Political Authority and Local Agency: Cilicia Pedias and Syria between the Seleucid Empire and the Roman Republic

This paper aims to show how local civic communities, nominally subject to the Seleucid dynasts, integrated Roman magistrates into an existing framework of authority during the late second and early first centuries BCE. I argue that as Roman magistrates played an increasingly significant role in the region, cities initially framed them in quasi-regal terms, which their interlocutors consciously accepted. Through a close reading of two Roman letters to the Cilician city of Mopsuestia, dated to 87 BCE ( SEG 44.1227), and analysis of literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence for the final collapse of Seleucid authority in the early 60s BCE, I reveal that this was a locally driven process. Consequently, local agents played a critical role in both legitimising Roman hegemony in local contexts and encouraging Roman intervention within the region.

discreetly disguising the harsh realities of military dominance. For example, Hellenistic monarchies based their territorial claims on the concept of 'spearwon land' (δορίκτητος γῆ), or, more simply, the right of conquest. That said, often the paradigm of 'surrender-and-grant' was employed, whereby subjected cities were immediately granted back their autonomy (or elements of it) as a royal gift.5 Such grants were both varied in scope and inherently revocable, constructing a supra-local polity grounded in the precarious differentiation of status. The basileus performed the role of ultimate arbiter of civic freedom and other privileges, encouraging communities to petition or negotiate an improvement in their conditions with him. This concurrently established him as a euergetic figure and fashioned him as the sole legitimate source of local status.6 Consequently, this paradigm provided an ideological basis for the exercise of royal power.
However, poleis, as compared to alternative forms of socio-political organisation, were essential to the smooth operation of the Hellenistic state, providing educated individuals to serve as imperial officials, recruits for military operations and the most accessible source of economic resources. A tension existed between the reach of administrative and coercive structures and locally granted autarchy, whether minimal or substantial. In purely functional terms, poleis, as self-organised units, had a limited capacity to resist central demands for taxes or manpower. Nevertheless, the importance of poleis to the system granted them meaningful leverage. The realities of imperial rule fostered a mutually-beneficial dialectic that allowed for the negotiation of a middle-ground between these two worldviews and defuse potentially explosive contradictions. For example, Ma has highlighted the crucial dialogue between Seleucid royal correspondence and civic honorific decrees, the highly formulaic and limited language of which allowed each party to maintain dissonant, locally acceptable interpretations of their relationship.7 For their part, Seleucid monarchs were keen to emphasise the moral legitimacy of their actions vis-à-vis communities, establishing a record of benefaction for the wider 'Greek' community. The language and structure used extended this from past actions into the prospective future and made it conditional upon the maintenance of civic εὔνοια ('goodwill') towards the monarch. By contrast, poleis, in extending localised honours to monarchs, asserted their right to publicly judge the character of their interlocutor. By requesting benefaction and engaging directly in honorific terms, communities legitimised the Seleucid regime.8 Such interactions, grounded in the reciprocal exchange of benefaction for εὔνοια and honorific recognition, bound together the overt institutional and coercive elements of Seleucid rule. The Seleucid empire lay in a complex network of continually negotiated relationships between basileis and poleis. While not denying the very real capacity of formal institutions to have a centripetal effect on the Seleucid state, the interface between ruler and individual communities was critical to its continued survival.
Alongside the hierarchical relationship constructed between the major kings and communities, interactions between poleis were governed by an entirely separate web of institutions. This is best theorised as a 'peer-polity' network spanning the Greek world, wherein each polis, notionally, had equal capacity to act. Shared interstate institutions, including proxenia, theorodokia, and grants of asylia intensified connectivity between participants.9 Following Mack, this peer-polity network offered communities a space within which to assert their own identity and status vis-à-vis their peers.10 While the framework did not operate beyond the reach of non-polis or supra-polis actors, such as basileis or federations, their participation was carefully negotiated as the institutions operated on the grounds of the notional heterarchy of its participants.11 The political subordination of poleis to larger entities did not inhibit their ability to act within this cultural and institutional network. As a result, participation within these inter-state institutions offered communities another way of establishing status and engaging with Hellenistic rulers. The example of asylia grants is especially pertinent: though traditionally reliant on recognition of this status by a range of peers, increasingly, in the third and second centuries, we observe basileis being approached to grant asylia to poleis within and outside their domains.12 This peer-polity network operated in parallel with direct interactions as a medium through which individual communities negotiated their status and power vis-à-vis their rulers, neighbours and peers across the Greek-speaking world.
