The historical evidence for this earthquake consists of four accounts by ancient historians
from the 1st to the 6th century A.D. However, only two of them — Trogus and
Malalas — provide information of any value. The other two — Dio Cassius and
Orosius — offer very scanty data, which prove to be less than clear. In fact, the obscurity
of the passages in Dio and Orosius — they do not even provide an indication of the
geographical area where the earthquake occurred — has given rise to a remarkable
misunderstanding, for what they wrote has been related to an earthquake at Kerch in
the Crimea in 63 B.C. (see entry 062). We have tried to clarify the circumstances of
this event by analysing the historical context.
Reliable evidence of an earthquake in Syria and at Antioch.
In his Epitome of Trogus, Justinus refers to what Pompeus Trogus had to say about a destructive earthquake in
Syria which caused thousands of deaths:
English
Although Syria was safe from enemy attack,
it was devastated by an earthquake, which killed one hundred and seventy thousand
people and destroyed many cities. The haruspices declared that this prodigy foretold
a change in things.
Latin
Sed sicut ab hostibus tuta Syria fuit, ita terrae motu vastata est, quo centum septuagenta milia hominum et multae urbes perierunt. Quod prodigium mutationem rerum
portendere aruspices responderunt.
This very concise passage refers to the last period of the rule of Tigranes of Armenia,
an ally of Mithridates, in Syria. This important king of Armenia (95-c.55 B.c.) is
generally known as Tigranes the Great or Tigranes II (though it is not certain that a
Tigranes I of Armenia ever existed). Tigranes was defeated by Lucullus in 69 B.c., and
had to give up all regions previously under his control, except Armenia. This passage,
however, suggests a dating of the earthquake to about 65 B.c., because Trogus twice
specifies that Tigranes' rule lasted for eighteen years, whereas the Appian tradition
(Syr. 69) suggests fourteen years, hence making the end of Tigranes' rule over Syria
coincide with his defeat at the hands of Lucullus (see Rizzo 1963, pp.62ff.).
The earthquake is definitely to be related to Malalas' remark that Pompey
was generous to Antioch, "and rebuilt the bouleuterion, for it had fallen down".
Although Malalas lived about seven centuries after the event, his evidence is nevertheless
important, for we know that he used valuable local sources. The context justifies
dating this rebuilding work to immediately after Pompey's conquest of 65/4 B.C.
Pompeus Trogus' account must be taken seriously. In fact, he pays special attention
to the importance of earthquakes in history, and tends to associate natural phenomena
with historical events (Rizzo 1963, p.58; Alonso-Nuiiez 1992, p.88ff., 101ff.).
Moreover, he had available first-hand information about Pompey's war in Anatolia: an
uncle of his commanded a troop of cavalry in support of Pompey (see Rizzo, 1963, p.61;
Alonso-Ndriez 1992, p.16).
Rizzo (1963, p.77) thought that knowledge of the earthquake had passed through the
filter of Strabo's historical work (now lost). There is no way of knowing whether that
it so, however, and in any case one may share Rizzo's own view that mentioning the
earthquake is a kind of two-edged historiographical weapon, intended to underline the
advantages to Syria of Tigranes' rule, which Trogus clearly regarded with favour (see
Rizzo 1963, p.63). The effect of the earthquake was thus to change the political picture.
Downey (1938 a, p.107ff., with bibliography; 1961, p.14Off.) has attempted to date the
earthquake more accurately. On the basis of Malalas (225), he has pointed out that
the Romans carried out public works at Antioch, under the supervision of Q. Marcius
Rex; and since Marcius was proconsul in Cilicia in 67 ac., he suggests dating the
earthquake to c.67-66 B.C. This friendly act by the Romans was undoubtedly a
diplomatic move in preparation for the subsequent conquest, and Downey thinks that it
was a question of rebuilding after the Trogus earthquake, which he dates to
69 ac., following the chronology in Appian, as historians usually do. This is reasonable, but it
clashes with Trogus' chronology, which Downey does not take into consideration. The
fact is — as Downey himself admits (1938 b, p.145) — that Malalas' account makes the
earthquake datable to between 69 and 64, and Q.Marcius Rex (who reappeared in
Italy in 63 B.C. to ask for a triumph) may have stayed in the East until
at least 65 (evidence in Miinzer 1930, cols.1584-5). So Marcius' mission may have taken place only
shortly before Pompey's campaign (Pompey was his direct superior), and hence the
date of the earthquake does not necessarily have to be moved much earlier than 65 B.C.
