^{page 38 note 1} The most recent comprehensive work is L. Hahn, Römische Beamte griechischer und orientalischer Abstammung in der Kaiserzeit (Festgabe des alten Gymnasiums, Nürnberg, 1926). See also Dessau's article in Hermes xlv, 1910Google Scholar. Stech, Senatores Romani qui fuerunt inde a Vespasiano usque ad Traiani exitum (Klio, Beiheft x, 1912) gives an exhaustive list which it is a pity he did not carry on further, as Lully, G., De senatorum Romanorum patria (Rome, 1918)Google Scholar, is not to be relied on in the case of oriental senators. It will be apparent how much I owe to the prosopographical articles of E. Groag in Pauly-Wissowa and to Stein, A., Der römische Ritterstand (Munich, 1927)Google Scholar. I wish also to express my thanks to Mr. H. M. Last, without whose encouragement this would not have been written.

^{page 38 note 2} Except where the context shows ‘Greek’ to mean a native of Greece proper, ‘Greek’ and ‘Oriental’ are used throughout indifferently.

^{page 39 note 1} See Stech, op. cit.

^{page 39 note 2} The locus classicus is Cicero pro Flacco, passim, esp. § 4, on their lack of religio. Those who are familiar with the inscriptions will appreciate the remark, § 13, that to be an Olympionices “est apud Graecos, quoniam de eorum gravitate dicimus, prope maius et gloriosius quam Romae triumphasse.” He makes a distinction between the inhabitants of Greece Proper, Athens and Sparta, and those of Asia Minor, which was perhaps generally admitted, though here it suited his case to stress it. § 25 shows that one reason was the memory of the barbarities committed in Asia on Roman citizens during the Mithridatic War. Chapot, Le monde romain, E. T. 1928, p. 173, thinks that part of the prejudice was due to the Greeks having been forced by circumstances to piracy. Note that even Lachares, head of the Spartan family of the Euryclids λῃστείας αἰτίᾳ περιπεσὼν ἑπελεκίσθη, Plutarch M. Antonius 67. Juvenal's well-known remarks about the Greeks, e.g. iii, 28, were by his time probably less representative of general feeling.

^{page 39 note 3} Plutarch, Praecept. reip. ger. 805A.

^{page 39 note 4} I.G.R.R. iii, 500, ἄρχει τὸ] γένος ἀπό τε Κλε[άνδρου καὶ ᾿Αμυκλᾶ] | Αακεδαιμονί[ων, and O.G.I., 497, ἡ Κιβυρατῶν πόλις ἄποικος Α[ακεδαιμονίων καὶ][συγγενὶς ᾿Αθηναίων.

^{page 39 note 5} The historical parallels, frequent in Dio, are invariably from the fifth century. It is interesting that Aristeides, in εἰς Ῥώμην 69, p. 110 K., tries to discredit it.

^{page 39 note 6} Praecept. reip. ger., passim esp. p. 813 E, 814 A and c, 824 c.

^{page 39 note 7} The emphasis which Augustus put on the recovery of the standards in the Res Gestae and, pictorially. on the statue from Prima Porta, would seem intended especially for the oriental mind, accustomed to symbolic actions. Livy feels, despite his determination to avoid digressions (ix, 17), “tamen tanti regis ac ducis mentio, quibus saepe tacitis cogitationibus volutavi animum, eas evocat in medium, ut quaerere libeat quinam eventus Romanis rebus, si cum Alexandro foret bellatum, futurus fuerit.” He then maintains at length and with some heat that Alexander would have found his match in any of the great Roman generals of the period. Especially significant is his indignant cry (ix, 18, 6). “Id vero periculum erat, quod levissimi ex Graecis qui Parthorum quoque contra nomen Romanum gloriae favent dictitare Solent, ne maiestatem nominis Alexandri, quern ne fama quidem illis notum arbitror fuisse, sustinere non potuerit populus R., et…adversus eum nemo ex tot proceribus Romanis vocem liberam missurus fuerit! “A new inscription from Ephesus (Keil, Fahresh. 1926, p. 263) shows there was there still in the time of Trajan a priesthood of Alexander; the holder, a court physician called T. Statilius Crito, being described as ἰερέα ᾿Ανακτόρων καὶ ᾿Αλεξάν|δρου βασιλέως καὶ Γαίου καὶ Λουκίου |τῶν ὲκγόνων τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ.

^{page 40 note 1} Dio, , Borysthenicus xxxvi, 17Google Scholar (Budé ed., 11, p. 17).

^{page 40 note 2} Dio xxxi.

^{page 40 note 3} Tac. Ann. iv, 36Google Scholar; Suet. Tib. 37; Cass. Dio lvii, 24.

^{page 40 note 4} Notiziano archeologico iv.; J.R.S. 1927, p. 34, vide especially lines 17 ff.

^{page 40 note 5} I.G.R.R. iv, 1031. It looks, however, more like an outburst of their fellow townsmen. The stone was engraved with another inscription a century later at Astypalaea; so perhaps they were ashamed of this permanent record of their remarkable behaviour, and got rid of it.

^{page 40 note 6} By Stein, op. cit., p. 397.

^{page 40 note 7} By Groag, discussing Ti. Julius Celsus Polemaeanus, P.-W. x, 544 ff.

^{page 40 note 8} e.g. the inscription of the bibliotheca Celsiana at Ephesus. It is interesting, as Dessau (Hermes, loc. cit.) in trying to disprove an Ephesian origin for C. Vibius Salutaris points out, that his tribe, Oufentina, besides being uncommon there, is mis-spelt on the Latin side of the titulus (O.G.I. 480) as Vof.

^{page 41 note 1} So Dessau, loc. cit. p. 23. He couples the citizenship and a knowledge of Latin with “einige Kentniss des römischen Rechts” as essential to a candidate for honours.

^{page 41 note 2} This is also, surely, why Ti. Celsus Polemaeanus and C. Julius Severus were adlecti inter aedilicios and tribunicios respectively, and not as usual inter praetorios. They had not reached praetorian age: it was not done simply because they were orientals. The habitual preference for young men also explains, in part, why Augustus passed over Agrippa and Tiberius in favour of Marcellus and C. and L. Caesar.

^{page 41 note 3} This aspect of the prejudice was probably more real than that based on a consciousness of different nationality, which scarcely existed in any marked degree till recent times.

^{page 41 note 4} See P.I.R. s.v. 25.

^{page 41 note 5} I.G.R.R. iv, 55.

^{page 42 note 1} Strabo. p. 618 c.

^{page 42 note 2} Praetor in A.D. 15; Tac. Ann. i, 72Google Scholar and Dessau I.L.S. 9349.

