The Archaeology of Roman Macedonia: Urban and Rural Environments by Vassilis Evangelidis offers “a synthetic look at the built environment [of Roman Macedonia],” or “all [its] built features that constitute the human habitus: buildings, monuments and spaces created or modified by people” (p. 41). Evangelidis specifically states that the book is “meant to provide a starting point for those who want to delve deeper into more specialized subjects” (p. 195). Evangelidis is an organizer of the Roman Seminar, which offers lecture series that discuss new archaeological discoveries and studies pertaining to Roman Greece. Evangelidis’ book can be seen as an addition to this effort but with more focus on recent and ongoing systematic and rescue excavations in northern Greece, Albania, North Macedonia, and Bulgaria.[1] The book is in three parts. Part I provides contextual information on how ancient Macedonia transitioned from the old Macedonian kingdom to the imperial period. Evangelidis takes particular interest in: 1) the breaks and continuities in demography, ethnic makeup, social stratification, cult practice, and civic institutions following the demise of the Macedonian kingdom; and 2) the removal and exodus of the Macedonian elites and the repopulation of Macedonia by persons, groups, and agencies from different regions of the Mediterranean world. The map in chapter three (p. 26, fig. 4) captioned “the urban network: old and new cities” offers an intriguing bird’s-eye view of two Macedonias: the old Greek coastal cities, such as Maroneia and Abdera, in decline, while the accumulation of roads brought about new connectivity with significant impact on the interior as the main economic interest shifted away from the coast and towards inland areas where new cities were founded, such as Traianopolis and Ulpia Tpeiros (p. 37). The synthetic view becomes kaleidoscopic in Part II. Built features are classified according to public, commercial, industrial, ritual, entertainment, and other such types. Individual chapters focus on a single category of building types supported by layouts, stylistic features, functions, comparanda. Guiding themes and problems are given, at times subtly. On Public spaces (agorai/fora), for instance, Evangelidis invokes questions of how or whether they were transformed from Macedonian precursors or built anew, since there were scant remains of pre-Roman built features (ch. 5). Individual public and administrative buildings (ch. 7) and buildings for commerce and industry (ch. 8) follow, with attention directed towards the difficulty of function-based identifications (e.g., p. 59-60: what was the Building with the Arches at Stobi?). On ritual space (ch. 9), descriptions (e.g., Pseudo-Lucian’s highly relevant Lucius or Ass), as well as inscriptions concerning rituals, festivities, and cult worship, are anecdotal evidence useful for envisioning a populated, dynamic, and eclectic built environment at a specific point in time, but how can such sources fit into interpretations of continuity, adaptation, or the eclecticism of temples and sanctuaries? Surveys and discussion of the architecture of entertainment (ch. 10) also rely on similar issues, particularly on what traditional entertainment spaces actually were transformed into dual-use venues to accommodate a thriving gladiator culture from the second century CE onwards. The chapter on “the architecture of water” covers a dazzling array of the numerous aqueducts, latrines, fountains, and baths built during the Roman period (ch. 11). The natural abundance of water in Macedonia and the early developments of the Hellenistic balaneia(e.g., in Thessaloniki and Pella, pp. 108-109, and Amphipolis, pp. 114-115) may be taken as the driver for Macedonia’s “culture of water” that extended even to the most rural parts within the province. On built features of movement and passage (ch. 12), Evangelidis suggests the term “urban armatures” (p. 121). Many of these built features speak to the architectural language of imperial Rome, and Evangelidis suggests that they were purposely used to “hierarchize” urban spaces and regulated access, movement, and behavior (p. 128). One wonders to what degree the impact of hierarchized or regulated spaces are archaeologically visible. For “housing in urban and peri-urban contexts” (ch. 13), Evangelidis notes beyond traditional oikia houses and Roman style atria houses there was also the fusion type called the “courtyard house” that had various spaces opening around one or more courtyards (pp. 131-132). But non-elite domestic architecture remains poorly attested and understood (p. 141). Chapter 14 discusses architecture of defense. It is noteworthy that so little effort was made to build or at least reinforce urban defense against known and repeated northern incursions from the mid-second century onwards; Evangelidis suggests that hillside forts and fortified villas on highlands, including the rough stones crowning hill tops in Aegean Thrace, may have been local solutions to threats.  In addition to built features commonly seen in other Balkan provinces (e.g. funerary altars, sarcophagi), “Deathscapes” (ch. 15) discusses hundreds of third-century CE vaulted tombs typical of elite burial in earlier Macedonian kingdom, but to what degree can they be seen as “the mimicking of past funerary architecture” and part of a trend to revive the glorious Macedonian past (p. 156)? The last chapter (ch. 16) of Part II, which covers rural sites, raises questions regarding the differentiation of villas from farmsteads, and the dangers of classifying sites into types such as farms, villages, hamlets, and roadside settlements. Much appreciated is Evangelidis’ discussion of how rural sites may be connected to land and maritime transport networks, and figure 37 (p. 161) offers good visual guidance on the patterns of association between these two facets of Roman Macedonia. Part III is comprised of four (again compact) chapters in which Evangelidis argues that Roman Macedonia should not be perceived exclusively in “Roman” terms. The chapter on the course of development of urban environments (ch. 18) identifies two phases of architectural development. The first is the Late Hellenistic to Early Roman, when materials were local and types mostly Hellenistic in character (p. 176-178) . The second phase is from the mid-2nd century to the early 4th