APPENDICES
A. Proconsular Imperium for Praetorian Commanders?
Since the publication in 1950 of W. F. Jashemski's fine study of the early history of imperium pro consule and pro praetore , it appears to have been generally accepted that the proconsular imperium was often or regularly conferred on commanders of praetorian rank sent out to provinciae in Spain, Macedonia, and Asia.[1] Yet shortly before Jashemski's book appeared, T. R. S. Broughton had presented cogent arguments against the reality of the construct—the praetor pro consule —that T. Mommsen and Jashemski posited.[2] Broughton noted that the title praetor pro consule never appears unambiguously; certainly in the triumphal fasti , there are many commanders of praetorian rank who are designated pro consule , but never praetor pro consule . Mommsen, and later Jashemski, set great store by the fact that praetorian triumphatores from Spain and Macedonia are
[1] Origins , 45, 54, 63. Jashemski was, of course, reviving the doctrine of Mommsen, RStR , 2: 647-50. For recent acceptance of the Jashemski-Mommsen view, see, among others, Richardson, Hispaniae , 76, 104; Ferrary, MEFRA 89 (1977) 625; Brennan, Chiron 22 (1992) 139.
[2] It should be noted, however, that Broughton seems subsequently, and without explanation, to have yielded his objections (MRR , 3:19). That praetor can be used of commanders in a broad sense, however, has no effect on the larger argument and shows only that there is no evidence that M. Antonius, pr. 103 or 102 (above, p. 229 n. 27), began his campaign in the year of his praetorship. Thus, as Broughton originally saw, the case of M. Antonius is quite indecisive: although he was evidently pro cos . already when he crossed Greece on his way to Cilicia (Cic. De or . 1.82; ILLRP 342; cf. IGRR IV. 1116) there is no evidence that he was still praetor in the strict sense.
so often given the title pro consule . But Broughton rightly noted that praetors could receive the proconsular imperium upon prorogation;[3] and the praetorian triumphatores from Spain and Macedonia are hardly likely to have managed to reach their province, win their victories, and enjoy their triumphs all in the year of their praetorship. Therefore the evidence of the triumphal fasti , on which Jashemski and Mommsen chiefly relied, is irrelevant for the question of the level of their imperium on their departure for the province. Broughton concluded: "The indications therefore favor the view that a praetor who received a prorogued command frequently received upon prorogation the imperium pro consule but was unlikely to possess it during his praetorship."[4]
Two rare cases in which our evidence is a bit more illuminating than usual support Broughton's hypothesis against that of Mommsen and Jashemski. Two praetors sent to Spain in 180, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus and L. Postumius Albinus, were prorogued in 179 with propraetorian imperium , then in 178 with proconsular imperium ; in 178 they triumphed pro consule and are duly counted by Jashemski as praetors with proconsular imperium .[5] But here manifestly proconsular imperium came only with their second prorogation. Secondly, in 112 the Senate decreed that a settlement mediated in the winter of 119-118 by a commander in Macedonia, Cn. Cornelius Sisenna, should stand. The decree referred to Sisenna as
Since the list of triumphs does not bear on our question, then, the only significant evidence for the view that praetors sent to certain provinces regularly received augmented imperium is Plutarch's note that as a special
[3] Broughton cited only Cic. Leg . 1.53: Gellium, familiarem tuum, cum pro consule ex praetura in Graeciam venisset . But see further below.
[4] TAPA 77 (1946) 39.
[5] Broughton, MRR , 1:388, 392-93, 395-96. See especially Livy 40.47.1; IIt XIII.1, pp. 80-81, 555.
[6] Sherk 15, lines 58-60.
[7] Broughton, MRR , 1:528 n. 2.
[8] See Mason, Greek Terms , 106.
honor L. Aemilius Paulus was sent to Spain in 191 as praetor but with more than the customary six lictors
The lack of any reliable attestation of a praetor in his term of office holding imperium pro consule , combined with the worthlessness of the fasti triumphales for our purposes and the indications in our evidence that associate conferral of proconsular imperium on praetors with prorogation rather than with some occasion before departure for the province, leads me to conclude that in the current state of the evidence Broughton's hypothesis is far more probable than that of Mommsen and Jashemski.
B. The LEG/MAKED ONW N Series of Macedonian Republican Tetradrachms and the War with Andriscus
A short series of otherwise normal Macedonian republican tetradrachms with the curious addition on the reverse of the Roman letters LEG,[10] and above them a hand holding a (olive?) branch, has long been brought into connection with the war against Andriscus. H. Gäibler, relying on the evidence of what he took to be recut dies and on his interpretation of the branch as a punning reference to the probable cognomen of the P. Iuventius defeated by Andriscus in 148 (
[9] Jashemski, Origins , 46 with n. 5.
[10] For the short series, MacKay, ANSMN 14 (1968) 31: some four obverses.
[11] ZfN 23 (1902) 146-55. Sources for Iuventius in MRR , 1:458.
[12] MacKay, ANSMN 14 (1968) 34-36; Boehringer, Chronologie , 109-10.
[13] MacKay, ANSMN 14 (1968) 38-39.
with the events of the war with Andriscus, interprets LEG as leg (iones ) and imagines their purpose to have been to pay the Roman troops in 148.[14] Finally, J.-L. Ferrary, joined by F. W. Walbank, is skeptical of MacKay's view and suggests that the coins were produced by one of the legates defeated by Andriscus ca. 149.[15]
In fact, we are by no means compelled to believe that the LEG/MAKED ONW N series is to be associated with the Andriscan war. For the date of the series it seems that only two firm pieces of evidence exist: (1) the Siderokastro hoard (IGCH 642), which gives only a terminus ante quem, from its Aesillas coins, of ca. 90 B.C. , if not later;[16] (2) a BAS IL EWSF IL IPP OY type from the Imhoof collection in Berlin, which appears to have been struck over a LEG/MAKED ONW N type.[17] Boehringer corroborates from autopsy of the coin the traces of LEG/MAKED ONW N under the BAS IL EWSF ILPP OY reverse;[18] but while MacKay in his discussion of this coin refutes Gäbler's theory of a recut die, he takes no notice of the traces of LEG/MAKED ONW N that scholar had read. The coin must be an overstrike, though MacKay denies the existence of any overstrikes that would connect the series with any other.[19] BAS IL EWSF IL IPP OY struck over a LEG/MAKED ONW N type should refer to Philip Andriscus, the identification Gäbler originally urged, although indeed Boehringer has opted for Philip V.[20] In any case, if Andriscus is a terminus ante quem for the LEG/MAKED ONW N series, it cannot be associated with the settlement of the war against him, as MacKay wished, and there is no reason why it could not go back as far as 168, when a senatorial legatio is of course known to have been in Macedonia.
