Chapter 64

123Suetonius,Aug.21, says: “He waged war upon no people without just and necessary causes.” The present Torbia near Monaco, derives its name from aTropæa Augusti, “Trophy of Augustus,” some fragments of which still exist.The inscription has been preserved by Pliny,Hist. Nat., III, 20, 136:imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto pontifice maxumo imp. XIIII tribunic. potestate XVII s. p. q. R. quod ejus ductu auspiciisque gentes Alpinæ omnes quæ a mari supero ad inferum pertinebant sub imperium p. R. sunt redactæ—“the Roman senate and people to Cæsar ... Augustus ... because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine nations, from the upper to the lower sea have been brought into subjection to the Roman empire.” Then follows an enumeration of forty-six peoples. Pliny adds, “the Cottian states were not annexed because they had not been hostile;” and an arch at Segusio was placed in honor of Augustus, and on it are the names of fourteen states, six being repetitions from the Torbia monument. Cf. C. I. L. V, 7817 and 7231.The campaigns here referred to are: First, of Varro Murena against the Salassi in 729. Cf. Strabo, IV, 6, 7, p. 205; Dio, LIII, 25; Livy,Epit., CXXXV; Cass.ad. ann.729; Suet.Aug.21. Second, of Publius Silius against the Vennones and Camunni in 738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20. Third, of Tiberius and Drusus against the Ræti and Vindelici in 739. Cf. Suet.Aug.21. Fourth, against the Ligurians of the Maritime Alps in 740. Cf. Dio, LIV, 24. Finally these regions were formed into the province of Rætia in 747-748.

The inscription has been preserved by Pliny,Hist. Nat., III, 20, 136:imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto pontifice maxumo imp. XIIII tribunic. potestate XVII s. p. q. R. quod ejus ductu auspiciisque gentes Alpinæ omnes quæ a mari supero ad inferum pertinebant sub imperium p. R. sunt redactæ—“the Roman senate and people to Cæsar ... Augustus ... because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine nations, from the upper to the lower sea have been brought into subjection to the Roman empire.” Then follows an enumeration of forty-six peoples. Pliny adds, “the Cottian states were not annexed because they had not been hostile;” and an arch at Segusio was placed in honor of Augustus, and on it are the names of fourteen states, six being repetitions from the Torbia monument. Cf. C. I. L. V, 7817 and 7231.

The campaigns here referred to are: First, of Varro Murena against the Salassi in 729. Cf. Strabo, IV, 6, 7, p. 205; Dio, LIII, 25; Livy,Epit., CXXXV; Cass.ad. ann.729; Suet.Aug.21. Second, of Publius Silius against the Vennones and Camunni in 738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20. Third, of Tiberius and Drusus against the Ræti and Vindelici in 739. Cf. Suet.Aug.21. Fourth, against the Ligurians of the Maritime Alps in 740. Cf. Dio, LIV, 24. Finally these regions were formed into the province of Rætia in 747-748.

124This naval expedition was connected with the German campaign of Tiberius in 758. Cf. Vell. II, 106; Pliny,Hist. Nat., II, 67, 167.

125Strabo, VII, 2, 1, describes an embassy of the Cimbri asking for “peace and amnesty.” They dwelt in the end of Jutland. Cf. Ptolemy, II, 10. Below them were the Charudes, whom the mason at Ancyra makes Charydes, and the Greek translator, thinking of the fable, transforms into Chalybes, living just south of the Cimbri. Cf. Ptolemy, ii, 11, 12. The Semnones were between the Elbe and the Oder.

126When the Egyptian garrisons were weakened on account of the Arabian expedition, Queen Candace took advantage of it and captured a number of towns in Upper Egypt. These the præfect, C. Petronius, re-took, and inflicted severe punishment upon the Æthiopians. This took place 730-732. Cf. Strabo, XVII, I, 54; Dio, LIV, 5; Pliny,Hist. Nat., VI, 29, 181, 182.In 1896 Capt. Lyons, R. E., found, at Philæ, an inscription in Latin, Greek and hieroglyphics, of which Prof. Mahaffy gives this translation: “Gaius Cornelius, son of Cnaeus Gallus, a Roman knight, appointed first prefect, after the kings were conquered by Cæsar, son of Divus, of Alexandria and Egypt—who conquered the revolt of the Thebaid in fifteen days, having won two pitched battles, together with the capture of the leaders of his opponents, having taken five cities, some by assault, some by siege, viz., Boresis, Coptos, Ceramice, Diospolis the Great, Ombos (?); having slain the leaders of these revolts, and having brought his army beyond the cataract of the Nile to a point whither neither the Roman people nor the Kings of Egypt had yet carried their standards, a military district impassable before his day; having subdued, to the common terror of all the kings, all the Thebaid, which was not subject to the kings, and having received the ambassadors of the Ethiopians at Philæ, and guest-friendship from their king (and received their king under his protection) and having appointed him tyrant of the 30-schoenidistrict of Lower Ethiopia—makes this thank-offering to the Dii Patrii, and to the Nile, who aided him in his deeds.”London Athenæum, March 14, 1896, andSitzungsberichte d. kgl. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1896, I, pp. 469-480.

In 1896 Capt. Lyons, R. E., found, at Philæ, an inscription in Latin, Greek and hieroglyphics, of which Prof. Mahaffy gives this translation: “Gaius Cornelius, son of Cnaeus Gallus, a Roman knight, appointed first prefect, after the kings were conquered by Cæsar, son of Divus, of Alexandria and Egypt—who conquered the revolt of the Thebaid in fifteen days, having won two pitched battles, together with the capture of the leaders of his opponents, having taken five cities, some by assault, some by siege, viz., Boresis, Coptos, Ceramice, Diospolis the Great, Ombos (?); having slain the leaders of these revolts, and having brought his army beyond the cataract of the Nile to a point whither neither the Roman people nor the Kings of Egypt had yet carried their standards, a military district impassable before his day; having subdued, to the common terror of all the kings, all the Thebaid, which was not subject to the kings, and having received the ambassadors of the Ethiopians at Philæ, and guest-friendship from their king (and received their king under his protection) and having appointed him tyrant of the 30-schoenidistrict of Lower Ethiopia—makes this thank-offering to the Dii Patrii, and to the Nile, who aided him in his deeds.”London Athenæum, March 14, 1896, andSitzungsberichte d. kgl. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1896, I, pp. 469-480.

