Senatus Consultum de Agris Mytilenaeorum Sherk, Robert K Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1963; 4, 4; ProQuest pg. 217 Senatus Consultum de Agris Mytilenaeorum Robert K. Sherk N A LETTER to Paul Viereck dated October 20, 1938, Hiller von I Gaertringen mentions the discovery of an important inscription from Mytilene: In den Nachtragen von Peek aus Lesbos zu dem Supplementum des IG XII, das wir jetzt seit fast zwei Jahren drucken, befindet sich ein Fragment, das zu Evangelides 'ApX' LlEATlov IX (1924/25), 7T'ap. 46ff, fig. 9, zu gehoren scheint und damit zu einer Urkunde, die noch ein SC tiber die Befreiung von Lesbos durch Pompeius (und Theophanes) darstellt.1 Both of these inscriptions appeared the following year in the Supple­ ment to IG XII, that of Peek on page 208, no. 11, and that of Evange­ lides on page 12, no. 11. Since it is Peek's inscription which I will discuss in detail, it will be convenient to present it in full exactly as it is found in the Corpus. -- rva'ios IIol1:1T7'jLos rvJalov viaS" Mcf.y[vos -- \ ~ I I 'Y -- 7T'Ept TT)S" Xwp Jas 07T'WS., €XW"[ O'LV KaTEXWO'LV Kap7T'L~WV- Tett -- \' ~ ] , -- 7T'€PL TOVTOV TOV 7T'paYfl-aTos 0'- - -- \TWV O'V/L{JOVALO -- 5 -- aVTovJO/Llap TOVTOLS" TOils -- -- MJ VTtI\T)vaLOLS\' Kat\ TOtS~ -- -- oj, 7T'pOYEY Jp.a/L/L€VOL Ti}v 7f'()ALV MVT[LAl1vaLwv -- -- 07T'WS €XWO'tV KaT€XW ]O'LV Kap7T'l~wVTat O'VVE~f[VY/L€VWS -- -- Tl1 T€ ~ 7T'OAtT€La- MVTtA[ l1vat -- 1 This letter, a part of which is quoted here, was found among the material assembled by Viereck for a new edition of his famous book Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus magistratusque populi Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur (Gottingen 1888). After his death this material passed into the hands of Profes­ sor James H. Oliver and the present writer who hope to produce a work of their own along similar lines. His material consists mainly of excerpts from the many books and articles bearing on the subject which had appeared since the publication of his own work. It is very far from complete, however, and in the case of the documents discussed in the present article he had only progressed to the point of transcribing the inscriptions as he had received them from Hiller. 217 218 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE AGRIS MYTILENAEORUM \ ) , .... -- Kat a7TOKaTaaTaat~ TW!' -- -- EEpOVtALO~ 'TLJLTJTat -- -- aypwv, .... T07TWVJ 0 "[t KWV -- -- oEgaJLEVW!' -- 1S -- OEKaV[pWT -- The stone is described as coarse grained marble, broken on the left and bottom, with a maximum height of 0.44 m., width of 0.40 m., thickness of 0.23 m. The letters are 0.02 m. high. In his accompanying note Hiller adds that this inscription belongs to the same monument as the one discovered by Evangelides, for the two of them are en­ graved on the same type of marble, have the same height and form of letters and are somewhat similar in content. A squeeze was made but unfortunately no photograph has ever been published. The inscription of Evangelides appears to be a letter written by some high Roman magistrate to the city of Mytilene. It was engraved in at least two columns, of which we possess the last few words of the lines in the left-hand column and the first few words of the lines in the right-hand column. Thus a large part of the stone contains nothing but the empty space between the two columns. The first thirty-five lines contain such very tantalizing references as the following: the Romans, great danger, envoys, flight, Cornelius Sulla, somebody's mother, a gift of land, and a woman. The last lines (36-41) are im­ portant for our present purposes and may be given here: 7TpOJlOJLtaJl K.\E --- Ka(}c1~ rvat[o~2 ----------- eX7TO au",] - {1ov.\tov YVWJLTJ[~ yvwJLTJv eX7TE¢TJvaJLE(}a --- " ._[ ., I ] OVTW~ TE VJLWV ---- EXELV KaTEXELV TE 40 Kap7Tt,w(}a{ [TE EgEtvaL - - - - - - - - ] Kat\ 7TEP'\ TOV- K ----- If both of these inscriptions actually belong to the same monument, and I believe this to be true, then there is a strong possibility that the monument was erected to honor some individual who was connected in some way with the events described in the inscriptions. We can only speculate on his identity, but Theophanes of Mytilene would be 2 This is the reading made of this line by Silvio Accame in his article, "Roma e la Lega dei Lesbi," in Riv.Fil. 74 (1946) 112. Evangelides had read Ka(Jws y[p]a,[ - - - - • ROBERT K. SHERK 219 a likely candidate.s Although only fragments remain, yet I think that Peek's inscription will allow us to make several observations on Mytilene's history in the troubled period of the Mithridatic