Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T02:31:22.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PLINY, TRAJAN AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ISELASTICVM FOR VICTORIOUS ATHLETES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2024

Christoph Begass
Christoph Begass*
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim
*
begass@uni-mannheim.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two letters, Pliny and Trajan discuss a petition sent to the governor by the guild of athletes concerning their rewards after winning contests (Plin. Ep. 10.118–19). In his request, Pliny refers to a regulation by which Trajan had settled the rights of the victorious athletes in regard to their home cities. In his response, Trajan repeats the case with slight variations. The two letters pose both philological and historical difficulties, which this article aims to solve. The relevant passage in Trajan's letter is corrupt. As scholarship has misunderstood the historical background of the letters, no satisfying solution for the restoration of the text has been found to date. The argumentation of this article is twofold. First, it offers a new reading of the corrupt passage in the emperor's letter which respects both the textual transmission and the historical situation. Second, it is argued that the two letters refer to a Trajanic law which settled the regulations of iselastic contests for the first time, but left some details undecided. In sum, this article proposes a new reading of a damaged passage in Plin. Ep. 10.119 as well as offering a historical commentary on agonistic activities in imperial Asia Minor.

Keywords

PlinyTrajanBithyniacontestsathletesrewardsprizesiselasticum
Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , December 2023 , pp. 837 - 844
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

In a letter to Trajan, Pliny,Footnote 1 who served as legatus pro praetore of Pontus and Bithynia in c.110–13, is concerned with the rights of victorious athletes (Ep. 10.118).Footnote 2 These athletae, who were organized in a synodos, demanded the right of getting paid by their πατρίς directly after they had won a contest, rather than having to wait until they had returned to their home cities.Footnote 3 In Mynors's edition, the beginning of this letter reads as follows:

(1) Athletae, domine, ea quae pro iselasticis certaminibus constituisti, deberi sibi putant statim ex eo die quo sunt coronati; nihil enim referre quando sint patriam inuecti, sed quando certamine uicerint, ex quo inuehi possint. ego contra scribo ‘iselastici nomine’. itaque †eorum uehementer addubitem an sit potius id tempus, quo εἰσήλασαν, intuendum. (2) iidem obsonia petunt pro eo agone, qui a te iselasticus factus est, quamuis uicerint ante quam fieret.

The athletes, my Lord, believe that the prizes for what you established regarding the iselastic contests shall be awarded to them from this very day on which they are crowned. It is by no means of importance when they have returned into their home town, but when they have won the contest, from which they may return. I instead file under ‘iselastic name’. That is why I am in serious doubt, if it is not rather the point of time at which they entered. (2) Also, they are demanding prize-money for a contest they have won, before it was declared iselastic by you.

As usual, Trajan's response (Ep. 10.119) repeats, with slight variations, the case,Footnote 4 and is thus of high importance for both the textual structure and our understanding of the situation. What concerns us here is the question of how and when Trajan introduced iselastic contests (ea quae pro iselasticis certaminibus constituisti) and what privileges athletes obtained by winning such a contest.Footnote 5

Before we address this problem, it is important to note that the solemn entry of a victorious athlete into his home city (εἰσελαύνειν) is already attested in Hellenistic times. A decree from Teos, dated to the last years of the third century b.c., shows that an athlete who had won an ἀγὼν στεφανίτης—one of the most prestigious contests in the Greek periodos Footnote 6—was allowed to solemnly enter his home city.Footnote 7 In these times, the ceremonial entry, however, was an honour conferred on the victor by his patria, but iselasticus did not yet denote any category of contests. It is striking, however, that we do not have any evidence for iselastic contests that predate Trajan.Footnote 8 If we follow this track, it might lead us to a Trajanic law now lost.

