Rzym Antyczny Polityka I Pieniądz the Ancient Rome Politics and Money V NR 3200 Rzym Antyczny Polityka I Pieniądz the Ancient Rome Politics and Money V

Home , 60s BC, Aeclanum, Alahan Monastery, Anemurium, Blaundus, Cinna (Galatia)

Rzym antyczny Polityka i pieniądz The Ancient Rome Politics and Money V NR 3200 Rzym antyczny Polityka i pieniądz The Ancient Rome Politics and Money V

Azja Mniejsza w czasach rzymskich Asia Minor in Roman Times

Pod redakcją Wiesława Kaczanowicza

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego • Katowice 2014 Redaktor serii: Historia SYLWESTER FERTACZ

Recenzent LESZEK MROZEWICZ Contents

Wprowadzenie (Wiesław Kaczanowicz) 7

Önsöz (Wiesław Kaczanowicz) 9

Introduction (Wiesław Kaczanowicz) 11

Marek Jan Olbrycht: The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia: Remarks on the Political Strategy of Mithradates VI Eupator (until 89 B.C.) 13

Tomasz Ładoń: L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani? 29

Norbert Rogosz: The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat of the Eastern Provinces in Years 53—50 B.C. 41

Agnieszka Bartnik: Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской по изображениям на монетах периода Римскй Империи 64

Wojciech Boruch: The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Pro- vince of Asia during the Reign of Julio-Claudian Dynasty 85

Krzysztof Ścisło: The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy (98—117 A.D.). Outline of Issues 106

Przemysław Dyrlaga: Selected Aspects of Relations between the Imperial Power and the Provincial Cities during the Reign of the Emperor Macrinus (with Emphasis on the Region of Asia Minor) 123

Agata A. Kluczek: « Vue d’Asie Mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle dans l’Empire romain. Les thèmes monétaires à Cyzique (276 apr. J.-C.) 139 6 Contents

Agata A. Kluczek: Quelques remarques sur l`iconographie des médaillons de Probus du type virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum 159

Rafał Kosiński: Nostalgia or a Political Necessity? The Background of the Emperor Zeno’s Numerous Donations in Isauria 173 Wprowadzenie

Oddajemy do rąk Czytelników już piąty z kolei tom serii wydawniczej „Rzym Antyczny. Polityka i pieniądz”. Seria ta jest rezultatem zainteresowań i prac badawczych prowadzonych przez pracowników Zakładu Historii Staro- żytnej Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach. Profil naukowy naszego Zakła- du dotyczy bowiem w głównej mierze historii starożytnego Rzymu, a przede wszystkim numizmatyki tego państwa. Niniejszy tom różni się w swoich założeniach od poprzednich czterech. Wcześniejsze dotyczyły różnych aspektów historii, a szczególnie historii pie- niądza na całym terytorium państwa rzymskiego i obszarach ościennych. Piąty tom odnosi się natomiast jedynie do Azji Mniejszej oraz spraw małoazjatyc- kich, zawierając przy tym artykuły zarówno pracowników Zakładu Historii Starożytnej Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, jak i zaproszonych Gości. Wachlarz za- prezentowanej problematyki jest jednocześnie bardzo szeroki. Chronologicznie dotyczy on bowiem kwestii Małej Azji w dziejach późnej Republiki Rzymskiej oraz w czasach Imperium Rzymskiego aż po wczesne Bizancjum. Tematycz- nie nawiązuje natomiast do spraw historii politycznej tego regionu, a także do tamtejszych kwestii ideologicznych, kulturowych, religijnych oraz społecznych. Polski Czytelnik otrzymuje w ten sposób szeroki, panoramiczny obraz historii Małej Azji w czasach rzymskich, a dzięki bogatemu aparatowi naukowemu w postaci stanów badań nad poszczególnymi problemami i cytowanej literatury przedmiotu — wiedzę co do światowych studiów o tym obszarze w starożytno- ści rzymskiej. Czytelnicy spoza Polski otrzymują natomiast w ten sposób wgląd w główne profile polskich zainteresowań badawczych nad tym fascynującym rejonem w tamtych czasach.

Wiesław Kaczanowicz

Önsöz

„Eski Roma. Siyaset ve Para” kitap serisinin beşinci ciltini Okuyuculara tanıtıyoruz. Bu seri Katowice’deki Silezya Üniversitesi’nin Eski Tarih Bölü- münün araştırmacılarının ilgileri ve araştırmalarının sonucudur. Çünkü bölümü- müzün bilimsel profili Eski Roma tarihi ve öncelikle bu ülkenin numismatiği ile ilgilidir. Sunulan beşinci ciltin varsayımları önceki dört ciltin varsayımlarından ayrılır. Öncekiler tarihinin farklı acıları ve özellikle Roma’nın bütün alanında ve komşu ulkelerinde para tarihi ile ilgilendi. Oysa ki beşinci cilt sadece Küçük Asya (Anadolu) ve onunla ilgili meseleler ile alakalıdır. Ayrıca bu kitap hem Silezya Üniversitesi’nin araştırmacıları hem de davet edilmiş misafirlerin makalelerini içinde barındırır. Aynı zamanda sunulan problemler geniş alana yayılır. Kronolojik olarak Geç Roma Cumhuriyeti ve erken Bizans devrine kadar Roma İmparatorluğu zamanındaki Küçük Asya ile ilgili meselelere dokunur. Konusal olarak Anadolu bölgesinin siyasal tarihi yanı sıra ideolojik, kültürel, dinsel ve sosyal sorunlarını anlatır. Bunun sayesinde Polonyalı Okuyucu Roma döneminde Küçük Asya’nin tarihinin geniş, panoramik görüşünü elde edebilir. Buna ek olarak, belirli meseleler uzerine yapılan araştırmaların sonuçları yada alıntı yapılmış feyizli edebiyat gibi zengin araştırma araçlarının sayesinde Eski Roma döneminde bu alanlarla ilgili dunyadaki araştırmalar hakkında bilgi sahibi olabilir. Aynı zamanda, böylece yabancı Okuyucular Polonya’da bu büyüleyici bolge üzerine yapılan araştırmaların ana profilini öğrenebilir.

Wiesław Kaczanowicz

Introduction

We pass the fifth volume of the series Ancient Rome. Politics and Money into the hands of Readers. This series is a result of interests and researches conducted by the employees of the Ancient History Department at the Univer- sity of Silesia in Katowice. The scientific profile of our Department concerns mainly the history of ancient Rome and, above all, numismatics of this country. As far as its assumptions are concerned, this volume differs from the four previous. Earlier volumes concerned various aspects of history and, particularly, the history of money in the whole territory of the Roman Empire and neighbouring areas. The fifth volume relates only to Asia Minor and its issues and includes articles written by both the employees of the Ancient History Depart- ment of the University of Silesia and invited Guests. Therefore, the range of presented problems is very wide. Chronologically-wise, it concerns the issues of Asia Minor in the history of the late Roman Republic and at the time of Roman Empire until early Byzantium. The subject of this volume refers to the political history of this region as well as to the ideological, cultural, religious and social issues. Thus, Polish readers gain a wide, panoramic image of the history of Asia Minor during Roman times and, thanks to a wide scientific system represented by the current state of research and plenty of quotations from reference books, knowledge of global studies about this area at the time of ancient Rome. Read- ers outside Poland, in turn, acquire insight into main scientific profiles of Polish researches concerning this fascinating region at that time.

Wiesław Kaczanowicz

Marek Jan Olbrycht

The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia: Remarks on the Political Strategy of Mithradates VI Eupator (until 89 B.C.)

After Mithradates VI Eupator had noticed the Ro- man expensionary policy in Anatola, he formulated precise war aims and political plans which, in contemporary terms, may be called a military and political strategy. The Roman state posed a threat of subjugating the whole Anatolia coupled with efforts of incorporating them. Having correctly identified the capabilities and intentions of Rome, Eupator aimed at consolidation inside the Pontic state and strengthening its position vis-à-vis neighbouring powers. Because his assessment of the above-mentioned threats was correct he was able to fight Rome for more than 25 years. To start with, the notion of military strategy needs some explanation. Military strategy is defined as the art of designing and managing military campaigns. But military factors are inseparable from the non-military ones in conducting the war and in schemes designed for securing the peace. The starting point of all strategic planning and actions is state policy conducted by its leaders. Carl von Clausewitz, one of the greatest students of strategy, summarised this relation in the following words: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of policy carried out by other means.” The same ideas flourished in antiquity, too.1 Thus, one have

1 E.L. W h e e l e r: “Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy: Part II.” The Journal of Military History, vol. 57, no. 2, 1993, p. 221. 14 Marek Jan Olbrycht to distinguish between political and military aspects of strategy. Political factors of strategy comprise state policy (sometimes formulated as political programmes) as well as the enemy’s policy and intentions. Military strategy deals with the state of the armed forces, aims of campaigns, the theatre of war (including bases of operations and lines of communication), principles of preparedness, and coalition warfare. It can be inferred from the source material that the political strategy of Eupator towards Rome was based upon the programme which consisted of the following postulates: 1 building the kingdom and its economic as well as military ressources. 2 Subjugating/conquering new territories in the Black Sea area, chiefly beyond the Roman sphere of control or interest in the Black Sea area. 3 gaining new powerful allies, including the Parthian empire and Parthian- dominated Armenia. Issues pertaining to the points 1 and 2 have been investigated by the historians for a long time. Eupator attached utmost importance to the erection of fortifications and strongholds. During the internal consolidation of the kingdom, the fortified centres made the basis for the dynasty at the same time becoming the elements of defence system against the aggression of the neighbouring powers. For instance, Eupator established his hold on Armenia Minor and the adjacent country by erecting 75 forts where he deposited most of his treasures (Strab. 12.3.28). To avoid a direct confrontation with Rome, Mithradates Eupa- tor’s first greater military operations were in countries around the eastern and northern shores of the Black Sea.2 Control over Armenia Minor and Kolchis was gained probably during or after the Crimean campaigns.3 Then Eupator turned his attention to Anatolian kingdoms, whereupon military operations against Paphlagonia, Galatia and Kappadokia ensued.4

2 H. H e i n e n: “Mithradates VI. Eupator, Chersonesos und die Skythenkönige. Kontro- versen um Appian, Mithr. 12f. und Memnon 22,3f.” In: Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat. Hrsg. A. C o ş k u n. Göttingen 2005, pp. 75—90; F d e C a l l a t a ÿ: L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies (Numismatica Lovaniensia 18). Louvain-La-Neuve 1997, pp. 245—264; cf. M.J. O l b r y c h t: “Mithradates VI. Eupa- tor, der Bosporos und die sarmatischen Völker.” W: Kimmerowie, Scytowie, Sarmaci. Księga poświęcona pamięci Profesora Tadeusza Sulimirskiego. Red. J. C hochorowski. Kraków 2004, pp. 331—347; I d e m: “Bosporos, the Steppe Peoples of the Black Sea Area and Parthian Iran in the Grand Strategy of Mithradates VI Eupator.” In: Bospor Kimmeriyskiy i varvarskiy mir v period antichnosti i srednevekov’ya. Militaria. Ed. V.N. Z i n k o. Kerč 2008, pp. 324—325. 3 For Kolchis as part of the Eupator’s empire, see Strab. 11.2.18; Memnon FGrHist 434 F 22.3. For Armenia Minor, see Strab. 12.3.28. Cf. E.A. M o l e v: “Malaya Armenia i Mitridat.” In: Problemy antichnoy istorii i kultury 1. Erevan 1979, p. 188; D.B. S h e l o v: “Kolkhida v sisteme Pontiyskoi derzhavy Mitridata VI.” VDI, vol. 3, 1980, pp. 28—43; F. D e C a l l a t a ÿ: L’histoire..., p. 253. 4 On the history of Cappadokia, see R.D. S u l l i v a n: “The Dynasty of Cappadocia.” ANRW II 7, 1980, pp. 1125—1168; I d e m: Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100—33 B.C. Toronto 1990. The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 15

The present study focuses on Eupator’s efforts to gain support from Arsacid Iran and Parthian-dominated Armenia (point 3) until 89 B.C. Concerning the Eupator’s basic security objectives and war preparations, the position of Arsacid Iran was essential. Sources point to the existence of vivid relations between Eupator and the Arsacid empire under Mithradates II (122—87 B.C.), one of the greatest Parthian kings. Because of his achievements some antique accounts call him “the Great.”5 Armenia, which remained an Arsacid vassal at this time, played a special role in the relationship between Parthia and Pontos.

*** Iustinus (42.2.6) claims that Mithradates II made war on “Artoadistes,” king of Armenia — ad postremum Artoadisti, Armeniorum regi, bellum intulit. The mention directly follows an account of wars against the “Scythians,” i.e. nomads of Central Asia. Later Iustinus focuses on a digression about the origins of Armenian kings, embellishing it with legendary themes, which makes historical analysis difficult (Iust. 42.2.7—42.3.9). But even in this digression there are realistic references which deserve attention. For one thing, Armenia is accurately depicted as a country which then played a dominant role in Transcaucasia, i.e. in the area from Cappadokia to the Caspian Sea.6 Furthermore, two mentions of Caucasian Albania (42.3.4, 42.3.7), although shrouded in myth, suggest that the country was then closely linked with Armenia, and, by extension, with Parthia. Probably Albania, like Armenia, had recognized Parthian hegemony. Since Albania offered the most convenient transit routes from Caspian steppes to Iran, it was a strategically important country for the Arsacids to be able to defend Transcaucasia and the entire empire against the nomads from the north. In Prologus libri XLII, Trogus makes a general mention of Mithradates II’s war against Armenia: Phrati successit rex Mithridates cognomine Magnus, qui Armeniis bellum intulit. Trogus is wrong in saying that Mithradates was the successor of Phraates II; in reality he reigned after Artabanos I. In Prologus libri XLII there appears the Armenian ruler Tigranes, a hostage at the court of Mithra- dates II and later (from 96 B.C.) a Parthian vassal in Armenia: In Parthicis ut est constitutum imperium per Arsacem regem. Successores deinde eius Artabanus

5 Iust. 42.2.3: Mithridates [...] cui res gestae Magni cognomen dedere; quippe claritatem parentum aemulatione virtutis accensus animi magnitudine supergreditur. Cf. Trog. Prol. 42. On Mithradates II the Great, see N.C. D e b e v o i s e: A Political History of Parthia. Chicago 1938, pp. 40—50; M.J. O l b r y c h t: Parthia et ulteriores gentes. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen dem arsakidischen Iran und den Nomaden der eurasischen Steppen (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt, Bd. 30). München 1998, pp. 96—105. 6 Iustinus says that “it is not right that so great a kingdom should be passed in silence, since its territory, next to that of Parthia, is of greater extent than any other kingdom.” According to him, Armenia stretches over a space of 1,100 miles, and is 700 miles in breadth from Cappadokia to the Caspian Sea (42.2.7—9). 16 Marek Jan Olbrycht et Tigranes cognomine Deus, a quo subacta est Media et Mesopotamia. That Tigranes cognomine Deus must be Tigranes of Armenia during his conquests (from c. 80 B.C.), when he used the title Theos (Latin Deus). Along with him Iustinus mentions one Artabanos. This passage has aroused much controversy in historical research. The mention of Tigranes (96—55 B.C.) right after an account of the origins of the Parthians under Arsaces I (247—211 B.C.) is clearly an error by the epitomist.7 Not impossibly, the Artabanos mentioned together with Tigranes really stands for Artabazes, or Artavasdes, king of Armenia.8 The Arsacid intervention in Armenia resulted in that country being included in the Imperium Parthicum. While Iustinus calls the Armenian king opposing the Parthians by the name of Artoadistes, which is a distorted form of Artavas- des, the Tigranes handed over to the Parthians as a hostage was, according to Appian (Syr. 48), a son of Tigranes: “Tigranes, the son of Tigranes, king of Armenia, who had subdued many of the neighbouring nations which had kings of their own, and from these exploits had acquired the title of King of Kings.” This confusion may be explained as follows: Artavasdes was killed fighting the Parthians, and his probable successor Tigranes (I), made a deal with them and handed over his son Tigranes (II) as a hostage. Iustinus’s account implies that the conquest of Armenia occurred after a major crackdown on the nomads, which occured certainly after 119.9 The probable terminus ante quem is the year 110, when Mithradates II assumed the “King of Kings” title. In the year 111, Mithradates II engaged in an intervention in the empire’s north west. Babylonian Astronomical Diaries of the time speak of an attack on the land of Hanigalbat (month V, year 201 of the Seleukid era, i.e. 8 August—6 September 111 B.C.).10 An earlier Babylonian text from 165 B.C. identifies the “land of Habigalbat” as Armenia.11 Considering that about 113—111 B.C. the Parthians were deeply engaged on the Syrian frontier,

7 Therefore, the whole passage in Parthicis ut est constitutum ... Dictusque in excessu Ara- biae situs was moved by A. von Gutschmid (in an edition of Iustinus by Ruehl) to the prologue of book XLII. Details are referred to in M. S c h o t t k y: Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in hellenistischer Zeit. Bonn 1989, p. 209. 8 J. M a r q u a r t: Eranšahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac‘i (=Abh. Königl. Ges. der Wiss. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, N.F. III, no. 2). Berlin 1901, p. 645; M. S c h o t t k y: Media..., pp. 211—212. 9 See M.J. O l b r y c h t: Arsakid Iran and the Steppe Peoples of Central Eurasia. Leiden 2011 (forthcoming). 10 A.J. S a c h s, H. H u n g e r: Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. III: Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C. Texts (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften 247. Band). Vienna 1996, pp. 346—347, no. 110; G. D e l M o n t e: Testi dalla Babilonia Hellenistica. Vol. I: Testi Cronografici. Pisa—Roma 1997, pp. 153—154. 11 G. D e l M o n t e: Testi..., pp. 80—81. The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 17 subjugating Dura Europos,12 and in northern Mesopotamia, the annexation of Armenia may have happened at that time. The strategic position of Armenia on the way from Anatolia or the steppes north of the Caucasus to Iran, and its military and economic potential, were recognized by Mithradates II. That is why the Arsacids made the control of Armenia one of the fundamental targets in their policy toward Rome up to the end of the dynasty.

*** Parthian control over Armenia might have compelled Mithradates Eupator to get in touch with the Arsacid empire. It seems, therefore, highly probable that one of the essential components in the Pontic-Parthian relations, established by 101/102 B.C., was Pontic interest in receiving at least safety guarantees from Parthian-dominated Armenia and Parthia herself. After spending many years at the Parthian court, Tigranes was released by his sovereign Mithradates II the Great and appointed king of Armenia.13 The year 96 B.C. for Tigranes’s accession can be surmised based on Plutarch, who describes a meeting between Tigranes and Claudius in winter 71/70 B.C.: by that time Tigranes had been rulling for 25 years, thus he must have begun his rule in about 96 B.C.14 Information on Tigranes’s accession is also provided by the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries. One of these texts says that Tigranes’s father died in month I of the year 216 according to the Seleukid era (27 March—24 April 96 B.C.). While in Babylon at the Parthian court, Tigranes made preparations for his journey home:15

5: [...] I heard as follows: the king of (the city) Armini died.... [...] 6: [...] was entrusted [with]..., to this (city) Armini for king[ship? ....] 7: [...] who lived in Babylon, he gathered and to his support he [...]

Tigranes departed in month II of the year 216 (Seleukid era) (25 April—24 May 96 B.C.) to ascend the Armenian throne:16

11: [.... T]igranes, crown prince of (the city) Armini, [took?] the road to the city [...]

12 M.J. O l b r y c h t: Arsakid Iran... 13 On Tigranes, see M. S c h o t t k y: “Tigranes.” DNP, Bd. 12, 2002, pp. 567—568; N. G a r s o i a n: “Tigran II.” In: Encyclopedia Iranica (www.iranica.com), 2005. 14 Plut. Luc. 21. Detailed discussion in M. S c h o t t k y: Media..., p. 216, n. 240. Tigranes II died in about 55 B.C. (Cic. Sest. 59; Plut. Crass. 19) at the age of 85 (cf. Lukian, Makrob. 15). 15 A.J. S a c h s, H. H u n g e r: Astronomical Diaries..., pp. 418—419, no. -95C. 16 Ibidem, pp. 422—423, no. -95D. 18 Marek Jan Olbrycht

Strabo informs that Tigranes obtained “the privilege of returning home,” a statement emphasizing his vassal status. On this occasion, the Arsacid king exacted the cession of the area called “Seventy Valleys” to Parthia — it was a peculiar reward or pledge (Strab. 11.14.15; cf. Iust. 43.3.1). The cession of that area and Strabon’s phrase mentioned above imply that Tigranes was to be fully controlled by the Parthian King of Kings. The Seventy Valleys were a bone of contention between Armenia and Parthia for a long time; they were probably located in the border with Atropatene and may have been part of the area taken from Atropatene by Artaxias.17 It is common that the scholars overestimate Tigranes’s position at the beginning of his rule.18 The Arsacid empire was at that time at the apex of its power and it is impossible to see in Tigranes an independent ruler from the very beginning. Obviously, at least two stages in Tigranes’s career should be distinguished. During the first one, encompassing the period from 96 until about 80 B.C., he remained a faithfull vassal of Parthia. In 83 B.C. Tigranes was still viewed as a Parthian vassal.19 There is no evidence for any anti-Parthian action of Tigranes before 80 B.C. The second stage, in the 70s and 60s B.C., saw Tigranes’s independent policy and establishing an empire, partially at the expense of Parthia. There is evidence coming from Iran for a close connection between Par- thia and Tigranes in 88 B.C. According to the parchment from Avroman in Iranian Kurdistan, dated the year 88 B.C., the second wife of Mithradates II Aryazate surnamed Automa, was a daughter of the “Great King Tigranes.”20 As the Parthian ruler is named in the text Great King of Kings, the hierarchy is maintained and Tigranes appears as a vassal. His title, however, points to the fact that he was respected by his sovereign, apparently due to his exploits achieved in full accordance with Parthian policies, otherwise the Parthian king would reject Aryazate. While mentioning Tigranes’s enthronement, Iustinus 38.3.1 says that Eupa- tor “was eager to entice this man (sc. Tigranes) to join him in the war against Rome which he had long had in mind.” The subsequent moves were Tigranes’s invasion of Sophene and intervention in Cappadokia against Ariobarzanes, a Ro- man nominee. Moreover, Eupator gave his daugther Cleopatra to Tigranes as

17 See J. M a r q u a r t: Eranšahr nach der Geographie..., pp. 109, 173; M. S c h o t t k y: Media..., p. 222. 18 For example, R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100—33 B.C. Toronto 1990, p. 116. 19 M.J. O l b r y c h t: “Mithradates VI. Eupator and Iran...,” p. 177. 20 The document is dated to the year 225, month Apellaios by the Seleukid era, which gives us November of 88 B.C., see E.H. M i n n s: “Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan.” JHS, vol. 35, 1915, pp. 38. Aryazate might have been Mithradates II’s wife prior to 95, cf. M. S c h o t t k y: “Gibt es Münzen atropatenischer Könige?” AMI, Bd. 23, 1990, p. 214. The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 19 a bride.21 All these facts testify to the existence of a specific strategic planning on the part of the Arsacid King of Kings, who stood behind Tigranes and his Pontic ally. The first military action of Tigranes was aimed at the subjugation of Sophene in about 95 B.C.22 At this time, Sophene was ruled by Artanes or Orontes,23 a descendant of Zariadres, a Seleukid general who made himself independent about 189 B.C. Sophene had often been a disputed territory between Armenia and Cappadokia (Diod. 31.22). The Sophenian dynast was probably not deposed by Tigranes, but he continued to rule as vassal of the Armenian king. It was only after Tigranes’s annexation of Sophene that Armenia acquired a common frontier with Cappadokia and easy access to the Euphrates crossing at Tomisa, on the way leading to Melitene and Cappadokian hinterland.24 Significantly, the next military operation of Tigranes was an invasion of Cappadokia. Tigranes’s activities in Sophene, then in Cappadokia, and his close cooperation with Eupator must have been a result of Parthian strategic plans: the Arsacid king, a politician of broader horizons, was surely aware of Roman predominance in Anatolia and Roman military appetite. With the new alliance established, Eupator was able to challenge Roman power in Anatolia. At the same time, the Parthians showed their interest in control of Syria, Kilikia and Kommagene. It is thus conceivable that Arsacid strategy intended to secure the Parthian sphere of interest by annihilating — either with Pontic or Armenian hands — Roman influence in Cappadokia, a country stretching along the Euphrates and bordering with Kommagene, Armenia, and Kilikia Pedias, i.e. areas which Parthia controlled or planned to subjugate. Thus, Kappadokia remained the main disputed territory in eastern Anatolia in the 90s and 80s of the 1st century B.C.

*** Parthian strategic planning under Mithradates II took into account Kom- magene, a country between Syria, Kilikia, Kappadokia and the Euphrates river which had been a Seleukid possession.25 Kommagene became independent in

21 Iust. 38.3.2 links the marriage between Cleopatra and Tigranes with Tigranes’s action in Cappadocia. 22 For Tigranes’s subjugation of Sophene, see Strab. 11.14.15, 12.2.1. R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty..., p. 99, rightly dates the event “soon after his accession.” 23 Strab. 11.14.15 with R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty..., pp. 99. Stephanos of Byzantion (s.v. Sophene) calls Sophene’s ruler Arsakes, but it is probably a mistake. 24 The geographical peculiarities of the region reports Strab. 12.2.1. He underscores the communication links between Melitene, Kommagene, and Sophene. Cf. R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty..., p. 99. 25 On the history of Kommagene, see R.D. S u l l i v a n: “The Dynasty of Commagene.” ANRW II 8, 1977; J. Wa g n e r: “Dynastie und Herrscherkult in Kommagene. Forschungsges- chichte und neue Funde.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Bd. 33, 1983; F.K. D ö r n e r: Kommagene, 20 Marek Jan Olbrycht about 163—162 B.C. when Ptolemaios, a Seleukid governor, proclaimed himself a king (Diod. 31.19a). Under Samos (c. 130—100 B.C.), Mithradates I Kal- linikos (c. 100—70 B.C.) and Antiochos I Theos (ca. 70—36 B.C.), the kingdom tried to maintain independence in the face of the pressure of its major neighbours including Parthia, Pontos, Rome and Armenia. The small kingdom controlled strategic Euphrates crossings from Mesopotamia to northern Syria and Anatolia and was thus the favoured invasion route for Iranian armies moving west.26 Initially, Kommagenian rulers attempted to maintain friendly political relations with the Seleukids. Thus, Mithradates Kallinikos married Laodike Thea, the daughter of the Seleukid king Antiochos VIII Grypos, as well as the mother of Antiochos I of Kommagene (c. 96 B.C.).27 The strategic merits of Komma- gene did not escape Parthian attention as Arsacid activities in that country are well attested from the middle of the 1st century B.C. Antiochos I arranged the marriage of his daughter Laodike to Orodes of Parthia (c. 57—38 B.C.).28 In 51—50 B.C., Parthian troops were allowed to cross Kommagene to raid Roman Syria (see Cic. Ad Familiares 8.10.1, 15.1—2, 4.4). Even under the Flavian dynasty in Rome Kommagene was suspected of favouring the Parthians (Ios. Bell. 7.219ff.). In the official art of Kommagene, strong Parthian influences are conspicuous already in the first half of the 1st century B.C.29 Iosephus Flavius (Ant. 13.13.4/371) offers an intriguing account of some Parthian activities in the regions to the west of the Euphrates. According to his narrative, the queen named Laodike summoned the Seleukid king Antiochus X Eusebes (ca. 95—92 B.C.) to her assistance,30 but he was killed in a battle with the Parthians.31 Antiochos X’s death may be dated approximately at 92 B.C.32 The most essential question concerning the analysed Iosephus’s account is the identity of Laodike who ruled a kingdom invaded by the Parthians. The testimony implies the location of the country somewhere on the borders of both Parthia and Syria, probably along the Euphrates. Unfortunately, the phrase

Götterthrone und Königsgräber am Euphrat. Neue Entdeckungen der Archäologie, Bergisch Gladbach 1981; M. F a c e l l a: La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana. (Studi ellenistici 17). Pisa 2006. 26 Strab. 16.1.22.23; 16.2.2—3; App. Syr. 48; Cic. Ad Familiares 8.10.1; Dio 49.13; Plin. NH 5.86. 27 J.D. G r a i n g e r: A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Leiden—New York—Köln 1997, p. 48; R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty..., p. 65. 28 See M. F a c e l l a: La dinastia..., pp. 236—239. 29 F.K. D ö r n e r: Kommagene... 30 On Antiochos X Eusebes Philopator, see J.D. G r a i n g e r: A Seleukid Prosopography..., p. 33. 31 A detailed discussion on the passage offers J. D o b i á š: “Les premiers reports des Ro- mains avec les Parthes et l’occupation de la Syrie.” Archiv Orientalni 1931, pp. 221—223. 32 A.R. B e l l i n g e r: “The End of the Seleucids.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 38, 1949, p. 75, n. 73; M. F a c e l l a: La dinastia..., p. 216. The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 21 mentioning the nation ruled by Laodike is corrupted and the manuscripts con- vey different versions. Regardless of the textual reconstruction of Iosephus’s account, the identification of Laodike as a queen in Kommagene seems highly probable.33 The conclusion is that about 92 B.C. the Parthians attacked Kom- magene, subjugating it and killing the Seleukid ruler Antiochos, who tried to help his relative Laodike. Kilikia is another territory to the west of the Euphrates which witnessed Parthian activities in the 90s. Strabo 14.5.2 maintains that the Parthians became masters of Kilikia before the Armenians. Some scholars link this evidence with Parthian actions in Syria in 88/87 B.C.34 But a more convincing date would be the end of the 90s,35 when the struggles between Rome, Pontos and Parthian- dominated Armenia escalated. The operation in Kilikia may have been coordi- nated with the Parthian engagement in Kommagene and Parthian support for Tigranes’s raids into Cappadokia in about 92 B.C. By and large, the King of Kings Mithradates II of Parthia conducted active policies in Western Asia. Northern Mesopotamia and Dura Europos were incorporated into Parthia. To the west of the Euphrates, the Parthians were contended with the establishment of protectorates. In many cases local vassal rulers (like Philippos in northern Syria) were able to retain their thrones under Parthian suzerainty. It seems that Kommagene remained for some time under Parthian domination. Parthian military operations reached Kilikia.

*** In 102/101 B.C., a heroon dedicated to Mithradates Eupator was erected on Delos. The monument is significant for many reasons, and offers evidence for Parthian-Pontic contacts. There were 12 relief busts inside the heroon and one in the tympanon of the façade. The reliefs are mutilated but can be identified by inscriptions which name several dignitaries and generals of Eupator. The only persons not belonging to Eupator’s family, court or army were Antiochos VIII Grypos of Syria and two Parthian officials — envoys of the Arsacid King of Kings.36 Antiochos VIII Grypos (126—c. 96) probably maintained friendly relations with Eupator.37 In this select company around Eupator attested in the Delos heroon, two Parthian officials appear. They were apparently envoys of

33 See M.J. O l b r y c h t: “Mithradates VI. Eupator and Iran...,” p. 166. 34 A.R. B e l l i n g e r: “The End...,” p. 77, n. 82. 35 See A. B o u c h é - L e c l e r q: Histoire des Séleucides. París 1913, p. 42,1 n. 2. Cf. A.R. B e l l i n g e r: “The End...,” p. 75, n. 74. 36 On the monument, see B.C. M c G i n g: The Foreign Policy of Mithradates VI Eupator king of Pontus (Mnemosyne, Suppl. 89). Leiden 1986, pp. 90—91. 37 On Antiochos Grypos, see J.D. G r a i n g e r: A Seleukid Prosopography..., pp. 31—32. 22 Marek Jan Olbrycht the great Mithradates II, called in one of the inscriptions King of Kings.38 The building was in fact intended as a propaganda monument for the Pontic king demonstrating his magnanimity and power documented by his international relations. The presence of the Parthian envoys at the court of Eupator and showing them reverence in the Delos heroon implies that Eupator and the Parthian king cooperated already by 102/101 B.C. While analysing the political situation before the outbreak of the First Mithradatic War in 89 B.C., the Parthian factor has to be assessed. The Ar- sacid empire with its vassal kingdoms, including Armenia, was rich in financial resources. At this time the Arsacid empire was at its heyday and the support of the Arsacid King of Kings was vital for the Pontic ruler planning military confrontations in Anatolia. Memnon of Herakleia, who summarizes the political aims of the Pontic king, lists Parthia and her vassals — Atropatenian Medes and Armenia — among Eupator’s allies: “He [sc. Mithradates, MJO] increased his realm by subduing the kings around the river Phasis in war as far as the regions beyond the Cau- casus, and grew extremely boastful. On account of this, the Romans regarded his intentions with suspicion, and they passed a decree that he should restore to the kings of the Scythians their ancestral kingdoms. Mithridates modestly complied with their demands, but gathered as his allies the Parthians, the Medes, Tigranes the Armenian, the kings of the Scythians and Iberia.”39

The Medes are often mentioned in the sources separately from the Parthians for they formed one of the richest parts of the Arsacid empire. This applies not only to Greater Media (with Ekbatana), incorporated to the royal Arsacid do- main, but also to Media Atropatene, ruled by vassal kings. Armenia was a vassal kingdom of Parthia at this time. Worthy of note is the mentioning of Iberia. In the late 2nd and early 1st centuries B.C., the Iberians were probably depended on Armenia, in other terms, they belonged to Parthian sphere of influence. Dur- ing the 2nd century B.C., Armenia seized some southern parts of Iberia (Strab. 11.14.5). When Armenia was subjugated by the Parthian king Mithradates II, probably also other Transcaucasian lands, including Iberia (and perhaps Alba- nia), were made to Parthian vassals. A massive influx of Parthian coins from the time of Mithradates II into Armenia, Iberia and Albania40 strongly implies

38 IDélos 1581—1582. Cf. SEG 36, 1986, p. 741. 39 FGrHist 434 F 22.3—4 with corrections by B.C. M c G i n g: The Foreign Policy..., p. 63, n. 85, and comments by H. H e i n e n: “Mithradates VI. Eupator...,” pp. 83—87. 40 M.J. O l b r y c h t: “Die Aorser, die Oberen Aorser und die Siraker bei Strabon. Zur Geschichte und Eigenart der Völker im nordpontischen und nordkaukasischen Raum im 2.—1. Jh. v chr.” Klio. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 83, 2001, pp. 425—450; I d e m: “Der Fernhandel in Ostsarmatien und in den benachbarten Gebieten (zweite Hälfte des 2.—1. Jh. v. Chr.).” Laverna, Bd. 12, 2001, pp. 86—122. The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 23 that these countries were simultanously incorporated to the Parthian sphere of political domination. The sources testify to the fact that Eupator seized Armenia Minor and Colchis, but he did not try to penetrate and conquer Iberia. Appar- ently, the Iberian rulers of this time acted as Parthian vassals and supported Eupator as his allies. Memnon’s account is corroborated by the statements in Appian and Posei- donios. Appian (Mithr. 15) reports a speech by an envoy of Eupator Pelopidas, directed to the Roman generals just before the outbreak of the First Mithradatic War. Among Pontic allies and subjects, the envoy mentions several peoples of the Black Sea area and finally adds: “Tigranes of Armenia is his [sc. Eupa- tor’s, MJO] son-in-law and Arsakes of Parthia his friend (‘philos’).” According to Poseidonios of Apamea (apud Athenaios, Deipn. 213a), the Armenian and “Persian” (i.e. Parthian) kings were Eupator’s allies (in 88 B.C.). Thus, through diplomacy and policy, Mithradates Eupator expanded Pontos’ network of foreign connections. Creating bilateral and multilatelar coalitions was to ensure favourable balances of power and thereby attain regional objectives at lower cost that otherwise would be possible. The support of Parthian-dominated Armenia and direct Parthian aid were, actually conditio sine qua non for Eupa- tor’s new policy, initiated in 95 B.C. It was due to the support of the Arsacids that the Pontic king began to think in terms of war with Rome. Convinced by his own achievements and the strenght of his allies, Eupator took initiative in Anatolia, showing disrespect to Roman demands.

*** In 95 (or early in 94), the pro-Roman king Ariobarzanes, ruling in Cap- padokia, was ousted by Tigranes in the interest of Eupator, his Cappadokian ally Gordios and Parthia.41 The Roman reaction was sending Sulla to Asia. The reason for the expedition was not only to reinstate Ariobarzanes, but also to check Eupator’s intentions. Sulla did not have a large army but made use (mainly) of his allies. According to Plutarch (Sulla 5) Sulla: “after inflicting heavy casualties on the Cappadokians themselves, and even heavier casualties on the Armenians, who came to help the Cappadokians, he drove Gordios into exile and made Ariobarzanes a king.” In Cappadokia, some Pontic troops also opposed Sulla, but it seems that Eupator tried to make his case there indirectly, by appointing the Pontic commander Archelaos, a general in Gordios’ services.42 Sulla’s main enemy were the Armenians and the Cappadokians from the anti-Roman faction. Sulla’s intervention took place not earlier than in 94 B.C.43

41 Iust. 38.3.2—3. F. D e C a l l a t a ÿ: L’historie..., p. 274 places the action at the beginning of 94 B.C. 42 Front. Strat. 1.5.18 with B.C. M c G i n g: The Foreign Policy..., p. 78, n. 46. 43 M.J. O l b r y c h t: “Mithradates VI. Eupator and Iran...,” p. 173. 24 Marek Jan Olbrycht

Sulla’s expeditionary force reached the borders of the Parthian sphere of influence. Therefore Parthians envoys came to Sulla willing to check Roman intentions. On the banks of the Euphrates, Sulla was visited by Orobazos, representing the Arsacid King of Kings Mithradates II.44 Many misunderstandings arose around this meeting so it needs some closer examination. The Parthians intended to discuss the possibility of entering into treaty of friendship (philia) and alliance (symmachia) (Plut. Sulla 5.4). As the newly appointed Cappadokian ruler Ariobarzanes accompanied Sulla, the conference probably took place in eastern Cappadokia in the area of Melitene, bordering with Sophene.45 Accord- ing to Plutarch (Sulla 5.4—5), “Sulla put out three chairs, one for Ariobarzanes, one for Orobazos, and one for himself, and negotiated while seated between the other two. The Parthian king later put Orobazos to death for this.” The scholarly communis opinio maintains that Orobazos was executed because he took a lower seat than Sulla or the ambassador allowed Sulla to assume a position of primacy at the meeting by seating in the centre.46 However, an essential, often overlooked, circumstance is the presence of Ariobarzanes who had been dethronised by Tigranes acting according to Parthian (and Pontic) demands. Sulla installed him in Cappadokia again. Orobazes’s fundamental fault was thus his participation in negotiations with Ariobarzanes, who was a usurper in the eyes of the Parthian King of Kings. Another point should be stressed — after Sulla’s intervention, no negotiations between Armenia and Rome were initiated, although the Armenians had been involved in Cappadokia directly. Instead of this, a meeting between Sulla and Parthians was organized. The conclusion must be that Sulla saw no need to talk to the vassal ruler of Armenia for the real power acting behind him was the Arsacid King of Kings. There is no solid evidence for the often expressed assumption that between Sulla and Orobazos a formal treaty was concluded.47 Mithradates II of Parthia did not consider himself bound by any kind of territorial restraints in his western policies. In the 90s—80s of the 1st century B.C, Parthian armies crossed the Euphrates many times, as in the 50s—30s. The fate of Syria, Kommagene and eastern Anatolia including Cappadokia was during the 90s—80s not decided yet in favour of Rome. A recognition of the

44 Plut. Sulla 5; Liv. Epit. 70; Vell. Paterc. 2.24.3; Ruf. Festus 15.2. On the negotiations, see J. D o b i á š: “Les premiers reports des Romains avec les Parthes...,” pp. 218—221; N c d e b e v o i s e: A Political History of Parthia. Chicago 1938, pp. 46 ff; K.H. Z i e g l e r: Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich. Wiesbaden 1964, pp. 20—23; A. K e - a v e n e y: “Roman Treaties with Parthia, circa 95 — circa 64 B.C.” AJPh, vol. 102, 1981, pp. 195—199; J. Wo l s k i: “L’Arménie dans la politique du haut-empire Parthe (env.175—87 av. n.?.).” Iranica Antiqua, vol. 15, 1980, pp. 257 ff; I d e m: Seleucid and Arsacid Studies: A progress report on developments in source research. Kraków 2003, p. 76. 45 On the meeting place, see H. Z i e g l e r: Die Beziehungen..., p. 20, n. 2. 46 See, e.g., R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty..., p. 99. 47 M.J. O l b r y c h t: “Mithradates VI. Eupator and Iran...,” pp. 174—175. The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 25

Euphrates frontier would have been for Mithradates II a unilateral gesture of acceptance of Roman supremacy in Western Asia.48 The Arsacid King of Kings became convinced that the Roman presence in Kappadokia was dangerous for Parthian interests in the neighbouring areas including Kommagene, Kilikia and Armenia. Thus, the anti-Roman actions in Anatolia were to be intensified by Pontos and Armenia acting in Anatolia as directly engaged powers, whereas Parthia supported their allies financially and took some activities to the south of the Taurus in Kommagene, Kilikia and Syria. An agreement was concluded between the rulers of Pontos and Armenia that the subjugated cities and land would belong to Eupator, the captives and all movable goods to Tigranes (Iust. 38.3.5). The strategic planning of Eupator, Tigranes and the Arsacid King of Kings aiming at abolishing Sulla’s arrangements in Cappadokia would inevitably develop into an open confrontation with Rome. Ariobarzanes was expelled by an army led by the generals named Bagoas and Mithraas about 92 B.C. and Ariarathes (IX) was again installed in Cap- padokia.49 Incidentally, the names of the Tigranes’s commanders Bagoas and Mithraas are clearly Iranian.50 Indeed they could have been Parthian generals in Armenian services. While Tigranes’s troops operated in Cappadokia, Eupa- tor sent Sokrates Chrestos with an army against Bithynia.51 The Parthians did not remain idle neither for they subjugated Kommagene (about 92 B.C.) and probably attacked Kilikia. It seems that Eupator felt ready to a full scale confrontation with Rome. With a secured rear, he had huge financial and military resources at his disposal.52 The following years wintessed an escalation of the conflict. The Roman Sen- ate ordered to restore Ariobarzanes in Cappadokia and Nikomedes in Bithynia. The Roman general Manius Aquilius reinstalled the Kappadokian ruler at the end of 90 or in 89.53 According to Appian (Mithr. 11), Eupator had his forces in readiness for war, but did not resist the Roman actions. He remained idle even when Nikomedes ravaged western Pontos (App. Mithr. 11, 12—14; Livy, Epit. 74). Moreover, Eupator had Sokrates killed to display his good will toward Rome. Tigranes’s troops apparently retreated from Cappadokia. Contrary to the

48 As rightly remarked by J. Wo l s k i: Seleucid and Arsacid Studies:..., p. 76: “The historians who put forward this claim were only following the old and well-established habit of belittling the Parthians, this time in favour of Rome.” 49 App. Mithr. 10. Cf. Iust. 38.3.5. F. D e C a l l a t a ÿ: L’historie..., p. 276 proposes the summer of the year 91. 50 See Th. R e i n a c h: Mithridates Eupator. König von Pontos. Leipzig 1895. 51 Appian (Mithr. 10) stresses that the actions in Bithynia and Cappadocia were simultaneous. 52 The Pontic coin production was intensified in 92 and again from May—June 89. It is plausible that the increased amount of minted coins was connected to military preparations, see F. D e C a l l a t a ÿ: L’historie..., pp. 283—284. 53 B.C. M c G i n g: The Foreign Policy of Mithradates..., pp. 79—80. Liv. Epit. 74 places the restoration of Nikomedes IV and Ariobarzanes between the events of 90 and 89. 26 Marek Jan Olbrycht

Roman demands, the reinstated Ariobarzanes Philoromaios did not take part in the hostilities against Eupator. The Pontic king entered negotiations with the Ro- man legates in Asia and complained of Nikomedes’ hostile actions (App. Mithr. 12). When the Pontic-Roman talks failed, Eupator sent his son Ariarathes with a large army to seize Cappadokia. Ariobarzanes was quickly driven out (App. Mithr. 15). The sources do not speak of Tigranes’s involvement in that action, but it cannot be excluded. Supported by Arsacid Iran, Parthian-dominated Armenia, as well as by peoples, tribes and cities around the Black Sea, Mithradates Eupator was at the height of his power in 89 B.C. He recruited huge military forces, consisting of more than 200,000 soldiers.54 The Social War in Italy offered a good opportunity for anti-Roman actions of the Pontic king in Anatolia.55 Emboldened by these circumstances, Eupator felt strong enough to risk a full confrontation with Rome. The events of the First Mithradatic War (89—85 B.C.) are well known and there is no need to repeat this story. While Eupator fougth the Romans, the Parthians intervened in northern Syria and made it to their protectorate (88/87 B.C.). In 87/86 B.C., the mighty Eupator’s ally, Mithradates II of Parthia, died. Under Mithradates II’s successors Parthia was to plunge in internal struggles at the very end of the 80s. By and large, in Mithradates Eupator’s political strategy, an essential part was played by Arsacid Iran and Parthian-dominated Armenia. The power of Pontos collapsed for several reasons, but an essential factor was that Eupator was devoid of Parthian assistance in the 70s and 60s, and remained left on his own and to some extent on Tigranes’s resources. The Pontic king tried to renew the old alliance with Parthia but the new Parthian rulers, Sinatrukes and Phraates III, representing a new Arsacid branch, were by far more passive in their western policies than Mithradates II the Great. Until the wars between Rome and Parthia under Orodes (57—38 B.C.), Parthian strategic perspective did not reach beyond the Euphrates line in the west. Upon Armenia’s defeat at the hands of Lucullus and Pompey, and upon the failure of his own military efforts, Mithradates Eupator found a strategic sanctuary in the Crimea and Bo- sporos. Lacking alternatives, he tried there to gain the support of the nomadic peoples including the Sirakoi and Aorsoi, but he could not maintain himself against a rising of his own son Pharnakes.

54 Memnon FGrHist 734, F 22.6: 190,000 infantry, 10,000 cavalry; App. Mithr. 17: 250,000 infantry, 50,000 cavalry, 400 ships, 130 chariots. 55 There were negotiations between the rebells in Italy and Eupator (Diod. 37.11). The Pontic Kingdom, Arsacid Iran and Armenia... 27

Abbreviations AMI — Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. AAntASH — Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. DNP — Der Neue Pauly. IDélos — Inscriptions de Délos. Paris 1926—1950. FGrHist — Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Hrsg. von F. J a c o b y. Berlin 1923—1930; Leiden 1940—1958. VDI — Vestnik drevney istorii. ZDMg — Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.

Marek Jan Olbrycht

Królestwo pontyjskie, Iran arsakidzki i Armenia: uwagi na temat strategii politycznej Mithradatesa VI Eupatora (do roku 89 przed Chr.)

Streszczenie

W strategii politycznej króla Pontu Mithradatesa Eupatora zasadniczą rolę do lat 80. przed Chr. odgrywały państwo Partów oraz Armenia. Ta ostatnia znajdowała się wówczas pod zwierzch- nością Arsakidów. Osłabienie Eupatora w latach 70. oraz jego ostateczny upadek wynikały z wielu przyczyn, ale jedną z najważniejszych był brak wsparcia ze strony państwa Partów. Co prawda Eupator próbował odnowić sojusz z Imperium Parthicum, wysyłając poselstwa do Sinatrukesa oraz Fraatesa III, reprezentujących nową gałąź Arsakidów, jednak starania te pozostały bezowoc- ne. W latach 70. i 60. partyjskie planowanie strategiczne nie sięgało na zachodzie poza Eufrat. Sytuację zmieniła dopiero wojna Rzymu z Partami za Krassusa (54—53 przed Chr.). Militarne działania Lukullusa i Pompejusza zniszczyły potęgę króla Armenii Tigranesa zwanego Wielkim i jednocześnie doprowadziły do upadku władzy Mithradatesa Eupatora w Anatolii. Eupator ratował się ucieczką do Królestwa Bosporańskiego i próbował zbudować nową koalicję przeciwko Rzy- mianom, licząc na ludy stepowe (m.in. Aorsów i Siraków). Bunt jego syna Farnakesa przekreślił te zamierzenia.

Marek Jan Olbrycht

Le Royaume du Pont, l’Iran arsacide et l’Arménie : remarques sur la stratégie politique de Mithridate VI Eupator (jusqu’à l’an 89 av. J.-C.)

R é s u m é

Dans la stratégie politique du roi du Ponte Mithridate VI Eupator le pays de la Parthie et l’Arménie jouaient le rôle principal jusqu’aux années 80. av. J.-C. L’Arménie se trouvait alors 28 Marek Jan Olbrycht sous l’autorité des Arsacides. L’affaiblissement d’Eupator dans les années 70. et son effondrement final résultaient de nombreuses causes, dont une des plus importantes était le manque de soutien de la part du pays des Parthes. Il est vrai qu’Eupator essayait de renouveler la coalition avec l’Empire parthe, en envoyant les messages à Sanatrocès et à Phraatès III, représentant une nouvelle branche des Arsacides, mais ces efforts sont restés vains. Dans les années 70. et 60. les stratégies parthes à l’ouest ne dépassaient pas l’Euphrate. La situation a changé pendant la guerre entre la Rome et les Parthes, sous Crassus (54—53 av. J.-C.). Les démarches militaires de Lucullus et de Pompée ont détruit la puissance du roi d’Arménie Tigrane le Grand et, en même temps, ont conduit à l’effondrement du pouvoir de Mithridate VI Eupator en Anatolie. Eupator a tenté d’échapper au Royaume du Bosphore et de construire une nouvelle coalition contre la Rome, en comptant sur les peuples (entre autres les Aorses et les Siraces). La rébellion de son fils Pharnace a mis fin à ces projets. Tomasz Ładoń

L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani?

In the year 76 or, at the latest, in 751 Quintus Sertorius, a Marian renegade who fought a war with Rome from the beginning of the 80s on the Iberian Peninsula, signed the famous mutual help treaty with Mithridates VI Eupator. The king of Pontus committed himself to support the Spanish rebellion with money and fleet, and in return he expected territorial concessions in the East, as well as help in training his army in the Roman way.2 The alliance against the Sullans was repeatedly a subject of profound studies and analyses and it aroused controversy and emotions. The researchers focused on the sequence of the pact, the circumstances of its formation, individual decisions and its significance.3 However, it is rarely pointed out that

1 The dates refer to the times before the birth of Christ. 2 Plut., Sert. 23—24; App., Mith. 68; 70; 72. See also: Cic., Manil. 9; 46; Verr. 2, 1, 87; Mur. 32; Sall., Hist. II, 79 (Maurenbrecher) = II, 90 (McGushin); Liv., per. XCIII; Flor. II, 10, 5; Oros. VI, 2, 12; Ps.—Asc. In Cic. Verr. 87, p. 244 Stangl. 3 See: P.R. von B i e ń k o w s k i: “Kritische Studien über Chronologie und Geschichte des sertorianischen Krieges.” Wiener Studien, Bd. 13, 1891, p. 158; G. S t a h l: De bello Sertoriano. Erlangae 1907, pp. 70—72; A. S c h u l t e n: Sertorius. Leipzig 1926, pp. 106—107; H. B e r v e: “Sertorius.” Hermes, Bd. 64, 1929, pp. 213—214; P. T r e v e s: “Sertorio.” Athenaeum, vol. 10, 1932, pp. 138—143; V. E h r e n b e r g: “Sertorius.” W: I d e m: Ost und West. Studien zur Geschichtlichen Problematik der Antike. Brünn—Prag—Leipzig—Wien 1935, pp.194—197; Z. Z m i g r y d e r - K o n o p k a: “Sertorius a Pompeius na tle paktów z Mithradatesem.” Przegląd Klasyczny, t. 4, 1938, pp. 398—417; L. W i c k e r t: “Sertorius.” W: Rastloses Schaffen: Fest- 30 Tomasz Ładoń the formation of the treaty was possible, among others, due to the adherents of Sertorius who stayed in the king’s circle. This issue concerns mainly the two not very well-known Luciuses: Fannius and Magius. Some basic information about the relations between Mithridates VI Eupa- tor and these mysterious Romans can be found in the Appian of Alexandria’s work, which describes the struggle between the Republic of Tiber and the king of Pontus.4 The main advantage of the historian’s work is the complex perspective of the conflict. The drawbacks most often pointed out are the mistakes and inaccuracy of the text, however, recently the contemporary scholars acknowledge Appian’s literary technique.5 The historian from Alexandria usually writes reluctantly about Sertorius and his supporters standing by Mithridates, mainly presenting them in bad light.6 Important information about L. Magius and L. Fannius can be found in some of the Cicero’s speeches and in the commentaries of Pseudo-Asconius.7 The great orator, who was hostile towards the Hellenistic ruler, additionally spoke in Lucius Licinius Murena and Gnaeus Pompeius’s interest — these were the leaders who actively participated in the wars in the East. In spite of being very valuable (among other reasons, because the author was an observer of the events), the information provided by Cicero are marked with subjectivism and need to be approached carefully. A lot of data on the topic I find interesting can be found in Plutarch’s Par- allels Lives; which is of foremost importance, are several passages of Sertorius schrift für Friedrich Lammert. Stuttgart 1954, pp. 101 f; J. Va n O o t e g h e m: Lucius Licinius Lucullus. Namur 1959, pp. 50—51; M. G e l z e r: “Hat Sertorius in seinem Vertrag mit Mit- hradates die Provinz Asia abgetreten?” In: I d e m: Kleine Schriften. Bd. II, Wiesbaden 1963, pp. 139—145; B. S c a r d i g l i: “Sertorio. Problemi cronologici.” Athenaeum, vol. 49, 1971, pp. 252—258; P.O. S p a n n: Quintus Sertorius and the Legacy of Sulla. Fayetteville 1987, pp. 99—104; F. G a r c i a M o r á: Un episodio de la Hispania republicana: La guerra de Sertorio. Granada 1991, pp. 287—298; C.F. K o n r a d: Plutarch’s Sertorius. A Historical Com- mentary. Chapel Hill—London 1994, pp. 190—202; A.B. К о р о л е н к о в: Квинт Серторий. Политическая биография. Санкт-Петербург 2003, pp. 227—231; T. Ł a d o ń: “Antysullański charakter sojuszu Mitrydatesa VI Eupatora z Kwintusem Sertoriuszem.” Antiquitas, t. 29, K. Nowotka, M. Pawlak. Wrocław 2007, pp. 397—413. 4 Appianus, Mithridatica, passim. About this writer and his work: K. B r o d e r s e n: “Ap- pian und sein Werk.” ANRW, T. 2, hrsg. H. T e m p o r i n i, W. H a a s e, Bd. 34, 1. Berlin—New York 1993, pp. 339—363; B.C. M c G i n g: “Appian’s Mithridateios.” In: ANRW, T. 2, hrsg. H. Te m p o r i n i, W. H a a s e, Bd. 34, 1. Berlin—New York 1993, pp. 496—522. 5 See e.g. App., Mith. 68, 288; 71, 299; 72, 308. L. P i o t r o w i c z: “Appian i jego dzieło.” W: Appian z Aleksandrii: Historia rzymska. t. I, Wrocław 1957, p. XVIII. Cf. G.S. B u c h e r: “Toward a Literary Evaluation of Appian’s Civil Wars, Book 1.” In: A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Vol. II. Ed. J. M a r i n c o l a. Oxford 2007, pp. 454—460. 6 App., Mith. 68; 70; 72; 112; 119. 7 Cic., Verr. 2, 1, 87; 2, 2, 51; Mur. 32; Manil. 9; 46; Ps. Ascon., in Cic. Verr. 87, p. 244 Stangl. About Cicero’s speeches: K. K u m a n i e c k i: Literatura rzymska. Okres cyceroński. Warszawa 1977, pp. 189—293. L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani? 31 and Lucullus’s biographies.8 They are supplemented by data from the works of Memnon of Heraclea, Cassius Dio and Orosius.9 The remaining utilised source fragments are of lesser importance for the following article. Spotting the information from the sources about the Roman renegades and exiles, mentioned in the title of the present article, who cooperated with the king of Pontus, investigating the circumstances in which they found themselves in the circle of the ruler, as well as an attempt to clarify the motives they were driven by when fighting on the side of the enemy of Rome — all these actions will allow to better understand the intricacies of the Roman politics in the twilight of the Republic. Since no historian has ever presented this matter as a whole, the research conducted herein is by all accounts justified. The ancient authors attribute the biggest part in creating the agreement between Q. Sertorius and Mithridates VI to L. Magius and L. Fannius.10 The identification of these figures is disputable and uncertain. Lucius Magius, originating from a Capuan anti-oligarchic family, is usually identified as one of the two sons of Minatus Magius of Aeclanum.11 Lucius Fannius, on the other hand, could be related to the plebeian aedile from the early 80s (83?), Marcus Fannius12. It is a well-known fact that both of the mentioned Luciuses set off to the East with Lucius Valerius Flaccus’s army in the year 86.13 In Bithynia this

8 Plut., Sert. 23—24; Lucull. 8. C.F. K o n r a d: Plutarch’s Sertorius..., pp. 190—202. See also: T.W. H i l l a r d: “Plutarch’s Late-Republican Lives: Between the Lines.” Antichton, vol. 21, 1987, pp. 19—48. 9 Memnon, F.Gr.Hist. 434 F. I, 28; Cass. Dio XXXVI, 8, 2; Oros. VI, 2, 12—24. d d u e c k: “Memnon of Herakleia on Rome and the Romans.” In: Rome and the Black Sea Region. Ed t b ekker-Nielsen. Aarhus 2006, pp. 43—61; G. Z e c c h i n i: “Jerome, Orosius and the Western Chronicles.” In: Greek & Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Ed. G. M a r a s c o. Leiden—Boston 2003, pp. 319—329; A.W. L i n t o t t: “Cassius Dio and the History of the Roman Republic.” In: ANRW, T. 2, hrsg. H. Te m p o r i n i, W. H a a s e, Bd. 34, 3. Berlin—New York 1997, pp. 2497—2523. 10 App., Mith. 68, 287; Oros. VI, 2, 12; Cf. Plut., Sert. 23, 4. 11 Cf. Vell. II, 16, 3; F. M ü n z e r: L. Magius (6). In: RE, Hlb. 27, Stuttgart 1928, col. 439; E. G a b b a: “Le origini della guerra sociale e la vita politica romana dopo l’89 A.C.” Athenaeum, vol. 32, 1954, pp. 314 f = I d e m: Republican Rome, the Army and the Alles. Berkeley—Los Angeles 1976, p. 113. See also: E. B a d i a n: “Caepio and Norbanus.” In: I d e m: Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford 1964, p. 60; T.P. W i s e m a n: New Men in the Roman Senate (139 B.C.—A.D. 14). Oxford 1971, p. 239; C. N i c o l e t: L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312—43 av. J.-C). Vol. 2. Paris 1974, p. 938; E. B i s p h a m: From Asculum to Actium. The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus. Oxford 2007, p. 271, n. 141. 12 F. M ü n z e r: “L. Fannius (12).” In: RE, Hlb. 12, Stuttgart 1909, col. 1992—1993; B. S c a r d i g l i: Sertorio..., p. 252, n. 97; C. N i c o l e t: L’ordre..., p. 874. 13 T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vol. II, New York 1952, p. 53; Vol. III, Atlanta 1986, p. 212 (sources); CAH. Vol. IX: “The Last Age of the Roman Re- public 146—43 B.C.” Eds. J.A. C r o o k, A. L i u t o t t, E. R a w s o n. Cambridge 1994, p. 160 32 Tomasz Ładoń leader was murdered by his soldiers at Fimbria’s, his legate’s, prompting.14 Some researchers, based on an unclear mention preserved in Memnon’s of Heraclea work,15 try to equate the perpetrators of Flaccus’s murder with Fannius and Magius.16 However, the said fragment is too enigmatic to enable the drawing of such conclusions. After Flaccus’s death, Caius Flavius Fimbria took the command of the army. He was quite successful in the war against Mithridates and one of his actions almost resulted in capturing the king.17 However, eventually, when L. Cornelius Sulla took up arms against him already after the peace agreement in Dardanos, Fimbria, abandoned by part of his soldiers, committed suicide.18 The legionnaires that stayed by him decided to submit to Sulla. For unknown reasons, two of them — L. Magius and L. Fannius — decided to separate from their former companions.19 The ancient authors do not tell the motives of their conduct. We can only guess that they displayed reluctance towards Sulla, which resulted from their membership in the hostile political camp. They might have also been afraid that they would fall victim to repression from the vanquisher of Mithridates. Yet, had they not submitted to Sulla from the above enumerated reasons, it may have been surprising that they remained in the East after their escape, instead of returning to Italia to continue the fight against Sulla together with the other Marians. What happened to Magius and Fannius in the following years is not certain. The majority of researchers claims that directly after the desertion they took shelter from the Pontus court and became the king’s counsellors.20 It is thought that they originated from such extremely anti-Sullan circles that they preferred

(Hind); K b r i n g m a n n: Historia Republiki Rzymskiej. Trans. A. G i e r l i ń s k a. Poznań 2010, pp. 239 f. 14 T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates... Vol. II, p. 56 (sources); L. P i o t r o w i c z: Dzieje rzymskie. Warszawa 1934, p. 374; A. K e a v e n e y: Sulla. The Last Republican. Lon- don—Canberra 1982, p. 100. 15 Memnon, F.Gr.Hist 434 F. 1, 24, 3: “While Flaccus was bitterly rebuking Fimbria and the most distinguished soldiers, two of them, who were roused to greater fury than the others, murdered him.” 16 A. M a s t r o c i n q u e: Studi sulle guerre Mitridatiche. Stuttgart 1999, p. 61, n. 197. 17 T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates.... Vol. II, p. 59 (sources); H.H. S c u l l a r d: From the Gracchi to Nero. A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68. London 1979, p. 78; A. K e a v e n e y: Lucullus. A Life. London—New York 1992, p. 26. 18 T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates... Vol. II, p. 59 (sources); T. R i c e H o l m e s: The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire. Vol. I. Oxford 1923, p. 54; CAH. Vol. IX, pp. 161 f. (Hind). 19 Oros. VI, 2, 12. Por. Sall., Hist. II, 78 (Maurenbrecker) = II, 90 (McGushin) and commentary, pp. 253 f. 20 B.C. M c G i n g: The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupstor King of Pontus. Leiden 1986, p. 137; A. K e a v e n e y: Lucullus...., p. 63. L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani? 33 joining the worst Roman enemy to succumbing to the future dictator.21 However, it is worth noticing that none of the ancient authors claims that Magius and Fannius joined Mithridates directly after deserting the army of Fimbria. It can only be concluded from a thorough reading of sources that they had started cooperating with the king before beginning the negotiations with Sertorius. In the year 79 both Luciuses could be found in Carian Myndus, where they bought a ship from Caius Verres. Contemporary researchers suspect that they were acting on behalf of Mithridates, and while concluding the transaction they were guided by the need of mission to Sertorius to Spain. Therefore, the historians infer that the negotiations concerning the above-mentioned famous treaty had started already in the year 79.22 However, this reconstruction is not very likely. The doubts that the Luciuses gained access to the court of Pontus immediately after defecting from the legions of Fimbria are increased by the information from Cicero included in one of the In Verrem. This source is worth closer examination. The great orator accuses Caius Verres, the legate of Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (who was the governor of Cilicia in the years 80—7923), of selling the above-mentioned ship, which he received from the Milesians.24 And the buyers were the inhabitants of the Carian city of Myndos: L. Magius and L. Fannius.25 Thus, if the Fimbrian deserters settled in a neutral seaside town, how could they, at the same time, remain in close contacts with Mithridates? After all, it is a well-known fact that Caria was famous for its loyalty towards Rome and Sulla, even though it was very autonomous.26 It is also impossible that the Luciuses and Mithridates planned to form an alliance with Sertorius on the threshold of the 80s. In the year 80 Sertorius had barely returned from Africa to Spain and had just started the fight against the Sullans, and in the following year his position was still too weak to consider him a major ally.27 On the other hand, on the verge of the 70s the king of Pontus

21 E. G a b b a: Le origini..., p. 326 = I d e m: Republican Rome..., p. 119. 22 B. S c a r d i g l i: Problemi..., p. 253; E. G a b b a: Le origini..., p. 326, n. 1 = I d e m: Republican Rome..., p. 247, n. 368; D. G l e w: “Between the Wars. Mithridates Eupator and Rome, 85—73 B.C.” Chiron, Bd. 11, 1981, p. 126, n. 69. 23 T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates... Vol. II, pp. 80, 84; Vol. III, p. 65; R.M. K a l - l e t - M a r x: Hegemony to Empire. The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. Berkeley—Los Angeles—London 1995, p. 293. 24 Cic., Verr. 2, 1, 87: ipse myoparonem pulcherrimum [...] vendidit. 25 Cic., Verr. 2, 1, 87: “L. Magio et L. Fannio, qui Myndi habitabant.” R.O. J o l l i f f e: Phases of Corruption in Roman Administration in the Last Half-Century of the Roman Republic. Wisconsin 1919, p. 48. 26 F. S a n t a n g e l o: Sulla, the Elites and the Empire. A Study of Roman Policies in Italy and Greek East. Leiden—Boston 2007, pp. 50—57. 27 At that time he used the underhand tactics with Quintus Caecilius Metellus in Lusitania and, although he was locally successful, he did not pose a threat to the dictator. T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates..., p. 83 (sources); P.O. S p a n n: Quintus Sertorius..., pp. 69 f; 100. 34 Tomasz Ładoń was still hoping for the ratification of the treaty of Dardanos by the Senate in Rome.28 Thus, in that situation, neither Mithridates nor Sertorius could have been planning an alliance. The negotiations, which finally led to forming it, could have taken place only several years later, when Sertorius succeeded in the fight with the Sullans and the ranks of his army were joined by the Lepidani, and after the senate in Rome definitively broke off the negotiations with Mithridates concerning ratifying the peace of Dardanos.29 We can only make guesses as to why the Luciuses settled exactly in Myndus. Some of the researchers suspect that the purchase of the ship, and to be precise — the fast myoparonum, proves their connections with pirates, since this type of ship was the most common one in the fleet of the Cilician pirates.30 If on the verge of the 70s Magius and Fannius were really connected with the pirates, they might have been obtaining the newest information about Sertorius from them. After all, this leader was cooperating with the pirates after being driven from the Iberian Peninsula by the Sullan governor of Spain, Caius Annius, in the year 81, and it seems that their alliance was still binding in the following years.31 On the other hand, the pirates supported Mithridates in his fight against Rome,32 and therefore, it is quite possible that it was due to their mediation that the king of Pontus paid closer attention to Sertorius’s activity, and Fannius and Magius could have been his sources in this respect. After the year 79 there is again no information on the activity of both Luciuses. Konrad leans towards the opinion that it was at that time when they became Mithridates’s counsellors.33 Yet, why would they buy a ship from Verres if they were to go to the king’s court? As it results from Cicero’s information, they purchased the ship for themselves and “In this vessel they sailed to all the enemies of the Roman people, from Dianium, which is in Spain, to Senope, which is in Pontus.”34 However, the great orator neither gives away the aim

28 A.N. S h e r w i n - W h i t e: Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London 1984, p. 159; B.C. M c G i n g: The Foreign Policy..., p. 138. 29 T. R e i n a c h: Mithradates Eupator, König von Pontos. Leipzig 1895, p. 301; B.C. M c - G i n g: The Foreign Policy..., p. 138. 30 J. J u n d z i ł ł: Rzymianie a morze. Bydgoszcz 1991, p. 143; T. Ł o p o s z k o: Starożytni piraci Morza Śródziemnego. Lublin 1994, p. 148; C.F. K o n r a d: Plutarch’s Sertorius..., p. 191; P. d e S o u z a: Piraci w świecie grecko-rzymskim. Zakrzewo 2008, pp. 163 f. 31 Plut., Sert. 7, 5; 21, 7. H.A. O r m e r o d: Piracy in the Ancient World. An Essay in Mediterranean History. Liverpool—London 1924, p. 221; P. d e S o u z a: Piraci..., pp. 162 f. 32 S. D u c i n: “Mitrydates VI Eupator a rozwój piractwa w I połowie I wieku p.n.e. w świetle rzymskiej literatury.” W: Ideologia i propaganda w starożytności. Red. L. M o r a w i e c k i, P. B e r d o w s k i. Rzeszów 2004, pp. 185—200. 33 “In reality, the two had been the King’s counsels long before they traveled to Spain to negotiate the treaty.” C.F. K o n r a d: “A New Chronology of the Sertorian War.” Athenaeum, vol. 83, 1995, p. 176. 34 Cic., Verr. 2, 1, 87 (trans. C.D. Yo n g e). L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani? 35 of these journeys nor mentions the fact that they sailed in cooperation or on the orders of the king of Pontus. Yet, we can suppose that during the travels, the aim of which could have been making money, they happened on Sertorius and began collaboration with him. From other sources it is known that “at this time, too, the fame of Sertorius was already great and was travelling every whither, and sailors from the west had filled the kingdom of Pontus full of the tales about him, like so many foreign wares.”35 Perhaps these sailors extoling Sertorius’s fame were indeed the former Fimbrians? We hear for the first time that Magius and Fannius found themselves in Mithridates’s circle from Appian: “Two members of his [Sertorius — T.Ł.] faction, Lucius Magius and Lucius Fannius, proposed to Mithridates to ally with Sertorius, holding out the hope that he would acquire a large part of the province of Asia and of the neighbouring nations. Mithridates fell in with this suggestion and sent ambassadors to Sertorius.”36 Appian calls Magius and Fannius members of Sertorius’s faction. He does not specify when they arrived at his court. What is more, he suggests that they were bound with the Marian governor of Spain already before the negotiations concerning the pact. Some researchers think that recognising Magius and Fannius as Sertorians is a deliberate action of the Alexandrian historian, who thereby shifts the responsibility onto them for taking up the negotiations with the king of Pontus.37 Others, however, claim that the “Sertorius’s faction” can be understood in a broader meaning: as membership in the same camp as Cinna and Marius.38 Yet, it is still quite possible that Magius and Fannius had known Sertorius and collaborated with him already before the year 86, as at that time they belonged to the Cinno-Marian camp together.39 And if they travelled around the Mediterranean Sea in the 70s, they not only knew about the growing position of the Marian renegade, but also about the Lepidani joining him and setting up an emigration anti-Sullan senate. The intensification of the anti‑Sullan opposition in the first half of the 70s certainly did not escape their notice. After the downfall of Lepidus’s rebellion it was in Spain where the Marian centre of power concentrated, which aspired to overthrow the regime created in the times of the dictatorship. Thus, perhaps it was then that the two former Fimbrians came up with the idea to integrate the two Sullans’ enemies, Sertorius and Mithridates, by collaboration.

