involuntary aid, has been already mentioned (p. 244). It was doubtless in consequence of this traffic, indispensable for the barbarian neighbours themselves, that the citizens of Chersonesus maintained their ground even after the withdrawal of the Roman garrisons, and were able subsequently--when in Justinian's time the power of the empire once more asserted itself in this direction--to return as Greeks into the Greek empire.

Footnotes.

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

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

[148: The members of the college of the Ἀμφικτίονες, or, as they were called at this epoch, Ἀμφικτύονες, were appointed by the several towns in the way previously described, sometimes from time to time (iteration: _C. I. Gr._ 1058), sometimes for life (Plutarch, _An seni_, 10), which probably depended on whether the vote was constant or alternating (Wilamowitz). Its president was termed in earlier times ἐπιμελητὴς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων (Delphic inscriptions, _Rhein. Mus. N. F._ ii. 111; _C. I. Gr._ 1713), subsequently Ἑλλαδάρχης τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων (_C. I. Gr._ 1124).]

[149: The original bounds of the province are indicated by Strabo, xvii. 3, 25, p. 840, in the enumeration of the senatorial provinces: Ἀχαία μέχρι Θετταλίας καὶ Αἰτωλῶν καὶ Ἀκαρνάνων καὶ τινων Ἠπειρωτικῶν ἐθνῶν ὅσα τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ προσώριστο, in which case the remaining part of Epirus appears to be assigned to the province of Illyricum (reckoned here by Strabo--erroneously as regards his time--among the senatorial). To take μέχρι inclusively is--apart from considerations of fact--unsuitable for this very reason, because according to the closing words the regions previously named "are assigned to Macedonia." Subsequently we find the Aetolians annexed to Achaia (Ptolem. iii. 14). That Epirus also for a time belonged to it, is possible, not so much on account of the statement in Dio, liii. 12, which cannot be defended either for Augustus's time or for that of Dio, but because Tacitus on the year 17 (_Ann._ ii. 53) reckons Nicopolis to Achaia. But at least from the time of Trajan Epirus with Acarnania forms a procuratorial province of its own (Ptolem. iii. 13; _C. I. L._ iii. 536; Marquardt, _Staatsalth._ v. I, 331). Thessaly and all the country northward of Oeta constantly remained with Macedonia.]

[150: Nothing gives a clearer idea of the position of the Greeks in the last century of the Roman republic than the letter of one of these governors to the Achaean community of Dyme (_C. I. Gr._ 1543). Because this community had given to itself laws that ran counter to the freedom granted in general to the Greeks (ἡ ἀποδεδομένη κατὰ κοινὸν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐλευθερία) and to the organisation given by the Romans to the Achaeans (ἡ ἀποδοθεῖσα τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων πολιτεία; probably with the co-operation of Polybius, Pausan. viii. 30, 9), whereupon at all events tumults had arisen, the governor informs the community that he had caused the two ringleaders to be executed, and that a less guilty third person was exiled to Rome.]

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

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

[153: This is the κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν Εὐβοέων Λοκρῶν Φωκέων Δωριέων of the remarkable inscription probably set up shortly before the battle of Actium (_C. I. Att._ iii. 568). We cannot possibly with Dittenberger (_Arch. Zeitung_, 1876, p. 220) refer to this league the notice of Pausanias (vii. 16, 10), that the Romans "not many years" after the destruction of Corinth had compassion on the Hellenes, and had again allowed them the provincial unions (συνέδρια κατὰ ἔθνος ἑκάστοις τὰ ἀρχαῖα); this applies to the minor individual leagues.]

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

[155: In the republican period this district appears as τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων (Foucart on Lebas, ii. p. 110); Pausanias (iii. 21, 6) is therefore wrong when he makes it only released from Sparta by Augustus. But they term themselves Ἐλευθερολάκωνες only from the time of Augustus, and the bestowal of their freedom is therefore justly traced to him.]

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

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

[158: This is pointedly expressed by Aristides in the panegyric on Rome p. 224 Jebb: διατελεῖτε τῶν μὲν Ἑλλήνων ὥσπερ τροφέων ἐπιμελόμενοι ... τοὺς μὲν ἀρίστους καὶ πάλαι ἡγεμόνας (Athens and Sparta) ἐλευθέρους καὶ αὐτονόμους ἀφεικότες αὐτῶν, τῶν δ' ἄλλων μετρίως ... ἐξηγούμενοι, τοὺς δὲ βαρβάρους πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστοις αὐτῶν οὖσαν φύσιν παιδεύοντες.]

