The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles in the Roman East: 1st-3rd Century Ad (Veroeffentlichungen Zur Byzanzforschung)

ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE SITZUNGSBERICHTE, BAND

VERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN ZUR IRANISTIK HERAUSGEGEBEN VON BERT G. FRAGNER UND VELIZAR SADOVSKI NR.

Tommaso Gnoli

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles in the Roman East (1st - 3rd Century A. D.)

VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN WIEN 2007

Table of Contents

PREFACE ..........................................................................................................7 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................9 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................11 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................33 KINGS - —πατοι ..............................................................................................41 1. Aelius Septimius Abgar ......................................................................41 2. Septimius Odainath.............................................................................45 3. The origins of the ÕπατεÛα ................................................................52 4. The contents of the ÕπατεÛα ..............................................................76 KINGS - ‘KING OF KINGS’ ................................................................................81 1. Inv. III 3 ..............................................................................................82 2. Inscription from the ‘Camp of Diocletian’ .........................................88 3. PAT 0292, 0317 ..................................................................................89 ἈργαπÔτης...................................................................................................95 APPENDIX: pšgrybʾ AT ḤATRA ........................................................................115 INDICES ......................................................................................................123 General index ........................................................................................123 Register of primary sources ..................................................................129 Register of modern authors...................................................................132

8

Preface

Preface

If the idea of the unity of the Euroasian continent is strong and deeply rooted in Italy this is mainly due to some exceptional scientific personalities such as Giuseppe TUCCI and Santo MAZZARINO. Both have exerted a deep influence on me in an indirect way. TUCCI through my father, who inherited from him besides his academic responsibilities also his cultural horizons; while MAZZARINO through my teacher from the beginning Mario MAZZA, from whom I have learnt almost everything I know. From them I have learnt the need to overcome cultural barriers that grow higher the more one decides to face complex themes that are not circumscribable inside set scientific-disciplinary fields. The study of the relationships between East and West, between the Greek-Roman world and the Iranian world represents a field within ancient history needing at this point such a large amount of specific know-how that it cannot be faced by single scholars who are specialists in single disciplines. A multidisciplinary approach that, while tackling single problems, is able to ‘melt’ the latest data from all the disciplines involved appears necessary. In such a framework the agreement of scientific collaboration first between the IsIAO with its President, my father Prof. Gherardo GNOLI and the Director of the Institute of Iranology of the Vienna Academy of Sciences Prof. Dr. Bert G. FRAGNER was made. Also the Faculty of Preservation of the Cultural Heritage of the University of Bologna, Ravenna Branch, and in particular its Dean, my good friend and colleague Prof. Antonio PANAINO, is involved in this collaboration. And it is within this framework that my publication is to be situated.

8

Preface

This work represents the development of the theme of a lecture I held at the Institute of Iranology of the Vienna Academy of Sciences on 28th September 2005 bearing the title: “Edessa and Palmyra between Rome and Iran.” To the Director of the Institute of Iranology Prof. Dr. Bert G. FRAGNER and my dear friend and highly considered colleague Dr. Velizar SADOVSKI I owe all my gratitude for that invitation and for the subsequent encouragement to set down in this short monograph both the considerations I exposed then and the consequent stimulating reflections. My gratitude also goes to all those who were there that afternoon in Vienna and who contributed with their interventions to the deepening of the subjects I exposed there, so first of all to the staff of the Institute of Iranology as well as to Prof. Dr. Michael ALRAM of the Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum, with whose presence I was much honoured. This book is dedicated to my father and my wife. Ravenna, 2 February 2007

Abbreviations

Any further abbreviation is to be found in Année philologique AION ANRW APAW AS BMC CIG CIL CIS CMC EKG EncIr FHG Gk H HdO IG IGLS IGRR IGVR ILS

Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli, Napoli Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel neueren Forschung, H. TEMPORINI, W. HAASE (eds.), Berlin - New York 1972Abhandlungen der (Königlichen) Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin H. SEYRIG, Antiquités syriennes Catalogue of the British Museum Coins Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, cf. KOENEN, RÖMER 1988; GNOLI 2003 ENMANN’s Kaiser-Geschichte Encyclopaedia Iranica, E. YARSHATER (ed.) C. MÜLLER, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Parisiis 1841-1870 Greek inscription from H(atra) Handbuch der Orientalistik Inscriptiones Graecae Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie R. CAGNAT, Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes I-III-IV, Paris 1906-1927 L. MORETTI, Inscriptiones Graecae Vrbis Romae I-IV, Roma 1968-1990 H. DESSAU, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin 1892

10

Inv.

IsIAO IUO MP NP OCA OGIS OIr PAT PDura PEuphr. PIR PLRE R. E. RIC ŠKZ SOR TLL WADD. XPf

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

J. CANTINEAU, Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre I-IX, Beyrouth 1930-1936; vol X edited by J. STARCKY, Damas 1949; vol. XI edited by J. TEIXIDOR, Beyrouth 1965; vol. XII edited by A. BOUNNI, J. TEIXIDOR, Damas 1975 Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, Roma Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli Middle-Persian New-Persian Orientalia Christiana Analecta, Pontificio Istituto Biblico, Roma W. DITTENBERGER, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Leipzig 1903-1905 Old Iranian HILLERS, CUSSINI 1995 BRADFORD WELLES, FINK, GILLIAM 1959 FEISSEL, GASCOU 1995 (n° 1-5); FEISSEL, GASCOU, TEIXIDOR 1997 (n° 6-10); FEISSEL, GASCOU 2000 (n° 11-17) Prosopographia Imperii Romani, Berlin 1897A. H. M. JONES, J. R. MARTINDALE, J. MORRIS, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I, Cambridge 1971 A. F. PAULY, G. WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1893H. MATTINGLY, E. A. SYDENHAM et alii, The Roman Imperial Coinage, London 1923Šābuhr Kaʿba-i Zardušt, cf. HUYSE 1999 Serie Orientale Roma, Roma Thesaurus Linguae Latinae P. LE BAS, W. H. WADDINGTON, Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure III, La Syrie, Paris 1870 Xerxes Persepolis F, in R. KENT, Old Persian, New Haven 1953, 149-150.

Bibliography

AGGOULA 1969 AGGOULA 1975 AGGOULA 1986 AGGOULA 1988 AGGOULA 1990 AGGOULA 1991 AGGOULA 1992 AGGOULA 1994 ALFÖLDY 1977

ALLISON 1997 ALTHEIM 1965 ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1962 ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1964

B. AGGOULA, «Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes I», Berytus 18, 1969, 85-104 B. AGGOULA, «Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes III», Syria 52, 1975, 181-206 B. AGGOULA, «Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes XII», Syria 63, 1986, 353-374 B. AGGOULA, «Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes XIV», Syria 65, 1988, 193-196 B. AGGOULA, «Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes (XVI-XIX)», Syria 67, 1990, 397-421 B. AGGOULA, Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 139, Paris 1991 B. AGGOULA, «Studia Aramaica III. 1 Deux parchemins en graphie édessénienne provenant de la Mésopotamie romaine», Syria 98, 1992, 391-399 B. AGGOULA, «Remarques sur les inscriptions hatréennes XX-XXIII», Syria 71, 1994, 397-408 G. ALFÖLDY, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen: prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht, Antiquitas Reihe 1. Bd. 27, Bonn 1977 J. W. ALLISON, «Corbulo’s Socratic shadow», Eranos 95, 1997, 19-25 F. ALTHEIM, «Odainat und Palmyra», in Die Araber in der Alten Welt II, F. ALTHEIM, R. STIEHL (eds.), Berlin 1965, 251-273 F. ALTHEIM, R. STIEHL, Geschichte der Hunnen IV: Die europäischen Hunnen, Berlin 1962 F. ALTHEIM, R. STIEHL (eds.), Die Araber in der alten Welt I, Berlin 1964

12

ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1967 AṢ-ṢĀLIḤī 1985 ASDOURIAN 1911

AVI-YONAH 1962 BALDINI 1976 BARRETT 1977 BARRETT 1979 BARTHOLOMAE 1904 BARTHOLOMAE 1906 BARTHOLOMAE 1916 BENOIST 2000 BENVENISTE 1966 BERTOLINO 1995 BEYER 1990 BOISSEVAIN 1890 BOWERSOCK 1976

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

F. ALTHEIM, R. STIEHL (eds.), Die Araber in der alten Welt IV, Berlin 1967 W. AṢ-ṢĀLIḤī, «Allat-Nemesis. Iconographical Analysis of Two Religious reliefs from Hatra», Mesopotamia 20, 1985, 131-146 P. P. ASDOURIAN, Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom von 190 v. Chr. bis 428 n. Chr. Ein Abriss der armenischen Geschichte in dieser Periode. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Freiburg/Schweiz M. AVI-YONAH, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud, Studia Judaica 2, Berlin 1962 A. BALDINI, «Problemi di storia palmirena. Note sulla politica di Odenato», CARB 23, 1976, 21-45 A. A. BARRETT, «Sohaemus, King of Emesa and Sophene», AJP 98, 1977, 153-159 A. A. BARRETT, «Annals 14.26 and the Armenian settlement of A. D. 60», CQ 29, 1979, 465-469 C. BARTHOLOMAE, Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Strassburg 1904 C. BARTHOLOMAE, Zum altiranischen Wörterbuch: Nacharbeiten und Vorarbeiten, Strassburg 1906 C. BARTHOLOMAE, Zur Kenntnis der mitteliranischen Mundarten I, Heidelberg 1916 S. BENOIST, «Le prince et la société romaine d’Empire au IIIe siècle: le cas des ornamenta», Cahiers Glotz 11, 2000, 309-329 É. BENVENISTE, Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien, Travaux de l’Institut d’études iraniennes de l’Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle 1, Paris 1966 R. BERTOLINO, La cronologia di Hatra: interazione di archeologia e di epigrafia, AION Suppl. n. 83, Napoli 1995 K. BEYER, «Das syrische Perlenlied. Ein Erlösungsmythos als Märchengedicht», ZDMG 140, 1990, 234-259 U. P. BOISSEVAIN, «Ein verschobenes Fragment des Cassius Dio (72, 9, 6)», Hermes 25, 1890, 329-339 G. W. BOWERSOCK, «A new Antonine inscription from the Syrian desert», Chiron 6, 1976, 349-355

Bibliography

BRADFORD WELLES, FINK, GILLIAM 1959

BRAUND 1984

13

C. BRADFORD WELLES, R. O. FINK, J. F. GILLIAM, The parchments and papyri, The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final report 5. Inscriptions, parchments, and papyri, Part 1, New Haven 1959

D. C. BRAUND, Rome and the friendly king: the character of the client kingship, London – New York 1984 BROCK 1991 S. P. BROCK, «Some new Syriac documents from the third century AD», ARAM 3, 1991, 259-268 BURKHALTER-ARCE 1999 F. BURKHALTER-ARCE, «Les fermiers de l’arabarchie: notables et hommes d’affaires à Alexandrie», in Alexandrie: une mégapole cosmopolite: actes du 9ème colloque de la Villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer, les 2 & 3 octobre 1998, Cahiers de la Villa Kérylos 9, Paris 1999, 41-54 CANTINEAU 1931 J. CANTINEAU, «Textes palmyréniens provenant de la fouille du temple de Bêl», Syria 12, 1931, 116-142 CANTINEAU 1933 J. CANTINEAU, «Un restitutor orientis dans les inscriptions de Palmyre», JA 222, 1933, 217-233 CARTER 2004 M. R. CARTER, «The Lex Portorii and the Armenian campaign of Caesennius Paetus», Latomus 63, 2004, 370-379 CHAUMONT 1962 M.-L. CHAUMONT, «Recherches sur les institutions de l’Iran ancien et de l’Arménie II. Le titre et la fonction d’argapat et de dizpat», JA 250, 1962, 11-22 CHAUMONT 1969 M.-L. CHAUMONT, Recherches sur l’histoire d’Arménie de l’avènement des Sassanides à la conversion du royaume, Paris 1969 CHAUMONT 1976 M.-L. CHAUMONT, L’Arménie entre Rome et l’Iran. I. De l’avènement d’Auguste à l’avènement de Dioclétien, in ANRW II/9.1, Berlin – New York 1976, 71-194 CHAUMONT 1986 M.-L. CHAUMONT, Argbed, EncIr II, 4, 1986, 400-401 CHÉHAB 1962 M. CHÉHAB, «Tyr à l’époque romaine. Aspects de la cité à la lumière des textes et des fouilles», MUSJ 38, 1962, 13-40 CIANCAGLINI forth. C. A. CIANCAGLINI, Iranian loanwords in Syriac, forth. CLERMONT-GANNEAU C. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Recueil d’archéologie orientale 1900 III, Paris 1900 C. CLERMONT-GANNEAU, «Odeinat et Vaballat rois de PalCLERMONT-GANNEAU myre, et leur titre romain de corrector», RBi 29, 1920, 1920 382-419

14

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

CORDIANO 2003

G. CORDIANO, «Domiziano, Columella e la stipe di Vicarello: ricerche sugli “Iunii” e sui possedimenti imperiali nella zona del lago di Bracciano in età neroniano-flavia», Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Siena 24, 2003, 91-116 COTTON, YARDENI 1997 H. M. COTTON, A. YARDENI, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek documentary texts from Naḥal Ḥever and other sites: with an appendix containing alleged Qumran texts, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 27, The Ṣeiyâl collection 2, Oxford 1997 CUSSINI 2005 E. CUSSINI (ed.), A journey to Palmyra: collected essays to remember Delbert R. Hillers, Culture and history of the ancient Near East 22, Boston 2005 DA̧BROWA 1998 E. DA̧BROWA, The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus, Antiquitas. Reihe 1, Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte, Bonn 1998 DE BLOIS 1975 L. DE BLOIS, «Odaenathus and the Roman-Persian Wars of 252-264», Talanta 6, 1975, 7-23 DE FRANCISCI 1947 P. DE FRANCISCI, Arcana imperii, Milano 1947-1948 DE LA VILLE H. DE LA VILLE DE MIRMONT, «Cn. Domitius Corbulo», DE MIRMONT 1915 Révue historique 118, 1915, 1-53 DE MARTINO 1972 DEBEVOISE 1938 DEGEN 1971 DELPUECH 1974

DI MARCO 1999

DIJKSTRA 1994

F. DE MARTINO, Storia della costituzione romana, vols. 1-5, Napoli 19722 N. C. DEBEVOISE, A Political History of Parthia, Chicago 1938 R. DEGEN, «Donner-Röllig (Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften)», ZDMG 121, 1971, 121-139 P. DELPUECH, «Entre l’offensive et la démission. Corbulon et l’impérialisme tacitéen», in L’idéologie de l’imperialisme romain: Colloque organisé les 18 et 19 octobre 1972 par la Section de Latin de la Faculté des Lettres avec le concours de la Fondation pour l'Art et la Recherche, Paris 1974, 91-107 F. DI MARCO, «Lo ius gladii nell’età dei Severi», in Gli imperatori Severi: storia archeologia religione, E. DAL COVOLO (ed.), Biblioteca di scienze religiose 138, Roma 1999, 337-342 K. DIJKSTRA, «Aramese votiefteksten en votiefgeschenken uit Hatra», Phoenix - Ex Oriente lux 40, 190-198

Bibliography

15

DIJKSTRA 1995

K. DIJKSTRA, Life and Loyalty: a study in the socio-religious culture of Syria and Mesopotamia in the GraecoRoman period based on epigraphical evidence, Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 128, Leiden - New York 1995 DODGEON, LIEU 1991 M. H. DODGEON, S. N. C. LIEU, The Roman eastern frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226-363): a documentary history, London – New York 1991 DONNER, RÖLLIG 1962 H. DONNER, W. RÖLLIG, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften, Wiesbaden 1962 DREXHAGE 1988 R. DREXHAGE, Untersuchungen zum römischen Osthandel, Bonn 1988 DRIJVERS 1977 H. J. W. DRIJVERS, «Hatra, Palmyra und Edessa. Die Städte der syrisch-mesopotamischen Wüste in politischer und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung», in ANRW II/8, Berlin – New York 1977, 799-906 DRIJVERS, HEALEY 1999 H. J. W. DRIJVERS, J. F. HEALEY, The Old Syriac inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene. Texts, translations and commentary, HdO 1. Abt. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, 24, Leiden - Boston - Köln 1999 DUNANT 1971 C. DUNANT, Le Sanctuaire de Baalshamîn à Palmyre 3. Les inscriptions, Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 10, Rome 1971 DURKIN-MEISTERD. DURKIN-MEISTERERNST, Dictionary of Manichaean MidERNST 2004 dle Persian and Parthian, Corpus fontium Manichaeorum. Subsidia, Dictionary of Manichaean Texts vol. III. Texts from Central Asia and China, Part 1, Turnhout 2004 ECK 1992

W. ECK, «C. Iulius Octavius Volusenna Rogatianus, Statthalter einer kaiserlichen Provinz», ZPE 90, 1992, 199-206 EPSTEIN 1936 I. EPSTEIN (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim IIV, London 1936 EQUINI SCHNEIDER 1993 E. EQUINI SCHNEIDER, Septimia Zenobia Sebaste, Studia archaeologica 61, Roma 1993 FEISSEL, GASCOU 1989 D. FEISSEL, J. GASCOU, «Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.)», CRAI 1989, 535-561 FEISSEL, GASCOU 1995 D. FEISSEL, J. GASCOU, «Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.). I. Les pétitions (P. Euphr. 1 à 5)», JS 1995, 65-119

16

FEISSEL, GASCOU 2000 FEISSEL, GASCOU, TEIXIDOR 1997 FÉVRIER 1932 FRANKFORT 1948 FRANKFORT 1963 FRYE 1962a FRYE 1962b FRYE 1984 GAHEIS 1899 GALLAZZI 1975 GARDNER, LIEU, PARRY 2005 GARNSEY 1968 GARZETTI 1966

GATIER 1996 GAWLIKOWSKI 1973

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

D. FEISSEL, J. GASCOU, «Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.) III. Actes divers et lettres (P. Euphr. 11 à 17)», JS 2000, 157-208 D. FEISSEL, J. GASCOU, J. TEIXIDOR, «Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (IIIe s. après J.-C.). II. Les actes de vent-achat (P. Euphr 6 à 10)», JS 1997, 3-57 J. G. FÉVRIER, Essai sur l’histoire politique et économique de Palmyre, Paris 1932 H. FRANKFORT, Kingship and the Gods: a Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, Chicago 1948 T. FRANKFORT, «La Sophène et Rome», Latomus 22, 1963, 181-190 R. N. FRYE, «Some early Iranian titles», Oriens 15, 1962, 352-360 R. N. FRYE, The heritage of Persia, London 1962 R. N. FRYE, The history of Iran, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, III. 7, München 1984 A. GAHEIS, 256) Claudius, R. E. III/2, 1899, 2778-2839 C. GALLAZZI, «La titolatura di Vaballato come riflesso della politica di Palmira», Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichità classiche 4, 1975, 249-265 I. M. F. GARDNER, S. N. C. LIEU, K. PARRY, From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography, Silk Road Studies, Turnhout 2005 P. GARNSEY, « The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors » , JRS 58, 1968, 51-59 A. GARZETTI, «L. Cesennio Peto e la rivalutazione flaviana di personaggi neroniani», in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol, R. CHEVALIER (ed.), Bibliothèque générale de l’École pratique des hautes études, 6e section, Paris 1966, 777-790 P.-L. GATIER, «Palmyre et Émèse, ou Émèse sans Palmyre», AAAS 42 International Colloquium «Palmyra and the Silk Road», 1996, 431-436 M. GAWLIKOWSKI, Le temple palmyrénien: étude d'épigraphie et de topographie historique, Palmyre, 6, Warszawa 1973

Bibliography

GAWLIKOWSKI 1985 GAWLIKOWSKI 1998

GERSHEVITCH 1954 GERSHEVITCH 1961 GHARIB 1995 GIGNOUX 1972 GILMARTIN 1973 GNOLI 1991

GNOLI 2003 GNOLI forthcoming GNOLI 2000 GNOLI 2002

GNOLI forthcoming b

17

M. GAWLIKOWSKI, «Les princes de Palmyre», Syria 62, 1985, 251-261 M. GAWLIKOWSKI, «The Last Kings of Edessa», in Symposium Syriacum VII, Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages 11-14 August 1996, R. LAVENANT (ed.), OCA 256, Roma 1998, 421-429 I. GERSHEVITCH, «A Parthian Title in the Hymn of the Soul», JRAS 1954, 124-126 (= ID., Philologia Iranica, Wiesbaden 1985, 162-164) I. GERSHEVITCH, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Publications of the Philological Society 16, Oxford 1961 B. GHARIB, Sogdian dictionary: Sogdian, Persian, English, Tehran 1995 P. GIGNOUX, Glossaire des inscriptions Pehlevies et Par– thes, CII - Supplementary Series 1, London 1972 K. GILMARTIN, «Corbulo’s campaigns in the East. An analysis of Tacitus’ account», Historia 22, 1973, 583-626 G. GNOLI, «L’inscription de Šābuhr à la Kaʿbe-ye Zardošt et la propagande sassanide», in Histoire et culte de l’Asie centrale préislamique. Sources écrites et documents archéologiques. Actes du Colloque international du CNRS (Paris, 22-28 novembre 1988), P. BERNARD, F. GRENET (eds.), Paris 1991, 57-63 G. GNOLI (ed.), Il Manicheismo 1, Milano 2003 G. GNOLI, «Un problema di storiografia persiana del III secolo», in Studi in onore di Mario Mazza, forthcoming T. GNOLI, Roma, Edessa e Palmira nel III sec. d.C. Problemi istituzionali. Uno studio sui Papiri dell’Eufrate, Monografie di Mediterraneo Antico 1, Pisa – Roma 2000 T. GNOLI, «Paṣgribā at Ḥatra and Edessa», in Ideologies and Intercultural Phenomena. Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Chicago, october 27-31, 2000, A. PANAINO, G. PETTINATO (eds.), MELAMMU Symposia, Milano 2002, 79-87 T. GNOLI, «Palmira tra Roma e l’Iran. Un caso di sincretismo culturale?», in Incontri di culture nell’Oriente Ellenistico e Romano, Atti del Convegno, Ravenna 11-12 marzo 2005, T. GNOLI, F. M. MUCCIOLI (eds.), Milano forthcoming

18

GÖBL 1961 GREENFIELD 1987 GRIFFITHS 1953 GROAG 1897 GROAG 1903 GUTSCHMID 1888 GUTSCHMID 1893 HAMMOND 1934 HARNACK 1970 HARTMANN 2001 HEIL 1997 HENDERSON 1901 HENNING 1935 HENNING 1936

HENNING 1938

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

R. GÖBL, «REX DATVS. Ein Kapitel von der Interpretation numismatischer Zeugnisse und ihren Grundlagen», RhM 104, 1961, 70-80 J. C. GREENFIELD, «Aramaic II: Iranian Loanwords in Early Aramaic», EncIr II, 1987, 256-259 J. G. GRIFFITHS, «Βασιλεˆς βασιλÔων: remarks on the History of a Title», CP 48, 1953, 145-154 E. GROAG, «L. Caesennius Paetus 10)», R. E. III, 1309-1310 E. GROAG, «L. Caesennius Paetus 10)», R. E. Suppl. I, 1903, 269. A. VON GUTSCHMID, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer von Alexander dem Grossen bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden, Tübingen 1888 A. VON GUTSCHMID, Kleine Schriften IV: Schriften zur griechischen Geschichte und Literatur, Leipzig 1893 M. HAMMOND, «Corbulo and Nero’s Eastern Policy», HSCP 45, 1934, 81-104 D. HARNACK, «Parthische Titel, vornehmlich in den Inschriften von Hatra», in Geschichte Mittelasiens im Altertum, F. ALTHEIM, R. STIEHL (eds.), Berlin 1970, 492-549 U. HARTMANN, Das palmyrenische Teilreich, Oriens et Occidens 2, Stuttgart 2001 M. HEIL, Die orientalische Außenpolitik des Kaisers Nero, Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 26, München 1997 B. W. HENDERSON, «The chronology of the wars in Armenia, A.D. 51-63», ClRev 15, 1901, 159-165; 204-213; 266-274 W. B. HENNING, «Arabisch ḫarāǧ», Orientalia 4, 1935, 291-293 (= ID., Selected Papers I, Acta Iranica 15, Teheran-Liège 1977, 355-358) W. B. HENNING, Ein manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch, APAW Phil.-Hist. Kl., 10, Berlin 1936 (= W. B. HENNING, Selected Papers I, Acta Iranica 14, Téhéran - Liège 1977, 417-557) W. B. HENNING, «Argi and the “Tokharians”», BSOAS 9, 1938, 545-571 (= ID., Selected Papers I, Acta Iranica 15, Teheran-Liège 1977, 573-600)

Bibliography

HENNING 1958 HERZFELD 1914 HERZFELD 1924 HERZFELD 1947 HILLERS, CUSSINI 1995 HOFTIJZER, JONGELING 1995 HOLLIS 1994 HUMBACH, SKJÆRVØ 1978-1983 HÜTTL 1936 HUYSE 1999 HUYSE 2002

HUYSE 2006

IBRAHIM 1986

19

W. B. HENNING, «Mitteliranisch», HdO 4. Bd. Iranistik, 1. Abschnitt: Linguistik, Leiden - Köln 1958, 20-130 E. HERZFELD, Die Aufnahme des sasanidischen Denkmals von Paikūli, APAW Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1, Berlin 1914 E. HERZFELD, Paikuli. Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sassanian Empire I-II, Forschungen zur islamischen Kunst 3, Berlin 1924 E. HERZFELD, Zoroaster and his world I-II, Princeton 1947 D. R. HILLERS, E. CUSSINI, Palmyrene Aramaic texts, Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project, Baltimore, MD 1995 J. HOFTIJZER, K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-west Semitic inscriptions, HdO 1. Abt. 21, Leiden - New York 1995 A. S. HOLLIS, «Statius’ young Parthian king (‘Thebaid’ VIII 286-93)», G&R 41, 1994, 205-212 H. HUMBACH, P. O. SKJÆRVØ, The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, Part 1-3, Wiesbaden 1978-1983 W. HÜTTL, Antoninus Pius I: Historisch-politische Darstellung, Prag 1936 P. HUYSE, Die dreisprachige Inschrift Šābuhrs I. an der Kaʿba-i Zardušt (ŠKZ), CII, III. Pahlavi Inscriptions. Bd. 1, London 1999 P. HUYSE, «Sprachkontakte und Entlehnungen zwischen dem Griechisch/Lateinischen und dem Mitteliranischen», in Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum, M. SCHUOL, U. HARTMANN, A. LUTHER (eds.), Oriens et Occidens 3, Stuttgart 2002, 197-234 P. HUYSE, «Die sasanidische Königstitulatur: Eine Gegenüberstellung der Quellen», in Ērān ud Anērān. Studien zu den Beziehungen zwischen dem Sasanidenreich und der Mittelmeerwelt. Beiträge des Internationalen Colloquiums in Eutin, 8.-9. Juni 2000, J. WIESEHÖFER, P. HUYSE (eds.), Oriens et occidens 13, Stuttgart 2006, 181-201 J. K. IBRAHIM, Pre-islamic Settlement in Jazirah, Baghdad 1986

20

INGHOLT 1936 INGHOLT 1976

JONES 1951

JUSTI 1895 JUSTI 1905 KAIZER 2002 KAIZER 2005 KETTENHOFEN 1979

KETTENHOFEN 1984 KETTENHOFEN 1995 KETTENHOFEN 2002

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

H. INGHOLT, «Inscriptions and sculptures from Palmyra I», Berytus 3, 1936, 82-128 H. INGHOLT, «Varia Tadmorea», in Palmyre. Bilan et perspectives. Colloque de Strasbourg (18-20 Octobre 1973), Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 3, Strasbourg 1976, 101-137 A. H. M. JONES, «‘I appeal unto Caesar’», in Studies presented to David Moore Robinson on his seventieth birthday, vol. II, G. E. MYLONAS, D. RAYMOND (eds.), Saint Louis, Missouri 1951, 918-930 (= A. H. M. JONES, Studies in Roman Government and Law, Oxford 1960, 51-65) F. JUSTI, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg 1895 F. JUSTI, «Review of Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch», IF Anzeiger 17, 1905, 84-131 T. KAIZER, The Religious Life of Palmyra: A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period, Oriens et Occidens 4, Stuttgart 2002 T. KAIZER, «Odaenathus von Palmyra», in Politische Morde. Vom Altertum bis zur Gegenwart, M. SOMMER (ed.), Darmstadt 2005, 73-79 E. KETTENHOFEN, Die syrischen Augustae in der historischen Überlieferung: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Orientalisierung, Antiquitas. Reihe 3, Abhandlungen zur Vorund Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums 24, Bonn 1979 E. KETTENHOFEN, «Die Einforderung des Achämenidenerbes durch Ardašir: Eine Interpretatio Romana», OLP 15, 1984, 177-190 E. KETTENHOFEN, Tirdād und die Inschrift von Paikuli: Kritik der Quellen zur Geschichte Armeniens im späten 3. und frühen 4. Jh. n. Chr., Wiesbaden 1995 E. KETTENHOFEN, «Die Einforderung der achaimenidischen Territorien durch die Sasaniden - Eine Bilanz», in Yadname-ye Iradj Khalifeh-Soltani. Festschrift Iradj KhalifehSoltani zum 65. Geburtstag, S. KURZ (ed.), Berichte aus der Orientalistik, Aachen 2002, 49-75

Bibliography

KHURSHUDIAN 1998 KOENEN, RÖMER 1988

KÖRNER 2002

KOTULA 1997 KROLL 1930 KUPISZEWSKI 1953 LEMOSSE 1961

LEMOSSE 1967 LEPPER 1948 LEURINI 2004

LEVY 1864 LEWIS 1989 LEWIS 2003

21

E. KHURSHUDIAN, Die Parthischen und Sasanidischen Verwaltungsinstitutionen nach den Literarischen und Epigraphischen Quellen 3. Jh. v.Chr.- 7. Jh. n.Chr., Jerewan 1998 L. KOENEN, C. RÖMER, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Über das Werden seines Leibes: Kritische Edition, Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia 14, Opladen 1988 C. KÖRNER, Philippus Arabs. Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch-severischen Prinzipats, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 61, Berlin – New York 2002 T. KOTULA, Aurélien et Zenobie: l’unité ou la division de l’Empire?, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, Wrocław 1997 W. KROLL, Martius 6), R. E. XIV, 2, 1930, 2024-2025 H. KUPISZEWSKI, «The iuridicus Alexandreae», JJP 7-8, 1953, 187-204 M. LEMOSSE, «Le couronnement de Tiridate. Remarques sur le statut des protectorats romains», in Mélanges en l’honneur de Gilbert Gidel, Paris 1961, 455-468 (= ID., Études romanistiques, Annales de la Faculté de droit et de science politique 26, Clermont-Ferrand 1991, 219-232) M. LEMOSSE, Le régime des relations internationales dans le haute-empire romain, Publications de l’Institut de Droit Romain de l’Université de Paris, Paris 1967 F. A. LEPPER, Trajan’s Parthian War, London 1948 C. LEURINI, «Pasāgrīw ‘Thronfolger’ Manis», in Turfan revisited - The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road, D. DURKIN-MEISTERERNST, S.-C. RASCHMANN, J. WILKENS, M. YALDIZ, P. ZIEME (eds.), Berlin 2004, 159-162 M. A. LEVY, «Die palmyrenischen Inschriften», ZDMG 18, 1864, 65-117 N. LEWIS (ed.), The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri, Judean desert studies, 2, Jerusalem 1989 N. LEWIS, «The Complete Babatha: More Questions than Answers», SCI 22, 2003, 189-192

22

LIEBS 1981 LONG 1996

LUTHER 1998 LUTHER 1999 MACMULLEN 1966 MAGIE 1950 MANFREDINI 1991 MARCONE 2003a

MARCONE 2003b MARICQ 1955 MAZZA 1973 MAZZA 1992

MEHL 1979

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

D. LIEBS, «Das ius gladii der römischen Provinzgouverneure in der Kaiserzeit», ZPE 43, 1981, 217-223 J. LONG, «Two sides of a coin: Aurelian, Vaballathus, and eastern frontiers in the early 270s», in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, R. W. MATHISEN, H. S. SIVAN (eds.), Aldershot - Brookfield 1996, 59-71 A. LUTHER, «Abgar Prahates filius rex (CIL VI, 1797)», Muséon 111, 1998, 345-357 A. LUTHER, «Elias von Nisibis und die Chronologie der edessenischen Könige», Klio 81, 1999, 180-198 R. MACMULLEN, Enemies of the Roman order. Treason, unrest and alienation in the Empire, Cambridge 1966 D. MAGIE, Roman rule in Asia Minor to the end of the third century after Christ, Princeton 1950 A. D. MANFREDINI, «Ius gladii», Annali dell’Università di Ferrara. Facoltà di Giurisprudenza 5, 1991, 103-126 A. MARCONE, «Moneta e commercio in una città di frontiera: Palmira tra II e III secolo d.C.», in Moneta Mercanti Banchieri. I precedenti greci e romani dell’Euro. Atti del convegno internazionale. Cividale del Friuli, 26-28 settembre 2002, G. URSO (ed.), I convegni della Fondazione Nicolò Canussio 2, 2003, 187-204 A. MARCONE, «Palmira e l’idea di città carovaniera», MedAnt 6, 2003, 641-659 A. MARICQ, «Hatra de Sanatrouq», Syria 32, 1955, 273-288 (= A. MARICQ, Classica et Orientalia, Paris 1965, 1-15) M. MAZZA, Lotte sociali e restaurazione autoritaria nel III secolo d. C., Roma – Bari 1973 M. MAZZA, «Strutture sociali e culture locali nelle provincie sulla frontiera dell’Eufrate (II-IV sec. d.C.). Uno studio sui contatti culturali», Siculorum Gymnasium n.s. 45, 1992 [1994], 159-235 (= M. MAZZA, Cultura, guerra e diplomazia nella Tarda Antichità, Testi e studi di storia antica 13, Catania 2005, 11-115, with updatings) A. MEHL, «Kaiser Claudius und der Feldherr Corbulo bei Tacitus und Cassius Dio. Mit einem Anhang: Ist der ältere Plinius die Quelle beider Autoren?», Hermes 107, 1979, 220-239

Bibliography

MEULDER 1993 MICHALOWSKI 1960 MILIK 1972

MILLAR 1977 MILLAR 1990

MILLAR 1993 MILLAR 1996

MILLAR 1998a MILLAR 1998b

MOMIGLIANO 1931 MOMMSEN 1875 MOMMSEN 1887a MOMMSEN 1887b

23

M. L. MEULDER, «Caesennius Paetus, un avatar du guerrier impie chez Tacite (Ann. XV, 7-8)?», Latomus 52, 1993, 98-104 K. MICHALOWSKI, Palmyre, Warszawa 1960 J. T. MILIK, Recherches d’épigraphie proche-orientale 1. Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Palmyre, Hatra, Tyr) et des thiases sémitiques à l’époque romaine, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 92, Paris 1972 F. MILLAR, The Emperor in the Roman World, London 1977 F. MILLAR, «The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: a Study of Cultural Relations», in Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, Proceedings of a Colloquium at Tvärminne, 2-3 October 1987, H. SOLIN, M. KAJAVA (eds.), Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 91, Helsinki 1990, 7-58 F. MILLAR, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, Cambridge, Mass. 1993 F. MILLAR, «Emperors, Kings, and Subjects: The Politics of Two-Level Sovereignty», SCI 15, 1996, 159-173 (= F. MILLAR, Rome, the Greek World, and the East, Chapel Hill - London 2004, 229-245) F. MILLAR, «Dura-Europos under Parthian rule», in Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse, J. WIESEHÖFER (ed.), Historia Einzelschriften 122, Stuttgart 1998, 473-492 F. MILLAR, «Caravan Cities: The Roman Near East and Long-distance Trade by Land», in Modus operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman. Bulletin of the Institute of classical studies, Supplement 71, M. M. AUSTIN, C. J. SMITH, J. HARRIES (eds.), London 1998, 121-137 A. MOMIGLIANO, «Corbulone e la politica Romana verso i Parti», in Atti del II Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, vol. I, Roma 1931, 368-375 T. MOMMSEN, Römisches Staatsrecht II, 2, Handbuch der Römischen Altertümer, Leipzig 1875 T. MOMMSEN, Römisches Staatsrecht I, Handbuch der Römischen Altertümer, Leipzig 1887 T. MOMMSEN, Römisches Staatsrecht II, 1, Handbuch der Römischen Altertümer, Leipzig 1887

24

MOMMSEN 1894 MOMMSEN 1899 MORETTI 1955 MUCCIOLI 2001 MUCCIOLI 2004 MÜLLER 1913 NEHMÉ, VILLENEUVE 1999 NEUSNER 1966 NÖLDEKE 1870 NÖLDEKE 1879 PANAINO 2003

PANAINO 2004

PANI 1972 PARLASCA 1989

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

T. MOMMSEN, Römische Geschichte V: Die Provinzen von Caesar bis Diocletian, Berlin 1894 T. MOMMSEN, Römisches Strafrecht, Systematisches Handbuch der Deutschen Rechtswissenschaft I, 4, Leipzig 1899 L. MORETTI, «Due note epigrafiche», Athenaeum n. s. 33, 1955, 32-46 F. MUCCIOLI, «La scelta delle titolature dei Seleucidi: il ruolo dei φÛλοι e delle classi dirigenti cittadine», Simblos 3, 2001, 295-318 F. MUCCIOLI, «‘Il re dell’Asia’: ideologia e propaganda da Alessandro Magno a Mitridate VI», Simblos 4, 2004, 105-158 F. W. K. MÜLLER, Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichäischen Hymnenbuch (Maḥrnāmag), APAW, 1912/V, Berlin 1913 L. NEHMÉ, F. VILLENEUVE, Pétra: métropole de l’Arabie antique, [Paris] 1999 J. NEUSNER, A History of the Jews in Babylonia 2: The early Sasanian period, Studia Post-Biblica 11, Leiden 1966 T. NÖLDEKE, «Beiträge zur Kenntnis der aramäischen Dialekte», ZDMG 24, 1870 T. NÖLDEKE, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari, Leipzig 1879 A. PANAINO, «The baγān of the Fratarakas: gods or ‘divine’ kings?», in Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli on the occasion of his 65th birthday on 6th December 2002, C. G. CERETI, M. MAGGI, E. PROVASI (eds.), Beiträge zur Iranistik 24, Wiesbaden 2003, 265-288 A. PANAINO, «Astral characters of kingship in the Sasanian and Byzantine world», La Persia e Bisanzio (Roma, 14-18 ottobre 2002), Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201, Roma 2004, 555-594 M. PANI, Roma e i re d’Oriente da Augusto a Tiberio (Cappadocia, Armenia, Media Atropatene), Bari 1972 K. PARLASCA, «Palmyrenische Bildnisse aus dem Umkreis Zenobias», in Festschrift Robert Werner zu seinem 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schü-

