Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T21:33:44.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pompey's Organization of Bithynia-Pontus: two neglected Texts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. J. Marshall
A. J. Marshall
Affiliation:
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The surviving literary evidence for the lex Pompeia, provincial charter of the joint province of Bithynia-Pontus, is of prime importance for our knowledge of the nature and content of these charters, which established the fundamental organization of a Roman province. Of the charters of other provinces, only the lex Rupilia of Sicily is known in any comparable detail. Our knowledge of Pompey's law, a piece of work which stood the test of time and lasted, with some modification, until the day of Cassius Dio, also affords some reasonable basis for an assessment of his administrative achievement.

The discussion of Pompey's organization of this province has tended to concentrate attention on two traditional questions. Firstly, controversy about the extent of the territory added to Bithynia from the kingdom of Mithridates to form the new province has led to lengthy debate concerning the exact location of the eastern frontier. Secondly, much speculation has centred around the attempt to determine Pompey's ultimate purpose in organizing this area as he did and to accord him appropriate praise or condemnation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 1-2 , November 1968 , pp. 103 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © A. J. Marshall 1968. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

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

References

1 Cassius Dio XXXVII, 20, 2.

2 Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford 1937), 157 f.Google Scholar, concentrates on frontiers and royal land. Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941), 978 f.Google Scholar, similarly concentrates discussion on the fate of the Χὠρα βασιλική. Vitucci's, G. important study, ‘Gli ordinamenti costitutivi di Pompeo in terra d'Asia’, Rend. Linc. II (1947), 428–47Google Scholar, spends roughly one page on the lex Pompeia as compared with 431–6 on the boundary question. Cf. Holmes, T. Rice, The Roman Republic (Oxford 1923) 1, 210 f.Google Scholar, 434 f.; Anderson, J. G. C., ‘Pompey's treatment of Pontus’, Anatolian Studies presented to W. H. Buckler (Manchester 1939), 3–7Google Scholar; Wellesley, K., ‘The extent of the territory added to Bithynia by Pompey’, Rh. Mus. XCVI (1953), 293–318Google Scholar; Van Ooteghem, J., Pompée le grand bâtisseur d'empire (Brussels 1954), 246Google Scholar.

3 Carcopino, J., Histoire romaine II 3 (Paris 1943), 624 f.Google Scholar, asserts that Pompey fostered urban life in order to weaken the kings, but praises his eastern settlement as ‘le chef-d'oeuvre de Pompée’ and concludes ‘il y a semé la civilisation’. Wellesley (above, note 2) 295 is concerned to defend Pompey's ‘reputation as empire-builder’, but agrees (312 f.) that he encouraged urban growth to check the client kings. Van Ooteghem (above, note 2) 244 endorses Carcopino's praise, but at 248, note 4, follows the view of Fletcher, W. G., ‘The Pontic Cities of Pompey the Great’, TAPA LXX (1939), 17 f.Google Scholar, that his aim was administrative convenience and not the spreading of culture. Broughton, T. R. S., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (Baltimore 1938) IV, 530Google Scholar f., assumes that Pompey's motive was administrative and offers praise for a ‘statesmanlike settlement’. Scullard, H. H., From the Gracchi to Nero 2 (London 1963), 107 f.Google Scholar, praises Pompey while allowing a wide range of possible motives. Pompey is variously praised by Vitucci (above, note 2) 447; Oman, C., Seven Roman Statesmen of the Late Republic (New York 1902), 260Google Scholar; Reid, J. S., The Municipalities of the Roman Empire (Cambridge 1913), 338, 367Google Scholar; Cary, M., CAH IX, 396Google Scholar; Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950), 368Google Scholar. Mommsen, Th., History of Rome (English translation, London 1908) IV, 441–8Google Scholar, oddly combines praise for his promotion of urban life and support of Greek civilization with biting criticism of his character. Badian, E., Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic (Pretoria 1967), 70 f.Google Scholar, praises Pompey's administrative ability while depicting him as a ruthless exploiter and wondering how much money ‘the greatest of the owners of the captive world’ invested in his new cities. Frank, T., Roman Imperialism (New York 1914), 327Google Scholar, disparages Pompey's organization of the cities and sees their oligarchic constitution as the work of a political turncoat. Rice Holmes (above, note 2) 1, 211, assumes that he fostered urban life in order to ‘influence the Asiatics in the interest of Rome’. Abbott, F. F. and Johnson, A. C., Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton 1926), 72–73Google Scholar, reduce Pompey's motive for founding cities to the wish to please the Equites by facilitating taxcollection. Anderson (above, note 2) 6–7 denounces Pompey's incorporation of Pontic territory as premature. Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City (Oxford 1940), 58Google Scholar, declares of the founding of the cities, ‘The motive for the innovation was not elevated’, and sees Pompey's work as ‘simply a confession of the incapacity of the Roman provincial system to administer the provinces’.