The emergence of Republican Rome as a power in the Hellenistic East problematised these existing frameworks of authority and legitimacy. As a powerful 8 Ma 2000a, esp. 235-242. Cf. Bencivenni 2010Strootman 2011, 142-145;Virgilio 2013, 243-251. 9 Davies 2002, 8-10;Ma 2003;Mack 2015, esp. 201-206. 10 Mack 2015 On heterarchy, see Crumley 1995. 12 E.g. Magnesia-on-the-Maeander in 208/207 (Rigsby 1996, no. 66.28-32)  actor which did not share a common understanding of the rules underpinning regional inter-state institutions, problems of translation were inevitable.13 The unusual organisation of the Roman polity posed a further problem for Hellenistic poleis: while not ruled by a monarch, its power was such that it could not be considered a peer. Roman political bodies and officials participated only selectively with Hellenistic interstate institutions and this participation varied greatly depending on the individuals involved.14 As a result, the advent of Roman power disrupted longstanding localised modes of engaging with peers and rulers in a constructive fashion and created a new set of problems for communities to solve. A final, vital element was provided by the idioms of Seleucid power itself. All Hellenistic monarchies straddled a line between theories of kingship demanding justice, generosity, courageousness, and moral action, on the one hand, and the necessity of extracting sufficient resources to maintain the state apparatus, on the other. From the fourth century onwards, this coalesced into a standard repertoire, including defending Greek poleis against external threats, financing major public buildings in allied or prominent cities, and making political grants.15 This moralising tendency emerges in the language of royal letters and the constant dialectical exchange between poleis and the basileus further nudged monarchs towards the deployment of this principled vocabulary.16 Additionally, monarchs emphasised their dynastic claim to kingship through the repetition of names and epithets across several generations. This repetition, which achieved significant distribution through numismatic material, served to associate rulers with their illustrious forebears. Hoover, Houghton and Veselý have noted that the choice of epithets displayed on coinage for late members of the dynasty echoed specific forebears, while McAuley persuasively argues that the female names Laodice, Cleopatra, and Stratonice served to transmit the collective values of the dynasty. By the second century, names themselves became 'epithetical' , speaking to the family's reputation.17 While direct connection to the Seleucid dynasty was an important element 13 E.g. famously, the Aetolian League's misunderstanding, in 191/190, of the implications of consigning themselves to the fides of the Roman populus . See Eckstein 1995 for an introduction to the debate. 14 E.g. the Romans employed foreign judges (see Fournier 2010, 39-46) and made grants of asylia (see Rigsby 1996, 28-29;Dignas 2002, 213-215, 288-299), but never participated in proxenia or theorodokia. 15 Walbank 1984;Eckstein 2013. 16 Ma 2000a Hoover of securing power, it was insufficient in itself to generate authority. It has long been recognised that the Hellenistic ruler's military exploits played a defining role in legitimating his position. Polybius' remark that Antiochus III's eastern expedition made him 'seem worthy of kingship not only to the peoples of Asia but also to those of Europe' (διὰ γὰρ ταύτης τῆς στρατείας ἄξιος ἐφάνη τῆς βασιλείας οὐ μόνον τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Εὐρώπην) and the well-attested emphasis of the Attalid dynasts on their successes against the Galatians are just two examples.18 According to Gehrke, "zu beachten dabei ist, daß der Prestigegewinn sich nicht allein unmittelbar in politischen Einfluß umsetzte, sondern daß gerade auf Grund der militärischen Großtat der König verdient, König zu sein, daß also darin das Herzstück der königlichen Würde lag".19 Ultimately, the capacity of contenders for the kingship to provide security by defeating outside threats or gain prestige through military victory was an essential element in persuading subject cities to accept royal authority. Nevertheless, as Chrubasik has stressed, these idioms of Seleucid rule were together grounded in the reality of the acceptance of their authority by their subjects.20 From the middle of the second century, however, internecine strife between competing claimants to the dynasty increasingly disrupted these interlocking frameworks of royal authority. For most of the century following Antiochus IV's death, the kingship was contested, forcing communities to decide between competing claims to legitimacy.21 Individual aspirants based in different localities were able to exert force over regions only imperfectly.22 Furthermore, these internal divisions made the kingdom vulnerable to incursions by outside forces and formerly subjugated regions, most notably, the Parthians, the Maccabees, and the Armenians under Tigranes.
Against this background of contested kingship, polis-communities routinely exploited their leverage to secure more autonomy. The late second century witnessed an explosion in the number of Cilician poleis abandoning dynastic names or referring to themselves on coins as 'free and autonomous' .23 Similarly, in 109, Antiochus VIII Grypus granted Seleuceia-in-Pieria its eleutheria, while the adoption of a new era, accompanied by the inscription 18 Plb. 11.34.16. On the Attalids: e.g. Schalles 1985. 19 Gehrke 1982, 255. 20 Chrubasik 2016, esp. 6-10, 227-233. Cf. Flaig 2019 See generally Chrubasik 2016. 22 See the well-attested phenomenon of basileis based in Cilicia, or at Damascus, in opposition to the established ruler at Antioch, though they often held broader ambitions. Bellinger 1949, 77 n. 84;Ehling 2008, 247. 23 De Giorgi  Conversely, throughout this period of instability, local communities continued to conceive of and represent their choices within Seleucid frameworks of authority. At Gadara, one Philotas, together with the polis as a corporate entity, was involved in extending and strengthening fortifications. The use of the Seleucid era (Year 228 = 85/84) and the retention of the city's dynastic name of Seleuceia suggest strongly that, even if Philotas was making a play for local supremacy, he sought to do so in a firmly Seleucid manner.28 Similarly, 24 On Seleuceia: RC 71, 72. On the eras of Syrian cities, see Seyrig 1950, 26-28 andMørkholm 1983, 91, 103-104, both  the contemporary priest-dynasts of Olba, though sufficiently powerful to intervene in Seleucid and Attalid affairs in their own right, chose to present themselves in this period as the ἀδελφοὶ τῶν βασιλέων ('brothers of the kings'), doubtless in this context either Philip I or his son, Philip II Philorhomaios.29 While the Seleucids referred to were relatively weak, to the Olban dynasts, the title retained significance. As centralised power increasingly faded into a vacuum, existing norms continued to persist. Despite the weakness of Seleucid dynasts and the increasing efficacy of local actors, ideas of legitimacy and authority evolved slowly, continuing to be based upon the same Seleucid frameworks which already existed. Even across the internecine conflicts, the Seleucids drew on recognisably dynastic iconography, cycling through the same sets of names within their family groupings.30 Both within and outside the dynasty, however, mili-

29
SEG 26.1451-1453. Vérilhac and Dagron 1974, 237-241. 30 Hoover, Houghton and Veselý 2008, 212-213. tary success remained a crucial currency in bidding for support. Josephus observes that the Damascenes invited Aretas to assume the kingship based on his success against Antiochus XII, while, for Justin, the inhabitants of Syria invited Tigranes of Armenia to intervene on account of his military strength and his alliances with Mithridates VI Eupator and the Parthians. Accounts of Cn. Pompeius Magnus' decision to end Seleucid rule in 64 also emphasise the inability of Antiochus XIII to adequately defend his kingdom from the Armenians and Nabataeans.31 In other words, the framework which the communities of Cilicia and Syria used to construct their relationships with powerful figures in the chaotic years of the early first century remained predicated upon pre-existing royal concepts.

