Pharos and Rome Author(s): P. S. Derow Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 88 (1991), pp.

261-270 Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) Stable URL: . Accessed: 04/01/2014 05:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

This content downloaded from on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1). "Illyris. Abhandlungen der arch?ologisch-epigraphischen Seminare der Universit?t Wien XIII (Vienna 1898) 17-20. see also J. Brun?nid. Inscriptions hell?nistiques de Dalmatie' (505-541). explicitly regret not having been able to study the stone bearing the text published in 1960 itself. which he had republished a quarter century earlier and shown to be in fact part of a transcribed decree of Paros." Opera Minora Selecta I 302-326 (BCH 1935). PL VI). permission and assistance in this enterprise). 200 no longer comes into account. Gruen. 3 It is mentioned briefly by J. Bousquet.91 on Sat. Robert. BCH 1935. He did. N. respectively. First. 12. 4 In September 19751 was able briefly to examine and to photograph fragment A in the lapidarium of the Dominican convent in Stari Grad (I am grateful toMladen Nikolanci. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) 13-53. The exception is L. Rendi?-Miocevi?* for. I The text given here is substantially that of Robert (n.L.58. See PL VH A for fragment B. for at least one substantial must It is imperative conclusion had an alliance. 24. from Hvar." Iliria 3 (Tirana 1975) 5-48. Commentary El 765 and J. for Pharos andRome and for Rome and theGreek cities of theAdriatic more generally. "Inscription hell?nistique de Dalmatie.]). Hellenica XI/XII. Gre cita Adriatica (Bologna2 1977) 322-337.2 Not surpris ingly. More surprisingly. p." BCH 85 (1961) 589-600 (cf. PL XVI.. long-known. noticed (in the first edition. PL XV (PLXVI.G. 2 "Inscription hell?nistique de Dalmatie. then.1 The new text confirmed his brilliant analysis (and prompted further considera tion) of another inscription. however. Rome andMaced?n in 229 205 B. see below n. relations between theGreek city of Pharos andRome. unless otherwise indicated. nor in. and L. 12-26 (A) [. n? 4. Islami. the text in IG XU Suppl.-L. 1963. Bulletin Epigraphique (hereinafter Bull. "L'Etat illyrienne et ses guerres contre Rome. then at the Centar za ZaStitu Kulturne Bastine in Hvar. these texts?rather this text in its two parts?have not been much considered in discussions of Illyria andRome over three decades. comia%ia. and fol lowing that some of its implications.3 that Pharos emerge: to do this. 1 for a photograph of a squeeze of lines 1-20). and to the keeper of the lapidarium for his forbearance) and (less briefly) fragment B in the stores of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (my thanks to D. with Rome from some point in the third cen tury BC. Differences of reading arising from autopsy or autophotography are few and are noted.R. the text (with some brief notes on readings and restorations).90.] vacat HAIA [. but does not figure in the discussions of Roman alliances in E. Die Inschriften undM?nzen der griechischen St?dte Dalmatiens. SEG 23.]0D aneci?Xi] TOO)ZKlODplOU 1 Hellenica XI/XII (Paris 1960) Ch. his treatment of these texts leaves little to be desired. 129 [L.4 Supplements.489 and Bull." JRS 58 (1968) 1-21 or the generally very full treatment of Rome's Illyrian wars by S. and A. Given Robert's renewed treatment of this inHellenica XI/XII 528-537.C.S. Ferrary. 731-744. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 349. e.2.) 1976. Braccesi. There is an excellent photograph of fragment A inHellenica XI/XII. Hammond. 101. 2). among other things. 1971: the relevant pages are substantially the same) by Walbank. for his assistance. PL XXXII (OMS I. are those of Robert. The text origi nated as CIG 1837b and had been republished by J. Photographs of fragment B: BrunSmid (n. 17. This content downloaded from 78. there are a few places these where minor correction is desirable.261 Pharos and Rome Thirty years ago Louis Robert published an inscription from Stari Grad on theAdriatic island of Hvar dealing with.g. Philhell?nisme et imp?rialisme (Rome 1988) 31 n.