4 Pliny, , Ep. X, 79Google Scholar; 80; 112; 114; 115. Cassius Dio XXXVII, 20, 2, νόμοις τε ἰδίοις καὶ πολιτείαις κατεστήσατο καὶ διεκόσμησεν, is too vague to press, but does attest constitutional regulation. Vitucci (above, note 2) 441 lists epigraphical evidence for the activities of the censors in the cities of Bithynia-Pontus.

5 Cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., ‘Trajan's replies to Pliny; authorship and necessity’, JRS LII (1962), 114 fGoogle Scholar. Reid (above, note 3) 480 conjectures that the lex Pompeia regulated procedure for inter-state litigation, as did the lex Rupilia. Cic., , Verr. II, 2, 16, 40Google Scholar, et in ceteris rebus et in iudiciis, shows that the latter covered topics other than those selected by Cicero for his indictment. Cf. Carcopino, J., La Loi de Hiéron et les Romains (Paris 1941), 73Google Scholar.

6 Institutes I, 193, text as emended by Hollweg, Lachmann and others, and accepted by Seckel, E. and Kuebler, B., Gai Institutionum Commentarii Quattuor 2 (Leipzig 1908)Google Scholar; De Zulueta, F., The Institutes of Gaius (Oxford 1946)Google Scholar; Reinach, J., Gaius, Institutes (Paris 1950)Google Scholar; David, M. and Nelson, H. L. W., Studia Gaiana II, 2 (Leiden 1960)Google Scholar. Kniep, F., Der Rechtsgelehrte Gaius und die Ediktskommentare (Jena 1910), 10Google Scholar, rejects Hollweg's emendation ecce and retains the MS reading haecce. I see no reason to follow Solazzi, S., ‘Glosse a Gaio’, Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono (Palermo 1936), 191Google Scholar in condemning this passage as the work of a ‘glossatore orientale’. Cf. De Zulueta, F., JRS XXIV (1934), 180 f.Google Scholar; Schulz, F., History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford 1953), 162 f.Google Scholar; Reinach, op. cit., p. XV, for criticism of the vogue for ‘gloss-hunting’ in the Institutes.

7 Römisches Staatsrecht III (Leipzig 1887), 315Google Scholar, note 3. His recantation of this theory, Eph. Epigr. IX (1903), 6Google Scholar, note 33, concedes that lex Pompeia is a correct designation, but does not withdraw the identification of the lex Bithynorum.

8 See Marquardt, J., Römische Staatsverwaltung I 2 (Leipzig 1881), 356Google Scholar, note 4; Kniep (above, note 6) 11; Rotondi, G., Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milan 1912), 492Google Scholar, who cites the passage with a query; Riccobono, S., Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani (Florence 1941) 1, 160Google Scholar; Cuq, E., Dar.-Sag. III, 1120Google Scholar, s.v. lex data, following Mommsen closely; Gelzer, M., Pompeius 2 (Munich 1959), 262Google Scholar, note 213. Cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford 1966), 670Google Scholar. David, and Nelson, , Studia Gaiana III, 2 (Leiden 1960), 220Google Scholar, contend in support of Marquardt's interpretation that lex does not (apart from the topos of Inst. 1, 1) occur in Gaius in the sense of ‘local law’. But cf. Inst. I, 92, ‘secundum leges moresque peregrinorum’.

9 Cf. Willems, P., Le Sénat de la République Romaine (Louvain 1883) II, 706 f.Google Scholar; Broughton, T. R. S., TAPA LXXVII (1946), 40 f.Google Scholar; Van Ooteghem (above, note 2) 244; Vitucci (above, note 2) 429. Magie (above, note 3) 368 plausibly suggests that Pompey employed ‘competent advisers who were acquainted with local conditions’.

10 Cf. SIG 3 780; Cic., , Verr. II, 2, 27, 66Google Scholar.

11 Cf.IGR I, 118, lines 32 f.

12 Cf. IGR IV, 1044, with Paton, W. R. and Hicks, E. L., The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford 1891), 41 fGoogle Scholar.; Aelius Aristides, On Rome ch. 38–39; Plut., Moralia 814 ff.; Philostr., , Vit. Soph. I, 25 (532)Google Scholar; Chapot, V.La Province romaine proconsulate d'Asie (Paris, 1904), 128Google Scholar.

