Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:34:45.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Q. Mucius Scaevola and Oenoanda: a new Inscription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

C. F. Eilers  and
N. P. Milner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following inscription was found at Oenoanda, an antique city in north Lycia, by the late Alan S. Hall in 1974. The text (inv. no. YÇ 1014) is inscribed on the short face of a large grey limestone statue base, found lying on its left side at the northern margin of the Upper Agora (the “Esplanade”), directly before the outer edge of the portico of the north stoa (cf. Figs. 1 and 2). Its position suggests that it has fallen forward, with other bases beside it to the west, from its original situation on the pavement of the Upper Agora, immediately fronting the podium of the stoa. There was no evidence that it had been re-used, as originally thought by Hall. Its dimensions are h. 0·73 m.; w. 0·74 m. (slightly broken to the left); th. 1·50+ m. (buried behind). Since it is unmoulded and there are no foot-holes in the top, it is probable that top and bottom sections have become detached. The large base beside it to the west, measuring h. 1·25 m.; w. 2·10 m.; th. 0·60+ m., has two sets of foot-holes and a moulded top; a connection between this and our base is perhaps not unlikely—possibly they formed part of a family monument. On architectural grounds it has been argued that the north stoa was built in either the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. Since it is reasonable to suppose that the base, which we date to the 90s B.C. for reasons that will become clear shortly, was erected after its construction, the stoa should probably be dated no later than second century B.C.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 45 , December 1995 , pp. 73 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Acknowledgments are due to the Turkish authorities for permission to survey the site, to the British Academy for funding the project, and to the Turkish government representative Bay Osman Özbek who took part in the survey in 1974, for his help. A new survey season in 1994, directed by Prof. Stephen Mitchell, funded by the British Academy and the B.I.A.A, and assisted by the Turkish government representative Bay Ilhan Güceren, of Isparta museum, enabled Milner to clarify on site points relating to this inscription. Eilers has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We are grateful to Stephen Mitchell and Dr. Barbara Levick for commenting on a draft of this article. Additional abbreviations are listed at the end.

2 Cousin, G., “Inscriptions d'Oenoanda,” BCH 16 (1892), 56–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, published a description of this area and dubbed it “Esplanade”, meaning an open space. Evidence that it was the earlier agora of the city was gathered in the 1994 season and will be published in due course.

3 Cf. Hall, Alan, Milner, Nicholas, “Education and Athletics at Oenoanda,” in French, D. H., ed., Studies in the History and Topography of Lycia and Pisidia in memoriam A. S. Hall, B. I. A. A. monograph 19 (1994), 7–47Google Scholar, at 43, where it is alluded to in this sense.

4 See below, p. 80.

5 Coulton, J. J., “The Buildings of Oinoanda,” PCPS 209 n.s. 29 (1983), 2, 6Google Scholar; id. “Oinoanda: the Doric building (Mk 2),” AS 32 (1982), 47, 59.

6 S. Mitchell remarks (per litt.) that the stoa has no features which strongly indicate a late date, such as the development of the three rings at the bottom of the capital into pronounced astragals (cf. Coulton, , AS 32 [1982], 56–7Google Scholar), still less the appearance of an Ionic frieze as part of the order, as in the Hadrianic basilica at Cremna.

7 Coulton, J. J., “Oinoanda: the agora,” AS 36 (1986), 89Google Scholar.

8 The statue was not solid gold, of course, but gilded bronze. Cf. Tuchelt, K., Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien, IstMitt. Beiheft 23 (1979), 75 n. 40Google Scholar with bibliography.

9 On ἀριστεῖον (στέϕανος ἀριστεῖον) see the notes collected by S. Mitchell, “Termessos, King Amyntas, and the War with the Sandaliôtai. A new inscription from Pisidia,” in D. H. French, ed., op. cit. (n. 3), 95–105, at 100, and Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius II (Oxford 1967), 535–6Google Scholar. The phrase is attested elsewhere in Oenoanda, cf. Robert, L., Hellenica 2 (1946), 111Google Scholar.

