Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T12:44:47.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MILITARY HEALTH WISHES IN THE GREEK LETTERS OF CAESAR AND OCTAVIAN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2022

Christopher J. Haddad
Christopher J. Haddad*
Affiliation:
Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford
*
christopher.joseph.haddad@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines and contextualizes a health wish formula found at the opening of eight Roman official letters inscribed in Greek, one of Caesar and seven of Octavian. In each letter the sender mentions that he is well ‘with the army’ (μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος), hence the term ‘military’ health wish. The health wish was borrowed from Latin letters into Roman letters written in Greek by means of phraseological imitation. The formulation employs appropriate Koine Greek. It was optional during the Republic for the wish to be used in letters either from or to a Roman holding imperium and commanding an army. Because Caesar and Octavian were in such positions, their use of the wish is conventional. The use of this health wish demonstrates that epistolographers working for Caesar and Octavian not only drafted letters that met the conventions of Hellenistic chanceries but also were proficient enough in the medium to incorporate Roman elements with effectiveness. Attestations of the military health wish declined during the Imperial period. The requirement that the sender or the recipient hold imperium would have restricted usage during the Republic but even more so under the Empire through administrative changes to the command of armies and the increasing centrality of the princeps.

Keywords

health wishformulalettersCaesarOctavianGreek–Latin bilingualism
Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , May 2022 , pp. 233 - 246
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

1. INTRODUCTION

The focus of this article is a particular kind of health wish formula found in eight Roman official letters written in Greek.Footnote 1 One of the letters was sent by Julius Caesar and the other seven were sent by his adoptive son Octavian. The letters survive inscribed on stone in Greek, having been preserved in this manner by their Hellenophone recipients. The eight health wish examples are of a variety not found in this form in other Greek letters, but this variety has parallels in Latin letters in the correspondence of Cicero and the Roman emperors. Because these health wishes mention the sender's army when referring to the sender's health, I term these formulas ‘military’ health wishes.

This article has four aims, addressed in five sections. The first aim is to present the evidence for the development of the military health wish (Section 2). The second is to provide a linguistic analysis of the eight military health wishes written in Greek (Section 3). The third aim is to determine whether Caesar's and Octavian's health wishes are employed in a conventional manner (Section 4). I then make some observations on the significance of Caesar's and Octavian's military health wishes for our understanding of Roman official interstate epistolography (Section 5). The final aim is to offer an explanation for why there is a limited number of attestations of this health wish after the Augustan period (Section 6). I close by summarizing my main conclusions (Section 7).

2. MILITARY HEALTH WISHES

The sender of a Greek or Roman letter could express his or her wish for the well-being of the recipient by employing a health wish formula.Footnote 2 Health wishes are found in Greek and Roman letters surviving in papyri, inscriptions and letter collections preserved in the manuscript tradition. In Greek letters, it is normal to find them right after the letter address (formula ualetudinis initialis) or right before the closing (formula ualetudinis finalis).Footnote 3 Only the initial health wish is found in the inscribed Roman official letters. In general, Greek health wishes are conditional sentences with two components, to which a third can be added.Footnote 4 The first clause is a protasis with εἰ, referring to the recipient, to the effect of ‘if you are well …’. The second is an apodosis with ἄν to the effect of ‘… it would be good’. The optional third clause is a direct statement referring to the sender to the effect of ‘and I myself am well’. Consider this example:

εἰ ἔρρωσθε, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι· ὑγιαίνω δὲ καὶ αὐτός

If you are well it would be good, and I myself am in good health too.

Because health wishes are not a universal component of ancient letters, modern scholars conclude that they were an optional feature that could be included when senders simply desired to wish their recipients well or had some reason to do so.Footnote 5 Such motivation most often eludes us, because it is not necessary that the reason why the sender elected to wish the recipient well be mentioned in the letter. The somewhat personal quality of health wishes is a probable reason why they are more common in private rather than in official correspondence.Footnote 6 Nevertheless, they are found in inscribed official letters of Hellenistic kingdoms from the mid second century b.c.e.Footnote 7

Health wishes were also used in Latin epistolography. The simplest version was si uales, bene est ‘if you are well, it is good’, to which senders had the option of adding ego (quidem) ualeo ‘I (too) am well’.Footnote 8 In Latin letters the apodosis is a statement of fact, whereas in Greek the statement is potential. The earliest attestation of a Latin epistolary health wish is in Plautus.Footnote 9 Health wishes are found in Latin documentary letters, such as those from Vindolanda,Footnote 10 as well as in the correspondence of famous Latin epistolographers, such as Cicero, Seneca and Pliny, although they become rare after the Late Republic.Footnote 11 There is evidence of health wishes in the letters of Roman and Byzantine emperors (see below).

As mentioned above there are eight Roman official letters inscribed in Greek with variant health wishes. One letter was sent from Caesar and seven were from Octavian. Some are better preserved than others, but the health wishes are discernible. The first two clauses are no different to what can be found in Greek health wishes, but their third clauses are not found in this form in other Greek letters. They differ by mentioning the sender's army when stating his well-being. The eight health wishes are as follows. For bibliographic details, see n. 1 above.

Letter 1. Caesar to Mytilene, 48–47 b.c.e.

[εἰ ἔρρωσθε, καλῶς ἂν] ἔχοι⋅ κἀγὼ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύμ̣[ατος | ὑγίαινον]

[If you are well,] it would be [good]; and I too with the army [was well].

Letter 2. Octavian to Aphrodisias, 40–38 b.c.e.

εἰ ἔρρωσθε, εὖ ἂν ἔ|χοι⋅ ὑγιαίνω δὲ καὶ | αὐτὸς μετὰ τοῦ στρα|τεύματος

If you are well, it would be good; and I myself with the army am well too.

Letter 3. Octavian to Ephesus primum, early 38 b.c.e.

εἰ ἔρρωσθε εὖ ἂν ἔχοι, ὑγιαί|νω δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος

If you are well, it would be good; and I myself with the army am well too.

Letter 4. Octavian to Rhosus primum, 35 b.c.e.

<εἰ ἔρρωσθε, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι>· καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος || [ὑγίαινον]

<If you are well, it would be good;> and I myself with the army was well too.

Letter 5. Octavian to Mylasa, 31 b.c.e.

