56 This is the obvious goal of all minority regimes, tyrannical or oligarchic. Note, in this regard, [Aristotle’s] assertion (Ath. Pol. 16.3) that Peisistratos explicitly pursued policies that encouraged farmers to refrain from engaging in public affairs; cf. also Aristotle’s remarks at Pol. 1311a13–15.
57 Note that Dittenberger (Syll.3 410) restores, in line 17, τοῖς Πτολε]μαικοῖς and thus supposes that Ptolemy II took Erythrai in the First Syrian War. This restoration is accepted by neither Magie (1950: 928n23) nor Englemann and Merkelbach (I. Erythrai 24). One need not conclude that Ptolemy II controlled Erythrai during the First Syrian War.
58 This letter is dated by many (e.g., OGIS 223) to Antiochos I. Welles (RC 15) argues for Antiochos II. Magie (1950: 928n23) offers a sound rebuttal to Welles.
59 Dittenburger (Syll.3 442) dates this inscription to 261–248. This is accepted by Magie (1950: 928n23). That would give a context of the Second Syrian War. Englemann and Merkelbach (I. Erythrai 29), however, date the decree circa 270–260.
60 Ptolemy II’s control of western Asia Minor was, in general, limited to Samos and south of Samos (i.e., Egyptian power did not then extend into the Erythraian peninsula). Samos and Miletos held by Ptolemy II: Magie (1950: 95, 926n21). It is possible that Ptolemy II held the Ionian city of Lebedos; it depends on whether or not the image on a coin is Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III: Magie (1950: 930n25). And for a brief time around the death of Antiochos I, Ptolemy II’s son Ptolemy Epigonos rebelled from his father and held Ephesos (until the fall of Timarchos in Miletos). But by the peace of circa 253 (ending the Second Syrian War), all of Ionia was lost to Egypt: in OGIS 54, lines 5–8, Ptolemy III asserts that he inherited from his father (Ptolemy II) the kingdom of Egypt, Libya, Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Lycia, Karia, and the Cyclades—i.e., not Ionia. On the gains of Antiochos II in the Second Syrian War, see McShane (1964: 45). McShane (1964: 33–35) states that Antiochos I allowed local autonomy in western coastal Asia Minor under his nominal control because he was busy elsewhere and he wanted to prevent Ptolemy II from making inroads in the region.
61 See too: App. Syr. 65. Grainger (2010: 121) suggests that this liberation started the Second Syrian War.
62 Note that in the oath taken by the Magnesian soldiers, they swear (line 65—second text in the dossier) to join in guarding (sundiatērein) Smyrna’s “autonomy and democracy.”
63 See Magie (1950: 736n22, 934n29). Ma (2000: 44) also notes that Seleukos II sought the goodwill of Mylasa (a city south of Ionia).
64 For the evidence of Asia Minor cities taken by Ptolemy III, see Ma (2000: 44–45n65) and Magie (1950: 99, 936–37n31). Ma (2000: 45 with n. 66) also notes the possibility that Ptolemy III held Priapos, a town in the Troad.
65 Heirax was likely co-ruler of Asia Minor. He subsequently fought a war against his brother, Seleukos II—the so-called Brothers’ War. In that war, Hierax defeated Seleukos in a battle near Ankyra. As a result of that battle, Hierax ruled as an independent king in Asia Minor. The dates for the Brothers’ War are contested. See Ma (2000: 46 with n. 68) and Magie (1950: 736–37n23).
66 For the inscriptions on Atallos’s victories, see OGIS 273–79. See Magie (1950: 737–39n24).
67 See Ma (2000: 46n70) and Magie (1950: 939n36). Magie (1950: 739n26) notes that the cities of southern Ionia and Karia were controlled by Egypt at this time.
68 Ma (2000: 55) citing Mørkholm (1969: 15).
69 On the Attalid symmachy, see McShane (1964: 65–91). Egypt still controlled Samos, Ephesos, and the cities on the coast of Karia: Magie (1950: 102). Magie (1950: 11) concluded that Attalos “gained the support of the cities of the coast of Aeolis and northern Ionia as far south as Ephesus, which was probably held by a force of Egyptians.” Note that a decree from Teos concerning Antiochos III (Austin 151) possibly dates to circa 203. Thus Antiochos III would have been in Ionia before his campaigns of 197 and 196. See Ma (2000: 260–65) for the arguments concerning the date of the Teian decree. Ma also suggests (2000: 72) that Antiochos III also took Kolophon and Lebedos (both Ionian cities). And it might be important to note the success of Philip V. He took Samos, Miletos, Magnesia on Maeander (Ionian cities). He besieged Chios (an Ionian city), but was defeated. And Philip made substantial gains in southwest Asia Minor. He does not appear to have taken Ionian territory north of Magnesia in these campaigns. For Philip’s campaigns in 201–200: Magie (1950: 103–4, 747–50nn39–44), Ma (2000: 76–77).