10 No particular games are mentioned. However, it was not unknown for Republican Roman governors in the East to be celebrated by cities and provinces through festivals in honour of their own godhead (cf. p. 81 below). The fact that our Scaevola is not called Soter, “Saviour,” here suggests that the Oenoandan games were not of this nature, on the balance of probabilities. Cf. Habicht, C., “Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christs Geburt,” in den Boer, W., ed., Le culte des souverains dans l'empire romain, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique vol. 19, Fondation Hardt (Geneva 1973), 41–99, at 61–2 and 96–7Google Scholar.

11 Münzer, , RE 16.1 (1933), 413–14Google Scholar.

12 Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (1960 2), 523Google Scholar.

13 The date of the Pontifex's proconsulship of Asia is a long-standing controversy. Badian, E., (“Q. Mucius Scaevola and the province of Asia,” Athenaeum 34 [1956], 104–23)Google Scholar argued for a term following Scaevola's consulship in 95. The alternative view—that his governorship came after his praetorship in c. 98—has been advocated by Marshall, B. A. (“The date of Q. Mucius Scaevola's governorship of Asia,” Athenaeum 54 [1976], 117–30)Google Scholar, reviving the argument of Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (“Q. Mucius Scaevola the Pontifex and ornatio provinciae,” CR 51 [1937], 8–10)Google Scholar, and followed by Kallet-Marx, R. (“Asconius 14–15 Clark and the date of Q. Mucius Scaevola's command in Asia.” CP 84 [1989], 305–12)Google Scholar.

14 Cic., Fam. 3.5.5Google Scholar; Broughton, , Magistrates II 231Google Scholar.

15 Patriarca, G., Bull. del. Mus. Imp. Rom. 3 (1932), 7 no. 4Google Scholar.

16 Ibid. 8: “Per la forma delle lettere è da ritenersi che l'inscrizione sia stata incisa nei primissimi anni dell' era volgare.”

17 Münzer, , RE 16.1 (1933), 433, 439Google Scholar.

18 Degrassi, A., I fasti consulari dell' impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo (Rome 1952), 3–11Google Scholar. There is perhaps room for doubt about A.D. 13, though it seems likeliest that there were no suffects at all in this year: Panciera, S., “Ancora sui consuli dell'anno 13 d.C.,” Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale in Roma 79 (1963–1964 [1966]), 95–8Google Scholar. The identities of all four suffects for A.D. 21 and 22 are known, but cannot be confidently assigned to one year or the other.

19 In the decades in which an unattested consul of the first half of the century could theoretically have been proconsul of Asia, i.e. A.D. 49–69, Vogel-Weidemann, U. (Die Statthalter von Africa und Asia in den Jahren 14–68 n. Chr. Eine Untersuchung zum Verhältnis Princeps und Senat [Antiquitas 1, 31, Bonn 1982], 340–466)Google Scholar leaves only a single year (60/61) vacant, although for this same period, Syme, R. (“Problems about proconsuls of Asia,” ZPE 53 [1983], 191–208Google Scholar = Roman Papers IV 347–65Google Scholar) would add one or two vacancies in the years A.D. 55–8.

20 Scaevola, C. Mucius (PIR2 M 694)Google Scholar was one of the XVviri sacris faciundis presiding over the secular games in 17 B.C. (CIL 6.32323 = ILS 5050, line 150). Also to be noted is C. Mucius C.f. Q.n. Scaevo[la], attested at Foruli (CIL 9.4414). The XVvir could be his father and the son of Q. Scaevola the tribune of 54 B.C. (RE 23). The entries for Scaevola, Q. Mucius, governor of Asia, at PIR2 M 695Google Scholar and at Thomasson, B. E., Laterculi Praesidum I (1984), 242, no. 239Google Scholar, depend entirely on Patriarca's (mis)dating of his inscription.

21 A slightly longer word might be preferable, e.g., καλοκαγαθίας. For ἀρετᾶς ἕνεκα καὶ καλοκαγαθίας ἐς αὑτόν referring to a Roman patron, cf. an inscription from Andros reported by Robert, L. in BE 1970.441Google Scholar.

22 Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: a Lexicon and Analysis, American Studies in Papyrology no. 13 (Toronto 1974), 160–1Google Scholar.

23 This seems to have been the standard procedure. A request is clear in Aphrodisias and Rome, doc. 3, lines 49–56 (J. Reynolds, ed.) and seems implicit in recently published decrees of Colophon, (SEG 39.1243Google Scholar, col.2, lines 19–31; SEG 39.1244, col. 3, lines 6–13). Cf. also IMylasa 109.