To ascertain what role Trajan played in establishing iselastic contests, we have to get philological for a moment, as, in contrast to Books 1–9, the text of Book 10 is based not on manuscripts but on two early sixteenth-century editions by Hieronymus Avantius (Verona, 1502) and Aldus Manutius (Venice, 1508), respectively. Both editions, however, directly refer to a manuscript from the sixth century.Footnote 9 The textual evidence of these early printed editions is thus of high value for the constitution of the text, and the variants transmitted there should not be easily dismissed. Despite later attempts to rescue the text of this passage or to interpret its meaning on a weak textual base, Peter Weiß, in 1982, has offered the best solution for an adequate understanding of this passage, and we must not go beyond his achievements.Footnote 10 In Ep. 10.118.1 he identified a gloss which has to be eliminated; according to him, the letter reads: ego contra uehementer addubitem an sit potius id tempus, quo εἰσήλασαν, intuendum. The Greek term was explained by the commentary scribo: iselastici nomen eorum, and this phrase later became part of the main text.Footnote 11 This solution is convincing, as it both construes a correct Latin phrase and suits the circumstance that a rare Greek word such as εἰσήλασαν needed further explanation in Late Antiquity. Therefore, the gloss may have been introduced into the text already at a very early stage, most probably before the fifth century, when the—now lost—Parisinus manuscript, which eventually became the base for the early prints of Avantius and Manutius, was written.

Now we can discuss the agonistic background of this passage. At the beginning of Ep. 118.1 Pliny writes that Trajan had settled some issues ‘regarding the iselastic contests’ (pro iselasticis certaminibus constituisti) before. How and when did Trajan's reform take place? From Pliny's letter, written at the end of his governorship in the province, we only get a terminus ante quem of c.113. As there is only scarce evidence for agonistic festivals in Bithynia and Pontus in the first and second centuries, we cannot say to which contests Pliny and Trajan refer; although Clemens Bosch and Sencer Şahin have studied the festivals of Nikaia, and Louis Robert has analysed the rivalries of Nicaea and Nicomedia in the third century, we still lack a critical and thorough survey of agonistic activities in Pontus and Bithynia.Footnote 12

In the governor's bureaucratic language, constituere is used here as a technical term for an imperial order, as it becomes clear from a constitution of Marcus Aurelius for the Milesians in which the emperor states (in eo constitui iure) how victorious athletes are to return correctly into their patria (certam]ịna ex quibus uictores reduces patriam suam).Footnote 13 In his response to Pliny's letter, Trajan rules that these respective honours should be bestowed upon the contestant only after re-entering his home city (cum qui in ciuitatem suam ipse εἰσήλασεν), in contrast to the prizes given by the agōnothetēs at the festival site. In the following, he further explains this regulation (in Mynors's edition): nec proficere pro desiderio athletarum potest, quod eorum, quae postea iselastica non esse constitui, quam uicerunt, accipere desierunt. By using constitui, Trajan here makes use of the juridical language of the administration and, in doing so, recalls Pliny's own words. But what measures did Trajan take to arrange these matters? Here, again, we first have to face textual problems, and a discussion of these may offer a historical explanation.

In his 1502 edition, Avantius printed Trajan's response (Ep. 119) as follows: nec proficere pro desiderio Athletarum potest: quod eorum quae postea Iselastica non lege constitui: quam, qui ierant, accipere desierunt. Aldus Manutius gives merely the same text (1508, page 337): nec proficere pro desyderio athletarum potest, quod eorum, quae postea iselastica non lege constitui, quam, qui ierant, accipere desierunt. The reading of non lege, though attested by both witnesses whose texts go back to the oldest single manuscript, was contested by Arnold Schäfer in 1844 who, without any detailed discussion, replaced non lege by non esse and changed the strange relative clause quam, qui ierant, to quam uicerant.Footnote 14 Corresponding to Pliny's letter (Ep. 118.2–3), the latter emendation can be accepted without hesitation,Footnote 15 but the first one deserves further discussion. The conjecture non esse constitui instead of non lege constitui was put forward by Schäfer, because the verb esse seemed necessary to him and, more importantly, ‘a law seems not suitable at this place’.Footnote 16 He thought lege to be an interpolation. Though his observation concerning esse is undoubtedly correct, esse might be omitted in such a case. Schäfer's conjectures were accepted by many of the later editors, for example Hardy, Mynors, Sherwin-White and Williams. Sherwin-White even called the ‘notion … of an “iselastic law” … [an] absurd intrusion’.Footnote 17 But referring to a law is far from being ‘absurd’, as, on the one hand, it is supported by the oldest textual testimonies and, on the other hand, as I will argue, we know of several imperial regulations concerning agonistic problems so that a lex iselastica seems plausible.Footnote 18 Such a decree, consequently, would offer a valuable explanation of the agonistic setting of letters 118 and 119.

