The Romans as Common BenefactorsAuthor(s): Andrew Erskine Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 43, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1994), pp. 70-87 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436315 Accessed: 04-06-2015 10:38 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 155.207.69.171 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6. Mytilene: Robert (supra n. 2. 57-61. Ferrary. If. Historia. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (Oxford 1968) 316f no.3. Petzl.69. 1. SicGym31 (1978) 479-96. in inscrip0ot KOLV EvepyYE-TaL makesas manyas sixteenappearances 'PWaCoLI Theearliestevidenceis in a decreeof the tionsfromthesecondandfirstcenturies.27.9. 467f. Band XLIIIUl(1994) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. "Was there a Roman charter for the Jews?".de la seconde guerre de Macedoinea' la guerrecontreMithridate(= BEFAR 271 [Rome 19881 124-32.45f (FdD lII.6.2 responseto Rome at this time. 9. 12. Chalcis: IG XII. with the restoration of H. 7. Delphi (Amphictyon): SJG3630. 6).We mightexpectit to in whichthemainsubjectis theRomans. Volkmann. 8.20f.4. communs caine".899. adopting L.-L. supra 157f (cf Bull.171 on Thu. The noveltyof the phraseis betweenkingsandGreekcities or civic institutions. "Griechische Rhetorik odcr romnischePolitik? Bemerkungen zum romischen 'Imperialismus' ". 11. Rajak. Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 447f. AM 72 (1957) no. 11.124). 10.4). "Sur la formule "Pw[iatot republide l'epoque grecques les inscriptions dans tous') de bienfaiteurs Romains.3. Sitz Stuttgart This content downloaded from 155. Magnesia-on-the-Maeander (from Crete): SIG3 685. 257. 1198). epigr. 4. ASAtene 39-40 [1961-62] 237f). abbreviated here as RKE 1. 16. Delphi: SIG3702. Eresos. Dionysiac artists of the Isthmus (from Delphi): SIG3 705B. 13. Athens (from Delphi): SIG3 704F. Ephesus: SIG3 742. Lemnos: IG 112 1224.KoLv6s-EUEp'ytThs.. J. Malay and G. Dionysiac artists of Ionia (from lasos): A. notjusta substituteforthefamiliarhellenistickings. Pickard-Cambridge. 3.16ff (FdD 111.3 The most important discussion is L. 65. Robert's restoration. Wehrli.2. Lycia: Malay and Petzl. Gruen. Myrina.'PwIIatoL describethe new power.13f. Samos: Habicht. 1) 52f.6 (FdD I11. Cf also Jos. The following are the known examples (excluding the overconfident restoration of Corinth 8.'The hellenistickings had frequentlybeen treatedas buttheepithet. is virtuallyunknownin the relations benefactors. 1. Gordos. mademoreinterestingby the contextin whichit is found. SEG XXXIV. Robert.21ff (I.THE ROMANSAS COMMONBENEFACTORS domiIn the secondcenturyB.a newphrasebeganappearing ot KOLVOEOEpysTaL was a strikingway to the easternMediterranean. 15.butinsteadit is used occurin inscriptions where the Romansare not the focus of attentionand on occasionthey seem An examination of thephraseandits use helpsto illuminatetheGreek irrelevant.261). 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .Mylasa 111 (BCH 12 [18881 18ff no. but see also H. Hermes 82 (1954) 465O olKvol euepytTat Trdvrwv' ('les 76. Lesbos: IG XII Supp. JRS 74 (1984) 107-23. 2.Cr. esp. Oliverio. restored by Robert (supra n. Clearlythe Greeksfelt thatthe Romanswere somethingnew.70a or RDGE 15). II1. 3 etc. Cyrene: SGDl 4854 (G. 5. Mylasa: I. 2 3 E. 14. EpigAnat 3 (1984) 163.247.9). AJ 14. The Hellenistic Worldand the Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) I 196f. esp.207. 1) 58 n.3. "Th6ophane de Mytilene A Constantinople". 384. on Josephus' use of these documents and their authenticity see T. 692. CRAI (1969) 42-64.2f (LIEphesos8). Delphi (Amphictyon): SIG3 704H.as theRomanswerebecomingincreasingly in inscriptions throughout nantin the Greekworld. [1984] no. C.Philhellenismeet imperialisme:aspects ide6logiquesde la conquite romainedu monde hellenistique.C. Thusthe Romansarethecommonbenefactors. (the Byzantinesas KOLVOL TLVES d1 EuEpYtTTaLTrrdvwv ForsimilarusesOf KOLV6-.7 TheRhodianearthquake of 227/26provokeda flurryof competitive benefactionsfromthekings.11.wouldbe anoversimplification.Mithridates in Sicily all contributed (Polyb.AntigonusHIDoson.It couldbe saidthatkingssuchas thePtolemiesandthe Seleucidshadlongbeenconsideredto be benefactors andweretermedaccordingly. underestimating theGreekresponseto Rome. 4 A computersearchof literarytexts in TLGreveals no instancesof 'FPkaLot o t KoLVot Eu)EpytTaL butKOLV6SEVepytTSTby itselfdoes sometimesappearin non-epigraphic materi- 5 6 7 al: apartfromthe Egyptianpapyricitedin n. HellenisticPrecedents Theuse of 'P4LGtOL ol icoKvoL E1EpytTaLmightbe seenas simplythecontinuationof hellenisticpractice.25-30 (OGIS223.4 Sometimesit occurswith additionssuch as iTdvmrv.WellesRC 14. Prdaux.18 [Staatsvertr.2f(Miletus). 1310b34ff.4.5.88ff). 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .22.10 in controllingPontictrade).207. Miletus). This content downloaded from 155.The Romansas CommonBenefactors 71 AmphictyonicCouncilfromDelphi.KoineEirene(Hull 1965)xi-xvii. W. OGIS270. Subsequently but it is confinedto inscriptions.13-16 (OGIS282. Schubart. C.Iasos4. notesthatit is themarkof a kingto treateveryonewell andto be lovedfor bestowingbenefactions(EOEpyEara) andfor humanity(OtXavA similarthemeis pursuedin a decreefromIasosin whichone reason OpwrrLa). Gauthier. 22 thereareno examplesbeforePolyb.PtolemyImEuergetes.CyreneandAsia Minor.38.however.Numerousinscriptions a benefactor. 47611)andKOW1 Elplvrrin T.Polybius the admirable ruleof PhilipIIof Macedonwiththetyranni(5. givenforhonouringAntiochusIll is thatheconsiderskingshipto beconcernedwith revealthekingin hisroleas benefactions(L. "DashellenistischeKdnigsidealnachInschriftenundPapyri".69.5 I.honouringEumenesH of Pergamumin 182. Antecedentsof this epithetareto be foundassociatedwith hellenistickings. to theGreekconceptionof a kingis hisroleasa benefactor.cf 1286bl0f).171 on Thu.ArchPF12 (1937) 14f.6 Fundamental Aristotle couldwritethatall thosewho benefitor who werecapableof benefitingcities or nationsacquirethe honourof kingship(Pol. cf KOLVl XEUpLa (SJG3434/5.notthebenefactors state.Seleucus Hof PontosandevenHieroandGelo IICallinicus.&cridv-rwv orT(tV ' EXivwv. On hellenistickings as benefactorssee P. Erythrae). T.Le mondehellenistique(Paris1978)1 202-07.41-48).Les cites grecqueset leurs bienfaiteurs (Paris1985) 39-53. the phraseis foundas farafieldas Athens. Ryder. thecomplexityof This. thebenefactors of alltheGreeksorevenof all of anyoneparticular people. Magnesia).34.SIG3 350 (Byzantium).ISE86 (Aetolia).1If (OGIS227.allof whichservetoemphasiseKOLVOL. 15.13f (Aptera).Prusiasof Bithynia.6)in contrasting cal behaviourof PhilipV. on Ev.25-30.8Polybius reports that Antigonus Doson.RhodianFuneraryMonuments(Oxford1977)63ff.'2 As such EvEpy&nr in this context differs from its adoptionas an epiklesis or surnamewhich was permanentlyattachedto a king and which was used withinthe dynasticcults of the kings. undgriechischeStddte2 (Munich1970) 156-9. Mantinea:IG V.10 At other times inscriptionsin honour of a king might not directly call him benefactor. An the Spartansto be their benefactorand saviour. benefactor gods. 13 OGIS75-78. Thus the Samothraciansin the 280s inaugurateda cult of Lysimachus.EVcEpYET7V was honouredas a Antigonus that shows also Mantinea inscription from nearby to the king in such saviour and benefactor.but the king himself also feels a dutyto fulfil this rBle(cf Welles RC 15. on dynasticcultin Egyptsee P. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .MemphisunderthePtolemies(Princeton1988) 125-38.Ep-y TTs as an honorifictitle. 10 Plut. EumenesIIin OGIS301-02 (Thrace).P.25.36.9The applicationof the termEbEpyETnl&s inscriptions may be the result of popularacclamationsof the king as EbEp-yErs!. "I EiEp'yE1ffigwas also used as an epithet within a local rulercult.Gottmenschentum on tombstonesfor (supran.g. 9 Sparta:Polyb.69.299. cf.almosta "cognomen". was declaredby baVrTV Kai UwT'pa.5-9.One example has AntiochusIII as a saviour and benefactor. which may sometimes be relatedto a local cult of the monarch.72 ERSKINE ANDREW The ideology of royal beneficence is clearly pervasive in hellenistic society. forits use in Egyptiantemples. 291 (Pergamum).13f (Aptera). on an inscribedstatue base. Edson. 9.207.Demetr. membersof a koinon. cf. S. Habicht. Fraser.270.5.cf. In Egypt Ptolemy HI was Ptolemy Euergetes and he and his sister Berenice II together were the 8E0l E1fcpytTaL. Dow andC.171 on Thu. esp.1.HSCP48 (1937) 131.'3 8 OGIS239 (Delos). but it is a title which is for use within the context of that particularlocal cult and not a name generally applied to the king. Similarly a decree from mid- third-centuryPergamumorderedthe annualsacrifice of a sheep to Eumenesbeneis EVEp'yc-nL(OGIS 267). another Attalus I as benefactor.10. lines 36ff. Consequentlyit is not surprisingthatkings shouldbe referredto as cOEpyETaL. 16. on Egyptianpriestsandthecultsee D. In both these cases cV'cpyETTS factor. This can occur in various contexts.29f (Miletus).cf. 6) 50f.9. Gauthier(supran. Thompson. This content downloaded from 155. Gauthier(supran. F. OvUTwuavE'VIqIVEL used as a title or epithet. Gauthier 12 Cf C. Not only do the Greekcities.PtolemaicAlexandria(Oxford1972)I 213-47.9. M. Attalusin Polyb. after his defeat of the Spartanking Cleomenes.AntiochusI in OGIS219 (1.but insteadhe is numberedamongthe benefactorsof the city or referredto as benefiting the city. M. e. Thus Demetrius Poliorcetes was acclaimed by the people of Athens in 307/306. considerthe king to be a benefactor. Ilium32).OGIS56. which includedthe establishmentof an altarof Lysimachusbenefactor:L8p('aaaOaL (wOi6v [P]aaclVw AVaiid'ou ECVEp7ETOV(SIG3 372). 6) 52f. that is to say cults of the rulerestablishedby individualcities ratherthanthe centrallyorganised dynasticcult.90. Fraser. 11 OGIS213.2. 14.10f). 5. subjector not. 6) 49. 59. 15 On inscription(dvaypao4) and the distinctionbetweenforeignand citizen benefactorsee Gauthier(supra n. This content downloaded from 155. Le culte des souverainsdans 1'Empireromain(= Entretiens Hardt 19 [Vandoeuvres/Geneva 19731)85-8. 6). Gauthier(supra n. The only epigraphicoccurrenceof the phrase. 103.18This concern with the Greeks as a whole also occurs in a decree in which Iasos honoursAntiochusIII. den Boer.in W. the criticismby Gauthier7-10. This distinctionis not treatedby Veyne. albeit as a result of a restoration. 228-30 on kings). Theirown citizens would also be honoured. it always had its basis in a perceptionof the king as a benefactor. KoLV&6S[E1EpyeT&1s 'y[vEccOaL TOV TE &dXw 'EX1v(8wv [iT6XWvKal TNSMiT6Xcwg -rls 1IxE Trp]ocEpE'TaL TEpaISQ6 The way the phrase is used here differs radicallyfrom the way it is later used with referenceto the Romans (see Section H).15By representingthe Romans as EVEPYTTaL the Greeks were very much following the traditionsof the hellenistic world. Herrmann.RivFil 105 (1977) 5-11. There is slightly more evidence for the conception of the king as benefactorof all. but still not much.Teos offers Antiochus Imand Laodice II divine honoursfor benefits bestowed on the city.the termcanjust as easily be used of ordinarymen who confer a benefit. no. Anadolu9 (1965) 34. but the Romans were not simply described as benefactors.73 The Romansas CommonBenefactors So EiEp-yETr7s was applied to kings in decrees. 6) 14f. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .KOLV6. Althoughbenefactionsmay be thoughtto be part of a king's function.207. king or not. they were a particularform of benefactor. concentratingon the euergetismof the local elite withoutplacing it in the wider context.common benefactors. cf.69.As a conceptionof the hellenistic king this is much rarer. L. beforeits application to the Romans comes from a Tean inscriptionof 204/203. 18 Habicht. 16 P. Veyne.but rarelywas the )EpVyETMT title EUEpyET-qsg conferredin this formal manner. Nevertheless EV'EpyET7g should not be seen as a word which has any especial referenceto kings or to the divine..AM72 (1957) 226."Die augusteischeZeit und das erste Jahrhundert Geburt".6ff. when the Romans become predominant.17A Samian decree of 243/242 honours Ptolemy m partly because he consistently benefits the Greeks. Later."Mileto.It was possible for many. Moretti. 6) 40 n.At the beginning of the inscriptionit is said that Antiochus is "to become the common benefactor both of the Greek cities and of our own city".It is kings who are the most noticeablebenefactorsreceivingthe most impressive honours (but Veyne has only pp. but to be a common benefactorwas somethingquite different. Le Pain et le Cirque (Paris 1976) 228-71. on statue bases and in local or dynastic cults. One of the weaknessesof Veyne's accountis the narrownessof his focus. Schubart (supran. Habicht. ed. EcOEp-ns7&. including a grant of inviolability (d=aXta). nach Christi 17 Examples in C.171 on Thu.because among 14 On benefactorsin generalin this periodsee Gauthier(supran.14 Cities would honourbenefactorswho were citizens of other cities by inscribing them on a list of benefactors and so officially conferring the title of on them.17. to be a benefactor. 6) 7-38..thecontextfor localeuergetismis differentagain.le sue colonie e l'istitutodell'euergesia". P. 125.undertaking thoselivingin Asia"(RivFil60 [1932]446.6.'9Therearealso two examplesfromEgypt. this section probablyreflectsAntiochus'own presentationof his notas a normalview of thekingbutas a reaction position. The ideas expressedhere are certainlycompatiblewith the traditional Egyptianconceptionof the Pharaohas the sourceof all good things. (lasos). but acceptingthe III".171 on Thu. 18.20 Afterthe emergenceof the Romansas a powerin the EastEumenesII of of all people. ing to the Rosettastoneof 196 the birthandsuccessionof PtolemyV were"the cLaLV). dyaOu3v sources of many good things for all men" (TroXWv dpXqyoITrduLv But a cautionarypointneedsto be madeaboutthis Egyptianevidence. 1) 58f. 21 So Robert(supra n."Decretd'Iasosen l'honneurd'Antiochos OGIS237. but defendedby Ferrary(supran. 22. 19 1. This content downloaded from 155.. AncientNear EasternTextsrelatingto the Old Testament(Princeton1950) on Ptolemyas 378f.cgf readingof Y. But for similar sentimentsin Greek. 1) 129 n.45ff.Polyb.4f.21Alternativelyit may have been Eumeneshimselfwho was deliberatelylayingclaimto beingthecommonbenefactorratherthantheRomans.Theoc.it shouldbe understood of freedomto all Greekswhichwasmadein 196at the to theRomanproclamation IsthmianGames.Theseare bothdecreesof nativeEgyptianpriests.207. vtoiatv dpwYyot. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Pharaohand the Egyptiantradition.cf D. 175. for translationof hymn to Ramesses. 290.. Rosetta:OGIS90.47. Garlan. Pritchard. rejectedby Gruen(supran.41-8 (G.6).something in detailin the lines writtenon the accessionof RamessesIV long demonstrated beforein thetwelfthcentury.for the resthe provideshelpin both privateand publicmatters.1 (1984) 208f.wherePtolemyI andBereniceare TTdVTECTUL TLXOoandthe papyricitedn.PolybiussaysthatEumenes'rebuffby Romein 167/166strengthking(31. 146-54.J.ZPE 13 (1974) 197f.Thisis morethanonecitybutit still fallsshortof allGreeks.Suchstrongfeelingsmayeven enedGreeksupportforthePergamene applya phraseto Eumeneswhichwasnormally havemadetheIoniansdeliberately appliedto Rome.Thompson(supra n. 13). 17. 20 Canopus:OGIS 56. Mustiin CAH2VII.Afterhis victory Pergamumis twicefoundin theguiseof benefactor overtheGalatianshe is describedby thecityof Telmessusin 184as "asaviourand thewaron behalfof allhis subjectsbutalsoon behalfof all benefactor. lasos 4.for some he providespeace.ed.so theirview of the Ptolemiesmightstem fromtheirown EgyptiantraditionandthereforenotreflectgeneralGreekviewsof kings." from lasos.TheCanopusdecree of 238 in honourof PtolemyIIIholdsthebirthof Ptolemyto be "thebeginningof while accordmany good things for all men"(TroX6vdyaO6v dpXAy&yovEvrrdULV).he makesall free insteadof slaves and indeed Althoughthis is a decree thinksthatkingshipis concernedwith beneficence..74 ANDREWERSKINE otherthings"KingAntiochustheGreatmaintainsthepolicyof his ancestorswith regardto all Greeks.5ff). wherethereis also a similarhymnfor the accessionof Mer-ne-Ptah. B.69. 2) 1 186 n. Pugliese CarratelliASAtene45-6 [1967-68] 447).26.somethingremediedbythekoinonof theIonianswhenthey called EumenesKOLV6s EVEp-y7-Tg TOV 'EXvwv in the early 160s (OGIS 763 [WellesRC 52]). In some examplesthe king is both common saviourand benefactor(P. T6V TrdVTWVKOiVOVEVEP'Y&TV (P. First. 106).it is this which provides evidencefor the relationsbetweenGreekstatesandthe importantcontemporary comefromall overtheGreekworldandthusallow kings. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . buttheresultis substantially The discussionso far has beenconcernedprimarilywith the epigraphicevidence.ed. 'EvTEi."Oking. Frankf 7). 15.'PLC evidenceandnot EEpyzTaL. different.69. cf 11 for anotherEgyptian.The actaLXcu.171 on Thu. KOLV69 EV'EPY&17.Theconceptmayhavebeenrarebutthephrase thatembodiedit.archivein 0.207. petitionersneed not all be Greek. There are three main reasonsfor this.commonbenefactorof all".Thisperceptionmaydrawon hellenistictraditionandmodels.Second.Finally. Suchexamplesof thephrasearethusin a very differentandmorelowly contextfromthosediscussedabove.Romeis not simplybeing fittedto a hellenistic a newwayof thinking. A papyrusarchivefromthe Arsinoitenomein Egyptdatingfrom222-218 helps to revealhow the ordinaryPtolemaicsubjectperceivedhis own king.23but they are not Theyindicatethatthe phrasemayhavebeenmorewidespreadthanthe irrelevant.althoughnonewouldhavein factgone In thesethe kingis oftenseen as the higherthanthe local strategosDiophanes322 orsaviourof all. 1) 128f consequently does not consider these examples relevant to studying the Romans as common benefactors.The Romansas CommonBenefactors 75 Thisepigraphicevidenceshowsthattheconceptof thekingas a benefactorof all orall theGreeksdidoccuroccasionallybutthattheexamplesarefew anddo not reflectanestablishedpointof view. Collomp. 79). 78.InsteadRomeis engendering the leadingpower.Enteux. I wish to concludethis section.to the king. 71.82. P.thus commonbenefactor a Greekwomanscaldedin thebathsappeals.a newperceptionof tradition.thatis significant.an Egyptian appealsto the king as commonbenefactorof all to stop the intimidationof his witnesses(P. abouthis eviction).however. Ferrary(supra n.38.The archiveconsistsof 125petitionsto theking..untilthe Romansappearedin theEast. 86. Enteux.ButthenRomewas a newphenomenon. Enteux. was rarerstill. Enteux. 23 Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford 1986) 56-68.althoughmostin this archiveare. Lewis.theinscriptions a moregeneralpictureto emerge. examiningtheconceptof thekingas a benefactor in which the relationshipis not betweenstateand king but betweenindividual subjectandkingandtheevidenceis notstonebutpapyrus. epigraphicevidencesuggests.Itis theemergenceof thephraseinthesecondcentury. Gu6raud.28. cf 70. 100ff.86. Recherches sur la chancellerieet la diplomatiquedes Lagides(Paris1926)esp. is one whichoccursin theepigraphic ato ol KOLVOI shouldexploreparticuof thehellenisticbackground elsewhere. Enteux.cf also N.by of allin a ratherdifferentcontext.tEL: requeteset plaintesadresseesau roi d'Egypte au Ille siecle avant J-C (Cairo 1931-2).It is only the specialconditionsof Egyptthatallow 22 The P. cf 4.Theappealforjusticeis madeto theking. 60. This content downloaded from 155.regularlyappliedto the Romans.so anexamination larly evidenceof the same sort. P. the common saviourof all.the phraseunderdiscussionhere. on such petitions. in othershe is simplyking(P. 1). 3).76 ERSKINE ANDREW this form of document to survive there.207. In the case of honorific decrees the honorandmay have acted as an intermediary between the Romansand the city or institutionwhich is now honouringhim. The Romans appearin these inscriptionsbecause they are in some way related to the subject of the inscriptionbut they are not themselves the subject. In 112 the Romans make an appearance in an inscriptiondetailing Magnesia-on-the-Maeander'sarbitrationbetween the Cretan cities of Itanos and Hierapytna.25A largeproportionof the relevant inscriptionsare honorific but not all. 13.but its applicationto Rome reflects a change. 10. First. 14. 25 see SectionIII. 6.24In othercases the inscriptionconcernssuch issues as an arbitrationdecision (RKE 12) or the affairs of the artistsof Dionysus (RKE 1. This content downloaded from 155. 7. cf for other embassies RKE 2. outside Egypt the phrasemay have been used in a similarcontext. Theophanes and this inscription are fully discussed together with the evidence for him in Robert (supra n. 3. RKE 14.171 on Thu. II. who is not explicitly describedas having undertakenan embassy but certainlyused his undoubtedinfluence with the Romansto benefit his city. A laterinscriptionfrom Lesbos honoursGn. 11. But here our evidence always presents us with a Greek being honouredand not a Roman. In this context the subjectof the decree is the person being honoured and his achievements. as n. however. Now it is used notjust by individualsbut by states. 5. 4.69. 1 1). The inscriptions.on the otherhand. PompeiosTheophanesof Mytilene. in none of the extantexamples are the Romans the subjectof the inscription. In this context the phrasewas not felt to be appropriate. B. a point to which I will returnin section III.The Magnesians say that they are obeying the written instructionsgiven by the Romans the common benefactors:o 24 Although in the last half of the 1st C. although 'P&ga!OL ol KOLVOt E'VEp'YTaL is a distinctly complimentary phrasewhich is found in a varietyof contexts. A second centurydecree from Eresos in Lesbos honoursa citizen who had gone on an embassy to Rome at his own expense to meet with the Romans the common benefactors:TaV 8 Etg' Pwiav TrPsTTOLS KoLvo[1s EbEPYETaLS' Pw]J1a(ois LTpEcap'av &KT6V t8[wv ETEiXEEV8aTravalidTWv (RKE 10. from the acknowlThe use of' PwatoL ot KOLVOt edgements of royal beneficence discussed in Section I. 8) or a city's relations with neighbouring cities (RKE 16).Repeatedlyit is in honorificdecrees thatthe phraseoccurs (RKE2. Two main differences can be identified. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .C. individual Romans are found honoured as KOLV6S E6EpytTT1!.are largelyconcerned with the relationshipbetween a state or an institutionand a king. Pliatot ot KOLVo0EUEpyeTaL:its use EVEpyETaL differs. the arbitrationbetweenSpartaand Megalopolisof 164. The councilhonoursEumeneswith a crownandbronzestatueand agrees to his requestthat they proclaimthe sanctuaryof AthenaNicephorus inviolateandthattheyrecognisethe panhellenicstatusof the gamesin honourof the goddess.An alternative translation. SIG3665."those kings who by maintainingfriendshipwith the Romans the common benefactorsare alwaysresponsiblefor some good to the Greeks"."27 The decreeof 182concerning Romansintrudein a similarway intotheAmphictyonic EumenesII. in which TdV 8' ELs ' P&*aV Trpa(31av could easily have been used instead of TaV 8 ELs 'P&liav wp6s9TOEL$Kotvot! E1bEpyTaTGL 'P4iaoL9s 1TpEja'av.would makeexplicit the relationshipwhichis only implicitin the Greek. cited in SectionI.. Note theprioritygiven hereto the Romans.as in the Eresos decree.VV Ka ol [rrpovoovievolTE T]6V 4atV(wVTaLtTraKOXOU00VTES9 TOtS'] dtLOVu&VLS 4)LKTLOVES nE vTrpST paaLXt)v. Unlikethe Roman examples the use of KOLV69s EbEPykrqs is here directly relatedto the subject of the 26 RKE 12.69..WhyaddKOLVOtEvEpyETa? redundant. 'AaKXair6v'AaiKXaimrtapLTEOoVTa T( 'AT6Xwvos dPETds Y[ve]KaKdEiwo(ats iS ?X'V 8LaT[E]XEIS!TET6S KOLV6S' KaR ]JS!T6S EEPpY[TaSI 'PWgato&KadE T&VT6XLV taptS' Kat Tds TroTtT6S OE[6S'XIdPLVEaEflaSg ot lagS T[( 'Airi6XXcvos dvt0liiKav].forAetolia. 28 RKE 5.Consequently In the earlyfirstcentury. priestsof Apolloin Cyreneset up a statueof Asclapos.207.This is in the Teandecreeof 204/203 giving divine honoursto AntiochusIll and LaodiceII. [61T&S' 'A01 O. where Romanssuddenlyappearas the championsof the orderand harmonyof the Greeks.28 The second importantdifferenceslies in the use of the epithetKotLoV EEpykTaL.171 on Thu.whenthe initiallyat least.One reasonfor this is theirregardfor "thosekings who maintain andarealwaysresponsible friendshiptowardstheRomansthecommonbenefactors for some good to the Greeks"in otherwordsEumenes.Yet at the sametimethe Aetolianscouldrespondto thesamerequestfromEumenesina verysimilarfashion butwithouta singlereferenceto theRomans. 27 RKE3. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Dittenberger. cf. theydid so becauseof "hisvirtueandthegoodwillwhichhe continuesto showto the Romansthe commonbenefactorsandto the city andto the priests. It is attachedto' Pwiatot in such a way as to appearsuperfluous. ol KOLVOt EbEpyETaL These points come out clearly if these instances' PWVILGOL are comparedwith the only knownexampleof KOLV6sEUvEpytTj9 priorto its applicationto the Romans.obscureor even unnecessary.TheRomansas CommonBenefactors f[iC6VTOL&TE m6 Pwiiai[v TC3VKOLVUiV EUEpypET63V TrELOE-eOaL TrpouaLPOIIEVO!9.'PwLaLous TOUS'1TpOEUTaK6TaSTdS TSV 'EX v[wvEbVoiLas iiKd 6oo]volas.43f. This content downloaded from 155. inscriptionandthe Romans.It is only necessary for the Magnesians to say that they were following the written instructionsof the Sometimestoothewholephrasemightappear Romans.26 8fti? 77 Mtd Tavr6S' ypafo>voLS At othertimes thereis no obviousconnectionbetweenthe subjectof the the referenceto the Romansappears.SIG3 629.a fellow priestof Apollo. 8aoL 8La-npoDveS 'P4w[atJoa'wTO)S KOLVObS[fiEp-yTaST 49LX[a]V &E( TLvOS'cyc6oi) 1rpCaTLOL yLvovTaLT[OLS0]"EXXIaLV- awrnepagis possible insteadof EvEp)YTasbut less likely. the phrase conveys an image of the Romansthatcontributesto the meaningof the documentas a whole. cited in SectionI.the use of 1TpOELpETaLy'LVEaaL suggests that the phrasehere may have emanated not from the city but from Antiochus himself. In this context the repeatedreference to the reflects Romanbenefits.But in the Tean decreeKOLV6S.3' Romans as KOLVOIEl')EpyETaL 29 On all these points the Tean decree is similarto that issued by the koinonof the lonians EEpVyEri referringto Eumenesas KOLv6ss7 T63v'EXivwv. 31 RKE 1. RKE2.The disputewas referredto the Romanson at least fouroccasions and both sides were vying for Roman favour. celebrating Lemnos'returnto AtheniancontrolaftertheThirdMacedonianWar.for instancehonouringa distinguishedcitizen. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .69. In some cases the benefits are laid out explicitly as when Theophanesis honouredby the Mytileniansbecause he recovered from the Romans the common benefactorstheircity.78 ERSK1NE ANDREW decree. 6. referring cf. G. But this role wherebythe phraseemphasises or alludes to benefits bestowed by the Romans is not limited to honorific decrees. the use' PwLaZoL which the audiencewill alreadybe familiar. eitherpast or anticipated.but it is not in fact redundant. artistsby the Greeksand the Romansthe commonbenefactors. R.The inscriptionhas an overt purpose. This complimentaryand apparentlysuperfluousphrase may add little to the sentence of which it is a part. KOLVOIEcEp-YErTaLhighlights the Romans' role as benefactorsand draws attention to any benefits that they may have conferredon the city. 8. The mentionof embassies in particularsuggests that Rome did indeed confer a benefit on the city (cf.30Even when there is no mention of any benefit given by the ol KOLVOtE'uEpy-TaL acts as a reminderof a benefit with Romans.butthe introductionof this phrase ensures that it is also a public statementthat asserts the city or institution's recognitionof the Romansas common benefactors.In the Roman examples ol KOLVOtEUEpYETaL is used only as an additional description of the Romans and could always be removed without rendering the Greek sentence unintelligible.Furthermore.171 on Thu. Antiochus and his benefactions. Daux. dVaKOIsLaaCilIEVOVlTapd TGV KOLVWLV loinian to the to honours RKE given 7. Sherk. TdV TTdTpLOV Kal TQV Xa'paV EXEUOEP(aV. 10. This content downloaded from 155. Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969) 90-93. OGIS763 (WellesRC 52). This is most likely in honorific decrees where the citizen is honouredbecause he obtained some benefit from the Romans for his city.and RKE 15. The phrase occurs several times in the long-runningdispute between the Dionysiac artistsof Attica and those of the Isthmusin the late second century.There is anotherdifference. their territoryand their ancestral freedom.207.as is perhapsthe case with the example from Cyrene (RKE3). Kal EUEp'yTh)V 'PWV[a(]WvTdV TE TT6XLV 30 RKE 14. 'PW[1atoL O.Delphesau jIPet au pr siecle (Paris1936)356-72.29In marked contrastto the Tean treatmentof Antiochusthe laterinscriptionsvirtuallytake it for grantedthat the Romans are otlKoLvot EvCpytTaL.EVEp'yE'7 is integralto the structureof the sentence. 11). Further. The localbenefactor maygainprestigefromthispublicassociationwiththeRomans.the Antiocheians"aregratefulto the Romansthe KOLVOIEV1Ep-YTaL. R. allies.C.The Samiansagreefor the requestby Antioch-on-the-Maeander arekin. 