[15] Ferrary, in RCMM , 2:768; Walbank, HCP , 3:679.
[16] Thompson, NC 2 (1962) 319-20, wrongly takes a date for the LEG/MAKED ONW N series of 148/147 as given. On the date of the Aesillas coinage, see more recently Boehringer, "Hellenistischer Münzschatz aus Trapezunt, 1970," SNR , 1975, 62; Mattingly, Chiron 9 (1979) 147-67; and Mørkholm, ANSMN 29 (1984) 35-38.
[17] For the coin, see Gäbler, ZfN 23 (1902) 154.e; Boehringer, Chronologie , 111.c and pl. 8.8.
[18] Boehringer, Chronologie , 110, 111.c far left.
[19] ANSMN 14 (1968) 29-31, 34.
[20] Chronologie , 116-18, arguing from the accepted date of the Mektipini (Phrygia) hoard, which is too early for Andriscus. See N. Olçay and H. Seyrig, Le trésor de Mektepini en Phrygie , Inst. Franç. d'Arch. Beyr. Bibl. 82 (Paris 1965) 29-30.
C. The Date of the via Egnatia
At some point after the installation of a permanent Roman military presence in Macedonia, the via Egnatia was built, on a route that had been in use for centuries.[21] The construction of a great road is a major undertaking, and therefore it has bearing on the history of Rome's strategic commitments in the East.
Strabo tells us that the via Egnatia was
[21] See Adams, in PAMH , 272-78; Walbank Selected Papers , 197-98; Hammond and Hatzopoulos, AJAH 7 (1982 [1985]) 135-36.
[22] 7.7.4, C322 = Polyb. 34.12.2a-4.
[24] 7.7.4, C322 = Polyb. 34.12.8.
[25] Cf. also Radke, RE suppl. 13 (1973) 1667; Collart, BCH 100 (1976) 180-81. Hammond, History of Macedonia , 1:56 n. 2, suggests the decade 110-100 without addressing the Polybian evidence. On the date of Polybius's death, Eckstein, AJP 113 (1992) 387-406, strengthens the case for ca. 118 and provides a useful review of earlier scholarship. In the time of Cicero the road extended to the Hellespont: Prov. cons . 4. Note that Sulla broke his march toward the Hellespont in 85 at Cypsela (App. Mith . 56).
[26] Cf. Adams, in PAMH , 293; unnecessarily troublesome for Walbank, LCM 2 (1977) 74, but explained in Selected Papers , 202, by supposing that the Hebrus formed the official boundary of the province. But whether there was such a dearly demarcated provincial boundary is doubtful.
A milestone recently uncovered near Salonica bearing the name Cn. Egnati<us> C.f. and the title
The purpose of the road was of course strategic.[32] The via Egnatia was the direct line of communication between Rome and its legion in Macedonia, and movements along it of reinforcements, supplies, and other military traffic must have been fairly constant, particularly once Asia was being assigned to a proconsul as well. It will have allowed the small Roman
[27] Romiopoulou, BCH 98 (1974) 813-18 = CIL I , 2977 (fasc. 4.1), for the milestone. Another milestone has now appeared: SEG XL.543. Doubts: Radke, RE suppl. 13 (1973) 1667.
[28] Sherk 4, lines 16-17. See Romiopoulou, BCH 98 (1974) 814. The inscription, unfortunately, cannot be dated more precisely.
[29] Selected Papers , 203. Fabius Servilianus, Licinius Nerva, and Iunius Silanus, and the commander defeated by the Scordisci in 141 (above, p. 33 nn. 92-93), leave little room after Macedonicus to 140.
[30] Cf. ILS 27, 5814; IGRR IV. 880; cf. Magie, RRAM , 157-58, 1048-49 nn. 39-40; French, ANRW II.7.2 (1980) 706-7.
[31] See ILLRP 460a; Polyb. 3.39.8; Strabo 4.6.3, C203 (presumably referring to an earlier road). Cf. Radke, RE suppl. 13 (1973) 1668-84; Wiseman, PBSR 38 (1970) 137-38; König, Meilensteine , 275-76, no. 256; Schwertfeger, Der achaiische Bund , 37 n. 48.
[32] Cicero twice calls it a via militaris: Prov. cons . 4, Pis . 40. On the term, cf. Pekáry, Untersuchungen , 10-13. Rebuffat, Latomas 46 (1987) 52-67, rejects the normal understanding that the via militaris was a major route for the movement of armies, but his earlier texts tell a different story.
force in Macedonia to respond quickly to Thracian raids from the Axius to the Hermus valleys; furthermore, it will have been the route used for reinforcements and replacements, not only to Macedonia, but after 131 to Asia as well, on occasions when larger bodies of troops were needed there. Its construction—not a cheap undertaking, surely—confirms Rome's acceptance of a permanent commitment to the defense of the southern Balkans and a continuing military presence there.[33]
D. On the Restoration of Sherk 44 = IG VII.2413, Lines 2-3
I offer a text of IG VII.2413/14, based on R. K. Sherk's edition (no. 44), with the revisions made recently by P. Roesch, and all questionable restorations removed to the apparatus criticus. I was unable to find the stone on three separate visits to the museum at Thebes in 1985-86. The date of the text remains, so far, uncertain, despite Roesch's arguments for Mummius as the author; the texts to be published by Ch. Kritzas (whom I thank for this information) may well support the view that Mummius was the author.[34]
[33] See further on the via Egnatia Hammond, JRS 64 (1974) 185-94, and History of Macedonia , 1:19-58; Hammond and Hatzopoulos, AJAH 7 (1982 [1985]) 128-49, 8 (1983 [1986]) 48-53; Walbank, HCP , 3:622-27, and Selected Papers , 193-209; Daux, Journal des savants , 1977, 145-63.
[34] Cf. Roesch, EB , 198-202; Bertrand, Ktema 7 (1982) 167-75.
We see at a glance that G. Klaffenbach's restoration of lines 2-3, inserting reference to the province of Macedonia and a strange reference to "rule" of Greece, far from being beyond discussion (so Accame), is quite unwarranted. J.-M. Bertrand puts it nicely: "La tradition érudite s'est abandonnée à une restitution de G. Klaffenbach aussi spectaculaire qu'injustifiable."[35] The restoration of proper names that do not appear elsewhere on the stone, and are not recommended by known formulae or certain parallels, is unacceptable epigraphic method. Such restoration certainly does not enjoy the status of evidence. But not only are the restorations uncertain; they are most unlikely.
