Walbank F.W., Astin A.E., Frederiksen M.W., Ogilvie R.M. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 7, Part 1: The Hellenistic World
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
ROYAL POLICIES AND REGIONAL DIVERSITIES 297
populations,
240
as indeed the Chaldaean kings of Babylon may have done
before them. Equally, Macedonian kings felt themselves entitled
to
make similarly wide-ranging gifts and dispositions in Europe,
at
least
in
respect of the new lands which came into their hands by conquest.
241
The
uniformity and continuity
of
practice
is
striking. Secondly, there were
practical
and
political limits
on the
exercise
of
such power.
It
could
not
be
effectively wielded without upsetting traditional relationships
or without eroding
the
king's
own
property-power. Thirdly,
we
need
to
distinguish
the
overriding royal ownership
of
land from
its
everyday beneficial ownership.
242
As the justification
of
taxation and
of
the king's ability
to
confer land
by
assignment
(and
to
revoke such
assignations),
the
former
has
fundamental residual importance,
but
it
was
the
latter which affected social relationships more directly
and
immediately, since the beneficial landowner could be the king
himself,
a
tenant-in-chief from
the
king,
a
temple,
a
city collectively,
or an
individual citizen
of a
city.
Herein
lay one
source
of
diversity outwith
the
areas
of
traditional
Greek culture. Three others need
to be
singled
out, the
pattern
of
settlement, the extent and nature of
local
government, and the modes
of
production
on the
land
and in
crafts
and
trades.
(1) At the start of our period, in Asia and the Levant as in Greece and the
Mediterranean generally, large urban agglomerations were rare
and
exceptional. Babylon, however,
was
certainly
one
until
it
was sup-
planted
by
Seleuceia-on-the-Tigris. Susa, Uruk,
and
Sippar
may
have
been others,
243
and the
existence
of
large cities elsewhere cannot
be
discounted.
244
However, there
is
little doubt that outwith
the
narrow
band of Greek or semi-Greek coastal city-state settlement the predomin-
ant form
of
nucleated settlement
all
over
the
region was
the
so-called
village, either
on its own
or
(as
often) grouped together
in
various
240
For
examples
and
references
see
Rostovtzeff 1953, m.1339
n
-
8:
(
A
5
2
)^
Dandamayev
1972,
29—33:
(H 40); Briant 1973, 44?.:
(c
7); Worrle 1978, 208-9: (B 179).
For
pre-Achaemenid practice
see
B.
Oded, Mass Deportations
and
Deportees
in the
Neo-
Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden, 1979).
M1
Cf.
again Rostovtzeff 1953,in. 1339n.
9:
(A
52);addTheopompus, FGrH 115 F22j b;SIC
302;
SIG
332.
242
Preaux
1939,
459ff.:
(F 306);
Kreissig
1978, 32?.: (E 36).
243
Estimates
of
population
for
these
and
other Mesopotamian cities
in the
Achaemenid
and
Hellenistic periods are very hard
to
come by (e.g. no estimate
for
Susa in Le Rider 196;,
28off.:
(B
236)).
For Uruk see Falkenstein
1941: (E
189); Sarkisian 1974:
(H
200); Sarkisian 1974:
(B
157); Doty
1977 and 1978:
(B
63-4). Gaza in the fifth century was not much smaller than Sardis(Hdt.
HI.5)
and
was peyiXq
in
331 (Arr. Anab. 11.26.1),
but
we have
no
idea how large Achaemenid Sardis may
have been.
244
However, the figure
of
120,000 given
for
Jerusalem in Josephus' citation
of
Hecataeus (Jos.
C.Ap. 1.197
=
FGrH 264F21 (197)) must be treated with great reserve, since Josephus' source was
not the late fourth-century Hecataeus
of
Abdera but
a
supposititious compilation probably
of
the
early second century
B.C.
(Jacoby,
Comm.
adloc.
p. 62). For Tarsus see Welles
1962: (E
I
01);
for Olbia
see Knipovich 1956: (H 114).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
298
8
CULTURAL, SOCIAL
AND
ECONOMIC FEATURES
ways.
245
The
Greek terms used
to
denote such settlements vary
considerably,
246
having in common only
the
reluctance
to
use the term
'polis'
tout court without qualification. They
are
used
to
describe
settlements
in
Asia Minor,
in
Egypt,
in
Babylonia,
and in
Palestine
alike,
247
but the
exact denotation
of
these terms
in the
minds
of
Greek
colonialist authorities,
as
reflected
in
literary
or
epigraphical texts,
is a
matter
of
some difficulty. The size
of
settlement seems not
to
have been
the primary consideration,
nor
the complete absence
of
local authority
and government,
for at
least
in
Seleucid areas (including here Syria-
Phoenicia) they,
via
local officials, were
the
basis
for the
collection
of
taxation.
248
Rather, the primary criteria, like those Pausanias (x.4.1) was
much later
to
apply
at
Panopeus
in
Phocis, were probably negative,
comprising the absence of physical institutions such as agora, gymnasia,
theatre, walls,
or
temples,
or of
political institutions such
as
citizen
assembly, elected magistrates,
and law
courts.