Bibliography

PFLAUM 1954 PFLAUM 1960 PIERSIMONI 1994 PIERSIMONI 1995 POIRIER 1981 POTTER 1990

POTTER 1996 POTTER 2004 PREUSCHEN 1904 QUESTA 1967 RÉMY 1976 RÉMY 1986 RITTERLING 1904 ROSENTHAL 1967 ROSS 1993

25

lern, W. DAHLHEIM, W. SCHULLER, J. V. UNGERN-STERNBERG (eds.), Xenia 22, Konstanz 1989, 205-211 H.-G. PFLAUM, «La chronologie de la carrière de L. Caesennius Sospes», Historia 2, 1954, 431-446 H.-G. PFLAUM, Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le haut-empire romain I-III, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 57, Paris 1960 P. PIERSIMONI, «Who’s who at Palmyra: an overview», OLP 25, 1994, 89-98 P. PIERSIMONI, «Compiling a Palmyrene prosopography: methodological problems», ARAM 7, 1995, 251-260 P. H. POIRIER, L’hymne de la Perle des Actes de Thomas: introduction, texte, traduction, commentaire, Homo religiosus, Louvain 1981 D. S. POTTER, Prophecy and history in the crisis of the Roman Empire: A historical commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, Oxford classical monographs, Oxford New York 1990 D. S. POTTER, «Palmyra and Rome: Odaenathus’ Titulature and the Use of the Imperium Maius», ZPE 113, 1996, 271-285 D. S. POTTER, The Roman Empire at bay: AD 180-395, Routledge history of the ancient world, New York 2004 E. PREUSCHEN, Zwei gnostische Hymnen: mit Text und Übersetzung, Giessen 1904 C. QUESTA, Studi sulle fonti degli Annales di Tacito, Roma 19672 B. RÉMY, «Ornati et ornamenta quaestoria praetoria et consularia sous le haut empire romain», REA 78-79, 1976, 160-198 B. RÉMY, «’πατικοÛ et consulares dans les provinces impériales prétoriennes au II et III siècles», Latomus 45, 1986, 311-338 E. RITTERLING, «Epigraphische Beiträge zur römischen Geschichte», RhM 59, 1904, 186-199 F. ROSENTHAL, An Aramaic Handbook, Porta linguarum orientalium N. S. 10, Wiesbaden 1967 S. K. ROSS, «The Last King of Edessa: New Evidence from the Middle Euphrates», ZPE 97, 1993, 187-206

26

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

ROSS 2001

S. K. ROSS, Roman Edessa. Politics and Culture on the Eastern Fringes of the Roman Empire, 114-242 CE, London – New York 2001 ROSTOVTZEFF, BRADFORD M. I. ROSTOVTZEFF, C. BRADFORD WELLES, «A parchment WELLES 1931 contract of loan from Dura-Europos on the Euphrates», YClS 2, 1931, 1-78

ROWTON 1973 ROWTON 1976 ROWTON 1977 SAFAR 1973 SARTRE 1996 SARTRE 1999 SARTRE 2001 SCHÄFER 1974

SCHEHL 1930 SCHLUMBERGER 1942a SCHLUMBERGER 1942b SCHLUMBERGER 1951 SCHLUMBERGER 1972 SCHMITT 1982

M. B. ROWTON, «Urban Autonomy in a Nomadic Environment», JNES 32, 1973, 201-215 M. B. ROWTON, «Dimorphic Structure and Topology», OrAnt 15, 1976, 17-31 M. B. ROWTON, «Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element», JNES 36, 1977, 181-198 F. SAFAR, «The Lords and Kings of Hatra», Sumer 29, 1973, 87-98 M. SARTRE, «Palmyre, cité grecque», AAAS 42, International Colloquium «Palmyra and the Silk Road», 1996, 385-405 M. SARTRE, «Les metrokomiai de la Syrie du Sud», Syria 76, 1999, 197-222 M. SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie: histoire du Levant antique, IVe siècle avant J.-C.-IIIe siècle après J.-C., [Paris] 2001 G. SCHÄFER, König der Könige, Lied der Lieder: Studien zum paronomastischen Intensitätsgenitiv, Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 1973, 2. Abhandlung, Heidelberg 1974 F. SCHEHL, «Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Antoninus Pius», Hermes 65, 1930, 177-208 D. SCHLUMBERGER, «L’inscription d’Hérodien, remarques sur l’histoire des princes de Palmyre», BeO 9, 1942, 35-50 D. SCHLUMBERGER, «Les gentilices romains des Palmyréniens», BeO 9, 1942, 53-81 D. SCHLUMBERGER, La Palmyrène du Nord-Ouest, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 49, Paris 1951 D. SCHLUMBERGER, «Vorôd l’agoranome», Syria 49, 1972, 339-341 R. SCHMITT, «Artabides/Argabides/Artakides/Arsakides bei Theophylaktos Simokattes», in Sprachwissenschaft in Innsbruck. Arbeiten von Mitgliedern und Freunden des Instituts

Bibliography

SCHOTTKY 1989 SCHUOL 2000 SCHUR 1923 SCHUR 1949 SCHÜRER, VERMÈS, MILLAR 1973 SCHWARTZ 1976 SEGAL 1970 SEGAL 1986 SEYRIG 1937 SEYRIG 1959 SEYRIG 1963 SHAKED 1987 SHAPIRA 1999 SKJÆRVØ 1983 SOMMER 2005

27

für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck aus Anlaß des fünfzigjährigen Bestehens des Instituts im Jahre 1978 und zum Gedenken an die 25. Wiederkehr des Todestages von Hermann Ammann am 12. September 1981, W. MEID, H. ÖLBERG, H. SCHMEJA (eds.), Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 50, Innsbruck 1982, 209-212 M. SCHOTTKY, Media Atropatene und Gross-Armenien in hellenistischer Zeit, Habelts Dissertationsdrücke. Reihe alte Geschichte 27, Bonn 1989 M. SCHUOL, Die Charakene. Ein mesopotamisches Königreich in hellenistisch-parthischer Zeit, Oriens et Occidens 1, Stuttgart 2000 W. SCHUR, Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero, Klio. Beiheft 15 (N. F. 2), Leipzig 1923 W. SCHUR, «Parthia», R. E. XVIII, 4, 1949, 1987-2029 E. SCHÜRER, G. VERMÈS, F. MILLAR, The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), Edinburgh 1973 J. SCHWARTZ, «Prefecture d’Égypte et interim», ZPE 20, 1976, 101-107 J. B. SEGAL, Edessa, the Blessed City, Oxford 1970 J. B. SEGAL, «Arabs at Hatra and the Vicinity: Marginalia on New Aramaic Texts», JSS 31, 1986, 57-80 H. SEYRIG, «Note sur Hérodien, prince de Palmyre», Syria 18, 1937, 1-4 (= AS 19) H. SEYRIG, «Caractères de l’histoire d’Emèse», Syria 36, 1959, 184-192 H. SEYRIG, «Les fils du roi Odainat», AAAS 13, 1963, 159-172 S. SHAKED, «Aramaic iii. Iranian Loanwords in Middle Aramaic», EncIr II, 1987, 259a-261b D. D. Y. SHAPIRA, «Manichaios, Jywndg Gryw and Other Manichaean Terms and Titles», Irano-Judaica 4, 1999, 122-149 HUMBACH, SKJÆRVØ 1978-1983, Part 3. 1 M. SOMMER, Roms orientalische Steppengrenze. Palmyra Edessa - Dura-Europos - Hatra. Eine Kulturgeschichte von Pompeius bis Diocletian, Oriens et Occidens 9, Stuttgart 2005

28

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

SPAGNUOLO VIGORITA 1990

T. SPAGNUOLO VIGORITA, «Imperium mixtum. Ulpiano, Alessandro e la giurisdizione procuratoria», Index 18, 1990, 113-166

SPERTI 1990

L. SPERTI, Nerone e la submissio di Tiridate in un bronzetto da Opitergium, Supplementi alla Rivista di Archeologia 8, Roma 1990 J. STARCKY, M. GAWLIKOWSKI, Palmyre, Paris 1985

STARCKY, GAWLIKOWSKI 1985 STEIN 1909 STEIN 1918 STEIN 1927 STEP‘ANYAN 1975 STEVENSON 1939 STRACK 1937 SULLIVAN 1977 SUNDERMANN 1981

SUNDERMANN 1988

SUNDERMANN 2002 SWAIN 1993 SYME 1958 SYME 1970

A. STEIN, «Exedares», R. E. VI 2, 1909, 1581 A. STEIN, «Cn. Domitius Corbulo 50)», R. E. Suppl. III, 1918, 394-410 A. STEIN, «Sohaemus 5)», R. E. III A 1, 1927, 798 A. STEP‘ANYAN, «Le traité de Randée et le ‘couronnement’ de Tiridate l’Arsacide à Rome», REArm n. s. 11, 1975, 205-218 G. H. STEVENSON, Roman provincial administration till the age of the Antonines, New York 1939 P. L. STRACK, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts III. Antoninus Pius, Stuttgart 1937 R. D. SULLIVAN, «The dynasty of Emesa», in ANRW II/8, Berlin - New York 1977, 198-219 W. SUNDERMANN, Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients, Berliner Turfantexte 11, Berlin 1981 W. SUNDERMANN, «Der Paraklet in der ostmanichäischen Überlieferung», in Manichaean studies: proceedings of the First international conference on Manichaeism, August 5-9, 1987, P. BRYDER (ed.), Lund studies in African and Asian religions, Lund 1988, 201-212 (= W. SUNDERMANN, Manichaica Iranica: ausgewählte Schriften II, C. RECK, D. WEBER, C. LEURINI, A. PANAINO (eds.), SOR 89, Roma 2001, 813-826) W. SUNDERMANN, «Grīw», EncIr 11, 2002, 364a-368b S. SWAIN, «Greek into Palmyrene: Odaenathus as Corrector totius Orientis?», ZPE 99, 1993, 157-164 R. SYME, Tacitus, Oxford 1958 R. SYME, «Domitius Corbulo», JRS 60, 1970, 27-39

Bibliography

SZEMERÉNYI 1975

TAFAZZOLI 1990 TEIXIDOR 1966 TEIXIDOR 1989 TEIXIDOR 1990 TEIXIDOR 1993 TELEGDI 1935 TRAINA 1996 TRAINA 2001 TRESCH 1965 VATTIONI 1981 VATTIONI 1986 VATTIONI 1994 VERVAET 1999a VERVAET 1999b VERVAET 2000

29

O. J. L. SZEMERÉNYI, «Iranica V (N° 59-70)», in Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2, Acta Iranica 5, Leiden - Téhéran - Liège 1975, 313-394 (= ID., Scripta Minora IV, Innsbruck 1991, 1923-2004) A. TAFAZZOLI, «An Unrecognized Sasanian Title», BAI 4, 1990, 301-305 J. TEIXIDOR, «Notes hatréennes», Syria 43, 1966, 92-97 J. TEIXIDOR, «Les derniers rois d’Édesse d’après deux nouveaux documents syriaques», ZPE 76, 1989, 219-222 J. TEIXIDOR, «Deux documents syriaques du III siècle après J.-C., provenant du moyen Euphrate», CRAI 1990, 144-166 J. TEIXIDOR, «Un document syriaque de fermage de 242 après J.-C.», Sem 41-42, 1993, 195-208 S. TELEGDI, «Essai sur la phonétique des emprunts iraniens en araméen talmudique», JA 226, 1935, 177-256 G. TRAINA, «Sulla fortuna di Domizio Corbulone», in Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti, C. STELLA, A. VALVO (eds.), Brescia 1996, 491-503 G. TRAINA, «Le gentes d’Oriente tra identità e integrazione», AnTard 9, 2001, 71-80 J. TRESCH, Die Nerobücher in den Annalen des Tacitus: Tradition und Leistung, Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften. N. F. 2. Reihe, Heidelberg 1965 F. VATTIONI, Le iscrizioni di Ḥatra, AION Suppl. n. 28 vol. 41, Napoli 1981 F. VATTIONI, «Saggio di bibliografia semitica, 1985-1986», AION 46, 1986, 563-624 F. VATTIONI, Hatra, AION Suppl. n. 81a vol. 54, fasc. 4, Roma 1994 F. J. VERVAET, «CIL IX 3426: a new light on Corbulo’s career: with special reference to his official mandate in the East from AD 55 to AD 63», Latomus 58, 1999, 574-599 F. J. VERVAET, «Tacitus, Domitius Corbulo and Traianus’ Bellum Parthicum», AC 68, 1999, 289-297 F. J. VERVAET, «Tacitus, Ann. 15, 25, 3: A revision of Corbulo’s imperium maius (AD 63 - AD 65)», in Studies in Latin literature and Roman history 10, C. DEROUX (ed.), Collection Latomus 254, Bruxelles 2000, 260-298

30

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

VERVAET 2002a VERVAET 2002b VERVAET 2003 VITTINGHOFF 1953 VOLKMANN 1937 VON

PREMERSTEIN 1913

WALSER 1951 WATSON 1999 WELLESLEY 1969 WHEELER 1997 WIDENGREN 1958 WIDENGREN 1960

WIESEHÖFER 1986 WIESEHÖFER 1998

WILCKEN 1899

F. J. VERVAET, «Caesennius Sospes, the Neronian wars in Armenia and Tacitus’ view on the problem of Roman foreign policy in the East», MedAnt 5, 2002, 283-318 F. J. VERVAET, «Domitius Corbulo and the senatorial opposition to the reign of Nero», AncSoc 32, 2002, 135-193 F. J. VERVAET, «Domitius Corbulo and the rise of the Flavian dynasty», Historia 52, 2003, 436-464 F. VITTINGHOFF, «Portorium», R. E. XXII, 1, 1953, 346-399 H. VOLKMANN, «Der Zweite nach dem König», Phil 92, 1937, 285-316 A. VON PREMERSTEIN, «Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Marcus III», Klio 13, 1913, 70-104 G. WALSER, Rom, das Reich und die fremden Völker in der Geschichtsschreibung der Frühen Kaiserzeit: Studien zur Glaubwürdigkeit des Tacitus, Baden 1951 A. WATSON, Aurelian and the third century, London – New York 1999 K. WELLESLEY, «Tacitus as a military historian», in Tacitus, T. A. DOREY (ed.), Studies in Latin literature and its influence, London 1969 E. L. WHEELER, «The chronology of Corbulo in Armenia», Klio 79, 1997, 383-397 G. WIDENGREN, «Recherches sur le féodalisme iranien», Orientalia Suecana 5, 1956, 79-182 G. WIDENGREN, Iranisch-semitische Kulturbegegnung in parthischer Zeit, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften 70, Köln - Opladen 1960 J. WIESEHÖFER, «Iranische Ansprüche an Rom auf ehemals achaimenidische Territorien», AMI 19, 1986, 177-185 J. WIESEHÖFER (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse = The Arsacid empire - sources and documentation: Beiträge des internationalen Colloquiums, Eutin (27.-30. Juni 1996), Historia Einzelschriften 122, Stuttgart 1998 U. WILCKEN, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte I, Leipzig - Berlin 1899

Bibliography

WILL 1957 WILL 1992 WILL 1996 WOLFF 1980 WOLFFGRAMM 1885 WOLSKI 1982 WOLSKI 1987

WOLSKI 1993 WRIGHT 1871 YON 2000 YON 2002a YON 2002b YON 2003

YON 2004

31

E. WILL, «Marchands et chefs de caravanes à Palmyre», Syria 34, 1957, 262-277 (= ID., De l’Euphrate au Rhin, Beyrouth 1995, 541-556) E. WILL, Les Palmyréniens: la Venise des sables (1er siècle avant-3ème siècle après J.-C.), Paris 1992 E. WILL, «À propos de quelques inscriptions palmyréniennes: le cas de Septimius Vorôd», Syria 73, 1996, 109-115 H. J. WOLFF, «Römisches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia», in ANRW II/13, Berlin - New York 1980, 763-806 C. WOLFFGRAMM, «Cn. Domitius Corbulo der consul suffectus des Jahrs 39. Zu Kleins Fasti consulares p. 39», Phil 44, 1885, 371-376 J. WOLSKI, «Le titre de roi des rois dans l’idéologie monarchique des Arsacides», AAntHung 30, 1982, 159-166 J. WOLSKI, «Le couronnement de Tiridate par Vologèse I comme roi d’Arménie: échec de Néron et de l’empire romain», in Neronia III. Actes du III Colloque international de Société international d’études néroniennes (Varenna - juin 1982), Centro studi e documentazione sull’Italia romana: Atti 12, Roma 1987, 167-178 J. WOLSKI, L’empire des Arsacides, Acta Iranica 32. III série: Textes et mémoires 18, Louvaine 1993 W. WRIGHT, Apocryphal acts of the apostles, London Edinburgh 1871 (repr. Piscataway 2005) J.-B. YON, «Onomastique et influences culturelles: L’exemple de l’onomastique de Palmyre», MedAnt 3, 2000, 77-93 J.-B. YON, Les notables de Palmyre, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 163, Beyrouth 2002 J.-B. YON, «Palmyre au 3ème siècle : À propos d’un ouvrage récent d’U. Hartmann», AnTard 10, 2002, 401-410 J.-B. YON, «L’identité civique et ethnique de Palmyre», in Kulturkonflikte im Vorderen Orient an der Wende vom Hellenismus zur römischen Kaiserzeit, K. S. FREYBERGER, A. HENNING, H. V. HESBERG (eds.), Orient-Archäologie 11, Rahden 2003, 11-18 J.-B. YON, «La romanisation de Palmyre et des villes de l’Euphrate», Annales E.S.C. 59, 2004, 313-336

32

YOUNG 2001 ZIEGLER 1964

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

G. K. YOUNG, Rome’s eastern trade: international commerce and imperial policy, 31 BC - AD 305, London — New York 2001 K.-H. ZIEGLER, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts, Wiesbaden 1964

Introduction

In the month of Former Kanun of the year five hundred and fifty two, in the third year | of Autokrator Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus | the Fortunate and Victorious, and in the second year of Aelius Septimius Abgar the king | son of Maʿnu, paṣgribā, son of Abgar the king, who was honoured with the hypateia in Urhoy, | in Edessa, the great city, mother of all the cities of Bet Nahrin, | this document was written in Haiklā New Town of Hunting, of Abgar the king, | on the twenty-eighth day etc. (transl. DRIJVERS and HEALEY, with adaptations).1

Thus starts the scriptura interior, or ‘lower text,’ of a Syriac parchment published in 1990 by Javier TEIXIDOR.2 In a private act in Syriac pertaining to the settlement of a debt between two private individuals and whose dating formula bears the date of 28th December 240 A. D., various time reckoning systems are set next to each other as expressions of different cultures meeting in the Roman Near East: the Seleucid Era, the year of reign of the Roman emperor and at last the year of reign of the sovereign of the royal house of Edessa, the capital city of the reign of the Abgarids, where this document was written. The document itself contains nothing exceptional. This jumbling together of different time reckonings represents a constant characteristic of the documents coming from the areas of the ancient cultures of the Near East. What makes an exceptional document out of it, and which repres-

1

2

DRIJVERS, HEALEY 1999, P2, Lower text, lines 1-7: BYRḤ KNWN QDM ŠNT ḤMŠMʾʾ WḤMŠYN WTRTYN BŠNT | TLT DʾWṬQRṬWR QSR MRQWS ʾNṬWNYWS GWRDYNWS | GDYʾ WZKYʾ WBŠNT TRTYN DʾLYWS SPṬMYWS ʾBGR MLKʾ | BR MʿNW PṢGRYBʾ BR ʾBGR MLKʾ DMYQR BHPṬYʾ BʾRHY | BʾRS MDYNTʾ RBTʾ ʾMʾ DMDYNTʾ KLHYN DBYT NHRYN || KTYB ŠṬRʾ HNʾ BHYKLʾ KRKʾ ḤDTʾ DṢYDʾ DʾBGR MLKʾ | BYWM TMYNʾ WʿŠRYN MWDNʾ. TEIXIDOR 1990. The definition interior makes reference to the way the document was folded, cf. GNOLI 2000, 17-22.

34

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

ents one of the subjects of my reflections in this work too, are the titles of the king of Edessa, Aelius Septimius Abgar. This king, a Roman citizen, as the tria nomina testify and whose family had probably been granted this title many generations before, was the son of an important figure, Maʿnu, who had always been a crown-prince, and as king, had himself exercised the powers attributed to the Roman consuls. Syriac did not possess any terms suitable for translating the complex institutional situation of Aelius Septimius Abgar and his family, and so we find the transliteration into Syriac of two terms: on the one hand PṢGRYBʾ from a non-attested Parthian form pšʾgryw3 and on the other hand HPṬYʾ from the Greek ÕπατεÛα. This term is an abstract form from —πατος/consul. From the 5th century onward a corresponding abstract term, consularitas, was attested also in Latin.4 Most scholars, in primis the editors of these parchments (besides two Syriac parchments seventeen documents written in Greek are part of this batch of documents)5 have thought they were perfectly able to explain the consularitas of Aelius Septimius Abgar inside the Roman institutional framework. Thus the king of Edessa had been granted the ornamenta consularia exactly like Herod or Agrippa in Judaea before him or many other more or less influential people in the Roman ruling class. I have already taken the opportunity to question broadly such an interpretation in a monograph I expressly dedicated to this documents.6 For the sake of clarity, the most significant points of my argument will be briefly summed up in the part of this work dedicated to the ‘Kings-—πατοι.’ In-

3 4 5

6

GERSHEVITCH 1954; LEURINI 2004. Consularitas is attested in Notitia Dignitatum, in Codices Theodosianus and Iustinianus, in Cassiodorus’ Variae, and in Paulinus’ Vita Ambrosii, etc.: cf. TLL, s.v. The publication of this batch was done in various works by Denis FEISSEL and Jean GASCOU with the collaboration of Javier TEIXIDOR for the two Syriac documents and for the Syriac signatures and subscriptions in the Greek documents. Complete publication of PEuphr. 1 and synthetical presentation of all other documents: FEISSEL, GASCOU 1989; TEIXIDOR 1989; complete publication of P1: TEIXIDOR 1990; complete publication of P2: TEIXIDOR 1993; FEISSEL, GASCOU 1995; FEISSEL, GASCOU, TEIXIDOR 1997; FEISSEL, GASCOU 2000. The two Syriac documents were republished together with the contemporary Syriac parchment from Dura Europos by DRIJVERS, HEALEY 1999. Particularly important for the extensive use of these documents MILLAR 1993, specifically 553-562: ‘Appendix C. Materials for the History of Roman Edessa and Osrhoene, AD 163-337’; ROSS 1993; POTTER 1996; GAWLIKOWSKI 1998; LUTHER 1999; BENOIST 2000; ROSS 2001. GNOLI 2000 and infra.

Introduction

35

stead, here I intend to show how the consularitas granted by Rome to allied kings dates back to very ancient times, to that moment in time that is in some way central for both Rome and the Parthian empire, i. e. the reign of Nero. Recent works have tried in various ways to limit the importance of Nero’s reign in the history of the relationships between Rome and Ctesiphon, something that I consider to be incorrect. The actual importance of the military victory by Domitius Corbulo in Armenia must have been very different from what was flaunted by his main ‘bards,’ Cassius Dio and in a more critical way Tacitus, but doubtlessly the settlement between the two powers that took place in 63 (or 64) A. D. represented a turning point in the diplomatic relations between the two empires. The direction given by the treaty of Rhandeia - I use the term ‘treaty’ but I am aware that the very existence of an act signed in Rhandeia has been recently questioned - to the relationships between Rome and Iran was destined to survive even the dynastic change in Iran in 224 A. D., and indeed was to prove even more effective during the first years of the Sassanian dynasty. The importance of the reign of Nero in the development of the Roman policy in the East derives not only and not so much from the immediate political and military results the treaty brought about, with a period of nonbelligerency lasting about fifty years between the two superpowers, but also - and above all, I would suggest - because by means of the treaty of Rhandeia Rome inaugurated a new political behaviour in the East towards the Parthian enemy and its more or less faithful allies. Since that time, some local entities of substantial strategic importance were granted such a wide political autonomy as to differentiate them significantly from all other ordinary local powers in the Roman empire, i.e. Rome guaranteed all border political entities where the Parthian political, economic and cultural influence was stronger a much greater autonomy than it was willing to accord other local realities that were less important from a strategic as well as military point of view. The most evident trace of this different attention by Rome towards some particular powers located on the oriental borders of the empire is represented by the use of Parthian and Sassanian court titles in regions subjected to the hegemony of Rome and by an abnormal utilization in these same realities of customary terms derived from Roman institutions. Scholars of Roman history who have tried to explain these institutional ‘singularities,’ as they were convinced they had to explain the institutions of the Roman diplomacy only by following the schemes of Roman law, sought refuge in a

36

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

pretended intolerance by the oriental people of the too rigid tenets of that law.7 What has often been described as some sort of confused ‘Levantine’ interpretation of the Roman public law in the East is actually nothing else than a polymorphism of the Roman institutions in the East that was actuated with the conscious goal of isolating the Parthian and afterwards the Sassanian powers from those border entities over which Rome wanted to exert an exclusive hegemony. This is true notwithstanding the presence of large sections of the population being culturally much more homologous to the Iranian than to the Roman world.

7

Cf., e. g., MACMULLEN 1966, 224-225: “A few years later [sc. of Uranius Antoninus], in Palmyra, under just the same pressures - invasion at the gates, relieving armies busy on other frontiers or engaged in civil strife - and using at times the same kind of irregular troops of ill-armed volunteers, Odenathus went to war. His family had long supplied the ruling sheiks. They bore almost entirely Semitic names and their crack troops, the mounted bowmen so highly valued by Roman generals, were a specialty developed for patrol of the deserts and protection of the caravans streaming in and out of the city. There the Archers formed a sort of public association and presided at feasts and festivals in honor of the god Bel. Despite these native elements, the aristocracy looked to the East or West for importations to set off their rank. They favored tunics and himations, more often Iranian costumes such as can be seen on a relief of the 260’s showing Vorod wearing a riding caftan and loose trousers, richly decorated, with a sword belt round his waist. No less than six statues of this same man lined the colonnade down the main street. He was ‘Procurator, ducenarius, juridicus, president of the Banquets of Bel, and argapet’ - a characteristic mingling of half-understood Roman offices, Palmyrene honors, and Parthian words, Vorod being a Parthian name and argapet denoting the highest military command under Sassanian kings. Like master, like man: Odenathus, too, faced in two directions, toward Rome yet away from Rome. His family boasted senatorial rank, he himself the right to call himself Imperator granted by the grateful emperor for his triumphs over Persia; yet he added the title ‘King of Kings,’ bestowed it unauthorized on his son, spread his hand over Syria, and transmitted to his widow, Zenobia, the strength to expand still further into Cappadocia and Egypt. The latter war may have been less popular with carried a direct challenge to Rome. Zenobia hoped to soften the affront. Her son continued to be called Augustus. Such aping of Roman forms, such juggling of ambitions, was possible, of course, because there was nothing of nationalism in her movement; not only possible, it was necessary in order to provide a claim and to attract a loyalty in the Roman provinces around her.” Of this very long citation I do not share anything but the absence of nationalistic perspectives in the Palmyrene vicissitudes, even though the ever growing role plaid by the ethne during the 3rd- 4th century stands out very clearly: cf., e. g., MAZZA 1973; 1992; TRAINA 2001, in partic. 74; GNOLI, forthcoming b.

Introduction

37

The inadequacy of the conceptual categories of Roman law in accounting for the multiform institutional reality found in the East was recognized many years ago by a scholar of Roman law who wrote about Palmyra, in my opinion, an unjustly disregarded work: Palmyre n’est pas un cas unique, en ce sens que la situation d’autres état fait également apparaître cette prévalence de la notion d’hégémonie. Il s’agit de territoires relativement périphériques où la politique d’annexion ne pouvait pas s’appliquer, et qui étaient restés peu près dans le même régime d’Auguste à Claude. Mais c’est pourtant avec Néron que le système va se trouver connaître une ampleur nouvelle et présenter un intérêt particulier.8

Even though it was no monarchy and thus clearly distinguished itself from the above-cited situations of Edessa and Armenia, during the period of substantial transformation of the local social, political and economic structures that existed during the 3rd century A. D. also the internal regulations of the civitas Palmyrenorum underwent a profound change. The oasis had based its existence and prosperity as a demic and urban centre on caravan trade and on a ‘dimorphic’ social structure, the latter being a concept adopted in a completely different context by Michael B. ROWTON and recently revived by Michael SOMMER.9 Its society was founded on the entrepreneurial activities of an extended and varied aristocracy, whose structure was superimposed on tribal communities that were typical of the local Semitic population.10 Exactly in the first half of the century and in almost perfect chronological coincidence with the dynastic change in Iran, Palmyra experienced an institutional change in an authoritarian sense. Over the Senate assembly and the assembly of the people of the town the figure of the ‘chief (of the town) of Tadmor,’ the rš dy tdmwr, according to the Semitic name of the town, was superposed and acquired an increasing number of functions. This title is attested only starting from Septimius Odainath, but it is also possible that it had been already acquired by the father of the Palmyrene dynast. 8

9 10

LEMOSSE 1967, 105. The deriving problem is very important indeed: it is represented by the relations between the Roman ius and the epichoric laws. The documentation has been greatly improved since LEMOSSE wrote his book, particularily as far as the provincialization of Arabia with the so-called Babatha archive, published by LEWIS 1989 and COTTON, YARDENI 1997 is concerned; about the Babatha archive see, above all, WOLFF, 1980; LEWIS 2003 and many articles Hannah M. COTTON dedicated to such documents. ROWTON 1973, 1976, 1977; SOMMER 2005. YON, 2002, 2003; GNOLI, forthcoming b.

38

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Palmyra emerged on grand scene of world history thanks to the strong personality of Septimius Odainath. Rome granted either him or his father an exceptional authority over Palmyra, the same authority that elsewhere in monarchical contexts was attributed to kings: the hypateia. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Odainath was very skilful in manipulating this concept, forcing its institutional meaning at will until he now appears as a Senator in our eyes. In the years when the empire suffered the Sassanian initiative in the East and an emperor fell into the enemy’s hands alive, Rome failed to rectify and clearify its position towards Palmyra or to contain the audacity of Odainath. On the domestic level the latter began to behave like a sovereign and named his sons as successors (was the hypateia all other sovereigns were granted by Rome perhaps not hereditary and intended for life?). Moreover Gallienus himself, as he was in a very difficult situation, entrusted him with an exceptional command over the whole East. In a work that appeared just after my monograph on this subject, but written in the same period, Udo HARTMANN provided an exceptionally in-depth treatment of the crucial years of the Palmyrene ‘Teilreich.’ However I think that the question of wether or not Odainath was loyal to Rome until his myterious death,11 which seems central to the German scholar, is badly posed and substantially irrelevant. The strange situation which sees titles of Latin or oriental origin, specifically of Parthian origin, found side by side in the same political conditions, is particularly evident in Edessa, as well as in Palmyra. Aelius Septimius Abgar, son of a ‘paṣgribā,’ holds a ‘consulship’ in Edessa. In Palmyra more or less simultaneously the same kind of ‘consulship’ is attributed by Rome most probably to the father of Odainath. Later on the latter was joined in his governing action by a person who bore the rare Parthian title of argapetes. Aelius Septimius Abgar (Chap. 1. 1) and Septimius Odainath (Chap. 1. 2) are thus the so-called ‘Kings-—πατοι,’ i. e. kings (or ‘chiefs’) exerting their power, the hypateia they had been granted by Rome. The institutional contents of this hypateia (Chap. 1. 4) can be clarified only by explaining the origins of the hypateia in the Roman diplomacy in the East (Chap. 1. 3).

11

HARTMANN 2001; cf. the related review by YON 2002b.

Introduction

39

I am convinced, as I have explained elsewhere, that the attribution of the title of ‘King of Kings’ by Odainath to himself had taken place in full agreement with and maybe even with the encouragement of Gallienus. Such selfattribution of the royal title is not evidence of the will of the dynast to usurp against Rome, but it rather represents the proof of the attempt actuated by Rome itself to destabilize the young Sassanian monarchy ‘from the inside.’12 If this interpretation is correct, the title of ‘King of Kings’ borne by Odainath should be attributed the same value as the title of ‘King of Kings’ borne by Šābuhr (Chap. 2. 2 and 3). A famous passage in the Babylonian Talmud shows how the Roman and Palmyrene propaganda tried to put the two crowns on the same level and also demonstrates the failure of this initiative.13 However, if this interpretation of Odainath as ‘King of Kings’ were true, then the reading of the Palmyrene inscription Inv. III 3, attributing the same title to the eldest son of Odainath would be inexplicable and mysterious. In Chap. 2. 1 I discuss the unreliability of the readings of this much damaged document that have been proposed so far. The vicissitude of Odainath of Palmyra in the 3rd century cannot be explained but by supporting the thesis of a role of the caravan city being largely autonomous from Rome. The events in Palmyra become fully understandable only if the very famous sentence by Pliny attributing the town in the desert a privata sors between the two empires can be considered true. Of this hybrid position of Palmyra I am firmly convinced like the above mentioned LEMOSSE, ISAAC, SOMMER and many others. The analysis of a title that in Palmyra qualifies the actions by a person of the highest rank, Septimius Vorōd, second only to the great Odainath, i. e. argapetes, has allowed me, I think, to bring further evidence in support of the thesis held by those who maintain that the town was substantially independent of the Roman empire (Chap. 3). An appendix is dedicated to the recurrences, in particular in Ḥatra, of a term, pasāgrīw, I have already dealt with. It represents the completion of my previous work and a bibliographical updating of a subject I have treated elsewhere in an extensive discussion.

12 13

GNOLI 2000, 125-153. Cf. infra Chap. 2.

Kings-—πατοι

1. Aelius Septimius Abgar In the above mentioned parchment P2, dated 28th December 240 A. D. in Haiklā New Town of Hunting, the king Aelius Septimius Abgar is called “king, son of Maʿnu, paṣgribā, son of Abgar the king, who was honoured with the hypateia in Urhoy, in Edessa, the great city, mother of all the cities of Bet Nahrin.”14 I have discussed the descent of Aelius Septimius Abgar from a person who was titled paṣgribā elsewhere,15 but what is interesting for us now is the Syriac expression DMYQR BHPṬYʾ BʾRHY “who was honoured with the hypateia in Urhoy.” It represents a hapax in Syriac, which is not surprising at all, seeing that the documents and non-patristic texts are very scarce in that language. However, as I underlined elsewhere,16 in the Greek texts taken from the same documentary dossier and published by Denis FEISSEL and Jean GASCOU, this same term, ÕπατεÛα, is to be found in its original language. In Greek it is obviously not a hapax: the term ÕπατεÛα/consularitas, an abstract noun from —πατος/consul, customarily recurs in the consular dating formulas like ἐπÚ ÕπατεÛας τινıς, “during the consulship of someone.” The context in which the term ÕπατεÛα is often attested in Greek documents, is also unique in itself, although it does not coincide perfectly with the one in the Syriac text. PEuphr. 1 is a petition, dated 28th August 245 and concerning a suit between fellow villagers presented to Iulius Priscus, brother of the emperor 14 15 16

Cf. supra, n. 1. GNOLI 2002, cf. also infra: ‘Appendix.’ GNOLI 2000, 67-88.

42

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Philip the Arab qualified as ἔπαρχος ΜεσοποταμÛας, διÔπων τὴν ÕπατεÛαν (PEuphr. 1, l. 1). PEuphr. 3 and 4 represent the double copy of a request addressed to Iulius Proculus, ἔπαρχος πρεπıσιτος πρετεντο˜ρης, accepted by the διασημıτατος Pomponius Laetianus, διÔπων τὴν ÕπατεÛαν. Thus in these Greek documents two Roman equites are said to exert a ‘consulship’ after a formula (διÔπων + acc.) that is typical for interim functions.17 Equally typical for temporary functions is the formula διÔπων τÏ μÔρη τῆς ἡγεμονÛας, which in PEuphr. 2 denotes the powers of a certain [–] Marcellus, also an eques (διασημıτατος = perfectissimus), who, on the basis of an hypothesis by the editors of the document, I have proposed to identify with that Claudius Marcellus who was to be appointed καθολικıς in Egypt under Philip the Arab.18 So, in one and the same documentary dossier, which is coherent in both its chronology and provenance, three members of the Roman equestrian order and a foreign king, Aelius Septimius Abgar of Edessa, exert their powers as defined in official documents by means of the concept ÕπατεÛα/HPṬYʾ/ consularitas, with perfectly analogous structures (present/past participle + hypateia). This structures are never attested elsewhere, either in Greek or in Syriac, as in this case these two languages do not use verbal predicates having the same semantic value: Greek διÔπω actually does not coincide with Syriac yqr “I honour, I hold in esteem.” Javier TEIXIDOR translated the Syriac expression defining the powers of Aelius Septimius Abgar in P2 in two different ways: first with “honoré comme consularis à Orhaï,”19 thus maintaining that the expression hinted at the granting of ornamenta consularia, already attested elsewhere for other eastern kings; then afterwards translating the expression with “honoré du consulat à Orhaï.”20 The latter translation, which can hardly be explained on the basis of Roman law, was thus commented: Il [sc. Aelius Septimius Abgar] portait d’ailleur le titre de roi mais non celui de «roi d’Édesse»: il fut simplement honoré du consulat. Les ornamenta consularia étaient parfois conférés aux rois clients ainsi qu’à des amis de l’empereur. Dans le cas du roi Abgar, son titre honorifique ne fait que

17 18 19 20

SCHWARTZ 1976. GNOLI 2000, 99-101. TEIXIDOR 1989, 220 TEIXIDOR 1990, 150.