70 McShane (1964: 70–72) argues that Attalos I had “treaties” (synthēkai) with the cities listed in Polyb. 5.77–78. The important cities around Pergamum were independent allies (symmachiai) of Attalos. The small cities (Elaia, Temnos, Atarneos, and Pitane—all close to Pergamum) paid taxes.
71 Rebuilt Smyrna was a member of the Ionian koinon in 289/8; there were thus thirteen members. On the Ionian league, see Magie (1950: 65–66, 868n50). Smyrna was destroyed in the Archaic period by the Lydians and turned into a few villages. It became a city and Ionian likely under Antigonos.
72 Ma (2000: 44 with n. 61) cites OGIS 229 (Smyrna) and RC 22 (Miletos) in order to demonstrate the power of cities at this time.
73 IErythMcCabe numbers are not in brackets, I. Erythrai numbers are in brackets: 73 [33], 95 [26], 117 [87], 119 [53], 13 [114], 268 [192], [35], [36], [431] (the last three are not included in IErythMcCabe.
74 IErythMcCabe numbers are not in brackets, I. Erythrai numbers are in brackets: 73 [33], 95 [26], 119 [53].
75 I. Erythrai 35 and 36 (neither is in IErythMcCabe).
76 IErythMcCabe numbers are not in brackets, I. Erythrai numbers are in brackets: 5 [117], 10 [120], 9 [121], 8 [122], [88]. The latter is not in IErythMcCabe. An inscription that suggests the dēmos controlled Erythrai, 117 [87], might also date to the early years of the second century: it is dated III/II. And I. Erythrai 112 (not in IErythMcCabe) should be mentioned too: it dates to the first half of the second century and was clearly promulgated when the dēmos was in control of the city (line 18).
77 Ma (2000: 89) wrote, “Miletos (perhaps), Priene, Ephesos, and most or all of the coast up to the Erythrai peninsula.” See also Magie (1950: 17–20, 755–64nn50–56; 105–7, 946–48 nn49–55).
78 One might draw a parallel with Athens: for fifty-eight years after the revolt of 287, the Athenians controlled the asty, but the Macedonians controlled the Piraeus. See Habicht (1997: 124). For the Athenian revolt, see Shear (1978).
79 Livy 37.8.5 (Roman forces at Erythrai trying to encourage other cities to join them); Livy 37.11.14 (Erythraian ships set sail to assist the Rhodian fleet—but it had been badly defeated); Livy 37.12.10 (after the Rhodian disaster, the Romans and Eumenes first sailed to Erythrai and then took the promontory of Korykos).
80 The terms of the peace of Apameia are not easy to determine precisely due to Polybios’s imprecise account (21.45). Livy (38.39.7–17) essentially copies Polybios but does add one important phrase (38.39.10) about settlements granted by Rome to Ilion. And Livy also includes (37.56.2) a provision whereby Eumenes was to receive “the Milyae, and Lydia, and Ionia with the exception of those cities which had been free on the day when the battle [i.e., Magnesia] with King Antiochos had been fought.” For this peace, see Magie (1950: 108–9, 950–51n60), Walbank (1979: 164–75), McShane (1964: 149–52). Note that Polybios also records (21.24.6–9 [= Livy 37.55.4–7]) the general instructions given by the Roman senate to the commissioners before the meeting at Apameia.
81 Walbank (1979: 167) concluded that Erythrai fell into the category of “autonomous, but paid tribute to Antiochos, but helped Rome.” The apparent basis of that conclusion, found on page 106, is Livy 36.43.10 (that Antiochos’s fleet sailed to Kissos, a harbor of Erythrai). But, as suggested above in the text, that passage does not necessarily demonstrate that Antiochos controlled the asty.
82 For the beneficial situation of Rome’s “friends” in Asia Minor during the half century following the peace of Apameia, see Magie (1950: 112–16). Note Syll.3 591 (lines 33�
�35): Flamininus apparently made it known to the people of Lampsakos (196–195) that, “should he conclude friendship or alliance with anyone … he would protect the democracy, autonomy, and peace [of that city].” Lampsakos, like Smyrna in Ionia, played an important role in resisting Antiochos III in 196. See Livy 33.38.3.