(2) Nevertheless,
the
Greek-style city, showing
at
least some
of
these
institutions,
was not so
purely
an
imported phenomenon
as has
sometimes been implied. The Phoenician seaboard cities
of
Tyre,
Sidon,
Arad,
and
Byblus,
for
example,
had
certainly continued
to
enjoy some
autonomy through
the
Achaemenid period.
249
The
same
was
true
for
Babylon,
250
and in a
complex sense
for
Xanthus, where
the
Greek
and
Lycian versions
of the
trilingual inscription
of
358
or
337
251
use the
phraseology
of
municipal autonomy even though
the
Aramaic version
uses that
of
satrapal command. Yet, though there may have been other
towns
as yet
unattested
in the
same position (Sardis, Damascus,
and
Tarsus are obvious possibilities), they plainly comprised only a minority
of
the
communities which
the
Greeks encountered
in
their newly
extended world. Other forms
of
local government were many
and
various. They ranged from quasi-independent
and
quasi-hereditary
dynasties such
as
those
of
the Hecatomnids
in
Caria
or the
Hydarnes-
Orontes family
in
Armenia, through tribal cantons, which might again
be quasi-independent,
252
to
areas
with temple-oriented economies and/or
245
Broughton 1938, &17&.: (E
62),
is
still fundamental, with Tchalenko 1953-8:
(H
224). Briant
1975:
(E
IO),
and
Kreissig
1978, i7ff.: (E
36).
246
Broughton
1938,
628-9:
(E 62);
Briant
1975, 170: (E
10).
247
Cf.
C.Ord.Ptol.
21
=
Austin 27j(a),
and the
dossier from near
Bet
She'an published
by
Landau
1966:
(B
IOI)
11.
11,
13,
22 and
29,
with Fischer
1979: (B 72).
248
Briant
197;,
I77ff.:
(E 10);
C.Ord.Ptol.
21=
Austin 27i(a), 11.
ioff.
249
Bosworth
1981, 226
and
256:
(B
J),
Tod
11.139
on
Straton
of
Sidon.
250
Sarkisian
1952
and
1953: (H
198-9).
251
Metzger et al. 1974:
(B
108); Badian 1977: (H 8); Worrle 1978, 234 n. 174 and
236ff.:
(B
179);
Metzger«/a/. 1979 (166 n.
1
on Badian's date):
(B
109). For the date see now Hornblower 1982,468::
(E 73)-
232
Cf. in particular the Mardi, Uxii, Elymaei and Cassaei in the Zagrus mountains (Nearchus
FCrH
133 P
1
(g)( = Straboxi.i3.6.c.524); Arr. Anab. m.
17
with Bosworth ad be. (Uxii):
(B J);
ibid.
vii.1;
(Cassaei); Diod. xix.17.3 (Uxii)).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
ROYAL POLICIES AND REGIONAL DIVERSITIES 299
priest-run institutions. Upper Egypt was plainly
a
case
in
point,
and
went
on
being so, as was Judaea and as were the many areas
in
Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor which looked primarily to a temple for a
central place and
to
its priesthood-defined aristocracy
for
leadership.
253
That
all
these various forms continued throughout
the
Hellenistic
period
is a
matter
of
elementary observation, confirmed
by
con-
temporary language.
254
(3) There has been extensive recent debate about the third source
of
diversity, viz. the exact natures of the forms of dependence encountered
by
the
Greeks
in
their newly extended dominions;
a
debate largely
dependent
on
Marx's postulation
of a
specific 'Asiatic mode
of
production'
as an
identifiable stage
in the
development
of
productive
relationships.
255
Here, as elsewhere in this chapter, an acknowledgement
of great diversity
of
practice must be the starting point. This was true
even in Greece
itself,
for
though chattel slavery was and went on being
normal
in
most areas,
256
it
was
of
comparatively recent introduction
in
the remoter cantons,
257
serfdom continued
in
Crete well into
the
Hellenistic period,
258
and the
status
of
helot continued
in
Laconia
beyond
the
reforms
of
Agis, Cleomenes,
and
even Nabis 'until
the
supremacy
of
the
Romans'.
259
Elsewhere,
the
diversity
was
at
least
as great. One the one hand, chattel slavery is well attested in some areas
of
the
ex-Achaemenid empire, especially
in
Babylonia, Syria,
and
Egypt
260
(though
it
is
questionable
how
many
of
the Persian-owned
slave-worked estates attested
in
fifth-century Egypt
had
survived
the
253
E.g.
those
associated
with
Cybele
at
Pessinus,
with
Ma at
Cappadocian
Comana
or at
Pontic
Comana,
with Zeus
at
Venasa
or
with
Anaitis
at
Zela,
etc.
See
further:
Rostovtzeff
1910,
z69ff.:
(H
i8;);Broughton
1938,
6418?.
and 676?.:
(E6*);Magie
1950,1.181—2:
(E 81);
Rostovtzeff
19;3,503?.:
(A
52).
254
Cf.
Pol.
VII.9.5
and imprimis OCIS zz<)=SVA 492
=
Austin
182,1.