127The Arabian campaign, under C. Aelius Gallus was probably in 729-730. Cf. Dio, LIII, 29; Hor.Carm.I, 29, 35; Strabo, XVI, 4, 22, 24. Pliny,Hist. Nat., VI, 28, 159, 160,

128Egypt was made an integral part of the empire after Actium and the death of Cleopatra, in 724. Its connection with the empire was peculiar. W. T. Arnold,Roman Provincial Administration, p. 113, says: “The government of Egypt was in many points wholly exceptional. Julius Cæsar had deliberately abstained from making it a province of the country (cf. Suet.,Jul.35); and when Augustus added it to the empire he subjected it to an altogether exceptional treatment. The country was his private property, or rather the Emperor’s private property; it passed as a matter of course, that is, from emperor to emperor. Augustus appointed a præfect to represent him in the province, just as in earlier times the urban prætors had sent prefects to represent them in the municipalities of Italy. This præfect was of equestrian, and not of the highest equestrian rank (Tac.Ann., XII, 60; II, 59;Hist.I. 11); no senators were admitted into the province; and the greatest jealousy was shown of the smallest interference with it. The reasons for the special jealousy of Egypt shown by Augustus and his successors were partly the great defensibility of the country (in case of insurrection—Ed.), partly its immense importance as the granary of Rome. ‘It was an accepted principle with our fathers,’ says Pliny, ‘that our city could not possibly be fed and maintained without the resources of Egypt.’” For a fuller treatment cf. Marquardt,Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I, 282-298.

129Armenia Major had been raised to greatness by Tigranes I (658-699) who had been a formidable ally of Mithridates. Pompey finally subdued him, 688. Henceforth Armenia was in a subject condition. Tigranes was succeeded by his son Artavasdes. In 718, when Antony attacked the Parthians, this king sided with him against Phraates of Parthia, and another Artavasdes, king of Media. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 25.But presently the two Artavasdes changed relations, the king of Armenia passing to the Parthian side and he of Media joining Antony. Cf. Plut.,Ant., 52; Dio, XLIX, 33, 44. Antony captured Artavasdes of Armenia and gave him over to Cleopatra, who killed him in 721. His kingdom was assigned to Antony’s son Alexander to whom was betrothed Jotape daughter of Artavasdes of Media. The Armenians made Artaxes, son of the late Artavasdes, their king. When Octavian overcame Antony he did not befriend all the Oriental enemies of the latter, but for purposes of his own set up a rival to Phraates of Parthia in Tiridates. Cf. c. 32. And, angered at the Armenians, who had dealt harshly with certain Romans in that kingdom, he held as hostages the brothers of king Artaxes, and set Artavasdes of Media over Armenia Minor as a check upon Artaxes. Cf. Dio, LI, 16; LIV, 9. In 734 Augustus went to the East to arrange affairs there. A campaign against Artaxes was planned, but he was assassinated. Cf. Dio, LIV, 9; Tac.,Ann., II, 3; Vell., II, 94, 122; Suet.Aug., 21; Jos.,Ant., XV, 4, 3; Eckhel, VI, 98. At this point the action of Augustus, recorded here in theRes Gestæ, takes place. Augustus follows the example of Pompey, who, in dealing with Armenia in 688 had contented himself with making the Armenian king accept his royalty as a gift from Rome. Cf. Cic.pro Sext.27. The affair was conducted by Tiberius, not yet adopted. Cf. Suet.Tib., 9; Vell., II, 122. Henceforth Armenia was regarded as part of the empire, though its native sovereigns were continued. Cf. Vell., II, 94, 122: “Armenia restored to the control of the Roman people;” “Armenia retaken.” “The Medes likewise were subjected.” Cf. c. 33.

But presently the two Artavasdes changed relations, the king of Armenia passing to the Parthian side and he of Media joining Antony. Cf. Plut.,Ant., 52; Dio, XLIX, 33, 44. Antony captured Artavasdes of Armenia and gave him over to Cleopatra, who killed him in 721. His kingdom was assigned to Antony’s son Alexander to whom was betrothed Jotape daughter of Artavasdes of Media. The Armenians made Artaxes, son of the late Artavasdes, their king. When Octavian overcame Antony he did not befriend all the Oriental enemies of the latter, but for purposes of his own set up a rival to Phraates of Parthia in Tiridates. Cf. c. 32. And, angered at the Armenians, who had dealt harshly with certain Romans in that kingdom, he held as hostages the brothers of king Artaxes, and set Artavasdes of Media over Armenia Minor as a check upon Artaxes. Cf. Dio, LI, 16; LIV, 9. In 734 Augustus went to the East to arrange affairs there. A campaign against Artaxes was planned, but he was assassinated. Cf. Dio, LIV, 9; Tac.,Ann., II, 3; Vell., II, 94, 122; Suet.Aug., 21; Jos.,Ant., XV, 4, 3; Eckhel, VI, 98. At this point the action of Augustus, recorded here in theRes Gestæ, takes place. Augustus follows the example of Pompey, who, in dealing with Armenia in 688 had contented himself with making the Armenian king accept his royalty as a gift from Rome. Cf. Cic.pro Sext.27. The affair was conducted by Tiberius, not yet adopted. Cf. Suet.Tib., 9; Vell., II, 122. Henceforth Armenia was regarded as part of the empire, though its native sovereigns were continued. Cf. Vell., II, 94, 122: “Armenia restored to the control of the Roman people;” “Armenia retaken.” “The Medes likewise were subjected.” Cf. c. 33.

130The reign of Tigranes was brief. The Parthians winning some success against Rome, stirred up Armenia. Cf. Tac.Ann., II, 3; Vell., II, 100. They favored the children of Tigranes, Tigranes III and Erato. A Roman faction set up his younger brother Artavasdes. Cf. Tacitus l. c. The suppression of the disorder was enjoined upon Tiberius. But at this juncture, 748, he went into retirement at Rhodes. Cf. Dio, LV, 9. Artavasdes died and the young Tigranes courted the aid of Rome, but was soon killed, probably by Parthian means, and his sister Erato abdicated. Cf. fragments of Dio, cited by Mommsen,R. G., p. 113, and Dio, LV, 10. Tacitus confirms the delivery of Armenia to Ariobarzanes by Gaius. Cf.Ann., II, 3; and Dio, LV, 10. The Parthian faction did not accept him, and it was in a contest over him that Gaius received a wound, of which he died, Feb. 21, 757. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 472. For the succession of Artavasdes, cf. Dio, LV, 10. The Tigranes IV, next mentioned “of the royal house of the Armenians” was a grandson of Herod the Great, of Judea, on the one side, and of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia, and probably an Armenian princess on the other. Cf. Tac.Ann.VI, 40; XIV, 26; Jos.,Ant.XVIII, 5, 4;Wars, I, 28, 1.

