01whole PDF
01whole PDF
01whole PDF
Christopher J Haddad
________________________________________________
Date: 10.10.2014
Summary
Official Roman Republican letters inscribed in Greek have been neglected in recent
scholarship on Ancient Greek and Roman epistolography, and the language of these letters in
particular has not yet received satisfactory treatment. The letters have been assessed against
texts which differ from them temporally, geographically, and in terms of media and text type.
This has resulted in criticism of their language and their authors’ capabilities. These letters are
important for understanding Greek and Roman history, epistolography, languages, and
bilingualism, and their language is in need of a reassessment which applies relevant
comparanda and is sensitive to the Koine Greek of documentary evidence.
One important feature of the language of the Roman letters inscribed in Greek is the
formulaic expressions. Since they require a knowledge of the language as well as familiarity
with the text type, they are revealing of the authors’ understanding of official epistolography
in Koine Greek. This dissertation analyses the form and function of formulaic language in
these Roman letters in Greek. It demonstrates the attention which the authors paid to
formulaic language and the proficiency with which they applied the Greek language in their
official letters.
For Jack Purcell and Martha Haddad
Jack, you always made us laugh and we love you for it,
My Grandmother, Martha,
I am blessed with amazing friends who have put up with so much philology over the
years. You bring me the happiness and support which I can’t do without (and you also make
sure my head remains the appropriate size) and I hope I return the favour. In particular Martin
Cordoba has always believed in what I do and backed me without question. Thank you to
ix
Acknowledgements
Alex Clark, Cameron Jones, Chris ‘Larry’ Kelly, Peter Labuzin, Luke Pender, James Smith,
and John Sullivan for all the laughs and for reminding me of what is most important. From
Macquarie, thank you to Alice Baker, Alex Chard, Marcus Chin, Sean Commons, Keira de
Rosa, Matthew George, Lucinda Guzman, Andrew Hammond, Lesley McCusker, Nicole
Miles, Nicole Moffatt, Olivier Rochecouste, Emmanuel Roumanis, Ellen Ryan, Janet Wade,
Joan Wilcox, and Alexandra Wrathall; you are all stars, phenomenal students of history and
the languages, who challenge me every day and make university a pleasure. Special thanks go
to Emmanuel Roumanis for so much help with Greek fonts and to Joan Wilcox for kindly
devoting time to proof reading some important sections.
I thank Shirley Smith and everyone from Meals on Wheels for bringing an unexpected
source of joy to my life by letting me be a part of their all-important work. Thank you for
working with my schedule and being so considerate in giving me time away for writing.
To everyone at Borelli’s, Layaly, and Topiary, whom I annoy for food and coffee far
too often. Over the last few years the support you have given to someone whom you barely
knew has not gone unnoticed and will not be forgotten, thanks for everything. Apologies for
talking about my thesis every time we meet.
I have no words to properly describe the debt I owe to my whole family. I am blessed
with a support base of aunties, uncles, and cousins who cannot be compared. You always ask
about my work and wish me well, pray for my well-being and send me food at every given
opportunity, but most of all you are genuine and loving people who fill me with joy whenever
I hear your voices or read your words. None of this would matter without my family.
My parents, Jim and Gemma Haddad, are incredible people. I am grateful to Dad for
being so helpful in reading the entire thesis, as he did with Honours. I hope it wasn’t too
boring. Mum and Dad, I know that everything you both do is for me. Every moment I feel
your support, and, even though I’m far away, I never feel the distance because you are so
involved in everything I do. No one makes me happier than you two, and I love you so much.
Thank you for giving me more than I could ever dream of having.
I thank God for all of these beautiful people and the wonderful life I have.
C.J.H.
x
Contents
List of Figures xiii
Abbreviations xv
Introduction 1
Bibliography 87
Appendix 93
Introductory Remarks 95
Texts 97
xi
List of Figures
1.1 – Standard Address Formula in the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus 44
xiii
Abbreviations
Buzón, ‘Der Briefe Buzón, R., ‘Die Briefe der Ptolemäerzeit: Ihre Struktur und ihre
der Ptolemäerzeit’ Formeln’ (diss. Heidelberg 1984)
Ceccarelli, AGLW Ceccarelli, P., Ancient Greek Letter Writing (Oxford, 2013)
Clackson, Horrocks, Clackson, J., Horrocks, G.C., The Blackwell History of the Latin
Latin Language Language (Malden, Mass., Oxford and Carlton, Victoria, 2007)
DGS Rhodes, P.J, with Lewis, D.M., The Decrees of the Greek
States, (Oxford, 1997)
Halla-Aho, Non-literary Halla-aho, H., The Non-literary Latin Letters: A study of their
Latin Letters syntax and pragmatics (Helsinki, 2009)
Gignac, Phonology Gignac, F.T., A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and
Byzantine periods, I: Phonology (Milan, 1976)
xv
Abbreviations
ORRLIG no. Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek text no.
Mayser, Grammatik, I2 Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der
Prolemäerzeit, I, 2nd edn. by H. Schmoll (Berlin, 1970)
SC senatus consultum/consulta
Sherk, RDGE Sherk, R.K., Roman Documents from the Greek East
(Baltimore, 1969)
Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’ Viereck, P., ‘Sermo Graecus quo Senatusque Populusque
Romanus Magistratusque Populi Romani usque ad Tiberii
Caesaris Aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur’ (diss.
Göttingen, 1888)
xvi
Introduction
0.1 – Official letters and the Romans
As the Romans became more prominent in the Mediterranean and were involved increasingly
in matters in the Greek-speaking East, they adopted from the Greeks the well-established
practice of sending official letters to Greek states and associations.1 The Hellenistic
kingdoms, poleis, and koina were accustomed to communicating through official letters, a
precedent which had been set in Alexander’s time.2 Such letters could be sent for many
reasons, such as arbitration or announcing agreements, alliances, and policies.3 Some of these
letters were publicly inscribed by the recipients out of respect for the sender and as a
guarantee for both parties that the agreements would be upheld.4 A portion of these inscribed
letters is extant, which in itself is likely to be a much smaller sample of what would have been
archived on more perishable media.5
The Hellenistic states petitioned Rome through the same medium and for the same
reasons as they wrote to each other. Increasingly from the early 200s BCE, the Roman Senate
deliberated Greek matters and letters in reply were sent in the name of presiding magistrates.6
These letters are strikingly similar to contemporaneous official Greek counterparts. Despite
Roman magistrates being required to use Latin in the presence of Greeks in official
circumstances,7 official Roman letters to Greek states were inscribed in Greek, and the
language of the Greek in these inscribed letters has been understudied and undervalued in
modern scholarship.
1
Sherk, RDGE, 189.
2
Welles, RCHP, p. xxxvii; J.V. Muir, Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World (London, 2009), 92.
3
Welles, RCHP, pp. xxxvii–xli. Sherk, RDGE, 190–197.
4
Welles, RCHP, pp. xxxix–xl.
5
Muir, Life and Letters, 27.
6
Sherk, RDGE, 186–187; cf. also Muir, Life and Letters, 18.
7
This requirement was not observed universally. J. Kaimio, The Romans and the Greek Language (Helsinki,
1979), 96, 110–129, esp. 110–116 for our period, 130–132 for Caesar and Augustus and Greek; J. Clackson and
G.C. Horrocks, The Blackwell History of the Latin Language (Malden, Mass., Oxford and Carlton, Victoria,
2007), 188–189; G.C. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, 2nd edn. (Maldon, Mass.,
Oxford and Chichester, 2010), 125–126; B. Rochette, ‘Language Policies in the Republic and Empire’, J.
Clackson, (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language (Maldon, Mass., Oxford and Chichester, 2011), esp. 549–
557 for our period; cf. also Valerius Maximus 2.2.2.
2 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Formulaic expressions are an important aspect of epistolography. The correct
application of epistolary and non-epistolary formulae throughout a letter conveys to the
recipient that the author understood the language and the text type, as each component of such
expressions requires knowledge of the language and their application in the letter layout
requires familiarity with epistolography.8 Formulaic expressions in official Roman letters
inscribed in Greek provide a useful opportunity to evaluate their authors’ understanding of
Koine Greek and its epistolography through one compositional feature. They are a good
example of the proficiency of the language of these letters, which still has not been properly
analysed. This language is often incorrectly associated with more stilted Roman documents in
Greek and dismissed as having a poor command of the language. An example of this is the
statement of Rochette, referring to “senatusconsulta, edicts, imperial rescripts, letters from
emperors and magistrates”, that “[t]he Greek of these texts is in general an inelegant jargon in
which traces of the original Latin can be detected.”9 Letters generally are expressed in a
language discrete from decrees, edicts, and rescripts, and in practice these official Roman
letters share few similarities with the language of such documents. A treatment of all aspects
of their language lies beyond the scope of this dissertation, but an analysis of their formulaic
expressions in consideration of relevant comparanda demonstrates clearly that the language
of the letters is separate from other Roman documents written in Greek.10
0.2 – Prior scholarship on the language of the Greek in the Roman letters
Ancient epistolography has received increasing focus in recent scholarship.11 Despite the
attention paid to Greek and Latin letters, Roman letters written in Greek have not been
addressed in the same detail.12 There appears to be a reluctance to revisit these letters,
8
H. Halla-aho, The Non-literary Latin Letters: A study of their syntax and pragmatics (Helsinki, 2009), 44.
9
Rochette, ‘Language Policies in the Republic and Empire’, 554.
10
T.V. Evans has argued for a reassessment of the language of papyrus letters in postclassical Greek which is
sensitive to the conventions of Koine Greek and draws comparison from relevant evidence, which is certainly
needed for our Roman letters, see T.V. Evans, ‘Standard Koine Greek in Third Century BC Papyri’, Proceedings
of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (2010), 197–205, these points are
argued throughout, but see 197 for examples of such negative comments on the language of Greek papyrus
letters.
11
Some recent and important examples are: Muir, Life and Letters; Ceccarelli, AGLW; K. Radner, (ed.), State
Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire (Oxford, 2014).
12
In three recent publications (see note 11), there is little engagement with the topic: Muir (2009) devotes only 2
pages to the discussion of official Roman letters inscribed in Greek; Ceccarelli (2013) offers no discussion,
Introduction 3
probably for two reasons: Roman letters in Greek are difficult to assign to either Greek or
Roman epistolography—and publications tend to focus on one of these letter-writing
practices—and earlier works which addressed the topic have been well-received.
There have been four main publications which have discussed the language of
inscribed official Greek and Roman letters.13 The earliest work focussing on official Roman
Republican inscriptions as a corpus is Viereck’s 1888 dissertation, which aimed to investigate
the language of the Greek which the Roman administration used until the age of Tiberius.14
This work was followed by Lafoscade’s 1902 dissertation, which covered official Roman
letters in Greek in inscriptions and papyri from Augustus to Constantine.15 In 1934, Welles
produced his important monograph which covered the official inscribed letters of Hellenistic
kingdoms. His treatment of the language is superior to Viereck and Lafoscade: Welles
provides a thorough linguistic analysis of his letters, and focuses on both fundamental and
stylistic aspects, allowing us to better understand their authors’ knowledge of Hellenistic
epistolography. Official Roman epigraphic texts were revisited as a corpus in 1969 by Sherk,
and his work has been authoritative since publication.16 Viereck, Lafoscade, and Sherk are the
three main works which deal, in varying degrees, with the language of official Roman
Republican letters inscribed in Greek, but there are shortcomings in their linguistic analyses.
despite listing every Roman letter she could identify; and there is no paper in Radner (ed.) (2014) addressing
Roman Republican state correspondence.
13
There have also been some important works on the historical, political, diplomatic, and social importance of
Greek and Roman letter writing in recent years, especially: (on Hellenistic correspondence) Ceccarelli, AGLW,
297–330 and A. Bencivenni, ‘The King’s Words: Hellenistic Royal Letters in Inscriptions’, Radner (ed.), State
Correspondence, 141–171; and (on Roman Imperial correspondence) S. Corcoran, ‘State Correspondence in the
Roman Empire: Imperial Communication from Augustus to Justinian’, Radner (ed.), State Correspondence,
172–209. When Ceccarelli, Bencivenni, and Corcoran discuss the language of the letters in these works, they are
focused on the sender’s the choice of vocabulary and phraseology and the insight it provides for understanding
the relationship between the two parties. The proficiency of the author is not their focus.
14
P. Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus quo Senatusque Populusque Romanus Magistratusque Populi Romani usque ad
Tiberii Caesaris Aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur’ (diss. Göttingen, 1888).
15
L. Lafoscade, ‘De Epistulis (aliisque Titulis) Imperatorum Magistratuumque Romanorum, quas ab aetate
Augusti usque ad Constantinum’ (diss. Paris, 1902).
16
Sherk, RDGE. In 1984, Sherk again revisited official Roman Republican documents by providing translations
and (mostly historical) commentary on many of them in R.K. Sherk, Translated Documents of Greece and
Rome, 4: Rome and the Greek East to the death of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984).
4 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
We will briefly discuss Viereck and Sherk, who dealt with formulaic expressions in the
Republican letters.17
There are more serious problems with Viereck’s analysis. He does not relate linguistic
features in one text to earlier and later examples in the corpus, and individual letters
containing such examples are not contextualized in relation to their counterparts. There is also
no synthesis of all the information: Viereck offers short discussions of elements of the Greek,
but there is no attempt to explore the relationship between these phenomena. Since Viereck’s
work offers little discussion of the formulaic expressions in the letters, and lacks
17
Lafoscade provides a short discussion of formulaic expressions at ‘De Epistulis’, 63–66, but only four of his
letters fall within our time period (Lafoscade, ‘De Epistulis’, 1, nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4), all of which are found in
Sherk, RDGE, and 3 are also in Viereck.
18
Comprising 54 of 116 A5 pages. This is most likely because, for Viereck to discuss these documents as a
corpus, he would have needed to collate and present the texts himself.
19
Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’, 74, s.v. ‘epistularum formulae’.
20
Examples can be seen at Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’, 78 (discussing letters of Augustus): ‘Maxime vero
studium veteris sermonis Atticorum cognoscitur’ and ‘veterem Atticorum sermonem imitatus est’.
21
The issues with brevity are exacerbated when one is investigating the letters, since the 31 page section is also
devoted to the language of senatus consulta and 6 of the 31 pages do not discuss the letters.
Introduction 5
consideration of temporal contextualisation and a synthesis of information, his work is not
extensive enough to be authoritative on the subject.
Sherk focused intently on establishing dates for the Roman inscriptions and
contextualising each text within the wider historical context, while providing short
discussions of the role of such official documents in the Roman world. He achieved these
goals, with his work on dating and historical contextualisation being of high quality. In the
introductory sections to the documents, Sherk also provides short discussions of their
language and occasionally elaborates on particular features of some documents in short
commentaries.
Like Viereck, Sherk focused his linguistic analysis on the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ elements
of the language, but, unlike Viereck, Sherk focused only on the evidence presented in the
letters which he deemed to be ‘best’ and ‘worst’ overall.23 This limits his conclusions on two
fronts: (1) he judges each letter’s overall language on their ‘best’ and ‘worst’ features,
ignoring information presented in more fundamental linguistic aspects; and (2), the entire
corpus is judged on the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ features of the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ texts, leaving
aside the range of information provided by the other letters. After presenting this selection,
and acknowledging the range of circumstances which may have influenced their creation,
22
The section ‘Language of the letters’ is at Sherk, RDGE, 197–209.
23
While Viereck does not discuss the language of each of his letters in extensive detail, he briefly discusses all 8
letters in his section on Epistulae, whereas Sherk only discussed the language of 8 letters directly and another 8
indirectly, leaving 53 of the 69 letters without discussion.
6 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Sherk concludes that “[t]he form and the language are Greek. The spirit and the contents are
Roman”, which epitomises his judgement of their language.24
Sherk discusses the epistolary formulae in more detail than non-epistolary formulae,
and he advances upon Viereck by discussing the formulaic layout of the Roman letters.
Sherk’s discussion of epistolary formulae covers greetings, health wishes, and farewells,
identifying their main components and listing the texts with examples. Sherk is also conscious
of establishing the link between Roman letters and their Hellenistic Greek counterparts,
something which Viereck also does. While these elements of Sherk’s treatment are positive,
what his discussion lacks is an in-depth exploration of the degree to which Roman practices
adhere to Hellenistic conventions, and an elucidation of the significance of the Roman use of
formulaic expressions. It is arguable that, for Sherk, formulaic expressions establish that the
authors understood the text-type—he even states that it is evidence that the Romans learnt
epistolography from the Greeks25—but he does not explore the significance of this.
The language of these letters is crucial for how we interpret official Roman
epistolography in Greek, and we do not yet have a satisfactory treatment of their language. An
investigation of formulaic expressions in these letters must consider all the letters in this
limited corpus, seek relevant comparanda from documentary and literary evidence,26 and
24
Sherk, RDGE, 209. This kind of response to postclassical Greek text originating from a bilingual context is
widespread, and can readily be found in discussions of the Greek of the Septuagint, see T.V. Evans, ‘Approaches
to the Language of the Septuagint’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 56, 1 (2005), esp. 25–27.
25
Sherk, RDGE, 197.
26
The merits of considering both documentary and literary evidence when investigating the language of letters is
exemplified by H. Halla-aho, ‘Epistolary Latin’, Clackson (ed.), Companion to the Latin Language, 426–444.
Introduction 7
elucidate the significance of how the Roman letters use this language, which has implications
for our understanding of the history, epistolography, and languages of the Greco-Roman East.
I have four main aims: (1) to identify how formulaic expressions in official Roman letters
inscribed in Greek were applied in respect to grammar and (2) in respect to the letter layout;
(3) to ascertain whether the applications in the Roman letters conformed to or diverged from
the contemporary Hellenistic practices; and (4) to more clearly define the source of the Greek
of these letters and, if possible, identify evidence for how the Roman administration may have
sought to project itself and their letters to Greek-speaking audiences.
27
See esp. Adams’ instructive remarks on misspellings, J.N. Adams, The Regional Diversification of Latin 200
BC – AD 600 (Cambridge, 2007) 624–635, and id., Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2013),
32–36.
28
Adams, Regional Diversification, 6–7 and 624–626. J. Clackson, ‘Latin Inscriptions and Documents’,
Clackson (ed.), Companion to the Latin Language, 38.
29
Adams, Regional Diversification, 633–635. Clackson, ‘Latin Inscriptions and Documents’, 38.
8 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
I am conscious also that although my corpus comprises all extant examples of official
Roman letters inscribed in Greek, it is but a portion of those which were inscribed, let alone
sent, in antiquity. This is a common limitation for historical linguists.30 My focus is on the
language of these particular letters rather than using this corpus to investigate Koine Greek,
therefore I confine my conclusions to the corpus and only make proposals about official
Roman epistolography in Greek when the evidence is consistent. Due to the paucity of
evidence it is necessary to clarify many conclusions, and a definitive answer will not often
emerge at the exclusion of other possibilities; but it is better to present the data in this manner
than to accept a handful of examples as evidence for some broader trend, which would present
a false view of Roman epistolography in Greek.31
I investigate six types of formulaic expressions: (1) prescripts, (2) health wishes, (3)
farewells, what I have termed (4) ‘Embassy formulae’ and (5) the ‘Benefaction formula’, and
(6) filiation expressions, all of which are defined in their respective sections. The first five are
epistolary formulae ((4) and (5) being specific to official letters) and the last involves
formulaic expressions not restricted to letters. These expressions are important because they
are formulaic in grammatical construction and in their application in the letter layout,
requiring understanding of Koine Greek and its epistolography.
To conduct this investigation I compiled the published texts of all identifiable official
Roman Republican letters inscribed in Greek as well as a selection of inscribed official
Hellenistic letters, which I use as my ‘control’ corpus for comparing the Roman letters.32 I
analysed both corpora in a searchable document containing all the texts (collected in the
30
I. Manolessou, ‘On historical linguistics, linguistic variation, and Medieval Greek’, Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies, 32, 1 (2008), 64–68, see esp. 65: “Furthermore, the compilation of the corpus does not belong to
the linguist, but to chance and fate, who decide which texts will be preserved, and to the philologist, who decides
which of the preserved texts are worth publishing.”
31
There is a similar sentiment, though relating to a different investigation, expressed by Adams, Social
Variation, 23: “Many of our conclusions about the evidence for social variation and about possible location of
change within lower sociolects will be negative, but I make no apology for that. A false view of the history of
the language may develop from partial or over–positive presentation of the evidence”.
32
I have accepted the readings of the editors or collators and reproduced their apparatus critici when these were
provided. In the case of those texts compiled in Welles and Sherk, when I could find more recent editions I took
these into consideration, listing any divergences I approved in an apparatus of my own.
Introduction 9
Appendix).33 The importance of a ‘control’ corpus in a study which assesses the language of
texts originating from a bilingual context is that it provides an external point of reference
which allows the Roman data to be contextualized, compared, and evaluated. It is critical to
utilise the correct body of evidence against which the Roman letters are compared. In Evans’
2010 article ‘Standard Koine Greek in Third Century BC Papyri’, which makes good use of a
‘control’ corpus for assessing the language of Greek papyrus letters, he emphasizes the
importance of applying a ‘control’ corpus constituted of ‘internal evidence’—that is, post-
classical documentary texts should be compared first and foremost with other post-classical
documentary texts, rather than with classical literature which is geographically,
chronologically, and linguistically removed from the main corpus.34 Prior scholarship has not
always assessed the language of Roman letters in Greek against the most relevant
comparanda, and for this reason a relevant ‘control’ is integral to this study. The primary
point of comparison for this study must be from the text type of letters and from the medium
of inscriptions, which must be relatively contemporaneous and expressed in Koine Greek.
Further comparisons are drawn from Greek and Latin inscriptions, papyri, and literature.
Another methodological issue in the work of Viereck and Sherk is their tendency to
isolate phenomena in the Roman letters and then seek a particular comparable example,
whether it was literary, epigraphic, or papyrological. I differ from their method in considering
each example in relation to the wider trends of the Roman corpus, and then comparing this
evidence to the corresponding trends in the epigraphic ‘control’ evidence. Even when I find
comparable evidence in inscriptions, I make a point to consider relevant papyrological and
literary evidence to further contextualise the epigraphic evidence.
33
For an example of the use of searchable text for historical linguistics of postclassical documentary evidence,
see S.E. Porter and M.B. O’Donnell, ‘Building and Examining Linguistic Phenomena in a Corpus of
Representative Papyri’, T.V. Evans and D.D. Obbink (eds.), The Language of the Papyri (Oxford, 2010), 287–
295. Their scope is of course much wider than mine, and their corpus differs from mine in that it is a sample
which they have selected.
34
Evans, ‘Standard Koine’, 197–206 – discussion of the construction of a relevant ‘control’ occurs throughout.
10 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
not found in Ceccarelli.35 The ‘control’ corpus consists of 126 inscribed Hellenistic letters
made up of two sub-corpora; a ‘Royal’ sub-corpus consisting of 67 inscribed letters of
Hellenistic kingdoms,36 and a ‘Non-Royal’ corpus consisting of 59 inscribed letters which
were sent between Hellenistic poleis or koina. This ‘control’ corpus is well-suited to this
study, since it is comprised of Greek texts matching the Roman letters chronologically,
geographically, linguistically, textually, and in terms of medium. The diversity of this
‘control’ corpus, comprised of one ‘Royal’ and one ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus, means that
conclusions will be even more accurate than if the Roman letters were only compared with
one of the Hellenistic letter-writing practices. The 67 letters comprising the ‘Royal’ corpus
were collected from Welles, RCHP, and the ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus of 59 inscribed letters of
Hellenistic poleis and koina is from Ceccarelli.37
35
There were occasional texts which appear in Sherk and Ceccarelli which are excluded from my Roman corpus,
as well as texts in Welles and Ceccarelli excluded from the ‘control’ corpus. These texts were excluded because
they are too fragmentary to: (1) contribute data to my study of formulaic expressions; (2) be securely identified
as a letter; and/or (3) be securely attributed to Rome rather than to a Hellenistic polis/koinon or kingdom. I have
provided such texts for each corpus/sub-corpus under ‘List of Excluded Texts’ for reference in the Appendix.
Regarding the letter not included by Ceccarelli, it was excluded presumably on the grounds that it comes from
Tiberius; however, it is dated to 13CE (so, while Augustus was still alive and therefore before Tiberius became
princeps) and thus falls within the Augustan Era.
36
‘Hellenistic kingdoms’ here refers to ‘Eastern kingdoms from the Hellenistic period’; the letters included in
the ‘control’ corpus are all in Greek, but the kings in whose names they were sent did not need to be of Greek
ethnicity.
37
I am aware of the list of 147 inscribed Hellenistic royal letters of the Attalids and the Seleukids (some of
which are also in Welles and therefore in my ‘Royal’ sub-corpus) which is provided in Bencivenni, ‘The King’s
Words’, 141–171. However, since my ‘control’ corpus is comprised of sub-corpora which are comparable in size
not only to one another but also to my Roman corpus, and the sample of 67 of the letters from Welles is evenly
distributed, both geographically and chronologically, and accurately representative of the extant material (which
itself is only a minute sample of the official letters sent in antiquity), there was no need to augment what is
already an effective ‘control’ corpus.
38
G.A. Gerhard, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Griechischen Briefes, I: Die Formel ¡ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι
χαίρειν’, Philologus, LXIV (1905), 27–65; F. Ziemann, ‘De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis Sollemnibus
Quaestiones Selectae’ (diss. Halle, 1910); F.J.X. Exler, ‘The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in
Introduction 11
particular the works of Lanham, Cugusi, and Halla-aho, which have either focused on or
incorporated substantial sections on formulaic expressions in Latin letters.39
I draw on Buzón most, especially in Chapter 1; his 1984 dissertation on the formulae
and layout of Greek papyrus letters and documents in the Ptolemaic period is my main source
of papyrological comparanda. Buzón’s work is more useful than Exler’s for the study of
Ptolemaic papyri firstly because it examines a higher quantity of data from this period.40 Exler
assessed a much broader time period than Buzón—the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century
CE41—which means that the majority of Exler’s data post-dates my corpora. The amount of
Exler’s cited examples dating before 1 CE is 337, including those found in the same letter.42
In contrast, Buzón draws on information found in 1,107 Ptolemaic letters.43
Another advance on earlier work made by Buzón is that previous works like Exler and
Ziemann considered only the occurrence of a formula in a particular letter type, but did not
take into account the significance of the letter types themselves and how this influences the
formula, which Buzón endeavours to do from the outset.44 This is helpful for my study, as it
contextualizes the use of formulae within a sub-type of Greek epistolography. Buzón
advances on his predecessors by summarizing at the end of each section the progression of the
Greek Epistolography’ (diss. Catholic University of America, 1923); H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und
Phraseologie des Griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki, 1956); J.L. White, The Body of the Greek
Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle (Montana, 1972), and
(focused on formulaic expressions to a lesser extent) id., Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia, 1986), 198–
212; R. Buzón, ‘Die Briefe der Ptolemäerzeit: Ihre Struktur und ihre Formeln’ (diss. Heidelberg 1984).
39
C.D. Lanham, Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to 1200: Syntax, Style, and Theory (Munich, 1975; repr.
Oregon, 2004); P. Cugusi, Evoluzione e Forme dell’Epistolografia Latina: Nella tarda Repubblica e nei primi
due secoli dell’Impero, con cenni Sull’Epistolografia Preciceroniana (Roma, 1983), see 47–56 (opening
formulae), and 56–64 (closing formulae); Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 43–63.
40
There was naturally more published letters for Buzón to examine, working 61 years later than Exler.
41
Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 13.
42
See Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 24–60, 78–98, 103–132. The 337 quotations consists of 161 for opening
conventions, 27 for dating formulae, and 149 for the letter body. He does not list specific examples of the simple
farewell ἔρρωσο.
43
See Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 1–4, 46–47, 87–98, 149–158. This originally consisted of 123 private letters, 64 letters of
recommendation, 611 business letters, and 503 administrative letters, to a total of 1,301 letters, from which 194
were excluded as drafts or copies, or on account of damage (10 Private letters (see page 4), 11 Recommendations
(47–48), 67 Business letters, (98–99), 106 Administrative letters (159)).
44
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, p. III.
12 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
formulae throughout each sub-type of letters.45 He also includes an overarching summary, as
does Exler, but Buzón’s sets out the diachronic progression of formulae from the earliest
examples of all Greek letters through to the end of his corpus, providing a deconstruction of
each of his key formulae.
While my first point of comparison is always the epigraphic ‘control’ corpus, Buzón’s
papyrus letters can be used to contextualize and evaluate the epigraphic material, since his
data are from documentary letters contemporaneous with nearly all of the ‘control’ evidence
as well as most of the Roman corpus. One of the values of Buzón’s work for my study is the
size of his corpus, far exceeding both my corpora combined. This is useful for assessing the
similarities between the smaller corpus of official letters and his larger corpus of private,
recommendation, business, and administrative letters. This can allow for a visualisation of the
relationship between official Greek letters and wider Hellenistic Greek epistolography, which
facilitates well-founded conclusions on Roman practices.
For many inscriptions in the ancient world it is difficult to identify the author or how many
people were involved in the process from drafting to inscribing the text.46 The official letters I
investigate are all held to be sent from Rome,47 but this does not address the question fully.
For our letters, I identify four potential main parties who could have influenced their Greek:
(1) the sender; (2) professional letter writers/draftsmen employed by the Roman
administration; (3) the recipient; and (4) the stonecutter. The first three are most likely to be
authors of such official inscriptions; (1) and (2) can collaborate or work separately, and (3)
needs to be considered in cases where the Greek presents evidence of Latin influence, which
could possibly indicate a translation. It is unlikely that (4) would be an author in this context,
but stonecutters are a possible influence on the final product. This dissertation will not be a
discussion of authorship or ‘composition vs. translation’, a question which would require
more space than can be devoted to it here; moreover, we must first provide a thorough
analysis of all aspects of the language of these letters before we can embark on such
45
This includes his ‘Grundformular’—the basic layout of the particular type of letter and the appropriate
formulae for each section, as evidenced by his investigation.
46
See J.N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003), 84–93, and Clackson, ‘Latin
Inscriptions and Documents’, 36–38.
47
Whenever I found a text which could not be securely ascribed to Rome beyond reasonable doubt, I have
excluded it and listed it in the Appendix after each sub-corpus under ‘List of Excluded Texts’ for reference.
Introduction 13
discussions.48 Furthermore, I am investigating the proficiency of one aspect of the language of
these letters, for it is the language and not the authors which has been understudied and
criticized. For this purpose, it is irrelevant whether (1) or (2) was the author, and therefore any
references to ‘authors’ of these documents refers to ‘authors in the Roman administration’,
whether magistrates or employees is less pressing here because we have not properly analysed
the language they used. The question of the recipient as translator will be briefly addressed in
the Conclusion, once the data have been discussed; but, as we shall see, it is very likely that
nearly all of our letters were not translated by their recipients. The rare occurrences of
possible stonecutter intervention are addressed as necessary.
48
Sherk provides only a cursory discussion on the question of composition vs. translation, Sherk, RDGE, 13–19
and 208–209, but cf. my critique, C.J. Haddad, ‘The Composition and Translation of Official Roman Letters
inscribed in Greek’ (Hons. diss., Macquarie University, 2013), 16: “Sherk analyses the language of 17 of the 69
letters, making explicit judgements that 3 were composed and 7 were translated, but does not offer judgements
on the other 59 letters and says little on the general process…Sherk defines those letters which are most
proficient in Greek and least affected by Latinisms as ‘composed in Greek’, and defines as translations from
Latin those that are least proficient and most affected, offering RDGE 65 as an example of the former and RDGE
48 an example of the latter. Sherk determines that the others “fall somewhere between these two points [between
RDGE 65 and 48], for only a few are as good as the former or as bad as the latter,” and leaves the question, for
the most part, unanswered.”
Chapter 1
1.1 – Opening and Closing formulae and their significance for this study
The formulae used to open and close a letter were of special importance in ancient Greek and
Roman epistolography. Along with fulfilling the role of greeting and wishing the addressee
well, for the recipient such formulae serve the important purpose of defining a text as a letter.1
Due to this role in establishing the text type for the audience, opening and closing formulae
take on the further significance of illustrating to those reading that the author understood the
text type. Applying such formulae correctly also requires a sufficient understanding of the
language in use, so the application of such formulae has the added function of demonstrating
the author’s understanding of the language. The significance of the multifaceted function of
formulaic language is captured by Halla-aho in her discussion of non-literary letters in Latin:
“If the person writing a letter knew how to compose the opening and
closing part according to current epistolographical custom, he will
also have known the standard ways of expressing oneself in writing. In
other words, knowledge of opening and closing phrases implies
familiarity with letters as a text type, even if they were dictated to
scribes.”2
How the Roman administration applied formulaic language for the letter opening and closure
is an important feature of their official epistolography in Greek, which is revealing of their
understanding of the language and the text type.
This chapter will investigate three types of formulaic language which are applied at
the beginning and end of Greek letters: (1) prescripts, (2) health wishes, and (3) farewell
salutations. Evidence from the ‘control’ corpus will be presented and discussed in relation to
1
Muir, Life and Letters, 1.
2
Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 44.
16 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
contemporary papyrological evidence before the Roman data are analysed. All three of these
expressions are ‘epistolary’, being the standard expressions used in ancient Greek letters.
They are formulaic both in the manner in which they are constructed as well as their
placement in the layout of the letter. Due to their importance to Greek epistolography, and
standardized and often complex forms and functions, these expressions are revealing of not
only the Roman administration’s understanding of the Greek language, its epistolography, and
its intrinsic formulaic language, but also the manner in which the Romans sought to present
their letters to Greek-speaking audiences.
The prescript is the address of the letter: it provides the name of the person who is sending the
message and the name of the recipient, and either of these parties can be individuals as well as
groups. In Greek, the most common manner in which to address a letter is by placing the
name of the sender first in nominative case, the name of the recipient second in dative, and
then the sender will regularly (but not always) add χαίρειν ‘greetings!’, in what will be
referred to hereafter as the ‘standard address formula’: ¡ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν.3 This
formula can be used by senders from a higher or lower social status than their recipient.4 As
will become clear from our data, it is conventional to use the standard formula in official
3
Buzón, ‘Briefe’ provides an in-depth study of Greek prescripts in roughly contemporaneous documentary
evidence is, on which I draw most. An earlier study, that of Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, had similar focus,
but has been superseded by Buzón. An important discussion of this prescript is Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 253–
258, who consults literary and documentary evidence. Koskenniemi, Studien, 148–151 focuses more on the place
and uses of the greeting. For a short discussion of the standard formula in inscribed official letters in Greek see
M. Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca (Rome, 1969; repr. 1995), 108–109. I will note a selection of the range of works
which touch upon greeting formulae and note the standard formula: Ceccarelli, AGLW, 1, with more extensive
discussion at 89–99; H-J. Klauck, Ancient Letters and the New Testament, English trans. by D.P. Bailey (Texas,
2006), 17–19; Muir, Life and Letters, 1–5; S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity
(Philadelphia, 1986), 20; M.B. Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation (Cambridge,
2003), 34–35. White, Light from Ancient Letters, 198–203.
4
Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 253; Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 62.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 17
letters.5 The components of the address could be found in different orders,6 with the order τῷ
δεῖνι ¡ δεῖνα χαίρειν often being characteristic of petitions.7
Occasionally, in the literary sources as well as the epigraphic, we find prescripts with
the word λέγει ‘s/he says’, without a greeting, as λέγει τάδε/„δε ‘says the following/speaks
in this way’, but also extremely rarely as χαίρειν λέγει ‘says ‘greetings!’’.8 This has been
attributed to an association with messengers—the messenger would presumably have reported
that his client ‘says’ (λέγει) to the addressee “greetings!” (χαίρειν)—here the infinitive
χαίρειν depends on λέγει in an indirect command construction, with the original statement
being the Imperative χαῖρε/χαίρετε ‘greetings!’9 Regardless of whether this was the case,
we do have an example of χαίρειν being governed by ἐπέστειλε.10 However, from an early
stage addresses with χαίρειν solely became standard.
The standard Latin address in this period is: (A) the sender in nominative case
(Gaius), (B) the greeting (s.d. = salutem dicit), and (C) the recipient in dative (Gaio), though
the order could vary.11 It is used as the standard Latin equivalent for the conventional Greek
5
Sherk, RDGE, 189. Cf. also very briefly Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’, 74.
6
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 239; Muir, Life and Letters, 2–3; Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 34–35; White, Light from
Ancient Letters, 198; Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 253.
7
Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 259–261; Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 23, 60–61, 65–67; Muir, Life and
Letters, 2–3; White, Light from Ancient Letters, 198; cf. also Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 100 and 159.
8
Gerhard, ‘Die Formel’, 27–65 (for a detailed discussion of the grammatical explanations for the standard
formula, see 27–38, esp. 30–34 for discussion of greetings with λέγει). For λέγει „δε and the origins of the
Greek address, drawing from the evidence in Herodotos, M. van den Hout, ‘Studies in Early Greek Letter-
Writing’, Mnemosyne, 2, 1 (1949), 29–33. For discussion of the evolution of Greek address formulae more
generally see Koskenniemi, Studien, 155–158. For an example of λέγει in a greeting in an inscribed letter see
Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 108.
9
Gerhard, ‘Die Formel’, 29–30 and 51–57; van den Hout, ‘Early Greek Letter-Writing’, 29–32; Koskenniemi,
Studien, 155–158. Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 108. Imperative χαῖρε/χαίρετε as a salutation was in place
early on, and is found in Homer as a greeting: to someone who has arrived – Iliad, 1.334: ìχαίρετε,
κήρυκες,...î; Iliad, 9.197: ìχαίρετον· ἦ φίλοι ἄνδρες ἱκάνετονÖî; Odyssey, 1.123: ìΧαῖρε, ξεῖνε,Öî; to a
lesser extent, Odys., 13.228–229; by someone who has arrived – Odys., 20.199: ìχαῖρε, πάτερ ‚ ξεῖνε·Öî; to
a lesser extent, Odys., 24.400–402.
10
SIG3 III 1259, the letter of Mnesiergos, which has χαίρν καÚ Õγιαίνν governed by ἐπέστειλε.
11
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 48 with examples; Lanham, Salutatio Formulas, 17–18 with examples. Cf. also Halla-aho,
Non-literary Latin Letters, 44–45.
18 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
address, and the word of greeting could be omitted in Latin letters perhaps more frequently
than in Greek.12
Beginning with the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus, 44 of the 67 ‘Royal’ letters were complete enough to
identify a letter opening, but 23 have lost this section. There are 25 full examples of the
standard formula, and the other 19 letters all presented damaged versions of the standard
formula, consisting of 7 with one component partially damaged, 3 with one component lost, 3
with only χαίρειν preserved, and 6 which were more extensively damaged.13
The use of the formula is consistent in the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus, both temporally and
geographically, and also in form. The word order of the addresses conforms to the standard
convention without deviation in all identifiable cases. All 25 of the full examples had the
standard word order, and the complete sections of the damaged examples either demonstrated
that they were in the standard word order, or, in more damaged examples, did not present any
evidence to the contrary. The only form used as a greeting is the infinitive χαίρειν, and there
is always a greeting when the section is intact.
The formula is evenly distributed temporally throughout the sub-corpus: the earliest
full example—2—is dated to c.306 BCE and the latest—66—is from 88/87 BCE. The latest
12
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 48.
13
See Figure 1.1. The extensively damaged examples are IOLHRC 6 (which has the recipient preserved followed
by χαίρει[ν]), 8 (which has only part of the sender), 27 (which has part of the sender, the recipient is preserved,
and χ[ίρειν]), 55 (which has fragments of all three components), 64 (which has the recipient preserved), and 65
(which has the recipient and [χαί]ρειν).
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 19
letter in the corpus—67—dated to 21 CE, has the standard formula with χαίρε[ιν]. There is
no evidence to suggest that the geographical distribution of the kingdoms affected the
expression of the address: for example, letters 2 and 66 mentioned above are not only
separated by over 200 years, but 2 is from Antigonos I of Macedon and 66 is from Mithridates
of Pontus. Since it is used by the various kingdoms throughout all stages of the corpus, we
must conclude that the standard formula was the conventional address in official Hellenistic
Royal correspondence.
Of the 59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters in the corpus, 51 were complete enough for the letter
opening to be identified, but 7 were lost and 1 letter14 only survives in excerpts of its body
embedded in a decree. There are 31 full examples of the standard formula, and 20 other letters
all provide enough information to identify an address: 3 have one component partially
damaged, 7 have one component lost, 1 has only χαίρειν, and 9 were more extensively
damaged.15 Again, the standard formula is used consistently in the ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus.
All 31 full examples of the standard address are in the conventional word order, while the 20
damaged letters either provided evidence that they would have been standard or presented no
evidence of variation. The word of greeting is always χαίρειν by itself.16
The standard formula is used diachronically in the sub-corpus: the earliest full
example is in 2 (242 BCE), while 59 (30–25 BCE) has the latest example. Geographical
separation has had little effect on how the poleis and koina constructed their addresses: e.g.
letters 2 and 59 were sent by Phaistos on Krete and the Dorian koinon respectively. These two
letters also illustrate that addresses by poleis and koina in the sub-corpus are no different.
The ‘control’ data also conform to the norms presented in the Ptolemaic letters. Buzón
found 908 examples of the standard formula in 1,107 letters: 53 in 113 Private letters, 35 in
53 Recommendation letters, 471 in 544 Business letters, and 349 in 397 Administrative
14
IOLHPK 50.
15
See Figure 1.2. The extensively damaged examples are IOLHPK 17 (which has the recipient preserved), 18
(which has the sender and article of the recipient), 21 (which has fragments of the sender, the recipient is
preserved, and χα[ίρ]ειν), 25 (which has fragments of the sender and recipient), 30 (which has [χαί]ρειν), 44
(which has the sender and χαίρε[ιν]), 45 (which has fragments of the sender, and the recipient is present), 47
(which has the article and most of the noun of the sender), and 53 (which has the sender and [χ]αίρειν).
16
There are occasional orthographic variations: χαίρεμ (with <ε> for <ει>, and ends in μ due to assimilation of
the word final ν to a word initial labial π) in IOLHPK 24; and χαίρεν (with <ε> for <ει>) in 36 and 37. Cf.
Gignac, Phonology, 261-2, who notes that such orthographic changes are also found in papyrological evidence
before nasals, as we have here. See also Mayser, Grammatik, I2 1, 41–44, 54–58.
20 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
letters,17 as well as 45 examples of the standard formula with a variation.18 There were 63
letters too damaged for a prescript.19 The standard formula occurs regularly in all types of
letters from the earliest to the latest examples in Buzón’s Ptolemaic corpus.20
Since all the evidence shows that the standard formula was consistently used in
regular form despite the temporal and geographical separation of the authors, we must
conclude that it was the conventional manner in which the represented Hellenistic poleis and
koina opened their letters. Furthermore, since both sub-corpora agree and mirror the practices
found in the Ptolemaic papyri, we must also conclude that the standard formula was
conventional for the Hellenistic kingdoms, states, and koina in their official epistolography.
There is more diversity to the prescripts of the Roman letters than in the ‘control’ corpus. The
most common by far is the standard formula, but there are some variations, and there is also
an alternative formula. The letter opening could be identified in 46 of our 64 Roman letters,
but it was lost in 18 letters. Of the 46 preserved cases there are 26 full examples of the
standard formula and another full example with ἐρρῶσθαι added. There were 13 damaged
examples of the standard formula; 5 with one component damaged, another 5 with one
17
The total of examples for the Private letters is explicitly mentioned (Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 5), that of the
Recommendation letters is implied (49: “Alle Empfehlungsbriefe bis auf Brief Nr.45 haben das Präskript, sieht
von den in diesem Teil beschädigten und deswegen nicht in Betracht zu ziehenden Brifen Nr. 28, 36 und 55 ab.”
With Buzón Recom. nos. 2, 8, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 41 being excluded (see pages 47–48). The Business and
Administrative letters were calculated in this way: in 544 Business letters, 31 are damaged (99), 1 is a draft
without prescript (99), 1 is an ostrakon with no prescript (99), 7 letters have the order τῷ δεῖνι ¡ δεῖνα χαίρειν
(100), 2 letters are without the sender mentioned (100), 9 are without a greeting (100), and 13 are without a
sender or greeting (100), and 9 have a variant greeting with a second infinitive (102)); in 397 Administrative
letters, 10 are damaged (159), 1 has τῷ δεῖνι ¡ δεῖνα χαίρειν (159), 3 are without the sender’s name (160), 12
are without a greeting (160), 3 have πόλλα χαίρειν (163), and 19 have a variant greeting with a second
infinitive (163)).
18
There were 11 in the Private letters (Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 17–18, comprised of 9 with χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι and
2 with χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν), 3 in the Recommendation letters (2 χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι, 1 χαίρειν καÚ
Õγιαίνειν (see page 50)), 9 in the Business letters (8 χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι, 1 χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν (107)),
and 22 in the Administrative letters (3 with πόλλα χαίρειν, 15 χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι, 4 χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν
(163 and 165–166)). For χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν, cf. SIG3 III 1259.
19
These are made up of 19 damaged Private letters (Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 5), 3 Recommendation letters (see page
49), 31 Business letters (99), and 10 Administrative letters (159).
20
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 239.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 21
component lost, and 3 were more extensively damaged.21 There is no word of greeting with
the standard address in 61, our only example in both corpora.
The use of the standard formula has an even temporal distribution throughout the
corpus: our earliest full example is in 1 (197–194 BCE), the latest is in 60 (5 CE). The most
recent letter in the corpus—64—preserves a damaged example of the standard formula from
13 CE. Although there are variations, it is the dominant opening address in the corpus, found
in various states of completion in 41 of the 46 letters with an identifiable opening. This
conforms to the data from the ‘control’ corpus as well as that from Buzón.
With regard to the variant forms, the address ¡ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν καÚ
ἐρρῶσθαι appearing in 40 is not found in the ‘control’ corpus. Sherk referred to this greeting
as ‘unusual’,22 but it is found in the Ptolemaic papyri, though in far fewer numbers than the
standard formula: in 1,107 letters, 63 of which are without an extant letter opening, Buzón
found the standard formula 908 times; the variant with ἐρρῶσθαι occurs 34 times.23
Alongside this variant, Buzón found 7 examples of χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν and 3 examples of
πόλλα χαίρειν.24 There is no obvious pattern in the distribution of the ἐρρῶσθαι variant,
with 9 examples in 113 Buzón’s Private letters, 2 in 53 Recommendations, 8 in 544 Business
letters, and 15 in 397 Administrative letters; what these quantities indicate is that it was not
unacceptable in these letter types, though it was uncommon. This distribution seems to be in
line with that of the Roman corpus; it appears in 1/46 or 2.2% of the Roman letters with
openings extant and in 34/1107 or 3.1% of the Ptolemaic letters. Although this form is mostly
21
See Figure 1.7 The extensively damaged examples are ORRLIG 7 (which has part of the sender and all the
recipient preserved), 8 (which has the sender preserved and part of the recipient), and 11 (which has the sender
and [χαί]ρειν).
22
Sherk, RDGE, 190, presumably ‘unusual’ in comparison to the Hellenistic Royal letters.
23
Buzón found 9 examples of χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι in 113 Private letters (Priv. nos. 90, 100, 108, 109, 111,
113, 118, 119, and 120); it is found twice in 53 Recommendation letters (Recom. nos. 61 and 64); there were 8
examples in 544 Business letters (Bus. nos. 473, 571, 574, 594, 600, 601, 602, and 605); and in 397
Administrative letters there are 15 examples (Admin. nos. 349, 414, 416, 427, 435 ,442, 444, 448, 467, 469, 473,
477, 482, 487, and 498). For discussion of this variant of the formula, see Buzón, ‘Briefe’, (Private letters) 8–9
and 17–18, cf. also 32–35; (Recommendations) 50 and 53, cf. also 78–79; (Business letters) 107, (mentioned at
102 and 117 n.13), cf. also 119–135; (Administrative Letters) 163 and 165–166, cf. 176–188. See also 239 and
244 n.4 for general discussion.
24
There were 2 variations with χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν in the Private letters (Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 17–18), 1 χαίρειν
καÚ Õγιαίνειν in the Recommendation letters (see page 50), 1 χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν in the Business letters
(107), and 3 variations with πόλλα χαίρειν and 4 with χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν in the Administrative letters (163
and 165–166). For χαίρειν καÚ Õγιαίνειν, cf. SIG3 III 1259.
22 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
found in the 2nd century BCE, the Roman example is not without temporal comparanda.
Dating to 45 BCE, it compares to the latest example in the Recommendation and
Administrative letters respectively—Recom. no. 64 from 51 BCE and Admin. no. 605 from 1
BCE.25
Buzón explains this variation as a merger of the prescript and the ‘initial health wish’
which characteristically employs a form of the verb ἐρρῶσθαι.26 However, as Buzón notes,
the employment of two infinitives as a greeting is not unprecedented in Greek epistolography:
it is found in as early as the letter of Mnesiergos from the 4th century BCE, which begins
Μνησίεργος ἐπέστειλε τοῖς οἴκοι χαίρν καÚ Õγιαίνν.27 Although greetings with two
infinitives are not found in extant evidence until the mid-2nd century,28 their early attestation
suggests perhaps these may not have been mergers of the greeting and health wish, but simply
variations with a second word of greeting. While they were not overly common, prescripts
with two infinitives were completely acceptable and do not appear to be confined to either
private or more formal letters.
It seems fair to attribute the use of this variant in our Roman letter to a degree of
familiarity with Greek epistolography. This is more likely than the variant being a Roman
invention which happened to coincide with a long established variation of the standard
formula. If we accept that it does reflect a familiarity with Greek epistolography, it would also
indicate an author with confidence in his abilities.29
25
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 9 and 240.
26
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 239. The same view is held by White, Light from Ancient Letters, 200, Guarducci, Epigrafia
Greca, 109, and Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 64 – “This formula seems to be a development of the opening
phrase combined with the initial salutation or health wish. We have noticed its occurrence between ten and
twenty times; all practically during the late Ptolemaic period. It was used in both familiar and official letters.”
see 32 for examples. Cf. also Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 317–320. The health wish is discussed in this
dissertation at §1.7 below.
27
SIG3 III 1259 (my emphasis), cf. Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 240, cf. also 8. The variant with Õγιαίνειν was also still in
use in 4 of the Ptolemaic letters, where he notes that it is ‘striking’ (auffällig) that ἐρρῶσθαι prevailed despite
Õγιαίνειν being present from the earliest stages.
28
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 238. White, Light from Ancient Letters, 200 and n.48 with exx.
29
The sender is Caesar as dictator; having studied oratory at Rhodes (Plutarch, Caesar, 3.1) and being noted to
have a knowledge of Greek literature (cf. Kaimio, Romans and the Greek Language, 130–131 for a collection of
references), he presumably knew Greek well, assuming of course that he wrote the letter himself. If he did not
write it himself, as dictator it is very likely (though unknowable) that he had someone in his employ who knew
Greek epistolography.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 23
Regarding the absence of χαίρειν in 61, this is not uncommon in either Greek or
Roman epistolography, despite not being found in the ‘control’ evidence. Buzón notes that it
happens occasionally in the Ptolemaic letters—in 1/53 Recommendations, 22/544 Business
letters, and 12/397 Administrative letters—and that there is little significance in its absence.30
For Latin letters, Cugusi does not devote much significance to prescripts without greetings,
saying simply that in official letters words of greeting are often omitted.31 The omission of a
word of greeting is often taken to be characteristic of official letters, but sometimes it is
subsequently ascribed to rulers being unwilling to lower themselves to greeting recipients: the
oft-quoted example is Alexander dropping χαίρειν except to his closest confidants after he
had secured supremacy.32 While the Ptolemaic papyrological examples could reflect that the
more official letter types may allow more opportunities for the omission of a greeting, it does
not seem likely that 61 is an example of Roman arrogance, but rather a simple example of the
author electing to leave out the greeting, which was acceptable in contemporaneous Greek
and Latin epistolography. Though only two lines of the letter are extant, it does not seem that
the greeting was left out through a lack of knowledge of Greek or its epistolography: the
30
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 239: “Die Umstellung der Reihenfolge erscheint zwar in einigen wenigen Fällen (sc. the order
¡ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν), muß aber als eine individuelle Eigenheit des Absenders angesehen werden. Das
gleiche gilt für das Fehlen des Namens des Absenders, des Grußes χαίρειν oder von beidem zusammen, was
gelegentlich vorkommt, sowie für die Ersetzungen und Zusätze zu den Namen des Absenders und des
Adressaten” (my emphasis). For the individual letters without greetings, see 49 (Recommendations), 100
(Business), and 160 (Administrative). Cf. also Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 64, who notes that it is “very
rare”, appearing in only one of the private letters in his corpus.
31
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 48: “La formula di saluto, quando è usata (ma spesso è omessa), è s.d.” s.d. = salutem
dicit.
32
Plutarch, Phocion, 17.10: ¡ γοῦν Δοῦρις εἴρηκεν, ›ς μέγας γενόμενος καÚ Δαρείου κρατήσας ἀφεῖλε
τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τÙ χαίρειν, πλὴν ἐν ὅσαις ἔγραφε Φωκίωνι· τοῦτον δÓ μόνον ·σπερ Ἀντίπατρον μετÏ
τοῦ χαίρειν προσηγόρευε. Cf. Muir, perhaps reading too much into this, Life and Letters, 3: “It was not done
to leave out the formalities (sc. a greeting) and send a bare message when a proper letter was expected; that was
the prerogative of autocrats. Alexander the Great, with his designs on the Persian empire accomplished and self-
importance to match, is said to have decided to drop ‘Greetings’ from his correspondence, reserving the word for
letters to two close associates, Antipater and Phocion, who alone, he felt, deserved the familiarity.” cf. also
Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 35, who takes a similar view, but less pronounced, noting that greetings are left
out “mainly in business and official correspondence” but does not quote a documentary example, though he
touches on the Alexander case in n.144.
24 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
address is standard and we have a characteristically Greek expression of filiation.33 Viewed in
this light, the omission of the greeting may even reflect the author’s confidence with the text
type, understanding that doing so was acceptable.
1.5 – Prescripts and Greetings in the Roman letters – Χαίρειν λέγει Addresses
We have discussed the use of the standard formula and its variants in the Roman corpus, but
4/46 letters have an alternative formula. These 4 letters present, in various stages of
completion, an address formula with the components: (A) the sender in nominative case, (B)
the greeting (χαίρειν λέγει), and (C) the recipient in dative. While Sherk saw this as simply
an expansion of the standard formula,34 it is more complicated than this and needs to be
explained through examination of Greek and Latin prescripts.
An early example of a Greek letter in Herodotos presents a letter opening with λέγει
„δε.35 There is also a similar example in a letter of Darius I (preserved in a later inscribed
copy) which has λέγει τάδε.36 However, prescripts with λέγει were abandoned at an early
stage.37 Conversely, the χαίρειν λέγει address in our letters is not otherwise attested,38 except
for 2 examples from Apollonios Dyskolos (writing 2nd century CE) in discussions of the
syntactical role of the infinitive χαίρειν in prescripts, where he concludes that λέγει is
33
ORRLIG 61, l.2: Ἀρτεμίδωρος Δημητρίου Παπᾶς. Greek filiation is most commonly expressed through the
person’s name in the case required by the clause, followed by their parent’s name in Genitive, as we see here.
Filiation is discussed later at §2.8.
34
Sherk, RDGE, 190: “Simple χαίρειν is sometimes expanded to χαίρειν λέγει…and it is then placed before
the name of the city and the various magistrates.” Sherk is not alone in seeing χαίρειν λέγει as the expanded or
more correct form of χαίρειν, cf. e.g. Lanham, Salutatio Formulas, 14–15; others note λέγει as understood, e.g.
Ceccarelli, AGLW, 92 and Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 34.
35
Herodotos, 3.40.1: êμασις Πολυκράτεϊ „δε λέγει. cf. Gerhard, ‘Die Formel’, 29–30 and 51–57; van den
Hout, ‘Early Greek Letter-Writing’, 29–32; Koskenniemi, Studien, 155–158. Also, cf. Guarducci, Epigrafia
Greca, p.108.
36
Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 108. The text is IMagn. 115 (also at Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 106)
37
It is possible that as letters became disassociated with messengers and emphasis was placed on the letter body,
written in 1st person, that the 3rd person verb was abandoned, cf. van den Hout, ‘Early Greek Letter-Writing’, 31–
32.
38
There are no examples in the ‘control’ evidence, none in the Ptolemaic papyri or Exler’s corpus (ending 2nd
century CE), there are no examples of “χαίρειν λέγει” or vice versa in the documentary papyri on the Duke
Databank, and the TLG shows there are only 2 literary passages where these two words co-occur and χαίρειν is
being used in its epistolary function, those mentioned from Apollonios Dyskolos.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 25
understood (Õπακουόμενον).39 We therefore should seek further explanation of χαίρειν
λέγει in these Roman letters rather than immediately concluding that it is a continuation of an
early precedent set somewhere between Herodotos and Mnesiergos.40 We need to consider
evidence from Latin epistolography.
As mentioned above, the standard Latin address in this period (with varying word
order) is: (A) sender in nominative, (B) the greeting (s.d. = salutem dicit), and (C) recipient in
dative.41 Alongside examples in literature, there are 7 examples of the unabbreviated salutem
dicit/dicunt in inscribed Imperial letters.42 We also have an abbreviated Republican example,
since 53 has a Latin version. The Latin address in 53 reads: Vinicius proc(onsul) s.d.
mag(istratibus) Cumas, where s.d. is almost certainly s(alutem) d(icit).43 The Greek version
reads: ΟÃινίκιος χαίρειν λέγει ἄρχουσι Κυμαίων. Clearly the standard Latin address and
the address in 53 have three corresponding components in the same order. From here one
39
Apollonios Dyskolos, On Syntax, 3.64–66 ‘On the infinitive χαίρειν in letter addresses’, esp. 3.65: οÃ
δυναμένου ο“ν τοῦ τοιούτου παραλαμβάνεσθαι ἀνάγκη πᾶσα εἰς τÙ γενικÙν ἀπαρέμφατον
μεταλαμβάνεσθαι τὴν σύνταξιν, συνηθέστερον Õπακουομένης τῆς συντάξεως τῆς λέγει ¢ ε–χεται,
Τρύφων Θέωνι λέγει χαίρειν, (my emphasis). 3.77: εἴπομεν γÏρ ›ς τοῖς τοιούτοις ἀπαρεμφάτοις
Õπακουόμενόν ἐστι τÙ ῥῆμα τÙ λέγει ¢ ε–χεται, Διονυσίῳ Ἀπολλώνιος λέγει χαίρειν ¢ ε–χεται· (my
emphasis). Cf. Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 268, and Ceccarelli, AGLW, 89–99.
40
In discussion of variation in Medieval Greek, Manolessou makes three points on defining a variant: we must
be sure that it is not an error by conducting synchronic cross-referencing of relevant material, there should not be
a large gap between the supposed first attestation and the later form (meaning that e.g. χαίρειν λέγει in our
letters is very unlikely to be a continuation of addresses with λέγει in Herodotos), and lastly we should consider
the geographical displacement of the attestations, see Manolessou, ‘On historical linguistics, linguistic variation,
and Medieval Greek’, 77–78.
