The Asia calendar-reform dossier亚细亚历法改革文献群
9 BC · four documents · six stone witnesses公元前 9 年 · 四份文献 · 六方石刻见证

The dossier and its stone copies这一文献组及其石刻副本

The edict of the proconsul Paullus Fabius Maximus on the Asian calendar survives not in a single inscription but as a provincial dossier published, as Robert Sherk notes in Roman Documents from the Greek East (no. 65), "in numerous cities of Asia." Fragments of copies from five cities are extant: a substantial Prienean copy (Inschriften von Priene 105), and more mutilated copies from Apameia, Eumeneia, Dorylaion and Maeonia. Sherk observes that the Prienean copy alone gives a connected text of 84 lines and was used by Dittenberger as the basis of his composite text in OGIS 458; it is unusual in being preserved on two blocks of different stone, an upper block of blue limestone and a lower block of white marble. The Apameian copy, republished by W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder as Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VI, nos. 174 and 175 (1939, with Plate 30), is important because it alone preserves part of the original Latin text of the governor's letter; a further Apameian fragment was discovered by W. H. C. Frend in 1954. Sherk emphasizes that the Maeonian fragment shows the dossier was set up not only in the larger cities but also in less populated areas.代执政官保卢斯·法比乌斯·马克西穆斯关于亚细亚历法的政令，并非以单独一件铭文留存，而是作为一个行省文献组而流传。正如罗伯特·舍尔克（Robert Sherk）在《来自希腊东方的罗马文献》（Roman Documents from the Greek East，第65号）中所言，它“在亚细亚的众多城市”刊布。来自五座城市的副本残片至今犹存：一份内容颇丰的普里埃涅副本（《普里埃涅铭文集》，Inschriften von Priene 105），以及来自阿帕梅亚、欧迈尼亚、多里莱昂与迈奥尼亚的几份残损较甚的副本。舍尔克注意到，唯有普里埃涅副本提供了一段84行的连贯文本，并被 Dittenberger 用作他在 OGIS 458 中所拟合成文本的底本；它颇为特殊，刻在两块不同的石料之上，上面一块为蓝色石灰岩，下面一块为白色大理石。阿帕梅亚副本经 W. H. Buckler 与 W. M. Calder 重新刊布为《小亚细亚古代遗存》（Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua）第六卷第174、175号（1939，附图版30），其重要之处在于唯有它保存了总督书信原拉丁文文本的一部分；另一份阿帕梅亚残片则于1954年由 W. H. C. Frend 发现。舍尔克强调，迈奥尼亚残片表明这一文献组不只竖立于较大的城市，也竖立于人口较少的地区。

Structure of the dossier这一文献组的结构

Sherk reconstructs the dossier as composed of at least three, possibly four, documents: first the proconsul's letter (extant in Greek at Priene and Maeonia, and in Latin at Apameia and Dorylaion), and then two decrees of the koinon of the Greeks of Asia. The Apameian copy additionally contains a short technical appendix, engraved in both Latin and Greek immediately after the letter, concerned with the method of effecting the calendar change; Sherk argues that because it was in Latin as well as Greek it formed part of the governor's letter, and that it was omitted from the Prienean copy because its content was absorbed into the body of the koinon's decree (lines 76–77). In the letter Fabius eloquently praises Augustus and proposes — in wording, Sherk notes, framed virtually as a directive — that the provincial calendar be re-aligned so that its first month begin on 23 September, the emperor's birthday; the magistrates would thereafter enter office on that day, and the first month, retaining the Macedonian names, would be renamed "Caesar" in place of "Dios."舍尔克把这一文献组重构为由至少三份、或许四份文献构成：首先是代执政官的书信（希腊文本见于普里埃涅与迈奥尼亚，拉丁文本见于阿帕梅亚与多里莱昂），其后是亚细亚希腊人 koinon（同盟）的两份决议。阿帕梅亚副本另含一篇简短的技术性附录，紧接书信之后以拉丁文与希腊文一并刻出，所关涉者是落实历法变更的方法；舍尔克主张，正因它兼以拉丁文写成，它便构成总督书信的一部分，而它之所以未见于普里埃涅副本，是因为其内容已被吸纳进 koinon 决议的正文（第76至77行）。在书信中，法比乌斯雄辩地颂扬奥古斯都，并提出（舍尔克指出，其措辞几乎是以一项指令的方式来表述的），应重新调整行省历法，使其首月始于9月23日，即元首的诞辰；行政长官此后将在这一天就职，而首月在保留马其顿月名的同时，将由“狄俄斯”（Dios）改名为“凯撒”（Caesar）。