35 Plut., Sert. 23, 2 (trans. B. P e r r i n). 36 App., Mith. 68, 287—289 (trans. H. W h i t e). 37 E. G a b b a: Le origini..., p. 314, n. 1 = I d e m: Republican Rome..., p. 245, n. 316. 38 Cf. Plut., Sert. 15, 2 and C.F. K o n r a d: A New Chronology..., pp. 175 f. 39 After Sulla had left for the East and the Cinno-Marian army had conquered Rome, Ser- torius stayed in Rome and actively participated in political life. In the year 87 he probably held the plebeian tribune. See: P.O. S p a n n: Quintus Sertorius..., pp. 33, 163; K.G. R i j k h o e k: Studien zu Sertorius 123—83 v. Chr. Bonn 1992, pp. 158 f. 36 Tomasz Ładoń

Presumably, Fannius and Magius only appeared at the king’s court in mid- 70s. They unfolded the benefits of forming the alliance between Spain and Pontus to the ruler and persuaded him to send a group of envoys, in which they were also included. However, it does not seem likely that they played a major part in it, they were rather mediators than Mithridates’s representatives.40 The authors of the sources appear to write separately about the envoys (legatos) and about the Luciuses.41 The king certainly had a well-trained team to conduct negotiations with the Romans, which is proved for instance by the frequent groups of envoys sent to Italia regarding the ratification of the treaty of Dardanos or the envoys sent to Pompeius in Spain.42 As added by Appian, after establishing the details of the treaty, Sertorius “sent Marcus Varius to him [Mithridates — T.Ł.] as a general and the two Luciuses, Magius and Fannius, as counselors.”43 Thus, the Marian governor ap- preciated the mediation of the former Fimbrians (and perhaps already Sertorians) and entrusted them with the honourable function. Both the Luciuses could render a better service to him at the Pontus court than in Spain and being sent as king’s counsellors gave them the opportunity to make a career at the court of Pontus. In the context of the presented hypothesis, Cicero’s mention that the senate declared Fannius and Magius enemies of the Roman people is very interesting.44 Once again, the great orator does not specify when, he only says that the incident took place not long ago (nuper). Konrad suspects that it happened when they came to Italian harbours on their way to Spain.45 Even if we assume that the Luciuses indeed visited Italia, it is difficult to find reasons for them to parade the fact that they were planning to negotiate the alliance between Mithridates and Sertorius. On the contrary, it is certain that they would not spread this information; and if so, it is very unlikely that the Luciuses were at that time discussed in the senate’s forum. According to W.H. Bennet, Magius and Fannius had been declared enemies of the people even before the year 80. He bases his opinion on the mentioned

40 App., Mith. 72, 308. 41 Oros. VI, 2, 12: Fannius et Magius de exercitu Fimbriae profugi Mithridati sese adiunx- erunt: quorum hortatu Mithridates cum Sertorio per legatos in Hispaniam missos foedus pepigit. Ps.—Ascon. In: Cic., Verr. 2, 1, 87: L. Magio et L. Fannio. Hi transfugae de Valeriano exercitu apud Mithridatem ab eodem rege ad Sertorium missi erant... 42 Cic., Manil. 9; App., Mith. 65, 270 n.; 67, 282. Z. Z m i g r y d e r - K o n o p k a: Serto- rius..., p. 404. Cf. App., Mith. 64, 269. 43 App., Mith. 68, 288 (trans. H. W h i t e). K. K u m a n i e c k i: Cyceron i jego współcześni. Warszawa 1989, p. 103; A. M a y o r (The Poison King. The Life and the Legend of Mithradates Rome’s Dadliest Enemy. Princeton—Oxford, 2010) without any discussion takes references of Appian, that Magius and Fannius were the envoys of Sertorius. 44 Cic., Verr. 2, 1, 87: Hi sunt homines, quos nuper senatus in hostium numero habendos censuit. 45 C.F. K o n r a d: Plutarch’s Sertorius..., pp. 191 f. L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani? 37 information coming from Cicero. “It was quite irrelevant that Magius had ceased to be a hostis when Cicero was speaking, for the whole point of the argument is that Verres aided men who were then enemies of his country!”46 Neverthe- less, this view is hard to accept, since it is not very plausible that even Verres, whose image has survived to this day distorted by the opinions of the great orator, did business with the enemies of the Roman people. Therefore, there is a better chance that in the year 79 Magius and Fannius did not have this status yet. The fact that Cicero used this point in his speech and at the same time did not specify when the outvote of the resolution unfavourable for the Luciuses took place was a deliberate trick of the orator, whose overriding aim was to disparage Verres. This is why he included the information about the transaction from years before, connected it to the Luciuses (at that moment the hostes) and received the expected effect which compromised his opponent. In the years 82—80, the dictator Sulla eliminated the majority of his political enemies with the use of the proscriptions.47 If Magius and Fannius had been regarded as dangerous or had been suspected of an attempt to fight the Sullan order, they would probably have been included in the proscription lists. The fact that it did not happen proves, in my opinion, that they did not lead a strong anti-Sullan agitation and did not catch the dictator and his counsellors’ attention. This supports the hypothesis about their quiet life in Myndus. Thus, the subsequent declaring them hostes could have resulted from other offences. It is possible that it concerned their alleged, unclear connections with the pirates. However, it is more probable that the senate’s decision was taken even later, after the outbreak of the Third War against Mithridates, when they actively took sides with the king of Pontus, as the representatives of Sertorians. After forming the alliance, Magius and Fannius, together with an indefinite number of Sertorians, sailed to Mithridates. After the outbreak of the war against Rome, both the Luciuses fought on the Pontus side. At first they parted: Magius stayed in the king of Pontus’s staff and presumably played an important role. He took part in the actions of Kyzikos and, according to Appian of Alexandria, when the news about Sertorius’s death came,48 he supposedly betrayed the king

46 W.H. B e n n e t t: “The Death of Sertorius and the Coin.” Historia, Bd. 10, 1961, p. 463. 47 T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates...., pp. 69, 73—74 (sources); G. R o t o n d i: Leges publicae populi romani. Hildesheim 1962, p. 349; L. C a n f o r a: “Proscrizioni e dissesto sociale nella repubblica Romana.” Klio, Bd. 62, 1980, pp. 425—438; F. H i n a r d: Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine. Paris—Roma 1985, pp. 17—143. 48 Both Sertorius’s death and the events of Kyzikos are dated differently. See for example T. R i c e H o l m e s: The Roman Republic..., pp. 399—403; W.H. B e n n e t t: The Death..., pp. 459—472; B.C. M c G i n g: “The Ephesian Customs Law and the Third Mithridatic War.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 109, 1995, pp. 283—288; C.F. K o n r a d: New Chronology..., pp. 160—162; 170—179. However, in my conviction, the chronological problems do not influence the fact that the main reason of Magius’s leaving Mithridates was Sertorius’s death. This fact is clearly underlined by Appian. 38 Tomasz Ładoń and came to an agreement with Lucullus.49 Fannius, on the other hand, fought in Mysia with Metrophanes, but they were driven from there by Mamercus, Lucul- lus’s legate. Eventually, they broke through to Mithridates and Orosius’s vivid description of this escape is preserved.50 Fannius, similarly to his colleague, soon established contact with Lucullus, not only gaining his forgiveness,51 but also subsequently serving him as legate several years later.52 There is no more information about the Luciuses. The attempt carried out harein to reconstruct the history of Magius and Fan- nius is as exhaustive as possible given the available sources. Facing the fact that both of the characters disappear from the relations of the ancient authors after the discussed events, it seems that it was during the Sertorian war that they played their part in the course of events and shaping them. Therefore, tracking and reconstructing their fates that until now have been neglected by researchers seems even more justified. So should Magius and Fannius be recognized as Fimbriani or rather as Ser- toriani? Contemporary researchers use the former term most frequently.53 This obviously results from the fact that Fabius and Magius found themselves (even though it was a short time) under Fimbria’s command and the soldiers fighting in the civil wars in the 1st century B.C. were often defined by the name of their leader.54 Nevertheless, we should remember that their former companions submitted to Sulla and in the next years fought under the command of L. Li- cinius Murena and L. Licinius Lucullus. They were continuously working for their bad reputation with their conduct.55 The Fimbriani became synonymous with badly-disciplined, greedy for spoils army with a dubious reputation. This judgement trailed also behind Magius and Fannius, which seems unfair. There is a lot of evidence indicating that after escaping from the Fimbrian army the Luciuses settled in the East and were not involved in politics. Their

49 App., Mith. 72, 308. A. K e a v e n e y: Lucullus..., p. 79 f; A. M a s t r o c i n q u e: Studi..., p. 107. 50 Oros. VI, 2, 16—18. 51 They were probably forgiven for their guilt on the basis of lex Plautia de reditu Lepi- danorum, which reprieved also former Sertorius’s supporters. A. K e a v e n e y: Lucullus..., p. 238, n. 39; C.F. K o n r a d: “Metellus and the Head of Sertorius.” Gerión, t. 6, 1988, p. 257; T. Ł a d o ń: “Polityczne podłoże zmian ustrojowych w Rzymie pod koniec lat siedemdziesiątych I wieku p.n.e.” Studia Prawnoustrojowe, t. 12, 2010, pp. 129 ff. 52 Cass. Dio XXXVI, 8, 2. P. W i l l e m s: Le Sénat de la République romaine. Vol. I, Lou- vain—Paris—Berlin 1885, p. 503; B. B a r t s c h: Die Legaten der römischen Republik vom Tode Sullas bis zum Ausbruche des zweiten Bürgerkrieges. Breslau 1908, p. 26; J. Van O o t e g h e m: Lucius Licinius Lucullus..., p. 147. 53 P.O. S p a n n: Quintus Sertorius..., p.129. 54 L. de B l o i s: “Army and General in the Late Roman Republic.” In: A Companion to the Roman Army. Ed. P. E r d k a m p. Oxford 2007, p. 167. 55 Plut., Lucull. 7, 1—2. L. Fannius and L. Magius: Fimbriani or Sertoriani? 39 activity rose only when a strong anti-Sullan centre of power was formed in Spain. In the 70s the connections between Magius and Fannius and the Ser- toriani are clear. They were most likely induced to the collaboration by joint fight against the Sullan restoration. Both Sertorius and the Luciuses had origins in the same Cinno-Marian circle which was defeated in the first civil war and, above all, as a result of the Sullan proscriptions. Those saved from the bloody persecution usually escaped from Italia. Many decided to continue the fight, so they got to Spain and placed themselves under the command of Sertorius.56 Magius and Fannius got there as well in the mid-70s to join the Sertoriani and head for the East in order to fight with the king of Pontus to overthrow the Sullan rule in the country. Sertorius’s death deprived the Marians of the hopes for victory. However, the war in Spain promoted a new leader, Pompeius, thanks to whom it came to major political changes in the Republic. This current Sullan came to an agreement with the populares and M. Licinius Crassus. The common consulate of Pompeius and Crassus ended the period of Sullan restoration. Many of the former opponents of the dictator were allowed to return to Italia and be themselves again in the new political reality. Among those vindicated were also the two Sertoriani: Magius and Fannius.

56 the most numerous group was brought by M. Perperna in the year 77. See: T. Ł a d o ń: “Uwagi o Marku Perpernie, przywódcy spisku na życie Sertoriusza.” W: Zamach stanu w dawnych społecznościach. Red. A. S o ł t y s i a k. Warszawa 2004, p. 71.

Translated by Hanna Zieleźnik

Tomasz Ładoń

L. Fannius i L. Magius: fimbriani czy sertoriani?

Streszczenie

Artykuł poświęcony jest dwóm mało znanym przedstawicielom arystokracji rzymskiej okresu schyłkowej Republiki, a mianowicie Lucjuszowi Magiuszowi i Lucjuszowi Fanniuszowi, i roli, jaką odegrali w powstaniu sojuszu między Kwintusem Sertoriuszem a Mitrydatesem VI Eupatorem. Autor proponuje nowe ujęcie problemu. Zwraca przy tym uwagę, że obecność obydwu Lucjuszów na dworze króla Pontu datować można dopiero na połowę lat 70., a nie, jak dotąd uważano, na połowę lat 80. I wieku przed Chr. Podejrzewa on także związki Magiusza i Fanniusza z piratami cylicyjskimi i przypisuje im funkcję pośredników w kreowaniu porozumienia między sertorianami a królem Pontu. 40 Tomasz Ładoń

Autor podkreśla również, że używanie określenia fimbriani wobec Lucjuszów nie jest w pełni zasadne. Obecność w armii Flakkusa i Fimbrii była bowiem jedynie krótkim epizodem w ich karierze. Politycznie związali się za to z Sertoriuszem i to tego wodza reprezentowali na dworze pontyjskim. Wydaje się zatem, że adekwatne jest określanie ich jako sertoriani. Tomasz Ładoń

L. Fannius et L. Magius : fimbriani ou sertoriani ?

R é s u m é

L’article est consacré à deux représentants mois connus de l’aristocratie romaine à la fin de la période de République, à savoir Lucius Magius et Lucius Fannius, et au rôle qu’ils ont eu dans la construction de l’alliance entre Quintus Sertorius et Mithridate VI Eupator. L’auteur propose une autre approche du problème. Il attire l’attention sur le fait que la présence de deux Lucius sur la cour du roi du Pont peut être datée seulement sur la moitié des années 70. et non, comme c’était convenu, des années 80. du Ier siècle av. J.-C. L’auteur devine également des relations entre Magius et Fannius et des pirates ciliciens et leur attribue la fonction des médiateurs dans la création de l’entente entre les partisans de Sertorius et le roi du Pont. En plus, l’auteur souligne que l’emploi du terme fimbriani par rapport aux Lucius n’est pas plei- nement adéquat. Leur présence dans l’armée de Flaccus et Fimbria n’a été qu’un court épisode dans leurs carrières. Politiquement ils étaient liés avec Sertorius et le représentaient sur la cour de Pont. Il semble alors que le terme sertoriani est plus adéquat. Norbert Rogosz

The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat of the Eastern Provinces in the Years 53—50 B.C.

One of M. Licinius Crassus’s most significant goals after obtaining the second consulate in the year 55 B.C. was to strive for war achievements which could be compared to the recent successes of Cn. Pompeius or with C. Iulius Caesar’s fresh victories in Gaul.1 Similarly as in the case of Pom- peius and Caesar, the method to achieve this goal was to grant a certain province with regency. There- fore, as soon as Lex Trebonia was passed, which gave him a five-year-long reign over Syria as well as the right to start a large-scale military campaign2 and organize the necessary army, even before the above-mentioned consulate expired, in November 55 he led this army to the province he had been

1 Already the ancients paid attention to this fact. See in this context: Vell.Pat. II, 46, 2; Plut., Crass. 16, 1—3; App., B.C. II, 18, 65; Flor. I, 46, 2; 5; Cass. Dio XL, 12, 1. Cf. also: J. Wo l s k i: “Rok 53 przed Chrystusem. Data przełomowa w dziejach imperializmu rzymskiego.” W: W 2500-lecie powstania Republiki Rzymskiej. Red. A. K u n i s z. Katowice 1995, pp. 22—23. 2 Liv., per. CV; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 2; Plut., Crass. 15, 5; Pomp. 52,3; App., B.C. II, 18, 65; Cass. Dio XXXIX, 33, 2. On Lex Trebonia: G. N i c c o l i n i: I fasti dei tribuni della plebe. Milano 1934, p. 309; G. R o t o n d i: Leges publicae populi Romani. Hildesheim 1962, p. 408; as well as: A.E.R. B o a k: “The Extraordinary Commands from 80 to 48 B.C.: A Study in the Origins of the Principate.” AHR, vol. 24, 1918, pp. 18—21; A. G a r z e t t i: “M. Licinio Crasso.” Athenaeum, vol. 19, 1941, pp. 27—28; B.A. M a r s h a l l: Crassus. A Political Biog- raphy. Amsterdam 1976, p. 131; A.M. Wa r d: Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic. Columbia—London 1977, pp. 273—275; N. R o g o s z: Polityczna rola senatu w Republice Rzymskiej w latach 59—55. Katowice 2004, pp. 299—302. Cf. also: A.W. L i n t o t t: Violence in the Republican Rome. Oxford 1968, pp. 198, 214. 42 Norbert Rogosz granted.3 After arriving in Syria, he immediately restarted the preparations for the war against Parthians. Thus, the beginning of his reign in this province resulted in significant changes in the Roman-Parthian relations.4 After getting an insight into the local relations and having the preparations finished, he crossed Euphrates straight away and, leading his army, invaded the Parthian area. However, in spite of the fact that Crassus’s troops were acting on the Parthian area, the campaign of year 54 resulted neither in the laurels he expected, nor in conquests that would satisfy him.5 This is why, after returning to Syria, he initiated preparations for the next expedition, which he was going to carry out in year 53. Yet, this expedition finished with the Roman defeat at Carrhae on 9 June, 53, due to the fact that during the fights against Parthians Crassus’s army was completely annihilated. The commander in chief and his son were killed and only few troops were saved from the rout.6

3 More on the topic of Crassus’s expedition to Syria: Vell. Pat. II, 46, 3; Plut., Crass. 16, 3—6; Pomp. 52, 4; App., B.C. II, 18, 66; Flor. I, 46, 3; Cass. Dio XXXIX, 60, 4; A.D. S i m p - s o n: “The Departure of Crassus for Parthia.” TAPhA, vol. 69, 1938, pp. 532—541; B.A. M a r - s h a l l: Crassus..., pp. 139, 150; A.M. Wa r d: Marcus Crassus..., pp. 284—285. 4 On the topic of Crassus’s preparations for the war against the Parthians after assuming the reign of Syria: Plut., Crass. 17, 2; Cass. Dio XXXIX, 60, 4; XL, 12, 1. Since Cn. Pompeius’s stay in the East, during the third war against Mithradates VI, the king of Pontus, the relations between Romans and the Parthians were appropriate or even friendly: Liv., per. C; Plut., Pomp. 33, 6; 39, 2—3; App., Mithr. 106, 501; Syr. 51, 257—259; Flor. I, 46, 4—6; Cass. Dio XXXVI, 45, 3; 51, 1; XXXVII, 5, 2—4; 6, 1—5; 7, 1—4; 15, 1; J.-P. R e y - C o q u i a s: “Syrie Romaine, de Pompée à Diocletien.” JRS, vol. 68, 1978, pp. 44—73; A.N. S h e r w i n - W h i t e: “Lucullus, Pompey and the East.” In: CAH, vol. 9: “The Last Age of the Roman Republic 146—43 B.C.” Eds. J.A c r o o k, A. L i n t o t t, E. R a w s o n. Cambridge 1994, pp. 229—273; R. S y m e: “Pompeius and the Parthians.” In: Anatolica. Studies in Strabo. Ed. A. B i r l e y. Oxford 1995, pp. 87—94. Cf. also: A. K e a w e n e y: “Roman Treaties with Parthia circa 95—64 B.C.” AJPh, vol. 102, 1981, pp. 195—212; I d e m: “The King and the War Lords: Romano-Parthian Relations circa 64—53 B.C.” AJPh, vol. 103, 1982, pp. 412—428; J. Wo l s k i: “Rzym i państwo Partów w I w. p.n.e.” KH, t. 92, 1985, pp. 221—233; I d e m: “Rzymska polityka na Wschodzie. Impe- rializm rzymski w konflikcie z imperializmem irańskim.” W: Starożytny Rzym we współczesnych badaniach. Państwo — Społeczeństwo — Gospodarka. Red. J. Wo l s k i, T. K o t u l a, A. K u - n i s z. Kraków 1994, pp. 81—103. 5 Cf. in this light: Plut., Crass. 17, 2—3; Cass. Dio XL, 12, 2—13, 4; 16, 1—3 ; B.A. M a r - s h a l l: Crasus..., pp. 151—152; J. Wo l s k i: Imperium Arsacydów. Poznań 1996, pp. 154—155. 6 The source information and the literature which discuss Crassus’s defeat at that time see: Liv., per. CVI; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 4; Plut., Crass. 17, 4—31; Pomp. 53, 6; 55, 1; App., B.C. II, 18, 66—67; Syr. 51, 259; Flor., I, 46, 5—11; Cas. Dio XL, 17, 3—27, 4; P. G r o e b e: “Der Schlachttag von Karrhae.” Hermes, vol. 42, 1907, pp. 315—322; K. R e g l i n g: “Crassus’ Par- therkrieg.” Klio, Bd. 7, 1907, pp. 357—394; F. S m i t h: “Die Schlacht bei Carrhä.” HZ, Bd. 115, 1915, pp. 237—262; D. T i m p e: “Die Bedeutung der Schlacht von Carrhae.” MH, Bd. 19, 1962, pp. 104—129; B.A. M a r s h a l l: Crassus..., pp. 153—161; M. M i e l c z a r e k: “Die parthische Panzerreiterei bei Carrhae. Aus den Studien über Plutarchus, Crassus XXIV — XXVII.” Fasciculi Archeologie Historicae, vol. 4, 1990, pp. 31—38; J. Wo l s k i: “Rok 53...,” pp. 20—30; I d e m: Imperium Arsacydów..., pp. 155—160; I d e m: “Czy rok 53 jest datą przełomową w historii The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 43

As a result of the above-mentioned military catastrophe, the eastern dominions of the Roman Republic: Syria and the neighbouring province of Asia Minor, first of all Cilicia, were in great danger, similarly to the local city-states, rulers and peoples allied with Rome, since Rome was still in the state of war against Parthia started by the late Crassus. As his army was defeated, besides minor forces stationing in the above enumerated provinces, the survivors saved from the rout committed by the Parthians and small contingents of their local allies that could enter on Roman request, there was no army that could effectively defend the interests of the Republic and its allies.7 It also had to be taken into account that the Parthians would take advantage of the difficult situation their enemy was facing, they would cross Euphrates and attack Rome’s allies as well as the provinces which were unable to defend themselves effectively,8 especially since some of the Parthian rulers had long exposed their striving for ruling the whole area that used to belong to the Achaemenid Persian Empire in their political programmes and propaganda.9 Materializing of these threats could cause the loss of at least some of the eastern provinces and allies as well as a change in the line-up of forces in Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine. Parthia was namely the only rival that could pose a threat to the position of the Roman Republic at that time.10 Luckily for the

Rzymu.” W: Przełomy w historii. XVI Powszechny Zjazd Historyków Polskich, Wrocław 15—18 września 1999 roku. Pamiętnik, vol. 2, part 1. Red. K. J u c h n i e w i c z, J. Ty s z k i e w i c z, W. W r z e s i ń s k i. Toruń 2000, pp. 9—15; G.C. S a m p s o n: The Defeat of Rome. Crassus, Carrhae and the Invasion of the East. Barnsley 2008, pp. 114—181. 7 C. Cassius Longinus, Crassus’s quaestor, organised the necessary army, which amounted to two legions: Cic., Phil. XI, 14, 35; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 4—5; Ioseph., Ant. Iud. XIV, 7, 3, 119; Bell. Iud. I, 8, 9, 180; Cass. Dio XL, 28, 1—2. Cf. also: Flor. I, 46, 10; Eutrop. VI, 18, 2; Oros. VI, 13, 5. More about C. Cassius Longinus: F r ö h l i c h: “C. Cassius Longinus, der Caesarmörder, 59.” In: RE, Bd. 3. Stuttgart 1899, col. 1727—1736; W. D r u m a n n, P. G r o e b e: Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergange von dem republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung. Bd. 2. Leipzig 1902, pp. 98—128, on his activity related to the defence of Syria, see pp. 100—101. 8 Cass Dio XL, 28, 3. The Romans took this possibility seriously into account. This is proven by the fact that in year 50 B.C. they prepared the army for the expected war against Parthia: Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 54, 1; 55, 1; Plut., Caes. 29, 3; Pomp. 56, 3; App., B.C. II, 29, 114—115. 9 This matter was emphasized by J. Wo l s k i in his studies. See: I d e m: “Program polity- czny państwa partyjskiego.” Eos, vol. 55, 1965, pp. 152—159; I d e m: “Les Achemenides et les Arsacides.” Syria, vol. 43, 1966, pp. 65—82; I d e m: Rzym a państwo Partów..., pp. 222—223; I d e m: Imperium Arsacydów..., pp. 118, 142—147, more: 117—146. Cf. also: J. N e u s n e r: “Parthian Political Ideology.” Iranica antiqua, vol. 3, 1963, pp. 40—59. 10 This thesis is well confirmed by the history of Roman-Parthian relations and especially by the defeat in the war against Parthia, which was provoked by Crassus. The later arguments with them, e.g. those carried on by M. Antonius, ended similarly. As a result, Augustus, the emperor, changed his policy towards Parthians. On the subject of the relations between Romans and Parthi- ans and the position of the latter ones in the world in the 1st century B.C., see: G. W i d e n - g r e n: “Iran, der große Gegner Roms: Königsgewalt, Feudalismus, Militärwesen.” In: ANRW, T. II, hrsg. H. T e m p o r i n i, W. H a a s e, Bd. 9, 1. Berlin—New Hork 1976, pp. 219—306; 44 Norbert Rogosz

Romans, Parthians did not attack the empire’s borders directly after the victory over Crassus’s army at Carrhae, since their ruler was too busy dealing with the leading aristocratic families, including Surena, the one Crassus’s vanquisher came from. The domestic situation of the Parthian kingdom became stable only after he had been killed and the opposition debilitated.11 Therefore, the Parthians invaded the areas belonging to or dependent on Rome only in year 52. It was repeated a year after that and in 50 another invasion was expected, but luckily for the Romans it did not happen.12 The scale of these Parthian expeditions was not large enough to result in conquering the eastern provinces. Moreover, they involved only some of the Ro- man areas and the neighbouring countries. Thus, they did not pose such a huge threat to the Republic and its local allies as it could have been expected just after Crassus’s defeat, but the governing politicians did not know that yet. For that reason prevention of further course of events on the Parthian border which would be unfavourable for Rome was definitely a priority for them. Therefore, it is highly recommended to track and clarify the related actions of Roman authorities (especially the consuls, the senate, the popular assembly and the governors of eastern provinces) and the accompanying circumstances, as well as to trace the contemporary decisions of Cn. Pompeius, who had great influence on their actions. The reason for this is that it may contribute to better cognition of these aspects of the history of Roman Republic, and especially the policy carried out in the East by the Romans at that time. The most important sources on the basis of which the matters introduced in the title of this article can be presented, are texts which are either contemporary or only a little subsequent to the events considered herein. These texts include Cicero’s correspondence from the years 53—50, which is of great significance, especially due to the fact that at that time for one year he was a governor of

J. Wo l s k i: “Les Parthes et la Syrie.” Acta Iranica, vol. 5, 1977, pp. 395—417; I d e m: Rzym i państwo Partów..., pp. 221—233; I d e m: Rzymska polityka..., pp. 83—93; I d e m: Imperium Arsacydów..., pp. 117—173. Parthians’ strong position in the world of that time, especially towards Rome, was denied in the previous studies. Cf. e.g.: L. P i o t r o w i c z: Dzieje rzymskie. Warszawa 1934, pp. 573—574; K.H. Z i e g l e r: Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich. Wiesbaden 1964, pp. 20 ff; H. B e n g t s o n: Römische Geschichte. München 1967, p.182. 11 On the internal situation of Parthia, and especially on the conflict between Orodes II and aristocracy: Plut., Crass. 33, 5. 12 On the topic of the situation on the Roman-Parthian border in the years 52—50: Liv., per. CVIII; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 5; Ioseph., Ant. Iud. XIV, 7, 3, 119 ; 122; Bell. Iud. I, 8, 9, 180; 182; Plut., Brut. 7, 2; 43, 5—6; Cass, Dio Xl, 28, 1—31, 1; Fest., Brev. VI, 18, 2; Oros. VI, 13, 5. Cf. also: L. P i o t r o w i c z: Dzieje rzymskie..., p. 445; N.C. D e b e v o i s e: A Political History of Partia. Chicago—London 1969, pp. 96—104; K. S c h i p m a n n: Grundzüge der parthischen Geschichte. Darmstadt 1980, pp. 40—41; E. D ą b r o w a: La politique de l’Etat Parthe à l’égard de Rome — d’Artaban II à Vologèse I (ca 11 — ca 79 de n.e.) et les facteurs qui le condition- naient. Kraków 1983, pp. 32—34; M. J a c z y n o w s k a: Dzieje Imperium Romanum. Warszawa 1995, p. 154. Cassius Dio (XL, 31, 1) indicates that the battles against Parthians ended in 51 B.C. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 45

Cilicia, one of the eastern provinces threatened by Parthia.13 The matters related to the studied subject do appear quite frequently in these letters, however they are presented neither constantly, nor in a complex and exhaustive way, because Cicero and his correspondents only mentioned issues bothering them the most. The information they include are of various origin: they mostly come from the authors of these letters, but they also derive from their allies’ reports and rumours.14 For this reason the value of the news varies. They do not only introduce the matters of our interest from the point of view of the Roman rulers, but also from the point of view of different politicians who did not hold any public posts at that time and, moreover, were not Romans.15 In their later reports, C. Iulius Caesar and A. Hirtius mention some detailed issues only very briefly,16 similarly to the authors contemporary to the Empire,17 who also dealt with the matters of our interest rather modestly and economically. Although they were deeply interested in the matter of Roman-Parthian relations, they focused rather on more significant issues, such as Crassus’s expedition and especially on its climax, which was the Battle of Carrhae.18 The issue examined by the author of the present article is similarly presented in subject literature. This is well visible e.g. in the works of J. Debecq,

13 Cicero and his correspondents did mention this subject in the several dozen of their letters from those years, however these notes are usually laconic. More on the topic of Cicero’s correspondence, see: J. C a r c o p i n o: Cicero. The Secrets of his Correspondence. Vol. 1—2, New York 1969; K. K u m a n i e c k i: Literatura rzymska. Okres cyceroński. Warszawa 1977, pp. 384—399; M. Tullius Cicero was the governor of Cilicia in the years 51—50: W. F e e m s t e r J a s h e m s k i: The Origins and History of the Proconsular and the Propraetorian Imperium to 27 B.C. Chicago 1950, p. 148; T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vol. 2: 99 B.C. — 31 B.C. New York 1952, pp. 243, 251—252. Cf. also: K. K u m a n i e c k i: “Cyceron w Cylicji.” Meander, t. 13, 1958, pp. 449—470; I d e m: Cyceron i jego współcześni. Warszawa 1989, pp. 357—386; M. G e l z e r: Cicero. Ein biographischer Versuch. Wiesbaden 1969, pp. 225—242; E. D u l s k i: “Cyceron jako namiestnik Cylicji.” W: Antiquitas, t. 15. Red. E. K o n i k. Wrocław 1992, pp. 23—39. 14 This is quite frequently mentioned by Cicero himself: Ad Att. V, 6, 1; 14, 1; 16, 4; Ad fam. XV, 3, 1; Ad Att. V, 18, 1; Ad fam. XV, 9, 2; 2, 1; III, 8, 10; VIII, 10, 1; II, 10, 2; XV, 4, 5; 7; Ad Att. V, 21, 2; Ad fam. XIII, 57, 1. 15 The great orator indicates this clearly in many cases: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 3, 1; VIII, 10, 1; 2, 3; Ad Att. V, 21, 2; VI, 1, 3; Ad fam. XV, 4, 7; XIII, 57, 1. He was also given some information by the refugees who came from areas directly jeopardised by Parthian invasion: Cic., Ad Att. V, 16, 4. 16 See: Caes., Bell. civ. I, 2, 3; 4, 4; 9, 4; 32, 4; Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 52, 3; 54, 1—3; 55, 1. 17 Liv., per. CVIII; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 4—5; Ioseph., Ant. Iud. XIV, 7, 3, 119—122; Bell. Iud. I, 8, 9, 180—182; Plut., Caes. 29, 3—4; Pomp. 56, 3; Brut. 7, 2; 43, 5—6; App., B.C. II, 29, 114—115; Cass. Dio XL, 28, 1—31, 1; 65, 1—66, 1; Fest., Brev. VI, 18, 2; Oros. VI, 13, 5. 18 Liv., per. CVI; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 1—5; Ioseph., Bell. Iud. I, 8, 9, 180; Ant. Iud. XIV, 7, 3, 119; Plut., Crass. 16—33; Pomp. 55, 1; Brut. 43, 5—6; App., B.C. II, 8, 65—67; Flor. I, 46; Cass. Dio XL, 12—37; Fest., Brev. VI, 18, 2; Oros. VI, 13, 5. 46 Norbert Rogosz

G. Downey, J.-P. Rey-Coquias, A. Keaveney, E. Dąbrowa, J. Wolski, P. Arnaud and T.P. Hillman, devoted to Roman-Parthian relations, in the studies of A.N. erwin-White and A.D. Sullivan, which deal with Roman foreign policy and the relations of Rome and the eastern countries,19 the papers of P. Stein and M. Bonnefond-Coudry that discuss the functioning and actions of the senate,20 the study of W. Feemster Jashemski, treating of the history of provinces governing,21 in the works of the following authors: M. Gelzer, F. Smokowski, K. Kumaniecki, M. Grzesiowski, L.A. Thompson and E. Dulski, which, among other matters, refer to M. Tullius Cicero’s activity on the post of the governor of Cilicia,22 or F. Münzer, W. Drumann and P. Groebe, T.R.S. Broughton, M.J.G. Grey-Fow and I. Hofmann-Löbl, concerning the activities of M. Calpurnius Bibulus, the administrator of Syria,23 as well as in the monographs of N.C. Debevoise, M.A.R. Colledge and J. Wolski, which discuss the history and role

19 J. D e b e c q: “Les Parthes et Rome.” Latomus, t. 10, 1951, pp. 459—469; G. D o w n e y: “The Occupation of Syria by the Romans.” TAPhA, vol. 82, 1951, pp. 149—163; J.-P. R e y - C o q u i a s: “Syrie romaine, de Pompée à Diocletien.” JRS, vol. 68, 1978, pp. 44—73; A. K e a v - e n e y: “The King and the War-Lords..., vol. ciii, 1982, pp. 412—428; E. D ą b r o w a: La politique..., Kraków 1983; A.N. S h e r w i n - W h i t e: Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. Duckworth 1984; R.D. S u l l i v a n: Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100—30 B.C. Toronto—Buffalo—London 1990; J. Wo l s k i: “Les Parthes et la Syrie.” AJ, vol. 5, 1977, pp. 395—417; I d e m: Rzym i państwo Partów..., pp. 221—233; I d e m: Rzymska polityka na Wschodzie..., pp. 81—103; I d e m: “Wpływ imperializmu rzymskiego na losy wschodnich prowincji rzymskich.” W: Antiquitas, t. 21, red. T. K o t u l a, A. Ładomirski. Wrocław 1995, pp. 55—63; P. A r n a u d: “Les guerres parthiques de Gabinius et de Crassus et la politique occidentale des Parthes Arsacides entre 70 et 53 av. J.-C.” Electrum, vol. 2: “Ancient Iran and the Mediterranean World,” red. E. D ą b r o w a. Kraków 1998, pp. 13—34. Cf. also: T.P. H i l l - m a n: “Pompeius ad Parthos?” Klio, Bd. 78, 1996, pp. 380—399. 20 P. S t e i n: Die Senatssitzungen der Ciceronischen Zeit (68—430). Münster 1930; M b o n n e f o n d - C o u d r y: Le Sénat de la République romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste. Rome 1989. 21 W. F e e m s t e r J a s h e m s k i: The Origins and History... 22 M. G e l z e r: “M. Tullius Cicero der Redner, 29.” In: RE, 2 Reihe, Hlb. 13, Stuttgart 1939, col. 827—1091; F. S m o k o w s k i: “Cyceron w Azji.” Eos, vol. 47, 1957, pp. 111—125; K. K u m a n i e c k i: “Cyceron w cylicji...,” pp. 449—470; M. G r z e s i o w s k i: “Wojskowa kampania Cycerona w cylicji jesienią 51 roku.” Meander, t. 15, 1960, pp. 155—166; I d e m: “Partowie zagrażają wschodnim prowincjom rzymskim wiosną i latem 50 r. p.n.e.” Meander, t. 15, 1960, pp. 288—295; L.A. T h o m p s o n: “Cicero’s succession — problem in Cili- cia.” AJPh, vol. 86, 1965, pp. 375—386; E. D u l s k i: “Cyceron jako namiestnik Cylicji...,” pp. 23—39. 23 F. M ü n z e r: “M. Calpurnius Bibulus, 28.” In: RE, Hlb. 5, Stuttgart 1897, col. 1368— 1370; W. D r u m a n n, P. G r o e b e: Geschichte Roms..., Bd. 2, Leipzig 1902, pp. 80—86; T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates..., vol. 2, pp. 242, 250; R. S y m e: “M. Bibulus and Four Sons.” HSCPh, vol. 91, 1987, pp. 185—198; M.J.G. G r e y - F o w: “The Mental Breakdown of a Roman Senator: M. Calpurnius Bibulus.” GR, vol. 37, 1990, pp. 179—190; I. H o f m a n n - L ö b l: Die Calpurnii. Frankfurt am Main 1996. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 47 of the Parthians in the East.24 Some information related to the discussed matter can also be encountered in presentations of various aspects of the crisis of the Roman Republic25 and in the synthetic studies of the history of its last decades.26 It was impossible to prevent or even reduce the threat that Parthia was posing directly after Crassus’s defeat at Carrhae or in the following months, because the capital of the Republic had been long plunged in anarchy. Government offices in Rome did not function and the rule was in the hands of interreges, who were changed every five days. They were in office for a very short time and, what is more, were not competent enough, which prevented them from dealing with military issues and foreign policy.27 This was mainly caused by the exacerbating rivalry for high-ranking posts and corruption spreading during elections. As a result of revealing in year 54 most probably the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the Roman Re- public the consuls and, as a consequence, other magistratus curules elections for the following year did not take place.28 As well as this, the complicated situation in Rome in year 53 was also a result of an argument that took place in year 54 between the optimates and Cn. Pompeius. Aiming at weakening the position of the only triumvir in Rome at that time, they initiated an array of campaigns against his closest cowork- ers, which usually ended in lawsuits against them.29 Pompeius responded with preventing his enemies from efficient ruling by sustaining anarchy in the capital

24 N.C. D e b e v o i s e: A Political History of Parthia...; M.A.R. C o l l e d g e: The Parthi- ans. London 1967; J. Wo l s k i: Imperium Arsacydów... 25 See. e.g.: E. M e y e r: Caesars Monarchie und das Principat ds Pompejus. Stuttgart— Berlin 1922; J. D i c k i n s o n: Death of a Roman Republic. Politics and Political Thought at Rome 59—44 B.C. New York—London 1963. 26 Cf. e.g.: T. R i c e H o l m e s: The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, vol. 2. Oxford 1923; CAH, vol. 9. 27 See. in this context: Cic., Ad fam. VII, 11, 1; II, 4, 1; 5, 1—2; Plut., Caes. 28. 3—4; Pomp. 54, 2; App., B.C. II, 19, 68—71; Cass. Dio XL, 17, 1—2; 45, 1—46, 1; E. M e y e r: Caesars Monarchie..., pp. 207—214, Cf. also 191—207; T. R i c e H o l m e s: The Roman Republic..., vol. 2, pp. 152—159; J. D i c k i n s o n: Death of a Roman Republic..., pp. 154—155. 28 Plut., Pomp. 54, 2; Cat. Min. 44; App., B.C. II, 19, 69—71; Cass. Dio XL, 45, 1; 2—4; cf.: Plut., Caes. 28, 3; J. L i n d e r s k i: Rzymskie zgromadzenie wyborcze od Sulli do Cezara. Wrocław—Warszawa—Kraków 1966, pp. 142—147; G.V. S u m n e r: “The Coitio of 54 B.C., or Waiting for Cesar.” HSCPh, vol. 86, 1982, pp. 133—139; H. K o w a l s k i: “Przemoc jako me- toda walki wyborczej w okresie schyłku republiki (78—50 r. p.n.e.).” AUMCS, Sect. F, 1983/1984, 38—39, pp. 87—88; I d e m: “Przekupstwa wyborcze w Rzymie w okresie schyłku republiki (78—50 p.n.e.).” RL, t. 29—30, 1987—1988, pp. 15—16; I d e m: “Armia a wybory w Rzymie w okresie schyłku republiki.” In: Antiquitas, vol. 14, red. A. Ładomirski. Wrocław 1988, p. 123. 29 Cass. Dio XXXIX, 60, 2—4; 61, 3—63, 5; M. G e l z e r: Pompeius. München 1949, pp. 178—179; R. S e a g e r: Pompey. A Political Biography. Berkeley—Los Angeles 1979, pp. 132—141; M.C. A l e x a n d e r: Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 B.C. to 50 B.C. Toronto—Buffalo—London 1990, pp. 137—149. 48 Norbert Rogosz and spreading rumours among its inhabitants about the necessity of introducing dictatorship to establish order.30 Using his influence, Pompeius succeeded in maintaining anarchy in Rome until July, or even August 53.31 Only then, after being granted the supervision over the Republic as a proconsul, he helped the present interrex to conduct the election of officials for the last months of that year.32 Yet, since the senate disagreed with his dictatorship, after the election he returned to his former practices. In effect, the newly elected consuls did not succeed in electing their successors or any other magistratus curules for the year 52, which, therefore, also begun with interregnum.33 What is more, due to the growing competition between T. Annius Milo and P. Clodius, the anarchy in the capital was spreading even more.34 Only after the assassination of Clodius, committed by Milo’s squads at the end of the second decade of January, the senate, influenced by M. Calpurnius Bibulus and M. Porcius Cato, decided to invest Pompeius with the special power, yet, as consul without colleague.35

30 Plut., Caes. 28, 4; Pomp. 54, 2; Cat. Min. 45, 4; App., B.C. II, 20, 72—73; Cass. Dio XL, 45, 1—5; J.P. B o r l e: Pompée et la dictature, 55—50 av. J.-C., LEC, vol. 20, 1952, pp. 172—175. 31 Plut., Pomp. 54, 2—3; App., B.C. II, 19, 71; Cass. Dio XL, 45, 1. L. P i o t r o w i c z (Dzieje..., p. 424) suggests that the elections of the consuls took place in July. H. K o w a l s k i presents this similarly: “Przemoc...,” pp. 87—88. More on this topic, see: J. L i n d e r s k i: Rzymskie zgromadzenie wyborcze..., pp. 147—148. 32 Plut., Pomp. 54, 2—3; App., B.C. II, 19, 71; Cass. Dio XL, 45, 5—46, 1; J. L i n d e r s k i: Rzymskie zgromadzenie wyborcze..., pp. 148; H. K o w a l s k i: “Przemoc...,” pp. 87—88. 33 Cic., Ad fam. V, 18, 1; III, 1, 1; Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3; Plut., Pomp. 54, 3; Cat. Min. 47, 1—2; App., B.C. II, 20, 72—73; Cass Dio XL, 44, 2; 46, 1—3. Cf. also: Liv., per. CVII; E. M e y e r: Caesars Monarchie..., pp. 211—214; T. R i c e H o l m e s: The Roman Republic..., pp. 163—165; J.P. B o r l e: Pompée..., pp. 175—176; J. D i c k i n s o n: Death..., p. 155; J. L i n d e r s k i: Rzymskie zgromadzenie wyborcze..., pp. 148—150; A. Ya k o b s o n: Elections and Election- eering in Rome. A Study in the Political System of the Late Republic. Historia Einzelschriften, H. 128, Stuttgart 1999, p. 171. 34 This happened, among other things, because T. Annius Milon intended to strive for the consulate and P. Clodius — for the office of praetor. Both of them had the support of certain circles among the inhabitants of the capital, which additionally contributed to the revival of the antagonism that had been setting them at variance for a few years: Cic., Ad fam. II, 6, 3—5; Liv., per. CVII; Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3; Plut., Pomp. 54, 3; Cat. Min. 47, 1—2; App., B.C. II, 20, 74; Cass. Dio XL, 47, 1—48, 1; A. Ya k o b s o n: Elections..., pp. 171—173. 35 Cic., Ad fam. VII, 2, 2—3; Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3—4; Suet., Iul. 26, 1; Plut., Caes. 28, 5; Pomp. 54, 3—4; Cat. Min. 47, 2—3; App., B.C. II, 21, 75—23, 84; Cass. Dio XL, 48, 1—50, 5; J. van O o t e g h e m: Pompée le Grand, bâtisseur d’Empire. Louvain—Namur—Paris, 1954, pp. 438—444; J. L e a c h: Pompey the Great. London 1978, pp. 155—157. On the subject of his choice: J. L i n d e r s k i: Rzymskie zgromadzenie wyborcze..., pp. 150—152; H. K o w a l s k i: “Przemoc...,” pp. 88—89; A. Ya k o b s o n: Elections..., p. 58. According to Livius (per. CVII), Pompeius was then elected consul in absentia. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 49

After being pronounced consul, Pompeius started organizing the matters of the country straight away.36 Internal issues, and especially striving for the reinforcement of his position in the Republic, were his priorities, though. Although he did also deal with the threat posed by Parthians, so to speak, by the way, while he was taking care of other problems.37 However, this does not mean that he ignored the danger in the eastern dominions of Rome — on the contrary, it was of great importance for him to obviate the danger, since this would guarantee that he would remain influential in the East.38 The fact that Pompeius did not emphasize these matters in his moves in year 52 might have been related to his unwillingness to irritate the aristocrats of optimate orientation who dominated in the senate at that time and who had been his new allies since he was invested with the special power.39 This is indicated by the opposition he met in the senate when, after finishing the third war with Mithradates VI and coming back from Italia, he asked for approval of the orders he gave in the East.40 To protect Roman dominions and eastern areas from Parthians, it was necessary to take care of a few problems. Syria, which bordered Parthia directly and was defended from the Parthian king designs by C. Cassius Longinus, the quaestor of the late M. Licinius Crassus,41 needed a new governor as soon as possible. Moreover, just like the nearby Cilicia and other provinces of Asia Minor, it also needed reinforcements to repulse the expected Parthian attacks effectively together with the few local troops. Also the local allies of Rome

36 Cic., Ad fam. V, 18, 2; VII, 2, 2—3; Liv., per. CVII; Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3—4; 48, 1; Plut., Pomp. 54, 5; 55, 4—7; Cat. Min. 48; App., B.C. II, 23, 87—24, 92; 25, 95; Cass. Dio XL, 50, 5; 52—55. 37 Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3—48, 1; Plut., Pomp. 55, 1; 7; App., B.C. II, 24, 92—25, 95; Cass. Dio XL, 51—56. Cf. also: 57 as well as Liv., per. CVII. 38 He enjoyed this considerable influence in this area since the time he was at war with Mithradates VI, the king of Pontus, during and after which he established in this region new political order, which was convenient for himself as well. On the topic of Pompeius’s activity in the East and its results, see e.g.: G. W i r t h: “Pompeius im Osten.” Klio, Bd. 66, 1984, pp. 574—580; M. D r e h e r: “Pompeius und die kaukasischen Völker: Kolcher, Iberer, Albaner.” Historia, Bd. 45, 1996, pp. 188—207; J. B e l l e m o r e: “Josephus Pompey and the Jews.” His- toria, Bd. 48, 1999, pp. 94—118; J. Wa g n e r: Östlicher Mittelmeerraum und Mesopotamien. Die Neuordnung des Orientis von Pompeius bis Augustus (67 v. Chr. bis 14 n. Chr.). Wiesbaden 1983. 39 Cf. in this light: Liv., per. CVII; Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3; Suet., Iul. 26, 1; Plut., Caes. 28, 5; Pomp. 54, 3—5; 55, 1—3; Cat. Min. 47, 2—3; App., B.C. II, 23, 84; 25, 95; Cass. Dio XL, 50, 4—5. 40 See. on this topic: Cic., Ad Att. I, 13, 4; 14, 1; Vell. Pat. II, 40, 5; Suet., Iul. 19, 2; Plut., Pomp. 46, 3; Cat. Min. 31, 1; Luc. 42, 5—6; App., B.C. II, 9, 31—32; Cass. Dio XXXVII, 49, 2; 49, 4—50, 1; J. M u r p h y: “Pompey’s Eastern Acta.” AHB, vol. 7, 1993, pp. 136—142. Cf. also the literature quoted in footnote 38. 41 Lv., per. CVIII; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 5; Cass. Dio XL, 28, 1—29, 3. 50 Norbert Rogosz required reinforcements in order to make them defy Parthia willingly or to prevent them from changing their orientation and join Parthian king.42 Of course, these demands could not have been fulfilled at once, due to the complicated situation in the capital in the year 52. Meeting those demands required time because of the huge distance separating Syria and Asia Minor from Italia, for instance. However, it should not have been deferred, despite the fact that from Cn. Pompeius’s and his new allies’, who were dominating in the senate, point of view there were some more urgent problems in Rome to be dealt with.43 Taking into consideration the immense significance of the eastern provinces for the empire, as well as his own interests, Pompeius started to take care of those issues as soon as it was possible. The most important matter was to appoint a new governor of Syria and invest him with powers which would correspond to the dangers threatening this province at that time, so that he could replace C. Cassius Longinus. This was because until then the only move of Roman authorities as far as Syria was concerned was to accept the part that Longinus had been playing in Syria since Crassus’s defeat at Carrhae.44 Due to the complicated situation in Rome and lack of any possibilities in this aspect, no other action was taken. In the year 52 appointing a governor of Syria was still a complex issue, since Crassus was handed over control of Syria for five years on the basis of Lex Trebonia. It was thanks to this very law that Pompeius was entrusted with governing Spanish provinces for the same period of time and under the same conditions.45 Crassus was already dead, but Lex Trebonia was still legally binding and Pompeius was

42 This anxiety was justified, which was proven by the attitude of the Armenian king: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 3, 1. In order to prevent such moves of the local allies, the senate decided to take appropriate preventive steps. Cf. pp. 55—56. 43 This point of view of these politicians proves well the justification of the motion with which M. Calpurnius Bibulus and M. Porcius Cato suggested to entrust Pompeius with the post of consul without colleague: Plut., Caes. 28, 5; Pomp. 54, 3—4. Cf. also: Liv., per. CVII; Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3; Suet., Iul. 26, 1; Plut., Cat. Min. 47, 2—3; App., B.C. II, 22, 79—23, 84; Cass. Dio XL, 50, 4—5. 44 This is proven by Cicero’s letter, in the headline of which he addresses C. Cassius Longi- nus proquaestor: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 14, prescript. Cf. also: W. F e e m s t e r J a s h e m s k i: The Origins..., p. 156; T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates..., vol. 2, pp. 237, 242; I d e m: vol. 3: Supplement, Atlanta 1986, p. 51. According to Cassius Dio (XL, 28, 2), C. Cassius was granted the command over the troops stationing in Syria by the soldiers and, directly after the battle of Carrhae, before his death, also by Crassus, however Cassius did not accept it. Still, in the next months of the year 53 and in the following years he had Syria under his care. In this light the Roman authorities only accepted the state of affairs being. 45 This is especially emphasized by Cassius Dio (XXXIX, 33, 2). This matter is presented similarly also by other ancient authors who mention the second consulate of Pompeius and Crassus as well as this law: Liv., per. CV; Vell. Pat. II, 46, 2; 48, 1; Plut., Pomp. 52, 3; Cat. Min. 43, 1; App., B.C. II, 18, 65. On the subject of Lex Trebonia see literature quoted in footnote 2. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 51 still governing Spain.46 Moreover, the senate, which traditionally assigned new governors to different provinces, could not change or invalidate a law passed by the citizens by its own resolution. This law could be repealed only in one way: by a new resolution of popular assembly. Only Pompeius, who had huge power at that time and, thus, the adequate authority, could bring to it.47 Taking all these points into account, the potent politician began to take care of the problem of Syrian administration in a rather extraordinary way. In order not to get entangled in contradictions of legal nature, he first introduced a new decision which prolonged his governing of the Spanish provinces for another term, starting with the year 52.48 It is not known whether the decision was introduced in the senate or within popular assembly, but in practice this meant canceling Lex Trebonia. In this way he removed legal obstacles which prevented Syria from having a new governor appointed. However, he did not regulate this question separately. He solved it at once by a new resolution of public assembly along with normalizing the method of appointing governors of the other provinces, because since the time of L. Cornelius Sulla, who had determined this method of appointing them, the order he established became seriously disrupted.49 Aiming at eradicating corruption and eliminating violence

46 On the basis of this law Pompeius was to hold the post of the governor of the Spanish provinces until the year 50. See. in this light: Plut., Caes. 28, 5; Pomp. 52, 3; App., B.C. II, 18, 65; Cass. Dio XXXIX, 33, 2. 47 According to Livius (per. CVII) and Velleius Paterculus (II, 47, 3—4) in the year 52 Pompeius was officially pronounced to be in charge of the Republic and the one to deal with the bringing the chaos it was engulfed in under control. Sec.: Suet., Iul. 26, 1. A different view of this matter, see: Plut., Caes. 28, 5; Pomp. 54, 3—4; Cat. Min. 47, 1—3; App., B.C. II, 23, 84; Cass. Dio XL, 50, 4—5. 48 Thanks to this, Pompeius secured his position. As a result, in the future, in case of a change in the situation in the country, or breaking the alliances, neither his enemies nor the senate could change his position easily. The ancient authors present this matter in an unclear and ambiguous way. According to Cassius Dio (XL, 56, 2), Pompeius “took” the Spanish provinces for further five years. In Pompeius’s hagiography (55, 7), in this respect Plutarch alludes to a voting, however it is not known where — in a public assembly or in the senate. Yet, in Caesar’s biography (28, 5) he mentions that the governing in these provinces was extended by the senate. Appian (B.C. II, 24, 92), however, claims that the senate passed giving him two additional legions and extending his governing, but this does not have to mean that it took the final decision in this matter. It is possible that this was only a resolution approving of handing down this question for people debate. See. also: M. G e l z e r: Pompeius..., pp. 191—192; J. van O o t e g h e m: Pompée..., p. 460; J. L e a c h: Pompey..., pp. 160—161; R. S e a g e r: Pompey..., p. 150. 49 The orders of L. Cornelius Sulla concerning this matter included that each consul and praetor, after having handed in their office, would take over the running of a province for one year. However, sometimes some of the former officials, as e.g. Caesar, Pompeius, Crassus and other influential Romans, were granted the governing of provinces not for one, but for several years. What is more, the two prior ones governed more than one province. Others, as e.g. M. Tullius Cicero, did not want to leave Rome and go to their provinces, so they did not take over the running of these provinces. The already mentioned Crassus and Pompeius acted similarly 52 Norbert Rogosz during competition for the highest offices,50 he also decided, in accordance with the senate’s previous year’s resolution, that from then on the politicians who were to assume the office of consul or praetor can only be given control over provinces after five years had passed from submitting the office.51 In order not to cause chaos in the nearest years while filling the posts with new governors, according to lex Pompeia de provinciis, which regulated these issues, it was agreed that first of all the posts would be given to the former consuls and praetors who, after having submitted their posts, had not taken care of any province yet, because of different reasons.52 Since the problem of filling the posts of governors had been solved altogether and in the same way for each of them, this meant also that Syria and the provinces of Asia Minor (Asia, Bithynia and Pontus, Cilicia) would not have new governors appointed straight away, but only after the previous governors’ terms had passed, which was going to happen in the year 51.53 It was then when some decisions were made, according to the norms and decisions concerning this issues and included in the mentioned Pompeius’s law, but also in accordance with the senate’s resolution.54 Syria was entrusted to a former consul from the year 59, M. Calpurnius Bibulus, and Cilicia was assigned also to a former consul, but from the year 63, M. Tullius Cicero. The control over Asia was given to Quintus Minucius Thermus, a former praetor of the year 58, and over Bithynia and Pontus — to P. Silius, the former praetor of year 57.55 after the first consulate held in the year 70. As a result of such practice the system of the staffing introduced by Sulla collapsed, especially because since his times the number of provinces increased and did not correspond to the number of the posts of consuls and praetors, who were the officials entitled to administer them. On the topic of Sulla’s reforms concerning this subject, see: J. Macdonald C o b b a n: Senate and Provinces, 78—49 B.C..., pp. 72—82; cf. also 82—87; Th. H a n t o s: Die Verfassung des Dictators Sulla. Hermes Einzellschriften, H. 50, Stuttgart 1988, pp. 89—120. 50 Vell. Pat. II, 47, 3. Cf. also in this light: Liv., per. CVII; Plut., Pomp. 54, 2; 55, 4; Cat., Min. 48, 2—4; App., B.C. II, 23, 87—24, 92; Cass. Dio XL, 51—55. 51 Cassius Dio paid attention to this fact (XL, 46, 2; 56, 1); H. K o w a l s k i: “Przekupst- wa...,” p. 16. Pompeius, however, did not obey this rule, since while he was the consul in the year 52, he extended his governing of Spanish provinces by five years. 52 This was the consequence of previous rule (Cass. Dio XL, 46, 2; 56, 1). 53 See: W. F e e m s t e r J a s h e m s k i: The Origins..., pp. 138, 148, 152, 155—156; T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Magistrates..., vol. 2, pp. 242—243. 54 This is emphasized by Cicero in the context of his governing in the letter to Appius Clau- dius Pulcher, the former administrator of Cilicia: Ad fam. III, 2, 2. More on the topic of political and legal basis of the post held by the great orator in this province: A.J. M a r s h a l l: “The lex Pompeia de provinciis (52 B.C.) and Cicero’s Imperium in 51—50 B.C.: Constitutional Aspects.” In: ANRW, T. I, hrsg. H. T e m p o r i n i, Bd. 1. Berlin—New Hork 1972, pp. 887—921. 55 On the subject of staffing these provinces with new administrators, see: W. F e e m s t e r J a s h e m s k i: The Origins..., pp. 138, 148, 152, 155—156; T.R.S. B r o u g h t o n: The Mag- istrates..., vol. 2, pp. 242—243, 250—252. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 53

Also the powers of these governors were adjusted to the current needs. This was of great importance especially in the case of Bibulus and Cicero, since it was their provinces which were the most threatened by Parthia.56 Thanks to this, with Pompeius’s and the senate’s help, they could start increasing the number of soldiers stationing there and, after the seizure, defending these territories. Having enough competence and such major support they were also able to carry out the, as it would seem at that time, attractive and effective policy with regard to their local allies.57 However, the new governors did not take up their missions enthusiastically, some of them treating them even as a necessary evil.58 Their reluctance to the tasks they have been entrusted with, often against their will, might have been caused by the level of difficulty and danger they could expect after assuming their roles. That is why they made use of their presence in Rome, and even before leaving Italia they tried to gain the decision to increase immediately the number of troops stationing in their provinces.59 They tried to achieve this by the senate and by Pompeius, who had a lot of say, or even the final word, in public matters. Both Pompeius and the majority of senators acknowledged and supported these aspirations,60 but one of the then consuls, Servius Sulpicius Rufus, prevented the senate from passing the resolution.61 It is not known what induced him to do so. It might have been the already growing feud between Caesar and Pompeius, since Sulpicius supported the former one and he could have feared that the army gathered in Italia would eventually be used against the conqueror of Gaul.62

56 It is not known when exactly this happened. Cicero wrote about the expected resolution of the senate concerning this issue in several letters just after leaving Rome: Cic., Ad Att. V, 4, 2; 5, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1. 57 Cf. in this light: Cic., Ad Att. V, 4, 2; 5, 1; 6, 1; 7, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1—2; Ad Att. V, 14, 1; Ad fam. XV, 3, 1—2. 58 It was especially noticeable in M. Tullius Cicero’s attitude, who emphasized his reluctance to the mission of governing Cilicia, which he was entrusted with against his own will, in numerous letters. See. e.g.: Cic., Ad fam. III, 2, 1; Ad Att. V, 11, 1; 15, 1. Also M. Calpurnius Bibulus was reluctant as far as assuming the duties of the administrator of Syria is concerned: Cic., Ad Att. V, 16, 4; Ad fam. XV, 3, 2; Ad Att. V, 18, 1. 59 On the subject of the efforts to achieve this, especially Cicero’s, see: Cic., Ad fam. III, 2, 1; Ad Att. V, 4, 2; 5, 1; 7, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1—2. 60 Cic., Ad Att. V, 6, 1; 7, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1. 61 Ibidem; P. S t e i n: Die Senatssitzungen..., pp. 55—56. More about this politician, see: G. P i a n k o: “Korespondenci Cycerona. Serwiusz Sulpicjusz Rufus.” Meander, t. 18, 1963, pp. 16—25. 62 Suet., Iul. 29, 1; Cass. Dio XL, 59, 1; E. M e y e r: Caesars Monarchie..., pp. 245—246; N. R o g o s z: “Senat a konflikt Pompejusza z cezarem. Wniosek konsula Marcellusa z 51 roku p.n.e. w sprawie odwołania Cezara z prowincji.” In: Antiquitas, t. 13, Red. E. K o n i k. Wrocław 1987, pp. 214, 220—222; I d e m: “Funkcjonowanie senatu w Republice Rzymskiej 54 Norbert Rogosz

In this situation the senate forced the newly appointed governors to leave immediately in order to prevent further deterioration of the situation in the East.63 Thus, they left the capital without his decision to increase the number of legions which were to repulse Parthians, but during their journey they continued to take care of this matter, as well as the problem of a sufficient number of commanders, the pay and the condition of their predecessors’ troops.64 Eventu- ally, the awaited resolution was passed by the senate.65 The governors of the eastern provinces were allowed to carry out additional levy, however not within Italy, which they were particularly interested in due to the value of the local recruits, but within the area of Asia Minor.66 It is not surprising that they were not satisfied with this solution, for the indigenous inhabitants of Asia Minor were not highly valued soldier material.67 In this situation they had to decide to recruit the Roman citizens who stayed in the eastern provinces permanently or temporarily at that time.68 Still, this source of recruitment was not too big. Moreover, as Cicero indicates, the Romans staying in the east, facing the perspective of participating in the war against Parthia, tried to avoid at any cost being conscripted into the legions formed there.69 For this reason especially Bibulus and the already mentioned Cicero could not have counted on significant increase in the number of their troops. As a result, when they assumed the posts of the administrators of Syria and Cilicia, they had rather sparse forces.70 w 51 r. p.n.e.” Res Historica, t. 5: Graecorum et Romanorum memoria. Ed. L. Morawiecki. Lublin 1998, pp. 138—140; M. B o n n e f o n d - C o u d r y: Le Sénat..., p. 560. 63 Cic., Ad fam. III, 3, 1. Thus, Cicero left Rome on 1st May 51: K. K u m a n i e c k i: Cy- ceron i jego współcześni..., p. 357; E. D u l s k i: “Cyceron jako namiestnik...,” p. 25; I d e m: “Podróże Marka Tulliusza Cycerona do Grecji.” In: Antiquitas, t. 16. Ed. E. K o n i k. Wrocław 1992, pp. 8—9. 64 Cicero’s efforts concerning this issue are well substantiated: Cic., Ad Att. V, 4, 2; 5, 1; 6, 1; 7, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1—2; Ad Att. V, 14, 1; 15, 1; 17, 2; M. B o n n e f o n d - C o u d r y: Le Sénat..., p. 211. 65 It is not known when exactly eventually the senate made this decision. However, this fact is proven by the information included in Cicero’s letter, in a form of a report, to the senate and the officials, in which the great orator reported on the results of his current achievements concerning the province he was entrusted with: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 2, 4. See. also: Cic., Ad Att. V, 4, 2; 5, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1. 66 Ibidem; Cic., Ad Att. V, 18, 2. 67 Cic., Ad fam. XV, 1, 5. This is why Cicero, despite everything, insisted on the senate to let supplement the army forces stationing in Cilicia by the levy from Italy. (Cic., Ad Att. V, 4, 2; 5, 1; Ad fam. III, 3, 1). This was also the reason for which he wanted App. Claudius, who had governed this province in the preceding years, not to send his troops home and leave them in good condition (Cic., Ad fam. III, 2, 1; 3, 2; Ad Att. V, 14, 1). 68 Cic., Ad Att. V, 18, 2. 69 Cic., Ad fam. XV, 1, 6. 70 Cicero incessantly emphasized this in his letters addressed to various Roman politicians and the senate: Cic., Ad Att. V, 15, 1; Ad fam. VIII, 15, 1; Ad Att. V, 18, 1—2; Ad fam. XV, 1, 4—5. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 55

Therefore Cicero, for instance, using various methods, attempted to increase the battle value of his rather modest army. Among other things, he looked after friendly atmosphere in the legions subordinate to him, he also made sure that the soldiers were well treated and took care of the fact that they did not com- plain about anything.71 Similarly, he looked after the inhabitants of Cilicia. He particularly cared for the fact that the soldiers’ attitude towards him and the Romans in general was as good as possible. He was namely perfectly aware of the fact that otherwise he could not count on them during the battles with the Parthians.72 The situation of the Romans could have also been influenced by the conduct of their local allies, which is why the senate recommended the governors of the eastern provinces appropriate attitude towards them. This can be suggested, since in one of his letters written to T. Pomponius Atticus Cicero explained how he perceived his tasks regarding the allies of the Republic and the resulting priorities. These included: lenient treatment, acting towards them with moderation, and keeping the pledges.73 These factors were to help retain their support, thanks to which the Romans wanted to keep their influence in the whole region. They also hoped that these allies would defy Parthians’ activity aimed at winning as many as possible rulers, peoples and cities, also at Roman expense. These aims could be proven by Armenian attitude, whose ruler married his sister off to the son of the Parthian king and became closely affiliated to him.74 The efforts of the Romans should not be a surprise, as there was going to be a longer war between these two superpowers, among other reasons. After Crassus’s defeat at Carrhae, when the Romans had little chances to succeed in a clash with Parthia, more and more eastern rulers started acting ambiguously and did not want to support the Romans actively.75 For this reason the Republic did not have many allies and it needed them badly. Bearing this in mind, presumably in order to encourage the rest of the allies to persevere, the senate particularly

71 Cic., Ad Att. V, 14, 2; 18, 2; Ad fam. XV, 2, 1. As it can be assumed, Cicero’s subordinates acted similarly due to appropriate orders of their governor, who, therefore, had reasons to be proud: Cic., Ad Att. V, 17, 2. 72 He especially cared about the fact that his subordinates and the officers would not commit malpractice (Cic., Ad Att. V, 17, 2). He also intended to devote a lot of attention to judicature (Cic., Ad Att. V, 14, 2). Cf. also: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 3, 2. 73 Ibidem. See also in the same context: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 2, 4; 7. 74 Cic., Ad fam. XV, 3, 1. 75 Cf. in this light: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 3, 1; 1, 5—6. Only few of the local allies remained faithful to the Romans. Dejotar was an exception notable for his loyalty and, thus, highly ap- praised by Cicero: Cic., Ad Att. V, 18, 2; Ad fam. XV, 1, 6. Their attitude, however, should not surprise anybody, due to the scantiness of the Roman army in that region, since everyone was expecting an outbreak of a huge war between the Romans and the Parthians: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 1, 4—5. 56 Norbert Rogosz recommended some eastern rulers, for example Ariobarzanes, to the governors of the local provinces.76 Nevertheless, when in summer of the year 51 C. Cassius sent news to Rome that the Parthians had crossed Euphrates and invaded Syria, he was not given credence.77 Many senators doubted as to whether these news were true or accused Cassius of exaggeration. They actually went as far as to assert that he sent them to hide his malpractice and especially the alleged plunders in Syria and that he would explain the ruin of this province by the robberies committed by the Parthians.78 The news in Cassius’s letters were looked at differently only when they were confirmed by the letters of Dejotar, who also sounded a warning about the danger that the Parthians were posing and informed about their invasion.79 This news resulted in the senate changing their stand, because until then it did not acknowledge the threat that Parthia was posing and procrastinated the prevention with appropriate decisions and moves.80 At last the Romans realized that the governors of Syria and Cilicia would not be able to stop the Parthians, even with the support of other provinces of Asia Minor and the contingents provided by the allies. One of the reasons was that neither Bibulus nor Cicero were outstanding leaders and thought rather about how to prevent a general war than how to oppose the invaders.81 For this reason the senate suggested to send an experienced leader to the East, who would deal with the problem of Parthian threat in favour of Rome. Some claimed that this person should be Pompeius.82 They were undoubtedly driven by the fact that he had numerous military achievements to his credit and, what is more, he knew those countries, because in the sixties, after L. Licinius Lucullus had been dismissed from the commander-in-chief post, Pompeius continued the war against Mithradates. After having won this war, Pompeius established order, which provided him with great influence and respect in this region.83 These as- sets made Pompeius the most suitable candidate to lead the war against Parthia.

