Macedonia, as a Roman administrative district under the empire, was

materially curtailed as compared with the Macedonia of the republic.

Certainly, like the latter, it reached from sea to sea, inasmuch as the

coast as well of the Aegean Sea from the region of Thessaly belonging

to Macedonia as far as the mouth of the Nestus (Mesta), as of the

Adriatic from the Aous[198] as far as the Drilon (Drin), was reckoned

to this district; the latter territory, not properly Macedonian but

Illyrian land, but already in the republican period assigned to the

governor of Macedonia (iii. 44) {iii. 42.}, remained with the province

also during the time of the empire. But we have already stated that

Greece south of Oeta was separated from it. The northern frontier

towards Moesia and the east frontier towards Thrace remained indeed in

so far unaltered, as the province in the imperial period reached as

far as the Macedonia proper of the republic had reached, viz. on the

north almost as far as the vale of the Erigon, eastward as far as the

river Nestus; but while in the time of the republic the Dardani and the

Thracians, and all the tribes of the north and north-east adjoining

the Macedonian territory, had to do with this governor in their

circumstances of peaceful or warlike contact, and in so far it could be

said that the Macedonian boundary reached as far as the Roman lances,

the Macedonian governor of the imperial period bore sway only over the

district assigned to him, which no longer bordered on neighbours half

or wholly independent. As the defence of the frontier was transferred

in the first instance to the kingdom of the Thracians which had come

under allegiance to Rome, and soon to the governor of the new province

Moesia, the governor of Macedonia was from the outset relieved of his

command. There was hardly any fighting on Macedonian soil under the

empire; only the barbarian Dardani on the upper Axius (Vardar) still at

times pillaged the peaceful neighbouring province. There is no report,

moreover, from this province of any local revolts.

[Sidenote: Nationalities.]

From the more southerly Greek districts this--the most northerly--stood

aloof as well in its national basis as in the stage of its

civilisation. While the Macedonians proper on the lower course of the

Haliacmon (Vistritza) and the Axius (Vardar), as far as the Strymon,

were an originally Greek stock, whose diversity from the more southern

Hellenes had no further significance for the present epoch, and while

the Hellenic colonisation embraced within its sphere both coasts--on

the west with Apollonia and Dyrrachium, on the east in particular

with the townships of the Chalcidian peninsula--the interior of the

province, on the other hand, was filled with a confused mass of

non-Greek peoples, which must have differed from the present state of

things in the same region more as to elements than as to results. After

the Celts who had pushed forward into this region, the Scordisci, had

been driven back by the generals of the Roman republic, the interior

of Macedonia fell to the share especially of Illyrian stocks in the

west and north, of Thracian in the east. Of both we have already spoken

previously; here they come into consideration only so far as the Greek

organisation, at least the urban, was probably introduced--as in the

earlier,[199] so also in the imperial period--among these stocks only

in a very limited measure. On the whole, an energetic impulse of urban

development never pervaded the interior of Macedonia; the more remote

districts hardly reached--at least as in a real sense--beyond the

village-system.

[Sidenote: Greek polity.]

The Greek polity itself was not a spontaneous growth in this

monarchical country, as it was in Hellas proper, but was introduced by

the princes, who were more Hellenes than their subjects. What shape it

had is little known; yet the civic presidency of politarchs uniformly

recurring in Thessalonica, Edessa, Lete, and not met with elsewhere,

leads us to infer a perceptible, and indeed in itself probable,

diversity of the Macedonian urban constitution from that elsewhere

usual in Hellas. The Greek cities, which the Romans found existing,

retained their organisation and their rights; Thessalonica, the most

considerable of them, also freedom and autonomy. There existed a league

and a diet (κοινόν) of the Macedonian towns, similar to those in Achaia

and Thessaly. It deserves mention, as an evidence of the continued

working of the memories of the old and great times, that still in the

middle of the third century after Christ the diet of Macedonia and

individual Macedonian towns issued coins on which, in place of the

head and the name of the reigning emperor, came those of Alexander the

Great. The pretty numerous colonies of Roman burgesses which Augustus

established in Macedonia, Byllis not far from Apollonia, Dyrrachium

on the Adriatic, on the other coast Dium, Pella, Cassandreia, in the

region of Thrace proper Philippi, were all of them older Greek towns,

which obtained merely a number of new burgesses and a different legal

position, and were called into life primarily by the need of providing

quarters in a civilised and not greatly populous province for Italian

soldiers who had served their time, and for whom there was no longer

room in Italy itself. The granting of Italian rights certainly took

place only to gild for the veterans their settlement abroad. That it

was never intended to draw Macedonia into the development of Italian

culture is evinced, apart from all else, by the fact that Thessalonica

remained Greek and the capital of the country. By its side flourished

Philippi, properly a mining town, constituted on account of the

neighbouring gold mines, favoured by the emperors as the seat of the

battle which definitively founded the monarchy, and on account of the

numerous veterans who took part in it and subsequently settled there.

A Roman, not colonial, municipal constitution was obtained already in

the first period of the empire by Stobi, the already mentioned most

northerly frontier-town of Macedonia towards Moesia, at the confluence

of the Erigon with the Axius, in a commercial as in a military point

of view an important position, and which, it may be conjectured, had

already in the Macedonian time attained to Greek polity.

[Sidenote: Economy. Roads and levy.]

In an economic point of view little was done on the part of the state

for Macedonia under the emperors; at least there is no appearance of

any special care on their part for this province, which was not put

under their own administration. The military road already constructed

under the republic right across the country from Dyrrachium to

Thessalonica, one of the most important arteries of intercourse in the

whole empire, called forth renewed effort, so far as we know, only

from emperors of the third century, and first from Severus Antoninus;

the towns adjacent to it, Lychnidus on the Ochrida-lake and Heraclea

Lyncestis (Bitolia), were never of much account. Yet Macedonia

was, economically, better situated than Greece. It far excelled it

in fertility; as still at present the province of Thessalonica is

relatively well cultivated and well peopled, so in the description

of the empire from the time of Constantius, at all events when

Constantinople was already in existence, Macedonia is reckoned among

the specially wealthy districts. If for Achaia and Thessaly our

documents concerning the Roman levy are absolutely silent, Macedonia on

the other hand was drawn upon, in particular for the imperial guard,

to a considerable extent, more strongly than the most of the Greek

districts--on which, no doubt, the familiarity of the Macedonians with

regular war-service and their excellent qualifications for it, and

probably also the relatively small development of the urban system in

this province, had an important bearing. Thessalonica, the metropolis

of the province, and its most populous and most industrial town at this

time, represented likewise under various forms in literature, has also

secured to itself an honourable place in political history by the brave

resistance which its citizens opposed to the barbarians in the terrible

times of the Gothic invasions (p. 248).

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Thrace.]

[Sidenote: Philip and Alexander.]

[Sidenote: Lysimachus.]

[Sidenote: Empire of Tylis.]

If Macedonia was a half-Greek, Thrace was a non-Greek land. Of the

great but for us vanished Thracian stock we have formerly (p. 207)

spoken. Into its domain Hellenism came simply from without; and it

will not be superfluous in the first instance to glance back and to

set forth how often Hellenism had previously knocked at the gates

of the most southerly region which this stock possessed, and which

we still name after it, and how little it had hitherto penetrated

into the interior, in order to make clear what was left for Rome

here to overtake and what it did overtake. Philip, the father of

Alexander, first subjected Thrace, and founded not merely Calybe in

the neighbourhood of Byzantium, but also in the heart of the land

the town which thenceforth bore his name. Alexander, here too the

precursor of Roman policy, arrived at and crossed the Danube, and

made this stream the northern boundary of his empire; the Thracians

in his army played by no means the least part in the subjugation of

Asia. After his death the Hellespont seemed as though it would become

one of the great centres of the new formation of states, and the wide

domain from thence to the Danube[200] as though it would become the

northern half of a Greek empire, and would promise for the capital of

Lysimachus, the former governor of Thrace--the town of Lysimachia,

newly established in the Thracian Chersonese--a like future as for the

capitals of the marshals of Syria and Egypt. But this result was not

attained; the independence of this kingdom did not survive the fall

of its first ruler (281 B.C., 473 U.C.). In the century which elapsed

from that time to the establishment of the ascendancy of Rome in the

East, attempts were made, sometimes by the Seleucids, sometimes by the

Ptolemies, sometimes by the Attalids, to bring the European possessions

of Lysimachus under their power, but all of them without lasting

result. The empire of Tylis in the Haemus, which the Celts not long

after the death of Alexander, and nearly at the same time with their

permanent settlement in Asia Minor, had founded in the Moeso-Thracian

territory, destroyed the seed of Greek civilisation within its sphere,

and itself succumbed during the Hannibalic war to the assaults of the

Thracians, who extirpated these intruders to the last man. Thenceforth

there was not in Thrace any leading power at all; the relations

subsisting between the Greek coast-towns and the princes of the several

tribes, which would probably correspond approximately to those before

Alexander's time, are illustrated by the description which Polybius

gives of the most important of these towns: "Where the Byzantines had

sowed, there the Thracian barbarians reaped, and against these neither

the sword nor money is of avail; if the citizens kill one of the

princes, three others thereupon invade their territory, and, if they

buy off one, five more demand the like annual payment."

[Sidenote: Later Macedonian rulers.]

The efforts on the part of the later Macedonian rulers to gain once

more a firm footing in Thrace, and in particular to bring under

their power the Greek towns of the south coast, were opposed by the

Romans, partly in order to keep down the development of Macedonia's

power generally, partly in order not to allow the important "royal

road" leading to the East--that along which Xerxes marched to Greece

and the Scipios marched against Antiochus--to fall in all its extent

into Macedonian hands. Already, after the battle at Cynoscephalae,

the frontier-line was drawn nearly such as it thenceforth remained.

