Brogitaros ve Pessinus Meselesi Cicero’nun İ. Ö. 56’daki Clodius hicvinin Galatia Arkaplanı Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler (Harusp. Resp. 27-29)

Year 2018, , 119 - 133, 15.05.2018

Altay Coşkun

https://doi.org/10.37095/gephyra.420760

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Pessinus’un
Hellenistik Dönem tarihine ilişkin mevcut tüm edebi kaynaklar Roma müdahalesini
içermektedir. Çoğunlukla bu kaynaklar Roma politik ve ekonomik çıkarlarına
odaklanan ve bizzat tapınakla ilgili bilgiyi, çarpıtmasa bile, önemli ölçüde
sınırlayan Roma bakış açısıyla güçlü bir biçimde şekillenmiştir. Buna çarpıcı
bir örnek Cicero’nun De haruspicum responsis eserinin 27.–29.
bölümlerinde Publius Clodius’a karşı yaptığı hararetli bir tartışmadan bir
kesittir. Bu, Pessinus’un kontrolünü Tolistobog Deiotaros yerine Trokmi
Brogitaros’a bahşeden yasa hakkındaki temel kaynağımızdır. Cicero’nun
kullandığı retorik, modern araştırmacıları, bu olayı, gerçekten de olması
gerektiği gibi, Roma Cumhuriyet Dönemi çekişmeleri içinde ele almak konusunda
cesaretlendirmiş ama aynı zamanda bu çatışmanın arkasında spesifik olarak
Galatia’nın müdahil oluşunu daha iyi anlamaya yarayacak girişimlerin de
hevesini kırmıştır. Buna rağmen, Cicero’nun polemiklerini, ama özellikle de
söylemediği şeylerin yansımasının ustaca bir analizi, bize Attalos Krallığı’nın
İ. Ö. 133/129’da sona erişinin ardından Pessinus’un az bilinen tarihine ilişkin
bazı mantıklı hipotezler ortaya koymamıza imkân verecektir. Böyle yaparak,
Tolistobog’ların Pessinus’a olan ilgisinin oldukça geç olduğuna ve bu emporion’un
Tolistobog’ların kent merkezi oluşuna uzanan gelişim sürecinin İ. Ö. 60’lı
yıllar civarında başlamış olabileceğine dair görüşlere dair başka argümanlar
elde edebiliriz.

Keywords

Pessinus, Brogitaros, Deiotaros, Cicero, P. Clodius Pulcher, Pompeius, Mithra¬dates VI Eupator, Tolistobogn Galatları, Trokmi Galatları, Tapınak devletleri, Hellenistik Krallık

Brogitaros and the Pessinus-Affair Some Considerations on the Galatian Background of Cicero’s Lampoon against Clodius in 56 BC (Harusp. Resp. 27–29)

Abstract

All of our extant
literary sources on the history of Pessinus in the Hellenistic age involve
Roman agency. For the most part, they are strongly shaped by a specifically
Roman perspective that focuses on Roman political or economic interests, and in
a way that significantly limits, if not distorts, the information on the
sanctuary itself. A telling example is a section from Cicero’s fervent lampoon
against Publius Clodius, De haruspicum responsis 27–29. This
is our main source for the law that granted the control of Pessinus to the
Trokmian Brogitaros at the cost of the Tolistobogian Deiotaros. Cicero’s
rhetoric has encouraged modern scholars to contextualize this incident within
Roman Republican strives – which is indeed pertinent –, but, at the same time,
discouraged attempts to better understand specifically Galatian agency behind
the conflict. However, a subtle analysis of Ciceronian polemics, especially a
reflection on what Cicero does not say, will allow us to put
forward some plausible hypotheses about the otherwise poorly attested history
of Pessinus after the end of the Attalid Kingdom in 133/129 BC. By doing so, we
shall gain further arguments for the view that Tolistobogian interest in
Pessinus was very late, and that the development of this emporion to the urban
center of the Tolistobogians may well have started as late as around 60 BC.