76 Cicero stressed it strongly in his extensive, report-like letter written to the senate: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 2, 4; 7; M. B o n n e f o n d - C o u d r y: Le Sénat..., p. 442. 77 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 1; 3. See also in this context: Cic., Ad Att. V, 16, 4; Ad fam. VIII, 15, 1; XV, 3, 1; Ad Att. V, 18, 1; Ad fam. XV, 9, 2; 2, 1; 1, 1—3; III, 8, 10. 78 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 3. 79 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 1; 3. 80 On the topic of the former position of the senate towards the Parthian threat to the eastern provinces see: Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 2—3; P. S t e i n: Die Senatssitzungen..., pp. 55—58. Cf. also: R. K a m i e n i k: “O senatus frequens i o absencjach Cycerona w senacie.” In: Antiquitas, t. 15, 1992. Ed. E. K o n i k. Wrocław 1992, p. 94; N. R o g o s z: “Funkcjonowanie senatu...,” pp. 138—140, 149—151. 81 See in this context: Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 5, 1; Ad Att. V, 18, 1. 82 The discussion on this matter was widely reflected in Cicero’s correspondence: Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 2. Cf. also: VIII, 5, 1; Ad Att. V, 18, 1. 83 On the topic of the effects of Gn. Pompeius’s activitiy in the East and the influence he enjoyed in that region and in Rome see: Vell. Pat. II, 40, 2; Plut., Pomp. 46, 1; App., B.C. II, 1, 2; Cass. Dio XXXVII, 20, 1—5. See also: Liv., per. C — CII; Vell. Pat. II, 37; 40; Plut., Pomp. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 57

Still, some other senators claimed that Caesar would be a better candidate for this mission.84 They backed this up with his successes in Gaul and particularly dealing with the Gaulish uprising the year before. Yet, other senators suggested that they should entrust the consuls of the year 51 with this task,85 however the latter ones feared it, so they obstructed the senate’s session on this issue. As a result, there were no concrete decisions, due to the consuls’ dilatory acting and the fact that they simply did not care about solving this problem, really.86 In this situation, the governors of the eastern provinces assumed a similar attitude, especially Cicero and Bibulus, whose actions were indecisive. They cared more about the formal fulfilment of their duties than about real engagement into the fights against the Parthians.87 Therefore, when summer of the year 51 ended and the Parthians withdrew from Antioch, the contentment of both the governors reached its peak.88 Many Roman politicians, however, were aware of the fact that this was not the end of the war. They expected that in the year 50 for many months the contemporary consuls, the senate and first of all the administrators of Syria and the adjoining Cilicia would have to deal with the Parthians again.89 Their fears were justified, since the Parthians did not leave the Roman area in the year 51 and their troops were still staying on the right bank of Euphra- tes.90 Despite this, C. Cassius, who was successfully repulsing their attacks on Antioch, considered the combats with the Parthians finished.91 However, Cicero, who ruled Cilicia, was of different opinion, just like king Dejotar. They claimed that the Parthians decided to winter on the occupied area, as they waited for the arrival of their king, together with the whole army,92 which was said to happen

33—34; 38—39; 45; Flor. I, 40, 27—31; Cass. Dio XXXVI, 53; XXXVII, 2, 6—7; 5—6; 14, 3—16, 4, as well as the literature quoted in footnote 38 and 40. 84 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 2. 85 Ibidem. 86 Ibidem, 10, 2—3; P. S t e i n: Die Senatssitzungen..., pp. 55—58; R. K a m i e n i k: “O senatus frequens...,” p. 94; N. R o g o s z: “Funkcjonowanie senatu...,” p. 150. 87 In the case of Cicero the indication of such attitude were for instance his constant efforts to return to Rome as soon as possible. Therefore, the great orator would not miss any opportunity to ask the politicians staying in the capital neither to extend his governing nor to increase his scope of duties (Cic., Ad Att. V, 11, 1; 15, 1; 17, 2; 18, 1; Ad fam. XV, 9, 2; II, 7, 4). Bibulus, however, tried to reach Syria, which he had been assigned to, as late as possible. As a result, he got there when the combats with the Parthians had ended, i.e. when they had withdrawn from the besieged Antioch (Cic., Ad. Att. V, 16, 4; Ad fam. XV, 3, 2; Ad Att. V, 18, 1; Ad fam. II, 10, 2). 88 Especially Cicero expressed his great satisfaction because of this: Cic., Ad fam. III, 8, 10; II, 10, 2; 4. 89 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 10, 3; II, 10, 4. 90 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 6, 4; 7, 1; Ad Att. V, 21, 2. Cf. also in this light: Ad fam. II, 10, 2; XV, 4, 7. 91 Cic., Ad Att. V, 21, 2. See also: Ad fam. II, 10, 2; XV, 4, 7. 92 A more thorough disquisition of Cicero, related to this matter see:: Cic., Ad Att. V, 21, 2. 58 Norbert Rogosz in the spring of the following year. The Roman politicians also thought so and, thus, seriously took into account another attack of the powerful Parthian forces.93 As a result, the idea to send Pompeius along with additional legions to the East in order to defy the invaders effectively was becoming more and more popular.94 Particularly the governors of the most endangered provinces counted on this and, as the rumours about Pompeius’s arrival were spreading, they begun to feel more and more secure.95 However, on the other hand, they were afraid that the senate would be indecisive, while they were of the opinion that it should take a binding decision in this matter rather quickly. Meanwhile, the news coming from Italy did not include any information about the awaited resolution,96 so Cicero supposed that presumably it was caused by C. Cassius’s overoptimistic reports. Yet, he hoped that Bibulus’s tremulous letters, which were written a little bit later, would stir the senate from its lethargy and cause a change in the senators’ attitude concerning this issue.97 Finally, the hopes and calculations of Cicero were confirmed by Pompeius himself, when he informed that he will be commissioned the command of further struggles with the Parthi- ans.98 This message was of immense significance, because the information got from different sources confirmed that when the right moment came, there would be a great war in Syria.99 Presumably, influenced by such news in the spring of the year 50 in Rome, a constructive decision was taken to send two legions to Syria. Pompeius and Caesar were to separate legions from the composition of their armies, one each.100

93 Cicero included the news on which such speculations were based in the letter written to his close friend, T. Pomponius Atticus, which was referred to in the preceding footnote. 94 Information on this subject see: Cic., Ad Att. VI, 1, 3. 95 These rumours had been intensifying for a few months, due to the fact that the idea of entrusting Pompeius with the leadership in the expected war against Parthia appeared quite early among the senators. See in this context: Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 5, 1; Ad Att. V, 18, 1; Ad fam. VIII, 10, 2; Ad Att. V, 21, 3; VI, 1, 3; 14. 96 Cf. in this light: Cic., Ad Att. V, 21, 3; VI, 1, 14. 97 The great orator assessed negatively C. Cassius Longinus’s reports sent to Rome, which discussed the results of the fights with the Parthians in Syria in the year 51. First of all, he thought that the proquaestor presented them in a light which was overoptimistic and too favourable for the Romans, which meant also himself. Cf.: Cic., Ad Att. V, 21, 2; VI, 1, 14. 98 Cic., Ad Att. VI, 1, 14; M. G e l z e r: Pompeius..., pp. 203, 205—206; R. S e a g e r: Pompey..., p. 154. 99 The news confirming this reached the Roman politicians, and especially the governors of eastern provinces, as for example M. Tullius Cicero, from various sources and for a longer period of time. About this issue see: Cic., Ad fam. II, 10, 4; XV, 4, 5; VIII, 7, 1; Ad Att. V, 21, 2; VI, 1, 3; 14; Ad fam. XIII, 57, 1; Ad Att. VI, 2, 6; 3, 2; 4, 1; 5, 3; M. G r z e s i o w s k i: “Partowie zagrażają...,” pp. 288—295. Their inflow only ceased in July 50: Cic., Ad fam. II, 17, 1; Ad Att. VII, 1, 2. See also the literature quoted in footnote 12. 100 Cic., Ad fam. II, 17, 5; VIII, 14, 4; Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 52, 3; 54, 1; Caes., Bell. civ. I, 32, 6; App., B.C. II, 29, 114; Cass. Dio XL, 65, 2; 66, 1; P. S t e i n: Die Senatssitzungen..., p. 59; N. R o g o s z: “Geneza wojny domowej lat 49—48 p.n.e. a jej ujęcie w relacji Aulusa The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 59

This meant serious reinforcement of the forces in the East, since these were not supposed to be newly formed troops, but forces experienced in battles and with numerous victorious military campaigns on their scorecard.101 Cn. Pompeius, wanting to retain his army not depleted and to weaken Caesar at the same time, decided to enter a legion which he had lent to Caesar before. As a result, Caesar had to separate two legions from the composition of his army. In spite of this, suitably to the senate’s resolution and Pompeius’s demand, he sent one legion of his to the war against Parthia and he returned the other one to Pompeius.102 Thus, soon both of them arrived from Gaul to Italy and started the preparations to go to the East, from which there were still alarming news coming.103 Another important matter was to appoint new governors for the eastern provinces, because the current administrators were entrusted with these posts only for one year.104 However, the senate procrastinated.105 It is possible that

Hircjusza.” W: Historia i Współczesność, t. 6: Z zagadnień historiografii od czasów antyku do XVI wieku. Red. A. K u n i s z. Katowice 1982, pp. 22, 24—25; I d e m: “Stanowisko senatu wobec konfliktu Pompejusza z cezarem (1 marca — 1 grudnia 50 r. p.n.e.).” AUMCS, Sect. F, 1994, vol. 49, p. 58. 101 This opinion is justified and correct, since Caesar and Pompeius had had their armies at their disposal for many years. What is more, their soldiers continuously took part in military action, however the legionist of Pompeius on a smaller scale. Thus, they can be acknowledged as old comrades, experienced in war and knowing their trade inside out. Eventually both legions were separated from Caesar’s army, as a result of Pompeius’s demands (this question is discussed more thoroughly hereinunder). For this reason their military value was all the bigger, because these soldiers had participated in many difficult military campaigns organized by Caesar during his invasion of Gaul. On the topic of the fights with the Gaulish tribes and with the Germans, as well as their scale see: Caes., Bell. Gall. I—VII; Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 1—49; Suet., Iul. 25; Plut., Caes. 15; 18—27; App., B.C. II, 17, 61; Flor. I, 45; Cass. Dio XXXVIII, 31—50; XXXIX, 1—5; 40—53; XL, 1—11; 31—44; M. G e l z e r: Caesar. Der Politiker und Staatsmann. Wies- baden 1960, pp. 92—179; J. C a r c o p i n o: Jules César. Paris 1968, pp. 223—253, 281—285, 300—333. 102 Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 52, 3; 54, 1—3; Caes., Bell. civ. I, 2, 3; 3, 2; 4, 4; 9, 4; 32, 6; Plut., Caes. 29, 2; Pomp. 56, 3; App., B.C. II, 29, 115; Cass. Dio XL, 65, 3; N. R o g o s z: “Geneza...,” pp. 24—25; I d e m: “Stanowisko senatu... (1 marca — 1 grudnia 50 r. p.n.e.)...,” p. 58. 103 Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 54, 3; Caes., Bell. civ. I, 2, 3; 3, 2; Plut., Caes. 29, 3—4; App., B.C. II, 29, 115; Cass. Dio XL, 65, 3—4; N. R o g o s z: “Geneza...,” p. 25. 104 With reference to his governing, Cicero mentioned one year term on this post very often, but in various contexts. (Ad Att. V, 15, 1; Ad fam. XV, 2, 1; 4, 2; Ad Att. VI, 2, 6; 3, 1; 5, 3; VII, 3, 1. Cf. also: Cic., Ad Att. V, 11, 1; 17, 5; 18, 1; 3; Ad fam. XV, 9, 2; II, 7, 4; Ad Att. V, 21, 2; VI, 1, 14; Ad fam. II, 17, 1; 15, 5). The same time of office concerned also other governors of the province, because they all were assigned the posts on the same principles. See the text on p. 52 and the footnotes 54—55. 105 The fact that the senate delayed making a decision on this issue caused great discontent, complaints and grumbling of Cicero, who ruled Cilicia at that time: Cic., Ad Att. V, 21, 3; VI, 1, 14; 3, 1; Ad fam. II, 17, 1. Cf. also: Ad fam. II, 15, 4. Similarly, probably the other administrators of the eastern provinces were also dissatisfied with the senate’s work and attitude, in particular M calpurnius Bibulus, who administered Syria, endangered by the Parthians. Caesar informs 60 Norbert Rogosz for the time of the expected fights the senate planned to bring these provinces under Pompeius’s control. If this was really the case, there was no need to deal with this matter, the more that the new administrators, and their ambitions, could complicate the situation in the east by hindering Pompeius to lead the war against Parthians. Still, since everybody wanted to leave this region as soon as possible, particularly before the expected outbreak of fights,106 the senate’s ambiguous policy, and especially lack of decision on this matter bred anxiety, fear and various speculations among the governors of the eastern provinces, whose terms were expiring. The not very uplifting attitude of those governors caused anarchy in their provinces, which was intensifying with time.107 Moreover, Bibulus, who was ruling Syria, was plunged into pain and mourning after his two sons had been murdered in Alexandria, so he did not quite care about the situation in his province.108 Cicero, on the other hand, pondered over the approaching end of his mission in Cilicia and his departure for Rome. Therefore, he devoted a lot of time to the choice of a person who could temporarily be entrusted with the activities related to the governing of the province after he would had left.109 Of course, he also dealt with the expected combats with the Parthians, but this was rather a formality for him, as he spent less and less time on the preparations for the war.110 In July 50 the situation suddenly changed due to the fact that the Parthians unexpectedly withdrew behind Euphrates,111 so the threat of the war was not real anymore. The Roman authorities already before this situation could not decide to pass the resolution ordering to send the two mentioned legions to the east, so afterwards it was almost certain that these legions would never reach these provinces.112 What is more, the Roman politicians in the capital stopped about the appointing of their successors in January 49 and the circumstances which accompanied this event.: Bell. civ. I, 6, 5. 106 On the subject of the attitude of the then governors of the eastern provinces, and particularly Cicero’s, before the expected Parthian attack, see: Cic., Ad fam. XV, 4, 5; VIII, 6, 4; 7, 1; Ad Att. V, 21, 2—3; VI, 1, 14; Ad fam. XIII, 57, 1; Ad Att, VI, 2, 6; 3, 1—2; 4, 1; 5, 3; Ad fam. II, 17, 1; Ad Att. VI, 6, 3. 107 Cicero mentions this with discontent: Ad Att. VI, 4, 1; 5, 3. 108 Cic., Ad Att. VI, 5, 3; Caes., Bell. civ. III, 110, 6; Val. Max. IV, 1, 15. More on this subject see: W. D r u m a n n, P. G r o e b e: Geschichte Roms..., vol. 2, p. 87; R. S y m e: M. Bibulus..., p. 190; M.J.G. G r e y - F o w: The Mental Breakdown..., 179; I. H o f m a n n - L ö b l: Die Calpur- nii..., p. 192. 109 Cic., Ad Att. VI, 2, 6; 3, 1—2; 4, 1; Ad fam. II, 17, 1; 15, 4; Ad Att, VI, 6, 3. Cf. also: VII, 3, 5. 110 Cic., Ad Att. VI, 1, 3; 3, 2; 4, 1; Ad fam. II, 17, 1; 3. 111 Many ancient authors inform about this: Cic., Ad fam. II, 17, 1; 3; 5; Ad Att. VI, 6, 3; 8, 5; VII, 1, 2; Cass. Dio XL, 29, 3. Cf. also source texts and the literature quoted in footnote 12. 112 Cic., Ad fam. II, 17, 5; Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 55, 1; Caes., Bell civ. I, 2, 3; 4, 4; 9, 4; App., B.C. II, 29, 115; Cass. Dio XL, 66, 1; N. R o g o s z: “Geneza...,” pp. 25—26; I d e m: The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 61 occupying themselves with the Parthians, as their attention was drawn to other problems, among others the matter of rewarding the governors who participated in the combats with the Parthians in the past years and assessing them as far as the effects of the actions they were conducting at that time were concerned.113 However, all these matters were overshadowed by Pompeius’s and Caesar’s conflict and the civil war, which was, thus, approaching rapidly.114 As it results from this discussion, the Roman authorities, in particular the consuls, and other senate’s members as well as Cn. Pompeius, who was the dominating figure in Rome at that time, did not counteract the Parthian threat in the years 53—50 in a way that the Republic’s interests would require, in spite of the fact that they did appreciate the importance of the eastern provinces. The administrators of these provinces, especially of Syria and Cilicia, had similar attitude. This surprising passivity of the Roman authorities and politicians was certainly not caused by their lack of interest in the fate of the eastern provinces, but by various complications of internal nature, which the then policy-makers considered much more important than the threats in the east. The later fate of the Republic order and maintaining the power by the elite that was governing the Republic at that time depended on the way these complications would be solved. However, it must be noticed that the Roman politicians terribly neglected public issues at that time. They cared about their own interests, benefits, careers and accolades in the first place, and the matters of the country were a side issue. At times they treated the duties they had been entrusted with as the necessary evil and they acted differently only when they could draw suitable profits from them. In spite of all this, in the years 53—50 the Roman dominions in the east and their local allies were not brought under the control of the powerful neighbour, the Parthian kingdom. Yet, this was rather the effect of a happy coincidence than of the Roman preventive actions. This coincidence was caused by the complicated internal situation in the Parthian kingdom, which resulted in the lack

“Stanowisko senatu wobec rywalizacji Pompejusz z cezarem (1 XII 50 r.—11 I 49 r. p.n.e.).” W: Rzym antyczny. Polityka i pieniądz, II. Red. A. K u n i s z. Katowice 1997, p. 16. 113 Cf. in this light: Cic., Ad fam. II, 17, 6; 7; Ad Att. VI, 8, 5; VII, 2, 6; 3, 5; M. G r z e s i o - w s k i: “Wojskowa kampania Cycerona...,” pp. 155—166; R. K a m i e n i k: “Zabiegi Cycerona o triumf i ich niepowodzenie.” W: Antiquitas, t. 14. Red. A. Ł a d o m i r s k i, Wrocław 1988, pp. 89—95; E. D u l s k i: “Cyceron...,” pp. 32—34. 114 Cic., Ad fam. VIII, 14, 4. More on this topic: Hirt., Bell. Gall. VIII, 50—52; 54—55; Caes, Bell. civ. I, 1—7; Vell. Pat. II, 48—49; Suet., Iul. 28—30; Plut., Caes. 29—31; Pomp. 57—59; Cat. Min. 51, 4—5; App., B.C. II, 25—34; Flor., II, 13, 8—17; Cass. Dio Xl, 44, 58—66; XLI, 1—3; N. R o g o s z: “Geneza...,” pp. 7—30; I d e m: “Stanowisko senatu...(1 marca — 1 grudnia 50 r. p.n.e.)...,” pp. 58—68; I d e m: “Debata senatu z 1 grudnia 50 r. przed narodzeniem Chrystusa w świetle konfliktu Pompejusza z Cezarem.” Wieki stare i nowe, t. 2. Red. I. P a n i c, M.W. Wa n a t o w i c z. Katowice 2001, pp. 19—42; I d e m: “Stanowisko senatu...(1 XII 50 r. — 11 I 49 r. p.n.e.)...,” pp. 9—37, further literature to be found there. 62 Norbert Rogosz of freedom in the foreign policy carried out by its ruler. Since he only could attack the Romans and their local allies with a part of his forces, he could not have taken control over the areas he was interested in and gain the dominating position in that region for Parthia.

Norbert Rogosz

Republika Rzymska a zagrożenie wschodnich prowincji przez Partów w latach 53—50 przed Chr.

Streszczenie

Klęska M. Licyniusza Krassusa pod Carrhae w 53 r. przed Chr. doprowadziła do wytworzenia się na wschodnim pograniczu Imperium Romanum bardzo niebezpiecznej dla Rzymian sytuacji, gdyż nie posiadali oni już w tym rejonie sił potrafiących przeciwstawić się zwycięskim Partom i obronić leżących tam prowincji. Ponieważ rzymskie państwo nadal znajdowało się z nimi w stanie wojny, należało się spodziewać, że ich władca zechce wykorzystać trudne położenie już pokonanych przeciwników, zaatakuje owe posiadłości i włączy je do własnego królestwa. Przedmiotem niniejszego artykułu jest prześledzenie polityki rzymskich władz wobec zagro- żenia, które dla wschodnich prowincji stanowili Partowie, oraz jego podłoża. W początkowych partiach tekstu omawiana jest sytuacja wytworzona na Wschodzie po klęsce Krassusa oraz jej konsekwencje. Następnie analizowane są poczynania Rzymian wobec partyjskiego zagrożenia w latach 53—50. Dążąc do ich dogłębnego wyjaśnienia, autor rozważa także sytuację panującą w Rzymie w latach 53—52, akcentując ówczesne konflikty polityczne znacząco ograniczające zdolności Republiki do zajmowania się sprawami Wschodu. Szczególną uwagę poświęcono rów- nież wiążącym się z nimi działaniom Gn. Pompejusza w czasie jego trzeciego konsulatu, a także wyznaczeniu wschodnim prowincjom nowych namiestników, zwłaszcza Syrii i Cylicji najbardziej zagrożonym przez Partów oraz polityce konsulów i senatu wobec tej sprawy w latach 51—50. Autor prezentuje także postawy zarządców wspomnianych prowincji, ich plany i zamierzenia, działalność w czasie pobytu na Wschodzie, szczególnie inicjatywy zmierzające do obrony powierzonych im obszarów przed atakami Partów, w tym dążenia do wzmocnienia stacjonujących tam wojsk. Ponadto współpracę owych namiestników, ich poczucie obowiązku oraz sposoby postrzegania i wypełniania przez nich powierzonych im zadań. Większość tych ostatnich kwestii przedstawiona jest w odniesieniu do Cylicji, ponieważ o poczynaniach jej ówczesnego zarządcy M. Tulliusza Cycerona zachowało się najwięcej informacji, które na dodatek wywodzą się z jego tekstów. The Roman Republic and the Parthian Threat... 63

Norbert Rogosz

La République romaine et la menace des provinces orientales par les Parthes dans les années 53—50 av. J.-C.

R é s u m é

La défaite de M. Licinius Crassus à la bataille de Carrhae en 53 av. J.-C. a mené à la créa- tion sur la frontière est d’Imperium Romanum une situation très dangereuse pour les Romains, parce qu’ils n’avaient pas dans cette région une armée capable d’affronter des Parthes victorieux et défendre ces provinces. Puisque l’Empire romain se trouvait en état de guerre avec eux, on pouvait attendre que leur souverain veuille bénéficier de la position difficile des adversaires déjà vaincus, et attaquerait ces territoires pour les joindre à son royaume. L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser la politique des autorités romaines envers la menace que, pour les provinces occidentales, représentaient les Parthes, et de son origine. Dans la première partie du texte, l’auteur présente la situation créée à l’Orient après la défaite de Crassus, ainsi que ses conséquences. Ensuite il analyse les actes des Romains envers la menace des Parthes dans les années 53—50. Pour les expliquer de manière la plus minutieuse, l’auteur esquisse également la situation à Rome dans les années 53—52, en accentuant des conflits politiques contemporains, limitant considérablement les capacités de la République de s’occuper des affaires de l’Orient. Une attention particulière est portée sur les démarches de Pompée le Grand pendant son troisième consulat, et sur la désignation des préfets nouveaux dans des provinces occidentales, surtout en Syrie et en Cilicie, les plus menacées par les Parthes, ainsi que sur la politique des consuls et du Sénat, concernant cette affaire dans les années 51—50. L’auteur présente les attitudes des consuls mentionnés, leurs projets et plans, leur activité pendant le séjour à l’Orient, surtout des initiatives de défense des provinces contre les attaques des Parthes, y compris des plans de renforcer l’armée y stationnant. Il esquisse également la coopération de ces gouverneurs, leur sens du devoir et les manières de percevoir et d’exercer des tâches qui leur étaient confiées. La plupart de ces questions sont présentées par rapport à la Cilicie, car la majorité d’informations préservées concerne le proconsul Marcus Tullius Cicero, en plus provenant de ses propres écrits. Agnieszka Bartnik

Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской по изображениям на монетах периода Римской Империи

ὁ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος ναός ὲν Ἐφεσῳ μόνος ἐστὶν οῖκος. Πεισθήσεται γὰρ ὁ θεασάμενος τὸν τοπον ἐνηλλάχθαι καὶ τὸν οὑράνιον τῆς ἀθανασίας κόσμον ἐπὶ γῆς ἀκηρεῖσθαι. Philo.Byz. De septem orbis spectaculia., VI, 1—3.

Храм Артемиды в Эфесе, известный также как Храм Дианы или Артемизион, считался античными писателями одним из «семи чудес света»1. В более поздние периоды он также был объектом восхищения исследователей, пу- тешественников и писателей. Храм многократно разрушался и восстанавливался, что стало при- чиной многочисленных изменений его внешне- го вида. В ходе археологических исследований были обнаружены следы построек различных периодов, значительно отличающихся друг от друга по стилю и размеру. Известны также описания античных и совре- менных путешественников. В связи с этим исследователи старались вос- становить внешний вид храма не только на основании раскопок, но и на базе изображений храма, сохранившихся в различных исследовательских материалах2. Таким образом, целью настоящей статьи является не ответ на

1 К семи чудесам света его относили, в частности, Гигин, Филон Византийский и Вибий Секвестр. Об этом чудесном строении писали также Каллимах, Дионизий и Солин. 2 Значительный вклад в исследования по воссозданию внешнего вида храма внесла работа Б. Трелля, см.: B. T r e l l: The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos. “Numismatic Notes and Monographs” 1945, т. 107, c. 1—71. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 65

вопрос — как фактически выглядел храм, а каким образом и почему имен- но так, а не иначе он изображался на римских монетах периода Римской Империи, а также какую роль играла изображаемая на этих нумизматах культовая скульптура богини. На протяжении всей античной эпохи Эфес был портом и важнейшим торговым центром Малой Азии. Основанный ионийскими колонизаторами примерно в 1000 году до н.э., он сохранил свою позицию3 до III века, когда в результате сражений с готами город был разрушен и пришел в упадок. Колонизаторы — основатели города, — принесли с собой культ боги- ни Дианы. Учитывая контакты, связывающие Эфес и Центральную Азию, культ богини имел восточный характер, значительно отличаясь от культа, известного в других регионах Греции, а позднее — и в Римской Империи4. Диане Эфесской поклонялись как „большой матери” или „прародительни- це всех вещей”. Храм, построенный в значительной степени на средства азиатских городов, прославился в античном мире. Со временем культ богини стал пользоваться все большей популярнос- тью, а сам храм вызывал всеобщий интерес и восхищение благодаря своей архитектуре, которая привлекла к себе внимание также римлян. Лучшим доказательством этому стало построение при Сервии Туллии копии эфес- ского храма в Риме5. Это было связано также с тем, что римляне покло- нялись богине Диане, таким образом эфесское божество было признано одним из ее воплощений, так же, как и почитаемые на территории Римской Империи Диана Люцифера, Диана Неморенская6 или Диана Тавропола7. Интерес к культу Дианы Эфесской, по всей видимости, возник в ре- зультате популярности этой богини. Ритуалы, связанные с Дианой, были введены в Риме примерно в VI векe до н.э. и с тех пор пользовались неизменной популярностью. Отождествление римской Дианы с греческой Артемидой привело к еще более широкому распространению связанных с ней мифов и верований. На этой почве в Риме распространился культ Дианы Эфесской, считающийся очень древним. Нельзя забывать и о том, что в своих отправных точках он значительно отличался от классических представлений об этой богине, и поэтому выделялся на фоне других также

3 Athenaeus., VIII, 62; ср. A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis von Ephesos. Graz 1984, p. 74; U. M u s s: Zur Geschichte des Artemisions. In: Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis. Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums. Hrsg. U. M u s s. Wien 2008, с. 17—19. 4 R. F l e i s c h e r: Artemis Ephesia und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. «Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romaine» 1973, т. 35 c. 449; ср. F.E. B r e n k: Artemis of Ephesos: An Avant Garde Goddess. “Kernos” 1998, т. 11, с. 159—171; L.E. R o l l e r: In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolien Cybele. Berkeley 1999, с. 41—71. 5 E. F a l k e n e r: Ephesus and the temple of Diana. London 1862, с. 215; ср. Liv., I, 45. 6 M.H. C r a w f o r d: Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge 1985, см.: Crawford 486/1. 7 Roman Provincional Coinage, см.: RPC 4234; 5020; 5021; 7817; 9604. 66 Agnieszka Bartnik

в иконографии. Большую роль в „узнаваемости” Дианы Эфесской играла не только ее статуя, но и сам храм. Все эти элементы находили свое от- ражение в иконографии, появляющейся на римских монетах. К периоду Римской Империи относится нумизматическая коллекция, на которой изоб- ражен храм или находящаяся в нем культовая статуя Дианы в сочетании со многими другими графическими элементами. Уже в античности храм вызывал сильные эмоции и упоминался, в част- ности, Ктесифоном, Метагенесом8, Демокритом9 и Филоном. Также авторы, пишущие о самом городе, упоминали о нем, прежде всего, в связи с хра- мом. В период своего возникновения статуя вызывала восхищение своей необычностью и экстравагантным стилем. Определить внешний вид или план храма достаточно сложно, так как фактически мы имеем дело с не- сколькими храмами, периодически восстанавливаемыми после разрушений. Хотя храм отстраивался на том же месте, но с различными архитектурными изменениями. Пишущий о храме Филон ставит его на шестое место списка «семи чудес света»10. Гигин отводит ему первое место: „Ephesi Dianae templum quod fecit Amazon OtrRe Martis coniunx11”, а Вибий Секвестр12 — второе. В трудах Каллимаха13 и Дионизия14 он называется просто чудом. По словам античных авторов, храм сверкал словно звезда. У Солиния встречается оп- ределение, что храм был славой Эфеса. Помпоний Мела15 считал его самым известным из всех храмов. Отмечал его и Плиний16, а Геродот сравнивал его с египтетскими пирамидами и лабиринтом17. Марциал сравнивал храм

8 О них упоминает Витрувий, пишущий об Ионийском порядке. V i t r u v i u s: Ten Books on Architecture. Ed. I.D. R o w l a n d, T.N. H o w e. Cambridge 2001, см.: Vitr., VII, praef. Ктесифон упоминался также Плинием, который называет его Керисифроном. 9 D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 2. Tr. R.D. H i c k s. Ox- ford 1925, см.: Diogenes Laertios., IX, 7. 10 P h i l o n i s B y z a n t i n i: Libellus de septem orbis spectaculis. Rec. C. O r e l l i u s. Lipsiae 1816, см.: Philo.Byz.de septem.Orbis. Mir., VI. 11 H y g i n u s: Fabulae. Verl. K.G. S a u r. Berlin 2003, см.: Hyg.Fab., CCXXIII. 12 V i b i u s S e q u e s t e r: Ad Appendiculam De VII Miris. In: De fluminibus, fontibus, lacubus, nemoribus, paludibus, montibus, gentibus per litteras libellus. Edid. R. G e l s o m i n o. Lipsiae 1967, см.: Vib.Seq.Append.Incip., p. 425—426. 13 C a l l i m a c h u s: Hymns and Epigrams. Lycyphron, Aratus. Tr. A.W. M e i r. Oxford 1921; ср. The Poems of Callimachus. Tr. F. N i s e t i c h. Oxford 2001, см.: Callimachus.Hym., III. 14 D i o n y s i u s P e r i e g e t e s: De orbis situ. In: Geographi Graeci Minores. Ed. K. M ü l l e r. Parisiis 1854, см.: Dion.Perieg., v. 829. 15 M e l a P o m p o n i u s: De chorographia libri tres. Recog. C. F r i c k. Sttutgart 1968, см.: Mela., I, 17. 16 P l i n y: Natural History. Vol. 10. Tr. D.E. E i c h h o l z. Oxford 1962, см.: Plin.NH., XXXVI, 21. 17 H e r o d o t o s: Erklært. Ed. H. S t a i n. Berlin 1877, см.: Herodotus., II, 148. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 67

с пирамидами, чудесами Вавилона, мавзолеем в Галикарнасе или Колизеем: „Barbara pyramidium scileat miracula Memphis | Assyrius iacet nec Babylona labor | Nec Treviae templo molles laudentur Iones | Dissimulet Delon cornibus ara frequens | Aere nec vacuo pendentia Mausolea”18. Павзаний восхищался культом богини и великолепием самого храма19. Эти достаточно многочисленные упоминания, связанные с храмом Дианы в Эфесе, демонстрируют восхищение, которое вызывало это строе- ние у современников20. Однако на основании этих текстов узнать о самом внешнем виде строения можно немного. Святилище не только вызывало восхищение своей архитектурой, но и было важным культовым местом. Поэтому римские повелители также уделяли внимание этому месту, раз- мещая храм и связанные с ним символы на собственных эмиссиях монет, используя его славу и традицию. Храм был сооружен за городом21. О первичном размещении Артеми- зиона можно узнать, в частности, из повести Пиндара, рассказанной ему Геродотом22, из труда Страбона и жизни Гераклита из Эфеса, который играл с детьми на дороге, ведующей к храму23. Первоначально храм был соору- жен на берегу моря, хотя в источниках можно найти упоминания и о его размещении между реками, в порту или вблизи болота. Это достаточно вероятно, если учесть, что Диана была богиней не только деревьев и лесов, но и рек, озер и болот24. На тему размещения храма высказывались также Геродот25, Страбон, Плиний26 и Каллимах27. Солин утверждал, что храм был окружен двумя реками28.

18 M. Va l e r i i M a r t i a l i s: Liber spectaculorum. Ed. K.M. C o l e m a n. Oxford 2006, см.: Mart.de Spectac., I, 1—5. 19 P a u s a n i a s: Description of Greece. Vol. II—III. Tr. W.H.S. J o n s. Oxford 1918, см.: Pauz., IV, 31; VII, 5. 20 A. B a m m e r, U. M u s s: Das Artemision von Ephesos. Das Weltwunder Ioniens in archaischer und klassicher Zeit. Mainz 1996. 21 E. F a l k e n e r: Ephesus and the temple of Diana..., с. 197. 22 Herodotus., I, 26. 23 Diogenes Laertios., IX, 1. 24 Сооружение храма на болотах или в их близи не было ничем необычным. В Алории около Гелоса находился храм Дианы Элейской, а в Трезене — храм Дианы Сотере, сооруженный на болотах. 25 Herodotus., II, 10. 26 Plin.NH., II, 91. 27 Callimachus.Hym., III, 237. 28 P l i n i u s: Natural History. Vol. 2. Tr. H. R a c k h a m. Oxford 1942, см.: Plin.NH., V, 31, 114—116; см. A. B a m m e r: Zur Geographie des Artemisheiligstums. In: Die Archäologie der..., с. 17—19; ср. I d e m: Zur Topographie und städtebaulichen Entwiklung von Ephesos. “Jahreshefte des Östen. Archäologischen Instituts” 1961—1963, T. 46, с. 136—57; I d e m: Der Peripteros in Artemision von Ephesos. “Anatolia Antiqua” 2005, T. 13, с. 177—221. 68 Agnieszka Bartnik

Если говорить об удаленности от города, то у Витрувия можно найти упоминание о том, что храм расположен в 8000 футах от каменоломен29, Ксенофонт упоминал о 7 стадиях от города30, подобную информацию можно найти и у Геродота31. Страбон писал о 900—1800 футах. Различия в описаниях размещения храма следуют, видимо, из того факта, что авто- ры в различные исторические периоды описывали само строение неточно. Также археологические исследования подтверждают, что храм восстанавли- вался на том же „участке”, хотя его размещение могло несколько меняться в зависимости от периода. Сооружение первого храма связано с миграцией ионийских племен, хотя Павзаний утверждал, что святилище Дианы был более древним32. Со- гласно Пиндару храм был построен амазонками33. Большинство рассказов, связанных со святилищем, были призваны повысить его значение и под- черкнуть его древность. Считалось, что храм возник в качестве „близнеца” храма Аполлона в Дидиме. Крез, восстанавливая и отправляя богатые дары в храмы Артемиды и Аполлона, хотел почтить детей Латоны, благодаря которым, по его мнению, он победил в ведущейся войне34. Среди рассказов, подчеркивающих необыкновенность храма, появляются и рассказы с упо- минаниями о том, что храм был выброшен на берег морскими волнами, или о том, что сам храм и статуя богини упали с неба. Некоторые утверждали, что культ богини был более древним, чем сам храм, а жертвы ей подносились к скульптуре из вяза за много лет до соору- жения здания35. Храм же был построен амазонками при уже существующей статуе36. Согласно Гигину амазонками правила в тот период Орима — жена Марса37. Если она была тождественна Орифии, упоминаемой Юстинием38, то датой возникновения первого храма можно считать 1235 год до н.э. Вышеупомянутый тезис был принят Пиндаром, но оспорен Павзанием. Он говорил:

29 Vitr., VI, 10. 30 X e n o p h o n t i s E p h e s i i: De Anthia Et Harbocome Ephesiacorum libri V. Ed. G. H e z e l. Hamburgi 2001, см.: Xen.Eph., de Amor. Anthet. Atroc., I, 2. 31 Herodotus., I, 26. 32 pauzan., VII, 2, 6. 33 Pindar., fr. 174; ср. U. M u s s: Zur Geschichte des Artemisions. In: Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis..., с. 47. 34 A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 75. Крезий преподнес также драгоценные дары в храмах в Дельфах, Дидиме и Эфесе, см.: Herodotus., I, 25; I, 92. 35 Dion.Perieg., v. 829. 36 Callimachus.Hym., III, 248; ср. Dion.Perieg., V. 829; Mela., I, 16; Solinus.Polihyst., XLIII; Pauz., IV, 31; ср. A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 10. 37 Hyg. Fab., CCXXIII; CCXXV. 38 Iust., II, 4. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 69

οὐ μὴν πάντα γε τὰ ἐς τὴν θεὸν ἐπύθετο, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, Πίνδαρος, ὃς Ἀμαζόνας τὸ ἱερὸν ἔϕη τοῦτο ἱδρύσασθαι στρατευομένας ἐπὶ Ἀθήνας τε καὶ Θησέα. αἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Θερμώδοντος γυναῖκες ἔθυσαν μὲν καὶ τότε τῇ Ἐφεσίᾳ θεῷ, ἅτε ἐπιστάμεναί τε ἐκ παλαιοῦ τὸ ἱερὸν, καὶ ἡνίκα Ἡρακλέα ἔφυγον, αἱ δὲ καὶ Διόνυσον τὰ ἔτι ἀρχαιότερα, ἱκέτιδες ἐνταῦθα ἐλθοῦσαι οὐ μὴν ὑπὸ Ἀμαζόνων γε ἱδρύθη, Κόρησος δὲ αὐτόχθων καὶ Ἔφεσος, Καῦστρου δὲ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τὸν Ἔφεσον παῖδα εἶναι νομίζουσιν, οὗτοι τὸ ἱερόν εἰσιν οἱ ἱδρυσάμενοι, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἐφεσου τὸ ὄνομά ἐστι τῇ πολέι39.

Необходимость переноса даты возникновения этого храма следует из того что, Марпесия, будучи матерью Орифии, утверждала, что она и ее сестра Лампето были дочерьми Марса. Поэтому Орифия — это не дочь Марпесии, а ее бабушка — тезка, и именно о ней говорил Гигин как о жене Марса и правительнице амазонок. Приняв такое толкование, следует автоматически перенести дату возникнения храма на два поколения назад, что даст 1300 год до н.э. По мнению Эвзебия амазонки сожгли храм, что должно было произойти примерно в 1150 года до н.э.40. Восстановление храма было связано с приходом в эти места ионийцев. Согласно Плинию этот храм горел семь раз, а описываемое им строение было уже восьмым41. Сооружение первого, как уже упоминалось, началось около 1300 года до н.э. или около 1235 года до н.э., а сгорел он в 150 году до н.э. Второй и третий пожары лишь упоминались Климентом в „Про- трептике”:

Οἶδα ἐγὼ πῦρ ἐλεγκτικὸν καὶ δεισιδαιμονίας ἰατικόν: εἰ βούλει παύσασθαι τῆς ἀνοίας, φωταγωγέσει σε τὸ πῦρ. Τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἄργει νεὼν σὺν καὶ τῇ ἱερείᾳ κατέφλεξεν Χρυσίδι, καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος δεύτερον μετὰ Ἀμαζόνας καὶ τὸ ἐν ̒Ρώμῃ Καπιτώλιον ἐπινενέμηται πολλάκις...42

Четвертый храм был сожжен Лигдамидом43 во время правления Арди- са II (680—621 год до н.э.). Пятый существовал при Сервии Туллии. Этот

39 P a u s a n i a s: Descriptio Greciae. Rec. I. H e n r i c u s, Ch. S c h u b a r t. Vol. 2. Lipsiae 1900, см.: Pauz., VII, 2, 7. 40 Euseb.Pamph. Chron.Can., II, 95. 41 Plin.NH., XVI, 79, 213. 42 C lement of Alexandria: Exhortation to the Greeks. The rich’s man salvation. To the newly baptized. Tr. G.W. B u t t e r w o r t h. Oxford 1919, см.: Clemens.Alex.Protrep., IV, 53, 2. 43 Heschius.Lygdamis; см.: A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 74; ср. U. M u s s: Zur Geschichte des Artemisions. In: Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis..., с. 48. 70 Agnieszka Bartnik

храм был построен за счет контрибуций, наложенных на города Азии44. Храм был уничтожен незадолго до 500 года до н.э., когда был основан шестой храм, по всей видимости, Крезом. О его связях с Артемизионом первым упоминает Геродот:

Κροίσῳ δε ἔστι καὶ ἄλλα ἀναθήματα ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι πολλὰ καὶ οὐ εἰρημένα μοῦνα, … ἐν δὲ Ἐφέσῳ αἵ τε βόες αἱ χρύσεαι καὶ τῶν κιόνων αἱ πολλαί45.

Текст подтверждается также надписями, обнаруженными во время археологических раскопок, ведущихся Дж.T. Вудом46. Во время научных исследований были обнаружены остатки архаического и позднеклассицис- тического храма. Подготовка проекта и сооружение шестого храма было поручено Хер- сифрону и его сыну Метагену. Святилище, основанное Теодорусом, было описано Антипатром из Сидона, творцом списка семи чудес света47. Строе- ние было завершено около 460 года до н.э. Плиний с восхищением описы- вал архитектуру этого храма48. Шестой храм был уничтожен в 400 году до н.э., о чем упоминает Евсевий49. После уничтожения здания седьмой храм был сооружен с таким размахом, что в 356 году до н.э. святилище было сожжено Геростратом, желающим таким образом увековечить свое имя50. Остатки этого храма археологи идентифицируют с архаичным храмом, обнаруженным Вудом. Вскоре после того, как в 334 году до н.э. началось востановление храма, он был разграблен Мемноном — одним из вождей Дария51. Позднее город попал в руки Лизимаха, а после его смерти власть перешла к селевкидам. Вышеприведенные тексты античных авторов, с одной стороны, содер- жат многочисленные подробности, связанные с Артемизионом и культом богини, но с другой стороны вводят большое замешательство. Только после

44 Liv., I, 45 ср. A u r e l i u s V i c t o r: De viri illustribus Romae. Ed. F. P i c h l m a y r. Leipzig 1911, см.: Aur.Vict. de Viris Illustr., VII, 9. 45 Herodotus., I, 92. 46 Речь идет о надписях B16, B32 и B136, находящихся в Британском музее, см.: W. S c h a b e r: Die Archaischen Tempel Der Artemis Von Ephesos. Entwurfsprinzipien Und Rekonstruktion. Waldsassen 1982, с. 13—16. 47 Antipater., Greek Anthology, IX, 58. 48 Plin.NH., XXXVI, 21, 95. 49 Euseb.Pamph. Chron.Can., I, 134. 50 C a i i J u l i i S o l i n i: De Mirabilibus Mundi. Ed. C.L.F. Panckoucke. Paris 1847, см.: Solinus., LI; L u c i a n u s: De morte Peregrini. Vol. 1—5. Ed. A.M. H a r m o n. Cambridge 1936, см.: Lucian. De Morte Pereg., 22; Plutarchus.Alex., 3; ср. U. M u s s: Zur Geschichte des Artemisions. In: Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis..., с. 51. 51 Arrian., I, 18. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 71

их сопоставления с археологическом материалом появляется картина хра- ма — одного из «семи чудес света» и объекта, охотно изображаемого на монетах, выпускаемых римскими императорами. Присмотревшись к способам изображения храма на нумизматах, вы- пускаемых римскими императорами, создается впечатление, что речь идет о различных сооружениях. Наиболее полное описание храма можно найти у Плиния:

Graece magnificentiae vera admiratio ex stat templum Ephesiae Dianae CXX annis factum a tota Asia. In solo id palustri fecere, ne terrae motus sentiret aut hiatus fimeret rursus ne in lubrico atque instabili fundamenta tantae molis locarentur, calcatis ea substravere carbonibus, dein velleribus lanae. Universo templo longitudo est CCCCXXV pedum, latitudo CCXXV, columnae CXXVII a singulis regibus factae LX pedum altitudine, ex iis XXXVI caelatae, una scopa. Operi praefuit Cherisiphron architectus52.

Часть исследователей идентифицирует храм, описанный Плинием, с от- крытым во время археологических исследований Артемизионом Д [дипте- рос], основанным Крезом в VI веке до н.э.53 Среди остальных исследовате- лей нет общего мнения о том, седьмой или восьмой храм описан автором. Большие сомнения возникают также после прочтения текста Плиния54. Согласно Плинию, храм был 425 футов длиной, 220 шириной и имел 127 колонн высотой 60 футов. 36 колонн должны были быть покрыты баре льефами55. Эфесский храм появляется на монетах императоров, правящих в I веке. Его можно наблюдать, в частности, на реверсе серебряной монеты Клав-

52 Plin.NH., XXXVI, 21, 95. 53 W. S c h a b e r: Die Archaischen Tempel der Artemis von Ephesos. Entwurfsprinzipi- en..., с. 15—18; ср. A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 165. В соответствии с археологическими исследованиями храм А датируется VII веком до н.э.; см.: A. K u h r t: Zum Problem der Kimmerer und des Lugdamis. In: M. P r i n c e: British Museum Occasional Papers. London 1985; ср. L. We i d a u e r: Probleme der frühen Elektronprägung. Fribourg 1975, с. 80; G.M.A. H a n f n a n n: Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cambridge 1983, с. 77. 54 У Плиния (NH., XXVI, 21, 95) находится описание Эфесского храма. По всей видимости это описание седьмого или восьмого храма. Сам текст возбуждал сомнения среди исследователей, в частности, затрагивался вопрос прочтения даты, относящейся к храму, сомнения возникали также по поводу количества колонн, появляющегося у Плиния. В связи с сомнениями, связанными с текстом, появлялись предложения не причислять описания Плиния к конкретному храму, а лишь анализировать его отдельные элементы; см.: A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 214—28; ср. I d e m: Die Architektur des Jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos. Wiesbaden 1972, с. 8. 55 A. R ü g l e r: Die Columnae Caelatae des Jüngeren Artemisions von Ephesos. “Beih. Istambuler Mitteilungen”, c. 1—34. 1988, т. 34. 72 Agnieszka Bartnik

дия56. На ней размещен храм Дианы, легенда DIAN-EPHE и статуя богини, стоящая между коллонами. Храм, представленный на нумизмате, был пос- троен в соответствии с так называемым ионийским тетрастилем. В связи с этим спереди здания видны четыре колонны, выполненные в ионийском стиле. Хорошо видны также четыре ступени, ведущие в храм. В подобном стиле изображен храм Дианы на монете Клавдия, выпускае- мой в 41—42 годax57. На аверсе монеты находится надпись TICLAVDCAESAVG, а на реверсе — храм с четырьмя колоннами с фронтальной стороны и ста- туей богини между ними. Аналогично, как и в случае вышеописанного экземпляра, в храм ведут только три ступени (рис.1). Очередным римским повелителем, на монетах которого появился храм Дианы Эфесской, был Гадриан. На реверсе серебряного нумизмата изоб- ражена культовая статуя богини, стоящая внутри строения между колон- нами, выполненными в ионийском стиле58. Само строение аналогично изображению на монетах Клавдия с четырьмя колоннами спереди и тремя ступенями, ведущими внутрь святилища (рис. 2). Аналогично изображен храм и на монете Гадриана, выпускаемой в 129—138 годах59, с той лишь разницей, что на ней изображены четыре ступени. Совершенно иначе выглядит храм на серебряной монете с легендой HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS PP на аверсе60. На реверсе изображено здание этого храма с двумя колоннами, между которыми помещена статуя Дианы. На фоне вышепредставленных эмиссий Гадриана достаточно сильно выделяется монета, чеканенная в Никомедии. На реверсе изображен эфес- ский храм с восемью колоннами, но в нем уже нет статуи богини, которая появлялась на всех предыдущих монетах61. Способ изображения храма на монетах Клавдия и Гадриана еще более интересен, так как у Витрувия мы находим точное указание, с каким имен- но храмом мы имеем дело. Автор пишет:

Dipteros autem octastylos et pronao et postico, sed circa aedem duplices habet ordines columnarum, uti est aedis Quiriny dorica et Ephesis Dianae ionica a Chersiphrone constructa62.

56 The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 1: Augustus to Vitelius. Ed. H. M a t t i n g l y, E.A. S y n d e h a m. London 1968, см.: RIC I 53. 57 A. B u r n e t t, M. A m a n s t r y: Roman Provincional Coinage I. From the death of Caesar to the death of Vitelius (44 BC — AD 69). London 1992, см.: RPC I 2222. 58 The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 2: Vespasian to Hadrian. Ed. H. M a t t i n g l y, E.A. S y d e n h a m. London 1968 см.: RIC II 475a; 475b. 59 RIC II 476. 60 RIC II 526. 61 Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. 1—6. London 2005, см.: BMCRE 1099. 62 Vitr., III, 2, 7. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 73

Из этого однозначно следует, что спереди и сзади храма находилось по восемь колонн. В связи с этим на монетах с изображением Артемизиона должно было находиться здание с восемью колоннами спереди. Так называемый диптерос появился на монетах Антония Пия. Среди них крайне интересным экземпляром является бронзовый медальон диа- метром 38 мм63. На реверсе, кроме храма с восемью колоннами и статуи Дианы Эфесской, находится надпись ΕΦΕΣΙΟΝ ΔΙΣ ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ (рис. 4). Вышеупомянутая легенда должна была придать культу Дианы Эфесской статус императорского. Аналогично изображен храм Дианы на монетах, выпускаемых в 161— 165 годах Люцием Вером (рис. 5)64. На реверсе изображен храм с восемью колоннами, статуя Дианы Эфесской и надпись ΔΙΣ ΝΕΩ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΣΙΑΣ ΕΡΕΣΙΩΝ. Совершенно иначе выглядит храм, изображенный на последней мо- нете Вера65. Здесь мы наблюдаем здание с шестью колоннами и статуей божества. Также на монетах Марка Аврелия появлялся храм Дианы. Существо- вало два вида монет, на которых изображен храм с восемью колоннами. На реверсе первой из них, выпускаемой в 161—165 годах, кроме выше- упомянутого храма, была изображена статуя богини и помещена легенда ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ Β ΝΕ Π []66 (рис. 6). На второй, также с храмом с восемью колоннами, была изображена статуя Дианы, стоящей между оленями67 (рис. 7). В легенде реверса говорилось о Диане, известной по эмиссиям Антония Пия. На этом фоне выделяется монета периода 169—175 гг68. На реверсе нумизмата, кроме длинной легенды ΕΠΙ ΓΟΥΡΑ Δ ΣΤΡΑ(ΤΗΓΟΥ?) ΤΟ Β ΠΡΩ(ΤΟΥ) ΥΠΑΙΠΗΝΩΝ, изображен также храм с шестью колоннами (рис. 8). Об эмиссии Антония Пия и Марка Аврелия явно напоминает монета Каракаллы69 (рис. 9). На ее реверсе находится диптерос, изображенный вместе со статуей Дианы. Характерно, что в случае изображений эфесского храма сооружение всегда сопровождается изображением богини, значитель- но отличающейся от изображения Дианы, почитаемой с другими прозва-

63 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish Na- tional Museum, см.: SNG Cop. 397. 64 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, см.: V 17185; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, см.: P 749. 65 AE 22. 66 I.A. C a r r a d i c e: SNG British Isles IV. Corpus Christi College Cambridge. The Lewis Collection II. The Greek Imperial Coins II. 1992, см.: C Lewis 1448. 67 Münzen und Medaillen AG, см.: MMAG 41. 68 CNG 51. 69 AE 35. 74 Agnieszka Bartnik

ниями. Легенда реверса монеты непосредственно соотносится с Дианой, изображенной на нумизмате Пия и Аврелия и гласит: ΔΙC ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ ΕΦΕCCΙΩΝ. Интересным примером является бронзовая монета Антония Пия, на реверсе которой изображены два храма, между которыми стоит статуя Диа- ны70. Такая композиция, а также то, что статуя появляется на всех монетах, на которых изображен храм, указывает на то, что более важной была статуя богини, размещенная всегда по центру монеты. Храм богини появился и на последней монете, чеканенной в III веке на эфесском монетном дворе. На ее реверсе изображен четырехколонный храм со статуей Дианы в центре, а также император Гелиогабал, прибли- жающийся к святилищу71. Как уже упоминалось, в изображениях храма Дианы Эфесской, появля- ющихся на римских монетах, заметно большое многообразие. Вероятно это следует из того факта, что изображалось, не конкретное здание, а прежде всего храм и ценности, которые он представлял. Для изображений храма, появляющихся на нумизматах, чеканенных в период Римской Империи, характерно то, что на большинстве монет, выпускаемых во второй половине II и в III веке, появляется святилище с восемью колоннами спереди. Если на нумизмате появлялась длинная легенда, то количество колонн сокращалось — видимо в связи с необхо- димостью размещения надписи, изменениям должно было подвергнуться уже не столь важное изображение храма. Это тем более понятно, что храм Дианы Эфесской был повсеместно известен, таким образом его внешний вид был для всех очевиден. Кроме того, важно было сообщение, которое он нес с собой, а не точное отображение строения. Анализируя монеты, на которых изображен храм, внимание приковывает, прежде всего, статуя богини, появляющаяся на всех нумизматах, начиная с эмиссий императо- ров, правящих в I веке, и заканчивая монетами III века. Кроме того, среди монет отдельных императоров большую группу представляют собой те виды монет, на которых изображена сама статуя божества, что позволяет предположить, что изображение Дианы и связанное с ним пропагандное содержание были достаточно важными для римских императоров. Анализируя эмиссии римских императоров, можно сделать вывод, что такой же, а быть может и еще больший интерес вызывала сама статуя Ди- аны Эфесской. По своему внешнему виду она значительно отличалась от статуй Дианы, известных в Риме и Греции72. В большинстве случаев люди

70 Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. Vol. 1—29. London 1875—1929, см.: BMC 235. 71 Mionnet III 380. 72 A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 203—205; ср. W. B u r k e r t: Die Artemis die Ephesier. Wirkungsmacht und Gestalt einer grossen Göttin. In: 100 Jahre Österreichische Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 75

верили, что эти статуи упали с неба. В Суде имеется информация о том, что жрецы убили создателя статуи богини, потому что он не должен был ее делать73. О поклонении, которым была окружена статуя, высказывались также Дион и Каллимах74. Повсеместно шли споры о том, из какого ма- териала была изготовлена статуя. Сейчас уже нет уверенности в том, из чего именно была сделана статуя. Как правило вид древесины, из которой изготавливалась статуя, зависел от позиции божества. Однако в случае статуи Дианы Эфесской, учитывая ее возраст, следовало бы учесть и то, что она была (по крайней мере частично) покрыта золотом и краской. Даже античные авторы описывали статую по-разному. Витрувий утверждал, что статуя была сделана из кедра75, Ксенофонт говорил о золоте76. Плиний же утверждал, что большинство писателей считает, что статуя была сделана из эбенового дерева. Исключение составлял лишь Муциан, утверждающий, что была использована деревесина виноградной лозы, которую не меняли несмотря на пожары77. Форма статуи указывает на ее раннюю метрику78. Особое внимание исследователи обращают на многочисленные груди изоб- ражаемого божества. Благодаря им часто при определении статуи Дианы использовалось понятие πολύμαστος79. Это слово можно перевести как „многогрудая”. Такое определение дословно указывало на внешний вид Дианы, напоминающий скорее неоли- тическую богиню, чем классические изображения греческих или римских богинь. Такое изображение богини указывало, по всей видимости, на ее роль как богини плодородия, родительницы, а также кормилицы, великой богини-матери80. Это следовало из древности как самой статуи, так и куль-

Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995. Hrsg. H. Friesinger, F. K r i n - z i n g e r. Wien 1999, с. 59—70. 73 Suda. Διυπετες. 74 Dion.Perieg., 828; ср. Callimachus.Hym., III, 239. 75 Vitr., II, 9. 76 Xen.Anab., V. 77 Plin.NH., XVI, 79. 78 Подробнее о статуе см.: R. F l e i s c h e r: Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kult- statuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden 1973; ср. I d e m: Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien Supplement. “Studien zur Religion und Kulture Kleinasiens; Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörmer” 1978, с. 324—358; D. K n i b b e: Via Sacra Ephesiaca. New Aspects of the Cult of Artemis Ephesia. In: Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia. Ed. H. K o e s t e r. Cambridge 2004, с. 141—155. 79 L. M c D e r m o t t: Artemis Ephesia; Mulitmammae or cervid teeth canines? „Ornament” 2001, с. 58—61; ср. S.P. M o r r i s: The Prehistoric Background of Artemis Ephesia; A Solution to the Enigma of her breasts?. In: Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos. Ed. U. M u s s. Vien 2001, с. 135—151. 80 R. F l e i s c h e r: Artemis Ephesia und Aphrodite von Aphrodisias. “Die orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich” 1981, с. 298—311. 76 Agnieszka Bartnik

та, возникшего в период функционирования несколько других эстетических норм. Они же и стали причиной того, что Диану Эфесскую, а также еги- петскую богиню Изиду связывали непосредственно с богиней Реей, имя которой происходит из древнееврейского слова rheah, обозначающего «кормление»81. Так же, как и Реа, она короновалась, что должно было демонстрировать божественность ее власти. Предполагалось, что крабы, часто размещаемые возле статуи этой богини, должны были напоминать о зодиаке и половодьях Нила82. Согласно Геродоту, компетенции Дианы Эфесской должны были быть равнозначны компетенциям, приписываемым богине Бубастис83. Круг вок- руг головы статуи, напоминающий нимб, указывает на славу богини, а раз- мещенные в нем грифы подчеркивают великолепие божества. На груди Дианы — символы зодиака, соответствующие знакам зодиака, а ожерелье выглядит так, словно оно сделано из желудей. Львы на плечах богини символизируют ее могущество. На корпусе статуи видны изображения различных чудовищ, например сирены (рис. А). Это указывает на позицию Дианы как богини-матери, защитницы сил природы и родительницы84. Изображения статуи Дианы, известные по монетам, имеют дополнитель- ный элемент в виде „лент”, находящихся в руках божества. По всей ви- димости это графическое изображение „милости”, снисходящей на город благодаря богине. Если присмотреться к самой статуе богини, а также культу Дианы Эфесской, можно заметить, что она похожа скорее на богиню Кибелу, чем на греческую Артемиду85. Впрочем, в храме были обнаружены следы, ука- зывающие на то, что там почиталась и Кибела, и Деметра86. Таким образом, весьма вероятно, что богиня представляла собой одну из многих „версий” ближневосточной богини, почитаемой как „Королева Небес”. Если при- смотреться к самим компетенциям эфесского божества, а также к характеру ее культа, то можно констатировать, что она находится ближе к Аштарте

81 E. F a l k e n e r: Ephesus and the temple of Diana..., с. 290. 82 Ibidem. 83 Herodotus., II, 41, 59, 137. 84 S. M o r r i s: Zur Vorgeschichte der Artemis Ephesia. In: Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis..., с. 57—9; ср. U. M u s s: Early Cults at Ephesus and their relation to the Mycenaens and the Ionian Migration. In: Third International Congress on Ancient Helike and Aigileia. Hrsg. D. K a t s o n o p u l o s, D. S c h i l a r d i. “Helike” 2006, T. 2, с. 165—75; G. S e i t e r l e: Artemis — die grosse Göttin von Ephesos. “Antike Welt” 1978, т. 10, с. 3—16. 85 E. L a r o c h e: Koubaba, déesse anatolienne et le problème des origines de Cybèle. In: Elements orientaux dans la religion ancienne. 1960, с. 113; ср. M.J. Ve r m a s e r e n: Cybele and Attis, the Myth and the Cult. London 1977, с. 18. 86 A. B a m m e r: Das Heiligtum der Artemis..., с. 11; ср. U. M u s s: Studien zur Bauplastik des archaischen Artemisions von Ephesos. Bonn 1983, с. 102. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 77

и Изиде чем, например, к греческой Артемиде, с которой отождествлялась римская Диана. Популярность культа Дианы Эфесской подтверждается большим ко- личеством монет с ее изображением, которые стали появляться в период империи. К I веку относятся монеты, выпускаемые Клавдием, Нероном, Месса- линой, а также Домицианом и его женой. На реверсе монеты Клавдия и Агриппины изображена культовая статуя Дианы, на голове которой полос87. Ладони богини опираются на резную палку. На монете Нерона Диана Эфесская изображена с луком и маленьким олененком88. Совершенно иначе выглядит изображение статуи Дианы, известное по монете Мессалины89. Здесь мы видим богиню Рому, держащую скипетр, а также культовую статую Дианы. На чеканенных в Смирне монетах импе- ратора Домициана90 изображена статуя богини, держащей в руках „ленты”. В подобной стилистике выдержаны и эмиссии жены императора — Доми- ции91. На монетах, выпускаемых в период 81—96 годов мы видим бюст императрицы в диадеме на аверсе и статую богини на реверсе. Стилистика, в которой изображена Диана, схожа со стилистикой монет Домициана. Так же, как в случае эмиссий Домициана и Домиции, изображена Диана Эфесская и на монете Плотины — жены Траяна92. На реверсе находится изображение статуи божества с «лентами» в руках. На монетах, выпускаемых в I веке, заметно размещение атрибутов, типичных для греческой Артемиды, с которой отождествлялась римская Диана. Божество также изображалось в форме, известной нам по статуе, хотя в случае Дианы, почитаемой под другими прозваниями, изображался антропоморфический образ женщины. Сравнительно часто богиня держит в руках „ленты” которые, как уже упоминалось, могут символизировать милость, снисходящую благодаря Диане. На монетах II века заметно некоторое обогащение элементов и атри- бутов, сопровождающих изображения Дианы Эфесской. На реверсах мо- нет Гадриана встречается культовая статуя богини в сопровождении двух оленей93. Появился также тип монет, на которых изображено божество

87 RIC I 54. 88 AE 24. 89 RPC I 2632. 90 A. B u r n e t t, M. A m a n d r y, P.P. R i p o l l e s: Roman Provincional Coinage II. From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69—96). London 1999, см.: RPC II 1089. 91 RPC II 1091; RPC II 1248. 92 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Sammlung Hans von Aulock. Vol. 1—4. Berlin 1857— 1868, см.: SNG von Aulock 3431. 93 RIC II 474; RIC II 525. 78 Agnieszka Bartnik

с жертвенной чашей или луком. Богиню сопровождает неотлучный олень94 — один из атрибутов Дианы. Среди эмиссий Антония Пия тоже можно найти несколько типов монет, на которых изображена культовая статуя богини в сочетании с различными атрибутами и графическими деталями. На реверсе нумизмата, датированно- го 138—161 года, изображена статуя Дианы, несущей корзину95 (рис. 10). По обеим сторонам от богини — олень. В подобной стилистике выдержана также монета, чеканенная в Дионисополисе96. В несколько иной стилистике выдержана монета с монетного двора в Цизикусе97 (рис. 11). На реверсе находится статуя Дианы, держащей корзину, а также богиня Деметер с горящими факелами в руках. На реверсе бронзовой монеты Антония Пия, чеканенной на монетном дворе в Эфесе, изображалась статуя Дианы, размещенная в центре нумиз- мата98. Богиня стоит между двумя оленями. По бокам размещена Ника и персонификация Азии, держащая жертвенную чашу и лук (рис.12). На реверсе следующего нумизмата эмиссии этого правителя кроме статуи Ди- аны, находится богиня Немезида в хитоне, держащая локоть, а на реверсе — статуя Асклепия с палкой, обвитой змеей99. Статуя богини появилась и на эмиссии Фаустины Старшей — жены Антония Пия100. На монете статуя божества стоит между двумя оленями. Можно сказать, что это был наиболее распространенный способ изобра- жения Дианы Эфесской. Среди монет, чеканенных при Луции Вере — пять видов монет с изо бражениями Дианы Эфесской. На монетах 161—165 годов изображена богиня с корзиной, стоящая между оленями, и сидящим Зевсом, который держит Нику и скипетр101. На второй монете, так же, как и на первой, чеканенной в Эфесе, изображена статуя Дианы с оленями102. По одну сто- рону от божества изображен Марк Аврелий, по другую — Люций Вера. Императоры одеты в тоги и держат в руках жертвенные чаши. Следующие две эмиссии 161—169 годов родом из Коринфа. На реверсе первой монеты изображен нагой Юпитер со скипетром и статуя Дианы103. На второй моне- те изображена акро-коринфская богиня Венера со щитом Марса, который

94 RIC II 490. 95 L. F o r r e r: Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins formed by Sir Her- mann Weber. New York 1922—1929, см.: Weber 6800. 96 V 37642. 97 CNG 51. 98 London, British Museum, см.: L 1970—9-9—80. 99 BMC 403—4. 100 Cop. 139. 101 V 17186. 102 SNG I 1711. 103 BDC Corinth 735. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 79

она держит перед собой как зеркало, а также статуя Дианы104. Пятый вид монет императора Вера с изображением Дианы был выпущен в Иераполе105. На реверсе — статуя Дианы с Аполлоном, держащим плектрум и лиру. Монеты, выпускаемые Марком Аврелием, стилистически часто напоми- нают нумизматы Луция Вера. Старейшая монета со статуей Дианы отно- сится к 140—144 годам106. На ней изображена самая популярная „сцена” — богиня с корзиной, стоящая между двумя оленями. Так же выглядит и более поздняя, датируемая 175 годом монета, выпущенная на эфесском монетном дворе107. На реверсах монет, чеканенных в Эфесе, так же как и в ранних эмисси- ях Луция Вера, изображены статуя Дианы с корзиной и Аполлон с лирой108 (рис. 13). На второй монете представлена композиция: кроме Дианы с оле- нями здесь изображен также Зевс, держащий богиню Нику и скипетр109. В подобной стилистике выдержан реверс монеты, выпускаемой в 161—169 годах в Диосхиероне — с той лишь разницей, что Зевс держит в руке статую Дианы и скипетр110. Практически точную копию реверса монеты Луция Вера можно увидеть на эмиссии Марка Аврелия из Коринфа111. На этой монете, так же, как и на вышеупомянутой, изображена Диана Эфесская с корзиной, а также акро-коринфская Венера со щитом Марса, используемым в качестве зер- кала. Совершенно новую композицию содержит нумизмат, выпущенный на эфесском монетном дворе: здесь изображена Кора из Сардиса и Диана между оленями112. Диана Эфесская появляется также на нескольких видах монет, выпуска- емых Фаустиной Младшей. На реверсе большинства из них имеется статуя богини между двумя оленями113. На одном из видов появляется звезда114. Интересна своим стилистическим своеобразием монета, выпускаемая в пе- риод 147—161 годов115 (рис. 14). На реверсе изображена статуя богини в головном уборе, на котором виднеется небольшой храм. Диана стоит между оленями, на монете появляются также голуби.