Before discussing the historical background, we might recall, at this point of the discussion, Wilamowitz's ‘first commandment of philology’, which says that ‘one must not proceed from the vulgate but from the transmission’.Footnote 19 If we do so, non lege should not easily be dismissed as it is attested by the earliest testimonies which directly go back to a late antique manuscript now lost.Footnote 20 A simple yet correct solution was offered by Gottfried Heinrich Schäfer, who, in his 1805 edition, printed eorum, quae postea iselastica lege constitui (though the rest of his text is not satisfactory).Footnote 21 Hence, he kept lege, but deleted non. Considering his suggestions and the emendations of later editors, the passage (Ep. 119) should read:

nec proficere pro desiderio Athletarum potest, quod eorum [sc. certaminum], quae postea iselastica lege constitui, quam uicerunt, accipere desierunt.

It is insignificant concerning the desire of the athletes that they did not receive anything for the victories at such [sc. contests] which I declared later as iselastic by law.

This text offers three improvements. First, it respects the textual transmission as far as possible and, second, it fits with Trajan's statement in the previous sentence that his order is not retroactive. Here, the emperor decrees that neither the contests which have not yet been of iselastic status at the time of the victory (quae … ante iselastica non fuerunt) nor the competitions which have been upgraded to this status at a later time (quae … postea iselastica lege constitui) are relevant for the victors’ obsonia, viz. their συντάξεις.Footnote 22 Only if the games held iselastic status at the moment of the victory, would the champion be allowed to get these rewards. Third, there is much evidence for special regulations from the High Empire for victorious athletes who came back from the ecumenical festivals. In Aelian's Varia Historia, which dates to the second half of the second century, one section is devoted to the solemn entry of a victorious athlete κατὰ τὸν νόμον τῶν ἀθλητῶν.Footnote 23 The first impression might lead to the assumption that νόμος here simply means ‘custom’ or ‘habit’, but we know to what extent emperors were obliged by the synodos to regulate the festivals and the agonistic calendar in detail.Footnote 24 Of special importance are Hadrian's letters found at Alexandria Troas in 2003 that show how the guild of professional artists had appealed to Hadrian in 134 to change the agonistic calendar in favour of the synodos.Footnote 25 In his responses, the emperor laid down detailed regulations, and these letters lead to the impression that Hadrian is not setting a precedent here, but, in contrast, follows an already established routine.

Commenting on Hadrian's letters from Alexandria Troas, Georg Petzl and Elmar Schwertheim pointed out that only Hadrian's regulations go back to an edict (διάταγμα), while those of other emperors known to us were published as imperial letters.Footnote 26 In a detailed analysis of iselastic agōnes, William Slater has convincingly shown that it might have been Trajan who was the first to introduce this kind of contests,Footnote 27 perhaps replacing the former ‘hieroi’ agōnes.Footnote 28 The most plausible solution is that Trajan, in a lex iselastica, settled for the first time iselastic contests as he defined the privileges for victorious athletes and the duties of their home cities, but, as it becomes clear from the athletes’ relatio to Pliny, left undecided, from which moment on the cities had to pay obsonia, viz. συντάξεις.Footnote 29

A passage of the first letter from Alexandria Troas shows that the problem discussed by Pliny and Trajan was still unsolved under Hadrian. Trajan had declared that the iselasticum (to use his expression in Ep. 119) should not start before the athlete's entrance into his πατρίς. This was, however, an inadequate solution for wandering artists and athletes who seldomly visited their home city and thus would have had to wait too long to enjoy their rewards.Footnote 30 According to the petition to Pliny, the synodos of the athletae claimed the right to get their obsonia from the day of their victory (Ep. 118.1 ex eo die, quo sunt coronati). Taking up the athletes’ argument, Hadrian eventually decreed that, for wandering artists, it should be possible to inform their home city's council of their victories by a letter. From the day this letter was handed out to their home city, the πατρίς was obliged to pay the grants,Footnote 31 though this was met with resistance by the insolvent cities.Footnote 32