century CE, when major urban spaces underwent rapid and comprehensive convergence with empire-wide social and cultural trends, and adapted existing public and private spaces to contemporary architectural and spatial models (pp. 177-178). But, as Evangelidis keeps reminding readers, the survival of local styles of construction, the reuse of building materials, maintenance, modification, and adaptation of pre-existing buildings complicate chronologies (pp. 176-177). Colonies may have earlier stages of built features by the first Italian colonists, then later reconfigurations (basically the levelling/erasure of pre-existing structures) create new, “coherent,” and even “theatrical” urban landscapes (p. 183). Roman Macedonia was also receptive to a broad range of spatial and architectural ideas (p. 185). Intra-city rivalries and euergetism can lead to unconventional forms of monumentaliztion (p. 186). For rural environments (ch. 19) Evangelidis is mostly concerned with the theory that (or rather the question whether) “Roman Macedonia was systematically and intensively exploited through a dense network of large and medium-sized estates” (p. 188). Evangelidis argues that, while the villa economy model may be useful, there is also evidence (e.g., the farm at Toumba outside Thessaloniki, the site in Aphytis, and the cluster of farms in Lete) that suggest villa-centric interpretations have limitations (p. 188). The many ritual sites (e.g., Hero Equitans, sanctuaries of Zeus Hypsistos, the sanctuary of Ennodia in Kozani), burial tumuli (e.g., Gomati cemetary in Chalkidike), and dispersed native settlements (along the Rodope mountains) did not conform to a “rational” Romanized landscape characterized by organized agricultural activities and a villa-centered lifestyle, and could achieve centrality through centuries’ of evolving perceptions about space and occupation of land in their immediate locales (pp. 191-192). The last chapter of the book (ch. 20) compares Roman Macedonia with Roman Achaea. Evangelidis wishes to push back against an “archaeological orthodoxy” that sees little architectural difference between the two. But he does not explicate how they were different, except a matter-of-fact statement: “clearly, for many small cities and towns in Macedonia—especially the ones away from the coast like Vardarski rid (Gortynia?), Eidomene, Styberra or Petres—the experience of urban living and the form of the built environment was different than the one in Achaea” (p. 193). But the sole discussion on Vardarski rid, which also covers Petres in Florina, offers only a short comment on domestic architecture, that it must have been the “simple compact house…with no central colonnaded court,” a potential local variant of “the Greek courtyard house” that was “better suited to the colder weather conditions” (p. 129). For Eidomene, the discussion focuses on the Roman-style podium temple” found there, a typical frontal temple of Italy, prostyle and standing on a podium, donated by a makedoniarch (p. 79). Would this experience be entirely alien from, say, Patras, Corinth, or even Athens in Roman Achaea? Chapter 17, “Building methods and construction techniques” centers on the systematic use of cement, particularly the opus mixtum technique, or “bricks laid in bands alternating with course of rubble covered with binding material” (p. 173) distinct  from the opus caementicium technique (p. 174, fig. 39), as the photos helpfully illustrate. One also appreciates the reminder that the “exclusively brick” opus caementicium technique was closely associated with the introduction of imperially-controlled figlinae in the Tetrachic period, and it is seen not only at the Galerian complex but also in domestic complexes in Thessaloniki, Dion, and Stobi (pp. 174-175). Diligent readers might find it unfortunate that specific types of vaulting and vaulted spaces (e.g. “barrel-vaulted,” p. 47, 72; “radial vaults,” p. 98; “wedge-shaped” vaults, p. 101; “pitched-brick” vaulting [the earliest known Roman example!], p. 105) mentioned throughout the book received no treatment in this chapter, which would have been a contribution, considering that Lynne Lancaster’s Innovative Vaulting in the Architecture of the Roman Empire: 1st to 4th Centuries CE(2015) does not cover most of the examples that Evangelidis mentions.[2] Some readers might appreciate an index, considering that sites mentioned in the book are numerous and cross multiple countries. Site summaries (including site-specific introductions, maps and site plans, and bibliography, as seen in John Camp’s Archaeology of Athens, pp. 247-327) would have been very useful. But for a survey aiming to provide “a starting point for those who want to delve deeper,” some sort of general map with a full list of sites mentioned in the text (e.g., Susan Alcock’s Graecia Capta, pp. 10-12) would have been useful. One might also wish for more site plans, photos, and maps. There seems to be potential to create a supplementary digital humanities project comparable to the beautiful and informative Gardens of the Roman Empire Project, originally modeled on Gardens of Pompeii (1979-1993), that complements the edited volume Gardens of the Roman Empire (2018). To sum up, there is much to like about this book. Evangelidis strings together the full spectrum of architectural features within a large “built environment,” and creates useful syntheses of new and ongoing archaeological work in northern Greece and elsewhere. Readers interested in Roman archaeology in general may benefit from the comparanda described and analyzed, thanks to Evangelidis’ coherent narration and analysis, and perhaps his up-to-date bibliography. Students may particularly benefit if a potential online edition can bring together visual aids and other resources currently not part of the printed edition.   Notes [1] Though not entirely exhaustive: Heraclea Sintike (with its well-excavated Hellenistic agora/Roman forum) is not mentioned, for example. Cf. L. Vagalinski, “Heraclea Sintica and Some of Its Recently Found Marble Sculptures,” Archaeologica Bulgarica 24.2 (2020) 1-39; N. Sharankov, “Five Official Inscriptions from Heraclea Sintica Including a Record of the Complete Cursus Honorum of D. Terentius Gentianus,” Archaeologia Bulgarica 25.3 (2021) 1-43. [2] The odeion at Thessaloniki, p. 60; Arch of Galerius, p. 63; Rotunda of Galerius, p. 89.