The two last Macedonian rulers made several attempts, either directly

to establish themselves in Thrace or to attach to themselves its

individual rulers by treaties; the last Philip even gained over

Philippopolis once more, and put into it a garrison, which, it is true,

the Odrysae soon drove out afresh. Neither he nor his son succeeded in

placing matters on a permanent footing; and the independence conceded

by Rome to the Thracians after the breaking up of Macedonia destroyed

whatever Hellenic germs might still be left there. Thrace itself

became--in part already in the republican, and more decidedly in the

imperial period--a Roman vassal-principality, and then in 46 a Roman

province (p. 211); but the Hellenising of the land had not passed

beyond the fringe of Greek colonial towns, which in the earliest period

had been established round this coast, and in course of time had sunk

rather than risen. Powerful and permanent as was the hold of Macedonian

civilisation on the East, as weak and perishable was its contact with

Thrace; Philip and Alexander themselves appear to have reluctantly

undertaken, and to have but lightly valued, their settlements in this

land.[201] Till far into the imperial period the land remained with the

natives; the Greek towns that were still left along the coast, almost

all on the decline, remained without any Greek land in their rear.

[Sidenote: Greek towns in Thrace and on the Black Sea.]

This belt of Hellenic towns stretching from the Macedonian frontier to

the Tauric Chersonese was of very unequal texture. In the south it was

close and compact from Abdera onward to Byzantium on the Dardanelles;

yet none of these towns held a prominent position in later times

with the exception of Byzantium, which through the fertility of its

territory, its productive tunny fisheries, its uncommonly favourable

position for trade, its industrial diligence, and the energy of its

citizens--heightened merely and hardened by its exposed situation--was

enabled to defy even the worst times of Hellenic anarchy. Far more

scantily had the settlements developed themselves on the west coast

of the Black Sea; among those subsequently belonging to the Roman

province of Thrace Mesembria alone was of some importance; among those

subsequently Moesian Odessus (Varna) and Tomis (Küstendje). Beyond

the mouths of the Danube and the boundary of the Roman empire, on the

northern shore of the Pontus, there lay amidst the barbarian land

Tyra[202] and Olbia; further on, the old and great Greek mercantile

cities in what is now the Crimea--Heraclea or Chersonesus and

Panticapaeum--formed a stately copestone.

[Sidenote: Under Roman protection.]

All these settlements enjoyed Roman protection, after the Romans had

become generally the leading power on the Graeco-Asiatic continent;

and the strong arm, which often came down heavily on the Hellenic land

proper, prevented here at least disasters like the destruction of

Lysimachia. The protection of these Greeks devolved in the republican

period partly on the governor of Macedonia, partly on the governor of

Bithynia, after this became Roman; Byzantium subsequently remained

with Bithynia.[203] We may add that in the imperial period, after the

erection of the governorship of Moesia and subsequently of that of

Thrace, the supplying of protection devolved on these.

[Sidenote: Philippopolis and other towns with civic rights.]

Protection and favour were granted by Rome to these Greeks from the

first; but neither the republic nor the earlier imperial period made

efforts for the extension of Hellenism.[204] After Thrace had become

Roman, it was divided into land-districts;[205] and almost down to

the end of the first century there is no record of the laying out

of a town there, with the exception of two colonies of Claudius and

Vespasian--Apri in the interior not far from Perinthus, and Deultus

on the most northern coast.[206] Domitian began by introducing the

Greek urban constitution into the interior, at first for the capital

of the country, Philippopolis. Under Trajan a series of other Thracian

townships obtained like civic rights; Topirus not far from Abdera,

Nicopolis on the Nestus, Plotinopolis on the Hebrus, Pautalia near

Köstendil, Serdica now Sofia, Augusta Traiana near Alt-Zagora, a

second Nicopolis on the northern slope of Haemus,[207] besides, on the

coast, Traianopolis at the mouth of the Hebrus; further, under Hadrian

Adrianopolis, the modern Adrianople. All these towns were not colonies

of foreigners but polities of Greek organisation, composed after the

model set up by Augustus in the Epirot Nicopolis; it was a civilising

and Hellenising of the province from above downwards. A Thracian diet

existed thenceforth in Philippopolis just as in the properly Greek

provinces. This last offshoot of Hellenism was not the weakest. The

country was rich and charming--a coin of the town Pautalia praises the

fourfold blessing of the ears of grain, of the grapes, of the silver,

and of the gold; and Philippopolis as well as the beautiful valley

of the Tundja were the home of rose-culture and of rose-oil--and the

vigour of the Thracian type was not broken. Here was developed a dense

and prosperous population; we have already mentioned the largeness

of the levy in Thrace, and few territories stand on an equality

with Thrace at this epoch in the activity of the urban mints. When

Philippopolis succumbed in the year 251 to the Goths (p. 240), it is

said to have numbered 100,000 inhabitants. The energetic part taken by

the Byzantines in favour of the emperor of the Greek East, Pescennius

Niger, and the several years' resistance which the town even after his

defeat opposed to the victor, show the resources and the courage of

these Thracian townsmen. If the Byzantines here, too, succumbed and

lost even for a season their civic rights, the time, for which the rise

of the Thracian land paved the way, was soon to set in, when Byzantium

should become the new Hellenic Rome and the chief capital of the

remodelled empire.

[Sidenote: Lower Moesia.]

[Sidenote: Tomis and the Pontic Pentapolis.]

In the neighbouring province of lower Moesia a similar development

took place, although on a smaller scale. The Greek coast-towns, the

metropolis of which, at least in the Roman period, was Tomis, were,

probably on the constituting of the Roman province of Moesia, grouped

as the "Five-cities-league of the left shore of the Black Sea," or

as it was also called, "of the Greeks," that is, the Greeks of this

province. Later there was annexed to this league, as a sixth town,

that of Marcianopolis, constructed by Trajan not far from the coast on

the Thracian frontier, and organised, like the Thracian towns, after

the Greek model.[208] We have already observed that the camp-towns

on the bank of the Danube, and generally the townships called into

life by Rome in the interior, were instituted after the Italian model;

lower Moesia was the only Roman province intersected by the linguistic

boundary, inasmuch as the Tomitanian cities-league belonged to the

Greek, the Danubian towns, like Durostorum and Oescus to the Latin,

linguistic domain. In other respects essentially the same holds true of

this Moesian cities-league, as was remarked regarding Thrace. We have a

description of Tomis from the last years of Augustus, doubtless by one

banished thither for punishment, but certainly true in substance. The

population consists for the greater part of Getae and Sarmatae; they

wear, like the Dacians on Trajan's column, skins and trousers, long

waving hair and unshorn beard, and appear in the street on horseback

and armed with the bow, with the quiver on their shoulder, and the

knife in their girdle. The few Greeks who are found among them have

adopted the barbarian customs, including the trousers, and are able

to express themselves as well or better in Getic than in Greek; he

is lost, who cannot make himself intelligible in Getic, and no man

understands a word of Latin. Before the gates rove predatory bands of

the most various peoples, and their arrows not seldom fly over the

protecting city-walls; he who ventures to till his field does it at the

peril of his life, and ploughs in armour--at anyrate about the time of

Caesar's dictatorship; on occasion of the raid of Burebista, the town

had fallen into the hands of the barbarians, and a few years before

that exile came to Tomis, during the Dalmato-Pannonian insurrection,

the fury of war had once more raged over this region. The coins and the

inscriptions of that city accord well with these accounts, in so far

as the metropolis of the "left-Pontic cities-league" in the pre-Roman

period coined no silver, which several other of these towns did; and,

in general, coins and inscriptions from the time before Trajan occur

only in an isolated way. But in the second and third centuries it was

remodelled and may be termed a foundation of Trajan with very much

the same warrant as Marcianopolis, which likewise quickly attained

to considerable development. The barrier formerly mentioned (p. 227)

in the Dobrudscha served at the same time as a protecting wall for

the town of Tomis. Behind this wall commerce and navigation were

flourishing. There was in the town a society of Alexandrian merchants

with its own chapel of Serapis;[209] in municipal liberality and

municipal ambition the town was inferior to no Greek town of middle

size; it was still even now bilingual, but in such a way that,

alongside of the Greek language always retained on the coins, here on

the border, where the two languages of the empire came into contact,

the Latin is also often employed even in public monuments.

[Sidenote: Tyra.]

[Sidenote: Olbia.]

Beyond the imperial frontier, between the mouths of the Danube and the

Crimea, the Greek merchant had made few settlements on the coast; there

were here only two Greek towns of note, both founded in remote times by

Miletus, Tyra at the mouth of the river of the same name, the modern

Dniester, and Olbia on the bay into which the Borysthenes (Dnieper) and

the Hypanis (Bug) fall. The forlorn position of these Hellenes amidst

the barbarians pressing around them, in the time of the Diadochi as

well as during the earlier rule of the Roman republic, has already

been described (iii. 297) {iii. 282.}. The emperors brought help. In

the year 56, that is, in the exemplary beginning of Nero's government,

Tyra was annexed to the province of Moesia. Of the more remote Olbia

we possess a description from the age of Trajan;[210] the town was

still bleeding from its old wounds; the wretched walls enclosed equally

wretched houses, and the quarter then inhabited filled but a small

portion of the old considerable city-circuit, of which individual

towers that were left stood far off in the desolate plain; in the

temples there was no statue of the gods which did not bear traces of

the hands of the barbarians; the inhabitants had not forgotten their

Hellenic character, but they dressed and fought after the manner of the

Scythians, with whom they were daily in conflict. Just as often as by

Greek names, they designated themselves by Scythian, _i.e._ by those

of Sarmatian stocks akin to the Iranians;[211] in fact, in the royal

house itself Sauromates was a common name. These towns were indebted

doubtless for their very continued existence less to their own power

than to the good-will or rather the self-interest of the natives. The

tribes settled on this coast were neither in a position to carry on

foreign trade from emporia of their own, nor could they dispense with

it; in the Hellenic coast-towns they bought salt, articles of clothing

and wine, and the more civilised princes protected in some measure the

strangers against the attacks of the barbarians proper. The earlier

rulers of Rome must have had scruples at undertaking the difficult

protection of this remote settlement; nevertheless Pius, when the

Scythians once more besieged them, sent to them Roman auxiliary troops,

and compelled the barbarians to offer peace and furnish hostages.