262 P.-t\)Xoc TloXx>%?p\i]ox).?]vaYpcx\|/ai [8]? to?> e?ceve [xO?vtoc ?oyiiaTOC e?c ctt|]?. [Ilap?cov.?p%o]i)cav [c?co|ievo\)c e?]c t? [av Kal 7capaKa?. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .] yvcov?iv Z.]N lacuna ITOYIAI AMH (B) ?i] Ta\)[Ta 8? aTcavTa tp??c[-av8]pac [vai e?c cp^J^aKTiv Kal camiptiav ttjc te tuiete] [pac noXe(?]e Kal tt|c Oapicov [Kal.]a cxtcoikoi ovt?c] rcp?c i\ii?e] Aiovoc?oi).]aio\)c Toi)c ?vavE ti[(i?]v cuv tt]v 7cpoi)7r.?TcociE?Xai Tip?c [?Eic Tcp?c to?c o?kictocc] riap?oDC Kal to?c 12 [.TEceJapaKovTa Kal ttjv co^ifia [%iav Kal yxXxav Kal TaM.?covTac C?VyEVEl exe ?rca [?oMOjTjcai 16 20 [v?pGaxiv tt\c noXei?c t]|ic?v K]a6* ?cov ?[v] EKacTrjtc?v [noXe<?v E\)Kaipf|.91 on Sat. eSo^ev Tfi ?oiAfj Ka]l tcoi ?f|(icoi. ?E?oxOai t?i ?f|](ic?i.o]'?0cuc to?c ?v to?c [yp?|i] [\iaex 40 [iixae KaTaKE%copic|XEvo]ic.exnev [5r\ 8? O?pioi [?^ajcECTEi^av Ta ji?v aM. E?7CEV bnep] 'Avixnaipoe Nuca. oi)0?v eMe?tcovtec eno\)5f{e n]epx Kal yxXoix 8E8o%0ai 8rj towcov [TcoiSf^coi-.S. Derow 4 [eTtEi?T]'Pcopmcov r\ c?ykX]t]toc Kai ? ?f^^oc cp? Kai E\)voi)c] tt\ n?Xex tt| Oapicov [?.t|[v] X[i]0?[v]tiv Kal ?va0E?vai [exe ttjv ?yop?v ( ?) to ?vT?ypacpov ofreoe Kal to?c ?7ciyivo|xe [votc exe ?ex 8xa\x?vr\ i\ |i]vt|jjltj t?>v ?oTi&rjcavTcov [tc?i 8t|h.?h.x>\i$?XXee [0ai tt\c ?o\)Xf\c e?c t?v 8f\|i]ov ?ti Soke? tt\ ?o\)Xf\ [tov ?f\|iov xprj|iaT?cai (?) 7t?]pl to?tod.]a (piXavOpama ?rcoiricav [K?pia.T?Xeexe [At^oa>v 7cpoEypayavTO oi ap 24 28 [%ovt?c \>7t?pTu?v 7cpEc?E\)]T(uv rcap? Oapicov. E7ceX0?vtec [?? neta Toi) YP0t|i|iaTEC?c ?nx] te ir\v ?o\)A. Ta rcEpl o?tivec [T?TcaTpov Nuca.90. T?Xecic At^o [ .oi \)7capxovTEC TEn?XxV TT|V ?7C08E?C?KOTEC] [EK TCpOyOVC?V flJLL?V Kal Toi)c 7taTp?o]i)c v?iliovc Kal %ci>pac ?\ [fiiLLc?v [tic bnT\p%evtt\ n?Xex ?v] tt\ vf|ccoi E?coKav tiji?v 8 [.58.rjv [Kal tov] [8f\|iov SiEXeyrjcav aKoA. ?JrcoXoyicovTai n?Xxv Kal eu|i7r. 8e8o to\)c amove etcI t?v Siiiiov ap%ovTac ]9ai [%0ar 8? [. Tip?Gricavrcpjec?Eic 'AOrjvacAiov\>c[i] [od. ttjv ir\e ?nex ttjc $ox>Xr\en?XeuK TjjiETEpac Kal TcpEc?ED 'Av ypajiixaTa -]rota)v 32 [tocc TloXx>%?piiox>.]TC?|LiaTa [tt]v yev?\xeva 7capaKaX[?] 'AOtjv&v [codciv i\\i?e ?orj?ficai a\)To]?c e?c ETcav?pGcocivtt\c 36 [n?Xecue Ka0' ?cov av ?\>K]aipc?|i?\c] This content downloaded from 78.

cf.S. we are dealing here with the response of the Senate and Peo ple to the surrender of Pharos (after Demetrius' flight.. Iota-adscript is present after g> here and in line 22.?pcorav 8? t?v 9e] ov t?vi Gec?v t^0?ai 0\)c?v [? Oapic?v 8%oc a?tax] ?f\ TT|V TE 7CO?. 5.. (Thanks to Simon Hornblower for pointing this out tome. rather than 8f|]u<p R. Richardson.. 515) Ka]l to?k c?vlfyeve?c xfjc u?Xegk 'Aonvla?y?c. S.0|Ll?VCUl KaT[ 20 Tac 7cp?ic?E\k:ai e?c AE?. are to be returned (lines 8-9). as ap pears from what survives of the text not unlikely. XV.58.. As suggested by R. 163 n.nex O IOZ [ Tcp?c8\)C|i?[c . Garc?a Jim?nez. as noted by B.. S.lVE^?l Ka[l TTJV%C?paV Kal 7CC?V ?(p' ETEpC?VKap7C?[c]?[Tai TO] 24 Xpf|i [0E?C-] npa^i?7crj n?\inexv Il?[piov . Una deditio del 104 a.] VOUC EUCEV T[?] |1?V?t??a [KaOcXTTEp Tfl ?ot)A.. 10.. The restoration is. 511. however.90. followed by B. ?tjJux?i. R. no doubt. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Compare the 'tabulaAlcantarensis' (R. It is far from clear that the N remains. see further (and esp.) This content downloaded from 78. cf.'s ]uaxoi)c. 9.?^o[(coc 8? Kal Kata?v to?c] npeefiem?e Kal t?v Ypa|i|i[aTfi Kal etcI TaMa ??p?] navra ? 8f\|iocEcoc av 7cap?7ci8rj(i[?x:iv ?7caivEcat 8? aurto?c ?Tav ?ti lEp? noxr\ 7i?7covnvTai] (?)] 8 12 16 Kal ex>ex(\\ tt)v ?v8ii|i?av ?v tt\ n?Xe[x KaA. lines 5-6: ? etceiOt] [t]\)yx(xvocI[i] ?rcoucoi o[vtec %]ox> ?rmou t? 'A?nvat v.-" ?MOY[ NOTES A Fragment 1. suggested (p. C. [arc? rcpoTovc?v. ZHAIA Rfobert] this line are extremely : Zy\kia B[ousquet] (as genitive of a name). For the whole. Second Athenian League. 5. and visible in R. for oiK?ai. Hispaniae [Cambridge 1986] 199-201). If. see below.91 on Sat. J.Pharos andRome 263 4 KaX[?cai 8? Kal to?c ap%ov] [rcoAJecoc tt\c Oapicov TO?C 7CpEc??\)] [Tac] ?7cl TOC [l]Ep? ??CTO 7CpDT[aV??OV [toc]c Kai t?v ypa\i\ia%r\ Ka[l to?c ifrovTac iliet' ai)]~ [t]?v av8pac 7c?vTac. Sherk. where agros et aedificia . The traces at the damaged beginning of unclear. Cargill. 264-266. 