131For Sicily and Sardinia, cf. c. 25 and notes.By the treaty of Brundisium, Antony had received Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, Crete, Cyrenaica. The five last named he had given over to foreign kings. As to Asia and Bithynia, Dio, XLIX, 41 and Plut.Ant.54, are in conflict. But theRes Gestætends to confirm the latter. Lycaonia and Pamphylia were taken from the province of Cilicia and given to Amyntas, King of Galatia. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32. He extended Egypt again by restoring to it Cyprus. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32, 41; Plut. l. c.; Strabo, XIV, 6, 6: he granted to Cleopatra and Cæsarion, her son by Julius Cæsar, the coast land of Syria, Tyre and Sidon excepted, cf. Jos.Ant.XV, 4, 1;Wars, I, 18, 5; also Coele-Syria, cf. Jos.Ant.XV, 3, 8; Plut. l. c.; Ituraea, Judaea and Arabia Nabataea, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32; Jos.Ant.XV, 4, 1; 5, 3;Wars, I, 18, 5; 20, 3; parts of Cilicia, cf. Strabo, XIV, 5, 3; 5, 6: and perhaps Crete also, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32: and Cyrenaica, cf. Plut. l. c. To his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus he gave Syria, and part of Cilicia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 41; Plut. l. c.: for the elder, Alexander he planned a kingdom made up of Armenia, Media and Parthia, cf. Livy,Epit.CXXXI; Plutarch, l. c. These alienations of Roman territory were made the occasion of Octavian’s attack upon Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 1; Plut. l. c.

131For Sicily and Sardinia, cf. c. 25 and notes.

By the treaty of Brundisium, Antony had received Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, Crete, Cyrenaica. The five last named he had given over to foreign kings. As to Asia and Bithynia, Dio, XLIX, 41 and Plut.Ant.54, are in conflict. But theRes Gestætends to confirm the latter. Lycaonia and Pamphylia were taken from the province of Cilicia and given to Amyntas, King of Galatia. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32. He extended Egypt again by restoring to it Cyprus. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32, 41; Plut. l. c.; Strabo, XIV, 6, 6: he granted to Cleopatra and Cæsarion, her son by Julius Cæsar, the coast land of Syria, Tyre and Sidon excepted, cf. Jos.Ant.XV, 4, 1;Wars, I, 18, 5; also Coele-Syria, cf. Jos.Ant.XV, 3, 8; Plut. l. c.; Ituraea, Judaea and Arabia Nabataea, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32; Jos.Ant.XV, 4, 1; 5, 3;Wars, I, 18, 5; 20, 3; parts of Cilicia, cf. Strabo, XIV, 5, 3; 5, 6: and perhaps Crete also, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32: and Cyrenaica, cf. Plut. l. c. To his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus he gave Syria, and part of Cilicia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 41; Plut. l. c.: for the elder, Alexander he planned a kingdom made up of Armenia, Media and Parthia, cf. Livy,Epit.CXXXI; Plutarch, l. c. These alienations of Roman territory were made the occasion of Octavian’s attack upon Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 1; Plut. l. c.

132Mommsen believes that Augustus founded only military colonies. Zumpt thinks otherwise. Cf.Comment Epig., I, 362.

133Known colonies of Augustus are: In Africa, Carthage, cf. C. I. L. VIII, p. 133; Dio, LII, 43; App.Pun.CXXXVI. In Sicily, Panhormus, Thermes, Tyndaris, cf. Dio, LIV, 7; Pliny,Hist. Nat., III, 8, 88; 89; 90. Marquardt,Röm. StaatsverwaltungI, 246, names seven colonies of Augustus in Sicily. In Macedonia, Dyrrachium, Philippi, cf. Dio, LI, 4. Cassandrea, cf. Pliny,Hist. Nat., IV, 10. In Hither Spain, Cæsaraugusta, cf. coin in Eckhel I, 37, which also gives the numbers of the legions whose veterans were colonized here:leg. IV,leg. VI,leg. X. Marquardtop. cit., I, 256, names six colonies of Augustus here. In Farther Spain, Emerita, cf. Eckhel I, 12, and 19,leg. V,X; Marquardt,op. cit., I, 257. In Achaia, Patrae, cf. C. I. L. III, p. 95,leg. X,XII. In Asia, Alexandrea of the Troad, cf. Pliny,Hist. Nat., V, 30. In Syria, Berytus, cf. Eckhel III, 356,leg. V,VIII; Heliopolis, cf. Eckhel, III, 334. In Gallia Narbonensis, Reii and Aquae Sextiae, cf. Herzog,Gall. Narb. inscr.n. 113, 356. In Pisidia, Antioch, cf. Eckhel III, 18; Cremna, cf. Eckhel III, 20; Olbasa, cf. Eckhel, III, 20; Parlais, cf. Ramsay,Bull. de Corr. Hell., VII, p. 318.No colonies are assigned to Sardinia, the three Gauls and two Germanies, Raetia, Noricum, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Galatian Pontus, Paphlagonia, part of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Cyrenaica. As for parts of the empire under subject kings, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, no account is taken of them, though there were certainly colonies in Mauretania, at Cartenna and Tupusuctu. Cf. Pliny,Hist. Nat., V, 2, 20; C. I. L., VIII, 8857.

No colonies are assigned to Sardinia, the three Gauls and two Germanies, Raetia, Noricum, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Galatian Pontus, Paphlagonia, part of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Cyrenaica. As for parts of the empire under subject kings, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, no account is taken of them, though there were certainly colonies in Mauretania, at Cartenna and Tupusuctu. Cf. Pliny,Hist. Nat., V, 2, 20; C. I. L., VIII, 8857.