Keywords

Pessinus, Brogitaros, Deiotaros, Cicero, P. Clodius Pulcher, Pompey, Mithradates VI Eu¬pator, Tolistobogian Galatians, Trokmian Galatians, Temple States, Hellenistic Kingship

References

• L. Ballesteros Pastor, Mithrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto, Granada 1996.
• L. Ballesteros Pastor, Mithradates (VII) of Pergamon, in: A. Coşkun (ed.), APR.
• L. Boffo, I re ellenistici e i centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore, Florence 1985.
• L. Boffo, I centri religiosi d'Asia Minore all’epoca della conquista romana, in: G. Urso (ed.), Tra Oriente e Occidente. Indigeni, Greci e Romani in Asia minore. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 28–30 settembre 2006, Rome 2007, 105-128.
• H. Bowden, Rome, Pessinous, and Battakes: Religious Encounters with the East, in: Ch. Smith – M. Yarrow (eds.), Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polybius, Oxford 2012.
• I. Claerhout – J. Devreker, Pessinous: An Archaeological Guide, İstanbul 2008.
• A. Coşkun (ed.), Amici Populi Romani, Trier 2007-2008 and Water¬loo 2010ff. Online: http://www.altaycoskun.com/apr.
• A. Coşkun, Amicitiae und politische Ambitionen im Kontext der causa Deiotariana, in: A. Coşkun (ed.), Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat, Göttingen 2005, 127-154.
• A. Coşkun, Der Ankyraner Kaiserkult und die Transformation ga-latischer und phrygisch-galatischer Identitäten in Zentralanatolien im Spiegel der Münzquellen, in: A. Coşkun – H. Heinen – S. Pfeiffer (eds.), Identität und Zugehörigkeit im Osten der griechisch-römi¬schen Welt. Aspekte ihrer Repräsentation in Städten, Provinzen und Reichen, Frankfurt am Main 2009, 173-210.
• A. Coşkun, Galatians and Seleucids: a Century of Conflict and Cooperation, in: K. Erickson – G. Ramsey (eds.), Seleucid Dissolution: Fragmentation and Transformation of Empire (Exeter, July 2008), Wiesbaden 2011, 85-106.
• A. Coşkun, Von Anatolia bis Inscriptions of Ankara: Zwanzig Jahre Forschungen zum antiken Galatien (1993-2012), Anatolica 39, 2013, 69-95.
• A. Coşkun, Latène-Artefakte im hellenistischen Kleinasien: ein problematisches Kriterium für die Bestimmung der ethnischen Identität(en) der Galater, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 64, 2014, 129-162.
• A. Coşkun, Die Tetrarchie als hellenistisch-römisches Herrschafts-instrument. Mit einer Untersuchung der Titulatur der Dynasten von Ituräa, in: E. Baltrusch – J. Wilker (eds.), Amici – Socii – Clientes. Abhängige Herrschaft im Imperium Romanum, Berlin 2015, 161-197.
• A. Coşkun, Attalos I and the Conquest of Pessinus. I. Pessinus 1 Reconsidered, Philia 2, 2016, 53-62.
• A. Coşkun, The Temple State of Kybele in Phrygian and Early Hel-lenistic Pessinus: a Phantom?, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting, vol. 1, Leuven 2018, 205-243.
• A. Coşkun, Mithridates Eupator: Retter, Hegemon, Feind und Opfer der Galater, forthcoming in: D. Braund – A. Dan (eds.), Mithridates and the Pontic Kingdom (Collection Varia Anatolica), Paris, ca. 2018.
• A. Coşkun, The ‘Temple State’ of Phrygian Pessinus in the Context of Seleukid, Attalid, Galatian and Roman Hegemonial Politics (3rd–1st Centuries BC), forthcoming in: G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Phrygian Lands over Time (from Prehistory to the Middle of the 1st Millennium AD). Proceedings of the International Conference, Ana¬dolu University, (Eskişehir, 2nd-8th November, 2015), ca. 2019. J. Devreker, L’histoire de Pessinonte, in: J. Devreker – M. Waelkens (eds.), Les Fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent a Pessinonte, 1967-1973. Hommage à Pieter Lambrechts, Bruges 1984, vol. I, 13-37.