The town must have been incorporated directly with the empire by

Severus, from whom onward Olbia struck coins with the image of the

Roman rulers. As a matter of course this annexation extended only to

the town-territories themselves, and it never was intended to bring

the barbarian dwellers around Tyra and Olbia under the Roman sceptre.

It has already been remarked (p. 239) that these towns were the first

which, presumably under Alexander († 235), succumbed to the incipient

Gothic invasion.

[Sidenote: Bosporus.]

[Sidenote: Asander.]

[Sidenote: Polemon.]

If the Greeks had but sparingly settled on the mainland to the north

of the Black Sea, the great peninsula projecting from this coast, the

Tauric Chersonesus--the modern Crimea--had for long been in great

part in their hands. Separated by the mountains, which the Taurians

occupied, the two centres of the Greek settlement upon it were,

at the western end the Doric free town of Heraclea or Chersonesus

(Sebastopol), at the eastern the principality of Panticapaeum or

Bosporus (Kertch). King Mithradates had at the summit of his power

united the two, and here established for himself a second northern

empire (iii. 298), which then, after the collapse of his power, was

left as the only remnant of it to his son and murderer Pharnaces.

When the latter, after the war between Caesar and Pompeius, attempted

to regain his father's dominion in Asia Minor, Caesar had vanquished

him (iv. 439), and declared him to have forfeited also the Bosporan

empire. In the meanwhile Asander, the governor left there by Pharnaces,

had renounced allegiance to the king in the hope of acquiring the

kingdom for himself by this service rendered to Caesar. When Pharnaces

after his defeat returned to his Bosporan kingdom, he at first indeed

repossessed himself of his capital, but ultimately was worsted, and

fell bravely fighting in the last battle--as a soldier at least, not

unequal to his father. The succession was contested between Asander,

who was in fact master of the land, and Mithradates of Pergamus, an

able officer of Caesar, whom the latter had invested with the Bosporan

principality; both sought at the same time to lean for support on

the dynasty heretofore ruling in the Bosporus and on the great

Mithradates, inasmuch as Asander married Dynamis, the daughter of

Pharnaces, while Mithradates, sprung from a Pergamene burgess-family,

asserted that he was an illegitimate son of the great Mithradates

Eupator--whether it was that this rumour determined the selection, or

that it was put into circulation in order to justify it. As Caesar

himself was called in the first instance to attend to more important

tasks, arms decided between the legitimate and the illegitimate

Caesarian, and once more in favour of the latter; Mithradates fell

in combat, and Asander remained master in the Bosporus. In the

outset--without doubt, because he had not the confirmation of the

lord-paramount--he avoided assuming the name of king, and contented

himself with the title of archon, borne by the older princes of

Panticapaeum; but he soon procured, probably even from Caesar himself,

the confirmation of his rule and the royal title.[212] At his death

(737-738 U.C.) {17-16.} he left his kingdom to his wife Dynamis. So

strong was still the power of hereditary succession and of the name

of Mithradates, that both a certain Scribonianus, who first attempted

to occupy Asander's place, and after him king Polemon of Pontus, to

whom Augustus promised the Bosporan kingdom, conjoined with the taking

up of the dominion a marriage-alliance with Dynamis; moreover, the

former asserted that he was himself a grandson of Mithradates, while

king Polemon, soon after the death of Dynamis, married a granddaughter

of Antonius, and consequently a kinswoman of the imperial house.

After his early death--he fell in conflict with the Aspurgiani on the

Asiatic coast--his children under age did not succeed him; and even

with his grandson of the same name, whom the emperor Gaius reinstated,

notwithstanding his boyish age, in the year 38, into the two

principalities of his father, the Bosporan kingdom did not long remain.

In his place the emperor Claudius called a real or alleged descendant

of Mithradates Eupator, and in this house, apparently, the principality

thenceforth continued.[213]

[Sidenote: The Eupatorids.]

[Sidenote: Extent of the Bosporan rule.]

While in the Roman state elsewhere the dependent principality

disappears after the end of the first dynasty, and from Trajan's time

the principle of direct government is carried out through the whole

extent of the Roman empire, the Bosporan kingdom subsisted under

Roman supremacy down to the fourth century. It was only after the

centre of gravity of the empire was shifted to Constantinople that

this state became merged in the empire at large,[214] in order to be

soon thereafter abandoned by it and to become, at least in greater

part, the prey of the Huns.[215] The Bosporus, however, in reality

was and continued to be more a town than a kingdom, and had more

similarity with the town-districts of Tyra and Olbia than with the

kingdoms of Cappadocia and Numidia. Here, too, the Romans protected

only the Hellenic town Panticapaeum, and did not aim at enlargement

of the bounds and subjugation of the interior any more than in Tyra

and Olbia. To the domain of the prince of Panticapaeum belonged the

Greek settlements of Theudosia on the peninsula itself, and Phanagoria

(Taman) on the opposite Asiatic coast, but not Chersonesus[216]--or at

least only somewhat as Athens belonged to the province of the governor

of Achaia. The town had obtained autonomy from the Romans, and saw

in the prince its immediate protector, not its sovereign; as a free

town, too, in the imperial period, it never coined with the stamp

either of king or emperor. On the mainland, not even the town which

the Greeks called Tanais--a stirring emporium at the mouth of the Don,

but hardly a Greek foundation--stood permanently under subjection to

the Roman vassal-princes.[217] Of the more or less barbarian tribes on

the peninsula itself, and on the European and Asiatic coast southward

from Tanais, probably only the nearest stood in a fixed relation of

dependence.[218]

[Sidenote: Military position of the Bosporus.]

The territory of Panticapaeum was too extensive and too important,

especially for mercantile intercourse, to be left like Olbia and

Tyra to the administration of changing municipal officials and a far

distant governor; therefore it was entrusted to hereditary princes--a

course further recommended by the circumstance that it might not seem

advisable to transfer directly to the empire the relations which this

region sustained to the surrounding tribes. The rulers of the Bosporan

house, in spite of their Achaemenid pedigree and their Achaemenid mode

of reckoning time, felt themselves thoroughly as Greek princes, and

traced back their origin, after the good Hellenic fashion, to Herakles

and the Eumolpids. The dependence of these Greeks on Rome--the royal

in Panticapaeum, as the republican in Chersonesus--was implied in

the nature of things, and they never thought of rising against the

protecting arm of the empire; if once, under the emperor Claudius,

the Roman troops had to march against an insubordinate prince of the

Bosporus,[219] yet withal this region itself, amidst the fearful

confusion in the middle of the third century, which especially affected

it, never broke away from the empire even when it was falling to

pieces.[220] The prosperous merchant-towns, permanently in need of

military protection amidst a flux of barbaric peoples, held to Rome as

the advanced posts to the main army. The garrison was doubtless chiefly

raised in the land itself, and to create and manage it was beyond

doubt the main task of the king of the Bosporus. The coins, which were

struck on occasion of the investiture of such a king, exhibit doubtless

the curule chair and the other honorary presents usual at such

investiture, but also by their side shield, helmet, sword, battle-axe,

and war-horse; it was no peaceful office which this prince undertook.

The first of them, whom Augustus appointed, fell in conflict with the

barbarians, and of his successors, _e.g._ king Sauromates, son of

Rhoemetalces, fought in the first years of Severus with the Siracae and

the Scythians--perhaps it was not quite without reason that he stamped

his coins with the feats of Herakles. By sea, too, he had to be active,

especially in keeping down the piracy which never ceased in the Black

Sea (p. 242); that Sauromates likewise is credited with having brought

the Taurians to order and chastised piracy. Roman troops, however, were

also stationed in the peninsula, perhaps a division of the Pontic

fleet, certainly a detachment of the Moesian army; their presence even

in small numbers showed to the barbarians that the dreaded legionary

stood behind these Greeks. In another way still the empire protected

them; at least in the later period there were regularly paid from

the imperial chest to the princes of the Bosporus sums of money, of

which they stood in need, in so far as the buying off of the hostile

incursions by stated annual payments probably became a standing

practice here--in what was not directly territory of the empire--still

earlier than elsewhere.[221]

[Sidenote: Position of this vassal-prince.]

That the centralisation of the government had its application also

in reference to this prince, and he stood to the Roman Caesar on a

footing not much different from that of the burgomaster of Athens, is

in various ways apparent; it deserves mention that king Asander and

the queen Dynamis struck gold coins with their name and their effigy,

whereas king Polemon and his immediate successors, while retaining

the right of coining gold, seeing that this territory as well as the

adjoining barbarians were for long accustomed exclusively to gold

currency, were induced to furnish their gold pieces with the name

and the image of the reigning emperor. In like manner from Polemon's

time the prince of this land was at the same time the chief priest

for life of the emperor and of the imperial house. In other respects

the administration and the court retained the forms introduced under

Mithradates after the model of the Persian grand monarchy, although

the chief secretary (ἀρχιγραμματεύς) and the chief chamberlain

(ἀρχικοιτωνείτης) of the court of Panticapaeum stood related to the

leading court-officers of the great kings, as the enemy of the Romans

Mithradates Eupator to his descendant Tiberius Julius Eupator, who, on

account of his claim to the Bosporan throne, appeared as a suitor at

Rome at the bar of the emperor Pius.

[Sidenote: Trade and commerce in the Bosporus.]

This northern Greece remained valuable for the empire on account of its

commercial relations. Though these at this epoch were doubtless less

important than in earlier times,[222] yet the mercantile intercourse

continued very lively. In the Augustan period the tribes of the

steppes brought slaves and skins,[223] the merchants of civilisation

articles of clothing, wine, and other luxuries to Tanais; in a still

higher degree Phanagoria was the depôt for the exports of the natives,

Panticapaeum for the imports of the Greeks. Those troubles in the

Bosporus in the Claudian age were a severe blow for the merchants of

Byzantium. That the Goths began their piratic voyages in the third

century by pressing the Bosporan vessels to lend them involuntary aid,

has been already mentioned (p. 244). It was doubtless in consequence of

this traffic, indispensable for the barbarian neighbours themselves,

that the citizens of Chersonesus maintained their ground even after the

withdrawal of the Roman garrisons, and were able subsequently--when in

Justinian's time the power of the empire once more asserted itself in

this direction--to return as Greeks into the Greek empire.