134Cf. an article by Mommsen,Hermes, XVIII, 161 ff. on the “Colonies of Italy from Sulla to Vespasian.”When Augustus wrote, Italy was separated from Illyricum by the river Arsia. Yet Illyricum was not counted by him as a province. It had colonies at Emona, Iader, Salona, and possibly at Epidaurus and Narona. Cf. C. I. L., III, pp. 489, 374, 304, 287, 291. Mommsen thinks this omission was intended by Augustus; that he had been able to satisfy some of his veterans, to whom Italian farms had been promised, with lands over the Italian border in Illyricum, and because he could not call it a province, nor yet a part of Italy, he eludes the difficulty by omitting the Illyrian colonies.The names of the twenty-eight Italian colonies are somewhat difficult to establish. Several perplexing questions rise in the attempt. What of the colonies founded by Antony and Octavian as triumvirs? Were they Antoniæ Juliæ, or some Juliæ and others Antoniæ? If the former were true and they dropped the name Antoniæ, the result would be far more than twenty-eight Julian and Augustan colonies. The second probability is more likely, and that the colonies Antoniæ simply dropped their name after Actium.A third difficulty rises in the case of the enlargement of old colonies and their resettlement, as,e. g., of Minturnæ. Cf. Hyginus,De Lim., p. 177. Mommsen gives a list which nearly meets the statement of Augustus. 1. Ariminum,Augusta; 2. Ateste; 3.AugustaPrætoria; 4.Julia AugustaTaurinorum; 5. Beneventum,Julia Augusta; 6. Bononia; 7. Brixia,Augusta; 8. Capua,Julia Augusta; 9. Castrum novum Etruriæ,Julia; 10. Concordia,Julia; 11. Cumæ (?)Julia; 12. Dertona,Julia; 13. Fanum Fortunæ,Julia; 14. Falerio; 15. Hispellum,Julia; 16. Lucus Feroniæ,Julia; 17. Minturnæ; 18. Nola,Augusta; 19. Parentium,Julia; 20. Parma,Julia Augusta; 21. Pisae,Julia; 22. Pisaurum,Julia; 23. Pola,Julia; 24. Sæna (?),Julia; 25. Sora,Julia; 26. Suessa,Julia; 27. Sutrium,Julia; 28. Tuder,Julia; 29, Venafrum,Julia Augusta. Cf. Marquardt,Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I, 118-132.

134Cf. an article by Mommsen,Hermes, XVIII, 161 ff. on the “Colonies of Italy from Sulla to Vespasian.”

When Augustus wrote, Italy was separated from Illyricum by the river Arsia. Yet Illyricum was not counted by him as a province. It had colonies at Emona, Iader, Salona, and possibly at Epidaurus and Narona. Cf. C. I. L., III, pp. 489, 374, 304, 287, 291. Mommsen thinks this omission was intended by Augustus; that he had been able to satisfy some of his veterans, to whom Italian farms had been promised, with lands over the Italian border in Illyricum, and because he could not call it a province, nor yet a part of Italy, he eludes the difficulty by omitting the Illyrian colonies.

The names of the twenty-eight Italian colonies are somewhat difficult to establish. Several perplexing questions rise in the attempt. What of the colonies founded by Antony and Octavian as triumvirs? Were they Antoniæ Juliæ, or some Juliæ and others Antoniæ? If the former were true and they dropped the name Antoniæ, the result would be far more than twenty-eight Julian and Augustan colonies. The second probability is more likely, and that the colonies Antoniæ simply dropped their name after Actium.

A third difficulty rises in the case of the enlargement of old colonies and their resettlement, as,e. g., of Minturnæ. Cf. Hyginus,De Lim., p. 177. Mommsen gives a list which nearly meets the statement of Augustus. 1. Ariminum,Augusta; 2. Ateste; 3.AugustaPrætoria; 4.Julia AugustaTaurinorum; 5. Beneventum,Julia Augusta; 6. Bononia; 7. Brixia,Augusta; 8. Capua,Julia Augusta; 9. Castrum novum Etruriæ,Julia; 10. Concordia,Julia; 11. Cumæ (?)Julia; 12. Dertona,Julia; 13. Fanum Fortunæ,Julia; 14. Falerio; 15. Hispellum,Julia; 16. Lucus Feroniæ,Julia; 17. Minturnæ; 18. Nola,Augusta; 19. Parentium,Julia; 20. Parma,Julia Augusta; 21. Pisae,Julia; 22. Pisaurum,Julia; 23. Pola,Julia; 24. Sæna (?),Julia; 25. Sora,Julia; 26. Suessa,Julia; 27. Sutrium,Julia; 28. Tuder,Julia; 29, Venafrum,Julia Augusta. Cf. Marquardt,Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I, 118-132.

135Of standards recovered in Spain and Gaul we have no further knowledge. It may be that in the Cantabrian war of 728, 729, some such thing took place.Appian,Illyr.XII, XXV, XXVIII, narrates the capture of standards by the Dalmatians from Gabinius in 706, and their restoration to Augustus in 721. These were then placed in the Octavian portico; and probably later transferred to the temple of Mars.

135Of standards recovered in Spain and Gaul we have no further knowledge. It may be that in the Cantabrian war of 728, 729, some such thing took place.

Appian,Illyr.XII, XXV, XXVIII, narrates the capture of standards by the Dalmatians from Gabinius in 706, and their restoration to Augustus in 721. These were then placed in the Octavian portico; and probably later transferred to the temple of Mars.

136The standards had been lost by Crassus and Antony. Cf. Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Livy,Epit., CXLI; Suetonius,Aug.21; Vell., II, 91; Vergil,Æn.VII, 606; Horace,Carm., I, 12, 56; III, 5, 4; Dio, LIII, 33; LIV, 8; Cass.Chron.ad. 734; Oros., VI, 21; Florus IV, 12; Eutropius, VII, 9. One detachment of Antonius’ army, under L. Decidius Saxa, was exterminated in 714, and another in 718 under Oppius Statianus. Cf. Livy,Ep.CXXI; Dio, XLVIII, 24.Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians in 734. Cf. Dio, LIV, 8, etc.; Suet.Tib.9. Eckhel, VI, 95, shows a coin with a Parthian on bended knee presenting a standard to Augustus. Cf. also Horace,Epis., I, 12, 27; Oros., VI, 21, 29; and c. 32 of the inscription.There were two temples of Mars Ultor, a smaller one on the Capitoline, and a larger in the forum, dedicated in 752. The standards were removed to the larger temple. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Horace,Carm., IV, 5, 16;Epis., I, 18, 56; Propertius, III, 10, 3; Ovid,Trist.II, 295;Fasti, V, 549; VI, 459.

Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians in 734. Cf. Dio, LIV, 8, etc.; Suet.Tib.9. Eckhel, VI, 95, shows a coin with a Parthian on bended knee presenting a standard to Augustus. Cf. also Horace,Epis., I, 12, 27; Oros., VI, 21, 29; and c. 32 of the inscription.

There were two temples of Mars Ultor, a smaller one on the Capitoline, and a larger in the forum, dedicated in 752. The standards were removed to the larger temple. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Horace,Carm., IV, 5, 16;Epis., I, 18, 56; Propertius, III, 10, 3; Ovid,Trist.II, 295;Fasti, V, 549; VI, 459.

137Augustus himself had fought the Pannonians in 719, 720. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 36-38. The campaigns of Tiberius were from 742 to 745. Cf. Vell. II, 96; Dio, LIV, 31, 34; LV, 2; Suet.Tib., 9.

138This statement varies somewhat from Dio, L, 24, who says Augustus reached the Danube in 720, and from Suetonius,Tib.16, who assigns the complete subjection of the district to 759.