εἰ ἔρρωσθε κα̣||λῶς ἂν ἔχοι· καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τ[οῦ] | στρατεύματος ὑγίαινον

If you are well, it would be good; and I myself with the army was well too.

Letter 6. Octavian to Rhosus iterum, 31 b.c.e.

εἰ ἔρρωσθε, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι· καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύ|[ματος ὑγ]ίαινον

If you are well, it would be good; and I myself with the army was well too.

Letter 7. Octavian to Rhosus tertium, 30 b.c.e.

εἰ ἔρρ<ω>σθε, καλῶς | [ἂν ἔχοι· καὶ] αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ὑγίαινον

If you are well, it would be good; and I myself with the army was well too.

Letter 8. Octavian to Ephesus iterum, 29 b.c.e.

εἰ ἔρρω[σθε κ]αλῶς ἂν | [ἔχοι, κἀγὼ δὲ με]τὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ὑγια[ί]νω

If you are well, it would be good; and I too with the army am well.

The military clauses in the eight examples can be divided into three types:

Type 1. κἀγὼ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ὑγίαινον

And I too with the army was well.

Type 2. ὑγιαίνω δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος

And I myself with the army am well too.

Type 3. καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ὑγίαινον

And I myself with the army was well too.

Type 1 is exceptional; the sole example is in Caesar's Letter 1. Type 2 is found three times (Letters 2, 3 and 8), and Type 3 is found four times (Letters 4–7).Footnote 12 Types 2 and 3 are found in the letters of Octavian. The military clause consists of a first-person singular present active indicative verb ὑγιαίνω ‘I am well’ or the (epistolary) imperfect ὑγίαινον ‘I was well’, which is followed by the sender's statement that he is μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ‘with the army’. It is clear that the military clause is a variation of those references to the sender's health found in other Greek versions.

There is no evidence that this version was ever a Greek formula. All the relevant comparanda, including the two examples and one testimonium in Greek literature, come from Roman contexts. Although not epistolary, Reynolds found that the earliest extant reference to the health of a Roman imperator with his army is found in an honorific decree of the Letaeans for Marcus Annius (118 b.c.e.).Footnote 13 The earliest extant epistolary example is in Cicero's letter to imperator Metellus Celer (January 62 b.c.e.): Fam. 5.2.1 si tu exercitusque ualetis, bene est ‘if you and the army are well, it is good.’Footnote 14 The abbreviated form appears in Cicero's letter to imperator Pompeius Magnus (April 62 b.c.e.): Fam. 5.7.1 S.T.E.Q.V.B.E., which should be for si tu exercitusque ualetis, bene est.Footnote 15 Laidlaw attributed the formula ‘to the demands of Roman etiquette’, which is as good an explanation of its origin as any.Footnote 16 In Cicero's correspondence we also have five abbreviated military health wishes from imperatores.Footnote 17 Although abbreviated, the examples from commanders are most relevant for assessing our inscriptions.

The first two examples in Greek literature are in Josephus’ Antiquitates Iudaeorum, but the contexts are Roman. The first example is of Caesar (Joseph. AJ 14.190) and the second is of Marcus Antonius (Joseph. AJ 14.306–7).Footnote 18 It is most probable that these two letters were sent in Greek, as they are official correspondences of the same nature as our epigraphic letters. The third example in Greek literature is a testimonium preserved in Dio. It appears that the military wish was still a feature of sufficient significance for Dio to notice that Hadrian did not include it in a letter to the Senate (before 134[?] c.e.).Footnote 19 At the time, Hadrian was with the legions in Judaea that had suffered severe casualties, which seems to have made the use of a military health wish inappropriate. It seems beyond doubt that the original of this letter was written in Latin and was paraphrased by Dio in Greek. Dio's discussion makes it clear that the Latin expression is meant, regardless of whether he examined the document or paraphrased it from oral testimony.Footnote 20 We would expect Hadrian to write to the Roman Senate in Latin, and the military clause in Dio mirrors Latin versions. The military wish is found in an inscribed Latin letter of Constantine and his sons, which seems to have been from the time of the campaign preparations in 337 c.e.Footnote 21 At some point after Constantine, or perhaps even in his time, it seems that convention no longer required the emperor as sender to be with his army: if the army was in the field under one of his commanders, this sufficed. A letter of Valentinian III from 450 c.e. collected in the Liber legum nouellarum employed the military wish,Footnote 22 but it was Aetius, not Valentinian, who was in the field with the armies. Because of this, Pharr interpreted the use of the military wish as ‘[a]n inappropriate imitation of Cicero’.Footnote 23 Another interpretation is that Valentinian considered the armies under Aetius’ command to be in fact under his superior command, or, considering that he was in a constantly precarious position in military matters during the 440s and early 450s c.e.,Footnote 24 he wished to maintain at least a façade of control when writing to his Senate. As late as 516 c.e. the military wish is still found in the correspondence of the Byzantine emperor Anastasius I.Footnote 25 The letter to the Senate concerning Theodoric and the Doctrinal Schism was sent around the time of, if not during, Vitalian's final revolt against Anastasius, which ended in Vitalian's defeat by Anastasius’ praetorian prefect Marinus.Footnote 26 This means that, even if the letter was sent at the time, Anastasius would not have been with the army. It appears that Anastasius, who, like Valentinian, had been in a precarious position because of an effective military subordinate, wished to present himself as being in more control than he was in reality. Although at some point during the Imperial period the requisite that the sender be with his army was abandoned, a connection with the army was retained. The Republican-era evidence, however, makes it clear that in this period it was a conventional option only when the senders or the recipients were imperatores commanding armies.

Tracing the evolution of the military health wish has allowed us to establish two important points. The first is that the variant formula originated in Latin letters and from there came to be used in Roman official letters in Greek. This means that we need to investigate the linguistic (especially contact linguistic) aspects of the wishes in Greek (I examine this in Section 3). The second point is that the military health wish was conventional in Roman Republican letters when the sender held imperium and commanded an army, unlike in the Later Roman Empire. We, therefore, need to investigate whether Caesar and Octavian used the health wishes in accordance with such conventions, a task undertaken in Section 4.