Throughout Imperial times, the rights and privileges of victorious athletes caused problems that imperial legislation had to solve. Though Hadrian's image was—and still is—that of a peace-loving musagetēs who was seriously engaged in Greek agonistic contests and fostered cultic activities throughout the Greek world, his sober and martial ‘father’ had already been involved heavily in this.Footnote 33 As we have seen, there are both philological and historical reasons to assume that Trajan not only ordered the status of agonistic festivals in Bithynia and Pontus but may have also decreed the first law concerning iselastic contests. An ancient collection of inscriptions from Pergamon, including an imperial mandatum (ἐντολή), shows that Trajan granted the Pergamenes the privilege of a new holy and pentaeteric festival which included an εἰσελαστικὸς ἀγών.Footnote 34 As the decisive letter may be dated to the period between approximately May 114 and February 116,Footnote 35 these documents support the idea of a lex iselastica and may, furthermore, indicate that this law was enacted for the whole Empire.Footnote 36

Essentially, the iselasticum allowed victorious athletes more than the solemn entry into their home town, as the name might suggest. Trajan's decree established the iselasticum as the entirety of all the prizes and privileges the winner of an iselastic contest could get, including the honorary entry, but also the bridging money between the day of his victory and his return home.Footnote 37

As Trajan's regulations were not precise enough, his decree caused troubles between the athletes and their home cities which letters 118 and 119 reflect. Later, in a fragmentary letter found near Perinthos, Antoninus Pius or his governor also settled some problems related to a festival (πανήγυρις, lines 10 and 14), though this document is too damaged to reveal its actual purpose.Footnote 38 The decree of Marcus Aurelius from Miletus discussed above dealt with the status of the festival and, in some way, also with the privileges of the victorious athletes and the costs for the home cities.Footnote 39 The latest surviving law de athletis dates to the time of Diocletian and Maximianus (that is, 285/6–305). It confirms that athletes who had won at least three hieroi agōnes (certamina sacra) ‘in Rome or ancient Greece’ (semel Romae seu antiquae Graeciae) were exempted from civil obligations (ciuilium munerura … uacatio).Footnote 40

These ongoing discussions about prizes and privileges for victorious athletes show, on a general level, the ever-increasing importance of festivals in the second and third centuries, in which contests played a significant role in the public life of the cities in the eastern Mediterranean.

Summing up, we have considered both the philological and the historical perspectives of Pliny's letter and Trajan's response. First, we proposed a new reading of a corrupt passage in the emperor's letter which respects the textual transmission and is in keeping with the historical background the governor and the emperor were discussing. Against this background, it is far from ‘absurd’ that the text is referring to a Trajanic lex iselastica.Footnote 41 On the contrary, this passage gives a strong indication of a Trajanic decree de statu certaminum which was in force at least in Pontus and Bithynia before c.113. By this law, the status of iselastic agōnes was, probably for the first time, settled and thus this new category of contests became a firm part of the agonistic world in the High Empire.

Footnotes

I wish to thank Christian Mann, Melanie Meaker and Marco Tentori Montalto as well as the anonymous referee for their helpful suggestions.

References

1 I refer to the following editions of Pliny's letters only by the editor's name: Bracci = Bracci, F. (ed.), Plinio il Giovane, Epistole, Libro X: Introduzione, traduzione, commento (Pisa, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hardy = Hardy, E.G. (ed.), C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi Epistulae ad Traianum imperatorem cum eiusdem responsis (London, 1889)Google Scholar; Mynors = Mynors, R.A.B. (ed.), C. Plini Caecili Secundi Epistularum libri decem (Oxford, 1963, repr. 1966)Google Scholar; Schäfer = Schäfer, G.H. (ed.), C. Plinii Caecilii Secundi Epistolarum libri decem et Panegyricus (Leipzig, 1805)Google Scholar; Schuster = M. Schuster and R. Hanslik (edd.), C. Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Epistularum libri novem; Epistularum ad Traianum liber; Panegyricus (Leipzig, 19583); Sherwin-White = A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966; repr. 1985); Stout = S.E. Stout (ed.), Plinius, Epistulae: A Critical Edition (Bloomington, 1962); Williams = W. Williams, Pliny, Correspondence with Trajan from Bithynia: Epistles X (Warminster, 1990). Inscriptions are abbreviated according to the AIEGL list.

