roman's ascommon benefactors.pdf

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

The Romans as Common Benefactors Author(s): Andrew Erskine Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 43, H. 1 (1st Qtr., 1994), pp. 70-87Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436315Accessed: 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].

This content downloaded from 155.207.69.171 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:38:19 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE ROMANS AS COMMON BENEFACTORS

In the second century B.C., as the Romans were becoming increasingly domi- nant in the Greek world, a new phrase began appearing in inscriptions throughout the eastern Mediterranean.'PwIIatoL ot KOLVO EOEpysTaL was a striking way to describe the new power.' The hellenistic kings had frequently been treated as benefactors, but the epithet, KoLv6s- EUEp'ytThs, is virtually unknown in the relations between kings and Greek cities or civic institutions. The novelty of the phrase is made more interesting by the context in which it is found. We might expect it to occur in inscriptions in which the main subject is the Romans, but instead it is used where the Romans are not the focus of attention and on occasion they seem irrelevant.2 An examination of the phrase and its use helps to illuminate the Greek response to Rome at this time. Clearly the Greeks felt that the Romans were something new, not just a substitute for the familiar hellenistic kings.

'PWaCoLI ot 0 KOLV EvepyYE-TaL makes as many as sixteen appearances in inscriptions from the second and first centuries.3 The earliest evidence is in a decree of the

The most important discussion is L. Robert, "Th6ophane de Mytilene A Constantinople", CRAI (1969) 42-64, esp. 57-61, but see also H. Volkmann, "Griechische Rhetorik odcr romnische Politik? Bemerkungen zum romischen 'Imperialismus' ", Hermes 82 (1954) 465- 76, esp. 467f; C. Wehrli, "Sur la formule "Pw[iatot O ol Kvol euepytTat Trdvrwv' ('les Romains, communs bienfaiteurs de tous') dans les inscriptions grecques de l'epoque republi- caine", SicGym 31 (1978) 479-96; J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellenisme et imperialisme: aspects ide6logiques de la conquite romaine du monde hellenistique, de la seconde guerre de Macedoine a' la guerre contre Mithridate (= BEFAR 271 [Rome 19881 124-32.

2 E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) I 196f. 3 The following are the known examples (excluding the overconfident restoration of Corinth

8.3.4), abbreviated here as RKE 1, 2, 3 etc. 1. Athens (from Delphi): SIG3 704F.6; 2. Chalcis: IG XII.9.899. I f, restored by Robert (supra n. 1) 58 n. 1; 3. Cyrene: SGDl 4854 (G. Oliverio, ASAtene 39-40 [1961-62] 237f); 4. Delphi: SIG3 702.6 (FdD I11.3.124); 5. Delphi (Amphic- tyon): SJG3 630.16ff (FdD 111.3.261); 6. Delphi (Amphictyon): SIG3 704H.27; 7. Dionysiac artists of Ionia (from lasos): A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (Oxford 1968) 316f no. 11, adopting L. Robert's restoration, Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 447f; 8. Dionysiac artists of the Isthmus (from Delphi): SIG3 705B.45f (FdD lII.2.70a or RDGE 15); 9. Ephesus: SIG3 742.2f (LIEphesos 8), with the restoration of H. Malay and G. Petzl, EpigAnat 3 (1984) 163; 10. Eresos, Lesbos: IG XII Supp. 692.13f; 1 1. Gordos, Lycia: Malay and Petzl, supra 157f (cf Bull. epigr. [1984] no. 384, SEG XXXIV. 1198); 12. Magnesia-on-the-Maeander (from Crete): SIG3 685.21ff (I.Cr. II1.4.9); 13. Mylasa: I.Mylasa 111 (BCH 12 [18881 18ff no. 6); 14. Mytilene: Robert (supra n. 1) 52f; 15. Myrina, Lemnos: IG 112 1224; 16. Samos: Habicht, AM 72 (1957) no. 65.20f. Cf also Jos. AJ 14.247, 257, on Josephus' use of these documents and their authenticity see T. Rajak, "Was there a Roman charter for the Jews?", JRS 74 (1984) 107-23.

Historia, Band XLIIIUl (1994) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart


The Romans as Common Benefactors 71

Amphictyonic Council from Delphi, honouring Eumenes H of Pergamum in 182. Subsequently the phrase is found as far afield as Athens, Cyrene and Asia Minor, but it is confined to inscriptions.4 Sometimes it occurs with additions such as iTdvmrv, &cridv-rwv or T(tV ' EXivwv, all of which serve to emphasise KOLVOL. Thus the Romans are the common benefactors, the benefactors of all the Greeks or even of all people, not the benefactors of any one particular state.5

I. Hellenistic Precedents

The use of 'P4LGtOL ol icoKvoL E1EpytTaL might be seen as simply the continua- tion of hellenistic practice. It could be said that kings such as the Ptolemies and the Seleucids had long been considered to be benefactors and were termed accordingly. This, however, would be an oversimplification, underestimating the complexity of the Greek response to Rome.

Antecedents of this epithet are to be found associated with hellenistic kings. Fundamental to the Greek conception of a king is his role as a benefactor.6 Aristotle could write that all those who benefit or who were capable of benefiting cities or nations acquire the honour of kingship (Pol. 1310b34ff, cf 1286bl0f). Polybius (5.11.6) in contrasting the admirable rule of Philip II of Macedon with the tyranni- cal behaviour of Philip V, notes that it is the mark of a king to treat everyone well and to be loved for bestowing benefactions (EOEpyEara) and for humanity (OtXav- OpwrrLa). A similar theme is pursued in a decree from Iasos in which one reason given for honouring Antiochus Ill is that he considers kingship to be concerned with benefactions (L. Iasos 4.41-48). Numerous inscriptions reveal the king in his role as a benefactor.7 The Rhodian earthquake of 227/26 provoked a flurry of competitive benefactions from the kings. Ptolemy Im Euergetes, Antigonus HI Doson, Seleucus II Callinicus, Prusias of Bithynia, Mithridates H of Pontos and even Hiero and Gelo in Sicily all contributed (Polyb. 5.88ff).

4 A computer search of literary texts in TLG reveals no instances of 'FPkaLot o t KoLVot Eu)EpytTaL but KOLV6S EVepytTST by itself does sometimes appear in non-epigraphic materi- al: apart from the Egyptian papyri cited in n. 22 there are no examples before Polyb. 4.38.10 (the Byzantines as KOLVOL TLVES d1 EuEpYtTTaL Trrdvwv in controlling Pontic trade).

5 For similar uses Of KOLV6-, cf KOLVl XEUpLa (SJG3 434/5.18 [Staatsvertr. 47611) and KOW1 Elplvrr in T. T. Ryder, Koine Eirene (Hull 1965) xi-xvii.

6 On hellenistic kings as benefactors see P. Gauthier, Les cites grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (Paris 1985) 39-53; C. Prdaux, Le monde hellenistique (Paris 1978) 1 202-07; W. Schubart, "Das hellenistische Kdnigsideal nach Inschriften und Papyri", ArchPF 12 (1937) 14f.

7 OGIS 270.13f (Aptera); SIG3 350 (Byzantium); ISE 86 (Aetolia); Welles RC 14.2f (Miletus), 15.25-30 (OGIS 223; Erythrae), 22.1 If (OGIS 227; Miletus), 34.13-16 (OGIS 282; Magne- sia).