11: 'Seleucus (II) wrote
to
the
kings,
the
dynasts,
the
cities
and
peoples'. That
the
temple states tended
to be
seen
as
'peoples'
{etbne) rather than
as a
separate category
is
clear from
the way
in
which Judaea
was
normally
referred
to
(Bikerman 1938, 164: (E 6)).
255
See Zel'in and Trofimova 1969: (E 56)
and
Kreissig 1978,
;ff.:
(E 36), criticized
by
Ste Croix
1982,
155-6: (H
195).
256
Westermann 1955, 28-57:
(H
240); Radle 1969: (H 178); Hopkins 1978, 133?.: (A
24).
257
Timaeus claims
it
as
a
phenomenon new
in
Locris
and
Phocis
in the
fourth century (FGrH
566F11).
258
Dosiades,FGrH48i F3 (300-250B.C.?);Sosicrates, FGW-/461 F4(c 150B.C.?); Willetts 1965,
9Sff.:
(D 148).
259
Strabo vm.5.4c.365, though the exact denotation ofStrabo's phrase
is
unclear.
Cf.
Shimron
1966:
(H 212); Oliva 1971, 281-2: (D 132).
260
A.
Cowley, Aramaic Papyri
oj
the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923) nos. 10, line 10,
and
28
passim;
Diakonov,
I. M.
'Rabovladel'cheskie imeniya persidskick vel'mozh. Obeor dokumentov
iedannych
G. R.
Draiverom,
i
sostoyane ieuchemiya parallel'nich istochnika' ('Slave states
of
Persian
nobles.
A
survey
of
the documents published
by G. R.
Driver and the state
of
the study
of
parallel
sources.')
VD1
19594,
70-92;
Dandamayev 1969, 3Oiff.:
(E
18); Oelsner 1977: (H
156);
Doty
1977
and
1978: (B
63—4).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
300 8 CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES
period
of
Egyptian independence,
261
and
there were
few
slaves
in the
work-force of Ptolemaic Egypt.
262
However, Syria and Judaea may have
been rather sources
of
slaves than areas
of
use, while
the
predominant
form
of
dependent labour in many contexts
of
Asia Minor were the
laoi
(Aaoi),
263
subordinated peoples tied legally
to a
particular location
and
economically obliged
to
render
a
surplus
of
produce
to
their masters.
This status
was
itself
not
uniform,
for the
identity
and
nature
of
the
proximate,
as of
the ultimate, owner
of
the land (king, temple, temple-
state,
city-state,
or
individual), itself affected the position and title of the
laoi
as
well
as
their chances
of
de
facto
or
de jure
emancipation.
It is
essential,
for
example,
to
distinguish between
(i) the
laoi
known under
various titles as dependent cultivators, on the lands of many Greek cities
in Asia Minor,
264
(ii)
the
'royal laoi'
(fiaaiXtKol Aaoi)
attested, especially
in three continually discussed inscriptions,
265
on
lands
in
Asia Minor
owned directly
by
the
king,
and (iii) the
'sacred slaves'
(hierodouloi)
known
as
cultivators
of
temple estates
in
many areas
of
Asia Minor.
266
Nevertheless,
the
statuses have
so
much
in
common that they
are
best
seen
as
one.
All the
persons concerned seem
to
have been regarded
by
their superiors as attached to the land, in the triple sense (a) that the right
to exploit their labour and
to
receive revenues from
it
could pass from
one owner of the land to another, (b) that their physical absence from the
land
did not
break the link
or
the obligation,
267
and (c) that a non-royal
owner could not separate them from the estate, e.g. by selling them into
chattel slavery.
268
They were emphatically
not
chattel slaves,
for
they
were
not
displaced persons, their households
and
family relationships
261
Still,
paradeisoi
in
Syria seem
to
have survived till
the
Macedonian conquest (Tcherikover
1959,
432 n. 75: (A 61)), Apollonius' estate
at Bet
Anat being conceivably
one of
them.
262
Biezunska-Matowist
1974,
140-1:
(F
209).
263
I
deliberately
do
not
translate. 'Peasants'
is
used
by
Austin 1981, 'serfs' often elsewhere,
but
comparisons with mediaeval Leibeigene
and
adscript!gkbae
are
criticized
as
misleading
(e.g.
by
Lotz
1959,
6off.: (H
133)), perhaps
too
puristically.
264
E.g. the
Mariandyni
at
Heraclea Pontica (Magie 1950,
n.i
192
n.
24:
(E
81);
Lotze
1959, 56-7:
(H
113);
Atkinson
1968, 41: (E 58));
Bithyntans
at
Byzantium (Phylarchus, FGrH
81
F8,
Polybius
iv. 52.7, Lotze
1959,
57-8); Pedieis
in
Priene
(/.
Priene 3
= IBM
ill. 1.415 with Atkinson 1968, 42fF.)
and elsewhere (Rostovtzeff 1910, 259?.:
(H 16;);
Leleges
in
Caria (Philippus
of
Theangela, FGrH
741 F2, with Hornblower
1982,
13 n.
60: (E 73)).