Kings - —πατοι

43

souligner son manque de pouvoir à Édesse et, bien entendu, dans la province d’Osrhoène.21

In TEIXIDOR’s opinion, then, the hypateia of Abgar represents something different from the ornamenta consularia, which would make of Abgar a consularis, but rather a true consulship, to be distinguished from the ornamenta as being even less effective. The translations and interpretations of this formula proposed later by other scholars do not differ much from the one by TEIXIDOR: Sebastian BROCK translates “who was honoured with a hypateia in Urhay,” maintaining that “hypateia normally means ‘consulship,’ but clearly this cannot be the case here, where it must have a wider sense of ‘position of high office,’”22 while for David POTTER “one explanation of this curious phrase is that he was given the ornamenta consularia rather than a position within the imperial government.”23 DRIJVERS and HEALEY think of a “consular rank,” which I interpret as consularis following the granting of ornamenta,24 as does Fergus MILLAR, who is actually very conscious of the difficulty raised by such an interpretation.25 Steven ROSS on the contrary understands the ‘consulship’ of Abgar as something unknown to the Roman regulations we are familiar with.26 Even if I do not completely share his conclusions on the matter, ROSS’s method, the only one that closely relates the hypateia of Abgar with that of the Roman equites, seems to me correct.27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

TEIXIDOR 1990, 161-162. BROCK 1991, 261 and n. 11. POTTER 1996, 283. Cf. also BENOIST 2000, 323. DRIJVERS, HEALEY 1999, 240: “who was honoured with consular rank in Urhoy.” MILLAR 1993, 478: “who was honoured with the HPṬYʾ (hypateia – a ‘consular’ rank) in ʾRHY (sic).” ROSS 2001, 78-81, in part. 80: “the ÕπατεÛα of Abgar (...) involves neither a real consulship nor a grant of consular ornamenta.” In his article published contemporaneously with my monograph Stéphane BENOIST deals with the documents coming from the middle course of the Euphrates in the framework of a research dedicated to the ornamenta consularia. However he does not sufficiently take into account the fact that the famous Syriac document and the Greek ones derive from one and the same documentary batch and that the data they contain shall be treated as one: BENOIST 2000, 318: “Les découvertes récentes de Charax Sidou (!) sur le Moyen Euphrate, parchemins en syriaque,” while the Greek documents are analysed at page 322. His interpretation of the ÕπατεÛα in these documents as something like an extraordinary superprovincial command, some sort of imperium maius (cf. IBID. 322-323), is based on an hypothesis by the editors of the documents (FEISSEL, GASCOU 1989,

44

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

The sharp contrast between the interpretation of the hypateia of Abgar, as given by the editors of the Syriac documents and the one given to the hypateia either directly or ad interim attributed to Iulius Priscus, [-] Marcellus and Pomponius Laetianus in the Greek documents is actually evident. It is undoubtedly difficult to maintain that in this case three Roman equites were not provided with effective powers, particularly as far as Iulius Priscus is concerned: he was the brother of an emperor who was about to grant him an imperium maius in the East.28 The interpretation by the editors changed in this case too. First they thought to attribute an imperium maius over the Near East as a whole to the three people,29 then they thought that the expression might allude to a simple interim government in the imperial consular province of Syria Coele: ni le cas de Laetianus ... ni la carrière de Priscus ne s’opposent à cette acception nouvelle du grec ÕπατεÛα .... Priscus ou Laetianus, n’étant pas sénateurs, ne pouvaient porter personellement le titre d’Õπατικıς, ce qui n’empechait pas l’empereur de leur confier, comme à tant de chevaliers, l’intérim du gouvernement provincial, avec le titre propre à la Syrie de «vice-consulaire», διÔπων τὴν ÕπατεÛαν.30

In my often cited essay dedicated to this subject I think I have shown how the intuition by Steven ROSS to link together the hypateia of Aelius Septimius Abgar with those of Iulius Priscus, [–] Marcellus and Pomponius Laetianus was actually right. If we accept this assumption, as the hypateia of Abgar is explicitly effective “in Edessa,” we should ipso facto exclude the likelihood of its being an interim command in Syria Coele. Rather some stimulating comparisons with Palmyra arise, where some people are qualified as ‘consuls’ and whose ‘consulship’ has always puzzled scholars.31

28 29 30 31

553-554) abandoned later by the latter themselves: FEISSEL, GASCOU 1995, 81 n. 68: “en nous fondant sur une interprétation inexacte de PEuphr. 3-4, nous proposions .... de voir dans l’ÕπατεÛα une sorte d’imperium maius;” cf. ECK 1992 , 201 e n. 11; GNOLI 2000, 67-73. Like BENOIST, POTTER 1996, where the lists at pp. 275-277 shall be cautiously taken into consideration because of a too extended meaning of the concept of imperium maius; LUTHER 1999, 195 n. 53. On the figure of Iulius Priscus PFLAUM 1960, 833-836; PIR2 J 488; GNOLI 2000, 92-99; KÖRNER 2002, 54-64. On the imperium maius in the Orient POTTER 1996, cf. supra n. 25. FEISSEL, GASCOU 1989, 553-554. FEISSEL, GASCOU 1995, 81-82. The same conclusions about the similarities existing between Edessa and Palmyra have

Kings - —πατοι

45

2. Septimius Odainath As we know during the some twenty years in the mid 3rd century A. D. also Septimius Odainath, the rais, rš, of Palmyra is often mentioned as συνκλητικıς/snqlṭqʾ = lat. senator and Õπατικıς/hpṭqʾ = lat. consularis. Furthermore some inscriptions attribute to him the rank of λαμπρıτατος/ nhyrʾ = lat. clarissimus. Such senatorial and consular titles are not limited to one person only, but in 3rd century Palmyra were attributed also to his two sons, Septimius Ḥairān/Herodianus and Septimius Vaballath Athenodorus. I have already extensively treated this subject in my essay, to which I refer the reader for the less recent bibliography. Since then a range of studies have been published dealing with the internal vicissitudes of Palmyra during the 3rd century A. D. It would thus seem to be of some interest to present again my considerations on the subject in the light of more recently published literature.32 Septimius Odainath’s family rose to the highest position in Palmyrene aristocracy most probably under the reign of Septimius Severus. This very uncertain point becomes likely on the basis of the gentilicia of the Palmyrene élite, seemingly including among the names designating Roman citizens in Palmyra the gentilicium of Septimius as exclusively reserved to the family of Odainath. On the other hand, the gentilicia of Iulius Aurelius Septimius and Iulius Aurelius pertained the former to the closest collaborators of the family of Odainath, while after the Constitutio Antoniniana the latter eccentric name of Iulius Aurelius was given to all the citizens of the town instead

32

been expressed by ROSS 1993, POTTER 1996, BENOIST 2000, GNOLI 2000, sceptically by HARTMANN 2001, 444 n. 50. Particularly important has been the publication of the vast and detailed work by Udo HARTMANN 2001. Even though it appeared after the publication of my essay, the author has neglected to discuss the intepretations proposed by me there and he just cites them in the footnotes of his volume. Also Jean-Baptiste YON 2002a shows he does not know my work, while Michael SOMMER 2005 knows it and uses it, even if not always correctly, as far as the history of Edessa is concerned, while neglecting the chapter about Palmyra. POTTER 2004, 258-270 confirms his previous positions, without any sensible updating, and almost completely ignoring the works by Italian scholars. The work by GARDNER, LIEU, PARRY 2005 is a mere compilation. Non vidi CUSSINI 2005.

46

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

of Aurelius only, as in the rest of the Roman world.33 The name of Odainath’s father is not known with certainty.34 The fact that he is often called ‘son of Naṣōr’ represents just a clue, because, as YON has already demonstrated, Palmyrene genealogies are ‘telescopic,’ in the sense that some generations may be left out in order to exalt one’s lineage by virtue of one’s descent from important ancestors.35 Be that as it may, the role of ‘Chief’ of Palmyra was explicitly assured to the (very) young Odainath already since the 30s of the 3rd century A. D. (rš dy tdmwr/ἔξαρχος Παλμυρηνῶν).36 A few years later, under the reign of Philip the Arab, the title of Odainath changes, becoming συνκλητικıς = lat. senator.37 Afterwards his titles further change to ¡ λαμπρıτατος Õπατικıς. The inscriptions bearing these titles date back to the year 257/258 A. D.38 but already

33

34 35

36

37

38

GNOLI 2000, 143-146. On Palmyrene onomastics PIERSIMONI 1994; PIERSIMONI 1995; YON 2000. On Palmyrene gentilicia the work by SCHLUMBERGER 1942b is still crucial. The most complete discussion on the Palmyrene notabilate is actually in YON 2002a, who there like elsewhere is very prudent about the difficult releationships existing among the gentilicia in Palmyra: IBID., 124; YON 2004, 316-319. Important considerations also in HARTMANN 2001 and SOMMER 2005. As far as the addition of the gentilicium of Iulia Domna to the one of Caracalla is concerned, it might be explained by means of the particular devotion showed by the Palmyrene both inside and outside their hometown towards Syriac princesses: cf. KETTENHOFEN 1979, 135-136. About the specific relationship between Edessa and Palmyra cf. the diverging positions of SEYRIG 1959 and GATIER 1996. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 108-128; contra YON 2002b, 407. YON 2002a; YON 2002b, 407: “Les généalogies palmyréniennes son souvent télescopées ... pour cette raison, la référence à son arrière-grand-père Nasôr, peut-être même à son grand-père Wahballat, sont à prendre cum grano salis.” PAT 2753 = CANTINEAU 1931, 138 n° 17 = MILIK 1972, 317 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1973, 78 = INGHOLT 1976, 120 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 1. One more evidence of this title is the bilingual inscription PAT 2815 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985 n° 13: [ἔξαρχον Παλμυ]ρηνῶν = palm. RS[ʾ] DY [TDMWR]. PAT 0558 = CIS II 4202 = Inv. VIII 55 = IGRR III 1034 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985 n° 2: ¡ λαμπρıτατος συνκλη[τικÙς] = palm. snqlṭqʾ; MOUTERDE in CHÉHAB 1962, 19-20 = SEYRIG 1963, 162 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 3: τÙν λαμπρıτατ(ον); PAT 0290 = CIS II 3944 = Inv. III 16 = IGRR III 1035 = MILIK 1972, 232, 317 = INGHOLT 1976, 130 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 4: τÙν λαμπρıτατον συνκλητικıν = palm. snqlṭqʾ; PAT 2815 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 13: λα[μ]πρıτατον, without any translation into Palmyrene. SEYRIG 1963, 161 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 5: ὈδαινÌθου τοῦ λαμπροτÌτου Õπατικοῦ, dated back to 257/258; SEYRIG 1963, 161 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 6: ὈδαινÌθου τοῦ λαμπροτÌτου Õπατικοῦ; DUNANT 1971, n° 52 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 7: ΣεπτÛμιον ὈδαÛναθον τÙν λαμπρıτατον ÕπατικÙν, dated in 257/258; same formula and

Kings - —πατοι

47

before that time, in addition to Odainath, also his son Ḥairan, characterized by senatorial attributions, appears in the Palmyrene inscriptions.39 In the end in a posthumous inscription dedicated to him by two Palmyrene high officials in August 271 Odainath is attributed the dual title of mlk mlkʾ wmtqnnʾ dy mdnḥ klh.40 The first part of this title does not imply any particular problem: it is the Aramaic translation of MP Šāhānšāh, Gr. βασιλεˆς βασιλÔων, he shared with his son Herodianus, maybe coinciding with Ḥairān.41 The second part of the title provoked a long debate and elsewhere I demonstrated why I think it should be considered as the Palmyrene Aramaic rendering of the title corrector totius Orientis.42

39

40 41 42

date in DUNANT 1971, 66 n. 2 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 8 and in PAT 0291 = CIS II 3945 = Inv. III 17 = IGRR III 17 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 9 (April 258). PAT 0290 = CIS II 3944 = Inv. III 16 = IGRR III 1035 = MILIK 1972, 232, 317 = INGHOLT 1976, 130 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 4: ΣεπτÛμιον ΑἱρÌνην ὈδαινÌθου τÙν λαμπρıτατον συνκλητικÙν ἔξα[ρχον Παλμυ]ρηνῶν = palm. spṭmyws ḥyrn br ʾdynt snqlṭyqʾ nhyrʾ wrš tdmwr, dated back to October 251; SEYRIG 1963, 161 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 5: [ΣεπτÛμιον] ΑἱρÌνην τÙν λαμπρıτατον υἱÙν ὈδαινÌθου τοῦ λαμπροτÌτου Õπατικοῦ, dated back to 257/258; SEYRIG 1963, 161 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 6: ΣεπτÛμιον ΑἱρÌνην τÙν λαμπρıτατον (υἱÙν) ὈδαινÌθου τοῦ λαμπροτÌτου Õπατικοῦ. PAT 0292 = CIS II 3946 = Inv. III 19 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 11 (posth., August 271). Inv. III 3 = SEYRIG 1937 = SCHLUMBERGER 1942a = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 10: [Β]ασιλεῖ βασιλÔων … Σεπ]τιμÛῳ Ἡρωδι]ανῷ. But cf. infra § 2a on this inscription. GNOLI 2000, 153: “In PAT 0292 e 0317, due testi evidentemente contemporanei, Odainat è detto MTQNNʾ DY MDNḤʾ KLH (PAT 0292), mentre a Wahballat venne conferito il titolo di ʾPNRṬTʾ DY MDNḤʾ KLH (PAT 0317), in entrambi i casi la formula è preceduta dalla qualifica di MLK MLKʾ. Il rapporto esistente tra MTQNNʾ e ʾPNRṬTʾ potrebbe essere lo stesso esistente tra restitutor e corrector, tra l’imperatore e un suo subordinato.” Differently HARTMANN 2001, 149: “Die Begriffe mtqnnʾ und ʾpnrṭtʾ werden hier offensichtlich synonym verwendet, beide Herrscher beanspruchten also dieselbe Titulatur.” However none of the motives in support of this position by HARTMANN, and particularly the dual rendering of the term fiscus (ʿnwšh e psqws) in Palmyrene, HARTMANN 2001, 150, seem to be convincing. The contemporaneity of PAT 0292 and 0317 and the propagandistic use this linguistic ambiguity linked to the corrector-ship over the East entailed in the domestic policy of Palmyra define the terms of the problem in a way that is completely different from the simple combination of texts that are heterogeneous as far as their datings and aims are concerned and for which no political use can be imagined. The different positions of HARTMANN and me are very old, however, and they can be realized in a similar way between CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1920 and CANTINEAU 1933, and between POTTER 1996 and SWAIN 1993. In this case it is impossible to solve the problem only on the basis of textual elements. The only solution is to insert these texts in the historical framework they belong to.

48

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

If the ‘consulship’ of Odainath is not accepted as a variation of the same ‘consulship’ of Aelius Septimius Abgar, which is moreover conferred not to Odainath, but at least on his father, most probably under the reign of Septimius Severus, the reconstruction of this career appears extremely hard to understand.43 What is usually accepted is that the transformation of the internal regulations of Palmyra and the consequent creation of a ‘Head of the Town,’ rš, should be attributed to a hypothetical crisis that occurred in Palmyra’s caravan trade during the 30s of the century following the “montée des Sassanides.” Even if such a crisis actually occurred,44 it is not clear how Odainath, probably not yet twenty years old and thus very young, could have imposed himself on the Palmyrene aristocracy. But an even greater difficulty is represented by the admission of the young new ‘sheikh’ to the Senate of Rome. If the senatorial and consular titles of Odainath are to be understood as a reference to the customary Roman institutions, as they usually are, it must inevitably be maintained that the young Odainath, who somehow emerged as very young at the local level was adlectus (maybe inter praetorios) in the Roman senate by Philip the Arab. This possibility would not be inconceivable in itself either: indeed it is probable that Philip might have surrounded himself with people being close to him, at least at a ethnic and cultural level; however we are unaware of any significant public role at all being attributed to the very young Odainath before PAT 2753.45

43

44

45

A connection between the ‘consulship’ of Aelius Septimius Abgar of Edessa and Odainath (and sons) of Palmyra has been proposed, even though in a variety of ways and explications, by TEIXIDOR 1989; ROSS 1993; GAWLIKOWSKI 1998; POTTER 1996; 2004, 259-260; GNOLI 2000; ROSS 2001. Explicitly adverse HARTMANN 2001, 444 n. 50. Cf. the sceptical position in YON 2002b, 409: “On connaît aussi de longues périodes (environ 30 ans) sans inscriptions caravanières, en particulier juste avant et après l’arrivée des Sassanides, ou dans les années qui précèdent les Sévères, mais la période la plus longue est celle qui va de 86 (Inv. X, 127) à 131 (Inv. X, 81). Or il ne viendrait à l’idée de personne de penser que le commerce a cessé pendant ces années; de toute façon, la documentation qui a surveçu dépend du hasard et n’est pas représentative des variations du volume commercial qui passait par Palmyre.” We are actually not informed about any role Odainath might have played outside Palmyra before 260. His participation in the actions in Syria during the expedition by Šābuhr in 253 represents a modern deduction, that is useful to the explanation of his career as a senator, as provincial governor and then as corrector totius Orientis and rex regum. HARTMANN 2001, 75: The role played by Odainath during the second expedition

Kings - —πατοι

49

The situation becomes even worse if we take the admission to the Senate of Rome and the different gradation of the titles συνκλητικıς and Õπατικıς. For this phase of Odainath’s career two explanations have been proposed: 1) after the adlectio into the Senate by Philip, the ‘chief’ of Palmyra would have been granted ornamenta consularia,46 2) Odainath should have been named consul suffectus in absentia in 257/258, the year in which the majority of the inscriptions designated him with the title of Õπατικıς/consularis, and as such he would hold the role of governor of the praetorial imperial province of Syria Phoenice.47 It must also be emphasized that nothing is known about the circumstances leading Valerianus to appoint Odainath to the provincial command of Syria Phoenice. Furthermore no trace has remained of that provincial command outside Palmyra. Pace HARTMANN,48 the dedication in Tyrus, attributing Odainath the simple title of λαμπρıτατος/clarissimus, without mentioning any ‘consulship’ represents a clue that the dedication was not intended for a provincial governor. The aporia represented by the qualification of consularis attributed to a government of praetorial rank is actually surmountable, as RÉMY49 has already extensively shown. It is not easy to justify the ratio eventually leading Valerianus to appoint Odainath as governor of the province. The ascent of Odainath is usually explained by means of the military power this person would exert as head of the biggest local army in the Roman East. Such military power expressed the exploit following the capture of Valerianus, when Odainath caused extensive damage to the victorious Sassanid army, even making two forays into Persian territories, the second of which arrived as far as Ctesiphon. What remains difficult to ac-

46

47 48 49

by Šābuhr in 253 “bleibt dunkel;” IBID., 100: “für militärische Aktionen des Odaenathus gegen die Perser in der Zeit vor 260 gibt es keine Hinweise.” About this now quite neglected hypothesis cf. the bibliography in HARTMANN 2001, 104-105 n. 167. In IBID., 444 n. 50 the position of Odainath in Palmyra and of Aelius Septimius Abgar in Edessa shall not be compared with each other, as the title consularis of Odainath must be distinguished from the ornamenta consularia of Abgar. I have already questioned and still question the idea that the hypateia of Abgar is to be understood as equal to the ornamenta consularia, thus I do not understand the citation of my work in HARTMANN, ad loc. HARTMANN 2001, 106-108. HARTMANN 2001, 106 and n. 174. Cf. POTTER 1990, 390: “The Tyrian inscription obviously proves nothing other than the fact that Odaenathus was an important man.” RÉMY 1986. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 107 nn. 178-180.

50

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

count for is the fact that Valerianus, after deciding to entrust a great general of local origin with the defence of the East, and waiving the prohibition by Marcus Aurelius against senators of provincial origin governing the province they came from,50 decided to attribute to Odainath neither one of the great provincial consular provinces, nor a super-provincial power, as he would receive only later, but on the contrary he would appoint him to the command of the feeblest of all provinces in the Roman Near East. Regardless of all these considerations, the problem of the ‘consulship’ of Odainath becomes even more difficult and complicated if we think of the powers his sons had, as revealed by their titles. Septimius Ḥairān shares with his father the same career, as well as his death:51 like him he is rš dy tdmwr/ ἔξαρχος Παλμυρηνῶν, while when Odainath became λαμπρıτατος Õπατικıς, he took the title of λαμπρıτατος, which is absolutely correct following the Roman institutions.52 It is harder to explain the following development of Septimius Ḥairān’s career. What is missing is something comparable to the subsequent ascent of Odainath to the role of mtqnnʾ dy mdnḥ klh/ corrector totius Orientis,53 but not to that of mlk mlkʾ as attested for Odainath in the same posthumous inscription, if the reading of the inscription on the Tetrapylon and the identification of Septimius Herodianus mentioned there with Septimius Ḥairān are correct.54 What is apparently completely illogical is actually the acquisition of the title —πατος/consul, many times at-

50 51

52 53 54

Dio LXXII, in Xiph. 265, 24 (III, 271 BOISSEVAIN); rightly HARTMANN 2001, 108 n. 181 underlines that such prohibition was not so absolute. KAIZER 2005, with a full discussion of the several recontructions reported in the sources maintains as the most probable tradition the one transmitted, besides many other sources, also in the Historia Augusta, i.e. that Odainath was killed by his wife Zenobia with the help of Ḥairān, the son of his first marriage, and corrected by the tradition converging in Synkellos that the murder should have taken place in Asia Minor, in Heraclea Pontica. I go on considering the tradition in Anon. p. Dionem, fr. 7 (MÜLLER, FHG IV 195) and Joh. Antioch. fr. 231 (412 ROBERTO) more preferable: Odainath was killed by the legatus Cocceius Rufinus on the orders of Gallienus. Cf. GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 259; GNOLI 2000, 147, 152; SARTRE 2001, 978; POTTER 2004, 263 and 641 n. 1. Cf. supra n. 39. Cf. supra n. 40. Inv. III 3 = SEYRIG 1937 = SCHLUMBERGER 1942a = INGHOLT 1976, 135 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 10. HARTMANN 2001, 114 and n. 198. About this inscription cf. infra, § 2a. About the eldest son Odainath had had during his first marriage cf. HARTMANN 2001, 128.

Kings - —πατοι

51

tested as far as the other son of Odainath, the usurper Vaballath, is concerned. The latter was first granted the titles of vir clarissimus, rex regum, restitutor totius Orientis:55 Then, since the end of 270 he had borne the title of vir clarissimus rex consul imperator dux Romanorum as attested in Latin on a series of Syriac milestones.56 The highly accurate analysis by HARTMANN starting from the presumption that the Palmyrene ‘consulship’ of Odainath and his sons was a customary Roman consulship fails to explain this fact: Der Dynast beanspruchte gleichzeitig mit der Annahme des Titels imperator zudem den Rang eines vir consularis. Ob er offiziell den Suffektkonsulat bekleidete, die ornamenta consularia vom Kaiser verliehen bekam oder den Titel gar usurpierte, kann auf Grund der Quellenlage nicht entschieden werden. Das Mindestalter eines Konsuls hatte er natürlich noch nicht erreicht. Auch stammte Vaballathus nicht aus der kaiserlichen Familie. Ein von Rom legitimierter Konsulat ist daher sehr zweifelhaft. Die Ehrung mit den ornamenta durch Claudius oder Aurelianus kann ebenfalls als unwahrscheinlich

55

56

Differently, HARTMANN 2001, 244 refers corrector totius Orientis to this first phase as last element. Such idea is based on the equivalence between the terms mtqnnʾ as referred to Odainath in PAT 0292 and ʾpnrtṭʾ as referred to Vaballath in PAT 0317, which is far from certain and contested by me: cf. GNOLI 2000, 153. HARTMANN 2001, 248 n. 16. The explanation of the titles of Vaballath recently offered by POTTER represents a step backwards in comparison with the previous works by the same author: POTTER 2004, 267: “The status vir consularis was, as we have seen, conferred upon Odaenathus; the title rex, or king, is simply a Latin translation of mlk, or king; imperator in this context simply means ‘victorious general;’ and dux Romanorum looks like yet another version of corrector totius orientis. These titles proclaim a very simple principle: that the position of Odaenathus was like that of a king in the Semitic world, inheritable. For a Roman the status conferred by the holding of an office might be passed on, but not the office itself. It might, perhaps, not be too much to imagine that the subtle distinction between the office and the status that accompanied it would be lost at the Palmyrene court, especially in a circumstance that worked against the interests of a regime that had been able to do what a series of Roman emperors had not: defeat the Persians. The title taken by Odaenathus plainly meant a great deal in the Palmyrene context, which is why Vaballathus stressed them.” Useless to say that I do not share this position of naïvitè of the Palmyene court towards the Roman institutions. POTTER neglects HARTMANN, who very seriously faces the problem of the different phases of Vaballath’s titles, and he also misunderstands the article by GALLAZZI 1975, which he reveals to be acquainted with through the mediation by LONG 1996. The latter faces the problem of the titles of Vaballath from an almost completely numismatic point of view. Her attempt to ‘save’ Vaballath from the allegation of usurpation can hardly be shared actually.

52

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

angesehen werden. Man muß also wohl von einer Beanspruchung des konsularischen Ranges durch den imperator ohne Bestätigung aus Rom ausgehen. Auch hinter dieser Erweiterung der Titulatur steht der Versuch, die Herrschaft über den Orient und die neuerworbenen Provinzen zu legitimieren.57

The only way to overcome all these difficulties seems to be to maintain that Rome gave the ‘Chief’ of Palmyra, Odainath’s father, the hypateia over the town.58 Finally, research into the origins of the concept of hypateia will allow us to come back to the institutional features of this power.

3. The origins of the ÕπατεÛα Either at the end of 63 A. D. or during the summer of the following year 64 A. D.59 in Rhandeia, next to the river Arsanias,60 where during the year before the shame of the capitulation of Caesennius Paetus was perpetrated, negotiations were carried out in the Roman camp putting an end to the conflict in Armenia that had lasted for about a decade.61 The ascent to the Parthian throne by Vologeses I in 51 A. D. deeply modified the situation in Parthia and in its satellite reigns: Pacorus, the eldest brother of the king of Parthia was installed in Media Atropatene, while Vologeses tried to give his youngest brother, Tiridates, the kingdom of Ar57 58 59

60 61

HARTMANN 2001, 246, where also the bibliographical references on the supposed suffect consulship of Vaballath are reported. GNOLI, 2000, 125-153. On the chronology of the negotiations (second half of 63 A. D.) cf. HENDERSON 1901, 273-274, and after him almost everybody who has dealt with this subject. However all problems raised by Tacitus’ narration and Dio’s excerpt remain critical: WELLESLEY 1969, 72 and recently again WHEELER 1997, who just deals with the first phase of the war (55-60 A. D.). HEIL 1997, 220 on the contrary supports a dating of the event that is later exactly by one year, during the same period in 64 A. D. on the basis of the fact that there was no time enough either for the legio XV Apollinaris mentioned in Tac. Ann. XV 26, 2, or for the vexillationes ex Illyrico (Tac., ibid.) to come in time from Carnuntum. Cassius Dio seems to confirm this opinion, as Dio LXII 19, 1 (III, 57 BOISSEVAIN) situates these events after the fire of Rome. HEIL’s arguments are not decisive either, as the author himself admits. Dio LXII 21, 1 (III, 60 BOISSEVAIN). On the location of Rhandeia cf. HEIL, 111. Differently HEIL, 120-130, cf. infra.

Kings - —πατοι

53

menia.62 Here the young Radamistus, son of Pharasmanes, king of Iberia, seized power by killing Mithridates, a dreary sovereign supported by Rome, together with all his family in the fortress of Gornea (Garni). Rome was not extraneous to the massacre of Gornea: according to Tacitus Radamistus suborned the praefectus Caelius Pollius, who commanded the garrison in the fortress.63 However we should not think that Pollius’ behaviour was suggestive of Rome’s hostility towards Mithridates and the diplomatic journey of the centurion Casperius - a subordinate of the prefect Pollius, but incorruptible unlike his superior - to the legate (envoy) of Syria Ummidius Quadratus and to Pharasmanes testifies the illegality of Pollius’ action.64 Both the excerpt by Dio and the testimony by Tacitus linger over and comment on the choice of the place of the meeting in Rhandeia in perfectly parallel passages. We are authorized to assert that this choice was due to the attentive direction that seems to permeate the agreement in its slightest details: Accordingly, Corbulo and Tiridates held a conference at Rhandea, a place satisfactory to both - to the king because his troops had there cut off the Romans and had sent them away under a capitulation, a visible proof of the favour that had been done them, and to Corbulo because he expected his men to wipe out the ill repute that had attached to them there before (transl. CARY).65 Tiridates demanded a place and a day for an interview. The time was to be early; for the place, the scene of the recent investment of Paetus and the legions was chosen by the barbarians in memory of their success there; and it was not avoided by Corbulo, who wished the contrast in fortune to enhance 66 his fame (transl. JACKSON).

62 63 64 65

66

Cf. CHAUMONT 1976. Tac. Ann. XII 45, 4. Tac. Ann. XII 45, 4 (journey to Ummidius Quadratus); 46, 2 (journey to Pharasmanes). Dio LXII 23, 2 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN): συνῆλθον ο“ν ἐν αÃτῇ τῇ ῬανδεÛᾳ ὅ τε Κορβο˜λων καÚ ¡ ΤιριδÌτης· τοῦτο γÏρ τÙ χωρÛον ἀμφοτÔροις ἤρεσε, τῷ μÓν ὅτι ἀπολαβıντες ἐς αÃτÙ τοˆς ῬωμαÛους Õποσπıνδους ἀφῆκαν, πρÙς ἔνδειξαν „ν εÃηργÔτηντο, τῷ δÓ ὅτι τὴν δ˜σκλειαν τὴν ἐν αÃτῷ πρıτερον συμβᾶσÌν σφισιν ἀποτρÛψεσθαι ἔμελλον. Tac. Ann. XV 28, 2: Tiridates locum diemque conloquio poscit. Tempus propinquum, locus, in quo nuper obsessae cum Paeto legiones erant, [cum] barbaris delectus est ob memoriam laetioris ibi rei, Corbuloni non vitatus, ut dissimilitudo fortunae gloriam augeret.

54

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

According to the report by Tacitus, the meeting was held in various stages. First, die pacta, a delegation headed by Corbulo, Tiberius (Iulius) Alexander, future prefect of Egypt under Vespasianus, and Vinicianus Annius, son-in-law of Corbulo, went to the camp of Tiridates, accompanied by a guard of sixty cavalrymen with a twofold aim, to pay their respects to the king and reassure him about Rome’s intentions. Tiridates, who was mounted on his horse while waiting for the Roman delegation, hastened to dismount as soon as he saw the Roman general immediately followed by Corbulo himself.67 Tacitus briefly reports on the talks that took place on that day. From his narration we infer that Corbulo played a passive role in the negotiations, as he limited himself to generic polite praises, while it was Tiridates who actually proposed a solution for the crisis: he would go to Rome to honour the emperor in a new way, and this notwithstanding the fact that the result of the war had not been negative for the Parthians, as the place of the meeting itself demonstrated. Corbulo agreed with the Arsacid proposal and decided to seal it all with a highly symbolic ceremony: Tiridates would lay his royal insignia down in front of the image of the emperor and he would get them back only from the hands of Nero in Rome. A few days later the two armies were deployed in front of each other, magna utrimque specie and between the two formations a platform (tribunal) was built on which the sella curulis supporting the image of Nero was set. Tiridates approached it, made ritual sacrifices and then, after removing his diadem from his head, laid it down under the statue of the Roman emperor. After the public part of the ceremony had been ended by this simple but highly symbolic and spectacular ritual, whose characteristics have been properly emphasized by Tacitus,68 Corbulo invited Tiridates to a banquet in

67

68

HEIL 1997, 122-129 tends to underestimate these acts of courtesy between Corbulo and Tiridates, considering them as a part of the literary contexts deviously created both by Tacitus and Dio (and by Corbulo himself at last) to lead the readers to believe that on the occasion of the meeting in Rhandeia an actual agreement was reached for the solution of the conflict, an idea the German scholar fierily contests. This crowning procedure was later used again by Trajan, as the brief reports by Xiphilinus and Malalas tell us on the coronation of Parthamaspates by Trajan immediately after the outbreak of the revolt in Mesopotamia: Dio LXVIII 30, 3 (III 218 BOISSEVAIN): ΤραϊανÙς δÓ φοβηθεÚς μὴ καÚ οἱ Πάρθοι τι νεοχμώσωσι, βασιλέα αÃτοῖς ἴδιον δοῦναι †θέλησε, καÚ ἐς Κτησιφῶντα ἐλθὼν συνεκάλεσεν ἐς πεδίον τι μέγα πάντας μÓν τοˆς Ῥωμαίους πάντας δÓ τοˆς Πάρθους τοˆς ἐκεῖ τότε ƒντας, καÚ

Kings - —πατοι

55

his honour that lasted all the rest of the day and during which the ‘barbarian’ king looked a bit naïf,69 as he was surprised by everything that was around him and asked his benevolent host about everything. Tacitus most probably obtained the chance to recreate the atmosphere of a true encounter of cultures between an uncouth barbarian king and the superior Latin culture from the report of the event contained in Corbulo’s Commentarii and expressed it by means of few and meaningful words: To his glories Corbulo added courtesy and a banquet; and upon the inquiries of the king, whenever he observed some novelty - the announcement, for instance, by a centurion of the beginning of the watches; the dismissal of the company by bugle-note ; the application of a torch to fire the altar raised in

69

ἐπÚ βῆμα ÕψηλÙν ἀναβάς, καÚ μεγαληγορήσας ÕπÓρ „ν καÚ κατειργάσατο, Παρθαμασπάτην τοῖς Πάρθοις βασιλέα ἀπέδειξε, τÙ διάδημα αÃτῷ ἐπιθείς (“Trajan, fearing that the Parthians, too, might begin a revolt, desired to give them a king of their own. Accordingly, when he came to Ctesiphon, he called together in a great plain all the Romans and likewise all the Parthians that were there at the time; then he mounted a lofty platform, and after describing in grandiloquent language what he had accomplished, he appointed Parthamaspates king over the Parthians and set the diadem upon his head [transl. CARY]).” The unreliable report about this event in Malalas considers the coronation of Parthamaspates as the result of a fantastic court-plot: Malal. XI 6 (273-274 Bonn = 207 THURN) μαθὼν ὅτι διαφθονεῖται τῷ Σανατρουκίῳ, βασιλεῖ Περσῶν, ¡ ἴδιος αÃτοῦ ἐξάδελφος Παρθεμασπάτης, πέμψας πρÙς αÃτÙν Õπενόθευσεν αÃτÙν ΤραϊανÙς βασιλεύς, ταξάμενος δοῦναι αÃτῷ τὴν βασιλείαν Περσῶν, ἐÏν συμμαχήσῃ αÃτῷ. καÚ ÕπονοθευθεÚς ἦλθε πρÙς αÃτÙν νυκτός· καÚ λαβὼν αÃτÙν εἰς τÙ ἴδιον αÃτοῦ μέρος μετÏ τοῦ πλήθους αÃτοῦ ¡ αÃτÙς θειότατος Τραϊανός, ·ρμησε κατÏ τοῦ Σανατρουκίου, βασιλέως Περσῶν· καÚ πολλῶν Περσῶν πεσόντων συνελάβετο τÙν Σανατρούκιον, βασιλέα Περσῶν, φεύγοντα· καÚ ἐφόνευσεν αÃτόν. καÚ ἐποίησεν ἀντ’ αÃτοῦ βασιλέα Περσῶν τοῖς Õπολειφθεῖσι καÚ προσπεσοῦσιν αÃτῷ Πέρσαις (“Hearing that there was a quarrel between Sanatroukios, emperor of the Persians, and his cousin Parthemaspates, the emperor Trajan sent a message to Parthemaspates and offered him a bribe, promising to give him the empire of the Persians if he would become his ally. Parthemaspates accepted the bribe and came over to Trajan at night. Taking him and his troops on to his own side, the most sacred Trajan set out against Sanatroukios, emperor of the Persians. Many Persians fell and he captured Sanatroukios, emperor of the Persians, as he fled, and put him to death. Trajan made the man named Parthemaspates, the son of Osdroes, emperor of the Persians in his place, in accordance with the agreements, and those Persians who survived prostrated themselves before him [transl. JEFFREYS]).” Cf. the hint at the βῆμα ÕψηλÙν in the above mentioned passage and in Dio LXII 23, 3 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN), cited in the following page and n. 71. Cf. CHAUMONT 1976, 118.

56

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

front of the general’s pavilion - he so far exaggerated each point as to inspire him with admiration for our ancient customs (transl. JACKSON).70

The following day Tiridates asked (oravit) Corbulo to be allowed to go and take his leave of his brothers and mother, leaving behind one of his daughters as a hostage and litteras supplices for Nero. The report contained in the excerpt by Cassius Dio is far more concise, as one would only expect, and coincides with the one by Tacitus in its fundamental elements, although it also reveals interesting differences. The fact that Dio seems to ignore the double meeting between Corbulo and Tiridates, merely recording just one, does not seem particularly meaningful to me, as the fact might be attributed also to the Byzantine excerptor. Indeed, the proceedings of the conference were not limited to mere conversations, but a lofty platform had been erected on which were set images of Nero, and in the presence of crowds of Armenians, Parthians, and Romans Tiridates approached and paid them reverence; then, after sacrificing to them and calling them by laudatory names, he took off the diadem from his head and set it upon them (transl. CARY).71

The expression οÃδÓ γÏρ ἁπλῶς λόγους τινÏς ἐποιήσαντο certainly sums up the exchange of initial civilities, reported instead by Tacitus, albeit very briefly. The most revealing difference is represented by the presence of πολλῶν μÓν Ἀρμενίων πολλῶν δÓ Πάρθων καÚ Ῥωμαίων at the ceremony of submission of Tiridates. It is understandable and almost obvious, I would say, that many Parthians were part of Tiridates’ army and furthermore that they represented the sinews of the army being built up by Vologeses in order to reinstate his brother on the throne of Armenia. Nevertheless this Parthian presence at the ceremony probably underlies the immediately following piece of news in the excerpt by Dio:

70

71

Tac. Ann. XV 30, 1: Addidit gloriae Corbulo comitatem epulasque; et rogitante rege causas, quotiens novum aliquid adverterat, ut initia vigiliarum per centurionem nuntiari, convivium bucina dimitti et structam ante augurale aram subdita face accendi, cuncta in maius attollens admiratione prisci moris adfecit. Dio LXII 23, 3 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN): οÃδÓ γÏρ ἁπλῶς λόγους τινÏς ἐποιήσαντο, ἀλλÏ καÚ βῆμα ÕψηλÙν †γέρθη καÚ ἐπ’ αÃτοῦ εἰκόνες τοῦ Νέρωνος ἐστάθησαν, ὅ τε Τιριδάτης πολλῶν μÓν Ἀρμενίων πολλῶν δÓ Πάρθων καÚ Ῥωμαίων παρόντων προσῆλθέ τε αÃταῖς καÚ προσεκύνησεν, θύσας τε καÚ ἐπευφημήσας τÙ διάδημα ἀπό τε τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀφεῖλε καÚ παρέθηκεν αÃταῖς.

Kings - —πατοι

57

Monobazus and Vologaesus also came to Corbulo and gave him hostages. In honour of this event Nero was saluted as imperator a number of times and held a triumph, contrary to the precedent (transl. CARY).72

Matthäus HEIL73 had no difficulty in demonstrating the groundlessness of Dio’s statements about the imperial salutationes and the triumph Nero obtained in Rome in that circumstance, notwithstanding all attempts to find archaeological corroboration for this piece of news.74 But also the news about the presence of the kings of Adiabene and Parthia, Monobazus and Vologeses, at the ceremony is to be definitely rejected. The narration by Tacitus is by far the more preferable in this connection. After the agreement Tiridates made a diplomatic journey to the other Arsacid courts before he went to Rome to meet Nero. Tacitus would certainly not let slip the presence of the three named kings, otherwise Corbulo would have mentioned it in his Commentarii.75 Between the two versions, the one by Tacitus, who describes Tiridates while consulting his brothers during a diplomatic journey after meeting Corbulo, and the one by Cassius Dio, who recounts that the meeting among the Arsacid brothers had taken place in the presence of Corbulo, the former is certainly to be considered preferable. Both sources, in any case, agree in emphasizing the fact that all the Arsacid family was somehow involved in the negotiations between Tiridates and Corbulo. And this precise circumstance is sufficient in itself to deprive HEIL’s fundamental theory of most of its value, although his work is actually remarkable from many other respects. In his view the only result the meeting of Rhandeia produced was a truce in the war, thus between Corbulo and Tiridates no “Vertrag von Rhandeia” was concluded and no “eigentliche Kriegsende” came about as a consequence of a “völkerrechtlicher Vertrag.”76 The sources we dispose of and that are analysed above do not mention any such treaty. Tacitus and Cassius Dio, who both follow a historiographical tradition directly or indirectly linked to the 72

73 74 75 76

Dio LXII 23, 4 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN): καÚ ¡ Μονόβαζος καÚ ¡ ΟÃολόγαισος πρÙς τÙν Κορβούλωνα ἦλθον καÚ ¡μήρους αÃτῷ ἔδωκαν. καÚ ἐπÚ τούτοις ¡ Νέρων αÃτοκράτωρ τε πολλάκις ἐπεκλήθη, καÚ τÏ ἐπινίκια ἔπεμψε παρÏ τÙ νενομισμένον. HEIL 1997, 126-128. SPERTI 1990, about it cf. HEIL 1997, 127 n. 46. About the report in Tacitus’ Annales and Corbulo’s Commentarii see the full discussion in QUESTA 1967. HEIL 1997, 120-128.