^{page 42 note 3} Tac. Ann. vi, 18Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 4} Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, p. 546 M. fin. Cf. at Acraephii, Dessau I.L.S. 8792. The Assii (S.I.G. (3) 797) describe it as ἡ κατ᾿ εὐχὴν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις έλπισθεισα ἡγεμονία and speak of τοῦ | ἡδίστου ἀνθρώποις αἰῶνο[ς] νῦν ἐνεστῶτος. Also at Cyzicus (S.I.G.(3), 798). Here, as in their later erection of a triumphal arch to Claudius with his favourite title of “devictor xi regum,” they were no doubt working with an eye on their lost libertas.

^{page 42 note 5} Suet. Claud. 16, 2 and Dio LX, 17, 4.

^{page 42 note 6} Suet. ib. 42.

^{page 42 note 7} Dio LX, 7, 2. For the name Ti. Claudius at Sparta see Kolbe in I.G. v., p. xvi.

^{page 42 note 8} Cf. Pliny, ad Traian. 70–71. The emperor who favoured the grandfather of Dio Chrysostom and gave him the citizenship (Dio xli, 6) would be Claudius (so von Arnim, Dio von Prusa, 1898, p. 123).

^{page 42 note 9} e.g. C. Stertinius Xenophon I.G.R.R. iv, 1086, Ἑλλη|νικῶν ἀποκριμάτων and his brother Ti. Claudius Cleonymus I.G.R.R. iv, 1060, trib. leg. Primigen. both of Cos. Ti. Claudius Balbillus, later viceroy of Egypt (see Jones, Stuart in J.R.S. xvi, 18–20Google Scholar). C. Julius Aquila of Amastris (Dessau I.L.S. 5883, road-building “de sua pecunia in honorem Ti. Claudi Germanici”) received praetorian ornamenta; Tac. Ann. xii, 15Google Scholar and 21.

^{page 43 note 1} Amer. Journ. Arch., 1926, p. 390. Ti. Claudi Caesar.∣Aug. Germanici ∣ procuratori ∣ C. Julio C.f. Fab. Laconi ∣ augur, agonothet. ∣ Isthm. et Caesareon. ∣ Ilvir quinq. cur. fla. Aug. ∣ Cydichus Simonis ∣ Thisbeus b.m.

Ib., p. 393. C. Julio Laconis f. Euryclis n. Fab. Spartiati[co ∣ p]rocuratori Caesaris et Augustae [Agrippinae, trib. mil., equo. p. ∣ exornato a divo Claudio, flam.] divi Iuli, pontif.. IIvir. quinq. iter.,∣ agonotheti Isthmon et Caese. ∣ [S]ebasteon archieri domus Aug. [in] perpetuum primo Achaeon. ∣ Ob virtutem eius et animosam ∣ f[usi]ss[im]amque erga domum divinam et erga coloniam nostr. ∣ munificentiam tribules ∣ tribu Calpurnia ∣ [pa]trono.

^{page 43 note 2} Groag in P.-W. x, 580, ff. 658 ff., 839–40. C. Julius Eurycles Herklanus (in I.G. v., 971) is τριακοστὸν καὶ ἑκ|τὸν ἀπὸ Διοσκούρων. On Lachares, see p. 39, n, 2; C. Iulius Eurycles, Strabo viii, 366; C. Iulius Laco, Tac. Ann. xvi., 18Google Scholar (Laconem e primoribus Achaeorum Caesar adflixerat); C. Iulius Spartiaticus, see below.

^{page 43 note 3} This, as the editors of the inscriptions in A.J.A. notice, is interesting testimony to the extent to which Agrippina really was regarded as co-regent at the beginning of Nero's reign.

^{page 43 note 4} loc. cit. Among the recent inscriptions from Gytheion, published by Kougeas, S. B. in Ἑλληνικά i (1928); pp. 7Google Scholar sqq. and discussed by Kornemann in Neue Dokumente zum lakonischen Kaiserkult (Abhandlungen der schlesischen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Cultur, geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe, Heft 1) is one containing the regulations for the Καισάρεια (pp. 8–10). As at Sparta, these were held together with the Εὐρύκλεια, and after five days in honour of the imperial family and one in memory of T. Quinctius Flamininus, there was to be μίαν μὲν εἰς μνήμην Γαίου Ἰουλίου Εὐρυκλέου[ς]| εὐεργέτου τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν ὲν πολλοῖς γενομένου, δευτέραν δὲ εἰς τειμὴν Γα|ίου Ἰουλίου Αάκωνος κηδεμόνος τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν φυλακῆς καὶ σωτηρία[ς] | ὄντος. As the date is probably AD. 15, it is clear that Laco was in enjoyment of his principate at the beginning of Tiberius's reign, and was deprived soon after, since Strabo's record of it was written about 18–19. It seems probable also from the honourable way in which the inscription speaks of Eurycles that at the time of his, presumably, recent death he was in full possession of his rights, despite his having suffered banishment at least once. If so, the words of Strabo to the effect that ‘the régime was soon suppressed, as he [Augustus] forbore of necessity, but his son [Tiberius] had given up all this friendship’ will mean that Augustus disgraced Eurycles only temporarily, being aware of his prestige in the East (cf. Jos. Bell. Jud. i, 515Google Scholar, on his reception by Herod) and remembering that he had been the only Greek of influence on his side at Actium, but that Tiberius after a time found it impossible to continue the forbearance of Augustus, and felt less in honour bound to do so now that Eurycles himself was dead.

Kornemann (loc. cit. p. 28) thinks that the procuratorships held later by Laco and Spartiaticus were in the imperial financial service. These posts were surely at this time not sufficiently honourable for a Euryclid to have accepted.

^{page 44 note 1} Bücheler (Rhein. Mus. 1898, pp. 166 ff.) thought that he is the Σπαρτιατικὸς ὁ Λακεδαιμόνιος mentioned by Stobaeus, , Flor. xl, 9, p. 750Google Scholar, excerpting from Musonius' Ὅτι οὐ κακὸν ἡ φυγή. Perhaps S. was M.'s companion in exile on the island of Gyaros, and there recovered of his illness. Groag (P.W. l.c.) thinks his exile connected with the disturbances in Sparta mentioned by Philostratus, , Vita Ap. iv, 33Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 2} I.G. vi, 280, has ὲπὶ Λάκωνος, πατρονομοῦντος δὲ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ Λάκωνος τοῦ υἱοῦ. Laco I here is Herklanus's father and Laco II his elder brother, who seems to have died before him. They were evidently still in Sparta, but in what position we cannot tell.

^{page 44 note 3} S.I.G. (3), 814.

^{page 44 note 4} Dio lxiii, 14, 3.

