Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:44:22.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rome and the Ager Pergamenus: The Acta of 129 B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Gianfranco Tibiletti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The so-called Senatus Consultum of Adramyttium, a fragmentary inscription which was found in that city and has been known for some eighty years, contains part of a letter sent by a Roman authority. This letter records the report of a κρῖμα emanating from a praetor ex S.C., περὶ χώρας, ἥ|[τις ἐν ἀντι]λογία(ι) ἐστὶν δημοσιώ|[ναις πρὸς] Περγαμηνούς, and its terminus post querm was generally held to have been the Lex Sempronia de provincia Asia (123 or 122 B.C.), on which the excellent discussion by Hugh Last in Cambridge Ancient History should be consulted.

Twenty years ago A. Passerini published and discussed some other fragmentary texts, which had been found together in the Agora of Smyrna and had received only brief notice. The first contains two fragments of the Senatus Consultum and of the κρῖμα περὶ τῆς χώρας already mentioned.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1-2 , November 1957 , pp. 136 - 138
Copyright
Copyright ©Gianfranco Tibiletti 1957. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Viereck, Sermo Graecus 22 ff. = IGR IV, 262, 1, 5–7.

2 IX (1932) 64–6.

3 See Athenaeum, n.s. XV, 1937, 252Google Scholar, and AE 1935, 173; cf. R. Naumann and S. Kantar, ‘Kleinasien und Byzanz’ ( = Istambuler Forschungen XVII (Berlin, 1950), 69 ffGoogle Scholar. (Naum.), 70–91, 106–114 (N. and K.), pl. 20, 21–3, 44–8; H. Gültekin, , İzmir Agorasi (Smyrna, 1951) 7Google Scholar; cf. pl. on p. 8, pl. on p. 4 of the cover; id., İzmir Tarihi (İzmir, 1952) 50 ff.; cf. plan and view at the end.

4 Frgs. a–c and d, Athenaeum cit., pl. on p. 283; cf. AE l.c.; J. Keil, in Kleinasien u. B. cit. p. 54 ff. The κρῖμα π.τ.χ. is recorded in l. 20 ( = frg. a, l. 15); n 1. 22 ( = frg. a, l. 17) are the words: περὶ χώρας ἥτις ἐν ἀντιλογίᾳ(?) ἐστὶν δημοσ[ιώναις πρὸς Περγαμηνόυς].

5 Frg. e = Passerini, o.c. 273 = M. Segre, ibid. n.s. XVI (1938), 127 = Robert, L., Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler (Manchester, 1939), 227Google Scholar; cf. Keil, l.c.; Broughton, T. R. S., Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of A. C.Johnson Princeton, N.J., 1951) 240Google Scholar, n. 17; Raubitschek, A. E., JRS XLIV (1954), 68, 72, n. 21Google Scholar.

6 l.3.

7 l. 6 f.; cf. l. 12; see Segre, l.c.; cf. below (p. 138, n. 27).

8 l. 13; cf. l.16: […ὑ]πὲρ τῶν ἱερῶν; see Robert, o.c. 229; cf. below (p. 138, n. 32).

9 Frg. f = Passerini, o.c. 276 = Robert, o.c. 229; cf. Keil, l.c.

10 l. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7: […τῶν Ἐ]|λαειτῶν ἕω[ς…]; 9; 11, [χώρας? (according to Passerini: πόλεως?)] ἀρχαίας εἰς τ[…]; l. 12, 13, 15, 16. cf. below (p. 137, n. 25).

11 o.c. 278–282.

12 BC V, 4, 15–7.

13 The Soc. and Econ. Hist, of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1951) 11, 813Google Scholar; cf. pp. 1522 ff., n. 80; 1525, n. 86; cf. Hansen, Esther W., The Attalids of Pergamon (Ithaca, N.Y. 1947) 151Google Scholar; Hill, H., The Roman Middle Class (Oxford, 1952) 67Google Scholar.

14 IGR IV, 292 = Wilhelm, A., Neue Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde V (Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, Philos.-hist. Kl. Sitzber. CCXIV, 4, 1932), 21Google Scholar (cf. Roberts, L., Études Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937) 45–50Google Scholar. The φόροι are mentioned in l. 11.

15 See Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, N.J., 1950) (11) 1045 ff.Google Scholar, n. 34; 1050, n. 1; cf. (1) p. 156, 159.

16 o.c. 124.

17 S.C. in OGI, 435 = IGR IV, 301, l. 15 ff.: πρὸ μιᾶς [ἡμέρας πρὶν ἢ| Ἄττ]αλον τελευτῆσαι; cf. l. 7 and Luzzatto, G. I., Epigrafia Giuridica Greca e Romana (Milan, 1942) 129Google Scholar. The phrase πρὸ μ. ἡ. π. ἤ is probably a translation of ‘pridie quam’, which can mean ‘the day before’ or, in general, ‘ante quam’: cf. Livy XXIII, 31, 10; Gaius III, 100 (the subtle passage where the writer means above all that since neither the day nor month preceding a death can be known until after death has actually taken place, no act, which is assigned to that period, can come into force at the fixed moment; on the contrary, according to the author, the moment of death can be established before the death itself has actually occurred: it is the last moment of life; but cf. now Hubrecht, G., Latomus XV, 1956, 644Google Scholar); Marcell., , Dig. XL, 5, 10, 2Google Scholar; etc. It is necessary to distinguish the situation existing πρὸ μ. ἡ. from the decisions already taken by the King, which at his death would have modified that situation: the Senate would certainly recognize those decisions (cf. below, p. 138, n. 26). But since the last day or hours of Attalus' life had probably been disturbed, the Senate sought to secure itself against the decisions that Attalus might have taken when he was no longer completely master of himself (cf. the case of Micipsa in Sallust, , B. lug. II, 5Google Scholar) and also perhaps against posthumous declarations and apocryphal decrees (the Acta Caesaris come to mind: see Cic., Phil. V, 4, 12Google Scholar; cf. Charlesworth, M. P., CAH X (1934) 2–4Google Scholar).