139The Dacians had become organized and strong in the latter years of the Roman republic. Cf. Justin. XXXII, 3; Jordanis,Get., XI, 67; Strabo, XVI, 2, 39; VII, 3, 5; 11; Suet.Aug., 44. Julius Cæsar was about to proceed against them when he died. Cf. Suet.Jul., 44;Aug., 8; App.B. C., II, 110; III, 25, 37;Illyr., 13; Vell., II. 59; Livy,Epit., CXVII. In 719 Augustus began his Illyrican campaign by occupying Segesta on the Save, whence he threatened the Dacians and Bastarnæ. Cf. App.Illyr., 22, 23. Antony is responsible for the statement that Augustus sought to secure the goodwill of Cotiso, king of the Getæ (Dacians), by giving him his daughter and by himself marrying a daughter of Cotiso. Cf. Suetonius,Aug., 63. Cotiso refused the alliance and joined the party of Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 6; LI, 22. Antony’s story as to the proposed marriages is hardly credible, and may have been invented by him to offset his own alliance with Cleopatra. During the struggle between Antony and Octavian, an invasion of the Dacians was the constant dread of Italy. Cf. Vergil,Georg., II, 497; Hor.Sat., II, 6, 53;Carm., III, 6, 13. When Antony was overthrown M. Crassus undertook the suppression of the Dacians, and triumphed, July 4, 727. Cf. Dio, LI, 23; Tab. Triumph. But Dacian incursions were still frequent. Dio records one in 738, cf. LIV, 20; and one in 744, cf. LIV, 36. Probably it was in this latter incursion that the defeat here alluded to was met by them. Finally an army was sent against them under Lentulus, in 759. Cf. Dio, LV, 30; Strabo, VII, 12 and 13; Suet.Aug., 21; Florus, IV, 12, 19, 20; Tac.Ann., IV, 44.

140Cf. Suet.Aug., 21; Flor. IV, 12, 62;Oros., VI, 21, 19, says that deputies of Indians and Scythians came to Augustus at Tarracona in 728 or 729; Dio, LIV, 9, that deputies from India came to him at Samos in 734. Strabo gives the name of the Indian king as Porus. Cf. XV., 1, 4 and 73. Cf. also Ver.Georg., II, 170;Aen., VI, 794; VIII, 705; Hor.Carm., I, 12, 56;Carm. Saec., 55, 56;Carm., IV, 14, 41.

141For a general statement, cf. Suetonius,Aug.21. For the Scythians, cf. Note 140, above. For the Bastarnæ, cf. Livy,Ep.CXXXIV; Dio, LI, 23, 24. For the Sarmatæ, cf. Flor. l. c.; Strabo, II, 5, 30; Tac.Ann., VI, 33; Pliny,Hist. Nat., II, 108, 246; VI, 7, 19; VI, 5, 16; VI, 13, 40. Vergil refers to them as Gelones. Cf.Aen., VIII, 725. Cf. also Hor.Carm., II, 9; III, 8, 23. For the Albani and Iberi, cf. Dio, XLIX, 24. For the Medes, cf. c. 27 and notes.

142For Phraates and Tiridates, cf. Justin, XLII, 5; Dio, LI, 18. Tiridates had supplanted Phraates and in turn was driven out by him. He then, in 724, came to Augustus for aid. But the latter was anxious to regain the lost standards from Parthia, and simply played off Tiridates against Phraates by setting him over Syria. Dio, in the passage cited, makes mention of a son of Phraates who was captured by Tiridates and given up to Augustus. This was possibly the Phraates here mentioned, though there are difficulties in the way of this explanation. For Augustus implies the voluntary coming of a reigning king, not the delivery of an abducted prince. We know that in 731 Tiridates was in Rome asking that Parthia be assigned to him, and that at the same time Phraates sent an embassy begging the restitution of his son. Cf. Dio, LIII, 33. Augustus laid the matter before the senate, and by their advice restored the prince in exchange for the standards, but did not yield to the plea of Tiridates.

143Cf. c. 27.

144A people east of the Tigris, and west of Media Atropatane. Nothing is known of Artaxares. For the Adiabeni and their kingdom, cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 19; Tac.Ann., XII, 13; Josephus,Ant., XX, 2, 1.

145Augustus several times was on the point of invading Britain. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 38, for 720; LIII, 22, 25, for 727, 728. The poets have many prophecies of victories in Britain. Cf. Ver.Georg., I, 30, written in 724; III, 25; Hor.Epode, VII, 7;Carm., I. 35, 29, of the year 727, 728;Carm., III, 5; I, 21, 15; III, 4, 33; IV, 14, 48. But nothing came of these plans. Cf. Strabo, IV, 5, 3, for embassies from Britain. Coins of Dumnobellaunus have been found. Cf. J. Evans,Coins of the Ancient Britons(London, 1864), p. 198, and the following plate 4, Nos. 6-12.

146The great defeat of Lollius in 738 was by the Sicambri, joined with the Usipites and Tencteri. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20; Vell., II, 97; Suet.,Aug., 23. There was a temporary peace. Cf. Horace,Carm., IV, 2. 36; 14, 51. They rebelled in 742, and were put down, first by Drusus and later by Tiberius. Cf. Dio, LIV, 32, 33, 36. In 746 they were completely subjugated and removed into Gaul. Cf. Dio, LV, 6; Vell. II, 97; Suet.,Aug., 21;Tib., 9; Tac.Ann., II, 26; XII, 39; Strabo, VII, 1, 3. Probably the coming of Maelo was during this surrender of 746.

147The Marcomani were a branch of the Suevi. Cf. Tac.,Germ., XXXVIII;Ann., II, 44, 62.

148The four sons were Seraspedes, Rhodaspedes, Vonones and Phraates, with the wives of two of them and four children. Cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 28; VI, 4, 2; Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Vell., II, 94; Tac.,Ann., II, 1; Oros., VI, 21, 29; Suet.,Aug.21, 43; Jos.,Antiq., XVIII, 2, 4. They were sent to be out of harm’s way during troubles in Parthia, according to all but Josephus, who says they were removed so as not to hinder the succession of Phraataces, an illegitimate son. When Phraates died, Phraataces in vain asked Augustus for the return of the princes. This was c. 750. Cf. Dio, fragments, Ursin. 39. The two elder princes died in Rome. Cf. C. I. L., VI, 7799. Vonones was sent back by Augustus. Cf. c. 33, Note149; Phraates was returned by Tiberius in 788. Cf. Tac.,Ann., VI, 31; Dio, LVIII, 16. Probably the princes were sent to Augustus in 744. Cf. Mommsen,R. G., p. 141.