[
[35] Ktema 7 (1982) 169. It is amazing that Klaffenbach's restoration was not challenged in print before Bertrand.
[37] Ktema 7 (1982) 171-72; cf. Richardson, PBSR 47 (1979) 5.
[38] Bertrand, Ktema 7 (1982) 167-69.
thor was indeed a Roman, the Latin counterpart of the phrase that would have lain behind the Greek would be imperium populi Romani or Romanum ; but the imperium could extend far beyond the provinciae .
Nor does [
Second, a rough calculation from a photograph (the stone is lost, as noted above), which is based on the average size of the letters of line 3 and the reasonably certain width of the lines, shows that it is very unlikely that as many as ten full-width letters stood to the left of the preserved portion of this line. This makes [
Finally,
In sum, there are no parallels with which to restore the opening lines of IG VII.2413 with any kind of certainty, and until one emerges, it is useless to attempt restoration. What is certain is that this inscription is too fragmentary to be of any independent value in determining the status
of Greece from 146. The author of the letter evidently made some reference to the area of Roman control presumably the imperium Romanum , but we cannot base any major conclusions on this, since we do not know the context, nor do we know the subject of the verb
E. On the Date of IG V.1.1432/33
IG V.1.1432/33 was originally dated to the 30s and 40s A.D. by G. Kolbe in the corpus, then brought up first to 39 B.C. by Wilamowitz, and finally as early as the end of the second century B.C. by A. Wilhelm.[41] A. Giovannini now returns to Kolbe's date (refined to A.D. 35-44) and is followed by, among others, L. and J. Robert and C. Habicht.[42] It is disquieting that the legatus Augusti P. Memmius Regulus, with whom
F. The Consul Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus of SEG XV.254
The date of SEG XV.254, which has been held to provide evidence of the existence of the Achaean League in 122, depends on the identification of the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, named as consul under whom the Achaeans who set up the dedication served. It has proven all too easy to assume that this Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus was the consul of 122[44] —for we know that he fought in Transalpine Gaul. But this is a very spotty age for Roman prosopography, and it would be rash to assume that this was the only Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus to fight against Gauls or Gallic peoples (among whom the Scordisci north of Macedonia are to be counted).
[41] Wilamowitz, ad IG V.1. 1432, subsequently apparently accepted by Kolbe: p. xv, 311. Wilhelm, JÖAI 17 (1914) 71-103 (cf. Münzer, RE 15 [1931] 605 no. 3).
[42] Giovannini, RCMG , 115-22; Robert and Robert, REG 93 (1980) 375, no. 73; Habicht, Pausanias , 61.
[43] n Roman residents, see Wilson, Emigration , 150 n. 2. On calculations in denarii: Crawford, Coinage and Money , 270 and n. 21. See, however, the criticisms of Marchetti, RBN 125 (1979) 193-94, of Giovannini's argument regarding the ostensible appearance of the ius anuli aurei at lines 11-12, 37.
[44] Schwertfeger, Der achaiische Bund , 30-38, following the editio princeps, Kunze, (n. 45). But cf. Robert and Robert, REG 89 (1976) 470-71, no. 282.
For example, the suffect consul of 162, Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Ahenobarbus, must have received one of the two provinces vacated by the ordinarii , one of which was Gaul.[45] In the state of our evidence, we do not know what province another Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Ahenobarbus, consul in 96, held, but we do know of military activity in Gaul in the following year.[46] The letterforms can probably help only to exclude another date that has found less favor: 192.[47] We have no reason to suppose that if we knew as much about the consuls of 162 and 96 as we do about the consul of 1221 the last would be the only candidate; the sad state of our evidence cannot be used to support conclusions of such weight.
G. Notes on the Date of the Senatus Consultum Popillianum (Sherk 11)
This inscription, which has been taken "to record the Senate's ratification of the will of Attalus" as well as what is explicit in the text, "to guarantee his acts and those of his predecessors up to one day before his death,"[48] was dated to 133 by T. Mommsen, who prepared the editio princeps.[49] More recently, E. Badian and H. B. Mattingly have opted for 132. The date 129 was favored by D. Magie and has also received recent backing from A. N. Sherwin-White and E. S. Gruen.[50]
It is important that the decree apparently only refers back to the prior senatorial ratification of the acts of the Attalids and is not the act of ratification of the will itself (
[45] Val. Max. 1.1.3. This Ahenobarbus is too easily passed over by E. Kunze, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Berlin 1956) 5:163; Moretti, RivFil 93 (1965) 278; Schwertfeger, Der achaiische Bund , 30. Cf. Münzer, RE 5 (1905) 1322, no. 19. Schwertfeger's premise that the use of Greek contingents in the West is possible only under the terms of a foedus aequum or after the state involved had lost its sovereignty (p. 33) is overly legalistic.
[47] Moretti, RivFil 93 (1965) 278-83 (cf. ISE 1, pp. 153-54). Schwertfeger is somewhat too confident in dating by letterforms: cf. his pp. 36-37, with Robert and Robert, REG 89 (1976) pp. 470-71, no. 282.
[48] Sherk, RDGE , pp. 61-62.
[49] MDAI(A) 24 (1899) pp. 190-97, no. 61 = Gesammelte Schriften , 4:63-68; cf. also Dittenberger, ad OGIS 435, n. 4.
[50] Badian, JRS 70 (1980) 202; Mattingly, LCM 10 (1985) 118; Magie, RRAM , 1033-34 n. 1; Sherwin-White, JRS 67 (1977) 68, and RFPE , 84; Gruen, HWCR , 603-4.
This would remove any need to place this text early on in the crisis of the Aristonicus uprising. Gruen is quite right to insist that (
These points make it unlikely that the decree belongs in 133 or indeed at any time before Aristonicus was finally put down and arrangements could finally be made for the settlement of the provincia . To argue, as do J. Hopp and B. Schleub ner, that Rome knew of Aristonicus's revolt at the time but underestimated its gravity is only an attempt to save the hypothesis.[55] In any case in 133 an issue of such importance should have been brought before the Senate not by a praetor but by a consul, namely, P. Mucius Scaevola, who was present in Rome for much of the year.[56] Mattingly's "correction" of the prescript to make the consul of 132, P. Popillius C.f., the mover of the decree (reading
[51] Cf. Magie, RRAM , 1034 n. 1; Sherwin-White, RFPE , 84.
[52] Cf. Drew-Bear, NIP , pp. 7-8.