Religious and administrative significance宗教与行政上的意义

Sherk underlines the documents' importance for the early imperial cult and the history of the provincial koinon, the body through which Rome communicated with the Greeks of Asia and which maintained the worship of Roma and Augustus at Pergamum, Smyrna and later Ephesus. The decree honoured Fabius Maximus himself with a crown — earlier offered, under the governorship of L. Volcacius Tullus, to whoever devised the greatest honours for Augustus. Sherk draws attention to the religious language: Augustus is called theiotatos ("most divine") in the Greek, an adjective with no Latin equivalent in the surviving fragments, and is hailed as soter and bearer of euangelia, his birthday "the beginning of life." He compares this rhetoric to Virgil's fourth eclogue (magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo) and to the Ara Pacis, perhaps completed about the same time.舍尔克着重指出，这批文献对早期帝国崇拜以及行省 koinon 的历史颇为重要。这个同盟是罗马用以与亚细亚希腊人沟通的机构，也是在帕加马、士麦那、以及后来在以弗所维持对罗马女神与奥古斯都崇拜的机构。决议以一顶冠冕荣耀法比乌斯·马克西穆斯本人，而这顶冠冕较早是在 L. 沃尔卡基乌斯·图卢斯（L. Volcacius Tullus）任总督期间，许予凡为奥古斯都设计出最高荣誉之人的。舍尔克提请读者留意其中的宗教语言：希腊文称奥古斯都为 theiotatos（“最为神圣者”），这个形容词在现存的残片里并无拉丁文的对应词；他又被尊为 soter（救主），并被誉为 euangelia（好消息）的携带者，其诞辰则是“生命的开端”。舍尔克把这种修辞与维吉尔第四首牧歌（magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo，伟大的世代之序自始重新降生）相比，又与或许大约同时落成的和平祭坛（Ara Pacis）相比。

The date and Mommsen's argument年代问题与蒙森的论证

Sherk dates the dossier to ca. 9 BC, following Mommsen's reasoning. Mommsen saw that the phrase duo eton meson geinomenon ("two years coming between"), in the decree's intercalary clause, reflects the faulty triennial intercalation practised by the Roman pontifices down to 9 BC — before Augustus corrected the error, as Macrobius (Saturnalia I.14.13–15) records. Since Fabius was consul in 11 BC, a proconsulship of Asia ca. 9 BC followed naturally. Sherk cautions that the date is only approximate, since the year of Augustus's discovery of the error is uncertain and the five-year interval between consulship and governorship was not strictly observed.舍尔克依循蒙森的推理，把这一文献组系于约公元前9年。蒙森看出，决议置闰条款中的 duo eton meson geinomenon（“两年置于其间”）一语，反映出罗马祭司团（pontifices）直到公元前9年仍在沿用的、每三年一闰的错误置闰法，那时奥古斯都尚未纠正这一谬误，此事见于马克罗比乌斯的记载（Saturnalia I.14.13–15）。既然法比乌斯于公元前11年任执政官，那么约公元前9年出任亚细亚代执政官便顺理成章。舍尔克也提醒，这一年代仅是大致而言，因为奥古斯都发现谬误的年份并不确定，执政官与行省总督之间相隔五年的惯例也未被严格遵守。