3. MILITARY HEALTH WISHES IN GREEK: LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS

We have established that the military health wish originated in Latin letters. We now need to determine from a linguistic perspective whether the epigraphic attestations of the military clause in Greek are examples of borrowing or of interference. Borrowing, of which there are several kinds, denotes the intentional use of an established feature of one language (La) in another language (Lb); interference denotes the unintentional use of features of La in Lb.Footnote 27 Because the military clause is a phraseological element, we are searching for evidence of phraseological borrowingFootnote 28 (intentional employment of La phraseology in Lb) or phraseological interference (unintentional employment of La phraseology in Lb).

By comparing examples of the three types of Greek military clause with other Roman counterparts, we find that there are key formal differences. Because the Ciceronian examples, such as Fam. 15.1.1, are all abbreviated, we have no Republican-period examples of an unabbreviated military wish in Latin. But we can compare the abbreviated forms with Dio's testimony and later Latin examples, such as Collectio Auellana 113.1. As noted above, it is most probable that Hadrian's letter, paraphrased by Dio, was sent to the Roman Senate in Latin, so it is an appropriate comparandum.

Type 1. Letter 1, Caesar to Mytilene, 48–47 b.c.e.

κἀγὼ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύμ̣[ατος | ὑγίαινον]

And I too with the army [was well].

Type 2. Letter 2, Octavian to Aphrodisias, 40–38 b.c.e.

ὑγιαίνω δὲ καὶ | αὐτὸς μετὰ τοῦ στρα|τεύματος

And I myself with the army am well too.

Type 3. Letter 7, Octavian to Rhosus tertium, 30 b.c.e.

[καὶ] αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ὑγίαινον

And I myself with the army was well too.

Roman comparandum 1. Cicero to the Senate, 51 b.c.e.

Cic. Fam. 15.1.1: e.e.q.u. = ego exercitusque ualemus

My army and I are well.

Roman comparandum 2. Hadrian to the Senate, before 134(?) c.e.

Dio Cass. 69.14.3: ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα ὑγιαίνομεν

My army and I are well.

Roman comparandum 3. Anastasius I to the Senate, 516 c.e.

Collectio Auellana 113.1: ego exercitusque meus ualemus

My army and I are well.

The first formal difference is that the first-person singular personal pronoun ego ‘I’ is used in the Latin version, whereas in the Greek counterparts (aside from κἀγώ in Letter 1) the intensive pronoun αὐτός is used, which combines with a first-person singular verb to express ‘I myself’. The use of αὐτός is normal in references to the sender's health in the Ptolemaic papyrus letters examined by Buzón.Footnote 29 At least in the case of Octavian's Letters 2–8, the Greek idiom is adopted. The second difference is that the verb in the Latin version is first-person plural present active indicative, ualemus ‘we are well’; the Greek wish has first-person singular and either present ὑγιαίνω or (epistolary) imperfect ὑγίαινον. The final difference is that two subjects are coordinated in the Latin military clause, ego exercitusque ‘I and (my) army’; there is only one subject in the Greek military clause, with the army accompanying the subject, μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ‘with my army’. Although μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος is a rare phrase in extant evidence, it is appropriate Koine Greek. We find it in the NT (Apoc. 19.19) and in the tacticians Onasander (Strat. 11.3, first century c.e.) and Polyaenus (Strat. 3.9.61, second century c.e.). There is no reason to consider μετά to be for cum. Mourgues expanded Fam. 5.9.1 (Vatinius to Cicero, 45 b.c.e.): s.u.b.e.e.u. as si uales, bene est; ego cum exercitu ualeo (my emphasis), but he conjectured cum exercitu from μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος.Footnote 30 The weight of the secure Roman evidence makes Shackleton Bailey's ego exercitusque ualemus preferable,Footnote 31 which would mean that there are no examples of ego cum exercitu ualeo. The military clauses in the Roman letters in Greek are not mechanical translations from Latin; they are written in appropriate Early Koine Period (henceforth, EKP) Greek.Footnote 32

The military clauses captured the sense of the Latin expression but are not exact duplications of it. They are examples of ‘imitation’ of the Latin wish.Footnote 33 Imitation is a form of phraseological borrowing, which involves the replication of an expression from La in Lb (or vice versa). When an expression is normal in La but not so in Lb, and the author would like to evoke a similar effect to that achieved by the expression in La, the author can imitate the arrangement of the La expression in Lb. There are a number of phraseological comparanda that scholars have argued are transferences from Latin into Greek epistolography. Parsons argued that Greek epistolographers introduced ἐρρῶσθαί σε εὔχομαι in a kind of health wish after Latin bene ualere te opto.Footnote 34 Cuvigny ascribed ἴδιος in Greek letter addresses as an example of transference from suus in Latin addresses.Footnote 35 And Dickey concluded that the word order and function of ἐρωτῶ καὶ παρακαλῶ in Greek letters had been influenced by rogo et oro in Latin counterparts.Footnote 36 The military clause in Greek is a similar kind of imitation of the Latin precedent.

We can draw two conclusions from this analysis. The first is that those who wrote the Greek health wishes in Letters 1–8 added the military clauses by means of phraseological borrowings that imitated the Latin expression. The fact that in eight examples there are three types of military clause in Greek, of which there are two types for Octavian's letters, indicates that the formula had not yet crystallized into a ‘standard’ form but may have been approaching one. The second conclusion is that these imitations of the Latin military clause were produced in appropriate EKP Greek. We should also keep in mind that the first two clauses in these wishes (that is, those preceding the military clause) are perfect accomplishments of the formal conventions of Greek epistolography.

4. THE CONVENTIONALITY OF CAESAR'S AND OCTAVIAN'S MILITARY WISHES

As far as our extant evidence allows us to conclude, health wishes in Greek (or Latin) letters were not obligatory. Health wishes could imply a certain familiarity between sender and recipient or simply that the sender wished a certain recipient well on a certain occasion. Although it is most often beyond us to determine why a wish is used, it is worthwhile to investigate whether some form of positive relationship between sender and recipient can be identified as a motivator for the health wishes in Letters 1–8. As demonstrated above in Section 2, during the Roman Republic conventional usage of the military clause required one of the Roman correspondents to possess the power to command an army.

