You are on page 1of 3

On the Gallus Inscription at Philae

Author(s): Hans Hauben


Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 22 (1976), pp. 189-190
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20181184
Accessed: 24-05-2016 11:02 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

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 support@jstor.org.

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

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Tue, 24 May 2016 11:02:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ON THE GALLUS INSCRIPTION AT PHILAE

1. One of the interesting aspects of the dedication of C.Cornelius Gal lus at Philae

is its tri lingual ism. Comparison between the three mutually divergent versions can yield

surprising results. In this connection the reader is referred to the extensive commentary of
2)
E. Bernand, who points out, among other things, that the Latin text, written for the sake

of the conquerors, sometimes distorts the facts to the greater glory of the new rulers, whereas

the Greek rendition would have been more lenient towards the sympathizers of the van

quished regime. The author hereby refers to the distinction between 11.5-6 and 1.15, where
mention is made of the area south of the first cataract: in quern locum neque
populo Romano neque regibus Aegypti [arma s]unt prol ata versus
a?aTou dTpaT?aCis Trj? xfydas vp? outou yevoulvq?.
Immediately following this passage, however, another significant deviation of the

Greek text from the Latin will be noted: naC ?uu/rra?av ti^Cv] 0nJ3a?5a \if\ uiroTayet?av
to?? ?adiXEU?iv ?JiroT?C]as (Il. 15-16) versus Thebaide commun? omn[i]um
regum formidine subact[a] (11.6-7). Here the situation is precisely the reverse:
the Greek version goes much further in belittling the Ptolemies than the Latin, as indeed
Bernand himself has stated.
3)
Comparing the two instances one must concede that the contradictory impressions they
leave, far from neutralizing one another, rather seem to point in a direction contrary to

that suggested by Bernand. Was the implication that the Ptolemies had been unable to
4)
subject the Thebaid not a much greater insult to the Greek-speaking population than
that they had not penetrated beyond the southern frontier of Egypt proper?
5)
2. Now that Max Treu has largely unveiled the tragic end of Egypt's first prefect,

1) CIL III 14147, 5 = E.Bernand, Les inscriptions grecques et latines de Philae. Tome II:
Haut et Bas Empire, Paris 1969, no. 128.

2) O.e., pp.40-47, esp. pp.46-47. Cf. M.Treu, in Chiron, 3 (1973), pp.225-226.


3) O.e., pp.43-44; cf. M.Treu, in Chiron, 3 (1973), p.226.
4) Not necessarily a flagrant lie, as is apparent from the several possible ex
planations indicated by Bernand (with references to the older literature); but in any event
such niceties must have escaped the average visitor of the sanctuary.
5) Nach Kteopatras Tod (P.Oxy. 2820), in Chiron, 3 (1973), pp.221-233.

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Tue, 24 May 2016 11:02:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
190 H.Hauben

one might feel an inclination to detect an expression of rebellion behind almost every

phrase of the Philae dedication, which in Treu1 s reconstruction was performed when Gal

lus was already entrenching himself in his province. Thus E.A. Judge: " It is noteworthy
that the Latin text avoids specifically attributing his appointment to Caesar, as the Greek

correctly does." Both the Latin and the Greek versions, however, explicitly mention the
princeps. But whereas in the Latin text the ablative of agency a Caesare is linked to
devictos, in the Greek it has been transferred to KaTadTaGet?.For purely stylistic
reasons one can hardly expect both a Caesare and utt? Kat?apos to occur twice in
close succession. To see herein a deliberate affront to Augustus seems rather exaggerated.

Katholieke Univers i teit Leu ven Hans Hauben

ZU FUNDM?NZEN AUS MEDINET MADI (FAYUM)

In ihrem Rapporto preliminare del le campagne di scavo 1968 e 1969 der Missione di Scavo

a Medinet Madi (Fayum - Egitto), Mailand 1976, hat E.Bresciani auf S. 12 unter Nr. 14 - 17
die Fundm?nzen von 1968 publiziert. Nach den auf Tav.ll (S.38) gegebenen Abbildungen ist
Nr. 14 zu berichtigen : statt einer AE-M?nze des Augustus handelt es sich um ein St?ck des
Claudius, was f?r die Chronologie des Fundortes nicht unwichtig scheint; die Beschreibung

lautet : Vs. [Ti(?epioc) K]?a?(6io?) Ka?(cap) Ce?ac(TOc) rfcp|ia(viK6cJ] Kopf rechtshin mit
Lorbeer;Rs. AuTOKp?(Tup) Gefl?gelter Caduceus zwischen ?e zwei ?hren gebunden .-Reste des
Datums auf der Vs., wohl Ll , also Jahr 10 (49/50 n.Chr.). Vgl. Katalog alexandrinischer
Kaiserm?nzen der Sammlung des Instituts f?r Altertumskunde K?ln, Bd.l, Opladen ?974,Nr.
91/92.
Die Legende des Follis Nr. 15 muss nat?rlich heissen FL(avia) HELENA AVGVSTA, nicht F.
I. HELENA etc. (=LRBC 1406, 326-330 n.Chr.), wie auch Nr. 16 statt PRE VI DENT IA AVGG

zu lesen ist PROVIDENTIAE AVGG (=LRBC 1351, Constantinus I., 324-330); im Abschnitt
von Nr. 16 anscheinend eher SMANTA als SMANTA.

K?ln A. Geissen

6) Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses f?r Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik
M?nchen 1972, Vestigia 17, M?nchen 1973, p.572.

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Tue, 24 May 2016 11:02:51 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like