24 As is implied by Cicero, (Cat. 4.23)Google Scholar; cf. the remarks of Ferrary, J.-L., “De l'évergétisme hellénistique à l‘évergétisme romain,” in Xe Congrès International d'épigraphie Grecque et Latine, fasc. 1, Rapports préliminaries (Paris–Nimes 1992), 80Google Scholar.

25 Cic., Att. 5.17Google Scholar.

26 For a list of inscriptions from Asia Minor honouring governors' close relatives, see Tuchelt, op. cit. (n. 8), 59–60 nn. 13–15; for wives and daughters, Kajava, M., “Roman senatorial women and the Greek East: epigraphic evidence from the Republican and Augustan period,” in Solin, H. and Kajava, M., edd., Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, Societas Scientiarum Fennica Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 91 (Helsinki 1990), 59–124Google Scholar.

27 IEph. 630a (inv. no. 3650). This inscription has been damaged in the interval between its first discovery by Benndorf in 1895 and its rediscovery by D. Knibbe in 1969. Letters seen by Benndorf but no longer extant are underlined. We owe this information to the kindness of Prof. Knibbe, who provided copies of his drawings and those of Benndorf.

28 Or better, perhaps, before Hadrian, since it was only in his reign that Ephesus regularly used the term in its civic titulature: Price, S., Rituals and Power (1984), 65 n. 47Google Scholar with bibliography. The earliest epigraphical mention of the neokoros is IEph. 233, probably of A.D. 89/90. Cf. generally Friesen, S. J., Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family, Religion in the Graeco–Roman World 116 (Leiden 1993), 32–3, 56–7, 156CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 It is just possible that there is room for a cognomen at the end of line 2, following Caelia's filiation, but since the filiations of Roman women honoured in Greek inscriptions usually follow both nomen and cognomen when these are present (cf., e.g., IG 2/3 2 4111, 4234Google Scholar; IG 7.305; IMagnesia 146, 148), it is better to suppose that the text did not include a cognomen.

30 The phenomenon has been identified by Nicols, J. (“Patrons of Greek cities in the early Principate,” ZPE 80 [1990], 81–100Google Scholar), though his explanation of it—that Augustus introduced a rule banning the practice—is disputable.

31 See above, n. 20.

32 Thus Caelia should not be included in imperial prosopographical researches, as in PIR2 C 143Google Scholar (Groag) and Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T., “Nouvelles recherches sur les femmes sénatoriales du Haut-Empire romain,” Klio 75 (1993), 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 The marriage took place before 129 (Cic., Brut. 101Google Scholar). Divorce can be excluded as a possibility, since Laelius is referred to as Scaevola's socer in Cic., de Oratore (1.35, 1.58Google Scholar), the dramatic date of which is 91 B.C. That Cicero himself heard Laelia speak (Brut. 211–12) proves that Scaevola the Augur could not have been a widower until long after his proconsulship.

34 Cic., Fam. 3.5.5Google Scholar; Broughton, , Magistrates, II 351Google Scholar.

35 OGIS 438–9; Cic., Verr. 2.21.51Google Scholar; Asconius, Ps.ad Cic. div. in Caec. 17.57 (p. 202 St.)Google Scholar, Asconius, Ps.ad Cic. Verr. 2.10.27 (p. 262 St.)Google Scholar.

36 One senator who might come close is perhaps L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74), who had mitigated the harsh Sullan settlement and as a result a festival was established in his honour (Plut., Luc. 20.5, 23.1Google Scholar; Cic., Acad. 1.3Google Scholar). His case provides a suggestive parallel, since a statue of Lucullus seems to have been renovated in the mid-second century A.D. (MAMA 4.52 = IGR 4.701 = Tuchelt 1979, 243). The lettering of this inscription, according to Buckler, Calder and Guthrie (MAMA 4, p. 16Google Scholar), belongs to the second century A.D. Presumably the base was renovated at that time. Another renovated statue of a Roman patron is revealed by IGR 4.901 (Cibyra), which shows that a statue of Q. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 21 B.C.), proconsul of Asia in the teens B.C., was transferred and re-erected in A.D. 171 (Robert, L., Hellenica 7 [Paris, 1949], 241–3Google Scholar, cf. Hellenica 2 [Paris, 1946], 109–11Google Scholar).