Although less critical than whether the sender held imperium, we begin with the evidence for reasons to wish the recipients well. In Letter 1 we see evidence of a positive relationship demonstrated in Caesar's promise to benefit Mytilene in his Benefaction Formula, a formula reserved for senders expressing their intentions to be of benefit to the recipient.Footnote 37 In Letter 2, Octavian expressed superlative praise of his acquaintance with the ambassador Solon of Plarasa–Aphrodisias,Footnote 38 and reconfirmed his polis’ privileges as being ἀτελ[εῖς κ]α<ὶ> ἐλευθέρους ‘exempt from public services and free’. In Letter 3, the health wish may have been included because Octavian made a request for the return of a looted statue from Ephesus to Plarasa–Aphrodisias. Letters 4, 6 and 7 were all sent to Rhosus. Octavian describes the arkhontes as Ῥωσέων τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ ἀσύλου καὶ | [αὐτονόμ]ου ‘of the holy, inviolate and free [sc. polis] of the Rhosians’. Octavian does so in all three of his letters to Rhosus but to no other recipient. Letters 4, 6 and 7 also refer to Seleukos of Rhosus, who is granted high privileges after serving as an admiral in Octavian's fleet.Footnote 39 In Letter 5 Mylasa is in a desperate state. Labienus, an opponent of Octavian, had invaded with the Parthians after Philippi in 40 b.c.e. (Vell. Pat. 2.78.1, Plut. Vit. Ant. 30.1, Dio Cass. 48.24–6) and razed Mylasa to the ground (Dio Cass. 48.26.3–4; see also Strabo 14.2.24). The polis had not yet recovered, and economic mismanagement is attested.Footnote 40 In resisting Labienus, Mylasa earnt the favour of Octavian.Footnote 41 In Letter 8, although the text is damaged, Octavian appears to confirm their φιλάνθρωπα ‘privileges’ after accepting a [ψ]ήφισμ[α] ‘decree’ of the Ephesian gerousia. So, although it was not obligatory, we find that there was some motivation in all eight letters to include the health wish: in Letters 1, 2 and 4–8 sender and recipient had a positive relationship, in Letter 5 there was cause for concern for the recipients’ well-being, and in Letter 3 a request was made.

Let us consider the evidence for Caesar and Octavian holding imperium at the time of dispatching their letters. Sherk's restoration of Letter 1.1 [Γάιος Ἰούλιος Καῖσαρ αὐτοκράτωρ ὕπατος τὸ] δε[ύτε]ρον allows the letter to be dated to 48–47 b.c.e.Footnote 42 Caesar then would still have been in command of his army after Pharsalus. Caesar pursued Pompeius via Asia after the battle (Caes. BCiu. 3.105–6.1, Plut. Vit. Caes. 48.1, Dio Cass. 42.6). Pompeius went to Mytilene (Caes. BCiu. 3.102.4–5), but he could not enter (Dio Cass. 42.2.4). Because we rely on Sherk's restoration we cannot be certain, but because it is a compelling restoration we can be confident that Caesar held imperium.

Octavian's seven letters all fall during Octavian's long-held imperium and military command. Octavian possessed imperium as triumuir and was occupied with recurrent military matters between 40 and 38 b.c.e., which covers Letter 2 (39–38 b.c.e.) and Letter 3 (38 b.c.e.). The Perusine War was concluded in early 40 b.c.e. (Vell. Pat. 2.74.2, Suet. Aug. 14.1, Plut. Vit. Ant. 30.1, Dio Cass. 48.15); throughout 39 b.c.e. the possibility of conflict with Sextus Pompeius lingered, before the conclusion of the treaty of Misenum (Vell. Pat. 2.77.1, Plut. Vit. Ant. 32, Dio Cass. 48.16.2–3, 48.24.7, 48.28.4, 48.36.1). For a letter written at any time during this period it would have been appropriate to include a military wish. The triumvirate was renewed for five years in 37 b.c.e. (Dio Cass. 48.54.6). In 36 b.c.e. Octavian acquired the troops of Sextus Pompeius and Lepidus (Vell. Pat. 2.71.4–2.80.4, Suet. Aug. 16.4, Plut. Vit. Ant. 55, Dio Cass. 49.10–15) and he was occupied with the restless soldiers for some time afterward (Vell. Pat. 2.81.1–2, Dio Cass. 49.13–14). These events account for Octavian's imperium at the time of Letter 4 (35 b.c.e.).

Letters 5 and 6 are dated to 31 b.c.e. That Octavian possessed imperium in 31 b.c.e. is demonstrated by his titles (Letter 6.73–4) and by Suet. Aug. 17.1, Plut. Vit. Ant. 68.4 and Dio Cass. 51.4.1. After Actium (31 b.c.e.) Octavian went to Athens (Plut. Vit. Ant. 68.4, Dio Cass. 51.4.1) and on to Asia (Dio Cass. 51.4.1–2), wintering with the army in Samos (Suet. Aug. 17.1). Octavian, therefore, not only possessed imperium but was also with his army. In 30 b.c.e. he retained imperium as consul, as shown by the titles in Letter 7.85 (30 b.c.e.): αὐτοκράτωρ τὸ ἕκτον, ὕπατος τὸ τέταρ|[τον]. He had armies at the ready for the final offensive against Antonius in Alexandria, which he carried out in the following year (Suet. Aug. 17.3–4, Plut. Vit. Ant. 74–6, Dio Cass. 51.9–10). At Letter 8.7 (29 b.c.e.), sent to Ephesus, Octavian is named as consul for the fifth time (ὕπατος τὸ ε΄). Suetonius tells us that Octavian commenced his fifth consulship at Samos (Suet. Aug. 26.3), this being the second time he stayed at Samos with his army (see the discussion of Letter 5). We can conclude that the letter from the Ephesians was delivered to Octavian with his army at Samos. There is explicit mention in Dio of Octavian's visit to Ephesus on the way back to Rome after defeating Antonius in Alexandria (Dio Cass. 51.20.6), which could have taken place in response to the embassy to Samos. Ephesus after all is about half a day from Samos.Footnote 43 We can conclude, therefore, that the military wish in Octavian's seven letters was used in accordance with Late Republican conventions and it is most likely that Caesar's letter is the same.

5. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CAESAR'S AND OCTAVIAN'S MILITARY WISHES

In Section 3 we established that the military health wish is borrowed into Greek by means of imitation, but this borrowing was conducted using appropriate EKP Greek. In Section 4 we observed that the use of the health wish adhered to epistolary conventions. These findings are significant for how we understand the practice of Roman epistolography in Greek and for how we understand the role of documents in Roman relations with Greek-speaking communities.