149The comment of Mommsen here seems too severe. He says: “The writer magnifies his splendors beyond what is exact: for the Parthians and Medes asked Augustus, not so much to appoint kings for them, as to restore to them those to whom the kingdom had fallen by hereditary right.” Such a criticism seems to overlook the force of the wordpetitos, as applied toreges: they got the kings they “asked for.”Phraataces was reigning in 754. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Vell. II, 101. He was succeeded by Orodes for a short time. Then came the choice of Vonones. Cf. Jos.Ant.XVIII, 2, 4; Tac.Ann.II, 1. Josephus gives no date. Tacitus implies 770. Augustus, however, returned Vonones, and the date must be much earlier, probably c. 760. A Parthian embassy was in Rome between 757 and 759. Cf. Suet.Tib., 16. Coins also show the name of Vonones in 761. Cf. Gardner,Parthian Coinage, p. 46. His reign was very brief. Cf. Tacitus and Josephus, ll. cc.

Phraataces was reigning in 754. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Vell. II, 101. He was succeeded by Orodes for a short time. Then came the choice of Vonones. Cf. Jos.Ant.XVIII, 2, 4; Tac.Ann.II, 1. Josephus gives no date. Tacitus implies 770. Augustus, however, returned Vonones, and the date must be much earlier, probably c. 760. A Parthian embassy was in Rome between 757 and 759. Cf. Suet.Tib., 16. Coins also show the name of Vonones in 761. Cf. Gardner,Parthian Coinage, p. 46. His reign was very brief. Cf. Tacitus and Josephus, ll. cc.

150Cf. c. 27.

151This chapter is possibly the most weighty in the whole inscription, inasmuch as it sets forth the view of his policy which Augustus wished the world to hold. How far his statements in the opening and closing sentences represent his own actual notions of his relations to the sovereign power in Rome is a matter of debate. For a full discussion Mommsen,Röm. St.II, p. 723, ff., may be read, and Gardthausen,Aug.Iᵉʳ Th. IIᵉʳ Bd., pp. 485-540 and IIᵉʳ Th., pp. 277-299.The question is: Did Augustus in any real sense restore the republic, or did he conceive of himself as monarch, but find it politic to suppress all outward marks of royalty? Was his chief concern to maintain the peace and prosperity of the Roman people, with as little alteration as possible of the old constitutional forms, or was his object the building up of power for his own sake? This is confessedly one of the riddles of history. The best that can be done is to study his actions, estimating their worth and tendency, and leaving the motives of the great statesman where he hid them,—locked in his own bosom.Undoubtedly, all through theRes Gestæ, as is pointed out in the introduction, and as has been noticed from time to time in these notes, one of his great aims is to represent himself as a conservative, moving within constitutional limits. Coins of the period emphasize the view set forth in the opening sentence of this chapter with regard to the restoration of the republic. Cf. Eckhel, VI, 83:imp. Cæsar divi f. cos. VI, libertatis p. R. vindex; “The imperator, Cæsar, son of the divine (Cæsar) consul for the sixth time, (726) restorer of the freedom of the Roman people.” Cf. C. I. L. VI, 1527: “the whole world pacified, the republic restored.” Also, C. I. L. I, p. 384; the date referred to is Jan. 13, 727: “The senate decreed that an oaken crown should be fixed above the door of the imperator, Cæsar Augustus, because he restored the Roman republic.” Contemporary Roman writers simply echo the views of Augustus. Cf. Ovid,Fasti, I, 589, for Jan. 13, 727, Velleius, II, 89, says: “When the civil wars were finished in the twentieth year, (724) and the foreign wars brought to a close, peace was brought back, power restored to the laws, authority to the tribunals, majesty to the senate, theimperiumof the magistrates reduced to its old time form, the original and ancient form of the state restored.” Cf. Livy,Epit., CXXXIV. The Greek Strabo, also a contemporary, writes, XVII, 3, 25: “The country committed to him the headship of her sovereignty, and made him lord of peace and war for life.” Later writers, even the Romans, are equally free in their judgments. Dio, LII, I, says: “From this time (725) the affairs of Rome began to be in the control of one man (μοναρχεῖσθαι).” Cf. Suet.Aug., 28; Tac.Ann., III, 28. Dio’s account of the conference in which Agrippa advises a real abdication by Augustus, and Mæcenas urges a bold assumption of supreme power (LII, 1-40) is regarded as fictitious.The facts in the case are these: In 711 the Titian law gave the triumvirs a five years’ lease of power. In 716 this was renewed not by formal legislation, but “by universal consent.” Cf. App.,B. C.V, 95. This triumviral power Augustus wielded till his sixth consulship, 726, though there was a pretence of its cessation in 721. Cf. c. 7, N, 1, and Mommsen,Röm. St., II, 698. In this and the following years he divested himself gradually of one extraordinary power after another. He could not at once fall back to the position of an ordinary magistrate. The armies, the laws, the provinces, the revenues had all been in his control. These he must gradually restore Cf. Dio, LII, 13; LIII, 4, 9, 10. In 726 he began his return to older customs by alternating with Agrippa, his colleague, in the consulship, in having the fasces borne before him by the lictors for a month. Cf. Dio, LIII, 1. The restoration of the censorship was part of the same programme. Dio, LIII, 2, says that by an edict he declared all the revolutionary and extraordinary acts of the triumviral period should cease to be effective with the expiration of his sixth consulship (726). The inscription of Jan. 13, 727, above alluded to, C. I. L. I, p. 384, marks that date as that on which the business of restoring the provinces was finally given over to the senate.From this time on the senate divided the control of the provinces with him. Augustus took the troublesome provinces and the frontier ones, leaving to the senate the older and more peaceable. Over these provinces he received a proconsular imperium for ten years, which was renewed at the expiration of that term. In c. 7 he says that he found the tribunitial power a sufficient basis for all the measures which he wished to put through. Now the proconsulship and tribuneship were both ordinary and constitutional offices. Augustus’ occupancy of each affords an illustration of the way in which he held ordinary offices in an extraordinary way. For by the old customs a proconsul must exercise hisimperiumin his province, and never at Rome. Augustus could not be in ten provinces at once, and must be at Rome most of the time. Hence a violation of the constitution was necessary. The tribuneship, instituted for the protection of plebeians could be held only by a plebeian. But Augustus was a patrician. For this reason he did not take the tribuneship in the ordinary way, nor by the ordinary title, but designated himself astribunicia potestate, “of tribunitial authority.”The titleprinceps, “prince” is never used by Augustus as an official designation in laws and inscriptions, but indicates simply his primacy of rank and is so used throughout theRes Gestæ. Cf. cc. 13, 30, 32.