^{page 44 note 5} With some hesitation I suggest that Nero admitted also C. Antius Aulus Julius Auli f. Volt. Quadratus, of Pergamum. The ordinary view that he must have been adlectus inter praetorios by Vespasian (Stech op. cit. p. 179) does not explain (1) how Celsus, adlectus inter aedilicios by Vespasian, ranks as senior to him—legatus (? iuridicus) of the United Provinces under Vespasian and Titus (Dessau, 8971), before Quadratus under Domitian (I.G.R.R. iv, 1686), and consul in 92 a year before Quadratus; (2) why all his innumerable inscriptions are silent on this point, giving nothing before leg. pr. pr. Ponti et Bithyniae. Oriental inscriptions are so verbose that silence on the details of this great honour is significant. In the unlikely event of his having inherited senatorial rank, the only explanation is that the earlier part of his career was favoured by Nero. At first ignored by Vesp., late in the reign, perhaps at the instigation of Titus, he began to be employed in provinces, and subsequently owed so much to the Flavians and Trajan that he avoided all mention of his career under Nero, whose memory had been condemned. It should be said that the first certain record of him in the Acta Arvalium is not till 78 (C.I.L. vi, 2056). The fragmentary pieces for 72 (ib. 2053) might be restored in any number of ways, e.g. [L. Verati]us Qu[adratus] and [Ti.] Iulius [Candid]us [Marius Celsus], (who was Master in 75 (ib. 32361), even if 32360 says that the fragment Ti. Iuli. does not belong to 72). The objection to this view is that, if Quadratus were procos. Asiae in 108–9 (Heberdey, Fahresh. 1905, p. 231–7), he would by then be a little elderly; but the farther back his birth can de dated, the easier it is to fit in his descendants, the other great problem of the family. See p. 59, note 2.

^{page 44 note 6} If later he served in legio III Cyrenaica as tribunus (angusticlavius).

^{page 44 note 7} I.G.R.R. iv, 644–5.

^{page 44 note 8} So Fluss in P.-W. IIA, 1757–8.

^{page 45 note 1} E.g. I.G.R.R. iv, 655.

^{page 45 note 2} See Groag, P.-W. x, 947–8, against Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, 638, ff.; 673. ff.

^{page 45 note 3} O.G.I. 475.

^{page 45 note 4} T.'s answer ἀπὸ Βονωνίας τῆς ὲν Γαλλίᾳ in I.G.R.R. iv, 1693 and Dessau, 9463.

^{page 45 note 5} I.G.G.R. iv, 645.

^{page 45 note 6} One would not think that Nero, as some more cautious emperors might, would have hesitated to remedy the technical defect that they had not the citizenship. As they thought it worth while to engrave the rescript, the lost lines may have mentioned the gift of this, or of some other, favour.

^{page 46 note 1} Suet. Vesp. 8. According to Paus. vii, 17, they ἐς ἐμφύλιον στάσιν προήχθησαν, and Vespasian took away Nero's concessions ἀπομεμαθηκέναι φήσας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τὸ Ἑλληνικόν.

^{page 46 note 2} Cf. his reception in the theatre at Antioch, Tac. Hist. ii. 80Google Scholar. The remark that Vespasian was ‘omnium quae diceret atque ageret arte quadam ostentator’ gains point from the later disillusion of the Greeks. A third-century inscription (Keil, Forschungen in Ephesos III, no. 38) shows that, as was to be expected, he had a temple, as divus, at Ephesus.

^{page 46 note 3} As Groag maintains (P.-W. x, 543 ff.) against Ritterling, , Fahresh. x (1907), p. 305Google Scholar. Tac. Hist. ii, 82Google Scholar, mentions among Vespasian's occupations at Alexandria ‘plerosque senatorii ordinis honore percoluit’; and in Dessau 8971 Celsus is described as ‘adlectus a Vespasiano,’ not ‘a Vespasiano et Tito censoribus’ or ‘a Vespasiano censore,’ as are most of those admitted in 73.

^{page 46 note 4} The interest of Titus in these oriental senators is conjectural, but supported by the remarkable fact that his appointment of Celsus to command legio IV Scythica is the first known instance of an oriental being made legatus legionis. (See further, Appendix, p. 64). Titus was certainly more sympathetic to the East than his father, and inscriptions from that region show that he was considered as colleague on equal terms with him. Cf. Suet. Titus 4.

^{page 46 note 5} Suet. Vesp. 19.

^{page 46 note 6} I.G.R.R. iii, 173; see Groag, P.-W. x, p. 153. Vespasian also admitted C. Caristanius Cf. Ser. Fronto, who commanded legio IX Hispana in Britain, and at the accession of Domitian was governor of Lycia (Dessau, 9485). He and his ancestors were domiciled at Antioch, but were almost certainly descended from an Italian family settled in the colony (so Cheesman, , J.R.S. iii, p. 266Google Scholar). Groag (l.c.) calls this view “eine unsichere Vermutung’; but he is influenced by his complementary theory about the Sergii Paulli being of oriental origin, which seems gratuitous, apart from the remarks of Ramsay, in J.R.S. xvi, p. 202–7Google Scholar. Anyhow, an ancestor, C. Caristanius Fronto Caesianus Julius, was an eques and twice praefectus for the absent duumvir Sulpicius Quirinius (Dessau, 9502) and for M. Servilius (Dessau, 9503)—certainly not the career of an oriental as early as the end of the first century B.C.

^{page 47 note 1} I owe this point to a lecture by Principal Stuart Jones, who also drew attention to the policy of the Flavians in marrying members of their family to senators, e.g. Dessau 99c, where Caesenmus Paetus (surely not the same as the colleague of Corbulo), Leatus Suriae, iS married to Flavia Sabina. It is interesting that the Seven combined the two methods of securing loyal and competent persons, by adlectio of procuratorial officials belonging to their family; e.g. Sex. Varius Marcellus, Dessau 478 (his admission to the senate, Dio lxxviii. 30, 2). Probably also C. Julius [Ale]xianus (R. Egger, Jahresb. 1919–20, p. 294 ff). Of the same type and record was the Spartan ?-us Paulinus, I.G v. 538 improved by Wilhelm, Sitzungsberichte Berl. Acad. 1913, 858–63). See Stein, op. cit. p. 243.

^{page 47 note 2} I.G.R.R. iii, 174–5, πρὸς ε΄ῥάβδους πεμφθέντα εἱς Βειθυνίαν διορθωτὴν καὶ λογιστήν. Dio LXIX 4, 4. Xiphilinus, in excerpting, thought that the Severus, governor of Bithynia, was the Julius Severus whose suppression of the Jewish revolt he had inserted in ch. 13. But the cursus of this man, Sex. Minucius Faustinus Julius Severus (C.I.L. iii, 2030), shows that he did not govern Bithynia, and Dio must have meant C Julius Severus.

^{page 47 note 3} So Groag, P.-W. x, 514. ff., against Ritterling, , Fahresh. x (1907), p. 307Google Scholar, who thinks that Domitian preferred new men from the provinces to members of the old families he distrusted, hut there is truth in this also.