The use of health wishes in the official letters is evidence that the epistolographers within the Roman administration in the Late Republic were aware of and could produce letters that conformed to certain Greek epistolary conventions. The military wishes also reveal that some of these epistolographers were confident enough in this milieu to introduce a distinctive Roman phraseological feature into Greek formulas, and they did so in an effective manner. The inclusion of the wishes in the letters of Caesar and Octavian is evidence for how these two statesmen were presented to their recipients. The health wishes should be recognized as part of their programmes for maintaining positive relations with their allies. The fact that they are a small detail is significant, because it shows that the two Caesars, or at least their chanceries, were mindful of the role played by minute pleasantries in correspondence with interstate allies.

It is worth considering what message the military health wishes in these letters might have conveyed. Was it an expression of friendship and wish for good health, or was it a form of manipulation or even a threat? Based on the available evidence, it is most probable that it was intended in a positive light. It is impossible to determine with certainty whether there was in fact genuine, friendly affection between parties, but, as was shown above, we have plenty of evidence for positive or at least well-established relations. It is unlikely that any of our military health wishes was intended as a threat. The formula's most probable origin is as an added touch of courtesy made by senders who knew that their recipients were commanders; this gesture was then adopted later by senders who were commanders. Furthermore, deploying a health wish as a threat would be misguided. It is an ostensible wish for the health of the recipient, and the mention of the army is in reference to the sender's health. In such a position of power as the Romans enjoyed, a Roman commander did not need to resort to health wishes to be threatening. But, as evidence from Cicero's correspondence demonstrates, the significance of the phrase ‘with the army’ was not lost on all.Footnote 44 Although threats are less probable, reassurance is possible. It is difficult to imagine that Roman and Hellenophone politicians did not notice the phrase ‘with the army’, and for some it must have been a tacit reminder of Rome's potential. The military health wish could have served to reassure some allies, implying Rome's capacity to defend them. Letter 5, sent to the struggling Mylasa, could then be an example of this.

6. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MILITARY HEALTH WISH AFTER OCTAVIAN?

As the number of military health wish tokens discussed in this article shows, the formula was a rare variant of the more common epistolary health wishes. Our extant evidence suggests that the Late Republic saw the zenith of the military health wish, but what happened to it afterward is unclear. Based on testimony from Seneca the Younger and Pliny and on a dearth of examples in these authors and Cicero, Laidlaw concluded that health wishes in general ceased to exist in Roman letters after a steady decline from the Ciceronian period onward.Footnote 45 But this conclusion was drawn before the evidence of the Vindolanda letters,Footnote 46 and the evidence presented above from inscriptions and literature shows that the military version was still being used by some Byzantine epistolographers. It appears that the military health wish survived only in restricted circumstances under the Empire, becoming submerged in our record.

There are a number of factors which could have influenced the low total of extant military wishes in inscribed Roman official letters. One obvious reason is that health wishes tend to be rare in Greek and Latin official letters, so it is noteworthy that we have health wishes at all. The military health wish has even fewer chances to be used, because—at least during the Republic—one of the parties must be a Roman in command of an army. The next factor for documentary letters is preservation. Although a party on good terms with Rome that has received a favourable letter is likely to preserve it either on papyrus or on stone, there is no guarantee it would survive. It is probable that only a minute fraction of Roman Republican official letters has survived, so some health wish letters may have been lost.

An important factor affecting the use of a military wish in interstate and intrastate epistolography is the development of Roman imperium, especially in relation to the control of the legions. Throughout the Early Imperial period there was a gradual increase in the centrality of the Domus Augusta in military matters—consider, for example, the restrictions on the use of the appellation imperator,Footnote 47 the increasing rarity of triumphs falling to those outside of the Imperial family,Footnote 48 and Octavian's opposition to Crassus’ claim of the spolia opima in 29 b.c.e.Footnote 49 It is probable that the military health wish became the de facto prerogative of the princeps (and perhaps his family), a possibility that further restricts opportunities for the usage of the military wish. Dio may be describing such a status quo at 69.14.3, commenting that the expression was τῷ προοιμίῳ τῷ συνήθει τοῖς αὐτοκράτορσιν ‘the (letter) opening customary for the imperatores’, with imperator by this time being used by members of the Domus Augusta alone. Up to this point the princeps still needed to be with his army in order to employ the wish, and this was yet another restriction. In spite of such limitations, the military wish avoided extinction in the Roman Imperial era. It was of sufficient commonality in the letters of the principes for Dio to refer to it as συνήθης ‘habitual, customary’, and for him (or his source) to notice that Hadrian neglected to employ it on even one occasion. Inscribed Latin letters sent to Rome are very rare, but in the inscribed letter of Constantine and his sons the military wish is used. Centuries after Hadrian it was still prominent enough to be found in the correspondence of Valentinian III and of Anastasius I. Even after the requirement that the sender be present with the army became obsolete during the Imperial period and certainly by the time of Valentinian, it is probable that the use of the military wish remained the prerogative of the princeps. The emperor as the sender of the letter still had a connection with the army as the (at least nominal) ruler of the general. It seems that the phrase was still significant to the epistolographers because of this connection to the army, and it was used to allow the sender to appear in more control than was perhaps the case. Although rare in attestation and although its significance changed over time, the extant evidence demonstrates that the military health wish was a feature of enduring yet changing significance in Roman letters written in Latin as well as in Greek.

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The main conclusions of this article are as follows. The military health wish originated in Latin letters. During the Republic it was conventional only when one of the parties held imperium and commanded an army. The latter requirement was obsolete by the time of Valentinian III if not sooner. The military health wish was borrowed by means of imitation from Latin into Roman Republican official letters in Greek. This phraseological borrowing of the third clause employed intuitive EKP Greek, and the first two clauses adhere to Greek epistolographical conventions. The military health wish is significant for multiple reasons. It demonstrates that epistolographers working for Caesar and Octavian took care to draft letters that met the conventions of Hellenistic chanceries. Their chanceries paid attention even to such fine points when writing to allies in order to maintain positive relations with them. These writers were also confident enough in the text type and language to introduce features from Latin epistolography in an effective manner. Attestations of the military health wish declined during the Imperial period through governmental and administrative changes to the command of armies and the centrality of the princeps. It is probable that the military health wish survived in rare occurrences for more than four centuries because the formula's connection to the army allowed it to remain significant for emperors when writing to their Senates.