6
The Ilian Tyrant-Killing Law
Introduction
Ilion, the site of legendary Troy, was in a fairly wretched condition by the end of the Classical period. To begin with, it was small and poor. Lykourgos (Leok. 62), for example, called Ilion “uninhabited” (aoikētos). And Strabo (13.1.26), referring to the Ilion of Lykourgos’s day, called it a “village” (kōmē), and noted that its temple of Athena was “small and cheap” (mikron kai euteles).1 In addition, by the last third of the fourth century, the Ilians had suffered through decades of extreme regional turbulence during which they were controlled by a series of foreign tyrants and other powers. Many of the specifics are unknown. But from the latter part of the fifth century until 399, Dardanian tyrants (Zenis, Mania, Meidias) dominated Ilion with Persian acquiescence (Xen. Hell. 3.1.10–16). From 399 to 387, it was garrisoned and under Spartan control (Xen. Hell. 3.1.16–19). The twenty-seven years that followed the King’s Peace (i.e., 387–360) are particularly confusing; but, generally speaking, Ilion was once again controlled by Persian satraps or their agents, be they loyal to or in revolt from the Persian king.2 And finally, from 360 to 334, Ilion was primarily in the hands of foreign mercenary generals.3
In the closing decades of the fourth century, the people of Ilion had reason to conclude that both their political and material conditions would improve. Alexander’s celebrated arrival into the city (334) marked the turning point: he sacrificed at the temple of Athena and declared the city free and without tribute and that it was to be governed democratically. He also apparently promised in 323, as part of his “last plans,” to make the temple of Athena the largest temple in any Greek city.4 Ilion also benefited while Antigonos (“the one-eyed”) held much of Asia Minor: he likely founded the religious koinon of Athena Ilias that Ilion headed; a Panathenaic festival was inaugurated; and the people of Ilion built a theater, a new terrace wall, and (what might have been) a prytaneion. Ilion was becoming a real polis.5
Two generations after Alexander’s conquest of western Asia Minor, the Ilians promulgated a tyrant-killing law. It is, chronologically, the latest known such law. And it is by far the most complex. Here is its text and an original translation—the bold numbers in parentheses mark the beginning of a new provision.6
Non-ΣΤΟΙΧ.
Side I
[Lines 1–8 are lost]
εντ̣[-------------------------------------------------------]
10
.αστου[---------------------------------------------------]
.ο̣ι .ο̣χοσ.υσα[-------------------------------------------]
μα̣.γα ….σεα̣π̣[---------------------------------------]
[-----------------------------------------------------------]
.π̣.λυσι[--------------------------------------------------]
15
.μ̣. κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἀρχ[-
--------------------------------------------]
καὶ ἐν δημοκρατίαι .δυ[------------------------------ -]
νιολι..ρ[---------]ον[---]η[------------------------------]
τε α[ὐ]τὸν [---]νι[---- -]τωι [---- ]λ [-----]ο[--------]
(1)
[ὃς δ᾿] ἂν ἀπ[οκτ]είνηι τ[ὸν τ]ύραννο[ν ἢ τὸν ἡ]-
20
γεμόνα τῆ[ς] ὀλιγαρ[χ]ίας ἢ τὸν τὴν δ[ημοκρα]-
τίαγ καταλύον[τ]α, ἐὰμ μὲν ἔναρχο[ς, τά]-
λαντον ἀργυρ[ί]ου λ[αμβάνειν παρὰ τῆς πό]-
λεως αὐθημερ̣ὸ̣ν̣ ἢ τῆι δευτέραι, [κ]αὶ εἰκό[να]
χαλκῆν αὐτο[ῦ στ]ῆ[σ]α[ι τ]ὸ[ν δῆ]μον· εἶναι δὲ
25
αὐτῶι καὶ σίτη[σ]ιν [ἐ]μ πρυ[τα]νείωι, [ἕ]ως [ἂν] ζῆ[ι],
καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶ[σι] εἰς π[ρο]εδρίαν [κηρύ]σσεσ-
θαι ὀνομαστεὶ καὶ δύο δ[ρ]αχμὰς δίδοσθαι
αὐτῶι ἑκάστης ἡμέρας μέχρι ἂν ζῆι· ἐὰν δὲ
ξένος ἦι ὁ ἀποκτ[εί]νας, ταὐτὰ δίδοσθαι αὐτῶ[ι]
30
καὶ πολίτης ἔστω [κα]ὶ εἰς [φυλ]ὴν ἐξέστω αὐ[τ]ῶ[ι]
εἰσελθεῖν ἣν ἂν βούληται· ἐὰν δὲ δοῦλος ἦ[ι]
[ὁ ἀ]ποκτε[ίνας, ἐπί]τιμος [ἔ]στω καὶ πολιτεί-
[ας μ]ε[τεχέτω κατὰ τὸν ν]όμογ καὶ τριάκοντα μ-
[νᾶς λαμβανέτω παρὰ τῆς πόλεως] αὐθημερὸν ἢ [τῆι]
35
[δευτέραι, καὶ μέχρι ἂν ζῆι ἑκάσ]της ἡμέρας λαμβά-
(2)
[νέτω δραχμὴν------------------ ] τῆς ἀρχῆς οἱ με[..]