18 o.c. (1) p. 166; (11) pp. 1055 f, n. 25; cf. (1) p. 156; (11) 1046, n. 36; cf. Cardinali, G., Augustus (Rome, 1938) 180Google Scholar, n. 1. Luzzatto himself was not very certain of the chronology where (o.c. p. 135, cf. p. 139) he tried in vain to identify the measure of 129 and that of C. Gracchus; these are in fact different measures.

19 Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951) I, 504Google Scholar; 11 (1952), 486–498; 647; E. Gray, W., JRS XLII (1952) 125Google Scholar; Gabba, E., Athenaeum n.s. XXXII (1954), 69, n. 3Google Scholar.

20 Brunt, P. A., Latomus XV (1956), 23Google Scholar and n. 3.

21 See Magie, o.c. (1) 112–4, (11) 962–5; cf. 1131, n. 64; 1633 (Index, s.v. Disputes); id., Anatolian Stud. Buckler cit., 181–5; cf. Dizionario Epigrafico started by De Ruggiero, E. IV (Rome, 1957), p. 771Google Scholar.

22 On Asia see Magie, , Rom. R., cit. (1) 114, 141, 310Google Scholar. Further, we may recall at least the well-known Epistula de Amphiarai Oropii agris (IG VII, 413 = Viereck, o.c. 35–40 = Syll.3 747) which describes a procedure analogous to that de agro Pergameno (cf. Passerini, o.c. 256–260, 262 ff.; Rostovtzeff, o.c. (III) 1525; cf. below, p. 138, n. 31).

23 l. 7 ( = frg. a, l. 2 and frg. b, 1. 7); cf. l. 8: […ὅρι?]σμα (or […κτῖ?]σμα: cf. Passerini, o.c. p. 257) ὑπεξερημέ|[νο]|ν πεφυλαγ[μένον ἐστίν μὴ καρπίζεσθαι?], where the immunity (exceptum cautum) of the ager Pergamenus was perhaps explicitly recorded; cf. also l. 5 ( = frg. b, l. 5), l. 22 ( = frg. a, l. 17).

24 Contra, Passerini, o.c. 283.

25 cf. above, p. 136, n. 10, and below, p. 138, n. 35.

26 OGI 338 = IGR IV, 289, 11. 5–8; cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937) 57 ff.Google Scholar, 390, n. 43; Broughton, T. R. S., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome IV (Baltimore, 1938), 505–511Google Scholar. All the sources agree in believing that the Roman state recognized the will (cf. Last, o.c. 30 ff.; cf. Greenidge, A. H. J. and Clay, A. M., Sources for Roman History B.C. 133–70 (Oxford, 1903) 7, 9 ffGoogle Scholar.) and intervened in Asia by virtue of it and not as an act of force using as an excuse the disorders that followed the death of Attalus: further, Rome confirmed the other acts of the kingdom (see above, p. 137, n. 17). The bequests made to Pergamum by the King in his ‘testamentum’ will have appeared to some senators, who would reason in terms of Roman law, to fall into the category of ‘ legata’.

27 cf. the letter of Caesar (frg. e, l. 7, cited above, p. 136, n. 7.

28 A clear account of various cases of this kind is to be found in App., BC I, 18, 74Google Scholar.

29 Dispute between Magnesia on the Meander and Priene, in 143 B.C.; see Syll.3 679 (l. 55, ὅρια), cf, Holleaux, M., Études d'Epigraphie et d'Histoire Grecques I (Paris, 1938), 333–5Google Scholar; Sententia Minuciorum, in 117 B.C.: see CIL I2, 584, cf. p. 739.

30 cf. Passerini, o.c. 258 f.

31 cf. Passerini, o.c. 256, 263 f. Also it may be observed that while the case de Amphiarai agris (cf. above, p. 137, n. 22), which commenced in 74, was settled only on 14th October of the following year (ll. 3–4, 5–6), that de agro Pergameno seems to have been concluded mor e rapidly: it was probably opened in 129 and it is known that judgment was given in June or July of this same year (see l. 9, 21 ( = frg. a, l. 4, 1. 16), cf. Passerini, o.c. 260 ff., 263). So swift a solution would accord with the absence of direct examination of the land and of the boundary stones.

32 Above, p. 136, n. 8; cf. below, n. 38.

33 o.c., p. 283.

34 o.c., p. 127.

35 cf. above, p. 137, n. 25.

36 So L. Robert, Anatol. Stud. cit., 228, n. 3.

37 cf. Keil, o.c. 54–68; Jeanne and L. Robert, RÉG LXV (1952), 172Google Scholar.

38 On the ἀσυλία of Smyrna see Rostovtzeff, o.c. (III) 1363, n. 22; 1440 n. 277.

39 The expression is used, e.g., by Cic., pro Caec. 35, 102Google Scholar; cf. id., Leg. agr. 11, 12, 31; Ascon., In Pis. p. 3, Clark; App. BC I, 53, 231Google Scholar, etc.