Footnotes

This research was facilitated by a 2017 Australia Awards Endeavour Research Fellowship (Department of Education and Training, the Australian Government), the Macquarie–Gale Graeco-Roman Travelling Scholarship, and a Macquarie University Postgraduate Research Fund grant. The research was conducted at the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, Faculty of Classics, Oxford. I am grateful to Nicholas Purcell, who sponsored my visit and discussed the paper with me. It is a pleasure to thank Trevor Evans, Ellen Ryan, Lea Beness, Tom Hillard, Alison Cooley, Hilla Halla-aho and Andreas Willi for their close reading of, and incisive comments on, earlier versions of this material. I am grateful to the organizers and participants of research seminars, especially James Clackson of the Cambridge Philology seminar (who also arranged my trip to Cambridge); Andreas Willi and Philomen Probert of the Oxford Philology Seminar; and Charles Crowther, Peter Thonemann, Jonathan Prag, Gregory Hutchinson, Robert Parker and Irad Malkin from the Oxford Epigraphy Seminar. Thanks are also due to my Endeavour Award manager Laveena Lobo. Finally, I am grateful to the editors, reviewers and administrative staff of CQ for their tireless efforts. All of you enriched the article with your expertise and assistance. All remaining errors and infelicities are my own.

References

1 Letter 1, Caesar to Mytilene, 48–47 b.c.e. = Sherk, R.K., Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1969), no. 26a.2Google Scholar; Letter 2, Octavian to the Plaraseans and Aphrodisians, 39–38 b.c.e. = IAph2007 no. 8.25 (= Sherk [this note], no. 28), fr. A.11–14; Letter 3, Octavian to Ephesus primum, early 38 b.c.e. = IAph2007 no. 8.31.2–3; Letter 4, Octavian to Rhosus primum, 35 b.c.e. = Raggi, A., ‘The epigraphic dossier of Seleucus of Rhosus: a revised edition’, ZPE 147 (2004), 123–38Google Scholar, at 128, Doc. I = SEG 54.1625.4; Letter 5, Octavian to Mylasa, 31 b.c.e. = Sherk (this note), no. 60 A.4–6 (cf. IMylasa 602 and De Rossi, F. Canali, ‘Tre epistole di magistrati romani a città d'Asia’, EA 32 [2000], 163–81, at 172–8)Google Scholar; Letter 6, Octavian to Rhosus iterum, 31 b.c.e. = Raggi [this note], 132–3, Doc. III = SEG 54.1625.75–6; Letter 7, Octavian to Rhosus tertium, 30 b.c.e. = Raggi [this note], 133–4, Doc. IV = SEG 54.1625.86–7; Letter 8, Octavian to Ephesus iterum, 29 b.c.e. = Knibbe, D., Engelmann, H., Iplikçioğlu, B., ‘Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII’, JÖAI 62 (1993), 113–50, at no. 2.8–9Google Scholar.

2 F. Ziemann, ‘De epistularum Graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae’ (Diss., Halle, 1910), 302–17; F.X.J. Exler, ‘The form of the ancient Greek letter: a study in Greek epistolography’ (Diss., Catholic University of America, 1923), 103–7; Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki, 1956), 138Google Scholar; R. Buzón, ‘Die Briefe der Ptolemäerzeit: ihre Struktur und ihre Formeln’ (Diss., Heidelberg, 1984), 9; White, J.L., Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia, 1986), 200–2Google Scholar.

3 Ziemann (n. 2), 302–17; Buzón (n. 2), 9–14, 23–5, 51–3, 102–8, 112–14, 163–6, 171–2, 240–3.

4 Ziemann (n. 2), especially 267 n. 1, 305–13; Koskenniemi (n. 2), 131, 133; Buzón (n. 2), 9–10, 13.

5 For example Exler (n. 2), 106.

6 Buzón (n. 2), 241 (ref. administrative letters, comparable to official letters); Koskenniemi (n. 2), 131; Welles, C.B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (Chicago, 1934), 248Google Scholar.

7 Welles (n. 6), 248, 291; Sherk (n. 1), 190.

8 Cugusi, P., Evoluzione e forme dell'epistolografia latina (Rome, 1983), 48Google Scholar; Halla-aho, H., The Non-Literary Latin Letters: A Study of their Syntax and Pragmatics (Helsinki, 2009), 45Google Scholar.

9 Plaut. Persa 502–3 si ualetis, gaudeo. ego ualeo recte ‘if you are well, I rejoice. I am very well.’ The Persa is dated after 191 b.c.e. by de Melo, W.C.D., Plautus: The Merchant, The Braggart Soldier, The Ghost, The Persian (Cambridge, MA, 2011), 448Google Scholar. When drawing conclusions based on Plautine evidence we must keep in mind that his works are metrical and that we do not possess contemporaneous documentary letters for corroboration. On the evidence for pre-Ciceronian Latin epistolography, Cugusi, P., Studi sull'epistolografia latina, I. L'età preciceroniana (Cagliari, 1970)Google Scholar, passim; Cugusi (n. 8), 151–7 with discussion of Plautine letters at 152.

10 See Halla-aho (n. 8), 45; T.Vindol. 52.2 si uales b[ene e]sṭ uero ego ualeo; CEL 10.1 s(i) u(ales) b(ene est). The latter is from the Augustan period.

11 Laidlaw, W.A., ‘S.V.B.E.’, CPh 34 (1939), 251–2Google Scholar, at 251.

12 There is a probable example of Type 3 in a fragmentary letter of Augustus to Samos, sent between 2–1 b.c.e. and 8–9 c.e. = Kienast, H.J. and Hallof, K., ‘Ein Ehrenmonument für Samische Scribonii aus dem Heraion’, Chiron 29 (1999), 205–23Google Scholar, at 216.5–6: εἰ ἔρρω[σθε] κ̣[α]λ̣ῶ[ς] ἂ̣ν [ἔχοι, καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ τοῦ] | στρατ[ε]ύ̣μ̣α̣[τος ὑγ]ίαιν[ον] ‘if you are well, [it] would [be] good, [and I myself with the] army was well [too].’