41
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 48 with examples; Lanham, Salutatio Formulas, 17–18 with examples. Cf. also Halla-aho,
Non-literary Latin Letters, 44–45.
42
CIL 2-5, 871, ll.1–6 (Vespasian); CIL 10, 8038, l.3 (Vespasian); CILA-2-4, 1052, ll.2–3 (Vespasian); CIL 9
5420 (p. 687), l.5 (Domitian); CIL 2-5 1322, ll.1–2 (Antoninus Pius); ZPE 145, 266 l.5 (Galerius et al.); CIL 06,
40776, ll.1–10 (Constantine).
43
Although Sherk expands d. as d(at), d(icit) is almost certainly a better reading. Aside from the fact that the
oldest example of a letter opening in Latin literature has salutem dicit (Plautus, Persa, l.501: ‘salutem dicit
Toxilo Timarchides’. The section is a letter being read aloud by one of the characters), we have strong evidence
from the inscribed letters of the principes, see n.42 above. Furthermore, a search on the Epigraphische
Datenbank Clauss-Slaby for ‘salutem dat’ and vice versa returns 0 entries. The abbreviation s.d. is not treated in
the lists of Latin epigraphic abbreviations in J.E. Sandys, Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Latin
Inscriptions of the Roman World (Chicago, 1974), see esp. 308–309, and A.E. Gordon, Illustrated Introduction
to Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley, 1983), see esp. 222–224.
26 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
might conclude that χαίρειν λέγει is a literal translation of s.d. in our corpus; but this is not a
1:1 correspondence, we must look closer.
It seems that Plautus preserves the earliest example of salutem dicit, and if Persa is
indeed modelled on a Greek antecedent, as seems very likely, this may be the earliest example
of s.d. for χαίρειν.44 Lanham has observed that, while χαίρειν and salutem are equivalent
letter greetings in Greek and Latin, they are not one another’s literal translation. She found
that the Christian writers tend to use salutem as the standard Latin equivalent of χαίρειν, but
concludes that salutem is not a “slavish rendering” of χαίρειν since salutem is an accusative
noun,45 whereas χαίρειν is an accusative verbal noun. There seems to be some value in this
point: if we had such a mechanical rendering, it would probably be something like saluere
dicit. For our purposes we can observe that if an author conveying s.d. into Greek used
χαίρειν λέγει, this would not be a literal translation. We need therefore to seek further
information.
We should consider the other linguistic evidence provided in the letters. Working
chronologically, 9 is a very short letter with a senatus consultum (SC) appended. The
consistent verb final word order after the prescript is characteristic of Latin (especially the
Latin of official documents46 as well as Roman documents in Greek under pressure from
44
Plautus, Persa, l.501. The existence of a Greek antecedent seems to be a given for Woytek in his commentary
on Persa, cf. E. Woytek, T. Maccius Plautus: Persa: Einleitung, Text, und Kommentar (Vienna, 1982), 6: “Als
das zentrale Problem, das der Persa der Plautusphilologie aufgibt, muß seit nunmehr bald neunzig Jahren die
Datierung des griechischen Originals angesprochen werden” (my emphasis). There appears to be no recent
Anglophone commentary on the Persa, but Nixon suspects that it had a Greek original, P. Nixon, Plautus, III
(Massachusetts, 1924; repr. 1963), p. x. There is of course the possibility that the unknown Greek original could
have had χαίρειν λέγει and not χαίρειν solely.
45
Lanham, Salutatio Formulas, 18–22, esp. 21.
46
Clackson, Horrocks, Latin Language, 150 (discussing CIL 12 586): “…the regular placing of verbs in final
position in their clauses, a key feature of official Latin seen also in SCB [i.e CIL 12 581]”. See K.M. Coleman,
‘Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan’, Transactions of the American
Philological Association, 142, 2 (2012), 228–229 for this convention in the official letters of Trajan and Pliny.
For Latin word order in general and the conception of it being predominantly ‘Subject-Object-Verb’ in sequence,
see, among others: A.M. Devine, L.D. Stephens, Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information
(Oxford, 2006), esp. 145–216; B. Frischer, et al., ‘Word-Order Transference between Latin and Greek: The
Relative Position of the Accusative Object and the Governing Verb in Cassius Dio and other Greek and Roman
Prose Authors’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 99 (1999), 357–390. For Greek word order, especially
that the verb can be placed in more of a variety of positions than Latin, see, among others: K.J. Dover, Greek
Word Order, (Cambridge, 1960; repr. London, 2000), esp. 25–31; H. Dik, Word Order in Ancient Greek, (J.C.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 27
Latin practices47) and examples of ‘full asyndeton’ where there is apparently no formal or
stylistic reason for omitting connective particles.48 The whole letter body consists of one
formula, apparently of Roman invention.49 The absence of a farewell with the text leading
straight into the SC, though perfectly acceptable,50 suggests that the letter was written with
more thought to function than style, possibly alongside a Latin original and almost certainly
with Latin conventions in mind. The appended document could have drawn focus away from
the letter, the author taking more care with its composition expecting it to be the audience’s
main concern: we can see that early inscribed Latin letters with appended documents do little
more than announce the magistrates and the decision, without any typical epistolary
phraseology.51 The author of this text may have been following the Roman precedent of
providing only a short preface to the document. This being said, the letter is intelligible.
Both 32 and 33 are quite damaged. The first is badly preserved, but originally only
three lines long, followed immediately by a SC. It is possible that it was composed under
similar circumstances to 9, though the damage makes it difficult to know. Although damaged
33 would have been a long letter. We can see that there is intrinsically Roman filiation
applied to a Greek name.52 On the other hand, we can identify 7 connective particles despite
the poor state of preservation.53 This combination of evidence could reflect an author who
was well-enough acquainted with Greek language to write a long letter, but perhaps not so
well-acquainted with its formulaic expressions, defaulting to Latin practices without
considering Greek idiom.
Geiben, 1995), 11; D. Matić, ‘Topic, focus, and discourse structure: Ancient Greek Word Order’, Studies in
Language, 27, 3 (2003), 573–663.
47
Horrocks, Greek, 143.
48
Cf. J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd edn. revised by K.J. Dover (Oxford, 1950; repr. London, 1996),
xliii: “As a general rule, Greek sentences, clause, phrases, and single words are linked by a connecting particle to
what precedes. Connexion is, on the whole, not often omitted in verse, still less often in prose.” Also, J.D.
Denniston, Greek Prose Style, (Oxford, 1952; repr. London, 1997), 99. For ‘full asyndeton’ (omission of a
connective particle at a heavy stop), with exx., see Denniston, Greek Prose Style, 109–123. For the importance
of particles in Hellenistic prose, despite their general decline in usage, see J. Blomqvist, Greek Particles in
Hellenistic Prose, (Lund, 1969), 19 and 132–147.
49
This is the ‘Roman embassy formula’, discussed at §2.4.
50
Farewell salutations are discussed below at §1.10.
51
Cf. CIL 12 581 ll.1–3 and CIL 12 586 l.1.
52
ORRLIG 33 l.2: Μικᾶς Μικᾶ υἱός. This is characteristic of Roman filiation practices with f(ilius) after the
parent’s name in genitive case. Filiation is discussed in detail at §2.8.
53
Clause connectives: δέ Col.I l.2; τε Col.I ll.6, 15, 18, 25. Sentence connectives, δέ Col.I ll.20, Col.II l.1.
28 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Only 5 lines of 53 survive, but there are some interesting features in the extant
material. We have characteristically Greek filiation, made even more significant as the
corresponding Latin has characteristically Roman filiation, showing that the author was not
mechanically translating.54 Furthermore, alongside another possible example of Greek
filiation, we have Latin ab + ablative expressing agency correctly rendered by Greek Õπó +
genitive.55 The author is clearly thinking about the requirements of the respective languages in
both versions.
Although it may never be fully known why the χαίρειν λέγει greeting has been used
in these 4 letters, we can draw some conclusions. The chronological spread, ranging from the
mid-2nd century (9) to late 1st century BCE (53), suggests that the most likely constant
influence is official Latin document writing. This need not indicate mindless translation, but
rather pressure from Latin practices. Our earliest examples of official Latin epigraphy already
show strong uniformity and the expression of official texts would remain homogeneous for
centuries into the Empire.56 It is hard to know if the letters had Latin originals, but what is
important is the pressure of Latin conventions. Sherk felt that the senatus consulta in Greek
must have been official translations produced in Rome, but he says nothing of the
composition or translation of their cover-letters.57 What is more important than whether the
letters were composed or translated is understanding that whether the author composed or
translated they would be constrained by the conventions of official Roman document writing,
54
ORRLIG 53 (Latin) ll.12–13: Apollonides | L.f. No[race(us)], 53 (Greek) ll.23–24: Ἀ[πολ|λωνίδ]ης Λευκίου
Νωρακεῖος.
55
ORRLIG 53 (Latin) l.14: ab Lusia Diogenis f., 53 (Greek) l.26: ÕπÙ Λυσίου τοῦ Διογένους [---]. Although
Διογένους is followed immediately by a lacuna (meaning we cannot know if υἱός followed), it is preceded by
the definite article, commonly found in Greek filiation expressions.
56
Clackson, Horrocks, Latin Language, 142–143, and esp. 148: “The rigid format of these documents [sc. early
senatus consulta (CIL 12 581 and CIL 12 586)] is eloquent testimony to an already lengthy tradition of such
official writing, and indeed to the rigorous training of the senatorial draftsmen who prepared them.”
57
Cf. Sherk, RDGE, 13, echoed by S. McElduff, Roman Theories of Translation: Surpassing the Source,
(London, 2013), 31–32. Cf. in consideration of the composition and translation of the letters, Haddad,
‘Composition and Translation’, 76: “One problem with a dichotomy between composition and translation is both
processes frequently overlap. Each letter presents new challenges; for example, when encountering new
terminology or expressions, whether an author is composing or translating the letter is of little importance, since
the author will have to rely on their skills to convey this new information, and may draw on composition and
translation techniques equally. Furthermore, what distinguishes ‘bad’ compositions from ‘bad’ translations, and
is this even necessary? The most important factor is how effectively the information was conveyed”.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 29
which seems to be the main influence on these χαίρειν λέγει letters.58 It seems quite likely
that χαίρειν λέγει, a divergence from the standard formula, was inserted purposefully into
these letter openings: instead of calquing s.d., the authors elected to use χαίρειν λέγει, which
is perfectly intelligible, even logical, but not idiomatic Greek. It seems likely that the use of
χαίρειν λέγει results from Latin interference on authors who either overthought the prescript
or did not devote enough attention to it. The former is probably the case in 53, possibly in 33
too, and the latter probably explains 9 and 32.
With regard to the use of both the standard and the χαίρειν λέγει formula in the Roman
corpus, the evidence for both formulae reflects at times intimate understanding of Greek
epistolography but also authors who put thought into their work. That 41 of the 46 letters with
extant openings presented, in various states of preservation, an example of the standard
address formula or an acceptable variant speaks highly of Roman epistolography in Greek. It
entirely conforms to the data from the ‘control’ corpus as well as the Ptolemaic papyrus
letters. That there are 4 letters with an alternative address with χαίρειν λέγει, which,
although not standard, is not illogical in light of Greek or Roman epistolography, does not
detract from this view. At times this alternative seems to indicate a tendency on the part of the
authors to reflect on their task and the languages with which they worked; unfortunately it
resulted in an unidiomatic use of Greek, but an understandable one. Thus far the Roman
letters have been shown to conform to the standards of Koine Greek epistolography in the
vast majority, illustrating the importance which the authors of Roman letters placed on
formulaic expressions.
Health wishes, as the name suggests, allow the sender to express their wish for the well-being
of the recipient.59 When included in Greek letters, they normally follow the greeting directly
58
Cf. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, 470–471, discussing the translation of idiom and word order
in Roman texts in Greek and the explanation that the translators were incompetent in Greek, Adams states: “It is
far more likely that the translators deliberately stuck (or were instructed to do so) as closely as possible to the
wording of the originals, in disregard of the nature of Greek idiom.”
59
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 9; Koskenniemi, Studien, 138; Muir, Life and Letters, 3; Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 35;
White, Light from Ancient Letters, 200–202.
30 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
(formula valetudinis initialis) or immediately precede the farewell (formula valetudinis
finalis).60 Occasionally the sender will mention their health,61 and will often state that their
own wellbeing hinges on the recipient’s. ‘Health wish’ henceforth refers to the initial formula,
as the final formula is not found in our corpora.
The health wish generally consists of two parts62: one referring to the recipient is the
protasis of a condition with εἰ, to the effect of ‘if you are well…’, then followed by an
apodosis with ἄν ‘…it would be good’; if a third clause follows referring to the sender it is a
direct statement, usually ‘and I myself am well’. Buzón lists two versions of the health wish
which are found throughout the Ptolemaic letters:63 (1) εἰ ἔρρωσαι, εἴη ἄν, ›ςÖ, Õγίαινον
δÓ καÚ αÃτός and (2) εἰ ἔρρωσαι, ε“ (καλῶς) ἂν ἔχοι, Õγίαινον δÓ καÚ αÃτός. These occur
mainly in the 3rd century Ptolemaic letters but continue into the 2nd century BCE.64 We find
them in inscribed official Greek letters from the mid-2nd century and in their Roman
counterparts from the 1st century BCE.65 Health wishes were formulaic but not completely
rigid; the order of clauses could change,66 and the author could customize the wish for
particular recipients or situations.67 Epistolary convention did not require a health wish in
every letter, when they were used however, they needed to be applied in a roughly
conventional form. Health wishes carry an intrinsically personal quality more suited to private
correspondence, and this is surely why they are rare in official letters.68
Latin epistolography had a health wish which is, in the simplest form, si vales, bene
est ‘if you are well, it is good’ and could also be expanded by adding ego (quidem) valeo.69
60
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 240–241 (formula valetudinis initialis), 242–243 (formula valetudinis finalis); Ziemann, ‘De
epistularum’, 302–313 (formula valetudinis initialis), 313–317 (formula valetudinis finalis).
61
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 9; Muir, Life and Letters, 3; Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 35.
62
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 9.
63
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, for (1) 10, and for (2) 13. Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 106–107; Koskenniemi, Studien,
131, 133; Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 305–313.
64
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 241.
65
Welles, RCHP, 291. Sherk, RDGE, 190 (Referring to both Hellenistic Royal and Roman letters). Both
examples in the ‘Non-Royal’ corpus (not considered in Sherk) are from the 2nd century.
66
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 9.
67
For example, if the sender knew the recipient to be sick, a simple wish for health may be inappropriate, and
could be replacement by an expression of concern for the recipient, cf. White, Light from Ancient Letters, 201.
68
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 241, in reference to administrative letters, which are essentially of the same character as
official letters; Koskenniemi, Studien, 131; Sherk, RDGE, 190; Welles, RCHP, 248: “The health-wish is an
established convention of private correspondence, but it is rare in the royal letters.”
69
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 48; Halla-aho, Non-Literary Latin Letters, 45.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 31
The resemblance to the Greek is clear,70 and it seems likely that the Romans made the Greek
practice their own, with one main difference being that the apodosis is not hypothetical, but a
statement of fact. We may have an early example of Roman epistolography borrowing this
formula from Greek practices in Plautus’ Persa.71 The Romans made good use of this
formula, even in their official letters,72 where we have more Roman epigraphic examples than
contemporaneous Greek ones. The Romans also experimented with Greek health wishes and
created a distinctly Roman version.
Due to health wishes being comprised of many words, several of our examples are damaged,
but the lengthiness of health wishes allows us to identify them easily. Nevertheless, many
complete examples have been found.
As was mentioned above, due to their personal quality health wishes are mostly found
in private correspondence.73 The ‘control’ evidence reflects this. While 21/67 ‘Royal’ letters
were too damaged at this point to record data and 1 did not have this section provided in the
edition, 45/67 could be examined and 44 of these presented clear results.74 Of these 44 letters,
39 had no health wish. However, there were 3 completely preserved examples of εἰ ἔρρωσαι,
ε“ ἂν ἔχοι· κἀγὼ δÓ Õγίαινον,75 1 damaged version of the more extensive εἰ ἔρρωσαι, ἔχοι
ἂν ›ς ἐγὼ βούλομαι· Õγίαινον δÓ καÚ αÃτός,76 and 1 more complete and extended version
70
Koskenniemi, Studien, 131: “Bekanntlich hat sie eine beinahe wortgetreue Entsprechung in dem lateinischen
si uales, bene est, ego ualeo.” Cf. also Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 305, and Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 106
71
Plautus, Persa, ll.502–503: ‘si ualetis, gaudeo. ego ualeo recte’. For the Greek antecedent see n.44 above.
72
A brief discussion is offered in Sherk, RDGE, 190. Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’, 74–75 does little more than
mention the health wish and offer comparanda. A valuable discussion of the example in ORRLIG 45 is found at
J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, (London, 1982), 45.
73
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 241, in reference to administrative letters, which are essentially of the same character as
official letters; Koskenniemi, Studien, 131; Sherk, RDGE, 190. Cf. Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 45,
who found only two health wishes in her corpus, Vindon. 52.2 and CEL 10.1.
74
The remaining letter was IOLHRC 64, which had at ll.3–(4?): [---εἴη ἂν] ›ς βουλόμε|[θα---]. Although it
seems quite likely to have been a health wish the damage is too extensive to be sure.
75
IOLHRC 52, ll.1–2 has: εἰ ἔρρωσαι, ε“ | ἂν ἔχοι· Õγίαινον δÓ κἀγώ.
76
The first 3 words are lost, IOLHRC 54, ll.1–2: [εἰ ἔρρωσαι, ἔχοι] | ἂν ›ς ἐγὼ βούλομαι· Õγίαινον δÓ καÚ
αÃτός.
32 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
of this, with εἴη instead of ἔχοι.77 Of the 5 examples 4 are dated between 182 and 156 BCE
and were written by either Eumenes II or Attalos II to the priest Attis, with whom they appear
to have been on good terms.78 The remaining example from 109 BCE is from an Antiokhos to
Ptolemaios IX, and the health wish was probably incorporated because both contenders
fighting for control of the Seleukid realm were also vying for Ptolemaic favour.79
There were 11/59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters where this section was damaged, 1 with this
section not quoted in the ancient text, and 3 where the edition did not provide it, leaving 44/59
letters which were examinable for health wishes. Of these, 42 have no health wish. The 2
examples of health wishes consisted of 1 damaged example of εἰ ἔρρωσαι, ἔχοι ἂν ›ς ἐγὼ
βούλομαι· Õγίαινον δÓ καÚ αÃτός, and 1 complete example of εἰ ἔρωσθε [sic], τÙ δέον ἂν
εἴη, καÚ ἡμεῖς δÓ Õγιαίνομεν, both from the 1st century BCE.80 The need for a health wish
was probably felt in 40 due to the common ancestry of both parties, and in 51 on account of
services rendered.81
We can conclude that it was most common for the author not to apply health wishes in
the ‘control’ letters, with 81/88 having none. This conforms completely to the data from the
Ptolemaic Administrative letters—our most applicable parallel for our official letters
regarding health wishes, in which they seldom occur—with 5 examples in 397 letters.82 This
77
IOLHRC 63, ll.2–3 is an extended version: εἰ ἔρρωσαι, εἴη ἂν ›ς βου|[λόμε]θα· καÚ αÃτοÚ δÓ Õγιαίνομεν
καÚ σοῦ ἐμνημομεύομεν | [φιλοστ]όργως. 64, ll.3–(4?) with: [---εἴη ἂν] ›ς βουλόμε|[θα---] seems very likely
to have been a health wish of this kind, but it is not included in the data.
78
Cf. the comments of Welles, RCHP, 246–247. IOLHRC 49 Eumenes II to Attis priest of Cybele – 182 BCE,
51 Attalos to Attis priest of Cybele – between 163 and 159 BCE, 52 Attalos to Attis priest of Cybele – between
163 and 159 BCE, 54 Attalos II (after his ascension to the crown) to Attis priest of Cybele – between 158 and
156 BCE.
79
IOLHRC 63 Antiokhos VIII (IX?) to Ptolemaios IX Alexander – 109 BCE. For discussion of the military and
political situation, see Welles, RCHP, 290–291.
80
IOLHPK 40 Tyre to Delphi – 125 BCE, 51 – The strategoi of Lampsakos to the magistrates of Thasos – 1st
cen. BCE
81
Cf. IOLHPK 40, ll.1–3: Τύρου τῆς ἱερᾶς καÚ ἀσύλου ἡ β[ουλὴ | καÚ ¡ δῆμος Δελφῶν τῆι] βουλῆι καÚ τῶι
δήμωι τοῖς συγγε|ν[έσιν χαίρειν---] (my emphasis), and 51, ll.4–6: Τῶν γεγονότων || φιλανθρώπων παρí
ἡμῖν τῶι πολίτῃ Õμῶν | Διονυσοδώρωι Πεμπίδου κτλ.
82
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 163: “Die formula valetudinis initialis ist kein regelmäßiger Bestandteil der
Verwaltungsbriefe, sondern kommt nur in Ausnahmefällen vor. Wir finden sie in fünf der 397 behandelten
Briefe.” It is used once by the King and 3 times by senior officials, cf. 165. The 5th letter is too damaged to know
the sender’s identity. The Business letters, 102, are closer to the Administrative with 49/544, but the Private
letters with 62/113, p.9, and Recommendations with 18/53, 51, are not comparable.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 33
shows that the use of health wishes in our ‘control’ letters is representative of the practices of
the official sub-type. When health wishes are used, it is because of affection or to foster
goodwill. They are found mostly in the 2nd century BCE but continue into the 1st in the
‘control’ evidence, which also conforms to the Ptolemaic evidence.83 The ‘control’ health
wishes regularly apply the same basic components and variations, which fit the standard
models.
——
1.9 – Health wishes in the Roman letters
The use of the health wish in the Roman letters is similar to the ‘control’ evidence. Of our 64
letters, 20 have lost this section through damage and 5 were not provided in the edition. Of
the remaining 38 letters, 29 (76.6%) have no health wish; this is similar but noticeably less
than the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus which has 88.7% without health wishes, and quite different to the
‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus which has 95.5%.
The other 10 letters present 9 certain health wishes, as well as 1 extensively damaged
example which had to be excluded; this is more than the entire ‘control’ corpus. One of these
health wishes is the simplest form: εἰ ἔρρωσθε, ε“ ἂν ἔχοι.84 The remaining 8, however,
have augmented a standard Greek version by adding a distinctly Roman feature—a mention
of the wellbeing of the sender and their army. The distinctly Roman addition is either:
…Õγιαίνω δÓ καÚ αÃτÙς μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος ‘and I myself am well with the army’ or:
…καÚ αÃτÙς δÓ μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος Õγίαινον ‘and I myself was well with the army’,
using the epistolary imperfect. The earliest example of a reference to the health of the Roman
commander and their army is found in a Letaean decree honouring Marcus Annius.85 The
earliest example from an official Roman letter is in Cicero.86 It became a feature of Imperial
epistolography which was important enough for Dio to notice that Hadrian, on account of
83
The earliest is Buzón Admin. no. 18 from 258 BCE, Buzón, ‘Bie Briefe der Ptolemäerzeit.’, 150, and the latest
is Buzón Admin. no. 382 from 116 BCE, 156.
84
ORRLIG 41, l.2 has: εἰ ἔρρω[σθε, ε“ ἂν ἔχοι· ---]. That this is a health wish is very likely, but how elaborate
it would have been is impossible to know, so it is listed under ‘εἰ ἔρρωσθε, ε“ ἂν ἔχοι’ and excluded from the
data.
85
SIG3 700, ll.41–43: ἑλέσθαι δÓ καÚ πρεσβευτάς, οµτινες πορευ|θέντες πρÙς αÃτÙν καÚ ἀσπασάμενοι
παρÏ τῆς πόλεως καÚ συνχαρέντες | ἐπÚ τῶι Õγιαίνειν αÃτόν τε καÚ τÙ στρατόπεδον κτλ., keenly spotted
by Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 45.
86
Cicero, Ad Familiares, 5.2.1: si tu exercitusque ualetis benest, cf. also Ad Fam., 5.7.1: S.T.E.Q.V.B.E., which
is apparently the abbreviated form of this health wish (Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 45).
34 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
severe losses in Iudaea, omitted it in a letter to the Senate.87 It endured at least to Constantine
in inscribed Latin letters,88 and is even found in the correspondence of the Byzantine emperor
Anastasius (r. 491-518 CE).89 In our letters there are 2 complete and 1 damaged example of
the first version,90 and there are 4 clear examples of the latter in varying degrees of
completion.91 The final example appears to be a damaged variation of the second version.92
One example should be addressed. Sherk believed that 44 had an abbreviated form of
the distinctly Roman health wish—…χαίρειν. καÚ αÃτÙς δÓ μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος
[Õγίαινον]—the greeting moves straight into the reference of the sender without εἰ ἔρρωσθε,
ε“ ἂν ἔχοι.93 However, this ‘abbreviation’ results in a floating clause connected to nothing:
‘…greetings. And I myself was also well with the army’, which makes little sense. Evans has
shown for 3rd century BCE Greek papyrus letters of educated writers that it is standard
practice not to employ a connective particle linking the letter body to the greeting.94 We have
no other examples where a connective follows the greeting in our corpus. If the author wanted
to abbreviate the health wish, they should have removed δέ (καί is adverbial here). There is
87
Cassius Dio, LXIX 14.4: πολλοÚ μέντοι ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τούτῳ καÚ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀπώλοντο· διÙ καÚ ¡
çδριανÙς γράφων πρÙς τὴν βουλὴν οÃκ ἐχρήσατο τῷ προοιμίῳ τῷ συνήθει τοῖς αÃτοκράτορσιν, ὅτι ìεἰ
αÃτοί τε καÚ οἱ παίδες Õμῶν Õγιαίνετε, ε“ ἂν ἔχοι· ἐγὼ καÚ τÏ στρατεύματα Õγιαίνομεν.î (my
emphasis). Cf. A.R. Birley, Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, (London, 1997; repr. 2009), 272.
88
CIL 6, 40776 ll.1–12: Imp(erator) Caes(ar) Fl(avius) Constantinus |…|…|…||…|…|…|…|…|| senatui suo
salutem dicunt si vos liberique | vestri valetis bene est nos exercitusque | nostri valemus… (my emphasis);
Corcoran, ‘State Correspondence in the Roman Empire’, 193.
89
Collectio Avellana, 113.1: Si uos liberique uestri ualetis, bene est; ego exercitusque meus ualemus. see
Corcoran, ‘State Correspondence in the Roman Empire’, 193.
90
The damaged example is ORRLIG 52, ll.8–9: εἰ ἔρρω[σθε κ]αλῶς ἂν | [ἔχοι, κἀγὼ δÓ με]τÏ τοῦ
στρατεύματος Õγια[ί]νω.
91
These are: ORRLIG 44, l.4(–5?): καÚ αÃτÙς δÓ μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος || [Õγίαινον]; 49, ll.4–6: εἰ
ἔρρωσθε κα||λῶς ἂν ἔχοι· v καÚ αÃτÙς δÓ μετÏ τ[οῦ] | στρατεύματος Õγίαινον; 50, ll.75–76: εἰ ἔρρωσθε,
καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι· καÚ αÃτÙς δÓ μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύ|[ματος Õγί]αινον; 51, ll.86–87: εἰ ἔρρωσθε, καλῶς | [ἂν
ἔχοι· καÚ] αÃτÙς δÓ μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος Õγίαινον.
92
Cf. ORRLIG 38, l.3: [εἰ ἔρρωσθε, καλῶς ἂν] ἔχοι· κἀγὼ δÓ μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύ[ατος Õγίαινον].
93
Sherk, RDGE, 190, citing as an comparandum 40, ll.8–9: κἀ[ὼ δÓ | μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος Õγίαινον] but
the damage is far too extensive to be sure that this is an example. I have listed this under ‘Entirely Lost’ on the
table.
94
Evans, ‘Standard Koine’, 197–206, see esp. 201: “It becomes clear that it is regular to have no particle linking
the body of the text to the greeting formula. And this is precisely what we should expect. Greeting and letter-
body are discrete elements of the text” and 204.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 35
the possibility that the expression including its particles had become fossilized95 and the
author overlooked it when they lifted out this clause, but it seems unlikely that an author
employing a greeting, farewell, health wish, and another connective particle used correctly,96
would have abbreviated in this way.
Although Koskenniemi believed that similar examples in papyri were the result of
authors feeling it ‘onerous’ to write out the full formula,97 it seems much more likely here that
a section has been omitted—whether by the writer or stonecutter is unknowable. As early as
Mnesiergos’ letter, we can see that when the clause referring to the sender is attached to the
greeting, the greeting contains 2 infinitives.98 This suggests that if 44 were an abbreviated
form the greeting would be χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι; therefore it seems most likely that either
part of the greeting or the first section of the health wish has been omitted, but if it is an
abbreviation the connective has probably been retained through the fossilization of the
expression.
The earliest inscribed Roman example of a health wish—35 (73 BCE)—is much later
than the ‘control’ examples, and the other 8 examples occur between 48 and 29 BCE. It seems
likely that the prevalence of its counterpart in Latin letters led to its reintroduction to Roman
letters in Greek. Like the ‘control’ letters, the Roman letters do not apply the health wish
without cause, in all cases the sender and recipient seem to be on good terms. The first health
wish was sent by the two consuls of the year announcing a decision on tax-exemption, the
second was from Caesar returning a decree of friendship, and the remaining 7 come from
Octavian.99 Octavian seems to be on very good terms with Rhosos, refering to it as ‘holy,
inviolate, and free’ in all 3 letters,100 and two of these mention Seleukos, a Rhosian who
95
Cf. Evans, ‘Standard Koine’, 204.
96
ORRLIG 44, ll.5–6: [---τ]Ï Õπογεγραμμένα ἐξελήφθηι ἐκ στήλης ἐκ τοῦ ἐν Ῥώμηι Καπετωλίου | [ἅπερ
ἀξιῶ] καταχωρίσαι εἰς τÏ παρí Õμῖν δημόσια γράμματα. πέμψατε δÓ καÚ ἀντίγραφον κτλ. (my
emphasis).
97
Koskenniemi, Studien, 131–132.
98
Cf. SIG3 III 1259, ll.1–4: Μνησίεργος | ἐπέστειλε τοῖς οἴκοι | χαίρν καÚ Õγιαίνν· | καÚ αÃτÙς ο—τως
ἔφασ[κ]ε [ἔχεν].
99
35, Varro and Cassius to the Oropians – 73 BCE; 38, Caesar to Mytilene – 48–47 BCE; 44, Octavian to
Rhosos – 42–34 BCE; 45, Octavian to the Plarasians and Aphrodisians – 40–38 BCE; 48, Octavian to Ephesos –
38 BCE; 49, Octavian to the Mylasians – 31 BCE; 50, Octavian to Rhosos – 31 BCE; 51, Octavian to Rhosos –
30 BCE; 52, Octavian to Ephesos – 29BCE.
100
ORRLIG 44, ll.3–4; 50, l.74; 51, l.86.
36 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
earlier served as Octavian’s admiral and later as an ambassador to him,101 and appears to be of
close acquaintance. The use of the health wish in Octavian’s letters to Mylasa and Ephesos
after they were ravaged by Labienus (who fought against Octavian with the Liberators) is an
expression of friendship, but it would likely have been received as a kind gesture, as the
importance of health would have been very real for them at that time. Ephesos later votes a
decree to Octavian, and receives a reply with a health wish. The letter to the Plarasians and
Aphrodisians is similar to the rest, Octavian granting privileges and expressing his fondness
for their ambassador.
This evidence shows that the Roman administration used the health wish correctly in
their letters, and chose the appropriate situations to apply it. It seems likely that Octavian,
who uses it most, understood the gravity behind the health wish. The use of the health wish to
Mylasa and Ephesos after their trials may show keen understanding of its function, and he
surely understood its power to consolidate friendships and alliances after a turbulent period.
The reference to the wellbeing of the army may well have assumed the new function of
fostering faith in Roman protection, perhaps explaining the use of present tense Õγιαίνω in 3
letters. All of the Roman examples come in letters from individuals (or a pair of individuals)
to groups, which is the result of Roman government and its system of bestowing power upon
individuals, but it also reflects the respective political situations: the pair is the two consuls in
73, the later individuals are Caesar and Octavian.
The distinctly Roman addition to the health wish demonstrates two important features
of their epistolography. It shows a willingness to experiment with and personalize a Greek
epistolary convention, which reflects a confidence in their epistolography in Greek. While this
addition seems to have developed in Latin letters after being inspired by Greek practices, to
make the transition back into their letters in Greek meant that the authors must have felt
confident that they would be able to apply it grammatically and in the overall letter layout, but
also that it would have been acceptable to the recipient as a feature of an official letter. The
development and implementation of this health wish in Greek is an example of the
proficiency and confidence with which the Roman administration applied epistolary formulae
in Greek.
101
ORRLIG 51, ll.87–91.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 37
Farewell salutations both wish the recipient well after the message is conveyed and conclude
the letter in doing so.102 In Greek they are normally short and there are two main 2nd person
imperatival forms used: (sg./pl.) ἔρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε ‘farewell!’ and εÃτύχει/εÃτυχεῖτε ‘be
fortunate!’ ûρρωσο is the standard farewell in private as well as official letters, and is used
long before and after the chronology of our corpora: some early examples can be seen in
Xenophon, Isocrates, and Philip II.103 ΕÃτύχει is used in a similar manner, but it is often used
to stress the sender’s affection or concern for the recipient or their supplication to them, and is
generally seen as a feature of petitions.104 There is an early example in a letter of Philip II.105
Just as a word of greeting can be omitted, so too could a farewell, without disrespect to the
recipient or reflecting poorly upon the author,106 and the earliest Greek letters tend not to have
102
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 25; Ceccarelli, AGLW, 1; Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 69; Koskenniemi, Studien, 151;
Muir, Life and Letters, 1–2, 3; Sherk, RDGE, 197; Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 35; Viereck, ‘Sermo
Graecus’, 75; Welles, RCHP, p. xxxix; White, Light from Ancient Letters, 198.
103
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 25; Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 69; Koskenniemi, Studien, 151. Xenophon, Cyropaedia,
4.5.33: (Cyrus to Cyaxares) ἡμεῖς δÓ πειρασόμεθα παρεῖναι, ὅταν τάχιστα διαπραξώμεθα ἃ σοί τí ἂν καÚ
ἡμῖν νομίξομεν πραχθέντα κοινÏ γένεσθαι ἀγαθά. ἔρρωσο. Isocrates, Epistula 7 (Ad Timotheum) (Hercher
(ed.), EG) 13.7: ûρρωσο, κἄν του δέῃ τῶν παρí ἡμῖν, ἐπίστελλε. Philip II, Epistula 4 (Hercher (ed.), EG) (to
the Athenian boule): ἔρρωσθε. Unlike χαίρειν from χαῖρε/χαίρετε, ἔρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε is not found as a
valediction in Homer, which uses χαῖρε/χαίρετε as a farewell: to someone leaving – Odyssey, 5.204–205:
ìο—τω δὴ οἶκόνδε φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν αÃτίκα νῦν ἐθέλεις ἰέναι; σˆ δÓ χαῖρε καÚ ἔμπης.î; cf. Odys.,
15.151–152; by someone leaving – Odys., 13.59–61: ìΧαῖρέ μοι, ‚ βασίλεια,Ö|Ö| αÃτÏρ ἐγὼ νέομαι·î; cf.
Odys., 13.39.
104
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 25–26; Exler, ‘Form of the AG Letter’, 71–73; Koskenniemi, Studien, 151, 153–154 for the
affectionate quality (“ein philophronetisches Element”) of farewells.
105
Philip II, Epistula 3 (Hercher (ed.), EG) (to the Athenian boule): διόπερ τά τε νῦν καταχθέντα πλοῖα πρÙς
ἡμᾶς ἀφίημι Õμῖν, καÚ τοῦ λοιποῦ, ἐÏν βούλησθε μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν τοῖς προεστηκόσιν Õμῶν κακοήθως
πολιτεύεσθαι, ἀλλí ἐπιτιμᾶτε, πειράσομαι κἀγω διαφυλάττειν τὴν εἰρήνην. εÃτυχεῖτε.
106
See especially Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 26, who rejects Ziemann’s judgement that the omission of the farewell was a
sign of low intelligence (Ziemann, ‘De epistularum’, 360: “Pleraeque illarum epistularum scriptae sunt ab
hominibus ineruditis, qui vel clausulam adicere obliviscebautur vel formularum epistolicarum non satis erant
periti.”), and concludes, after citing examples of letters without farewells by well-educated authors, that: “Wir
müssen annehmen, daß auch in anderen Fällen ohne erkennbaren Grund gelegentlich der Abschiedsgruß fehlen
kann.”
38 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
farewell salutations.107 This being said, papyrus letters in our period regularly have
farewells.108
Although more elaborate versions exist, the standard Latin farewell is uale
‘farewell!’109 Vale/ualete is similar to ἔρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε, both meaning essentially ‘be in
good health’, and they are standard equivalents. Just as with Greek farewells, Latin letters
often omitted them, especially official letters.110
Beginning with the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus, 40 of the 67 letters had their closing section
preserved, with 27 being entirely lost. ûρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε is the only farewell used in the
‘Royal’ letters, with 9 examples of ἔρρωσο and 18 of ἔρρωσθε. Of the 9 examples of
ἔρρωσο, the address or the text of 7 of them showed that the recipient was singular,111 and the
recipient was shown in the same way to be plural for 17/18 letters with ἔρρωσθε.112 There
were also 1 damaged ἔρρωσθε and another damaged farewell, most likely ἔρρωσ[θε].113 It
seems certain that the farewell in the other 3 letters was in the number relevant to the
recipient. From this we learn that farewells in the ‘Royal’ letters were used according to the
number of the recipient, showing that they were considered to a certain degree and not
attached to the end of the letter without thought. The earliest example comes from 311 BCE,
and there are regular attestations up to the latest example, dating between 163–159; with
107
Cf. Letter of Akhillodoros (550–500 BCE) SEG 26, 845; Letter of Apatorios (c.500 BCE) SEG 48, 1012;
Letter of Mnesiergos (4th century BCE) SIG3 III 1259.
108
See T.V. Evans, ‘Valedictory ἔρρωσο in Zenon Archive Letters from Hierokles’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik, 153 (2005), 157-158.
109
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 56–57; Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 52.
110
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 57: “Nelle lettere ufficiali mancano spesso i saluti,…”
111
The preserved address made this clear in IOLHRC 9, 10, 11, 31, and 51. Forms in 2nd person singular made
this clear in IOLHRC 48, l.6 ἕξεις, and 50, l.4 σου, l.5 σέ.
112
The address showed this in IOLHRC 5, 12, 13, 14, 20, 25, 26, and 29. 2nd person plural forms showed that the
recipient was plural in IOLHRC 1, l.42, l.65 Õμᾶς, l.68, l.71 Õμῖν; 18, l.18 Õμᾶς, l.19 τιμήσητε, l.20
Õπολαμβάνητε; 21, l.26 Õμῖν; 22, l.8 ‡ιεσθε, ll.12–13 τεθείκα|τε; 32, l.4, l.10 Õμῶν, l.5, l.7 Õμῖν, l.11 Õμᾶς;
34, l.14 Õμᾶς; 42, l.9 ἕξετε; 43, l.13 ποιήσετε, l.16 Õμῖν, l.17 φανεῖσθε; 45, l.2 Õμῶν, l.23 Õμ⟦ε⟧ῖν, ll.53–4
συν|τελῆτε, l.54, l.72 Õμῖν, l.55 ἕξετε, l.70 Õμᾶς. There were misspellings in 5, l.20: ἔρρω{σ}σθε, and in 14,
l.38: ἔρ<ρ>ωσθε.
113
IOLHRC 2 should most likely have ἔρρωσ[θε], since it was addressed to a boule. IOLHRC 56 has
ἔρω[ε], and ll.10–11: αλῶς “ | [ποι]ήσετε is evidence for a plural recipient.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 39
64/67 letters coming from between 311 and 100 BCE, it is fair to say that it was used
diachronically in this sub-corpus. There is a high quantity of letters with damaged closings in
the latter portion of the sub-corpus.
The ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus had 33/59 letters with extant closing sections, 1 letter
survives only in excerpts from its body embedded in a decree, 3 do not have this section
provided in the edition, and 21 have no extant ending.114 There were 11 letters with complete
examples of ἔρρωσθε, and there was 1 partially damaged example.115 All of these letters were
shown to have plural recipients either by their prescripts or from 2nd person plural forms in
their text.116 There were two letters both dating to the 2nd century BCE which used εÃτυχεῖτε
as the farewell, one of which was shown to have a plural recipient by its prescript,117 but 4
was too damaged to tell. Due to the consistency in the ‘Non-Royal’ letters, it seems likely that
4 had a plural recipient. This reflects the same degree of care taken with applying the
appropriate farewell as we saw in the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus. The earliest example of ἔρρωσθε
comes from 208 and the most recent from the late 2nd century BCE, but the high quantity of
damaged letter closings means that we do not have any examples from the 1st century. We can
say that this farewell was used steadily throughout the 2nd century, and with 49/59 letters
dating to before 100 BCE it is fair to say that it was used regularly in the ‘Non-Royal’ letters.
The ‘Non-Royal’ letters chose to omit the farewell even more so than the ‘Royal’ sub-
corpus, doing so in 19/33 letters.118 There appears to have been no ill-feeling behind the
general practice, and 51, a warm letter in thanks for services done, which features a health
114
IOLHPK 1, 19, and 30 may have had no farewell, but the damage makes it difficult to be certain.
115
IOLHPK 21 has ûρρωσθ[ε].
116
The prescript determined that these letters had plural recipients: IOLHPK 9, 12, 13, 17, 24, 26, 29, and so too
for the damaged 21. Evidence from the body showed that these letters had plural recipients: IOLHPK 7, l.8 Õῖ;
8, l.5 ποιήσετε; 14, l.3 Õμᾶι; 49, l.2 εἰδῆτε.
117
This is IOLHPK 11.
118
It is possible, but unlikely, that 16, 18, and 52 may have lost their farewell.
40 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
wish, has no farewell, but it does have a document following.119 There were documents
following 14 of these letters without farewells, but evidence from 7 letters which have
appended documents and farewells suggests that it was not obligatory to omit the farewell
when a document followed, but it seems likely that the attachment of a document made an
author more inclined to omit the farewell.120 These 7 letters with farewells and documents
also show that not every stonecutter would remove farewells which preceded documents,
though there is no way of knowing if or when this occurred. The omission of farewells occurs
regularly throughout the sub-corpus from our 2nd letter (242 BCE) to our latest (30-25 BCE).
Regarding the Ptolemaic letters, Buzón found 774 examples of ἔρρωσο in 1,054
Private, Business, and Administrative letters, with 169/1054 being damaged.121 There were 5
examples of εÃτύχει in the Personal and 8 in the Business letters, and 3 alternative farewells
not found in our corpora.122 There was no farewell in 99/1107 letters.123 These examples
appear to be evenly spread throughout the corpus and the usage seems to be regular. The use
of ἔρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε and εÃτύχει/εÃτυχεῖτε seems to be the same in the Ptolemaic and
‘control’ letters. We can conclude that in the ‘control’ evidence the standard farewell was
ἔρρωσο/ἔρρωσθε, being used in 41/73 letters with extant closings. ΕÃτυχεῖτε was
acceptable if uncommon, and probably reflects an extension from petition language into other
epistolary types.
That there is no farewell in 8.9% of the Ptolemaic letters shows that it was an
acceptable if not regular practice to omit the farewell in this period, but that 41% of the
‘control’ letters omitted farewells suggests that it was much more common in official letters
of state, as omissions occur almost as often as inclusions. Appended documents did not
119
Cf. for a brief word on the lack of farewell in 52 which rightly does not read too much into the omission, P.
Frisch, Die Inschriften von Lampsakos (Bonn, 1978) 52: “Am Ende des Briefes fehlt das ἔρρωσθε, wie oft in
Briefen, wenn ein Dokument folgt”.
120
These letters are IOLHPK 7, 8, 9, 17, 21, 29, and 49.
121
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, (Private letters) 25–26, (Business letters) 114, (Administrative letters) 173. The word for
farewell in the 33/53 examples in the Recommendations is not explicitly mentioned but the examples on 80–86
only have ἔρρωσο, so it seems likely that the majority would have been similar.
122
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 1 διευτύχι in a Business letter, 114; 1 ἔρρί –ομαι in an Administrative letter, and
1 ἔρρωσ ἡῖν in another Administrative letter, 173.
123
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, (Private letters. I have not included the 3 drafts without farewells) 25–26,
(Recommendations. No discussion of farewells in main text, cf. tables,) 78–79, (Business letters) 114,
(Administrative letters) 173.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 41
require the omission of the farewell, but seem to have influenced it, with 15/30 letters without
farewells having documents added.
The data from the Roman letters shows that they closed their letters in the same way as the
‘control’ evidence. Unfortunately, 34/64 letters have lost their letter closing through damage,
and 5 do not have this section provided in the edition. There were 25 letters with their closing
section preserved. Of these 11 had the farewell ἔρρωσθε and 10 were shown to have plural
recipients, indicating that the remaining letter is likely to have been the same.124 This shows
that, like the ‘control’ letters, those writing the Roman letters took care to apply the relevant
farewell form.
That we are without an example of a farewell between 190 and 51–50 BCE is surely a
result of damaged closures, which are spread throughout the corpus. There are 23/33 letters
dating between 190 and 51–50 BCE without the closing intact or provided in the edition.
When we have farewells preserved in the early and late periods, they occur in steady
chronology, suggesting that ἔρρωσθε was used regularly throughout the period for which our
evidence is scant, though we cannot know for certain. What evidence we do have of the
Roman letters using farewells conforms to the standards of the ‘control’ evidence. That the
most common Latin farewell—vale—was a single word imperatival form125 from a word with
a similar meaning to ἔρρωσθε surely made the task of authors easier, as it would have seemed
like a seamless conversion.
There were 14/25 letters without a farewell, 6 of which had an appended document.
Only 47, a terse letter from Octavian giving orders to a certain Stephanos, seems to have
omitted the farewell perhaps to assert authority. This letter still has a greeting however.
Letters without farewells occur regularly throughout the Roman corpus. That 56% have no
farewell is more pronounced than the ‘control’ evidence but not dissimilar. Cugusi’s
statement that official Latin letters often lack greetings fits our Roman letters in Greek too.126
124
The prescript showed that ORRLIG 1, 2, 4, 44, 50, 51, 59, and 60 had plural recipients. Plural recipients were
determined by evidence from the letter body in ORRLIG 37, e.g. l.41, l.46 Õμεῖς, l.42 ἀνέσχησθε, l.47
διαποστείλησθε; and 64, l.19 Õμῶν, l.25 ἴστε, but l.18 τῇ γερουσί[ᾳ] in the prescript would probably have
been sufficient evidence on its own. ORRLIG 63 was too damaged to provide any such evidence.
125
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 56–57; Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 52.
126
Cugusi, Evoluzione, 57: “Nelle lettere ufficiali mancano spesso i saluti,…”
42 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Judging by two early inscribed Latin letters followed by documents which lack epistolary
formulae,127 it may have been the Latin convention to do little more than preface the
document. This practice may have made the Roman authors more inclined to omit farewells,
especially in the case of letters with documents, when it was observed to be acceptable in
Greek. This possibly explains the higher number of omissions in the Roman corpus than the
‘control’, but a paucity of examples limits our capacity to be certain, and the evidence from
letter closures shows that the Roman letters generally conform to Hellenistic practices.
Before investigating the formulaic language of the letter body, we should comment on some
important features of the opening and closing formulae in the Roman letters. The Roman
letters produce prescripts and greetings, health wishes, and farewells to the standard of the
Hellenistic ‘control’ evidence in the vast majority of Roman letters. All but 4 prescripts have
corresponding examples in the ‘control’ corpus or the Ptolemaic letters; the 4 letters which
have the χαίρειν λέγει greeting all reflect the pressure and constraint which accompanied
official Roman epistolography. Nevertheless, they produced a logical alternative, which was
unfortunately unidiomatic but still understandable in Greek. The Roman health wishes were
applied in similar numbers and in the same situations as the Hellenistic evidence, and they
were also produced in the correct form. The fact that health wishes were only applied where
they belonged and the willingness to experiment with a Greek formula, create a distinctly
Roman feature, and successfully apply it regularly in official letters in Greek reflect authors
with sound understanding of the language and the text type. Farewells are applied and omitted
in the same situations as the control evidence, and though Roman practices may have
influenced the omission of farewells before documents, the Roman practices were perfectly
acceptable.
Opening and closing formulae have been noted as having the significance of defining
texts as letters and illustrating to the audience that the authors understood the language and
the text type. The proficiency of their use in official Roman Republican letters in Greek
indicates that the Romans intended to and succeeded in producing their official letters to the
specifications of Greek epistolography, and their willingness to use variation and experiment
reflects an understanding of the text type and confidence in their abilities. This evidence
127
CIL 12 581 ll.1–3 and CIL 12 586 l.1–2.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 43
clearly shows that the Romans understood the significance of opening and closing formulae
and took care to apply them in their letters. Their epistolography in Greek was in the vast
majority of cases well-thought out and conscious of Greek conventions, and very likely to
have been designed to present Roman letters in Greek in the same form as corresponding
Greek letters.
44 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Figure 1.1 – Standard Address Formula in the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus
State of Preservation Total IOLHRC Letter no.
All 3 Components Identified 25 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 25, 26,
28, 33, 38, 49, 51, 52, 58, 60, 62, 63, 66.
Component 1 Damaged 2 29, 31.
Component 2 Damaged 1 30
Component 3 Damaged 4 7, 47, 59, 67.
Components 1 and 2 Damaged - -
Component 1 Lost 1 57
Component 2 Lost 1 40
Component 3 Lost 1 41
Components 1 and 2 Lost 3 32, 34, 35.
Extensively Damaged 6 6, 8, 27, 55, 64, 65.
Entirely Lost 23 1, 3, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 61.
Key: Component 1 = the sender in nominative case (¡ δεῖνα). Component 2 = the addressee in dative case
(τῷ δεῖνι). Component 3 = the greeting (χαίρειν).
Key: Component 1 = the sender in nominative case (¡ δεῖνα). Component 2 = the addressee in dative case
#
(τῷ δεῖνι). Component 3 = the greeting (χαίρειν). ^ = Some letters uncertain. This refers to IOLHPK
50, where excerpts from the body of the letter were embedded in a decree.
Formulaic expressions in the Opening and Closure of the Letters 45
Figure 1.3 – Standard Address Formula in the Roman corpus
State of Preservation Total ORRLIG Letter no.
All 3 Components Identified 26 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 28, 29, 31, 35, 42,
43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60,
Aux.
All 3 Components + ἐρρῶσθαι 1 40
First 2 Components, No Greeting 1 61
Component 1 Damaged 1 45
Component 2 Damaged - -
Component 3 Damaged 4 22, 24, 25, 64.
Components 1 and 2 Damaged - -
Component 1 Lost - -
Component 2 Lost 1 5
Component 3 Lost 4 4, 6, 26, 57.
Components 1 and 2 Lost - -
Extensively Damaged 3 7, 8, 11.
Entirely Lost 18 3, 10, 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41,
46, 56, 58, 62, 63.
Key: Component 1 = the sender in nominative case (¡ δεῖνα). Component 2 = the addressee in dative case
(τῷ δεῖνι). Component 3 = the greeting (χαίρειν).
Figure 1.4 – The χαίρειν λέγει Address Formula in the Roman corpus
State of Preservation Total ORRLIG Letter no.
All 3 Components Identified 3 9, 33, 531
Component A Damaged - -
Component B Damaged - -
Component C Damaged - -
Components A and B Damaged - -
Component A Lost - -
Component B Lost - -
Component C Lost - -
Components A and B Lost - -
Extensively Damaged 1 32, 34?2
Key: Component A = the sender in nominative case (¡ δεῖνα). Component B = the greeting (χαίρειν λέγει).
Component C = the addressee in dative case (τῷ δεῖνι).
1
ORRLIG 53 also has a Latin version preceding, l.12 of which reads: Vinicius proc. s.d. mag. Cumas. This is
given in unabbreviated form in Sherk’s edn. as: Vinicius proc(onsul) s(alutem) d(at) mag(istratibus) Cumas.
2
ORRLIG 32 has fragments of the sender and χαίρειν λέγε[ι]; 34 has only the sender preserved, and, although
there is nothing on the stone to suggest that χαίρειν λέγει would have been the greeting, it was nevertheless
restored, probably because the same sender used χαίρειν λέγει in their earlier letter—33—which is on the same
monument. For this reason I have included it in this table in squared brackets and with a question mark. It does
not appear in the total of data. The opening of 34 reads: Γναῖος [Κορνήλιος] Ποπλίου υἱÙς Δολαβέλλας
ἀνθύπατος [χαίρειν λέγει ἄρχουσι βουλῆι δήμωι Θασί||ων ---].
46 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
2.1 – Formulae in the letter body and their significance for this study
While it has not received the same attention as the opening and closure, some important work
has been done on the phraseology of the body of Greek and Latin letters.1 However, there are
two limitations on the applicability of this scholarship to this study. First, most of these
studies discuss many expressions which are not strictly speaking formulaic, but rather
conventional.2 Buzón is correct in stating, in discussion of personal letters, that truly
formulaic expressions are rare, as the body is where authors are most free to express
themselves.3 The possible topics discussed in the letter body are unlimited,4 and, since
formulae usually perform specific functions, we find more ‘conventional expressions’ than
true formulae in the body. However, since official letters regularly deal with reoccurring
situations, this creates an environment conducive to the formation of formulaic expressions,5
and as a result we have expressions which we can rightly deem formulaic.
1
Buzón, ‘Briefe’ dedicates a section to the letter body in his discussions of Ptolemaic letter types. Some
examples of scholarship on formulaic expressions in the body of Greek letters are J.L. White, ‘Introductory
Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 90, 1 (1971); id, Body of the Greek
Letter, 7–67 on the non-literary papyri being most relevant to this study; id., Light from Ancient Letters, 202–
213. One study which does the same for Latin letters is Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 55–62.
2
Throughout his investigation, White separates expressions into ‘formulaic’ and ‘non-formulaic’, and while he
does not offer a definition of either, he frequently refers to the ‘non-formulaic’ examples as ‘expressions’ or
‘statements’, but not as ‘formulae’, cf. White, Body of the Greek Letter, 7–67.
3
Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 19: “In diesem Teil der Briefe persönlichen Charakters sind kaum feste Wendungen oder
Formeln zu finden. Vielmehr werden hier die Gedanken, Gefühle und Sorgen des Absenders in freier Form
ausgedrückt.”
4
Cugusi notes for Latin letters that the topics are in great number and the ancient epistolary theorists could not
list them all, cf. Cugusi, Evoluzione, 67: “La varietà degli argomenti trattati nelle lettere pervenuteci è enorme; è
intuitivo di per sé che la retorica antica non poteva prevedere tutti i possibili oggetti di comunicazione epistolare,
anche se creò una casistica piuttosto minuta”.
5
Coleman, ‘Bureaucratic language’, 190: “Its [sc. bureaucratic language’s] restricted lexicon arises because of
the repetitive nature of bureaucratic procedures; phrases fossilize.” The same principle contributes to the
formation of formulae in official letters.
50 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Second, prior scholarship has mostly focussed on expressions found in more private
correspondence, which are less frequent in official letters.6 Furthermore, the formulaic
expressions most frequently found in our official state letters appear to be specific to this
epistolary subtype. This is because the topics discussed in such official letters would rarely be
discussed in another epistolary subtype and would almost certainly not be discussed in the
same manner. The exclusive situations require specific formulaic language, and prior
scholarship has focused little on them.7 Fortunately, the ‘control’ corpus provides sufficient
data against which we can analyse the Roman letters. Despite official letters developing their
own somewhat exclusive phraseology, we do find formulaic language in them which is not
even specific to letters, especially filiation expressions.
This chapter will focus on 3 important formulaic expressions found in the Roman
letters, which for convenience I have termed ‘Embassy formulae’, the ‘Benefaction formula’,
and filiation expressions. These expressions are important because of their diversity. The first
two are specific to the official epistolary subtype: they are truly formulaic and consist of a
regular sequence of recurring components. Their application in the Roman letters is evidence
for the authors’ understanding of their function in official Greek epistolography, but also of
their form, as constructing both formulae requires an understanding of the grammar of each
component. Filiation expressions in Latin are formulaic, but Greek filiation is idiomatic,
because a literal translation of the components will not convey the full meaning of the
expression. Aside from the difficulties of writing idiomatic Greek, filiation expressions can be
representative of one’s culture, meaning that the Roman authors must understand more than
grammar and idiom to apply them correctly. The complicated forms and functions of these
epistolary and non-epistolary expressions means that they are important for analysing the
Roman authors’ understanding of the language and the text type, and this evidence has been
neglected by prior scholarship.
6
Even in the administrative papyrus letters there are few comparanda for the formulaic language discussed in
this chapter, cf. Buzón, ‘Briefe’, 166–171.
7
Even works on such inscribed official letters have not dealt extensively with the formulae of the letter body.
Viereck and Sherk’s discussions are quite useful, although succinct. In Welles’ otherwise thorough treatment of
the language of the Royal letters, formulaic expressions feature extremely rarely. Cf. Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’,
74–80; Sherk, RDGE, 190–197; Welles, RCHP, pp. xxxvii–c. There are occasional notes on specific examples in
individual letters found in their respective commentaries in these three works.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 51
2.2 – Embassy Formulae
Embassies are a common topic of official letters. The frequency of sending and receiving
embassies, and the repetitive actions they undertook, led to the creation of a formula used to
inform the recipient of an embassy and its actions, hence I have termed it the ‘Embassy
formula’. They are often the first statement made in the letter body, following the prescript (or
health wish if one is used), as an embassy’s visit is often the motivation for writing the letter.
The formula as it appears in the ‘control’ corpus occurs also in the Roman letters, and an early
example can be found in a letter of Philip II.8 There is also another version occurring in the
Roman letters which does not appear in the Hellenistic evidence. Neither of these formulae
appear in the Ptolemaic letters. It was possible to determine that the Embassy formulae were
indeed ‘formulae’ because the often long series of components occur in the same sequence,
with the words comprising them being in the same cases and tenses too regularly for this to be
coincidental. These sequences also occur in a regular position in the layout of the letter and
perform the same function. There are of course variations, but variations are common to most
formulae, and the fundamental structure of the Embassy formulae remains constant.
As was mentioned in §1.9, in such epigraphic documents, the longer the formula, the
more susceptible it is to sustaining damage. Nevertheless, most examples are quite well-
preserved. The standard version of the Embassy formula (presented in Figure 2.1) is
constructed from the components common to both the ‘Royal’ and ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpora.
Features specific to either sub-corpus are discussed as ‘variants’. The first component of the
formula is the ambassadors in nominative case (sometimes represented only by the definite
article), and they are always clarified as being ‘from the recipient’ by using παρí Õμῶν.
Occasionally, the author will clarify further that they were ‘sent’. The next component
informs the recipient that ambassadors delivered the document (usually a decree, but
occasionally letters): the verb is always aorist of ἀποδίδωμι and the document is naturally in
the accusative.