wars. From the very beginning Hiller believed the document was a senatus consultum and that it was referred to in lines 37-40 of Evangelides' inscription.4 In this he is almost certainly right. Peek's document is a decree of the Senate, although the formulae of lines 3-4 are very odd. Hiller also believed that it concerned Mytilene's grant of freedom by Pompey. In this I think he is mistaken. Let us examine the question of Mytilene's freedom first and then analyse the language and phrase­ ology of the decree itself. At the beginning of the First Mithridatic War in 88 B.C. Mytilene had been a free city and had enjoyed all the rights and privileges that went with such a status.5 But with the coming of Mithridates she foolishly betrayed Rome and welcomed the Pontic king. After the capitulation ofMithridates she refused to surrender and a long siege by Roman forces was started. In 80 B.C. she was finally captured and im­ mediately reduced to the status of a subject city, a civitas stipendiaria.6 However, in 62 B.C., at the conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War, the victorious Pompey stopped at Mytilene and restored the city's freedom. Theophanes, citizen of Mytilene and close friend of Pompey, was instrumental in persuading him to grant the city such a favor.' 3 It could have been, for example, a monument similar to the one erected in Mytilene to honor Potamon. See IG XII.2, 35. The facts about Theophanes may be found conven­ iently assembled by F. Jacoby in F.Gr.Hist. II B no. 188, pp. 919-923. For the facts of his life and high reputation see R. Laqueur in RE s.v. Theophanes, cols. 2090ff; Hiller von Gaertringen in Gott.Ge/.Nachr. I, phil.-hist. Klasse, Fachgruppe I (1934-36) 109ff; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Princeton 1950) 1230, n.28. Tacitus Ann. 6.18.5 says that he received divine honors after his death, a statement confirmed by coins (Head, Historia Numoruml [Oxford 1911] 563) and inscriptions (SIG3 753 and 755). For his wife on the coins of Mytilene see L. Robert in REA 1960, p. 286. Such a man, therefore, would be a likely can­ didate for a monument on which would have appeared the copies of documents which mentioned him or his achievements. " In his admirable summary of notable events in the history of Mytilene which Hiller printed in IG XII Supp!. (1939) he mentions this decree on p. 72 in an entry inserted between 66 and 62 B.C. He says: Nuperrime accessit senatus consulti pars, eiusdem fortasse, cuius re­ liquias iam n.11 exhibet, a Peekio nobiscum communicata, quam in edendis edemus. Exhibet Pompei et Servilii censoris nomina, aVTovop.{av Mytilenaeis restitutam, agrum Mytilenaeis redditum. 5 This is inferred from the fact that she lost her freedom in 80 B.C., but it is substantiated by the fact that she had previously aided Rome in the war against Antiochus and therefore would have been one of those cities which Rome freed because of their services in the war. See Magie, op.cit. 958, n.75. 6 For the capture of the city see Plutarch, Lucullus 4.2-3; Livy, perioch. 89; Suetonius, Divus Iulius 2. Cf Magie, op.cit. 245-46. 7 Plutarch, Pompeius 42.4 and Velleius Paterculus 2.18.3. Cf. Magie. op.cit. 365. 220 SENATUS CONSUL TUM DE AGRlS MYTILENAEORUM But this restoration of freedom was only one of many acts of Pompey in Asia Minor. Since he had relied only on the general terms of the lex Manilia and had not been assisted by the usual Senatorial commission, his acts required confirmation by the Senate or the People.8 When he returned to Italy therefore at the end of 62 B.C., his first thoughts were for his soldiers and the ratification of his eastern acta. He made his re­ quest of the Senate first, but a combination of political and personal enemies opposed him.9 In frustration and bewilderment he turned to the Assembly of the People. His enemies, however, contrived to check his efforts even there. With his own dignitas at stake he finally joined with Caesar and Crassus in order to use the collective powers of all three of them to ratify his acts and secure his future. The facts of this First Triumvirate are too well known to require repetition here. It will be enough to say that Caesar outmaneuvred the Senate simply by avoiding it in favor of the Assembly.lO It has been justly observed that from that time begins the final decay of Senatorial authority, for Caesar pushed through the Assembly a whole series of leges Iuliae without obtaining the usual prior approval of the Senate,u In fact he communicated nothing further to the Senate in his official capacity as consul but brought directly before the People whatever he wished.