104 V 13708. 105 BMC 164. 106 F. I m h o o f - B l u m e r: Kleinasiatiche Münzen. 1901—1902, см.: KM 295, 20. 107 V 37832. 108 H.C. L i n d g r e n, F.L. K o v a c s: Ancient Bronze Coins of Asia Minor and the Levant. San Mateo 1985, см.: Lindgren I, 482. 109 V 30367. 110 BMC 11. 111 L 1920—8-5—1021. 112 V 32968. 113 BMC 117; Cop. 142; P 743. 114 BMC 244. 115 NY 1944.100.69104. 80 Agnieszka Bartnik

На монетах Коммодия второй половины II века появляются новые ком- позиции статуи Дианы Эфесской. Для наиболее традиционных образцов, напоминающих ранее выпускаемые монеты римских императоров, харак- терно изображение статуи Дианы между оленями, с корзиной116, звездой117, или в головном уборе в форме храма118 (рис. 15). Намного более интересны эмиссии из Акрасуса и Пергама. На нумизма- те из Акрасуса изображена богиня Тиха с рулем и рогом изобилия, а также статуя Дианы Эфесской с корзиной. Родом с пергамского монетного двора шесть монет, на которых изображение Дианы связывалось с Асклепием119. Наиболее интересны монеты, на реверсе которых изображен Асклепий в биге, держащий статую Дианы. Композицию дополняет кентавр с фа- келом120 (рис. 16). По необычности окружения Дианы Эфесской наиболее интересна, на наш взгляд, монета, выпускаемая в период 180—182 годов121. На реверсе монеты изображены две лежащие персонификации рек. Божес- тва смотрят друг на друга, в руке одного — статуя Дианы, в руке второ- го — изображение Асклепия, держащего палку, обвитая змеей (рис. 17). Представляет интерес также реверс монеты, выпущенной в Пергаме122. На нем изображены два четырехколонных храма. В одном находится Асклепий с палкой, обвитой змеей, во втором — статуя Дианы Эфесской. В центре находится император в солдатской форме (рис. 18). Статуя Дианы Эфесской появляется также на большой группе монет, выпускаемых во II векe городами Малой Азии123. На реверсах этих монет изображена богиня в традиционном виде с корзиной или между оленями. В случае монет, выпускаемых во II векe, необыкновенно популярным становится изображение богини с атрибутами, приписываемыми Диане. Но само изображение статуи явно напоминает восточную стилистику, ассоциирующуюся скорее с Кибелой, чем с Дианой. На нумизматах это- го периода появляются также изображения других божеств. Характерно, что представляемые вместе с ней на монетах боги и богини каким-либо образом связаны с ней. Деметер, размещаемая с Дианой на нумизматах, приобретает совершенно другой оттенок, если учесть археологические ис- следования, указывающие, что в Артемизионе поклонялись и этой богине. Остальные божества, такие как Зевс, Аполлон или Асклепий, относятся к тому же мифологическому кругу, что и Диана. После отождествления

116 Cop. 103; 9715. 117 Tübingen SNG 2834. 118 Mu SNG 405. 119 Cop. 517; Weber 5233; BMC 355; BMC 353; SNG I 1335. 120 Weisser 1220. 121 SNG I 1335. 122 BMC 353. 123 Cop. 117, 157; BMC 14; LS 24 nr. 10; P 469; V 17389, 34492, 34846. Рис. 1. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Клавдия; TICLAVDCAES AVG. Реверс: 4-колонный храм Дианы Эфесской со скуль- птурой в центре; DIAN EPHE.

Рис. 2. Монетный двор: Азия Аверс: бюст Гадриана; HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P. Реверс: 4-колонный храм Дианы Эфесской со скуль- птурой в центре; DIA NA EPHESIA.

Рис. 3. Монетный двор: Азия Аверс: бюст Гадриана; HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS PP. Реверс: 4-колонный храм Дианы со скульптурой в центре; DIA NA EPHESIA.

Рис. 4. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Антония Пия; ΤΑΙ Δ ΚΑΙCΑΡ ΑΝΤΩΝ ΕΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: 8-колонный храм со скульптурой в центре; ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ ΔΙΣ ΝΕΟΚΟΡΩΝ.

Рис. 5. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Люция Вера; ΑΥ ΚΑΙ ΛΟΥΚΙΟΣ ΑΥΡ ΟΥΕΡΟΣ. Реверс: храм Дианы с 8 колоннами и скульптурой в центре; ΔΙΣ ΝΕΩ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ ΑΣΙΑΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ. Рис. 6. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Марка Аврелия в лавровом венке; ΚΑΙ Μ ΑΥ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: храм с 8 колоннами и скульптурой Дианы; ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ [Β] ΝΕ ΠΡ[ ].

Рис. 7. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Марка Аврелия; ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙΜ[ ] ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: храм с 8 колоннами; скульптура богини в цен- тре стоит между оленями; ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ ΔΙΣ ΝΕΟΚΟΡΩΝ.

Рис. 8. Монетный двор: Hypaepa Аверс: бюст Марка Аврелия; ΑΥ Κ M ΑΥΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: храм с 6 колоннами; ΕΠΙ ΓΟΥΡΑ Δ ΣΤΡΑ(ΤΗΓΟΥ?) ΤΟ Β ΠΡΩ(ΤΟΥ) ΥΠΑΙΠΗΝΩΝ.

Рис. 9. Монетный двор: ? Аверс: бюст Каракаллы в лавровом венке; AV M AVP ANTΩNEINOC CE. Реверс: 8-колонный храм Дианы со скульптурой; ΔΙΣ ΝΕΟΚΟΡΩΝ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ. Рис. 10. Монетный двор: Лигия Аверс: бюст Антония Пия в лавровом венке; ΑΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΑΝΤΩΝΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: скульптура с корзиной между оленями; ΚΙΛΒΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΩ.

Рис. 11. Монетный двор: Кизик Аверс: бюст Антония Пия в военном плаще; ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙ ΑΔΡΙ ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟΣ ΣΕΒ. Реверс: статуя Дианы с корзиной, Деметер, держащая в ладонях факелы; ΕΠΙ ΕΣΤΙΑΙΟΥ ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ.

Рис. 12. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Антония Пия; ΑΥ Κ Τ ΑΙΛ ΑΔΡΙ[Α] ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: скульптура Дианы с корзиной между оленя- ми, по бокам Ника и персонификация Азии, держа- щая жертвенную чашу и скипетр; ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΑΣΙΑΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ.

Рис. 13. Монетный двор: Эфес Аверс: бюст Марка Аврелия; ΚΑΙ Μ ΑΥ ΑΝΤΩ ΝΕΙΝΟΣ. Реверс: скульптура Дианы с корзиной между оленями, Аполлон с лирой; ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ Β ΝΕΟ ΙΕΡΑΠΟΛΕΙΤΩΝ ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ. Рис. 14. Монетный двор: Неаполь Аверс: бюст Фаустины II; ΦΑΥΣΤΕΙΝΑ ΣΕΒ ΕΥΣΕ ΣΕΒΑ ΘΥΓΑ. Реверс: скульптура Дианы в головном уборе в форме храма между оленями, голуби; ΦΛ ΝΕΑΣ ΠΟΛΕΩΣ ΣΥΡ ΠΑΛΕ ΕΤ ΠΖ.

Рис. 15. Монетный двор: Лаодикея Аверс: бюст Коммодия в лавровом венке; ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙ Μ ΑΥΡ ΚΟΜΜΟΔΟΣ. Реверс: Зевс с орлом и скипетром, скульптура Дианы между оленями, в головном уборе в форме храма; ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ.

Рис. 16. Монетный двор: Пергам Аверс: бюст Коммодия в лавровом венке; ΑΥΤΟ ΚΑΙ Μ ΑΥΡΗ ΚΟΜΟΔΟΣ. Реверс: Асклепий в биге, держащий статую Диа- ны, кентавр с факелом; ΕΠΙ ΣΤΡ[?] ΠΙΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ.

Рис. 17. Монетный двор: Пергам Аверс: бюст Коммодия в лавровом венке; ΑΥ ΚΑΙ Μ ΑΥΡΗ ΚΟΜΟΔΟΣ. Реверс: двое богов, персонифицирующих реки, ла- жищих и смотрящих друг на друга, один держит на ладони Асклепия с палкой, обвитой змеей, другой держит статую Дианы; ΕΠΙ ΣΤΡ Π ΑΙ ΠΙΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΝ [?] ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ.

Рис. 18. Монетный двор: Пергам Аверс: бюст Коммодия в лавровом венке; ΑΥ ΚΑΙ Μ ΑΥΡΗ ΚΟΜΟΔΟΣ. Реверс: 4-колонный храм с Асклепием, держащим палку со змеей, 4-колонный храм со скульптурой Дианы; ΕΠΙ ΣΤΡ Π ΑΙ ΠΙΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΟΜΟΝΟΙΑ ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 81

с греческой Артемидой, к Диане «перешли» семейные связи Артемиды и приписываемые ей мифы, таким образом Диану стали изображать с бо- жествами, с которыми она была связана. В конце II — начале III века Диана Эфесская появляется на эмиссиях Септимия Севера и Юлии Домны. На реверсе монет Севера находится одно из самых популярных изображений статуи Дианы с „лентами”, выходящими из ладони богини124. Интересным было также сочетание Дианы с Фортуной, которое можно наблюдать на одном из нумизматов125. На реверсе монеты Севера и Юлии Домны изображена статуя, стоящая между оленями126. В несколько иной стилистике изготовлен реверс монеты этой императрицы со статуей Дианы с глобусом127. Однако, если сравнить эти нумизматы и их иконографию с более ранними образцами, то окажется, что сам стиль изоб- ражений Дианы Эфесской принципиально не менялся с I столетия. К III веку относится многочисленная группа монет, выпускаемая римс- кими императорами и их женами. Статуя богини появляется, в частности, на эмиссиях Геты128, Каракаллы129 и Юлии Мамеи. На реверсе нумизмата императрицы изображена Диана Эфесская с „лентами” в руках130. Доста- точно интересна монета Александра Севера, на которой можно увидеть Диану в биге, держащую богиню Фортуну131. Новое графическое решение появилось на монете Филиппа Араба132. На реверсе изображена статуя Дианы и мужчина, счатающийся персонифика- цией одного из местных богов. Если присмотреться к монете императора Галиена, выпускаемой в Пер- гаме, на реверсе которой можно увидеть статую Дианы и Асклепия, то можно считать, что такое сочетание божеств было характерно для этого центра133. В более ранних эмиссиях из Пергама также изображалась Диана с богом Асклепием, наряду с другими разнообразными дополнительными знаками и графическими элементами. Одним из интересных экземпляров, выпускаемых в этот период, яв- ляется нумизмат императора Гордиана III134. На реверсе этого бронзового медальона изображена Диана Эфесская и сфинкс.

124 SNG von Aulock 2885. 125 T.E. M i o n n e t: Description de medailles antiques Greques et Romaines avec leur degré de rareté et leur estimation. Vol. 4. Paris 1809, см.: Mionnet IV 11. 126 SNG von Aulock 2670. 127 Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris 1993, см.: SNG Paris 1172. 128 Mionnet IV 18. 129 Mionnet IV 16. 130 BMC 38. 131 Mionnet IV 20. 132 Aulock Pisidien 868ff. 133 SNG von Aulock 1425. 134 CNG 69. 82 Agnieszka Bartnik

Анализируя свидительства античных авторов, внешний вид храма Диа- ны Эфесской кажется однозначным. Однако если присмотреться к римским монетам, выпускаемым на протяжении I—III веков, появляются большие сомнения. На монетах можно найти дистиль, тертастиль, гексастиль, а так- же октастиль как план сооружения храма. Это объясняется археологичес- кими исследованиями, благодаря которым нам стало известно, что храм был несколько раз уничтожен, а после восстановления выглядел иначе в различные периоды135. Хотя для описания упомянутых нумизматов это, по всей видимости, не имеет значения. Все они относятся к I—III векам, а значит и изображения храма на них должны быть аналогичными. От- сутствие такой аналогичности указывает на то, что внимание уделялось идеологическому содержанию, которое несло с собой сооружение, а не его точному виду. Будучи одним из «семи чудес света», храм был повсеместно известен в то время. Если внешний вид храма менялся даже на эмиссиях, относящихся к одним и тем же правителям, то изображение Дианы Эфесской остава- лось неизменным на протяжении I—III веков. На всех эмиссиях периода Римской Империи видно, что при чеканке нумизматов с изображением этой богини, старались как можно более точно воспроизвести ее внешний вид, известный по статуе. Характерно и то, что так изображалась только Диа- на Эфесская и перепутать ее с какой-либо с другой богиней невозможно. Такая точность следует, вероятно, из роли культа этой богини и настолько большого своеобразия внешнего вида самой статуи. Свое значение имела, по всей видимости, также древность культа Дианы, почитаемой в таком виде, а следовательно — и его значение. Учитывая судьбы Артемизиона и статуи богини, повсеместно известных в античном мире, можно считать, что важнее была статуя богини, которая должна была уцелеть несмотря на все пожары храма, а не сам храм, многократно восстанавливаемый. В подтверждение этого тезиса можно привести факт изображения Дианы Эфесской также на монетах, на которых появляется храм. Именно богиня и необыкновенно древний культ, связанный с ней, были частью пропаган- дного сообщения императоров, помещающих ее на своих эмиссиях, а не многократно разрушаемый и восстанавливаемый храм. Отсутствие храма и статуи Дианы в эмиссиях после III века можно объ- яснить уничтожением города и храма готами136, а в связи с этим — потерей значения этого центра как места культа, а также развитием христианства, ограничивающего влияния старых языческих культов. Уничтожение хра- ма во время сражений, ведущихся язычниками с императором Галиеном,

135 W. S c h a n e r: Die Archaischen Tempel. Der Artemis von Ephesos. Waldsassen 1982. 136 Zosimus., I, 28; см.: R. S u s k i: Konsolidacja cesarstwa rzymskiego za panowania Au- reliana 270—275. Kraków 2008, с. 68; ср. M. S a l a m o n: The Chronology of Gothic Invasion into Asia Minor in the IIIrd century. “Eos” 1971, т. 59, с. 119—139. Храм и статуя Дианы Эфесской... 83

потверждается также Иорданесом137. Храм завершил свое существование в качестве места культа Дианы после оглашения императором Константи- ном эдиктов, запрещающих языческие культы.

137 Jordanes.Chron,de rebus Gothicis., XX.

Перевог Helga Bartnik

Agnieszka Bartnik

Świątynia i posąg Diany Efeskiej na podstawie wizerunków na monetach rzymskich okresu cesarstwa

Streszczenie

Świątynię Artemidy w Efezie, znaną także jako Świątynia Diany lub Artemizjon, autorzy antyczni zaliczyli do siedmiu cudów świata. Sanktuarium było wiele razy niszczone i odbudowy- wane, co powodowało liczne zmiany jego architektury. Kult Diany Efeskiej został wprowadzony w Rzymie ok. VI wieku p.n.e. Wyobrażenie bogini efeskiej znacznie różniło się od jej klasycz- nych przedstawień, w związku z czym zarówno świątynia, jak i posąg znalazły odzwierciedlenie w ikonografii na monetach rzymskich. Analiza monet rzymskich wybitych w okresie cesarstwa wykazała, że obraz sanktuarium zmieniał się na poszczególnych emisjach. Nawet w przypadku numizmatów tych samych władców na poszczególnych typach można zaobserwować znaczne różnice. W przeciwieństwie do wizerunku świątyni sposób przedstawiania samej bogini nie uległ zmianie na przestrzeni I—III wieku. Charakterystyczne jest też, że przedstawiano tak jedynie Dianę Efeską, starając się jak najwierniej odtworzyć wygląd posągu kultowego. Biorąc pod uwagę sposób przedstawiania świątyni oraz samej Diany można przypuszczać, że to posąg bogini miał stanowić główny element propagandowego przekazu władców rzymskich.

Agnieszka Bartnik

A temple and a statue of Diana of Ephesus on the basis of the images on the Roman coins in the period of the empire

S u m m a r y

The Artemis temple in Ephesus, also known as Diana’s Temple or Artemision, was classified by the Ancient scholars as one of the seven world wonders. The sanctuary was damaged and rebuilt many times, which caused numerous changes of its architecture. The cult of Diana of 84 Agnieszka Bartnik

Ephesus was introduced in Rome in about the sixth century before Christ. A representation of the goddess of Ephesus differed considerably from its classical presentations, as a result of which both the temple and the statue were reflected in the iconography on the Roman coins. The analysis of the Roman coins issued in the period of the empire showed that the image of a sanctuary was changing with particular issues. Even in the case of numismats of the same rulers considerable differences can be noticed on particular types. As opposed to the image of the temple, the way of presenting the same goddess did not change within the period of the first three centuries. What is also characteristic is the fact that only Diana of Ephesus was presented like that, trying to reconstruct most carefully the cult statue. Taking into account the way of presenting the temple and Diana as such, one can assume that the statue of a goddess was to constitute the main element of a propaganda message of Roman rulers. Wojciech Boruch

The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia during the Reign of Julio-Claudian Dynasty

The origins of the Roman presence in Asia Minor are related to Atallos III, who in his will passed down the Kingdom of Pergamum to the Ro- man Republic. From this realm the Romans formed the Province of Asia.1 During the late Republic and the early Principate the province was one of the richest regions of the Empire. Its territory had been strongly urbanized for centuries and the economic foundations of the cities, besides the favourable geographical location, were trade and craftsman- ship.2 However, the developed market economy of that area required intensive production of currency. The political and military struggle during the civil wars and the subsequent stabilization under the rule of Julio-Claudian dynasty required the application of diversified means of propaganda. Special attention in that regard should be paid to numismatic sources due to the fact that they reached the widest social range and were an excellent medium of

1 See H. B e n g s t o n: Römische Geschichte. Republik und Kaiserzeit bis 284 n. Chr. München 2001, p. 136; A. Ś w i d e r k ó w n a: Hellenika. Wizerunek epoki od Aleksandra do Augusta. Warszawa 1978, pp. 304—306; A. Ś w i d e r e k: Hellada Królów. Warszawa 1967, pp. 361—364. 2 See K. C h r i s t: Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zu Konstantin. München 2005, p. 118; K. H a r l: Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700. Bal- timore and London 1996, p. 100; M. R o s t o v t z e f f: The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Vol. I—II. Oxford 1957, pp. 47—50, 74—75. 86 Wojciech Boruch disseminating information and ideas in the ancient world. Most of the cities had the privilege of minting their own coinage based on the Greek metrology and the province of Asia enjoyed a considerable autonomy in this field. However, the cities underlined on every possible occasion that the right to mint coins was granted to them by the emperor himself. Consequently, the different origins of the coins did not violate the monetary privilege of the ruler.3 The Eastern branches of the imperial mint were located in Pergamum, Ephesus and probably on Samos. They struck occasionally aurei and denarii.4 The same offices issued silver provincial coinage under the control of Roman administration. However, these coins differed in their denomination and followed the Greek standard. The most characteristic and perhaps the only issues which might be taken into consideration are the cistophori from Ephesus and Pergamum struck during the reigns of Augustus and Claudius.5 The production of silver coinage in Asian cities had an essential propaganda significance but the matter of coin circulation and its role in the market exchange still remains debatable.6

3 Cf. C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d: The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. I revised edition: From 31 B.C. to A.D. 69. London 1999 (further: RIC I2), pp. 19—20; V. H e u c h e r t: “The Chrono- logical Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography.” In: Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Eds. C. H o w g e g o, V. H e u c h e r t, A. B u r n e t t. Oxford and New York 2005, pp. 29—56; C. H o w g e g o: Ancient History from Coins. London and New York 1997, pp. 42—44, 56—59, 101—102; A. K u n i s z: Mennictwo w Cesarstwie Rzymskim w I wieku n.e. Katowice 1978, pp. 33—35. 4 See A. B u r n e t t, M. A m a n d r y, P. R i p o l l e s: Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 B.C.—A.D.69), London 2006, pp. 368— 370 (henceforth: RPC I); D. K i e n a s t: Augustus. Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt 1999, pp. 386—387, 390—391; R. D u n c a n - J o n e s: Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge 1994, pp. 169—170; C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d: The Emperor and the Coinage. Julio- Claudian Studies. London 1976, pp. 54—55; I d e m: “Augustan Aurei and Denarii Attributable to the Mint of Pergamum.” Revue Numismatique, vol. 6(15), 1973, pp. 129—151. For example: M.H. C r a w f o r d: Roman Republican Coinage. London 1974 (further: RRC) nos. 445/3, RRC 496—508, RRC 510, RRC 527—528; RIC I2 (Aug.) nos. 511—526, and perhaps RIC I2 (Aug.) nos. 472—475 and 536—548. 5 Since the reign of Tiberius the crucial mint responsible for the production of silver in Asia Minor was Caesarea Cappadocia. See further for the Cistophori of Ephesus and Pergamum in: P. B r u n n: “Coins and the Roman Imperial Government.” In: Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Eds. G.M. P a u l, M. I e r a r d i. Ann Arbor 2002, pp. 19—40, especially pp. 26—28; D. K i e n a s t: Augustus..., pp. 385—387; R. Wo l t - e r s: Nummi Signati. Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzprägung und Geldwirtschaft. München 1999, pp. 47—48, 58; C. H o w g e g o: Ancient History..., pp. 54—58; K. H a r l: Coinage..., pp. 98—100; R. D u n c a n - J o n e s: Money and Government..., pp. 150—151 and 169—170; A. K u n i s z: Recherches sur le Monnayage et la Circulation Monétaire sous le Règne d’Auguste. Wrocław—Warszawa—Kraków—Gdańsk 1976, pp. 49—52, 98—99 and 107—108; C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d: The Emperor..., pp. 26—27, 53—54, 75; C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d, N. O l c a y, K.E. M e r r i n g t o n: The Cistophori of Augustus. London 1970. 6 See A. K u n i s z: Mennictwo..., pp. 29 and 35, who states that the emperor carried on a conscious policy of supplying currency to the market, and that the coinage indeed was in use The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 87

From the time of Augustus up to the 3rd century A.D. the mints of the East struck bronze coinage only occasionally but in large quantities.7 Among issues of provincial significance should be mentioned the bronzes of Pergamum and those coins which were struck by a single city or koinon but circulated in the whole province and remained under rigorous supervision of its authorities. Moreover, the mints issued coins to meet local needs and these constituted the local coinage of cities, colonies and koina. These bronzes are called “Im- perial Greek,” which indicates both their provenance as well as the authority under which they were minted.8 Thus the Roman administration, respecting “the privilege” of the Asian cities, charged the local communities with the cost of the issues. Local coinage shows significant changes in relation to the Hellenistic era. On the obverse the coins usually present the portrait and name of an emperor and on the reverse the name and symbols of the cities. Beyond any doubt the first marital union which was presented on Asian coins was the marriage of Octavia and Marc Antony.9 The couple is depicted in the market only in the economically developed areas. Similarly R. Wo l t e r s: Nummi Sig- nati..., p. 52; K. H a r l: Coinage..., pp. 98—100; R. D u n c a n - J o n e s: Money and Govern- ment..., pp. 169—170; C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d: The Emperor..., p. 26; Id e m: Augustan Aurei..., pp. 129—151; C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d, N. O l c a y, K.E. M e r r i n g t o n: The Cistophori..., pp. 85—120, who pointed out an enormous abundance of the cistophori struck by the mints in Ephe- sus and Pergamum. See differently M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski. Prowincje i społeczeństwa prowincjonalne we wschodniej części basenu Morza Śródziemnego w okresie od Augusta do Sewerów (31 r. p.n.e. — 235 r. n.e.). Wrocław—Warszawa—Kraków 1997, p. 104, who indicates that in reality the decision to coin did not have any connection to the economic condition. The irregularity of the issues would be inexplicable if the authorities cared only for the supply of the local market with the currency. 7 During the reign of Augustus the mint in Pergamum struck a long series of bronzes with the monogram CA, whereas more numerous coins with the inscription SC were struck in Antioch and possibly in Asia Minor. See RPC I, pp. 369, 371, 380—381; A. B u r n e t t, M. A m a n d r y, I. C a r r a d i c e: Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69—96). London 1999 (further: RPC II), pp. 120—121; R. Wo l t e r s: Nummi Signati..., pp. 136—137 and 139—141; D. K i e n a s t: Augustus..., pp. 388—390 especially footnote 35; RIC I, pp. 36—37; M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., pp. 101—102; K. H a r l: Coinage..., pp. 75—76, 88 and 106—107; A. K u n i s z: Mennictwo..., pp. 31—38; C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d: The Emperor..., pp. 27, 55—57. Cf. C. A n d o: Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley—Los Angeles—London 2000, p. 173. For the organizational principles of the coinage of Augustus see further K. K r a f t: Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in Kleinasien. Berlin 1972 and A. K u n i s z: Recherches sur le Monnayage..., pp. 13—43. 8 See A. B u r n e t t: “The Roman West and the Roman East.” In: Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Ed. C. H o w g e g o, V. H e u c h e r t, A. B u r n e t t. Oxford and New York 2005, pp. 171—180, especially 171—173; V. H e u c h e r t: “Chronological development...,” pp. 30—33, 40—44 and 52—55; R. Wo l t e r s: Nummi Signati..., p. 51 and footnote 25 (for the further literature); M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., pp. 100—104. 9 RPC I nos. 2201—2202 (cistophori from Ephesus); no. 2574 (Ephesus). See A.A. B a r - r e t t: Livia. First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven—London 2002, p. 140; S. Wo o d: Imperial Women. A Study in Public Images, 40 B.C. — A.D. 68. Leiden—Boston—Koln 2000, 88 Wojciech Boruch on the issues from Ephesus and each of them does so in a somewhat different arrangement. The first one features the portraits of Marc Antony and Octavia on the obverse and a standing figure of Dionysus on the reverse,10 whereas the latter presents Marc Antony alone on the obverse and Octavia on the reverse. The next member of the Imperial family shown in coinage was Marcus Agrippa, Augustus’ son-in-law and his appointed heir. His role and political significance was emphasized by the coins of Parium which portrayed Agrippa in the company of Augustus.11 A probable motive for striking the coins with the image of the victor of battle of Actium was the eastern journey of Marcus Agrippa connected with the bestowal of proconsular imperium. During the journey he was accompanied by his wife Julia, the emperor’s daughter and the mother of his two adopted heirs. During the three-year campaign she bore their daughter Agrippina the Elder and perhaps also Julia the Younger.12 On the coins of Pergamum Agrippa was accompanied by the pictures of his wife Julia and Livia, who were presented on the reverse. Julia was shown as Aphrodite with the inscription IOYΛIAN AΦPOΔITHN, and Livia as Hera — ΛIBIAN HPAN.13 Therefore, Agrippa appeared on the coinage in the company of other members pp. 41—51, who pointed out that on one issue Octavia was not mentioned by name, and her identity can be determined only due to the context of the image and the resemblance of the features of the portrait. The first woman of the Roman political elite, which appeared onthe provincial coinage of Asia, was Fulvia — the wife of Mark Anthony. At the end of the Republic the mint in Eumenea in connection with his journey struck coins presenting Fulvia as a Greek goddess Nike. This issue was most probably struck in 41—40 B.C. — RPC I nos. 3139—3140 (Eumenea/Fulvia). See also A.A. B a r r e t t: Livia..., p. 140; S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., pp. 41—42, who indicates that this Phrygian town, which honoured Fulvia by the change of its name, very probably commemorated her also on coins. See also L. M o r a w i e c k i: “Kobiety na monetach starożytnych (do I w.).” W: Partnerka, matka, opiekunka. Status kobiety w starożytności i średniowieczu. Red. J. J u n d z i ł ł. Bydgoszcz 1999, pp. 9—42, especially p. 27. 10 These coins were struck between 40 and 38 B.C., most probably in 39 B.C. when An- thony and Octavia stayed together in the East. Anthony was hailed in Ephesus a new Dionysus, which symbolized the ivy wreath. See C. H o w g e g o: Ancient History..., p. 78; K. H a r l: Coinage..., pp. 99—100, who pointed out that the cistophori of Anthony remained in circulation during the reign of Augustus because they presented the image of his sister Octavia. See further L. M o r a w i e c k i: Władza charyzmatyczna w Rzymie u schyłku Republiki (lata 44—27 p.n.e.). Rzeszów 1989, pp. 123—193, especially 125, 136—138 and 156—157. 11 RPC I no. 2260 (Parium). The reverse legend — M AGRIPPA.What attracts attention is the Latin form of inscription on coins. 12 See E. F a n t h a m: Julia Augusti. The Emperor’s Daughter. London—New York 2006, pp. 61—63, 66; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio- Claudian Period. Cambridge—New York—Melbourne 1997, p. 13. 13 RPC I no. 2359 (Pergamum). See S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., pp. 63—64 and 69, who underlined that the clear assimilation of Livia with Hera and Julia with Aphrodite, identifies the whole imperial family with the Hellenistic tradition and the divinity of the Empire. Julia as Aphrodite, that is Roman Venus, is the earthly genetrix of gens Julia, and most probably refers directly to the recent birth of her sons. See also L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 29. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 89 of the imperial family and the Asian cities issued coins to commemorate his stay in the East and, at the same time, lay foundation for the future benefactions of the ruling dynasty.14 Much attention was also paid to Julia as the source of the future of the dynasty. The princeps’ daughter received numerous honours which previously were bestowed upon Hellenistic queens. She was named thea, identified as Aphrodite and described as a benefactress due to the efforts of her predecessors.15 Much significance on the coins struck by the cities of Asia was also given to the adopted sons of Augustus — Gaius and Lucius Caesares. In 6 B.C. Gaius was designated to the post of consul (consul designatus) and elevated to the rank of pontifex, and in the successive year he received toga virilis.16 This change of Gaius’ status was announced in the official decree, which is attested by numismatic evidence and inscriptions from Sardis and Samos.17 In 2 B.C. the political position of Gaius and Lucius was even further enhanced. At that time Lucius received toga virilis and the rank of augur, and Gaius obtained proconsular imperium and set out for an eastern campaign in order to avenge Crassus.18 The bestowal of these honours is confirmed by monetary issues of Tralles.19 The assumption of the post of pontifex by Gaius was most likely commemorated by this mint by placing a star next to his portrait, and taking the post of augur by Lucius by inserting lituus — the attribute of priestly offices.20 Another coin shows on the reverse a colonist and ploughing oxen, which most likely alludes to Italic colonization and the renewed foundation of the city under the new name of Caesarea.21 It is also worth noting that the mint in Tralles placed a Capricorn next to the portraits of Gaius and Lucius, which symbol-

14 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 13. 15 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 13. Julia as Aphrodite in Mytilene (IGR 4.114), Assos (I. Assos no. 16; IGR 4.257), Pergamum (RPC no. 2359). The bilingual dedication for Julia as Venus Genetrix from Lesobs (IGR 4.9) composes in reality two inscriptions. 16 See Dio Cass. 55.9.2—9. 17 See C. A n d o: Imperial Ideology..., pp. 169—170; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemora- tion..., p. 17; V. E h r e n b e r g, A.H.M. J o n e s: Documents illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. Oxford 1955, pp. 84—85, no. 99. Gaius alone appeared on the coins of: Pergamum (RPC I no. 2361), Antioch ad Maeandrum (RPC I no. 2832), Laodicea (RPC I nos. 2899—2900), Hierapolis (RPC I nos. 2944, 2946, 2948, 2950, 2952), Tripolis (RPC I nos. 3048, 3050), Apamea (RPC I no. 3130), Siblia (RPC I no. 3162). 18 See Dio Cass. 55.9.10, 55.10.17—55.10a.10; Suet. Aug. 65. See also E. F a n t h a m: Julia Augusti..., pp. 92, 99—104; P. Z a n k e r: August i potęga obrazów. Poznań 1999, pp. 218—223; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 17—18, who in addition indicates that Mytilene erected a temple for Gaius and Lucius, and in Ilium Gaius was proclaimed the kinsman and patron. 19 RPC I nos. 2646, 2648—2650, 2652 (Tralles). 20 RPC I nos. 2649—2651 (Tralles); see M.R. A l f ö l d i: Bild und Bildersprache der Rö- mischen Kaiser. Beispiele und Analysen. Mainz am Rhein 1999, p. 157. 21 RPC I no. 2649 (Tralles) and pp. 438—439. 90 Wojciech Boruch ized that they were the heirs of Augustus.22 A coin from Pergamum presents in turn the portrait of Gaius on the obverse and a figure of conquered enemy on the reverse, which might suggest a military victory during the campaign in Armenia.23 A similar undertone is represented on a coin from Apamea with the portrait of Augustus on the obverse and Gaius in quadriga on the reverse.24 A characteristic feature of the provincial coinage from Asia is the presentation of seniority and precedence of Gaius over Lucius. The monetary issues from Scepsis, Pergamum, Pitane, Aegae, Nysa and perhaps Cyzicus dedicate the more prestigious obverse to Gaius, whereas the reverse to Lucius.25 However, both brothers were depicted together on the obverse on the coins of Methymna, Magnesia-ad-Sipylum, Nicaea Cilbianorum and Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum.26 Gaius and Lucius were also shown together with their adoptive father on the coins struck in Methymna and Nicaea Cilbianorum, and Gaius with Augustus on the issues of Tralles, Nysa, Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum and Apamea.27 A very interesting presentation of the members of the imperial family is also shown on a coin from Magnesia-ad-Sipylum, where Gaius and Lucius are depicted on the reverse while the images of Augustus and Livia on teh obverse.28 It is likewise worth noting that there are no coins presenting both brothers with their natural father Agrippa.29 During the reign of Augustus the Asian cities widely propagated the portrait of his wife Livia.30 She was repeatedly featured on the obverse together with her husband.31 The coinage reflected also the bestowal of numerous honours on Livia, like those received previously by Julia. The emperor’s wife was frequently

22 RPC I nos. 2650—2651 (Tralles). See also V. H e u c h e r t: “Chronological Develop- ment...,” p. 53. 23 RPC I no. 2361 (Pergamum). 24 RPC I no. 3129 (Apamea). See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 18, who pointed out that Gaius is crowned by Nike. 25 RPC I no. 2326 (Scepsis), nos. 2363, 2365 (Pergamum), no. 2393 (Pitane), no. 2428 (Aegae), no. 2660A (Nysa), and perhaps no. 2246 (Cyzicus). 26 RPC I no. 2337 (Methymna), no. 2449 (Magnesia-ad-Sipylum), nos. 2563—2564 (Nicaea Cilbianorum), no. 2696 (Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum). 27 RPC I no. 2337 (Methymna), no. 2563 (Nicaea Cilbianorum), no. 2646 (Tralles), no. 2661 (Nysa), no. 2695 (Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum), no. 3129 (Apamea). 28 RPC I no. 2449 (Magnesia-ad-Sipylum). 29 The only such memorial is the gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates at Ephesus, which features images of the two boys with both their adoptive and natural fathers. See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 14, 172—174. 30 RPC I no. 2338 (Methymna), no. 2359 (Pergamum), nos. 2449—2450 (Magnesia-ad- Sipylum), nos. 2464, 2466, 2467 (Smyrna), no. 2496 (Clazomenae), nos. 2576, 2580—2585, 2587, 2589—2591, 2593—2596, 2599—2606, 2608—2612 (Ephesus), no. 2663 (Nysa), nos. 2647— 2648 (Tralles), no. 2829 (Antioch ad Maeandrum), no. 3143 (Eumenea). See also W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty (in preparation B). 31 RPC I nos. 2576, 2580—2585, 2587, 2589—2591, 2593—2596, 2599—2606, 2608—2612 (Ephesus). The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 91 presented as a goddess, although she was identified with elder deities of fertility: Hera — the patroness of motherhood, the guardian of marriage and family values, or Demeter — the goddess of fertility and abundance.32 In Eumenea the portrait of Livia as Hera was shown on the obverse with the legend: HPA Λ(E) IBIA.33 The wife of the princeps appeared as a goddess — ΘEA ΛIBIA — on the coins of Methymna, where the cult of the imperial couple was particularly intensely propagated on coinage,34 and on the coins of Clazomenae commemorating the renewed foundation of the city by Augustus.35 On the issues minted in Tralles Livia is shown as Demeter with ears of corn and poppies and the legend ΛEIBIA. The obverse depicts either Augustus or Gaius Caesar. Such presentations not only bounded Livia with the cult of the ruling couple but also constitvted a clear statement of progress and prosperity.36 A different image is presented on the coins of Smyrna struck most probably between A.D. 4 and 14.37 The obverse depicts the juxtaposed heads of Augustus and Tiberius with the legend CEBACTON TIBEPION KAICARA. Meanwhile the reverse shows Livia as Aphrodite Stratonikis with a scepter, a statue of Nike and a dove with the legend ΛIBIAN ZMYPNAIΩN KOPΩNOC. Thus the mint not only propagated the present and future ruler but also identified the latter’s mother with the goddess providing special protection of the city. The presentation of the appointed heirs found its reflection in coinage also during the reign of Tiberius,38 when the Asian mints struck numerous issues with the portraits of Germanicus39 and Drusus the Younger.40 Perhaps some of the coins were tied with Germanicus’ journey and imperium in the East. At the end of A.D. 17 Germanicus obtained maius imperium and took control over the eastern provinces. His journey lasted almost two years and was the first campaign led by a member of the imperial family for several years. In many respects it

32 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 13. 33 RPC I no. 3143 (Eumenea). The reverse of this coin was dedicted to a woman named Kastoris, who obtained the title soteira for the philanthropic activity for the city. The reverse legend EYMENEΩN KAΣTOPIΣ ΣΩTIRA. See A.A. B a r r e t t: Livia..., p. 209; L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 29. 34 RPC I no. 2338 (Methymna). 35 RPC I no. 2496 (Clazomenae). See L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach sta rożytnych..., pp. 29—30. 36 RPC I nos. 2647—2648 (Tralles). See L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 30. 37 RPC I no. 2467 (Smyrna). Zob. D.A.O. K l o s e: Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kiaserzeit. Berlin 1987, pp. 15, 24—25. 38 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 24. 39 RPC I no. 2367 (Pergamum), nos. 2539—2540 (Hypaepa), no. 2871 (Tabae), no. 2968 (Hierapolis), nos. 2992, 2993, 2994 (Sardis), no. 3058 (Tripolis), no. 3134 (Apamea), no. 3180 (Synnada), nos. 3205—3206 (Prymnessus). 40 RPC I no. 2367 (Pergamum), no. 2871 (Tabae), no. 2968 (Hierapolis), nos. 2992, 2994 (Sardis), no. 3058 (Tripolis), no. 3072 (Aezani), nos. 3205—3206 (Prymnessus). 92 Wojciech Boruch resembled the campaign of Agrippa, since he also travelled in the company of his wife and children.41 It is worth noting that the Asian mints did not produce any monetary type that could be taken to honour in that time both Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder. It is striking that the presentation of women on coins was more restrictive than the male members of the imperial family, and the only woman depicted on Asian issues during the reign of Tiberius was Livia.42 The mint in Sardis struck an unique coin which commemorated recently deceased heirs of the emperor in a specific manner. The obverse depicts full- figure portraits of Germanicus and Drusus the Younger sitting on the curule chairs with the legend ΔPOYΣOΣ KAI ΓEPMANIKOΣ KAIΣAPEΣ NEOI ΘEOI ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOI. In the provincial coinage of Augustus and Tiberius the full-size format was reserved for gods and deified emperors, and the presence of curule chairs might be explained as an expression of posthumous honours for both princes.43 Considering substantial financial assistance granted by Tiberius to the cities of Asia after the disastrous earthquake of A.D. 17, it is not surprising that the koinon of Asia struck such characteristic coin in honour of the sons of the emperor, and the mints in Tabae and Sardis produced in the same time another issues for Germanicus and Drusus the Younger. The coins from Asia also attest to the deification of Augustus.44 The issues of Mytilene show the first princeps on the reverse either in a quadriga pulled by elephants or with his head in a radial crown. These images are supplemented with the common legend KAICAR ΘΕOC CΕBACTOC. The religious nature of the presentation is emphasized by the obverse depicting the figure of Tiberius in capite velato with a patera.45 A similar response is presented on a coin from Pergamum, which shows a temple with the statue of Augustus on the reverse and the legend ΘΕON CΕBACTON ΠΕPΓAMHNOI.46 The obverse features the

41 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 24—25. 42 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 25. 43 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 29—30. 44 RPC I nos. 2343, 2344 (Mytilene); nos. 2368, 2369 (Pergamum). See Suet., Aug. 100; Tac., Ann. 1.54, 73; 2.83. It must be noted that the cult of divine Augustus had found its reflection most of all in the imperial coinage — RIC I2 (Tib.) nos. 23—24, 56—57, 62—63, 68—69, 70—83. See also R. S a j k o w s k i: Divus Augustus Pater. Kult boskiego Augusta za rządów dynastii julijsko-klaudyjskiej. Olsztyn 2001, pp. 136—165; M. J a c z y n o w s k a: Religie świata rzymskiego. Warszawa 1987, pp. 129—130. 45 These coins were most probably struck in A.D. 35, therefore at the end of the reign of Tiberius. It is also worth noting that the size and the iconographic transfer of these coins were modelled on the Roman sestertii. See RPC I, pp. 396—397; cf. RIC I2 (Tib.) nos. 56, 62, 68. On Lesbos, already during the life of Augustus, there was a temple of his cult — see M. J a c z y n o w s k a: Religie świata rzymskiego..., p. 126. 46 See B. We i s s e r: “Pergamum as Paradigm.” In: Coinage and Identity in the Ro- man Provinces. Eds. C. H o w g e g o, V. H e u c h e r t, A. B u r n e t t. Oxford and New York 2005, pp. 135—142, especially 135—136; R. S a j k o w s k i: Divus Augustus..., pp. 219—220; M. J a c z y n o w s k a: Religie świata rzymskiego..., pp. 124—125. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 93 busts of Tiberius and Livia. Another issue of Pergamum depicts Augustus and Tiberius on the obverse and Livia on the reverse. It must be stressed that during the rule of Tiberius the mints in Asia frequently displayed the image of the emperor’s mother. Livia, often described as Julia, almost inseparably with the title sebasti.47 The officinae occasionally used the capite velato portrait, which intimates the religious nature of the presentation occasionally intensified by the presence of her divine husband.48 Livia, as the mother of the ruling emperor, received far more significant honours than during the life of her spouse. The coins and inscriptions tied her with the concept of fertility, just like Julia during the reign of Augustus, and the agricultural goddesses like Demeter or Isis.49 The coins of Mytilene ascribe her divine status, which is emphasized by the legend IOY ΘΕA CΕBACTH MYTI.50 The mint in Magnesia-ad-Sipylum also underlined the divinity of Livia with the legend ΘΕAN CΕBACTHN.51 And an issue of Smyrna most probably commemorates the completion of a temple dedicated to Tiberius, Livia and the Senate.52 In Sardis the image of a sitting Livia with a scepter and corn-ears, presumably as Demeter, was put on the reverse, while the obverse depicts the emperor raising Tyche of Sardis from her knees. This coin in a very suggestive way testifies to the significant financial support granted to the city by Tiberius after the tragic earthquake in A.D. 17.53 The issue of Pergamum shows Livia as Demeter on the reverse — sitting on the throne with a scepter and ears of corn, while on the obverse features the juxtaposed heads of Augustus and Tiberius.54 Another coin of Pergamum, which features most probably a posthumous portrait of Livia, also leaves no doubt that it represents the cult of the imperial house.55 The coins of Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum depict Livia either as a sitting woman with a scepter

47 RPC I nos. 2345—2346 (Mytilene), nos. 2368—2369 (Pergamum), no. 2453 (Magnesia-ad- Sipylum), no. 2469 (Smyrna), no. 2673 (Mastaura), nos. 2697, 2699 (Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum), nos. 2840, 2842 (Aphrodisias), no. 2865 (Apollonia Salbace), nos. 2886, 2888 (Cibyra), no. 2991 (Sardis), nos. 3053—3054 (Tripolis), no. 3160 (Eucarpia). See also V. H e u c h e r t: “Chronologi- cal Development...”, p. 53. 48 RPC I nos. 2345—2346 (Mytilene), nos. 2368—2369 (Pergamum). 49 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 23, 225—226 and footnote 20. See also J. B u r n s: Great Women of Imperial Rome. Mothers and Wives of the Caesars. London and New York 2007, pp. 17—19. 50 RPC I nos. 2345—2346 (Mytilene). The coins also credit Tiberius divine status. 51 RPC I no. 2453 (Magnesia-ad-Sipylum). 52 RPC I no. 2469 (Smyrna). See Tac., Ann. 4.55—56. See also A.A. B a r r e t t: Livia..., pp. 95 and 213; R. S a j k o w s k i: Divus Augustus..., p. 220; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Com- memoration..., pp. 23 and 180—181; M. J a c z y n o w s k a: Religie świata rzymskiego..., p. 125; D.A.O. K l o s e: Die Münzprägung von Smyrna..., pp. 20—21. 53 RPC I no. 2991 (Sardis). 54 RPC I no. 2368 (Pergamum). 55 RPC I no. 2369 (Pergamum). See A.A. B a r r e t t: Livia..., p. 209; L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 31. 94 Wojciech Boruch and a branch or her draped bust with the legend IOYΛIA [CΕBA]CTH.56 An issue of Mastaura in turn shows joint portraits of Livia and Tiberius on the obverse.57 In Aphrodisias and Tripolis Livia is found on the obverse either alone or together with her son along with the title CEBACTI.58 And the mints in Apollonia Salbace, Cibyra and Eucarpia put the image of Livia on the obverse with the legend ΣEBAΣTH.59 In the dynastic programme of Gaius Caligula a special place was reserved for the members of his closest family. The actions he took were aimed at its rehabilitation after a period of persecution during the reign of his predecessor.60 The provincial coinage of Asia presents the portraits of the parents of the ruling emperor — Germanicus61 and Agrippina the Elder.62 The propagation of the images of the members of Gaius’ family found a particular reflection on the coins of Mytilene and Methymna on Lesbos. Both Agrippa and Germanicus visited this island during their eastern journeys and here Agrippina gave birth to her daughter Julia Livilla. The community of Lesbos consistently commemorated the families of Agrippa and Germanicus and very frequently honoured the women of the Julio-Claudian dynasty with divine titles.63 The coin inscriptions from Mytilene and Methymna emphasize divine status of Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder, reflecting the cult of the parents of Gaius and a strong devotion to his family in this area.64 The religious nature of the imagery is also present on the coins from Cos, which depict Agrippina as a goddess in diadem and veil on

56 RPC I nos. 2697, 2699 (Magnesia-ad-Maeandrum). 57 RPC I no. 2673 (Mastaura). 58 RPC I nos. 2840, 2842 (Aphrodisias); nos. 3053—3054 (Tripolis). The obverse legend — CEBACTOI. 59 RPC I no. 2865 (Apollonia Salbace), nos. 2886, 2888 (Cybira), no. 3160 (Eucarpia). 60 See further W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 23—56. 61 RPC I no. 2347 (Mytilene), nos. 2454—2455 (Magnesia-ad-Sipylum), no. 2471 (Smyrna), no. 2689 (Priene), no. 2968 (Hierapolis), nos. 3077, 3081—3083 (Aezani). 62 RPC I no. 2340 (Methymna), no. 2347 (Mytilene), nos. 2454—2455 (Magnesia-ad- Sipylum), no. 2471 (Smyrna), nos. 2741—2742 (Cos), no. 3032 (Philadelphia), nos. 3077, 3081—3083 (Aezani). See also W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius. Agrippina Maior und Antonia Augusta auf Münzen. Berlin 1978, pp. 123—124, who ascribed to Agrippina the Elder one issue of Miletus (Taf. 14/7 — specimen from Paris). See also W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 86—124. 63 See J. B u r n s: Great Women..., pp. 48—49; C B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 35. 64 RPC I no. 2340 (Methymna), no. 2347 (Mytilene). See S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., p. 206, who also pointed out that the inscriptions from Lesbos emphasized properly the fertility of Agrippina the Elder. See also C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 24—25 and W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 115—121, who indicated that these coins should be recognized not only as acknowledgements of the local community for the visit of Germanicus and Agrippina during their journey in A.D. 18, but also as the symptom of dynastic ideology of Gaius Caligula. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 95 the obverse with the legend ΘEA AΓPIΠΠINA.65 The mint of Aezani intensely propagated the images of Gaius’ parents as well.66 The star and radiate crown on the portrait of Germanicus may indicate again special importance of this representation.67 In Philadelphia Agrippina was shown as a sitting goddess with a scepter and a cornucopia.68 And two issues from Magnesia-ad-Sipylum feature the emperor’s parents on the reverse. Agrippina was depicted with a scepter and corn-ears, which enables identifying her with Demeter, whereas Germanicus was portrayed capite velato with a patera.69 Among the images promoted in this period there also are portraits of the sisters of the emperor — Julia Livilla in Mytilene70 and Drusilla in Smyrna and Miletus,71 and probably his deceased brothers presented in Philadelphia as Dioscuri.72 The coins of Mytilene depicting Julia Livilla are most probably connected with the place of her birth in A.D. 18. These coins also reveal a particular relationship with her brother who is portrayed capite velato.73 The Roman Senate conferred the divine status on Drusilla and simultane- ously granted her the title Panthea, which enabled identifying her with various goddesses in the eastern part of the Empire.74 Most frequently she was associ-

65 RPC I nos. 2741—2742 (Cos). See also W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 125—126. 66 RPC I nos. 3077, 3081—3083 (Aezani). 67 RPC I nos. 3082, 3083 (Aezani). See also W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 132—136. 68 RPC I no. 3032 (Philadelphia). See also W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 128—132. 69 RPC I nos. 2454—2455 (Magnesia-ad-Sipylum). See S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., p. 154, who indicated that Agrippina on coins of her son presented as Demeter sitting on throne is identified with the mythological mother of wealth (Ploutos) and of Kore (which brings new life). See also L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 37; W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 126—128. 70 RPC I no. 2348 (Mytilene). 71 RPC I nos. 2472 (Smyrna), 2704 (Miletus). 72 RPC I nos. 3018, 3020, 3022—3024 (Philadelphia). For Dioscurii see S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., p. 211; W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 23—56. 73 See Tac., Ann. 2.54.1; Suet., Gaius 7. RPC I no. 2348 (Mytilene). See F.R.D. G o o d - y e a r: The Annals of Tacitus. Books 1—6 edited with a Commentary by F.R.D. G o o d - y e a r, vol. II: Annals 1.55—81 and Annals 2, Cambridge—London—New York 2004, p. 355; L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 33; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Com- memoration..., p. 35; D. H u r l e y: An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Sueto- nius’ Life of C. Caligula. Atlanta 1993, p. 17; W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 23—56. Cf. W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., p. 118: who pointed out that the term “NEA” might be the reminiscence of the visit of her namesake and at the same time her great-grandmother Julia Augusta (Livia) in the winter of 15/14 B.C. 74 See Dio Cass. 59.11.3. 96 Wojciech Boruch ated with the new Aphrodite.75 However, it was not a new honorific title for imperial women — both Julia, the daughter of Augustus, as well as Livilla, the wife of Drusus the Younger, were identified with Aphrodite on Greek inscriptions before, but exclusively in Troas.76 In Smyrna, Drusilla was depicted as a sitting Persephone with ears of corn, poppies and a scepter. This coin must have been struck during her lifetime since there is no indication of her divine status77 and so parallels the familial themes on coins featuring Agrippina the Elder and Germanicus.78 However, a coin from Miletus confirms the deification of Drusilla, showing her bust in a diadem with the legend ΘEA ΔPOYCIΛΛA MIΛHCIΩN.79 During the reign of Gaius Caligula the Asian mints propagated the image of divine Augustus. The coin from Ilium depicts the juxtaposed heads of Gaius Caligula in a laurel wreath and Augustus in a radial crown on the obverse with the legend ΓAIOC KAICAP ΘΕOC AYTOKPATWP CΕBACTOI. And in Aphrodisias the portrait of Augustus appeared on the obverse with the legend ΘEOΣ ΣEBAΣTOΣ. It is worth noting that this issue refers to the imperial coinage and a long series of Gaius’ coins propagating divus Augustus.80 The retrospection that characterized the propaganda of the reign of Gaius Caligula was continued during the principate of Claudius. At the same time it was, however, supplemented with the frequent presentation of the future of the dynasty, especially after the marriage of the emperor and Agrippina the Younger. The mints of Asia strongly propagated the images of the members of the imperial family by minting coins that depicted the portraits of the deceased

75 This might be encouraged by the senate’s decree, which described the combined cults of Drusilla and Venus Genetrix — see Dio Cass. 59.11.4; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 36. 76 Drusilla was also hailed Nea Charis on Samos and Homonoia on Cos — see A. A l - e x a n d r i d i s: Die Frauen des Römischen Kaiserhauses. Eine Untersuchung ihrer bildlichen Darstellung von Livia bis Iulia Domna. Mainz am Rhein 2004, pp. 291—293; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 36 and 235 footnotes 82—84. 77 RPC I no. 2472 (Smyrna). See D.A.O. K l o s e: Die Münzprägung von Smyrna..., pp. 14—15. 78 See S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., pp. 154, 213, 243, who indicated that not only coins but also the sculpture identify Drusilla with Kore during her life as well as after her death. See also L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 33; W. T r i l l m i c h: Fami- lienpropaganda..., pp. 121—123; W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 23—56. 79 RPC I no. 2704 (Miletus). See S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., pp. 212, 244; L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 33; W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 124—125; W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 23—56. 80 RPC I no. 2312 (Ilium); RPC I no. 2844 (Aphrodisias). Cf. RIC I2 (Gaius) nos. 15—16, 23—24, 31, 36, 44, 51, 56. See also R. S a j k o w s k i: Divus Augustus..., pp. 166—179; W. B o r u c h: Studies in the History..., pp. 23—56. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 97 parents of the emperor — Drusus the Elder81 and Antonia Minor.82 The mint in Clazomenae emphasized divine status of Claudius’ mother, describing her ΘΕAN ANTWNIAN, and presenting her together with Kybele or the Great Mother on the reverse.83 The cult — religious theme was also followed on the coins of Ilium. The obverse shows there the emperor capite velato with a scepter and a patera, while the reverse depicts a sitting Antonia as Augusta with a patera, perhaps in the style of great goddesses like Hera or Juno.84 The mint of Clazomenae also commemorated Agrippina the Elder, Claudius’ sister-in-law, and emphasized her divine status with the legend ΘΕAN AΓPIΠΠΕINAN. The message is supplemented by a reverse which features Athena.85 And Ilium struck coins with the image of divine Augustus, where the founder of the Empire in a radial crown was shown on the reverse with the statue of Athena and the legend ΘΕOC AYTOKPATΩP IΛI.86 The provincial coinage of Asia also depicted living members of the imperial family of Claudius. The portrait of his current wife Messalina appeared on the coins from Aegae, Tralles and perhaps from Miletus.87 The issue of Aegae describes Messalina as Augusta (MΕCCAΛΕINA CΕBACTH), although she never officially obtained that title.88 The coin of Tralles depicts her on the obverse together with Claudius, while the reverse shows the image of their son.89 The birth of Britannicus, which took place just after the assumption of the supreme

81 RPC I no. 2500 (Clazomenae). See W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza (wybrane aspekty)”. W: HORTUS HISTORIAE. Ksiega pamiątkowa ku czci Profesora Józefa Wolskiego w setną rocznicę urodzin. Red. E. D ą b r o w a, M. D z i e l s k a, M. S a l a - m o n, S. S p r a w s k i. Kraków 2010, pp. 341—358. 82 RPC I no. 2315 (Ilium), no. 2501 (Clazomenae). See J. B u r n s: Great Women..., pp. 35—36; W. B o r u c h: Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza (wybrane aspekty) (in print). 83 See N. K o k k i n o s: Antonia Augusta. Portrait of a Great Roman Lady. London 2002, pp. 97—98; L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 34; W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 170—172. Cf. M. J a c z y n o w s k a: Religie świata rzymskiego..., pp. 197—199. 84 See N. K o k k i n o s: Antonia Augusta..., pp. 98—99; L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 34; W. T r i l l m i c h: Familienpropaganda..., pp. 162—170. 85 RPC I no. 2499 (Clazomenae). See L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 37; and also W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza”..., pp. 341—358. 86 RPC I no. 2313 (Ilium). See R. S a j k o w s k i: Divus Augustus..., pp. 179—190 and 220. 87 RPC I no. 2430 (Aegae), no. 2654 (Tralles), no. 2711 (Miletus). In regard to the coin of Miletus the authors of RPC I indicated that the image of Messalina is more probable — there is only one specimen of this type. See also C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 41; W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza”..., pp. 341—358; I d e m: Studies in the History..., pp. 86—124. 88 See L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., pp. 35—36. 89 RPC I no. 2654 (Tralles). See A.A. B a r r e t t: Agrippina. Sex, Power and Politics in the Early Empire. London 2005, p. 109. 98 Wojciech Boruch power by Claudius, was certainly a very important event, which was duly reflected in Asian coinage. The portrait of Britannicus appeared on the issues of Cyzicus, Ilium, Pergamum, Aegae, Clazomenae, Tralles, Alabanda, Laodicea and Hierapolis.90 A coin of Cyzicus describes Claudius’ son as Germanicus (NΕOC ΓΕPMANIKOC), indicating that it was struck before A.D. 43.91 Similarly, the coins from Ilium and one issue of Alabanda most probably date to the onset of the reign of Claudius, since the natural son of the emperor was not named Britannicus yet.92 The remaining coins of Alabanda as well as those of Aegae, Clazomenae and Tralles describe him with that name.93 During the last years of Claudius the portrait of Britannicus appeared on the issues from the mints of Laodicea and Hierapolis, which at the same time struck coins with the images of Nero.94 However, it is surprising that these mints did not produce any coins with the image of Agrippina the Younger. In Pergamum the portrait of Britannicus was shown on the obverse, while the reverse depicted Nero, which enables dating this issue to A.D. 50—54.95 The provincial coinage of Asia also presented the images of emperors’ daughters. The coins of Cyzicus make an excellent example of fully developed propaganda of the ruling family. They feature the portraits of Octavia and Antonia on the reverse, whereas the obverse was dedicated to their brother Britannicus.96 This issue must therefore have been minted in the first years of the reign of Claudius.97 After the death of Messalina, the next wife of the emperor, Agrippina the Younger, gained an enormous influence on Claudius and on the power he wielded. Some of the visible signs of that influence are numerous issues with the portrait of the empress produced both during the reign of her husband and her son. Under Claudius the image of Agrippina appeared not only on the

