(1991) 167–178 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt Gmbh, Bonn
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CLAUDE F. EILERS CN. DOMITIUS AND SAMOS: A NEW EXTORTION TRIAL (IGR 4,968) aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 89 (1991) 167–178 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 167 CN. DOMITIUS AND SAMOS: A NEW EXTORTION TRIAL (IGR 4,968)* It is well known that cities in the provinces frequently honoured prominent Romans with whom they had contact. Greek cities called them by honorific titles such as 'benefactor' (eÈerg°th!), 'founder' (kt¤!th!) and 'saviour' (!vtÆr). One title which the Greeks borrowed from the Romans, and which they used to honour only their Roman benefactors, is pãtrvn. This paper will examine an inscription in which a Roman patron of Samos is mentioned, IGR 4,968:1 ı d∞mo! ı %am¤vn Gna›on Dom°tion | Gna¤ou uflÚn, toË doy°nto! ÍpÚ t∞! | !unklÆtou pãtrvno! t«i dÆmvi, | Íp°r te t«n katå tÚ flerÚn t∞! || ÉArt°mido! | t∞! TauropÒlou, éret∞! ßneken | t∞! efi! •autÚn, ÜHrhi. | FilÒtexno! ÑHr≈idou §po¤e. Patrocinium of cities had an important role in the political and social history of Rome,2 and this inscription has usually been understood as providing an example of this institution. For this inscription, scholars have discussed not only the identities of the patron and his son,3 but also the nature of patronage of cities,4 the cult-site of Artemis Tauropolus,5 and even senatorial policy towards Greek cities in the mid-second century B.C.6 However, an important aspect of this inscription has been overlooked, namely that it reveals a previously unnoticed extortion trial. According to the inscription the elder Domitius was given as patron by the senate (toË dÒyento! ÍpÚ t∞! !ugklÆtou pãtrvno!). This phrase is unique in epigraphical honours for patrons. Over 1200 patroni of cities are attested in Greek and Latin inscriptions of all * I thank Dr. A.Lintott, Professor M.H.Crawford and Dr. B.Levick for their suggestions and criticisms. Any faults which remain are of course my own. 1 Originally published by A.Kirchhoff, Monatsber. Akad. Ber. 1859,753 no.2. For a photo of the remaining fragment, J.Marcadé, Recueil des signatures de sculpteurs Grecs, Paris 1953-7, 2.87. 2 E.g., M.Gelzer, The Roman Nobility, trans. R.Seager, Oxford 1969,86-101; L.Harmand, Le patronat sur les collectivités publiques des origines au Bas-Empire, Paris 1957; E.Badian, Foreign Clientelae, Oxford 1958; E.Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984,158-200; J.Touloumakos, "Zum römischen Gemeindepatronat im griechischen Osten." Hermes 116,1988,304-324. 3 P.Foucart, "La Formation de la province Romaine d'Asie" Mém. de l'Acad, des Inscr. et Belles Litt. 37,1904,330 n.1, G.Lafaye at IGR 4,968, L.Robert, Op.Min. 1.561 and n.6 and Touloumakos, Hermes 116,1988,310 have identified the father and son as consuls of 162 (suffect) and 122; Münzer, RE Suppl. 3.349, P.Hermann, ZPE 14,1974,257-8 and G.Chiranky, Athenaeum 60,1982,474-475 and n.72 have identified the two Domitii as the consuls of 122 and 96. 4 E.Badian, Foreign Clientelae 158-159; Touloumakos, Hermes 116,1988,310-311. 5 L.Robert, "Les Asklepieis de l'archipel," REG 46,1933,423-442 = Op.Min. 1.549-568. 6 Touloumakos, Hermes 116,1988, esp. 314-316. 168 C.F.Eilers periods. Only in IGR 4,968, however, is a patron said to be given to a city.7 Indeed the very idea of appointing a patron seems contrary to the voluntary nature of the relationship. However, a circumstance is known in which patroni were assigned to cities: as prosecutors in extortion trials. The earliest such case dates from 171 B.C. when ambassadors from the Spanish provinces approached the senate and complained about governors' depredations (Livy 43.2). Recuperatores were assigned and the Spaniards themselves chose patroni as their representatives (we will return to this later). Later, in the Gracchan lex repetundarum (123 or 122 B.C.), there was a paragraph de patroneis dandeis, under which the praetor of the new quaestio could (if the provincials desired) appoint patrons.8 During Augustan times, the SC Calvisianum established a similar practice: the magistrate who convened the meeting of the senate at which the provincials laid their complaint 'gave' them (didÒnai) a !unÆgoro!, i.e., a patronus causae.9 Another century later, the younger Pliny reports that a senate decree urged that he be 'given' as patron (ut darer provincialibus patronus) for a senatorial extortion trial.10 Indeed, a witticism reported by Cicero well illustrates that dare patronum was the regular phrase for the assignment of prosecutors:11 Est etiam stultitiae salsa reprehensio, ut ille Siculus, cui praetor