13 For retention of local law by provincial cities, see Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsr. III, 744 f.Google Scholar; Mitteis, L., desichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen Re römischen Kaiserreichs (Leipzig 1891), 83 f.Google Scholar; Costa, E., Cicerone Giureconsulto (Bologna 1927) I, 406 fGoogle Scholar. For differences between these codes, see Cic., , Pro Flacco 17, 39Google Scholar. For operation of the city courts, see Chapot (above, note 12) 122 f.; Jones, The Greek City 121 f.

14 Cic., , Verr. II, 2, 13, 32Google Scholar; II, 2, 37, 90; II, 4, 45, 100.

15 For the Roman attitude to Greek civil law, see Cic., , Pro Flacco 7, 15 f.Google Scholar; De Orat. I, 44, 197, ‘incredibile est enim quam sit omne ius civile praeter hoc nostrum inconditum ac paene ridiculum’. Cf. Schulz, F., Principles of Roman Law (Oxford 1936), 126 fGoogle Scholar.

16 Similarly, grants of ‘freedom’ by decree of the Senate guarantee the retention of the city's own laws without setting them out or in any way specifying their substance. See e.g. Abbott and Johnson (above, note 3), nos. 17, line 47; 19, line 7; 29, line 1.

17 For Rome's interest in the constitutional law of the cities, see e.g. Josephus, , Ant. Jud. XIV, 5, 4Google Scholar; Appian, , Mithr. 6, 39Google Scholar; Livy XLV, 18, 29; SIG 3 684 and 674, line 63; Abbott and Johnson (above, note 3) no. 17, line 44. Cf. Jones, , The Greek City 120 f., 170 f.Google Scholar; Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford 1965), 7, 87 f., 101Google Scholar f. For Roman distrust of Greek democracy and constitutional law, see e.g. Cic., , Pro Flacco 6, 15–8, 19Google Scholar; Tusc. I, 1, 2. Livy XXXIV, 51, 6, describing Flamininus' organization of Thessaly, succinctly reveals the reason for this interest, ‘A censu maxime et senatum et iudices legit potentioremque earn partem civitatium fecit cui salva et tranquilla omnia esse magis expediebat’. Cf. Cic., , Q. Fr. I, 1, 8, 25Google Scholar, ‘nullas esse in oppidis seditiones, nullas discordias; provideri abs te ut civitates optimatium consiliis administrentur’.

18 Cf. Jones, A. H. M., ‘Civitates liberae et immunes in the East’, Anat. Studies Buckler (above, note 2) 103–117Google Scholar.

19 Cic., , Verr. II, 2, 49, 122—50, 125Google Scholar, a passage which provides an interesting comparison with the sections of the lex Pompeia described by Pliny. Cf. Marquardt (above, note 8) I2, 65, 78. For the lex Cornelia which regulated administrative and constitutional law of the provincial cities, see Cic., , Fam. III, 10, 6Google Scholar; OGI 458, line 84; Ath. Mitt. XXIV (1899), 234, no. 74Google Scholar; Abbott and Johnson (above, note 3) 331–2; Magie (above, note 3) 1342, note 39.

20 See, respectively, Mommsen, , ‘Gaius ein Provinzialjurist’, Juristische Schriften II (Berlin 1905), 26–38Google Scholar; Honoré, A. M., Gaius (Oxford 1962), 70 fGoogle Scholar., with Bremer, F. P., Die Rechtslehrer und Rechtsschulen im römischen Kaiserreich (Berlin 1868), 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kniep (above, note 6) 9–18. Honoré, sees in Institutes I, 193Google Scholar a trace of Gaius' journey from Rome to Berytus. Kniep bases his whole discussion on the passage, reading ut haecce lex Bithynorum so as to emphasize the reference to the law, but accepts Marquardt's identification of this law as the lex Pompeia without question.

21 See Kuebler, , PW VII (1912), 490 f.Google Scholar; Seckel and Kuebler (above, note 6) introd., III f., XII f.; Brassloff, S., ‘Zur Frage der Heimat des Juristen Gaius’, Wien Stud, XXXV (1913), 170–83Google Scholar.

