¹ I am grateful to B. D. Meritt and E. Buschor for permission to publish these inscriptions. I am also grateful to F. E. Adcock, M. Bieber, E. Buschor, Th. Buttrey, Ch. Chrestou, W. G. Forrest, J. F. Gilliam, A. C. Johnson, G. Klaffenbach, E. Kunze, J. A. Notopoulos, H. S. Robinson, Th. Sarikakis, G. Stamires, L. R. Taylor, H. A. Thompson, E. Wedeking, and L. C. West, who have generously aided me in various ways. My obligation to E. Vanderpool cannot be adequately expressed in words; without him much of my work would have remained undone.

² Th. Mommsen discussed some of these inscriptions in his excursus on Caesar's dictatorships (CIL, I, p. 452Google Scholar; I²/1, P. 41), and L. R. Taylor collected most of them in an Appendix on the ‘Divine Honours of Caesar’ (The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, 267–8). D. Magie used a few in support of his narrative (The Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 1258–60), and so did Rostovtzeff, M. before him (JRS, VII, 1917, 27–37Google Scholar). Adcock, F. E., finally, indicated in a brief note their general significance (CAH, IX, 722Google Scholar, n. 2).

³ The same story is told by other authors who all seem to go back to Caesar's original account. Cassius Dio (XLI, 61, 4) evidently confused the stories told by Caesar about the marvellous signs which occurred at Tralles and at Elis (BC III, 105, 2Google Scholar); this confusion has been neglected by O. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der röm. Republik, 77, no. 299. The accounts of Pliny, (NH XVII, 244Google Scholar) and of Valerius Maximus (1, 6, 12) are not much better; Valerius' words iustae magnitudinis have been used to amend Caesar's in tecto to intacto. Plutarch told the most complete story (Caesar, 47, 1), which has been repeated ever since; see, e.g., W. Ruge, P-W, s.v. Tralleis, col. 2105, ll. 24–32; E. Boehringer, Der Caesar von Acireale, 12.

⁴ See Broughton, T. R. S., TAPA, LXXIX, 1948, 64–5Google Scholar; The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, 115–6, n. 6.

⁵ W. Judeich (Caesar im Orient, p. 170) erroneously dated the pardon in a later period, because he associated it with another honorary inscription (O) which indeed belongs to the following year. W. Kolbe (Die attischen Archonten von 293/2–31/0 v. Chr., 149) assumed that Caesar restored, in 48 B.C., the democratic constitution of Athens, and he has been followed by P. Graindor (Athènes sous Auguste, 95), J. Day (An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, 130), and Notopoulos, J. A. (Hesperia XVIII, 1949, 5Google Scholar). S. Accame showed, however, that this constitutional change occurred at a later date and may not be associated with Julius Caesar at all (Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto, 174–5).

⁶ T. R. S. Broughton, o.c. (see above, p. 65, n. 4), p. 241, listed Caelius without his cognomen and without a reference to the honorary inscription from Demetrias on which it occurs. It is known that tribunes could be elected in absentia, but no instance is given by G. Niccolini (Il tribunato delta plebe, 94) for the period after 320 B.C.; and yet, it seems unlikely that Caelius should have been present during his election. His would also be the first instance from Republican times in which a tribune is listed in an inscription as designatus; Niccolini (o.c., 167) gives several examples from Imperial times (see Cicero, , Ad Brutum, I, 1, 1Google Scholar; Phil. XIII, 26).

Attention may be called to two other Greek inscriptions referring to Roman magistrates who may or may not have held office during the Republic. Broughton listed as proconsul of Macedonia in 53 B.C. a certain C. Cosconius, C.f. (o.c., 230 and 233, note 1; see also id, Historia II, 1953, 212) without referring to the publication of the honorary inscription in IG, II², 4106, or to the comments made on this text by Oliver, J. H. (AJP, LXVIII, 1947, 151, n. 7Google Scholar; LXIX, 1948, 435), who insists that the man was proconsul of Achaia during the Empire.

On the other hand, Broughton failed to include Q. Acutius Flaccus, whose honorary inscription was found in Thessaly (N. I. Giannopoulos, Ἁρχ. Δελτ., X, 1926, παρ., 51, no. 2), perhaps because Groag (o.c., col. 46; see also PIR, 1², 16, no. 99) dated him in the Empire. I am not sure that this date is correct.