265
(i)
Donation
of
land between Ilium
and
Scepsis
by
Antiochus
I
to
Aristodicides
c. 275
(?)
(OGIS
= RC
io-i3
=
Frisch
1975,
no.33:
(B
78)
=
Austin
180
[RC
13
only];
(ii)
donation
of
land
near Sardis
by
Antigonus
to
Mnesimachus, date disputed (Buckler
and
Robinson 1912: (B
5;)
=
idem
1932,
no. 1:
(B
j6)
=
Bogaert 1976.no.
36:
(H 18)
=
Austin 181, with Atkinson 1972: (E 59));
(iii)
sale
of land near Zeleia
and
Cyzicus
by
Antiochus
II to
his
ex-queen Laodice
in
254/3 (OGIS
izj =
RC
\%-2.o
=
Didyma 11.492A-c
=
Austin
185,
with Lockhart 1961:
(B
10;)).
268
See the
references
in n.
253,
with Welwei
1979:
(E 55).
267
Clearest in
RC18,11.
11-13.
Physical absence from the estate is explicitly envisaged
in
RC 11,
H.22—5,
but
this was
in the
special circumstances
of
the disruption caused
by the
Gallic invasion
(Worrle 1975, 64: (B 177)).
268
Whether kings could
or did is
debatable. Alexandria-on-Jaxartes
was
peopled partly
by
mercenaries and
apomacboi,
partly by locals, whether volunteer (thus Arr. Anab. iv.4.1)
or
bought
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
ROYAL POLICIES AND REGIONAL DIVERSITIES 3OI
were
not
subject
to
dislocation,
and
their property rights seem
to
have
been real even
if
restricted.
269
In order
to
trace how these four diversities affected
the
development
of
the
Hellenistic world, we must return
to
the kings and
to
the range
of
policy choices available
to
them. Either (a) they could leave traditional
landholdings much as they were,
or
(b) they could abrogate traditional
landholdings
in
order
to
limit
the
power
of
other holders
and
to
maximize their own,
or
(c) they could confer part
of
their own holdings
on others. Course
(a)
was most naturally followed by
a
conqueror or new
ruler confirming landholdings
or
titles previously revoked
or in
dispute:
270
it
created goodwill
and
cost little since
it
left
his
revenues
untouched. Course (b) could only be adopted
by a
king
in
a very strong
position vis-a-vis his subjects, as when Alexander revoked lands held
by
the hyparchs
in the
eastern satrapies
or
when
the
early Ptolemies took
upon themselves the right
to
sell temple prebends, the administration of
sacred land, and that of at least some cult taxes.
271
More often, course (b)
was merely a preliminary
to
the re-assignation
of
land (course (c)) and
to
a consequent reordering
of
patronage relationships, as when
a
Ptolemy
(IV?) threatened
to
confiscate Judaea
in
order
to
turn
it
into cleruchic
holdings,
272
or
when Apollonius
in
167
and
Lysias
in
165 were ordered
by Antiochus
IV to
execute
a
closely comparable transformation
in
Jerusalem.
273
However, course
(c) did not
have
to be
punitive
or
violent, since
it
need
not
involve
the
revocation
or
confiscation
of
land. Instead, land
already in royal hands could be alienated by gift (Scopea). Three kinds
of
gift need
to be
distinguished.
The
first
are
doreai
to
individuals
in the
royal family, the court, the administrative hierarchy,
or to
other persons
of influence
and
prestige with
a
claim
on the
king's goodwill. Instances
in this group
are
mostly well known
and due to
special circumstances,
such
as
the
gifts
of
land
to
Aristodicides
and
Mnesimachus (n. 265
above),
the
sale
of
land
for a
nominal
30
talents
to
Laodice {ibid.)
back
for the
purpose
by
Alexander from
the
owners
to
whom
he had
sold them after their
participation
in
the revolt
of
Sogdiana (thus Curt VII.6.Z7, not totally irreconcilable with Arrian).
See Briant 1978, 75: (E IJ).
269
Buckler
and
Robinson 1932, no.
1,
1. 13: (B
56); RC 18,
11.
8-9
and 26-7. For
general
discussions
of
the
laoi
see Rostovtzeff 1910,
2j8ff.,
3O7ff.:
(H 185); Rostovtzeff 1953,
i.34iff.
and
n.no3ff.:
(A 52); Svenciskaya 1963: (H 223); Sarkisian 1953
in
Diakonov 1969, 323fF.: (H
199);
Kreissig 1978,
passim:
(E 36);
Ste
Croix 1982, 151-8: (H
195).
270
E.g. Antiochus
II to
Erythrae (RC
1
5),
or
Seleucus
II to
Miletus (RC 22). Cf. also the use of
)3ej9oi6a),
$iatf>u\aoouj,
hiarqpiut
in
royal letters
to
cities (Preaux 1954, 91-2: (H 172)).
271
Briant 1978,
-jiS.:
(E 12)
(Alexander); Preaux 1939,
47ff.
(general remarks)
and
480-91
(Ptolemies): (F 306).
272
Jos.
Ant.