22 Institutes I, 55; 92; 189; 197; II, 40; III, 96; 120; 134. See Digest X, 1, 13; XLVII, 22, 4, for quotation by Gaius of Solon's laws in Greek for comparison with the Twelve Tables. For his familiarity with Greek literature and in particular with Greek legal terminology, see Institutes III, 141; Digest XIX, 2, 25, 6; L, 16, 30, 2; L, 16, 233, 2; L, 16, 236. He also treats the rights of peregrines at Roman law, cf. Institutes I, 47; 53; 74; 93; II, 285; IV, 37; 105.

23 Institutes I, 193. Cf. Mitteis (above, note 13) 106 f.; Sachers, E., PW VII 2 (1948), 1599Google Scholar; Chapot (above, note 12) 158; Taubenschlag, R., The law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri 2 (Warsaw 1955), 170 f.Google Scholar; Jones, J. W., The Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks (Oxford 1956), 286 fGoogle Scholar. Useful collections of primary evidence will be found in T. Beasley, W., ‘The κύριος in Greek states other than Athens’, CR xx (1906), 249 f.Google Scholar; Taubenschlag, R., ‘La compétence du κύριος dans le droit Gréco-Égyptien’, Arch. d. Droit Oriental II (1938), 293 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Cic., , Pro Flacco 30, 74Google Scholar; Chrys., Dio, Orat. LXXIV, 9 (638)Google Scholar; Isaeus X, 10.

24 Cf. Taubenschlag, Law of Greco-Roman Egypt 171; Beasley (above, note 23) 252. The husband appears as κύριος, in the regular phrase μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ ἀνδρός in e.g. SIG 3 1189, line 6 (Amorgos); BCH v (1881), 39 (Mylasa). In Le Bas-Waddington IV, p. 99, no. 323 (Olymos), a woman, presumably a widow, acts μετὰ κυρίου τοῦ υἱοῦ. For the institution in general, cf. SIG 3 1006, line 2; 1014, line 122; 1190, line 6; 1198, line 8; 1200, line 3; Le Bas-Waddington IV p. 125, no. 415, line 17.

25 For Roman tutela mulierum, see Schulz, , Classical Roman Law (Oxford 1951), 180 fGoogle Scholar.

26 Schulz, Classical Roman Law 117. Cf. Fowler, W. W., Social Life at Rome in the age of Cicero (London 1908), 138 fGoogle Scholar.

27 Schulz, op. cit. 167, 186.

28 See contra Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny 670.

29 For Pompey's new cities, see Appian, Mithr. CXV; Strabo XII, 3, 1 (541); Plut., Pomp. 45; Cassius Dio XXXVII, 20, 2. Cf. Niese, B., Rh. Mus. XXXVIII (1883), 577 f.Google Scholar; Brandis, , PW III (1899), 530 f.Google Scholar; Drumann-Groebe, , Geschichte Roms 2 (Leipzig 1908), IV, 479Google Scholar; Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 159 f.; Vitucci (above, note 2) 438 f. For the novelty of this task and the need to create local authorities, see Gelzer (above, note 8) 98 f.; Jones, op. cit., 157 f.

30 Pliny, , Ep. x, 109Google Scholar, ‘ex lege cuiusque animadvertendum est’. Cf. x, 113, ‘sequendam cuiusque civitatis legem puto’.

31 Pliny, , Ep. x, 112Google Scholar, ‘Lex Pompeia, domine, qua Bithyni et Pontici utuntur’. Cf. x, 114, ‘Lege, domine, Pompeia, permissum Bithynicis civitatibus’. Cf. Magie (above, note 3) 1231, note 34. According to Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 160, Pompey founded no new cities in Bithynia. For the history of the Bithynian cities, see Sölch, J., ‘Bithynische Städte im Altertum’, Klio XIX (1924), 140–88Google Scholar.

32 Digest L, 1, 1, 2. Of all the treatments of Pompey's settlement listed above, I find this text cited only by Cuq (above, note 8), without discussion. It is also overlooked by Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsr. III, 747Google Scholar, and Willems, P., Le Droit public romain 7 (Louvain 1910), 202, note 7Google Scholar.

33 Volgo quaesiti. Cf. the definition of volgo concepti by Modestinus in Digest I, 5, 23, with Gaius, , Institutes I, 92Google Scholar.

34 Gaius, , Institutes I, 75–76Google Scholar. Cf. Corbett, P. E., The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford 1930), 96 fGoogle Scholar. Even before the passage of the lex Minicia, which applied to all peregrines (Institutes I, 78–79), children of ‘mixed marriages’ where no conubium existed were held to be peregrines (Institutes I, 78 and 82).