[53] HWCR , 604 n. 130, against Vogt, Ancient Slavery , 99-101. Cf. Schleußner, Chiron 6 (1976) 104 n. 40.
[55] Hopp, Untersuchungen , 141; Schleußner, Chiron 6 (1976) 101-2.
[56] Magie, RRAM , 1034 n. 1; Badian, JRS 70 (1980) 202; de Martino, PP 210 (1983) 164-65.
in lines 3 and 11) remains highly doubtful until the stone itself is found and reexamined; certainly there hardly seems enough space for the addition of
H. Chronological Notes on the Cappadocian Crisis in the 90s: Sulla's Eexpedition and Ariobarzanes' Expulsion
The Date of Sulla's Cappadocian Expedition
In 1959 E. Badian redated Sulla's Cappadocian expedition to 96, against the traditional date of 92. More recently, A. N. Sherwin-White has challenged Badian's chronology and reconstruction of the historical context of this event, and his view seems on the way to becoming the new orthodoxy.[59] It is necessary therefore to defend at some length my continued adherence to Badian's view.
i) Put in its simplest terms, the problem is that our main narrative source for Cappadocian history at this time, Justin's epitome of Trogus, leaves
[57] Mattingly, LCM 10 (1985) 118.
[58] MRR , 1:496-97.
[59] CQ 27 (1977) 173-83, urging 94; followed by McGing, FPME , 78; Sullivan, ANRW II.7.2 (1980) 1127-36; Sumner, Athenaeum 56 (1978) 395 n. 6, with an independent supporting argument; apparently, Broughton, MRR , 3:74. Badian's article appears in Studies , 157-78. Keaveney, EtCl 48 (1980) 149-57, accepts Badian's chronology and reconstruction except that he posits a short-lived period in power for Ariobarzanes before Sulla. Bulin, "Untersuchungen," 35-44, returns to Reinach's date of 92. Brennan, Chiron 22 (1992) 103-58, offers an exhaustive reexamination of this and related controversies, supporting Badian's arguments and proposing that Sulla remained in Cappadocia until 93 or 92. See also Badian's brief comments in TLS , August 24, 1984, p. 952, and Cagniart, Latomus 50 (1991) 287.
Curiously, Sherwin-White himself seems to return to ca. 92 or 92-91 as well at RFPE , 109-11 (cf. CQ 27 [1977] 179; JRS 67 [1977] 72), giving primary weight now to Velleius's untenable date for Sulla's praetorship (2.15.3; see now Brennan, pp. 113-14, 158) and the thoroughly inconclusive evidence of the Cappadocian royal coinage (considered below).
Sulla's escorting of Ariobarzanes to take up the Cappadocia throne entirely out of the picture. Justin does, however, mention two appropriate occasions for the event: when Ariobarzanes is first "named" by the Senate (38.2.8), and, after his subsequent forcible expulsion from Cappadocia by Tigranes, when the Senate decrees his restoration (38.3.3-4). The second of these possible contexts is dearly excluded because the Senate's order in this case went out to the legates M'. Aquillius and Mallius Malthinus (sic ), whose activities ca. 90 are well known inasmuch as they led directly to the outbreak of the Mithridatic War.[60] Ariobarzanes' original accession to the throne is therefore the obvious choice prima facie. To assume that Sulla's expedition is not to be connected with any of the events mentioned by Justin, and thus of necessity to postulate yet a further expulsion of Ariobarzanes—not mentioned by Justin or directly attested by any other source—to set the stage for it[61] can only be a last resort, to be adopted only if other evidence gives good reason to doubt this reconstruction.[62]
ii) The sequence of events in Appian's account of Ariobarzanes' peregrinations before the Mithridatic War (Mith . 10) is entirely consistent with Justin's. Ariobarzanes had fled to Rome from Cappadocia, which was under Mithridates' control; the Romans ordered Mithridates to depart in favor of Ariobarzanes, who seemed to have better title to the throne; Mithridates obeyed but then expelled from Bithynia Nicomedes IV, whose succession to his father had been confirmed by Rome; at the same time (
Justin believes that Ariobarzanes was expelled by Tigranes at about the same time as the accession of Nicomedes IV and his subsequent expulsion by Mithridates from the throne of Bithynia; and just as in Appian, it is this dual expulsion of Ariobarzanes and Nicomedes IV that leads directly to the Senate's order of 91 or 90 to M'. Aquillius to restore them to their
[60] On the date, p. 361.
[61] See Sherwin-White's summary at CQ 27 (1972) 182-83.
[62] So already Badian, Studies , 164.
thrones.[63] (See below for the problem of the date of this event.) Therefore, although Appian names the agents of Ariobarzanes' removal as Mithraas and Bagoas while Justin gives Tigranes, the conclusion must be that the references are to the same event; Mithraas and Bagoas were, likely enough, Tigranes' generals.[64] If that is so, however, we are left with direct testimony to only one expulsion of Ariobarzanes from the throne before the arrival of Aquillius ca. 90. It begs the question to claim that Justin at 38.3.3 conflates two Armenian invasions of Cappadocia in the 90s.[65]
Justin and Appian tell essentially the same story and are mutually supportive. The assumption that one or the other is leaving out further expulsions and restorations of Ariobarzanes seems arbitrary and most dubious. Thus the line of interpretation sketched in (i) above is reinforced—that is, that only one dethroning of Ariobarzanes preceded the arrival of the senatorial commission (that he had been king before receiving Roman recognition is nowhere stated). This single expulsion, however, cannot have led to Sulla's intervention: it is too late, and in any case it was M'. Aquillius, not Sulla, who was given the job of restoring him on that occasion.
iii) Some objections Sherwin-White brings against Badian's reconstruction need to be considered.
First, Sherwin-White believes that the phrase used by Livy's epitomator to describe Sulla's mission (in regnum . . . reductus est ) implies that Ariobarzanes had already lost the throne and was now restored to it.[66] To begin with, it is unwise to assume that the epitomator's wording is a reliable indication of the nature of the original: to take one instructive case in which Livy's text survives to refute him, he thinks that Aemilius Paulus created the province of Macedonia (Per . 45). Plutarch, on the other hand, unambiguously states that Sulla installed Ariobarzanes on the throne.[67] The choice of Plutarch over Livy's epitomator ought to be easy. But in any case we should not make so much of the Periochae's phrase. Ariobarzanes had
[63] 38.3.4: eodem tempore mortuo Nicomede etiam filius eius, et ipse Nicomedes, regno a Mithridate pellitur .
[64] So already Reinach, Mithradates , 109.