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

[160: At least in the ordinance of Hadrian regarding the deliveries of oil to the community incumbent on the Athenian landowners (_C. I. A._ iii. 18), the decision was indeed given to the _Boule_ and the _Ekklesia_, but appeal to the emperor or the proconsul was allowed.]

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

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

[163: So (only that the Dorians are wanting; comp. p. 259, note 2) the union is termed on the inscription of Acraephia (Keil, _Syll. Inscr. Boeot._ n. 31). But this very document, along with the contemporary one, _C. I. Gr._ 1625, furnishes a proof that the union under the emperor Gaius, instead of this doubtless strictly official appellation, designated itself also on the one hand as union of the Achaeans, on the other as τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Πανελλήνων, or ἡ σύνοδος τῶν Ἑλλήνων, also τὸ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ Πανελλήνων συνέδριον. This grandiloquence is nowhere so glaringly prominent as in those Boeotian petty country-towns; but even in Olympia, where the union especially set up its memorials, it names itself for the most part no doubt τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, but shows often enough the same tendency; _e.g._ when τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν Π. Αἴλιον Ἀρίστωνα ... σύνπαντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ἀνέστησαν (_Arch. Zeit._ 1880, p. 86, n. 344). So too in Sparta, οἱ Ἕλληνες set up a statue to Caesar Marcus ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν (_C. I. Gr._ 1318).]

[164: In Asia, Bithynia, lower Moesia, the president of the Greek towns belonging to the province is also called Ἑλλαδάρχης, without more being thereby expressed than the contrast with the non-Greeks. But, as the name of Hellenes is employed in Greece in a certain contrast to the strictly correct one of Achaeans, this is certainly suggested by the same tendency which was most clearly marked in the Panhellenes of Argos. Thus we find στρατηγὸς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ προστάτης διὰ βίου τῶν Ἑλλήνων (_Arch. Zeit._ 1877, p. 192, n. 98), or on another document of the same man προστάτης διὰ βίου τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν (Lebas-Foucart, n. 305); an ἄρξας τοῖς Ἕλλησιν σύνπασιν (_Arch. Zeit._ p. 195, n. 106) στρατηγὸς ἀσυνκρίτως ἄρξας τῆς Ἑλλάδος (_ib._ 1877, p. 40, n. 42) στρατηγὸς καὶ Ἑλλαδάρχης (_ib._ 1876, n. 8, p. 226), all likewise on inscriptions of the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν. That in this κοινόν, though it may perhaps be deemed to refer merely to the Peloponnesus (p. 264, note), the Panhellenic tendency none the less asserted itself, may well be conceived.]

[165: The Hadrianic Panhellenes name themselves τὸ κοινὸν συνέδριον τῶν Ἑλλήνων τῶν εἰς Πλατηὰς συνιόντων (Thebes: Keil, _Syll. Inscr. Boeot._ n. 31, comp. Plutarch, _Arist._ 19, 21); κοινὸν τῆς Ἑλλάδος (_C. I. Gr._ 5852); τὸ Πανελλήνιον (_ib._). Its president is termed ὁ ἄρχων τῶν Πανελλήνων (_C. I. A._ iii. 681, 682; _C. I. Gr._ 3832, comp. _C. I. A._ iii. 10: ἀ[ντ]άρχων τοῦ ἱερωτάτου ἀ[γῶνος τοῦ Π]αν[ελ]ληνίου), the individual deputy Πανέλλην (_e.g._ _C. I. A._ iii. 534; _C. I. Gr._ 1124). Alongside of these in the period subsequent to Hadrian the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν and its στρατηγός or Ἑλλαδάρχης still occur, who are probably to be distinguished from those just mentioned, although the latter now sets up his honorary decrees not merely in Olympia, but also in Athens (_C. I. A._ 18; second example in Olympia, _Arch. Zeit._ 1879, p. 52).]

[166: That the remark of Dio of Prusa, _Or._ xxxviii. p. 148 R., as to the dispute of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians ὑπὲρ τῆς προπομπείας, refers to the festival at Plataeae, is evident from (Lucian) Ἔρωτες 18, ὡς περὶ προπομπείας ἀγωνιούμενοι Πλαταιᾶσιν. The sophist Irenaeus also wrote περὶ τῆς Αθηναίων προπομπείας (Suidas, _s. v._), and Hermogenes, _de ideis_, ii. p. 373. Walz gives as the topic spoken of Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι περὶ τῆς προπομπείας κατὰ τὰ Μηδικὰ (communication from Wilamowitz).]