37 See esp. Diodorus Siculus (37.5); other sources are listed by Broughton, , Magistrates II 7Google Scholar.

38 OGIS 439: ἀρε[τῆι καὶ δικαιοσύν]ηι καὶ καθαρειότητι. Cf. Cic., Planc. 33Google Scholar, where Scaevola is described as virum omnibus ingenio, iustitia, integritate praestantem.

39 OGIS 437, cf. Sherk, R. K., Rome and the Greek East to the death of Augustus, Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 4 (1984), 68 no. 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Macrob., Sat. 3.13.11Google Scholar; Münzer, RE 16 (1935), 428–9Google Scholar s.v. Mucius no. 18.

41 RE 16 (1935), 446Google Scholar s.v. Mucius no. 23.

42 So Münzer, , RE 16 (1935), 446Google Scholar s.v. Mucius no. 23; for his augurate, Cic., Att. 4.17.4, 9.9.3Google Scholar.

43 Cases like that of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 96) (references collected by Broughton, , Magistrates I 559Google Scholar), show only that a son might feel that he had a strong claim on his father's priesthood following the latter's death, not that he would pass over other opportunities waiting for this eventuality.

44 This has already been recognized by Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus II (1965), 217Google Scholar.

45 Q. Scaevola was born in 140 B.C. (Cic., Brut. 145Google Scholar, de Orat. 1.180; Sumner, G. V., The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology, Phoenix suppl. 9 [1973], 97Google Scholar); if his homonymous son was in his late-teens or early twenties when he was honoured by Oenoanda, he could have been born c. 115 B.C.; the tribune of 54 B.C. would presumably have been in his mid-thirties, and thus born c. 90 B.C.

46 Cic., Brut. 211Google Scholar.

47 Shackleton Bailey (loc. cit. [n. 44]), pointing to the family link, suggested that the tribune's object in delaying the elections was to give Scaurus, his relative, time to complete his largesses. But the family link, if calculated through Scaevola the Augur, would not be close: the latter was the maternal grandfather of M'. Glabrio (cos. 67), who married a sister of Scaurus. Thus Scaevola the tribune (if descended from the Augur) would be acting because his cousin married Scaurus' sister. The relationship suggested above is closer.

48 Wiseman, T. P., “Celer and Nepos,” CQ 21 (1971), 180–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, “Brothers or cousins?” AJAH 2 (1977), 148–9Google Scholar; id, “Brothers or cousins?” AJAH 8 (1983 [1987]), 191.

49 It is unfortunately no longer possible to check the reading ΚΑΙΛΙΑΝ, as the first three letters of this line are now lost (see above n. 27); a dittography across the line break, with the lapicide inserting a superfluous alpha in the second syllable of this woman's name, [Και]∣κ{α}ιλίαν, is another possibility.

50 Cf. Gruen, E. S., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts 149–78 B.C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 202–3, 274CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bauman, R.A., Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 75 Heft (Munich 1983), 300–1, 320Google Scholar.

51 Strabo 13.4.17 (631).

52 OGIS 762. The document is undated. Dittenberger, (OGIS 762 n.1)Google Scholar argued for a date of 188 B.C., connecting the treaty with the events described at Liv. 38.14 and Polyb. 21.34. Decisive arguments against a date before 167, however, have been put forward by Errington, R.M. (““Θεὰ ῾Ρώμη und römischer Einfluss südlich des Mäanders im 2.Jh. v. Chr.,” Chiron 17 [1987], 97–118, at 107–10Google Scholar) and Gruen, E.S. (The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome [Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984], 731–3)Google Scholar. Whether Errington is correct to place it in the immediate aftermath of Pydna is less clear. Cf. also Sherwin-White, A. N. (Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. I [London 1984], 67 n. 35)Google Scholar, who suggested a date of “c. 150 or earlier”. The scholarly consensus that places it in the first half of the second century is based on the view of Dittenberger, that the letter-forms “support” (favent, OGIS 762 n.1)Google Scholar his date (no longer tenable) of 188. Given the margin of error that this kind of dating entails, especially in remote areas which might lag behind epigraphical fashion elsewhere and which do not offer securely dated texts for comparison, a later date should not be excluded, perhaps even after the dissolution of the Tetrapolis, which could be as early as c. 100 B.C. (see below).

