¹ See Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti ², p. 166. Cf. also Honigmann, P-W, s.v. ‘Syria,’ col. 1629.

² An exception among recent writers is provided by Fitzler-Seeck, in P-W s.v. ‘Julius (Augustus)’; Ciaceri, Tiberio (1934), 127, n. 2, is not altogether clear in stating his opinion. Anderson, J. G. C. in CAH x (1934), 264Google Scholar, places the surrender of the hostages about 10–9 B.C., but rejects the theory, based on Josephus, Ant. xvi, 253Google Scholar and on slender numismatic evidence, that Phraates was driven from his throne after 20 B.C. and was restored about 10 B.C.

³ See Corbishley, T., JRS xxiv (1934), 43–49Google Scholar, who argues against the traditional dating of Titius’ governorship ‘about 10 B.C.’ He would place the reconciliation of Titius and Archelaus in 13 B.C. on the theory that Josephus' chronology has been confused by the use of two accounts of Herod's quarrel with his sons. The suggestion offers a plausible solution of the inconsistencies in Josephus' narrative. In any case it is possible that Titius went to Syria immediately after Agrippa's departure in 13.

⁴ There is no indication of date in Augustus' classified account in the Res. gestae, ch. 32 ‘[Ad me rex] Parthorum Phrates Orod[i]s filius filios suos nepot[esque omnes misit] in Italiam non bello superatu[s] sed amicitiam nostram per [liberorum] suorum pignora petens.’

⁵ xvi, 1, 28, 748, Φραάτης τοσοῦτον ἐσπούδασε περὶ τὴν φιλίαν τὴν πρὸς Καίσαρα τὸν Σεβαστὸν ὥστε καὶ τὰ τρόπαια ἔπεμψεν ᾶ κατὰ Ῥωμαίων ἀνέστησαν Παρθυαῖοι καὶ καλέσας εἰς σύλλογον Τίτιον τὸν ἐπιστατοῦτα τότε τῆς Συρίας τέτταρας παίδας γνησίους ἐνεχείρισεν ὅμηρα αὐτῷ.

⁶ Orosius vi, 21,29, ‘Parthi … ultro signa quae Crasso interfecto abstulerant ad Caesarem remiserunt regiisque obsidibus traditis firmum foedus fideli supplicatione meruerunt.’ Justin, xlii, 5, 10–12, ‘Post haec finito Hispaniensi bello cum in Syriam ad conponendum Orientis statum venisset, metum Phrahati incussit ne bellum Parthiae vellet irferre. Itaque tota Parthia captivi ex Crassiano sive Antoni exercitu recollecti signaque cum his militaria Augusto remissa. Sed et filii nepotesque Phrahatis obsides Augusto dati plusque Caesar magnitudine nominis sui fecit quam armis facere alius imperator potuisset.’

⁷ Ruhnken's conjecture quin for cuius has been accepted by Mommsen and by various other scholars, but Thomas's explanation of cuius as a reference to Tiberius is preferable. The most recent edition of Velleius, that of Stegmann von Pritzwald (Teubner, 1933), prints cuius but marks the passage as corrupt. The accepted date for the consignment of the hostages has strengthened the impression that the passage is corrupt. The order is awkward, but perhaps not impossible. It is noteworthy that Velleius continues in the next sentence to speak of Tiberius.

⁸ Ant. xviii, 40. Cf. Strabo in the passage following the quotation in n. 5 supra, and Tac. Ann. II, 1Google Scholar.

⁹ Op. cit., 141–2.

¹⁰ Josephus says that the slave was given to Phraates by Julius Caesar, a statement that is chronologically impossible.

¹¹ Dio liii, 33, 2; Justin xlii, 5, 9. See Anderson, J. G. C., CAH x, 262Google Scholar.

¹² During the period 17–12 B.C. when Agrippa as Augustus' colleague was in the East, there seem to have been no legati of Syria and it has been conjectured that that was also the case from 23 B.C. on. Cf. Dio liii, 32, 1 and Josephus, Ant. xv, 350Google Scholar. See Mommsen, op. cit. 163 f. (For two slightly divergent views of Agrippa's position see the recent discussions of Reinhold, M., Marcus Agrippa (1933), 167–175Google Scholar and Jones, H. Stuart, CAH x, 142 f.Google Scholar). But Agrippa was actually in the West in 20 B.C. and Augustus in the East would have needed a legatus to command the Syrian legions when he was making preparations against Parthia.