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

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

[169: [Dio, _Orat._ xxi. 501 R.]]

[170: This is told to us by Herodian, iv. 8, 3, c. 9, 4, and we have the inscriptions of two of these Spartiates, Nicocles, ἐστρατευμένος δὶς κατὰ Περσῶν (_C. I. Gr._ 1253), and Dioscoras, ἀπελθὼν εἰς τὴν εὐτυχεστάτην συμμαχίαν (= expeditio) τὴν κατὰ Περσῶν (_C. I. Gr._ 1495).]

[171: The φρούριον (_C. I. A._ iii. 826) cannot well be understood otherwise.]

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

[173: [Dio, _Orat._ xxxi. 649, 650.]]

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

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

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

[177: The Athenian insurrection under Augustus is certainly attested by the notice derived from Africanus in Eusebius, _ad ann. Abr._ 2025 (whence Orosius, vi. 22, 2). The riots against the _strategoi_ are often mentioned; Plutarch, _Q. sympos._ viii. 3, _init._; (Lucian), _Demonax_, 11, 64; Philostratus, _Vit. soph._ i. 23, ii. 8, 11.]

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

[179: A model sample is the inscription (Lebas-Foucart, ii. p. 142 n., 162 _j._) of Μ[ᾶρκορ] Αὐρ[ήλιορ] Ζεύξιππορ ὁ καὶ Κλέανδρορ Φιλομούσω, a contemporary therefore of Pius and Marcus, who was ἱερεὺς Λευκιππίδων καὶ Τινδαριδᾶν, of the Dioscuri and their wives, the daughters of Leukippos, but--in order that with the old the new might not be wanting--also ἀρχιερέος τῶ Σεβαστῶ καὶ τῶν θείων προγόνων ὠτῶ. He had in his youth, moreover, been βουαγὸρ μικκιχιδδομένων, literally herd-leader of the little ones, namely, director of three-year-old boys--the "herds" of boys of Lycurgus began with the seventh year, but his successors had overtaken what was wanting, and embraced in the "herd" and provided with "leaders" all from one year old onward. This same man was victorious (νεικάαρ = νικήσας) κασσηρατοριν, μωαν καὶ λωαν: what this means, may be known perhaps to Lycurgus.]

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

[181: Karl Keil (Pauly, _Realencycl._ 1² p. 2100) points to τινός for ἧς τινός and τὰ χωρία γέγοναν in the inscription of the wife of Herodes (_C. I. L._ vi. 1342).]

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

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

[184: Herodes was ἐξ ὑπάτων (Philostratus, _Vit. Soph._ i. 25, 5, p. 526), ἐτέλει ἐκ πατέρων ἐς τοὺς δισυπάτους (_ib._ ii. _init._ p. 545). Otherwise nothing is known of consulships of his ancestors; but certainly his grandfather Hipparchus was not a senator. Possibly the question is even only as to cognate ascendants. The family did not receive the Roman franchise under the Julii (comp. _C. I. A._ iii. 489), but only under the Claudii.]

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

[186: An agonistic institute thus privileged is termed ἀγὼν ἱερός, _certamen sacrum_ (that is, with pensioning: Dio, li. 1), or ἀγὼν εἰσελαστικός, _certamen iselasticum_ (comp. among others, Plin. _ad Trai._ 118, 119; _C. I. L._ x. 515). The Xystarchia too is, at least in certain cases, conferred by the emperor (Dittenberger, _Hermes_, xii. 17 f.). Not without warrant these institutes called themselves "world-games" (ἀγὼν οἰκουμενικός).]

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

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

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

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

[191:

Λευκάδος ἀντί με Καῖσαρ, ἰδ' Ἀμβρακίης ἐριβώλου,
Θυῤῥείου τε πέλειν, ἀντί τ' Ἀνακτορίου,
Ἄργεος Ἀμφιλόχου τε, καὶ ὁππόσα ῥαίσατο κύκλῳ
ἄστε' ἐπιθρώσκων δουρομανὴς πόλεμος,
εἵσατο Νικόπολιν, θείην πόλιν· ἀντὶ δὲ νίκης
φοῖβος ἄναξ ταύτην δέχνυται Ἀκτιάδος.

_Anthol. Gr._ ix. 553.]