^{page 47 note 4} Consul in the inscription of the bibliotheca Celsiana, Dessau 8971.

^{page 47 note 5} C. Julius Agrippa, Dessau 8823 (Ephesus), quaestor. C.Julius Berenicianus Alexander, proconsul of Asia in 132, and so cos. suff. under Trajan. Groag (P.-W. x, s.v.) suggests the interval between the consulship and the command of Asia or Africa is one of about hfteen years. Whether the two owed their admission to Domitian or to Trajan cannot be settled.

^{page 47 note 6} Cf. Rostovtzeff, Soc. & Ec. Hist. Rom. Emp. p. 189.

^{page 48 note 1} Cf. Pliny, ad Traian. 58,—favours to Fl. Archippus.

^{page 48 note 2} I.G.R.R. iii, 1424 (Claudiopolis), a dedication to Hadrian in 134 by the φυλὴ Σεβαστή, mentioning a Ti. Claudius Domitianus Euhemerus and his five sons, all with the name Domitianus. The name occurs also at Prusa ad Hypium, e.g. Domitianus Hermodorus, I.G.R.R. iii, 1422.

^{page 48 note 3} Dessau 1018: cf. Groag, Fahresh. xxi-xxii (1922–4), Beiblatt 435–45.

^{page 48 note 4} Plin. Ep. viii, 24. Groag, l.c. thinks that he is also referred to in Plin. Pan. c. 70 and takes the words ‘praefuit provinciae [Bithyniae] quaestor unus ex candidatis inque ea civitatis amplissimae reditus egregia constitutione fundaverat’ to imply that he acted as governor in the absence (? or after the death) of the proconsul.

^{page 48 note 5} Op. cit. 225.

^{page 48 note 6} In 105, C.I.L. vi, 2075. The most complete of Q.'s many inscriptions is Dessau 8819=I.G.R.R. iv 384. Ti. Claudius Julianus honours his grandfather Celsus (when proconsul of Asia, 106–7) at Ephesus himself being praetor at the time (Rev. arch. vi (1905), p. 474, n. 121). He must therefore have entered the Senate in the early years of Trajan; and, as he was tribunus laticlavius in IV Scythica, his father was perhaps also a senator (? married to Iulia Quintilia Isaurica daughter of Celsus); certainly not Ti. Julius Aquila his son, who died without issue, the bibliotheca Celsiana being finished by ‘heredes Aquilae.’ As this otherwise unknown senator must have had the names Ti. Claudius, he may have been an oriental and would have entered the senate under Domitian. But Julianus may have received the latus clavus together with the tribunate from Trajan.

^{page 48 note 7} C.I.L. vi, 2074, shows he was not present with the Arval Brothers in April 101: probably he was then in Syria and returned in 104 to be consul in 105. The fact that Trajan in an edict to the Pergamenes speaks of him as ‘[al]mico meo, clarissimo viro’ (I.G.R.R. iv, 336) should not be stressed into statement ‘il est appelé nommément par Trajan son ami’ (Michon, Rev. biblique 1917, p. 214). The phrase occurs often in imperial rescripts; e.g. of Claudius to the famous L. Junius Gallio (S.I.G. (3), 801).

^{page 48 note 8} Not. d. Scavi, 1924, 0. 67. Ti. Iulii Aquilini Castricii Saturnin[i C]iaudii Liviani praef. pr.

^{page 48 note 9} I.G.R.R. iii, 579,—dedication in honour of Claudius by this man and Epagathus, freedman and doctor of Claudius.

^{page 49 note 1} I.G. iii, 622= O.G.I. 587,—an inscription atAthens by the senate and people of Tripoli in honour of τὸν ὲαυτῶν πολεί|την καὶ εὐεργέτην, at a time when he was, it seems, corrector of Achaea; cf. I.G. v, 485 (Sparta) καθὰ καὶ ὁ θειότατος αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Τραιανὸς ῾Αδριανὸς καὶ Αἰμίλιος Ἰοῦγκος ὁ δικαιοδότης περὶ αὐτοῦ ὲπέστειλαν. Consul in 127; diploma in C.I.L. iii, p. 874, Juv. xv, 27, Ulp. in Dig. xl, 5, 28, 4. He is probably the son of a procurator (of Syria ?), Aemilius [I]uncus, whose name occurs on a lead tessera found at Berytus (Bull. de la soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, 1902, p. 341 ff.).

^{page 49 note 2} Ritterling P.-W. xii, 1485–6 s.v. legio II Traiana.

^{page 49 note 3} B.G.U. 140 shows that in 119 III Cyrenaica and II Deiotariana formed the garrison, and the presence of a third legion is improbable.

^{page 49 note 4} C.I.L. iii, 42. It used to be thought that C.I.L. iii, 79, dates its presence to 109; but C.I.L. iii, suppl. 2, p. 2300, emends anno XII imp. Traiani [Aug.] to Traiani [Hadr], making the date 128.

^{page 49 note 5} Dessau 8821=I.G.R.R. iii, 615. Hahn, however (op. cit. p. 47), accepts the old view and puts Claudianus in the third century. Apart from the question of leg. II Traiana, it may be pointed out that (i) if Dessau's emendation of his previous restoration [τοῦ γένους] πρῶτος συγκλητικὸς [γενόμενος] to [τοῦ ἔθνους] (Hermes xlv, 1910, p. 18Google Scholar) is right, Claudianus could not after about A.D. 150 boast of being the first senator from Lycia with any degree of truth, or (ii) if τοũ γένους is right, in the third century the boast of being the first of his family would not be worth making; it would merely advertise that his family had been a long time coming to the front. Either reading is better suited by the Trajanic date.

^{page 49 note 6} I.G.R.R. iii, 173, 174, 175: his wife, ib. 190; his son, ib. 172.

^{page 49 note 7} I.G. v, 1172. Even if this is possibly incomplete, he would surely have been described as ύπατικός on his titulus, I.G. v, 489.

^{page 50 note 1} P.-W. xii, 1431. Inscriptions—I.G.R.R. iii, 180 (Ancyra); id. iv, 1365; Dessau 2458; J.R.S. iv, p. 177, no. 3 (discovered at Antioch).

^{page 50 note 2} Ann. B.S.A. xxii (1916–1918), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also Cuntz, O. in Hermes lxi, pp. 192 ffGoogle Scholar. But can Rostovtzeff be right (Soc. Ec. Hist. p. 586, note 5) in making the younger Pliny the man who assisted Ti. Julius Alexander when quartermaster (I.G.R.R. iii, 1015) in the Jewish war?