Jud. xii. 159, with Marcus ad
loc.
for
the problems involved.
273
For Apollonius:
I
Mace.
1.29-35,
II
Mace,
v.24-6, Daniel xi.39 and Jos.
Ant.
Jud.
xn.248ff.
(garbled,
see
Abel
on I
Mace. 129), with Tcherikover 1959, 188-9: (A 61);
for
Lysias:
I
Mace.
in.34-6,
II
Mace.
xi.2-3,
Tcherikover 1959, 211.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
3O2 8 CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES
together with certain other gifts
of
land
in
Babylonia
to her and to her
sons Seleucus
and
Antiochus,
274
the
revoked gift
of
Telmessus
by
Ptolemy
II
Philadelphia
to an
unidentifiable person,
275
its
probable
actual gift
to
Ptolemy
son of
Lysimachus
by
Ptolemy
III
Euergetes,
276
and certain other less certain examples.
277
In a
second category come
more institutionalized
doreai
to
individuals
or
groups.
The
most
prominent
are the 'Ten
Thousand Aroura' estates
in
Egypt
of
which
Apollonius'
at
Philadelphia
in the
250s
is the
classic
278
but by no
means
the only example,
279
but the
kleroi given
to
Greek
and
to
non-Greek
military colonists
by
Ptolemies and Seleucids and other dynasts differed
from
the
great
doreai
in
size rather than
in
procedure
and
status.
280
A
third category comprises gifts
of
land
to
temples,
a
matter
of
much
complexity and controversy,
at
least in respect of Asia Minor. The older
view, founded
imprimis
upon an inscription of
A.D.
125/6 from Aezani
in
Phrygia,
281
was that much temple-land there was expropriated
in
order
to provide land
for
military settlements,
282
but
a
further inscription from
Aizani,
by
revealing donations
of
land
to the
temple
by
Attalus
I
and
Prusias
I,
has so
far
demolished that view that the focus
of
attention
has
become instead the scale of donations of land
to
temples.
283
Seleucid gifts
are
not
indeed attested
in
Asia Minor,
but
those
of
Attalids
and
others
are,
284
as are
Seleucid donations
in
Syria
285
and
Babylonia,
286
not
to
274
Sarkisian
1953
in
Diakonov
1969,
321
ff.:
(H 199).
275
Wdrrle
1978, 2Oiff.: (B
179).
276
OGIS
jj =
Tituli Asiae Minoris
(ed.
E.
Kalinska
and
R.
Heberdey) n.i=Austin
Z71,
with
Segre
1938: (B 161),
Bagnall
1976,
105—10:
(F
204),
and
Worrle
1978,
218-2J:
(B
179).
277
Worrle
1978,
207-8:
(B 179).
278
Rostovtzeffi922:
(j
164); Preaux 1947:^ i4i);Pestmane/a/. 1981: (F 140). Separate affairs
are
his doreancat Memphis, which
was not
a
single unified estate (Wipszycka 1961,173: (F
347)) and
need
not have been
of
10,000 arourai,
and his
estate
at
Bet
Anat
in
Palestine.
279
For
other muriarouroi
(and
the
ambiguity
of
the
term) Criscuolo
1977: (F 243)
and
Clarysse
1979(2),
736ff.:(F
2 3
3); other major landholders
and
Stopcaiare listed
by
Preaux 1939, 20
n.
1: (F
306),
and Pros. Ptol. iv.10061—108.
280
The
material
for
Ptolemaic cleruchies
is
surveyed
by
Preaux 1939, 468-80:
(F 306),
Pros. Ptol.
iv.85;
1—10060,
and
Uebel 1968: (F 200);
for
Seleucid military settlements
by
Hansen 1971,
174—5:
(E
122),
and
Cohen
1978: (E 16);
for
Attalid settlements
(cf.
KC
16 and
;
1)
by
Hansen 1971,
233;
for
other dynasts'settlements
by
Hansen 1971, 173,
and
Preaux 1978,1.311:
(A
48)
with Funck 1978: (H
7°)-
281
OGIS 502
=
Inscriptiones
graecae
ad res
romanas pertimntes
iv.571;
for
the
date,
PIR
A
2
.1409.
282
Rostovtzeff
1910,
26ff.:
(H
185); Welles
1934,
282-3:
(B 171);
Broughton
1938,
6418".
and
676ff.:
(E 62); Tarn
and
Griffith 1952,
138—41:
(A 59): Rostovtzeff
1953,1.492—3, 503-7,
m.1440-1
n. 279—83:
(A 52)
(Seleucids);
ibid.
11.648-9
and
in. 1477-8
n.
62—3 (Attalids).
283
Broughton 1951:
(E 63);
Zawadski
1952-3:
(H
248);
J.
and L.
Robert
1954,
296-7:
(E 94);
Musti
1966,
191S".:
(E 44); Atkinson 1968: (E 58);
Lam
1971: (E 75). Doubts about
the
older view
already
in
Broughton
1934: (E 61).
284
KC 62,
with Robert
1930,
350-1:
(B
134)
(Attalus
(II);
OGIS
383
(Antiochus
I of
Commagene);
Crampa
1969,
8,
11.