58

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

report by Corbulo himself, tried to give the impression that the meeting of Rhandeia put an end to war, generating a lasting peace that was favourable to Rome and whose author was Corbulo. The actual reality was indeed completely different. In Rhandeia a simple agreement was reached, based on the the word of the two parties. Die Übereinkunft war demnach nur eine Art gentlemen’s agreement, das auf dem wechselseitigen Vertrauen in das gegebene Wort beruhte. Es legte fest, mit welchen Schritten beide Seiten zu einer Beendigung des Krieges gelangen wollten - weiter nichts. Ob die Absprache tatsächlich zum Frieden führte hing also vom politischen Willen der Konfliktparteien ab. Hätte eine von ihnen ihre Entschlüsse geändert, hätte der Krieg ohne weiteres fortgesetzt werden können. Vom ›eigentlichen‹ Kriegsende oder gar von einem Friedensvertrag zu reden, wäre viel zu hoch gegriffen.77

HEIL’s analysis is a bit too subtle and is far too closely bound to a modern, even ‘contractualistic’ interpretation of interpersonal relationships, as it were. Moreover, that the end of hostilities depended on the good will of both parties represents an undeniable reality, that not even the signing of any document can change. No doubt the whole ceremony was thus structured so as to lead to a final formalization of the treaty by Nero himself, but this request came from Tiridates and not from the Romans.78 The unjustified imposition of Tigranes by Rome and the aggression by Caesennius Paetus were episodes such as to lead the Arsacids to suspect that the agreements made by them in loco with local governors had a limited value. This gave rise to a demand for stronger guarantees, the highest ones Rome was able to offer. The aim of Tiridates and of the Arsacid party was to reduce to the utmost the time needed for the agreement in order to obtain the best possible guarantees concerning the actual value of the agreement itself also for Rome and as soon as possible. In these circumstances that gave rise to the extraordinary ceremony ‘in the presence’ of the image of Caesar.79 The presence of the statue of the emperor represented the highest guarantee Tiridates could receive immediately, without waiting for the solemn ratification by Nero in

77 78 79

HEIL 1997, 123. Cf. supra. Starting from different assumptions LEMOSSE 1961: 461 wrote about a ceremony that was “bien plus conforme au droit national de la dynastie iranienne.”

Kings - —πατοι

59

Rome.80 The non-respect of the agreement by Corbulo or any other general after him, would make him guilty of treason in front of Nero, from the time that Tiridates’ diadem was laid in front of the imago Caesaris. This is not in any case the decisive point for an understanding of the diplomatic value of the treaty of Rhandeia. As mentioned elsewhere, Tacitus relates that Tiridates asked Corbulo for permission to make a diplomatic journey to all Arsacid capital cities, and that he left the Roman general his daughter as hostage together with a pleading letter to Nero. The assignment of hostages is also confirmed by a piece of news by Cassius Dio, even though it may seem exaggerated and tendentious, as we have already seen. Indeed one may legitimately doubt the contents of the letter, which must have been unknown to Corbulo. In any case in a similar predicament Tacitus reports in detail about the substance of what came out of this journey by Tiridates: On his departure, he found Pacorus in Media and Vologeses at Ecbatana - the latter not inattentive to his brother; for he had even requested Corbulo by special couriers that Tiridates should be exposed to none of the outward signs of vassalage, should not give up his sword, should not be debarred from embracing the provincial governors or be left to stand and wait at their doors, and in Rome should receive equal distinction with the consuls. Evidently, accustomed as he was to foreign pride, he lacked all knowledge of ourselves who prize the essentials of sovereignty and ignore its vanities (transl. JACKSON).81

As far as I know, this passage has been neglected by modern scholars,82 80

81

82

Once more claimed by Tiridates, and not by Corbulo, notwithstanding the doubts raised by the impersonal construction in Tac. Ann. XV 29, 2: tum placuit Tiridaten ponere apud effigiem Caesaris insigne regium nec nisi manu Neronis resumere. But cf. what is written just before, which explains in my opinion very clearly the sense of placuit: Ille [Tiridates] de nobilitate generis multum praefatus, cetera temperanter adiungit: iturum quippe Romam laturumque novum Caesari decus, non adversis Parthorum rebus supplicem Arsaciden (Tac. Ann. XV 29, 1). Tac. Ann. XV 31: Et digressus Pacorum apud Medos, Vologaesen Ecbatanis repperit, non incuriosum fratris: quippe et propriis nuntiis a Corbulone petierat, ne quam imaginem servitii Tiridates perferret neu ferrum traderet aut complexu provincias obtinentium arceretur foribusve eorum adsisteret, tantusque ei Romae quantus consulibus honor esset. scilicet externae superbiae sueto non inerat notitia nostri, apud quos vis imperii valet, inania tramittuntur. E. g. HEIL 1997, 130 restricts himself to citing this passage, simply defining it as a ‘Vorbereitung’ to the journey to Rome. SCHUR 1923, 30 curiously maintains that the ne-

60

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

who in this case have followed Tacitus’ judgement on the matter, something that rarely happened for other passages of this historian. This was all a mistake, because it is a very interesting passage from many points of view. First of all it represents a good example of Tacitus’ eloquence. Vologeses concern about the imago servitii his brother could offer the world when he was brought to Rome is completely inappropriate in a context in which the agreements described above were reached leading to the grand ceremony of the deposition of the crown of Armenia at the feet of Nero’s statue before both deployed armies in a place rightly making Tiridates’ army eques compositus per turmas et insignibus patriis proud.83 Tacitus’ narration actually aims at the antithetical representation of the images of the two Roman generals operating in Armenia: the idle and haughty Cesennius Paetus84 and the non-loquacious but consistent Domitius Corbulo,85 who was more interested in the solution of the Armenian crisis than in an arrogant behaviour that might hurt Arsacid feelings.86 Thus why should Vologeses have feared such a ‘politically incorrect’ behaviour by Corbulo? Vologeses’ ‘fear’ is actually an invention by Tacitus in order to justify his fine end sentence: scilicet externae superbiae sueto non inerat notitia nostri, apud quos vis imperii valet, inania tramittuntur. This sentence has much influenced later historians, confirming the idea that Corbulo’s Armenian campaign was concluded with an agreement actually giving Rome the vis imperii in Armenia, leaving the Parthians only minor things, inania, of use in satisfying people used to externae superbiae.87 No doubt some Roman troops were quartered in Armenia as a result of

83 84 85

86

87

gotiations lead by Vologeses were aiming at guaranteeing all privileges for his brother “für die Dauer seines Aufenthalts im römischen Reiche.” Tac. Ann. XV 29, 2. About L. Iunius Caesennius Paetus (PIR2 C 174) : GROAG 1897, 1903; PFLAUM 1954; GARZETTI 1966; MEULDER 1993; VERVAET 2002a; CORDIANO 2003; CARTER 2004. About Cn. Domitius Corbulo (PIR2 D 142): WOLFFGRAMM 1885; DE LA VILLE DE MIRMONT 1915; STEIN 1918; MOMIGLIANO 1931; HAMMOND 1934; SYME 1970; GILMARTIN 1973; DELPUECH 1974; MEHL 1979; TRAINA 1996; ALLISON 1997; VERVAET 1999b, 1999a, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2003. The Armenian matter as seen from inside the work by Tacitus: SYME 1958: 492-497. Cf. in particular 494: “Tacitus (so it appears) accords undue space and importance to the eastern realms.” Thus above all SCHUR, 1923, 35-36; 1949, 2014.

Kings - —πατοι

61

the treaty88 and the investiture of the kings in that country was a Roman matter from then on, but it is also true that the agreement provided for the choosing of future kings among Arsacid descendants.89 The judgement by Marie-Louise CHAUMONT about the agreement of Rhandeia closing the Armenian expedition by Corbulo is not wrong: “statut équivoque et bâtard.” In her opinion: cette suzeraineté restait nominale et sans efficacité contre la mainmise parthe, entérinée par l’accord de Rhandéia. Désormais Rome ne pourrait plus, comme par le passé, disposer à sa guise du trône arménien en faveur de tel ou tel de ses candidats; il lui faudrait nécessairement passer par une solution arsacide et parthe. Dans ces conditions, le droit d’investiture réservé à 90 l’empereur risquait de se réduire le plus souvent à une simple formalité.

Actually the uncertainties relating to the terms of the treaty represented the premises leading up to the Parthian wars of Trajan. If we still desire to fix which party the vis imperii was owed to in Armenia in 63 A. D., whether to the Romans as victors, or to the defeated Parthians, then the central part of the passage by Tacitus now needs to be analysed: the sending by Vologeses of proprii nuntii to Corbulo to agree about the powers due to Tiridates as client king of Rome. Vologeses requests were very clear: first of all Tiridates had to be granted with the ius gladii ferendi due to the provincial governors. This right is thus defined in a well-known passage by Cassius Dio: So, then, he [scil. Augustus] caused the appointed governors to be known as propraetors and to hold office for as much longer than a year as should please him; he made them wear the military uniform, and a sword, with which they are permitted to execute even soldiers. For no one else, whether proconsul, propraetor, or procurator, has been given the privilege of wearing 88

89 90

The legio III Gallica was settled with a garrison in Kasrik: CIL III 6741 = ILS 232; 6742, 6742a, and also further garrisons had to be quartered there and scattered in the strategic sites of the country, but for us they are attested only in later periods. Without any solid bases are the criticisms to this conclusion by HEIL 1997. Cf. infra. CHAUMONT 1976: 123. Equally critical judgements about the situation coming out in the East after the treaty of Rhandeia are to be read in e.g. ZIEGLER 1964, 75; STEP’ANYAN 1975; WOLSKI 1987; SCHOTTKY 1989: 165: “Mit der offiziellen Krönung jenes Mannes in Rom begann 66 n. Chr. das mehrhundertjährige Regiment parthischer Nebenlinien in dem Gebirgsland, das erst 428 n. Chr. durch das definitive Eingreifen der Sasaniden ein Ende fand;” WOLSKI 1993, 170; HEIL 1997, 141: “der Status Armeniens wurde damit prekär und schillernd, aber der parthische Einfluß überwog eindeutig.”

62

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

a sword without also having been accorded the right to put a soldier to death; indeed this right has been granted, not only to the senators, but also to the knights who are entitled to wear a sword (transl. CARY).91

To address such complex problems as the relationship between ius gladii and imperium merum, whether the ius gladii was limited or unlimited and furthermore whether, in a time preceding the Severian era it was either limited to the punishment of soldiers or extended also to civilians, humiliores or even in some cases to honestiores is beyond the scope of this analysis.92 What is striking in Tacitus’ passage is that the ius gladii ferendi is meant as one of the key elements attributed to the figure of the legatus Augusti pro praetore of consular rank, among which Corbulo himself was included.93 Annales XV, 31 may certainly be involved in the discussion about the ius gladii and more generically about the criminal jurisdiction of governors. The interference by Vologeses in the agreements between Tiridates and Corbulo aimed at obtaining particularly advantageous conditions for his young brother and such conditions were not to compromise the dignity of the Arsacid family. Such conditions had to be evidently different from those other oriental kings had been granted by Rome on many occasions, other91

92

93

Dio LIII 6-7: τῇ τε ο“ν ἐπικλήσει τῇ τῶν ἀντιστρατήγων τοˆς αἱρετοˆς χρῆσθαι, καÚ ἐπÚ πλείω καÚ ἐνιαυτοῦ χρόνον, ἐφ’ ὅσον ἂν ἑαυτῷ δόξῃ, ἄρχειν ἐποίησε, τήν τε στρατιωτικὴν σκευὴν φοροῦντας καÚ ξίφος, οἷς γε καÚ στρατιώτας δικαιῶσαι ἔξεστιν, ἔχοντας. ἄλλῳ γÏρ οÃδενÚ ο–τε ἀνθυπάτῳ ο–τε ἀντιστρατήγῳ ο–τε ἐπιτρόπῳ ξιφηφορεῖν δέδοται, ᾧ μὴ καÚ στρατιώτην τινÏ ἀποκτεῖναι ἐξεῖναι νενόμισται· οà γÏρ ὅτι τοῖς βουλευταῖς ἀλλÏ καÚ τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν, οἷς τοῦθ’ Õπάρχει, καÚ ἐκεῖνο συγκεχώρηται. About the ius gladii MOMMSEN 1887, 268-271; MOMMSEN 1875, 967-968; MOMMSEN 1899, 242-245; JONES 1951; GARNSEY 1968; LIEBS 1981; SPAGNUOLO VIGORITA 1990; MANFREDINI 1991; DI MARCO 1999. The nature of the power exerted by Corbulo in Armenia is at the centre of a never-ending debate. I just cite the latest positions: HEIL 1997, 201-207, seems to be very doubtful about the matter and he concludes: “So enden alle Überlegungen ohne eindeutiges Ergebnis. Daß Corbulo auch eine Provinzstatthalterschaft erhalten hatte und daß es die von Kappadokien und Galatien war, läßt sich nicht zwingend ausschließen. Allerdings fehlen Beweise oder klare Indizien, die die These stützen könnten. Zur Erklärung des Befunds in den Quellen ist die Annahme einer Provinzstatthalterschaft nicht nötig, sogar überflüssig. So halte ich es beim gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand für das Wahrscheinlichere, daß Corbulo ein reines Militärkommando ohne Provinzstatthalterschaft innehatte.” Following VERVAET 2000 the power of Corbulo was not an imperium maius, but rather a praetorius one, even though it was extended over various provinces (the latter assertion widely limiting the novelties coming out of his deep analysis of the matter).

Kings - —πατοι

63

wise we would not be able to understand the insistence of Vologeses (Tacitus) on this point. As far as Tiridates is concerned the question was not about granting him ornamenta consularia, as such ornamenta were customary in the international relationships between Rome and the oriental kings, at least from Claudius on, as a famous passage by Dio reporting the dispositions issued by Claudius after his ascent to the throne in January 41 A. D. testifies: Next he (Claudius) restored Commagene to Antiochus, since Gaius, though he had himself given him the district, had taken it away again; and Mithridates the Iberian, whom Gaius had summoned and imprisoned, was sent home again to resume the throne. To another Mithridates, a lineal descendant of Mithridates the Great, he granted Bosporus, giving to Polemon some land in Cilicia in place of it. He enlarged the domain of Agrippa of Palestine, who, happening to be in Rome, had helped him to become emperor, and bestowed on him the rank of consul; and to his brother Herod he gave the rank of praetor and a principality. And he permitted them to enter the senate and to express their thanks to him in Greek (transl. CARY).94

Claudius’ action was aimed at rewarding Agrippa I, who had stood out in the role of mediator and was effective in the almost bloodless solution of the crisis that exploded after the plot headed by Chaerea leading to the murder of Caligula.95 As MOMMSEN had already noted, in this passage Dio mentions to the granting of ornamenta consularia (τιμαÚ ÕπατικαÛ) and praetoria (στρατηγικÙν ἀξÛωμα) to client kings by Claudius.96 Such honours did not imply the full attribution of consular powers however. The ornamenta actually conferred no right either to exert the relative power or to sit in the Senate. As Fergus MILLAR wrote: “such ornamenta illustrate once again the di-

94

95 96

Dio LX 8, 1-3 (II, 670 BOISSEVAIN): ΚαÚ μετÏ τοῦτο τῷ τε Ἀντιıχῳ τὴν Κομμαγηνὴν ἀπÔδωκεν (¡ γÏρ ΓÌιος, καÛπερ αÃτıς οἱ δοˆς αÃτήν, ἀφῄρητο), καÚ τÙν ΜιθριδÌτην τÙν ºβηρα, ὃν ¡ ΓÌιος μεταπεμψÌμενος ἐδεδÔκει, οἴκαδε πρÙς ἀνÌληψιν τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπÔπεμψεν. ἄλλῳ τÔ τινι ΜιθριδÌτῃ, τÙ γÔνος ἀπ’ ἐκεÛνου τοῦ πÌνυ ἔχοντι, τÙν Βıσπορον ἐχαρÛσατο, καÚ τῷ ΠολÔμωνι χ˘ραν τινÏ ἀντ’ αÃτοῦ ΚιλικÛας ἀντÔδωκε. τῷ γÏρ ἈγρÛππᾳ τῷ ΠαλαιστÛνῳ συμπρÌξαντÛ οἱ τὴν ἡγεμονÛαν (ἔτυχε γÏρ ἐν τῇ Ῥ˘μῃ ‡ν) τήν τε ἀρχὴν προσεπη˜ξησε καÚ τιμÏς ÕπατικÏς ἔνειμε. τῷ τε ἀδελφῷ αÃτοῦ Ἡρ˘δῃ τı τε στρατηγικÙν ἀξÛωμα καÚ δυναστεÛαν τινÏ ἔδωκε, καÚ ἔς τε τÙ συνÔδριον ἐσελθεῖν σφισι καÚ χÌριν οἱ ἑλληνιστÚ γνῶναι ἐπÔτρεψεν. Jos., Ant. XIX 236-244; B. J. II, 204-222. MOMMSEN 1894a, 109; PANI 1972, 229; BRAUND 1984, 28-29.

64

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

vorce of honour or status and function. The divorce appears even wider in those cases where the same ornamenta were granted to client kings, or to writers or orators.”97 The effective powers of consuls and praetors should be granted - at least partially - but in this case they were singularly specified (καÚ ἔς τε τÙ συνÔδριον ἐσελθεῖν σφισι καÚ χÌριν οἱ ἑλληνιστÚ γνῶναι ἐπÔτρεψεν) and automatically pertained to the ornamenta.98 Notwithstanding their apparent similarity, the situation in Judaea in 41 A. D. with the granting to Agrippa and his brother Herod of reigns and senatorial ranks differed from the one that was to occur in Armenia twenty-five years later. Agrippa’s vicissitudes are actually narrated in greater detail by Josephus in a context that has been rightly accused of adopting a partisan position against Agrippa I (and thus being indirectly encomiastic towards the true ‘hero’ of Josephus, Agrippa II).99 However Josephus considers the detail of the ornamenta granted by Claudius to the two brother dynasts as marginal: Claudius speedily purged the army of all unreliable units. He then promulgated an edict whereby he both confirmed the rule of Agrippa, which Gaius had presented to him, and delivered a panegyric on the king. He also added to Agrippa’s dominions all the other lands that had been ruled by King Herod, his grandfather, namely, Judaea and Samaria. He restored these lands to him as a debt due to his belonging to the family of Herod. But he also added Abila , which had been ruled by Lysanias , and all the land in the moun-

97 98

99

MILLAR 1977, 308. MOMMSEN 1887, 464; cf. also 457: “Für das Bewerbungsrecht sind die ornamenta ohne Bedeutung” ... “Dass die ornamenta das Recht im Senate zu sitzen nicht einschliessen, ist notorisch; es bedarf kaum der Hinweisung darauf, dass dieselben in den bei weitem meisten Fällen an solche Personen verliehen werden, die Senatoren weder sind noch werden können oder wollen, und dass, wo das Gegentheil eintritt, das Recht im Senat zu sitzen immer auf einem von den ornamenta unabhängigen Titel beruht.” In his complete survey RÉMY 1976 simply limits himself to citing the granting of the ornamenta to client kings. VITUCCI, commentary to Josephus, La Guerra giudaica, Fondazione Valla, Milano 1974: 630 n. 4: “l’importanza avuta dalla sua (scil. of Agrippa) azione mediatrice appare manifestamente esagerata.” Contra GAHEIS 1899, 2786; SCHÜRER, VERMÈS, MILLAR 1973: 445: “He (Agrippa) was also in Rome when his patron was murdered by Chaerea on 24th January A. D. 41, and contributed not a little to secure the succession of the weak Claudius to the imperial throne.”

Kings - —πατοι

65

tainous region of Lebanon as a gift out of his own territory, and he celebrated a treaty with Agrippa in the middle of the Forum in the city of Rome (transl. L. H. FELDMAN).100 Upon Agrippa he forthwith conferred the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom, annexing to it from over the border not only the districts of Trachonitis and Auranitis of which Augustus had made a present to Herod, but a further principality known as the kingdom of Lysanias. This donation he announced to the people by an edict, and ordered the magistrates to have it engraved on brazen tablets to be deposited in the Capitol. He, moreover, presented Herod, who was at once the brother and, by his marriage with Berenice, the son-inlaw of Agrippa, with the kingdom of Chalcis (transl. THACKERAY). 101

Let us not be deceived by the emphasis Josephus laid on the solemnities accompanying granting Claudius’ grants: the bronze tables deposited at the Capitolium did not spare the sovereign provided with ornamenta consularia the humiliations undergone by C. Vibius Marsus, legatus Augusti propraetore in the province of Syria.102 During the three years left to him before he died in 44 A. D.103 he first had to abandon his project to extend and strengthen the walls of Jerusalem after a malicious report by Vibius Marsus to Claudius,104 and then he was to suffer a true affront again by Vibius Marsus himself in Tiberiade: Agrippa had sent there his brother Herod of Chalcis, and the kings Antiochus IV of Commagene, Sampsigeramos of

100

101

102 103 104

Jos., Ant. XIX 274-275: Κλα˜διος δÓ τοῦ στρατιωτικοῦ πᾶν ὅ τι ἦν —ποπτον ἐκ τοῦ ¿ξÔος ἀποσκευασÌμενος διÌγραμμα προÃτÛθει τήν τε ἀρχὴν ἈγρÛππα βεβαιῶν, ἣν ¡ ΓÌιος παρÔσχε, καÚ δι’ ἐγκωμι˘ν ἄγων τÙν βασιλÔα. Προσθήκην τε αÃτῷ ποιεῖται πᾶσαν τὴν ÕπÙ Ἡρ˘δου βασιλευθεῖσαν, ὃς ἦν πÌππος αÃτοῦ, ἸουδαÛαν καÚ ΣαμÌρειαν. καÚ ταῦτα μÓν ›ς ¿φειλıμενα τῇ οἰκειıτητι τοῦ γÔνους ἀπεδÛδου· êβιλαν δÓ τὴν ΛυσανÛου καÚ ¡πıσα ἐν τῷ ΛιβÌνῳ ƒρει ἐκ τῶν αÃτοῦ προσετÛθει, ὅρκιÌ τε αÃτῷ τÔμνεται πρÙς τÙν ἈγρÛππαν ἐπÚ τῆς ἀγορᾶς μÔσης ἐν τῇ ῬωμαÛων πıλει. Jos., B. J. II 215-217: ΚαÚ τÙν ἈγρÛππαν εÃθÔως ἐδωρεῖτο τῇ πατρῴᾳ βασιλεÛᾳ πÌσῃ, προστιθεÚς ἔξωθεν καÚ τÏς Õπ’ ΑÃγο˜στου δοθεÛσας Ἡρ˘δῃ Τραχωνῖτιν καÚ ΑÃρανῖτιν, χωρÚς δÓ το˜των ἑτÔραν βασιλεÛαν τὴν ΛυσανÛου καλουμÔνην. καÚ τῷ μÓν δήμῳ διατÌγματι τὴν δωρεÏν ἐδήλου, τοῖς ἄρχουσιν δÓ προσÔταξεν ἐγχαρÌξαντας δÔλτοις χαλκαῖς τὴν δıσιν εἰς τÙ Καπετ˘λιον ἀναθεῖναι. Δωρεῖται δ’ αÃτοῦ καÚ τÙν ἀδελφÙν Ἡρ˘δην, ¡ δ’ αÃτÙς καÚ γαμβρÙς ἦν ΒερνÛκῃ συνοικῶν, βασιλεÛᾳ τῇ ΧαλκÛδι. DA̧BROWA 1998, 44-46. Act. Ap. 12, 19-23; Jos., Ant. XIX 343-352. Jos., Ant. XIX 326-327; B. J. II 218-222, V 147-155.

66

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Emesa, Cotys of Armenia Minor and Polemon of Pontus. When Agrippa received the news of the unexpected visit by Vibius Marsus, he went with all other kings towards him to honour him. The governor was in no way convinced by this; indeed he was highly suspicious of this meeting of kings assembled there to honour him, so he broke up that meeting and invited all the kings to go back to their kingdoms. In Josephus’ opinion this episode represented “the beginning of a quarrel with Marsus.”105 But Marsus survived Agrippa, quietly preserving his functions.106 Nor did the situation improve under his son Agrippa II, as the impotence of the latter testifies ad abundantiam when he had to face Ventidius Cumanus,107 a simple procurator Iudaeae, and not a consular legatus, who forced Agrippa II to undertake a journey to Rome to obtain the recognition of the rights of the Jews who were oppressed oppressed by Roman soldiers and Samaritans in various ways.108 In this entire matter the legatus Augusti pro praetore of Syria, Ummidius Quadratus,109 seems to act as an arbitrator in a dispute between people having powers and ranks infinitely inferior to his. In marked contrast with their weak powers, Agrippa I and II assumed particularly magniloquent royal titles, as is testified in their most complete form in a now lost inscription that had been read by William Henry WADDINGTON at the shrine of Sīʾa, in Ḥawrān: ἘπÚ βασιλÔως μεγÌλου ἈγρÛππα φιλοκαÛσαρος εÃσεβοῦς καÚ φιλορωμα[Û]|ου, τοῦ ἐκ βασιλÔως μεγÌλου ἈγρÛππα φιλοκαÛσαρος εÃσεβοῦς καÚ [φι]|λορωμαÛου, Ἀφαρεˆς ἀπελε˜θερος καÚ ἈγρÛππας υἱÙς ἀνÔθηκαν.110

It is most probable, given the context, that the explication of the title βασιλεˆς μÔγας as given in this case by VON GUTSCHMID,111 i.e. that it was due to the fact that its bearer held more than one kingdom, is the right one.

105 106

107 108 109 110 111

Jos., Ant. XIX 338-342. Cf. PANI 1972, 168-169. Jos., Ant. XX 1: Τελευτήσαντος δÓ τοῦ βασιλÔως ἈγρÛππα ... πÔμπει ΜÌρσῳ διÌδοχον Κλα˜διος Καῖσαρ ΚÌσσιος Λογγῖνος “On the death of King Agrippa ... Claudius Caesar sent Cassius Longinus as successor to Marsus” (transl. L. H. FELDMAN). SCHÜRER, VERMÈS, MILLAR 1973, 458-459. Jos., Ant. XX 105-136; B. J. II 223-246; Tac., Ann. XII 54. DA̧BROWA 1998, 49-53. OGIS 419 = WADD. 2365; cf. SCHÜRER, VERMÈS, MILLAR 1973, 452 n. 42. GUTSCHMID 1893, 116-119.

Kings - —πατοι

67

Things were quite different in Armenia. There the Arsacid royal lineage, the customs of the population and particularly of most of the Armenian feudal aristocracy were closely bound to the Parthian empire. This cultural as well as political proximity of Armenia to Parthia, ineluctable with whatever treaty, was clearly perceived by Rome: That country, from the earliest period, has owned a national character and a geographical situation of equal ambiguity, since with a wide extent of frontier conterminous with our own provinces, it stretches inland right up to Media; so that the Armenians lie interposed between two vast empires, with which, as they detest Rome and envy the Parthian, they are too frequently at variance (transl. JACKSON).112 In addition, the Armenians - whose allegiance was a matter of doubt - were invoking the arms of both powers; though by geographical position and affinity of manners they stood closer to the Parthians, were connected with them by inter-marriage, and, in their ignorance of liberty, were more inclined to accept servitude in that quarter (transl. JACKSON).113

In favour of his brother Tiridates Vologeses asked Corbulo for the powers and not for the honours due to consuls. The above quoted passage by Tacitus (Ann. XV 31, 1) containing the representation of the externae superbiae as being more attentive to inania than to vis imperii, reflects a stereotyped desire for Roman superiority over simple-minded barbarian people rather than the actual reality of the contents of the agreement of Rhandeia,114 which was something quite different: after its military victory Rome was only able to guarantee the re-conquered country had a stable situation at the cost of a compromise that would certainly undermine the medium-term stability in the region. The Roman-Parthian co-ownership of Armenia could not but end in a slow and relentless ‘parthization’ of the royal house and the Arsacid court of Armenia, precisely for the reasons stressed by Tacitus.115

112

113

114 115

Tac., Ann. II 56, 1: Ambigua gens ea antiquitus hominum ingeniis et situ terrarum, quoniam nostris provinciis late praetenta penitus ad Medos porrigitur; maximisque imperiis interiecti et saepius discordes sunt, adversus Romanos odio et in Parthum invidia. Tac., Ann. XIII 34, 2: ad hoc Armenii ambigua fide utraque arma invitabant, situ terrarum, similitudine morum Parthis propiores conubiisque permixti ac libertate ignota illud magis [ad servitium] inclinantes. On Tacitus and the Roman imperialism cf. WALSER 1951; SYME 1958; TRESCH 1965. On Kondominium SCHUR 1949, 2014; ZIEGLER 1964, 76 prefers the concept of Cosuzeränität.

68

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Parthian diplomacy demanded from Rome that the statute of Tiridates should be different from those of other client kings populating the Roman East. The difference actually resided in the fact that no simple ornamenta consularia were requested, which by that time had evidently become useless frills after the events in Tiberiade, which was probably the best known among the oriental courts. In favour of his brother Vologeses was asking for effective powers to be granted and Rome accorded them, thus opening up a new phase in the diplomatic relationships between Rome and the Arsacids. If Rome was able to bring itself round to take this step, it was because of the threat represented by Ctesiphon, while somewhere else in the Roman East the existing power relations were such as to allow Rome to go on with the political strategy of granting vain ornamenta. Little is actually known about the history of the Arsacid dynasty in the years immediately following these events and this not only as far as the Armenian line is concerned. The coinage only tells us about the end of the reign of the great Vologeses I in Parthia and about the difficult succession to the Arsacid throne after the death of his son Vologeses II in favour of his rival Pacorus II, of whom we know almost nothing116 except that his reign was ended by his brother Chosroes in 108/109 A. D.,117 and that it is possible to figure out in what circumstances this happened. A famous excerpt from the Parthika by Arrianus refers to some vague claims (ἐπικλήματα) by Pacorus that had to be satisfied in a certain limited period of time.118 In answer to these claims Trajan ordered the Parthian expedition, but when he came to Athens, he was joined by a Parthian legation that had been sent by the new king Chosroes. The tone of the message was much more conciliatory:

116

117 118

An echo of the difficulties the young Pacorus II had met to ascend to the throne of Parthia are to be found in a passage of the Thebais by Statius, following a convincing exegesis by HOLLIS 1994, who however fails to explain the way by which the news was transmitted. Dio LXVIII 17, 2-3 (= III, 204-205 BOISSEVAIN). Arr. Parth. fr. 32 (235 ROOS-WIRTH): ¡ δÓ ΠÌκορος ¡ ΠαρθυαÛων βασιλεˆς καÚ ἄλλα τινÏ ἐπικλήματα ἐπÔφερεν Τραϊανῷ βασιλεῖ καÚ τÙ δοκεῖν ἐπÛκλημα ἐποιεῖτο κατÏ ῬωμαÛων, ὅτι δıξαν ἐντÙς λ΄ ἡμερῶν μηδετÔρους παρÏ τÏ ξυγκεÛμενα ἐπιτελεῖν, οἱ δÓ οà κατÏ τÙ θεσπισθÓν ἐπιτειχÛζουσιν.

Kings - —πατοι

69

When Trajan had set out against the Parthians and had got as far as Athens, an embassy from Osroes met him, asking for peace and proffering gifts. For upon learning of his advance the king had become terrified, because Trajan was wont to make good his threats by his deeds. Accordingly, he humbled his pride and sent to implore him not to make war upon him, and at the same time he asked that Armenia be given to Parthamasiris, who was likewise a son of Pacorus, and requested that the diadem be sent to him; for he had deposed Exedares, he said, inasmuch as he had been satisfactory neither to the Romans nor to the Parthians. The emperor neither accepted the gifts nor returned any answer, either oral or written, save the statement that friendship is determined by deeds and not by words, and that accordingly when he should reach Syria he would do all that was proper (transl. CARY).119

I do not think that we should credit the opinion by Cassius Dio, i.e. that Chosroes “had become terrified (κατÔδεισε)” when he was made acquainted with the coming of Trajan. It is actually preferable to maintain that the party that was favourable to the war against Rome and headed by Pacorus was defeated by the one led by Chosroes, who on the contrary preferred to negotiate with Rome, thus avoiding the outbreak of war, which however was no longer avoidable, as the answer by Trajan had already revealed. The actual cause of the war might have been “desire to win renown (δıξης ἐπιθυμÛα),” while the pretext (πρıφασις) used was the Armenian question with the unilateral deposition of Axidares120 by Pacorus in favour of Parthamasiris. The excerpt by Xiphilinus is crystal clear on this point121 and voids the speculations by modern scholars about the real causes of the con-

119

120 121

Dio LXVIII 17, 2-3 (III, 204-205 BOISSEVAIN): ὅτι τοῦ Τραϊανοῦ ἐπÚ Πάρθους στρατεύσαντος καÚ ἐς Ἀθήνας ἀφικομένου πρεσβεία αÃτῷ ἐνταῦθα παρÏ τοῦ Ὀρρόου ἐνέτυχε, τῆς εἰρήνης δεομένη καÚ δῶρα φέρουσα. ἐπειδὴ γÏρ ἔγνω τήν τε ¡ρμὴν αÃτοῦ, καÚ ὅτι τοῖς ἔργοις τÏς ἀπειλÏς ἐτεκμηρίου, κατέδεισε, καÚ ÕφεÚς τοῦ φρονήματος ἔπεμψεν ἱκετεύων μὴ πολεμηθῆναι, τήν τε Ἀρμενίαν Παρθαμασίριδι Πακόρου καÚ αÃτῷ υἱεῖ ᾔτει, καÚ ἐδεῖτο τÙ διάδημα αÃτῷ πεμφθῆναι· τÙν γÏρ Ἐξηδάρην ›ς οÃκ ἐπιτήδειον ο–τε τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ο–τε τοῖς Πάρθοις ƒντα πεπαυκέναι ἔλεγεν. καÚ ὃς ο–τε τÏ δῶρα ἔλαβεν, ο–τ’ ἄλλο τι ἀπεκρίνατο ¢ καÚ ἐπέστειλε πλὴν ὅτι ἡ φιλία ἔργοις καÚ οà λόγοις κρίνεται, καÚ διÏ τοῦτ’, ἐπειδÏν ἐς τὴν Συρίαν ἔλθῃ, πάντα τÏ προσήκοντα ποιήσει. On the correct spelling of the name, fluctuating in the sources between ἈξιδÌρης and ἘξηδÌρης, cf. JUSTI 1895, 12. On the person see STEIN 1909. Dio LXVIII 17, 1 (III, 204 BOISSEVAIN): μετÏ δÓ ταῦτα ἐστράτευσεν ἐπ’ Ἀρμενίους καÚ Πάρθους, πρόφασιν μÓν ὅτι μὴ τÙ διάδημα Õπ’ αÃτοῦ εἰλήφει, ἀλλÏ παρÏ τοῦ Πάρθων βασιλέως, ¡ τῶν Ἀρμενίων βασιλεύς, τῇ δ’ ἀληθείᾳ δόξης ἐπιθυμίᾳ.

70

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

flict of most of their importance, as they are originated by the weakness of the ‘true causes’ of the outbreak of war offered by Cassius Dio.122 It is evident that the Armenian question represents far too good a reason to start a conflict, today as in the past. The sovereigns of Armenia remain enveloped in darkness. After Tiridates the reign of some Sanatruk - about whom we know practically nothing, which causes lots of chronological problems - can be imagined as being followed by the above mentioned events with Parthamasiris opposed to Axidares and afterwards the brief provincialization of the reign of Armenia by Trajan. With Hadrian the status quo ante was re-established in Armenia, as a passage in the Historia Augusta very clearly testifies: the Armenians were permitted to have their own king, whereas under Trajan they had had a governor (transl. MAGIE).123

Once more and in perfect correspondence with the treaty of Rhandeia, Rome formally invested the king of Armenia with his crown. Once more that king, Vologeses son of Sanatruk, was a member of the Arsacid family who would conduct an ‘iranizing’ policy, as testified by the emphasis this sovereign (Vałarš) was given by some Armenian historians, and as we infer from the foundation of a new capital city of the reign called Vałaršapat and of many other towns.124 It was most probably this Vologeses/Vałarš and not the contemporary Vologeses III of Parthia who complained to Hadrian in around 136 about the fact that he had not collaborated in defence of the Caucasian passes against the Alan invasions. The more or less contemporary deaths of both Hadrian and Vologeses/ Vałarš lead to a situation of stress at the borders of Armenia, as testified for us by some monetary legends of Antoninus Pius125 and by a bellum Parthicum that was mentioned in the Vita Antonini as a bugbear to dissuade Vologeses III from invading Armenia.126 Thus coins bearing the inscription REX

122 123 124 125 126

On the causes of the war LEPPER 1948, 158-204, with a full discussion about the previous literature. H. A., Hadr., 21, 10: Armeniis regem habere permisit, cum sub Traiano legatum habuissent. CHAUMONT 1976, 144. BMC, 204 n° 1272-1273; RIC III, 105, n° 586. H. A., Anton. 9, 6: Parthorum regem ab Armeniorum expugnatione solis litteris reppulit.

Kings - —πατοι

71

ARMENIIS DATVS and dated to between 140 and 144 A. D.127 are evidence of the prosecution of the formal agreements of Rhandeia even under Antoninus Pius. A fragmentary passage from the correspondence of Fronto mentions some sovereigns, among which only one appears to be explicitly connected to Armenia, in a context that would be inexplicable in the absence of further heterogeneous sources: ... that he had given the kingdom of Armenia to Sohaemus rather than to Vologaesus; or that he had deprived Pacorus of his kingdom (transl. HAINES).128

In an entry in the Suda, certainly taken from Cassius Dio, reference is made to the fact that Sohaemus was re-instated (καταγαγεῖν)129 with force in Armenia by Thucydides, one of the lieutenants of Martius Verus, legatus of Cappadocia: Martius Verus sent out Thucydides to reinstate Sohaemus into Armenia, and this general, thanks to terror inspired by his arms and to the natural good judgment that he showed in every situation, kept pressing vigorously forward (transl. CARY, with adaptations).130

About Sohaemus we know something more thanks to a brief parenthesis in a novel the patriarch Photius was still able to read in the 11th century. Summing up in his Bibliotheca an erotic novel by the rhetor Iamblichus131 bearing the title of Babyloniaka and containing the fantastic history of two lovers, Sinonis and Rhodanes, Photius writes: The writer [Iamblichos] says that he was Babylonian too and that he had learnt both magic and the Greek paideia, and that he was grown by Sohaemus, the Achaemenian, the Arsacid, he who was a king and a descendent

127 128 129 130

131

RIC III, 110 n° 619; STRACK 1937, 66-67, 262-263. Front., Ver. 2, 18 (120 VAN DEN HOUT): vel quod Sohaemo potius quam Vologaeso regnum Armeniae dedisset; aut quod Pacorum regno privasset. On the meaning of the verb (= ‘zurückführen’, ‘wiedereinsetzen’, restituere in regnum) BOISSEVAIN 1890, 338, but with deductions I do not share as far as this case is concerned. Dio LXXI 2, 1 (III, 248 BOISSEVAIN) = Suda s. v. ΜÌρτιος: ὅτι Μάρτιος Βῆρος τÙν Θουκυδίδην ἐκπέμπει καταγαγεῖν Σıαιμον εἰς Ἀρμενίαν· ὃς δέει τῶν ὅπλων καÚ τῇ οἰκείᾳ περÚ πάντα τÏ προσπίπτοντα εÃβουλίᾳ τοῦ πρόσω εἴχετο ἐρρωμένως. Suidas, s. v. Iamblichos (II, 603 ADLER); the novel is in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 94.

72

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

of a king and who became senator in Rome and consul at the same time and 132 then again king of Armenia Maior.