^{page 50 note 3} It was, e.g., rather simple of Dio to tell a hungry rabble, who the day before had nearly burnt his house and stoned him in their indignation at his fine building-scheme in the midst of their starvation, that ‘I assure you, however much you may object to be told, that in my opinion such behaviour is not that of people who fare badly and have not the necessaries of existence.’ ‘ἡ γὰρ ἔνδεια σωφροσύνην ποιεῖ’! Dio xlvi, II (Budé ii, p. 103).

^{page 50 note 4} For Rostovtzeff's view that pogroms were a method of expressing disapproval of the government at Alexandria, see Soc. Ec. Hist., p. 520, note 17.

^{page 50 note 5} Dio XXXII, esp. sec. 39.

^{page 51 note 1} Tac. Hist. ii, 84Google Scholar, ‘nihil aeque fatigabat [the Eastern provinces] quam pecuniarum conquisitio’. Vespasian, he says, later followed the example of Mucianus.

^{page 51 note 2} It underlies e.g. the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The sympathy of Christian teaching with the economic conditions of the East helped its spread among the poor, especially in Bithynia, as is well known (Pliny, ad Traian. 96–7). This is a most important subject for the present enquiry, but, being so large, has been deliberately omitted.

^{page 51 note 3} The conditions in Cyrene at the end of the first century B.C. cannot be compared with those in Asia Minor a century later, but it is surprising to find that Augustus in the first of the new edicts thinks there will be a difficulty in finding enough men, Romans and Greeks, to act as jurors with a minimum census of 7500 denarii, and allows jurors to be taken from those with a census of not less than half that figure. The previous minimum census for Roman jurymen was 2,500 denarii, and there were 215 of them. In the large cities the middle class was composed mainly of the Jews.

^{page 51 note 4} Cf. the letter of Antoninus to the Ephesians: S.I.G. (3) 849.

^{page 51 note 5} Hadrian in a letter to the Pergamenes hopes they will [μ]ηδὲν ταραχῶδες | χρῆσθαι (I.G.R.R. iv, 351), and perhaps there is significance in the games founded by Quadratus being established by consent of Trajan in honour of himself and Juppiter Amicalis. (I.G.R.R. iv, 336). An exact parallel to the unpopularity Dio incurred in attempting to rebuild his native city, ὥσπερ τῶν ῾Αθήνησι Προπυλαίων κινουμένων ἢ τοῦ Παρθενῶνος ἢ τὸ Σαμίων Ἡραῖον ἡμᾶς ἀνατρέποντας (Dio xl, 8) is afforded by a letter of Antoninus to Ephesus S.I.G. (3), 850, for their ingratitude to Vedius Antoninus: [ὅσα κα]ὶ ἥλικα οἰ|κοδομήματα προστίθησιν τῇ πόλ[ει, ἀλλ᾿ ὑμ]εῖς ο[ὐκ] ὀρ|θῶς ἀποδέχεσθε αὐτόν, as Dittenberger ad. loc. notices.

^{page 52 note 1} Dio (XL, 14) after the disturbances at Prusa in the early years of Domitian (so von Arnim, op. cit. p. 207, rightly from the mention of delatio in sect. 8, and not Vespasian, as Rostovtzeff, Soc. Ec. Hist., p. 188) warned his hearers that ού λανθάνει τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν οὐδὲν τοὺς ἡγεμόνας, λέγω δὲ τοὺς μείζους ἡγεμόνας τῶν ὲνθάδε. But Domitian was fully occupied with the Northern frontiers, and there is nothing to show he gave the matter special attention. I do not see that the action of L. Antistius Rusticus at Pisidian Antioch (set J.R.S. XIV (1924), 172–205Google Scholar) was beyond the ordinary competence of a governor. It is difficult to suppose Domitian cornsuch a strong moralist (though cf. the amazing disproportion of the tariff on γυναῖκες πρὸς ἑταιρισμόν at Coptos, O.G.I. 674) as to make credible, as it stands, the story that his objection to viticulture in Asia was that its produce fomented riots. Probably he told the deputation that their petition would have had a better welcome if the cities of Asia were less troublesome, and at the same time tried to make a joke on the point.

^{page 52 note 2} For Rostovtzeff's view of this, see Soc. Ec. Hist., 109ff. and passim. The philosophers were conciliated under Trajan; see the letters of Plotina, S.I.G. (3), 834, etc.

^{page 52 note 3} E.g. ad Traian. 17, immediately on his arrival. A fire at Nicomedia (33) raged uninterrupted because of the ‘inertia hominum, quos satis constat otiosos et immobiles tanti mali spectatores perstitisse. ‘Was this because it was a rich man's house ablaze? Trajan (34) will not allow a fire brigade to be formed; ‘meminerimus provinciam istam et praecipue eas civitates eiusmodi factionibus esse vexatas.’ Note that Q. Veranius Philagrus of Cibyra (I.G.R.R. iv, 914–5) showed by the terms of his trust that he considered the acquisition of cornsuch bearing lands of less importance than the adequate maintenance of the gymnasiarchy, as the trust funds were to be used for the former only on the (precredible, sumably) rare occasions when the gymnasiarchs should offer to pay themselves. Rostovtzeff (Soc. Ec. Hist. 188–9) seems to have overlooked this, as well as the simplest explanation of the clause ὡς [πε]ρὶ τούτου τῷ αὐτοκράτ[ο]ρι καὶ τῷ συγκλήτῳ [λ]ό[γ]ου ἀπο[δ]οθ[η]σομέ[νου]. Philagrus, knowing that trusts were liable to be abused (cf. Pliny, , Ep. vii, 18Google Scholar), had arranged for the funds to be audited by the State, which, in a senatorial province like Asia, with a sense of constitutional propriety he regarded as represented by the Senate and Emperor, acting through the pro-consul and the imperial procurator.

^{page 53 note 1} Paribeni, R., Optimus Princeps (Messina, 1926) vol. i, p. 332Google Scholar, notices the large number of Bithynians in the new foundation of Ulpia Nicopolis and (p. 333) thinks the coin-types of Anchialus, with figures of Cybebe, Isis and Serapis, ‘fanno pensare anche qui a una forte immigrazione orientale.’

^{page 53 note 2} Dio XXXIV, 16. Ib. 9, he warns them that their prosecutions of governors are suspected at Rome as being due to τῷ μὴ θέλειν ἄρχεσθαι.

^{page 53 note 3} Cf. I.G. V, 1243.