Hannah's re-interpretation: calendar and succession汉纳的再阐释：历法与帝位继承

Bridget Buxton and Robert Hannah, in OGIS 458, the Augustan Calendar, and the Succession (2005), challenge the traditional date and reframe the document's significance. They argue that the awkward aorist participle geinomenon denotes a single act of creation rather than ongoing procreation, and that the meson refers to the interval between two distinct events — the publication of the edict and the institution of the new intercalary system two years later. On their reading the decree was enacted in 5 BC, not 9 BC, when the Asian lunisolar calendar would in fact still align with the moon. Buxton and Hannah also reinterpret the clause "this year, Xandikos will be reckoned as 32 days" as proof that the edict itself dates to 9 BC, while the reform took effect later. Crucially, they tie OGIS 458 to the chronology of the Augustan succession: dating Fabius's proconsulship two years before September 5 BC allows the series of provincial coins honouring Gaius and Lucius Caesar to be re-dated, and suggests that the transformation of Augustus's adopted sons from heredes into principes was a reaction to the crisis precipitated by Tiberius's departure for Rhodes, not its cause.布丽奇特·巴克斯顿（Bridget Buxton）与罗伯特·汉纳（Robert Hannah）在《OGIS 458、奥古斯都历法与帝位继承》（OGIS 458, the Augustan Calendar, and the Succession，2005）中，对传统的年代提出质疑，并重新框定这份文献的意义。他们论证道，那个略显别扭的不定过去时分词 geinomenon 所指的或是一次单一的造立行为，而非持续的生育过程，而 meson 所指的乃是两桩各自有别的事件之间的间隔，即政令的刊布，与两年之后新置闰制度的设立。依他们的解读，这项决议是在公元前5年、而非公元前9年颁行的，那时亚细亚的阴阳合历事实上仍与月相相合。巴克斯顿与汉纳还把“今年，赞迪科斯月（Xandikos）将计为32日”一句重新阐释为政令本身系于公元前9年的证据，而改革则在其后方才生效。尤为关键的是，他们把 OGIS 458 与奥古斯都帝位继承的年代序列联系起来：把法比乌斯的代执政官任期定在公元前5年9月之前两年，便可使纪念盖乌斯·凯撒与卢基乌斯·凯撒的一系列行省钱币得到重新断代，并提示奥古斯都的养子由 heredes（继承人）转变为 principes（元首），或是对提比略动身前往罗德岛所引发的危机的一种回应，而非这场危机的起因。

Earlier scholarship and the technical reform早期学术与技术性的改革

Buxton and Hannah note that the calendar problem itself — the erroneous insertion of a leap day every third rather than every fourth year, a mistake corrected by Augustus's reform of 8 BC — is the indispensable backdrop to the edict, and they cite U. Laffi's study Le iscrizioni relative all'introduzione nel 9 a.C. del nuovo calendario della provincia d'Asia (1967) as the standard analysis underlying the traditional 9 BC dating. They observe that Fabius would very likely have learned of the discrepancy before Peritios (December) of 9 BC, and connect the impetus for provincial calendar reform to Augustus's final revision of the Roman calendar. The reformed Asian months were given fixed Julian lengths totalling 365 days, each beginning on the ninth day before the Kalends by Roman reckoning, with the intercalary day doubling the first day of Xandikos.巴克斯顿与汉纳指出，历法问题本身是这则政令不可或缺的背景，即每隔三年、而非每隔四年误置一个闰日的错误，这一谬误经奥古斯都公元前8年的改革得到纠正。他们援引 U. 拉菲（U. Laffi）的研究《关于公元前9年亚细亚行省新历法引入的诸铭文》（Le iscrizioni relative all'introduzione nel 9 a.C. del nuovo calendario della provincia d'Asia，1967），视之为支撑传统公元前9年断代的标准分析。他们观察到，法比乌斯很可能在公元前9年佩里提奥斯月（Peritios，即十二月）之前便已得知这一偏差，并把行省历法改革的推动力与奥古斯都对罗马历法的最后一次修订联系起来。改革后的亚细亚各月被赋予固定的儒略历月长，合计365日，每月依罗马的算法始于朔日前第九日，置闰日则使赞迪科斯月的首日重复一次。