⁷ See P. Graindor, Hérode Atticus, 5–7; W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen ², 97–8; Dinsmoor, W. B., Hesperia, IX, 1940, 50Google Scholar; J. Day, o.c. (see above, n. 5), 130, n. 59; Robinson, H. S., AJA, XLVII, 1943, 302Google Scholar.

⁸ For this date, see P. Graindor, La Guerre d'Alexandrie, 35, n. 3; T. R. S. Broughton, o.c. (see above, n. 4), 284–5, no. 1; Ehrenberg, V., AJP, LXXIV, 1953, 129Google Scholar.

⁹ See Ganter, F. L., Zeitschr. f. Num., XIX, 1895, 185Google Scholar; Drumann, W. and Groebe, P., Geschichte Roms, III ², 739Google Scholar; M. Rostovtzeff, l.c. (see above, n. 2), 34; Holmes, T. R., The Roman Republic, III, 566Google Scholar; M. A. Levi, La costituzione romana dai Gracchi a Giulio Cesare, 208–9; Siber, H., Zeitschr. d. Savigny-Stiftung, LV, Rom. Abt., 1935, 112Google Scholar; Last, H., JRS, XXXVII, 1947, 162Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See Schwabe, P., Klio, XIX, 1925, 354–5Google Scholar; J. Carcopino, Points de vue sur l'impérialisme romain, 119, n. 2; H. A. Andersen, Cassius Dio und die Begründung des Principats, 23–5; U. Wilcken, Abh. d. Preuss. Ak. d. Wiss., 1940, no. 1; Degrassi, A., Inscr. Ital., XIII/I, 132–3Google Scholar; V. Ehrenberg, l.c. (see above, n. 8), 129–31.

In support of Wilcken's chronology, a new interpretation may be given of the duration of Caesar's fourth dictatorship which came to an end between 9th and 15th February (new style), 44 B.C., when Caesar assumed the perpetual dictatorship; see Hohl, E., Klio, XXXIV, 1942, 113Google Scholar, with the correction on p. 117; T. R. S. Broughton, o.c. (see above, n. 4), 317–8; A. Alföldi, Bull. de la Soc. Roy. des Lett. de Lund, 1952–3, 6, 14–7, 36 (the alternative date suggested there, c. 1st March, does not affect the argument presented here). Instead of assuming that Caesar suddenly decided to resign his fourth dictatorship (or the second term of his ten-year dictatorship) and to enter upon the perpetual dictatorship which had been voted shortly after the victory at Munda (Plutarch, Caesar, 57, 1; see also Degrassi, o.c., 133–4), we must realize that on 14th February, 44 B.C. (Wilcken, o.c, 24) Caesar had actually been continuously dictator for 24 months, since 14th February of the new calendar corresponds to 13th April of the old which was still current after the battle of Thapsus; see Drumann-Groebe, o.c. (see above, n. 9), 818. It is entirely possible that Caesar's appointment as dictator for the third time actually took place on 13th April, 46 B.C., seven days after the battle of Thapsus (see Broughton, o.c., 294–5); L. Casson has recently shown (TAPA, LXXXII, 1951, 139Google Scholar) that it took no more than four days to reach Ostia from Africa, and it took Caesar himself three days to reach Sardinia from Utica (Bell. Afr., 98). Accordingly, Caesar's fourth dictatorship may actually have come to an end on 14th February, 44 B.C., at which time he assumed not the fifth dictatorship but the perpetual dictatorship which had been voted to him earlier. The evidence presented by the Thespian inscription (S) should warn us, however, not to accept this suggestion as an established fact; see the solution offered below, p. 71, n. 13.

