Dedication to Zeus and Rome
created: Transcription (Reynolds).
source date: Augustan - first century CE
language: ar; en; fr; de; grc; grc-Latn; el; he
availability: Creative Commons licence Attribution UK 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/) All reuse or distribution of this work must contain somewhere a link back to the URL http://inslib.kcl.ac.uk/

Bibliography

[...], 413, whence [...] 1927.141, [...] 9.127, [...] 323981, [...], 273, [...], 20 and 31, [...], 412, Romanelli, Africa Romana, 227 and [...], 90; reexamined and republished [...] 218-220 cf. p. 156 and pl. XXXVII, 3,4, whence [...], 32 and fig. 215, [...], 1972.622a, [...], 92.

Ζηνὶ Σωτῆρι καὶ Ῥώμαι [...]αι καὶ Σεβαστῶι [...]

[^a1: at 1: Ῥώμαι καὶ Σε[βαστῶι] | Ῥώμ[αι αἰωνίαι . . . ]αι καὶ Σε[βαστῶι θεῶι Καίσαρι]

Translations

For Zeus Saviour and Rome [ . . ] and for Au[gustus? . . .

Commentary

For the building see Stucchi, Agora 147f., 220f. Oliverio, Scavi 20 states that the architrave had been re-inscribed several times but there seems no evidence for more than one such re-use; it is reasonable to suppose this as Augustan in date on grounds both of palaeography and of historical probablility, but it seems less certain that Gasperini was right to associate this with the Cyrene decrees of 7/6 BCE; C.95 shows that there was already a priest of Augustus at Cyrene in 16/15 BCE.

Gasperini showed conclusively that for architectural reasons the fragment with ῬΩΜ[...] does not adjoin that with [...]ΑΙΚΑΙΣΕ and that the intervening gap contained at least 3-4 letters and possibly 10-11 more if another whole architrave block stood between the two. He proposed an epithet after Ῥώμ[αι and another goddess, ; but his αἰωνίαι, suggested by Roma Aeterna, does not seem to be attested among Greek cults of Ῥώμη and is in any case rather too long for the gap at its shortest and too short if it was longer, while the interruption of the two Roman concepts of Rome and Augustus by a second local one such as Libya seems unlikely; very tentatively we propose something on the lines of Ῥώμ[αι Εὐεργέτιδι θε]αῖ, approximately on the analogy of OGIS 594 (PHI 64218), Ῥώμην θεὰν εὐεργέτιν at Delos. At the end Gasperini's supplements were intended to fill the space likely to heve been inscribed, on the supposition that the gap after ΡΩΜ was the smallest possible and that the inscription was disposed symmetrically in relation to the whole architrave. For the cult of Rome at Cyrene, probably combined with that of the imperial house, see also C.2, C.692. For the conjunction of Zeus, Rome and Augustus we have found no exact parallel unless Keil's supplements to IGRR IV.1534 (PHI 251624) from Erythrae are accepted, giving [θεαῖ Ῥώμῃ καὶ Σε]βαστῶι Καίσαρι [?καὶ διὶ Σωτῆρι] Οὐρανίωι ; but cf Plutarch, Vita Flaminini 16, Ζηνὰ μέγαν Ῥώμαν τε Τῖτον θ'ἄμα Ῥωμαίων τε πίστιν (Perseus), and IGRR IV.95 (PHI 75349) from Mytilene where there was a priest θεᾶς Ῥώμης καὶ τῶ Σεβαστῶ Διὸς Καίσαρος Ὀλυμπίω πατρὸς τᾶς πατρίδας. The cult of Zeus Soter at Cyrene is attested by a Ηellenistic inscription on an altar in the Agora (IGCyr100000) and one in the Sanctuary, C.289. Gasperini loc.cit. collects evidence to suggest that he was predominantly a θεὸς ἀγοραῖος. See further Marengo, op.cit.