The OGIS editionOGIS 编本

Dittenberger prints the calendar dossier as OGIS no. 458 (vol. II, pp. 48–60), with the running header Decretum de fastis provincialibus. He works from four stones — Priene (P), Apamea (A), Eumeneia (E) and Dorylaeum (D) — noting that all four originally carried the Latin text above and the Greek below, though only at Apamea is the Latin tabula partly preserved. The Priene exemplar (excavated by the Berlin expedition) is the fullest, with the Greek arranged in four columns; portions had been seen earlier (down to v. 67 Καισαρῆος) by the Arundel–Hamilton tradition and reprinted in CIG 3957, with further fragments by V. Bérard (Bull. de corr. hell. XVII (1893) p. 315 n. 9) and Th. Mommsen (Mitth. des arch. Inst. in Athen XVII (1891) p. 282); fresh fragments of P and A were published by J. G. C. Anderson (Mitth. XXV (1900) p. 111), by Hamilton, by V. W. Franz (CIG II 3902 b), and most importantly in the Priene corpus edited by Mommsen and Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Mitth. des arch. Inst. in Athen XXIV (1899) p. 275 sqq., reprinted in the Revue archéologique ser. III, vol. XXXVII (1900) p. 357 n. 76). Dittenberger has consciously chosen not to print the Eumeneian and Dorylaean fragments separately, but to integrate every reading from every stone into a single eclectic text.狄滕贝格尔将这份历法档案列为 OGIS 第 458 号（第二卷，第 48–60 页），眉题作 Decretum de fastis provincialibus。他所依据的是四方石刻：普里耶涅（P）、阿帕梅亚（A）、欧梅尼亚（E）与多律莱昂（D）；他特别指出，这四方石刻原本皆为上方拉丁文、下方希腊文的格式，但只有阿帕梅亚一处的拉丁文残碑尚有部分留存。普里耶涅一本（由柏林考察队发掘所得）保存最为完整，希腊文分作四栏排列；其中一部分（至第 67 行 Καισαρῆος 为止）较早即由 Arundel–Hamilton 一脉的学者所见，重刊于 CIG 3957，另有 V. Bérard（Bull. de corr. hell. XVII (1893) 第 315 页注 9）与蒙森（Mitth. des arch. Inst. in Athen XVII (1891) 第 282 页）所补的若干残片；P 与 A 的新见残片则由 J. G. C. 安德森（Mitth. XXV (1900) 第 111 页）、汉密尔顿、V. W. Franz（CIG II 3902 b）相继刊布，而最为关键的，则是蒙森与维拉莫维茨-默伦多夫所编的普里耶涅铭文集（Mitth. des arch. Inst. in Athen XXIV (1899) 第 275 页以下，重刊于 Revue archéologique 第三辑，第 XXXVII 卷 (1900) 第 357 页注 76）。狄滕贝格尔有意不将欧梅尼亚与多律莱昂的残片分列，而是把每一方石刻上的每一处读法整合到一份折衷本中。

The apparatus criticus校勘记

The apparatus is dense and exclusively text-critical: each note records by which siglum (P, A, E, D) a given letter, ending or word is attested, and which is restored. The letter-forms of the four copies show only slight discrepancies — Dittenberger remarks on the alternation of Ξ / ΞΙ and on the oscillation of Θ / ΘΘ / ΘΕ at line-ends — but the orthography is at points strikingly archaising (e.g. the spelling ΑΥ for ΑΙ noted by Schraeder in Anderson's drawings, n. 7). Several conjectures are credited to Mommsen and to Wilamowitz: among the most consequential are ἐνδυμασίᾳ for the apograph's ΕΝΔΥΚΑΣΙΑ (n. 6), the restoration Παῦλλος Φάβιος Μάξιμος with double lambda from coins and Greek epigraphic usage (n. 21), and the supplement ἐπεὶ ἡ … προνοίᾳ in the proconsular preamble. At lines 9–10 he prints θνητοῖς against the stones' apparent θεοῖς (Wilamowitz). The apparatus is also alert to scribal slips of itacism (ει / η / ι) and to several places where the Latin and Greek do not match word-for-word.校勘记极为紧密，且通篇仅作文本校勘之用：每一条注释都标明某一字母、词尾或词语见于哪一份摹本（P、A、E、D），又有哪一处属于补字。四份摹本的字形差异并不显著，狄滕贝格尔指出 Ξ / ΞΙ 的互见、以及行末 Θ / ΘΘ / ΘΕ 的摆动；但拼写在若干处带有相当鲜明的存古色彩（例如 Schraeder 在安德森摹图中所注 ΑΥ 替 ΑΙ 的写法，注 7）。若干推测之功归于蒙森与维拉莫维茨，其中影响最大者，包括将摹本作 ΕΝΔΥΚΑΣΙΑ 处校读为 ἐνδυμασίᾳ（注 6）、根据钱币及希腊铭刻惯例补出双 lambda 的 Παῦλλος Φάβιος Μάξιμος（注 21）、以及总督开篇套语中的 ἐπεὶ ἡ … προνοίᾳ 一句之补字。第 9–10 行处，他采用维拉莫维茨之议，刊作 θνητοῖς，与石上似可辨为 θεοῖς 的字形相违。校勘记也留意到 itacism 式的抄写讹误（ει / η / ι 互混），以及若干处拉丁文与希腊文并非逐字对应的现象。