[192: When Tacitus, _Ann._ v. 10, names Nicopolis a _colonia Romana_, the statement is one liable to be misunderstood, but not exactly incorrect; but that of Pliny (_H. N._ iv. 1, 5), _colonia Augusti Actium cum ... civitate libera Nicopolitana_, is erroneous, as Actium was as little a town as Olympia.]

[193: Ὁ ἀγὼν Ὀλύμπιος τὰ Ἄκτια, Strabo, vii. 7, 6, p. 325; Ἀκτιάς Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ i. 20, 4; Ἀκτιονίκης oftener. As the four great Greek national festivals are, as is well known, termed ἡ περίοδος, and the victor crowned in all four περιοδονίκης, so in _C. I. Gr._ 4472 τῆς περιόδου is appended also to the games of Nicopolis, and the former περιόδος is designated as the ancient (ἀρχαία). As competitive games are frequently called ἰσολύμπια, so we find also ἀγὼν ἰσάκτιος (_C. I. Gr._ 4472), or _certamen ad exemplar Actiacae religionis_ (Tacitus, _Ann._ xv. 23).

[194: Thus a Nicopolite terms himself ἄρχων τῆς ἱερᾶς Ἀκτιακῆς βουλῆς (Delphi, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. ii. 111), as in Elis the expression is used: ἡ πόλις Ἠλείων καὶ ἡ Ὀλυμπικὴ βουλή (_Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 57; similarly _ibid._ 1877, pp. 40, 41 elsewhere). Moreover the Spartans, as the only Hellenes that took part in the victory at Actium, obtained the conduct (ἐπιμέλεια) of the Actian games (Strabo, vii. 7, 6 p. 325): their relation to the βουλὴ Ἀκτιακή of Nicopolis we do not know.]

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

[196: The excavations at Dodona have confirmed this; all the articles found belong to the pre-Roman period except some coins. Certainly a restoration of the building took place, the time of which cannot be determined; perhaps it was quite late. When Hadrian, who is named Ζεὺς Δωδοναῖος (_C. I. Gr._ 1822), visited Dodona (Dürr, _Reisen Hadrians_, p. 56) he did so as an archaeologist. A consultation of the oracle during the imperial period is only reported--and that not after the most trustworthy manner--in the case of the emperor Julian (Theodoretus, _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 21).]

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

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

[199: The towns founded in these regions outside of Macedonia proper bear quite the character of colonies proper; _e.g._ that of Philippi in the Thracian land, and especially that of Derriopus in Paeonia (Liv. xxxix. 53), for which latter place also the distinctively Macedonian politarchs have epigraphic attestation (inscription of the year 197 A.D., τῶν περὶ Ἀλέξανδρον Φιλίππου ἐν Δερριόπῳ πολιταρχῶν, Duchesne and Bayet, _Mission au mont Athos_, p. 103).]

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

[201: Calybe near Byzantium arose according to Strabo (vii. 6, 2, p. 320) φιλίππου τοῦ Ἀμύντου τοὺς πονηροτάτους ἐνταῦθα ἱδρύσαντος. Philippopolis is alleged even according to the account of Theopompus (fr. 122 Müller) to have been founded as Πονηρόπολις, and to have received colonists corresponding with that description. However little these reports deserve trust, they yet in their coincidence express the Botany-Bay character of these foundations.]

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

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

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

[205: The fifty strategies of Thrace (Plin. _H. N._ iv. 11, 40; Ptolem. iii. 11, 6) are not military districts, but, as is apparent with special clearness in Ptolemy, land-districts, which correspond with the tribes (στρατηγία Μαιδική, Βεσσική κ. τ. λ.) and form a contrast to the towns. The designation στρατηγός has, just like _praetor_, lost subsequently its original military value. Here perhaps the analogy of Egypt, which likewise was divided into urban domains under urban magistrates and into land-districts under _strategoi_, served primarily as a basis. A στρατηγὸς Ἀστικῆς περὶ Πέρινθον from the Roman period occurs in _Eph. epigr._ ii. p. 252.]