Footnotes.

[146: The organisation of the Delphic Amphictiony under the Roman

republic is especially clear from the Delphic inscription, _C. I. L._

iii. p. 987 (comp. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ vii. 427 ff.). The union was

formed at that time of seventeen tribes with--together--twenty-four

votes, all of them belonging to Greece proper or Thessaly; Aetolia,

Epirus, Macedonia were wanting. After the remodelling by Augustus

(Pausanias, x. 8) this organisation continued to subsist in other

respects, except only that by restriction of the disproportionately

numerous Thessalian votes those of the tribes hitherto represented were

reduced to eighteen; to these were now added Nicopolis in Epirus with

six, and Macedonia likewise with six votes. Moreover the six votes of

Nicopolis were to be given on each occasion, just as this continued

to be the case, for the two of Delphi and the one of Athens; whereas

the other votes were given by the groups, so that, _e.g._ the one

vote of the Peloponnesian Dorians alternated between Argos, Sicyon,

Corinth, and Megara. The Amphictionies were even now not a collective

representation of the European Hellenes, in so far as the tribes

earlier excluded in Greece proper, a portion of the Peloponnesians, and

the Aetolians not attached to Nicopolis, were not represented in it.]

[147: The stated meetings in Delphi and at Thermopylae continued

(Pausanias, vii. 24, 3; Philostratus, _Vita Apoll._ iv. 23),

and of course also the carrying out of the Pythian games, along

with the conferring of the prizes by the _collegium_ of the

Amphictiones (Philostratus, _Vitae Soph._ ii. 27); the same body

has the administration of the "interest and revenues" of the temple

(inscription of Delphi, _Rhein. Mus. N. F._ ii. 111), and fits up

from it, for example at Delphi, a library (Lebas, ii. 845) or puts up

statues there.]

[148: The members of the college of the Ἀμφικτίονες, or, as they were

called at this epoch, Ἀμφικτύονες, were appointed by the several

towns in the way previously described, sometimes from time to time

(iteration: _C. I. Gr._ 1058), sometimes for life (Plutarch, _An

seni_, 10), which probably depended on whether the vote was constant

or alternating (Wilamowitz). Its president was termed in earlier times

ἐπιμελητὴς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων (Delphic inscriptions, _Rhein.

Mus. N. F._ ii. 111; _C. I. Gr._ 1713), subsequently Ἑλλαδάρχης τῶν

Ἀμφικτυόνων (_C. I. Gr._ 1124).]

[149: The original bounds of the province are indicated by Strabo,

xvii. 3, 25, p. 840, in the enumeration of the senatorial provinces:

Ἀχαία μέχρι Θετταλίας καὶ Αἰτωλῶν καὶ Ἀκαρνάνων καὶ τινων Ἠπειρωτικῶν

ἐθνῶν ὅσα τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ προσώριστο, in which case the remaining

part of Epirus appears to be assigned to the province of Illyricum

(reckoned here by Strabo--erroneously as regards his time--among the

senatorial). To take μέχρι inclusively is--apart from considerations

of fact--unsuitable for this very reason, because according to the

closing words the regions previously named "are assigned to Macedonia."

Subsequently we find the Aetolians annexed to Achaia (Ptolem. iii. 14).

That Epirus also for a time belonged to it, is possible, not so much

on account of the statement in Dio, liii. 12, which cannot be defended

either for Augustus's time or for that of Dio, but because Tacitus on

the year 17 (_Ann._ ii. 53) reckons Nicopolis to Achaia. But at least

from the time of Trajan Epirus with Acarnania forms a procuratorial

province of its own (Ptolem. iii. 13; _C. I. L._ iii. 536; Marquardt,

_Staatsalth._ v. I, 331). Thessaly and all the country northward of

Oeta constantly remained with Macedonia.]

[150: Nothing gives a clearer idea of the position of the Greeks in

the last century of the Roman republic than the letter of one of these

governors to the Achaean community of Dyme (_C. I. Gr._ 1543). Because

this community had given to itself laws that ran counter to the freedom

granted in general to the Greeks (ἡ ἀποδεδομένη κατὰ κοινὸν τοῖς

Ἕλλησιν ἐλευθερία) and to the organisation given by the Romans to the

Achaeans (ἡ ἀποδοθεῖσα τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων πολιτεία; probably with

the co-operation of Polybius, Pausan. viii. 30, 9), whereupon at all

events tumults had arisen, the governor informs the community that he

had caused the two ringleaders to be executed, and that a less guilty

third person was exiled to Rome.]

[151: Comp. iii. 312, 316. {iii. 297, 300} The Delian excavations of

recent years have furnished the proofs that the island, after the

Romans had once given it to Athens (ii. 329) {ii. 309}, remained

constantly Athenian, and constituted itself, doubtless in consequence

of the defection of the Athenians from Rome, as a community of the

"Delians" (_Eph. epig._ v. p. 604), but already six years after the

capitulation of Athens was again Athenian (_Eph. epig._ v. 184 f.;

Homolle, _Bull. de corr. Hell._ viii. p. 142).]

[152: Whether the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, which naturally does not occur

in the republican period proper, was reconstituted already at the end

of it or not till after the introduction of the imperial provincial

organisation, is doubtful. Inscriptions like the Olympian one of the

proquaestor Q. Ancharius Q. f. (_Arch. Zeitung_, 1878, p. 38, n. 114)

speak rather in favour of the former supposition; yet it cannot with

certainty be designated as pre-Augustan. The oldest sure evidence for

the existence of this union is the inscription set up by it to Augustus

in Olympia (_Arch. Zeitung_, 1877, p. 36, n. 33). Perhaps these were

arrangements of the dictator Caesar, and in connection with the

governor of "Greece,"--probably the Achaia of the imperial period--to

be met with under him (Cicero, _Ad fam._ vi. 6, 10).--We may add that

certainly also under the republic, according to the discretion of

each governor for the time being, several communities might meet for

a definite object by deputies and adopt resolutions; as the κοινόν of

the Siceliots thus decreed a statue to Verres (Cicero, _Verr._ i. 2,

46, 114), similar things must have occurred in Greece also under the

republic. But the regular provincial diets with their fixed officers

and priests were an institution of the imperial period.]

[153: This is the κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν Εὐβοέων Λοκρῶν Φωκέων Δωριέων of the

remarkable inscription probably set up shortly before the battle of

Actium (_C. I. Att._ iii. 568). We cannot possibly with Dittenberger

(_Arch. Zeitung_, 1876, p. 220) refer to this league the notice of

Pausanias (vii. 16, 10), that the Romans "not many years" after the

destruction of Corinth had compassion on the Hellenes, and had again

allowed them the provincial unions (συνέδρια κατὰ ἔθνος ἑκάστοις τὰ

ἀρχαῖα); this applies to the minor individual leagues.]

[154: To it belonged not merely the neighbouring Amyclae, but also

Cardamyle (by gift of Augustus, Pausan. iii. 26, 7), Pherae (Pausan.

iv. 30, 2), Thuria (_ib._ iv. 31, 1), and for a time also Corone (_C.

I. Gr._ 1258; comp. Lebas-Foucart, ii. 305) on the Messenian gulf; and

further the island of Cythera (Dio, liv. 7).]

[155: In the republican period this district appears as τὸ κοινὸν τῶν

Λακεδαιμονίων (Foucart on Lebas, ii. p. 110); Pausanias (iii. 21,

6) is therefore wrong when he makes it only released from Sparta by

Augustus. But they term themselves Ἐλευθερολάκωνες only from the time

of Augustus, and the bestowal of their freedom is therefore justly

traced to him.]

[156: There are coins of this city with the legend _c[olonia] I[ulia]

D[ume]_ and the head of Caesar, others with the legend _c[olonia]

I[ulia] A[ugusta] Dum[e]_ and the head of Augustus along with that of

Tiberius (Imhoof-Blumer, _Monnaies grecques_, p. 165). That Augustus

assigned Dyme to the colony of Patrae, is probably an error of

Pausanias (vii. 17, 5); it remains indeed possible that Augustus in his

later years ordained this union.]

[157: This is shown, at least for the time of Pius, by the African

inscription _C. I. L._ viii. 7059 (comp. Plutarch, _Arist._ 21). The

accounts of authors as to the freed communities give no guarantee at

all for the completeness of the list. Probably Elis also belonged

to them, which was not affected by the catastrophe of the Achaeans,

and even subsequently dated still by Olympiads, not by the era of

the province; besides, it is incredible that the town of the Olympic

festival should not have had the best of legal rights.]

[158: This is pointedly expressed by Aristides in the panegyric on Rome

p. 224 Jebb: διατελεῖτε τῶν μὲν Ἑλλήνων ὥσπερ τροφέων ἐπιμελόμενοι ...

τοὺς μὲν ἀρίστους καὶ πάλαι ἡγεμόνας (Athens and Sparta) ἐλευθέρους καὶ

αὐτονόμους ἀφεικότες αὐτῶν, τῶν δ' ἄλλων μετρίως ... ἐξηγούμενοι, τοὺς

δὲ βαρβάρους πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστοις αὐτῶν οὖσαν φύσιν παιδεύοντες.]

[159: But the Hellenic literati remained grateful to their colleague

and patron. In the Apollonius-romance (v. 41) the great sage from

Cappadocia refuses Vespasian the honour of his company, because he

had made the Hellenes slaves, just as they were on the point of again

speaking Ionic or Doric, and writes to him various _billets_ of

delectable coarseness. A man of Soloi, who broke his neck and then

became alive again, and on this occasion saw all that Dante beheld,

reported that he had met with Nero's soul, into which the agents of the

world-judgment had driven flaming nails, and were employed in turning

it into a viper; but a heavenly voice had interposed, and ordered

them to transform the man--on account of his Philhellenism when on

earth--into a less repulsive animal (Plutarch, _De sera num. vind._, at

the end).]