90 RPC I no. 2248 (Cyzicus), no. 2314 (Ilium), no. 2371 (Pergamum), no. 2431 (Aegae), nos. 2502—2503 (Clazomenae), no. 2654 (Tralles), nos. 2818—2821 (Alabanda), no. 2915 (Laodicea), no. 2971 (Hierapolis). The coin of Apamea (RPC I no. 3135) might be a forgery. 91 RPC I no. 2248 (Cyzicus). See L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 35; W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza”..., pp. 341—358. 92 RPC I no. 2314 (Ilium) — TI KΛAYΔIOC CEBACTOY YIOC IΛI; no. 2818 (Alabanda) — the obverse presents the joined portraits of Claudius and his natural son with the legend ΣEBAΣTOI. 93 RPC I nos. 2819—2821 (Alabanda) — KΛAYΔIOC BPETANNIKOC KAICAP; no. 2431 (Aegae) and nos. 2502—2503 (Clazomenae) — BPETANNIKOC KAICAP; no. 2654 (Tralles) — KAIΣAREΩN BPETANNIKOΣ. 94 RPC I no. 2915 (Laodicea), no. 2971 (Hierapolis). Both issues share a common legend — BPETANNIKOΣ KAIΣAP. 95 RPC I no. 2371 (Pergamum). See further RPC I, pp. 401 and 403. 96 RPC I no. 2248 (Cyzicus). The obverse legend — AN OKTA. 97 Probably the oldest and prematurely deceased son of Claudius was portrayed on the coins of Myrina (RPC I no. 2425). See also C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., pp. 44 and 239—240 footnotes 87—88. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 99 imperial issues from Ephesus,98 but also on local coins from Assos, Thyatira, Mostene, Smyrna, Ephesus, Nysa, Cadi, Aezani, Cotiaeum and Philomelium.99 The mints of Assos, Mostene, Smyrna, Ephesus and Nysa presented her portrait on the obverse together with her husband. These coins most of all commemorate the marriage and emphasize the partnership of Agrippina. The bronzes from Ephesus show the juxtaposed busts of Claudius and Agrippina on the obverse and celebrate their marriage as a divine union, which is further underlined by the legend THEOGAM[I]A.100 In Cadi, Aezani and Philomelium the portrait of Agrippina occupies the whole obverse. The coins of Cadi and Aezani may constitute a smaller denomination, while the issue of Philomelium the largest denomination of the three struck in that mint.101 In the last years of Claudius’ rule, the coinage of Asia strongly promoted Nero as the appointed heir to the throne.102 The imperial issue from Ephesus confirms the bestowal of the title princeps iuventutis and the designation to the post of consul.103 The coins from Thyatira, Mostene, Smyrna and Ephesus present his portrait on the obverse of a smaller denomination, while the larger was devoted to the joint portrait of Claudius and Agrippina. In Elaea and Cidrama the image of Nero appears as well on the obverse of a lesser denomination whereas the larger one was occupied by Claudius alone. Nero was also depicted on the obverse of coins from Elaea, Mostene, Smyrna, Ephesus, Cidrama, Laodicea,

98 RPC I nos. 2223—2234 = RIC I2 (Claud.) nos. 117 and 119. See J. G i n s b u r g: Rep- resenting Agrippina. Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford—New York 2006, p. 76; A.A. B a r r e t t: Agrippina..., p. 109; A. A l e x a n d r i d i s: Die Frauen..., pp. 95—98; S. Wo o d: Imperial Women..., p. 291, who pointed out that these coins celebrate the imperial marriage of Claudius and Agrippina. The Empress in a crown of corn-ears and the emperor in the laurel wreath symbolizing the military victor. The royal couple identifies both victory and prosperity. See also A. K u n i s z: Mennictwo..., pp. 59—60; W. B o r u c h: “Pro- paganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza”..., pp. 341—358; I d e m: Studies in the History..., pp. 86—124. 99 RPC I no. 2322 (Assos), no. 2380 (Thyatira), no. 2461 (Mostene), no. 2475 (Smyrna), nos. 2620—2624 (Ephesus), no. 2665 (Nysa), nos. 3064—3065 (Cadi), nos. 3101—3103 (Aezani), no. 3221 (Cotiaeum), no. 3246 (Philomelium). See A.A. B a r r e t t: Agrippina..., p. 109. 100 RPC I no. 2620 (Ephesus). See J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., pp. 75—76, who indicated that it reflects rather provincial than imperial notion of this important event for the imperial family. 101 See RPC I, p. 499 (nos. 3102—3103 Aezani), p. 497 (3064—3065 Cadi), pp. 521—522 (3246 Philomelium). The custom of determining the denomination by the use of portraits of members of the imperial family on the obverse was continued during the reign of Flavian dynasty — RPC II, pp. 17, 122 and 124. 102 RPC I no. 2225 — the imperial issue from Ephesus, no. 2371 (Pergamum — a coin shared with Britannicus), no. 2381 (Thyatira), nos. 2403—2404 (Elaea), no. 2462 (Mostene), no. 2476 (Smyrna), no. 2625 (Ephesus), nos. 2879—2880 (Cidrama), no. 2916 (Laodicea), no. 2972 (Hierapolis), no. 3248 (Philomelium). See also W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza”..., pp. 341—358. 103 RPC I no. 2225 = RIC I2 (Claud.) no. 121. See A. K u n i s z: Mennictwo..., p. 60. 100 Wojciech Boruch

Hierapolis and Philomelium.104 The mints of Laodicea and Hierapolis presented Nero, following the pattern of Britannicus, on the obverse of the smaller denomination and the larger featured Claudius. In the case of Philomelium it is surprising that the largest denomination was devoted to Agrippina, while the smaller one to the reigning emperor and Nero. Despite the fact that Nero was the appointed heir, the Asian coinage presented the images of both sons of Claudius also after A.D. 51. It is not surprising given the fact that the propagation of the portrait of Britannicus was fairly widespread in the first part of the reign of Claudius and there was a well established tradition of honouring two sons of the emperor, even if one of them enjoyed a stronger political position.105 During the reign of Nero the coins struck in Asia very frequently presented the image of the emperors’ mother.106 Agrippina, as the wife and the priest- ess of the deified predecessor of Nero, provided an important link between the two principates and strengthened the legitimacy of her son as the successor of Claudius.107 It is worth noting that in contrast to the other provinces in the East, the Asian mints did not strike any posthumous coins honouring the deified Claudius. A unique manner of presenting the imperial family was used on an issue of Methymna. The reverse shows the busts of Agrippina and Octavia, while the obverse depicts Nero.108 This coin may confirm cordial relations between these two women.109 The portrait of Agrippina appeared on the obverse together with the portrait of Nero on coins from Ilium, Pergamum, Smyrna, Cilbiani Superiores, Orthosia, Synaus and Apamea. A joint portrait of mother and son certainly testifies to the partnership of Agrippina and simulta-

104 Regarding the coins of Smyrna — see differently D.A.O. K l o s e: Die Münzprägung von Smyrna..., p. 12. 105 For example Gaius and Lucius Caesares under Augustus or Germanicus and Drusus the Younger under Tiberius. See A.A. B a r r e t t: Agrippina..., pp. 98 and 117; C.B. R o s e: Dy- nastic Commemoration..., pp. 42—43; W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiu sza”..., pp. 341—358. 106 Her image appears on coins from Ilium (RPC I no. 2316), Methymna (RPC I no. 2341), Mytilene (RPC I no. 2349), Pergamum (RPC I no. 2372), Hierocaesarea (RPC I nos. 2386—2388), Pitane (RPC I no. 2395), Elaea (RPC I no. 2406), Cyme (RPC I no. 2434), Phocaea (RPC I nos. 2444—2445), Magnesia-ad-Sipylum (RPC I nos. 2457—2458), Smyrna (RPC I nos. 2478—2479), Teos (RPC I no. 2517), Cilbiani Superiores (RPC I no. 2565), Samos (RPC I nos. 2685—2686), Halicarnassus (RPC I no. 2722), Euromus (RPC I nos. 2799—2800), Alabanda (RPC I no. 2823), Orthosia (RPC I nos. 2825—2826), Heraclea (RPC I no. 2862), Laodicea (RPC I no. 2918), Hierapolis (RPC I nos. 2977, 2979, 2981, 2983), Philadelphia (RPC I no. 3042), Synaus (RPC I no. 3107), Apamea (RPC I no. 3136), Eumenea (RPC I nos. 3151—3152), Sebaste (RPC I no. 3156), Acmonea (RPC I nos. 3172—3173), Iulia (RPC I nos. 3192—3193), Docimeum (RPC I nos. 3214—3215). See A.A. B a r r e t t: Agrippina..., p. 167. 107 See J. B u r n s: Great Women..., pp. 71—72; J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., p. 77. 108 RPC I no. 2341 (Methymna). 109 See Tac., Ann. 13.18. See J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., pp. 43—44. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 101 neously indicates that these coins were surely struck at the outset of the reign of Nero. And an issue of Synaus depicts the divine status of both Agrippina and Nero.110 Similarly the coins of Cyme feature Agrippina on the reverse with the legend ΘΕAN AΓPIΠΠINAN and Nero on the obverse ΘΕON NΕPΩNA KYMAIΩN.111 The divinity of the emperors’ mother was also emphasized by the issues of Mytilene, where Agrippina was shown on the reverse as ΘΕA AΓPIΠΠINA CΕBACTH MYTI,112 Hierocaesarea, which describes her on the obverse as AΓPIΠΠINAN ΘΕAN CΕBACTHN,113 and Samos styling her as ΘEA AΓPIΠΠEIN or AΓPIΠΠINA ΘEOMHTΩR.114 The larger denomination from Samos shows the juxtaposed busts of Agrippina and Nero on the obverse, while the obverse of the smaller denomination was fully devoted to the mother of the emperor. And in Acmonea Agrippina was equipped with the divine attributes of Demeter.115 It is worth noting that Agrippina had never obtained the honour of deification in Rome. Furthermore, the image of Agrippina appears repeatedly on the obverse of the smaller denomination, whereas the larger one was dedicated to her son, e.g. in Pitane, Elaea, Teos, Halicarnassus, Ala- banda, Heraclea, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, Eumenea, Sebaste, Iulia and Docimeum. Nevertheless, her portrait was shown also on the obverse of the larger denomination in Phocaea.116 The mints in Magnesia-ad-Sipylum and Euromus presented the emperors’ mother on two issues. The first depicts the common portrait of Agrippina and Nero on the obverse, while the latter shows Agrippina on the reverse and Nero on the obverse. The coinage struck in the Asian mints also presented the consecutive wives of Nero. The portrait of Octavia appeared in Methymna, Teos and Sardis.117 A coin of Methymna features her on the reverse together with the image of Agrippina.118 In Teos Octavia was shown on the obverse but with the diversified way of inscribing her name,119 while the issues of Sardis emphasize divine status of Octavia describing her ΘEAN OKTAOYIAN or ΘEAN OKTABIAN.120 It must be stressed that Octavia, as Agrippina the Younger, was never dei-

110 RPC I no. 3107 (Synaus). 111 RPC I no. 2434 (Cyme). See J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., p. 78. 112 RPC I no. 2349 (Mytilene). Portrait of Nero on the obverse. 113 RPC I nos. 2386—2388 (Hierocaesarea). 114 RPC I nos. 2685—2686 (Samos). See J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., p. 78. 115 RPC I no. 3172 (Acmonea). See J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., p. 78. See further for the assimilation of Agrippina with Demeter — pp. 97—105. 116 RPC I nos. 2444—2445 (Phocaea). See J. G i n s b u r g: Representing Agrippina..., p. 77. 117 RPC I no. 2341 (Methymna), nos. 2518—2520 (Teos), nos. 2998—3001 (Sardis). 118 RPC I no. 2341 (Methymna). See above footnote 109. 119 RPC I nos. 2518 (Teos) — OKTAOYIAN, 2519 (Teos) — OKTAOYIA (a star next to the bust of Octavia may indicate her divine status), 2520 (Teos) — OKTA(B)IA. 120 RPC I nos. 2998—3001 (Sardis). See L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., p. 38; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 48. 102 Wojciech Boruch fied. The second wife of Nero, Poppaea Sabina, was depicted on the issues of Thyatira, Magnesia-ad-Sipylum, Smyrna, Ephesus, Laodicea, Ancyra, Acmonea and perhaps Sardis.121 The coins of Magnesia-ad-Sipylum, Smyrna, Ephesus and Ancyra present her on the obverse together with Nero. In Thyatira and Smyrna her portrait was placed on the reverse while the obverse was occupied by her husband. In Laodicea and Acmonea Poppaea appeared on the obverse of the smaller denomination whereas the larger one featured Nero. And on a coin of Smyrna she was depicted as Nike with a wreath and a cornucopia and the legend NΕIKH ΠO(Π)ΠAIA ZMY(P).122 The last wife of Nero, Statilia Messalina, was shown on the issues of Hypaepa and Ephesus.123 The coins of Hypaepa feature the juxtaposed portraits of Statilia Messalina and Nero on the obverse. One issue of Ephesus presents Statilia on the obverse while the other on the reverse. The marriage of Nero and Statilia Messalina took place just before his journey to Greece and the Arvals indicate that they travelled together. She was therefore the first imperial woman since Agrippina the Elder, who accompanied her husband during a long Eastern journey and received honours both in Greece as well as in Asia Minor.124

*** The Principate as a specific form of hereditary monarchy required diverse means of ideological transfer by drawing on both traditional republican patterns as well as those of Hellenistic kingdoms. In the East the familial propaganda during the early principate served not only the need of promoting the imperial family but also continued a long lasting tradition rooted in existing local patterns. Traditional attachment to the presentation of the image of the ruler encouraged numerous cities to introduce a notably wider range of members of the imperial family than in the imperial coinage. The cities honoured the emperors in line with the Hellenistic model, depicting them as the founders, saviours and benefactors, and frequently identified other members of the dynasty with specific, visibly determined deities. The towns and regions which enjoyed legendary ties with Aphrodite accepted the claims of gens Julia to Trojan ancestry without question. In the Greek East there were numerous cases of honouring

121 RPC I no. 2383 (Thyatira), no. 2459 (Magnesia-ad-Sipylum), nos. 2482, 2486 (Smyrna), nos. 2629—2630 (Ephesus), no. 2924 (Laodicea), no. 3111 (Ancyra), no. 3175 (Acmonea). RPC I no. 3010 (Sardis). See also L. M o r a w i e c k i: Kobiety na monetach starożytnych..., pp. 38—39; C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 49. 122 RPC I no. 2486 (Smyrna). A less explicit assimilation of Poppaea with Nike may repre- sent a coin of Sardis (RPC I no. 3010). See D.A.O. K l o s e: Die Münzprägung von Smyrna..., pp. 14—15. 123 RPC I nos. 2543—2545 (Hypaepa), nos. 2631—2632 (Ephesus). 124 See C.B. R o s e: Dynastic Commemoration..., p. 49; E.M. S m a l l w o o d: Documents illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero. Cambridge 1967, no. 26, 1.8. The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 103 members of the imperial family that did not even hold any official posts or offices. Furthermore, the mints in this province perhaps intentionally competed in the propagation of specific members of the ruling dynasty.125 The promotion of ideas and mottos was aided in this area by a developed market economy and could reach out to the widest social strata. The central administration exercised a general supervision of the minting activity, which might eventually have influenced the themes of provincial and local issues given the fact that it possessed the right of granting and suspending the privilege of striking coins. The themes presented on the coinage were also determined by the mutual relations between the city and the emperor. The towns looked for protection, financial benefits and honorific titles, which became the focus of intense rivalry between the cities for the emperors’ favour.126 Thanks to the coinage, and especially its iconography, we can now trace back the interplay of the Greek and Roman patterns in coinage imagery. The provincial mints regularly adapted the obverses of the imperial mint. Likewise, the imperial coinage adapted the Hellenistic manner of depicting the ruler and the members of his family, especially the common portrait on the obverse of the coins. In contrast to the obverse, the provincial reverses were still dominated by local themes and the struggle for status of the cities. However, there was a clear shift towards a wider thematic diversity and references to the emperor and his family.127 Finally, it has to be stressed that precise dating of the issues remains an open question, which substantially constrains our ability to assess the actual intentions of the issuers.

Abbreviations IGR — Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertnentes. Ed. R. C a g n a t, J. T o u t a i n. Vol. 4. Paris 1928. RPC I 2006 — A. B u r n e t t, M. A m a n d r y, P. R i p o l l e s: Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 B.C.—A.D.69). London. RPC II 1999 — A. B u r n e t t, M. A m a n d r y, I. C a r r a d i c e: Roman Provincial Coinage. Vol. II: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69—96). London. RIC I2 1999 — C.H.V. S u t h e r l a n d: The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. I revised edition: From 31 B.C. to A.D. 69. London. RRC 1974 — M.H. C r a w f o r d: Roman Republican Coinage. London.

125 See C. H o w g e g o: Ancient History..., pp. 85—87; R. S a j k o w s k i: Divus Augustus..., pp. 242—245; W. B o r u c h: “Propaganda dynastyczna cesarza Klaudiusza”..., pp. 341—358. 126 See P. We i s s: “The Cities and their Money.” In: Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Eds. C. H o w g e g o, V. H e u c h e r t, A. B u r n e t t. Oxford and New York 2005, pp. 57—68; C. A n d o: Imperial Ideology..., pp. 131—134, 168—174; C. H o w g e g o: Ancient History..., pp. 84—87. 127 See V. H e u c h e r t: “Chronological Development...,” pp. 44—46; P. Z a n k e r: Au- gust..., pp. 299—303; M.R. A l f ö l d i: Bild und Bildersprache..., pp. 51—53. 104 Wojciech Boruch

Wojciech Boruch

Rola propagandy rodzinnej w mennictwie prowincji Azja w okresie panowania dynastii julijsko-klaudyjskiej

Streszczenie

Początek obecności Rzymian na terenie Azji Mniejszej wiąże się z osobą Atallosa III, który w swym testamencie przekazał rządzone przez siebie Królestwo Pergamonu Republice Rzym- skiej. Pryncypat jako specyficzna forma monarchii dziedzicznej wymagał odmiennych środków przekazu ideologicznego zarówno od tradycyjnych wzorców republikańskich, jak i królestw hellenistycznych. Na szczególną uwagę zasługują źródła numizmatyczne, które, docierając do najszerszych kręgów społecznych, stanowiły znakomity środek przekazu informacji i idei w świe- cie antycznym. Na Wschodzie propaganda rodzinna w epoce pryncypatu realizowała potrzebę promowania własnej rodziny, jak też kontynuowała wielowiekową tradycję związaną z zastanymi wzorcami hellenistycznymi. Na przykładzie ikonografii na monetach można zauważyć wzajemny wpływ wzorów greckich i rzymskich odnośnie do sposobu prezentacji postaci. W okresie panowania dynastii julijsko-klaudyjskiej propagowanie członków rodziny cesar- skiej, a zwłaszcza przewidywanych następców tronu miało szczególne znaczenie dla utrwalania idei dynastycznych. Cechą charakterystyczną mennictwa na Wschodzie, w tym szczególnie w prowincji Azji, było nie tylko ukazywanie postaci następców tronu, lecz także żon i innych kobiet z otoczenia pryncepsa, czego nie praktykowano w mennictwie imperialnym do czasów Kaliguli. Mennice prowincjonalne w Azji propagowały członków najbliższej rodziny cesarza jako ubó- stwionych, choć nigdy oficjalnie za takich w Rzymie nie uchodzili. Od czasów Kaliguli dostrze- galna jest silna tendencja do upamiętniania zmarłych członków rodziny. Propaganda dynastyczna w sposób szczególny była widoczna za panowania cesarza Klaudiusza, gdy miasta propagowały przede wszystkim bardzo intensywnie dwóch potencjalnych następców pryncepsa — Brytanika i Nerona. Mennictwo małoazjatyckie w sposób szczególny propagowało także postać Agryppiny Młodszej, co potwierdza jej szczególny status za panowania Klaudiusza i Nerona. W końcu cechą charakterystyczną mennictwa wybijanego przez miasta prowincji było rozróżnianie nominałów monet przez umieszczenie na awersie wizerunków odpowiednich członków rodziny panującego.

Wojciech Boruch

Le rôle de la propagande familiale dans la monnaie de la province d’Asie sous le règne de la dynastie Julio-Claudienne

R é s u m é

Le début de la présence des Romains sur le territoire de l’Asie Mineure est lié à la personne d’Attale III, qui a légué dans son testament le Royaume de Pergame à la République romaine. Le principat, comme forme spécifique de monarchie héréditaire, exigeait des moyens de communication idéologique différents, de même de la part des modèles républicains traditionnels, que des royaumes hellénistiques. Les sources numismatiques, qui en touchant les plus larges cercles sociaux constituaient un excellent moyen de transmission des informations et des idées dans le monde antique, attirent particulièrement l’attention. À l’Orient, la propagande familiale à l’époque The Role of Familial Propaganda in the Coinage of the Province of Asia... 105 du principat réalisait de même le besoin de promouvoir la famille, que continuait la tradition ancienne liée aux modèles hellénistiques présents. À l’exemple de l’iconographie sur les pièces de monnaie on peut observer une influence réciproque des modèles grecs et romains concernant la présentation du personnage. Pendant le règne de la dynastie Julio-Claudienne, la propagation des membres de la famille impériale, et surtout des héritiers du trône attendus, avait une signification particulière pour la consolidation des idées dynastiques. Le trait caractéristique de la monnaie à l’Orient, et plus spécifiquement dans la province d’Asie, était non seulement de montrer des personnages des héritiers du trône, mais aussi leurs épouses et autres femmes de l’entourage du princeps, ce qui n’était pas pratiqué dans la monnaie impériale dès temps de Caligula. Les monnaies provinciales en Asie propageaient les membres de la famille la plus proche de l’empereur comme déifiés, bien qu’officiellement à Rome ils ne le soient jamais. À partir du temps de Caligula on observe une forte tendance à mémoriser des membres décédés de la famille. La propagande dynastique était particulièrement visible à l’époque du césar Claude, quand les villes propageaient avant tout de manière très intense deux héritiers potentiels du princeps : Britannicus et Néron. La monnaie de l’Asie Mineure propageait également le personnage d’Agrippine la Jeune, ce qui confirme son statut spécial sous le règne de Claude et Néron. Le trait caractéristique de la monnaie des villes provinciales était la différenciation des valeurs de la pièce à l’aide des images des membres de la famille impériale sur la face de la pièce. Krzysztof Ścisło

The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy (98—117 A.D.) Outline of Issues

Early in A.D. 981 when Marcus Ulpius Traianus started his reign, Roman Empire included all areas of the Mediterranean Sea basin. It stretched out from the Spanish coast of the Atlantic in the West to the biblical grounds of Syria in the East. In the North its borders were marked out by the Danube and the Rhine and northern lands of Britannia. In the South the Empire reached the scorching sands of today’s Sahara. Asia Minor constituted the greatest part of that territory. The sources which are at researchers’ disposal concerning Trajan’s rule are unsatisfactory. This study focuses on provincial affairs during the reign of Trajan, therefore substantial information is drawn from the epistolary output of Pliny the Younger,2 who was the administrator of Bithynia in Trajan’s days. Pliny’s Letters let the reader get to know the Caesar as an administrator of the part of Imperium Romanum, as well as his internal policy concerning the Roman Empire in those days. There are also a few epigraphic materials which were found in various places of Asia Minor’s provinces. However, they were found in different catalogues,3 which hindered the work. Those documents

1 All dates given in this study refer to the years after the birth of Christ (A.D.). 2 Plinius Caecilius Secundus Minor, Epistulae. 3 For researchers the most important catalogues which contain Latin inscriptions are Cor- pus Inscriptionum Latinarum and Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ed. H. D e s s a u, vols. 1—3. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 107 constitute the main sources. Single sentences, or longer utterances concerning these issues can be found in the works of Procopius from Caesarea,4 Aelius Aristides5 and Cassius Dio.6 The beginning of the Roman administration for Asia Minor’s areas reaches back to 129 B.C. when Asia province was established. It came into existence from grounds of Pergamon Kingdom, which was inherited from its last ruler Attalos III. Therefore, 129 B.C. can be assumed as the turning point for the Roman authorities, as they commenced developing in a new part of the world. However, at the times when Caesar Trajan started his reign the Roman world differed completely from what the Republic had known. The situation in provinces of the Empire (particularly in eastern ones) varied substantially from one in the last years of the Republic, when they were characterized by fast and gruelling exploitation. In Rome no one raised objections against such kind of management in provinces at that time. Only e.g. Sulla, Pompeius and Gaius Iulius Caesar were among these who tried to oppose this practice. The politics of the first princeps was quite unlike others. From the times of the reign of Augustus the most important thing for the Roman policy on the whole eastern territory was well considered economic exploitation for Italy’s prosperity.7 Italy could not manage without its provinces and was more and more dependent on them. In the 1st century, rulers of Roman Empire (at least most of them) wanted to integrate provincial areas with Italy, maintaining its primacy in the Empire at the same time. Caesar Trajan’s policy towards the provinces of Asia Minor was similar. Rome changed its policy, which led to an increase in the agricultural and craft production, as well as trade boom in the provinces. Richer eastern provinces were successfully incorporated into Roman economic system. Beginnings of the Empire Period were characterized by economic development and an increase of significance of provinces’ inhabitants which let the provinces integrate within the Empire.8 The integration policy of the lands and people was carried out in a few basic aspects. Urban development in provinces was the first noticeable sign of

Berlin 1892—1916). Inscriptions in Greek language can be found e.g. in Inscriptiones Graecae and Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes (ed. R. C a g n a t, vols. 1—4. Paris 1906—1927). The best collection of Latin inscriptions is L’année Épigrafique. This is a kind of base, which is updated regularly. 4 Procopius, De aedificiis. 5 Aelius Aristides, Orationes. 6 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana (mainly on Parthian war). 7 M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski. Prowincje i społeczeństwa prowincjonalne we wschodniej części basenu Morza Śródziemnego w okresie od Augusta do Sewerów (31 B.C — 235 A.D.). Wrocław 1997, p. 60. 8 T. Ł o p o s z k o: Zarys dziejów społecznych Cesarstwa Rzymskiego. Lublin 1989, pp. 10 ff. 108 Krzysztof Ścisło such policy. At the times of the Trajan reign the territory of Asia Minor was urbanized in high degree, but it was not the same on its whole area. It was connected with two issues. Firstly, Hellenization of these grounds decided on it. The western part of the peninsula had been strongly Hellenized long before Romans’ arrival, as there had been a lot of Greek towns and colonies and there had been numerous Greek harbours on the coast. Hellenization went on to the East and it was followed by development of settlements and towns. Secondly, Anatolia’s geographical conditions have to be taken into consideration. Anato- lia could be divided into two crucial parts: the Mediterranean Sea coast in the West and South and the Black Sea coast in the North, which were beneficial for urbanization and, on the other hand, the middle part of the peninsula, which was covered with mountains which made some places inaccessible. Not many towns were founded in the 2nd century. It is assumed that Trajan founded some colonies mainly in Asia,9 a few towns came into existence under the reign of Hadrian (117—138).10 However, emperors who ruled in those years supported development of existing Greek poleis considerably,11 which contributed to urban development in provinces. Existing settlements became towns as for example Melitene in Cappadocia.12 The peak of the activity in the cities of Asia Minor fell on the times of Trajan’s reign. Due to the upper class new public service buildings were built and old ones were improved. Rich people kept an eye on beauty of their towns and in that way they provided their inhabitants with comfort and wealth. Vapour baths, churches and theatres were built at that times. Local governments cooperated effectively, as this activity was managed by the local euergets. It was demanded that decurions contributed to development of towns in the form of financial or material support e.g. building different kinds of public service buildings.13 The best example is Ephesos — one of the greatest and most beautiful towns of Asia’s provinces. It successfully rivalled with Smyrna and Pergamon — other great cities of that province. An Ephesian theatre was built in Hellenistic times and it was rebuilt under the reign of Trajan.14 The building of the splendid Celsus’ library, which was commenced by Consul Gaius Iulius Aquila, who came from Ephesos, started in 110. The library was finished under the reign of

9 A.N. S h e r w i n - W h i t e: The Roman Citizenship. Oxford 1973, pp. 253 ff. 10 Caesar Hadrian founded three towns in Misia: Hadrianutherae, Hadrianeia and Hadrianoi. Cf. M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., p. 327. 11 G. A l f ö l d y: Historia społeczna starożytnego Rzymu. Poznań 1998, p. 145. 12 Procopius, III, 4. Maybe it happened in A.D. 114, when Trajan was in this place because of the Parthian campaign’s outbreak. Probably at the Vespasian’s times Melitene was turned into an entrenched camp for a legion. Afterwards it became a big settlement. That was quite common in those days. 13 G. A l f ö l d y: Historia społeczna..., p. 175. 14 J.A. O s t r o w s k i: Między Bosforem a Eufratem: Azja Mniejsza od śmierci Aleksandra Wielkiego do najazdu Turków seldżuckich. Wrocław 2005, p. 200. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 109

Hadrian in 135.15 Another example is so-called Trajan’s fountain. A huge statue presenting Trajan used to be in front of it.16 One should also take a notice that in the discussed period new buildings such as vapour baths and aqueducts were built in Greek towns of Asia Minor, which can be treated as aspiration to widespread achievements of Roman architecture. Regular enlargement of the road system was beneficial for the integration of provinces with other parts of Roman Empire. In the provinces of Asia Minor the road system developed from the beginning of Roman administration on that territory.17 Although all roads which were built at the Empire’s time in Asia Minor were certainly very important for those provinces, the Roman contribution to building of the whole road system on that territory was rather insignificant.18 In Trajan’s days19 some new roads innovations were made. They were aiming at improvement of communication between respective provinces as e.g. road between Miletos and Didyma which despite limited importance was a route in viae publicae category. However, in this case, in Edward Dąbrowa’s opinion, Caesar’s decision was rather a sign of his favour than an element of a bigger building plan.20 Trajan also commenced building of a track connecting Antioch with Filomelium.21 In turn in Bithynia, which is not far from Prusa, a milestone dated from last years of Trajan’s reign was discovered on the road from Niko- media to Gangra.22 At the times of his reign the existing tracks were repaired and improved.23 Creating of the network of beaten roads was very important from the point of view of the army and economy. Due to good road system troops were able to relocate quickly to a place being in danger not only in a borderland of the Empire. Bands of robbers prowling the country constituted a real plague in Asia Minor, especially in Cilicia, Isauria and Mysia. Intensive urban and road system development destroyed regularly safe places where they could quarter. In this way safety of inhabitants of provinces grew.24

15 Ibidem, p. 201. 16 Ibidem, p. 202. 17 E. D ą b r o w a: “Rozwój rzymskiej sieci drogowej w Azji Mniejszej w dobie wczesnego Cesarstwa.” W: Prowincje rzymskie i ich znaczenie w ramach Imperium. Red. M. J a c z y n o w s - k a, J. Wo l s k i. Wrocław—Warszawa—Kraków—Gdańsk 1976, p. 10; J. W i e l o w i e j s k i: Na drogach i szlakach Rzymian. Warszawa 1984, p. 156. 18 E. D ą b r o w a: “Rozwój rzymskiej sieci drogowej...”, p. 17; cf. D. F r e n c h: “The Ro- man Road System of Asia Minor.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II. 7.2. New York—Berlin 1980. 19 Here it must be noticed that only caesar could agree to build new tracks or repair old ones according to the Roman law. Cf. E. D ą b r o w a: “Rozwój rzymskiej sieci drogowej...”, p. 12. 20 E. D ą b r o w a: “Rozwój rzymskiej sieci drogowej...”, p. 14. 21 J. W i e l o w i e j s k i: Na drogach i szlakach Rzymian..., p. 158. 22 Ibidem, p. 15. 23 The Cambridge Ancient History XI, 2nd edn.: The High Empire, AD 70—192. Cambridge 2008, p. 618 (hereafter CAH). 24 M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., p. 188. 110 Krzysztof Ścisło

Regular development of the system of beaten roads was very important for full growth of trade in the area of Asia Minor. In the Early Empire’s period the land trade was expensive and therefore it was unprofitable, especially taking into consideration the geographic conditions of Asia Minor. Therefore, only few provinces could really participate in overland trade exchange outside the borders of the Empire. In Trajan’s days one from the most important tracks was route connecting Byzantium, which was one of the biggest trade centres between Europe and Asia, with Cyzicos and through Pergamon further southwards to Ephesos. Then goods reached Corinthos or went through Rhodes to Alexandria or Antioch by one of main sea trade routes, and what is important — other goods were sent back. Due to such trading conditions the province called Asia became the richest Roman province in Asia Minor. Besides active urbanization, Trajan’s policy of integration was also reflected in giving a Roman nationality to citizens of the provinces.25 In this way he continued the policy of caesars who ruled the Roman Empire in the 1st century. Number of inhabitants of province who obtained this privilege increased in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Empire. First of all the, representatives of the local noble houses and great landowners received the Roman citizenship and due to this privilege more and more frequently became senators in the 1st century.26 During the reign of Nero (54—68) there were only about fifty senators coming from the provinces. The reign of Nero itself and the civil war led to fall of many aristocratic families. Caesar Vespasian (69—79), the only victor of eventful years 68—69 was forced to reach for reserves in the provinces.27 Most of them were representatives of provinces such as Asia and Galacia.28 In Trajan’s days, number of homines novi in the Senate coming from provinces kept growing, and under the reign of An- toninus Pius (138—161) that number was equalled with Italics. At the times of the participate of Marcus Aurelius (161—180) there were more senators coming from provinces than Italics in the composition of the Curia.29 Tadeusz Łoposzko points to incredibly great fortunes of some provincial senators and the fact that there were descendants of former royal families among them.30

25 See F.F. A b b o t t, A.C. J o h n s o n: Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton 1926. 26 On composition of the Senate in 1st century and in the beginning of 2nd century see R.J.A. T a l b e r t: The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton 1984, and M. H a m m o n d: “Composition of the Senate, AD 68—235.” Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 47, 1957, pp. 74 ff. 27 On change of composition of the Senate from Flavius’ time see: R.J.A. T a l b e r t: The Senate of Imperial Rome..., pp. 33 ff. 28 T. Ł o p o s z k o: Zarys dziejów społecznych..., p. 14; G. A l f ö l d y: Historia społeczna..., p. 163. E. D ą b r o w a transfers penetrating Galats into the Roman Senate not before Hadrian’s time. Cf. E. D ą b r o w a: “Pozycja społeczna galackiej arystokracji i jej podstawy gospodarcze I—III w. n.e.” Eos, vol. LXIII, 1975, p. 133. 29 T. Ł o p o s z k o: Zarys dziejów społecznych..., p. 14 30 Ibidem. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 111

Later senators coming from the provinces of Asia Minor became well known in Rome and began to hold offices in provincial administration. Some of them were administrators of provinces, too. They often managed provinces which they knew very well because they came from them. Caesar Trajan did not also keep off from appointing representatives of native aristocracy to leading positions in provincial administration continuing Flavius’ family policy, particularly Vespasian’s one. C. Antius A. Julius Quadratus and C. Julius Quadratus Bassus who came from Pergamon can serve as examples. First of them was the proconsul of the Asia province in 109—110,31 whereas the second one was the governor for Cappadocia-Galatia in 107—110. Tiberius Julius Celsus Polemaeanus from Sardes in Lydia was proconsul of Asia in 105—106.32 According to Caesar Augustus’ suggestion, the position of the governor and other offices of the Roman administration underwent fundamental changes. One of the most important ones was introduction of salary, which was paid to governors of emperor’s and senate provinces.33 The aim of introduction of remunerations was to cease abusing of power by the Roman officials. In Asia and Africa, which were the richest Roman provinces and where holding an office of a governor was considered as the greatest success in officialdom, that salary probably amounted to one million sesterces a year.34 However, despite the fact that exploitation of provinces was limited to some extent, it was not eliminated totally.35 Provinces of Asia Minor had very inglorious past in that respect. At Tra- jan’s times there were also lawsuits against corruption practices. What were the reasons for these practices in Trajan’s days? Generally, two reasons are mentioned. First of all, it was excessive reserve of Trajan in using imperium maius,

31 He was also a proconsul in A.D. 105, probably as first senator coming from Asia Minor. Cf. J. B e n n e t t: Trajan. Optimus Princeps. Life and Times. London 1997, p. 110; E. D ą b r o w a: “Pozycja społeczna galackiej arystokracji...”, p. 134. 32 M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., p. 62; compare S. D m i t r i e v: City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford 2005, p. 222 and R. S y m e: Tacitus, vol. 1. Oxford 1958, p. 232. 33 Caesar Augustus divided all Roman provinces into emperor’s and senate ones. The main difference between these provinces was in electing a governor. In senate ones he was decided by a draw. In turn in emperor’s provinces he was chosen by emperor himself. The emperor of course controlled situation in senate provinces for example by excluding these candidates for an office who were not accepted by him. As a matter of fact in early Empire’s time no one became a governor without emperor’s approval in provinces belonging to the Curia. Rules of province partition between an emperor and a Roman Senate date from 27 B.C. Svetonius, Aug. 47. See R. S y m e: Rewolucja rzymska. Poznań 2009, pp. 317 ff, 327 ff; P. S o u t h e r n: Oktawian August. Warszawa 2003, pp. 164 ff; R.J.A. T a l b e r t: The Senate of Imperial Rome... , pp. 392 ff. 34 G. A l f ö l d y: Historia społeczna..., p. 159; R.J.A. T a l b e r t: The Senate of Imperial Rome..., p. 405. 35 In great part due to removal of populares partnership form the system of tax collection. 112 Krzysztof Ścisło which let the emperor inspect officials formally in the senate provinces. It was of particular importance because these were senate provinces where cases of abusing of power by the Roman administration were much more frequent than in emperor’s ones. Tadeusz Wałek-Czernecki claims that corruption in senate provinces was connected with short term of holding an office. The governors wanted to become rich as quickly as possible.36 Secondly, as for all Roman provinces — senate and emperor’s ones, another reason can be inheritance of bad governors after Caesar Nerva (96—98),37 who was Trajan’s antecedent. It is a reasonable opinion because embezzlements in provinces of Asia Minor mainly occurred in the first years of the Trajan’s twenty-year-reign. Bithynia province can serve as the best example of that time. The lawsuit of Julius Bassus,38 who was the proconsul of this province in 101—102, took place in the Senate in 103. Warenus Rufus, who became governor of Bithynia a few years later, acted against him on behalf of the local inhabitants of the province. In 106—107 he himself was accused of abusing of power at the time when he was the proconsul of the province.39 Inhabitants of Bithynia accused governors for taking gifts and repaying by different services. Charges were not too serious, but the situation in province was very strained and a quick response was expected. That is why Caesar Trajan decided to take government control over Bithynia temporarily and in about A.D. 11040 he sent Plinius Minor as his legate there.41 The emperor had to have confidence in Pliny, because this mission required special qualifications. Besides improving finances of province towns he had to

36 T. Wa ł e k - C z e r n e c k i: Historia gospodarcza świata starożytnego, t. II: Grecja—Rzym. Warszawa 1948, p. 306. 37 B e n n e t t notices that event. Cf. Trajan..., p. 116. 38 Pliny, Ep., VI, 29: “Broniłem Juliusza Bassusa, który postępował nieostrożnie i lekkomyślnie, lecz nie był to człowiek nieuczciwy: dzięki temu, że przekonałem sędziów, pozostał w senacie” (trans. by L. W i n n i c z u k) [‘I defended Julius Bassus, who behaved carelessly and rashly but he was an honest man. Thanks to that I persuaded judges to let Bassus stay in the Senate’]. Pliny statement cleared Bassus of guilt and he remained in the Register of Senators. Pliny probably convinced the Senate that Bassus did not know he was wrong though Pliny himself wrote: “The Law does not permit to take a gift” (Listy [Letters], IV, 9; trans. L. W i n n i c z u k). Cf. R.J.A. T a l b e r t: The Senate of Imperial Rome..., pp. 465, 500—501. 39 L. W i n n i c z u k: Pliniusz Młodszy w świetle swoich listów i mów. Warszawa 1987, p. 230; J. B e n n e t t: Trajan...., p. 116; R.J.A. T a l b e r t: The Senate of Imperial Rome..., p. 476. 40 In scientific writings the exact date of taking over a governor Office by Pliny the Younger is a question opened to discussion. See among others: M. R o s t o r z e f f: Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Oxford 1998, p. 358. In his opinion Pliny was sent to Bithynia in A.D. 111 not only to reorganize finances of towns and to manage the province, but above all to be on good terms with vassal the Bosporan Kingdom. It was one of the most important supply place for the Roman army in the East. 41 ILS 1024 The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 113 recover relationships between the Roman authorities and the inhabitants.42 It seems that a choice of Pliny as a legate was not accidental. The Trajan’s final decision was supported by Pliny’s military service in the East and his active participation in lawsuits in which governors of Bithynia were sentenced. The Emperor wrote to Pliny: “I see that citizens of Province learn about my goodwill, because you would do your best in order to show them that I had chosen you especially for them and I had sent you on my behalf. First of all you should check town accounts. It is generally known they are wrong.”43 Correspondence between Pliny and Trajan contains many interesting facts. Some of them show the Emperor’s policy towards the Roman Empire and common problems of all governors not only in provinces of Asia Minor. An- other part of letters shows home affairs which were to be dealt with by Pliny. Pliny’s work was characterized by playing safe and asking for Emperor’s advice in every case. Trajan entitled Pliny to act this way and due to his behaviour contemporary researchers are able to get to know the Emperor’s opinions on political, social and cultural life of the province. When Pliny arrived in Bithynia the situation was indeed difficult. The correspondence between the Governor and the Emperor shows Pliny’s work (accepted by Trajan) which was undertaken in order to heal relationships in the province. First of all the results of bad governing of the province for years could be noticed. During many journeys Pliny discovered new examples of dis- honesty and incompetence of officials in visited towns. Most of the cases were connected with embezzlement of public money. Both administration and those who carried out different works were involved in this practice.44 Pliny observed the biggest misappropriations of funds in building, as substantial amounts of money were involved in it. Construction of various public buildings started even several times in some towns.45 One can multiply examples, such as: aqueducts in Nicomedia,46 a theatre in Nicaea47 and vapour baths in Prusa.48 Pliny often used the Emperor’s help in order to redress all wrongs done in the past. In this way Trajan was recognized as the administrator of great Imperium Romanum who took care of inhabitants of Bithynia.

42 There was the lawsuit of Warenus Rufus in which people of Bithynia accused him of abusing of power one day and they recalled their objections to him another day. There was probably unknown for us conflict between Roman authorities and local officials. See L. W i n n i c z u k: Pliniusz młodszy..., p. 230. 43 Pliny, Ep., X, 20 (trans. R. Z i o ł e c k i). 44 Jones notices inspection of finance and realized that public works in all towns of province were not governor business; compare A.H.M. J o n e s: The Greek City. Oxford 1940, p. 136. 45 Cf. S. D m i t r i e v: City Government..., p. 195. 46 Pliny, Ep., X, 37. 47 Pliny, Ep., X, 39. 48 Pliny, Ep., X, 21. 114 Krzysztof Ścisło

Some important issues concerning Trajan’s policy can be seen in Pliny’s writings. Firstly, the Emperor respected the law given by previous emperors and he did his best not to change it if it was not necessary. Secondly, he made efforts in order to maintain law and order in provinces and tried also to raise a profile of Roman administration among inhabitants of provinces. Finally, he corrected faults of governors who were before Pliny and he made life of people of province better through building various public facilities. Trajan did not repeat his predecessors’ mistakes and did not incurred towns and their inhabitants with any costs. He was against any additional taxes. After all he sent Pliny to Bithynia for healing finances of towns and not damaging them. More attention should be paid to the issues connected with granting Civitas Romana under the Trajan’s reign again. Not only representatives of province aristocracy received the Roman citizenship. In first centuries of the Roman Empire the Roman Emperors often gave this privilege even to all communes. In the second half of 2nd century a lot of inhabitants of towns in provinces could take advantage of everything that was available only for the citizens of the Roman Empire. It means among others that Constitutio Antoniniana edited by Caesar Caracalla (211—217) in A.D. 212 was not so revolutionary event as it may seem. It only extended this privilege to lower social estates, or the most backward communities of Asia Minor.49 In one of his letters, Pliny the Younger shows how important having the Roman citizenship was. Issues concerning Christianity were among many problems which Pliny had to face during governing Bithynia. Christian communities developed actively at that time in Asia Minor. During one of his journeys Pliny visited Amisus where he probably met Christians for the first time. The local authorities demanded from the governor taking action against people accused of belonging to the Christian community.50 Pliny knew that they should be punished but he only did not know what the reason to do it could be. However, he decided to take legal action against these people. Every suspected was asked three times following question: “Are you a Christian?” If the accused did not renounce his faith, they was sentenced to death. One day there were citizens of Rome among the accused. In this case Pliny did not hesitate and sent them back to Rome immediately. It may seen that he was frightened in a way.51 Nevertheless upon reading Pliny’s report, Trajan is satisfied with the actions undertaken towards Christians. Generally Trajan’s policy towards the new cult (the new religion was treated this way in Rome) was assessed positively. At Trajan’s times persecutions were reduced, only in a few provinces one could

49 Cf. T. Ł o p o s z k o: Zarys dziejów społecznych..., p. 82. 50 Pliny, Ep. X, 96. 51 M. J o ń c a: Głośne rzymskie procesy karne. Wrocław 2009, pp. 251 ff. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 115 hear about them and it seemed the Roman administration of the Roman Empire was not involved in them.52 The military service was a very popular way to obtain the Roman citizenship at the times of Early Empire. Only citizens of Rome could serve in legions, but recruits who served in auxiliary troops (auxilia) did not have to posses citizenship. Soldiers received citizenship both in cavalry (alae) and infantry (cohortes)53 on the basis of diploma which they received after finishing the service. There were also Roman citizens in auxiliary troops. Up until Trajan’s times their number in cavalry was the same as the number of peregrines. How- ever, in infantry peregrines still constituted the majority.54 Due to the Trajan’s policy, who was eager to grant Roman citizenship, the number of citizens of Rome among all troops was growing gradually. Recruitment of legionnaires in provinces increased in the 1st century, as inhabitants of Italy were rarely eager to join the army.55 Under the Trajan’s reign, in Asia Minor recruitment to most of eastern legions took place mainly in Galatia. There was a great number of colonies of Roman veterans and their sons most often completed the ranks of legionnaires.56 Not many Roman troops were stationed in Asia Minor in first centuries of the Roman Empire. The situation was similar in the Roman East. It was probably connected with the lack of any threat from the neighbouring countries. In fact only Parthia, separated from Roman territory by buffer Armenia, could possibly constitute threat and was able to attack the Empire. At the end of the 1st century only two legions defended the eastern border of Asia Minor. In Satala57 was stationed the legion, the name of which remains unknown, and which was replaced by Legio XV Appolinaris by Trajan. In Melitene was Legio XII Fulminata, that was present in that place from Flavius’ times. In Samosata (in Commagena, a part of Syria) was stationed a legion which always remained in readiness in case of any danger. At the beginning of Trajan’s reign it was Legio III Gallica that was subsequently replaced with Legio XVI Flavia Firma.58 During the reign of Trajan there was a comeback to conquering policy. It was a period when the Roman Empire extended its territory and gained new provinces.59 In 113 on the eastern borders of the Empire some events gave

52 M. S i m o n: Cywilizacja wczesnego chrześcijaństwa. Warszawa 1981, p. 197. 53 C. We l l s: Cesarstwo rzymskie. Warszawa 2002, p. 154. 54 M. Wo j c i e c h o w s k a: “Dyplomy wojskowe jako źródło historyczne do badań nad nadawaniem obywatelstwa rzymskiego w okresie Cesarstwa.” Meander, t. 32, 1977. 55 T. Ł o p o s z k o: Zarys dziejów społecznych..., p. 78. 56 C. We l l s: Cesarstwo rzymskie..., p. 154. 57 Creation of legion camp in Satala was connected with incorporation of Commagene in A.D. 72. Cf. G. We b s t e r: The Roman Imperial Army. London 1985, p. 57. 58 M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., p. 78 ff. 59 Namely Dacia and Arabia Petraea. 116 Krzysztof Ścisło

Trajan chance to change borders of the Imperium Romanum. The Armenian issues appeared again. In 113 king Aksidares, who was in favour of the Roman Emperor, was dethroned by Osroes, the king of Parthia. Parthamasiris, prince of Parthia took Aksidares’ place.60 The rules of election of Armenian sovereign, which hed been worked out at the Nero’s times,61 were broken. Trajan decided on intervention.62 At this time Parthia, which had been considered as the Rome’s rival for years,63 was divided and had many domestic problems. Therefore, chances for success of military operation were substantial. Trajan not only wanted to extend borders of the Empire, but also desired to protect the eastern lands of Asia Minor against any possible danger particularly from Caucasus side.64 Armenia was of great importance for inspection of borders on Euphrates.65 Annexation of Armenia can be recognized as termination of province policy which Trajan continued after previous emperors who reigned in the 1st century. The army of Rome concentrated in Satala,66 a town which was built near the legion camp following Vespasian’s suggestion at Flavius’ times. Trajan and his attendance joined concentrated reinforcements in early 114. Late in May of 114, after the campaign quick as lightning, Armenia was proclaimed the province of Rome. That was recorded on several coins with inscription ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P[opuli] R[omani] REDACTAE.67 Arme- nia was the province of the Empire only for three years before Trajan’s death. The campaign went on. Trajan led the Roman army to the South, soon conquering the greater part of Parthia and bringing to life two new provinces: Mesopotamia and Assyria. However, soon the revolt broke out in the rear of the Roman Army, which made Trajan go back to the North. Uprising of the Jews in Cyrene and later in Egypt, Syria and Cyprus68 made the situation even worse. People of Parthia got back part of the previously conquered lands. Caesar

60 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 68, 17. 61 G. We b s t e r: The Roman Imperial Army..., pp. 43—44. 62 The most important works on Trajan’s Parthian campaign are: F.A. L e p p e r: Trajan’s Parthian War. Oxford 1948, and J. G u e y: Essai sur la guerre parthique de Trajan. Bucarest 1937. See also: R.P. L o n g d e n: “Notes on the Parthian Campaigns of Trajan.” Journal of Ro- man Studies, vol. 21, 1931; E.N. L u t t w a k: The Great Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century AD to the Third. Baltimore 1976. 63 S.P. M a t t e r n: Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate. Berkeley—Los Angeles—London 1999, p. 107. 64 It is mainly Alans tribe, which began to attack the northern borders of Armenia. But it was not until Hadrian’s reign when the military confrontation between the Empire and Alans broke out. 65 C. We l l s: Cesarstwo rzymskie..., p. 160. 66 A.R. B i r l e y: Hadrian. Cesarz niestrudzony. Warszawa 2002, p. 111. 67 The Roman Imperial Coinage II, no. 642 (Trajan). 68 See A. F u k s: “Aspects of the Jewish Revolt in AD 115—117.” Journal of Roman Stud- ies, vol. 51, 1961. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 117

Hadrian gave them the rest back after Trajan’s death.69 In turn Armenia became the client state again. Trajan’s activity leading to the extend of the Empire by conquered lands of Parthia is not assessed positively in literature, as it levied higher taxes for what Rome could not afford. Maintenance of the army cost much more than possible material benefits, which could be gained during the war, despite the fact that Parthia was a rich country. The number of soldiers in the Parthian army was similar to the number of soldiers who participated in the second Dacian war.70 It was probably from eleven to thirteen Roman legions.71 There was also a lot of auxiliary troops. Besides, there was a question of keeping control over conquered areas. Before Dacian wars two new legions which protected Danube border were formed. Only existing contingent was used in the Parthian campaign.72 The fortunes of representatives of the senate, who came from Asia Minor, have already been mentioned. An episode from the preparations to the Parthian campaign shows the size of those fortunes. Legions from the Danubian provinces walked to a place of concentration on the old track leading from Byzantium through Nicomedia, Nicaea, Iuliopolis, Ancyra and Sebasteia to Armenian border. In Ancyra all warriors (probably five legions!) were treated to by C. Julius Severus, the senator coming from that town.73 Trajan often relied on trusted people coming from provinces both in province administration affairs and military ones. The number of representatives of the senate increased along with the number of Roman aristocrats in greater part in provinces of Asia Minor. Under the reign of Trajan, Roman aristocracy composed greater part of commanders of Roman Army. One of the most important commanders of the Emperor was Quadratus Bassus.74 Roman provinces were of major importance in Trajan’s policy for home affairs, despite the fact that Trajan wanted to keep leading role of Italy in the whole Empire.75 For the Roman Empire provinces of Asia Minor were of great importance mainly because of economic affairs. Territory of Asia Minor was characterized by high standard of specialized craftwork and the location of the peninsula enabled active participation in trade with Central Asia and between European provinces and the Near East. Appropriate administration system was

69 9th of August 117. 70 S.P. M a t t e r n: Rome and the Enemy..., p. 93. 71 L e p p e r says about eleven legions, Trajan’s Parthian War...; p. 173 ff. Cf. Z. H a s z c z y c: “Wyprawa przeciw Partom w latach 114—117 i zwrot w polityce zagranicznej Cesarstwa rzymskiego po objęciu władzy przez Hadriana.” Meander, t. 30, 1975, which amounted to thirteen legions, p. 147. 72 S.P. M a t t e r n: Rome and the Enemy..., p. 104. 73 CAH XI, p. 619. 74 A.R. B i r l e y: Hadrian..., p. 107. 75 For example there were given orders for senators coming from province to locate the third part of fortune in grounds on Italian peninsula (Pliny, Ep., VI, 19). 118 Krzysztof Ścisło adopted in provinces of Asia Minor at the times of Trajan’s reign and it ensured successful economic exploitation of that territory.76 Monetary policy was an important issue for the state economy of the Ancient Rome. Standardized monetary system created by Caesar Augustus led to integration of Greek parts of the Empire with the rest of territories. Well organized monetary system served as a means of political stabilization of a state and led to rise in economy and development of trade.77 Provinces of Asia Minor minted most of the coins in the Roman Empire during the reign of Trajan.78 These province minted coins according to Greek coinage based on drachma often with inscriptions in Greek. A lot of towns and colonies in Asia Minor minted bronze coins, which were used for circulation for home market at that time. Greek towns, as well as colonies and municipal of Roman citizens had right of issuing autonomic coins.79 The largest concentration of workshops minting bronze coins under the reign of Trajan were placed in provinces: Asia, Bithynia, Pont and Galatia.80 Cyprus can be added to these provinces, as in 115—116 considerable number of asses was probably issued there.81 At the beginning of the 2nd century, money minted from silver was issued. The mint in Cappadocian Caesarea was of major importance at that time in Asia Minor. This workshop also minted bronze coins working since Tiberius’ (14—37) times till the reign of Gordian III (238—244).82 However, the mint reached the peak of production at the times of Trajan’s reign.83 It was connected with Trajan’s aspiration to centralize the whole eastern silver coins mints in Cae- sarea.84 That is why this workshop practically became the Central Eastern Mint and could not be compared to any other mint even the one in Syrian Antioch.85

76 J. B e n n e t t: Trajan..., p. 164. 77 Cf. A. K u n i s z: “Rola pieniądza proweniencji prowincjonalnej w systemie monetarnym Cesarstwa Rzymskiego.” W: Prowincje rzymskie i ich znaczenie w ramach Imperium. Red. M. J a c z y n o w s k a, J. Wo l s k i. Wrocław—Warszawa—Kraków—Gdańsk 1976, pp. 87 ff. 78 Trajan’s monetary policy will be discussed in another work. 79 A. K u n i s z: “Kryzys III wieku a mennictwo lokalne we wschodnich prowincjach Impe rium.” Antiquitas, vol. 21, 1995, p. 122; cf. H. M a t t i n g l y: Roman Coins: from the earliest times to the fall of the Western Empire. London 1967, p. 192. 80 H. M a t t i n g l y: Roman Coins..., p. 191. 81 H. M a t t i n g l y: Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. 3. London 1966, p. XII (farther BMCRE). 82 H. M a t t i n g l y: Roman Coins..., p. 190. 83 A. K u n i s z: “Srebrne mennictwo Cezarei kapadockiej za panowania Trajana (98—117).” ZNUJ, Prace Historyczne, t. 70, 1981, p. 40; cf. E.A. S y d e n h a m: The Coinage of Cesarea in Cappadocia. London 1935, p. 11 who says that coinage had a real monopoly for ore coins issue; cf. also W.E. M e t c a l f: The silver coinage of Cappadocia, Vespasian-Commodus. New York 1996, p. 55. 84 H. M a t t i n g l y: Roman Coins..., p.112. 85 BMCRE, vol. 3, p. XIII. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 119

Under the reign of Trajan, Caesarian’s workshop minted mainly drachmas, the weight of which was practically identical with the Roman denarius.86 The mint had issued hemidrachmas and tridrachmas since 99.87 Without any doubts the mint in Cappadocian Caesarea owes its particular importance to Trajan’s policy towards the East — Armenia and Parthia and to some extent also to Arabia. Mainly the time tells when coin issuing in this workshop reached the peak. It was the period of the sixth consulate of Caesar Trajan (years 112—117).88 There was no evidence of workshop which would be organized for needs of Parthian war, although the mint working from time to time in 114—115 and situated in unknown place in Armenia Minor could be treated as such. However, this workshop minted only bronze coins.89 In other parts of Asia Minor particular attention should be paid to mints in Asia province, which minted cistophoric tetradrachmas (value three denarius) at that time.90 However, it only took place in the first years of Trajan’s reign.91 Later this province received coins from mint in Cappadocian Caesarea.92 There were also other mints that minted silver coins, during the reign of Trajan e.g. workshops in Lycia, which issued drachmas.93 The issues were the most substantial in the first year of Trajan’s reign.94 Sydenham notices that coins which are said to have been minted in Lycia (because of the two lyres on reverse) could be in fact issued by the Cappadocian workshop.95 During Trajan’s twenty-year-reign the provincial coins in Asia Minor were of great importance mainly in 114—117 at the times of the Parthian campaign. The great number of bronze and silver coins were used to pay the troops and for supplies. It is crucial to notice the changes that were introduced by Trajan in Roman administration on the territory of Asia Minor, despite their minor importance for the whole organization of the provinces of peninsula. At the beginning of Trajan’s reign the territory of Asia Minor was divided into six provinces: Asia, Lykia and Pamphylia, Cappadocia-Galatia, Pontus-

86 E.A. S y d e n h a m: The Coinage of Cesarea..., p. 4. A silver coin was metrological examined by Walker: D.R. Wa l k e r: The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage, vol. 2. Oxford 1977. 87 E.A. S y d e n h a m: The Coinage of Cesarea..., p. 7. 88 Ibidem. 89 D.R. S e a r: Greek Imperial Coins and their values. The Local Coinages of the Roman Empire. London 2001, p. 91. 90 H. M a t t i n g l y: Roman Coins..., p. 190. 91 BMCRE, vol. 3, p. XII. 92 Ibidem, p. XIII. 93 See H. M a t t i n g l y: Roman Coins..., p. 190; BMCRE, vol. 3, p. XIII. 94 A. K u n i s z: “Drachmy licyjskie i pontyjskie w obiegu monetarnym na europejskich obszarach Cesarstwa Rzymskiego.” Historia i Współczesność, t. 5, 1979, p. 68. 95 E.A. S y d e n h a m: The Coinage of Cesarea..., p. 8. 120 Krzysztof Ścisło

Bithynia, Cylicia, and Cyprus. The changes, which were introduced by Trajan, concerned the double province — Cappadocia-Galatia. In 72 Caesar Vespasian connected these provinces along with Pont, Pisidia, Lycaonia and Isauria. At that time Lesser Armenia was also incorporated into that territory. In Trajan’s opinion it was too big a territory for a single governor, therefore the Emperor divided these two provinces, probably between 107—113.96 From that time in each of the new provinces Caesar’s legate became a governor in a rank of a proconsul. This was an important change because the governor of connected provinces was in fact governing the whole Middle Anatolia and he also controlled most of the Roman troops in Asia Minor. Provinces were of major importance in Trajan’s internal policy. The princeps often underlined the superior role of Italy in the Roman Empire, but at the same time he made numerous efforts in order to integrate respective provinces with Italy and create one state. It is obvious that Caesar Trajan concentrated on Dacia and Arabia — provinces which were founded by him. However, also provinces of Asia Minor developed and became richer under his reign. The title Optimus Princeps, that was given to this caesar-warrior during his life by the Senate, was also due to his policy towards provinces.

96 J.A. O s t r o w s k i: Między Bosforem a Eufratem..., p. 51. See also CAH XI, p. 611.

Translated by Dorota Konwińska

Krzysztof Ścisło

Prowincje małoazjatyckie w polityce cesarza Trajana (98—117 r. n.e.) Zarys problematyki

Streszczenie

Ze skąpych przekazów źródłowych, z których najważniejszym dla podjętego w niniejszym szkicu tematu jest epistolarna twórczość Pliniusza Młodszego, wyłania się obraz polityki prowincjonalnej cesarza Trajana. Główne jej założenia opierały się na dążeniu do integracji prowincji, w tym wypadku małoazjatyckich, z pozostałymi terytoriami państwa rzymskiego, zachowując jednakże prymat Italii w całości Cesarstwa. Integracja, o której mowa, odbywała się w kilku zasadniczych dziedzinach. Po pierwsze, cesarz Trajan prowadził w obrębie Azji Mniejszej ożywioną działalność urba- nizacyjną, która przejawiała się zarówno w zakładaniu nowych kolonii, głównie dla weteranów wojsk rzymskich, jak i w podnoszeniu statusu istniejących już osad do rangi municypiów. The Provinces of Asia Minor in Caesar Trajan’s Policy... 121

W znacznym stopniu także przyczynił się ów princeps do rozwoju sieci drogowej na tym terytorium, budując nowe, bądź reperując i ulepszając stare trakty. Po drugie, Trajan wydatnie wspierał rozwój miast greckich w prowincjach małoazjatyckich. Świadectwa Pliniusza dowodzą, że dbał o najdrobniejsze aspekty życia mieszkańców prowincji, starając się nie naruszać ich wolności i praw. Bardzo istotna dla cesarza była również polityka finansowa miast. Trajan starał się, aby ani nie nadwerężać w żaden sposób budżetu miast, ani kieszeni ich mieszkańców, między innymi nie obciążając ich bezpodstawnymi podatkami. Po trzecie, na rządy Trajana przypada apogeum działalności w miastach Azji Mniejszej pry- watnej inicjatywy budowlanej. Zamożni mieszkańcy miast sami dbali o piękno i rozwój swojego otoczenia. Trajan wspierał tego rodzaju aktywność. Po czwarte, cesarz Trajan chętnie przyznawał rzymskie obywatelstwo, zarówno osobom prywatnym, jak i całym gminom. Princeps kontynuował w ten sposób politykę cesarzy dynastii Flawiuszów, głównie zaś Wespazjana. Skutkiem tak prowadzonej polityki było coraz częstsze przenikanie przedstawicieli małoazjatyckich rodów arystokratycznych w szeregi rzymskich senatorów. Chętnie też korzystał Trajan z umiejętności senatorów pochodzących z prowincji i ich znajomości lokalnych realiów, przydzielając im najwyższe stanowiska w prowincjonalnej administracji. Małoazjatyccy ekwici, których liczba w początkach II wieku n.e. wydatnie wzrosła, zajmowali w armii cesarza Trajana wysokie stanowiska dowódcze. Po piąte, działalność na polu gospodarki w obrębie prowincji małoazjatyckich, wiązała się dla Trajana ze wspieraniem między innymi lokalnego mennictwa, co dzięki zunifikowanemu systemowi monetarnemu prowadziło nie tylko do integracji greckich części prowincji z pozosta- łymi terytoriami, lecz także do wzrostu gospodarczego i rozkwitu handlu, w którym mieszkańcy prowincji małoazjatyckich brali udział. Polityka Trajana w obrębie prowincji małoazjatyckich wiązałą się również z powrotem cesarza do polityki zdobywczej Cesarstwa. Chęć zabezpieczenia granicy na Eufracie i pokusa pogromienia państwa partyjskiego, które w 113 roku złamało postanowienia traktatu z czasów Nerona, detronizując sprzyjającego Rzymowi króla Armenii, doprowadziły do trzyletniej kam- panii przeciwko Partom (114—117). Wojna ta nie przyniosła jednakże trwałych nabytków tery- torialnych, a po śmierci cesarza latem 117 roku, jego następca, cesarz Hadrian, przywrócił na wschodnich rubieżach Cesarstwa status quo sprzed roku 113.