• A. R. Dyck, Cicero: Pro Marco Caelio, Cambridge-New York 2013.
• E. Gruen, The Advent of the Magna Mater, in: E. Gruen (ed.), Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, Leiden 1990, 5-33.
• W. Hoben, Untersuchungen zur Stellung kleinasiatischer Dynasten in den Machtkämpfen der ausgehenden römischen Republik, Diss. Mainz 1969.
• E. Klebs, Brogitarus, RE 3,1, 1897, 887.
• J. O. Lenaghan, A Commentary on Cicero's Oration de Haruspicum Responso, The Hague 1969.
• N. Marinone, Cronologia Ciceroniana, 1Rome 1997; 2Bologna 2004.
• S. Mitchell, Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor I: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule; II: The Rise of the Church, Oxford 1993.
• E. Olshausen, Der König und die Priester. Die Mithradatiden im Kampf um die Anerkennung ihrer Herrschaft in Pontos, in E. Olshausen – H. Sonnabend (eds.), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums I, Bonn 1987, 187-212.
• L. G. Pocock, Lex de actis Cn. Pompei confirmandis: lex Iulia or lex Vatinia?, CQ 19, 1925, 16-21.
• E. Rawson, The Eastern Clientelae of Clodius and the Claudii, Historia 22, 1973, 219-239 = E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society, Oxford 1991, 102-124.
• E. Rawson, More on the Clientelae of the Patrician Claudii, Historia 26, 1977, 340-357 = E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society, Oxford 1991, 227-244.
• L. E. Roller, In Search for the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele, Berkeley 1999. Ruge, Pessinus, RE 19.1, 1937, 1104-1113.
• D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum, Cambridge 1980.
• I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics, Brussels 1975.
• A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East (168 B.C. to A.D. 1), London 1984.
• W. Spickermann, Brogitarus, DNP 2, 1997, 789.
• F. Stähelin, Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater, Osnabrück 1897, 21907, repr. 1973.
• I. Stark, Kybele als keltische Göttin: Zur Aufnahme der Kybele von Pessinus als Mater Magna unter die römischen Staatsgötter 205/204 v. Chr., Klio 89.1, 2007, 67-117.
• D. Stockton, Cicero. A Political Biography, Oxford 1971.
• K. Strobel, ‘Pessinus’, DNP 9, 2000, 658-660.
• J. Strubbe, The Inscriptions of Pessinous (IK 66), Bonn 2005.
• R. D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 B.C., Toronto 1990.
• R. Syme, Anatolica. Studies in Strabo, ed. by A. Birley, Oxford 1995.
• G. R. Tsetskhladze, Notes on Phrygian Pessinus, in: H. Sağlamtimur (ed.), Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu. A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea, İstanbul 2009, 703-717.
• G. R. Tsetskhladze, Pessinus in Central Anatolia: New Investigations, in: G. Labarre – H. Bru (eds.), L’Anatolie des peuples, cités et cultures (IIe millénaire av. J.-C. - Ve siècle ap. J.-C.). Vol. II: Approches locales et regionals, Besançon 2013, 41-80.
• G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Pessinus and Its Regional Setting, vol. 1, Leuven 2018. A. Verlinde, Monumental Architecture in Hellenistic and Julio-Claudian Pessinus, BABESCH 85, 2010, 111-139.
• B. Virgilio, Il «Templo Stato» di Pessinunte fra Pergamo e Roma nel II-I secólo A.C., Pisa 1981.