西方古代地中海地区传世文献、出土文献多有希腊语、拉丁语 互译的例子。这种多种语言交混的环境是翻译理论与实践的试验场 域，到了文艺复兴时期形成的是一种复数的「翻译文化」(cultures of translation, Burman 2012: 92-96)和组成复杂的多语翻译团队 (Bistué 2011: 143-147)，而翻译理论的探讨也随着蓬勃的翻译活 动而不断深化，一些成熟讨论的脉络问题包含文言 / 白话(literary/ vernacular)、翻译 / 转移(translation/transfer)、模仿 / 诠释(aemu- latio/interpretatio)、异化 / 驯化(foreignization/domestication)、逐 字 / 表 意(ad uerbum/ad sensum) 等(Deneire 2014; Zaharia 2014; Pade 2018; Watier 2019)，对解读、评论翻译，以及和拟定翻译策 略上提供了很大的帮助。本文循塔西陀《编年史》(Annales)的不 同译本以及译者对自己的翻译策略所做的陈述，考量逐字翻译(ad uerbum)和文意翻译(ad sensum)的策略问题，并援引异化与驯化 的观点以及「沟通动能」(communicative dynamics)的分析法，来 解释逐字翻译策略的优势。

Gladiatorial spectacles became an integral part of the Roman experience in the second century CE. Texts such as the Martyrdom of Polycarp (6-19) help illucidate the details of gladiation in Smyrna and the medical treatises of Galen (13.599; 18B. 567) discuss flesh wounds suffered at Pergamon. A considerable amount of inscriptions that offer skeletal information and its spread in the Greek-speaking part of the Roman empire (Robert 1971; Mann 2011). What is less clear is how spectacles were actually arranged, who attended and participated. This paper wishes to take a closer look at the two questions through the lens of Lucian's tale of a gladiatorial duel in Toxaris or On Friendship. Toxaris is Lucian's Scythian persona who claimed to have been saved by a friend called Sisinnes. The two of them found their possessions stolen at Amastris, and Sisinnes volunteered to fight at a local gladiatorial event for money and won a large sum that more than recuperated their losses. Lucian’s clear fondness for Amastris elsewhere and his vignette here suggests an attempt to create resonance with an Amastrian audience, whom he addresses at the end of the story ( Luc. Tox. 60; Cumont 1903: 274 fn. 5; Kokolakis 1958: 335-343). This paper would like to suggest that Lucian’s narrative provides us with a version of what his knowledgeable Amastrian audience would have expected a gladiatorial spectacle to be like, as well as how local variations may have been a separate driver of gladiation's popularity in different Anatolian localities. Bibliography Cumont, F. 1903. "Gladiateurs et Acteurs dans le Pont." Festschrift Zu Otto Hirschfelds Sechzigsten Geburtstage. Nabu Press. Kokolakis, M. 1958. "Gladiatorial Games and Animal-Baiting in Lucian." Platon 10: 328-349. Mann, C. 2011. "Um keinen Kranz, um das Leben kämpfen wir!" Gladiatoren im Osten des Römischen Reiches und die Frage der Romanisierung. Berlin, Verlag Antike. Robert, L. Les gladiateurs dans l'orient Grec. Amsterdam, Adolf Hakkert.

This paper wishes to use the epigraphical record of Amastris to discuss how a sympolity founded in the Hellenistic period continued to evolve and develop additional diversity and dynamics in the Roman period. I will first discuss how literary sources describe the early history of Amastris as an integrative and cooperative space in Hellenistic northern Anatolia, then move to epigraphical sources and discuss how this trend likely continued to evolve as Amastris came under Roman rule. An important caveat must be raised beforehand. While this paper wishes to suggest that some trends such as the integrative and cooperative aspects of this locale can indeed be observed and described, the materials used for the description – both the literary tradition and the epigraphic sources – can only provide minimalist impressions of large socio-political trends, if even these at all. What I hope to achieve, despite such reservations, is to establish some baselines that can be used for asking further questions at a regional level, where additional evidence can be used to discuss integrative and cooperative dynamics across different cities.

This paper discusses a widely accepted emendation to an earlier version of IG X 2.1 137. Early draft copies of the Herennia announcement show that Antoninus Pius was hailed as Σωτήρ by the city of Thessalonike, a rare epithet for this emperor. This reading was later replaced due to an expert’s claim that σωτῆρος has to be read σωτηρίας. Since this seems to conform to a well-known salutary formula, the emendation was adopted from then on. This paper suggests that the reading of σωτῆρος is based on reliable and published reports instead, and ought to be preferred over the expert claim. Empirical evidence is given to support reading σωτῆρος. 

本文从区域性视角，讨论罗马时期马其顿省的共同体发展情形。以下首先简短介绍本文脉络中所谓的"共同体"和区域性为何，再介绍以马其顿地区的共同体视野，看马其顿行省如何经由这类城际的、社群间纽带联系的组织，形成互联相依的行省整体。考量若干学界长期以来对罗马时期共同体的研究与观察角度后，本文从铭刻的地理联系网络视觉化，来塑造马其顿共同体在帝国时期所呈现出的地理纵深，并从承担马其顿共同体公职的显贵所能展现的实际作为，来描绘此机构在帝国时期对于区域性的影响力。本文还考虑了马其顿共同体在公职选拔、发布褒扬令的地理纵深、共同体钱币流通的广度，说明此组织的区域性特质。本文分析显示，马其顿共同体虽然在罗马击溃马其顿王族、消灭王权势力后，一并受到打击，但从铭刻证据来看，不论是共和时期还是帝国时期，王国体制下的马其顿各级组织都无法不以某种罗马中央政府允许的方式集会、议事。到了帝国时期，这种必须进行的年度聚会转化为爱琴海地区常见的共同体形式，以元首和皇室等中央政府和权力核心为号召，系统性地进行跨城、跨地域的区域性祭司与庆典活动。承担马其顿共同体公职的显贵，厉害者若如皮松之类，则近乎重新再见马其顿王的格局，不仅承担罗马中央政府期待的仪式性花费，还自费投入基础建设、缴纳税金、与元首就贝瑞亚城的头衔资格谈判等复杂任务。稍微逊色的显贵，也是能够在担任共同体的公职之外，承担地方上的公职，支持锻炼活动经费和油品支出等。在一般情况下，马其顿共同体似是可以视为一种透过抽取显贵的资源、并以区域性的政治社会地位作为回馈的正循环机构，能够解决不同地域的在地问题。透过地理纵深分析也可看见，马其顿共同体的穿透力从钱币、职官、甚至决议的效力，都为显著。所谓的自由马其顿地区的共同体地界，可发现马其顿共同体相关的铭刻与钱币，虽然不能完全排除偶然、随机流通或搬迁所造成的结果，但也可理解为马其顿共同体的影响力确实达到了其它共同体的地界之内。马其顿共同体是否有影响到其它共同体运作的模式，或对这些共同体造成利益上的冲击，尚待更多证据讨论。就目前来看，马其顿共同体的社会经济影响力如此显著，或许确实如赫佐普洛所言，与其顿共同体的地位不是一般的行省共同体，而是国族共同体有关。这也意味着马其顿共同体的研究，应该要适当地与其他地区的共同体在资料类型区分与比较等研究方法上有所区分。马其顿共同体是个具有高强度纽带联系的组织，随着罗马征服的过去阴影日渐淡化，个成员有趋近于互联相依的国族整体的态势。