[160: At least in the ordinance of Hadrian regarding the deliveries

of oil to the community incumbent on the Athenian landowners (_C. I.

A._ iii. 18), the decision was indeed given to the _Boule_ and the

_Ekklesia_, but appeal to the emperor or the proconsul was allowed.]

[161: What Strabo reports (xiv. 3, 3, p. 665) of the Lycian

cities-league, in his time autonomous--that it had not the right of war

and peace and that of alliance, except when the Romans allowed it or it

operated for their advantage--may probably be, without ceremony, held

to relate also to Athens.]

[162: At all events the hitherto known presidents of the κοινὸν τῶν

Ἀχαιῶν, whose home is made out, are from Argos, Messene, Corone in

Messenia (Foucart-Lebas, ii. 305), and there have been hitherto

found among them not merely no citizens of the freed communities,

such as Athens and Sparta, but also none of those belonging to the

confederation of the Boeotians and allies (p. 259). Perhaps this

κοινόν was legally restricted to the territory, which the Romans

called the republic of Achaia--that is, that of the Achaean league

at its overthrow--and the Boeotians and allies were united with the

κοινόν proper of the Achaeans into that wider league, whose existence

and diets in Argos are vouched for by the inscriptions of Acraephia

mentioned in the next note. We may add that alongside of this κοινόν

of the Achaeans there subsisted a still narrower one of the district

of Achaia in the proper sense, whose representatives met in Aegium

(Pausanias, vii. 24, 4), just as the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀρκάδων (_Arch. Zeit._

1879, p. 139, n. 274), and numerous others. If, according to Pausanias,

v. 12, 6, οἱ πάντες Ἕλληνες set up statues in Olympia to Trajan, and αἱ

ἐς τὸ Ἀχαικὸν τελοῦσαι πόλεις to Hadrian, and no misunderstanding has

here crept in, the latter dedication must have taken place at the diet

of Aegium.]

[163: So (only that the Dorians are wanting; comp. p. 259, note 2) the

union is termed on the inscription of Acraephia (Keil, _Syll. Inscr.

Boeot._ n. 31). But this very document, along with the contemporary

one, _C. I. Gr._ 1625, furnishes a proof that the union under the

emperor Gaius, instead of this doubtless strictly official appellation,

designated itself also on the one hand as union of the Achaeans, on the

other as τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Πανελλήνων, or ἡ σύνοδος τῶν Ἑλλήνων, also τὸ

τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ Πανελλήνων συνέδριον. This grandiloquence is nowhere so

glaringly prominent as in those Boeotian petty country-towns; but even

in Olympia, where the union especially set up its memorials, it names

itself for the most part no doubt τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, but shows often

enough the same tendency; _e.g._ when τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν Π. Αἴλιον

Ἀρίστωνα ... σύνπαντες οἱ Ἕλληνες ἀνέστησαν (_Arch. Zeit._ 1880, p. 86,

n. 344). So too in Sparta, οἱ Ἕλληνες set up a statue to Caesar Marcus

ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν (_C. I. Gr._ 1318).]

[164: In Asia, Bithynia, lower Moesia, the president of the Greek towns

belonging to the province is also called Ἑλλαδάρχης, without more

being thereby expressed than the contrast with the non-Greeks. But, as

the name of Hellenes is employed in Greece in a certain contrast to

the strictly correct one of Achaeans, this is certainly suggested by

the same tendency which was most clearly marked in the Panhellenes of

Argos. Thus we find στρατηγὸς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ προστάτης διὰ

βίου τῶν Ἑλλήνων (_Arch. Zeit._ 1877, p. 192, n. 98), or on another

document of the same man προστάτης διὰ βίου τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν

(Lebas-Foucart, n. 305); an ἄρξας τοῖς Ἕλλησιν σύνπασιν (_Arch. Zeit._

p. 195, n. 106) στρατηγὸς ἀσυνκρίτως ἄρξας τῆς Ἑλλάδος (_ib._ 1877, p.

40, n. 42) στρατηγὸς καὶ Ἑλλαδάρχης (_ib._ 1876, n. 8, p. 226), all

likewise on inscriptions of the κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν. That in this κοινόν,

though it may perhaps be deemed to refer merely to the Peloponnesus (p.

264, note), the Panhellenic tendency none the less asserted itself, may

well be conceived.]

[165: The Hadrianic Panhellenes name themselves τὸ κοινὸν συνέδριον τῶν

Ἑλλήνων τῶν εἰς Πλατηὰς συνιόντων (Thebes: Keil, _Syll. Inscr. Boeot._

n. 31, comp. Plutarch, _Arist._ 19, 21); κοινὸν τῆς Ἑλλάδος (_C. I.

Gr._ 5852); τὸ Πανελλήνιον (_ib._). Its president is termed ὁ ἄρχων

τῶν Πανελλήνων (_C. I. A._ iii. 681, 682; _C. I. Gr._ 3832, comp. _C.

I. A._ iii. 10: ἀ[ντ]άρχων τοῦ ἱερωτάτου ἀ[γῶνος τοῦ Π]αν[ελ]ληνίου),

the individual deputy Πανέλλην (_e.g._ _C. I. A._ iii. 534; _C. I.

Gr._ 1124). Alongside of these in the period subsequent to Hadrian the

κοινὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν and its στρατηγός or Ἑλλαδάρχης still occur, who are

probably to be distinguished from those just mentioned, although the

latter now sets up his honorary decrees not merely in Olympia, but also

in Athens (_C. I. A._ 18; second example in Olympia, _Arch. Zeit._

1879, p. 52).]

[166: That the remark of Dio of Prusa, _Or._ xxxviii. p. 148 R.,

as to the dispute of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians ὑπὲρ τῆς

προπομπείας, refers to the festival at Plataeae, is evident from

(Lucian) Ἔρωτες 18, ὡς περὶ προπομπείας ἀγωνιούμενοι Πλαταιᾶσιν. The

sophist Irenaeus also wrote περὶ τῆς Αθηναίων προπομπείας (Suidas, _s.

v._), and Hermogenes, _de ideis_, ii. p. 373. Walz gives as the topic

spoken of Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι περὶ τῆς προπομπείας κατὰ τὰ

Μηδικὰ (communication from Wilamowitz).]

[167: Two of these are preserved, for Cibyra in Phrygia (_C. I. Gr._

5882), issued from the κοινὸν τῆς Ἑλλάδος by a δόγμα τοῦ Πανελληνίου;

and for Magnesia on the Maeander (_C. I. Att._ iii. 16). In both the

good Hellenic descent of the corporations concerned is brought out

along with their other services to the Hellenes. Characteristic are

also the letters of recommendation, with which these Panhellenes

furnish a man who had merited well of their commonwealth to the

community of his home Aezani in Phrygia, to the emperor Pius, and to

the Hellenes in Asia generally (_C. I. Gr._ 3832, 3833, 3834).]

[168: Beyond doubt Plutarch in these words (_de defectu orac._ 8) does

not mean to say that Greece was not able at all to furnish 3000 men

capable of arms, but that, if burgess-armies of the old sort were to be

formed, they would not be in a position to set on foot 3000 "hoplites."

In this sense the expression may well be correct, so far as correctness

can be expected at all in the case of general complaints of this sort.

The number of communities of the province amounted nearly to a hundred.]

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

[170: This is told to us by Herodian, iv. 8, 3, c. 9, 4, and we have

the inscriptions of two of these Spartiates, Nicocles, ἐστρατευμένος

δὶς κατὰ Περσῶν (_C. I. Gr._ 1253), and Dioscoras, ἀπελθὼν εἰς τὴν

εὐτυχεστάτην συμμαχίαν (= expeditio) τὴν κατὰ Περσῶν (_C. I. Gr._

1495).]

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

otherwise.]

[172: "You have no want of means," says Dio (_Or._ xxxi. p. 566),

"and there are thousands upon thousands here, for whom it would be

advantageous to be less rich;" and further on (p. 620), "you are richer

than any one else in Hellas. Your ancestors possessed not more than you

do. The island has not become worse; you draw the profit of Caria and

a part of Lycia; a number of towns are tributary to you; the city is

always receiving rich gifts from numerous citizens." He further states

that new expenses had not been added, but the earlier outlays for army

and fleet had almost fallen into abeyance; they had to supply annually

at Corinth (and so to the Roman fleet) but one or two small vessels.]

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

[174: At the popular festivals, which in Tiberius's time a rich

man gave at Acraephia in Boeotia, he invited the grown-up slaves,

and his wife the female slaves, as guests along with the free (_C.

I. Gr._ 1625). In an endowment for the distribution of oil at the

fencing-institute (γυμνάσιον) of Gytheion in Laconia it is ordained

that on six days in the year the slaves should also partake in it

(Lebas-Foucart n. 243_a_). Similar largesses occur in Argos (_C. I.

Gr._ 1122, 1123).]

[175: In answer to one of the numerous complaints, with which the towns

of Asia Minor plagued the government on account of their disputes as to

titles and rank, Pius tells the Ephesians (Waddington, _Aristide_, p.

51), that he was glad to hear that the Pergamenes had given to them the

new title; that the Smyrnaeans had doubtless merely by accident omitted

it, and would certainly in future be ready to do what was correct, if

they--the Ephesians--would accord to them their right titles. To a

small Lycian town, which applied to the proconsul for the confirmation

of a resolution adopted by it, the latter replied (Benndorf, _Lykische

Reise_, i. 71), that excellent ordinances require only praise, not

confirmation; the latter is implied in the case. The rhetorical

schools of this epoch furnished also the draughtsmen for the imperial

chancery; but this alone mattered little. It belonged to the essence of

the principate not to accentuate outwardly the subject-relation, and

especially not against the Greeks.]

[176: A formal alteration of the tax-organisation does not follow of

itself from this change, and is not hinted at in Tacitus, _Ann._ i. 76;

if the arrangement was made because the provincials complained of the

pressure of taxation (_onera deprecantes_), better governors might help

the provinces by suitable redistribution, and eventually by procuring

remission. That the furtherance of the imperial postal service was felt

specially in this province as an oppressive burden is shown by the

edict of Claudius from Tegea (_Ephem. ep._ v. p. 69).]