6. and thereby grandmother-city of Pharos.?AicOai 8? [Kal Oeotcp?tcodc ek tc?v] tco?itc?v av8pac {ac} e? e[?c AEAxpo?c . S?nchez Abal. pi.?] Kal tc?i 8f||Lic?i. but R. La lega ateniese (Rome 1940). on the short side.'s ]aioa>c seems very much better than B. Staatsvertr?ge 268 and J..) the Athenian decree of 372 BC ap. ?7t?5?>Ka]v B. J. amention of buildings might be expected: perhaps [fiux?vKai toc ouc?ac Kal to]?c v?uo\k ktX. Accame.oc?cuihet?c [to?>]Ypa|i[|LiaT?C?c.L. L?pez Melero. 12.T]v tc?v tcoXec?v qroXaccEiv] Kal ?^iav [?|Li(poT?]pc?[v |Liova to?c 8? Kal ap%ov[Tac t]oc yp?[|Li|iaTa Ta e%O?pou ?v] tc?i 8t]h. RDGE 33 quae sua fuissent leges cete[ra omnia (?)] I (Syll* 593). "El bronce de Alc?ntara.[q>o\)c. p." Geri?n 2 [1984] 265-323. For Athens as mother-city of Paros.Kal ?^ex] Vai TC?l ?oi)?. The surviving beginning of the line is difficult.

SEG 35. with 16.90. Daux: Bull. Klaffenbach: G.. accords better. (ad A. From here to the end lines begin one space to the left. 266. -[xovtec weep tcov TtpEc?EittcoJvtcov rcap? B. see B. [o?] I [?pxovTEc] R. Bull 1964.. B. -[xOai rcpoco?ov is not clear jiev 8E8?c]0ai a?rauc etiI tov Sfluov to me. inBull. 19. I [jtp?roic jietcx Ta lEp?] B. 180s [?]). 15. is not in doubt. 25-26.. which is safer. at the price of introducing new wording.. On the name.) For the ypa\i\LaiE\K who accompanied the envoys from Pharos and shared in the hospitality offered them by the Parians. Traces are minimal. so. Xpfii 8[e?c] R. 10) on 25.. <Mpioc[ read the stone by G.S. 129 (p. rendre J'ai cherch? la cause de la catastrophe dans l'activit? des pirates illyriens.w. B. :K]a0* ?cov ?v ekoctti B. Robert's appreciation of the situation in which the Pharians found themselves was exact: frag Le document maintenant recompos? la ville en partie par le rapprochement est dans une crise grave. It would be achieved here by [tc?Xecoc raG' ocov ?v ?t>K]aipcon. See also. [hi Kal oi Tcpsc?Einal ?xci B.. 37. (I owe this observation to Ludwig Koenen. here and in line 16. : [<pa)AxxccEiv] Klaffenbach (se&Bull. oi ?p. On which. : ]td?ov B. I [tov X?yov (?) e?c xf|v ?yopav (?).. see below on line 36. -[xOevtoc apyupioo) e?c cTT|?jr|v Xi?ivrjv Kai ?va0E?vai a see is Bull. If anything is visible at the left-hand edge. 377). question of more than restorations.: [ti?Xecoc ca 12-14 ]AIP?2MEI B. This content downloaded from 78. 1963. Daux. 21. which (?) EKOcTTi with the spacing. B Fragment 12. K]a0?c ?[v] the traces and. 0$ COYCAITHT HMA R. Derow R.5 Le fragment A nous fait con na?tre guerre Certainement A l'issue de cette est re ses propri?t?s avec Rome 5 In BCH 1935.264 15.. See below p. 23. 93. 18. BCH 86 [1962] 978. [tc?axcov to?tcov E?raip?av EXfl a]vayp?\|/ai would. [k?Xegk KaG?Ti Kal 7cpo]aipcon?c R. :0$IA COYCAITHT HMH B. Polybios-Lexikon s.. traces of Y are perhaps more likely.12-13) quoted by R. [?? Kai oi TtpEc?EDTalrcp?c] R. on balancee. 1940. ]ctdAov R. Kai[ R.?c (suggested by G. accepted by R. 19. 238) and by the supplement adopted above for line 16. 129. 36. l'alliance des deux ments montre la situation que j'avais d?gag?e de l'analyse du fragment B: si Pharos a recours ? sa m? visible at the end of the line. it R. and particularly R. part of 17-18. R. [rc?tacov to?toov (?) ?uvnrai ajvaypaxj/ai B. The sense. [?vaypaxj/ai] R. Bull.4 (Cibrya. rightly. 238. P. 1964. il y a eu guerre. For the supplement adopted here. 24. : Xpfi 8[e?c] B. 1963.) 41. certainly. 1961. 23. but o? rcpEc?Eurai does not fit comfortably with the construction after oitwec in line 33. cf.. et ses droits.3 562. E?mip?a in this sense: see Mauersberger.823 (Maroneia.. (Note that it is not impossible that line 36 should end with [??] and line 37 begin with [u?T<x.. -[vote e?c Siauivri f| u]vr|ur| B. 1963. rcpEiC?Eikai R. 129 (pp. 160s). 4-10. YpocuuaTa B? which appears to be correct (ypajxuaT?i R. objecting to the partial element of Doricism. B. and and Euraip?co are common enough in Polybius compare the phrase KaTa to E?roipov in OGIS 762. refrains from restoration. See below on line 32. 145).91 on Sat. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 32. l'intervention Pharos se voit c'est que des Romains. The first the reading 31. Bull.). see B.'s eni is preferable.58. fill the available space. 145-146): ?Jtkoc ktX. comparing the Parian decree (Syll.