72 ANDREW ERSKINE

The ideology of royal beneficence is clearly pervasive in hellenistic society. Not only do the Greek cities, subject or not, consider the king to be a benefactor, but the king himself also feels a duty to fulfil this rBle (cf Welles RC 15.25-30, 14. 10f). Consequently it is not surprising that kings should be referred to as cOEpyETaL. This can occur in various contexts, e.g. on an inscribed statue base, which may sometimes be related to a local cult of the monarch. One example has Antiochus III as a saviour and benefactor, another Attalus I as benefactor.8 Polybius reports that Antigonus Doson, after his defeat of the Spartan king Cleomenes, was declared by the Spartans to be their benefactor and saviour, EVcEpYET7V baVrTV Kai UwT'pa. An inscription from nearby Mantinea also shows that Antigonus was honoured as a saviour and benefactor.9 The application of the term EbEpyETnl&s to the king in such inscriptions may be the result of popular acclamations of the king as EbEp-yErs!. Thus Demetrius Poliorcetes was acclaimed by the people of Athens in 307/306.10 At other times inscriptions in honour of a king might not directly call him benefactor, but instead he is numbered among the benefactors of the city or referred to as benefiting the city. "I

EiEp'yE1ffig was also used as an epithet within a local ruler cult, that is to say cults of the ruler established by individual cities rather than the centrally organised dynastic cult. Thus the Samothracians in the 280s inaugurated a cult of Lysimachus, which included the establishment of an altar of Lysimachus benefactor: L8p('aaaOaL (wOi6v [P]aaclVw AVaiid'ou ECVEp7ETOV (SIG3 372). Similarly a decree from mid- third-century Pergamum ordered the annual sacrifice of a sheep to Eumenes benefactor, OvUTwuav E'VIqIVEL EVEp'yc-nL (OGIS 267). In both these cases cV'cpyETTS is used as a title or epithet, but it is a title which is for use within the context of that particular local cult and not a name generally applied to the king.'2 As such EvEpy&nr in this context differs from its adoption as an epiklesis or surname which was permanently attached to a king and which was used within the dynastic cults of the kings. In Egypt Ptolemy HI was Ptolemy Euergetes and he and his sister Berenice II together were the 8E0l E1fcpytTaL, benefactor gods.'3

8 OGIS 239 (Delos), 291 (Pergamum), cf. Eumenes II in OGIS 301-02 (Thrace), Antiochus I in OGIS 219 (1. Ilium 32), esp. lines 36ff.

9 Sparta: Polyb. 9.36.5, cf. 5.9.10; Mantinea: IG V.2.299, S. Dow and C. F. Edson, HSCP 48 (1937) 131.

10 Plut. Demetr. 9.1; Gauthier (supra n. 6) 50f; cf. Attalus in Polyb. 16.25.5-9. 1 1 OGIS 213.29f (Miletus), 270.13f (Aptera); cf. Gauthier (supra n. 6) 49. 12 Cf C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Stddte2 (Munich 1970) 156-9; Gauthier

(supra n. 6) 52f; on Ev.Ep-y TTs as an honorific title, almost a "cognomen", on tombstones for members of a koinon, P. M. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments (Oxford 1977) 63ff.

13 OGIS 75-78; for its use in Egyptian temples, OGIS 56,90; on dynastic cult in Egypt see P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972) I 213-47; on Egyptian priests and the cult see D. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton 1988) 125-38.



So EiEp-yETr7s was applied to kings in decrees, on statue bases and in local or dynastic cults; it always had its basis in a perception of the king as a benefactor. Nevertheless EV'EpyET7g should not be seen as a word which has any especial reference to kings or to the divine. Although benefactions may be thought to be part of a king's function, the term can just as easily be used of ordinary men who confer a benefit.14 Cities would honour benefactors who were citizens of other cities by inscribing them on a list of benefactors and so officially conferring the title of )EpVyETMT on them. Their own citizens would also be honoured, but rarely was the

title EUEpyET-qsg conferred in this formal manner.15 By representing the Romans as EVEPYTTaL the Greeks were very much following the traditions of the hellenistic world, but the Romans were not simply described as benefactors; they were a particular form of benefactor, common benefactors. As a conception of the hellenistic king this is much rarer. It was possible for many, king or not, to be a benefactor, but to be a common benefactor was something quite different.

The only epigraphic occurrence of the phrase, KOLV6, EcOEp-ns7&, before its application to the Romans comes from a Tean inscription of 204/203, albeit as a result of a restoration. Teos offers Antiochus Im and Laodice II divine honours for benefits bestowed on the city, including a grant of inviolability (d=aXta). At the beginning of the inscription it is said that Antiochus is "to become the common benefactor both of the Greek cities and of our own city", KoLV&6S [E1EpyeT&1s Trp]ocEpE'TaL 'y[vEccOaL TOV TE &dXw 'EX1v(8wv [iT6XWv Kal TNSM iT6Xcwg -rls 1IxE TEpaISQ6 The way the phrase is used here differs radically from the way it is later used with reference to the Romans (see Section H).

There is slightly more evidence for the conception of the king as benefactor of all, but still not much.1 7A Samian decree of 243/242 honours Ptolemy m partly because he consistently benefits the Greeks.18 This concern with the Greeks as a whole also occurs in a decree in which Iasos honours Antiochus III, because among

14 On benefactors in general in this period see Gauthier (supra n. 6); L. Moretti, "Mileto, le sue colonie e l'istituto dell'euergesia", RivFil 105 (1977) 5-11; P. Veyne, Le Pain et le Cirque (Paris 1976) 228-71. One of the weaknesses of Veyne's account is the narrowness of his focus, concentrating on the euergetism of the local elite without placing it in the wider context. It is kings who are the most noticeable benefactors receiving the most impressive honours (but Veyne has only pp. 228-30 on kings). Later, when the Romans become predominant, the context for local euergetism is different again.

15 On inscription (dvaypao4) and the distinction between foreign and citizen benefactor see Gauthier (supra n. 6) 7-38. This distinction is not treated by Veyne, cf. the criticism by Gauthier 7-10.

16 P. Herrmann, Anadolu 9 (1965) 34.6ff. 17 Examples in C. Habicht, "Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi

Geburt", in W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des souverains dans 1'Empire romain (= Entretiens Hardt 19 [Vandoeuvres/Geneva 19731) 85-8; Gauthier (supra n. 6) 40 n. 103; Schubart (supra n. 6) 14f.