The question is: Did Augustus in any real sense restore the republic, or did he conceive of himself as monarch, but find it politic to suppress all outward marks of royalty? Was his chief concern to maintain the peace and prosperity of the Roman people, with as little alteration as possible of the old constitutional forms, or was his object the building up of power for his own sake? This is confessedly one of the riddles of history. The best that can be done is to study his actions, estimating their worth and tendency, and leaving the motives of the great statesman where he hid them,—locked in his own bosom.

Undoubtedly, all through theRes Gestæ, as is pointed out in the introduction, and as has been noticed from time to time in these notes, one of his great aims is to represent himself as a conservative, moving within constitutional limits. Coins of the period emphasize the view set forth in the opening sentence of this chapter with regard to the restoration of the republic. Cf. Eckhel, VI, 83:imp. Cæsar divi f. cos. VI, libertatis p. R. vindex; “The imperator, Cæsar, son of the divine (Cæsar) consul for the sixth time, (726) restorer of the freedom of the Roman people.” Cf. C. I. L. VI, 1527: “the whole world pacified, the republic restored.” Also, C. I. L. I, p. 384; the date referred to is Jan. 13, 727: “The senate decreed that an oaken crown should be fixed above the door of the imperator, Cæsar Augustus, because he restored the Roman republic.” Contemporary Roman writers simply echo the views of Augustus. Cf. Ovid,Fasti, I, 589, for Jan. 13, 727, Velleius, II, 89, says: “When the civil wars were finished in the twentieth year, (724) and the foreign wars brought to a close, peace was brought back, power restored to the laws, authority to the tribunals, majesty to the senate, theimperiumof the magistrates reduced to its old time form, the original and ancient form of the state restored.” Cf. Livy,Epit., CXXXIV. The Greek Strabo, also a contemporary, writes, XVII, 3, 25: “The country committed to him the headship of her sovereignty, and made him lord of peace and war for life.” Later writers, even the Romans, are equally free in their judgments. Dio, LII, I, says: “From this time (725) the affairs of Rome began to be in the control of one man (μοναρχεῖσθαι).” Cf. Suet.Aug., 28; Tac.Ann., III, 28. Dio’s account of the conference in which Agrippa advises a real abdication by Augustus, and Mæcenas urges a bold assumption of supreme power (LII, 1-40) is regarded as fictitious.

The facts in the case are these: In 711 the Titian law gave the triumvirs a five years’ lease of power. In 716 this was renewed not by formal legislation, but “by universal consent.” Cf. App.,B. C.V, 95. This triumviral power Augustus wielded till his sixth consulship, 726, though there was a pretence of its cessation in 721. Cf. c. 7, N, 1, and Mommsen,Röm. St., II, 698. In this and the following years he divested himself gradually of one extraordinary power after another. He could not at once fall back to the position of an ordinary magistrate. The armies, the laws, the provinces, the revenues had all been in his control. These he must gradually restore Cf. Dio, LII, 13; LIII, 4, 9, 10. In 726 he began his return to older customs by alternating with Agrippa, his colleague, in the consulship, in having the fasces borne before him by the lictors for a month. Cf. Dio, LIII, 1. The restoration of the censorship was part of the same programme. Dio, LIII, 2, says that by an edict he declared all the revolutionary and extraordinary acts of the triumviral period should cease to be effective with the expiration of his sixth consulship (726). The inscription of Jan. 13, 727, above alluded to, C. I. L. I, p. 384, marks that date as that on which the business of restoring the provinces was finally given over to the senate.

From this time on the senate divided the control of the provinces with him. Augustus took the troublesome provinces and the frontier ones, leaving to the senate the older and more peaceable. Over these provinces he received a proconsular imperium for ten years, which was renewed at the expiration of that term. In c. 7 he says that he found the tribunitial power a sufficient basis for all the measures which he wished to put through. Now the proconsulship and tribuneship were both ordinary and constitutional offices. Augustus’ occupancy of each affords an illustration of the way in which he held ordinary offices in an extraordinary way. For by the old customs a proconsul must exercise hisimperiumin his province, and never at Rome. Augustus could not be in ten provinces at once, and must be at Rome most of the time. Hence a violation of the constitution was necessary. The tribuneship, instituted for the protection of plebeians could be held only by a plebeian. But Augustus was a patrician. For this reason he did not take the tribuneship in the ordinary way, nor by the ordinary title, but designated himself astribunicia potestate, “of tribunitial authority.”

The titleprinceps, “prince” is never used by Augustus as an official designation in laws and inscriptions, but indicates simply his primacy of rank and is so used throughout theRes Gestæ. Cf. cc. 13, 30, 32.

152Cf. C. I. L. 1, p. 384; X. 8375; Livy,Ep., 134; Cass. ad. an. 727; Oros. VI, 20, 8; Vell. II, 91; Suet.Aug.7; Dio, LIII, 16.

153Cf. coins in Eckhel, VI, 88; Cohen,Aug.nos. 43-48, 50, 207-212, 301, 341, 356, 385, 426, 476-8, 482. All these show either the crown or the laurels and many of them have both. With the crown is generallyob civis servatos, “for preserving the citizens.” The civic crown being the reward of any soldier who saved a citizen’s life, Augustus was pre-eminently deemed worthy of it, because he had saved so many by putting an end to the civil wars, and by his clemency. Cf. Dio, LIII, 16; Suet.Claud.17; Sen.De Clem.I, 26, 5; Ovid,Tr.III, 1, 39, 41, 47;FastiIV, 953; III, 137; Val. Max. II, 8, 7; Juv. VI, 52, 79; X, 65; XII, 91; Tac.Ann.XV, 71.

154No ancient writer mentions this shield, but a number of coins and inscriptions portray it. Cf. C. I. L. IX, 5811, wherein two Victories carry a shield inscribed: “The senate and Roman people have given to Augustus a shield on account of his valor, clemency, justice and piety;” the very words of theRes Gestæ. For coins, cf. Eckhel, VI, 95, 103, 121; Cohen,Aug.nos. 50-53, 213-216, 253, 264-267, 283, 286-297, 332. The Victory, which is frequently associated with the shield, probably indicates that the latter was placed by Augustus near the altar of Victory erected by him in the Curia Julia.

155Cf. Note151.

156This title was given Feb. 5, 752. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 386; II, No. 2107. As in the case of the title, prince of the youth, conferred upon Gaius and Lucius, and of the continuance of his supreme power by universal consent (cf. cc. 14 and 34), the appellation, father of the fatherland, was given by general acclamation, leaving to the senate only the formal ratification of the popular will. Suet.Aug.58, expressly states this. Cf. also Ovid,Fasti, II, 128.The Augustan Forum was dedicated this same year, 752. Cf. c. 21, Note. In all probability the quadriga had been in existence some time before this, inasmuch as it appears on a coin of uncertain date with the inscription: “the senate and Roman people to Cæsar Augustus, parent and presever.” If the quadriga had been made at the time this inscription was ordered, the coin would surely have borne the formal title, “father of the fatherland,” not the designation, “parent.” Cf. Eckhel, VI, 113.

