Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Chandezon, Christophe
2003.
L’élevage en Grèce (fin ve-fin ie s. a.C.).
p.
431.
Article contents
A Roman arbitration of the Second Century B.C.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
It is well known that in the second century B.C. the Roman Senate was frequently called upon to compose disputes between Greek states, but of its procedure in such cases there has hitherto been little to say. It is therefore a matter of some interest that fresh light is thrown on this question by a new inscription from Crete. The dispute which is here described arose between the towns of Hierapytna and Itanus, both of which claimed possession of an inland territory adjoining the sanctuary of Zeus Dictaeus, and of certain adjacent islands. The history of this quarrel was already known to us in part from an older inscription containing an arbitral award by the city of Magnesia-on-Maeander; but from the few stray references which that document made to the Romans it was impossible to reconstruct the account of their intervention. In future I propose to call the old inscription A, the new one B.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © M. Cary 1926. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
page 194 note 1 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum II, no. 511.
page 194 note 2 Dittenberger, , Sylloge (3rd ed.) no. 685Google Scholar.
page 194 note 3 Curiously enough, the new stone was found on the site of Itanus. As the people of Itanus can hardly have been quixotic enough to set up an account of the quarrel from their adversaries' point of view, we must assume that the stone was displaced from its original site. Was it fetched away from Hierapytna by the Itanians in some unrecorded war, as the Code ot Hammurabi was purloined from Babylon by the Elamites?
page 195 note 1 See the references given at the head of Dittenberger's text of A. For the various consulships here referred to, see the table in C.I.L. I2, pp. 148–152.
page 195 note 2 Holleaux, M. (Hermes 1914, p. 583, n. 4Google Scholar) has suggested that this was the ‘proconsul Fabius’ who addressed a severe letter to the town of Dyme (Hicks, no. 202; Dittenberger (3rd ed.), no. 684). In that case no doubt Fabius dealt with the affairs of Dyme and of Crete while on the same tour of inspection.
page 196 note 1 Crönert has acutely connected this attack by the Itanians with the victories which their allies of Cnossus won at the expense of Hierapytna's ally, Gortyn, under the leadership of Dorylaüs, shortly before the death of Mithridates V in 120 B.C. (Strabo x, p. 477).
page 196 note 2 The reference is uncertain : it can hardly be to the decrees which ordered a general pacification of Crete in 185 B.C. (Polyb. 23, 15) and 174 B.C. (Livy 41, 25, 7).
page 196 note 3 The lacuna is not large enough for a specific statement of the charge.
page 196 note 4 From the reading [κα]τέσΧομϵν Crönert infers that the Senate assumed the validity of the Hierapytnian claim. But the Magnesian verdict went in favour of Itanus. I therefore prefer Prof. Adcock's suggestion that [κα]τέσΧομϵν means ‘we severally occupied,’ i.e. Hierapytna and Itanus.
page 197 note 1 Crönert shrewdly surmises that this is why the Hierapytnians went to the trouble of publishing an account of the entire dispute.
page 199 note 1 Livy, 41, 25, 7.
page 199 note 2 Polybius, 23, 15.
page 199 note 3 As has been pointed out by G. Colin (Rome et la Grèce, p. 511–2), the Senate adopted the same rule in the disputes between Magnesia and Priene (143 B.C.), and between Messene and Sparta (135 B.C.). There is no need to read any sinister intent into this.
- 1
- Cited by