17-23:
(B
60)
(Olympichus
to
Zeus Osogoa, shortly after
240
B.C.).
285
KC
70
=
/GL5
VII.4028
=
Austin
178,
withSeyrig
1951(2),
2ooff.:
(HIM),
Bull.
ipig.
1955,
26
(Zeus
of
Baetocaece),
and
Rigsby 1980, 248-54: (E
47).
286
Rostovtzeff 1953,
1.435,
494.
an
d
in.1427
n. 234: (A 52).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
ROYAL POLICIES AND REGIONAL DIVERSITIES 303
mention
the
donations made
by the
Ptolemies
on an
ever more
substantial scale.
287
In this way,
and Old
Greece
and the
islands apart, royal land policies
helped
to
mould Hellenistic society. Every king
had to
reassign some
land, since that was
the
only way
to
attract
and
retain men
for
the army
and
the
administration
and
was also
the
best way
of
rewarding loyalty,
because
the
beneficiary came
to
share
an
interest with
his
king
in
protecting possession of territory from third parties. To that degree,
the
immigration
of
privileged landholders
of
Greek culture was structurally
essential
for
every royal regime (except perhaps Antigonid Macedonia).
The areas
of
choice were rather
(a) the
extent
of
assignation,
(b) the
degree of permanency of tenure
for
each class
or
instance
of
assignation,
and
(c) the
question whether lands once assigned
to
individuals could
gravitate towards collectives (cities
or
temples). Choice (a) was
a
matter
of need, determined above
all by
army requirements.
It is
notable,
for
example, how the Attalids managed
to
avoid large-scale re-assignations
by using mercenaries from Crete
and
Mysia (later Galatia
too)
instead,
thereby retaining
in
their
own
hands
the
disposition
of
royal land
revenues, while Egypt found
it
more and more difficult
to
do so. Choice
(b) depended
on
power relationships, since
the
interests
of a
king
(in
perpetuating precariousness
of
tenure) directly conflicted with that
of
the assignees
(in
converting
it to
permanency).
The
evolution towards
permanency in Egypt is clear,
288
elsewhere much less so, but there can be
little doubt that the right to alienate, an intrinsic element of permanency,
was originally
in
Seleucid terms
a
privilege.
289
It
was choice
(c)
which
had
the
most far-reaching consequences. Ptolemaic reluctance
to
resign
control
of
land
to the
extent
and
degree
of
permanence necessary
to
allow Greek-stylepoleis to consolidate themselves did indeed keep much
power
in
royal hands.
It is
significant,
as the
treatment
of
Telmessus
in
279
290
and again by 240 (OGIS 55) has revealed, that even outside Egypt
they were prepared
to
subordinate
the
claims
of
cities
to be
treated
as
cities
in
favour
of
the
administrative
and
political advantages
of
encompassing them within
doreai
to individuals. Yet the cost
of
so
doing
in Egypt
was
to
leave unimpaired
the
power
of
temples
and
temple
aristocracies, especially
in
Upper Egypt.
291
Greek culture
was
thereby
robbed
of
the
institutions essential
for its
long-term survival
and
extension outwith Alexandria. Seleucid policy,
by
contrast, largely
leaned towards
the
other option. Granted,
the
fact that
we can see
287
See n.
291
below.
288
Otto 1908,
n.262ff.:
(F 185); Preaux 1939, 464-80: (F 306).
289
Explicitly
so in the
sale
to
Laodice
(RC
18, line 16). Revocation
by the
king
is
equally
explicitly envisaged
in
Mnesimachus' inscription from Sardis above,
n.
265 (ii), col. 2,
11.
12—13).
29
° Worrle 1978: (B 179).
291
Meeks 1979: (F 179); Quaegebeur 1979: (F 312).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
3°4
8
CULTURAL, SOCIAL
AND
ECONOMIC FEATURES
Antiochus
I
and
Antiochus
II
explicitly permitting Aristodicides
and
Laodice
to
'attach <the lands granted
to
them>
to
any
city
(s)he
wishes
in the
chora
and the
symmachia'
2
®
2
shows that
we
must think
in
terms
of
specific decisions on individual occasions, not necessarily
of
an
explicit long-term policy.
Yet the
combination
of
such decisions with
Seleucid
(and,
later, Attalid) willingness both
to
recognize existing
urban agglomerations as municipal entities and to increase their number
substantially
via
their own military
and
civilian foundations coincided
so harmoniously with existing local aspirations, inside the kingdoms
as
much as in Old Greece, as to amount to nothing less than the renaissance
and re-institutionalization
of
the
polis.
Ironically,
of
course, that policy
too damaged royal fiscal interests, though perhaps
not
substantially
so
until
the
collapse
of
Seleucid revenues after 188,
and
power after
the
160s,
left the royal administration
in
no position to resist the widespread
demands
for
municipal autonomy which were successfully made from
the 120s onwards.
293
It
is significant that two late Hellenistic rulers could
revert to the vocabulary of
a
much older world and refer to their capital
cities
as
their irarpiSes; much though they
had
to
lose
by
such
identification,
the
pull
of
the
polis
was
proving
too
strong.