2 All dates mentioned throughout this article are a.d., unless otherwise indicated. For Pliny's status and the date of his governorship, cf. W. Eck, ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139’, Chiron 12 (1982), 281–362, at 349–51; G. Alföldy, ‘Die Inschriften des jüngeren Plinius und seine Mission in der Provinz Pontus et Bithynia’, AAntHung 39 (1999), 21–44; Gibson, R.K., Man of High Empire. The Life of Pliny the Younger (New York, 2020), 190–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Though an important source for agonistics, Pliny's letters are discussed only occasionally by Newby, Z., Greek Athletics in the Roman World: Victory and Virtue (Oxford, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, König, J., Athletics and Literature in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar, Graf, F., Roman Festivals in the Greek East: From the Early Empire to the Middle Byzantine Era (Cambridge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and B. Fauconnier, ‘Ecumenical synods: the associations of athletes in the Roman empire’ (Diss., University of Amsterdam, 2018), 225.

3 For the synods, see now Fauconnier (n. 2).

4 Cf. Sherwin-White 730.

5 For the meaning of εἰσελαστικός, cf. Drew-Bear, T., ‘Some Greek words, part II’, Glotta 50 (1972), 182–228Google Scholar, at 195 and now W. Slater, ‘The victor's return, and the categories of games’, in P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas (edd.), Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-classical Polis: Fourth Century bc to Second Century ad (Oxford, 2013), 139–63, at 139–40, 143–51.

6 Remijsen, S., ‘The so-called crown-games: terminology and historical context of the ancient categories for agones’, ZPE 177 (2011), 97–109Google Scholar.

7 SEG 41.1003 C/D (J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor [Oxford, 1999], 311–14, no. 18, at 312), lines 46–8 (Teos, c.203 b.c.): ὅσοι δ’ ἂν νικήσαντες | [τοὺ]ς στεφανίτας ἀγῶνας εἰσελαύνωσιν εἰς τὴμ πόλιν, παραγίνεσθα[ι] | [– –]ους ἀπὸ τῆς {ἀπὸ τῆς} πύλης πρῶτον εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον κτλ. For this phenomenon in the third and second centuries b.c., see now Montalto, M. Tentori, ‘Die Statuen und die Triumphrückkehr der Athleten in die Heimat: neue Überlegungen zum Epigramm des Deinosthenes’, Journal of Epigraphic Studies 5 (2022), 9–27Google Scholar, at 24.

8 Cf. Remijsen (n. 6), 108; Slater (n. 5), 147; this seems even true for the Capitolia at Rome which seem to have received the privilege of eiselasis at a later stage; cf. Caldelli, M.L., L'Agon Capitolinus. Storia e protagonisti dall'istituzione domizianea al IV secolo (Rome, 1993), 107Google Scholar n. 244. She refers to three victors who won this contest when it was already promoted eiselastikos, two of which were clearly competing in the reign of Marcus Aurelius: Caldelli (this note), 142–3, no. 40 (M. Aurelius Demostratos Damas; cf. J.-Y. Strasser, ‘La carrière du pancratiaste Markos Aurèlios Dèmostratos Damas’, BCH 127 [2003], 251–99, at 292 who dates Damas’ career to c.162–82) and 144, no. 43 (M. Aurelios Abas; cf. Moretti, I.agonistiche 76, 6–8 ‘seconda metà di II sec.’); Caldelli's third example—132–3, no. 20 (Moretti, I.agonistiche 69, 2–4: ‘età di Traiano o di Adriano’)—may predate the previous; see also G.E. Bean and T.B. Mitford, Rough Cilicia 1964–68, 44, no. 21b, lines 19–25 (I.Side I TEp 4; I.Westkilikien Rep. 395, Thr.1b), which dates to 243; Şahin, S., ‘Inschriften aus Seleukeia am Kalykadnos (Silifke)’, EA 17 (1991), 145Google Scholar, no. 1a, lines 7–18 (SEG 41.1407A; I.Westkilikien Rep. 376, Sel 147a); this inscription was put up between the time of Antoninus Pius (138/61) and the beginning of Commodus’ reign. An update is needed for the list of eislastikoi agōnes in L. Robert, Études anatoliennes: Recherches sur les inscriptions grecques de l'Asie Mineure (Paris, 1937), 119–20 n. 3.