本文聚焦罗马元首制时期刊刻于马其顿贝瑞亚城（Beroia）的一则行省总督政令（EKM I. 7）以及其中提到的水力驱动生产设施，并从《政令》来看行省总督面对水资源和相关生产设施的经济效益与社会意义时，治理视野可能产生的变化。在此所谓的治理视野，是考量位处高层的中央政府派员介入地方治理问题时，出于资讯不对称以及显贵政治主导的地方政治形态所会产生的迷雾效应，必然会面对的治理障碍。这种治理视野的限制在希腊语区容易出现，因为有许多城市获得罗马中央政府特许，能够维持相当高度的自治。例如小普林尼《书信集》第十卷第47篇写到，当他要检视阿帕美亚（Apamea）的收支与债务时，即便全城都想配合，但没人知道应该要怎么配合，因为长久以来，他们就是在特许状态下，用自己的方式管理城市。本文希望以总督对地方问题认识有限的假设为出发点，讨论马其顿省贝瑞亚城在爆发治理危机时，行省总督如何看待该城所拥有的比较完善、且具有特殊经济效益的水力驱动设备和水利设施。

This paper examines a Sinopean victory list of the boxer Marcus Iutius Marcianus Rufus (French 2004: 76-77 no. 105) and the implications of counting the number of victories he won. Inscribed and set up by the Sinopean boule, the list represents an official recognition of the athlete's successful boxing career, which not only included victories in the four periodoi of mainland Greece, but also the Capitoline and Neapolitan games in Italy. The text has been studied by Theodoré Reinach (1916), George Bean (1953), and David French (2004), and resulting in different ways to count Rufus' victories.The three epigraphists encountered several issues with counting Rufus' victories. How to differentiate between a Bithynian koinon event from a metropolitan event held by Nicaea and Nicomedia is one issue, and whether to count the half-talent victories with the iselastic victories so to fit an ideal number of total victories that Rufus won is another, with the three epigraphists producing different solutions. Perhaps more perplexing of all, however, is how to interpret the Greek letters ΡΝ placed at the end of the victory list. Reinach interpreted them as the remaining letters of ἀνδριατί or "jeux mineurs" (Reinach 1916: 358). Bean and French saw them as Greek numerals, indicating the total tally of all listed victories. While the total tally seems a convincing interpretation on formulaic grounds, the arithmetic does not add up. On the one hand, tabulation indicates that Bean's count of total victories yields 159, with 110 half-talent victories and 49 iselastic victories. He reconciled the number by claiming to have seen signs of reinscribing in the squeeze, and suggested that Rufus initially won 101 half-talent victories, only to have achieved 110 at a later time, upon which occasion an update was applied to his monument (Bean 1953: 176). On the other hand, while French counted the half-talent victories as 110, and his total number of iselastic victories amount to 48, he still maintained that ΡΝ stands for "(In all) 150 victories," leaving the arithmetic issue open for further examination (French 2004: 77).This paper surveys other victory lists to study how koinon and metropolitan victories were differentiated and counted, and how chronographic features were positioned and identified. This paper also proposes to disassociate the number 150 from the total count of victories, and reconsider what was signified by this number. One possibility is the era: the 150th year of the era of Sinope. It has been demonstrated that Sinopean coinage during the imperial period used first the colonial era from 45 BCE, then the so-called Lucullan era of 70 BCE (Leschhorn 1993: 161-162). While era-based chronography is not found on extant imperial period inscriptions from Sinope, Rufus' victory list may be the first surviving example.

Koinon assemblies during the Principate were occasions when member communities dispatch delegations to gather at specifically designated cities, where they elect koinon officers and deliberate a range of affairs –– chiefly among which were festivities and sacrifices that honored the Roman emperors and the local cultic and civic traditions, but also revenues and expenditures, administrative tasks delegated by the imperial government, among others (Deininger 1965: 137-147; Edelmann-Singer 2015: 193-248, 309-310). Much has been discussed regarding the institutional aspects of the koinon assemblies; what could benefit from more discussion is the act of traveling to koinon assemblies. This paper assembles a small number of literary and epigraphic references that provide circumstantial references to koinon assembly-related travel anecdotes. Of particular importance among these are Strabo's description of the gathering of delegates from Lycian cities to the koinon meeting each year (Strab. 13.3.3), Aelius Aristides' account of the city of Smyrna's manipulative nomination of him as a candidate for the high priest of Asia (Ael. Arist. Hieroi Logoi 4.99-104), and the inscription honoring Quintus Popilius Python's gift to attendees of the koinon assembly while serving as the high priest of the Macedonian koinon (EKM 117). By assembling these and other evidence, this paper wishes to suggest that koinon assemblies were compulsory events that each member community would have to participate in, often at their own expense. Wealthy koinon-officeholders may opt to offset the burdens that communities (or their designated representatives) would have to shoulder in dispatching delegation, and such benefaction may be viewed from the perspective of a soft mobilization of the provincial elites in order to facilitate the orderly execution of business in the interest of the public weal.