The dossier and its structure档案及其结构

Dittenberger analyses the inscription as a tripartite dossier. Section I is the bilingual letter/edict of the proconsul Paullus Fabius Maximus (cos. 11 BC) to the koinon, in Latin with a Greek translation, proposing that the calendar of the province begin on Augustus's birthday. Section II is the decree of the koinon of Asia (Ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἕλλησιν, γνώμῃ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Μηνοφίλου Ἀζανίτου) accepting the proconsul's proposal, prescribing the new year on 9 a. d. Kal. Oct. (= Augustus's dies natalis) and instituting a crown for the author of the most pleasing speech in honour of Augustus. Section III is a second, supplementary decree of the koinon (again on the motion of the same Apollonius son of Menophilus of Aezani) giving practical instructions: that copies be inscribed on white marble stelae in temples of Rome and Augustus at Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Apamea, and elsewhere, and that the proconsular diatagma be appended. Dittenberger dates the whole to 9 BC, the year of Fabius Maximus's proconsulship of Asia, and notes that the engraving of the several copies must have followed within a year or two.狄滕贝格尔将这份铭文解作三段式的档案。第一段为亚洲行省总督 Paullus Fabius Maximus（公元前 11 年执政官）致行省议会（koinon）的双语书信兼政令，拉丁文附以希腊文译本，提议将行省历法的岁首移至奥古斯都诞辰。第二段为亚洲行省议会的议决（Ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἕλλησιν, γνώμῃ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Μηνοφίλου Ἀζανίτου），接受总督的提议，规定新年定于 9 a. d. Kal. Oct.（即奥古斯都之 dies natalis），并设立花冠之赏，以表彰歌颂奥古斯都的最佳演说之作者。第三段则是行省议会的另一份补充议决（仍由同一位艾扎尼人梅诺菲洛斯之子阿波罗尼俄斯提议），载有具体的执行办法：抄本须刻于白色大理石碑上，立于帕加马、斯米尔纳、萨第斯、阿帕梅亚等地的罗马与奥古斯都神庙之内，并附以总督的 diatagma。狄滕贝格尔将整份档案系于公元前 9 年，即 Fabius Maximus 出任亚洲总督之年，并指出各地抄本之镌刻当在其后一两年内完成。

Text and interpretation文本与释读

The notes labour above all over the calendar reform itself. Dittenberger explains, with extensive citation of Mommsen, that the koinon adopted a solar year of twelve months keyed to the Roman fasti, with the new year falling on 9 a. d. Kal. Oct. (= 23 September), Augustus's birthday; the day-list at the foot (Καίσαρ — Ἀπελλαῖος — Αὐδναῖος — Περίτιος — Δύστρος — Ξανδικός — Ἀρτεμίσιος, etc.) reconciles this with the Macedonian month-names already in use in Asia, the first month being renamed Καῖσαρ. Considerable space is given to the mechanics of intercalation: Dittenberger, following Mommsen and Wilamowitz, holds that the new Asian calendar took over the Julian quadrennial intercalary day, here lodged as a thirteenth day in Ξανδικός (notes 50–53). On vocabulary he insists that ἀρχιερεύς here = high-priest of the provincial cult of Rome and Augustus, not a civic priest (notes 24, 41); that ἀνθύπατος = proconsul tout court; and that the puzzling phrase about a victory-crown is a real prize-competition for an annual encomium of the princeps, not a metaphor. He also discusses the unusual political vocabulary by which the koinon styles itself οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἕλληνες (note 24, with parallels).注释最为用力之处，仍是历法改革本身。狄滕贝格尔大量征引蒙森之说，解释行省议会所采的是与罗马 fasti 相挂钩的太阳历，十二个月一年，岁首定于 9 a. d. Kal. Oct.（即九月二十三日）奥古斯都诞辰；底端所附的月名对照表（Καίσαρ — Ἀπελλαῖος — Αὐδναῖος — Περίτιος — Δύστρος — Ξανδικός — Ἀρτεμίσιος 等等）则将这一安排与亚洲行省早已沿用的马其顿月名相调和，首月改称 Καῖσαρ。闰日机制的讨论占了相当篇幅：狄滕贝格尔追随蒙森与维拉莫维茨的看法，认为亚洲新历沿用了儒略历四年一闰的安排，闰日落在 Ξανδικός 月，作为该月第十三日（注 50–53）。在词汇方面，他坚持认为此处的 ἀρχιερεύς 即罗马与奥古斯都行省崇拜的大祭司，而非城邦祭司（注 24、41）；ἀνθύπατος 即总督一职无疑；而那段费解的胜利花冠条文，所指其实是每年一度颂扬 princeps 的真实奖赏式竞赛，并非比喻之辞。他另外讨论了行省议会自称 οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἕλληνες 的不寻常政治语汇（注 24，附有参照）。