294
VII.
THE POLIS TRANSFORMED AND REVITALIZED
In this way royal land policy impinges directly
on
the greatest cultural
phenomenon
of
the Hellenistic world, the transformation and revitaliz-
ation
of
the Greek polis in areas where
it
was long established, together
with
its
relentless spread into area after area
of
erstwhile non-Greek
lands.
295
So
striking
a
movement will inevitably have been over-
determined, and one can in fact see
it
as the product of
no
fewer than six
converging interests. First,
it
was
in the
interest
of
the new Greek
and
Macedonian settlers
in
the
conquered territories
to
continue
to
have
access
to, and
status within,
the
sort
of
social structure that they were
used
to
in the homeland. One may recall the 'New Macedonia' aspect of
the settlements
in
Syria as revealed
by the
pre-dynastic city names,
the
survival of specifically Macedonian civic phraseology,
296
etc.,
quite apart
292
RC
11,11.20-2;
RC
18,1.14.
293
E.g RC
-JI=OC1S
2j7
=
Michel
i49
=
Austin
173
(Seleuceia-in-Pieria, summer
109),
and
references
in
n.
136
above.
294
RC
67
=
Austin no(c),
1.6
(Attalus
111
to
Pergamum,
135
B.C.),
and
OGIS
2;7
=
Michel
•
49
=
RC
7i
=
Austin
173, 1. 15
(Antiochus VIII(?)
to
Seleuceia-in-Pieria,
109
B.C.), with Welles
'934,
293:
(B 171).
295
For the
general phenomenon
cf.
imprimis Preaux 1954
and
I95J:(H
172-3),
and
Preaux
1978,
11.401—60:
(A 48),
though
the
nuances
of
what follows here differ from hers.
296
Cf.
Pieria and Cyrrhestice
as
district names: Beroea (Strabo xvi.2,
7,
C7J1); Larissa (Strabo
ix.
J.19.C.440); Pella (later Apamea, Straboxvi.2.io.c.7j2); Bottiaea (later Antioch, Downey 1961,
54—5:
(E
15
7)).
For other references see Bikerman 1938, 79-80:
(E
6), and
for
civic phraseology
cf.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
THE POLIS TRANSFORMED AND REVITALIZED 305
from the uniform Greek physical and governmental components of each
new city. Secondly,
it was in the
interest
of
cities under
the
direct
or
indirect control
of the
kings
to
perpetuate traditional procedures
as
much
as
possible,
if
only because
the
diplomatic links thus engendered
helped them to retain fully autonomous status within the network of the
more independent pokis.
291
Thirdly
and
correspondingly,
the
interest
and influence
of the
more independent leagues
and
city states such
as
Rhodes, Byzantium, Athens, Achaea, Aetolia,
and
Rome from
the
220s
onwards tended
on
the whole to favour republics against monarchs and
dynasts. Fourthly,
the
interest
of
the existing non-Greek city states
in
Babylonia
or
Phoenicia
lay in
surviving with their privileges intact
or
enhanced under the new regimes even
if
that involved accommodation
to
the
ideas
and
myths
of the
occupying power.
298
Fifthly,
the
upper
classes
of the
ethne
sometimes
saw
their interest
as
lying
in a
similar
accommodation
to
the institutions
of
the dominant Greeks. The classic
case
in
point
is
that
of the
hellenizers
in
Judaea
in the
early second
century, after Judaea had come under
a
regime more sympathetic to such
aspirations than the Ptolemies had been,
299
but others are revealed by the
spread
of
Greek-language documents using
the
formulae
of the
city-
state into areas
not yet
transformed into a
po/is.
300
Lastly,
as we
have
seen, some
of the
kings some
of the
time
saw
their
own
interest
in
encouraging, or at least in allowing, such aspirations to come to fruition.
Yet inevitably, as
it
spread geographically, as time went on, and as the
increasingly well-established monarchies
set the
tone
and the
limits
of
international diplomacy, the institution of the
po/is
came to diverge from
the classical city-state,
to
change its profile, and
to
drop some functions
while assuming others. Since
we
have
to
deal here with
an
immensely
complex historical phenomenon, reflecting
the
pressures
of
monarchic
authority and the conflicting ambitions
of
rich and poor
as
much as more
general cultural, religious,
and
economic change,
it
will
beg
fewest
questions simply
to
identify
and
describe
the
separate components
of
change, affecting the cities of old Greece just as much as the new colonial
territories, before seeking
to
assign
any
primacy
to one or
other
of
the
interests
and
pressures listed above.
theptliganes
at
Laodicea-on-Sea (Roussel 1942-3: (B
154)
(with bull. epig. 1950,
zo%) —
!GLS
1261,
I.22, i74B.c.)and
at
Seleuceia-on-the-Tigris(Polyb. v.54.10, 220B.C.), with Musti
1966,
123—4: (E
44),
and
Cohen
1978, 80: (E 16).