8
Philip II, Letter 3 (Hercher (ed.), EG), ll.1–5: Βασιλεˆς Μακεδόνων Φίλιππος Ἀθηναίων τῇ βουλῇ καÚ τῷ
δήμῳ χαίρειν. Παραγενόμενοι πρÙς ἐμÓ οἱ παρí Õμῶν πρεσβευταί, Κηφισοφῶν καÚ Δημόκριτος καÚ
Πολύκριτος, διελέγοντο περÚ τῆς τῶν πλοίων ἀφέσεως, „ν ἐναυάρχει Λαομέδων.
52 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Figure 2.1 – The Embassy Formula as evidenced by the ‘control’ corpus
Template: The subject i.e. ‘ambassadors’ NOM ‘from the recipient’ παρά + GEN
Section 1 Component 1. Section 1 Component 2.
(‘who were sent’) aor. pass. part. NOM of vb. of ‘sending’
Section 1 Optional component 1.
the document, usu. ‘decree’ ACC, ‘delivered’ aor. of vb. of ‘delivering, handing over’
Section 2 Component 1. Section 2 Component 2.
‘and’ conj. ‘spoke’ aor. of vb. of ‘speaking’ ‘accordingly’ adv. ἀκολούθως
Section 3 Component 1. Section 3 Component 2.
(‘with keenness’) μετά + GEN,
Section 3 Optional component 1.
‘with what is recorded/written’ pf. pass. part. DAT of vb. of ‘recording’, ‘writing’
Section 4 Component 1A.
(‘in the document.’) ἐν + DAT
Section 4 Optional component 1A.
OR ‘concerning the matters about which’ περί/Õπέρ + GEN pl. rel. pron.
Section 4 Component 1B.
‘they have’ pres. of vb. of ‘having’ ‘orders.’ ACC
Section 4 Component 2B. Section 4 Component 3B.
Most οἱ παρí Õμῶν (ἀποσταλέντες/πεμφθέντες) πρεσβευταί
Common S1C1 S1C2 S1Opt.1 S1C1
Form: τÙ ψήφισμα ἀπέδωκαν, καÚ αÃτοÚ aor.1 διελέχθησαν/aor.2 διελέγησαν
S2C1 S2C2 S3C1.
(μετÏ σπουδῆς) ἀκολούθως
S3Opt.1 S3C2
τοῖς κατακεχωρισμένοις/γεγραμμένοις (ἐν τῶν ψηφίσματι).
S4C1A S4Opt.1A
OR περÚ/ÕπÓρ „ν (= τούτων ἅ) ἔχουσι τÏς ἐντολάς.
S4C1B S4C2B S4C3B.
Translation: Your ambassadors (who were sent) delivered the decree,
S1C2 S1C1 S1Opt.1 S2C2 S2C1
and they spoke, accordingly (with keenness),
S3C1 S3C2 S3Opt.1
with what is recorded/written (in the decree).
S4C1 S4Opt.1A
OR concerning the matters about which they have orders.
S4C1B S4C2B S4C3B.
Key: ( ) = Optional component
The sender then informs the recipient that the ambassadors spoke ‘accordingly’ (sometimes
adding ‘with keenness’) with what was recorded/written: ‘accordingly’ is always the adverb
ἀκολούθως, ‘with keenness’ always μετÏ σπουδῆς, and ‘spoke’ is almost always the aorist
of διαλέγομαι. Two examples from Polybios and two Tean decrees indicate that this was the
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 53
standard vocabulary for describing the speech.9 The matters in the document with which they
speak in accordance are in dative. They occasionally add ‘in the (document)/decree’ in dative.
The alternative to this component is that the ambassadors discussed ‘concerning the matters
about which they have orders.’ This is expressed with a relative clause, introduced by
περÚ/ÕπÓρ „ν, ‘concerning the matters about which’, and ‘they have orders’ is simply ἔχουσι
+ accusative τÏς ἐντολάς.10
This is the standard Embassy formula as it appears in the ‘control’ evidence as well as
the Roman corpus. As it is a formula, the grammar of the components remains constant, while
the words can vary to fit the circumstances being described (e.g. if letters were delivered
instead of decrees). These interchanges are not variants. True variants are found when new
components are inserted alongside or replace standard components. Such variants were
required mostly when the embassy undertook actions other than those which are normally
described in the formula.
There were 21/67 ‘Royal’ and 17/59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters too damaged to identify an Embassy
formula,11 and 1/67 ‘Royal’ and 4/59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters did not have this section provided.12
The Embassy formula is only appropriate in situations involving an Embassy which either
delivered documents or made a speech, but they frequently did both. Plenty of letters were not
inspired by such circumstances, so 32/67 ‘Royal’ and 29/59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters did not have
9
Polybios 4.23.2: οἳ καÚ συμμίξαντες ἤδη περÚ τÙ Παρθένιον ƒρος ƒντι τῷ βασιλεῖ διελέχθησαν
ἀκολούθως ταῖς ἐντολαῖς (my emphasis). 30.32.6: ἡ δÓ σύγκλητος διακούσασα τῶν πρεσβευτῶν,
ἀκολούθως ταῖς ἐντολαῖς διαλεγομένων, κτλ. (my emphasis); CIG II pt.14, 3047 (c.194 BCE?) ll.7–10:
διελέγησανÖ|Ö|Öἀκολούθως ἀπο[τεινόμενοι?] || τοῖς ἐν τῷ ψαφίσματι κατακεχωρισμένοις κτλ.; CIG II
pt.14, 3048 (c.194 BCE?) ll.7–8: καÚ αÃτοÚ διέλεγ[ε]ν ἀκολούθως τοῖς γε|γραμμένοις κτλ.
10
Cf. Polybios 4.23.2 and 30.32.6.
11
These are IOLHRC 1, 3, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 53, 56, and 64, and
IOLHPK 2, 4, 8, 14, 23, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, and 59.
12
IOLHRC 34 and IOLHPK 32, 33, and 34 did not have this section provided in the transcription, and IOLHPK
50 did not have this section quoted in the ancient text.
54 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
an Embassy formula.13 There were 4 additional letters which are likely to have had an
Embassy formula which has been lost through damage.14
Beginning with the ‘Royal’ sub-corpus, there are 9 letters which have an Embassy
formula as shown in Figure 2.1.15 All begin by mentioning the ambassadors as being ‘from
the recipient’.16 There are 4 letters which take the option of mentioning that the ambassadors
were ‘sent’.17 As delivering documents is the motivation behind all but one of these letters, 8
mention the delivery next.18 On 7/8 occasions the document is a decree, the other being a
letter; the verb for ‘delivered’ is aorist of ἀποδίδωμι 7/8 times, and once it is aorist of
ἀνακομίζω.19 The letter without documents states that a discussion took place instead.20
There are two letters which mention that the embassy met with the sender before the
documents were delivered.21
Each example mentions the ambassadors speaking, 7/9 putting the section on
‘speaking’ next, and 2 placing the word of ‘speaking’ in the sentence-final position, perhaps
for emphasis. There are 5 examples of the aorist 1 and 2 of aorist 2 of διαλέγομαι, and 2 of
13
These are IOLHRC 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 40, 41, 49, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 65, 66, and 67, and IOLHPK 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 48, 51, and 57.
14
Cf. IOLHRC 6 ll.2?–5: [οἱ παρí Õμῶν | πρε]σβευταÚ Ἀντιθένη[ς καÚ οἱ μετí αÃτοῦ | ἀφι]κ[ό]μ[ενοι τ]ό
τε ψήφισμ [Õμῶν ἀπέδοσαν] || ἡμῖν. 35 ll.1–4?: Ἀριστέα[ς Ö | ---οἱ παρí Õμῶν ἀπέδωκαν ἡμῖν τÙ
ψήφισμ] ὃ ἐγεγράφειτε Õε[ῖς Ö | καÚ αÃτοÚ διελέγησαν ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐν τῶι ψηφίσ]ματι
γεγραμμένοις [ἀξιοῦν|τες---]. 52 ll.2–6: Μηνόδωρος ἀπέδω|κέ μοι τὴν παρÏ σοῦ ἐπιστολήν,Ö|Ö||Ö|
Öἀπελογ[ίσατο δÓ]. 57 ll.2–4?: [συμμείξαντές μοι ἐν Ö Ἀρ]τεμίδωρος Βασιλείδης Μι-|[Ö οἱ πρεσβευταÚ
πεμφθέντες Õφí Õ]ῶν ἀπέδωκάν μοι τÙ ψήφι[σ|μα].
15
These are IOLHRC 14 ll.2–11 (which varies slightly from the other examples), 25 ll.3–13, 26 ll.2–12, 27 ll.3–
7, 28 ll.3–11, 29 I ll.3–4, 45 I A ll.2–5, 47 ll.2–4, and 51 ll.2–6.
16
In 51 the man is more of a ‘representative’ than an ambassador, as he represents a priest rather than a state.
17
IOLHRC 25, 26, 27 (very damaged), and 29.
18
IOLHRC 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 45, and 51.
19
The letters which have τÙ ψήφισμα and aor. of ἀποδίδωμι are IOLHRC 14, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 45. The letter
which has τÙ ψήφισμα and aor. of ἀνακομίζω is 28. The letter with ἡ ἐπιστολή and aor. of ἀποδίδωμι is 51.
20
IOLHRC 47.
21
IOLHRC 25 and 45 (which mentions that 2 ambassadors appeared before (l.4 ἀπαντῆσαντες) him, though
one did not meet him (l.3 οà συνέμειξέ μοι)).
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 55
the aorist of ἀπολογίζω ‘provide an account’.22 There are 3 letters which describe them as
speaking ‘accordingly’, 2 may have lost this through damage, and 4 take the option of adding
‘with keenness’, 2 of which do so alongside ‘accordingly’.23 We have 4 letters stating that the
ambassadors spoke in accordance with what was recorded/written—one adding ‘in this
(document)’, another ‘in the decree’—and we have 2 variants—one where an agreement is
discussed, the other a feeling of goodwill.24 There are 2 letters noting that the ambassadors
discussed ‘the matters about which they have orders’, though one of these has lost the first
two components of this section; there is also 1 variant, where the ambassadors discussed the
‘matters about which they were told’.25
The same Embassy formula is found in the ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus, but there are
some variations. The first variation replaces the mention of the ambassadors meeting the
recipient, and instead mentions them ‘going to/into the assembly’ (ἐπελθόντες
ἐπÚ/παρελθόντες εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). It is found in 3 letters, always preceding the
ambassadors’ speech.26 The next variation, occurring in one letter, mentions that the sender
listened to the ambassadors’ speech.27 Finally, occurring in 4 letters and always in the first
section, we find the formula introduced by a genitive absolute: ‘when your ambassador(s)
was/were here’: (παραγενομένου/παραγενόμενοι…).28
22
The letters which have aor. of διαλέγομαι are IOLHRC 25, 26, 27, and 28. IOLHRC 29 and 47 have aor. of
διαλέγω and 14 has aor. of ἀπολογίζω. IOLHRC 45 has the example of sentence final aor. of διαλέγομαι and
51 has sentence final aor. of ἀπολογίζω.
23
IOLHRC 28 has ἀκολούθως. IOLHRC 29 and 45 possibly lost ἀκολούθως through damage, though it is not
restored in the edn. of 29. IOLHRC 27 and 45 have μετÏ (πάσης) σπουδῆς (and it is possible 14 did too).
IOLHRC 25 and 26 have both ἀκολούθως and μετÏ (πάσης) σπουδῆς.
24
IOLHRC 28 and 45 mention ambassadors speaking in accordance with of the contents. IOLHRC 25 and 26
mention ambassadors speaking in accordance with the contents of the document. IOLHRC 29 states that an
agreement was discussed. IOLHRC 14 states that a feeling of goodwill was discussed. The letters which use
κατακεχωρισμένοις for the contents of the document are IOLHRC 25, 26, and 45. IOLHRC 28 uses
γεγραμμένο[ις] for the contents of the document.
25
IOLHRC 27 and 51 state that the ambassadors discussed ‘the matters for which they had orders’, although in
27 the first 2 section components are lost. IOLHRC 47 states that the ambassadors discussed ‘matters which they
were told (to discuss)’.
26
IOLHPK 3 ll.5–6: παρελθόντος εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησί|αν. 13 l.6: ἐπελθόντες ἐπÚ τÏν ἐκκλησίαν (preceding
both the speech and the delivery of the document). 35 l.3: ἐπελθόντες ἐπÚ τÏν ἐκκλησίαν.
27
IOLHPK 12 l.5: διακούσαμεν παρακαλούντων κτλ.
28
IOLHPK 3 ll.2–3: παραγενομένου Βούλωνος | τοῦ παρí Õμῶν ἀποσταλέντος πρεσβευτοῦ. 11 ll.3–4:
παραγενόμενος Περδίκκας ¡ παρÏ βασι|λέως Φιλίππου πρεσβευτάς (interestingly, Perdikkas, an
56 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
We have 9 letters using the Embassy formula in the ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus, with 4
examples beginning with ambassadors ‘from the recipient’ and another example where the
ambassador segment is lost.29 There is 1 letter where we have ‘to the recipient’, as the
formula is in 1st person, and in another the ambassadors are not ‘from the recipient’ as they
were sent by a third party.30 In 2 letters this section is placed after the delivery of the
documents.31 The option of describing the ambassadors as ‘sent’ is found in 3 letters.32 All 9
letters refer to a delivery of documents, with 7 placing this section second (though one
example has lost the verb, and only the adjective describing the document is extant in another)
and 2 positioning it first.33 The document is always a ψήφισμα, and 7/8 times the verb for
‘deliver’ is aorist of ἀποδίδωμι and once aorist of κομίζω.34
All 9 letters mention the ambassadors speaking: 7 times the verb is aorist 2 of
διαλέγομαι and twice it is the verb παρακαλῶ ‘call upon’, once in present tense and once in
future.35 All but one letter describe them as speaking ‘accordingly’, and only 1 adds the
optional description ‘with (all) keenness’.36 Of these 9 examples, 8 mention that they spoke in
accordance with what was recorded/written/voted, with 1 adding ‘in this (document)’ and 3
‘in this decree’.37 The other letter states that the ambassadors discussed ‘the matters about
ambassador of Philip V of Macedon, accompanied the Teans). 26 ll.4–5: παραγενόμενοι οἱ παρí Õμέων
πρεγγευ||ταί. 35 l.2: οἱ παρí Õμ[ῶ]ν παραγενόμενοι. Cf. also 24 ll.2–6, which has similar phraseology, but is
too varied to be classed as an example of the Embassy formula.
29
IOLHPK 3, 7, 26, 30 (ambassador portion lost), and 35.
30
The letter in first person is IOLHPK 21. The letter which discusses a third party is IOLHPK 13.
31
IOLHPK 11 and 12.
32
IOLHPK 3, 13, and 21 (which is extensively damaged).
33
The letters with the adjective in second position are IOLHPK 3, 7 (which has lost the verb), 13, 21, 26, 30
(which has lost the word for ‘document’ lost, only adjective surviving), and 35. The letters with the adjective in
first position are IOLHPK 11 and 12.
34
The letters which have aor. of ἀποδίδωμι are IOLHPK 3, 11, 13, 21, 26, 30, and 35. IOLHPK 12 has aor. of
κομίζω.
35
The letters which have aor. of διαλέγω are IOLHPK 3, 7, 11, 13, 26, 30, and 35. IOLHPK 12 has pres. of
παρακαλῶ. IOLHPK 21 has fut. of παρακαλῶ, as the letter is written in first person before the embassy has
happened.
36
The letter without ἀκολούθως is IOLHPK 21. The letter with μετÏ πάνσας [sic] σπουδᾶς is IOLHPK 12.
37
The following letters mention the ambassador’s speech: IOLHPK 3, 7 (which adds ‘in this decree’), 11, 12
(which adds ‘in this decree’), 13, 26 (which adds ‘in this decree’), 30, and 35 (which adds ‘in this (document)’).
The letters which use κατακεχωρισμένοις for the contents are IOLHPK 7, 12, and 35. The letter which uses
γεγραμμένοις is IOLHPK 13, and the one which uses ἐψηφισμένοις is 3. Only τοῖς was used or preserved in
IOLHPK 11, 26, and 30.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 57
which they have orders’.38 One letter also added that the ambassadors omitted ‘nothing of
keenness or personal devotion’ to their task.39
In the ‘Royal’ corpus, the Embassy formula tends to be spread over multiple lines, but
the ‘Non-Royal’ versions are more compact, though there are three less compressed
examples.40 The sequence of the Embassy formula remains the same as we saw with the
‘Royal’ sub-corpus, with the exception of the variations. The vocabulary remains the same,
though the ‘Non-Royal’ letters prefer the aorist 2 of διαλέγομαι where the ‘Royal’ sub-
corpus preferred aorist 1.41 These considerations generally indicate a high level of
standardization for a long and complicated formula, used across a wide geographical range in
both kingdoms and poleis.
The ‘control’ examples of the Embassy formula are all found between the first half of
the 3rd and mid-2nd centuries BCE when it seems to have been in regular use. Our earliest
certain ‘Royal’ example—14—dates after 261 BCE, and our latest—51—to 163–159 BCE;
such temporal distribution is mirrored by the ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus, with the earliest
example—3—from 240–230 BCE and the most recent—35—from the mid-2nd century. We
also have good numbers of examples between the earliest and latest attestations. Between
these dates there is a cluster of 9 examples across both sub-corpora dating between 208–201,
which are all interestingly found at Magnesia on the Maeander or Teos.42 This is the result of
three embassies, one from Magnesia and two from Teos.43 That such a short period yielded 9
examples results from the embassy’s expansiveness, but that two poleis have produced 9
examples is due to the fortunate preservation of both location’s epigraphy. Since we have 9
individual senders for 9 Embassy formulae (though two could have come from the same
chancery44) is testament to the widespread distribution of this formula in the period.
38
IOLHPK 21. The vocabulary and phraseology of IOLHPK 10 ll.90–93, although it is not an example, seems to
have had the Embassy formula in mind.
39
IOLHPK 35 ll.6–7: σπουδᾶς καÚ φιλοτιμίας οÃθÓν | ἐνλείποντες.
40
IOLHPK 11, 21, and 26.
41
Διελέγεν in IOLHPK 7 l.5 is aorist (= διελέγην) which is made clear by its subject (αÃτοί) preceding it.
42
IOLHRC 25 (c.205 BCE, Magnesia), 26 (c.205, Magnesia), 27 (c.205, Magnesia), 28 (c.205, Magnesia), 29
(205–201, Teos); IOLHPK 7 (208, Magnesia), 11 (201, Teos), 12 (201, Teos), 13 (201, Teos).
43
For the Magnesian embassy seeking acknowledgement of the games and honours for Artemis Leukophryene,
cf. Welles, RCHP, 140–152, and K.J. Rigsby, Asylia, (California, 1996), 222–223. For the embassies sent out
from Teos to northern Greece and Crete respectively seeking votes of inviolability for their city on account of
their association with Dionysos, see Rigsby, Asylia, 288.
44
IOLHRC 25 was sent from Antiokhos III and 26 was sent from Antiokhos his son.
58 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
After c.250, the Embassy formula seems to have been the standard way to discuss
embassies delivering documents or information. We still see several examples in the mid-2nd
century BCE, and it is likely the formula continued for some years after our latest example.
The earliest and latest of our most damaged ‘Royal’ examples support this, 6 and 57 from 285
and the mid-2nd century respectively. Strengthening this idea of the Embassy formula as
standard is the lack of competing formulae. In the rest of the ‘control’ corpus, the embassies
mentioned in 15 other letters undertook different actions, therefore not requiring the
formula.45 One letter—2 (c.306 BCE)—had fitting circumstances, and could have been
expressed with the formula. Its vocabulary is certainly similar, but its early date perhaps
testifies to a stage before the standardization of the formula.
There are two Embassy formulae in the Roman corpus: the Embassy formula found in the
‘control’ corpus, and one found only in the Roman letters, hereafter the ‘Roman Embassy
formula’. There is no Embassy formula found in 26/64 Roman letters,46 18/64 have lost this
section through damage,47 and 5 do not have this section in the edition.48
The Roman letters use the Embassy formula in mostly the same manner as the
‘control’ evidence, though it is used more frequently without documents involved. Viereck
noted it as a formula, and also saw that it had come from Greek epistolography.49 The Roman
examples are remarkably good applications of the formula, with few variations. Where the
‘Royal’ letters occasionally mentioned the ambassadors meeting the sender and the ‘Non-
Royal’ letters mentioned them entering the assembly, the Roman letters have both variants.
This is because a Roman magistrate outside of Rome would be met by ambassadors, whereas
45
Embassies were mentioned in different circumstances in IOLHRC 3, 7, 12, and 20, and IOLHPK 1, 5, 6, 9, 10,
19, 20, 24, 38, 39, and 42. Ambassadors and embassies are also simply mentioned in IOLHRC 1, 17, 46 (in
which it is possible, if the introductory sections were preserved, that there would have been an Embassy
formula), and 67, and IOLHPK 4, 45, and 56 (although all 3 IOLHPK letters are damaged and the context is
largely lost).
46
ORRLIG 1, 6, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 61, and 64.
47
ORRLIG 3, 10, 17, 21, 23, 27, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 46, 52, 56, 58, 62, and 63.
48
ORRLIG 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
49
Viereck, ‘Sermo Graecus’, 75: “Usitatissimae etiam sunt formulae ἐνέτυχόν μοι οἱ παρí Õμῶμ
πρεσβευταίÖ, ψήφισμα ἀπέδωκαν aliae, quas omnes cum apud Graecos saepissime exstent, nemo negabit ex
Graecorum decretis et epistulis in Romanorum sermonem publicum graecum fluxisse.” Sherk also alludes to it at
RDGE, 190–191, though does not call it a formula.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 59
in Rome ambassadors would enter the Senate. The only other variant, featuring as the last part
in 3 examples, describes the ambassadors as ‘omitting nothing of their personal devotion (i.e.
to their embassy)’ (φιλοτιμίας οÃδÓν ἐλλείποντες).50 It is found in an Embassy formula in
IOLHPK 35 and describing an ambassador in IOLHPK 57,51 and similar phrases describing
ambassadors are found in Greek inscriptions and Josephus.52
The Embassy formula is present in 11 letters, some examples of which are damaged.
Another damaged letter seems likely to have had this formula.53 Three letters begin by
mentioning the ambassadors being ‘from the recipient’, and another seems to have a damaged
version.54 We have 3 later examples of ‘ambassadors of you’ and 2 of ‘your ambassadors’.55
There are 3 letters which take the option of describing the ambassadors as ‘sent’; one of these
introduces the ambassadors as ‘sent by you’56 and another simply states ‘you sent the
ambassador’. There are 2 examples where the mention of them meeting the sender comes
before the first section, but 4 come after the first section and one more mentions them
entering the Senate.57 Of our 11 letters, 8 are concerned with delivering documents, 1 seems
to have lost this through damage, and in 2 letters the ambassadors convey their information
50
Cf. ORRLIG 4 ll.6–7: οÃδÓν ἐλλείποντες | [φιλοτι]μίας. 5 ll.8?–9: [--οÃ|δÓν ἐλ]λείποντες φιλοτιμίας. 7
ll.5–6: φιλοτιμίας οÃ|θÓν ἐλλείποντες. It was also noted by Lafoscade, ‘De Epistulis’, 65–66.
51
IOLHPK 35 ll.6–7: σπουδᾶς καÚ φιλοτιμίας οÃθÓν | ἐνλείποντες. Outside of the Embassy formula in
IOLHPK 57 l.9: φιλοτιμίας οÃθÓν ἐλλείπων.
52
Cf. IOLHPK 21 (appended document) ll.27–28: σπουδῆς [κ]α[Ú φι]λο[τ]ι[μίας οÃθÓν] ἐνλεί|πων. CIG II
pt.14, 3047 ll.14–18: ¡ παρÏ τῶ Βασι||λέως Ἀντιόχω πρεσβευτÏς ἐπÚ τÏς τῶ πολέμω | διαλύσεις
ἀποσταλείς, οÃθÓν ἐ[λ]λείπων σπου|δᾶς καÚ φιλοτιμίας κατí οÃθένα τρόπον. SIG3 700 ll.3–10: ἐπεÚ
Μάακος êννιος Πο|πλίου υἱός,ÖἀποσταλεÚς ταμίας Õ||πÙ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ ῬωμαίωνÖ|Ö|Ö|Ö|Öσπουδῆς
καÚ φιλο||τιμίας οÃθÓν ἐνλείπων (my emphasis). Josephus, Jewish War, 4.232: ἔδει δÓ τάχους εἰς τὴν
ἀγγελίαν· εἰς ὃ μηδÓν ἐλλείποντες προθυμίας οἱ πεμφθέντες, ἐκαλεῖτο δí αÃτῶν Ἀνανίας ἑκάτερος,
καÚ δὴ πρÙς τοˆς ἄρχοντας τῶν Ἰδουμαίων παρῆσαν (my emphasis).
53
Cf. ORRLIG 52 ll.11–14: …πρέσβε[ις | τῆς ἐκκλη]σίς <ἀπέδοσάν τí> ἐμοÚ τÙ παρÏ τῆς γερουσ[ίας
ψ]ήφισμ[α | διέλεξ]ά τε ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐν αÃ[ῷ δι]κε[ιμέ|νοις].
54
These are ORRLIG 4, 7, and 8. ORRLIG 5 has ll.4–5: [οἱ || παρí Õμ]ῶν πρέσβεις.
55
ORRLIG 38, 59, and 60 have οἱ πρέσβεις Õμῶν. ORRLIG 28 and 43 have πρεσβευταÚ Õμέτεροι.
56
ORRLIG 7 uses ἀποσταλέντες like the ‘control’ evidence. 2 l.5 has: ἀποσταλεÚς πρÙς ἡμᾶς πρεσβευτής.
50 l.76 has: οἱ πεμφθέντες πρεσβευταÚ Õφí Õμῶν. cf. also Polybios, 38.10.2: οµ(περ) ἦσαν πρεσβευταÚ
πεμφθέντες ÕπÙ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν παραιτησόμενοι κτλ.
57
The meeting is found before the first section in ORRLIG 4 and 5. The meeting is mentioned after first section
in ORRLIG 28, 38, 59, and 60, and possibly 50 though it is damaged. The mention of the ambassadors entering
the assembly is after first section in ORRLIG 8.
60 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
through speeches.58 The 8 letters with this section extant position it second, the other 2 move
straight to the ambassadors’ speech. In one letter the word for the document is lost, we have
ψήφισμα in 4 letters and 2 more damaged versions,59 and the other is a letter, γράμματα. Of
the 8 letters with documents, the word for ‘deliver’ is an aorist form of ἀποδίδωμι like the
‘control’ evidence in 6 letters, 1 letter is most likely [ἀπέ]δωκαν, and the other letter has
ἀνέδωκεν, which, although not found in the main ‘control’ letters, is found in a similar
context in the ‘Non-Royal’ auxiliary letter.60
In the 2 letters without documents, the ambassadors’ speech naturally follows mention
of the embassy, and they are simply mentioned as speaking.61 This section follows the
document delivery in 6 letters, 1 breaks off at this point, and two end the formula with the
delivery of documents.62 In 2 letters we have the aorist 1 of διαλέγομαι, in 3 we have the
aorist 2, and in the last letter we have κατηγορῶ, as the ambassadors make accusations.63 In
3 letters they are described as speaking ‘accordingly’, and twice ‘with all keenness’ is
included.64 Of our 11 letters, 7 refer to the ambassadors’ speaking on the purpose of their
embassy.65 The last section is lost through damage in 1 letter, and not required by the
circumstances in 3 others.66 The ambassadors are described as speaking in accordance with
58
The letters concerned with documents are ORRLIG 2, 4, 7, 28, 38 (which has lost the document but retains the
verb), 43, 59, and 60. The document section is apparently lost through damage in ORRLIG 5, and a speech
stands in for documents in 8 and 50.
59
ORRLIG 4 l.5: τό τε [ψήφ]ισμα. 43 l.4: ψήφ[ισμα].
60
The letters which have aor. of ἀποδίδωμι are ORRLIG 4, 7, 28, 43, 59, and 60. ORRLIG 38 has [ἀπέ]δωκαν
and 2 has ἀνέδωκεν. Cf. IOLHPK Aux.1 ll.2–3: Προσελθόντων μοι Õμετέρων πρεσβευτῶν ἐν Λαοδικήᾳ καÚ
| τÏ παρí Õμῶν ψηφίσματα ἀναδόντων, κτλ. (my emphasis).
61
ORRLIG 8 and 50.
62
There is a speech in ORRLIG 2, 4, 5, 7, 38, and 59. This section is lost in ORRLIG 43, and there is no speech
in 28 and 60.
63
We find the aorist 1 of διαλέγομαι in ORRLIG 2 and 38, the aorist 2 of διαλέγομαι in 4, 5, and 7, and the
aorist of κατηγορῶ in 59.
64
ORRLIG 2 l.7 ἀκολούθως and l.8 μετÏ πάσης προθυμίας. 4 ll.5–6: ἀκολού|[θως]. 7 l.4 ἀκολούθως and l.5
μετÏ πάσης σπουδῆς. 5 is very likely to have had ll.7–8: [ἀκο|λούθ]ως.
65
ORRLIG 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 38, and 50.
66
The section is lost in ORRLIG 43. ORRLIG 28 and 60 have no document to discuss, and there is no discussion
required in 59 as the ambassadors commence their accusation.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 61
what was recorded/decided in 3 letters, 2 adding ‘in this (document)/decree’.67 One letter says
that they spoke accordingly ‘with this’, and another has ‘concerning some (matters)’ before
the text breaks off.68 Of the final 2 letters, 1 states that the ambassadors discussed ‘the matters
about which they had orders’, and the other says they discussed ‘the matters about which you
sent them’, not unlike ‘matters about which they were told’ in IOLHRC 47.
The temporal distribution of the Embassy formula in the Roman corpus overlaps with
the latter half of the ‘control’ time-period. It is also diachronically present and consistent in
form, indicating that the Embassy formula was in regular use by the Roman administration
and was probably recognized as the Greek standard. The earliest example—2—dates to 193
BCE, and there are 4 more examples dating between this time and 186.69 These 5 letters are of
similar date to the 9 ‘control’ letters from between 208-201, when this formula seems to be
used frequently. That the Roman administration recognized and implemented this formula in
this period obviously shows attention to Greek epistolography, but it also reflects an incentive
to meet contemporary standards. The latest example—61—is from 5 BCE, and there are 5
other examples dating between 85 and this example.70 The diachronic regularity of the Roman
examples seems to indicate that the Greek states were still using this formula towards the end
of the 1st century. Although we have no Greek evidence, it is unlikely that the Romans would
have perpetuated a formula which was not current.
While the Embassy formula in the Roman letters does have some variations, they
present nothing which diverges from the ‘control’ examples, which frequently have variations
themselves. The Roman letters are similar to the ‘Non-Royal’ letters in keeping the sections
of the formula compact; applying a simple sequence would have helped ensure that the
formula was used properly. The vocabulary for all components have precedents in the
‘control’ corpus, however the Roman examples take care to use the appropriate sections to fit
the situation. This shows that the Roman authors paid close attention to the form of the
Embassy formula, seeking to use the proper sequence and standard vocabulary, but they were
also aware of its function, being careful to apply sections only in appropriate circumstances.
The complicated Embassy formula exemplifies the attention which Roman authors paid to
67
The examples with am ambassadors’ speech are ORRLIG 4 (which adds ‘in this decree’), 5, and 7 (which adds
‘in this (document)’). Those which use κατακεχωρισμένοις for the contents are ORRLIG 4 and 7, and 5 uses
δεδογμέ[νοις].
68
ORRLIG 2 ll.7–8: τούτωι | διελέχθη. 38 l.6: περÚ τῶν τινῶν διελέχθησαν [---].
69
ORRLIG 4 (190 BCE), 5 (190–189 BCE), 7 (189–188 BCE), and 8 (186? BCE).
70
ORRLIG 28 (post 85 BCE), 38 (73), 43 (44–42), 50 (31 BCE), and 59 (6 BCE).
62 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
contemporary Greek epistolography, and would have been important for presenting letters
which met the standards of Greek-speaking audiences.
Figure 2.2 – The Roman Embassy Formula based on the best examples
Template: πρεσβευταÚ ἐμοÚ προσήλθοσαν, µνí αÃτοῖς σύγκλητον δῶι. ἐγὼ αÃτοῖς
σύγκλητον ἔδωκα. συγκλήτου δόγμα τόδε ἐστίν.
Translation: Ambassadors came to me, in order that I might give the Senate to them. I
gave the Senate to them. This is the decree of the Senate.
Examples:
ORRLIG no.
9 ll.5-12: πρεσβευ|ταÚ Ἀμβρακιῶται καÚ | Ἀθαμᾶμες ἐμοÚ προσ|ήλθοσαν, µνí αÃτοῖς
σύγ|κλητον δῶ. Ἐγὼ αÃτοῖς || σύγκλητον ἔδωκα. | Συγκλήτου δόγμα τό|δε
ἐστίν.
11 ll.36.37: πρεσβευταÚ Μάγνητες κα[Ú Πριηνεῖς ἐμοÚ προσήλθοσαν | ὅπως αÃτοῖς
σύγκλ]ητον δῶι· τούτοις ἐγὼ σύγκλητον ἔδ[ωκα. Συγκλήτου δόγμα]
20 ll.90-93: [ἰό]ντες | Ἰτάνιοι πρεσβευταÚ καÚ Õμέτεροι προσήλθοσάν μ[οι ὅπ]ως |
αÃτοῖς σύνκλητον δῷ. ἐγὼ αÃτοῖς σύνκλητ[ο]ν ἔδωκα. | συνκλήτου
δόγμα τοῦτο γεγονός ἐστι.
Since our 3 examples present the same sequence of clauses (almost to the point where
the words are in the same order) and the vocabulary is almost without variation, we clearly
have a formula. They all date to the mid-2nd century, when the standard Embassy formula is in
full use.73 Why the author chose this formula over the standard Embassy formula is probably
linked to a composition process influenced by the appended documents with all 3 letters. All
provide evidence that the document was the main focus of the author, and the letter served the
functional purpose of introducing it. Latin interference appears to be a main factor.
71
Embassies or ambassadors are mentioned in different circumstances in ORRLIG 6, 10, 33, 35, 42, 45, 54
(fairly similar circumstances), 62, and 64. They are simply mentioned in ORRLIG 24, 32, 48, and 49 (in which
damage precludes certainty).
72
ORRLIG 9, 11, and 20. Cf. also 22, which seems likely to have had the same, l.5: [---] || Õμῖν ἐγῶ σύγ[κλητον
ἔδωκα].
73
ORRLIG 9 (between 175–160 BCE), 11 (c.mid-2nd century BCE), and 20 (112 BCE).
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 63
In 9, the Roman Embassy formula is the entire letter body, moving straight into the
document. It also uses the χαίρειν λέγει greeting, which we argued in §1.5 to be an example
of the pressure exerted upon authors by Latin document writing. Although 11 is very
damaged, its body is also only this formula; it has no farewell, but the greeting was [χαί]ρειν.
The nine-line letter 20 has only three lines without formulaic expressions before the
document. In the non-formulaic sections there are no connective particles and verbs either
follow their objects or are placed in clause-final position, a characteristic of official Latin
documents.74 It is likely that the authors did not want to risk mistakes by attempting Greek
formulae, of which they may not have been fully aware, and sought to produce letters which
were legible, but unidiomatic. There also seems to be a need to adhere closely to Latin
convention, possibly under instruction (perhaps to minimize risk), or possibly because the
well-established Latin conventions proved difficult to convey into natural Greek.75 Though
we have no Latin version of this formula, a passage from Sallust suggests that ‘giving’ the
Senate to legati may have been the standard phraseology.76
In official letters, the sender will sometimes state that he will try to benefit the recipient in
future. Such statements were made with enough frequency for a formula to develop, hereafter
74
Cf. ORRLIG 20 ll.93–97: Õμᾶς θέλ[ω] φροντί|σαι εἴ τι ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ ἐν ἀνφιλ[ογ]είᾷ ο–σῇ
ἐνῳ||κοδομημένον ἐστί, ὅπως ἐκ ταύτης τ[ῆς χώ]ρας καθέ|λητε ο—τως καθὼς ἡ σύνκλητος ἐδογμάτισε
καÚ κα|[ . . . . . . ]ωσε (verb form?) (my emphasis). Cf. also Clackson, Horrocks, Latin Language, 150. For
interference of Latin verb-final word order in Roman documents in Greek, see Horrocks, Greek, 143.
75
Cf. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, 470–471 and Clackson, Horrocks, Latin Language, 142–
143, and esp. 148.
76
Cf. Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum, 13.9: Igitur ubi legati satis confidunt, die constituto senatus utrisque datur
(my emphasis). Cf. E. García Domingo, Latinismos en la Koiné (en los documentos epigráficos desde el 212 a.
J.C. hasta el 14 d. J.C.) (Burgos, 1979), 363.
64 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
the ‘Benefaction formula’. It is usually found at the end of the body, often preceding the
farewell, after the sender has made clear his policy toward the recipient. Its status as a formula
is ascertained through the regularity of its word order, vocabulary, function, and placement in
the letter layout. The most basic form is presented in Figure 2.3:
The verb is always the future of πειρῶ coupled with the aorist infinitive of γίγνομαι.
The subject always refers to themselves as παραίτιος and then adds ἀγαθοῦ/ἀγαθῶν,
sometimes with τινος. A mention of the future often comes as (εἰς) τÙ λοιπóν and ἀεί can be
used instead or alongside it. If the recipient of the benefaction needs to be expressed, it is in
the dative case. The word order given in Figure 2.3 is most common.
Such promises for the future were present in Greek epistolography early enough for
Xenophon to have a similar statement in a letter of Cyrus.77 However, despite the seemingly
early roots of the Benefaction formula, we only find two full examples in the ‘control’ corpus,
though the ‘Royal’ letters present frequent examples of statements of benefaction.
Contrariwise, the Roman letters present 6 full examples. The extant evidence suggests that the
Benefaction formula most likely originated in Greek documents. Firstly, we have several
precursors to the formula in the ‘control’ corpus and also examples from Greek decrees and
the Septuagint.78 Concurrently, an equivalent could not be found in inscribed Latin letters.79
77
Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 4.5.33: ἡμεῖς δÓ πειρασόμεθα παρεῖναι, ὅταν τάχιστα διαπραξώμεθα ἃ σοί τí
ἂν καÚ ἡμῖν νομίξομεν πραχθέντα κοινÏ γένεσθαι ἀγαθά. ἔρρωσο.
78
Cf. II Maccabees (Septuagint), 11.19 (letter of Lysias to the Jews): …ἐÏν μÓν ο“ν συντηρήσητε τὴν εἰς τÏ
πράγματα ε–νοιαν, καÚ εἰς τÙ λοιπÙν πειράσομαι παραίτιος ἀγαθῶν γενέσθαι (my emphasis). CIG II,
xiv, 3047 (c.194 BCE?) ll.11–12: …καί | τινος ἀγαθῶ παραιτίους γίνεσθαι κτλ. CIG II, xiv, 3048 (c.194
BCE?) ll.13–14: …καί τινος ἀγαθοῦ | παραιτίους γίνεσθαι τῷ δάμῳ, κτλ. SIG3 700 (117 BCE, in an
honorary decree for a Roman, M. Annius) ll.43–45: καÚ παρακαλέσουσιν ἀποδεξάμενον μετí εÃνοίας τὴν
τοῦ δήμου προ|αίρεσιν νῦν τε καÚ εἰς τÙν μετÏ ταῦτα χρόνον ἀγαθοῦ τινος ἀεÚ παραίτιον ||
γίνεσθαι τῆι πόλει ἡμῶν (my emphasis).
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 65
The Benefaction formula is certainly not a necessary component of official letters, but it is
well-suited to the official sub-type. We do not find it in Buzón’s Ptolemaic letters, most likely
because it would not be suited for more private correspondence.
Since statements of benefaction are not a necessary component, it should not surprise that we
only find 8 examples in the ‘control’ letters, and that only 3 of these use the Benefaction
formula. We also have 2 damaged letters which appear to have had benefaction statements
with the phraseology of the formula.80 There were 30/67 ‘Royal’ and 30/59 ‘Non-Royal’
letters with at least the second half of the letter preserved and no Benefaction formula,81 5
‘control’ letters did not have this quoted,82 and 27/67 ‘Royal’ and 23/59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters
either lost the second half and the first had no such formula, or the whole letter was too
damaged to provide any such evidence.83
The ‘Royal’ letters have 6/8 benefaction statements, and 1 of the examples of the
formula is in 57, applying the same sequence and vocabulary presented in Figure 2.3,
including three optional components, though πειράσομαι and γενέσθαι are damaged and
only 3 letters of παραίτιος survive.84 When the ‘Royal’ letters do not apply the exact
Benefaction formula, they utilize its phraseology and vocabulary: all 5 use the future of
πειρῶ with infinitives which generally have beneficent meanings (such as φιλανθρωπεῖν), 1
79
A search on the Epigraphische Datenbank Clauss-Slaby for each of the components of the reconstructed Latin
equivalent ‘semper alicuius boni auctor uobis fieri’ provided by García Domingo, Latinismos, 578 does not
yield any Latin epigraphic comparanda. This indicates that if there are any Latin comparanda, they are rare.
80
IOLHRC 41 l.10: [καÚ παρεκαλέσατε ἐμÓ εἰς τÙ λοίπον] || παραίτιον ἔσ[εσθαι ἀγατοῦ τινος]. 56 ll.3–4:
[καÚ εἰς τÙ λοιπÙν | πειρα]όμεθα κοινῆι τ τῶι δήμωι συνίτιοι ἀγ[θῶν γίνεσθαι].
81
The letters which have at least the latter half preserved are IOLHRC 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,
22, 25, 30, 31, 32, 37, 40, 45, 48, 51, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, and 67, and IOLHPK 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19, 21 (letter), 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 51, 52, and 54.
82
IOLHRC 34 and IOLHPK 32, 33, and 34 do not have this section quoted in modern transcription. The section
is not quoted in ancient text of IOLHPK 50.
83
The following letters were too damaged to contribute data: IOLHRC 2, 6, 7, 8, 17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 33, 35,
36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, and 64, and IOLHPK 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 20, 23, 40, 41, 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59.
84
IOLHRC 57 ll.14–15: καÚ εἰς τÙ λοιπÙν π[ει]ράσομαι ἀεί τινος ἀγαθοῦ π[αραί||τι]ος γείνε[σθαι ἐπÚ τῶι
συμφ]έτι Õμῶ[ν].
66 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
of which also uses εἰς τÙ λοιπóν and another has πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν παραίτιον Õμῖν
γενόμενον, which is similar to the Benefaction formula.85
The ‘control’ corpus examples of the Benefaction formula show that, while
infrequently applied, once the formula had received a standard form the Hellenistic states
would use it in their official documents where necessary. There is only one other example in
the ‘Royal’ corpus where the Benefaction formula could have been appropriate, though it
seems the author wanted to write a more personal statement.87 Only one ‘Non-Royal’ letter
has a similar statement for the future, but it is a military promise for which the Benefaction
formula is unsuitable.88
Our ‘Royal’ epistolary examples seem to indicate that benefaction statements were
originally freer in composition, whereas the examples in decrees and ‘Non-Royal’ letters are
more uniform. Their temporal distribution is revealing: our 3 examples date to 201 and the
mid-2nd century BCE, whereas the 5 freer benefaction statements date between 311 and 205
85
IOLHRC 1 ll.66–69: πειρασόμεθα δÓ | καÚ εἰς τÙ λοιπÙν ὅτι ἂν ἔχωμεν τῶν συμφε|ρόντων καÚ Õμῖν καÚ
τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν πα|ρασκευάζειν. 13 ll.3–5: ›ς προσῆκον ἦν | διÏ τÙ καÚ τÙμ πατέρα τÙν ἡμέτερον
¡ρᾶν οἰκείως τÏ πρÙς τὴμ πόλιν δια||κείμενον καÚ πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν παραίτιον Õμῖν γενόμενον, and ll.11–
12: καÚ πειρασόμεθα ἀ[μ]ύεσθαι τÙν δῆ|μον εÃεργετοῦντες. 20 ll.30–33: πειρασό|μεθα καÚ ἰδίαι
ἑκάστωι καÚ κοι|νῆι πᾶσι φιλανθρωπεῖν καθí ὅσον | ἡμεῖς δυνατοί ἐσμεν. 21 ll.23–27: καÚ εἰς | τÙ λοιπÙν
δÓ πειρασόμεθα || τῶν καθí ἡμᾶς ƒντων ἐν ἡ|συχίαι μὴ ἀχαριστεῖν Õμῖν | ἐν τοῖς ἀξιουμένοις. 26 ll.20–22:
καÚ | [τÙ λ]ο[ιπ]Ụ̀ν πειράσομαι | Öσυναύξειν Õμῖν.
86
IOLHRC 13 ll.12–13: καÚ αÃτÙς συναύξεν καÚ αἰεί τι|νος ἀγαθῶ παραιτίος γενέσθαι τῶι δάμωι, and in
full at ll.22–24: καÚ πει[ρα]|σώμεθα αἰεί τινος ἀγαθῶ παραίτιοι γίνεσθαι τῶι δάμωι | καÚ κοινᾶι καÚ ἰδίαι.
21 (appended decree) ll.23–24: [ἀ]εί τ[ιν]ος] | ἀ[γ]αθοῦ π[α]ραίτιος γιν[όμενος] ἐ[ν πα]ντÚ κα[ιρ]ῶι.
87
Cf. IOLHRC 42 ll.8–10.
88
Cf. IOLHPK 26 ll.42–45.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 67
BCE.89 We also see that by 200 BCE this formula is being applied in decrees.90 It seems
likely that the frequency of benefaction statements in speeches, decrees, and letters led to the
development of the Benefaction formula by the end of the 3rd century, and the more
convenient and easily recognisable formulaic version ousted freer statements. Our evidence
shows that it was used in Hellenistic correspondence and it is perhaps a result of the limited
opportunities to apply the formula that we have so few examples. However, that the Romans
apply the standard word order and vocabulary of the formula shows that Greek epistolography
applied the formula frequently enough for them to learn the standard form, indicating that the
formula was probably applied with more frequency than is shown by extant letters.
We have 6 examples of the Benefaction formula in the Roman corpus, 2 coming in the same
letter, and 1 benefaction statement not using the formula.91 There is also a damaged example
likely to have been a benefaction statement with similar phraseology.92 There were 21/64
letters with at least the second half preserved (where the Benefaction formula is often found)
and no example,93 the letter body was not provided for 5 letters,94 and 31 either lost the
second half or were generally too damaged for certain interpretation.95
The verb is πειρασόμεθα in 3 examples, with 2 losing it through damage, and the
other uses δύνωμαι ‘should I be able’; the verb is always followed by a form of γίγνομαι,
except in one example where it and πειρασόμαι are lost.96 Though sometimes damaged, we
89
The Benefaction formula is found in IOLHRC 57 (mid-2nd century BCE) and IOLHPK 13 (201 BCE). Freer
benefaction statements are found in IOLHRC 1 (311 BCE), 13 (c.275? BCE), 20 (c.240 BCE), 21 (c.240 BCE),
and 26 (c.205).
90
Cf. CIG II pt.14 3047 (c.194 BCE?); CIG II pt.14 3048 (c.194 BCE?); IOLHPK 21 (appended document) (190
BCE).
91
ORRLIG 4 (bis), 7, 28, 40, and 50. The benefaction statement is in ORRLIG 2.
92
ORRLIG 39 ll.3–5?: ἔν τε [τοῖς λ]οι|[ποῖς χρόνοις---τὴν] πόλιν αἰεί τινος [Õμ]ῖν ἀ[γαθοῦ] θέ||[λω
γενέσθαι].
93
ORRLIG 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 17, 20, 25, 32, 35, 37, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 58, 59, 60, and 64.
94
ORRLIG 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
95
ORRLIG 5, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
57, 61, 62, and 63.
96
ORRLIG 4 ll.13–14 and 7 have πειρασόμεθα and pres. inf. γίνεσθαι. ORRLIG 4 ll.8–12 has πειρασόμεθα
and aor. part. [γεν]όμενοι. ORRLIG 50 has lost πειρασόμαι but retains the pres. inf. γείνεσθαι. ORRLIG 28
has δύνωμαι and aor. inf. γενέσθαι. ORRLIG 40 has πειρασόμαι although the form of γίγνομαι is lost.
68 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
can identify παραίτιος τινος ἀγαθοῦ in every example, ἀεί is present in 5 examples, a
mention of the future in 3, and a dative beneficiary in 4.97 The author of the other benefaction
statement seems to be alluding to the formula by applying some of its phraseology: it has
πειρασόμεθα with the infinitive συνεπαύξειν, emphasizes ‘honours and privileges’ which
the Romans bestowed, and then asks the recipient to maintain their goodwill towards Rome
‘in future’.98 A formula would have been too constraining to convey the details of such a
message, but the use of the formula’s phraseology would have made this an obvious
declaration of benefaction.
Our earliest examples of the Benefaction formula—4 (190 BCE) and 7 (189-188)—
are contemporaneous with the high point of the formula’s use in the ‘control’ evidence,
indicating that the authors of the earliest official Roman letters were aware of the current
Greek formulaic expressions, and could apply them successfully. Our 3 later examples dating
between 85 and 31 BCE are testament to the formula’s perseverance.99 That the formula is not
found in great frequency corresponds to the ‘control’ practices and is likely to be due to the
lack of appropriate opportunities for the formula. The Romans seem to have understood the
gravity of these words—promising future benefaction was apparently reserved for close
allies: the formula is used once reporting the speech of ambassadors and elsewhere only in
letters to those on good terms with the sender.100 That the formula is reproduced in the Roman
letters in the manner of their Hellenistic counterparts reflects keen observance of Greek
epistolography and solid grasp of the language. It is also probably the result of the Romans
being exposed to uniform, formal versions in Greek speeches, decrees, and letters when the
97
The examples which have ἀεί are ORRLIG 4 ll.8–12 and ll.13–14, 7, 28, and 40. ORRLIG 7 has εἰς τÙ
λοιπóν, 40 has [εἰς τ]Ù μέλλον, and 4 ll.13–14 has [ἐν τ]οῖς ἄλλοις:. There is a dative recipient in ORRLIG 4
ll.13–14, 7, 40, and 50.
98
ORRLIG 2 ll.21–24: καÚ τά τε εἰς | τÙν θεÙν τίμια καÚ τÏ εἰς Õμᾶς φιλάνθρωπα πειρασό|μεθα
συνεπαύξειν, διατηρούντων Õμῶν καÚ εἰς τÙ | μετÏ ταῦτα τὴν πρÙς ἡμᾶς ε–νοιαν (my emphasis).
99
ORRLIG 28 (post 85 BCE), 40 (45 BCE), and 50 (31 BCE).
100
The letter reporting the speech of ambassadors is ORRLIG 7, and the recipient seems to be on good terms
with Rome (note the Embassy formula). The contents of the other letters demonstrate the good relationship of
both parties: 4 (which has an Embassy formula and also expresses goodwill to all Greeks) ll.7–8: ἡμ[εῖ]ς δÓ
πρÙς πάντας τοˆς Ἕλληνας εÃνόως διακείμεν[οι | τυγχά]νομεγ. 28 (which has an Embassy formula and
notes that the recipient sent soldiers to Oppius) ll.22–26: Õ|μᾶς ἔπεμψα γράμματα ὅπ[ς] | στρατιώτας πρός
με ἀποσ[τέ]||λητε, ἐν πρώτοις ἀπεστ[ί]|λατε. 40 (which has the greeting χαίρειν καÚ ἐρρῶσθαι, and
Caesar also mentions a decree of friendship) l.11: φιλίας δόγ[ματος]. 50 (which has a health wish and Embassy
formula, and Octavian mentions honours and a crown voted to him) l.79: καÚ τÏς τιμÏς καÚ τÙν στέφανον
δέδεγμαι.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 69
formula was standardized. Adopting this form rather than making more round-about
statements would allow the authors to express promises of benefaction effectively and also
demonstrate their grasp of contemporary Greek epistolography. After over 100 years they still
used the formula in a consistent form, which suggests that it became a standard formula in
official Roman epistolography in Greek.
Ancient Greek and Roman filiation expressions clarify a person’s identity by providing their
lineage. Filiation is found in Greek literary and documentary texts of all periods, including
our official letters. Greek filiation had become idiomatic by the classical era, and in Homer
we can see that it was already transitioning from the fuller expression: ‘X the son/daughter of
Y’, to the idiomatic form used thereafter: ‘X the (son/daughter) of Y’. The person in question
will be in the case required by the clause, with the article sometimes repeated after their name.
They can then be described as ‘son/daughter/child’ (υἱός/θυγάτηρ/παῖς,) ‘of their father’
(and occasionally ‘of their mother’), whose name is added in genitive case.101 If the
grandfather is added for further clarification, his name is attached with article + genitive.102
Already in Homer we can see that the word for ‘son/daughter’ is becoming less
necessary and the genitive of the father’s name serves.103 The father’s name in genitive with
or without a preceding article (the former being more frequent) will become the standard
manner of filiation in literary prose spanning our period and beyond. For example, such
filiation practices are found quite frequently in Herodotos104 and Thucydides.105 Although
101
The genitive of possession is used for filiation as well as marriage ties and patron-freedman/woman
relationships, cf. H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, revised by G.M. Messing (Massachusetts, 1956) §1301. For
some early epigraphic examples with a word for ‘son/child’, see Raubitschek, DAA, 112 (c.480 BCE, Athens,
Akropolis) l.1: [Θρά]συλλος καÚ Γνάθιος Μνέσονος υιε̑, and IG II2 5220 = Keram. III A 26 (433/2 BCE,
Athens, Kerameikos) l.4:
ΣιληνÙς παῖς Φώκο.
102
Some examples of the grandfather’s name being added are at Herodotos 1.7.2: êγρων μÓν γÏρ ¡ Νίνου τοῦ
Βήλου τοῦ Ἀλκαίου, and 1.73.3: Κυαξάρης ¡ Φραόρτεω τοῦ Δηιόκεω.
103
Cf. e.g. Iliad, 2.552: υἱÙς Πετεῶο Μενεσθεύς; Odyssey, 1.399: ΕÃρύμαχος, Πολύβου πάις; 1.429:
ΕÃρύκλειí, Íπος θυγάτηρ Πεισηνορίδαο; 2.296: Ἀθηναίη, κούρη Διός. Cf. also e.g. Iliad, 2.527: Ὀιλῆος
ταχˆς Αἴας; Odyssey, 1.259: ºλου Μερμερίδαο.
104
Cf. e.g. Herodotos, 1.59.3: Λυκούργου Ἀριστολαΐδεω (as mss., however, cf. Schaefer, retained by Hude
(OCT): Λυκούργου <τοῦ> Ἀριστολαΐδεω); 1.1.3: Ἰοῦν τὴν Ἰνάχου.
105
Cf. e.g. Thucydides, 1.24.2: Φαλίος Ἐρατοκλείδου; 1.3.2: Ἕλληνος τοῦ Δευκαλίωνος.
70 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
used much less frequently, they are still present in Polybios106 in the Republican period and
Plutarch107 in the Imperial, and they are also used in the New Testament.108 It seems that from
Herodotos onwards words for ‘son/daughter’ tend only to be included in filiation in literature
for clarity.109
Roman filiation remains constant from the earliest to the latest stages, though it is
more common in certain text-types than others. The formula consists of the person’s name in
the relevant case, then their father’s name in genitive, and the word for ‘son/daughter’
(filius/filia) abbreviated to F in inscriptions.110 This sequence is consistently reproduced in all
periods. Examples of filiation in Latin literature are rare, probably due to the developing tria
nomina system already providing sufficient clarification, with the narrative contributing
further contextualization. Nevertheless, we find standard Roman filiation in rare literary
occurrences contemporary with our corpus, as early as Plautus and later in Caesar and Livy.111
In Roman inscriptions, however, filiation is widespread, and in official or public inscriptions
it approaches ubiquity. We find it from the earliest epitaphs, dedications, honorifics, and
inscriptions on public works, and it continues long into the Empire.112 When an author feels it
106
I found only 1 example in Polybios book 1, at 1.30.1: τόν τí êννωνος Ἀσδρούβαν.
107
Cf. e.g. Plutarch: Romulus, 2.1 (bis), 2.2, 16.8; Publicola, 14.1; Demosthenes, 20.3, 25.7; Alexander, 48.1;
Caesar, 3.1.
108
Cf. e.g. Matthew 4.21; Mark 2.14; Luke 6.15; John 6.71.
109
Adams found this occurring in bilingual Latin and Greek inscriptions from Delos where υἱός was inserted to
distinguish filiation from the patron-freedman relationship, see J.N. Adams, ‘Bilingualism at Delos’, J.N.
Adams, M. Janse, S.C.R. Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society (Oxford, 2002), 119–120. For examples
from literature, see Herodotos 1.35.3: Γορδίεω μÓν τοῦ Μίδεώ εἰμι παῖς, and 1.74.4: Ἀλυάττεα γÏρ ἔγνωσαν
δοῦναι τὴν θυγατέρα Ἀρύηνιν Ἀστυάγεϊ τῷ Κυαξάρεω παιδί (my emphasis), see also 1.103. Plutarch
seems to do this to differentiate the two men named Aruns, see Publicola, 9.1 êρρων ¡ Ταρκυνίου παῖς and
19.3: êρρουν ¡ Πορσίνα υἱός (cf. êρρων in Υ), however there seems to be no need for clarity at Demosthenes
15.2, which seems to be done for emphasis, as the word order may suggest: τÙν Χαβρίου παῖδα Κτήσιππον.
110
Should the grandfather be added, his name is in genitive followed by N(epos).
111
Plautus, Asinaria, 751: “Diabolus Glauci filius”. Caesar, Gallic War, 1.47: C. Valeri Caburi filium. Livy
1.3.1: Ascanius Aeneae filius, see also 1.3.6 and 1.3.9.
112
See these early examples: (epitaphs) CIL 6, 1284 (post 290 BCE, the date of his censorship) l.1: [L(ucius)
Corneli]o(s) Cn(aei) f(ilius) Scipio. CIL 6, 1286 (post 258 BCE, the date of his censorship) l.1: L(ucius)
Cornelio(s) L(uci) f(ilius) Scipio. (dedicatory inscriptions). CIL 14, 2892 (c.250 BCE?) l.1: L(ucius) Gemenio(s)
L(uci) f(ilius) Pelt(uino?). CIL 6 438 (236 BCE?) ll.1–2: P(ublius) Corn[elios] | L(uci) f(ilius) co(n)so[l]. A later
example with the grandfather and great-grandfather mentioned: CIL 6, 1282 (post 52 BCE) ll.1–3: P(ublius)
Claudius P(ubli) f(ilius) | Ap(pi) n(epos) Ap(pi) pron(epos) | Pulcher. Domitian is still using this type of filiation,
CIL 9, 5420 ll.1–2: Imp(erator) Caesar diui Vespasiani f(ilius) | ⟦Domitianus⟧ Augustus.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 71
necessary to convey a Roman name into Greek with Roman style filiation, the standard
equivalent of filius is υἱός, which should be applied after the father’s name as seen in Greek
literature.