Mopsuestia: A Community between Rome and the Kings
While the members of the Seleucid dynasty were preoccupied with pruning their family tree, Roman magistrates became a fixture within the Aegean and western Asia Minor. The organisation of Macedonia and Asia, after 146 and 133 respectively, as regular provinces for annual magistrates created a new locus of potential authority within the eastern Mediterranean. From 102, magistrates were also sent to a provincia Cilicia to combat 'piracy' .32 The initial setbacks and expulsion of a Roman presence from Asia Minor during the First Mithridatic War (89-85) sparked a renewed emphasis on securing hegemony within the broader region. An inscription from the Cilician polis of Mopsuestia, first published in 1994, provides critical evidence on the nascent relationship between Roman magistrates and a community still theoretically subject to Seleucid authority during precisely this transitional period. A marble block, broken on all sides except the left, preserves the conclusion of a letter from one magistrate and beginning of another: the first plausibly assigned to L. Cornelius Sulla and the second explicitly from his quaestor, L. Licinius Lucullus.33 Both are concerned with Mopsuestia's request that the asylia of the temple of Isis and Serapis be recognised. behalf.34 However, Thonemann has argued strongly that this letter should fall a year earlier, while he was still in Greece. Lucullus, in the letter, gives his own title as ταμίας καὶ ἀντιστρατηγός (quaestor pro praetore) rather than ἀντιταμίας καὶ ἀντιστρατηγός (pro quaestore pro praetore), as would have been constitutionally correct had he exceeded his original annual term of elected office. He notes that epigraphic sources tend to accurately reflect constitutional niceties, as seems to be the case among the numerous civic decrees honouring Lucullus during this period.35 In turn, this would require reconfiguring the first editors' interpretation of the origins of the exchange: rather than an opportunistic result of Lucullus' presence in, or near, Cilicia, an embassy must have been sent west. Quite why this distant polis sought, unprompted, to involve the Roman state in its affairs requires explanation. Unlike the cities of Teos and Colophon a century earlier, Mopsuestia does not seem to have had prior contact with Roman magistrates commanding forces in its vicinity.36 The operations of Roman commanders assigned provincia Cilicia seem to have been restricted to Pamphylia and coastal Cilicia Tracheia.37 Though provincial boundaries during this period were flexible, the exceptional case of Sulla himself, who restored Ariobarzanes I to power in Cappadocia, is explained through the explicit instructions of the Senate. Though Plutarch states that he met ambassadors of the Parthians on the banks of the Euphrates, this does not require that he passed south of the Taurus. Instead, it is most likely that this conference took place near the boundary between Cappadocia and Commagene.38 If so, contact between Sulla and communities in Cilicia Pedias is unlikely.