The Augustan Forum was dedicated this same year, 752. Cf. c. 21, Note. In all probability the quadriga had been in existence some time before this, inasmuch as it appears on a coin of uncertain date with the inscription: “the senate and Roman people to Cæsar Augustus, parent and presever.” If the quadriga had been made at the time this inscription was ordered, the coin would surely have borne the formal title, “father of the fatherland,” not the designation, “parent.” Cf. Eckhel, VI, 113.

157The seventy-sixth year of Augustus began Sept. 23, 766. Chapter 8 mentions his third census, which was completed one hundred days before his death, hence May 11, 767. TheRes Gestæmust have been written, then, in the interval between this date and his start for Campania, on his last journey, as we know he left this document in the hands of the Vestal Virgins. Cf. Suet.Aug.97.SUPPLEMENT.For a discussion of this supplement, see the Introduction.

SUPPLEMENT.

For a discussion of this supplement, see the Introduction.

158Equivalent to 2,400,000,000 sesterces, about $120,000,000. This does not exactly correspond with the sum of the items mentioned in theRes Gestæ. These sum up 2,199,800,000 sesterces.

159A mere summary of c. 19, with a bit from c. 20, the only principle of arrangement being to put temples first, and the rest haphazard. The difference in the Greek and Latin is curious. No attempt is made to reproducepulvinarin Greek, although in c. 19 it had been renderedναόν.

160A summary of c. 20.

161A summary of cc. 22, 23.

162For aid given to Naples, cf. Dio, LV, 10; to Venafrum, in Campania, C. I. L. X, 4842.

163For aid to Paphos, cf. Dio, LIV, 23; to a number of towns in Asia, Dio, LIV, 30; to Laodicea and Tralles, Strabo, XII, 8, 18; to Thyatira and Chios, Suet.Tib.8.

164Cf. Suet.Aug.41. The estate necessary to qualify a senator he raised from 800,000 sesterces to 1,200,000, and where senators were worthy, though poor, he made up their fortunes to that sum. Cf. Dio, LI, 17; LII, 19; LIII, 2; LIV, 17; LV, 13; LVI, 41.

Transcriber’s Notes:—The original accentuation, spelling, punctuation and hyphenation has been retained, except for apparent printer’s errors.A list of contents has been added.The printer is thought to be Anvil Printing Company (see front matter).In Footnote 58, Cf. Dio, XLIT is taken as a typo for Cf. Dio, XLIV.On Page 28 the number of Roman citizens is given as four million, two hundred and thirty thousand. In the associated footnote this is given as 4,233,000.Typographical errors in the Greek (All corrected).Page 10πρυκατηλειμέναςchanged to readπροκατηλειμέναςPage 13ψηψίσμασιchanged to readψηφίσμασιPage 23τόνchanged to readτὸνPage 25οίαςchanged to readσίαςPage 33ῷchanged to readᾦPage 37θαλὰσσηςchanged to readθαλάσσηςPage 43ἑξὴκονταchanged to readἑξήκονταPage 45οὕςchanged to readοὓςPage 51 ἐπιγαφῆς changed to readἐπιγραφῆςPage 53Ἂ[ρεω]ςchanged to readἌ[ρεω]ςPage 55ᾷchanged to readᾳPage 57Ὑρὲρchanged to readὙπὲρPage 57 Γαίῷ changed to readΓαίῳPage 57Ιαύῳchanged to readΓαίῳPage 57 Σε[ι]λανῳ changed to read Σε[ι]λανῷPage 59τρ[ί]σχ[ε]ί[λ]ιοιchanged to readτρ[ι]σχ[ε]ί[λ]ιοιPage 61ῷchanged to readᾧPage 61Αιβύηchanged to readΛιβύηPage 61τοῦςchanged to readτοὺςPage 61οὅchanged to readοἳPage 67μείοζονοςchanged to readμείσζονοςPage 69ρᾴchanged to readραPage 69αἵchanged to readαἳPage 69ἔμοῦchanged to readἐμοῦPage 73ποτομοῦchanged to readποταμοῦPage 77ἐθνηchanged to readἔθνηPage 85ενchanged to readἐνTypographical errors in the Latin (All corrected).Page 39 turmœ changed to read turmæ and optious changed to read optios

Transcriber’s Notes:—

The original accentuation, spelling, punctuation and hyphenation has been retained, except for apparent printer’s errors.

A list of contents has been added.

The printer is thought to be Anvil Printing Company (see front matter).

In Footnote 58, Cf. Dio, XLIT is taken as a typo for Cf. Dio, XLIV.

On Page 28 the number of Roman citizens is given as four million, two hundred and thirty thousand. In the associated footnote this is given as 4,233,000.

Typographical errors in the Greek (All corrected).Page 10πρυκατηλειμέναςchanged to readπροκατηλειμέναςPage 13ψηψίσμασιchanged to readψηφίσμασιPage 23τόνchanged to readτὸνPage 25οίαςchanged to readσίαςPage 33ῷchanged to readᾦPage 37θαλὰσσηςchanged to readθαλάσσηςPage 43ἑξὴκονταchanged to readἑξήκονταPage 45οὕςchanged to readοὓςPage 51 ἐπιγαφῆς changed to readἐπιγραφῆςPage 53Ἂ[ρεω]ςchanged to readἌ[ρεω]ςPage 55ᾷchanged to readᾳPage 57Ὑρὲρchanged to readὙπὲρPage 57 Γαίῷ changed to readΓαίῳPage 57Ιαύῳchanged to readΓαίῳPage 57 Σε[ι]λανῳ changed to read Σε[ι]λανῷPage 59τρ[ί]σχ[ε]ί[λ]ιοιchanged to readτρ[ι]σχ[ε]ί[λ]ιοιPage 61ῷchanged to readᾧPage 61Αιβύηchanged to readΛιβύηPage 61τοῦςchanged to readτοὺςPage 61οὅchanged to readοἳPage 67μείοζονοςchanged to readμείσζονοςPage 69ρᾴchanged to readραPage 69αἵchanged to readαἳPage 69ἔμοῦchanged to readἐμοῦPage 73ποτομοῦchanged to readποταμοῦPage 77ἐθνηchanged to readἔθνηPage 85ενchanged to readἐν

Typographical errors in the Latin (All corrected).Page 39 turmœ changed to read turmæ and optious changed to read optios

Back to Index Next