11. Errington.5). 8. mais lui donner et.16. and when Teuta offered to negotiate after the campaign.7 of which d'une the first in an la pre a matter os substance.19). c'est la mention ?alliance? eut pour qui est renouvel?e.. RE 'Pharos. mais elle a souffert gravement. Appian fills out the picture: Afi|if|Tpioc 8\ ? O?po\) Tvyoujievoctc? "Aypcovi (O?pov te y?p ax>ir\e r\p%e Kal enx T?\8e KepK?pac).21). et l'ercav?pOcocic ne pas la ch?tier Two volves t?rieure considerations.7).58. as have many others since. En 229 elle fut laiss?e ?Demetrios. capture and destruction of Pharos during theRoman campaign against Demetrius of Pharos in 219] correspondrait bien ? celle qui appara?tdans l'inscription. ///.4).90.Xi>puov.6.Pharos and Rome 265 nouvel?e. la ville ?tait victime. persuaded "Ce qui ferait difficult?. 2. This content downloaded from 78. but neither has the Romans handing Pharos over to him. ///. avec serait le rel?vement apr?s la prise d'assaut however..91 on Sat.2. m?me si l'on voulait ne pas tenir compte de la restitution" (ibid. Etudes IV 89-91 (translated into CAH Vu 834-836) and Polaschek. ///. he was communicat ing with the Romans.. ainsi la ville ne subit pas de dommage politique et juridique.10 but more important for the moment is his emphasis with (Pol."9 This last is by no means clear. the aftermath of the sponsable. and that in a limited way (Appian. For this fate of Pharos he cites Holleaux.4) is likely enough. 8. CAH VnP 89-90.19. 8 "L'article ttiv c\)\i\La%iav est d?cisif. Polybius goes on to relate the surrender to Rome of the Corcyraeans \ieia ttjc iox> Aiwityipiox) Yvonne (2. les Romains ont pu un statut liberal. to be sure. ercaYyeX?iievoc tt|v %en?Xxv eyxeipieiv Kal Ta Xoxn? Tcpayixaxa 7capa8coceiv. Polybius and Appian diverge on Roman's treatment of Demetrius after the war against Teuta.18. 3) 119. apr?s la KaracKa(pf|. aussi la ville a-t-elle pu souffrir.11.11.16. 9 Ibid. ? O?pioc. n. both of whom simply assume it. punished 6 Hellenica XI/XII 537-538. So theRomans came into possession of both Pharos and Corcyra in the same way in 229.5-6).8 Car c'est en 218 que Pharos mi?re fois un lien direct avec Rome. AiuiT]Tpi(p?' ?cuv a %copianic??v ??oaav tt\c rcpo?odac. les Romains him to reject this context. these were Illyrians ek tcov VTcoTeTayiievcov troops hand-picked (Pol. theRomans replied K?picupav jLi?vKal O?pov Kal vIccav Kal 'Erci?aiivov ? tjSti 'Pcopmcov vm\K?ox>e exvax (Ap pian.3). Mais les d? g?ts mat?riels sont lourds. but he did this starting from elsewhere 3. Somehow at odds with Queen Teuta.4 for ?xapiciioc. in Pharos 3.avTec tcov (2. On the eve of the first Illyrian war Demetrius. puisque la ville a besoin d'une ?TcavopOcoac. was in command of the Illyrian garrison on Corcyra. whilst for Polybius T(p AfijiTiTpicp to?c nXexeiove \)7C0T?c. Phillhell?nisme (see n.' 1863-1864. Pharos had not been inDemetrius' private possession. 7. 103. That Polybius magnifies IMupuov Kal \ieyaXi\v ai)i& rcepiBevTec ?wacieiav the gift in order tomagnify Demetrius* ingratitude later on (3. Nor is there any rea son to think that it became so. was cf. c'est D?me trios que combattait les Romains. a>v T|v avibe K?pioc (Pol. n me para?t d?couler de l? que Pharos a ?t? entra?n?e dans les ?v?nements d'une ou elle n'est pas tenue pour re n lui est pardonn? guerre contre les Romains. Demetrius had fortified himself in Pharos. In 219. Appian. 7. qu'elle va de mander de l'aide jusque dans les Cyclades et ?Ath?nes et qu'elle re?oit de nouveaux colons.23). 6000 upon to?k: nXe?eiove tcov !A. rcap??coKev a|icpa> fPco(ia?oic ?nxnX?ox>exv ek rcpoScociac (///. Pharos was a Greek city.22). Cette situation [viz. au contraire. 2). on which see Ferrary. 7//W/emca XI/XII 539. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . ismore cautious.