34 S.exceptpossiblya decreeof 157 from Thisrefersto thefactthat Delphiwhichhonoursan historiancalledAristotheos. 'PWatotL ( KOLVOC 33 RKE 16.34But the case for this can be overstated. RKE12 wherethe Magnesianswritethattheyareobeyingthe writtenordersof the EiEpyataL.171 on Thu. cf. 83.Althoughit is he who is being honoured.The only explicitevidencecomes fromthe Dionysiacartistsof the Isthmus. Accordingto one scholarthe Greek ol KOLo0t 6EpYTaL which developed responseto Romeincludeda cultof 'PWpcatoL among the Greeksin the second centuryB.appearto havehadsucha cult.his positionis definedin relationto the Romans.35So theseDionysiacartists. This theirownloyaltyto Romeandrecognition re-emphasise assertionof sharedloyalty is also apparentin Samos' reasonsfor acceptinga in the mid-160s. of instanceswhereno particuRecognitionof thisshifthelpstheinterpretation councilhonourEumenes the larbenefitappearsto be implied. that It emphasises Romans from the into the centre.a1rov8&s&tKWXUov K0g eotS K(a TOtLSKOLVOZ' EfipYTLSM 'Pwt?atots.buthe is alsobeing placed in a sort of hierarchyof benefactors. we have a shift fromthe Romansas benefactorsto the is implicitin the very Romansas a superiorpower.33 andpowerwas to Oneof the waysthatGreeksrespondedto bothbernefactors makethemthe objectof cult (cf SectionI).TheRomansas CommonBenefactors 79 theuse of Thus. 34) 42.When Amphictyonic ol IIin 182.32 Eumenesis dependentuponandsubordinate thatthisviewof theRomansis sharedby Eumenes. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .friends.theAntiocheians thereis an importantaddition.36 TOUS KOLVO' TiVS EXdvw [EbEpY&Cas'.whocomplainthattheyhavebeenpreventedfromsacrificingandpouring libationsto Dionysus. This content downloaded from 155.69. T3 TE ELOLCFt iTOLEIV &OV ~V TItL UUP6&&L 35 RKE8.Ritualsand Power:theRomanImperialCultin Asia Minor(Cambridge1984) 41ff andn.Indeedanunequalrelationship ideaof thebenefactor. EbXaptaTTW& 8aKIcEqvouW Kal iTp6s-'P>ia(os T[OUS KOLVO'I EbEPVtTaS lTdvTwv.theothergodsandTOtS KOLVOLS'EVEp'yETaLS7' P'PwLaLOL. adducedas evidenceforcult by Price(supran. theyjustify this partlywith referenceto his friendshipwith the'PwiIaLOL By doingso theylocateEumeneswithina frameworkin which Furtherit is implied to theRomans.for a whileat least.IntheprocesstheAmphictyons of Romansuperiority.butit is not safe to generalisefromthisandassumethata cultis behindeveryinstanceof phrase. RKE9.207. common benefactorsof all".but usualreasons.If the phraseis understoodin this way.well-disposed. Price.cf.No otherexamplesindicatea cult.althoughtheRomansarenotthesubjectof theseinscriptions.for affirmationof loyalty. F. Aristotheos readout VK[]LCaalE P(LPaLOvs 32 RKE5. T-r Ouaasg Kal. periphery thephrasemovesthe behindthe honoursfor the localbenefactorlie the Romans. Aiov[C]aFi K(t TOtS da?xoLS 36 RKE4. isopolitai. 25) or the relative dates are unclear (cf Magnesia. Deem. Forrest. Cf. and Ephesus. 88. furtherdiscussion in Section I. 32. Robert. on which J. IG I12 1938. ratherthan being the object of cult in themselves. Derow and W.40If therecould be a cult of Roman benefactors. The use of EbEpyEt7s as a epithetor title would be consistentwith the practices of hellenistic rulercult. perhaps accompanied by a relief. 6. 10.Magn. Encomiamay have had a role in the cult of Roma on Chios in the early second century. Stewart. Essayson ReligionandtheAncientWorld(Oxford1972)11 725. OGIS 219 (1. 4 1 SIG3 372. lines 36ff. 1.21. "Soter andEuergetes"in Z. An inscriptionof that year contains the phrase. S. l 01 b I3f. cf OGIS 267 (Pergamum). little evidence of a direct relation between 'PwatoL OLKOlVO1EVEp-ETaL andthe cult of Roma. 133. Bull. Eth.ed. G.171 on Thu. perhapsit was encomia of this sort thatAristotheosproducedat Delphi.2. CR 34 (1984) 293. 3. At Athens Romaia are known to have been established before the phrase is first recorded there.9. The cult of Roma was fairly common in Greece and Asia Minor in the second and first centuries. however. but the earliest evidence for the cult is often later than the evidence for the phrase (cf Mytilene in 45 B.TOLSTE EOESoKai 'Pw[iato0L Evcp yETatsTand others from the time of Augustus onwardsmentionpriestsof Roma and the ' Pwia!OLEVEpytTaL.38 A slightly differentcult is found in Thessalonica. 18. and examples of contemporary usage in Polyb. If this was a writtenor spoken representationratherthana statueor relief. On the other Kat EvEpyETh when used on statuebases could hand. IG XH. Etudes anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 448 n. show that a collective cult of the Romanswas possible. RivFil 108 [1980] 33-54) prefers a sculpture. Mitchell. TMestate of the inscription makes the nature of the representation unclear. Edson. BSA 77 (1982) 79-92.C. Ilium 32). PI. though A. P. see also L. D.39.. 9. the cult of LysimachusEvep-yETT in Samothrace. Robert.207. Nic.31. Derow and Forrest (85f) incline towards a written text. priests are mentioned in IG X. HSCP 51 (1940) 127-36.g.9.43althougha Chalcide37 38 39 40 E.21. 127.8. there could no doubt also be cults of the Romans as the common benefactors. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . "Macedonica".42 50 'PwiiatoL ol KoLvoIc)p yETaLmay have been a reflection of the cult of Roma. however.2. L.just as phrasessuch as CTmrr?Kp reflect the cult of kings such as Antiochus1. 42 43 Cf at Ilium. Moretti ("Chio e la lupa capitolina".207.4. 92.39 This cult is at presentnot known to have existed anywherebut in Thessalonicaand there is no mentionhere of the common benefactors. e. E)Ep'ytTaL are known to have had some Several of the cites which used' PwiatoL ol KOLVOI form of cult of Roma. and L. C. Price (supra n. epigr (1949) 123f no. IG X.These inscriptionsdo.wherea series of inscriptions attest a cult of the' PW[La!OLEbcpyETaLfrom at least 95.41 but in these cases the title is for use solely within the context of the cult. 326A.2.69. Arist.. 226. Nock differs. "An inscription from Chios". This content downloaded from 155.g. Here a dedication was made to the goddess Roma which seems to have involved a representationof Romulus and Remus. There is. line 11.37 Consequently as evidence for the existence of such a cult at Delphi Aristotheos' encomia are inconclusive. lines 2429. 34) 41f.80 ERSKINE ANDREW Encomia can be a feature of cult practice but they are also found outside this context. S. esp. OGIS 437). Prt. I. conjunction of Roma (line 6) and 'Pwliatot ol KoLVot6. By itself it does not demonstratethe existence of a cult. and Prometheus as KoLV6S! p-yrTsT. Fears. Fayer. 31 (1978) 274-86.220. ArchEph (1969) 44-49. Mnemosyne ser.may have been widespreadbut only some will have decided to embody it in a cult. cults of the Roman demos: J.207. R.The Romansas CommonBenefactors 81 an inscription reveals that a certain Archenos who went on an embassy to the Romansthe common benefactorswas to be honouredwith a crown at the Romaiaof the koinon of the Euboeans. M.2. cf Ael.Indeed the epithet was so closely associatedwith the RomansthatMithridatesVI at the time of his war with Rome could describe the Romans in a letter as the common enemies. EixpytTaL and variouscults of Roma therewere also cults of the Alvfos "PWkctaoL of the Romans. 330 (LenzlBehr). and later Euseb.8. The continued and widespreaduse of this phrase over such a long period of time. only epigraphic. C.17 (1981) 950-1030. 64. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . shows thathowever superfluous it may seem it was not consideredtrivialby contemporaries. for a thorough study of this festival.171 on Thu. 11culto della dea Roma (Pescara 1976). 5.1.4. "11culto del Demos dei Romani".3. 0EU'pE TaL began to be applied ol KoLVot It is not clear in what context 'PwVa7tOL to the Romans. Arist. TObS 44 45 46 47 IG XII.2.15.5).55. GeschichtedergriechischenReligion112(Munich 1961) 183. particularly when presenting a petition.63.which can be appliedalike to gods or men.69.'PwtatoL o0cKoLvotEvEpYETaL. The occurrenceof this complimentaryexpression in these documentsmay thenbe an echo of its use by ambassadorswho went to Rome. 3. C. "O AHMO. 0 POvMAION. 12) 156f. from 182 until the end of the first centuryB. 4.El'EpyErrs is a secularterm. Fayer.899. ANRWII. 231 (Oliver). Robert.2. Its use in inscriptionsmay at times be a byproductof cult practicesbut therearealso otherpossibilities.46At present the state of the evidence ot KOLVOt allows us to conclude that in some cases at least it is likely that' PWxVatoL Romans The some in a cult to related way.5. 4. Mellor.30. The phrase. Diod.45 Ko0vL6 EveEP-Y&Trs is strongerand it is significant thatin DiodorusKOLV?EvEpyEata is seen as a suitable justification for divine or heroic honours. In the Egyptianpapyri was used as a form of addressto the king and so it is possible that KoLV6!sEC1EPY&Tnlh " P1L?atotOL iKotvotEVEpyETaL too was a way of addressingthe Romans. and '"he Goddess Roma". 65 (Samos) for the (lines 20f). cf.18.. HE 10. or of cult the were object EvEpy&TQL cult of to the in addition inspired various forrns of cults among the Greeks.but inscriptions are a very partialreflectionof civic life.9.C. KOLVf EvEpyeuaca of Heracles: 3.47Together they show the variety of the Greek response to the Roman presence in the East. StRom 26 (1978) 461-77. Nilsson.EpytTaL C.It is certainlymore restrained.4. Genius Populi Romani". Habicht (supran.1. The Bithynianking PrusiasII did go so far as to addressthe assembled senatorsas (Polyb. 4. This content downloaded from 155. "Inscriptions d'Athenes et de la Gr6ce Centrale".So 'PcOratoLot KoLvot EVEp'4YTaL "saviourgods".44 Nevertheless. cf. 311. Cults of Roma: R.Thereis no literaryevidence for it.16 of the Christian god. 71. L. Habicht AM 72 (1957) no.5. 4. Panath. EEA POMH: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Gottingen 1975).OEolawn1rpES would not be an improbableaddress.9. 70 (M. 27. Flam.the very opposite of ICOLVOW Ill.32f.785f. IG X1. Klaffenbach.who hadproclaimedGreekfreedomin 196.931 (Chalcis). 2) 185f. 196f. Thiscanbe seenin the GreekcitiescertainlydidtreatRomansas benefactors.52T.Theyreflecta widelyinfluentialin theEast heldconceptionof the Romansas theybecameincreasingly andprovideevidencethatGreekperceptionsof the Romansweredifferentfrom theirperceptionsof thehellenistickings. ISE 1. Feyel BCH 79 [19551419). cult of Roma. when he tion of the Romanswas displayedby Agatharchides theRomaisas "thosewhoturntheirarmsin everydirection". SIG3607.82 ANDREWERSKINE ol KOLVOIEVEpYETaL. OGIS 449. Fraser (supra n.Livy 44. used of the Illyrians.37 (Corinth). case of individual andbestowprivilegeson them decreesreferto individualRomansas benefactors Statues e. QuinctiusFlamininus. esp. lug.53 Beneficenceis notjust associatedwith individualRomansbutwith Romeitself. GGM I 189f.23.the personification 48 SIG3741.was honouredas a benefactorin a numberof places. Diod. Polyb.69. M.Thephrasemightbe dismissedas nothing but themselveswiththeRomans.48 As similarconcepof Cnidos(102).18. P.545. Annius as a benefactor at Lete. M.712. P. 16.50 morethananattemptby theGreeksto ingratiate why didtheychoosethisphraseandnotanother?So it is necessaryto askwhatits significanceis andwhy it cameto be associatedwiththeRomans. G. Chiron 1 (1976) 167f (Phanotea).close to a KOLV6!sCEsp-yEr-qs in fact. divine honours: Plut. ISE 1. cf Jugurtha'sdescription of the Romans as communis omnium hostis (Sall. cf festival for M.6. IG XII. SIG3676. of Rome.49 characterised U roXqlLous. he even attaineddivine honours. 49 50 51 52 53 TLV iTT1 TrcvTa T61roV TaS7 81vVVIieLS! UTpCE4v5rwv.6. cf. for KoLvot tXOpotas theoppositeof KQLv's UEpy&fls. Robert(supran. 550. Daux BCH 88 (1964) 569-76. Charneux BCH 81 [19571 183f).2. 11. P. This content downloaded from 155.171 on Thu. ISE I.g. Acilius Glabrio at Delphi. ScipioCorneliusAfricanusat Delos andGn.207.9. Servilius Isauricus at Pergamum. Mummius was honoured"on accountof his virtueand the beneficence which he continues to show to the Eleians and to the rest of the Greeks". SIG3 700. 13) 1. 81.5" EvEpy-TaL were set up with inscriptions on the base which often referredto the honoured Romanas a benefactoror as honouredon accountof his beneficence. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .Numerous in the a and also as group Romans.P.42 (P. Octaviusat Argos.is foundwith the epithet Thus the goddessRoma.4. Cornelius Lentuluswas a saviourand benefactorat Acraephiain Boeotia while L.' PW[aLOLol KOLVOI EU)Ep'ysTaL: its significance It can hardlybe a coincidencethatthe Romansshouldappearas ol KoLVot in Greekandhellenized communitiesthroughoutthe easternMediterranean. 2.No doubttheextantexamplesareonlya few of many. 1) 59.12.1) and Perseus on the Romans as the communes omniumregumhostes. lines 39f. The dismissive approach is adopted by Gruen (supra n. The honourswhich were heapedon Flarmininus a consequence of his defeat of Philip andthe proclarnationof freedom. "by a single announcementall the Greeks living in Asia and Europebecame free. Assos. Stratonikeia507. 55 Cf P.In 196 Flamininushad declaredthe Greeksto be free. but their contributionto civic life also figuredprominently.Benefactors TheRomans asCommon 83 at Delos. the common benefactors. Walbank. Rome continuedto present itself as a benefactorto all the Greeks. Stratoniceaand in Lycia.207. As Polybiusput it. no. explained thatthe Romanswere favourablydisposed to all the Greeks. In the 190s Flamininus wrote to Chyretiae in Thessaly.46.EVOL (RDGE 35.rrlTrrasg Touv"EXX1vagE EVvo&)98LaKELI.134f).7). 18. as Pergamumdid in Athens. W. The Greeks may have viewed the Romans as benefactors but the context was very different.Fouillesde XanthosVII (Paris1981) 37ff no. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .56Such a declarationcould have established the Romans as common benefactorsof all from quite an early stage in their involvement in the East. F. That the Greeks did have a distinctiveview of the Romans is demonstratedby the epithet. Mellor (supran.Glabriowas honouredbecause he freed Delphi from AetoliancontrolandM. Merkelbach.171 on Thu.Rome is the benefactornot of some but of all Greeks.-4 So the conception of the EiEpY&TLS Romans as benefactors was common among the Greeks and manifested itself in various forms.1.A HistoricalCommentary 56 Polyb. It is clear that this pronouncementwas well-publicised. ungarrisoned. writingto Heracleain Cariain 190. Balland. even of all men. on Polybius(Oxford1957-79) II 614. OtherRoman statementsshow a similartendencyto emphasisethe Greeks as a whole. 