[---------------------------- τάλαντον ἀργ]υρίου λαμβανέ[τω]-
[σαν------------------------------------------] τριάκοντα μνᾶ[ς]
[---------------------------------------------ἔσ]τω πολίτη[ς]
Side II
(3)
[---------------------τὰ δὲ]
40
[ἄ]λλα τῆς πόλεως εἶναι.
[κα]ὶ εἴ τίς τι ἠδικήθη ὑπ᾿ αὐ-
[τῶν], ἀπολαμβάνειν ἐντεῦ-
(4)
[θεν· ἐ]ὰν δέ τις τὸν τῦραν-
[νον ἢ τ]ὸν ἡγεμόνα τῆς ὀλι-
45
[γαρ]χίας ἢ τὸν 〈τὴν〉 δημοκρατί-
αγ καταλύσαντα τῶν συσ-
στρατιωτῶν τις ἀποκτεί-
νας εἰς δημοκρατίαγ κατα-
στήσηι τὴμ πόλιν, ἀζήμιόν
50
τε αὐτὸν εἶναι ὧν ἔπραξεν
μετ᾿ αὐτῶγ καὶ τάλαντον ἀρ-
γυρίου λαμβάνειμ παρὰ τοῦ
(5)
δήμου. ὃς ἂν ἐπὶ τυράννο〈υ〉 ἢ
ὀλιγαρχία〈ς〉7 στρατηγήσηι
55
ἢ ἄλλην τινὰ ἀρχὴν ἄρξηι
[ἡν]τιναοῦν, δι᾿ ἧς εἰς ἀργυ[ρί]-
[ου λ]όγον ἔρχεται, ἢ ἐπιγρ[α]-
[φὴν ἐ]πιγράψηι Ἰλιέων [τ]ινὶ ἢ
[τῶν με]τοίκων, π[αρ]ὰ μηδε-
60
[νὸς τούτων ὠν]εῖσθαι μηδὲ
[παρατίθεσθαι μ]ήτε γῆν μή-
[τε οἰκί]α[μ μήτ]ε κτήνη μήτε
[ἀνδ]ράποδα [μή]τε ἄλλο μη-
[δ]ὲν μηδὲ φ[ερν]ὴν δέχεσθαι·
65
ὃς δ᾿ ἂν παρὰ [τού]των τινὸς πρί-
ηταί τι ἢ παρ[αθ]ῆται ἢ φερ[ν]ὴν
λάβηι ἢ ἄλλ[ως] πως κτήση-
ται, ἄκυρον ε[ἶνα]ι τὴγ κτῆσιν
καὶ τὸν ἀδικ[ηθέ]ντα ἰέναι εἰς
70
τὰ τοῦ ἀδικήσ[αν]τος ἀτιμη-
(6)
τεί, ὁπόταν θ[έλ]ηι. ἐὰν δέ τις
τὸ δεύτερον
[σ]τρατηγήσηι
ἢ ἄλλην ἀρ[χὴν] ἄρξηι, ὅσ᾿ ἂν
διαχειρίσηι χ[ρή]ματα, πάντα
75
ὀφείλειν ὡς δ[η]μόσια ὄντα·
[ἐξ]εῖναι δὲ δι[κάσ]ασθαι τῶι
[βουλο]μένωι ὡ[ς] περὶ δημοσί-
[ων ἐν τ]ῶι δικα[σ]τηρίωι, ὅταν
[βούλητ]αι, μέχ[ρι] τέλος δί-
80
[κης γέν]ηται [δη]μοκρατου-
(7)
[μένων Ἰλ]ιέων. [ὃς] δ᾿ ἂν ἐπὶ τυ-
[ράννου] ἢ ὀλιγα[ρ]χίας ἐκ τού-
Death to Tyrants! Page 28