19. t?> Ar)|LiriTp?q>] O?pov "Le KaTecKaye admirably judged: indique (///. As mentioned above (note on A. he is excluded from Polybius's account but certainly shared the command in Illyria:MRR1219 BC. who studied this inscription a zeta (as do Robert's: has rcpeic?eikai. 8. not TcpeiC?eucai. 3. comer although ap parently not to Bousquet's).11 Appian provides what was no doubt the stated Robert's reason: rnv rcaTpi?a ama) un seems.). 17. le nouveau [viz. iota is regularly adscript after omega in fragment A.91 on Sat. Arguments based upon letter forms are particularly hazardous when the place in question offers nothing by way of dated texts for comparison. the possible exception of B. m?me vers la fin. not impossible thatM. 540). is. He reckoned that it could not.24). suggestion et il aurait pu ?tre imm?diat. whose (op. The eye. 19 is rcpeic?eucai.12). oval theta crossed by a bar. the right-hand smaller and elevated. des privil?ges et l'alliance. most notably. sometimes. l'assaut. In 1960 Robert focussed upon the following points. 11 It throughout This content downloaded from 78. side of nu is sometimes are the and bottom strokes of sometimes elevated. 23. et de politique. The destruction visited upon the city was the work of ? the Roman general in the field. 19). alpha. but whose is appears to show published photograph it always the same photograph?). (ibid. and it reduces further the temptation to place a great deal of emphasis upon the forms of the letters. The last few decades of the third century are not yet excluded.266 P.15. epsilon with more or less equal branches (and. "Assez rapide et n?glig?" in appearance is probably the best comment on the script (OMS 1318). who tt^v O?pov evGecoc ?? ?cpo ?od TcapaXa?wv mTecKaye (Pol. Surface damage has produced the effect of Z in the photographs: what appears to be top horizontal of Z is a deep but adventitious scratch cutting through a visible sigma (see pi. is present with straight and curved bars as well. Z] n'est pas possible . These indications on their own will not be compelling. pourtant again. and indeed throughout thewhole text. "D'autre part. by Robert. as to Robert's. broken barred alpha. Pharos un statut. 2]). in varying degrees. Considerations of fact do not militate against locating the text from Pharos in the context offered. "Notamment la forme r?cente du zeta avant cette date. [see n. les cas ou Y iota n'a pas ?t? adscrit. but then rejected.19. VII A). 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 505-506]). So it is after alpha (B.S.58. These indications push one back in time. but not after eta (with As to zeta. Further. Livius Salinator was also there. to my stone. 21 (OMS I 318-319 [BCH 1935. L. be dated before themiddle years of the second century BC. it is worth remarking that by no means all the examples of these letters are as described." (Hellenica XI/XII539 n.90. His other objection was of a different kind. Still. in fact. 539). an overextending vertical). but an apparent discrepancy of some 60-70 years requires to be addressed by at least a little more than this caveat. D'autre part. and the word in scribed in B. and certainly not in default of comparative material." (ibid. lamba as in B. 10). je crois que l'?criture s'oppose ? une datation au IIIe si?cle. apr?s omeg?' To take the second point first. dans un acte de compr?hension g?n?reuse covaiiapTovcav [se. Other considerations advanced by Robert in 1935 were: pi with equal legs and a horizontal extending beyond them. redonner ? S?nat aurait pu ensuite. omicron and omega are often. non seulement aussi apr?s ?ta mais fragment a multipli? (ibid. 1). Derow 219 after Demetrius fled to Philip V. This is what must have been apparent to BrunSmid in particular text detail. cit. of course. venant du g?n?ral romain qui mena Mais le ch?timent. top sigma gently splayed. there are in fact no examples on either top left-hand of fragment A is too damaged to permit anything to be read at the beginning of line 1. Aemilius Paullus.

The Rhodians are the exception.16 As mentioned.21. and Issa.. 3) 56 n. Pharos was punished by theRoman forces in the field in 219.10. With his inference thence that the alliance between Pharos and Rome goes back to the aftermath of the first Il lyrian war I am in complete agreement.10. and L. Collaboration in war was equivalent to cpilia. on the apxcov 6 ?v t? Kepic?pa in 189 (Pol.45. The freedom bestowed upon Corcyra by the Romans (cf.58.22) was proverbial: ?^eoG?pa K?picvpa. above): "IIdiscute sur la date [viz. Not to be taken as a loose or ignorant designation. vexed at this untoward development.Pharos andRome There is. %?? ?rcou G?tatc (Strabo 7. 21. Appian. This content downloaded from 78.30. Apollonia: 37. Corcyra. but the idea. to prefer a date nearer to 219 itself. Mac. besides Pharos. that the tie (with three of them at least) was Apollonia Antiochus. book.3). 17 Gruen.17 years later. cette ques tion ne nous 13 This para?t accounts pas actuellement for most of susceptible the numerous so now. 1. 8. They may and Issa contributed upon before.32.27. as did theAchaeans pending the ratification of their alliance. Philip eic to?k fPco|ia?cov 12 Braccesi (n. 15 Not (necessarily) indicating a treaty: Ferrary. that J.5. The first Illyrian war brought Rome into contact with.9. Epidamnos.8. No one has doubted that some kind of tie was created between Rome and these cities. Epidamnos. Issa: 31. This has been remarked question this. 8). 1. three of these cities are elsewhere called allies of Rome.90. as indicated here. present in antiquity. 