In our official Roman letters in Greek, filiation expressions are examples of formulaic
expressions not restricted to letters. In our letters, filiation is revealing of the authors
understanding of the Greek and Latin languages in official inscriptions, but it is equally
revealing of how the Roman administration sought to project themselves to Greek-speaking
audiences. The authors creating these letters were under pressure from Greek and Latin
practices in respect to idiomatic conventions but also in respect to the sense of identity
encapsulated by filiation. I must also stress from the outset that we should not conceive of
filiation in the Roman corpus as “Greek filiation with genitive = ‘correct’, Roman-style
filiation with υἱός = ‘incorrect’”: the distinction is not so simple, and the application of
filiation in the Roman corpus is often subtly nuanced, with language and identity both
considered.
There has been little scholarship on filiation expressions.113 Filiation expressions are
mostly found in texts originating from monolingual contexts, where they are almost always
grammatically straightforward and easily explained. Furthermore, filiation in monolingual
contexts is not overly revealing of the author and their use of language. However, in bilingual
contexts the choice of a particular filiation expression and its execution becomes important
for analysing the author’s understanding of both languages and the identity they projected.114
J.N. Adams demonstrates the usefulness of filiation expressions for analysing language choice
and linguistic proficiency in a bilingual context in discussion of bilingual Latin and Greek
inscriptions at Delos.115 Since his study assesses roughly contemporary Latin and Greek
documentary inscriptions it is necessary to consult his work in this section. Sherk offers only
113
Rizakis and Zoumbaki note a general lack of interest in scholarship and reluctance to brave the difficulties of
studying Roman names in epigraphic evidence from the Greek-speaking East, see A.D. Rizakis and S.
Zoumbaki, Roman Peloponnese I: Roman Personal Names in their Social Context, with M. Kantirea (Athens,
2001), 38.
114
Cf. the comments of Rizakis and Zoumbaki on the significance of the use of names as a symbol of identity
(although not referring to filiation), Roman Peloponnese I, 38–39.
115
Adams, ‘Bilingualism at Delos’, 103–127. Another study which draws on the valuable information provided
by filiation expressions (it this case, in documentary Demotic and Greek texts) is B. Muhs, ‘Language Contact
and Personal Names in Early Egypt’, Evans and Obbink (eds.), Language of the Papyri, 187–197, see for
discussion of filiation esp. 191–195.
72 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
2 paragraphs on filiation in senatus consulta in Greek, but no discussion of the letters.116 We
will profit from greater attention to this feature of the letters, where the form and function of
filiation is often stimulated by multiple linguistic features and cultural conventions. Since
prior scholarship is limited, we will therefore draw on data from the ‘control’ evidence,
similar inscriptions, and appropriate literature to analyse the application of filiation
expressions in the Roman letters.
Filiation expressions are not required for every name, only those which the author felt a need
to clarify. We have 58/67 ‘Royal’ and 41/59 ‘Non-Royal’ letters without any example of
filiation in the preserved text,117 and 1 ‘Royal’ and 3‘Non-Royal’ letters do not have any
example provided in the edition.118 There are 8 examples of filiation with genitive in the
‘Royal’ sub-corpus, 4 having genitive only and 4 having article + genitive (one of which is
female),119 and a further 3 examples of the grandfather being added with article + genitive.120
We have also a damaged example likely to have been article + genitive.121 Finally, there is 1
secure example of θυγάτηρ and 1 of υἱός being added to article + genitive filiation for
clarity, no different to the practice found in literature.122 There are 25 examples of filiation
116
Sherk, RDGE, 117.
117
These are: IOLHRC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63,
and 64. IOLHPK 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, and 59.
118
These are IOLHRC 34 and IOLHPK 32, 33, and 34.
119
The examples of filiation with genitive only are IOLHRC 47 l.3: Ναλαγλόας Κιλαρίου, 62 ll.6–7:
Δημήτριος | Δημητρίου τοῦ Μνασαίου, 65 l.3: Χ[ιρ]ήμω[ν Πυ]θοδώρου, 66 l.2: Χαιρήμων Πυθοδώρου.
The examples with article + genitive are IOLHRC 30 l.19: [Βερ]νί, ἡ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λυσιμάχου, 67 l.8:
Πετάσου τοῦ Ἀ[ντιόχου], l.11: Πετάσου τοῦ Ἀντιόχου, and l.11 (iterum): Ἀριστομένους τοῦ Φιλίππου.
120
IOLHRC 30 l.19: [Βερ]νί, ἡ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λυσιμάχου, 31 ll.4–5: Βερενίκην || τὴν Πτολεμαίου
τοῦ Λυσιμάχου, 62 ll.6–7: Δημήτριος | Δημητρίου τοῦ Μνασαίου.
121
IOLHRC 67 ll.7?–8: [Ἀριστομένους] | τοῦ Φιλίππου.
122
IOLHRC 31 ll.4–5: Βερενίκην || τὴν Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λυσιμάχου θυγατέρα (cf. Homer, Odyssey,
1.429: ΕÃρύκλειí, Íπος θυγάτηρ Πεισηνορίδαο, and Plutarch, Caesar, 14.5: Καλπουρνίαν θυγατέρα
Πείσωνος.), and 59 ll.1–2: [Ἀθή]|ναιος ¡ Σωσάνδρου υἱός. There is also a damaged example with υἱός +
genitive which is more likely to be a general statement than filiation (since υἱός should follow its genitive in
filiation, e.g. Plutarch, Publicola, 19.3: êρρουν ¡ Πορσίνα υἱός), but damage impedes more certain
conclusions, cf. 23 l.4: [---]ς υἱÙς Ἀλέξανδρος.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 73
with genitive in the ‘Non-Royal’ sub-corpus, 17 using genitive only and 8 using article +
genitive.123 There are 3 damaged examples likely to have had filiation with genitive only.124
Aside from there being more filiation examples in the ‘Non-Royal’ letters, the usage is
uniform across both sub-corpora and found diachronically throughout. The earliest example
of filiation in the ‘Royal’ letters has article + genitive and is in 30 (204 BCE) and the latest is
in 67 (21 CE). The earliest example with only genitive dates to c.160 BCE and the latest to
88/7 BCE, in 47 and 66 respectively. The earliest ‘Non-Royal’ example of filiation uses
genitive only and is in 3 (240-230 BCE). The most recent example—in 56 (37-36 BCE)—is
the same type of filiation. Our 8 ‘Non-Royal’ filiation expressions with article + genitive
come from three letters: 38 (186 BCE), 39 (2nd century BCE), and 56 (c.157 BCE). There
does not seem to be significance in the use of either filiation method, and it may have been
simply a stylistic choice of the author. It is unlikely to be due to the chronology of these
letters, as the ‘Non-Royal’ auxiliary letter from post 38 BCE has article + genitive filiation.
The ‘control’ data suggest that filiation without the article was perhaps more common in
inscribed official letters than in literature,125 however it appears that in the Gospels both types
123
The examples of filiation with genitive only are IOLHPK 3 l.5 êδμητον Βόκρου, 6 l.2: Ἑρμίας Ἐμμενίδα, 7
l.3: [Φ]ιλίσκος Πυθαγόρου, 10 l.91: Λαμπρίαν [Π]αγκλέος, 10 ll.91–92: Αἴνετον | Πολύτα, 10 l.92: Φηγέα
Σωτίωνος, 17 l.4: Δαμοκράτη Ἀσσυτέλε<ο>ς, 21 ll.3–4: Ἀντίσκ[ω]ν[α | Μελ]ανθίου, 21 l.4:
[Ἀ]λέξανδ[ρ]ο[ν Μ]ονί[μ]ου, 21 l.6: Ἐπίνω Σ[ω]π[άτ]ρου, 22 l.7: Μηνοφάντωι Ἀρτεμιδώρου, 25 l.5:
Γλαύκωι ΕÃδώρου, 26 l.5: Ἡρόδοτος Μηνοδότω, 26 ll.5–6: Μενεκλῆς | Διονυσίω, 28 l.2: Πόλλις
Ἐπστράτου, 51 l.6: Διονυσοδώρωι Πεμπίδου, 56 l.20: Παμμένην Ζήνωνος. The examples with article +
genitive are IOLHPK 38 l.32: Μηνοδώρου τοῦ Διονυσίου, l.32 (iterum): Φιλοίτου τοῦ Κρατίου, 39 l.44:
Διονυσίου τοῦ Νύμφι[δος], l.45: Θυμοτέλου τοῦ Φιλο[κλέους], l.46: Ἐλπινίκου τοῦ Ἐπικράτου, l.47:
Φιλίωνος τοῦ Φιλομήλου, and l.48: Ἀρίστωνος τοῦ Ζήνωνος, 56 l.19: Διοτ[ίμου] τοῦ Διοδώρου çλαιέως.
We also have the same in Aux.1 l.10: Πύθου τοῦ ΟÃμανίου.
124
IOLHRC 7 l.4: [Λάμπετο]ς Πυθαγόρου, 21 ll.4–5: Ἀσκληπ[ι]ά[δ]η[ν] | [Λεω]νί[δ]ου, 57 l.4: [Διοδώρω]ι
Δωροθέου.
125
Herodotos, Thucydides, and Plutarch seem to prefer article + genitive. I found 1 example of filiation with
genitive only (which was not accepted by Schaefer, who is followed by Hude (OCT)) and 28 examples with the
article in the first 100 chapters of Herodotos bk. 1. In the first 100 chapters of Thucydides bk. 1 I found 1
example without the article and 20 with it. Of the examples of filiation without a word for ‘son/daughter’ from
Plutarch cited in n.107, all but one (Demosthenes, 20.3) had article + genitive, cf. Romulus, 2.1 (bis), 2.2, 16.8;
Publicola, 14.1; Demosthenes, 25.7; Alexander, 48.1; Caesar, 3.1. Cf. also, Alexander, 16.18: Ἀλέξανδρος [¡]
Φιλίππου (Ziegler).
74 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
were equally acceptable.126 It is possible that the article was removed with a view to saving
space on the stone, though we cannot prove this or ascertain at which point this could have
occurred. Our 3 examples of filiation with the grandfather’s name added by article + genitive
corresponds to the examples from Herodotos and is surely in the conventional manner.127
It seems fair to conclude that both types of filiation were equally acceptable in the
‘control’ corpus, with the genitive alone being more common in the ‘Non-Royal’ letters. The
similarities of these results to the literary examples demonstrates that these examples largely
conform to the filiation conventions of higher-level language, but are perhaps more similar to
the Gospels. They could well be characteristic of official letters and are suitable comparanda
for analysing filiation expressions in the Roman letters.
Greek and Roman filiation practices converge in the official Roman letters in Greek, and
therefore we have different manners of filiation. The most popular by far are the intrinsically
Greek filiation for Greek names, and Roman-style filiation in Greek for Romans, and
exceptions are rare. We have 27/64 Roman letters without examples of filiation in the extant
text,128 and 5 letters do not have the body provided in the edition.129 The higher quantities of
letters with examples of filiation expressions themselves probably results from the
combination of Roman naming practices incorporating filiation more often than Greek and a
possible concern on the part of the Romans to be specific when referring to Greeks.
We have 39 examples of natural Greek filiation with Greek names, 34 of which use
genitive only and 5 use article + genitive, and we also have 4 examples of the grandfather’s
name added by article + genitive.130 There are also 5 damaged examples likely to have had
126
Matthew has two examples with article + genitive filiation (4.21, 10.2) and Mark has 4 (1.19, 2.14, 3.17,
3.18). Luke has 1 with the article (3.2) and 2 without (6.15, 6.16). John has 3 without the article (6.71, 13.26,
21.15).
127
See Herodotos, 1.7.2 and 1.73.3.
128
ORRLIG 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, 30, 36, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 62.
129
ORRLIG 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
130
The examples of filiation with genitive only are ORRLIG 7 l.3, ll.3–4, 19 l.8, l.21, and l.23, 24 C ll.47–48, C
ll.48–49, C ll.49–50, and C l.50, 26 ll.16–17, 28 ll.8–9, l.9, l.10, and ll.10–11, 37 l.58, 38 l.4 (bis) and l.5, 42 l.5,
ll.5–6, l.6, ll.6–7, l.7 (bis), l.8 (bis), and l.9, 43 l.2, 45 ll.14–15, 53 ll.23–24, 60 l.23 and l.24, 61 l.3, and 64 l.19.
The examples with article + genitive filiation are ORRLIG 53 l.26, 59 ll.6–7, l.8, l.10, and l.13. The examples
with the grandfather added with article + genitive are ORRLIG 24 C l.48 and ll.50–51, 42 ll.8–9, and 60 l.24.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 75
genitive only filiation and 1 more likely to have added the grandfather with article +
genitive.131 In the ‘control’ corpus, we had 17/25 examples of filiation with genitive only and
8/25 with article + genitive; our Roman data, with 34/39 and 5/39 conform to the trends of the
‘control’ evidence. The Roman authors perhaps noticed the prevalence of plain genitive
filiation for Greek names in their letters. The diachronic presence of this expression shows
that it was the standard filiation for Greek names in the corpus: the earliest example—7—is
from 189-188 BCE and the latest—64—is from 12/13 CE. The 4 examples of the
grandfather’s name being added via article + genitive conforms completely to the ‘control’
evidence. We also have 2 examples of intrinsically Greek filiation with plain genitive applied
to a Roman name.132 Aside from the names being Roman, these examples are no different
from their Greek counterparts, though accidental omission is always possible.
There are 29 examples in the Roman corpus of intrinsically Roman filiation in Greek
(using υἱός for filius) for Roman names, none of which have the article.133 The Roman names
in genitive always use Greek morphology. There are no examples of Latin interference
affecting the genitive of our Roman names. Although it was not the idiom in postclassical
Greek literature and documents to use a word for ‘son/daughter’ except for clarification, the
use of υἱός for filius was the acceptable practice in official Roman documents. Adams found
that in inscriptions at Delos filiation with υἱός for Romans became popular after the mid-2nd
century BCE, although these were not official inscriptions.134 The earliest example of υἱός for
filius in an official Roman document in Greek is in ORRLIG 6 (189 BCE) and is found again
in a senatus consultum from 170 (alongside standard Greek filiation for a Greek woman),135
perhaps suggesting that it was standard practice in official Roman documents in Greek by the
early 2nd century. Since we can observe Greeks accommodating Romans by using Roman-
131
The damaged examples of filiation with genitive only are ORRLIG 21 l.13: Ξανθίαι Ξανθίο[υ---], 24 C l.13:
[---]||-σον Φυλοτίμου, C l.47: Ἱκέσιον Ἀρτεμιδώρο[υ], and C ll.51–52: [Ἕρμιπ]|πον Μενοίτου, 28 ll.7–8:
Ἀντίπα[ρος | ? Ἀδρά]του. The damaged example with the grandfather added with article + genitive is
ORRLIG 26 ll.16–17: Διόδοτον [δÓ Διοδό?]|του τοῦ Ἀθηνίωνος.
132
ORRLIG 2 l.2: Μᾶρκος ΟÃαλάριος Μάρκου, 19 l.3: Κόιντος Φάβιος Κοίντου Μάξιμος.
133
ORRLIG 6 l.1, 9 ll.1–2, 20 l.89, 28 ll.1–2, 29 ll.2–3, 34 l.4, 35 l.1, ll.6–7, l.7, l.8, ll.8–9, l.10, ll.10–11, l.11,
ll.12–13, l.13, ll.13–14, l.14 (bis), ll.14–15, l.15, and ll.15–16, 42 l.3 and ll.13–14, 43 l.1, 44 l.2, 48 l.1, 49 ll.1–2,
and 64 l.17. υἱός seems to have been lost through damage in ORRLIG 11 l.35, 24 A l.26, 31 l.1, 32 l.1, 33 l.1, 35
ll.1–2.
134
Adams, ‘Bilingualism at Delos’, 123.
135
Senatus consultum de Thisbensibus, cf. RDGE 2 l.1, l.4, l.5, l.15, ll.15–16, l.16, (Sherk, RDGE, 27–28). For
the example of Greek filiation, see RDGE 2 l.48: Δαμοκρίτα Διονυσίου. Even if it is ‘wife of Dionysios’ and
not ‘daughter’ (cf. translation at Sherk, Translated Documents, 21) it would still be applying the Greek idiom.
76 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
style filiation e.g. in the honorific inscription for Marcus Annius (117 BCE) and in the
document appended to IOLHPK 38 (c.138), it was probably recognized by at least some
Greeks as the standard filiation for Romans.136 The manner in which υἱός is added conforms
to the precedent set in Greek literature, and, although the Romans were not imitating Homer,
their application of υἱός corresponds to literary comparanda.137 Therefore, Roman υἱός
filiation followed the rules of Greek grammar and expression, but not the Greek idiom. It is
found throughout the timespan of the corpus (the earliest example being 6 (189 BCE) and the
latest being 64 (12/13 CE)) and is surely the standard filiation expression for Roman names.
There are also 5 certain examples of Roman-style filiation applied to Greek names and 1
damaged example.138 These filiation expressions are constructed no differently to Roman-
style filiation for Roman names, and all the certain examples occur in letters with Roman-
style filiation for Roman names.
That 39/44 examples of Greek names with filiation use idiomatic Greek expressions
speaks highly of the authors’ grasp of Greek, especially when we consider that 19 of these
examples occur in letters with intrinsically Roman filiation for Roman names.139 Although
there is a Roman name with υἱός filiation earlier in the letters with these 19 Greek names, it
seems unlikely that the Greek names would have originally had υἱός which was then omitted.
Sherk argued that, in lists of Roman names in senatus consulta, the stonecutter would omit
superfluous examples of υἱός after the first name, but this assumes a high level of literacy and
understanding of Greek idiom for these stonecutters.140 Furthermore, the stonecutter for 35
136
See SIG3 700 (Letaean decree) ll.3–4: Μάαρκος êννιος Πο|πλίου υἱός, and IOLHPK 38 (doc.) ll.42–43:
Κόϊν|τος Καλιπόρνιος Γαΐου υἱός (cf. IOLHPK 38 (doc.) l.41: Εἰρηνίου τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδο[υ], l.61: ΕÃδαμίδα
τοῦ ΕÃθυκλέος, ll.61–62: Νίκ<ων>|ος τοῦ Νίκωνος).
137
Cf. the example from ORRLIG 6 l.1: Σπόριος Ποστόμιος Λευκίου υἱός, with Homer, Iliad, 2.638: Θόας
Ἀνδραίμονος υἱός, Odyssey, 2.386: Φρονίοιο Νοήμονα φαίδιμον υἱόν, and Plutarch, Publicola, 19.3: êρρων ¡
Πορσίνα υἱός, although Plutarch includes the article. Cf. also IOLHRC 31 ll.4–5: Βερενίκην || τὴν
Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λυσιμάχου θυγατέρα and esp. IOLHRC 59 ll.1–2: [Ἀθή]|ναιος ¡ Σωσάνδρου υἱός.
138
ORRLIG 33 l.2: Μικᾶς Μικᾶ υἱός, 35 l.16: Ἑρμόδωρος Ὀλυνπίχου υἱóς, l.18: Ἀλεξίδημος Θεοδώρου
υἱóς, and l.18 (iterum): Δημαίνετος Θεοτέλου υἱóς, and 48 l.4: Σόλων Δημητρίου υἱóς. It seems very likely
that we have Roman filiation with a Greek name at ORRLIG 25 l.2: ([Χ]αιρημων Πυ[θοδώρ]ου υ[ἱό]ς. There is
also another possible example in ORRLIG 63, though, due to damage, it is hard to be certain of the ethnicity of
the name, see 63 l.7: [---Ποτάμ]ωνος υἱÙν [---].
139
These are ORRLIG 24 (x4), 28 (x4), 42 (x9) 43, and 64.
140
Sherk, RDGE, 17. For this to be feasible the stonecutter would first need to be able to read υἱός and then
evaluate its function. While some stonecutters may have been capable of this, it is difficult to believe it could
ever be universal.
Formulaic expressions in the Body of the Letters 77
retained υἱός in 16 Roman names.141 If υἱός was consciously retained with the first name to
contextualize the list and the remaining superfluous examples were removed, the author is
more likely to have done this, since they are more likely to understand the language and its
idioms than the stonecutter.142 Adams warns of the possibility of υἱός being omitted by
mistake by the stonecutter, which of course cannot be excluded for every example,143 but
conscious omission is better ascribed to the author. Sherk’s statement was also in regard to
lists of Roman names, but we have Roman and Greek names with the respective, intrinsic
filiation types. Furthermore, of we consider 42, we find intrinsic Roman filiation, then 8
examples of idiomatic Greek filiation for Greek names, and then another example of a Roman
name with Roman-style filiation. The author of this letter understood the filiation practices of
both cultures and applied them accordingly. Since we have no evidence to the contrary, it is
fair to conclude that the letters presenting Greek and Roman names with their respective
filiation expressions reflect sound understanding of Greek and Roman languages and
epistolography.
The examples of Roman names with Greek filiation in 2 (193 BCE) and 19 (115)
seem to be consciously applied, and could reflect authors who sought to project the sender as
no different to the Greek recipients. Adams found that Romans at Delos electing to use Greek
filiation could indicate a desire to present themselves as ‘insiders’.144 It is possible that the
author of 2 sought to linguistically accommodate the recipient, which would be fitting at the
early stages of Roman influence in the East, and that this letter seems to be quite warm and
well-written (using the Embassy and Benefaction formulae) lends support to this. Judging by
the 3 examples of idiomatic Greek filiation in 19, it is clear that the author understood the
language, but accommodation could be behind the Roman name with Greek filiation as the
letter discusses a quashed (apparently Anti-Roman) revolution and it seems wise for Romans
to present themselves to Dyme as ‘insiders’.
141
There are two examples of dittography in this section of the letter, which may indicate that the stonecutter did
not fully recognise what he was copying, cf. ORRLIG 35 ll.8–9 and l.14.
142
We have a comparable list in Luke’s Gospel. Luke lists Jesus’ lineage, consisting of 77 names all attached
consecutively with genitive. υἱός (though not in a filiation expression) is used in the preceding sentence. See
Luke 3.23–38: ΚαÚ αÃτÙς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ›σεÚ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ›ς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ
ἨλÚ τοῦ ΜαθθÏτ…(71 other names)…τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ ἈδÏμ τοῦ θεοῦ. Even though grandfathers are not
commonly attached using υἱός, we can see that υἱός at the introduction contextualizes the list as one of lineage.
143
Adams, ‘Bilingualism at Delos’, 124.
144
Adams, ‘Bilingualism at Delos’, 123.
78 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
Although the Roman-style filiation with υἱός is done as an allusion to Roman filiation
in Latin, the manner in which it is applied is perfectly correct in Greek. The genitives of
Roman names in these filiation expressions always have Greek morphology, not transliterated
Latin morphology, and the placement of υἱός in the expression conforms to the sequence
found in literature, even if it mirrored Latin practices. This indicates that Roman names with
υἱός filiation are not examples of ‘bad Greek’ even though they are not the contemporary
Greek idiom. That we find Roman-style filiation in 29/31 examples always in a regular form,
as well as in senatus consulta in Greek, suggests that υἱός filiation received standardisation
for Roman names in official Republican documents in Greek, and surely became a mark of
Roman identity. Although some authors may not have considered Greek idiom before
applying υἱός filiation, there are 5 letters with intrinsic Roman and Greek filiation with the
appropriate names for which we can conclude that υἱός filiation was a conscious decision.
While certainty is difficult for all examples, we should not take υἱός filiation as an automatic
sign of poor understanding of Greek, but consider that it may have been applied to project
Roman identity into letters written in Greek.
execute, receives Roman-style filiation.145 The Romans could well have wanted to present
such a man as an ‘insider’, and similar practice could be present in 48.
We can conclude that filiation expressions in the Roman letters mostly adhere to
Greek idiom or apply an acceptable alternative which expressed Roman identity. Some
divergences from the standard filiation expressions for each culture indicate authors reflecting
on the subject matter and are sometimes quite purposeful. Occasionally, the pressure of Latin
documents results in Roman-style filiation where it does not belong, but these occurrences are
remarkably rare. The evidence from the Roman letters reflects authors with sound
understanding of the form and function of Greek and Roman filiation expressions and the
abilities to apply them correctly.
Before presenting the overall conclusion, we should note briefly some important features of
formulaic expressions in the Roman corpus. The evidence from the Roman letters
demonstrates that the vast majority of the authors were capable of applying formulaic
expressions in the letter body in the manner of their Hellenistic counterparts.
The Embassy formula is lengthy and often complicated: the Roman authors applied it
using the same vocabulary, components, and sequences found in the ‘control’ corpus. The
formula is also applied with the same function as the ‘control’ examples. The rare examples
of the Roman Embassy formula are probably the result of pressure from official Latin
document writing, and the 11 examples of the Embassy formula applied in the manner of the
‘control’ evidence indicate that this formula was the standard one in official Roman
epistolography in Greek. There are 6 examples of the Benefaction formula in the Roman
letters, all of which are applied in the same form and for the same function as the Hellenistic
examples. The standardization of its usage reflects attention to Greek epistolography and a
conscious decision to meet its standards. The authors of the Roman letters were capable of
applying idiomatic Greek and Roman style filiation expressions in Greek for the appropriate
145
Cf. IOLHRC 65 and 66, which are effectively the death warrants from Mithridates for this same Khairemon.
80 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
names in almost every example. The filiation expressions in the Roman letters reflect a high
number of authors who understood how to construct and apply filiation for both Greek and
Roman names, but also understood the significance of filiation as a projection of identity.
The formulaic expressions found in the body of the Roman letters reflect generally
authors who understood the form and function of the formulaic expressions used in this
section of official Koine letters. They also indicate that most authors possessed a sound
understanding of the language and the text type. Furthermore, the application of these
expressions in the body of the Roman letters illustrates that the Roman administration sought
to construct all sections of their letters at the standard of Hellenistic epistolography, not
simply the openings and closures. This indicates that it was important to the Roman
administration to present their official letters to Greek-speaking audiences in the form
expected by this audience.
Conclusion
We are now able to analyse the significance of the application of formulaic expressions in
official Roman epistolography in Greek and address the four aims of this dissertation. The
first three aims were to identify how formulaic expressions in official Roman letters inscribed
in Greek were applied in respect to grammar and the letter layout, and ascertain whether these
applications conformed to or diverged from the contemporary Greek practices. The vast
majority of the Roman letters meet the standards of the ‘control’ evidence in applying
formulaic expressions throughout the entire letter.
The efficiency with which the authors of the Roman letters applied formulaic
expressions extends to the letter body. The Embassy formula was found in 18/79 ‘control’
letters with sufficient preservation; in the Roman letters, we have 11 examples from 40 letters
with this section intact, a higher ratio than the ‘control’ corpus, and they are no different to
the ‘control’ examples. Regarding the Benefaction formula, only 2/60 ‘control’ letters with
enough text provided had this formula (comprising 3 examples), though there was another
82 Formulaic expressions in official Roman Republican epistolography inscribed in Greek
example in an appended document and 5 letters made general benefaction statements. In the
Roman corpus we have 5 letters with Benefaction formulae in the standard form (comprising
6 examples) in 27 letters with enough text provided, meaning we have more examples and a
higher ratio in the Roman letters than the ‘control’. The ‘control’ corpus used idiomatic Greek
filiation with plain genitive for 21 names, article + genitive for 12, and article + genitive with
υἱός/θυγάτηρ for clarification in 2 names. The Roman corpus used plain genitive for 34
Greek names and article + genitive for 5, meaning that 39/44 Greek names with filiation used
idiomatic Greek; 1 of the complete Greek names with Roman-style filiation may have been
intended to present the person as an ‘insider’.1 There were 29 Roman names receiving
Roman-style filiation in Greek, which has been shown to be standard practice for Romans in
official documents, and the expression is constructed in light of Greek practices and uses
Greek morphology. The authors behind the 2 Roman names with Greek filiation may perhaps
have wished to represent these Romans as accommodating their Greek recipients. The
evidence from the letter body reflects authors who understood how to construct formulaic
expressions required in this section of Greek letters. This is significant because it may have
been easy to observe formulaic expressions at the opening and closure and neglect the body,
but this evidence shows that the authors of the Roman letters sought to craft the entire letter in
idiomatic Greek.
Occurrences of Latin interference are remarkably rare, found only in four χαίρειν
λέγει greetings, three examples of the Roman Embassy formula, and four examples of
(probably) unintentional Roman-style filiation for Greek names. That there are only 11 such
examples in 7 of our 64 letters is significant as it shows that most of these expressions come
from a few (possibly inexperienced) authors. The χαίρειν λέγει greetings (ORRLIG 9, 32,
33, and 53) are likely to be a result of interference from Latin salutem (dicit). This greeting is
not a calque of the Latin equivalent. The infinitive χαίρειν was probably understood to
depend on a verb such as λέγει, and the authors may have felt that they were using the correct
form, χαίρειν alone being the abbreviation.2 This was probably done by authors who were
either unfamiliar with Greek expressions or did not devote particular attention to drafting the
letter. The association of 9 and 32 with documents, after considering two early inscribed Latin
letters which merely preface the document and have no epistolary formulae,3 suggests that
this Roman practice has interfered with the expression of these letters in Greek. All 3
1
There was also a damaged example likely to be the same in ORRLIG 25 l.2: ([Χ]αιρημων Πυ[θοδώρ]ου υ[ἱό]ς.
2
Cf. Apollonios Dyskolos, On Syntax, 3.65.
3
Cf. CIL 12 581 and CIL 12 586.
Conclusion – The Significance of formulaic expressions in the Roman Letters 83
examples of the Roman Embassy formula, which is intelligible but stilted in Greek, are found
in letters with appended documents (9, 11, and 20). The whole of 9 consists of a χαίρειν
λέγει greeting and the Roman Embassy formula immediately followed by the document; 11
has sustained damage, but its body was also only the Roman Embassy formula. The more
substantial text of 20 presents consistent object-verb and verb-final word order, and no
connective particles. Both 11 and 20 have the standard address formula however. The authors
of these three letters may have been unversed in Greek idiom or unconfident in their abilities,
and fell back on more Latinate conventions, but the letters are readable, if unidiomatic. That
33, which presents a Greek name with Roman-style filiation, has a χαίρειν λέγει greeting
suggests that Latin interference may have led an author who was capable of applying 7
connective particles to falter on formulaic expressions, reflecting perhaps an author who
understood the language but was less-experienced with the text type. The author of 35 began
with the standard address and a health wish, and it was perhaps the list of Roman names
which introduced Latin interference into the filiation of the Greek names; perhaps conveying
several Latin documents into Greek further confused the Latin and Greek expressions. The
author of 48 was perhaps borrowing Roman-style filiation to present a Greek individual as
accepted by the Romans. This is probably not an example of interference.
4
Sherk certainly believed the senatus consulta in Greek left the administration in Rome in the form in which we
find them (see Sherk, RDGE, esp. 13, with more in depth discussion of their language at 13–19), though he does
not make a definitive statement on the letters. Sherk’s statement at RDGE, 209, that “On the whole we may say
that these letters were originally intended, from beginning to end, to appear in Greek, but the method used to
produce the Greek text was not always the same” seems accurate and is supported by the evidence from their
application of formulaic expressions. Cf. Kaimio, Romans and the Greek Language, 114, who echoes this point.
5
Cf. Halla-aho, Non-literary Latin Letters, 44.
Conclusion – The Significance of formulaic expressions in the Roman Letters 85
sought to present their official letters in Greek as in no way different to those of Greek-
speakers. Even the letters which fall back on Latin conventions still produce letters which are
intelligible in Greek. It seems clear that properly applying the conventions of official Koine
epistolography was central to official Roman epistolography in Greek, and, if this were not
possible, to at least provide readable Greek. The diachronic consistency of the application of
formulaic expressions in these letters in Greek indicates that the Roman administration sought
to accommodate their Greek-speaking audiences from the earliest stages of their interaction
with the East and this remained constant even after consolidating Roman power. It also
reflects that the Romans understood just how entrenched the Greek language was in the East,6
and it was surely recognised that, to have any standing in the East, the Romans must master
Greek. The evidence from formulaic expressions in these letters indicates that the Romans
sought to accommodate their Greek-speaking recipients as far as packaging their information
in a Greek manner. When we interpret Rome’s relationship with the East, we should consider
the effort expended in creating these documents and the proficiency with which the formulaic
expressions were executed, and perhaps rethink the impression of the unaccommodating
Roman magistrate of which we read in Valerius Maximus.7
6
Horrocks, Greek, 125–126.
7
Kaimio notes that much of the epigraphic evidence presents a different view to that presented in Valerius
Maximus 2.2.2, cf. Kaimio, Romans and the Greek Language, 96, 110–111. Adams found that the bilingual
inscriptions at Delos do not support the view of Roman ‘linguistic arrogance’ found in Valerius, cf. Adams,
‘Bilingualism at Delos’, 124.
Bibliography
Text editions
Allen, T.W. (ed.), Homeri Opera, III: Odysseae libros I–XII, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1917; repr.
1962)
——Homeri Opera, IV: Odysseae libros XIII–XXIV, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1919; repr. 1963)
Boissevain, U.P. (ed.), Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, III,
2nd edn. (Berlin, 1955)
Hude, C. (ed.), Herodoti Historiae, I, 3rd edn. (Oxford, 1927; repr. 1967)
Lindsay, W.M. (ed.), T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, I (Oxford, 1904; repr. 1968)
——T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, II (Oxford, 1905; repr. 1966)
Marchant, E.C. (ed.), Xenophontis Opera Omnia, IV: Institutio Cyri (Oxford, 1910)
Monroe, D.B. (ed.), Homeri Opera, I: Iliadis libros I–XII, 3rd ed. revised by T.W. Allen
(Oxford, 1920; repr. 1963)
88 Bibliography
Purser, L.C. (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae, I: Epistulae ad Familiares (Oxford, 1901;
repr. 1968)
Uhlig, G. (ed.), Apollonii Dyscoli De Constructione Libri Quattuor, Schneider, R., Uhlig, G.,
Grammatici Graeci, II: Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt (Leipzig, 1910)
Ziegler, K. (ed.), Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae, I, ii, 3rd edn. revised by H. Gärtner (Leipzig,
1994)
——revised by Gärtner, H., Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae, II, i, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1993)
——revised by Gärtner, H., Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae, II, ii, 2nd edn. (Leipzig, 1994)
General bibliography
Adams, J.N., Janse, M., Swain, S.C.R. (eds.), Bilingualism in Ancient Society (Oxford, 2002)
Adams, J.N., ‘Bilingualism at Delos’, Adams, J.N., Janse, M., Swain, S.C.R. (eds.),
Bilingualism in Ancient Society (Oxford, 2002), 103–127
——Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003)
——The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC – AD 600 (Cambridge, 2007)
——Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2013)
Bencivenni, A., ‘The King’s Words: Hellenistic Royal Letters in Inscriptions’, Radner, K.
(ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to the
Roman Empire (Oxford, 2014), 141–171
Birley, A.R., Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (London, 1997; repr. 2009)
Buzón, R., ‘Die Briefe der Ptolemäerzeit: Ihre Struktur und ihre Formeln’ (diss. Heidelberg
1984)
Bibliography 89
Clackson, J. (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language (Maldon, Mass., Oxford and
Chichester, 2011)
——‘Latin Inscriptions and Documents’, Clackson, J. (ed.), A Companion to the Latin
Language (Malden, Mass., Oxford and Chilchester 2011), 29–39
Clackson, J., Horrocks, G.C., The Blackwell History of the Latin Language (Malden, Mass.,
Oxford and Carlton, Victoria, 2007)
Coleman, K.M., ‘Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan’,
Transactions of the American Philological Association, 142, 2 (2012), 189–238
Corcoran, S., ‘State Correspondence in the Roman Empire: Imperial Communication from
Augustus to Justinian’, Radner, K. (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World:
From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire (Oxford, 2014), 172–209
Cugusi, P., Evoluzione e Forme dell’Epistolografia Latina: Nella tarda Repubblica e nei
primi due secoli dell’Impero, con cenni Sull’Epistolografia Preciceroniana (Roma, 1983)
Denniston, J.D., The Greek Particles, 2nd edn. revised by K.J. Dover (Oxford, 1950; repr.
London, 1996)
——Greek Prose Style, (Oxford, 1952; repr. London, 1997)
Devine, A.M., Stephens, L.D., Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information
(Oxford, 2006)
Dover, K.J., Greek Word Order (Cambridge, 1960; repr. London, 2000)
Dunant, C., Pouilloux. J., Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos, II (Paris, 1958)
Evans, T.V., ‘Approaches to the Language of the Septuagint’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 56, 1
(2005), 25–33
——‘Valedictory ἔρρωσο in Zenon Archive Letters from Hierokles’, Zeitschrift für
Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 153 (2005), 157-158.
——‘Standard Koine Greek in Third Century BC Papyri’, Proceedings of the Twenty-
Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (2010), 197–205
Evans, T.V., Obbink, D.D. (eds.), The Language of the Papyri (Oxford, 2010)
90 Bibliography
Exler, F.J.X., ‘The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek Epistolography’
(diss. Catholic University of America, 1923)
Frischer, B., Andersen, R., Burstein, S., Crawford, J., Gallucci, R., Gowing, A., Guthrie, D.,
Haslam, M., Holmes, D., Rudich, V., Sherk, R.K., Taylor, A., Tweedie, F., Vine, B.,
‘Word-Order Transference between Latin and Greek: The Relative Position of the
Accusative Object and the Governing Verb in Cassius Dio and other Greek and Roman
Prose Authors’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 99 (1999), 357–390
García Domingo, E., Latinismos en la Koiné (en los documentos epigráficos desde el 212 a.
J.C. hasta el 14 d. J.C.) (Burgos, 1979)
Gerhard, G.A., ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Griechischen Briefes, I: Die Formel ¡
δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν’, Philologus, LXIV (1905), 27–65
Gignac, F.T., A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods, I:
Phonology (Milan, 1976)
Haddad, C.J., ‘The Composition and Translation of Official Roman Letters inscribed in
Greek: Inscribed Letters from the Greek East c.197 BCE to the Age of Augustus’ (Hons.
diss., Macquarie University, 2013)
Halla-aho, H., The Non-literary Latin Letters: A study of their syntax and pragmatics
(Helsinki, 2009)
——‘Epistolary Latin’, Clackson, J. (ed.), A Companion to the Latin Language (Maldon,
Mass., Oxford and Chichester, 2011), 426–444
Horrocks, G.C., Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, 2nd edn. (Maldon, Mass.,
Oxford and Chichester, 2010)
Kaimio, J., The Romans and the Greek Language (Helsinki, 1979)
Klauck, H-J., Ancient Letters and the New Testament, English trans. by D.P. Bailey (Texas,
2006)
Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des Griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.
Chr. (Helsinki, 1956)
Bibliography 91
Lanham, C.D., Salutatio Formulas in Latin Letters to 1200: Syntax, Style, and Theory
(Munich, 1975; repr. Oregon, 2004)
Levick, B., Mitchell, S., Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, IX (London, 1988)
Manolessou, I., ‘On historical linguistics, linguistic variation, and Medieval Greek’, Byzantine
and Modern Greek Studies, 32, 1 (2008), 63–79
Matić, D., ‘Topic, focus, and discourse structure: Ancient Greek Word Order’, Studies in
Language, 27, 3 (2003), 573–663
Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Prolemäerzeit, I, 2nd edn. by H.
Schmoll (Berlin, 1970)
McElduff, S., Roman Theories of Translation: Surpassing the Source (London, 2013)
Muhs, B., ‘Language Contact and Personal Names in Early Egypt’, Evans, T.V., Obbink,
D.D. (eds.), The Language of the Papyri (Oxford, 2010), 187–197.
Muir, J.V. Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World (London, 2009)
Porter, S.E., O’Donnell, M.B., ‘Building and Examining Linguistic Phenomena in a Corpus of
Representative Papyri’, Evans, T.V., Obbink, D.D. (eds.), The Language of the Papyri
(Oxford, 2010), 287–311.
Radner, K. (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World: From New Kingdom Egypt to
the Roman Empire (Oxford, 2014)
Rhodes, P.J, The Decrees of the Greek States, with D.M. Lewis (Oxford, 1997)
Rizakis, A.D., Zoumbaki, S., Roman Peloponnese I: Roman Personal Names in their Social
Context, with M. Kantirea (Athens, 2001)
Rochette, B., ‘Language Policies in the Republic and Empire’, Clackson, J. (ed.), A
92 Bibliography
Companion to the Latin Language (Maldon, Mass., Oxford and Chichester, 2011), 549–
563
Sandys, J.E., Latin Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Latin Inscriptions of the Roman World
(Chicago, 1974)
Schneider, R., Uhlig, G., Grammatici Graeci, II: Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt
(Leipzig, 1910)
Sherk, R.K., Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1969)
——Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, 4: Rome and the Greek East to the death of
Augustus (Cambridge, 1984)
Trapp, M.B., Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation (Cambridge, 2003)
van den Hout, M., ‘Studies in Early Greek Letter-Writing’, Mnemosyne, 2, 1 (1949), 19–41
Viereck, P., ‘Sermo Graecus quo Senatusque Populusque Romanus Magistratusque Populi
Romani usque ad Tiberii Caesaris Aetatem in scriptis publicis usi sunt examinatur’ (diss.
Göttingen, 1888)
White, J.L., ‘Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter’, Journal of Biblical
Literature, vol.90, no.1 (1971), 91–97
——The Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-literary Papyri and
in Paul the Apostle (Montana, 1972)
——Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia, 1986)
Woytek, E., T. Maccius Plautus: Persa: Einleitung, Text, und Kommentar (Vienna, 1982)
Ziemann, F., ‘De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis Sollemnibus Quaestiones Selectae’ (diss.
Halle, 1910)
Appendix
Introductory Remarks
This Appendix contains the published texts of the letters discussed in the dissertation. It has
been compiled solely for the convenience of the marker for reference only, and does not
constitute any portion of the dissertation submitted for examination. These texts were
included with my supervisor’s approval since the letters in question are scattered across
numerous publications, which would have been inconvenient and time consuming for the
marker to locate.
There has been no attempt to re-edit the published texts of these letters. Any
apparatus critici in quotation marks are those of the editor who is named. Any occasional
comments outside of these quotation marks are my own. In the case of competing editions, I
have added any points of divergence between them outside of the quoted apparatus of the
editor. When there was a need to comment within the quoted apparatus of the editor, I have
marked these comments with my initials (CJH). Any identifiable typographic errors have
been noted outside of the editor’s apparatus. The bibliographic information provided is in no
way intended to be exhaustive.
All the dates and locations of the inscriptions in Official Roman Republican Letters
Inscribed in Greek are from Sherk, RDGE, unless otherwise noted. Likewise, all the dates and
locations of the inscriptions in Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence,
are from Welles, RCHP, unless otherwise noted. All locations of the inscriptions in Inscribed
Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina are from Ceccarelli, AGLW, unless otherwise
noted, and the source of the date is always named. When no date was offered in the
publication, I include an inferred date with an asterisk (*) and a short note in the apparatus
section.
Any features of formulaic language discussed in the main text are presented in bold
typeface. It has been my practice throughout to abbreviate the documents appended to the
letters in question unless a feature of their language is discussed in the main text. Features
which are discussed are shown in bold typeface. Documents which are not discussed are
abbreviated usually to their first sentence only. Some of these undiscussed documents were
over 100 lines long and would have been of no aid to the marker.
There were some texts presented as inscribed official letters in Sherk, Ceccarelli, or
Welles which I have excluded for three possible reasons. They were too fragmentary to: (1)
95
contribute data to my study of formulaic expressions; (2) be securely identified as a letter;
and/or (3) be securely attributed to Rome, a Hellenistic polis/koinon, or a Hellenistic kingdom
at the exclusion of the other two possibilities. For completeness, I have included the reference
to such texts with a reason for exclusion at the end of each sub-corpus under ‘List of
Excluded Texts’. The two Auxiliary Letters (one each for the ORRLIG and IOLHPK corpora)
did not meet the criteria of the corpora, but there was no reason not to include them as
comparanda. Each has an explanation provided and they are listed after the relevant
collection.
I should note 8 texts from the ‘Unpublished’ Dossier from Argos (ORRLIG 12, 13, 14,
15, and 16, and IOLHPK 32, 33, and 34), all found in Rhodes, P.J, The Decrees of the Greek
States, with D.M. Lewis (Oxford, 1997). Unfortunately, the letters in this Argos Dossier are
still unpublished and no other transcription is available, even to the author of DGS, who was
also unable to locate them in publication. For this reason I have reproduced the texts as they
appear in DGS. I express my sincere gratitude to Emeritus Professor Peter J. Rhodes of the
University of Durham, author of DGS, for kindly discussing these texts with me,
endeavouring to locate them in publication, and providing me with the revised reading of
ORRLIG 14 by M. Pierart which does not appear in DGS.
I would like to thank Dr Trevor Evans and Dr Peter Keegan for their advice on the
compilation and presentation this Appendix. All mistakes are my own.
C.J.H.
96
Texts
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
All dates for RDGE texts are Sherk’s unless noted. Found near (mod.) Demeniko (Thessaly) (all notes on the
places of RDGE inscriptions are from Sherk unless otherwise noted). “Text based on the one by Viereck (notes).
4 Viereck puts comma before ¡λοσχερῶς. 13-14 μέντοι, Leake, but ΜΕΝΤΟΝ, stone (cf. L. Cohn, Hermes, 17
[1882]: 645). 19 ûρρωσθε was inscribed twice, the first one being erased.” – Sherk, RDGE, 212.
2 – M. Valerius Messala, the tribunes, and the Senate to the boule and demos of
the Teans – 193 BCE
= Sherk RDGE 34 = Viereck ‘SG’ II = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R2
Ῥωμαίων.
Letter Μᾶρκος ΟÃαλάριος Μάρκου στρατηγÙς καÚ
δήμαρχοι καÚ ἡ σύνκλητος Τηίων τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι
δήμωι χαίρειν· v Μένιππος ὅ τε παρí Ἀντιόχου τοῦ βα-
5 σιλέως ἀποσταλεÚς πρÙς ἡμᾶς πρεσβευτὴς προ-
χειρισθεÚς καÚ Õφí Õμῶν πρεσβεῦσαι περÚ τῆς πόλεως,
τό τε ψήφισμα ἀνέδωκεν καÚ αÃτÙς ἀκολούθως τούτωι
διελέχθη μετÏ πάσης προθυμίας· ἡμεῖς δÓ τόν τε ἄν-
δρα ἀπεδεξάμεθα φιλοφρόνως καÚ διÏ τὴν προγεγενη-
100 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
10 μένην αÃτῶι δόξαν καÚ διÏ τὴν Õπάρχουσαν καλοκα-
γαθίαν περί τε „ν †ξίου διηκούσαμεν εÃνόως. καÚ ὅτι
μÓν διόλου πλεῖστον λόγον ποιούμενοι διατελοῦ-
μεν τῆς πρÙς τοˆς θεοˆς εÃσεβείας, μάλιστí ἄν τις στο-
χάζοιτο ἐκ τῆς συναντωμένης ἡμεῖν εÃμενείας
15 διÏ ταῦτα παρÏ τοῦ δαιμονίου· οà μὴν ἀλλÏ καÚ ἐξ ἄλ-
λων πλειόνων πεπείσμεθα συμφανῆ πᾶσι γεγονέναι
τὴν ἡμετέραν εἰς τÙ θεῖον προτιμίαν. διÙ καÚ διά τε ταῦ-
τα καÚ διÏ τὴν πρÙς Õμᾶς ε–νοιαν καÚ διÏ τÙν †ξιω[μέν]ον
πρεσβευτὴν κρίνομεν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν καÚ τὴγ χώ-
20 ραν ἱεράν, καθὼς καÚ νῦν ἐστιν, καÚ ἄσυλον καÚ ἀφορο-
λόγητον ἀπÙ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων καÚ τά τε εἰς
τÙν θεÙν τίμια καÚ τÏ εἰς Õμᾶς φιλάνθρωπα πειρασό-
μεθα συνεπαύξειν, διατηρούντων Õμῶν καÚ εἰς τÙ
μετÏ ταῦτα τὴν πρÙς ἡμᾶς ε–νοιαν. vv ûρρωσθε.
Inscribed at Teos. “Text by Viereck (notes). 1 In larger letters. 3 σύγκλητος, Dittenberger, repeated by
Hiller, but Boeckh and Le Bas-Waddington indicate a nu instead of a gamma. 4 τοῦ omitted by Le Bas-
Waddington, Dittenberger, and Hiller. 6 ÕπÓρ, Boeckh; περÚ, Le Bas-Waddington. 7 ἀ[π]έδωκεν, Boeckh, but
cf. Holleaux, Etudes, I, 357. 16 πᾶσι omitted by Le Bas-Waddington, Dittenberger, and Hiller. 17 προτιμίαν,
stone, but Sauppe preferred to write προθιμίαν; however, since one finds τÏ εἰς τÙν θεÙν τίμια (sic) in ll. 21-
22, as Hiller observed, the reading of the stone should be retained.” – Sherk, RDGE, 215.
Inscribed at Delphi. Followed by lists. “Text based on that of Roussel. 1 [κατά]λυμα, Pomtow; cf. I.G., V, 1,
869. 3 [ἀντιποι]ῶνται περί; cf. P.Berl. 993. col. III. 12. 4 Daux, op. cit., p.229, n.2, reads κύ[ριαι since he
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 101
sees the upsilon. 4-5 [τοῦ δÓ λοιποῦ, κριτ]ήριον ἀποδείξαντεςÖ, διεξαγάγ[ετε τÙ δίκαιον is an alternative.
9-10 πάτ[ρια τÏ περÚ τῆς] is an alternative. 17 Perhaps Λεπάραι, as Daux reads, op. cit., p.229, n.1.” – Sherk,
RDGE, 226.
4 – L. and P. Cornelius Scipio (?) to the boule and demos of the Herakleans on
the Latmos – 190 BCE
= Sherk RDGE 35 = Viereck ‘SG’ III = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R4
Found at Herakleia on the Latmos (Viereck ‘SG’ p.2 – “Epistulam Heracleae ad Latmum repertam
edidit…Boeckh”). “1 Before στρατηγός Haussoullier believed that he could see a nu, but Holleaux found no
trace of it on the stone. 2 ]ρος, Judeich and Haussoullier. Holleaux disagreed with their identification of the rho.
It was actually part of the phi: ἀδελ]Ùς. 4 [Ἀναξί]μ[αν]δρος, Judeich and Dittenberger; but [Παλ]άμ[αν]δρος,
Haussoullier; [Σκ]άμ[αν]δρος, De Sanctis; [Ε–]δημος, Haussoullier. 7 προθυ]μίας, Haussoullier. 9 Boeckh and
Waddington restored [αµρεσιν]; Dittenberger and Viereck, [πίστιμ]; Holleaux, παρα[ίτιοι. 10 γιν]όμενοι,
Henzen and Viereck (notes); γεν]όμενοι, Holleaux and Haussoullier; but γενησ]όμενοι, Boeckh. 11-12 Õ[φí
αÕτούς, Holleaux and Viereck. 15 [πίστεις], Boeckh.” – Sherk, RDGE, 218.
Inscribed at Kolophon (?) (implied at Sherk RDGE p.220 n.2 “Colophon would hardly have erected the stele
if the request had not been granted.”). “Text by Picard and Holleaux. 3 Κολοφονίων for Κολοφωνίων, perhaps
an engraver’s error. 6 <οἳ>, Holleaux. 9-10 καÚ [σπουδῆς περÚ || τοῦ εἶ]ναι κτλ, Picard; καÚ [†ξί||ουν εἶ]ναι
τÙ ἱερÙν ἄσυ[λον τÙ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Κλαρίου suggested by Holleaux; καÚ [περÚ τοῦ || διαμεῖ]ναι ? τÙ
ἱερÙν ἄσυ[λον †ξίουν ἡμᾶς | πρόνοιαν ποιήσασθαι (vel similia) κτλ], S.E.G.” – Sherk, RDGE, 220.
Found at Delphi. “Text by Holleaux, who showed that it is a case of two case of two letters, not one. He
restored Document A from Document B. B 2 διαλεχθέντες, L. Robert, adopted by Holleaux in place of
Viereck’s διελέγησαν. C 1 Ὀτάιος: Holleaux previously thought of Βαί- or Βέ]βαιος, but a revision of the
stone made the present reading almost positive. At the end of this line could be στρατ[ηγÙς or στρατ]ηγÙς
—πατος (sic).” – Sherk, RDGE, 23.
Inscribed at Delphi. l.12. πράγατα, surely for πράγματα, but Sherk makes no comment. “1 Μαάρκου]
υἱ[ός, Pomtow; Μαάρκου υἱÙς στ]ρατηγός, Viereck. 4 ἀπέαν, Pomtow, ἀπέδοσαν in Homolle’s copy;
ἀκολούθως, Homolle. 6 διόι, Pomtow; δ.ότι, Homolle; καί, ὅτι, Viereck. 15 γινομένων, Pomtow;
γενομένων, Homolle. 22 ἀεÚ [π]ειρασόμεθα ἀεί, Pomtow; δÓ πειρασόμεθα ἀεί, Homolle. 23 καÚ διí Õμᾶς,
Homolle.” – Sherk, RDGE, 226.
[Μάαρκ]ος Λικίνιος Μαάρκ[ου (?) Λεύκολλος (?) στρατηγÙς (?) καÚ δή]-
[μα]ρχοι καÚ ἡ σύγκλητος Ἀμφικτίο[σι χαίρειν· οἱ ἀπεσταλ]-
[μέ]νοι παρí Õμῶν πρεσβευταÚ Αἰακίδα[ς, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]
[. Α]ς, Μνασίδαμος, ἄνδρες καλοÚ καÚ ἀγαθοί, εἰσελ[θόντες]
5 [ε]ἰς τὴν σύγκλητον, διελέγησαν περÚ „ν αÃτο[ˆς ἀπε]-
[σ]τάλκειτε καÚ ἡ σύγκλητος ἀπεδέξατό τε α[Ãτοˆς]
[φ]ιλοφρόνως καθότι προσῆκεν παρí ἀνδρῶν κα[λῶν]
κἀγαθῶν ἀπεσταλμένους καÚ διήκουσεν ἐπιμ[ελῶς]
[π]ερÚ τῶν κριτηρίων καÚ ψήφων τῶν Ἀμφικτιον[ 3-4· ]
10 [περ]Ú τούτων ἔδοξεν ο—τως ἀποκριθῆναι ὅτ[ι]
[ο–]τε ἀφαιρεῖσθαι ο–τε διδόναι νομίζομε[ν δεῖν].
Inscribed at Delphi. “Based on Daux. 1 Daux restores the official’s name without mark of interrogation.
Pomtow restores Λικίνιος Μαάρ[κου υἱÙς Γέτας, —πατος Ῥωμαίων and refers the entire document to the
“Scandal of 125” when a huge deficit in the treasury was discovered. 4 κἀγαθοί, Flacelière. 6 Couve transcribed
ΑΠΕΔΕΙΞΑΤΟ, which was followed by Colin, Holleaux, and Roussel. Daux reports that there is no iota on the
stone. 9 Ἀμφικτιον[ικῶν] or Ἀμφικτιόν[ων]. 11 νομιζόμε[νοι, Blum; νομίζομε[ν], others; νομίζομε[ν δεῖν],
Daux, followed by Flacelière.” – Sherk, RDGE, 230.
104 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
9 – P. Cornelius Blasio to the arkhons and demos of Korkyra – between 175 and
160 BCE
= Sherk RDGE 4, cf. SEG 47, 604 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R11
Inscribed at Korkyra. “1 Κορν[ή]λιος, Viereck (notes); others, Κορ[νή]λιος. 1-2 Π[ο]πλίου, Klaffenbach,
but Holleaux, Γαΐου.” – Sherk, RDGE, 35. This text was followed on the stone by other documents, including
the letter of Korkyra to the Ambrakiotai which is given as IOLHPK 30. The text of SEG 47, 604 on SEG Online
exhibits an important error: what appears on SEG Online to be lines 12-15 are actually lines 5-8, which have
somehow been moved from between original lines 4 and 9 to between original lines 14 and 15. Sherk has the
correct reading which I have reproduced here.
B. Colin
[--------------------------------]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]τ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]οντ[ο - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . . . . . . . πρ]οεστακό[ . . ] νῦ[ν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . . . . . . . ς] ὅπως αÃτο[Ú] οἱ δι[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
5 [ . . . . . . . . . θ]ῆτε τοῖς θεοῖς κα[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . ] δ[ιοι]κῆτε καθὼς ἐπιβά[λλει Õμῖν. ñ ºστε μÓν ο“ν πρῶτον]
[Περ]σέα παρÏ τÙ καθῆκον μ[ετÏ στρατιᾶς ἐλθόντα εἰς ἑορτὴν]
[τῶ]μ Πυθίων· οà δίκαιον δÓ σ[αφῶς ἐκεῖνον ἦν κοινωνεῖν Õμῖν]
[ο–]τε [θ]υσιῶν ο–τε ἀγώνων ο[–τε πανηγυρίδων οÃδαμῶς, ἐπεÚ]
10 ἐπεσπάσατο τοˆς πέραν το[ῦ ºστρου βαρβάρους, οἳ ἐπí ἀγαθῶι μÓν]
οÃθενί, ἐπÚ καταδουλώσει δέ [τῆς Ἑλλάδος τÙ πρίν ἐφωρμήθησαν, καί,]
ἐπιστρατεύσαντες ἐπÚ τÙ ἱερ[Ùν τÙ ἐν Δελφοῖς, διανοούμενοι συλῆ]-
σαι καÚ ἀνελεῖν αÃτό, ἔτυχον π[αρÏ τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἀξίας τιμωρίας.]
Παρέβη δÓ καÚ τÏ γενόμεν[α] τῶ[ι πατρÚ ὅρκια, ἃ αÃτÙς ἀνεκαίνισεν·]
15 [κ]αÚ Θρᾶικας μÓν ƒντας ἡμετέ[ρους συμμάχους, ἐκράτησε· Ἀβρού]-
[π]ολιν δέ, ὃν ἡμεῖς περιελάβομεν [ταῖς πρÙς Φίλιππον συνθήκαις, ἐξέ]-
[β]αλεν ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας. πρεσβε[υτÏς δÓ παρÏ Θηβαίων ἐσταλμένους]
[ε]ἰς Ῥώμην περÚ συμμαχίας τῶ[ι ναυαγίας δόλωι ἐκποδὼν ἐποιήσατο.]