9 For the textual tradition of Book 10, the best account is still Stout, S.E., ‘The basis of the text in Book X of Pliny's letters’, TAPhA 86 (1955), 233–49Google Scholar. Cf. too Cameron, Alan, ‘The fate of Pliny's letters in the Late Empire’, CQ 15 (1965), 289–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Pliny's letters in the Later Empire: an addendum’, CQ 17 (1967), 421–2.

10 Weiß, P., ‘Textkritisches zur Athleten-Relatio des Plinius (ep. 10, 118)’, ZPE 48 (1982), 125–32Google Scholar. For later studies, see e.g. Watt, W.S., ‘Notes on Pliny Epistulae and Panegyricus’, Phoenix 44 (1990), 84–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 86 (without knowledge of Weiß); Jońca, M., ‘The Emperor Trajan and the petition of the Bithynian athletes, (Plin., ep. 118–119): lex retro non agit…?’, Zeszyty Prawnicze 18 (2018), 161–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Weiß's results are, however, generally accepted by Slater (n. 5), 147 n. 33; although Bracci, in his 2011 edition, mentions Weiß's article (298) and discusses this passage (299–300), he does not draw any conclusions and eventually prints: ego contra † scribo ‘iselastici nomine’: ita ut vehementer † addubitem.

11 For Pliny's preference for Greek terms, see Vidman, L., ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu Trajans Stil’, LF 110 (1987), 107–10Google Scholar.

12 C. Bosch, ‘Die Festspiele von Nikaia’, Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung 1 (1950/1951), 80–99; S. Şahin, I.Nikaia II.3, pages 66–78 (T 34); Robert, L., ‘La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomédie: la gloire et la haine’, HSPh 81 (1977), 1–39Google Scholar = Opera Minora Selecta VI (Amsterdam, 1989), 211–49 = Choix d’écrits (Paris, 2007), 673–703. The best discussion is that by Marek, Ch., Pontus et Bithynia: Die römischen Provinzen im Norden Kleinasiens (Mainz, 2003), 95–100Google Scholar, who also offers a list of festivals in north-western Asia Minor (103 n. 11).

13 Herrmann, P., ‘Eine Kaiserurkunde aus der Zeit Marc Aurels aus Milet’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975), 149–66Google Scholar, at 150–1 = P. Herrmann, Kleinasien im Spiegel epigraphischer Zeugnisse: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Berlin, 2016), 323–41, at 324 (AE 1977, 801), lines 30–1. A second fragment of the emperor's speech reveals, according to Herrmann's restoration, the status of the contest as iselastic: Herrmann, P., ‘Fragment einer Senatsrede Marc Aurels aus Milet’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38 (1988), 309–13Google Scholar, at 313 = Kleinasien, 343–8, at 347 (SEG 38.1212), lines 40–1: certamen quod | [– – – – εἰσελαστι]κὸν [f]acimus. For constituere, cf. Herrmann (this note), ‘Kaiserurkunde’, 156 = Kleinasien, 329 n. 22: ‘constituere ist in solchem Zusammenhang offensichtlich terminus technicus’ (with further references among which are Pliny's letters discussed here). For a detailed analysis of Pliny's bureaucratic language (but not of constituere), see Coleman, K.M., ‘Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan’, TAPhA 142 (2012), 189–238Google Scholar.

14 Cf. A. Schäfer, ‘De nonnullis locis Ciceronis Plinii Frontonis’, in C.J. Blochmann (ed.), Philologis Germaniae Congressus Dresdae m. Octobri a. MDCCCXLIV (Dresden, 1844), 8–16, at 12.

15 Already in his 1805 edition, G.H. Schäfer proposed uincerent; in 1844, A. Schäfer (n. 14 above) suggested uincerant; Mynors, however, prefers Hardy's uicerunt which seems the best choice; Bracci now opts for uicerant (cf. his commentary, 301). For a profound discussion of this relative clause, see S.E. Stout, ‘An athlete's reward’, CJ 49 (1954), 361–2, although he does not know of the contributions by A. Schäfer and G.H. Schäfer.

16 Cf. Schäfer (n. 14), 12: ‘Pro lege scripsi esse, quum verbum reponi necessarium, legis autem mentio ab hoc loco aliena est.’