Krzysztof Ścisło

Provinces d’Asie Mineure dans la politique de l’empereur Trajan (98—117 apr. J.-C.) Note préliminaire

R é s u m é

Ce ne sont que de minces sources présentant l’image de la politique provinciale de l’empereur Trajan parmi lesquelles c’est la production épistolaire de Pline le Jeune qui est la plus importante en ce qui concerne le sujet abordé par cet essai. Ses principes basaient sur la tendance à l’intégration des provinces, en ce cas celles de l’Asie Mineure, avec les autres territoires de l’état romain, tout en conservant la prédominance de l’Italie dans l’Empire entier. L’intégration en question concernait quelques sphères principales. En premier lieu, l’empereur Trajan menait une grande activité d’urbanisation sur le territoire de l’Asie Mineure en fondant de nouvelles colonies, avant tout pour les vétérans des armées ro- 122 Krzysztof Ścisło maines, ainsi qu’en améliorant le statut des colonies existantes qui devenaient les municipalités, soit les villes. Ce princeps a également contribué d’une manière remarquable au développement du réseau routier sur ce territoire soit en construisant de nouvelles routes, soit en réparant et en améliorant les routes existantes. En second lieu, Trajan a prêté un grand appui au développement des villes grecques des provinces de l’Asie Mineure. Les témoignages de Pline prouvent qu’il prenait soin des plus petits aspects de la vie des habitants de la province tout en laissant intacte leur liberté et leurs droits. La politique financière des villes constituait également un élément très important pour l’empereur. Trajan faisait tout son possible pour ne pas ébrécher le budget des villes aussi bien que les poches des habitants, entre autres il évitait de les charger d’impôts injustifiés. En troisième lieu, dans les villes de l’Asie Mineure, l’époque du règne de Trajan est la période de l’apogée de l’activité privée de l’initiative de construction. Les riches habitants des villes, eux-mêmes, se souciaient de la beauté et du développement du milieu qui les entourait. Trajan apportait son soutien actif à ce type d’activité. En quatrième lieu, l’empereur Trajan attribuait volontiers la nationalité romaine aux personnes privées aussi bien qu’à toutes les communes. Ainsi le Princeps faisait suite à la politique des empereurs de la dynastie de Flaviens, avant tout celle de Vespasien. Par conséquent, les représentants des familles aristocratiques de l’Asie Mineure étaient de plus en plus souvent présents parmi les sénateurs romains. Trajan profitait volontiers des capacités des sénateurs provenant des provinces et de leur connaissance de la réalité locale en leur attribuant les plus hauts postes de l’administration de province. Les chevaliers de l’Asie Mineure, dont le nombre a remarquablement augmenté au début du II siècle, étaient titulaires des postes des chefs dans l’armée de l’empereur Trajan. En cinquième lieu, pour Trajan, l’activité économique dans les provinces de l’Asie Mineure était liée entre autres au soutient apporté au monnayage local, ce qui grâce au système monétaire unifié, rendait possible non seulement l’intégration des parties grecques des provinces avec les autres territoires, mais aussi la croissance économique et la prospérité du commerce auquel les habitants des provinces de l’Asie Mineure prenaient part d’une manière active. La politique de Trajan à l’intérieur des provinces de l’Asie Mineure est associée également au retour de l’empereur à la politique de conquêtes menée par l’Empire. La volonté de protéger la frontière sur l’Euphrate et la tentation de vaincre la Parthie qui en 113 a violé les décisions du traité signé à l’époque de Néron en détrônant un roi arménien favorable à l’égard de Rome, ont causé une campagne contre les Parthes qui a duré trois ans (114—117). Toutefois cette guerre n’a pas apporté de conquête territoriales, et après la mort de l’empereur en été en 117, son successeur l’empereur Hadrien, a rétabli aux frontières orientales status quo d’avant 113. Przemysław Dyrlaga

Selected Aspects of Relations between the Imperial Power and the Provincial Cities during the Reign of the Emperor Macrinus (with Emphasis on the Region of Asia Minor)

At the beginning of the 3rd century, the provinces of the Roman Empire varied in respect to their urbanization and economic development.1 Apart from Italy, the most urbanized parts of the Empire

1 Of an extensive amount of literature concerning the social and economic development of various parts of the Ro- man Empire, on the eastern provinces, see: D. M a g i e: Ro- man Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Vols. I—II. Princeton 1950; F. M i l l a r: The Roman Near East 31 B.C.—AD 337. Cambridge—London 1993; G.W. B o w e r s o c k: Studies on the eastern Roman Empire. Social, economic and administrative history. Religion. Historiogra- phy. Goldbach 1994; M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski. Prowincje i społeczeństwa prowincjonalne we wschodniej części basenu Morza Śródziemnego w okresie od Augusta do Sewerów (31 r. p.n.e. — 235 r. n.e.). Wrocław 1997. On Roman Africa, see, for example: M. B é n a b o u: La résistance africaine à la romani- sation. Paris 1976; E. L e n n o x M a n t o n: Roman North Africa. London 1988; D. C h e r r y: Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa. Oxford u. a. 1998. On the situation in the western provinces, see, for example: G. R u p p r e c h t: Untersuchungen zum Dekurionenstand in den nordwestlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches. Kallmünz 1975; The Roman West in the Third Century. Contributions from Archaeology and History. Eds. A. K i n g, M. H e n i g. Oxford 1981; T. K o t u l a: Kryzys III wieku w zachodnich prowincjach Cesarstwa Rzymskiego. Wrocław 1992; L. W i e r s c h o w s k i: Die regionale Mobilität in Gallien nach den Inschriften des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Quantitative Studien zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der westlichen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches. Stuttgart 1995; Ch. W i t s c h e l: Krise-Rezession-Stagnation? 124 Przemysław Dyrlaga were Africa Proconsularis, the coasts of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The majority of towns and cities, however, did not play a serious, political or economic, role. They were merely the centres of local markets, or, at the most, functioned as regional centres of trade and crafts. The major political and economic role was played only by large centres with diverse social structure and spheres of influence extending provincial borders. In the scale of the entire Roman Empire, such centres were relatively few. This category comprised primarily the provincial capitals, in which the Roman governors resided, the cities built around permanent military camps, the cities with imperial residences or religious centres of the importance greater than regional. In this article we shall discuss three selected aspects of relations between the provincial cities and their inhabitants and the imperial power during the reign of the emperor M. Opellius Macrinus, co-ruling with his juvenile son Diadumeni- anus, from April 217 to June 218.2 The ephemeral character of their authority is the reason why the source material at our disposal is scarce and limited to only over a dozen inscriptions from various provinces and a relatively large number of autonomous coins from the eastern part of the Empire. The usage of the latter is restricted, however, by the lack of a comprehensive catalogue. A few valuable indications can be found in an account written by a contemporary historian, Cas- sius Dio Cocceianus, a senator and high-ranking imperial official, unfortunately preserved only in 12th-century Byzantine summaries. Such state of the sources is the cause of the outline character, and our analysis shall be based on selected examples mentioned in the sources.3 We will not deal with the emperor’s rela-

Der Westen des römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Frankfurt a. M. 1999. Further detailed bibliography in the above-mentioned works. 2 Of the more recent works on Macrinus, see: P. C a v u o t o: Macrino. Napoli 1983; D. B a h a r a l: “The Emperor Marcus Opellius Macrinus and the Gens Aurelia.” In: Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg. Ramat Gan 1996, pp. 415—432; E a d e m: Victory of Propa- ganda. The dynastic aspect of the Imperial propaganda of the Severi: the literary and archaeological evidence AD 193—235. Oxford 1996, pp. 43—51, 96—98; G. M a r a s c o: “L’idéologie impériale de Macrin.” Revue des Études Anciennes, vol. 98, 1996, pp. 187—195; P. D y r l a g a: “The Emperor Macrinus and the Modern Historiography.” Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philolo- gae Polonorum, vol. 93, 2006, fasc. 1, pp. 154—170; I d e m: “The Emperor Macrinus and the Senate. With appendix: Macrinus — Caracalla’s murderer. Truth or forgery of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander propaganda?” In: Rzym antyczny. Polityka i pieniądz / The Ancient Rome. Politics and Money, vol. 4, 2008, pp. 75—103; A.G. S c o t t: Change and discontinuity within Severan dynasty: the case of Macrinus. Diss. Graduate School—New Brunswick Rutgers, the New Jersey State Uniwersity. New Brunswick, NJ 2008 [http://mss3.libraries.rutgers.edu/dlr/TMP/ rutgers-lib_24468-PDF-1.pdf]. The older literature is mentioned in these publications. 3 More comprehensively on various aspects of the relations between the Imperial rule and the provincial cities, see, for example: F. J a c q u e s: Le privilège de liberté. Politique impériale et autonomie municipale dans les cités de l’Occident romain (161—244). Rom 1984; Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahr- hundert. Ed. W. E c k. München 1999; C. A n d o: Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty Selected Aspects of Relations... 125 tions with the people of Antioch, where Macrinus had resided for a great part of his reign, and the people of Rome, which he had not visited as an emperor. These both cities were among the largest metropolitan cities of the Empire and also served as capital centres, due to the fact that they had permanent imperial residences, and thus their relations with the imperial power had a completely different character than those of the provincial cities. One of the most important, and substantiated in the sources, aspects of the imperial policy towards the provincial cities is bestowing on them (or accepting by them, with the emperor’s consent) honourable titles derived from the emperor’s name, as well as rivalry among them for other privileges, such as, for instance, the elevation of status, the title of , etc.4 We can consider this question, however, only in the context of the cities in the eastern part of the Empire, as there are no similar examples from the western part. We do not know, unfortunately, exact reasons for which Macrinus had conferred on the cities the honourable appellations derived from his surname, or only allowed the cities to add it to their names. Those reasons must remain in the field of speculation. We may assume, however, that they belong to a broad range of dynastic policy, in which — in the East — a significant role was attributed to the deification or heroization of the ruler’s figure, his real or alleged ancestors. By bestowing his name, the ruler had made himself equal to the god-protector, or at least the hero-eponyme of the city. Such elevation had not only added splendour and more prestige, but also underscored the ruler’s special position in the system of authority and, at the same time, constituted a sort of warranty of his subjects’ loyalty. According to the sources available, the cities had received, most frequently, the title 5 derived from the emperor’s cognomen. It was received (or accepted) by Tarsus6 and Anazarbus7 in Cilicia, and, prob- in the Roman Empire. Berkeley—Los Angeles—London 2000. See also the works mentioned in footnote 1. 4 For the Syro-Palestinian area, where Macrinus had stayed throughout almost all his reign, the relevant information is compiled by A. K i n d l e r (“The Status of Cities in The Syro- Palestinian Area As Reflected by Their Coins.” Israel Numismatic Journal, vol. 6/7, 1982/1983, pp. 79—87). 5 Incidentally, we can add that some of the cities possessing the title Antoniniana could have received it as a result of conferring the cognomen Antoninus on Diadumenianus, the emperor’s son. Such a title may have been easily adopted by the successive ruler, Elagabalus, who used the names Marcus Aurelius Antoninus; in consequence, it is now difficult to determine the actual chronology of the conferment. 6 Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Lycaonia, Isauria, and Cilicia in the British Museum [hereinafter: BMCG (Cilicia)]. Ed. G.F. H i l l. Bologna 1964, p. 200, nos. 204—205: G+K/ 9!5C+3;3!;/G 9/IC I!CG?; that is Eg@L0D4H 96Dg4<4<H :gJD`B@8gTH IVDF@<. 7 M. G o u t h: “Anazarbus.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 2, 1952, pp. 137—138, no. 16 (=AE 1954: 8 = AE 1978: 811): [[96Dg4<4<H E]]gBJ4:4<H / Eg@L0D4<H z!VD$@L JH <*`>@L :0JD@B`8gTH J< (r BDPg4< 126 Przemysław Dyrlaga ably, Edessa8 in Osrhoene. The latter may have also received another, equally honourable, appellation —  — derived from the emperor’s nomen gentile. As regards Edessa, which had possessed the status of Roman colony since Caracalla’s reign, we can very cautiously assume that the obtaining of both appellations could have been in connection with the events which had taken place there during Macrinus’ reign.9 Perhaps, it had something to do with the proceedings connected with concluding the peace agreement with the Parthians. Also, it could have been of certain importance that the city, owing to its strategic position on the Euphrates, had functioned, at various times, as the seat of imperial headquarters during the campaigns in the East.10 It could have been equally significant that after Caracalla’s death, it was at the army camp near Edessa that Macrinus had been acclaimed Augustus by the soldiers on 11th April 217. To the same category of honourable titles we can also admit the adopt- ing in honour of Macrinus, and certainly not without his approval, the name 11 by one of the cities in Cilicia — Aegeae. In this case, the elevation of the city had a special significance — it had explicitly indicated

BD@6hg>@:X<0Hs 6 *4H <(gT6`D@L)s 6 {CT:46@H JD@B\@4H 6g6@F:0:X<0Hs JgJg4:0:X<0H 6 6@4<@$@L8\T. 8 Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia in the British Museum. Ed. G.F. H i l l. London 1922, pp. 98—99, nos. 47—54: O M EΔEGGA, which is usually read as z?Bg88\ 96Dg4<4< z+*XFF. This interpretation of the acronym has been widely accepted by scholars (see, for example: P. C a v u o t o: Macrino..., p. 46; A. K i n d l e r: “The Status of Cities...,” p. 85; J.B. S e g a l: Edessa. “Blessed City.” Oxford 1970, p. 14), but it may also raise some doubts and therefore we cannot be completely sure if it is right. 9 Previously, probably before the end of 213, the ruler of Osrhoene Abgar IX, in the circumstances which remain unclear, had enlarged, in a manner we are not familiar with, his rather small-sized land at the expense of his neighbours. Later on, however, Caracalla, during his eastern campaign, invited him to a meeting and then imprisoned him (Cass. Dio 77(78), 12, 1a-12), and the fate of Osrhoene is not entirely clear to us. We know that the capital of the kingdom, Edessa, had become a Roman colony, but whether this little state was incorporated in full to the province of Osrhoene, which had already existed since the times of Septimius Severus, or some of its lands were handed over to Manu IX, the new ruler, is impossible to determine for certain. Regarding the history of Osrhoene during Caracalla’s reign and later, see: J.B. S e g a l: Edessa..., pp. 14 ff, especially p. 15, note 3; H.J.W. D r i j v e r s (Palmyra zusammen mit M.J. Ve r s t e e g h): “Hatra, Palmyra und Edessa. Die Städte der syrisch-mesopotamischen Wüste in politischer, kul- turgeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung.” In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II., Bd. 8. Berlin—New York 1978, pp. 878—885; J. T e i x i d o r: “Les derniers rois d’Edesse d’après deux nouveaux documents syriaques.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Numismatik, Bd. 76, 1989, pp. 219—222; F. M i l l a r: The Roman Near East 31 B.C.—AD 337, pp. 144, 151—152, 472—481, 562; M.-G. L a u d e: “La politique des rois d’Edesse, entre Rome et les Parthes.” In: “The Roman Near East and Armenia.” Electrum, vol. 7, 2003. Ed. E. D ą b r o w a, pp. 95—98. 10 Concerning Caracalla, cf.: Herod. 4, 11, 8; HA Caracalla 6, 6. 11 BMCG (Cilicia), pp. 24—26 nos. 25—35: 9!5C3;?KA? ++?; 9! +K A3 1+, i.e. 96D4<@LB@84J< z+(XT 6g*`<4T< +(g<@H A4FJH 1g@N48@H. Selected Aspects of Relations... 127 recognizing the emperor as a new founder, directly making Macrinus a sort of eponymous hero, or perhaps even a god-protector. It is noteworthy that three out of the four known and the above-mentioned cities endowed with honourable titles or names derived from the emperor’s own name, had been situated in Cilicia.12 This province had come into existence as early as the Roman Republic and the seat of its governor was Anazarbus. During Macrinus’ reign the governor had been Flavius Iulianus, mentioned in one of the inscriptions. In the times of the Roman Empire Cilicia was a considerably urbanized province, and the foremost cities were Tarsus, Aegeae and Anazarbus. The stature of those cities could have had therefore a fundamental impact on their relations with the emperor. The remaining municipalities were not big and they did not play any serious role. They were, basically, only centres serving local markets, even though many of them issued their own autonomous coinage, especially bronze coins.13 The rivalry among Tarsus, Aegeae and Anazar- bus was a peculiar fight for attaining the highest status in the province and declassing the rivals. Perhaps also in this context one should see the question of accepting the name  by Aegeae, whose inhabitants had succeeded in obtaining this respectable title, with the intention of surpassing the rival cities at incurring the emperor’s favours. One of the inscriptions confirms that in 217 the city of Anazarbus, Aegeae’s rival, had received from Macrinus not only the appellation  — but also the ornamenta triumphalia ( ).14 Receiving this distinction could have been in connection with the ongoing war against the Parthians, as it had occurred before concluding the peace agreement with them in 218; considering the fact that the emperor on the inscription bears the title consul designates,

12 However, we should rule out connecting these facts with the emperor’s visit to these cities during his alleged, by H.J. B a s s e t t (Macrinus and Diadumenianus. Diss. University of Michigan. Menesha (Wisconsin) 1920, pp. 38 ff), expedition to the Danube, for which Macrinus, during his brief period of rule, did not have the time. 13 Concerning the coinage of the Cilician cities, see, for instance, the works by R. Z i e g l e r: “Münzen Kilikiens als Zeugnis kaiserlicher Getreidespenden.” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, Bd. 27, 1977, pp. 29—67; I d e m: Städtische Prestige und kaiserliche Politik. Studien zum Festwesen in Ostkilikien im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Düsseldorf 1985; Kaiser, Heer und städtisches Geld. Untersuchungen zur Münzprägung von Anazarbos und anderer ost- kilikischer Städte. Wien 1993. See also an interesting study by A. K u n i s z on the monetary circulation and its implications in the Near East in the times of the Severi: Wojny a pieniądz. Z badań nad obiegiem srebrnej monety na wschodnim pograniczu Imperium Rzymskiego w epoce Sewerów (193—235). Katowice 1998. 14 M. G o u t h (“Anazarbus”..., p. 138) also considers the possibility of conferring them by Caracalla, but he states himself that the inscriptions on Diadumenianus’ coins confirm this title only for Macrinus’ reign, see: BMCG (Cilicia), p. 34, no. 16: !;!= +;) 9/I CS9 IC?A 5 + 5. See also: R. Z i e g l e r: “‛Geschmückt mit römischen Tropaia’. Ein Beitrag zur Stadttitulatur von Anazarbos in Kilikien.” Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, Bd. 53/54, 2003/2004, pp. 15—24. 128 Przemysław Dyrlaga that honour had been bestowed on Anazarbus towards the end of the spring or the beginning of the summer 217.15 The elevation of Anazarbus must have been an unpleasant event for the inhabitants of Aegeae, and this particular occasion may have been the reason for striving to obtain an exceptional privilege, i.e. including the emperor’s surname in the name of the city. Therefore, for Aegeae, the newly-received title had an enormous significance — there was nothing that could bring more glory for the city than the emperor’s consent to recognize him as a new “founder” of the polis. Thus, the ruler had not only agreed to a special kind of protection over the city, but also demonstrated that as the new founder he would not refuse more favours and privileges for its inhabitants. We cannot rule out, either, that this title had been, to a certain extent, the Aegeae inhabitants’ expression of acknowledgement for the emperor for the previously received privileges, or a step towards obtaining them. In other words, by asking for that honour the authorities of the city wanted to express their gratitude to the emperor for what they had already obtained, and at the same time ensure the ruler’s support in the future. However, it is noteworthy that the inhabitants of the other cites had also made a lot of effort in the described aspect which contributed to the fact that they were granted a by the emperor.16 In other provinces of Asia Minor Macrinus had also granted their inhabitants  — the privileges of holding cult of gens imperatoria. Barbara Burrell mentions six cities which were given that honour from the emperor. According to her, apart from Cilician cites there were also: Nicomedia in Bithynia-Pontus, Sardis and Cyzicus in Asia as well as Caesarea in Cappadocia.17 Moreover, it is essential to add to that list Ephesus in the province Asia which was granted the third  by the emperor.18 All the endowments were also — which is obvious — connected with dynastic policy of the emperor who aspired to incorporate his own gens Opellia to the Antonines-Severi dynasty. In this act we can also observe the emperor’s wish to continue certain political assumptions of the previous rulers, in which more significant provincial cities, as centres of imperial cult, had played a remarkable role. Also, there is an extant fragment of a very interesting document — Macrinus’ letter to the inhabitants of Miletus — concerning the offerings in the form of wreaths for the sanctuary

15 Concerning the dating of Macrinus’ consulships, see P. D y r l a g a: “The Emperor Mac- rinus and the Modern Historiography...,” pp. 162—163. 16 B. B u r r e l l: Neocoroi. Greek cities and Roman emperors. Leiden 2004, pp. 292—293. 17 Ibidem. 18 See S. K a r w i e s e: “Eine Neokorie für Macrinus in den ephesischen Schlagzei- len.” Forum Archaeologiae. Zeitschrift für klassische Archäologie 14/III/2000 (http://farch. net); B. B u r r e l l: Neocoroi..., p. 293. Cf. A. H e l l e r: “Titulatures de cités et contrôle du pouvoir centra. La cas de la troisième néocovie d’Éphèse.” In: La « Crise » de l’Empire romain de Marc Aurèle a Constantin. Mutations, continuvités, ruptures. Ed. M.-H. Q u e t. Paris 2006, pp. 279—306. Selected Aspects of Relations... 129 of Apollo at nearby Didymi.19 Unfortunately, considerable gaps in the text of the letter do not allow us to have a full knowledge of the matter described, especially as regards the role of the emperor. However, the fact of Macrinus’ direct correspondence with the city testifies to his interest in the situation and problems of the provincial cities. Apart from increasing the privileges and heightening the cities’ prestige through conferring new distinctions and honours on them, the emperor did not hesitate to apply the opposite measure — by diminishing the extent of the existing prerogatives. Most often, it happened when the privileges possessed by the cities turned out to be excessive and contrary to the rational interests of the emperor’s politics. An example of such an action undertaken by Macrinus is provided by Cassius Dio. He mentions that the emperor deprived the Per- gamenians of the privileges that they had received from Caracalla, for which they hated him and showered him with numerous insults.20 The emperor’s act, therefore, most probably as a part of his remedial policy, had caused a considerable commotion.21 Perhaps the consequences thereof were: a change in the post of the proconsul of Asia and appointing Cassius Dio as curator of Pergamum (and Smyrna), which he mentions in his chronicle.22 Another important aspect of the imperial policy towards the cities in the East had been granting, to some of them, the right to issue the bronze, or more rarely the silver, coins, minted according to the drachm system. Those coinages, called autonomous, were often of prestigious character, and were a great propaganda tool — as they promoted the titles and municipal privileges newly received

19 T. W i e n a n d (Hrsg.), Milet, vol. I/7: Der Südmarkt und die benachbarten Bauanlagen von H. K n a c k f u s s, mit epigraphischen Beitrag von A. R e h m. Staatlische Museen zu Berlin 1924, pp. 344—347, no. 274: [- J< BF<] * 6() BD@hL:\< [BD@4D@L:X<]0< J< BDH H [B@*g\>F h4q ]hg< J :< J@ )4*L:\[@]L [z!B`88T<@H (]8: BD@Fg6L

23 Cf. an article by A. K i n d l e r (“The Status of Cities...,” pp. 79—87), who, on the basis of provincial coins, had researched the issues of the status of the cities in the Syrian provinces, Mesopotamia, Arabia and Decapolis. 24 Thus, for example, in: H.R. B a l d u s: “Zum Rechtsstatus syrischer Prägungen der 1. Hälfte des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.” Chiron, vol. 3, 1973, p. 441; A. K u n i s z: Wojny a pieniądz..., passim. Similar views had already been presented by A.R. B e l l i n g e r: The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus. New York 1940, p. 6. Concerning the role of the money and its value, compare also interesting comments by M. S a r t r e (Wschód rzymski..., pp. 100—113). 25 Cf. M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski... , pp. 105—106. 26 See, for example: Selinus in Cilicia (E. L e v a n t e: “The Coinage of Selinus in Cilicia.” Numismatic Chronicle 1990, vol. 150, pp. 226—233) — two types; Caesarea Paneas in Syria (Y. M e s h o r e r: “The Coins of Caesarea Paneas.” Israel Numismatic Journal 1984/1985, vol. 8, pp. 37—58) — three types; Byzantium (Catalogue of the Greek Coins. The Tauric Chersonese, Sarmatia, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, &c. Ed. R. S t u a r t P o o l e, Bologna 1963 (hereinafter: BMCG Tracia), p. 104, nos. 89—90) — two types in Diadumenianus’ name only; Deultum (BMCG Tracia, p. 111, nos. 2—3) — two types; Ephesus (Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Ionia in the British Museum. Ed. B.V. H e a d, R. S t u a r t P o o l e, Bologna 1964 (hereinafter: BMCG Ionia), p. 89, nos. 292—297) — five types; Samos (BMCG Ionia, p. 378, no. 268) — one type; Neapolis (Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judea). Ed. G.F. H i l l, Bologna 1965 (hereinafter: BMCG Palestine), p. 60, nos. 92—93) — two types in Diadumenianus’ name only; Ascalon (BMCG Palestine, p. 137, no. 236) — one type (see also A. R o n d e: “Tétradrachme inédit de Diaduménien attribue à Ascalon.” Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique, vol. 39, 1984, pp. 449—450); Gordus-Iulia (Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Lydia in the British Museum. Ed. B.V. H e a d. Bologna 1964 (hereinafter: BMCG Lydia), p. 97, no. 41) — one type; Sardes (BMCG Lydia, p. 261, no. 169) — one type in Diadumenianus’ name; Thyatira (BMCG Lydia, p. 312, nos. 110—111) — two types; Anazarbus (BMCG Cilicia, p. 34, no. 16) — one type in Diadumenianus’ name; Anemurium (BMCG Cilicia, p. 42, no. 5) — one type; Flaviopolis (BMCG Cilicia, p. 79, no. 8) — one type; Mopsus (BMCG Cilicia, p. 107, no. 20) — one type; Seleucia ad Calycadnum (BMCG Cilicia, pp. 134—135, nos. 30—32) — three types. It should be noted, however, that all the BMCG data in this footnote, and the following, are of general reference character only. 27 See, for example: BMCG Tracia, pp. 31—34, nos. 27—42 (Martianopolis), pp. 46—49, nos. 39—59 (Nicopolis); Y. M e s h o r e r: The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem 1989, pp. 94—96, nos. 101—110; BMCG Cilicia, pp. 24—26, nos. 25—35 (Aegeae = Macrinopolis). Selected Aspects of Relations... 131

During Macrinus’ reign, just as under the Severi beforehand, the autonomous coinages were, first of all, connected with serving the provincial and local markets. A relatively high degree of urbanization in the eastern part of the Empire, especially in Asia Minor and Syria, as well as the influx of large groups of soldiers paid on a relatively regular basis, created favourable conditions for a considerable demand for small-change coins and determined the development of the monetary policy. An abundance of small denominations had also been a necessary factor for further dynamic development, and the shortage had a serious negative impact on the economic condition of that part of the Empire. The characteristic fact is that under Macrinus, as compared with the Severan times, there had been a drastic decrease in the number of mints and officinae issuing the autonomous and imperial coinage in the East. In some areas, the minting of those types of money had discontinued altogether, whereas in other locations, the coinage had been resumed at the centres where it was discontinued several years before Caracalla’s death. According to M. Sartre, under Caracalla imperial tetradrachms were minted at 295 workshops in the East, but the number had decreased to a mere 106 during Macrinus’ reign.28 In total, in the eastern part of the Empire, under Macrinus, there were about 120 cities minting their coins,29 and some of them had carried out the minting activity at joint workshops, the officinae.30 It should also be noted that during Macrinus’ reign the standards of the silver tetradrachms minted in the Syrian-Palestinian-Mesopotamian area had been lowered as compared with the standards in Caracalla’s times.31 The decrease in

28 M. S a r t r e: Wschód rzymski..., p. 106. Compare also the tabular data: T.B. J o n e s: “A Numismatic Riddle: the So-called Greek Imperials.” Proceedings of the American Philo- sophical Society, vol. 107, no. 4, 1964, pp. 308—347; P. G i l m o r e (“Syrian Officinae under Caracalla and Macrinus.” Numismatic Circular 1979, vol. 87, pp. 286—289) believes that the phenomenon of the reduction of the officinae and the number of symbols represented on the coins from the regions of Syria is a sign of Macrinus’ rationalization policy. 29 The lack of a comprehensive catalogue is the reason why we often have to use some estimated data here. Moreover, even for the Syrian area, the best researched one in this regard, the data are not stable; new types of tetradrachms are discovered or the question of attributing some of them to specific mints is subject to verification, see: P. G i l m o r e: “A Tetradrachm of Macrinus from Byblus.” Numismatic Circular 1978, vol. 86, p. 478; I d e m: “Two Unrecorded Tetradrachms from Syria.” Numismatic Circular 1979, vol. 87, p. 129; I d e m: “An Uncertain Syrian Tetradrachm.” Numismatic Circular 1980, vol. 88, pp. 47—48; M. P r i e u r: “Deux nouveaux tétradrachmes impériaux portant un K dans le champ.” Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique, vol. 38, 1983, pp. 365—368; A. R o n d e: “Tétradrachme inédit...,” pp. 449—450. 30 This phenomenon, as regards Asia Minor, has been discussed, in part, by A. J o h n s t o n (“Die Sharing in Asia Minor: The View from Sardes.” Israel Numismatic Journal, vol. 6/7, 1982/1983, pp. 59—78). 31 Cf. the list of metrological data in D.R. Wa l k e r’s work (The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage, vol. 2. Oxford 1977, pp. 84—89). However, it should be noted here that the data 132 Przemysław Dyrlaga the amount of silver in those coins may have been related to a certain over- exploitation of the local silver deposits, in particular if we consider the volume of the production under the Severi. We can also observe a decrease in the number of the mints coining that type of money, from 28 in the last years of Caracalla’s reign,32 to 21 under Macrinus.33 Furthermore, we should note that the majority of the mints coining Macrinus’ tetradrachms had issued barely a few series each, and some of them just a single series, although, in general terms, the emission of the Syrian tetradrachms continued at a considerable level.34 Some of those single series might have been minted for special occasions or prestige only, and allowing them into circulation had been in connection with the issuing city’s wish to underscore its status and position. In D.R. Walker’s opinion, most of the emissions of the Syrian tetradrachms date back to the first half of Macrinus’ reign and all the mints producing tetradrachms had been closed down even before the end of his rule and only re-activated by his successor, Elagabalus.35 During Macrinus’ reign, we may also notice another phenomenon — focus- ing the minting activity in the main regional centres, after closing down many autonomous mints of minor importance. As a consequence, sometimes the long-defunct mints were re-activated, yet it is impossible to determine which premises were taken into account in shutting down some mints and re-opening others. For instance, we can mention the fact of reducing the number of minting concerning Macrinus’ coins may be not representative due to the fact that too few coins from the individual centres have been studied. 32 Those mints (according to: A.R. B e l l i n g e r: The Syrian Tetradrachms...) were at: Antioch, Beroea, Cyrrhus, Damascus, Emesa, Gabala, Heliopolis, Hierapolis, Laodicea ad Mare, Seleucia Pieria, Zeugma, Aradus, Berytus, Byblus, Ptolemais, Sydon, Tyre, Carrhae, Edessa, Rha- seana, Aelia Capitolina, Ascalon, Caesarea Maritima, Gaza, Neapolis, Gadara, Samosata, and one in Cyprus. However, there is a discussion among scholars as to the correctness of identification of certain mints, for Orthosia and Tripolis, which are identified now as Ptolemais in Syria-Phoenicia, see, for example; A. K u n i s z: Wojny a pieniądz..., p. 21, note 23. If we accept these corrections, we should lower the numbers presented in the text by one, which does not, however, change the principal observations. 33 Under Macrinus, the mints in the following cities had discontinued the coinage of tetradrachms (according to A.R. B e l l i n g e r: The Syrian Tetradrachms...): Zeugma, Damascus, Orthosia, Tripolis, Sydon, Neapolis, Ascalon, one in Cyprus. A.R. B e l l i n g e r (The Syrian Tetradrachms..., p. 106) mentions, however, one unknown. Cf. P. G i l m o r e: “Syrian Officinae under Caracalla and Macrinus...,” pp. 286—289. Concerning Caracalla’s silver coinages, see also P. G i l m o r e: Caracalla’s Silver Mints in Syria..., pp. 88—90. 34 See A. K u n i s z: Wojny a pieniądz..., especially pp. 49—78. Concerning the total numbers of the series issued in particular mints, cf. A.R. B e l l i n g e r: The Syrian Tetradrachms..., passim. P. G i l m o r e (“Syrian Officinae under Caracalla and Macrinus...,” pp. 286—289) considers it as a sign of Macrinus’ rationalization policy. 35 D.R. Wa l k e r : The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage, vol. 2. Oxford 1977, p. 99. Cf. regarding the Syro-Phoenician emissions: M. P r i e u r: “Datation des derniers tétradrachmes syro-phéniciens de Macrin.” Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique, vol. 40, 1985, pp. 676—678. Selected Aspects of Relations... 133 workshops in Asia Minor,36 or a complete withdrawal from coinage production in the cities of Peloponnesus, in the province of Achaia, even though there were numerous active mints under Macrinus’ predecessors.37 On the other hand, the production was resumed in several eastern mints of greater importance, which had discontinued the minting activity even before Caracalla commenced the war against the Parthians. In the Cappadocian area of monetary circulation, for example, the mint at Caesarea had resumed its production, where the minting activity had been stopped in 213. According to Edward Sydenham’s catalogue, supplemented by A.G. Malloy, four types of tridrachms and 12 types of bronze coins had been minted there, in the name of Macrinus or Diadumenianus (or both).38 A limited typological diversity and the fact that the mint discontinued the production of silver coins there after 21839 prove that it had been working for the local market only, and its coinages did not have any greater economic significance or a more extensive circulation. A more thorough analysis of Macrinus’ policy on the autonomous minting requires, as a matter of fact, further studies — first of all, a comprehensive cata- loguing of coinage issues and at least an estimate of their volume. The absence of such information renders pointless elaborating on the role of individual mints for the functioning of specific provincial and local markets, nor does it allow to fully grasp the relevant actions of the emperor and imperial administration. Another aspect of the relations between the provincial cities and the emperor, discernible in the source material, is the founding of statues and inscriptions dedicated to both Macrinus and Diadumenianus by the municipal elites, frequently representing, however, some broader spheres of society. In this case, it is important that we have at our disposal the materials from both parts of the Empire, allowing us to venture some generalizations, even though the nature of the evidence makes us treat it with due caution. Considering the figure of the founder, we can specify several types of foundations dedicated to the emperor, his son, or both of them. The first type is represented by joint foundations, made by  ( ) or curia decurionum. The inscriptions do not inform us, however, about the motives of the aforementioned municipal institutions undertaking such enterprises, which relegates our considerations to the sphere of speculation again. We cannot ex-

36 According to the BMCG data, the mints that had discontinued their emissions under Macri- nus were, for example, in Lydia: Acrasus, Apollonis, Bagis, Blaundus, Daldis, Dioshieron, Germe, Maeonia, Magnesia, Mastaura, Philadelphia, Sala, Saitta, Silandus, Tabala, Tmolus, Tralles; in Ionia: Clazomenae, Kolophon, Magnesia, Metropolis, Phocaea, Smyrna. 37 See S. G r u n a u e r - v. H o e r s c h e l m a n n: “The Severan Emissions of the Pelopon- nesus.” Israel Numismatic Journal, vol. 6/7, 1982/1983, pp. 39—46. 38 E.A. S y d e n h a m, with supplement by A.G. M a l l o y: The Coinage of Caesarea of Cappadocia. New York 1978, pp. 115—116 (tridrachms — nos. 503—504; bronze coins — 505—510), 153 (tridrachm — no. 504a; bronze coins — nos. 505a—510b). 39 E.A. S y d e n h a m: The Coinage of Caesarea of Cappadocia..., pp. 13, 117 ff. 134 Przemysław Dyrlaga clude that those foundations were either intended to incur the favours of the imperial administration (and, indirectly, of its superior, i.e. the ruler himself), or constituted plain and clear declarations of loyalty towards him. We should bear in mind, however, that the reasons for foundations had not always expressed the actual sentiments of municipal authorities (let alone the inhabitants) towards the ruler. We are not able to determine the magnitude of the influence of local authorities’ common opportunism. We do not know, either, whether in some cases, at least, the foundations were enforced by governors or other high-ranking imperial officials, wanting thus to please the emperor. In the eastern, Greek-speaking part of the Empire there are three extant inscriptions concerning joint foundations of this type. One, dedicated to Macrinus on the base of his statue by     in Chaeronea in Boeotia,40 and two, dedicated on the separate tablets to the emperor and his son by   in Lower-Moesian Istrus (Istria).41 In the western part of the Roman Empire five similar inscriptions were discovered, one of them in Italy. The first one of these inscriptions, dedicated to both Opellii, is on the triumphal arch at Diana Veteranorum (Aїn Zana) in Numidia.42 The two others dedicated to Diadumenianus dec(urionum) dec(reto) on the fori of one of Dalmatian cities and Forum Sempronii in Umbria, Italy.43 The remaining two are also dedicated to Diadumenianus — one on the base of the statue erected by the citizens of Cabellio in Gallia Narbonensis, the other funded by the ordo Teurniensium in Noricum.44 It is noteworthy that whereas in the eastern part of the Empire the main ad- dressee of the joint dedications is, first of all, the emperor himself, in the West this role is predominantly taken over by his son. This is the evidence, in a way, of Diadumenianus’ popularity in that part of the Empire. It may have been the result of the father’s propaganda actions undertaken to promote his son as a new Antoninus, or it just stemmed from a normal favourable attitude towards the boy-caesar, with whom some definite hopes for the future were linked. Another category of the foundations expressing the attitude of the local elites to the emperor comprises individual religious dedications pro salute Imperatoris, whose founders had defined their attitude to the ruler by invoking the name of

40 Inscriptiones Graecae VII 3420 (= Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum I 1620). 41 D.M. P i p p i d i: Inscripţiile din Scythia Minor greceşti şi latine. Seria II, vol. I: Histria şi împrejurimile. Bucureşti 1983, pp. 232—234, nos. 91—92. 42 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum [hereafter: CIL] VIII 4598 = ILS 463. 43 CIL III p. 2255 ad 8307; XI 6116. Perhaps of a similar character were also the largely damaged inscriptions from Palermo in Sicily (CIL X 7280) and Paestum (M. M e l l o, G. Vo z a: Le iscrizioni latine di Paestum. Napoli 1968, pp. 65—66, no. 45) as well as the extant inscription from Heddernheim in Germania Superior (CIL XIII 7379). 44 CIL XII 5828; G. W i n k l e r: “Kaiser Macrinus und Noricum.” Unsere Heimat. Zeit- schrift des Vereins für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich und Wien, 1970, Jahrgang 41, Heft 4, pp. 156—157, no. 9. Selected Aspects of Relations... 135 a guardian-deity. To this category of inscriptions belongs the inscription from the citadel at Carthago, funded by L. Nonius Rogatianus Honoratianus and his family on the occasion of granting him the rank of flamen perpetuus and organizing an epulum for the members of the local curia.45 Of a similar character is also the inscription on the marble altar, dedicated to I[ovi] O[ptimo] M[aximo] D[olicheno] to the glory of the Opellii, father and son, from the temple at Šempeter near Celeia in Noricum, which informs that it had been rebuilt after a fire by the local priests: Aurelius Aquila, Aurelius Bassus and Var(ius?).46 Aurelius Aquila was also, along with Aurelius Flavianus, the founder of another inscription of that type, placed, just as the one before, at the altar dedicated probably to I[ovi] O[ptimo] M[aximo] D[olicheno].47 Of a somewhat different character is the capitol dedicated to [I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) Iunoni Regi[nae Mine]rv[ae pro] sal[ute [et incol(umitate) Imp(eratoris)] at Volubilis in Mauretania Tingitanensis.48 The inscription confirms, however, the participation in the act of dedication, of the governor of that province, procurator M. Aurelius Sebastenus, and it is possible — as a consequence — that the dedication had been inspired by the imperial administration. Another inscription in honour of the emperor was also funded by one of the high-ranking, unfortunately his name unknown, officials from Ephesus, travelling in the times of the Severi almost all over the Empire and attending to various affairs on behalf of the citizens of Ephesus and inhabitants of the province, of which he did not fail to inform the readers of the inscription.49 These relatively scarce examples of the local elites’ various foundations dedicated to the Opellii, dating to a merely 14-month-long period of Macrinus’ reign, frequently representing wider spheres of society, allow us to conjecture that the economic situation of the cities, and also of the provinces, was relatively good. In addition, they also attest to a relative popularity of the gens imperatoria among those spheres, although — as we have already stated — we do not know, unfortunately, if it was real or perhaps resulting only from the opportunist motives of the contemporary municipal authorities, or from the inspiration by the imperial administration. However, it should be emphasized that the actual favour and popularity, in the scale of the whole Empire, could result for the

45 “L’Année Épigraphique” [hereinafter: AE] 1968, pp. 561. 46 J. Š a š e l: “Pro salute Macrini (Šempeter bei Celeia).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Numismatik, Bd. 62, 1986, p. 263 (= AE 1987: 797). 47 Re-edition CIL III 5021 + p. 1822: J. Š a š e l: “Pro salute Macrini...”, p. 265. 48 Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifices 1924, p. CCXXII (= AE 1925: 30; rev. Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifices 1925, p. CCXXIX = AE 1926: 26). 49 J. K e i l: “Ein ephesischer Anwalt des 3. Jahrhunderts durchreist das Imperium Romanum.” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philologisch-historische Klasse. München 1956, p. 3 (= “Suplementum Epigraphicum Graecum” XVII 505 = AE 1971: 455). 136 Przemysław Dyrlaga

Emperor from his appropriate tax policy and the declared respect for the old laws of the “good” emperors.50 Moreover, in Cassius Dio’s text, there is a trace of exerting by the local elites of a certain influence upon the imperial administration, and even the emperor himself, even though it was up to his good will to reach a compromise that would be satisfactory to both sides. In a small section of the text the ancient historian notes, with some indignation, that due to protests of the Africa Proconsularis inhabitants, Aufidius Fronto had not become a governor of that province, as Macrinus had refused to support him.51 Thus, instead of trying to impose his decisions on the inhabitants of the provinces by force, the emperor took into consideration the suggestions coming from there. Such emperor’s decision was intended to appease the revolted province, which was, along with Egypt, of a paramount significance in the Empire, due to its supplies of corn. The emperor, preoccupied with matters of greater importance — the conflict with the Parthians in the East, a financial crisis — preferred to offer some concessions to the citizens of Africa rather than to stamp out the riots that could have erupted as a result of any decisions contrary to their demands.52 Generally speaking, it should be emphasized that due to the ephemeral character of his rule, Macrinus had not worked out a new, original policy towards the provincial cities; instead, he continued or followed the policies of his predecessors from the dynasties of the Antonines and Severi. In the light of the extant sources, particularly inscriptions, the relations between Macrinus and the populations of the cities and provinces, both eastern and western, had been going along without major disturbances. In the materials available, except for just one instance, there is no information on such events. The exception in question — the Pergamenians — is in fact an isolated case and, basically, the result of restoring the rational order of rule in the city, which had been infringed, in a way, by the privileges received from Caracalla. It appears that the people of the cities and provinces had basically accepted Macrinus’ rule, and the change in the political attitudes must have arisen only after Elagabalus’ usurpation and had been the result of the local societies’ disorientation towards the outcome of the civil war in Syria, as well as the inaction of the equally confused local imperial administration and the co-operating elites.53 It should also be noted

50 See P. D y r l a g a: “Imitatio Severi, reformy i racjonalizacja. Wybrane zagadnienia polityki finansowej i monetarnej cesarza Makryna.” Magazyn Numizmatyczny (PTN Oddz. w Częstochowie) 2008 (published 2009), no. 36, pp. 5—25. 51 Cass. Dio 79(78), 22, 5. 52 Cf. J. S ü n s k e s T h o m p s o n: Aufstände und Protestaktionen..., pp. 157—158, 207. 53 Cassius Dio mentions the fighting in the Egyptian cities (79(78), 35, 2) and in Antioch (79(78), 39, 20), which had resulted in the casualties among both civilians and soldiers. Concern- ing the incidents in Egypt, cf. J. S ü n s k e s T h o m p s o n: Aufstände und Protestaktionen..., pp. 38, 73, 150—151, 153. She considers those riots as a rebellion against Macrinus in connection with the fighting for the throne between him and Elagabalus. Selected Aspects of Relations... 137 that the distribution of privileges in the form of honourable titles,  or triumphal trophies for the cities in the East should be linked with a broadly planned dynastic policy pursued by Macrinus. Significant in this context are the dedications addressed in the East directly to the emperor, and in the western provinces more frequently to his son — caesar Diadumenianus — the evidence of definite hopes and expectations of their founders.

Translated by Marcin Fijak

Przemysław Dyrlaga

Wybrane aspekty relacji między władzą cesarską i miastami prowincji w czasie rządów cesarza MaKryna (z naciskiem na region małoazjatycki)

Streszczenie

W artykule zostały omówione wybrane aspekty relacji między miastami prowincji a cesarzem Makrynem, współpanującym wraz z małoletnim synem Diadumenianem od kwietnia 217 do czerwca 218 r. Problematyka ta jest stosunkowo słabo reprezentowana w źródłach i w związku z tym nie znalazła szerszego odzwierciedlenia we współczesnej historiografii. Należy podkreślić, że ze względu na efemeryczny charakter swoich rządów Makryn nie wy- pracował nowej oryginalnej polityki wobec miast prowincjonalnych, kontynuując bądź naśladując politykę poprzedników z dynastii Antoninów i Sewerów. W świetle dostępnych źródeł, zwłaszcza inskrypcji, stosunki między Makrynem a ludnością miast i prowincji zarówno wschodnich, jak i zachodnich układały się bez większych perturbacji. W dostępnym materiale, poza jednym wy- jątkiem, brak informacji o takich wypadkach. Ów wyjątek — Pergamończycy — stanowi przy- padek odosobniony i w zasadzie jest wynikiem przywrócenia w mieście racjonalnych porządków, naruszonych w pewien sposób przez przywileje otrzymane od Karakalli. Zasadniczo zaś ludność miast i prowincji, jak się wydaje, akceptowała rządy Makryna, a zmiana nastrojów nastąpiła zapewne dopiero po uzurpacji Elagabala i była wynikiem dezorientacji społeczeństw lokalnych z powodu wyników toczącej się w Syrii wojny domowej oraz bierności również zdezoriento- wanej lokalnej administracji imperialnej i współpracujących z nią elit. Podkreślić też wypada, że rozdział przywilejów w postaci honorowych tytułów, neokorii czy trofeów triumfalnych dla miast na Wschodzie należy wiązać z szeroko pojętą polityką dynastyczną Makryna. Znamienne w tym kontekście są dedykacje skierowane na Wschodzie bezpośrednio do cesarza, w prowincjach zachodnich zaś częściej do jego syna — cezara Diadumeniana, świadczące o określonych nadziejach i oczekiwaniach fundatorów. 138 Przemysław Dyrlaga

Przemysław Dyrlaga

Les aspects choisis de la relation entre le pouvoir impérial et les villes provinciales sous le règne de l’empereur Macrin (surtout dans la région d’Asie Mineure)

R é s u m é

Dans l’article l’auteur présente des aspects choisis des relations entre les villes provinciales et l’empereur Macrin, qui régnait avec son fils Diaduménien de l’avril 27 au juin 218. Cette problématique est relativement peu représentée dans les sources et c’est pourquoi elle ne trouve pas une réflexion plus large dans l’historiographie contemporaine. Il faut souligner qu’à cause du caractère éphémère de son règne Macrin n’a pas élaboré une nouvelle politique originelle envers des villes provinciales, en continuant ou en imitant la politique de ses prédécesseurs de la dynastie des Antonins et des Sévères. À la lumière des sources acces- sibles, surtout des inscriptions, les relations entre Macrin et le peuple des villes et des provinces orientales et occidentales s’établissaient sans grandes perturbations. Dans le matériel accessible, sauf une seule exception, il n’y a pas d’information sur des incidents. L’exception — les habitants de Pergame — constitue un cas isolé, et généralement elle est le résultat de la restauration dans la ville de l’ordre rationnel, troublé d’une certaine manière par les privilèges offerts par Caracalla. En général, il semble que le peuple des villes et des provinces acceptait le règne de Macrin et que le changement du climat politique a eu lieu après l’usurpation d’Elagabal, il résultait de la désorientation des sociétés locales, causée par la guerre civile en Syrie, ainsi que de la passivité de l’administration impériale locale, aussi désorientée, et des élites qui coopéraient avec elle. Il faut souligner que la distribution des privilèges en forme des titres honorifiques, des néocories ou des trophées triomphaux pour des villes orientales, doit être liée avec la politique dynastique de Macrin. Dans ce contexte les dédicaces, adressées à l’Orient directement à l’empereur, et dans les provinces occidentales plus souvent à son fils — césar Diaduménien, qui prouvaient des espérances et des attentes de leurs fondateurs, sont bien significatives. Agata A. Kluczek

« Vue d’Asie Mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle dans l’Empire romain Les thèmes monétaires à Cyzique (276 apr. J.-C.)*

L’activité de la Monnaie impériale à Cyzique en Propontide, ouverte à la fin des années soixante du IIIe siècle1, tombe sur une période très interessante pour plusieurs raisons. C’est à cette époque-là que l’Asie mineure devient très importante surtout dans le domaine militaire par les invasions des peuples et les attaques des états étrangers mais aussi par son territoire sillonné par les routes qui reliaient la partie Ouest de l’Empire romain aves ses provinces orientales. L’Asie mineure jusqu’alors relativement

* Le présent article a été écrit en 2009, c’est pourquoi les oeuvres de C.F. N o r e ñ a : Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power (Cambridge 2011) et de E . M a n d e r s : Coining Images of Power: Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193–284 (Leiden 2012) ne sont pas ici consultées. 1 L’atelier fut ouvert en 269. Cf. A. A l f ö l d i : Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus. Darmstadt 1967, pp. 177—179 ; J.-P. C a l l u : La politique moné- taire des empereurs romains de 238 à 311. Paris 1969, p. 229 ; H.-G. P f l a u m, P. B a s t i e n : La trouvaille de Çanakkale (Turquie). Deniers et antoniniani émis de 261 à 284. Wetteren 1969, pp. 59—60 ; J. M a i r a t : L’ouverture de l’atelier impérial de Cyzique sous le règne de Claude II le Gothique. „Revue Numismatique” [cité ici : RN] 2007, no 163, pp. 175—196. 140 Agata A. Kluczek sûre et tranquille2 fut touchée par plusieurs raids des Goths et des peuples qui leur étaient associés3. Ces invasions des barbares ravagaient le pays et augmentaient le sentiment du danger. Ce sentiment fut accentué encore par le voisinage de la monarchie perse et ses succès militaires4, tels que, avant tout la capture de l’empereur Valérien I ainsi que par l’expansion des Palmyréniens qui tentaient d’élargir ses terres au dépens des provinces romaines ; en resultant ce « climat » de la menace militaire semblait être permanent. Bref, il existait en Asie mineure une situation d’une extrême difficulté et les provinces anatoliennes attiraient l’attention des empereurs romains de cette époque-là. Ils arrivaient, en personne, sur ce terrain pour diriger les luttes de la défense face aux Goths ou pour préparer, voire réaliser, les guerres avec Palmyre ou la monarchie sas- sanide. Cette pression extérieure coïncida avec une crise intérieure dans l’État romain. L’affaiblissement du prestige et de l’autorité de l’empereur pendant les années de la Crise du IIIe siècle provoquait sur les terres d’Est, une rivalité à la pourpre qui était souvent acquise par les soldats de basse naissance5, très souvent grâce à une lutte militaire. La mentionnée escalation des problèmes politiques et militaires dans la 2e moitié du IIIe siècle dans les provinces d’Asie mineure de l’Empire romain fait que l’on peut s’attendre à des dénouements intéressants dans le domaine des légendes et de l’iconographie des monnaies impériales émises à Cyzique. Ce qui est important pour les recherches dans ce domaine c’est le problème de l’empreinte de la situation, des évenements actuels sur les thèmes monétaires ; l’originalité ou le schématisme, l’innovation ou le traditionalisme des légendes

2 M. S a r t r e : Les provinces anatoliennes. In : Rome et l’intégration de l’Empire (44 av. J.-C.— 260 ap. J.-C.). T. 2 : Approches régionales du Haut-Empire romain. Dir. C. L e p e l l e y. Paris 1998, p. 342. 3 E. D e m o u g e o t : La formation de l’Europe et les invasions barbares. I : Des origines germaniques à l’avènement de Dioclétien. Paris 1969, pp. 417—430 ; M. S a l a m o n : The Chronology of Gothic Incursions into Asia Minor in the IIIrd Century A.D. „Eos” 1971, vol. 59, pp. 109—139 ; T. K o t u l a : Cesarz Klaudiusz II i Bellum Gothicum lat 269—270. Wrocław 1994, pp. 77—78 ; T. F o r g i a r i n i : À propos de Claude II: les invasions gothiques de 267— 270 et le rôle de l’empereur. In : Les empereurs illyriens. Réd. E. F r é z o u l s, H. J o u f f r o y. Strasbourg 1998, pp. 81—86. 4 Pendant les guerres de Sapor I avec les Romains, les Perses arrivèrent jusqu’à Tarse et Iconion ; cf. E. K e t t e n h o f e n : Die römisch-persischen Kriege des 3. Jh. n.Chr. nach der Inschrift Šāhpuhrs I. an der Kacbe-ye Zartošt. Wiesbaden 1982, pp. 83—86, 120—122. 5 Le moment décisif fut placé entre 260—268. Cf. M. C h r i s t o l : Armée et société politique dans l’Empire romain au IIIe siècle apr. J.-C. (de l’époque sévérienne au début de l’époque constantinienne). „Civiltà classica e cristiana” 1988, vol. 9, pp. 169—204 ; A. Z i ó ł k o w s k i : Historia Rzymu. Poznań 2004, pp. 521—524 ; I d e m : Źródła kryzysu cesarstwa rzymskiego w III wieku. W : „Studia Źródłoznawcze”. T. 7 : U schyłku starożytności. Red. P. J a n i s z e w s k i, E. W i p s z y c k a, R. W i ś n i e w s k i. Warszawa 2008, pp. 264—285. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 141 et de l’iconographie monétaire6. Le parcours rapide, même de manière très sommaire, des représentations se trouvant sur les monnaies de Cyzique7 montre que surtout sur les revers, il existe des discours sur les questions concernant l’État entier et aussi celles qui concernent ses terres orientales. Sur les revers des monnaies émises à Cyzique au temps de la Crise du IIIe siècle, on a placé presque 50 légendes variées et la diversité des sujets lancés est completée par des modèles iconographiques. Les évenements violents du IIIe siècle, l’échelle de la menace extérieure, l’allure des changements « sur le trône » — tout cela eut donné lieu au coloris et à la diversité des transpositions idéologiques des problèmes politiques en représentations monétaires. Il y a parmi elles, évidem- ment des représentations répétées mécaniquement, schématiques ou conven- tionnelles mais pas seulement. La révision générale des types monétaires de Cyzique permet sa classification sur trois plans thématiques. Ce qui était donc caractéristique dans les représentations monétaires c’étaient des questions concernant les luttes avec les Goths et les expositions des victoires sur ces barbares, les victoires des commandants en chef et des souverains à partir de Claude II (victoria gothica)8 ; les monnaies vantent des vertus militaires d’empereur et anoncent une présence des empereurs (virtus Augusti et adventus Augusti)9. Dans les représentations monétaires, on a remarqué aussi la question de la restitution de l’armée romaine, importante dans le contexte du dangereux voisinage perse, mais aussi dans le contexte de l’accumulation, sur les terres orientales, de nombreuses forces romaines. Dans les légendes monétaires on a touché au problème du renouvellement de la discipline militaire et de l’augmentation des valeurs combatifs des soldats (restitutor exerciti ou conservator militum)10. D’autres contenus appartiennent au courant des recherches des sanctions surnaturelles quant à la position et au prestige de l’empereur. La protection divine fut expri- mée directement par une inscription adéquate (p.ex. conservator Augusti) mais

6 P.ex. S. E s t i o t, E. D o p i e r a l a, Ph. G y s e n : Une „émission fantôme” de l’atelier de Cyzique au début du règne de Carus. RN 2007, no163, pp. 197—211 ; D. H o l l a r d : Un antoninien à buste exceptionnel frappé à Cyzique pour Quintille (270). „Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique” [cité ici : BSFN] 2008, no 63, pp. 158—160. 7 Voir : The Roman Imperial Coinage. Eds. H. M a t t i n g l y et al. London 1968 [abrégé en RIC], vol. 5/1 et 5/2. 8 P.ex. T. K o t u l a : Cesarz Klaudiusz II…, s. 102 ; Ph. G y s e n : À propos des ateliers de Smyrne et de Cyzique sous Claude II le Gothique. „Cercle d’études numismatiques, Bulletin” 1999, no 36, pp. 31—32 ; A.A. K l u c z e k : Vndiqve victores. Wizja rzymskiego władztwa nad światem w mennictwie złotego wieku Antoninów i doby kryzysu III wieku — studium porównawcze. Katowice 2009, pp. 140—141, 262—263. 9 P.ex. R. H e d l u n d : „…achieved nothing worthy of memory”. Coinage and authority in the Roman empire c. AD 260—295. Uppsala 2008, pp. 158—159. 10 P.ex. R. S u s k i : Konsolidacja Cesarstwa Rzymskiego za panowania Aureliana 270—275. Kraków 2008, p. 307 ; A.A. K l u c z e k : Cesarz rzymski Aurelian jako „paedagogus militum”. „Wieki Stare i Nowe” 2009. T. 1 (6), pp. 85—99. 142 Agata A. Kluczek aussi par une iconographie expressive (p.ex. le motif de la remise du globe à l’empereur par dieu)11. Évidemment ce n’est pas le catalogue complet des trames thématiques proclamées sur les monnaies émises à Cyzique. D’ailleurs ces thèmes furent exposés plus largement dans le monnayage impérial donc aussi d’autres ateliers. Néanmoins le rétrécissement des recherches à l’émission d’un seul centre — Cyzique peut démontrer la perception et la compréhension, par les Romains, aussi bien des problèmes qui concernèrent tout l’État romain que des prob- lèmes douloureux concernant une partie du territoire ; d’autant plus qu’en 276 l’emergence de cet atelier en Asie mineure est devenue, dans le sens pratique, plus importante dans sa stature. Au début de l’été de l’année 276 sur les terres de Pont ou de Cappadoce, en rentrant de l’escapade gothe et se rendant vers l’Europe, est mort l’empereur Tacite probablement de maladie12 ou victime d’un complot militaire13. Sa succession a été prise par le préfet du prétoire — Florien qui fut proclamé imperator par ses propres subordonnés14. Il se référait, selon la tradition à la parenté avec Tacite15. Outre cela il a été reconnu par le Sénat16. Ce dernier élément est très important au point de vue idéologique : Florien est devenu empereur en titre. L’investiture au Sénat a enlevé de Florien qui fut choisi par ses propres soldats, l’empreinte de l’usurpateur et lui donnait une position légale à Rome. Le règne de Florien fut plein de combats et de rivalité politique. Il continuait la campagne contre les barbares, menée avec succès par son prédécesseur. Il devait aussi faire face à Probus, son rival qui s’empara du pouvoir impérial. L’avènement de celui-ci, soutenu par une partie de l’armée d’Orient ; son contrôle de la Syrie, la Phénicie, la Palestine et l’Égypte et ensuite la rencontre de l’armée soumise

11 P.ex. A.A. K l u c z e k : Empereur romain et dieux. Sources numismatiques et investiture divine d’Aurélien (270—275). In : « Historie. Historica », no 13. Red. M. M y š k a. Ostrava 2006, p. 22. 12 Aurel.Vict., caes. 36,2 ; Cons.Constant. 277 (p. 229, ed. T. M o m m s e n) montrent Tyane en Cappadoce; E.de caes. 36,1, situe fautivement cet événement à Tarse en le confondant avec les circonstances concernant le sort de Florien. 13 Chron.a. 354, p. 148 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; Euseb.Hier., chr. CCLXIIII Olymp. I, p. 223 (ed. R. H e l m) ; Cassiod., chron., p. 148, 995 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; Georg.Sync., chr., p. 722 (ed. G. D i n d o r f) ; Chron.Gall. 434, p. 642 (ed. T. M o m m s e n), indiquent le Pont. 14 HA Pr. 10,1 ; 13,4 ; Zos. I 64,1 ; Zon. XII 29. Informations sur la prétoire voir Zos. I 63,1 ; Zon. XII 28. 15 P.ex. Aurel.Vict., caes. 36,2 ; HA Tac. 5,2; 9,6 ; 13,6 ; 14,1 ; HA Pr. 13,3 ; Polem.Silv., later. 51, p. 522 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; cf. HA Tac. 17,4. Il n’était certainement pas son frère germain car il ne porte pas le gentilicium que Tacite (M. Claudius Tacitus / M. Annius Floria- nus) ; peut-être les deux empereurs étaient des frères utérins. Cf. A.A. K l u c z e k : Polityka dynastyczna w Cesarstwie Rzymskim w latach 235—284. Katowice 2000, p. 63. 16 Zos. I 64,1 ; Zon. XII 29. Contrairement à ce que Aurèle Victor (caes. 36,2) écrit de lui : « nullo senatus seu militum consulto imperium invaserat », et détermine le règne de Florien comme dominatio (caes. 37,1). « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 143

à Probus avec celle de Florien misent fin au règne de Florien très vite, après deux mois environ17. Cela arriva après une rencontre entre les forces de Probus et celles de Florien dans les environs de Tarse, et après quelques escarmouches. Florien fut capturé par les soldats de son concurrent et tué probablement, soit par des hommes de son entourage, soit par ceux de Probus, ou dut se suicider18. À notre sens, il est juste de faire l’hypothèse que les points le plus importants de l’idéologie impériale aussi bien que les aspirations politiques de Flo- rien et la question du droit au pouvoir, peuvent être réfletés sur les monnaies émises à Cyzique. Florien s’empara du pouvoir en Asie mineure, il fut reconnu dans tout l’Occident, nominalement l’empereur controlait le terrain de Cilicie jusqu’en Espagne et Bretagne, et toute l’Afrique19 mais c’est l’Asie mineure qui formait sa zone d’influence. Pendant son règne, Florien restait presque uniquement sur ce terrain en se concentrant surtout sur la nécessité de la résolution des problèmes liés à son règne sur la voie de la lutte parce qu’une partie de l’armée essayait d’imposer un autre candidat comme empereur c’est-à-dire Pro- bus. La rivalité de ces deux compétiteurs élevés à la pourpre s’exprimait dans le fait du partage des Hôtels de la Monnaie. Les ateliers de Rome, Lugdunum, Ticinum, Siscia, Serdica et Cyzique battaient la monnaie au nom de Florien. Les autres, celles d’Antioche, Tripolis et Alexandrie émettaient, dès la mort

17 Les sources hésitent sur la durée du règne de Florien ; p.ex. : 1 ou 2 mois — Aurel.Vict., caes. 37,1 ; 2 mois et 20 jours — Eutr. IX 16 ; 2 mois — E. de caes. 36,2 ; HA Tac. 14,2 ; Malal. XII, p. 301 (ed. B.G. N i e b u h r) ; 88 jours — Chron.a. 354, p. 148 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; Euseb.Hier., chr. CCLXIIII Olymp. I (p. 223, ed. R. H e l m) ; Cassiod., chron., p. 148, 995 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; Georg.Sync., chr., p. 722 (ed. G. D i n d o r f) ; 89 jours — Chron.Gall. 434, p. 642 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; 3 mois — Oros. VII 24,1. 18 Tué à Tarse par ses propres militaires — HA Tac. 14,2 ; HA Pr. 10,8 ; 13,4 ; Zos. I 64,2—4 ; Zon. XII 29 ; Malal. XII, p. 301 (ed. B.G. N i e b u h r) ; Aurel.Vict., caes. 37,1 ; mais cf. E. de caes. 36,2 ; Cassiod., chron., p. 148, 995 (ed. T. M o m m s e n) ; Georg.Sync., chr., p. 722 (ed. G. D i n d o r f) ; Ioh.Ant., fr. 158, p. 600 (ed. C. M ü l l e r). Le règne de Florien et sa rivalisation avec Probus sont commentés par G. V i t u c c i : L’imperatore Probo. Roma 1952, pp. 25—31 ; R. S y m e : Emperors and Biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta. Oxford 1971, pp. 245—246 ; E. C i z e k : L’empereur Aurélien et son temps. Paris 1994, pp. 217—219 ; G. K r e u c h e r : Der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius Probus und seine Zeit. Stuttgart 2003, pp. 122—130 ; I d e m : Probus und Carus. In: Die Zeit der Soldaten-Kaiser. Krise und Transformation der Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. (235—284). Hrsg. K.-P. J o h n e, U. H a r t m a n n, Th. G e r h a r d t. Berlin 2008, pp. 395—400; W. K a c z a - n o w i c z : Probus the emperor 276—282 AD. A biographical study. Cieszyn 2003, pp. 32, 36, 45—46, 58 ; J.F. D r i n k w a t e r : Maximus to Diocletian and the „Crisis”. In: The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12: Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193—337. Eds. A.K. B o w m a n, P. G a r n s e y, A. C a m e r o n. Cambridge 2005, p. 54. 19 Zos. I 64,1 ; et les données épigraphiques (Achaïe, Aquitaine, Bétique, Bretagne, Dalmatie, Germanie inf., Numidie, Pannonie inf.) : RIB 2275, 2280 ; EE IX, p. 634 = CIL 07.1156 = ILS 592 = RIB 2235 ; IG 05/2, p. 5, no 132 = SEG 35 (1985) 375 ; IG 05/1, 449 ; AE 1960, 104 ; AE 1969/70, 495 ; AE 1995, 1409 ; CIL 02.1115 = ILS 593 ; CIL 03.10061 = 14019 ; 15086 ; CIL 13.9155 = 17/2.580 ; CIL 13.8895 = 17/2.369. 144 Agata A. Kluczek de Tacite, la monnaie de son rival, Probus. C’est à Probus que les provinces situées au-delà du Taurus furent soumises donc c’est lui qui s’est rendu maître de ces Monnaies orientales. Le règne de Florien, de fort courte durée, fait son monnayage peu intéressant pour les recherches. Par certains ateliers le monnayage continua d’être frappé après la mort de Florien20, mais, en général, néanmoins il y a peu de monnaies émises au nom de Florien. Ce monnayage est estimé « éclectique et qui semble ne pas contenir d’accents idéologiques ». D’habitude, on y insérait « des slogans vagues et topiques »21 en puisant fortement dans le monnayage de ses prédéces- seurs22. Ces opinions peuvent être nettement plus précises après une analyse quantitative du monnayage de Florien. L’analyse qui prend en considération de nouvelles classifications par rapport à la chronologie et à la répartition par les ateliers des émissions et séries monétaires23. Pour distinguer sur les monnaies de Florien des contenus individuels et spécifiques on peut utiliser quelques critères méthodologiques de sélection et d’évaluation des monnaies de l’époque de la Crise du IIIe siècle, c’est-à-dire « le critère d’innovation » et « le critère de première émission »24. La base des spécifications statistiques est composée par la collection qui contient 787 pièces de monnaie d’argent battues au nom de Florien (antoniniani-aureliani) qui appartiennent à douze grands trésors25. Cet ensemble des

20 Cf. p.ex. à propos de l’atelier à Lugdunum, P. B a s t i e n (Le monnayage de l’atelier de Lyon de la réouverture de l’atelier par Aurélien à la mort de Carin (fin 274—285). Wetteren 1976, pp. 48—49) date la 3e émission de Florien de septembre — octobre 276. Chronologie du règne de Florien cf. M. P e a c h i n : Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235—284. Amsterdam 1990, pp. 46—47 : juin — août 276. 21 W. K a c z a n o w i c z : Aspekty ideologiczne w rzymskim mennictwie lat 235—284 n.e. Katowice 1990, pp. 101, 102. Cf. A.A. K l u c z e k : Vndiqve victores…, pp. 263, 275, 294. 22 P.ex. à propos des monnaies émises à Lugdunum — P. B a s t i e n : Le monnayage…, pp. 45—49. 23 Voir S. E s t i o t : L’or romain entre crise et restitution, 270—276 ap. J.-C., II. Tacite et Florien. „Journal des savants” 1999, fasc. 2, pp. 423—427 ; E a d e m : Monnaies de l’Empire romain: XII/1. D’Aurélien à Florien (270—276 après J.-C.). Paris 2004. L’auteur propose un reclassement entre autres, le monnayage de Florien. 24 Cf. W. K a c z a n o w i c z : Aspekty ideologiczne…, pp. 13–15 ; I d e m : Probus the emperor..., pp. 25–27. L’auteur propose 7 critères : le critère de première(s) émission(s) ; le critère de continuation ; le critère de rejet ; le critère de métal ; le critère d’innovation ; le critère d’Hôtels de la Monnaie ; le critère de rivalité. 25 Blackmoor, Thibouville, Reichenstein, Nieder-Rentgen, Sainte-Pallaye, Lochhausen, Mara- vielle, La Venèra, Sirmium, Svetozarevo, Plevna, Troy — W. V i s c h e r : Der Münzfund von Reichenstein. „Mittheilungen der Gesellschaft für Vaterländische Alterthümer in Basel” 1852, Bd. 5, p. 41 ; H. v. H a m m e r s t e i n, K. W i c h m a n n, G. Wo l f r a m : Der Münzfund von Nieder-Rentgen. „Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde” 1896, Bd. 8/2, p. 28 ; N.A. M o u c h m o v : Tajnite znaci vrhu monetite ot Serdika. „Annuaire de Musée National de Sofia” 1922/1925 (1926), pp. 178—195 ; Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland. I/1 : Oberbayern. Ed. H.-J. K e l l n e r. Berlin 1960, p. 173 ; A.R. B e l l i n g e r : « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 145 monnaies de Florien est relativement petit mais il semble être suffisant pour qu’on puisse établir le bilan de la fréquence des types monétaires dans le monnayage de Florien et par conséquent à définir l’intensité des certains thèmes monétaires et à dégager les axes de la propagande monétaire. On peut admettre que la disproportion de divers types de monnaies dans les trouvailles, présentée en pourcentages reflète l’intensité des thèmes exprimés dans les représentations monétaires26. Le complétement du matériel acquis des trouvailles monétaires qui permet de préciser mieux les conclusions, c’est la collection de 28 aurei27. Néanmoins, les monnaies d’or au nom de Florien sont fort rares et certains types ne sont connus que par un seul exemplaire. Les aurei ne figurent pas, par conséquent, dans les trésors analysés. On dispose aussi de la possibilité de la comparaison de la structure typologique des émissions au nom de Florien avec la préponderance des thèmes dans le monnayage de ses prédécesseurs : Claude II, Quintille, Aurélien et Tacite qui regnèrent dans les années 268—27628. Pour faire cette rétrospection nous disposons de 46 374 pièces d’argent qui proviennent

Troy, the Coins. Princeton 1961, pp. 210—211; P. B a s t i e n, H.-G. P f l a u m : La trouvaille de monnaies romaines de Thibouville (Eure). „Gallia” 1962, no 20, pp. 264—265 ; W. K e l l n e r : Ein römischer Münzfund aus Sirmium (Gallienus—Probus). Wien 1978, pp. 43—44 ; R. B l a n d : The Blackmoor Hoard. „Coin Hoards from Roman Britain” [cité ici : CHRB] 1982, vol. 3, pp. 40—41 ; S. E s t i o t : Le trésor de Maravielle (Var). „Trésors Monétaires” [cité ici : TM] 1983, no 5, pp. 92—93 ; E a d e m : Ripostiglio della Venèra. Vol. 2/2: Tacito e Floriano. Verona 1987, pp. 89—112 ; N.A. C r n o b r n j a : Ostava rimskog novca iz Svetozareva, Valerijan— Dioklecijan. Svetozarevo 1987, pp. 36—38 ; S. E s t i o t, M. A m a n d r y, M. B o m p a i r e : Le trésor de Sainte-Pallaye (Yonne) : 8864 antoniniens de Valérien à Carin. TM 1994, no 14, p. 95. 26 Une autre idée est réalisée par E. M a n d e r s : Mapping the representation of roman imperial power in times of crisis. In : Impact of Empire. Vol. 7: Crises and the Roman Empire. Eds. O. H e k s t e r, G. D e K l e i j n, D. S l o o t j e s. Leiden—Boston 2007, pp. 285—288. Cet auteur base sur la quantité des types monétaires. Elle trouve que les résultats du pourcent- age acquis à base de l’analyse du contenu des trésors monétaires se rapprochent des résultats de l’analyse du nombre des types répertoriés dans le RIC. Dans de longs laps de temps (E. Manders analyse les années 193—284) ces correlations peuvent confirmer la justesse de ce point de vue, néanmoins cette méthode ne semble pas être équitable dans des recherches plus analytiques. D’autre part les chiffres qui déterminent le contenu des deniers dans les trésors monétaires (dans les années 69—235) sont analysées par C.F. N o r e ñ a : The communication of the emperor’s virtues. „Journal of Roman Studies” 2001, vol. 91, pp. 146—168. Tandis que F. R e d ö (Numismatical Sources of the Illyr Soldier Emperors’ Religious Policy. Budapestini 1973) essaie de définir l’échelle de la présence de la trame monétaire spécifique dans le monnayage impérial de l’un ou d’un groupe des empereurs au IIIe siècle, à base du nombre des types et des émissions. 27 S. E s t i o t : L’or…, pp. 423—427 ; E a d e m : Monnaies…, pp. 314—429. Ces travaux fournissent aussi certaines données sur le nombre des monnaies de Florien conservées. Ces chiffres concernent moins le contenu des trésors monétaires que celui des collections publiques (parmi les plus importantes : Cabinet des médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale), collections privées et catalogues de vente. 28 On inclut dans la statistique seulement les monnaies des empereurs « centraux » ; les monnaies des princes de l’Empire gaulois sont exclues. 146 Agata A. Kluczek des trésors monétaires29. Une telle confrontation mettra en relief et montrera d’éventuels sujets originaux dans le monnayage de Florien. Le monnayage impérial de Florien de l’atelier de Cyzique nous fournit très peu de matériel varié du point de vue typologique. Cet ensemble ne contient que les monnaies de trois types déterminés par les inscriptions sur le revers : concordia militvm, conservator avg, victoria ghottica (sic!), dans le cadre des types concrets l’iconographie du revers reste invariable et c’est seulement sur les droits qu’on diversifiait les formules des inscriptions (cf. tab. 1)30. Certains types monétaires furent émis avec une intensité inégale. On émit mais seulement dans une seule officine, deux séries d’aurei qui proclamaient le sujet de conservator Augusti. L’émission qui propageait l’idée de victoria ghottica fut limitée à une seule série, réalisée dans la même officine. Cependant les aureliani qui lançaient le thème de concordia militum furent frappés en deux séries, la prémière série dans cinq officines et la deuxième dans trois officines. La dif- férenciation de la production à Cyzique en ce qui concerne le nombre de séries et d’officines, se réflète dans le nombre différent d’exemplaires de monnaies des types particuliers (cf. fig. 1).