[Π]λὴν εἰς τοῦτο ἦλθεν ἀπονοίας [·στε, μέγα τι ἡγούμενος παρÏ τοˆς ὅρ]-
20 [κ]ους τÙ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν διÏ τῶ[ν ἡμετέρων στρατηγῶν δοθεῖσαν ἀφανί]-
[ζε]ιν τῶι ὅλον τÙ ἔθνος εἰς ταρα[χÏς καÚ στάσεις ἐμβάλλειν, οÃδÓν εἰ μὴ]
[φα]ῦλα πράσσων διετέλει, ἀλλά, [πάντα συγχέων, καÚ τÙ πλῆθος θεραπεύων,]
[καÚ] διαφθείρων τοˆς προεστηκό[τας, χρεωκοπίας τε ἀλογίστως ἐπηγγέλλε]-
[το κ]αÚ νεωτερισμοˆς ἐποίει κατάδ[εικνˆς ἣν σχοίη ἀπέχθειαν πρÙς τοˆς βελ]-
25 [τίστ]ους· ἐξ „ν συμβέβηκε[ν] τοῖς Πε[ρραιβοˆς καÚ Θεσσαλοˆς δειναῖς ἐμπε]-
[σεῖν σ]υμφοραῖς, τούς τε βαρβάρους φο[βερωτέρους ἔτι ἐπιστῆναι. ΚαÚ, μεγά]-
[λου ἐπιθυ]μῶν πολέμου, ὅπως ἀβοηθ[ήτους Õμᾶς καταλαβὼν, τάχα τÏς ἑλλη]-
[νίδας πό]λεις καταδουλώσηται π[άσας, Ἀρθεταύρωι τε τῶι Ἰλλυρίωι φόνον
ἐπε]-
[βούλευσε]ν, ΕÃμένεά τε τÙν βασιλ[έα, φίλον ἡμῖν καÚ σύμμαχον ƒντα, ἐτόλμη]-
30 [σεν ἐνεδρεύ]ειν [κ]αθí ὃν καιρόν, ἀπολυόμενος εÃχήν, εἰς Δελφοˆς ßκεν, οÃ
φρον]-
[τίσας τῆς τοῦ] θεοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς παραγινομ[ένοις νενομισμένης καθιερώσεως,
οÃδÓ]
[τηρήσας ἣν] σχοίη παρÏ πάντων ἀνθ[ρώπων ἀσφάλειαν τÙ Õμέτερον ἱερÙν ἐν
τοῖς]
[Ἕλλησιν ¡μοίως] καÚ βαρβάροις ἐκ παντÙ[ς χρόνου - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ἐσ]τιν Õμᾶς ἐπÚ πᾶσ[ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
35 [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]ν κοινωνεῖ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . τῶ]ν ἄλλ[ων - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[---------------------------------]
Inscribed at Delphi. Since Sherk provides the editions of both Pomtow and Colin, I saw fit to reproduce them
here. “There is room on the stone for two lines before the visible tau of our first line. 2 Pomtow read οντ [- -,
but this is almost certainly wrong. Colin says, “peut-être trace d’un O après ONT,” and from the photograph one
can clearly see that the pitter surface of the stone led Pomtow into thinking of an alpha. Dim and receptive traces
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 107
of grooves are visible at this point on the stone. 3 Viereck (notes) follows Colin here, as everywhere in the
present text. 5 Colin believes the letter before ητε is round. 6 The restorations of the text from here to. l.33 are
all based on the edition by Nikitski. His restorations were made only to illustrate the general meaning and were
not intended to be exact and accurate in detail. Pomtow used them for the edition in S.I.G.3, and Colin accepted
many of them. However, Colin believed that the stele had been built into the monument of Aemilius Paulus in
Delphi. He was forced, therefore, according to his calculations of the space available on the monument, to
shorten the length of each line of the inscription. This is an assumption on his part and is not to be accepted as
fact (cf. Daux, op. cit., p.320, n.2). 14 After γενόμεν[α] Colin notes that “un Τ est sûr, et ensuite un Ω est
probable,” but Reinach agrees with Pomtow’s reading. 20 Colin thinks he sees ΟΥΣΤΟ at the beginning of the
line with only enough space before it for one letter. Nikitski read nothing before ΤΗΝ. Reinach adopted ρουντο
from a reading by Bourguet. Colin seems able to distinguish ΙΝΤΩ at the beginning of l.21, but Reinach reads
ΚΑΙ. In 22 the traces of letters are very difficult to read as far as ΑΣΣΩΝ, but Colin thinks of ΥΔΑ or ΥΛΑ
before πράσσων, not ΠΙΣΤΑ; Reinach has τα πράσσων. 25 Colin sees ΤΟΥΣ, not ΤΟΙΣ. 27 The theta of ἀβοηθ[
- - seems to have been superimposed on a tau, almost totally obliterating it. 30 The engraver first engraved
ΑΠΟΛΛΟΜ, but then an upsilon was engraved on the second lambda. 31 The brackets are missing in S.I.G.3 for
this line. 32 Colin believes that Pomtow’s original reading of ΣΧΟΙΗ is more reasonable that Nikitski’s ΡΧΕΙΗ.
33 Colin sees the trace of a round letter at the end. 34 “à la fin, ΠΑΣ très net,” Colin; it is visible on the
photograph. Reinach, ἐπÚ πλε[ῖστον - - .” – Sherk, RDGE, 236–237.
Inscribed at Magnesia. “36 ἐμοÚ προσῆλθον or προσήλθοσαν, Holleaux, also Viereck (notes); λόγους
ἐποιήσαντο Hiller. 39 Φα[λέρνα or Φα[βία, Kern, Holleaux. 40 Μάγνη[τε]ς, Hiller; Μάγνη(τε)ς, Kern. The
squeeze is next to useless at this particular point. Two, not three, names followed. 43-44 Perhaps καÚ φίλ]ου
should be omitted.” – Sherk, RDGE, 45.
108 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
12 – L. Mummius to the arkhons and polis of the Argives – post 146 BCE –
UNPUBLISHED
(on the same monument as 13, 14) = Rhodes with Lewis DGS p.69-70 (A. ii) = Ceccarelli
AGLW ‘App.3’ R13
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. The texts of the Unpublished Dossier from Argos are as they appear in
Rhodes, P.J., with Lewis, D.M., Decrees of the Greek States, (Oxford, 1997). In order to compile an immense set
of data, the texts in DGS are abbreviated (I provide the abbreviations below). Unfortunately, in the case of this
Argos Dossier, these letters are still unpublished and no other transcription is available, even to the author. I
would like to thank Emeritus Professor Peter J. Rhodes for being so kind as to discuss these texts with me and
for his efforts to locate them in publication. Ceccarelli in AGLW (2013) still referred to them as ‘unpublished’.
Even in abbreviated form, we can still ascertain address formulae, so these letters are still useful to this study.
Abbreviations and other relevant information from the DGS Catalogue ‘Introduction’: “An oblique stroke (/)
is used as a punctuation mark to separate items within a document; occasionally double oblique strokes (//) are
used to indicate a major break.” – Rhodes with Lewis DGS p.65. Δ = ¡ δεῖνα (article given when needed to
make case clear): person’s name. M = indication of month. ΔΔ = unspecified number of names. “…dotted letters
are normally not indicated; uncertainties are discussed where necessary.” – Rhodes with Lewis, DGS, 66
13 – L. Mummius to the arkhons and polis of the Argives – post 146 BCE –
UNPUBLISHED
(on the same monument as 12, 14) = Rhodes with Lewis DGS p.69-70 (A. iii) = Ceccarelli
AGLW ‘App.3’ R14
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. For Abbreviations of this and other DGS texts, see notes to ORRLIG 13.
Here, Δ* refers to L. Mummius, but there is no indication in DGS of anything further, such as filiation.
14 – L. Mummius to the arkhons and synhedroi of the Argives – post 146 BCE –
UNPUBLISHED
(on the same monument as 12, 13) = Rhodes with Lewis DGS p.69-70 (A. iv) = Ceccarelli
AGLW ‘App.3’ R15
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. For Abbreviations of this and other DGS texts, see notes to ORRLIG 13.
Here, Δ* refers to L. Mummius, but there is no indication in DGS of anything further, such as filiation. The
above text is the revised form of that appearing in DGS, which is: Δ* στ[ρα]τ[η]γÙς, —πατος | Ῥωμαίων /
Ἀργείων το[ῖς] ἄρχουσι καÚ | τῆι πόλει χαίρειν. I have to thank the author Emeritus Professor Peter Rhodes
for kindly passing on the note of M. Pierart for the revised reading of the text (personal correspondence,
14.08.2014).
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 109
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. For Abbreviations of this and other DGS texts, see notes to ORRLIG 13.
Here, ‘L. Mummius’ should not be taken to imply that the name was inscribed in Latin, it is simply a convention
of DGS.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. For Abbreviations of this and other DGS texts, see notes to ORRLIG 13.
Here, ‘Q. Fabius Maximus’ should not be taken to imply that the name was inscribed in Latin, it is simply a
convention of DGS.
17 – A Roman magistrate to the Dionysian tekhnitai – last half of 2nd cen. BCE
(on the same monument as 18) = Sherk RDGE 44(i) = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R19
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ΟΕ[ . ]Ο[ . . . ]
[Μακεδονίαι] τῇ Ῥωίων ἐπαρχείαι καÚ ßς ἐπάχου[ιν]
[τῆς Ἑλλάδος] συγχωρῶ Õμῖν ἕνεκεν τοῦ Διονύσου κα[Ú]
[τῶν ἄλλων θε]ῶν καÚ τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος ο” προεστήκ[ατε]
5 [Õμᾶς παντάπα]ιν ἀλειτουργήτους εἶναι καÚ ἀνεπισταθ-
[μεύτους καÚ ἀτελ]εῖς καÚ ἀν[ει]σθό[ρ]ους πάσης εἰσφορᾶ[ς]
[καÚ αÃτοˆς καÚ γ]υναῖκας καÚ τέκνα ἕως ἂν εἰς ἡλι[κίαν]
[ἀνδρικὴν ἐξίκω]αι καθὼς παρεκαλεῖτε. vacat
Found at Thebes. l.7. Sherk’s edn. has εÚς, which I have changed to εἰς. “3-4 for the combination “Dionysus
and the other gods” Klaffenbach refers to Fouilles de Delphes, III, 2, 7, l.45. 6 The new squeeze clearly shows
ΑΝ. .ΣΦΟ.ΟΥΣ. 7-8 ἡλι[κίαν ἀνδρικήν, Wilamowitz; ἡλι[κίαν ἔλθωσι, Dittenberger; ἡλι[κίαν τὴν
προσήκουσαν, Viereck (notes).” – Sherk, RDGE, 250.
110 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
18 – A Roman magistrate to the Dionysian tekhnitai – last half of 2nd cen. BCE
(on the same monument as 17) = Sherk RDGE 44(ii) = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R20
Found at Thebes. “10 [Λεύκιος Μόμμιος], Klaffenbach; [Μάαρκος Λείβιος], Accame. 13 Klaffenbach
suggest καÚ τοῖς ÕπÙ] Κράτ[ωνος Ζωτίχου συν|ηγμένοις Ἀτταλισταῖς χαίρειν] aut similia.” – Sherk,
RDGE, 250.
Inscribed at Dyme. “1-2 The letters here are larger than in the rest of the text. There is a very small epsilon
before ἘπÚ. 7 ΑΡΧΩΝ, stone. 12 I follow Beasley’s reading of διή[λ]θο|μεν ἐν [Π]άτραις. 13 κα[τασκευὴν],
Colin, followed by Hiller and Viereck (notes), the latter previously having restored κα[ταβολὴν];
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 111
κα[τάπειραν], Dobree and Hicks. ποιούμενο[ι τοῖς Ἕλλησι πᾶσ]ιν, Wilamowitz (among the works of
Viereck), followed by Hiller and Viereck (notes); ἣ κολαστέα ἐστ]ιν, Dobree, followed by Boeckh and Hicks;
οà μό|[νον γÏρ, Wilamowitz, ›ς, Dobree; ἅτε, Boeckh. 14 ἀσυναλλ[α]ξ[ίας], Beasley, followed by Hiller and
Viereck (notes); χρε[ωκοπίας], Foucart (among the works of Beasley); χρε[ίας τῆς κατí ἰδίαν], Dobree and
Hicks. 14-15 οἰκεία], Beasley, who says he made out a bar that might be part of the alpha. 16 Hicks saw the
gamma of ἐγ[ὼ]. 20 πα[ρ]εχώρ(η)σα, Beasley, who could not see the rho; this is apparently the only
occurrence of the verb and is equivalent to παρέδωκα. 21 Φορ]µίσκον, Boeckh. 22 Beasley saw the sigma of
τοῖ]ς. 25-26 τοῦ ἐν[άτου μηνÙ]ς, Dittenberger, followed by others. 27 Dobree restored ὅπω]ς ἂν [μὴ
π]ρότενον ἐπά[ν]εισ[ι πρÙ]ς οἶκον, ἐÏ[ν μ]ὴ; but Viereck objected to ὅπως ἄν with the future indicative.
Wilamowitz (among the works of Viereck) suggested τÙ δόξ]αν.” – Sherk, RDGE, 247.
Found at Erimupolis (Itanos). This text was preceded by the speech of the Hierapytnian ambassadors to the
Senate (ll.1-55), the subsequent Senatus Consultum (ll.55-74), and a decree of Piso to Magnesia (ll.75-88), all of
which I have not reproduced here. l.96. Sherk’s edn. has ἑδογμάτισε, which I have changed to ἐδογμάτισε. “97
Before ]ωσε is either Γ or Π or Τ.” – Sherk, RDGE, 82–83.
[ - - - - - - - - ]Γ[ - - - ]ΙΣ[- - - - - - ]
[ - - - - ]ς ἐν τῆι ἐπισ[τ]ολεῖ [ - - - - ]
[ - - το]ῦ στρα[τη]οῦ ἔσχατον - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - εἰ]σάγουσιν κα[ - - - - ]
5 [ - - - - - - - ] ἐχέτω τέλος [ - - - - ]
[ἡ δίκη - - ὅταν] παρα[γ]ένωνται ε[ἰς]
[Κάρυστον? - - - ]ος· ἐÏν δÓ Καρ[ύστιοι?]
[ - - - - - - σˆ]ν τό[κ]ῳ δεκάτῳ - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - ]σισ[τ]αι ἕως σ[ - - - - - - ]
10 [ - - - - - - ΕÃβ]ουλίδει Πολυκρ[άτους - - - - ]
[ - - - - - συ]μφώνου καÚ εÃαρ[έστου - - - - - ]
[γενομένου - - ]χειρόγραφον ἐ[ - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - ]ΙΣ Ξανθίαι Ξανθίο[υ - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - ] τÙ Õπόμνημα τÙ πε[ρÚ τούτων - - ]
15 [ - - κατα]ίατε εἰς τÏ παρí Õμε[ῖν δημόσια γράμματα.]
112 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
[τοῦ δεῖνος - - ] vac. ἄρχοντος.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Karystos (Ceccarelli). “Athenis in museo. Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae
superne, a dextra et sinistra fractae inventum Carysti iuxta domum Georgii Deligeorgis ad litus maris, A. 0,52, l.
0,26, cr. 0,12. Litt. a. 0,08, saec. II a. Chr. Ed. Lolling Ath. Mitt. IV 1879, 226 VII. Exscripsi. Ect. |…| Litteras
magistratus Romani ad Carystios sive ad Euboeensium foedus datas esse Wilamowitz perspexit. Idem supplevit
vs. 7.10—13. 18. 20.—8. 15. 17. 19. 23. 29 suppl. Hiller. Cum litteris mittebantur ’ΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ de rebus
quibusdam, quod Carystii iubentur in tabulario publico deponere vs. 15 (cf. Dittenberger OGIS 45350 ἔστιν δÓ
ἀντίγραφα τῶν γεγονότων Õμεῖν φιλανθρώπων τÏ Õπογεγραμμένα· ἃ Õμᾶς βούλομαι ἐν τοῖς δημοσίος
τοῖς παρí Õμεῖν γράμμασιν ἐντάξαι; Joseph. Ant. XIV 319).” – Ziebarth, IG xii 9, 5, page 2. This Roman
letter is followed by the letter of the grammateus Xenon and a hypomnema, which are recorded as IOLHPK 44.
Found at (mod.) Trikkala (Thessaly). “Text by Robert. Viereck (notes) had recognised it as a senatus
consultum. 8 Alternative spelling, γραφομένῳ.” – Sherk, RDGE, 48.
[ - - - - - - ]ΝΣΥΝ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ἐ]πÚ τÏ π[ρ]Ùς Τρί[κ]καν μέρη καÚ ἀγαγόντες ἡμᾶ[ς ἐπÚ]
[ - - - - - - ]τόπον ἐπέδειξαν ἡμῖν τÙ<ν> οἰκεῖον πα[ - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - ]ν ›ς ἀφí ἡλίου δυσμῶν τῇ χώραι ταύτῃ [ - - - - - - ]
5 [ - - - - - ] ἔφασαν εἶναι [Ἀγαθ]ομένους καÚ καλ[εῖσθαι ÕπÙ τῶν]
[ - - ἐγδίκω]ν Δερκαίαν [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] πλειστ[ - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - τÙν ο]ἰκεῖον ἐπÚ [ . . . ]Π[ . . . . . . . . . . . . ]νοις[ - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - ] ¡ Ἀγαθομένης [ . . . . ]ειον τοῦ [τ]είχ[ους - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - ]πεδείαν [ . . . . . . . . . . . . ] τούτου τ[οῦ - - - - - - - - ]
10 [ - - - ὅμ]ορον ›ς ἀπÙ τῶν πρÙς Τρί<κ>καν μερ[ῶν - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - ] ἡμῖν οἱ ἔγδικοι τήν τε Ἀ[στ]ακίδα καÚ η[ - - - - - - ]
[ - - γειτο]νευούσας ταύτῃ χώραι, ἣν αÃτοÚ [ - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ] καÚ συνήγοσαν [ἐπÚ (?)] τÏ γειτόσυνα κα[Ú - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ] Õπάρχει, ἣν αÃτοÚ λέγουσι Δερκείαν [ - - - - - - - ]
15 [ - - - - λ]αβὼν δÓ καÚ Ἀγαθομένης τÙν λόγ[ον - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - ἔγδ]ικοι ἔφασαν καλεῖσθαι Δερκαί[αν - - - - - - - - - - ]
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 113
[ - - - - - ]ν καλεῖσθαι ΒουκολικÙν τὴν μ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ]οση[ν] πηκτήν, ἣν οἱ ἔγδικοι τη[ - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ] τήν τε ¡δόν, ἐφí ᾗ τὴ[ν] καλουμ[ένην - - - - - - - - ]
20 [ - - - - - ] ναι, ἣν οἱ ἔγδικοι ἐπ[ . . . . . ][ - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - ] ›ς ἀπÙ με[ρῶν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - ]ΕΧΟΝΤ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
Found at (mod.) Trikkala (Thessaly). “The text is that of Kern and Viereck (notes.) 2 κα[τ]αγόντες,
Wilamovitz. 3 ΤΟΠΟΙΚΕΙΟΝ, stone, corrected by Wilamovitz. 8 [τ]οῦ [τ]είχ[ους, Hiller.” – Sherk, RDGE,
254.
Col.2
A Κόιντος Μού[κιος Ποπλίου υ]ἱÙς Σκαιό[λας,] B
ἀνθύπατος Ῥω[μαίων, Ἐφεσί]ων τῆι βουλ[ῆι καÚ]
τῶι δήμωι χαί[ρειν· τῶν ἐν τῆ]ι φιλίαι κριθέ[ντων]
δήμων τε καÚ ἐ[θνῶν ψηφισαμέ]νων τιθέναι θυμ[ε]-
30 λικοˆς καÚ [γυμνικοˆς ἀγῶ]να<ς> πενταετηρι-
[κοˆς βουλευσαμένων - - - - - - α]ι περÚ τοῦ
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - πρ]οτρεψο-
[----------------------------------------]
C [ - - - - - - - - ]ΕΝΟΣ[ - - - - - - - - - - ]
35 [ - - - - - - Σαρδια]νῶν τι ταρ[ασσ- - - - ]
[ - - ἔχ]θραν καÚ διαφορÏν κα[ - - - - - - ]
ἐπιφανεστέρας καÚ ἐνδοξ<ο>τ[έρας, µνα οἱ ἀφ]-
εστηκότες αÃτῶν δῆμοι μετ[Ï πάσης εÃνοί]-
ας εἰς τÙ αÃτÙ{υ} συμπορεύοιντο, ἐπέμ[ψαμεν - - ]
40 σον Φυλοτίμου Ἀθηναῖο[ν τ]ῶν ε[ - - - - ]
ἄνδρα κ[αλ]Ùν καÚ ἀγαθÙ[ν] καÚ τῆς [μεγίστης ἀξι]-
ούμενον πίστεως παρí [ἡμ]ῖν, πρός [τε τÙν Õμέ]-
τερον δῆμον καÚ τÙν Σαρδιανῶ[ν, τÙν παρακα]-
λέσαντα δοῦναι τ[Ï]ς χεῖρας ἡμῖν εἰ[ς σύλλυσιν.]
45 συγκαταθεμένων δÓ τῶν δήμων [ἑκατέρων]
τοῖς παρακαλουμένοις καÚ πεμψάντω[ν πρες]-
βευτÏς Õμῶν μÓν Ἱκέσιον Ἀρτεμιδώρο[υ, Ποσει]-
δώνιον Ποσειδωνίου τοῦ Διονυσίου, Ἀ[ριστο]-
γείτονα Πάτρωνος, Ἀρτεμίδωρον Ἀρτ[εμιδώ]-
50 ρου, Μενεκράτην Μενε[κρά]τ[ου] τοῦ Ἀρ[τεμι]-
δώρου, Ἀπολλόδ[ωρον Ἑρμο]κρ[άτου, Ἕρμιπ]-
πον Μενοίτου, Σα[ρδιανῶν δÓ τοˆς στρατη]-
γοˆς Μενεκράτ[ην Διοδώρου, Φοίνικα Φοίνικος,]
Ἀρχέλαον Θεο[φίλου - - - - - - - - - - ]
114 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
55 κῆσαι τÏ πρ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
τε μεσιτε[ύειν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
συμφέρε[ιν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
Found at Pergamon. ll.29-30. Sherk’s edn. has θυμ[ε]|λικÙˆς, I have removed the first grave. “28 τῶν νυν]Ú
φιλίαι, Fränkel. 29 καÚ ἑ[τέρων κοινω]νῶν κτλ., Fränkel. 30 ΝΑ, stone. 37 ΕΝΔΟΞΘΤ, stone.” – Sherk,
RDGE, 258. At the end, we have everal lines missing, then an agreement between the Ephesians and Sardians.
Found at (mod.) Akça, in Caria. Ceccarelli lists RDGE 49 as a concordance for her R28, but read RDGE 48.
“I have examined the Berlin squeeze and have collated it with the texts by F. Hiller von Gaertringen and Viereck
(notes), The dossier begins with the heading [¡ δῆ]μος [¡ Νυσαέων καÚ ἡ βου]λὴ ἐ[τίμησαν] | Χ[αιρ]ήμ[ον]α
Πυθοδώρου. 5-6 Dittenberger (S.I.G.2, 328) had read ο”τ[ο]ς ἐπÚ [τοῦ] συνβουλί[ου], which Viereck (notes)
preferred, although he did not introduce it into his text. 13 Hiller, but it remains uncertain.” – Sherk, RDGE, 261.
The text is followed by two letters of Mithridates to his satrap Leonippos.
Date: Ceccarelli. In Adana museum, assigned to Mopsuestia due to the emblem of the fire altar (Rhodes, cf.
p.466 esp. n.22). This text appears on the same monument as 27 and, though predating it, appears after it on the
stone. “Rome: Lucullus and Sulla | Marble block in the Adana museum, preserved only on the left; h. 0.60, w.
0.38, th. 0.16; letters 0.01. [p.466] | M.H. Sayar, P. Siewert, and H. Taeuber, Tyche 9 (1994) 113-130. Squeeze
(Vienna). | Photograph: Tyche pls. 20-23. | Cf. Gauthier, Bull. épig. 1995, 601. |…| 2. The editors suggest as
possible περÚ τῆς ἀνανεώ]εως or προαιρέ]εως. | 3 Rigsby: ἀσυ[ίαν - - - ] edd. 4 ἦν (ἣν] edd.) and and
τετιμημένον Rigsby. 5 Rigsby: θεÏν καÚ κατÏ τὴν] edd. 6 Rigsby: [τοῦ ταμίου ἐμοῦ? edd. 7 Rigsby: [ἱερÙν
τÙ. . . . . ] or [τέμενος τÙ] or το[ῦτο τÙ ἱερÙν] edd. 12 Gauthier: τ[ῆι edd. 22 end Rigsby. 29: ΟΨΗΣ” –
Rigsby, Asylia, 466–467.
[ - - - ]σαν[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - ]εως τῆς[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . ] ῆς ºσιδος ἀσυ[ - - - - - - - - - - , καθὼς?]
[τÙ] ἱερÙν ἦν ÕπÙ τῶν βασι[έων τετιμημένον? διÏ]
5 [τ]ὴν εÃσέβειαν τὴν πρÙς τὴ[ν θεάν· ἐγὼ ο“ν τὴν]
πα[ρ]άκλησιν τὴν Λευκόλλο [ταμίου Õπακούσας?]
συνεχώρησα ἄσυλον εἶναι τÙ [παρí Õμεῖν ἱερÙν]
τῆς ºσιδος.
Date: Ceccarelli. In Adana museum, assigned to Mopsuestia due to an emblem (cf. Rigsby, Asylia, 466 esp.
n.22). This text appears on the same monument as 26 and, though postdating it, appears before it on the stone.
116 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
*I have inferred this date from the discussion at Reynolds AR p.18, since she does not explicitly give a date.
Inscribed at Aphrodisias (Reynolds). “a Pilaster capital (inv. no. 67. 550; 0·98 × 0·27 × 0·74) inscribed on the
moulding of one face (inscribed area 0·395 × 0·13), found loose in excavation at the north end of the stage front;
it indubitantly fitted above b, a pilaster (c. 0·81 × 0·61) in situ, terminating the south wall of the north parodos at
the stage end, inscribed on two faces. The inscriptions given below is cut on the face which looks [p.16] towards
the archestra; this face is in two planes, one stepped back from the other (each containing one column of text),
has been damaged above and along all edges and pierced by a round hole near the left edge towards the top. |…|
Letters, second cent. A.D.: a av. 0·018; b av. 0·02.” – Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 16–17.
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 117
29 – L. Cornelius Sulla to the arkhons, boule, and demos of the Koans – c.84
BCE
(on the same monument as 30) = Sherk RDGE 49(i) = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R32
A Ἀγαθᾶι Τύχαι.
[Λ]εύκιος Κορνήλιος Λευκίου υἱÙς Σύλλας Ἐπα-
φρόδειτος δικτάτωρ Κῴων ἄρχουσι βουλῇ
δήμῳ χαίρειν· Ἐγὼ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ Λαοδικεῖ κι-
5 θαριστῇ, ἀνδρÚ καλῷ καÚ ἀγαθῶι καÚ φίλῳ ἡμε-
τέρῳ, πρεσβευτῇ παρÏ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν περÚ τÙν Διό-
[ν]υσον τεχνιτῶν τῶν ἐπÚ Ἰωνίας καÚ Ἑλλησπόντου
[καÚ τ]ῶν περÚ τÙν Καθηγεμόνα Διόνυσον ἐπέτρε-
[ψα στήλην] παρí Õμεῖν ἐν τῷ ἐπισημοτάτῳ τόπωι ἀναθή-
10 [σεσθαι ἐν ᾗ] ἀναγραφήσεται τÏ Õπí ἐμοῦ δεδομένα
[τοῖς τεχνίταις] φιλάνθρωπα· πρεσβεύσαντος δÓ
[νῦν αÃτοῦ εἰς Ῥώμην], τῆς συγκλήτου δÓ δόγμα περÚ
[τούτων ψηφισαμένης, Õμᾶς] ο“ν θέλω φροντίσαι ὅπως ἀπο-
[δειχθῇ παρí Õμεῖν τόπος ἐπισ]ημότατος ἐν ᾧ ἀναθή-
15 [σεται ἡ στήλη ἡ περÚ τῶν τεχνιτῶ]ν. ’πογέγραφφα δÓ
[τῆς παρí ἐμοῦ ἐπιστολῆς τοῦ τε δόγματος] τῆς συνκλή-
[του τÏ ἀντίγραφα - - - - - - - - - ]ΝΤΩ
Inscribed at Kos. “Text by Segre. A 2ff. Cf. Sulla’s letter to Stratonicea with the senatus consultum of 81
B.C. ([RDGE] No. 18) for the heading. 8-9 ἐπέτ[αξα] was considered by Segre and then rejected. 11 Segre also
considered and then rejected [αÃτοῖς τίμια καÚ] φιλάνθρωπα. 12 [τούτων δογματισαμένης Õμᾶς] would be
too long.” – Sherk, RDGE, 264.
B [--------------------------]
[ . . . ] σˆν δÓ καÚ ἣν ἔχετε πρÙς [ἡμ]ᾶς [ε–][ιαν,]
Õμᾶς ο“ν θέλω [ἐ]πεγνωκέναι ἐμÓ ἀπÙ συμβο[υ]-
λίου γνώμης γνώμην ἀποπεφάνθαι, ἃ φιλάνθ[ρ]-
[ω]πα κα[Ú τι]μÏς ἀλειτουργησίας τε Õμεῖν καταλο-
5 [γῇ] τοῦ Διονύσου καÚ τῶν Μουσῶν καÚ τῆς πο[λι]-
τείας Õμῶν χάριτα σύνκλητος ἄρχοντές τε [¢ ἀν]-
τάρχοντες ἡμέτεροι ἔδωκαν σ[υνεχώ]-
ρησαν, µνα ταῦτα ἔχετε, καÚ κ[αθὼς καÚ πρÚν]
πάσης τε λειτουργίας ἀλε[ιτούργητοι ἦτε]
10 στρατείας τε, μήτε τινÏ [εἰσφορÏν ¢ δαπά]-
νας εἰσφέρητε, μήτε [ἐ][οχλεῖσθε ÕπÙ τινος]
παροχῆς ἕνεκεν τ[ε καÚ ἐπισταθμείας, μήτε]
τινÏ δέχεσθ[αι καταλύτην ἐπαναγκάζησθε.]
µνα δÓ καÚ [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
15 [ . . ]ΙΟΝΙΙ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
ἀναγ[ρ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
118 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
Inscribed at Kos. “B 4-5 καταλο[γῆς], Segre; καταλο[γῇ], Robert. For privileges accorded to the Artists and
athletes see the letters of the Roman magistrate(s) to the Artists at Thebes ([RDGE] No. 44), the letter of M.
Antonius to the Greeks in Asia ([RDGE] No. 57) and the series of documents in B.G.U., IV, 1074; cf. Segre, op.
cit., pp.259-62, and R. Herzog, Sitzungsberichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1935, pp.974ff.” – Sherk, RDGE, 264.
Inscribed at Lagina in Caria. “The text is that of Dittenberger except where noted. 7 [Ἀσίαι ἀνθεσταμένους,
Diehl and Cousin. 8-9 [καÚ μεγάλους Õφεστηκότας] ÕπÓρ τῶν ἡμετέρων δημοσίων πραγμάτων καÚ
δεινό]τατα ἄ[λλ]α δεδεγμένους, Diehl and Cousin; πολούς [τε καÚ παντοδαπούς], Dittenberger;
προθυμό]τατα ἀ[ν]αδεδεγμένους, Bases, followed by Dittenberger and Viereck (notes); πολούς [τε καÚ
δεινοτάτους, Wilamowitz. 13a Added by Viereck.” – Sherk, RDGE, 109.
Inscribed at Thasos. I have not included the very damaged and largely restored fragments B-J of the following
senatus consultum here. “A 5 [Τι]μητηρίωι (?), Taylor, but [πο|λε]μητηρίωι, Bousquet. A 5-6 Taylor restored
the name; cf. E. Badian, Athenaeum, n.s., 40 (1962): 356-58.” – Sherk, RDGE, 118.
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 119
33 – Cn. Cornelius Dolabella to the arkhons, boule, and demos of the Thasians –
between 80 to 78 BCE*
(on the same monument as 34) = Sherk RDGE 21 (i), cf. Dunant-Pouilloux Thasos 175 =
Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R37
*I have inferred this date myself from the dates of Dolabella’s governorship in Macedonia, 80-78 BCE (cf.
Sherk RDGE p.122), since Sherk does not offer a date. Inscribed at Thasos. The numbers in square brackets
indicate the number of dashes in Sherk’s edn. “13-14 ΛΕΥΚ|ΚΙΟΣ. 15 ]ΜΟ . . ΟΣΝ .Λ (or Ο) κτλ.. 16 Π[ - - ]Δ̣
(or Υ) κτλ.; Dunant and Pouilloux suggest τάς τε [ολιτείας χωρία λι]μέ[ας κώμα]ς ε [κ]Ú προσόδους
κτλ. 17 Dunant and Pouilloux suggest with great reservation τ]ούτοις τοῖς ἔ[εσ]ιν ἃ γίνηται κτλ. 20
ΕΜΑΡΟΝ . . Ε (or Σ) ΝΕ (or Π or Γ) κτλ. 21 [Π]αιί? suggested by Dunant and Pouilloux. 22 In the middle
Dunant and Pouilloux suggest the possibility of τι[ν]ε[ς]ἐν (sic) Ἀμηβίῃ, τινÓς ἐν Πακηπηι (or Πακηι τῆι);
But the place names are unknown. 23 . . .ΑΝΕ (or Ο) ΙΝ κτλ. 24 (or Ε). 25 Α (or ΑΝΝΙ or ΑΙΠ), and, later,
ΑΣ (or Λ).” – Sherk, RDGE, 121.
*I have inferred this date from the dates of Dolabella’s governorship in Macedonia, 80-78 BCE (cf. Sherk,
RDGE, 122), since Sherk does not offer a date. Inscribed at Thasos.
Inscribed at Oropos. “4 ἀνÏ μ[έσον, Bases; ἀνÏ μ[έρος, Mommsen. 5 γεγονότων for γεγονυιῶν, Viereck
(notes); ἐπεγνωκέναι repeated by error. 8 Μάαρκος Κα<ί>σιος suggested by E. Badian, Historia, 13 (1963):
135. 9 The stone-cutter has repeated a line or so from his draft; cf. Badian, loc. cit. 11 ΠΗΠΙΡΙΑ stone. 13 ὁ υἱός
not dittography according to Bormann. 14 Between the eta and nu in the middle of Τηρηντίνᾳ there is a tiny
worn or damaged area on the stone. 35 Mommsen changed to Õπεξειρημένον. 36 Bases changed δόγμα to
δόγματι; Viereck (notes) thinks he is [p.135] right, but he retains the reading. 37 Bases added ἕνεκεν at the end
after φυλακῆς, but it is not necessary. 54 Bases deleted καί. 62 ΟÃσέλλιος, Bases, Dittenberger, Viereck;
ΟÃ<ι>σέλλιος, others.” – Sherk, RDGE, 135–136.
Col.1 [ - - - - - - - - 26 - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - ]αρχισ
[ - - - - - 21 - - - - - ] αÃτῶν
[ - - - - 20 - - - - - τ]οῦ Ῥωμαίων
[ - - - - 20 - - - - - π]εριπεπτω-
5 [κ - - - 19 - - - - ]α καÚ παν
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 123
[ - - - - 20 - - - - ]ιη πρÙς πρεσ-
[βείαν - - 17 - - - ] πεφευγέναι
[ - 15 - τοῦ αÃτο]κράτορος ἡμῶν
[ - - - 18 - - - κ]αÚ τῶν λοι-
10 [πῶν - 17 - ] αγ[ . ]ασιμιπων
[ - - 19 - - ]κωι βίωι καÚ
[ - 16 - Κορνήλ]ιον Σύλλαν
[ - - - 20 - - - ]σε καÚ τÙν
[ - - 19 - - - ]νο[ . ]οχε
15 [ - - 19 - - - ]ονοις τε
[ - - - 20 - - - ]εραι τῆι με
[ - - - 20 - - - ]τι διÏ το
[ - - - 20 - - - ]μενη
[ - - - 20 - - - ]ιε[ - - ]λαυ
20 [ - - 17 - - τῆς] αÃτῆς μητρÙς
[ - - - - - - - 26 - - - - - - - ]
Col.2 φιλα[ - - - - - - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - - - - ]
τόπου [ - - - - - - - - - 24 - - - - - - - - - - ]
κειω δεδ[ - - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - - - ]
σομένους [ - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - - - ]
25 αν τειμῆς φιλα[ - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - ]
αι σοι ἔδωκαν [ - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - ]
ταύτην τε τὴν [χώραν - - - - 15 - - - - πλέ]-
θρων δισχιλίω[ν - - - - - 17 - - - - - - εÃερ]-
γεσίας ἀρετῆς [τε - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - ]
30 ωι δÓ δικαίως [ - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - ]
μεν ἀκόντως σ[ - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - ]
οÃδένα δε[ - - - - - - - 19 - - - - - - - αÃτο]-
κράτωρ [ - - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - - - - ]
τούτων [ - - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - - - - ]
35 γυναικÙς [ - - - - - - - - - 22 - - - - - - - - - ]
προνομίαν κλε[ - - - - - - - 21 - - - - - - - ]
καθὼς Γναῖ[ος Πομπήιος - 12 - ἀπÙ συμ-
βουλίου γνώμη[ς γνώμην ἀπεφην - 13 -]
ο—τως τε Õμῶν [ - - 11 - - ἔχειν κατέχειν τε]
40 καρπίζεσθαί [ τε ἐξεῖναι (?) - - - 14 - - - - ]
καÚ περÚ τοῦ κ[ - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - ]
Found at Mytilene. The numbers in square brackets indicate the number of dashes in Sherk’s edn.
“Restorations are by F. Hiller von Gaertringen except where noted.1 - - ]αι χισ[ - - , Evangelides; - - ]αρχισ[ - -,
Hiller. 10 ἀγ[ωνι]σ[α]μ[έν]ων (?), Hiller; καθὼς γ[ . ]αι[ - - ], Evangelides; Γ[ρ]αι[ - - ], Hiller; Γναῖ[ος
Πομπήιος, Accame.” – Sherk, RDGE, 270.
124 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
226 a
[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] Κοΐν[τ]ου [ . . . . . ][ . . . . . . . . ]
[ . . ]|ρας [ . . . . . . ] ἐπí ἀκυρώσει „[ν] ἀνεί[ηφε καÚ Μάρ]-
κωι Κικέρ[ων] συντυχών εÃχαρίστησε [τÏ ταχ]-
40 έντα ἐπιμελῶς συντηρῶν τÏ ἐπí ἐμ[οÚ μὴ δια]-
ύειν. ὅθεν πῶς Õμεῖς τήν τινων περÚ [ταῦτα ἀ]-
ναίδειαν ἀνέσχησθε, τεθαύμακα· διí ἃς [αἰτίας]
πρός τε τÙ κοινÙν τῶν Ἑλλήνων γέγραφα, [πρÙς]
[Õ]μᾶς, Ἐφεσίους, Τραλλιανούς, Ἀλαβανδεῖς, [υ]-
45 [λ]ασεῖς, Σμυρναίους, Περγαμηνούς, Σαρδιανο[ύς,]
Ἀδραμυτηνούς, µνα τε Õμεῖς πρÙς τÏς ἐν τῆι δ[ιοι]-
[κ]ήσει τῆι ἰδίαι πόλεις διαποστείλησθε ἔν τε τῶι ἐ[ι]-
φανεστάτωι τόπωι ἐν στυλοπαραστάδι ἐπÚ
λίθου λευκοῦ ἐνχαραχθῆναι φροντίσητε [αῦ]-
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 125
50 τα τÏ γράμματα, µνα κοινῶς πάσηι τῆι ἐπαρχεία[ι τÙ]
δίκαιον ἑσταμένον ἦι εἰς τÙν αἰεÚ χρόνον, αµ τε ἄ-
λαι πᾶσαι πόλεις καÚ δῆμοι τÙ αÃτÙν παρí αÕτοῖς
ποιήσωσιν, εἴς τε τÏ δημόσια ἀποθῶνται νομο[φυλά]-
κια και χρηματιστήρια. τὴν δÓ αἰτίαν διí ἣν ἑλλη[νι]-
55 κοῖς ἔγραψα, μὴ ἐπιζητήσητε· κατÏ νοῦν γÏρ [ἔσ]-
χον, μή τι παρÏ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ἔλασσον τÏ [γεγραμ]-
[μ]ένα νοῆσαι δύνησθε· τὴν δÓ ἐπιστολὴ[ν ἔδωκα]
[Τι]μοκλῆι Ἀναξαγόρου καÚ Σωσικράτηι Π[θίωνος]
[πρ]εσβευταῖς Μαγνήτων τῶν πρÙς τ[ῶι Μαιάν]-
60 [δρ]ωι. vv ἔρρωσθε. vacat
vacat
Found at Priene. “Restorations by Friedrich, Wilamowitz, and Rehm. 23 I suggest στρατηγÙς] ἐπÚ ξένω[ν]
(?). 51 Prienean copy begins with εἰ]ς τÙν αἰεÚ κτλ. 55 Prienean copy has ἔσ[χον. 58 Τιμοκλεῖ Ἀναξα[γόρου,
Σωσικ]ράτει Πυθίωνος, Priene. 60 Prienean copy lacks ἔρρωσθε but employs the paragraphos in its place.” –
Sherk, RDGE, 274.
Inscribed at Mytilene. The numbers amidst the restorations indicate the number of dashes or dots in Sherk’s
edn. “Col. a Restored by Cichorius, except where noted. 1 Paton, but I have added —πατος. 4 Σω]τᾶς Hiller. 7
[ἃς ἐψηφίσασθέ μοι καÚ περÚ τοῦ πολέμου ὃ]ν κατωρθώκαμεν, Sherk. 11 Cichorius had [Õμῶν εÃεργετεῖν
βούλομαι κτλ., but Paton chaged the verb to πειράσομαι. 12-13 ε–νοι[αν διατελεῖτε, Cichorius. 13 (end)
προ[θυμίαν?], Cichorius.” – Sherk, RDGE, 152. Either 14 or 17 lines are missing at the end.
Inscribed at Mytilene. The numbers in square brackets in l.1 indicate the number of dashes in Sherk’s edn.
“Col. b 1-5 Paton. 5 θαρροῦντες κτλ. Restored by Cichorius.” – Sherk, RDGE, 152.
to the letter) [Õμετέροις νόμοις καÚ τοῖς] φιλανθρώποις ἃ ἔχετε παρí ἡμῶν τοῖς τε [πρότε]-
30 [ρον καÚ τοῖς διÏ τούτου το]ῦ δόγματος δεδομένοις τÙ ἐξεῖναι Õμῖ[ν - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ταῖς] τῆς πόλεως καÚ τῆς χώρας προσόδοις καθí
ἡ[συχίαν]
[χρῆσθαι. Βούλομαι ο“ν] ἀποφήνασθαι ὅτι οÃδενÚ συγχωρῶ οÃδÓ συγ[χωρή-
[σω ἀτελεῖ παρí Õμῖν εἶναι. Ο]—τως ο“ν πεπεισμένοι θαρροῦντες χρῆσθ[ε- - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - - - ἀνεμποδ]ίστως· ἐγὼ γÏρ ταῦτά τε ἡδέως πεποίηκα
Õ[πÓρ]
35 [Õμῶν καÚ πειράσομαι εἰς τ]Ù μέλλον αἰεί τινος ἀγαθοῦ παραίτιος Õμῖν
[γεν]-
[έσθαι].
Inscribed at Mytilene. The number in square brackets in l.34 indicates the number of dashes in Sherk’s edn.
This letter is followed by unrelated documents, including two senatus consulta from 25 BCE. l.30. Sherk’s edn.
has καθ, which I have changed to καθí. “6-12 Restored by Cichorius, except for ll.8-9, where F. Ziemann (De
epistularum graecarum formulis solemnibus quaestiones selectee [Diss., Halle, 1910], p.267, n.1) suggested the
formulization given. 11 ἡσύχ]ως, Cichorius, but Paton read - - ]ος, not clear on the Berlin squeeze. 14-27
restored by Cichorius. 27 Õπέμ[νασ]αν, L. Robert, R.É.G., 53 (1940): 215; earlier, in R.É.G., 42 (1929): 427, he
had suggested Õπέμ[νησ]αν. 29 Õμετέροις νόμοις, Hatzfeld. 30-35 Paton, but in l.35 Robert suggested
πειράσομαι.” – Sherk, RDGE, 152.
Inscribed at Smyrna. “Restorations by Passerini and Segre. 1-8 The restorations of Segre are followed. 1
Σμυρμαίων ἄρχουσι κτλ., Passerini. 3-4 περÚ ἐκείνων τῶν πραγμάτων π]ερÚ „ν Μιθ[ραδάτης ? ἐμοÚ
λόγους ἐποιήσατο, Passerini. 7 After βασιλικοῦ perhaps a noun such as κήπου, παραδείσου, aut similia,
Segre. 9-20 As given by Passerini. 16 Robert thinks of a phrase such as τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων.” – Sherk, RDGE,
281. Sherk’s edn. l.2 has εŒ, which I have corrected to ε“.
Ἀγαθῆι Τυχηι.
Ἐπίκριμα περÚ τῆς ἀσυλίας.
[Πό]πλιος Σεροίλιος Ποπλίου υἱÙς ἸσαυρικÙς ἀνθύπατος
[ἄ]ρχουσι βουλῆ δήμω Περγαμενῶν χαίρειν.
5 Κλεῖτος Τίμωνος πρύτανις : Ἀσκληπιάδης Μάτρω-
νος ἱεπεύς : Μοιροφάνης Μητροδώρου : Μενέμαχος
Ξενοκλείους, Ἡρώδης Ἡρώδου : Νέων Μελεάγρου,
Ἀπολλοφάνης Ὀρέστου : ἄρχοντες : Περσεˆς Περσέως
τοῦ Δίωνος γραμματεˆς δήμου : Κρίτων Μηνοδώρου,
10 γυμνασίαρχος : ¡μοίως τε καÚ πρεσβευταÚ Õμέτεροι, ἄν-
δρες ἀγαθοÚ ἐμοῖ προσῆλθον ÕπÓρ τῶν τοῦ Ἀσκλη-
πιοῦ ἱερῶν νόμων ἀσυλίας τε. v Ἥτις Õμεῖν ἀντίστα-
σις ÕπÓρ τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ δικαίων πρÙς Μάρκον Φάννιον
Νεμερίου υἱÙν Τηρετεῖνα Õπῆρχεν, ÕπÓρ τούτ[ου τοῦ]
15 πράγματος, τῆς Õποθέσεω[ς ἐξ ἀντικαταστάσεως Õφí]
ἑκατέρων ῥηθείσης, [ - - - - - - - ἐπέκρινα· περÚ]
„ν Μάρκος Φά[ννιος Νεμερίου υἱÙς Τηρετεῖνα ἐνε]-
φάνισεν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - ]Ο[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
Found at Pergamon. “Note the marks of punctuation in 5-10. 12 At first Segre thought that ΤΕΗΤΙΣ was
corrupt and that the correct reading was ΠΕΡΙΗΣ, but later, on the basis of a photograph, he changed his mind
and punctuated as shown here. 15 Õποθέσεω[ς ἀκριβέστατα ἑ]|κατέρων, Wiegand, but Segre, with reference
to S.I.G.3, 785, 7ff., and Josephus Ant. 14. 246, suggests Õποθέσεω[ς ἐξ ἀντικαταστάσεως Õφí]| ἑκατέρων.
17-18 ἐνε]|φάνισεν, L. Robert among the works of Segre.” – Sherk, RDGE, 286.
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 129
Inscribed at Thasos. The numbers in square brackets indicate the number of dashes in Sherk’s edn. “3-4 See
the letter of the dictator Caesar to Mytilene in 48 B.C. ([RDGE] No.26), ll.5-6; the letter of M. Antonius to the
koinon of Asia ([RDGE] No.57), ll.5ff.; the letter of Augustus to the Cnidians ([RDGE] No.67), ll.7-8; and the
letter of Augustus to Sardis ([RDGE] No.68), l.24, with συνέτυχον.” – Sherk, RDGE, 288.
44 – Octavian to the arkhons, boule, and demos of the Rhosians – 42-34 BCE
(on the same monument as 50, 51) = Sherk RDGE 58(i) = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R52
Found at Rhosos. “The numbers of letters which have disappeared on the left varies from line to line because
of the irregular engraving, but a maximum of 9-10 and a minimum of 5 may be used as a working rule. 1 After
ἔτους can be seen traces of Η or ΙΡ, probably Η (see commentary). 6 [ἅπερ ἀξιῶ], Schönbauer with Wilhelm; [ἃ
δεῖ Õμᾶς] or [ἃ ἀξιῶ Õμᾶς], Roussel. 7 [Σελευκέω]ν, De Visscher; [Ἐφεσίω]ν, Schönbauer.” – Sherk, RDGE,
298.
130 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
[--------------------------------------------]
Β. SC [ - - ]ι ἄγεσθαι ἀτελ[εῖς κ]α<ί> ἐλευθέρους εἶναι, τῷ [τε] δικαίῳ καÚ ταῖς
[κρίσεσιν ταῖς ἰδίαις τὴν πό]-
[λιν] τὴν Πλαρασέων καÚ Ἀφροδεισιέων χρῆσθαι μήτε ἐγγύην ε[ἰς Ῥώμην
αÃτοˆς κατÏ δόγμα τι]
[κ]αÚ κέλευ<σ>ιν ¡μολογεῖν· κτλ.
*I have inferred this date from the discussion at Reynolds AR p.44. Inscribed at Aphrodisias. ll.1-5 above are
Sherard in Reynolds; Sherk has ll.1-3. [Μᾶρκος Ἀντῶνιος Μάρκου υἱÙς αÃτοκράτωρ —πατος
ἀποδεδει]|γμένος τÙ β΄ καÚ [τÙ γ΄| τῶν] τριῶν ἀνδρῶν τῆ[ς]. l.52 as I have it above (ἃ Õμᾶς βούλομαι | ἐν
τοῖς δημοσίοις | [l.52] τοῖς παρí Õμεῖν | γράμμασιν ἐντάξαι.) is from Sherk, but it does not appear in
Sherard’s transcription in Reynolds. Reynold’s translation does not seem to imply that she rejects/ignores this
line, but if it were left out by mistake one may expect her l.54 to be labelled l.55. Nevertheless, I have included
it. Letter (Sherk): “Text based on that by Dittenberger except where noted. | A 1 Perhaps two lines instead of
one? (cf. the Sherk’s ll.1-3., which I have given above – CJH.) 3 [τῶν], Viereck. 31 (my l.33 – CJH) After
ἀντίγρα|φα there is a small, raised omicron in Sherard’s copy, according to Boeckh, which appears to be a mark
of punctuation.” – Sherk, RDGE, 166. Letter (Reynolds): “l.4, Τ, bar above the figure, S.; l.5, ΤΗΔ··, S., C.
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 131
τῆ[ς], other edd.; l.15, ΗΜΕΤΕΡΟΣ, S., <Õ>μέτερος, edd.; l.18, ΤΗΚΩΣ, S., τ<ι>κως, edd. l.21, ligatured ΗΡ,
S. C.; ll.21-2, Γ om. E. who shows Ε as the first letter of l.22, γεγονόσιν, edd.; l.23, ·ΜΤΑΣΙΝ, S.,
[ΜΗ]ΜΑΣΙΝ, edd.; ll.22-3, Η om. S. who shows Μ as the first letter of l.23, ἡμᾶς, edd.; ll.24-5, Σ om. S. who
shows ··ΕΝ at the beginning of l.25, παρεκάλεσ/εν, edd.; ll.32-3, ΑΝΤΙ/ΓΡΑΦΑ, S. (cf. lapis) corr. from
ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑ/ΦΑ, ἀντίγρα/φα, edd.; small circular stop, S. (cf. lapis). l.34, Λ om. S., μᾶλ, edd.; l.42, ΗΜΟΝ, S.,
ΗΜΩΝ, S.2, ἡμῶν, edd., ΤΕΙ, S. who shows the [p.44] same letters also at the beginning of l.43, τει/μῆς, edd.;
ll.43-4, Ν om. S. who shows Η as the first letter of l.44, συ/νήδομαι, edd.; l.44, ΤΟ, S., ΤΩ, S.2, τῷ, edd.; l.46,
ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦ., S., ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΑ, S.2, ἀντίγραφα, edd.; l.49, ΥΠΟΓΕΓΡΑΜΕΝΑ, S., Õπογεγραμμένα, edd.;
l.50, ΒΟΥΛΟΜΑΙ··, S., ΒΟΥΛΟΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ, S.2, βούλομαι, edd.; l.52, unfilled space for two letters, S., ignored by
edd., ΕΝΤΑΞΑ, S., ΕΝΤΕΞΑΙ, S.2; ἐντάξαι, edd.; l.54 aligned with rest, S., C., displaced to right, other edd.,
concluding leaf S., ignored, edd.” – Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 43–44 (‘S.2’ refers to Sherards later notes
on his original transcription, to which Reynolds has had access). The text of the senatus consultum is Sherk’s.
A B
[---------------------------]
καÚ [τ]Ïς ÕπÓρ τῶν δημοσίων κτήσεις εἴς τε τÙν κοινÙν τῆς
πόλεως καρφισμÙν τινῶν ἀνα[στά]σεις Õπονοθεύειν, οἷς δὴ κἂν ἐπιτρέ-
πωμεν φορολογεῖν τὴν [Μυ]λασέων πόλιν εἰς δουλικὴν περιου-
σίαν, ἡμεῖν μÓν ἂν ἴσως ᾖ ἐφ[ορῶ]σιν αἰσχρά τε καÚ ἡμῶν ἀνάξιος, ἀδυ-
5 νατος δÓ ἂν ὅμοως κἀκεί[ν]οις γένοιτο πράξουσι δημοσίαι
τοˆς δημοσίαι κυρίους, μ[ή]τε χρημάτων μήτε προσόδων
δημοσίων Õποκειμέν[ω]ν, εἰ μὴ κατÏ τελῶν ἐπίρειψιν λογεύ-
ειν τοˆς ἑνÙς ἑκάστου [λόγο]υς (?) τάς τε κεφαλÏς ἐπιτελωνεῖν
θέλοιεν, τῆς πόλεως οÃδ[Ó τὴν] ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν ἐκ τῆς Λαβιήνου
10 ληστήας ἐρειπίων ἑτοίμως ἀ[ν]αφερούσης, ὃ δὴ καÚ αÃτοÚ προϊδόμενοι
προδανεισμοῖς ἰδιωτῶν ΙΓ χρέα δημόσια τὴν πόλιν Õπηγάγον-
το, οà διÏ τÙ καθí Õπαλλαγὴ[ν --]οματων τὴν Καίσαρος ÕπÓρ Μυλασέων
[---------------------------]
Inscribed at Mylasa. “Briot’s new readings in Capitals. 1 [ἐπι]κτήσεις (?), Johnson; at the end, ΤΗΣ. 2
ἐπιΤΡΕ-. 3 περιΟΥ-. 4 ἀΔΥ-. 5 πράΞουσι. 6 προσόδωΝ. 7 λογΕΥ-. 8 ἐπιτελωνεῖΝ. 9 ΛαβιήνοΥ. 10
προϊδόμεΝΟΙ. 11 Le Bas-Waddington show ΙΔΙΩΤΩΝΙΓ at the end of the line in stone A; Johnson has [εἰς];
perhaps <τÏ> (?) ÕπηγάγοΝ- at the end of the line in stone B. 12 ἀναλ]ωμάτων (?), Johnson; ]Οματων, Briot;
ΜυλασέΩΝ, Briot.” – Sherk, RDGE, 309.
Date: Reynolds. Inscribed at Aphrodisias (Reynolds). In ll.5, 14, and 19, Ἀέ, Ἀίτῃ and
Ἀέ are underlined as well as dotted in Reynolds. “Inscribed on the middle courses of column 3 of
the archive wall (inscribed area : 0·955 × 0·655). | Letters, second-third cent. A.D.: ll.1-4, av. 0·02, ll. 5f., av.
0·018; ligatured ΗΜ in l.2, ΗΜΗ, ΤΗ in l.4, ΗΝ, ΝΗ, ΝΠΕ in l.6, ΗΜ in l.7, ΝΗ in l.9, ΝΕ twice in l.11, ΗΕ,
ΤΕ, ΝΕ, ΜΒ, ΝΤ in l.12, ΠΗΝΤ, ΤΗ in l.13, ΤΗ, ΤΕ l.14, ΝΕ, ΝΗΝΕ, ΤΗ in l.15, ΝΚ, ΤΕ, ΤΗ in l.16, ΝΤΕ,
ΗΜ, ΤΗ in l.17, ΜΕ, ΝΚ, ΗΜ in l.18, ΝΚ, ΗΓ, ΠΡ, ΤΗ in l.19, ΤΗΚ, ΗΝΚ in l.20; apices in ll. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10,
13; arabesque at the end of l.12. The final letter of l.1 is cut on the ridge which at this point divides columns 2
and 3.” – Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 101.
Found at Mylasa. “Restorations by Waddington and Dittenberger. A 4 (at the end) The copy of Le Bas-
Waddington shows Κ´. B 1 κρατη[θεί]|σης is correct and was read also by Dittenberger (S.I.G.1 [1883], 271)
and followed by Viereck (including his notes). F. Hiller von Gaertringen (S.I.G.3) has πρατη[θεί]|σης, which
must be a mistake, but one which subsequent editors (except Malcovati) have followed. The copy in Le Bas-
Waddington here showsthat the first letter of the word must be a kappa, for we see the vertical bar and the lower
oblique hasta. 4 Stone, ΣΥΝΚΑΤΑΦΛΕΗΕΤΑΣ. 10-12 Restored by Dittenberger; Waddington had suggested
συνέ|[γνων ἀτυχήματα] ταῦτα πάσης τειμῆς καÚ χάρι|[τος καÚ εÃνοίας ƒντας ἀξί]ους Õμᾶς πε|[πονθέναι
- - - .” – Sherk, RDGE, 311.
Found at Rhosos. l.74, Sherk’s edn. has και, which I have accented. The commentary in Sherk refers only to
RDGE 58(i) and (ii), cf. Sherk, RDGE, 298–299.
Found at Rhosos. The commentary in Sherk refers only to RDGE 58(i) and (ii), cf. Sherk, RDGE, 298–299.
Date: SEG Online, Ceccarelli. Found at Ephesos (Ceccarelli). “7. 29 B.C.; in the early summer of this year
Octavian returned from Asia Minor to Rome via Greece (cf. Dio 51.21.1), edd.pr. | 9. For the formula κἀγὼ δÓ
μετÏ τοῦ στρατεύματος Õγιαίνω see RDGE nos. 58 and 60; J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London
1982) nos. 6 and 12, edd.pr. | 9-11. four ambassadors were former prytaneis: Memnon, Protogenes, Agathenor
and Asklepiades (cf. LEph. 9 N LL.45, 47, 49 and 51 in 35/34, 34/33, 33/32 and 32/31 B.C. respectively);
Theodoros was apparently prytanis in 29/28 B.C.; Herakleides is probably γραμματεύς of I.Eph. 14; Ariston is
known as grammateus from coins under Augustus, and Sopatros from coins dated 48-27 B.C., edd.pr. | 12.
perhaps ἀπέδοσάν τέ μοι, S.Follet in L’Année Épigraphique (1993) [1996] no.1461.” – SEG online.
