Brogitaros and the Pessinus-Affair Some Considerations on the Galatian Background of Cicero’s Lampoon against Clodius in 56 BC (Harusp. Resp. 27–29)
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".