A few words may be added here about the dates given for Caesar's dictatorships in the Fasti (Inscr. Ital., XIII/1, pp. 56–7), because there Caesar's second, third, and fourth dictatorships are listed in the years 47, 45, and 44, in which each of these offices was completed; see Degrassi, o.c., 133. The Fasti show, therefore, clearly that Caesar's second dictatorship came to an end before the beginning of the year 46 B.C.; see also, below, n. 12. Passing reference may be made to a series of recent studies on the monument carrying the Fasti Capitolini and on the date of their publication: Taylor, L. R., Cl. Ph., XLI, 1946, 1–11Google Scholar; XLV, 1950, 84–95; XLVI, 1951, 73–80; XLVII, 1952, 137–42 (with L. A. Holland); Holland, L. B., AJA, LVII, 1953, 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ The coin carrying the legend COS TER (without any mention of the dictatorship), which has been discussed in this connection by P. Schwabe (see above, n. 10), is well illustrated by E. Boehringer, o.c. (see above, n. 3), plate 8, 1 (see also p. 7); see also Cesano, S. L., Rendiconti d. Pont. Acc. Rom. d'Arch., XXIII/IV, 1950, 113Google Scholar; E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, 169, no. 117; V. Ehrenberg, l.c. (see above, n. 8), 129.

¹² While Schwabe tried to reconcile the coin legend COS.TER.DICT.ITER (well illustrated in the Sales Catalogue of the Sammlung E. J. Haeberlin, Plate 18, nos. 2694–6, and by Cesano, l.c. (see above, n. 11), 107) with his chronology (see, above n. 10), Carcopino suggested (see above, n. 10) that Caesar did not hold the second dictatorship when this office was mentioned (together with the third consulship) on the coins. The coin legend may simply tell that Caesar had been dictator twice but not that he was dictator for the second time when the coin was struck; see also A. Degrassi, o.c. (see n. 10), 132–3; V. Ehrenberg, l.c. (see n. 8), 129; but compare Last, H., CR, LVIII, 1944, 16–17Google Scholar. One may refer for a parallel to a coin of Antony which mentions his consulship a year after he held it: H. A. Grueber, , Coins of the Roman Republic, II, 392–3Google Scholar, 2; E. A. Sydenham, o.c. (see n. 11), 188, no. 1157. See also the discussion of the Chian inscription (N p. 68).

It is possible that, when the coin in question was struck, early in 46 B.C. (Sydenham, o.c., 170, no. 1023, attributed to Africa), some people thought that Caesar's second dictatorship to which he had been appointed late in 48 B.C. (see, above, n. 8) did no officially begin until late in 47 B.C., when Caesar actually entered Rome; see, below, n. 13.

¹³ The problem remains how to reconcile the starting date of Caesar's third dictatorship suggested here, 25th July, and that suggested above (n. 10), 13th April. It must be remembered that Caesar actually entered upon his first dictatorship only after he reached Rome; see Appian, , Civil Wars, II, 48, 196Google Scholar; cf. M. A. Levi, o.c. (see n. 9), 207–8; A. Degrassi, o.c. (see n. 10), 132. Moreover, it was considered exceptional that he should have entered upon his second dictatorship while absent from Rome (Cassius Dio, XLII, 21, 1); see, above, n. 12. It may accordingly have been expected that Caesar would begin his third dictatorship after his official return to Rome; this explains the date according to the Thespian inscription. Yet, if Caesar had permitted people to consider that his third dictatorship became effective only after he entered upon it in the city of Rome, he would have implicitly admitted that he could not have acted as dictator during his second dictatorship until he entered Rome, a few weeks before the term of this office actually came to an end. This would have meant that the legality of the arrangements which he made during 47 B.C. both in Egypt and in Asia Minor might have been questioned. In order to escape this eventuality, Caesar may have decided to follow the precedent of his second and not of his first dictatorship, and to reckon the beginning of his third dictatorship not from his entry into Rome but from his appointment. The illegality of this procedure is indicated by a passage in Cassius Dio (XLIII, 33, 1) which states that Lepidus declared himself magister equitum; this must have happened while Caesar was still in Africa, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the offices of the dictator and of his magister were coterminous. A much disputed passage of the Bellum Hispaniense (2) can now be interpreted satisfactorily (see A. Klotz, Kommentar zum Bellum Hispaniense, 40), and the same applies to a letter from Caesar to the city of Mytilene, dated in the same period; see IG, XII, Suppl. (1939), p. 11Google Scholar, no. 35. In both cases, Caesar is called dictator for the third time and dictator designate for the fourth time. If his fourth dictatorship was to commence in February, 45 B.C. (new style), it is not surprising that he should be called designatus dictator quarto as far back as the last month of 46 B.C.; see, above, n. 8, and V. Ehrenberg, l.c. (see n. 8), 131, n. 38; A. Alföldi, l.c. (see above, n. 10), 16, nn. 8, 9.