13 SIG 3 700.42–3 καὶ συνχαρέντες | ἐπὶ τῶι ὑγιαίνειν αὐτόν τε καὶ τὸ στρατόπεδον ‘and rejoiced together because of him and the army being healthy’. See Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome (London, 1982), 45Google Scholar.

14 Military health wishes in Latin have been noted by a number of scholars, for example J. Babl, ‘De epistularum Latinarum formulis’ (Diss., Bamberg, 1893), 24; Laidlaw (n. 11), 252; D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Epistulae ad familiares (Cambridge, 1977), 2 vols., 1.438, 2.547; Reynolds (n. 13), 45; Cugusi (n. 8), 48; J.-L. Mourgues, ‘Imperial correspondence preserved in inscriptions and papyri’ (Diss., Oxford, 1990), 2 vols., 2.93–4 n. 58. On the political context and the delicate construction of Cicero's defence of himself in the letter to Metellus Celer (Fam. 5.2.1), see J. Hall, Politeness and Politics in Cicero's Letters (Oxford, 2009), 156–60. I thank Tom Hillard for discussing this example with me.

15 See Shackleton Bailey (n. 14), 1.280.

16 Laidlaw (n. 11), 252.

17 The examples are as follows: (1) Fam. 15.1.1 (Cicero to the Senate, 51 b.c.e.): s.u.u.b.e.e.q.u. = si uos ualetis, benest; ego exercitusque ualemus ‘if you are well, it is good; I and my army are well’; see Shackleton Bailey (n. 14), 1.438. (2) Fam. 15.2.1 (Cicero to the Senate iterum, 51 b.c.e.): s.u.u.b.e.e.q.u. = si uos ualetis, benest; ego exercitusque ualemus ‘if you are well, it is good; I and my army are well’; cf. Shackleton Bailey (n. 14), 1.438. (3) Fam. 5.9.1 (Vatinius to Cicero, 45 b.c.e.): s.u.b.e.e.u. = si uales, benest; ego exercitusque ualemus ‘if you are well, it is good; I and my army are well’; see Shackleton Bailey (n. 14), 2.424 (cf. Mourgues [n. 14], 2.93–4 with his n. 58). (4) Fam. 5.10a.1 (Vatinius to Cicero iterum, 44 b.c.e.): s.u.b.e.e.q.u. = si ualetis, bene est; ego exercitusque ualemus ‘if you are well, it is good; I and my army are well.’ (5) Fam. 10.35.1 (Lepidus to the Senate, 43 b.c.e.): si u. liberique uestri u.b.e.e.q.u. = si uos liberique uestri ualetis, bene est; ego exercitusque ualemus ‘if you and your children are well, it is good; I and my army are well’; cf. Shackleton Bailey (n. 14), 2.547. I thank Gregory Hutchinson for bringing this example to my attention and for discussing it with me.

18 For example, see Joseph. AJ 14.306–7 Μᾶρκος Ἀντώνιος αὐτοκράτωρ Ὑρκανῷ ἀρχιερεῖ καὶ ἐθνάρχῃ καὶ τῷ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνει χαίρειν. εἰ ἔρρωσθε, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι, ἔρρωμαι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος ‘Marcus Antonius, imperator, to Hyrkanos chief priest and ethnarkh, and to the race of the Jews, greetings! If you are well, it would be good, and I myself am well with the army too.’

19 Dio Cass. 69.14.3 πολλοὶ μέντοι ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τούτῳ καὶ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀπώλοντο⋅ διὸ καὶ ὁ Ἁδριανὸς γράφων πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν οὐκ ἐχρήσατο τῷ προοιμίῳ τῷ συνήθει τοῖς αὐτοκράτορσιν, ὅτι “εἰ αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ παῖδες ὑμῶν ὑγιαίνετε, εὖ ἂν ἔχοι⋅ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα ὑγιαίνομεν” ‘Many of the Romans, however, perished in this war; so much so that even Hadrian when writing to the Senate did not use the letter opening customary for the imperatores, that “if both you and your children are well, it would be good; the army and I are well too”.’ This was noted also by Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1999 2), 69Google Scholar (and see Millar's n. 6 on the date); Birley, A.R., Hadrian: The Restless Emperor (London, 2009 2), 272Google Scholar.

20 See Millar (n. 19), 36–7 (on Dio's general use of sources), 62 (on the likelihood that Dio consulted Hadrian's reports to the Senate) and 69 (on Hadrian's letter).

21 CIL 6.40776.1–12 imp(erator) Caes(ar) Fl(auius) Constantinus [8 lines] senatui suo salutem dicunt si uos liberique | uestri ualetis bene est nos exercitusque | nostri ualemus ‘imperator Caesar Flauuius Constantinus [et al.] … say “greetings!” to their Senate. If you and your children are well, it is good; we and our armies are well.’ See Corcoran, S., ‘State correspondence in the Roman empire: imperial communication from Augustus to Justinian’, in Radner, K. (ed.), State Correspondence in the Ancient World (Oxford, 2014), 172–209, at 193Google Scholar.

22 Nou. Val. 1.3 idem [sc. imperatores Theodosius et Valentinianus] aa. (= Augusti) consulibus, praetoribus, tribunis plebis, senatui suo salutem dicunt. si uos liberique uestri ualetis, bene est: nos exercitusque nostri ualemus ‘(the imperatores Theodosius and Valentinian) Augusti, say “greetings!” to the consuls, praetors, tribunes of the plebs and their Senate. If you and your children are well, it is good; we and our armies are well.’ We should keep in mind that there is disagreement in the manuscripts, with the military clause omitted in MS S; see T. Mommsen and P. Meyer (edd.), Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges Nouellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1905), 74.

23 C. Pharr, in collaboration with Davidson, T. Sherrer and Pharr, M. Brown, The Theodosian Code, and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Union, NJ, 1952), 515Google Scholar with his n. 14.

24 M. Whitby, ‘The army, c. 420–602’, in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins and M. Whitby (edd.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 14. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, AD 425–600 (Cambridge, 2001), 288–314, at 296–7.

25 Collectio Auellana 113.1 si uos liberique uestri ualetis, bene est; ego exercitusque meus ualemus ‘If you and your children are well, it is good; I [sc. Anastasius I] and my army are well.’ See Corcoran (n. 21), 193. For the Collectio Auellana, see O. Guenther (ed.), Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 35 (Leipzig, 1898).