¹³ At least one of the legions in Syria at this time, the legio iii Gallica, and probably a second, the vi Ferrata, had been with Antonius on his Parthian expedition. See Ritterling, P-W, s.v. ‘Legio,’ col. 1517ff. and 1587 ff.

¹⁴ For full references to the sources, see PIR iii, 328 ff.

¹⁵ On this occasion the Third Legion saved the day. Cf. Plut. Ant. 42; Tac. Hist., iii, 24Google Scholar.

¹⁶ CIl xiv, 3613 (ILS 918) fully discussed by Mommsen, op. cit., 161–178. See fig. 6 in which traces of Mommsen's restoration are to be seen. The marble, which is so fragmentary that only the left edge of the inscription can be determined, has a maximum height of 44 cm. and a width of 109 cm. The letters vary in height from 4 to 4.71; cm. The restoration of several of the lines is fairly sure, especially 1. 2, ‘Augusti popuhque Romani senat[us dis immortalibus].’ The total length of the inscribed lines must have been about 135–138 cm. If the inscription belonged to the base of a statue, it was an unusually large one.

¹⁷ Dio LV, 10; ILS 1023. On elogia, see A. von Premerstein in P-W s.v. and Jabreshefte vii (1904), 215 ff.Google Scholar; xxviii (1933)) 140 ff.; xxix (1934), 60 ff.

¹⁸ See his further discussion of iteratio, op. cit., PP. 179–182. Mommsen notes that iterum is used of legati when the nature of the office is not given, but never when it is indicated. His citations of the use of iterum, ter, etc., for other offices support his interpretation of this inscription.

¹⁹ Dessau, H., Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, ii, 612Google Scholar, n. 4; Groag, E., Jahreshefte xxii (1924)Google Scholar, Beiblatt, 445 ff.; Syme, R., Klio xxxiii (1934), 133 ff.Google Scholar; Anderson, J. G. C., CAH x, 878Google Scholar.

²⁰ l.c. See also Groag's article on Sulpicius (90) in P-W. Cf. Taylor, L. R. in Amer. Journ. Philol., liv (1933), 120 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ l.c. The Tiburtine origin of the stone does not, as Groag believed, support the attribution to Silvanus for it was not found ‘in genau derselben Gegend’ as the monument of the Plautn at Ponte Lucano. Clemente, San (De vulgaris aerae emendanone, Rome, 1793Google Scholar) compares the language of the inscription with the epitaph of Plautius Silvanus and states that the elogium was found not by the Anio but up the slope which leads to the town. His two not quite consistent statements as to the place of origin are (p. 414) ‘in colle Tiburtino extra portam Romanam’ and ‘inter villain Hadrianam et viam Tiburtinam pari fere intervallo’; he was writing nearly thirty years after the discovery.

²² The letter Augustan provisions which made 25 the minimum age for the quaestorship had not yet been fixed. On the age of magistrares under Agustus see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, I³, 572 ff; J. Strous in Sitz. -ber. bayr. Akad. 1929, Heft 8, 19 ff. On Agrippa's age see Reinhold, op.cit., 1 ff.

²³ Cf. Groag, , Jahreshefte xxii, 447–8Google Scholar.

²⁴ Horace, C. i, 7Google Scholar, 21 and Porphyrio ad loc. See Hanslik in P-W, s.v. ‘Munatius’ (30).

²⁵ The indications as to the place where the inscription was found are too vague to determine whether it came from a tomb or a villa. V. Premerstein makes the suggestion that the fragmentary elogium from Tusculum (ILS 8965) which he attributes to M. Vinicius may have come from a villa belonging to the family at Tusculum. Cf. Jabreshefte vii (1904), 223Google Scholar.

²⁶ It is impossible that his earlier governorship under Antony can be referred to; for here, as is regularly the case in elogia, the career is obviously recorded in chronological order. As Syme has pointed out, that is the only possible inference from the use of ‘iterum’ in the last line. On the appointment of proconsuls during the period of Agrippa's regency in the East, see Reinhold, op. cit., 173 ff.