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

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

[208: The κοινὸν τῆς Πενταπόλεως is found on an inscription of Odessus, _C. I. Gr._ 2056 _c._, which may fairly belong to the earlier imperial period, the Pontic Hexapolis, on two inscriptions of Tomis probably of the second century A.D. (Marquardt, _Staatsverw._ i.² p. 305; Hirschfeld, _Arch. epigr. Mitth._ vi. 22). The Hexapolis in any case, and in accordance therewith probably also the Pentapolis, must have been brought into harmony with the Roman provincial boundaries, that is, must have included in it the Greek towns of lower Moesia. These are also found, if we follow the surest guides,--the coins of the imperial period. There were six mints (apart from Nicopolis, p. 282, note) in lower Moesia: Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessus, and Marcianopolis, and, as the last town was founded by Trajan, the Pentapolis is thereby explained. Tyra and Olbia hardly belonged to it; at least the numerous and loquacious monuments of the latter town nowhere show any link of connection with this city-league. It is called κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων on an inscription of Tomis, printed in the Athenian _Pandora_ of 1st June 1868 [and in _Anc. Gr. Inscr. in the British Museum_, ii. n. 175]: Ἀγαθῆ τύχη. Κατὰ τὰ δόξαντα τῆ κρατήστη βουλῆ καὶ τῶ λαμπροτάτω δήμω τῆς λαμπροτάτης μητροπόλεως καὶ αʹ τοῦ εὐωνύμου πόντου Τόμεως τὸν Ποντάρχην Αὐρ. Πρείσκιον Ἀννιανὸν ἄρξαντα τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῆς μητρ[ο]πόλεως τήν αʹ ἀρχὴν ἁγνῶς, καὶ ἀρχιερασάμενον, τῆν δι' ὅπλων καὶ κυνηγεσίων ἐνδόξως φιλοτειμίαν μὴ διαλιπόντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ βουλευτὴν καὶ τῶν πρωτευόντων φλαβίας Νέας πόλεως, καὶ τὴν ἀρχιέρειαν σύμβιον αὐτοῦ Ἰουλίαν Ἀπολαύστην πάσης τειμῆς χάριν.]

[209: This is shown by the remarkable inscription in Allard (_La Bulgarie orientale_, Paris, 1863, p. 263): Θεῶ μεγάλω Σαράπ[ιδι καὶ] τοῖς συννάοις θεοῖς [καὶ τῶ αὐ]τοκράτορι Τ. Αἰλίω Ἀδριαν[ῶ Ἀ]ντωνείνω Σεβαστῶ Εὐσεβ[εῖ] καὶ Μ. Αὐρηλίω Οὐήρω Καίσαρι Καρπίων Ἀνουβίωνος τῶ οἴκω τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων τὸν βωμὸν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέθηκεν ἔτους κγʹ [μηνὸς] φαρμουθὶ αʹ ἐπὶ ἱερέων [Κ]ορνούτου τοῦ καὶ Σαραπίωνος [Πολύ]μνου τοῦ καὶ Λον[γείνου]. The mariner's guild of Tomis meets us several times in the inscriptions of the town.]

[210: Olbia, constantly assailed in war and often destroyed, suffered, according to the statement of Dio (_Borysth._ p. 75, n.), about 150 years before his time, _i.e._ somewhat before the year 100 A.D., and so probably in the expedition of Burebista (iv. 305), its last and most severe conquest (τὴν τελευταίαν καὶ μεγίστην ἅλωσιν). Εἷλον δὲ, Dio continues, καὶ ταύτην Γέται καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς τοῦ Πόντου πόλεις μέχρι Ἀπολλωνίας (Sozopolis or Sizebolu, the last Greek town of note on the Pontic west coast): ὅθεν δὴ καὶ σφόδρα ταπεινὰ τὰ πράγματα κατέστη τῶν ταύτῃ Ελλήνων, τῶν μὲν οὐκέτι συνοικισθεισῶν πόλεων, τῶν δὲ φαύλως καὶ τῶν πλείστων βαρβάρων εἰς αὐτὰς συῤῥυέντων. The young citizen of rank with a marked Ionic physiognomy, with whom Dio then meets, who has slain or captured numerous Sarmatians, and though not acquainted with Phocylides, knows Homer by heart, wears mantle and trousers after the Scythian fashion, and a knife in his girdle. The townsmen all wear long hair and a long beard, and only one has shorn both, which is suspected in him as a token of servile attitude towards the Romans. Thus a century later matters there looked quite such as Ovid describes them at Tomis.]

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

[212: As Asander reckoned his archonship probably from the very time of his revolt from Pharnaces, and so from the summer of 707 {47.}, and assumes the royal title already in the fourth year of his reign, this year may warrantably be put in the autumn 709-710 {45-44.}, and the confirmation have thus been the work of Caesar. Antonius cannot well have bestowed it, as he only came to Asia at the end of 712 { 42.}; still less can we think of Augustus, whom the pseudo-Lucian (_Macrob._ 15) names, interchanging father and son.]