Found at Cyme. I have changed the lowercase ‘v’ in the Latin text of Sherk’s edn. to ‘u’. This text was
preceded by an unrelated document (edict?) of Augustus and Agrippa, which has not been included. “12 Pleket,
Kunkel, and Arangio-Ruiz have [L.]. 14 Read [ven]ditionis. 16-17 Punctation by Oliver, making satisdato third
person imperative. In 17 Pleket has [Li]berei, which Oliver changed to [ha]berei. 21-22 Kunkel, prom[ittere
magi]s probo. 23 Kunkel and Arangio-Ruiz, [Λεύκιος].” – Sherk, RDGE, 314.
ἐκ Περγάμου
Γάιος Νώρβανος Φλάκκος ἀνθύπατος Αἰζανειτῶν v. ΤΟΥΝΔΙΣ[ - - - ]
ἄρχουσι βουλῆι δήμωι v. χαίρειν. v. ΔΕΥΙΑΤΑ[ - - - ]
Μενεκλῆς καÚ Ἱέραξ καÚ Ζήνων οἱ πρεσβευταÚ Õμῶν v. [....]Η[ - - - ]
5 ἀνέδωκαν μοι Σεβαστοῦ Καίσαρος ἐπιστολήν ἐν ß[ι] v. [ - - - ]
136 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
Date: Ceccarelli (cf. “soon after 12 BC” of Levick and Mitchell). Inscribed at Aizanoi (Ceccarelli). In l.10,
follwing ΠΑ, I could not reproduce in this document the shapes given in Levick and Mitchell, which appear to
be drawings of uncertain markings on the stone, represented in my copy by ‘. . . .’ since I could not equate the
markings with letters. The same applies for the point made in their commentary concerning Σεβαστοῦ and ἐν
ß[ι] in l.5, where I have given the letters which I would have judged as present were I making an edition working
from their drawing. “13 Yağdiğin | In a court; said to have been brought 20 years previously from the necropolis
of Aezani. | Slab of grey-white marble; letters worn very faint, often traceable only from discolouration of stone.
| Ht. 0.49; width 1.48 till broken; thickness 0.29; letters 0.02. Pl. II (squeeze). [p.6] Soon after 12 BC (see
below). | 1. ἐκ Περγάμου; for this formula cf. P10, [ἀπÙ Β]ονωνίας (apparently not part of the letter but
recorded by the city as giving weight to its contents), P11 ἀπÙ Ῥώμ(ης). |Ö| 5. Ö Σεβαστοῦ: the copy reads
[ΣΕΒ]ΑΣΟΥ. At the end of the line the copy has ΕΝ̣(?)Η/////. [p.7]| 6. ἀσυ[λ]ία[ν καὶ ἀ]λῃσίαν? On ἀλῃσία
synonymous with ἀσυλία see LSJ. Aezani has a ἱερÙς καÚ ἄσυλος δῆμος in P20 (Caracalla), cf. P35. The right
of asylum often figuresin correspondence between Greek cities and Roman governors: see Sherk, Docs. Index
s.vv. ἀσυλία, ἄσυλος; J.M. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London 1982), nos. 8, 35, and 41. For attempts to
restrain abue of it, see Tac. Ann. III, 60ff. | 9f. βούλο[μ]αι is most consisten with the traces on the stone; but a
principle seems to be required: perhaps βουλό[μ][νο]ς [τ]Ï [φ]ιλ[άνθρω]|πα ῆ [π]όλεως; cf. the letter of M.
Messala to teos, 193 BC, Sherk, Docs. 34, l.22 (also on asylum): ...τÏ εἰς Õμᾶς φιλάνθρωπα πειρασόμεθα
συνεπαύξειν; and Aphrodisias no.41. | 10f. The squeeze suggests ΠΙΜΑ; although there is no hesitation in
the copy over Ω one would be happy to read ἐπίκριμα (see L. Robert, Ant. Class. Xxxv (1966), 406ff.). These
letters and those that survive in the first line of the next column are very faint; perhaps there is a reference to the
decision τοῦ ίσ[αρος].” – B. Levick and S. Mitchell, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, IX, (London, 1988)
6–8.
Γερόντων
Ἀγρίππας Ἀγρείων γέρουσι τοῖς ἀπÙ
Δαναοῦ καÚ ’περμήστρας χαίρειν.
Ἐγὼ τοῦ τε διαμεῖναι τÙ σύστημα
5 Õμῶν καÚ φυλάξαι τÙ παλαιÙν ἀξίωμα
τὴν αἰτίαν ἐματῷ σύνοιδα παρεσχη-
μένῳ καÚ πολλÏ τῶν καταλελυμένων
Õμεῖν ἀποδεδωκότι δικαίων πρός τε
τοÃπιον προνοεῖν Õμῶν [προθύμως]
10 ἔχω καÚ τὴν [ - - - - - - - - - ]
νομιζ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[---------------]
Found at Argos. “After the zeta in l.11 the upper part of the Ο or Ω is visible on the stone. 5-8 For the phrase
φυλάσσειν τÏ δίκαια in Roman imperial letters see L.Robert, Revue de Philologie, 84 (1958): 30.” – Sherk,
RDGE, 324.
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 137
Found at Eresos. The letter is preceded by a document, most likely of a Roman source, but it is so
fragmentary that it offers little information; I have therefore not included it. “15 Perhaps τÙ παρí Õμῶν
ψή[φισμα ἀπέδοσαν aut ἀπÓδωκεν? David thought he saw an alpha at the beginning of the text, but Paton
could no longer see it. 22 David alone has read the omega at the beginning.” – Sherk, RDGE, 326.
Found at Thyateira. “Restored by Clerc except where noted. 1 Viereck added ‘Ρωµαίων. 3 ›ς added by
Wilamowitz, among the works of Viereck. 5 κρίσε[ις διατηρεῖν, Clerc; omitted by Viereck. 6 κελευ[σάντων,
Clerc. 8 παραβόλ[ιον, Wilamowitz. 8-9 ¡|π]ό[σ]η, Wilamowitz; Viereck reported |||ΟΡΗ on the stone, but clerc
saw ΟΣΗ there. 9-10 Δεῖ κατÏ τὴν γνώμην] ἐμὴν ἅπαντα [γίγνεσθαι, Clerc, but omitted by Viereck.
Unfortunately, Clerc did not indicate whether the beginning of l.10 was unengraved. He does, however, say that
the stone is complete on the left except for one or two letters a the beginning of lings 9 and 11. 11 Ῥαυο[ίου,
Clerc; Ῥαυ(ί)ο[υ, Viereck. Clerc believed he was probably Aulus Ravius Iulianus, mentioned in a Pergamene
dedication (C.I.G., 3543; cf. M. Fränkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, II [Berlin, 1895], 513), but of whom
nothing else is known. For the spelling and the name see W. Dittenberger, Hermes, 6 (1872): 304.” – Sherk,
RDGE, 339.
138 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
Pubished in numerous cities in Asia. Copies found at Priene, Apameia, Eumenia, Dorylaion, and Maeonia. I
have changed the lowercase ‘v’ in the Latin text of Sherk’s edn. to ‘u’. The letter is followed by decrees of two
provincial councils. “A. The Pronconsul’s Letter. This is a composite text based on the copies from Apameia,
Priene, and Maeonia. I have consulted the Berlin squeeze of Priene, Of the heading which preceeded the
Apameian copy of the Greek text only the following words have survived: - - ]νες καθιερωθείσας εἴτε διÏ
θρησκε[ίαν - - - - ]. 4 ‹φελ[ιμωτέρα, Dittenberger, but ‹φελ[ιμω]τ[έρα, stone (Priene). 5 ἴσην, Apameia;
ἴσηι, Priene. 6 φύσει, Apameia; φύσι, Priene. 9 ἐπεγεννήθη, Apameia and Maeonia; -θηι, Priene; ἁτῶι,
Apameia; ἁτῶ, Maeonia. 15 θήαν, Priene and Maeonia; θείαν, Apameia. 16 [καÚ ἐ]πεÚ δύσκολον, Maeonia;
καÚ ἐπε[ - - ]ν, Priene. 17-18 εÃχαριστεῖν, Maeonia. 18 ἀμείψε[ως καινÙν], Priene, and Hiller’s restoration,
but Maeonia shows [ἀμεί]ψεως •δειο[ν κτλ. 19 ΝΘΡΩΠΟΙΤ, stone A and thus Dittenberger, but ἀνθρώποι[ς]
ἦν, Hiller; ἀγάγοι[εν - - ], Maeonia, but ἀγαγ[εῖν], Wilamowitz and Hiller on the basis of Priene; however,
Dittenberger correctly restored ἀγά[γοιεν]. 22 ἐκείνη, Apameia; ἐκείνην, Priene. 24 τιμηθῆι, Apameia;
τειμηθῆ Priene. 25 γείνηται, Apameia; γένηται, Priene. 29 ἐν seems to have been omitted by the engraver. In
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 139
l.30 the proconsul’s letter was followed immediately, without intervening space, by the first of the provincial
decrees in the copy from Priene. In the copy from Apameia, however, it was followed by a different document,
extant only in a very mutilated form.” – Sherk, RDGE, 333.
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]AVNIA TNSA
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] ha<b>ebit u<til>itatem et
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]tissimo dierum IC autem E
15 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]<q>ue <G>raecos DERICI NVN
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]NRIA LI Ca<e>saris trahentis
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] H L Caesar ANOC ẠRNXX S
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
The number in the square bracket in l.1 of the Apameia copy represented the number of dashes in the RDGE
edn. “B. The Latin fragments (Apameia). Lines 1-3 correspond to line 4, 10-11, and 21-22 of the Greek version.
Thus the Latin portion must have been engraved in lines of quite unusual length. 4 In Mommsen’s view it ought
to read undecumus XXXI duodecumus XXX. The Dorylaion fragment. 1 TIVIA OVOD; only in one place (l.5) is
the letter Q correctly engraved; elsewhere it is O. EVERIT; at the end, ELNIS .Δ .Δ .Δ. 2 CYMOVE; VILO;
ORIVATIM; SINOVLIS. 3 AVSELIPA. 4 ELVITATIVM. 5 TEMRY MANI; INTIVMQYE; PONEVITO. 6
LICEP; ORINOPIS; NATACIS. 7 ERCA; CRATIN; DIPEICILE. 8 TEMPTETUA; VELSOVIA IVVOVIS
PROCRIAVISOVE. 9 IAETITIA INCRESSVI HONORES. RATVIVS. 12 HAREBIT VILEITATEM. 15
CRAECOS. 16 CAOSARIS.” – Sherk, RDGE, 333.
This text is followed by decrees of two provincial councils. “C. The appendix. The text is that of C.I.G., 3957,
with additions by Mommsen, op. cit., p.279. The lines are numbered here from the beginning of the column in
the Apameia copy. 6 γραφέν. This is the last word in the proconsul’s letter (cf. A, l.30, of the Prienean copy)
(The argument that, since γραφέν is common to these two texts, this must be the appendix to the letter is not an
argument I find persuasive—Col. I and II are definitely indicating a relationship with Roman affairs, but is it
necessary to say that C is the appendix to A?—nevertheless I have included the text since Sherk felt that there
was sufficient reason to do so. I feel that he was wise to include the Question Mark (?) after ‘Appendix’ – CJH).
8-9 Wilamowitz suggested to Mommsen: ἀπÙ τῆξ πρÙ [ἐννέα μεν (sic) καλανδῶν Ὀκτωβρίων, γενεθλίου δÓ]
Καίσαρος [ - - - .” – Sherk, RDGE, 333.
59 – Augustus to the arkhons, boule, and demos of Knidos – last half of 6 BCE
= Sherk RDGE 67 = Viereck ‘SG’ IX = Lafoscade ‘De Epistulis.’ 3 = Ceccarelli AGLW
‘App.3’ R69
[-----------------------]
[ἐπÚ δαμι]ωργοῦ δÓ Καιρογένεος Λευ[κα]θέο (?).
ΑÃτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ θεοῦ υἱÙς ΣεβαστÙς ἀρχιερεˆς
—πατος τÙ δωδέκατον ἀποδεδειγμένος
καÚ δημαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας τÙ ¿κτω{ι}καιδέκατον
5 Κνιδίων ἄρχουσι βουλῆι δήμωι χαίρειν· οἱ πρέσ-
βεις Õμῶν Διονύσιος β΄ καÚ Διονύσιος β΄ τοῦ Διονυ-
σίου ἐνέτυχον ἐν Ῥώμηι μοι καÚ τÙ ψήφισμα ἀποδόντες
κατηγόρησαν ΕÃβούλου μÓν τοῦ Ἀναξανδρίδα τεθνε{ι}-
ῶτος ἤδη{ι}, Τρυφέρας δÓ τῆς γυναικÙς αÃτοῦ παρούσης
10 περÚ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ ΕÃβούλου τοῦ Χρυσίππου. ἐγὼ{ι}
δÓ ἐξετάσαι προστάξας Γάλλωι Ἀσινίωι τῶι ἐμῶι φίλωι
τῶν οἰκετῶν τοˆς ἐνφερομένους τῆι αἰτίᾳ διÏ βα-
σάνων ἔγνων Φιλεῖνον τÙν Χρυσίππου τρεῖς νύ-
κτας συνεχῶς ἐπεληλυθότα τῆι οἰκίᾳ τῆι ΕÃβού-
15 λου καÚ Τρυφέρας μεθí —βρεως καÚ τρόπωι τινÚ πολι-
ορκίας, τῆι τρίτηι δÓ συνεπη{ι}γμένον καÚ τÙν ἀδελ-
φÙν Ε–βουλον, τοˆς δÓ τῆς οἰκίας δεσπότας Ε–βου-
λον καÚ Τρυφέραν, ›ς ο–τε χρηματίζοντες πρÙς
τÙν Φιλεῖνον ο–τε ἀντιφραττόμενοι ταῖς προσ-
20 βολαῖς ἀσφαλείας ἐν τῆι ἑαυτῶν οἰκίᾳ τυχεῖν †δύναν-
το, προστεταχ{χ}ότας ἑνÚ τῶν οἰκετῶν οÃκ ἀποκτεῖ-
ναι, ›ς ἴσως ἄν τις Õπí ¿ργῆς οÃ[κ] ἀδίκου προήχθη{ι}, ἀλ-
λÏ ἀνεῖρξαι κατασκεδάσαντα τÏ κόπρια αÃτῶν, τÙν
δÓ οἰκέτην σˆν τοῖς καταχεομένοις εἴτε ἑκόντα
25 εἴτε ἄκονταóαÃτÙς μÓν γÏρ ἐνέμεινεν ἀρνούμενο[ς]ó
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 141
ἀφεῖναι τὴν γάστραν, [κα]Ú τÙν Ε–βουλον Õποπεσεῖν δικαιό-
[τ]ερον ἂν σωθέντα τἀ{ι}δελφοῦ. Πέπονφα δÓ Õμεῖν καÚ α[Ã]-
[τ]Ïς τÏς ἀνακρίσεις· ἐθαύμαζον δí ἄν, πῶς εἰς τόσον
ἔδεισαν τὴν παρí Õμεῖν ἐξετασίαν τῶν δούλων οἱ φ[εύ]-
30 γοντες τὴν δίκην, εἰ μή ποι σφόδρα αÃτοῖς ἐδόξ[ατε]
χαλεποÚ γεγονέναι καÚ πρÙς τÏ ἐναντία μισοπόνη[ροι,]
μὴ κατÏ τῶν ἀξίων πᾶν ¡τιοῦν παθεῖν, ἐπíἀλλο[τρίαν]
οἰκίαν νύκτωρ μεθí —βρεως καÚ βίας τρÚς ἐπεληλυ[θό]-
των καÚ τὴν κοινὴν ἁπάντων Õμων ἀσφάλειαν [ἀναι]-
35 ρούντων ἀγαναχτοῦντες, ἀλλÏ κατÏ τῶν καÚ ἡ[ίκí †]-
μύνοντο †τυχηκότων, †δικηκότων δÓ οÃδí ἔστ[ιν ὅ τι.]
ἀλλÏ νῦν ¿ρθῶς ἄν μοι δοκεῖτε ποιῆσαι τῆι ἐμῆι [περÚ (?) τού]-
των γνώ{ι}μηι προνοήσαντες καÚ τÏ ἐν τοῖς δημ[οσίοις]
Õμῶν ¡μολογεῖν γράμματα. ἔρρωσθε.
Found at Astypalaea. ll.20-21. Sherk’s edn. has †δÃναν|το, which I have changed to †δύναντο. “The text
followed here is that of F. Hiller von Gaertingen (S.I.G.3) as approved by Viereck (notes), but I have checked
each reading with the Berlin squeeze.” – Sherk, RDGE, 343.
Inscribed at Sardis. “22 υἱÙ<ς> Σεβα<σ>τός: sigma had been omitted. 24 Μηνογένης: the sigma at the end
is engraved over a nu.” – Sherk, RDGE, 346.
Inscribed at Khios. “Text by W. G. Forrest (S.E.G., XXII, 507), but I have checked each reading on the Berlin
squeeze. In several important areas, however, the squeeze is of little value, especially in l.20. At the beginning of
l.1 former editors had read Μ . . Α . . . 19 ἐπιστολὴν - - - - γράφοντος τοῦ δεῖνος or ἐπιστολὴ - - - - , κτλ.
20 Forrest thinks of some form of ἀμφισβήτησις. L. Robert here had ιεπεν τὴν; former editor, ις . . εν τὴν.” –
Sherk, RDGE, 352.
[ - - - - - - - τῆ]ς εÃεργ[εσίας - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - π]ρÙς αÃτÙν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - φιλαγ]άθως οÃδÓ [ - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ]των ἐν ασ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
5 [ - - - - - ]. ˄ [τῶ]ν εἰσφο[ρῶν - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - ] ων. ûρρωσθε. [ - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - Ποτάμ]ωνος υἱÙν [ - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - τὴν δ]Ó γυνα[ῖκα - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
Found at Mytilene. l.5. Sherk’s edn. has εíισφο[ρῶν], which I have changed to εἰσφο[ρῶν].
Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek 143
Date: SEG Online. Presumably inscribed at Ephesos. Since the letter is dated to 12/13 CE, this would mean
that Tiberius sent it while Augustus was still alive. I have therefore included the letter, as it is within the scope of
this dissertation, despite Ceccarelli not listing it with her Republican letters. “24-25. For the restoration cf.
LL.45/46, edd.pr.” – SEG online.
144 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
Auxiliary Letter
The letter of Marcus Antonius recorded on papyrus
“This text was written on the verso of a British Museum medical papyrus (P.Lond.137)…Part
of the beginning (ll.1-5) is also extant in a very mutilated form, in an inscription said to have
been found in Tralles (Keil, op. cit. [Jahreshefte, 14 (1911)], cols. 123-27).” (Sherk, RDGE,
290).
Since the more extensive version is a papyrus (and the text itself does not completely
correspond to the epigraphic version, v. Sherk’s apparatus), and the inscriptional version is
too fragmentary for me include on it’s own merit, I could not include the text in this study of
inscribed letters. However, there is no reason why it cannot be used for comparison outside of
the main data.
Aux. 1 – Marcus Antonius to the koinon of the Greeks from Asia – 42-41 or 33-
32 BCE
= Sherk RDGE 57 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R50
cf. Tralles version from J. Keil, Jahreshefte, 14 (1911), cols. 123-27 given in Sherk’s
apparatus—
Found at Tralles. “3-4 The copy on stone at Smyrna, originally found at Tralles, reads as follows for this
section (Keil, op. cit., col. 127): Μᾶρκος Ἀν]τώνιος αÃτοκρά[τωρ τριῶν ἀνδρῶν δημοσί|ων πραγμάτ]ων
ἀπÙ καταστά[σεως τῶ κοινῶ τῶν ἀπÙ τῆς Ἀ|σίας Ἑλλήνων] καÚ τοῖς προέ[δροις - - - - - χαί|ρειν· καÚ
πρότε]ρον ἐντυχόν[τος μοι κτλ. Note that τοῖς προέδροις is missing in the papyrus. The phrase ἀπÙ
καταστάσεως has a partial parallel in the letter of Octavian to Rhosus ([RDGE] No.58, II 9), where, however,
the preposition is ἐπὶ. Cf. also Res Gestae Divi Augusti I. 12: ἐπÚ] τῇ καταστάσει τῶν δημοσίων πραγμάτων.
14 Papyrus has φιλανθρώπου. 18-19 The papyrus has συνχωρήση - - - - συνχωρῶν, which Kenyon emended.
30-31 τÙν Ἀρτεμίδωρον περÚ τῶν | ἐντυχόντος ἐπεχώρησα τὴ[ν - - ]|θεξιν, papyrus. The change from the
accusative to the genitive [p.291] in the envoy’s name, first suggested by Oliver, appears correct and in
agreement with the verb governing it (καθυστερεῖν). Kenyon, περÚ τούτων ἐντυχόντα; Brandis, περÚ „ν
ἐνέτυχέ μοι. The editors of Sammelbuch (I[1915], 4224) suggest περί τ<ιν>ων ἐντυχόντ<α>, which is
followed by Ehrenberg-Jones. At the end of the phrase (ll.32) Kenyon has expanded - - ]θεξιν, a reading
confirmed by Skeat (per litteras), to κά]θεξιν κτλ (sic); Amelotti corrected it to ἀνάθε<σ>ιν.” – Sherk, RDGE,
291–292 (my emphasis).
146 Official Roman Republican Letters Inscribed in Greek
Excl.T. 5 – A letter of Q. Mucius Scaeuola (?) about a treaty of the Sardians and
Ephesians – 98/97 or 94/93 BCE
(on the same monument as 24) = Sherk RDGE 47(i) = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R26
Reason for exclusion: too fragmentary. Found at Pergamon.
Excl.T. 11 – Caesar (?) or Octavian (?) to Ephesos – second half of 1st century
BCE*
= SEG 43,757 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ R61
Reason for exclusion: status as a Roman letter is uncertain. I have inferred this date, since no
specific date is given on SEG Online, and it is presumably later than Excl.T. 10. Found at
Ephesos (Ceccarelli). It would appear the the two first person singular verbs in l.2 are the
reason for this text being classed as a letter. “Possibly SEG 43 768 belongs to this letter
(Excl.T. 10)”. – SEG 43 online (my emphasis).
All dates are by Welles unless otherwise noted. Found at Skepsis (all notes on the places of inscriptions are
from Welles). “3/4. προσδια[διδόντες], W; πρÙς δια[λύσεις] or δια[δόσεις], Munro; δια[πομπάς],
Dittenberger; προσδια[ιροῦντες], Koehler. 6. [ἐπÚ τ]ούτοις, Schubart; ; [ἐν τ]ούτοις, Munro; [τι τ]ούτοις,
Dittenberger. 28. ἃ, added by Dittenberger. 32. ΜΕΗΣ, on the stone.” – Welles, RCHP, 5.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 151
Found at Eresos. “c 15-17. τάς τε, κτλ., W; ΑΣΣΕ, Paton. Only the upper part of the letters is preserved, and
the second Σ may be a Τ. I cannot understand a present infinitive here, τάσσειν or, as Paton, πράσσειν. d. The
traces as given by Paton; on the squeeze, nothing is visible on the left, and on the right, in l.1, only the ΠΙ and Η.
Dittenberger: δ]ῆμο[ν] ¢ κα[Ú - - - ]αι [ἐ]πÚ τῆ[ι - - - ] οιε . . . . . . ναι - - - ν Ἀλεξάν[δρωι ἐν]τυγ[χ]άν[οντες.”
– Welles, RCHP, 13. In fragment ‘d’, Welles reproduces the shapes of parts of uncertain letters, apparently as
they appear on the stone, I could not reproduce these shapes in this document, so I represent them by underlining
the letter they most resemble.
§1. [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ΝΤΕΠΕ [ - - - - ]
[ . . . . . . ὅστις δí ἂν] εἰς τÙ Πανιώνιον ἀποστέ[λληται, ‹ιό]μεθα δεῖν
[πρᾶξαι πάντα τÏ]
[κο]ινÏ τÙν ἴσον χρόνον, σκηνοῦν δÓ τοῦτον καÚ πανηγυράζειν μετÏ τῶν
παρí [Õμῶν ἀπεσταλμέ]-
νων καÚ καλεῖσθαι Τήϊον. §2. ‹ιόμεθα δÓ δεῖν καÚ οἰκόπεδον ἑκάστωι τῶν
Λ[εβεδίων δοθῆναι]
5 παρí Õμῖν ἴσον „ι ἂν καταλίπηι ἐν Λεβέδωι. ἕως δí ἂν οἰκοδομήσωνται,
[ἅπασι δοθῆναι]
[ο]ἰκίας τοῖς Λεβεδίοις ἀμισθί, ἐÏν μÓν διαμένηι ἡ Õπάρχουσα πόλις, τÙ
τ[ρίτον μέρος τῶν]
Õαρχουσῶν οἰκιῶν, ἐÏν δÓ δεῖ κατασκάπτειν τὴν Õπάρχουσαιν πόλιν,
[καταλειφθῆναι]
[μÓ]ν τῶν Õπαρχουσῶν τÏς ἡμισείας, τούτων δÓ τÙ τρίτον μέρος δοθῆ[ναι
τοῖς Λεβεδίοις, τÏ]
[δ]Ó δύο μέρη ἔχειν Õμᾶς· ἐÏν δÓ μέρος τι τῆς πόλεως κατασκάπτηται, [καÚ
ἱκαναÚ ‚σιν αἱ κατα]-
10 λειπόμεναι δέξασθαι καÚ Õμᾶς καÚ τοˆς Λεβεδίους, δοθῆναι τοῖς Λεβ[εδίοις
τούτων τÙ]
[τρ]ίτον μέρος· ἐÏν δÓ αἱ καταλειπόμεναι μὴ ἱκαναÚ ‚σι δέξασθαι Õμᾶς [τε
152 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
καÚ τοˆς Λεβεδίους, οἰ]-
[κί]ας καταλειφθῆναι τῶν μελλουσῶν κατασκάπτεσθαι τÏς ἱκανά[ς, ὅταν
δÓ συντελεσθῶσιν]
[ἱκ]αναÚ οἰκίαι ἐν τῆι [κ]ατασκευαζομένῃ πόλει, κατασκάψαι τÏς οἰκίας
τÏ[ς καταλειπομένας, ὅ]-
[σαι] ἂν ἔξω πίπτ τῆς περιβαλλομένης πόλεως. οἰκοδομ[εῖν δÓ τοˆς
Λεβεδίους]
15 [πάν]τας τÏ οἰκόπεδα ἐ[ν] ἔτεσιν τρισίν· εἰ δÓ μή, δημόσια εἶναι τÏ
[οἰκόπεδα. ‹ιόμεθα δÓ]
δεῖν καÚ τÏστέγας τῶν οἰκιῶν ἀποδοθῆναι τοῖς Λεβεδίοις, [ὅπως τάχιστα
κατασκευά]-
[ζω]νται αἱ οἰκίαι, [ἐν ἔτε]σιν τέσσαρσιν πρÙς μέρος ἑκάστου ἐνι[αυτοῦ.
§3. ‹ιόμεθα]
[δÓ] δεῖν καÚ τόπον ἀποδειχθῆναι τοῖς Λεβεδίοις ο” θάψουσι το[ˆς νεκρούς.
§4. ὅσα δÓ εἰς τόκους]
[¿]φεί<λ>ει ἡ Λεβεδίων πόλις, ταῦτα διορθωθῆναι ἐκ τῶν κοιν[ῶν προσόδων
κατí ἐνιαυτόν.]
20 [τÏ] δÓ δάνεια ταύτα εἰς τὴν Õμετέραν πόλιν, ὅπως οἱ Λεβ[έδιοι ‡φειλον,
παραλαβεῖν.]
§5. καÚ ὅσοι δÓ πρόξενοί εἰσι τῆς Λεβεδίων πόλεως ¢ εÃεργέτ[αι ¢ πολιτεί]-
[αν] ¢ ἄλλην τινÏ δωρεÏν ¢ τιμὴν ἔχουσιν παρÏ τῶν Λεβεδίων, τ[Ï αÃτÏ
ἔχειν καÚ παρí]
[Õ]μῖν, καÚ ἀναγραφῆναι τούτους ὅπου καÚ οἱ Õμέτεροι πρόξεν<ο>ι [καÚ
εÃεργέται εἰσÚν ἀνα]-
[γε]γραμμένοι, ἐν ἐνιαυτῶι. §6. τÏ δÓ ἐγκλήματα καÚ τÏ συμβόλαια [τÏ
Õπάρχοντα ἑκα]-
25 [τέ]ροις, αÃτοˆς πρÙς αÕτοˆς διαλυθῆναι ¢ διακριθῆναι κ[ατÏ τοˆς
ἑκατέρων]
[ν]όμους καÚ τÙ παρí ἡμῶν διάγραμμα ἔν δυσÚν ἔτεσι ἀφí ο” ἂ[ν τÙ
διάγραμμα ? προ]-
[τ]εθῆι. ὅσα δέ ἐστιν <Õμῖν> πρÙς τοˆς Λεβεδίους ¢ τοῖς Λεβεδίοις π[ρÙς
Õμᾶς, ποεῖν ἀμφοτέ]-
[ρ]ους συνθήκην, γράψασθαι δÓ τὴν συνθήκην, καÚ ἄν τι ἀντιλ[έγηται πρÙς
τὴν]
[σ]υνθήκην, ἐπικριθῆναι ἐν τῆι ἐκκλήτωι <ἐν> ἑξαμήνωι· ἔκκλητον [δÓ
πόλιν γενέσθαι, κα]-
30 [θÏ] ἀμφότεροι συνωμολόγησαν, Μιτυλήνην. τÏ μÓν ο“ν ἄλλα
Õπ[ολαμβάνομεν ἐπÚ τοιούτοις]
[γ]ράφειν τοˆς συνθηκογράφους οἷς ἄν ποτε γινώσκωσιν· ἐπεÚ [δÓ τοσαῦτα
τÙ πλῆθος ἀ]-
ούομεν εἶναι τÏ συναλλάγματα καÚ τÏ ἐγκλήματα ·στε, ἂν τῶι [νόμωι
διακριθῆι διÏ παν]-
τÙς τοῦ χρόνου, μηθένα ἂν δύνασθαι Õπομείναι ñ καÚ γÏρ ἕως το[ῦδε οÃ
δοκεῖ προκοπὴν εἰ]-
ληφέναι ταῦτα {ἅπερ} οÃδÓ αἱ συν[θῆκ]αι συντετελέσθαι διÏ τÙ ἐ[κ
πολλοῦ ἀδίκαστα]
35 εἶναι Õμῖν τÏ συναλλάγματαñóκαÚ ἂν προστιθῶνται οἱ τόκοι πα[ρí
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 153
ἕκαστον ἔτος, μηθενÚ]
[δ]υνατÙν εἶναι ἀποτεῖσαι. οἰόμεθα δÓ δεῖν, ἂν μÓν ἑκόντες ἀπο[τείσωσιν
οἱ ¿φεί]-
[λο]ντες, γράφειν τοˆς συνθηκογράφους μὴ πλεῖον διπλασίου ἀποδ[οῦναι
τοῦ χρέους]·
ἂν δÓ εἰς δίκην ἐλθ<ό>ντες ¿φείλωσι, τριπλάσιον. §7. ὅταν δÓ ἡ συνθήκ[η
ἐπικυρωθῆι, γρά]-
ψασθαι τÏς δίκας καÚ ἐγδικάσασθαι ἐν ἐνιαυτῶι. ὅσοι δí ἂν μὴ γράψων[ται
¢ ἐγδικάσων]-
40 [τα]ι ἐν τῶι γεγραμμένωι χρόνωι, δικῶν οÃσῶν, μηκέτι εἶναι γράψασθαι
μηδí [ἐγδικάσασθαι. ἐÏν δέ]
[τι]ς τῶν Õμετέρων ¢ τῶν Λεβεδίων μὴ ἐπιδημῆι ἐν ταῖς προσθεσμίαις,
ἐξ[έστω τÙν ἀποδημοῦντα]
[πρ]οσκαλέσασθαι ἀπÙ τοῦ ἀρχείου καÚ ἀπÙ τῆς οἰκίας, δηλοῦντα τῶι
[ἄρχοντι - - - ]
η ἐναντίον κτόων δύ[ο] ἀξιό[χ]ρεων. §8. εἰς δÓ τÙ λοιπÙν καÚ διδόναι [καÚ
λαμβάνειν δίκας κατÏ νό]-
μους οœς ἂν Õπολαμβάνοιτε ἴσους ἀμφοτέροις εἶναι. ἀ[ποδεῖξαι δÓ
ἑκατέρους]
45 νομογράφους τρεῖς μὴ νεωτέρους ἐτῶν τεσσεράκοντα [ƒντας ἀνεριθεύ]-
[τ]ους· οἱ δÓ αἱρεθέντες ¿μοσάντων γράφειν νόμους οœς ἂ[ν νομίσωσιν βελ]-
τίστους εἶναι καÚ συνοίσειν τῆι πόλει. ὅταν δÓ ¿μόσωσιν, [γραψάντων οœς
ἂν ἡγή]-
[σω]νται ἴσους ἀμφοτέροις ἔσεσθαι καÚ ἐνεγκάντων ἐντÙ[ς ἑξαμήνου· εἶναι
δÓ]
[κ]αÚ ἄλλωι τῶι βουλομένωι γράψαντι νόμον ἐσφέρειν· τῶν δÓ
[εἰσεωεχθέντων ὅσα]
50 μÓν ἂν ἐξ ¡μολογουμένων ¡ δῆμος ἐπικυρώσηι, χρᾶσθαι τού[τοις, ὅσα δÓ
ἀντιλεγό]-
μενα ἦι, ἀναπεμφθῆναι πρÙς ἡμᾶς, ὅπως ¢ αÃτοÚ ἐπικρίνωμεν [¢ πόλιν
ἀποδείξω]-
[μ]εν τὴν ἐπικρινοῦσαν· ἀναπέμψαι δÓ καÚ τοˆς συνομολογηθέν[τας νόμους,
καÚ δια]-
σαφεῖν τούς τε ÕπÙ τῶν νομογράφων εἰσενεχθέντας καÚ τοˆς [Õπí ἄλλων
γραφέντας,]
[ὅπως ἐάν τινες φαίνωνται μὴ τÏ βέλτιστα νομογραφοῦντες ἀλλí
[ἀνεπιτήδεια, αÃτοῖς]
55 ἐπιτιμῶμεν καÚ ζημιῶμεν· ταῦτα δÓ συντελέσαι ἐν ἐνιαυτῶι. [ἕως δí ἂν οἱ
σύμπαν]-
[τε]ς νόμοι συντελεσθῶσιν, οἱ μÓν παρí Õμῶν ‡ιοντο δεῖν τοῖς παρí Õμῖν
[νόμοις χρᾶσθαι, οἱ δÓ παρÏ]
[τ]ῶν Λεβεδίων †ξίουν ἐξ ἑτέρας τινÙς πόλεως μεταπεμψαμένους [χρᾶσθαι·
ἐπεÚ δÓ δικαι]-
ότερον Õπολαμβάνομεν εἶναι ἐξ ἄλλης πόλεως μεταπέμψασθ[αι νόμους,
κελεύσαντες μÓν ἀμ]-
φοτέρους λέγειν ἐκ ποίας πόλεως βούλονται χρᾶσθαι νόμοις,
συνο[μολογησάντων δÓ]
154 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
60 [ἀ]μφοτέρων ·στε τοῖς Κώιων νόμοις χρῆσθαι, ἐπικεκρίκαμεν, τοˆς [δÓ
Κώιους παρεκαλέσα]-
[μ]εν πρÙς τοˆς νόμους ὅπως δῶσιν Õμῖν ἐγγράψασθαι. οἰόμεθα δÓ [δεῖν
ἀποδειχθῆ]-
ναι τρεῖς ἄνδρες εÃθˆς ὅταν [ἡ] ἀπόκ[ρι]σις ἀναγνωσθῆι, καÚ ἀποστ[αλῆναι
ἐς Κῶν ἐν ἡμέ]-
[ρα]ις τρισÚν ἐκγράψασθαι τοˆς νόμους, τοˆς δÓ ἀποσταλέντας
ἐ[π]α[νενεγκεῖν τοˆς νό]-
μους ἐσφραγισμένους τῆι Κώιων σφραγῖδι ἐν ἡμέραις τρι[άκοντα·
ἐπανενεχθέν]-
65 [τω]ν δÓ τῶν νόμων ἀποδείξαι τἀρχεῖα Õμᾶς τε καÚ τοˆς Λεβε[δίους ἐν
ἡμέραις]
δέκα. §9. ὅσοι δÓ κεχορηγήκασιν ¢ τετριηραρχήκασιν ¢ ἄλλην [λῃτουργίαν
παρí ἑκα]-
τέροις λελῃτουργήκασιν, τούτους οἰόμεθα δεῖν μηκέτι τῆι [αÃτῆι
λῃτουργίαι ἐνέχεσθαι. †ξί]-
[ο]υν δÓ οἱ παρÏ τῶν Λεβεδίων καÚ χρόνον τινÏ αÕτοˆς ἀφεθῆναι [τῶν
λῃτουργιῶν ἐν „ι]
συνοικίζονται· ἡμεῖς δÓ οἰόμεθα δεῖν, ἂμ μÓν Õμεῖς πάντες μέ[νητε ἐν τῆι
παλ]-
70 αιᾶι, ἀτελεῖς εἶναι τοˆς Λεβεδίους τῶν λῃτουργιῶν ἔτη τρία· ἐ[Ïν δέ τινες
Õμῶν]
μετοικίζωνται εἰς τὴν χερσόνησον, καÚ τούτους ἀτελεῖς εἶναι τÙν [αÃτÙν
χρόνον, ὅσων]
[δíἂν αἱ] οἰκία<ι> μὴ μεθαιρῶνται (?), τούτους λῃτουργεῖν. §10. ἔφασαν δÓ
οἱ παρÏ τῶν Λ[εβεδίων δεῖν ἐς σί]-
[τ]οῦ παράθεσιν ἐξαιρεῖσθαι ἀπÙ τῶν προσόδων χρυσοῦς τετρακοσί[ους
καÚ χιλίους,]
[·σ]τε τÙμ βουλόμενον λαβόντα τÙ χρυσίον τοῦτο εἰς Õποθήκην [εἰσάγειν
σῖτον εἰς]
75 [τὴ]μ πόλιν καÚ πωλεῖν τÙν ἐνιαυτÙν ¡πόταν βούληται, ὅταν δÓ ¡ ἐ[νιαυτÙς
τελευτήσηι, ἀ]-
[π]οδίδοσθαι τÙ χρυσίον τῆι πόλει αÃτÙ καÚ τοˆς τόκους ἐφí ο[ἷς ἂν λάβηι.
„ν ἀξιούντων ἄλλως τε συν]-
τάξαι ἡμᾶς καÚ νῦν τοῦτο γίνεσθαι, ὅπως Õπάρχηι σί[του πλῆθος ἱκανÙν ἐν
τῆι πό]-
[λ]ειóοà γÏρ ποεῖν Õμᾶς ἱκανόνó‡ιοντο δεῖν καÚ οἱ παρí Õ[μῶν ταÃτÙ
γενέσθαι, †ξίουν δÓ]
καÚ τÙ χρυσίον πλεῖον συνταχθῆναι, ἐπειδὴ ¡ συνοικ[ισμÙς συντελεῖται καÚ
πλέο]-
80 [ν]ες γίνεσθε εἰς ταÃτÙ ἐλθ[ό]ντες. ἡμεῖς δÓ πρότερον μÓν οÃ[κ ἐβουλόμεθα
μηδεμιᾶι πό]-
λει δίδοσθαι τÏ σιτηγήσια μηδÓ σίτου γίνεσθαι παράθε[σιν, οà θέλοντες
τÏς]
[π]όλεις εἰς ταῦτα ἀναλίσκειν χρήματα συχνÏ οÃκ ἀναγκαῖα [ƒντα,
ἐβουλόμεθα δÓ]
[ο]ÃδÓ νῦμ ποεῖν τοῦτο, πλησίον ο–σης τῆς φορολογουμέ[νης χώρας ·στε
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 155
ἐÏν χρεία]
[γ]ίνηται σίτου, εÃχερῶς οἰόμεθα εἶναι μεταπέμπεσθαι ἐκ [ταύτης ¡πόσ]-
85 [ο]ν ἄν τις βούληται. ἐσπουδάζομεν δÓ ÕπÓρ τούτων ταῖς [πόλεσιν
βουλόμενοι συν]-
[ε]νεγκεῖν, ἐπεÚ ὅτι γε ἰδίαι ἐκ τοῦ πράγματος οÃθÓν γί[νεται ἡμῖν,
γινώσκετε]
[Õ]μεῖς καÚ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες, ἀλλÏ συντάσσομεν ταύτα θε[ωροῦντες ὅπως
„ν ¿]-
[φ]είλουσιν αἱ πόλεις ἐλεύθεραι γένωνται. νομίζον[τες γÏρ Õμᾶς τό γε ἐφí
ἡμῖν]
εἶναι τἆλλα ἐλευθέρους καÚ αÃτονόμους πεποιηκέν[αι, ἐφροντίζομεν ὅπως
τού]-
90 [τ]ων ἐπιμέλειάν τινα ποιώμεθα, µνα ἀποδοθῆι τὴν ταχίστ[ην. ἐπεÚ δÓ
συμφέροντα φαί]-
νεται τÏ περÚ τὴν παράθεσιν τοῦ σίτου, ·στε μηθÓν δια[λιπεῖν ὅ δίκαιον
μέν, τῶι]
δÓ δήμωι συμφέρον ἐστίν, οἰόμεθα δεῖν γίνεσθαι τÏ[ς παραθέσις τοῦ σί]-
του ·σπερ οἱ πρέσβεις τῶν Λεβεδίων ἔλεγον, Õπολαμ[βάνοντες χρυσί]-
[ο]ν δίδοσθαι εἰς Õποθήκην τÙ πᾶν χρυσοῦς χιλίου[ς καÚ τετρακοσίους. §11.
τῶν δÓ σίτων]
95 καÚ εἰσαγωγὴν καÚ ἐξαγωγὴν πάντων ἀποδειχθῆνα[ι ἐν τῆι στοᾶι τῆς ἀγο]-
ρᾶς, ὅπως ἐάν τισι μὴ λυσιτελῆι κατάγουσιν εἰς τὴν ἀ[γορÏν ἀπÙ ταύτης
ποιεῖσ]-
θαι τὴν ἐξαγωγήν, ἐξουσία ἦι θεῖσιν τÏ τέλη ἐπÚ τῶν [ἐν τῆι ἐγορᾶι
ἀποδει]-
χθέντων ἐξάγειν. ὅσαι δí ἂν χῶμαι ¢ ἐπαύλια ‚σιν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως
[Õμ]ῶν, νομίζομεν δεῖν προσαφορισθῆναι ἑκάστωι ἐγγράψαι μÓν ¡πόσους
ἂν καρ-
100 [ποˆ]ς ἐξάγειν βούληται ἀπÙ τῆς ἀγροικίας, ἐπαγγείλαντα δÓ τῶι
ἀγορανόμωι καÚ τÏ
[τ]έλη διορθωσάμενον ἐξάγειν. §12. †ξίουν δÓ οἱ παρí Õμῶν [καÚ οἱ παρÏ
τῶν Λεβε]-
δίων καÚ ἄνδρας ἀποδειχθῆναι παρí ἑκατέρων τρεῖς, οµτιν[ες εἴ τινα ἔτι
παραλέλειπ]-
ται τῶν συμφερόντων εἰς τÙν συνοικισμÙν γράψουσιν. [ἡμῖν ο“ν
συμφερόντως δο]-
[κε]ῖ ἔχειν ἀποδειχθῆναι τοˆς ἄνδρας ἐν ἡμέραις τριάκοντ[α ἀφí ßς ἂν ἡ
ἀπόκρι]-
105 [σ]ις ἀναγνωσθῆι. τοˆς δÓ αἱρεθέντας γράψαι τÏ παραλελε[ιμμένα Õφí
ἡμῶν,]
τῶν δÓ {τῶν δÓ} γραφέντων τοˆς μÓν Õπí ἀμφοτέρων συνομ[ολογηθέντας
κυρίους εἶ]-
[ν]αι, τÏ δÓ ἀντιλεγόμενα ἀναπεμφθῆναι ἐφí ἡμᾶς ἐν ἄλληι διμ[ήνωι, ὅπως
ἀμφοτέρων ἀ]-
κούσαντες ἐπικρίνωμεν καθἂν Õπολαμβάνωμεν ἀμφο[τέροις συμφέρειν.]
Inscribed at Teos. “The text, unless otherwise noted, is that of SIG3. 2/3. ἀπεσταλμέ]νων, Robert;
ἀφικομέ]νων, ed. 19. ΕΙΔΕΙ, stone. 21/22. ¢ πολιτείαν, Robert (Bull. Corr. Hell., LII, 1928, 167 n.3);
156 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
ἀναγεγραμμένοι, Dittenberger. 23. ΕΝΘΙ, stone. 27. Õμῖν, supplied by Feldmann. 29. ἐν, 34. ἅπερ, bracketed
by Dittenberger. ἀδίκαστα, Robert (Bull. Corr. Hell., L, 1926, 472 n.3); παρελκόμενα, Dittenberger. 38. ΘΩΝ,
stone. 71/71. ὅσων, κτλ., Feldmann; [ὅσοι δí ἂν τÏ] οἰκία μὴ μεθαίρωνται, Hiller. Perhaps <κα>θαιρῶνται.
81. οà θέλοντες, W; οÃκ ἐῶντες, ed. 107. διμ[ήνωι], W; διμ[ηνίαι], ed. See Appendix, s. v. 108. καθἂν (=
καθÏ ἄν), W; καθí ἃν, ed.” – Welles, RCHP, 20.
[Βασ]ιλεˆς Ἀντίγονος Τηΐων τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν· ἡμεῖς τÙ
[πρότερον σκοποῦντες]
ὅπου τάχιστí ἂν συντελεσθείη ¡ συνοικισμός, οÃκ ἑωρῶμεν τÏ [ἀναγκαῖα
Õμῖν]
[χ]ρήματα πόθεν πορισθῆι τοῦ ἔχειν Λεβεδίο[ι]ς τÏς τιμÏς τῶν οἰ[κιῶν
τάχιστα ἀποδοῦ]-
ναι, διÏ τÙ τÏ ἐκ τῶν προσόδων γινόμενα κατÏ χρόνους προσπορεύ[εσθαι
Õμῖν μακροτέρους· δεξάμε]-
5 [ν]οι δÓ τούς τε παρí Õμῶν καÚ τοˆς παρÏ τῶν Λεβεδίων διαπυνθανόμ[ενοί
τε αÃτῶν εἴ τινα ἔχουσιν ἡ]-
μῖν πόρον εἰσηγεῖσθαι, ο[à φ]αμένων δÓ ἔχειν ἔξω τῶν περÚ τÏ τέλη,
ἐπισ[κεψάμενοι τÏ δεδογμένα]
αÃτοῖς εÕρίσκομεν ἀεÚ μ[όν]ον [πρ]οεισενεγκεῖν Õμῶν τοˆς εÃπορωτά[τους·
ἡμῖν ο“ν καλῶς δο]-
[κ]εῖ ἔχειν, τοˆς μέν γε εÃποροῦντας εἶναι ἑξακοσίους, προεισενεγκεῖν [δÓ
τούτους - - - ]
κατÏ τÏς οÃσίας, ·στε γενέσθαι τÙ τέταρτον μέρος τῶν τιμῶν τάχιστ[α
τοῖς Λεβεδίοις,]
10 τὴν δÓ κομιδὴν γενέσθαι τοῖς προεμπορίσασιν πρώτοις ἐκ τῶν προσόδω[ν
τῆς πόλεως ἔτους]
[δ]ιεστῶτος πασῶν συντασομένων. τοˆς μÓν ἄξοντας τοˆς τιμήσοντα[ς τÏς
οἰκίας καÚ τοˆς]
[ἐκ]γραψομένους τοˆς νόμους ἐκ Κῶ αἱρεθῆναι εÃθˆς ὅταν ἡ ἀποψήφισι[ς?
γένηται, καÚ ἀπο]-
[στ]αλῆναι ἐν ἡμέραις πέντε ἀφí ßς ἂν αἱρεθῶσι[ν, κ]αÚ τοˆς μÓν ἐπÚ τοˆς
νόμο[υς ἀποσταλέντας κομι]-
[σ]αμένους ἐκ Κῶ ἀνενεγκεῖν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αἷς γεγράφαμεν ἐν τῆι
ἀπο[κρίσει· τοˆς δÓ ἐπÚ τοˆς]
15 [τι]μητÏς ἀποσταλέντας ἄγειν τοˆς τιμητÏς ›ς ἂν ἐνδέχηται τάχιστα.
ο[ἰόμεθα δÓ δεῖν . . . . . ]
ω ἐξαριθμηθῆναι τÏς παρí Õμῖν οἰκίας ἃς δεῖ δοῦνται τοῖς Λεβεδίοις εἰς
π[αροικίαν ἐν ἡμέραις]
δεκαπέντε ἀφí ßς ἂν ἡ ἀπόκρισις ἀναγνωσθῆι, τοˆς δÓ ἐξαριθμήσοντ[ας
τÏς οἰκίας καÚ δώ]-
[σ]οντας τοῖς παροικιζομένοις αἱρεθῆναι ἐν τῆι πρώτηι ἐκκλησίαι παρí
ἑκάς[της φυλῆς.]
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 157
Inscribed at Teos. “5. τε, added by W. 6. ἐπισ[κεψάμενοι, Robert; ἐπισ[κοπούμενοι, ed. 7. καλῶς, W;
ο—τως, Waddington. 8. τούτους οἰόμεθα δεῖν, Feldmann; εÃθˆς ἐκ καταλόγου, Waddington. 10. τῆς πόλεως,
W; τοῖς δÓ λοιποῖς, Koehler.” – Welles, RCHP, 24.
Inscribed at Branchidae (Didyma). “For the history of the text see the notes of Dittenberger. 12. ε–χεσθε. τÏ
ἐπεσταλμένα, W; εἰσδέχε, Haussoullier; ε–χεσθε <κατÏ> τÏ ἐπεσταλμένα, Dittenberger.” – Welles,
RCHP, 35.
D ἡμῖν
τῆι τε θ[ε]ωρ[ίαι]
Õμᾶς ποιουμ[
εÃχαρίστους
5 [θυγ]ατρÙς καÚ Õῶ[ν]
[φιλανθρ]ώπων βασ[ιλ]
αμενα
ἡμ[εῖ]ς
E ΡΚΑ F Ι
ΝΚΑΙΓ ΒΑΤΟΥ
Inscribed at Priene. “Unless otherwise noted, restorations are by Hicks. 2. οἱ παρí Õμῶν, W; cf. OGIS 751, 2;
οἱ πρÙς ἡμᾶς, Hicks; οἱ παρíÕμῶν πεμφθέντες, Ditt., for which there is insufficient room. 3. ἐπÚ τῶι διÏ
παντός, Hiller. 6. φίλους ἡμῶν καί, Hiller. 7. κατÏ τὴν ἡμετέραν, Hiller. 12. οÃθενός, Holleaux; οÃδαμῶς,
Hicks. 13/14. τεμνομένης, Ditt. 14. Μαγνήτων αÃτῶν, Hicks; Μαγνήτων καÚ Πεδιέων, Hiller. 16-20.
Restored by Ditt.” – Welles, RCHP, 42.
Inscribed at Samos. The underlined letters in Welles’ apparatus represent those closest to the forms he
provides, which I could not reproduce in this document. l.32. There are two vertical lines in Welles’ edn. which
were difficult to represent, the left line being about have as long as the right. “Text, unless otherwise noted, is
that of Hiller, based on a squeeze, a photograph, and a revision by M.N. Tod. 5. νέμε[ι] [αθí], W; νέμε[σ]θ[αι
καθí], editors, for which there is no room. 6. Õπελαμβάνομεν [ἐξ], editors; there is hardly room for the ἐξ. 10.
ἀποδίδοτα[ι παρí ἑ-] W; [λέγεται] π[αρí ἔ-], ed; Λ. .ΛΙΛ . Γ . , on the stone. 18. παρειληφέ]ναι, W;
Õποστρέψαι, Hiller; νέμεσθ]αι, Hicks-Dittenberger; ΛΙΑΙ on the stone: i.e., either ΜΑΙ or ΝΑΙ. παε[λῶς,
W; παρά[αν, ed; ΠΑΛΙΙΗ[ , on the stone. 20/21. —στερον δ[Ó | Õποστρέψαντος, W; Õποστ[ρέψαν|τας δÓ
—στερον, Hiller. 21/22. ἀ[ο|σταλῆναι ο“ν παρÏ τῶν], W; α[Ã]τῶν.| [πεμφθῆναι ο“ν παρÏ], ed. 22/23.
Σα[μίοις αÃ|τοκράτορα, τοῦτον, W; Σα[μίοις| πρεσβευτήν· τόν, Hiller. There is room for two letters after
Σαμίοις. 31. Final letter Ο, Θ or Ω. 32. [αμίους, W.” – Welles, RCHP, 47.
Inscribed at Nysa. “1. Restored by Hiller. 2/3. (as far as Τειμόθεον) Wilamowitz. 3-12. I have restored, with
the kind assistance and advice of Professor Wilhelm, one the basis of a line averaging 54 letters. 4. διελέ]γημεν
ñ γεγρά[φαμεν, Wilamowitz. 5-12. Hiller: [ - ὅπως] χρηματίσῃς [ - - βουλόμενοι τοῖς πολίταις μÓν
εÃεργεσίαις - - τοῖς δÓ θεοῖς εÃ]σεβήᾳ συναύξε[ιν τÙ]ν θ[ - - - ] ς παραδόσιμον ε[ - - ] | ων ἀπο[λείπειν
- - πεπ]είσμεθα μÓν καÚ δί[αίας] (sic) πρότερο[ν - - ἀ]ποδείξεις δεδωκέναι τῆς ἰδίας [ - - βουλόμενοι δÓ
καÚ νῦν σύμφωνοι γενέσθαι τοῖς ἐ[πηγγελμένοις Õφí ἡμῶν ἐπιτρέπ]ομεν πᾶσιν μÓν τοῖς ἱεροῖς τοῖς
ἀ[ύλοις - - ].” – Welles, RCHP, 55.
Found at Hisarlik, Troy. “2 and 5. Ἀριστοδικίδει, not -δηι: corrected by Schmidt.” – Welles, RCHP, 61.
Found at Hisarlik, Troy. “8. μερίδι, as Wilhelm suggested; the editors read μεριδίωι. 13. καθí αÕτόν, not
κατí αÃτόν. 15. Πέτρα, not μερίς. 17. The editors read τοδικικίδηι. 20. αÃτόν, not αÃτῶι.” – Welles, RCHP,
62.
Found at Hisarlik, Troy. “2. τήγ, not τήμ (Schliemann). 22. τήγ, not, as the editors, τήν.” – Welles, RCHP,
63.
Found at Hisarlik, Troy. “13. ποήσαιτε, not, as the editors, ποιήσαιτε. 16. θέντες, corrected by Schmidt for
δεντες (Schliemann).” – Welles, RCHP, 69.
Found at Didyma. “8. γέγραφε άρ, proposed by Rehm as an alternative reading, is to be preferred to
γέγραφεν. 4. (sic) τά, not τε, as Rehm.” – Welles, RCHP, 72.
Decree ΙΣ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΩΝ
Of [Β] Α Σ Ι Λ Ε Υ Σ Α Ν
Erythrae ΚΑΙΕΝΔΟ
ΚΑΙΠΟΛ
5 ΠΟΛΕ
Inscribed at Erythrai. “16. δι<ε>τελοῦμεν, A. M. Harmon; the stone reads διατελοῦµεν. 30. [Õμεῖς
ἀξιώσητ]ε W; [αÃτοÚ Õμεῖς αἰτήσησθ]ε, Dittenberger. 31. Restored by W. 34-36. Restored by W. 33/34.
ἀκο[λούθως], Ditt. 36. ἀναγγελοῦσιν Õμῖν, W; ἡμεῖς τε καÚ οἱ Õμέτεροι, Ditt.” – Welles, RCHP, 79.
164 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
Inscribed at Didyma. “36. ἔρρωσο. νθ (sic), restored by W.” – Welles, RCHP, 88.
[ - - - ] ΑⱵ [ - - τÙ ἀντίγραφον τοῦ]
[προστάγματος τοῦ γραφέντος Õφí αÕτ[ῦ - - - ]
[ - - - ] τοῖς δÓ ἄλλοις [ - - - ]
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 165
[ - - - θεῖν]αι τÏς στήλας ἐν τ[αῖς δεδηλωμέ]-
5 ναις πόλεσιν. σˆ [“] ἐπακολουθήσας τῆι παρÏ το[ῦ βα]-
[σιλέω]ς ἐπιστολῆι ἀπέγδοσιν ποίησαι καÚ σύντ[ξον]
[ἀν]ράψαι τήν τε πρᾶσιν καÚ τÙν περιορισμÙν εἰς [στ]-
ήλας λιθίνας δύο, καÚ τούτων θεῖναι τὴμ μÓν μ[ίαν]
ἐν Ἐφέσωι ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος, τὴν δÓ ἑτέραν
10 ἐν Διδύμοις ἐν τῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος, τÙ δÓ ἀνά[λω]-
μα τÙ ἐσόμενον εἰς ταῦτα δοῦναι ἐκ τοῦ βασιλικο[ῦ].
µνα δÓ στηλωθῆι τὴν ταχίστην ἐπιμελές σοι γεν[έ]-
σθω, καÚ ›ς ἂν συντελεσθῆι γράψον καÚ ἡμῖν. ἐπεστά[λ]-
καμεν δÓ καÚ Τιμοξένωι τῶι βυβλιοφύλακι καταχω[ρί]-
15 σαι τὴν ‹νὴν καÚ τÙν περιορισμÙν εἰς τÏς βασιλικÏς γρ-
φÏς τÏς ἐν Σάρδεσιν, καθάπερ ¡ βασιλεˆς γέγραφ[εν. νθ΄]
Δαισίου.
Inscribed at Didyma. “1-5. Restored by W. 5. Λ . . Ι ἐπακ, Wiegand. 6. ποίησαι καὶ συντ[ξαί καί],
Wiegand. 16. νθ΄, supplied by W.” – Welles, RCHP, 101.
Found at Didyma. “9. πατρικῶγ, stone. 15. [τὴμ πόλιν Õμῖν], Holleaux; [καÚ καλλίστοις], Haussoullier.
16. [τÏ Õπάρχοντα Õμῖν], Hol.; [τὰ παρ’ ὑµῶν], Haus. 17. ἐπίδ[οσιν, κτλ.], Hol.; ἐπÚ δ[Ó τούτοις - - - - - - ],
Haus.” – Welles, RCHP, 101.
166 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
*I have inferred this date from the discussion at Welles RC p.112 – “there is no reason why this transaction
should not have occurred at any time in the period 260-245 B. C.” Inscribed at Pergamon. Letter: “5. Restored by
Wilhelm; ἱερῶν καÚ τῶν πολιτικῶν πάντα] μέν, Fränkel; no restoration by Dittenberger. 6. καÚ . . . πάσας
τάς, Wilhelm; δÓ τάς τε, Fränkel; καÚ τάς τε κοινάς, Ditt. 7. τÏς ο–σας, Fränkel; οà μόνον, Ditt.” – Welles,
RCHP, 111.