17 Sherwin-White 730, followed by Bracci 301. Nevertheless, M. Schuster, in his Teubner edition, printed quod eorum, quae postea iselastica non lege constitui, quam quierant, accipere desierunt (a phrase Sherwin-White 729 marked as ‘nonsensical’), but also S.E. Stout, the best expert on the textual tradition of Book 10, kept non lege both in his article (n. 15), 362 and in his 1962 edition when he opted for quod eorum quae postea iselastica non lege constitui quam uicerant accipere desierunt.

18 Strangely enough, Sherwin-White 731 also admits later that ‘the phrase lex iselastica for a schedule of rules is not impossible’. For Pliny's use of official documents, especially senatus consulta, in his letters, see now M. Haake, ‘“How to do things with senatus consulta”. Die Autorität des Rechtsdokuments und die Stimme des Autors im Briefcorpus des Jüngeren Plinius’, in P. Buongiorno and G. Traina (edd.), Rappresentazione e uso dei senatus consulta nelle fonti letterarie del principato (Stuttgart, 2019), 117–42.

19 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Lesefrüchte 92–116’, Hermes 40 (1905), 116–53, at 139 = Kleine Schriften IV (Berlin, 1962), 169–207, at 193: ‘Das erste Gebot der Philologie ist, dass man nicht von der Vulgata ausgehe, sondern von der Überlieferung.’

20 See n. 9 above.

21 G.H. Schäfer replaces, for no reason, tam eorum for quod eorum; neither is his reconstruction of the closing relative clause acceptable: nec proficere pro desiderio athletarum potest, tam eorum, quae postea iselastica lege constitui quam, quum uincerent, esse desierunt.

22 See n. 29 below.

23 Ael. VH 12.58.

24 Pleket, H.W., ‘Roman emperors and Greek athletes’, Nikephoros 23 (2010), 175–203Google Scholar, especially 190–5 for a survey of ‘what athletes wanted and apparently could expect from emperors’ (190).

25 Petzl, G. and Schwertheim, E., Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler: Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstlervereinigung (Bonn, 2006)Google Scholar (AE 2006.1403a–c; SEG 56.1359). Among the numerous studies concerned with these letters, I refer only to C.P. Jones, ‘Three new letters of the Emperor Hadrian’, ZPE 161 (2007), 145–56; W. Slater, ‘Hadrian's letters to the athletes and Dionysiac artists concerning arrangements for the “circuit” of games’, JRA 21 (2008), 610–20; J.-Y. Strasser, ‘“Qu'on fouette les concurrentes…” À propos des lettres d'Hadrien retrouvées à Alexandrie de Troade’, REG 123 (2010/2012), 585–622 and J.-Y. Strasser, ‘Hadrien et le calendrier des concours (SEG, 56.1359, II)’, Hermes 144 (2016), 352–73.

26 Petzl and Schwertheim (n. 25), 25; in Pap.Agon. 3,4–7 a part of a Hadrianic διάταγμα has survived, granting privileges to members of the synod: cf. Jones (n. 25), 145 n. 3.

27 Slater (n. 25), 615–16; Slater (n. 5), 147, 150; L. and Robert, J., Claros I: Décrets hellénistiques (Paris, 1989), 21Google Scholar already stressed that iselastic contests are a phenomenon of the Imperial era.

28 However, the denomination of agōnes as hieroi did not disappear completely; cf. Markos Aurèlios Dèmostratos Damas who, in his Sardeis list (dated to 211–17), names his numerous victories in ἱεροὺς εἰσελαστικοὺς ἀγῶνας; see Strasser (n. 8), 259–60, 268 (SEG 53.1355; Moretti, I.agonistiche 84; I.Sardis 79; P. Mauritsch, W. Petermandl, H.W. Pleket and I. Weiler, Quellen zum antiken Sport: Griechisch/lateinisch und deutsch [Darmstadt, 2012], 349–50, Q243), lines 10–11 νεικήσας ἀγῶνας … | ὧν ἱεροὺς εἰσελαστικούς.

29 Cf. S. Scharff, ‘Zu den Siegespreisen der Wettkampfstätten und den Prämien der Heimatstädte’, in G. Petzl and E. Schwertheim, Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler: Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstlervereinigung (Bonn, 2006), 95–9, especially 96 n. 300; Pleket (n. 24), 193–4; K. Sänger-Böhm, ‘Die συντάξεις und τέλη τὰ ἐπὶ ταῖς ταφαῖς in der Hadriansinschrift aus Alexandrea Troas: Eine papyrologische Bestandsaufnahme’, ZPE 175 (2010), 167–70; Fauconnier (n. 2), 223–30.