18 Habicht, AM 72 (1957) 226, no. 59.17,.


AdministratorHighlight



74 ANDREW ERSKINE

other things "King Antiochus the Great maintains the policy of his ancestors with regard to all Greeks; for some he provides peace, for the rest he provides help in both private and public matters; he makes all free instead of slaves and indeed thinks that kingship is concerned with beneficence..." Although this is a decree from lasos, this section probably reflects Antiochus' own presentation of his position; it should be understood not as a normal view of the king but as a reaction to the Roman proclamation of freedom to all Greeks which was made in 196 at the Isthmian Games.'9 There are also two examples from Egypt. The Canopus decree of 238 in honour of Ptolemy III holds the birth of Ptolemy to be "the beginning of many good things for all men" (TroX6v dyaO6v dpXA y&yovEv rrdULV), while according to the Rosetta stone of 196 the birth and succession of Ptolemy V were "the sources of many good things for all men" (TroXWv dyaOu3v dpXqyoI TrduLv cLaLV). But a cautionary point needs to be made about this Egyptian evidence. These are both decrees of native Egyptian priests, so their view of the Ptolemies might stem from their own Egyptian tradition and therefore not reflect general Greek views of kings. The ideas expressed here are certainly compatible with the traditional Egyptian conception of the Pharaoh as the source of all good things, something demonstrated in detail in the lines written on the accession of Ramesses IV long before in the twelfth century.20

After the emergence of the Romans as a power in the East Eumenes II of Pergamum is twice found in the guise of benefactor of all people. After his victory over the Galatians he is described by the city of Telmessus in 184 as "a saviour and benefactor, undertaking the war on behalf of all his subjects but also on behalf of all those living in Asia" (RivFil 60 [1932] 446.5ff). This is more than one city but it still falls short of all Greeks, something remedied by the koinon of the Ionians when they called Eumenes KOLV6s EVEp-y7-Tg TOV 'EXvwv in the early 160s (OGIS 763 [Welles RC 52]). Polybius says that Eumenes' rebuff by Rome in 167/166 strength- ened Greek support for the Pergamene king (31.6.6). Such strong feelings may even have made the Ionians deliberately apply a phrase to Eumenes which was normally applied to Rome.21 Alternatively it may have been Eumenes himself who was deliberately laying claim to being the common benefactor rather than the Romans.

19 1. lasos 4.41-8 (G. Pugliese Carratelli ASAtene 45-6 [1967-68] 447), but accepting the reading of Y. Garlan, "Decret d'Iasos en l'honneurd'Antiochos III", ZPE 13 (1974) 197f, cgf OGIS 237.4f. (lasos); Polyb. 18.45ff, cf D. Musti in CAH2 VII. 1 (1984) 208f.

20 Canopus: OGIS 56.26; Rosetta: OGIS 90.47; for translation of hymn to Ramesses, J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament (Princeton 1950) 378f, where there is also a similar hymn for the accession of Mer-ne-Ptah; on Ptolemy as Pharaoh and the Egyptian tradition, Thompson (supra n. 13), 146-54. But for similar sentiments in Greek, Theoc. 17.125, where Ptolemy I and Berenice are TTdVTECTUL TLXOo- vtoiatv dpwYyot, and the papyri cited n. 22.

21 So Robert (supra n. 1) 58f, rejected by Gruen (supra n. 2) 1 186 n. 175, but defended by Ferrary (supra n. 1) 129 n. 290.




This epigraphic evidence shows that the concept of the king as a benefactor of all or all the Greeks did occur occasionally but that the examples are few and do not reflect an established point of view. The concept may have been rare but the phrase that embodied it, KOLV69 EV'EPY&17, was rarer still - until the Romans appeared in the East. It is the emergence of the phrase in the second century, regularly applied to the Romans, that is significant. Rome is not simply being fitted to a hellenistic tradition. Instead Rome is engendering a new way of thinking, a new perception of the leading power. This perception may draw on hellenistic tradition and models, but the result is substantially different. But then Rome was a new phenomenon.

The discussion so far has been concerned primarily with the epigraphic evidence. There are three main reasons for this. First, it is this which provides important contemporary evidence for the relations between Greek states and the kings. Second, the inscriptions come from all over the Greek world and thus allow a more general picture to emerge. Finally, the phrase under discussion here,'PL-

ato ol C KOLVOI EEpyzTaL, is one which occurs in the epigraphic evidence and not elsewhere, so an examination of the hellenistic background should explore particularly evidence of the same sort. I wish to conclude this section, however, by examining the concept of the king as a benefactor of all in a rather different context, in which the relationship is not between state and king but between individual subject and king and the evidence is not stone but papyrus.

A papyrus archive from the Arsinoite nome in Egypt dating from 222-218 helps to reveal how the ordinary Ptolemaic subject perceived his own king. The archive consists of 125 petitions to the king, although none would have in fact gone higher than the local strategos Diophanes322 In these the king is often seen as the common benefactor or saviour of all. The appeal for justice is made to the king; thus a Greek woman scalded in the baths appeals, "O king, common benefactor of all", actaLXcu, T6V TrdVTWV KOiVOV EVEP'Y&TV (P. Enteux. 82, cf 4, 15, 71, 86, 106). The petitioners need not all be Greek, although most in this archive are; an Egyptian appeals to the king as common benefactor of all to stop the intimidation of his witnesses (P. Enteux. 86, cf 11 for another Egyptian, to the king, the common saviour of all, about his eviction). In some examples the king is both common saviour and benefactor (P. Enteux. 38, cf 70, 78, P. Frankf 7), in others he is simply king (P. Enteux. 28, 60, 79). Such examples of the phrase are thus in a very different and more lowly context from those discussed above,23 but they are not irrelevant. They indicate that the phrase may have been more widespread than the epigraphic evidence suggests. It is only the special conditions of Egypt that allow

22 The P.Enteux. archive in 0. Gu6raud, ed., 'EvTEi;tEL: requetes et plaintes adressees au roi d'Egypte au Ille siecle avant J-C (Cairo 1931-2); on such petitions, P. Collomp, Recherches sur la chancellerie et la diplomatique des Lagides (Paris 1926) esp. 100ff, cf also N. Lewis, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford 1986) 56-68.

23 Ferrary (supra n. 1) 128f consequently does not consider these examples relevant to studying the Romans as common benefactors.




76 ANDREW ERSKINE

this form of document to survive there; outside Egypt the phrase may have been used in a similar context. The inscriptions, on the other hand, are largely concerned with the relationship between a state or an institution and a king. In this context the phrase was not felt to be appropriate, but its application to Rome reflects a change. Now it is used not just by individuals but by states, a point to which I will return in section III.

II. Pliatot ot KOLVo0 EUEpyeTaL: its use

The use of' PwatoL ot KOLVOt EVEpyETaL differs, however, from the acknowl- edgements of royal beneficence discussed in Section I. Two main differences can be identified.

First, although 'P&ga!OL ol KOLVOt E'VEp'YTaL is a distinctly complimentary phrase which is found in a variety of contexts, in none of the extant examples are the Romans the subject of the inscription. Repeatedly it is in honorific decrees that the phrase occurs (RKE 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, as n. 3). In this context the subject of the decree is the person being honoured and his achievements. But here our evidence always presents us with a Greek being honoured and not a Roman.24 In other cases the inscription concerns such issues as an arbitration decision (RKE 12) or the affairs of the artists of Dionysus (RKE 1, 6, 7, 8) or a city's relations with neighbouring cities (RKE 16). The Romans appear in these inscriptions because they are in some way related to the subject of the inscription but they are not themselves the subject.

In the case of honorific decrees the honorand may have acted as an intermedi- ary between the Romans and the city or institution which is now honouring him. A second century decree from Eresos in Lesbos honours a 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 TrPsT TOLS KoLvo[1s EbEPYETaLS' Pw]J1a(ois LTpEcap'av &K T6V t8[wv ETEiXEEV 8aTravalidTWv (RKE 10, cf for other embassies RKE 2, 1 1). A later inscription from Lesbos honours Gn. Pompeios Theophanes of Mytilene, who is not explicitly described as having undertaken an embassy but certainly used his undoubted influence with the Romans to benefit his city.25 A large proportion of the relevant inscriptions are honorific but not all. In 112 the Romans make an appear- ance in an inscription detailing Magnesia-on-the-Maeander's arbitration between the Cretan cities of Itanos and Hierapytna. The Magnesians say that they are obeying the written instructions given by the Romans the common benefactors: o

24 Although in the last half of the 1st C. B.C. individual Romans are found honoured as KOLV6S E6EpytTT1!, see Section III.