44. Livy 38. He does not. II Given thatPharos had an alliance with Rome. as it always in Livy) served regularly as landing and staging points during Rome's wars against Philip.14 One may one of cowiaxia or societas has been much rejected since then. Livy 43.16.192). remarks on this: "[Appian] designates [Corcyra] as Tco ua?otc coveu?xei: Appian Mac. it is natural to ask whether other Greek ci ties in the area did so too. Commentary ad loc. and there was in 216 no war on between Philip and the Ro mans. On account of its unwilling partici pation in the rebellion of Demetrius.must go back to the time of the first Illyrianwar and its immediate aftermath.13 ventures. The involvement of Corcyra inRome's eastern activities extended to providing amint for Roman victo riati during the firstMacedonian war (Crawford.3. After the capture Two in Italy of theMacedonian and Carthaginian envoys in 216. Apollonia.15 and Corcyra and Perseus. They had long co-operated with the Romans. see Walbank. deal with the epigraphical problems (as seen heretofore). Philip V. 101. not be called allies on these occasions.6ff. Roman Republican Coinage [Cambridge 1974] 21.).9. have an alliance with them.10.12 That status. Philhell?nisme (see n. fr.6. and the alliance with Rome thatwas part of it. which renders his case weaker than it might otherwise be. no reason to abandon the eminently suitable context 267 for this inscription thatwas adumbrated by Robert in 1960. Their behaviour in this respect was regarded as noteworthy (Pol." in Livy I hope 24-40.8. at the end of the day. cf. attacked Corcyra r\ 'Pcopmoic cuvejiaxei (Appian.11. is and. to ships or auxiliaries but not taken to indicate for but it is surely worth asking whether anyone who was not allied to Rome so participated in these wars. but was allowed to resume its former status by the Senate and People.10. to a lesser extent. 3) 31 n. these Roman mal alliance. Hellenistic World (see n. however. prior to 166. 11. Epidamnos (or Dyrrachium.5). but they did not.91 on Sat." This is not obvious. Robert itmight do remarked (n. Apollonia. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . of the inscription from Pharos] qu'il situerait entre 215 et 205. 16 During the second Macedonian war the Aetolians fought alongside the Romans in the belief that they had an alliance with Rome. afterM. 3. 42. above) sought to locate the Pharian appeal to Paros during the first Macedonian war. Valerius Laevinus had sailed across to Corcyra. 33. ///. 30. and I am led.48. 3. Epidamnos: 42. references 14 32. Commenting on this section d'une of Braccesi's solution.

Three of the four are called allies at one point or another during the period of Rome's eastern wars.2.4. and. Livy 24. Gallia. Brundisium (244). Roman Colonization 20 Sena (268). the northern Adriatic [on Gallic (Paris 1980) 70 with n. La romani (O. on 220/219 BC.7). in Yugoslav Archaeology [Oxford 1988: BAR International Series 431] 177-189.). This need occasion no surprise.9.) I am not concerned here to establish whether or not the Par thini and Atintani had become allies as well. followed by Ariminum (264). In the treaty of 215 between Philip and Hannibal it was intended that the Romans should cease to be K?pioi of Corcyra. Epirus [Oxford 1967] 599-600. Chevallier. Epidamnos." in J. (see n. E. to match the great Tor' above Jelsa.30. (Note that it not is Issa.26. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .G. refers simply to tocc Kat? t?jv 'iAXupi?a n?Xexe tac vnb These notices (3. and Strabo matters 7. These cities behaved as allies of Rome.13).13. This content downloaded from 78.2). At issue were Issa's mainland dependencies: Pol. Philhell?nisme [see n.2-7 (a passage of Polybian origin according toNissen. with the Adriatic in a study of the ing Roman statement Roman the brief but very perceptive of Greece Note in R. apartfrom themilitary assistance already adverted to.11. and amuch later inscription attests to a cumiar?a between Issa andRome in 56 BC (Sherk.P. For purposes of observation and control Issa.16. for or against the at least as importantly. see N. militate but they do indicate. Kritische Untersuchungen 264-265. do not. it was built in the 4th or 3rd century BC: see B. 3) 27-28 (on which see my remarks in JRS 80 [1990] 198-99). Epidamnos. CAH VIII2. and Apollonia. Hadria. Commentary on Pol.L. activity Italy and Cisalpine public concern can scarcely as I shall argue elsewhere be overestimated. Postumius Albinus raised troops there inwinter 229/8 (Pol. Of all this there is one straightforward reading: a sequel of the Roman campaign in the Adriatic in 229/8 was the conclusion of alliances be tween Rome and Pharos.U. (Another watch-tower. Chapman et ai. 3] 31 n. A ques tion thatmust remain open is that of when theBassanitae (of Bassania. 18.3).58.S.21 and Polybius.4). Dimale. "Maslinovik.90. some four and a half miles distant from Lissos) became socii of the Romans (Livy 44. Derow he captured Orikos and laid siege to Apollonia (Zonaras 9. we know no more on this score than that L. Salmon. Livius und Polybios [Basel 1977] 28). far themost southerly. that figures in Livy's account of the dispersal by Rome of Genthius' realm at 45. 12. A Greek watchtower in the chora of Pharos. Pharos is unambiguously attested as hav ing had an alliance with Rome prior to 219.7-8. pp.18 In ex>\i\i?%ove aSpiLirjce: 172 envoys from Issa complained atRome about depredations by king Genthius.. Popovi?. 'Pc?iiaioiK TaTTO|i?vac of Roman alliances with these places. of course.9. Walbank. 2. 86-88). Recent Developments am grateful to John Lloyd for this reference. (40. on Parthos and the Parthini. 7. conquest sation de la celtique du Po I:Les donn?es g?ographiques and currents of. 22 Cf.26. 271.T. Philhell?nisme Ferrary does not believe that treaties of alliance were concluded with any of these places (Philhell?nisme 29-31. Errington. 13: Ferrary. its western Corcyra. RDGE 24 B). existence was perceived how the connection by others. I eds.19 They are called socii of the Romans. 2 (cf. Issa. Rome was concerned with theAdriatic and had been since the firstRoman and Latin colonies were planted on (or near) shore decades earlier:20 alliances with the lead ingGreek maritime cities of the region contributed to safeguarding this interest. themost westerly of theDalmatian islands (for its r?le in the start of the first Illyrian war. Apollonia. cf. Tr?nkle.7. and Castrum Novum go back to the 280s. Both had a chequered history of relations with Rome that is not made any clearer by problems of identification (on the Atintani and Atintanes. the Parthini and the Atintani. Kirigin and P. has recently been discovered atMaslinovik on Hvar. but Lissos. Firmum under the Re The r?le of Roman in northeastern in generat Gaul (London 1969) 62-64. esp. 32. H. cf. 101.12).C.47. Hammond.22 18Cf.317C on the relative inhospitability of the Italian coast as compared to the Dalmatian coast opposite). The omission of Issa from this list has never been adequately accounted for.268 P. 67-74 on the coasts I am grateful to Jonathan Williams]. Pharos.40. cf. Ferrary. Of Epidamnos.91 on Sat.) 21Pol. and Pharos with its system of watch-towers were particularly well suited. It appears that Apollonia was connected with Rome in a Way that Orikos was not 19 Livy 42. see Phoenix 27 [1973] 118-134. cf.