This edited volume started as a conference panel on marriage discourses in Hellenistic and imperial literature sponsored by the International Plutarch Society for the 2013 SCS conference. However, a new aspiration emerged as the panel discussion highlighted the importance of attaining an in-depth appreciation of “how the discourse of marriage, as found in the different genres that might have been important to Plutarch or related to his writings – philosophy, art, epithalamium, epic, and the novel – developed over time” (p. 4). This is an ambitious assemblage of source materials and perspectives that would generally be treated in separate monographs. As examples, Tsouvala points to Larsson Lovén and Agneta Stömberg’s Ancient Marriage in Myth and Reality (2010), Claude-Emmanuelle Centlivres Challet’s Like Man, Like Woman: Roman Women, Gender Qualities and Conjugal Relationships at the Turn of the First Century (2013), and Nikoletta Manioti’s Family in Flavian Epic (2016). The first paper by Rebecca H. Sinos explores parallels between wedding rites and mystery rites in the pictorial tradition. Sinos uses a small assemblage of vases to demonstrate the Attic pictorial tradition for weddings, then focuses on two fourth-century relief vases recently re-published in Zimmermann-Elseify’s Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum volume (2015)[1] that depict scenes set within the bridal chamber (thalamos), yielding rare “insight into the bridal couple’s experience of the wedding” (p. 33). The first is a relief vase in Moscow (but once part of the Berlin collection) initially published in Brückner’s Anakalypteria, showing the bride in a veil and being comforted by another woman at the end of a couch on which the bridegroom is reclining. The second is a relief vase in the Berlin Staatliche Museen that shows the bride unveiling herself to the reclining bridegroom on the bridal couch. Along with other examples, Sinos provides a nice presentation on the preparatory journey from betrothal, to procession, to the final unveiling of the bride within the bridal chamber, and how their association with divinizing or heroizing sculpture reliefs, including depictions of funerary banquets and those with Eleusinian allusions, can be read as conflating wedding rites and mystery rites. Karen Klaiber Hersch reads the Roman wedding as a ritualization of violence that the Roman bride suffers. Antiquarian sources such as Festus (55L; 43L) and Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 87, 285C) lead Hersch to believe that “every Roman wedding…was a reenactment of a forced mass marriage of maidens from neighboring communities to the male population of Rome” (p. 70). She says that brides were expected “to appear to be terrified and were expected to make a vocal (and insofar as possible, visual) display of sorrow” to demonstrate virginity (p. 74-75). The bride’s veil (flammeum) functionally forces her “to mime her sorrow by hanging her head dejectedly, or walking with timid, uncertain steps, or even by crying audibly” (p. 76). Plautus (Casina 922-31; Priapea 3.8-9) and Macrobius (Sat. 1.15.21-22) further lead Hersch to believe that the literary descriptions of the suffering bride were likely based on actual verbal and physical assaults intended “to make the transition to matronhood as painful as possible” (pp. 84-85). Strikingly, Hersch points out that Greek rites were known to invoke marital happiness and positive experiences of marriage, establishing a provocative contrast of cultural norms and experiences that may benefit from further exploration. Paolo Di Meo’s chapter deals with the genesis and the nature of Plutarch’s Marriage Advice in the context of the epithalamium tradition. Passages from Claudian (Fescennines for Honorius 14.2-11, 14.16-24 and the Epithalamium of Palladius and Celerina (25.130-38) are used to demonstrate the common stock of motifs (such as plants with thorns and bee-guarded honey) that would encourage the bridegroom to carry on despite the bride’s refusals, and encourage the bride to collaborate. Deities invoked in the prologue are also explicitly linked to poets such as Statius (Silv. 1.2.3-6, 11-21) and Catullus (61.101-109), apparently in the Sapphic epithalamic tradition. Di Meo concluded that, while Plutarch followed models of wedding speeches in rhetoric, he reused the poetic epithalamium to diverge from “the utilitarian conception and the cold analyses of marriage” (pp. 110-111), purposely creating a practical but warm and passionate wedding gift for a couple. Plutarch specifically quotes the Sapphic fragment 55 in the epilogue, which is thus a natural candidate for Plutarch’s archetype, and Di Meo convincingly supports this connection with a survey of various Sapphic adherents and epideictic variations, highlighting lexical and figurative associations within the centuries-old epithalamic motifs in the prologue and the four precepts. Geert Roskam’s project is to come to a determination on Epicurus’ position on marriage and children. While many reports suggest that Epicurus rejected marriage and children, Roskam argues that Epicurus’ position was more nuanced than the reports of his views on marriage suggest. Roskam’s key text is a short passage from Diogenes Laertius that reports Epicurus saying in the Diaporiai and On Nature that the sage will both marry and rear children, and will sometimes marry according to his circumstances in life  (Diog. Laert. 10.119). Since Epicurus emphasized the importance of prudence (φρόνησις) when dealing with dilemmas such as “whether the sage will break the law if he can be sure that he will never be detected” (Plut. Adv. Col. 1127D) and “whether an old and impotent sage still derives pleasure from touching the fair” (Plut. Non posse 1094E), and since Epicurus is known to have discussed marriage in the Diaporiai, “he probably recognized that, under particular circumstances, marriage may well yield more pleasure than pain” (pp. 126-128). Roskam pointed to “the concrete praxis of the Epicureans themselves” that reveals Epicurus’ actual position, and Epicurus’ testamentary arrangements for his heirs to take care of the sons and the daughter of Metrodorus also suggest that Epicurus’ position was that “specific περίστασις βίου [can] occasionally persuade the Epicurean philosopher to marry” (p. 136). One wonders whether more examples of Epicurean praxis could be gleaned from elsewhere to escape the heavy reliance on Diogenes Laertius’ reports. Alex Dressler focuses on the witty quips of virtuous wives in Seneca’s On Marriage reported by Jerome in the treatise Against Jovinian, and considers whether such remarks were criticisms “from the perspective of real women” against ancient Roman marriage as it was practiced in Rome (p. 145).  