[65] So Reinach, Mithradates , 98 n. 3, whose lead is followed by Sherwin-White most explicitly at RFPE , 111 n. 54. But earlier Sherwin-White is ambiguous about the nationality of Bogoas and Mithraas: CQ 27 (1977) 176-77, 183.
[66] CQ 27 (1977) 175 with n. 12. Keaveney's acceptance of this point (EtCl 48 [1980] 155 n. 32) leads him to posit that Ariobarzanes had held power in Cappadocia briefly before Sulla's intervention in 96.
fled to Rome by the time the Senate made its decision about the Cappadocian succession, so in any case he was being "restored"; further, his backers in Cappadocia and Rome certainly thought he possessed the right to the throne.[68] Under these circumstances it is not surprising usage to write of restoration to a kingdom that was (allegedly) rightfully his. Similarly, an Athenian decree of ca. 175/174 speaks of the "restoration to the kingdom of his ancestors" of Antiochus IV, although in fact Eumenes II and Attalus had placed the royal claimant on the Seleucid throne;[69] and Tigranes himself, sent by the Parthians, among whom he had been hostage, to succeed to the Armenian throne, is said by Justin to be ab eisdem in regnum paternum remissus (38.3.1). (Compare Andriscus, who persuaded the Thracian king Barsabas
Second, many Armenians were killed by Sulla during the operation (Plut. Sull . 5.3). For Sherwin-White, this implies that Tigranes had already conquered Sophene, creating a common border between Armenia and Cappadocia, an event that cannot be earlier than ca. 96/95, the probable date of Tigranes' accession.[71] It is noteworthy that Sulla did not bring many Roman troops and relied on the assistance of allies[72] —a highly unlikely procedure if Ariobarzanes had been expelled with the help of Tigranes, as Sherwin-White holds.[73] But, in any case, does the presence of "many" Armenians indeed suggest a date for Sulla's campaign after 96? Tigranes' conquest of Sophene will indeed have made his own intervention in Cappadocia easier, and if we were to accept the general assumption (made even by Badian) that Armenians who skirmished with Sulla were Tigranes' men, this might force us to revise the absolute chronology downward
[69] OGIS 248, lines 21-22, 36. Cf. App. Syr . 45.
[70] See now the additional arguments of Brennan, Chiron 22 (1992) 149.
[71] CQ 27 (1977) 174 with nn. 8-9. For the date of Tigranes' accession (ca. 96/95), cf. Justin 38.3.1; Plut. Luc 21.6; Badian, Studies , 176 n. 49.
[73] Cf. Badian, Studies , 167.
slightly, perhaps to ca. 95.[74] But it is by no means implausible that Gordius and the other Cappadocians hostile to Ariobarzanes had Armenian friends—or mercenaries—even before Tigranes' accession.[75] Nor should Armenia Minor be forgotten—a vassal state abutting Cappadocia, rich in horsemen, and under Mithridates' control by the time of the war with Rome.[76] Sulla's engagement with Armenians in Cappadocia, therefore, is open to other explanations and does not by any means force a date later than 96 for the expedition, nor does it create any difficulty for Badian's reconstruction of the sequence of events (i.e., the insertion of Sulla's campaign into Justin's and Appian's narrative).[77]
Third, Sherwin-White, discussing the apparent regnal years on the Cappadocian royal coinage, concedes that "the coinage evidence remains enigmatic" but still believes it can show that Ariobarzanes ruled only three years before 91.[78] However, the numismatic evidence is even more problematic than he allowed, and its interpretation is not yet on a sufficiently secure basis to have much weight in the reconstruction of these events.[79] For all that, recent discussions of the question would place the changeover from Ariarathes IX to Ariobarzanes in 96 or 95.[80]
iv) No evidence, therefore, outweighs the positive arguments in (i) and (ii) above that (a ) Ariobarzanes was toppled from the Cappadocian throne only once, not twice, before the arrival of Aquillius's commission, with its inevitable corollary that (b ) Sulla escorted Ariobarzanes to Cappadocia to assume the throne for the first time after the Senate threw out the rival claims of Nicomedes' and Mithridates' candidates.
Absolute dates are more difficult to assign. While the precise date of Sulla's tenure of the urban praetorship remains uncertain, his evident haste to move up the ladder of the cursus would suggest a date closer to his military exploits in Numidia and Gaul rather than later.[81] A praetorship
[74] Badian opened himself to Sherwin-White's objection by bringing Tigranes up to the Cappadocian frontier already in 96, although he only succeeded to the throne "in 96 or 95" (Studies , 168).
[75] Keaveney, EtCl 48 (1980) 156-57, who suggests that the Armenians were in fact from the kingdom of Sophene.
[76] Strabo 12.3.28, C555; App. Mith . 17. Cf. McGing, FPME , 42 n. 137, 56.
[77] See also Brennan, Chiron 22 (1992) 150-51.
[78] CQ 27 (1977) 182-83.
[79] See Mørkholm, NC 97 (1969) 21-31; McGing, FPME , 79 n. 47, 172-75.
[80] McGing, FPME , 175; Brennan, Chiron 22 (1992) 118-32.
in 97, the earliest possible date in view of the lex annalis and his repulsa ,[82] would be perfectly consistent with a provincial assignment in 96 and 95. At present it appears that the evidence of the Cappadocian regal coinage points toward the installation of Ariobarzanes ca. 96-95,[83] although, as noted above, this cannot be pressed. The year 95 was one of pax domi forisque according to Julius Obsequens (50), but it is doubtful that Sulla's killing of numerous Cappadocians and Armenians would have disturbed the pax for Obsequens's purposes.[84]
The Date of Ariobarzanes' First Expulsion from the Throne
Orosius 6.1.28-2.1 is unhelpful evidence.[85] Orosius dates the outbreak of the Mithridatic War to 662 A.U.C. (cf. 5.19.1), which would be 92 B.C. on the Varronian system, but synchronizes it with the outbreak of the civil war in the consulship of Sulla (88 B.C. ). (The same date and account is found in Eutropius 5.4-5.) The expulsion of Nicomedes that he describes is dearly the one with which, in effect, the war opened, also described by Appian at Mithridatica 19-20, not, as Sherwin-White appears to think, the one that preceded the mission of Aquillius (Mith . 10). But Orosius also accepts that the confrontation with Mithridates lasted thirty rather than forty years into the consulship of Cicero in 63—which would imply an opening date of 92. Unless the thirty years are only a round figure (see Pliny HN 7.97), it is tempting to suppose that whoever came up with the number was counting from the year in which Socrates Chrestus expelled
[82] Badian, Studies , 158-60; Keaveney, EtCl 48 (1980) 149-57; Brennan, Chiron 22 (1992) 132-37. Pace Broughton, MRR , 3:74, Livy Per . 70 suggests only a date no earlier than 96 for the Cappadocian expedition, not for the praetorship. Sumner's insertion of an aedileship between Sulla's repulsa and his successful campaign for the praetorship (Athenaeum 56 [1978] 395-96) is unconvincing. Sumner is forced to reject a fact adduced by Plutarch (that Sulla was elected praetor in the year after his defeat) in order to accept a dubious inference from Sulla's self-serving explanation for his defeat (that the people, wanting lavish games, wanted to force him into the aedileship)—an explanation that Plutarch points out was inconsistent with the facts! (Cf. also Broughton, MRR , 3:74, citing Pliny HN 8.53 for his lavish games as praetor.) Among the middle 90s, only 94, when C. Sentius was praetor urbanus , is absolutely excluded (Syll 732).