and suggested that they are included in a clause of that treaty: si Aetoli pacem cum Philippo facerentffoederi adsciberent ita ratamfore pacem si Philippus arma ab Romanis sociisque quique eorum dicionis essent abstinuisset (Livy 26. 3) 25. cf.' but goes on to say that "[t]he account is either sheer fabrication or the places referred to are Illyrian. Gruen (Hellenistic World [see n. It has lately been remarked that the treaty between Rome and theAetolian League of 211 (or 212) BC does not provide by name for the Greek cities of theAdriatic. one (p. Moore is clearly commited: "in case Philip should re frain from war with the Romans and their allies and those who were subject to the latter. 42) begins by stating mat it is 'not to be taken seriously. uncertainty Philip abstained from attacking the Romans or their allies or those who were under their control. the socii those who were in dicione and Romani amongst populi seem to be just two of the clause translations si.24.40. I to recall here that the Pharians referred to r\ coujiaxia). on the basis of the considerations presented here.91 on Sat. as is Errington. Hatzopoulos and L. identical): and cf.90. mutatis mutandis. He is at pains to show that "[treaty relations] never served as a principal apparatus for expansion or imperialism" (op. The specific claim of Gruen. National Hellenic Research Foundation..23 Where they belong is directly under the rubric of socii. that during the period from the Illyrian wars to the war against Antiochus "Rome framed only a single formal alliance. wrong. <n6Xe\iov> is supplied in line 30 from the parallel phrase in lines 33-34. with notes) and Briscoe (Commentary on Livy XXXI-XXXIV 54-55) were rather less hostile.. Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity. 3] 21 n. theGreek cities of theAdriatic allied toRome. CAH VIH2. cf. And it is surely from these (or some of them). 95 for an analogous man of straw: "It [tpiXia] was never an ment fashioned or reforged by senatorial diplomats to convert Greece into a compliant appendage of Rome's do minions. "to distinguish There would being about A measure of unclarity arises from his remarks on this passage. The undertakings of Maroneia are as follows (those of Rome are. and surely no one would see them as "a principal apparatus" (cf. For Ferrary the Greek cities are placed in the category quique eorum [sc. 3) 24-33. 1). itwas not in any sense because of these cities thatRome went towar with Philip V ofMaced?n in 200 BC.G.41. that there came to Rome late in 203 BC the legati sociarum urbium exGraecia noticed by Livy (30. "2h)U|iax"* 'P uai v Kal Map vvr?v. (on context and date) M.24 Equally clearly. 25D." 8PAKIKH EIIETHPII 4 (1983) 414 447. Triantafyllos.25 The alliance consists of fully reciprocal undertakings by each party whereby each is obliged not to assist the enemies of the other but not strictly obliged to render assistance in case of attack. In the extract below. below and next note) but (rightly) sees no evidence as telling against this. p." but identity of the possessives may be intended. The Loeb of F. Iwould suggest. 51).D. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ." Badi?n (Studies 22-23 [PBSR 1952].12). 278 n.B. Loukopoulou. Two Studies inAncient Macedonian Topography. 17) seems tome. absti possible eorum.Pharos and Rome 269 for the treatment of succeeding events. ME AETHMATA 3 (Athens 1987) Appendix. Xp?vov. Romanorum] dicionis essent. 32). p.2).245. That is one thing. la Gr?ce. imple 23Philhell?nisme he who reckons were the only enables not" (see n. cit.iaKal cujiuxxxia KaXf| ecT? Kal Kai? I yr?v Kal raxa itmay be as well rc?Xeuoc ?? urj ectco. but that is another story.") But to deny the very existence of treaties in the later third and early second century is something quite which those nuis set. But the cities are not 'Illyrian'. they are Greek and they are allies. see SEG 35. Ill One further question remains to be raised here: what sort of cu|Li|naxia did Pharos and the others have? The answer." 24 Livy's notice has been variously received since Holleaux so stylishly condemned it (Rome. These considerations are not without implications Two of thesemay be briefly noted here.58. De S?lincourt's version the ambiguity: "if Penguin captures This content downloaded from 78. that with the Aetolians in 212/11" (Hellenistic World (see n...26.823. 101-110. else. and the written agreement is called f| cDuua%ia (37. The terms of the treaty are introduced e?c t?v ?xrcavTa G?Xaaaav (lines 10-12): <piA. is that itwas an alliance of the kind thatwas evidently standard inRoman dealings with Greek states and of which we now have a com plete example in the splendid textfrom Maroneia recently published.

