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.

The earliest evidence for the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus, comprised of a group of cities in coastal Paphlagonia, is a Trajanic honorific inscription, which happens to be one of two lost "official documents – as Søren Sørensen (2016) describes them – that provide the full title of the koinon’s existence, as well as some indication that their findspots at Amastris and Heraclea were likely the metropoleis of the koinon (Sørensen 2016, p. 73- 74). Sørensen’s treatment of the two inscriptions, while brief, represents a trend in scholarship that is shifting away from the entrenched acadmic debate on the geographical extent of the elusive coastal Paphlagonian koinon, a century-long tradition which he artifully summarized as “a war of analysts and unitarians” (Sørensen 2016, p. 75-84). This paper takes a closer look at the contents of the two documents (Kalinka 1933, p. 73 no. 21; p. 95 no. 67), along with a reference to a krima issued by the koinoboulion in concert with the boule and demos of Heraclea (Kalinka 1933, p. 93 no. 69), in order to study the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus based on the information that could be elicited from the words of the koinon itself. While the documents concerning the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus provide only snippets of its operational aspects, including the eligibility of candidates, the preferences of the koinon assembly, and deeper involvement in affairs concerning civic training and testamentary execution, they together indicate that the Koinon was likely a permanent institution that did not convene or focus its operation solely on affairs pertaining to the honoring of the emperors or the organizing of festivities, as Marek supposed in his short treatment on the matter (Marek 2003, pp. 63-67). The degree of engagement of the Koinon on municipal affairs of its constituent communities is considerable: it took interest in the performances of its leading men in the Amastrian neoi, and it joined the boule and demos of Heraclea in honoring a citizen from Heraclea for volunteering to take up the koinon archierosyne. The invocation of the krima – a joint “opinion” of the koinoboulion and the Heraclean boule and demos – in the execution of a private will indicates that the authority of the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus was regarded as an important factor even in testamentary execution. This document in particular suggests that there must have been some degree of administrative integration between the Koinon of the Cities and its constituent communities. These findings help integrate the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus into the recent academic discourse concerning the role in provincial administration that the koina of the Greek East played during the Principate. Jürgen Deininger’s 1965 study on koina and concilia during the Principate argued that such provincial- level institutions as primarily ceremonial, with only some diplomatic functions in addition to the worship of the emperors organization of games in the emperors’ honor. Sporadic objections since the initial publication of his work have been recently tabulated and assessed by Babett Edelmann-Singer (2015), who convincingly rejected Deininger’s limiting interpretation of evidence concerning financial and administrative aspects already available to him, and further demonstrated how Deininger’s thesis require revision in light of new epigraphical discoveries, such as the lex portorii Lyciae (Takmer 2007). As Edelmann-Singer did not touch upon the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus extensively, nor did she take note of the evidentiary value of the three documents highlighted by Sørensen, the analyses of the three documents of the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus in this paper supplements her work in exploring the various aspects that were downplayed by Deininger or unknown to him.

This paper discusses the importance of a passage in book 5 of Lucretius’s De rerum natura (DRN) in relation to known Epicurean teachings during the Principate, and the significance of this disjunct between the Epicurean epic and the Epicurean teachings in the Roman world. Discussions on Lucretius' DRN 5.1011-1027 often focus on the Hobbesian reading, with particular interest in Lucretius' theoretical contribution that begins with an "original condition" of mankind to the arrival of the social contract and the formation of society. Another common strand of discussion evolves around the question whether Lucretius "had more of Epicurus' works to follow than we do," as David Sedley and Campbell assumes. Yet, as Brook Holmes pointed out, DRN 5.1011-1027 have often been used to "shore up reconstructions of Epicurean views on the nature of social relationships, about which we know relatively little." Sedley's attempt to reconstruct the Epicurea "without" using Lucretius as guide, for instance, chose to leave out our focus passage altogether, for it did not fit into any existing account of Epicurus' writings. While the relationship between our focus passage and Epicurus' own writings remain uncertain, there are two aspects that inform us of how to approach the significance of the focus passage with Roman society. The first is Arrian's account of the Stoic Epictetus, whose mockery of Epicurean positions regarding marriage and offspring illustrates a clear if not biased social perception of Epicurean views on topics of the family. The second is that some of the fragments in the Herculaneum papyri include passages showing some Epicureans discussing such topics concerning marriage, offspring, and parental affinity. This paper examines the two sets of data and consider Lucretius' account in social context. This paper takes the view that Lucretius was providing an innovative account of Epicureanist creation story that was tailored for an elite Roman audience, and the "familial topics," presented not only at DRN 5.1011-1027, but in other sections of his work as well, show a clear intention to introduce Epicureanism as a form of social discourse compatible with the circle of the Roman elite that placed emphasis on "familial topics."

This paper studies the high priests found in inscriptions from Amastris concerning the Koinon of the Cities in Pontus (henceforth “the Koinon”), commonly recognized as an assembly of cities in coastal Paphlagonia (Marek 2003, Vitale 2012; contra Loriot 2006).  The Amastrian high priests (7 in total) comprise of three types: 1) ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ Πόντοῦ, which can be securely associated with the Koinon; 2) ἀρχιερεύς, without specific designation as to what sort of imperial or local cult it was in charge; 3) ὁ τοῦ ἐπουρανίου Θεοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ἀρχ[ιερεὺς διὰ βίου, which also has the Latin equivalent Divi Aug. perpetuus sacerdos inscribed together as a bilingual text.  Should all three types titles be interpreted as the same office? Christian Marek (2003) assumed that they were: he included 2) and 3) under 1), without clarification. Xavier Loriot (2006) assumed differently: in his tabulation of dignitaries of Pontus, he omitted the office holders of 2) and 3), and he also did not state his rationale.  The discrepancy is significant because of dating. Time-reckoning markers on inscriptions of 2) and 3) help date the former to 62 CE, and the latter c. 50 CE, all considerably earlier than the earliest inscription in 1), which is Trajanic. The problem, on the other hand, is that Marek’s inclusion of 2) and 3) may be wrong: Frija (2012) demonstrated that when a high priesthood was not specified, they could be instead high priests of the municipal imperial cult.  This paper considers the possibility that 2) and 3) may have been local/municipal office(s), and could have been the precursor to the High Priesthood of Pontus. Particular emphasis will be on the bilingual text of 3), which contain the surprising attribution ἐπουρανίος, commonly associated with Zeus or Theos Hypsistos and without a Latin equivalent.