19.The kings were tryingto maintain their position.NouvellesInscriptionsde SardesR (Geneva1989)85-97. cf. And the Romans themselves would not have sharedin the euergetisticideology of the Greekworld in the same way that the kings and local Elitesdid.15.Trp6.55But the Romansdid not have the same need to promote Greek cultureor to prove thatthey were Greeks. that the Romans wanted "to appear in every part (KaTd-rr Tv Vlpog) as the champions of what is noble" (RDGE 33. FabiusMaximus. In some ways the adoption of this epithet could be interpretedas the result of the Romans' own propaganda. 18.5f [SIG3593]). Given the natureof Rome's involvementin the East it is not surprisingthatthe benefits which Rome bestowed and for which it was honoured were generally were concernedwith Rome's wars. most 54 I. or they might supply the gymnasiumwith olive oil.6f (OGIS 441.They might put up public buildings. All this reflects the instability and uncertaintyof the second century East and the manner in which Rome was involved there.ZPE 13 (1974) 280. Thus Q. Even the Delian decree honouring Scipio for his regardfor their temple ca 193 cannot be divorced from the unstable political situation and the impending war with Antiochus. Gauthier. The Scipios. Hellenistic kings too were honouredfor their military successes. This content downloaded from 155.69.theemphasishereis on iTravTaS. R. Annius because he protected Lete in Macedonia from the Gauls. 47) 113f. writing to Dyme. A. the Romans were usurping it.Delos 1778 (OGIS591).subject to no tribute and governed by their own laws". It would have been plausible to believe that the Romans as outsiders were concerned to benefit all Greeks and so Roman propagandawould appearall the more convincing.When the Chian demos set up a festival in honour of Roma. Greeks may be using existing political terminology but they are adaptingit to new situation. This content downloaded from 155. as a free state fighting against kings it was strugglingon behalf of the freedom of all Greeks. 38] line 70).171 on Thu. On the one hand there was Rome's political stance and the 57 See A. Acceptance of this Ro- man viewpoint can be seen in a Chianinscriptionof the early second century. Erskine.stressingthatthey aretreatedin similarways.S.CQ N.TheHellenisticStoa: Political ThoughtandAction(London1990) 181-204.his every actionis interpretedas hostile to Greece and Greek interests(RDGE40B).so it had to behave differently. But if similarterrnsare used to describeboth Rome and the kings. Romanpropagandasought to distinguishRome from the kings. such as the endless Syrianwars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. No doubttherewere manythatdid not. [T]jSd1oT8Eo8iviiSpclas etXX6TpLa KaQ ]1XEWE i-S] fiETE[pa]! trpoaLpECrES (RDGE 43. not because Greeks could not see any differencebetweenthem.These differences led to different perceptions. describes revolutionarydisturbancesthere as 'incompatiblewith the freedom that was given in common to the Greeks and incompatible with our KaTa [K]OLV6VTot& "EXXTI[ULV policy'. it is only becausethis is the terminologyof power in the hellenistic period. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .59Rome could be seen as a city state fighting alongside other city states against the powerful kings."HellenisticMonarchyandRomanPoliticalInvective". 58 For some of the varyingattitudesto Rome see A. Nevertheless the Greeksneed not have acceptedthis way of perceivingthe Romans.207. As Rome was differentin political structureand lacked a traditionalrole in the eastern Mediterranean.the Romanswere not Greek.thereforethey could seem untainted by the disputes of the Greeks and so less likely to be partial. OL KOLVOL So the emergence of the phrase. 8-1 1. was Perseusas reconstructedin a letter to the Delphic Amphictyon.84 ANDREWERSK1NE likely in 115.BSR34 (1979) 1-1 1. even if they did not supportRome. the common benefactorsof all.58The Greek states.'PwliaZoL CEEpyETaL. the monarchies. did have reason to see the Romans as different from the traditionalpowers. A clear opposite to the Romans. would be concerned to seek some form of an accommodationwith Rome. Rome would be perceiveddifferentlybecause it was a city stateand as such distinct from the kings. they felt that they were expressing thanksto the Romansnot only on theirown behalf.15f [SIG3 684]). 41 (1991) 106-20.First. could be said to be due to two factors. 2) 315-56.esp. Richardson. These were not the familiarwars of king against king.Gruen(supran. butthe epigraphicevidence representsthose in power in the cities who. Second.but also on behalf of the rest of the Greeks (Derow and Forrest[supran. 59 J.57 In this way the Greekscould be interpretedas succumbingto Romanpropaganda and accepting the image that the Romans themselves were presentingto them. however. Erskine. would minimisethis differencein perception.69."Polybius'viewof theRomanEmpire". 1295a 19-22.122.60Thus this passage helps to reiterate two points.Polyb. These connotations of the phrase KOLV6s-EV'Epyt7s! are apparent in some literary examples. Laert. necessary to take further the question of why this particularphrase was considered appropriatefor the Romans. where the mutinous Roman commander C. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .8.10. Philo describes Augustus as KOLV6. subduing the monarchsand settlingdisputes. so the Greekstateis to Rome. There are no rivals to whom a petition can be made instead.207. it was also aboutpower.27.g power. however. There may be other kings such as those in Syria or Macedonbut to the Ptolemaic subject such inforrnationwould be irrelevantand meaninglessin the context of his petition. first the relationship and power. According to Diodorushis troops"havingraisedhim eLs-&vvUr1EVOvvov ttouaLav andbeing buoyed A holderof power that is a up with hopes of gain loved him like KOLV6s Ev'pYETMSh".69. But it is only after 167 andthe fall of the Macedonianmonarchythatthe phrasereallybegins 60 Cf Arist.It was not just aboutbeneficence. is someone who is accountableto no one. there is another side to the phrase. following the defeat of both Philip and Antiochus in separatewars. the termis often used of sole dLvvTrrEOvvo. But. the razing of Corinthand the installationof oligarchies. and as responsible for the dismantling of the Achaean League. Rome was the common benefactorbecause it was perceived as having no rival. himself' (Leg. For the subjectmakinga requestPtolemy is all powerful. Here it is useful to returnto the Egyptianpapyriintroducedin Section I.'PWJ1aioi o0 KOLVOI EUEpYeTaL is a sign of Rome's power and the relative powerlessness of all other states and kings. but it is the phrase 6 TTiVTWVKOLV6!gcpyt7g one which is illuminating. as was touched upon in Section II. Flavius Fimbria is found plunderingcities in Asia.7. The use of the epithet reflects the power of the ruler. The relationshipsare parallel.The Romansas CommonBenefactors 85 propagandathat went with it.2. secondly the absolutenatureof that power. as the enslaver of 150. What the Egyptian subject and the Greekcity have in common when they use this phrase is their perceptionof the ruler and their relationshipwith him. Just as the individualsubjectis to Ptolemy. It is. To refer to Rome in this way was to acknowledge Rome's supremacy in the eastern Mediterraneanand to accept that the balance of power which had existed between the kings in the thirdcenturywas over.This idea of absolute power recurs in Diodorus 38/39. So AugustushadbecomeKOLV6EiVEpyETh becausehehaddoneawaywithrivals.2.' Ev'iEpY&Fg and adds an he put the steering of interestingexplanation:"insteadof many rulers(iToXuapXta) the ship of state into the hands of a single helmsman.000 Epirotes. 