suggested 'adate no earlier than themid-140s' (Hellenistic World [see n. 25) and of J. cit. Oxford P. te vauclv to?c wc* amove |nf|Te a?TO?c Tacco|i?voic n?\e\iov c?tcoi |it|T? onXoxe (oti xopriyeitcocav cocie tc?i 5f||ic?i Srj|ioc[?ai] tc?i 'Pc? 20 ?ovWii lia?cov |j. fPc?M.e|iov) eKcp?pTji tc?i 'Pa>n. on the basis of preliminary notices ('Ap*. AzXi. 1979.270 P.oc ? tc?v Mapcov[i] iox> TC?V TO?)C TCO^ejl?ODCKal avTi7coXe|i?o\)c 16 Kal tjc ?f||io\) to?> 'Pcopmcov5i? iy\e iS?ac %c?>pac Su?tcocav a?)Tol Orji?oc?ai ?ou [av] KpaT?kiv jllti c?cretc?i ?tuicoi tc?i fPco Xr\x o?Xcoi TcovTipcoi. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that thathistory goes back (at least as far as concerns theGreek world to the east) to the ex>\i\ia%xa between Rome and Pharos and to themorrow of the first Illyrian war.aio\)c kt?.S. to be 'a chimera'). The request from the Achaean League to Rome for Messenians in 183/2 BC indicates that their alliance with Rome.aciv ?oXx?i rcovnpc?i. p. tc?v ?? 'fra?aac ilitjG'onXa |nf|Te c?tov eic rqv The form of alliance attested atMaroneia evidently had a long history.27 But we are not limited in the search for ear lier instances to surviving inscriptions. Wadham College. BCH 102 [1978] 724-726). he opts for 198/7 or 196 (Roman Foreign Policy in the East [London 1984] 61-62). Derow -? 12 ?fip. his discussion of this episode [p.12).12ff. 3] 738-741). Bull. 3] 33-34. (around 167 BC) provide themost suitable context for the alliance with Cibyra. not long after 189 (Hellen isticWorld [see n. The diffi culties involved in providing any firm date for this text were expressed most clearly by J. This content downloaded from 78. puts it later. 735. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . lia?cov Kal eK(p?pcociv. Stern. not unreasonably. 279].S.58. enx to?c Meccnvioax:.28 was of the same n?\i\\fax form: KaTa tc?v S' 'A%au?v 8\)vaT?v ?cTiv. 27 Questioned by Gruen.t|te xpf||j. 731-744) raise analogous doubts and will have to be dealt with elsewhere.9. For the 160s see also the arguments of Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulou (n. Prior to formal publica tion of the text. I shall argue elsewhere that the events adverted to by Polybius 30. not crucial here.91 on Sat. of course. in any case. But there is weight in Sherwin-White's argument against this kind of delay.5. Tacco|i?voic. Bull.26 The evidently similar Roman alliance with Cibyra (OGIS 762) has often been placed in the 180s.90. Tc?Xejiov eKcp?pcuciv -??v30 ?f||iic?i tc?v tic rcp?Tepoc <7t?A. pp..: "But nothing compels us to put it before 167" (at p. Robert. Gruen. Derow 26 So the editor princeps and all who have treated the inscription in any detail. |i?v ei Se (it]. BCH 111 (1987) 501-509 (concerned primarily with lines 1-10). 23. 28Badian's date of winter 192/1 (JRS 42 [1952] 76-80) commands much support. TcpovortGfjvai <y') a ^?elc MeccT(vriv eicayayn (Pol. 1973 [1978] 464 [cf.183 (p. 35] seems not to recognize that the Achaean re quest was made precisely within the framework of their alliance with Rome). Other aspects of Gruen's treatment of Roman treaties with Greek cities (Appendix I. 733). and L. 196). and for thatwith Alabanda (reckoned by Gruen. ?ot|0eiav amok tt^v c\)|i|iaxiav ei TtapaKaXowtcov. struck assistance against the some years before that.aic?v r\ to?c vko 32 TC?I ? TC?V T?T8 ? ?TIJIOC Sf||IC?l tc?v *Pc?|Liai MapC?VITC?V c?v KaTa to ei)Kaipov ?orjOevrcu- This is a document of the 160s. loc. The date is. Gruen. 1950.

TAFELVII B2a) B2b) B3a) B3b) B4a) B4b) B5a) B5b) A) Inscription from Pharos (SEG 23. B. 4a-b) coin of Mithridates IV IV of Parthia. 5a-b) coin of Vologeses seated (courtesy of the American Numismatic Society [1]. University of Michigan [6]). 3a-b) coin of Vologeses III of Parthia. This content downloaded from 78.261-270 III of Mesene. the B) D. P.Derow. the Ashmolean Museum [2-5]. 4 Jan 2014 05:54:02 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and the Kelsey Museum. p.S.91 on Sat.Potter. 2a-b) coin of Attembelos reverse shows the seated god Herakles. 6a) coin of Seleucia on the Tigris depicting the god Apollo of Parthia. pp.90.S.277-290: la-b) coin of Mithridates of Mesene. fr.489). lines 12-26.58.