²⁷ Scholars have differed as to whether Agrippa himself received the triumphal ornaments, though the prevailing opinion is that he did not. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht I³, 466. Cf. M. Reinhold, op. cit., 116, n. 60.

²⁸ After a supplicatio the general usually received either a triumph or, under the Empire, triumphal honours (cf. ILS 1023 and our elopium), though Cato reminded Cicero (ad fam. xv, e, 2) that the supplicatio was not always triumphi praerogativa. Augustus, Res gestae, ch. 4, records the fact that there were fifty-five supplicationes in his reign ‘ob res a [me aut per legatos] meos auspicis meis terra m[arique] pr[o]spere gestas.’

²⁹ On the triumphs of Caesar's legati see Mommsen, Staatsrecht I³, 130. On the triumph offered to Tiberius in 9 B.C., when he was legatus Augusti, see Mommsen, Res. gestae,² 129.

³⁰ Dio li, 20. καὶ τοὺς συνικήσαντάς οἱ βουλευτὰς ἐν περιπορφύροις ἱματιοις τὴν πομπὴν αὐτῷ συμπέμψαι.

³¹ Suet. Tib. 14; Dio liv, 9, 6; Horace Epist. 1, 3, 2 ffGoogle Scholar. As this epistle shows, a Titius, perhaps a son of the legatus, a would-be poet who was imitating Pindar, and a Munatius, perhaps a son of Munatius Plancus, were members of Tiberius' studiosa cohors.

³² Dio liv, 9, 5. See Anderson, J. G. C. in CAH x, 260 ffGoogle Scholar.

³³ The only direct evidence for placing Ariobarzanes on the throne of Media is supplied by Res. gestae, ch. 33, ‘A me gentes Parthorum et Medoru[m per legatos] principes earum gentium reges pet[i]tos acceperunt, Par[thi Vononem regis Phr]atis filium regis Orodis nepotem, Medi Ar[iobarzanem] regis Artavazdis filium regis Ariobarzanis nep[otem]. See Mommsen's arguments in Res. gestae ² 110 ff. for dating the crowning of Ariobarzanes in 20. Artavasdes, father of Ariobarzanes, seems to have been the Mede occupying the throne of Armenia Minor who died about this time (Dio liv, 9, 2). Augustus then added Armenia Minor to the kingdom of Cappadocia with which it had been temporarily combined by Caesar. For descendants of this Median line in Rome see ILS 844.

³⁴ Dessau, H., Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit i, 363Google Scholar has suggested this is the reson why we have no details as to the crowning of Artabanus in Aramenia.

³⁵ Mattingly, H., BMC R. Emp. i, 109Google Scholar.

³⁶ Cf. ‘non bello superatu[s]’ of the surrender of the princes, Augustus, Res gestae, ch. 32.

³⁷ The hostility of Tiberius and his friends to Titius, which seems to explain why Titius, like M. Lollius, has suffered in the tradition (cf. Syme, R., JRS xxiii, 1933, 17Google Scholar), may have been connected with the knotty problem of the Armenian and Median succession. In 20 B.C. Archelaus, who had apparently married a member of the Armenian royal house (cf. Mommsen, Res gestae ², 116), co-operated with Tiberius in placing Tigranes on the throne of Armenia. He and Tiberius may have wished to continue under Tigranes the union of Media and Armenia which had existed under Artaxes and may, therefore, have opposed the bestowal of the Median throne on Ariobarzanes. In the settlement there may have been a compromise; for Archelaus received Armenia Minor which the father of the new Median king had lately ruled. The reconciliation between Titius and Archelaus may have had some connection with the change in Archelaus' attitude on the Armenian succession and the subsequent difficulties between Archelaus and Tiberius. In any case Archelaus neglected Tiberius at Rhodes and paid court to Gaius at the time when Gaius was engaged in bringing about a new union of the thrones of Armenia and Media, this time under the rule of the same Ariobarzanes who was placed on the throne of Media in 20. On the relation of the Armenian question to the estrangement between Tiberius and Archelaus see Gwatkin, , Cappadocia as a Roman Procuratorial Province, p. 12 ffGoogle Scholar.