25 RKE 14; Theophanes and this inscription are fully discussed together with the evidence for him in Robert (supra n. 1).







8fti? f[iC6V TOL& TE m6 Pwiiai[v TC3V KOLVUiV EUEpypET63V Mtd Tavr6S' ypafo>voLS TrELOE-eOaL TrpouaLPOIIEVO!9.26

At other times there is no obvious connection between the subject of the inscription and the Romans. Consequently the reference to the Romans appears, initially at least, obscure or even unnecessary. In the early first century, when the priests of Apollo in Cyrene set up a statue of Asclapos, a fellow priest of Apollo, they did so because of "his virtue and the goodwill which he continues to show to the Romans the common benefactors and to the city and to the priests..."27 The Romans intrude in a similar way into the Amphictyonic decree of 182 concerning Eumenes II. The council honours Eumenes with a crown and bronze statue and agrees to his request that they proclaim the sanctuary of Athena Nicephorus inviolate and that they recognise the panhellenic status of the games in honour of the goddess. One reason for this is their regard for "those kings who maintain friendship towards the Romans the common benefactors and are always responsible for some good to the Greeks" in other words Eumenes. Yet at the same time the Aetolians could respond to the same request from Eumenes in a very similar fashion but without a single reference to the Romans.28

The second important differences lies in the use of the epithet KotLoV EEpykTaL. It is attached to' Pwiatot in such a way as to appear superfluous. It is only necessary for the Magnesians to say that they were following the written instructions of the Romans. Why add KOLVOt EvEpyETa? Sometimes too the whole phrase might appear redundant, as in the Eresos decree, in which TdV 8' ELs ' P&*aV Trpa(31av could easily have been used instead of TaV 8 ELs 'P&liav wp6s9 TOEL$ Kotvot! E1bEpyTaTGL 'P4iaoL9s 1TpEja'av.

These points come out clearly if these instances' PWVILGOL ol KOLVOt EbEpyETaL are compared with the only known example of KOLV6s EUvEpytTj9 prior to its application to the Romans. This is in the Tean decree of 204/203 giving divine honours to Antiochus Ill and Laodice II, cited in Section I. Unlike the Roman examples the use of KOLV69s EbEPykrqs is here directly related to the subject of the

26 RKE 12, cf. SIG3 665.43f, the arbitration between Sparta and Megalopolis of 164, where Romans suddenly appear as the champions of the order and harmony of the Greeks,' Pw- LaLous TOUS' 1TpOEUTaK6TaS TdS TSV 'EX v[wv EbVoiLas iiKd 6oo]volas.

27 RKE 3, 'AaKXair6v 'AaiKXaimr tapLTEOoVTa T( 'AT6Xwvos dPETds Y [ve ]Ka KdEiwo(ats iS ?X'V 8LaT[E]XE IS! TE T6S KOLV6S' EEPpY[TaSI 'PWgato& Kad E T&VT 6XLV KaR ]JS! T6S

taptS' Kat Tds TroTt T6S OE [6S' XIdPLV EaEflaSg ot lagS T[( 'Airi6XXcvos dvt0liiKav]. Note the priority given here to the Romans.

28 RKE 5, [61T&S' O,VV Ka ol 'A01 4)LKTLOVES 4atV(wVTaL tTraKOXOU00VTES9 TOtS'] dtLOVu&VLS [rrpovoovievol TE T]6V paaLXt)v, 8aoL 8La-npoDveS nE v Trp ST 'P4w[atJoa'w TO)S KOLVObS [fiEp-yTaST 49LX[a]V &E( TLvOS' cyc6oi) 1rpCaTLOL yLvovTaL T[OLS0] "EXXIaLV - awrnepag is possible instead of EvEp)YTas but less likely, Dittenberger. An alternative translation, "those kings who by maintaining friendship with the Romans the common benefactors are always responsible for some good to the Greeks", would make explicit the relationship which is only implicit in the Greek; for Aetolia, SIG3 629.



78 ANDREW ERSK1NE

decree, Antiochus and his benefactions. There is another difference. In the Roman examples ol KOLVOt EUEpYETaL is used only as an additional description of the Romans and could always be removed without rendering the Greek sentence unintelligible. But in the Tean decree KOLV6S- EVEp'yE'7 is integral to the structure of the sentence. Further, the use of 1TpOELpETaL y'LVEaaL suggests that the phrase here may have emanated not from the city but from Antiochus himself.29 In marked contrast to the Tean treatment of Antiochus the later inscriptions virtually take it for granted that the Romans are otl KoLvot EvCpytTaL.

This complimentary and apparently superfluous phrase may add little to the sentence of which it is a part, but it is not in fact redundant. The inscription has an overt purpose, for instance honouring a distinguished citizen, but the introduction of this phrase ensures that it is also a public statement that asserts the city or institution's recognition of the Romans as common benefactors. Furthermore, the phrase conveys an image of the Romans that contributes to the meaning of the document as a whole.

'PW[1atoL O; KOLVOI EcEp-YErTaL highlights the Romans' role as benefactors and draws attention to any benefits that they may have conferred on the city. This is most likely in honorific decrees where the citizen is honoured because he obtained some benefit from the Romans for his city. In some cases the benefits are laid out explicitly as when Theophanes is honoured by the Mytilenians because he recov- ered from the Romans the common benefactors their city, their territory and their ancestral freedom.30 Even when there is no mention of any benefit given by the Romans, the use' PwLaZoL ol KOLVOt E'uEpy-TaL acts as a reminder of a benefit with which the audience will already be familiar, as is perhaps the case with the example from Cyrene (RKE 3). The mention of embassies in particular suggests that Rome did indeed confer a benefit on the city (cf. RKE 2, 10, 1 1). But this role whereby the phrase emphasises or alludes to benefits bestowed by the Romans is not limited to honorific decrees. The phrase occurs several times in the long-running dispute between the Dionysiac artists of Attica and those of the Isthmus in the late second century. The dispute was referred to the Romans on at least four occasions and both sides were vying for Roman favour. In this context the repeated reference to the Romans as KOLVOIEl')EpyETaL reflects Roman benefits, either past or anticipated.3'

29 On all these points the Tean decree is similar to that issued by the koinon of the lonians referring to Eumenes as KOLv6s- EEpVyEri s7 T63v 'EXivwv, OGIS 763 (Welles RC 52), cited in Section I.

30 RKE 14, dVaKOIsLaaCilIEVOV lTapd TGV KOLVWLV EUEp'yTh)V 'PWV[a(]Wv TdV TE TT6XLV Kal TQV Xa'paV Kal TdV TTdTpLOV EXEUOEP(aV, cf. RKE 7, referring to honours given to the loinian artists by the Greeks and the Romans the common benefactors, and RKE 15, celebrating Lemnos' return to Athenian control after the Third Macedonian War.

31 RKE 1, 6, 8; R. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969) 90-93; G. Daux, Delphes au jIP et au pr siecle (Paris 1936) 356-72.