35 Ep. X, 114.

36 Sherwin-White, A. N., Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford 1963), 182Google Scholar. Cf. The Letters of Pliny 724.

37 Note Cicero's praise of Pompey in Pro Balbo 6, 15 for his wide knowledge of foreign custom and international law. According to Isidore, , Orig. V, 1, 5Google Scholar, he planned to codify Roman law in 52 B.C. Cf. Polay, E., ‘Der Kodifikationsplan des Pompeius’, Acta Ant. XIII (1965), 85 fGoogle Scholar. Cicero, , Pro Arch. 3, 5Google Scholar; 5, 10; 10, 22, shows that multiple citizenship had become familiar to Romans from the practice of the Greek cities of Italy.

38 For Greek multiple citizenship, see Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic Civilization 3 (London 1952), 84 f.Google Scholar; Jones, The Greek City 170; Magie (above, note 3) 640, note 27; Cic., , Pro Balbo 12, 29Google Scholar f. For the social status of recipients of these grants, see Chrys., Dio, Orat. XL, 22Google Scholar.

39 Appian, Mithr. 115; Strabo XII, 3, 30 (556); XII, 3, 31 (557); XI, 3, 38 (560).

40 See Pliny, , Ep. X, 114Google Scholar, especially ‘in omni civitate plurimos esse buleutas ex aliis civitatibus’. Pliny refers to the rule forbidding dual citizenship as ‘ea parte legis quae iampridem consensu quodam exolevisset’, while Trajan's, reply (Ep. X, 115Google Scholar) refers to ‘longa consuetudo usurpata contra legem’. Note that Pliny questions the right of these senators to hold office precisely on the ground of Pompey's regulation of citizenship grants. Chrys., Dio, Orat. XLI, 2, 10Google Scholar, also attests that recipients of grants of second citizenships entered the senates of the granting cities. For the well-known case of Dio's, own multiple citizenship, see his Orat. XXXVII, 1Google Scholar; XLI, 2 and 5–6. Cf. Magie (above, note 3) 603 f., 640; 1503, note 27.

41 See Digest L, 1, 17, 4, magistrates forbidden to hold office in two cities simultaneously, and their native city given prior claim in case of conflict; L, 2, 1, the governor could compel decurions who left their native city to return and fulfil obligations in the senate; L, 1, 29; L, 1, 34; L, 4, 6, 5; L, 4, 18, 22; with Abbott and Johnson (above, note 3) 96 f., regulation of the liability for taxation of migrants to other cities. Cf. Digest L, 1, 37–38, regulation of taxation of the estate of a woman marrying a citizen of another city. Concern of the Roman authorities over threats to fiscal income caused by citizenship grants also appears in Abbott and Johnson no. 130. Augustus forbade Athens to sell her citizenship (Cassius Dio LIV, 7, 2, cf. Chrys., Dio, Orat. XXXIV, 23Google Scholar) and granted the claim of Nicaea to the property of intestate citizens (Pliny, , Ep. X, 84Google Scholar). The honorarium paid by some entrants into local senates in Pliny's, day (Ep. X, 112Google Scholar) shows the social status of these magistrates. But there is no sure sign of reluctance to accept municipal office in Pliny's day, cf. Sherwin-White, , The Letters of Pliny 722–4.Google Scholar

42 Ulpian, , Digest, L, 1, 1, 2Google Scholar, rules that a child of parents holding different citizenships follows the paterna origo ‘nisi forte privilegio aliquo materna origo censeatur; tune enim maternae originis erit municeps’. Cf. Mitteis (above, note 13), 89, note 1; 119, note 3; Reid (above, note 3), 476; Mommsen, , Röm. Staatsr. III, 697Google Scholar.

43 Cf. Jones, , Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces 162Google Scholar, and Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford 1960), 136Google Scholar; Hasluck, F. W., JHS XXIV (1904), 21 fGoogle Scholar. (attributi of Cyzicus). Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire 2 (Oxford 1957), 255 f., 654 f.Google Scholar, discusses the πάροικοι or κάτοικοι of Asia Minor generally; Broughton, , Economic Survey IV, 637 f.Google Scholar, collects evidence for the non-citizen villagers of Bithynia-Pontus. Jones, Studies loc. cit., also notes that it was apparently usual in the Greek East for freedmen and their descendants to be excluded from citizenship.

44 Chrys., Dio, Orat. XXXVIII, 22Google Scholar; XL, 22; XL, 27; XLI, 10, refers to marriage between citizens of different cities in the province.