^{page 53 note 4} Another uncomfortable thought might have been that some of the distinguished orientals (e.g. C. Julius Severus) were probably connected with the Parthian royal house. It was, as Groag says (P.-W. X, 158), ‘kein übler Gedanke Traians’ to give C. Julius Berenicianus Alexander (v. supra) a command in the Parthian war, if he is the ὑποστρατηγὸς Ἰούλιος ᾿Αλέξανδρος mentioned by Cassius Dio LXVIII, 30. I do not think that ideas of separatism were in the air as early as this, or even at the revolt of Avidius Cassius (as is Hahn's view, op. cit. p. 38 and 58–9). Evidence is lacking; but the fact that he liked to be called a stern Roman and a second Marius (Vita Av. Cass. iii, 3, fin.) seems as much against this as his calling M. Aurelius a ‘babbling old wife philosopher’ (ib. i, 8, and cf. xiv) disinclines one to accept what is apparently Rostovtzeff's view (Soc. Ec. Hist. p. 344–5) that his revolt was an unfortunately premature attempt to prevent M. Aurelius breaking the well-established principle of the Stoic basileia in leaving his throne to his son. Still, Avidius received much support in the East and especially in Egypt, because of his birth, and it was after this that the rule was made that nobody should govern his native province; and his supporters may have entertained ideas of which he himself was innocent.

^{page 53 note 5} Plutarch, de Tranquill., p. 470, C. and F.; id.Praecepta reip. ger. 805 A.

^{page 53 note 6} Cf. Pliny's letter (viii, 24). His correspondence with Q. Pompeius Falco about etiquette for tribunes (i, 23) suggests that the latter was a man of the same intellectual type. He inherited the names and presumably most of the estate of C. Julius Eurycles Herklanus, and was intimate with Antoninus Pius (see Dessau 1035 for his career). For Sosius Priscus, see Groag's recent art. in P.-W. The daughter of Sosius and wife of Pompeius, Sosia Polla, is honoured at Apamea by a Ti. Claudius Mithridates ἀρχιερεὺς Ασίας, I.G.R.R. iv, 780: cf. also 787 and 790.

^{page 54 note 1} I.G.R.R. iv, 645.

^{page 54 note 2} I.G.R.R. iii, 173–4–5.

^{page 54 note 3} Opramoas inscription (Heberdey) cap. 59 = I.G.R.R. iii, 739.

^{page 54 note 4} Kuhn, ap. Hahn op. cit. p. 20.

^{page 54 note 5} Cf. the enthusiasm of his fellow-townsmen for Cicero's honours, pro Plancio 8. Aristeides, Or. XX, testifies to the esteem of the Quadratus family in Pergamum.

^{page 54 note 6} I.G.R.R. iii, 500.

^{page 54 note 7} Cf. the list of the relations of C. Julius Severus, I.G.R.R. iii, 173. I.G.R.R. iii, 627 (Xanthus) is restored Κλαυδία Τι[τιανὴ ἐκ τῶν κατὰ]| διαθήκην ἀπολειφθέν[των αὐτᾗ ὑπὸ Κλαν]|διανοῦ τοῦ εὐεργέ[του]. It is probable that any reference in an inscription of Xanthus to ‘Claudianus’ simply means the πρῶτος συγκλητικός of Lycia, seeing that he must have been the most eminent man in the province. Claudia Titiane may well be the lady of that name in I.G.R.R. iii, 500 (and perhaps elsewhere, see below), or else an aunt of hers. The connection was not a close one, as otherwise the compilers of the exhaustive iii, 500, would have not omitted it. All the details given here in the text are taken from it.

^{page 55 note 1} The niece of Opramoas was married to Claudius Agrippinus. The grandfather of Polemon was Marcius Deiotarianus, probably the T. Marcius Quir. Deiotarianus trib. leg. XXII Primigeniae, whose sister Marcia Lucia married Licinnius Longus, Lyciarch in 127. The family was probably also connected with Avidius Cassius (see below).

^{page 55 note 2} Mor. p. 470 c.: cf. Praec. reip. ger. 814 D.

^{page 55 note 3} The others are less imposing, as no doubt not every one was prepared to spend a fortune on stone-cutting like Opramoas. I.G.R.R. iv, 575 (also in O.G.I. 506) gives answers of Antoninus to representations in favour of M. Ulpius Apuleius Eurycles of Aezani; in I.G.R.R. iii, 467, Hadrian says he has heard of τὴν φιλοτιμίαν ἣν ὲπιδέδεικται περὶ ὑμᾶς Μελέαγρος Κάστορος (Balburis). I.G.R.R. iv, 1156, records the success of Claudius Candidus Julianus in securing concessions from Hadrian for Stratoniceia, but an embassy sent to testify to his merits received the answer ἐνέτυχον τῶι πεμφθέντι ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν δι΄ οὗ Κλ. Κανδίδωι Ἰουλιανῶι χάριν ἠπίστασθε ἐπὶ τηἱ φιλοτιμίαι περὶ τὴν πόλιν. In the case of Vedius Antoninus (see below) it must have been the proevery consul who originally directed the attention of Antoninus to his generosity, not the Ephesians; or possibly the κοινόν of Asia.

^{page 55 note 4} I.G.R.R. iii, 735–6.

^{page 56 note 1} Ritterling (Rhein. Mus. 1920, p. 389) urges that the words of the procurator Caelius Florus (Opramoas inscr. cap. 13) τὴν εὐτυχεστάτην τοῦ [κ]υρίου ἡ|μῶν ἐπάνοδον must refer to a journey home, therefore of Trajan, and not to the outward journey of Hadrian in 128–9. To call Trajan's return from a comparative failure and broken in health—he died before getting as far—εὐτυχστάτην is odd, but, one supposes, possible in an official communiqué.

^{page 56 note 2} Cap. 59, xvii b, 1, 6, mentions testimonies sent to Hadrian, and that ‘the divine Hadrian wrote in return.’ Cf. also cap. 30, ix c, 15—ix, d, I, decree of the Patareis [ἐπὶ θ]εοῦ ῾Αδριανοῦ. Only the documents of Antoninus's reign are engraved in full, and continue yearly till 152, in which year the κοινόν composed the most elaborate of all the resolutions (cap. 66–8).

^{page 56 note 3} His chronology is very difficult. At the end of Trajan's reign he was high priest for life and κηδεμὼν τῆς πόλεως; cf. p. 43, note 4. The inscription (I.G. v, 380, Cythera) breaks off in the middle of his name, and there might have been room for details of his senatorial career, if any. The only other date is 130, when he was alive and ordered a stoa at Mantinea in honour of Antinous (I.G. V, 281), which was built διὰ τῶν κληρονόμων; so he died soon after, and his career in I.G. V, 1172, if complete, does not seem extensive enough to cover as much as the thirteen odd years required to put his admission down to Trajan. Note Hist. Aug. Hadr. viii, 7Google Scholar, ‘senatus fastigium in tantum extulit difficile faciens senatores, ut cum Attianum … faceret senatorem, nihil se amplius habere quod in eum conferre posset, ostenderet.’

^{page 56 note 4} See Appendix.

^{page 56 note 5} p. 109 k, sect. 63ff.