53 Larsen, J. A. O., “Representation and democracy in Hellenistic federalism,” CP 40 (1945), 65–97, at 76Google Scholar.

54 On Pisidian colonisation, see L., and Robert, J., La Carie II (1954), 72–9, 350–61Google Scholar; Hall, A. S., Coulton, J. J., “A Hellenistic allotment list from Balboura in the Kibyratis,” Chiron 20 (1990), 149 ff.Google Scholar; Coulton, J. J., “Termessians at Oinoanda,” AS 32 (1982), 115–31Google Scholar.

55 Solymian was the local language of Termessus Major, cf. Strabo 13.4.16 (630).

56 Strabo 13.4.17 (631). Cf. Errington, (Chiron 17 [1987], 107 ff.Google Scholar) on Polyb. 30.9.16.

57 Gruen, op.cit. (n. 52), 732–3; Errington, , Chiron 17 (1987), 110Google Scholar; J., and Robert, L., BE 1950, no. 183 p. 197Google Scholar; Larsen, J. A. O., CP 40 (1945), 79–80Google Scholar.

58 This was an oft-repeated pattern in other Lycian cities also, cf. J., and Robert, L., BE 1950, pp. 192–3, 196Google Scholar. Cibyra, too, was governed by an earlier tyrant called Moagetes in 189 B.C., and by another called Pancrates in mid-century, but apparently by “democracy” at the time of the treaty with Rome of the same era.

59 SEG 18.570, lines 8ff.; for the date, Errington, , Chiron 17 (1987), 114–18Google Scholar. Zimmermann, M. (“Kyaneai und seine Nachbarn zur Geschichte der zentrallykischen poleis unter rhodischer Herrschaft,” in Borchhardt, J., Dobesch, G., edd., Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions I, Denkschr. Akad. Wien, ph.-hist. Kl. 231 [1993], 143–8, at 147–8Google Scholar) would date the events in this inscription to 188–167 B.C.

60 Diod. Sic. 33.5a. In such contexts δημοκρατία signifies only an internally self-governing republic, whether democratic or oligarchic (see de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World [London 1981], 321–3Google Scholar).

61 For a different explanation, see Larsen, J. A. O., CP 40 (1945), 80 n. 82Google Scholar.

62 Such a request and its acceptance are reported in an inscription from Aphrodisias (Reynolds, J., ed., Aphrodisias and Rome [JRS monographs no. 1, London 1982], doc. no. 3, lines 49ff.Google Scholar) and seem to be assumed in two recently published decrees from Claros, (SEG 39.1243Google Scholar, col. 2, lines 19–31; SEG 39.1244, col. 3, lines 6–13). Explicit requests of cities to be accepted into the clientela of some notable are also attested in the imperial period: CIL 6.1492 = ILS 6106, lines 16 ff.; CIL 6.31652 = ILS 6105; CIL 9.3429 = ILS 6110.

63 Errington, , Chiron 17 (1987), 111Google Scholar.

64 pace Errington, , Chiron 17 (1987), 111 and n.62Google Scholar; see Zimmermann, M., “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft in Lykien (189/88–167 v. Chr.),” Klio 75 (1993), 110–30 at 126 n. 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On its dating, see above n. 52.

65 Araxa inscription SEG 18.570.18 ff., 31 ff., and Zimmermann, , Klio 75 (1993), 114, n. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Strabo 13.4.17 (631). Troxell, L. A. (The Coinage of the Lycian League, American Numismatic Society Notes and Monographs no. 162 [1982], 109)Google Scholar noting this passage of Strabo and the fact that Balbura and Bubon produced no league coinage, suggested that they were like “man-dated territories”. Contra, Jameson, S. (“The Lycian League: some problems in its administration,” ANRW 27 [1980], 832–55, at 838–41)Google Scholar, who points out that although the coinage of Bubon does not carry the legend ΛΥ, which she interprets as an indicator of Lycian ethnicity rather than league membership, its coinage does bear federal types.