If they are, then it would be “completed” feminism, an active practice of the destruction of the institution of marriage through women’s agency (p. 161). While Marcia’s clever representation of Roman marriage (Jer. Adv. Iovinian. 1.46, 275c) embodies a woman’s self-assertion and elegant lifestyle choice, it does not consitute “completed feminism,” because in Seneca-in-Jerome such a notion remains only a possibility: women can be satirists or violent revolutionaries, “but they cannot be both” (p. 161). Dressler had to use some of Seneca’s more complete works such as the Consolation to Marcia and epistolary writings (e.g. Sen. Ep. 7.10-11) and add some modern filters, such as the mimesis e contrario taken from Torre’s Il matrimonio del Sapiens (2000); the conclusion that Seneca-in-Jerome created a space for women “to imagine freedom and equality, even if they prefer death” (p. 164) is quite convincing. Katarzyna Jazdzewska examines three of Plutarch’s treatises that use animal stories to discuss marriage and marital virtues – On the Love of Offspring, On the Fact that Beasts are Rational, and On the Intelligence of Animals. The question asked, implicitly, is how anthropomorphized and moralized animals and their mating behaviors help Plutarch convey his perceptions of marriage, and how such perceptions differ from Plutarch’s other works. Jazdzewska identified two sets of perceptions on marriage conveyed using animal stories: the first emphasizes procreative function and the subordinate relationship female to male between mates, while the other is the mates’ love and care for each other. She then searches for similarities in Plutarch’s Marriage Advice and Dialogue on Love, showing that Plutarch deliberately chose a range of animal paradigms paraenetically – such as uxorial devotedness among female kingfishers from On the Intelligence of Animals (De sol. an. 982 E-983 B) and chaste female crows (Brut. Anim. 989A-B) – to demonstrate the universality of parental affection among animals. To Jazdzewska, Plutarch’s aim is to convince the reader “that it would be shameful if people were to be found inferior to animals in respect to parental love” (p. 189). The study is limited in scope, as it only deals with Plutarch’s works, but nevertheless throws light on Plutarch’s communication strategy. Jeffrey Beneker’s chapter asks how Plutarch structures the virtue of moderation (sophrosyne) with the moral example of Camma the Galatian woman in the Dialogue on Love (767C-768D) and in Virtues of Women (257E-258 C). Camma – because she was both sophron and erotically attached to her husband – was not only able to remain faithful even after her suitor Sinorix killed her husband Sinatus, but also capable of avenging her husband by suicide, tricking Sinorix into drinking poison with her from a shared cup. Beneker argues that Camma’s story influenced Plutarch’s depiction of Porcia, Brutus’s wife, perhaps with Panthea in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia in the deep background (Xen. Cyr. 6.4.5-6.4.9). Beneker then shifts to focus on Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi in the Lives (Gracch. 1.4-1.7), observing that the same model of the sophron and devoted wife was used to cast her in the character of the paradigmatic Roman wife. Beneker argues that Porcia and Cornelia were placed in such a model because they were meant to “stand alongside the great men of the Parallel Lives” as idealized individuals “whose characters might be imitated even if their accomplishments could not be matched” (p. 214). This chapter seems to speak to Dressler’s, as both deal with male-generated paradigms of women, while using different strategies of paradigmatization. Silvia Montiglio’s paper covers “the interplay between eros and the call to institutionalize it” in two sets of imperial period Greek novels, the first including Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe and Xenophon of Ephesus’ An Ephesian Tale, while the second comprises Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon, Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe, and Heliodorus’ An Ethiopian Story. The sortition is based on whether marriage happens before an adventure or at the end of it – a narratological manipulation (for ideological and educational purposes), creating uncertainty as to the protagonists’ faith in each other. As Montiglio moves from one novel to the other, we find that the first group’s marriage union was “required by society and the novelistic genre” (p. 223). In contrast, the second group emphasizes the notion of consent, which Montiglio suggests is in line with the historical evolution of postclassical ideals and laws. Montiglio concluded that, in Greek novels, “marriage is not a natural bond, and no novelist pretends it is,” and various figurative and narratological strategies were necessary to navigate the naturalness of erotic longing and the artificiality of marriage. Given that the five novels were sorted narratologically, much space is used to unfold at least the skeleton plot of each. As a result, the analytical aspect of the contribution could perhaps be further expanded in a separate paper. The revised scope of the edited volume has brought a considerable number of perspectives that tap into a similar pool of traditions and genres, and it is useful to return to Tsouvala’s introduction, where some of the common themes and diachronic changes are highlighted to make the volume more coherent. Interestingly, Montiglio’s paragraph on the historical evolution of marriage points to possible supplements to the volume: how does marriage discourse change with changing historical circumstances of marriage? Tsouvala devotes a section of the introduction to covering some aspects of this question, but rather briefly. If there is anything lacking in this enjoyable volume, perhaps it would be a closer and dedicated discussion of the evolution of the discourse on marriage in the Greco-Roman world. Authors and Titles1. Introduction, the Discourse of Marriage and Its Context, Georgia Tsouvala2. Wedding Connections in Greek and Roman Art, Rebecca H. Sinos3. Violence in the Roman Wedding, Karen Klaiber Hersch4. Plutarch’s Marriage Advice and the Tradition of the Poetic Epithalamium, Paolo Di Meo5. Epicurus on Marriage, Geert Roskam6. The Impossible Feminism of “Seneca, On Marriage”: Style and the Woman in Jerome, Against Jovinian 1, Alex Dressler7. Marriage and Animal Exemplarity in Plutarch, Katarzyna Jazdzewska8. Death is Not the End: Spousal Devotion in Plutarch’s Portraits of Camma, Porcia, and Cornelia, Jeffrey Beneker9. Erotic Desire and the Desire to Marry in the Ancient Greek Novels, Silvia Montiglio Notes [1] CVA Deutchland: Berlin: Antikensammlung, Band 16: Attische Salbgefässe, bearbeitet von Nina Zimmermann-Elseify. Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag, 2015.