[83] Above, n. 80.
[84] Contra Sherwin-White, CQ 27 (1977) 175, 179. Note that 106, which was the second year of Marius's command against Jugurtha and saw the campaign against Tolosa in Gaul was "peaceful" according to Obsequens (41) except for some portents and the passage of Caepio's judiciary law.
[85] Contra Sherwin-White, RFPE , 112 n. 58.
Nicomedes IV, and Mithraas and Bagoas expelled Ariobarzanes "around the same time" (above); but this can only be conjecture.
The Livian Periochae (74) suggest a date in 90 or 89 for the restoration of Ariobarzanes and Nicomedes.[86] However, since the beginning of the war should be placed in 89,[87] the restoration of the kings probably belongs no later than 90, as the events of Appian Mithridatica 11-19, including two separate attacks by Nicomedes on Mithridates, should be allotted at least two campaigning seasons. It is tempting to associate the senatus consultum of 94 against loans to foreign ambassadors with some appeal to the Senate regarding the quarrels of the kings, notorious for their use of bribery; if so, it is perhaps to be associated with an appeal to the Senate by the sons of Nicomedes Ill over the Bithynian succession.[88]
I. The Thracian Attack on Delphi and the Expedition of "L. Scipio"
At some time in Olympiad 174 (84/83-81/80 B.C. ), an incursion of Thracians, of whom the Maedi appear to have made up the strongest contingent, was able to penetrate Greece as far as Delphi.[89] In Appian's Illyrica , we hear of an otherwise unattested campaign against the Maedi, Scordisci, and Dardani led by one L. Scipio in retaliation for an attack on Delphi. G. Daux's reconstruction has won general acceptance: the only L. Scipio active at the appropriate time is the Cinnan-Marian consul of 83; a praetorship in 86 would allow him to be proconsul in Macedonia and active there in 85 and 84, before his consulship in 83, when he opposed Sulla in Italy. The Thracian raid is thus dated to 84, and Scipio's campaign follows, still in the same year. Appian's reference to the passage of 32 years
[86] Badian, AJAH 1 (1976) 109 (90); Sherwin-White, CQ 27 (1977) 182 n. 48 (89? But cf. RFPE , 111-12, with n. 58).
[87] See p. 252, n. 115 above.
[88] Licinianus 35.91 Criniti; Cic. De or . 3.229; Memnon, FGrH 434 F 22.5; App. Mith . 10.
[90] Pomtow, RhM 513 (1890) 369-70; Reinach, BCH 34 (1910) 315-21. Accepted by Broughton, MRR , 2:58, 59 n. 2, 3:71; Sumner, Orators , 104; Badian, Studies , 99 n. 56; Papazoglou, Central Balkan Tribes , 314-23.
spelled out the implications of this reconstruction for the history of Sulla's relations with the Senate during the Mithridatic campaign: L. Scipio, sent out by the Senate and thus "the Roman Government's representative," fought the same tribes that Sulla fought in the same year, without the two Romans coming to blows; before late in 85 Cinna and the Senate appear ready to cooperate with Sulla.[91]
There are difficulties that have thus far, it seems, escaped notice. Contra Badian, the Thracian raid, and thus "Scipio's" reprisal, cannot be dated before 84. Yet that makes the chronology very tight indeed: we need time in that single calendar year for the Thracians to penetrate into Greece (where was Scipio then?) and for Scipio to appear and respond with a strike into the territory of the Scordisci and yet return to Rome (apparently with his army, which he would hardly have left to Sulla) just ahead of Sulla, now in Greece, in time to take up the consulship for 83. What was the purpose of this extraordinary expedition? Whether it was to cooperate with Sulla or even to block him, why do we hear nothing of any contact between the two? Indeed, it is quite extraordinary that our relatively copious sources on the Mithridatic and Sullan civil wars never so much as mention this campaign, although Scipio and Sulla would on this reconstruction have been barely missing each other in their marches and countermarches in Greece and Macedonia during 85-84; while, on the other hand, our sole source for the campaign, Appian's Illyrica , makes no mention of Sulla or the Mithridatic wars. It is sobering that Appian is at his weakest and least informed in this particular book; and the introduction, where this reference appears, is the worst of a bad lot. Further, lists of the great conquerors of the Balkan tribes appear repeatedly in the epitomators of the Empire, yet L. Scipio is never found among them.[92]
The emendation of Appian's date of 32 to 302 years, positing that
[91] Studies , 224; cf. 80-81. Broughton had already tended toward 85: cf. MRR , 2:58, with no entry for 84. Indeed, "there is no doubt of the command [in Macedonia] of Scipio Asiagenes in 85" (MRR , 3:98).
[92] Cf. Flor. 1.39; Festus Brev . 7, 9; Eutr. 6.2; Oros. 5.23.17-20; Jord. Summ. Rom . 216, 219-21.
[93] The quotation: Badian, Studies , 99 n. 56.
[94] See Mac . 3.2, Hisp . 39, Mith . 98, BC 5.27.
chapter described the first major dash between the "Celtic" (in his view) Cimbri and Romans, centering on the battle of Arausio in 105 (section 4),[95] it seems virtually certain that this campaign, not the capture of Rome in 386 (or 390), which he has not mentioned in this monograph, is to be understood as his reference point. The number may still be corrupt, but the proposed emendation is not attractive.