Whatever the case may be, it is interesting to note that the Romans hastened to
rebuild the most important building for public spectacles, and only later went on to
rebuild that for political assemblies.
The evidence of Dio Cassius and Orosius: the alleged earthquake at Kerch.
An earthquake relating to this same period is recorded by Dio Cassius, but without any specific
indication as to where it occurred:
Since the Roman forces were steadily increasing
their hold and those of Mithridates were becoming steadily weaker, and also partly
because one of the greatest earthquakes ever recorded came and destroyed many of
their cities, [Mithridates'] allies departed and the army broke up, and there were
those who kidnapped some of his sons, and took them to Pompey.
The same earthquake seems to be mentioned in a passage in Paulus Orosius, where
he records an earthquake in the cities controlled by Mithridates shortly before his
death (63 ac.):
English
When Mithridates was in. the Bosphorus to celebrate the feast of
Ceres, there came a sudden earthquake so violent that it is said
to have had disastrous effects in town and country alike.
Latin
In Bosphoro Mithridate Cerealia sacra celebrante terrae motus adeo gravis repente
exortus est, ut magna clades ex eo urbium atque agrorum secuta narretur.
As we have pointed out in entry (062), a great deal of the literature locates this event
in the Crimea. In fact, however, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the
earthquake occurred there. Paulus Orosius seems to have been relying on Livy
(whose coverage of this period is unfortunately missing), and must have been
summarising a much more substantial narrative, for he simply reports, in succinct terms,
that the earthquake occurred "while Mithridates was celebrating the feast of Ceres in
the Bosphorus". But this is not reliable evidence in itself: for there is no inevitable
logical link between the seismic event and the location in the Cimmerian Bosphorus.
In other words, the fact that Orosius juxtaposes the one and the other does not imply
that he wishes to establish some relationship between them. Nor is there any other
evidence to account for such a relationship.
There remain some historical details to be added. On the basis of slender
historiographical evidence, historians have claimed that the closing years of the reign of
Mithridates were completely confined to the Bosphorus, where he had been obliged to
take refuge because of Pompey's military campaigns between 67/66 and 65/64 B.C.
Hence the view that the references by Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius to an
earthquake which had struck "the cities of Mithridates" could no longer be
taken as referring to Pontus.
There are, however, two objections to this view: one of a pragmatic kind, and the
second based on historiographical analysis.
- Most important of all, in recording a revolt organised by Mithridates' own son
Pharnaces, Appian (Mithr. 108) describes the cities of the Bosphorus and the Crimea
which had abandoned Mithridates as being in an excellent state of preparation for
war. These could not, then, have been the cities struck by the earthquake.
Mithridates himself easily resisted the revolt at Panticapaeum, and the city was only
taken as a result of a conspiracy and trickery (Appian, Mithr. 110). Furthermore,
Appian makes no mention of any earthquake in the Crimea.
- Both Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius depend, at least in part, on a tradition
hostile to Pompey, which may have come, through Livy, from an author such as
Timagenes of Alexandria. While Livy (Orosius' source) was pro-Pompey, he was also
a serious historian who knew his sources, and as such he could not ignore an event of
importance like this earthquake. But he placed his reconstruction of events within a
context of his own design, where Mithridates appears as a man whose course is run,
who is being hunted down by the Romans and his other enemies, and who is finally
forced to take refuge in the stronghold of Panticapaeum, since Pontus was in the
hands of the Romans. This was a schematic but effective historical interpretation,
which at least in its general lines agreed with the account of Appian, but
(in accordance with Livy's interest in prodigies) it included the detail of the earthquake.
As Appian suggests, however, Mithridates had in fact good reasons for hoping that he
might make a comeback up to the last moment. There is no doubt that he was obliged
to retreat into the Crimea for strategic reasons, and he must have done so in about 66
BC. He must have felt safe in the territory of his former kingdom, especially at a time
when circumstances had obliged Pompey to move part of his army, in 66 B.C., for the
conquest of Syria and the neutralisation of king Tigranes II of Armenia.
This is the point at which the earthquake is likely to have occurred: with Mithridates
in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, it will have eliminated any possibility of his going back,
deprived him of any chance of breaking the Roman naval blockade, and fomented
rebellion even in the Greek cities of the Bosphorus and the Crimea which, as we have
seen, were not affected by the earthquake.
There was thus no deliberate falsification, but there is very little that we can add to
the available information. However, the comparison with Appian, together with
archaeological evidence, confirms that there is no reason to believe that
the earthquake occurred in the Cimmerian Bosphorus. We therefore reject the Crimea, and
return to our previous hypothesis (Guidoboni 1989, p.655) that the earthquake occurred
in an unidentified part of Pontus Euxinus.