Typically, the letters are interpreted as arising from a local attempt to secure the rights of the sanctuary through appeal to a more secure authority than that of the disintegrating Seleucid dynasty. Seeing the foundations of their claim slipping away, it is argued, the Mopsuestians sought to generate an alternative legitimacy by engaging with the Roman Republic as a quasi-royal authority. However, these poleis remained an integral part of the Seleucid empire during the 90s. Though decades of civil war had afforded them greater autonomy, the basileis continued to exercise power over them. The complicity of 34 Sayar, Siewert and Täuber 1994, 118-120, with  came not on account of the kingdom of Syria, for this they obtained without controversy, as they received it from their father and their ancestors'), but to bolster their claims to Egypt, through their mother Cleopatra Selene. The royal visitors lingered for two years, before leaving without an audience. Cicero implies that the brothers became a familiar sight to senators, describing Antiochus to the jury as Romae ante oculos omnium nostrum biennium fere comitatu regio atque ornatu ('[being] at Rome, before the eyes of us all, for almost two years, with his royal escort and raiment').42 This suggests, notwithstanding traditional narratives of the decline of Seleucid power, that the kings felt secure enough to be absent from their kingdom for a substantial period in the mid-70s; albeit, as it turned out, incorrectly. The low number of extant dies for coinage produced by Tigranes at Antioch, when compared with that 39 Sayar, Siewert and Täuber 1994, 123-125. 40 E.g. Sayar, Siewert and Täuber 1994, 124 In any case, the process should not be seen as the simple like-for-like replacement of the Seleucids by the Romans. As Rigsby has shown, typical asylia claims depended on a broad basis of support from communities and other actors, not necessarily restricted to those with fame and influence. For example, in the 220s, Magnesia on the Maeander appealed to a significant number of actors and proudly displayed the positive responses along the perimeter of the agora, which the temple in question, that of Artemis, faced; while Teos, in the same period, inscribed the full responses of the kings, dynasts and cities equally magnificently.45 Even where Rome was involved, in the early first century, poleis continued to advertise the breadth of the acceptance of their claim. Carian Stratonicea provides an extreme example: in addition to the senatus consultum confirming a variety of privileges granted after the First Mithridatic War, the city also inscribed the names of the poleis which had agreed with the Roman decision to grant asylia to the temple of Hecate at Lagina on the south side of that building in an exhaustive list.46 In this sense, asylia claims could interweave elements of the peer-polity framework with a recognition of royal authority. Though, originating from an inter-polis institution allowing equipollent communities to construct relationships with one another based around mutual recognition and respect, monarchs could and apparently did use recognition of asylia claims as leverage in their own reciprocal exchanges with poleis under their hegemony. For example, from the 140s onwards, the imagery of civic coinage of both Cilician and Levantine communities took on an increasingly epichoric character, and explicit attestation of autonomia and grants of asylia become much more frequent.47 This dissonance was, figuratively, a feature, not a bug, making the institution flexible enough to suit multiple purposes and offering participants a range of interpretations. In any sense, 43 Hoover 2007, 296-298. While Hoover 2011 retracted his earlier claim that the die counts could be used as a secure proxy for reign length, this does not invalidate his inferences regarding Tigranes. 44 Wright 2011, 128-130. 45 Rigsby 1996, no. 66-131 (Magnesia-on-the-Maeander); no. 132-161 (Teos). 46 I.Stratonikeia 507, 508. Rigsby 1996, 421-422;van Bremen 2010, 493-495. While the senatus consultum de Stratonicensibus recording all the privileges granted to the polis, was inscribed in full, we need not assume that the Roman decision concerning asylia held more weight than those of other communities. 47 Mørkholm 1966, 125-130;Rigsby 1996, 461-470, 481-501;Meyer 2001, 506-507;Hoover 2004, 488-489. however, it offered communities an opportunity to assert their own identity and status vis-à-vis other actors. Given this, we should not assume that Rome, in the person of Lucullus, was the only actor approached by the Mopsuestians. Though the two letters are the only extant evidence for the grant, the stone was found out of context and other inscribed evidence may not have survived. Moreover, the letters could have been inscribed at any point between their receipt by the polis and the mid-first century CE. The increasingly strict oversight of asylia grants by the Roman Senate during the Julio-Claudian period offers a plausible context for the inscription of the letters, in an attempt to protect the privileges of the sanctuary, and, if this is so, the emphasis would have fallen on Roman approval.48 Accepting Thonemann's date for the correspondence would put Lucullus in central or southern Greece when he responded to the Mopsuestian request. Consequently, it may be the result of a chance encounter between an embassy sent to poleis in this region, caught in the warzone, and a Roman magistrate. This would go some way towards explaining the odd coincidence of the grant with the nadir of Roman fortunes in the eastern Mediterranean. Why the Mopsuestians would seek to replace the authority of the Seleucid kings with that of a Rome wracked by civil war and swiftly deprived of its possessions in Asia Minor by Mithridates is left unexplained by other commentators. Instead, this should represent a canny adaptation to circumstances by both parties: the Roman magistrates were able to establish a relationship with a polity bordering on the fringes of their influence, while the Mopsuestian ambassadors could add the lustre of Roman backing to the bulk of their smaller peers' support.