The supposed campaign of L. Scipio in 84 against the Maedi, Scordisci, and Dardani is therefore too problematic to be accepted. Nor is it easy to see, assuming that Appian is mistaken here, where precisely the confusion lies. Our other sources for the expansion of Roman power to the Danube are clear that after the Mithridatic War the first great push came under Ap. Claudius Pulcher in 77-76. Claudius, intriguingly, undertook an offensive against the Maedi and levied tribute on the Dardani, as Appian's "Scipio" is supposed to have done.[96] Subsequently (75-73) C. Scribonius Curio again fought the Dardani and became the first Roman to reach the Danube. As it happens, the Danube plays a role in the Scipio story as well, for Appian says that he drove the remnants of the Scordisci to settle on islands in the river.[97] Thirty-two years after Arausio brings us to 74 or 73. Although from C. Curio to L. Scipio is not the easiest of corruptions, it is far from implausible that such a slip occurred at some point in the transmission of the tradition.
In view of the great uncertainty about this supposed campaign, clearly little is gained by identifying the unknown Roman victor over "Galatae" whose campaign is commemorated in an inscribed epigram found in Magnesia (IG IX.2.1135) with L. Scipio.[98] Other candidates and dates from the end of the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. have been championed, and no useful resolution of the controversy seems in sight.[99]
How to make sense of Appian Illyrica remains an open question. But the Thracian expedition of "L. Scipio" has not yet earned a place in Roman
[95] He errs in saying that both consuls were defeated, rather than one consul and one proconsul. That does not shake our confidence that Arausio is meant: see Münzer, RE 2A (1923) 1784-85.
[96] Sources above, p. 296, n. 19.
[97] Ill . 5; cf. 3. For Scribonius's campaigns, see chap. 11.
[98] So Papazoglou, Central Balkan Tribes , 327-32.
[99] See Corbato, RivFil 31 (1953) 132-42 (first century B.C. : Sulla or M. Lucullus); W. Peek, Klio 42 (1964) 319-27 (first century A.D. ); Robert and Robert, REG 67 (1954) 143, no. 152; 68 (1955) 232, no. 136a (end of second century B.C. : M. Minucius Rufus); J. Oliver, GRBS 8 (1967) 237-39 (first century A.D. , legate of Moesia under Claudius).
history.[100] Consequently, there is no hindrance to placing the Thracian expedition of the 174th Olympiad in a year subsequent to 84.[101] It would fit best after Sulla's departure from the East early in 83.
J. Roman Intervention in Cyrenaica in the 70s
The development of Roman interests in Cyrene from the death of its last king in 96, though strictly outside the geographical limits of this study, helps us to understand Roman intervention in neighboring Cretan waters in the later 70s.
As far back as 96 King Apion had left Cyrene to the Roman people as his heir, but at the time the Senate seems to have done little more than to declare the cities of the former kingdom "free."[102] Whether in the subsequent two decades Rome made any consistent effort to exploit the new possessions financially is controversial and quite obscure.[103] But it is clear that despite the testament of King Apion, no Roman magistrate had been assigned Cyrene as a provincia before 75, when, Sallust tells us, "Publius Lentulus Marcellinus . . . was sent as quaestor to a new provincia , Cyrene" (H . 2.43 Maurenbrecher).[104] L. Lucullus had visited Cyrene (as well as Crete and Egypt) on his ship-mustering expedition in 86 and had helped to settle stasis in the city, a festering problem throughout the region, but this had evidently not resumed any Roman claims to the area.[105]
[100] Cf. Pomtow, RhM 513 (1896) 373.
[101] See Mosshammer, Eusebius , 65-83, on the likelihood of displacement of Eusebian dates within Olympiads.
[103] See, for differing views, Oost, CP 58 (1963) 11-25; Badian, JRS 55 (1965) 119-20, and Roman Imperialism , 29-30, 35-37; Perl, Klio 52 (1970) 319-20; Braund, in Cyrenaica in Antiquity , 321-22; Laronde, ANRW II.10.1 (1988) 1008. The shipment of thirty pounds of precious silphium in 93 (Pliny HN 19.40) does not imply that this was regular thereafter.
[104] On the date of Marcellinus's appointment, Perl's arguments for 75 (Klio 52 [1970] 321-25) are convincing against the orthodox date of 74 (cf. Broughton, MRR , 2:103, 3:69) based on App. BC 1.111. See n. 106 for the Latin text.
[105] Lucullus: Plut. Luc . 2.3-4; cf. App. Mith . 33; Strabo FGrH 91 F7 = Joseph. AJ 14.114-18. Cyrenaican stasis: see Oost, CP 58 (1963) 16-19; Laronde, Cyrène , 455-85, with new editions of the important decrees of Arsinoe and Berenice first published by J. M. Reynolds: SEG XXVI.1817; XXVIII.1540 (which, however, Laronde would date to A.D. 3/4). Cf. briefly Laronde, ANRW II.10.1 (1988) 1009-11.
A recent reexamination of the palimpsest that contains this fragment of Sallust has yielded important information, surprisingly passed over by the investigator himself in his publication. The text, as it is now established, seems to show that in 75 the Senate chose to assign Cyrene as a province only after rejecting the claims of two unidentified men who would be the Ptolemaic princes Auletes, now on the throne of Egypt since 80, and his younger brother, who held Cyprus at this time.[106] Cicero mentions incidentally in the fourth Verrine oration an embassy to the Senate at precisely this time undertaken by Cleopatra Selene, probably the mother of Auletes and the Cypriot king, and her children by her Seleucid husband, among them the current claimant to the Syrian throne, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus. Cleopatra and her children attempted to claim the Egyptian throne as well as the Seleucid, but they were snubbed and permitted neither an audience with the Senate nor the privilege of dedicating offerings to Jupiter Optimus Maximus.[107] We should note also that Auletes in 76/75 at last underwent his formal coronation, postponed for five years from his assumption of the throne in 80.[108] The delay is surely linked to the recent testament of Ptolemy Alexander I (d. 87) or II (d. 80), which conferred the kingdom upon Rome[109] ; but the end of Auletes' hesitation coincides intriguingly with the embassy of Cleopatra and the senatorial decision on Cyrene.
[106] Sall. H . 2.43 Maurenbrecher: Publiusque Lentulus Marcellinus eodem auctore quaestor in novam provinciam Cyrenas missus est, cum ea mortui regis Apionis testamento nobis data prudentiore quam adulescentis et minus quam ille avide imperio continenda fuit . Reading by Perl, Klio 52 (1970) 321 n. 3, accepted by L. D. Reynolds in the OCT . It seems tolerably clear that ille should refer to someone other than the adulescens . The adulescens would be Ptolemy of Cyprus (on whom see H. Volkmann, RE 23 [1959] 1755-56, and Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty , 236-37), and ille Ptolemy Auletes (on whom see Volkmann, pp. 1749-50, and Sullivan, pp. 91-94). The text is understood differently by McGushin, Sallust , 49, 207-8.