Thus, although the Romans are not the subject of these inscriptions, the use of the phrase moves the Romans from the periphery into the centre. It emphasises that behind the honours for the local benefactor lie the Romans. The local benefactor may gain prestige from this public association with the Romans, but he is also being placed in a sort of hierarchy of benefactors. Although it is he who is being honoured, his position is defined in relation to the Romans. If the phrase is understood in this way, we have a shift from the Romans as benefactors to the Romans as a superior power. Indeed an unequal relationship is implicit in the very idea of the benefactor.

Recognition of this shift helps the interpretation of instances where no particular benefit appears to be implied. When the Amphictyonic council honour Eumenes II in 182, they justify this partly with reference to his friendship with the' PwiIaLOL ol

KOLVOI EV1Ep-YTaL. By doing so they locate Eumenes within a framework in which Eumenes is dependent upon and subordinate to the Romans.32 Further it is implied that this view of the Romans is shared by Eumenes. In the process the Amphictyons re-emphasise their own loyalty to Rome and recognition of Roman superiority. This assertion of shared loyalty is also apparent in Samos' reasons for accepting a request by Antioch-on-the-Maeander in the mid-160s. The Samians agree for the usual reasons; the Antiocheians are kin, friends, well-disposed, isopolitai, allies, but there is an important addition - the Antiocheians "are grateful to the Romans the common benefactors of all".33

One of the ways that Greeks responded to both bernefactors and power was to make them the object of cult (cf Section I). According to one scholar the Greek response to Rome included a cult of 'PWpcatoL ol KOLo0t 6EpYTaL which developed among the Greeks in the second century B.C.34 But the case for this can be overstated. The only explicit evidence comes from the Dionysiac artists of the Isthmus, who complain that they have been prevented from sacrificing and pouring libations to Dionysus, the other gods and TOtS KOLVOLS' EVEp'yETaLS7' P'PwLaLOL.35 So these Dionysiac artists, for a while at least, appear to have had such a cult, but it is not safe to generalise from this and assume that a cult is behind every instance of phrase. No other examples indicate a cult, except possibly a decree of 157 from Delphi which honours an historian called Aristotheos.36 This refers to the fact that Aristotheos read out VK[]LCaalE P(LPaLOvs TOUS KOLVO' TiVS EXdvw [EbEpY&Cas'.

32 RKE 5, cf. RKE 12 where the Magnesians write that they are obeying the written orders of the 'PWatotL ( KOLVOC EiEpyataL.

33 RKE 16, EbXaptaTTW & 8aKIcEqvouW Kal iTp6s- 'P>ia(os T[OUS KOLVO' I EbEPVtTaS lTdvTwv; for affirmation of loyalty, cf. RKE 9.

34 S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) 41ff and n. 83.

35 RKE 8, T-r Ouaasg Kal. a1rov8&s &tKWXUov iTOLEIV K0g ELOLCFt &OV ~V TItL UUP6&&L T3 TE Aiov[C]aFi K(t TOtS da?xoLS eotS K(a TOtLS KOLVOZ' EfipYTLSM 'Pwt?atots.

36 RKE 4, adduced as evidence for cult by Price (supra n. 34) 42.




80 ANDREW ERSKINE

Encomia can be a feature of cult practice but they are also found outside this context.37 Consequently as evidence for the existence of such a cult at Delphi Aristotheos' encomia are inconclusive. Encomia may have had a role in the cult of Roma on Chios in the early second century. Here a dedication was made to the goddess Roma which seems to have involved a representation of Romulus and Remus. If this was a written or spoken representation rather than a statue or relief, perhaps it was encomia of this sort that Aristotheos produced at Delphi.38

A slightly different cult is found in Thessalonica, where a series of inscriptions attest a cult of the' PW[La!OL EbcpyETaL from at least 95. An inscription of that year contains the phrase, TOLS TE EOESo Kai 'Pw[iato0L Evcp yETatsT and others from the time of Augustus onwards mention priests of Roma and the ' Pwia!OL EVEpytTaL.39 This cult is at present not known to have existed anywhere but in Thessalonica and there is no mention here of the common benefactors. These inscriptions do, however, show that a collective cult of the Romans was possible.40 If there could be a cult of Roman benefactors, there could no doubt also be cults of the Romans as the common benefactors.

The use of EbEpyEt7s as a epithet or title would be consistent with the practices of hellenistic ruler cult, e.g. the cult of Lysimachus Evep-yETT in Samothrace,41 but in these cases the title is for use solely within the context of the cult. On the other hand, just as phrases such as CTmrr?Kp Kat EvEpyETh when used on statue bases could reflect the cult of kings such as Antiochus 1,42 50 'PwiiatoL ol KoLvoI c)p yETaL may have been a reflection of the cult of Roma, rather than being the object of cult in themselves. The cult of Roma was fairly common in Greece and Asia Minor in the second and first centuries. There is, however, little evidence of a direct relation between 'PwatoL OL KOlVO1 EVEp-ETaL and the cult of Roma,43 although a Chalcide-

37 E.g. Deem. 18.207; PI. Prt. 326A; Arist. Eth. Nic. l 01 b I 3f; and examples of contemporary usage in Polyb. 6.39.2, 9.9.9, 10.21.8.

38 P. S. Derow and W. G. Forrest, "An inscription from Chios", BSA 77 (1982) 79-92, lines 24- 29. TMe state of the inscription makes the nature of the representation unclear; Derow and Forrest (85f) incline towards a written text, perhaps accompanied by a relief; L. Moretti ("Chio e la lupa capitolina", RivFil 108 [1980] 33-54) prefers a sculpture.

39 IG X.21.4, line 11, on which J. and L. Robert, Bull. epigr (1949) 123f no. 92; priests are mentioned in IG X.2. 1.31, 32, 133, 226; see also L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 448 n. 3; C. Edson, "Macedonica", HSCP 51 (1940) 127-36.

40 Cf. Price (supra n. 34) 41f; S. Mitchell, CR 34 (1984) 293; though A. D. Nock differs, "Soter and Euergetes" in Z. Stewart, ed., Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford 1972) 11 725.

4 1 SIG3 372, cf OGIS 267 (Pergamum); further discussion in Section I. 42 Cf at Ilium, OGIS 219 (1. Ilium 32), esp. lines 36ff. 43 Several of the cites which used' PwiatoL ol KOLVOI E)Ep'ytTaL are known to have had some

form of cult of Roma, but the earliest evidence for the cult is often later than the evidence for the phrase (cf Mytilene in 45 B.C., IG XH.2.25) or the relative dates are unclear (cf Magnesia, I.Magn. 88, 127, and Ephesus, OGIS 437). At Athens Romaia are known to have been established before the phrase is first recorded there, IG I12 1938.



an inscription reveals that a certain Archenos who went on an embassy to the Romans the common benefactors was to be honoured with a crown at the Romaia of the koinon of the Euboeans.44

Nevertheless, El'EpyErrs is a secular term, which can be applied alike to gods or men. By itself it does not demonstrate the existence of a cult.45 Ko0vL6 EveEP-Y&Trs is stronger and it is significant that in Diodorus KOLV? EvEpyEata is seen as a suitable justification for divine or heroic honours.46 At present the state of the evidence allows us to conclude that in some cases at least it is likely that' PWxVatoL ot KOLVOt EvEpy&TQL were the object of cult or related to a cult in some way. The Romans inspired various forrns of cults among the Greeks; in addition to the cult of "PWkctaoL EixpytTaL and various cults of Roma there were also cults of the Alvfos of the Romans.47 Together they show the variety of the Greek response to the Roman presence in the East. The phrase, 'PwtatoL o0c KoLvot EvEpYETaL, may have been widespread but only some will have decided to embody it in a cult.