The precise status of Lucullus from the perspective of the ambassadors is unclear, though it seems he acted as the representative to Sulla as a quasibasileus. Sulla, in his letter, cites earlier grants by presumably Seleucid dynasts, though precisely which monarchs are more difficult to determine. Mopsuestia, like several neighbouring communities, was re-founded by Antiochus IV as a polis with a dynastic name, Seleuceia-on-the-Pyramos, and the grant of asylia could be linked to this event.49 However, the possibility of a later date, when kingship was more contested and benefactions represented an important lever for basileis to encourage loyalty, should also be entertained.50 Irrespective of when the original grant took place, Sulla's choice to cite it established Roman 48 Tac. Ann. 3.60-63, with Dignas 2002, 289-294. Sayar, Siewert and Täuber 1994, 115-116. 49 Sayar, Siewert and Täuber 1994Zoroğlu 2004, 373-377. 50 Von Aulock 1963, 232-234, with #5-10, assumed it occurred under Antiochus X Eusebes (c. 95-88). The lengthy war between Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus offers another plausible context. authority in the same space as royal authority. Since the beginning of the second century, Roman magistrates had engaged in epistolary exchanges with cities and kings in the Greek East. In some letters, Roman magistrates took on the language and role of Hellenistic basileis. A comparison with the Roman assent to Teos' request for recognition of their asylia, in 193, is instructive. The letter, written by the praetor M. Valerius Messalla on behalf of the Senate and People, seems to have self-consciously imitated an earlier example. The close verbal correspondences between the letter of the Athamanian kings and this text suggest that the Teans supplied a model letter, probably from Antiochus III. In turn, this may imply that documentary evidence supporting their claim was a key part of the process.51 This earlier example slots neatly into the typical Hellenistic discourse surrounding the institution of asylia, expressing the language of royalty through a Roman interlocutor. Other early second-century letters, written from the field, also regularly employ language resembling that of Hellenistic chancelleries.52 Even so, Sulla, though citing the earlier grant, or grants, by Seleucid basileis as guiding his decision, makes clear that he reserved the right to choose independently, placing himself in a position analogous to his Seleucid counterparts. Though these documents had a public function, to confirm the grant in response to the Mopsuestian petition, this did not prevent the authors from using the texts to self-fashion.53 Indeed, crucially, Sulla's letter emphasises the agency of Lucullus, linking his own positive decision to the παράκλησις ('appeal' or 'recommendation') of his quaestor.54 The second text reinforces this point. Lucullus' title as quaestor pro praetore implies that Sulla had delegated praetorian imperium to him, that he was operating at a distance from his proconsular superior and that he had corresponded via letter to communicate his own thoughts.55 This example of a quaestor's letter is unparalleled in the epigraphic record, though from a practical perspective such exchanges must have been common. However, it is directed to the institutions of Mopsuestia, rather than to Sulla and seems to assert Lucullus' own decision to speak to the matter at hand. The decree frames the quaestor's correspondence as distinctive from Flamininus' own discussions with the embassy and implies that it had an independent value to the polis. Further corroboration may be offered by a recently published Messenian decree honouring P. Cornelius Scipio, quaestor pro praetore, in late 3 or early 4 CE.58 According to the text, Scipio had the capacity to issue letters and decrees without the oversight of a promagisterial governor.59 While these documents elucidate only three brief moments, across two centuries during which the broader institutional context changed remarkably and rendering any inferences tentative, the independence of quaestors in the provinces is a consistent theme. Taking the three texts together, we might plausibly surmise that quaestors consistently used strongly decisive language in their communiqués. in the field.60 This, in turn, may have encouraged communities to assign weight to these decisions and attempt to employ them in defence of privileges. Even so, the limited power of quaestors compared with their imperiumholding superiors may explain the dearth of quaestorian documents from the Republican period. Täuber's claim that Lucullus' letter chronologically precedes Sulla's is worth reassessing. Though the proconsul exercised ultimate authority in the matter, three strong inter-related reasons exist to interpret these letters as inscribed in order. First, the quaestor's letter cannot be the παράκλησις mentioned in the first text. It is addressed to the civic institutions of Mopsuestia itself and reports a positive decision. Second, the assumption that Sulla's confirmation of the decision lay after the defeat of Mithridates during his settlement of Asia Minor is far from substantiated. As noted, Mopsuestia had never formed part of a Roman province, nor had been involved in the conflict with Mithridates. The granting of asylia to a shrine in such a remote polis had limited costsit had no impact on Roman governance, beyond the time spent drafting the response-and would generate goodwill in the region. Most importantly, where Sulla acknowledges only earlier royal grants, Lucullus explicitly refers to the decisions of multiple Roman imperatores. While Rigsby suggests that the identity of these commanders is irrecoverable, by placing Sulla's letter before Lucullus' , the identity becomes clear: Sulla himself, and L. Licinius Murena, then praetor in Greece.61 Accepting this view, while acknowledging the authority of earlier decisions by Roman imperatores, Lucullus discursively asserts his own capacity to decide on the matter.
The central subject of the letter is also noteworthy, providing a final intriguing element of the relationship between Lucullus and Mopsuestia. After listing the virtues of Diodotus, priest of Isis and Serapis, and asserting his own desire to honour him, the quaestor states:  (Vervaet 2014, 93-130, esp. 120-121). Kreiler's suggestion (2006, 77-79;2007, 123-124)  Why then were historic local honours, decreed for Diodotus at Mopsuestia, relevant to Lucullus' purpose? How did Lucullus gain knowledge of their existence and their contents? How relevant was the personal relationship between Diodotus and Lucullus to the success of Mopsuestia's asylia claim? The evidence does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn-the curious syntax, linking the local grant to the Roman magistrate's decision, is unparalleled-but some hypotheses may be advanced. The most plausible explanation sees Lucullus' apparently intimate knowledge of the priest's civic tax exemptions as deriving from Diodotus himself. In the context of the letter they serve only to further justify Lucullus' own honorific actions, which do not survive. Two possibilities suggest themselves: first, that the section was predicated on the quaestor's services to the city. It may indicate that Lucullus, a noted Hellenophile, was choosing to commence a reciprocal honorific exchange with Mopsuestia and its leading citizens, engaging explicitly in well-worn modes of civic and interpolis discourse. Second, more plausibly, that the list of virtues elides a series of personal services performed by Diodotus for Lucullus or the Roman state while in Greece. What these may have been is irrecoverable, though, for example, Roman authorities were known to re-employ civic ambassadors to deliver documents and messages to third parties.66 During the turmoil of Mithridates' invasion of Greece and the revolt of several poleis, including Athens, one might expect the sacred ambassadors of a distant community had less restriction on their mobility than Roman messengers. In either case, Lucullus' honorific action, unpreserved though it may be, asserted his personal involvement in the civic affairs of Mopsuestia, despite the polis' distance from Roman hegemony.