297
The most extensive single illustration is the dossier of replies by numerous cities and leagues
and four kings to the renewed invitation of Magnesia c. 206 to recognize their newly instituted
festival for Artemis Leucophryene, references in Schlesinger 1933, 74-7: (H 201).
298
As
Diotimus
of
Sidon successfully
did (p. 258
above). Other examples
in
Jones 1940,47-50:
(A
2)).
2W
Tcherikover
1959,
152-74:
(A 61).
300
Cf. the decree passed by the Neonteichitai and the Kiddioukometai of January 267 in the area
which became Laodicea-on-the-Lycus some 6-14 years later (Worrle 1975: (B 177) = Austin 142,
Gagniers el al 1969, 2: (B 195). Other documents are cited by Worrle 1975, 85.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
306 8 CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FEATURES
(1) Rare exceptions apart, most Hellenistic cities
had a
government
described
as
'democratic'. The word
has
been argued
to
denote little
more than republican self-government, since
the
Achaean federal
constitution
301
and, in
some contexts,
the
constitution
of
Rhodes
302
could
be so
described. However, since royal letters after Alexander
noticeably avoid
the
term,
303
its use in
third-century city documents
should denote something more precise than that, as yet unclear.
304
In any
case names are one thing, reality another, for there is little doubt that by
and large
in the
Hellenistic period
the
participatory radicalism
of the
fifth and fourth centuries gave way
to
government
by
informal elites
which knew how
to
exercise control through
the
forms
of
democratic
institutions. Financial pressures will have assisted this development (see
(4) below),
for
though large juries paid
by
misthos
survived (ironically
enough) at Rhodes
305
and though allotmentpinakia are now quite widely
attested,
306
misthos, whether
for
juries, magistrates,
or
attendance
at
assembly seems
not to
have survived the convulsions
of
the early third
century in Athens and is only sparsely attested elsewhere.
307
Even more
symptomatic were
the
tendencies
for
magistracies
and
liturgies
to
converge and
for
the various magisterial boards to coalesce into a single
college with the power, or in some cases the exclusive right, to carry out
probouleutic functions
for the
assembly.
308
(2) Much
of
the activity of these assemblies must have been ceremonial
and repetitive. The endless proxeny decrees
of
Samos
or
Delphi,
or
the
ever more solemn and verbose decrees
of
Athens
in
praise
of
her own
councillors will often have been purely ritual actions, gratifying minor
301
Polyb. ir. 38.6 with Walbank
ad
he;
Holleaux, Etudes
m.
153
n.
i;Heuss
1937,
236-8:
(A 22);
Bikerman
1938,
135—6: (E
6);
Larsen
194;,
88-91:
(H 125);
Aymard
1967, 94-;: (1 9);
Crampa
1969,
82-5:
(B
60).
302
rav
Ka&caTaKviav SafioKpaTiav
S1G
581
= IC
in,
p.
31 no.
$A
= Sl/A
551=
Austin 95,1.
14,
which should reveal Rhodian
Selbstgefiihl.
Note however
the
pointed language
of
Strabo
(or his
source):
ST;^O/OJS«J
8*
eloiv
01
PoSiot
Kaintp 06 Sij/xoKparou/xcvoi, (Strabo xiv.2.5.c.65
2
(
=
Austin
92).
Polybius similarly avoids the word in Rhodian contexts, though he applies it to Epirus (11.7.11),
Messene (vn.
1
o.
1),
Thebes (vm.
3
5.6),
and the magistracies of Crete
(vi.46.4).
Cf.,
however, O'Neil
1981:
(E 140).
303
Not in
Polyperchon's diagramma
of 319
(Diod. xvm.56), though Diodorus himself
summarizes
it as
T<ZS
SrnioxpaTtas iiroKaTaoTTjoetv rals noXcot (554);
not in
Antigonus'
proclamation of Tyre
in 31
j
(Diod. xix.61.3);
not in the
documents published
in RC. For
Alexander's
own proclamations
cf. Arr.
Anab.
1.18.2,
with Bosworth
ad loc., and
11.5.8 (Soli),
but
even then there
can
be no
certainty that Alexander's
own
wording
is
preserved. Similarly,
in
OGIS
nc/
=
SVA 492, 1.
11,
we
have only Smyrna's word
for it
that Seleucus
II
promised
the
city
democracy
as
well
as
autonomy. Note that Olympichus uses
the
word (Crampa
1969, 8,
1.
14: (B 60).
304
See
Musti
1966,
138?.:
(E 44).
305
Fraser
1972,
119—24:
(E 135).
306
Dow
1963:
(B
289),
Kroll 1972,268-78:
(B
300)
(Myrina, Pamphylia, Rhodes, Sinope, Thasos,
and
perhaps elsewhere).
307
Ste
Croix
1975: (H 194)
collects what evidence there
is.
308
Clear
for
Miletus (Miiller 1976:
(B
I
I
2)),
detected also
at
Pergamum, Erythrae (Jones 1940,
i66ff.:
(A
25)), Cos (Sherwin-White 1978, 176-7:
(D
146)), Rhodes (Touloumakos 1967, 129?.: (H
228)),
and
elsewhere
(in
general Touloumakos 1967).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008