Conversely Pacorus left an epitaph in Rome in memory of his brother Merithates who had died there in a year that cannot be fixed with absolute certainty: To the gods of the afterlife. Aurelius Pacorus, king of Great Armenia, acquired this sarcophagus for his very sweet brother Aurelius Merithates, who lived with me 56 years and 2 months long.133

Modern scholars maintain they can explain the succession to the throne of Armenia in the years from the ascent to the throne of Antoninus Pius until the Parthian war of Lucius Verus as follows: After tensions that cannot be explained in detail today, but that seem to have caused years of instability in Armenia, Rome succeeded in imposing a king Sohaemus by threatening a bellum Parthicum (that REX DATVS in 140/141).134 When Antoninus Pius died (7th March 161), Vologeses IV waged war against Rome by invading Armenia and threatening Syria.135 He installed Pacorus in Armenia, who held this reign until his deposition by the generals of Lucius Verus, who had decided to put Sohaemus on that throne for the second time (πÌλιν).136 The difficulties created by such a reconstruction have already been stressed by M.-L. CHAUMONT.137 What is particularly serious is the fact that it is actually very difficult to consider Pacorus, a king who was certainly enjoyed Roman citizenship and who moreover had spent a considerable part of 132

133

134 135 136 137

Phot., Bibl. cod. 94 (75b BEKKER = II, 40 HENRY): Λέγει δÓ καÚ ἑαυτÙν Βαβυλώνιον εἶναι ¡ συγγραφεύς, καÚ μαθεῖν τὴν μαγικήν, μαθεῖν δÓ καÚ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν παιδείαν, καÚ ἀκμάζειν ἐπÚ Σοαίμου τοῦ Ἀχαιμενίδου τοῦ Ἀρσακίδου, ὃς βασιλεˆς ἦν ἐκ πατέρων βασιλέων, γέγονε δÓ ὅμως καÚ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, καÚ —πατος δέ, εἶτα καÚ βασιλεˆς πάλιν τῆς μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας. ἘπÚ τούτου γοῦν ἀκμάσαι φησÚν ἑαυτόν. CIG III, 6559 = IG XIV, 1472 Θ(εοῖς) κ(αταχθονÛοις) | ΑÃρήλιος | ΠÌκορος, βασι|λεˆς μεγÌλης Ἀρ||μενÛας, †γıρακα σαρ|κοφÌγο(ν) ΑÃρ(ηλÛῳ) ΜεριθÌ|τι ἀδελφῷ γλυκυ|τÌτῳ ζήσαντι | σˆν ἐμοÚ ἔτη || νςʹʹ, μῆ(νας) βʹ. Sceptical about the inthronization of Sohaemus in 140-144 A. D. SCHEHL 1930, 189; ZIEGLER 1964, 110 n. 101. H. A. Marc. Ant. 8, 6; Fronton. Princip. Hist. 17 (199 VAN DEN HOUT); Lucianus, Hist. Conscr. 21, 25; Lucianus, Alex. 27; Dio LXXI 2, 1 (III, 246 BOISSEVAIN). GUTSCHMID 1888, 147; BOISSEVAIN 1890, 337-338; ASDOURIAN 1911, 111; DEBEVOISE 1938, 249. CHAUMONT 1969, 16; 1976, 148-150.

Kings - —πατοι

73

his life in Rome, as a pro-Parthian and anti-Roman figure installed on the throne of Armenia just after the Parthian invasion. This idea derives from the theory that maintains that behind every invasion there has to be a clearcut change of government: indeed this position prevents us from adopting the simplest and most economic solution to the problem. Antoninus Pius reacted to the intermingling policy by the Arsacid Vologeses III on the throne of Armenia by removing the homonymous Vologeses/Vałarš and putting on the throne of Armenia a sovereign he liked (REX ARMENIIS DATVS, between 140 and 144). Then, as his name, Pacorus, testifies, he took a person of sure Iranian origin, perhaps even a member of the Arsacid family, who was held in Rome as a hostage as we can infer from the place where his brother died on an unspecified day.138 This person had all the requisites to be appreciated by Antoninus and his new Armenian subjects since he was of Iranian origin. When Vologeses IV attacked, Aurelius Pacorus most probably offered no fierce resistance: His almost twentyyear-long stay on the throne of Artaxata should have reconciled him with his Iranian origin, and the probable presence at the court of a pro-Parthian party would certainly have exerted some influence on the behaviour of the sovereign. Thus Vologeses did not substitute Aurelius Pacorus, who remained on his throne. Rome’s reaction sounds strangely familiar to our ears: it acted resolutely at the military level and obtained a rapid and complete success. However, the Romans had no clear idea about the political arrangement that would follow the military victory, as the above cited passage from the correspondence of Fronto testifies.139 The solution chosen by Lucius Verus, i.e. the enthronement of Sohaemus, turned out to be the worst possible - it has never been easy for a western person to find his way around middle eastern politics!

138

139

That the REX ARMENIIS DATVS in 140-144 A. D. was Pacorus and not Sohaemus is an hypothesis already proposed by HÜTTL 1936, 237; but MAGIE 1950, 1528 n. 2, distinguishes the Pacorus in Fronto from the Aurelius Pacorus of the inscription in Rome. Cf. the interesting conclusions derived from this passage by CHAUMONT 1976, 149: “il résulte de ces propos: 1°, que Pacorus n’était pas consideré comme un ennemi déclaré de Rome et que, somme toute, la défait parthe ne rendait pas impossible son maintien sur le trône; 2°, qu’un autre prétendant arsacide, Vologèse, peut-être un fils du précédent roi Vologèse, ne paraissait pas moins qualifié que Sohaemus pour devenir roi d’Arménie.”

74

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Aurelius Pacorus was evidently able to maintain a wisely balanced behaviour in the very difficult circumstances characterizing his reign: he had been imposed by Rome, then he had been left on his throne by the Parthians and he was not immediately removed after Rome had again taken control over the situation but his deposition came just after a complicated discussion. His successor possessed all the qualities needed to become a mere tool in the hands of Rome, as he was lacking in any political personality and was not accepted by the Parthian neighbours and even less by the Armenian subjects. Sohaemus was certainly closely connected with the royal house of Emesa.140 The royal family had a previous experience of government in that area that was now quite remote, when some other Sohaemus was temporarily entrusted by Nero with the government of the nearby Sophene.141 However it is evident that neither of the Sohaemi we are acquainted with had any probable or even possible link with the Arsacid royal family.142 The bombastic use of adjectives that follows the name of Sohaemus in the above cited passage by Photius τοῦ Ἀχαιμενίδου τοῦ Ἀρσακίδου, ὃς βασιλεˆς ἦν ἐκ πατέρων βασιλέων, certainly contains the echo of the pro-Roman propaganda that was desperately trying to make that king tolerable to the Armenians. The loss of the text by Iamblichus prevents us from reconstructing the original literary context of this annotation, but given the form it has reached us in, it is certainly impossible to disregard a trace of irony by Iamb-

140

141

142

SULLIVAN 1977, cf. the genealogical tree from which the obvious difficulty to link this person to the Emesean dynasts of the Julio-Claudian time clearly stands out. PIR III S 546; STEIN 1927. Following Tac., Ann. XIII 7 Nero installed a certain Sohaemus cum insignibus regiis in Sophene in 54 A. D., exactly in the very year in which C. Iulius Sohaemus became king in Emesa honora|t[o ornam(entis)] consulari|b[us (cf. IGLS VI 2760 = ILS 8958) BRAUND 1984, 29. Modern scholarship is split on this: because of the long distance existing between the two reigns of Emesa and Sophene, the idea that the two kings shared the same name, but were distinct people has persisted for a long time (STEIN 1927; STEVENSON 1939, 47; MAGIE 1950, 1412, n. 41; PANI 1972, 224-226; CHAUMONT 1976, 224-226), but more recently the opinion has prevailed that the king of Emesa and the figure about to would receive from Nero the privilege of governing Sophene during a short period coincide (FRANKFORT, 1963; SCHÜRER, VERMÈS, MILLAR 1973, 570 n. 52; BARRETT 1977; SULLIVAN 1977, 216-218; BARRETT 1979; SARTRE 2001, 505). CHAUMONT 1976, 150: “de telles origines (franchement sémitiques) sont bien peu compatibles avec une extraction arsacide, ne serait-ce que du côté maternel.”

Kings - —πατοι

75

lichus in his report on the description Sohaemus gave of himself. The vacuity of the dynastic claims by Sohaemus must have sounded offensive to the Armenians. One further passage by Cassius Dio describes a rebellion by a certain Tiridates that was appeased by Martius Verus ending in the exile of the former to Britannia: Yet in general the emperor was always accustomed to treat even his most stubborn foes humanely; thus, when Tiridates, a satrap, stirred up trouble in Armenia and slew the kin of the Heniochi, and then thrust his sword in Verus’ face when the latter rebuked him for it, he did not put him to death, but merely sent him to Britain (transl. CARY).143

No doubt the solution proposed by CHAUMONT, i.e to see in the vanishing figure of the ‘satrap’ Tiridates the true Arsacid anti-Roman representative as opposed to the clearly false Arsacid Sohaemus just after his installation by Lucius Verus, is by far the most probable in order to explain all the vicissitudes of Sohaemus. The latter, being forcibly installed by Rome in 164,144 stirred up a prompt opposition that aggregated around this Tiridates we know only as a ‘satrap.’ This qualification represents a difficulty but it is also possible to maintain that it simply represents some sort of deliberate institutional weakening of this figure who could certainly very easily pass himself off as an Arsacid, which maybe he actually was. Sohaemus was thus compelled by Tiridates to leave Armenia. Only the military intervention by the legatus of Cappadocia Martius Verus allowed the re-installation of this hated bugbear of Rome on the throne of Armenia. The command of Martius Verus can be dated back to after the consulship he held in 166, probably 172.145 We do not know how long Sohaemus ‘the Achemaenian, the Arsacid,’ remained on the throne, but he would certainly not have been able to resist without the presence of Roman troops as is testified exactly in those years in the Armenian capital city.146 It was during the second period of the 143

144 145 146

Dio LXXI 14, 2 (III, 259 BOISSEVAIN): καίτοι τά τε ἄλλα ἀεί ποτε φιλανθρώπως καÚ τοῖς πολεμιωτάτοις χρώμενος, καÚ Τιριδάτην σατράπην τά τε ἐν τῇ Ἀρμενίᾳ ταράξαντα καÚ τÙν τῶν Ἡνιόχων βασιλέα ἀποσφάξαντα, τῷ τε ΟÃήρῳ ἐπιτιμῶντί οἱ περÚ τούτων τÙ ξίφος ἐπανατεινάμενον, μὴ κτείνας ἀλλ’ ἐς Βρεττανίαν πέμψας. He should be the REX ARMENIIS DATVS on the coins of Lucius Verus RIC, III 255, n° 511-513; 322 n° 1370-1375; GÖBL 1961, 74-76. RITTERLING 1904, 193-194; VON PREMERSTEIN 1913, 87-88, who reports this excerpt with H. A. Marc. Aur. 22, 1; KROLL 1930, 2025; STEIN 1927. ILS 9117; CIG III 6559 about which MORETTI 1955, 45. CIL III 6052 = ILS 394 is later.

76

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

reign (πÌλιν) of Sohaemus on the throne of Armenia that Iamblichus frequented his court. The testimony by Photius leads to the inclusion of Sohaemus in the list of the senators at the time of Antonines written by Géza ALFÖLDY.147 As ALFÖLDY was not able to ascribe to him any ordinary consulship, he attributed to Sohaemus a suffectus consulship on an unspecified date, without however expressing himself about his previous career. Sohaemus was actually conferred the same hypateia as Tiridates was granted by Nero, and the same one as Abgar would receive from Gordianus III. It is certainly not a mistake made by ALFÖLDY. The testimony by Iamblichus/Photius on this matter is unequivocal altough quite misleading: [ΣοαÛμος] ... γέγονε δÓ ὅμως καÚ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, καÚ —πατος δέ. While it is possible to grasp the vacuity concerning the Parthian royal descent of this figure it is undoubtedly more difficult to perceive the flattery in the latter sentence. It is merely thanks to the Edessean parchment, the papyri of the Euphrates and the new institutional contexts deriving from them that it is possible to attribute the true meaning of Iamblichus/Photius’ words. What remains to be explained, were this not just a vain hope, is if the specification τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ was either a part of the boorish propaganda by Sohaemus like his Achaemenian descent or if it represents a suggestive allusion by Iamblichus to the arrogant nature of that person.

4. The contents of the ÕπατεÛα. As David BRAUND emphasized in a monograph dedicated to the reconstruction of the figure of the typical ‘friendly King:’ Under the Principate, from Gaius on, kings had gifts explicitly linked to the curule office evoked by the gifts of the Republic: ornamenta praetoria and

147

ALFÖLDY 1977, 195, 320. Sohaemus is included in the list of the “nicht näher datierte Konsuln zwischen 161 und 168,” but in the text it is said that he might have been made consul “möglicherweise schon vor 161.” IBID., 320 his Syriac descent is rightly taken for granted, but the only descents explicitly cited are the Achaemenian and Parthian ones.

Kings - —πατοι

77

ornamenta consularia. The first king known to have received either is Agrippa I, who held ornamenta praetoria in the reign of Gaius. At the beginning of the next reign, Claudius awarded the same king ornaments consularia and additions to his kingdom. At the same time, Agrippa’s brother received ornamenta praetoria. A dedication from Heliopolis describes Sohaemus of Emesa as honoratus ornamentis consularibus: when he received them is uncertain. The last king known to have received the honour is Agrippa II of Judaea who was given ornamenta praetoria by Vespasian when he came to Borne in AD 75.148

The situation of the kings of Armenia, Edessa and of Odainath of Palmyra and his family is very different from the one of the ‘friendly King’ outlined by BRAUND, i.e. of Agrippa I and II of Judaea, the alpine Cottius and of the Thracian Cotys. In the east, on the borders with the Parthian reign formal acts having a merely ornamental value were of no significance. The protracted conflict against Armenia entailed the creation of a new typology of international relations inside Rome’s imperium. These relations might be defined in many ways: by resorting to the Greek concept of hegemonia,149 ‘protectorate’ or, as recently proposed, to the one of ‘Teilreich.’ Unter “Teilreich” verstehe ich ein Herrschaftsgebiet eines formal legitimierten Machthabers, der unter Anerkennung der Superiorität des Augustus in Rom kaiserliche Aufgaben in einem Reichsteil als Kaiserstellvertreter im Interesse der Sicherheit des Gebiets übernimmt. Der Regent spaltet sein Machtgebiet nicht vom Reich ab, sondern regiert formal im Auftrag des Kaisers.150

I substantially agree with this formulation by Udo HARTMANN. My interpretation of this phenomenon differs from his, as the German scholar maintains that the Palmyrene ‘Teilreich’ started precisely during the Soldatenkaiserzeit, while in my opinion Armenia had represented a ‘Teilreich’ ever since Nero’s time, as I have shown above, while Palmyra always had a privata sors between the two empires.151 What changed during the 3rd cen-

148 149 150 151

BRAUND 1984, 29. LEMOSSE 1967, cf. supra. HARTMANN 2001, 10. Argumentations about this are widely expressed in GNOLI 2000. I am less confident than HARTMANN in the evaluation of loyalty in the relations between ‘Teilreich’ and imperium: power balances existing in various actual single situations must have produced very different results.

78

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

tury was the emergence of the family of Odainath and the disintegration of the Roman state in the East. The situation was the following: the relationships between Rome and the autonomous local powers in the Near East were the result of an extremely inconstant alchemy, as always happens when it is a question of relations between non equals not guaranteed by stable rules under external control. The autonomy of the local powers depended on the good will of Rome to respect treaties on the one hand and on the capability of the Parthian neighbours to compel Rome to respect the agreements on the other hand. The stronger the Parthians the more Rome was compelled to grant autonomy to buffer states at the borders between the two empires, thus any derogation from the formal autonomy granted by Rome to these countries was liable to provoke an outbreak of conflicts between the two empires. On the contrary when the Parthians were in trouble either because of dynastic matters or because of the eastern regions of their empire, then Rome almost always became more aggressive against the small eastern local powers, whose autonomy was thus restricted both formally and substantially. Rome possessed limited conceptual devices to approach the problem of the ‘client kings,’ and so it could only equate them with the highest Roman authorities from a formal point of view, and this had been the case since republican times. BRAUND has shown how the relationship between consular insignia and those of the kings were very close and dated back to the dawn of the Republic.152 Thus from a formal point of view kings who were friends and allies of Rome were granted the insignia due to praetors and in the most important cases even those due to consuls. Vologeses was in a position to demand that his brother were given no meaningless ornamenta but the true substance of consulship, its effective powers, i.e. the hypateia. His brother Tiridates was thus at the same level as the legati Augusti pro praetore next to him, i.e. he was attributed a hypateia just like theirs. As for Rome, it recognized this hypateia, but the emperor always preserved the right to consider the kings of Armenia, Edessa and even the people and senate of Palmyra and its chief like any other ‘friendly king’ and thus to limit or even revoke at will their powers and functions. It is no coin-

152

BRAUND 1984. The bibliography on this theme is endless, let me recall two works that should have appeared in BRAUND’s bibliography: DE FRANCISCI 1947; DE MARTINO 1972.

Kings - —πατοι

79

cidence that during the Severian era, when the Parthian empire started to break up under the attacks by the legions of Septimius Severus and of the Sassanian rebels the princedom of Edessa was progressively absorbed by Rome and its autonomy was only periodically guaranteed.153 As far as we know, Rome never fully codified the hypateia it was ready to grant to the local powers in the Roman Near East, altough this may be the result merely of our lack of documentation. It is actually possible to maintain that some degree of formalization of the concept actually did exist: in an official document written in Greek a hypateia is mentioned, the hypateia of Edessa, which had been attributed to three equestrian officials.154 More or less simultaneously in the Near East a strange compound appears which designates sites of particular relevance from an administrative point of view: μητροκωλονεÛα, μητροκωμÛα, where next to Greek-Roman administrative terms the first element of the compounds, μητρο-, can perhaps be traced back to an ancient Semitic use.155 It is possible that in Severian times the great law school of Berytus attempted to set a rule governing these aspects of interstatal relationships. This way a transition was achieved from a first phase, in which the ornamenta consularia in themselves were sufficient to define to some extent the granting of autonomy to client kings, to a second phase, in which the effective contents of those autonomies were hypostasized into a concept, that of hypateia, which became an ontologically and conceptually defined function to be granted to kings.156

153 154 155

156

LUTHER 1999; GNOLI 2000; ROSS 2001. I am talking about PEuphr. about which cf. GNOLI 2000, passim. Cf. also, e. g., P2 cited supra, p. 1. On the Roman colonies in the Near East: MILLAR 1990. On the metrokomiai SARTRE 1999; SARTRE 2001, 739, 776-779. On the Semitic origin of the concept of metrocolony cf. NEHMÉ, VILLENEUVE 1999, 36. On the assumption of the royal title by Odainath and his sons, cf. infra.

Kings – ‘King of Kings’

The royal titles of ‘King of Kings’ and of ‘Great King’ derive from the Iranian Achaemenian, or Parthian, or Sassanian worlds, but their origin can actually be dated back to the Assyrian and Median worlds, as among many others Henri FRANKFORT and Gwyn GRIFFITHS157 were able to demonstrate in their classical works. Nevertheless it is certain that during Roman imperial times the ideological meaning of these titles was ultemately clearly differentiated on the basis of a long process that had taken place particularly in Hellenistic times, the investigation of whose mechanism is beyond our present scope.158 While a good number of oriental dynasts were titled Great Kings starting from the sovereigns of Pontus and Armenia and ranging to those of Commagene or Judaea, none of them ever took the title of ‘King of Kings’ in Roman imperial times, as the latter title was considered to be exclusively due first to the Arsacid birthright and then to the Sassanian one. The inexhaustible universal aspirations of Ctesiphon, which were shared by the Arsacid dynasty as much as by the Sassanian royal house,159 found their more direct and clear expression in this title, which is also unequivocally testified at the beginning of ŠKZ: I am the Mazdā-worshipping divine160 Šābuhr, King of Kings of Aryans and

157 158 159 160

FRANKFORT 1948; GRIFFITHS 1953. A full discussion of this subject in SCHÄFER 1974. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 181-183. MUCCIOLI 2001, 2004. WOLSKI 1982; KETTENHOFEN 1984; GNOLI 1991; KETTENHOFEN 2002; GNOLI forth. a. About the term bay in the Sassanian and Graeco-Roman titles and political ideology cf. PANAINO 2003, 281: “In short, the Sassanian ideological propaganda was partly simplified and deliberately translated and adapted according to the Roman and Hellenistic political language of royal power, although the process did not proceed without inconsistencies. Indeed it is well known that the use of bay (as referred to living kings) did

82

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

non-Aryans, of the race of the gods, son of the Mazdā-worshipping divine Ardašīr, King of Kings of the Aryans, of the race of the gods, grandson of the King Papak, I am the Lord of the Aryan nation (transl. LIEU).161

This title, clearly considered of Iranian origin and thus perceived also by Rome, in a certain moment in time was usurped by the Palmyrene dynasts, who were obviously not entitled to claim to any link either with the new Sassanian sovereigns or with the recently dethroned Arsacids. Available evidence in support of such usurpation is extremely scarce, but significant. The texts are well known and raise a number of problems, that are fiercely debated by scholars and which involve important aspects for the interpretation of the Palmyrene vicissitudes. 1. Inv. III 3162 Palmyra, honorary inscription from a niche in the Tetrapylon. [Β]ασιλεῖ βασιλÔων πρÙς [Ὀρ]ıντῃ [... βα]σιλεÛας τὴν κατÏ | [Π]ε[ρ]σῶν νεῖκην ἀναδησαμÔνῳ Σεπ[τιμÛῳ Ἡρωδι]ανῷ, Ἰο˜λιος ΑÃρήλιος | [ΣεπτÛ]μιος Ο[Ã]ο[ρ]˘δης [καÚ Ἰο˜λιος ΑÃρήλιος (?) .... ἐπÛτροπος τῆς δ]εσ(π)|οÛνης κεντηνÌ[ριος] ἀμφıτεροι στρα[τηγοÚ τῆς λαμ]προτÌτης | [κ]ολω[ν]εÛ[ας]. (This statue is dedicated) to the King of Kings, [having received?] the royalty near the Orontes, crowned for victory over the Persians, Septimius Hero-

161

162

not correspond to that of divus among the Romans (as referred to deceased kings), but the continuity of the Hellenistic tradition made possible the (different and asymmetric) use of θεıς for divus, so that θεıς became the best ‘political’ translation of bay. We can simply state that θεıς comes midway between bay and divus, but does not precisely correspond to either;” PANAINO 2004, in partic. 557-559; About the actual Sassanian royal titles cf. now HUYSE 2006. DODGEON, LIEU 1991, 34. ŠKZ l. 1 of the Parthian Greek versions, the Middle Persian text, almost completely faded away, has been reconstructed on the other two versions: cf. HUYSE 1999, 22: Az, mazdēsn baɣ Šābuhr, šāhān šāh Ērān ud Anērān, kē čihr až yazdān, puhr mazdēsn baɣ Ardašīr, šāhān šāh Ērān, kē čihr až yazdān, puhrēpuhr baɣ Pābag šāh, Ērānšahr xwadāy ahēm. ἐγὼ μασδασασνης θεÙς Σαπ˘ρης, βασιλεˆς βασιλÔων Ἀριανῶν καÚ Ἀναριανῶν, ἐκ γÔνους θεῶν, Õιıς μασδασασνου θεοῦ ἈρταξÌρου βασιλÔως βεσιλÔων Ἀριανῶν ἐκ γÔνους θεῶν, ἔγγονος θεοῦ ΠαπÌκου βασιλÔως τοῦ Ἀριανῶν ἔθνου[ς κ˜ριıς εἰμ]ι. IGRR III 1032; SEYRIG 1937; SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 38; GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 255 n° 10; HARTMANN 2001, 114 n. 198, 468; YOUNG 2001, 236.

Kings - ‘King of Kings’

83

dianus, by Julius Aurelius Septimius Vorodes and [Julius Aurelius .... procurator] of the Queen, centenarius, both strategoi of the illustrious colony (transl. LIEU).163

It is useful to emphasize from the outset that Inv. III 3 is a text of very difficult and (equally uncertain) reading and so much more than customary caution must be exercised. The above cited version of the Greek text is the most complete in existence and is the reading cautiously advanced by Daniel SCHLUMBERGER in 1942. In accordance with such a reading, the inscription possibly represents evidence of the assumption of the Iranian title of ‘King of Kings’ by a certain Septimius Herodianus, who can certainly be identified with both Septimius Ḥairān, the eldest son of Odainath, who is known from some Palmyrene inscriptions,164 and with the Herodes attested in the Historia Augusta.165 According to SCHLUMBERGER this inscription should have been posed after Odainath’s death, certainly in 267/268, as the reconstruction of the title of ἐπÛτροπος τῆς δεσποÛνης κεντηνÌριος in lines 3-4 of the inscription and borne by the second and unknown dedicating person demonstrates. It is difficult to maintain that Zenobia possibly had officials acting in her name when Odainath was still alive.166 This inscription, as it has been reconstructed, contains the memory of a victory over the Persians at the Orontes certainly in 261/262 A. D., following the second ἀγωγή by Šābuhr in Syria. These lay at the origin of the assumption of the royal title and were supported by the Historia Augusta.167 Ultimately, one of the two dedicators of the inscription was probably Iulius Aurelius Septimius Vorōd , a very popular

163 164

165

166 167

DODGEON, LIEU 1991, 77, based on the translation by GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 255 n° 10. PAT 0290 = CIS II 3944 = Inv. III 16; SEYRIG 1963, 161-162 fig. 1 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 254 n° 5 = HARTMANN 2001, 103 n. 162, 467; SEYRIG 1963, 161-162 fig. 2 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 254 n° 6 = HARTMANN 2001, 103 n. 163, 468. H. A., Gall. 13, 1; tyr. tr., 15,2-16. The identification Ḥairān/Herodianos/Herodes is finally strongly supported by HARTMANN 2001, in particular 109-116, with a number of fitting argumentations, and shall be considered as certain. SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 60. Actually with reference to the narration in H. A., tyr. tr., 15, there was some confusion between the victory over the Persians and the one by Odainath at Emesa on the Orontes in 261 over the usurpers Quietus and Ballista: SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 42. The question remains open: why should he adopt an Iranian title after this event?

84

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

person belonging to the highest ranks of the Palmyrene aristocracy, who I shall treat at length in a later chapter dedicated to him.168 This reading of the inscription and the underlying interpretation of the Palmyrene vicissitudes cannot be sustained in toto and as far as I know no scholar has fully done so. The problem of the dating of the text, which is incompatible with the certain data of Vorōd’s career, is particularly serious. Far from being an inscription posed after Odainath’s death, the text should be chronologically located in the vicinity of 262/264 A. D., during which Vorōd was a duumvir.169 Since Odainath was alive and well, or indeed at the height of his power at that time, the reading of lines 3-4 is questionable. In particular the reading “the father of the queen”170 has been proposed, but also this interpretation appears unsatisfactory, as it would imply that Antiochus, father of Zenobia, was (procurator) centenarius, which does not appear to be the case. I cannot say whether the mention of the δÔσποινα in ll. 3-4 will be kept,171 I certainly think I can affirm that such a reading is not compatible with the preceding mention of Vorōd. Not only, also the integration of the name of this person is anything but certain and it is only tentatively pro-

168 169

170

171

Cf. infra, Chap. 3. SEYRIG 1937: 261/264; INGHOLT 1976, 135: 262; GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 256 n° 10: 260/262; MILLAR 1990, 45: 265/267; POTTER 1990, 385: 262; WILL 1992, 177: 261; WILL 1996, 112-113: 260/261; EQUINI SCHNEIDER 1993, 32: 262; KOTULA 1997, 102; 262; WATSON 1999, 230 n. 31: 262; HARTMANN 2001, 178: 263/264; YON 2002, 148: 260/262. We are always talking about dates that are more or less explicitly calculated on Septimius Vorōd’s career. INGHOLT 1976, 135: Ζηνıβιος πατὴρ τῆς δ]εσ(π)|οÛνης; KOTULA 1997, 105 on the contrary substitutes the name Zenobios with the one of the true father of Zenobia, Antiochos, whose complete name would thus be Aurelius Septimius Antiochus, but he is named simply Antiochus in PAT 0317, cf. infra, p. 90. YON 2002, 143 n. 74 gives it as a fact. On the contrary SCHLUMBERGER restores the term only on the basis of the last two letters, the only ones he was able to read! SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 38: “la termination HC ne peut être alors que celle d’un génitif féminin. Le seul que j’aie su trouver est celui du mot δÔσποινα, compatible non seulement avec les vestiges visibles au début de la ligne 4, mais aussi avec deux sommets de lettres arrondis, qui n’avaient pas été remarqués, à la fin de la ligne 3, et où nous aurions les restes d’un epsilon et d’un sigma. Entre le sigma supposé et le bord de l’inscription, lequel est formé par la saillie d’une console il rest, à vrai dire, très peu de place pour un pi. Mais peut-être admettra-t-on que cette lettre finale a pu être gravée plus petite, ou omise.”

Kings - ‘King of Kings’

85

posed by SCHLUMBERGER172 and before him by Charles CLERMONTGANNEAU.173 In my opinion Vorōd has been dragged in this text for the certain reading of κεντηνÌ[ριος in l. 4, a term surely referring to an ἐπÛτροπος. Attention should be paid, however, as also in SCHLUMBERGER’s reconstruction it is not Vorōd who is ἐπÛτροπος, as he is actually known only as δουκηνÌριος, but the other anonymous dedicator, whose presence is sure because of ἀμφıτεροι at l. 4, the latter also being a certain reading. But this is not sufficient, the uncertain reading of l. 1, very cautiously advanced by SCHLUMBERGER, πρıς Ὀρıντῃ,174 has become a fixed and incontrovertible point in any reconstruction of the history of Palmyra and of the assumption of the royal title by Odainath and his son. However this reading too appears uncertain und frought with difficulty. Michal GAWLIKOWSKI, in his translation “Au roi des rois, [ayant reçu] près de [l’Or]onte la royauté, couronné pour la victoire sur les Perses,”175 follows SCHLUMBERGER’s counsel to insert a participle with the genitive in the lacuna.176 If this proposed integration has not been accepted by everyone, it is due to the great difficulty of imagining such a disordered and badly constructed sentence could exist: thus the three appositions of the honoured person were: 1) βασιλεῖ βασιλÔων; 2) πρÙς Ὀρıντῃ †ξιωμÔνῳ βασιλεÛας; 3) τὴν κατÏ Περσῶν νεÛκην ἀναδησαμÔνῳ.177

172

173 174

175 176

177

SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 36: “dans la lacune qui précède l’oméga, je distingue la trace d’une lettre ronde, où j’incline à voir le reste de l’omicron de ΟÃορ˘δης plutôt que celui de la pause du my de Συμ˘νης, car entre la dite trace et l’oméga il y a place suffisante pour loger une lettre. Après l’oméga je crois avoire aperçu, à la faveur d’un éclarage frisant, les vestiges des trois lettres: ΔΗC.” CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1900, 194-201. The proposal by CLERMONT-GANNEAU was rejected by Jean CANTINEAU (in Inv. III 3) and before him by SEYRIG 1937. SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 35: “il est tentant de lire πρÙς [Ὀρ]ıντῃ. Les lectures πρıς et οντη avaient été proposées par M. Seyrig.” The reading by SEYRIG is also very difficult: SEYRIG 1937, 1 n. 2: “après βασιλÔων, tout semble indiquer que l’on doit lire προσ; puis vient une lacune de deux lettres, puis un omicron ou un oméga, puis sans doute ΝΤΗ.” GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 255 n° 10. SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 35: “Il est donc vraisemblable que le passage perdu ... et que termine le mot [βα]σιλεÛας est aussi une apposition dans laquelle ne pouvait guère manquer de se trouver un participe au datif gouvernant βασιλεÛας, comme ἀναδησαμÔνῳ gouverne τὴν νεÛκην .... Je me borne à observer que des termes tels que τετειμημÔνῳ ou †ξιωμÔνῳ s’accorderaient à la lacune.” Particularly unsuitable is the ‘dancing’ position of the two participles and the unexpec-

86

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Under these conditions some have preferred to intepret the geographical determination as referring to the title βασιλεˆς βασιλε˘ν (“to the King of Kings who is on [or at] the Orontes”).178 This very strange combination between a declared universalistic title with an extremely narrow geographical limitation has usually been explained on the basis of the fact that it was at the Orontes that Herodianus won his victory over the Persians, which originated the assumption of this royal title.179 But is it possible that such a concept could be summed up by means of such an unfair and frankly quite undecipherable expression? ΣεπτÛμιος ἩρωδιανÙς βασιλεˆς βασιλÔων πρÙς Ὀρıντῃ is much similar to some L. Septimius Severus imperator Augustus apud Carnuntum! One further difficulty: if the idea that Herodianus/Ḥairān took the title of ‘King of Kings’ after a victory he had won over the Persians is correct, then the fact that in Palmyra two ‘Kings of Kings’ existed contemporaneously would have to be admitted, i.e. Odainath and his son Ḥairān.180 SCHLUMBERGER was quite aware of this difficulty: Logiquement, dans un même royaume, ce titre n’aurait dû être porté que par un seul roi à la fois. Mais à défaut de monuments qui permettent de s’assurer de l’usage de toutes ces monarchies, les monnaies des dynasties parthes et saces de l’Inde montrent que ce nom, dès le premier siècle avant notre ère, s’était avili, et pouvait ne rien désigner de plus que le simple titre royal. C’est ainsi qu’Azès I et son futur successeur Azilisès s’intitulent l’un et l’autre roi des rois, sur la même monnaie; et il en est de même pour Azilisès

178 179

180

ted meaning that ἀναδÔω + acc. = ‘I crown myself for something’ would acquire. Even worse would be obviously the solution to render πρÙς Ὀρıντῃ as being directly depending on the participle ἀναδησαμÔνῳ, without any insertion of any further participle into the lacuna (“who assumed at the Orontes ..... the kingship after his victory over the Persians”), as the construction would be practically incomprehensible. POTTER 1990, 393; WILL 1992, 177; WATSON 1999, 32: in their opinion Ḥairān had received the title next (or at) Antiochia. So, e. g., SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 42, referring the event to the only known episode of the war, the battle of Emesa. Emesa lays far from the Orontes, anyway. Obviously πρÙς Ὀρıντῃ cannot be referred to the geographical range on which the βασÛλεια of Herodianos was extended, as Palmyra is very far from the river flowing through Antiochia. It is not possible to admit that Herodianus/Ḥairān took the title after his father’s death because of a twofold reason: 1) the H. A. affirms that Odainath was killed together with his son Herodes; 2) a title like the one Herodianus assumed could not hint at anything else but a designated succession of Herodianus/Ḥairān to his father Odainath. Only the contemporary death of the former can explain his failed succession to his father.

Kings - ‘King of Kings’

87

et son futur successeur Azès II. Dans la monarchie sassanide, d’autre part, à l’époque même dont nous nous occupons, le gouverneur du Khorassan, fils et héritier présomptif du roi des rois, porte le titre de «grand roi des roi, des Kouchans». Il ne serait donc pas prudent d’affirmer qu’à Palmyre un père et un fils n’aient pu être appelés simultanément roi des rois.181

It is easy to envisage the difference existing between a title like ‘King of Kings of the Kushans’ (which was actually attested in periods later than those to which this inscription is attributed) and ‘King of Kings at the Orontes.’ Moreover a source that is external to the Palmyrene vicissitudes and certainly to be preferred in respect to this uncertain inscription explains beyond all doubt the character of the title ‘King of Kings’ attributed to Odainath:182 the assumption of the Iranian royal title had the purely anti-Persian aim of claiming a right of succession to the throne of the by then almost extinguished Arsacid dynasty. It is evident that, given the ideological background of this usurpation of the royal Sassanian title by Odainath, it is impossible to hypothesize an eccentric, diminished or peripheral use of the title of the heir to the throne of the Palmyrene dynast. Herodianus/Ḥairān/Herodes actually took the royal title together with his father Odainath, as the Historia Augusta affirms. This is unequivocally testified by a lead token from Antiochia183 as well as by the inscriptions cited above at n. 164. In all these documents Herodianus/Ḥairān is always called βασιλε˜ς, but never βασιλεˆς βασιλÔων.184 We are actually uncertain even about the name of the dedicator of the inscription. The integration Σεπ[τιμÛῳ Ἡρωδι]ανῷ is exclusively based on the first reading by BERTONE, a cultivated traveller who supplied the materials from which the works by Charles CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Jean-Baptiste CHABOT and René CAGNAT originated, and which states ΣεπτιμÛῳ Ἡρωδ[ια]νῷ. Nevertheless, when in 1942 SCHLUMBERGER read the inscription again, he had to admit that “la pierre a souffert depuis lors.”185 The accuracy of BERTONE’s reading on this point has never been questioned, altough

181 182 183 184 185

SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 39. Cf. infra, pp. 92-93. SEYRIG 1937, 3 pl. VI; cf. HARTMANN 2001, 114 n. 199. HARTMANN 2001, 177 n. 54: “Einen einfachen Königstitel führt Herodianus auf einer undatierten Bleibulle aus Antiochia” is misleading. SCHLUMBERGER 1942, 35 n. 4.

88

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

SCHLUMBERGER was able to see an alpha of Herodianos which was concealed from BERTONE.186 To conclude, we cannot affirm that in Inv. III 3 Ḥairān, Vorōd, or the δÔσποινα Zenobia are mentioned, either together or separately. We are certain about the mention of a King of Kings, which should lead us to think of either Odainath or his son Vaballath. 2. Inscription from the ‘Camp of Diocletian’187 Reused stone in the ‘Camp of Diocletian’ originally the drum of a column. …|[…τ]ῆς πıλεω[ς … τοῦ] | [… …]θου βασιλÔως βασιλÔων | [… …]Ùν πÌρινον ἩλÛου πατρῴου | [θεοῦ …να]Ùν τῶν Σεβαστῶν καÚ καθιερ˘|[σαντα … …]ιανου καÚ αÃτοκρÌτορος | [… … τειμ]ῆς καÚ μεγαλοφροσ˜νης ἔνεκεν. [... ...] of the city [... ... of NP]188 the king of kings [... ... ...] of marble of Helios the ancestral [god ... ... ... the tem]ple of the Augusti189 and he dedi[cated ... ... ... of ...]ianos and of the emperor [... ... ...190 in his hon]our and because of his greatness of mind [transl. KAIZER].

186 187 188

189

190

Note that the reading by BERTONE of l. 3 has been completely changed by SCHLUMBERGER. BERTONE was just able to read: [.....]λιος C[..]ω[- - -. MICHALOWSKI 1960, 208 n° 2; GAWLIKOWSKI 1973, 100; HARTMANN 2001, 176 n. 53; KAIZER 2002, 149. The termination of the name fits equally well both Odainath and Vaballath, nevertheless the theta is not so clear and it has been omitted by KAIZER 2002, 149. The proposal by MILIK 1972, 316 to read Herodianus, is certainly to be rejected, also without the support of theta, cf. supra. HARTMANN 2001, 176 n. 53 is much more inclined towards Odainath. The integration ναÙν τῶν Σεβαστῶν, already proposed by the discoverer MICHALOWSKI, has been accepted by MILIK, BOWERSOCK 1976, 353, KAIZER, doubtfully by HARTMANN, but rejected by GAWLIKOWSKI. About the imperial cult in Palmyra cf. KAIZER 2002, partic. 148-151. The proposal of integration by MILIK: καÚ καθιερ˘[σαντα τÏς ἀνδριÌντας ΚαισÌρου ΑÃρηλ]ιανοῦ καÚ αÃτοκρÌτορος [ΟÃαβαλλÌθου Ἀθηνοδ˘ρου] is not to be supported, as the qualifications of ‘Aurelianus Caesar’ and ‘Vaballathus imperator’ are not attested anywhere. The singular αÃτοκρÌτωρ compells to search for some other title for [-]ιανοῦ. Furthermore this reading is uncertain, since GAWLIKOWSKI only reports [-]νου. An integration such as καÚ καθιερ˘[σαντα τÏς ἀνδριÌντας Σεβαστοῦ ΑÃρηλ]ιανοῦ καÚ αÃτοκρÌτορος [ΟÃαβαλλÌθου Ἀθηνοδ˘ρου] is equally not satisfying and not attested elsewhere. However the reading [-]ιανοῦ, if it is confirmed, prevents us from any integration transforming that word in a genitive matching with the following καÚ αÃτοκρÌτορος.