It is not clear in what context 'PwVa7tOL ol KoLVot 0EU'pE TaL began to be applied to the Romans. There is no literary evidence for it, only epigraphic, but inscriptions are a very partial reflection of civic life. Its use in inscriptions may at times be a by- product of cult practices but there are also other possibilities. In the Egyptian papyri KoLV6!s EC1EPY&Tnlh was used as a form of address to the king and so it is possible that

" P1L?atotOL iKotvot EVEpyETaL too was a way of addressing the Romans, particularly when presenting a petition. The occurrence of this complimentary expression in these documents may then be an echo of its use by ambassadors who went to Rome. The Bithynian king Prusias II did go so far as to address the assembled senators as "saviour gods", OEol awn1rpES (Polyb. 30.18.5). So 'PcOratoL ot KoLvot EVEp'4YTaL would not be an improbable address. It is certainly more restrained.

The continued and widespread use of this phrase over such a long period of time, from 182 until the end of the first century B.C., shows that however superfluous it may seem it was not considered trivial by contemporaries. Indeed the epithet was so closely associated with the Romans that Mithridates VI at the time of his war with Rome could describe the Romans in a letter as the common enemies, TObS

44 IG XII.9.899, for a thorough study of this festival, L. Robert, "Inscriptions d'Athenes et de la Gr6ce Centrale", ArchEph (1969) 44-49, cf. Habicht AM 72 (1957) no. 65 (Samos) for the conjunction of Roma (line 6) and 'Pwliatot ol KoLVot 6.EpytTaL (lines 20f).

45 C. Habicht (supra n. 12) 156f; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion 112 (Munich 1961) 183.

46 Diod. 3.9.1; 4.1.4; 5.63.2, 64.2, 71.5; cf. KOLVf EvEpyeuaca of Heracles: 3.55.3, 4.8.5, and Prometheus as KoLV6S! p-yrTsT, 4.15.2, cf Ael. Arist. Panath. 220, 231 (Oliver), 311, 330 (LenzlBehr), and later Euseb. HE 10.4.16 of the Christian god.

47 Cults of Roma: R. Mellor, EEA POMH: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Gottingen 1975), and '"he Goddess Roma", ANRWII.17 (1981) 950-1030; C. Fayer, 11 culto della dea Roma (Pescara 1976); cults of the Roman demos: J. R. Fears, "O AHMO, 0 POvMAI ON. Genius Populi Romani", Mnemosyne ser. 4, 31 (1978) 274-86; C. Fayer, "11 culto del Demos dei Romani", StRom 26 (1978) 461-77.


82 ANDREW ERSKINE

ICOLVOW U roXqlLous, the very opposite of ol KOLVOI EVEpYETaL.48 As similar conception of the Romans was displayed by Agatharchides of Cnidos (102), when he characterised the Romais as "those who turn their arms in every direction".49

Ill.' PW[aLOL ol KOLVOI EU)Ep'ysTaL: its significance

It can hardly be a coincidence that the Romans should appear as ol KoLVot EvEpy-TaL in Greek and hellenized communities throughout the eastern Mediterra- nean. No doubt the extant examples are only a few of many. They reflect a widely- held conception of the Romans as they became increasingly influential in the East and provide evidence that Greek perceptions of the Romans were different from their perceptions of the hellenistic kings. The phrase might be dismissed as nothing more than an attempt by the Greeks to ingratiate themselves with the Romans,50 but why did they choose this phrase and not another? So it is necessary to ask what its significance is and why it came to be associated with the Romans.

Greek cities certainly did treat Romans as benefactors. This can be seen in the case of individual Romans, as a group and also in the cult of Roma. Numerous decrees refer to individual Romans as benefactors and bestow privileges on them e.g. P. Scipio Cornelius Africanus at Delos and Gn. Octavius at Argos.5" Statues were set up with inscriptions on the base which often referred to the honoured Roman as a benefactor or as honoured on account of his beneficence. P. Cornelius Lentulus was a saviour and benefactor at Acraephia in Boeotia while L. Mummius was honoured "on account of his virtue and the beneficence which he continues to show to the Eleians and to the rest of the Greeks", close to a KOLV6!s CEsp-yEr-qs in fact.52 T. Quinctius Flamininus, who had proclaimed Greek freedom in 196, was honoured as a benefactor in a number of places; he even attained divine honours.53 Beneficence is not just associated with individual Romans but with Rome itself. Thus the goddess Roma, the personification of Rome, is found with the epithet

48 SIG3 741 .32f, Robert (supra n. 1) 59; for KoLvot tXOpot as the opposite of KQLv's UEpy&fls. Diod. 27.18.2, used of the Illyrians, Polyb. 2.12.6, cf Jugurtha's description of the Romans as communis omnium hostis (Sall. lug. 81.1) and Perseus on the Romans as the communes omnium regum hostes, Livy 44.23.6.

49 TLV iTT1 Trc vTa T61roV TaS7 81vVVIieLS! UTpCE4v5rwv, GGM I 1 89f; P. M. Fraser (supra n. 13) 1.545, 550; 11.785f.

50 The dismissive approach is adopted by Gruen (supra n. 2) 185f, 196f. 51 IG X1.4.712; ISE 1.42 (P. Charneux BCH 81 [19571 183f). 52 ISE 1.70 (M. Feyel BCH 79 [19551419); SIG3 676; cf. SIG3 607, M. Acilius Glabrio at Delphi;

OGIS 449, P. Servilius Isauricus at Pergamum. 53 IG XII.9.931 (Chalcis); ISE I.37 (Corinth); Klaffenbach, Chiron 1 (1976) 167f (Phanotea);

divine honours: Plut. Flam. 16; G. Daux BCH 88 (1964) 569-76; cf festival for M. Annius as a benefactor at Lete, SIG3 700, esp. lines 39f.




EiEpY&TLS at Delos, Assos, Stratonicea and in Lycia.-4 So the conception of the Romans as benefactors was common among the Greeks and manifested itself in various forms.

Given the nature of Rome's involvement in the East it is not surprising that the benefits which Rome bestowed and for which it was honoured were generally concerned with Rome's wars. The honours which were heaped on Flarmininus were a consequence of his defeat of Philip and the proclarnation of freedom, Glabrio was honoured because he freed Delphi from Aetolian control and M. Annius because he protected Lete in Macedonia from the Gauls. Even the Delian decree honouring Scipio for his regard for their temple ca 193 cannot be divorced from the unstable political situation and the impending war with Antiochus. All this reflects the instability and uncertainty of the second century East and the manner in which Rome was involved there. Hellenistic kings too were honoured for their military successes, but their contribution to civic life also figured prominently. They might put up public buildings, as Pergamum did in Athens, or they might supply the gymnasium with olive oil.55 But the Romans did not have the same need to promote Greek culture or to prove that they were Greeks. The kings were trying to maintain their position; the Romans were usurping it. The Greeks may have viewed the Romans as benefactors but the context was very different. And the Romans themselves would not have shared in the euergetistic ideology of the Greek world in the same way that the kings and local Elites did.