Found at Pergamon. Welles is generally less willing to accept letters as certain than Fränkel is, but there are
some exceptions in this edition: l.13 νόμενον, Welles; νόμνον, Fränkel. l.16 ἄν, Welles; ἄν, Fränkel.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 167
20 – Letter of Ziaelas, King of Bithynia, to the boule and demos of Kos – c.240
BCE
= Welles RCHP 25
Inscribed at Kos.
Inscribed at Kos. l.5 Welles and Rigsby have [†μῖν], which I have changed to [ἡμῖν]. 1.16 ἡμᾶς, Rigsby;
†μᾶς, Welles. “3. διέ|θηκαν, Robert, doubtfully; ἀνέθηκαν, Herzog.” – Welles, RCHP, 126.
Inscribed at Kos. “Herzog restores: [Õπέμνησαν δÓ καÚ τοῦ ἡμετέρου πατρÙς τοῦ ποιησαμένου πρÙς
Õμᾶς φιλίαν καÚ συμμαχίαν ε]ἰς τÙν ἅ[τα χρόνον, ὃν] καÚ ἔφασαν [βοηθῆσ]” – Welles, RCHP, 128.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 169
Found at (mod.) Milas. “1. Reading based on notes and a photograph sent me (sc. Welles) by L. Robert (cf.
n.1).” – Welles, RCHP, 134. l.2. Welles’ edn. has και, which I have accented.
Found at Mersina. l.1 The dots ‘ . ’ each represent marks appearing to be the bottom halves of letters which
Welles provided and I was unable to reproduce in this document. In Welles’ apparatus, the underlined letters
represent those closest to the forms Welles provides (appearing to be the top halves of these letters) which I
could not reproduce in this document. “12. At end, restored by W; ΚΛ/Α. . . . . . ΙΤΛ/Α ¯ . . . . . ., facsimile.” –
Welles, RCHP, 137.
25 – Antiokhos III to the boule and demos of the Magnetans – c.205 BCE
= Welles RCHP 31. cf. Kern Inschr. Magnesia am Maeander 18; McCabe Magnesia 111
26 – Antiokhos son of Antiokhos III to the boule and demos of the Magnetans –
c.205 BCE
= Welles RCHP 32. cf. Kern Inschr. Magn. am Maeander 19; McCabe Magnesia 112
[Β]ασιλεˆς [Πτολε]μαῖ[ος]
Μαγνήτων [τῆι βουλ]ῆι καÚ
τῶι δήμωι χ[ίρειν· οἱ] παρí Õ-
μῶν ἀποστ[λέντες] ρεσβ[ευ]-
5 ταÚ Διοπείθ[ης . . . . . . . . . . ]
καÚ Ἰθαλίδης [ . . . . . . . ]δήμο[υ]
τÙ ψήφισμά [μοι] ἀπέδωκαν ἐ „ι
[ . . . . . ] τω [ . . . . . . . . . . ]ων π[ . . . ]
[ἀγ]ῶνα τῶ[ν Λευκοφρυηνῶν κ]ατÏ τÙν
10 χρησμÙν τοῦ [θεοῦ ὃν συν]τελε[ῖτε]
τῆι Ἀρτέμιδ[ι τῆι Λευκοφρυ]ην[ῆι καÚ]
περÚ [τοῦ] νομί[ζειν τὴν πόλι]ν κ[αÚ τὴν]
χώραν ἱερÏν κα[Ú ἄσυλον· . . . . . . δÓ]
καÚ ἐγὼ ἀπο[δέξασθαι τÙν ἀγῶν] σ[τε]-
15 φανίτην [ἰσ]οπ[ύθιον ταῖς τιμ]αῖς οἷ-
[ο]ν ἡμῖν ἐπ[ηγγέλκατε αÃ]τόν· [οἱ δÓ παρí]
Õμῶν ἀπο[π]εμ[φθέντες καÚ α]ÃτοÚ δ[ιελέ]-
χθησαν μετÏ πά[σης σπ]ουδῆς [καÚ κατÏ]
τἆλλα ἐν τ[ῶι ψηφίσματι περÚ „ν εἶχον]
20 [τ]Ïς ἐντολÏς. [ἐγὼ μÓν ο“ν τόν τε ἀγῶνα]
[στ]εφανίτην καθά[περ †ξι]ο[ῦτε] ἀπο-
[δέ]δεγμαι καÚ τ[ . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ . . . ]χο[ . . . . ]λο[ . . . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ . c.5 . ] Õμᾶς κ[ . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . ]
l.13. κα[Ú ἄσυλον· ἔγνωκα δÓ], McCabe (apparently following Kern). “7. μοι, added by W. 13. ἔγνωκα δέ,
Kern. 18. κατά, W. 19-21. Restored by W.” – Welles, RCHP, 144.
Inscribed at Magnesia. l.1. êτταλ, McCabe; êτταλος, Welles. ll.18-19. ἐ[ὼ προσέτα]|ξα; ll.21-11
[Περγαμη]|νοῖς, McCabe (presumably following Kern). l.21. α[ί], McCabe; κα[ί], Welles. “13. δέ,
Dittenberger; δí ἐγώ, Kern. 21. [Περγαμη]νοῖς, Kern.” – Welles, RCHP, 145.
Ι Ἀθαμ[άν]ω[ν].
[Β]ασιλεˆ[ς Θ]εόδωρος [κα]Ú Ἀμύνανδ[ρο]ς Τ[η]ΐων τῆι βουλῆι [κ]αÚ
τ[ῶ]ι δήμωι
χαίρειν· Πυθαγό[ρ]ας κ[α]Ú Κλεῖτος οἱ ἀποσταλέντες πα[ρí Õ]μῶν
π[ρ]ε[σ]-
βευταÚ τό τε ψήφισμα ἀπέδωκαν [καÚ αÃ]τ[οÚ δι]ελέγησ[αν πρÙς ἡμᾶς
π]ε[ρÚ]
5 τοῦ συγχωρηθῆναι παρí ἡμῶν τήν τε πόλιν καÚ τὴν χώραν ἱε[ρ]Ïν τῶι
Διονύσει καÚ ἄσυλον καÚ ἀφορολόγητον· „ν [δι]ακούσαντες προθύ-
μως ἅπαντα τÏ ἀξιούμενα Õπακηκόαμεν καÚ σ[υ]γχωροῦμεν εἶναι καÚ τὴν
πόλιν Õμῶν καÚ τὴν χώραν ἱερÏν καÚ ἄσυλον καÚ ἀφορολόγητον· καÚ τοῦτο
πράσσομεν καÚ διÏ τÙ πρÙς ἅπαντας μÓν τοˆς Ἕλληνας οἰκείως
10 ἔχοντες τυγχάνειν, Õπαρχούσης ἡμῖν συγγενείας πρÙς αÃτÙν τÙν
ἀρχηγον τῆς κοινῆς προσηγορίας τῶν Ἑλλήνων, οÃχ •κιστα δÓ καÚ δι-
Ï τÙ πρÙς τὴν πόλιν Õμῶν φιλόστροργον διάληψιν ἔχειν· ἔτι
δÓ καÚ μέλλοντες ἅμα καÚ Õμῖν τοῖς †ξιωκόσιν τὴν χάριν διδόναι
καÚ τὴν παρÏ τοῦ θεοῦ εÃμένειαν ›ς Õπολαμβάνομεν περιποιεῖσθαι
(Probably one or two lines missing)
ΙΙ ]ειν παν[
]ν τῶν πολ[
]ορισμένα τοῖς πα . . [
] ἀκριβεστέραν τὴν [
5 Ι[ [εἰ]ς τÏ μετÏ ταῦτα Õπε-[
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 173
] ΙΛΙ[ . . ] ἔρρωσθε.
Inscribed at Teos.
Found at (mod.) Eriza (Caria) “9. [ἀπα]τᾶσθαι, W; [ἀεÚ ? Õ]πάρξαι, Holleax. 11. [ἡμ]ῶν
[ἀπο]εί[ν]υ[ται, W; [ἡμῶν - - - - ]υ[ ], Holl. 17. [προγόν]ων, W; [τε θε]ῶν, Holl. 20. <τοῦ>
[προσήκο]ντος, Holl.” – Welles, RCHP, 158.
[Βασιλεˆς Ἀντίοχος Ἀμυζονέων τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι δή]μωι χαίρειν· ἡμεῖς
καÚ τοˆς ἄλλους μÓν πάντας
[διατελοῦμεν εÃεργετοῦντες (?) - - - - - - ὅσοι α]Õτοˆς πιστεύσαντες ἡμῖν
ἐνεχείρισαν τὴν πᾶσαν αÃ-
[τῶν πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι (?) - - - - - - πρÙς] τÙ μένοντας ἐπÚ τῶν ἰδίων ἐν τῆι
πάσηι ἐνα{ν}-
[ναστρέφεσθαι (?) - - - - - - - - οÃχ •κιστα] δÓ πρόκειται ἡμῖν καÚ ÕπÓρ Õμῶν
φροντίζειν
5 [συνδιαφυλάσσουσι τÏ φιλάνθρωπα - - - - τÏ Õπάρχο]ντα Õμῖν τά τε ἄλλα ἃ
καÚ ἐν τῆι Πτολεμαίου
[συμμαχίαι Õπῆρχεν καÚ τÏ παρí ἡμῶν (?). καλῶς ο“ν] ποήσετε ƒντες
ε–θυμοι καÚ γινόμενοι πρÙς τῶι
[ἐπιμελεῖσθαι (?) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] τῶν ἰδίων· διαφυλάσσουσι γÏρ Õμῖν
τὴν εἰς τ<οˆ>ς
[θεοˆς εÃσέβειαν καÚ τὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς πίστιν εἰκÙς π]αρí ἐκείνων καÚ παρí
ἡμῶν πάντα συγκατασκευ-
[ασθήσεσθαι τÏ πρÙς - - - - - - - - - - - - κ]αÚ πολυωρίαν ἀνήκο<ν>τα.
γεγράφαμεν δÓ καÚ
10 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ὅπ]ως ἀντιλαμβάνωνταί τε Õμῶν
[ - - - - - - - - - - καÚ μηθενÚ ἐπιτρέπωσιν ἐ]νοχλεῖν Õμᾶς. ἔρρωσθε. θρ΄,
Δα<ι>σίου ιε΄.
Found at Amyzon. Welles includes an edition of this inscription by Wilhelm alongside his own, which I have
not included here.
Found at Amyzon.
“The stone bearing this inscritpion (sic, sc. inscription) was found, early in the nineteenth century, by W.J.
Hamilton near the ruins of Amyzon, and later re-examined by Leake. He reported it as very badly preserved,
with a script of ‘about the time of the first wars of the Romans in Asia.’ The shape of one letter only was
recorded (Introd., III, 1 A)…No transcription of this text has come down to us. Hamilton’s copy was never
published, and Leake has recorded only a few phrases which he was able to recognize. There are five of these,
take it seems at random from different parts of the inscription.” – Welles, RCHP, 171 (preceding RCHP 40).
Ἀμυζονέων χαίρειν
τÙ ἱερÙν ἄσυλον
βασιλέως ε–νοιαν
καÚ μηθενÚ ἐνοχλεῖν Õμᾶς
5 ἔρρωσθε
Found near (mod.) Aydin. “1-3. Restoration substantially as outlined by Haussoullier. 2. ΛΟ, fascimile (sic),
ψήφισμ] ὃ, Holleaux. ΨΠΕ, fascimile (sic); Õπέ[ρ, Sterrett. 9. Restored by Haus. Other restorations by W.” –
Welles, RCHP, 173.
176 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
36 – Antiokhos III (?) to the city of Ilion – early 2nd cen. BCE
= Welles RCHP 42
Found at (mod.) Çiblak (near Troy). “1. [ἑτοίμως ἔχομεν - - - - ] τε, Brückner. 2. ε–νοιαν, W; καταλογήν,
Br. 6. μηθενός, W; cf. SIG 685 (Magnesia, 139 B.C.), 30/31: χάριν τοῦ μηθενÙς Õστερῆσαι δικαίου μηθένα
τῶν κρινομένων. ἐν μηδενί, Br. 7. πᾶσαν, W; µεγίστην, Br. 9. [συγχω]ροῦμεν, W.” – Welles, RCHP, 176.
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἀ]-
δλῶι γενηένον ἐν [ῆι κα]Ú ί[τει καÚ]
τῆς εἰς ἡμᾶς καÚ τÏ άγ[α] ἱέσεως ο-
λÏς καÚ μεγάλας ἀποδε[ίξ]εις επομένον
ἐκτενῶς, καÚ ο–τε τῆς ψυχῆς ο–τε τῶν Õπα-
5 χόντων πεφ̣εισμένο εἰς τÏ ἡμῖν συμφέροντα,
διεξαγηοχότα δÓ καÚ τÏ ἐγκειρισθέντα αÃτῶ
›ς ßν προσῆκον, καÚ κατÏ τÏ λοιπÏ ἀγόμενον ἀ-
ξίως τῶν προϋπηργμένων ἐ αÃτοῦ εἰς τÏ πρά-
γματα, †βουλόμεθα μÓν ἔτι ἐπισυνέχειν συ[μ]-
10 πράσσοντα ἡμῖν· πολλάκι δÓ αÃτοῦ προφερο-
μένου τὴν περÚ τÙ σῶμ γγενημένην ἀσθέ-
νειαν διÏ τÏς συνεχεῖς κακοπαθίας, ἀξιοῦ-
τός τε ἡμᾶς ἐᾶσαι αÃτÙν ἐí ἡσυχίας γενέ-
θαι ὅπως τÙν ἐπίλοιπον χρόνον τοῦ βίου ἀπ-
15 σπάστως ἐν εÃσταθείαι τοῦ σώματος γέ-
[ν]ηται, συμπεριηνέχθημεν θέλοντες καÚ ἐν
[τ]ούτοις φανερÏν ποιεῖν ἣν ἔχομεν πρÙ[ς]
[α]ÃτÙν αµρεσιν. µνα μÓν ο“ν καÚ εἰς τÙ λο[ι]-
[π]Ùν τυγχάνηι πάντων τῶν εἰς τιμὴν κα[Ú]
20 [δ]όξαν ἀνηκόντων ἡμῖν ἔσται ἐπιμελέ[ς],
[ἐ]πειδή, τις ἀρχιερωσύνης τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνο
[κ]αÚ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῶν Δαιττῶν καÚ τῶ
ἄλλων ἱερῶν „ν τÏ τεμένη ἐστÚν ἐπÚ τῆ
Δάφνης προσδεομένης ἀνδρÙς φίλου, δ[υ]-
25 νησομένου δÓ προστῆναι ἀξίως τῆς Õ-
πÓρ τοῦ τόπου σπουδῆς ἣν ἔσχον οµ τε πρό-
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 177
γονοι καÚ ἡμεῖς καÚ τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν πρÙς τÙ θεῖον
εÃσεβείας, ἀποδεείχαμεν αÃτÙν ἀρχ-
ερέα τούτων πεπισμένοι τὴν περÚ τÏ ἱερÏ
30 ἐξαγωγὴν μάλιστí ἂν διÏ τούτου συν-
τελεσθήσεσθαι δεόντως. σύνταξον
ἔν τε τοῖς χρηματισμοῖς καταχωρίζειν
αÃτÙν ἀρχιερέα τῶν δεδηλωμένων ἱερῶ
καÚ προτιμᾶν τÙν ἄνδρα ἀξίως τῆς ἡμε-
35 τέρας κρίσεως, καÚ ἐÏν εἴς τινα παρακαλῆ[ι]
τῶν ἀνηόντων εἰς ταῦτα, συνεπιλα-
βάνεσθαι τούς τε πρÙς τοῖς ἱεροῖς γινομέ-
νους καÚ τοˆς ἄλλους οœς καθήκει π[ι]-
θαρχεῖν αÃτοῦ ñ συστῆσαι παραγγείλαν-
40 τας Õπακούειν περÚ „ν ἂν γράφηι ¢ συντά[σ]-
σηι ñ ἀναγραφῆναι δÓ καÚ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς
τÙ ἀντίγραφον εἰς στήλας καÚ ἀναθεῖν[ι]
ἐν τοῖς ἐπιφανεστάτοις τόποις.
δκρ΄, Δίου ιδ΄.
C γέγ]ραπ[ται
]ΟΙΤΑΠΡ[
][
Inscribed at Priene. “A.1. δημόσιον, κτλ., W. 6. ; the traces can seem reasonably sure. B.1. ἀφí ßς
ἡμέρας, Robert (Bull. Corr. Hell., LIII, 1929, 156 n.2). 6. ι; the ε is represented only by the end of the upper
cross-stroke. For other restorations, see notes of Hiller, ad loc.” – Welles, RCHP, 189.
Found at Soma. “2-4. Restored by Schuchhardt; ἀξίωμα (l.2) added by W. 5. [καÚ ἡμεῖς δεδώκαμ]εν, W; [ -
- - - Õπάρχ]ειν, Sch., but his facsimile gives ]ΕΝ. 6. [·στε μηκέτι τελ]ῖν [τ]ήν, W; [καÚ μηδÓν αÃτοˆς
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 179
ἀποτ]ίν[ε]ιν, Sch. 7. Restored by W. 9. [ἀνατ]θῆναι, Sch. (ΣΘΗΝΑΙ in the facsimile); otherwise restored by
W. 10. [εἰς τÙ ἱερ]όν, W.” – Welles, RCHP, 190.
Following Document
Document? [ - - - - - - - - - - 29 - - - - - - - - ] ¡ ἀρχιερεˆς καÚ οἱ μ[ε]-
*“The letter (47 above – CJH) was followed by ten lines of a document dealing with the same subject. Its
character is obscure. From its position on the stele it would be most naturally a decree of the catoeci praising the
royal family for the grant;…On the other hand, the remains suggest, as Robert has noted, a letter of some sort,
though it is hard to think of the ordinary type of covering letter, which, in any case, regularly precedes its
inclosure when published on stone (cf. 13, 19, 37).” – Welles RC p.191 (my emphasis). I have not reproduced
the apparatus for this document, found at Welles, RCHP, 192.
B [προ]ειρη[ C ειο
[ . . ]ς περÚ αυ[ ντε διατελο
[ . . ]τε τῶν δε[ ειτο σπεύδω
δώσετε τ[ μων συ
5 τοι εἰς φυ[ 5 α
συνχω[
νωντω[
πόλιν [
καÚ εγ[
10 φας τ[
διχ[
180 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
πρ[
D [ - - - - - - - - 27 - - - - - - - - - -] ω Ú . . [ - - - - 12 - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - - - πε]πραμένης χ[ώρας . . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ - - - - - - - - 26 - - - - - - - - - - μ]έρη τῆς δεκ[άτης . . . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - εἰς τὴν διο]ίκησιν τῆ[ς π]όλεως καÚ ̣[ . . . . . ]
5 [ - - - - - - - - 27 - - - - - - - - - - ]υρ̣γ[ . . . . . . ]ι κατÏ πόλιν σ[ . . . . ]
[ - - - - - - - - 35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]το ταῖς ἄλλ[αις - - 7 - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - 27 - - - - - - - - - - - - ἀποδείκν]νται τατ[ - - 10 - - ]
[ - - - - - - 14 - - - - ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐν τῶι ψηφ]ίσματ[ι κατακεχωρισ]-
[μένοις - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
10 [--------------------------------------]
[--------------------------------------]
[ - - - - - - - - 25 - - - - - - - - - - δί]δωμι δÓ [αÚ - - - - 18 - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - 18 - - - - τÏ ἀπí αÃτ]ῆς χρήματ [- - - - 19 - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - 23 - - - - - - μ]έρος δώσετ[ε εἰς . . . . . . ]ιν τῶι ἐ-
15 [ - - - - - - - - 18 - - μηνÚ (?) δ]εκάτωι κατí ἐνια[υτÙν τÙ] ἐπιβάλλον, τÙ δÓ
[ - - - - - - - - 21 - - - - - - ]τω τασσόμενο[ι κατí ἐνια]υτÙν τÙ καθῆκον
[ - - - - - - 20 - - ] . μοι τὴν Βωμῖτιν [ . . . . . . . . . ]σιν Õμῖν κοινοÚ πρÙς
[ - - - - - - 17 - - - - καÚ] ἡ καταμέτρησι [δÓ τῆς] χώρας ὅπως γένη-
[ται τὴν ταχίστην - - γέγραφα] τῶι Πύρρωι π[ερί τε τῶ] μετÏ τῶν παρí Õ-
20 [μῶν πρεσβευτῶν ¡μολογηθέντων τῶν εἰς τ]ὴν παραλ[ψιν συν]εργούντων
›ς συ-
[φέρει τῶι δήμωι καÚ περÚ - - - - - - ]ας[ - - - - κ]αÚ τῆι πόλει τÙ πλη-
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τÏ συ]κεχωρημένα τῆι
[πόλει - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἐ]εύξηται διÏ τὴν ε–-
[νοιαν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ›ς παρε]κάλουσαν ἀναγρα-
25 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - στ]ήλας ἀναθεῖναι
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - κ]Ú ἐν Ἐφέσωι
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἔρρ][σθε].
*Since Welles does not offer a date, this date is my inference from the date given on PHI Online—197-
159BCE—presumably from Fränkel. Like in 46 (below) it seems clear that the inscription was dated by the reign
of Eumenes II, who reigned 197-159BCE. Found at Pergamon. “Restorations by W. D 25-27. [ψαμένους δÓ
τοˆς στρατηγοˆς τÙ δόγμα τόδε εἰς . . . . στ]ή̣λας ἀναθεῖναι [ἐν τῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερῶι καÚ ἐν
Περγάμωι ἐν τῶι τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς κ]αÚ ἐν Ἐφέσωι [ἐν τῶι τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ], Fränkel.” – Welles, RCHP,
195.
Letter [βουλόμενοι δÓ καÚ Õμᾶς μ]ε[έ]ειν τῶν θυσιῶν Ú [τῶν ἀγώνων πεπόμφα]-
[μεν θεωροˆς Μ]έγωνά τε τῶν φίλων Ἐφέσιον, ἐν τιμῆι [τῆι πρώτηι ƒντα, ¡]-
[μοίως δ]Ó αÚ Κάλαν Περγαμηνόν, κρινόμεν καÚ Õφí ἡ[μῶμ μÓν ἄξιον, ›ς δÓ
πολί]-
[την] ετευχότα κατÏ τὴν ἡλικίαν τῶν προσηκόντω[ν, καÚ προκεχειρισμέ]-
5 [νον] ÕπÙ τῆς πόλεως διÏ τÙ καταγγέλειν μεθí ἡμῶν τ[αῦτα. καλῶς ο“ν]
[πο]ιήσετε πρῶτομ μÓν διÏ τὴν θεόν, ἔπειτα δÓ καÚ διí ἡ[μᾶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν τε φι]-
[λοφρόως διακούσαντες καÚ ἀποδεξάμενοι τά τε Ν[ικηφόρια καÚ τὴν
ἀσυλίαν·]
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 181
[τ]ῦτα γÏρ πράξαντες τÏ μÓν ἐκήνης τίμια φανεῖσ[θε συναύξοντες, τÙ δÓ
λοιπÙν]
[ἡμᾶς] › ἐνδέχεται μάλιστα προθύμους ἕξετε κατÏ τ[Ù δυνατÙν εἰς πάν]-
10 α τÏ συμφέροντα τῶι δήμωι. τÏ δÓ πλείονα περÚ τούτων ἀκο[ύσετε παρí
αÃτῶν].
ἔρρωσθε. ἀπέδωκεν Μέγων Ἀνθεστηριῶνος ἕκτηι.
Decree ἘπÚ στεφανηφόρου Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Διογένου, Ἀνθεστηριῶν[ος ἕκτηι
ἱσταμένου·]
[ἔ]ε τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι δήμωι· κτλ.
Inscribed at (a certain polis in?) Caria. Letter: “Losses on the left may be accurately measured. Losses on the
right average 14-17 letters, with the lacuna about 4 letters greater in ll.6/7. 1-5. Restored by W. The first letter in
l.3 must either be Ε or Σ. Lambrino’s restorations: Α. .Ξ Α. .ΩΙΝ; [ ñ ñ ἐπέμψαμεν | ο“ν πρÙς ἡμᾶς Μ]έγωνα;
[τῆι πρώτηι παρí| ἡμῶν ƒντα]; ἡ[μῶν καÚ τῶν τι|μῶν]; [ν οἱ ἀπεδείχθη|σαν]; τ[Ïς θυσίας]. Herzog’s
restorations: [ ñ ñ τὴν ἀνανέω]ιν; [πεπόμφαμεν θεω|ροˆς πρÙς ἡμᾶς Μ]; [τῆι πρώτηι τεταγμένον| παρí
ἡμῖν]; ἡ[μῶν μέν, φιλότιμον δÓ πο|λίτην]; [ν, προκεχειρισμένον δÓ| καί]; τ[Ï Νικηφόρια]. 6. τῶν ἀνδρῶν,
H; τούτων, L.8/9. Restoration by W; μεθí ἡμῶν συναύξοντες, | ἡμᾶς δέ, L; συναύξοντες, ἡμᾶς δÓ τÙ| λοιπόν
(?), H. 9. τ[Ù δυνατόν], L; τ[ὴν δύναμιν], Robert; [άντα καιρόν], H.” – Welles, RCHP, 198.
Found at Kos. Letter: “1-3. Restorations by W. Herzog: [καÚ τ]ˆς ἀγῶν[ς ? ñ ñ ñ | . . . ] ñ ι τοῖς
ἐκτενες[τάτοις ñ ñ τετευχότες ἐπι?|τευ]μάτων μεγάλω[ν τὴν ἀνανέωσιν τῶν θυσιῶν καί?]. 9.
κρινοµένους ἀξίους, ›ς, restored by W; κρινομένους, φιλοτίμους, H.21. ἀκούσετε, W, ἀκούσεσθε, H. Other
restorations by H.” – Welles, RCHP, 203.
Α [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]μενο . ΑΡΑΙ [ . . . . ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ΕΛΕΙΤΕ τά τε καταμε[τ]-
[ρηθέντα - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ν ψιλῆς πλέθρ
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]Ι πρότ[ε][ν . . . ]
5 [--------------------------------------]
[--------------------------------------]
[--------------------------------------]
Β [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]Ι . . . ΙΝΥΠ[ - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - 14 - - - - τοῖς τÙ ἀξίωμα Õμῶ]ν ἀναδεδωκό[ιν - - 10 - -]
10 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - στρατευομ?]ένοις τοˆς κλήρους ψιλῆς πλ[έ]-
[θρα ἑκατÙν εἴκοσι πέντε, ἀμπέλω] δεκα δύο ἡμίπλερον τÏ μÓγ-
[ιστα - - - - - - - - - - - - - - το]ˆς τοιούτους οà βουληθέντας ἐν
[τῆι πόλει τῶν στέγνων? ]εν τοῖς πλείοσι κοινωνεῖν, τῶν δÓ ἄλ-
[λων τοῖς ἐστεγνοποιημέ]οις ἐν τῆι πόλει ψιλῆς πλέθρα ἑκατόν,
15 ἀμπέλων π[λέθρα δέκα, τῶν] Ó μήπω ἐστεγνοποιημένων ἑκά-
στωι ψιλῆς [πλέθρα πεντήκ]ντα, ἀμπέλων πέντε, τελοῦσιν ἐκ
τούτων εἰ[κοστήν, ἐκ δÓ το]ῦ τε σίτου καÚ τῶν λοιπῶν καρπῶν δεκά-
την. τῶ[ν δÓ ἀμπέλων? κα]Ú ῶν ἄλλων ἐγγαίων „ν ἀπέδοτο Δη-
ρ[χ]ς ¡ παρí ἡμῶν, ἐÏν δÓ κ]αί τινες ἄλλοι τῶν τÏ βασιλικÏ πραγματευ-
20 [ομένων ἄλλους ἐγγαίους μετÏ] ταῦτα πωλῶσιν, ἔσονται αµ τε κτήσεις κύ-
[ριαι - - - - - - κατÏ τÏ συγχωρη]έντα ἑκάστοις, εἰς δÓ τÏ τεμένη τÏ εἰς
[τὴν τῶν θεῶν θεραπείαν ἃ προσετ]ετάχειν πρότερον Δημάρχωι παραδει-
[ξαι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] καÚ τὴν ἀτέληαν αÃτῶν ἐπεχώρησα
[Õμῖν . . . . . . . . . . καÚ τῶν ἐγγαίων] „ν ἔδωκα τοῖς νέοις εἰς τÙ ἔλαιον.
25 [συνεχώρησα δÓ Õμῖν καÚ ὅτι αἱ κλ]ρονομίαι τῶν ἀτέκνων φαίνον-
[ται? κύριαι ἀποτελεσάντων ὅσα τελέ]ματα εἰς τÙ βασιλικÙν καθή-
[κει - - - - - - - - 29 - - - - - - - - ] εν τοῖς ἄλλοις καÚ ἐν τού-
[τοις - - - - - - - - 30 - - - - - - - - ] Ãτας Õμῖν καÚ ἀτέλειαν
[ - - - - - - - - 31 - - - - - - - - ] ῶν μισθοφόρων τοῦ ἐν
30 [ . . . . . . . . . φρουρίου - - - - - - - - - - ] ξητε ἐπωνύμους ων
[ - - - - - - - - 35 - - - - - - - - - - ] Ι ἀναγράψαντας εἰς στή-
[λας δύο ἀναστῆσαι τὴν μÓν μίαν ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τῆς Ἀθη]ᾶς, τὴν δÓ ἐγ
Γρυνεί-
[ωι ἐν τῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος. ἔρρωσθε.]
Found at Pergamon. “14-16. Restored by Fränkel. 17. εἰ[κοστήν, ἐκ δÓ το]ῦ, Robert; ἐ[κ μÓν τοῦ οἴνου
το]ῦ Fr. 26. τελέ]ματα, Rostovtzeff; κτ]ήματα or χρ]ήματα, Fr. 30. τά]ξητε, Fr. 32/33. Restored by Fr.
Other restorations by W.” – Welles, RCHP, 206.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 183
Found at Miletos. “1. Ἰώνων τῶι κοινῶι, Wiegand; τῶι κοινῶι των Ἰώνων, Rehm. The extra three letters,
however, would make the line so long that the end should appear on the block to the right, as happens in ll.2, 3,
6, 8, etc. 2. Here and below, the vertical line indicates the division between blocks. 4. I cannot follow Rehm in
considering the first letter of Δήλωι an Λ. 14/15. ἐκτενής ñ προελόμενος, W. 22. [ἔδειξ]εν, Dittenberger;
[ρῆ]εν, Rehm. Traces are, .[.]ΙΙΥΕΝ 29. τάς, omitted by Rehm. 30. The letters ΕΠ, seen by Wiegand, are
now lost. Restorations in this and the following line by Wilhelm. 31. κἀμέ, read by Rehm. 37. πᾶσιν, Rehm;
καί, Ditt. 43. ἅπασιν, Wiegand. I restore πᾶσιν to avoid hiatus. 47. γίνοιτο, so correctly Wiegand; not
γένοιτο, as Rehm. 55. θήσω, from space and trace of Ω, Rehm; τίθημι, Wiegand. 56. ἀνατιθέναι, Rehm;
ἀποδι- [p.212] -δόναι, Ditt., but the upper cross stroke of the Ε is clear. 58. ἀδά[πανον πάν]τως [τὴν] άριν
[ἶν]αι, hesitantly, Rehm; there is a little difficulty with the Ε, but I see no alternative reading. Only the upper
part of the letters is visible. Wilhelm’s suggestion, ἀδά[πανον τὴν ἀνάθε]σ[ιν φ]αίν[εσθ]αι, was made on
insufficient evidence. κοινῶι Wilhelm. 59. The end of the line, ἐν τῶι ἐψη-, was seen by Wiegand. It is now
lost. Other restorations by Wiegand and Ditt., for which see notes to OGIS 763.” – Welles, RCHP, 211–212.
ΙA [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - δυσφημί]-
αι μά[λισ]í ἐκ τόσ[ύτου φθόν|ου καÚ βα]σκανίας,
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 185
ΙB [ - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ς ἔσεσ-
5 [θαι - - - - - - - - | . . . . . . . . . ἀν]έρουσιν αἱ ἀντιλογί-
[αι - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - ] ἰς πολυχρόνια γράμ-
[ - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - διορθ]ῶσαι δÓ μόνον
[ - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - ] ώμηι καÚ δι-
[ - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
IC [ . . . . . . . . ] τις [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
σ[υγ]ε[ω]ρημεν[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
σ[ει]ν. κ[τ]αξιοῦ[ν δí ἐμÓ γράψαι ὅπως ἐÏν - - - - ἐν]
τῆι χώραι πανή[υριν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¢ ἄλ]-
5 λο τι συναλλασ[ητε . . . προεστῶσιν οἱ αἱρεθέντες]
Õφí Õμῶμ πανηγυριάρχαι κατά τε τὴν Õμ|[ῶν αÃτῶν]
τῆς πανηγύρεως ἐπαγγελίαγ καÚ κ|[τÏ τÏ προστάγμα]-
τα τῶμ βασιλέων, ἕτερος δÓ μηδεÚς τ|[αύτης τῆς]
ἀρχῆς ἀντιποῆται. φροντίσαι δÓ ›σαύτ|[ως καÚ περÚ]
10 τῶν ἄλλων τῶγ κατακεχωρισμένων ἐν |[ῶι ψηφίσματι]
›ς καταπλεονεκτουμένων Õμῶν, ταῦ|[α δí ἐν οἷς ἡμάρ]-
τανε ποήσειν ἀκόλουθα τῆι πρÙς τοˆς Τ|[ηΐους προαι]-
ρέσει· οἱ δÓ Τήϊοι διÏ τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἀ|[αδεξάμε]-
νοι τÏ Õπí ἐμοῦ διασαφηθέντí αÃτοῖς ἐν τ|[ῆι πρώ]-
15 τῆι ἐπιστολῆι, διí ßς ἐμφανισάντωμ μο|[ι καÚ τῶν παρí Õ]-
μῶμ πρεσβευτῶν ὅτι κεχειροτόνηντ|[αι - - - - - - ]
D [-----] δανείων
186 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
θαι ÕπÙ ωντων ομ
Σ νόμου 10 τοˆς εγχ
ροσεχρ ως ἐπÚ ΤΩ
5 [τ]ὴμ πανή[γυριν] Ω καθí οœς Ε
¡μολογο μετεχο
Α λοιπÏ Σ
II C [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]νεως αÃῶ[ν]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] ΙΝ Ï ἐπιβαλλό-
[μενα χρήμ][α . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . τ]ῶν ἐγγυητῶν ¢ πρα-
[ξ . . . . . . ]ετω[ . . . . . . . . | πρÙ τ]ῆς πανηγύρεως ἐν ἄλ-
5 [λαις ἡμ]έραις δέ[κα . . . π|ρασς]όντων „ι ἂν τρόπωι
[δύνω]ται, ὅπως μ[ηδεÚς | τῶ]μ παραγινομένωγ ξέ-
[νων] εἰς τὴμ πανή[γυριν | ἐγκα]λέσας τινÚ τῶν τοιού-
ω καÚ μὴ τυχ[ὼν τῶν | δικαίω]ν ἀπαλλάσσηται, μη-
δí ἡ πήγυρις κ[ατÏ τ|οῦτο τÙ μέ]ρος διαβάλληται. ἄρ-
10 χειμ μ[έντο]ι γε [οˆς παν|η]γυριάρχας αÃτῶν τῶν
ιο[υσίων ? - - - - - - - - | . . ἐν τοῖ]ς περικειμένοις λι-
έσ[ιν εἰς οœς οἱ ἀφικνο|ύμενοι ε]ἰς τὴμ πανήγυριν κα-
θορμ[ίζονται . . . . . . ἐν | δÓ τῆι ἐ]τÙς χώραι πολυπρα-
μο[νεῖν ›ς καÚ ἔμπροσ|θεν τοˆς] τῆς πόλεως ἄρχον-
15 τας [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ίνω δÓ καÚ τοˆς στρα-
τη[οˆς . . . . . . τῶν περÚ | τὴν παν]ήγυριν οἰκονομουμένων
ΙΙΙ Α [----------------------------]
κα, ἰένς δí ἀμοε[αις οἰκεῖν μεθí ἑτέ]-
ρωγ γενῶγ καÚ οÃδÓν ßσσον τα [ - - - - - - - - ]
ταις καÚ ἐν ἑτέροις πλείοσιν ἐπί[δοσις ἑτοί]-
μη ἀμφοτέροις ἐστίν, ὅμοια καÚ ταῦτ [φαίνον]-
5 τα τοῖς μὴ ἀπαιδεύτοις. τÙ αÃτÙ δὴ κ[αÚ ἀεÚ]
σχεδÙν ἑώρωγ γεγονÙς κατÏ τὴν ἐ [ἡμῶν αµ]-
ρεσιν, διά τε τοῦτο καÚ συνθήκηγ γρα[φῆναι κέκρι]-
κα παρí ἑ[ατέρων ε]ἰς τÙν συνοικισμÙγ̣ [ - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - ]σταθÓν οἷς ε . [ - - - - - - ]
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 187
*Since Welles does not offer a date, this date is my inference from the date given on PHI Online—197-
159BCE—presumably from Fränkel. Like in 41 (above) it is clear that the inscription was only datable by the
reign of Eumenes II, who reigned 197-159BCE. Inscribed at Pergamon. “Col. I A. 2-7. Restored by Fränkel. 1,
8/9. Restored by W. Col. I B. Restored by Fränkel. Col. I C. 1-7. Restored by W; Fränkel: [τ]ις [ἄλλος], σ . . .
κε[ν εἰ]ρημεν, σ . . ν. κα[τ]αξιοῦ[μεν], [ἐν] τῆι χώραι π[α]νη[γυρ], [ἄλ]λο τι συναλλασ[σ], [ὅπως
καθιστῶνται] Õφí Õμῶν, τὴν Õμ[ετέραν ÕπÓρ] τῆς, κ[ατÏ τÏ δόγμα]τα. 8/9. Restored by Fränkel. 10. τ[ῶι
ψηφίσματι], W; τ[ῆι γραφῆι], Fränkel. 11. ταῦτ[α δí ἐν], Holleaux; ταῦτí[ἐν], Fränkel. 12/13. Restored by
Fränkel. 14/15. Restored by Holleaux; Fränkel: ἐντ[υχόντος] τῆι, μο[ι καÚ τῶν ἐ]μῶμ. Col. II A. 2. Restored
by W. 8. [μεθí] ἡμῶν, W; [παρí] ἡ[μῶν], Fränkel. Col. II B. 1. [παλ]αιῶν [ἀ]ε[Ú?], Fränkel. Col. II C. 1-5.
Restored by W. 6-9. Restored by Wilhelm. 10. μ[έντο]ι γε W; μ[έν - - ], Wilhelm. 11-13. Restored by Wilhelm;
in 13, [ἐν δÓ τῆι ἐ]κτός, added by W. 14. Restored by W. 15. κρίνω, W; the copy of Pittakis gave ΙƆΙΝΩ. 16.
Restored by Wilhelm. Col. III A. Restored by W. 4/5. [συνε]τά, Fränkel. Col. III B. [τοˆς πανηγυριάρχας ἐκ
τῶν Õμετέ]ρων, W; [τῶν ἱε]ρῶν, Fränkel. 1, 5-7. Restored by Fränkel. Other restorations by W. 2. [ταῖς
188 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
ἀρχαῖς τῆς], Fränkel. Col. III C. 4. κιμά(ζ)ω [δí ἐπÚ τῶι λόγωι τῶι ?], Fränkel. Col. IV C. Restored by W;
Wilhelm: ο—τω [γÏρ - - - ἀσφα]λεστέραν Õπολα[μβάνω].” – Welles, RCHP, 225.
The larger half found at (mod.) Kizilça-köy, the smaller at (mod.) Yenice-köy. “6/7. ἐπισκευ[ῆς ἕνεκ]ε,
Holleaux; επισκευ[ ]ε , Jüthner, etc.; ἐπ<έ>σκ<η>[ψαν δ]έ Dittenberger. 8/9. [νῦν ἔ]ετε Holleaux;
[σχή]σετε, Ditt.” – Welles, RCHP, 238.
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - ] μενους συστῆ-
σαι [ . . . . . . . . . . ] διÙ καÚ νῦν τὴν τα-
χίστην π[αραγ]νόμενος ἐπÚ τοˆς τό-
πους καÚ ἐπισκεψάμενος πάντα σα-
5 φῶς διασάφησόμ μοι πόσων ἔτι χρεί-
αν ἕξεις στρατιωτῶν. καÚ τοˆς Πεσ-
σόγγους δÓ ἐÏν δύνῃ πραξικοπῆσιαι,
γράφε μοι τίνων ἐστί χρεία· ἱεροῦ γÏρ τοῦ
χωρίου ƒντος ληπτέον ἐστÚ πάντως.
10 ἔρρωσο. δλ΄, Γορπιαίου ζ΄ ἀπιόν(τος).
*I have inferred this date from its position below the previous document on the monument and Eumenes II’s
death in 159 BCE. Found at (mod.) Sivrihissar.
[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ΙΣΔ [ . . . ]ΩΤΩ[ . . . . ]
δώρωι κ[αÚ τῶι ἀδελ]φῶι ἐληλυθότ[ι] [ροσ]-
φάτως ἐπÚ τ[Ù] [ρα]τόπεδον προσα[α]-
γὼν καÚ τὴν αµρε[σ]ίν σου ἐμφανίσας ἀπέ-
5 λυσí αÃτÙν πρÙς σέ. ἔρρωσο.
*I have inferred this from Welles’ discussion at RCHP, 247–251. Found at (mod.) Sivrihissar.
*I have inferred this from Welles’ discussion at RCHP, 247–251. Found at (mod.) Sivrihissar.
190 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
*I have inferred this from Welles’ discussion at RCHP, 247–251. Found at (mod.) Sivrihissar.
[ ] ΙΝΔΙΟΜΕ [ ]
[ . . . . . . . . ]Ι εÃλαβείαι· τÏ δÓ γράμματα λύσας
[καÚ ση]μην[ά]μ[ε]νος πάλιν ἀπέσταλκά σοι. εἶ-
[πον γ]Ïρ ὅτι, ἐÏν ¡μοίως ἀναπέμψω, οà μὴ
5 [δυν]ηθῇς αÃτÏ λῦσαι. σˆ καÚ π[ρ]οσδέχου δὴ
[αÃτ]Ï καÚ πέμφí οœς βούλῃ καθÏ παρακαλοῦ-
[σιν], ›ς ἡμῶν εἰδότων ὅτι, ἅπερ ἂν πράσσῃς,
[ἐπÚ] τῶι συμφέροντι τῶι ἡμετέρωι ποήσεις.
[δ]ιÙ τÙν ἐνηνοχότα <τά>δε τÏ γράμματα, ἐπεÚ
10 [βο]ύλεταί σοι συμμεῖξαι, μετάπεμψαι πάντως.
[χρ]ήσιμον γάρ ἐστι πρÙς τἆλλα καÚ ἀκοῦσαι
[πα]ρí αÃτοῦ ἅ φησι θέλειν εἰπεῖν σοι καÚ συν-
[πε]μφθῆναί τινα αÃτῶι παρÏ σοῦ εἰς τοˆς ἄ-
[νω] τόπους τÙν τά τε διδόμενα ληψόμενον ñ
15 [ἀμα]θία γÏρ ἀποτρίβεσθαι ñ καÚ τὴ [τῶ]ν ἐκεῖ γνώ-
[μη]ν ἀγγελοῦθíἡμῖν ἐπιμε[λέστερον . . . . . ]
*I have inferred this from Welles’ discussion at RCHP, 247–251. Found at (mod.) Sivrihissar.
*I have inferred this from Welles’ discussion at RCHP, 247–251. Found at (mod.) Sivrihissar.
55 – Attalos II (?) to the boule and demos of Ilion – between 158-138 BCE*
= Welles RCHP 62
*Since there is no date offered in Welles, I have inferred this date from the period of Attalos II’s reign. Found
at (mod.) Bunarbaşi, on the site of Troy.
Found at Priene. “1-6. Restored by W. 1. ουντες ἡῖ[ν], Hicks. 2. πεμφθέντες Ετεο[κ]ΛΙ(?), Hiller. 3.
[βου]όμεθα... εÃ[νοίαι], Hiller. 4. [βου]λόμεθα... [παραίτ]ιο[ι ἀγαθῶν γίνεσθαι, Wilhelm. 5/6.
ἐντυγχάνουσι[ν τῶν Õμετέρων πολιτῶν καÚ? ἀπεστάλ|κα]μεν Ἐτεοκλῆν... κ[αÚ] Ἐπίγ[ονον?
ἐμφανιοῦντας, Wilhelm. 7. [τὴν ἀνδρ]αγαθίαν, Hicks. 7/8. [κατÏ τοˆς δυσ|χερες]τάτους καιρούς, Hiller;
[ἀναγ|καιο]τάτους, Wilhelm. 8. ἀποδ[ε]ί[ξεις καλλίστας], Wilhelm. 10/11. [κα]λ[ῶς ο“ν | ποιήσετ]ε,
Wilhelm. 11. ἀρ[ετ]ήν, Hicks.” – Welles, RCHP, 256.
57 – A Hellenistic King to the boule and demos of Nysa – 2nd cen. BCE
= Welles RCHP 64
A B
[Βασιλεˆς . . . . . . . . . . Νυσαέων τῆι β]|ουλῆι καÚ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν·
[συμμείξαντές μοι ἐν . . . . . . . . . . Ἀρ]|τεμίδωρος Βασιλείδης Μι-
[. . . . οἱ πρεσβευταÚ πεμφθέντες Õφí Õ]|ῶν ἀπέδωκάν μοι τÙ ψήφι[σ]-
[μα παρí Õμῶν καÚ αÃτοÚ διελέχθησαν]| Óν μÏ [φιλοτιμ]ίας
5 [ἀκολούθως τοῖς γεγραμμένοις περÚ]| τῆς ἱκεσίας καÚ ἀσυλίας
[καÚ ἀτελείας, παρακαλοῦντες καÚ ἐμ]|Ó ἴσον τι (?) συ[χωρ]εῖν καθότι
[συνεχωρήθη καÚ πρότερον ÕπÙ τῶν ἔμ|πρ]οσθεν βα[σι]λέων τῷ ἱερῶ[ι]
[τῶι παρí Õμῖν Πλούτωνός τε καÚ Κόρης.]| βουλόμενος [ο“]ν ἐπαύ-
[ξειν τὴν πρÙ] ἡᾶ φι[ίαν καÚ ἐκ] τῶ | ἀποδειχθέντων μοι ÕπÙ
10 τῶν πρεσβευτῶν θεωρῶν ἀπ[Ù παλ]αιῶν | χρόνων Õπάρχουσαν τὴν
ἱκεσίαν καÚ ἀσυλίαν καÚ ἀτέλιαν, συ|νεχώρησα ›ς οἱ περιεστη-
λωμένοι ὅροι ÕπÙ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν βασ|ιλέων συνεχώρησα<ν>, καÚ τÏ
ἄλλα δÓ πάντα φιλάνθρωπα καÚ τείμια| ὅσα οἱ πρÙ ἡμῶν βασιλεῖς συν-
εχώρησαν ἐπιτρέπω καÚ εἰς τÙ λοιπÙν π[ει]|ράσομαι ἀεί τινος ἀγαθοῦ
π[αραί]-
15 [τι]ος γείνε[σθαι ἐπÚ τῶι συμφ]έτι Õμῶ[ν].
Found near Nysa. “1-9. I have restored on the basis of a 29 letter column. Hiller: [Βασιλεˆς Ἀντίοχος
Νυσαέων τῆι β]; [οἱ ἀφικόμενοι παρí Õμῶν πρέσβεις Ἀρ] (Wilamowitz); ψήφι[σμα]; Óν [ατ]Ï τῆς
ἀτελήας; καθότι [καÚ ñ ñ ñ ÕπÙ τῶν ἐμ]; ἐπαύ[ξειν τὴν πρόσο]δόν τε φρ[ουρεῖν ἐκ] τῶν. 3. First letter in Β
is uncertain: read as Ρ (Pringsheim) and as Ν (Kubitschek); on the squeeze Μ* (so also Hiller). 6. Beginning of
Β: [ . . . ]ΟΝΤΙΣΥΝ[χωρεῖ]Ν (Pr.), ΕΙΣΟΠΩΣΥΙ. ΑΡΧΕΙ (Kub.); the squeeze shows nothing, as Hiller
remarked, reading ΕΙΣΟΝΤΙ. 9. Read as ΔΟΝΤΕΦΙΟ (Pr.); the squeeze shows nothing except ΦΙ, which is quite
clear. 12. συνεχώρησα<ν>, Wilamowitz. 15. Restored by Wilhelm. On Β, clear space.” – Welles, RCHP, 261.
* The shape Welles gives, which I cannot reproduce, appears to be the right half of a letter Μ.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 193
Α Β
Possibly . . . . . . . .ΗΛΕΕΥΟΠ . ΙΟΙΖΟΛ[ . . . . . ] . ΙΛΠΟΠΟΠΙΟ
a Letter? . . . . . . . . . . . . ΤΕ . . . Γ . . . . . ΤΟΤ . . . . . . Α καÚ Ἀθυμβριανοῖ . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ι . Ι . . . . . [ . . Ἀντι]όχου δÓ τοῦ μεγάλου
]ου ιζ΄.
Here, the underlined letters were the closest recognisable letter to the shapes given in Welles, which could not
be replicated in this document.
Inscribed at Pergamon. Letter: “17. ο—τω (sic), Dittenberger; ο—τω[ς], Fränkel. 18. ὅλ]οῦ, Ditt; {τ]οῦ}, Fr.” –
Welles RC p.265. The text and restorations for the decree are at Welles, RCHP, 267–268.
59 – Attalos III to the boule and demos of Cyzicus – October 8, 135 BCE
(on the same monument as 50, 60) = Welles RCHP 66. cf. Fränkel I.Pergamon I, 248 ll.26-44
βασιλεˆς êτταλος Κυζικηνῶν τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι δήμωι χαίρε[ιν· Ἀθή]-
ναιος ¡ Σωσάνδρου υἱός, τοῦ γενομένου ἱερέως τοῦ Καθηγεμόνος [ι]-
ονύσου καÚ συντρόφου τοῦ πατρός μου, ὅτι μÓν ἡμῶν ἐστÚ συ-
194 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
Inscribed at Pergamon.
60 – Attalos III to the boule and demos of Pergamon – October 5, 135 BCE
(on the same monument as 58, 59) = Welles RCHP 67, cf. Fränkel I.Pergamon I, 248 ll.45-61
βασιλεˆς êτταλος Περγαμηνῶν τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν· ἐπεÚ
βασ[ί]-
λισσα Στρατονίκη ἡ μήτηρ μου, εÃσεβεστάτη μÓγ γενομένη πασῶμ, φιλ[ο]-
στοργοτάτη δÓ διαφερόντως πρός τε τÙμ πατέρα μου καÚ πρÙς ἐμέ,
πρÙς ἅπαντας μÓν τοˆς θεοˆς εÃσεβῶς προσηνέχθη, μάλιστα δÓ
5 πρÙς τÙν Δία τÙν Σαβάζιον, πατροπαράδοτον αÃτÙγ κομίσασα εἰς
τὴμ πατρίδα ἡμῶν, ὃγ καÚ ἐμ πολλαῖς πράξεσι καÚ ἐμ πολλοῖς κινδύ-
νοις παραστάτηγ καÚ βοηθÙν ἡμῖγ γενόμενον ἐκρίναμεν διÏ τÏς ἐξ αÃτοῦ
γενομένας ἐπιφανείας συγκαθιερῶσαι τῆι Νικηφόρωι Ἀθηνᾶι, νομίσαν-
τες τοῦτον αÃτῶι ἄξιογ καÚ πρέποντα τόπον Õπάρχειν, διεταξάμε-
10 θα δÓ ἀκολούθως τούτοις καÚ περÚ θυσιῶγ καÚ πομπῶγ καÚ μυστηρίων
τῶν ἐπιτελουμένωμ πρÙ πόλεως αÃτῶι ἐν τοῖς καθήκουσι καιροῖς καÚ τόποις,
ἐποήσαμεν δÓ αÃτοῦ καÚ ἱερέα διÏ γένους Ἀθήναιον τÙν ἐμόν, εÃσεβείαι κα[Ú]
καλοκαγαθίαι διαφέροντα καÚ τῆι πρÙς ἡμᾶς διηνεκεῖ πίστει· κρίνομεν διÏ
ταῦ-
τα, ὅπως ἂν εἰς τÙν ἅπαντα χρόνον ἀκίνητα καÚ ἀμετάθετα μένηι τά τε πρÙς
15 τÙν θεÙν τίμια καÚ τÏ πρÙς τÙν Ἀθήναιομ φιλάνθρωπα, τÏ γραφέντα Õφí ἡμῶμ
προστάγματα ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς νόμοις φέρεσθαι παρí Õμῖν.
δ΄, Δίου δ΄. Λύτος ἐκ Περγάμου.
Inscribed at Pergamon.
Found near (mod.) Kösk. The dots in l.1 of Welles’ apparatus represent shapes of letters provided in his text
which could not be reproduced in this document. “1. . . – . . – . . . . . . – , Sterrett. 3. ἐέ[οντο], Robert. 3-5.
ἐλε|[υθέρους ἀφῆκε τοˆς πλ]ησίον Ἱερᾶς Κώμης κατοι|[κοῦντας], Waddington. Other restorations by W.” –
Welles, RCHP, 277.
Inscribed at Baetocaece. I have reproduced the line spacing for lines 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 as they appears in
Welles. “Von Oppenheim’s examination showed that the stone had been much worm since the visit of Rey. 7.
196 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence
εντουργωνα, Lucas; εντουριωνα, Waddington. 9. γεν[ν]ήμασιν, Lucas; γενήμασιν, Wad. 10. μῆνα{ς},
Lucas.” – Welles, RCHP, 281.
Found at (mod.) Kuklia, near Paphus in Cyprus. “Restoration is the work of many hands, chiefly Paton,
Wilcken, Wilhelm, and Dittenberger. See the notes on OGIS 257 I. 8/9. ἐπειληφόσιν, Wilhelm; ἐπείγουσι,
editors, approved most recently by Robert. 18. ἔδοξεν, W; ἐκρίναμεν, editors.” – Welles, RCHP, 289.
Found at (mod.) Kuklia, near Paphus in Cyprus. “1-3. This is the restoration of Paton and Dittenberger. 4-6.
Restored by Dittenberger, from suggestion of Wilcken.” – Welles, RCHP, 290.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 197
Found at (mod.) Akça. “1. [Μιθριδ]άτης, not [Μιθρα]δάτης; cf. [RC]74, 1.” – Welles, RCHP, 295.
Found at (mod.) Akça. “1. Μιθραδάτης, editors. 7. Ῥωμαίων, stone.” – Welles, RCHP, 295.
67 – Artaban III, King of Parthia, to the arkhons Antiokhos and Phraates and the
polis in Susa – December 17, 21 CE
= Welles RCHP 75
Found at Susa. l.11. Welles’ edn. has Ἐστιαῖον, which I have changed to Ἑστιαῖον. “The text is restored by
MM. Cumont and Holleaux. The margin at the right was very uneven. 1. τῶν τε, Cumont. 6. ὑπὸ τῆς πόλεως,
alternative reading of Cumont, who prefers περὶ αὐτοῦ. 9. αὑτόν, W; αὐτόν, Cumont. 11. ἐπανηνέγκατε εἰς ἡµᾶς,
Rostovtzeff; cf. Polyb., 1, 17 1: ἐπανενεχθεισῶν δὲ τῶν συνθηκῶν εἰς τὴν Ῥώµην; ἐπῃτιάσαντο ἀδίκως, Cumont;
Holleaux suggester ἐπῇνεσεν ἡ πόλις. 12. ἐπιφεροµένωι ἄν, Cumont. 13. παρονοµίαν τήν, W; πρόσκλησιν αὐτοῦ,
Cumont, but πρόσκλησις in Koine means “summons,” not “charge;” cf. BGU 1131, 54 (13 B.C.), etc.” – Welles,
RCHP, 300.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic Royal Correspondence 199
Excl.T. 6 – Antiokhos III, concerning privileges at Nysa – early 2nd cen. BCE
= Welles RCHP 43
Reason for exclusion: too fragmentary. Found at Nysa.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
1 – The magistrates and polis of Istron to the Koans – 242BCE
(on the same monument as 2) = SEG 51, 1056, cf. IG xii 4,1 214, A ll.1-13 = Ceccarelli
AGLW ‘Appendix 3’ 1
A Letter [Ἰστρωνίων οἱ κόσμοι καÚ ἁ πόλις Κωΐων τᾶι βωλᾶι καÚ τῶι]
δάμωι χαίρειν· ἀπεστή[λατε παρí ἁμÓ θεωροˆς Χά]-
ριππον, Δίωνα, Πλάτων, [οἳ ἐπήγγειλαν τάν τε θυ]-
σίαν καÚ τÏν πανάγυρ[ιν τÏν γινομέναν τῶι Ἀσ]-
5 κλαπιῶι καÚ παρεκάλο[υν ἁμÓ τÙ ἱερÙν τοῦ Ἀσ]-
κλαπιοῦ τÙ ἐγ Κῶι ἄσυ[λον δέχεσθαι· ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι·]
δεδόχθαι τᾶι πόλει τᾶ[ι Ἰστρωνίων δέχεσθαι καθÏ]
παρακαλοῦντι τάν [ε θυσίαν καÚ τÏν πανάγυ]-
ριν καÚ τÏν ἐκεχειρί[ν, καÚ ἄσυλον ἦμεν τÙ ἱερÙν]
10 τοῦ Ἀσκλαπιοῦ Õπό τ [Ἰστρωνίων καÚ τῶν κατοικόν]-
των ἐν Ἰστρ̣ῶνι· τÙ δÓ ψ[άφισμα τόδε ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῶι]
πρυτανείωι ννν ἐν τῶ[ι ἐπιφανεστάτωι τόπωι· τοῖς δÓ]
θεωροῖς ἐς ἀπαρχÏ [δόμεν στατῆρας δέκα(?) vacat(?)]·
Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Kos (all notes on the places of inscriptions are from Ceccarelli). “A 1.
ἀπεστή[λατε ποθí ἁμÓ? Χά]-, Η. | 2. [θεωροˆς οµτινες τάν τε θυ]-, Η. 3-4. restorations by Η., to which ἁμÓ
was added by edd.pr. | 6. in fine, [δόμεν Κώιοις ἃ], Η. | 7. restored by Κ. | 9. restored by Κ. | 11. τῶ[ι
ἐπιφανεστάτωι - - - ], Η.” – SEG online.