Kings - ‘King of Kings’

89

Given the condition of the inscription, it is not possible to tell if the ‘King of Kings’ mentioned there is either Odainath or Vaballath, nor it is possible to tell if this inscription was posed before or after the mysterious death of Odainath. My preference for Odainath is due to the fact that in the inscription something belonging to the ‘God Helios’ (it might be either a statue, or a column, or a temple) is mentioned. The Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, as is well known, runs thus:191 another will come, a well-horned hungry stag in the mountains desiring to feed his stomach with the venom-spitting beasts; then will come the sun-sent, dreadful, fearful lion, breathing much fire. With great and reckless courage he will destroy the well-horned swift stag and the great, venom-spitting, fearsome beast discharging many shafts and the bow-footed goat; fame will attend him; perfect, unblemished, and awesome, he will rule the Romans and the Persians will be feeble [transl. POTTER].192

The juxtapposition of the ἡλιıπεμπτος δεινıς τε φοβερıς τε λÔων πνεÛων φλıγα πολλήν Odainath and the offering to the god Sun/Šamāš in this inscription seems very stimulating to me.193 3. PAT 0292, 0317 PAT 0292:194 Palmyra, consolle in the Great Colonnade: ṣlm spṭmyws ʾdy[nt] mlk mlkʾ | wtmqnnʾ dy mdnḥʾ klh spṭmyʾ | zbdʾ rb ḥylʾ rbʾ wzby rb ḥylʾ | dy tdmwr qrṭsṭʾ ʾqym lmrhwn | byrḥ ʾb dy šnt 5.100 + 80 + 2. Statue of Septimius Odainat, King of Kings and restitutor totius Orientis, and Septimius Zabdā, chief commander and Zabbai, commander of Tadmor, viri egregii, have erected for their lord in the month Ab in the year 582 [Sel. = August 271 A. D.].

191 192

193 194

POTTER 1990, particularly 341-346. Or. Sib. XIII 164-171 (210, GEFFCKEN): τότ’ ἐλεύσεται ἡλιόπεμπτος | δεινός τε φοβερός τε λέων πνείων φλόγα πολλήν. | δὴ τόθ’ ὅ γ’ α“τ’ ¿λέσει πολλῇ καÚ ἀναιδέι τόλμῃ | εÃκεράωτ’ ἔλαφόν τε θοÙν καÚ θῆρα μέγιστον | ἰοβόλον φοβερÙν συρίγματα πόλλ’ ἀφιέντα | λοξοβάτην τε τράγον, ἐπÚ δ’ αÃτῷ κῦδος ¿πηδεῖ· | αÃτÙς δὴ ¡λόκληρος ἀλώβητος καÚ ἄπλητος | ἄρξει Ῥωμαίων, Πέρσαι δ’ ἔσσοντ’ ἀλαπαδνοί. On the solar cult in Palmyra cf. KAIZER 2002, 154-157. CIS II 3946 = Inv. III 19; cf. GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 256 n° 11; HARTMANN 2001, 146 n. 78; YOUNG 2001, 236, defective translation.

90

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

PAT 0317:195 milepost from the suburbs of Palmyra: … … …] | […. κ]α[Ú ÕπÓρ σω]|τηρÛας ΣεπτιμÛας Ζηνο|βÛας τῆς λαμπροτÌτης ‖ βασιλÛσσης μητρÙς τοῦ | βασιλÔως, […]υ[…] ʿl ḥ[ywh] wz[kwth dy] spṭymyws | whlbt ʾtndr[ws nhy]rʾ mlk mlkʾ | wʾpnrtṭʾ dy mdnḥʾ klh br | spṭ[ymy]ws [ʾdynt mlk] mlkʾ wʿl || ḥyh dy spṭymyʾ btzby nhyrtʾ | mlktʾ ʾmh dy mlk mlkʾ | bt ʾnṭywkws m 10 + 4 ... and for the safety of Septimia Zenobia, clarissima queen mother of the King .... For the safety and victory of Septimius Vaballathus Athenodorus, clarissimus King of Kings and corrector totius Orientis, son of Septimius [Odainat, King] of Kings, and for the life of Septimia Bat-Zabbai, clarissima Queen, mother of the King of Kings, daughter of Antiochos, miles 14.

In these two texts, both written after the death of Odainath, the latter and his son are both qualified with the Sassanian royal title of mlk mlkʾ: ‘King of Kings.’ Besides this title in PAT 0292 Odainath is called tmqnnʾ dy mdnḥʾ klh, while in PAT 0317 Vaballath is called ʾpnrtṭʾ dy mdnḥʾ klh. I have already expressed elsewhere my opinion about the different titles assumed by father and son on the two documents (mind you, both posed under the reign of the son and almost contemporaneously).196 In my opinion it is methodologically necessary to acknowledge a difference in meaning between the substantive in the derived emphatic state as derived from the addition of the ending ān to the participle pael of the verb tqn, which exists both in Aramaic and in Hebrew, with the substantial meaning of “to put in order, to straighten out” and the term ʾpnrṭṭʾ, a simple transliteration of the Greek ἐπανορθωτής. The difference between the two terms is the same as that which exists in Latin between restitutor and corrector, between the action of an emperor and the function of one of his subordinates.197 In the refined political ideo195 196 197

CIS II 3971 = WADD. 2628 = IGRR III 1028 = OGIS 649; YOUNG 2001, 178, only Palmyrene. GNOLI 2000, 153. Cf. CANTINEAU 1931, SWAIN 1993; contra CLERMONT-GANNEAU 1920; POTTER 1996; HARTMANN 2001, 149: “Die Titel der beiden Dynasten stehen in den palmyrenischen Inschriften an der gleichen Stelle nach dem Königstitel .... Die Begriffe mtqnnʾ und ʾpnrtṭʾ werden hier offensichtlich synonym verwendet, beide Herrscher beanspruchten also dieselbe Titulatur.” However, as I have already affirmed, GNOLI 2000, 153 n. 88, the very perfect identity of titles in both official and contemporary documents makes the difference between the two terms employed there particularly significant, which is sign of the graduality of power in the sense I have explained ad loc.

Kings - ‘King of Kings’

91

logy of Zenobia/Vaballath, the continuity of action by the son towards his father was meant to ensure the benevolence of the new emperor, Aurelianus. Both the father and the son are called ‘King of Kings.’ Odainath assumed the royal title at the same time as his victory over the Persians. This fact, of great importance for all the Palmyrene vicissitudes, is actually not attested in a direct and unequivocal way in any source contemporary with the life of Odainath, and so it is always possible to maintain that the royal title had not been taken by the Palmyrene dynast but rather by his son, the usurper Vaballath, who ‘dated it back’ to his father. The oft-cited inscription found on a crater discovered in the sanctuary of Abgal in Ḫirbat Samrīn, in the ‘Palmyrène du nord-ouest,’ which actually qualifies Odainath by means of the title mlk, cannot solve the highly controversial point of the dating, as it is incomplete.198 Only the Historia Augusta unequivocally affirms that Odainath assumed the royal title even though it is contradictory between the title either of King of Palmyra or of Roman emperor, and furthermore it is doubtful whether the assumption of the kingship took place before, during or after the expedition by Odainath against Šābuhr in 261/62.199 I am among those who maintain that Odainath took the royal title and did so in agreement with the Roman authorities. Pursuing a longthy policy of growing autonomy during which he had slowly usurped the senatorial titles over the period of at least one decade and following a clever interpretation of the ÕπατεÛα, by the assumption of the royal title, which from the outside was configured as the assumption of titles due to the Arsacid and Sassanian kings, he completed the process.200 I

198

199

200

PAT 1684 = SCHLUMBERGER 1951, 60 n° 36, 151 n° 21. The possible datings matching with the lacuna are 573 (= 261/62), 578 (= 266/67) and 583 (= 271/72). Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 177 n. 55, who tends to support 266/67, but without any decisive arguments. H. A. tyr. tr., 15, 2: adsumpto nomine primum regali cum uxore Zenobia et filio maiore, cui erat nomen Herodes, minoribus Herenniano et [a] Timolao collecto exercitu contra Persas profectus est; 15, 5: Herode, qui et ipse post reditum de Perside cum patre imperator est appellatus; H. A., Gall., 3, 3: totius prope Orientis factus est Odenatus imperator; 10, 1: Gallieno et Saturninus conss. Odaenatus rex Palmyrenorum optinuit totius orientis imperium; 12, 1: Odenatum participato imperio Augustum vocavit; 13, 1: Herode, quem et ipsum imperatorem appellaverat, etc. The tradition attested in the epitomators (EKG ?) ignores the assumption of the royal title by Odainath. Full discussion in HARTMANN 2001, passim. A most extensive description of this process of growing autonomy of Odainath in GNOLI 2000.

92

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

think that the logic underlying the events should lead us to situate the assumption of the Sassanian royal title after the victory over the Persians, thus far away from the Orontes, and indeed well inside the enemy’s territory.201 The assumption of the title of ‘King of Kings’ by Odainath should be considered as an extreme action organized by Gallienus in an attempt to stop the breakup of the oriental provinces after the devastating Persian attacks. The project by the emperor aimed at establishing command over the whole East and at the same time claiming the Arsacid throne in the face of the Sasanian usurpation. The dynastic claim hidden beneath the title of ‘King of Kings’ assumed by Odainath is supported with certainty in a passage of the Babylonian Talmud (Seder Nashim, Ketuboth 51b): Rabbi Judah affirmed: kidnapped women are allowed to their husbands. “But” the Rabbi told the Rabbi Judah, “They bring them some bread, do they not?” – They do it for fear. “They take them arrows, do they not?” – They do it for fear. However it is certain that they are forbidden (to their husbands) if the kidnappers free them and they go to them of their own free wills. Our Rabbi thought: The prisoners of the king have got the status of ordinary prisoners, but those who are kidnapped by highwaymen are not considered as ordinary prisoners. Did we not think of the contrary? – There is no contradiction between the rules regarding the prisoners of the King as the first rules make reference to reigns such as that of Ahasuer, while the second ones make reference to the reign of one man like Ben Neẓer. Neither there is any contradiction between the two regulations regarding the prisoners of the bandits, because the first ones make reference to a bandit like Ben Neẓer, while the other ones make reference to an ordinary bandit. As far as Ben Neẓer is concerned, might he be called ‘king’ here and ‘bandit’ there? – Yes he might; as compared with Ahasuerus he was a bandit, but as compared with an ordinary thief, he was a king.202

201

202

HARTMANN 2001, 176 agrees with me when he maintains that Odainath and his son “nahmen nach Abschluß des Zuges im Jahr 263 den persischen Titel ‘König der Könige’ an.” But unlike him I actually think it is neither possible nor important to determine if the assumption took place “jedoch in Syrien” or once more in Persian territory during that campaign. What is sure is that the titles Odainath bore were well known and discussed in Mesopotamia, pace HARTMANN. Cf. infra. ESPTEIN 1936 II, 299.

Kings - ‘King of Kings’

93

The identification of Ben Neẓer with Odainath son of Ḥairan Vaballath son of Naṣōr on the one hand and of Ahasuerus with Šābuhr on the other is usually accepted as valid by Talmud scholars.203 This passage is meaningful also as evidence of the social cohesion existing in the Sassanian empire some decades after the elimination of the Arsacids, thus as highly significant in as much as it regards a religious minority that in Sassanian times was increasingly emarginated and thus most probably more permeable to centrifugal pressures. Moreover this passage contradicts the hypothesis by Udo HARTMANN that the assumption of the Iranian title of ‘King of Kings’ by Odainath and Vaballath took place only in Palmyra, as these dynasts simply preferred to bear the royal title elsewhere.204 Logically the title of ‘King of Kings’ actually had a strongly subversive value precisely outside Palmyra and particularly in Mesopotamian territory. If we just accept the general outline of the setting by HARTMANN, which I have already done in my monograph preceding his work, i. e. if we mean that Odainath did not betray Rome by usurping the imperial power, but that he had taken the Persian royal title in full agreement or better still at Gallienus’ instigation, and that he was a martyr to the ‘Realpolitik’ of the Roman emperor who was trying to re-establish non-conflictual relationships with his Persian neighbour, in this precise case it is evident how the assumption of the Sassanian royal title of ‘King of Kings,’ which had as its cultural and propagandistic point of reference the Sassanian empire and not the Roman one, must have been used also outside Palmyra. The above cited dialogue between the two rabbies refers to this specific point: which of the two kings, Šābuhr or Odainath, was the true king. Both

203

204

Cfr., e.g., AVI-YONAH 1962, 126: “Die enttäuschten Juden begannen ‘Ben Neẓer’ (oder ‘den Sohn des Sprößlings’, d. h. Odenat) mit dem kleinen Horn in Daniel 7, 8 zu vergleichen;” NEUSNER 1966, 49-50. The rare objections against this identification of Odainath are mainly linked to the difficulties to fix the dating of the destruction of the Mesopotamian town of Nehardea by Ben Neẓer (570 Sel. = 258/259 A. D.). Out of it derives the unnecessary explanation identifying Ben Neẓer with an undefined ‘relative’ of Odainath. Decisive is the objection by DE BLOIS 1975, 13: “no other man with the genealogy-name of Odaenathus’ family could be called ‘king’ but Odaenathus himself.” HARTMANN 2001, 183. The fact that outside Palmyra both Odainath and Herodianus are always called just ‘King’ is very dangerous as any argumentum e silentio. Moreover, as already exposed above, the documents testifying the assumption of the royal title are really very rare.

94

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

could present themselves in the same way to their subjects: both were ‘Kings of Kings.’

ἈργαπÔτης

The title ἀργαπÔτης recurs just twice in the territories ‘beyond the Euphrates’ in Roman times. We find it for the first time on a papyrus document from Dura Europos and dateding back to 121 A. D.,205 i.e. to a period during which the Hellenistic town, a centre of defence of the Parapotamic stretch of the ‘King’s Highway,’ was firmly in Parthian hands.206 Then the term recurs for the second time in a group of Palmyrene inscriptions all referring to the same figure, Iulius Aurelius Septimius Vorōd,207 and dating back to the 60s of the 3rd century. This figure was one of the closest collaborators of Odainath, the most important person in Palmyra after the members of the family of the rš dy tdmwr, the Palmyrene man we know about from most inscriptions, neglecting the usurper Vaballath. We are thus not surprised that his figure should have attracted the attention of those interested in the Palmyrene vicissitudes. What is actually astonishing on the contrary is the fact that scholars interested in Palmyra have reflected very little on the function being discussed here and attested in three out of the nine inscriptions where Vorōd is mentioned. A good example of the approach followed by scholars dealing with Palmyra is offered by Udo HARTMANN. He has extensively and deeply analysed the career of this figure,208 although with regard to the title of ἀργαπÔτης he limits himself to affirming irrefutably:

205 206 207 208

PDura 20, l. 4. MILLAR 1998a. PIR S 350; PLRE I 981. The same person is called also Septimius Vorōd or Iulius Septimius Vorōd; hereafter just Vorōd. HARTMANN 2001, 203-211 in particular, but also elsewhere in his work.

96

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Der parthische Titel “Argapet” kann den Kommandanten oder Gouverneur einer Festung bzw. Stadt bezeichnen. Odaenathus übergab damit dem Vorodes die gesamte militärische und zivile Verantwortung in Palmyra.209

The evaluation of Vorōd’s career has been usually made regardless of any global evaluation of this Iranian title, thus invariably ignoring those works that have been dedicated to this first Parthian and then Sassanian aulic term. The ways followed by scholars in Iranology on the one hand and scholars in ancient near-eastern Roman history on the other have become more and more divergent and autonomous. The history of the interpretation of the Iranian term hargbed started in the 70s of the 19th century when Theodor NÖLDEKE tried to explain the title argabedh, which occurred in the Histories by Ṭabarī,210 as referred to the eunuch Tīrē, argabedh of Dārābgird, fortress in Fārs, where the very young Ardašīr stayed after his father Pābag had placed him in the care of Gōzihr, king of Istaxr. NÖLDEKE translated the term “Castellherr.” This time the recurrences of this word were a few and almost all were restricted to translations of the word into Semitic languages, particularly in the Jerusalem Talmud (ʾrqptʾ), in the Babylonian Talmud (ʾlqpṭʾ) and into Syriac (ʾlqptʾ),211 obviously besides its translation into Palmyrene ʾrgbṭʾ/Gk ἀργαπÔτης or into Greek using various and more or less correct forms, but all this in late sources dating back to periods after the 5th century A. D. Also MOMMSEN uses the words by NÖLDEKE and LEVY: Die zahlreichen Inschriften des Septimius Vorodes gesetzt ... 262-267 bezeichnen ihn sämmtlich als kaiserlichen Procurator zweiter Klasse, daneben aber theils mit dem Titel ἀργαπÔτης, welches persische, aber auch bei den Juden gangbare Wort ‘Burgherr,’ ‘Vicekönig’ bedeutet, theils als δικαιοδıτης τῆς μητροκολωνÛας, was ohne Zweifel wenn nicht sprachlich so doch sachlich dasselbe Amt ist.212

209

210 211

212

HARTMANN 2001, 208. The corresponding n. 163 explains the problem even better: the only work by an iranist he cites to explain the origin and the function of an Iranian title is the brief note by Richard FRYE to the edition of PDura 20, about which cf. infra. NÖLDEKE 1870; 1879, 5 n. 1. About the occurrences of the term in the various semitic languages cf. LEVY 1864, 90; TELEGDI 1935, 228, 15; GREENFIELD 1987, 258b; SHAKED 1987, 260; CIANCAGLINI forthcoming, s. v., ʾlqptʾ. MOMMSEN 1894b, 434 n. 1.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

97

The translation by NÖLDEKE very soon prevailed and more or less contemporaneously Christian BARTHOLOMAE and Ferdinand JUSTI adopted and refined his etymology.213 In their opinion the term represented a compound composed of a non-attested OIr. *arka (‘citadel, fortress’) that later generated arka + pati- (‘sir, lord’). According to JUSTI OIr. *arka was probably a late term that penetrated the lexicon of the Iranian courts as a loan-word from Lat. arx. At the same time Wilhelm DITTENBERGER, commenting the term ἀργαπÔτην in OGIS 645, 4 (PAT 0289 = CIS II 3943 = Inv. III 6 = IGRR III 1043), wrote: In exemplo lingua indigenarum composito argabeṭâ legitur, media b pro tenui p substituta secundum illam proprietatem linguarum Iranicarum de qua dixi [...] Nam Persicam origine esse vocem cum iam complures homines docti suspicati essent, luculentissime demonstravit Th. Nöldeke [...]; composita est ex arg (arx) et pati (dominus).

Two main difficulties existed in the interpretations of the term offered by NÖLDEKE and JUSTI: first it was most improbable that the Latin term arx would reach the ears of the Parthian and then Sassanian courts so early: a Roman frontier fortress would be called castellum, not arx;214 second, examples for an early use of NP arg (or ark) were lacking. This term is unknown to Book Pahlavi and also to Manichaean Middle Persian, notwithstanding BARTHOLOMAE’s claim.215 Here the term ʾrk, which recurs many times in the Maḥrnāmag, will actually not be translated with ‘Burg,’ as the first editor of the text did,216 but simply refers to a toponym.217 The etymology from NP arg might have been acceptable, with some caution, when JUSTI and BARTHOLOMAE were writing their works to explain the etymology of the term as a loan-word not deriving from Latin arx, but from Gk ἄκρα, with the metathesis usual in r-groups, as SZEMERÉNYI has rightly 213

214 215 216 217

BARTHOLOMAE 1904, 191 s. v. *arka-dray-. The year after a very long review by JUSTI 1905, 107 to the masterpiece by BARTHOLOMAE appeared. In it a different translation of the word was suggested. The proposal by JUSTI was accepted by BARTHOLOMAE 1906, 116. In ŠKZ, dizpat is actually translated with καστελλοφ˜λαξ, cf. HARNACK 1970, 540-544, particularly 542 and n. 20. BARTHOLOMAE 1916, 16; TELEGDI 1935, 228; WIDENGREN 1956, 158; CHAUMONT 1962, 12; HARNACK 1970, 542. Cf. on this problem SZEMERÉNYI 1975, 368-369. MÜLLER 1913. HENNING 1938, 565-566; SZEMERÉNYI 1975, 369. Cf. now also DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004, s. v.

98

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

emphasized.218 It was possible by then to maintain that it might represent a late loan-word that had slowly caught on at the Sassanian court in late antiquity, but the following edition of the inscription of Paikuli and the discovery of the papyrus of Dura Europos compelled scholars to date the introduction of the term to the court of Ctesiphon at the height of the Parthian era, even at the beginning of the 2nd century A. D. It is highly improbable that JUSTI and BARTHOLOMAE would have maintained their etymology, if they had known these new recurrences of the term, which unequivocally showed that the original Iranian form was represented by the compound harg (and not arg) + pati.219 However this incorrect etymology had a wide circulation among scholars of ancient history because of a rash explanation offered by Richard Nelson FRYE in the publication of the parchments of Dura. Then in 1924 the great royal inscription of Narseh in Paikuli220 was first published and in it the title MP ḥrgwpt Parth. ḥrkpty occupies a position of absolute pre-eminence among Sassanian court titles, coming right after the members of the royal family thus ousting the bidaxš of the ŠKZ (which at that time had still not been discovered) from that position. The great novelty brought about by this occurrence in the Paikuli-inscription is represented by the fact that for the first time the name is attested in an Iranian language and presents an initial aspiration that admits no graphic ambiguities. The etymology by NÖLDEKE, JUSTI and BARTHOLOMAE from NP ark seemed to be definitively defeated, and so HERZFELD first expressed his sceptical position concerning the translation of the title as ‘lord of the castle,’ then proposing the explanation that arka- might be ‘the tribute owed by the vassal,’ and that arkapat could consequently mean ‘chief collector of taxes.’221 This explanation of the term was not taken up in the following publication of this inscrip-

218 219

220

221

SZEMERÉNYI 1975, 374. Aware of such (ineliminable) difficulty is CHAUMONT 1962, who tries to explain the alternation harg / arg in this compound in favour of the traditional etymology, but in a completely unconvincing way: cf. IBID., 11: “Interprétation (that by JUSTI) d’autant plus vraisemblable que nulle autre étymologie satisfaisante ne peut lui être valablement opposée.” HERZFELD 1924; cf. and already HERZFELD 1914. The surveys in Paikuli by HERZFELD took place in 1911 and 1914. Nowadays an Italian mission of the IsIAO headed by Carlo CERETI is operating in that area. Respectively HERZFELD 1924, 193A; HERZFELD 1947, 128.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

99

tion by HUMBACH and SKJÆRVØ, who refused the etymology from NP arg too, without any further discussion.222 The discovery in 1929 of PDura 20, an antichretic loan dating back to 121 A. D., where in l. 4 the title ἀρκαπÌτης recurs, had the unexpected result of extinguishing the discussion that had been produced until then. In the reign of the king of kings Arsaces, benefactor, just, manifest god, and friend of Greeks, in the year 368 as the king of kings reckons, but 432 of the former era, on the 26th day of the month Daesius, in the village of Paliga of the subdistrict about Iardas, in the presence of Maetolbaessas, son of Men– and grandson of Menarnaeus, garrison commander and member of the order of first and chiefly-honoured friends and bodyguards, and of the witnesses who sign themselves below. A loan has been made by Phraates the eunuch, arkapates, one of the people of Manesus son of Phraates, member of the order of the batesa and of the Freemen, tax collector and governor of Mesopotamia and Parapotamia and ruler of the Arabs, to Barlaas, son of Thathaeus and grandson of Ablaeus [etc.]223

In 1931 Mikhail I. ROSTOFTZEFF and C. BRADFORD WELLES presented the new document to the learned public in a brilliant and long essay, thus commenting the term we are talking about: The meaning of the title arkapates we know very well indeed. In the times of the Arsacids an arkapat, argapet, or hargupat was a hereditary holder of a city, a kind of feudal lord. Later in the times of the Sassanians, arkapat was the holder of the highest rank in the Empire. We know many arkapatai of the first type; i. e., of the Parthian period. One is Septimius Vorodes, the ruler of Palmyra in the troubled times of the third century. Note that he was both a Roman procurator and an Iranian arkapates. The other is the ancestor (by adoption) of the Sassanian dynasty [....] It is more difficult to decide whether the title ἀρκαπÌτης, as given to Phraates, implies a real office, corresponding more or less to the office of a

222 223

SKJÆRVØ 1983, 95: ‘an official.’ PDura 20, 1-5: Βασιλε˜οντος βασιλỘς βασιλÔων ἈρσÌκου εÃεργÔτου, δικαÛου, ἐπιφανοῦς καÚ φιλÔλληνος, ἔτους ηξτʹ ›ς ¡ βασιλεˆς βασι[Ôων] | ἄγει, ›ς δÓ πρıτερ [υʹ], ηνÙς ΔαισÛου ἕκτηι ἐπ’ εἰκÌδι, ἐν ΠαλÛγαι κ˘μηι τῆς περÚ ἸÌρδαν ÕπαρχεÛας, ἐπÚ ΜητολβαÛσσα Μην. [.] | ΤΟΣΔ . Ο Υ τοῦ ΜηναρναÛου, φ[ουρÌ]χου καÚ τῶν πρῶτων καÚ προτιμωμÔνων φÛλων καÚ τῶν σωματοφυλÌκων, καÚ [ῶν] | Õπογ[γρ]μμÔνω [ρτ˜ρ]ων. ἐ̣[δÌν]ισεν ΦραÌτης εÃνοῦχος, ἀρκαπÌτης, τῶν παρÏ Μανήσου τοῦ ΦραÌτου τῶν βÌτησα καÚ [ῶν] ‖ ἐλευθỘ[. .]ρων, πα[λ]ή̣ καÚ στρατηγοῦ ΜεσοποταμÛας καÚ ΠαραποταμÛας καÚ ἈραβÌρχου, ΒαρλÌαι ΘαθαÛου τοῦ ἈβλαÛου ....

100

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

phrurarch, or a sort of fief — a hereditary hold on a certain district handed over to the man by the king, or by his minor feudal lord. I am inclined to assume the latter in the case of Phraates. His fief he probably received from his patron, Manesus. As feudal lord of Paliga, he was probably a rich and influential man, and it was a trifle for him to buy over 400 drachmas the services of Barlaas.224

Many years went by before the parchments of Dura Europos were integrally published in a definitive edition. On that occasion the editors asked Richard FRYE for an opinion about the term and he affirmed: We may tentatively conclude that the title ἀρκαπÌτης originally meant the military commander of a (frontier?) fortress in Parthian times. With the rise in importance of the fortress in states such as Palmyra, Hatra etc., the title grew in importance. Under Ardašir and Shapur, the title had not reached the Sassanian court. After the capture of Valerian and close contact with Palmyra and other states in Shapur’s westwards campaigns, the title came to be known at the court, and by the time of Narseh it had become an important title of the Sassanian court.225

In order to consider FRYE’s explanation as acceptable it was necessary to think of the aspirated form occurring in the Paikuli-inscription as a spurious variant, maybe deriving from an hypercorrectness and thus to prefer the form without initial aspiration. That is exactly what both Marie-Louise CHAUMONT and David HARNACK226 did, the latter even more explicitly. Meanwhile, already since long before the definitive publication of PDura 20 Iranian philology had distanced itself from the etymology and the meaning the word had been attributed by NÖLDEKE and BARTHOLOMAE. Ernst HERZFELD traced back the compound arka- to Akkadian ilku which designated the obligation contracted with a feudal lord in the Assyrian feudal system.227 In many passages Walter Bruno HENNING asserted the derivation of

224 225 226

227

ROSTOVTZEFF, BRADFORD WELLES 1931, 55-56 and 58. R. N. FRYE in BRADFORD WELLES, FINK, GILLIAM 1959, 111-112, n. 15. Cf. also additions and corrections in FRYE 1962, 193-194, e 279 n. 56. CHAUMONT 1962; 1986, much more prudent: cf. 400: “The etymology of the word is uncertain. Two possible meanings have been suggested, fortress commander (cf. New Persian arg) and chief tax collector or taxation manager; the former seems much more likely;” HARNACK 1970, 540-544, in partic. 543: “Dem muß entgegengehalten werden einmal, daß im angenommenen Falle *ἁρκαπÌτης und nicht ἀρκαπÌτης zu erwarten wäre, ebenso bei Ṭabarī *ḫrʾǧ (*ḫarāǧ), wofür jeder Hinweis fehlt; sodann zeigen die sicher überlieferten Formen des Titels keinen h-Anlaut.” HERZFELD 1947, 128.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

101

arkapates from MP hark/harg = MP harāγ ‘Steuer, Fron.’228 This same etymology and meaning of the term have been accepted by Philippe GIGNOUX,229 Oswald SZEMERÉNYI,230 Rüdiger SCHMITT,231 Edward KHURSHUDIAN,232 Philip HUYSE233 and Claudia CIANCAGLINI.234 After defending his interpretation of the term in a short article, FRYE himself radically changed his mind: There were many officials under the satrap, especially accountants to care for the revenues, ’hmrkr, the hamarkār. The chief collector of taxes was an important official called ḥrkpty, or rkpty and ḥrgwpt in Parthian, an office formerly mistakenly interpreted as argbad or ‘fortress commander.’ For the Parthian period we have no information about the position of the chief tax collector in the hierarchy, but presumably it was not high and only under the 235 Sassanians does the office gain in importance.

In vain. In the very recent Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions the Iranian derivation of the term is actually recognized, but the debate we have set out above is completely ignored. On the basis of a questionable bibliographical selection the meaning of “governor of a city” is taken for granted.236 On the basis of the meaning being most closely bound to the paretymology which would give as a result NP arg, Vorōd was by most scholars attributed a command over Palmyra also involving extensive military power, while some other scholars, influenced by the above mentioned (philologically groundless) intuition by MOMMSEN, opted for mere civil power for Vorōd which practically coincided with the title of δικεοδıτης τῆς μητροκολωνεÛας that the inscription ascribe to him. The latter position ows much to an important work by Daniel SCHLUMBERGER: 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

236

HENNING 1935; 1938, 565-566; 1958, 41 and n. 4. GIGNOUX 1972. SZEMERÉNYI 1975, 354-375. SCHMITT 1982. KHURSHUDIAN 1998. HUYSE 1999; 2002, 209-210: “die wahrscheinlichste Deutung wohl die als ‘Chef des Steuerwesens’ ist.” CIANCAGLINI forthcoming, s. v. ʾrgpṭʾ. She actually translates “chief of the army, general.” FRYE 1984, 223. TAFAZZOLI 1990, 303, in his analysis of the Sasanian title arzbed, continues to maintain that the meaning ‘citadel commander’ is preferabale: “Until more conclusive evidence comes to light.” HOFTIJZER, JONGELING 1995, I, 103, s. v. argapet.

102

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Or, comme l’a bien montré Marquardt, le mot δικαιοδıτης signifie simplement gouverneur. Et l’on sait d’autre part que le terme d’argapet désigne, chez les Parthes, le seigneur d’une ville. La pénétration de Mommsen avait déjà reconnu l’équivalence des deux termes. Maintenant que la place de notre inscription dans la carrière de Worôd est fixée il n’est plus possible de douter que le grand historien n’ait vu juste.237

Although Vorōd was attributed by scholars either a military or a civil command, all recent researches concerning Palmyra have taken the erroneous meaning of the term ἀργαπÔτης for granted like e.g. Jean STARCKY and Michal GAWLIKOWSKI,238 Michael DODGEON and Samuel LIEU,239 Fergus MILLAR,240 Eugenia EQUINI SCHNEIDER,241 Delbert HILLERS and Eleonora CUSSINI,242 Maurice SARTRE,243 Udo HARTMANN,244 Ted KAIZER,245 Jean-Baptiste YON,246 Ernst WILL,247 Michael SOMMER248 among the most recent and important monographies and articles. Thus it is necessary to reject any imaginary and alleged military command of Vorōd and to reconstruct this figure’s career once more by starting from sure data to be inferred from his titles. Hereafter all known inscriptions where Vorōd is certainly mentioned are listed in chronological order, while any details in the discussions about difficult and controversial specific pas-

237 238 239

240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248

SCHLUMBERGER 1942b, 61. STARCKY, GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 60: “gouverneur de la ville.” DODGEON, LIEU 1991, 78: “Gk. argapetes = Pers. hargbed, commander of a fort” totally inadeguately making reference to the comment to fr. 14 by Petrus Patricius (FHG IV, p. 189) MILLAR 1993, 170; 1998, 477: “garrison-commander.” EQUINI SCHNEIDER 1993, 17: “governatore della città.” HILLERS, CUSSINI 1995, 344, s. v. ʾrgbṭ: “governor (< Pers. commander of a city Chabot ad CIS II 3940).” SARTRE 1996, 395: “gouverneur.” HARTMANN 2001, 208. KAIZER 2002, 49 and n. 69: “commander of a fortress.” YON 2002a, 39: “gouverneur de la ville.” WILL 1992, 180: “C’est là un mot iranien bien attesté que l’on traduit par “commandant de la forteresse.” WILL 1996, 114. SOMMER 2005, 168, n. 99: “Stadtvorstehers,” 174, n. 131: “Argapet war der Titel der Gouverneure der unter direkter Herrschaft stehenden parthischen Provinzen und Städte.”

̓ΑργαπÔτης

103

sages of the texts analysed in this work are reported in the footnotes.249 The translations offered hereafter are always the results of crasis between the Greek and the Palmyrene versions of the inscriptions, and they are usually quite precise translations. Sometimes in one of the two versions some terms are missing, these cases are reported in the footnotes. An exception is represented by the inscription n. 3 where the Greek and the Palmyrene texts show very different syntaxes: in this case two separate translations have been preferred. 1. Base of statue in the tetraporticus of the Great Colonnade.250 ΣεπτÛμιον ΑἱρÌνην | τÙν λαμπρıτατον (υἱÙν) | ὈδαινÌθου τοῦ λαμ|προτÌτου Õπατικοῦ, | ΟÃορ˘δης βουλευ|[τὴς .... To Septimius Ḥairān, clarissimus son of Odainath clarissimus consu251 laris, Vorōd bouleutes.

2.

Honorary inscription from the Great Colonnade, engraved on a column situated next to the theatre and dated back to 258 A. D.252 ΑÃρήλιον ΟÃορ˘δην | ἱππικÙν καÚ βουλευτὴν | ΠαλμυρηνÙν ΒηλÌ|καβος Ἀρσᾶ τÙν φÛ‖[λον τ]ειμῆς χÌριν | ἔτους οφʹ lʾ wrlys [w]rwd hpqʾ ̻| wbylwṭʾ ʿbd | blʿqb br ḥršʾ lyqrh | šnt 5.100+60+10. To Aurelius Vorōdes, member of the equestrian order and Palmyrene bouleutes, friend Belakabos son of Ḥaršā (posed this text) to honour him. Year 570 (Sel. = 258 A. D.)

3.

Honorary inscription from the Great Colonnade, engraved on a column situated next to the theatre and dated back to April 262 A. D.253

249

Inv. III 3, about which cf. supra Chap. 2. 1, is not taken into consideration. This inscription, being not dated either, actually adds nothing to Vorōd’s career. SEYRIG 1963, 161-162 and fig. 2. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 103 n. 163, 204 n. 152, 468. This inscription is not dated, but the titles of Septimius Ḥairān and Odainath are identical in a dedication dated in 257/258 and posed by the collegium of the leather artisans on a console in the Great Colonnade: cf. SEYRIG 1963, 161-162 and fig. 1 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, 254 n° 5; HARTMANN 2001, 103 n. 162. PAT 0283 = CIS II 3937 = Inv. III 12 = IGRR III 1036 = OGIS 644. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 204 n. 152. PAT 0284 = CIS II 3938 = Inv. III 11 = IGRR III 1041. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 204 n. 153.

250 251

252 253

104

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Ἡ βουλὴ καÚ ¡ δῆμος ΣεπτÛμιον | ΟÃορ˘δην τÙν κρÌτιστον ἐπÛ|τροπον [Σεβ]αστο[ῦ τοῦ κυρÛου] | δου[κηνÌριον ..... τειμῆς] ‖ χÌριν [ἔτους γοφʹ μηνεÚ] | [Ξ]αν[δικῷ]. ṣlmʾ dnh dy spṭmyws | wrwd ʾpṭrpʾ dwqnrʾ dy | qsr mrn dy ʾqym lh | bwlʾ wdmws lyqrh | byrḥ nysn dy šnt 5.100+60+10+3. The Senate and the people to Septimius Vorōdes, vir egregius procurator ducenarius domini Augusti, (posed) to honour him, [in the year 573, in the month] Xandikos. This is the statue254 of Septimiōs Vorōd, epitropos doukenarios of Caesar lord,255 that for him (have posed) the boule and the demos, to honour him, in Nisān in the year 573 (Sel. = April 262 A. D.)

4.

Honorary inscription from the Great Colonnade, engraved on a column situated next to the theatre and dated back to December 262 A. D.256 ΣεπτÛ[μιον ΟÃορ˘δην τÙν κρÌτιστ]ον | ἐπÛτρο[πον Σεβαστοῦ δ]ουκηνÌριον | Ἰο˜λιος ΑÃρή[λιος Νεβο˜ζ]αβα[δ]ος ΣοÌ|δου τοῦ Αἱρῆ [στρατ]ηγÙς [τῆς] λαμπροτÌ‖της κολωνεÛας [τ]Ùν ἑαυτοῦ φÛλον | τειμῆς ἕνεκεν ἔτους δοφʹ μηνεÚ | ἈπελλαÛῳ. spṭmys wrwd qrṭsṭ̻s ʾpṭrpʾ | dwqnrʾ dy ʾqym lyqrh | ywlyws ʾwlys nbw[z]bd br šʿdw ḥyrʾ | ʾsṭr<ṭ>gʾ dy qlnyʾ rḥmh | šnt 5.100+60+10+ 4 byrḥ kslwl. To Septimius Vorōd egregius procurator Augusti ducenarius, Iulius Aurelius Nebouzabad, son of Šoadō, son of Ḥairān,257 strategos258 of

254 255

256 257 258

The specification of the dedicated object (ṣlmʾ = statue) is quite rare in Palmyra: cf. YON 2000, 11. Palm. mrn ‘lord’ is grammatically referred to qsr ‘Caesar.’ As Odainath does not seem to have ever assumed the title of Caesar, it is impossible to derive that in this inscription qsr mrn might correspond to the rš of Palmyra, as on the contrary FÉVRIER 1932, 91 and ALTHEIM 1965, 255 maintain. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 204 n. 153. PAT 0285 = CIS II 3939 = Inv. III 10 = IGRR III 1040. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 204 n. 153. On this figure YON 2002b, 33, 244. The text of the inscription is very clear as far as its structure, which is identical both in Greek and in Palmyrene: a friend, a strategos, dedicates the inscription to Vorōd, procurator and argapetes. Jean-Baptiste CHABOT read the inscription in a wrong way in CIS II 3939, and he thought he could refer the title of strategos to Vorōd. He was followed by INGHOLT 1976, 135; WILL 1996, 113 and SARTRE 1996, 393-394. Notwithstanding the lacuna in l. 4 of the Greek text, the rendering of the text is certain (the reading of the desinence at the nominative and not at the accusative has never be contexted by anybody) and it is confirmed also in the Aramaic version, where, if ever the transliteration of the term strategos at the beginning of l. 4 would have been understood as an apposi-

̓ΑργαπÔτης

105

the splendidissima259 colonia, to his friend to honour him in the year 574 in Apellaios = Kaslūl (Sel. = December 262 A. D.)