In summary, these documents reveal significant details about the relationship between Mopsuestia and Rome. Given the geopolitical context, wherein the polis was not part of the Roman sphere of influence but was steadily asserting its autonomy vis-à-vis the Seleucid dynasty, it seems best to view the interaction attested as resulting from a chance encounter. The Mopsuestian embassy sought to take advantage of Rome's diplomatic weight alongside more traditional peer-polity networks to reinforce the claims of their temple to asylia. Conversely, the letters' authors drew on both Roman and royal discursive traditions to assert their own authority within the exchange. Sulla and Lucullus act as arbiters on a par with earlier Seleucid basileis, rather than the agents of a peer polity, framing their actions as part of a hierarchical relationship. Overall, 66 Compare the use of Rhodian ambassadors to communicate with the Hellenistic kingdoms in the lex de provinciis praetoriis of 100 ; the use of Aphrodisian ambassadors by Q. Oppius (IAph2007 8.3); and the role of Magnesian ambassadors in 29 (I.Priene2 13.6-8).
the Mopsuestia letters imply a complex negotiated position between Romans and Cilicians, with both groups using the dialogue to assert their position. While we only see the Roman side, this shows clearly that Sulla and Lucullus framed themselves as pseudo-royal actors. From the Mopsuestian perspective, the approach to Rome drew on traditional modes of authority to bolster their own status.

Local Agency in Late Hellenistic Syria and Cilicia
Evidence concerning the core Seleucid territories around the Syrian Tetrapolis further emphasises the critical role of local agency in legitimating and encouraging Roman intervention. As noted above, Antiochus XIII and his brother were present in Rome for nearly two years, beginning in c. 75. Cicero's remarks strongly imply that, at the time of his speech in August 70, Seleucid rule in Syria was deemed uncontroversial by Roman jurors. Thereafter, the invasion of the region by Tigranes of Armenia and the renewed machinations of their dynastic rival Philip II in Cilicia rapidly destabilised the situation. By the summer of 66, Cicero could state outright that Pompeius had, 'on the 49th day after he had set out from Brundisium, added all of Cilicia to the imperium of the Roman people' (ut Brundisio profectus est undequinquagesimo die, totam ad imperium populi Romani Ciliciam adiunxit) and the latter definitively ended Seleucid rule in Syria in 65/64.67 The narrative sources, though fragmentary and conflicting, consistently emphasise the influence exercised by individual Syrian poleis, most notably Antioch, throughout the conflict, specifically in recognising and denying royal authority. Justin notes, for example, that Tigranes of Armenia was invited to assume the kingship of Syria by its inhabitants. Even if a 14 or 18 year Armenian interlude should be rejected, numismatic evidence demonstrates Tigranes' control over both the Antiochene and Damascene mints for a short period in the late 70s.68 The Roman invasion of Armenia under L. Licinius Lucullus, however, allowed Antiochus to return to Syria. Appian claims that, with the consent of the people of Antioch and without pre-emptively seeking Roman approval, he re-established his kingdom, though Justin suggests that Lucullus himself lent his support.69 Shortly afterwards, Diodorus emphasises that subversive 67 Cic. Leg. Man. 35. On the end of Seleucid rule : Bellinger 1949;Magie 1950, 360, 375-377;Ehling 2008, 256-277. 68 Hoover 2007 App. Syr. 49; Just. 40.2.2. elements among the Antiochene elite failed to oust Antiochus, before encouraging a rival candidate, Philip II, to invade Syria.70 Moreover, a confused passage in Malalas' Chronicon suggests that Q. Marcius Rex, commander in Cilicia in 66, did not oppose this change in regime, though did seek to extract 'tribute' .71 Finally, we learn that after Cn. Pompeius Magnus had defeated Tigranes and re-established him as king in Armenia, he was enthusiastically greeted by the inhabitants of Syria.72 By this point Philip disappears from the narrative in Syria, but Antiochus sought to be re-installed as basileus. Pompeius refused, with the sources highlighting, not uncritically, his claims that he had acquired the right to decide by virtue of defeating Tigranes. Even so, Dio, Justin and Porphyry all emphasise that local actors resisted Antiochus' reinstatement: Dio states that the kings of Syria had already been deposed; Justin hints that the Syrians were unwilling to take Antiochus back; and Porphyry states that the Antiochenes bribed Pompeius for a grant of autonomy.73 While the historicity of any single episode is questionable-and Pompeius' own desire to overturn Lucullus, his predecessor and opponent's, decision to re-establish Antiochus should not be overlooked-the overall narrative of civic agency is compelling.74 In view of Pompeius' successes in bringing order to the region, it would be reasonable to see the poleis of Syria choosing to lobby for inclusion under Roman hegemony and against a return to the status quo. Even so, according to the sources, this transition from Seleucid to Roman rule was framed within existing structures of authority and legitimacy: Antiochus' lack of military prowess and the exigencies of the surrender-and-grant model. Evidence from Cilicia reinforces this impression. According to Plutarch, during the early 60s, Lucullus, at that time proconsul responsible for the war against Mithridates, was honoured in royal terms by multiple poleis. The context was provided by the depopulation of the region, as a result of Tigranes' forced migrations to his new city of Tigranocerta, in the northern reaches of the Mesopotamian plain. According to Strabo, twelve 'Greek' cities were affected, including, specifically, Soloi and Mallus.75 After Lucullus defeated the Armenian monarch and took the city in 69, Lucullus allowed the inhabitants 70 D.S. 40.1a. Hoover 2007, 299-300. 71 Malalas Chron. 225. Though problematic, Malalas was well-informed on Antiochene history specifically. Ehling 2008, 262-263. 72 Plu. to return to their original homelands, with Plutarch stating that he assisted them with provisions and funds. For this reason, he claims Lucullus was honoured widely as εὐεργέτης and κτίστης.76 The generic εὐεργέτης originally implied admission to a category of non-citizens with privileged status within a civic community, akin to πρόξενος.77 From the fifth century already, however, it was consistently employed as an honorific title.78 By contrast, κτίστης was originally ascribed to semi-divine or legendary founders. Both titles came to be applied to Hellenistic rulers in an honorific capacity.79 Accepting Plutarch's claim, the Cilician communities chose to honour Lucullus in ways traditionally appropriate for their Seleucid monarchs. In this case, given Lucullus' distance from the communities in question-the narrative sources imply he did not personally visit Syria or Cilicia-and his attempts to reconstitute the communities affected by Tigranes' actions made the analogy more potent.