26 On this letter and the Doctrinal Schism, see F.K. Nicks, ‘The reign of Anastasius I, 491–518’ (Diss., Oxford, 1998), 132–4; Richards, J., The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476–752 (London, 1979), 102–5Google Scholar. For the revolt of Vitalian, see Nicks (this note), 63–5.

27 See Hock, H.H. and Joseph, B.D., Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship (Berlin and New York, 2009 2), 241–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar (borrowing) and 354–8 (interference).

28 On the borrowing of collocations, see Hock and Joseph (n. 27), 244. See also Adams, J.N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2003), 25–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Buzón (n. 2), 9–14, 51–3, 102–8, 163–6, 240–3.

30 Mourgues (n. 14), 2.93–4 with his n. 58.

31 Shackleton Bailey (n. 14), 2.424.

32 The EKP of Greek covers the years from the third to the first centuries b.c.e. in the periodization of Lee, J.A.L., “Ἐξαποστέλλω”, in Joosten, J. and Tomson, P.J. (edd.), Voces biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament (Leuven, 2007), 99–113Google Scholar, at 113 n. 31.

33 On imitation, see Adams (n. 28), 422–4. See also Coleman, R., ‘Greek influence on Latin syntax’, TPhS (1975), 101–56Google Scholar, at 126.

34 Parsons, P.J., ‘Latin letter’, in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.) (Vienna, 1983), 483–9Google Scholar, at 488–9 (= P.Rain.Cent. 164, TM 78737); see also Adams (n. 28), 79–80.

35 Cuvigny, H., ‘Remarques sur l'emploi de ἴδιος dans le praescriptum épistolaire’, BIFAO 102 (2002), 143–53Google Scholar; see also Dickey, E., ‘The Greek address system in the Roman period and its relationship to Latin’, CQ 54 (2004), 494–527, at 508CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Dickey, E., ‘Latin influence and Greek request formulae’, in Evans, T.V. and Obbink, D.D. (edd.), The Language of the Papyri (Oxford, 2010), 208–20Google Scholar.

37 Letter 1.9–12 ἐγὼ δὲ τούς τε ἄνδρας ἐπῄνε||[σα διὰ τὴν προθυμίαν αὐτῶν καὶ φιλοφρόν]ως ἀπεδεξάμην, ἡδέως τε τὴν πόλιν | [ὑμῶν εὐεργετεῖν πειράσομαι καὶ κατὰ τ]οὺς παρόντας καιροὺς καὶ ἐν τοῖς μετὰ ταῦ|[τα χρόνοις] ‘And I commended the men [on account of their zealousness and] I approved of [them in a friendly manner], and with pleasure [I shall endeavour to benefit] the polis [both in] the present time and in the future.’ On the Hellenistic Benefaction formula, see Ma, J., Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford, 2002 2), 101–2Google Scholar (with his n. 178), 187, 202–3; Hofmann, V., ‘Mimesis vel aemulatio? Die hellenistischen Anfänge der offiziellen römischen Epistolographie und ihre machtpolitischen Implikationen’, ZSav 131 (2014), 177–215Google Scholar, at 195–6, 211, 213.

38 Letter 2.33–45 ἐφ’ οἷς ἐπαινέ|σας τὸν Σόλωνα μᾶ[λ]||λον ἀπεδεξάμην ἔσ|χον τε ἐν τοῖς ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ | γεινωσκομένοις | ᾧ καὶ τὰ καθήκοντα | ἀπεμέρισα φιλάν||θρωπα, ἄξιον ἡγη|σάμενος τὸν ἄν|δρα τῆς ἐξ ἡμ<ῶ>ν ⟦τει⟧|τειμῆς, ὑμεῖν τε συ[ν]|ήδομαι ἐπὶ τ<ῷ> ἔχειν || τοιοῦτον πολείτην ‘After I commended Solon on account of these matters I approved of him exceedingly and I held him among my acquaintances, to whom I also awarded the appropriate privileges, because I considered the man worthy of honour from us; and I rejoice with you on account of possessing such a citizen.’

39 For example, in Letter 4 Roman citizenship and tax exemption are granted for Seleukos, his family and his descendants (lines 19–22); then the right to vote (lines 24–6); and it is probable that freedom from military service was also bestowed (lines 22–3).

40 Sherk (n. 1), no. 59 with his comments at 309 and 312.

41 Letter 5.B.10–12 ἐφ’ οἷς πᾶσιν συνε[ῖ|δον παθόντας] ταῦτα πάσης τειμῆς καὶ χάρι|[τος ἀξίους ἄνδρας γενομέν]ους ὑμᾶς ‘on account of which [I was] able [to see that] you, [who suffered] these hardships, [are men worthy] of all honour and favour’.

42 See Sherk, R.K., ‘Senatus consultum de agris Mytilenaeorum’, GRBS 4 (1963), 217–30Google Scholar; Sherk (n. 1), 152.

43 A search on ORBIS returned a distance of 62 km and a travel time of around half a day on 5 June 2020: <http://orbis.stanford.edu/>.

44 See Cic. Fam. 5.2.1 with Hall (n. 14), 156–60.

45 Laidlaw (n. 11), 251 with Sen. Ep. 15 and Plin. Ep. 1.11.

46 See Halla-aho (n. 8), 45 with TVindol. 52.2 and CEL 10.1.

47 See A. Momigliano and T.J. Cornell in OCD 4 728–9 s.v. imperator. After Augustus, only the princeps is attested with the title of αὐτοκράτωρ imperator in Roman official letters written in Greek. It is found both before the name of the princeps (in the manner of Caesar and Augustus) and also after it in the long lists of titles. The earliest extant epistolary post-Augustan example appears to be in a letter of imperator Gaius to the Koinon of the Achaeans, Boeotians, Locrians, Phocaeans and Euboeans from 37 c.e.; see Oliver, J.H., Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia, PA, 1989), no. 18.21Google Scholar: [Αὐτο]κράτωρ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ. Magistrates tended to be named with the title of their magistracies, such as ἀνθύπατος proconsul or πρεσβευτής legatus.

48 See Beard, M., The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, MA and London, 2007), 68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 See Dio Cass. 51.24.4, Livy 4.20.5–11.