[177: The Athenian insurrection under Augustus is certainly attested

by the notice derived from Africanus in Eusebius, _ad ann. Abr._ 2025

(whence Orosius, vi. 22, 2). The riots against the _strategoi_ are

often mentioned; Plutarch, _Q. sympos._ viii. 3, _init._; (Lucian),

_Demonax_, 11, 64; Philostratus, _Vit. soph._ i. 23, ii. 8, 11.]

[178: The magistrate even of culture, that is the freethinker, is

advised to attach the largesses which he makes to the religious

festivals; for the multitude is strengthened in its faith, when it sees

that the men of rank in the city lay some stress on the worship of the

gods, and can expend something upon it (Plutarch, _Praec. ger. reip._

30).]

[179: A model sample is the inscription (Lebas-Foucart, ii. p. 142 n.,

162 _j._) of Μ[ᾶρκορ] Αὐρ[ήλιορ] Ζεύξιππορ ὁ καὶ Κλέανδρορ Φιλομούσω, a

contemporary therefore of Pius and Marcus, who was ἱερεὺς Λευκιππίδων

καὶ Τινδαριδᾶν, of the Dioscuri and their wives, the daughters of

Leukippos, but--in order that with the old the new might not be

wanting--also ἀρχιερέος τῶ Σεβαστῶ καὶ τῶν θείων προγόνων ὠτῶ. He

had in his youth, moreover, been βουαγὸρ μικκιχιδδομένων, literally

herd-leader of the little ones, namely, director of three-year-old

boys--the "herds" of boys of Lycurgus began with the seventh year, but

his successors had overtaken what was wanting, and embraced in the

"herd" and provided with "leaders" all from one year old onward. This

same man was victorious (νεικάαρ = νικήσας) κασσηρατοριν, μωαν καὶ

λωαν: what this means, may be known perhaps to Lycurgus.]

[180: "Inland Attica," says an inhabitant of it in Philostratus, _Vitae

Soph._ ii. 7, "is a good school for one who would learn to speak; the

inhabitants of the city of Athens on the other hand, who hire out

lodgings to the young people flocking thither from Thrace and Pontus

and other barbarian regions, allow their language to be corrupted by

these more than they impart to them good speaking. But in the interior,

whose inhabitants are not mixed with barbarians, the pronunciation and

language are good."]

[181: Karl Keil (Pauly, _Realencycl._ 1² p. 2100) points to τινός for

ἧς τινός and τὰ χωρία γέγοναν in the inscription of the wife of Herodes

(_C. I. L._ vi. 1342).]

[182: Dittenberger, _Hermes_, i. 414. Here, too, may be adduced

what the stupid champion of Apollonius makes his hero write to the

Alexandrian professors (_Ep._ 34), that he has left Argos, Sicyon,

Megara, Phocis, Locris, in order that he might not, by staying longer

in Hellas, become utterly a barbarian.]

[183: Tacitus (on the year 62, _Ann._ xv. 20) characterises one of

these rich and influential provincials, Claudius Timarchides from

Crete, who is all powerful in his sphere (_ut solent praevalidi

provincialium et opibus nimiis ad iniurias minorum elati_), and

has at his disposal the diet and consequently also the decree of

thanks--a due accompaniment very desirable for the departing proconsul

in view of possible actions of reckoning (_in sua potestate situm

an proconsulibus, qui Cretam obtinuissent, grates agerentur_). The

opposition proposes that this decree of thanks be refused, but does not

succeed in bringing the proposal to a vote. From another side Plutarch

(_Praec. ger. reip._ c. 19, 3) depicts these Greeks of rank.]

[184: Herodes was ἐξ ὑπάτων (Philostratus, _Vit. Soph._ i. 25, 5,

p. 526), ἐτέλει ἐκ πατέρων ἐς τοὺς δισυπάτους (_ib._ ii. _init._ p.

545). Otherwise nothing is known of consulships of his ancestors; but

certainly his grandfather Hipparchus was not a senator. Possibly the

question is even only as to cognate ascendants. The family did not

receive the Roman franchise under the Julii (comp. _C. I. A._ iii.

489), but only under the Claudii.]

[185: The first Roman Olympionices, of whom we know, is Ti. Claudius

Ti. f. Nero, beyond doubt the subsequent emperor, with the four-in-hand

(_Arch. Zeit._ 1880, p. 53); this victory falls probably in Ol. 195

(A.D. 1), not in Ol. 99 (A.D. 17), as the list of Africanus states

(Euseb. i. p. 214, Schöne). In this year the conqueror was rather his

son Germanicus, likewise with the four-in-hand (_Arch. Zeit._ 1879, p.

36). Among the eponymous Olympionicae, the victors in the stadium, no

Roman is found; this wounding of the Greek national feeling seems to

have been avoided.]

[186: An agonistic institute thus privileged is termed ἀγὼν ἱερός,

_certamen sacrum_ (that is, with pensioning: Dio, li. 1), or ἀγὼν

εἰσελαστικός, _certamen iselasticum_ (comp. among others, Plin. _ad

Trai._ 118, 119; _C. I. L._ x. 515). The Xystarchia too is, at least

in certain cases, conferred by the emperor (Dittenberger, _Hermes_,

xii. 17 f.). Not without warrant these institutes called themselves

"world-games" (ἀγὼν οἰκουμενικός).]

[187: The emperor Gaius declines, in his letter to the diet of Achaia,

the "great number" of statues adjudged to him, and contents himself

with the four of Olympia, Nemea, Delphi, and the Isthmus (Keil, _Inscr.

Boeot._ n. 31). The same diet resolves to set up a statue to the

emperor Hadrian in each of its towns, of which the base of that set up

at Abea in Messenia has been preserved (_C. I. Gr._ 1307). Imperial

authorisation for such erections was required from the first.]

[188: At the revision of the town-accounts of Byzantium, Pliny found

that annually 12,000 sesterces (£125) were set down for the conveyance

of new-year's good wishes by a special deputation to the emperor, and

3000 sesterces (£32) for the same to the governor of Moesia. Pliny

instructs the authorities to send these congratulations thenceforth

only in writing, which Trajan approves (_Ep. ad Trai._ 43, 44).]

[189: That the land-routes of Greece were specially unsafe, we do not

learn; as to what was the nature of the insurrection in Achaia under

Pius (_Vita_, 5, 4), we are quite in the dark. If the robber-chief

generally--and not precisely the Greek one--plays a prominent part in

the light literature of the epoch, this vehicle is common to the bad

romance-writers of all ages. The Euboean desert of the more polished

Dio was not a robber's nest, but it was the wreck of a great landed

estate, whose possessor had been condemned on account of his wealth

by the emperor, and which thenceforth lay waste. Moreover it is

here apparent--as indeed needs no proof, at least for those who are

non-scholars--that this history is just as true as most which begin by

stating that the narrator himself had it from the person concerned; if

the confiscation were historical, the possession would have come to the

exchequer, not to the town, which the narrator accordingly takes good

care not to name.]

[190: The naive description of Achaia by an Egyptian merchant of

Constantius's time may find a place here:--"The land of Achaia,

Greece, and Laconia has much of learning, but is inadequate for other

things needful; for it is a small and mountainous province, and cannot

furnish much corn, but produces some oil and the Attic honey, and can

be praised more on account of the schools and eloquence, but not so

in most other respects. Of towns it has Corinth and Athens. Corinth

has much commerce, and a fine building, the amphitheatre; but Athens

has old pictures (_historias antiquas_), and a work worth mentioning,

the citadel, where many statues stand and wonderfully set forth the

war-deeds of the forefathers (_ubi multis statuis stantibus mirabile

est videre dicendum antiquorum bellum_). Laconia is said alone to have

the marble of Croceae to show, which people call the Lacedaemonian."

The barbarism of expression is to be set down to the account, not of

the writer, but of the much later translator.]

[191:

Λευκάδος ἀντί με Καῖσαρ, ἰδ' Ἀμβρακίης ἐριβώλου,

Θυῤῥείου τε πέλειν, ἀντί τ' Ἀνακτορίου,

Ἄργεος Ἀμφιλόχου τε, καὶ ὁππόσα ῥαίσατο κύκλῳ

ἄστε' ἐπιθρώσκων δουρομανὴς πόλεμος,

εἵσατο Νικόπολιν, θείην πόλιν· ἀντὶ δὲ νίκης

φοῖβος ἄναξ ταύτην δέχνυται Ἀκτιάδος.

_Anthol. Gr._ ix. 553.]

[192: When Tacitus, _Ann._ v. 10, names Nicopolis a _colonia Romana_,

the statement is one liable to be misunderstood, but not exactly

incorrect; but that of Pliny (_H. N._ iv. 1, 5), _colonia Augusti

Actium cum ... civitate libera Nicopolitana_, is erroneous, as Actium

was as little a town as Olympia.]

[193: Ὁ ἀγὼν Ὀλύμπιος τὰ Ἄκτια, Strabo, vii. 7, 6, p. 325; Ἀκτιάς

Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ i. 20, 4; Ἀκτιονίκης oftener. As the four great

Greek national festivals are, as is well known, termed ἡ περίοδος, and

the victor crowned in all four περιοδονίκης, so in _C. I. Gr._ 4472 τῆς

περιόδου is appended also to the games of Nicopolis, and the former

περιόδος is designated as the ancient (ἀρχαία). As competitive games

are frequently called ἰσολύμπια, so we find also ἀγὼν ἰσάκτιος (_C. I.

Gr._ 4472), or _certamen ad exemplar Actiacae religionis_ (Tacitus,

_Ann._ xv. 23).