This paper discusses an accepted emendation to an earlier version of IG X 2.1 137. Early draft copies of the Herennia announcement show that Antoninus Pius was hailed as Σωτήρ by the city of Thessalonike, a rare epithet for this emperor. This reading was later replaced due to an expert's claim that σωτῆρος was σωτηρίας. Since this seems to conform to a well-known salutary formula, the emendation was adopted from then on. This paper wishes to suggest that the reading of σωτῆρος is based on reliable and published reports instead, and ought to be preferred over the expert claim. Empirical evidence is given to support reading σωτῆρος.

The purpose of this paper is to take a diachronic approach and survey the pre-Roman and Roman evidence of communal feasting in Macedonia, in order to understand how such form of social action changed after a well-established form executed by the Macedonian monarchy came under the challenges posed by the years of turmoil following Rome's conquest. The basic premise of this paper is that feasting is a politically-embedded form of social occasion and naturally subject to manipulation. In turn, the scale of communal feasting would reflect different strategies of the manipulating parties, and in particular one can distinguish from the strongly aspirational type of communal feasting aimed at creating national and even sovereign symbolisms from the transactional types of communal feasting in which the host and the participants partake in the small-group manuvers of more limited socio-political implications. Evidence highlighted in this paper include the well-known Hagios Athanasios symposium frieze, the honorific inscription for Apollonios son of Apollonios from Kalindoia (SEG 35.744), and a sample of Macedonian inscriptions concerning local cultic associations and the Macedonian koinon.

本文聚焦于陆克瑞提乌(Titus Lucretius Carus)《物性论》(De rerum natura)第五书第1011至 1027行中结婚、生子、结盟等等社会组成的重要机制。陆克瑞提乌《物性论》第五书的重点，是 世界、万物、人类文明等三个层次的事物如何出现、如何发展，是一位伊比鸠鲁学派的信徒透过 诗的媒介所做的人类生存环境再建构。关于人类文明的部分较为特别:其中包含了伊比鸠鲁道德 哲学观中较不常见到的社会论述(Schiesaro 2007: 43-46)。名句如「随后，邻里开始系起友谊， 互不相害也互不受害」(tunc et amicitiem coeperunt iungere auentes / finitimi inter se nec laedere nec uiolari, Lucr. 5.1019-1020)所做到的功夫，除了将伊比鸠鲁传世的〈主要教条〉(κύριαι δόξαι)第 33条(Diog. Laer. 10.149)放入文明动态演变的脉络之中以外，还提出了一种社会建构的理性机 制，与近代的社会契约论颇有渊源(Robtizsch 2017: 4-14;Paganini 2004: 7-10;Riley 1973: 548)。 本文首先会看陆克瑞提乌对于文明起源的顺序编排。这位伊比鸠鲁的信徒承继了其始祖对于友谊 的态度，更点出了一个历史性的问题:友谊之所以能够产生，必然有前置发展。科技面达到一定 水准以外，就是婚姻与子嗣。由此来看，《物性论》以诗说服大众之余，还有历史逻辑为基础的 文明起源论。然而，陆克瑞提乌对于婚姻与子嗣的重视，与一般认知中的伊比鸠鲁道德哲学观违 合(Brown 2009: 180)。本文会回顾传世的伊比鸠鲁哲学论述传统，显示这个学派对结婚与子嗣 所抱持的态度，容忍乃至负面皆有。学界因此在讨论伊比鸠鲁关于婚姻和子嗣议题时，面临较为 尴尬的选择问题。举例来说，布兰南(Tad Brennan)和修顿(C. W. Chilton)的论文虽然是专门 探讨伊比鸠鲁本人对于性爱、婚姻、子嗣等问题，就没有讨论陆克瑞提乌第五书中关于婚姻和生 子的段落(Brennan 1996;Chilton 1960)。陆克瑞提乌第五书的文明起源与伊比鸠鲁社会论述的 「不交集」，就是本文关注所在。 为了处理这个不交集的问题，本文采取了二分法，将信徒与学说区分来看。如艾勒(Michael Erler)所说，伊比鸠鲁本人的学说到了帝国时期已然失去了绝对的主导地位，而伊比鸠鲁学派也 形成了数个分支(Erler 2009: 46-49)。有趣的是，一般对于陆克瑞提乌的看法，是他仍承继了伊 比鸠鲁本人倡导的学说传统(Furley 1978: 10-13)。但第五书究竟是信徒依照伊比鸠鲁所写，还 是信徒自己的新分析?关于这点，布力克曼(Daniel Blickmann)认为第五书1011-1027行可以理 解为〈主要教条〉第39与40条呼应(Blickmann 1989: 166-170)。然而，这种间接关系恰好说明了 第五书1011-1027与〈主要教条〉之间的关系是模糊的。事实是目前仅存的伊比鸠鲁著作中没有文 明起源论，并没有直接证据支持伊比鸠鲁在这两个教条之余另有如《物性论》中具备的文明起源论述。