^{page 56 note 6} Tac. Ann. xi, 24Google Scholar. ‘Quid aliud exitio Lecedaemoniis et Atheniensibus fuit, quamquam armis pollerent, nisi quod victos pro alienigenis arcebant?’

^{page 57 note 1} Claudius Titianus of Patara (in I.G.R.R. iii, 500) seems to me the same as Ti. Claudius Flavianus Titianus Quintus Velius Proclus L. Marcius Celer Longus, M. Calpurnius in I.G.R.R. iii, 664–5Google Scholar, 667 (see below, addendum on p. 66).

^{page 57 note 2} Vita Marci xxvi, 12, says he had a daughter Alexandra ‘Drunciano nupta.’ Hirschfeld reads ‘Dryantiano,’ and this may well be Ti. Cl. Dryantianus of I.G.R.R. iii, 500, whose wife is not mentioned in the genealogy (? owing to damnatio memoriae) but whose son is Cl. Cassius Agrippinus and daughter Alexandra Maeciana. Avidius, like others already noted, was the son of a successful procurator.

^{page 57 note 3} The new inscriptions from Ephesus have encouraged Keil (Forschungen in Ephesos iii, p. 166–8) to set aside in some points the brilliant work of Groag on this family (Fahresh. x. (1907), p. 290–9). Certainly F.E. iii, 80Google Scholar (cf. p. 58) and the dating of Dessau 8830 to 170–1 (Egger, , Fahresh. ix (1906)Google Scholar, Beibl., p. 61 ff.) necessitate an earlier date for the whole family than Groag (l.c. p. 292) thought. But Keil puts the floruit of the Asiarch M.Cl. P. Vedius Antoninus into the reign of Hadrian, and makes his son, Phaedrus Sabinianus, the person whom the Ephesians were reproved for their failure to appreciate in the famous letters of Antoninus Pius dated definitely 145 and 149–50 (S.I.G. (3) 850–1). Then, impressed by the shortness of Phaedrus's senatorial career (F.E. iii, p. 166), Keil concludes that Phaedrus gave up his future prospects in order to stay and serve his native city. It is really unthinkable that at this time, when every one else was hoping for the honour, Phaedrus should resign from the Senate to stay behind at home, where he was to evidently not appreciated, or that, if he had done so, he would have remained in the emperor's favour and his son have been a senator after him. It is quite possible to keep the old view, that Sabinus the Asiarch was the person referred to by Pius, and to suppose that the admission of the son Phaedrus took place about 145 as a consolation from the emperor for the father's ill-treatment at Ephesus. If Phaedrus were then about twenty years old, so early was the age of marriage in the East that he could easily have had a daughter old enough to be married to Damianus the sophist, first heard of in 166–7; the wife of Phaedrus (F.E. iii, no. 77) died childless, and so probably not long after the marriage. There remains then a margin of twenty years for him to have had by his second wife (F.E. iii, no. 76) a daughter of marriageable age for Damianus. Phaedrus may have died when quaestor designate of Cyprus, but the inscription is not a funeral one, and his career may have gone further.

^{page 57 note 4} Stein, op. cit. 335–6, consul in 167. One would think that Pliny would not have written for publication Ep. vii, 29 and viii, 6, if the descendants of the freedman Pallas had been of any consequence in his time.

^{page 57 note 5} Galen 11, 215.

^{page 57 note 6} Aristeides XXVI, sec. xvi K.

^{page 57 note 7} C.I.G. ii, 2782–3. M. Ulpius Carminius Claudianus was high priest of Asia under Antoninus and M. Aurelius (B.C.H. xi, 350). His son, of the same name, λογιστὴν μετὰ ὑπατικοὺς δοθέντα τῆς Κυζικήνων πόλεως was married to the daughter of a procurator, Fl. Athenagoras, called Fl. Appia, μητὴρ καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μάμμη συγκλητικῶν.

^{page 58 note 1} I.G.R.R. iv., 921. His son is honoured there (ib. 911) in A.D. 184, but without any career given. If this is because he was still too young, his father must have been consul (at least 39 years before) at a very early age, and therefore is most unlikely to be an oriental. C. Julius Severus, for instance, was not consul till at least 20 years after his admission. I suggest that the Paulini had property at Cibyra.

^{page 58 note 2} Dig. XXXVI, 1, 23.

^{page 58 note 3} I.G. iii, 687–8, 690.

^{page 58 note 4} Brandis, art. Bithynia, P.-W. iii, 529–30; I.G.R.R. i, 1017–8. I.G.R.R. i, 1015–6.

^{page 58 note 6} I.G.R.R. iv, 883, 906–10, 912. I find it difficult to follow Stein (op. cit. p. 223) in making Claudius Orestes, [συγκλη] τικός or [ὑπα] τικός in iv, 910, the son of Ti. Cl. Polemon the Asiarch, knight, and son of Marcia Tlepolemis, who is μάμμη συγκμητκῶν. He seems to have overlooked the complication that there were at least two Ti. Cl. Pulemohes, uncle and nephew (in iv, 909).

^{page 58 note 7} Damianus; Forschungen in Ephesos iii, 80, Dessau 8830, Philostr. Vit. soph. p. 264 K. His sons: Philostr. ib. p. 107 K, Damianus, F.E. iii, 211Google Scholar; Vedius Antoninus, F.E. iii, 82Google Scholar and 85; Phaedrus, F.E. i, 211Google Scholar. Lepida, Dessau 8836; Phaedrina, F.E. iii, 81Google Scholar. C. Julius Philippus the father: O.G.I. 499–500; F.E. iii, 49. Hisson: O.G.I. 499–500; Dessau 8836; F.E. iii, 49–50 (λογιστής of Ephesus).

^{page 58 note 8} Born about 155, Cass. Dio. LXXII, 7; quaestor about 180, ib. 4.

^{page 58 note 9} Heliodorus; I.G.R.R. iii, 527Google Scholar. He is not identical with any (e.g. M. Julius Heliodorus of Cyaneae, Lyciarch in 140–1, I.G.R.R. iii, 706) of the Lyciarchs, who are known from the Opramoas inscription up to 152. Diophantus:I.G.R.R. iii, 525Google Scholar; Hicks, , J.H.S. vol. ix, 50 ff.Google Scholar; Groag in P.-W. x, 676.

^{page 59 note 1} C.I.G. 4151, and C.I.L. viii, 15876.