[194: Thus a Nicopolite terms himself ἄρχων τῆς ἱερᾶς Ἀκτιακῆς βουλῆς

(Delphi, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. ii. 111), as in Elis the expression is

used: ἡ πόλις Ἠλείων καὶ ἡ Ὀλυμπικὴ βουλή (_Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 57;

similarly _ibid._ 1877, pp. 40, 41 elsewhere). Moreover the Spartans,

as the only Hellenes that took part in the victory at Actium, obtained

the conduct (ἐπιμέλεια) of the Actian games (Strabo, vii. 7, 6 p. 325):

their relation to the βουλὴ Ἀκτιακή of Nicopolis we do not know.]

[195: The description of its decay in the time of Constantius (_Paneg._

11, 9) is an evidence to the opposite effect for the earlier times of

the empire.]

[196: The excavations at Dodona have confirmed this; all the articles

found belong to the pre-Roman period except some coins. Certainly a

restoration of the building took place, the time of which cannot be

determined; perhaps it was quite late. When Hadrian, who is named

Ζεὺς Δωδοναῖος (_C. I. Gr._ 1822), visited Dodona (Dürr, _Reisen

Hadrians_, p. 56) he did so as an archaeologist. A consultation of

the oracle during the imperial period is only reported--and that not

after the most trustworthy manner--in the case of the emperor Julian

(Theodoretus, _Hist. Eccl._ iii. 21).]

[197: The ordinance of Caesar is attested by Appian, _B. C._ ii.

88, and Plutarch, _Caes._ 48, and it very well accords with his own

account, _B. C._ iii. 80; whereas Pliny, _H. N._ iv. 8, 29, names only

Pharsalus as a free town. In Augustus' time a Thessalian of note,

Petraeos (probably the partisan of Caesar, _B. C._ iii. 35), was burnt

alive (Plutarch, _Praec. ger. reip._ 19), doubtless not by a private

crime, but according to resolution of the diet, and so the Thessalians

were brought before the tribunal of the emperor (Suetonius, _Tib._ 8).

Presumably the two incidents and likewise the loss of freedom stand

connected.]

[198: In the time of the republic Scodra seems to have belonged to

Macedonia (iii. 181) {iii. 173.}; in the imperial period this and

Lissus are Dalmatian towns, and the mouth of the Drin forms the

boundary on the west.]

[199: The towns founded in these regions outside of Macedonia proper

bear quite the character of colonies proper; _e.g._ that of Philippi in

the Thracian land, and especially that of Derriopus in Paeonia (Liv.

xxxix. 53), for which latter place also the distinctively Macedonian

politarchs have epigraphic attestation (inscription of the year 197

A.D., τῶν περὶ Ἀλέξανδρον Φιλίππου ἐν Δερριόπῳ πολιταρχῶν, Duchesne and

Bayet, _Mission au mont Athos_, p. 103).]

[200: That for Lysimachus the Danube was the boundary of the empire, is

evident from Pausanias, i. 9, 6.]

[201: Calybe near Byzantium arose according to Strabo (vii. 6, 2,

p. 320) φιλίππου τοῦ Ἀμύντου τοὺς πονηροτάτους ἐνταῦθα ἱδρύσαντος.

Philippopolis is alleged even according to the account of Theopompus

(fr. 122 Müller) to have been founded as Πονηρόπολις, and to have

received colonists corresponding with that description. However little

these reports deserve trust, they yet in their coincidence express the

Botany-Bay character of these foundations.]

[202: Yet the northern Bessarabian line, which perhaps is Roman,

reaches as far as Tyra (p. 226).]

[203: That Byzantium was still in Trajan's time under the governor of

Bithynia, follows from Plin. _ad Trai._ 43. From the congratulations of

the Byzantines to the legates of Moesia we cannot infer their having

belonged to this governorship, which from their situation was hardly

possible; the relations to the governor of Moesia may be explained from

the commercial connections of the city with the Moesian ports. That

Byzantium was in the year 53 under the senate, and so did not belong

to Thrace, is plain from Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 62. Cicero (_in Pis._

35, 86; _de prov. cons._ 4, 6) does not attest its having belonged

to Macedonia under the republic, since the town was then free. This

freedom seems, as in the case of Rhodes, to have been often given and

often taken away. Cicero, _l.c._, ascribes freedom to it; in the year

53 it is tributary, Pliny (_H. N._ iv. 11, 46) adduces it as a free

city; Vespasian withdraws its freedom (Suetonius, _Vesp._ 8).]

[204: This is proved by the absence of coins of the inland Thracian

towns, which could be assigned by metal and style to the older period.

That a number of Thracian, especially Odrysian, princes coined in

part even at a very early period, proves only that they ruled over

places on the coast with a Greek or half-Greek population. A similar

judgment must be formed as to the tetradrachms of the "Thracians,"

which stand quite isolated (Sallet, _Num. Zeitschrift_, iii. 241).--The

inscriptions also found in the interior of Thrace are throughout of

Roman times. The decree of a town not named found at Bessapara, now

Tatar Bazarjik, to the west of Philippopolis, by Dumont (_Inscr. de la

Thrace_, p. 7), is indeed assigned to a good Macedonian time, but only

from the character of the writing, which is perhaps deceptive.]

[205: The fifty strategies of Thrace (Plin. _H. N._ iv. 11, 40; Ptolem.

iii. 11, 6) are not military districts, but, as is apparent with

special clearness in Ptolemy, land-districts, which correspond with

the tribes (στρατηγία Μαιδική, Βεσσική κ. τ. λ.) and form a contrast

to the towns. The designation στρατηγός has, just like _praetor_, lost

subsequently its original military value. Here perhaps the analogy

of Egypt, which likewise was divided into urban domains under urban

magistrates and into land-districts under _strategoi_, served primarily

as a basis. A στρατηγὸς Ἀστικῆς περὶ Πέρινθον from the Roman period

occurs in _Eph. epigr._ ii. p. 252.]

[206: In Deultus, the _colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium_, veterans of

the eighth legion, were provided for (_C. I. L._ vi. 3828). Flaviopolis

on the Chersonese, the old Coela, was certainly not a colony (Plin. iv.

11, 47), but belongs to the peculiar settlement of the imperial menials

on this domanial possession (_Eph. epigr._ v. p. 83).]

[207: This town Νικόπολις ἡ περὶ Αἷμον of Ptolem. iii. 11, 7, Νικόπολις

πρὸς Ἴστρον of the coins, the modern Nikup on the Jantra, belongs

to lower Moesia geographically, and, as the names of governors on

the coins show, since Severus also administratively; but not merely

does Ptolemy adduce it in Thrace, but the places where the Hadrianic

terminal stones (_C. I. L._ iii. 749, comp. p. 992) are found, appear

to assign it likewise to Thrace. As this Greek inland town fitted

neither the Latin town-communities of lower Moesia nor the κοινόν of

the Moesian Pontus, it was assigned at the first organising of the

relations to the κοινόν of the Thracians. Subsequently it must, no

doubt, have been attached to one or the other of those Moesian groups.]

[208: The κοινὸν τῆς Πενταπόλεως is found on an inscription of Odessus,

_C. I. Gr._ 2056 _c._, which may fairly belong to the earlier imperial

period, the Pontic Hexapolis, on two inscriptions of Tomis probably

of the second century A.D. (Marquardt, _Staatsverw._ i.² p. 305;

Hirschfeld, _Arch. epigr. Mitth._ vi. 22). The Hexapolis in any case,

and in accordance therewith probably also the Pentapolis, must have

been brought into harmony with the Roman provincial boundaries, that

is, must have included in it the Greek towns of lower Moesia. These

are also found, if we follow the surest guides,--the coins of the

imperial period. There were six mints (apart from Nicopolis, p. 282,

note) in lower Moesia: Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessus,

and Marcianopolis, and, as the last town was founded by Trajan, the

Pentapolis is thereby explained. Tyra and Olbia hardly belonged to

it; at least the numerous and loquacious monuments of the latter town

nowhere show any link of connection with this city-league. It is

called κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων on an inscription of Tomis, printed in the

Athenian _Pandora_ of 1st June 1868 [and in _Anc. Gr. Inscr. in the

British Museum_, ii. n. 175]: Ἀγαθῆ τύχη. Κατὰ τὰ δόξαντα τῆ κρατήστη

βουλῆ καὶ τῶ λαμπροτάτω δήμω τῆς λαμπροτάτης μητροπόλεως καὶ αʹ τοῦ

εὐωνύμου πόντου Τόμεως τὸν Ποντάρχην Αὐρ. Πρείσκιον Ἀννιανὸν ἄρξαντα

τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῆς μητρ[ο]πόλεως τήν αʹ ἀρχὴν ἁγνῶς, καὶ

ἀρχιερασάμενον, τῆν δι' ὅπλων καὶ κυνηγεσίων ἐνδόξως φιλοτειμίαν μὴ

διαλιπόντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ βουλευτὴν καὶ τῶν πρωτευόντων φλαβίας Νέας πόλεως,

καὶ τὴν ἀρχιέρειαν σύμβιον αὐτοῦ Ἰουλίαν Ἀπολαύστην πάσης τειμῆς χάριν.]

[209: This is shown by the remarkable inscription in Allard (_La

Bulgarie orientale_, Paris, 1863, p. 263): Θεῶ μεγάλω Σαράπ[ιδι καὶ]

τοῖς συννάοις θεοῖς [καὶ τῶ αὐ]τοκράτορι Τ. Αἰλίω Ἀδριαν[ῶ Ἀ]ντωνείνω

Σεβαστῶ Εὐσεβ[εῖ] καὶ Μ. Αὐρηλίω Οὐήρω Καίσαρι Καρπίων Ἀνουβίωνος τῶ

οἴκω τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων τὸν βωμὸν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέθηκεν ἔτους κγʹ [μηνὸς]

φαρμουθὶ αʹ ἐπὶ ἱερέων [Κ]ορνούτου τοῦ καὶ Σαραπίωνος [Πολύ]μνου τοῦ

καὶ Λον[γείνου]. The mariner's guild of Tomis meets us several times in

the inscriptions of the town.]