During the latter stages of Lucullus' command, in summer and autumn 67, Pompeius was active off the coast of Cilicia Tracheia, campaigning against pirates. After the capitulation of the major base at Korakesion, Pompeius demonstrated his philanthropia by settling his defeated adversaries in depopulated regions, with Cilicia again prominent in the sources.80 Despite Lucullus' support for the erstwhile denizens of Tigranocerta's return, Ziegler plausibly explains how natural attrition and the generation of new ties would have taken its toll on the population. The relative closeness of Cilicia Pedias to the site of the final act of the campaign and the region's close concentration of poleis near the coast likely also proved enticing.81 The power vacuum in Cilicia caused by Tigranes' withdrawal into the Caucasus and the conflict between Philip II, Antiochus XIII and their respective backers around the Syrian Tetrapolis may also have commanded his attention. Certainly, Cicero, as noted above, claimed that Pompeius had added all Cilicia to the Roman imperium.82 While allowing for rhetorical effect-Cicero sought to persuade his audience of Pompeius' capabilities-the force of totam Ciliciam, in light of the traditional division of the region between Tracheia and Pedias, seems telling. That former pirates were settled in Cilicia Pedias might imply an assertion of Roman hegemony and the definitive end of Seleucid pretensions to control the region. 76 Plu. Luc. 29.4. 77 Gauthier 1985, 22-24, 33-39, 134-136;Domingo Gygax 2016, 111, 230-231. 78 Gauthier 1985Domingo Gygax 2016, 51. 79 Mortensen 201514.3.3, 5.8;Vell. 2.32.4-6;Plu. Pomp. 28.1-4;App. Mith. 96, 115;D.C. 36.37.4-6. 81 Pompeius' imperium was valid on the ocean and 50 Roman miles or 400 stades (c. 75 km) inland. Vell. 2.31.2;Plu. 25.2;D.C. 36.36.4. 82 Cic. Leg. Man. 35. Pace Pulci Doria Breglia 1972, 349-366. Furthermore, the decisions of at least five Cilician cities to begin new civic eras, replacing the dominant Seleucid era, should be related to Pompeius' actions. The dates at which different poleis made the change varied. In this period the calendars of Cilician communities following the Macedonian calendar, began in autumn. Mopsuestia and Epiphaneia were early adopters, taking year 1 as 68/67; Mallus, the following year; and Soloi, began a new era in autumn 66. This era-change should be taken to illustrate the subtle divergences in the attitudes, preferences, and worldviews of decision-making bodies in the different communities. In the case of the last, this should be connected to the formal refoundation of the polis as Pompeiopolis, perhaps taking in the first 'full' calendar year as a renewed community. However, cities could choose to acknowledge the calendar year in which an epochal event occurred, resulting in a 'short' first year. As Leschhorn has stressed, the adoption of new eras was driven by local agents, responding to a significant change in the community's situation. Ziegler contends that the perception of when this change occurred could also vary, especially when not based on a single datable event, as for instance in the processes return of citizens from Tigranocerta or settlement of defeated pirates.83 Both of these actions seem to have revitalised local economies and demonstrated the capacity of Roman commanders to protect poleis' interests.
In light of the adoption of a new era at Antioch beginning in 66/65, another possibility is worth entertaining.84 While popularly known as the 'Pompeian era' , it should be noted that the literary sources do not suggest that Pompeius entered Syria until the following year.85 Alongside scattered hints that the Antiochenes expelled either or both of Antiochus XIII and Philip II prior to Pompeius' involvement in Syria, it might better be taken as an era of liberation, subsequently confirmed by the Roman commander in person during 65/64. A similar phenomenon may have taken place in Cilicia, after the expulsion of Tigranes' agents. If so, the decision of many Cilician cities to begin new civic eras in 68-66 could imply the rejection of Seleucid authority by individual poleis. Nevertheless, though this process of 'liberation' was decentralised, emerging over a period of time through imitation and competition, the widespread adoption of new eras institutionalised the authority of Pompeius and the Roman state within local political cultures.