A (front)
Letter 2 Φαιστίων οἱ κόσμοι καÚ [ἁ πόλις Κωΐων τοῖς ἄρχουσι]
15 καÚ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· ἐ[εÚ Κῶιοι ἀποστείλαντες θεω]-
[ροˆ]ς τάν τε ἀσυλ[ίαν τῶ ἱερῶ τῶ Ἀσκλαπιῶ καÚ τÏν θυ]-
[σίαν κα]Ú τÏ λοιπά, „γ | [- - -,ἀξιοῦντι δέχεσθαι - - -]
[. . . . . . .] τ[α]ῦτα δε.[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
B (back) [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ὅπως? τÙ]
[ἱερÙν τῶ Ἀσκλαπιῶ ἄσυλον] Õπάρχη Õπό τε Φαι[τίων]
[καÚ τῶν κατοικόντων ἐμ Φα]ιστῶι· ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι· ἦ[μεν]
[ἄσυλον τÙ ἱερÙν τῶ Ἀσκλαπ]ιῶ τῶ ἐγ Κόοι ÕπÙ τε Φαισ[ί]-
5 Document [ων καÚ τῶν κατοικόντων ἐ]μ Φαιστῶι· τÙ δÓ ψάφισμα
[τόδε ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῶι ἱερώι τῶ Ἀπόλ]λωνος τῶ Πυθίω· κτλ.
Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Kos. “B 2. initio, Η. | 4. initio, Η. (but παροικ-)|” – SEG online.
202 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
1 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]․ιω[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] γγραμ[μ][ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] ἀ[ν]ανέωταί [ε τÏν ἀσυλίαν τῶ ἱρῶ τῶ]
[Ποτειδάωνος καÚ τᾶς Ἀ]φιτρίτας καÚ τÏν [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
5 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] αρ̣ακαλῶντι Την[ι - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - καÚ τÏ λο]ιπÏ παρÏ Λαππαίων [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἐπαινῶντι]
[δÓ καÚ τὼς πρεσβευτ]Ïς καÚ τÙν συνεσδεδα[ηκότα αÃτοῖς - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἐπ]Ú τᾶι ἀναστροφᾶι ἃν ἐπο[ιήσαντο ἀξίως ἀμφοτε]-
[ρᾶν τε τᾶν πολίων καÚ α]Õτῶν· ἐποιησάμεθα δÓ αÃ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
10 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τῶ] θεῶ καÚ τοῖς πρεσβευταῖς [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ].ε καιρÙν καÚ ἐν τῶι κοινῶ[ι τῶν
Κρηταιέων]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]. τῶι θεῶι. εÃτυχεῖτε.
8 – Knossos to Magnesia on the Maeander – end 3rd/2nd cen. BCE or 208 BCE?
= IC 1 viii 10, cf. I.Magnesia 67 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 8
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Xanthos. “(LETTER) 79-80. Cf. app.crit. of Β ad L. 73; Agelaos is on record as
federal strategos in 217/216 B.C., between 217/216 and 206/205 (Syll.³ 554) and now for the third strategia in
206/205 B.C., ed.pr.” – SEG online.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Xanthos. “93. ἁµῶν instead of ἁµῖν, ed.pr.
|…|
96. HKEN, lapis;
εἰσ⟨βε⟩βοαθοήκε⟨ι⟩ν is the correct form, ed.pr.
|
99. ἀξιάζω: new word, ed.pr.
|
105. ΕΘΝΟΝ, lapis
|
110.
space was lacking for τοˆς ἀφí Ἡρακλέους Ἀργεάδας after βασιλεῖς, ed.pr. (cf. LL. 42 and 49).” – SEG
online.
206 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
Συβριτίων.
Συβριτίων ἁ πόλις καÚ οἱ κόσμοι Τηίων τᾶι βωλᾶι καÚ τῶι
δάμωι χαίρειν vac. παραγενόμενος Περδίκκας ¡ παρÏ βασι-
λέως Φιλίππου πρεσβευτÏς τό τε ψήφισμα ἀπέδωκεν
5 ὃ ἔφερον οἱ παρí Õμῶν πρεσβευταÚ ἐπεÚ αÃτοῖς συνε-
[πρέσβευσεν], ἐν „ι ἐγράψατε ἁμῖν περÚ τᾶς οἰκειότα-
τος καÚ τᾶς φιλίας, καÚ ὅτι καλῶς κα ποιήσαιμεν προσ-
δεξάμενοι τάν τε ἀνιέρωσιν τῶι Διονύσωι καÚ τÏν ἀσυ-
λίαν τᾶς τε πόλιος καÚ τᾶς χώρας [Õμῶν - - - - - - - - - - ]
10 [ . . . . . ] πράσσειν· διελέγη δÓ [καÚ Περδίκκας ¡ Õμέτερος]
[πολί]τας ἀκολούθως τοῖς γ[εγραμμένοις μετÏ πάσας]
σπουδᾶς καÚ φιλοτιμίας· πρό[θυμοι ο“ν καÚ ἀπÙ προ]-
γόνων πρÙς πάντα τÏ [θεῖα διακείμενοι - - - - - - - - τÏν]
ἀνιέρωσιν τῶι Διονύσωι κ[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
15 [ . . ] βουλόμενοι Õμῖν π[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[καÚ τ]ἄλλα τίμια [καÚ ἔνδοξα - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
[καÚ τÏ]ν ἀσυλίαν [τᾶς πόλιος καÚ τᾶς χώρας - - - - - - - ]
[ . . . . . ]ιο[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
πάντα. εἰ δέ τινές κα τῶν ¡ρμι<ο>μένων ἐξυβρί{σ}τας ἀδι-
20 κήσωσίν τινα Τηίων ¢ τῶν παροίκων ¢ κοινᾶι ¢ ἰδίαι πα-
ρÏ τÙ γραφÓν δόγμα περÚ τᾶς ἀσυλίας ÕπÙ τᾶς πόλεος
τῶν Συβριτίων, ἐξέστω τῶι παραγενομένωι Τηίων
¢ τῶν παροίκων τῶν ἐν Τέωι ἐπιλαβέσθαι καÚ τῶν σω-
μάτων καÚ χρημάτων, εἴ τίς κα ἄγηι· οἱ δÓ κόσμοι οἱ τόκα
25 ἀεÚ κοσμίοντες ἐπαναγκαζόντων ἀποδιδό-
μεν τοˆς ἔχοντας, ἀζήμιοι ƒντες καÚ ἀνυπόδι-
κοι πάσας ζαμίας. vac. εÃτυχεῖτε.
Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Teos. l.3. Rigsby has no vac. after χαίρειν. l.19. ¡ρμισμένων ἐξυβρίτας,
Rigsby. l.21. Rigsby has πόλεως. l.23. I have followed Rigsby with Τέωι, Guarducci has Τέῳ. l.26. Rigsby has
no vac. before εÃτυχεῖτε. “6 Boeckh from Sherard’s copy (line omitted by Chishull and Hessel): init. Holleaux:
συνέ|[βη ἅμα ἐπιδημεῖν] Waddington; τᾶς τí Boeckh, Τ omitted by Le Bas. 9-10: [καÚ παρακαλεῖτε | περÚ
τούτων] Waddington. 10 end Muttelsee: Õ|μῶν Waddington. 13 [θ. δ. καÚ τÏν], 14 κ[αÚ Περδίκκαι
χαρίζεσθαι], 15 γ[ε τÏ λοιπÏ τÏ Õπάρχοντα καÚ], 16 [κ. ἔ. διαφυλάξομεν ἀπροφασίστως], 17-18 χ. καÚ
τÏν ἀνιέρω|σιν τῶι Δ]ιο[νύσωι δίδομεν νῦν τε καÚ ἀεÚ εἰς τÙν λοιπÙν χρόνον] Waddington. 19: ΟΡΜΙΣ
Sherard, Hessel, Le Bas, ΟΡΜΩ Chishull, ¡ρμι<ο>μένων Boeckh; ΒΡΙΣΤΑΣ Hessel, ΒΡΙΤΙΑΣ Chishull.” –
Rigsby, Asylia, 303.
Πολυρρηνίων.
Πολυρρηνίων οἱ κόσμοι καÚ ἁ πόλις Τηίων τῶι δάμωι
καÚ τᾶι βωλᾶι χαίρειν. κομισάμενοι τÙ ψάφισμα τÙ παρí
Õμῶν ἀνέγνωμεν καÚ τῶν πρεσβευτᾶν Ἀπολλοδό-
5 {δο}τω{ι} καÚ Κωλώτα{ι} διακούσαμεν παρακαλούντων μετÏ
πάνσας σπουδᾶς καÚ φιλοτιμίας ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐν τῶι
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
207
Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Teos. ll.4-5. Ἀπολλοδό|{δο}τω{ι}, Guarducci; Ἀπολλοδό|τω{ι}, Rigsby.
“12: [παροίκοις τ]οῖς Cauer.” – Rigsby, Asylia, 299.
Κυδωνιατᾶν.
Κυδωνιατᾶν ἁ πόλις καÚ οἱ ἄρχοντες Τηίων τᾶι βωλ[ᾶι]
καÚ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν. ἐπειδὴ [Τήι]οι φίλοι καÚ συγγενεῖς
Õπάρχοντες διÏ προγόνων τᾶι πόλει ψάφισμα καÚ πρεσ-
5 βευτÏς ἀπεστάλκαντι Ἀπολλόδοτον καÚ Κωλώταν, οἳ
ἐπελθόντες ἐπÚ τÏν ἐκκλησίαν τό τε ψάφισμ<α> ἀπέδω-
καν καÚ αÃτοÚ διελέγην ἀκολούθως τοῖς γεγραμμένοις
τÏν ἐκτενεστάταν σπουδÏν καÚ φιλοτιμίαν ποιιόμε-
νοι περÚ τῶ γενέσθαι τÏν καθιάρωσιν τῶι Διονύσωι τᾶς
10 τε πόλιος καÚ τᾶς χώρας τᾶς Τηίων καÚ τÏν ἀσυλίαν, ἔτι
δÓ καÚ τἄλλα τÏ Õπάρχοντα αÃτοῖς ἔνδοξα καÚ τίμια εἰς
τÙν θεÙν ψαφιξαμένος καÚ αÃτÙς συναύξεν καÚ αἰεί τι-
νος ἀγαθῶ παραιτίος γενέσθαι τῶι δάμωι καÚ ὅτι ταῦτα
ποιήσαντες ἀκόλουθα πράξομεν τᾶι τε [?συγγενείαι καÚ τᾶι]
15 ποτÚ τÙ θεῖον εÃσεβείαι καÚ τÏ μέγιστα χαρι[ξώμεθα τῶι]
δάμωι· ἀποκρίνασθαι Τηίοις φίλοις καÚ οἰκεί[οις ἐῶσιν δι]-
ότι τÙν Διόνυσον καÚ αÃτοÚ σεβόμεθα καÚ τÙν Τηίω[ν δᾶμον]
συγγενέα ƒντα ἀσπαζόμεθα καÚ ἐπαινῶμεν δ[ι]ό[τι κα]-
λῶς καÚ ἐνδόξως καÚ καταξίως τῶ{ι} θεῶ{ι} προεστάκαντι·
20 ἕνεκα „ν καÚ παρí ἁμῶν τÏ καλÏ καÚ τίμια δίδοται τῶι θεῶι
καÚ Τηίων τάν τε πόλιν καÚ τÏν χώραν ἀνίεμεν ἱερÏν καÚ
ἄσυλον νῦν τε καÚ εἰς τÙν ἄλλον χρόνον πάντα, καÚ πει[ρα]-
σώμεθα αἰεί τινος ἀγαθῶ παραίτιοι γίνεσθαι τῶι δάμωι
καÚ κοινᾶι καÚ ἰδίαι. εἰ κα{ί} τινες ἄγωντι Τηίος ¢ τÙς κατοικόν-
25 τας παρí αÃτοῖς, οἱ κόσμοι καÚ ἄλλος ¡ λῶν Κυδωνια-
τᾶν ¢ Τηίων ἀφελόμενοι καÚ διδόντες τοῖς ἀδικη-
μένοις κύριοι ἔστωσαν. ἔρρωσθε.
Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Teos. l.15. χαρι[ξώμεθα τῶι], Guarducci; χαριξώμεθα τῶι, Rigbsy. ll.15-
16. οἰκεί[οις ἐῶσιν δι]|ότι, G; οἰκείοις ο“σιν δι|ότι, R. l.17. τÙν Τηίω[ν δᾶμον], G; τÙν Τηίων δᾶμον, R. l.24.
κα{ί}, R; καί, G. “2 ΑΡΧΟΝΤΟΣ Le Bas: ΚΟΣΜΟΙ Chishull (but Sherard’s copy ends with ΚΑΙ). 15-17: the
line ends are reported by Kennedy Bailie (16-17: ΟΥΣΙΝ | ΔΙΟΤΙ) but not Le Bas; 16 οἰκε[ίοις Õπάρχουσι]
Blass, οἰκεί[οις ἐῶσιν δι]- Guarducci. 20: ΕΝΕΚΕΝ Kennedy Bailie. 21: ΧΩΡΑΝΑΥΤΩΝΕΜΕΝ Kennedy
Bailie. 24., 25 Cauer: καί and ὅλων Waddignton.” – Rigsby, Asylia, 301.
208 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Teos. 2. ἐπιτ<ρ>άψομεν, Rigsby; ἐπιτ[ρ]άψομεν, Guarducci. l.3. τ, R;
τε, G. l.4. <ν>ῦν, R; [ν]ῦν, G. τό<ν>, R; τó[ν], G. l.5. ῶν, R; τῶν, G. 6. κο[ι]ᾶι, R; κο[ι]νᾶι, G. l.7.
ἐξέ[στω], R; ἐξέ[στω], G. [παραγεν]ομένω, R; [παραγεν]ομένωι, G. l.8. χ[ρημάτων], G; <χ>ρ[ημάτων], R.
l.9. [κοσμίοντες], G; κ[οσμίοντες], R. “2 ΝΙΒΟ, 3 ΤΑΝΤΑ, 5 ΔΩΝ, 7 ΜΕΝΟΔ, 9 fin. ΑΕΝ Naber.” – Rigsby,
Asylia, 306.
Θηβαίων.
Letter [οἱ] Θηβαίων πολέμαρχοι καÚ οἱ σύνεδροι Π[ολυ]-
[ρη]νίων τοῖς κόσμοις κ[α]Ú τῇ πόλει χαίρ[ειν·]
[τοῦ] παρí ἡμῖν ψηφίσματος τοῖς ἀποστα[λεῖ]-
5 Decree [σι π]αρí Õμῶν Õπογεγράφαμεν Õμῖν τÙ <ἀντίγραφον>· ἄ[ρχ]-
[οντο]ς Θεοζότου, μηνÙς Πανάμου, ἔδ[ο]-
[ξεν τ]ῶι συνεδρίωι καÚ τῶι δήμωι· κτλ.
πολίτας ἰὼν ἁμÙς αÃτός τε κα[Ú τ]Ï τέκ[να αÃ]τῶ Ἐρασ[ιφῶ]ν [καÚ]
10 Τιμῶναξ καÚ θυγάτηρ Μελίτα. [καλῶς ο“ν π]οιη<σ>εῖτε φροντίδ-
δοντες ὅπαι εἴ τίς κα ἀδικῇ α[Ãτώς, κω]λύηται Õφí Õμίων [καÚ κοι]-
νᾶι καÚ ἰδίαι, ἁ δÓ κοινοπολι[τείας] ἀϊία Õπάρχῃ ἀν[αγραφά].
Date: Ceccarelli. Probably inscribed at Bargylia. Letter: “1: ἁ πόλις καÚ οἱ ἄρχον]τες Boeckh. 2-3: [ἐπειδὴ
τό τε ψάφισμα ὃ ἀπε]στάλκαμες πÙθ ÕμÓ το[ῦτο φιλο|φρόνως ἐδέξασθε καÚ τÙν παρí ἀ]μέων Boeckh,
πÙθ ÕμÓ τό[ν τε παραγι|νόμενον παρÏ τᾶς πόλιος] Graindor. 4-5: [οœς ἀ|πεστάλκαμεν ποθí Õμέ, δόντ]ς
and πρεσβ[ευσομένοις Boeckh. (ΠΡΕΣΒ|[ Pococke), [ - - - καθÏ ἐδώκαμ]ς and πρεσβε[υομένους Graindor.
8: ΟΤΕΑΠΟ; end Boeckh. 10 Boeckh. 12: [Õπεδέξασθε, ›ς ἀπάγγειλα]ν πÙτ ἀμÓ οἱ [πρ]εσ[βε]υ[ταί
Boeckh. 13: δέδοκται τᾶι πόλ]ι? and ἐπιμέλε[ιαν ποιήσασθαι τοˆς Boeckh. 14: με]τÏ Boeckh. 15 Boeckh.
16: [δόμεν δÓ καÚ αÃτοῖς (κτλ.) Boeckh.” – Rigsby, Asylia, 356. The letter is not a cover letter for the
following decree, see Rigsby, Asylia, 334–5.
Date: Ceccarelli. PHI dates the span of the monument at 195/193 BCE. Inscribed at Magnesia. l.8. Ceccarelli
has ἔ[ρρωσθε], which is nowhere found in McCabe’s edn.
19 – The Strategos of the Aitolians to the boule and demos of Magnesia on the
Maeander – 195/4 BCE or 194/3 BCE
(on the same monument as 18) = McCabe Magnesia 120, cf. IMagnesia. 91d, and IG ix 12
187, ll.13-21 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 19 – (Decree: IG ix 12 187, ll.1-12, cf. McCabe
Magnesia 9, and I.Magnesia 91c)
Date 1: McCabe (PHI). 2: Ceccarelli. PHI dates the span of the monument at 195/193 BCE. Inscribed at
Magnesia. Decree: ll.2-3. ἱππαρχέ|οντο] Νικάνδρου Τριχονίου, Klaffenbach; ἱππαρχέ|οντος], McCabe. l.6
διατελέοντ<ι>, Klaffenbach; διατελέοντι, McCabe. ll.11. [παρÏ] οῦ ἔθνεος, Klaffenbach; [παρÏ] τοῦ
ἔθνεος, McCabe. McCabe does not give the same points of vacat as Klaffenbach. Letter: ll.3-4 κέ[χρηται? |
κα]λῶς? McCabe; κε[χρημένος ἐσ|τÚ κα]λῶς, Klaffenbach. l.4. εÃσχημόνως v καί, Klaffenbach. ll.5-6 [ε“
ἐπε|τέλεσε]ν, McCabe; [μετÏ τῶν] | [ . c.4 . ]ν, Klaffenbach. ll. 6-7. κ[αλῶς ἐπε|μελήθη] McCabe; κ[αλῶς
διώι|κησεν·], Klaffenbach. l.7. Ἀμφιτ[ίονες, Klaffenbach. ll.7-8. ε“ ο“ν ποιήσετε [τ]όν [τí ἔπαινον |
Σωσικλείου]ς, McCabe; ε“ ο“ν ποιήσετε [τ]όν [τε ἄνδρα] | [ . . 7-8 . . ]ς, Klaffenbach. ll.9-10. [ἔρρω|σθε.]
vac., Klaffenbach.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Tenos. “in L. 7 ed. pr. reads ποτÚ ταῖ νάσωι ταῖ Õμαῖ (= Tenos), in L. 8
ἀποδέχομεθα ο“ν, in LL. 9/10 [Õπογεγράφα]μες δÓÕμῖν τÙ ψήφισμα | Β. decree concerning die results of the
embassy of Charops | 14. possibly Φι]λίππου [’ποπ]παίου, Cabanes, BE (1988) no. 795 (the same suggestion
in the article in Nikephoros) | 15. Σιμάκου Κεροπατ[- - (= ethnikon), Cabanes, ibidem.” – SEG online.
[ἀγαθ]ᾶι τύχαι.
5 Letter [Ἀμφισσέ]ων [οἱ ἄρ]χοντες καÚ ἁ πόλις Σκαρφέων τοῖς ἀρχόντ[οις]
[καÚ τᾷ βουλᾷ] καÚ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· τῶν δεδομένων τιμίων ÕπÙ
[τᾶς] πό[λι]ο[ς] ἁμῶν Μηνοφάντωι Ἀρτεμιδώρου Μακεδόνι ’ρκανίῳ
[τÙ ἀ]ντί[γ]ραφον ἐξαπεστάλκαμεν ποτÚ τÏν Õμετέραν πόλιν,
Decree [καθάπερ] καÚ αÃτÙς ¿ Μηνόφαντος ἁμÓ παρεκάλεσε. µηνὸς Ἀµ[ῶ]-
10 [νο]ς [ἕ]κτᾳ ἐπí εἰκάδι. κτλ.
23 –The prytanis and demos of Byllis (Illyria) to Sparta – early 2nd cent.
= IG v i 28 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 23
Βυλιόνων ¡ πρύτ-
[νις κ<αÚ> ¡] ῆμ[ς] Λκεδ[ι]-
μ[ονίω] δήι χίρ̣ειν· [ἀπ]-
[εστάλκ]ε<ν> τιίων τῶ[ν]
5 π[αρí ἡμῶν ἀντίγραφον]
[ - - - - - ]ΛΡΗΣΜΝ [γε]-
γρά[φ]αμε[ν] [πε]ρ[Ú] τ[ó]
[----------]
Ε[ - - - ]Ο[ - - - ]Ε[ - ]Τ[ - ]
10 ΝΟ[ - - - - - - - - - - ]
24 – The kosmoi and polis of Allaria (Crete) to the boule and demos of Paros –
early 2nd cen. BCE
= IC 2 i 2 B = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 24
A. [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]αε[ - - - - - - ]
Parian [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ανα[ - - - - - ]
Decree [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] Ó καÚ τÏ γρά[μματα]
[τÏ τῶν παραγενομένων] ἀεÚ ἐξ Ἀλλαρίας [τοˆς ἄρ]-
5 [χοντ]α [ἐν τῶι δ]ημοσίωι μετÏ τοῦ γραμματ[έως.]
[ἐξ]αποστεῖλαι δÓ τοˆς ἄρχοντας τοˆς περÚ ê[γα]-
ιν τοῦδε τοῦ ψηφίσματος τÙ ἀντίγραφον σφραγι-
σαμένους τεῖ δημοσίαι σφραγῖδι ὅπως παρακο-
λουθῶσιν Ἀλλαριῶται τÏ ἐψηφισμένα περÚ τούτων.
10 vacat
B. Letter Ἀλλαριωτᾶν οἱ κόσμοι καÚ ἁ πόλις Παρίων τᾶι βουλᾶι
καÚ τῶι δάμωι χαίρεμ. παραγενομένων τῶν πρεσβευ-
τᾶν ποτí ἀμέ, Φάνιός τε καÚ Δόρκω, οœς ἀπεστείλατε
πρεσβεύσοντας περÚ τ‹σύλω ποθí ἁμέ, καÚ ἀνανε-
5 ωσαμένων αÃτῶν ἐν τᾶι πρεσβείαι κατÏ τÙ ψάφισμα
τÙ παρí Õμῶν τάν τε φιλίαν καÚ τÏν ε–νοιαν τÏν Õ-
πάρχουσαν ταῖς πόλεσι ποτí ἀλλάλας διαφυλάτ-
τεν, ἐπÚ κόσμων τῶν περÚ Φιλόνβροτον τÙν ΕÃθυ-
μάχω, ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι δεδόχθαι Ἀλλαριωτᾶν
10 τοῖς κόσμοις καÚ τᾶι πόλει· ἐπαινέσαι μÓν τÙν
δᾶμον τῶν Παρίων διότι διαφυλάττει τÏν φιλίαν
καÚ τÏν ε–νοιαν πρÙς τÏν πόλιν τÏν ἁμάν, κατÏ
ταÃτÏ δÓ Õπάρχειν καÚ Παρίοις τÏν φιλίαν καÚ τÏν ε–-
νοιαν παρÏ Ἀλλαριωτᾶν, ὅπως φαινώμεθα τÏ ὅμοι-
15 α τοῖς προαιρουμένοις ἁμÓ<ς> συντελόντε<ς>. εἶμεν δÓ
Ἀλλαριώταις καÚ Παρίοις ἰσοπολιτείαν, μετέχω-
σιν τῶι τε Ἀλλαριώται ἐμ Πάρωι καÚ θείνων καÚ ἀν-
θρωπίνων, ›σαύτως δÓ καÚ τῷ Παρίωι ἐν Ἀλλα-
ρίαι μετέχωσι καÚ θείνων καÚ ἀνθρωπίνων. ἐÏν <δÓ>
20 συνδοκεῖ ταῦτα τῶι δάμωι τῶι Παρίων, ἀναγρα-
ψάντων αἱ πόλεις ἀμφότεραι ἐς στάλαν λιθίναν
καÚ ἀνθέντων Πάριοι μÓν ἐς τÙ ἱερÙν τᾶς Δάματρος,
Ἀλλαριῶται δÓ ἐς τÙ ἱερÙν τῶ{ι} Ἀπόλλωνος. ταῦ-
τα δÓ εἶναι ἐφí Õγιείαι καÚ σωτηρίαι τᾶν πόλεων
25 ἀμφοτερᾶν. ἐÏν δέ τι φαίνηται Õμε<ῖ>ν προσθεῖναι
¢ ἀφέλαι, εÃχαριστῶμες. vacat ἔρρωσθε.
*I have inferred this date from 160-159BCE on PHI Online and “182-181 (IG ix) or 160-159 (Corrigenda) or
179-146 BC. (Wilhelm)” in Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Hypata.
Ἀπτεραίων.
Ἀπτεραίων οἱ κόσμοι καÚ ἁ πόλις Τη-
ίων τᾶι βωλᾶι καÚ τῶι δάμωι χαίρειν.
παραγενόμενοι οἱ παρí Õμέων πρεγγευ-
5 ταÚ Ἡρόδοτος Μηνοδότω, Μενεκλῆς
Διονυσίω τό τε ψάφισμα ἀπέδω-
καν ἐν „ι ἐγράψατε ψάφισμα ἀνανεώσασθαι
τάν τε συγγένειαν καÚ τÏν προϋ-
πάρχωσαν φιλίαν τά τε δεδομένα
10 τίμια ÕπÙ τᾶς ἁμᾶς πόλεως ἐν τοῖς
πρότερον χρόνοις καÚ τÏν καθιέρωσιν
τᾶς πόλιος καÚ τᾶς χώρας τῶι Διονύ-
σωι, παρεκαλεῖτε δÓ καÚ ἀναγράψαι
τÙ πρότερον δόγμα ἐν ¡ποίῳ κα κρί-
15 νωμεν ἱερῶι· διελέγη<σ>αν <δÓ> καÚ οἱ παρí Õ-
μῶν πρεγγευταÚ ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐν
τῶι ψαφίσματι, ἀποφαίνοντες τάν
τε πόλιν εÃσεβῶς διακειμέναν
πρÙς πάντας τÙς θεός, μάλιστα δÓ
20 πρÙς τÙν Διόνυσον ƒντ<α> ἀρχαγέταν
τᾶς πόλεως, „ι καÚ καθιερῶσθαι συν-
βέβακε τάν τε πόλιν καÚ τÏν χώραν,
Õπέρ τε τῶν λοιπῶν πᾶσαν σπου-
δÏν καÚ φιλοτιμίαν ποτάγοντες δι-
25 ελέγην· διÙ καÚ δεδόχθαι ἀποκρίνασθαι
τῶι δάμωι τῶι Ἀπτεραίων Τηίοις
ο“σιν συγγενέσι καÚ φίλοις διό-
τι ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον χρόνοις τυγ-
χάνομεν εÃσεβῶς διακείμενοι πο-
30 τÚ πάντας τÙς θεός θí ἡμῶν [μάλιστα δÓ]
καÚ τÙν Διόνυσον διí ὃν καÚ πρότερον τάν
τε ἀσυλίαν Õμῖν ἐδώκαμεν καÚ καθι-
ερώσαμεν τÏν χώραν καÚ τÏν πόλιν,
τετηρηκότες δÓ τÏ προδεδομένα Õ-
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
215
Ἀγαθᾶι τύχαι·
Letter Λακεδαιμονίων γραμματοφύλ<α>ξ Πόλλις Ἐπστράτου
¡ ἐπÚ Ὀβρίμου Ἀμφισσέων ἄρχουσι καÚ τᾶι πόλι χαίρειν·
τῶν ƒντων παρ᾽ ἁμÓ γραμμάτων ἐν τῶι δαμοσίωι Õπο-
5 Doc. γέγραφα Õμῖν τÙ ἀντίγραφον· κτλ.
Date: SEG, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Amphissa. “2. ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΦΥΛΟΞ, lapis; this is the earliest attestation
of this office and of the archive (L. 4: τÙ δαμόσιον), ed.pr.” – SEG online.
29 – The arkhons and polis of Eretria to the boule and demos of Kos – mid-2nd
cen. BCE
= SEG 49, 1116, cf. IG xii 4, 1 169 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 29
Date: SEG (c.150 BCE), Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Kos. “The restorations of He. were corrected from the
squeeze in Berlin and the parallels provided by SEG 41 330, ed.pr. |…| 3. [Λαρισαίω]ν, He.; |…| 5. [παρí ἡ]ῖν,
He. | 9. ΔΙΚΛΣ, on the stone | 11-12. Κλεο[νίκου], He.” – SEG online.
Date: Ceccarelli. c.175-160 B.C. (post 167 B.C.?) SEG. Inscribed at Kerkyra. This text is accompanied by the
letter of the Roman Publius Cornelius Blasio with appended senatus consultum. The text of SEG 47, 604 on SEG
Online exhibits an important error: what appears on SEG Online to be lines 12-15 are actually lines 5-8, which
have somehow been moved from between original lines 4 and 9 to between original lines 14 and 15. Sherk has
the correct reading which I have reproduced as ORRLIG 9. The numbers in square brackets indicate the number
of dashes in the edn. “B 1. restored by Ho. |
2. o[ἱ ἄρχοντες - - - τοῖς ἂρχουσι], Ho.; ο[ἱ ἄρχοντες - - -
Ἀμβρακιωτᾶν τοῖς ἄρχουσι], ed.pr. [in fine, e.g. [Ἀμβρακιωτᾶν τοῖς ἄρχουσι καÚ τῶι δήμωι], Chaniotis] | 3.
Ἀνδ[. . .]ος, possibly Ἀνδ[ρίσκ]ος, ed.pr.; ΑΝΔ[. . .]Α, R. |…| 5. in fine, [καί], Chaniotis] | 6. in fine,
ἀκολούθως τοῖς Õφí Õμ[ῶν ἐντελλομένοις or γεγραμμένοις], ed.pr. | 7-8. Öκαθώ[ς], R. | 13. restored by Ho.
(but Κ[ερκύραι])”. – SEG online.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. The texts of the Unpublished Dossier from Argos are as they appear in
Rhodes, P.J., with Lewis, D.M., Decrees of the Greek States, (Oxford, 1997). In order to compile an immense set
of data, the texts in DGS are abbreviated (I provide the abbreviations below). Unfortunately, in the case of this
Argos Dossier, these letters are still unpublished and no other transcription is available, even to the author. I
218 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
would like to thank Emeritus Professor Peter J. Rhodes for being so kind as to discuss these texts with me and
for his efforts to locate them in publication. Ceccarelli in AGLW (2013) still referred to them as ‘unpublished’.
Even in abbreviated form, we can still ascertain address formulae, so these letters are still useful to this study.
Abbreviations and other relevant information from the DGS Catalogue ‘Introduction’: “An oblique stroke (/)
is used as a punctuation mark to separate items within a document; occasionally double oblique strokes (//) are
used to indicate a major break.” – Rhodes with Lewis DGS p.65. Δ = ¡ δεῖνα (article given when needed to
make case clear): person’s name. M = indication of month. ΔΔ = unspecified number of names. “…dotted letters
are normally not indicated; uncertainties are discussed where necessary.” – Rhodes with Lewis, DGS, 66.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. For Abbreviations of this and other DGS texts, see notes to IOLPHK 32.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Argos. For Abbreviations of this and other DGS texts, see notes to IOLPHK 32.
35 – The arkhons and polis of Delphi to the Athenians – post mid 2nd cen. BCE
= Fouilles de Delphes III 2: 94 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 36
[οἱ ἄ]ρχοντες Δελφῶν καÚ ἁ πόλις Ἀθη[να]ίων τᾶι βο[υλᾶι καÚ τῶι] δάμωι
χαίρειν.
[Δε]ινοκράτης, Διοκλῆς, Πραξικλῆς, οἱ παρí Õμ[ῶ]ν παραγενόμενοι ποθí ἁμÓ
πρεσβευταί, τÙ
τε ψάφισμα ἀπέδωκαν ἁμῖν, καÚ, ἐπελθόντες ἐπÚ τÏν ἐκκλησίαν,
διελέγησαν ἀκο-
λούθως τοῖς ἐν αÃτῶι κατακεχωρισμέν[ο]ις, ¡μοίως δέ, καÚ ἐν τÏ πράγματα
ἐμβάν-
5 τες ἐφí ἃ παραγεγόνεισαν, τÏν πᾶσαν ἐπι[μ]έλειαν καÚ ποτικαρτέρησιν καÚ
παράκλη-
σιν ἐποιήσαντο ἕνεκεν τοῦ λύσιν λαβεῖν αÃτά, σπουδᾶς καÚ φιλοτιμίας οÃθÓν
ἐνλείποντες· ἐπαινεῖμεν ο“ν ÕμÓ ἐπÚ τῶ[ι] πρότερόν τε πολλÏς καÚ μεγάλας
ἀπο-
δείξεις πεποιῆσθαι τᾶς τε ποτÚ τÙν θεÙν [ε]Ãσεβείας καÚ τᾶς π[ο]τÚ τÏν πόλ[ι]ν
ἁμῶν
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
219
εÃνοίας, καÚ νῦν διότι, ἀκούσαντες τÙν πε[ρ]ιεστακότα ἁμῖν καιρόν, ψάφισμά
τε καÚ
10 πρεσβευτÏς ἀπεστείλατε ἄνδρας καλοˆς κ[αÚ] ἀγαθούς, οµτινες τάν τε
ἀναστροφÏν καÚ
τÏν παρεπιδαμίαν ἐποιήσαντο ἀξίως μÓ[ν Õμῶ]ν τῶν ἐξαποστειλάντων αÃτούς,
ἀξίως
δÓ καÚ τᾶς ἁμετέρας πόλιος· δεδόχθαι ο[“ν τᾶι π]όλει στεφανῶσαι τÙν δᾶμον
τῶν Ἀθη-
ναίων τῶι τοῦ θεοῦ στεφάνωι, „ι πάτρι[όν ἐστι] Δελφοῖς, δεδόσθαι δÓ καÚ τοῖς
πρεσ-
βευταῖς παρÏ τᾶς πόλιος προξενί[αν, προμαντ]είαν, προδικίαν, ἀσυλίαν,
ἀτέλειαν,
15 προεδρίαν ἐμ πᾶσι τοῖς ἀγώνοις ο[ἷς ἁ πόλις τί]θητι, καÚ τÏ ἄλλα τίμια ὅσα
καÚ τοῖς
ἄλλοις προξένοις καÚ εÃεργέται[ς τᾶς πόλιος] Õπάρχει· ἐκαλέσαμεν δÓ τοˆς
πρεσ-
βευτÏς καÚ ἐπÚ ξένια ἐν τÙ πρυτα[νεῖον ἐπÚ τÏν] κοινÏν τᾶς πόλιος ἑστίαν.
Decree Ö [ . . . . . . ] τε ἡ
ἐπιστολ[ὴ καÚ ἀνεγράφη, γε]-
115 [νομένης] Õπí οÃδενÙς ἀντιλογίας, ἐκρίναμεν δÓ καÚ αÃτῆς ἀ[ντίγραφον]
καταχωρίσαι [τÙ Õπογεγραμμένον]·
Letter [Γ]τυνίων οἱ κόρμοι καÚ ἁ πόλις Ἰτανίων τοῖς κόρμοις καÚ [τ]ᾶι πόλ[ι]
χαίρεν· πεπεισμ[ένοι Õπí ἀνδρός τινος]
[ὃς δεδ]ήλωκεν ὅτι οἱ Πραίσιοι οἰκονομόνται περÚ τᾶς Λεύκας ›ς
[ἐπιστ]ρατίας γενομ[ένας, κρατῆσαι αÃ]-
[τᾶς, τάδε] ἐκρίναμεν Õμῖν ἐπιμελίως ἀποστεῖλαι· ÕμÓν ἂ καλῶς ποή[σαιτε
τ . ]ς ἐν τῷ χωρίῳ [ - - - - ]
[. .]επ[. .]σην θέμ<ε>νοι παρορῶντέ<ς τε> εἰ χρείαν ἔχετε ἐν τÙ χωρίο[ν]
ἐ[πιταδείω]ν· γεγράφ[αμεν ο“ν Õμῖν, οÃκ ƒν]-
120 των τούτων φίλων τῷ τε βασιλεῖ καÚ αÃτοῖς Õμῖν, [δι]Ï [πα]ντÙς
ἐ[πιμε]λούμενοι κ[α]Ú βω[λόμενοι ἀεÚ - - ]
[.]ε[.]αι τῷ τε βασιλεῖ καÚ τοῖς τῶ βασιλέως φίλοις.
Date 1: PHI. 2: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Magnesia and Itanos. I have not included ll.1-106 to conserve space.
220 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
Date 1: PHI. 2: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Magnesia and Itanos. The numbers in square brackets are mine, and
indicate the number of dashes or dots in the published edition.
Preceding θ[ε]οί.
Decree ἐκ τοῦ μητρώιου· vvv ἐπÚ Ἱέ[ρ]ωνος ἄρχον-
τος ἐν Δελφοῖς· πυλαίας ἐαρινᾶς· κτλ.
Ö
Letter τÙ κοινÙν τῶν Ἀμφικτιό[νων Ἀθηναίων τεῖ]
βουλεῖ καÚ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν· πρεσβ[σάντων πρÙς ἡ]-
μᾶς παρÏ τῶν τεχνιτῶν τῶν μετεχ[όντων τῆς παρí Õ]-
μῖν συ⟦ο⟧νόδου Διονυσίου τοῦ Νύμφι[δος τραγικοῦ Õ]-
45 ποδιδασκάλου, Θυμοτέλου τοῦ Φιλο[κλέους τραγικοῦ]
ποιητοῦ, Ἐλπινίκου τοῦ Ἐπικράτου τραγ[ικοῦ Õποδιδασ]-
κάλου, Φιλίωνος τοῦ Φιλομήλου τραγικοῦ [Õποδιδασκάλου,]
222 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Delphi. “4. Ἀεὶ προελόµενοι τὴν ἐς ὑµᾶς prop. Cr.” – SEG online.
[Φε]νεατᾶν. vacat
[¡ δεῖνα γρα]μματεˆς συνέ-
[δρων . . . . . . . . ]ς ¡ τÙ π̣έμπτον καÚ εἰ-
[κοστÙν ἔτος Λ]κεδαιμονίων ἐφόροις
5 [καÚ τᾶι πόλει χα]ίρειν· τῶν ƒντων παρí ἐ-
[μοÚ κειμένων ἐν] τῶι ἀρχείωι ἐν βυβλίωι
[ψηφισμάτων γ]έγραφα Õμῖν τÙ ἀντί-
[γραφον· ἐπεÚ . . . .] κράτης Στεφά[νου]
[ - - - - - - - - - ε“ ποι]ῶν διατε[λεῖ - - - - ]
10 [-------------------------------]
77 [τÙ κοινÙν τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων Ἀθηναίων τῆι βουλῆι καÚ τῶι] δήμωι χαίρειν·
Μενε . . .
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ς Περγασῆθεν, Χαρι . . . .
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - θε]ν, Πολύστρατος Θορί[κιος]
80 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ος Φλυεˆς v οἱ παρí Õμ[ῶν]
[παραγενόμενοι πρεσβευταÚ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ψήφ]ισμα ἐν „ι διεσαφή[σατε]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ς ἐπÚ τÏς μετεχού[σ]α[ς . . . ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - κα]ταλύσει μÓν τοῦ κοινοῦ . . .
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - τῶν ἡ]ουμένων Ῥωμαίων βουλ . . .
85 [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ἀμ]φικτύοσιν κατÏ πόλιν ἀνα . . .
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ώμεθα προσελθόντες δÓ κ[αÚ . ]
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] ἐν τῶι ψηφίσματι κατακεχωρι[σμ]-
[έν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ἐ]ξ Ἰσθμοῦ καÚ Νεμέας τεχνίτας . .
[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]ν δοξάντων, ἃς καÚ παρανέγ[νωσ]-
90 [αν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - συγ]κλήτου δόγματα καÚ τÏς Ῥω[μα]-
[ίων - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - κε]χρηματισμένα τῆι πρÙ ταύτη[ς]
[γεγονείαι μεθοπωρινῆι πυλαίαι? - - - - - - - - - - ] παραγε[ν]ομ[έν]ων δÓ
πρεσβευ[τ]-
[ῶν - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]να [κατηγο]ριῶν, ¡μοίω[ς]
δÓ καÚ [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] τεχνιτῶ[ν]
95 καÚ ἐξαπ[σταλ- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - κατη]γορία[ς ποιεῖσθ]αι ἑ-
τέρους πρέσβε[ις - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] δόντες μη[θÓν Õπεναν]-
τίον τοῖς τε νόμοις κ[αÚ τῶι κοινῶι τῶν Ἀμφικ]τυόνων· v ἐκρίναμε[ν τÏ
κεχρημα]-
τισμένα ἐν τῆι μεθοπ[ωρινῆι πυλαίαι ἐπ]Ú ἄρχοντος ἐν Δελφοῖς Ε[Ãκλείδου]
κύρια εἶναι καÚ βέβαια εἰς [τÙν ἅπαντα χρόν]ον καÚ μηθÓν Õπεναντίον α[Ãτοῖς]
100 ἐπιχρηματίζειν v δίκαιον ἡ[γεῖσθαι, καÚ] διαφυλάσσειν τÏς δεδομένας Õφí [ἡ]-
μῶν τῶι δήμωι τιμάς, ¡μοίως δÓ κα[Ú τοῖς] παρí Õμῖν τεχνίταις τÏ
Õπάρχοντα [φι]-
λάνθρωπα περί τε τῆς ἀσυλίας καÚ ἀ[σφαλ]είας v καÚ χρυσοφορίας ἔτι δÓ καÚ
τῆς συ[νερ]-
γασίας, v θεωροῦντες καÚ τοˆς κοινοˆ[ς ε]Ãεργέτας Ῥωμαίους v ἐπÚ τῆς αÃτῆς
γεγο-
νότας γνώμης.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Athens. l.100 of the edn. of IG ii2 1134 on PHI Online has η[γεῖσθαι], which I
have changed to ἡ[γεῖσθαι]. This text is preceded by an earlier decree of the Athenians, ll.1-76. It is followed
by two crowns in which is the following text: (col.I l.105) τÙ κοινÙν τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων | in corona τÙν δῆμον |
τÙν Ἀθηναίων | (col.II l.105) τÙ κοινÙν τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων | in corona τÙ κοινÙν τῶν | τεχνιτῶν | τῶν | ἐν
Ἀ[θήναις].
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Athens. “Fragment of a white marble stele found in the Agora Excavations (I
7156). Ed. pr. S.V. Tracy, HESPERIA 45 (1976) 287-288, no. 3 (ph.). B.D. Meritt, HESPERIA 46 (1977) 255,
shows that there is no vacat in L. 3 after ἱσταμένου, as printed in Tracy’s text. | Apparatus Criticus 1. [έκ τοΰ
Μητρωίου] Tracy,- cf. IG, II², 1132 LL. 1, 40.” – SEG online.
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Karystos. This letter is preceded by a letter believed to be from a Roman
magistrate (in the Roman corpus as ORRLIG 21). “Athenis in museo. Fragmentum tabulae marmoreae superne, a
dextra et sinistra fractae inventum Carysti iuxta domum Georgii Deligeorgis ad litus maris, A. 0,52, l. 0,26, cr.
0,12. Litt. a. 0,08, saec. II a. Chr. Ed. Lolling Ath. Mitt. IV 1879, 226 VII. Exscripsi. Ect. |…| Litteras
magistratus Romani ad Carystios sive ad Euboeensium foedus datas esse Wilamowitz perspexit. Idem supplevit
vs. 7.10—13. 18. 20.—8. 15. 17. 19. 23. 29 suppl. Hiller. Cum litteris mittebantur ὙΠΟΜΝΗΜΑ de rebus
quibusdam, quod Carystii iubentur in tabulario publico deponere vs. 15 (cf. Dittenberger OGIS 45350 ἔστιν δÓ
ἀντίγραφα τῶν γεγονότων Õμεῖν φιλανθρώπων τÏ Õπογεγραμμένα· ἃ Õμᾶς βούλομαι ἐν τοῖς δημοσίος
τοῖς παρí Õμεῖν γράμμασιν ἐντάξαι ; Joseph. Ant. XIV 319).” – Ziebarth, IG xii 9, 5, page 2.
45 – The ephors and polis of Sparta to the tagoi and demos of Larissa – 2nd cen.
BCE
= IG ix 2, 518 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 49
[ - - - - - - - - εÃεργε]ία. vac.
[ - - - - ων οἱ σ]ραταγοÚ καÚ ἁ πόλις Λακεδαι-
[μονίων ἐφόροις κ]αÚ τᾶι πόλει χαίρειν· πόθοδον
[ποιησαμένων π]οτί τε τÏν βουλ[Ïν καÚ τÏ]ν ἐκκλη-
5 [σίαν ἁμῶν - το]ῦ Λέοντος, Αἰσχρίωνος [οῦ] Αἴσχρω-
[νος τῶν Õμετέρων] πολιτᾶν, καÚ ἐνφανιζόων πε-
[ρÚ - - τοῦ - - - ]άχου καÚ Ἱπποθραέος τοῦ Ἱ-
[έος - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
Date 1: PHI. 2: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Delphi. The spacing of the words without dashes is the same as on
PHI online.
[Καρυστίων ἀμφιλλεγόντων πάλιν πο]τÚ τÏν πόλιν τῶ[ν Χ]αλκιδέων π[ε]ρÚ τᾶς
κρίσιος τᾶ[ς γενομ]ένα[ς]
[ἀκολούθως τοῖς γεγραμμένοις] ÕπÙ τῶν ἱερομ[ναμ]ό[νω]ν τῶν συνελθόντων
εἰ[ς τÏν πυλα]ία[ν τÏν]
[ - - - - ἐπÚ - - - - ἄρχοντος ἐ]ν Δελφοῖς, πότ[ερον] κέκριται κατÏ [τÙ
βέ]λτιστ[ον ¢ δεῖ ἄκυ]-
15 [ρον τὴν κρίσιν γίγνεσθαι ἐν ἀν]δρά[σ]ιν τριάκοντα ἑνÚ [κ]ληρωθ[εῖσιν] . ΞΑΓ
[Õπ]Ù [τ]οῦ δάμου καÚ ὅτι λέγ[ουσ]ι γενέσθαι κρίσιν τÏν [π]αρÏ
[τ]Ï [δόγ]-
[ματα] . . . . . . ἐν [Δ]ελφοῖς, τοῦ Ἡ[ρ]αίου μηνός, καθὼς [Δ]ελφοÚ ἄγοντ[ι] . . . . .
[ἐν ’]πάτα Φίλ[ιππ]ον τÙν ἀστ[ρ]ολόγον ὃν ΕΛΕΚΕΤΕΟΥΠΑ . . . . . .
. . . α τ[ο]ύτων καÚ κεχειροτο[νημ]ένους α[Ãτο]Ú . . . ΛΡΙ
20 . . . [ἀ]πÙ δέκα δ[ύ]ο . . . . . . . . . . . ΕΝ.ΟΛΙΟΝΤ . . . ΚΝ
. . . . ΤΙΣΦΑΓ
[γέ]γραπτα[ι τ]ῶι ΧΑó
. . . . ΕΩΣΣ
. . ΑΙ.ΥΣΑΣΙ
25 . . . ΟΡ
. ΝΠΑΣΙΑΣΑΝ
. . ΡΟΝΙΚΟΥΓΡΟΦΕΥ
. . ΚΑΛΛΙΦΑΝΤΟΥ
. . . ΥΜΛ. .Σ
Decree [κριτÏς ἀκηκόατε ὅτι ἐγέ]νοντο σύμφωνοι πρÙς ἀλλήλους, καÚ νενικηκότα[ς]
[τοˆς Θρονιέας κ]αÚ ε[ἰλ]ηφότας ψήφους πεντήκοντα ἐννέα, τοˆς δÓ Σκ[αρ]-
[φέας εἰληφότ]ας ψήφους [δ]ύο. [γ]εγράφαμεν ο“ν Õμῖν, µνα εἰδῆτε· Õπογ[έ]-
[γραπται δÓ] Õμῖν καÚ τÙ ἀντίγραφον τῆς ἀντιγραφῆς τῆς ἀποδοθείση[ς]
5 [ἡμῖν ÕπÙ τῶ]ν ἐξαποσταλέντων πρεσβευτῶν παρÏ τῆς πόλεως τῆς Θρο-
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
227
Λαμψακηνῶν
Letter Λαμψακηνῶν στρατηγοÚ Θασῖων ἄρχουσι
χαίρειν· εἰ ἔρωσθε (sic), τÙ δέον ἂν εἴη, καÚ ἡμεῖς
δÓ Õγιαίνομεν. Τῶν γεγονότων
5 φιλανθρώπων παρí ἡμῖν τῶι πολίτῃ Õμῶν
Διονυσοδώρωι Πεμπίδου
ἐξαπεστάλκαμεν τÏ ἀντίγραφα
Õποτάξαντες ÕπÙ τὴν ἐπιστολήν.
Decree 1 Πρυτανεύοντος Πριάπου Ἐπιφανοῦς,
10 ψηφίσματα ἐκ βουλῆς· κτλ.
Ö
Decree 2 ›ς ἂν τῶι δήμωι δόξηι. Πρυτανευούσης
Ἀφροδίτης Ἐπιφανοῦς, ψηφίσματα
ἐκ βουλῆς· Ἀπατουριῶνος· ἔδοξεν
30 τῶι δήμωι· κτλ.
Date: Frisch. Inscribed at Thasos. Letter: “2 ἄρχουσι Tréheux (am Foto bestätigt (‘confirmed in the photo’));
ἄρχουσιν Dunant-Pouilloux. … 8 επιστοαην de Stein (‘ΕΠΙΣΤΟΑΗΝ on the stone’).” – Frisch, Die Inschriften
von Lampsakos, 51–52, my translations.
228 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
52 – Letter (?) of the Rhodians to the Thasians – first third of the 1st cen. BCE
= Dunant-Pouilloux Thasos II 172 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 58
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Thasos. Dunant-Pouilloux have reproduced the shapes of letter fragments in
their apparatus, which I have represented with dots since I could not reproduce them in this document. “N. C. La
première et la dernière ligne ne conservent plus que quelques traces de lettres peu distinctes et incertaines
(‘Apparatus Criticus (Critical Notes). The first and last lines do not have more than some traces of letters which
are indistinct and uncertain’ – CJH); l.1 : [ca 10 l.] . . . . . [ca 11 l.] . . [ca 6 l.]; l.30 : [ca 8 l.] Υ·Ι . . ΟΣ · . · . ΔΟΝ
. ΑΓ [ca 10 l.]; l.8 : ΤΑΣΤΑΣΑΣΕΩΣ; L.12 : ΕΚΤΕΝΕΣΤΑΝ.” – C. Dunant and J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur
l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos, II (Paris, 1958), 27, my translation.
Letter Δελφῶν οἱ ἄρχοντες καÚ ἁ πόλις τοῖς περÚ τÙν Διόν[υσον τεχνίταις
χ]αίρει[ν· τᾶς δοθείσας Õφí ἁμῶν]
ἀποκρίσιος Õπογεγράφαμες Õμῖν τÙ ἀντίγραφον, ὅ[πως εἰδῆτε. - - - - ]
ἔ[ρρωσθε].
Decree ἐπειδὴ οἱ περÚ τÙν Διόνυτον τεχνῖται οἱ ἐν Ἀθήναις καÚ ¡ ἐπι[μελητÏ]ς αÃτῶν
Ἀλέξαν[δρος Ἀ]ρίστωνος, κτλ.
Θεο[ί]
Ἀγαθῆι Τύχηι. ἘπÚ Θεοπείθου ἄ[ρχοντος, τοῦ δÓ γέ]-
νους τοῦ Γεφυραίων Φιλων[ίδου ἄρχοντος Παι]-
[α]νιέως v Σκιροφοριῶνος v [- - - - - - - - - - -]
5 Letter [Ἐπιστολὴ παρÏ τοῦ γένους πρÙς Δελφούς]
[Γεφυραίων τÙ γένος Δελφῶν τῆι πόλει χαίρειν. v Φι]-
[λίας ἀπ]τά[λκαμεν παλαιᾶς εἰς ἀνανέωσιν Θεόφιλον]
Διοδώρου çλαιέα [καÚ Παμμένην Ζήνωνος Μαραθώνιον]
καλλιερήσοντας [καÚ ἐπερωτήσοντας τÙ μαντεῖον]
10 καθώς ἐστιν τῶι γέ[νει πάτριον ÕπÓρ τοῦ Βουζύγου]
καÚ ἱερέως ΔιÙς ἐμ Πα[λλαδίωι Διοτίμου τοῦ Διοδώρου]
çλαιέως v Õμεῖς ο“ν καλῶς [ποιήσετε ἀποδεξάμενοι αÃ]-
τοˆς καÚ εἰσαγαγόντες εἰς τ[Ù χρηστήριον καÚ τοῦ δο]-
θέντος χρησμοῦ διαπεμψ[άμε]νοι τῶι γέ[νει ἀντίγραφον]
Date: Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Athens. The text above is that of SEG Online. Aside from their respective
restorations, the major divergences between what this edn. and Kirckner in IG ii2 give as present on the stone are
as follows. ll.15-16. ἐπιστολὴ παρÏ Δελφῶ[ν πρ]Ùς τÙ γένος· [οἱ αἱρεθέντε]|ς ἔγχρονοι ἄρχοντες καÚ
οἱ [ἱερεῖ]ς τῶι γένει τῶι ó ó ó ó . ll.17-18. γινώσκετε τοˆς [ó ó ó ἀφ]εσταλμ̣ένους Õφí Õ[μῶν
κα]|τÏ μαντείαν, Kirchner. l.19. [Δ]Ù SEG; [ΔιÙς] τοῦ, Kirchner. l.21. [ἀπ][δωκότας ἁμ]ῖν, SEG; . . . .
]ωλε . . . . c.12 . . . . ιν, Kirchner. l.25. [ἅ]γιον, SEG; μαντ]εῖον, Kirchner. l.26. [πο]θí, Kirchner.
59 – The doriarkheon of the koinon of the Dorians to the arkhons and polis of
Delphi – 30-25BCE
(on the same monument as 57, 58, Excl.T. 8, Excl.T. 9) = SIG3 770B, cf. Fouilles de Delphes
III 1:490 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 67
Date: Ceccarelli. ‘undated’ PHI. Inscribed at Delphi. Ceccarelli has accidentally listed IG v i 1566 as a
concordance, which is correct for FD III 1:487b. l.1. ἐπί, Bourguet; --ΣΛ, Dittenberger. l.2. δωρι[αρχέων],
Ditt.; Δωρια[ρχέων], Bourguet. l.3. Δ[ελφῶν], Ditt.; Δ[ε]λ[φ]ῶ[ν], Bourguet. l.4. χαίρειν, Ditt.; χαίρει,
Bourguet (PHI Online). l.5. τῶν δ[εδομένων τιμῶν], Ditt.; τῶν δεδομένων [τιμίων], Bourguet. Διο[δώρωι
Δωροθέου], Ditt.; Διοδώρωι Δωρο[θέου], Bourguet. l.6. ἀπεστάλκαμ[ν Õμῖν τÙ ψάφισμα], Ditt.;
ἀπεστάλκαμ[ε] Õμῖν ἀ[ντίγραφον], Bourguet. l.7. δωριαρχέο[τος Χαριγένεος?], Ditt.; Δωριαρχέοντος
Χ[αριγένεος], Bourguet. l.8. γραμματεύοντο[ς τᾶς βουλᾶς], Ditt.; γραμματεύοντος δÓ [τᾶς βουλᾶς],
Bourguet. l.10. δεδό[σθαι], Ditt.; δεδόσ[θαι], Bourguet. l.11. Δω[ροθέου], Bourguet; Δω[οθέου], Ditt. l.16.
Τιμο - - , - - , Bourguet (PHI Online); Τιμο[κλέος, Ξενύτας?], Ditt.
232 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
Auxialiary Letter
The letter of Stephanos of Laodikea
This letter was listed by Ceccarelli in the section of Roman Republican letters in her
‘Appendix 3.’ Stephanos is clearly not a Roman; but he does not appear to be a monarch of
any significance, nor does he disclose his status as the representative of any polis. Of this
Stephanos, Reyolds writes “[he] appears as a man of local consequence, to whom the
Plarasans and Aphrodisians sent an embassy,…He was based in Laodicea (clearly on the
Lycus) and presumably had an authority beyond Laodicean territory…he had the power to
arrest (l.7) which probably implies a formal appointment of some kind and the backing of
some military force; but he gives no title” (Reynolds AR pp.99-100). He is the same
Stephanos to whom Octavian gives an order in ORRLIG 47 (= Reynolds AR 10). While I
could not justify including this text as a Roman letter, and likewise could not include it as a
letter of a Hellenistic polis, koinon, or kingdom, there is no reason for it not to be included as
an auxiliary text.
*I have inferred this date from the date given for Reynolds AR 10, since there is no explicit mention of a date.
Inscribed at Aphrodisias (Reynolds). ^Ceccarelli lists this text in the Roman section of her ‘Appendix 3’ despite
the text not being Roman. “Inscribed in the lowest course of column 3 of the archive wall (inscribed area : 1·75
× 0·27). | Letters, second-third cent. A.D.: av. 0·018; ligatured ΝΜ, ΜΕ in l.2, ΜΗΝ, ΤΗ in l.4, ΗΝ in l.6, ΜΕ in
l.8, ΗΝ, ΝΗΝ, ΜΕ in l.10; apices in ll.2, 5; the first Ω in l.2 cut over Ο; star-shaped stop in l.8. |…| l.6. ΠΑΝΤΑ
lapis.” – Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome, 99.
Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina
233
Excl.T. 1 – Letter (?) of the Pharians to the Parians (?) – (No date given)
= SEG 23, 489 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 31
Reason for exclusion: too fragmentary. Inscribed at Pharos.
Excl.T. 2 – The strategos (?) and grammateus (?) of the synhedrion of the
Magnetans to Kleitor – 168-146BCE (sent) c.130 BCE (inscribed)
(on the same monument as Excl.T. 3) = IG v 2, 367, ll.1-6 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 40
Reason for exclusion: too fragmentary. Date 1: PHI 2: Ceccarelli (‘prob. c.130 BCE’).
Inscribed at Kleitor.
Excl.T. 6 – An unknown polis to the Delphians (?) – end 2nd cen. BCE
= Fouilles de Delphes III 4: 33, cf. SEG 3, 381 = Ceccarelli AGLW ‘App.3’ 55
Reason for exclusion: too fragmentary. Date: PHI, Ceccarelli. Inscribed at Delphi.
234 Inscribed Official Letters of Hellenistic poleis and koina