Parallels and authorities cited所引参证与权威

Among inscriptions Dittenberger cites repeatedly his own Sylloge (esp. nos. 376, 419, 4928), CIG 3957 and 3902b, the Pergamene corpus of Fränkel (Inschr. von Pergamon II), Le Bas-Waddington Inscriptions, the Magnesia inscriptions, Cousin in Bull. de corr. hell. XXII (1898) p. 368, Haussoullier in Revue de philol. XXIII (1899) p. 162, and Boeckh in CIG II Add. p. 1122 n. 2903 f. For papyri he refers to E. Schweizer's Grammatik der pergamenischen Inschriften and to Pap. Fay., and for the chronology of the Macedonian and Asian calendars to Ideler's Chronologie II p. 134 sqq., to Mommsen's Römische Chronologie, and to Kubitschek and Bickermann in Pauly–Wissowa. Among ancient authors he adduces Cicero (ad Fam. XIII.56; Phil. XI; ad Att.) and Plinius (nat. hist. V.109) for the Roman administrative vocabulary; Macrobius Sat. I.14.41 sqq., Suetonius Aug. 31, and Solinus I.46.47, on the Julian intercalary reform; Eckhel and the numismatic literature on the legend ΣΕΒΑΣΤΗΝΩΝ; and a string of testimonia on Paullus Fabius Maximus drawn from Tacitus, Velleius, the elder Pliny, the Acts of the Arval Brothers, and (for the Cyprian magistracy) Cicero's letters. The patient marshalling of these parallels is what allows Dittenberger to fix both the date (9 BC) and the cultic-political character of the document.铭文方面，狄滕贝格尔反复征引的，包括他自己所编的 Sylloge（尤其是第 376、419、4928 号）、CIG 3957 与 3902b、弗兰克尔所编的帕加马铭文集（Inschr. von Pergamon II）、Le Bas-Waddington 的 Inscriptions、马格涅西亚铭文、Cousin 在 Bull. de corr. hell. XXII (1898) 第 368 页之文、Haussoullier 在 Revue de philol. XXIII (1899) 第 162 页之文，以及 Boeckh 在 CIG II 补编第 1122 页注 2903 f 中的处理。纸草方面，他征引 E. Schweizer 的 Grammatik der pergamenischen Inschriften 与 Pap. Fay.；而马其顿与亚洲历法之纪年问题，则参 Ideler 的 Chronologie II 第 134 页以下、蒙森的 Römische Chronologie，以及 Pauly–Wissowa 中 Kubitschek 与 Bickermann 的条目。古代作者方面，他征引西塞罗（ad Fam. XIII.56；Phil. XI；ad Att.）与老普林尼（nat. hist. V.109）以解罗马行政语汇；又以马克罗比乌斯 Sat. I.14.41 以下、苏埃托尼乌斯 Aug. 31、索利努斯 I.46.47 来说明儒略闰日改革；至于 ΣΕΒΑΣΤΗΝΩΝ 这一钱币铭文，则依 Eckhel 及钱币学的相关研究；而关于 Paullus Fabius Maximus 的一组传记证言，则取自塔西陀、维莱乌斯、老普林尼、Arval 兄弟会的祭祀纪录，以及（关于其塞浦路斯任职一节）西塞罗的书信。正是这种耐心铺陈参证的功夫，使狄滕贝格尔得以同时确定文献的年代（公元前 9 年）与其崇拜兼政治的性质。