That the Greeks did have a distinctive view of the Romans is demonstrated by the epithet, the common benefactors. Rome is the benefactor not of some but of all Greeks, even of all men. In some ways the adoption of this epithet could be interpreted as the result of the Romans' own propaganda. In 196 Flamininus had declared the Greeks to be free. As Polybius put it, "by a single announcement all the Greeks living in Asia and Europe became free, ungarrisoned, subject to no tribute and governed by their own laws".56 Such a declaration could have established the Romans as common benefactors of all from quite an early stage in their involvement in the East. It is clear that this pronouncement was well-publicised.

Other Roman statements show a similar tendency to emphasise the Greeks as a whole. In the 190s Flamininus wrote to Chyretiae in Thessaly, that the Romans wanted "to appear in every part (KaTd -rr Tv Vlpog) as the champions of what is noble" (RDGE 33.5f [SIG3 593]). The Scipios, writing to Heraclea in Caria in 190, explained that the Romans were favourably disposed to all the Greeks, Trp6; rrlTrrasg Touv"EXX1vagE EVvo&)9 8LaKELI.EVOL (RDGE 35.7). Rome continued to present itself as a benefactor to all the Greeks. Thus Q. Fabius Maximus, writing to Dyme, most 54 I.Delos 1778 (OGIS 591); R. Merkelbach, ZPE 13 (1974) 280; 1. Stratonikeia 507.6f (OGIS

441.134f); A. Balland, Fouilles de Xanthos VII (Paris 1981) 37ff no. 19, cf. no. 18, Mellor (supra n. 47) 113f.

55 Cf P. Gauthier, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes R (Geneva 1989) 85-97. 56 Polyb. 18.46.15; the emphasis here is on iTravTaS, F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary

on Polybius (Oxford 1957-79) II 614.



84 ANDREW ERSK1NE

likely in 115, describes revolutionary disturbances there as 'incompatible with the freedom that was given in common to the Greeks and incompatible with our policy', [T]jS d1oT8Eo8iviiS- KaTa [K]OLV6V Tot& "EXXTI[ULV ]1XEWE pclas etXX6TpLa KaQ i-S] fiETE[pa]! trpoaLpECrES (RDGE 43.15f [SIG3 684]). Acceptance of this Ro- man viewpoint can be seen in a Chian inscription of the early second century. When the Chian demos set up a festival in honour of Roma, they felt that they were expressing thanks to the Romans not only on their own behalf, but also on behalf of the rest of the Greeks (Derow and Forrest [supra n. 38] line 70). A clear opposite to the Romans, the common benefactors of all, was Perseus as reconstructed in a letter to the Delphic Amphictyon - his every action is interpreted as hostile to Greece and Greek interests (RDGE 40B). Roman propaganda sought to distinguish Rome from the kings; as a free state fighting against kings it was struggling on behalf of the freedom of all Greeks.57

In this way the Greeks could be interpreted as succumbing to Roman propaganda and accepting the image that the Romans themselves were presenting to them. Nevertheless the Greeks need not have accepted this way of perceiving the Romans. No doubt there were many that did not, but the epigraphic evidence represents those in power in the cities who, even if they did not support Rome, would be concerned to seek some form of an accommodation with Rome.58 The Greek states, however, did have reason to see the Romans as different from the traditional powers, the monarchies. First, the Romans were not Greek; therefore they could seem untainted by the disputes of the Greeks and so less likely to be partial. It would have been plausible to believe that the Romans as outsiders were concerned to benefit all Greeks and so Roman propaganda would appear all the more convincing. Second, Rome would be perceived differently because it was a city state and as such distinct from the kings.59 Rome could be seen as a city state fighting alongside other city states against the powerful kings. These were not the familiar wars of king against king, such as the endless Syrian wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. As Rome was different in political structure and lacked a traditional role in the eastern Mediterranean, so it had to behave differently. These differences led to different perceptions. Greeks may be using existing political terminology but they are adapting it to new situation.

So the emergence of the phrase,' PwliaZoL OL KOLVOL CEEpyETaL, could be said to be due to two factors. On the one hand there was Rome's political stance and the

57 See A. Erskine, "Hellenistic Monarchy and Roman Political Invective", CQ N.S. 41 (1991) 106-20.

58 For some of the varying attitudes to Rome see A. Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action (London 1990) 181-204; Gruen (supra n. 2) 315-56.

59 J. Richardson, "Polybius' view of the Roman Empire", BSR 34 (1979) 1-1 1, esp. 8-1 1, would minimise this difference in perception, stressing that they are treated in similar ways. But if similar terrns are used to describe both Rome and the kings, it is only because this is the terminology of power in the hellenistic period, not because Greeks could not see any difference between them.





propaganda that went with it, but on the other there was the Greek perception that the Romans were something very different from the kings that they had known up until then. It is, however, necessary to take further the question of why this particular phrase was considered appropriate for the Romans. The Romans the common benefactors were concerned with liberating the Greeks, subduing the monarchs and settling disputes. This may not seem consistent with another image of the Romans, as the enslaver of 150,000 Epirotes, and as responsible for the dismantling of the Achaean League, the razing of Corinth and the installation of oligarchies. But, as was touched upon in Section II, there is another side to the phrase. It was not just about beneficence, it was also about power.

Here it is useful to return to the Egyptian papyri introduced in Section I. In these the phrase 6 TTiVTWV KOLV6!g cpyt7g is used in a very different context, but it is one which is illuminating. The phrase is used not by cities or guilds but by individuals petitioning the Egyptian king. For the subject making a request Ptolemy is all powerful. There are no rivals to whom a petition can be made instead. There may be other kings such as those in Syria or Macedon but to the Ptolemaic subject such inforrnation would be irrelevant and meaningless in the context of his petition. What the Egyptian subject and the Greek city have in common when they use this phrase is their perception of the ruler and their relationship with him. Just as the individual subject is to Ptolemy, so the Greek state is to Rome. The relationships are parallel. The use of the epithet reflects the power of the ruler. 'PWJ1aioi o0 KOLVOI EUEpYeTaL is a sign of Rome's power and the relative powerlessness of all other states and kings. To refer to Rome in this way was to acknowledge Rome's supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean and to accept that the balance of power which had existed between the kings in the third century was over. Rome was the common benefactor because it was perceived as having no rival.

These connotations of the phrase KOLV6s- EV'Epyt7s! are apparent in some literary examples. Philo describes Augustus as KOLV6.' Ev'iEpY&Fg and adds an interesting explanation: "instead of many rulers (iToXuapXta) he put the steering of the ship of state into the hands of a single helmsman, himself' (Leg. 149). So Augustus had become KOLV6 EiVEpyETh because he had done away with rivals. This idea of absolute power recurs in Diodorus 38/39.8.2, where the mutinous Roman commander C. Flavius Fimbria is found plundering cities in Asia. According to Diodorus his troops "having raised him eLs- &vvUr1EVOvvov ttouaLav and being buoyed up with hopes of gain loved him like a KOLV6s Ev'pYETMSh". A holder of power that is dLvvTrrEOvvo,g is someone who is accountable to no one; the term is often used of sole power.60 Thus this passage helps to reiterate two points, first the relationship between KOLVOI ECpyETaTL and power, secondly the absolute nature of that power.