[210: Olbia, constantly assailed in war and often destroyed, suffered,

according to the statement of Dio (_Borysth._ p. 75, n.), about 150

years before his time, _i.e._ somewhat before the year 100 A.D., and so

probably in the expedition of Burebista (iv. 305), its last and most

severe conquest (τὴν τελευταίαν καὶ μεγίστην ἅλωσιν). Εἷλον δὲ, Dio

continues, καὶ ταύτην Γέται καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τὰς ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς τοῦ

Πόντου πόλεις μέχρι Ἀπολλωνίας (Sozopolis or Sizebolu, the last Greek

town of note on the Pontic west coast): ὅθεν δὴ καὶ σφόδρα ταπεινὰ

τὰ πράγματα κατέστη τῶν ταύτῃ Ελλήνων, τῶν μὲν οὐκέτι συνοικισθεισῶν

πόλεων, τῶν δὲ φαύλως καὶ τῶν πλείστων βαρβάρων εἰς αὐτὰς συῤῥυέντων.

The young citizen of rank with a marked Ionic physiognomy, with whom

Dio then meets, who has slain or captured numerous Sarmatians, and

though not acquainted with Phocylides, knows Homer by heart, wears

mantle and trousers after the Scythian fashion, and a knife in his

girdle. The townsmen all wear long hair and a long beard, and only

one has shorn both, which is suspected in him as a token of servile

attitude towards the Romans. Thus a century later matters there looked

quite such as Ovid describes them at Tomis.]

[211: Quite commonly the father has a Scythian name and the son a

Greek, or conversely; _e.g._ an inscription of Olbia set up under or

after Trajan (_C. I. Gr._ 2074) records six _strategoi_, M. Ulpius

Pyrrhus son of Arseuaches, Demetrios son of Xessagaros, Zoilos son of

Arsakes, Badakes son of Radanpson, Epikrates son of Koxuros, Ariston

son of Vargadakes.]

[212: As Asander reckoned his archonship probably from the very time

of his revolt from Pharnaces, and so from the summer of 707 {47.}, and

assumes the royal title already in the fourth year of his reign, this

year may warrantably be put in the autumn 709-710 {45-44.}, and the

confirmation have thus been the work of Caesar. Antonius cannot well

have bestowed it, as he only came to Asia at the end of 712 { 42.};

still less can we think of Augustus, whom the pseudo-Lucian (_Macrob._

15) names, interchanging father and son.]

[213: Mithradates, whom Claudius in the year 41 made king of Bosporus,

traced back his descent to Eupator (Dio, lx. 8; Tacitus, _Ann._ xii.

18), and he was followed by his brother Cotys (Tacitus, _l.c._). Their

father was called Aspurgus (_C. I. Gr._ ii. p. 95), but need not on

that account have been an Aspurgian (Strabo, xi. 2, 19, p. 415). Of

a subsequent change of dynasty there is no mention; king Eupator in

the time of Pius (Lucian, _Alex._ 57; _vita Pii_, 9) points to the

same house. Probably, we may add, these later Bosporan kings, as

well as the immediate successors of Polemon not even known to us by

name, stood in relations of affinity to the Polemonids, as indeed the

first Polemon himself had as his wife a granddaughter of Eupator.

The Thracian royal names, such as Cotys and Rhascuporis, which are

common in the Bosporan royal house, connect themselves doubtless with

the son-in-law of Polemon, the Thracian king Cotys. The appellation

Sauromates, which frequently occurs after the end of the first century,

has doubtless arisen through intermarriage with Sarmatian princely

houses, but, of course, does not prove that those who bore it were

themselves Sarmatians. If Zosimus, i. 31, blames the petty and unworthy

princes who attained to government after the extinction of the old

royal family, for the fact that the Goths under Valerian could carry

out their piratical expeditions in Bosporan ships, this may be correct,

and in the first instance Pharnaces may be meant, of whom there are

coins from the years 254 and 255. But even these, too, are marked with

the image of the Roman emperor, and later there are again found the old

family names (all the Bosporan kings are Tiberii Julii), and the old

surnames, such as Sauromates and Rhascuporis. Taken as a whole, the old

traditions as well as the Roman protectorate were still at that time

here retained.]

[214: The last Bosporan coin is of the year 631, of the Achaemenid

era, A.D. 335; this is certainly connected with the installation,

which falls in this very year, of Hanniballianus, the nephew of

Constantine I., as "king," although this kingdom embraced chiefly the

east of Asia Minor and had as its capital Caesarea in Cappadocia.

After this king and his kingdom had perished in the bloody catastrophe

after Constantine's death, the Bosporus was placed directly under

Constantinople.]

[215: The Bosporus was still in Roman possession in the year 366

(Ammianus, xxvi. 10, 6); soon afterwards the Greeks on the north shore

of the Black Sea must have been left to themselves, until Justinian

reoccupied the peninsula (Procopius, _Bell. Goth._ iv. 5). In the

interval Panticapaeum perished under the assaults of the Huns.]

[216: The coins of the town Chersonesus from the imperial period have

the legend Χερσονήσου ἐλευθέρας, once even βασιλευούσης, and neither

name nor head of king or emperor (A. v. Sallet, _Zeitschrift für Num._

i. 27; iv. 273). The independence of the town evidences itself also in

the fact that it coins in gold no less than the kings of the Bosporus.

As the era of the town appears correctly fixed at the year 36 B.C. (_C.

I. Gr._ n. 8621), in which freedom was conferred upon it presumably by

Antonius, the gold coin of the "ruling city" dated from the year 109

was struck in 75 A.D.]

[217: According to Strabo's representation (xi. 2, 11, p. 495)

the rulers of Tanais stand independently by the side of those of

Panticapaeum, and the tribes to the south of the Don depend sometimes

on the latter, sometimes on the former; when he adds that several of

the Panticapaean princes ruled as far as Tanais, and particularly the

last, Pharnaces, Asander, Polemon, this seems more exception than rule.

In the inscription quoted in the next note the Tanaites stand among the

subject stocks, and a series of Tanaitic inscriptions confirms this

for the time from Marcus to Gordian; but the Ἕλληνες καὶ Ταναεῖται

alongside of the ἄρχοντες Ταναειτῶν and of the frequently mentioned

Ἑλληνάρχαι confirm the view that the town even then remained non-Greek.]

[218: In the only vivid narrative from the Bosporan history which

we possess, that of Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 15-31, concerning the two

rival brothers, Mithradates and Cotys, the neighbouring tribes, the

Dandaridae, Siracae, Aorsi, are under rulers of their own not legally

dependent on the Roman prince of Panticapaeum.--As to titles, the

older Panticapaean princes are wont to call themselves archons of the

Bosporus, that is, of Panticapaeum, and of Theudosia, and kings of the

Sindi and of all the Maitae and other non-Greek tribes. In like manner

what is, so far as I know, the oldest among the royal inscriptions

of the Roman epoch names Aspurgos, son of Asandrochos (Stephani,

_Comptes rendus de la comm. pour 1866_, p. 128), as βασιλεύοντα παντὸς

Βοοσπόρου, Θεοδοσίης καὶ Σίνδων καί Μαϊτῶν καί Τορετῶν Ψησῶν τε καὶ

Ταναειτῶν, ὑποτάσαντα Σκύθας καὶ Ταύρους. No inference as to the extent

of the territory may be drawn from the simplified title.--In the

inscriptions of the later period there is found once under Trajan the

doubtless adulatory title βασιλεὺς βασιλέων μέγας τοῦ παντὸς Βοοσπόρου

(_C. I. Gr._ 2123). The coins generally, from Asander onward, know no

title but βασιλεύς, while yet Pharnaces calls himself βασιλεὺς βασιλέων

μέγας. Beyond doubt this was the effect of the Roman sovereignty,

with which a vassal-prince placed over other princes was not very

compatible.]

[219: This was the king Mithradates, installed by Claudius in the year

41, who some years afterwards was deposed and replaced by his brother

Cotys; he lived afterwards in Rome, and perished in the confusions

of the four-emperor-year (Plutarch, _Galba_, 13, 15). The state of

the matter, however, is not clear either from the hints in Tacitus,

_Ann._ xii. 15 (comp. Plin. _H. N._ vi. 5, 17), or from the report

(confused by the interchange of the two, Mithradates of Bosporus, and

Mithradates of Iberia) in Petrus Patricius _fr._ 3. The Chersonese

tales in the late Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, _de adm. imp._ c. 53,

do not, of course, come into account. The bad Bosporan king Sauromates,

Κρισκωνόρου (not Ῥησκοπόρου) υἱός, who with the Sarmatians wages war

against the emperors Diocletian and Constantius, as well as against

the Chersonese faithful to the empire, has evidently arisen from a

confusion of names between the Bosporan king and people; and just as

historical as the variation on the history of David and Goliath, is the

despatch of the mighty king of the Bosporans, Sauromates, by the small

Chersonesite Pharnaces. The kings' names alone, _e.g._ besides those

named, the Asander, who comes in after the extinction of the family of

the Sauromatae, suffice. The civic privileges and the localities of

the city, for the explanation of which these _mirabilia_ are invented,

certainly deserve attention.]

[220: There are no Bosporan gold or pseudo-gold coins without the head

of the Roman emperor, and this is always that of the ruler recognised

by the Roman senate. That in the years 263 and 265, when in the empire

elsewhere after the captivity of Valerian Gallienus was officially

regarded as sole ruler, two heads here appear on the coins, is perhaps

due only to want of information; yet the Bosporans may at that time

have made another choice amid the many pretenders. The names are at

this time not appended, and the effigies are not to be certainly

distinguished.]

[221: This we may be allowed to believe at the hands of the Scythian

Toxaris in the dialogue placed among those of Lucian (c. 44); for the

rest he narrates not merely μύθοις ὅμοια, but a very myth, of whose

kings Leucanor and Eubiotes the coins, as may well be conceived, have

no knowledge.]

[222: As respects the export of grain, the notice in the report of

Plautius (p. 218), deserves attention.]

[223: From the offer of a township of the Siracae (on the Sea of Azoff)

hard pressed by the Roman troops to deliver 10,000 slaves (Tacitus,

_Ann._ xii. 17), it may be allowable to infer a lively import of slaves

from these regions.]