5.

Honorary inscription from the portico of the theatre in the Great Colonnade.260 ΣεπτÛμιον ΟÃορ˘δην | τÙν κρÌτ[ιστον ἐπÛτρο]|πον Σεβα[στοῦ δουκ]η|νÌριον καÚ ἀ[ργαπ]Ôτην | Ἰο˜λιος ΑÃρήλιος Σε‖π[τÛμι]ος ΜÌλχος Μαλω|χᾶ Νασσο˜μου ¡ κρÌτι|στος τÙν φÛλον καÚ προ|στÌτην τειμῆς ἕνεκεν ‖ ἔτους Ϛοφʹ, μηνεÚ Ξανδικῷ. spṭ[myws wrw]d qr[ṭsṭ]ws | ʾ[p]ṭ[rpʾ dqnrʾ wʾrg]bṭʾ | [ʾqym ywlys ʾwrlys spṭmy]ws | mlk[w br mlwkʾ nšwm qrṭsṭs lyqr] || rḥm[h wqywmh byrḥ ny]sn | [šnt 5.100+60+10+5+1]. To Septimius Vorōd, egregius procurator Augusti ducenarius and argapetes, Iulius Aurelius Septimius Malchos, son of Malōkā, son of Naššūm,261 vir egregius, to his friend and patron, to honour him, in Xandikos (Nīsān) in the year 576 (Sel. = April 264 A. D.)

6.

From the portico of the theatre, in the Great Colonnade.262 ΣεπτÛμιο[ν] ΟÃορ˘δην | τÙν κρÌτιστον ἐπÛτρο|πον Σεβαστοῦ δουκη|νÌριον καÚ ἀργαπÔτην ‖ Ἰο˜λιος ΑÃρήλιος | ΣεπτÛμιος Ἰαδῆς ἱπ|πικıς ΣεπτιμÛου Ἀλε|[ξÌ]νδρου τοῦ Ἡρ˘δου | ἀπÙ στρατιῶν τÙν φÛ‖λον καÚ προστÌτην | τειμῆς ἕνεκεν ἔτους | ηοφʹ, μηνεÚ Ξανδικῷ (578 Sel. = April 267 A. D.) spṭmyws wrwd qrṭsṭws ʾpṭrpʾ | dqnrʾ wʾrgbṭʾ ʾqym ywlys | ʾwrlys s[p]ṭmyws ydʾ hpqws | br ʾlks[nd]rws ḥyrn srykw lyqr || rḥmh wqywmh byrḥ sywn dy | šnt 5.100+60+10+5 (Sīwān 575 Sel. = June 264 A. D.)

259 260 261 262

tion not of the dedicating person but rather of the dedicatee, it had to be necessarily preceeded by w, the necessary conjuction to link this title to the others that are listed before: vir egregius and procurator ducenarius. This point is a little delicate because it is right starting from this wrong reading of the inscription that WILL proposed the identity between the titles of ἀργαπÔτης and στρατηγıς, as if in this inscription Vorōd were called both procurator and strategos, while in the inscriptions n° 5 and 6 he is called procurator and argapetes, without any apparent rise in rank. But actually the inscription n° 4 cannot be adopted to prove any identity between the titles of ἀργαπÔτης and στρατηγıς at all. Cf. also HARTMANN 2001, 204 n. 153: “Dies ist m. E. kaum plausibel.” Missing in Palm. PAT 0287 = CIS II 3941 = Inv. III 8 = IGRR III 1042. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 205 n. 156. On this person cf. PIR̻⁲ I 194; YON 2002b, 49. PAT 0286 = CIS II 3940 = Inv. III 9 = IGRR III 1044. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 205 n. 156.

106

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

To Septimius Vorōd egregius procurator Augusti ducenarius and argapetes, Iulius Aurelius Septimius Iadē, member of the equestrian order, son of Alexander, son of Herod son of Soraichou,263 ex-official (in the Roman army),264 to his friend and patron,265 to honour him,266 in the year 267 A. D.267

7.

From the portico of the theatre, in the Great Colonnade.268 ΣεπτÛμιον ΟÃορ˘δην | τÙν κρÌτιστον ἐπÛτρο|πον Σεβαστοῦ δουκη|νÌριον καÚ ἀργαπÔτην ‖ Ἰο˜λιος ΑÃρήλιος ΣÌλμης | Κασσιανοῦ τοῦ ΜαεναÛου | ἱππεˆς ῬωμαÛων τÙν φÛλον | καÚ προστÌτην, ἔτους ηοφʹ, μηνεÚ Ξανδικῷ. spṭmyws wrws qrṭsṭws | ʾpṭrpʾ dqnrʾ wʾrgbṭʾ | ʾqym ywlys ʾwrlys šlmʾ | br qsynʾ br mʿny hpqʾ | lyqr rḥmh wqyw[mh] | byrḥ nysn šnt 5.100+60+10+5+3. To Septimius Vorodes, egregius procurator Augusti ducenarius and argapetes, Iulius Aurelius Šalmē, son of Cassianus, son of Maenaiou, member of the Roman equestrian order, to his friend and patron, to honour him, in the year 578, in Xandikos = Nīsān (Sel. = April 267 A. D.).

8.

From the Great Colonnade, next to the theatre.269 Ἡ βου[λὴ καÚ ¡ δῆ]μος | ΣεπτÛμ[ιον ΟÃορ˘δην] τÙν κρÌ|τιστον ἐ[πÛτροπον] Σεβαστοῦ | δουκην[Ìριον, δι]κεοδıτην ‖ τῆς μητρ[οκολω]νεÛας, καÚ ἀ|νακομÛσαν[τα τ]Ïς συνοδÛας | ἐξ ἰδÛων, καÚ μαρτυρηθÔντα ÕπÙ τῶν ἀρχεμπıρων | καÚ λαμπρῶς στρατηγήσαντα ‖ καÚ ἀγορανομήσαντα τῆς αÃτῆς | μητροκολωνεÛας, καÚ πλεῖστα | οἴκοθεν ἀναλ˘σαντα, καÚ ἀρÔσαν|τα τῇ τε αÃτῇ βουλῇ καÚ τῷ δήμῳ | καÚ νυνεÚ λαμπρῶς συμποσÛαρ‖χον τῶν το[ῦ

263 264 265 266 267

268 269

The last agnatic name is missing in the Greek version. On the family of Iadē cf. YON 2002a, 277 “famille de Shoraîkô et Alaînê.” He had thus accomplished the tres militiae equestres: cf. YON 2002a, 49-50, 288. Inscriptions n° 5, 6 and 8 show the qualification τÙν φÛλον καÚ προστÌτην/rḥmh wqywmh, as referred to Vorōd: about which cf. SOMMER 2005, 220-222. On this formula (lyqr rḥmh), being completely unusual in Semitic epigraphy and occurring also in the inscriptions n° 6, 8, cf. YON 2002a, 147. The datings of the Greek and Palmyrene texts do not coincide. On the basis of the comparison with n° 6 (April 265) and n° 8 (April 267) the Greek dating of the text (April 267) is maybe preferable. PAT 0289 = CIS II 3943 = Inv. III 6 = IGRR III 1043 = OGIS 645. Cf. HARTMANN 2001, 205 n. 156. PAT 0288 = CIS II 3942 = Inv. III 7 = IGRR III 1045 = OGIS 646. Cf. SCHUOL 2000, 89-90; HARTMANN 2001, 205 n. 154.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

107

θεοῦ] ΔιÙς Βήλου ἱε|ρÔων, ἀ[γνεÛας καÚ] τειμῆς ἕνε|κεν, ἔτ[ους εοφʹ μη]νεÚ Ξανδικῷ. Of the Palmyrene text just a few traces are preserved. The Council and the People to Septimius Worod, egregius procurator Augusti ducenarius, iuridicus of the metrocolonia who has brought back caravans at his own expense and been given testimony by the chief merchants, who has brilliantly acted as strategos and agoranomos of the same metrocolonia and spent greatly of his own resources and been pleasing to the Council and the People, and who now brilliantly acts as symposiarch of the priests of the god Zeus Bel, as evidence of his integrity and honour, in the year ...,270 in the month Xandikos (transl. YOUNG, with adaptations).271

9.

Votive relief now preserved at the Museum of Palmyra and dedicated from ‘Vorōd argapetes.’272 Two figures abreast almost without heads are represented as inserted in a niche. The figure on the left is armed with spear and sword, while the one on the right, being armed with a sword too, with his right hand offers a small votive dish on a small fire altar between them. Those who have seen this work affirm that “the shapes of the heads on the stone allow to recognize the typical Irano-Parthian hairstyle,”273 but from the photograph published by Harold INGHOLT I think that nothing can be said about the hairstyle of the figure on the right while the one on the left shows wider traces some what recalling a nimbus/xarǝnah, thus confirming the impression it

270

Its dating is completely lost. CHABOT e CANTINEAU (CIS and Inv.) have integrated ζοφʹ (577 = 266 A. D.) on the basis of the fact that the inscription was set on a console between n° 5 (dated back to 264 A. D.) and n° 8 (dated back to 267 A. D.). Such proposal is customarily accepted and all in all preferable to the other ones. However the chronological order is not always respected in the arrangment of the statues, as SCHLUMBERGER 1942b, 60 n. 7 and MILIK 1972, 270 have already emphasized. On the basis of this fact and of the fact that in n° 4 to be dated in December 262 Vorōd is only a procurator, while in n° 5 dating back to April 265 Vorōd is procurator and argapet, and in n° 8 he is not argapet yet, his ‘Laufbahninschrift’ should be dated between these two chronological extremities, thus “wohl 264” HARTMANN 2001, 205 n. 154 and 206 n. 158. In this case the integration shall be εοφʹ 575 = 264 A. D. For a diverging interpretation of his ‘Laufbahninschrift’ and more generally of Vorōd’s career cf. infra. YOUNG 2001, 170-171, 266 A. D. PAT 0063 + 0453 = CIS II 4105ter. INGHOLT 1936, 93-95 and plate. 19, 1; PARLASCA 1989; citation from EQUINI SCHNEIDER 1993, 138-139, plate 39; HARTMANN 2001, 206 n. 157.

271 272 273

108

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

might be the representation of an Iranian warrior god. On the right, next to the relief on the frame of the niche there is an inscription: wrwd ʾrgbṭʾ

I find the statement by HARTMANN “der Bêl oder einem iranischen Gott opfernde Palmyrener ist zweifellos Septimius Vorodes”274 possibly too optimistic as also more readings of the relief are possible, such as the representation of a divine couple like Aglibōl and Malakbēl who are frequently represented abreast next to a fire altar. Regarding the more delicate problem of the reconstruction and interpretation of the political role Vorōd played in Palmyra during the 50s and 60s of the 3rd century A. D. a controversial point is represented by inscr. n° 8, the so-called ‘Laufbahninschrift’ of Vorōd. While all other texts have been located as usual in Palmyra in given circumstances to which they explicitly make reference, so that they usually do not allow any reconstructions of true cursus,275 in this inscription the various functions Vorōd was attributed are mentioned. To crown it all, this inscription is one of the few texts mentioning this person that has completely lost its dating. Any attempt to date inscr. n° 8 moves from the assumption we are in the presence of a traditional cursus listing in a descending scale all functions Vorōd held. From this point of view two are the datings usually proposed: 1) before group n° 5-7, as in n° 8 Vorōd is not argapetes yet.276 2) Given the equivalence of the titles ἀργαπÔτης and δικεοδıτης inscr. n° 8 might conveniently be set at the end of the career of Vorōd.277 As far as the inconsistency of the motives supporting the second dating is concerned, I have already expressed an opinion above, but also the first dat-

274 275

276 277

HARTMANN 2001, 206. YON 2002a, 11-12: “À Palmyre, les textes conservés sont surtout des résumés sur les bases de statues, et ce sont presque uniquement ces bases qui ont survécu, contrairement à d’autres cités, en particulier dans l’ouest de l’Asie Mineure. On a sans doute très rarement jugé utile de faire graver en entier des décrets qui honoraient un bienfaiteur de la cité, comme cela arrivait par example à Pergame, à Xanthos ou à Priène. Sauf dans quelques cas exceptionnels, les textes sont en fait simplement les légendes qui servent à donner un commentaire minimum aux statues qui ornaient les espaces publics de la ville.” HARTMANN 2001, 205 n. 154: “wohl 264.” FÉVRIER 1931, 90; ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1965, 255; BALDINI 1976, 36.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

109

ing encounters various difficulties: to set n° 8 right after the inscriptions n° 1-4 and before the group of inscriptions n° 5-7 undoubtedly implies a clearcut jump in the career of this person, simply classified as curial and member of the equestrian order, before he was suddendly entrusted with the procuratorian ducenary office. In the inscriptions n° 1-4, no mention is made of all those functions such as agoranomos, strategos and his activity in favour of the caravans - not to mention his office as iuridicus - he was probably attributed with before the inscriptions n° 5-7 and after n° 1-4 were posed. It is exactly the absurdity of situating all these functions between April 262 and April 264 A. D. that has led many to support the idea by MOMMSEN of the equivalence of the title iuridicus and argapetes, thus giving Vorōd’s career a wider range. Neither chronology is actually substantiated. I really doubt that the inscription n° 8 can be considered as a true cursus, i.e. that it mentions the various magistratures Vorōd held in a chronological order. It sounds very strange in this case that the inscr. n° 1-3 do not mention any of the ‘minor’ magistratures Vorōd had held before he reached the heights of his career, but just qualify this figure simply as a βουλευτής, a title he shared with all curials in the town. It is actually the true meaning of the term argapetes that allows us to understand fully the role Vorōd played during the crucial years of Palmyra, first of all by making a clean sweep of any eventual ‘military’ office he was supposed to have held at any time in his career. None of the functions mentioned in n° 8 explicitly hint at any involvement of Vorōd either with the ‘Palmyrene army’ - whose existence was evidently necessarily easier to imagine than to supply with documentary evidence - or even less with the Roman army. What emerges with absolute clarity is the image of a person deeply involved in the economic and financial life of Palmyra. Agoranomy, strategy (both held λαμπρῶς) and to some extent also the following symposiarchy of the priests of the shrine of Bel are all functions indisputably connected with the financial characteristics of the town and such as to hint at the economic status of Vorōd, just as both the ducenarian procuratorship and, as already demonstrated, the title of argapetes demonstrate. Incidentally this kind of career clearly shows that we are in the presence of a completely ‘local’ and to some extent ‘municipal’ career, which is very different from that of the other equites, who on the contrary, as they worked for the central government of Rome, used to travel across the empire holding

110

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

a wide range of offices. Unlike the customary procurators, the role of Vorōd emerged in a purely local context and continued to develop that way, while the Roman empire confined itself to contracting out to him some particularly significant functions in the field of caravan trade. He practically found himself in a position to manage the correct development of the activities of Palmyrene caravans by means of a twofold function of interface between the two great preternational empires. Towards the imperial fiscus he was the chief of the portorium in Palmyra, while as far as Sasanian Iran was concerned he was an argapetes, i.e. ‘Chef des Steuerwesen.’ Vorōd’s characteristics may be summed up as follows: 1. He was very rich, as the civic financial functions he held ad abundantiam testify, just like his procuratorian office. 2. He held a unspecified procuratorship in Palmyra although he was in primis involved in the municipal life of the metrocolony. 3. He was a Roman citizen as his complete name testifies: Septimius Aurelius Vorōd. Vorōd’s characteristics are identical to those Fabienne BURKHALTER-ARCE recently identified for the arabarchs who manage the collection of customs duties in the Egyptian desert: ce sont des personnages extrêmement riches, qui entretiennent des relations étroites avec le pouvoir romain, et ont souvent occupé eux-mêmes des postes importants de l’administration romaine dans la province; ils ont de gros intérêts commerciaux [...] Les arabarques sont pratiquement tous des citoyens romains.278

Vorōd’s functions, although they represented diversified realities as inscr. n° 8 testifies, were actually all centred around the twofold hinging function this person held as a chief of the most important customs station in the whole Roman Near East at that time. Thus he was first of all argapetes and procurator ducenarius. In this regard it is extremely significant that he should decide to sign his self-portrait as argapetes (wrwd ʾrgbṭʾ) on the votive relief n° 9. If we were to give inscr. n° 8 the value of a true cursus with the listing of different functions held in sequence, it would be really difficult to imagine that this person, while representing himself as an offering figure in front of a divinity, should sign the relief with argapetes and not with ‘symposiarchos of the priests of Bel’ as in inscr. n° 8. 278

BURKHALTER-ARCE 1999, 53.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

111

Thus despite all other functions, Vorōd was considered first of all an argapetes and as such he used to consider himself. Also about in this regard the comparison with the case of the Egyptian arabarchs and particularly with the one of the more famous Tiberius Iulius Alexander is cogent: he too like Vorōd was ἐπÛτροπος, but in any case he remained ‘Alexander the alabarch.’279 It is evident how a person possessing this kind of characteristic was able to cope egregiously with all those subjects that pertained to the jurisdiction of the iuridicus: in particular the matters of private law involving hereditary estates.280 This was ultimately the function held by Vorōd in Palmyra: he was no brilliant commander of camel troops, just as he was no chief of a mysterious Iranian ‘colony’ in Palmyra.281 His role of financier but at the same time also of administrator and diplomat able to guarantee by means of money, but not only, the passage there and back of the caravans along the increasingly unsafe roads given the grim international situation in the region was thus possible only thanks to the deliberately indeterminate position of the town of Palmyra between the two empires. Furthermore Vorōd represents in many ways the most evident denial of the supposed institutional normality of Palmyra inside the Roman empire. The town certainly belonged to some extent to the provincial context of the Roman empire and was surely considered by Rome as one of the most important towns in Syria Phoenice. This role came to the town with its nomination as colonia splendidissima and thus metrocolonia using a term that was conceptually most probably of Semitic origin. To be a colony, to have an imperial cult (which is attested with certainty but which is hardly recognizable in the field) to have even hosted at least from time to time a Roman garrison and at last to have guaranteed the military service of its own citizens in the Roman army did not

279

280 281

Joseph., Ant. XIX 276-277: (Claudius) λύει δÓ καÚ Ἀλέξανδρον τÙν ἀλαβάρχην φίλον ἀρχαῖον αÃτῷ γεγονότα καÚ Ἀντωνίαν αÃτοῦ ἐπιτροπεύσαντα τὴν μητέρα ¿ργῇ τῇ Γαΐου δεδεμένον. “He further liberated Alexander the alabarch, an old friend of his, who had acted as guardian for his mother Antonia and had been imprisoned by Gaius in a fit of anger” (transl. FELDMAN). BURKHALTER-ARCE 1999, 42-43. On the equivalence between ἀλαβÌρχος e ἀραβÌρχος cf. WILCKEN 1899, 350, BURKHALTER-ARCE 1999, 42 n. 4. KUPISZEWSKI 1953, 198-201. WILL 1957; 1996.

112

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

prevent Palmyra from being considered as an autonomous town external to the empire and its merchants being declared ‘Palmyrenes’ and not ‘Romans’ in the commercial centres of Vologesias, in Mesene or elsewhere. As seen from Ctesiphon, first of all Palmyra considered the Sassanians as a very precious source of wealth. The role played by Palmyra in the transactions between the two empires was never jeopardized by the Sassanians, for whom it would have been very easy to interrupt the commercial traffic enriching Vorōd and Palmyra. But they did not. Even in the hardest periods of war free-trade areas guaranteeing reinvestment and transactions involving huge amounts of money are very useful and always respected by the belligerent parties, as was the case of Switzerland during the two world conflicts that stained Europe with blood during the 20th century.282 Even if the outcome of the wars was different for Switzerland than for Palmyra it is also because the latter suddenly failed to maintain its role as an interested neutral party. It thought it could fill the power vacuum that arose in the East after the disastrous capture of Valerian by the Sassanians. Palmyra failed to keep its position as a ‘purification’ point of the conflict; on the contrary it suddenly took the place of one of the warring parties. Notwithstanding the effectiveness of its action, instead of Rome’s gratitude the complex situation that had risen in the East and the attempt at reconciliation between the two initial belligerents led to the marginalization of its role and thus to the elimination of Palmyra by those in favour of whom the town had once renounced its neutrality. Given these premises the last aspect of Vorōd’s career awaits clarification. It is a known fact that in the great triumphal inscription where Šābuhr the Great celebrated his victories over the Romans a Vorōd agoranomos283 is mentioned, one of the few persons to be listed without any patronymic or ‘aristocratic’ elements. Even the rank of this figure is not very high. Notwithstanding his title, which perfectly matches thats of the Vorōd argapetes we are talking about, a chronological problem prevents us from identifying Vorōd from Palmyra with Vorōd in ŠKZ. The only chance of a good match with the personality of Vorōd, as we have delineated it in this work as well 282 283

Similar considerations already in CUMONT 1926, about which cf. BONNET 2003 with an excessive criticism, in my opinion. Favourable to this identification SCHLUMBERGER 1972, who however dates the question of Vorōd in a different and, in my opinion, unacceptable way.

̓ΑργαπÔτης

113

as the role Palmyra played on this occasion, resides in the fact that the court ceremonial from which the list mentioning Vorōd agoranomos was taken was derived one decade earlier than the period when the inscription was engraved. ŠKZ actually is usually dated to 270 A. D., while Vorōd is attested for the last time in 267, and he was unlikely to have survived his main political sponsor, Odainath. On the other hand it is clear that the inclusion of the Palmyrene Vorōd in the Sassanian court ceremonial would be possible only before the ‘lion coming from the East, envoy of the Sun’ started roaring on the banks of the Euphrates.

Appendix: pšgrybʾ at Ḥatra

In a preceeding brief article I dedicated to the use of the Middle Persian term pasāgrīw in the often mentioned papyri from the middle reaches of the Euphrates, I treated some problems relating to the use of the word in Semitic contexts and the cultural as well as political meanings to be attributed to this title in the Edessean context.284 In this appendix my intention is to present and discuss the inscriptions of Ḥatra regarding this term which could only be glossed over in my previous work because of lack of space. The earliest evidence regarding the term psʾgryw is to be found in Aramaic documents, as no further evidence is available in Parthian and it is found in eight inscriptions, all from the town of Ḥatra,285 presenting us with some graphical differences that have been attentively analysed by Geo WIDENGREN.286 It is impossible to observe any semantic difference in the alternation of the forms pzgrybʾ, pšgrbʾ, pšgryʾ, pšgrybʾ that exist in the eight texts from Ḥatra. Hereafter I cite all inscriptions following the edition by Francesco VATTIONI:

284 285

286

GNOLI 2002. Corpora of the inscriptions of Hatra (H): VATTIONI 1981; AGGOULA 1991; AGGOULA 1990; AGGOULA 1994. Cf. also SARTRE 2001, 636 n. 132. We are talking about H 28, 36, 195, 287, 367, 368, 375, 376. The inscriptions H 287, 367, 368, 375, 376 have all been published after 1983 and have thus been ignored by most scholars who have dealt with this term. KHURSHUDIAN 1998 wrongly maintains that the term is attested just in three inscriptions of Hatra. WIDENGREN 1960, 28-29, n. 102.

116

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

H(atra) 28,287 house next to shrine II288 [.....] smyʾ ʾmʾ ʿbdsmyʾ pšgrbʾ br snṭrwq mlkʾ ʿl ḥ[y]ʾ289 snṭrwq mlk[ʾ] ʾbʾ dbnyh

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

[ ] smyʾ mother of ʿbdsmyʾ the heir to the throne, son of Snṭrwq the king for the life of Snṭrwq the king, the father of her children

H 36,290 237/238 A. D. From shrine V byrḥ tšry šnt D XXXXVIIII ṣlmtʾ dwšpry brt snṭrwq mlkʾ br ʿbdsmyʾ mlkʾ wbtsmy[ʾ] ʾmʾ dy pzgrybʾ [dy ʾqym lh ... br] ʿbdʿgyly br stnbl rḥmh

1. In the month Tišri in the year D2. XXXXVIIII the statue is of Dwšpry daughter 3. of Snṭrwq the king, son of ʿbdsmyʾ 4. the king and Btsmyʾ, mother of the heir to the throne 5. [who posed for her.... son] 6. of ʿbdʿgjly, son of Stnbl, his friend

H 195,291 from the shrine of Šamaš.

1. ṣlmʾ dy snṭrwk mlkʾ br ʿbdsmyʾ mlk 2. dʿrb dy ʾqym lh nšryhb rbytʾ dmrn br 3. ʿ]wydʾlt ʿl ḥyʾ ʿbdsmyʾ pšgryʾ brh

287 288 289 290

291

1. Statue of Snṭrwq the king, son of ʿbdsmyʾ king 2. of ʿrb who erected for him Nšryhb the butler of Mrn, son 3. of ʿwydʾlt for the life of ʿbdsmyʾ, the heir to the throne his son

MARICQ 1955, 281-282; POIRIER 1981, 216; AGGOULA 1991, 22; VATTIONI 1994, 44. VATTIONI 1981 reports «tra i resti vicini al santuario nr. 3», but cf. BERTOLINO 1995, 62. About this very customary formula in Semitic epigraphy cf. the extensive research by DIJKSTRA 1995. MARICQ 1955; ROSENTHAL 1967, 46; DONNER, RÖLLIG 1962, 250; AGGOULA 1969, 93; DEGEN 1971, 125; MILIK 1972, 371; SAFAR 1973, 95; POIRIER 1981, 216; AGGOULA 1991, 30; VATTIONI 1994, 45. ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1967, 261; ROSENTHAL 1967, 47; AGGOULA 1969, 99; SAFAR 1973, 95; POIRIER 1981, 216; AGGOULA 1991, 92; DIJKSTRA 1994, 194: VATTIONI 1994, 56.

Appendix: pšgrybʾ at Ḥatra

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

117

H 287,292 socle of limestone statue. br klbslʾ [ʾ]špzkh ʿl ḥyʾ snṭrwq mlkʾ dʿrbyʾ wʿbdsmyʾ pšgrybʾ brh [wʿl] ḥyyhy [ddh w]ʿl ḥyʾ bnyhy [dd]h klh dyʿb

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

son of Klbslʾ his host for the life of Snṭrwq the king of the ʿrbyʾ and ʿbdsmyʾ the heir to the throne, his son [and for] his life [to him and] for the life of his children, to them all

H 367293

1. bytʾ dbnʾ lʾlt snṭrwk mlkʾ br

1. House that the king Snṭrwq built in Allat son of 2. nṣrw mryʾ [w]ʿbsmyʾ pšgrybʾ brh lṭb 2. Nṣrw (my) lord [and] ʿbsmyʾ the heir dkyr to the throne his son. May he be well remembered

H 368294

1. byt]ʾ dbn [ʾ lʾlt] snṭr[wq ml]kʾ br 1. Hou]se that Snṭr[wq the] king son of nṣrw mryʾ (my) lord Nṣrw buil[t in Allat] 2. and ʿb]smyʾ the heir to the throne, his 2. wʿb]smy pšgryb[ʾ] brh dkyr ltb son. May he be well remembered

H 375295

1. .... ʿbsmyʾ pš]grybʾ br snṭrwq [mlkʾ] 1. ʿbsmyʾ h]eir to the throne son of Snṭrdʿrb br nṣrw mryʾ wq [king] son of Nṣrw (my) lord

H 376296

1. ṣlmʾ dy Snṭrwq mlkʾ br nṣrw mryʾ 1. Statue of Snṭrwq the king son of wʿbsmyʾ pšgrybʾ Nṣrw (my) lord and ʿbsmyʾ the heir to 2. brh dkyr lṭb the throne 2. his son; may he be well remembered

292 293 294 295 296

AGGOULA 1975, 186-187; VATTIONI 1994, 65. AṢ-ṢĀLIḤĪ 1985, 133; VATTIONI 1986, 613 n° 894; AGGOULA 1986, 363; AGGOULA 1988, 200; AGGOULA 1991, 167; VATTIONI 1994, 77. AGGOULA 1986, 364; AGGOULA 1988, 200; AGGOULA 1991, 167; VATTIONI 1994, 78. AGGOULA 1986, 366; AGGOULA 1991, 169; VATTIONI 1994, 78-79. AṢ-ṢĀLIḤĪ 1985, 132; VATTIONI 1986, 613 n° 894; AGGOULA 1986, 366; AGGOULA 1991, 169; VATTIONI 1994, 79.

118

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

The only inscription to be dated with certainty is H 36. The year 549 S. E. corresponds to 237-238 A. D.297 This fact has led Roberto BERTOLINO to date also all the other texts to the 3rd century A. D.298 The term pšgrybʾ299 is attributed to two different people, both named ʿAbsamyā or ʿAbdsamyā. The former was the son of king Sanaṭrūk (I) bar Naṣrū who himself became king and generated Sanaṭrūk (II) bar ʿAbdsamyā,300 father of the second ʿAbdsamyā who bore the title of pšgrybʾ in Hatra. Thus the former of these two figures bearing the title of pšgrybʾ became king. The latter did not, but just because his father Sanaṭrūk II was the last king of Ḥatra, before the town was conquered by Ardašīr, between April 240 and April 241.301 We can certainly maintain that also the son of Sanaṭrūk II would have inherited the reign of his father, if the Persian intervention had not put an end to the monarchy in Ḥatra. As in Edessa,302 also this evidence from Ḥatra indicates that the title was due to members of the royal family, sons of kings, and that we have to attribute to this term the precise meaning of ‘designated heir,’ ‘successor to the throne.’ The translation of the word should be retained even if the integration nṣrw [pzgrb]ʾ [br] wlgš proposed by VATTIONI for H 33 were right,303

297

298

299

300 301

302 303

On the use of the Seleucid Era in Ḥatra cf. the excellent mise au point by BERTOLINO 1995, 3-10, in my opinion decisive in order to overcome any perplexities about the adoption of the Seleucid era in favour e.g. of the Arsacid era (cf. many works by SAFAR in «Sumer» and above all TEIXIDOR 1966). BERTOLINO 1995, 62: “Altri testi, per i nomi in essi contenuti (Sanaṭrūq Re e ʿAbdsamya erede al trono), possono risalire a questi stessi anni: nn. 28 (casa presso il tempio II), 37 (tempio V), 79 (tempio XI), 195 (tempio di Šamaš), 287 (presso il piccolo muro divisorio del temenos).” Here I adopt the most often attested spelling in Ḥatra. All forms attested there, pzgrybʾ/ pšgrbʾ/pšgryʾ/pšgrybʾ, are actually local and someway wrong variations. Cf. WIDENGREN 1960, 28-29. Cf. supra H 36, 4. The dating of the capture of the town by the Sassanians has been made possible by CMC 17, 23-18,16: Editions of the text: KOENEN, RÖMER 1988; GNOLI 2003, 46, 348. Translations of the passage: DODGEON, LIEU 1991, 33. GNOLI 2002. It is an architrave found among the ruins at the entrance of shrine V. AGGOULA 1969, 91; MILIK 1972, 363; SEGAL 1986, 63; IBRAHIM 1986, 207; AGGOULA 1991, 27; VATTIONI 1994, 44: “L’epigrafe è stata attribuita alla vittoria del parto Vologeso sui Romani nel 62. nsrw e wlgš sono certi, il resto è congettura.” I think that this integration is scarcely probable because the wlgš of Ḥatra is always called mryʾ, and never mlkʾ, cf. infra.

Appendix: pšgrybʾ at Ḥatra

119

which in my opinion is hardly likely. The Middle Persian title psʾgryw, Sogd. pšʾɣryw, is very rare, as it is attested only in some Manichaean texts discovered in the Chinese oasis of Turfan, the first occurrence being attested in the Manichean Confessionary published by Walter Bruno HENNING,304 who explained the word as a compound built up from two elements, pasā and gryw, to be literally translated as ‘Nach-Ich,’ ‘Nach-Selbst.’305 Out of it HENNING himself derived the meaning of ‘Stellvertreter,’ which is usually306 preferred by the Iranists to the above mentioned alternative of ‘successor to the throne’307 on the basis of many possible interpretations for one and the same etymology, as I have already explained elsewhere.308 The researches by HENNING and GERSHEVITCH are all outstanding, almost without exception309 and were perfected, one might say, by BENVENISTE, in whose opinion: “l’intérêt propre du titre pašāgrīv vient du terme grīv, qui désigne la ‘personne,’ le ‘moi.’” The latter part of the compound derives from Pahlavi grīw, av. grīvā- ‘neck:’ La “nuque”, on le sait, est un centre vital, jonction de la tête et du corps, sommet de l’épine dorsale, gîte de la moelle épinière [...] De là vient cette représentation de la “nuque”, grīvā-, comme siège du principe de vie, puis

304 305

306

307

308 309

HENNING 1936, p. 28, r. 346 [= p. 442]; p. 98-99 [= 512-513]. IBID., 512-513. The presence of different variants of the term in the Aramaic dialect in use in Ḥatra first led Geo WIDENGREN to doubt about the explanation by HENNING, and then to accept it though he stressed the problems connected with it: WIDENGREN 1960, 29 n. 102: “Ich gebe aber zu, daß ich vielleicht die phonetischen Schwierigkeiten einer Entwicklung pašāgrīv > pačagrīβ ~ pačagrīβ überschätzt habe.” But on the Manichaean occurrences of the term cf. now LEURINI 2004, who adopts the meaning of ‘Thronfolger.’ Still differently DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004, s. v.: ‘deputy, representative.’ Also other etymologies have actually been proposed from time to time, but they have failed to find scholars’ support: ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1962, 36 n. 6 syr. pṣʾgryb(ʾ) derived the term from pasu- ‘stock’ and grb- ‘grab’ with the meaning of ‘Viehgreifender’, an idea the two scholars themselves abandoned in ALTHEIM, STIEHL 1964 I (1964), 624. HARNACK 1970, 517-518, on the contrary tried to take over the root grab- again as hypothesized by ALTHEIM as second part of the compound and to make out of MP psʾgryw the equivalent to Gk διÌδοχος. GNOLI 2002. KHURSHUDIAN 1998, 188: “Aber es gibt keinen Grund, an der etymologischen Analyse zu zweifeln, die W. B. Henning und I. Gershevitch vorgeschlagen haben und von E. Benveniste ergänzt wurde.”

120

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

comme symbole de l’être corporel et de la personne [...] Le sogdien nous fait pour ainsi dire assister à l’élaboration de cette notion complexe: on a vu que sogd. ɣrʾyw veut dire à la fois “corps” et “être personnel.” Le sens de “corps” est encore vivant, mais déjà se prépare, comme pour tanū- et autre termes de cette série, le passage au sens du réfléchi “soi-même.” En parthe grīv est déjà devenu le terme pour “vie” et “être personnel.”310

The case of Ḥatra illustrated above and the last phase of the history of Edessa I have previously dealt with311 show how in the case of the Iranian title examined here in its Middle Persian form it is possible to observe exactly the contrary of what occurs in the case of argapet. While in the latter case scarce and generic evidence in Greek did not explain the actual meaning the title had to be given, which was to be divined only by means of the correct analysis of the etymology of the term, which had long since acquired by Iranists but not by scholars of ancient history, in the case of pasāgrīw the lack of evidence pertaining the word in clear and meaningful contexts in the Iranian world does not seem to allow a choice to be made between the two possible meanings of ‘deputy’ or ‘crown-prince’ simply by means of its etymology. Only evidence coming from outside the Iranian world allows us to decide in favour of the correct meaning the title had at the court of Ctesiphon in the 3rd century A. D. This meaning is incontrovertibly that of ‘crown-prince.’ Scholars who have exerted the strongest influence on the research into this term have exerted the heaviest agreed to choose the former meaning, and have translated it with certainty as ‘Stellvertreter,’ ‘deputy;’312 and it is with this meaning that the term has entered all dictionaries313 and most relatively recent research.314 There is no lack of persons who think that

310 311 312

313

314

BENVENISTE 1966, 63; cf. now SUNDERMANN 2002. GNOLI 2000; 2002. HENNING 1936, 28 (= 442); GERSHEVITCH 1954, 125 ‘deputy’, cfr. also GERSHEVITCH 1961, 1143; WIDENGREN 1960, 27 “‘den Zweiten’ als staatrechtlicher Terminus;” BENVENISTE 1966, 64-65 ‘second après le roi’. Besides the Sogdian grammar by GERSHEVITCH that has been already recalled in the preceeding footnote cf. GHARIB 1995, 300 n. 7479 ‘deputy’, GREENFIELD 1987, 258 ‘behind/ instead of the self’, i.e. ‘viceroy’, DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004, 284 ‘deputy, representative’. WRIGHT 1871 II, 241 n. b: “Viceroy;” POIRIER 1981, 212-223, 345: “vice-roi;” SUNDERMANN 1981, 64-65; 1988, 203-206 [=815-818] “Zweiten nach dem König” > παρÌκλητος; BEYER 1990, 247 “Stellvertreter;” AGGOULA 1992, 393: “le lieutenant, le suppléant;” KHURSHUDIAN 1998, 188: “Vizekönig;” SHAPIRA 1999, 133-134.

Appendix: pšgrybʾ at Ḥatra

121

pasāgrīw might signify ‘heir-apparent to the throne,’ although it is significant that they all addressed the problem starting from Syriac and Ḥatrean occurrences of the term.315 Its rendering as ‘successor to the throne’ has earned the clear-cut preference of the scholars dealing with Ḥatra and particularly after the stance taken by André MARICQ, in whose opinion: accepter le sens de ‘vice-roi’ ce serait décréter arbitrairement l’existence d’une institution dont même la monarchie de type parthe la mieux connue, l’Arménie, ne nous à laissé aucun example ... La traduction par prince héritier, au contraire, ne fait pas difficulté: il n’est pas de monarchie sans héritiers du trôn.316

But as I have demonstrated above, the clear-cut opposition by Émile BENVENISTE on the basis of the works by HENNING and GERSHEVITCH317 has deviated most Iranists from this interpretation of the term. Nevertheless it is meaningful that the translation pšgrybʾ = ‘successor to the throne’ has remained the prevailing one among those Semitists who are directly involved with the history of Ḥatra,318 with the only evident exception of Basile AGGOULA, who has returned to the subject many times, reiterating support for the translation by BENVENISTE.319 The firm stance adopted by AGGOULA has led VATTIONI to a less precise position.320

315

316 317 318 319 320

PREUSCHEN 1904, 22; MARICQ 1955; HARNACK 1970; SEGAL 1970, 19: “perhaps he may have been not Viceroy, but heir-apparent to the throne. Certainly he was the highestranking officer in the kingdom;” TEIXIDOR 1989; 1990: “le prince héritier;” GAWLIKOWSKI 1998; LUTHER 1998; 1999; DRIJVERS, HEALEY 1999: “crown prince;” GNOLI 2000; ROSS 2001, 1, 61; GNOLI 2002; LEURINI 2004. For a possible analogy of this term with OIr pasā tanūm occurring in the inscription XPf 30-32 see BENVENISTE 1966, 64-65; KHURSHUDIAN 1998, 187; SHAPIRA 1999; GNOLI 2002. MARICQ 1955, 4-5. BENVENISTE 1966, 51-56. Also starting from VOLKMANN 1937. HARNACK 1970; DRIJVERS 1977, 823: “Thronnachfolger;” VATTIONI 1981 ad loc.: “erede al trono.” AGGOULA 1991; AGGOULA 1992. VATTIONI 1994, 8: “Un titolo di un detentore del potere è pšgrbʾ, pzgrybʾ, pšgryʾ, pšgrybʾ che viene considerato o erede al trono o luogotenente,” but cf. IBID., 77: “l’erede al trono.”