The earliest attestation of'PWVatoL olI KOLVOt EJvEpytTaL occurred at Delphi in 182, following the defeat of both Philip and Antiochus in separate wars. But it is only after 167 and the fall of the Macedonian monarchy that the phrase really begins

60 Cf Arist. Pol. 1295a 19-22; Diog. Laert. 7.122; Polyb. 27.10.2.





86 ANDREW ERSKINE

to be used in the surviving inscriptions. By this point according to Polybius almost the whole world had come under Roman rule and Greek subjection to Rome was unmistakable (1.1.5, 3.4. 1ff; 31.25.6f). Now when there were no rivals to Roman power, the Romans were indisputably the common benefactors of the whole Greek world. The increasing currency of the phrase was an indication of the growing awareness of the political changes in the eastem Mediterranean.

This awareness is apparent too in the way in which the assertion of loyalty to Rome became increasingly common in the second century. As in the Amphictyonic honours to Eumenes II noted above the Romans are even seen to intrude into relations between ostensibly independent entities. Another Amphictyonic decree, confirming privileges for the Attic guild of the artists of Dionysus, ends with a surprising qualification of its own authority: EdvaaL & TaCTa Tots' EV 'AOi"vais TEXV(TaLS, UiV 1L1X TL 'Pwjia(oLS& vUTEVaVTLOV i~i. Yet the previous sixty lines had contained no reference to the Romans (SIG3 692). A treaty between Aphrodisias, Cibyra and Tabae from about the mid-second century requires the three parties to swear an oath to remain allies of each other and Rome.61 A treaty between Chersonesos and King Pharnaces of Pontos from 155 also contains a stipulation that both sides should maintain their friendship with Rome and do nothing to oppose them (IOSPE 12 402.26ff). In a letter written in the l50s Attalus H of Pergamum expresses his anxiety about acting without first consulting the Romans (Welles RC 61). If the king of Pergamum was wary, it is no wonder that smaller states felt the need to reassure themselves of their loyalty to Rome and were concerned that honours they bestowed or treaties they made could in no way be construed as hostile to Rome.' PwIatOL O'L KOLVOI EvE pyETaL was one such way of affirming their loyalty and reassuring themselves.

'PwiatoL ot KOLVOI EvepyCTaL marked out the Romans as rulers and put the Greek state on a par with an Egyptian peasant. Not only did the Greeks look to Rome as a benefactor, they were also obedient to Rome and subordinate to it, just as the peasant was to the Ptolemies. As Polybius realized obedience to Roman orders was fundamental to the Roman idea of empire.62 Now even the Ptolemies, superfi- cially rulers of an independent kingdom, had to be obedient to the Romans. The essence of this relationship was grasped by the Magnesians who in making their arbitration decision in 1 12 said that they were obeying the written instructions of the Romans the common benefactors (RKE 12). These ideas of beneficence co-existing with subordination and subjection probably had some influence on Greek intellec- tuals. It was in this environment that the Stoic philosopher Panaetius propounded his justification of empire. Empire could be justified, he argued, if it was in the interest of the subject, in other words subordination was justifiable if it benefited the

61 J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London 1982), no. 1, lines 1Off. 62 P. S. Derow, "Rome, Polybius and the East", JRS 69 (1979) 1-15, esp. 4ff, with examples, and

more recently in CAHl VIII (1989) 301.




subject.63 The Romans as acknowledged common benefactors were ideally suited to this role.

In the late first century B.C., when individuals were becoming increasingly prominent in Roman politics, the phrase KOLV6S d)Ep#YETT1 is found inscribed in honours to individual Romans, such as Julius Caesar and Augustus. Again it is those without significant rivals.64 After his victory over Pompey at Pharsalus in 48 Caesar was honoured throughout the Greek world. In the inscriptions the emphasis is on his relations with all the Greeks, not only with the city which was honouring him. Thus he is T6V KOLV6V T@V 'EXMivwv [uwi-rpa KalE ]bEpyt7v at Pergamum, cbwT1pa rrs oLKouViEvTr at Carthaea on Ceos and according to the Samians he showed goodwill to all the Greeks. Clearly Caesar was felt by the Greeks to be without rivals. So too was Augustus, when the Mytilenians set up a statue of him with the inscription TOV KOLV6V aUEpy&TaV.65 The Mytilenians are one of those cities known to have used the phrase ol KOLOIt EVEpy&Tat 'PWiatoL (RKE 14). Where they had formerly recognised the supremacy of the Roman state, now they recognised the supremacy of Augustus. This provincial view of the emperor is also present in the literary sources. In addition to Philo's comments on Augustus discussed above, there is Josephus who refers to Augustus as T6V KOLV6V EVEP'ytT1V Katuapa (AJ 16.98).

What the Greeks are found doing in the second century B.C. is applying existing political terminology in a new context. This is being done in order to make intelligible an otherwise extraordinary situation in which a long-standing interna- tional balance of power simply ceased to exist. The Greeks had to come to terms with a new and more powerful state.' PWLatOL ol KOLVOt E1)EpyETaL rquires some belief on the part of the Greeks that the Romans are indeed benefactors but it is also an acknowledgement of the Greek states' subordinate position. Rome's political stance and propaganda would have been important for formulating Greek attitudes to Rome, but ultimately what counted was the Roman exercise of power.

University College Dublin Andrew Erskine

63 See Erskine (supra n. 58) 192-204. 64 An exception is M. Cocceius Nerva (cos. 36), an Antonian, probably governor of Asia in 38/

37, honoured at Teos as T6V KOLV6V EOVp&yThV Kac awT pa nSg tiTapXiag. But in this case his role is limited to the province, so smaller claims are being made: BCH (1925) 310f no. 8 (SEG 4.604), also honoured at Lagina in Caria: ILS 8780; on Nerva, MRR 11.392, II Supp. 59.

65 A. E. Raubitschek, "Epigraphical Notes on Juilius Caesar", JRS 44 (1954) 65-75, esp. 74, has collected the evidence for Caesar; on Augustus see J. and L. Robert, Bull. epigr. (1970) no. 422; see also K. Tuchelt, Fruhe Denkmdiler Roms in Kleinasien 1. Roma und Promagistrate (Ist. Mitt. Beiheft 23 [Tubingen 19791) 62; examples of the theme in the Imperial period include IG XII.2.543-44 (Eresos) of Vespasian and Trajan.

My thanks to Peter Derow, Donald McCabe, Stephen Mitchell and Theresa Urbainczyk for their help and comments.-





Article Contentsp. [70]p. 71p. 72p. 73p. 74p. 75p. 76p. 77p. 78p. 79p. 80p. 81p. 82p. 83p. 84p. 85p. 86p. 87

Issue Table of ContentsHistoria: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 1994), pp. 1-136Front MatterDie Grndung des Delisch-Attischen Seebundes: Element einer 'imperialistischen' Politik Athens?: II. Zielsetzung des Seebundes und die Politik der Zeit [pp. 1-31]The Political History of the Kyklades 260-200 B.C. [pp. 32-69]The Romans as Common Benefactors [pp. 70-87]On Getic and Sarmatian Shores: Ovid's Account of the Danube Lands [pp. 88-111]MiszellenZum Angebot einer Schenkung Alexanders an Phokion [pp. 112-118]Die Wiederverheiratung auf Kos [pp. 119-125]Prudentius and the "Ara Pacis Augustae" [pp. 126-129]

Back Matter [pp. 130-136]