在传统的古典学谱系中，文献学（Philologischen Wissenschaft）被视为是可承载古人完整思维与意念的主干资料体系，并可以就其内容进行较缜密的辩证与分析，除可梳理真伪、提炼意义与思想精华，从真善美等层面了解古代文明。当时学者普遍认为铭刻学等辅助学科（Hilfsdisziplinen/Hilfswissenschaften），细节丰富卻庞杂，缺乏可依仗的诠释逻辑，得仰赖与文献的偶然契合，才能产生历史意义，用途上仅能补充、增补书写文献的不足，较无法建构用铭刻资料为主的研究体系，而铭刻学者的主要工作，就是从采集分类开始，并就字母文句、版面范式等归纳分析，然后就残泐处填补注释的工作，技术型倾向重。但是，铭刻收录、整理、分析、评论的技术与方法不断演进，铭刻学的地位也有所改变。普鲁士皇家科学院（Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften）推动的《希腊铭刻》（Inscriptiones Graecae）以及《拉丁铭刻汇编》（Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum）两套大型的铭刻汇编计划，将原本一位铭刻学者穷尽一生都无法遍览的铭刻，用科学、传真的方法采集后，依循地理与时间两个主轴，以分类法将铭刻整理归类，佐以技术批评分析，彻底改变了学界对于铭刻是零散琐碎、不成系统、仅能填补书写文献空白的刻板印象。随铭刻学研究发达，如《铭刻通讯》（Bulletine Epigraphique）、《希腊铭刻增补》（Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum）、《铭刻学年汇》（L'Année épigraphique）等增补类刊物，以及多种以数年为一期的铭刻研究回顾专论，系统性整理新出土的、或学界每年正在讨论的铭刻。另外，两个大型的拉丁与希腊铭刻集成计划在1992年新成立的柏林–布兰登堡科学院和人文学院（Die Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften）领军下，继续推动采集汇整框架的运作更新，类似的模型也在各国家的研究院和大学复制，让铭刻资料除了在数量与质量、时间纵度与空间广度不断增加外，还建立了庞大的索引与关联性系统，就不同的主题、人物、地区、关键词等，做细部的深入研究。二十世纪间，铭刻学已自成一格，与书写文献形成两套互补的系统，重要问题如雅典霸权兴衰、地中海宗教和社会集体之发展、地中海地区王国与帝国的实际运作等，都与铭刻学发展息息相关。本文的目的，不是要全面梳理铭刻学的主要著作和知识积累，而是要问西方铭刻学界发展过程中所遇到的一些挑战和问题是什么，而学者们又发展出何种解决的方法和尝试。本文第一部分检视近代国外学界对西方之古代铭刻的研究传统与发展的经验，并于第二部分讨论铭刻资料采集、汇编、运用的实例，并特别就近来铭刻学研究从语言（verbal）到非语言（non-verbal）甚至铭刻文化（epigraphic culture）的研究方法转向，提出关注。有鉴于西方“古典学”的语义在当今不仅仅是西方人再是传统上理解的古希腊罗马的“古典”研究，而是被理解为拓展到了对古希腊罗马以及中世纪欧洲的研究（Classical and Medieval Studies），其范围一般也会包括在世界文明进程中有非常重要作用的拜占庭文明，本文在研究实例部分将有所回应。

This paper examines two inscriptions used by Christian Marek (2003, pp. 66-67; 2015, pp. 308-309) to support his thesis that the coastal Paphlagonian koinon – known in epigraphical sources as “the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus” – was already established in the Julio-Claudian period, if not earlier.The first inscription from Pompeiopolis is reported by Fourcade (1811) that can date to the early Augustan period or earlier. Marek himself focused on the Pompeiopolis inscription in his rejoinder to Loriot’s thesis in a recent article (2015), arguing that Loriot is wrong to date this inscription to the imperial period. Alternatively, this paper proposes that a separate inscription invoked by Marek in his earlier work may be more effective.The second inscription dates to the reign of Claudius. It comes from a rupestral column-and-niche roadside monument in the outskirts of ancient Amastris. The monument concerns two cults, Theos Hypsistos and Divus Augustus. Theos Hypsistos received a dedication consisting of a column and a perched eagle, and the column base inscribed with a short dedicatory inscription. There are two other tabulae ansatae, possibly associated with the niched figure, recording the same title ὁ τοῦ ἐπουρανίου θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς, and the Latin equivalent of this priesthood was perpetuus sacerdos Divi Augusti. That ἐπουρανίου does not have a correlate term in the Latin title, along with the presence of a dedication to Theos Hypsistosimmediately next to the niche monument, suggests that this priesthood was in charge of a syncretistic imperial cult, and was different from the highpriesthood of the municipal imperial cult attested in a separate Amastrian inscription dated to the Neronian period.This paper argues that the syncretistic imperial cult dedicated to Divus Augustus and Theos Hypsistos may have been established as an extra-urban cult designed for an audience broader than the inhabitants of Amastris proper. The so-called Oath of Gangra makes it clear that part of the binding force of such an oath of loyalty was the invocation of local deities to enforce retribution. We are also informed by the same oath that such oaths of loyalty had to be administered in both the city proper and the chora “at the altars of Augustus in the sanctuaries of Augustus” as part of an annual and province-wide exercise. The two information points to the possibility that the the syncretistic cult from the extra-urban monument near Amastris may have been part of a complex that could be described as a sanctuary of Augustus, with a targe audience not from Amastris proper, but from the Amastris chora. The fact that the extra-urban monument was carved into the rockface beside a Roman road that was cut but Gaius Iulius Aquila, an equestrian and permanent holder of the highpriesthood overseeing this syncretistic cult, has further implications. Tacitus reported a campaign in 49 CE in the Bosporus, in which one Iulius Aquila successfully led a coalition force against the uprising of Mithridates (Tac. Ann. 12.15-21). If this military commander was indeed Gaius Iulius Aquila the highpriest, the extra-urban monument may have further political significance that resembles the Ara Romae et Augusti ad confluentes Araris et Rhodani, which was built and maintained by a priesthood created by a local elite following the successful suppression of the Sugambri and their allies by Drusus (Dio Cass. 54.32.1), and served as the gathering place for the concilium of the Tres Galliae. Fishwick argues that Drusus created a federal concilium by inviting the leading men of the Gallic provinces to participate in its management and organization, so that leading men could have the opportunity to discuss mutual concerns and put for complaints against Roman authorities (Fishwick 2002, pp. 12-13).

As recent trends in comparing the Han and Roman empires from primarily the point of view of literary evidence has brought forth new frameworks and opportunities of research, one asks how these developments could contribute to the comparison of the two empires' governance behaviors. The paper first surveys current literature published in the past decade and identify common themes in the scholarship on the Han and the Roman metallurgical advances and aspects of their iron industries. Of particular focus is the gradual awareness in the importance of iron semi-products in the Han and the Roman domains. In the second and third section, literary sources from the Qin-Han and the Roman domains are reviewed in order to identify general trends that can be juxtaposed for closer discussion. Particular emphasis is placed on the relationship between the private iron operators with generational legacies in the iron industries even be fore the formation of the Qin-Han and the Roman states, and how the state administrators engage with and adapt to the sophisticated and complex traditions of the Qin-Han and Roman iron industries. The fourth section provides a comparative discussion on issues concerning the states' juridical or statutory approaches to regulating iron mining and smelting operations, and observations on the intersect between semi-products, local ironworks andsmithies, and the needs of agricultural producers.