Indices

General index [–] Marcellus: 42; 44 Abdsamya, king of Hatra: 116; 117; 118 and n. 298 Abgal: 91 Abgar (Aelius Septimius): 33; 34; 38; 41-45; 48 and n. 43; 49 n. 46; 76 Abgar (Šapirā) ‘the Handsome’: 33; 41 Abgarid era: 33 Abila: 64 Ablaeus: 99 Achaemenid: 71; 75; 76 and n. 147; 81 Adiabene: 57 adlectio: 48; 49 Aglibōl: 108 agoranomos: 107; 109; 112 Agrippa I: 34; 63; 64 and n. 99; 65; 66 and n. 106; 76; 77 Agrippa II: 64; 66; 77 Ahasuerus: 92; 93 Alans: 70 Antiochia: 86 nn. 178-179; 87 and n. 184 Antiochus, father of Zenobia: 84 n. 170 Antiochus IV, king of Commagene: 63; 65 Antoninus Pius: 70; 71; 72; 73 arabarchos: 99; 111 n. 279 Arabia: 37 n. 8

Ardašīr: 82; 96; 100; 118 argabedh: 96 argapetes: 36 n. 7; 38; 95-113; 120 arg/ark: 97; 98 and n. 219 Armenia: 35; 37; 53; 57; 60; 61 and n. 90; 62 n. 93; 64; 66; 67; 68; 70; 71; 72; 73; 75; 77; 78; 81; 121 Armenians: 56 and n. 71; 67; 70; 74 Arrianus: 68 Arsaces: 99 Arsacid (Parthian) era: 98; 118 and n. 297 Arsacids: 54; 57; 58; 59; 61; 63; 66; 68; 70; 71; 72; 74; 75; 81; 82; 87; 92; 93 Arsanias: 52 Artaxata: 73 Asia Minor: 50 n. 51 Assyrians: 81 Athens: 68 Augustus (Caesar Octavian): 37; 62; 65 Augustus (title): 36 n. 7 Auranitis: 65 Aurelianus: 52; 88 n. 190; 90 Axidares: 69 and n. 120; 70 Azes I: 86 Azes II: 87 Azilises: 86

124

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Babatha: 37 n. 8 Ballista: 83 n. 167 Barlaas: 99; 100 batesa: 99 Bel: 36 n. 7; 107; 110 Belakabos son of Ḥaršā: 103 Ben Neẓer: 92; 93 and n. 203 Berenice: 65 Berytus: 79 bidaxš: 98 Britannia: 75 Caelius Pollius: 53 Caesennius Paetus: 52; 54 n. 66; 58; 60 and n. 84; Caligola (Gaius): 63; 64; 76; 111 n. 279 Cappadocia: 36 n. 7; 62 n. 93; 71 Caracalla: 46 n. 33; caravan commerce: 48 Casperius: 53 Cassius Longinus: 66 n. 106 castellum: 97 Chaerea: 63; 64 n. 99 Chalcis: 65 Charax Sidou: 43 n. 27 chief of Palmyra/rš dy tdmwr/ἔξαρχος Παλμυρηνῶν: 37; 38; 45; 46 and n. 36; 47 n. 39; 48; 49; 50; 52; 95; 104 n. 255 Chosroes: 68; 69 clarissimus/λαμπρıτατος/nhyrʾ: 45; 46 and n. 37; 47 nn. 38 and 39; 49; 50; 90; 103 Claudius: 37; 63; 64 and n. 99; 65; 66 n. 106; 76; 111 n. 279 Claudius (Gothicus): 52 Claudius Marcellus: 42 client kings: 43; 61; 63; 64 and n. 98; 68; 78;

79 Cocceius Rufinus: 50 n. 51 Commagene: 63; 81 Constitutio Antoniniana: 46 consul/—πατος: 34; 41; 45; 51; 52; 59; 71; 76 n. 147 consul suffectus: 49; 51; 76 consular powers: 64; 67 consular rank: 43 and n. 24; 63 consularis/hpṭqʾ/Õπατικıς: 42; 43; 44; 45; 46; 47 nn. 38-39; 49 and n. 46; 50; 51 and n. 56; 103 consularitas/hypateia/HPṬYʾ/ÕπατεÛα: 33; 34 and n. 4; 35; 38; 41; 42; 43 and nn. 25-26; 44 and n. 27; 49 n. 46; 52; 76; 78; 79; 92 consulship: 38; 42; 42; 43 and n. 26; 45; 48 and n. 43; 49; 50; 51; 75 Corbulo: 35; 53 and n. 65; 54 and nn. 66-67; 55; 56 and n. 70; 57 and n. 75; 58; 59 and n. 80; 60 and n. 85; 61; 62 and n. 93; 63; 67 corrector totius Orientis/ʾpnrṭtʾ dy mdnḥʾ klh /ἐπανορθοτής: 47 and n. 42; 49 n. 45; 50; 51 nn. 55-56; 90 and n. 197 Cottius: 77 Cotys: 65; 77 Ctesiphon: 35; 50; 55 n. 68; 68; 98; 112 Dārābgird: 96 ‘dimorphic’ society: 37 Dio: 35; 52 n. 59; 53; 54 n. 67; 56; 57; 58; 59; 61; 63; 69; 71; 74 Diocletian: 88 Dura Europos: 95; 100 duumvir cf. strategos dux: 51 Ecbatana: 59

Indices Edessa: 33; 34; 37; 38; 41; 42; 43; 44, 45 nn. 31 and 32; 46 n. 33; 48 n. 43; 49 n. 46; 77; 78; 79; 115; 118; 120 Egypt: 36 n. 7; 42 Emesa: 74 and n. 141; 77; 83 n. 167; 86 n. 179 epichoric laws: 37 n. 8 equites: 42; 43; 44; 62; 103; 106 and n. 264; 109 Euphrates: 43 n. 27; 95; 113; 115 Fārs: 96 friendly kings: 43; 76; 77; 78 Fronto: 71; 73 and n. 138 Galatia: 62 n. 93 Gallienus: 38; 39; 50 n. 51; 92; 93 gentilicia: 45; 46 and n. 33 Gordianus III (Marcus Antonius): 33; 76 Gornea: 53 Gōzihr: 96 Great king/βασιλεˆς μÔγας: 66; 81 Hadrian: 70 Haiklā New Town of Hunting: 33; 41 Ḥairān (Septimius)/Herodianus: 45; 47 and n. 39; 50; 51; 82; 83 and n. 165; 86 and nn. 178-180; 87 and n. 184; 88 and n. 188; 93 n. 204; 103 and n. 251 Ḥairān Vaballath, father of Odainath: 93 hargbed: 96 Ḥatra: 39; 100; 115-121 Ḥawrān: 66 hegemony: 37; 77 Heliopolis: 76 Helios: 88; 89 Heniochi: 75 Heraclea Pontica: 50 n. 51 ḥrgwpt/ḥrkpty: 98 Herod: 34; 64; 65

125

Herod Antipas: 63; 64; 65 Herodianus: 47 Ḫirbat Samrīn: 91 Iadē (Iulius Aurelius Septimius): 106 Iamblichus: 71; 74; 75; 76 Iardas: 99 imperator: 36 n. 7; 51 and n. 56; 52; 57 imperium maius (exceptional command): 38; 44 and nn. 27, 28; 50; 52; 62 n. 93 imperium merum: 62 interim functions: 42; 44 Iran: 37 Istaxr: 96 Iulia Domna: 46 n. 33; Iulius Priscus: 42; 44 Iulius Proculus: 42 iuridicus/δικαιοδıτης: 36 n. 7; 96; 101; 102; 107; 108; 109; 111 ius gladii ferendi: 61; 62 and n. 92 Jerusalem: 65 Jews: 66 Josephus: 64; 65; 66 Judaea: 34; 64; 66; 77; 81 Kasrik: 61 n. 88 Khorasan: 87 King of kings/rex regum/mlk mlkʾ/Šahānšah/ βασιλεˆς βασιλÔων: 36 n. 7; 38; 39; 47 and nn. 41-42; 49 n. 45; 50; 51 and n. 55; 81-94 Kings-—πατοι: 34; 38 Kushans: 87 Lebanon: 65 legatus Augusti propraetore: 62; 65; 66; 78 legio III Gallica: 61 n. 88 legio XV Apollinaris: 52 n. 59 Lucius Verus: 72; 73; 75 Lysanias: 64; 65

126

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Maetolbaessas: 99 Malakbēl: 108 Malalas: 55 n. 68 Malchos (Iulius Aurelius Septimius): 105 Maʿnu bar Abgar: 33; 34; 41 Manesus: 99; 100 Marcus Aurelius: 50 Martius Verus: 71; 75 Media Atropatene: 53; 59 Medians: 81 Menarnaeus: 99 Merithates: 72 Mesene: 111 Mesopotamia (Bet Nahrin): 33; 41; 42; 55 n. 68; 92 n. 201; 99 μητροκωλονεÛα: 79 and n. 155; 96; 101; 107; 111 μητροκωμÛα: 79 and n. 155 Mithridates, king of Armenia: 53 Mithridates, king of Iberia: 63 Mithridates the Great: 63 Monobazus: 57 Narseh: 98; 100 Naṣōr, grandfather (?) of Odainath: 46 and n. 35; 93 Nebouzabad (Iulius Aurelius): 104 Nehardea: 93 n. 203 Nero: 35, 37; 54; 56 and n. 71; 57; 58; 59; 60; 74 n. 141; 76; 77 Odainath (Septimius): 36 n. 7; 37; 38; 39; 45-52; 77; 79 n. 155; 83 and n. 167; 84; 85; 86 and n. 180; 87; 88 and n. 188; 89; 90; 91 and n. 199; 92 and nn. 200-201; 93 and nn. 203-204; 94; 95; 96; 103 and n. 251; 104 n. 255; 113 ornamenta consularia: 34; 42; 43 and nn. 26,

27; 49 and n. 46; 52; 63; 64 and n. 98; 65; 68; 76; 77; 78 ornamenta praetoria: 63; 76; 77 Orontes: 82; 83 and n. 167; 85 and n. 174; 86 and n. 177, 179; 87; 92 Osrhoene: 43 Pacorus, king of Media Atropatene: 53; 59 Pacorus (Aurelius), king of Armenia: 71; 72; 73 and nn. 138-139 Pacorus II, king of Parthia: 68 and n. 116; 69 Paikuli: 98 and n. 220 Palestine: 63 Paliga: 99; 100 Palmyra: 36 n. 7; 37; 38; 44; 45 and nn. 31-32; 46 and n. 33; 48 and nn. 43-44; 49 and nn. 45-46; 77; 78; 82; 85; 86 and n. 179; 87 and n. 189; 89 n. 193; 90; 91; 93 and n. 204; 95; 96; 99; 100; 101; 102; 104 n. 254; 107; 108; 109; 110; 111; 112 Papāk, Pābag: 82; 96 Parapotamia: 99 Parthamasiris: 69; 70 Parthamaspates: 55 n. 68 Parthia: 57; 67; 68 Parthian empire/dynasty: 35; 36; 53; 54; 55 n. 68; 76 n. 147; 77; 81 Parthians: 56 and n. 71; 61; 69; 74; 78; 102 paṣgribā/PṢGRYBʾ/pšʾgryw, pasāgrīw = ‘crown prince’: 33; 34; 38; 39; 41; 115-121 Persians: 82; 83 and n. 167; 85; 86; 89; 91; 92 Pharasmanes, king of Iberia: 53 and n. 64 Philip the Arab: 42; 46; 48; 49 Photius: 71; 74; 76 Phraates: 99; 100

Indices Plinius the Elder: 39 Polemon, king of Pontus: 66 Pomponius Laetianus: 42; 44 Pontus: 81 portorium: 110 praetor rank: 63 prefect of Egypt: 54 procurator: 36 n. 7; 62; 66; 82; 83; 84; 85; 96; 99; 104 and n. 258; 105 and n. 258; 107 and n. 270; 110; 111 centenarius: 82; 83; 84; 85 ducenarius: 36 n. 7; 85; 104; 105; 107; 110 propraetor: 62 Quietus: 83 n. 167 Rabbi Judah: 92 Radamistus: 53 restitutor totius Orientis/mtqnnʾ dy mdnḥ klh: 47 n. 42; 50; 51 and n. 55; 89; 90 and n. 197 Rhandeia: 35; 52 and n. 60; 53 and n. 65; 54 n. 67; 57; 58; 59; 61 and n. 90; 67; 70 Roman citizenship: 34 Roman public law: 36; 37 n. 8; 42 Romans: 56 and n. 71; 58; 61; 69; 89 Rome: 35; 36 n. 7; 38; 39; 52 and n. 59; 53; 54; 57; 58; 59; 60 and n. 82; 61 and n. 90; 63; 64 n. 99; 65; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 73 and n. 138; 74; 75; 76; 78; 79; 82; 93; 109 Šābuhr: 39; 49 n. 45; 81; 83; 91; 93; 94; 100 Šāhānšāh: 47 Šalmē (Iulius Aurelius): 106 salutatio: 57 Samaria: 64 Samaritans: 66 Sampsigeramos, king of Emesa: 65

127

Sanatruk I, king of Hatra: 117; 118 Sanatruk II, king of Hatra: 116, 117; 118 and n. 298 Sanatruk, king of ‘Persians’: 55 n. 68 Sanatruk, king of Armenia: 70 Sassanian empire/dynasty: 35; 36; 39; 48 and n. 44; 61 n. 90; 78; 81; 82; 87; 90; 92; 93; 99; 100; 112; 113; 118 n. 301 Seleucid Era: 33; 118 and n. 297 Senate (Roman): 49; 63; 64 and n. 98 senator/συνκλητικıς/snqlṭqʾ: 38; 45; 46 and n. 37; 47 n. 39; 48; 49 and n. 45; 62; 71; 76 senatorial rank: 36 n.7; 64 Senate and people (of Palmyra): 104; 107 Septimius Severus: 45; 48; 78; 86 Sīʾa: 66 Sohaemus, king of Armenia: 71; 72 and n. 134; 73 and nn. 138-139; 74 and n. 141; 75; 76 Sohaemus (C. Iulius), king of Emesa: 74 n. 141 Sophene: 74 and n. 141 Statius: 68 n. 116 strategos: 82; 84; 104 and n. 258; 105 and n. 258; 109 Suda: 71 symposiarch: 107; 110 Switzerland: 112 Syria: 36 n. 7; 44; 49 n. 45; 53; 65; 66; 69; 72; 83; 92 n. 201 Syria Coele: 44; Syria Phoenice: 49; 111 Ṭabarī: 96; 100 n. 226 Tacitus: 35; 52 n. 59; 53; 54 and n. 67; 55; 56; 57 and n. 75; 60 and n. 86; 61; 62; 63; 67 and n. 114

128

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Teilreich: 38; 77 Thathaeus: 99 Thucydides: 71 Tiberiade: 65; 68 Tiberius Iulius Alexander: 54; 111 Tigranes: 58 Tīrē: 96 Tiridates: 53 and n. 65; 54 and nn. 66-67; 55; 56 and n. 71; 57; 58; 59 and n. 80; 60; 61; 63; 67; 70; 76 Tiridates (satrap): 74; 75 Trachonitis: 65 Trajan: 55 n. 68; 61; 68; 69; 70 triumph: 57 Turfan: 119 Tyrus: 49 Ummidius Quadratus: 53 and n. 64; 66 Uranius Antoninus: 36 n. 7; Vaballath (Septimius Athenodorus): 45; 46 n. 35; 47 n. 42; 51 and nn. 55-56; 52 and n. 57; 88 and n. 188, 190; 89; 90; 91; 93; 95 Vałarš/Vologeses: 70; 73 Vałaršapat: 70 Valerianus: 49; 50; 100; 112

Ventidius Cumanus: 66 Vespasianus: 54; 77 vexillationes ex Illyrico: 52 n. 59 Vibius Marsus: 65; 66 Vinicianus Annius: 54 vir clarissimus: 51 Vologeses I: 53; 57; 59; 60 and n. 82; 61; 63; 67; 68; 78; 118 n. 303 Vologeses II: 68; 70 Vologeses III, king of Parthia: 70; 71; 73 and n. 139 Vologeses IV, king of Parthia: 72; 73 Vologesias: 111 Vorōd (Iulius Aurelius Septimius): 36 n. 7; 39; 82; 83; 84 and n. 169; 85 and n. 172; 88; 95 and n. 207; 96; 99; 101; 102; 103; 104 and n. 258; 105 and n. 258; 106; 107 and n. 270; 108; 109; 110; 111; 112 and n. 283; 113 Xiphilinus: 55 n. 68; 69 Zabbai: 90 Zabdā: 90 Zenobia: 36 n. 7; 50 n. 51; 83; 84 and n. 170; 88; 90 Zenobios: 84 n. 170

Indices

129

Register of primary sources Act. Ap. 12, 19-23: 65 n. 103 Anon. p. Dionem, fr. 7 (MÜLLER, FHG IV 195): 50 n. 51 Arr., Parth. fr. 32 (235 ROOS-WIRTH): 68 n. 118 Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nashim, Ketuboth 51b: 39; 92 BMC, 204 n° 1272-1273: 70 n. 125 Cassiodorus’ Variae: 34 n. 4 CIG III, 6559 = IG XIV, 1472: 72 n. 133; 75 n. 146 CIL III 6052 = ILS 394: 75 n. 146 CIL III 6741 = ILS 232: 61 n. 88 CIL III 6742: 61 n. 88 CIL III 6742a: 61 n. 88 CIS II 3946 = Inv. III 19: 89 n. 194 CMC 17, 23-18, 16: 118 n. 301 Codex Iustinianus: 34 n. 4 Codex Theodosianus: 34 n. 4 Dio LIII 6-7: 62 n. 91 Dio LX 8, 1-3 (II, 670 BOISSEVAIN): 63 n. 94 Dio LXII 19, 1 (III, 57 BOISSEVAIN): 52 n. 59 Dio LXII 21, 1 (III, 60 BOISSEVAIN): 52 n. 60 Dio LXII 23, 2 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN): 53 n. 65 Dio LXII 23, 3 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN): 55 n. 68 Dio LXII 23, 4 (III, 61 BOISSEVAIN): 57 n. 72 Dio LXVIII 17, 1 (III, 204 BOISSEVAIN): 69 n. 121 Dio LXVIII 17, 2-3 (III, 204-205 BOISSEVAIN): 68 n. 117; 69 n. 119 Dio LXVIII 30, 3 (III, 218 BOISSEVAIN): 55 n. 68 Dio LXXI 2, 1 (III, 248 BOISSEVAIN): 71 n. 130; 72 n. 135 Dio LXXI 14, 2 (III, 259 BOISSEVAIN): 75 n.

143 Dio LXXII in Xiph. 265, 24 (III, 271 BOISSEVAIN): 50 n. 50 DUNANT 1971, 66 n. 2 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 8: 47 n. 38 DUNANT 1971, n° 52 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 7: 47 n. 38 Front., Princip. Hist. 17 (199 VAN DEN HOUT): 72 n. 135 Front., Ver. 2, 18 (120 VAN DEN HOUT): 71 n. 128 H 28: 115 n. 285; 116 H 33: 118 H 36: 115 n. 285; 116; 118 n. 300 H 195: 115 n. 285; 116 H 287: 115 n. 285; 117 H 367: 115 n. 285; 117 H 368: 115 n. 285; 117 H 375: 115 n. 285; 117 H 376: 115 n. 285; 117 H. A., Anton. 9, 6: 70 n. 126 H. A., Gall. 3, 3: 91 n. 199 H. A., Gall. 10, 1: 91 n. 199 H. A., Gall. 12, 1: 91 n. 199 H. A., Gall. 13, 1: 83 n. 165; 91 n. 199 H. A., Hadr. 21, 10: 70 n. 123 H. A., Marc. Ant. 8, 6: 72 n. 135 H. A., Marc. Aur. 22, 1: 75 n. 145 H. A., tyr. tr. 15,2-16: 83 n. 165 and 167; 91 n. 199 Hipp., In Dan. 7, 8: 93 n. 203 IGLS VI 2760 = ILS 8958: 74 n. 141 IGRR III 1032 ILS 9117 Inv. III 3 = IGRR III 1032 = SEYRIG 1937 =

130

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

SCHLUMBERGER 1942a = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 10: 39; 47 n. 41; 51 n. 54; 82-88; 103 n. 249 Inv. X 81: 48 n. 44 Inv. X 127: 48 n. 44 Joh. Antioch. fr. 231 (412 ROBERTO): 50 n. 51 Jos., Ant. XIX 236-244: 63 n. 95 Jos., Ant. XIX 274-275: 65 n. 100 Jos., Ant. XIX 276-277: 111 n. 279 Jos., Ant. XIX 326-327: 65 n. 104 Jos., Ant. XIX 338-342: 66 n. 105 Jos., Ant. XIX 343-352: 65 n. 103 Jos., Ant. XX 1: 66 n. 106 Jos., Ant. XX 105-136: 66 n. 108 Jos., B. J. II 204-222: 63 n. 95 Jos., B. J. II 215-217: 65 n. 101 Jos., B. J. II 218-222: 65 n. 104 Jos., B. J. II 223-246: 66 n. 108 Jos., B. J. V 147-155: 65 n. 104 Lucianus, Alex. 27: 72 n. 135 Lucianus, Hist. Conscr. 21, 25: 72 n. 135 Malal. XI 6 (273-274 Bonn = 207 THURN): 55 n. 68 MOUTERDE in CHÉHAB 1962, 19-20 = SEYRIG 1963, 162 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 3: 46 n. 37 Notitia Dignitatum: 34 n. 4 OGIS 419 = WADD. 2365: 66 n. 110 Or. Sib. XIII 164-171 (210 GEFFCKEN): 89 n. 192 P 1 = Syriac Parchment 1: 34 n. 5 P 2 = Syriac Parchment 2: 33 and n. 1, 34 n. 5, 41, 42; 79 n. 155 PAT 0063 + 0453 = CIS II 4105ter: 107 n. 272 PAT 0283 = CIS II 3937 = Inv. III 12 = IGRR III 1036 = OGIS 644: 103 n. 252

PAT 0284 = CIS II 3938 = Inv. III 11 = IGRR III 1041: 103 n. 253 PAT 0285 = CIS II 3939 = Inv. III 10 = IGRR III 1040: 104 nn. 256, 258 PAT 0286 = CIS II 3940 = Inv. III 9 = IGRR III 1044: 105 n. 262 PAT 0287 = CIS II 3941 = Inv. III 8 = IGRR III 1042: 105 n. 260 PAT 0288 = CIS II 3942 = Inv. III 7 = IGRR III 1045 = OGIS 646: 106 n. 269 PAT 0289 = CIS II 3943 = Inv. III 6 = IGRR III 1043 = OGIS 645: 97; 106 n. 268 PAT 0290 = CIS II 3944 = Inv. III 16 = IGRR III 1035 = MILIK 1972, 232, 317 = INGHOLT 1976, 130 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 4: 46 n. 37; 47 n. 39; 83 n. 164 PAT 0291 = CIS II 3945 = Inv. III 17 = IGRR III 17 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 9: 47 n. 38 PAT 0292 = CIS II 3946 = Inv. III 19 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 11: 47 nn. 40 and 42; 51 n. 55; 89; 90 PAT 0317 = CIS II 3971 = WADD. 2628 = IGRR III 1028 = OGIS 649: 47 n. 42; 51 n. 55; 84 n. 170; 90 PAT 0558 = CIS II 4202 = Inv. VIII 55 = IGRR III 1034 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985 n° 2: 46 n. 37 PAT 1684 = SCHLUMBERGER 1951, 60 n° 36, 151 n° 21: 91 n. 198 PAT 2753 = CANTINEAU 1931, 138 n° 17 = MILIK 1972, 317 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1973, 78 = INGHOLT 1976, 120 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 1: 46 n. 36; 49 PAT 2815 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985 n° 13: 46 nn. 36 and 37

Indices Paulinus’ Vita Ambrosii: 34 n. 4 Petrus Patricius, fr. 14 (FHG IV, 189 MÜLLER): 102 n. 239 PDura 20: 95 n. 205; 96 n. 209; 99 and n. 223; 100 PEuphr. 1: 34 n. 5, 42 PEuphr. 2: 42 PEuphr. 3-4: 42, 44 n. 27 Phot., Bibl., cod. 94 (75b BEKKER = II, 40 HENRY): 71 n. 132 RIC III, 105, n° 586: 70 n. 125 RIC III, 110 n° 619: 70 n. 127 RIC III, 255 n° 511-513: 75 n. 144 RIC III, 322 n° 1370-1375: 75 n. 144 SEYRIG 1963, 161-162 and fig. 2: 103 and n. 250 SEYRIG 1963, 161 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 5: 47 nn. 38 and 39; 83 n. 164; 103 n. 251

131

SEYRIG 1963, 161 = GAWLIKOWSKI 1985, n° 6: 47 nn. 38 and 39; 83 n. 164 ŠKZ ll. 1: 81-82 and n. 161; 97 n. 214; 98; 112 Suidas, s. v. Iamblichos (II, 603 ADLER): 71 n. 131 Tac., Ann. XII 45, 4: 53 nn. 63 and 64 Tac., Ann. XII 46, 2: 53 n. 64 Tac., Ann. XII 54: 66 n. 108 Tac., Ann. XII 56, 1: 67 n. 112 Tac., Ann. XIII 7: 74 n. 141 Tac., Ann. XIII 34, 2: 67 n. 113 Tac., Ann. XV 26, 2: 52 n. 59 Tac., Ann. XV 28, 2: 54 n. 66 Tac., Ann. XV 29, 1: 59 n. 80 Tac., Ann. XV 29, 2: 59 n. 80; 60 n. 83 Tac., Ann. XV 30, 1: 56 n. 70 Tac., Ann. XV 31: 59 n. 81; 67

132

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Register of modern authors Aggoula: 115 n. 285; 116 n. 287, 290-291; 117 nn. 292-296; 118 n. 303; 120 n. 314; 121 and n. 319 Alföldy: 76 and n. 147 Allison: 60 n. 85 Altheim: 104 n. 255; 108 n. 277; 116 n. 291; 119 n. 307 Asdourian: 72 n. 136 Aṣ-Ṣ̣āliḥī: 117 nn. 293, 296 Avi-Yonah: 93 n. 203 Baldini: 108 n. 277 Barrett: 74 n. 141 Bartholomae: 97 and nn. 213, 215; 98; 100 Benoist: 34 n. 5; 43 nn. 23 and 27; 44 n. 27; 45 n. 31 Benveniste: 119; 120 nn. 310, 312; 120; 121 n. 317 Bertolino: 116 n. 288; 118 and nn. 297-298 Bertone: 87; 88 and n. 186 Beyer: 120 n. 314 Boissevain: 71 n. 129; 72 n. 136 Bonnet: 112 n. 282 Bowersock: 88 n. 189 Bradford Welles: 99; 100 nn. 224-225 Braund: 63 n. 96; 74 n. 141; 76; 77 and n. 148; 78 Brock: 43 and n. 22 Burkhalter-Arce: 110 and n. 278; 111 n. 279 Cagnat: 87 Cantineau: 46 n. 36; 48 n. 42; 85 n. 173; 90 n. 197; 107 n. 270 Carter: 60 n. 84 Cary: 53; 56; 62; 63; 69; 71; 75 Cereti: 98 n. 220 Chabot: 87; 104 n. 258; 107 n. 270

Chaumont: 53 n. 62; 55 n. 69; 61 and n. 90; 70 n. 124; 72 and n. 137; 73 n. 139; 74 nn. 141-142; 75; 97 n. 215; 98 n. 219; 100 and n. 226 Chéhab: 46 n. 37 Ciancaglini: 96 n. 211; 101 and n. 234 Clermont-Ganneau: 48 n. 42; 85 and n. 173; 87; 90 n. 197 Cordiano: 60 n. 84 Cotton: 37 n. 8 Cumont: 112 n. 282 Cussini: 45 n. 32; 102 and n. 242 Da̧browa: 65 n. 102; 66 n. 109 Debevoise: 72 n. 136 De Blois: 93 n. 203 De Francisci: 78 n. 152 Degen: 116 n. 290 De La Ville de Mirmont: 60 n. 85 Delpuech: 60 n. 85 De Martino: 78 n. 152 Dijkstra: 116 n. 289, 291 Di Marco: 62 n. 92 Dittenberger: 97 Dodgeon: 82 n. 161; 83 n. 163; 102 and n. 239; 118 n. 301 Donner: 116 n. 290 Drijvers: 33 and n. 1; 34 n. 5; 43 and n. 24; 121 nn. 315, 318 Dunant: 47 n. 38 Durkin-Meisterernst: 97 n. 217; 119 n. 306; 120 n. 313 Eck: 44 n. 27 Epstein: 93 n. 202 Equini Schneider: 84 n. 169; 102 and n. 241; 107 n. 273

Indices Feissel: 34 n. 5; 44 nn. 27, 29, 30; Feldman: 65; 66 n. 106 Février: 104 n. 255; 108 n. 277 Fink: 100 n. 225 Frankfort: 74 n. 141; 81 and n. 157 Frye: 96 n. 209; 98; 100 and n. 225; 101 and n. 235 Gaheis: 64 n. 99 Gallazzi: 51 n. 56 Gardner: 45 n. 32; Garnsey: 62 n. 92 Garzetti: 60 n. 84 Gascou: 34 n. 5; 44 nn. 27, 29, 30; Gatier: 46 n. 33; Gawlikowski: 34 n. 5; 46 nn. 36 and 37; 47 nn. 38-41; 48 n. 43; 50 n. 51; 51 n. 54; 82 n. 162; 83 nn. 163-164; 84 n. 169; 85 and n. 175; 88 n. 187, 189-190; 89 n. 194; 102 and n. 238; 103 n. 251; 121 n. 315 Gershevitch: 34 n. 3; 119; 120 nn. 312-313; 121 Gharib: 120 n. 313 Gignoux: 101 and n. 229 Gilliam: 100 n. 225 Gilmartin: 60 n. 85 Gnoli G.: 81 n. 159; 118 n. 301 Gnoli T.: 33 n. 2; 34 n. 5; 36 n. 7; 37 n. 10; 39 n. 12; 41 n. 15 and n. 16; 42 n. 18; 44 nn. 27 and 28; 45 n. 31; 46 n. 33; 47 nn. 42 and 43; 50 n. 51; 51 n. 55; 52 n. 58; 77 n. 151; 78 n. 153; 79 n. 154; 90 n. 196; 91 n. 197; 92 n. 200; 105 n. 284; 118 n. 302; 119 n. 308; 120 n. 311; 121 n. 315 Göbl: 75 n. 144 Greenfield: 96 n. 211; 120 n. 313

133

Griffiths: 81 and n. 157 Groag: 60 n. 84 Gutschmid: 66 and n. 111; 72 n. 136 Haines: 71 Hammond: 60 n. 85 Harnack: 97 nn. 214-215; 100 and n. 226; 119 n. 307; 121 nn. 315, 318 Hartmann: 38 and n. 11; 45 nn. 31 and 32; 46 nn. 33 and 34; 47 n. 42; 48 nn. 42 and 43; 49 and nn. 45-49; 50 n. 50; 51 and nn. 54-56; 52 n. 57; 77 and nn. 150-151; 81 n. 157; 82 n. 162; 83 nn. 164-165; 84 n. 169; 87 nn. 183-184; 88 n. 187, 189; 89 n. 194; 90 n. 197; 91 nn. 198-199; 92 n. 201; 93 and n. 204; 95 and n. 208; 96 n. 209; 102 and n. 244; 103 nn. 250-253; 104 nn. 255-256; 105 nn. 258, 260, 262; 106 nn. 268-269; 107 nn. 270, 273; 108 and n. 274, 276 Healey: 33 and n. 1; 34 n. 5; 43 and n. 24; 121 n. 315 Heil: 52 n. 59; 53 n. 61; 54 n. 67; 57 and nn. 73-74; 58 and nn. 76-77; 60 n. 82; 61 nn. 89 and 90; 62 n. 93 Henderson: 52 nn. 59 and 60; Henning: 97 n. 217; 101 and n. 228; 119 and nn. 304-305; 120 n. 312; 121 Herzfeld: 98 and nn. 220-221; 100 and n. 227 Hillers: 102 and n. 242 Hollis: 68 n. 116 Humbach: 99 Hüttl: 73 n. 138 Huyse: 82 nn. 160 and 161; 101 and n. 233 Ibrahim: 118 n. 303 Ingholt: 46 n. 37; 47 n. 39; 51 n. 54; 84 nn.

134

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

169-170; 104 n. 258; 107 and n. 273 Isaac: 39; Jackson: 54; 56; 59; 67 Jones: 62 n. 92 Justi: 69 n. 120; 97; 98 Kaizer: 50 n. 51; 88 nn. 187-189; 89 and n. 193; 102 and n. 245 Kettenhofen: 46 n. 33; 81 n. 159 Khurshudian: 101 and n. 232; 115 n. 285; 119 n. 309; 120 n. 314 Koenen: 118 n. 301 Körner: 44 n. 28; Kotula: 84 nn. 169-170 Kroll: 75 n. 145 Kupiszewski: 111 n. 280 Lemosse: 37 n. 8; 39; 59 n. 79; 77 n. 149 Lepper: 69 n. 122 Leurini: 34 n. 3; 119 n. 306; 121 n. 315 Levy: 96 and n. 211 Lewis: 37 n. 8 Liebs: 62 n. 92 Lieu: 45 n. 32; 82 and n. 161; 83 and n. 163; 102 and n. 239; 118 n. 301 Long: 51 n. 56 Luther: 34 n. 5; 44 n. 27; 78 n. 153; 121 n. 315 MacMullen: 36 n. 7 Magie: 70; 73 n. 138; 74 n. 141 Manfredini: 62 n. 92 Maricq: 116 nn. 287, 289-290; 121 and nn. 315-316 Mazza: 36 n. 7 Mehl: 60 n. 85 Meulder: 60 n. 84 Michalowski: 88 nn. 187, 189 Milik: 46 nn. 36 and 37; 47 n. 39; 88 nn. 188-190; 107 n. 270; 116 n. 290; 118

n. 303 Millar: 34 n. 5; 43 and n. 25; 64 and n. 97 and 99; 66 nn. 107 and 110; 74 n. 141; 79 n. 155; 84 n. 169; 95 n. 206; 102 and n. 240 Momigliano: 60 n. 85 Mommsen: 62 n. 92; 63 and n. 96; 64 n. 98; 96 and n. 212; 101; 109 Moretti: 75 n. 146 Mouterde: 46 n. 37 Muccioli: 81 n. 158 Müller: 97 n. 216 Nehmé: 79 n. 155 Neusner: 93 n. 203 Nöldeke: 96 and n. 210; 97; 98; 100 Panaino: 81-82 n. 160 Pani: 63 n. 96; 66 n. 105; 74 n. 141 Parlasca: 107 n. 273 Parry: 45 n. 32; Pflaum: 44 n. 28; 60 n. 84 Piersimoni: 46 n. 33 Poirier: 116 n. 287, 290-291; 120 n. 314 Potter: 34 n. 5; 43 and n. 23; 44 nn. 27 and 28; 45 nn. 31 and 32; 48 nn. 42 and 43; 49 n. 48; 50 n. 51; 51 n. 56; 84 n. 169; 86 n. 178; 89 and n. 191; 90 n. 197 Premerstein: 75 n. 145 Preuschen: 121 n. 315 Questa: 57 n. 75 Rémy: 49 and n. 49; 64 n. 98 Ritterling: 75 n. 145 Röllig: 116 n. 290 Römer: 118 n. 301 Rosenthal: 116 nn. 290-291 Ross: 34 n. 5; 43 and n. 26; 44; 45 n. 31; 48 n. 43; 78 n. 153; 121 n. 315

Indices Rostovtzeff: 99; 100 n. 224 Rowton: 37 and n. 9 Safar: 116 n. 290-291; 118 n. 297 Sartre: 50 n. 51; 74 n. 141; 79 n. 155; 102 and n. 243; 104 n. 258; 115 n. 285 Schäfer: 81 n. 157 Schehl: 72 n. 134 Schlumberger: 46 n. 33; 47 n. 41; 51 n. 54; 82 n. 162; 83 and nn. 166-167; 84 and n. 171; 85 and nn.172, 174, 176; 86 and n. 179; 87 and nn. 181, 185; 88 and n. 186; 91 n. 198; 102 and n. 237; 112 n. 283 Schmitt: 101 and n. 231 Schottky: 61 n. 90 Schuol: 106 n. 269 Schur: 60 n. 82; 61 n. 87; 67 n. 114 Schürer: 64 n. 99; 66 nn. 107 and 110; 74 n. 141 Schwartz: 42 n. 17 Segal: 118 n. 303; 121 n. 315 Seyrig: 46 nn. 33 and 37; 47 nn. 38, 39 and 41; 51 n. 54; 82 n. 162; 83 n. 164; 84 n. 169; 85 nn. 173-174; 87 n. 183; 103 nn. 250-251 Shaked: 96 n. 211 Shapira: 120 n. 314 Skjærvø: 99 and n. 222 Sommer: 37 and n. 9; 39; 45 n. 32; 46 n. 33; 102 and n. 248; 106 n. 265 Spagnuolo Vigorita: 62 n. 92 Sperti: 57 n. 74 Starcky: 102 and n. 238 Stein: 60 n. 85; 69 n. 120; 74 nn. 140-141; 75 n. 145 Step’anyan: 61 n. 90 Stevenson: 74 n. 141

135

Stiehl: 108 n. 277; 116 n. 291; 119 n. 307 Strack: 70 n. 127 Sullivan: 74 nn. 140 and 142 Sundermann: 120 n. 310, 314 Swain: 48 n. 42; 90 n. 197 Syme: 60 nn. 85 and 86; 67 n. 114 Szemerényi: 97 nn. 215, 217; 98 and n. 218; 101 and n. 230 Tafazzoli: 101 n. 235 Teixidor: 33 and n. 2; 34 n. 5; 42 and nn. 19 and 20; 43 and n. 21; 48 n. 43; 118 n. 297; 121 n. 315 Telegdi: 96 n. 211; 97 n. 215 Thackeray: 65 Traina: 36 n. 7; 60 n. 85 Tresch: 67 n. 114 Vattioni: 115 and n. 285; 116 nn. 287-288, 290-291; 117 nn. 292-296; 118 and n. 303; 121 and n. 318, 320 Vermès: 64 n. 99; 66 nn. 107 and 110; 74 n. 141 Vervaet: 60 nn. 84 and 85; 62 n. 93 Villeneuve: 79 n. 155 Vitucci: 64 n. 99 Volkmann: 121 n. 317 Walser: 67 n. 114 Watson: 84 n. 169; 86 n. 178 Wellesley: 52 n. 59 Wheeler: 52 n. 59 Widengren: 97 n. 215; 115 and n. 286; 118 n. 299; 119 n. 305; 120 n. 312 Wilken: 111 n. 279 Will: 84 n. 169; 86 n. 178; 102 and n. 247; 104-105 n. 258; 111 n. 281 Wolff: 37 n. 8 Wolffgramm: 60 n. 85 Wolski: 61 n. 90; 81 n. 159

136

The Interplay of Roman and Iranian Titles

Wright: 120 n. 314 Yardeni: 37 n. 8 Yon: 37 n. 10; 38 n. 11; 45 n. 32; 46 and nn. 33-35; 48 n. 44; 84 nn. 169 and 171; 102 and n. 246; 104 n,. 254, 257; 105

n. 261; 106 nn. 263-264, 266; 108 n. 275 Young: 82 n. 162; 84 n. 194; 90 n. 195; 107 and n. 271 Ziegler: 61 n. 90; 67 n. 114; 72 n. 134