149). The Romans the common benefactors were concerned with liberating the Greeks. Diog.This may not seem consistentwith anotherimage of the Romans. In these is used in a very differentcontext.171 on Thu. between KOLVOI ECpyETaTL The earliest attestationof'PWVatoLolI KOLVOtEJvEpytTaL occurred at Delphi in 182.Pol. but on the other there was the Greek perceptionthat the Romans were something very differentfrom the kings thatthey had known up until then. This content downloaded from 155. The phrase is used not by cities or guilds but by individualspetitioningthe Egyptianking. no. The increasing currency of the phrase was an indication of the growing awarenessof the political changes in the eastem Mediterranean.26ff).25.they were also obedientto Rome andsubordinateto it. Not only did the Greeks look to Rome as a benefactor. It was in this environmentthat the Stoic philosopherPanaetiuspropounded his justification of empire. In a letter written in the l50s Attalus H of Pergamum expresses his anxiety aboutacting without firstconsultingthe Romans(Welles RC 61). These ideas of beneficenceco-existing with subordinationand subjectionprobablyhad some influence on Greek intellectuals. had to be obedient to the Romans. it is no wonder that smallerstates felt the need to reassure themselves of their loyalty to Rome and were concerned that honoursthey bestowed or treatiesthey madecould in no way be construedas hostile to Rome. The essence of this relationshipwas graspedby the Magnesians who in making their arbitrationdecision in 112 said thatthey were obeyingthe writteninstructionsof the Romans the common benefactors(RKE12). confirming privileges for the Attic guild of the artists of Dionysus.5.By this point accordingto Polybius almost the whole world had come underRoman rule and Greek subjectionto Rome was unmistakable(1. esp.86 ERSKINE ANDREW to be used in the survivinginscriptions.PolybiusandtheEast". S. Derow."Rome.61 A treaty between Chersonesosand King Pharnacesof Pontosfrom 155 also containsa stipulationthat both sides should maintaintheir friendshipwith Rome and do nothing to oppose them (IOSPE 12 402. 1ff. This content downloaded from 155.69. UiV 1L1X contained no reference to the Romans (SIG3692).and morerecentlyin CAHlVIII(1989) 301. superficially rulers of an independentkingdom.207. 1.As in the Amphictyonic honours to Eumenes II noted above the Romans are even seen to intrude into relations between ostensibly independententities. just as the peasantwas to the Ptolemies. A treatybetween Aphrodisias. Empire could be justified.171 on Thu.62Now even the Ptolemies. 3. Reynolds. 62 P. the Romans were indisputablythe common benefactorsof the whole Greek world. Now when there were no rivals to Roman power.JRS69 (1979) 1-15. Another Amphictyonicdecree. If the king of Pergamumwas wary. 'PwiatoL ot KOLVOI EvepyCTaL marked out the Romans as rulers and put the Greek state on a par with an Egyptian peasant.6f). Cibyra and Tabae from about the mid-secondcenturyrequiresthe three partiesto swear an oath to remain allies of each other and Rome.' PwIatOLO'LKOLVOIEvE pyETaL was one such way of affirmingtheirloyalty and reassuringthemselves.1. if it was in the interestof the subject. This awareness is apparenttoo in the way in which the assertionof loyalty to Rome became increasinglycommon in the second century. he argued. ends with a surprising qualification of its own authority:EdvaaL& TaCTa Tots' EV 'AOi"vais vUTEVaVTLOVi~i. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .4ff. As Polybius realizedobedience to Romanorders was fundamentalto the Roman idea of empire. Yet the previous sixty lines had TL 'Pwjia(oLS& TEXV(TaLS. withexamples. 31.in otherwordssubordinationwas justifiableif it benefitedthe 61 J.4.AphrodisiasandRome(London1982). lines 1Off. so smaller claims are being made: BCH (1925) 310f no. now they recognised the supremacyof Augustus. Raubitschek. In the inscriptionsthe emphasis is on his relationswith all the Greeks.This provincialview of the emperoris also present in the literarysources. Clearly Caesar was felt by the Greeks to be without rivals. Rome's political stance and propagandawould have been importantfor formulatingGreek attitudes to Rome. examples of the theme in the Imperial period include IG XII. Robert. see also K. and L.392. there is Josephus who refers to Augustus as T6V KOLV6VEVEP'ytT1V Katuapa (AJ 16. (1970) no. JRS 44 (1954) 65-75.This is being done in orderto make intelligible an otherwise extraordinarysituationin which a long-standinginternational balance of power simply ceased to exist. honoured at Teos as T6V KOLV6V EOVp&yThV Kac awT pa nSg tiTapXiag. MRR 11.C. Cocceius Nerva (cos. Tuchelt.64After his victory over Pompey at Pharsalusin 48 Caesarwas honouredthroughoutthe Greekworld.69. 8 (SEG 4. the phrase KOLV6S d)Ep#YETT1 is found inscribed in honours to individual Romans. Mitt. esp.63The Romans as acknowledgedcommon benefactorswere ideally suited to this role. not only with the city which was honouring him. epigr. In additionto Philo's comments on Augustusdiscussed above.' PWLatOL belief on the partof the Greeksthatthe Romansare indeedbenefactorsbut it is also an acknowledgement of the Greek states' subordinateposition. "Epigraphical Notes on JuiliusCaesar". has collected the evidence for Caesar.C. cbwT1parrs oLKouViEvTrat Carthaeaon Ceos and according to the Samians he showed goodwill to all the Greeks. such as Julius Caesar and Augustus. So too was Augustus.RomaundPromagistrate 422.87 The Romansas CommonBenefactors subject. An exception is M.65 The Mytileniansare one of those cities known to have used the phraseol KOLOIt EVEpy&Tat 'PWiatoL (RKE 14). II Supp. Thus he is T6V KOLV6V T@V 'EXMivwv[uwi-rpa KalE]bEpyt7v at Pergamum.543-44 (Eresos) of Vespasian and Trajan. 58) 192-204.2.171 on Thu. is applying existing political terminologyin a new context. A. when the Mytileniansset up a statue of him with the inscriptionTOV KOLV6VaUEpy&TaV. 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The Greeks had to come to terms ol KOLVOtE1)EpyETaLrquires some with a new and more powerful state. Romsin Kleinasien1. Stephen Mitchell and Theresa Urbainczyk for their helpandcomments. an Antonian. when individuals were becoming increasingly prominent in Roman politics. on Augustus see J.98). E. Beiheft 23 [Tubingen 19791) 62. Where they had formerly recognised the supremacyof the Roman state. 36). probably governor of Asia in 38/ 37. Bull. In the late first century B. but ultimatelywhat countedwas the Roman exercise of power.. on Nerva.FruheDenkmdiler (Ist.- This content downloaded from 155. 59. What the Greeks are found doing in the second century B. University College Dublin 63 64 65 Andrew Erskine See Erskine (supra n. also honoured at Lagina in Caria:ILS 8780. My thanks to Peter Derow. 74.207. Again it is those without significantrivals. Donald McCabe. But in this case his role is limited to the province.604).