Scipio patronum causae dabat hospitem suum, hominem nobilem, sed admodum stultum, 'quaeso,' inquit 'praetor, adversario meo da istum patronum, deinde mihi neminem dederis'. Here again dare patronum refers to legal advocacy. It is necessary now to bring together two observations. First, the appointment of patroni in repetundae trials was perfectly regular. Second, appointing civic patrons is unparalleled and intrinsically unlikely. Combining these two points leads naturally to the conclusion that IGR 4,968 is about repetundae, not civic patronage. The interpretation that the phrase toË dÒyento! ÍpÚ t∞! !ugklÆtou pãtrvno! t«i dÆmvi in IGR 4,968 refers to an extortion trial is confirmed by an allusion in the inscription to the culprit's victim. The senate gave Domitius as patron t«i dÆmvi Íp°r te t«n katå tÚ flerÚn t∞! ÉArt°mido! t∞! TauropÒlou. Since te attaches Íp°r and what follows to the 7 The two cases (at CIL 10,416 and 10,5393 = ILS 6286) proposed by J.Nicols ("The Emperor and the selection of the patronus civitatis: two examples," Chiron 8,1978,429-432) are due to mispunctuation, corrected by W.Eck, "Wahl von Stadtpatronen mit kaiserlicher Beteiligung?" Chiron 9,1979,489-494. 8 FIRA 2 I.7 (henceforth "lex rep.") vv. 9-11. The argument for 123 B.C. is given by A.N.Sherwin- White, "The lex repetundarum and the political ideas of Gaius Gracchus," JRS 72,1982,18 n.2; for 122 B.C., see (e.g.) A.Lintott, "The leges de repetundis and associate measures under the Republic," ZSS 98,1981,182- 185. 9 SEG 9.8 ( = EJ 311) no. 5 vv. 102-103. 10 Plin. Ep. 3.4.2-4; cf. 2.11.2, 10.3a.2. 11 Cic. de Or. 2.280. The charge is probably repetundae (since the plaintiff is a Sicilian) and perhaps under the Gracchan lex repetundarum, since the provincial can repudiate his patron (cf. lex rep. vv. 11-12). C.Venturini, Studi sul 'crimen repetundarum' nell'età repubblicana, Milan 1979,151 n.51. Broughton (MRR 1.347) identified the praetor as L.Cornelius Scipio (cos. 190), praetor of Sicily in 193. This should be rejected. P.Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. 111) is more likely, praetor of the repetundae court by 114. Cn.Domitius and Samos: A New Extortion Trial (IGR 4,968) 169 preceding clause, this should report the specific circumstances which lead to his appointment as patron, and not the Samians' reason for honouring their patron's son.12 Thus a specific allegation is recoverable: that a Roman official had committed an offence against the temple of Artemis Tauropolus. Such an accusation is not surprising: the wealth of sacred places, not only in cash but also in priceless works of art, made them attractive prey for malefactors.13 It seems clear that the elder Domitius in IGR 4,968 was a prosecutor in an extortion trial - a patronus causae. It therefore should be recognised that in its use of the word pãtrvn, this inscription is imitating the technical vocabulary of Roman legal procedure. It does not necessarily follow that the Samians thereafter considered themselves part of Domitius' clientela. The senate appointed Domitius as prosecutor for a specific trial: thus the aorist participle. It is therefore unclear whether either Domitius or the Samians regarded the relationship as permanent or long-term. Domitius' advocacy may have been the initial beneficium that created a patron-client relationship with Samos. Indeed there is evidence supporting this.14 Nevertheless it is unsafe to assume that the word pãtrvn in the inscription refers to such a relationship rather than strictly to Domitius' actions as prosecutor. Consequently, this inscription should not be used as evidence for the nature of municipal patronage, and cannot show that the senate could impose a patronal relationship between a senator and city, or that it ever had a policy of doing so.15 IGR 4,968 refers to a repetundae trial,16 and the victim was the temple of Artemis Tauropolus. But when? Philotechnus, son of Herodes, sculpted the statue of the younger Domitius, as the inscription on its base (IGR 4,968) tells us. Fortunately, a statue of a Seleucid prince by the same sculptor can be dated with confidence to 130 or 129 B.C. by the titulature of the young man's father.17 For Philotechnus to sculpt the children of a Seleucid monarch and a Roman senator are signs of conspicuous success. Consequently, the period between the statues of the young Domitius and the young Seleucid prince may be short: probably within a decade or two. The possibility of a longer interval between the two statues, or between the statues and 12 Pace Touloumakos, Hermes 116,1988,310, who assumes that the phrase refers to the younger Domitius. 13 E.g., C.Lucretius (Liv. 43.7.10), Antiochus IV (Polyb.