On the basis of what we have set out above, therefore, it seems likely that the
earthquake occurred in Pontus after 66 and before 64 ac., that is to say after Mithridates'
flight from Pontus and before the conference of Amisus, when Pompey finally settled
the pacification of Asia Minor. Mithridates could at least hope that the Greek cities of
Pontus — which effectively enjoyed as much autonomy under Mithridates as under
the Romans — would continue to be his principal economic asset, and he was confident
of returning to Pontus, where he had left many of his supporters, at a more suitable
moment.
It is certainly no coincidence that the Paulus Orosius tradition associated the
earthquake with the time when Mithridates was celebrating the rites of "Ceres", the Roman
equivalent of Demeter, the goddess of fertility and crops — a sign that the gods were
depriving Mithridates of their support by removing his sources of supply. The Livy
tradition had no interest at all in drawing attention to this fact, for it did not wish to
diminish the extent of Pompey's achievement, and what happened was certainly to his
advantage. Paulus Orosius describes himself as an anti-pagan (and therefore anti Roman)
writer, but his narrative owes much to Livy, whom he used for his references
to earthquakes and other disasters, interpreting them as a divine punishment on the
pagans. In this particular instance, he may have taken the earthquake as a
punishment inflicted on the pagan Mithridates at the moment when he was celebrating the
rites of "Ceres".
This tradition in fact confines itself to interpreting the earthquake as one of the
causes of Mithridates' downfall. It is very likely that Livy himself (and he was Paulus
Orosius' source, in our opinion) also made use of contemporary writers who were partisans of Mithridates,
such as Timagenes of Alexandria, taking due note of the information they provided, and selecting as he thought fit.
However, the theory that the earthquake took place in Pontus has the serious drawback that
it is not supported by any sources at all. Indeed, there seems to be no reason why
one should not put forward a quite different hypothesis: that the earthquake
recorded by Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius is the one referred to by Trogus/Justinus
in Syria. Let us return to what Dio Cassius wrote: "partly because [...] earthquakes
[...] destroyed many of their cities, [Mithridates'] allies departed and the army broke
up". The "allies" referred to may have been supporters of his such as Tigranes II of
Armenia, who governed Syria before his defeat at the hands of Lucullus. The earthquake
would therefore have helped to intensify the crisis amongst the enemies of
Rome, and finally destroy the alliance between Mithridates and Tigranes. It is also
reasonable to suggest that the earthquake in Syria not only created foreign policy
problems for Mithridates, but also discouraged the cities from further resisting Rome.
Final observations based on a comparison of the sources. Now let us take up once
more what Trogus/Justinus have to say about Syria. The time factor seems to be
different in their account from those in Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius, for, unlike
Trogus/Justinus, they mention the earthquake in Syria as occurring after Pompey's
arrival there. What Pompeus Trogus has to say is of importance, anyway, because, as
we have mentioned above, he had oral sources available for Pompey's campaign in
Syria. On the other hand, it seems that Appian prefers to deny that Tigranes
interfered in the affairs of Syria at all. As Rizzo has pointed out (1963, pp.64ff.), Appian is
nearer the mark in dating the end of Tigranes' dominion over Syria to 69 B.C.; but that
does not necessarily mean that the date 65 which we can deduce from Trogus/Justinus
is the result of a mistake on their part, because the situation in Syria continued to be
very complicated until Pompey arrived. He may in fact have taken advantage of the
earthquake — which would explain the passage in Appian (Syr. 60) where we are told
that Pompey took control of Syria "without fighting".
Trogus' stance is quite different from that of the Livy tradition (Rizzo 1963, p.70),
which almost certainly underlies the work of Dio Cassius and Paulus Orosius. Livy
probably got his information about the earthquake from official Roman sources (see
Rizzo 1963, p.74); these documents included prodigy lists, and Livy must have
thought it quite natural to place the earthquake close to the time of Mithridates'
death. Trogus, on the other hand, whether he was using Strabo or oral sources, had
more reliable information; and it is not unlikely that Livy (or Dio Cassius and Paulus
Orosius after him) somehow inserted the report of the earthquake (for which, moreover,
he gives no date or accurate location) into his account of the downfall of
Mithridates. Without more accurate information, we think it inappropriate to
integrate the two traditions, especially since they not only differ about the earthquake,
but also disagree on nearly all the historical background (see Rizzo 1963 for a general
consideration of this), thereby revealing the attempts by the various historiographical
trends to make the available data fit their own ideological requirements.