29 Ce matériel provient des mêmes trésors qui ont été cités pour le monnayage de Florien et autres où il n’y a pas de monnaies de Florien (Normanby, Ig, Komin, Dunaújváros, Šimanovci, « trésor balkanique », Ragevo, Çanakkale, « trésors de Syrie P et B », « trésor d’antoniniani en Syrie ») — W. V i s c h e r : Der Münzfund…, pp. 29—40 ; H. v. H a m m e r s t e i n, K. W i c h - m a n n, G. Wo l f r a m : Der Münzfund…, pp. 18—28 ; J. B r u n š m i d : Nahodaj rimskih bakrenih novaca iz druge polovine trećega stoljeća iz Šimanovaca (kotar Zemun). „Viestnik Hrvatskoga Arkeologickoga Druzstva” 1913/1914 (1914), NS 13, pp. 271—281 ; N.A. M o u c h - m o v : Tajnite znaci…, pp. 172—215 ; I d e m : Nahodka na rimski moneti ot III vek pri s. Rjaževo, Plovdivsko. „Annuaire du Musée National Bulgare” 1932/1934 (1936), pp. 174—200 ; Z. B a r c s a y - A m a n t : The Hoard of Komin. Antoniniani of the 3rd Century A.D. Budapest 1937 ; Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland…, pp. 168—173 ; A.R. B e l l - i n g e r : Troy…, pp. 204—210; P. B a s t i e n, H.-G. P f l a u m : La trouvaille…, pp. 255—264, „Gallia” 1961, no 19, pp. 87—97 ; C. B r e n o t, H.-G. P f l a u m : Les émissions orientales de la fin du IIIe s. après J.-C. à la lumière de deux trésors découverts en Syrie. RN 1965, no 7, série 6, pp. 138—163 ; H.-G. P f l a u m, P. B a s t i e n : La trouvaille de Çanakkale…, pp. 63—147 ; P. B a s t i e n, H. H u v e l i n : Trésor d’antoniniani en Syrie. La victoria parthica de Valérien. Les émissions d’Aurélien à Antioche et Tripoli. RN 1969, no 11, série 6, pp. 256—270 ; W. K e l l n e r : Ein römischer Münzfund…, pp. 19—43 ; R. B l a n d : The Blackmoor Hoard…, pp. 26—40 ; I d e m : A Third Century Hoard from the Balkans. „Coin Hoards” 1985, vol. 7, pp. 190—197 ; R. B l a n d, A. B u r n e t t : Normanby, Lincolnshire. CHRB 1988, vol. 8, pp. 177—190 ; S. E s t i o t : Le trésor de Maravielle…, pp. 71—92 ; E a d e m: Ripostiglio della Venèra. Vol. 2/2…, pp. 43—88 ; E a d e m : Ripostiglio della Venèra. Vol. 2/1 : Aureliano. Roma 1995, pp. 151—265 ; N.A. Crnobrnja: Ostava rimskog novca…, pp. 16—36 ; Die Fundmün- zen der römischen Zeit in Ungarn. Ed. J. F i t z. Bd. 1: Komitat Fejér. Zusammengestellt von V. L á n y i. Bonn—Budapest 1990, pp. 53—235 ; P. K o s : Ig. Najdba antoninijanov tretjego stoletja. Ljubljana 1991, pp. 89—99 ; S. E s t i o t, M. A m a n d r y, M. B o m p a i r e : Le trésor de Sainte-Pallaye…, pp. 83—95 ; J.-P. G i a r d : Ripostiglio della Venèra. Vol. 1 : Gordiano III — Quintillo. Roma 1995, pp. 79—128. 30 Cf. S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, p. 429. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 147

T a b l e a u 1 Émissions de Florien de l’atelier de Cyzique Dénomina- marque Légende d’avers légende et iconographie de revers tion d’officine aurei imp c m annivs florianvs conservator avg: Sol dans un quadrige -/-//- avg à g., fouet1) imp c florianvs avg conservator avg: Sol dans un quadrige -/-//- à g., fouet2) imp c m annivs florianvs victoria ghottica: Victoire debout à g., -/-//- avg un captif assis3) aureliani imp florianvs avg concordia militvm: Victoire couronnant -/-//P l’empereur4) -/-//S -/-//T -/-//Q -/-//V imp c m annivs florianvs concordia militvm: Victoire couronnant -/-//S avg l’empereur5) -/-//V -/-//Q 1) S. E s t i o t : L’or..., Fl., nos 10—16. Cf. RIC 5/1, Fl., nos 17 (classé à Rome) et 114. 2) S. E s t i o t : L’or..., Fl., no 17. Cf. RIC 5/1, Fl., nos 18 (classé à Rome) et 115. 3) S. E s t i o t : L’or..., Fl., no 18. 4) RIC 5/1, Fl., no 116. 5) S. E s t i o t : Monnaies..., p. 429.

Fig. 1. Monnaies d’or et d’argent de Florien de l’atelier de Cyzique — typologie

L’analyse quantitative du monnayage d’or et d’argent de Florien permet de constater qu’à peine de 9% de monnaies propageait l’idée de conservator Augusti ; ce sont seulement les aurei ; et le sujet victoria Gothica fut proc- lamé avec moins d’intensité ce qui est prouvé par l’existence d’un seul aureus connu. Les aureliani à la trame de concordia militum représentent la majeure partie des frappes monétaires au nom de Florien. Cette trame fut propagée sur les 90% de monnaies d’or et d’argent de l’atelier de Cyzique qui sont pris en considération. Il vaut mieux souligner l’homogénéité thématique des aureliani cyzicènes. D’autant plus que sur les monnaies d’argent de Florien — comme le montre la révision générale des types monétaires utilisés pour lui — mon- 148 Agata A. Kluczek naies qui sont émis par des autres ateliers on plaçait de nombreux slogans (cf. tab. 2)31. La primauté dans la richesse de la typologie appartenait aux grands centres monétaires et pourtant très éloignés, ce qui semble très important, du territoire de l’activité personnel de Florien tels que : Rome, Siscia et Ticinum qui battaient plusieurs types monétaires au nom de l’empereur. Dans les autres ateliers c’est-à-dire à Lugdunum, aussi très éloigné et à Serdica, plutôt peu active, on a limité à quelques-unes à peine, les trames lancées.

T a b l e a u 2 Thèmes monétaires dans le monnayage de Florien (médaillons en bronze, aurei, deniers, aureliani, quinares, as) — répartition par ateliers Atelier thème monétaire Lugdu- Rome Ticinum Siscia Serdica Cyzique num 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 aeqvitas avg Ar aeternitas avg Ar clemetia temp Ar concordia exerci(t) Ar concord milit(vm) Ar Ar conservator avg Au felicitas avg Ar felicitas saecvli Ar fides milit(vm) Ar fortvna redvx Ar indvlgentia avg Ar iovi conservat Ar iovi statori Ar iovi victori Au laetitia avg Ar laetitia fvnd Ar marti pacif Ar Ar moneta avg M pacator orbis Ar pax aeterna As pax avgvsti Ar Ar perpetvit(ate) avg Au Ar principi ivventvt Ar provide(ntia) avg Ar Ar Ar Ar providen deor Ar Ar reditvs avg Ar

31 Seuls les thèmes monétaires répertoriés dans la publication de S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, pp. 284—285, 314—317, 336—339, 378—381, 408—409, 429, sont pris en considération. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 149

suite tab. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 restitvtor saecvli vot x M romae aeternae Au salvs avg Ar salvs pvbli Ar secvritas avg As secvrit perp Ar secvritas saecvli Ar temporvm felicitas / felicit temp Ar Ar vbertas avg Ar victoria avg Ar victoria gotthica / ghottica Au Au victoria perpet Au victoria perpetva avg Ar victoriae avgvsti Ar virtvs avg(vsti) Ar Ar Q As Au D1) 1) Denier de billon sur coins d’aureus, cf. S. E s t i o t : L’or..., Fl., no 8.

Le slogan concordia militum, placé sur les aureliani de Florien émis à Cyzique appartient à la catégorie thématique plus large dans le monnayage impérial c’est-à-dire « les motifs militaires »32. Elle comprend les monnaies dont les légendes de revers s’adressaient directement aux troupes militaires. Outre le thème mentionné, à cette catégorie appartenaient aussi p.ex. les idées : fides militum, conservator militum, fides exerciti, restitutor exerciti, virtus militum, etc. Il y avait donc place aux louanges des vertus militaires mais aussi à l’accent sur le rôle politique et l’activité du souverain liée aux fonctions militaires de l’empereur qui visait le renouvellement de l’armée. Dans le monnayage de l’époque de la Crise du IIIe siècle apparut, bien distinctement, un courant qui considérait l’armée comme une force réelle assurant le pouvoir impérial, la force qui soutenait l’empereur ce qui dépendait évidemment de la loyauté, de l’homogénéité et de la fidelité de ses soldats33. Ce courant a trouvé son reflet

32 Les catégories sont définies par la légende de revers. En tachant de simplifier le maté- riel numismatique, on peut assigner 7 catégories thématiques fondamentales : 1) « empereur », 2) « virtutes Augusti », 3) « saeculum aureum », 4) « dieux », 5) « motifs militaires », 6) « victoria », 7) « motifs géographiques ». Cf. A.A. K l u c z e k : Sfera topiczna wyobrażeń w mennictwie cesarza rzymskiego Floriana (276 rok). „Wieki Stare i Nowe” 2011. T. 3(8), pp. 36—58. Autrement E. M a n d e r s (Mapping the representation…, pp. 284—285, 289—290) assigne 13 catégories thématiques, ce sont : 1) “dynastic representation”, 2) “military representation”, 3) “divine association”, 4) “saeculum aureum”, 5) “euergesia”, 6) “paradigmata”, 7) “restitutor- messages”, 8) “elevation”, 9) “non-specific representation”, 10) “virtues”, 11) “aeternitas-messages”, 12) “geographical messages”, 13) “unica”. 33 W. K a c z a n o w i c z : Aspekty ideologiczne…, pp. 47—48, 66—67, 80—81, 88—89, 95, 110, 117—118 ; G. S a l a m o n e : L’Imperatore e l’esercito: l’elemento militare quale attributo 150 Agata A. Kluczek dans une très grande quantité des monnaies qui rappelaient les valeurs concordia et fides en liant, en même temps, ses idées avec celles des militaires. Du grand nombre des slogans « classiques » fournis par la tradition et liés avec la sphère militaire, on a utilisé quelques-uns à peine. On battait pour Florien trois types d’aureliani : à Rome — fides militvm34, à Ticinum — concordia exercit35 et à Siscia et Cyzique — concordia militvm36. Les monnaies d’argent de Florien de la catégorie « motifs militaires » dans les trésors mis en analyse constituent 24% d’exemplaires. Ce résultat n’est pas très différent de « la moyenne » dans le monnayage de ses prédécesseurs. Les statistiques exécutées à base des trésors analysés prouvent que dans le monnayage des années 268—276 ce fut environ 20% de monnaies d’argent37. Il y eut donc une forte tendance à exposer (dans la propagande monétaire), des sujets militaires. La catégorie « motifs militaires » ainsi que « virtutes Augusti » et « dieux » occupèrent les premières places dans la hiérarchie de thèmes monétaires (cf. fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Monnayage d’argent de la période 268—276 et de Florien — catégories thématiques della Virtus imperiale. In : L’immaginario del potere. Studi di iconografia monetale. A cura di R. P e r a. Roma 2006, pp. 209—211, 215 ; R. H e d l u n d : „…achieved nothing worthy of memory”…, pp. 98—100. 34 S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, pp. 314—316 ; RIC 5/1, Fl., nos 29—31. 35 S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, pp. 338—339 ; RIC 5/1, Fl., no 58. 36 S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, pp. 378—381, 429 ; RIC 5/1, Fl., nos 57 (classé à Ticinum) et 116. 37 Calculs à base de l’analyse de contenu des trésors mentionnés. E. M a n d e r s (Mapping the representation…, pp. 285—286), définit la présence de “military representation” dans le monnayage des années 193—284 à 22,5%. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 151

Le chiffre qui détermine la participation des « motifs militaires » dans le monnayage de la fin des années soixante et de la première moitié des années soixante-dix du IIIe siècle, est plus grand à cause d’Aurélien car dans son monnayage environ 29% de monnaies d’argent traitaient des sujets militaires. Ce taux dans le monnayage des autres empereurs fut décidement plus bas. Dans le monnayage de Claude II environ 13%, et dans celui de Tacite à peine 9%. Le résultat de 24% du monnayage de Florien laisse supposer que les sujets adressés directement aux soldats dépassaient largement une répétition méchanique des idées réalisées antérieurement dans le monnayage impérial. D’autant plus que la partie prépondérante du groupe des monnaies de Florien de cette catégorie, ce sont les aureliani du type concordia militvm — plus de 80% (cf. fig. 3) ; et la majorité des monnaies de ce type — plus de 72% — ce sont les frappes de Cyzique. En résultat la participation de ce type, d’un atelier asiatique frappant sous le règne de Florien, dans les contenus de trouvailles prises en statistique, est très grande et s’élève à 14% (cf. fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Motifs militaires dans le monnayage de Florien — typologie des monnaies d’argent

Fig. 4. Monnaies de type concordia militum émises à Cyzique et monnaies d’autres types (varia) dans le monnayage d’argent de Florien 152 Agata A. Kluczek

Ce taux (plus de 14%) des monnaies concordia militum, présentes dans les trésors analysés et battues à Cyzique, est d’autant plus important que toutes les 787 monnaies d’argent de Florien émises dans tous ses ateliers, portent 27 de divers types. Cela met en relief le caractère primordial du type concordia militvm et le rôle principal de l’atelier de Cyzique dans la politique monétaire de l’empereur Florien. En outre il est régulier que les monnaies de Cyzique restent rares dans les trésors occidentaux38 ; et la documentation des découvertes locales dans les provinces asiatiques est insuffisante pour faire agrandir la statistique précise (faite à travers les trésors monétaires) de la production de cet atelier aussi bien que d’autres ateliers orientaux au cours du IIIe siècle39. Cependant dans le cas du monnayage de Florien, le taux qui détermine la frappe de Cyzique dans les dépôts analysés est surprenant grand (cf. tab. 3 et 4)40.

T a b l e a u 3 Frappe de l’or sous Florien — représentation des ateliers Atelier Nb. d’ex. Lugdunum Rome Ticinum Siscia Serdica Cyzique — 2 12 1 1 12 % — 7,1 42,9 3,55 3,55 42,9

T a b l e a u 4 Frappe d’argent — activité des ateliers sous Florien. Répartition par trésors monétaires (%) Atelier Trésor Lugdunum Rome Ticinum Siscia Serdica Cyzique Blackmoor 60 20 — 10 — 10 Thibouville 36,4 27,2 36,4 — — — Nieder-Rentgen 27 54 2,7 13,5 2,7 7,3 Sainte-Pallaye 75 12,5 — — 12,5 — Lochhausen — 72,7 9,1 — 9,1 9,1 Maravielle 12,1 54,5 9,1 18,2 — 6,1 La Venèra 6,1 35,2 7,4 41,6 4 5,7 Sirmium — 5 — 52,5 25 17,5 Svetozarevo — 4,2 2,1 8,3 29,2 56,2 Plevna — — — 6,5 10,9 82,6 Troy — — — — 44,5 55,5

38 Les émissions de Cyzique font dans le monnayage d’Aurélien : 6,9% à La Venèra, 1% à Sainte-Pallaye (pour la comparaison à Çanakkale — 51,5%, à Plevna — 35,1%, à Svetozarevo — 34,8%, à Troy — 50%) et dans le monnayage de Tacite — 1,2% au trésor La Venèra, 3,3% à Sainte-Pallaye (Plevna — 32,2%, Svetozarevo — 29,3%, Troy — 50%). 39 Cf. A. R u s k e : Ein Östlicher Hortfund des 3. Jahrhunderts und die 2. Emission des Probus aus Antiochia. „Numismatische Zeitschrift” 2005, Bd. 113/114, pp. 153—156. 40 Voir aussi A. K u n i s z : La circulation des antoniniens sur les territoires de la Péninsule Balkanique du déclin du IIIe siècle (270—294). „Polish Numismatic News” 1986, vol. 4, tab. 1—4. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 153

La participation des frappes des ateliers dans les trouvailles analysées est diverse, déterminée surtout par la distance du dépôt de la localisation du centre monétaire. Elle dépend aussi de l’intensité de la production dans les ateliers concrets. Ainsi donc, le volume des émissions de la Monnaie, défini en pourcen tage, nous donne l’information sur son activité. Dans le groupe des monnaies de Florien de provenance déterminée41, la production de Cyzique constitue plus de 14% d’exemplaires de pièces d’argent et plus de 15% de pièces d’or et d’argent. Sans doute l’atelier de Cyzique frappa intensivement en 276. En outre, en prenant en considération les limitations mentionées déjà, il faut constater que ce fut la Monnaie plus importante dans la politique monétaire de Florien que cela n’en résulte de la « simple statistique ». Ce qui nous induit en erreur c’est aussi l’impression d’une petite activité de l’atelier de Cyzique en comparaison avec les autres ateliers : Siscia (plus de 30%) et Rome (plus de 30%)42. En plus, dans le contexte du contrôle direct de l’Asie mineure par l’empereur, il faut constater que Cyzique fut sans doute la Monnaie prépondérante où les problèmes du règne de Florien trouvèrent son reflet43. Ces problèmes furent résumés par trois inscriptions laconiques placées sur les revers des monnaies d’or et d’argent. Toutes les trois legendes furent connues auparavant dans le monnayage im- périal. En ce qui concerne le choix des légendes et des modèles iconographiques, le monnayage de Florien est un mélange de ce qui offrait déjà le monnayage de ses prédécesseurs. Les aurei de Florien, du type conservator avg furent le remaniement du modèle utilisé déjà pour Tacite44. Ils proclamaient la protection du dieu Sol, qualifié par l’épithète conservator et présenté dans l’iconographie. Également le slogan concordia militum fut connu auparavant, dans les années soixante-dix du IIIe siècle on s’en servit dans la Monnaie de Cyzique en battant des antoniniani au nom d’Aurélien45. Le novum sur les émissions de Florien fut pourtant la liaison entre la légende de revers et l’iconographie qui présente le couronnement de l’imperator par la déesse Victoire. Ce modèle iconographique fut utilisé à Cyzique plus tôt sur les aureliani de Tacite du type spes pvblica46. Maintenant, dans le monnayage de Florien, il exprimait une force victorieuse en tant que une vertu de l’empereur, et ses victoires ce qui était documenté par la

41 P.ex. la publication du trésor de Reichenstein ne permet pas, dans ce point, de faire des calculs précis. 42 Dès la nouvelle de la mort de l’empereur l’atelier de Cyzique a vite cessé la production monétaire pour Florien. Il vaut mieux souligner la continuité de la frappe pour lui par les autres ateliers situés à l’ouest de l’Empire ; cela peut faire « l’abondance » des monnaies y produites. Cf. supra note 20. 43 Cf. S. E s t i o t : L’or…, p. 361. L’auteur nomme cet atelier comme « avant-poste dans la lutte contre Probus ». 44 S. E s t i o t : L’or…, Tac., no 108. 45 S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, pp. 417, 420—421 ; RIC 5/1 Aurel., nos 342, 343, 356. 46 S. E s t i o t : Monnaies…, pp. 425—426 ; RIC 5/1, Tac., no 208. 154 Agata A. Kluczek silhouette de la Victoire et par son geste d’approbation envers l’imperator47. Dans le langage métaphorique de la numismatique romaine cette scène devait souligner la prédisposition et la loi de Florien à la pourpre. Cependant la légende concordia militum entreprend un autre problème comme problème du premier rang, cette fois-ci non sur le plan métaphorique mais sur celui qui concernait de réels soutiens du pouvoir impérial c’est-à-dire les relations à l’intérieur de l’armée romaine et de sa relation avec son chef. On fit appel à la concorde entre les soldats, celle entre les troupes militaires et l’empereur et à leur soutien pour qu’il gardât le règne. Cette pensée a, dans le contexte des circonstances de la mise de Florien à la pourpre et de sa position à l’Est, en autre but, le but pragmatique. Elle montre aussi le climat de son règne. La signification d’une autre légende placée sur un aureus du type victoria ghottica fut aussi très actuelle. L’empereur est, d’après la représentation le vainqueur des barbares. De cette manière l’idée de la victoire sur les Goths, absente à Cyzique au temps de Tacite mais utilisée ici aux temps de Claude II, de Quintille et d’Aurélien, y revint sur les monnaies de Florien. Ces trois sujets et leurs modèles iconographiques malgré la remarque faite sur le caractère éphèmerique du règne de Florien, montrent comme dans une lentille la spécificité de ce règne, les événements et toute son aura qui l’accompagne. Dans le contenu des émissions monétaires de Cyzique on ne montra pas, en apparence, de problème fondamental de Florien, celui de la nécessité du combat avec son rival. Au contraire on tache, en enregistrant le nom de Florien seul auguste (puis qu’il n’y a pas d’allusion directe concernant son concurrent Probus), de montrer son aura de grandeur et de charisme. L’attention de Florien fut sans doute attirée par les questions courantes telles que les problèmes politiques et militaires ainsi donc la réalisation de son image et de son programme dans les représentations placées sur les monnaies émises dans la Monnaie la plus proche fut moins importante face à ses problèmes plus pressants. Ce n’est pas dans la lutte de propagande qu’on résolva la rivalité à la pourpre. De telles « escarmouches idéologiques » sont visibles dans le cas du règne plus long de deux empereurs régnant parallèlement48. Cependant cette modestie et sui generis compacité des sujets traîtés sur les monnaies de Florien à Cyzique, montrent les devoirs de l’empereur. Dans la sphère d’action reflétée dans les initiatives numismatiques le premier devoir ce fut : l’annonce des droits au règne (l’enregistrement du nom du souverain) et le deuxième — l’acquisition du soutien de l’armée.

47 Plus tard on répéta le motif sur les monnaies concordia militum émises pour Probus — RIC 5/1 Pr., nos 907—908. 48 Cf. A.A. K l u c z e k : „Wojna idei” na monetach Galliena i Postumusa w III w. n.e. W : Studia z dziejów antyku. Pamięci Profesora Andrzeja Kunisza. Red. W. K a c z a n o w i c z. Katowice 2004, pp. 206—227 ; C. G r a n d v a l l e t : L’affrontement idéologique entre Gallien et Postume: l’exemple des bustes casques et des bustes à attributes Herculéens. In : Impact of Empire…, pp. 337—351. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 155

La légende concordia militum qui domine sur les monnaies battues à Cyzique doit être définie comme sujet principal du monnayage de Florien dans cette partie des représentations monétaires qui fut inspirée par les attentes et par le programme de l’empereur. Ce sujet donne un trait individuel à tout le monnayage de ce souverain qui fut dominé par les efforts d’acquérir le soutien de l’armée romaine. Les représentations sur les aureliani mais aussi sur les aurei provoquaient encore d’autres associations qu’on peut rapporter à la question de la légitimation du pouvoir et de sa sacralisation c’est-à-dire celles qui concernaient un des plus importants problèmes de l’époque de la Crise du IIIe siècle. Cependant la question des guerres avec un ennemi extérieur n’est que signalée, et se limite à un seul revers victoria Gothica. Ces émissions, thématiquement modestes tracent la façon dont on voyait la condition de l’Empire romain en 276. Évidemment, il domine dans les représen- tations monétaires le cercle des problèmes locaux ceux-ci pourtant, puisque liés à la lutte au pouvoir impérial et concernant la personne de l’empereur touchent aux problèmes de l’État entier sur ses plans principaux : les relations entre l’empereur et les soldats et les démarches pour montrer le prestige du pouvoir impérial.

Traduit par Urszula Sobik

Agata A. Kluczek

„Perspektywa małoazjatycka” problemów kryzysu III wieku w Cesarstwie Rzymskim Treści emisji monetarnych z Kyzikos (276 rok po Chr.)

Streszczenie

Kluczem do odnalezienia w treściach monet bitych w Kyzikos reakcji na spiętrzenie w prowincjach małoazjatyckich Imperium problemów polityczno-militarnych w drugiej połowie III wieku było skoncentrowanie się na tematyce emisji monet cesarza Floriana. Władca ten wyniesiony został do purpury na ziemiach Azji Mniejszej i tam pozostawał w czasie swego krótkiego panowania (276 rok). Bazy do rozważań dostarczył materiał obejmujący 787 jego aurelianów, które pochodzą z 12 skarbów. Uzupełnieniem, które pozwoliło na doprecyzowanie wniosków, stał się zbiór znanych jego 28 aureusów. Materiałem do retrospekcji i porównań był natomiast zbiór 46 374 srebrnych monet emitowanych za rządów Klaudiusza II, Kwintyllusa, Aureliana i Tacyta. Zgromadzony materiał pozwolił na porównanie ujmowanej w procentach struktury typologicznej monet Floriana powstałych w Kyzikos z tymi emitowanymi w innych ośrodkach, jak również na wymierną ocenę specyfiki podejmowanych w imieniu cesarza tematów, podporządkowanych 156 Agata A. Kluczek szerszym kategoriom tematycznym, co uwypukla porównanie ich hierarchii w mennictwie Floriana oraz jego poprzedników. Analiza ilościowa zawartości skarbów, obejmujących srebrne monety Floriana, oraz zesta- wień jego monet złotych przekonuje, że w 276 roku mennica cesarska w Kyzikos pracowała intensywnie. Dowodzi tego wysoki procentowy udział wybitych w niej monet: ponad 14% masy srebrnych i ponad 15% wszystkich — i złotych, i srebrnych — przebadanych numizmatów Floriana. Ponadto trzeba mieć na względzie stosunkowo niską reprezentację monet z ośrodków wschodnich — w tym z Kyzikos — w znaleziskach z terenów zachodnich i naddunajskich państwa rzymskiego. To tym bardziej objaśnia, że mylące jest wrażenie małej aktywności tego ośrodka za rządów Floriana w porównaniu z innymi mennicami: Siscii (ponad 30%) i Rzymu (ponad 30%). Dodatkowo, w kontekście bezpośredniej kontroli cesarza nad Azją Mniejszą stwierdzić trzeba, że Kyzikos była mennicą wiodącą, jeśli chodzi o odzwierciedlenie w treściach monetarnych zasadniczych problemów rządów Floriana. Problemy te określono w trzech lansowanych tam tematach: concordia militvm, conservator avg, victoria ghottica (sic!). W treściach emisji monetarnych z Kyzikos pozornie nie oddano podstawowego problemu, z którym mierzył się Florian: konieczności podjęcia rozprawy z zagrażającym panowaniu rywalem Probusem. Starano się, rejestrując imię Floriana w roli panującego, obudować wokół niego aurę wielkości, tworzonej przez jego moc zwyciężania i odniesione sukcesy militarne (temat victoria Gothica ilustrowany sylwetkami bogini Wiktorii i jeńca, a także przedstawienie Wiktorii wręcza- jącej wieniec cesarzowi na monetach podejmujących wątek concordia militum), oraz eksponować otaczającą go boską protekcję (bóg Sol na monetach głoszących ideę conservator Augusti). Tylko sygnalnie natomiast poruszono sprawę wojen z zewnętrznym wrogiem (victoria Gothica). W ten sposób ukazano główne zadania, jakie miał podjąć nowo wyniesiony cesarz. W sfe- rze odzwierciedlonej w inicjatywach numizmatycznych pierwszym zadaniem było zgłoszenie praw do władzy (rejestracja imienia władcy), drugim zaś — zyskanie poparcia armii (concordia militum). Frapująca jest zwłaszcza jednorodność tematyczna aurelianów z Kyzikos, głoszących jeden temat: concordia militum. Faktycznie dominował on na emisjach z małoazjatyckiej mennicy (90% uwzględnionych w statystyce złotych i srebrnych numizmatów z Kyzikos), stanowił główny motyw w mennictwie Floriana w tej części wyobrażeń namonetnych, która inspirowana była ocze- kiwaniami i programem cesarza. Temat ten, ale też jego nowatorskie rozwinięcie w ikonografii (Wiktoria ofiarująca wieniec imperatorowi) nadaje indywidualistyczny rys całemu mennictwu tego władcy. Zdominowały je dążenia do zyskania wsparcia armii. Aż 24% egzemplarzy wszystkich srebrnych monet Floriana stanowią bowiem monety należące do kategorii „motywy wojskowe”. Owe skromne tematycznie emisje wyznaczają „perspektywę małoazjatycką” postrzegania kondycji Imperium Rzymskiego w 276 roku. Owszem, treści propagowane na monetach pozostają w kręgu spraw lokalnych, jednak — ponieważ wiążą się z walką o władzę imperialną i dotyczą osoby cesarza — dotykają też problemów ogólnopaństwowych w ich zasadniczych płaszczyznach: relacji cesarza z wojskowymi oraz starań o podniesienie prestiżu władzy imperialnej. « Vue d’Asie mineure » sur les problèmes de la Crise du IIIe siècle... 157

Agata A. Kluczek

An “Asia Minor” perspective on the problems of the crisis of the 3rd century in the Roman Empire MESSAGES OF THE COINS FROM cYZICUS (276 A.D.)

S u m m a r y

The key to find reactions to the variety of the political-military problems in the second half of the 3rd century in Asia Minor provinces in the contents of the coins in Cyzicus was to concentrate on the message of the coins of emperor Florian. The very ruler was appointed a purple in the Asia Minor areas and remained there during his short period of ruling (276 A.D.). The basis of presented considerations was the material covering his 787 aureliani that come from 12 treasures. A supplement that allowed for specifying conclusions was a collection of his 28 known aurei. The material for retrospection and comparison, on the other hand, was a collection of 46,374 silver coins issued under the ruling of Claudius II, Quintilius, Aurelian and Tacitus. The material gathered allowed for comparing a typological structure of Florian’s coins issued in Cyzicus with those issued in other centres as well as a measurable evaluation of the specificity of topics dealt with on behalf of an emperor, subject to broader thematical categories, which is highlighted by a comparison of their hierarchy in Florian’s coinage and his predecessors. The quantitative analysis of the treasure contents covering silver Florian’s coins, and contrasts of his gold coins seems convincing and allows for making a statement that the imperial mint in Cyzicus in 276 A.D. worked intensively. What proves it is a high percentage contribution of coins issued there: over 14% mass of silver ones and over 15% of all, both gold and silver ones, of examined Florian’s coins. Besides, one should take into account a relatively low representation of coins from the eastern centres, including Cyzicus, in the finds from western and Danube territories of the Roman state. It explains even more that an impression of a small activity of this centre under Florian’s reign in comparison to other mints, such as Siscia (over 30%) and Rome (over 30%) is confusing. In the context of the emperor’s direct control over Asia Minor one should emphasise that Cyzicus was a leading mint when it comes to the manifestation of substantial problems of Florian’s reign. The very problems were defined in three topics promoted there: concordia militvm, conservator avg, victoria ghottica (sic!). The contents of the coinage from Cyzicus did not reflect the main problem Florian tack- led, namely the necessity to deal with Probus, his rival threatening his ruling. When registering Florian’s name in the role of a ruler, the attempts were made to rebuild the aura of magnitude around Florian, created through his power of winning and military successes achieved (the topic of victoria Gothica) illustrated by goddess Victoria and a prisoner of war, as well as show Victoria giving a wreath to the emperor on the coins treating about concordia militum, and expose god’s protection surrounding him (god Sol on the coins preaching the idea of conservator Augusti). Only the issue of wars with an external enemy was covered signally (victoria Gothica). The main tasks the emperor was to take were presented in the following way. The first task reflected in numismatic initiatives was to report the right to power (registering the name of the ruler) while the second was gaining the army support (concordia militum). What is particularly intriguing is the topic homogeneity of aureliani from Cyzicus preaching one topic, namely concordia militum. In fact, it dominated on the issues from the Asia Minor mint (90% of gold and silver coins from Cyzicus taken into account in statistics). It constituted the main motive in Florian’s coinage, in this part of on-coin representations that was inspired by the emperor’s expectations and programme. The very topic, but also its novatory development in the iconography (Victoria 158 Agata A. Kluczek offering an emperor a wreath) gives an individualist outline to the whole coinage of the ruler. They were dominated by the endeavour to gain the army support. As much as 24% of the copies of all Florian’s silver coins constitutes the coins belonging to the category of “the military motives.” The unassuming thematic issues determine an “Asia Minor perspective” of perceiving the condition of the Roman Empire in 276 A.D. Certainly, the contents propagated on the coins remain in the circle of local problems, however, as they are connected with the battle for the imperial power, and concern the person of the emperor, also touch upon the nation-wide problems in their basic levels: the relationship between the emperor and the military, as well as the attempts to raise the prestige of the imperial power. Agata A. Kluczek

Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus du type virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum

Le monnayage du règne de Probus (276—282) se caractérise par une richesse de représentations gravées au droit et au revers des monnaies et des médaillons. Certaines de ces représentations furent créées par l’effet de l’activité innovatrice des scalptores employés dans les atéliers moné- taires impériaux frappant sous Probus. Pourtant des fois ces représentations furent le résultat de l’inspiration puisée dans la tradition riche de plusieurs siècles d’expériences du monnayage romain, puisqu’il arrivait qu’on copiait des représenta- tions antérieures et qu’en modifiant des détails on reproduisait l’iconographie ancienne ou bien en faisait des ajouts en intégrant les idées graphiques utilisées antérieurement par de nouvelles légendes. Par l’effet de telles pratiques — étant donné que la mise en place des schémas des représentations à chaque fois nouvelles se heurtait aux limites naturelles — en résultait des représentations monétaires tout à fait intéressantes. Parmi les représentations suscitant de l’intérêt il faut indiquer l’arrangement des revers des médaillons de Probus. La légende virtvs avg commentée à l’exergue par la formule trivmfvm gotthicvm, bien exceptionnelle dans le monnayage impérial, se trouve illustrée par une stupéfiante iconographie : au centre est presenté l’empereur qui s’avance à cheval ; il se dirige vers droite ; il est en tenue militaire, curaissé et drappé du paludamentum, dans la main 160 Agata A. Kluczek droite il tient une haste pointée. Après lui en position solemne s’avance à pied la Victoire en robe ondoyante, une palme dans la main gauche, soulevant une couronne avec la main droite pour la poser sur la tête de l’empereur. Du côté droit s’élève le tropaeum avec le casque qui y est suspendu, avec des fragments de l’armure, avec un boulier rond et oval, avec une lance. Devant le trophée se tiennent deux captifs. Le premier d’eux flanque toute cette scène du côté droit, il se trouve debout, enchaîné, tournant le dos à l’empereur qui s’approche à cheval ; l’autre, lui aussi les mains liés, se trouve assis par terre devant le cheval, le visage tournée vers le cavalier. On connaît deux exemplaires de ce type. Pour les distinguer l’un de l’autre on peut leur attribuer les noms : l’exemplaire « viennois » — selon l’endroit où il est gardé, et celui « de Priština » – selon l’endroit où il fut retrouvé et où il est conservé. Les deux ne sont pas identhiques ni au niveau de leur composition, ni de leurs dimensions, ni de l’état de conservation : a) l’exemplaire viennois : 40 mm, 34,7 g, en cuivre, actuellement au rebord irrégulier, probablement à l’origine il fut doté d’un cercle en airain, cet exemplaire est mal conservé1 (fig. 1) ; b) l’exemplaire de Priština : 47,5 mm, 31,975 g, la partie centrale — en cuivre, le rebord — en airain, cet exemplaire est très bien conservé2 (fig. 2).oooo Dans les ouvrages du XVIIIe siècle est décrit le médaillon viennois3, tandis que l’autre — exhumé près de Gračanica et de Priština entre 1955 et 1960 — fut publié par Emil Čerškov en 19694, et puis sa description détaillée fut donnée par Efrem Pegan en 19805. Pourtant encore dans un ouvrage datant de

1 R. D e l b r u e c k : Die Münzbildnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus. Berlin 1940, Beilage 9, p. 172, no 28 ; P. B a s t i e n : Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains. Vol. 3. Wetteren 1994, pl. 121, no 1 ; cf. E. P e g a n : Ein Bronzemedaillon des Probus auf den Triumph über die Coten im Jahr 278 in Pannonien. „Numizmatičar” 1980, br. 3, pp. 47–48, fig. 1 ; S. E s t i o t, Ph. G y s e n : Probus Invictus Augustus: bustes inédits ou rares de l’empereur Probus. « Bulletin de la Société française de Numismatique » 2004, no 59, fig. 21. 2 E. P e g a n : Ein Bronzemedaillon…, pp. 47–48, fig. 2 ; cf. S. E s t i o t, Ph. G y s e n : Probus Invictus Augustus…, fig. 22 ; S. E s t i o t : Une campagne germanique de l’empereur Probus: l’atelier de Ticinum en 277—278 ; H.-G. D a n s : Pflaum, un historien du XXe siècle. Éd. S. D e m o u g i n. Genève 2006, pp. 219—222, 246—247 et pl. 8, no 36 ; E a d e m : Sine arcu sagittae : la représentation numismatique de plumbatae / mattiobarbuli aux IIIe—IVe siè- cles (279–307 de n.è.). „Numismatische Zeitschrift” [cité ici : NZ] 2008, Bd. 116/117, p. 180, fig. 29.oooo 3 P.F.J. G o s s e l l i n, C.-Ph. C a m p i o n d e T e r s a n : Catologue des médailles antiques et modernes, principalement des inédites et rares en or, argent, bronze, etc. du Cabinet de M. D’Ennery, écuyer. Paris 1788, p. 437, no 2449. 4 E. Č e r š k o v : Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji. Beograd 1969, pp. 122, 139, fig. 21—22. 5 E. P e g a n : Ein Bronzemedaillon…, pp. 47—56. Son enquête montre que l’exemplaire viennois provenait de la collection d’Ennery. Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus... 161

1993 Pierre Bastien ne connaît que le médaillon de Vienne6. Depuis la publication mentionnée d’E. Pegan des interprétations plus larges des représentations placées sur ces médaillons furent tentées par Sylviane Estiot et Philippe Gysen dans leurs travaux sur la chronologie des émissions monétaires de Probus et sur l’originalité des représentations dans son monnayage7. Ils constatèrent que ces grands médaillons sont préparés de façon contemporaine à la 3e émission d’aureliani de Ticinum (277—début 278) et ont été probablement distribués en même temps que le donativum du début de 278. Le présent article est consacré à la question de l’originalité de l’iconographie décrite de revers des médaillons de Probus, ou autrement : son objectif n’est pas de rechercher les « sources » de l’inspiration de la représentation de revers des spectaculaires médaillons mais son objectif est celui de démontrer les autres émissions sur lesquelles on utilisait le motif iconographique : « déesse de la victoire — cavalier — trophée — captifs ». L’originalité des médaillons de Probus est soulignée par les maints cher cheurs. Leur évaluation se réfère à la totalité des représentations de revers pour affirmer que la combinaison de la légende de virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthi- cum et de l’iconographie décrite ci-dessus aboutit à une représentation tout à fait innovatrice. Cette affirmation n’est juste que dans une certaine mesure. Ce qui en décide c’est la légende de revers qui est inédite dans le monnayage impérial, et aucunement son iconographie — puisque celle-ci, comme on va le démontrer par la suite, n’était pas inconnue dans le monayage des prédéces- seurs de Probus. Ce problème-là n’a pas préoccupé les chercheurs. E. Pegan — sans aborder la question du « protopype iconographique » des médaillons de Probus (elle n’apparaît qu’à la marge du sujet principal, c’est-à-dire le sens idéologique de la représentation) — constate que ce type des médaillons a un

6 P. B a s t i e n : Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains. Vol. 2. Wetteren 1993, p. 567. Ce médaillon unique jusqu’aux ans 1955—1960 est parfois condamné comme un faux à cause de son mauvais état et son aspect retouché : K. P i n k (Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit. VI, 1 : Probus. NZ 1949, 73, pp. 13—74 ; Die Medaillonprägung unter Kaiser Probus. NZ 1955, Bd. 76, pp. 16—25) ne mentionne point l’exemplaire de Vienne. Cf. les doutes de R. D e l b r u e c k : Die Münzbildnisse…, Beilage 9, p. 172, no 28 : “Messingmedaillon” ; ibidem, p. 238 : “Medaillon aus Messing” ; ibidem, pp. 172—173 : “Rom — problematischen Medaillon […] ein mäßig erhaltenes, als verdächtig geltendes Erzmedaillon in Wien” ; ibidem, p. 238 : “Abschlag der Stempel eines Octonio (?), Rom 278 (?) […] Wien, unter den Fälschun- gen”. À son tour P. Bastien le tient pour authentique. Il est intéressant que dans le groupe des monnaies de « revers rares du module ordinaire d’or » Th. Mionnet a noté : « virtvs.avg. L’Empereur à cheval et plusieurs figures ; de l’autre côté on voit les têtes de Probus et de Jupiter, avec la légende iovi.conservatori.probi.avg. »; cf. Th. M i o n n e t : De la rareté et du prix des médailles romaines ou Recueil contenant les types rares et inédits des médailles d’or, d’argent et de bronze, frappées pendant la durée de la Ré- publique et de l’Empire romain. T. 2. Paris 1858, p. 120. 7 S. E s t i o t, Ph. G y s e n : Probus Invictus Augustus…, pp. 82—84 ; S. E s t i o t : Une campagne germanique…, pp. 219—222 et 246—247. 162 Agata A. Kluczek caractère exceptionnel en écrivant : “Auch die Rückseite unseres Medaillons ist neu. Wir kennen nur einige wenige Rückseitentypen, die aber alle nur im nischen Zeit auftritt. In unserem Falle haben wir es mit einem Keine davon zeigt den von der Viktoria bekränzten Kaiser mit Lanze zu Pferde vor Tropaion und Gefangenen”8. Les enquêtes de E. Pegan l’ont amené à inclure les médail- lons à la frappe de Siscia9. Des exemples d’autres monnaies de Probus y citées il apparaît l’image d’une cohérence thématique des contenus traités dans cet atelier pannonien ; ce qui en décide c’est l’abondance dans une iconographie monétaire des contenus triomphaux, bien que le triomphe lui-même n’est pas exprimé dans les légendes de revers. La scène complexe des médaillons virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum dans laquelle se trouvent cumulés les symboles de la victoire et de la vertu militaire, présente sans doute une référence de liaison avec tout ce groupe mentionné par E. Pegan. Néanmoins, ceci n’est pas une explication suffisante et ceci non pas du tout à cause de la réattribution de ces médaillons dont il a été question ci-dessus — à Ticinum. C’est qu’aussi dans l’atelier padan, mais aussi dans d’autres ateliers monétaires travaillant sous Probus sur les monnaies et les médaillons on peut trouver des scènes où sont mis en valeur des éléments de combat associés à la victoire et au triomphe, où sont soulignées les vertus martiales de l’empereur, et où la Victoire l’accompagne. E. Pegan lui-même suggère, sans y prêter pourtant beaucoup d’intérêt, que de telles solutions furent bien répandues au IIIe siècle sur les monnaies adventus Augusti ou virtus Augusti. Il cite en exemple les monnaies de Probus lesquelles sous la légende adventvs avg donnent la scène d’adventus : la Victoire ouvre le cortège, après elle il y a l’empereur avançant à cheval et des soldats à pied10. Il évoque en outre, serait-ce per analogiam, le médaillon de Sévère Alexandre frappé au début des années 30 du IIIe siècle. Le thème de virtvs avgvsti y est illustré par l’empereur avaçant avec dignité à pied, où après lui il y a la Victoire qui le couronne, à côté il y a une figure qui marche (Virtus ?) portant le tropaeum11. L’analogie iconographique y est relativement lointaine, bien qu’il s’agisse des mêmes protagonistes de la représentation : l’empereur et la déesse Victoire, y est reproduit le geste de

8 E. P e g a n : Ein Bronzemedaillon…, p. 52. 9 Ibidem, pp. 53—54 : “Für den geplanten Triumph in der Hauptstadt blieb im Jahr 278 keine Zeit mehr, so daß Probus die Festlichkeiten nach Siscia verlegte, wo er die gefangenge- nommenen Vandalen in das römische Heer aufnahm […] Die grossangelegte Ausprägung wird in Siscia ausgeführt, wo auch der Triumph stattfand”. 10 F. G n e c c h i : I medaglioni romani. Vol. 2. Milano 1912, Pr., no 6, pl. 119, no 3 ; H. C o h e n : Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’Empire Romain communément appelées médailles impériales. Réimpression de l’édition originale augmentée d’une introduction et d’une mise à jour de G. Depeyrot. Paris 1995, vol. 6, Pr., no 32 ; K . P i n k : Die Medaillonprä- gung…, 1955, p. 18, no 6. 11 F. G n e c c h i : I medaglioni…, Alex.Sév., no 30, pl. 100, no 6 ; H. Cohen: Description historique…, vol. 4, Alex.Sév., no 593. Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus... 163 couronner l’empereur-guerrier incarnant la virtus pour un combat vainqueur, il y apparaît aussi le motif de tropaeum constituant un emblème traditionnnel de la victoire militaire. De toute façon dans ces représentations on y aperçoit certaines solutions iconographiques partagées avec celles qui se trouvent sur les médaillons de Probus issus de Ticinum, ainsi que la coïncidence avec ces médaillons du message idéologique général : l’éloge des vertus militaires et des succès de l’empereur. Ceci est dû au fait que dans le monnayage du IIIe siècle furent fréquents les schémas iconographiques où l’on utilisait de tels motifs comme la victoria personnifiée et d’autres symboles de la victoire (p.ex. tropaeum, captifs). Sur les monnaies et sur les médaillons de l’époque furent repris en maintes versions les sujets tels que virtus Augusti, adventus Augusti, mais aussi d’autres, et à l’aide de ces éléments graphiques on symbolisait la virtus de l’empereur, on glorifiait sa victoire, on exprimait la croyance que le vainqueur se trouvât appuyé par la force de la Victoire, et aussi on désirait voir les ennemis s’humilier devant l’imperator12. De plus, l’histoire du schéma : « Victoire — cavalier — tropaeum — captifs » est de toute façon de beaucoup plus longue que celle du IIIe siècle à lui tout seul. Les différentes scènes qui composent le schéma en question, dans ses différentes configurations, furent utilisées dans le monnayage romain depuis bien des siècles13 ; d’ailleurs certaines solutions particulières, bien sûr dans leurs différentes variantes, restaient communes pour l’art antique au sens général. En recherchant « le prototype » pour l’iconographie des médaillons de Pro- bus il vaut la peine d’engager l’enquête sur un contexte plus vaste des sources numismatiques, non pas seulement sur les monnaies soumises aux limitations de la part des idées de virtus Augusti / adventus Augusti, et aussi de se référer au patrimoine des représentations monétaires antérieures. Il s’avère que dans les officines locales en Orient romain le schéma de « Niké — cavalier — tropaion — captifs » fut reproduit à plusieures reprises dans la seconde moitié du IIe siècle et dans la première moitié du IIIe siècle. Ce schéma fut ainsi utilisé pour l’émission de la monnaie en bronze de Mytilène cité principale de l’île de Lesbos, qui sur leur droit a le portrait de Commode14 (fig. 3). Après des années, sous Caracalla, le schéma fut reutilisé

12 A.A. K l u c z e k : Vndiqve victores. Wizja rzymskiego władztwa nad światem w mennictwie złotego wieku Antoninów i doby kryzysu III wieku — studium porównawcze. Katowice 2009, pp. 250—295. 13 P.ex. : Victoire, trophée et captif — M.H. C r a w f o r d : Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge 1974, no 326/2 (101 av. J.-C.) ; nos 332/1a—1c (98 av. J.-C.) ; tropaeum et captifs — ibidem, no 427/1 (56 av. J.-C.) ; no 452/4 (48—47 av. J.-C.) ; no 468/2 (46—45 av. J.-C.) ; no 503/1 (43—42 av. J.-C.). 14 Th. M i o n n e t : Description des médaillons antiques, grecques et romaines avec leur degré de rareté et leur estimation. Vol. 3. Paris 1808, p. 53, no 148 ; A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos. Ed. W. W r o t h. London 1894, Mytilene, p. 207, no 204 et pl. 41,5 ; cf. V. H e u c h e r t : The 164 Agata A. Kluczek dans le même atelier sur la monnaie frappée par le stratège Apellos15 (fig. 4). Très vite après — avec l’effigie du même empereur — celle de Caracalla sur le droit — la même représentation apparut sur les monnaies en bronze émises par le stratège Anthimos (Julius Anthimus) à Pergame qui se trouve en face de l’île de Lesbos16 (fig. 5). Pour compléter cette liste on mentionne le bronze appartenant au groupe thématique de homonoia (?) célébrant l’accord conclu entre les villes de Smyrne et d’Alexandrie Troas17 (fig. 6). Les deux faces du bronze furent retouchées et il est en partie déterioré. Cette monnaie est très douteuse et problematique. Néanmoins, il n’est pas non plus exclu qu’un tel motif iconographique eût été utilisé à une plus vaste échelle sur les monnaies produites par les ateliers locaux orientaux. La juxtaposition des représentations de revers de ces plusieures monnaies laisse constater que la parallèle iconographique par rapport au sujet de base est très visible.

Chronological Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography. In : Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Ed. Ch. H o w g e g o, V. H e u c h e r t, A. B u r n e t t. Oxford—New York 2005, pp. 54—55, pl. 3,5, no 44. 15 K. K r a f t : Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in Kleinasien. Materialien und Entwürfe. Berlin 1972, p. 148 et tab. 41 no 14 ; cf. A. K r z y ż a n o w s k a : Numizmatyka grec- ka. W: Vademecum historyka starożytnej Grecji i Rzymu. T. 1/2 : Źródłoznawstwo starożytności klasycznej. Red. E. W i p s z y c k a. Warszawa 2001, tab. 25, il. 117 ; Th. M i o n n e t : Descrip- tion des médaillons..., suppl. vol. 6. Paris 1833, p. 73, no 128 ; http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin. aspx?CoinID=231402 ; http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=448929 ; http://www.acsearch. info/search.html?id=72134 (accessible : 26.04.2014). 16 L. F o r r e r : The Weber Collection of Greek Coins. Vol. 3/1. London 1926, p. 121, no 5226 ; Th. M i o n n e t : Description des médaillons…, vol. 2. Paris 1807, p. 610, nos 623— 624 ; H. von F r i t z e : Die Münzen von Pergamon. Berlin 1910, p. 72 et pl. 7, no 7 ; cf. M.-Ch. Marcellesi: à propos d’une monnaie de Caracalla trouvée à Thasos : le monnayage de Pergame et la troisième néocorie de la cité. BSFN 1998, no 53, pp. 54—55, fig. 6 ; K.W. H a r l : Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East A.D. 180—235. Berkeley—Los Angeles—Lon- don 1987, p. 55 et pl. 23,1. Cf. la description faite par K.W. H a r l (Civic Coins…, p. 55) : “Caracalla, bareheaded and wearing the armor and paludamentum of a soldier, is shown riding toward the right, salut- ing a trophy with his right hand, and followed by Nike, who offers the victor’s laurel crown”. Cette description n’est pas tout à fait correcte : dans la main droite l’empereur tient une haste. 17 Th. M i o n n e t : Description des médaillons…, vol. 3, p. 231, no 1298 ; D.O.A. K l o s e : Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1987, pp. 61, 120 (le chapitre „Neuzeitliche Umgravierungen”) : „Diese Stück ist sehr zweifelhaft”, et Taf. 63 (sur le droit le nom ΑΥΡΗΛΙΟС ΚΑΙС ΑΝΤΩΝΕΙΝΟС et le portrait juvénil de Marc Aurèle), selon ce chercheur est frappante la similitude de ce médaillon avec la monnaie de Mytilène de la fin des années soixante-dix du IIe siècle dont il a été question plus haut. Les détails de l’iconographie de revers se ressemblent de façon tout à fait particulière, et aussi les effigies gravées au droit des monnaies — celle de Commode et celle de Marc Aurèle — trahissent les traces du même style ; http://rpc. ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/2944/ (accessible : 26.05.2014, sur le droit le portrait de Commode). Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus... 165

La création de telles représentations fut un élément de la pratique consistant dans l’exploitation du motif d’empereur-vainqueur sur les monnaies impériales et « provinciales romaines »18. Cette pratique fut stimulée non pas seulement par les conflits armés de Rome avec ses voisins, mais aussi par une tendance plus générale dans le monnayage romain qui fut celle de recourir à la stylistique guer- rière et victorieuse pour construire l’image de l’empereur dans les représentations monétaires19. Celui-ci apparaissait souvent en tant que victor ou triumphator, et il en fut ainsi aussi là où la trame factographique d’une émission ne suggérait aucunement de telles connotations. Même le pacator revêtait parfois le costume de vainqueur. Pareillement l’empereur visitant une ville portait l’habit de guerrier et parmi ses acolites il y avait non pas seulement des personnes en tenue civile — provinciales, mais aussi la Victoire ou des captifs, tandis que le cadre convenable était constitué non pas seulement par le décor urbain, p.ex. agora, temples, mais aussi par les monuments aux connotations guerrières, p.ex. tropaion. Il serait difficile de ne pas voir le fond idéologique, et dans certains cas peut-être de la genèse directe de la mise en place de telles représentations sur les revers des monnaies produites par les ateliers locaux dans les guerres de Rome avec ses voisins orientaux, p.ex. avec les Parthes (ou Perses) dans la deuxième moitié du IIe siècle et dans la première moitié du IIIe siècle. Pourtant la question qui n’est pas décidée reste celle de comment dater l’emission des bronzes en question. Il n’est pas non plus exclu qu’ainsi eût été faite la référence non pas aux événements dont le théâtre furent les territoires orientaux ou de déterminées villes orientales, mais que les contenus traduits sur ces monnaies frappées dans les atéliers orientaux furent un écho plus ou moins fort des événements ayant lieu dans d’autres régions de l’État romain. La source d’une telle représentation du souverain peut se trouver aussi dans la présence personnelle d’un empereur dans les villes situées en Orient romain, liée aux expéditions de guerre ou parfois avec des randonnées d’un autre caractère20.