30 Slater (n. 5), 148.

31 Petzl and Schwertheim (n. 25), 12, lines 49–51 (with a commentary at 59): αἱ συντάξεις ἐπὶ ταῖς νείκαις οὐκ ἀφ’ ἧς ἂν εἰσελάσῃ τις ἡμέρας ὀφεί|λονται, ἀλλὰ ἀφ’ ἧς ἂν τὰ περὶ τῆς νείκης γράμματα ἀποδοθῇ ταῖς πατρίσιν αὐτῶν. For this procedure, see Slater (n. 25), 616 n. 9 (with references to such notifications of a victory to home cities) and Slater, W., ‘Victory and bureaucracy: the process of agonistic rewards’, Phoenix 69 (2015), 147–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 For the cities’ financial problems and Trajan's measures, for example the appointment of correctores and curatores, see Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 1.596–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Ameling, W., Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium (Bonn, 1985), 22Google Scholar.

33 Correctly observed by Graf (n. 2), 23 who, however, does not discuss this point in detail. For the relationship of the Dionysiac synodos with Trajan, cf. I.Gerasa 192 (105/14). The surviving evidence of Trajan's legislation was collected by Oliver, J.H., Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia, 1989), 132–47Google Scholar, nos. 44–55 and 150, no. 57, with additions by V.I. Anastasiadis and G.A. Souris, An Index to Roman Imperial Constitutions from Greek Inscriptions and Papyri, 27 b.c. to 284 a.d. (Berlin, 2000), 220–1.

34 I.Pergamon II 269 (CIL III Suppl. 7086; IGR IV 336; Oliver [n. 33], 141–3, no. 49 [lines 23–32 only]), lines 9–13: [certamen illud], quod in honorem templi Iouis amicalis et | [Imp. Caes. diui Neruae f. Ner]uae Traiani Augusti Germanici Dacici | [pontificis maximi est const]itutum εἰσελαστικὸν in ciuitate | [Pergamenorum…]. Restored in lines 17–19 certamen in ciuitate | [Pergamenorum ab Iulio Quadrato a]mico clarissimo uiro quinquennale, | [quod dicitur εἰσελαστικόν, c]onstitutum sit … Cf. also lines 21–2 iselas|[tici uictoribus id quod in altero] certamine custoditur dari oportebit | [praemium].

35 Trajan is styled consul for the sixth time (ὕπατος τὸ ϛ´, i.e. after 112), and his titles include ἄριστος (optimus, line 23), which he accepted before 3/4 May 114 (for the date, see D. Kienast, W. Eck, M. Heil, Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie [Darmstadt, 20196], 117), but not yet Parthicus (which he accepted on 20/21 February 116, cf. Kienast, Eck, Heil [this note], 117); for the date, see also Burrell, B., Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden, 2004), 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘between 114 and February 116’).

36 Remijsen (n. 6), 108 n. 48 likewise regards the Pergamene Traianeia Deiphileia as the first known iselastic contest.

37 Cf. Pleket, H.W., ‘Einige Betrachtungen zum Thema “Geld und Sport”’, Nikephoros 17 (2004), 77–89Google Scholar, at 84; for the pensions, see Slater (n. 31), 150–4.

38 I.Perinthos 35.

39 For the financial burdens connected with festivals, see Camia, F., ‘Spending on the agones: the financing of festivals in the cities of Roman Greece’, Tyche 26 (2011), 41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 48–9.

40 Cod. Iust. 10.54, Impp. Diocletianus et Maximianus AA. et CC. Hermogeni. Athletis ita demum, si per omnem aetatem certasse, coronis quoque non minus tribus certaminis sacri, in quibus uel semel Romae seu antiquae Graeciae, merito coronati non aemulis corruptis ac redemptis probentur, ciuilium munerura tribui solet uacatio. For the context of this law and the addressee, Hermogenes, see my article ‘Aktia and isaktioi agones: Greek contests and Roman power’, HSPh 113 (2024), 231–60, at 248.

41 This term was rendered by Sherwin-White 731; see n. 18 above.