[108] See Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty , 91-95.
[109] For the case for Alexander I see Badian, RhM 110 (1967) 178-92; contra: Braund, PBSR 51 (1983) 24-28.
It is unlikely that these events are unrelated. I suggest that in the winter of 76-75 the Senate was confronted with a number of claims by rivals for the thrones of Egypt and Cyrene. The beginning of a new fiscal quinquennium in 75 may well have raised the issue of whether the outstanding Ptolemaic legacies—both Egyptian and Cyrenaican—should be accepted, just as it did precisely a decade later. Regarding Cyrene, it is significant that despite its passing to Rome by testament in 96 the Ptolemaic rivals evidently regarded the Roman claim to it still as an open issue. However, they were both disappointed, and now their dispute over its possession served as the impetus for Rome to assume control itself. But as we shall see, the decision was probably motivated by much more than mere determination to prevent Cyrene's falling into others' hands.
The sending of a quaestor to assert Roman control over an area claimed by testamentary fight is a novelty, later to provide a precedent for Cato's mission to Cyprus in 58.[110] We do not strictly know whether Marcellinus received a successor in Cyrene; Sallust's reference to Cyrene as a nova provincia need hardly imply that the quaestor organized the "permanent annexation" of the area.[111] The first Roman official attested in Cyrene after P. Marcellinus is Pompey's legate in 67, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, who appears in a series of inscriptions from Cyrene in various, unfortunately mostly obscure, contexts, and after him, M. Iuventius Laterensis, quaestor there ca. 63.[112] It has been properly noted that had there been a governor of Cyrene in 67 his name ought to have appeared in the contexts in which we find that of Cn. Marcellinus.[113] As usual here again the "organizing" of a "province" at 75, 67, or any other time passes without direct attestation in our evidence, and such a conception is singularly unhelpful for understanding the peculiar character of Roman intervention in Cyrene at this time.[114]
[110] See Badian, JRS 55 (1965) 110-13.
[111] So Perl, Klio 52 (1970) 321 n. 1. See contra Badian, JRS 55 (1965) 119-20.
[112] Cn. Marcellinus: JRS 52 (1962) 97-103, nos. 2, 6-7 certainly (= SEG XX.730, 709; CIL I , 2960), no. 4 probably (= SEG XX.715; cp. no. 5 = CIL I , 2959), and possibly no. 3 (= SEG IX.160). Laterensis: Cic. Planc . 13, 63 (cf. Broughton, MRR , 3:116).
[113] Badian, JRS 55 (1965) 119. Mention of Cn. Marcellinus in connection with the settlement of a colony of ex-pirates at Ptolemais would of course be easily explicable (cf. Reynolds, JRS 52 [1962] 102-3), but his settlement of a dispute between Cyrene and Apollonia (no. 6) and other, rather obscure activities in Cyrene itself (nos. 4-5) are much less understandable if a governor was present.
[114] Perl shows that Eutr. 6.1 (quo tempore [sc. of Metellus's war in Crete] Libya quoque Romano imperio per testamentum Appionis, qui rex eius fuerat, accessit ) is useless as evidence for "provincialization," as it is merely an example of the alternative, corrupt tradition that supposed that Cyrene and Libya came into Rome's possession through two successive wills of two different kings (Klio 52 [1970] 325, with 319 n. 1).
The sudden concern of the Senate with Cyrene in 75, manifested by P. Marcellinus's quaestorian mission, has not been satisfactorily explained. An older view posits that the objective was above all cash with which to alleviate financial difficulties ostensibly implied by the acute grain shortage of 75.[115] But the problem of the mid-70s does not seem to have been one simply of finances: the interruption of the grain routes by the pirates was even more fundamental.[116] More recently the "annexation" of Cyrene—I should say rather the exertion of a measure of Roman control, though sporadic—has been interpreted as an attempt to control piracy, which was endemic off its shores as well as in Cilicia and Crete.[117] But this may be to put the cart before the horse: sending a quaestor across the Mediterranean to far-off Cyrene was an odd way of combatting a problem that, before Antonius launched his ships in 74, was sorely vexing Italy itself and the Sardinian, Sicilian, Spanish, and North African grain routes. Nor is a quaestor a likely choice as commander of a significant military operation. The most plausible hypothesis is a modification of the first: Cyrene was "reclaimed" in 75 in order to supplement from one of the great cereal regions of the Mediterranean the grain supply of Rome, which, it is surely no accident, was severely strained precisely in 75, when a consul was actually attacked by an angry mob.[118] The interest of the Senate in Cyrene was on this view extremely restricted in scope in the 70s and 60s, and it is therefore no surprise that signs of Rome's presence are so scarce and sporadic in subsequent years, for the crisis had receded—due surely to Antonius's efforts in the West as well as to the exploitation of Cyrene—by 73, when the state could again offer subsidized grain.[119]
[115] Oost, CP 58 (1963) 20-21, accepted and elaborated by Badian, JRS 55 (1965) 119-20, and Roman Imperialism , 35-37.
[116] Perl, Klio 52 (1970) 321 n. 1.
[117] Braund, in Cyrenaica in Antiquity , 319-25; Laronde, ANRW II.10.1 (1988) 1009-11, and Cyrène , 468—69.
[118] For the difficulties with the grain supply in the 70s, see p. 306 n. 57; Gruen, Last Generation , 35-36, 385; and Rickman, Corn Supply , 166-68. On Cyrenaican grain, see Rickman, pp. 109, 167, and SEG IX.2. Braund's objections (in Cyrenaica in Antiquity , 323) are not compelling.
[119] Sail. H . 3.48.19 Maurenbrecher, with Badian, JRS 55 (1965) 120.
K. Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, tr. pl. 69
Despite the obvious and inescapable implication of Diodorus 40.1.2 that Lentulus Spinther blocked peace with Crete in 69 by means of a tribunician veto (
[120] RE 4 (1894) 1394; cf. 1382, 1302.
[121] Cf. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, "The Roman Nobility in the Second Civil War," CQ n.s. 10 (1960) 258-59 n. 3 (rejecting, however, the view that Spinther was plebeian), and Two Studies , 18-20; Syme, Roman Papers , 2:559-60; Sumner, Orators , 126, 133-34. Note that P. Cornelius Dolabella (tr. pl. 47) had become a plebeian, and thus eligible for the tribunate, through adoption by a Lentulus.
[122] Sumner, Orators , 140-41, with the review of T. P. Wiseman, JRS 65 (1975) 198.