Finally, an honorific inscription from Pompeiopolis-Soloi sheds further light on the process. The text, which must be associated with Pompeius, reads: 83 Leschhorn 1993, 418-432;Ziegler 1993, passim, esp. 208-209. 84 Seyrig 1950Bellinger 1952, 56-57;Butcher 2004, 312- Magie 1950Magie , 1232Magie -1234Dreizehnter 1975;Dench 2018, 68-69. 89 Ferrary 1997Eilers 2002, 110-112;Bloy 2012, 181-183. 90 Proxenia, though rooted in similar concepts of benefaction and reciprocity, was an interpolis institution. While involving the grant of specific privileges, proxenia did acquire an honorific aspect. Mack 2015, 22-25, 81- translating the Latin imperator III, is another rare form, parallels are attested elsewhere only at Mytilene and Miletopolis, each time for Pompeius. In this context, it seems to be used in an attempt to highlight the unparalleled achievements of the commander;92 and, perhaps more importantly, it speaks to the key royal virtue of military success, emphasising his capacity as a defender of civic freedoms in a personal capacity, beyond the security offered by the Roman state. Overall, this inscription seems to integrate a Roman commander into a localised, if flexible, honorific framework, assimilating him to previously royal values, in an attempt to authorise and legitimise his actions.

Conclusions
The dissolution of the Seleucid kingdom in 65/64 represented the culmination of the process whereby Syrian and Cilician communities transferred their allegiance from their existing dynasts to Roman figures. The establishment of Syria as a routine provincial command from 61 would swiftly demonstrate the practical consequences of this choice. No longer was the state apparatus suspended at a remove from local considerations, as under the Seleucids: the governor was invoked both by Roman citizens transacting business and locals appealing against abuses.93 The comparative security promised by Roman arms also proved illusory-the defeat of Crassus at Carrhae in 53 saw the Parthians grow as an active threat, while the civil wars of the 40s affected the poleis of Syria and Cilicia greatly.94 However, the negative consequences ultimately arising should not detract from the agency of communities in facilitating the beginning of Roman administration. Before the advent of the Roman magistrates in the region, civic communities and Seleucid dynasts constructed legitimacy and authority through numerous complex, overlapping systems. The 'surrender-and-grant' paradigm served as a foundation of royal authority but the increasing leverage of poleis, both in practical terms and within the dialectic of honorific and euergetic exchange, steadily eroded its power across the late second and early first century. Meanwhile, cities in the region were making increasing use of peer-polity networks to assert their own agency and identity. The appearance of Roman actors created disruption on two fronts. First, straightforward misunderstandings rooted in cultural differences; and second, the difficulties in finding institutional correspondences between the Roman state and either its Seleucid counterpart or individual peers. Roman hegemony within the Greek-speaking world, in a general sense, was nothing new. Flamininus had proclaimed the 'freedom of the Greeks' generations earlier, Macedonia received a regular governor from the 140s, the cities of western Asia from 133. Poleis subject to Roman hegemony had obvious incentives to construct new frameworks of legitimacy and authority to accommodate Roman magistrates and institutions-establishing a modus vivendi was crucial to the well-being of their inhabitants. The social-embeddedness of such institutions inherently limited the speed of this transformation, causing communities to start from existing frameworks.95 As such, where the communities considered in this paper, which stood outside Roman influence until the end of the period of study, had already made moves to engage with Roman magistrates, they integrated them into existing value-systems as equivalent to royal actors.
At Mopsuestia, we see a polis approaching a junior Roman magistrate to support their claim to asylia, an inter-polis institution which had been extended to include monarchs. Both Lucullus, a lowly quaestor, and Sulla, a considerably more powerful commander, responded by framing themselves as equal (or even superior) to Seleucid basileis. More generally, the sources emphasise across this period that individual communities were increasingly bold in asserting their autonomy as traditional markers of dynastic authority faded during the first century. Concurrently, they stress the suitability of Roman magistrates for filling this role as militarily successful, morally respectable, and beneficent leaders. Civic authorities openly celebrated these virtues and integrated Pompeius and Lucullus, inter alios, within these established frameworks.
Crucially, this was a locally driven process. Casting Roman magistrates as pseudo-monarchs, responding to the same values and dynamics of legitimacy and authority as the Seleucids, allowed cities to define themselves as autonomous agents and assert their independence vis-à-vis the competing basileis. As the Roman presence became more regular, it seems that the cities of the region, notably Antioch-on-the-Orontes, were increasingly cognizant of the potential benefits of Roman hegemony in place of dynastic rule. Chief among these was 95 On the embeddedness of social and political frameworks: Steinmo and Thelen 1992, esp. 18-26. In an ancient context : Mackil 2013;Mack 2015. the greater security offered by the Roman state, both from warring members of the dynasty and external actors, but also significant was the likelihood that the Roman state would at least regularise exactions of men, materiel, and money more than the basileis. As a result, Roman rule came to be seen as a viable and preferable alternative by civic leaders, who integrated Roman magistrates easily into their existing political frameworks. Local actors in Cilicia and Syria played a critical role in both legitimating Roman hegemony in their regional contexts and encouraging the establishment of Roman rule.