¹⁴ See D. McFayden, The History of the Title Imperator under the Roman Empire; J. Carcopino, o.c. (see n. 10), 127, n. 5 (on p. 128). The Greek inscriptions assembled here, all but the following (T) being earlier than 45 B.C., neither confirm nor contradict McFayden's thesis; they tend to show, however, as will be pointed out below, that Caesar insisted on the title imperator long before it may have become part of his name.

¹⁵ Compare ILS, 71.

¹⁶ It is, moreover, an altar and not a statue base. For the other texts, all altar inscriptions, see IG, XII/2, 164–6; IGR, IV, 79–80; IG, XII, Suppl. (1939), 19Google Scholar, no. 46; S. Accame, o.c. (see above, n. 5), 95–9; Riv. di Fil., LXXIV, 1946, 114–6Google Scholar; Klaffenbach, G., Mus. Helv., VI, 1949, 222–3Google Scholar. For the association of Pompey with members of Augustus' family, see R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, 317; Brown, F. E., Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, I, 761Google Scholar, n. 4.

¹⁷ See Curtius, L., Röm. Mitt., XLVII, 1932, 229Google Scholar; B. Schweitzer, Die Bildkunst der röm. Republik, 106. Compare also Bernoulli, J. J., Röm. Ikonographie, I, 145–81Google Scholar; R. West, Röm. Porträit-Plastik, I, chapters V–VI; O. Vessberg, o.c. (see, above, n. 3), pp. 138–48; K. Schefold, Orient, Hellas und Rom, 198; E. Simon, Arch. Anz., 1952, 126–8, n. 7.

¹⁸ See L. Curtius, l.c. (see n. 17), p. 230; E. Boehringer, o.c. (see n. 3), pp. 9 and 12; E. Simon, l.c. (see n. 17), 135, n. 23. Compare the convincing identification of Pompey's portrait by F. E. Brown, o.c. (see n. 16), 761–64.

¹⁹ According to Cassius Dio (XLIV, 4, 4), statues of Caesar were to be erected in the cities, but although this ordinance is not dated (Cassius Dio, XLIV, 4, 1) it can hardly have been as early as 48 B.C. when many of the statues were erected; see L. R. Taylor, o.c. (see, above, n. 2), 268–9. Cassius Dio reports (XLII, 19, 3) that statues of Caesar were to be erected after the victory at Pharsalus, but one hesitates to connect this passage with the statues erected by the various Greek cities.

²⁰ Little can be said, at this moment, about the evidence which the pedestals themselves provide for the kind of statues they once supported. Only one of them (I) was certainly of marble and of considerable size. The Delian base (B) contains on top a socket for insertion of a marble stele (see pl. III), but since the base consisted of two joining blocks, one cannot be sure that this statue of Caesar was of marble. One of the Chian bases (N) supported a bronze statue. It may be significant that so many of the pedestals consisted of more than one slab: B, J, K, M, O, P, R. Five of the bases had been used before as statue bases: C. H, I, R, and perhaps also B.

²¹ Magie, o.c. (see n. 2), 1258–9, nn. 3–4, is inclined to date Caesar's grant in 48 B.C. and he assumed that the ‘monument recording it was erected somewhat later’. Rostovtzeff, however, suggested, l.c. (see above, n. 2), 30, a date late in 47 B.C.; see also his general account of Caesar's position in the East, in The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 995–9.

²² See E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus, 505; L. R. Taylor, o.c. (see above, n. 2), 59–61; Cl. Ph., XXXVII, 1942, 423; Vogt, J., Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, II, 1144Google Scholar, n. 16 (referring to P. Hundeck's unpublished Freiburg dissertation on ‘Caesar als Pontifex Maximus’); A. Alföldi, l.c. (see above, n. 10), 31, 34.

²³ Caesar is referred to simply as Imperator in an Amphictionic decree of 48 B.C.: F. de Delphes, III/1, no. 480, l. 3; Dittenberger, Sylloge ³, 761; Holleaux, M., RÉA, XIX, 1917, 93Google Scholar, n. 4. Attention may be called to M. Grant's discussion of Caesar's position as Imperator, in From Imperium to Auctoritas, 408–14; see also L. Wickert, Klio, XXX, 1937, 244–53; S. L. Cesano, l.c. (see above, n. 11), 105, n. 7, and 115, n. 2; Aymard, A., RÉA, L, 1948, 263Google Scholar; A. Alföldi, l.c. (see above, n. 10), 20–33.