^{page 59 note 2} The difficulty about the descendants of Quadratus is to square the vague remarks of Aristeides (Or. xx, in honour of his descendant Apellas) with I.G.R.R. iv, 1687, Ἰουλία Αὔλου θυγάτηρ |Πῶλλα βασιλὶς τῶν ἐν θεᾶι Ῥώμηι ἱερῶν…σὺν τοὶς τέκ|νοις Γ.Ι. Νάβω καὶ Γ.Ι. Φρόντωνι | συγκλητικοὶς. Groag (in P.-W. x, mostly s.v. Julius Apellas) thinks that on the present evidence the problem is insoluble. Boulanger (Adius Aristide, etc., Paris, 1923) proposes to get over the difficulty that Aristeides (in sec. 70) seems to imply more generations between the Apellas of the speech and the head of the family, ‘Κοδρᾶτος,’ than can be got in between Quadratus and the date at which, from evidence derived from the προθεωρία to the speech, it is inferred to have been delivered, by assuming that Κοδρᾶτος is the grandfather of Quadratus. He is on safer ground in arguing that, if the speech is spurious—as Keil thinks, so is also the προθεωρία and therefore argument from it is invalid. I think, against Groag (P.-W. x, 944), that the sister of Quadratus was married. Otherwise the δέ in the inscription is meaningless. It may have run originally: [ή πόλις τῶν Ἐφεσίων κτλ. ἐτεἰμησε τὸν δεῖνα…details of his distinctions…καὶ τὴν κρατίστην γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, Ἰουλίαν] Πῶλλαν, ἀδελφὴν δὲ|Γ. ᾿Αντίου Αὔλου Ἰουλίου Αὔλου |υἱοῦ Οὐολτινίᾳ Κοδράτου κτλ. (Dessau, 8819a). As it comes from Ephesus, her husband might belong to the Celsus family.

^{page 59 note 3} I.G-R.R. iii, 135- Cf. also I.G.R.R. iii, 1448, similar, but erected after the death of Marcus.

^{page 59 note 4} E.g. C.I.L. iii, 14149, 21 and 14176 (2). New inscriptions (Rev. arch. 1927, p. 386–7) from Gerasa dated 114–5, describe him as [ύπ]ατικός; so he must have been consul before being governor of Arabia, not after, as hitherto supposed.

^{page 59 note 5} I.G.R.R. iii, 173. The new dating for his consulship will, if the list here is chronological, set back the consulship of Ti. Julius Aquila Polemaeanus a few years.

^{page 59 note 6} Vita Marci xx, 6.

^{page 59 note 7} Petersen, Marcus-Säule, Textband, p. 43.

^{page 59 note 8} Herodian i, 6, 4.

^{page 59 note 9} Caesares, p. 312 B.

^{page 60 note 1} I.G.R.R. in, 1422.

^{page 60 note 2} Pliny, writing at the opening of the new era of the Senate under Trajan, observed only the superficial likeness to the republican Senate in that free discussion again took place. He did not see that under the Republic a senator went to the provinces only to collect money or an army, or reluctantly, like Cicero, and then hastened back to the political warfare in Rome. Under the Empire this was at an end, and he normally spent most of his time in the provinces, the existence and claims of which were more and more clearly recognised.

^{page 61 note 1} Dessau l.c. p. 20. Cf. Tacitus, on Otho, Hist. i, 13Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 2} See p. 47, n. 5. Philopappus was adlectus inter praetorios (Dessau 845) by Trajan. If, as I feel sure from his name, C. Julius Thraso Alexander, honoured at Ephesus in the reign of Antoninus (Forschungen in E. iii, p. 123), was a descendant of the king Alexander, it is noticeable that he began at the very bottom with the Xviratus, military tribunate and quaestorship.

^{page 61 note 3} C.I.L. vi, 32374.

^{page 61 note 4} O.G.I. 508–9, and cf. 506.

^{page 61 note 5} O.G.I. 504 confines itself to saying his activity is worthy of τοῦ γένους καὶ τῆς ἐκ προγόνων ἀνδραγαθίας.

^{page 61 note 6} Jos. B.J. v, 205Google Scholar; Ant. xx, 100.

^{page 62 note 1} I.G.R.R. i, 964. Stein, however (P.-W. vi, 2619) thinks they received citizenship through the good offices of C. Flavius Sulpicius Similis, viceroy of Egypt about 120.

^{page 62 note 2} Dessau 212, col. ii.

^{page 62 note 3} I.G. R. R. iii, 208 (better text J.H.S. vol xliv, p. 26);at Palmyra, I.G.R.R. iii, 1054Google Scholar; at Ephesus Forsch. in E. iii, p. 155Google Scholar, no. 72 and p. 161, no. 80.

^{page 62 note 4} Op. cit. 396, ascribing it to ignorance of Latin.

^{page 62 note 5} Dessau 8794, at Corinth.

^{page 62 note 6} Soc. Ec. Hist. pp. 234–5 and 561–2, note 96.

^{page 62 note 7} Tod, (J.H.S. vol. xlii, p. 177Google Scholar) gives a list of the members of the council at present known. Nine (or perhaps ten) belong to the Antonine period: two are familiar–Ti. Cl. Herodes Atticus and Cn. Cornelius Pulcher of Corinth or Epidaurus (I.G. iv 795 and 1600). an equestrian procurator, and the richest and most distinguished person in the Peloponnese, apart from the Euryclids. There are mere names, and cannot support any conjecture; one is from Perinthus; one from the Cyrenaica; and two are from Aezani in Asia Minor. Surerly the idea in forming the Panhellenion was that such well-to-do men as were connected with Greece should co-operate to do what in Asia Minor was within the capacity of a single generous individual.

^{page 63 note 1} E.g. Lully (op. cit. p. 219) includes T. Hoenius Severus, whom Groag (P.-W. viii, 2134) shows to be an Umbrian, probably from Fanum Fortunae (cf. C.I.L. xi, 6263). It is very dangerous to go by the mere names alone, when already in 157 B.C. there had been a consul called L. Orestes.

^{page 63 note 2} It is tempting to include Q. Voconius Saxa Fidus (Dessau 8828 or I.G.R.R. iii, 763, from Phasehs) because, though he was governor of Lycia, the inscription also honours his son, who at that time apparently held no position.

^{page 63 note 3} A doubtful case is I.G.R.R. iv, 280, an altar set up at Pergamum by C. Flavonius Anicianus Sanctus of Antioch on behalf of himself and τοῦ υἱοῦ Φλαουιανοῦ Λολλιανοῦ συγκλητικοῦ. It is difficult to give any definite date, either for this man or for the consul L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus (I.G.R.R. iv, 424–6); the use of τὴν πατρίδα in the latter's inscription need not mean that he was a native—he may have been only an honorary citizen of Pergamum. Still more doubtful is Anicius Maximus, proconsul of Bithynia (Pliny, ad Traian. 112), who may or not be the son (so Stech, op. cit.p. 175), or grandson (so Stein, op. cit. p. 335) of P. Anicius Maximus of Antioch (Dessau 2696), who looks like a member of a veteran family, and was ‘praefectus exercitui qui est in Aegypto’ after having served in Claudius' expedition to Britain.

^{page 63 note 4} Vita Elag. vi, 2.