67 Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, refers to it as a Lycian city (Jacoby, F., ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker III A (1940), 273, fr. 52Google Scholar). The hatred that Oenoandans showed towards Xanthos in 42 B.C. (App., BC 4.79.332Google Scholar) may imply their membership in the league was not entirely voluntary.

68 Cic., ad Att. 5.21.9.Google Scholar Cf. Ameling, W., “Drei Studien zu den Gerichtbezirken der Provinz Asia in republikanischer Zeit,” Epigraphica Anatolica 12 (1988), 9–24Google Scholar. Strabo 13.4.17 (631) says that even without Balbura and Bubon, ἡ Κιβυρατική was still reckoned among the largest dioceses of Asia.

69 Broughton, , Magistrates II 61Google Scholar.

70 Sherwin-White, op.cit. (n. 52), 152; App., Mithr. 21, 27Google Scholar.

71 Thus Magie, D. (Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the end of the Third Century after Christ [Princeton 1950], 242, 1122, 1137–8Google Scholar), suggesting that collaboration with Mithridates was merely a pretext, while the real reason for annexation was control of the road. But note that the main road to Pamphylia was built by M'. Aquillius from Pergamum to Side, via Laodicea, Tacina, Cormasa and Perge c. 129–126 B.C., missing the Cibyratis altogether; cf. French, D. H., “Sites and Inscriptions from Phrygia, Pisidia and Pamphylia,” Epigraphica Anatolica 17 (1991), 53–4Google Scholar, and Mitchell, S., Anatolia I (1993), 120 Map 7Google Scholar; id.AS 44 (1994), 132–3.

72 I. v.Priene 121, line 23: ‹Μ›ᾶρκον Σιλαν‹ὸν καὶ ?Λεύκι›ον Μυρέναν ταμίαν ταμίαν (accepting the emendation suggested by Wosnik, B., “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Sullas,” Diss. Wurzburg, 1963, 1–9Google Scholar; cf. also Crawford, M. H., “M. Silanus Murena,” Liverpool Classical Monthly 7 [1982], 124Google Scholar). For the date, see Stumpf, G., “C. Atinius C.f., Praetor in Asia 122–121 v.Chr., auf einem Kistophor,” ZPE 61 (1985), 186–90Google Scholar; idem, Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien, 122 v. Chr.–163 n. chr. (Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und alten Geschichte 4, Saarbrücken 1991), 6–12; Broughton, , Magistrates 3.27–8Google Scholar. Eilers intends to argue elsewhere that this quaestor and Sulla's lieutenant are identical, and that he held the quaestorship c. 100 B.C. (CQ forthcoming).

73 The effect was probably that from this time Cilicia became a permanent province, despite the arguments of A. N. Sherwin White (op.cit. [n. 52], 97–101), followed recently by S. Mitchell (loc. cit. [n. 71], 102–3); see esp. Brennan, T. C., “Sulla's career in the nineties: some reconsiderations,” Chiron 22 (1992), 103–58, at p. 104 n. 4Google Scholar.

74 See above, n. 72. The involvement of a quaestor in such annexation is not seriously problematical, provided that he held independent imperium. It was as proquaestor pro praetore that M. Cato (pr. 54) annexed Cyprus in 56 B.C. (Broughton, , Magistrates II 211Google Scholar) and P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus annexed Cyrene as quaestor pro praetore (so Sallust, Hist. 2.43MGoogle Scholar; Badian, E., JRS 55 [1965], 119–26Google Scholar suggests that it was as proquaestor pro praetore). For a quaestor with imperium governing Asia, cf. M. Antonius (later cos. 99): to the references at Broughton, , Magistrates I 539Google Scholar (where he is wrongly registered as a promagistrate rather than a quaestor), add the coinage recently attributed to him by Stumpf, G. R., Numismatische Studien, 13–17Google Scholar.

75 Diod. Sic. 36.3.1, probably addictio for unpaid debt rather than kidnapping: see Badian, E., Publicans and Sinners (Ithaca, New York 1972), 87–88Google Scholar. For the legal processes, cf. Woess, E., “Personalexekution und cessio bonorum in römischem Reichsrecht,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung 43 (1922), 485–529Google Scholar.