²⁴ See Deutsch, M. E., Antony's Funeral Speech (UCPCP, IX/5, 1928), 135–8Google Scholar, especially 136, n. 30. For new suggestions on ‘Augustus’, see T. Whatmough's review of Erkell, H., Augustus, etc., in Cl. Ph., XLIX, 1954, 207–8Google Scholar.

²⁵ According to Cassius Dio (XLIV, 4, 5), a pair of statues of Caesar was erected on the rostra representing him as saviour of the citizens and as deliverer of the city from siege; it is tempting to connect this passage with the pairs of statues erected in some of the Greek cities. See, however, Alföldi, A., Mus. Helv., IX, 1952, 230Google Scholar, and l.c. (see above, n. 10), 20, n. 8.

²⁶ For this phrase, see Cassius Dio, XLIII, 14, 6, who reports that after the victory at Thapsus it was voted to erect a statue of Caesar standing on the oikoumene and inscribed ἡμίθεος: see E. Simon, l.c. (see n. 17), 131, n. 12, and 134, n. 22. Considering the fact that in the inscription from Karthaia (H) Caesar is called θεός (and the same applies to that from Demetrias, I) and σωτὴρ τῆς οἰκουμένης, one may assume that the monuments at Karthaia (H) and at Demetrias (I) were set up after the victory at Thapsus, at about the same time as the statue at Thespiai (S); for this date, see also Heinen, H., Klio, XI, 1911, 132Google Scholar, n. 3.

²⁷ Attention may be called to the honours granted Caesar after his victory at Pharsalus (Cassius Dio, XLII, 20, 1); see, however, V. Ehrenberg, l.c. (see above, n. 8), 130–1.

²⁸ See also Last, H., JRS, XXXIV, 1944, 119Google Scholar; L. Berlinger, Beiträge zur inoffiziellen Titulatur der rom. Kaiser, 20–1, 48; Robert, L., Hellenica, VI, 38–42Google Scholar; A. D. Nock, ‘The Joy of Study,’ Papers … presented to … Frederick C. Grant, 131–40; A. Alföldi, Festgabe f. A. v. Salis, 208–11; Mus. Helv., IX, 1952, 230Google Scholar.

²⁹ F. d. Delphes, III/1, no. 1480, ll. 22–3. A similar phrase, occurs in an earlier honorary decree (F. d. Delphes, III/3, no. 124); see G. Daux, Delphes au II^e et au I^er siècle, 603.

³⁰ The evidence on this man and on his activity has been assembled by Hirschfeld, G., JHS, VII, 1886, 286–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also G. Daux, o.c. (see above, n. 29), 407–9 and 604–5; D. Magie, o.c. (see above, n. 2), 1259–60, n. 5 (with full bibliography).

³¹ See L. R. Taylor, o.c. (see above, n. 2), 268–9; J. Vogt, o.c. (see above, n. 22), 1138–46 (with bibliography). Degrassi, A. has published, Clara Rhodos, X, 1941, 203 ff.Google Scholar, no. 1, a Coan inscription erected by the resident Roman business men in recognition of the city's devotion (pietas) to [C. Iulium Cae]sarem ponti[ficem maxim]um [pa]trem [patriae deum]que. I suspect that this document refers not to Julius Caesar but to the Emperor Claudius, who granted immunitas to Cos; for a similar document, cf. ILS, 217.

³² Caesar's attachment to Aphrodite is also emphasized by Cassius Dio, XLIII, 43, 3. For divine honours granted to Caesar, see also H. Heinen, l.c. (see n. 26), 120–37; G. Herzog-Hauser, P-W, Suppl. IV, 817–20; Wickert, L., Neue Jahrb., IV, 1941, 14–7Google Scholar; W. Steidle, Sueton und die antike Biographie, 60–7.

³³ See W. Judeich, o.c. (see above, n. 7), 99, n. 9; IG, II², 3250; M. and Levensohn, E., Hesperia, XVI, 1947, 68–9Google Scholar.