18 à propos de la signification de la terminologie de « monnaie provinciale (romaine) » cf. M. A m a n d r y : Le monnayage provincial d’Auguste à Hadrien. Dans : Des Rois au Prince. Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l’Orient hellénistique et romain, IVe siècle avant J.- C.—IIe siècle après J.-C. Sous la direction d’I. Savalli-Lestrad e, I. C o g i t o r e, avec les contributions de M. A m a n d r y, S. B a r b a n t a n i, L. C a p d e t r e y… [et al.]. Grenoble 2010, pp. 207–209. 19 Le début de cette tendance apparut déjà sous les Flaviens, son affermissement se produisit sous les Antonins, et son apogée eut lieu au IIIème siècle. Cf. A. K r z y ż a n o w s k a : Monnaies coloniales d’Antioche de Pisidie. Warszawa 1970, p. 113 ; K.W. H a r l : Political Attitudes of Rome’s Eastern Provinces in the Third Century A.D. Ph.D. Yale 1978, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor 1984, pp. 252—259 ; I d e m : Civic Coins…, pp. 39–49, 53–54 ; V. H e u c h e r t : The Chronological Development…, pp. 54—55 ; A.A. K l u c z e k : Vndiqve victores..., pp. 243—249. 20 P.ex. Alexandre le Grand fut modèle pour Caracalla — Hdn. 4,8,1—3 et 6—9 ; 4,9,4 ; Cass.Dio 77,7,1—4, 22,1 ; E. de Caes. 21,4 ; HA Cc. 2,1—2 ; K.W. H a r l : Civic Coins…, 166 Agata A. Kluczek

Le bronze de Mytilène au portrait de Commode gravé au droit est de plusieures années postérieures au voyage en Orient du jeune auguste accompagnant Marc Aurèle (175/176) puisque son émission se situe entre 177 et 18021. Peut- être alors son représentation de revers est-elle une réminiscence des événements sur le front européen, expeditio Germanica II. Néanmoins il semble que les captifs sous le tropaion appartiennent au monde oriental, une telle localisation étant suggérée par le bonnet phrygien sur la tête du captif assis. Au séjour de l’empereur en Orient peuvent se référer les bronzes de Cara- calla dont il a été question ci-dessus, attribués à Mytilène et à Pergame. Il visita en effet les villes célèbres et les temples magnifiques en Asie Mineure. En 214/215 il fit une étape de ce voyage à Pergame22. Cette visite fut commémorée dans de nombreuses monnaies qui y furent frappées par les deux magistrats, Anthimos mentionné déjà ci-dessus et Attalos (M. Caerelius Attalus). Ceci n’est pas le moment pour décrire le programme vaste de ces séries de monnaies. Il vaut uniquement la peine de rappeler que dans les représentations de revers de celles-ci fut symboliquement représentée l’image des pratiques accompagnant les empereurs lors de leurs voyages à travers l’Imperium, comment ils étaient salués sur les routes ornées de statues des divinités locales23, et même de quelle façon on percevait leur séjour ou même comment était le passage de l’empereur où l’on voyait un événement digne d’intérêt et d’admiration24. Mais aussi il y fut faite la référence aux faits précis liés à la visite de Cara- calla à Pergame. Le programme monétaire immortalisait les épisodes les plus p. 40 ; U. E s p i n o s a : La alejandrofilia de Caracala en la antigua historiografia. In: Nero- nia IV. Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos. Bruxelles 1990, pp. 37—51 ; A. Łukaszewicz: Aegyptiaca Antoniniana. Działalność Karakalli w Egipcie (215—216). Warszawa 1993, pp. 14—19 et 30—34 ; Caracalla fit allusions aussi à Achille — Cass.Dio 77, 16,7 ; Hdn. 4,8,3—5, cf. Philostr., VA 4,11—17. Pour lire davantage sur la mise en valeur dans le monnayage provincial des visites de différents empereurs, sur l’adventus réel ou sur la présence symbolique du souverain dans les villes de l’Orient romain — K.W. H a r l : Civic Coins…, pp. 52—63. 21 V. H e u c h e r t : The Chronological Development…, p. 220, no 44. 22 Cass.Dio 78,16,7 : d’abord l’empereur visita Ilium, puis Pergame, inversement — Hdn. 4,8,3 ; sur l’itinerarium de Caracalla voir B. L e v i c k : Caracalla’s Path. Dans : Hommages à Marcel Renard II. Ed. J. B i b a u w. Bruxelles 1969, pp. 426—446 ; D. van B e r c h e m : L’iti- néraire antonin et le voyage en Orient de Caracalla (214—215). « Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres » 1973, pp. 123—126 ; A. J o h n s t o n : Caracalla’s Path : The Numismatic Evidence. „Historia” 1983, no 32, pp. 58—76 ; cf. à propos du séjour de l’empereur Caracalla à l’Est — A. Ł u k a s z e w i c z : Aegyptiaca Antoniniana…, pp. 35—116 ; F. M i l - l a r : The Roman Near East 31 B.C.—A.D. 337. Cambridge, Mass. 1993, pp. 142—144. 23 P.ex. Pan.Lat. 8, 8,4. 24 P.ex. Hdn. 2,14,1 ; Amm. 21,10,1 ; Pan.Lat. 3,10,4 ; dans le monnayage — The Roman Imperial Coinage. Eds. H. M a t t i n g l y et al. London 1968, vol. 5/2, Carausius, nos 554—558, 771—775 ; vol. 6, p. 167, no 34 ; dans l’art monumental — S. R e i n a c h : Répertoire des reliefs Grecs et Romains. T. 1. Paris 1909, p. 390. Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus... 167 importants, ou les plus pittoresques de ce séjour : la bienvenue qui fut donnée à l’empereur par les Pergaméniens, les privilèges accordés par celui-ci à la cite, la visite de Caracalla dans l’asclépieion et ses vénérations envers Asclépios, les distractions de l’empereur (des concours ou une chasse)25. Sous le stratège Anthimos ce programme donne aussi l’image de l’empereur victorieux sur les monnaies qui présentent le schéma iconographique de « Niké — cavalier — tropaion — captifs ». Kenneth W. Harl définit cette scène comme le “typical militant advent”26. Cette évaluation est certainement juste pour un groupe plus large des monnaies frappées au IIIe siècle, appartennant au type d’adventus, décorées d’accents militaires, mais en même temps on ne peut pas nier que ces bronzes pergaméniens au schéma décrit se distinguent par leur tonalité triom- phale. Quant à Marie-Christine Marcellesi, elle les attribue (avec presque tout ensemble d’émission d’Anthimos) à la catégorie des représentations symboliques et des types banaux : « des types très courants ». Il est vrai qu’elle ne conteste pas leur rapport éventuel avec la visite de Caracalla à Pergame, mais elle nie leur originalité en écrivant qu’une telle représentation, mais aussi d’autres types monétaires, n’étaient pas créés ad hoc, mais qu’ils existaient déjà avant, et qu’alors — dans le contexte de la visite de l’empereur à Pergame — fut exploitée une représentation plus ancienne27. Pourtant cette auteur ne cite pas d’analogies antérieures. Tout de même nous n’en savons rien de la visite de Caracalla à Mytilène — le centre avec lequel on lie l’émission de la monnaie en bronze susmention- née portant le schéma dont il est question ici. Il vaut observer qu’au niveau iconographique les bronzes de Pergame semblent identiques à la monnaie de Mytilène. Abstraction faite des autres éléments du dessin attirons notre attention sur ceci que dans les deux cas le prisonnier qui est debout sous le tropaion — à la différence du captif « anonyme » assis — porte uniquement un pantalon et un bonnet phrygien. Rien ne s’oppose pas pour identifier cette figure en tant qu’incarnation de la Parthie ou bien l’Asie ou de la monarchie

25 Sur ces séries monétaires voir : K.W. H a r l : Civic Coins…, pp. 55—58 (214 ap. J.-C.) ; M.-Ch. M a r c e l l e s i : À propos d’une monnaies…, pp. 53—59 (215—217 ap. J.-C.) ; B. We i s s e r : Pergamum as Paradigm. In: Coinage and Identity…, pp. 136—137 (216 ap. J.-C.) ; A. J o h n s t o n : Caracalla’s Path…, p. 66 ; A. H o s t e i n : La visite de Caracalla à Pergame et à Laodicée du Lykos: l’apport des monnaies. In: Les voyages des empereurs dans l’Orient romain. Époques antonine et sévérienne. Dir. A. H o s t e i n, S. L a l a n n e. Arles 2012, pp. 205—227. Cf. W. W r o t h : Asklepios and the Coins of Pergamon. „Numismatic Chronicle” 1882, série 3, vol. 2, pp. 28 et 44—49 ; A. K a d a r : L’importance religieuse et artistique du culte d’Asklepios-Aesculapius sur les médailles de Caracalla à Pergamon. „Acta classica univ. Scient. Debrecen” 1986, vol. 22, pp. 31—35. Sur la visite Caracalla à la sanctuaire d’Asclépios voir D. M u s i a ł : Le développement du culte d’Esculape au monde romain. Toruń 1992, pp. 57—59. 26 K.W. H a r l : Civic Coins…, pl. 23, no 1. 27 M.-Ch. M a r c e l l e s i : À propos d’une monnaie…, pp. 55 et 57. 168 Agata A. Kluczek des Achéménides personifiée28. Le sens de la scène représentée serait lié, en général, à l’atmosphère d’hostiliē envers les Parthes, avec les préparatifs pour la guerre parthique — c’est bien Caracalla qui dirigeait vers l’Orient ses ambitions guerrières29. Et vu cela — pour cause de la présence de l’empereur in persona en Orient romain — les représentants des élites locales, p.ex. les stratèges Anthimos à Pergame et Apellos à Mytilène, assortirent d’une manière bien naturelle de tels contenus monétaires qui illustrent a priori les gestes de guerre et la gloire militaire de Caracalla pour qu’ils mettent en valeur la nature victorieuse de l’empereur. Une solution graphique pareille est trouvable probablement dans une histoire plus ancienne encore du monnayage romain, à savoir dans le monnayage impérial de la seconde moitié du IIe siècle. En effet, on connaît le médaillon en bronze frappé à Rome au nom d’Antonin le Pieux dont l’iconographie semble proche du schème discuté ici. L’exemplaire est unique. Il ne s’est pas bien conservée la représentation complète sur le revers. L’image au milieu est malheureusement aplatie ce qui pose des difficultés pour déchiffrer les détails de la scène représentée. Ces difficultés, et par conséquent une ambiguïté du contenu de la représentation de revers, se reflètent au niveau des descriptions dans les catalogues. Henri Cohen définit le revers comme anépigraphique, il aperçoit dans l’iconographie : « Antonin à cheval auprès d’un trophée, couronné par la Victoire »; tandis que Francesco Gnecchi, en déchiffrant la légende cos iiii à l’exergue, amplifie l’explication de l’iconographie : “Antonino a cavallo (?) nel centro, fra una Vittoria che lo incorona e un trofeo, appiedi del quale stanne due prigonieri barbari legati, uno in piedi, l’altro seduto a terra”30. Les détails reconnus sont symptomatiques : à gauche il y a la Victoire, marchant à droite et soulevant dans la main droite un objet qui serait sans doute une couronne, à droite — le tropaeum devant lequel se tiennent deux captifs, l’un debout, l’autre assis ; la partie centrale étant occupée — comme on peut le supposer d’après les détails préservés — probablement par le cavalier se diri geant vers le tropaeum (fig. 7). L’iconographie de revers du médaillon d’Antonin le Pieux et des médaillons de Probus, comme aussi des bronzes orientaux indiqués, est, en ce qui concerne leur composition, pour le moins pareille, et

28 Mais cf. la description faite par M.-Ch. Marcellesi (ibidem, p. 55) : « l’empereur, à cheval, à droite, drapé d’une chlamyde, tient une lance ; derrière lui, une Niké le couronne ; devant lui, aux pieds du cheval, un prisonnier est assis, vers la gauche, les mains attachées ; à sa droite, on distingue un soldat et, à l’arrière-plan, un trophée ». 29 Cf. Hdn. 4,10,1—11; HA Cc. 6,1—6. 30 H . C o h e n : Description historique…, vol. 2, Ant.le Pieux, no 1182 : (D/ antoninvs avg pivs « p p tr p cos iiii. Sa tête laurée à droite ») ; F. G n e c c h i : I medaglioni…, Ant. le Pieux, no 26, tav. 45 no 8: (D/ « antoninvs avg pivs p p tr p xxii — Testa a destra ». Les deux chercheurs commentent les médaillons conservés dans le musée viennois. La différence des descriptions des médaillons F. Gnecchi (I medaglioni…, p. 12) l’explique de la manière suivante : « O fu errata l’attribuzione del Museo, o fu errata e mancante la descrizione ». Illustrations (l’echelle 1:1 n’est pas respecteē)

Fig. 1. Probus (276—282), AE, Ticinum, 277 — début 278 ; R/ VIRTVS AVG TR…, Victoire, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. R. D e l b r u e c k : Die Münzbildnisse von Maxi- minus bis Carinus. Berlin 1940, pl. 9, no 28

Fig. 2. Probus (276—282), AE, Ticinum, 277 — début 278 ; R/ VIRTVS AVG TRIVMFVM GOTTHICVM, Victoire, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. S. E s t i o t : Sine arcu sagittae : la représentation numismatique de plumbatae / mattiobarbuli aux IIIe—IVe siècles (279—307 de n.è.). NZ 2008, Bd. 116/117, fig. 29

Fig. 3. Commode (177—180—192), AE, Mytilène, 177–180 ; R/ ΕΠΙ CΤΡ Μ ΑΥΡΗ ΠΡΩΤΕΟΥ ΜΥΤΙΛΗΝΑΙΩΝ, Niké, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. V. H e u c h e r t : The Chronological Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography. In: Coinage and Identity in the Roman Pro- vinces. Eds. Ch. H o w g e g o, V. H e u c h e r t, A. B u r - n e t t. Oxford—New York 2005, pl. 3.5, no 44 Fig. 4. Caracalla (198—211—217), AE, Mytilène, c. 214/215 ; R/ ΕΠΙ CΤΡ ΑΠΕΛΛΟΥ Β ΜΕΝΕΜΑΧΟΥ ΜΥΤΙΛΗΝΑΙΩΝ, Niké, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. K. K r a f t: Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprä- gung in Kleinasien. Materialien und Entwürfe. Berlin 1972, pl. 41, no 14

Fig. 5. Caracalla (198—211—217), AE, Pergame, c. 214/215 ; R/ ΕΠO (sic) СΤΡ ΙΟYΛ ΑΝΘΙΜΟY ΠΕΡΓΑΜΗΝΩΝ ΠΡΩΤΩΝ ΤΡΙС ΝΕΩΚΟΡΩΝ, Niké, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. H. von F r i t z e : Die Münzen von Pergamon. Berlin 1910, pl. 7, no 7

Fig. 6. [?]; R/ ΤΡΟΑΔΕΩΝ […] CΜΥΡΝΑΙΩΝ, Niké, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. D. K l o s e : Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1987, pl. 63

Fig. 7. Antonin le Pieux (138—161), AE, Rome, 159 ; R/ COS IIII, Victoire, cavalier, trophée, captifs ; cf. F. G n e c c h i : I medaglioni romani. Milano 1912, 2, Ant.P., no 26 Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus... 169 il y a lieu de supposer même qu’elle soit identique. Ceci est suggéré non pas seulement par la sélection des protagonistes de la représentation, mais aussi par la disposition de leurs silhouettes, par leurs gestes, ainsi que par la disposition des élements sur le champs du revers. La formule à l’exergue du revers de la médaille d’Antonin le Pieux, cos iiii et la légende du droit, tr p xxii, qui furent relues par F. Gnecchi, laissent établir la chronologie de l’émission du médaillon pour l’année 15931. Il est difficile de décider avec quel adversaire il faut lier les contenus idéologiques exprimés dans la représentation de revers. Tant les conflits avec les peuples en Bretagne que ceux en Maurétanie et sur le Danube purent fournir un prétexe pour entourer l’empereur du nimbe d’un vainqueur. Ce qu’on sait ce qu’en créant l’iconographie des monnaies orientales l’inspiration plus d’une fois vint de « l’éventail » des moyens graphiques fournis par le monnayage impérial32. Certains schémas tout faits proposés par ce monnayage furent par la suite dévéloppés, soit certains leurs éléments furent sélectionnés et assortis dans les atéliers monétaires provinciaux selon les néces- sités, les critères locaux et en conformité avec le coloris local. On ne peut pas non plus exclure que parfois certaines solutions dont avant étaient revêtus les revers des monnaies orientales se fussent retrouvées par la suite dans une forme modifiée sur les revers des monnaies impériales. Cette convergence ou bien au moins la dépendance des moyens de l’expression graphique dans le monnayage impérial et la frappe orientale pouvait fonctionner dans le deux sens. Sans doute la représentation sur les revers des médaillons de Probus appartient aux solutions iconographiques intéressantes, mais il s’avère que — à la lumière des réalisations antérieures apportées sur les monnaies — elles ne sont pas du tout exceptionnelles. Le schéma « Victoire — cavalier — tropaeum — captifs » fut reproduit à plusieures reprises. à chaque fois ce n’est pas une simple répétition du « modèle », mais plutôt une transformation de l’idée de base qui restait invariable en ce qui concernait le choix des éléments et leur disposition, bien que dans certains détails il y ait des différences et que diffère aussi, ce qui est naturel, le style des reliefs. « Le prototype » dans le monnayage conçu dans le IIe siècle n’évoluait presque pas ; utilisé par la suite à plusieures reprises dans le monnayage dans la seconde moitié du IIe siècle et au début du IIe siècle, vers la fin des années soixante-dix du IIIe siècle il retourna. à titre occasionnel il fut utilisé sur le médaillon battu à Rome. En ce qui concerne

31 Cf. D. K i e n a s t : Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchrono- logie. Darmstadt 1990, p. 134. F. G n e c c h i (I medaglioni…, Ant.le Pieux, no 26) propose l’an 159 ; H. C o h e n (Description historique…, vol. 2, p. 394) — l’an 145. La différence des dates résulte des constats divergents sur les légendes de droit et de revers du médaillon ou des médaillons. 32 V. H e u c h e r t : The Chronological Development…, p. 55. Cf. K.W. H a r l : Political Attitudes…, pp. 247—249 ; I d e m : Civic Coins…, p. 53. 170 Agata A. Kluczek le monnayage local en Orient on peut constater une relative abondance des émissions qu’il ornait, et peut-être non pas tellement leur prolifération dans le temps, mais une cumulation géographique en Asie mineure. Les monnaies avec le schème « Niké — cavalier — tropaion — captifs » sont liées avec Mytilène à Lesbos et avec le Pergame voisin. On connait des situations dans lesquelles certaines ateliers d’Asie mineure se regroupèrent et procédèrent à la frappe des monnaies commandées par plusieurs villes. Les monnaies émises au nom de différentes villes peuvent être liées par le coin. Konrad Kraft analyse cette concentration de la production dans une excellente étude. Il distingue l’officine dite « Pergame » qui a fabriquée la monnaie sous les Sévères et il retrouve « la main » du scalptor qui y travailla sur les avers des monnaies qui sont associés à celles de Mytilène33. Ceci peut en effet constituer la piste qui explique la répétition du schéma décrit ici, conçu à l’époque de Caracalla, sur les bronzes de Mytilène et de Pergame. Ce chercheur suggère en outre l’existence d’un ré- seau dense des liaisons similaires des villes et d’officines déjà sous les derniers Antonins et l’existence d’une communauté stylistique des produits de l’officine de « Pergame » avec les émissions attribuées aux autres centres monétaires34. Ceci constitue à son tours une trace floue expliquant la présence du schéma iconographique dont il est question ici sur les bronzes de l’époque des Antonins. Dans le contexte des constatations attrayantes de K. Kraft ceci signifiquerait que l’impulsion pour mettre le schéma « Niké — cavalier — tropaion — captifs » sur les bronzes fût partie de l’officine de « Pergame ». Les monnaies presque identiques peuvent parvenir d’un même atelier. De toute façon il reste couvert de mystère la direction du cheminement de l’iconographie du médaillon d’Antonin le Pieux et des autres bronzes ici indiqués. Beaucoup d’intérêt suscite aussi le retour de ce schéma — après des années d’absence du règne de Caracalla — dans le monnayage de Probus, comme aussi le transfert de cette représentation à partir des ateliers orientaux en Asie mineure jusqu’à Ticinum.

33 K. K r a f t : Das System…, p. 38 ; cf. J.-P. C a l l u : La politique monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 à 311. Paris 1969, pp. 33—35. 34 K. K r a f t : Das System…, pp. 61 et 38.

Traduit par Bogdan Nowosad Quelques remarques sur l’iconographie des médaillons de Probus... 171

Agata A. Kluczek

Uwag kilka o ikonografii medalionów Probusa typu virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum

Streszczenie

Mennictwo cesarza Probusa (276—282) cechuje się bogactwem wyobrażeń na awersach oraz na rewersach monet i medalionów. Interesujące rozwiązanie wystąpiło na rewersach brązowych medalionów Probusa, które powstały — jak się ostatnio przyjmuje — w mennicy w Ticinum (277 — pocz. 278). Unikatowe w mennictwie cesarskim hasło, które tworzą napisy w legendzie otokowej: virtus Augusti oraz w odcinku: triumfum Gotthicum, zilustrowano rozbudowaną ikono- grafią: jeździec konny, za nim kroczy Wiktoria, przed jeźdźcem zaś wznosi się tropaeum, a po jego obu stronach znajdują się jeńcy, jeden siedzący, drugi stojący. Scena rewersowa skonstruowana z takich samych elementów, jakie występują na medalionach Probusa, odnaleziona została w mennictwie cesarskim i prowincjonalnym okresu rządów Antoninów oraz Sewerów. Doszukać się można dużego podobieństwa między wskazanym motywem ikonograficznym a wyobrażeniem na brązowym medalionie Antonina Piusa, pochodzącym z Rzymu. Charakte- rystyczny stał się ów motyw na brązach prowincjonalnych łączonych z ośrodkami azjatyckimi: Mytilene na Lesbos (na awersie monety noszą odpowiednio portrety Kommodusa, potem — Ka- rakalli) oraz pobliskim Pergamonem (monety z wizerunkiem awersowym Karakalli). Kilkakrotne zastosowanie tego samego pomysłu na aranżację graficzną rewersów pokazuje, że chociaż wyobrażenie na medalionach Probusa, wyemitowanych w Ticinum, niewątpliwie na- leży do niebanalnych rozwiązań, to jednak nie jest ono wyjątkowe. Ocenić je trzeba jako wtórne wobec wskazanych wcześniejszych realizacji namonetnych. Tak jak rzadkie są medaliony Probusa z owym rewersem (znane są tylko dwa egzemplarze typu virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum), tak też ów oryginalny motyw ikonograficzny w całym mennictwie rzymskim wystąpił zaledwie sporadycznie.

Agata A. Kluczek

A few remarks on the iconography of Probus’ medallions of the virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum type

S u m m a r y

The coinage of emperor Probus (277 — beginning of 278) is characterised by a richness of representations on the reverses of coins and medallions. An interesting solution appeared on the reverses of Probus’ bronze medallions that were created, as it has been recently assumed, in the mint in Ticinum (277 — beginning of 278). The unique slogan composed by the inscriptions in the surrounding legend: virtus Augusti and in the exerque triumfum Gotthicum in the imperial coinage was illustrated by a developed iconography, namely a horserider behind whom Victoria steps out while ahead of him tropaeum arises and prisoners of war are on both sides of him; one sitting and another standing. 172 Agata A. Kluczek

A reverse scene made of the same elements as in the case of Probus’ medallions, was found in the imperial and provincial coinage under the ruling of the Antonine and Severan dynasty. Hence, one can find a big similarity between the very iconographic motive and a representation on Antoninus Pius’ bronze medallion deriving from Rome. What has become characteristic, on the other hand, is the very motive on provincial bronzes connected with the Asian centres: Mytilene in Lesbos (the coins hold the portraits of Commodus and Caracalla respectively on the obverses) and a nearby Pergamon (the coins with the obverse image of Caracalla). Using the same idea on the graphic arrangement of reverses several times shows that although a representation on Probus’ medallions, issued in Ticinum, undoubtfully belongs to original solutions, it is not special though. It should be evaluated as secondary in view of other earlier on-coin realizations. Rare as the Probus’ medallions with the very reverse (only two copies of the virtus Augusti triumfum Gotthicum are known) are, this very original iconographic motive appeared in the Roman coinage only sporadically. Rafał Kosiński

Nostalgia or a Political Necessity? The Background of the Emperor Zeno’s Numerous Donations in Isauria

Towards the end of the 3rd century, as part of the reorganization of the state, the emperor Dio- cletian established a new province named Isauria (Greek: Ίσαυρία, Latin: Isauria), whose territory had almost exactly overlapped with the area of Cilicia Tracheia (Tracheiotis, Greek: τραχεία, Latin: Cilicia Aspera), encompassing the land adjacent to the south-eastern coast of Asia Minor.1 From the topographical point of view, Isauria had been composed of remote mountainous regions of the Taurus range, with the Isaurian Decapol proper, and the coastal stretch of Cilicia Tracheia.2 This region had bordered Pamphilia in the west, Cilicia Pedias in the east, and Lycaonia in the north. In the west, the provincial border was located east of Coracesium; in the east, along the Lamus, while in the north it was bordered by the Taurus mountains adjoining the Anatolian Plateau. The primary communication routes leading into the interior were the river valleys,

1 Cf. W.M. R a m s a y: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London 1890, p. 378; I d e m: The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor. Aberdeen 1941, p. 232; W. B u r - g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D. Wisconsin 1985 (Diss.), pp. 10—11; K. H o p - w o o d: “Consent and Control. How the Peace was Kept in Rough Cilicia.” In: The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire. Proceedings of a colloquium held at Ankara in September 1988. Ed. D.H. F r e n c h, C.S. L i g h t f o o t. Vol. I. Oxford 1989, p. 191. 2 Cf. W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., p. 20. 174 Rafał Kosiński particularly the Calycadnos and the Melas. The capital city of the province was Seleucia on the Calycadnos (present-day Silifke).3 We are not able to recreate in detail the history of the Christianization of Isauria. According to hagiographical accounts, the preaching of the Gospel in this region is linked to one of St. Paul’s disciples, Thecla, who was the first Christian martyress, or to the martyr Conon of Bipama, near Isaura Vetus, who had allegedly received the faith from the Archangel Michael himself.4 However, we cannot now trace the actual events in the lives of those two figures and separate them from the legend accumulated around them over the course of time.5 The first evidence of the existence of the organized church hierarchy within the province of Isauria is the list of the participants in the Council of Nicaea (325), where ten bishops from Isauria were said to have attended, even though as much as a half of the ecclesiastical officials mentioned were bishops from beyond the known boundaries of the province.6 Several decades later, Isauria itself had become the location of one of the following imperial synods. In 359, the emperor Constantius had called on the bishops to assemble at Seleucia on the Calycadnos, where they were to decide upon the Arian question. According to Sozomen, about 160 bishops had convened there.7 We do not know exactly,

3 Cf. T.B. M i t f o r d: “Roman Rough Cilicia.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II 7.2. Berlin 1980, pp. 1232—1234 and 1245; K. H o p w o o d: “Policing the Hinter- land: Rough Cilicia and Isauria.” In: Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia. Ed. S. M i t c h e l l. Oxford 1983, pp. 173—174; W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., pp. 19—20 and 82—91; B.D. S h a w: “Bandit highlands and lowland peace: the mountains of Isauria-Cilicia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 33 vol. (1990), p. 201 and K. F e l d: Barbarische Bürger. Die Isaurier und das Römische Reich. Berlin—New York 2005, pp. 13—15. 4 The edition of The Life and Miracles of St. Thecla in: Vie et miracles de sainte Thécle. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire par G. D a g r o n avec la collaboration de M. D u p r é l a T o u r. Bruxelles 1978, and The Life of Conon in: F. H a l k i n: “Vie de S. Conon d’Isaurie.” Analecta Bollandiana, vol. 103, 1985, pp. 5—34. Cf. also F. H a l k i n: “S. Conon l’Isaurien.” Analecta Bollandiana, vol. 53, 1935, pp. 369—374. Ph. Wo o d: “The Invention of History in the Later Roman World. The Conversation of Isavria in The Life of Conon.” Anatilian Studies, vol. 59, 2009, pp. 129—138. 5 Cf. K. F e l d: Barbarische Bürger. Die Isaurier und das Römische Reich. Berlin—New York 2005, p. 44; E. G i a n n a r e l l i: “Paolo, Tecla e la tradizione della Cilicia cristiana.” Quaderni storici, vol. 76, 1991, pp. 185—203. 6 Cf. E. H o n i g m a n n: “La liste originale des Pères de Nicée.” Byzantion, vol. 14, 1939, p. 48 and R. D e v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’Église jusqu’a la con- quête arabe. Paris 1945, pp. 143—144. R. D e v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche..., p. 126, note 1, put forward a supposition that in 325 Isauria had not yet been under the authority of the Church of Antioch. 7 S o z o m e n: Historia Ecclesiastica IV, 22. Ed. J. B i d e z. Berlin 1960, pp. 172—176. Cf. also S o c r a t e s: Historia Ecclesiastica II, 39—40. Ed. G.Ch. H a n s e n. Berlin 1995, pp. 168—176. On the synod itself, see M. S i m o n e t t i: La criisi ariana nel IV secolo. Roma 1976, pp. 326—338. Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 175 however, where those bishops came from, although it may be assumed that Isaurians had participated as well. The reason for the location, however, should not be seen as resulting from the significance of the local church, but rather from the strategic situation of Seleucia, which at that time had been probably the ecclesiastical centre of the province.8 In turn, during the Council of Con- stantinople in 381, ten bishops from the province of Isauria had attended.9 In the 5th century, the ecclesiastical structure already appears to be well- established. Although the bishops of Isauria had not participated in the Council of Ephesus (431),10 and the proceedings of the Second Council of Ephesus were attended only by three bishops representing that province,11 in the year 451 a considerable number of nearly 20 Isaurian bishops had arrived at Chalcedon.12 However, this list of attendees demonstrates that the bishops of Isauria present at Chalcedon were primarily the bishops from the coastal cities, whereas from the interior of the province only the bishops of Claudiopolis, Germanicopolis and Diocaesarea.13 Eight years later, the reply to the emperor Leo’s circular letter was signed by 16 bishops from the province of Isauria.14 In general, 25 bishoprics existing in the 5th century can be mentioned.15 In spite of these more accurate data, we are not able to determine the extent of the Christianization of the province in that particular period.16 The results of an analysis of the emperor Zeno’s founding activity show that this ruler had focused his building enterprises in Cilicia and the nearest

8 Cf. W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., pp. 123—126. R. D e v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche..., p. 128, among the 21 identified participants of that synod from the Diocese of the East, he does not mention any one from the province of Isauria. 9 Cf. R. D e v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche..., p. 130. According to Burgess, the evidence pertaining to the bishops of Isauria for the first two Councils is questionable, cf. W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D..., p. 122. 10 Cf. W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., p. 127. 11 They were: Basil of Seleucia, Theodore of Claudiopolis, Indanios of Irenopolis, cf. R. D e - v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche..., pp. 135—136. 12 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, 1, 2, p. 348; II, 2, 2, pp. 159—160. Cf. also R. D e v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche..., p. 137 and W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., pp. 127—128. 13 On the basis of the above-mentioned list of the Isaurian bishops assembled at Chalcedon, William B u r g e s s put forward a suggestion that the original church administration had been established on the coast, and later on in the interior, cf. W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., pp. 128—129. The Vita et Miracula of St. Thecla demonstrate, however, that not only the inhabitants of the coastal region, but also of the mountainous interior had accepted Christianity. Cf. Vie et miracles de sainte Thécle..., pp. 120—121, and also B.D. S h a w: “Bandit highlands and lowland peace: the mountains of Isauria-Cilicia”..., pp. 266—267. 14 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II, 5, pp. 46—50 (the list: 49 ff). Cf. also W.M. R a m - s a y: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor..., chart to p. 362. 15 Cf. R. D e v r e e s s e: Le Patriarcat d’Antioche..., pp. 144—150. 16 Cf. W. B u r g e s s: The Isaurians in the Fifth Century A.D...., p. 130. 176 Rafał Kosiński regions — in northern Syria, and in Cyprus, where magnificent church buildings had been erected. Despite the fact that we have only very little evidence in the sources on Zeno’s donations in the other regions of the Empire, the sanctuaries at Seleucia of Isauria,17 Qal’at Sim’an18 and at Abu Mina19 have no parallel among other structures erected at that time. St. Thecla’s sanctuary was Cilicia’s largest church structure, St. Menas’ sanctuary was the largest of the Egyptian basilicas, while the sanctuary of St. Simeon was most probably the greatest Christian temple of that period. Therefore, it seems that Zeno had focused his attention on building a relatively low number of structures of greater significance. The exception to this rule is Isauria, considered to have been the main area of the building activity of the emperor, who had been a native of that region.20

The dating of the Isaurian churches

Despite the fact that the written sources connect, in the region of Cilicia, only the foundation of the sanctuary at Seleucia of Isauria with Zeno, a number of architectural and archaeological investigations carried out in the 20th century seem to confirm the conclusion that the ruler had been more broadly involved in providing the donations for the church buildings in Cilicia. As early as in 1930 Samuel Guyer had made a connection between the huge temple at Meryemlık21 and the above-mentioned sanctuary erected after the year 476 in Seleucia by the emperor Zeno in honour of St Thecla. The subsequent field research at

17 On the sanctuary of St Thecla at Seleucia of Isauria, see below. 18 On the sanctuary of St Simeon the Stylite at Qal’at Si’man, see: G. T c h a l e n k o: Vil- lages antiques de la Syrie du Nord. Le Massif du Bélus à l`époque romaine. Vol. I. Paris 1953, pp. 223—233; J.-P. S o d i n i, J.-L. B i s c o p: “Travaux récents au sanctuaire syrien de saint Syméon le Stylite.” Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et des belles-lettres, avril— juin 1983, pp. 335—372 and J.-P. S o d i n i, P.-M. B l a n c, J.-L. B i s c o p, D. O r s s a u n d: “Découvertes récentes á Qal’at Sem’an.” In: Actes du XIIe Congrès Internationale d’Archéologie Chrétienne. Bonn 1996, pp. 348—368. 19 On the sanctuary of St Menas at Abu Mina, see: P. G r o s s m a n n: Abu Mina: A Guide to the Ancient Pilgrimage Center. Cairo 1986; R. K r a u t h e i m e r: Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. Yale 1986, pp. 110—112; P. G r o s s m a n n: Abu Mina, vol. 1: Die Gruftkirche und die Gruft. Mainz am Rhein 1989. 20 A catalogue of the churches whose construction may be assigned to the emperor Zeno in: R. K o s i ń s k i: “The emperor Zeno’s church donations”. In: Hortus historiae. Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Profesora Józefa Wolskiego w setną rocznicę urodzin. Red. E. D ą b r o w y, M. D z i e l s k a, M. S a l a m o n, S. S p r a w s k i. Kraków 2010, pp. 635—649. 21 Cf. E. H e r z f e l d, S. G u y e r: Meriamlik und Korykos. Zwei christliche Ruinenstätten des Rauhen Kilikiens. Manchester 1930, p. 32 and G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 11, 1957, p. 225. Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 177

Alahan and in a number of other locations in that region, whose construction, as based on the architectural evidence, had been dated back to the end of the 5th century, had been also assigned to that emperor’s building activity or financial support.22 The archaeological and architectural arguments attest to the contemporary character of the buildings at Seleucia of Isauria, Alahan, Dağ Pazarı, Korykos, Kanlıdivane, or Öküzlü.23 Finally, in 1972, Michael Gough had suggested the existence of the strict connection between the mosaics with the so- called Peaceful Kingdom motif, found in the churches at Corycus, Ayaş, Karlık, and the document issued by Zeno in 482, the so-called Henoticon.24 In fact, we can observe an unusually high level of church-building activity in those areas, whose scale suggests that some considerable funds had been involved, which may be convincingly linked to the reign of Zeno, when the emperor himself as well as the other Isaurian leaders had large resources at their disposal, making this kind of enterprises possible. The connection between the building schemes in Isauria and the reign of Zeno may be further corroborated by the sudden discontinuation of the construction activity at some of those locations, for instance at Alahan, which may be attributed to the civil war waged by the emperor Anastasius against the Isau- rians in the years 492—498. After the last bulwarks of the Isaurian resistance had fallen, Anastasius ordered that the leaders of the rebellion be executed, the Isaurian cities punished, and some groups of the Isaurian population relocated to Thrace.25 The emperor who had undertaken such measures against the revolting

22 G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia”..., p. 233, still dates most of the Isaurian churches to the 6th century, and the church at Alahan to the period before 462, yet in 1966 Cyril Mango already suggested that besides Seleucia also the churches at Co- rycus, Dağ Pazarı, and Alahan are of Zeno’s donation, cf. C. M a n g o: “Isaurian Builders.” In: Polychronion. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag. Hrsg. P. W i r t h. Heidelberg 1966, p. 364. This suggestion has been fully supported by Michael G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno and some Cilician Churches.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 22, 1972, pp. 199—212. 23 Cf. S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches of Cilicia and Isauria. Birmingham 1996, pp. 51—54. See also: C. N a u e r t h: “Kaiser Zenon und Dalisandos — ein Theklakloster in Alahan Monastir?” In: Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche, Bd. 23/24, 1987, p. 55, who links with Zeno’s activity the Isaurian churches at Seleucia, Corycus, Dağ Pazarı and Alahan. 24 Cf. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno”..., pp. 210—212. 25 Theophanes AM 5988, ed. C. d e B o o r, vol. I, Lipsiae 1883, pp. 139—140; J o r d a - n e s: Romana 355, ed. T. M o m m s e n, vol. V, pars prior, Berolini 1882, p. 46; P r i s c i a n: Panegiricus 130—132, ed. by A. C h a u v o t. Bonn 1986, p. 75; P r o c o p i u s: Panegiricus 10, ed. by A. C h a u v o t. Bonn 1986, pp. 35—36. Cf. also E. S t e i n: Histoire du Bas-Empire. Vol. 2: De la disparition de l’Empire d’Occident à la mort de Justinien (476—565). Paris—Brux- elles—Amsterdam 1949, pp. 82—84; N. L e n s k i: “Assimilation and Revolt in the Territory of Isauria, from 1st Century B.C. to the 6th Century AD.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 42, 1999, pp. 428—429 and F. H a a r e r: Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World. Cambridge 2006, pp. 21—28, who believes, however, that 178 Rafał Kosiński province, had no reasons to have a number of new church buildings erected in that province directly after the war. The archaeological evidence indicates that the province had not been fully restored after the prolonged conflict, which is reflected in the gradual decline of some cities.26

The churches in Isauria attributed to the emperor Zeno

1. Seleucia of Isauria (Meryemlık) The most important church building, whose donation by Zeno remains undis- puted, is the great sanctuary of St. Thecla in Seleucia of Isauria (the present-day Meryemlık). In his Ecclesiastical History Evagrius Scholasticus had mentioned that Zeno, who had been staying in the exile in Isauria during Basiliscus’ usurpation, had a vision of St. Thecla predicting his return to the throne. After the prophecy had been fulfilled, the emperor erected, as a token of his gratitude, the great sanctuary in honour of the saint (μέγιστον τέμενος).27 As a matter of fact, the large temple complex at Seleucia, composed of at least three churches, bath house, and several large-sized cisterns, is dated back to the period of Zeno’s reign. There is no firm and decisive proof which one of the churches located within the sanctuary area was donated by Zeno. In 1930 Samuel Guyer recognized that the so-called Domed Basilica had been exactly that church, which was confirmed half a century later by Hansgerd Hellenkem- per. On the other hand, George Forsyth and Gilbert Dagron reckoned that the ruler had erected the principal basilica.28 Recently, however, Stephen Hill has recognized that there are many premises to determine that both the aforementioned two churches and the third one, the so-called North Church, had been erected as part of the Isaurian emperor’s donation.29 the scale of repressions suffered by Isauria after the suppression of the rebellion should not be magnified. 26 Cf. S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine..., pp. 6—9 and 51—54. 27 E v a g r i u s: Historia Ecclesiastica III, 8. Ed. by J. B i d e z, L. P a r m e n t i e r. London 1898, pp. 107—108. Cf. G. D a g r o n: “Introduction.” In: Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle..., p. 59. 28 Cf. E. H e r z f e l d, S. G u y e r: Meriamlik und Korykos..., pp. 73—74; H. H e l l e n - k e m p e r: “Die Kirchenstiftung des Kaisers Zenon im Wallfahrtsheiligtum der heilige Thekla bei Seleukeia.” Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, vol. 47, 1986, pp. 81—88; G.G. F o r s y t h: “Archi- tectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 11, 1957, pp. 224—225 and G. D a g r o n: “Introduction.” In: Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle..., pp. 60—61. 29 S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches... , pp. 51, 213—214. According to Hugh Elton, however, only the largest church was most probably of Zeno’s donation, whereas the other churches had been foundations of local patrons. Cf. H. E l t o n: “Alahan and Zeno.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 52, 2002, p. 153. Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 179

The largest temple at Seleucia was the principal three-aisled basilica, built over the original crypt church cut in the rock (the Cave Church). The basilica was approximately 81.0 metres long (including the narthex) and about 43.0 metres wide, while the dimensions of the nave and the side-aisles were 55.0 by 36.8 metres. The nave and the aisles were separated by two rows of columns. Most probably, there was a gallery over each side-aisle. The basilica did not have a separate atrium as it was situated within the broader enclosed area. To the north of the principal basilica at Seleucia there was located a three- aisled church, the so-called “Cupola Church,” measuring about 78.0 by 35.0 metres, including the atrium and the foreyard. Adjacent to the church were a bath house and, probably, a bird park. This temple has much richer furnishings than the basilica, comprising many elements made of marble, mosaics, decorative elements. Samuel Guyer reckoned that there had been a masonry dome over the choir section of the church, which was questioned later by George Forsyth. Although Forsyth’s doubts were upheld by Michael Gough and Hansgerd Hel- lenkemper, Stephen Hill has recently recognized Guyer’s initial assumption as very likely. Also considered by Hill to have been one of Zeno’s donations, the North Church had measured about 60.0 by 30.0 metres in total. This is the least examined church within the sanctuary complex of St. Thecla. It was a simple basilica with an atrium, narthex, and a semi-circular apse. The decorative elements of this church, however, indicate a very high resemblance to the remaining two temples.30

2. Alahan On the basis of architectural, archaeological and epigraphic evidence, it is assumed that the emperor Zeno had also been the donator of the enlargement of the pilgrimage complex at Alahan.31 This assumption has been recently questioned by Hugh Elton, who has argued that the Alahan church, due to its

30 Cf. E. H e r z f e l d, S. G u y e r: Meriamlik und Korykos...., pp. 1—89; G. D a g r o n: “Introduction.” In: Vie et miracles de sainte Thécle..., pp. 59—73; S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 208—234. 31 Cf. S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 51 and 68—72, the author considers Zeno to have been the donator of the entire complex, not only the “Cupola Church.” M. H a r - r i s o n: “Monumenti e urbanistica nella cità.” In: La civiltà bizantina aggetti e messaggio. A cura di A. G u i l l o i. Roma 1993, p. 40, dates the donation to about the year 480. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno...,” p. 201, and later on also K. F e l d: Barbarische Bürger..., p. 301, allow the possibility that Zeno may have financially supported the building enterprise at Alahan as early as during the reign of Leo I. The earlier works dated the complex at Alahan to the mid-6th century, cf. G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia”..., p. 233. However, the identification of Alahan with the monastery at Apandas, mentioned by Procopius: De Aedificiis 5,9,33, ed. J. H a u r y, vol. IV, Leipzig 1964, p. 170 has been put into question, cf. B. F l u s i n: “Remarques sur la tradition maniscrite du De Aedificiis.” Antiquité Tardive, vol. 8, 2000, p. 16. 180 Rafał Kosiński relatively modest proportions, did not need the emperor’s financial support, and therefore there are no reasons to ascribe the role of the building donator pre- cisely to the Isaurian emperor, just as it is not possible to determine the exact dating.32 However, the size of the largest church at Alahan is comparable to the Campanopetra church in Cyprus,33 which is evidently attributed in the sources to Zeno, and the complex at Alahan has never been completed, which may be connected, as mentioned above, with the sudden discontinuation in the flow of funds from Constantinople, caused by Anastasius I’s accession to the imperial throne. The above-mentioned so-called Isaurian wars waged by the new ruler in the years 492—498 had certainly meant that the funding for some of the imperial enterprises in Isauria was effectively discontinued.34 There is also the possibility of Zeno’s indirect funding of this one, as well as other minor church buildings in Isauria, which shall be described next. The complex at Alahan consists of three temples, of which the smallest one, the so-called Rock-Cut Church, was only 7.5 metres wide and 7.7 metres long. Although it was built in the 5th century, it is older than the other temples which are assigned to the period of Zeno’s reign. The best-preserved church at Alahan, and in all of Cilicia, is the three- aisled East Church. This church belongs to the group of the so-called Domed Basilicas, even though it is smaller than the remaining representatives of the group and its measurements are only 23.0 by 15.0 metres. The church has an irregular narthex and is cut into the rock on the north side. The side-aisles of the temple had galleries, and above the central section there was a tower over which there could have been originally a masonry dome that was replaced by a wooden pyramid roof after the dome had fallen down. However, according to George Forsyth and Gerard Bakker, there had never been a dome over the church and the tower was surmounted by a wooden pyramid roof. The largest church at Alahan is the three-aisled West Church, called the Church of the Evangelists, measuring 36.5 by 16.0 metres, with the aisles measuring 22.0 by 14.5 metres. As in the case of the East Church, the north side of the West Church is deeply cut into the rock. The aisles were separated by two rows of columns, with galleries over the side-aisles.35

32 Cf. H. E l t o n: “Alahan and Zeno”..., pp. 153—157. 33 On the Campanopetra sanctuary of the Apostle Barnabas, see G. R o u x: La basilique de la Campanopétra. Paris 1998. See also A.H.S. M e g a w: “The Campanopetra reconsidered: the Pilgrimage Church of the Apostle Barnabas?” In: Byzantine Style, Religion and Civilization. In Honour of Sir Steven Runciman. Ed. by E.H. J e f f r e y s. Cambridge 2006, pp. 394—404. 34 Cf. K. F e l d: Barbarische Bürger..., p. 301. On Anastasius I’s Isaurian wars, see in detail F. H a a r e r: Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World. Cambridge 2006, pp. 21—28. 35 Cf. S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 68—83; G. B a k k e r: “The Buildings at Alahan.” In: Alahan. An Early Christian Monastery in Southern Turkey. Ed. by M. G o u g h. Toronto 1985, pp. 75—194 and a series of descriptions of the preliminary results of the ar- Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 181

3. Coropissus/Dalisandos — Dağ Pazarı Zeno’s donations are also believed, though it is less certain, to have been behind the construction of some other Isaurian and Cilician churches — at Dağ Pazarı, Corycus, and at Alakilise, Anemurium and Karlık. The main argument supporting this assumption is the architectural similarity of their grandiose style and decorative elements, as well as the dating of the construction at the end of the 5th century.36 The three-aisled basilica at Dağ Pazarı (the ancient Dalisandos or Coropis- sus37) measuring approximately 50.0 by 16.5 metres, is a church erected on the foundations of an earlier pagan temple from the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century A.D. Most probably, at the beginning of the 5th century it was turned into a Christian church, which was destroyed in part, however, by the fire in the second half of the 5th century, and later rebuilt with great care. The structure is characterized by the mosaic with the motifs of birds on it, which is situated on the floor of the narthex and covers an area of about 17.0 by 5.0 metres. The mosaic represents various species of birds — a swan, a goose, a crane, doves — all of them are mentioned in the description of the bird park provided by Basil of Seleucia, wherein they are connected to the sanctuary of St. Thecla at Seleucia. Michael Gough had dated the creation of this mosaic, along with the restoration of the church, back to the reign of the emperor Zeno.38 chaeological excavations conducted by Michael G o u g h: “The Church of the Evangelists at Alahan. A Preliminary Report.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 12, 1962, pp. 173—184; “Excavations at Alahan Monastery. Second Preliminary Report.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 13, 1963, pp. 107—115; “Excavations at Alahan Monastery. Third Preliminary Report.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 14, 1964, pp. 185—190; “Alahan Monastery. Fourth Preliminary Report.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 17, 1967, pp. 37—47; “Alahan Monastery. Fifth Preliminary Report.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 18, 1968, pp. 159—167. 36 Cf. G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia”..., pp. 234—236; O. F e l d: “Beobachtungen an spätantiken und frühchristlichen Bauten in Kilikien.” Römische Quartalschrift, Bd. 60, 1965, pp. 131—143. 37 According to the authors of Tabuli Imperii Byzantini, Bd. 5: Kilikien und Isaurien. Vienna 1990, p. 313 — Friedrich Hild and Hansgerd Hellenkemper — Dağ Pazarı is the ancient Coropis- sus, and in the later article H. H e l l e n k e m p e r: “Early Church Architecture in Southern Asia Minor.” In: Churches Built in Ancient Times. Recent Studies in Early Christian Archaeology. Ed. K. P a i n t e r. London 1994, p. 213 considered it to be Dalisandos. In turn, Dalisandos itself had been previously identified with Sinapiş; however, this localization was considered dubious, cf. W.M. R a m s a y: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor..., p. 495; G.E. B e a n, T.B. M i t - f o r d: Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964—1968. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften 102, Wien 1970, pp. 224—225; C. N a u e r t h: “Kaiser Zenon und Dalisandos — ein Theklakloster in Alahan Monastir?”..., pp. 47—48 and 55—60, where the author puts forward the new proposal that Dalisandos should be identified with Alahan. 38 Cf. F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene- Kilikien-Isaurien”. In: Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst. Vol. 4. Stuttgart 1990, col. 264—267 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 151—155. 182 Rafał Kosiński

The smaller church at Dağ Pazarı, called the Ambulatory Domed Church, measures about 27.0 by 20.0 metres. It is a three-aisled church, with a narthex and a semi-circular apse. Due to its numerous architectural elements, such as capitals in the apse windows, this church is strictly linked to other similar temples: the East Church at Alahan and the Tomb Church at Corycus, and thus belongs to the group of the so-called Domed Basilicas. On the strength of this evidence, Michael Gough, and later Stephen Hill, date the construction of this temple to the period of Zeno’s reign.39

4. Corycus Of the four basilicas at Corycus three are dated to the end of the 5th century. Attributed to Zeno’s patronage is the largest church at Corycus — church H — the so-called Tomb Church extra muros, measuring about 80.0 by 30.0 metres, along with the atrium and narthex. The atrium and narthex alone are approximately 35.0 metres long. The church belongs to the so-called Cilician Domed Basilicas. It may have possibly served as a martyrium erected upon the grave of a local martyr. In the western part of the church there were two aisles separated by a colonnade. The eastern part, with the apse and side chambers, resembled the basilica of St. Thecla at Seleucia. According to George Forsyth, in the central part of the church there was a tower analogical to that of the East Church at Alahan.40 Church A (the so-called Cathedral) at Corycus is a spacious three-aisled basilica measuring approximately 45.0 by 21.0 metres. The aisles are separated by two rows of marble columns. There were galleries over the side aisles. The church had a transept and was rich in furnishings. It does not have a typical atrium, and its northern part is cut into rock. Likewise, the building of this church, on the basis of the architectural analogies to the churches at Alahan and Dağ Pazari, is assigned to the construction activity undertaken in the region of Isauria by this emperor. Moreover, there is a mosaic at Corycus with the so- called motif of the Peaceful Kingdom, referring to the prophecy of Isaiah (Is XI, 6—7), which was linked by Michael Gough to the emperor Zeno’s enact- ment of Henoticon.41

39 Cf. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno”..., p. 211; S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Chur ches..., pp. 155—160. On the other hand, G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia”..., p. 236 was of the opinion, based on the same grounds, that the building had been erected only in the 6th century. 40 Cf. G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia”..., pp. 225—228; F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene-Kilikien- Isaurien”..., col. 212—216 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 131—136. 41 Cf. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno”..., pp. 210—212; F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n - k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene-Kilikien-Isaurien”..., col. 210—212; S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 116—121. E. H e r z f e l d, S. G u y e r: Meri- amlik und Korykos..., p. 108 had reckoned that the church was built in the beginning of the 5th Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 183

The last church at Corycus, assigned to have been one of Zeno’s donations, is the three-aisled Church G, called the transept church extra muros. It is a basilica measuring about 60.0 by 20.0 metres, including the atrium, situated by the road leading through the cemetery on the north-eastern side of the ancient town. The aisles were separated by the arcades supported by seven columns. The church had a complete triple transept, possibly covered with a timber pyramid roof in the central part. It seems that originally the church was very similar to the neighbouring Church H; the arrangement of the windows and doors, the lay-out of the apse and its side chambers are analogical, which may suggest the work of the same architect.42

5. Alakilise The three-aisled basilica at Alakilise, measuring 22.0 by 28.0 metres, is already in a very decrepit condition, which makes it difficult to attempt a precise lay-out plan; however, it demonstrates the architectural analogies to the structures at Corycus and Dağ Pazarı, which also suggests the dating of the construction time at the end of the 5th century and the reign of Zeno.43

6. Anemurium In turn, the principal phase of the development of the three-aisled church A II.1 at Anemurium, the so-called Tomb Church, is dated to the second half of the 5th century. The church had been built originally in the 4th century as a small-sized basilica measuring 18.5 by 12.7 metres. After the extension the dimensions of the church increased to 21.5 by 17.0 metres. The aisles were separated by two rows of columns. In this church as well there is a mosaic with the motif of the Peaceful Kingdom, representing a leopard with a child, along with a quote from Isaiah. The presence of this mosaic is an argument for assigning the building development of the church to the emperor Zeno.44

7. Karlık The Peaceful Kingdom motif can also be found in the eastern part of the mosaic situated in the three-aisled basilica at Karlk, measuring 35.0 by 17.5 metres, whose construction is assigned to the last years of Zeno’s reign. The century. On the other hand, G.G. F o r s y t h: “Architectural Notes on a Trip Through Cilicia”..., p. 228, had dated the construction of that temple to the mid-6th century. 42 Cf. F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene- Kilikien-Isaurien”..., col. 216—217 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 124—131. 43 Cf. F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene- Kilikien-Isaurien”..., col. 252—253 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 83—84. 44 Cf. J. R u s s e l: “Christianity at Anemurium (Cilicia). Recent Discoveries.” Actes du XIe Congrès International d’Archéologie Chrétienne. Roma 1989, pp. 1626—1628 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 94—96. 184 Rafał Kosiński inscription on the mosaic says that it was made in the month of Artemisius of the 13th indiction, which may indicate March/April 491.45

8. Kanlıdivane Apart from the church at Corycus, the churches at Kanlıdivane and Öküzlü are also included in the group of the Cilician transept basilicas. The three-aisled church at Kanlıdivane, which may have served the function of the cemetery church, is one of the best developed basilicas in Cilicia. It measured about 45.0 by 15.5 metres, including the atrium, while the length of the church proper was about 28.0 metres from the narthex to the apse. There were galleries over the side-aisles. George Forsyth suggested the dating of this church at the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 7th century, but Stephen Hill proposes that the entire group of the transept basilicas be dated to the end of the 5th century, on account of a number of their shared characteristics.46

9. Öküzlü The last representative of the transept basilicas is the three-aisled North Church at Öküzlü, whose measurements are 32.0 by 17.5 metres. The aisles were separated by two rows of columns, with five in each row. There were galleries over the aisles. The church had a fully developed transept, forming a rectangular space 4.5 metres wide. The basilica demonstrates a considerable similarity to the transept church at Corycus, hence the dating to the end of the 5th century.47 Besides the above-mentioned representatives of the groups of the churches whose construction can be, with a great degree of probability, linked to the reign of the emperor Zeno, there are a number of other temples in the region of Isauria, which are dated, though often without conclusive evidence, to the second half or the end of the 5th century. Possibly, further archaeological research will reveal some more characteristics allowing us to confirm the proposals for such dating. They are the churches at Anavarza (Anazarbus, the Church of the

45 Cf. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno”..., pp. 211—212; F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene-Kilikien-Isaurien”..., col. 202; S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 194—196. The “Peaceful Kingdom” motif also appears on the mosaic in the church at Ayaş, which was originally, however, a pagan temple and is not a building erected during the reign of the emperor Zeno, cf. M. G o u g h: “A Temple and Church at Ayaş (Cilicia).” Anatolian Studies, vol. 4, 1954, pp. 59—62 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 97—98. 46 Cf. G.M. F o r s y t h: “An Early Church at Kanlıdivane in Cilicia.” In: De Artibus Opuscula XL. Essays in Honour of Erwin Panofsky. New York 1961, pp. 127—137; F. H i l d, H. Hellenkemper, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s. “Kommagene-Kilikien-Isaurien”..., col. 206—210 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 187—193. 47 Cf. F. H i l d, H. H e l l e n k e m p e r, G. H e l l e n k e m p e r - S a l i e s: “Kommagene- Kilikien-Isaurien”..., col. 205—206 and S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 237—240. Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 185

Apostles), Batisandal, Bodrum, Cennet Cehennem, Kadirli, the Tomb Church extra muros at Dağ Pazarı and the monastery at Mahras Dağı.48

Reasons for Zeno’s donations

The fact that some temple had been built during Zeno’s reign is certainly not the conclusive proof with regard to his direct patronage; however, as it already has been mentioned above, it appears that apart from the complex at Seleucia of Isauria, at least two other groups of contemporary Isaurian churches, the so-called transept basilicas and domed basilicas, had been erected, as Stephen Hill asserts, thanks to the emperor’s donations.49 What was the reason, however, for the financial support of so many donations for the less grandiose churches, as in the other regions of the Empire Zeno had been building fewer, yet more monumental, temples? The obvious answer seems to be provided by the natural relations of Zeno with his native land. Does, however, as Michael Gough put it, “natural interest [of Zeno] in the land of his fathers” provide a full answer to this question?50 It seems that the sources of such generous provision of funds for the Isaurian cities to enable the building activity on a broad scale should rather be sought elsewhere. Isauria not only was the emperor’s native land, but also the region which had posed many problems to Zeno — it was here that the influence of Illus had been focused;51 he revolted against the emperor in 484 and put forward, to be emperor, Leontios, who had descended from the Isaurian Dalisandos.52 The main allies of Illus during the rebellion had been other Isaurians, of whom we know the names of Illus’ brother, Trocundes53 and Indacus Cottunes,54 and the elevation of Leontios to the title of Augustus was to have taken place on 19

48 Cf. M. G o u g h: “Anazarbus.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 2, 1952, pp. 116—118; M. G o u g h: “Notes on a Visit to Mahras Monastery in Isauria.” Byzantine Studies=Études Byzantines, vol. 1, 1974, pp. 65—72; S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 85—88 (Anavarza/Anazarbus), 101—103 (Batisandal), 104—105 (Bodrum), 111—113 (Cennet Cehennem), 160—162 (Dağ Pazarı), 176—179 (Kadirli) and 197—201 (Mahras Dağı). 49 Cf. S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., pp. 51—54. 50 Cf. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno...,” p. 210. 51 On Illus, see H. E l t o n: “Illus and the imperial aristocracy under Zeno.” Byzantion, vol. LXX, 2000, pp. 393—407; M.J. L e s z k a: “Illus Izauryjczyk wobec uzurpacji Bazyliskosa.” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia historica, vol. 80, 2005, pp. 45—53. 52 On Leontios see The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Ed. by J.R. M a r t i n - d a l e. Vol. 2, Cambridge 1980, pp. 670—671. 53 Cf. The Prosopography..., pp. 1127—1128. 54 Cf. The Prosopography..., pp. 590—591. 186 Rafał Kosiński

July 484 at Tarsus.55 As it appears, the foremost stronghold of Illus was Isauria, not Syria, where he had failed to gain broader support,56 which forced him to concentrate his military action in Cilicia — where he had suffered defeat, however, by Zeno’s troops at Seleucia and had to retreat to the Isaurian fortress of Cherris-Papirion (now Tschandyr-Kalessi).57 The revolt of Illus was, therefore, an Isaurian rebellion against an Isaurian ruler. After the fall of the rebellion the last stand of resistance was the Isaurian fortress of Papirion, where the leaders of the rebellion continued their defence for another four years.58 John of Antioch, in his description of the rebellion, writes that the huge resources accumulated by Illus were given over by Zeno to the Isaurian cities. I think that the numerous church foundations, scattered all over the region, should be regarded as connected with this event.59 This thesis is supported also by the fact, as observed by Michael Gough, of the presence, in the Isaurian churches at Corycus and Karlk, whose foundation is attributed to Zeno, as well as in the church at Ayaş, of the mosaics with the motif of the Peaceful Kingdom, referring to Isaiah (Is XI, 6—7). These mosaics were linked by the author to the Henoticon, issued by the emperor in 482, as they were, in Gough’s opinion, to serve as propaganda illustration of the religious policy of the emperor, who wanted to contribute to the reconciliation of the divided Church.60 The thesis does not explain, however, why the mosaics of this type are found in the region of Isauria, as the Henoticon was a document addressed to the Church in Egypt — and there is no evidence to suggest that

55 Cf. John of Antioch, fr. 306, ed. U. R o b e r t o. Berlin—New—York 2005, p. 520. Cf. also The Prosopography..., pp. 670—671 and Histoire du Bas-Empire. Vol. 2, De la disparition de l’Empire d’Occident à la mort de Justinien (476—565). Paris—Bruxelles—Amsterdam 1949, pp. 28—29. 56 See Theophanes AM 5976, pp. 129—130 who writes about Illus’ failed attempt to gain the support of the inhabitants of Chalcis; Joshua the Stylite 16. Ed. by F.R. T r o m b l e y, J.W. Wa t t, Liverpool 2000, p. 15 mentions the inhabitants of Edessa, who refused to support Illus. 57 Cf. Joshua the Stylite 17, pp. 15—16; John of Antioch fr. 306, pp. 520—526 and R.C. M c C a i l: “P. Gr. Vindob. 29788C: hexameter encomium on an un-named emperor.” Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 98 (1978), p. 54. 58 On the fortress, see J. G o t t w a l d: “Die Kirche und das Schloss Paperon in Kilikisch- Armenien.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Bd. 36, 1936, pp. 86—100. 59 Cf. John of Antioch, fr. 306, p. 518. The restoration of one church and the erection of another one, thanks to Zeno’s support, at Dağ Pazarı, and therefore probably at the ancient Dalisandos, where the usurper Leontios had supposedly come from, and where Illus had allegedly kept in custody the widow of the emperor Leo I — Verina, seems to confirm this thesis, cf. K. T w a r d o w s k a: Cesarzowe bizantyjskie 2 poł. V w. Kobiety a władza. Kraków 2006, p. 164. 60 Cf. M. G o u g h: “The Emperor Zeno”..., pp. 210—212. This view has been supported by Stephen Hill, cf. S. H i l l: The Early Byzantine Churches..., p. 53, who has suggested also that the motif from Isaiah is at the same time a reference made to paradeisos — the birds’ garden, whose existence has been confirmed at the sanctuary of St. Thecla at Seleucia of Isauria. Nostalgia or a Political Necessity?... 187 it was intended to serve, during Zeno’s reign, as a universal document for the entire Church.61 In my opinion, these mosaics have no relation to the Henoticon and they should be connected to the emperor’s attempt to pacify the province whose representatives had widely supported Illus’ rebellion in 484. As has been shown by Noel Lenski, the inhabitants of the emperor Zeno’s home province had been the most serious threat to his power.62 If the connection between the inscription dating the mosaic in the church at Karlık to the 13th indiction and the year 491 is correct, it would confirm our assumptions concerning the relation existing between the mosaics with the Peaceful Kingdom motif and the suppression of Illus’ rebellion, not the Henoticon, which was earlier by nearly a decade. The mosaics, commemorating the re-establishment of the peace in Isauria after the revolt of Illus, as well as the numerous donations for the building of new temples, financed at least in part from the property of the rebellion leader, and handed over to the Isaurian cities, demonstrate that Zeno, in his financial support for the extensive building enterprises in his home province, was guided not so much by his sentiments as by the political necessity of gaining the favour of the Isaurian clans.

61 Cf. R. K o s i ń s k i: “Kilka uwag o Henotikonie i domniemanym zwrocie w polityce re- ligijnej cesarza Zenona”. In: Społeczeństwo i religia w świetle antycznym. Red. S. O l s z a n i e c, P. Wo j c i e c h o w s k i. Toruń 2010, pp. 433—451. 62 Cf. N. L e n s k i: “Assimilation and Revolt in the Territory of Isauria..., pp. 427—428.

Translated by Marcin Fijak

Rafał Kosiński

Nostalgia czy polityczna konieczność? Tło licznych fundacji cesarza Zenona w Izaurii

Streszczenie

Cesarz Zenon skupiał swą aktywność budowlaną w Cylicji i jej najbliższym rejonie — w północnej Syrii oraz na Cyprze, gdzie władca koncentrował się na budowie mniejszej liczby znaczniejszych budowli. Wyjątek od tej reguły stanowi Izauria, gdzie przypisuje się działalności budowlanej Zenona większą liczbę mniejszych budowli, datowanych na podstawie wyników badań archeologicznych na schyłek V wieku. Wydaje się, że zaangażowanie finansowe Zenona w Izaurii nie wynikało jedynie z sentymentu władcy do rodzinnej krainy. Bardziej prawdopodobne były przyczyny polityczne — próba pozyskania przez władcę niespokojnej prowincji w związku z buntem Illusa w latach 484—488, który właśnie w tym rejonie zyskał główne oparcie. Jan 188 Rafał Kosiński z Antiochii (fr. 306), opisując bunt, podaje, że zgromadzony przez Illusa ogromny majątek Zenon miał po pokonaniu wroga przekazać miastom izauryjskim, z czym, jak sądzę, należy wiązać liczne, rozproszone po całej Izaurii, fundacje kościelne. Tezę tę wspiera również, zaobserwowany przez Michaela Gougha, fakt występowania w niektórych kościołach izauryjskich mozaik z motywem „Królestwa Pokoju”, nawiązujących do księgi Izajasza (Iz XI, 1—9). Mozaiki te badacz powiązał z wydanym przez cesarza w 482 roku Henotikonem, uważam jednak, że mozaiki te należy łączyć nie z dokumentem z 482 roku, lecz z próbą spacyfikowania przez cesarza Izaurii po stłumieniu bunt Illusa w 484 roku i pozyskania dla siebie poparcia izauryjskich klanów.

Rafał Kosiński

La nostalgie ou la nécessité politique ? Le fond de nombreuses fondations de l’empereur Zénon en Isaurie

R é s u m é

L’empereur Zénon concentrait son activité de construction en Cilicie et dans la région la plus proche : au nord de la Syrie et à Chypre, où le souverain faisait construire un nombre plus petit des édifices importants. L’Isaurie constitue l’exception de cette règle, car on attribue à Zénon un nombre plus grand des édifices moins importants, qui datent, selon l’examen archéologique, de la fin du Ve siècle. Il semble que l’engagement financier de Zénon en Isaurie ne résultait pas seulement du sentiment de l’empereur envers le pays natal. Les causes politiques — la tentative de l’acquisition de la province agitée à l’occasion de la rébellion d’Illus dans les années 484— 488, qui a reçu le soutient avant tout dans cette région, semble plus probable. Jean d’Antioche (fr. 306), dit en décrivant la rébellion que Zénon, après avoir vaincu l’ennemi, a offert la fortune énorme d’Illus aux villes d’Isaurie, ce qui explique, selon l’auteur, de nombreuses fondations ecclésiastiques, dispersées dans toute la région. Cette hypothèse est soutenue par le fait, observé par Michael Gough, de la présence dans certaines églises d’Isaurie des mosaïques avec le motif du « Royaume de la Paix », faisant allusion au Livre d’Isaïe (Isaïe XI, 1—9). Le chercheur lie ces mosaïques avec L’Henotikon, publié par l’empereur en 482, mais selon l’auteur elles sont inspirées non par le document de l’an 482, mais par la tentative de pacifier Isaurie par l’empereur après la défaite de la rébellion d’Illus en 484, et de gagner l’appui des clans d’Isaurie.

Redaktorzy BARBARA MALSKA, KRYSTIAN WOJCIESZUK

Komputerowe przygotowanie okładki oraz redakcja techniczna Małgorzata Pleśniar

Korektor wiesława piskor

Łamanie Edward Wilk

ISSN 0208-6336 ISBN 978-83-226-2164-0 (wersja drukowana) ISBN 978-83-8012-156-0 (wersja elektroniczna)

Wydawca Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego ul. Bankowa 12B, 40-007 Katowice www.wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl e-mail: [email protected] Wydanie I. Ark. druk. 12,0 + 2 wklejki. Ark. wyd. 18,0. Papier offset, kl. III, 90 g Cena 24 zł (+ VAT) Druk i oprawa: „TOTEM.COM.PL Sp. z o.o.” Sp.K. ul. Jacewska 89, 88-100 Inowrocław